Hensley reported on his development of a combined conversational storytelling and learner noticing through self-transcription course in which student pairs were trained and instructed to self-transcribe their own recorded conversations. Though only reporting on his initial implementation of such a course, Hensley indicated that, while the effects of self-transcription may be hard to measure in learners’ performance, the conversational storytelling appeared to be having a positive effect on learners’ fluency.

1. Peer and Teacher Feedback on Student
Speaking: What, How, and When?
Joel Hensley | University of Nagasaki, Siebold
Nagasaki JALT | January 21, 2012

2. Listening sample

3. Overview
1. Lynch‟s transcription &Stenson‟s conversational
stories
2. CAS theory
3. Transcription Method
4. Results
 Students‟ reaction
 The “messy details”
5. Discussion
6. Future directions

4. The noticing hypothesis
“[T]he subjective experience of „noticing‟ is the
necessary and sufficient condition for the conversion
of [language] input to intake.” (p. 209)
(Schmidt 1993)

5. Noticing through Transcription
 ESL setting
 8 adults
 Class in English for Academic Purposes (EAP)
 Recorded in-class speaking task
 Results:
 72% of student changes correct
 6:7 ratio of speaker vs. listener corrections
 Students made 30% more changes than teacher
(Lynch 2001)

6. Fluency through Conversational Stories
 Escape textbook-style Q&A “conversation”
 Attempt to foster more natural style
 Utilize conversational “rules” for practice
(Stenson 2003)

7. The “messy details”
 System variation signals change
 Observing development by locating variation
 Looking at individual learners, not averages
Larsen-Freeman (2006)
 Experimental look at 5 Chinese ESL learners
 Observed over several months
 Task iteration

8. Putting it all together
Research goals:
 Use transcription and conversational storytelling
“rules” to elicit students‟ noticing and self-correction
of problem areas
 Analyze results according to CAS theory
Class goals:
 Progress toward fluency
 Foster better language learners (LLs) through
noticing and self-analysis
 Self, peer, and teacher feedback

9. Setting
Students
 22 (20 female, 2 male)
 Public university
 Department of international communication
 TOEIC range: 430-495
Course
 First year/semester required oral communication
 Twice a week, 15 weeks
 Text: English Firsthand 2: 4th Edition

10. Conversational storytelling
“Rules” practiced in class
1. No (or very few) questions
 Not always, just during targeted practice
 Anticipate what listener wants to know
2. No silence
 Working target was silence < one second
3. Somewhat related (no 関係ない話し)
4. “I” and “you” sentences
5. Add evaluation
(comment, opinion, shadowing, etc.)
6. Endless (bus stop scenario)
(Stenson 2003)

11. Transcription method
Plan
 4 times
 About once a month
 Full transcription process each time
 Training and practice before first transcription

12. Transcription training
 2 Sample conversations:
understood, corrected, analyzed

13. Transcription training
1. Grammar
 Verb tense: I goes.  I went.
 Article: a men  the men
 Plural/Singular: many woman  many women
 Part of Speech: excite  exciting
2. Vocabulary
 He talked his name.  He said his name.

14. Transcription training
3. Editing
 Repeating: I, I, I think so too.  I think so too.
 Bad starts: Wh- … What is that?  What is that?
 Pauses & fillers: Uhh … I, um … think so.  I
think so.
 Japanese: ___ってなに？ What‟s ___?
4. Reforming
 Changing to a better expression:
high school first grade  first year in high
school
 Adding to make it clearer:
Oh, same!  Oh, we‟re the same!
5. Mixed
 Any combination of 1-4

15. Transcription training
Practice transcript:
Tina: Hello. What‟s is your name?
Paul: My name is Paul. And you?
Tina: Um … My name is Tina. How are you?
Paul: I‟m five … twenty-five year old. And you?
Tina: I‟m twenty-four year old. Where are you from?
Paul: I come from Toronto. And you?
Tina: New York. What do you do?
Paul: Um. I am working, eh … to engineering.

16. Transcription training
Error Type Tina Paul Total
Grammar 2 1 3
Vocabulary -- 1 1
Editing 1 3 4
Reforming -- -- --
Mixed -- -- --

17. Transcription method
Recording
 2 students
 Pairs self-selected
 6~7 minutes recorded
 Free conversation
 Topics available: best day of your life, memory from high
school,
country you would like to
visit, etc.
 MP3 audio file of conversation emailed to pair

18. Transcription method
Transcription = transcript 1
 90~120 second selection
 Students chose themselves
 Transcription done by pairs outside of class
Revision A = transcript 2
 Pairs revise their own transcript together
Submission (both transcripts 1 + 2)

19. Transcription method
Revision B = transcript 3
 I made further revisions to transcript 2 (revised A)
Comparison
 Student pairs compared transcripts 2 + 3 in class
Analysis
 Using Lynch‟s (2001) categories, pairs counted total
corrections made (student and teacher)
 Students instructed to focus on personal area with
most corrections in class conversation

20. Student response
1. Transcription helpful:
2. Discovered specific weakness:
3. Transcription a new experience:
4. Found new areas to focus on:
5. Transcription a useful experience:
6. Want to do transcription again:
0% 50% 100%

21. Student response
 “Recording conversations has helped because I
could find mistakes which I hadn‟t noticed.”
 “It‟s good for grammar.”
 “I could notice my weaknesses/bad points/mistakes.”
 “I learned a new method of conversational self-
analysis.”
 “ためになった”
 “I understand how to progress in my English life.”
 “会話においての自己分析を通して新たな課題も見つ
かった”
 “Transcription has many parts, so I was confused.”

