Voit, M. Do dialogue journals with recasts improve the writing skills for adult learners with limited literacy skills? (2009)

This study examines dialogue journaling with low-literacy adult English language learners and looks for statistical improvements in specific grammatical morphemes. General instructor responses and recasts were also explored. Key influences included current and past students, educational colleagues and experts in the field (Peyton, Staton, Reed and Jones). The study analyzed dialogue journal entries for a 3-month period, with adult low-literacy English language learners in a community education class. Using general responses and recasts, the author responded to the entries and looked for improvements in specific grammatical morphemes. Additionally, a pre-test, questionnaire (before and after study) and post-test were used to determine the results. For this time period, the response method did not make a difference in improvement, and the actual use of the grammatical morphemes did not seem to improve statistically. However, there were many other benefits including participant confidence and a closer community atmosphere within the classroom.

DO DIALOGUE JOURNALS WITH RECASTS IMPROVE THE WRITING SKILLS

FOR ADULT LEARNERS WITH LIMITED LITERACY SKILLS?

By

Michelle Henry Voit

A capstone submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in ESL.

Hamline University

Saint Paul, Minnesota

February, 2009

Primary Advisor: Betsy Parrish Secondary Advisor: Julia Reimer Peer Reviewer: Julie Athman

To my daughters Megan, Rachel and Ella, may you never give up and never stop

learning.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Writing Practice Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Dialogue Journaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Responding to Student Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

The Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Significance for Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Student Educational Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

What are Dialogue Journals? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Vygotskys Theory of Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Benefits of Dialogue Journals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Issues Regarding Dialogue Journals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Dialogue Journal Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Responding to Student Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Research Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Educational Setting and Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Research Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

iii

Pre-Testing and Survey Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Dialogue Journaling Statistics and Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Impressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Positive Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Implications for Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Final Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Appendix A: Pre-test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Appendix B: Tell me about your writing Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Appendix C: Background Information Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Appendix D: Post-test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

iv

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 3.1 Participant Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Table 4.1 Individual Scores for Use of Four Morphemes (Pre-test) . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Table 4.2 Tell me about your writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Table 4.3 Student results (Fartun) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Table 4.4 Student results (Camilo) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Table 4.5 Student results (Abdi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Table 4.6 Student results (Jayne) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Table 4.7 Student results (Boon) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Table 4.8 Student results (Farhia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Table 4.9 Student results (Lee) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Table 4.10 Post-test results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Figure 4.1 Control Group Regular Past Tense Verb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Figure 4.2 Recast Group Regular Past Tense Verb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure 4.3 Control Group Irregular Past Tense Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Figure 4.4 Recast Group Irregular Past Tense Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Figure 4.5 Control Group Present Tense Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Figure 4.6 Recast Group Present Tense Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Figure 4.7 Control Group Regular Plural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Figure 4.8 Recast Group Regular Plural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

v

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Farhia* was a new student in my Community Education Intermediate ESL class.

With a bright smile and even brighter attitude, she was a woman everyone respected and

even admired. She had been in the United States fifteen years, and, despite having no

opportunity for formal schooling in her native country, she had now advanced from the

beginning course to my intermediate classroom. She and her husband owned a very

successful small business in the neighboring city and she was busy raising four children.

Upon meeting Farhia, I immediately noticed the beautiful English she spoke. This was

surprising to me. A slight accent was noticeable, but the vocabulary, sentence structure

and content rivaled that of a native English speaker. Surely Farhia belonged elsewhere.

The local university or technical college would be more apt to further her education.

However, it soon became apparent what Farhia needed.

Despite near verbal fluency, Farhia had never learned to read or write (in her

native languages - she speaks three others) or in English. Born in Ethiopia and raised in

Somalia, she did not have a chance to learn to read or write before coming to the United

States. Then came babies and the immediate need of a job to help support her family.

Farhia learned speaking and listening from paying attention on the job, but reading and

writing were not as easily self-taught. Struggling to sound-out and spell the most basic of

* All names throughout the paper have been changed.

2

words in English, I could tell that Farhia, despite her can do attitude, was feeling

frustrated. Farhia was not alone in my class of primarily Somali students. Most of them

could speak very well and hold conversations quite proficiently; however, reading was

still a struggle and writing seemed nearly impossible for many of them. This learning

pattern was such a contrast from many of my other intermediate students from other areas

in the world, who struggled with conversation skills, but could read and write amazingly

well and knew grammar rules that I, as the teacher, sometimes was unsure of. Although

this great variation in student abilities was challenging, it also was very encouraging and

complementary in that it gave the students the opportunity to help and learn from one

another.

After meeting and speaking with Farhia, I realized that even though I asked a lot

of questions and tried to relate to my students, I was not truly taking into account the

backgrounds and the past history of my adult learners with respect to how they had

worked to learn English up until this point. And, despite all my efforts, some of the

students were not progressing as they (or I) hoped they would. These were very bright

adults, who all spoke at least one language besides English. In fact, many actually spoke

two, three or more. Having successfully relocated to the United States, many with a

spouse and children, they had proven to want to succeed and most worked hard to

provide for their family and offer support for their children in school. They certainly

could learn!

This conflict of wanting to learn and actually successfully grasping the language

led me to look more closely at the students I was teaching. Although they all had one

3

common goal, learning the English language, they certainly had not taken the same path

to arrive in my Community Education English classroom. Most of the students came

from Somalia and Mexico; others came from Laos, Sudan, Cambodia, Vietnam,

Colombia, Brazil and Mongolia. All came with the hope of creating a better life for

themselves here, but some left war-torn cities and refugee camps, while others left

extreme poverty, and still others left stability and success for the opportunity to live in

America. Some had rigorous schooling throughout their childhood and adolescence, and

others had limited formal education or none at all.

With all this in mind, I decided to take a fresh approach to my methods, and look

to bring in some new ideas in writing instruction to my curriculum. My students needed

to improve their writing skills. With so many varying degrees of literacy, there had to be

something I could do for all my students to focus on the writing skills.

Writing Practice Evaluation

Taking a step back to assess what I had been doing in my teaching, I came to the

realization that during my time as an ESL instructor, I had focused my writing instruction

on more of a behavioral and functional approach; that is, I focused my students on what

was needed for survival. We worked on very functional, content-specific writing. For

example, we filled out sample job applications and medical forms. We practiced writing

checks, resumes and school registration forms. While I certainly do not feel this was a

disservice to my students, I began to wonder if maybe I should be focusing on more than

those survival skills to truly improve the overall literacy skills. In fact, those that are

critical of the behavioral and functional approach believe that writing should be much

4

more than filling out forms and that this approach actually may limit the types of writing

students are prepared for and the roles that it encourages them to take (Tollefson, 1989 as

cited in Auerbach, 1999).

Surely, those written survival skills have their place in an adult ESL classroom.

They focus on successful functioning in society, life skills, and on what students can do

as a result of the instruction (Auerbach, 1986). But, looking a bit deeper, depending on

what life skills one is focusing on, and how success is defined, these activities may

support adult ESL students getting only the lowest level jobs (Auerbach, 1986). Of

course filling out forms was never the only writing we did in class, but maybe other types

were not done regularly enough to achieve and maintain progress.

