improvement of present subjunctive oral …the subjunctive mood is used 5% in oral communication...

THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 91

JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue1,2016,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights

IMPROVEMENTOFPRESENTSUBJUNCTIVEORALPRODUCTIONINGRADEDVOICETHREADTASKSBeatrizG.Glick

PennsylvaniaStateUniversity-Hazelton

AbstractThepurposeofthisactionresearchwastoassessthepedagogicalvalueofthesoftwareprogramVoiceThread(VT)ascomparedtoclassroomdiscussionsindevelopingandenhancingstudentproductionofthePresentSubjunctiveattheIntermediatelevelofSpanishlanguagecourses.ThecontrolgroupwasexposedtotasksinclassroomdiscussionswhiletheexperimentalgrouprecordedthosetasksonVoiceThread.Anothervariableinthisstudyconsistedinacomparisonofgradedandnon-gradedassignments.Thecontrolgroupdiscussedtopicsinclassinaninformalmanner,whereas,intheexperimentalgroup,eachVoiceThreadrecordingwasgradedandinstructorfeedbackwasprovided.TheseVoiceThreadrecordingswereapermanentrecordthatstudentscoulduseasreferencewhenpreparingfortheFinalOralExam.Thestudylastedonesemester.TheresultsindicatethebeneficialaspectsofGradedVoiceThreadassignmentsoverInformalClassDiscussion.VTallowedstudentstoproduce,recordandpracticetargetstructures,whichleadtoself-awarenessbymeansofcontinuousfeedbackasproposedbyKolb’sExperientialLearningTheory.Whenbothgroupswerecompared,theInformalClassDiscussions’groupperformedonaveragefifteenpercentagepointslowerthantheGradedVoiceThreadgrouponthefinaloralexamattheendofthesemester.However,becauseofthetwovariablespresentinthestudy,itwasdifficulttodeterminewhetherthesuccesswasduetotheuseofVoiceThreadortothenatureofgradedassignments.

Keywords:VoiceThread,Subjunctive,Experientiallearning

Introduction

AccordingtoKolb’sexperientiallearningtheory(1976),studentslearnbybeingexposedtoconcreteexperiences,whichleadtoabstractconceptualizations,whicharereassessedwhenthestudentisexposedtomoreexperiences.Kolb’scycleoflearningemphasizestheimportanceofrepeatedexposuretothetargetlanguagestructures.Thisemphasisonexposuretonewexperiencescanbeachievedinclassroomdiscussionsandthroughtheuse



oftechnologyprogramssuchasVoiceThread.Inthisstudy,theinstructorwasinterestedinevaluatingtheuseoftechnologyandgradedassignmentsinoppositiontoungradedclassroomdiscussionsinthefinalproductionofthepresentsubjunctiveinthefinaloralexam.

OneofthemostdifficultsubjectstoacquirewhenlearningtheSpanishlanguageistheuseofthesubjunctivemood.Thesubjunctivemoodisused5%inoralcommunication(MorenodeAlba,1978)anditisanimportantconceptthatisroutinelytaughtattheSpanishintermediatelevel.Thesubjunctivemoodisdefinedasapointofviewofthespeakerwhowishestoexpresssubjectivityandhypotheses.Becauseitisapointofviewofthespeaker,studentshavetobegivenclearrulestounderstandatabasiclevelwhenitisusedintheSpanishlanguage.Therefore,thisconceptisintroducedbyexplainingtherearecertainverbswhichshowa)uncertaintysuchas“dudar”/todoubtb)wish“pedir”/toaskfor,c)volitionsuchas“insistir”/toinsistd)andsuggestion“recomendar”/torecommend,tonameafewofthetypesofverbswhichrequireasubjunctivemood.Theseconddifficultyforthestudentsinthesubjunctivemoodisfoundinsubordinatesentences.Sounlessstudentshavepracticedusing“que”/thatasalinkbetweentwosentencesandtorecognizetwoverbs,amainone,andasubordinateone,itisverydifficultforstudentstounderstandtherelationbetweenamainclauseverbwhichisexpressedasafactintheindicativemoodandasubordinateclauseverbwhichrequiresswitchingpointsofview,thesubjunctivemood.Thesesubordinatesentencescanbenoun,adjectiveoradverbialclauses,whichfurtherconfusestheissueforstudentswhodon’trecognizetypesofsubordination,ingeneral.Thethirdcomplexaspectofthepresentsubjunctiveisthephoneticaspectoftheform.Togeneratethepresentsubjunctive,thereisachangeinvowelintheverbending.Thisisveryconfusingforstudentswhohavelearnedthepresentindicativewith“a”“e”endingsandwhonowhavetoswitchthesevowelstoconstructthepresentsubjunctive.Finally,thefourthobstacleisthelackofuseofthesubjunctivemoodinconversationalEnglish.InEnglish,thesubjunctivemoodisusedinarchaicexpressionslike“GodsavetheQueen”andinphraseswiththeverb“tobe”like‘IwishIwere...”“IfIwerearichperson...”althoughmanystudentsareunfamiliarwiththeseexpressionsanduseincorrectly“IwishIwas...”

