Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 4(1)

Page 1


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 1-4 !

Contents: Volume 4, Number 1, March 2013 Special Issue on Self-Access Writing Support Edited by Rachael Ruegg •

Editorial by Rachael Ruegg (1-4)

Articles •

Writing Centers: Who are they for? What are they for? by Elton LaClare and Tracy Franz (5-16)

So You Want to Start a Peer Online Writing Center? by Christine Rosalia (17-42)

The Learner as Researcher: Student Concordancing and Error Correction by Jacqueline Mull (43-55)

Reviews and Reports •

Announcing the ESL-WOW for Self-Directed Writing Support by Thaddeus M. Niles (56-61)

JASAL Forum 2012: Making a Difference Through Self Access. Report on the Japan Association of Self Access Learning (JASAL) Forum held in Hamamatsu, Japan in October 2012 by Satomi Shibata (62-69)

Announcement Upcoming special issue: Call for papers!

Special Issue on Accessing and Accessorizing for Self-Access Language Learning (SALL). December, 2013 (Volume 4, Issue 4) o edited by Carol J. Everhard! !

!

"!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 1-4 !

Editorial Rachael Ruegg, Akita International University, Japan

Welcome to this special issue of SiSAL Journal on Self-Access Writing Support. I believe that writing is a skill for which self direction is particularly important because it is so output oriented and as such is often such a solitary activity. Whether in the middle of a thriving Self-Access Centre, or at home alone in the middle of the night, writers need to know tools they can turn to for help, and need to understand how they can use those tools to best advantage. I am therefore glad to have had the opportunity to bring you this special issue on Self-Access Writing Support. Articles In the first article, Elton LaClare and Tracy Franz look at a writing centre in an EFL context in Japan, investigating who uses the centre and what they use it for. The findings suggest that in an EFL context, a writing centre has a different function from that of ESL contexts. A majority of the users in the writing centre investigated were either graduate students or faculty members. These users came, not seeking advice about how to write, but rather seeking help with editing of the written product after its completion. The findings suggest that, while different from the role played by writing centres in ESL contexts, the writing centre plays a crucial role in the academic endeavours of the university. In the following article, Christine Rosalia gives an overview of three peer online writing centres she has been involved in, in three different college contexts. The first one was run on Moodle in an EFL Japanese context. The second was run on Drupal for Generation 1.5 writers in American first year composition courses. The third used Google Apps and catered for international students in an American ESL context. From her involvement in these three different peer online writing centres, Rosalia offers advice for others who may be interested in setting up their own online writing centre. She suggests that feedback is best co-constructed by peer tutors and that peer tutors should be given responsibility for decisions about the online platform, work guidelines, and protocols. In this way autonomy, interdependence and collaboration can be developed to enhance the experience for everyone involved.

!

#!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 1-4 !

Finally, Jacqueline Mull experiments with learner use of a concordancer to self-correct errors in their writing. While some research has been conducted into the use of concordancers by second language learners, how much training learners need in order to benefit from the use of a concordancer is still unclear. Mull addresses this question in her research. Rather than offering an extensive teacher-led training session, the coordinator offered a five-minute introduction. Following this, learners played with the concordancer in a more self-directed way and asked the coordinator if they had any questions. After this training, learners had some success with using the concordancer to correct errors in writing. This study offers promise for the use of concordancers as a tool for the self-directed editing of language errors. Reviews and Reports Thaddeus M. Niles reviews a writing support website called ESL Writing Online Workshop (ESL-WOW). The website offers instruction on the writing process, focusing on grammar and rhetorical conventions and could be useful as a reference tool for learners. It would be particularly suitable for learners of lower English proficiency levels, for those in EFL contexts or for learners who are struggling to understand writing instruction in the classroom. Satomi Shibata reports on the Japan Association of Self Access Learning (JASAL) Forum held in Hamamatsu, Japan in October 2012. The issues discussed in this report include: Developing understanding of self-access among faculty, fostering a culture of active self-access use, integrating language learning into everyday life and integrating self-access with the curriculum. As stated by Shibata, it is not easy to develop understanding of self-access learning among faculty or to integrate it into the curriculum. For educators struggling with these issues, the JASAL Forum would seem to be a good place to get ideas. Notes on the editor Rachael Ruegg is a lecturer at Akita International University and the coordinator of the Academic Achievement Center. She is also a PhD candidate at Macquarie University. She has been a teacher of English for 13 years in New Zealand, Japan, Germany and China. She is interested in writing; especially self-review, peer and teacher feedback and the development of learner autonomy in writing.

!

$!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 1-4 !

Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to thank the writers who contributed to this Special Issue. I would also like to thank the reviewers for the time they devoted to reading and manuscripts and offering valuable feedback and finally the editorial team for their help.

Upcoming special issue: Call for papers! Special Issue on Accessing and Accessorizing for Self-Access Language Learning (SALL). December, 2013 (Volume 4, Issue 4) edited by Carol J. Everhard

!

%!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 5-16 !

Writing Centers: Who are they for? What are they for? Elton LaClare, Sojo University, Japan Tracy Franz, Sojo University, Japan Abstract! The focus of this paper is the writing center: its users as well as its function within a given context. Four semesters of data were examined for the purpose of identifying trends in writing center usage and assessing how these have fulfilled the stated objectives of the center at the time it was founded. It was discovered that more than half of all users were either graduate students or members of faculty, suggesting a vital role for the center in assisting emerging and established scholars in bringing their work to publication. The data also revealed that the vast majority of writing center users came in search of assistance with editing, indicating that users regard the service as product-oriented. ! Keywords: writing center, L2 writing, EAP, writing tutor, writing process, Japanese university, EFL writing, peer tutoring! !

Shamoon and Burns (2001) present the modern American university as a Fordist institution, a site of production where the next generation of professionals across the range of academic and technical disciplines are, for want of a better word, manufactured. Their purpose is not to portray a deliberately dystopian view of the academy and its work, but rather to reveal how industrial practices such as the maximization of efficiency and the reduction of costs have shaped institutional attitudes toward entities like writing centers and, by extension, writing center labor. To draw on an example commonly raised at writing center conferences, it is often taken for granted that tutors, being well-equipped to remediate an array of writing problems, should have no qualms about doing so without the participation of the original author. Likewise, there is an expectation that tutors perform their services for little or no pay as their contribution to enhancing the status and competitiveness of the larger institution. The situations mentioned above are illustrative of the type of attitudes directors and tutors have noted, discussed, and struggled against for decades. It seems quite natural for those involved in writing centers and their work to campaign against what Shamoon and Burns (2001) refer to as a “market-driven� (p. 72) educational environment, where centers simply perform the functions demanded by the various stakeholders. However, in a climate of declining enrollment and increasing competition, such as that faced by universities in many

!

5!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 5-16 !

countries, it makes sense to question whether one can afford to cling to fixed (and often foreign) notions of what a writing center is or ought to be.! Even when limiting the focus from writing centers in general to those located within universities in Japan (as we would like to do here), it is still important to acknowledge a large amount of diversity. Existing studies have examined the appropriateness of using an American model of the writing center in Asian contexts (McKinley, 2010), but these have focused mainly on cultural variables and overlooked more fundamental distinctions that are trans-cultural, specifically the differences between public and private institutions, or between institutions that provide liberal arts education and those that specialize in science and engineering. The imperative to add ‘value’ to the institution and make the most of limited resources has constrained writing centers from the early American pioneers to the more recent iterations that have appeared throughout Asia. In light of Shamoon and Burns’ (2001) explanation of writing center operations as being governed by the Fordist principles of the larger institution in which they occur, it is easy to see why this imperative is likely to be greater in a private university, or a university whose choice of academic offerings makes it more at ease with the metaphor of higher education as a form of industrial production.! The perception of writing centers as offering a service has been nurtured by tutors and directors alike from the earliest incarnations right up to the present. However, it is a service that has always sought to impose limits and restrictions upon the types of assistance on offer. While in the majority of cases these limitations have a sound rationale, perhaps to maintain the boundary of what constitutes a student’s own work, or to prevent faculty members from dropping off papers to be collected at a later date, others are what Clark and Healy (2008) refer to as “defensive strategies” (p. 245), more reflective of political than instructional concerns. Itemizing these concerns or attempting to address whether or not they are justified is beyond the scope of this paper. Rather, we will explore our own writing center data in an effort to determine whether or not it is desirable or even feasible to place an embargo on certain types of services, those which writing center orthodoxy suggests are off limits. !

The Birth of a Writing Center! The addition of a writing center was first proposed to the administration of Sojo University (a private science and engineering institution located in Kumamoto, Japan) in late 2010. It is worth mentioning that the initial proposal was among the earliest initiatives of a !

6!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 5-16 !

newly-formed English language learning center (known as the Sojo International Learning Center or SILC) that had been established, resourced, and staffed at considerable expense. As such, it is fair to assume that the idea of creating a writing center was born (at least in part) of an eagerness to demonstrate value to both the administration and the broader university community. This eagerness is heavily reflected in the wording of the original project proposal, which states the writing center’s objectives as follows: ! 1 Provide English writing support for students 2 Support the publication of faculty research in English 3 Provide an opportunity to build closer ties between the SILC and the rest of the university 4 Provide an avenue of research for the SILC faculty 5 Be a unique service available at few Japanese universities, one which increases the inherent and perceived value of the English language program !

While the proposal also mentions that the center would “adhere to basic tenets of L1/L2 writing center theory and practice” (personal communication, July 12, 2010), the tenets themselves are never made explicit. The vagueness owes more to a concern for those tasked with translating and explaining the proposal than any desire to obfuscate the intentions of the center. Although it may not have been by design, this vagueness has served a valuable function during the past two and a half years as the center has struggled to find its niche. ! As with many fledgling writing centers, the number of appointments during the first several months was disappointing. The poor response was likely the combination of numerous factors (such as students and faculty not knowing about the center, lack of understanding of the services offered and absence of writing from the curriculum). The unfortunate consequence of this slow start was that the center’s hours of operation were cut back and the tutors assigned to different tasks. Despite an eventual rise in the number of appointments, the original schedule has yet to be restored. It should also be noted that records show a natural ebb and flow in the number of appointments made throughout the year, a phenomenon most likely resulting from the demands of the students’ departmental courses.! Underuse is not a problem unique to new centers. Many directors have reported drops in appointments or fluctuations they cannot easily explain to university administrators. The existing literature on writing centers is replete with accounts of various interventions, from scavenger hunts (Durhman, 2003), to referral forms, to orientations (McKinley, 2011). !

7!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 5-16 !

However, in circumstances of scant human resources, there is little incentive to attempt to dramatically increase the number of writing center appointments. The danger of this is that by failing to challenge the status quo, opportunities to expand and enhance our mission may be missed. ! The Users! As the title of this paper suggests, there are two fundamental questions we would like to answer: who are the users of writing centers such as ours (those situated in private science and engineering-focused institutions), and how are they using the center (prewriting, focus, organization, development and support, editing)? In the paragraphs to follow we will tackle the first of these questions by referring to data collected during the 2011/12 and 2012/13 school years. ! Table 1 shows that of the total number of appointments, 94 were attended by undergraduate students, 46 by graduate students, and 36 by faculty. Though it would appear that undergraduates are making the most use of writing center services, it is worth pointing out that graduate students and faculty often collaborate on research projects. For this reason it may be more illuminating to consider these two groups together. Thus, undergraduates make up roughly half of the appointments (53%) while graduate students and faculty make up the remainder (46%).! Table 1. Distribution of Writing Center Appointments across the Three Types of User (Undergraduate, Graduate, Faculty) Type of user!

Number of appointments!

Approximate percentage of total appointments!

Undergraduate!

94!

53%!

Graduate!

46!

26%!

Faculty!

36!

20%!

!

However, looking at the number of individuals attending appointments from the various groups, a different picture emerges. Table 2 reveals that, while just over half the total appointments were attended by undergraduates, they represent only 35 percent of the total

!

8!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 5-16 !

number of individuals attending sessions. Graduates meanwhile represent a third (34%), with the remainder (31%) being members of faculty. ! Table 2. Raw Numbers of Writing Center Users from Each Type (Undergraduate, Graduate, Faculty) and Percentage of the Total Population of Users! Type of user!

Number of individual users!

Approximate percentage of total individual users!

Undergraduate!

24!

35%!

Graduate!

23!

34%!

Faculty!

21!

31%!

!

A distinguishing feature of writing centers embedded in ESL/EFL contexts is that they extend their services to graduate students and members of faculty, groups presumed to be in little need of such assistance in places where English is the L1. Much has been written about the struggles of emergent scholars faced with the double burden of remaining at the forefront of research in their own fields while trying to elevate the level of their English composition skills (see Ammon, 2000; Belcher, 2007; Canagarajah, 2003; Casanave, 1998; Curry & Lillis, 2004; Flowerdew, 2000). If nothing else, scholarship in the field has established the need for writing centers staffed with professionals who can assist the global community of scholars in bringing their work to an international audience through publication in English. ! Flowerdew and Li (2009) report that “publication has become a graduation requirement for Master’s and PhD students” (p. 160) in many mainland Chinese universities. Indeed, for those studying science in PhD programs at elite universities, publication must be in an English-medium overseas-based journal. While we are aware of no such requirements at Japanese universities at present, publishing in English is clearly encouraged and regarded as beneficial to both the student and the university as a whole. Meanwhile, there is a growing expectation among supervisors that graduate students prepare presentations in English for international conferences.! Another factor that sets ESL/EFL embedded writing centers apart from those situated in English speaking countries is the absence of peer tutors. While nearly all American writing centers rely on what Riley (1994) refers to as the “happy amateurism” (p. 32) of student labor, formalized peer tutoring within the writing center is notably rare elsewhere. The most !

