Speech and the Impact of Verbal Peer Feedback on Learning Through Writing in a Francophone Minority and Majority Context in Canada - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 19
About This Presentation
Title:

Speech and the Impact of Verbal Peer Feedback on Learning Through Writing in a Francophone Minority and Majority Context in Canada

Description:

Lizanne Lafontaine, Universit du Qu bec en Outaouais, Canada. www.lizannelafontaine.com ... Anglicisms (Game boy, Barbie, fun) and interrogative sentence ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:36
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 20
Provided by: stphanl
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Speech and the Impact of Verbal Peer Feedback on Learning Through Writing in a Francophone Minority and Majority Context in Canada


1
Speech and the Impact of Verbal Peer Feedback on
Learning Through Writing in a Francophone
Minority and Majority Context in Canada 
European Conference on Educational Research
September 8, 2005
  • Lizanne Lafontaine, Université du Québec en
    Outaouais, Canada
  • www.lizannelafontaine.com
  • Sylvie Blain, Université de Moncton, Canada
  • Isabelle Giguère, Université du Québec en
    Outaouais, Canada
  • This research is funded by the Social Sciences
    and Humanities Research Council of Canada

2
Presentation Outline
  • Background
  • Objectives and Research Questions
  • Conceptual Framework
  • Pedagogical Intervention PRG (peer response
    group)
  • Methodology
  • Participants
  • Data Collection
  • Data Analysis
  • Results
  • Conclusion

3
Background
  • Disappointing results from Francophone students
    in NB and QC in regard to written productions
    (groupe DIEPE, 1995 Council of Ministers of
    Education, Canada, 1994 Ministère de lÉducation
    du Québec, 2001)
  • Great difficulties in writing especially in
    respect to spelling, grammar and syntax in
    elementary school children
  • Several studies have examined the impact of
    verbal peer feedback in first and second
    languages in writing editing groups (PRGs), among
    children as well as adults (Blain and Lafontaine,
    2004 Blain, 2001 Blain and Painchaud 1999
    Connor and Asenavage 1994 Mendonça and Johnson,
    1994 Nelson and Murphy, 1993 Beer-Toker, Huel
    and Richer, 1991 Brakel-Olson, 1990 Messier,
    1989 Samway, 1987 Urzua, 1987 Gere and
    Stevens, 1985)

4
Background
  • Studies dealing with peer conversation structure
    in the context of mutual assistance and
    developing writing skills as well as the effects
    of 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)
  • European Context
  • Several educational interventions (negotiated
    dictation, poor texts, training pupils to reflect
    on language ateliers de négociation graphique,
    tutoring, guidance, debate) aim for interactions
    between peers regarding the form of the text, but
    there are few regarding content (Caillier, 2003
    Cellier, 2003 Haas and Maurel, 2003)
  • Educational interventions less supervised than
    those PRGs related to conversational structure

5
Objectives and Research Questions
  • General Objective fill the data gap in the area
    of oral didactics
  • In the area of verbal peer feedback among
    elementary writers
  • In the area of conversational structure among
    pupils where the objectives are mutual help and
    knowledge building
  • Research Questions
  • 1. Was the manner, in which peer feedback was led
    among pupils during the PRGs, motivating the
    children to take or not into account the comments
    of their peers?
  • 2. Does ongoing verbal feedback within PRGs
    encourage the improvement of oral language
    quality?
  • 3. What are the differences and similarities
    between the Francophone minority (NB) and
    majority (QC) contexts when reviewing the overall
    results?

6
Conceptual Framework Oral Didactics
  • Didactic models of oral form (De Pietro and
    Schneuwly, 2003 Dolz and Schneuwly, 1998
    Lafontaine, 2001 2003) and
  • Oral integrated into classroom practice (Nonnon,
    2001 Le Cunff, 1999)
  • Pragmatic approach integrated into classroom
    practice taking into account pragmatic issues of
    oral communication by teaching these before
    proceeding to actual communication (Caillier,
    2003 Maurer, 2001 Le Cunff and Jourdain, 1999)
  • Reflexive Oral learning through interaction,
    consideration of the recipient, active listening,
    rephrasing, speaking to develop social skills,
    substantiating, cognitive development the oral
    favoring self-assessment of writing (Cellier,
    2003 Lusetti, 2004 Bouchard, 2004
    Auriac-Peyronnet, 2003 Chabanne and Bucheton,
    2002 Delabarre and Trégnier, 2001 Plane, 2001
    Nonnon, 2000)

7
Conceptual Framework Oral Didactics
  • Construction of discursive behaviours and
    interactions favouring 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 a minority Francophone
    context (Boudreau, 2001 Boudreau and Dubois,
    2001 Krashen, 1998 Boudreau and Dubois, 1992)
  • Relevancy of educational intervention (Caillier,
    2003)
  • Part of a classroom environment and within a
    relatively comforting atmosphere
  • Part of a more general environment that is a
    common culture of the classroom (knowledge set,
    "related to" and know-how)
  • Encourages real communication among pupils, by
    the absence of guilt feelings or competition for
    high scores

8
Educational Intervention PRG
  • PRG Meeting between a writer and his peers
    during which the writer reads out loud his/her
    text and receives comments from group members on
    both the content and the form of the text
  • First PRG Focus on Content
  • Each writer reads his/her text out loud
  • Each writer receives feedback
  • Positive comments
  • Questions
  • Specific recommendations
  • Second PRG Focus on Form
  • Peers read writers texts
  • They highlight the errors they have found and
    explain why they think it is erroneous.