Inordertoencouragestudentunderstandingofthisdifficultverbmood,studentsengageintasksduringclass.Atraditionalformatistheuseofin-classdiscussions,butinthisstudy,theauthoralsousedthesoftwareprogramVoiceThread(VT)topromotethesetasks.VoiceThreadisanasynchronousmediumthatallowsrecorded,visual,andtextmaterialtobeuploadedbyusers.Itisopentoallstudentsinagroup,soeveryonecanread,see,listentoeachotherandtotheinstructor’scomments,aswellasgivebothwrittenandoralcomments(Crane2009)asseeninFigure1.

Figure1:AnexampleofaVoiceThreadSlideThreadTaskTitled“NuestroMuseo”/OurMuseum



Therewereseveralpurposesofthisstudy.Thefirstonewastoassessstudentproductionofthetargetstructurebyreplacingin-classdiscussionswithatechnologycomponent,VoiceThread.ThesecondgoalwastocomparestudentproductionofthepresentsubjunctiveinthefinaloralexambetweenthetraditionalclassroomdiscussionsincontrasttotherecordedtasksonVoiceThread.

Theinstructorhypothesizedthefollowing:

Hypothesis1:TheVoiceThreadassignments’gradesshouldreflectthefinaloralexamgrade.

Hypothesis2:ThestudentsexposedtoVoiceThreadtasksshouldperformbetteronthefinaloralexamthanstudentsexposedtoinformalclassroomdiscussions.

Hypothesis3:Thestudents’perceptionsoftheirprogressinVoiceThreadtasksshouldincreasewithtime.

LiteratureReview

Awiderangeofmethodshasbeenanalyzedintheliteraturetoaidteachersintheirpedagogicalefforts.Inthisstudy,twomethodswereusedtoimplementtasks.Inordertoteachthesubjunctivemood,oneofthemostproductiveandtestedwaysisbymeansofprocessingInstructionasexplainedinCollentine(1998),andFarley(2001)whoconductedexperimentstotestthedifferencesbetweenstudentswhoweretaughtthesubjunctiveviaprocessinginstructionandmeaningbasedoutput.Althoughbothmethodsyieldedpositive



results,processinginstructionincreasednotonlystudentoutput,butalsobettercomprehensionoftheproductionofthesubjunctive.ThisstudyusedprocessinginstructionasdefinedbyLeeandVanPatten(2003)asfocusedpracticethatemphasizestheimportanceofformandmeaningtounderstandthetargetstructureofthesubjunctive.Theinstructorrefinedthefocusedpracticebyusing“Corralling”asdefinedbyMeskillandAnthony(2010).Corrallingisaway“toorchestratepracticewiththetargetlanguagethatisnarrowlyfocusedontheirinstructionalobjectivesatthemoment”(p.56).Thecorrallingtasksusedincludednarratingexperiencesinvisitingadoctor’soffice,makingroomreservations,observingpaintingstodescribeemotions,andportrayingtheiridealpartner.Thus,bypreparingstudentsinclassusingProcessingInstructionandbyaskingstudentstoperformcertaintasksusing“Corralling”ofthepresentsubjunctivewasexplored.