9!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 5-16 !

obvious reason peer tutoring does not take place in our particular context is the shortage of competent writers among the student population. Although there are also cultural factors that complicate peer tutoring, we will not attempt to explore these here. Instead we will focus on the ramifications for a center unable to offer its users support from more skilled peer tutors.! Although the situation is gradually changing, it has long been thought by Japanese secondary students that science and engineering universities are ideal places from which to escape the burden of English study. It is a notion that universities themselves have done little to dispel until quite recently. However, despite the clear commitment of many institutions to improve their English language programs, the culture of underachievement in English persists. Many students of science and engineering seem to feel that if they are poor in English, they are at least in good company. The presence of peer tutors might be sufficient to disrupt the cozy apathy that maintains the status quo. Murphey (1998) has written of the importance of a near peer role model, someone whose language skills exceed most others – though by a margin that is more likely to inspire than intimidate. In addition to being more approachable than native English speaking tutors, peer tutors can offer much-needed L1 support and encouragement. Although we are aware of no studies offering empirical evidence that the presence of peer tutors in ESL/EFL contexts increases writing center use among undergraduates, it is not unreasonable to assume they would have such an effect.

!

To conclude, our data reveals that graduate students and faculty account for a large percentage of the total writing center appointments (46%) and an even larger percentage of the total number of users (65%). This surely distinguishes our center not only from those which operate in English-speaking countries but also from those located in the liberal arts faculties of international universities in Japan, such as Sophia University (see McKinley, 2011). Undergraduates comprise just 35 percent of the total number of writing center users. Scholars of second language writing in Japan have identified a number of conditions that might assist us in explaining this: de-emphasis of writing in the secondary EFL curriculum (Reichelt, 2009), lack of recognition of EFL writing as important (Reichelt, 2009), or lack of authentic purposes for EFL writing (Hirose, 2001). The absence of peer tutors is another likely explanation for the low percentage of undergraduate users.!

The Uses!

!

10!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 5-16 !

As with most writing centers, regardless of context, the foundation of our service is the one-on-one tutorial session. Although some highly innovative centers offer a workshoponly program, ours has made no such attempts to break with orthodoxy. In addition to limited human resources (at present just three tutors are responsible for handling all writing center appointments), the types of services sought by our users do not lend themselves to such innovative approaches. In our tutorial log, tutors were asked to indicate the main focus of a session by choosing options from a drop-down menu. Table 3 shows these options and how the writing center appointments of 2011/12 and 2012/13 were distributed across them. !

Table 3. Distribution of Writing Center Appointments across Pre-selected Areas of Focus! Prewriting! 3!

Focus! 2!

Organization!

Development & Support!

Editing!

N/A!

3!

8!

146!

12!

!

A great preponderance of tutorial sessions (nearly 84%) were dedicated to assisting users with issues related to editing. The reasons for this are varied and will be explored in detail in the paragraphs to follow, but let us start with a couple of general observations. As mentioned previously, a large number of the center’s users are graduates and faculty, nearly all of whom arrive with text-in-hand. Indeed, only a small number of appointments (less than 2%) were attended by users without a prewritten text of some description. Of all the appointments during the period in question, no more than a few involved tutoring that extended beyond the issues raised by the text itself.! If we may return for a moment to the “market-driven” nature of writing center work, it is easy to see where demand lies in a science and engineering institution such as ours. Considering the data presented in Table 3, it is hard to imagine that our writing center would survive an outright prohibition on editing. McKinley (2011) reports that students visiting his writing center “expected tutors…to read their papers and correct their grammar” (p. 293). This he cites as an example of the “misconceptions of the writing center service” (McKinley, 2011, p. 294). However, in circumstances where the vast majority of users are coming in search of a particular service, is it desirable or even feasible to deny it? Clearly the writing center service is highly context-dependent, and it should be pointed out that the center

!

11!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 5-16 !

McKinley describes is located within a liberal arts faculty whose students are required to complete their academic work in English.! The high value undergraduate users place on grammar correction likely stems from previous EFL writing experiences. Translation tasks are common in the secondary classroom, but these rarely go beyond the sentence level (Hirose, 2001). Thus, the emphasis remains on accuracy, with little attention given to broader structural issues. For example, according to Dyer and Friederich (2002), Japanese secondary students are unaware of the concept of process writing. In the case of members of faculty, most making appointments with writing center tutors do so for the purpose of fine-tuning scholarly articles in preparation for publication. Nearly all express an eagerness that their papers be rendered error-free. While this preoccupation may have its origins in EFL writing practices that date back to secondary school, it is more than justified by the rigorous standards of academic publishing. ! Perhaps it is worthwhile to turn our attention for a moment from the services users want to those they seem not to want. Referring once again to Table 3, one can see that few come in search of assistance with what most Western-trained tutors would identify as the basic steps of the writing process. This is not surprising when one considers that undergraduate users are unlikely to have had any exposure to the rhetorical frameworks of English language writing (Heffernan, as cited in Reichelt, 2009). On the other hand, faculty and most graduate students arrive with what Shamoon and Burns (2001) describe as “an operative familiarity with the steps in the writing process” (p. 66). Considering the experience of these writers and the nature of their texts, the categories shown in Table 3 are mostly irrelevant.! In addition to indicating the main focus of the session, writing tutors were also asked to record the specific task requested by the user. These are listed in Table 4, with a distinction made between the number of sessions dedicated to the task and the number of users requesting the task. This distinction was made because, while at first glance it may appear that “Testing” was of significant concern to writing center users, in fact it was of significant concern for only two users. Also, it should be noted that three tasks – “Editing of abstracts,” “Editing of titles,” and “Editing of scholarly research papers” – may be combined as these tasks were all in service of one goal: scholarly research paper publication. When combined, these items make up the bulk of tutorial tasks. !

!

12!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 5-16 !

Table 4. Tasks from Tutorial Sessions Including Number of Appointments Dedicated to the Task and Number of Users Requesting the Task! Task!

Number of sessions!

Number of users!

Testing: TOEFL (TWE), IELTS!

18!

2!

Editing of abstracts of scholarly articles!

7!

5!

Editing of titles of scholarly articles!

8!

8!

Editing of scholarly research papers!

54!

29!

Essays of application (Graduate school essay for study abroad, Scholarship essay)!

3!

2!

Job application, resumes, CV!

6!

4!

Presentation—scholarly and contests (slides, speeches)!

29!

21!

In-house publications: (announcements, brochures, etc.)!

4!

3!

General English writing practice!

40!

4!

! !

One of the strongest rationales for foregoing the one-on-one tutorial in favor of workshops is that it increases efficiency by reducing duplication of tasks or work. However, in situations such as ours where the work is non-standardized, the opposite effect is observed. Indeed, attempting to create workshops or other learning opportunities in the absence of either supply (tutors) or demand (users) is without practical or ideological justification. However, we acknowledge that the situation is unlikely to remain exactly as it is now, and that we should prepare for new eventualities. As writing begins to take a more prominent place in the undergraduate curriculum, demands on the center and its services will no doubt change. Perhaps these new demands will best be met by offering workshops, perhaps not. Only time will tell. Conclusion! In our own context, we expect that graduate students and faculty will remain the primary consumers of writing center services. It is also clear that for the foreseeable future at !

13!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 5-16 !

least, editing work will remain the cornerstone of what we do. Although some in the field of writing center theory may view this as a form of exploitation, we prefer to regard it as “a coming together of means and circumstances that serve the productivity of both the university and the center” (Shamoon & Burns, 2001, p. 65). As English continues to gain traction as the lingua franca of academic discourse, it is likely that we will witness the appearance of more and more writing centers throughout the non-English speaking world. It is not hard to imagine that ESL/EFL embedded writing centers will eventually outnumber those situated in English language contexts. Perhaps they already do. As such, it is time to take a fresh look at writing centers and the work they do. Who are they for? What are they for? If nothing else, it is time to recognize the diversity that exists and initiate an open and frank exchange of ideas that will assist in shaping the future course of writing center labor. The resulting discussions will inevitably offer up differing and contradictory visions of our mission and service, but the process of redefinition can hardly take place otherwise. !

Notes on the contributors! Elton LaClare is a lecturer at the Sojo International Learning Center at Sojo University in Kumamoto, Japan. His research interests include learner autonomy, second language writing, reading fluency, and CALL.!

Tracy Franz also serves as a lecturer in Sojo University’s International Learning Center in Kumamoto, Japan. In addition to writing center work, her professional interests include L2 composition and developmental writing. ! !

References! Ammon, U. (2000). Toward more fairness in international English: Linguistic rights of nonnative speakers? In R. Phillipson (Ed.), Rights to language: Equity, power and education (pp. 111-116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ! !

Belcher, T. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 1-22. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001! !

Canagarajah, A. S. (2003). A somewhat legitimate and very peripheral participation. In C. P. Casanave & S. Vandrick (Eds.), Writing for scholarly publication: Behind the scenes in language education (pp. 197-210). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.! ! !

14!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 5-16 !

Casanave, C. P. (1998). Transitions: The balancing act of bilingual academics. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(2), 175-203. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90012-1! !

Clark, I. L., & Healy, D. (2008). Are writing centers ethical? In R. Barnett & J. Blumner (Eds.), The Longman guide to writing center theory and practice (pp. 242-259). New York, NY: Pearson Longman.! !

Curry, M. J., & Lillis T. (2004). Multilingual scholars and the imperative to publish in English: Negotiating interests, demands, and rewards. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 663688. doi:10.2307/3588284! !

Durhman, L. (2003). Greatly improving writing center attendance. The Writing Lab Newsletter, 27(10), 6-7.! !

Dyer, B., & Friederich, L. (2002). The personal narrative as cultural artifact: Teaching autobiography in Japan. Written Communication, 19(2), 265-296. doi:10.1177/074108830201900202! !

Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English-speaking scholars. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 127-150. doi:10.2307/3588099! !

Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. (2009). The globalization of scholarship: Studying Chinese scholars writing for international publication. In R. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 156-182). Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.! Hirose, K. (2001). Realizing a giant first step toward improved English writing: A case in a Japanese university. In I. Leki (Ed.), Academic writing programs (pp. 35-46). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.! !

McKinley, J. (2010). English language writing centers in Japanese universities: What do students really need? Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 1(1), 17-31. Retrieved from http://sisaljournal.org/archives/jun10/mckinley/! !

McKinley, J. (2011). Group workshops: Saving our writing centre in Japan. Studies in SelfAccess Learning Journal, 2(4), 292-303. Retrieved from http://sisaljournal.org/archives/dec11/mckinley/! !

Murphey, T. (1998). Motivating with near-peer role models. In B. Visgatis (Ed.), On JALT ’97: Trends & transitions (pp. 201-205). Retrieved from http://jaltpublications.org/archive/proceedings/previous/jalt97.pdf! !

Reichelt, M. (2009). A critical evaluation of writing teaching programmes in different foreign language settings. In R. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 156-182). Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters. ! !

Riley, T. (1994). The unpromising future of writing centers. The Writing Center Journal, 15(1), 20-34.! ! !

15!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 5-16 !

Shamoon, L. K., & Burns, D. H. (2001). Labor pains: A political analysis of writing center tutoring. In J. Nelson & K. Evertz (Eds.), The politics of writing centers (pp. 62-73). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.! !

!

16!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 17-42 !

So You Want to Start a Peer Online Writing Center? Christine!$%&'()'*!+,-./0!1%((/2/*!1).3!4-)5/0&).3!%6!7/8!9%0:!! ! Abstract The purpose of this article is to share lessons learned in setting up three different peer online writing centers in three different contexts (EFL, Generation 1.5, and ESL). In each center the focus was on the language learner as a peer online writing advisor and their needs in maintaining centers “for and by” learners. Technology affordances and constraints for local contexts, which promote learner autonomy, are analyzed. The open-source platforms (Moodle, Drupal, and Google Apps) are compared in terms of usability for peer writing center work, particularly centers where groups co-construct feedback for writers, asynchronously. This paper is useful for readers who would like a head start or deeper understanding of potential logistics and decision-making involved in establishing a peer online writing center within coursework and/or a self-access learning center. Keywords: peer feedback, open source technologies, online learning, second language writing, online writing center

The benefits of peer learning for student writers has a long and well documented history, with research evidence of success across higher education (Falchikov, 2005; Topping, 2003). In the United States, Whitman (1988) summarized systematic benefits of peers teaching peers for students, teachers, and institutions. They found that students gained “a more active role in the learning process” when engaged in peer teaching because “reviewing and organizing material as a ‘teacher’ was more cognitively rigorous than simply receiving it as a ‘student’ alone—to teach was to learn twice” (p. 5). Other benefits for peer review1, often cited specifically for language learners, are that the giver of feedback gains self-evaluation skills for assessing their own writing (Chien, 2002) and improves their own writing proficiency (Lundstrom & Baker, 2009), especially their !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1

In this paper peer review, peer feedback, peer tutoring, and peer teaching are used synonymously. Although I recognize the political implications of each term and the time period or group that tends to use each term, I use them synonymously because of the practical similarities I want to highlight.

!

