USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Corrective feedback in online asynchronous and synchronous environments in spanish as a foreign language (sfl) classes

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Corrective feedback in online asynchronous and synchronous environments in spanish as a foreign language (sfl) classes
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Castañeda, Martha E
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Bulletin board
Chat room
Explicit correction
Recast
Clarification request
Metalinguistic feedback
Elicitation
Repetition
Learner response
Dissertations, Academic -- Secondary Education -- Doctoral -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: This dissertation reports on an investigation of corrective feedback provided by instructors to learners in sixteen online asynchronous and synchronous interactions. The overarching objective of this study was to examine the provision of corrective feedback in computer-mediated communication (CMC) environments. This study also sought to examine the frequency of corrective feedback types and the relationship between learner error and corrective feedback provision. Finally, this study investigated what types of corrective feedback led to repaired learner responses.Over the course of one university semester, the instructors and students in four second-semester Spanish courses participated in bulletin board and chat room discussions and a detailed analysis of the transcripts revealed that instructors do provide learners with corrective feedback in online asynchronous and synchronous environments.The results also reveal that corrective feedback is more prevalent in the asynchronous environment than in the synchronous environment. A total of six corrective feedback typesexplicit correction, recasts, metalinguistic feedback, clarification request, elicitation, and repetitionwere found in these environments. All corrective feedback types were present in the asynchronous environment while repetition was not observed in the synchronous environment. The results indicate instructors overall preference for explicit correction in the asynchronous environment and preference for recasts in the synchronous environment. In the synchronous environment, different types of learner errors are followed by different types of corrective feedback. Recasts most often follow grammatical and lexical errors, while an opportunity to negotiate form is most often provided for multiple errors.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2005.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Martha E. Castañeda.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 202 pages.
General Note:
Inclues vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001670403
oclc - 62365876
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0001278
usfldc handle - e14.1278
System ID:
SFS0025599:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200481Ka 4500
controlfield tag 001 001670403
005 20051216093356.0
006 m d s
007 cr mnu uuuuu
008 051129s2005 flu sbm s000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001278
035
(OCoLC)62365876
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
LB1601 (Online)
1 100
Castaeda, Martha E.
0 245
Corrective feedback in online asynchronous and synchronous environments in spanish as a foreign language (sfl) classes
h [electronic resource] /
by Martha E. Castaeda.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
b University of South Florida,
2005.
502
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2005.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 202 pages.
Inclues vita.
520
ABSTRACT: This dissertation reports on an investigation of corrective feedback provided by instructors to learners in sixteen online asynchronous and synchronous interactions. The overarching objective of this study was to examine the provision of corrective feedback in computer-mediated communication (CMC) environments. This study also sought to examine the frequency of corrective feedback types and the relationship between learner error and corrective feedback provision. Finally, this study investigated what types of corrective feedback led to repaired learner responses.Over the course of one university semester, the instructors and students in four second-semester Spanish courses participated in bulletin board and chat room discussions and a detailed analysis of the transcripts revealed that instructors do provide learners with corrective feedback in online asynchronous and synchronous environments.The results also reveal that corrective feedback is more prevalent in the asynchronous environment than in the synchronous environment. A total of six corrective feedback typesexplicit correction, recasts, metalinguistic feedback, clarification request, elicitation, and repetitionwere found in these environments. All corrective feedback types were present in the asynchronous environment while repetition was not observed in the synchronous environment. The results indicate instructors overall preference for explicit correction in the asynchronous environment and preference for recasts in the synchronous environment. In the synchronous environment, different types of learner errors are followed by different types of corrective feedback. Recasts most often follow grammatical and lexical errors, while an opportunity to negotiate form is most often provided for multiple errors.
590
Adviser: Carine Feyten.
Co-adviser: Tony Erben
653
Bulletin board.
Chat room.
Explicit correction.
Recast.
Clarification request.
Metalinguistic feedback.
Elicitation.
Repetition.
Learner response.
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Secondary Education
Doctoral.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
949
FTS
SFERS
ETD
LB1601 (Online)
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.1278



PAGE 1

Corrective Feedback in Online Asynchronous and Sync hronous Environments in Spanish as a Foreign (SFL) Classes By Martha E. Castaeda A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Secondary Education College of Education and Department of World Language Education College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Co-Major Professor: Carine Feyten, Ph.D. Co-Major Professor: Tony Erben, Ph.D. Wei Zhu, Ph.D. Robert Dedrick, Ph.D. Date of Approval: June 13, 2005 Keywords: bulletin board, chat room, explicit corre ction, recast, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, repetition, l earner response Copyright 2005, Martha E. Castaeda

PAGE 2

ii Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my family. To m y mother, Eleanor Louise Castaeda, from whom I got the courage to study, yo u gave me the values that guide my life, you are a kind human being and an amazing wom an. To my father Manuel Antonio Castaeda, although you are far away, your love is felt every day, you are a generous and genuine person. To my brothers, Walter and Jaime, whose love and support are always with me. To my late grandmothers, Eleanor Martha H adfield and Zoyla Esperanza Urqua, you will always be in my heart.

PAGE 3

iii Acknowledgements I would like to take this opportunity to express m y genuine gratitude to all those individuals who contributed and assisted me in this project; their help was invaluable. First, I would like to thank my Major Professors D rs. Tony Erben and Carine Feyten. To Dr. Tony Erben, you were there for me e very step of the way. It was in one of your classes that I developed an interest in the topic and you graciously supported me as I worked through the various areas and the liter ature. Once the project was underway, you met with me tirelessly, providing me with numer ous insights, guidance, and support. To Dr. Carine Feyten, you have been there every ste p of this journey. Your wisdom helped me improve the quality of this project. Bot h Dr. Tony Erben and Dr. Carine Feyten are true mentors from whom I learned and kee p learning. My other committee members, Drs. Wei Zhu and Robert Dedrick also contr ibuted significantly to this study. Thank you for taking the time to meet with me and f or providing me with your expertise. I would also like to thank my family for their sup port and patience. To Darrel, your love, friendship, strength, wisdom and emotion al support helped me pursue my dreams. To my friends, Carol, Juan, Sabine, Michel le, Jeannie, Farah, Olga, Melinda, Roxana, Lourdes, Vilma, and Osama, you are so kind to me and I cherish our friendships. To all my friends in the Second Language Acquisitio n and Instructional Technology program and at the University of South Florida who have touched my life in some way, I appreciate you.

PAGE 4

iv Finally, I would also like to thank the many instru ctors and students in the World Language Department of the University of South Flor ida who participated in this study.

PAGE 5

i Table of Contents List of Tables..................................... ................................................... .............................iv List of Figures.................................... ................................................... .............................vi Abstract........................................... ................................................... ...............................vii Chapter 1: Introduction............................ ................................................... ........................1 General Introduction to the Study.................. ................................................... ......1 Background to the Study............................ ................................................... ..........2 Rationale.......................................... ................................................... ....................4 Purpose............................................ ................................................... .....................6 Research Questions................................. ................................................... .............8 Delimitations and Limitations of the Study......... ................................................... 9 Operational Definition of Terms.................... ................................................... ....10 Organization of the Study.......................... ................................................... ........15 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature................ ................................................... ...............17 Introduction....................................... ................................................... .................17 Interactionist Perspective......................... ................................................... ..........17 The roots of the interactionist perspective........ ........................................18 Comprehensible input............................... ................................................20 Comprehensible output.............................. ...............................................21 Negotiation of meaning............................. ................................................22 Corrective Feedback................................ .................................................26 Terms.............................................. ................................................... .......27 Methodology........................................ ................................................... ..31 Experimental and quasi-experimental research....... .................................32 Observational research............................. .................................................42 Written feedback................................... ................................................... .50 Computer-Mediated Communication.................... ...............................................51 Quantity of language production.................... ..........................................53 Quality of language production..................... ...........................................56 Asynchronous vs. synchronous....................... ..........................................58 CMC, input, output, negotiation of meaning......... ...................................59 Interaction patterns in CMC........................ ..............................................62 CMC and corrective feedback........................ ..........................................64 Summary of Interaction, Corrective Feedback, and CM C Literature...................67 Content Analysis Research Method................... ................................................... 68

PAGE 6

ii Advantages of content analysis..................... ............................................69 Quantitative vs. qualitative....................... ................................................70 Content analysis procedures........................ .............................................71 Summary............................................ ................................................... ................72 Chapter 3: Methods and Procedures.................. ................................................... ............73 Introduction....................................... ................................................... .................73 Participants....................................... ................................................... ..................73 Setting............................................ ................................................... ....................74 The Database....................................... ................................................... ...............76 Overview of the Procedures......................... ................................................... ......81 Overview of the Process............................ ................................................... ........87 Reliability and Validity........................... ................................................... ...........94 Reliability........................................ ................................................... .......94 Validity........................................... ................................................... .......95 Data Analysis...................................... ................................................... ...............96 Unit of analysis................................... ................................................... ...96 Variables.......................................... ................................................... ......97 Procedures......................................... ................................................... .................99 Procedure for research question one............... .......................................100 Procedures for research question two............... ......................................101 Procedure for research question three.............. .......................................104 Procedures for research question four.............. .......................................105 Summary............................................ ................................................... ..............106 Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Results............... ................................................... ...........107 Introduction....................................... ................................................... ...............107 General Overview of the Procedures................. .................................................10 7 Background Questionnaire........................... ................................................... ....108 The Database....................................... ................................................... .............111 Data Analysis...................................... ................................................... .............113 Error.............................................. ................................................... .......113 Corrective feedback................................ ................................................114 Learner Response................................... .................................................12 1 Results............................................ ................................................... ..................122 Reliability........................................ ................................................... .....123 Results for research question one.................. .........................................124 Results for research question one ( a)............. ........................................125 Results for research question one (b).............. ........................................126 Results for research question two.................. .........................................127 Results for research question two (a).............. ........................................127 Results for research question two (b).............. ........................................130 Results for research question three................ .........................................132 Results for research question three (a)............ ........................................132 Results for research question three (b)............ ........................................134 Results for research question four................. ..........................................136

PAGE 7

iii Results for research question four (a)............. ........................................137 Results for research question four (b)............. ........................................138 Summary............................................ ................................................... ..............141 Chapter 5: Discussion.............................. ................................................... ....................147 Introduction....................................... ................................................... ...............147 Interpretation of the results...................... ................................................... ........147 Interpretation of Results for Research Question One .........................................148 Interpretation of Results for Research Question Two .........................................151 Interpretation of Results for Research Question Thr ee.......................................152 Interpretation of Results for Research Question Fou r........................................153 Additional Findings................................ ................................................... .........154 Implications for second language acquisition resear ch......................................162 Pedagogical Implications........................... ................................................... ......164 Directions for Future Research..................... ................................................... ...166 Conclusions........................................ ................................................... ..............168 References......................................... ................................................... ...........................169 Appendixes......................................... ................................................... .........................175 Appendix A: Memorandum to Instructors.............. ............................................176 Appendix B: Instructor Background Questionnaire.... .......................................177 Appendix C: Student Background Questionnaire....... ........................................179 Appendix D: Discussion Questions for Chat Discussio n...................................181 Appendix E: Discussion Questions for Bulletin Boar d.....................................185 Appendix F: Coding Form............................ ................................................... ...186 Appendix G: Codebook............................... ................................................... ....187 About the Author................................... ................................................... .............End Page

PAGE 8

iv List of Tables Table 4.1 : Instructor Questionnaire Finding....... ................................................... ........110 Table 4.2 : Student Questionnaire Findings ........ ................................................... ........111 Table 4.3: Percentage of Corrective Feedback Provis ion in the Asynchronous Environment........................................ ................................................... .............126 Table 4.4: Percentage of Corrective Feedback Provis ion in the Synchronous Environment........................................ ................................................... .............127 Table 4.5: Distribution of Corrective Feedback Typ es in the Asynchronous Environment........................................ ................................................... .............128 Table 4.6: Distribution of Corrective Feedback Typ es in the Synchronous Environment........................................ ................................................... .............131 Table 4.7: Distribution of Errors Receiving Feedba ck Across Feedback Types and Error Types in the Asynchronous Environment.... .......................................133 Table 4.8: Contingency Table of Observed Frequenci es of Corrective Feedback Types and Learner Error Types in the Asynchronous E nvironment..................134 Table 4.9: Distribution of Errors Receiving Feedba ck Across Feedback Types and Error Types in the Synchronous environment..... ........................................135 Table 4.10: Contingency Table of Observed Frequenc ies of Corrective Feedback Types and Learner Error Types in the Synchronous En vironment.....................136 Table 4.11: Instructor Corrective Feedback, Learne r Response, and Learner Response Resulting in Repair in the Asynchronous En vironment.....................137 Table 4.12: Learner Response Following Instructor Corrective Feedback in the Asynchronous Environment........................... ................................................... ..138 Table 4.13: Instructor Corrective Feedback, Learne r Response, and Learner Response Resulting in Repair in the Synchronous Env ironment.......................139

PAGE 9

v Table 4.14: Learner Response Following Types of Co rrective Feedback in the Synchronous Environment............................ ................................................... ...140 Table 4.15: Frequency of Learner Turns, Learner Tu rns with Error, Corrective Feedback to Learner Turns with Error, Learner Respo nses, and Learner Responses Resulting in Repair in the Synchronous En vironment......................141 Table 4.16: Contingency Table for Analysis of Corr ective Feedback Type and Learner Response................................... ................................................... ..........141 Table 4.17: Frequency Learner Turns, Learner Turns with Error, Corrective Feedback to Learner Turns with Error, Learner Respo nses, and Learner Responses Resulting in Repair in the Asynchronous E nvironment....................143 Table 4.18: Frequency Learner Turns, Learner Turns with Error, Corrective Feedback to Learner Turns with Error, Learner Respo nses, and Learner Responses Resulting in Repair in the Synchronous En vironment......................144

PAGE 10

vi List of Figures Figure 3.1 Sample Blackboard Bulletin Board Discuss ion..............................................79 Figure 3.2 Sample Blackboard Chat Room Transcript.. ................................................... 80 Figure 3.3 Procedures of the Study................. ................................................... ...............82 Figure 3.4 Data Collection Schedule for the Ten Wee k Semester...................................85 Figure 3.5 Neuendorf's Flowchart for the Typical Pr ocess of Content Analysis Research for the Present Study..................... ................................................... .....88 Figure 3.6 Error treatment sequence................ ................................................... ..............92 Figure 3.7 Variables............................... ................................................... ........................97 Figure 3.8 Research Questions...................... ................................................... ................99 Figure 4.1 Research Questions...................... ................................................... ..............123 Figure 4.2 Total Learner Turns, Learner Turns with Errors, Corrective Feedback, Learner Responses, and Repair in the Asynchronous E nvironment...................143 Figure 4.3 Total Learner Turns, Learner Turns with Errors, Corrective Feedback, Learner Responses, and Repair in the Synchronous En vironment.....................145 Figure 5.1 Research Questions...................... ................................................... ..............148

PAGE 11

vii Corrective Feedback in Online Asynchronous and Sync hronous Environments in Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) Classes Martha E. Castaeda ABSTRACT This dissertation reports on an investigation of co rrective feedback provided by instructors to learners in sixteen online asynchron ous and synchronous interactions. The overarching objective of this study was to examine the provision of corrective feedback in computer-mediated communication (CMC) environmen ts. This study also sought to examine the frequency of corrective feedback types and the relationship between learner error and corrective feedback provision. Finally, this study investigated what types of corrective feedback led to repaired learner respons es. Over the course of one university semester, the ins tructors and students in four second-semester Spanish courses participated in bul letin board and chat room discussions and a detailed analysis of the transcripts revealed that instructors do provide learners with corrective feedback in online asynchronous and sync hronous environments. The results also reveal that corrective feedback is more preval ent in the asynchronous environment than in the synchronous environment. A total of si x corrective feedback types–explicit correction, recasts, metalinguistic feedback, clari fication request, elicitation, and repetition–were found in these environments. All c orrective feedback types were present in the asynchronous environment while repetition wa s not observed in the synchronous

PAGE 12

viii environment. The results indicate instructors’ ove rall preference for explicit correction in the asynchronous environment and preference for rec asts in the synchronous environment. In the synchronous environment, diffe rent types of learner errors are followed by different types of corrective feedback. Recasts most often follow grammatical and lexical errors, while an opportunit y to negotiate form is most often provided for multiple errors. With regard to learn er response to corrective feedback, the results revealed that learner response in the async hronous environment is minimal. In the synchronous environment, learner response to correc tive feedback is more frequent. In addition, the findings indicate that certain types of corrective feedback are more effective in leading to repaired learner responses in the syn chronous environment. Corrective feedback types that offer the opportunity to negoti ate form, which include metalinguistic feedback, clarification request, elicitation, and r epetition, are more effective in eliciting a repaired learner response. Consequently, these cor rective feedback types may be viable and effective tools for promoting language developm ent in Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes.

PAGE 13

1 Chapter 1: Introduction General Introduction to the Study Due to the rapid growth of the use of computer-medi ated communication (CMC) as a supplement to traditional face-to-face languag e classes, it is increasingly important for language professionals employing these technolo gies to know both the nature of the corrective feedback they provide in these environme nts and the consequences of this corrective feedback on language learning. Language professionals have enthusiastically embraced CMC technologies because they are valuable instructional tools in helping to facilitate and promote interactions between student s. Face-to-face language courses currently offered at many universities are often su pplemented with electronic bulletin boards and chat rooms readily available to language professionals through courseware packages such as Blackboard and WebCT as well as th rough programs such as AOL Instant Messenger, Nicenet, and Yahoo Instant Messe nger. In the past, computers were used mainly to practice language forms, but more re cently, instructors are choosing to use computers as an additional tool to facilitate langu age interaction among students. Computer-mediated communication tools provide learn ers a means to practice language in a natural, meaningful, and realistic way with ot her Non-Native Speakers (NNS) and Native Speakers (NS). Accordingly, as the number o f language classes supplemented with CMC technologies increases, it is important fo r language professionals to examine closely the interaction occurring in these environm ents, as well as to understand the

PAGE 14

2 nature and effects on language learning of the corr ective feedback provided to learners therein. The purpose of this study was four-fold: First, it examined whether or not corrective feedback is provided in online asynchron ous and synchronous environments. Second, this study examined the nature of correctiv e feedback, a response provided by the instructor to a learner error that provides the learner with information about what is acceptable and unacceptable in the target language. Principally, this study identified the types of corrective feedback provided in online asy nchronous and synchronous environments. Third, it investigated what type of learner error leads to what type of corrective feedback in asynchronous and synchronous environments. Finally, this study calculated the distribution and nature of learner r esponse following different types of corrective feedback occurring in asynchronous and s ynchronous environments. Background to the Study Theoretical claims that conversational interaction can facilitate language learning were made by various researchers beginning in the e arly 1970s (Hatch, 1978a, 1978b; Long, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1996; Pica, 1985; Pica and Doughty, 1985; Varonis and Gass, 1985a, 1985b; Wagner-Gough and Hatch, 1975). One o f the most notable and seminal claims was made by Long in 1981 when he proposed th e interaction hypothesis in which he stated that while comprehensible input is necess ary for language acquisition, negotiation of meaning is also an essential compone nt. In 1996, Long expanded on his original postulation of the interaction hypothesis, which, in its most recent iteration,

PAGE 15

3 suggests that interaction connects input, internal learner capacities and output in productive ways, and that as a result of feedback o btained through interaction, learners may attend to form, or “notice the gap” between the ir own production and/or comprehension and the target language. The details of the interactionists’ perspective and the studies conducted in an attempt to demonstr ate a relationship between conversational interaction and syntax will be elabo rated upon in chapter two of this proposal. Thus, the interactionist perspective in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) postulates that interaction is influential in promo ting and facilitating the development of second or foreign language proficiency. This persp ective on language learning maintains that negotiated interaction assists SLA Following Long’s 1996 revised articulation of the i nteraction hypothesis, which flagged the importance of feedback, a number of stu dies were conducted that investigated the role of interactional feedback. Several resear chers (Ayoun, 2001; Doughty and Varela, 1998; Leeman, 2003; Long, Inagaki et al., 1 998; Mackey, Gass et al., 2000; Mackey and Philp, 1998; Oliver, 1995, 2000) have in vestigated the importance of such feedback strategies such as recasts, clarification checks, and confirmation checks. In the same vein, other studies (Lyster, 1998; Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Panova and Lyster, 2003) have specifically identified different types of cor rective feedback provided to students by the instructor in face-to-face interactions and inv estigated the effectiveness of certain types of interactional feedback for the development of language. Over the same period of time, a body of literature addressing CMC emerged, which investigated the language produced and the in teraction taking place in

PAGE 16

4 asynchronous and synchronous environments. A porti on of this research described the language produced in asynchronous and synchronous m odes of interaction (Beauvois, 1992; Kelm, 1992; Chun, 1994). While other studies analyzed the complexity of the language produced (Chun, 1994; Kern, 1995; Warschau er, 1996), and finally others compared the language produced in face-to-face, asy nchronous and synchronous interaction (Sotillo, 2000; Warschauer, 1996). Whereas numerous studies have examined corrective feedback in face-to face interactions, and yet other studies have examined l anguage produced in CMC environments, no study has observed corrective feed back provided by instructors to students in online asynchronous and synchronous for eign language contexts. Rationale The present study explored the nature of corrective feedback within CMC environments, focusing specifically on university s econd-semester Spanish courses. Four groups of participants and their instructors carrie d out electronic discussions in two different environments, asynchronous and synchronou s. There is a need to describe, categorize, and exami ne closely the corrective feedback provided to learners in online asynchronou s and synchronous environments. Research has described and examined the discourse o f CMC closely, but has not specifically looked at the corrective feedback prov ided by instructors to students in these environments. Moreover, the studies that do analyz e corrective feedback have been conducted in face-to-face classrooms situations. Th is present study, in contrast, examined

PAGE 17

5 corrective feedback in online asynchronous and sync hronous discussions in second semester university Spanish language classes. Most university students are required to take two s emesters of a foreign language, but these students rarely reach intermediate levels of proficiency (Pufahl, Rhodes et al., 2000). Taking a closer look at corrective feedback in lower level foreign language classes might provide insight into why students are not reaching higher levels of proficiency. Examining corrective feedback can als o lead to recommendations on what types of corrective feedback are most effective in eliciting learner repair. These recommendations can facilitate improved instruction and thus lead to enhanced student learning. Another phenomenon observed at the university level is the increase of undergraduate courses taught by teaching assistants (TAs) and adjunct teachers, especially at universities deemed research universi ties (Shannon, Twale et al., 1998). This prevalent model of instruction is customary in many foreign language classes. Goepper and Knorre (1980) found that 70% of the bas ic language sequence courses are taught entirely by graduate teaching assistants. I n many instances, however, the TAs and adjuncts hired to teach have no training or teachin g experience and are therefore often expected to participate in professional development using a variety of training strategies including an orientation before classes begin, atte nding foreign language methods courses, mentoring, attending ongoing workshops, ca rrying out observations, and video critiques (Brandl, 2000). As Brandl (2000) puts it “the current practice of relying heavily on TAs who enter language graduate programs as inexperienced instructional

PAGE 18

6 resources places tremendous burdens on language pro grams” (Brandl, 2000, p. 369). The content knowledge required to teach a second or foreign language course is, clearly, the second or foreign language itself, which TAs an d adjuncts often know well due to their being Native Speakers and/or holding an unde rgraduate degree in the language in question. However, often these TAs do not have the pedagogical proficiency to know what teaching strategies are the most facilitative of Second Language Acquisition. Since corrective feedback is one of the many essential sk ills needed in the category of pedagogical knowledge, there is a need to examine t he type of corrective feedback provided to students by TAs and adjuncts of the for eign language courses, who may be unsure as to what type of corrective feedback they should provide to their students. Hereafter in this study, TAs and adjuncts will be r eferred to under the umbrella term of instructors. Purpose This study investigated corrective feedback provide d by instructors in online asynchronous and synchronous classroom environments to university first year Spanish learners. Specifically, this study first determine d if corrective feedback was provided to learners by instructors in online asynchronous and synchronous environments. The study then identified and examined the types of correctiv e feedback provided to students by instructors in online asynchronous and synchronous environments. In addition to the types of corrective feedback provided to students, this study also investigated whether learner error affects the type of corrective feedba ck received. Furthermore, this study

PAGE 19

7 examined the effects of corrective feedback on lear ner response or reaction to the corrective feedback itself. This study enhances th e body of knowledge that has already been established, and is continuing to flourish, in the field of CMC, as well as to the already existing body of knowledge of corrective fe edback in Second Language Acquisition studies. Sixteen whole class discussions of students and ins tructor in both the asynchronous context and the synchronous context we re examined. The data ere analyzed and corrective feedback types were identified. Add itionally, the effects of learner error on corrective feedback type were also examined. In terms of effects, this study examined what type of learner error leads to what type of co rrective feedback. Finally, a report on the distribution of learner responses following dif ferent types of corrective feedback and the types of corrective feedback found following di fferent types of learner error is presented. Specifically, this study investigated if corrective feedback is provided in online asynchronous and synchronous environments and explo red the nature of the types of corrective feedback found. In addition, this study reports on the types of corrective feedback following different types of learner error and the distribution of learner responses following different types of corrective f eedback. These variables were examined in two online environments: asynchronous a nd synchronous discussions. The technology used in the asynchronous environment was a bulletin board and the technology used in the synchronous environment was a chat room.

PAGE 20

8 Research Questions Attention was directed to the following four major questions and eight sub-questions: 1. Do instructors offer corrective feedback to lear ners in online asynchronous and synchronous environments? a. Do instructors offer corrective feedback to lear ners in online asynchronous discussions conducted in university first year Span ish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes? b. Do instructors offer corrective feedback to lear ners in online synchronous discussions conducted in university first year Span ish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes? 2. What is the nature of corrective feedback in on line asynchronous and synchronous environments? a. What are the different types of corrective feedb ack found in online asynchronous discussions conducted in university fi rst year Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes and are they used equally? b. What are the different types of corrective feedb ack found in online synchronous discussions conducted in university fir st year Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes and are they used equally? 3. What types of learner error lead to what types o f corrective feedback in online asynchronous and synchronous environments?

PAGE 21

9 a. What types of learner error lead to what types o f corrective feedback in online asynchronous discussions conducted in university fi rst year Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes? b. What types of learner error lead to what types o f corrective feedback in online synchronous discussions conducted in university fir st year Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes? 4. What is the distribution of learner response to different types of corrective feedback found in online asynchronous and synchronous enviro nments? a. What is the distribution of learner response to different types of corrective feedback found in online asynchronous discussions conducted in university first year Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes? b. What is the distribution of learner response to different types of corrective feedback found in online synchronous discussions co nducted in university first year Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes? Delimitations and Limitations of the Study This research study was confined to four undergrad uate sections of beginning Spanish at a regional metropolitan university. The specific sections examined were second semester courses in a two semester foreign l anguage university requirement sequence. The students in these courses enrolled f or the course through normal means and did not have any prior knowledge of this study at the time of enrollment. The

PAGE 22

10 selective nature of the participants in this study reduced the generalizability of the findings of this study. It was expected that two distinctive varieties of corrective feedback would be found in the data collected, instructor corrective feedback and student feedback. Since the focus of this study is on instructor corrective feedback, the investigator only examined corrective feedback provided to the studen ts by the instructors and did not consider feedback provided by students to students. In addition, the present study examined corrective feedback as a diagnostic teachi ng strategy employed by instructors to diagnose, gauge, and assess student understandin g. The study reports on the types and distribution of corrective feedback moves found, th e relationship between learner error and corrective feedback, and the relationship betwe en corrective feedback and learner response. The participants of this study, including the stud ents enrolled in the course and the instructors teaching the course, were not randomly assigned into one of the two pedagogical settings, rather, intact classes were u sed and all classes conducted electronic discussions in both the asynchronous and synchronou s environments. In addition, although an effort was made to keep observations in dependent of each other, in this study categories or responses are dependent upon or influ enced by another. Operational Definition of Terms 1. Asynchronous This term is used to describe communication betwee n interlocutors that occurs intermittently and with time delay. Ex amples of asynchronous technologies

PAGE 23

11 include email, text messages transmitted over cell phones, and discussion boards. The present study examined online asynchronous communic ation and specifically investigated the use of electronic discussion board s. 2. Clarification Requests: This term is used to describe a type of corrective feedback where an instructor indicates to the learner either that the utterance is not understood by the instructor or that the utterance is ill-formed in some way. A clarification request does not provide the learner with the target-like form a nd it informs the student a repetition or a reformulation is required on the part of the stud ent. 3. Computer-mediated CommunicationComputer-mediated communication refers to the process of using computers to enhance human int eraction. Computer-mediated communication includes asynchronous and synchronous technologies such as e-mail, bulletin boards, and chat rooms. 4. Corrective Feedback In this dissertation, corrective feedback is defi ned as a response to a learner error that provides the learn er with information about what is acceptable and unacceptable in the target language. Examples of types of corrective feedback in this study include: clarification reque sts, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, and repetition. 5. ElicitationThis type of corrective feedback refers to instan ces when the instructor directly elicits the correct form from the learner. These elicitations can come in various forms: the instructor can allow the student to fill in the blank, can use questions to elicit the correct form, or can ask students to reformulat e the utterance. Elicitation can also be preceded by some metalinguistic comment.

