|
IATEFL Poland A Journal for Teachers of English ISSN 1642-1027 Vol. 6, Issue 1 (January 2006) |
|
|
IATEFL Poland A Journal for Teachers of English ISSN 1642-1027 Vol. 6, Issue 1 (January 2006) |
|
|
Articles |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |
|
|
|
USING WEB-BASED RESEARCH TASKS FOR THE PROMOTION OF DEEP LEARNING by
Malgorzata Kurek College of
Foreign Languages Czestochowa, Poland Introduction This article
draws on the concept of using the enormous cognitive and linguistic potential
of Web resources for better and deeper learning. It concentrates primarily on
how these resources can be used to train EFL college learners in approaching
complex research tasks in a thoughtful manner, and, consequently, using deep
learning strategies. It is based on the assumption that students' ability to
use Web resources creatively cannot be taken for granted since their
educational experience has taught them to be surface learners. Thus, the
strategies they spontaneously turn to are those of memorization, repetition
and, generally, passive reproduction of the input. Drawing from her teaching
experience, the author of this article suggests a procedure for a Web-infused training,
in which a special emphasis is placed on the process of framing research tasks
and employing deep learning strategies in the process of their completion. Deep
learning vs. surface learning Partly in response to the ever
increasing accessibility of information provided by new technologies, much
attention is currently being devoted to making learners active and autonomous
participants of the learning process. With information of any kind being
nowadays abundant and easily available, it seems that any learning situation
should aim at coaching learners to treat it as a starting point for the
creation of a new product. This is possible if they are not afraid to engage in
a wide range of higher-order thinking
processes nor discouraged by the intellectual effort that this kind of
manipulation undoubtedly requires. Here, the deep-surface dichotomy,
although relatively new in a pedagogical context, appears to best illustrate
how students respond to resources. First of all, it is common to
point to the volitional aspect of the dichotomy using the two terms, namely deep
and surface, to refer to learners' general approaches to learning. In
brief, learners with deep approaches learn to understand whereas those with surface
approaches learn for fear of failure (Biggs, 1987). This dimension appears to
be closely connected with learners' motivation and has become the subject of several research studies (Marton,
Saljo 1976; Biggs, 1987). The other aspect of the deep-surface dichotomy that
has also been given enhanced attention is connected with the amount of
cognitive manipulation that learners engage in. It can be linked to learners'
general approaches to learning, yet it can also be prompted by a pedagogic
task. Here, deep learning has come to encompass the kind of input
processing that results in the creative production of a new quality. The deeper
the processing of the input and the deeper the strategies that learners employ,
the more valuable the learning outcome [1].
In contrast, surface learning is typically characterized by the
uncritical acceptance of input and followed by its memorization and a possibly
faithful recall. The most common strategies used in surface learning i.e.
memorization, repetition and rote reproduction, do not require any intellectual
manipulation of the material under study and, thus, result in learners' mental
passiveness. Desired as deep learning is for
students' intellectual growth, it is rarely spontaneous and seems very
unpopular, especially among academically struggling students. First of all, it
requires much greater intellectual effort than surface learning. In practical
terms, this means that even well motivated students may choose not to engage in
deep learning due to time constraints or in order to reduce an over-heavy
learning load. It can also be hypothesized that most learners, especially in
the Polish reality, are not aware of the difference between surface and deep
learning strategies and they do not know how to transform the information they
are exposed to. With the traditional transmission pedagogy conventionally
prioritizing reproduction rather than creativity and expecting learners to
absorb and reproduce as much factual information as possible, it is no surprise
that the vast majority of them have been coached to be surface learners and
that this type of learning is the only learning they are familiar with. The issue of deep learning seems
especially worth investigating in the context of foreign language instruction.
Here, paradoxically, surface learning strategies make a valuable and efficient
part of learning experience. Learners of any foreign language, especially at
the early stages, are commonly expected to
use memorization, repetition and rehearsal e.g. during drills or while
memorizing new vocabulary items. Indeed, these strategies prove extremely
efficient in learning small chunks of material. Interestingly enough, some
methods of foreign language instruction e.g. the Callan's Method tend to rely almost entirely on these
strategies. It comes as no surprise, then, that even advanced and mature
language learners, being convinced of the efficacy of the strategies in
question, tend to rely heavily on them even in academic contexts, where tasks
commonly require deeper intellectual manipulation of the input. It can even be
argued that it is the inadequate transfer of
surface strategies to cognitively complex tasks of research work or term paper
writing that is responsible for low quality papers devoid of learners' personal
contribution, with information uncritically copied from other, usually
electronic sources. How
to encourage deep learning? The question is how to make
learners employ deep learning strategies against the deeply ingrained habit of
surface learning. Literature in cognition confirms that students’ intellectual
effort can be stimulated by means of properly designed tasks. It is worth
noting that task cognitive demands, i.e. the quality of intellectual processing
required for its successful completion can be regulated on the level of each of
the three task components, namely the input, the output and the elaboration
stage (Ellis, 2003, Robinson, 2001). In the context of CALL, these are
Web-based tasks that seem extremely promising for the promotion of deep
learning. The unique features of web-resources serving as input for task
completion such as information noise, lack of clear structure, linguistic and
cognitive authenticity, make them complex enough to foster the use of
higher-order thinking skills. Yet, even
the most cognitively stimulating input can be stripped of its cognitive
potential if it is followed by a traditional data-reproducing activity. For
example, making learners cite factual information from an authentic text will
undoubtedly leave its cognitive potential unexplored. In contrast, the task of
collecting information on two different products with the purpose of comparing
or evaluating them requires much deeper cognitive manipulation of data. The
differences in task cognitive complexity are best illustrated by scavenger hunt
questions[2].