Auerbach (1999) proposes a more cognitive approach to writing which focuses on

writing to express oneself and make meaning. This approach focuses more on

meaningful communication, with content that is easily accessible to students. Their prior

knowledge and information about their lives can be used rather than having to research

anything else (Vanett & Jurich, 1990). This type of more open writing also focuses on

the process of writing while reflecting and exploring other ideas (Auerbach, 1999).

With writing in mind, I looked at my current students and it was easy for me to

identify those that were serious about learning. They came to class regularly, and were

always armed with their notebook, in which they frequently wrote down words or phrases

that they had questions on. We would spend a lot of time going over these items. Most of

the time they wrote down exactly what they heard (spelling not important), which I could

usually figure out once I was given the context. Coupling these ideas, the notebook

5

vocabulary and the information about their lives, and keeping Farhias writing issue in

mind, I started to wonder how dialogue journaling would work in my classroom. It

certainly supported the basic educational beliefs of a learner-centered classroom, that is,

one in which the learners knowledge and experiences are considered important and they

can make choices about the content and direction that the class takes (Parrish, 2003).

And this was certainly a direction I wanted to take my classes.

Dialogue Journaling

Dialogue journals help in building community within classrooms (Kim, 2005)

and I have used them in my traditional English classroom with native speaking high

school students. But, could a dialogue journal improve a students writing? Certainly on

the surface it incorporated many cognitive learning strategies into an ongoing activity:

repeating (perhaps beginning and ending entries the same way), formally practicing the

writing system, recognizing and using formulas and patterns (this could bring much more

awareness of routine phrases), recombining (definitely a non-threatening outlet for

experimenting with longer phrases) and practicing naturalistically (a conversation in

written form). Using print to understand incoming or produce outgoing messages,

analyzing expressions, translating, transferring, summarizing and highlighting could also

all be applied (Oxford, 1990).

However, most of the research that I have found on dialogue journaling focuses

on quite advanced English language learners. My students are at an intermediate level,

which in our program constitutes CASAS reading scores from 200-240. This represents

a very wide range of abilities, and does not reflect the learners ability to write. I have

6

students who can only spell the most basic words in English (e.g. in, sit, at, etc.) and

certainly are not able to put together a sentence, along with students who can very

eloquently give a written description of the city or village that they were raised in.

Additionally, other research with dialogue journaling was done on very young ESL

learners. My learners are adults adults who can be very inflexible with language

learning beliefs. Could dialogue journals work for all these students? Additionally, I

would be responding to the journal entries. Would the matter of responding impact the

success or enthusiasm of the student writer?

Responding to Student Writing

There are many ways in which a teacher can respond to student writing and much

discussion on whether those responses should include error correction or not. The

response/feedback could be direct, which occurs when the teacher identifies the error and

then provides the correct form (known as a recast) or indirect, where it is indicated that

an error has been made, but no correction is provided, thereby leaving the student to

figure out the problem on their own. Indirect feedback can also be simplified as being

coded or uncoded. Coded feedback shows the specific location of the error and gives the

type of error found with a code (PT might mean present tense) (Bitchener, Young &

Cameron, 2005). Conversely, responses to journal entries could simply be a response to

the content contained in the entry. In this case, no corrective feedback is given. Does the

type of feedback affect the perceived improvement, or lack of improvement, in writing?

7

The Research Questions

The goal of my research is to determine if dialogue journaling can positively

affect writing accuracy with intermediate level (CASAS scores ranging from 200 240)

ESL students, including non-formally educated, low-literacy adults, and, whether the

manner in which the instructor replies affects the outcome. Specifically, I hope to

discover if recasts impact accuracy of the targeted morphemes: past tense regular and

irregular verbs, present tense third personal singular verbs and the regular plural nouns.

Or, is a certain level of literacy needed prior to journaling in order to see improvements

in writing accuracy, based on the specific morpheme analysis.

Significance for Others

Teachers are always looking for new ways to reach their students, identify with

their students and of course improve their students language skills. Dialogue journals

seem to address all of those issues together. However, many of the studies on dialogue

journals specifically target college-level English language learners, or, at the least, very

advanced learners. This study will help to determine if the usefulness of dialogue

journals can be transferred to lower-level adult students as well. This study helps pinpoint

the effectiveness of dialogue journals with writing skills that vary greatly. With the help

of this study, teachers will be able to judge whether or not dialogue journals are

worthwhile for those with very low writing skills. Furthermore, this study will determine

if recasts are an effective form of feedback within dialogue journaling, or if similar

results are found with simple responses that include no corrective feedback.

8

Additionally, with the ever increasing Somali population in Minnesota, I believe

teachers, especially here within central Minnesota, will be interested in seeing if dialogue

journals can improve the writing skills of this specific population. Particularly since

there is such a strong oral tradition in the Somali culture, this activity would seem to fit

that strength, and then take it a step further in working on additional literacy skills such

as writing and reading as well (Farid & McMahan, 2004). In fact, since many of the

traditions and values of the Somali culture have been passed down the generations using

such things as poetry, stories and proverbs (Farid & McMahan, 2004) albeit orally,

dialogue journaling seems perfect to reach these particular learners.

Finally, I hope this research will be of benefit for the students. By determining if

this activity helps them show improvement in their writing, it is something that they can

continue with other teachers, tutors, or even friends or colleagues from class. Dialogue

journaling could help the students practice working independently and also encourage

more abstract thinking within the entries as the students writing grows. Additionally,

simple confidence in their ability can emerge as they are able to communicate

successfully via writing.

Conclusion

The following chapter, the literature review, looks at the characteristics of low

literacy, interrupted education students and investigates their needs, including Vygotskys

theory of learning and its tie to dialogue journaling. It also discusses dialogue journals

more in depth. It describes how they can be integrated into a curriculum and what

benefits and drawbacks there are to their use. Additionally, it presents several dialogue

9

journal studies and reflects upon the findings within those studies. Finally, it discusses

the theory behind the focus on form, forms and meaning, and looks into the various

beliefs in responding to student writing, particularly that of using recasts.

The third chapter, the methodology, describes the specifics on how the research

was done. The fourth chapter, the results, discusses how the project proceeded and the

information that was gathered from the research. The final chapter, the conclusion,

analyzes those results and discusses the findings.

10

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Dialogue journaling is certainly not a new idea. The actual name dialogue

journal was created in 1979 by Jana Staton, an educational psychologist and Leslee

Reed, a sixth-grade teacher, to describe their practice of daily writing back and forth with

their students (Jones, 1991b). These were native English speaking students, and they

were children. The population in the present study is adults that are English language

learners, some of whom are non-formally educated and some of whom are at a low

literacy level. However, despite these significant differences, it seems feasible that

dialogue journaling can be a beneficial activity for any student and can positively affect

the students writing accuracy of specific, targeted morphemes. That being looked at, it

also stands to reason that the method of response to the journaling could affect the

outcomes as well.

In this chapter, the general educational background of the adult students in focus

will be explored. Additionally, more specifics about exactly what a dialogue journal is

will be discussed. The benefits of use and also certain negative issues will be examined.

And, several studies involving dialogue journals will be analyzed. Finally, the means of

responding to students writing will be looked at, including a focus on the form or formS

in instruction and specific techniques and studies regarding responses.

