{"id":19490,"date":"2023-01-13T20:10:24","date_gmt":"2023-01-14T04:10:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/tesl-ej.org\/wordpress\/?page_id=19490"},"modified":"2023-01-29T03:33:13","modified_gmt":"2023-01-29T11:33:13","slug":"ej104a2","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/tesl-ej.org\/wordpress\/issues\/volume26\/ej104\/ej104a2\/","title":{"rendered":"A Case Study on the Uptake of Suggestions in Online Synchronous Writing Center Sessions"},"content":{"rendered":"February 2023 – Volume 26, Number 4<\/h2>\n
https:\/\/doi.org\/10.55593\/ej.26104a2<\/strong><\/p>\nOlga Muranova<\/strong>
\nThe University of California, Irvine, US
\n<omuranov![\"atmark\"](\"http:\/\/www.tesl-ej.org\/atmark.png\")
uci.edu><\/p>\nSvetlana Koltovskaia<\/strong>
\nNortheastern State University, US
\n<koltovsknsuok.edu><\/p>\nMichol Miller<\/strong>
\nUniversity of Hawai\u02bbi at M\u0101noa, US
\n<micholhawaii.edu><\/p>\nAbstract<\/h3>\n
Despite suggestions being a common speech act used by writing center tutors, very limited research is available on the use of suggestions in online writing center practice. Drawing upon multiple sources of data including the chat transcript, screen recording of the session, and final revised version of the writer\u2019s text, this case study explores the types and frequency of the suggestion strategies employed by a tutor and the degree of writer uptake of tutor suggestions in a synchronous online writing center session. The findings indicate that the tutor\u2019s use of suggestions throughout the session only led to a partial revision of the writer\u2019s text. While factors contributing to the partial revision include overuse of indirect suggestion linguistic realization strategies (SLRSs) and addressing multiple errors at the same time, using multiple and more direct SLRSs appeared to contribute to successful uptake. The observations of the study suggest that, in order to increase the degree of uptake, tutors might consider addressing one error at a time, utilizing multiple suggestion strategies per error and focusing on using more direct rather than indirect suggestion strategies in order to provide suggestions more effectively in online synchronous writing center sessions.<\/p>\n
Keywords<\/em><\/strong>: Online synchronous writing center sessions, speech acts, suggestions, suggestion realization strategies (SLRSs), uptake.<\/p>\nSuggestions are one of the most widely used speech acts in writing center practice because providing feedback on writing is considered the main purpose of writing center sessions (Fujioka, 2012). Cognizant of the importance of suggestions in writing center consultations, a number of studies have explored their usage in tutor-writer interactions (e.g., Mackiewicz, 2005; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2010). These studies focused on face-to-face sessions, but little is known about the use of suggestions in online sessions. Providing online services, including online asynchronous and synchronous tutoring sessions, has become a very common practice in many writing centers, as they offer more flexibility and accessibility compared to traditional face-to-face sessions (Holtz, 2014; Paiz, 2018; Ries, 2015).<\/p>\n
While much is already known about online asynchronous sessions (Kourbani, 2018; Mick & Middlebrook, 2015; Neaderhiser & Wolfe, 2009; Severino & Prim, 2015; Weirick et al., 2017), little empirical research has focused on online synchronous sessions, most likely because they are typically considered similar to face-to-face sessions. However, as noted by Kastman, Breuch, & Racine (2000), the strategies used in face-to-face sessions, including the use of suggestions, cannot be easily transferred to online synchronous consultations. Therefore, the present study focuses on the use of suggestions in an online synchronous chat-based writing center session. Specifically, it includes the analysis of the types and frequency of suggestions provided by the tutor and the degree of writer uptake of those suggestions. The naturalistic case study presented in this paper took place in a writing center at a large Southwestern United States university. The findings offer new insights into the complexities of the use of different suggestion strategies\u00a0 and their uptake in an online synchronous consultation. Consequently, these insights can contribute to the improvement of the quality of online writing center sessions.<\/p>\n
Literature Review<\/h3>\nOnline Writing Center Sessions: Asynchronous and Synchronous Methods<\/h4>\n
Today, many writing centers, especially in North America, offer online tutoring sessions (also known as online conferences or online consultations), to assist a diverse population of writers (Kourbani, 2018; Weirick, Davis, & Lawson, 2017). Online tutoring sessions have many benefits, including time efficiency, cost effectiveness, and accessibility for writers across different geographical and physical locations (Bandi-Rao, 2009; Melkun, 2010; Paiz, 2018; Ries, 2015; Wolfe & Griffin, 2012). They also increase the possibilities for \u201cuniversally inclusive and accessible online writing support\u201d that can serve learners with \u201cvaried preferences and access needs\u201d (Martinez & Olson, 2015, p. 190), including students with special needs and disabilities (Ries, 2015). Specifically, part of the flexible nature of online tutoring sessions comes from the fact that online tutoring sessions can take place asynchronously or synchronously (Holtz, 2014). Asynchronous tutoring sessions are characterized as \u201cinteractions [that] occur with a time lag between and among them\u2026 in \u2018non-real\u2019 time,\u201d while synchronous sessions occur with no time lag or a very small one, taking place in real or \u201cnear-real\u201d time (Mick & Middlebrook, 2015, pp. 129-130). Asynchronous tutoring methods include email, discussion boards, or online collaboration platforms, while synchronous methods may include real-time text-based chat, video-conferencing, or even screen-sharing options (Neaderhiser & Wolfe, 2009, pp. 54-58).<\/p>\n
