0

A Classroom Experiment:

Using dictogloss

Christopher Harwood

April 2008

1

Contents

1.0 Introduction page 2

2.0 Dictogloss - Procedure & Theory page 2

2.1 Preparation page 2

2.2 Dictation page 3

2.3 Reconstruction page 4

2.4 Analysis and error Correction page 5

3.0 Relevance to learning contexts page 5

4.0 Objectives of the Experiment page 6

4.1 Methodology page 6

5.0 PLE of Experiment page 7

6.0 Action points specific to experiment page 8

7.0 PLE and action points page 9

References page 10

Lesson Plan page 11

Appendices page 17-21

2

1.0 Introduction

I felt it would be useful for me to experiment with using dictogloss because I believe my approach to teaching grammar is too deductive (teacher centred and rules based). I want to expand my knowledge of learner centred teaching techniques and procedures. Experimenting with dictogloss is an opportunity to investigate how a collaborative procedure encourages learner autonomy by allowing students to make their own discoveries regarding both new language and language they already know.

In terms of professional development, I think understanding how to adjust stimulus and response (behaviourist) learning tasks, such as dictation, to make them more mentally active processes (cognitive) will be a useful skill to have as a teacher. I hope it will also aid me in a personal aim to move towards a more inductive approach to teaching grammar in my lessons. Whereby learners are left to discover or induce meaning from language through their use of it.

2.0 Dictogloss - Procedure & Theory

Wajnryb (1990) is credited with helping to develop a new way of dictation known as dictogloss. In traditional dictation students recreate a dictated text word for word. However, dictogloss has different procedures and objectives. Learners retain the gist of a short text (4-6 sentences) and then apply their own linguistic and grammatical knowledge to form a parallel text. The text length and content should be determined through considering the learners’ level and grammatical and lexical needs.

The student generated versions are then considered using three criteria; grammatical accuracy, textual cohesion (if the created text holds together as a meaningful ‘chunk’ of language), and logical sense. Alternative forms to the original dictated form are encouraged as long as they meet these requirements.

Wajnryb (1990:7) details four key stages of the dictogloss procedure:

2.1Preparation

The teacher introduces a topic and related vocabulary. This can be done using a variety of techniques: an open class discussion, group brainstorming, question and answer elicitation, predicting text content from pictures or vocabulary. The important thing is that learners are engaged with the topic and hopefully interested in it.

Ur (1984) notes, that preparation stages are essential in listening tasks. Providing a context helps learners to prepare for the kind of information, lexis and ideas they are about to engage with. Once learners know the context for something, they will be able to predict possible content and are more likely to engage with the text.Finding

3

out what learners know already about a topic allows them to activate their current knowledge and vocabulary.

Underwood (1989) supports this idea arguing that in real life we usually have some indication of what someone might say. That expectation can be reflected in the classroom by activating the learners’ schemata (background knowledge) with pre-listening tasks.

In my experience Japanese and Korean students need a lot of preparation before being able to fully participate in collaborative student led activities. This is particularly true of the lower level students I have taught who are often intimidated by the apparent complexity of the task. I think the use of dictogloss with Japanese and Korean learners might be counter-productive because of this. These students require, and benefit most from, a comprehensive review of lexis and grammar prior to reconstruction tasks such as dictogloss. Therefore, the procedures benefit as a diagnostic tool may be limited if pre-teaching of this kind was required before it was able to be used.

2.2 Dictation

Wajnyrb recommends that learners should listen to the dictation twice and that both readings should be, as far as possible, identical. The text is read at natural speed with short pauses between each sentence. Students are told not to write anything the first time, ‘but allow the words to wash over them’ (1990:8). This is to allow students to get an overall feel for the passage. On the second listening students should take down notes. At this stage the teacher should suggest that learners focus on noticing and recording key content or information words. For example, in the phrase ‘…and the policeman chased the man down the street’ the key words are policeman, chased, man, and street. The grammar words and, the and down, are approximated, depending on their knowledge of the language, by the learners when reconstructing the text at the production stage of the dictogloss.

The dictogloss makes dictation active and task based. It allows learners to engage with the language in a whole context rather than trying to record words verbatim. The emphasis is on text as a semantic unit of language which makes the procedure particularly relevant and useful for higher level learners. Upper-intermediate and advanced students are usually able to construct grammatically accurate sentences in isolated or discrete item exercises but have difficulty when trying to piece these sentences together into coherent texts.

