Title: Speech and the Impact of Verbal Peer Feedback on Learning Through Writing in a Francophone Minority and Majority Context in Canada
1Speech 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
2Presentation Outline
- Background
- Objectives and Research Questions
- Conceptual Framework
- Pedagogical Intervention PRG (peer response
group) - Methodology
- Participants
- Data Collection
- Data Analysis
- Results
- Conclusion
3Background
- 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)
4Background
- 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
5Objectives 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?
6Conceptual 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)
7Conceptual 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
8Educational 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.
9Methodology
- 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
10Methodology
- 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
11Interpretation 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
12Interpretation of the Results - Question 1
Average of Most Frequent Speech Elements
13Interpretation of the Results - Question 1
Average of Most Frequent Student Types of Support
14Interpretation 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
15Average of Speaker Types and Skills Levels per
Child
16Interpretation 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)
17Research 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)
18Conclusion 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
19Conclusion 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)