9
Methodology
  • Participants
  • Two fourth-grade classes in Moncton and two in
    Gatineau (one control group and one experimental
    group in each province)
  • Data Collection
  • One essay per month during 7 months 1st draft
    and final copy (experimental and control groups.)
  • Three series of PRGs (experimental gr.) recorded
    on audiotape for 16 children (2 PRGs per province
    8 children per province) October and December
    2003, March 2004
  • Three series of semi-structured interviews
    (experimental gr.) for 8 children having
    participated in PRGs (4 per province) October
    and December 2003, March 2004
  • Data Analysis
  • Verbatim transcription and content analysis by
    category using Atlas.ti (PRGs and interviews)
  • Interjudge reliability

10
Methodology
  • Categories of Speech Analysis in the PRGs
    question 1 (Le Cunff and Jourdain, 1999)
  • Elements of oral communication pragmatic,
    discursive, linguistic, metalinguistic, self
    improvement, metalinguistic knowledge
  • Discursive Behaviours explain, justify,
    reformulate, discuss, convince, interrupt, rebut,
    suggest, etc.
  • Basis of discursive behaviours of adults and
    peers (language intervention whereby the speaker
    helps someone else overcome difficulties)
  • Analysis categories of interviews question 1
  • Integration or non-integration of the comments
    into the text
  • Impact of oral communication (positive or
    negative)
  • Analytical Tools question 2 (criteria
    theoretical framework, MÉQ 2001, 2002 and MÉNB,
    2001)
  • Rating form for Oral Language Skills
  • Speaker assessment criteria
  • Level of skills criteria

11
Interpretation of Results - Questions 1 and 3
  • Within PRGs and during interviews, in QC and in
    NB
  • Peer comments that are integrated, are so because
    verbalization is done in a polite, kind,
    pertinent or justified manner (supporting
    material in PRGs)
  • These (peer) comments are further integrated
    because the writer (according to analysis of
    interview verbatims)
  • Likes the suggestions of peers
  • Agrees with suggested correction
  • Verifies the correction in reference tools
  • Himself/herself integrates his/her corrections
    made on his/her own
  • Agrees with the adults suggestion

12
Interpretation of the Results - Question 1
Average of Most Frequent Speech Elements
13
Interpretation of the Results - Question 1
Average of Most Frequent Student Types of Support
14
Interpretation of the Results Questions 2 and
3 Average by Province
  • No significant improvement in oral language
    quality stable from one PRG to another
  • QC Average to good speakers acquisition level
  • NB Weak to average speakers acquisition level

15
Average of Speaker Types and Skills Levels per
Child
16
Interpretation of the Results - Questions 2 and 3
  • Similarities
  • Stability of speaker types and levels
  • Case for familiar communication by not promoting
    competition or guilt of having made a mistake
    (Caillier, 2003)
  • Differences
  • NB weaker articulation and pronunciation,
    greater influence of English lexical Anglicisms
    (well, so) and semantical Anglicisms (non jai
    pas) complete sentences done in English
    (Boudreau, 2001 Boudreau and Dubois, 2001
    Krashen, 1998 Boudreau and Dubois, 1992)
  • NB greater difficulty in formulating complex
    sentences use 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) correlated
    with a familiar language level
  • QC omissions and repetitions "parrotting"
  • QC vague and meaningless statements (missing
    verbs)

17
Research Limits
  • Small groups met outside the classroom biased
    portrait of reality
  • PRGs audio-taped but not videotaped lacking
    additional paralinguistic information
  • No didactic use of PRGs as a teaching tool in
    class. PRGs are only perceived as a tool to
    improve writing but not as a valid didactic
    approach that can be generalized to many areas of
    learning.
  • Strong adult presence in QC PRGs and inconsistent
    in NB
  • Time constraints imposed by teachers
  • Frequency of PRGs (only 3)

18
Conclusion in QC and NB
  • Oral is reflexive and a teaching medium used to
    teach writing
  • Oral interactions conducted according to PRGs
    guidelines helped achieve self-assessment of
    writing
  • Development of disciplinary knowledge in regards
    to language (syntax, consistency, vocabulary,
    spelling, etc.)
  • Development of social skills (listening,
    consideration of others, etc.). (Lusetti, 2004
    Bouchard, 2004 Cellier, 2003 Auriac-Peyronnet,
    2003 Chabanne and Bucheton, 2002 Delabarre and
    Trégnier, 2001 Plane, 2001 Nonnon, 2000)
  • The impact of speech within the group is
    positive, since pertinent oral comments are
    almost always integrated
  • Peer to peer support has to be very present and
    efficient in order to build knowledge and
    language skills

19
Conclusion in QC and NB
  • Pupils are fully aware of the pragmatic issues of
    oral communication (Caillier, 2003 Maurer, 2001
    Le Cunff and Jourdain, 1999)
  • The PRG is a relevant educational intervention,
    comforting and establishing a common culture
    among participants (Caillier, 2003)
  • Regularly participating in PRGs didnt help
    improve the childrens oral language quality
    (stability, speaker type, and level)
  • Oral-based learning is not favoured by teachers
    it is not perceived as a teaching tool and is not
    taught according to a valid didactic model. Oral
    is mostly integrated into classroom practice,
    however, in a unconscious manner (Nonnon, 2001
    Le Cunff, 1999)
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com