"#!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 17-42 ! appreciation of audience (Tuzi, 2004). Improvements have been documented even in cases when the peer reviews a paper written above their current writing proficiency (Marcus, 1984). For classroom language teachers, the facilitation of peer review can be a rich and regenerating resource. With proper student training and structure, adding peer review to a class increases the amount and promptness of individualized instruction to writers. For example, in an efficient thirty minutes with a class of 30 writers a teacher can circulate the classroom making sure 30 writers get and give feedback on the ideas of their essay. In large classrooms, as Laurillard (2008) notes, each student would normally get as little as 5 minutes of individualized teacher attention per week. However, in a “flipped”2 reading and writing classroom, in which a teacher sets up “reciprocal teaching” activities that include peer review, he or she is circulating around the room refining (and learning from) peer dialogues. The teacher is using peer feedback to notice information about the student reviewer and writer simultaneously (Paulus, 1999). How does the student use metacognitive strategies? How is the student summarizing theirs and others’ texts? How are they questioning, clarifying, and predicting as they read and write? Do they find one role--being a reviewer or the reviewee--easier? Is the dialogue real, encouraging, helpful, and productive? Peer dialogue and its written artifacts are not only very telling for assessing metacognitive literacy skills. Teachers might also use the artifacts of peer review to understand ways to innovate and reset their own pedagogy. One example of this can be seen in Black’s (2005) study of English language learners who formed a homegrown fan fiction network online, outside of formal school. She observed the “stickiness” of these writers’ online feedback: when an author left feedback on another author’s blog, the two authors were automatically “linked”. Once linked, Black observed her reluctant second language writers thrive in a professionalized !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2

The “flipped classroom” is a term used by educational technologists to refer to an approach whereby the traditional PPP approach (teacher Presents, students Practice, students Produce as the teacher assesses) is reversed: the teacher gets students to produce (take a quiz or problem solve first), to help each other (practice), and then, students to present to each other. The initial lesson (teacher presentation) is replaced by asking students to do homework such as watching a youtube video lecture the night before classroom time.

!

"#!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 17-42 ! community of writers, where writers gave each other moral support and concrete resources, such as story skeletons. She found that writers using socially mediated technology gained voice--became more autonomous multilingual writers--and it inspired her to think of why this productivity so sharply contrasted with these writers’ school experiences. We may take blogging as a writer/audience tool for granted today, but in the early 2000s, the time of Black’s research, paying attention to this peer learning (the stickiness of blogs) meant a teacher gleaning pioneering teaching techniques from the students she might have expected learning from the least. Capturing ideas for professional development from students’ peer learning may be particularly important for teachers of academic writing who may not have taken course work in the teaching of writing during their training. Second language scholars, still today, cite the dearth of professional preparation of writing teachers (Leki, Cumming, & Silva, 2006; Ortmeier-Hooper & Enright, 2011). A keen eye on peer tutoring and learning is not only helpful to teachers, but also to institutions. When students work as ‘teachers’ they consider teaching as a future profession; thus, peer tutoring serves as a form of informed teacher recruitment (Whitman, 1988), with many writing center peer tutors becoming teachers (Gillespie & Lerner, 2007). However, teacher recruitment is not the limit of peer tutoring’s effect. One research project by Hughes, Gillespie, & Kail (2010) looked at 126 former peer tutors across three universities who had had their peer tutoring experience in the 1980s (24%), 1990s (33.6%), or 2000s (42.4%), and who later had careers in and outside of education. This study found that peer tutoring gave peer tutors “a new relationship with writing; analytical power; a listening presence; skills, values and abilities vital in their professions; skills, values and abilities vital in families and in relationships; earned confidence in themselves; and a deeper understanding of and commitment to collaborative learning” (Hughes et al., 2010, p. 14). Peer tutoring by multilinguals in centers for English writing While writing centers have been normalized on many college campuses, it is relatively new that peer tutors be English as a Foreign or Additional Language (EFL

!

"#!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 17-42 ! or EAL) writers and tutors. Some reasons for a lack of inclusion of EAL peers tutors in writing centers (in English and non-English dominant countries) include: lack of exposure or acceptance of writing center pedagogy; language teachers already successfully grappling with peer review in their action-based research classrooms (Min, 2005; Hu, 2005); insufficient student readiness for learner autonomy (Cotterall, 1995), and lack of financial, institutional, and/or philosophical structure for supporting peer tutors (Mynard & Almarzouqi, 2006). In addition, in some contexts there may still be perceptions by students (and some teachers) that language learners do not want peer review by nonnative speakers because of a privileging of the native speaker (Kramsch, 1997) or because of previous classroom experiences that did not successfully use peer review in tandem with teacher and self-assessment (Nelson & Carson, 2006). Teachers and students might worry that the writing center experience would be a mere replication of classroom peer feedback, a negative experience, or, if outside the classroom, something difficult for self-access learning centers to consistently fund. Indeed, Bedore and O’Sullivan (2011) used multiple research methods (surveys, focus groups, and follow-up interviews with students, novice teachers, teacher educators, and a program director) to document how at one university there was a “complicated” and “deeprooted ambivalence” toward peer review, despite appreciation of its potential benefits. Confidence and commitment to peer review correlated with one’s teaching experience. As one research participant explained: I think we all struggle… [H]ow do we teach peer review? How do we model it? Not just, why it's useful, but how to actually do it. I mean, we've had so much trouble finding an effective way to teach it. (Bedore & O’Sullivan, 2011, p. 11) Benefits of online peer writing centers Online peer writing centers offer several ways to combat logistical, philosophical and/or training issues related to peer tutoring for and by language learners. Affordances include the possibility for the exchange of papers to occur outside the classroom, the extension of time for response (self-, peer, and teacher !

"#!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 17-42 ! response) and the allowance of different kinds of anonymity (i.e., “blinding” of reviewers, authors, and/or the use of aliases), all of which are important if learners and teachers lack confidence in facilitating peer feedback. A common issue undermining confidence includes language learners’ (as tutees and tutors) not having enough metacognitive awareness or prior experience with English metalanguage to discuss writing deeply and at various levels. Tutors worry about how to respond to a writer who may ask a question such as “How is my grammar?” (when the paper they are reading has many categories of grammatical error) or “How are my prepositions?” (when the tutor feels the writer’s paper has more important content-related weaknesses that ought to be addressed first). Because online written feedback given asynchronously is automatically recorded, these records can be used by writing center directors or teachers as learning objects. They can be used for recursive training on the doing and facilitating of peer feedback. Therefore, in situations where teachers and/or learners lack confidence, or simply want to exploit the interaction for more learning, an online record of the process (Hounsell, 2007) is helpful. Unlike in face-to-face centers, if a tutor wants to “observe” another tutor as a way of professionally developing, they do not need to schedule an observation: the “evidence” they want to observe is already available to them. Staff of an online writing center automatically share experiences, and can “data-mine” for feedback they wish to emulate, or further discuss. Choosing the Technology, Work Protocols, and Mission for Your Center The technology necessary for an online peer writing center depends on the needs, resources, and quality of feedback hoped for by its constituent users. In the three peer online writing centers this article describes, peer advisors would write feedback and a teacher would lead a discussion (give feedback-on-feedback) of how well the feedback: (1) capitalized on the writer’s strength(s), (2) paid attention to affect, (3) was organized so that it was noticeable and salient on a computer screen, !

"#!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 17-42 ! (4) fostered more learning, (5) modeled good language use, and (6) considered multiple self-assessments (the writer’s and the peer advisors’) In each project, facilitating peer feedback to reach these six criteria was purposefully designed to improve the peer advisors’ own writing, self-regulation, and ability to give quality feedback to writers (Rosalia & Llosa, 2009). It was important in all projects that feedback was not just a product sent to a writer, like putting a coin into the feedback machine and waiting for feedback to come out. Though providing quality feedback was important, equally important was the process of negotiation, for and with peer advisors. Therefore, in each system there were three readers for every submission: reader 1, reader 2, and a facilitator that helped to check that together reader 1 and reader 2 wrote quality feedback. In other words, a facilitator made sure that the finished feedback satisfied the six criteria, but also that in the process of feedback generation, that the peer advisors wrote notes to each other. Instances of notes were about where one reader had left off and had expected the next reader to continue, or about what one reader assessed the quality of the feedback to, currently, be. A recurring thread was making sure peer feedback (re)triggered and sustained self-assessment (theirs and the writer center client’s) and the use of teachers--as means, and as resources, not as ends (Ciekanski, 2007). A writer’s own self-assessment was considered to be a critical feature of a good online peer writing center because it signaled the extent to which the writer was able to self-monitor and demonstrate metacognitive awareness. Comparisons of Technologies Used in Support of Centers Given that sustainability of any online writing center depends on its ability to fund or sustain itself, open-source and free technologies were used in all the settings of the centers discussed. Limited budgets were used to pay for staff, when available. In all of the settings described here, a writing center director was present, but this may not need to be the case in all contexts. Table 1 compares peer tutors, their contexts, technologies chosen, level of administrative control given to the !

""!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 17-42 ! writing center director (e.g., ability to directly make user accounts or customize users’ experiences), and how writers submitted writing for feedback. While one center paid peer tutors, two used a classroom model, at first, in which students did peer tutoring as a course requirement, and later competed for a limited number of “paid” positions. Peer tutoring as an initial course requirement can serve two purposes: it can be used as a “pilot” to document to funders that a center is worth implementing, and, second, as unpaid training. As such, both the peer tutor(s) and the director of a center are able to see if online peer tutoring is a good fit. The author recognizes, too deeply, the struggle for funding to pay peer tutors (or a director). While a program might not be able to fund peer tutors, some creative solutions used include winning funds to buy peer tutors’ textbooks for courses in their major, asking for semester stipends for tutors (rather than hourly pay), and providing tutors one-on-one tutoring on their own homework, as a form of bartering. One-on-one tutoring, while time-consuming for a director / teacher, is rewarding in that tutors’ homework is often the same kinds of assignments they would later see submitted to a center. Finally, while paying students for the painstaking work of providing quality online feedback to writing center clients is still the best option, when interviewed about pay issues, tutors have often said, after the experience, that money was not the key motivator for them. Indeed, online user logs and records consistently show that tutors work beyond the time they have been paid for--a clear indicator that the work is engaging enough in its own right. However, part of valuing peer feedback is paying tutors and a director for their time and growing expertise. Despite positive research in support of peer tutoring (e.g., Hughes et al., 2010), funding will likely always be an issue. Documenting the positive and lasting benefits of peer tutoring can only help both tutors and administrators find creative solutions for a valuable service. (See Neal Lerner’s work, especially Lerner (2001), for more on writing center assessment issues).

!

"#!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 17-42 ! Table 1. Comparison of Peer Online Writing Centers in Three Contexts

!

Contexts and peer advisors!

Technology platform chosen!

Instructional Technology support!

Role given to writing center director!

How writers submitted writing for feedback!

Context 1- EFL Undergraduates; Self-Access Learning Centre (paid tutors)

Moodle moodle.org

Open-source, Administrator university IT department shared access

Dreamweaverdesigned web-site linked to a list of genre-specific Moodle questionnaires (set so that no login was required and so that users could elect to submit an essay or a summary, for example)

Context 2American college Freshmen; composition class (Generation 1.5 writers), (paid tutors only after one semester of training within required coursework)

Drupal drupal.org

Open-source; no university IT support, hired project programmer

Member of design team, no direct administrative control

Users logged into Drupal, a onesize fits all questionnaire was part of the user dashboard

Context 3International ESL students in first semesters at an American college (paid tutors with some prior volunteer or class work with the director)

Google Apps $%%$&'()%* /enterprise/ap ps/education/

Free, no hosting needed, no university IT support

Administrator

Peer advisors elicited questions from writers about their writing directly into a shared document (no separate questionnaire)

"#!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 17-42 ! Contexts 1, 2, and 3 were, in order: a center for EFL undergraduate writers in Japan, a center for an intact undergraduate class of multilingual computer systems majors in the United States, and a center for ESL pre-college and community college writers, also in the United States. In order to promote writer learner autonomy, feedback began and ended in each of these systems with a writer’s help-request. That is, in order to submit writing for feedback, writers were required to self-assess their own writing and complete a help-request. ! Peer tutors were then to address this help-request, even if it did not match what they felt should be a priority in making the writing better. They were also to do this even if the question was vague, such as the always popular: “How is my writing?”. Context 2 was unlike the other two contexts in that, initially, the peer advisors had a dual role of being both peer advisors and writers who submitted their own writing in the online system. They were required to do this as part of three classroom assignments. Later, students in Context 2 applied and competed for five limited paid positions (one-time semester stipends). These five tutored a composition class on assignments similar to the ones they had just completed in their composition class. It is important to note that in each center, peer advisors, over time, chose the way to present their online center. In the EFL context, the peer advisors chose a mascot and splash page as their gateway for submissions, whereas when peer advisors were Generation 1.5 (Roberge, Siegal, & Harklau, 2009) computer systems’ majors, they felt their peers would prefer to go directly into a content management interface. In the American ESL project, where Google Docs were being used heavily in higher education, peer advisors focused on integrating their online center into what users were already using. Likewise, this last group, instead of recommending resources to writers via a discussion board (as in Contexts 1 and 2), the ESL group experimented with a Facebook page, again using tools that already had currency in their context.

!

"#!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 17-42 !

Figure 1. Center for EFL undergraduates: Splash page >> Submission self-select page

Figure 2. Center for undergraduate generation 1.5 computer systems majors: Drupal login page>> “submission central” dashboard for submitting and reviewing peer writing

Figure 3. Center for ESL pre-college writers: Gmail invitation to share a Google Doc >> writer opens up their Google Drive The author’s experience in directing these centers (Context 1 for 4 years, Context 2 for 1.5 years, Context 3, the newest, for 1 year), is that it is not so important which technology or bundle of technologies the peer advisors use, but !

