theory & practice

Extensive Writing Online:

Richard S. LavinFESSPUK

Few classes with one teacher; insufficient contact with English

Emphasis on reading, grammar, vocabulary in high school.

Problems with first year tertiary English

Speaking in class

Writing outside of class

Solution

Things students are interested in

Emphasis on fluency

Quantity

What kind of writing?

“reading comprehension is predicted far morepowerfully by variables associated with the amount of reading that students engage in and their opportunities to read…”

Quantity

Cummins, J. (2000). Academic language learning, transformative pedagogy, and information technology: towards a critical balance. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 537-48.

“grammatical aspects of students’ writing seemto improve more from regular practice than they do as a result of having errors corrected”

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-69.

Archiving

Countable

Analyzable

Access any time

More sociable

CMC encourages greater volume

Online is best!

CMC > greater volume

Braine, G., & Yorozu, M. (1998). Local area network (LAN) computers in ESL and EFL writing classes. JALT Journal, 20(2), 47-59.

“perhaps the most remarkable and appealingfeatures of LANs are the high volume of

writing by students and their great degreeof participation”

Classroom dynamic

“the instructor played less of a role in Web-based BB discussions than the students did [whereas in face-to-face discussions contributions were] distributed evenly between the instructor and the students”

Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2000). Looking to the future of TESOL teacher education: Web-based bulletin board discussions in a methods course. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 423-55.

“Shy students who usually do not participate in class discussion expressed opinions elaborately in online discussions, and greater participation was witnessed”

Shibuya, A. (2002). Utilizing eGroup for Japanese students. The Language Teacher, 26(3), 21-22.

Similar to ER:

Quantity

Enjoyment

Different from ER:

Social

Extensive Writing

Chat

Email

Mailing lists (Email groups)

BBS

Weblogs

WikiWiki

Media

Asynchronicity

Many-to-many

Pull

Dimensions

Cost

Ease of setup

Hosting

Interface:

getting started

daily (unsupervised) use

BBS criteria

Blackboard

www.blackboard.com

WebCT

www.webct.com

The Forum Company

www.forumco.com

StereoDreamScene

www.stereodreamscene.co.uk

Ezboard

www.ezboard.com

Writing quantity

Enjoyment

Class atmosphere

Computer literacy

Favourable Effects

Appearance

Counting contributions

Custom titles

Ezboard features

Integrated vs. Non-integrated

Variations

QCCs

Reply to student = 1.5

Message in integrated forum = 2

Implementation

Ezboard index

l + 2m + t1 + t2

t1: title (converted to numeric value) after 1 month

Implementation

Security

Interface

Push/Pull

Convergence

Limited hierarchy (threading):

Community > Forum > Topic

Topics contain original message and replies, but no replies to replies.

Disadvantage

Balanced curriculum

Improvement in quality?

Reinforcement of errors

Issues

ER program: more effective than frequent writing program at improving students' writing

ER vs EW

Tsang, W.-K. (1996). Comparing the effects of reading and writing on writing performance. Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 208-33.

ER EW

Fluency development

Meaning-focused input

Meaning-focused output

Language-focused learning

Waring

EW

?

ER

Nation

“in producing an L2, learners will on occasion become aware of (i.e. notice) a linguistic problem. Noticing a problem can 'push' learners to modify their output. In doing so, learners may sometimes be forced into a more syntactic processing mode than might occur in comprehension. Thus, output sets 'noticing' in train, triggering mental processes that lead to modified output. What goes on between the original output and its reprocessed form, it is suggested, is part of the process of second language learning.”

On output

Problems in Output and the Cognitive Processes They Generate: A Step Towards Second Language LearningMERRILL SWAIN and SHARON LAPKINApplied Linguistics, Volume 16, Issue 3: (1995)

Corder, S. P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

erroneous output may be evidence that a learnerhas made a hypothesis about the language being learned and is testing it out

In speech comprehension, the interactive and compensatory nature of the human comprehension system can both promote comprehension and hinder language development for second language learners... the processes of grammatical encoding during production and monitoring to check the matching of the communicative intention and the output enable language learners to assess the possibilities and limitations of their interlanguage capability. This may, under certain conditions, serve as an internal priming device for consciousness raising for the learners, which in turn creates an optimal condition for language learning to take place.

Comprehension and Production Processes in Second Language Learning: In Search of the Psycholinguistic Rationale of the Output HypothesisShinichi IzumiApplied Linguistics Volume 24, Issue 2, 2003: pp. 168-196

students writing English summaries of books they read in an ER program scored better on cloze tests than students receiving instruction on cloze tests and than students writing summaries in Japanese

EW is necessary to realise the fullbenefits of the learning resulting fromER.

Mason, B., & Krashen, S. D. (1997). Extensive reading in English as a foreign language. System, 25(1), 91-102.

“Reading, then, if it is to represent engaged and meaning-making activity, must allow for the ways in which readers contribute to and make connections with the text. Writing provides a unique opportunity for discovering and exploring these contributions and connections, for it allows the reader to dialogue with a text and find a particular way into it.”

Zamel, V. (1992). Writing one's way into reading. TESOL Quarterly, 26(3), 463-85.

with first language classrooms, writing plays a central role in the learning process, but not so much with second language learning (at least in modern communicative approaches). With second language learning, research tends to focus on how learners learn to write in the second language, rather than how they learn the second language through writing. Similarly, in first language classrooms, researchers learn about children's learning processes through their writing, whereas this window into learning processes tends to be closed to a large extent with second language learners.

Harklau, L. (2002). The role of writing in classroom second language acquisition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(4), 329-50.

QQCs: what’s appropriate?

What percentage of the curriculum should be devoted to fluency-focused writing?

Journal writing: online or on paper?

How to handle accuracy-focused writing?

Questions

Lavin, R. S., & Beaufait, P. A. (2003). Ezboard as a medium for Extensive Writing in Japanese tertiary EFL classes. Language Issues, 9(1), 37-59.

Reference