Table
1.Cognitive task sequencing illustrated on the example of scavenger hunt
questions. Training learners to approach
research tasks The
question is how to make students exploit the cognitive potential of Web-based
materials to its fullest. It seems safe to hypothesize that genuine practitioners use Web
resources mostly for research-like tasks which require purposeful information
gathering followed by its manipulation and creative production. This raises the
possibility of implementing Web-enhanced instruction in academic contexts where
most tasks are research-like[3].
Such tasks share certain characteristic qualities that contribute to their
increased cognitive demands. They are enumerated in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Characteristics of research tasks. As can be seen from the above
presentation, research tasks unquestionably belong to the most challenging
academic assignments. In fact, each of the above listed features requires the
learner to engage in complex thinking processes. Although it is beyond the
scope of this article to discuss all the features in greater detail, the ill-
or non-structured character of research tasks deserves a particular mention.
Lack of clear structure means that such a task is perceived by the learner as a
problem solving situation because it is disorganized, with multiple solutions,
interpretations and goals available (Halpern, 1996)[4].
Thus, while approaching a research task learners in fact undergo the
problem-solving procedure: they need to acknowledge the level of their
familiarity or unfamiliarity with the subject, identify gaps in their knowledge
and then use the pre-defined knowledge to recognize the nature and condition of
the problem to be solved ( Obviously, the description
provided above shows the desired procedure for tackling research tasks rather
than the real one. Successful research work requires well developed research
skills and the use of deep learning strategies – the ability that only top students
develop on their own. It seems that average and academically struggling
students, when placed in a research situation, inevitably turn to the
strategies they are best acquainted with, namely the surface strategies of
reproduction. As a result, they develop numerous learning pathologies hindering
their learning progress. For instance, task instructions are persistently
oversimplified so that they lend themselves well to reproduction strategies
(Kurek, 2004). Also, numerous instances of plagiarism or procrastination occur.
Once again it needs to be emphasized that it is most evident in situations
where students are supposed to work with Web resources, since the intellectual
challenge they pose is higher than that created by traditional materials. It can be assumed that providing
learners with sufficient experience and practice with using Web resources would
help them develop appropriate research skills. Unfortunately, even casual
observation reveals that the majority of web-based tasks do not prepare learners
for dealing with research situations. They are either well structured, with
detailed instructions as to how to proceed, or they make learners operate on
pre-selected, reliable and relevant web sites. Even webquests – web-based and
inquiry-oriented long term tasks which have been designed with the purpose of
promoting the creative use of web resources, only partially bridge the gap
between classroom and real life practices[5].
Carefully designed and described stages of a typical webquest, as well as the
pre-selected input that learners are supposed to use, leave students unprepared
for the confusion, lack of knowledge and information noise that are bound to
occur in real life tasks. Bearing the above in mind, there seems to be a need
to provide college learners with Web-infused training that would equip them
with strategies for task framing and, consequently, foster critical and
purposeful use of Web resources in research work. Training
description The
training in question has been designed for sophomore EFL college students, with
the purpose of sharpening their research skills and promoting the use of deep
learning strategies. In particular, it aims at teaching students to use Web
resources critically and creatively for research tasks and academic writing.
Prior to the training, all the participants take part in computer-enhanced
literacy sessions during which they learn how to efficiently search for
information, evaluate its quality and cite it properly (Kurek, 2002). Thus, in
practical terms, the training builds on all the previously learnt electronic
and information literacy skills with the focus of transferring them into a new
context.
Table 3: Syllabus
proposal for the computer-enhanced literacy course. The process of task framing
presented and discussed below belongs to Stage III of the above-presented
literacy course. In brief, it teaches students how broad interdisciplinary
research tasks can be broken into steps and given an internal structure.
Exemplary topics range from Submarines, Volcanoes, Deserts of
the World to Acid Rain. The procedure for the whole session has been
attached in form of a students' handout in Appendix 1,
yet due to the limited scope of this article only the process of task framing
will be highlighted in the following sections, with the initial stages of topic
negotiation and group forming excluded from a detailed analysis. A brief
outline of the task framing process is presented in Table 3 below.