A number of studies have focused on both of the aforementioned methods, but online asynchronous tutoring methods have been more extensively investigated empirically (Kourbani, 2018; Severino & Prim, 2015; Weirick et al., 2017) than synchronous methods. Kourbani (2018) examined the impact of the asynchronous online feedback on tutees\u2019 learning and text revision. The results revealed that asynchronous online feedback had positive effects on text revision, especially for lower-order concerns such as grammar and mechanics. Similarly, Severino and Prim (2015) also focused on online asynchronous tutor feedback; in particular, they investigated tutors\u2019 suggestions and comments on writers\u2019 word choice. They found that tutors mainly utilized the speech acts of corrections (48%), questions (25%), and explanations (12%) in response to writers\u2019 word choice errors. The authors suggest that tutors need to be trained to recognize different word choice errors in order to choose the most appropriate speech acts to respond appropriately to errors in different asynchronous contexts. Unlike the above-mentioned studies that focused on the feedback provided to non-native speaking writers, Weirick et al. (2017) examined the online asynchronous tutor feedback offered to both native and non-native writers. Their findings demonstrate that, in both situations, tutor feedback included questions, explanations (comments), suggestions (advice), recasts (correction), and qualified criticism. However, both the forms and the focus of tutor feedback differed between native and non-native writers: native writers received feedback on content in the form of questions and qualified criticism, while non-native writers mainly received feedback on grammatical correctness and clarity in the form of recasts and questions. Furthermore, tutors tended to use more overtly directive forms of feedback for both native and non-native writers, including recasts and criticism.<\/p>\n
Although these studies provide insights into different strategies that tutors use in asynchronous online environments to provide feedback on writers’ texts,\u00a0 relatively little is known about strategies used in synchronous online tutoring. Many tutors assume that online synchronous tutoring is largely similar to face-to-face tutoring since both occur in real time. As follows from the findings presented in Bandi-Rao\u2019s (2009) study of online synchronous and face-to-face writing center sessions, there are also no significant differences between these two approaches to writing center tutoring in terms of clients\u2019 satisfaction regarding the effectiveness of the tutorial and convenience of working with a writing center tutor.\u00a0 However, this does not mean that strategies used in face-to-face sessions can easily be transferred to online synchronous tutoring, as synchronous sessions can take a variety of forms such as interactions via text-based chat, video- and audio-conferencing (Kastman Breuch & Racine, 2000). As shown in previous studies, online synchronous sessions have certain features making them distinct from traditional face-to-face sessions. For example, as noted by Horne (2012), in a synchronous online session, writers tend to take responsibility for developing a plan for revision as well as for improving their own understanding of the writing task at hand, making the discussion during an online synchronous session more dynamic than in a face-to-face session. This corresponds with Pritchard and Morrow\u2019s (2017) observation that student writers participating in online synchronous sessions tend to suggest their own ideas and solutions rather than rely solely on the tutor\u2019s corrections, comments, or practical recommendations. As noted by Melkun (2010), writing center tutors also tend to think that clients are often more engaged and more motivated to work on revising their work during online sessions. At the same time, online written and multimodal communication can make interactions between the participants of online synchronous sessions more active when compared to face-to-face conversations (Magnifico, Woodard, & McCarthey, 2019). Furthermore, online synchronous sessions demonstrate a high level of collaboration between the participants, which is achieved through shared interaction, peer feedback, and the dialogic nature of this type of communication (Hewett, 2006; Horne, 2012; Magnifico, Woodard, & McCarthey, 2019; Melkun, 2010). In addition, research shows that online sessions tend to be more democratic, as they give clients greater control of the conferencing session (Melkun, 2010).<\/p>\n
On the other hand, online synchronous consultations are characterized by a low degree of immediacy and spontaneity typically observed in face-to-face conversations as well as a higher degree of complexity caused by the technical aspects of online communication (Bandi-Rao, 2009; Pritchard & Morrow, 2017). In addition, some writers may not have sufficient previous experience of communicating effectively online (Pritchard & Morrow, 2017). They may also experience digital fatigue because of the prolonged use of computer-mediated communication platforms and a high cognitive load involved in the interaction with these platforms (Nadler, 2020), which is likely to reduce the effectiveness of online synchronous sessions.<\/p>\n
