Opportunities for Corrective Feedback During Study Abroad: A Mixed Methods Approach

Bryfonski, Lara; Sanz, Cristina

doi:10.1017/s0267190518000016

Cited by 31 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 83 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, information exchange rather than linguistic accuracy was the priority in COIL communication. Students might not have noticed errors (Bryfonski and Sanz, 2018 ; Peace, 2019 ). Second, pointing out others' errors might undermine social interaction, an important aspect of the sociality of autonomous learning (Lewis, 2013 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

When Different Language Groups Meet Online: Covert and Overt Focus on Form in Text-Based Chats

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Focus on form has been extensively studied in text-based online dyadic chats but much less has been explored in group chats with interlocutors from different language backgrounds. Additionally, there are very few studies investigating covert focus on form. This study investigated the effects of interlocutor types on errors and focus on form episodes, both covert and overt, in text-based online group chats. We collected chat logs from two collaborative online international learning projects. One project was developed for the collaboration between an English course at a Chinese university and an art history course at a U.S. university; the other between another cohort of the same English course and a cultural studies course at a Mexican university. We compared errors, feedback, and other characteristics of focus on form episodes between the two projects. Analyses revealed significant differences in characteristics such as overtness (overt, covert), linguistic focus (mechanical, lexical, and grammatical), and source (code, message). However, no significant differences were found for the type of focus on form (preemptive, reactive), presence of uptake, uptake quality (successful, unsuccessful), and repair provider (self, other). Students showed a preference for self-repair over other-repair and for lexical focus over mechanical and grammatical foci in both projects. Overall, only a small proportion of errors were followed by feedback. Therefore, a small amount of uptake and successful uptake occurred in both projects. The results can shed light on how instructors could provide effective scaffolding and tasks to make virtual exchange projects more rewarding.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

When Different Language Groups Meet Online: Covert and Overt Focus on Form in Text-Based Chats

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This could be found in direct measures such as recordings of interactions, found in some small-scale, qualitative case studies (Mitchell, 2021). Examples include studies of interactions with sojourners' host families (e.g., Kinginger et al, 2016;McMeekin, 2017), language exchanges (Bryfonski & Sanz, 2018;Fernández, 2016;Fernández-García & Martínez-Arbelaiz, 2014), service encounters (Ning, 2020;Shively, 2018) and relatively unstructured leisure talk (Behrent, 2007;Hasegawa, 2019;Kinginger & Wu, 2018). However, interaction involving short-term sojourners in academic sites such as university classrooms has been little studied.…”

Section: Input: Influence and Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can variation in input explain variation in typical spoken target-language features during study abroad?

Thomas

Mitchell

2022

Journal of the European Second Language Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many studies have confirmed the belief that a stay abroad (SA) is beneficial for second language (L2) development. However, substantial variation in learning outcomes has long been acknowledged. Research has identified a range of factors that explain variability in target-language development. However, few studies have focused on the linguistic characteristics of the overall L2 input available to SA participants. In this study, we examine the role of the input situation during SA, in explaining variation in typical spoken language features. We will present six case studies from the longitudinal LANGSNAP corpus of French L2 learners at a university in the United Kingdom, who undertook a two-semester SA in France. For each participant, we established an input profile based on data from questionnaires and interviews collected before, during and following SA. The analysis of learner production over time examined three typical French spoken-language phenomena: The negative particle ne, the pronoun on as a first-person-plural subject and discourse markers. Since these phenomena are variable in both formal and informal French, we compared the learners' production to variation found in three different reference corpora. Overall, results show a convincing relationship between the ongoing input situation and the production of typical spoken language features. Analyses of the reference corpora show differences in the proportions of the studied phenomena according to the level of formality of language use. For the L2 learners, limited engagement in everyday and informal interaction in French corresponds to a weaker use of the phenomena.