"#!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 17-42 ! rather, that peer advisors are active participants in the initial and the continued choosing of technological solutions. Shared decision-making Shared decision-making is particularly important in deciding how peer advisors and staff work together to co-construct feedback to writers: peer advisors need to feel comfortable in how they work together through technology because the process of giving feedback requires complex layered readings of screen text and dynamic “feedback-on-feedback.” Figure 4, is a sample of complex layered reading and talk about feedback between three peer advisors in Context 3. Reader 1 used blue font to show her voice (and says to the writer: “this is one of the best essays we have worked on in the writing center, so far.”), Reader 2 used orange font, and Reader 3 (the “Facilitator”) used green font. The writing center director used a comment bubble to check in with peer advisors about the overall process. I wonder however, if we should say that “this is one of the best essays we have worked on in the writing center, so far.” While this tone is encouraging, I’m not sure that it gives our center a slightly biased tone. What do you think, facilitator? I agree. I do think it is not appropriate to say that.

Figure 4. Sample colored in-text feedback-on-feedback among three peer advisors, plus writing center director comment bubble on overall process When this process is collaborative, I have seen comments like the following in Figure 5 from peer advisors about their work: It's a lot of accounts to keep track of, but I'm glad that we're finally being productive. I loved reading Joy’s (pseudonym) final feedback because it really shows how nitty gritty the process is. In the internal feedback portion, there is so much negotiation and colorful mess! And with the facilitator comment bubbles, oh boy! But the final version looks sooo neat. This is looking better and better. =) I am having trouble accessing the Facebook page, period.

!

"#!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 17-42 ! Figure 5. Peer advisor open reflection regarding state of writing center work

Note that Appendix 1 shows the finished feedback that this advisor refers to. While this reflection on how technology trials are going (using two Google App logins and a third Facebook login) is mixed, there is no question that the peer advisor is involved and positive about where she and her colleagues are going in evaluating technologies for their center. The post is open and has a spirit of collaborative experimentation. An important consideration in setting up an online peer tutoring system is a belief in a few fundamental values: that students’ words are their own and not to be appropriated; that the role of a tutor is to be respectful of a peer’s writing (a fellow tutor’s or the writer’s), no matter what the level of ability; that co-construction of feedback is beneficial because it requires negotiation of the degree and direction of feedback to the writer; and that the end goal of peer tutoring is not to “fix” a peer’s essay (the “put developing essay in, get perfect essay out” model), but to promote learner autonomy with attention to affect and camaraderie. Because staff of an online center do most of their communication mediated by technology and the written word, sensitivity to writing, response, and protocol are critical. This is precisely what helps improve peer advisors writing skills, but it takes some practice for new peer advisors depending on their readiness for learner autonomy (Cotterall, 1995) and experience collaboratively editing the same text online. For example, in a chain of feedback production, if a second reader does not give a rationale or note changes they made to a first reader’s text, the third reader will likely be confused. Consider, in Figure 6, how a third reader would need to reconstruct what is so far given to a writer, Joyce (pseudonym), to be helpful. For orientation, in Figure 6, we see the work of Taro, a peer advisor still in training, who had confused other writing center staff by logging into the center outside his assigned hours, and then working on a submission as if he were the only constructor of feedback. Unlike the first reader of the submission (her work is in blue font and/or underlined) who addresses other writing center staff with a “Hi everyone”,

!

"#!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 17-42 ! Taro does not write anything to the group, nor does he respond to the first reader’s request for feedback on her feedback. She had worried if her feedback had been “too self-centered”, helped “too much”, or had addressed the writer’s request for “verb tense” help. As a second reader, Taro (whose work is in italics and/or red font) did not respond to his colleague’s opening dialogical remarks or feedback assessment. Additionally, Taro appropriates the writer’s text (the bold and black text) giving a novice and, perhaps, unhelpful reason for revision: he writes that the writer should use his version, as it is “more smooth”. Here is the post verbatim: [Reader 1’s separated note to the group] Hi everyone, I think I gaved too selfcentered advice which was too much help for her in this essay... ! Please check if my advice is good for her. Also, I think there are more points to improve about her word choice, so I'd like you to check it as well. In my opinion, her verb tense has no problem, but if you have a different idea, please correct it. Thank you! ******************************************************************************************** [Reader 1’s feedback to the writer] Dear Joyce (pseudonym for writer), Your essay is very easy to follow because you explained in detail about your teacher! However, we had some sentences whose meanings are not so obvious for us. Let's have a look at the sentences underlined. [Writer’s text from the writer’s essay] She gave us a lot of assignments and test. They were really terrible things. For example, if I made a mistake on her test which we have to write 80 sentences, I had to write again 10 times each sentence. It took really long time to finish writing. 1. "They were really terrible things. We can understand what you mean, but you need to make sure whether the meanings are clear if you have audience. Also, this sentence means like you had a lot of assignments and tests and it was so hard for you, but some audience might take this sentence is negative. Maybe you wrote about great points of your teacher, so you might want to write it in more positive way. For example, you can say like "She gave us tremendous quantity of /quite a few assignments and tests, which told on me." or "We had so many assignments and tests that we couldn't ..." etc. [Taro’s response as Reader 2] We rewrote some sentences with other words which might be more smooth to read.We hope avobe examples would be helpful for your further improving. Please challenge. => She gave students lots of assignments and tests that were very hard for us. For instance, when errors on the test were found she required us addional writing of 80 lines on the error points that took really long time to finish.

!

"#!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 17-42 ! Figure 6. Sample of Taro’s lack of negotiation with other peer tutors during online advice co-construction Taro was not used to a layered collaborative approach to co-constructing feedback. Still in his first weeks of training, this approach was understandably new to him. One can see the difference between his response to a writer’s work, and the response of the first reader, a peer advisor with more experience. Though still with weaknesses, the first reader’s advice to Joyce considers “audience” and a conflict in tone between the writer saying “great points” about the subject of the essay (a loved former high school teacher) and then “terrible things.” It can be inferred that this is why she worried that she should say more to the writer about “word choice.” There is some indication that Taro internalized some of the first reader’s advice not only because he uses the subject-pronoun “we”, but also, because his revision uses the first reader’s suggestion to adjust “word choice” or to better explain the “terrible things” sentence. However at this stage of his collaborative writing development, Taro is not showing the higher order skill of providing feedback on feedback or eliciting critique of his work. As a second reader, rather than improving Reader 1’s feedback, Taro brings more confusion to the text. Nor is his feedback convincingly promoting Joyce’s learner autonomy. His “please challenge” will likely be ineffective because of its vagueness. When asked about working outside his assigned time, Taro used metaphors of needing to get a product back out to a customer: “Process talk” among staff meant less to him than finishing many submissions in a short time. Thoughts about whether he had been appropriating a writer’s words instead of addressing their questions about their own writing, or his responsibility to respond to colleagues’ questions about the quality of their feedback, in his mind, slowed production down. Defensive of his more authoritative style for feedback giving, Taro explained, verbatim: I wonder if my style will not fit to the students [sic] expectation. The posted essay contents are very friendly and they are contents to be written in the e-mail such as on the mobile phone and/or home PC. If

!

"#!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 17-42 ! the Prof. accept the such [sic] form (style) of essay or letter, I am a not right person to touch to their posted essay. To the outside reader, it may be hard to understand that Taro is talking about peer advisor work. In contrast to the reflection on advising work of the peer advisor in Figure 5, Taro does not feel shared ownership of the co-construction process, yet. After just initial peer training, he was not ready to give up the traditional hierarchy of schooling roles—and some learners never are. The “students” Taro refers to are his co-workers who got angry with him for working outside of his assigned time (it meant submissions they were to have worked on had already been taken by Taro). The “essay” Taro refers to is the feedback post, and “the Prof” is the writing center director, who attempted to discuss word by word Taro’s advice to the writing center client, Joyce. More training or group discussion was needed to address Taro’s conflicts more directly and clearly. This is why it is recommended to build in regular face-to-face meetings with staff. Initially, writing under the micro lens of shared online forums, even if one uses anonymous aliases, can be uncomfortable. Taro was not expecting so much attention to be drawn to how he was giving feedback or to give so much attention to others’ feedback. Likewise older peer advisors were used to work in a certain way. A risk that peer feedback systems sometimes take is the time that is required for a group to define, understand, and refine their collaboration. A group may need up to one semester to find their working grove--another reason for piloting peer advisor work carefully. Because all communication occurs through writing, workflow protocols in an online writing center may be more important than that of a face-to-face center. Appendix 2 shows the workflow systems co-designed with peer advisors in the respective centers. As explained earlier, an affordance of an online center is that feedback to writers is co-constructed. In an online center based upon a philosophy of group co-construction, peer tutors are interdependent, unlike in a face-to-face center where a peer tutor works with a writer in a one-to-one exchange. Taro’s not following protocol and not responding to Reader 1’s call for feedback on her feedback (Figure 6), meant the third reader had more work to do because Taro had

!

"#!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 17-42 ! not drafted feedback with Reader 1. The third reader or facilitator would need to write back to Taro and Reader 1 separately (giving each feedback about the quality of what was written individually) and still make choices about condensing and synthesizing final feedback to the writer. Protocols and communicating through writing are paramount, and are good pressures on peer tutors, if they see them as opportunities for refining both their applied technology and writing skills. The absence of physical context presents an authentic communicative context in which clear communication through writing becomes the need driving peer tutors’ efforts. Recommendations. Having peer advisors develop their center’s work manuals and protocols, themselves, is one way to make sure that a peer online writing center is by and for peer tutors. Because it is common and practical for writing centers to have peer tutors with varying amounts of expertise, older tutors can initially lead newer tutors in this work. When writing protocols (and revisiting them over time), peer tutors internalize and personalize a complex process. Innovation is spurred because in their explaining and negotiating protocols with other members, better ways of working are often realized. Table 2 shows how peer advisors in each center were first shown a method, which after one semester they could elect to change. First using one system helped them to later be in a position of comparing and appreciating other technologies. Thus, for example, in Center 1 peer advisors experimented with online chat before deciding to use asynchronous discussion boards. In Center 2, peer advisors first used the Drupal system as a requirement for their freshmen composition class, but later altered the system to include Skype chat for managing who was reading which submission. In Center 3, peer advisors had first used Moodle and then chose Google Apps. In each case, it was not the technology chosen that was important, but that choices were informed by experience and feelings of ownership. In all three of these centers, weekly faceto-face meetings were led or co-organized by peer advisors to discuss work that the staff had done the previous week together online.

!

"#!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 17-42 ! Table 2. Technology-based Comparison of Peer Advisor Management Across Centers Peer Advisor Choices! Means of coconstruction !

Previously trialed technology! Means of anonymity !

Means of receiving submissions and writer selfassessments! Means of delivery of feedback to writer!

Moodle-based system! Context 1 (EFL, Japan)! Peer advisors choose a discussion board and different colored fonts to show role (Reader 1, Reader 2, and Reader 3/ Facilitator)! Live text chat!

Google-App system! Context 3! #$%&'!()*+! Peer advisors choose different colored fonts for the roles of reader 1 and 2, but then comment bubbles for reader 3 or for facilitation.!

Track changes in Word and email !

Moodle-based system!

Online: Peer advisor uses an alias at Moodle login page!

Computer: Peer advisor must go to computer system preferences to set track change user stamps ! Moodle questionnaire Drupal questionnaire tool which allows for tool which uses open radio buttons or open field questions (no field questions! radio buttons)! A text inside the body of an email!

Means of checking who is working on what: !

Shared wiki; and sometimes, Moodle messenger/ audio ping!

Constraints Found!

If users (writers or writing center staff) copy and paste text from Word into Moodle, Moodle will generate strange “MSNormal” code in text boxes (e.g.,

!

Drupal-based system! Context 2 (Generation 1.5, NYC)! Peer advisors choose track changes in Word, with some Skype !

Online: Peer advisor can choose to use a personal, work, or shared work email address !

Inside a shared doc, writer is asked to change black text to blue text, as the way of indicating multiple choice answers ! Word file with Track As a shared Google Doc Changes emailed ! (email notification); writer can comment on each piece of comment bubble feedback by pressing “resolve comment button”! Customized Additional Google Doc “submission que”: used as a “submission Submissions are tracker”; chat feature locked until reviewer within documents and is finished; Skype chat ! Google Chat ! For the administrator, Google is moving toward uploading and a system called Google downloading Drive that asks users to numerous documents sync files to their home can be tedious, computers--this would be overwhelming, and a problem for using a can lead to errors. ! shared Google account among peer advisors (e.g., !

""!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 17-42 ! @#%@%). In addition, sometimes Moodle page will not load, text will “disappear,” be truncated, or user will get an error message about “a script” readability issue! Heuristics and work-arounds!

Users use mail programs such as gmail to write, autosave, or clear formatting from Word file text before pasting it into Moodle!

Affordances! !

Moodle allows multiple users to share editing rights to not just one page but to multiple tools (questionnaires, wikis, timed quizzes that can mimic timed writing tests); Moodle has a good interface for “hiding” some features from some users; it was created by an educator, and anticipates educator needs!

!

For peer advisors, Microsoft Word Track Changes will crash the computer operating system or the Word Application, if users have made too many comments or if they are too long (e.g., over 50 words long)! Users must name their files very carefully (e.g., CindyEssay_Reader1); administrators need to back-up word files used in coconstruction, because Drupal file management is not easy to search!

Drupal is highly customizable with more plug-ins and templates compared to Moodle; has a professional clean look!