Table
4. Suggested procedure for task framing. The idea of training learners in
task framing is based on two main assumptions, namely that a research task
resembles a problem solving situation and thus inevitably breeds the feeling of
confusion, which can be alleviated if learners are able to identify and close
gaps in their knowledge (Step 1), and secondly, that the confusion, if not
properly tamed, leads to the spontaneous use of surface learning strategies,
since they are simpler and less cognitively demanding than the deep ones. In
keeping with this, it can be hypothesized that instructing the learner how task
perplexity can be successfully curbed is likely to promote deeper and better
learning. In the discussion that follows, the topic Earthquakes has been
used as an example of any research task which lacks precise instructions and
which needs to be structured by the task participant himself. Task topic : Earthquakes Step 1: Identifying knowledge gaps. Instructions for
learners: 1.
Make a list of basic questions that need to be
answered in order to begin your investigation of earthquakes. 2.
Use the Web to answer them. 3.
Meet your partners and check/share what you
have learnt. The
purpose of this stage is to make learners accept the fact that it is doubt,
uncertainty and generally lack of knowledge that drive genuine research work.
It seems that the majority of learners wrongly perceive lack of knowledge and
the ensuing feeling of confusion as an inhibition discouraging them from
further effort rather than intellectual stimulation. Thus, the first step
imitates the initial stage of dealing with a problem-solving situation. In
order to separate what is known from what is to be learnt, students compile a
list of foundation questions, the answers to which will provide them with basic
factual information. For example, students researching the subject of
earthquakes are expected to generate the following questions: Ø
What are earthquakes? Ø
Where do they occur? Ø
Why are they dangerous? Ø
How do they happen? The
answers are to be found on the Web and then shared orally with other team
members. Students work within set time limits (circa 15') and are instructed to
take notes, although they are not allowed to copy the information verbatim. Although
this stage is seemingly simple, it reveals one of the major weaknesses of
students' interaction with Web resources. While proceeding through numerous
electronic texts in the attempt to unearth the answers, learners do not make
the effort to internalize the information they find. Instead, they glide over
texts focusing on the linguistic level only, without any deeper assimilation of
the content. This becomes clear when they meet other group members to share
search results. Even casual observation reveals that most of the students are
unable to pass very basic information in their own words, without the support
of the original text displayed on the computer screen - a pattern of continuous
recurrence among surface learners. This leads to the further conclusion that
having easy and unrestricted access to
plentiful sources gives students the soothing appearance of possessing
knowledge whereas what they have is raw information[6]. In the context of the training in question, this
experience has a more universal dimension since it is warning that information
needs to be internalized and that this process is rarely effortless – an
important lesson to be learnt as regards students' future encounters with
electronic texts. Step 2: Identifying different
perspectives. Instructions
for learners: 1.
What are the different
perspectives you can view the topic from? 2.
Choose the perspective that
appeals to you most. The aim
of the middle stage of the training in question is to make students sensitive
to the interdisciplinary aspect or research tasks and, consequently, to the
counterarguments that might be provided by readers representing other areas of
expertise. In fact, only traditional classroom activities are artificially kept
within the bounds of one discipline, whereas tasks performed by genuine practitioners
border on several ones. For instance, writing an essay on literature requires
the knowledge of the history of a given
period, social background and, obviously, the knowledge of literature
heuristics. Similarly, the already mentioned research work on earthquakes will
call for the background knowledge of geology, geography, seismology or even
rescue techniques. The process of identifying these perspectives is likely to
deepen students' understanding of the task and help them see the complexity of
knowledge. Also, it fosters their critical thinking skills since it shows the
importance of seeing things from alternative points of view.[7] Step 3: Developing expertise Instructions
for students: 1.
Make a list of more
detailed questions for the perspective you have chosen. 2.
Use the Web to answer the
questions and explore your area of expertise in greater detail. Take notes but
avoid copying somebody else's words. 3.
Meet your team mates and
share what you've learned. The last stage of the task framing
procedure allows students to develop a sense of expertise and, at the same
time, is intended to draw their attention to the role of cooperation. This
stage reflects the multifaceted nature of contemporary real-life tasks
undertaken by genuine practitioners. Since such tasks are interdisciplinary,
they require team effort and, consequently, close cooperation between highly
qualified team members. Similarly, each of the students in the process of
developing their own expertise stands a chance of becoming a valued team member
and contributing to the quality of the final product, be it an oral
presentation or a written assignment. Also, since during this stage learners
repeat the procedure of asking questions and working with Web resources with
the purpose of sharing the information, it is hoped that this time they will
employ deeper learning strategies and internalize the necessary information. The procedure described above usually
takes about 50-60 minutes and is followed by a distribution of precise
instructions describing the nature of the final product and the assessment
criteria. For instance, students learn whether they are supposed to write a
report, present a talk show or prepare an itinerary. This converts the task
from open to closed, the reason being that open tasks prove less motivating
than closed ones (Jacob, 1996 in Robinson, 2001). It seems that the freedom
that open tasks offer is often perceived by learners as a license to follow the
simplest mental route and thus, contrary to teachers' intentions, may lead to
surface learning. Indeed, observation reveals that despite having participated
in the training, some students persistently employ surface learning strategies,
even if this means task distortion and results in a low quality product (Kurek,
2005). Also, it needs to be stressed that the training described above is
fairly teacher-controlled, yet in the subsequent research tasks the teacher's
control is gradually fading away, with the final objective being to prompt
students' automatic use of deep learning strategies Conclusion The need
for the above presented training emerges from the observation that the cognitive potential of the
Web, although enormous, all too often is taken for granted, with no sufficient
care taken over what learners actually do with Web resources. Literature in the
field repeatedly links Web-materials with the promotion of critical thinking
skills, yet daily experience shows that having been coached to be surface
learners, students unwillingly break old habits and engage in effortful
intellectual processing of information. More commonly, they slip into
reproduction strategies. As
regards language learning contexts, the question emerges whether making
students engage in deep learning results in better linguistic performance. Here
it must be remembered that the deeper the intellectual manipulation the more
likely it is that students will memorize the material being manipulated. As
Robinson puts it, "the greater
the cognitive demands of a task, the more they engage cognitive resources
(attention and memory), and so are likely to focus attention on input and
output" (Robinson 2001:305).