show abstract

“…Similarly, Bryfonski and Sanz (2018) analysed dyad and small group conversations between American SA participants and Spanish conversation partners, recorded on three successive occasions over a six-week period. Following their return to the home institution, the SA participants completed short individual tests, focusing on lexis and grammar which had been the focus of negotiation and feedback during the recorded conversations, as well as stimulated recall interviews.…”

Section: Analysing Data: the Ih Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…• interactions with host families in homestay settings; see, for example, Diao et al, 2018;chapters in DuFon and Churchill, 2006;Kinginger, 2015;Kinginger et al, 2016aKinginger et al, , 2016bLee and Kinginger, 2016;Lee et al, 2017;McMeekin, 2017;Pryde, 2014;Shively, 2015Shively, , 2018bWilkinson, 1998Wilkinson, , 2002; • • leisure interactions with local or international peers in halls of residence and student lounges see, for example, Behrent, 2007;Diao, 2014aDiao, , 2016Hasegawa, 2019;Kinginger and Wu, 2018; • • conversations with language partners see, for example, Bryfonski and Sanz, 2018;Fernández, 2013Fernández, , 2016Fernández-García and Martínez-Arbelaiz, 2014;Kasper and Kim, 2015;Kurata, 2011;Ning, 2020;Shively, 2015Shively, , 2018b; • • service encounters see, for example, Diaz et al, 2018;Ning, 2020;Shively, 2011Shively, , 2018b; • • online interactions see, for example, Back, 2013;Diao, 2014b;Kurata, 2011. This selection of settings needs some comment, as it clearly does not represent the full range of SA "domains of practice". Partly for reasons of access and audio quality, but also perhaps seeking domains where participants are most likely to make sustained interactional contributions in L2, there is a focus on small group or dyadic interaction, and on fixed settings (no parties, no evening outings or touristic excursions).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Documenting L2 input and interaction during study abroad: Approaches, instruments and challenges

Mitchell

2021

Second Language Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A major rationale for study abroad (SA) from the perspective of second language acquisition is the presumed opportunity available to sojourners for naturalistic second language (L2) “immersion”. However, such opportunities are affected by variations in the linguistic, institutional and social affordances of SA, in different settings. They are also affected by the varying agency and motivation of sojourners in seeking second language (L2) engagement. For example, many sojourners prioritize mastering informal L2 speech, while others prioritize academic and professional registers including writing. Most will operate multilingually, using their home language, a local language, and/or English as lingua franca for different purposes, and the types of input they seek out, and language practices they enter into, vary accordingly. Consequently, while researchers have developed varied approaches to documenting L2 engagement, and have tried to relate these to measures of L2 development, these efforts have so far seen somewhat mixed success. This article reviews different approaches to documenting SA input and interaction; first, that of participant self-report, using questionnaires, interviews, journals, or language logs. Particular attention is paid to the popular Language Contact Profile (LCP), and to approaches drawing on Social Network Analysis. The limitations of all forms of self-report are acknowledged. The article also examines the contribution of direct observation and recording of L2 input and interaction during SA. This is a significant alternative approach for the study of acquisition, but one which poses theoretical, ethical and practical challenges. Researchers have increasingly enlisted participants as research collaborators who create small corpora through self-recording with L2 interlocutors. Analyses in this tradition have so far prioritized interactional, pragmatic and sociocultural development, in learner corpora, over other dimensions of second language acquisition (SLA). The theoretical and practical challenges of corpus creation in SA settings and their wider use to promote understandings of informal L2 learning are discussed.

show abstract

Opportunities for Corrective Feedback During Study Abroad: A Mixed Methods Approach

Cited by 31 publications

References 83 publications

When Different Language Groups Meet Online: Covert and Overt Focus on Form in Text-Based Chats

When Different Language Groups Meet Online: Covert and Overt Focus on Form in Text-Based Chats

Can variation in input explain variation in typical spoken target-language features during study abroad?

Documenting L2 input and interaction during study abroad: Approaches, instruments and challenges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About