ALESS task 2019 - WordPress.comWriting Task 1: ALESS Task 3 do not focus on the nature of telecollaborative interaction. In other words, what was the point of doing this task online

Writing Task 1: ALESS Task

1

ALESS Task

Schedule 課題内容成績内容〆切１ Summary 5% 与えられた文章を要約する

Summarize a given passage 4/13

２ Synopsis 10% クラスメートの ALESS paperを読み、それを 1ページにまとめる Read one of your classmates’ ALESS paper and summarize it in one page

4/27

３ Literature review

10% 一年生の時に読んだ参考文献に５本以上の論文を追加し、

literature reviewを拡張する Expand your literature review by adding more than five references

5/11

４ IMRaD (first draft)

10% 一年生の時に執筆した論文を拡張する。IntroductionとDiscussionは 50%以上の変化がないといけない Expand your ALESS paper. 50% of your introduction and discussion sections need to be different from the original.

5/18

５ Final draft 30% Abstractや referencesを含めた最終稿を提出する Submit the final draft that includes the abstract and references

5/25

６ Peer review 15% Synopsisを書いたクラスメートの論文を peer reviewする Peer review a paper by the classmate whose ALESS paper you previously wrote a synopsis for

6/1

Your final ALESS paper should be no less than 1200 words in total. Requirements: Your ALESS Paper Title & affiliation

• Improve the title to capture the essence of your paper • Make changes to the affiliation (if necessary)

Abstract • Make changes to increase the intelligibility of the abstract • Improve the language

Introduction • The introduction section needs to add five more references to the original paper • More than half of your introduction needs to be different from the original paper • Improve the language

Methodology • Make changes to increase the intelligibility of the methodology section • Improve the language

Results • Make changes to the figures/graphs (if necessary) to increase the intelligibility of the

results section • Improve the language

Discussion (& conclusion) • More than half of your discussion needs to be different from the original paper • Make changes to increase the intelligibility of the discussion section • Improve the language

References • Make the list of references error-free


2

Requirements: Peer review 1. Read your partner’s paper once 2. Refer to the peer review checklist below and read it again; Take notes! 3. Write a review using the format below

a. General comment to the author: Summary of the study + evaluation of the paper (Accepted, Minor change, Major change, Reject)

b. Major comments: Major changes that should be made to improve the paper c. Minor comments: Minor changes that can easily be fixed to improve the paper

(e.g., language errors, data representation, typos)

General comment to the author Major comments

• • • •

Minor comments

• • • •

Example peer review

General comment This study examined negotiation of meaning that took place in a telecollaborative interaction between English native speakers in Australia and non-native speakers of English in the Netherland. The participants engaged in a task-based conversation in which they were required to exchange and understand the meanings of 12 items on their list (the Things-in-Pocket task) to move onto a more open-ended conversation. The participants interacted in both videoconferencing and text chatting modes of communication. The authors analyzed the data focusing on NNS’ implicit vs. explicit display of non-understanding, which the authors associated with face- vs. task-appropriateness, respectively, and NS’ response to it. It was found that, as the task progressed, NSs preferred to provide comprehensible input rather than checking NNSs’ comprehension, while NNSs preferred to indicate non-understanding implicitly instead of doing so explicitly. The authors argued that the NSs counterbalanced NNSs’ face-appropriate behavior (i.e., implicit display of non-understanding) with task-appropriate behavior of providing comprehensible input, concluding that participants act not only in the interest of the task but also in the interest of face. This study brings in a new insight by examining the traditional sense of negotiation of meaning in consideration of interactants’ face and by considering task-based interaction as emergent and dynamic. While it has a great potential to be published in the XX Journal, I believe the study contains a few major issues that make it difficult to be published with no major revision. Major comments

• The participants in this study used both videoconferencing and text chatting modes of communication. However, the authors do not pay much attention to the fact that the participants used these two modalities, let alone their unique affordances. I kept wondering why the interaction had to take place in the two digitally-mediated modes of communication if the authors


3

do not focus on the nature of telecollaborative interaction. In other words, what was the point of doing this task online when it is possible to do so in a face-to-face environment. If the authors wanted to make the claim that face-appropriate responses are observed in either face-to-face or digitally-mediated communication, then it should be stated clearly in the manuscript (although of course it needs to be tested before making such a claim).

o The title does not really capture the essence of the study, as the authors do not focus on the nature of “digitally-mediated” interaction.

o p. 8~10 transcript and analysis of Dyad A: “Sorry” is observed only in the video transcript but not in the text chat transcript. It is possible that the difference in these two modalities affected the NNS’ behavior.