Therefore as Wajnrb (1990:19) notes, dictogloss can help develop learner discourse competence by focussing on, ‘Cross-sentence connections, as well as the various means-notably, reference, and ellipsis and substitution-by which textual cohesion is established and

4

maintained in English’. This is achieved by using principles underlying collaborative learning (Kessler, 1992), interactive learning (Shoemaker & Shoemaker, 1991), and self-directed learning (Oxford, 1990) in ESL/EFL. In short, allowing learners to hypothesis experiment and use language in a meaningful way in an appropriate context.

Thornbury (1999:85) evaluates the dictogloss and reports that it ‘provides a useful means for guiding learners towards noticing the gap between their present competence and their target competence’. Noticing language (learners discover or induce meaning from language through their use of it) is a prerequisite for learning and dictogloss allows learners to notice different things in a safe and non-threatening way.

I have noticed with the learners I teach here in Singapore that, with larger authentic texts, they are often distracted by genre specific vocabulary. I think pre-teaching of this kind of vocabulary is necessary when using dictogloss to keep learners focussed on noticing how the language is used rather than what a particular low-frequency word means.

2.3 Reconstruction

After the second reading learners reconstruct the text using the notes they recorded in stage two of the dictation. Thornbury (1999) advises that groups of 3-4 students pool their notes and mental resources and work on reconstructing a version of text. He also suggests one student acts a scribe and writes down the completed group version of the text.

Swain and Lapkin (1995:375) suggest the benefits of reconstructing the text in this way lie in the experimenting and hypothesising the learners engage in whilst doing the task. By producing the target language learners may, ‘consciously recognise some of their linguistic problems; it may bring to their attention something they need to discover about their L2’. This is linked to the prerequisite for learning of noticing language defined in 2.2.

It also promotes communication, collaboration, interaction, and self-directedness on the part of the students. Learners are responsible for and can monitor their own learning the reconstruction stage. This encourages learner autonomy, a tenet of the cognitive learning approach.

When teaching upper-intermediate adult learners in Japan I found collaborative task based activities really benefited students. The negotiation of meaning involved in these kinds of tasks culturally lends itself to Japanese students. Indeed as Wajnryb (1990) argues, the active learner involvement in the procedure allows learners to confront their own strengths and weaknesses. However, as Jacobs (2003:7) notes, ‘Individual accountability is, in some ways, the flip side of equal participation’. I think this

5

could result in some learners observing other learners engaging with the dictogloss and not engaging with the procedure themselves.

2.4 Analysis and error correction

Learners analyse and correct their texts by writing their versions on the board or on OHTs and comparing these with the work of other groups. The student versions are then compared to the original text one sentence at a time. Feedback through peer correction and discussion is then encouraged.

The learner errors are noticed, exposed and discussed. As Thornbury (2001:73) notes feedback and error correction becomes part of the input-output cycle:

text → student reconstruction → comparison

input output feedback

Learner awareness of their language choice is increased and they become conscious of how they hypothesised about both the correct and incorrect choices they made during the reconstruction. Feedback of this nature is thought to be more motivating as students consider the effectiveness of their language and recognise the need to review the forms they choose and the decisions they make.

Here in Singapore the adult learners I teach find the opportunity to self correct or peer correct very motivating. I find Chinese learners particularly enjoy the process of identifying and understanding their own errors. Also, in general Middle-Eastern and European learners seem to respond well to this kind of error correction. However, I think it should be recognised that these are generalisations and not all learners are conducive to having errors examined publicly. For example, Japanese learners are more sensitive to this approach, possibly because they place a high value on accuracy and think of errors as failure.

3.0 Relevance to learning contexts

According to Thornbury (1997) dictogloss is a procedure useful for adult learners of pre-intermediate level and above. He suggests, ‘different learners, depending on their state of their interlanguage, as well as their interest and motivation, will notice different things’ (p: 332). It is therefore useful for general English courses where there is a significant range of learner levels and interests in a given class.