"#!

syncs cause loss of work among too many computers). ! ! Multiple simultaneous account logins (e.g., $%&'()*+,-./,01, 0234205*+,-./,01)! are not allowed! Continue using the old version of Google Docs; At the Google App administrator level, take away from users the “Drive” plug-in; Organize docs into folders, be aware of notification settings; Share one master account (e.g., $%&'()*+,-./,01) for setting up “invites” and use another gmail account outside of work network (e.g., 43($6*1'3(7/.,') in order to “tab” between accounts as one works! An educator account comes with mail accounts for up to 3000 users (useful in contexts where email administrative oversight is a concern); allows mobile device integration!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 17-42 ! As Table 2 demonstrates, especially for “heuristics and work-arounds”, using open source or free technologies necessitates regular communication among staff. Choice, flexibility, and problem solving are indigenous to peer writing center practice. ! Conclusions At question in this paper was not whether online peer tutoring works or not. In the author’s experience, if peer tutors decide how, are actively involved, listened to, and supported by teachers and writing center directors, the benefits are rich and can be shared by many constituents. Instead, at question is what an online peer writing center might look like for learners in your setting. This paper has reviewed different tools used in different contexts (to give you a head start) and encourage you to focus on (1) how learners will manage technology choices, and (2) become resilient to the “messiness” inherent in choosing tools and protocols to take charge of their own learning. The need for regular revisits by the staff of work protocols is emphasized because the main affordance of an online writing center is also its challenge: peer tutors use technology and writing to communicate and to be interdependent. This approach argues for the co-construction of peer feedback facilitated by a teacher and later, as the center grows, with senior peer advisors. Coconstructing online feedback requires layered readings of feedback-on-feedback. Groups learn how to do this together, over time, and with much collaboration. Regular face-to-face meetings with staff make possible a cohesive online life. So you want to start an online writing center? Make sure it is built upon interdependence, a commitment to social autonomy, and collaboration over time.

Notes on the contributor

! Christine Rosalia is an Assistant Professor of TESOL. Her research interests include second language writing, educational technology, and the fostering of self-regulated learning among language learners. She is currently applying her experience directing online writing centers to her work with NYC language teachers.

!

"#!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 17-42 ! ! "#$#%#&'#(! ! Bedore, P., & O'Sullivan, B. (2011). Addressing instructor ambivalence about peer review and self-assessment. WPA Journal, 34(2), 11-36. Black, R. W. (2005). Access and affiliation: The literacy and composition practices of English language learners in an online fanfiction community. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(2), 118-128. doi:10.1598/JAAL.49.2.4 Chien, C. L. (2002). Strategy and self-regulation instruction as contributors to improving students' cognitive model in an ESL program. English for Specific Purposes, 21(3), 261-289. doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00008-4 Ciekanski, M. (2007). Fostering learner autonomy: Power and reciprocity in the relationship between language learner and language learning adviser. Cambridge Journal of Education, 37(2), 111-127. doi:10.1080/03057640601179442 Cotterall, S. (1995). Readiness for autonomy: Investigating learner beliefs. System, 23(2), 195-205. doi:10.1016/0346-251X(95)00008-8 Falchikov, N. (2005). Improving assessment through student involvement: Practical solutions for aiding learning in higher and further education. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer. Hounsell, D. (2007). Towards more sustainable feedback to students. In D. Boud & N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term (pp. 101-113). New York, NY: Routledge. Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 321-342. doi:10.1191/1362168805lr169oa Hughes, B., Gillespie, P., & Kail, H. (2010). What they take with them: Findings from the peer writing tutor alumni research project. Writing Center Journal, 30(2), 12-46. Gillespie, P. & Lerner, N. (2007). Longman guide to peer tutoring (second edition). New York, NY: Longman. Kramsch, C. (1997). The privilege of the nonnative speaker. PMLA, 112(3), 359369. Laurillard, D. (2008, April). Digital technologies and their role in achieving our ambitions for education. Professorial lecture conducted at the Institute of

!

"#!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 17-42 ! Education, University of London, UK. Retrieved from http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/628/1/Laurillard2008Digital_technologies.pdf! Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2006). Second-language composition teaching and learning. In P. Smagorinksy (Ed.), Research on composition: Multiple perspectives on two decades of change. (pp. 141-170). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Lerner, N. (2001). Choosing beans wisely. The Writing Center Newsletter, 26(1), 15. Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30-43. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002 Marcus, H. (1984). The writing center: Peer tutoring in a supportive setting. English Journal, 73(5), 66-67. doi:10.2307/816981 Min, H-T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2), 293-308. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003 Mynard, J., & Almarzouqi, I. (2006). Investigating peer tutoring. ELT Journal, 60(1), 13-22. doi:10.1093/elt/cci077 Nelson, G., & Carson, J. (2006). Cultural issues in peer response: Revisiting “culture”. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Context and issues (pp. 42-59). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Ortmeier-Hooper, C., & Enright, K. A. (2011). Mapping new territory: Toward an understanding of adolescent L2 writers and writing in US contexts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(3), 167-181. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2011.05.002 Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265-289. doi:10.1016/S10603743(99)80117-9 Roberge, M, Siegal, M., & Harklau, L. (Eds.). (2009). Generation 1.5 in college composition: Teaching academic writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL. New York, NY: Routledge. Rosalia, C., & Llosa, L. (2009). Assessing the quality of online peer feedback in L2 writing. In R. de Cássia Veiga Marriott & P. Lupion Torres (Eds.), Handbook of research on e-learning methodologies for language acquisition (pp. 322-338). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

!

"#!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 17-42 ! Topping, K. (2003). Self and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity and utility. Innovation and Change in Professional Education, 1, 55-87. doi:10.1007/0-306-48125-1_4 Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21(2), 217-235. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2004.02.003 Whitman, N. A. (1988). Peer teaching: To teach is to learn twice (Report No. 4). Washington, DC: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports. Retrieved from Education Resources Information Center website: http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED305016.pdf! !

!

"#!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 17-42 ! Appendix 1 Example Final Feedback to a Writer from the ESL Peer Online Writing Center !

Hi Joy, We are so happy you are sharing your writing with us at the Writing Center. We will do the best we can to make this feedback a vehicle to speed your writing abilities. Be very welcome to work with us! You have told us about your writing: “ Writing in english is not easy for me. This is the first time I’m studying how to write essays or statements in English. I also believe that my vocabulary is very simple and limited for a graduate level. I will need to focus on grammar, sentence structure and vocabulary while I gain practice in academic writing.” You have also told us: 1) Your purpose with this writing is practicing for the TOEFL and GRE essays as well as for the Personal Statement for Graduate School applications. 2) For content, you would like us to focus our feedback on the development of your Ideas. 3) Related to structure and mechanics, you would like our focus be on Verb Tenses and in Vocabulary. 4) This is the first draft of the essay. 5) You think it is important for us to know your opinion on your writing (your personal assessment) And here is the feedback we have prepared for you: This is an interesting piece of writing that includes a variety of complex sentence structures and a good exploration of ideas. We liked your thesis statement because you set yourself up to explore the merits and drawbacks of technology. There are a couple of things that we have provided feedback on – This is a well written essay: Vocabulary -- essentially, the vocabulary you use is precise and rich . We liked your use of "obsolete" “mediate” and " permeated" Grammar is good (not a problem with verb tenses at all and few mistakes)

!

"#!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 17-42 ! Sentence structure used in the essay shows fluency in your writing. We saw many complex sentence structures like this one: The old fashion way of sending hand-written letters is a very antiquated way to send a warm greeting to a friend, compared to all the options Facebook, Twitter, Gmail and smart phones can bring to your hand. We caught two sentences that have some structure you have to work on and marked them below. Strengthening the development of your essay: We like the example that you gave of your brother and Internet research. But perhaps it may also be good to consider why it’s not good enough to just look on the Internet for your answer. What kind of research is good to do on the Internet and what kind is not as powerful? Why? TOEFL or timed writing strategies: Time your work. it is important to develop this topics in a short time (20 minutes approximately, so you have to write less but well). If you want some more practice on typical TOEFL topics check out the WRITER RESOURCES we put here on our home page: powc.org We’d love to know what you think of the ETS site. By the way we do not see a title for your essay, was there a prompt?

1/1/13 5:49 PM Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$ We think you meant the idiom FOR THE MOST PART here? See http://idioms.yourdictionary.com/for-themost-part$ 1/1/13 5:49 PM

A small change -- don’t forget to indent paragraphs.

Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$ (parallelism: you wrote faster and easier, so the last word must also reflect this comparative.)$

Your essay with some comments that you can discuss more with us (if you like by pressing REPLY) I’ll (Christine) facilitate this advice on behalf of our tutors. We’d be happy to know any questions or feedback on our feedback you had for us :-D You can ask us questions by using comment bubbles yourself or emailing us at info@powc.org. We’d also love to see more of your writing :-D

1/1/13 5:49 PM Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$ A reviewer said to you here: This is a good thesis statement that shows that you will explore the new way of communication as well as its drawbacks. You mention very specifically the drawback (isolation), but perhaps this statement can be stronger by mentioning what this new way of communication is.$

The contemporary world is regulated in most part by technology. Electronic devices mediate everything we do, from the moment we wake up until the time we close our eyes to go to sleep. Our thoughts, feelings and ideas are compromised by technologies which make communications faster, easier and more efficient. There is a new way of communication that human beings are adapting to, changing our traditional means of interconnecting with each other, but at the same time creating a big gap between individuals, until the point of isolation. Electronic devices are becoming more common every day. We are constantly front of new technologies, which will make our lives more efficient. It is true that some machineries and artifacts can make our lives, easier and faster than ever. For example, going shopping, paying bills, studying and even meeting people was never so simple. Also (by using?) new technologies like smartphones and computers, one person can reach another one in a fraction of the time; but are we really communicating to each other? One !

"#!

1/1/13 5:49 PM Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$ (Perhaps the word you’re looking for is confronted by, is it right?) Or did you mean IN FRONT OF? What is the effect you want to have on your reader here? If you use CONFRONTED you get our emotion. If you use IN FRONT OF we have an image of a person in front of a computer screen. Which do you want?$ 1/1/13 5:49 PM Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$ WITH is the appropriate preposition to use here. See ozdic.com and look up “communicate” See how WITH is used with PEOPLE?$


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 17-42 ! of my biggest concerns is the amount of time that we spend connected to the Internet, chatting with friends, checking this and that, without realizing that we’ve been actually alone, without moving, without doing more than looking at a screen. Younger generations are even more attached to electronic devices. In the last ten years technology has permeated almost all aspect of our behavior. Social networks are frequented by teenagers who find themselves more comfortable communicating trough (spelling?) a computer than having a face to face conversation in real life. As an example, when I ask my teenage brother for something, his first and most frequent tool for research is the Internet. The answers are there, and everyone can post them. It seems like we are forgetting our traditional way of communication and human beings are getting used to be isolating(isolated) from each other, interconnected only trough (spelling? through?) the computer networks. The old fashion way of sending hand-written letters is a very antiquated way to send a warm greeting to a friend, compared to all the options Facebook, Twitter, Gmail and smart phones can bring to your hand. One short text updating your profile and you receive notifications from everyone. It is simple and definitely saves our time. But the truth, however, is that we are loosing complex conversations between each other and our interactions with the rest of the world is every day becoming more simple and venal. Technology, indeed, make our lives easier and efficient. The way we go about accomplishing our daily duties is simpler because we have new technologies that allow us to save time, money and avoid some complications. But Life is definitely more complex than that. A lot of ordinary actions such as informal conversations in the company of others or writing letters are now obsolete. We are getting use to live isolating from each other becoming dependent to electronic devices as the easiest way to keep in touch.

!

"#!

1/1/13 5:49 PM Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$ We completely agree!$ If you actually want to see an interesting TED TALK on this subject, Shirley Turkle is really interesting! She points out a similar point to you here. http://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alo ne_together.html -$ 1/1/13 5:49 PM Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$ (How many aspects - one or more than one?)$ 1/1/13 5:49 PM Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$ (Can you think of a more precise word than behavior, perhaps one that makes us think about our actions connecting with others?)$ 1/1/13 5:49 PM Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$ (Can you think of a drawback related to just using the Internet to research a question without communication? Perhaps a question to consider is: What is knowledge without communication and ... [1] verification?)$ 1/1/13 5:49 PM Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$ This is a good complex sentence, but if you divide it into two simple sentences, ... [2] you can5:49 seePM that the first part is a 1/1/13 fragment.)$ Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$ (check spelling)$

1/1/13 5:49 PM Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$ One reviewer said: ( I guess venal in English means corrupted, and you meant ... [3] vacuous, isn’t 1/1/13 5:49 PMit?)$ Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$ One reviewer said: (You bring up a good point here, Diana. I have to wonder though ... [4] -are you 1/1/13 5:50saying PM that hand-written letters are something we should continue, or Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$ should it be replaced by a greeting from (check subject-That’s verb agreement)$ social media? not exactly clear because in the 1/1/13 5:50 PMbeginning you say it’s a “warm greeting”, but that it’s also efficient. Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$ But we also don’t howleave to maintain (getting “used to”?know Did you out a ‘d’ conversations anymore. Furthermore, I here?)$ think this paragraph may be much better 1/1/13 as your5:50 first PM body paragraph. It follows the Comment: sequence of !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$ your thesis statement better - that there (Hum... thisisgrammar a newerisand hard: more getting efficient used way to communicate, but that there are to living isolated from each other: USED ... [5] problems.)$ TO + Noun 1/1/13 5:50 form; PM TO LIVE + ADJ FORM)$ Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+- (Check your collocation: http://www.ozdic.com/collocation... [6] dictionary/dependent )$


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 17-42 ! Appendix 2 Comparative Workflows of Peer Advisors in Three Online Writing Centers EFL Center (Moodle-based system) 1. Peer Advisor checks survey for submissions 2. Updates a shared wiki so that the group knows what submission they are working on 3. Goes back to submission, transfers writer’s help-request into a private discussion board thread for negotiating and co-constructing feedback 4. Writes draft 1 of advice 5. Updates the shared wiki telling of the work that they did, then starts another reading if more time on their shift; may act as a first reader or as a second reader on a different “open submission” 6. Waits for feedback-on-feedback from other peer readers and teacher regarding the quality of their feedback. Generation 1.5 classroom center (Drupal-based system) 1. An assignment for class is due; peer advisors are also writers and submit their writing to a Drupal system. A questionnaire is used to spur self-assessment and to direct peer advice. 2. After personal submission, acting as feedback givers, peer advisors download a Microsoft Word file and give feedback using the track change tool. Preferences are changed in Word so that an alias is used as the comment name. A submission “lock” button is pressed and others cannot download the same submission thus making it impossible to mistakenly have two people working on the same submission at once. 3. Give feedback as a first reader. 4. Upload Word file with track changes, saving file with the name of the writer + first reader. 5. Fill out a form to Reader 2 telling of their concerns about the current state of feedback to the writer. 6. Download another submission; lock the submission; work as a second reader, helping to improve the peer feedback of a first reader. 7. Upload and give comments. 8. Wait for feedback-on-feedback from other readers and/or teacher. Pre-college ESL center (Google App-based system)

!