PAGE 24

12 6. Error An error is defined as an ill-formed language utter ance that is an unacceptable utterance in the target language. Examples of type s of errors in this study include: grammatical, lexical, orthographic conventions, typ ographical and spelling, and unsolicited use of L1. 7. Error Treatment SequenceThe error treatment sequence includes the learner error, the corrective feedback provided by the instructor, and the learner response to the corrective feedback. 8. Explicit CorrectionThe explicit provision of the correct form by the instructor. These corrections are often preceded by phrases suc h as “You mean,” “Use this word,” “You should say,” etc. In electronic discussions, these explicit corrections may be preceded by phrases such as “Correction” or by empl oying all caps function to emphasize correction. Using all caps in chat rooms is widely accepted as ‘screaming’ wi thin netiquette conventions. 9. Grammatical ErrorThis type of learner error constitutes the produc tion of a grammatical construction which violates the grammar of the target language. 10. Learner Response Learner response is defined as the learner’s imme diate response in some way to the instructor’s intention to draw a ttention to some aspect of the learner’s original written utterance. Examples of learner re sponses in this study include: result in repair and needs repair. 11. Lexical ErrorThis type of learner error constitutes the use of the wrong word in an utterance. Inaccurate, imprecise, or inappropriate choices of lexical items and nontarget derivations of nouns, verbs, adverbs, and adjective s constitute examples of lexical errors.

PAGE 25

13 12. Metalinguistic FeedbackThis type of corrective feedback constitutes comm ents that indicate to the learner that there is an error somewhere without providing the targetlike form. These comments can be in the form of gr ammatical metalanguage such as asking if we use a certain tense in that sentence o r can point to the nature of the error by stating to use a particular tense. E.g., “Can you find your error?”, “Is that word masculine?”, “Use the subjunctive”. 13. Multiple Errorswhen more than one type of error occurs in a stud ent turn (for example, lexical and grammatical) these were coded as multiple. If a turn has several of one type of error, it was coded that type and not m ultiple. 14. Needs Repair ResponseIn this type of learner response the error on whic h the feedback focused is not repaired by the learner. 15. Opportunity to Negotiate Form: includes metalinguistic feedback, clarification request, elicitation and repetition types of correc tive feedback because these do not provide the target-like form to learners. They pro vide information about the error and leave the window open for negotiation. Previous re search (Lyster and Ranta, 1997, Lyster, 1998) has categorized these corrective feed back types as negotiation of form, but this term is not clear and can lead to confusion. In this particular study, these corrective feedback types were collapsed under the category opportunity to negotiate form to make the function of these corrective feedback types mor e salient. 16. Orthographic ConventionsThis type of errors include omissions of accent an d punctuation marks and letters unique to the Spanish alphabet. These include : , , , , , , , , ¡.

PAGE 26

14 17. Recasts: The instructor’s reformulation of all or part of a student’s utterance excluding the error including repetition with chang e, repetition with change and emphasis. Recasts are implicit and are not precede d by phrases such as “You mean,” “Use this word,” “You should say,” etc. Recasts al so include translations in response to a student’s use of the L1. 18. RepetitionThis type of corrective feedback refers to the in structor repeating the student’s erroneous utterance in isolation. E.g. “a apple?”, “la mapa?” f 19. Results in Repair ResponseIn this type of learner response the error on whic h the feedback focused is repaired by the learner. 20. SynchronousThis term is used to describe communication betwee n sender and receiver that occurs at real time and without delay Examples of online synchronous communication include telephone conversation, a boa rd meeting, voice conferencing, video conferencing, and electronic chat. The prese nt study examined electronic synchronous communication and specifically investig ated the use of online chat rooms. 21. Target LanguageThis is the language which a person is learning, i n contrast to a first language or mother tongue. In the case of th is study, the target language is Spanish. 22. Typographical and Spelling A typographical error is one made while inputting t ext via a keyboard, the error is made despite the user knowing the spelling of the word. This usually results from the person’s inexperience usin g a keyboard, from rushing, from not paying attention, or carelessness. A spelling erro r is one made when forming words with letters and the letters are not put in the acceptab le order, or the correct letters are absent. In this study, it was impossible to know whether th e learner made a typographical error or

PAGE 27

15 spelling error and therefore these were put in the same category. It should also be noted that omission of specific orthographic marker such as accents and upside down question marks will not be considered typographical and spel ling, these will be grouped in a category labeled orthographic conventions. 23. TurnIn this study, turns can occur in the asynchronous and synchronous environments. Turns in the asynchronous interactio n are defined as sentences and each sentence entered on the bulletin board will count a s a student turn. Turns in the synchronous interaction are defined as each message composed and entered in the chat room. 24. Unsolicited use of L1The use of the native language (L1) is not an err or per se, but it is interesting to look at how teachers react to students’ use of the unsolicited use of the L1 and thus in this study, unsolicited use of L1 wi ll be examined. Organization of the Study The present study is organized in five chapters. C hapter 1 introduces the research areas and outlines why this study is important in t he field. It touches upon the main issues at stake: online asynchronous and synchronou s CMC and corrective feedback. The main reasons for conducting this study are stated a nd research questions are posed. These research questions will be answered based on the data collected. Finally, operational definitions of the most commonly used t erms in this study are provided for the convenience of the reader.

PAGE 28

16 Chapter 2 elaborates on the interactionist perspect ive in the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and summarizes the revie w of the literature as it relates to corrective feedback, CMC, and content analysis. Chapter 3 discusses the design of the study and pro vides the reader with a methodological overview of how the research is fram ed. Moreover, this chapter presents the overview of the procedures, including the data collection, the measures and instruments used as well as presents the nature of the data analysis employed for each research question. Chapter 4 presents the data analysis and the result s for the questionnaires and each research question. In addition, chapter 4 pre sents examples of the corrective feedback types and learner response types found in this study. Chapter 5 discusses the findings for each research question, poses pedagogical implications, implications for the field of second language acquisition, and offers directions for future research.

PAGE 29

17 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to review past and c urrent theoretical and empirical work related to this research and to explore how th e present study is aligned with the current leading views in the field. This chapter i s divided into four sections. The first section presents the theoretical foundation of the interactionist perspective on SLA. The second section reviews studies on corrective feedba ck that provide the background for the present study. Next, the literature of computer-me diated communication, including asynchronous and synchronous technologies, especial ly as it relates to interaction and corrective feedback, will be discussed. Finally, t his chapter will describe the content analysis method selected to conduct this study. In essence, this chapter will assess the current state of research in the fields related to this study and identify trends. Additionally, this chapter will make connections be tween the areas of research mentioned above and the current proposed study. Interactionist Perspective The theoretical underpinnings of this study fall u nder the interactionist view of language learning. The interactionist perspective on language learning and teaching highlights the importance of linguistic interaction in promoting and facilitating the

PAGE 30

18 development of second language or foreign language proficiency. It contends that negotiated interaction between learners and their i nterlocutors, either Native Speaker (NS) or Non-Native Speaker (NNS), is facilitative o f SLA. The roots of the interactionist perspective. The roots of the Interaction Hypothesis can be tra ced back to a series of seminal articles put forth by Evelyn Hatch in the mid 1970s (Hatch, 1978a, 1978b). Until the 1970s, conversational interaction was viewed as a w ay of practicing structures learned in the classroom. One common model used in the langua ge classroom involved the instructor presenting grammatical structures and ru les, and students practicing the second language features learned through conversational in teraction with peers in order to reinforce these features. Shortly after the semina l articles published by Evelyn Hatch were presented, the field began to look at interact ion as more than a forum for practice. In 1975, Wagner-Gough discussed the relationship be tween language and communication, specifically how participation in co nversational interaction provides learners with opportunities to hear and produce lan guage. In addition, the authors suggested that second language syntax may develop f rom conversational interaction. Hatch continued with this line of inquiry and publi shed a series of articles that examined the role of interaction in second language acquisit ion (Hatch, 1978a, 1978b). In these articles Hatch puts forward the notion that “[o]ne learns how to do conversation, one learns how to interact verbally, and out of this in teraction syntactic structures are developed” (Hatch, 1978b, p. 404). In other words, she suggests that second language

PAGE 31

19 syntax may perhaps develop out of conversation. At the time, much of the research was examining the learner’s speech exclusively. Hatch challenged the field to go beyond simply examining the learner’s speech (Hatch, 1978b ). In her opinion, the speech of the other interlocutors engaged in the conversation sho uld also be considered and examined. From this premise and challenge put forth by Hatch, emerged several studies that described the interaction that takes place between the leaner and the learner with whom he or she interacts. Long (1980, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1996) was one of the first researchers to undertake the challenge put forth by Hatch. Lon g conducted a series of empirical studies that considered the speech addressed to the NNS by a NS of a language (Long, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1996). These studies lead him to successfully articulate and define the interaction hypothesis. The first artic ulation of the interaction hypothesis appeared in Long’s 1981 and 1983 articles in which the author found that the NSs employ conversational modifications when interactin g with NNSs. According to Long (1983), these conversation adjustments can be class ified into two categories: adjustments made in an effort to avoid conversational trouble a nd adjustments made to repair discourse when trouble occurs. Certain attributes are clearly present in speech directed to the NNS by the NS (Long, 1983, 1985). Some of thes e elements include repetitions, confirmation checks, comprehension checks, expansio ns, and clarification requests. It is also important to note that Long found that while t hese attributes are present in NS-NNS interactions, they are also present in NS-NS intera ction. The main difference is that these modifications are more abundant in NS-NNS interacti ons.

PAGE 32

20 Using the evidence he had found, Long was able to r efine his original articulation of the interaction hypothesis. Long’s (1996) updat ed version of the interaction hypothesis accounts for the fact that negotiation o f meaning is required to trigger interactional adjustments or modifications by the N S or more competent interlocutor. In the revised version of the interaction hypothesis, Long contents the following: I would like to suggest that negotiation of meaning and especially negotiation work that triggers interactional adjustments by the NS or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it co nnects, input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and o utput in productive ways (Long, 1996, p. 451-452). From Long’s early influential work and from his red efined articulation of the interactional hypothesis, developed a more focused line of research within the interactionist perspective: negotiation of meaning. Comprehensible input. Long’s interaction hypothesis (1981, 1983, 1996) a lso developed from the work done by Evelyn Hatch (1978a, 1978b) arguing the imp ortance of conversation to develop grammar and also from Krashen’s (1985) notion that comprehensible input is a necessary factor, and may be the most important factor for la nguage acquisition. Krashen (1985) hypothesized that learners can acquire more languag e when the messages they receive are comprehensible. He defined comprehensible input as the language that a learner hears or receives and is understandable to the learner. Kra shen went on to explain that not only

PAGE 33

21 does input need to be comprehensible to the learner it should also contain linguistic structures that are realistically beyond the learne r’s current proficiency level (i + 1), where the i corresponds to the learners current lev el of competence and +1 represents the structures that are just beyond the learner’s profi ciency level. Comprehensible output. Another important tenant of second language acquisi tion is the notion of comprehensible output. Swain (1985) questioned Kra shen’s input hypothesis in which input is the central variable in second language ac quisition. At the time, Swain was studying the productive skills of students enrolled in French immersion programs in Canada and found that although they received extens ive comprehensible input, the students were not reaching native-like performance (Swain, 1985). This lead Swain to argue that input alone is not sufficient to achieve native-like performance and to propose the output hypothesis. In her articulation of the output hypothesis, Swain argues that learners need to be ‘pushed’ into production of com prehensible output in order to develop grammatical competence and consequently reach nativ e-like performance. In 1995, Swain added to her already established output hypot hesis and contended that it is having to actually produce the target language that forces the learner to think about the syntax involved. In addition, learners, in their efforts to be understood in the target language, are pushed in their production and may try out new forms or modify forms they constructed.

PAGE 34

22 Negotiation of meaning. Negotiation of meaning refers to the strategies use d by conversational partners to deal with communication breakdown and to facilitate comprehension. The listener of an interaction may request clarification from the spea ker and the speaker may use a variety of strategies to clarify what was said. “As they n egotiate, they work linguistically to achieve the needed comprehensibility, whether repea ting a message verbatim, adjusting syntax, changing its words, or modifying its form a nd meaning in a host of other ways” (Pica, 1994, p. 494). The various strategies used include repetition of the original message, modification of the original message, and simplification of the original message. In other words, participants ‘negotiate’ what was not understood or misunderstood and the ultimate goal of negotiation of meaning is to achieve successful communication and mutual understanding. It should also be noted that not in all cases does communication breakdown lead to negotiation of meaning. There are instances in which the conversation participants may choose to i gnore the communication trouble or the request for clarification. The line of inquiry that has developed from these findings has focused in on those instances in which communic ation breakdown is dealt with by using negotiation of meaning. For many years, experts in the field have examined what ultimately became know as negotiation work. In its earlier days, negotiat ion of meaning was known as interactional modification (Long, 1980, 1981, 1983) Specifically, Long (1981, 1983) refers to negotiation work comprising such strategi es as confirmation checks, comprehension checks, clarification requests, selfrepetitions, other repetitions, and

PAGE 35

23 expansion. To Long (1983) these were known as stra tegies used to “avoid conversational trouble” and tactics used to “repair the discourse when trouble occurs”. Soon after, Long (1996) himself and other researchers (Gass and Varo nis, 1985; Pica and Doughty, 1985; Varonis and Gass, 1985a, 1985b; Pica, 1988) called this type of work, in which conversation participants negotiate to achieve mutu al understanding, negotiated interaction as well as negotiation of meaning. Oth er studies ( Doughty and Pica, 1986; Pica, 1985, 1986; Pica, Young et al., 1987) labeled this type of work conversational modification as well as interactional modification. Essentially, all the research, no matter what label they used, discussed the conversational routines in which one conversation participant requests clarification and the other pa rticipant obliges and modifies his or her message. The terminology that became most common i n the field is negotiation of meaning. To this day, this is the most common term used for this type of work. The types of interactions research examined within the field of negotiation of meaning variously focused on NS-NNS interactions as well as NNS-NNS interaction. Most of the beginning work (Long, 1981; Gass and Va ronis, 1985a, 1985b) examined both NS-NS and NS-NNS interactions. Long (1981, 19 83) compared adult NS-NS interactions to NS-NNS interactions. He found that there were differences between NSNS interactions and NS-NNS interactions. NSs modif ied their utterances if prompted by the NNSs. When the NNSs asked for help in interpre ting the message, NSs shortened their sentences, provided sentences with a lower ty pe-token ratio, and used more nouns. In addition, NSs used more confirmation checks, com prehension checks, clarification requests, self-repetitions, other repetitions, and expansions. Gass and Varonis (1985)

PAGE 36

24 also considered NS-NNS interactions. In their stud y, adult NNSs made telephone calls to randomly selected NSs from the phone book. They fo und that there were differences in negotiation of meaning, quantity of speech, scope o f repair, elaboration, and transparency depending on the level of proficiency of the NNSs. In addition, NSs initiated more negotiation routines with low-level proficiency NNS s. Varonis and Gass (1985) looked at NS-NNS interactions and found that NSs and NNSs often do not share the same world view, background or cultural assumption and that it is this non-shared referential knowledge that may lead to misunderstandings. While some researchers investigated NS-NNS interact ion, others (Doughty and Pica, 1986; Pica, 1985, 1996; Pica and Doughty, 198 5) compared the way in which classroom tasks used in a teacher-fronted format as well as in a group format framed NNSs interactions. These researchers found that co nfirmation and comprehension checks, clarification requests, and selfand other repetitions were more abundant in group interactions (Doughty and Pica, 1986; Pica, 1 985). In addition, they found that in the tasks requiring information exchange, the inter action patterns were modified. In other words, when students worked in groups, they more co nsistently and routinely modified their utterances. Following the many studies describing NS-NNS and NN S-NNS interactions, researchers began to look for a more direct link be tween interaction and L2 learning. Studies demonstrating a link between interaction an d L2 development began to emerge (Gass and Varonis, 1994; Pica, 1986; Pica, Young et al., 1987). In her study, Pica (1986) compared the listening comprehension of learners wh o had received pre-modified input

PAGE 37

25 with no interaction to the listening comprehension of learners who had received interactionally-modified input and were encouraged to interact with the NS providing the input. She found that interaction aids comprehensi on. Learners were assigned into one of two conditions: pre-modified input with no inter action and interactionally modified input. Listening comprehension of learners in the interactionally-modified input group was greater. Pica, Young et al. (1987) also examin ed the impact of interaction on comprehension and found that access to interactiona lly modified input lead to significantly greater comprehension. Gass and Varonis (1994) examined the effects of int eraction on L2 production. They compared performance of NS-NNS dyads that rece ived modified input, unmodified input, interactive communication, and non-interacti ve communication. The dyads had to perform a task in which they described to a partner where to place certain objects on a board. The data were analyzed by calculating the a ccuracy and inaccuracy of placements on the board. The researchers found that NNS who h ad the opportunity to interact were able to give better directions. This study helped to solidify the relationship between interaction and L2 production. The evidence supporting the notion that negotiation aids L2 learning in general was mounting, yet there was a lack of direct confir mation between interaction and L2 development. Mackey (1995) in her study examined t he acquisition of question formations. She established that learners who part icipated in structure-focused interactions moved along a developmental path more quickly than learners who did not have an opportunity to participate in such interact ions. Those learners who received

PAGE 38

26 premodified input, but were not permitted to intera ct, did not move along the developmental path as rapidly. Corrective Feedback Interaction between two interlocutors can be modif ied or restructured through negotiating of meaning, but this is not the only me ans interaction can be modified; the flow of interaction can also be interrupted with th e use of corrective feedback strategies. Negotiation work brings about feedback and “[s]uch feedback draws learners’ attention to mismatches between input and output, that is, ca uses them to focus on form, and can induce noticing of the kinds of forms for which a p ure diet of comprehensible input will not suffice “ (Long and Robinson, 1998, p. 23). Th is feedback in turn produces corrective reformulations from a second language le arner. Although the need for negotiation of meaning, conve rsational interaction, input, and output for language learning has been acknowled ged in the SLA field including the recognized fact that negotiation works brings about corrective feedback, the way in which learners should be informed that there is a m ismatch between input and output remains problematic. Long (1990) states that correc tive feedback is a way of drawing the language learner’s attention to the mismatch betwee n input and output. In other words, corrective feedback provides learners with informat ion about what is acceptable and unacceptable in the target language. The questions that framed research in feedback were raised by Hendrickson (1978) and are still guiding questions regarding feedback today. These guiding questions include: should errors be c orrected?, when should errors be

PAGE 39

27 corrected?, which learner errors should be correcte d?, how should learner errors be corrected?, and who should correct learner errors? Steered by these guiding questions, researchers hav e conducted studies in the corrective feedback field. Since many of these res earchers have used various terms, in the next section, terms used in the literature will be clarified and discussed. Terms. Various terms or labels have been used in the lite rature to describe what happens when the learner is informed that his or her produc tion of the target language is unacceptable or deviant from the target language. The most common of these labels include corrective feedback, negative feedback, neg ative evidence, and interactive feedback. The term employed normally depends on th e field of research, the theoretical perspective, the theoretical standpoint of the rese archer, the research concern, and the way data is collected and analyzed. When Schachter conducted a historical perspective of corrective feedback in 1991, she found that vari ous terms were being used within different fields of study: Corrective feedback is a term often found in the pe dagogical field of second language teaching/learning. Its counterpart in the linguistic field of language acquisition is negative data or negative evidence; and its counterpart in the psychological field of concept learning is negative feedback (Schachter, 1991, p. 89).

PAGE 40

28 Second language and foreign language teachers used the term error treatment (Fanselow, 1977) in the 70’s and the term corrective feedback (Kasper, 1985) in the 80’s. These terms were also used by researchers investigating t he impact of feedback on classroom teaching. Hendrickson (1978) used the term error correction and (Lightbown and Spada, 1999) used the term corrective feedback Researchers examining feedback within linguistics used the term negative evidence (DeKeyser, 1993; White, 1991). Several researchers who examined feedback in immersion clas srooms (Carroll and Swain, 1993; Chaudron, 1977, 1986; Spada and Lightbown, 1993) us ed the term corrective treatment Quite a bit of research in feedback was carried out under the interactionist theoretical perspective and many of these researchers (Doughty and Varela, 1998; Lightbown and Spada, 1990; Long, 1991; White, Spada et al., 1991; ) used the term focus-on-form to refer to what took place when the learner received information that his or her utterance was incorrect or non-target like. Focus-on-form re search specifically considered whether non-target utterances should be corrected at all. Recent work including Lyster and Ranta (1997), Lyster (1998), and Panova & Lyster (2002) u se the term corrective feedback. Other contemporary research, all of it stemming fro m the interactionists perspective, uses the terms feedback (Doughty, 1993; Mackey, Gass et al., 2000), negative evidence (Long, 1996; Oliver, 1995), and negative feedback (Long, I nagaki et al., 1998; Oliver, 1995). Although various terms have been used, they all ref er to the same phenomenon, what takes place when language learners are informed tha t an utterance is unacceptable in the target language.

PAGE 41

29 Different terminology has also been used to disting uish or polarize different types of feedback. These distinctions include a positive versus negative evidence division, a preemptive versus reactive distinction, an explicit versus implicit distinction, as well as a conversational vs. didactic and a conjunctive vs. disjunctive categorization. Positive evidence and negative evidence can be defi ned roughly as what is acceptable and what is unacceptable in a language r espectively. The input that a learner receives from a native speaker serves as positive e vidence (Long, 1996). Positive evidence provides the learner with models of what i s acceptable in the target language. Negative evidence, on the other hand, informs the l earner that certain utterances are unacceptable in the target language. Negative evid ence “can take several forms, including grammar rules, overt feedback on error, r ecasts, or communication breakdowns followed by repair sequences containing positive ev idence of permissible alternatives” (Long, 1996). These forms of negative evidence pro vide the learner with information of what is not allowed in the target language. In a l ater reiteration of input, Long (1998) breaks positive evidence and negative evidence down even further into preemptive and reactive evidence. Preemptive negative evidence ca n be defined as the explanation of grammar rules. Reactive evidence can be defined as “where the teacher reacted to an error or apparent difficulty that a student exhibit ed during a communicative activity” (Lightbown and Spada, 1990). Reactive evidence, or feedback provided to the lear ner, is then further subdivided into explicit and implicit evidence. “Explicit neg ative feedback would be any feedback that overtly states that a learner’s output was not part of the language-to-be-learned”

PAGE 42

30 (Carroll and Swain, 1993). The most salient aspect of this definition is that feedback is provided openly and directly. On the other hand, i mplicit correction signals to the learner that the interlocutor failed to understand the mess age he or she is trying to covey. The interlocutor will use strategies such as negotiatio n strategies, confirmation checks and clarification requests. A more detailed definition of implicit feedback is provided by Carroll and Swain (1993): “Implicit negative feedback would include correctio ns (because learners must infer from the interaction that their utterance was wrong) and such things as confirmation checks, failures to understand, and re quests for clarification (because learners must infer that the form of their utterance is responsible for the interlocutor’s comprehension problem” (Carroll and Swain 1993, p. 361). We can also further define explicit and implicit fe edback according to whether the feedback provides information about the code or whe ther it provides information about the message (Long, Inagaki et al., 1998). The main focus of explicit feedback is to provide information about the code and what is unac ceptable in the target language. The intent of implicit feedback, on the other hand, is to inform the learner that the message was not understood. Since explicit correction norm ally provides information about the rules of the language, and implicit correction prov ides information about the message, we find that explicit feedback is relatively infrequen t and implicit negative feedback is more common in naturalistic interaction (Mackey, Oliver et al., 2003). Two other taxonomies of repair that have been prop osed are also important because they focus on classroom repair. These two distinctions include conversational

PAGE 43

31 versus didactic repair and conjunctive versus disjunctive repair This terminology distinction was proposed by van Lier in 1988. Acco rding to van Lier (1988), didactic repair is pedagogic in nature and conversational re pair is common in face-to-face interaction and addresses problems in conversation. Therefore, it is anticipated that when the focus of an activity is conversation, one would expect more conversational repair and when the focus of an activity is classroom specific more didactic repair is observed. The other distinction made by van Lier is one of conjun ctive and disjunctive repair. Conjunctive repair is feedback that helps, enables, and supports the conversation. Disjunctive repair is repair that evaluates the utt erance. Van Lier’s terminology distinction describes what might take place in a cl assroom when language is evaluated. Since this particular study is nested in the pedag ogical field, it will use the term corrective feedback to refer to the response provid ed by an instructor to a learner turn containing an error. The response contains informa tion about what is acceptable in the target language. This information is delivered in one of two ways: the instructor provides the learner with the target-like form in the correc tive feedback move or does not provide the learner with the target-like form. The former can come in two forms, explicit feedback and implicit feedback. The later provides information about the error or attempt to elicit the correct answer from the learner. Methodology. Many empirical studies in the area of feedback and have been conducted under various theoretical umbrellas within SLA and hence the use of different terminologies to

PAGE 44

32 underline differing effects of a variety of feedbac k forms. A thorough review of the literature also highlights the richness in the rese arch. This research ranges from observational to experimental, classroom based to l aboratory based, within second language settings and foreign language settings, ex amining Teacher-NNS interactions, NS-NNS interaction and NNS-NNS interactions. Experimental and quasi-experimental research. The initial experimental and quasi-experimental st udies considering feedback in language learning were conducted in the early 1990’ s (Carroll and Swain, 1993; Carroll, Swain et al., 1992; DeKeyser, 1993; Lightbown and S pada, 1990; Spada and Lightbown, 1993; White, 1991; White, Spada et al. 1991;). Alt hough all of these studies fall under the experimental and quasi-experimental design cate gory, one observes differences of participants used, setting of the study, and langua ges examined. Several of these early studies (Lightbown and Spada, 1990; Spada and Light bown, 1993; White, 1991; White, Spada et al., 1991) examined corrective feedback in the elementary school setting while other studies examined corrective feedback in adult learners (Carroll and Swain, 1993; Carroll, Swain et al., 1992;). One of these studie s examined corrective feedback in a high school setting (DeKeyser, 1993). Nearly all of the studies (DeKeyser, 1993; Spada and Lightbown, 1993; White, 1991; White, Spada et al., 1991;) were conducted with English as a Second Language (ESL) learners, except two (Ca rroll and Swain, 1993; Carroll, Swain et al., 1992) that were conducted with French as a Foreign Language learners.

