Hensley reported on his development of a combined conversational storytelling and learner noticing through self-transcription course in which student pairs were trained and instructed to self-transcribe their own recorded conversations.
Though only reporting on his initial implementation of such a course, Hensley indicated that, while the effects of self-transcription may be hard to measure in learners’ performance, the conversational storytelling appeared to be having a positive effect
on learners’ fluency.
3. Overview
1. Lynch‟s transcription &Stenson‟s conversational
stories
2. CAS theory
3. Transcription Method
4. Results
Students‟ reaction
The “messy details”
5. Discussion
6. Future directions
4. The noticing hypothesis
“[T]he subjective experience of „noticing‟ is the
necessary and sufficient condition for the conversion
of [language] input to intake.” (p. 209)
(Schmidt 1993)
5. Noticing through Transcription
ESL setting
8 adults
Class in English for Academic Purposes (EAP)
Recorded in-class speaking task
Results:
72% of student changes correct
6:7 ratio of speaker vs. listener corrections
Students made 30% more changes than teacher
(Lynch 2001)
6. Fluency through Conversational Stories
Escape textbook-style Q&A “conversation”
Attempt to foster more natural style
Utilize conversational “rules” for practice
(Stenson 2003)
7. The “messy details”
System variation signals change
Observing development by locating variation
Looking at individual learners, not averages
Larsen-Freeman (2006)
Experimental look at 5 Chinese ESL learners
Observed over several months
Task iteration
8. Putting it all together
Research goals:
Use transcription and conversational storytelling
“rules” to elicit students‟ noticing and self-correction
of problem areas
Analyze results according to CAS theory
Class goals:
Progress toward fluency
Foster better language learners (LLs) through
noticing and self-analysis
Self, peer, and teacher feedback
9. Setting
Students
22 (20 female, 2 male)
Public university
Department of international communication
TOEIC range: 430-495
Course
First year/semester required oral communication
Twice a week, 15 weeks
Text: English Firsthand 2: 4th Edition
10. Conversational storytelling
“Rules” practiced in class
1. No (or very few) questions
Not always, just during targeted practice
Anticipate what listener wants to know
2. No silence
Working target was silence < one second
3. Somewhat related (no 関係ない話し)
4. “I” and “you” sentences
5. Add evaluation
(comment, opinion, shadowing, etc.)
6. Endless (bus stop scenario)
(Stenson 2003)
11. Transcription method
Plan
4 times
About once a month
Full transcription process each time
Training and practice before first transcription
13. Transcription training
1. Grammar
Verb tense: I goes. I went.
Article: a men the men
Plural/Singular: many woman many women
Part of Speech: excite exciting
2. Vocabulary
He talked his name. He said his name.
14. Transcription training
3. Editing
Repeating: I, I, I think so too. I think so too.
Bad starts: Wh- … What is that? What is that?
Pauses & fillers: Uhh … I, um … think so. I
think so.
Japanese: ___ってなに? What‟s ___?
4. Reforming
Changing to a better expression:
high school first grade first year in high
school
Adding to make it clearer:
Oh, same! Oh, we‟re the same!
5. Mixed
Any combination of 1-4
15. Transcription training
Practice transcript:
Tina: Hello. What‟s is your name?
Paul: My name is Paul. And you?
Tina: Um … My name is Tina. How are you?
Paul: I‟m five … twenty-five year old. And you?
Tina: I‟m twenty-four year old. Where are you from?
Paul: I come from Toronto. And you?
Tina: New York. What do you do?
Paul: Um. I am working, eh … to engineering.
17. Transcription method
Recording
2 students
Pairs self-selected
6~7 minutes recorded
Free conversation
Topics available: best day of your life, memory from high
school,
country you would like to
visit, etc.
