Introduc0on Data collec0on Results Discussion

EUROSLA 2011 University of Stockholm Focus on Form in Group-­‐to-­‐Group Videoconferencing Makiko Hoshii (Tokyo) & Nicole Schumacher (Berlin) Introduc)on Focus on Form (FoF): “drawing students’ aWenLon to language as object […] in Main focus of research so far: -­‐ FoF in face-­‐to-­‐face classrooms / dyads (cf. Doughty & Williams (eds.) 1998, Ellis (ed.) 2001, Fotos & Nassaji (eds.) 2007, Schixo 2011) and in desktop videoconferencing (cf. Wang 2006) -­‐ intercultural learning through authenLc interacLon in group-­‐to-­‐group videoconferencing (cf. O’Dowd 2000, 03, Schlickau 2000, 01, Grasmück 2004, Shigematsu et al. 2006) Videoconferencing: -­‐ one type of communicaLon between human beings via a computer context […] during otherwise meaning based lessons” (Long 2007: 17) Pedagogical purpose of reac)ve focus on form: “negaLve feedback […] can make input data more salient and help learners noLce the gap between their own producLon and the target” (Williams 2008: 686) -­‐Recast: “reformulaLon of the whole or part of learner’s uWerance without changing its meaning” (Sheen 2004: 278) -­‐Elicita)on: “quesLon aimed at eliciLng the correct form aaer a learner has produced an erroneous uWerance” (Ellis 22008: 228) -­‐ Uptake: “learners’ immediate response following feedback” (Sheen 2006: 367) either verbally or nonverbally network (computer-­‐mediated communicaLon, CMC) -­‐ oral, visual, synchronous, Lme and place dependent (cf. Wang 2004) -­‐ (in our seSng) many to many communicaLon: learner to naLve speaker / prospecLve instructor -­‐ two (or more) places of communicaLon, two (and more) spaces of communicaLon (cf. Hoshii & Schumacher 2010) Are FoF techniques feasible in group-­‐to-­‐group videoconferencing? (1) Which FoF techniques are employed? (2) How oaen are they employed? (3) How oaen do they lead to learner uptake? (4) Can they complement the overall goal of intercultural learning by potenLally promoLng noLcing? Data collec)on Project “Videoconferences Waseda-­‐Humboldt” (cf. Hoshii & Schumacher 2010) Par)cipants 5 Japanese learners of GFL in Tokyo and 4 students of GFL in Berlin Data -­‐ recordings and transcripLons of 5 videoconferences (April -­‐ July 2010) -­‐ recordings and transcripLons of sLmulated recall interviews with the Japanese parLcipants -­‐ essays of all parLcipants 1. Classifying 3 types of interac)on in our videoconferences (all within the framework of communicaLon about the topics of the conference) 1. Types of interac)on Min. 90.0 83.8 77.5 80.0 Spontaneous interac)on: interacLon with primarily spontaneous uWerances on both sides -­‐ Prepared, primarily monological contribu)ons: interacLon based on short presentaLons by parLcipants on both sides -­‐ Planned explicit error correc)ons: interacLon based on erroneous learner uWerances of the previous videoconference 82.8 69.3 70.0 76.3 60.0 49.8 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 2. Analysing the FoF-­‐techniques within the spontaneous interac)on and the explicit error correc)ons spontaneous interacLon 64.0 37.8 33.0 28.5 14.8 13.0 17.3 3.8 0.0 5.0 0.0 1. geSng to 2. capital ciLes know each other 04/26/2010 05/17/2010 37.8 15.5 13.8 10.5 0.0 8.5 3.8 0.0 0.0 17.0 6.5 5.5 4.0 3. media 4. food 5. travelling 06/07/2010 06/24/2010 07/05/2010 prepared, primarily monological contribuLons (German students) prepared, primarily monological contribuLons (Japanese students) planned explicit error correcLon rest Results Example a: recast with uptake: “Wohnwagen” (“mobile home”) J3: hm. ich will mit äh camp campingwagen‘ campwagen hm. I want with äh camp campingcar‘ campcar D4: wohnwagen. mobile home. J3: ah wohn wohnenwagen” ah mobile mobilecar D1: wohnwagen. mobile home J3: //wohnwagen. //mobile home. (videoconference 5“travelling“.7-­‐5-­‐10, 01:07:34-­‐01:07:54) I: Could you understand in the end which form was correct? Did you understand it last week? J 1: Yes, I understood. 