11

Student Educational Background

Within most English as a Second Language classrooms, there is a vast cultural

diversity among the students. Nationwide, approximately one in five persons age five

and older speaks a language other than English (DiCerbo, 2006). Additionally, in the 20-

year period between 1980 - 2000, the number of adult English language learners doubled

from six to twelve percent of the total U.S. population (Morse, 2004). Among these

English language learners, some are recently arrived, some are long-term immigrants,

some are permanent residents and some are refugees (DiCerbo, 2006).

In addition to the differences in length of time in the United States, adult English

language learners have an extremely varied educational background. Some may have

had interrupted formal schooling, some may have been educated in a country without a

writing system and some may have limited access to education and literacy in their

native countries because of political, social, economic, ethnic, and religious strife

(Center for Adult English Language Acquisition, 2005). Conversely, some adult learners

may have post-secondary or graduate degrees and just need improvement in the English

language. These differences provide an interesting and challenging backdrop for any

curriculum used.

In the United States, English language learners are mostly Spanish speakers, but

even with that commonality, Spanish-speaking can include a significantly diverse

population with learners from South America, Central America and Mexico (DiCerbo,

2006). However, each school or individual program will service their particular

population, which in the area of this study, includes mainly Somali learners.

12

By the 1980s, Somalia was entering its civil war. The people of Somalia, both

the educated, city people and the rural people, were fleeing the country any way they

could (Farid & McMahon, 2004). Since January, 1991, when the Somali Civil War

began, Somalia has had no organized systems of learning at any level (Abdi, 1998). In

fact, approximately 45 percent of the population had escaped to another country or were

dislocated from their homes by 1992. Clearly survival, and not education, was in the

forefront for these people. During this time, most of the schools and universities were

destroyed leaving those most in need of an education with nowhere to turn (Putman &

Noor, 1993). In fact, most of the schools, libraries and other places of learning were

deliberately destroyed, leaving Somalias education system overwhelmingly devastated

(Abdi, 1998). Therefore, due to the upheaval and unrest in the country, Somalis under the

age of 30 have most likely received no formal schooling at all. Also, many of the adults

from Somalia have arrived in the U.S. via Kenyan refugee camps. Within the refugee

camps, they did not have the advantage of schooling, and most of the time was probably

spent on day-to-day survival (Farid & McMahon, 2004).

One more factor is that before 1972, Somali had no written form, thus raising the

importance of verbal communication and the rich oral tradition of storytelling (Putman &

Noor, 1993). Indeed, the values of the culture have been passed orally from generation to

generation through poetry, stories and proverbs. In fact, each community has certain

members considered to be sages because of their special skill of sharing stories and

experiences orally. Older, non-literate Somali people can often times listen to a story

once and be able to retell it with amazing accuracy (Farid & McMahon, 2004).

13

Traditionally, oral poetry and verse were used to mark almost every significant

occurrence in Somali life. Everything from birth and marriage to separation and war was

marked by verse (Bartholet, 1992). In our Western culture, where the printed word is

relied upon so heavily, this importance on oral dialogue is a very foreign concept (Farid

& McMahon, 2004).

Considering the background of the majority of my learners, how could I

specifically target this group of learners and the others, and bring them forward on their

journey toward literacy? Would mirroring the importance of oral dialogue within a

written journal be the connection? Would implementing dialogue journals into my

curriculum assist these students in improving their writing skills?

What are Dialogue Journals? Dialogue journals can be thought of as conversations between two or more

individuals that are written in nature and kept in a notebook or on a computer. Both

partners write to each other, back and forth, over a period of time (Jones, 1991b; Kim,

2005; Peyton, 1990b). Many times these exchanges are between teacher and student, but

are certainly not limited to those individuals. A tutor or a peer may also use this sort of

interaction. This communication is used to exchange ideas, thoughts, questions, concerns

or really any information that creates interest between the two parties.

As dialogue journals are used in more and more classrooms, educators and

linguists have recognized some essential characteristics that specifically identify dialogue

journal writing as compared to other kinds of written communications. Jones (1991b)

states that first of all, dialogue journals are interactive. Both the teacher and the students

14

(or whomever the parties involved may be) take equal turns writing and responding.

Both of the participants would write regularly - for adult students, this could be up to one

to three times per week. And, the correspondence will take place throughout the duration

of the course. Additionally, Jones (1991b) notes that topics are usually not assigned

leaving the writers to feel free to discuss whatever they choose. However, sometimes

there could be a broad suggested topic or topics, which the participants have room to

personalize to fit their individual interests.

Another characteristic of dialogue journals is that they are generally not corrected

or graded. Because the writing is not corrected, it leads to more genuine dialogue and

assists the students in feeling more free and unthreatened with their writing. However,

many students, my own included, prefer to have everything they do corrected this

conflict will be addressed later in this chapter.

It is important to actually physically keep the journal in something, like a

notebook or saved e-mails, that can be referred back to. This is key because unlike oral

conversations, this is more of a learning tool that gives the participants something to look

back on and review. Knowing that this writing is out there, Jones also notes that most

teachers keep these writings private which adds to the non-threatening environment

(1991b).

In addition to these basic rules for dialogue journals, Jones (1991b) also notes six

qualities that really set this writing apart from other types of academic writing. First of

all, the writing needs to focus on communication. Underneath spelling errors,

punctuation mistakes and other surface issues, the important matter is what is being

15

communicated. Next, the exchanges need to be non-threatening. While some students

may feel intimidated speaking out in class, the journal should be a safe place for them to

communicate without fear of embarrassment or self-consciousness. Third, the topics

should be of great interest - many times this could be things that a participant might not

feel comfortable sharing in front of an entire class. Fourth, it is very important to have

equality in the interaction. Whereas in the classroom the teacher is the authority figure,

in the journal, both parties are equals merely conversing about various topics. Next, the

journals should be functional that is demonstrating a variety of communicative

purposes (Jones, 1991b). Things like, responding to questions, requesting information,

complaining, evaluating, etc. many times are all included within the various entries over

time. Finally, the content within dialogue journals tends to evolve over time many

times going from simple subjects to more personal topics (Staton, Shuy, Peyton & Reed,

1988).

All of these qualities make dialogue journaling very different from other school

based writing. Dialogue journaling as a means of language acquisition can also be

supported through Vygotskys Theory of Learning.

Vygotskys Theory of Learning

Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1896 1934) focused on the connections

between people and the social experiences in which one is involved. According to

Vygotsky, humans learning of such things as speech and writing are tools they are using

to understand and interact with the social environment around them (Wertsch & Sohmer,

1995). At first, these skills are only for social functions, but then they can lead to higher

16

thinking skills. Therefore, it would seem that social interaction should be of first and

foremost importance on every level to encourage cognitive development.

Extending this theory to second language acquisition, Vygotsky supported the

belief of a More Knowledgeable Other (Wertsch & Sohmer, 1995) which refers to

anyone who has a better understanding or higher ability level than the learner. When

language learners collaborate and interact with others who are more advanced in the

second language, possibly a teacher or more advanced student, the learner is able to

advance to higher levels of linguistic knowledge (Lightbown & Spada, 1999). Therefore,

a dialogue journal could provide the perfect social opportunity for great linguistic gains.

