Experiments in Process Writing: Writing, Correcting and Reflecting in an 11e ‘Jeunes Adultes’
Line Jovanovic, Luxembourg
Line Jovanovic studied at King’s College, University of London, graduated in June 2006. She is currently teaching at the Lycée Technique Ecole de Commerce et de Gestion, Luxembourg. E-mail: line.jovanovic@education.lu
Menu
Introduction: description of the project, context(s), objectives
Theoretical context: making correction work
Methodology: interviews and the notion of ‘Dynamic Assessment’
Conclusion
Selected bibliography
Short outline of the project: the facts
In the second part of term II, I decided to organise a project on process writing in my 11e Commerce (‘Jeunes Adultes’). The implementation took place over a period of five weeks. Inspired by ideas resulting from background reading, exchange on appropriateness and practical details with mentor and supervisor/CODI, I had planned the project to consist of drafting and correction processes involving peer correction, self-correction and teacher correction. An oral interview in groups was supposed to wrap up the project. The development question and interview would count for 20 marks towards students’ final paper (writing: 10 marks; process and related activities: 10 marks). […]
Teaching Context I: student-specific needs and ‘Horaires et Programmes’
[T]he ‘Lifelines Upper-intermediate’ textbook that is on the syllabus for this class does not represent a sufficient challenge for most of the students. In addition, most learners are suspicious in regard to experimental learning methods. Due to academic failures, their efforts have become above all the result of extrinsic motivation and of the related ‘promise’ of achieving a final diploma in as short a time as possible. When choosing the form of writing to work on, trying to find a (for students) meaningful task while taking syllabus requirements into account, I decided in favour of the dialectical genre of the development question. Indeed, the development question is a type of exercise included in the final exam in 13e. From an intrapersonal point of view, this genre would give students the opportunity to express their personal opinion, but in a way that would imply more differentiated, elaborate reflection than ever possible in simple class discussion. The type of writing I had chosen to focus on thus enabled me to combine learning, challenge, students’ interests and syllabus demands all at once.
Rationale, general aims and objectives
In terms of disciplinary competences the foremost aim was certainly to improve students’ writing skills. This meant emphasis on structure, grammar and vocabulary (use of linking words, forceful language and style). On the other hand, process writing, which, as the term expresses, implies assessment of process (i.e. effort, personal investment and improvement) alongside the final product, would allow students to achieve a good grade independently of their usual level of competence in writing: this was likely to be perceived as an encouragement for students that had to deal with repeated academic failures. In fact, I had also wanted to create a learning context for students that would take them beyond the classroom context in which they had experienced this academic ‘breakdown.’ Process writing, which relies on students’ working independently outside of the classroom, would make this a feasible aim. At the same time, it would ask learners to abandon their passive role (partly even their victim pose) and become active in relation to their own development.
With the interviews that were going to follow the writing process, I targeted multiple objectives. In line with the process itself, more than any disciplinary competence it was existential competence (‘savoir-être’) and ability to learn (‘savoir-apprendre’) that were meant to be focused on at this stage. … The implicit message addressed to students was to underline that personal effort was expected beyond the limited horizon represented by summative assessment.
The problem of grammar correction
In ‘The Case against Grammar Correction In L2 Writing Classes,’ (Truscott, pp.327-369) Truscott calls upon Krashen (learning vs. acquisition), Ellis (implicit vs. explicit knowledge of grammar), and Schwartz (language competence vs. learned linguistic knowledge - cf. knowledge of grammar vs. knowledge about grammar) to underline that if new information provided through error correction is not fine-tuned to the learner’s developmental sequence (i.e. when instructional sequences are not in line with the student’s natural order of learning), new information cannot be integrated into his/her language use, and mere pseudo-learning or pseudo-acquisition takes place. As a matter of fact, attaining knowledge about learners’ developmental sequence (the stages in which we learn a language being only partly predictable) (Lightbrown, p.92) is a complex matter. Truscott explains that due to lack of time, practical and cognitive difficulties linked to consistency and selection in correction, access to learners’ developmental sequence is, at the present level of research, virtually impossible. […]
A case for minimal correction
I concluded that in the context of process writing, pushing students to make use of their cognitive resources is included in situations in which self-monitoring or self-correction is required. In relation to the part that concerns teacher correction, I therefore also opted for a form of correction that would oblige students to resort to self-correction. Leaving learners the room that is necessary for self-correction was made possible by combining minimal correction and selective correction. I found support for this approach in the subsequent observations made by Lalande (1) and Kieweg (2).