!

1. Peer advisor checks shared email for enquiries to use online writing center 2. When finding an enquiry, shares a Google document that is a questionnaire with writer 3. Waits for writer’s response 4. Uses another Google document shared with other staff as a “submission tracker” 5. Acts as first or second reader on other submissions as needed. 6. Waits for feedback-on-feedback from other readers and/or teacher

"#!


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 43-55

The Learner as Researcher: Student Concordancing and Error Correction Jacqueline Mull, Research Institute of English Language Education, Kobe, Japan Abstract The idea of language learners using a concordancer, to autonomously investigate vocabulary and structure in a target language was suggested over 30 years ago. Since then, some research has explored this idea further, but the potential benefit of concordancers in the hands of learners is still largely unexplored – especially with regards to structure. This study investigates what learners are able to accomplish when asked to investigate an English corpus with a concordancer in order to correct grammar errors in an essay. The study was conducted after only 30 minutes of training on a concordancer. Participants reactions to the software and to analyzing the target language autonomously are also shared. While participants’ reactions were mixed with regards to using a concordacer for error correction, all participants expressed an interest in using a concordancer during their writing process – something which was beyond the scope of this study – but which suggests a potential value for learner exposure to concordancers for autonomous language investigation. Keywords: centred, writing centre, Japanese university, EFL writing

Proponents of autonomous learning have long encouraged educators to rethink the traditional, teacher-centered classroom and instead explore ways to help students build the skills and confidence they need to seek out answers on their own. According to Dam (2011), autonomy is not about learners studying completely on their own or doing all the work independently of an instructor. Rather, it is a partnership between learners and instructors with the purpose of encouraging the learner to pay attention to their own gaps in knowledge, create their own goals and find strategies that will address both. Of course, with proper support, guidance and tools to answer their own questions, a learner can do a great deal of language exploration and skill building on their own, as well. 43


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 43-55

Literature Review Writing offers an excellent opportunity for students to reflect on their own language ability and notice gaps in their interlanguage. While struggling to create language, learners are likely to generate a wide variety of questions. If a student is not comfortable acting in an autonomous way, they will likely bring questions to a teacher or other “expert” for answers. Legenhausen (2011) argues that “learners need to be encouraged to also pay attention to formal structures but without being explicitly taught or instructed” (p.36). If learners are familiar with language structure, they are better equipped to analyze language when they see it. This ability to analyze opens doors for learners to research answers to their own questions as those questions are relevant. Johns (1991) proposed teaching learners to analyze authentic target language sentences as a way to promote learner autonomy. The tool he used was a concordance. A concordancer is a simple piece of software designed to search through large, principled collections of text, pull out every instance of the search term, and list those instances for analysis. For example, a simple Key Word in Context (or KWIC) search for the term “who” produces a list of results such as the following (Figure 1):

Figure. 1. An Example of a Concordancer Concordancers have been used to gain insight into researchers’ first languages, and Johns was enthusiastic about the potential of such a research tool in 44


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 43-55 the hands of second language learners. Tribble and Jones (1990) suggested a number of ways corpus results might be used in the classroom and Reppen (2010) gives an updated, easy-entry guide to using corpora in the classroom for beginners. Since the early nineties a number of studies have shown the value of using a concordancer for vocabulary exploration (Cobb, 1997; Todd, 2001). Cobb’s study found that learning vocabulary with concordance results led to better retention than doing the same activities with a single example sentence. With concordancers, learners can quickly see their target vocabulary in authentic contexts. They can find out how frequent a particular word is and what other words tend to collocate with it. If the corpus is designed carefully of writing samples that match the target style of writing (academic essays or medical documents, for example) language variation can be taken into account and help inform writing choices (Reppen, 2010). Along with vocabulary, it is also important to learn grammar in an authentic context. Ideally, learners could analyze concordance results to make conclusions about the target language structure, but this is a more complicated task than analyzing vocabulary. In order to use a concordancer to analyze language structure, learners must be able to find suitable language samples and look beyond the vocabulary to find patterns in the structure. To ease some of the difficulty when crossing over to structure analysis, instructors may find suitable concordance lines for the students, so that students need only focus on analyzing the language for a result that is certain (Tribble & Jones, 1990). While this certainly eases the burden on the student, it may hurt student autonomy. Gaskell and Cobb (2004) attempted to mediate this challenge by starting their study by giving teacher-selected concordance results to students. Results were associated with a highlighted grammar error and the students then used these results to create a hypothesis about the target language that could correct their errors. Once students were familiar with analyzing the results, they were asked to use the concordancer to find their own samples to analyze. While the first half of the program was quite successful, fewer than half the students persisted in finding their own results in the second half of the program. Gaskell and Cobb noted that 45


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 43-55 students who failed to persist tended to be lower level than the group who persisted, and also suggested that more training may have improved their numbers. Kennedy and Micelli (2011) conducted a case study where students were given extensive training with the concordancer and then used the tool to investigate vocabulary and grammar while writing. Two of their three participants succeeded in making the software their own by developing personal strategies for finding useful information through simple searches as described above. They both noted the value of searching openly through the corpus for expressions and phrasing that may not have occurred to them otherwise. The third participant, who struggled with the concordancer, noted difficulty with the user interface and a lack of confidence analyzing the resulting concordance lines. While student use of concordancers still holds promise, what kind of training and how much training is needed to help students be fully successful with it is currently under investigation. Kennedy and Miceli (2010) had a full apprentice program that resulted in very promising use of a concordancer. Chambers (2005) argued against excessive training, pointing out that the goal was not to create full linguistic researchers. Even so, her own study into student use of concordancers required 9 hours of training before participants started her core project. Similarly, O’Sullivan and Chambers (2006) required 3 weeks of training before asking students to correct grammar errors in their own essays using a concordancer. Unfortunately, studies investigating student use of concordancers for analyzing target language structure have been few and we are still a long way off from identifying what, if any training, can help students truly take command of the software to make their own inquiries into the target language. Another question that has not been asked is how much learners can do without training. While it is safe to assume training will not have a negative impact, and will likely improve learners’ effectiveness with a concordancer, there seems to be an unspoken assumption in student concordancing literature, like the studies mentioned above, that training is a prerequisite for using a concordancer. This case study calls that assumption into question. It asks the following questions: 46


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 43-55 Assuming virtually no prior training with a concordancer: 1. What do students do intuitively with the software when peer editing for grammar with a concordancer? 2. How do students react to the software as a tool for writing autonomy?

Methodology Participants This study involved two pairs of students from the upper-intermediate level of the Intensive English Language Program (IELP) at a University in the United States. All participants had TOEFL scores of 520 or better and eventually hoped to fully matriculate into a degree program at the university. All four participants were clearly motivated as evidenced by their participating in this study, which promised them nothing more than the opportunity to learn more about English. For anonymity, pseudonyms (of the participants’ own choosing) were used. The first pair consisted of Edison (from South Korea) and Y (from Thailand). The second pair were Emmy (from South Korea) and Maria (from Thailand). First languages were mixed to promote English discussion during the work sessions. Task The study centered around grammar error correction in peer essays and therefore, before the study, three essays were prepared for the participants to correct. Each essay was written by the researcher but modeled after authentic persuasive essays that had come from students in the IELP and dealt with topics and essay styles the participants were familiar with. The introductory essay contained ten grammar errors styled after common errors found in authentic essays from students at the same level as the participants. The next two persuasive essays each contained five grammar errors styled after the most common grammar errors found in the level above the participants. These errors included articles, agreement, prepositions, tense and clause construction. All errors in all essays were highlighted 47


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 43-55 but no indication was given as to the nature of the error. No other errors appeared in the essays. Study The participants took part in four sessions. The first session included an introduction to the task above and 30 minutes to practice using the concordancer while correcting the grammar errors in the introductory essay. The goal of the first session was to introduce the participants to the concordancer. Participants could ask the study coordinator if they had any questions about the technology or the task at hand. The coordinator showed them one term search at the very beginning of the study and pointed out how the resulting samples could be used to determine English structure. This initial introduction took no more than five minutes of the allotted 30 and the participants used the rest of the time to experiment. After the work session, participants had ten minutes to journal about their experience. The next two sessions were the core of the study and were structured to match each other. Both began with a 15-minute interview to investigate journal comments more fully. Next, students were given an essay with five grammar errors (a different essay for each session) and asked to rate the errors for difficulty so as to gain insight into how much, if any, previous knowledge might be playing into their concordancer use. Once the errors were rated, the participants corrected the errors, using the concordancer if they chose. In the first of these two core sessions participants were given a worksheet to help guide them through the error correction process with the concordance. In practice, participants only filled in this worksheet after the error was fully corrected and their process was finished, so its intended use as a guide was null and did not figure into the results of this study. In the second session the worksheet was optional and participants chose not to use it. Both core sessions ended with another ten minutes for journaling. Finally, participants met for a fourth session. This final wrap-up session consisted of a final interview both about the previous journal writing and the experience as a whole.

48


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 43-55 Data collection The results of this study were based on several different forms of data. The previously mentioned journal entries and video-tapes of the interviews were a primary source of participant opinions and insight into their work sessions. Video of the participants’ computer screen (showing their concordancer searches and results) along with audio of their discussion during work sessions was also used to track their thought process and strategies with the software itself. Corpus and concordancer A corpus of 80 persuasive essays was specially built for this study. All essays were taken from two free use essay sharing websites: 123HelpMe (www.123helpme.com) and All Free Essays (www.allfreeessays.com) and were verified to contain native-level English. The corpus itself was very small by modern standards but consisted of precisely the style of writing (though not necessarily the topic) the participants were working with. Participants used MonoConc 2.2 (Barlow, 2002) as their concordancer to search through the essays that had been collected. Results Perhaps not surprisingly, the participants were not at all intimidated by the simple search interface of the concordancer. Edison mentioned that it was not unlike doing Google searches, which he sometimes used when he had questions about English phrasing. All participants seemed comfortable with the software. Finding useful results and noticing useful patterns in the target language was considerably more difficult, however. Even so, between the two pairs of participants, 11 of a possible 20 errors were corrected with the concordance during the core work sessions. Keeping in mind that the students were not specially trained with the technology, participants used the concordancer to three different ends. 49


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 43-55 Student uses for the concordancer 1. Theory checking. The primary benefit participants received from the concordancer was as a theory-checking device. Both pairs of participants consistently discussed previous knowledge in order to predict how the highlighted error might be corrected. If they were at all uncertain about their answer, they would search in the concordancer for samples that backed up their theory. In this study, participants tended to be fairly confident of their answers before they checked, and used the concordancer successfully to confirm their theories a total of seven out of the 11 times between the two core work sessions. In fact, the two pairs were able to confirm their theories a grand total of nine out of 11 times, but two of those theories (both for the same error) did not lead to a fully accurate correction in the end. The cause of this was unfortunately coordinator error. One grammar error highlighted in the first core work session, the couple live to an apartment contained two errors – agreement and preposition. Each pair noticed one of the two errors, but they had been told that each highlighted section contained one error, so they moved on after making one correction. Edison and Y noticed the preposition and submitted the correction the couple live in an apartment. Emmy and Maria noticed the agreement problem and submitted the correction the couple lives to an apartment. Even though their corrections were both improvements, the end sentences were not fully accurate. 2. Changing the original meaning. In one instance, Edison and Y were trying to correct the error they can save money for better future. Edison noticed the use of “future” and instantly thought of the chunk “in the future”. He was convinced that the sentence should be they can save money in the future. When Edison and Y checked this theory in the concordancer, they did find samples that used “in the future”. Y was uncomfortable with this answer, however, since it seemed to change the original meaning, but she couldn’t think of an alternate search to help her find a better correction. In the end, they decided to propose two different possible corrections. Edison stuck with they can save money in the future 50


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 43-55 and Y proposed they can save money in the better future. Both changed the original intent of the writer. 3. Discovery learning. For the previously noted error corrections, the concordancer was successfully used to confirm what the participants believed they knew. While that may be helpful, for fully autonomous learning participants would ideally discover something new about the language as a result of their searches. For Edison and Y, this was never possible. However, Emmy and Maria had one error that led them into new territory. For the error they can save money for better future, the same error that had given Edison and Y trouble, Emmy and Maria thought they knew the answer when they turned to the concordancer. At first, they believed there should be an article, but when they typed in “future” there were no results. As it turned out, none of the articles in the corpus of essays used that word. Now, they were no longer confident that the problem was the article. They searched for “best future” and “better future”- these, too, with no results. Finally, no longer sure what the problem was, they typed in “better” alone. In the resulting sentences, they found the indefinite article “a” before better with a variety of other nouns following. They recognized the pattern and were able to accurately correct the error to read, they can save money for a better future.