Vygotsky also believed in the Zone of Proximal Development. This is how Vygotsky

describes the distance between the students ability to perform a task under guidance and

their ability to succeed independently. That is, the level the learner is capable of when

there is support with interaction from a more knowledgeable speaker is different than

what they could do on their own (Lightbown & Spada, 1999). Vygotsky believed that

learning occurs through these differences in ability between the speaker and interlocutor

(Wertsch & Sohmer, 1995). Given these well known beliefs, it seems logical to explore

writing instruction based on social interaction, especially that of dialogue journaling, to

maximize a learners results.

Benefits of Dialogue Journals

A Community Within a Classroom

The first benefit seen within the adult ESL classroom is that dialogue journaling

can create a new area in which both learners and teacher move beyond traditional roles

17

and interact in a different way. Also, the context reflected is less academic and more a

reflection of their lives (Kim, 2005).

Realistically, a teacher cannot converse at length with each student, each day

throughout the school year. Additionally, when students are just learning English, they

may be embarrassed about a specific concern or with the limits of their language to say

what they mean (Peyton & Reed, 1990). Having a journal gives teachers the time for the

one-on-one interaction with each student. This is beneficial in that the more aggressive

students can speak at length with the teacher without monopolizing the class time, and

more shy students are encouraged to have a dialogue as well (Jones, 1991a). One more

community builder is that the teacher can offer praise, encouragement or simply

understanding without the student feeling uncomfortable with peers (Peyton and Reed,

1990).

The sense of community is also enhanced when students feel comfortable

addressing adjustment issues, discrimination issues, or cultural issues. These are all areas

where a student may not feel at ease asking a question in front of peers, but knowing they

have a trusted confidante that they can confide in may make it easier to address these

topics (Jones, 1991a). By addressing these personal topics, if the student chooses to, the

teacher gets a better understanding of the student outside of the classroom and may be

able to better service this student.

Changes in Attitude

One of the greatest benefits of dialogue journaling is that it may help adults get

over any fear they may have of writing in a non-native language and that may lead to

18

more self-confidence and a willingness to write (Jones, 1991a). Students at first may feel

afraid to write, but after some encouragement and experience writing in the non-

threatening context about subject matter they enjoy, they develop confidence and a more

open attitude toward writing (Jones, 1991a).

Another attitude that may change is that of the student toward school in general.

Success in written dialogue can encourage a greater willingness to participate in other

areas within the classroom (Jones, 1991a). In fact, the opportunity to ask the teacher

questions and receive personable answers can create more of a bond and then more of an

accountability toward not only the teacher, but the other learners in the classroom as well

(Jones, 1991a).

Discussing and Solving Problems

As students become more comfortable discussing and sharing information with

an instructor, the content of the entries may change from general information about their

lives, such as how many children they have, and their job, to more complex issues that

they are dealing with (Jones, 1991a). If the teacher is willing and able to respond to such

things as issues with work, housing problems, neighborhood violence, etc., the student

may feel comfortable opening up about these more personal items (Jones, 1991a).

Because recent immigrants and refugees to this country face many obstacles, having a

person they trust to voice these concerns to may be very beneficial emotionally.

Additionally, many times the instructor may know information about an agency or

individual who could help (Jones, 1991a). Although the instructor must be careful not to

19

cross the line to a perceived therapist role, the student might just need someone to share

the burden with, and not necessarily solve the problem (Jones, 1991a).

Individualized Language and Content Learning

As mentioned earlier, within most ESL classrooms, often times there are a very

wide range of abilities. Some students may just be beginning to learn English, some may

be able to write fairly well, and some may be preparing for university classes. Those

students who have lower literacy skills may feel lost or unable to keep up with others.

However, with dialogue journals, even those low level students can put something in a

journal even if it is just a couple of words and receive a response back from the

instructor. Therefore, they are participating in the same activities as the rest of the

students (Peyton & Reed, 1990).

Because of this varied range of abilities, the instructor, of course, will adjust

his/her language so that it is appropriate for the readers individual ability. Also, because

the instructor can focus on the individual student, the correct language forms and

structures that the student has attempted can be modeled correctly within the actual

context of the journal (Peyton & Reed, 1990). Additionally, when the instructor uses

vocabulary that the student doesnt understand, those words or phrases can be explained

in subsequent entries, thus clearly individualizing the lesson.

Finally, by using language modeling, the instructor can specifically pinpoint areas

where a student needs assistance. For example, by re-stating something the student has

said in a previous journal entry, with the correct English form or spelling, the teacher is

modeling that proper usage without directly telling the student they did it incorrectly

20

(Peyton & Reed, 1990). Additionally, vocabulary can be boosted by modeling the proper

words in a response within the dialogue interaction. Teacher modeling is completely

learner specific and thus very individualized.

Gaining Information for Assistance in Future Lesson Planning

The topics and questions that students bring up in their journals can give ideas for

future lesson planning (Peyton & Reed, 1990). If several students mention searching for a

job or problems filling out applications, that might be an area the instructor focuses on in

future classes. Additionally, if students continually focus on historical information or

things they have seen in nature, this could lead to science or social topics more regularly.

The students interests really come through in journal writing.

Some instructors pattern lessons around mistakes in structure or vocabulary used

in the students journals. If several students repeatedly make the same mistake with

certain word usage or structure, the instructor might take those examples and use them

for a class discussion (Peyton & Reed, 1990). Using actually examples, especially with

adult students, seems to help them internalize the information more and apply it more

readily to their own work.

Students Have the Opportunity to Use Writing For Genuine Communication

For many students, writing is simply done for academic reasons. Many times the

subject matter is teacher generated or, especially with adult students, driven out of

necessity. Things like applications, medical forms, school registrations and the like are

what adults write on a daily basis, and therefore, inevitably part of the real-life

curriculum in an ESL course. However, this writing, while extremely important, does not

21

encourage communication. Dialogue journals, on the other hand, can be completely

open-ended and a time when students can freely express themselves (Peyton & Reed,

1990). This freedom of expression can take the pressure off when writing and allow the

student to simply enjoy it.

Additionally, students can learn more about the writing process things covered

in class like punctuation and grammatical form can be used as they begin to actually

think more and understand how everything fits together (Peyton & Reed, 1990). Also,

when the teacher is writing, they are giving the student a continual model of proficient

writing. Things like the thought process, organization and coherence are modeled along

with more advanced phrases and sentences (Peyton & Reed, 1990).

Finally, when a student learns more about the writing process and gains

confidence, this can serve as a bridge to academic writing (Jones, 1991a). Skills such as

expanding on a topic or writing with awareness of the audience are items important in

formal academic writing, but that can be practiced within the realms of dialogue

journaling (Jones, 1991a).

Students Have an Additional Opportunity for Reading

Every time the teacher responds to a journal entry, it gives the student text to read.

That text is generally closely tied to their personal life, and therefore quite interesting,

meaningful and comprehensible material (Peyton & Reed, 1990; Jones, 1991a). Many

times finding appropriate and significant beginning material can be challenging with

adult students. With dialogue journals, reading can start after their first entry be it a

picture or simply a few words. They dont need a lot of background information, since

22

they initiated the topic and the teacher could read the response to them and then ask the

student to read it alone. This response encourages a beginning student to read and it

takes place in the realm of genuine communication (Peyton & Reed, 1990).

