Self-transcription workshop By Simon Cooke and Colin Skeates
Overview of the day • My share – 20 minutes • An explorative case study using self-transcription and Languaging (Colin – 45 minutes) • Break (15 minutes) • Simon – need your title here (Simon – 45 minutes) • Break (15 minutes) • Workshop (Simon and Colin – 45 minutes) • Clean up and go for a drink
An explorative case study using self-transcription and languaging Yokohama JALT, July 19th, 2014 Self-transcription Workshop By Colin Skeates
Overview • Introduction – The role of self-transcription and languaging to help students notice their deficiencies in their speech. • Literature Review • Sociocultural Theory • Research practice • Classroom practice • Method: • Participants • Course • Data collection • Results & Discussion • Classroom implications
Scenario: A farmer, a goat, a head of cabbage, and a wolf all need to get across the river in a boat that will sit the farmer and one other item. How does the farmer get everything across without the goat eating the cabbage or the wolf eating the goat?
Literature Review - Theory Sociocultural theory – Vygotsky (1934/1986) • Inner speech – not vocalized (?) • Egocentric (private) speech – used to help makes sense of the world • Social speech – used in interaction with others Each level of speech helps to mediate the other levels.
Literature Review - Theory Swain (2000) was interested in learning how using language mediates language learning; “dialogue that constructs linguistic knowledge.” (pg. 97) In other words, speech is both a cognitive activity and an utterance that can be used for reflection.
Literature Review - Theory an utterance that can be used for reflection = Languaging Noticing – students becoming aware of linguistic problems. (Swain & Lapkin, 1995; Schmidt, 1990)
Literature Review – Research Practice Self-transcription • Baleghizadeh and Derakhshesh (2012) – Use of replication task and self-transcription to help with lecturing • Cooke (2013, Today) – Autonomy • *Lazaraton (2001) Self-transcription leads to greater metalinguistically aware students. • Lynch (2001) – First article to deal with the benefits of students transcribing their own output as a tool for language learning; (2007) – Self-transcription (as oppose to teacher transcription) leads to greater gains in accuracy. • McCormick and Vercellotti (2013) – Students noticing without the teacher • Mennim (2003): Short-term effect, (2007): Long-term effects • Stillwell et al. (2010) - Complexity, accuracy, and fluency • Stone (2013) – IELTs speaking section • Skeates (Today) – Exploring self-transcription and Languaging
Literature Review – Classroom Practice • Fluency task, 4-3-2 (Maurice, 1983; Nation & Newton, 2008)
Research Questions • What do students notice when they record, and then self-transcribe, their participation in a 4-3-2 task (Maurice, 1983; Nation, 2008)? • What do students notice by looking, in groups, at the transcripts of other students, with no input from the speaker of the transcript or the teacher?
Method Overview of five week course • First teacher • Week one: topics related to themselves, strategy training and goal setting • Week two: law topics that students have previously studied • Week three: European law history – new to all students • Second teacher • Week four: European law - course taught by a lawyer • Third teacher • Week five: debate on current law issues
Method 10 2nd and 3rd year students (n=10, 8 female, 2 males) Most students were highly motivated to learn English
Method Transcripts • Students participate in speaking task 4-3-2. • While speaking, the listener of each pair holds the speaker’s cellphone up and records their speech. • Speaker then transcribes their speaking as homework. • Transcriptions are then used in a subsequent class
Method End-of-term semi-structured interview • Students were interviewed one at a time, after the course was finished and marks given out. • The interview had both leading questions and free chat components. • Students understood that the teacher was conducting research, as well finding out how the course could be improved for the following year.
Results and DiscussionTranscription See A-Chan handout
Results and DiscussionPost-course semi-structured interview • Should self-transcription be used again in next year’s course? Y = 8, N = 2 • Will you continue to do self-transcription after the course? Y = 0, N = 10 • What area did self-transcription help the most? Noticing grammar errors - same as Stillwell et al. (2010).