Das bloße Markieren von Fehlern zwingt den Lerner dazu, Fehlerart und -verbesserung eigenständig zu erschließen und führt zu einem signifikanten Rückgang von Fehlern in freien schriftlichen Texten. Die ausführliche Korrektur inklusive der richtigen Lösung durch die Lehrkraft hingegen führt sogar zu einer Zunahme von Fehlern. (Assbeck, p.22) (1)
Die Korrektur soll Teil des Lernprozesses sein (am Lernprozess orientierte Interimskorrektur) und nicht nur das Endprodukt betreffen (produkt- oder ergebnisorientierte Korrektur). (…) Die Korrektur soll vor allem auch zu höheren Formen des selbstständigen Arbeitens/Lernens führen. (Kieweg, pp.33-34) (2) (My emphasis)
The methodology used during the oral interviews was influenced by the concept of Dynamic Assessment (i.e. evaluation of students’ learning ability), which is usually contrasted with the notion of Static Assessment (i.e. measuring students’ current performance level). Group interviews (each student was to be interviewed in the same group as his/her peer corrector), socially meaningful cooperative activities, are likely to reveal ‘new cognitive functions and learning abilities’, belonging to the student’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), i.e. the difference between a child’s actual mental age and the level (s)he reaches in solving problems with assistance. The latter ‘allows us to evaluate the ability of the student to learn from the interaction with a teacher or a more competent peer,’ (Kozulin, August 2001) which had evidently already been a characteristic of the peer correction procedure itself. I used the term learning ability also called cognitive modifiability to refer more generally to students’ readiness and ability to integrate the information they have acquired about themselves and their competences in their planning of future personal progression. This crucial aspect was evaluated under a combination of the following criteria:
- students’ ability to learn from teacher and peer input/questioning during the interview
- their ability to learn from the writing and correction process, including:
- disciplinary competences in relation to writing (e.g. grammatical accuracy, use of structure)
- transversal competences: communicative, organisational, problem-solving skills
their readiness to question their views and knowledge (pre-requisites to produce cognitive dissonance, starting point for personal progress).
Evaluation
What did I assess?
As pointed out above, I wanted to evaluate both product and process. The foci or criteria of my evaluation had been defined by the objectives I had in relation to students’ development. Since not all of these objectives could be reached or, rather, sufficiently analysed by comparing and examining students’ drafts, the interview and questionnaire at the end of the project were intended to check aspects neglected by the product and process assessment, above all students’ reflection on the process and their attitude towards the project as a whole.
How did I assess? Evaluation grids and criteria
I had written the descriptors I used as a guideline in the evaluation process myself, and wherever possible had drawn inspiration from the scales of the assessment grids used by the CEFR (especially the assessment grid for spoken language use). (CEFR, p.28)
Criteria: product and process
The product (10 m) itself was assessed according to:
- grammatical and lexical accuracy
- style (forceful language, linking words)
- structure (form, paragraphing)
- reasoning (i.e. underlying argument as a whole)
- evidence for secondary research (use of reference tools)
- complexity of arguments.
By the process evaluation (5 m) I meant to measure the effort students put into:
- peer correction
- self-correction I (based on the peer’s feedback)
- self-correction II (based on the teacher’s feedback).
Criteria: Interviews and Questionnaires
Students’ (change of) attitude was assessed according to the criteria mentioned hereafter (5 m and general oral mark):
- metacognitive awareness
- cognitive modifiability
- interpersonal/communicative skills
- form (oral performance/competence)
The last but maybe most important question to ask is: What have I learned from this project that I could implement in my everyday teaching? […]
Considering the problems students have when dealing with an increase in autonomy in relation to self-regulation and ‘learning from mistakes,’ fostering exactly these skills in my future teaching practice seems essential to me. I understand that dictionary work and spotting mistakes exercises are feasible activities that can easily be integrated in everyday teaching: they represent the tools students should be in possession of to make projects like these run more smoothly, and more effective. They are important instruments in the autonomy process because they enable pupils to improve and regulate their own learning processes. I now make use of these types of assignments by asking students to fill in a worksheet with a selection of specific grammar questions/tasks (common mistakes) after each paper: this trains them in spotting mistakes and, above all, in using grammar references more consistently. Ultimately, I think that effort or cognitive modifiability should be valued more, as a transversal but also as an indispensable skill in the personal domain. If I were to implement a similar project again, I would try to focus even more on this aspect. This also entails thinking about methods through which this can be achieved. In the context of assessing and fostering effort and growth, a more general observation is that the time teachers spend on marking written work seems useless, if the form of the correction does not help students progress. [...] It seems obvious that only when students are given the opportunity to look for and find answers themselves that learning can take place.
Line Jovanovic
Council of Europe, Common European Framework of Reference for Language Teachers.
Lalande, John F. ‘Reducing Composition Errors: An Experiment’ in Modern Language Journal 66:2, 1982, pp.140-149, quoted in Assbeck, Johann, ‘Correct me if I’m wrong - Peer Correction: Texte von Mitschülern korrigieren’ in Der Fremdsprachliche Unterricht: Englisch 41:88, Juli 2007.
Lightbown, Patsy M. and Nina Spada. How Languages are Learned (Oxford: OUP, 2006, 3rd edition).
Kieweg, Werner. ‘Minimalkorrektur: Oberflächenfehler beseitigen’ in Der Fremdsprachliche Unterricht: Englisch 41:88, Juli 2007.
Kozulin, Alex and Erica Garb. ‘Dynamic Assessment of EFL Text Comprehension of AT-Risk Students’, Paper presented at the 9th Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Fribourg, Switzerland, August 2001.
Truscott, John. ‘The Case against Grammar Correction In L2 Writing Classes’ in Language Learning 46:2, June 1996.
The Methodology and Language for Secondary Teachers course can be viewed here
|