• While the manuscript occasionally mentions the stimulated recall data, it is not clear how the stimulated recall sessions were conducted. Did each participant meet the researcher immediately after the interaction, watched the video and/or read the transcripts, and recalled what they were thinking when discussing each of the 12 items? Or was it more like a reflection interview? If stimulated recall was conducted properly, it would be possible to tell with relative certainty whether the NNS was understanding the word or not.

• Even after reading the entire manuscript, it was not clear to me what the authors meant by “task-appropriate” behavior and how they labeled one type of behavior as task-appropriate as opposed to face-appropriate. For instance, while it is understandable that NNS’ explicit display of non-understanding is task-appropriate in that negotiation is required for task completion, it was not clear why NS’ provision of comprehensible input was regarded as task-appropriate. On a relevant note, recasts are “expeditious, less threatening to student confidence, and less intrusive to the flow of interaction” (Loewen & Philp, 2006, p. 551), and Akiyama (2016) argued that telecollaborative participants preferred recasts over other types of negotiation moves because recasts were found by the participants to be “efficient” and “not face-threatening.” If the same logic is applicable here, NS’ provision of comprehensible input is actually face-appropriate. *The authors actually argue that provision of comprehensible input is “in the interest of both face and task” (p. 17); however, they also argue that NNS’ face-appropriate responses (i.e., implicit display of non-understanding) are counterbalanced by NS’ task-appropriate responses (i.e., provision of comprehensible input). Thus, their argument is not consistent throughout the manuscript.

• Due to the points raised above, the discussion and conclusion sections were relatively weak. I was expecting to see more argument about the difference between Gass and Varonis’ model and the current study’s findings, how the technology-mediated environment may have contributed to the difference, how the introspective data via stimulated recall revealed participants’ thoughts at the time of interaction (including whether they thought negotiation of the series of words was face-threatening or not), and how the participants’ interaction was emergent and dynamic in consideration of face despite the task designers’ plan.

Minor comments

• p. 5: How long, on average, did it take for each dyad to complete the first part of the task? Were the participants under time pressure for each part (e.g., they had to complete the first part in 10 minutes)? What happened if they could not complete all the steps in one hour? Please clarify how the dyads spent the one-hour interaction.

• p. 6: What were the inclusion criteria for choosing the 12 items? Were these the words that none of the test takers knew?

• p. 6 “Procedure”: Do the authors mean “four” categories, not three? • p. 9: Do the authors mean “oh” instead of “so” for the Heritage (1984) reference? “Heritage” is

also missing from the 1984 reference. • p. 13: The item numbering in Dyad E was a little confusing until I read the footnote. Is there a

better way to number the items or maybe the footnote can appear in the main text to avoid confusion?

• Throughout the manuscript, there were a number of typos (e.g., three categories vs. four categories, NNs, “may not have been not been reached”). Please check the manuscript again.

2/5

Writing Task 2: Age vs. language use

Language Task



２ Synopsis 10% 自分のテーマに関する論文を一本読み、それを 1ページにまとめる Read a paper on your theme and summarize it in one page

4/27


10% 自分のテーマに関する論文を５本以上読み、literature reviewを書く Write a literature review by reading more than five articles on your theme

5/11

４ IMR 10% Introduction, methodology, resultsを書く Write the introduction, methodology, and results

5/18

５ IMRaD (first draft)

10% IMRaD全てが含まれた第一稿を提出する Submit the first draft (IMRaD)

5/25

６ Final draft 35% Abstractや referencesを含めた最終稿を提出する Submit the final draft that includes the abstract and references

6/1

Your final paper should be about 1500 words in total. Your paper should consist of:

1. Title 2. Affiliation 3. Abstract (200 words) 4. Introduction (*You can refer to other students’ synopsis online) 5. Methodology 6. Results 7. Discussion (and conclusion) 8. References 9. Appendix

Domain: Cognitive and social science Theme: Effect of age vs. language use on Japanese college students’ English ability

Importance of this research: Presence of a “critical period,” namely an endpoint beyond which learning a second language becomes difficult or impossible (DeKeyser & Larson-Hall, 2005), has been used as one of the major reasons for introducing English to elementary school. However, many of the past studies were conducted in English-speaking countries, underrepresenting English learners in countries where English is rarely used in daily life. Thus, this study examines English learners in Japan to find out: (1) whether the critical period exists for Japanese college students who rarely use English and (2) whether late starters can reach a certain level of proficiency with extensive usage of the English language.


