Corrective feedback via instant Messenger Learning activities in NS-NNS and NNS-NNS dyads. (Summary)

Internet and specifically online chat services such as Yahoo instant messenger have gained remarkable attention from SLA researchers given that more and more people are using these tools to talk with one another and keep in touch everyday irrespective of either the place or the distance where they are located at the moment of the conversation. Interested in the fact that people can also learn to speak foreign languages if certain conditions meet, Susana Sotillo decides to investigate corrective feedback through a series of activities that NS and NNS have to perform in their computers during five forty-five minute collaborative sessions.  Organized between NS-NNS and NNS-NNS, the students and teachers have to write messages, solve technical problems, see each other and discuss the topics given by the researcher such as commenting on a movie or talk about their lives. 

As a summary, the research questions of this investigation pointed out to learn about: 

1) The existence of error correction in this type of interaction:  The researcher proves the existence of feedback during the development of the activities. 

2) The number of correction provided by NS and NNS teachers: In the table 2, it is possible to see in a statistic way that NNS-NNS tend to correct more than NS-NSS. The nature of their correction is explained below.

3) The type of error corrections (Implicit / explicit): NNS usually employ explicit corrective feedback whereas NS prefer using implicit corrective feedback.  

4) The type of language aspect targeted by the teachers: Grammar and vocabulary are the two most important aspects considered by the teachers to correct. Pronunciation is relegated to the least considered aspect of correction.

5) The existence of successful uptake during the ECEs:  The table 3 shows that there are 24 occurrences of successful uptake.  

6) The complexity of the moves in the correction: In the table 3, the data shows that the length of error corrections tends to be simple in both groups.  

Some things that I learned from this article were:

• It’s possible to provide corrective feedback to language learning students using this tool.  In fact there is clear evidence of effective use of recast and successful uptake.  If one decided to teach a student this way, it would help to implement the same conditions to guarantee learning.

• NNS teachers use more explicit correction than NS teachers.

• NS teachers tend to avoid being explicit at the time of correcting.  Most of the corrective feedback they provide is implicit. They use recast, ask for repetition or ignore the error to privilege communication.

• Yahoo instant messenger (and probably other online chat services) requires a broad-band internet connection to work properly.  Features such as the video streaming or the voice recording fail if these conditions do not meet. 
• The sample shows that grammar errors are the most important aspect of correction and almost no attention is given to pronunciation. 

SOURCE

Sotillo, S. (2013). Corrective feedback via instant messenger learning activities in NS-NNS and NNS-NNS dyads. CALICO journal, 22(3), 467-496.

Summary: Input, Interaction and Output by Gass & Selinker (2001)

Input

When learning a second/ foreign language, the first thing people are exposed to is input, that is, any type of language that a learner is exposed to. Behaviorist linguistics used to think that the answer for language learning success was external to the individual and therefore it was a learner’s duty was to get as much exposure as possible to learn a second language. The understanding of learning back then was interpreted as mere exposure and imitation. Successful learners would eventually “pick up the language” through hard work and constant practice.  After Noam Chomsky’s universal grammar breakthrough, researchers quickly shifted their focus on the learning processes that occurred inside the brain, leaving behind all attempt to demonstrate that the answer for language acquisition was in the corpus. A new era had begun and a new definition was shaped for the term input thereon. Corder in 1967 made a distinction between input and intake. The first being considered by current applied linguistics as the language available that a learner hears or receives from which is possible to learn, and the latter as the language which is internalized.

Krashen in 1985 would present his “input hypothesis” in which he claims that  second language learners can acquire a L2 “by understanding messages or by receiving comprehensible input”. Input that needs to be I +1 meaning slightly more advanced for the learner’s level of language proficiency.  The reason is that the available input that has not been internalized yet is the only one that can alter the current language learner’s grammar. This is based on a basic learning principle, If the available information is totally known by the learner, no learning beyond the current developmental stage takes place.  Krashen’s input hypothesis claims that output is the result of acquisition and acquisition a consequence of sufficient internalized input.  