Since in Web-based research tasks only authentic sources are used, in
theory at least, their linguistic content should be easily acquired. Indeed,
although no research has been done into the rate of language acquisition during
deep learning, it seems that learners who use deep learning strategies perform
much better, use more sophisticated vocabulary and are able to apply it in more
varied contexts. To conclude, it should be
emphasized that the profusion of linguistically authentic electronic texts
which are so easily accessible via the Internet creates great learning
opportunities. Since they cover a huge variety of topics dealt with in a
foreign language, they will be inevitably used by students seeking both
language resources and factual information. Unfortunately, lack of research
skills and deep learning experience frequently results in students' gliding
over texts without the internalization of content. Also, numerous instances of
web-based plagiarism, especially among academically struggling students,
demonstrate the dominance of surface learning strategies. So, paradoxically,
although the informative value of Web resources is well appraised, their
abundance, accessibility and overwhelming cognitive complexity, if not properly
attended, may lead to the fossilization of inappropriate learning behaviours, especially
the surface strategies of mechanical reproduction. References Bereiter, C., Scardamalia,
M., (1987). The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale, HJ: Biggs, J. (1987). Student
Approaches to Learning and Studying. Hawthorn,Vic: Australian Council for
Educational Research. Brown, J.S., Collins, A.,
& Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational
Research, 18 (1), 32-42. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based
Language Learning and Teaching. Halpern, D.F. (1996). Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking. Jacob, A. (1996). Anxiety and
Motivation in Second Language Task Performance in Singaporean Schools.
Unpublished M.A. dissertation. National Johns, A. (1997). Text, Role and
Context. Developing Academic Literacies. Kurek, M. (2002). The
Internet in ESL college education – a proposal for the Internet-enhanced
college course. Teaching English with
Technology 2 (5), http://www.iatefl.org.pl/call/j_article11.htm#article2. Kurek, M. (2004). In quest of
academic competence – Web-based
research tasks. Workshop presented at the 13th Annual IATEFL Poland
Conference, Kurek, M. (2005). Wykorzystanie Internetu w celu
ksztaltowania postaw badawczych studentow filologii angielskiej na poziomie
kolegialnym. In K. Karpinska-Szaj (Ed.), Nauka Jezykow Obcych w Dobie
Integracji Europejskiej. Lask: Leksem, 381-189. Marton, F., Saljo,R. (1976). On Qualitative Differences in
Learning. 1- Outcome and Process. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
46, 4-11. Paul, R. (1990). Critical
Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World. Robinson, P. (2001). Task
complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design. In Peter Robinson, (ed.) Cognition
and Second Language Instruction. Spack, R., Zamel, V. (eds.) (1998). Negotiating
Academic Literacies. Mahwah, NJ.: Notes 1.
Deep learning strategies involve those of synthesis,
analysis, evaluation, hypothesizing or decision making. 2.
A scavenger hunt is an information retrieval activity
in which individuals or teams search the web for answers to questions on a
variety of topics. 4. The
most representative task is writing in response to other texts which
corresponds with Bereiter & Scardamalia's
(1987) knowledge transforming. In an academic context it is best
represented by term paper and thesis writing. 5.
The concept of well and ill-structured tasks is
partially reflected in the distinction between closed and open tasks. 6. More
information about webquests can be found at http://webquest.sdsu.edu/about_webquests.html 7. In
common view, knowledge is defined as internalised and utilised information. 8.