The collaborative nature of the reconstruction stage provides a good opportunity for individual students to combine their skills. For example, the class I have selected to use dictogloss with is comprised of European and Asian learners. The European

6

learners are relatively forthright and confident with their classroom contributions and can express themselves with some fluency despite many grammatical inaccuracies. The Japanese, Malaysian and Chinese learners have less communicative fluency but are more focused on form and have a higher degree of accuracy with their productive output.

4.0 Objectives of the Experiment

To explore how dictogloss enables learners to notice the gap between their present language competence and target competence. This will be achieved by:

(1) Learners comparing their notes with those of their peers.

(2) Learners comparing group-generated versions of the text to the original version.

Looking at how the class responds to the dictogloss procedure and determining whether,

(3) Learners are engaged and enjoying the learning process.

(4) Learners are motivated to analyse their errors.

(5) To try and establish if the procedure raises student consciousness of their ability and if so how they react.

4.1 Methodology

The dictogloss text and procedure used in this experimental class is taken from Wajnrb (1990:70-71) ‘Tips for travellers 2: getting around’. As this is a new procedure for me I felt it would be better to use an established resource rather than experimenting with producing my own material. See lesson plan timetable fit for reasons for text choice.

A colleague will observe the class and identify the use of

-The generic singular – Traveller’s

-Lexical chains – the traveller, the visitor, a tourist

-Present modal should – for advice /deduction

-Infinitive/gerund alternatives- to find/finding, to master/mastering

and note at each stage when the above appear in student work. This will be done using an observation task sheet (appendix 4).

7

Stage 1) Dictation; which forms appear in individual student notes.

Stage 2) Reconstruction; which forms appear in the student’s version of the text.

Stage 3) Analysis and correction; which forms appear in other groups versions.

This will be done to identify which forms are noticed at which stage and to understand how dictogloss may facilitate learning of grammatical and lexical forms.

In addition, students will complete a post lesson questionnaire (appendix 2). They will be asked to rate the four stages of the procedure for enjoyment, difficulty and usefulness. Students will be given the opportunity to express any other thoughts in an open ended ‘other thoughts’ section at the end of the questionnaire.

5.0 Post Lesson Evaluation of the Experiment

The completed observation task shows that group 1 successfully collaborated on this task. 3 of the 4 students were made aware of forms they had not noted themselves. However, student 1(see appendix 4) recorded the word visitor from sentence 3 of the text but this was not used in the final group version. It was replaced with he.

All groups recorded to find in their versions but none noticed to master. Although the word master was noted by one of the members in group 2, she could not place it in the text. Whilst should for advice was used by group 1 and 3 group 2 replaced it with have to get. In sentence 3 group 3 noticed the use of visitor but groups 1 and 2 used the pronouns he and you in its place.

In general the class seemed to comprehend the first two sentences more than the second two. In sentence 4 should for deduction was noticed by group 2 but groups 1 and 3 used are able to in its place. Also, group 3 used visitor instead of tourist in sentence 4.

Most students were involved and were given the opportunity to contribute notes and negotiated meaning of the group texts through discussion. However, as one student wrote, “Sometimes I can’t understand what other students says and also I don’t have a lot of vocabulary so I can’t speak what I want to tell” (see appendix 2). Other students noted that listening and note taking is very difficult. Indeed, as I monitored I did notice that group 2 had two strong and confident learners and two weaker and more reserved learners. This mismatch resulted in the two stronger students contributing a lot more to the final group version of the text.

During the analysis and correction stage it was also good to see students who had correct suggestions rejected by the group receive acknowledgement and apologies from their peers. As the group versions were written on the IWB alongside the original text I heard “ahh we said are able to not should”, similar realisations made by

8

all three groups in the analysis of the text. The concept checking and explanation of grammar at this stage seemed very straightforward. The students had engaged with and discovered much of what I had prepared to check.

Overall I think the experiment was a success. The post lesson student questionnaire shows the students found dictogloss both very useful and enjoyable (see appendix 2). In addition, although many students noted it was difficult to listen and write at the same time, and that they did not understand some vocabulary, their perception of this difficulty was reduced during the group stages. All the groups produced coherent versions of the text, and were able to identify and self/peer correct much of the lexis and grammar.