22. Narrowing the scope
Only 7 students from here on
 Trial sample – 1/3 of class
 Students with full effort and participation points
 TOEIC range
 2 high, 3 mean, 2 low

23. Transcription corrections
Grammar
86 Vocabulary
Editing
101 Reforming
Mix

24. Transcription corrections
Grammar
Vocabulary
Editing
Reforming
Mix

25. T-unit analysis
Accuracy Fluency
2 2
1
1
0
1 2 3 4 0
-1
1 2 3 4
-2 -1
Gramm. Complex. Vocab. Complex.
2 2
1 1
0 0
-1 1 2 3 4 -1 1 2 3 4
-2 -2

26. Grammatical complexity by student
1.35
1.3
1.25
YO
N
1.2 S
KA
1.15 C
YU
KO
1.1
1.05
1
recording 1 recording 2 recording 3 recording 4

27. Intra-individual variation - YO
1.5
1
0.5
Fluency
Gramm. Compl.
0
Accuracy
1 2 3 4
Vocab. Compl.
-0.5
-1
-1.5

28. T-unit fluency by student
9
8
7
YO
N
6 S
KA
C
5 YU
KO
4
3
recording 1 recording 2 recording 3 recording 4

29. Further exploration
Did the transcription and “rules” have any effect?
García-Amaya(2009) as inspiration
 12 measures of fluency
 Including: syllables per turn, seconds per turn, rate of
speech
I chose 3 measures of fluency:
 Number of questions asked
 Number of pauses between speaking turns (> one
sec.)
 Number of intra-sentential hesitations

30. Ratio of words to questions asked
90
80
70
60 YO
N
50 S
KA
40 C
YU
30 KO
AVERAGE
20
10
0
recording 1 recording 2 recording 3 recording 4

31. Collective variables in CAS theory
“[A] collective variable is what emerges through
interactions of system dynamics … and can
therefore be used to describe complex systems”
(Hensley, 2011)
Fluency as a collective variable
 As defined by and focused on per the goals of the
class:
 t-unit fluency +
number of hesitations +
number of pauses
collective variable of fluency

32. Collective variable of fluency
1
YO
0.5
N
S
KA
C
0
YU
recording 1 recording 2 recording 3 recording 4
KO
AVERAGE
-0.5
-1

33. Outliers
Student C
1.5
1
Fluency
0.5
Gramm. Compl.
0 Accuracy
1 2 3 4 Vocab. Compl.
-0.5
CV of fluency
-1
Student S
-1.5 1.5
1
0.5 Fluency
Gramm. Compl.
0 Accuracy
1 2 3 4 Vocab. Compl.
-0.5 CV of fluency
-1
-1.5

34. Issues need addressing
 Lynch‟s (2001) transcript corrections too general
 Clustering around grammar and editing (false
starts, pauses, etc.)
For a start:
Grammatical Lexical Mistakes Japanese
verb tense part of speech false starts
number word choice repetitions
article/prep. message abandon
missing S/V
possessive
pronoun
word order

35. Issues need addressing
 Are students using what they‟ve discovered in
transcribing?
 No way to know if they did this time
 Insufficient data in general
 Richer set and/or longer collection (limited by length of
course)
 Recording
 Done in my office – may have put pressure on students
 Final recording was also assessment – additional
pressure

36. Future directions
 All recordings in-class and separate from
assessment
 Develop more targeted correction rubric
 Grammar and editing areas
 Try to increase sample size
 Word cloud instead of textbook questions
 More choice in topic, and less questions
 Different student pairing?
 Random vs. self-selected vs. by TOEIC score
 Supplemental individual self-analysis/review?
 Students keep some kind of (audio/video?) progress
journal

37. References
 The Five Graces Group. (2009). Language is a complex
adaptive system.
 García-Amaya, L. (2009). New findings on fluency measures
across three different learning contexts.
 Hensley, J. (2011). Collective variables in applied linguistics
research.
 Jones, R. E. (2001). A consciousness-raising approach to the
teaching of conversational storytelling skills.
 Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of
complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written
production of five Chinese learners of English.
 Larsen-Freeman, D. & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems
and applied linguistics.
 Lynch, T. (2001). Seeing what they meant: Transcribing as a
route to noticing.
 Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language
acquisition.
 Stenson, G. (2003). Listening fluency with conversational

38. Thank you!
jhensley@sun.ac.jp