Finally,theactofrepeatingtasks,whichwerefocusedandwhichinvitedstudentstoproducethemwithinthematicboundaries,reinforcedtheprocessofself-monitoringandself-correctiontoproduceamoreaccuratelinguisticrepresentationofrulesregardingthepresentsubjunctive.Thisfocused,guided,andrepetitivemodelfollowedKolb’sexperientiallearningtheory(1976)where1)aconcreteexperiencesuchasatasktoproducethepresentsubjunctiveleadsto2)reflectiveobservationeitherbecauseoftheproductionofthewrittenslide,oralfeedbackfromtheInstructor,orwrittenandoralcommentsfromotherclassmateswhichresultsinarearrangementoftherulesofformationofthesubjunctiveandto3)abstractconceptualization,leadingstudentstotrythenewrulesinanotherpertinenttaskor4)testinginnewsituations.

Taskswerepresentedtostudentseitherinaclassroomdiscussionorthroughassignmentsonthecomputer.ThesoftwareprogramVoiceThreadwaschosenbecauseithadbeenevaluatedbystudentsinalanguageclassasausefuldevice,easytouse,andsupportedbythetechnicaldepartmentattheuniversity(Glick,2012).PreviousstudiesalsoshowedthatVoiceThreadmotivatedandminimizedanxiety(McKeeman,2012)andHoustonetal.(2008)highlightedthattheonlydrawbackwastheabsenceofalivechatwithstudents.However,thatisnotreallyadisadvantagesinceitallowsfortimetoreflectbeforesubmittinginformation.Ithadbeenshownthatcomputermediatedcommunicationincreasedquantity/qualityandequalizedtheconversationbygivingeachstudentatimetospeak.Itimprovedlinguisticcompetenceaslongastherewasnegotiationofmeaningdonepriortotheproductionoftheassignment(Chun,2008).Furthermore,VanDeusen-Scholl(2008)onalongitudinalstudyofcomputer-mediatedforeignlanguagelearningconcluded,amongotherideas,thatstudentsproducedmorelanguagewhenusingCMCapproaches.However,notallstudiesshowedincreasedproductionintargetlanguagewhenusingtechnology.Forexample,DucateandLomicka’sstudy(2009)onusingpodcaststoenhancestudents’pronunciationshowedthatstudents’pronunciationdidnotsignificantlyimproveregardingcomprehensibilityafterrecordingfivepodcasts.Itwasnotclearwhetherornotthesepodcastswerepartofthestudents’gradesandwhethertheycountedtowardafinaloralexam.



OtheradvantagesofusingVoiceThreadincludedthatastudentfoundavoiceanda“socialpresence.”Astudentfeltpartofa“community,”andunderstoodwhatthecommunitywassayingbyreadingaboutit,listeningtoeveryone’svoicesorlookingforvisualcluesonthepublishedslide(Orlando,2010).Finally,otherstudiesthatindicateatleastapositiveperceptionofusingVoiceThreadincollegelevelcoursesincludeChanandPallapu(2012)whoshowedthat64%ofparticipantswantedtouseVoiceThreadinabusinesspolicycourseatCaliforniaStateUniversityandGlick(2012),whodeterminedthat62%ofstudentsenrolledinaSpanishuniversitycoursewouldrecommendusingVoiceThread.AnotherreasontouseVoiceThreadiscitedinTu(2011)whoreportedtheincreaseduseofVoiceThreadaccordingtoUSNewsandWorldReportEducationGlobalrankings,claimingthat“Overtwomillionpeopleinover150countriesandover25%ofthetop100USuniversitiesandcolleges”(p.1)wereusingVoiceThreadforconnectionandcollaboration.

PlanofActiontoImplementResearch

TheinstructorobservedthattheoralproductionofstudentsintwoIntermediateclassesofSpanish,asevidencedbyfinaloralexamscores,waslow79%and71%.Fortheinstructor,thesefinaloralexamscoresrepresentedextremelydisappointingaveragesespeciallysincethroughoutthecourse,therehadbeeninformalclassdiscussions,aswellastwo(2)ungradedVoiceThread(VT)sessionswherestudentsrecordedtwoexercisesaspreparationforthefinaloralexam.Theinstructorwasconcernedthattheseinformalclassdiscussionswerenottakenseriouslyandwerenotapermanentrecordthatstudentscouldusetoreviewforthefinaloralexam.TheinstructordecidedtoimplementVoiceThreadtasksasapermanentrecordofeffort,whichcouldbeusedbystudentsasareferencewouldbegraded,incontrasttopreviousInformalin-classDiscussionsandVoiceThreadwhichwereungraded(Glick,2012).