PAGE 45

33 Two of these early studies (White, 1991; White, Sp ada et al., 1991) examined how error correction aided the enhancement of the i nput. Both studies investigated the same population, used the same research design, but examined different syntactic forms. White (1991) examined adverb placement and White, S pada, et. al. (1991) examined question development. The population observed in t hese studies was comprised of children in grades 5 and 6, enrolled in an intensiv e ESL program in Canada, whose NL was French. The research design includes a pre-tes t, a post-test and a follow-up test. The tests consisted of two written tasks, a cartoon tas k and a preference task, and one oral communication task. All were administered three ti mes during the school year and the results at the various points in time were used as the pre-test, post-test, and follow-up tests. Two classes received form-focused instructi on on adverb placement and three classes received form-focused instruction on questi on formation. The form-focused instruction was administered by the classroom teach ers. Teachers were encouraged to provide learners with corrective feedback to the le arners throughout the school year as the learners performed the cartoon, preference and oral communication tasks. The students’ responses to the tests were audio-recorde d and transcribed for analysis. In the first study, White (1991) concluded that corrective feedback may assist L2 learners with adverb placement. However, the results from the fo llow-up study were not as strong and might have been the case that the knowledge is not retained in the long-term. The analysis of the second study (White, Spada et al., 1991) suggests that learners who receive form-focused instruction on question format ion significantly outperform learners who do not receive this instruction. The conclusio n that can be drawn from these two

PAGE 46

34 early studies is that input enhancement, or more sp ecifically corrective feedback, can assist learners with certain syntactic forms. Thes e findings are in part corroborated by Spada and Lightbown (1993), who employed a quasi-ex perimental design study. In their study two classes received form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on question formation. The students in the comparison group co ntinued to receive regular intensive teaching over the period of the study. Interestin gly enough, it was the comparison group who outperformed the experimental group. It may be that both sustained focus on form and feedback are necessary for the development of c ertain syntactic features. Earlier experimental work in corrective feedback f ocused heavily on acquisition of specific forms: (Carroll and Swain, 1993; Carrol l, Swain et al., 1992; DeKeyser 1993). Carroll and Swain (1993) examined the effects of im plicit and explicit negative feedback, while Dekeyser (1993) considered error correction o n dative alternation, and Carroll and Swain, et. al. (1992) looked at grammar knowledge, as well as morphological generalizations. Carroll, Swain, et al. in their 1992 study set out to investigate whether error correction can aid adult learners construct morphol ogical generalizations. Using an experimental design, this study looked at 79 NSs of Canadian English who were studying French at the university level. Learners were firs t grouped into two levels of proficiency: intermediate and advanced learners of French. When examining whether error correction had an effect, the results of this study were quite positive. The experimental group outperformed the comparison group. The results wit h regard to morphological generalizations are not as positive. There were no differences between the experimental

PAGE 47

35 group and the comparison group in regard to learned generalizations. Consequently, this study does not contribute to the question of whethe r corrective feedback can assist in language learning. Another earlier quasi-experimental study examined the effects of corrective feedback on grammar acquisition and oral proficienc y (DeKeyser, 1993). This study examined two classes of 35 Dutch-speaking high scho ol seniors learning French as a foreign language. The researcher asked one teacher to correct student errors as frequently and as explicitly as possible for one school year. The other teacher was asked to avoid error correction as much as possible for the school year. Ten class periods from the school year were selected, audio-taped, transcribed and analyzed. Five instruments were used to examine the effect of error correction on g rammar and oral proficiency: aptitude test, extrinsic motivation measure, French class an xiety, proficiency, and grammatical achievement. The results for the study were mixed. Overall we can conclude that corrective feedback does not seem to have a signifi cant across-the-board effect on student achievement and proficiency. The study does conclu de that corrective feedback interacts with individual differences including previous achi evement, extrinsic motivation, and anxiety. It is also important to note that for stu dents with very high or very low scores on these variables, corrective feedback made a signifi cant difference. Once again, this study fails to give conclusive evidence with regard to th e role of corrective feedback on grammar acquisition and oral proficiency. However, this study does contribute to the body of research in corrective feedback since it do es provide positive evidence for very high and very low scoring students.

PAGE 48

36 Another study that contributed to a growing unders tanding of the effects of corrective feedback on specific aspects of language learning is Carroll and Swain (1993). These researchers set out to empirically demonstrat e the effects of negative feedback on dative alternation by 100 adult ESL learners whose L1 was Spanish. The learners were enrolled in low-intermediate ESL classes in Toronto An experimental design was used and it examined the interactions between the NNS an d the researchers. Learners were placed into one of five groups. Learners in group “a” were told they were wrong and given explicit feedback on how dative alternation w orks while learners in group “b” were simply told they were wrong. Modeling was provided for learners in group “c” when they made a mistake. Modeling was considered to be an implicit type of feedback in this study. Learners in group “d” received indirect imp licit feedback and were asked if they were sure of their response. The last group was gr oup “z” and this group received no treatment. The experiment was conducted individual ly with each learner. In addition, the learner performed a listening test, filled out a background questionnaire, participated in the experimental session and performed a recall 1, and a recall 2 task. Learners who were told they were wrong and given explicit feedba ck on how the language worked performed significantly better than all other group s. According to the researchers, this is a significant result because both explicit and impl icit types of feedback lead to learning. In addition, it is important to note that the group receiving explicit metalinguistic feedback is the one that outperformed all other gro ups. It may seem that it is this type of feedback that is the most effective.

PAGE 49

37 In 1995, Mackey showed a direct link between intera ction and L2 acquisition. Her study examined the acquisition of question form ation. She found that learners who participated in structure-focused interactions move d along a developmental path more quickly than learners who did not have an opportuni ty to participate in such interactions. Those learners who received premodified input, but were not permitted to interact did not move along the developmental path as rapidly. Alth ough Mackey’s study did not specifically look at corrective feedback, she set t he ground for other researchers who wanted to examine the effects of corrective feedbac k on L2 acquisition. The early experimental studies paved the wave for t he more recent experimental studies, many of which consider the effects of a sp ecific type of corrective feedback: recasts (Ayoun, 2001; Doughty and Varela, 1998; Lee man, 2003; Long, Inagaki et al., 1998; Mackey and Philp, 1998). Several were conduc ted in an ESL setting (Doughty and Varela, 1998; Leeman, 2003; Mackey, Oliver et al., 2003; Mackey and Philp, 1998) and four (Ayoun, 2001; Leeman, 2003; Long, Inagaki et a l., 1998; O'Relly, Flaitz et al., 2001) were conducted in a foreign language setting. Several current experimental and quasi-experimental studies have been conducted in English as a second language settings. One such study (Doughty and Varela, 1998) was conducted with 34 middle school ESL students an d it used two intact classes. Both classes completed science reports in which students wrote the answers to the questions and the teacher orally asked them about their answe rs. The focus of the activities was the past tense. The treatment group received focus on form instruction in addition to science content instruction in these three reports. The co ntrol group received only the science

PAGE 50

38 content. The written reports as well as the oral re ports were used as the data. The interlanguage was analyzed and coded as target-like (TL), emergent interlanguage (IL) and noted non-target-like (NTL). The researchers f ound that learners in the treatment group, in other words, the group receiving focus on form and feedback, improved in accuracy of the past tense as well as increased in their attempts to form the past tense. In addition, the study showed that students benefited from a combination of communicative pressure, the need to use the past tense for the ac tivity, and frequent focused recasting; focused because it was limited to two linguistic fe atures and frequent because it was almost always provided. While the previous study, did not specifically deal with recasts, Mackey and Philp’s 1998 study focused on the effects of recast ing on language development. Similar to the previous study, this study examined ESL lear ners. Thirty-five adult ESL learners in Australia with mixed L1 backgrounds participated in the study. Students were then randomly placed into one of three groups: interacto r, recast and control. The interaction group received negotiated interaction while the rec ast group received interaction with intensive recasts or reformulations of the statemen t, and the control group received no treatment. Participants worked in NS-NNS dyads and performed three tasks. Pretests, posttest, and delayed posttests were administered. The results suggest that advanced learners benefit from interaction with recasts more so than interaction alone. Another study conducted in the ESL setting is that of Mackey, Oliver and Leeman, 2003. The uniqueness of this study is that it compared adult and child interactions and NS-NNS and NNS-NNS interactions. Learners were randomly assigned

PAGE 51

39 to form 12 NS-NNS child dyads, 12 NNS-NNS child dya ds, 12 NS-NNS adult dyads, and 12 NNS-NNS adult dyads. Each dyad carried out two tasks, a one-way task and a twoway task in a counter-balanced design. Transcripti ons of the first 100 utterances in each task were made and the data were coded according to whether the utterance contained feedback, no feedback, opportunity for modified out put, no opportunity, modified output, or no modified output. The data were analyzed in r eference to the amount of feedback provided. In the adult dyads, NSs provided signifi cantly more feedback than NNSs. In the child dyads, there was no significant differenc e in the amount of feedback provided by NSs or NNSs. The data were also analyzed for op portunities for modified output. In the adult dyads, feedback from NNSs offered signifi cantly more opportunity for modified output than from NSs. In the child dyads, there wa s no significant difference for opportunities for modified output between NS-NNS an d NNS-NNS. The data were also analyzed for production of modified output. In the adult dyads, no significant difference in terms of production of modified output between N NS-NNS and NS-NNS dyads was found. In the children dyads, children seemed to u tilize feedback more if their interlocutor was a NNS. One can conclude that the amount, nature, and response to feedback depends on dyad type. A handful of experimental and quasi-experimental s tudies have been conducted in a foreign language setting. Of these, two examined Spanish as a Foreign Language (Leeman, 2003; O'Relly, Flaitz et al., 2001), one s tudy examined both Spanish as a foreign language and Japanese as a foreign language (Long, Inagaki et al., 1998), and one study examined French as a foreign language (Ayoun, 2001).

PAGE 52

40 In their study, Long, Inagaki et al. (1998) examin ed the function of implicit negative feedback in SLA. Specifically, this exper imental study considered the effects of models and recasts. The study was conducted with 2 4 adult learners of Japanese and with 30 adult learners of Spanish. Learners were admini stered a pretest and then assigned into the model, recast, and control groups. Learners pe rformed communication tasks and received either models or recasts depending on the group they had been assigned to. The gain scores for the Japanese learners were not stat istically significant, whether they received models, recasts, or control. The gain sco res for the Spanish learners provided some evidence that models and recasts play a facili tative role in L2 acquisition. Two other studies (Leeman, 2003; O'Relly, Flaitz e t al., 2001;) were conducted with Spanish learners. O’Relly, Flaitz et al. (200 1) compared the effects of clarification requests and the effects of confirmation checks on output. During the experimental sessions, learners in group one received clarificat ion requests by NS when they made a error and learners in group two received corrective confirmation checks by NS when they made a mistake. The control group did not receive any type of feedback. Although the results were not statistically significant, student s who received confirmation checks scored higher on the posttest. A more recent study conducted with Spanish learner s was conducted by Leeman in 2003. Leeman set out to investigate the relatio nship between recasts and language development. Seventy four first-year undergraduate Spanish students at the university level participated in the study. Participants were randomly assigned into one of four groups, each of which received specific types of fe edback: recasts, negative evidence,

PAGE 53

41 enhanced salience of positive evidence, and unenhan ced positive evidence. The unenhanced positive evidence group served as the co ntrol group in this study. The target structure was adjective agreement and students rece ived a pretest, posttest, second posttest assessing this structure. The students co mpleted an information-gap activity with the researcher, who provided the learners with the corresponding type of feedback depending on the group they belonged to. The recas t and enhanced-salience groups performed significantly better than the control gro up. This suggests that exposure to input with recasts can promote greater L2 developme nt than input with unenhanced positive evidence. In 2001, Ayoun she conducted a study in which she examined the role of negative and positive feedback in L2 acquisition of the past perfect and imperfect tense. The participants of this study included 145 students en rolled in second, third, and fourth semester French classes at a major university in th e United States. The interesting aspect of this study is that the students performed the ta sk and received feedback using the software program HyperCard. The students performed a grammaticality judgment task and a free production task that assisted in placing the students into three levels: low, mid or high. Students were then randomly assigned into one of three feedback groups: grammar, recasting, or modeling. The learners then performed another task, which varied based on the group they were assigned to. Posttest results showed that the recast group performed significantly better than the grammar gro up, but not the modeling group.

PAGE 54

42 Observational research. Similar to the experimental studies, one finds tha t observational studies examining feedback have been conducted in different settings and with different participants. This range of research includes rese arch conducted in second language settings, immersion settings and foreign language s ettings, studies conducted with child participants and adult participants, and studies th at examined teacher-student interaction, NS-NNS interactions, and NNS-NNS interactions. The majority of observational studies done with fee dback have been carried out in a English as a Second language setting (Fanselow, 1 977; Mackey, Gass et al., 2000; Mackey and Oliver, 2000; Panova and Lyster, 2003; O liver, 1995) and in a French Immersion setting (Chaudron, 1977, 1986; Lyster, 19 98; Lyster and Ranta 1997). Fewer studies have been conducted in foreign language set tings. Kasper (1985) conducted a study with Danish students learning English. Dough ty (1993) looked at French as a Foreign language learners and Mackey, Gass, et al. (2000) compared ESL and Italian as a foreign language learners. One observational study has examined Spanish as a Foreign Language learners (Morris, 2002). Within these observational studies in feedback one also find that the majority have been conducted with grade school children (Cha udron, 1977, 1986; Lightbown and Spada, 1990; Lyster, 1998; Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Oliver, 1995, 2000). Fewer studies have been conducted with adult learners (Mackey, Ga ss et al., 2000; Oliver, 2000; Panova and Lyster, 2003) and even a smaller amount have been conducted with university students (Doughty, 1993; Morris, 2002).

PAGE 55

43 The bulk of observational studies has considered t eacher-student interactions (Chaudron, 1977, 1986; Doughty, 1993; Fanselow, 197 7; Kasper, 1985; Lyster, 1998; Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Oliver, 2000; Panova and Ly ster, 2003) while two have considered NS-NNS interaction (Mackey, Gass et al., 2000; Oliver, 1995) and one has considered NNS-NNS interaction (Morris, 2002). Observational studies examining the use of feedback in the language classroom were conducted from the late 1970’s up until the mi d 1990’s (Chaudron, 1977, 1986; Doughty, 1993; Fanselow, 1977; Kasper, 1985). As m entioned above, these studies were conducted with different populations, but although conducted in different settings, some researchers obtained similar findings. This is tru e when one examines three of the early observational studies. One of these studies was co nducted in an ESL setting and one conducted in an immersion setting. Fanselow (1977) videotaped 11 experienced ESL teachers teaching the same lesson to their class. The transcripts of the lessons were transcribed and analyzed. Fanselow found that teac hers were more likely to correct meaning errors and that they were least likely to c orrect grammatical errors. These findings are corroborated by Chaudron’s 1986 study in which he examined three French immersion teachers and their classes. He found tha t in rating the error types, all teachers considered content errors to be the most important. Similarly to these findings, Kasper (1985), while examining repair in foreign language teaching, found that content-centered activities elicited different types of repair patte rns. In addition, Kasper found that interruptions of content-oriented discourse were av oided. These were expected in this

PAGE 56

44 setting because the focus is on content instead of language, which is often the focus in second and foreign language classes. Several of the early observational studies identifi ed errors made by students, feedback types provided by teachers, and considered the link between error, feedback, and repair. Fanselow (1977) identified types of fe edback provided by the teacher to the students. He found 16 types of error treatment wit h the most common type of treatment being one where the learner with the correct answer Chaudron (1977) examined the relationship between error type, feedback, and succ ess on the part of the learner in subsequent turns. He developed a model for correct ive feedback in the classroom and analyzed the relationship between error type, corre ctions, and success. He categorized errors as phonological, morphological, syntactic, l exical, and content and the types of feedback as repetition with change, repetition with change and emphasis, repetition with no change, and repetition with no change and emphas is. The frequency of corrections and successes according to error type and feedback were calculated. The calculations revealed a positive relationship between repetition s with reductions and success on the part of the learner. Additionally, the calculation s showed a very low success ratio between repetitions with expansion and success by t he learner. Similarly, Doughty (1993) investigated the fine-tun ing of feedback by teachers. Learner utterances, teacher feedback and learner re sponse were coded and analyzed. She found that teachers do fine-tune their feedback to language learners and it does appear that learners were able to perceive this fine-tunin g.

PAGE 57

45 A summary of these early studies reveals that type of error does have an impact on the type of feedback provided to learners. In a ddition, it appears that there is a link between feedback type and success or repair by stud ents in subsequent turns. Current observational studies continued to examine the topics previously explored, identifying feedback types as well as inv estigating whether there is a relationship between error type and feedback type. Some of these studies examine the use of feedback in a classroom setting and specific ally look at teacher-student interactions (Lyster, 1998; Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Oliver, 2000; Panova and Lyster, 2003) while other studies examine the feedback prov ided to learners by NSs (Mackey, Gass et al., 2000; Oliver, 1995) and still yet othe r research has examined feedback in NNS-NNS interactions (Morris, 2002). Most of the research examined adult interactions, but Oliver (1995) examined child NS-NNS dyads. This study sought to examine t he nature of negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation. Specifically, this stud y set out to investigate whether or not NSs provide negative feedback to their NNS conversa tional partners. Ninety-six child dyads performed a one-way and a two-way task on two occasions and one week apart. The interaction was audioand video-recorded and t ranscribed. The researcher examined the exchange patterns, NNS initial turns, NS respon ses, the NS responses to NNS errors, and investigated whether or not the type of NNS err or triggers a particular type of NS response. The results of this study seem to sugges t that child NSs do provide implicit negative feedback to their NNS peers and that child language learners use this feedback in subsequent turns. NS children are able to modif y their interactions for the NNS peer

PAGE 58

46 and in turn provide negative feedback to the NNS. In addition, evidence from this study seems to suggest that NNSs incorporate negative fee dback into their language. It is also important to note that this study has provided a me thodological advance in feedback research. Interestingly, the researcher eliminated turns in the data that did not provide an opportunity for the NNS to repeat or incorporate th e recast. Another study that examined NS-NNS dyads is that o f Mackey, Gass & McDonough (2000). The difference with this study i s that they examined adult NS-NNS dyads in ESL and Italian as a Foreign language sett ings. Ten ESL and seven Italian as a Foreign language learners participated in the study NS-NNS dyads were formed and they performed a two-way information exchange activ ity. The NS provided interactional feedback when it seemed appropriate. Immediately a fter the activity, the video tape was played for the learner and the learner reflected on what they believed they had been corrected on and why, the stimulated recall techniq ue. Findings from this study indicate that learners are quite accurate in their perceptio ns of lexical, semantic, and phonological feedback. Learners were not so accurate when disti nguishing morphosyntactic feedback. A different type of interaction was examined by Mo rris in 2002. He looked at NNS-NNS interactions with university Spanish studen ts. Students completed a jigsaw activity in NNS-NNS dyads. The interaction was tap e-recorded and the data were coded. Errors were coded as syntactic error, lexical error or use of L1. The feedback provided by the NNS was also coded as explicit correction, r ecasts, and negotiation moves. The immediate response by the NNS was coded as repair o r needs repair. This study also found that adult learners do provide interactional negative feedback to ill-formulated

PAGE 59

47 utterances. With respect to the type of error and what type of feedback it invites, the study found that syntactic errors invite recasts, a nd lexical errors invite negotiation moves. The results for repair were low, but do see m to suggest that when learners receive interactional negative feedback, they do re pair. Negotiation moves seem to be the most effective type of feedback because it lead s to immediate syntactic repairs and lexical repairs. Of significant importance to the current study is research that has looked at teacher-student interactions (Lyster, 1998; Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Oliver, 2000; Panova and Lyster, 2003). These are studies that examine error treatment sequences within the classroom and between teachers and students. The e rror treatment sequence that has been examined in the current research includes the error made by the student, the correction provided by the teacher, and the reaction of the st udent. Current research has identified the various types of feedback provided to learners, the types of errors made by students, and the relationship between error type and feedbac k type. Oliver (2000) examined teacher-fronted lessons and pair work within the classroom. The data for this study were collected from 20 intact classes, ten classes comprised of adult ESL students and ten classes com prised of primary-school-aged ESL students, and 32 NS-NNS dyads. Teacher-fronted les sons were examined in the intact classes and pair work was looked at in the dyads. The teacher-fronted lessons were videoand audio-recorded. In the pair work aspect of the study, dyads worked on a twoway task and a one-way task. Transcriptions of the interaction were made and the data were coded. The learner’s initial turn was coded a s either correct, nontargetlike or

PAGE 60

48 incomplete. The teacher’s response to the learner’ s initial turn was coded as either ignore, negotiate, provide with negative feedback o r ignore. The learner’s reaction to the teacher’s response was coded as continue, ignore, r espond, no change to respond, or continue. “The results showed that learners both received negative feedback in response to their non-target-like utterances and used this feedback” (Oliver, 2000, p. 119). In addition, the study found that the age of the learn ers and context does affect the pattern of interaction. Another study that examined teacher-student intera ctions is that of Lyster and Ranta (1997). These researchers examined six Frenc h immersion classrooms in the Montreal area. Their data base included 100 hours of audio-recordings of lessons in three Grade 4 classes and one Grade 4/5 class. The autho rs developed a coding model using the already existing COLT coding scheme and Doughty 's analysis of fine-tuning feedback. The researchers examined error sequences comprised of an error, teacher feedback, and the reaction to the feedback. Errors in this study were defined as phonological, lexical, grammatical, gender, and L1. The researcher found that six different types of corrective feedback were provide d to the students: explicit correction, recasts, clarification requests, metalinguistic fee dback, elicitation, and repetition. The analysis showed that teachers tend to use recasts e ven though they are very ineffective at eliciting student-generated repair. Although not u sed as commonly, elicitation, metalinguistic feedback, clarification requests, an d repetition are types of feedback that lead to more student-generated repair.

PAGE 61

49 Using the same database, Lyster (1998) examined wh at types of learner errors lead to what types of corrective feedback and what types of corrective feedback lead to immediate repair of what types of learners. As men tioned above, Lyster & Ranta (1997) identified six main types of feedback: explicit cor rection, recasts, clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, and repetitio n. Since elicitation, metalinguistic feedback, clarification requests, and repetition al l elicited peerand self-repair, these four interactional moves were collapsed into negotiation of form. Because recasts and explicit correction did not lead to peeror self-repair, th ey remained as separate categories. In the Lyster (1997) article there are three types of corr ective feedback: explicit correction, recast, and negotiation of form. Similarly, one of the original categories used to classify learner errors had been dissolved in this new study This study examined grammatical errors, lexical errors, phonological errors, and un solicited uses of L1. The gender error classification has disappeared. The findings of th is study confirm that error type does indeed affect the choice of feedback. In addition, the study found that lexical errors lead to negotiation of form; grammatical and phonologica l errors lead to recasts. Negotiation of form seems to be most effective in leading to im mediate repair by the learner. These findings are corroborated by Panova & Lyster (2003) with an adult population. One class of 25 adult students in an E SL class in Canada was examined. Classroom interaction was observed for three weeks, 18 hours were recorded, and 10 hours were used for the study. Using the COLT sche me, the data were analyzed. In this study seven types of feedback were identified: reca st, translation, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, explicit corr ection, and repetition. The most

PAGE 62

50 common type of feedback provided to learners by tea chers was recast. Similarly, to Lyster’s 1998 study, this study found that clarific ation requests, elicitation and repetition lead to the highest level of uptake by students. Written feedback. Another area of inquiry related to corrective feed back is that of error treatment in second language writing. This area of study, which will be discussed as written feedback here, has many similarities with corrective feedbac k provided orally in traditional face-toface classrooms. According to Ferris (2002) the is sues covered in written feedback research include: what are the effects of teacher e rror correction on student writing?, do students attend to teacher feedback and attempt to utilize it in revisions of their texts?, do students who receive error feedback improve in thei r writing over time?, does it matter what types of corrective feedback students receive? are certain types of errors more “treatable” with certain types of error feedback?, what are students’ views and perceptions about error treatment in their writing? These lines of inquiry are quite similar to oral corrective feedback research. Although the se two areas of inquiry, written feedback and oral corrective feedback, have similar research agendas, the manner in which feedback is provided differs between the two. The purpose of the activity is one factor that affects the feedback provided. In writ ing classes, students typically turn in document and receive the document during the next c lass meeting. The teacher feedback is normally embedded on the text itself and some te achers use error codes to facilitate marking errors on the paper. The goal of oral inte ractions in foreign language classes is

PAGE 63

51 typically communication and students receive feedba ck orally. In addition, learners participating in oral interactions usually receive feedback from the instructor shortly after the mistake is made. Usually oral interactions fol low an IRF (initiating, responding, follow-up) pattern. This present study examines corrective feedback in the asynchronous and synchronous mode. Because of the nature of the sof tware, instructors are not able to provide embedded written commentary on student turn s. In addition, this interaction takes place using many-to-many communication instea d of one-to-one. All students and the instructor are present while the discussion tak es place in the online environment and the feedback takes on a public approach. Moreover, computer-mediated communication research (Sotillo, 2000) has found that the interac tions and corrective feedback in the asynchronous and synchronous mode resembles that fo und in oral interactions. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge this a rea of inquiry and highlight the similarities between the two lines of research. Computer-Mediated Communication Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) is the umbre lla term that refers to human interaction by means of computers. The vario us types of interaction that fall under CMC can be grouped into two categories: async hronous and synchronous interaction. Asynchronous interaction involves the participants communicating over elapsed timed. In this type of interaction, a time delay exists from the time the sender sends a message and the receiver reads the message. Examples of asynchronous technologies include email, text messages transmitt ed over cell phones, and bulletin

PAGE 64

52 boards. Synchronous interaction involves interacta nts participating online at the same time in order to communicate in real-time. Example s of synchronous communication include telephone conversations, board meetings, vo ice conferencing, video conferencing, and electronic chat. The present stu dy involves both synchronous and asynchronous interaction via a computer. Specifica lly, this study will examine discussion boards and text-based chat. The use of both asynchronous and synchronous techn ologies has intensified in all sectors of society including educational settings. Specifically related to this study is the use of CMC in university foreign language learning settings. It is, however, essential to ask why do language instructors use CMC for interac tion when communication can be achieved just as easily, if not more easily in trad itional face-to-face classrooms? Computer-mediated communication has been exploited in language learning settings because through interaction, CMC has the potential of providing learners with comprehensible input of encouraging learners to produce comprehensible output and of fostering negotiation of meaning (Chun, 1994; Ortega, 1997; Warschauer ,1998). Computer-mediated communication is believed to prov ide learners with the components associated with second language learning by support ing various types of interaction including leaner-learner, learner-teacher, and lear ner-native speaker. In these diverse settings, instructors can create an authentic envir onment for discussion; authentic because students participate in a communicative activity wi th a purpose and an audience. In asynchronous interaction, learners can communic ate in a delayed text-based medium. Learners have time to read the message or question posted and can plan before

PAGE 65

53 replying to the message. In addition, the discussi on is threaded and the original post and all comments related to the post remain available t o the learners. In the language classroom, asynchronous medium interaction provides learners with a space for authentic writing and communication. In synchronous interaction, learners can communicat e in a text-based medium that has been found to possess both oral characteristics and written characteristics. Computerassisted classroom discussion is neither really spe aking nor is it exactly writing (Beauvois, 1992). Synchronous CMC exhibits qualiti es of written and spoken language as well as attributes unique to CMC. It is sometim es considered a blend of ‘oral’ and ‘written’ language (Kern, 1998) and other times du bbed ‘speak-writing’ (Erben, 1999). Moreover, computer-mediated communication has been linked with numerous benefits for language learners. Computer-mediated communication has been associated with an increase in the quantity of language produc tion, an enhancement of language production, and equality of participation; it is th eorized that it leads to both speaking and writing skills in the second/foreign language, and that it fosters negotiation of meaning and focus on form. Quantity of language production. Research into CMC suggests that in this communicat ive environment, there is increased participation on the part of the students (Kelm, 1992; Kern, 1995; Sullivan and Pratt, 1996). The teacher’s role as the instructor shifts from disseminator of knowledge to a moderator and thus increases student participa tion (Chun, 1994; Kern, 1995; Sullivan

