Focus-on-form through peer feedback in a Spanish–American telecollaborative exchange

Abstract

Using a reactive approach to focus-on-form, this study explored the types of feedback and strategies that L2 learners used to draw attention to linguistic problems in a Spanish-American telecollaborative exchange. Data from the readily available transcripts of online postings were utilised and analysed to report the findings. The results showed that the American students produced a much higher rate of lexical and morphosyntactic feedback than did the students from Spain, while the latter used a much greater percentage of affective feedback than their US partners. The Spanish students tended to use reformulations as a quick way to provide target-like forms, whereas the US students offered metalinguistic explanations to help their partners understand sophisticated lexical items and grammatical structures. Despite the fact that both groups received valuable linguistic feedback from their native speaker partners, most of the students did not make error corrections. The study concludes that error correction in a message board might not be a good format for meaningful feedback. Furthermore, specific instructions of how to effectively attend to feedback in conjunction with appropriate training should have been made available for L2 learners.

The role of telecollaboration in language and intercultural learning: A synthesis of studies published between 2010 and 2015

“…Although the studies focused overall on language and intercultural learning, they exhibited varied interests in terms of their aims in designing and implementing their telecollaborative tasks. Various aims were to provide peer feedback, corrective feedback, and error correction (Lee, 2011; Lee & Markey, 2014; Vinagre & Muñoz, 2011), to tutor language learners (Angelova & Zhao, 2016 [2014]), to improve techno-pedagogical skills (Bueno-Alastuey & Kleban, 2016 [2014]), to analyze interaction patterns (Ware, 2013; Ware & Kessler, 2016 [2014]), to trace openings and closings in computer-mediated communication (CMC) Zhang (2014), to scrutinize technical, linguistic, and educational hegemonies (Helm, Guth & Farrah, 2012), to examine contradictions in online collaboration (Antoniadou, 2011), to investigate the processes involved in the design and implementation of a telecollaborative project (Dooly, 2011), and to analyze linguistic features of the discourse of participants (Liaw & Bunn-Le Master, 2010).…”

“…As interactions with people from diverse backgrounds could be an efficient way to observe authentic language use and to practice existing intercultural communicative skills, telecollaborative learning helped participants take advantage of the authenticity and improve their oral skills in the target languages (Angelova & Zhao, 2016 [2014]; Canto et al ., 2013; Chen & Yang, 2016 [2014]). In addition, language learners also had a better understanding of lexicon and grammatical structures of the target languages (Angelova & Zhao, 2016 [2014]; Lee, 2011; Pérez Cañado, 2010).…”

A study of learners’ perceptions of online intercultural exchange through Web 2.0 technologies

“…Over the last two decades, L2 research across different CMC conditions has been conducted and distinct learning outcomes have been reported in edited collections (Belz & Thorne, 2006; Guth & Helm, 2010; Levy & Stockwell, 2006; O’Dowd, 2007). Affordances of intercultural exchange include linguistic gains (Belz, 2007; Dussias, 2006; Lee, 2011a; Ware & O’Dowd, 2008), pragmatic awareness (Chun, 2011; Kinginger & Belz, 2005; Stockwell & Stockwell, 2003), intercultural competence (Hauck, 2007; Lee, 2012; Schenker, 2012), and increased motivation and autonomy (Lee, 2011b; O’Rourke, 2005; Ware, 2005). In spite of these beneficial effects, pitfalls have been reported, such as intercultural misunderstandings (O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006; Ware & Kramsch, 2005), institutional constraints, misalignment of academic calendars, and scheduling conflicts (Belz & Müller-Hartmann, 2003; Lee, 2009).…”

The Effect of Indirect Written Corrective Feedback to Arabic Language Intermediate Students’ in Kuwait

“…The focus of the students' research on written corrective feedback varies, with some focus on form (Bruton, 2009, Lee, 2011, Kao, 2013, Long, 1996. Others focus on the oral feedback on specific linguistic features (Lyster, 2004, Han, 2002, as well as focussing on the feedback writing collaboration (Wigglesworth and Storch, 2012), whereas some studies offer explicit written corrective feedback (Yilmaz, 2012, Santos et al, 2010, Bitchener and Knoch, 2009).…”