In my opinion, this hypothesis is effective in explaining why L1 language learners go through a silent period before they utter their first sentences. Babies do it because there is no available language information in their brains (apart from the learning device) to what they can resort when there is a need for communication. They have to be exposed to the language until they have internalized enough input.   In the case of second language learners, there is linguistic information already available other than the target language, so it would be questionable to claim that this type of learners need to go through a silent period as L1 learners do. In fact, as a teacher, you can take advantage of this prior information to have your ESL/ EFL students produce language from day one. 

Comprehension. 

Understanding and to be understood is what guarantees the success of communication. Trouble in understanding messages generally occur when native and nonnative speakers cannot grasp what they mean due to their pronunciation, vocabulary choice and grammar among other language aspects.

One area of difficulty is pronunciation. Even if the sentences produced by the NNS are grammatically accurate, a failure in pronunciation can cause a change in the meaning of an utterance or unable the understanding of it.  The same happens with non-target-like word choice or grammar errors. What of these aspects is more relevant for the authors?  Their opinion suggests that grammar is less important than pronunciation and vocabulary.  Why have they made this conclusion? The authors explain that there is more limited number of grammar possibilities as opposed to vocabulary items or possible pronunciations.

Notwithstanding the aspects abovementioned, some people have developed an ability to understand NNS’s utterances irrespective of the difficulty because they have experience in talking with them.  One of these abilities is using backchannel cues to understand. Nods, gestures, indications or simple sound expressions such as “uh, uh” can help NNS comprehend their utterances were understood or not.  The ability to fill the missing information or negotiate meaning other ways of facilitating communication, especially if both speakers have some shared background knowledge. 

As I have observed in my experience as a former student teacher, there is still a great concern on grammatical correctness. An example of this took place some years ago when a teacher following a notion-functional methodology decided to lower his student’s speaking presentation grade because the student made several unimportant mistakes that did not interfere with communication. The explanation for this demotivating experience for the learner is merely based on behaviorist perspectives of language acquisition that consider it as something negative; a product of the lack of practice.  In terms of evaluation, one should consider the way in which communication takes places regarding the use of linguistic and paralinguistic elements so as to achieve it. 

Interaction 

When two or more people communicate with each other, they are involved in a type of interaction.  The interaction hypothesis claims that language acquisition takes place through meaningful interaction. Unlike the input hypothesis, this considers language production from an early stage.

According to the authors, interaction involves three concepts: negotiation, recast and feedback.   The first one according to teachingenglish.org is “a process that speakers go through to reach a clear understanding of each other”  The second: recasts is a type of negative feedback in which there is always involved a more competent interlocutor that reformulates incorrect or incomplete utterances. Moreover, the objective of this type of feedback is to draw the less competent interlocutor’s attention to the form being corrected.  Finally, the latter: feedback refers to any information that learners receive explicitly or implicitly concerning their performance in the L2.  

Susana Sotillo in a study of corrective feedback via instant messenger concluded that competent NNS when providing feedback to less proficient NNS tend to give explicit metacognitive explanations in the TL, usually focusing on grammar correctness whereas NS to NSS tend to correct implicitly, focusing on meaning rather than on form (Negotiation of meaning generally) 

Output 

This term refers to the language a learner produces which can be spoken or written.  According to the output hypothesis, Swain (1985) language acquisition not only occurs when there is comprehensible input but also comprehensible output.  The effort that the learners make to communicate with other interlocutors pushes them to a position that forces them to notice aspects of their performance that would not see in other way. This eventually leads to acquisition.

I agree with Swain (1985) on his claim that “comprehensible output” is crucial for SLA because it rejects partially the input hypothesis without objecting its usefulness and importance, and it takes into account the need for production the learners have when they want to learn how to communicate effectively in the TG. In a speaking lesson I prepared for 4^th grade students in 2013, I considered the fact that they were not empty recipients of information, but active learners who could speak despite their low proficiency in the L2. How did it work? I started by providing a set of words on the whiteboard (Toys, fruits, sports, animal related vocabulary) my students could use to talk about their likes and dislikes. After a moment of preparation, the students formed pairs and began talking. To my satisfaction, they were able to maintain a conversation in English regardless of their low proficiency level. Of course, their output was not absent of errors, but they achieved to made themselves understood. I confirmed the apparent success of the activity when my students stated they understood each other. 

