Vietnamese/Chinese, Burmese, and Italian language ... - ed

[Pages:425]DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 252 097

FL 014 793

AUTHOR TITLE

INSTITUTION SPONS AGENCY PUB DATE CONTRACT NOTE PUB TYPE

Kreeft, Joy; And Others Dialogue Writing: Analysis of Student-Teacher Interactive Writing in the Learning of English as a Second Language. Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C. National Inst. of Education (ED), Washington, DC. Dec 84 G-83-0030

435p.

Reports 7 Research/Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE DESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

MF01/PC18 Plus Postage. Classroom Techniques; *Dialogs (Language); *Diaries; Discourse Analysis; Elementary Education; *English (SeCond Language); Grade 6; Grammar; Language Patterns; *Language Usage; Limited English Speaking; Morphemes; Questioning Techniques; *Second Language Learning; Teacher Student Relationship; *Writing Processes *Dialogue Journals

ABSTRACT A study of the dialogue journal writing of six sixth

grade students of English as a Second Language (ESL) examines the interaction with the teacher. The subjects had been in the United States for less than .a year, and came from Korean, Vietnamese/Chinese, Burmese, and Italian language backgrounds. Data for the study were drawn from the students' dialogue journals and classroom observations and from interviews with the teacher and each student. The study is divided into three sections. In the first, dialogue journal interaction is placed within the classroom context, as a multilingual classrooln management tool, and each student is profiled. The second section contains studies of the journal text,. focusing on various aspects of discourse, including teacher strategies to promote student participation, teacher's questions, characteristics of the language input students receive in the teacher's entries, and patterns in the language functions used by the teacher and students. The third section documents the students' use of English grammatical morphemes, compares it with patterns found .n previous studies of ESL morphology, and ana]yzes it across the ten months of writing in the journals. In addition, the linguistic factors influencing the use of the morphemes and the importance of individual learner strategies and language background in patterns of morpheme use are examined, and analytical issues are discussec

(MSE)

***********************************************************************

*

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

*

*

from the original document.

*

*************************************************kk********************

a0%

(t\rI.

(NJ

Dialogue Writing: Analysis of Student-Teacher Interactive Writing in the. Learning of English as a Second Language

NIE -G -83 -0030

by

Joy Kreeft Roger W. Shuy

with

Jana Staton . Leslee Reed

Robby Morroy

Center for Applied- Linguistics Washington, D. C.

December 1984

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION EDUCAIIONAI RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER 1(ry10

This document has helot reproduced as rot mist horn the piirson or orwrotation originating it Minor (-Wilgus have been niarie to improve mprododuatrwality

Pouus of view m (1/011011% staled in this duCU milli (to not nocitssarily lomsent off111411NIE lioSittin or pmhi y

The research conduct-:d and reported herein was funded by the National Institute of Education under NIE-G-83-0030 to the Center for. Applied Linguistics, Joy Kreeft and Roger W. Shuy, Principal Investigators.

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the position, policy or endorsement of the funding agency.

Project Duration: September 30, 1983 - September 29, 1984

This report may not be reproduced without permission.

DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY1

DIALOGUE WRITING: ANALYSIS OF STUDENT-TEACHER INTERACTIVE WRITING IN THE LEARNING OF ENGLISH. AS A SECOND LANGUAGE

This study presents dialogue journal writing as an effective practice with students learning English as a .second language (ESL) and analyzes the dialogue journal interaction of six sixth grade students who are beginning ESL learners and their teacher. A dialogue journal is a bound notebook in which students write regularly, as much as they wish and about anything they wish. The teacher responds to each student entry. Thus, they carry on a "conversation" n writing. The kinds of writing that occur can be as diVerse as the studentS. They describe their activities, feelings and attitudes, ask questi ns, seek advice, argue their points, and even Complain.

The data base for the study is the daily dialogue journal writing for ..a ten-month period (from September to June) of the six students and their teacher in a classroom in Los Angeles. The students are in a classroom of 27 students from 12 countries and 10 language backgrounds. The first languages of the students chosen for the study are: Korean (3), Vietnamese/Chinese (1), Burmese (1), and Italian (1). These students had been in the United States for l ss than one year when

1'

This study was funded by the National Insti ute of Education, NIE-G-83-0030, Joy Kreeft and Roger W. Shuy Princi al Investigators, with Jana Staton, Leslee Reed and Robby Morroy, Center r Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C., 1983 - 1984.

they, began writing in dialogue journals. One student, from Vietnam, was not literate in his own language when he began writing in English. Four students are male, two female. Data collected during classroom observations and interviews with the teacher and each student complement the dialogue journal text.

The study is divided into three sections. Section I places the dialogue journal interaction within the classroom context.. In one chapter the teacher explains the importance of the dialogue journal as a. classroom management tool in this multilingual, multicultural classroom. A second chapter gives a detailed profile of each student, describes theft student's progress during the year, and makes available substantial portions of the written text.