Participant reactions Participants had mixed reactions to the concordancer, though most of their complaints seemed to focus around using the concordancer for grammar error correction. After less than 90 minutes total using the concordancer, both pairs of participants commented that the concordancer seemed better suited as a reference during writing than for correction after the fact. Edison explained that while he was correcting errors, he had been focused on the narrow goal of finding a problem and fixing it, as opposed to exploring the target language. In retrospect, he felt that he had missed the point of the concordancer. Participants also likened the concordancer to other resources they use while they write, but they seemed to feel 51


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 43-55 that the concordancer could fill a unique gap in their studies, especially since it represented authentic English from persuasive essays, which was the kind of writing they were expected to do for class. Edison noted that the results from the concordancer were similar to sentences in online dictionary searches but more useful. Interestingly, all participants asked if they could have a concordancer to take home after the study. Even so, there was plenty of frustration with the technology. All four participants felt that it was challenging to interpret the concordancer results and they never felt confident they had come to the right conclusion, even if they did find results that supported their theories. They wished there were some way to get instant feedback on whether they had interpreted the results correctly. Edison suggested that it would be useful for students to use the concordancer at home, where they could relax, but then bring a journal of results to class to share with other students and get confirmation from a teacher. All four participants were impressed that the corpus was made of persuasive essays of a native English level and more than one comment suggested that their faith in the source material was a key motivator for persisting with the technology. Emmy and Maria noted that when they did not get the results they expected for in the better future they both kept searching, even though they were frustrated, because they believed that if the proficient writers (represented by the corpus) had not written a particular term they were searching for, there must be another answer. Discussion The results of this study are tentatively positive. The participants benefitted from the concordancer by double-checking their theories and even doing a little exploration into the target language. Of course, for real autonomy, one would hope for more discovery learning to come from the interaction. It appears from the student reactions that part of the problem was the focus of the project, or rather, using the concordancer after writing for correction rather than during writing. It 52


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 43-55 would be interesting to investigate in future studies how students might use a concordancer to inform their writing process, given a similarly basic level of training. It is heartening to see participants showing so much enthusiasm for the technology in spite of frustrations. They clearly felt they were getting value from the concordancer even though they had little training. This suggests it is still worth investigating this technology for autonomous learning and especially as a tool during the writing process. Even so, it is important to remember that these students were highly motivated and were already seeking technologies for autonomous exploration of the target language. They were also well versed in analyzing grammar structure. For this kind of student, simply providing access to or creating a relevant corpus of target language and providing them a concordancer may be enough. However, even for these highly motivated students, there were complaints that the technology was not guiding them enough. If students are not comfortable learning autonomously, they may need extra support to encourage them to investigate answers on their own, without an instructor to guide them. They may also need more structured activities in the beginning to illustrate what kind of information they can discover for themselves while using a concordancer (common collocates, expressions, structures, etc). It is also possible that some students may not be used to thinking of language as a structure. In this case, they may well need training and support in more basic grammar structure in order to understand the patterns they are uncovering below the lexical level when they investigate the target language with a concordancer. It is also highly likely that with more sophisticated training with a concordance these highly motivated students would be able to get even more out of their corpus searches. The Kennedy and Miceli (2011) case study did provide significantly more training and did promote open searches while writing. As a result, two of their participants were able to delve into the concordancer results much more deeply than the participants in this study. 53


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 43-55 Conclusion Student use of concordancers for autonomous investigation of the target language is not a new idea, but it is still under-researched. While the technology is not difficult to use, the results can be intimidating and off-putting. Sample sentences are composed of authentic language which may be complicated, and users must be able to recognize the structure below the sample sentences for themselves. However, learners need exposure to authentic language if they aspire to push their language ability to an advanced level. Learners also need the confidence to develop theories about the target language autonomously while still having an opportunity to check those theories later for accuracy. As proponents of autonomous learning, we need to help learners find opportunities to answer their own questions and give them the confidence to find their own answers independently when they need them. A concordancer is one tool available that can expose learners to the target language in an organized fashion to help them answer some of these questions and inform their own manipulation of the target language. There are still many questions that remain to be answered as we try to find the best way to introduce concordancers and corpus searches to learners, but there are useful things learners can do with this technology with little training. There is still plenty of reason to be excited by the prospect of concordancers for autonomous language exploration, especially as it relates to writing. Notes on the contributor Jacqueline Mull is Vice Dean and Lecturer at the Research Institute of English Language Education in Kobe, Japan. Her research interests include corpus linguistics, materials development and assessment. References Barlow, M. (2002). MonoConc Pro (Version 2.2) [Computer software]. Houston, 54


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 43-55 TX: Athelstan. Chambers, A. (2005). Integrating corpus consultation in language studies. Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 111-125. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num2/pdf/chambers.pdf Cobb, T. (1997). Is there any measurable learning from hands-on concordancing? System, 25(3), 301–315. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(97)00024-9 Dam, L. (2011). Developing learner autonomy with school kids: Principles, practices, results. In D. Gardner (Ed.), Fostering autonomy in language learning (pp. 40-51). Retrieved from http://ilac2010.zirve.edu.tr/Fostering_Autonomy.pdf Gaskell, D., & Cobb, T. (2004). Can learners use concordance feedback for writing errors? System, 32(3), 301-319. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.04.001 Johns, T. (1991). Should you be persuaded: Two samples of data-driven learning materials. English Language Research Journal, 4, 1-16. Retrieved from http://wordsmithtools.net/wordsmith/corpus_linguistics_links/Tim%20John s%20and%20DDL.pdf Kennedy, C., & Miceli, T. (2010). Corpus-assisted creative writing: Introducing intermediate Italian learners to a corpus as a reference resource. Language Learning & Technology, 14(1), 28-44. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol14num1/kennedymiceli.pdf Legenhausen, L. (2011). The place of grammar in an autonomous classroom: Issues and research results. In D. Gardner (Ed.), Fostering autonomy in language learning (pp. 27-38). http://ilac2010.zirve.edu.tr/Fostering_Autonomy.pdf O’Sullivan, I., & Chambers, A. (2006). Learners’ writing skills in French: Corpus consultation and learner evaluation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(1), 49–68. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.002 Reppen, R. (2010). Using corpora in the language classroom. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Todd, R. W. (2001). Induction from self-selected concordances and self-correction. System, 29(1), 91-102. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(00)00047-6 Tribble, C., & Jones, G. (1990). Concordances in the classroom: A resource book for teachers. Harlow, UK: Longman. 55


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 56-61

Announcing the ESL-WOW for Self-Directed Writing Support Thaddeus M. Niles, Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, New York, USA. !

Overview ESL-WOW (Writing Online Workshop), a new online resource for students aiming to develop academic writing skills, has been available to the public at no charge since December 2012. Students can visit www.esl-wow.org to learn more about the academic conventions that confound new entrants into academic discourse communities, or to learn more about what makes writing clear and cogent in general. While the site is designed for adult learners and students entering community colleges, a wide variety of intermediate and advanced learners can certainly benefit from the materials offered by the ESL-WOW. Background A team from a private college in New York along with an advisory committee of researchers and writing directors from other universities and community colleges developed the ESL-WOW. A professional graphic design concept and attractive videos enrich what is a standard pre-college writing curriculum, hopefully engaging self-directed learners more than a text-only web resource. Development costs were supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, and the developing college will continue to host the web site so that students from around the world can connect to academic writing resources free of charge. Visit www.eslwow.org/additional/about.html for more details.

As part of the development and testing phase, the program was included in online courses at a large community college in California, a private college in New York, and a “flipped” writing classroom at another private college in New York, where students learned content at home before practicing or discussing what they learned together in a physical classroom. Besides the important evaluative feedback that these trial runs have provided, students may take heart in knowing that their self-directed instruction program is included in various college curricula. “Flipped” Classrooms and Self-Directed Learning “Flipped” classrooms, a topic that is enjoying somewhat of a surge these days (e.g., Watters, 2012), can be thought of as a course divided between two environments: a self-directed learning environment (i.e. the student’s home) and a traditional classroom environment where !

56


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 56-61 teachers and peers can provide clarification and feedback. At home, students learn content that used to be covered in lectures, and they return to the classroom to apply what they’ve learned (something that used to be homework) or ask questions. It is important to note that while this ESL-WOW course has had trial runs under “flipped” conditions, as well as in online classrooms, it was designed to be a free resource for students to access anywhere in the world. Thus, while it is certainly advantageous to have a writing instructor or roomful of peers with which to confer, this course always targeted self-directed learners working towards academic membership or at least academic literacy. Mastering the conventions of academic writing would seem to require both reflection and action, both knowledge and practice. Without feedback from an instructor, there is a question of whether the practice component would be worthwhile for self-directed learners (Myles, 2002). I make no great claims that the ESL-WOW can take the place of a qualified instructor and a community of reflective learners; however, I am prepared to assert that this tool makes a real contribution to the world of online writing instruction. The course focuses on grammar and rhetorical conventions (such as topic sentences, thesis statements, and employing evidence) with the understanding that students approach academic writing from different perspectives. Rhetorical awareness, as a prerequisite to intercultural communication, can help a self-directed student express themselves in academic or professional contexts and ultimately prepare future him or her to enter a Western academic culture that exhibits unique (if not quirky) composition practices (Spack, 1997). Beyond this, even those students who have no plans to enter a Western university can benefit from carefully examining their own writing practices and considering strategies that might lead to greater clarity or efficiency as they move from ideas to a finished product. In short, sparking students to think about their own writing would seem to be at the core of any program of instruction, be it in a classroom or as a self-directed online course.

Program Description! The online program divides instruction into modules based on a process-centered approach to writing, beginning with the invention phase, then continuing to the drafting, revising, and editing phases. Each module includes a series of pages that discuss issues pertaining to that stage in the writing process. For example, Figure 1 shows how “Developing !

57


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 56-61 Your Ideas” covers “Using Others’ Ideas,” which then includes discussions of citations, paraphrasing, summarizing, and so on. The modules do provide great depth and range: “Editing and Polishing,” for instance, includes five subheadings and 31 individual topics. This organization clearly invites a student to follow a rather linear writing process alongside the program, perhaps turning a composition into a self-directed workshop, or perhaps assuming too much about the student’s writing practices, which may be more unique. The web site has therefore proposed an approach to writing that may be too rigid or ethnocentric for every student and context. Yet, many should still find the program useful as a reference tool as they focus on areas that concern them during a particular moment.

Figure 1. Screenshot from ESL-WOW

!

58


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 56-61 For those who follow along with the program’s sequence, videos and reflection questions at the end of each module replace the teacher and test. The videos apply the lessons of the module or topic to model essays (or rather, chunks of material extracted from essays). For example, the topic of outlining is explored through a sample argumentative essay on air travel. This chance to see the concepts of the lesson being demonstrated though an example can be crucial for self-directed learners who, for instance, might not have an instructor to explain what an outline might look like and how it is used to structure an essay. It is important to note that this program offers no evaluation of the student’s writing; instead, the aim is to promote thoughtful writers who can benefit from a working knowledge of the expectations of academic discourse communities. For example, the reflection section may ask, “Which strategies [for editing and polishing your work] are you currently using?” “Which do you plan to use [in the future]?” The ESL-WOW does its part by providing instructions on how to use Microsoft Word’s grammar features and offering links to numerous commercial and free automated writing evaluation programs. In addition, the website’s section on “Editing and Polishing” includes video explanations and interactive quizzes on aspects such as identifying phrases vs. clauses, run-on sentences, fragments and punctuation. An additional tutorial covering plagiarism can be found at the bottom of the navigation pane. This tutorial was developed before the rest of the ESL-WOW, and features a different visual design and real-life actors. Its aim is to help students learn about the cultural norms that account for differing views towards plagiarism, and it includes tips on identifying and avoiding plagiarism. Obviously, this is directed towards future academic writers. As a general description, a colleague’s remark that the ESL-WOW is “an online version of a reference guide” is not too far off. The scope and sequence is similar, right down to the cursory look at common grammatical errors and the reliance on the argument essay as the model for Western-style, academic writing. Given these similarities, why not simply purchase a popular reference text like The Prentice Hall Reference Guide? The ESL-WOW was designed explicitly for English language learners to use when a teacher is not present (besides being free and more interactive than a book). There are countless online websites devoted to ESL writing, and plenty of academic reference texts written by experts in the field; the ESL-WOW combines the two in a novel way that suggests the curriculum will be more accessible to self-directed learners without sacrificing too much rigor and depth. !

59


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 56-61 The program’s decision to grant access to any user makes it an attractive tool for selfdirected learners, especially those entering academic communities. How to Learn More The best way to learn more is to visit the website at www.esl-wow.org and browse the program’s content. It may also be helpful to review the program’s objectives and a note from the developers describing what students will learn (links below). The website also includes a short instructor’s guide and notes on how to use the program. !