To sum up, previous research has shown that online synchronous sessions have certain characteristics making them different from face-to-face sessions. For example, due to their multimodal nature, online synchronous sessions tend to be more conducive to active communication and collaboration between participants than traditional face-to-face sessions. At the same time, the effectiveness of online synchronous sessions depends heavily on the affordances and limitations of the technologies employed for communicating online. The degree of participants\u2019 confidence and their level of comfort regarding the use of those technologies can also greatly impact the success of online synchronous sessions.<\/p>\n
The above-mentioned characteristics of online synchronous sessions, including their multimodality as well as the lack of immediacy and spontaneity may influence the choices and the outcomes of different communicative strategies used by writing center tutors. According to Stickman (2014), since typed communication takes more time and care than speaking to develop an idea clearly, online tutoring calls for more direct communication and less suggestion, since it lacks such features as facial expression, gestures, and body language in general that enhance face-to-face communication. Comments thus tend to take more forethought in online sessions, compared to traditional face-to-face sessions (Kuriscak, 2010). Due to the unique pragmatic and communicative challenges resulting from these circumstances, it is clear that more research on effective tutoring strategies in online synchronous writing center sessions is warranted.<\/p>\n
Speech Acts and the Use of Suggestions in Writing Center Sessions<\/h4>\n
Because online synchronous sessions are often based on the use of a combination of different modalities (e.g., video, audio, text-based chat, etc.), each unique tutor-writer interaction may pose different challenges. Unlike online synchronous video interactions, audio-only or text-based interactions lack visual cues, which may result in miscommunication between tutors and writers. Therefore, tutors should carefully consider the appropriate use of language in order to ensure successful communication in online contexts. To this end, Fujioka (2012) highlights the role that understanding of speech acts can play in effective writing center interactions. Speech acts are the utterances that serve a certain function in communication (Green, 2007), based on the understanding that people use language not just to say things, but also to perform actions (Austin, 1962). They may consist of one or several words or sentences (Adolphs, 2008), and they typically require not only knowledge of the language but also an appropriate use of that language within a given culture (Levinson, 1983).<\/p>\n
Speech acts are pervasive in writing center interactions; for example, tutors compliment students\u2019 writing, request information about the content and purposes of writing, and offer suggestions in order to help students improve their writing (Fujioka, 2012). Since the writing center is where writers go to receive advice on their writing, suggestions comprise an important part of writing center interactions; they are regarded as acts in which the speaker asks the hearer to perform an action that will potentially benefit the hearer (Rintell, 1979). Suggestions belong to a class of directive and face-threatening speech acts in which a speaker attempts to get a hearer to do something (Searle, 1976), aiming to stimulate the hearer to perform an action that will potentially benefit the hearer (Rintell, 1979). They are usually considered the components of a broader speech act that may also include advice, proposals, and recommendations (Jiang, 2006). Effective use of suggestions in writing center sessions is essential to ensuring successful communication between tutors and writers (Fujioka, 2012).<\/p>\n
Despite the fact that suggestions are so commonly used in tutoring sessions, surprisingly, very limited research is available on the use of suggestions in writing center practice. For example, Mackiewicz (2005) investigated the frequency with which tutors used the non-conventional indirect suggestion strategies of \u201chints\u201d in their suggestions to engineering students in face-to-face sessions as well as the benefits and drawbacks of using hints in tutoring sessions. The findings revealed that tutors used hints frequently in their suggestions because they believed that hints generate politeness and help avoid shaking students\u2019 confidence. However, according to the researcher, the use of hints is likely to lead to miscommunication, as such indirect suggestion strategies may either go unnoticed or be misinterpreted by writers.<\/p>\n
Previous related studies have focused on the use of suggestions in face-to-face tutoring sessions with little attention paid to the use of suggestions in online tutoring sessions; in addition, there has been little focus on writer\u2019s uptake of tutors\u2019 suggestions. In order to help tutors communicate more effectively in online synchronous environments by using suggestions appropriately, it is imperative to explore the degree of uptake in response to those suggestions. Furthermore, since the degree of uptake of tutor suggestions is more likely to decrease in online synchronous text-based interactions due to the lack of visual cues, more empirical research on this type of online tutoring session is needed. To fill in these gaps, the current naturalistic case-study analyzes one online synchronous tutoring session conducted by a non-native-English-speaking tutor for a non-native-English-speaking writer to answer the following research questions:<\/p>\n
\n- What types of suggestion strategies does the tutor utilize in response to writer errors during a single online synchronous chat-based writing center session?<\/li>\n
- What is the degree of writer uptake in response to the tutor\u2019s suggestion strategies in a single online synchronous chat-based writing center session?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Methods<\/h3>\nDesign<\/h4>\n
