Speech and the Impact of Verbal Peer Feedback on Learning Through Writing in a Francophone Minority and Majority Context

1. Lizanne Lafontaine, Université du Québec en Outaouais, Canada www.lizannelafontaine.com Sylvie Blain, Université de Moncton, Canada Isabelle Giguère, Université du Québec en Outaouais, Canada This research is funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Speech and the Impact of Verbal Peer Feedback on Learning Through Writing in a Francophone Minority and Majority Context in Canada European Conference on Educational Research September 8, 2005

2. Presentation Outline • Background • Objectives and Research Questions • Conceptual Framework • Pedagogical Intervention: PRG (peer response group) • Methodology • Participants • Data Collection • Data Analysis • Results • Conclusion

3. Background • Disappointing results from Francophone students in NB and QC in regard to written productions(groupe DIEPE, 1995; Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, 1994; Ministère de l’Éducation du Québec, 2001) • Great difficulties in writing especially in respect to spelling, grammar and syntax in elementary school children • Several studies have examined the impact of verbal peer feedback in first and second languages in writing editing groups (PRGs), among children as well as adults (Blain and Lafontaine, 2004; Blain, 2001; Blain and Painchaud 1999; Connor and Asenavage; 1994; Mendonça and Johnson, 1994; Nelson and Murphy, 1993; Beer-Toker, Huel and Richer, 1991; Brakel-Olson, 1990; Messier, 1989; Samway, 1987; Urzua, 1987; Gere and Stevens, 1985)

4. Background • Studies dealing with peer conversation structure in the context of mutual assistance and developing writing skills as well as the effects of task problems such as autonomous writing are few in number and warrant further study(Dreyfus and Cellier, 2000 ; Le Cunff and Jourdain, 1999; Ceillier, 2003; Caillier, 2003) • European Context : • Several educational interventions (negotiated dictation, poor texts, training pupils to reflect on language [ateliers de négociation graphique], tutoring, guidance, debate) aim for interactions between peers regarding the form of the text, but there are few regarding content(Caillier, 2003; Cellier, 2003; Haas and Maurel, 2003) • Educational interventions less supervised than those PRGs related to conversational structure

5. Objectives and Research Questions • General Objective: fill the data gap in the area of oral didactics • In the area of verbal peer feedback among elementary writers • In the area of conversational structure among pupils where the objectives are mutual help and knowledge building • Research Questions: 1. Was the manner, in which peer feedback was led among pupils during the PRGs, motivating the children to take or not into account the comments of their peers? 2. Does ongoing verbal feedback within PRGs encourage the improvement of oral language quality? 3. What are the differences and similarities between the Francophone minority (NB) and majority (QC) contexts when reviewing the overall results?

6. Conceptual Framework: Oral Didactics • Didactic models of oral form (De Pietro and Schneuwly, 2003; Dolz and Schneuwly, 1998; Lafontaine, 2001; 2003) and Oral integrated into classroom practice (Nonnon, 2001; Le Cunff, 1999) • Pragmatic approach integrated into classroom practice: taking into account pragmatic issues of oral communication by teaching these before proceeding to actual communication (Caillier, 2003; Maurer, 2001; Le Cunff and Jourdain, 1999) • Reflexive Oral: learning through interaction, consideration of the recipient, active listening, rephrasing, speaking to develop social skills, substantiating, cognitive development: the oral favoring self-assessment of writing (Cellier, 2003; Lusetti, 2004; Bouchard, 2004; Auriac-Peyronnet, 2003; Chabanne and Bucheton, 2002; Delabarre and Trégnier, 2001; Plane, 2001; Nonnon, 2000)

7. Conceptual Framework: Oral Didactics • Construction of discursive behaviours and interactions favouring understanding in French classes (Ceillier, 2003; Caillier, 2003; Dreyfus and Cellier, 2000 ; Durand, 1998 ; Le Cunff, 1993 ; Le Cunff, Turco and Gadet, 1998 ; Trégnier, 1990) • Linguistic insecurity in a minority Francophone context(Boudreau, 2001; Boudreau and Dubois, 2001; Krashen, 1998; Boudreau and Dubois, 1992) • Relevancy of educational intervention (Caillier, 2003): • Part of a classroom environment and within a relatively comforting atmosphere • Part of a more general environment that is a common culture of the classroom (knowledge set, "related to" and know-how) • Encourages real communication among pupils, by the absence of guilt feelings or competition for high scores

8. Educational Intervention: PRG • PRG : Meeting between a writer and his peers during which the writer reads out loud his/her text and receives comments from group members on both the content and the form of the text • First PRG: Focus on Content • Each writer reads his/her text out loud • Each writer receives feedback: • Positive comments • Questions • Specific recommendations • Second PRG: Focus on Form • Peers read writer’s texts • They highlight the errors they have found and explain why they think it is erroneous.