List of references:

• Ortega, L. (2009). Age. Understanding second language acquisition (pp. 12–29). New York, NY: Routledge. ß This chapter will be shared with you in class.

• Marinova‐Todd, S. H., Marshall, D. B., & Snow, C. E. (2000). Three misconceptions about age and L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 9–34.

• Granena, G., & Long, M. H. (2013). Age of onset, length of residence, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment in three linguistic domains. Second Language Research, 29(3), 311–343.

• Kinsella, C., & Singleton, D. (2014). Much more than age. Applied Linguistics, 35(4), 441–462.

• Hartshorne, J. K., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Pinker, S. (2018). A critical period for second language acquisition: Evidence from 2/3 million English speakers. Cognition, 177, 263–277.

• Shogakko ni okeru eigo kyoiku no mokuhyo to naiyo (Goals and contexts of English education in elementary schools). (n.d.). Retrieved March 17, 2019, from http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo3/004/siryo/attach/1379940.htm

Keywords:

• Age • Critical period • Sensitive period • “Age and second language”

Possible research questions:

• Is there a critical period for English learners in Japanese universities? • How does the amount of English use impact the mastery of English?

Methodology:

1. Participants a. N = 100 (45 males, 55 females) b. Between 20 and 22 years of age c. Students who study at universities in Tokyo and who do not major in

linguistics d. Native speakers of Japanese who have studied English only in institutional

settings (e.g., kindergarten, English conversation schools, high school) e. No study-abroad experience in English-speaking countries over six months f. Recruited via a flyer on campus and via social media g. Came to the research lab for data collection

2. Data collection a. Background questionnaire:

i. Conducted via Google Form (see Appendix A) ii. Collected information about the participants’:

1. Current age 2. Sex (male, female) 3. Age of onset for learning English 4. Amount of English use at the time of testing (i.e., how many

hours they were exposed to English, for instance, doing homework, watching English movies, taking English lessons at school and outside school)


b. English test: i. Picture description task (see Appendix B)

ii. Speech samples: 100 (one speech sample per participant) iii. Length of speech samples: 1 minute 21 seconds on average, but only

the first 30 seconds were used for analysis iv. Judgement of native-likeness:

1. Five native speakers of English rated 100 speech samples on the scale of 1-9 with 1 being “sounds extremely foreign” and 9 being “extremely native-like”

2. Speech samples were rated on the two linguistic domains: a. Sound (i.e., pronunciation) (9 points max) b. Form (i.e., vocabulary and grammar) (9 points max)

3. The five raters’ scores were averaged after establishing inter-rater reliability (Cronbach’s α = .972 and α = .896 for sound and form, respectively)

3. Data analysis

a. Data (see the Excel file accessible from: http://drives.news/google394) b. You can run various types of statistical analyses, but the simplest one (and the

one expected of you in this class) is correlation. c. If you need help with statistics, seek help from the instructor/TAs

Appendix A The survey is accessible from: https://forms.gle/C1moXdo69UYdJfsf7 Appendix B

You have one minute to prepare. This is a story about a couple who ran an open-air restaurant on a beach. You have two minutes to narrate the story. Your story should begin with the following sentence: One day, a couple was at their restaurant.

Academic Writing 2019 Writing Task 3: Review + Data analysis task

1

Review + Data Analysis Task

Schedule 課題タスク内容成績内容〆切１ Summary 5% 与えられた文章を要約する


２ Synopsis 10% 自分のテーマに関する論文を一本読み、そ

れを 1ページにまとめる Read a paper on your theme and summarize it in one page

4/27

３ Review Literature review (first draft)

10% 自分のテーマに関する論文を５本以上読

み、literature reviewを書く Write a literature review by reading more than five articles on your theme

5/11

４ Literature review (final draft)

30% Literature reviewの最終稿を提出する Submit the final draft of the literature review

5/18

５ Data analysis

MR (first draft)

5% Methodology, resultsの第一稿を提出する Write the methodology and results

5/25

６ MR (final draft)

20% Methodology, resultsの最終稿を提出する Submit the final draft that includes methodology and results