This ability is described by R. Paul (1990) as "strong-sense"
critical thinking and represents its highest level. It is contrasted with
"weak-sense' critical thinking where the reasoning skills are used in
defence of one's own views only. Appendix 1
Framing research tasks Students' task sheet 1. Have a look at the titles listed
below and circle all the topics you find interesting or attractive. q
Ancient q
Cloning q
The Crusades q
Submarines q
Deserts of the World q
The q
Earthquakes 2. Find 2-3 people you would enjoy
working with. 3. Decide on the topic that all of you
would be equally interested in. Once it has been decided upon, write it down in
the space provided. ……………………………………………………………………… 4. Cooperate with your group mates to
make a list of basic questions that need to be answered to get started. e.g. What
is……………………………………………………? ………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………. 5. Use the Internet to answer the questions
you've just listed. Try to understand the answers rather than copy them. 6. Meet your partners and share what
you've learnt. 7. What are the different perspectives
you can view you topic from? List them below. ……………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………. 8. Become an expert! Choose one area
of expertise and list the more detailed questions that will guide you in your
work. List them below: ……………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………………. 9. Use
the Web to answer the questions and explore your area of expertise in greater
detail. Take notes but avoid copying somebody else's words. 10.
Meet your team mates and share what you've learned. 11. Ask your teacher for detailed
instructions as to what kind of product is expected of you. COMMUNICATION
VIA E-MAIL IN ESP
by Galina Kavaliauskienė and Vilhelmina
Vaièiūnienė The greatest problem in
communication is the illusion that it has been accomplished George
Bernard Shaw Introduction
E-mail is a form of asynchronous
communication via computer-mediated application of the Internet. Using an
E-mail extends language learning time and place beyond the classroom, offers
real communication in the target language, and provides possibilities to
increase the amount of time that learners spend reading and writing in a
communicative context. In spite of being a relatively plain medium, e-mail can
offer effective pedagogical benefit of communicative interaction to the process
of learning a foreign language. This paper describes the research
into the e-mail exchange activities between two English for Specific Purposes
(ESP) classes of different specializations. The primary accent of this research
has been to investigate e-partners’ ability to negotiate the choice of
materials and the content of presentations on professional themes via e-mail
exchanges. Such an approach emphasizes learner’s ability to search for
information online, critically analyze and sort materials out and select
reliable information. Appropriate use of multimedia for this purpose encourages
learners to become more self-directed and autonomous in their learning.
Integration of learner collaboration into e-mail exchange project develops
their skills of negotiating, planning, and sharing information. The secondary
aspect of this research has been an analysis of the quality of online designed
presentations that were delivered in face to face conference session. The
implications of this experiment are discussed. Literature Review of Contemporary
E-Mail Learning
Current
advances in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) affect the ways how
English language is taught and students develop their language skills. In the
20th century, ICT was often referred to as Computer Assisted Language Learning
(CALL). Lately nearly all learning has incorporated letter ‘e’, and e-learning
has become natural part of English instruction. Keeping up
to date with e-learning is a fast-moving discipline on the Internet. Nowadays
Internet offers the activities of reading daily e-learning newsletters, online
magazines and attending e-learning conferences. Interpersonal exchanges engage
learners in real life communication with key partners. E-partners can be found
on the Net by employing common search engines. Unfortunately, e-mailing between
at random found key pals does not lead to effective learning, and, as a rule,
is limited to exchanging personal information. Even with suitable key partners,
e-mailing can often be problematic in terms of time and reliability of the
contacts. E-mail
seems to be the most important, unique method for communication and developing
relationships since the telephone (Suller, 1998). First, it is easy to use.
Second, people find it familiar and safe – it is similar to letter writing.
Third, it is the most common and powerful. Unlike face to face encounters,
e-mail exchanges are asynchronous, i.e. do not happen in ‘real time’. A person
has time to think, evaluate, and compose a message. Availability of thinking
time can save e-partners from unnecessary misunderstandings and arguments.
However, a person’s ability to communicate effectively via e-mail depends
highly on their writing skills (Suller, 1998): ‘E-mail is a less spontaneous
form of communicating than speech. Unlike verbal conversation - where words
issue forth and immediately evaporate – writing places one’s thoughts in a more
visible, permanent, concrete, and objective format. Poor writing can result in
misunderstandings and possibly conflicts’. Spelling, grammar, vocabulary,
sentence structure and style influence the quality of the writing and reflect
one’s personality. ICT
collaborative project between two schools in Rationale
and suggestions for using e-mail in foreign language teaching are described in
(Gonglewski et. al., 2001). Pedagogical benefits of e-mail are: extending
language learning time and place, providing a context for real-world
communication and authentic interaction, expanding topics beyond
classroom-based themes, promoting student-centered language learning, and
encouraging equal opportunity participation. A number of suggestions for using
e-mail are offered: group e-mail exchanges, e-mail interaction within the
class, e-mail interaction between classes, one-to-one e-mail interaction. The survey
of computer use at the University of Canberra revealed that a little over half
of the 128 respondents were regular users of computers, spending time surfing
the Internet or e-mailing (Jones, 1998). According to survey conducted at the Learners’
attitudes and difficulties in learning ESP online were examined in
(Kavaliauskiene, 2003). It was revealed that 71% of 74 respondents use e-mail,
and 52% like learning English online. The major difficulty is evaluation of
information caused by reading comprehension problems in English. Majority
of researchers concur with the opinion that e-mail writing is a hybrid of
discourse, combining features of both spoken and written genres. Therefore, it
has the potential to help improve language learners’ oral skills. However,
e-mail writing remains essentially written discourse. While writing in the
target language, e-partners give each other a chance to read authentic expressions,
notice grammatical structures, copy words when responding. What is paramount in
e-mail learning experience is learner reflection on language and making use of
various resources such as dictionaries and grammar books (http://www.well.ac.uk/wellclass/email.html). The
concept of etiquette in e-mail is known as ‘netiquette’, which includes some
straightforward rules, like being positive, polite, accurate, brief, clear.