Twogroupswerecompared,oneexposedonlytoinformalin-classdiscussionsandtheotherexposedtoVoiceThreadtasks.AspertainingtothegroupexposedtoVoiceThreadtasks,students’self-perceivedunderstandingoftheirprogresswasevaluatedthroughaself-assessmentquestionnaire(seeAppendixA).Students’gradeswereanalyzedtodetermineprogress(seeAppendixB).Third,productionofthePresentSubjunctiveinthefinaloralexamwascalculatedinaquantitativemannerbytworaters,andinter-raterreliabilitydeterminedaswell.WithregardstoacomparisonbetweenthecontrolgroupwhodiscussedthetasksinclassandtheexperimentalgroupwhorecordedonVoiceThread,thegradesofthefinaloralexamwerecompared.

Methodology

Inthisquasi-experimentalstudylastingonesemester,thereweretwogroupsofstudents:inthecontrolcourse,studentsproducedsevenin-class,ungradedpracticesessionsofthePresentSubjunctivewhereasintheexperimentalgroup,studentsproducedthesameseventasks,buttheyusedsevenVoiceThreadandeveryrecordingwasgraded.EachVoiceThreadgradedsessionwasworth1%pointofthefinalgradeandthefinaloralexamwasworth10%ofthefinalgrade,inbothgroups.Thus,thesecombinedoralexercisesandfinalexam



representedatotalof17%ofthefinalgradeintheexperimentalgroupbutonly10%inthecontrolgroupbecauseonlythefinalexamwasgraded.

Thesubjectselectionlackedrandomassignmentasstudentselectionwasbasedontheneedtofulfillalanguagecreditrequirement.Itwasalsoastaticgroupcomparisondesignbecausetherewasjustaposttestevaluation,whichwasthefinaloralexamgrade.AlsotherewasagenderimbalanceasseeninTable1betweentheInformalClassDiscussiongroupandthegradedVTgroup,whichwillbeaddressedinthediscussionsection.Thisgenderimbalanceof68%femaleand32%maleintheInformalClassDiscussiongroupcomparedto42%femaleand58%maleinthegradedVoiceThreadgroupmayhaveaffectedthedifferencesinmeansbetweenfinaloralexamsinbothgroups.

Studentsinbothgroups,controlandexperimental,wereaskedtodiscussseven(7)assignmentsasfollows:1)Issueformalcommandsatthedoctor’soffice2)Offerrecommendationsbythedoctor3)Describeyouridealperson4)Comparepreferredcharacteristicsbetweenanidealmanandanidealwoman5)Describeanidealhotelroom6)Museum(1)Describeyouremotions,doubts,thoughts,andrecommendationsaboutaLatin-Americanpaintingofyourchoice7)Museum(2)Describeyouremotions,doubts,thoughts,andrecommendationsaboutpaintingschosenbyclassmates.

StudentsinthegradedVTgroupwereexplainedhowtouseVTinclassbytheinstructorandrecordedonepracticesessiontogether.AnyrelatedtechnicalquestionsweresolvedbytheInstructionTechnologygroupofadvisorsatthecollegeaswellasbyaskingtheinstructorforfurtherhelp.Afterlisteningtoeachstudent,feedbackwasgivenandstudents’gradeswererecorded.

ResultsandDiscussion

ThisactionresearchwasdesignedtoinvestigatetheeffectofsubstitutingatechnologycomponentforInformalClassDiscussion.OnemajordifferencebetweenthecontrolandtheexperimentalgroupisattributedtothesamplegenderasseeninTable1.

