Running head: BLENDED WRITING TASK RATIONALE

Blended Writing Task Rationale Stephen McClure MA-TESOL Candidate LING 487 Computer-Assisted Language Learning Professor Susanne Rott University of Illinois at Chicago May 2, 2012

BLENDED WRITING TASK RATIONALE Introduction

This paper presents a rationale for a blended ESL writing task design. A blended task is made up of some steps or subtasks that take place in the classroom, and others that take place online. In this introduction I provide a general overview of the assumed teaching context, the task, and the intended learning outcomes. The rationale proper consists of two sections. The first section discusses the theoretical and research underpinnings of the task as a whole. The second section explains the research and theory I applied to create the individual online components. In closing, I provide some concluding remarks on the usefulness of this task design. The project handouts are included in the Appendix, but they can also be viewed under on documents page of the project website (writing-project.weebly.com).
The teaching context for which this task is intended is a typical pre-university intensive English program. Learners are thus presumed to come from a variety of cultural and linguistic backgrounds, and to have high intermediate to low advanced English proficiency. I also assume that the learners are "digital

natives" in the sense of Prensky (2001), and thus quite familiar with the "Web 2.0" environment (Robin, 2011). The task
is a writing project for pairs of students, whose goal is to cooperate on writing an opinion piece on a Chicago architectural landmark using a class wiki. Through a series of online subtasks

BLENDED WRITING TASK RATIONALE

alternating with in-class sessions, students participate in schema

activation, vocabulary building, taking a field trip (an opportunity to use the input), receiving online audiovisual, aural, and written input, learning writing strategies, writing, and peer editing. The intended learning outcomes include research and writing strategies (the writing process), and the figurative use of vocabulary. While the main focus is on writing, all four skills are integrated into the task. Learners also become familiar with the mindmeister and wikispaces online tools. Another intended outcome is for students to have some exposure to American culture as it pertains to Chicago's history and architecture. The input they receive includes value judgements and opinions of people who are proud of Chicago's architectural legacy. The students' writing piece is an expression of their aesthetic opinions, and as such, an expression of their culture. By reading, commenting on and discussing each other's work, learners have an opportunity to develop cross-cultural competence.

Overall Task Design Rationale The design is based on the assumption that conducting language instruction through the performance of a task, or "an activity which requires learners to use language, with emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective" (Bygate, Skehan & Swain, 2001, p. 11), is an effective method to achieve communicative competence. Much has been written in support of this claim, e.g., Ellis (2003), Nunan (2004), Skehan (2003). To relate the above definition to the overall task at hand:

BLENDED WRITING TASK RATIONALE students are required to learn new vocabulary, research its meaning (actually meanings, since the focus is on figurative language), and use this language to attain the objective of

writing an opinion piece on the aesthetics of an architectural landmark. Doughty & Long (2003) describe ten methodological principles (MPs), or "universally desirable instructional design features," most of which are evident in this design. The overall project is a task (MP1); students learn to research, edit and write by doing (MP2); they receive elaborate, multi-modal input (MP3,4,5); they focus on form when they, with the teacher's help, edit their writing for accuracy (MP6); they are provided negative feedback by both peers and the teacher (MP7); the task proceeds from schema activation through vocabulary study through research and reading of input to producing writing output -- mirroring learner acquisition order (MP8); each student peer edits and is edited by peers and the teacher (MP9); and the teacher gives individualized feedback to students (MP10). The design also has some desirable features described by Pica et al. (2009) in their taxonomy of tasks. Two-way communication is required (the students must cooperate with each other and collaborate with the teacher), there is a specific goal, and the goal is convergent (both partners wish to achieve it). It should be noted, however, that this particular task taxonomy

BLENDED WRITING TASK RATIONALE applies primarily to tasks focusing on goals involving spoken interaction, not producing written output. Online Component Rationales The first online subtask has students learn to use mindmeister to create a mind map. Mindmeister is a powerful

visual tool that can help students generate ideas and organize them cohesively. It permits both synchronous and asynchronous collaboration. In this task, students will use mindmeister not only to represent and evolve a picture of the writing process itself, but also as a brainstorming and organizing tool during the writing process. Brown (2007, pp. 391-392), summarizing recent research on writing pedagogy, notes that current approaches to teaching writing focus on the nature of the composition process. Focusing on the process benefits students in numerous ways. To name just a few, it helps them understand their own unique composing process, helps them build repertoires of writing strategies, and shows them the importance of revision and peer and instructor feedback. Mindmeister is visually appealing, easy-to-use, and will help students visualize and learn the reading process and develop brainstorming and outlining strategies. The next online subtask introduces the vocabulary topic of the writing task (literal vs. figurative), and provides opportunities for comprehension checking (quizzes), vocabulary

