The Linear Logic Model of the Theory of Action for the Evaluation of the Materials on Source Use

The development of the theory of action framework for the teaching materials on source use in my study involves the integration of the three theoretical grounds of the teaching materials (i.e., SFL, Corpus Linguistics, and the NH in SLA), and the criteria in Chapelle’s (2001) CALL task appropriateness framework into the linear logic model presented by Patton (2008). The identification of the three theoretical grounds in SFL, Corpus Linguistics, SLA and the criteria in Chapelle’s (2001) framework was critical to the development of the theory of action framework for the teaching materials in my study.

The claims in each of the theoretical grounds provide a principled approach for the evaluation of the materials thanks to their specific hypotheses about the intended learning impacts of the material characteristics. First, the claims in SFL about the genre-based approach enabled me to define the characteristics of the materials and the criteria to evaluate them. Based on the methodology in Corpus Linguistics, a collection of A graded papers in that target genre that learners were going to write was collected and analyzed for the materials development. This design principle is intended to direct learners’ attention to understand the feature of source use in the target context of use and gauge their interest and engagement in learning the materials. As a result, the evaluation of the design principle concerns how the materials would lead to learners’ focus on the meaning of the source use features in the target genre and their perceptions of the appropriateness of the materials. Similarly, the claims on the role of attention in noticing and noticing in SLA in the NH led to the characteristics of the materials and criteria for my

evaluation. These claims were used to generate hypothesized learning processes prompted by the material characteristics. For example, the claims in the NH led to the provision of color-coded multiple examples of citing sentences in the A graded papers and visuals which help students notice specific features of source use. As a result, one of the evaluation criteria of the materials is whether the noticing of these features would lead to any students’ gains in knowledge about source use, their awareness about source use, and their revision of source use in their papers. Finally, the claims in the DDL approach led to the use of concordance lines in the web-based corpus tool and guided induction in the Moodle-based lesson of the teaching materials. The claims on the effects of these characteristics on the students’ learning processes then allowed me to generate directions for my evaluation of the materials.

The six qualities in Chapelle’s (2001) framework on CALL task appropriateness were also instrumental in shaping the evaluation criteria of the theory of action framework for the teaching materials. The integration of Chapelle’s (2001) framework is explained by the strong association with SLA theories of the framework. Particularly, the development of Chapelle’s (2001) framework is also based on the instructed SLA theory, so the six qualities in her

framework capture the characteristics of the materials that are supposed to provide good learning opportunities for learners’ acquisition of a second language. Moreover, the framework is broadly developed so that each researcher can make specific questions on each criterion based on his or her own research context. The six criteria for evaluating CALL task appropriateness in

Chapelle’s (2001) framework are (1) language learning potential, (2) learner fit, (3) meaning focus, (4) authenticity, (5) positive impact, (6) practicality. All these six criteria are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Criteria for CALL Task Appropriateness (Chapelle, 2001, p. 55)

Criteria Explanations

Language-learning potential

The degree of opportunity present for beneficial focus on form.

Learner fit The amount of opportunity for engagement with language under appropriate conditions given learner characteristics.

Meaning focus The extent to which learners’ attention is directed toward the meaning of the language.

Authenticity The degree of correspondence between the CALL activity and target language activities of interest to learners out of the classroom.

Positive impact The positive effects of the CALL activity on those who participate in it.

Practicality The adequacy of resources to support the use of the CALL activity.

The first criterion, language learning potential, is based on theoretical approaches to SLA, referring to the degree to which a task promotes focus on form. At the same time, the task should also enhance meaning focus which refers to the need for learners’ attention to be directed toward the meaning of the language required to complete the task. Also, a task design should consider learner fit, including learner characteristics such as learning style, age, and willingness to communicate. The next criteria, authenticity, refers to the links between classroom and real- world language use centering on tasks and texts that learners can find relevant in their language use beyond the classroom. Beyond language learning potential, positive impact is to describe effects of a CALL task on learners such as learner autonomy and metalinguistic and pragmatic awareness. The final criterion, practicality, considers the number of resources needed for the task implementation. Four out of these six criteria in Chapelle’s (2001) framework are selected to integrate into the theory of action framework for the evaluation of the teaching materials. They are language learning potential, meaning focus, learner fit, and impact. The integration of these four qualities into the development of the theory of action framework not only allowed me to define but also to operationalize each criterion in the framework fully. The final theory of action framework for the teaching materials on source use is presented in Figure 1 below.

