Form-focused Interaction in Online Tandem Learning
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v22i3.433-466Keywords:
Tandem, CALL, CMC, MOO, Negotiation of Meaning, Metalinguistic AwarenessAbstract
Tandem language learning a configuration involving pairs of learners with complementary target/native languages is an underexploited but potentially very powerful use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) in second-language pedagogy. Tandem offers the benefits of authentic, culturally grounded interaction, while also promoting a pedagogical focus among participants. CMC-based tandem promises, in addition, those benefits believed to accrue from text-based interaction, in particular, promotion of conscious attention to language forms in the course of meaningful communication. This paper presents data from a study based on the spontaneous interactions of tandem partners during a weekly, term-long synchronous exchange based in a MOO (Object-Oriented Multi-User Domain). It begins with an introduction to the concept of tandem language learning. The theoretical background, sketched briefly, is a model of instructed second-language acquisition that emphasizes the role of metalinguistic awareness. The empirical section examines negotiation of meaning, a discourse phenomenon held to bring about metalinguistic focus, and, more specifically, signal form and focus. The study analyzes learner interactions along the parameters of home country (Ireland or Germany), current tandem role (NS or NNS), and utterance language. It is suggested that the behaviors observed in this project have their roots in both the tandem learning setup and the text-based medium.
References
Aston, G. (1986). Trouble-shooting in interaction with learners: The more the merrier? Applied Linguistics, 7 (2), 128-143.
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Belz, J. A. (2002a). The myth of the deficient communicator. Language Teaching Research, 6 (1), 59-82.
Belz, J. A. (2002b). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning & Technology, 6 (1), 60-81. Retrieved March 16, 2005 from http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num1/BELZ/default.html
Brammerts, H. (1996). Tandem language learning via the Internet and the international email tandem network. In D. Little & H. Brammerts (Eds.), A guide to language learning in tandem via the Internet (CLCS Occasional Paper no. 46) (pp. 9-22). Dublin: Trinity College.
Breen, M., & Candlin, C. (1980). The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 1 (2), 89-112.
Brock, C., Crookes, G., Day, R., & Long, M. (1986). The differential effects of corrective feedback in native speaker conversation. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 229-236). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Brooks, F. B., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania, 77 (2), 262274.
Brumfit, C. J., & Johnson, K. (1979). The communicative approach to language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1 (1), 1-47.
Chun, D. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22 (1), 17-31.
Cziko, G. A. (2004). Electronic tandem language learning (eTandem): A third approach to second language learning for the 21st century. CALICO Journal, 22 (1), 25-39.
Dam, L. (2001). Bridging the gap between real life and the language classroom—Principles, practices and outcomes (Odense Working Papers in Language and Communication No. 22). Odense: University of Southern Denmark, Institute of Language and Communication.
Darhower, M. (2002). Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 19 (2), 249-277.
de la Fuente, M. J. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary: The roles of input and output in the receptive and productive acquisition of words. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 81-112.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4 (3), 193-220.
Feenberg, A. (1989). A user’s guide to the pragmatics of computer mediated communication. Semiotica, 75 (3-4), 257-278.
Fernández-García, M., & Martínez Arbelaiz, A. (2002). Negotiation of meaning in nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker synchronous discussions. CALICO Journal, 20 (2), 279-294.
Fernández-García, M., & Martínez Arbelaiz, A. (2003). Learners’ interactions: A comparison of oral and computer-assisted written conversations. ReCALL, 15 (1), 113136.
Ferrara, K., Brunner, H., & Whittemore, G. (1991). Interactive written discourse as an emergent register. Written Communication, 8 (1), 8-34.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81 (3), 285-300.
Fortune, A., & Thorp, D. (2001). Knotted and entangled: New light on the identification, classification and value of language related episodes in collaborative output tasks. Language Awareness, 10 (2/3), 143-160.
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1985). Task variation and nonnative/nonnative negotiation of meaning. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 149-161). Cambridge, MA.: Newbury House.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gnutzmann, C. (1997). Language awareness: Progress in language learning and language education, or reformulation of old ideas? Language Awareness, 6 (2/3), 65-74.
Harley, B. (1994). Appealing to consciousness in the L2 classroom. AILA Review, 11, 5768.
Hulstijn, J. H., & De Graaf, R. (1994). Under what conditions does explicit knowledge of a second language facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A research proposal. AILA Review, 11, 97-112.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kötter, M. (2002). Tandem learning on the Internet: Learner interactions in virtual online environments. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford: Pergamon.