BLENDED WRITING TASK RATIONALE research (using a dictionary widget), and multi-modal input through videos and audio podcasts. Students are required to bring new vocabulary (and knowledge of new, figurative meanings of known vocabulary) to the subsequent Architecture field trip, where they will to use it to describe and discuss

the buildings they see. Gilmore (2011) has shown that students often prefer multimodal input sources to their textbooks, and that this preference can have positive learning outcomes. This is in line with Doughty & Long's (2003) MP3 and MP4 regarding authentic, rich input. In reviewing a variety of multimedia sources of input, Berk (2009) claims these sources engage learners' three "core intelligences" (verbal/linguistic, visual/spatial, musical/rhythmical), as well as stimulating "emotional intelligence" and allowing for "dual coding" --thus providing a cognitive and emotional impact that enhances learning. It should be noted that Berk is referring to using these input sources in a classroom. But if learning is enhanced through multimedia in that setting, then it probably will also be enhanced outside of class. The next major source of input for learners comes in the form of several online readings, two with glosses and available dictionaries, and the model opinion piece on the class wiki. The efficacy of CALL technology in support of reading is well supported in the literature. Alessi & Dwyer

BLENDED WRITING TASK RATIONALE (2008) and Chun (2011) note that both pre-reading vocabulary assistance and during-reading assistance using glosses have positive effects on reading comprehension and vocabulary retention. Al-Sheri & Gitsaki (2010) found that comprehension was most enhanced when both glosses and an available online dictionary were present. This is the approach I have taken here with the two more challenging readings. Not only have learners been acquiring and practicing topical vocabulary beforehand, but they are also given both glosses and a dictionary (as well as the surrounding context) to support

their reading. Here I also follow Doughty & Long's (2003) MP5: encourage inductive "chunk" learning. Furthermore, students are directed to focus specifically on the glossed words (whose definitions in the glosses are literal), and note their figurative use in the text, thus reinforcing one of the the main learning goals of the overall writing task. The third reading, on the class wiki, models their ultimate goal for them, and prepares them for the next step: beginning the writing process. Next, in pairs, students use mindmeister to brainstorm ideas and create an outline. These are the first two steps of the brainstorm-outline-draft-revise-edit-publish writing process. The rationale for using mindmeister and the writing process was given above. Students can now post their results

BLENDED WRITING TASK RATIONALE on the class wiki, having watched a tutorial. The remainder of the project involves writing, editing and commenting on peer writing using wikispaces. Yet this is not to say that the other subtasks are left behind for good. Learners will soon realize how iterative the writing process can be. They may remember a word or phrase they heard or read from some input source, and go back to it. I also provide a

page of links from which they can explore the web. These links direct them to many more sources of rich, authentic, multimedia input on the topic of Chicago architecture. The use of wikis as platforms for collaboration in educational settings has exploded in recent years. According to Kessler (2009), learners benefit in several ways when they collaborate using a wiki. They are exposed to valuable input from others, they are encouraged to improve their own input, they have more opportunities to practice, they receive feedback from their peers, and they learn to provide feedback to them. Elola & Oskoz (2011, p.175) list a number of other benefits that wikis provide to both students and teachers. Wikis are a quick and easy way for students to "create and share ideas." They provide an environment which "facilitates learners' interactions and encourages the shaping and sharing of knowledge." Using wikis, learners can easily "create, transform, and erase their own and others' work." And finally,

BLENDED WRITING TASK RATIONALE wikis allow teachers to track when learners make changes, including what, when, and how often changes are made, and to see which individuals are contributing what. This latter point, once made clear to the students, will help teachers encourage them to equitably share the project workload. Another risk involved in assigning online writing tasks must be noted in this context. What is to prevent students from cutting and pasting text from websites into their wiki and passing it off as their own? This challenge is of course not new in education, it has only been exacerbated by the

expansion of the Internet and the World Wide Web. In this task design I mitigate this risk in two ways. First, during the class session in which I present the writing process I explicitly discuss this issue and the concept of plagiarism. Second, I have defined the content of the writing task to be highly personal (given the fact that it is a pair project, this requires that both learners share roughly the same opinions about a building; this is built into the pair selection process, which does not happen until after the field trip). Since the writers will be expressing and supporting their personal opinions, it will be more difficult for them to find applicable text on the web. As I mentioned in the introduction, the peer commentary subtask provides an opportunity for students to develop