45

As shown in the figure, there are five major components in the model, and their linear causal relationships are presented using arrows. The first component is the underlying theories for the principles and characteristics of the design and development of the teaching materials on source use. It includes three theoretical principles which directly lead to the second component, which relates to design characteristics and components of the teaching materials on source use. The three specific theoretical grounds are the genre-based approach in SFL, the NH by Schmidt (2001, 2004, 2010) in the instructed SLA field, and the DDL approach proposed by Johns (1991, 1994). Specific claims and principles from each of the theoretical grounds are then shown to inform the characteristics of the materials. For example, the second characteristic, which is the combination of input flood and input enhancement, is based on the claims on the importance of noticing in inductive language learning and language acquisition as well as the role of input and instruction in enhancing noticing.

The characteristics of the materials in the second component are shown to cause

immediate reactions and action mechanisms listed under the hypothesized learning processes in the third component. The third column of the figure presents the hypothesized immediate reactions including actions and behaviors of learners when working with the materials. These immediate reactions are then directly linked to the three major aspects of learning processes informed by Chapelle’s (2001) framework. As described above, the four criteria in Chapelle’s (2001) CALL task appropriateness framework are integrated as a crucial part of the framework because these criteria capture the favorable learning processes and outcomes as informed by SLA theories. As shown in the fourth and fifth columns of the figure, the criteria include language learning potential, meaning focus, learner fit, and impact. As shown in the third

column, the learners are hypothesized to use the web-based corpus tool to complete the lesson and to spend time on exploring the features of source use.

Further explanations about the causal relationships of immediate reactions and action mechanisms in the framework are provided here. As shown in the third column of the figure, the students will follow the instructions given in the lesson, and use the tool at the same time to observe patterns in each feature of source use in the A graded papers. That exploration will lead to their noticing of differences in their source use practice in their drafts and the practice in the A graded papers. For instance, they might notice a formatting error in citations that they have in their first papers. They might also spend time looking at the provided citing sentences in the tool to understand each feature. After answering the questions in the lesson, they should click on the “Check” button to double check their answer, and then read the provided explanations to fully understand each feature of source use. Moreover, as described in the fourth column of the figure about learner fit, the students may feel interested when completing the materials as they are relevant to the assignment that they are doing in the course. They may also find the working experience with the lesson sufficiently challenging, engaging, and useful for them.

The intended learning processes in the third component result in the learners’ learning gains and other impacts on both the learners and instructors who use the materials as described in the fourth component of the framework. As shown in the fifth column of the figure, the intended effects of the characteristics of the materials on source use include three major learning gains and two important impacts. In terms of learning gains, the learners will increase their knowledge about source use such as different forms and functions of source use in documented essays. For instance, they can learn about different reporting verbs to report an external source by interacting with the corpus-based tool. Such understanding will help them raise their metalinguistic and

pragmatic awareness about source use in the target genre and language use in general.

Particularly, the observing and explaining of the patterns of source use in the A graded corpus will lead to their increased awareness about the relationship between the patterns of language use and its context of use, and the connection between the features of language use and its rhetorical effects. Thirdly, the learners are hypothesized to increase knowledge about revision strategies for their first drafts after the training. For instance, by comparing their practice of source use and that in the A graded papers, they will be able to identify weaknesses in terms of source use in their first drafts. The use of the teaching materials on source use will also bring positive impacts on both the learners and instructors. They will feel positive about their learning and teaching experiences and find the materials beneficial to their learning and teaching. Finally, these intended effects in the fourth component are then used to inform the revisions of the materials design and development principles, which is the fifth component of the framework and the ultimate goal of the project.

Overall, the theory of action framework for the evaluation of the teaching materials shows the relationships between the pedagogical design principles of the materials on source use and the intended impacts on learning processes and experiences of the users. The linear logic model of the theory of action framework helps conceptualize the complexities involved in the learning of the materials which are essential to the evaluation of the materials under

implementation. It also helps connect the theoretically based design principles and the evaluation of the materials through hypotheses on changes in learners’ learning processes and intended effects while and after working with the materials. In the next section, I will continue to highlight the two important implications of the development of this framework in my study.