Reading benefits are evident for more advanced students as well. Students want

to read how the teacher has responded even those who show less enthusiasm for

reading other materials in class (Peyton & Reed, 1990). And, of course, the more a

student reads the more their reading improves.

Improved Fluency in Writing

One of the areas that can greatly benefit from dialogue journaling is fluency, that

is, the ability to communicate fairly easily and effectively through the written word

(Jones, 1991a). There are four areas that are considered necessary for fluency in writing.

First of all, one should be able to write easily and not spend a lot of time agonizing over

what or how to write something. Secondly, the meaning must come across in

understandable sentences. Next, one should be able to use writing for many different

purposes. Finally, the writing should be creative and imaginative (Gutstein, 1987 as cited

in Jones, 1991a).

Dialogue journaling supports each of these areas. Many researchers have found

that when a learner starts writing in a dialogue journal they might begin with just a few

sentences. However, as their confidence grows, so does their ability to write more easily

and quickly (Kreeft, 1984; Shuy, 1980 as cited in Jones, 1991a). Additionally, speaking

in a journal helps students to get their meanings across clearly. Misunderstandings can

be cleared up in future entries, thus encouraging understandable sentences. Next,

23

journaling regularly makes use of a multitude of functions from giving personal

information to asking questions to complaining all necessary functions of language.

Finally, creativity can come out through practice, again, encouraging fluency (Jones,

1991a).

Issues Regarding Dialogue Journals

Time Management

One of the issues that surfaces regarding dialogue journals is that of time

management. Simply put, dialogue journals require a lot of time from the teacher.

Responding regularly to student entries, in addition to preparing for the next class,

correcting any other homework and keeping up to date with program-required paper work

can be overwhelming. However, teachers who truly believe the dialogue is important

will find time some may use journaling with only certain classes, some ask students to

only write a couple of journal entries a week, some may respond to every two entries

rather than every one. Others may combine teacher-student and student-student writing or

utilize the presence of a classroom volunteer. Teachers simply need to know that the

journals take time and will need to be worked into the schedule (Peyton, 1991).

Correcting

In addition to the time needed, many times, especially when working with adults,

the issue of correcting comes up. Many students want every piece of work they do

corrected. And, while it is important to validate students expectations, one of the

important qualities in dialogue journaling is that it not be corrected (Jones, 1991b).

According to Peyton (1991), students need to understand that writing includes much

24

more than producing a perfect product that it involves exploring ideas, finding a

personal voice and style to express ideas. The students need to see that the mechanics of

writing the grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc. come later in the process and dont

need all the focus.

However, while dialogue journaling is a place where students can write freely,

they do need to be reassured that as the teacher, you will pay attention to the mechanics

as well. There are various ways this can be achieved, sometimes outside of the journal

revision and editing can be used for correction, or exercises that focus on problems areas

can be used elsewhere in class (Peyton, 1991). Additionally, teachers can focus on

correct written forms within the journal, without interrupting the dialogue in various

ways. Peyton (1991) specifies four ways this can be done. First, the teacher can model

the correct usage in their response. This is easily done without interrupting the dialogue

by simply restating with correct usage to show understanding and to comment on the

response. Another way to address problems is by making note of the issue and then

focusing some time on the issue during class. Additionally, teachers could hold

individual conferences with the students periodically. During these conferences, teachers

could specifically go over a certain entry or entries and discuss errors, rules and

corrections. Finally, teachers can address errors by adding a note at the end of the

response that focuses on a couple of grammar points (Peyton, 1991). These are all non-

threatening ways to address errors, while reassuring the students that they are not to

worry about writing correctly all the time, but instead to write with meaning and trust

that the writing will evolve.

25

Students Who are Pre-Literate

Obviously, those students who are not literate in English will not be able to write

extensive entries. However, any student who has some proficiency with oral English and

knows how to print can begin to keep a dialogue journal. While journals might be a bit

more challenging with this group, some of the things they might be able to do include

drawing, dictating and writing only what they know.

Many adults enjoy drawing and, in fact, might feel it less intimidating than

actually creating whole sentences or phrases. Therefore, they might want to draw at least

some of the message they are trying to convey. The teacher can then write a reply about

the picture and, if needed, read it to the student (Peyton, 1991).

Additionally, adults could dictate their message to the teacher, a volunteer, a tutor,

or even another student. The message can by read aloud; the teacher can reply and then

read the reply to the student (Peyton, 1991). This technique is especially useful because

it allows the student to participate as the other students are and it makes good use of

volunteers or tutors in the classroom.

Finally, the adult students could just write whatever they know and leave blanks

for the words they dont know; or just write the first letter if they can. Here, the teacher

can complete the entry by filling in the blanks and then responding (Peyton, 1991). This

technique specifically can build vocabulary and spelling so the student will soon be able

to produce more words independently and build a vocabulary bank for the student to refer

back to.

26

Dialogue Journal Studies

The preceding information gives a starting point for looking at dialogue journals.

It discusses what a dialogue journal is and some of the basic benefits and complications

regarding its use. In this section, specific studies involving dialogue journals will be

looked at and compared to the study at hand.

A Perspective Study of University Students

Holmes and Moulton (1997) conducted a study of the perspectives that second-

language university students have on dialogue journal writing as a learning strategy.

The researchers collected data from six students during a 15-week composition class in

an English language program from a southwestern U.S. university. The data that was

collected and analyzed included weekly journals the students kept and also the transcripts

of four personal interviews the researchers held with each participant during which they

asked guided questions about the participants views toward journaling. The researchers

looked for patterns in the students views of the dialogue journaling and found three:

interpersonal perspectives, intrapersonal perspectives and developmental perspectives.

The developmental perspective showed the most potential for understanding students

views and was divided into two subcategories writing fluency and motivation to write.

From these two subcategories, the researchers were able to determine that the ESL

students considered dialogue journaling as an effective and worthwhile approach for

learning English.

Looking at a growing writing fluency, the students used words such as, easier,

better, and comfortable to describe the increase in their writing fluency. These

27

students revealed that specific characteristics of journal writing contributed to the

perceived improvement in writing. Those characteristics were topic choice, spontaneity,

and frequency.

First of all, students believed that, because they were writing about topics that

they chose on their own which then is more like spoken conversations that the writing

was easier. Secondly, like conversations, the students felt a freedom of expression. In

fact, they stopped using dictionaries and instead focused more on the communication

within their writing, which then brought increased fluency. Finally, even though most

students have conversations daily, most do not write daily and the participants who wrote

frequently in the journals noted that the more frequently they wrote, the better the fluency

developed. This is similar to my study in that many of my students can speak English

well enough to hold a conversation, but do not take the time to practice writing daily and

therefore do not see their written literacy improve. Quite possibly, the dialogue journals

will help in this area.

The six participants in this study were very motivated to write and to practice.

The more they wrote, the more confident they became in their fluency. One of the

features of the dialogue journal that led to this motivation was that the writing was

uncorrected. This allowed the students to try without being afraid of errors. However,

despite the absence of correction, the six students perceived improvement was guided by

the model that the teacher provided with her responses to their entries. These responses

gave specific models of the correct grammatical forms, which the participants then could

internalize and follow on their own schedule. This, too, ties to my study in that I am

28

looking at recasts to determine if that extra awareness of the error helps the student to

increase correct usage in the specific areas I am looking at.