BLENDED WRITING TASK RATIONALE intercultural competence in the sense of Kramsch (2011). At first they will only be reading one other wiki page, but eventually everyone's page will be available to the entire class, permitting students insight in to the aesthetic

10

opinions of their peers from other cultures. In addition, the very act of researching and reading about the topic on the Internet will provide, as Guth & Helm (2011) point out, "a rich source of authentic cultural material and an environment for intercultural learning to take place." Conclusion While this task is in no way elaborate, extensive, or even complete, it nevertheless illustrates the usefulness of several online technologies for task-based blended instruction. I have designed the project website as a reusable framework, so that a series of tasks can be presented to the students with a consistent and familiar interface. Indeed, multiple tasks could be built on the architecture topic alone, simply by adding different content to the framework. For example, a communicative task requiring students to use maps and other online resources to navigate through Chicago to the locations of architectural landmarks, gather information, and create presentations or other materials either online or in class. Many other examples will easily come to mind. The most important consideration is that the tasks adhere to the

BLENDED WRITING TASK RATIONALE methodological principles and characteristics of effective

11

task design cited above. What is important is not so much the technologies but, as Guth & Helm (2011) put it so well, "the uses to which they are put and the tasks and activities which are designed to lead the learner through a journey of intercultural understanding where they can develop the attitude, knowledge, skills and critical awareness to become active citizens of the world."

BLENDED WRITING TASK RATIONALE References Alessi, S. & Dwyer, A. (2008). Vocabulary assistance before

12

and during reading. Reading in a Foreign Language 20(2), 246-263. Al-Sheri, S., & Gitsaki, C. (2010). Online reading: A preliminary study of the impact of integrated and splitattention formats on L2 students' cognitive load. ReCALL, 22, 356-375. Berk, R.A. (2009). Multimedia teaching with video clips: TV, movies, YouTube, and mtvU in the college classroom. Internet Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 5(1), 1-21. Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (3rd Ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Longman. Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.). (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, teaching and testing. London: Longman. Chun, D. M. (2011). CALL Technologies for L2 reading post web 2.0. In Arnold, N. & Ducate, L. (Eds.) Present and future promises of CALL: From theory and research to new directions in language teaching (pp. 131-170). San Marcos, TX: The Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium.

BLENDED WRITING TASK RATIONALE

13

Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 50-80. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language teaching and learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Elola, I. & Ozkoz, A. (2011). Writing Between the Lines: Acquiring the Presentational Mode through Social Tools. In Arnold, N. & Ducate, L. (Eds.) Present and future promises of CALL: From theory and research to new directions in language teaching (pp. 171-210). San Marcos, TX: The Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium. Gilmore, A. (2011). I prefer not text: Developing Japanese learners communicative competence with authentic materials. Language Learning, 61(3), 786-819. Guth, S. & Helm, F. (2011). Teaching culture through CALL. In Arnold, N. & Ducate, L. (Eds.) Present and future promises of CALL: From theory and research to new directions in language teaching (pp. 211-256). San Marcos, TX: The Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium. Kessler, G. (2009). Student-initiated attention to form in wiki-based collaborative writing. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 79-95.

BLENDED WRITING TASK RATIONALE Kramsch, C. (2011). The symbolic dimensions of the intercultural. Language Teaching 44(3), 354-367.

14

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In: Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.). Handbook of second language acquisition. New York, NY: Academic Press. Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pica, T., Kanagy, R. & Falodun, J. 2009. Choosing and using communication tasks in second language instruction. In Van den Braden, K., Bygate, M. & Norris, J. M. (Eds.), Task-Based Language Teaching. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon 9(5). Retrieved from http://markprensky.com/ writing/. Robin, R. (2011). Listening comprehension in the age of web 2.0. In Arnold, N. & Ducate, L. (Eds.) Present and future promises of CALL: From theory and research to new directions in language teaching (pp. 131-170). San Marcos, TX: The Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium. Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching 36, 1-14.