PAGE 66

54 and Pratt, 1996). Additionally, participation is e qualized among students and no one student dominates (Kelm, 1992; Sullivan and Pratt, 1996; Warschauer, 1996). Computer-mediated research indicates that computer assisted class discussions promote increased participation from students. In an observational study, Kelm (1992) found that students learning Portuguese produced be tween 100 to 130 written messages in a 50-minute synchronous whole-class discussion. Kern (1995) went a step further and compared the quantity of language produced by learn ers of French in an oral class discussion and the quantity of language produced in a synchronous discussion. He found a striking difference in the quantity of language p roduction. Students in the synchronous discussion produced over twice as many turns and ge nerated two to four times more sentences. In addition, Kern found that every stud ent participated in the synchronous discussion whereas a few students did not participa te at all in the oral discussion and the majority of oral discussion interactions was domina ted by five or so students. Sullivan & Pratt (1996) also compared oral discussions and com puter-assisted whole classroom discussions and found that the oral class had only 50% student participation while the computer-assisted discussion had 100% student parti cipation. In a case study of a French learner, Beauvois (1992) interviewed the student an d inquired about his experience in one session of electronic discussion. The student admi tted that it was the most French he had ever produced in a single class period. One of the ways that computer-assisted discussions assist in boosting student participation is by minimizing the teacher role; mi nimizing because a higher percentage of the turns are allocated to students in the compu ter-assisted environment. Sullivan &

PAGE 67

55 Pratt (1996) found that 65% of turns in the oral di scussion were accredited to the instructor, while only 15% of turns were teacher tu rns in the computer-assisted environment. The computer-assisted discussion tend s to have more student-student interactions. Chun (1994) found that students inte ract directly with each other as opposed to interacting mainly with the teacher. Kern (1995 ) also found a dramatically higher level of direct student-to-student interaction in t he synchronous discussions. The teacher role in the computer-assisted discussions shifts to one of moderator, the person in charge of moving the discussion along and contributing ide as. Research (Kelm, 1992; Sullivan and Pratt, 1996; Wa rschauer, 1996) also finds that participation is equalized in computer-assiste d discussion. Kelm (1992) noticed that computer-assisted discussion equalized participatio n. He observed that those students who sometimes dominate oral class discussion were u nable to dominate in the synchronous environment. Every student had an oppo rtunity to participate in the synchronous discussion. This includes shy students that sometimes do not participate in class. Chun (1994) found that the quieter, shyer s tudents were sometimes the most prolific in the electronic discussion. Both Sulliv an & Pratt (1996) and Warschauer (1996) examined small group interaction and compare d face-to-face small group interaction to synchronous small group interaction. Sullivan & Pratt (1996) examined small group discussions for peer feedback on writin g activities in the face-to-face environment and in the synchronous environment. Th ey found that in the oral discussion, the author dominated the discussion while on the co mputer, the author spoke less, consequently equalizing the participation among all members. Warschauer (1996) also

PAGE 68

56 compared student participation in two modes: face-t o-face discussion and electronic discussion. In a counterbalanced design, students in groups of four discussed questions; one question was discussed face-to-face and one was discussed electronically. Three out of the four groups had substantially more equal par ticipation in the electronic discussion when compared to the face-to-face discussion. This can be attributed to the fact that learners can contribute to the discussion without i nterruptions. Quality of language production. Research into CMC also suggests that it impacts th e quality of language generated by learners (Chun, 1994; Kelm, 1992; Kern, 1995; Wa rschauer, 1996; Yates, 1996). Kelm (1992) witnessed that students attempted more language structures in the electronic discussion than they normally do in a face-to-face discussion. Chun (1994) went a step further and classified sentences by function within the discourse. In her observation of first-year German over two semesters, she found tha t learners asked questions and provided answers, they used a variety of statements and imperatives, and managed discourse by requesting clarification, using greeti ngs and farewells. Chun (1994) also found that learners had different ‘styles’ of discu ssing in the electronic medium. Some learners wrote short sentences with simple grammati cal structures and some learners wrote more complete paragraphs with several sentenc es and with increased syntactic complexity. Kern (1995) classified the discourse functions of clauses used in two settings, oral discussion and electronic discussion. He found a w ider variety of discourse functions in

PAGE 69

57 the electronic discussion than in the oral discussi on. Greetings were present in the electronic discussion despite the fact that none we re present in the oral discussions; assertions were more common in the electronic discu ssion, and surprisingly student questions were over seven times more frequent in th e electronic discussion. Results form Kern’s study indicate that students produced a grea ter number and variety of verb forms and clause types in the electronic discussion. Warschauer (1996) set out to investigate if electr onic discussions included language which was lexically or syntactically more complex than face-to-face discussions. He employed a type-token ratio to inv estigate lexical complexity and a coordination index to examine syntactic complexity. Warschauer found that electronic discussions involved significantly more lexically a nd syntactically complex language. Another interesting phenomenon that occurs in elec tronic discussions is the use of the Target Language. Although the use of the TL pe r se does not constitute quality of language, language teachers are always trying to ge t students to practice the TL in the classroom. As Chun (1994) put it, students tend to revert to the L1 when the teacher is not present, but in the electronic discussion, the entire class, including the teacher reads and writes all the statements and students tend to use the TL. Kelm (1992) also found that learners ‘spoke’ in the Target Language and ev en made comments in the TL that were unrelated to the class or discussion such as j okes and asides. Similarly, Beauvois (1992) noticed that in a Portuguese class, there wa s little code-switching to English when the students were participating in an electronic di scussion. Incidents of English occurred when there was a need to clarify a particular vocab ulary word.

PAGE 70

58 Asynchronous vs. synchronous. While some of the early research looked at the qua ntity and quality of language produced in synchronous electronic discussions, an interest in a comparison of quality and quantity of language produced in the asynchrono us and synchronous modes of interaction surfaced. Sotillo (2000) examined the functions and syntactic complexity and the use of the Target Language in synchronous and a synchronous communication. She examined 25 students and two instructors in two int act classes of ESL academic writing university-level courses. Students in these classe s participated in both asynchronous and synchronous discussions and the transcripts were an alyzed. Findings from this study indicate that there are differences in the types of discourse functions present in both the asynchronous and synchronous data. Asynchronous da ta contained topic initiation moves, questions, student responses to teacheror student-generated questions, and comments on postings made by both teacher and stude nts. Synchronous data contained greetings, imperatives, requests for clarification and information, and adversarial moves. Since substantial differences were found by observi ng the data in the two modes, Sotillo elected to compare syntactic complexity of language produced in the two modes of interaction. Findings from her study indicate that language produced in the asynchronous mode is more syntactically complex than that produc ed in the synchronous mode. Although the findings of this study are valuable, a problem with the design of the study exists. In this particular study, asynchronous dis cussions were conducted during class time and as a group. This does not constitute a tr ue asynchronous discussion because

PAGE 71

59 students read postings and reply right away; it is merely a delayed synchronous discussion. CMC, input, output, negotiation of meaning. Additional benefits of CMC in language learning in clude access to comprehensible input (Ortega, 1997; Warschauer and Healey, 1998), opportunities for output production by learners (Blake, 2000; Erben, 1999; Ortega, 1997; Warschauer, 1998), and opportunities to negotiate meaning (Blak e, 2000; Fernndez-Garca and Martnez-Arbelaiz, 2002; Pellettieri, 2000). The interactionist literature emphasizes the role comprehensible input plays in second language acquisition. CMC can act as a reso urce in providing learners with comprehensible input. When learners are using CMC to communicate, they can always reread the sentence, take out a dictionary, ask que stions, etc. in order to make the input comprehensible (Warschauer, 1998). In addition, le arners have access to input produced by their peers and they have an opportunity to inco rporate others’ input (Ortega, 1997). In addition to examining the role of comprehensibl e input, the interactionist’s perspective claims that output may assist in langua ge learning. Output assists in language learning because it is believed to enhance fluency, contribute to consciousness raising, and can serve as a means to test hypotheses (Warsch auer, 1998). Electronic interactions in the target language appear to be optimal for fac ilitating and promoting comprehensible output (Ortega, 1997). Evidence points to the bene fits of CMC in relation to output, language production is increased by students and qu ality is improved. In addition to

PAGE 72

60 these benefits, there is a hidden benefit that CMC seems to assist the production of comprehensible output by learners. In electronic d iscussions, learners have more time to plan (Ortega, 1997; Warschauer, 1998). This is tru e in both the asynchronous and synchronous environments, but more so in the former In both these environments, learners have an opportunity to review what they ha ve written before sending it to the rest of the group. Increased planning time in CMC has t he potential of assisting production of comprehensible output by learners. Another claim of the interactionist’s view of lang uage learning is that negotiation of meaning can facilitate language learning (Long, 1980, 1996). Negotiation of meaning assists in language learning because it aids in mak ing input more comprehensible through the use of devices such as confirmation checks and clarification requests. In addition, the use of these devices leads to modified output. CMC environments appear to foster negotiation of learning. Interest stemmed from thi s claim and researchers began to explore negotiation of meaning in CMC environments. Negotiation of meaning in CMC was investigated in various manners. Some studies examined the types of modification devices used in the electronic environment (Lee, 2002a), other studies examined the quality an d quantity of negotiation (FidalgoEick, 2001). Still other studies examined negotiat ion of meaning in conjunction with task-based instruction (Blake, 2000; Fidalgo-Eick, 2001; Pellettieri, 2000; Smith, 2003b). Finally, another group of studies investigated how the face-to-face Varonis and Gass (1985) model of interaction responded in the electr onic environment (Fernndez-Garca and Martnez-Arbelaiz, 2002; Fidalgo-Eick, 2001; Sm ith, 2003a).

PAGE 73

61 Lee (2002) reported on the types of modification de vices that NNSs of Spanish employ during online synchronous exchanges in order to negotiate with other NNSs. Her results found that learners use the following strat egies: request for help, clarification check, self-correction, comprehension checks, confi rmation checks, use of English, topic shift, use of approximation, and sue of keyboard sy mbols. The first three of these strategies were the most common. Continuing to examine negotiation of meaning, Fidal go-Eick (2002) set out to investigate negotiation of meaning in synchronous i nteractions. She examined interaction between 30 intermediate Spanish I stude nts at a university, and interactions of these same students with native speakers. She foun d that the patterns of negotiation are very similar in both NNS-NNS and NS-NNS dyads. Thi s study found no significant differences in the amount of negotiations between t hese two types of dyads. Other studies set out to investigate how the Varon is and Gass (1985) model for negotiation of meaning in face-to-face interaction holds up in electronic discussions (Blake, 2000; Fidalgo-Eick, 2001; Smith, 2003a). B lake (2000) and Fidalgo-Eick (2002) found that the model developed for face-to-face int eraction does hold true in the synchronous electronic environment. Learners do in fact follow the typical schema of trigger, indicator, response, a reaction that was i llustrated in Varonis and Gass (1985). Similarly Fernndez-Garca, M. and A. Martnez-Arbe laiz, (2002) found that negotiations as they are operationalized by Varonis and Gass (19 85) do occur in the electronic medium, although not all types of modifications pos ed in the Varonis and Gass (1985) model appeared in the electronic discussions.

PAGE 74

62 Still yet, other studies examined negotiation of me aning in conjunction with taskbased instruction (Blake, 2000; Fidalgo-Eick, 2001; Pellettieri, 2000; Smith 2003a). Pellettieri (2000) explored negotiation of meaning and task-based instruction using electronic discussions with 20 undergraduate Spanis h students. Learners participated in communicative online tasks ranging from focused ope n conversation to more closed tasks such as jigsaw activities. This study found that t ask-based synchronous electronic discussions do indeed foster negotiation of meaning In addition, these negotiations do facilitate mutual comprehension and that learners d o attend to form and modify their output. Fidalgo-Eick (2002) examined differences i n the quantity of negotiation of meaning according to different task types. Her res ults showed significant differences in the amount of negotiation according to task type in which decision-making tasks triggered more negotiation. However, these results are not corroborated by other studies. Blake (2000) found that jigsaw activities elicited more negotiations in an online environment. Still another study (Smith, 2003b) fo und that task-type did not have a significant effect on communication strategy use. Overall, the CMC research examining negotiation of meaning in electronic discussions is promising. Overall results indicate that negotiation of meaning does take place in electronic discussions. Interaction patterns in CMC. Thus far, the advantages and the types of studies conducted in computer-mediated communication have been presented. However, other distinct features of the language

PAGE 75

63 produced in CMC environment need to be examined. P articularly, turn-taking and patterns of interaction in both the asynchronous an d synchronous mode need to be highlighted because they are of importance to this study and its methodology. The discourse functions in asynchronous interactio n seem to be similar to the question-response-evaluation sequences found in som e face-to-face interactions (Sotillo, 2000). A closer examination reveals that the teach er and students initiated topics, students responded to both the teacherand student initiated topics, whereas the teacher responded with comments or evaluation to the studen ts, and students commented on peer postings. Synchronous discussion patterns, on the contrary, d o not follow the traditional IRF (initiating, responding, follow-up) patterns fo und in face-to-face interactions (Warschauer, 1997). In synchronous discussions, th ere appears to be fewer instances of teacher evaluation (Kern, 1995). This is not to sa y that teacher evaluation does not exist, it is just less common than in face-to-face interac tion due to the nature of the interaction. Consequently, CMC interaction seems to be disrupted and discontinuous and interlocutors are forced to manage turn-taking and turn-giving in different ways from oral interaction (Negretti, 1999). Participants have re sorted to other means of dealing with turn taking. Examination of transcripts has reveal ed that learners use a turn-giving strategy by making explicit who they are addressing normally by using the person’s name (Negretti, 1999) or by using some other explic it linguistic markers to highlight the start or end of turn-taking moves (Erben, 1999).

PAGE 76

64 Research examining negotiation of meaning in CMC ha s also resorted to other strategies for analyzing this data. Utterances tha t are not part of the nonunderstanding routine, utterances that move the discourse forward in a linear fashion are not examined (Fernndez-Garca and Martnez-Arbelaiz, 2002). On ly the utterances related to the negotiation routines extracted from the text and ex amined. CMC and corrective feedback. The focus of many early studies in computer-mediat ed communication was the interaction itself. Thus, these studies rarely exa mined feedback directly in the electronic environment. Instead, research commented on correc tive feedback anecdotally. Some early studies in CMC recommend a delayed type of co rrective feedback (Beauvois, 1992; Kelm, 1992), where the instructor provides students with a printed copy of the messages on which grammatical mistakes are highlighted. Oth er recommendations included asking the students to turn in the corrected version of th e transcript or creating a follow-up grammar lesson based on the errors made by the stud ents in the electronic discussion (Kelm, 1992). Another slight variation of this tec hnique is asking learners who participated in online interactions with a small gr oup of peers to reexamine and revise their exchanges with guided instruction (Lee, 2002b ). Other studies commented on feedback provided by in structors in the electronic medium. Kern (1995) found that instructor’s questi ons tended to focus on content in the electronic discussions and more on language and voc abulary in oral discussions. Sotillo (2000) noticed that both instructors and students p roduced corrective moves in the

PAGE 77

65 synchronous discussions, but only teachers provided responses or comments in the asynchronous discussions. Other studies considered student perspectives regar ding feedback in the electronic environment. Blake (2000) in a study with NNS-NNS dyad interaction administered a survey to students in order to inquire about their attitude toward participating in electronic discussions. He found that students fel t that they learn by correcting themselves and other. Similarly, Lee (2002b) found student comments such as: “I realized that I wrote more quickly without worrying too much about making mistakes,” “I worried more about getting ideas across and less on grammar” (Lee, 2002b, p.20). It appears that learners correct themselves because of the nature of electronic interactions. Most electronic discussion software allows learners the opportunity to revise and edit a message before sending it to all participants or to a partner. It is also evident in these studies that learners p rovide feedback to their peers (Chun, 1994; Sotillo, 2000). Sotillo (2000) found that students noticed errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation, and occasionally correcte d each other. Sotillo goes on to suggest strategies to encourage self-correction and accuracy in writing by distributing the transcripts of the discussion to the students and a sking them to study and critique their own and other’s use of the target language. After these first attempts to describe corrective f eedback in electronic discussions, one study investigated corrective feedback in a mor e direct way. Pellettieri (2000) asked: “Do negotiated interactions foster the provision of corrective feedback and the incorporation of target-like forms into subsequent turns?” (Pellettierri, 2000, p. 64). This

PAGE 78

66 study examined NNS-NNS interactions produced while the NNSs completed task-based activities. The results of this study found that c orrective feedback was indeed offered on all aspects of grammar and sometimes on lexicon. T he analysis of the data found both explicit and implicit corrective feedback types and the quantity of feedback provided was high. Additionally, the study found that learner i ncorporated 70% of the explicit feedback and 75% of the implicit feedback. The Pellettieri (2000) study examined corrective fe edback using two broad types of corrective feedback, explicit and implicit feedb ack. Morris (2002) and Iwasaki & Oliver, 2003) went a step further and examined more discrete types of corrective feedback. Morris (2002) examined the electronic in teractions of NNS-NNS in two alternate Spanish courses at the university level. Students completed a jigsaw activity in pairs. Learner errors were coded as syntactic erro rs, lexical errors, and use of L1. Corrective feedback from peers was coded as: explic it correction, recasts, and negotiation moves. The learner response to the corrective feed back was coded as: repair or needs repair. The results found that adult learners do i ndeed provide negative feedback to their peers and that this is done 70% of the time. The s tudy examined what types of errors lead to what type of corrective feedback, and it de termined that syntactic errors invite recasts and lexical errors invite negotiation moves Finally, this study found that negotiation moves seem to elicit syntactic repairs and the majority of lexical repairs. Similarly, Iwasaki and Oliver (2003) examined corre ctive feedback found in electronic interactions of NS-NNS of Japanese. The transcript s were analyzed, looking specifically at the Non-native speaker (NNS) initial turn, Nativ e speaker (NS) response to Non-target-

PAGE 79

67 like (NTL) forms, and the Non-native speaker’s (NNS ) reaction. The data were coded as follows: NNSs initial turn was coded as Target-Like (TL) or NTL. Non-target-like turns included typographical, grammatical, lexical, and o ther types errors. The NSs response to NTL was coded as ignoring the non-target-like ut terance, or providing negative feedback (NF) as either a recast or negotiating mea ning. Finally, the NNSs reaction was coded as responding to the NF, incorporating a reca st, or modifying a NTL to a Toward more target-like (TTL), ignoring the NF, or no chan ce to respond. The findings of this study show that NSs do provide negative feedback to their NNSs counterparts and they do this 21.58% of the time. In addition, the study found that NNSs do use the negative feedback provided to them by the NNSs. Summary of Interaction, Corrective Feedback, and CM C Literature To summarize, the established benefits of computermediated communication (CMC) suggested by previous research include: incre ase in language production, improved quality of language production, equalizer of participation, provision of comprehensible input, opportunities to produce outp ut, and opportunities to negotiate for meaning. Corrective feedback research has also fou nd benefits of various types of corrective feedback. Classrooms where students foc us on form and receive feedback seem to be more effective in promoting second langu age acquisition. In addition, learners who receive specific types of corrective f eedback perform better than learners who do not, and it appears that learners use the co rrective feedback they receive. While numerous studies have examined corrective feedback in face-to face interactions, and

PAGE 80

68 numerous studies have examined language produced in CMC environments. A study that examines corrective feedback provided by instructor s to students in online asynchronous and synchronous foreign language contexts has not y et been conducted. This study aims to combine the research already established on corr ective feedback in face-to-face classrooms with the findings of research conducted in computer-mediated communication. Specifically, this study will inves tigate whether or not corrective feedback is provided in online asynchronous and syn chronous environments, will identify the types of corrective feedback found, will examin e if certain types of learner error lead to certain types of corrective feedback, and will e xamine if certain types of corrective feedback are more effective in eliciting repair fro m learners. Content Analysis Research Method A content analysis method will be used to investig ate corrective feedback in the asynchronous and synchronous environments. Accordi ng to Weber (1990) content analysis is a method that uses a set of procedures to make valid inferences from text. Weber (1990) goes on to explain that content analys is can be used for many purposes including describing trends in communication conten t, describing attitudinal and behavioral responses to communication, and identify ing the intentions and other characteristics of the communicator. Given that the current study examines the text produced by instructors and students while communic ating in asynchronous and synchronous environments and attempts to make concl usions about the corrective

PAGE 81

69 feedback provided to students by their instructors, content analysis is the most appropriate method for investigating these objectiv es. Another characteristic of content analysis is that it is able to compress many words of text into fewer content categories using e xplicit coding rules (Weber, 1990). It should be noted that the word content in content ca tegories has a different meaning when compared to content in pedagogy. The word content in pedagogy denotes subject matter. In contrast, the word content in content categories signifies essence. As mentioned above, in content analysis methodology content cate gories are created that capture the essence of the items in that grouping. This study will examine transcripts of text in order to identify types of corrective feedback that will be placed into content categories. Advantages of content analysis. An additional reason for why content analysis will be employed is because it is advantageous over other methods for this particular study. According to Weber (1990), Asher (1994a), and Asher (1994b) content analysis h as several advantages when compared with other data-generating and analysis te chniques. The advantages of content analysis (Asher, 1994; Weber, 1990;) relevant to th e present study include: (a) contentanalytic procedures are able to examine text or tra nscripts of human communication directly, (b) it provides insight into complex mode ls of human thought and language use, when compared to other techniques such as interview s, (c) it usually generates unobtrusive measures in which the participants of t he interaction are not aware that their interaction is being analyzed, (d) it is able to co mpress many words of text into

PAGE 82

70 manageable content categories, and (e) it can be to tally automated and applied to large samples of text. The compressing of text into cate gories enables the analysis of larger numbers of texts and facilitates statistical analys is. Quantitative vs. qualitative. An interesting advantage of content analysis over o ther data-generating and analysis techniques is that it uses both qualitativ e and quantitative operations on texts (Weber, 1990). According to Weber, the ability of content analysis to combine qualitative and quantitative operations is a benefi t because content analysis methods combine what used to be thought to be antithetical modes of analysis. Others (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003) have described this phenomena as a “quantitative analysis of qualitative data”. Qualitative data ge nerated from study participants or archival sources is quantified in order to conduct a content analysis. Although some researchers (Gall, Borg et al., 1996; Krippendorff, 1980; Weber 1990) discuss the fact that content analysis uses q uantitative descriptions and quantifies them, they have placed content analysis under the q uantitative umbrella. Other statisticians (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003) conten d that “[i]t can be argued that unless further qualitative analysis is undertaken to exten d or expand the results of the content analysis. It cannot really be considered a mixed m ethod, rather a quantitative method that happens to be applied to qualitative data” (p.405). Nonetheless, these same statisticians go on to tag content analysis as a “hybrid” when di scussing research in terms of experiments versus more qualitative methods. Since the present study will not conduct in

PAGE 83

71 depth qualitative analysis of the results, it will be categorized as a quantitative content analysis. The present study is a study that uses q ualitative data and quantifies it. Content analysis procedures. Another advantage of content analysis is its analyt ical method of examining particular aspects of text and assessing the degree of attention or concern devoted to particular issues. “Any systematic approach that s eeks to measure the patterns of meaning communicated through existing samples of la nguage can be called ‘content analysis’” (Asher, 1994b). From the above mentione d definitions, we can conclude that one of the central aspects of content analysis is i ts systematic practice of collecting and analyzing data. Comparable steps for performing co ntent analysis have been proposed by Gall, M. D., W. R. Borg, et al. (1996) and Neuendor f, K. (2002). Gall, M. D., W. R. Borg, et al. (1996) suggest the following steps for doing a content analysis: identifying documents that are relevant to your research purpos e, specifying research questions, hypothesizing, selecting samples of documents to an alyze, developing a category-coding procedure, conducting the content analysis, and int erpreting the results. Similarly, Neuendorf (2002) presents a flowchart fo r the typical process of content analysis research. For the purposes of thi s study, Neuendorf’s (2002) flowchart will guide the content analysis method. Neuendorf’ s flowchart is comprehensive and it fits the present study’s objectives and procedures. The detailed steps of how Neuendorf’s flowchart will be used for this study can be found in the procedures section of this chapter. Following Neuendorfs flowchart, first, t he theory and rationale are presented.

PAGE 84

72 The content to be examined should be discussed and a rationale for examining this content should be presented. Second, conceptualiza tions of the study are discussed including the variables to be used in the study and the definitions of these variables in the study. Third, the measures to be used and the unit of analysis are discussed. Next, a decision has to be made between human coding and co mputer coding. If human coding is used, a codebook and coding are developed during this step. If computer coding is used, coding schemes and a dictionary are developed and the method of applying them is discussed. Continuing to follow Neuendorfs flowch art, sampling is conducted from the content. Next, if human coding is employed, traini ng of coders and reliability tests are performed. Once the training and reliability have been conducted, coding is performed on the data and final reliability is calculated. T he final step in Neuendorfs flowchart is to tabulate and report the data. The present study will adhere to the steps detailed in Neuendorfs (2002) flowchart. Summary This chapter has presented evidence that interactio n is beneficial for learners because it provides them with comprehensible input, opportunities to negotiate meaning, and occasions to produce output. In addition, conv ersational interaction allows learners to receive corrective feedback on their interlangua ge. Furthermore, this chapter explored the literature of computer-mediated communication, and focused on how this technology relates to interaction and corrective feedback. Fi nally, this chapter described the method selected to conduct the analysis of this study.

PAGE 85

73 Chapter 3: Methods and Procedures Introduction This study maintained four objectives: (a) to inve stigate whether instructors provide learners with corrective feedback in online asynchronous and synchronous interactions; (b) to examine the nature of the corr ective feedback provided by instructors to learners in online asynchronous and synchronous discussions and attempt to identify the types of corrective feedback used in these envi ronments; (c) to examine the nature of corrective feedback as it results from different ty pes of learner errors; and (d) and to examine the distribution of learner responses follo wing different types of corrective feedback. This chapter will explain the research m ethods and procedures that were employed in this study. Chapter 3 will also provid e an outline of the design of the study, explain the procedures of implementing the study an d data collection, and describe in detail the data analyses that were employed for eac h research question. Participants Four sections of Beginning Spanish II at a Research I university, including all the students and the four instructors of the courses, w ere chosen to participate in this study. Four sections of the course were chosen in order to examine the nature of corrective feedback in two different pedagogical settings, by various instructors, and on different occasions throughout the semester. The study took place during the Summer 2004

PAGE 86

74 semester; a total of 72 students were enrolled in t he four sections of the course. Both male and female students between the ages of 19 and 62 were enrolled in the courses and the mean age was 26 years while the median age was 23 years. The vast majority of the students were also U.S. citizens whose native langu age was English. Detailed demographic findings from the background questionna ire will be presented in the next chapter. The total number of Beginning Spanish II classes of fered in the Summer 2004 semester was four and all four were selected for th e purposes of this study. At the time of the study, the instructors of these courses were TA s and adjuncts whose teaching load was between one and four sections each semester. Fr om here on, the umbrella term ‘instructor’ will be used to refer to TAs and adjun cts who participated in this study. Instructors were both male and female as well as na tive speakers of Spanish and native speakers of English. When speaking in terms of sample, the sample for th is investigation was drawn from four Spanish II sections. It should also be n oted that the sample selected was a convenient sample; the participants of this study w ere available and easy to access. Setting All study-related elements were integrated into th e structure of each section of the course. The instructors of each section were provi ded with all the curriculum materials required to carry out this investigation. The Begin ning Spanish II courses at the selected institution met four times a week for one hour and fifteen minutes during the summer

PAGE 87

75 semester. The course is the second in a two-semest er sequence and successful completion of this class constitutes fulfillment of the foreign language requirement. Students taking this course ranged from freshmen to seniors and some had taken Spanish I as a previous course at the same institution, whi le others had studied Spanish in high school or at other post-secondary institutions, tho ugh the majority of the students took the two-semester sequence at the same institution. This investigation focused in on Beginning Spanish II courses because even though most university students are required to tak e two semesters of a foreign language, nevertheless these students rarely reach intermedia te levels of proficiency (Pufahl, Rhodes, & Christian, 2000). The examination of co rrective feedback and learner responses to corrective feedback can give insight i nto this problem. This in turn can lead to recommendations on what types of error correctio n are most effective in achieving student repair. It is also important to discuss the philosophy of the department in which this study took place and the workings of the department and t he classes. The department philosophy emphasizes a communicative orientation t oward language learning, but many instructors rely heavily on grammar activities. In addition, many of the assessment tools assess grammatical structures. The textbook used i n Beginning Spanish courses at this institution at the time of the study was Arriba (Pr entice Hall, 2001) and it is organized around themes. All sections of Beginning Spanish a t the selected institution use the textbook mentioned above and follow a standardized curriculum. Standardized curriculum in this study is defined as the use of a common textbook in all sections, a

PAGE 88

76 comparable syllabus, and identical quizzes and exam s created by the instructors themselves and approved by the lower division Spani sh sections coordinator. Teams of instructors from the course take turns in preparing tests and quizzes to be administered in all sections of the course. In addition, the weigh tings assigned to course components are uniform across all sections. Instructors have free dom in how they teach the material as long as they follow the schedule on the syllabus an d administer the departmental quizzes and exams. The Database Data were collected via a background questionnaire administered to the instructors, a background questionnaire administere d to the participants, from the collaborative online asynchronous discussion tasks, and from the collaborative online synchronous discussion task. The background questi onnaires were in written form and were administered at the beginning of the study dur ing the second week of classes and during the first day of orientation for the study. The background questionnaire administered to instructors and students inquired a bout general computer experience and about specific experience using asynchronous and sy nchronous communication software. Data for this study were also collected from the co llaborative online discussion tasks. The instructors and learners participated in collab orative asynchronous and synchronous discussions. Asynchronous communication is a type of interaction that takes place with a time delay. Examples of online asynchronous technologie s include email and bulletin boards.

