Transcript Document

GALA Conference 2007
IMPROVING WRITING THROUGH MEDIATION
Ed JOYCEY
• Writing (University 1st year students)
• Language Mastery 2
• Communication skills
• Argument / Persuasion
Communication?
[L1(i)] user / [L1(ii)] receiver
[L1(ii) user] / [L1(i)] receiver
Processing ?
[L1(i)/L2] receiver
[L1(ii) user] / [L1(ii)] text/input
Text/Input mediator ? {to L1(i)/L2}
Similarities
• Processing
• Mediation
Meaning
• Writing
• Summary Writing
An Underlying Base for Text
•
•
•
•
•
• Grammar
•
Reason
Macro
Summary
(mediate)
Order/Organisation
Content
Lexis
Linking
Style
Micro
(translate)
(Strategies) for Reduce & rebuild
•
MULTI
• L1(ii) user L1(i) user
•
MEDIATE
SUMMARY
Input
Output Full Text
Summary
L1(ii) L1(ii) L1(i) L1(i) L1 lang
L2 lang
Hypothesis: Using ‘mediation’ in class will help summary
writing (& writing?)
• PROCEDURE
• 1) Experimental & Control groups. Teachers of a similar type &
approach (Me & Bartzoka)
• 2) 3 texts to summarise at beginning: Argumentative & all from
Guardian Unlimited: Colour in Life (French v Eng use of colour), 638
wds, Flesch Reading Ease 78.3; Wags to Riches (footballers’ wives &
fame), 588 wds, 76.6; Unhealthy Competition (A writer’s selfawareness of how competition in life affects her), 633 wds, 78.5
• 3) Cover names and apply numbers to scripts (See next slide)
• 4) Experimental group gets ‘Greek’ texts 1hr a week for 6 weeks.
Tasks like to explain in English to me, or explain why two texts on the
same topic differ.
• 5) 3 texts to summarise at end: Could write with a pinch (creative
writing), 495, 55.5; Caught in the middle (Kids & divorce), 588, 53.8;
Two’s a crowd (separate beds effect), 538, 64.8
• 6) Cover names etc. and jumble all to give to ‘expert’ objective marker
(Hatzitheodorou)
• 7) Collate scores.
Summaries categorisation
Code 1st
Name
Number of
texts 1st
623
Katsanidi
986
Mark 1st
20 max
Code 2nd
Name
Number of
texts 2nd
3
543
Katsanidi
3
Kotrokoi
3
272
Kotrokoi
3
451
Kremmida
3
463
Kremmida
3
452
Giorgakou
3
652
Giorgakou
2
861
Kiriazi
3
777
Kiriazi
2
141
Ropoulou
2
834
Ropoulou
2
113
Stoiou
2
001
Stoiou
2
098
Petrela
2
701
Patrona
3
Mark 2nd
20 max
ALL BEFORE v ALL AFTER
16
15
Averages
14
13
13.5
13.5
12.15
12
11
10.46
10
9
8
Control
BEFORE
Exp BEFORE Control END
Exp AFTER
(3 – 3)s BEFORE v (3 – 3)s AFTER
16
15.47
15
14.2
14
Averages
13
12.67
11.83
12
11
10
9
8
Control
BEFORE
Exp BEFORE
Control END
Exp AFTER
{A} [(3 - 3)s + (3 – 2)s] BEFORE v [(3 – 3)s + (3 – 2)s] AFTER
{B} (3 – 2)s BEFORE v (3 – 2)s AFTER
15
14
Averages
13
12
11
14.09
13.92
13.56
12.22
11.89
12
12.37
11.33
Control
BEFORE
{B}
Exp
BEFORE
Control END Exp AFTER
(2 – 2)s BEFORE & (END) {CONTROL group ONLY}
CONTROL Group ONLY
12.8
12.
Averages
11.
10.
9.5
9.3
8.5
BEFORE
END
Odds & Sods (Other Averages?)
13.5
13.06
Averages
12.5 12.22
11.76
11.44
11.5
11
10.5
gin
e
B
d
En
gi
Be
n
gi
Be
n
d
En
(3 - 0) exp
(0 - 3) exp
(3 - 0) control
(2 - 0) control
(0 - 3) control
Conclusions
• 1) There is some evidence to support the view that
using mediation helps summary writing in an L2.
• 2) Given that there are similar processes involved to
those in (1) when L1 people produce in an L2, the
question arises as to whether mediation could be a
valuable teaching technique.
• 3) Introducing mediation in the L2 classroom might
activate the strategies required when learning an L2,
and good use of it by trained teachers could result in
people becoming successful language ‘mediators’.
• 4) This small experiment suggests a need for further
research on this.
(Mediation ⇎ Translation)