Identifying oneself, pointing ‘subject’, and avoiding unfamiliar acronyms are
rules of a thumb. Guidelines of e-mail writing in business communication extend
netiquette rules further: clearness, conciseness, courtesy, consideration,
completeness, concreteness, correctness (Jones & Alexander, 1996). A survey
conducted in Certainly
the most readily accessible key partners for students in a class are their
classmates themselves (Porcaro, 2002). E-mail activities within the class can
be effectively controlled, and structured communication is easily attainable.
Possible disadvantage might be the excessive use of mother tongue in
monolingual classes. A valuable
quality of e-mail communication is learners’ collaboration. Collaborative
learning provides the opportunities for learners and teachers to communicate,
discuss and collaborate online – either one-to-one or in groups. It helps to
bring together groups of learners for a learning event, i.e. create learning communities.
The term peer-to-peer learning is used for groups of learners who learn
together by setting up connections between the peers. A survey into quality of
e-learning (Massy, 2002) indicates that EU respondents are unimpressed with
e-learning. 61% of respondents rated the overall quality of e-learning
negatively. Only 1% rated it excellent, and 5% - very good. Summing up the literature, the
language exchange activities via e-mail are thought to be beneficial to
learners. We set up an e-mail project between two English for Specific Purposes
(ESP) classes of different specializations. The major objective of this
research has been to investigate key partners’ ability to negotiate the choice
of materials and the content of professional presentations on suggested topics
via e-mail exchanges. A final stage of a project is the collaborative delivery
of prepared presentations in front of the audience. Research
Techniques
Each of us
taught a class of learners with different specialization profile. We set up a pilot
project between two classes with the objective of applying language exchange
activities via e-mail for preparation of professional presentations. The
project aimed to place students in authentic situation, where they could carry
out a series of negotiation tasks with their e-partners. Attention was paid to
outlining of ESP themes that students were expected to handle. The exchange of
e-mails meant an on-going chain of communication on choice and selection of
materials, negotiation on presentation layout and content, sharing and
adjusting views and coming to a final consensus. There were
24 participants – 12 from each class. Six ESP topics were assigned at random to
each pair in both classes. Learner pairs were asked to contact their peers via
e-mail, negotiate the choice of materials, contents of presentations and
prepare PowerPoint variant for making a public presentation in front of the
audience. Students were requested to send their exchange e-mails to each other
and forward them to both teachers, who were able to monitor students’ progress
in preparation of presentations and analyze learners’ difficulties. Teachers’
task was to keep track of e-mail exchange, both incoming and outgoing, and not
interfere into students’ communication activities, i.e. let them work at their
own pace. Regrettably, two students dropped out of this project soon after its
outset for some vague reasons. Results and Discussion
Research
findings are described below. The data on students’ emailing activities and
effectiveness of their negotiations aiming at preparation of professional
PowerPoint presentations are analyzed. The performance of students in front of
the audience and feedback on self- and peer-assessment are presented. Analysis
of E-Mail Messages The
purpose of e-mail communication between key pals was the exchange of
information and negotiation of content and choice of material for the final
stage of the project - delivery of presentations. Having no opportunity to meet face-to-face learners had to plan their
final product of the project - a PowerPoint presentation. Learners could enjoy
full independence in use of information sources, choice of material, frequency
of e-mail correspondence. E-mail provided students with an opportunity to
interact with their key pals in the ‘specialist’ language, thus increasing
their fluency in writing on professional topics. Teachers
have been able to monitor learners’ progress in preparation of their
presentations via e-mails forwarded to them. There has been no teachers’
interference into students’ activities. 52 e-mail letters were exchanged by the participants of the project in
the allotted period. However, the frequency of correspondence between partners
differed greatly. The most active learners communicated on regular basis sending
15 e-mails, whereas one group of learners sent only 3 messages. Every message dealt with some kind of information or data on the chosen
topic, very often with attached files of information dealing with a specific
question. Thus, e-mailing between key pals performed a referential function.
The most typical scenarios of correspondence were as follows: a) introducing;
b) suggestions on the plan for the presentation on the selected theme; c)
exchange of information, website addresses; d) negotiating the content of the
presentation, agreeing or disagreeing
on the chosen material; e) discussing the delivery of the presentation,
technical aspects, possible
difficulties with PowerPoint equipment. The most
challenging aspect of the e-mailing between key partners from two groups of
different specializations was students’
autonomy and collaborative responsibility in decision making process.
