Corrective Feedback via Instant Messenger Learning Activities in NS-NNS and NNS-NNS Dyads
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v22i3.467-496Keywords:
Instant Messaging, focus on form, Focus on Meaning, corrective feedback, Learner UptakeAbstract
This exploratory study examines corrective feedback in native speaker-nonnative speaker (NS-NNS) and NNS-NNS dyads while participants were engaged in communicative and problem-solving activities via Yahoo! Instant Messenger (YIM). As "negotiation of meaning" studies of the 1990s have shown, linguistic items which learners negotiate in face-to-face (F2F) interaction seem to facilitate their L2 development. This type of research has been successfully extended to computer-mediated contexts. Recently, findings from second language acquisition (SLA)-motivated research have shown that negative evidence or incidental focus-on-form in communicative classrooms appears to encourage learner awareness that often leads to successful uptake. Six research questions are addressed in this study. They include the availability of error correction episodes in NS-NNS and NNS-NNS online dyad work, type of corrective feedback provided to L2 learners, category of errors, learner uptake or response, type of uptake, and length of moves. Among the results of this exploratory study we find the following: error correction episodes are available in an instant messaging context and, in this context, more indirect corrective feedback that focuses primarily on grammatical and lexical errors is provided to L2 learners. Also, simple moves characterize these YIM error correction episodes, and there is evidence of successful learner uptake.
References
Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. Modern Language Journal, 87 (2), 157-167.
Beauvois, M. H. (1992). Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25 (5), 455464.
Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4 (1), 120-136. Retrieved May 14, 2005 from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/blake/default.html
Braidi, S. M. (2002). Reexamining the role of recasts in native-speaker/non-native-speaker interactions. Language Learning, 52 (1), 1-42.
Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22 (1), 17-31.
Darhower, M. (2002). Instructional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 19 (2), 249-277.
Davies, B., & Thiede, R. (2000). Writing into change: Style-shifting in asynchronous electronic discourse. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 87-120). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51 (2), 281-318.
Fernández-García, M., & Martínez-Arbelais, A. (2002). Negotiation of meaning in nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker synchronous discussions. CALICO Journal, 19 (2), 279-294.
Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323-351.
Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 605-628.
Gass, S. M., Mackey, A., & Pica, T. (1998). The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition: Introduction to the special issue. Modern Language Journal, 82 (3), 299-307.
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gass. S. M., & Varonis, E. (1984). The effect of familiarity on the comprehension of nonnative speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7 (1), 37-57.
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16 (3), 283-302.
Grimshaw, J. & Pinker, S. (1989). Positive and negative evidence in language acquisition. Behavioral and Brain Science, 12 (2), 341-342.
Kelm, O. R. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25 (5), 441-454.
Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and quality of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79 (4), 457-476.
Kern, R., Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2004). Crossing frontiers: New directions in online pedagogy and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 243-260.
Levy, M., & Kennedy, C. (2004). A task-cycling pedagogy using stimulated reflection and audio-conferencing in foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 8 (2), 50-68. Retrieved May 14, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num2/ pdf/levy.pdf
Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learning, 54 (1), 153-188.
Long, M. (1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native and foreign language acquisition (pp. 259-278). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
Long, M. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377-393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie, & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557587.
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471-497.
Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53 (1), 35-66.
Morris, F. (2005). Child-to-child interaction and corrective feedback in a computer-mediated L2 class. Language Learning & Technology, 9 (1), 29-45. Retrieved May 14, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num1/morris/default.html
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-145.
Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17 (4), 459-481.
Oskoz, A. (2004, June). Negotiation of meaning in jigsaw and free discussion in synchronous computer-mediated communication (S-CMC). Paper presented at CALICO 2004, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
Pica, T. (1988). Interlanguage adjustments as outcome of NS-NNS negotiated interaction. Language Learning, 38 (1), 45-73
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 429-527.
Pica, T. (2003). Second language acquisition research and applied linguistics. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 18 (2), 1-26.
Pica, T., Doughty, C., & Young, R. (1986). Making input comprehensible: Do interactional modifications help? I.T.L. Review of Applied Linguistics, 72, 1-25.
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11 (1), 63-90.
Pinker, S. (1989). Resolving a learnability paradox in the acquisition of the verb lexicon. In M. L. Rice & R. L. Schiefelbusch (Eds.), The teachability of language (pp. 13-62). Baltimore, MD: P.H. Brookes.
Polio, C., & Gass, S. M. (1998). The role of interaction in native speaker comprehension of non-native speaker speech. Modern Language Journal, 82 (3), 308-319.
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson. G., & Sacks, H. (1997). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53 (2), 361-382.
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237-326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Press.
Schultz, J. M. (2000). Computers and collaborative writing in the foreign language curriculum. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 121-150). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sheen, R. (1992). Problem solving brought to task. TELC Journal, 23, 44-59.
Sheen, R. (2002). ‘Focus on form’ and ‘focus on forms.’ ELT Journal, 56, 303-304.
Sheen, R. (2003). Focus on forms as a means of improving accurate oral production. Unpublished manuscript.
Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. Modern Language Journal, 87 (1), 38-54.
Smith, B. (2005). The relationship between negotiated interaction, learner uptake, and lexical acquisition in task-based computer-mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 33-58.
Sotillo, S. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4 (1), 82-119. Retrieved May 14, 2005 from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/sotillo/default.html
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15 (2), 205-224.
Sullivan, J., & Caplan, N. A. (2003). Beyond the dictogloss. Leaner-generated attention to form in a collaborative communicative classroom activity. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 19 (1), 65-89.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, (pp. 6482). 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.
VanPatten, W., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15 (2), 225-243.
Varonis, E., & Gass, S. M. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6 (1), 71-90.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13 (2), 7-16.
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, 583625.
Williams, J., & Evans, J. (1998). Which kind of focus and on which forms? In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139-155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