Table1.StudentGenderperCourseSection

InformalClassDiscussion

N=31

Section1:

8female,5male

Section2:

13female,5male

Totalfemale:68%

Totalmale:32%



GradedVT

N=26

Section1:

5female,7male

Section2:

6female,8male

Totalfemale:42%

Totalmale:58%

Toanswerthefirsthypothesis,thatVoiceThreadassignments’gradesshouldreflectthefinaloralexamgrade,students’gradesinthevariousVTtasksweredetermined.Table2showsmeasurementsoftheindependentvariable(gradedpracticeoftaskonVoiceThread),whichleadstoproductionofthedependentvariable(productionofthepresentsubjunctive).Asthedatashows,therewasaconsistentrangeofgradesintaskswithamodeof84,ameanof83.21andamedianof83.5.Thisinterruptedtime-seriesofmeasurementsshowsthatduring“treatment”of7gradedVoiceThreadassignments,studentsproducedtherequiredminimumnumberofsubordinatedsentenceswasfive.Thisminimumnumberwasdeterminedbylisteningtotheproductionofsubordinatedsubjunctivesentencesbyanativespeakeronthesametopicsanddividingthatnumberbyhalf,toaccommodatefortheIntermediatelevelofspeechofthestudents.

Table2.VoiceThreadTasksandGrades

VoiceThreadTask# GradedVTSection1

(N=12)

GradedVTSection2

(N=14)

1 80 83

2 84 84

3 84 82

4 81 84

5 82 85

6 72 96

7 87 81



StudentsweregradedasdescribedintherubricforgradingVoiceThreadsandfinaloralexamanalyticallyinAppendixA.Themeanoftheprogressionintaskswas82,84,83,83,84,84,84,showingamodeof84,whichindicatedthatstudentsaccomplishedthetaskatahighlevelinallcases.Therewasnoincreaseingradewithtimethatreflectedincreaseincomprehensionorproductionofthetargetstructure.Instead,inallassignments,studentsrecordedandproducedtherequirednumberandformsofthePresentSubjunctive.

Todiscussthesecondhypothesis,thatstudentsexposedtoVoiceThreadtasksshouldperformbetteronthefinaloralexamthanstudentsexposedtoinformalclassroomdiscussions,itwasclearthattherewasadifferencebetweenachievementofstudentsintheinformalclassdiscussionandthosewhorecordedonVoiceThread.

Table3.AverageScoresforFinalOralExams

FinalOralExamScoresofUngradedInformalClassDiscussionsGroup

Sections1,2:79.23%,70.94%

FinalOralExamScoresofGradedVTGroup

Sections1,2:89.25%,91.21%

Aone-tailtestforT-testofindependentsampleswasperformedonthedatainTable3todetermineifthevarioussectionsofeachcourseshowedasignificantdifferenceinfinaloralexamgrades.ThePvaluewas0.071(not<0.05),whichsuggeststhatthismightbeofstatisticalsignificanceifalargersamplewereused.Themeanofthecontrolgroupwhoreliedonclassroomdiscussionswasof75%,representingasampleof35students.ThemeanoftheexperimentalgroupwhoworkedonlyontasksinVTwasof90%representingasampleof26students.TheimprovedperformanceontheFinalOralExambythegroupthatworkedwithrecordedassignmentscouldbeattributedtovariouscausesincludingthegenderofthesamplesincethereweremorefemalestudentsinthecontrolgroupthanintheexperimentalone.Also,allVoiceThreadassignmentsweregradedwhichenhancedintrinsicmotivationtocompletethetask.Theinstructormonitoredclassdiscussions,buttherewasnorecordedevidencethatallstudentsinallgroupsperformedequallyandunderstoodequallythetopicofthediscussion.

Thethirdhypothesiswasthatstudents’perceptionsoftheirprogressinVoiceThreadtasksshouldincreasewithtime.Inordertotriangulatedataandobtainthestudents’pointofview,studentswereaskedtocompleteaquestionnaireonperceptionsofprogress,(AppendixA)todiscusstheirprogressinproductionandunderstandingofthepresentSubjunctivebetweentheirfirstVoiceThreadandtheirlastone.InTable4,21studentsagreedthattheyunderstoodhowtoproduceandformthepresentsubjunctiveaftersevenVoiceThreadassignments.Outof26students,23mentionedtheyweremoreconfidentwiththeirpronunciation,ingeneral.Oneofthemostsignificantanswerswasthattwo



studentsindicatedtheyhadrecordedmultipletimesandthattheyhadlistenedtofeedback.ThisquestionshouldhavebeenincludedinthequestionnaireinordertobetterassessthevalueoftherecordingsinVoiceThread.Itwasconfirmedthat21/26studentsbelievedthattheproductionofthepresentsubjunctivewas“easier,understoodwhenandhowtouseit”withtime.Becausethereisnocomparisonwiththecontrolgroup,itcannotbedeterminedwhetherthecontrolgroupalsofeltthattheyunderstoodhowtoproducethepresentsubjunctiveafterrepeatedclassdiscussions.