The case study design approach was adopted for this study because it provides an in-depth and contextualized understanding of tutor-writer interactions in the online environment (Yin, 2009). Specifically, the single-case study design was chosen to explore the relationship between the types and frequencies of suggestions offered by the tutor and the resulting degree of writer uptake in an online synchronous chat-based session.<\/p>\n
Context<\/h4>\n
The study was conducted at the Writing Center at a large Southwestern university in the U.S. Sessions at the center are conducted in both face-to-face and online synchronous environments; online sessions take place using the WCOnline platform, which combines audio, video, and text-based chat functions with collaborative text editing (see Fig. 1). Tutors and writers choose audio, video, or text-based chat communication to carry out the session, while the text is edited in real-time within the platform. The philosophy of the Writing Center is that revision must be carried out collaboratively; this means that writers are responsible for making direct changes to their work, while tutors may only provide suggestions for revision and improvement but are trained not to edit the text directly.<\/p>\n
![](\"https:\/\/tesl-ej.org\/ej104\/a2pix\/fig1.png\")
\nFig. 1.<\/strong> WCOnline synchronous session interface<\/p>\nParticipants<\/h4>\n
One tutor-writer pair agreed to participate in the study and signed the informed consent form approved by the university\u2019s IRB. Along with the consent form, both participants were asked to complete the basic demographic survey. The tutor was a female L1-Arabic speaker in her fifth year of PhD in TESOL. At the time of the study, it was her second semester working at the writing center. It is noteworthy that all tutors get trained to work in face-to-face and online environments and are required to complete the Writing Center Theory and Pedagogy course prior to tutoring. The writer was an undergraduate male L1-Brazilian Portuguese student majoring in business. It was his first time using online writing center services as indicated in the appointment form. Both participants were between the ages of 30-40.<\/p>\n
Procedure<\/h4>\n
The online session took place during the Fall 2018 semester and lasted 50 minutes; the two participants opted for text-based chat communication, without using the available audio and video options. The writer\u2019s text provided for revision was the final version of a summary assignment for a business course, and he made a specific request to focus on grammar during the session as according to him he was \u201cnot good at it.\u201d<\/p>\n
Data collection<\/h4>\n
The following data were extracted from the WCOnline platform for the online tutoring session: chat transcripts, screen recordings showing the chat interaction and real-time changes in the writer\u2019s text, and the final edited version of the writer\u2019s text.<\/p>\n
Data analysis<\/h4>\n
Data were triangulated through primarily qualitative analysis of three data sources collected from the session: the chat transcript, the screen recording, and the final revised version of the text. Data analysis of both the session screen recording and the chat transcript was carried in multiple phases. To enhance the qualitative analysis, additional quantitative analysis was carried out and consisted of simple statistical calculations. Two units of analysis were employed to examine the suggestions given during the session, the errors of focus, and the ways in which those suggestions were carried out: respectively, LRE, or Language Related Episode, and SLRS, Suggestion Linguistic Realization Strategy.<\/p>\n
In the first phase of the analysis, suggestions given by the tutor were identified in the transcript in the order of their occurrence during the session. Suggestions were operationalized as the global or specific problems determined by the tutor\u2019s evaluation (Thonus, 1999) so that each suggestion corresponds to one error in the text. Possible errors included lower-order concerns (e.g., grammar and mechanics) and higher-order concerns (e.g., organization and idea development). Next, the suggestions were matched to the corresponding errors in the writer\u2019s text using the concept of Language Related Episodes (LRE) as the unit of analysis. LREs were operationalized as any segment in the data in which there was an explicit focus on language or usage items, so that one LRE corresponds to one error (see p. 12 for an example LRE). LREs vary in length and can be interrupted and returned to in a non-linear fashion (Storch & Wigglesworth, 2010). Interrater agreement rate for identifying LREs was 100%.<\/p>\n
The second phase was to classify suggestions given by the tutor based on the taxonomy developed by Martinez-Flor (2010) in Table 1 below. Then, the number and type of suggestion linguistic realization strategies (hereafter referred to as SLRSs) utilized by the tutor per suggestion were coded using the same taxonomy. SLRSs were operationalized as \u201cthe different linguistic forms that may be employed when making suggestions in a variety of situations\u201d (Martinez-Flor 2005, p. 173).<\/p>\n
Table 1. Taxonomy of suggestion linguistic realization strategies (from Martinez-Flor, 2010, p. 259)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\nType<\/h4>\n<\/td>\n\nStrategy<\/h4>\n<\/td>\n\nExample<\/h4>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Direct<\/td>\n | Performative Verb
\nNoun of Suggestion
\nImperative
\nNegative Imperative<\/td>\n | I suggest that you\u2026
\nI advise you to\u2026
\nI recommend that you\u2026
\nMy suggestion would be\u2026
\nTry using\u2026
\nDon\u2019t try to\u2026<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Conventionalized Forms<\/td>\n | Specific Formulae
\n(interrogative forms)
\nPossibility\/Probability
\nShould
\nNeed
\nConditional<\/td>\n | Why don\u2019t you\u2026?