Feedback

This concept can be defined as any information that allows an individual to modify his “behavior”   There are two types of feedback: explicit feedback which is stating that there is a problem and implicit feedback: not mentioning there is a problem, but using strategies to make the interlocutor aware of their errors or mistakes.

Negotiation

It can be understood as a set of strategies used to enable interlocutors to communicate with each other successfully by focusing on incorrect utterances. Some examples of negotiation of meaning are: foreign talk, paralinguistic elements, language speed modification and implicit feedback providing.  Swain and Selinker (2001) express these strategies take part in a constant restructuring of linguistic knowledge. 

Recast. 

It is a type of implicit feedback which is provided by a more proficient language user who replaces (by changing a problematic feature) a wrong utterance for a correct one.  The authors mention that the effectiveness of recast has not been confirmed yet since research in the field has shown mixed results.

Automaticity. 

It is the ability to process information which involves “no effort or need for attention”

The role of input and interaction in language learning.

Input plays a fundamental role in language teaching since it provides the data learners are exposed to. This also contains the information the student need to process from input to output to develop automaticity.  Among the most important assumptions the authors evidence are: 

·         Adults tend to receive more correction than children.

·         Syntax can develop out of a conversation.

·         Negotiation of meaning can facilitate acquisition.

·         Effective learning takes place during interaction.

·         Conversation stimulates later learning.  It has positive effects on motivation.

·         Negotiation might direct a focus on the correct form which may lead to a successful uptake and therefore development in language acquisition.

·         There are mixed opinions related to the role of interaction in SLA.  The issue continues to be discussed. 

Attention. 

This is the ability to concentrate on a language feature which, according to the interaction hypothesis, plays a major role in language acquisition.  Examples of attention directing occur during a negotiation of meaning episode in which the learners need to focus on a linguistic form in order to communicate intended meaning. 

 

Conclusion

Even though great progress has been made in the field of SLA, there is still  much work to do to find new supportive evidence that allows researchers come to an agreement regarding how input is processed, produced and modified.

Whereas input hypothesis suggests learners should focus on meaning limiting their production until they feel linguistically prepared, the output hypothesis claims that languages can be acquired through meaningful interaction which involves meaning processing and output production on early stages of language acquisition.   As language teachers, the information presented in this article is absolutely valuable to understand how different perspectives in SLA can help open up our minds to employ more teaching styles and communicative strategies to help our students overcome their difficulties to communicate effectively. 

Comment: “Task-based language teaching: what every teacher should do” by Murat Hismanoglu and Sibel Hismanoglu.

          The author is careful with presenting TBLT as a constructivist language teaching approach that is recent, challenging, and innovative and can be used as a complement to more traditional language teaching methodologies. This somehow opens a possibility for more conservative language teachers to try this approach without rejecting their own personal beliefs.   

       First, the author starts by defining the concept of task according to several authors among which Nunan (1989), Skehan (1998) and Ellis (2003) are mentioned. A thorough comparison among their three approaches to TBLT is made which states beforehand that there is no absolute agreement in the way TBLT should be presented, however: it is emphasized that teaching a language in context using real world language and focusing on meaning are key. As far as this point, the subtle but important differences in the perspectives of this approach leave room for open discussion.  From this point onwards, the authors would focus on the characteristics that these three perspectives share which make the current consensus of TBLT approach. 

      This approach may present a challenge for those teachers whose view of effective language teaching has been shaped by their own successful experiences in learning and teaching the language. This may raise the question: why would this approach contribute to improve the current teaching practices? Since the name of the article is “Task-based language teaching: what every teacher should do” the author should have included examples of successful full or complementary TBLT implementation in the EFL classroom. Instead, the authors limit to mention the benefits and challenges of this approach, the roles of the teachers and the students and some useful recommendations such as “be familiar to the logic and purpose behind doing tasks” or “be engaged in the design of the task materials”. Even though it is clear that the aim of this article is neither providing a guide for language teachers to implement TBLT nor persuading them, the title seems to be ambitious for what it really offers: a well- organized article that achieves to define TBLT, explain its background and its main characteristics.  It is definitely a suitable starting point for non-familiarized teachers.

Source

Hismanoglu, M; & Hismanoglu, S (2011) “What every teacher should do” Elsevier Social and Behavioral Sciences.