6.0 Action Points Specific to the Experiment

I think dictogloss is a very useful teaching tool and intend to use it again with learners at all levels. The nature of the procedure makes it a very flexible classroom tool. However, I think more flexibility within the different stages will help me tailor the procedure for the needs of individual classes dependent on the levels and nationalities in the class. A number of things could be done to achieve this.

1) I would like to try to use dictogloss with elementary learners. I think with a suitable text and ‘scaffolding’ (the building up of target language structure over several TURNS in an interaction, Richards et al. 1992:321) some classes would benefit from the procedure. This might involve pre-teaching lexis and even reviewing grammar points prior to the reading. However, I feel the collaboration, reconstruction and error analysis stages would still make the exercise worthwhile.

2) With pre-intermediate learners low-frequency vocabulary words could be pre-taught to allow learners to focus on the whole text without being distracted by rarely used lexis.

3) To organise classes so that particularly weak students are not grouped with very strong and confident students. This should help reduce incidents where individual contributions at the reconstruction stage are limited by individual personalities.

4) With advanced learners I think one reading would be more of a challenge. Learners note-taking skills would have to speed up and greater interaction and collaboration would take place. In addition, the reduced ‘certainty’ of what was said would lead to more hypothesising and negotiation of meaning during reconstruction.

5) The text used in my experiment was taken from a book. I think more up-to-date and ‘live’ texts from the internet, newspapers and television news reports would be far more motivating for students. Learning how to identify suitable texts for specific language points would be a necessary and useful exercise for me to engage with in

9

order to provide classes with texts of this kind. I feel the nature of dictogloss and its versatility and use for exploring tenses and lexis at all levels would make this a beneficial action point.

7.0 Post lesson Evaluation and Action Points relating to the lesson

Stronger Points

The preparation task engaged the students immediately and introduced the topic appropriately.

My instructions were clear and checked throughout.

I gave students sufficient time to fully exploit each stage.

My concept checking was more focused and efficient than in PA1

Weaker points

The text itself could have been more authentic and challenging. This would have engaged and stretched the learners a little further.

During the error and analysis stage a lot of time was wasted getting individual students to write their sentences on the IWB.

My teaching of the word ‘innate’ was not as clear as it could have been.

Action plan in relation to the lesson

I will investigate and continue to experiment with dictogloss using texts from current media.

I will ask groups to record their versions on an OHT and project it on to the IWB to save time. I will also ensure group scribes have good handwriting so groups can read each other’s versions more easily.

I will ensure that definitions of new lexis are clearer and understanding is checked more thoroughly through further concept checks next time.

10

References

Brown, H.D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching.: Prentice Hall Regents.

Jacobs, G (2003). Combining Dictogloss and Cooperative learning to Promote language Learning: The Reading matrix Vol. 3

Kessler, C. (Ed.). (1992). Cooperative language learning: A teacher's resource book: Prentice Hall Regents.

Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know: Heinle & Heinle.

Richards, J. Platt, J & Platt, H.(1992) Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied linguistics. Longman

Shoemaker, C.L. & Shoemaker, F.F. (1991). Interactive techniques for the ESL classroom: Heinle & Heinle.

Swain, M & Lapkin, S (1995) ‘Problems in output and the cognitive process they generate: a step towards second language learning’ Applied Linguistics 16/3: p.371-91

Thornbury, S. (1997). ‘Reformulation and reconstruction: tasks that promote noticing’ ELT Journal Vol 51/14 p326-335

Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar: Pearson Longman

Thornbury, S.. (2001). Uncovering Grammar: Macmillan Heineman

Underwood, M (1989) Teaching Listening: Longman

Wajnryb, R. (1993). Grammar dictation: Oxford University Press.

11

Lesson Plan Date: 7th May 2008

Time: 50 minutes Lesson 11:05am – 1:00pm Experiment 12:05pm – 1:00pm

Level: upper-Intermediate

Class Profile

This multi-lingual group come together twice a week (Wednesday and Friday), for a one hour and 55 minute lesson. The course will run for 12 weeks in total and started six weeks ago. There are 12 students in the group 2 men and 10 women. There are eight different nationalities: 3x Japanese, 2x (Chinese) Singaporean, 2x (German)Swiss, I x Dutch, Ix Thai, 1x Ecuadorian, 1x Korean, 1x Malaysian

The learners are all low upper-intermediate level with different strengths and weaknesses. They all express the need to practice speaking and pronunciation, with most wanting grammar and vocabulary practice as well. They especially seem to enjoy speaking and pronunciation activities but are generally motivated to complete any task. Most learners work well together, although some are more dominant than others. Most of the students are willing to contribute to group and class discussions. Most of the students have not studied English since school. All live in Singapore but travel a great deal for holidays and when visiting their own countries.