There are issues and questions from the Holmes and Moulton study. First and

foremost, the students overwhelmingly saw increased fluency and motivation to write in

English, however, there was no objective means to actually measure the perceived

fluency. Additionally, while the participants saw increases in fluency during journal

writing, would that perceived increase in fluency transfer to other writing contexts and

actually benefit the writer in day-to-day living? Finally, an implication for my study is

the fact that these were university level students much higher proficiency participants

than those that I work with. Would this perceived increase in fluency transfer across

lower levels of literacy?

A Study of the Effect of Teacher Strategies on Students Interactive Writing

A study by Peyton and Seyoum (1988) looked specifically at the role the teacher

plays in the success of the dialogue journal interaction, and the teaching strategies that

promote the writing of the students. This modified case study was useful in identifying

specific types of interaction between the teacher and the students. The questions that the

researchers asked were: How are certain strategies used by the teacher in her dialogue

journal writing? Do different teacher strategies affect student response rate and the

quantity and syntactic complexity of student writing? And, are there differences in

teacher strategies and student writing based on the level of English proficiency of the

students?

29

The participants of this study were twelve limited proficient students six were

Asian and six were Hispanic. These were sixth-grade students that the researchers then

identified as high, mid or low within their limited proficiency. The students were

required, throughout the school year, to write a minimum of three sentences daily in their

dialogue journals. The researchers then extracted a sample of 15 consecutive

interactions, after about 7 months of writing, from each participants journal to analyze.

In an analysis of the results, it was found that this teacher took the role of the

respondent to topics rather than the initiator most of the time. She did not show any

difference in response patterns despite student variations in proficiency level, and she

most frequently made personal contributions in her entries. If the teacher requested a

response, the student replied more regularly then if the teacher simply made a

contribution with no request for a response. However, even though specific questions

seemed to get more frequent writing, they did not elicit more writing. It seems that when

the teacher included more personal contributions, the students tended to write more in

their responses. Additionally, the students in this study seemed to write the most openly

and freely when the teacher and student found a topic in common, that both were

interested in and had a lot to write about. Finally, it was found that the teacher strategy

did not seem to affect the syntactic complexity of the student writing.

These results seem to support the use of dialogue journals specifically as a means

of holding a conversation, and not so much as a teacher-led question-answer forum. The

success of the journal rests in the teachers active participation in significant and shared

communication (Peyton & Seyoum, 1988).

30

This study, too, is not without issues. First of all, it is not specifically compared

to dialogue journaling in which the teacher exerts more control over the content; although

it does reference an instance in another study where specific, repeated questions caused

frustration and a dramatic decrease in writing of a student (Morroy, 1985 as cited in

Peyton & Seyoum, 1988). Secondly, it seems that student proficiency plays a bigger role

in influencing the students written production than anything the teacher does. Finally, a

specific limitation in regard to my study is that these are sixth grade students. Adult

students could presumably react very differently to the same strategies.

Dialogue Journal Writing and the Acquisition of English Grammatical Morphology

A study by Peyton (1990a) looked at several issues regarding language

acquisition. In this study, she looked at how students, in this case five sixth-grade ESL

students who had been in the United States less than 1 year, were able to acquire specific

English morphemes through their journal writing. Specifically, she focused on whether

there is evidence of language acquisition during the time of this free dialogue writing,

whether progress in language can be used as information for teachers about the

improvement of the students, and what the acquisition patterns in writing are and if they

mirror patterns of acquisition in speech. Additionally, she looked at whether the patterns

are particular to each individual student, or similar between students. Because my study

focuses only on the language acquisition through writing, I will focus my discussion of

this study only on that particular area.

The data for this study was collected through dialogue journal writing done as a

supplementary activity students did during their free time each day. The students

31

received the journals each morning, with the teachers response from the day before

included.

Peyton looked specifically at the acquisition of 10 morphemes - six verb-related

and four noun-related as they were used in the student journals.

These morphemes are as follows:

Verb-related morphemes

1. Regular past He played in the street. 2. Irregular past He saw the school. 3. Progressive ing He is playing in the street. 4. Progressive auxiliary BE He is playing in the street. 5. Copula BE He is a good student. 6. Third-person singular, present John likes school. tense

Noun-related morphemes 7. Regular plural They are good students.

8. Possessives s We went to Marys house. 9. Definite article the The teacher has a book. 10. Indefinite article a Peyton chose to focus on these particular morphemes because on the first reading of the

journals, these stood out as clearly developing and most were used only occasionally or

not at all. However, as the year went on, they were used much more frequently.

Peyton found that dialogue journal writing did reflect improvement in the

students language proficiency of these specific morphemes over time. She was clearly

able to show quantifiable growth for each student throughout the given time frame (10

months, here). Finally, the examples of student writing included from the study clearly

show that English language learners can surely write and express themselves in written

dialogue much before they have mastered all the rules of writing.

32

This study is of particular interest in that it actually measures grammatical usage

and growth. I intend to model my study, at least partially, after this one. While Peyton

used the dialogue journals as a reflection of language acquisition and writing skills, I will

use dialogue journaling to determine if it can positively affect writing accuracy of

specific morphemes. However, differences that will greatly affect my efforts will be that

I am dealing with adult students and the subjects represented in the study were sixth

graders. Additionally this was a 10-month study with entries written daily. I only meet

with my students twice weekly, and while I will encourage daily writing, I have doubts

that will happen due to the very hectic schedules my students keep. Finally, another

difference is that I will respond differently to a certain group of students (using recasts) to

see if there are differences in writing proficiency based on teacher feedback.

Responding to Student Writing

Focus on Form vs. Focus on FormS

There is much discussion in the language world of the difference in instruction

technique among teachers. One of the main topics discussed is that of a focus on form

technique compared to a focus on formS technique. The difference in these techniques

can be seen in how the student sees themselves and the language (Ellis, 2001). A focus

on form (FonF) technique looks specifically at linguistic elements during communication.

Conversely, a focus on forms (FonFs) looks at specific discrete lexical items within a

non-communicative activity (Laufer, 2006). For example, lessons that focus on mimicry,

memorization or grammar translation would be considered a focus on forms (Spada &

Lightbown, 2008). Basically students in a FonFs situation view themselves as the learner

33

of the language and the language as the object of the study; whereas in FonF, a student

learns and practices everything in light of the communicative aspect of the language

(Ellis, 2001).

Lightbown and Spada (2008) recently have used the terms isolated and integrated

to describe these two approaches to language instruction. Additionally, it is their belief

that one is not better than the other, nor is either approach in competition with the other.

Rather, the two approaches are seen as complimentary to each other in complete language

instruction. Dialogue journaling seems to fit well within the realm of this belief, as the

islolated, formS focused instruction can be brought about within the integrated, or form

focused, communicative interaction.

