To be able to reuse copyright material from a published work in my own work, I need to ask for permission. I don’t think that the adage “better to ask for forgiveness than permission” would work here. Let’s be prudent!

Finding the permission information page on the website was easy enough. The “Request permissions” link is listed at the bottom of the article. Some publishers grant their permissions through a centralised Copyright Clearance Center. For instance, “Taylor & Francis has partnered with Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service to offer a variety of options for reusing Taylor & Francis content”.

They offer, they say, a variety of options for reusing their content, so far so good.

After completing their online form, I discovered that the price to reuse one single figure in my new publication would cost me 110.26 EURO. COME ON! I intended to use about 500 different ones. Even the authors of this graph must ask permission to reuse their own work; it is not their’s anymore.

My final thought is that, we writers have the power to select our publisher. Let’s make a good choice and publish our work under Creative Commons.

Reference

Levy, M., & Hubbard, P. (2005). Why call CALL ‘‘CALL’’? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(3), 143–149.

Early language aptitude

Identifying those with major difficulties and those with natural abilities at easily learning a foreign language motivated the first attempts of language aptitude testing. The so-called prognosis tests, occurring in the late 1920s, were developed in the U.S. schools to screen learners’ aptitude so as to reduce the high percentage of unsuccessfullness with regard to language learning (Dörnyei, 2005). The results, judged “too unreliable for use as a basis for denying any child the right to undertake foreign language work”, promoted at the time the creation of orientation classes to distinguish in between different learner’s levels (Kaulfers, 1939, p. 82). Years later, in the 1950s and 1960s, the goal had not changed and research on language aptitude became more active than before (Dörnyei, 2005).

The MLAT

The Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) designed by Carroll and Sapon (1959) aimed at predicting each candidate’s level of success in terms of rate of learning in second language acquisition, where candidates with more aptitude were likely to learn faster. In other words, it anticipated learners’ potential at rapidly speaking and understanding a foreign language. Carroll (1973) refined the concept of foreign language aptitude to the “rate at which persons at the secondary school, university and adult level successfully master a foreign language” (Carroll, 1973, p. 5 cited in Johnson, 2008, p. 118).

Language aptitude reconsidered

On the one hand, Dörnyei and Skehan (2003) claim that post-Carroll research on language aptitude has been poorly investigated, mostly because “aptitude is perceived as anti-egalitarian, in that if a fixed, immutable interpretation of aptitude is taken, it is seen as potentially disadvantaging many learners, with no hope offered of overcoming the handicap of low aptitude” (p. 593). One the other hand, Stansfield and Reed (2004) point out that the “MLAT has been used for selection, placement and guidance by schools and U.S. government agencies for more than 40 years” (p. 43). Because MLAT was developed when language teaching was mostly audiolingual, a now outdated technique, some researchers on foreign language instruction, in 1990, came to the conclusion that “…the time has come to rethink the whole notion of what constitutes ‘aptitude’ to learn FL’s” (reported by Parry & Stansfield, 1990, p. 2), to which Carroll (1990) retorted:

… it has been my assumption, for some years, that the degree of success has been acceptable or more than acceptable. In view of this, I return my query: What’s wrong with present methods? Do they require just ‘fine tuning’, or is some more radical change called for? (p. 12).

Regardless, Carroll (1990) still suggested a new approach of language aptitude prediction by investigating memory performances and cognitive factors, which were emerging, at the time, as highly active domains of research. He also proposed to take language learning tasks into consideration for further research in foreign language aptitude.

New contributors to language aptitude

New cognitive factors started influencing how researchers could measure language aptitude. Sawyer and Ranta (2001) believe that working memory capacity, which is the new label for short-term memory system, may be the answer to enhance the concept of language aptitude. The outdated term portrayed the short-term memory space as a limited space for information that will be remembered for just a few moments (Skehan, 1998). Working memory, however, is defined as “a system for temporarily holding and manipulating information as part of a wide range of essential cognitive tasks such as learning, reasoning and comprehending“ (Baddeley, 1997, p. 49). Ellis (2001) further points out that in opposition to short-term memory, working memory has an active storage function for managing information.

The working memory, proposed by Baddeley (1997), is a controlling attentional system or central executive that supervises two subsystems specialised in short-term memory and information processing, respectively named the phonological loop and the visuo-spatial sketch pad. While the central executive, limited in capacity, is responsible for the allocation of attention, the phonological loop deals with verbal information, and the visuo-spatial sketch pad is concerned with image representation and spatial information. According to Ellis (2001), individual differences in the phonological loop account for individual differences in language learning aptitude. He adds that the ability to repeat uttered phonological sequences predicts the learner’s facility at learning vocabulary and syntax.