PAGE 89

77 Since in the asynchronous activities for this study both the receiver and sender of the message do not have to be present at the same time, these technologies are considered asynchronous. In a typical asynchronous collaborat ive discussion, the instructor creates a forum for discussion and posts a discussion questio n on an electronic bulletin board. Students log on to their computer and enter the bul letin board at a time that is convenient for them; this can be an hour, a day, a week, etc., after the teacher has posted the question. Students read the message or question po sted by the instructor and can reply to the message when they choose. Students have the op portunity to compose a message at their leisure and can preview the message before su bmitting it. If other students have posted messages, students can read their messages a nd similarly can reply to their classmates’ postings. Synchronous communication requires that all parties be present at the time the communication takes place. Examples of synchronous communication include telephone conversation, a board meeting, voice conferencing, video conferencing, and electronic chat. In a typical online synchronous collaborativ e class discussion, the instructor and students log on to their respective computers and e nter the chat room at the same time. The instructor presents a discussion topic that app ears on all the participants’ computer screens. The participants compose a message in the editing buffer and enter the send command when they are ready to post their message t o the other members of the class. The university where the study was conducted uses t he Blackboard software package to supplement courses with online component s or to teach entire courses online. The Blackboard software package is a course managem ent system with many features.

PAGE 90

78 This system allows instructors to post course sylla bi, readings, assignments, deliver online quizzes, post announcements, etc. In additi on, the Blackboard software contains several communication features including email, a d iscussion board, and a chat room. Each semester, each course is assigned its own Blac kboard web site which is password protected and only the instructor and students regi stered to the course have access to the online section of the course. Two of the communica tion features available on Blackboard were used to collect the data for this study; the d iscussion board and the chat room, which permit asynchronous and synchronous capabilities re spectively. The data were collected using the Blackboard software package feature that archives the interactions that take place in both the discussion board and in the chat room. The software program automatically saves the transcripts of the interact ions of all parties, which may be reviewed or retrieved at a later time. This is an unobtrusive way to collect interactions that take place between the instructor and students because the researcher need not be present and there is no need to use a tapeor vide o-recorder. Although it was not necessary for the researcher to be present during t he collection of synchronous data, the investigator chose to be present for technological help during the chat room interactions. The instructors of the course felt more comfortable with the researcher being present and assisting students who had problems logging on to t he computer or computer problems during the interaction. In addition, the researche r often visited instructors in their offices to assist them with the bulletin board postings at the instructors’ request. The researcher also offered email help to all the instructors. Th e instructors took advantage of this assistance to ask questions or clarify any procedur es of the study.

PAGE 91

79 The transcriptions of the data received from the Bl ackboard software archives include all entries by students and instructors. T ranscripts from the asynchronous discussion include the forum title, the date, the a uthor, the subject, and the posting comprised of several sentences. All student and in structor names were deleted in order to maintain the anonymity of instructors and students, and identification numbers were created to keep track of the data. As part of the Spanish language instruction and objectives of the course, all of these interactions were designed to occur in Spanish. A sample asynchronous interaction comprised of two po stings from the Blackboard bulletin board is shown below with translation (See figure 3 .1). Figure 3.1 Sample Blackboard Bulletin Board Discuss ion Forum: Homework Date: 06-11-2004 16:21 Author: Instructor 3 < instructor3@email.com > Subject Homework Situacin: T ests muy enfermo. Describe tus snto mas en un prrafo y usando el vocabulario del libro Qu te duele? Cunto tiempo hace que ests enferm o/a? Cmo te sientes? Fuiste al mdico? Etc. Situacin: Tu profesor/a est muy enfermo/a. Usando el subjuntivo, escribe un prrafo con recomendaciones para tu profesor/a. Qu le recomie ndas al profesor/a? Qu le sugieres al profesor/a? Qu le prohbes al profesor/a? Qu le pides al pr ofesor/a? Qu le aconsejas al profesor/a? Qu insistes que el profesor/a haga? Etc. Forum: Homework Date: 06-15-2004 11:32 Author: Student 1< student1@email.com > Subject Re: Homework !Oh dios mio! Estoy muy enferma! Me siento mal. Me duele mucho la cabeza y me duelen tambien el estomago. Hace dos dias que estoy enferma. No fui a l medico porque yo odio las visitas al medico!

PAGE 92

80 (Figure 3.1 Continued) Sample Blackboard Bulletin Board Discussion (Transl ation) Forum: Homework Date: 06-11-2004 16:21 Author: Instructor 3 < instructor3@email.com > Subject Homework Situation: You are very sick. Describe your sympt oms in a paragraph and using the vocabulary in your book. What hurts? How long has it been since you f ell sick? How do you feel? Did you go to the doct ors? Etc. Situation: Your teacher is very sick. Using the s ubjunctive, write a paragraph with recommendations for him or her. What do you recommend to your teacher? What do you suggest to your teacher? What do you prohibit from your teacher? What do you ask th at s/he do? What do you recommend? What do you insist that s/he do? Etc. Forum: Homework Date: 06-15-2004 11:32 Author: Student 1< student1@email.com > Subject Re: Homework Oh my God! I am very sick! I feel really bad. My h ead hurts a lot and my stomach hurts also [wrong conjugation of verb]. It has been two days that I have been sick. I did not go to the doctor because I hate doctor visits! Similarly, the transcripts from the synchronous dis cussions included the name of each participant, the date and time each participan t entered the room, and all statements posted by each participant in the order in which th ey were published to the chat room. A sample synchronous interaction from the Blackboard chat room is shown below (See figure 3.2). Figure 3.2 Sample Blackboard Chat Room Transcript n nrnnnn nnn r rn n"n r#$ r %nn"n"n&n""n nnn r r '(nn r) r 'nnnnn*n r # r 'nn"nnn"n( r n !n+,nnnnn"nn n( n(r# n .%n"nnn r#

PAGE 93

81 Figure 3.2 (Continued) Sample Blackboard Chat Room Transcript – (Translati on) n /nnnrnn nnnnn r rn n r#$ r 0nnnnn("n1n"n n r r /(nn r) r /2nnnnnn nnn r # r /2nn"nnnnn(n r n 3n(+4nn2nnnn"n2n (( r# r nnn(nnnn r# Overview of the Procedures The procedures for this study took place in four ph ases (See Figure 3.3). First, a pilot study was conducted the semester prior to the study. Second, a pre-observation session and orientation were conducted with the ins tructors and students during the first week of the semester. Third, the data were collect ed in the observation phase of the study for nine weeks of the semester. Finally, the data were analyzed the semester following the data collection.

PAGE 94

82 Figure 3.3 Procedures of the Study 1 2 3 4 Phase Pilot Study Pre-Observation Observation Data Analysis Semester Spring 2004 Summer 2004 Summer 2004 Fall 2 004 Duration 4 weeks 1 week 9 weeks 10 weeks Activity Various tasks piloted Sample data collected Codebook and coding form developed Provide instructors with orientation Provide instructors and participants with IRB documentation Administer questionnaire to instructors Administer questionnaire to participants Provide participants with orientation on using bulletin boards and the chat room Instructors conduct collaborative discussions in asynchronous and synchronous environments every two weeks Code data Tabulate data Identify corrective feedback types Calculate what learner error leads to what corrective feedback Calculate learner response Report data The pilot study phase was carried out the semester prior to the study in an effort to develop and fine-tune aspects of the procedures of this study. The various tasks to be used in the asynchronous and synchronous environmen t were also piloted, a sample of data was collected, and the codebook and coding for ms were checked and fine-tuned when deemed necessary. In the pre-observation session, the investigator fi rst obtained permission from the TA coordinator and the chair of the department to c onduct the study and notified the instructors informally and then formally using a me mo (See Appendix A). Then, the

PAGE 95

83 investigator provided the instructors with a genera l orientation of the study. In this orientation, the researcher demonstrated the Blackb oard software program for the instructors, focusing on the asynchronous bulletin boards and the synchronous chat room features. In order to raise the instructors’ aware ness of corrective feedback, the investigator also discussed patterns of corrective feedback typically found in the face-toface language classes with the instructors. It was hoped that through this awareness raising, instructors would employ corrective feedba ck during the online interactions. The investigator then discussed with the instructors th eir speculations on whether they expected the corrective feedback to be similar or d ifferent in the asynchronous and synchronous environments. Instructors were then di rected to provide interactional corrective feedback online whenever it seemed appro priate and in whatever form seemed most appropriate during each of the four online dis cussions. The instructors were aware that one of the focuses of the study was corrective feedback. Next, the researcher provided the instructors and participants with the documentation required by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). The investigator also administered a background questionnaire to the instructors and the participan ts (See Appendices B and C). These questionnaires inquired about target language and c omputer experience, specifically about familiarity with chat rooms and bulletin boar ds in and outside of the classroom. In addition, instructions on how to use the software p rogram were given to the participants. These instructions demonstrated to the students how to enter their username and password using in the login screen and how to use b oth the asynchronous bulletin board

PAGE 96

84 and the synchronous chat room. Each class practice d using both the bulletin board and the chat room. For the next part of the study, the researcher aske d each instructor to conduct class discussions in the asynchronous and synchrono us environments a total of four separate times over the course of the semester (See Figure 3.4). The instructors were asked to conduct class as normal throughout each we ek and were also asked to lead an online discussion every two weeks; two weeks using the bulletin board or asynchronous mode, and two weeks using the chat room or synchron ous mode. The class discussions were incorporated as a course activity and conseque ntly a course requirement. All instructors were provided with a list of discussion questions related to the course material to be used in their discussions (See Appendices D a nd E for examples). The guiding questions follow the chapter themes, employing the vocabulary and grammatical forms discussed in each chapter. The tasks were designed to elicit communicative effectiveness and grammatical accuracy. The questions were desig ned to bring about a discussion between instructors and students and at the same ti me, the questions focused on the vocabulary and grammar points for each chapter. It was hoped that by designing questions that elicit vocabulary and target forms t hat instructors would provide learners with corrective feedback. The same list of questio ns was provided to all instructors. Instructors were informed that these were guiding q uestions, but that they could choose to use all of the questions, some of the questions, or none of the questions. For the asynchronous discussions, most instructors chose to use the questions provided. For the synchronous discussions, most instructors used the questions as a guide and often added

PAGE 97

85 original questions of their own. The instructor le d the discussion, either in the bulletin board or in the chat room, using the questions prov ided or original questions and s/he guided the discussion. In addition, the instructor was asked to make decisions as the discussion took place. These decisions included: w hat questions are appropriate at what point in time of the discussion and when should new questions be posted. Figure 3.4 Data Collection Schedule for the Ten Wee k Semester Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Week 1 -Instructor orientation -Instructor orientation -Instructor orientation -Instructor orientation Week 2 -IRB documentation -Instructor Questionnaire -Participant Questionnaire -Participant Orientation -IRB documentation -Instructor Questionnaire -Participant Questionnaire -Participant Orientation -IRB documentation -Instructor Questionnaire -Participant Questionnaire -Participant Orientation -IRB documentation -Instructor Questionnaire -Participant Questionnaire -Participant Orientation Week 3 No Data Collection No Data Collection No Data Collection No Data Collection Week 4 Data Collection of Synchronous Discussion Data Collection of Synchronous Discussion Data Collection of Synchronous Discussion Data Collection of Synchronous Discussion Week 5 No Data Collection No Data Collection No Data Collection No Data Collection Week 6 Data Collection of Asynchronous Discussion Data Collection of Asynchronous Discussion Data Collection of Asynchronous Discussion Data Collection of Asynchronous Discussion Week 7 No Data Collection No Data Collection No Data Collection No Data Collection Week 8 Data Collection of Synchronous Discussion Data Collection of Synchronous Discussion Data Collection of Synchronous Discussion Data Collection of Synchronous Discussion Week 9 No Data Collection No Data Collection No Data Collection No Data Collection Week 10 Data Collection of Asynchronous Discussion Data Collection of Asynchronous Discussion Data Collection of Asynchronous Discussion Data Collection of Asynchronous Discussion

PAGE 98

86 For the asynchronous mode, the discussion was desig ned as a homework assignment conducted outside the classroom. The ra tionale for giving this task as a homework assignment was to afford the students a tr ue asynchronic interaction experience. If the bulletin board discussions had been completed in class, this would not have constituted a true asynchronous discussion bec ause students could have read postings and replied immediately. Therefore, stude nts were given a homework assignment to be completed within the week. Studen ts were required to log on to the courseware package used by the university, Blackboa rd, and access the bulletin board. There, students found one posting from the instruct or with several discussion questions. Students were asked to continue the discussion and were encouraged to post new questions of their own. The bulletin board allows for messages or individual postings containing normally several sentences to be threade d. This allows the instructor and students to access a particular posting by any indi vidual. It was anticipated that the asynchronous interaction would yield about 360 post ings. It was anticipated that the instructor would post the guiding questions, all le arners would reply to the instructor posting, the instructor would reply to most of the learner postings with comments and feedback, and learners would reply back to most of the instructor comments. Only 290 postings were obtained during the asynchronous data collection of this study. Possible reasons for this low number will be explained later on in this dissertation. The transcriptions from the discussions obtained were c ompiled and saved electronically for analysis at a later time.

PAGE 99

87 For the synchronous discussion, the instructors wer e asked to take the entire class to the computer lab in order to conduct the discuss ion. Students were asked to log on to the courseware package used by the university, Blac kboard, and enter the chat room feature. There, students found a discussion questi on posted by the instructor and the students were be asked to continue the discussion, contribute to the discussion, and were encouraged to post new questions of their own. The interaction appeared in chronological order and students were able to scrol l back to previously posted messages. It was anticipated that the synchronous interaction would yield eight hours of interaction, but it only yielded seven hours because it took stu dents time to log on to the computer and for the instructor to begin the interaction. T he transcriptions from the discussion were archived and saved electronically for analysis at a later time. Overview of the Process The present study employed Neuendorf’s (2002) flowc hart for the typical process of content analysis research discussed in detail in chapter two. In the current chapter, Neuendorf’s flowchart has been adapted to fit the p resent study (See Figure 3.5)

PAGE 100

88 Figure 3.5 Neuendorf's Flowchart for the Typical Pr ocess of Content Analysis Research for the Present Study 1.Theory and rationale: This perspective to languag e learning deems interaction essential for language learning. The interactionist perspect ive of language learning deems interaction an essential component in language lear ning. The content from interactions conducted by instructors and students in online asy nchronous and synchronous environments were examined. Research questions tha t were investigated include:1.Do asynchronous and synchronous environments provide o pportunities for the provision of corrective feedback by instructors to students? 2. What is the nature of feedback in online asynchronous and synchronous environments? 3 .What type of learner error leads to what type of corrective feedback in online asynchronous and synchronous environments 4.What is the distribution of uptake f ollowing different types of corrective feedback found in online asynchronous an d synchronous environments? 2.Conceptualizations: The variables used in this s tudy include: learner error, instructor corrective feedback, and learner response. Definit ions of variables: error is defined as an ill-formed language utterance or an unacceptable utterance in the target language, corrective feedback is defined as an instructor's r esponse to a learner error, and learner response is defined as the student's immediate resp onse in some way to the instructor's intention to draw attention to some aspect of the s tudent's original utterance. 3.Operationalizations (measures): The unit of analy sis in this study is the error treatment sequence which is comprised of the learner error, t he instructor's corrective feedback, and the learner's response. A priori categories we re employed, but room was left for emergent categories due to the nature of the intera ction. Human Coding 4a.Coding schemes: The following materials have bee n created: a. Codebook (with all variable measures fully expla ined) b. Coding form 5.Sampling : All transcripts of interactions produced by instr uctors and learners participating in collaborative online tasks were us ed. Human Coding

PAGE 101

89 6.Training and pilot reliability: A training sessio n was conducted prior to coding the data. Initial reliability of coding was conducted for eac h variable and the codebook and coding form were revised when needed. 7. Coding: At least two coders were employed to es tablish intercoder reliability. Coding was done independently. 8.Final reliability: Reliability figure was calcula ted using percent agreement for each variable. 9.Tabulation and reporting: Examples of content ana lysis results were examined in order to see the ways in which results can be reported. Fig ures and statistics were used to report the data. Human Coding Figure 3.5 (Continued) It was important to first examine the theoretical b asis, as well as the rationale for this study. In terms of theory, the current study is nested under the interactionist theoretical framework, which was discussed in detai l in chapter 2. The interactionist perspective to language learning deems interaction essential for language learning. For the purposes of this study, the content from intera ctions conducted by instructors and students in online asynchronous and synchronous env ironments was examined. The motivation for choosing this content is two-fold: F irst, it is believed that the examination of corrective feedback in the classroom may offer i nsight into why lower level Spanish as

PAGE 102

90 a Foreign language students are not reaching higher levels of proficiency. Second, research that specifically examines corrective feed back provided to students by instructors in online asynchronous and synchronous environments does not yet exist. The hope is that as a result of this study, the recomme ndations made as to what types of corrective feedback are better at eliciting student repair, will contribute to improving online instruction. Continuing to follow Neuendorf’s flowchart, the cur rent study then conceptualized decisions. In this step of content analysis, decisions were made about what variables would be used in the study and how t hey are conceptualized. The variables for the present study include learner err or, instructor corrective feedback, and learner response or reaction. An error is defined as an ill-formed language utterance or an unacceptable utterance in the target language. C orrective feedback is defined as an instructor’s response to a learner error that provi des the learner with information about what is acceptable and unacceptable in the target l anguage. Response is defined as the student’s immediate response in some way to the ins tructor’s intention to draw attention to some aspect of the student’s original written ut terance. Subsequently, Neuendorf recommends that the measure s used in the study be operationalized ensuring sure that the measures mat ch the researchers conceptualization. During this step decisions regarding the unit of an alysis, the categories to be used, and the coding scheme decisions were considered. According to Weber (1990), the unit of analysis in content analysis research can be a word, word sense, sentence, or theme. Similar ly, Gall, Borg, et al.(1996) and

PAGE 103

91 Neuendorf (2002) point out that the message can act as the unit of analysis or the unit of data collection. The unit of analysis for this res earch study is the error treatment sequence (See figure 3.6). The use of the error treatment sequence as the unit of analysis is corroborated by corrective feedback research (Ly ster, 1998; Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Mackey, Gass et al., 2000; Oliver, 2000). The majo rity of this research in the field uses the error treatment sequence as the unit of analysi s with minor variations, especially in the terminology used to label the error treatment s equence. Some researchers use the term error treatment sequence (Lyster, 1998; Lyster and Ranta, 1997) while other researchers (Mackey, Gass, et al., 2000) use the te rm episodes and still other research (Oliver, 2000) uses the term the three part exchange. All of this research refers to the student’s initial turn containing an error, the ins tructor’s response to the error, and the student’s reaction to the correction. Most studies examining corrective feedback have been conducted with face-to-face interactions. Thi s study was conducted in an online environment and the error treatment sequence normal ly contained other turns in between. In the asynchronous environment, the instructor pos ted a set of questions, learners then posted a set of responses, and instructors posted a set of replies to the learner responses. This means that in this study, the learner error, c orrective feedback and learner response had to be identified within each posting comprised of several sentences. In the synchronous environment, instructors posed a questi on, there were several learner responses to the instructor’s question, some of whi ch contained errors and some of which did not, there may have been instructor corrective feedback or not, and they may have been a learner response or not. The error treatmen t sequence was identified from the

PAGE 104

92 many postings by examining all the postings close t o the learner error, corrective feedback, and learner response. It was only in a f ew instances that the researcher was unable to identify to whom the instructor was provi ding corrective feedback. Figure 3.6 Error treatment sequence Learner error instructor corrective feedback learner response The learner errors, corrective feedback, and learn er response found in the text were placed into categories, the process of which w ill be described subsequently. According to Neuendorf (2002) and Tahakkori and Ted dlie (2003), categories can be a priori or emergent themes. Themes are a priori when they are preplanned on the basis of previous research, and themes are emergent when they might emerge from the analysis. The present study contained both a priori and emergent themes or categories. Learner error types, instructor corrective feedback types, and learner responses to corrective feedback have only been previously identified for f ace-to-face interactions between instructors and students, and the categories alread y identified served as the basis, or the a priori themes, for the present study. It was expected th at new varieties of learner errors, instructor corrective feedback, and learner respons es would be found because of the nature of interactions taking place in the asynchro nous and synchronous environments; if found, these new varieties would constitute the emergent themes or categories. The next step was to decide whether human coding or computer coding would be used. Due to the nature of the data collected, the present study employed human coding of the data. According to Neuendorf (2002) if huma n coding is used, a codebook and a

PAGE 105

93 coding form should be created. A codebook was cre ated for the present study and can be found in Appendix G. In addition, a coding form wa s also created and can be found in Appendix F. Subsequently, sampling was considered. According t o Neuendorf, the researcher should ask “How will you randomly sample a subset o f the content?” For the present study, all the transcripts produced by instructors and learners participating in collaborative online tasks were used. It was antic ipated that the transcripts would yield and approximate sixteen hours of interaction. The data collected for this study was shy of the sixteen hours and it generated an approximate t otal of fourteen hours of interaction data, seven for the asynchronous interaction and se ven for the synchronous interaction. All turns in all transcripts were coded for errors, corrective feedback, and learner responses. Continuing to follow the flowchart, the next step w as training and initial reliability. It was recommended that a training se ssion in which coders work together and find out whether they can agree on the coding o f variables be performed. In the present study, this training session was conducted prior to the final coding of the data. The initial reliability of coding was conducted for each variable and when needed, the codebook and the coding form were revised. For the coding step of the content analysis researc h, two coders were used to code the data. The coders coded the data independently. A final reliability was calculated for each variable and will be reported in the next chap ter.

PAGE 106

94 Reliability and Validity Reliability. According to Krippendorff, “[i]f research results are to be valid, the data on which they are based, the individuals involved in their a nalysis, and the processes that yield the results all must be reliable” (Krippendorff, 1980, p. 129). Krippendorff goes on to distinguish two types of reliability that are perti nent to content analysis. These are stability and reproducibility. These concepts are defined below, and the proces ses that was taken to ensure reliability in the present stud y will be discussed. Stability refers to the extent to which the content classifications used in the study are invariant over time. Stability is also known as intra-coder reliability. Problems of the stability type of reliability arise when data are c oded inconsistently. This inconsistency can result from ambiguous coding rules, ambiguities in the text, cognitive changes within the coder, and simple errors. According to Weber ( 1990), stability can be determined when the same content is coded more than once by th e same coder. In order to ensure that the coding rules are transparent, the research er asked colleagues to verify the definition of the coding rules. In addition, the r esearcher conducted an initial training session and calculated an initial reliability befor e the coding of the data. This initial reliability was conducted on each variable and a re vision of the codebook and coding form was made when needed. Moreover, after a lapse of time at least 10% of the data for this study was coded a second time by the same code r to check the coding rules, to ensure that cognitive changes were not affecting the codin g, and to make sure that simple errors were not being made.

PAGE 107

95 Reproducibility refers to the extent to which conte nt classification produces the same results when the same text is coded by more th an one coder. This can also be referred to as intercoder reliability since it meas ures the consistency of shared understanding by two or more coders. Problems of r eproducibility arise from cognitive differences among coders, ambiguous coding instruct ions, and random coding errors. At least 15% of the data for this study was coded by t wo coders and intercoder reliability was calculated using Holsti’s (1969) percent agreem ent method, PAo = 2A / (nA+nB). Where PAo stands for proportional agreement observed, A is t he number of agreements between the two coders, and nA and nB are the numbers of units recorded by coders, respectively. Validity. According to Krippendorff, “’validity’ designates that quality of research results which leads one to accept them as indisputable fact s” (Krippendorff, 1980, p. 155). Research validity is the degree to which a study ac curately reflects the specific concept that the research is attempting to measure. In con tent analysis, this is the degree of correspondence of the definitions of concepts and t he categories with the generalizability of the results across methods. According to Weber (1990), face validity constitutes the correspondence between the researcher’s definitions of concepts and the definitions used to describe the categories that measure them, and construct validity entails the generalizability of the construct across measures o r methods. Face validity is achieved by utilizing multiple classifiers to arrive at the agreed upon definition of the category.

PAGE 108

96 Construct validity is reached by defining categorie s that accurately measure the idea that the researcher is seeking to measure. In the presen t study, two steps will be taken to ensure validity. First, the present study employed already existing categories that have been established in the field. Second, the codeboo k was validated by colleagues in the field. Colleagues were persons in the field with e xperience teaching Spanish as a Foreign Language and experts in second language acquisition theory. Data Analysis Unit of analysis. The unit of analysis used to answer the research qu estions in this study is the error treatment sequence (See figure 3.6). The error tre atment sequence refers to the student’s initial turn containing an error, the instructor’s response to the error, and the student’s reaction or response to the correction. Student tu rns and instructor response in the asynchronous interaction were defined as sentences. In typical asynchronous interactions, instructors and students post a parag raph-like posting comprised of many sentences. For this study, these paragraphs were s eparated into sentences and consequently, each sentence was considered a turn. Student turns and instructor responses in the synchronous interaction constitute each message composed by the student or instructor. In typical synchronous inte ractions, students and instructors compose a message in the editing buffer and enter t he send command when they are ready to post their message to the other members of the class.