In order to keep the experiment manageable the four learners below will be the focus of the experiment for the individual note taking stage. I think these learners represent a good cross-section of the class with 2 European and 2 Asian learners. They are generally representative of the different abilities of the class.

Name, age sex , Nationality

Reason for learning Strengths & weaknesses Other comments

Joke 50+ (F) Dutch

Living in Singapore Quite weak at listening weak and writing, speaks with some fluency gets confused with tenses

Lacks confidence but cooperative and able.

Hisae 38 (F) Japanese

Living in Singapore and future job

Very strong at listening. Focuses too much on grammatical form

Confident, average for this level. Curious

Beatrice 45 (F) Swiss

Fun/hobby, Living in Singapore

Quite strong reading and speaking skills, weak writing skills.

Confident, outgoing and eager.

Albert 50+ (M) Singaporean

Job and career Quite a strong speaker, struggles with writing, particularly tense forms and vocabulary.

Lacks confidence but participates well, above average in class

12

Needs

A diagnostic questionnaire (appendix 1) revealed the following information:

Half the class are learning English “to make living in Singapore easier”. Four require it for current or future employment and two students are studying as a hobby /interest.

9 of the 12 students believed they were weak at using tenses in writing. Also, 7 out of 12 thought they were weak at writing longer texts. A recent writing exercise in class revealed that learners avoid using the present modal should (for advice and deduction) when writing. For example, instead of saying ‘..you should eat more vegetables’, one learner wrote ‘ you must eat more vegetables’. Another learner wrote ‘You can have more energy. .’ These kinds of errors were repeated throughout the class.

In my experience it is not because students fail to understand the use and meaning of the Modal auxiliary verb. It is that they avoid its use because they do not use a similar word in their L1. I think a procedure such as dictogloss that draws attention to the use and meaning of form will prove beneficial in helping learners to clarify why should is a more polite/natural way to express probability or give advice.

Main Aims

By the end of the lesson the learners will be better able to distinguish the use of should for advice and should for deduction.

They will have noticed/reviewed their understanding of infinitive/gerund alternatives to find/finding and to master/mastering.

They will have noticed/reviewed their understanding of the generic singular ‘travellers’ and a lexical chain related to this word - tourist, visitor.

Subsidiary Aims

By the end of the lesson the learners will have practiced their speaking comprehension, note-taking and writing skills.

Timetable fit

In the previous lesson learners were introduced to infinitive and gerund alternatives and earlier in the course looked at should for advice and deduction. This activity will provide learners with the opportunity to engage with and consolidate their understanding of these concepts. The syllabus for this class follows units of ‘Cutting Edge Upper-Intermediate’ course book. This book uses a task-based/discovery approach to learning. Similarly dictogloss requires a cognitive approach to language learning.

13

Assumptions

Learners are familiar with some of the uses of the Modal auxiliary should.

Learners will notice/understand gerund and infinitive alternatives.

Learners will not be sufficiently practiced and able to freely use the above forms at present.

Learners will be motivated to better understand their individual strengths and weakness by engaging with a dictogloss task.

Target forms

1) Should for advice: The visitor should get hold of a transport map of the city and become familiar with the local routes and timetables.

2) Should for deduction: Armed with this knowledge and an innate sense of direction, a tourist should be able to find the way to any part of the city.

3) Infinitive and gerund alternatives; to find/finding and to master/mastering.

4) Generic singular; travellers and lexical chain visitor, tourist

Anticipated problems and solutions

Problem Solution

Students will think it’s a traditional dictation and try to reproduce the original text word for word.

Clearly explain the note taking stage and the rationale before hand

Learners will be disrupted by the observer Ensure observer checks for produced forms after each stage and doesn’t intrude during stages.

Learners will not understand instructions Check understanding of each stage with class by asking learners to explain each stage to me after I have explained it.

