Title: Oral and Written Communication in Writing Conferences at the Primary School Level
1Oral and Written Communication in Writing
Conferences at the Primary School Level
Symposium Success Factors in the Development of
Literacy Skills in French-Canadian Schools 15th
European Conference on Reading August 7, 2007,
Berlin
- Lizanne Lafontaine, Université du Québec en
Outaouais - www.lizannelafontaine.com
- Sylvie Blain, University of Moncton
- This study was made possible thanks to the
financial support provided by the Social Sciences
and Humanities Research Council of Canada
2Issues
- Disappointing results from Francophone students
in NB and QC with respect to written productions
(groupe DIEPE, 1995 Council of Ministers of
Education, Canada, 1994 ministère de lÉducation
du Québec, 2001) - Several studies have examined the impact of
verbal peer feedback in first and second
languages (writing conferences, PRGs), both among
children and adults (Blain, 2001 Blain and
Painchaud, 1999 Connor and Asenavage 1994
Mendonça and Johnson, 1994 Nelson and Murphy,
1993) - Studies dealing with conversation structure among
students in the context of mutual assistance and
developing writing skills, as well as their
effects on task problems such as autonomous
writing, are few in number and warrant further
study (Dreyfus and Cellier, 2000 Le Cunff and
Jourdain, 1999 Ceillier, 2003 Caillier, 2003)
3Issues (contd)
- Which pedagogy should be encouraged in minority
linguistic settings (and also in majority
settings) in order to promote the development of
literacy skills? (Cormier, 2005) - Creation of a positive language connection and
optimization of the linguistic production and
reception in the French language - Positive language connection
- Do not denigrate English
- Emphasize on improved status of French
- Accept vernacular language and build on its basis
- Shift from informal situations to formal
situations - Let the students express themselves in order to
learn entering into genuine discussions helps
the development of oral skills, which are linked
to a predominantly Francophone identity - Do not simplify matters
4Research Questions
- Does the manner in which students interact during
PRGs motivate the children to take into account,
or not, the comments of their peers? - Do the reviews (arising or not from peers) help
improve writing quality? - Does ongoing verbal feedback during PRGs promote
better oral language quality?
5Theoretical Framework
- Oral language as a teaching object through
didactic gender models (Dolz and Schneuwly, 1998
Lafontaine, 2001 2003) and oral integrated into
classroom instruction (Nonnon, 2001 Le Cunff,
1999) - Reflective oral learning by interacting,
factoring in the recipient, active listening,
rephrasing, speaking to develop social skills,
scaffolding, oral language allowing reflective
writing feedback (Cellier, 2003 Lusetti, 2004
Bouchard, 2004 Auriac-Peyronnet, 2003 Chabanne
and Bucheton, 2002 Delabarre and Trégnier, 2001
Plane, 2001 Nonnon, 2000) - Structure of discursive behaviors and
interactions that support understanding in French
classes (Ceillier, 2003 Caillier, 2003 Dreyfus
and Cellier, 2000 Durand, 1998 Le Cunff,
1993 Le Cunff, Turco and Gadet, 1998
Trégnier, 1990) - Linguistic insecurity in Francophone minority
settings (Boudreau and Dubois, 1992)
6Theoretical Framework (contd)
- Writing Process planning, text set-up, revision
(Flower and Hayes, 1981 Scardamalia and
Bereiter, 1986 Bruer, 1993 Fayol,1993) - Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky)
- Studies outcomes on PRGs among primary school
students (Blain and Painchaud, 1999 Messier,
1989 Samway, 1987 Urzua, 1987 Russell, 1983
Sudol and Sudol, 1991 Blain, 1997 and 2001
Brakel-Olson, 1990 MacArthur, Schwartz and
Graham, 1991) - Essential Instructional Components for Literacy
(The Report of the Expert Panel on Literacy and
Numeracy Instruction, 2005) - Instructional Strategies supporting
French-language education (The Report of the
Expert Panel, 2005 Larkin, 2001 Hogan and
