LEARNER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK: LONGITUDINAL EVIDENCE FROM TELECOLLABORATION

1. LEARNER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK: LONGITUDINAL EVIDENCE FROM TELECOLLABORATION • Yuka Akiyama • Ph.D. Candidate at Georgetown University • ya125@georgetown.edu

2. TELECOLLABORATION A way to engage foreign language learners in an organized partnership, linking language learners in one part of the world with learners in other parts of the world for reciprocal learning of languages and cultures (Cziko, 2004; Sauro, 2013) 1

3. What do you want to get out of the exchange? % 2

4. LITERATURE REVIEW • Previous telecollaborative studies focused on: • Intercultural competence (Belz, 2007) • Creation of online identity (e.g. Blake, 2006) • Negotiation of meaning (Appel & Mullen, 2000; Bower & Kawaguchi, 2011; Levy & Kennedy, 2004; Schwienhorst, 2000) • Corrective feedback (e.g. Sauro, 2013; Vinagre & Muñoz, 2011; Ware & O’Dowd, 2008) • Attention to language form is NOT a feature that has been characterized telecollaborative exchanges (Schwienhorst, 2000) 3

5. Focus on Form through Corrective Feedback • Training learners to give corrective feedback • Ware & O’Dowd (2008) • Fujii, Ziegler, & Mackey (forthcoming) • Beliefs about corrective feedback & noticing • Kartchava and Ammar (2013) 4

6. “GAP” • NO studies have looked at: • Long-term development of learner beliefs in giving & receiving corrective feedback after learner training • Long-term development of actual corrective feedback practices • Interaction between learner beliefs and noticing (operationalized as successful repair) 5

7. RESEARCH QUESTIONS • How do telecollaborators’ beliefs in corrective feedback change over a semester? • What is the relationship between learner beliefs and practices regarding corrective feedback? • What is the relationship between learner beliefs and the rate of uptake? Longitudinal development of beliefs (both giving and receiving) Interaction between beliefs and practices about giving corrective feedback Interaction between beliefs and uptake (receiving corrective feedback) 6

8. 7

9. TIMELINE Mid-project survey • Lyster & Ranta (1997) • Explicit correction • Metalinguistic explanation • Elicitation • Repetition • Recast • Clarification request English → Japanese Japanese → English 8

10. METHOD • Participants: • 12 pairs of college students in Japan and the U.S. (12 JFL and 12 EFL learners) • EFL learners in Japan more experienced in telecollaboration • 5 f-f pairs, 6 m-m pairs, & 1 m-f pair • Settings: • Skypedhalf the time in Japanese and the other half in English • Participants were strongly encouraged to give feedback as much as possible 9

11. METHOD (Cont.) • Data collection: • Survey data from 24 participants collected at three time periods (pre-, during, and post-project) • Audio data in Japanese of 6 telecollaborative pairs(out of 12 pairs) who demonstrated different patterns of beliefs regarding corrective feedback RQ1: Longitudinal development of beliefs (both giving and receiving) RQ2: Interaction between beliefs and practices about giving corrective feedback RQ3: Interaction between beliefs and uptake (receiving corrective feedback) 10

12. RQ1: Survey Data Mid-project survey 11

13. 12

14. LEARNER BELIEFGroup Data • Survey Questions • Do/did you want to get corrected? • How do/did you want to get corrected? • How do/did you want to correct your partner? 13

15. Q1. Do/did you want to be corrected? (N = 24) 14

16. Q2. How do/did you want to get corrected?(N = 24) Recasts vs. Non-recasts Pre-Mid → X2(1, N = 24) = 4.15, p < 0.05* Pre-Post→X2(1, N = 24) = 8.33, p < 0.01** Mid-Post → n.s. 15

17. 16

18. Q3. How do/did you want to correct your partner?(N = 24) Recasts vs. Non-recasts Pre-Mid → X2(1, N = 24) = 6.86, p < 0.01** Pre-Post→X2(1, N = 24) = 8.57, p < 0.01** Mid-Post → n.s. 17

19. Why? • Sometimes I know the correct form and know that my partner's form is wrong, but I don't know why it is technically wrong, and therefore unable to give a technical explanation of why it is wrong... For me, I found it easiest to simply say the correct form in response. (Learner of Japanese in the U.S.) • The third one [recast] was easy because I could correct my partner without interrupting the conversation. (Learner of English in Japan) 18

20. Why? (Cont.) • The one I checked [recast] was easy because I got what he was trying to say, and I put it into a more correct English sentence. It was more difficult for me to repeat errors because I would just correct them on the fly. (Learner of Japanese in the U.S.) • I usually tried to say the correct form in response but sometimes my partner did not pick up on it. In that case I would explicitly correct her, which was usually easier. (Learner of Japanese in the U.S.) 19

21. LEARNER BELIEFIndividual Data Most JFL learners in the U.S. changed beliefs while most EFL learners in Japan did not Two types of participants observed: (i) Those who prefer the same feedback type for both giving and receiving and (ii) Those who prefer a more/less explicit feedback method in giving than in receiving 20