Conclusion

The perception of what language aptitude is has considerably evolved during the last decades. It seems to be now acknowledged as being several different individual cognitive aptitudes that differ from person to person, rather than one individual difference per se. The aptitude at learning a language will be balanced between learners’ more or less developed cognitive aptitudes, which may be, for instance, classified into basic cognitive abilities, such as processing speed, pattern recognition, phonological working memory capacity, phonological working memory speed, semantic priming, lexical inferencing, text working memory capacity, text working memory speed, grammatical sensitivity, and rote memory (Robinson, 2005).

References

Baddeley, A. (1997). Human memory: theory and practice (Revised ed.). Sussex: Psychology Press Ltd Publishers.

Carroll, J. B. (1990). Cognitive abilities in foreign language aptitude: then and now. In T. Parry & C. Stansfield (Eds.), Language aptitude reconsidered. NJ: Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs.

Carroll, J. B. (1973). Implications of aptitude test research and psycholinguistic theory for foreign language teaching. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 2(1), 5-14.

Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. M. (1959). Modern language aptitude test: MLAT; manual. New York: Psychological Corporation.

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589-630). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Ellis, C. N. (2001). Memory for language. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, K. (2008). An introduction to foreign language learning and teaching (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited.

Kaulfers, W. V. (1939). Prognosis and its alternatives in relation to the guidance of students. The German Quarterly, 12(2), 81-84. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/400453

Parry, T., & Stansfield, C. (Eds.). (1990). Language aptitude reconsidered. NJ: Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs.

Robinson, P. (2005). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 46-73. doi:10.1017/S0267190505000036

Sawyer, M., & Ranta, L. (2001). Aptitude, individual differences, and instructional design. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford Univiersity Press.

Stansfield, C. W., & Reed, D. J. (2004). The story behind the modern language aptitude test: an interview with John B. Carroll (1916-2003). Language Assessment Quarterly, 1(1), 43-56. doi:10.1207/s15434311laq0101_4

First thing’s first, I checked that I had the Mac developer Tools (Xcode) installed as they are required to build TrEd dependencies. More specifically, I would need amongst other things a C compiler (gcc – GNU Compiler Collection). Xcode can be downloaded for free from either the AppStore or the Apple website. Note that you will be asked to enter your Apple ID and password. The latest version of Xcode you can download seems to be running only with the latest version to date of Lion.

I got Xcode 4.3 which runs with Lion 10.7.3, and copied it to the Applications folder.

Installing TrEd!

install_tred.bash (save link as) was downloaded and ran from Terminal:

>bash install_tred.bash --tred-dir /Applications/tred

 It didn’t work! The “llvm-gcc4.2″ and “make” were apparently missing on my system .

How to access gcc (symlink for llvm-gcc4.2) from Xcode 4.3?

Xcode does not provide an installer anymore, which means that the compilers and other command lines toolsets are not visible in Terminal. This may be temporarily fixed by updating the PATH env (see The Rubyist Journal).

I entered the following command line in Terminal:

>PATH=/Applications/ Xcode.app/ Contents/ Developer/ Toolchains/ XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/ usr/ bin:/ Applications/ Xcode.app/ Contents/ Developer/ usr/ bin:$PATH

The issue seemed to be fixed as the compiler was now accessible.

But fixing the path did not help much in installing TrEd. The C compiler could not create executables and the installation of TrEd dependencies failed.

 Another way to fix the PATH env issue is to install the additional tools directly in Xcode: Preferences > Downloads > Command Line Tools > Install. Note that another 170MB are downloaded.

Installing TrEd: another try!

Success! Hurray! Installation is now complete. Here is what TrEd looks like: 

Explicit correction differs from recast in the sense that, even if both types provide learners with the correct form, the former clearly indicates that the production was erroneous, whereas the latter is more subjective. In this case, learners might not notice that their spoken language, compared to the teacher’s reformulation, is indeed incorrect. Clarification request, as its name indicates, points to the fact that a clarification is necessary to understand the learner’s utterance. Metalinguistic feedback is mainly defined as detailed information about the error, yet without providing the correct answer. Elicitation techniques, such as pausing, are used to elicit the correct answer from the learner. Finally, a teacher’s repetition is generally provided to the learner with an emphasis on the error, as to make it salient.