\nHow about\u2026?
\nWhat about\u2026?
\nHave you thought about\u2026?
\nYou can\u2026
\nYou could\u2026
\nYou may\u2026
\nYou might\u2026
\nYou should\u2026
\nYou need\u2026
\nIf I were you, I would\u2026<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Indirect<\/td>\n | Impersonal Hints<\/td>\n | One thing (that you can do)
\nwould be\u2026
\nHere\u2019s one possibility: \u2026
\nThere are a number of\u2026
\noptions that you\u2026
\nIt would be helpful if you
\nIt might be better to\u2026
\nA good idea would be\u2026
\nIt would be nice if\u2026
\nI\u2019ve heard that\u2026<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\nIn several cases, multiple SLRSs were employed within one suggestion or LRE, often occurring over several turns and interrupted by different suggestions related to other errors in a non-linear fashion. The SLRSs identified were first classified as one of three types – Direct, Conventionalized Forms, or Indirect – and then coded for the specific kind of strategy applied based on the language used by the tutor, as shown in Table 1. For example, a suggestion containing a modal verb such as \u201cmay\u201d or \u201cmight\u201d was coded as a Conventionalized Form expressing Possibility\/Probability, while suggestions employing the verbs \u201csuggest\u201d or \u201cadvise\u201d were regarded as Direct Performatives.<\/p>\n The data revealed an additional type of SLRS described as \u201cHybrid,\u201d in which two or more strategies were combined into one. For example, \u201cIt would better if you could add a transition here\u201d was assigned a dual code representing the two types and two strategies: Indirect Impersonal\/ Conventionalized Form – Possibility. To enhance the validity of the data coding, the inter-coder agreement rate was calculated. All three researchers coded data individually and discussed the results of coding to determine the agreement rate. Interrater agreement rate for both the suggestion types and SLRSs was 97 %.<\/p>\n In the third phase, the writer\u2019s revisions made in response to the tutor\u2019s suggestions were analyzed in both the screen recording and the writer\u2019s text to determine the degree of uptake for each suggestion. Timestamps from the chat transcript were matched to timestamps in the recorded session to determine the writer\u2019s revisions made in response to each suggestion offered by the tutor. For the purposes of this study, uptake was operationalized as the outcome resulting from tutor feedback in the form of a suggestion. Three different types of the degree of uptake emerged from the data and were coded as follows: successful<\/em>, when the writer responded to the suggestion by appropriately addressing the error identified by the tutor; attempted but unsuccessful<\/em>, when the writer tried to correct the error based on tutor\u2019s comments but this resulted in an unsuccessful attempt; and unsuccessful, <\/em>when the writer did not respond to the suggestion with a revision and when the error in the text remained unresolved. The interrater agreement rate for determining the degree of uptake was 100%.<\/p>\nFindings<\/h3>\nQuantitative Findings<\/h4>\nIn the session, a total of 17 LREs and 38 SLRSs were identified. For each LRE and SLRS, the degree of uptake was determined, ranging from Successful, Attempted but Unsuccessful, and Unsuccessful. Four types of SLRSs were identified during the session, including Direct strategies, Conventionalized Forms, Hybrid Conventionalized Form\/Indirect strategies, and Indirect strategies. Indirect strategies were most frequent, making up 52.6% of total strategies used. Conventionalized Forms were second at 31.6%, followed by Hybrid\u00a0 Conventionalized Form\/Indirect strategies at 7.9% and Direct strategies at 7.9%, as shown in Table 2.<\/p>\n Table 2. Summary of SLRS types<\/h4>\n\n\n\n| <\/td>\n | Direct<\/strong><\/td>\nConventionalized Form<\/strong> (CF)<\/strong><\/td>\nHybrid CF\/Indirect<\/strong><\/td>\nIndirect<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| N<\/td>\n | 3<\/td>\n | 12<\/td>\n | 3<\/td>\n | 20<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| % of all SLRSs<\/td>\n | 7.9%<\/td>\n | 31.6%<\/td>\n | 7.9 %<\/td>\n | 52.6%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Table 3 presents the quantitative findings for the number and percentage of SLRSs and LREs used per each degree of uptake. Out of 38 total SLRSs offered during the session, 50% resulted in successful uptake, 23.7% in attempted but unsuccessful uptake, and 26.3% in unsuccessful uptake. This means that out of all the tutor\u2019s suggestion strategies aimed at improving the quality of the text, 50% were recognized and implemented by the writer. A total of 23.7% of suggestion strategies were attempted by the writer, but the writer\u2019s changes to the text did not lead to correction of the error identified by the tutor. The remaining 26.3% of strategies employed by the tutor were unaddressed by the writer, thus resulting in unsuccessful uptake. Out of\u00a0 17 total LREs identified, 41.2% were successfully resolved, 17.6% were attempted but were not resolved, and 41.2% were unsuccessful. In other words, out of all the errors identified by the tutor, seven were successfully revised by the writer, while ten remained unresolved.