MP3 audio file of conversation emailed to pair
18. Transcription method
Transcription = transcript 1
90~120 second selection
Students chose themselves
Transcription done by pairs outside of class
Revision A = transcript 2
Pairs revise their own transcript together
Submission (both transcripts 1 + 2)
19. Transcription method
Revision B = transcript 3
I made further revisions to transcript 2 (revised A)
Comparison
Student pairs compared transcripts 2 + 3 in class
Analysis
Using Lynch‟s (2001) categories, pairs counted total
corrections made (student and teacher)
Students instructed to focus on personal area with
most corrections in class conversation
20. Student response
1. Transcription helpful:
2. Discovered specific weakness:
3. Transcription a new experience:
4. Found new areas to focus on:
5. Transcription a useful experience:
6. Want to do transcription again:
0% 50% 100%
21. Student response
“Recording conversations has helped because I
could find mistakes which I hadn‟t noticed.”
“It‟s good for grammar.”
“I could notice my weaknesses/bad points/mistakes.”
“I learned a new method of conversational self-
analysis.”
“ためになった”
“I understand how to progress in my English life.”
“会話においての自己分析を通して新たな課題も見つ
かった”
“Transcription has many parts, so I was confused.”
22. Narrowing the scope
Only 7 students from here on
Trial sample – 1/3 of class
Students with full effort and participation points
TOEIC range
2 high, 3 mean, 2 low
28. T-unit fluency by student
9
8
7
YO
N
6 S
KA
C
5 YU
KO
4
3
recording 1 recording 2 recording 3 recording 4
29. Further exploration
Did the transcription and “rules” have any effect?
García-Amaya(2009) as inspiration
12 measures of fluency
Including: syllables per turn, seconds per turn, rate of
speech
I chose 3 measures of fluency:
Number of questions asked
Number of pauses between speaking turns (> one
sec.)
Number of intra-sentential hesitations
30. Ratio of words to questions asked
90
80
70
60 YO
N
50 S
KA
40 C
YU
30 KO
AVERAGE
20
10
0
recording 1 recording 2 recording 3 recording 4
31. Collective variables in CAS theory
“[A] collective variable is what emerges through
interactions of system dynamics … and can
therefore be used to describe complex systems”
(Hensley, 2011)
Fluency as a collective variable
As defined by and focused on per the goals of the
class:
t-unit fluency +
number of hesitations +
number of pauses
collective variable of fluency
32. Collective variable of fluency
1
YO
0.5
N
S
KA
C
0
YU
recording 1 recording 2 recording 3 recording 4
KO
AVERAGE
-0.5
-1
34. Issues need addressing
Lynch‟s (2001) transcript corrections too general
Clustering around grammar and editing (false
starts, pauses, etc.)
For a start:
Grammatical Lexical Mistakes Japanese
verb tense part of speech false starts
number word choice repetitions
article/prep. message abandon
missing S/V
possessive
pronoun
word order
35. Issues need addressing
Are students using what they‟ve discovered in
transcribing?
No way to know if they did this time
Insufficient data in general
Richer set and/or longer collection (limited by length of
course)
Recording
Done in my office – may have put pressure on students
Final recording was also assessment – additional
pressure
36. Future directions
All recordings in-class and separate from
assessment
Develop more targeted correction rubric
Grammar and editing areas
Try to increase sample size
Word cloud instead of textbook questions
More choice in topic, and less questions
Different student pairing?
Random vs. self-selected vs. by TOEIC score
Supplemental individual self-analysis/review?
Students keep some kind of (audio/video?) progress
journal
37. References
The Five Graces Group. (2009). Language is a complex
adaptive system.
García-Amaya, L. (2009). New findings on fluency measures
across three different learning contexts.
Hensley, J. (2011). Collective variables in applied linguistics
research.
Jones, R. E. (2001). A consciousness-raising approach to the
teaching of conversational storytelling skills.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of
complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written
production of five Chinese learners of English.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems
and applied linguistics.
Lynch, T. (2001). Seeing what they meant: Transcribing as a
route to noticing.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language
acquisition.
Stenson, G. (2003). Listening fluency with conversational