Results and DiscussionPost-course semi-structured interview What students say… • They would not continue after the course, BUT thought it useful enough to recommend for students enrolled in next year`s course. (Yu-chan, A-chan, Mary, Daisy, Nicky) • The first week should be seen by the student themselves, so that simple errors could be noticed and corrected in private. (Yu-chan) • 4-3-2 should not be longer than 4 minutes as students are not able to remember what they previously said, and thus the activities turns into a free chat. (Mary)
Results and DiscussionPost-course semi-structured interview What students say… • Finding mistakes are easy, fixing them is difficult. (Taneyuki, Yu-chan) • Typing is good for noticing grammar mistakes. (A-chan) Why grammar mistakes? (Colin) Able to focus a great deal; able to be more analytical. • Transcribing does not lead to noticing. It is what is done afterwards that leads to noticing. (Yu-chan, Nicky)
Results and DiscussionPost-course semi-structured interview What students say about motivation. Positive: • Because I can find so many mistakes (Yu-chan, Mary) • Can know my voice. (Rara) • I know my ability. I become more confident. (Taneyuki) • I could see a difference between my speaking on day one and day twelve. (Nicky)
Results and DiscussionPost-course semi-structured interview How did self-transcription effect your motivation? Neutral: When I spoke fluently, I became more motivated. However, when I spoke poorly, I became depressed. (A-chan) Negative: There were so many errors! (Cindy) 4-3-2 was too difficult. I couldn’t repeat the same thing each time. (Mary)
Answering my research quesitons • What do students notice when they record, and then self-transcribe, their participation in a 4-3-2 task (Maurice, 1983; Nation, 2008)? • What do students notice by looking, in groups, at the transcripts of other students, with no input from the speaker of the transcript or the teacher?
Classroom Implications What would the teacher change? • More attention to modeling (Yu-chan’s suggestion) • Actual listening to the recording by other students, not just looking at transcripts • Make clear connection between classroom content to expected analysis. For example, raise awareness of common pronunciation errors in student speech, teach about formulaic sequences. (Woods, 2006)
References • Baleghizadeh, S. and A. Derakhshesh (2012) The effect of task repetition and noticing on EFL learners’ oral output. International Journal of Instruction, 5. (1) • Cooke, S.D. (2013) Examining transcription, autonomy and reflective practice in language development. RELC Journal, 44. (1) • Lapkin, S., M. Swain & I. Knouzi (2008) French as a second language: University students learn the grammatical sense of voice: Study design, material development and pilot data. In J.P. Lantolf & M.E. Poehner (Eds.) Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages. London: Equinox • Lazaraton, A. (3rd ed.) (2001) Teaching oral skills. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English • as a second or foreign language. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle • Lynch (2001) Seeing what they meant: transcribing as a route to noticing. ELT Journal, 55. (2) • Lynch (2007) Learning from the transcripts of an oral communication task. ELT Journal, 61. (4) • Maurice, K. (1983) The fluency workshop. TESOL Newsletter, 17. (4) • McCormick, D.E. and M.L. Vercellotti (2013) Examining the Impact of Self-Correction Notes on Grammatical Accuracy in Speaking. TESOL Quarterly, 47. (2) • Mennim, P. (2003) Rehearsed oral L2 output and reactive focus on form. ELT Journal, 57. (2) • Mennim, P. (2007) Long term effects on oral output. Language Teaching Research, 11. (3) • Nation, I.S.P. & J. Newton (2008) Teaching EFL/ESL listening and speaking. New York, NY: Routledge • Schmidt, R.W. (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11. (2) • Stillwell C, B. Curabba , K. Alexander, A. Kidd, E. Kim, & P. Stone (2010) Students transcribing tasks: noticing fluency, accuracy, and complexity. ELT Journal, 64. (4) • Stone, P. (2013) transcription and the IELTs speaking test: Facilitating development. ELT Journal, 61. (1) • Swain, M. & S. Lapkin (1995) Problems in output and the cognitive processes they create: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16. (3) • Swain, M. (2000) The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J.P. Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press • Vygotsky, L. (1934/1986) Thought and Language. Massachusetts: MIT Press • Wood, D. (2006) Uses and functions of formulaic sequences in second language speech: An exploration in the foundation of fluency. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, (1)
From rehearsal to real speech – extending the life of the textbook through transcription activities Simon D. Cooke Tohoku Institute of Technology
Noticing What is noticing? “…what learners notice in input is what becomes intake for learning” (Schmidt, 1995) Learners are required to “make a comparison between their observed input and typical output based on their current interlanguage system” (Schmidt and Frota, 1986) “reflect on what is noticed, endeavour to understand its significance and experience insight” (Cross, 2002)
Autonomy “learning in which the learners demonstrate a capacity to control their learning” (Benson, 2011) A autonomous learner is involved in “…defining the objectives; …selecting methods and techniques to be used; …evaluating what has to be acquired…” (Dafei, 2007) “all formal learning is the result of deliberate intention” (Little, 1997)
A Bob likes studying English and Japanese. He doesn’t like Math. B Jane loves studying math but she hates science. A- Ask your partner Q1. What does Jane like to study? Q2. What subject does Jane hate? B- Ask your partner: Q1. Does Bob like math? Q2. What does Bob like studying?