2. Frequency of FoF-­‐techniques 25 23 20 15 10 10 7 5 5 0 6 3 3 0 4 2 0 2 2 0 1. geSng to 2. capital know each ciLes other 4 2 5 3 2 3 Example b: recast without uptake: “aufs Gymnasium” (“to secondary school”) J5: ahso, austauschschüler, also in der gymnasium gegangen. ah, exchange student. so went in the secondary school D2: ah, aufs gymnasium. hm, prima, okay. ah, to secondary school. hm, super, okay. (videoconference 3 “media”, 6-­‐7-­‐2010, 00:02:27-­‐00:02:40) elicitaLon (including metalinguisLc elements) with uptake 3 0 3. media 4. food recast total 6 5. travelling 04/26/2010 05/17/2010 06/07/2010 06/24/2010 07/05/2010 recast without uptake 17 (sLmulated recall 5, 7-­‐12-­‐1, 00:17:57-­‐00:18:02, original Japanese) Analysis: uptake is promoted by -­‐ noLcing a “hole” in the interlanguage (cf. Swain 1998, Williams 2008) -­‐ explicitness of the recast -­‐ linguisLc focus: vocabulary recast with uptake total J1: I think I noLced that they repeated “secondary school” but I didn’t pay aWenLon to “to”... I: Yes? J1: ...maybe I didn’t pay aWenLon... I: You couldn’t hear it? J1: Yes. (sLmulated recall 3, 6-­‐14-­‐2010, 00:02:21-­‐00:02:36, original Japanese) Example c: elicita)on (including metalinguis)c elements) with uptake “ins/aufs Gymnasium” (“to school/into the schoolhouse”) J5: ahso, austauschschüler, also in der gymnasium gegangen ah, exchange student, so went in the secondary schoolI (learner uWerance of the previous videoconference) D2: dann kommen wir zum letzten. das ist ähnlich. und zwar habt ihr gesagt ich bin in das gymnasium gegangen. auch dieser satz ist grammaLsch korrekt, aber er bedeutet etwas ganz besLmmtes. so let‘s move on. the next one is similar. you said went into the schoolhouse. this sentence is gramma?cally correct, too but it has a certain meaning. J6: ...vielleicht ist das bedeutung hat nur ah lokal, also man geht einfach in das gymnasium, aber macht man da ah gar nicht ah oder lernt man da nicht. nur dorthin gehen. ...maybe is that meaning has only ah local, so I only go into the schoolhouse but I ah don‘t do anything ah or I don‘t learn there. only go there. D2: und wie ist die andere präposiLon‘ weiß das vielleicht jemand‘‘ and which is the other preposi?on‘ who knows‘‘ J5: //also AUFS gymnasium so TO school (videoconference 4“food”, 6-­‐21-­‐2010, 00:13:12-­‐00:14:42) Analysis: uptake is promoted by -­‐ explicitness of the elicitaLons -­‐ linguisLc focus: grammar with metalinguisLc dimension Analysis: uptake is constrained by -­‐ technical limitaLons (low audibility) -­‐ implicitness of the recast -­‐ linguisLc focus: grammar Discussion Important dimensions for the feasibility of FoF techniques in group-­‐to-­‐group videoconferencing: Ø  Framework of authenLc input and interacLon → preference of reacLve over proacLve FoF techniques Ø  Degree of explicitness of FoF techniques and technical equipment: uptakes mainly with explicit recasts or elicitaLons; implicit recasts hardly audible → need for effecLve technology (e.g. microphones) for successful implicit FoF techniques and for future analyses Ø  dual funcLon of parLcipants (in our seSng): (1) German students (naLve speakers) & Japanese students: authenLc interacLon between two groups of students → potenLally promoLng intercultural learning (2) prospecLve instructors for GFL & learners of GFL: knowledge and conscious use of FoF techniques → potenLally promoLng noLcing Literature Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.) (1998): Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisi?on. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Ellis, R. (ed.) (2001): Form-­‐focused instruc?on and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Ellis, R. (22008): The Study of Second Language Acquisi?on. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Fotos, S. & Nassaji, H. (eds.) (2007): Form-­‐Focused Instruc?on and Teacher Educa?on. Studies in Honor of Rod Ellis. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Grasmück, M. (2004): Videokonferenzen im DaF-­‐Unterricht -­‐ Ein Bericht über die bisherigen Erfahrungen am SFC der Keio Universität. Deutschunterricht in Japan 9, 93-­‐102 Hoshii, M. & Schumacher, N. (2010): Videokonferenz als interakLve Lernumgebung – am Beispiel eines KooperaLonsprojekts zwischen japanischen Deutschlernenden und deutschen DaF-­‐Studierenden. GFL 2.2010, 71-­‐91. Long, M. (2007): Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000): How do learners perceive interacLonal feedback? SSLA 22, 471-­‐497. Nassaji, H. (2009): Effects of recasts and elicitaLons in dyadic interacLon and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning 59.2, 411-­‐452. O’Dowd, R. (2000): Intercultural learning via videoconferencing: pilot exchange project. ReCALL 12.1, 49-­‐61. O’Dowd, R. (2003: Intercultural language learning and Group-­‐to-­‐Group Videoconferening. In: Döring, J., et al. (eds.): Connec?ng perspec?ves. Videokonferenz: Beiträge zu ihrer Erforschung und Anwendung. Aachen: Shaker Verlag, 343-­‐352. Schixo, M. (2011): Formfokussierung als fremdsprachendidak?sches Konzept. Psycholinguis?sche Modellierung und Taxonomie von Unterrichtstechniken. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovac. Schlickau, S. (2000): Video und Videoconferencing zur Sprach-­‐ und KulturvermiWlung: Lernpotenziale und empirische Beobachtungen. Zeitschri\ für interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht 5.2. Schlickau, S. (2001): Praxis und Analyse interkultureller KommunikaLon durch Video und Videokonferenz: Lernpotenziale und Anforderungen. Zeitschri\ für interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht 6.2. Schmidt, R. (1990): The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguis?cs 11, 129-­‐158. Sheen, Y. (2004): CorrecLve feedback and learner uptake in communicaLve classrooms across instrucLonal seSngs. Language Teaching Research 8.3, 263-­‐300. Sheen, Y. (2006): Exploring the relaLonship between characterisLcs of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research 10.4, 361-­‐392. Shigamatsu, J., et al. (2006): Some issues for the curriculum of foreign language educaLon by videoconferencing -­‐ A fundamental research for human security. Working Papers of Keio University Shonan Fujisawa Campus 99 (in Japanese). Swain, M. (1998): Focus on form through conscious reflecLon. In: Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), 64-­‐81. Wang, Y. (2004): Distance language learning: interacLvity and fourth-­‐generaLon internet-­‐based videoconferencing. CALICO Journal, 21 (2), 373-­‐395. Wang, Y. (2006): NegoLaLon of meaning in desktop videoconferencing-­‐supported distance language learning. ReCALL 18.1, 122-­‐146. Williams, J. (2008): Form-­‐focused instrucLon. In: Hinkel, E. (ed.): Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. New York, NY: Routledge, 671-­‐692. Thanks to the DLC and CCDL Support Office of the Waseda University and the CMS of the Humboldt-­‐Universität zu Berlin for the technical support, to Ikuko Noda and Hanna Zumstein for the transcripLons and to the parLcipants of our videoconferences for their huge commitment.