All collaboration and e-negotiations proceeded in the learners’ spare time at
their own convenience. Learning Effects Learning
effects are usually estimated by analyzing the students’ performance. When
learners manage to get the message across correctly, this part is categorized
as successful communication. When learners fail to get their message across at
the first attempt, the second attempt is usually categorized as reformulation.
The remaining parts of erroneous communication are coded as other attempts ( In our
settings, there have been neither reformulations nor other attempts. Learners
have been able to get their messages across at the first attempt, and their
performance can be coded as successful communication. However,
the learners produced a variety of writing errors, such as lexical, grammatical,
and syntactic errors, which were counted for each learner. The analysis of the
present study is based on error points defined as the absolute number of errors
identified in learners’ e-mail messages. The errors included the omission of
the definite or indefinite articles, the 3-rd person singular form, and the
word order in the main or subordinate clauses. Errors in spelling have not been
taken into account because this type of errors has not caused any
misunderstandings in communication. Two types
of statistics are used to analyze the data. Descriptive statistics are used to
characterize a set of data in terms of central tendency and to show how the
numbers disperse or vary around the centre. Central tendency is defined as the
propensity of a set of numbers to cluster around a particular value. The
important thing, however, is to note that descriptive statistics do not allow
drawing any general conclusions that would go beyond the sample, but data would
show a trend in the research area. Three computations are often used to find
central tendency: the mean, the mode, and the median. The mean is the average
of all numbers. The median is the point in the distribution below which 50% of
the values lie and above which 50% lie. The quantitative statistics are usually
used to find the level of significance in obtained data, and a variety of tests
is used for this purpose. The most reliable for small samples is considered to
be the t-test. The aim of
analysis has been to compare the performance of two groups - 12 women and 10
men. Individual scores of error points are summarized in Table 1. Participants
are presented in pairs.
Table 1.
Error Points for Each Pair of
Participants. (Note: all names are fictitious). Let us
look closely at the differences in performance between females and males. At the first glance, the males seemed to
make fewer errors than the females. As it can be seen in Table 1, the learners
of the female group (Nw = 12) made a total of 75 errors, and the
learners of the male group (Nm = 10) made 51 errors. The average
number of errors, or the mean value Mw calculated for the female
group is 6.25, and the mean value Mm for the male group is 4.5.
Computed Standard Deviations are SDw =1.358 and SDm =1.597,
respectively. Thus, on the average it seems that males performed better than
females. However,
it is important to know if the difference between the two mean values is
significant or not. The t-test is the most frequently used measure in
second language research to solve such a problem when comparing mean scores for
two groups. The adjustment for group size is made by using a table showing
degrees of freedom df (Brown & Rodgers, 2002). A degree of freedom df
for t-tests can be determined by subtracting 1 from the number of
participants in each group and then adding the two resulting numbers together.
In our settings, df = 20. Our
application of t-test computation to the data in Table 1 gives the t-value
of 2.738. In the t-test Table (Brown & Rodgers, 2002), for df
= 20 the critical values for t are: at the p = 0.01 level of significance (two-tailed) t is equal to
2.845, at the p = 0.02 level of significance (two-tailed) t = 2.528, at the p = 0.05 level of significance (two-tailed) t = 2.086, at the p = 0.10 level of significance (two-tailed) t = 1.725. The t value
that we calculated using the Means and Standard Deviations for both groups was
2.738. This value is greater than the critical values in the t –test
table both at the 0.10, 0.05 and 0.02 levels of significance, but smaller than
tabled value at 0.01. Therefore it means that statistically we have found a
significant difference between men and women at p < 0.01, i.e. men are
significantly better than women at avoiding errors in e-mail writing. Analysis of E-Mail Language Style The vast
majority of people, 82%, believe good manners matter online, and 56% of 2000
adults questioned get annoyed by e-mail messages that were over-familiar,
included spelling or grammatical errors, or lacked a proper greeting (Ward,
2001). Debrett’s and MSN have provided a short guide to help the e-illiterate,
which suggest adopting the correct tone for each occasion and remind e-mail
users ‘you are what you write, you will be judged by the content and style of
your e-mail so do yourself justice’. Analysis
of email language supplied information on students’ abilities to explore a
foreign language for meaningful communication. Students use a typical mixture
of formal and informal styles. Beginning a letter with “Hi!” or “Hello!” they
finish it with “Sincerely yours“. Many researchers note that e-mail
communication reminds of a delayed conversation. The analysis of students’
correspondence indicated this similarity with the oral communication. Some
letters had no introduction or greeting, and just delivered important
information. This is peculiar to male letters. e.g. “It looks like we are in the final
stage of our project……” Or “If you have the blue book, you can
find information related with our subject….” All
students who participated in the project benefited from the opportunity to
negotiate the contents of the professional topics and develop their social and
collaboration skills. It is known that e-mail language performs referential and
affective functions. Referential function is to convey information or content,
whereas affective expresses feelings, emotions and social relationships between
partners of correspondence. Women use more compliments and apologies. Generally
speaking, women’s e-mail language is more affective than men’s. Lithuanian
female students’ letters contain more features of affective language, i.e.
thanks, compliments, or apologies. The women’s letters sound more personal and
friendly. E.g. Female message: “Hello, Thanks for your letter, and sorry we
haven’t written for so long…….” “Hello, Simona and Ruta. Sorry for not replying to you at
once……..” E.g. Male message “Hi, you know I had time, therefore
I have made an example of our presentation. ….” Some findings on gender-based affective aspects of e-mail messages are
presented in Table 2.