<\/p>\n Table 3. Summary of the degree of uptake per SLRS and LRE<\/h4>\n\n\n\n| <\/td>\n | Successful<\/strong><\/td>\nAttempted but Unsuccessful<\/strong><\/td>\nUnsuccessful<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nTotal # of SLRSs<\/strong><\/td>\n| 19<\/td>\n | 9<\/td>\n | 10<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n% of all SLRSs<\/strong><\/td>\n| 50 %<\/td>\n | 23.7 %<\/td>\n | 26.3 %<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nTotal # of LREs<\/strong><\/td>\n| 7<\/td>\n | 3<\/td>\n | 7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n% of all LREs<\/strong><\/td>\n| \u00a041.2%<\/td>\n | 17.6%<\/td>\n | 41.2%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Fig. 2 shows the types of SLRSs used in each LRE; they are grouped by successful, attempted but unsuccessful, and unsuccessful uptake. As follows from the figure, the tutor used a combination of the following types of SLRSs in all the LREs resulting in successful uptake: ten Indirect (in blue), six Conventionalized Forms (in green), and three Direct (in red) for a total of 19 SLRSs. For all the LREs resulting in attempted but unsuccessful uptake, the tutor used six Indirect (in blue), one Hybrid Conventionalized Forms\/Indirect (in yellow), and two Conventionalized Forms (in green) for a total of nine SLRSs. For all the LREs resulting in unsuccessful uptake, the tutor employed four Indirect (in blue), two Hybrid Conventionalized Forms\/Indirect (in yellow), and four Conventionalized Forms (in green) totaling 10 SLRSs. No direct strategies (in red) were utilized in LREs resulting in attempted but unsuccessful uptake or in unsuccessful uptake. Additionally, the figure demonstrates that in LREs resulting in successful uptake, multiple SLRSs were often used. For example, in LRE 1, the tutor used a total of five SLRSs – two Direct, one Conventionalized Form, and two Indirect. Conversely, in LREs resulting in unsuccessful uptake, only one or two SLRSs were employed; for instance, in LRE 16, the tutor used two SLRSs – one Conventionalized Form and one Indirect.<\/p>\n ![](\"https:\/\/tesl-ej.org\/ej104\/a2pix\/fig2.png\")
\nFig. 2.<\/strong> Degree of uptake per LRE<\/p>\nQualitative Findings<\/h4>\nWriter successful uptake. <\/strong>As mentioned earlier, 19 (50.0%) out of the 38 total SLRSs offered during the session resulted in successful uptake – that is, when the writer makes appropriate revisions based on the tutor\u2019s suggestion. For instance, in LRE 8, the tutor and the writer brainstorm some possible ways of improving the structure of the writer\u2019s paper, including the use of an appropriate conjunction for connecting two different sentences together:<\/p>\n\n\n\n| Chat Transcript<\/strong><\/p>\n C<\/strong> (18:48) – for, having an astonishing passion for business that developed at an early age in 1956<\/p>\nC <\/strong>(18:48) – what do you mean by \u201cfor\u201d<\/p>\nC <\/strong>(18:48) – are you giving a reason for he became a chairman?<\/p>\nW <\/strong>(18:48) – yes im giving a reason for<\/p>\nC <\/strong>(18:50) – so, maybe we change it to be something like<\/em><\/strong> \u201cBecause of Bill\u2019s astonishing passion for business that was developed at an areal age, he became the executive chairman and\u2026 (LRE 8)<\/strong><\/p>\nC<\/strong> (18:50) – or you could do it differently if you wish<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\nC <\/strong>(18:51) – or instead of \u201cfor\u201d you can use \u201cbecause\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\nC<\/strong> (18:51) – but you need to change the structure a lil bit<\/em> (LRE 8)<\/strong><\/p>\nC <\/strong>(18:51) – ok<\/td>\nWriter\u2019s Text Before<\/strong>
\nFor <\/strong>Bill\u2019s astonishing passion for business that was developed at an areal age in 1956, he became the Executive Chairman and Chairman of the Board of Marriott international.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nWriter\u2019s Text After<\/strong>