Table4.Students’PerceptionsofProgress

Variable Students’Perceptions(#ofstudents)

ProductionofthePresentSubjunctive Goteasier,formedcorrectendings,understoodwhen,where,andhowtouseit,confident,comfortable,clear(21)

Stillneedswork(2)

PronunciationinGeneral Improved,sayingmorewords,moreclear,moreconfident(23)

DifficultypronouncingSpanish“j”(3)/double“r”/“q“(2)‘“ll”

ProductionofVocabulary Harderwords,longerwordsinthelastassignmentsbecausefirsttopicwas“Partsofthebody”andlasttopicwas“SocialChanges”(3)

OverallCommunication MessagewasunderstoodwhencomparingVoiceThread1andVoiceThread9

AdditionalComments Irecorded3-4times/Listeningtofeedbackhelped(2)

Toobtainaquantitativeanalysisoftheproductionofthepresentsubjunctiveinthefinaloralexams,twoindependentraterscountedthenumberofclausesproducedwiththeSubjunctive.Inter-raterreliability,determinedbytheCohenKappaCorrelation,was.506,whichwasmoderate.Toreconcilethedifferencebetweencorrelations,theinstructorandthebilingualstudentreviewedthefinaloralexamsjointlytodiscusstheirdifferencesandtoreachaconsensus.Only18outof26fileswereanalyzedforsubjunctiveproductionasseeninTable5.Thisisbecauseonly18studentshadtoproducethesubjunctiveinthefinaloralexam.Thenumberoffilesis14becausefourpresentationsinvolvedtwostudentswhiletherestofthetenpresentationsweregivenindividually.Studentsproducedatotalof99subordinatesentenceswiththesubjunctive,or5.5sentencesperstudent,whichwastheexpectedgoalforthistask.



Table5.Inter-raterEvaluationsofProductionofSubjunctiveintheFinalOralExams

FileNumber NumberofSubjunctiveproduced-Instructor’sEvaluations

NumberofSubjunctivesproduced-BilingualStudent’sEvaluations

1 6 6

2 6 5

3 8 7

4 10 9

5 7 7

6 1 1

7 10 7

8 13 9

9 5 5

10 9 9

11 9 5

12 8 7

13 2 2

14 10 8

Limitations

Inthisactionresearchcasestudy,therewasanattempttominimizevariables.Thus,thesameinstructortaughtbothSpanishcourses,thecontrolgroupwithinformalclassroomdiscussionsandthegradedVoiceThreadrecordings.Thesametaskswerepresentedtostudentsinbothgroups.However,becauseitisaquasi-experimentaldesign,someinternalvaliditythreatsobservedweresamplesize,feedback,andtimeontask.

Withregardstosamplesizeandassignment,thedistributionofstudentsinthetwogroups,informalclassroomdiscussionsandgradedVoiceThreads,wasbasedonadvisingschedulesandtheneedofthestudenttofulfilltherequiredlanguagecredit.Thegenderimbalancemayhaveskewedtheresults.Groupsizewas31inthecontrolgroupand26intheexperimentalone,whichmaynotreflectastatisticallysignificantproportionofthecollegepopulation.



Concerningfeedback,theinstructorprovidedin-classcommentstostudentsinbothgroupsbutbecauseoftimelimitations,itwasdifficulttoallotthesameamountoftimeperstudentinclassdiscussions.FeedbacktothegradedVTgroupwasmoreproportional,sincetheinstructorhadtheleisuretolistentoarecording,verifytheinformationonthewrittenslideandgiveapersonalcommenttoaidstudentswithnoclassconstraints.Anotherpotentialvariablewasthetimethatstudentsspentontask,whichmaynothavebeencomparable.Asnotedintheself-assessmentquestionnaire,twostudentsansweredthattheyrecordedbetweenthreeandfourtimes,whereasthein-classdiscussiongroupworkedonthetaskinclass,wheresomemayhavebeenmoreproductivethanothersandwheretherewerenoimmediaterewardstoaccomplishthetaskbecausethesetaskswerenotgraded.Inclassassignmentsseemedtohavebeentakenmorelightlythangradedtasks.Thisaddedanothervariabletoourstudy.