PAGE 109

97 Variables. The variables for the present study include learner turn, learner error, instructor corrective feedback, and learner response (See Figu re 3.7). An error is defined as an illformed language utterance or an unacceptable uttera nce in the target language. Corrective feedback is defined as the instructor’s response to a learner error that provides the learner with information about what is acceptable and unacc eptable in the target language. Response is defined as the student’s immediate reac tion in some way to the instructor’s intention to draw attention to some aspect of the s tudent’s original written utterance. Figure 3.7 Variables Learner Turn Learner Error Instructor Corrective Fe edback Learner Response No Error Error Type of error Grammatical Lexical Orthographic Typo & Spell L1 Multiple ….. ….. ….. Topic Continuation Provide Feedback Explicit Correction Recast Negotiation of form Elicitation Metalinguistic Clarification Request Repetition ….. ….. ….. Topic Continuation Provide Response Still needs repair Repair ….. ….. ….. At the conception of the study, learner errors were identified as grammatical, lexical, orthographic conventions, typographical an d spelling, unsolicited use of L1, and multiple errors. These categories served as the a priori categories of the analysis. It was A priori Emergent A priori Emergent Emergent A priori

PAGE 110

98 also expected that new varieties of errors would be found due to the nature of the interactions, although this was not the case in thi s study. Even though errors are not the focus of this research question, there is a need to categorize errors in order to identify instructor corrective feedback. It is also importa nt to note that the absolute number of student errors will not be reported, rather, the nu mber of student turns containing at least one error will be used. In counting student turns without errors, short turns with little or no potential for error such as names of people, yes, no, hello, good morning, etc. were excluded. The six corrective feedback types, explicit correct ion, recasts, elicitation, metalinguistic, clarification request, and repetiti on identified by Lyster and Ranta (1997) in face-to-face classrooms, were used as the basis for identifying corrective feedback types in this study. These corrective feedback typ es served as the a priori categories. It was also expected that new corrective feedback type s would emerge from the data, due to the nature of the interactions, but this was not th e case in this study. Although new categories of corrective feedback were not found, n ew varieties of corrective feedback were found and will be presented in the next chapte r. Corrective feedback moves were identified, coded and tabulated separately for the two pedagogical settings: asynchronous discussions and synchronous discussions. Based on previous research (Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Morris, 2002; Oliver, 1995; Panova and Lyster, 2003), two types of learner resp onse were expected. The learner can ignore the corrective feedback and continue the con versation or the learner can provide a response. If the learner provides a response, the response can be ‘repaired’ by the learner

PAGE 111

99 or it can still ‘need repair’; these two categories of responses served as the a p riori categories. Due to the nature of the environments, it was expected that other types of learner responses might emerge. Procedures The procedures and analysis for each research quest ion are presented below. The results from these procedures and analysis will be discussed in the following chapter. The research questions are presented in Figure 3.8. Figure 3.8 Research Questions 1. Do instructors offer corrective feedback to lea rners in online asynchronous and synchronous environments? a. Do instructors offer corrective feedback to lear ners in online asynchronous discussions conducted in university first year Span ish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes? b. Do instructors offer corrective feedback to lear ners in online synchronous discussions conducted in university first year Spanish as a For eign Language (SFL) classes? 2. What is the nature of corrective feedback in on line asynchronous and synchronous environments? a. What are the different types of corrective feedb ack found in online asynchronous discussions conducted in university fi rst year Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes and are they used equally? b. What are the different types of corrective feedb ack found in online synchronous discussions conducted in university fir st year Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes and are they used equally? 3. What types of learner error lead to what types o f corrective feedback in online asynchronous and synchronous environments? a. What types of learner error lead to what types o f corrective feedback in online asynchronous discussions conducted in university fi rst year Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes? b. What types of learner error lead to what types o f corrective feedback in online synchronous discussions conducted in university fir st year Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes?

PAGE 112

100 Figure 3.8 (Continued) 4. What is the distribution of learner response to different types of corrective feedback found in online asynchronous and synchronous enviro nments? a. What is the distribution of learner response to different types of corrective feedback found in online asynchronous discussions c onducted in university first year Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes? b. What is the distribution of learner response to different types of corrective feedback found in online synchronous discussions co nducted in university first year Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes? Procedure for research question one. In order to answer research question one, all learn er turns were first examined to determine whether or not they contained errors. Th e coding form columns were first transferred into an Excel file for ease of tabulati on. Using column two of the coding form (See Appendix F), each learner turn was coded ‘yes’ if it contained an error and ‘no’ if it did not contain an error. Next, the learner turns that contained an error, those marked ‘yes’, were further examined to determine whether or not they received corrective feedback from the instructor. Using column four of the coding form (See Appendix F), learner turns containing an error were coded ‘yes’ if they received corrective feedback and ‘no’ if they did not receive corrective feedback. Codin g was performed on both the asynchronous data and the synchronous data. Specif ic types of errors and specific types of corrective feedback were not identified at this time. This information was coded and analyzed at a later time for research questions two and three. The provision of corrective feedback by instructors to students was calculated for both the asynchronous and synchronous environments in order to answer the two subquestions pertaining to research question one: (a) Do instructors provide learners with

PAGE 113

101 corrective feedback in online asynchronous discussi ons conducted in university first year Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes? and (b ) Do instructors provide learners with corrective feedback in online synchronous disc ussions conducted in university first year Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes? A formula was entered into the Excel document that counted all turns containing er ror or a ‘yes’ in column two. A separate formula was entered into the Excel documen t that tabulated all learner turns receiving corrective feedback. The percentage of l earner errors that received corrective feedback was then calculated and reported for each instructor and across the four classes. Procedures for research question two. In order to answer research question two, specific types of corrective feedback were teased from the data obtained. The data, whic h was coded initially for research question one, was further analyzed here and specifi c types of corrective feedback were identified using the codebook (See Appendix G). Ea ch instructor turn providing corrective feedback was coded using one of the code s in the codebook. This was done in the Excel file for ease of tabulation. Once all th e data were coded, a formula was entered into the Excel file that tabulated each type of cor rective feedback for each instructor. The types of corrective feedback and their rate of occu rrence, including explicit correction, recast, elicitation, metalinguistic, clarification request, and repetition were reported for each instructor and across the four classes using a distribution of corrective feedback types table.

PAGE 114

102 The tabulations of the corrective feedback categori es were calculated separately for both the asynchronous and synchronous environme nts in order to answer the subquestions of research question two: What are the di fferent types of corrective feedback found in online asynchronous discussions conducted in university first year Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes and are they used eq ually? And what are the different types of corrective feedback found in online synchr onous discussions conducted in university first year Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes and are they used equally? It was also possible to perform a chi-square goodne ss-of-fit test for the corrective feedback types in each of these environments becaus e enough incidents of corrective feedback types were found. A chi-square goodness-o f-fit test is appropriate for distributions of data with one nominal variable and several categories. In the present research question, as concerns the asynchronous dat a, the asynchronous environment serves as the nominal variable and the various type s of corrective feedback serve as the categories. Similarly, with the synchronous data, the environment serves as the nominal variable and the types of corrective feedback serve as the categories. It would appear that the chi-square goodness-of-fit test is the most app ropriate for this type of data. A chisquare goodness-of-fit test employs a systematic hy pothesis-testing procedure and a null hypothesis was established for this research questi on. The chi-square test of goodness-of-fit requires tha t certain conditions be met and this study made certain that these assumptions were met before conducting the chi-square test of goodness-of-fit. These assumptions include independence of the observations and

PAGE 115

103 that each frequency must exceed the minimum frequen cy of five. To facilitate the chisquare goodness-of-fit examination, data from the c ategories obtained earlier in this research question were also collapsed. This is a c ommon practice in chi-square analysis and previous studies in the field have also perform ed collapsing of categories. Care was also taken to collapse categories with a purpose. Only categories that could be collapsed and had a viable rationale for collapsing, were col lapsed. The corrective feedback types identified previously in this research question were collapsed into overarching categories in order to a nswer research question two. Of these six types of feedback, two, explicit correction and recast, provide the target-like form to learners explicitly and implicitly respectively. T he other corrective feedback types, metalinguistic feedback, clarification request, eli citation and repetition, do not provide the target-like form to learners, and provide an op portunity to negotiate form. Previous research (Lyster, 1998; Lyster and Ranta, 1997) has categorized these corrective feedback types as negotiation of form, but this ter m is not clear and can lead to confusion. In this particular study, these corrective feedback types were collapsed under the category opportunity to negotiate form to make the function of these corrective feedback types more salient. Once the categories were collapsed, a chi-square go odness-of fit test was used to determine if the observed frequencies differed from the expected. A chi-square was performed separately for both the asynchronous and synchronous environment. A systematic hypothesis-testing procedure was underta ken.

PAGE 116

104 Procedure for research question three. In order to answer research question three, the fi rst step was to categorize the specific types of learner error and their occurrenc e using the Excel file and coding form. Most corrective feedback move identified were linke d to a learner turn containing errors. Due to the nature of interaction, in a few instance s, it was impossible to determine to whom or to what learner turn with error the correct ive feedback was directed. This was most common in the synchronous interaction where tu rns not associated with the error treatment sequence are embedded in between other tu rns. These instances were very few and were not coded. The collapsed categories of co rrective feedback types were used to answer research question three. Elicitation, metal inguistic, clarification request, and repetition types of corrective feedback were collap sed into opportunity to negotiate form. In order to answer research question three, a chi-s quare test of association was performed. A chi-square test of association is app ropriate for data containing two traits, in this case corrective feedback and learner error. Similarly to the assumptions of the chisquare goodness-of-fit test discussed in research q uestion two, a chi-square test of association requires independence of the observatio ns and that each frequency exceed the minimum frequency of five. Similarly to the chi-squ are goodness-of-fit test discussed in research question two, a systematic hypothesis-test ing procedure was undertaken in order to conduct the chi-square test of association. These analyses were conducted separately for each o f the two sub-questions in research question three: What types of learner erro r lead to what types of corrective feedback in online asynchronous discussions conduct ed in university first year Spanish as

PAGE 117

105 a Foreign Language (SFL) classes? And what types o f learner error lead to what types of corrective feedback in online synchronous discussio ns conducted in university first year Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes? Procedures for research question four. In order to answer research question number four, the different types of corrective feedback identified in research question two were u tilized. In addition, learner response was examined. First, the data were analyzed and in stances of learner responses to instructor corrective feedback were identified in t he data. Using column six of the Excel file, ‘yes’ was marked when a learner response to the instruct or’s corrective feedback was present and ‘no’ when the corrective feedback did not receive a resp onse from the learner. Learner responses were tabulated and a fu rther analysis of learner response was conducted in order to determine if the learner resp onse lead to ‘repair’ or ‘needs repair’. In addition to reporting the distributions of repa ir and needs repair in the asynchronous and synchronous environments, it was p ossible to perform a chi-square test of association depending because enough incidents o f repair and needs repair were found in the data. The data obtained for research questio n four contains more than one nominal variable and thus a chi-square test of association is appropriate. The collapsed categories of corrective feedback were used in order to facili tate the chi-square test of association examination.

PAGE 118

106 Summary In this third chapter, a detailed description of t he setting, the database, the overview of the procedures, the overview of the pro cess, and the data analysis have been discussed. In chapter 4, the results for each rese arch question will be discussed.

PAGE 119

107 Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Results Introduction The purpose of the present research study was to e xamine the corrective feedback provided by instructors to students in online async hronous and synchronous environments. This study set out to determine whet her or not corrective feedback was provided by instructors to students in these two en vironments, identify the various types of corrective feedback provided, investigate the re lationship between learner error and corrective feedback, and calculate the distribution of learner response following the different types of corrective feedback. After an introduction to the problem area in chapte r 1 and an expanded review of the most salient contributions to the field in chap ter 2, chapter 3 described in detail the design of the study. The aim of this particular ch apter is to communicate the data analysis and results as well as report the findings related to each research question. General Overview of the Procedures This study was conducted with four second-semester Spanish classes at a major research I university. The instructors of these fo ur classes were given an orientation session where the study was explained and correctiv e feedback in face to face classes was discussed in order to raise the instructors’ awaren ess of the focus of the study. The

PAGE 120

108 instructors were made aware that the research would examine the corrective feedback they provided in the asynchronous and synchronous e nvironments. Three of the four instructors attended a general orientation session and a special session was given to the one instructor who was not able to attend the gener al orientation. Instructors were then asked to take their students to the computer lab fo r an orientation of the Blackboard software which included a familiarization of the bu lletin board and the chat room functions. Instructors were then asked to take th eir classes two more times to the computer lab in order to two chat discussions, or s ynchronous interactions with their students. Additionally, instructors were also aske d to conduct two bulletin board discussions or asynchronous interactions during the semester. These bulletin board discussions were assigned as homework and took plac e outside the classroom setting. Since there were four classes, this generated a tot al of sixteen interaction, eight asynchronous interactions and eight synchronous int eractions. These sixteen interactions formed the database for this study. Background Questionnaire Background questionnaires were distributed, complet ed and collected from the instructors and students on the computer orientatio n day. Although these questionnaires do not serve to address or answer any particular re search question, they do provide rich background information on the instructors and stude nts. The intent of these questionnaires was to collect background informatio n on the language teaching and learning as well as computer experience of the inst ructors and students in case any

PAGE 121

109 anomalies appeared in the data that could be attrib uted to personal background and/or computer experience. None of these irregularities was identified, but the background questionnaires served as a good introduction to the participants of this study. First, background questionnaires were administered to the four instructors (See Appendix A for full questionnaire). The instructor background questionnaire inquired about native language (Question 4), teaching experi ence (Question 5), other language experience (Question 6), travel experience (Questio n 7), general computer experience (Questions 8, 9, 10), the use of bulletin boards (Q uestions 11, 12, 13) and the use of chat rooms (Questions 14, 15, 16). Table 4.1 below pres ents the information in a table. Two female instructors and two male instructors partici pated in the present study. Of these four instructors, two instructors reported English as their native language, one instructor reported Spanish as her native language, and one in structor reported both Spanish and English as his native languages. The amount of tim e these instructors had taught Spanish varied from 1 month to 10 years, although the instr uctor who stated he had been teaching Spanish for one month had taught French for one yea r prior to participating in the study. All the instructors had used computers for many yea rs and felt comfortable using computers. When asked about the use of bulletin bo ards in classes taught and for personal use, only one instructor had used bulletin boards in classes taught and one had used them for personal use. The instructors had ne ver used the chat room in classes taught, yet all of the instructors had used chat ro oms for personal use.

PAGE 122

110 Table 4.1 : Instructor Questionnaire Findings Inst. 1 Inst. 2 Inst. 3 Inst. 4 Gender: F F M M Age: 40 39 27 32 Native Language: Spanish English Spanish/English English Time Teaching Spanish: 10 years 4 years 1 month 7 years Years using computers: 10 14 8 20 Comfort with Computers: Somewhat Comfortable Very Comfortable Very Comfortable Very Comfortable Use of Bulletin Boards in classes taught: No No Yes No Use of Bulletin Boards for personal use: No No No Yes Use of Chat room in classes taught: No No No No Use of Chat rooms for personal use: Yes Yes Yes Yes (N = 4) Note. The abbreviation “Inst.” is used for instructor Second, the students of these courses were asked to fill out a background questionnaire during the computer orientation day. The four Spanish II courses that participated in this study contained a total of 72 students. Of particular interest was the students’ comfort level with computers and the use of discussion boards and chat rooms (See Appendix B for full questionnaire). The stude nt background questionnaire inquired about classification (Question 5), native language (Question 6), language experience (Questions 7, 8, 9, 10, 12), general computer exper ience (Questions 13, 14, 15), the use of bulletin boards (Questions 16, 17), and the use of chat rooms (Questions 18, 19). Table 4.2 presents distributions of gender, level o f study, native language, reason for studying Spanish, and several factors related to co mputer use. The vast majority of these students (99%) were undergraduate students with a m edian age of 23. The majority of students (97%) reported English as their native lan guage and the majority (84%) were taking this course because language study is a requ irement at this university. Most

PAGE 123

111 students (97%) were either very comfortable or some what comfortable with computers. Interestingly, about half (57%) of the students use d discussion boards in class, but rarely (17%) used discussion boards for personal use. Conv ersely, students rarely (17%) used chat rooms in class, but about half (51%) used chat rooms for personal use. Table 4.2 : Student Questionnaire Findings Age: Mean: 26 Median: 23 Gender: M (44%) F (56%) Level of study: Undergraduate (99%) Graduate (1%) Native language: English (97%) Other (3%) Reason for studying Spanish Requirement (84%) Personal growth (13%) Heritage (3%) Length of time using computers Mean: 10 years Median: 10 years 1 student 0 years Comfort with computers Very comfortable (73%) Somewhat comfortable (24%) Uncomfortable (3%) Use of discussion boards in class No (43%) Yes (57%) 2 times a week when yes Use of discussion boards for personal use No (83%) Yes (17%) 4 times a week when yes Use of chat rooms in class No (87%) Yes (13%) 2.5 times a week when yes Use of chat rooms for personal use No (49%) Yes (51%) 4 times a week when yes (N = 72) The Database The data for this study constituted a total of six teen online asynchronous and synchronous interactions between instructors and st udents. The asynchronous and synchronous data were collected using the bulletin board and chat functions of the Blackboard courseware package. First, instructors were given an orientation of the chat room and bulletin board functions of Blackboard. N ext, instructors were given a schedule (See Figure 3.1) for data collection for t he semester. Prior to the interaction sessions, instructors were given guiding questions (See Appendix D and E for examples)

PAGE 124

112 that they could use to conduct the discussions on t he bulletin board and in the chat room. Instructors were not required to use these question s, but most instructors used the provided questions for the asynchronous discussions and used the guiding questions to begin their discussion in the synchronous interacti on and then added original questions. The sixteen online interactions were transferred i nto an Excel file for ease of coding. In the Excel file, the raw data was separa ted into turns and columns for coding the learner errors, instructor corrective feedback, and learner responses were created. Asynchronous turns were comprised of sentences and synchronous turns encompassed each entry made by the student or instructor. At t he time of the conception of the study, it was proposed that short turns with little or no potential for error such as names of people, yes, no, hello, good morning, etc. would be excluded from the analysis. However, after the data were examined closely, a fe w short utterances that were associated with errors and corrective feedback, suc h as “thank-you”, “oops”, etc., were found and these were kept because of their relation ship to corrective feedback and their relevance to the study. After the data were separated into turns and clean ed up by deleting short turns not related to the study, it yielded a total of 5,874 t urns. The turns figure is a more accurate figure than the fourteen hour figure because the ho ur figure is an estimation of how much time students could have spent on the computer whil e performing the asynchronous task.

PAGE 125

113 Data Analysis As discussed in chapter 3, the unit of analysis for this research study is the error treatment sequence. The error treatment sequence refers to the learner’s initial turn containing an error, the instructor’s response to t he learner error, and the learner’s response to the correction. The data collected for this study were examined and all errors, corrective feedback moves, and learner resp onses were identified and coded using the codebook (See Appendix G). Error. All learner turns were coded as either having an er ror or not. Using face-to-face studies in the field as a guide, it was hypothesize d that grammatical, lexical, unsolicited use of L1, and multiple error types would be found in the data. In addition, it was speculated that typographical, spelling, and orthog raphic errors would be found in online interactions in Spanish. It is impossible to diffe rentiate between a typographical or spelling error unless learners are interviewed rega rding the error made and interviews were beyond the scope of this study. In summary, s ix a priori categories were anticipated: a) grammatical, b) lexical, c) typogra phic and spelling, d) orthographic conventions, e) use of L1, and f) multiple. Althou gh the use of L1 is not an error per se, other studies have considered these for analysis be cause it is interesting to examine how teachers react to learners’ use of unsolicited L1. Turns containing one or more types of errors, were coded as containing multiple errors.

PAGE 126

114 New or emergent categories of errors were not found in the asynchronous and synchronous data. However, adjustments had to be m ade to the original a priori categories. When examining orthographic convention s, it was found that instructors themselves used orthographic conventions sparingly. In addition, only one instructor provided minimal corrective feedback for orthograph ic errors. In light of this discovery, orthographic conventions were grouped with typograp hic and spelling errors to create a new overarching category of orthographic/typographi c/spelling errors. In conclusion, five types of errors were identified in the asynchr onous and synchronous interactions included in this study. These included: grammatica l, lexical, orthographic/typographic/spelling, unsolicited use of L1, and multiple. Corrective feedback. All instructor turns were coded as either providin g corrective feedback or not to a learner turn containing an error. It was anticipat ed that six types of corrective feedback would be found in online interactions. Explicit co rrection, recasts, clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, and repetitio n were expected and constituted the a priori categories for corrective feedback in this study. All anticipated types of corrective feedback were found in the data, although one type of corrective feedback, repetition, was not found in the asynchronous interactions. It was also expected that new types of corrective feedback might be found and thus room wa s left for emergent categories. New or emergent categories of corrective feedback were not found in the data, but variations of the a priori corrective feedback types were found.

PAGE 127

115 The various types of corrective feedback distinguis hed from the asynchronous and synchronous data of this study are presented below with examples. In addition, variations of these corrective feedback types are d iscussed and examples are provided. 1. Explicit correction constitutes the explicit provision of the correct form by the instructor. These corrections are often preceded b y phrases such as “You mean,” “Use this word,” “You should say,” etc. (1) (Instructor 1 Synchronous) Instructor 1: Crees que yo viajaba? Do you think I used to travel? Student: t viajabas al caribeo [Error – Lexical] you used to travel to the Caribbean (Caribbean as a n adjective) Instructor 1: E.P. Caribe not caribeo [Corrective Feedback – Explicit correction] E.P. Caribbean (noun) not Caribbean (adjective) Example one above was obtained from a synchronous i nteraction. Additional student turns occurred between the student error an d the instructor corrective feedback, but the error treatment sequence was pulled from th e data to highlight the interaction. A feature of synchronous interaction is the fast pace of interaction. In the above turn, it appears that the instructor wants to make sure the student who made the mistake, receives the corrective feedback. The instructor denoted th e receiver of the corrective feedback by using the student’s initials (student’s names and i nitials have been changed to preserve anonymity). Instructors used the learner’s initial s at the beginning of a turn containing corrective feedback in order to indicate the receiv er of the feedback. In traditional faceto-face classroom interaction, instructors do not u se initials to denote who the corrective feedback is directed to, instead the instructor may use first name or more commonly eye

PAGE 128

116 contact. In addition, in face-to-face interaction, the communication typically follows a teacher question, student response, and teacher eva luation sequence. This is not the case in online interaction where multiversing (T. Erben, personal communication, May 23, 2005) is the typical type of interaction. In multi versing, other turns are many embedded between the student response to teacher question an d the teacher evaluation. The most representative online interaction includes: teacher question, student 1 response, student 2 response, student 3 response, student 4 response, t eacher evaluation of student 2 response Instructor 1 discovered a unique way to direct the feedback to a particular student in the synchronous environment. Other uses of technology and conventions of techno logy to denote explicit corrections were also found in the data. For examp le, in the synchronous discussion, instructors preceded a corrective feedback turn wit h the word “correction” (Example 2). (2) (Instructor 1 Synchronous) Instructor 1: Qu hacas tu de nio? What did you used to do as a child? Student: Hacia beisbol. [Error – Lexical] I used to make baseball Insructor 1: correccin : jugaba beisbl [Corrective Feedback – Explicit] correction : I used to play baseball In the asynchronous discussion, the “correction” st rategy was also used, but in a slightly different manner. In the bulletin board, the instructors often created a posting with the heading “corrections” and this posting was followed by a list of corrective feedback moves in bullet format (See Example 3). F or this study, some of the corrective feedback moves were coded as explicit correction wh ile others constituted a different type of corrective feedback. In this study, a deci sion was made that all bullets that were

PAGE 129

117 under the heading “corrections” and provided the le arner with the answer would be coded as explicit feedback. The other types of correctiv e feedback that did not provide the answer would be coded according to the codebook and fell under elicitation, metlainguistic feedback, clarification request or r epetition. (3) (Instructor 3 – Asynchronous) Student: Ahora mismo yo mucho enferma. [Error Lexical] Right now I very sick Student: Tengo alergias a todo para que simepre siento mucho enferma. [Error Multiple] I have allergies to everything that I always (missp elled) feel very sick. Instructor 3: Correcciones: Corrections: Instructor 3: Ponle ms atencin a lo que escribes... [Corrective feedback clarification request] pay more attention to what you write .... Instructor 3: se te olvid el verbo "estar" [Corrective feedback metalinguistic feedback] you forgot the verb ‘to be’ Instrutor 3: Tengo alergias a todo y por eso simepre me siento m uy enferma. [Corrective Feedback Explicit Correction] I am allergic to everything and that is why I alway s feel sick. Another technique employed by instructors in online interaction was the use of all caps to emphasize the correction to the student. Using all caps in chat rooms is widely accepted as ‘screaming’ within netiquette conventio ns. The all caps strategy was used to present the corrective feedback in a whole turn (ex ample 4) or to point out a particular correction (example 5). Additionally, the all caps function was used by one instructor as a strategy to differentiate his postings from those of students. Instructor 4 began the synchronous discussions using lower case, but in th e middle of the discussion switched to all caps and posed questions, made comments and made correc tions using all caps. The

PAGE 130

118 computer mediated communication literature has foun d that the role of the instructor is compromised and more student-student interaction is found ((Beauvois, 1992; Kelm, 1992; Kern, 1995). Less attention is given to inst ructor turns in the synchronous mode of interaction. This was the case in this particular synchronous interaction and the instructor found a way to differentiate his turns from those o f the students. (4) (Instructor 3 Synchronous) Instructor 3: Hola clase......Qu profesin les interesa? Hello class......What profession interests you? Instructor3: qu quieres ser Mel? What do you want to be Mel? Student: yo quiero ser una trabajo de social [Error – Lexical] I want to be a social work Instructor 3: TRABAJADORA SOCIAL..... [Corrective Feedback – Explicit] SOCIAL WORKER..... (5) (Instructor 3 Asynchronous) Student: Quiz obtendr para viajar a otros pases. [Error – Lexical] Maybe I will obtain to travel to other countries. Instructor 3: Quiz PODR viajar a otros pases. [Corrective Feedback – Explicit] Maybe I WILL BE ABLE TO travel to other countries. 2. Recast is the implicit provision of the correct form by th e instructor. The instructor reformulates all or part of a learner’s utterance e xcluding the error. This can constitute a repetition with change or a repetition with change and emphasis (See example 6). Recasts are implicit and are not preceded by phrase s such as “You mean,” “Use this word,” “You should say,” etc. In the electronic in teraction, recasts were often followed by a question mark. Recasts also include translati ons in response to a student’s use of the L1 (See example 7). (6) (Instructor 4 Asynchronous)

PAGE 131

119 Student: Tengo dolor de cabeza y gargantuan. [ErrorSpelling] I have a headache and a gargantuan. Instructor 4: Tienes dolor de garganta? [Corrective Feedback – Recast] Does your throat hurt? (7) (Instructor 4 Asynchronous) Student: Yo trabajare con la oficina del probation. [Error – Use of L1] I will work with the probation office Instructor 4: probation = la libertad condicional [Corrective Feedback – Recast] 3. Clarification requests indicates to the learner either that the utterance is not understood by the instructor or that the utterance is ill-formed in some way without providing the learner with the target-like form and that a repetition or a reformulation is required on the part of the student. A clarificati on request is typically done with questions such as “Pardon me?” “What do you mean by x?” etc. (8) (Instructor 1 Synchronous) Instructor 1: Es importante que el gobierno pague los sueldos de los bomberos? o es mejor que las compaas privadas pa guen los sueldos de los bomberos por qu? Is it important that the government pay the salarie s of the firefighters? Or is it better if private companies pay the salaries of firefighters? Why? Student: si, es muy importante que el gobierno pague por los bombers porque los bomberos trabajen para los estados unido s [Error – Multiple] yes, it is very important that the government pay f or the firefighters (misspelled) because the firefighters work (in subj unctive verb tense) for the United States Instructor 1: B.W.: no entiendo su respuesta, por favor conteste la pre gunta [Corrective Feedback – Clarification Request] B.W.: I don’t understand your answer, please answer the question. 4. Metalinguistic feedback constitutes either comments, information, or questi ons that indicate that there is an error somewhere without e xplicitly providing the correct form to

PAGE 132

120 the learner. These comments can be in the form of grammatical metalanguage such as asking if we use a certain tense in that sentence o r can point to the nature of the error by stating to use a particular tense. (9) (Instructor 1 Synchronous) Instructor 1: Qu hacas tu de nio? What did you use to do as a child? Student: fue a la tienda para compra mucho juguetes [Error – Multiple] he or she went to the store buy many toys Instructor 1: K.T. Use imperfect not preterite [Corrective Feedback – Metalinguistic] 5. Elicitation is where the instructor directly elicits the corre ct form from the learner. These elicitations can come in various forms. The instructor can allow the student to fill in the blank, use questions to elicit the correct f orm, or ask students to reformulate the utterance. Elicitation can also be preceded by som e metalinguistic comment. In the online environment, instructors often used ellipses to denote elicitation (See example 10). (10) (Instructor 3 – Synchronous) Instructor 3: Qu hace un traductor? What does a translator do? Student: Un traductor hace traducir [Error – grammatical] A translator makes to translate Instructor 3: casi Jim... [Corrective Feedback – eliciation] almost Jim… 6. Repetition constitutes the repetition of the erroneous utteran ce in isolation by the instructor. In the online interaction, instructors often followed a repetition with several question marks (See example 11). (11) (Instructor 1 – Asynchronous) Instuctor 1: En el futuro, Qu tipo de comida comeremos? In the future, what type of food will we eat?