22. DISCUSSION: RQ1 • RQ1: How do telecollaborators’ beliefs in corrective feedback change over a semester? • The majority of learners prefer to get corrected throughout the semester • Many changed beliefs in preference for recasts early in the semester • Many learners expressed challenging experience in using non-recast feedback • ⇒ “Feedback-uptake adjacency pairs” (Lyster & Ranta, 1997) may not be natural in telecollaboration 21

23. DISCUSSION: RQ1 (Cont.) Recast is pedagogically “expeditious, less threatening to student confidence, and less intrusive to the flow of interaction” (p. 551). Recast differs from explicit correction in that the former remains focused on form while the latter requires a shift of attention from meaning to form. (Loewen & Philp, 2006) • More about Recasts: • Recast was considered immediate, least intrusive, and easy to give • Several participants also shed light on the time-saving aspect of recast • Time pressures and institutional constraints may have influenced participants’ interpersonal contact (Ware, 2004) 22

24. RQ2 & 3: INTERACTION DATA (in Japanese; 6 pairs) Stage I Stage II Mid-project survey 23

25. 24 Lyster& Ranta, 1997

26. RQ2: Beliefs and Practices in Giving Corrective Feedback 25

27. DISCUSSION: RQ2 • RQ2: What is the relationship between beliefs and practices regarding corrective feedback? • Native speakers of Japanese (NSJ) rarely used pedagogical types of feedback (i.e. elicitation, metalinguistic feedback, repetition, or clarification request) • Focus on communication over form? • ⇔ Beliefs • The majority of experienced collaborators in Japan did not provide corrective feedback more than half the time • “Tutor” style vs. “Partner-and-play” style? • Identity construction I always felt that there should be a better way to help my partner, but I believe that our conversation went well thanks to the creative tasks and my partner’s diligent effort to express himself. Such attitudes actually changed me as a tutor and that became my motivation to assist his learning. (Naoki) 26

28. RQ3: Beliefs and Successful Uptake 27

29. DISCUSSION: RQ3 • RQ3: What is the relationship between learner beliefs and the rate of uptake? • 6/6 JFL learners most successfully repaired feedback that was provided through the method that aligned with one’s belief • Kartchava and Ammar (2013) • The six learners correctly incorporated about half of the recasts; The rate of uptake was sometimes higher when feedback was given through recasts than when explicitly corrected • ⇔ Lyster & Ranta(1997) • → Mackey (2012) 28

30. CONCLUSION • Recasts considered most preferable: Immediate, least intrusive, time-saving, and easy to give • → Training participants to give recasts? • Participants in educational telecollaboration projects are in a paradoxical situation: Focus on form (“Tutor”) vs. Focus on communication (“Partner/Friend”) • → One-shot corrective feedback workshop may not be enough • → Focus-on-form activities before and after a Skype session • → Tasks that naturally prompt focus on form & cultural exchange • Beliefs influence the rate of uptake • → Discussing one’s favorite way to give and receive feedback? 29

31. LIMITATIONS • Limited number of data coded thus far (N = 6 pairs) • Only one language analyzed thus far • Only first 30 errors analyzed • → (a) Increase the number of errors • → (b) Increase the number of participants • Belief survey not detailed enough • → (a) c.f. Kartchava & Ammar, 2013 • → (b) Interviews, diaries/reflective journal • Effects of task types not considered • Effects of error types not considered 30

32. Gracias!Questions? • Yuka Akiyama • ya125@georgetown.edu

33. REFERENCES • Appel, C., & Gilabert, R. (2002). Motivation and task performance in a task-based web-based tandem project. ReCALL, 14, 16-31. • Belz, J. A. (2007). The role of computer mediation in the instruction and development of L2 pragmatic competence. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 45-75. • Blake, R. (2006). Language, culture, and identity in online fanfiction. E-learning, 3, 170-184. • Bower, J., & Kawaguchi, S. (2011). Negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in Japanese/English eTandem. Language Learning and Technology, 15(1). 41-71. • Cziko, G. (2004). Electronic Tandem Language Learning (eTandem): A Third Approach to Second Language Learning for the 21st Century. CALICO Journal, 22(1): 25-39. • Levy, M., & Kennedy, C. (2004). A task-cycling pedagogy using stimulated reflection and audio-conferencing in foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 8(2), 50-69. • Sauro, S. (2013). The cyber language exchange: Cross-national computer-mediated interaction. In McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (Eds.), Second Language Interaction in Diverse Educational Contexts (pp. 129-146). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. • Schwienhorst, K. (2000). Virtual reality and learner autonomy in second language acquisition. Unpublished manuscript, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. • Vinagre, M., & Muñoz, B. (2011). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and language accuracy in telecollaborative exchanges. Language Learning & Technology, 15(1), 72-103. • Ware, P., & O’Dowd, R. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 43-63.