\nBill became the Executive Chairman and Chairman of the Board of Marriott international. Because<\/strong> of Bill\u2019s astonishing passion for business that was developed at an early age in 1956, he became the CEO.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\nAs follows from this example, multiple SLRSs were used in LRE 8. First, the tutor gives a direct suggestion which contains the personal pronoun \u201cwe\u201d (\u201c… maybe we change it to be something like…\u201d). This direct suggestion is accompanied by further recommendations containing different kinds of Conventionalized Forms, including the Possibility SLRS (\u201c… you could do it differently if you wish\u201d and \u201c… instead of \u201cfor\u201d you can use \u2018because\u2019 \u201d) and the Need SLRS (\u201c… you need to change the structure a lil bit\u201d). This combination of a direct strategy and Conventionalized Forms stimulates the writer to make appropriate changes in his writing, thus resulting in successful uptake.<\/p>\n Writer attempted but unsuccessful uptake. <\/strong>Another outcome observed in the session is attempted but unsuccessful uptake, when the writer recognizes that the tutor has offered a suggestion but does not make the tutor’s intended correction in the text. In the session discussed in this study, 9 (23.7%) out of the 38 total SLRSs resulted in attempted but unsuccessful uptake. The example below shows two LREs occurring simultaneously in which the tutor employs a series of SLRSs for two separate sentences with similar structure errors. The tutor starts by identifying the first structure error with an Indirect Impersonal SLRS by stating that the sentence is not complete and indicating it by copying it into the chat (LRE 11). Without waiting for the writer to respond, the tutor makes a suggestion in the form of a Hint (\u201cThis is being\u2026\u201d)<\/em> to address the structure error in the following sentence (LRE 12). The writer revises his word choice instead of the structure in the first sentence (\u201cI put factual instead of opinionated\u201d), and the structure errors in the two sentences remain unresolved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n| Chat Transcript<\/strong><\/p>\n C<\/strong> (19:01) this is also not complete<\/em><\/strong> – <\/strong>\u201cDealing with content that is not opinionated from compiling \u201cthe greatest portfolio of lodging brands, ranging from limited service to luxury hotel ownership and resorts\u201d (Marriott, Para. #5) (LRE 11) <\/strong><\/p>\nC<\/strong>: (19:02) \u201cThis being a challenge that has yet to be matched in the business of lodging\u201d (LRE 12)<\/strong><\/p>\nC<\/strong> (19:02) this is being \u2026 <\/em>(LRE 12)<\/strong><\/p>\nW <\/strong>(19:03) hold up<\/p>\nW (<\/strong>19:04) see that<\/p>\nW<\/strong> (19:04) I put factual instead of non opinionated<\/p>\nW <\/strong>(19:05) well its a quote from a source<\/td>\n| Writer\u2019s Text Before<\/strong><\/p>\n Dealing with content that is not opinionated from compiling<\/strong> \u201cthe greatest portfolio of lodging brands, ranging from limited service to luxury hotel ownership and resorts\u201d (Marriott, Para. #5). (LRE 11) This being a challenge that has yet to be matched in the business of lodging<\/strong>. (LRE 12)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Writer\u2019s Text After<\/strong><\/p>\n Dealing with content that is factual from compiling<\/strong> \u201cthe greatest portfolio of lodging brands, ranging from limited service to luxury hotel ownership and resorts\u201d (Marriott, Para. #5). This being a challenge that has yet to be matched in the business of lodging<\/strong>.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\nThe tutor then tries the more explicit strategy of Conventionalized Form \u201cNeed\u201d to tell the writer again to complete the sentence (\u201cYou need to complete the sentence…\u201d); she gives an example (\u201cDealing with children taught me to be fun\u201d), but because it is not related to the writer\u2019s own topic, he appears to be lost (\u201cWhere are u\u201d). After clarifying the sentence she wants him to correct, she provides another suggestion in the form of a Hint by asking the writer questions (\u201cEither a subject is missing or another clause?\u201d). However, the writer still does not address the sentence structure errors, and instead explains his intended meaning.<\/p>\n \n\n\n| Chat Transcript<\/strong><\/p>\n C<\/strong> (19:05) still, you need to complete the sentence<\/em><\/strong> so for example ” dealing with children taught me to be fun” (LRE 11)<\/strong><\/p>\nC<\/strong> (19:05) that is the structure for “dealing with\u2026<\/p>\nW<\/strong> (19:05) where are u<\/p>\nC (<\/strong>19:06) same sentence but i am just giving an example<\/p>\nW<\/strong> (19:07) okay<\/p>\nC<\/strong> (19:07) either a subject is missing or another clause?