Lamy, M.-N., & Goodfellow, R. (1999). ‘Reflective conversation’ in the virtual language classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 2 (2), 43-61. Retrieved March 16, 2005 from http://llt.msu.edu/vol2num2/article2/index.html
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33 (2), 79-96.
Lantolf, J. P., & Aljaafreh, A. (1995). Second-language learning in the zone of proximal development: A revolutionary experience. International Journal of Educational Research, 23 (7), 619-632.
Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (Eds.). (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lee, L. (2002). Synchronous online exchanges: A study of modification devices on non-native discourse. System, 30 (3), 275-288.
Lee, L. (2004). Learners’ perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the US. Language Learning & Technology, 8 (1), 83-100. Retrieved 16 March 2005 from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num1/lee/default.html
Legenhausen, L. (2001). Linguistic outcomes of a learner-centred and meaning-focused classroom (Odense Working Papers in Language and Communication No. 22). Odense: University of Southern Denmark, Institute of Language and Communication.
Leow, R. P. (1997). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 47 (3), 467-505.
Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin: Authentik.
Little, D., & Brammerts, H. (1996). A guide to language learning in tandem via the Internet (CLCS Occasional Paper no. 46): Dublin: Trinity College.
Little, D., Ushioda, E., Appel, M. C., Moran, J., O’Rourke, B., & Schwienhorst, K. (1999). Evaluating tandem language learning by e-mail: Report on a bilateral project (CLCS Occasional Paper no. 55). Dublin: Trinity College.
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4 (2), 126-141.
Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377-393). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. J. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123-167). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9 (1), 34-51.
O’Rourke, B. (2002). Metalinguistic knowledge in instructed second language acquisition: A theoretical model and its application in computer-mediated communication. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Trinity College, Dublin.
O’Rourke, B., & Schwienhorst, K. (2003). Talking text: Reflections on reflection in computer-mediated communication. In D. Little, J. Ridley, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Learner autonomy in foreign language teaching: Teacher, learner, curriculum, assessment (pp. 47-60). Dublin: Authentik.
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59-86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44 (3), 493-527.
Rutherford, W., & Sharwood Smith, M. (1987). Consciousness raising and universal grammar. Applied Linguistics, 6, 274-282.
Sato, C. (1986). Conversation and interlanguage development: Rethinking the connection. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 23-45). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1-63). Honolulu, Hawai’i: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Schwienhorst, K. (2002). Native-speaker/non native-speaker discourse in the MOO: Participation and engagement in a synchronous text-based environment. Paper presented at UNTELE 2002, Compiègne, France.
Schwienhorst, K., & Borgia, A. (in press). Monitoring bilingualism: Pedagogical implications of the Bilingual Tandem Analyzer. CALICO Journal.
Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. Modern Language Journal, 87 (1), 38-57.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA.: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 6481). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thornbury, S. (1997). Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promote ‘noticing’. English Language Teaching Journal, 51 (4), 326-335.
Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (2), 38-67. Retrieved 16 March 2005 from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/thorne/default.html
Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. London: Harvard University Press.
Van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Socio-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 245-259). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
VanPatten, B. (1994). Evaluating the role of consciousness in second language acquisition: Terms, linguistic features, and research methodology. AILA Review, 11, 27-36.
Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. M. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6 (1), 71-90.
Voiskounsky, A. E. (1996). Telelogue conversations. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 2 (4). Retrieved April 7, 2005, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol2/issue4/voiskounsky1.html
Warschauer, M. (1996a). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13 (2), 7-26.
Warschauer, M. (1996b). Sociocultural learning theory and computer mediated communication. In F. L. Borchardt, C. Bradin, E. Johnson, & L. Rhodes (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1996 CALICO annual symposium: Distance learning (pp. 265-269). Durham, NC: Duke University.
Warschauer, M. (1997). A sociocultural approach to literacy and its significance for CALL. In K. Murphy-Judy & R. Sanders (Eds.), Nexus: The convergence of research and teaching through new information technologies (pp. 88-97). Durham: University of North Carolina.
Warschauer, M. (1998). Online learning in sociocultural context. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 29 (1), 68-88.
Wegerif, R. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2 (1). Retrieved April 7, 2005, from http:// www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v2n1/v2n1_wegerif.asp
Werry, C. C. (1996). Linguistic and interactional features of Internet relay chat. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and crosscultural perspectives (pp. 47-64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wesche, M. (1994). Input, interaction, and acquisition: The linguistic environment of the language learner. In R. Richards & C. Gallaway (Eds.), Input and interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 219-249). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