PAGE 133

121 Student: Comeremos comestible eschicle. [Error – Lexical] We will eat eschicle ??? [Corrective Feedback – Rep etition] Learner Response. All learner immediate responses to corrective feedb ack from the instructor were examined. It was expected that two types of learne r response would be found: responses that result in repair from the learner and response s that still need repair. These two categories constituted the a priori categories and both were found in the asynchronous and synchronous interactions (See Examples 12 and 1 3). (12) (Instructor 1 – Synchronous) Instructor 1: Que quieres ser al terminar la universidad? What do you want to be after you finish the univer sity? Student: Quiero ser la gerontologist. [Error – Use of L1] I want to be the gerontologist (gerontologist in En glish) Instructor 1: A.S. gerontloga [Corrective Feedback – Recast] A.S. gerontologist Student: Quiero ser la gerontologa. [Learner Response – Results in Repair] I want to be the gerontologist (13) (Instructor 4 – Synchronous) Instructor 4: QUE HACIA YO CUANDO TENIA 16 ANOS? WHAT DID I USE TO DO WHEN I WAS 16 YEARS OLD? Student: FUMA [Error – Gramatical] HE/SHE SMOKES Instructor 4: yo fumaba, si [Corrective Feedback – Recast] I used to smoke, yes Student: fumia [Learner Response – Needs Repair] I used to smoke (wrong verb ending) Although new categories of learner response were no t found, a variety of the needs repair type of learner response was observed in the electronic data and it is worth mentioning because of its frequency. Learners freq uently responded to corrective

PAGE 134

122 feedback with an acknowledgement of the instructor’ s intent to draw attention to some aspect of the learner’s original written utterance. These acknowledgements included remarks such as: thank you, oops, my bad, etc. (See Example 14). (14) (Instructor 1 – Synchronous) Instructor 1: Qu hacas tu de nio? What did you used to do as a child? Student: Creci en Tampa, Florida. Cuando yo era una nina, yo quise humoristicas, y los dulces. [Error – Multiple] I grew up in Tampa, Florida. When I was a childe, I wanted humoristicas (non existent word) and candies. Instructor 1: A.S. me gustaban las comiquitas y los dulces [Corrective Feedback – Recast] A.S. I used to like comics and candies Student: gracias! [Learner Response – Acknowledgement] thank you! Results The remainder of this chapter is organized accordin g to the research questions of this study (See Figure 4.1). Each research questio n will be stated and the results will be presented. The asynchronous and synchronous data y ielded a total of 5,874 turns, of which 4,315 were learner turns. Each of these turn s was examined and coded for error, instructor corrective feedback, and learner respons e.

PAGE 135

123 Figure 4.1 Research Questions 1. Do instructors offer corrective feedback to lea rners in online asynchronous and synchronous environments? a. Do instructors offer corrective feedback to lear ners in online asynchronous discussions conducted in university first year Span ish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes? b. Do instructors offer corrective feedback to lear ners in online synchronous discussions conducted in university first year Spanish as a For eign Language (SFL) classes? 2. What is the nature of corrective feedback in on line asynchronous and synchronous environments? a. What are the different types of corrective feedb ack found in online asynchronous discussions conducted in university fi rst year Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes and are they used equally? b. What are the different types of corrective feedb ack found in online synchronous discussions conducted in university fir st year Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes and are they used equally? 3. What types of learner error lead to what types o f corrective feedback in online asynchronous and synchronous environments? a. What types of learner error lead to what types o f corrective feedback in online asynchronous discussions conducted in university fi rst year Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes? b. What types of learner error lead to what types o f corrective feedback in online synchronous discussions conducted in university fir st year Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes? 4. What is the distribution of learner response to different types of corrective feedback found in online asynchronous and synchronous enviro nments? a. What is the distribution of learner response to different types of corrective feedback found in online asynchronous discussions c onducted in university first year Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes? b. What is the distribution of learner response to different types of corrective feedback found in online synchronous discussions co nducted in university first year Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes? Reliability. Problems of the stability type of reliability arise when data are coded inconsistently. To ensure that data were not coded inconsistently, several steps were taken in this study. First, the researcher coded t he data and fine-tuned the codebook. In addition, when problems arose as to how to classify a corrective feedback type or an error, colleagues in the field were consulted. Whe n new varieties of corrective feedback

PAGE 136

124 were discovered in the data, colleagues were also c onsulted. Once the codebook was finalized and after a period of a couple of weeks, the coder coded all of the data a second time to verify that simple errors had not been made the first time the data were coded and that cognitive changes had not affected the coding. Finally, intercoder reliability was calculated for error, corrective feedback, and lear ner response. At least 15% of the data were coded by two coders, the researcher and a coll eague with Spanish language teaching experience. Intercoder reliability was calculated using Holti’s (1969) percent agreement method PAo = 2A / (nA+nB). Where PAo stands for pr oportional agreement observed, A is the number of agreements between the two coder s, and nA and nB are the numbers of units recorded by coders, respectively. The res earcher and a colleague with many years of Spanish language teaching experience met a first time to conduct a training session. The codebook was discussed in detail and the colleague took a portion of the data home to code independently. The researcher an d the coder met a second time to discuss the coding and to calculate the intercoder reliability. The total number of agreement turns and the total number of turns coded were tallied. The intercoder reliability was calculated and the results in this study yielded a 89% intercoder reliability for error, a 91% reliability for corrective feedbac k, and 94% reliability for learner response. Results for research question one. A variety of corrective feedback strategies was pr esent in the asynchronous and synchronous transcripts of this study. Instructors did vary in their provision of corrective

PAGE 137

125 feedback strategies in the two environments. The t ranscripts also suggest that instructors used all caps, punctuation, emoticons, initials, an d bullets to enhance the effect of the corrective feedback. Results for research question one ( a). Instructors did indeed provide corrective feedback in the asynchronous environment. Table 4.3 provides a breakdown by ins tructor, as well as totals for the entire database of the total number of learner turn s, the number of learner turns containing errors, the percentage of learner turns with error, the total number of learner turns with error receiving corrective feedback, and the percentage of student turns with error receiving corrective feedback. Of all the le arner turns (N =1059) in the asynchronous interaction, just over half (54%) cont ained errors. Instructors provided corrective feedback to learner turns containing err ors 85% of the time in the asynchronous interaction. One instructor provided corrective feedback to learner turns containing errors 122% of the time, while the other three instructors offered corrective feedback 85%, 85%, and 54% of the time. Instructor three, who provided corrective feedback 122% of the time, had a high percentage of provision of corrective feedback because this instructor often provided multiple fee dback moves for learner turns with errors. In several instances, if the learner turn contained one error, the instructor provided two distinctive turns with different types of corrective feedback.

PAGE 138

126 Table 4.3: Percentage of Corrective Feedback Provis ion in the Asynchronous Environment Instructor Total Number of Learner turns Total Number of Learner Turns Containing Errors Percentage of Learner Turns with Error (Total Number of Learner Turns with Error over Total turns) Total Number of Learner Turns with Error Receiving Corrective Feedback Percentage Student Turns with Error Receiving Corrective Feedback (Corrective feedback over learner error) Inst. 1 387 238 61% 203 85% Inst. 2 201 66 33% 56 85% Inst. 3 198 120 61% 146 122% Inst. 4 273 147 54% 80 54% Total 1059 571 54% 485 85% Note. The abbreviation “Inst.” is used for instructor Results for research question one (b). Instructors also provided corrective feedback in t he synchronous environment, but not to the extent that it is provided in the asynch ronous environment. Table 4.4 provides a breakdown by instructor, as well as totals for th e entire database of the number of learner turns, the number of learner turns containi ng errors, the percentage of learner turns with error, the total number of learner turns with error receiving corrective feedback, and the percentage of student turns with error receiving corrective feedback. Of all the learner turns in the synchronous interac tion, only 15% received corrective feedback from the instructor. This is in major con trast to the asynchronous mode where students received considerably more corrective feed back from the instructors. Interestingly, the same instructor (instructor 3) that provided the most amount of feedback in the asynchronous mode, provided the mos t amount of feedback (48%) in the synchronous mode. Two other instructors, instructo rs 1 and 4, provided corrective

PAGE 139

127 feedback 11% and 15% of the time respectively in th e synchronous mode of interaction. One instructor (instructor 2) did not offer correct ive feedback to learner turns containing errors in the synchronous interaction, although thi s instructor provided corrective feedback in the asynchronous mode of interaction. In the chat room, this particular instructor posed many questions for the learners, b ut never provided feedback when learner turns contained errors. Table 4.4: Percentage of Corrective Feedback Provi sion in the Synchronous Environment Instructor Total Number of Learner turns Total Number of Learner Turns Containing Errors Percentage of Learner Turns with Error (Total Number of Learner Turns with Error over Total turns) Total Number of Learner Turns with Error Receiving Corrective Feedback Percentage of Student Turns with Error Receiving Corrective Feedback (Corrective feedback over learner error) Inst. 1 869 454 52% 50 11% Inst. 2 911 277 30% 0 0% Inst. 3 402 166 41% 79 48% Inst. 4 1077 544 51% 83 15% Total 3259 1441 44% 212 15% Note. The abbreviation “Inst.” is used for instructor Results for research question two. A variety of corrective feedback types were found i n the asynchronous and synchronous interactions. One corrective feedback type, repetition, was found in the asynchronous interaction but was not observed in th e synchronous interaction. Results for research question two (a). Six different types of corrective feedback, explic it correction, recast, metalinguistic feedback, clarification request, eli citation and repetition, were observed in the asynchronous mode of interaction. Tendencies f or different types of corrective

PAGE 140

128 feedback types are shown for each instructor in tab le 4.5. When all instructors are examined, the most widely used type of corrective f eedback in the asynchronous environment was the explicit correction. More than half (56%) of the corrective feedback provided in the asynchronous environment constitute d an explicit correction. The other corrective feedback types found in the asynchronous mode of interaction include: recast, metalinguistic feedback, clarification request, eli citation, and repetition. These types of feedback were found 16%, 15%, 5%, 4%, and 2% of the time respectively. Individual instructors had tendencies toward certain types of corrective feedback. Two instructors (instructor 1 and 3) provided explicit correction m ost often, 87% and 64% of the time respectively. Instructor 2 had a preference (57%) for metalinguistic feedback while instructor 4 had a tendency to use recast most ofte n (84%). Table 4.5: Distribution of Corrective Feedback Typ es in the Asynchronous Environment Inst.1 (N =203) Inst.2 (N =56) Inst.3 (N =146) Inst.4 (N =80) Total (N =485) Explicit correction 176 (87%) 2 (4%) 94 (64%) 2 (3%) 274 (56%) Recast 4 (2%) 4 (7%) 7 (5%) 67 (84%) 82 (17%) Metalinguistic feedback 6 (3%) 32 (57%) 27 (18%) 2 (3%) 67 (14%)\ Clarification Request 10 (5%) 10 (18%) 10 (7%) 1 (1%) 31 (6%) Elicitation 1 (0%) 8 (14%) 6 (4%) 8 (10%) 23 (5%) Repetition 6 (3%) 0 (0%) 2 (1%) 0 (0%) 8 (2%) Note. The abbreviation “Inst.” is used for instructor Recall that of these six types of feedback, two pro vide the target-like form to learners. Explicit correction provides the answer overtly to learners while recast provides the answer implicitly to learners. The other corre ctive feedback types, metalinguistic

PAGE 141

129 feedback, clarification request, elicitation and re petition, do not provide the target-like form to learners, thus leaving a window open or pro viding an opportunity to negotiate form. Previous research (Lyster, 1998; Lyster and Ranta, 1997) has categorized these corrective feedback types as negotiation of form, b ut since this term is not clear and can lead to confusion, in this particular study, these corrective feedback types will be collapsed under the category opportunity to negotiate form to make the function of these corrective feedback types more salient. Using the collapsed categories, explicit correction recast, and opportunity to negotiate form, a chi-square goodness of fit was pe rformed in order to determine if the corrective feedback types are used equally in the a synchronous environment. A chisquare goodness of fit test was chosen because it i s the most appropriate for data concerned with one nominal variable and several cat egories, in this case the asynchronous environment is the variable and the ca tegories are the corrective feedback types. The assumptions for a chi-square of goodnes s-of-fit test include independence of the observations and that each frequency must excee d the minimum frequency of five. The null hypothesis for research two a is as follow s: instructors will use corrective feedback types, explicit correction, recasts, and o pportunity to negotiate form, equally in the asynchronous environment. To put it another wa y, there will be no difference between the set of observed frequencies and the set of expected frequencies, and if any difference does exist, it can be attributed to samp ling. Given the three categories, it is expected that explicit correction will be provided 33% of the time, recasts 33% of the time, and opportunity to negotiate form will also be provided 33% of the time. The 485

PAGE 142

130 corrective feedback moves were distributed across t he corrective feedback types as follows: 274 (56%) were explicit correction, 129 (2 7%) were opportunity to negotiate form, and 82 (17%) were recasts. These constitute the observed frequencies that were used to calculate the chi-square goodness of fit te st. The main effect for corrective feedback type in the asynchronous environment was s ignificant, c (2, N = 485) = 123.91, p <.001, confirming that corrective feedback types ar e not used equally in the asynchronous environment. The chi-square test enab led us to determine a mismatch between the observed frequency and the expected fre quency and thus reject the null hypothesis. Results indicate that instructors have a preference for explicit correction in the asynchronous mode of interaction. Results for research question two (b). Although the asynchronous data revealed six types o f corrective feedback, only five types of corrective feedback types were observ ed in the synchronous interaction. Repetition type of corrective feedback was not witn essed in the synchronous data. Tendencies for different types of corrective feedba ck types are shown for each instructor in table 4.6. When we examine all instructors, the most widely used type of corrective feedback in the synchronous environment was the rec ast. More than half (51%) of the corrective feedback provided in the synchronous env ironment constituted a recast. The other corrective feedback types found in the synchr onous mode of interaction include: elicitation (21%), explicit correction (17%), clari fication request (6%) and metalinguistic feedback (5%). Instructors 1 and 4 used recast typ e of corrective feedback most often when responding to learner turns containing errors. Instructor 3 used elicitation most

PAGE 143

131 often (34%) of the time, although explicit correcti on and recasts constituted 28% and 22% of the corrective feedback provided by this ins tructor. Table 4.6: Distribution of Corrective Feedback Typ es in the Synchronous Environment Inst.1 (N = 50) Inst.2 (N =0) Inst.3 (N =79) Inst.4 (N =83) Total (N =212) Recast 28 (56%) 0 17 (22%) 63 (76%) 108 (51%) Elicitation 3 (6%) 0 27 (34%) 15 (18%) 45 (21%) Explicit correction 13 (26%) 0 22 (28%) 1 (1%) 36 (17%) Clarification request 3 (6%) 0 6 (8%) 4 (5%) 13 (6%) Metalinguistic 3 (6%) 0 7 (9%) 0 (0%) 10 (5%) Repetition 0 0 0 0 0 Note. The abbreviation “Inst.” is used for instructor Using the same collapsing rationale used for the as ynchronous data, the categories were also collapsed for the synchronous environment Elicitation, clarification request and metalinguistic feedback were collapsed under th e opportunity to negotiate form category. A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was pe rformed on the collapsed categories to determine if these corrective feedback types are us ed equally in the synchronous environment. For the chi-square test, the synchron ous environment served as the variable and the corrective feedback types as the categories The null hypothesis for research question two b is as follows: instructors will use corrective feedback types, explicit correction, recasts, and opportunity to negotiate f orm, equally in the synchronous environment. That is, there will be no difference between the set of observed frequencies and the set of expected frequencies, and if any dif ference does exist, it can be attributed to sampling. It is expected that explicit correctio n, recasts, and opportunity to negotiate

PAGE 144

132 form will be provided equally, or 33% of the time. The 212 corrective feedback moves were distributed across three feedback types as fol lows: 108 (51%) were recasts, 68 (32%) were opportunity to negotiate form, and 36 (1 7%) were explicit correction. These constituted the observed frequencies and when the c hi-square was performed, the main effect was significant, c (2, N = 212) = 36.83, p <.001, confirming that feedback types are not used equally in the synchronous environment In the synchronous mode of interaction, instructors have a preference for reca sts. Results for research question three. The corrective feedback provided by instructors to learners in the asynchronous and synchronous environments has been discussed. I t is now interesting to examine if there is a relationship between learner error type and instructor corrective feedback type. Do particular varieties of learner error lead to th e provision of particular kinds of corrective feedback? Results for research question three (a). The 485 corrective feedback moves following learner error in the synchronous interaction were distributed across the three feedb ack types as follows: 274 (56%) were explicit correction, 129 (27%) involved an opportun ity to negotiate form, and 82 (17%) constituted a recast. Explicit correction was the most common type of corrective feedback among instructors in the asynchronous inte raction. Recall that in this study an error can be grammatical, lexical, orthographic/typ ographic/ spelling, the use of L1 or

PAGE 145

133 multiple. A comparison of the distribution of the various corrective feedback types across different error types is presented in Table 4.7. Of particular interest are turns with multiple errors which received explicit correction 60% of the time and grammatical errors which received explicit correction 59% of the time. Also interesting is the fact that Use of L1 errors always received or an explicit correct ion or a recast. Instructors never used clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, eli citation or repetition as a form of corrective feedback for the use of L1.. Table 4.7: Distribution of Errors Receiving Feedba ck Across Feedback Types and Error Types in the Asynchronous Environment Grammatical (N =240) Multiple (N =102) Lexical (N -99) Orthographic Typographic Spelling (N =37) Use of L1 (N =7) Explicit Correction 142 (59%) 61 (60%) 48 (48%) 20 (54%) 3 (43%) Opportunity to Negotiate Form 61 (25%) 28 (27%) 29 (29%) 11 (30%) 0 Recast 37 (15%) 13 (13%) 22 (22%) 6 (16%) 4 (57%) (N = 485) In order to answer research question three a, a chi -square test of association was performed. A chi-square test of association is use d when there are two variables involved. In this case, corrective feedback and er ror type constitute the two variables. The null hypothesis H for research question three a is as follows: there is no relationship between corrective feedback type and learner error type in the asynchronous environments. An analysis was performed on a 3 X 5 table (Table 4.8) which tested the effects of the categorical data and the interaction between corrective feedback type and error type. The interaction between corrective fee dback type and error type in the asynchronous mode of interaction was not significan t c (8, N = 485) = 15.06 p =.10.

PAGE 146

134 It cannot be determined that an overall relationshi p exists between corrective feedback type and learner error type in the asynchronous env ironment. Since the interaction between corrective feedback t ype and learner error type is not significant in the asynchronous mode of interac tion, additional statistical analysis will not be performed. Nevertheless, it is important to discuss what types of learner error lead to what types of corrective feedback and this can b e done using the percentages found on table 4.8. As can be seen on this table, all types of learner error consistently receive an explicit correction as a response. Explicit correc tion was used 56% of the time in the asynchronous mode of interaction. Grammatical erro rs are followed by explicit correction 59% of the time, multiple errors 60% of the time, lexical 48% of the time, orthographic/typographic/spelling 54% of the time, and the use of L1 43% of the time. It is evident that explicit correction is the most com mon type of corrective feedback in the asynchronous interaction regardless of the type of learner error. Table 4.8: Contingency Table of Observed Frequenci es of Corrective Feedback Types and Learner Error Types in the Asynchronous Environ ment Grammatical Multiple Lexical Orthographic Typographic Spelling Use of L1 Total Explicit Correction 142 61 48 20 3 274 Opportunity to Negotiate Form 61 28 29 11 0 129 Recast 37 13 22 6 4 82 Total 240 102 99 37 7 485 Results for research question three (b). The 212 corrective feedback moves following learne r error in the synchronous interaction were distributed across the three colla psed corrective feedback types as

PAGE 147

135 follows: 108 (51%) were recasts, 68 (32%) involved the opportunity to negotiation form, and 36 (17%) constituted explicit correction. A co mparison of the distribution of the various feedback types across different error types is presented in Table 4.9. Of particular interest are grammatical, lexical, use o f L1, and multiple errors. Grammatical, lexical and use of L1 type of errors were most ofte n followed by a recast; the most common type of feedback in the synchronous environm ent. Interestingly, this was not the case for multiple errors. Multiple errors were most often, 56% of the time, followed by an opportunity to negotiate form. Table 4.9: Distribution of Errors Receiving Feedba ck Across Feedback Types and Error Types in the Synchronous environment Grammatical (N =67) Lexical (N =56) Multiple (N =43) Orthographic Typographic Spelling (N =28) Use of L1 (N =18) Recast 45 (67%) 29 (52%) 14 (33%) 11 (39%) 9 (50%) Opportunity to Negotiate Form 17 (25%) 15 (27%) 24 (56%) 5 (18%) 7 (39%) Explicit Correction 5 (7%) 12 (21%) 5 (12%) 12 (43%) 2 (11%) (N = 212) In order to answer research question three b, a chi -square test of association was performed. A chi-square test of association is use d when there are two variables involved, in this case corrective feedback and erro r type. The null hypothesis H for research question 3b is as follows: there is no rel ationship between corrective feedback type and learner error type in the synchronous envi ronments. A contingency analysis of a 3 X 5 contingency table (Table 4.10) tested the eff ects of the categorical data and the interaction between corrective feedback type (3 lev els: recast, opportunity to negotiate, and explicit correction) by error type (5 levels: g rammatical, lexical, multiple,

PAGE 148

136 orthographic/typographic/spelling, and the use of L 1). The interaction between corrective feedback and learner errors was signific ant, c (8, N = 212) = 34.44, p <.001, confirming that there is a relationship between cor rective feedback type and learner error type. A relationship between error type and correc tive feedback type offered by instructors seems to exist. A comparison of corrective feedback choice for each error type revealed that recasts were more likely to be used when the learne r turn contained a grammatical error, c (2, N = 67) = 37.73, p <.001 and recasts were more likely to be provided w hen a learner turn contained a lexical error c (2, N = 56) = 8.82, p <.05, whereas the opportunity to negotiate was more likely to follow a multiple error c (2, N = 43) = 12.60, p <.01. Table 4.10: Contingency Table of Observed Frequenc ies of Corrective Feedback Types and Learner Error Types in the Synchronous Environm ent Grammatical Lexical Multiple Orthographic Typographic Spelling Use of L1 Total Recast 45 29 14 11 9 108 Opportunity to Negotiate Form 17 15 24 5 7 68 Explicit Correction 5 12 5 12 2 36 Total 67 56 43 28 18 212 Results for research question four. Previous research questions have determined that c orrective feedback is provided in online environments, that certain types of corre ctive feedback are more common in certain environments and that certain types of lear ner error lead to certain types of corrective feedback. More interesting is whether a relationship exists between corrective

PAGE 149

137 feedback type and learner response. Research quest ion four aims to answer how effective certain corrective feedback types are in leading to learner response. Results for research question four (a). Recall that instructors provided corrective feedba ck to learner turns containing errors a total of 485 times in the asynchronous env ironment. Of the 485 corrective feedback moves, only six received a response from l earners and of these six learner responses, only one resulted in repair. Table 4.11 presents the provisions of corrective feedback by instructor, the number of learner respo nses to corrective feedback, and the number of learner responses resulting in repair. Table 4.11: Instructor Corrective Feedback, Learne r Response, and Learner Response Resulting in Repair in the Asynchronous Environment Instructor Total Number of Provisions of Corrective Feedback Total Number of Learner Response to Corrective Feedback Percentage of Learner Responses (Total Number of Learner Responses over Total Number of Corrective Feedback) Total Number of Learner Responses Resulting in Repair Percentage of Learner Responses Resulting in Repair (Total Number of Learner Responses Resulting in Repair over Learner Responses) Inst. 1 203 0 0 0 0 Inst. 2 56 3 5% 0 0 Inst. 3 146 0 0 0 0 Inst. 4 80 3 4% 1 33% Total 485 6 1% 1 17% Note. The abbreviation “Inst.” is used for instructor A breakdown of learner response by corrective feedb ack types (Table 4.12), illustrates that of the 265 explicit correction mov es provided by instructors to learners, only one received a learner response that resulted in repair. Similarly, of the 73 recast

PAGE 150

138 type of corrective feedback moves provided, only tw o received a response, but these responses did not result in repair. Metalinguistic corrective feedback type received three learner responses, all of which still needed repair The clarification requests, elicitation and repetition types of corrective feedback posed b y the instructor received no learner response. Table 4.12: Learner Response Following Instructor Corrective Feedback in the Asynchronous Environment Response with Repair Response that Needs Repair No Learner Response Explicit Correction (N =265) 1 0 264 Recast (N =73) 0 2 71 Metalinguistic (N =66) 0 3 63 Clarification Request (N =23) 0 0 23 Elicitation (N =19) 0 0 19 Repetition (N =7) 0 0 7 Results for research question four (b). Differing from the asynchronous data, corrective f eedback in the synchronous environment lead to considerably more learner respo nses. Table 4.13 presents the total number of corrective feedback provided by each inst ructor, the total number of learner responses to corrective feedback, the percentage of learner responses, the total number of learner responses resulting in repair, and the perc entage of learner responses resulting in repair. Of the 212 corrective feedback moves provi ded by instructors to learner turns with error, 84 or 40% received a response from lear ners. Moreover, of the 84 learner responses, 31 or 37% resulted in repair.

PAGE 151

139 Table 4.13: Instructor Corrective Feedback, Learne r Response, and Learner Response Resulting in Repair in the Synchronous Environment Instructor Total Number of Provisions of Corrective Feedback Total Number of Learner Response to Corrective Feedback Percentage of Learner Responses (Total Number of Learner Responses over Total Number of Corrective Feedback) Total Number of Learner Responses Resulting in Repair Percentage of Learner Responses Resulting in Repair (Total Number of Learner Responses Resulting in Repair over Learner Responses) Inst. 1 50 22 44% 10 45% Inst. 2 0 0 0% 0 0 Inst. 3 79 22 28% 9 41% Inst. 4 83 40 48% 12 30% Total 212 84 40% 31 37% Note. The abbreviation “Inst.” is used for instructor It was established in a previous research question that the most common type of corrective feedback in the synchronous environment was the recast. A breakdown of learner response by corrective feedback types (Tabl e 4.14), illustrates that of the 108 recasts provided by instructors, only 41 or 38% rec eived a response, but more surprising is that of these 41 responses, only 9 or 8% resulte d in repair on the part of the learner. This pattern is also observed with explicit correct ion which received 10 or 28% learner responses, but only 2 or 6% of these resulted in re pair. Conversely, of the 45 elicitation corrective feedback types, 25 or 55% received a res ponse. However, 15 or 33% of these constituted a repair from the learner. Similar obs ervations are made of the clarification requests and metalinguistic corrective feedback typ es, all of which had a tendency to lead to repair. The most successful technique for elici ting a learner response is elicitation.