The authors demonstrate that recasts, which are the most widely used in classroom context, are the least likely to lead to any modified output and, a fortiori, self-repairs. The most likely types of feedback that trigger self-corrections would be elicitation, clarification request, and metalinguistic feedback.

References

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66. doi:10.1017/S0272263197001034

Empowered with this new skill, I am now ready to make another one .

I am co-editing a second book provisionally entitled “Internet in the humanities: an insight from Ireland” with Cathy Fowley and Claire English, two researchers who have recently completed their PhDs in Dublin City University, just like me, in areas related to digital humanities. The aim of this new project is to publish selected papers, whose focus will be on the Internet in the humanities in Ireland, just like the title says.

The Call for Papers has been announced. If you are researching in the domain of Internet in the humanities in Ireland, we would like to invite you to contribute to this book. Deadline for submission is on the 15th of March 2002. Please visit the publisher’s website for more information.

The authors investigated the value of mediation in the context of academic writing development. They followed two undergraduate business studies students and mediated the performance of their students mainly through the means of emails. Their results corroborate others’ studies that mediation, going from implicit to explicit, is a good indicator to track the development of learners, and that each learner requires different levels of assistance due to varying zones of proximal development.

References

Shrestha, P., & Coffin, C. (2012). Dynamic assessment, tutor mediation and academic writing development. Assessing Writing, 17(1), 55-70. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2011.11.003

One project involved the writing of activities students had to perform on their own to learn French. They had to evaluate their language learning process and report the difficulties they encountered and the benefits they had while doing their activities. The task was called “le bilan”. To help students, I asked them to create a document in Google Apps and to share it with me. Each week, they had to write a report of their activities and each week I had a look at their performance, making feedback by inserting comments in their online documents. The feedback was reviewed by the students and marked as resolved when taken care of. I enjoyed doing this task, as I felt I was really helping students with their own difficulties, whether it was a surface level feedback or not.

From the module evaluation I got from the students at the end of the semester, I know that some of them enjoyed the activities. To the question “What elements of the course did you find most interesting?“, some of them replied:

-Enjoyed doing the bilan, learning something new on my own every week.

-Enjoyed working with GoogleDocs. Great to get feedback from lecturer that way.

-Bilan – Weekly help from Sylvie using Google Docs.

-I like the assistance I received. Like the bilan etc.

During this semester, I interacted with students as much as possible in order for them to have the opportunity to speak in French. With one class of 18 students and another class of 32 students, interactions were not always an easy task. But in general terms, students were pleased with the level of interactions especially in the small class. One student, however, was not happy with this and complained to the hierarchy that I made him/her participate and talk too much in class. S/he also complained about the fact that I was talking in French. Hello?? What did you expect? To the question “Were you satisfied with the delivery method and style of the lecturer?“, I mostly got positive replies except for one, which we all know whom it is from :

-All in French was good though we could have done with more grammar.

-Yes I found she was patient and didn’t ignore problems or questions I had with the work.

-Yes I liked how she only ever spoke in French

-At the beginning I found it hard to approach the lecturer but not now I am satisfied with the delivery method

-Yes but perhaps a little more English could be used

I actually was surprised to read that some students were asking for more grammar and English during the class. To the question “How did you feel about the amount of French used in the classroom?“, they were mostly satisfied:

-I liked that French was constantly spoken. I think it has made my own French improve a lot.

-It is good we speak mostly French in the class.

-Not great because didn’t understand half of the stuff she says, NO WORD OF ENGLISH!

-I loved the amount of French used , I found it made things easier to learn, as everything was done through French.

-Scary! But I know it’s helpful.

Only one student made a comment about the class size, “too big” s/he said,  and only two students appreciated the fact that I gave them their feedback and grades very quickly. To the question “How did you find the evaluation of this module?“, they said:

-Fair and it was good that we got our grades quickly.

-Sometimes points weren’t very easily given, but the test results were very fast.

I do believe that giving feedback too long after a test does not help students, and that to be effective, feedback needs to be given promptly. Overall, and despite the fact that two evaluations over the 35 I received were a bit harsh (I suppose we can’t please everybody), I am happy to have had the opportunity to read (in an anonymous way) that most of the students appreciated what I did to help them learn French during winter 2011.