Materials

IWB flip chart: with complete version of dictogloss text. Maps of Singapore MRT

14

Lesson plan – dictogloss

Stage Procedure Aim Int T

Preparation 1) Introduce topic: getting around the city. Ask students how they get around Singapore. What public transport they use and why? Did they find it difficult when they first arrived in Singapore? Has anyone ever been lost in an unfamiliar city? Give students a map of public transport network in Singapore. Ask students to ask and answer questions getting from A to B. Give example: How do I get from the airport to Sixth Avenue? Do as a class on IWB.

2) Ask students to work in pairs and give each other tips for getting around their hometown.

Activate Ss schemata about the topic of the class to generate an interest in the text begin to predict vocabulary.

T-S

S-S

10

Dictation 1 Tell Ss they are going to listen to a normal piece of spoken English at normal speed. They will hear the text twice. The first time they hear it they should not write anything but pay attention to the overall meaning of the text.

Read the text (appendix 3) at normal speed. Pause slightly longer than usual between sentences.

Ss hear the text and notice the main thematic and semantic points of the text.

T-S 2

Dictation 2 Tell Ss they are going to hear the text again. That they must jot down familiar words and phrases as they hear them. Encourage the recording of content or information words to aid memory recall.

Ss hear the text again and record information which will act as scaffolding for the reconstruction stage.

T-S 2

Reconstruction Tell Ss to form groups of 3-4 to pool their notes and work on their versions of the text. Each group appoints a scribe to write down the reconstructed text as it emerges from the discussion.

Monitor groups and be available for questions unrelated to target forms.

Ss reconstruct the text using their productive grammar.

Ss discuss and hypothesis

SS-SS 15-20

Analysis & correction

Invite group members from each group to write their sentences on the board. Examine

Ss analyse and correct their own

S-T-S 20-25

15

differences as a class. Manage peer correction/feedback as an open class.

Focus on target language and aspects of discourse as they arise. Elicit correct forms and concept check meaning.

1) Should for advice: The visitor should get hold of a transport map of the city and become familiar with the local routes and timetables.Does the visitor have to get a transport map of the city? No Is it a good idea to get a transport map of the city? Yes

2) Should for deduction: Armed with this knowledge and an innate sense of direction, a tourist should be able to find the way to any part of the city. Is should used here to give advice? No Does this sentence mean that something is expected/predicted? Yes 3) Infinitive and gerund alternatives; to find/finding and to master/mastering. Are to find and finding used in a similar way? yes Does the meaning change if you use an infinitive instead of a gerund? No Is this true for all gerunds/infinitives? No 4) Generic singular; traveller's and lexical chain visitor, tourist Is there one particular traveller? No

Is the text referring to all travellers in general? Yes

5) Check meaning of words:

(n) innate (natural inborn),

(adj) local (having to do with a particular place you are)

(v) to get hold of (to acquire, to obtain)

texts.

Ss compare versions, discuss the language choices made.

Ss refine/discover new language options. And clarify concept/meaning.

16

Appendix 1 (Needs analysis questionnaire.)

(1) I am … (a) 20-30 (b) 31-41 (c) 42 -52 (d) 53+

(2) How long have you been learning English?

(a) 1 to 4 years (b) 5-8 years (c) 9 to 12 years (d) 13+ years

(3) Why are you learning English?

(a) Hobby/interest (b) for my job (c) for University (IELTS) (e) Other (please explain)

___________________________________________________

(4) What do you think you are strongest at in English?

___________________________________________________

(5) What do you think you are weakest at in English?

___________________________________________________

(6) What would you like to improve at the most in English?

___________________________________________________

(7) What do most use English for in your daily lives? (You can circle more than one)

(a) Talking with foreign friends and family (b) writing emails/letters

(c) Reading foreign media (newspapers etc) (d) watching TV & films

(e) writing/reading work reports (f) talking with clients face to face.