ConclusionandRecommendations

WasthesuccessofthepresentsubjunctiveproductioninthefinaloralexamofthegradedVTgroupduetointensivepractice,tointensivefeedback,ortootherfactors?Itwasunclearbecauseinthequestionnairetheinstructordidnotaskhowoftenstudentslistenedtothefeedback,orspenttimerecording.Somestudentsmayhaverecordedseveraltimes.Somestudentsmayhavelistenedtocommentsseveraltimesasconfirmedbycommentsonthestudents’perceptionofprogress.Whatwasclearwastheeffortmadebytheinstructortopreparetaskswhichfocusedontheformandwhichcorralledthestudentstoproducethetargetstructureswhileengagingtheminmeaningfuldiscourse.Therepetitionofthetaskaidedstudentsinreflectiveobservations,whichaccordingtoKolb(1976)ledtoapossiblerearrangementofabstractconceptualizations.Furthermore,studentsthenmadeanefforttotesttherulesinnewsituations.

ThepreparationandevaluationofsevenbiweeklyVoiceThreadtasksperstudentfor26studentswasone,whichrequireddedicationandtimeonthepartofbothinstructorandstudents.However,asthedatainthiscasestudysuggests,itwastimewellspentsincestudentsrealizedtheimportanceofpracticeandpayingattentiontoforminordertosuccessfullycommunicatehypotheticalideasinSpanish.FurtherresearchcouldbedoneondetermininghowmuchtimestudentsspentlisteningtothefeedbackandhowmanytimestheyrecordedaVoiceThreadbeforetheysubmittedthefinalversion.Itwouldalsobeinterestingtoknowhowmuchtimeittookthemtopreparetheassignments.Forthecontrolgroup,gradingin-classdiscussionswouldalsobeusefultoreflectstudentunderstandingoftheformationofthetargettask.Understandingstudents’self-awarenessandtheirabilitytoformabstractconceptualizationswouldbeimportantindevelopingnewtasksandtestingthemonothersoftwareprogramsthatenhancelanguagepedagogicalskills.

Acknowledgements

Theauthorwouldliketothanktheparticipantsofthisstudy.



AbouttheAuthor

BeatrizG.GlickisanInstructorinSpanishandFrenchatThePennsylvaniaStateUniversity/Hazleton,Pennsylvania.SheteachesseverallevelsofFrenchandSpanishaswellasculturecoursesandindependentstudies.Herresearchinterestsincludelanguagelearningstylesandtheuseoftechnologytoenhancelanguagelearning.Email:[email protected]



ReferenceList

Brunvand,S.,&Byrd,S.(2011).UsingVoiceThreadtopromotelearningengagementandsuccessforall students.TeachingExceptionalChildren,43(4),28-37.

ChanM,&Pallapu,P.(2012).AnexploratorystudyontheuseofVoiceThreadinabusinesspolicycourse. MERLOTJournalofOnlineLearningandTeaching,8(3),223–235.

Chun,D.M.(2008).Computer-mediateddiscourseininstructedenvironments.InS.S.Magnan(ed),Mediating DiscourseOnline(pp15–46).Philadelphia:JohnBenjaminsPubl.

Collentine,J.G.(1998).ProcessingInstructionandtheSubjunctive.Hispania,81,576-587.Retrievedfrom http://www2.nau.edu/~jgc/research/pi/

Crane,B.F.(2009).UsingWeb2.0toolsintheK-12classroom.NewYork:Neal-SchumanPubl.

Ducate,L.&Lomicka,L(2009).Podcasting:Aneffectivetoolforhoninglanguagestudents’pronunciation. LanguageLearning&Technology,13(3),66-86.

Farley,A.P.(2001).AuthenticprocessinginstructionandtheSpanishSubjunctive.Hispania84,(2),289-299.

Glick,B.(2012).UsingVoiceThreadtoGenerateL2SpeechintheSpanishClassroom:Students’Perceptions.In L.GómezChova,A.LópezMartínez,andI.CandelTorres(Eds.),ProceedingsoftheFourth InternationalConferenceofEducation,ResearchandInnovation,ICERI2012Proceedings,536-542.