Feedback on Student Writing

In responding to student writing, there is much discussion on how to address

errors (Bitchener, et al., 2005; Nicholas, Lightbown & Spada, 2001; Revesz & Han,

2006; Sheen, 2007; Loewen & Philp, 2006; Han, 2002). One example of how to address

errors is that of recasts, that is, the corrected response of the learners incorrect statement

(Nicholas, et al., 2001). For example, this is an excerpt from one of the dialogue journals

in my study:

Student: Last weekend I go shopping. Teacher: Oh, you went shopping last weekend. Did you buy anything?

Some research shows that using recasts like the one above are very effective in

showing language learners their mistakes and the correct form (Long & Robinson, 1998).

In the above interaction, the recast actually performs two functions. First of all it

acknowledges the students statement and, as feedback, it alerts the student to the error

34

and offers a model for the correct format of the attempted statement (Nicholas, et al.,

2001; Jourdenais, Mitsuhiko, Staufer, Boyson & Doughty, 1995). However, other

research suggests that recasts are not clear and might be thought of as confirmation of

meaning, or in the above instance simply a conversational reply instead of feedback on

incorrect usage (Lyster, 1998). Finally, yet another belief in error correction is that

learners must have some way of noticing the error to identify differences in what they

have produced (their interlanguage) and the target language (Schmidt, 1990; Jourdenais,

et al., 1995). It is believed that noticing requires a conscious registration of the material.

Techniques to promote enhancement of written text include a variety of manipulations

such as italics, bold, underlining, etc. (Jourdenais, et al., 1995). Given these differing

beliefs in error correction, the study at hand will differentiate between the response given

to various students by using recasts in one group of journals (specifically highlighting the

error and the correction) and by responding in general to the other group.

Conclusion

Overall, the literature reviewed supports the benefits of dialogue journaling. The

research done to date also strongly shows the benefits as well. From the student

perspective, they showed a belief that the writing was easier, freer, and that they

developed a better written fluency (Holmes & Moulton, 1997). Additionally, it was

found that as a teacher, the more initiative left to the student, the better the results (Peyton

& Seyoum, 1988). Finally, in the case of the improved use of grammatical morphemes, it

was clearly shown that an improvement was seen over time (Peyton, 1990).

35

However, this still leaves one large gap that needs to be filled. In all of these

studies, the participants are not students that an average community-based ESL teacher

would face. They are either university level ESL students, as in the Holmes and Moulton

study, or children (6th grade students) in the other two studies. Clearly, this discrepancy

leaves a big question mark. Would adult ESL students, some coming from very limited

educational backgrounds, respond as favorably to dialogue journaling? Would adult

students at a beginning or intermediate level for reading be able to successfully

communicate via the journals and would all students be able to see written fluency

increases in specific grammatical morpheme use? Additionally, would the manner in

which the instructor responded influence the specific grammatical morpheme use?

Indeed, the area of dialogue journaling and recasts within this adult age group has been

left unstudied.

If positive results are found with adults, many more community programs could

start to use dialogue journaling with or without recasts within their classrooms for

learners of all levels, as a means of improving writing in addition to the plethora of

other benefits dialogue journaling holds. The next chapter, Chapter Three, will detail

how the current study was conducted the specific study participants and the methods

used for achieving the results.

36

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Introduction

Chapter One suggested that student learning can be boosted by social interaction

and that looking beyond life skills to more self-expression can bolster interest and

enthusiasm in writing. The combination of these factors suggests that dialogue journaling

can be a successful part of an overall curriculum to improve adult student writing. This

study aims to determine if dialogue journaling can truly improve the writing skills of all

students, even those starting with very low writing skills. Additionally, does the way in

which the instructor responds have an impact on the success of the student? Specifically,

does dialogue journaling with recasts affect writing accuracy with intermediate level

(CASAS scores ranging from 200 240) ESL students, including those non-formally

educated, low-literacy adult learners? Or, is a certain level of literacy needed prior to

journaling in order to see improvements in writing accuracy, based on specific morpheme

analysis?

The literature review in Chapter Two looked more in depth at the varied

backgrounds of the adult English language learners typically found in my central

Minnesota classroom. Most of them are from Somalia, and all have differences in the

length of time in the United States, educational backgrounds and even reason for coming

to the US (refugee, school, etc.) which can all play a big part in the students ability to

succeed in English classes and further their journey toward literacy. Additionally, the use

of dialogue journals was tied in to Vygotskys Theory of Learning and the benefits and

drawbacks of use were discussed.

37

Looking at some previous studies regarding dialogue journaling, it was shown

that student writing can show improvement in specific grammatical morphemes.

However, these studies were conducted on children or university level ESL students. The

students in this study are adults with varying levels of English literacy. Will the benefits

of dialogue journaling, such as individualized learning, genuine communication and

community building, transfer to this very different set of learners? And, will the means

of teacher response vary the outcome as well?

This chapter will explain the research paradigms that best describe this study. It

also will describe the educational setting and the participants in the study. Additionally,

the procedure used to carry out the research will be presented. Finally, it will discuss the

research methods used.

Research Paradigm

This study can be described most accurately as a classroom-based, largely

quantitative study. It includes classroom based interaction, pre- and post-testing and

survey research. This paradigm seems most effective because from within the confines

of our classroom, the dialogue journaling will be analyzed and compared with the pre-

and post-tests.

The study is classroom based in that it took place within our actual ESL

classroom and focused on the interactions between myself as the teacher, and the English

language learners through the use of dialogue journals. While the interaction itself was

not being analyzed, as in some classroom based research, the setting and interaction in

general dictate that it is classroom based (Brown & Rogers, 2002).

38

Because this study includes the use of pre- and post-tests and uses the analysis of

errors in actual journal entries, it can also be considered quantitative in nature. There is

also a qualitative element to the study through the use of survey information that will be

collected at the beginning of the study to look at the participants previous educational

experiences and confidence in writing, and then again at the conclusion of the study to

ascertain the students attitude and confidence level toward writing after time spent

journaling. This information provides insight into whether or not the students felt the

journaling to be worthwhile.

Educational Setting and Participants

The study takes place at a Community Education sponsored ESL program in a

rural Midwestern city. The classes meet twice weekly, for either two and a half or two

hours each class period. For the afternoon class that meets from 11:30-2:00pm, most of

the students work an afternoon, evening or overnight shift and come to class before or

after work. Other students are not employed and have children that attend school during

this time. In the evening class, most of the students work during the day, and attend class

right after they are finished with work. This class meets from 6:00-8:00pm. There are

daycare facilities available, so those with children are able to drop off their kids while

they attend class.

The age of the adult learners ranges from 22-70, and it is mixed gender. The class

is a mix of nationalities with most of the population coming from Somalia. While all of

the students attending the classes participated in the dialogue journaling, for the purpose

of this study, I am only including those that consistently attended class and completed

39

most of the additional paperwork such as the pre-and post-test and final survey, the

permission form, and initial questionnaire. It actually turned out that gathering the

preliminary forms, such as the permission form and initial questionnaire, took a long time

- class time that I really felt would have been better used in other areas. Additionally,

any students that were not in attendance the day we went over those forms had to be

walked through them independently. Because students regularly join and leave our

program for a variety of reasons, I felt it necessary to have all the students participating in

the journal writing sign a consent form in case I had need to use their material. This did

take a lot of time and proved rather difficult.