6/1

Review: Step by step

1. Choose a topic of your interest. 2. Choose five articles to include in your paper. It is a good idea to read articles

published by your potential lab. 3. Write a literature review of about 800-1000 words.

a. Your paper should consist of: i. Title

ii. Affiliation iii. Abstract (200 words) iv. Literature review (+ identification of the gap) v. References

b. First draft is due on 5/11; Final draft is due on 5/18 Data analysis: Step by step

1. Write the methodology section in about 300 words. 2. When you write the methodology section, it is important to:

a. Write as many details as possible including: i. Experimental set-up

ii. Formula used iii. Procedure

b. Explain figures/graphs/tables in sentences. 3. Write the results section in about 300 words. 4. When you write the results section, it is important to:

a. Summarize the results in graphs/figures/tables b. Interpret the results instead of simply listing numbers


2

Data analysis task: Pendulum

Theme: Calculating the value of gravitational acceleration using a simple pendulum Importance of this research: Pendulum experiment proves Newton’s first law of motion. Galileo used the pendulum to observe the effects of gravity, which is regarded as the start of the experimental physics. A simple pendulum experiment allows students to calculate the gravitational acceleration easily, observe the effect of changing the string length, and experience some of the basics of a physics experiment. Possible research questions:

• What is the value of gravitational acceleration? • What effect does changing the length of the string have on a pendulum?

Methodology:

1. Experimental set-up (Note: You may use the picture provided) a. String b. Metal ball c. Pendulum base d. Chronometer


3

2. Formula for calculating the value of gravitational acceleration

Formula to be used

𝑇 = 2𝜋%𝑙𝑔

T, period in [s] l, pendulum length from the top of the string to the body weight center [m] g, gravity [m/s2] Standard deviation, 𝜎

𝜎 = )1

𝑁 − 1-(𝑥0 − �̅�0)3

4

056

(�̅�0: average)

3. Procedure 1. Prepare the experimental device 2. Set the string length 𝑙 by0.935[𝑚]. Measure 20 periods time 𝑡[𝑠]. Repeat this

measurement 6 times. 3. Set the string length 𝑙 by 1, 0.8, 0.6, 0.5, 0.3, 0.2[𝑚], respectively. Measure 10

period time 𝑡[𝑠] in each trial. 4. Calculate the value of gravitational acceleration based on the results.

RESULTS

1. Data Data obtained when l = 0.935 Test Oscillations, N Total time, t[s] T[s] g[m/s2] 1 20 38.4 1.92 2 20 38.8 1.94 3 20 39.2 1.96 4 20 39.0 1.95 5 20 38.8 1.94 6 20 38.6 1.93

Data obtained when l is varied

Test Length, l[m] Oscillations, N Total time, t[s] T[s] g[m/s2] 1 1 10 20.11 2.011 2 0.8 10 17.89 1.789 3 0.6 10 15.78 1.578 4 0.5 10 14.21 1.421 5 0.3 10 10.97 1.097 6 0.2 10 8.93 0.893


4

2. Experiment with fixed pendulum length a. Briefly explain the details of the first experiment (length of the string, how many

times repeated, etc.) b. Provide the table including g. c. Calculate the standard deviation. d. Interpret the results.

3. Experiment with different pendulum length

a. Briefly explain the details of the second experiment (length of the string, etc.) b. Provide the table including g and the graph. c. Interpret the results.

Writing Task 4: Your own data task

Your Own Data Task



２ Synopsis 10% 自分のテーマに関する論文を一本読み、それを 1ページにまとめる Read a paper on your theme and summarize it in one page

4/27


10% 自分のテーマに関する論文を５本以上読み、literature reviewを書く Write a literature review by reading more than five articles on your theme

5/11

４ IMR 10% Introduction, methodology, resultsを書く Write the introduction, methodology, and results

5/18

５ IMRaD (first draft)

10% IMRaD全てが含まれた第一稿を提出する Submit the first draft (IMRaD)

5/25

６ Final draft 35% Abstractや referencesを含めた最終稿を提出する Submit the final draft that includes the abstract and references

6/1

Your final paper should be about 1500 words in total.

Documents

ALESS task 2019 - WordPress.comWriting Task 1: ALESS Task 3 do not focus on the nature of telecollaborative interaction. In other words, what was the point of doing this task online