Section II consists of studies Of the dialogue journal text, focusing on various aspects of the discourse. In one study strategies that the teacher employs to promote student participation in the journals and to support student writing are identified and discussed, and a method for determining the effectiveness of each strategy in this type of interaction is outlined. A second study focuses specifically on the teacher's questions, and finds questioning patterns in the journals that are quite different from those typically found in classroom discourse. Questions in the journals serve not to check student knoWledge, but to support and advance the student's' contribution, and thus promote critical thinking and writing development.' A third study examines characteristics of the language input that individual students receive in the teacher's dialogue journal entries, and argues that the acquisitional processes that take place in the dialogue journal interaction resemble in many ways the process of oral language acquisition. We can conclude,

therefore that reading and writing can be naturally acquired, in both

first and second languages, in the process of meaningful interaction. A fourth study examines the language functions used by the teacher and the

students- in these journals, and compares patterns of function use found_

in these data tb those found .in the dialogue journals of native English

speakers (from taton, et al.,,. 1982). This study identifies clear patterns in the to cher's use of2language,functions as she adapts her

language to the. glish.proficiency level of the student, and also

guides the stude is in the use of particular functions.

Section III documents the students'. use of selected English gram-

matical morphemes in.the journals. Chapter Eight, a cross-sectional,

.quantitative stud compares patterns of morpheme use among the individ-

ual students and ith patterns found in previous studies of morphology

in ESL, and finds a great deal of uniformity in these. patterns. Chapter

Nine, a more'qualitative, longitudinal study, analyzes change over the

I

.

ten months of writing in the use of each morpheme. This study also exa-

mines in more deta 1 the linguistic factors that influence use of the

morphemes and the i portance of individual learner strategies and.

language.backgroundlin patterns of morpheme use, and discusses important

analytical issuest at arise in the analysis of morphemes in dialogue

journal text.

iii

0

PREFACE,

The research reported here was parried out under contract number NIE-G-0030 with the Natfonal Institute Of Education, from September 30, 1983, to September 29, 1984. The aim of, the project was to describe patterns of interaction and language acquisition in the dialogue journals of. beginning ESL learners. This prOject grows out of an earlier study also funded by NIE, an analysis of\the dialogue journals of native

\

English speakers and the same teacher who participated in this study li (Staton, Shuy, Kreeft and Reed, 1982). 1 As Principal Investigators, we wish to acknowledge especially

the contributions of our co-investigators:and authors, Jana Staton, Leslee Reed, and Robby Morroy. Jana Staton provided the initial impetus for this study. 'During the 1980-81 school year'she collected the dialogue

\

journal data for four of the students and conducted interviews with them and Mrs. Reed, She also helped establish the framework for the study and determine directions for analysis, as well as writing a chapter of this report. Most important,.she.first saw .the tremendous power of dialogue journal writing as an educational practice and the richness of the writing of these students in the journals.

This project demonstrates the strength of practitioner/researcher collaboration. Mrs. Reed has spent many hours with us reflecting on her practice and our research findings as well as writing one of the chapters. Her participation broadens considerably the scope of this report, making it relevant to practitioners as well as researchers.

Robby Morroy was involved in the data extrac\tion for the analysis of morphology and huthored a chapter on teacher strategies. Madeline

Adkins conducted much of the analysis for the chapter on teact

questions, and wrote portions of the student profiles.

The cooperation and encouragement of George Avak, the'principal at Alexandria Avenue Elementary School, as well as the help of ther school administrators and staff of the school and the Los Angels

Unified School District, who have now participated in two research stu-

\

dies of dialogue journals, is greatly appreciated. We are also grateful

. to the students in Room Eleven who made this research possible by\

\

opening their journals to usand giving us their observations and\reac-

.

tions, as well as to their parents, who gave their consent to the\study.

Walt Wolfram of the Center for Applied Linguistics and Raltph

Fasold at Georgetown University made insightful comments on early

1

drafts of parts of the report. Young Song provided helpful information

\

about the structure of Korean and Mya Myakin, about the structure f

Burmese.

1

We are also grateful to theCenter for Applied Linguistics or providing a place to conduct a second study of dialogue journal writing, and particularly to those who helped in the preparation of the report itself. Sundari Prahasto was Instrumental in typing and organizing initial drafts, and Sonia Kundert's expertise in document preparation brought the report .to its completion.

Although this is a long report, we have by no means said all there is to say about dialogue journal use with beginning ESL learners and the acquisitional patterns that can be expected. We hope, however, that by focusing on the classroom, the students, and the journal text:

re

v

itself from a variety of perspectives, we have presented not only .a

study of English language acquisition in the journals per se, but also a

multifaceted picture of the many dynamics involved in the dialogue Jour-

nal process which contribute to effective interaction and second

language acquisition. We hope also that we have laid the groundwork for

future studies of second language acquisition in this rich source of

data.

Joy Kreeft and Roger W. Shuy Principal Investigators Center for Applied-Linguistics December, 1984

vi

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download