Additionally, I am including each participants most recent CASAS test score that

we had on file or that was obtained from testing during class. I also felt it would be

beneficial to find out how much formal schooling each of the participants had prior to my

Community Education classroom. Therefore, for each participant I filled out a personal

information sheet that I kept on file for them. This information was obtained through

personal interviews with the participants before or after class time. Table 3.1 summarizes

the participant information, including age, country of origin, CASAS scores, time in the

U.S. and previous schooling.

40

Table 3.1: Participant Information

Start of

Study

Name Age Country of Origin

CASAS Score

Time in U.S.

Previous Schooling

Fartun 23 Somalia 203 4 years elementary Lee 22 Vietnam 256 4 years 12 years Farhia 35 Ethiopia/Somalia 213 17 years no formal schooling*

Abdi 38 Somalia 209 4 years 12 years Boon 51 Laos 236 17 years 6 years elementary Jayne 25 Turkey 245 1 years 11 years Camilo 19 Brazil 234 1 year 12 years

As can be seen for the above table, the ages of students in this study varies from

19 51 years old. Additionally, the previous schooling varies greatly from Farhia with

no formal schooling, to Lee, Abdi and Camilo who attended school for twelve years.

Interesting to note, is that while the vast majority of my class is comprised of Somali

students, only three Somali students are included in this study. This is due to

inconsistencies in attendance and journal entries, which will be further explained in

Chapter Five.

Research Procedures

Upon the start of classes during the fall of 2007, I gave the students a notebook on

the first day of class. I explained that we would be doing more writing this year and that

the notebooks could be used both inside and outside of class. While this initial dialogue

journaling was not a part of the actual study, it did set a routine and some expectations as

to what the students could expect from the exercise. Additionally, as the classroom

* Farhia is not literate in her native languages.

41

teacher, I looked at the journals critically to determine what problem areas I might want

to focus on during the study.

The class continued using the dialogue journals regularly throughout the entire

school year. I began collecting the data from the dialogue journal entries in March, and

continued through the end of the school year in May. This gave me approximately three

months of interactive entries.

Looking back at the first three months of journal entries (September November

2007), I did a critical analysis and determined that the specific morphemes I would focus

on would be:

1. Regular past tense verbs He played in the street.

2. Irregular past tense verbs She ate breakfast.

3. Present tense third person singular verbs Megan likes school. 4. Regular plural nouns She has many books. These were all areas that the students seem to have problems with in their writing, so I

decided it would be a good place to start. Looking at these specific morphemes, I

focused on whether or not there was increased proficiency over the time span of the

journaling study, in these morphological areas as patterned after Peytons study (1990a).

Specifically, I analyzed the journal entries throughout the study looking for correct and

incorrect use of the above mentioned morphemes, breaking it down into monthly

sections.

42

Data Collection

The analysis of the journal entries, again modeled after Peytons 1990 study,

included reading the journal entries and keeping track of each instance of the specified

morpheme. Then, it was noted whether or not the morpheme was used correctly within

the text. This data was then represented graphically for each student, by using the time

period (month of study) across the bottom x-axis and the percentage of correct usage

represented on the y-axis (Peyton, 1990a).

To cross-check if results were similar to that in regular testing, I administered a

pre- and post-test (Appendixes A and D, respectively) that focused on the specific

morphemes as well. The format of both the pre- and post- tests was identical, with only

the questions different for each one. The tests consisted of three essay questions, worded

in such a way to elicit a specific morphological response. Next, the tests contained twelve

multiple choice questions that, again, targeted the specific morphemes being studied.

Finally, the tests had five fill-in-the-blank questions that lent themselves to specific

morphological responses as well. These tests provided a mixture of questions to

determine what students recognized as correct forms and what they were able to produce

on their own. This data was then represented graphically for each student using the

morphemes across the bottom x-axis and the percentage of correct usage represented on

the y-axis, and using a different color to represent the pre-test and the post-test.

Classroom Procedure

At the beginning of the data collection period, I randomly placed the participants

in two different groups. One group I responded to in general; that is to say I did not point

43

out specific errors in the student writing and if an error interfered with understanding, I

would just respond to the student that I did not understand what they meant and have

them try again in their next entry. The other group in the study was responded to using

recasts, in which I highlighted the writing error and then highlighted where I responded

with the correct form (hoping to encourage the noticing and realization of the errors). I

did mention to the class that the responses might look different from one journal to

another, as many times they shared their journals with each other and I didnt want them

to be alarmed if the response did or did not include highlighting. This difference in

responses did not bring up any issues within the class.

Analysis

First of all, to analyze the pre- and post-tests, I separated the answers into the type

of morpheme used and looked specifically at the pre-determined set of morphemes:

regular past tense, irregular past tense, present tense and regular plural. The number of

responses using these morphemes was recorded, along with the numbers of times they

were used correctly. This ratio (correct times used/total times used) was turned into a

percentage to determine the correct usage.

Finally, I looked at the student confidence/perspective in regard to their writing,

as Holmes and Moulton (1997) did in their study. To gain this perspective, I individually

questioned the students at the beginning of the study and again at the conclusion of the

study as to their attitudes and opinions toward the writing done in the journals (Holmes &

Moulton, 1997). This information was recorded under the number I had initially assigned

to each student to keep tests, comments and questionnaires confidential and organized.

44

Conclusion

This chapter has looked specifically, at the participants and the setting in which

the study took place. Additionally, it described the methods that were used to conduct

the study and the means for evaluating the results. In Chapter Four, those results will be

analyzed.

45

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

Introduction

This research study looked at dialogue journaling among adult intermediate level

ESL students (as determined by a CASAS score of over 200) to see if it specifically

improved their writing in regard to four specific morphological areas. Additionally, it

looked at whether the specific type of response by the teacher to the student writer, with

or without recasts, bore any impact on the outcome. It is important to note, again, that

these activities were incorporated into our classroom curriculum. The entire class was

using journals, took the tests and was given the questionnaire; however, given that this is

an adult class without required attendance, while an estimate of more than 40 students

participated in the activities at some time or another, only the participants listed in Table

3.1 of Chapter 3 are included in the actual study. This chapter details the results of this

study. Pre- and post-tests that were given are discussed and results shared. The

questionnaires given are described and evaluated. Finally, results that emerged within the

journals are described.

Pre-Testing and Survey Questionnaire

Prior to analyzing the dialogue journals, I had the students take a pre-test

and together we filled out an informational questionnaire. The pre-test was specifically

geared to target the four morphological areas that I was looking at: regular past tense

46

verbs, irregular past tense verbs, present tense verbs and regular plural nouns. However,

the Pre-test (Appendix A) combines questions that ask the student to produce the specific

morphemes with writing prompts and also gives the student a chance to choose the

correct answer with a multiple choice section. So, this is a mixture of what the students

recognize as the correct forms and also what writing they are able to produce on their

own. These results serve as a starting point from which the students journal entries will

be compared. The results from the Pre-test are as follows in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Individual Scores for Use of Four Morphemes (Pre-test)

Fartun * Camilo Abdi* Jayne Boon Farhia Lee Score/Percent Score/Percent Score/Percent Score/Percent Score/Percent Morphemes Regular Past Tense --- 4/4 100% --- 6/6 100% 3/4 75% 3/7 43% 6/6 100% Irregular Past Tense --