Email Dialogue Journaling: Attitudes

and Impact on EFL Reading

Performance Professor Hui-Fang Shang ( 尚惠芳教授 ) Department of Applied English ( 應英系 /所 ) I-Shou University ( 義守大學 )

* Paper published in Educational Studies, 31(2), 197-212, 2005. (SSCI)

97/3/8

Outline:

I. Rationale of Email Dialogue Journaling

II. Methodology

III. Results

IV. Discussions

V. Implications

1

2

I. Rationale of Email Dialogue Journaling

• Rapid development of technologies (CMC) Apply in EFL instruction (Warschauer & Healey, 1998)

• Definition of “email dialogue journaling” Communicate via email instead of through a paper journal (

Moore, 1991)

• Increase interaction between instructors & students Improve quality of instruction and student test scores (D’So

uza, 1991)

• Expand communication circles and instant feedback Beyond the boundaries of classroom (Wang, 1998)

I. Rationale of Email Dialogue Journaling (cont.)

• Patterns of email asynchronous communication:

-- exchange information (100%) (Wang, 1998)

-- ask questions (95%) (Wang, 1998)

-- discuss opinions (84%) (Rice & Case, 1983)

-- exchange academic information (100%) (Wang, 1998)

-- discuss ideas (63%) (Grabowski et al., 1990)

3

4

I. Rationale of Email Dialogue Journaling (cont.)

• Purposes of email communication (Wang, 1998):

-- receive immediate responses to the questions ~ ask more questions

-- not pay much attention to the rules ~ write more

-- provide a relaxing environment ~ facilitate communication

-- not need to coordinate a time to communicate ~ more convenient

-- important to learn to use computer technology ~ provide motivation

• Attitudes & self-efficacy in email uses (confidence to perform email tasks):

-- Positive attitudes: Predictive of self-efficacy (confidence) for computer technologies (Delcourt & Kinzie, 1993; Kinzie et al., 1994)

-- Perceived efficacy with computer technologies: Encourage further adoption (Hill et al., 1987)

-- High correlation: Between self-efficacy and subsequent successful performance (Bandura & Adams, 1977)

I. Rationale of Email Dialogue Journaling (cont.)

5

6

• Purpose of Study: To assess the value of incorporating email dialogue journaling for the enhancement of ss’ reading performance

• 2 main research questions:

(1) What are students’ attitudes toward email exchanges

in the reading class?

(2) What is the relationship between self-efficacy and

reading development?

II. Methodology

7

II. Methodology (cont.)

A. Subjects:

1. 40 (19 males & 21 females) 2-year evening-program freshmen (non-traditional ss) enrolled in a low-intermediate reading class at I-Shou University

B. Procedures:

1. Set up a class mailing list in the first week of class

2. Choose a peer by themselves

3. Read the assigned material and write down 2 paragraphs regarding the summary and personal comments

8

4. Send it to the peer via email and give each other feedback and corrections of writings

5. The instructor would receive copies of all their correspondence

6. Hand in their assignment to the instructor electronically at least 1 day ahead of class meeting time

7. Grade not only on the final product but also on the process of writing and how well they follow the instructions (to encourage participation)

II. Methodology (cont.)

9

C. Measurement Instruments:

1. “Calibration of comprehension performance”: To evaluate how well ss understand the material (Lin et al., 2001)

(a) Five criteria to judge text understanding (Ratings from 1 to 7): (1) Confidence in answering questions correctly (2) Easiness of texts (3) Interestingness of texts (4) Understanding of texts (5) Certainty of answering all the questions correctly

(b) Compare those 5-measurement mean differences regarding the pre-email and post-email tasks by t-test

II. Methodology (cont.)

10

II. Methodology (cont.)

2. A survey of 4 questions in terms of attitudes and problems:

(a) Whether they like the process of electronic discussion in the reading class, and why or why not;

(b) Whether writing emails and getting feedback from their peer have affected their attitudes toward reading, and in what way;

(c) Whether they have improved their reading comprehension via email collaborative dialogue journaling, and why or why not;

(d) Whether they have encountered any problems in the process of email activity, and in what way.