Links About ESL-WOW. (n.d.). ESL Writing Online Workshop (ESL-WOW). Retrieved February 8, 2013, from http://esl-wow.org/additional/about.html What You Will Learn . (n.d.). ESL Writing Online Workshop (ESL-WOW). Retrieved February 8, 2013, from http://esl-wow.org/app/webroot/additional/what.htm Instructor Guide. (n.d.). ESL Writing Online Workshop (ESL-WOW). Retrieved February 8, 2013, from http://esl-wow.org/app/webroot/additional/guide.htm How to Use ESL-WOW. (n.d.). ESL Writing Online Workshop (ESL-WOW). Retrieved February 8, 2013, from http://esl-wow.org/app/webroot/additional/how.html

Notes on the author Thaddeus M. Niles teaches English composition and coordinates a summer English program at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, New York, USA. He also serves as the ESL Specialist for the school’s Writing Center, sparking his interest in understanding and teaching the rhetorical conventions of Western universities. References Myles, J. (2002). Second language writing and research: The writing process and error analysis in student texts. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 6(2). Retrieved from http://tesl-ej.org/ej22/a1.html

!

60


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 56-61 Spack, R. (1997). The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language. Written Communication, 14(1), 3-62. Watters, A. (n.d.). Top ed-tech trends of 2012: The flipped classroom. Hack Education. Retrieved from http://hackeducation.com/2012/11/28/top-ed-tech-trends-of-2012-flippedclassroom/

!

61


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 62-69

JASAL Forum 2012: Making a Difference through Self Access Satomi Shibata, Tokoha Gakuen University, Japan Abstract This article reports on the JASAL Forum held at the JALT Conference in Hamamatsu on October 13th, 2012. JASAL, the Japanese Association of Self Access Learning, was set up in 2005 by Garold Murray and Lucy Cooker to provide a support network for educators and administrators involved with self-access language learning centers (hereafter SACs) in Japan. It holds a forum annually at JALT (the Japan Association for Language Teaching) conference. It has been a great success and providing information and support to those who are involved with SACs in Japan. I am also blessed with all the information and support from the JASAL Forum as I work for a SAC as the director. The 2012 JASAL Forum consisted of a poster session, three paper presentations and an open forum discussion, with the theme of ‘Making a difference through Self Access.’ The presentations this year focused on how to foster autonomy, how to develop understanding of the value of self-access among faculty and administration, and how to integrate self-access with the curriculum. All the presentations provided a brighter vision for SACs in Japan. Key words: self-access, peer advising, faculty development, autonomy

The theme of the 2012 JASAL forum, ‘Making a difference thorough Self Access’ was consistent with the theme of JALT 2012, ‘Making a difference.’ One of the differences SACs hope to make in their students’ lives is to help them develop the skills to become more successful language learners. In the last two decades, a number of SACs have been established in Japan with the purpose of offering effective self access support. Many face challenges, then find solutions, but still there are many more difficulties to be tackled. One of the common difficulties that many institutions face is how to develop understanding of the value of self access among faculty and administrators. Over ten years ago, Benson (2001) pointed out that “in many institutions, self-access centres have been established without any strong pedagogical rationale.” Now that is widely recognised as one of the most important factors, and most SACs do have strong pedagogical rationale, but some administrators or educators who are

62


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 62-69

relatively new to SACs may still not be familiar with the importance of the pedagogical rationale behind SACs. That could create the situation that what SACs actually do may not be completely understood among those who are not strongly involved with SACs. Establishing “a box� does not bring learners there automatically. Nor does it foster autonomy automatically. Not only learners but also teachers need to be trained to be more autonomous in order to create a rich self-access environment. Reflecting on the content of the different presentations and posters, I identified two distinct themes: what SACs can do outside and inside of SACs. No matter how great a SAC is, if there are no users, it will turn out to be just space with some equipment and staff. We, those who are involved with SACs, need to consider what brings users there. In addition, not all the institutions have SACs and there are adult language learners who do not belong to any language institutions. In the Forum, how we could help those who have no access to SACs was discussed. I categorised both cases as what we can do outside of SACs. On the other hand, inside SACs, we could always make systems and an environment more beneficial to users. We think of what we can do to foster autonomy at SACs or in classrooms, which I define as something we can do inside of SACs. What Can SACs Do Outside of SACs? The existence of SACs does not guarantee frequent and effective use of them. Educators and administrators need to work not only inside but also outside of SACs in order to lead learners there and help them to make the most of SACs. I believe the key concepts, discussed in the Forum, for bringing learners to SACs would be developing understanding of self-access among faculty, fostering a culture of self-access learning, and spreading the idea of autonomy outside of SACs. Developing understanding of self access among faculty Darrell Wilkins and Greg Lindeman from Soka University in Tokyo discussed challenges they faced when they encouraged students to use self-access language programs. They pointed out since the value and efficacy of self-access language

63


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 62-69

programs often exist outside of the classroom, what students could do through self-access programs was not always clear to the teaching faculty, especially part-time teachers, who were not directly involved with them. Therefore a team at Soka University redesigned and developed their programs, highlighting their benefits and providing the faculty with the confidence to encourage students to use the facilities. They delivered the information to the faculty by holding lunchtime information sessions and introduced how their writing centre and Global Village work. The writing centre offers students a variety of one-to-one 30 minute sessions and students can also choose what level of support they want to receive from paragraph level to essay level. The writing centre is well staffed with ten to twelve current students as its staff members each semester, which enables it to offer eighty sessions a week. Global Village offers ten language programs with a variety of levels from beginner to high advanced level, making it practical for students. Redesigning the self-access programs at both facilities and delivering precise information on the facilities to both full-time and part-time teachers seemed to have helped to encourage students to use the SAC more. Wilkins and Lindeman suggested that it is important to develop understanding of the value of the facilities among the faculty and making the facilities more user-friendly. Fostering a culture of active self-access use Developing a culture of active self-access use plays a significant role as well as developing understanding of the value of SACs among faculty. Some SACs struggle with bringing students there, and they remain underused. Toyo Gakuen University was once one of those SACs which were used only among a limited number of students. As Mynard (2012) points out ongoing action research is essential for continuous development, a team of Toyo Gakuen University has been working on their action research project to try to improve the situation there. They presented the action research project this year, following the 2011 JASAL Forum poster presentation. In 2011, Taylor et al. (reported in Kodate, 2012) investigated how to promote independent learning in the freshman English course, focusing on a stamp card system which was designed to help learners become more familiar with the facilities, materials, and systems there.

64


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 62-69

This year Clair Taylor, Michael Stout, Jerry Talandis Jr, and Keiko Omura talked about how to build a culture of self-access learning, focusing on the importance of teacher training. They emphasised the necessity of more teacher involvement. They also insisted that making a visit to the facility part of the grade is effective. Although making ‘visits to the facility’ mandatory is likely to be inconsistent with the idea of self-access, it actually gives students opportunities to be familiar with the facility and eventually lead them to use it continuously in a voluntary basis. The team of Toyo Gakuen University concluded that the system has fostered a developing culture of independent learning on campus, with more students engaging in self-access study. Integrating language learning into everyday life Satoko Kato and Hisako Yamashita of Kanda Institute of Foreign Languages explained how educators can help learners take great advantage of self-access learning, focusing on the importance of integrating their language learning into everyday life. Their aim is to help not only those who are fortunate enough to access SACs but also those who have no access to such facilities. Some institutions do not have SACs, and others suffer from not getting the desired support from their institutions. Therefore, they insisted that it is important to spread the concept of self-access learning to those who are not familiar with it. Both Kato and Yamashita have eight years of experience as learning advisors and have conducted over 4000 advising sessions. Based on their considerable experience and various research studies they have conducted, they found three important keys to helping students to develop good learning habits: skills to control their own learning, metacognitive awareness, and reflective skills as language learners. For the purpose of scaffolding learners to integrate language learning into everyday life, Kato and Yamashita developed a new tool, called the English Learning Planner (hereafter ELP): a planner, a booklet and a website. The ELP consists of a personalized day planner, a booklet, and a website which learners can use to manage their own learning. Developing good learning habits does not happen immediately, but comes by everyday reflection on one’s own learning. The personalized day planner is designed to

65


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 62-69

help learners to go through a preparation phase with nine activities, such as goal setting and finding a role model in order to raise metacognitive awareness. Kato and Yamashita set monthly themes based on the theories of learner autonomy. The booklet which comes with the day planner is written for the purpose of helping learners to develop knowledge on learning strategies and self directed learning skills. Furthermore, the ELP website offers more information to help learners find out their learning styles and other supporting materials. Since the ELP is written in Japanese, it may be the most beneficial for Japanese learners. Kato and Yamashita also suggest that the ELP can be used as supplementary material for classroom teaching, and in their institution over 700 students are going to take a self-directed language learning course with the ELP. What Can SACs Do Inside of SACs? It is important for learners to become familiar with SACs if SACs are accessible to them. Then what can we do inside of SACs once learners get used to using them? In the Forum, the potential of integrating self-access with the curriculum was discussed by a few institutions. Others discussed how autonomy could be fostered in the classroom. The idea of having visible ideal language learning models is also discussed as one of the important concepts in successful language learning within SACs.

.

Integrating self-access with the curriculum Herman Bartelen from Kanda Institute of Foreign Languages described how SACs would play an influential role in the English curriculum by providing opportunities and resources for self-directed learning in the classroom. Bartelen introduced five programs integrated with the curriculum. For instance, all the first year students visit the SAC, to know what they can do there. All English teachers are required to use the facility three times per semester, and then they are expected to teach in a mix of blended learning and self-directed learning. That gives students opportunities for self-directed studies. Learning advising in L1, not in L2, the target language, is also available at the centre. Advising in L1 may sometimes be necessary if learners are at a lower level of language proficiency and not yet ready to reflect on and

66


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 62-69

talk about themselves in L2. Bartelen suggests that integration between SACs and the curriculum should be carefully designed to foster autonomy. Similarly, Anthony DiGiulio of Kanda Institute of Foreign Languages also talked about how to foster autonomy through reflections in the classroom. DiGiulio conducted some classroom-based research to investigate the effects of classroom-reflections in fostering autonomy. He used “class reflection sheets” (hereafter CR), giving students opportunities to reflect on themselves. CRs had a number of positive effects: students were more motivated to engage in classroom learning because they had to reflect later on, and rapport was strengthened between the teacher and the students because they were could have a different type of communication with CR. DiGiulio emphasized that regular, written self-reflections in the classroom can be an effective method in fostering “the first steps” towards learner autonomy. Elizabeth Lammons from Kanda University of International Studies also talked about reflections focusing on self-assessment of reading strategy use. Lammons conducted research over the course of a 15 week semester, giving her students opportunities to choose the authentic materials that they wanted to read and then use different reading strategies to make sense of the texts they chose: writing a summary after reading, writing unknown vocabulary, choosing self-assessed reading materials, and continuing the cycle. Samples Lammons showed in her poster presentation suggested the students perceived this learning cycle to be effective and learned to reflect on what they learned. Lindsay Mack from Ritsumeikan Asia-Pacific University discussed the design and implementation of exploratory research with the purpose of examining peer writing advisors’ reflective journals for the issues and problems they encounter. Based on observations and reflective journals of peer writing advisors, she suggested that since peer writing tutors are non-native English writers, they are more likely to be able to draw on their experiences as successful language learners to help learners. The effectiveness of peer advisers or teaching assistants is often discussed in the field of

67


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 62-69

SAC research. Mack’s study confirmed that peer advising or support from student teaching assistants can also be effective in writing. Summary In the 2012 JASAL Forum, two themes emerged from reflecting on all the presentations and poster presentations: what we can do outside and inside of SACs in order to foster autonomy. Outside of SACs, to encourage learners to use SACs, two key concepts were discussed: to develop understanding of the value of self-access language learning among educators and administrators, and to develop culture of self-access language learning on campus. It was also discussed that if SACs were not accessible to learners, they could possibly use an assisting tool such as the ELP to integrate language learning into their everyday life. Inside of SACs or classrooms to foster autonomy, the presentations suggested the effectiveness of integrating self-access language learning with the curriculum. In both SACs and classrooms, it may be possible to help learners become more autonomous through reflections with the help of educators and peers. The 2012 JASAL Forum gave us opportunities to reflect on what we can do both inside and outside of SACs. Conclusion I remember when I first attended the JASAL Forum in Shizuoka in 2009. That was the year I started to be involved with establishing a new SAC. Although I was fortunate to have had experience of establishing a SAC previously and it was my second SAC, I still needed a lot of support. Since both of the SACs I worked for were relatively small, I had to work as a director, an advisor, a program coordinator, and an administrator. I wanted to share my ideas and feelings with other colleagues, but it was not easy to develop understanding of SACs among faculty. I attended the JASAL Forum then, and it definitely encouraged me to keep working, motivated me to make a better SAC, and even helped me to have confidence in what I was doing. If there are such educators who are struggling with working and facing difficulties, I believe the annual JASAL Forum would be a perfect place to find information they need

68


SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 62-69

Acknowledgments I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for thoroughly reading the paper and providing their valuable and thoughtful comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the paper. I would also like to thank all the presenters who shared their ideas at the JASAL Forum, giving me opportunities to think and broaden my vision. Notes on the contributor Satomi Shibata is the Director of Foreign Language Study Support Center, Tokoha Gakuen University. She is also a lecturer there. She has been involved with self-access centers for over eight years. References Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. London: Longman. Kodate, A. (2012). The JASAL Forum 2011: Growing trends in self-access learning. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 3(1), 122-13 Mynard, J. (2012). Does ‘Self-Access’ Still Have Life in It?: A Response to Reinders (2012) Retrived on Feb 24th from http://blog.nus.edu.sg/eltwo/2012/06/13/does-%E2%80%98self-access%E2%80 %99-still-have-life-in-it-a-response-to-reinders-2012/2.

69


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.