120 likes | 323 Views
TANDEM LANGUAGE LEARNING THROUGH A CROSS-CULTURAL KEYPAL PROJECT. Kaoro Kabata , Univeristy of Alberta, Canada Yasuyo Edasawa , Doshisa Woman’s College, Japan. Why “Keypal Project” ?. Penpal ? Regular Project between two universities Opportunities for cultural and language learning
E N D
TANDEM LANGUAGE LEARNING THROUGH A CROSS-CULTURAL KEYPAL PROJECT Kaoro Kabata, Univeristy of Alberta, Canada Yasuyo Edasawa, Doshisa Woman’s College, Japan
Why “Keypal Project”? • Penpal ? • Regular Project between two universities • Opportunities for cultural and language learning • Ideal opportunity for incidental learning • Message exchanges on adiscussion board
Types of research • Semi-classroom based research • Quantitative research
Data Collection • Canadian students (UA) were required to report learning notes 4 times about WHAT they learned and HOW. see • Their reports will be graded in their learning course. • Japanese students (DWC) were just asked but not required to report what they learned, noticed and corrected their partners. • 370 entries were collected from UA students and 67 entries from DWCs
Data founded Reported by UA students Reported by DWC students back
Results • As reported by UA students • Linguistic items learned are • Vocabulary(55%) • Grammar (22%) • Expression (17%) • Kanji (6%) • Preferred learning styles are • Others (57%) • With explicit error correction (31%) • Learn through Q&A (6%) • Without explicit error correction (5%)
Results • Notice: DWC students were not assigned to report all of what they found so the data would not match with from UA students. • Explicit error correction is provided 29 times with 18 times of recognition (the recognition information is correspond with 13 entries reported by UAs) • Implicit error correction is provided 13 times with 0 times of recognition • Other errors were found 20 times but no correction provided
Data analysis • UA data indicated that non-explicit correction may not lead to learning as often as explicit correction. • DWC data showed that UA students often failed to recognize their errors without explicit correction. • However, UA data also yielded that implicit correction and correction through negotiation could lead to better understanding of their errors when they noticed. see
Comments • Wrong information
Limitations • Limited information • Weak argument • Possible problematic variable • Data Collection see