Pressley, 1997)
7Instructional Intervention PRGs
- PRGs Meeting between a writer and their peers
during which the writer reads out loud their text
and receives comments from group members on both
the content and the form of the text - A) Individual text writing
- B) Teams of 4 first meeting (consistency and
structure) - Each writer reads their text out loud
- Each writer receives verbal feedback
- Positive comments
- Questions
- Specific suggestions
- C) Individual review to integrate or not comments
- D) Teams of 4 second meeting (error correction)
- Peers read a writers text
- They verbally outline errors they found,
explaining the source of the error to the writer - E) Individual review to integrate or not comments
8Methodology
- Participants
- Two fourth-grade classes in Moncton (NB) and two
in Gatineau (QC) (two control groups CGs and
two experimental groups EGs) for a total of 72
participants for writing and 16 in oral (2 EGs) - Data Collection - Writing
- One essay per month during 6 months first draft
and final copy for a total of 852 essays - Data Collection - Writing and Oral
- Three series of PRGs recorded on audiotape for 16
children (2 PRGs per province 8 children per
province) October, December and Mars, 2003 - Three series of semi-directed interviews for 8
children having participated in PRGs (4 per
province)
9Methodology (contd)
- Data Analysis - Writing
- Three actions taken
- Word count (MS Word)
- 5-point holistic score (Blain, 2001)
- Analytical score obtained using three measures
for the content (communication, organization,
consistency) and five measures for the form
(syntax, lexicon, punctuation, grammar and
usage). - Two judges who were unaware of the studys
objectives assessed the 852 essays - Data Analysis - Oral
- PRGs
- Speech Components pragmatic, discursive,
linguistic, metalinguistic, self-work,
metalinguistic knowledge (Le Cunff and Jourdain,
1999) - Discursive behaviors explain, justify, rephrase,
discuss, convince, interrupt, deny, suggest, etc. - Scaffolding adults and peers discursive
behaviors (language intervention whereby the
speaker helps someone else overcome difficulties)
10Methodology (contd)
- Data Analysis Oral (contd)
- INTERVIEWS
- Integration or non integration of comments
- Impact (positive or negative) of speech
- PRGs AND INTERVIEWS
- Verbatim transcription and content analysis by
category using Atlas.ti - Interjudge reliability
- Analysis tools on the quality of oral language
(criteria drawn from the theoretical framework
and curriculum programs - MÉQ and MÉNB, 2001) - Assessment grid for oral language quality
- Writers table
- Skills scale
11Outcomes Question 1
- PRGs and interviews
- Peer comments that are integrated into the text
because verbalization is done in a polite, kind,
relevant or justified manner (supporting material
in PRGs) - These comments are also integrated because the
writer (according to analysis of interview
verbatims) - Appreciated the suggestions made by their peers
- Agreed with the suggested correction
- Checked the correction using reference tools
- Integrated their own corrections on an individual
basis - Agreed with the adults suggestion
12Outcomes Question 1 (contd)
- In PRGs, speech focuses on the following
components - Metalinguistic knowledge error finding and
explaining, correction proposals - Pragmatic discussions on challenging situations
(ideas conveyed in the text, acceptance or
non-acceptance of the misformulated comments) - Discursive discussions on discursive behaviors
(PRGs procedures) - Behaviours ask, suggest and explain/justify as
required in the PRGs procedures - Linguistic discussions on textual consistency
13Outcomes Question 1 (contd)
- Peer support contributes to skills development in
literacy by - Questioning (Whats the characters name?)
- Encouraging (You need to add an s because there
are several ghosts) - Reformulating (You need to add some adjectives to
your text you need to elaborate in order to
better describe your character you know, add a
couple of adjectives.)