BLENDED WRITING TASK RATIONALE Appendix Project Documents

15

Project Overview
In this project, together with a partner, you will research and write an opinion piece on the topic of architecture. An opinion piece is a short (approximately 300 words) essay that expresses the writer's opinion about a subject. You will choose a building in Chicago that you both particularly like, write about the building, and explain why you think it is beautiful. You will also read and comment on one other pair's rst draft. Learning Goals academic skills: research, note taking, summarizing writing skills: brainstorming, outlining, editing collaborative skills: peer editing new vocabulary: architecture, aesthetics using words guratively to express artistic and aesthetic concepts Location in class Date

Project Steps Introduction to Project: review steps, homework, grading rubric, dene terms (opinion piece, literal, gurative, artistic, aesthetic) HW #1 - watch mindmeister tutorial, create a mind map Create architecture mind map HW #2 - do vocabulary exercises, watch videos, listen to podcasts, bring vocabulary list to eld trip Field Trip - Architecture Boat Tour Choose partners & a building to write about, review writing process, discuss plagiarism (cut & paste) HW #3 - do reading exercises, watch wikispaces tutorial Review readings, gurative use of words, review sample opinion piece on project wiki HW #4 - brainstorm ideas and opinions about your building using mindmeister and write an outline with your partner Receive feedback from me on your outline, revise it if necessary Write your rst draft Peer group assigned, review and discuss peer editing etiquette HW #5 - read and comment on your peer group's rst draft Revise your rst draft based on your peers' comments Revise writing process map, discuss reections on the project

online in class online Chicago River in class online in class online online online in class online online in class

BLENDED WRITING TASK RATIONALE

16

Project Grading Rubric

Class Participation Full, interesting, valuable participation Homework First Draft Peer Editing Maximum 55 possible points. Final Version of Opinion Piece Excellent = 20 Content The writers always use appropriate architectural and aesthetic vocabulary. The reader can always understand what the writers mean. The writers use correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Good = 15 The writers usually use appropriate architectural and aesthetic vocabulary. The reader can usually understand what the writer means. The writers usually use correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Fair = 7.5 The writers use little appropriate architectural and aesthetic vocabulary. The reader can understand less than half of what the writers mean. The writers have some problems with accurate language usage. Poor = 0 The writers use no appropriate architectural and aesthetic vocabulary. The reader can understand little of what the writers mean. The writers make a signicant number of errors in language usage. 15 20 20 Basic, minimal, not very helpful participation 10 15 15 No participation 0 0 0

Clarity

Accuracy

Maximum 60 possible points. Project Grade: (both partners receive the same grade) A+ = > 100 A = 90-100 B = 80-89 C = 70-79 D = 60-69 F = < 60

BLENDED WRITING TASK RATIONALE Homework Assignments

Homework #1 a. Go to the project website, http://writing-project.weebly.com/. b. Watch the tutorial on mindmeister on the TUTORIALS page. c. Go to mindmeister, create a free account, create a mind map, and share it with me. Homework #2

17

a. Do the vocabulary exercises on the project website, watch the videos, and listen to the podcasts. b. Make a list of vocabulary that can be used guratively to describe buildings, and bring it with you to the eld trip. Homework #3 a. Do the reading exercises on the project website, and watch the wikispaces tutorial. b. With your partner, make a list of 6 words or phrases --3 from the readings, and 3 of your own choosing-- that that you could use guratively to describe your building. c. Enter this word list into the project wiki to start your wiki page. Homework #4 (with your partner) a. Use mindmeister to brainstorm ideas for your piece, and share it with me. b. Update your wiki page with an outline of your piece that includes your 6 words or phrases. Homework #5 a. With your partner, read and comment on your assigned peer group's rst draft on the class wiki. Follow these instructions to write your comments: Peer Editing Instructions Remember to respect your peers' opinions, even if you disagree with them. You should limit your comments to the overall structure, content, and word usage in the text. Answer the questions below with either yes or no. For each no answer, note your suggestions for change. Post your notes as a comment to the writers' wiki page. 1. Do the writers identify the building by name and location? 2. Do the writers describe what kind of building it is (its use or function)? 3. Do the writers state clearly why they love the building, or think it is beautiful? 4. Do the writers use words guratively to describe the building?