Sylvie Blain, Université de Moncton Lizanne Lafontaine, Université du Québec en Outaouais www.lizannelafontaine.com

1. Sylvie Blain, Université de Moncton Lizanne Lafontaine, Université du Québec en Outaouais www.lizannelafontaine.com This research is financed by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada Learning to Write: The Effects of Verbal Feedback among French-Speaking Pupils of the Southeast New Brunswick and the French-Speaking Pupils of the Outaouais Region in Quebec AERA Pre-conferenceApril 10,2005

2. Presentation Outline • Research Questions • Pedagogical Intervention: PRG (peer response group) • Methodology • Participants • Data Collection • Data Analysis • Results • Conclusion • Perspectives

3. Research Questions 1. What type of comments were integrated into revisions in subsequent versions of their texts? 2. Was the manner in which peer feedback was delivered among students during the PRGs motivating the children to take into account, or not, the comments of their peers? 3. What are the differences and similarities between the Francophone minority (NB) and majority (QC) contexts when reviewing the overall results?

4. Pedagogical Intervention : PRG • First PRG: Focus on Content • Each writer reads their 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 while explaining the basis of the mistake

5. 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 for seven months: • First draft and final copy • PRG (experimental group) and interaction recording for 16 childen (8 per province) • Once every other month • Semi-directed interviews for 8 children (4 per province) • Once every other month

6. Methodology: Data Analysis- question 1 (see example) Catagories of analysis of verbal peer feedback and textual revisions Feedback Feedback/revision Feedback/revision

7. Methodology: Data Analysis- question 2 (see example) • Categories of Speech Analysis (Le Cunff and Jourdain, 1999): • PRG : • Elements of oral communication: pragmatic, discursive, linguistic, metalinguistic, self improvement, metalinguistic knowledge (Le Cunff and Jourdain, 1999) • 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) • INTERVIEWS : • Integration or non integration of the comments • Impact of oral communication (positive or negative)

8. A Qualitative Example of the Approach

15. Synthesis and Results Interpretation: question 1 • Types of interactions quite similar for students in both provinces, but • Higher number of interactions for Quebeckers in nearly every category, predominantely in • Positive evaluations for communication • Questions concerning consistency • Revisions concerning content are similar • With the exception of New Brunswickers making more additions in the communication category • Total number of interactions and revisions are similar for both provinces with • Predominance in grammar in Quebec • Predominance in spelling in NB

16. Synthesis and Results Interpretation: question 1 • More frequent integration of form corrections rather than content for both provinces • Quebeckers ignore almost half of peer comments, whereas New Brunswickers ignore less than one third • Consideration of verbal comments regarding content is greater in NB than QC, whereas for form, it is almost the same **************************************************************************** • Peer inspired revisions is about the same proportion in both provinces in regards to content, whereas is it higher in QC for form • Great propensity among New Brunswickers to correct form errors autonomously • Autonomous content revisions are more numerous among Quebeckers

17. Results Interpretation- question 2 In PRGs and interviews in Quebec and New Brunswick: • Peer comments that are integrated into the texts are done because verbalization is done in a polite, kind, pertinent or justified manner (verified in PRGs) • These comments are integrated as well because the writer (as per analysis of verbatim interviews): • Liked the peer suggestions • Agrees with the suggested correction • Verified the correction in the reference tools • Integrated his own individual corrections • Accepted the adult’s suggestion

18. Percentage of Most Frequent Speech Elements

19. Results Intepretation- question 2 • Within PRGs, speech is focused on these elements: • Metalinguistic knowledge: tracking and error explanation, correction proposals • Pragmatic: discussions on issues relating to the situation (ideas conveyed in the text, acceptance or non acceptance of comments that are not expressed correctly) • Discursive: discussion on discursive behaviours (PRG procedures) • Behaviours ask, suggest and explain/justify • Quebec children expressed themselves twice as often than New Bruswickers (for example 900 QC discursive behaviours and 488 NB, 377 types of basis QC and 158 NB in PRG 1 • Linguistic: discussions on textual consistency (strong students)

20. Percentages of Most Frequent Discursive Behaviours

21. Results Interpretation- question 2 • Within PRGs, peer support is an important part: • Question • Encourage • Reformulate • Within PRGs, adult support plays an important role (maybe too great?) : • QC and NB: the adult facilitates and provides support • Québec: the adult intervenes more often to control the PRG • NB: at times, the adult monopolizes the discussion • The students seem to reinvest the support provided by the adult with their own procedures (e.g.: « wait », « one at a time », etc.) = autoregulation

22. Percentages of Most Frequent Student Types of Support

23. Results Interpretation- question 2 • Limits of PRGs regarding speech construction: • Smaller groups of children • Difficulty in stating that « speaking » is sufficient to « learn to speak » • No « didactization » of PRGs as a teaching tool in class (the teacher doesn’t teach oral communication in PRGs). PRGs are only perceived as a way to improve writing and not as an oral teaching tool. • Presence of an adult in PRGs • Time constraints imposed by teachers

24. Conclusion: in both provinces … • Writers integrate peer comments more easily for form (errors) than content (ideas and consistency) • The impact of speech within the group is positive, since pertinent oral comments are almost always integrated • Speech within the group is essentially based on metalinguistic knowledge, discursive andpragmatic • Peer to peer support is very present and efficient in order to build knowledge and language skills • The adult’s role may be too important, which can bias certain results

25. Perspectives for Further Analysis • The PRGs having become habitual (Le Cunff and Jourdain, 1999), the students, the strong ones as much as the weak ones, build their language skills in an explicit/implicit way • There is a conciliation between the oral work within PRGs and the development of disciplinary knowledge in regards to the language (syntax, consistency, lexicon, spelling, etc). Oral communication is therefore a teaching media (it is used to teach writing). • NB students are more likely to attempt to find suggestions suited to each text instead of general suggestions.