Table 2.
Affective Aspects in Participants’ e-mails. Gonglewski
et.al. (2001) in their research into e-mail use in foreign language teaching among
other positive aspects note that it is a practical opportunity to improve
vocabulary and writing. The aim of Lithuanian e-mail correspondence was
particular: to discuss and negotiate the material for preparation of PowerPoint
presentations upon professional topics. Therefore, no visible improvement of
written language was observed. Students had an opportunity to clarify their
opinion, or offer some help, or reject peers’ suggested plan or idea. Thus, the
focus was on communication. Timing and Delivery of Presentations Students
were allotted five weeks to prepare their presentations via e-mail negotiations
with e-partners they have never met before. Teachers have been able to monitor
learners’ progress in preparation of their presentations via e-mails forwarded
to them. There was no teachers’ interference into students’ activities. All
collaboration and e-negotiations proceeded in the learners’ spare time at their
own convenience. All the
teams met the day before the formal presentations in order to practise using
multimedia and to check the adherence to e-specification. Next day students
delivered their presentations in front of the audience, and their performance
was video-taped. Presentation time for each team was limited to 20 minutes.
Regrettably, not all presenters managed to deliver their talks within the time
limit. Self- and Peer-Assessment of Preparation and Delivery After the
delivery of presentations, we conducted the self-assessment and peer-assessment
session by administering a specially designed questionnaire. Students were
asked to assess the difficulties that they faced in stages of preparation and
delivery of presentations. Learner
self- and peer-assessment provides teacher with extensive first-hand
information about their anxieties and reactions to teaching techniques and
materials. The major benefit of learner self-assessment is its impact on the
learning. The
results of self-assessment of difficulties are shown in chart 1. It is seen
that slightly more than a fifth of respondents (23%) had problems in searching
for relevant materials, which is shown by the lowest bar in the chart. Only 5%
of students found it difficult to coordinate their efforts in choosing the
contents – this is revealed by the second bar in this chart. 18% of learners
had problems in using PowerPoint software – the third bar in the same chart.
Interestingly, only 9% of learners have admitted being familiar with the
PowerPoint software before this project. Therefore, the vast majority of
students had to master the technique in the process of preparing their
presentations. Almost half of respondents (45%) had difficulties in delivering
their presentation – it is depicted by the fourth bar in the chart 1. 
Chart 1. These
results are consistent with the findings shown in chart 2. Multitude of
respondents (86%) feel their performance was successful – the upper bar in
chart 2. Over the third (36%) consider their talks interesting, and 14% -
professional. None of the respondents ticked other choices of a questionnaire
like an unsuccessful, unprofessional, or boring performance. Nobody considered
their performance faultless and perfect, although some of them were extremely
good. Learners’ modesty or shyness explains such responses. 
Chart 2. In a
questionnaire section of specifying one’s responses about quality of
performance, there were such answers as lack of allotted time for presentation,
a necessity to contemplate and reflect on delivery, and anxiety and thrill
during performance. None of respondents thought they were relevant. Peer-assessment
allowed identifying the best presentation. It happened to be ‘War on Terror’ as
the most informative and picturesque. All participants expressed feelings of
fulfilment at having accomplished their assignments. Conclusions The
research was conducted into gender differences on error points in e-mail
messages in ESP. Female participants had a mean value M w of errors
of 6.25 and Standard Deviation SD w
= 1.358 while male participants had a mean value M m of
errors of 4.5 and SD m = 1.597. A t –test analysis of the
differences between the Means yielded a t = 2.738. This is significant
at the p < 0.01 with freedom degrees fd = 20. Therefore,
statistically men participants are proved to be significantly better at writing
e-mails than women participants. The
significance of this study is its relevance to meaningful communication in ESP.
Language exchange activities via e-mail with the objective of preparing
presentations demonstrated their expedience as teaching tools in English for
Specific Purposes. Learners succeeded in preparing presentations online and
successfully delivering professional presentations in front of the audience. Analysis
of e-mail messages and delivery allows concluding that inter-group
collaboration fosters learners’ autonomous learning, improves writing and
speaking skills, develops learners’ ability to negotiate and get the meaning
across, demonstrates the significance of the meaningful learning, i.e. learning
subject through English, and allows learners to experience sense of
accomplishment. References
Brown, J.D. & Rodgers, T.S. (2002). Doing Second Language Research.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Last Updated: January 10, 2006 |