I have the great pleasure of working with confirmed and experienced teachers, which means that I learn a lot from them. However, with respect to grading, I was wondering how my scores would compare to theirs. Am I fair with the students’ tests, or am I too generous or too strict? I first started elaborating criteria describing the scoring of the various tasks students had to do, which were afterwards discussed and refined with the help of the coordinator and the lecturers involved in the different modules. An example of criteria of a task is diplayed below.

By following the scoring grids, it is manageable to have a constant grading method across all students and tasks, which means that the variations due to tiredness or subjectivity can be avoided. Furthermore, by recording the students’ presentations, a second rating will be feasible, which designates more fairness to students. In the event of a disagreement between two raters, Penny and Johnson (2011) classify resolution procedures in scoring writing assessment into five general models:

1. The rater mean model consists of computing the average scores of two raters if the scores are discrepant and adjacent.
2. The parity model includes the decision of a third rater, who may be a more expert rater than the other two, but not necessarily. The characteristic of this model is that all three ratings are considered equal and valid. The average of the three scores is thus computed before providing the learner with his or her final grade.
3. The tertium quid model involves the participation of a third rater in favour of one or the other. The final score is not an average between the three, but could be a selection of one original rating or an average between the third and the closest original score.
4. The expert model necessitates a third person, an adjudicator, who will make the final decision. This person is imperatively a more expert rater than the other two. This expert will have the final say and his or her rating will replace the two original ones.
5. The discussion model implies that the two discrepant ratings are reviewed by the two raters and that they try to reach an accord on the final grade.

So far I tested the discussion method with one of my module coordinators, who can certainly be labeled as an experienced rater. In fact, we had very few discrepancies, which were resolved without difficulty. The exchange of views allowed us to position our way of grading, which enabled a better alignment of the scores across students within the same class. It seems, however, that the most efficient ways of resolving rater disagreement are the parity and expert models (Penny & Johnson, 2011, p.233).

Reference

Penny, J. A., & Johnson, R. L. (2011). The accuracy of performance task scores after resolution of rater disagreement: a Monte Carlo study. Assessing Writing, 16(4), 221-236. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2011.06.001

Today was the very last step of many, which I had to do to complete my PhD. After reading, writing, researching, networking, having an emotional roller coaster, I finally climbed the steps of glory to get my piece of paper which says:

In pursuance of the powers vested in it by statute
Dublin City University
has conferred the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
on
me (wow!)

I am truly happy that the whole thing is finally finished. Even though everybody in my immediate circle is unconditionally proud of me, I feel like Goethe’s Faust who has studied with ardent zeal and still thinks that he is no wiser than he was before. Doing a PhD really is about giving you perspective. You finally realise the extent that needs to be learned and investigated.

If you feel like reading 348 pages, please feel free to download my thesis!

Thouësny, S. (2011). Modeling second language learners’ interlanguage and its variability: A computer-based dynamic assessment approach to distinguishing between errors and mistakes. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Dublin: Dublin City University.

]]> http://blog.icall-research.net/2011/11/07/operation-phd-check/feed/ 2 http://blog.icall-research.net/2011/10/23/template-and-script-to-report-grades-of-learners-of-french/ http://blog.icall-research.net/2011/10/23/template-and-script-to-report-grades-of-learners-of-french/#comments Sun, 23 Oct 2011 17:52:05 +0000 Sylvie Thouësny http://blog.icall-research.net/?p=1608 [...]]]> This is my very first Google Apps Script, which I suppose could be reused by others. The aim of this script is to help me report grades of assignments written by learners of French at university level. The test included a certain amount of questions assessed with different criteria (e.g., content, vocabulary, structure, and tense).
The various steps were to create (1) the template, (2) the form, and (3) the script that would enable the data from the form to be inserted into the template. Easy peasy!

1- The template

The template was the easiest to do. It was created with Google Docs. The entries preceded with the @ sign are used as variables in order for the script to include each student’s information.

2- The form

The form was the second item to be done. To create a form, go to [create] then [form]. Once the form is saved, a spreadsheet is automatically generated. Each time you select [submit] on the form, the data is sent to the spreadsheet.

3- The script

Basically, what the script does is to select the active sheet and to get the data from the last row. Additionally, it gets the range of the last two columns depending on whether data has been already entered. The aim is to facilitate the addition of the student’s grades (percent and relative) into the spreadsheet after the script has computed them. Another thing the script gets is the index of the comment section, which is placed at the end of the row. This index is susceptible to change if the  amount of questions in the test is adapted.