<\/em><\/strong> (LRE 11)<\/strong><\/p>\nC <\/strong>(19:07) so, when you say dealing with content that factual…. what happens after that? Did you learn something?<\/p>\nC<\/strong> (19:08) did you get what I mean?<\/p>\nW<\/strong> (19:09) well its information that is true<\/p>\nW<\/strong> 19:09 to believe i guess<\/p>\nW<\/strong> 19:10 read the quote<\/p>\nW<\/strong> 19:10 i was trying to say it was fun to know about Marriott\u2019s portfolio<\/p>\nW<\/strong> 19:10 but through a quote<\/td>\n| Writer\u2019s Text Before<\/strong><\/p>\n Dealing with content that is factual from compiling<\/strong> \u201cthe greatest portfolio of lodging brands, ranging from limited service to luxury hotel ownership and resorts\u201d (Marriott, Para. #5). (LRE 11)<\/strong> This being a challenge that has yet to be matched in the business of lodging<\/strong>. (LRE 12)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Writer\u2019s Text After<\/strong><\/p>\n Dealing with content that is factual from compiling <\/strong>\u201cthe greatest portfolio of lodging brands, ranging from limited service to luxury hotel ownership and resorts\u201d (Marriott, Para. #5). This being a challenge that has yet to be matched in the business of lodging<\/strong>.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\nThe tutor tries again to use a Hybrid SLRS combining the Conventionalized Form for Possibility using \u201ccould\u201d (\u201cFor example you could say\u201d) with an Indirect Impersonal SLRS (\u201csomething should be here\u201d) to model the correct sentence structure (\u201cdealing with factual information \u2018your quote\u2019\u201d). The tutor adds an additional Indirect Impersonal SLRS to emphasize the suggestion (\u201chaving a clearer sentence would be nice\u201d), and the writer replies with \u201cI understand.\u201d After that, the tutor moves to the second sentence and gives two additional SLRSs in the form of Hints (\u201cThis being\u2026 This is being\u201d). However, the writer mistakenly revises the first sentence instead of the second by adding \u201cthat is being\u201d and says \u201cGot it.\u201d Therefore, the second sentence remains uncorrected when the tutor moves on. The tutor\u2019s choice to simultaneously address two separate but similar sentence structure errors prevented the writer from correcting either error successfully, although he attempted to revise the text in response to the tutor\u2019s suggestions.<\/p>\n \n\n\n| Chat Transcript<\/strong><\/p>\n C<\/strong> (19:11) yes I get what you say but how did that factual information affect you? for example you could say<\/em><\/strong> ” dealing with factual information “your quote” \u2026 something should be here<\/em><\/strong> (LRE 11)<\/strong><\/p>\nC<\/strong> (19:12) something like ” dealing with factual content “…….” was fun…<\/p>\nC<\/strong> (19:12) if that is what you mean<\/p>\nC<\/strong> (19:12) I am sorry i feel it is confusing but having a clear sentence<\/em><\/strong> would be nice<\/em><\/strong> (LRE 11)<\/strong><\/p>\nW<\/strong> (19:12) I understand<\/p>\nC<\/strong> (19:13) This being<\/em><\/strong> (LRE 12)<\/strong><\/p>\nC<\/strong> (19:13)\u00a0 this is being<\/em><\/strong> (LRE 12)<\/strong><\/p>\nW<\/strong>: (19:14) got it<\/td>\n| Writer\u2019s Text Before<\/strong><\/p>\n Dealing with content that is factual from compiling<\/strong> \u201cthe greatest portfolio of lodging brands, ranging from limited service to luxury hotel ownership and resorts\u201d (Marriott, Para. #5). (LRE 11)<\/strong> This being a challenge that has yet to be matched in the business of lodging<\/strong>. (LRE 12)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Writer\u2019s Text After<\/strong><\/p>\n Dealing with factual content that is being<\/strong> \u201cthe greatest portfolio of lodging brands, ranging from limited service to luxury hotel ownership and resorts\u201d (Marriott, Para. #5). This being a challenge that has yet to be matched in the business of lodging.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\nFor LREs 11 and 12, the majority of the SLRSs used by the tutor are located on the indirect end of the spectrum: two Indirect Impersonal Suggestions, four Indirect Hints, one Conventionalized Form, and one Hybrid (Conventionalized Form\/Indirect). The use of a higher proportion of Indirect SLRSs prompted the writer\u2019s attempts to improve the text but did not lead to successful revision of the errors identified by the tutor in the two simultaneous LREs.<\/p>\n | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |