This study was a comparative investigation of face-to- face (i.e., proximate) and computer-mediat... more This study was a comparative investigation of face-to- face (i.e., proximate) and computer-mediated written (i.e., graphic) pre-writing conferences. The participants in this study were advanced English as a second language students. The 2 types of conferences were compared in terms of textual features, participation, and the degree to which they were on topic. Moreover, drafts written after the 2 types of conferences were compared in terms of textual features, and the degree to which they were related to the conferences. Students produced an equivalent amount of discourse in an equivalent amount of time in the 2 types of conferences . The discourse in graphic conferences displayed greater lexical range, and some evidence suggests that it was less on-topic. Both these results likely occurred because the graphic conferences contained more discourse demonstrating interactive competence. Participation in graphic conferences was found to be as balanced or more balanced among students, and among students and the group leader combined. Overall, the drafts produced after the 2 types of conferences were of equivalent length and topical range, but some evidence suggests that drafts written after proximate conferences were more related to the conferences .
This repeated-measures, counter-balanced study reports on a comparison of quantity and quality of... more This repeated-measures, counter-balanced study reports on a comparison of quantity and quality of one teacher's language in face-to-face (FTF) and written electronic (WE) discussions with advanced English as a Subsequent Language (ESL) students. Transcripts from the two types of discussions were compared for complexity of teacher input and the language functions this input served during the discussions. Analyses show that the teacher contributed more words, more t-units, and longer t-units to the FTF discussions, and his contributions were longer, consisting of more t-units. The teacher's input to the FTF discussions, unlike the WE discussion, created inequality in participation in the whole group. In the WE setting, teacher language encouraged interaction with individual students, while in the FTF setting, it tended to promote interaction with the whole group. Categorization and analysis of the language functions used showed statistically significant differences. second question examines potential differences in the language functions used by the teacher, that is, the purposes teacher language served in each of the two types of discussions. Researchers have covered a broad range of issues affecting CALL teaching and learning contexts (see, for example, Hubbard & Levy, 2006;, but the role of the teacher has received little attention. Although several studies have compared students' behaviour and language in WE and FTF discussions, few have compared the role of the teacher in these discussions, and none of which the authors are aware have made this the main focus of the study. For instance, and collected quantitative data comparing student language production in the two types of discussions. and found that second language students interacted directly with each other rather than mainly with the teacher, and that students took the initiative, constructed and expanded on topics, and took a more active role in discourse management in comparison with students in FTF discussions. These studies, consistent with other researchers' findings , suggest that while the role of the teacher is usually central in FTF discussions, it is often more peripheral in WE discussions. However, these studies do not offer systematic insight into how the teacher's language production reflects the change in the teacher's role. Of particular relevance is Kern's (1995) study, in which he included a quantitative assessment of teacher input during the two types of discussions. For instance, Kern found that in one of the two class groups he investigated, Section 1, the teacher took 81 turns (45% of the total number of turns) during the oral discussion, while not contributing to the WE session at all. In Section 2, a different instructor took 44 turns (45% of the turns) in the oral discussion, while taking only 10 turns (4% of the turns) in the WE setting. Moreover, Kern found that in the Section 1 oral discussions, the most common type of instructor input was questions, followed by comments or questions on language and vocabulary, delegations of the floor (that is, selecting the next speaker), and assertions. In the Section 2 oral discussions, the most frequent type of teacher input was assertions, followed by questions, statements with an interrogative adverb appended (for example, n'est-ce pas?), and comments or questions on language and vocabulary. In the Section 2 WE sessions, the most common type of teacher input was assertions, followed by questions, and personal opinions. Kern noted that teacher questions in the WE setting tended to focus more on the content of discussion, while in the FTF discussions, teacher questions tended to focus on language and vocabulary issues. concluded that the interactions in the oral discussions "largely followed the normal pattern of classroom discourse--teacher question, student reply, and teacher evaluation of the reply (Mehan, 1985)--with few student turns being followed directly by other student turns" (p. 467). Kern noted that this pattern was rare in the WE setting, in which the quantity and variety of student language production was more consistent with that of group interaction studies. According to Kern, group interaction studies show that students typically produce more speech, and more varied speech in peer groups compared with teacher-led groups.
DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals), 2006
This study was a comparative investigation of face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Th... more This study was a comparative investigation of face-to-face and written electronic conferences. The participants were advanced English as a second language (hereafter: ESL) students. The two types of conferences were compared in terms of textual features and participation. There was no statistically significant difference in the total number of words that students produced in an equivalent amount of time in the two types of conferences. The discourse in written electronic conferences displayed greater lexical range, and students in these conferences produced more discourse demonstrating interactive competence. The statistically significant finding of increased lexical range in written electronic conferences persisted even when the interactive discourse was eliminated from the conference transcripts and the transcripts were reanalyzed. This finding suggests that, during written electronic conferences, students were better able to use and practice a wider range of vocabulary related to the topics. For one of the groups, participation in written electronic conferences was more balanced among students, while for the other group participation was about equally balanced regardless of the conference setting. This last finding came as a surprise and points to a need for further research into variables that might mediate balanced participation in face-to-face and written electronic conferences.
This chapter reports on a comparative study of face-to-face (FTF) and written electronic (WE) con... more This chapter reports on a comparative study of face-to-face (FTF) and written electronic (WE) conferences as pre-writing activities in the English as a Second Language (ESL) classroom. Twenty-seven intermediate to advanced students participated in the study over a 4 week period. Latent semantic analysis and corpus linguistics measures were used to compare the extent to which the first drafts incorporated the terms and ideas introduced during the 2 types of conferences. Although no difference was found in the length, or semantic or lexical complexity of first drafts, the results indicated greater lexical and semantic similarity between FTF pre-writing conferences and subsequent drafts. In other words, students made better use of the terms and ideas introduced during the FTF conferences when individually writing first drafts. Reasons why this may have been the case are suggested, and directions for further research are offered.
This study was a comparative investigation of face-to- face (i.e., proximate) and computer-mediat... more This study was a comparative investigation of face-to- face (i.e., proximate) and computer-mediated written (i.e., graphic) pre-writing conferences. The participants in this study were advanced English as a second language students. The 2 types of conferences were compared in terms of textual features, participation, and the degree to which they were on topic. Moreover, drafts written after the 2 types of conferences were compared in terms of textual features, and the degree to which they were related to the conferences. Students produced an equivalent amount of discourse in an equivalent amount of time in the 2 types of conferences . The discourse in graphic conferences displayed greater lexical range, and some evidence suggests that it was less on-topic. Both these results likely occurred because the graphic conferences contained more discourse demonstrating interactive competence. Participation in graphic conferences was found to be as balanced or more balanced among students, and among students and the group leader combined. Overall, the drafts produced after the 2 types of conferences were of equivalent length and topical range, but some evidence suggests that drafts written after proximate conferences were more related to the conferences .
Handbook of Research on Computer-Enhanced Language Acquisition and Learning
This chapter reports on a comparative study of face-to-face (FTF) and written electronic (WE) con... more This chapter reports on a comparative study of face-to-face (FTF) and written electronic (WE) conferences as pre-writing activities in the English as a Second Language (ESL) classroom. Twenty-seven intermediate to advanced students participated in the study over a 4 week period. Latent semantic analysis and corpus linguistics measures were used to compare the extent to which the first drafts incorporated the terms and ideas introduced during the 2 types of conferences. Although no difference was found in the length, or semantic or lexical complexity of first drafts, the results indicated greater lexical and semantic similarity between FTF pre-writing conferences and subsequent drafts. In other words, students made better use of the terms and ideas introduced during the FTF conferences when individually writing first drafts. Reasons why this may have been the case are suggested, and directions for further research are offered.
This study was a comparative investigation of face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Th... more This study was a comparative investigation of face-to-face and written electronic conferences. The participants were advanced English as a second language (hereafter: ESL) students. The two types of conferences were compared in terms of textual features and participation. There was no statistically significant difference in the total number of words that students produced in an equivalent amount of time in the two types of conferences. The discourse in written electronic conferences displayed greater lexical range, and students in these conferences produced more discourse demonstrating interactive competence. The statistically significant finding of increased lexical range in written electronic conferences persisted even when the interactive discourse was eliminated from the conference transcripts and the transcripts were reanalyzed. This finding suggests that, during written electronic conferences, students were better able to use and practice a wider range of vocabulary related to the topics. For one of the groups, participation in written electronic conferences was more balanced among students, while for the other group participation was about equally balanced regardless of the conference setting. This last finding came as a surprise and points to a need for further research into variables that might mediate balanced participation in face-to-face and written electronic conferences.
This repeated-measures, counter-balanced study reports on a comparison of quantity and quality of... more This repeated-measures, counter-balanced study reports on a comparison of quantity and quality of one teacher's language in face-to-face (FTF) and written electronic (WE) discussions with advanced English as a Subsequent Language (ESL) students. Transcripts from the two types of discussions were compared for complexity of teacher input and the language functions this input served during the discussions. Analyses show that the teacher contributed more words, more t-units, and longer t-units to the FTF discussions, and his contributions were longer, consisting of more t-units. The teacher's input to the FTF discussions, unlike the WE discussion, created inequality in participation in the whole group. In the WE setting, teacher language encouraged interaction with individual students, while in the FTF setting, it tended to promote interaction with the whole group. Categorization and analysis of the language functions used showed statistically significant differences. second question examines potential differences in the language functions used by the teacher, that is, the purposes teacher language served in each of the two types of discussions. Researchers have covered a broad range of issues affecting CALL teaching and learning contexts (see, for example, Hubbard & Levy, 2006;, but the role of the teacher has received little attention. Although several studies have compared students' behaviour and language in WE and FTF discussions, few have compared the role of the teacher in these discussions, and none of which the authors are aware have made this the main focus of the study. For instance, and collected quantitative data comparing student language production in the two types of discussions. and found that second language students interacted directly with each other rather than mainly with the teacher, and that students took the initiative, constructed and expanded on topics, and took a more active role in discourse management in comparison with students in FTF discussions. These studies, consistent with other researchers' findings , suggest that while the role of the teacher is usually central in FTF discussions, it is often more peripheral in WE discussions. However, these studies do not offer systematic insight into how the teacher's language production reflects the change in the teacher's role. Of particular relevance is Kern's (1995) study, in which he included a quantitative assessment of teacher input during the two types of discussions. For instance, Kern found that in one of the two class groups he investigated, Section 1, the teacher took 81 turns (45% of the total number of turns) during the oral discussion, while not contributing to the WE session at all. In Section 2, a different instructor took 44 turns (45% of the turns) in the oral discussion, while taking only 10 turns (4% of the turns) in the WE setting. Moreover, Kern found that in the Section 1 oral discussions, the most common type of instructor input was questions, followed by comments or questions on language and vocabulary, delegations of the floor (that is, selecting the next speaker), and assertions. In the Section 2 oral discussions, the most frequent type of teacher input was assertions, followed by questions, statements with an interrogative adverb appended (for example, n'est-ce pas?), and comments or questions on language and vocabulary. In the Section 2 WE sessions, the most common type of teacher input was assertions, followed by questions, and personal opinions. Kern noted that teacher questions in the WE setting tended to focus more on the content of discussion, while in the FTF discussions, teacher questions tended to focus on language and vocabulary issues. concluded that the interactions in the oral discussions "largely followed the normal pattern of classroom discourse--teacher question, student reply, and teacher evaluation of the reply (Mehan, 1985)--with few student turns being followed directly by other student turns" (p. 467). Kern noted that this pattern was rare in the WE setting, in which the quantity and variety of student language production was more consistent with that of group interaction studies. According to Kern, group interaction studies show that students typically produce more speech, and more varied speech in peer groups compared with teacher-led groups.
Uploads
Papers by Michael Fitze