(g) Talking with clients on the phone

(8) When you learn/study English which do you like to…

(a) to study alone (b) in pairs (c) in groups of 3 or 4 (d) all of (a) (b) and (c)

(9) In class when you are studying English what do you find most useful? For example, using the book, listening to the teacher, writing, group work etc

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

17

Appendix 2 (post-lesson student questionnaire & data)

Read the types of task and rate them from 1-4 (Average scores given for each stage)

1= most enjoyable, difficult, useful 4= least enjoyable, difficult, useful

Type of task enjoyable difficulty usefulness

Listening to the teacher and writing notes 1.2 2.3 1.0

Working in a group and writing the speech again with classmates

1.2 2.6 1.3

Looking at other groups work and comparing our ideas as a class

1.2 2.6 1.4

Making sentences using prompts 1.1 2.5 1.0

Other thoughts (Examples of feedback in italic)

If you can, please give the main reasons you thought tasks were most/least,

Enjoyable

“It makes it fun to listen the text and try to understand”

“All tasks are enjoyable”

“Working together is fun”

“This way of learning is more fun and lively. To be able to train oneself to listening and writing ability”

“Working with group is a very efficient. I personally like it very much it gives me a different way to see and learn things”

Difficult

“Could not understand some new words from the sentences”

“It’s hard for me to listen and write at the same time”

“My listening skill is poor so making notes is difficult for me”

“Sometimes I can’t understand what other students says and also I don’t have a lot of vocabulary so I can’t speak what I want to tell”

“I think it’s quite difficult to listen carefully and understand everything. But it helps that we can using notes”

18

Useful

“I think it is useful for understanding and also for improving our listening”

“Most useful task is working in a group. It’s very helpful to increase to my vocabulary”

“Making sentences and collecting together is helpful to check my grammar mistakes sometimes. But I think that it take a little long time in class”

“It helps s to learn how to form a short composition from listening. And what to look for when writing a note”

19

Appendix 3 dictogloss text

(Tips for travellers 2: getting around)

1. One of the traveller’s greatest problems in a new city is to find his or her way to those things that mean survival: food, a place to stay and medical help. 2 Most cities have an intricate network of transport and the visitor’s first task is to master this transport system. 3 The visitor should get hold of a transport map of the city and become familiar with the local routes and timetables. 4 Armed with this knowledge and an innate sense of direction, a tourist should be able to find the way to any part of the city.

Wajnryb (1990:71)

20

Appendix 4 Completed Observation task form

(1) Dictation: forms noted by individual students.

Tick (√) if forms were produced. Replacement/other forms are in italic and bold.

Group 1 students

Sentence 1

Sentence 1a

Sentence 2

Sentence 2a

Sentence 3

Sentence 4

Sentence 4a

Generic singular – ‘Travellers’

Infinitive/gerund alternatives ‘to find/finding

Lexical chain – visitor & ‘this transport system’

Should – for advice

Lexicl chain – ‘visitor’

Should – for deduction

Lexical chain – ‘tourist’

S1 √ √ √

S2 √ √

S3 √

S4 √ √

(2) Reconstruction: forms produced by group 1. Tick (√) if forms are produced.

Group 1 Sentence 1

Sentence 1a

Sentence 2

Sentence 2a

Sentence 3

Sentence 4

Sentence 4a

Generic singular – ‘Travellers’

Infinitive/gerund alternatives ‘to find/finding

Lexical chain – visitor & ‘this transport system’

Should – for advice

Lexicl chain – ‘visitor’

Should – for deduction

Lexical chain – ‘tourist’

Group 1 version

√ √ √√ √ He Are able to

He

21

(3) Analysis & Correction: forms by other group versions. Tick (√) if forms are produced.

Other

Groups

Sentence 1

Sentence 1a

Sentence 2

Sentence 2a

Sentence 3

Sentence 4

Sentence 4a

Generic singular – ‘Travellers’

Infinitive/gerund alternatives ‘to find/finding

Lexical chain –visitor& ‘this transport system’

Should – for advice

Lexicl chain – ‘visitor’

Should – for deduction

Lexical chain – ‘tourist’

Group 2

version

√ √ √ You have to get

You √ √

Group 3

version

√ √ √√ √ √ Are able to

Visitors

Observers other comments

Student 1

Outgoing and confident the learner took on the role of a group leader during reconstruction.

Student 2

Made very few notes, seemed to struggle with the listening and was possibly relying on stronger group members during reconstruction.

Student 3

Participated well throughout and took on the role of scribe. Good individual notes.

Student 4

Very quiet, made few notes but contributed during the reconstruction stage and had to be prompted by other group members to participate.