11

3. To evaluate perceived self-efficacy:

(a) Construct 20 questions related to confidence in doing the email project (10 for “electronic discussion” & 10 for “correction”)

(b) Alpha value (reliability) for the factor of “discussion” = .743, “correction” = .798

(c) Apply regression to examine the effects/contributions of discussion/correction/confidence to affect students’ reading development

II. Methodology (cont.)

12

R. Q. 1: What are ss’ attitudes toward email exchanges in thereading class?

(a) Whether they like the process of electronic discussions in the reading class:

* 44% like it:

-- Force them to finish reading the article earlier

-- Discuss and get peer’s opinions to learn more different viewpoints

-- Have a relaxing environment to write/discuss more

-- Ask more questions without considering the rules

III. Results

13

* 49% dislike it:

-- Take too much time since most of them have jobs at the daytime

-- Have poor typing skills

-- Unfamiliar with the computer

-- Have no computer available

-- Can’t accept peer’s criticisms because of their low English level

-- Afraid of losing their faces (too shy) if they can’t express their viewpoints clearly

III. Results (cont.)

14

(b) Whether writing emails and getting feedback from their peer have affected their attitude toward reading:

* 56% maintain positive attitudes:

-- Get more fun in reading because it’s more authentic

-- Push themselves to read the text earlier and harder so as to increase their reading comprehension

* 36% keep negative viewpoints:

-- Can’t get useful feedback if peer’s English is poor

-- Take too much time to get the returned messages

-- Should be done in handwriting to get the same effect

III. Results (cont.)

15

(c) Whether they have improved their reading comprehension via email collaborative dialogue journaling:

* 67% give positive comments:

-- Can read the text repeatedly through electronic discussions and collaborative learning to improve reading comprehension

* 33% keep negative viewpoints:

-- Can understand the text by themselves even without discussions

-- Spend too much time in learning how to use computers

-- Prefer teacher’s instructions due to peer’s poor English

III. Results (cont.)

16

(d) Whether ss have encountered any problems in the process of email activity:

* 8% can’t finish assignment on time if computers are out of order

* 18% encounter the problem of peer’s no or late responses

* 21% don’t have time to do the task because of their jobs

* 23% have problems of poor typing skill, inadequate computer knowledge, or even no computers at all

III. Results (cont.)

17

Scales Mean N SD SD Error MeanConfidence Pre-email Post-email

3.97504.8750

4040

1.65621.5223

.2619

.2407Easiness Pre-email Post-email

4.05004.7250

4040

1.43131.3957

.2263

.2207Interestingness Pre-email Post-email

4.22504.6250

4040

1.65621.4266

.2619

.2252Understanding Pre-email Post-email

4.45005.2250

4040

1.61641.5104

.2556

.2388Certainty Pre-email Post-email

3.85004.9250

4040

1.52841.6391

.2417

.2592

T-test Results of Five Scales

R. Q. 2: What is the relationship between self-efficacy & reading development?

p < 0.001

Path Diagram of Self-Efficacy Results

18

III. Results (cont.)

Discussion(IV)

Correction(IV)

Confidence(DV/IV)

Reading Enhancement(DV)

• Indirect effect of “discussion” on “reading enhancement” is .049 (insignificant at the 0.05 level) ~ not mediated by confidence

• Indirect effect of “correction” on “reading enhancement” is .021 (insignificant at the 0.05 level) ~ not mediated by confidence

.343*

.718**

.551**

.312

.236.089

19

IV. Discussion

1. Survey of ss’ self-reports of email uses:

=> Quite useful to exchange information & discuss ideas with peers

=> Online communication function facilitates collaboration & personal discussion (Grabowski et al., 1990; Rice & Case, 1983; Warschauer & Healey, 1998)

2. Mean differences for “calibration of comprehension performance”

=> Means of 5 scales increase after email process

=> Support the qualitative results

20

IV. Discussion (cont.)

3. Contributions of discussion/correction/confidence on reading enhancement:

=> Discussion may directly affect confidence and reading enhancement. (∵significant at the 0.01 level)

=> Discussion has a greater direct effect (.718) on reading enhancement.

=> No significant effect was found in correction toward confidence and reading enhancement.

=> Discussion and correction on reading enhancement are not mediated by confidence. (∵insignificant indirect effects)

=> There is a small direct effect of confidence on reading enhancement.

21

V. Implications

1. Peer electronic correction demonstrates an insignificant effect on reading development.

=> Have no confidence trusting peer’s suggestions due to poor English ability

=> Not appeal to every student ~ May reduce or eliminate such practice

=> Use teacher’s corrections instead

22

V. Implications (cont.)

2. Ss encounter computer problems.

=> Arrange an assistant to solve computer problems anytime

=> Can also develop computer skills and knowledge via doing email projects

3. Peer’s discussion has a greater direct and positive effect on reading enhancement.

=> Understand the text better after brainstorming and communicating

=> Promote motivation and interest in the authentic use of target language outside the classroom

23

4. Future study ：

=> Compare the effect between groups of face-to-face and electronic discussions

=> Analyze the written production between pre-email and post-email products

V. Implications (cont.)

Paper entitled “An exploratory study of email application on FL writing performance” published in Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(1), 79-96, 2007. (CIJE)