Student Input and Negotiation of Meaning in ESL Wr

TeachersofEnglishtoSpeakersofOtherLanguages,Inc.(TESOL)StudentInputandNegotiationofMeaninginESLWritingConferencesAuthor(s):LynnM.GoldsteinandSusanM.ConradSource:TESOLQuarterly,Vol.24,No.3(Autumn,1990),pp.443-460Publishedby:TeachersofEnglishtoSpeakersofOtherLanguages,Inc.(TESOL)StableURL::30/03/201423:05YouruseoftheJSTORarchiveindicatesyouracceptanceoftheTerms&ConditionsofUse,[e-mail]..TeachersofEnglishtoSpeakersofOtherLanguages,Inc.(TESOL)iscollaboratingwithJSTORtodigitize,preserveandextendaccesstoTESOLQuarterly.:05:45PMAllusesubjecttoJSTORTermsandConditionsTESOLQUARTERLY,Vol.24,No.3,Autumn1990StudentInputandNegotiationofMeaninginESLWritingConferencesLYNNM.GOLDSTEINMontereyInstituteofInternationalStudiesSUSANM.CONRADCentralWashingtonUniversityResearchandpracticeincompositionpedagogysuggestthatstudent-teacherconferencesplayanimportantroleinhelpingstudentsbecomemoreeffectivewriters.Manystudents,teachers,andresearchersbelievethatconferencesarevaluablebecausetheyallowstudentstocontroltheinteraction,activelyparticipate,andclarifytheirteachers'responses.ThispaperreportstheresultsofastudythatexaminedthedegreetowhichthesecharacteristicswerepresentinconferencesbetweenoneteacherandeachofthreestudentsenrolledinanadvancedESLcompositioncourse.Inaddition,thestudylookedatthestudents'textstodeterminehowstudentsdealtwiththerevisionsdiscussedintheconferencesandtherolenegotiationofmeaningplayedinthesuccessofsuchrevisions.Therewerelargedifferencesinthedegreetowhichstudentsparticipatedintheconferencesandnegotiatedmeaning.Inaddition,studentswhonegotiatedmeaningmaderevisionsinthefollowingdraftthatimprovedthetext.Incontrast,whenstudentsdidnotnegotiatemeaning,evenwhentheyactivelyparticipatedintheconference,theytendedeithernottomakerevisionsortomakemechanical,sentence-levelchangesthatoftenresultedintextsthatwerenotqualitativelybetterthanpreviousdrafts.Student-teacherwritingconferencesarewidelyrecommendedincompositionpedagogyandmanyclaimshavebeenmadeabouttheirroleinhelpingstudentsbecomemoreeffectivewriters.Theseclaims,however,remainunverifiedforsecondlanguagewritersbecausenoneoftheresearchhasexaminedthediscoursethattakesplaceinconferencesortherelationshipbetweenthisdiscourseandsubsequentrevisionforthesewriters.Infact,mostclaimsforboth443Thiscontentdownloadedfrom210.31.76.48onSun,30Mar201423:05:45PMAllusesubjecttoJSTORTermsandConditionsnative-speakerandESLwritersarebasedontheparticipants'impressionsof,orattitudestowards,conferences.Inastudyofnativespeakers,Carnicelli(1980)reviewedstudents'evaluativecommentstowardstheirconferences.Onthebasisofthese,heconcludedthatconferencesareamoreeffectivemeansoffeedbackthanarewrittencommentsbecauseconferencesallowstudentstoexpresstheiropinionsandneeds,andtoclarifyteachers'commentswhentheyarenotunderstood:Ifateacher'sresponseisunclearthestudentcansimplyaskforanexplanation(p.108).Zamel(1985)andSokmen(1988)reachsimilarconclusionsforconferenceswithnonnativespeakers.ZameldiscoveredthatESLstudentsoftenfoundwrittencommentsdifficulttounderstand.Thus,shesuggeststhatteachersneedtoholdconferenceswithstudentsbecausedynamicinterchangeandnegotiationismostlikelytotakeplacewhenwritersandreadersworktogetherface-to-face(p.97).Sokmenconcurs,statingthatrespondinginconfer-encesismoreeffectivethaninwritingbecauseyou,theteacher,caninteractdynamicallywiththestudentstounderstandtheintent(p.5).Theaboveclaims,however,arebased,notonanexaminationofdiscoursethatactuallyoccursinconferences,butonstudents'andteachers'evaluationsofconferences.Thefewstudiesthathaveexaminedactualdiscoursehavefocusedonnative-speakerconfer-ences.FreedmanandKatz(1987)analyzedtranscriptsofseveralconferencesandfoundthatthediscoursewithintheseconferenceshadpredictableparts:openings,student-initiatedcommentsandquestions,teacher-initiatedcommentsandquestions,readingofthepaper,andclosings.Examiningoneconferenceindetail,theydiscoveredthattheteacherandstudentfollowedinteractionalrulesthatplacedtheconferencesomewherebetween(p.77)con-versationalturn-takingrulesdescribedbySacks,Schegloff,andJefferson(1974)andtherulesofclassroomturn-takingasdescribedbyMehan(1979).Whiletheteacherinitiatedmanyquestionstoguidethestudent,thestudentsuppliedthedirectionandcontentoftheconference.FreedmanandKatzhypothesizedthatastudent'sinputandcontrolofthediscourseaccountsfortheeffectivenessofconferencesinimprovingstudentwriting.However,theydidnotactuallylookattherelationshipbetweenthesefactorsandsubsequentrevisionsorpaperstotestthis.WalkerandElias(1987)comparedthediscourseinconferencesratedhighlybytutorsandstudentstothoseratedpoor