//select the sheet and get the data from the last row entered
var sheet = SpreadsheetApp.getActiveSpreadsheet().getSheets()[0];
var last_column = sheet.getLastColumn();
var dataRange_last_row = sheet.getRange(sheet.getLastRow(), 1, 1, last_column);
//get final 2 columns to enter percent and relative grades
if(sheet.getLastRow()>1){
   var dataRange_percent = sheet.getRange(sheet.getLastRow(), last_column-1);
   var dataRange_relative = sheet.getRange(sheet.getLastRow(), last_column);
   var index_comment = last_column-3;
}
else{
   var dataRange_percent = sheet.getRange(sheet.getLastRow(), last_column+1);
   var dataRange_relative = sheet.getRange(sheet.getLastRow(), last_column+2);
   var index_comment = last_column-1;
}

Then the data contained in the last row is retrieved.

var data = dataRange_last_row.getValues();
var corrector = data[0][1];
var student = data[0][2];
var comments = data[0][index_comment];

A copy of the template is then made and saved (file name: Devoir 1 – student name), and the identification of this copy is kept. Using the identification number, the copy of the template is opened, and the content retrieved.

//get a copy of the template and its id, and rename the file
//get the body of the copy
var IDtemplate = "INSERT YOUR OWN TEMPLATE IDENTIFICATION HERE";
var copy_id = DocsList.getFileById(IDtemplate).makeCopy("Devoir 1 - "+student).getId();
var copy_document = DocumentApp.openById(copy_id);
var copy_body = copy_document.getActiveSection();

Information from the spreadsheet is now inserted into the copy of the template. Each information in the template copy preceded with the @ sign is replaced by the corresponding data from the form. For example @student => Jane Doe.

//insert information into template from spreadsheet
copy_body.replaceText("@comments", comments);
copy_body.replaceText("@corrector", corrector);
copy_body.replaceText("@student", student);

//retrieve results per question
var sum = 0;//to compute average
var count = 0;//to compute average
var question_number = 1;
for (var i = 0; i <= last_column; i++) {
   if (data[0][i] in levels){
      var index = 0;
      for (var j = 1; j <= amount_of_controls; j++) {
         //replace text in template by result e.g. "Q11" => "H2.2"
         copy_body.replaceText("@q"+question_number+j, data[0][i+index]);
         sum = sum + levels[data[0][i+index]];
         count++;
         index++;
      }
      question_number++;
      i=i+index-1;
   }
}

The final step is to compute the grades (percent and relative) and to insert them into both the spreadsheet and the template copy.

//determine the final note in percent, rounded
var percent = sum/count;
copy_body.replaceText("@percent", Math.round(percent*100)/100);
//insert value into spreadsheet
dataRange_percent.setValue(Math.round(percent*100)/100);

//determine the final note for 15 points, rounded
var relative = percent*relative_grade/100;
copy_body.replaceText("@relative", Math.round(relative*100)/100);
//insert value into spreadsheet
dataRange_relative.setValue(Math.round(relative*100)/100);

//save and close
copy_document.saveAndClose();

Data that can be easily modified are the levels of assessement, the relative grade (e.g., worth 15% of the whole semester), and the amount of controls (e.g., vocab, tense, …).

//variables that can be modified
var levels = {"Fail":35,"H3":45,"H2.2":55,"H2.1":65, "H1":75};
var amount_of_controls = 4;//e.g. vocab, grammaire, contenu, structure
var relative_grade = 15;

The result will be as below:

If you want to use the form I described above:

• open the spreadsheet and make a copy of it
• open the template and make a copy of it
  (note that you will be asked to sign in to your Google account)
• copy  the identification number of the copy of the template
  which is found in the URL (e.g., https://docs.google.com/a/icall-research.net/document/d/identification/edit?hl=en_GB)
• paste the identification of YOUR document into the script

  
  var IDtemplate = "PLACE THE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OF YOUR TEMPLATE HERE";
  

• edit the form, the template, and/or the script to match your needs:
  -you can edit the form by selecting [form] then [edit form]
  -you can edit the script by selecting [tools] then [script editor]
  -you can access the form by selecting [form] then [go to live form]
• while in the script, make sure to add a trigger: [triggers]->[current script's triggers...]->[no triggers set up. Click here to add one now.]->[FillTemplate - From spreadsheet - On form submit]->[save]