1 / 14

Corrective Feedback in the Chatroom: An experimental study

Corrective Feedback in the Chatroom: An experimental study. Presenter: Chen, Yu-Chu Advisor: Chen, Ming-Puu Date: 2008 Nov.3. Loewen, S. & Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 19 (1), 1-14. Introduction- cmc.

kailey
Download Presentation

Corrective Feedback in the Chatroom: An experimental study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Corrective Feedback in the Chatroom: An experimental study Presenter: Chen, Yu-Chu Advisor: Chen, Ming-Puu Date: 2008 Nov.3 Loewen, S. & Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 1-14.

  2. Introduction- cmc • It is increasingly acknowledged that creating opportunities for students to interact has important consequences for second language acquisition. • Abrams (2003) :CMC is more interactive than the classroom.(CMC, computer-mediated communication) • However, students in the chatroom may payless attention to linguistic form. Also, less time to review their written messages. • Planned or incidental feedback of correcting errors would have benefits.

  3. Introduction- CALL • Nagata (1993): Metalinguistic explanations feedback was more effective. • Sanz (2004): no difference between explicit and implicit feedback which had students work at input processing activities. • Less negative feedback and uptake provided in CMC than in face-to-face verbal interaction. • Research gap of CMC: • Types of facilitating learning in online interaction. • Long-term retention of Grammar forms emphasized?

  4. Introduction- feedback • Negative feedback was defined as recasts and negotiation of meaning. • Feedback in this study to response errors: • Recast (Implicit feedback) • Metalinguistic information (explicit feedback)

  5. Introduction- research questions • The present study replicates the treatment of the Ellis et al. (2006) face-to-face study in a synchronous CMC environment • Does corrective feedback on English regular past tense during online meaning-focused tasks lead to an increase in learners’ performance on timed and untimed grammaticality judgment tests? • Is there a difference in the effectiveness of more implicit and more explicit types of feedback?

  6. Method- participants • The study used a quasi-experimental design involving a pre-test, treatment and two post-tests. • 31 L2 low intermediate students from English class at a private language school in New Zealand

  7. Method- target structure • English regular past tense was chosen. • Reasons: • Easy to elicit from students in meaning-focused tasks. • Easy to compare with previous face-to-face study. • Relatively new to the learners. • The regular teachers didn’t teach regular past tense, and it was to ensure that regular past tense did not appear on the students’ instructional syllabus.

  8. Method- instructional material • Students completed two “focused tasks” activities and both are satisfied Ellis’s criteria. • The first task Students have a set of same four pictures with different narratives. Then pictures are left and a set of verbs given for them to retell story and discuss. • The Second task Each students received one of two sets of nine pics with Gavin or peter on day off. Then they gotta take turns telling and identify thee things the same.

  9. Method- instructional procedures

  10. Method- testing instruments and procedures • GJTs (Grammaticality Judgment Tests) Consists of 23 items, 8 distracters and 15 targeting regular past tense; and placed in random order. • Timed, depending on the length of the items. • Untimed.

  11. Method- analysis • Descriptive statistics were calculated for past tense items for both GJTs. • Repeated measures ANOVA was performed to determine if there were significant differences among the groups.

  12. Results

  13. Discussion • Reasons: • the learners were not at a developmental stage in which they were ready to learn past tense. • the reduced immediacy of the feedback that the students received. • the lack/reduced incidence of uptake in response to feedback. • the struggle that the instructor had at times in keeping the students on task.

  14. Conclusion • This study has extended that research, enhanced understanding of interaction and provides some insights. • whether thedifference between the chatroom and face-to-face contexts is responsible for thedifference in results between the two studies. Further investigation in which thesevariables are controlled is warranted. • L2 proficiency are able to perform communicative tasks in the chatroom, which suggests that CMC will continue to be a fruitful venue of teaching and research for learners of all levels.

More Related