Houston,L.,Stoddard,T.&Coleman,A.(2008).VoiceToolsandVirtualClassrooms.Reflectionsonthejourney takenwhenresearchingandimplementingvarioustechnologyandpedagogyintoTESOLonline courses,AustralianFlexibleLearningFramework,7

Kolb,D.(1976).LearningStyleInventoryTechnicalManual.Boston:McBer

Lee,J,&VanPatten,B.(2003)MakingCommunicativeLanguageTeachingHappen.NewYork:TheMcGraw HillCo.

McKeeman,L.(2012).UsingVoiceThreadtoengagestudentsandenhancelanguagelearning.TheLanguage Editor.Jan,54-56.

Meskill,C&Anthony,N.(2010).TeachingLanguagesOnline.Bristol:MultilingualMatters.

MorenodeAlba,JoséG.(1978).ValoresdelasformasverbalesenelespañoldeMéxico.México: UniversidadAutónomadeMéxico.

Orlando,J.andOrlando,L.(2010).UsingVoiceThreadtoimproveeducationaloutcomes.26thAnnual ConferenceonDistanceTeaching&Learning.Retrievedfromwww.uwex.edu/.../28642_10.pd

Tu,C.(2011).VoiceThreadapponiOS(Weblogpost).Retrievedfrom http://etc647.blogspot.com/2011/10/voicethread-app-on-ios.html

VanDeusen-Scholl,N.(2008).Alongitudinalstudyofcomputer-mediatedforeignlanguagelearning.InS.S. Magnan(ed),MediatingDiscourseOnline(pp191–228)Philadelphia:JohnBenjaminsPublishing.



AppendixA:StudentQuestionnaireonPerceptionsofProgress

ComparethefollowingbetweenthefirstVoiceThread“IntheDoctor’sOffice”andthelastVoiceThread“ReflectionsaboutPaintings”:

1.ProductionofthePresentSubjunctive:DidyouproducethePresentSubjunctive?Howdifficultwasit?DoyoufeelthatyourunderstandingofhowtoformandusethePresentSubjunctiveimprovedingeneral?Whyorwhynot?

2.ProductionofVocabulary:DidyoufeelcomfortablespeakinginSpanish?Whichwordsweredifficulttopronounce?Why?

3.PronunciationinGeneral:Howquicklydidyouspeak?Wasyourspeechsmoothorhesitant?Doyoufeelthatyourpronunciationimproveingeneral,Whyorwhynot?

4.OverallCommunication:Wasyourmessageunderstoodbyyourinstructor?Wheretherespecificcomments?



AppendixB:RubricforGradingVoiceThreadsandFinalOralExamAnalytically

Category/Score/Description Weightasapercentage:

Communicativesuccess

5pts-Appropriatetopic,exchangewell-connected,properamountoftime

4pts-Exchangeconnectedbutnotenoughtime.

3pts-Conversationnotontopicandsomemisunderstandings

2pts-Conversationofteninappropriateandfrequentmisunderstandings

0–1pt-Conversationinappropriateandnoconnecteddiscourse.

25%

Grammar

5pts-Veryfewerrors

4pts-occasionalerrors,communicationrarelyimpeded

3pts–frequenterrors,frequentmisunderstandings

2pts-constantgrammaticalerrors,verydifficulttounderstand

0–1pts-extremelackofcontrolofstructures,nocomprehensiblespeech

40%

Vocabulary

5pts–Showscontrolofawiderangeofvocabulary

4pts-showscontrolofanadequaterangeofvocabulary

3pts-showssomecontrolofvocabularybutreliesonbasicvocabulary

2pts-showslittlecontrolofvocabulary,

25%



communicationextremelydifficult

0–1ptshowsnocommandofthevocabulary

Fluency

5pts-speechsmooth,nomispronunciations

4pts-speechoccasionallyhesitant,somemispronunciations

3pts-speechhesitant,withseveralmisunderstandingsarisingfrommispronunciation

2pts-speechhesitantandchoppy,conversationalmostimpossibletofollow

0–1pt-speechlimitedtoisolatedwords,nocomprehensiblespeech

10%

improvement of present subjunctive oral …the subjunctive mood is used 5% in oral communication...

Documents