9. Methodology • Participants : • Two fourth-grade classes in Moncton and two in Gatineau (one control group and one experimental group in each province) • Data Collection: • One essay per month during 7 months: 1st draft and final copy (experimental and control groups.) • Three series of PRGs (experimental gr.) recorded on audiotape for 16 children (2 PRGs per province = 8 children per province): October and December 2003, March 2004 • Three series of semi-structured interviews (experimental gr.) for 8 children having participated in PRGs (4 per province) : October and December 2003, March 2004 • Data Analysis: • Verbatim transcription and content analysis by category using Atlas.ti (PRGs and interviews) • Interjudge reliability

10. Methodology • Categories of Speech Analysis in the PRGs – question 1 (Le Cunff and Jourdain, 1999) : • Elements of oral communication: pragmatic, discursive, linguistic, metalinguistic, self improvement, metalinguistic knowledge • Discursive Behaviours: explain, justify, reformulate, discuss, convince, interrupt, rebut, suggest, etc. • Basis of discursive behaviours of adults and peers (language intervention whereby the speaker helps someone else overcome difficulties) • Analysis categories of interviews – question 1: • Integration or non-integration of the comments into the text • Impact of oral communication (positive or negative) • Analytical Tools – question 2 (criteria : theoretical framework, MÉQ 2001, 2002 and MÉNB, 2001): • Rating form for Oral Language Skills • Speaker assessment criteria • Level of skills criteria

11. Interpretation of Results - Questions 1 and 3 Within PRGs and during interviews, in QC and in NB: • Peer comments that are integrated, are so because verbalization is done in a polite, kind, pertinent or justified manner (supporting material in PRGs) • These (peer) comments are further integrated because the writer (according to analysis of interview verbatims): • Likes the suggestions of peers • Agrees with suggested correction • Verifies the correction in reference tools • Himself/herself integrates his/her corrections made on his/her own • Agrees with the adult’s suggestion

12. Interpretation of the Results - Question 1: Average of Most Frequent Speech Elements

13. Interpretation of the Results - Question 1: Average of Most Frequent Student Types of Support

14. Interpretation of the Results – Questions 2 and 3: Average by Province • No significant improvement in oral language quality: stable from one PRG to another • QC: Average to good speakers; «acquisition» level • NB: Weak to average speakers; «acquisition» level

15. Average of Speaker Types and Skills Levels per Child

16. Interpretation of the Results - Questions 2 and 3 • Similarities : • Stability of speaker types and levels • Case for familiar communication by not promoting competition or guilt of having made a mistake (Caillier, 2003) • Differences: • NB: weaker articulation and pronunciation, greater influence of English: lexical Anglicisms (well, so) and semantical Anglicisms (non j’ai pas); complete sentences done in English (Boudreau, 2001; Boudreau and Dubois, 2001; Krashen, 1998; Boudreau and Dubois, 1992) • NB: greater difficulty in formulating complex sentences: use of too many short sentences; incorrect interrogative sentence structure (où c’que t’as trouvé ça: addition of pronoun «ce»); • QC: lexical Anglicisms (Game boy, Barbie, fun) and interrogative sentence structure (Tu veux-tu?; addition of pronoun «tu») correlated with a familiar language level • QC: omissions and repetitions "parrotting" • QC: vague and meaningless statements (missing verbs)

17. Research Limits • Small groups met outside the classroom: biased portrait of reality • PRGs audio-taped but not videotaped: lacking additional paralinguistic information • No didactic use of PRGs as a teaching tool in class. PRGs are only perceived as a tool to improve writing but not as a valid didactic approach that can be generalized to many areas of learning. • Strong adult presence in QC PRGs and inconsistent in NB • Time constraints imposed by teachers • Frequency of PRGs (only 3)

18. Conclusion : in QC and NB… • Oral is reflexive and a teaching medium: used to teach writing • Oral interactions conducted according to PRGs guidelines helped achieve self-assessment of writing • Development of disciplinary knowledge in regards to language (syntax, consistency, vocabulary, spelling, etc.) • Development of social skills (listening, consideration of others, etc.). (Lusetti, 2004; Bouchard, 2004; Cellier, 2003; Auriac-Peyronnet, 2003; Chabanne and Bucheton, 2002; Delabarre and Trégnier, 2001; Plane, 2001; Nonnon, 2000) • The impact of speech within the group is positive, since pertinent oral comments are almost always integrated • Peer to peer support has to be very present and efficient in order to build knowledge and language skills

19. Conclusion: in QC and NB … Pupils arefully aware of the pragmatic issues of oral communication (Caillier, 2003; Maurer, 2001; Le Cunff and Jourdain, 1999) • The PRG is a relevant educational intervention, comforting and establishing a common culture among participants (Caillier, 2003) • Regularly participating in PRGs didn’t help improve the children’s oral language quality (stability, speaker type, and level) • Oral-based learning is not favoured by teachers: it is not perceived as a teaching tool and is not taught according to a valid didactic model. Oral is mostly integrated into classroom practice, however, in a unconscious manner(Nonnon, 2001; Le Cunff, 1999)