Reflective Practice “…a team environment where learners celebrate each other’s successes and provide assistance to each other [which is] likely to promote more positive peer relationships, social support...higher self-esteem and academic achievements” (Kohonen, 1992)
Method • Contentious topics: Japan is the best country to in the world. Discuss. Where is your favourite place in Japan? Why do you like it? Recommend a place to visit (anywhere in the world) to your friends. Students should wear a uniform. Teachers should be able to wear casual clothes to work. Students shouldn’t be given any homework during the holidays Teachers should be allowed to use Japanese in the classroom
Transcription Name: Tomo _____________________________________________ Kenji Go. Yuka Go. Start. え？嫌だ！ Kenji OK. I ええと I went to Tokyo Disneyland. Tomo えええ すごいね！That’s great! Yuka 嫌だよ！ 何？
Student Comments (1) • “I’d like to improve my pronunciation. I was surprised at my bad English, but this time I could notice that. Also I want to improve my listening skill – I sometimes couldn’t listen to our conversation.” • “I wanna adopt good things from the other members” • “I want to talk with more longer sentences next time. I want to speak aggressively next time”
Student Comments (2) • “My group member spoke longer sentence without pause. That’s real conversation.” • “I could speak more than the last recording. I think my performance improved over last time because I could say my opinion than last time.” • “I exerted myself to speak naturally and a lot. I became don’t be afraid mistakes because I could speak more.”
Future research (Consolidation exercises) could help 'enable (students) to relate to aspects of language which have been made more salient, and, where gaps have been noticed, to realizations of how such gaps can be filled' (Skehan, 2003). Frequency of learned/ taught patterns Video recording Discourse analysis Analysis of feedback sessions
References References • Benson P (2011) Teaching and Researching Autonomy. Pearson Education Limited • Cross J (2002) 'Noticing' in SLA: Is it a valid concept? TESL-EJ 6/3. Available at: http://writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej23/a2.html(accessed July 20, 2011) • Dafei, D. (2007). An exploration of the relationship between learner autonomy and English proficiency. Asian EFL Journal, Professional Teaching Articles. Retrieved January 2010 from asian-efl-journal.com/pta_Nov_07_dd.pdf • Helgesen M, Brown S and Wiltshier J (2010) English Firsthand. Pearson Education Asia Limited • Kohonen V (1992) Experiential language learning: Second language learning as cooperative learner education. In Nunan D (ed.) Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching. Cambridge University Press, pp. 14-39. • Little D (1997) Language awareness and the autonomous language learner. Language Awareness 6 (2/3): 93-104 • Schmidt R (1995) Consciousness and Foreign Language Learning: A Tutorial on the Role of Attention and Awareness in Learning. In: R. Schmidt (ed.) Attention and awareness in foreign language learning.Technical Report No. 9:1-63. • Schmidt R and Frota S (1986) Consciousness and Foreign Language Learning: A Tutorial on the Role of Attention and Awareness in Learning. In R. Day (ed.) Talking to Learn: Conversation in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 237-326. • Skehan P (2003) A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford University Press