14Outcomes Question 2
- Pearsons correlation ranges from 0.281 to 0.938
- Better correlation for the assessment of the form
(from 0.764 to 0.938) - Except for the lexicon (only 0.281) criterion
removed - Measures obtained for the content ranged from 0.5
to 0.678 - Pearsons correlation for the holistic score is
0.53 - We didnt keep the essays for which the
difference between the judges was too large in
order to improve the agreement ratio - The content correlation is higher (ranges from
0.573 to 0.847) - The holistic score correlation is at 0.59
- For the remainder of the essays, we calculated
the average score given by both judges
15Question 2 (contd) Word Count (Sig 0.89)
16Question 2 (contd) Holistic Score (Sig
0.961)
17Question 2 (contd) Total Analytical Score
(Sig 0.248)
18Question 2 (contd) Differences between both
settingsSig 0.00 (Percentage error - Form)
19Question 3 Average of Speaker Types and Skills
Scale per province
- QC Average to good speakers acquiring-level
scale - NB Weak to average speakers acquiring-level
scale - No significant improvement in oral language
quality remains the same from one PRG to another
- Oral skills used unconsciously
20Question 3 (contd)
- Similarities between both provinces
- Oral knowledge acquired
- Varied lexicon
- Rephrasing
- Reasoning
- Use of connectors
- Complex sentences and prosodic features among the
strongest students - Active listening (developed throughout the PRGs)
- Oral knowledge not acquired
- Construction of interrogative sentences
- Volume of the voice, intonation and fluidity
among the weak students - Articulation and pronunciation
- Vocabulary use of Anglicisms
- Speaker types and skills scales remain unchanged
- Use of a familiar language register encouraging
discussions
21Question 3 (contd)
- Differences between both provinces
- NB weaker articulation and pronunciation,
greater English influence lexical Anglicisms
(well, so) and semantical Anglicisms (non jai
pas) complete sentences in English - NB greater difficulty in formulating complex
sentences, because of too many short sentences
incorrect interrogative sentence structure (où
cque tas trouvé ça addition of pronoun ce) - QC lexical Anglicisms (Game boy, Barbie, fun)
and interrogative sentence structure (Tu
veux-tu? addition of pronoun tu) associated with
a familiar language level - QC omissions and repetitions, "parrot"
(repeating profusely what others have already
said) - QC vague and meaningless statements (Add more
verbs to your text.)
22Study Limitations
- Small groups met outside of the classrooms
biased image of real-life situation - PRGs taped but not filmed absence or lack of
certain data - Oral as an Instructional Medium PRGs only
perceived as a way to improve writing skills and
not as a way to develop or teach oral knowledge - Strong adult presence in PRGs in QC and
inconsistent adult presence in NB
23Conclusion In QC and NB regarding the
Development of Success Factors in Literacy
- Lack of significant improvement in writing
quality may be due to - Small number of PRGs (3 in total for 7
productions) - The CG was also helped to review their texts,
either from the teacher or from the reference
tools we can therefore consider both groups as
being experimental - The major diffrences noted between the minority
and majority settings with respect to the form
confirmed the test outcomes at the national level
(PIRS). - The significant differences between both settings
(minority and majority) may have contribued to
the lack of significant differences between CGs
and EGs. - Structure of literacy skills (oral/writing) with
respect to the language (syntax, consistency,
lexicon, spelling, etc.). - Structure of social skills (listening,
consideration of others, etc.). - Regular participation to PRGs didnt help
children improve their oral language skills
(speaker types and skills scales remain
unchanged). - Oral communication is not didacticized by
teachers it is rather integrated into classroom
instruction, but unconsciously.
24Conclusion In QC and NB regarding the
Development of Success Factors in Literacy
(contd)
- The instructional intervention (PRGs) fulfills
some of the essential components of literacy and
puts forward some instructional strategies
promoting French learning - Instructional Components
- Re-use
- Appropriate Language
- Guided practice in writing and transfer
possibility - Clear and well-organized teaching
- Instructional Strategies
- Scaffolding common objectives, identification of
the students needs and progress follow-up,
adequate assistance, perseverance in the pursuit
of the objectives, feedback, control of the level
of frustration and risk taking, integration and
autonomy - Modelling
- Guided practice