PAGE 152

140 Similarly, the most successful technique for elicit ing a repaired learner response is also elicitation. Table 4.14: Learner Response Following Types of Co rrective Feedback in the Synchronous Environment. Repair Needs Repair No Learner Response Recast (N=108) 9 (8%) 32 (30%) 67 (62%) Elicitation (N=45) 15 (33%) 10 (22%) 20 (45%) Explicit Correction (N=36) 2 (6%) 8 (22%) 26 (72%) Clarification Request (N=13) 3 (23%) 2 (15%) 8 (62%) Metalinguistic (N=10) 2 (20%) 1 (10%) 7 (70%) Repetition (N=0) 0 0 0 Recall that a recast is a corrective feedback type that provides the learner with the answer and an elicitation is a type of corrective f eedback that gives the learner the opportunity to negotiate form. If we group the cor rective feedback types into those that give the opportunity to negotiate form and those th at do not, we can get a better picture of which types leads to repair. Table 4.15 illustrate s the distribution of repair and needs repair by corrective feedback types that offer the opportunity to negotiate from or not. Corrective feedback types that offer the opportunit y to negotiate form received the most learner responses (49%) while recasts and explicit correction received 38% and 28% learner response respectively. More remarkable is the percentage of opportunity to negotiate corrective feedback types that lead to re pair. While recasts and explicit correction only lead to 8% and 6% repair, opportuni ty to negotiate form lead to 29% repair.

PAGE 153

141 Table 4.15: Frequency of Learner Turns, Learner Tu rns with Error, Corrective Feedback to Learner Turns with Error, Learner Responses, and Learner Responses Resulting in Repair in the Synchronous Environment Repair Needs Repair No Learner Response Recast (N =108) 9 (8%) 32 (30%) 67 (62%) Opportunity to Negotiate Form (N =68) 20 (29%) 13 (19%) 35 (51%) Explicit (N =36) 2 (6%) 8 (22%) 26 (72%) A contingency analysis of a 3 X 2 contingency table (Table 4.16) tested the effects and interaction of corrective feedback type (3 levels: recast, opportunity to negotiate form, and explicit correction) by learner response (2 levels: repair and needs repair). The main effect of corrective feedback ty pe was significant, c (2, N = 84) = 13.13, p <.01, confirming that there is a relationship betwe en corrective feedback type and learner response. Certain corrective feedback types are more effective in leading to repair. Table 4.16: Contingency Table for Analysis of Corr ective Feedback Type and Learner Response Repair Needs Repair Total Recast 9 32 41 Opportunity to Negotiate Form 20 13 33 Explicit 2 8 10 Summary This chapter presented the relationship between le arner error types, corrective feedback types, and learner response to corrective feedback types for both the asynchronous and synchronous environment.

PAGE 154

142 The asynchronous data or bulletin board data in th is study yielded a total of 1879 turns. Of these turns, 1059 constituted learner tu rns. Table 4.17 presents a breakdown by instructors as well as the totals for the entire da tabase of the total learner turns, total and percentage of learner turns containing error, total and percentage of corrective feedback to learner turns with errors, total and percentage of learner responses to corrective feedback, and total and percentage of learner respo nses resulting in repair in the asynchronous environment. The totals for the datab ase are illustrated in Figure 4.2. As a summary of the entire asynchronous database, it can be concluded that 54% of learner turns contained error or errors, 85% of these learn er turns received corrective feedback from instructors, 4% of these corrective feedback m oves aroused a learner response, and 17% of these learner responses resulted in repair. The latter percentages have to be considered carefully because of the low presence of learner responses in the asynchronous mode of interaction. We have to keep in mind that only one learner response resulted in repair in the entire asynchron ous database.

PAGE 155

143 Table 4.17: Frequency Learner Turns, Learner Turns with Error, Corrective Feedback to Learner Turns with Error, Learner Responses, and Le arner Responses Resulting in Repair in the Asynchronous Environment Instructor Total Learner Turns Total Learner Turns with Error (% of Total Learner Turns) Total Corrective Feedback to Learner Turns with Error (% of Total Learner Errors) Total Learner Responses (% of Total Corrective Feedback) Total Learner Responses Resulting in Repair (% of Total Learner Response) Inst. 1 387 238 (61%) 203 (85%) 0 0 Inst. 2 201 66 (33%) 56 (85%) 3 (5%) 0 Inst. 3 198 120 (61%) 146 (122%) 0 0 Inst. 4 273 147 (54%) 80 (54%) 3 (4%) 1 (33%) Total 1059 571 (54%) 485 (85%) 6 (1%) 1 (17%) Note. The abbreviation “Inst.” is used for instructor Figure 4.2 Total Learner Turns, Learner Turns with Errors, Corrective Feedback, Learner Responses, and Repair in the Asynchronous Environme nt 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 Learner TurnsErrorsCorrective Feedback Learner Response RepairNumber of turns

PAGE 156

144 The synchronous data or chat room data in this stud y produced a total of 3995 turns, 3259 of which constituted learner turns. T able 4.18 offers a breakdown by instructor and the totals for the entire database o f the total learner turns, total and percentage of learner turns containing error, total and percentage of corrective feedback to learner turns with errors, total and percentage of learner responses to corrective feedback, and total and percentage of learner respo nses resulting in repair in the synchronous environment. In addition, the totals for the database are illust rated in Figure 4.3. As a summary of the entire synchronous databa se, it can be concluded that 44% of learner turns contained error or errors, 15% of the se learner turns received corrective feedback from instructors, 40% of these corrective feedback moves received a learner response, and 37% of these learner responses result ed in repair. Table 4.18: Frequency Learner Turns, Learner Turns with Error, Corrective Feedback to Learner Turns with Error, Learner Responses, and Le arner Responses Resulting in Repair in the Synchronous Environment Instructor Total Learner Turns Total Learner Turns with Error (% of Total Learner Turns) Total Corrective Feedback to Learner Turns with Error (% of Total Learner Errors) Total Learner Responses (% of Total Corrective Feedback) Total Learner Responses Resulting in Repair (% of Total Learner Response) Inst. 1 869 454 (52%) 50 (11%) 22 (44%) 10 (45%) Inst. 2 911 277 (30%) 0 0 0 Inst. 3 402 166 (41%) 79 (48%) 22 (28%) 9 (41%) Inst. 4 1077 544 (51%) 83 (15%) 40 (48%) 12 (30%) Total 3259 1441 (44%) 212 (15%) 84 (40%) 31 (37%) Note. The abbreviation “Inst.” is used for instructor

PAGE 157

145 Figure 4.3 Total Learner Turns, Learner Turns with Errors, Corrective Feedback, Learner Responses, and Repair in the Synchronous Environmen t 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Learner TurnsErrorsCorrective Feedback Learner Response RepairNumber of turns The data from this study show that differences exis t with respect to corrective feedback in the asynchronous and synchronous enviro nments. Unexpectedly, learner turns contained more errors in the asynchronous mod e than in the synchronous mode of interaction. Not surprisingly, learner turns conta ining errors received more corrective feedback from the instructor in the asynchronous mo de of interaction. The difference in distribution of learner response to corrective feed back is also somewhat surprisingly in that learners responded more frequently to correcti ve feedback in the synchronous mode of interaction. Possible reasons for these finding s will be discussed in detail in the next chapter as well as specific issues in the results t hat need further discussion in order to answer the research questions. In addition, implic ations for second language acquisition

PAGE 158

146 research, pedagogical implications, and directions for future research will be presented.

PAGE 159

147 Chapter 5: Discussion Introduction This dissertation has investigated the provision o f corrective feedback in online asynchronous and synchronous environments. After a n introduction in chapter 1, a review of the most valuable contributions from rela ted fields in chapter 2, a description of the method for data collection and analysis in chap ter 3, chapter 4 presented the results of this study. This final chapter will present the in terpretation of the results addressing each research question, present additional findings, pr esent implications for the field of second language acquisition, discuss pedagogical im plications, make recommendations for future research, and provide final conclusions. Interpretation of the results The results of the data analysis were presented in chapter 4. The interpretations of the results for each research question will now be discussed, links to the literature in the field will be made, possible reasons for the ob tained results will be presented, and recommendations that address shortcomings in the re sults will be proposed. The research questions are presented again below in Figure 5.1.

PAGE 160

148 Figure 5.1 Research Questions 1. Do instructors offer corrective feedback to lea rners in online asynchronous and synchronous environments? a. Do instructors offer corrective feedback to lear ners in online asynchronous discussions conducted in university first year Span ish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes? b. Do instructors offer corrective feedback to lear ners in online synchronous discussions conducted in university first year Spanish as a For eign Language (SFL) classes? 2. What is the nature of corrective feedback in on line asynchronous and synchronous environments? a. What are the different types of corrective feedb ack found in online asynchronous discussions conducted in university fi rst year Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes and are they used equally? b. What are the different types of corrective feedb ack found in online synchronous discussions conducted in university fir st year Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes and are they used equally? 3. What types of learner error lead to what types o f corrective feedback in online asynchronous and synchronous environments? a. What types of learner error lead to what types o f corrective feedback in online asynchronous discussions conducted in university fi rst year Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes? b. What types of learner error lead to what types o f corrective feedback in online synchronous discussions conducted in university fir st year Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes? 4. What is the distribution of learner response to different types of corrective feedback found in online asynchronous and synchronous enviro nments? a. What is the distribution of learner response to different types of corrective feedback found in online asynchronous discussions c onducted in university first year Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes? b. What is the distribution of learner response to different types of corrective feedback found in online synchronous discussions co nducted in university first year Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes? Interpretation of Results for Research Question One A detailed analysis of the bulletin board scripts a nd chatscripts revealed that corrective feedback is in fact provided by instruct ors to learners in both online asynchronous and synchronous interactions.

PAGE 161

149 Before the study was conducted, it was expected tha t the asynchronous interaction would contain more corrective feedback than the syn chronous discussion, as previous studies in the field have found that asynchronous d iscussions follow the teacher question, student response, and teacher evaluation sequence t ypical of face-to-face classroom interaction (Sotillo, 2000). This was the case in this study; the majority of the interactions in the asynchronous environment contai ned a set of teacher questions, a set of student responses, and a series of instructor re sponses with evaluation. This interactional pattern resulted in instructors provi ding corrective feedback to learner turns containing errors 85% of the time in the asynchrono us environment. Instructors provided much less (15%) corrective fee dback to learner turns containing errors in the synchronous mode of intera ction. There are several possible reasons for the low provision of corrective feedbac k in this environment. Unlike asynchronous interaction, synchronous communication rarely follows the teacher question, student response, and teacher evaluation pattern. Computer-mediated communication (CMC) research has noted that there a ppears to be fewer instances of teacher evaluation in the synchronous mode of inter action (Kern, 1995), but this is not to say that evaluation does not exist. As is the case in this study, teacher evaluation or corrective feedback is present, but at a lower perc entage. The findings from this study are corroborated with previous research in the fiel d (Iwasaki and Oliver, 2003) examining student-student online interactions. Although Iwas aki and Oliver (2003) examined Native Speaker (NS) – Non-Native Speaker interactio ns, they also found that the

PAGE 162

150 provision of negative feedback by NSs is lower in a n online environment when compared to the provision of feedback in face-to-face intera ctions. The disparity of provision of corrective feedback i n online asynchronous and synchronous environments might be attributed to oth er reasons related to the nature of online interactions. In the asynchronous mode of i nteraction, a learner turn containing one or more errors, often received multiple turns w ith corrective feedback from the instructors but this was not the case in the synchr onous mode of interaction. Another possible reason errors received more corrective fee dback in the asynchronous mode is because instructors had more time to attend to erro rs. When interacting asynchronously, the instructor can dedicate as much time as he or s he wants to each posting made by a student. This is not the case in the synchronous m ode where the conversation moves fast and instructors cannot attend to all turns and cons equently cannot attend to all learner turns containing errors. One way to look at this m ight be to examine the percentage of instructor turns and learner turns in each environm ent. In the asynchronous environment, 820 (44%) of the turns constituted instructor turns while 1059 (56%) constituted learner turns. The percentages are different in the synchr onous environment where 736 (18%) constituted instructor turns and 3259 (82%) constit uted learner turns. Although learner turns were more abundant in both modes of interacti on, many more turns were learner turns in the synchronous mode of interaction.

PAGE 163

151 Interpretation of Results for Research Question Two Various types of corrective feedback were found in the asynchronous and synchronous modes of interaction. Since other stud ies have found that asynchronous discussions are more similar to the teacher questio n, student response, and teacher evaluation sequence found in face-to-face classroom s (Sotillo, 2000), it was expected that the asynchronous interaction would contain more ove rall corrective feedback and in turn more types of corrective feedback. Six corrective f eedback types were observed in the asynchronous mode and five corrective feedback type s were observed in the synchronous mode of interaction. The types of corrective feedb ack found included: explicit correction, recast, metalingusitic feedback, clarif ication request, elicitation, and repetition; the last of which was not observed in t he synchronous mode of interaction. The most common type of corrective feedback in the asynchronous mode of interaction was explicit correction while the most frequent type of corrective feedback in the synchronous mode of interaction was recast. On e reason the explicit correction may be the most common type of corrective feedback in t he asynchronous mode may be because two instructors bulleted their corrections for students under the heading corrections. In the bulletin board, these two instructors often answered learners’ postings with a paragraph comprised of bullets and under the heading “corrections” (See Example 3 in chapter 4). In this study, the corrective mov es that provided the target-like form under these bullets were coded as explicit correcti on. The rationale being that the heading “corrections” and the provision of the targ et-like form converted these bullets into explicit corrections rather than implicit corr ections. Using this technique, turns that

PAGE 164

152 might otherwise be coded as recasts were coded as e xplicit. This might help explain why corrective feedback turns or moves were more common in the asynchronous environment. Face-to-face studies (Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Panov a and Lyster, 2002) found recasts to be the most frequently used type of corr ective feedback. In this study, recasts were the most common type of corrective feedback in the synchronous mode of interaction. In the synchronous mode of interactio n, learners communicate in a textbased medium that possesses both oral and written c haracteristics. Pervious research (Kern, 1998) has considered synchronous communicati on a blend of ‘oral’ and ‘written’ skills while other research (Erben, 1999) has dubbe d it ‘speak-writing’. It may be the case that recasts are observed more often in the on line synchronous interaction because this type of interaction mirrors face-to-face inter action. Interpretation of Results for Research Question Thr ee In the asynchronous mode of interaction, this stud y was unable to determine if certain types of learner errors lead to certain typ es of corrective feedback. Explicit correction is the most common type of corrective fe edback and it was most often provided for all types of errors in this mode of in teraction. It appears that there is a propensity for instructors to use explicit correcti on most frequently for all error types: grammatical, multiple, lexical, orthographic/typogr aphic/spelling, and the use of L1 in the asynchronous environment.

PAGE 165

153 In the synchronous mode of interaction, instructor s have a tendency to follow learner turns containing certain types of errors wi th certain types of corrective feedback. Recasts are more likely to follow learner turns con taining grammatical and lexical errors and opportunity to negotiate form most often follow s learner turns containing multiple errors. The researcher found many of the turns in the data containing multiple errors hard to decipher, it may be that instructors were also u nable to understand many of these turns containing multiple errors. Consequently, instruct ors may not be able to provide the learner with specific feedback or feedback that pro vides the target-like form. Since recasts and explicit correction provide the learner with the target-like form, instructors may have to resort to other types of corrective fee dback that do not provide the target-like form. For example, asking the learner to reformula te the utterance or informing the learner that the turn is not understood. Interpretation of Results for Research Question Fou r Learner response to corrective feedback was defici ent in the asynchronous mode of interaction. Learner turns containing errors re ceived 485 provisions of corrective feedback, yet there were only six responses to thes e corrective feedback moves. This finding may be due to the nature of interaction in the asynchronous environment or the assignment itself. Students may have viewed a resp onse to the instructor’s original posting with questions as a completion of the assig nment. It may be that instructors did not require students to go back to read the instruc tor’s feedback and respond to this feedback. In addition, in some instances, instruct ors took up to a week to reply to a

PAGE 166

154 student’s posting. The tendency was for instructor s to sit down and reply to all postings by students on a certain date and time, usually a c ouple of days after the assignment was due. By this time, the assignment may have been fo rgotten by the students themselves. In the synchronous mode of interaction, corrective feedback moves received considerably more responses from learners. On the average, students responded to corrective feedback 37% of the time. This is still a lower percentage when compared to the proportions found in face-to-face studies which have found up to 55% learner response. The low response rate in the online int eraction may be attributed to the nature of online interaction. Because many turns can be s ubmitted to the whole class in chat sessions at the same time using multiversing techni ques, synchronous communication is fast. Often learners want to keep up with the conv ersation and in order to do this, they may feel they do not have enough time to reply to i nstructor’s responses with corrective feedback. Another possible reason learner response is lower in the synchronous environment when compared to face-to-face interacti on is confusion. There may also be confusion as to whom the corrective feedback is dir ected to and thus students elect not to respond. Additional Findings In the process of examining corrective feedback in online asynchronous and synchronous environments, additional observations n ot directly related to the research questions were made. Observations made include: a high percentage of errors in the asynchronous environment, instructor turns with err ors, instructor self-corrections,

PAGE 167

155 student self-corrections, use of technology to enha nce corrective feedback, oral provision of corrective feedback, and grammatically oriented activities in the synchronous environment. Many of the observations made were un expected and several are unique to online interaction. Although the focus of this study is not learner err ors, it is interesting to note that learner turns contained more errors in the asynchro nous mode than in the synchronous mode of interaction. The percentage of learner turn s with errors in the asynchronous mode of interaction was 54% and in the synchronous mode, the percentage was 44%. Before the study was conducted, it was hypothesized that the asynchronous turns would contain fewer errors because learners have more tim e to plan and write and have access to various types of aids. Learners can use resourc es such as their textbook, class notes, and a dictionary. In this particular study, it app ears that the percentage of errors is not related to planning time, but rather turn length an d complexity of language in the turns. In this study, learner turns in the asynchronous mo de of interaction seem to be longer and more complex while turns in the synchronous mode of interaction appear to be shorter. This is corroborated by research in the field (Soti llo, 2000) which has found that language produced in the asynchronous mode is more syntactically complex than that produced in the synchronous environment. The lengt h and complexity of utterance may be a factor that affects errors in the asynchronous mode of interaction in this study. Learners may have attempted longer and more complex sentences in the asynchronous mode of interaction and this might have lead to a h igher percentage of errors.

PAGE 168

156 The main focus of this study was corrective feedbac k and while examining corrective feedback, instances of instructor turns containing errors were observed in the data. Although these instructor turns constitute a minority of total turns, it is important to discuss them and their possible effects. It appear s that many of the instructor turns containing errors comprised typographical errors. In example 15, the instructor is attempting to correct the learner’s spelling/typogr aphic/orthographic error, but in doing so, makes an error herself. These types of instruc tor errors were more common in the synchronous interaction where the interaction is mo ving fast. In addition, it appears that instructors notice their errors more often in the s ynchronous interaction and often selfcorrect these errors (See example 16). Please note that in this example, the instructor’s turn contained two errors and only one was self cor rected. (15) (Instructor 3 – Asynchornous) Student: Le segiero que la profesora tome dos aspirinas. I suggest (misspelled) that the teacher take two aspirins. Instructor 3: Correcciones: Corrections: Instructor 3: 2) Le sugieron 2) I suggest (misspelled) (16) (Instructor 3 – Synchronous) Instructor 3: es salario para un profesor es muy BEUNO.... the salary for a professor is very GOOD... (‘the’ a nd ‘good’ are misspelled) Instructor 3: BUENO... GOOD… Orthographic/typographic/spelling types of errors were the most common in instructor turns. Nonetheless, provision of incorr ect corrective feedback and omission of

PAGE 169

157 corrective feedback were also found in the data (Se e Examples 17 and 18). The first example provided contains two provisions of incorre ct feedback by the instructor while the second example provides positive feedback altho ugh the student turns contain several errors. Language errors of this type were only pre sent in the data obtained from one instructor. It should also be noted that this inst ructor provided no corrective feedback in the synchronous environment and all the feedback pr ovided in the asynchronous environment was provided in English or in a combina tion of English and Spanish. It seems that the proficiency of the instructor hersel f affected the provision of corrective feedback. (17) (Instructor 2 – Asynchornous) Student: Prohibo que comio dos hamburguesas. I prohibit that you ate two hamburgers. (verb is co njugated in preterite instead of subjunctive) Student: Yo insisto que tomo dos aspirina. I insist that I take two aspirins. (verb is in firs t person present instead of third person subjunctive) Instructor 3: P comer and tomar need to be in subj and also you n eed to put to whom you are suggesting….like le recomiendo que….to ma….e coma….. P to eat and to take need to be in subj. and also y ou need to put to whom you are suggesting…like I recommend that …. ta kes…. and eats.... (the verb to take is in present instead o f subjunctive and the word “e” is used instead of “y” for and) (18) (Instructor 2 – Asynchronous) Student: Le segieno que vaya a la medico. I suggest (misspelled) that you go to the doctor (agreement error) Student: Le prohibo que trabaja. I prohibit that you work (verb in present tense whe n subjunctive is required) Student: Le pides que guarda cama. You ask that he or she stay in bed. (you instead of I ask) Student: Le aconsejo que cuidarse.

PAGE 170

158 I recommend that to take care of oneself. (verb i s not conjugated) Instructor: super job In the same way that instructors self corrected tu rns containing errors, learners themselves often self corrected. The computer-medi ated communication (CMC) literature has found that in this environment, stud ents notice the gap, notice the errors because the language is written (Ortega, 1997; Wars chauer, 1998). This was the case in the synchronous mode of interaction in this study w here students often composed a message, sent the message to the whole group, and t he student sent a correction to the group (See example 19). These self-corrections wer e often denoted in some way, with an asterisk, with a phrase such as ‘oops’, or with a p ublic admission that a mistake had been made. (19) (Instructor 1 – Asynchronous) Student: si, los veterinarios reciben tanto respeto come los medicos Yes, veterinarians receive as much respect as medic al doctors. (‘as’ is misspelled) Student: **como **as The use of special characters to denote self-correc tions and feedback was prevalent in the data. Both instructors and studen ts used technological conventions to enhance special aspects of turns. Earlier in this dissertation, the use of all caps to provide corrective feedback or to provide a portion of corr ective feedback was discussed. The use of the learner’s initials by the instructor to indicate the receiver of the corrective feedback was also presented. These findings are un ique to this study which examines corrective feedback in online interactions where in structors and students used such strategies to make their feedback or message obviou s. Additional strategies found

PAGE 171

159 include the use of quotes and parenthesis to provid e metalinguistic feedback (See Examples 20), the use of ellipses is an attempt to elicit the correct answer from the learner or to avoid rewriting out the portion of th e learner turn that was correct (See Example 21). (20) (Instructor 3Asynchronous) Student: Yo siento muy mal y guarde cama. I feel very bad and I stay in bed. (to feel is miss ing reflexive pronoun and to stay is conjugated in subjunctive in stead of present) Instructor 3: -"Sentirse" es reflexvio y conjugaste el verbo "gua rdar" incorrectamente. -“To feel” is reflexive and you conjugated the verb “to stay” incorrectly. (21) (Instructor 3 – Asynchronous) Student: Cuando compre una mancin. When I buy a mansion. Instructor 3: Cuando compre una mancin…. y luego qu? When I buy a mansion… then what? Other strategies used by instructors and students i n the online environment include extra letters for emphasis, emoticons, and chat conventions. During a synchronous interaction, one instructor posed a que stion to the whole class, but the class did not understand the question and out of frustrat ion, the instructor used capital letters and extra letters to emphasize the question a secon d time (See example 22). The outcome of this strategy was successful, students answered the question correctly after the instructor ‘screamed out’ and elongated the questio n. The use of emoticons was also present in the data collected of this study. Of sp ecial interest are emoticons that enhance corrective feedback. Examples include recasts foll owed by emoticons (See example 23). Similarly, chat conventions were used to denote lau ghter in the interaction (See example

PAGE 172

160 24). Learners also participated in the use of chat conventions in order to answer questions. One particular learner answered the ins tructors question with the repetition of one letter ‘z’ (See Example 25). (22) (Instructor 4Synchornous) Instructor 4: como es tu carro? what is your car like? Student 1: es toyota it’s a toyota Student 2: es honda civic it’s a honda civic Student 3: mi carro es un JEEP my car is a JEEP Instructor 4: como ESSSSSSSSSSS tu carro? what ISSSSSSSSSSS your car like? (23) (Instructor 4 –Synchronous) Student: yo soy muy cansado hoy i am very tired today. (use of wrong verb to be) Instructor: yo estoy cansado tambien :-) i am also very tired :-) (24) (Instructor 4 – Synchronous) Student: Todos los sabados, dormia todas dia Every Saturday, I would sleep all the days. Instructor 4: TODO EL DIA? JA JA JA PEREZOSA ;-) EVERY DAY? HA HA HA LAZY ;-) (25) (Instructor 2 – Synchronous) Instructor 2: que hiciste esta manana? what did you this morning? Student: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz An interesting discovery was the use of English ch at conventions embedded in the Spanish interaction. Instructors used English chat language such as abbreviations of words. The use of English chat language in this st udy should be considered carefully

PAGE 173

161 since it was only used by one instructor and this p articular instructor only provided corrective feedback in English or in a combination of English and Spanish. In example 26, four types of English chat conventions are foun d. (26) (Instructor 2Asynchronous) Instructor 2: cuz you are recomiendo to me your teacher. cuz you are recommending to me your teacher Instructor 2: ur last sentence u dont need subj just use indic. ur last sentence u dont need subj. just use indic. Instructor 2: ck comfortabale…. ck comfortable…. Instructor 2: ck ur tense or mood?! ck ur tense or mood?! Despite the fact the researcher did not conduct fo rmal observations for this study, informal observations were made while the researche r was in the computer lab assisting students with technical problems. One interesting observation was the provision of oral corrective feedback. Even thought the instructions on all tasks were clear and the instructors were aware that the researcher would ex amine corrective feedback provided during the online interaction, nonetheless, one ins tructor provided corrective feedback orally and on the chalkboard. This feedback was mo stly general feedback directed at the entire class. If the instructor observed several s tudents making the same error, the instructor left the chat room, went to the chalk bo ard and began explaining the target-like form. Computer-mediated communication (CMC) activities u sed in language classes are typically communicative in nature. Chat rooms are usually used in language classes for discussions, jigsaw activities, information gap act ivities, all of which are communicative in nature. Surprisingly, in this study, two instru ctors used the chat space to practice

PAGE 174

162 grammatical features of the language (See Examples 27 and 28). These interactions took place toward the end of the chat session. It may b e that instructors ran out of questions to pose in the chat room and decided to practice gramm atical forms. (27) (Instructor 2Synchronous) Instructor 2: conjuga el verbo decir en el preterito..... conjugate the verb to say in the preterite …. Student 1: dije i said Student 1: dije dijiste i said, you said Student 4: dije, dijiste, dijo, dijimos, dijieron i said, you said, he said, we said, they said (28) (Instructor 3 – Synchronous) Instructor 3: quiero que escriban una oracin en la cual usan el participio como un adjetivop... i would like you to write a sentence in which you use the participle as an adjective Instructors and learners used a myriad of strategi es to enhance the online interaction. A number of these features were emplo yed to enhance corrective feedback while others were used to add emotions to the text based medium of interaction. Surprising findings were also discovered in the dat a collected for this study. A closer look at these additional, and sometimes surprising, findings should be undertaken. Implications for second language acquisition resear ch This dissertation adds to the already existing bodi es of research in the areas of corrective feedback and computer-mediated communica tion (CMC). Most corrective feedback studies have been carried out in a face-to -face context and most have been

PAGE 175

163 carried out in a English as a Second language setti ng (Fanselow, 1977; Mackey, Gass et al., 2000; Oliver, 1995, 2000; Panova and Lyster, 2 003) or in a French Immersion setting (Chaudron, 1977, 1986; Lyster, 1998; Lyster and Ran ta, 1997). Corrective feedback studies that have been conducte d in an online environment have examined peer-to-peer interaction (Iwasaki and Oliv er, 2003; Morris, 2002). CMC studies have only talked about feedback in these en vironments anecdotally and have not focused on corrective feedback. This study fills t his gap in the research. This study has contributed to the second language a cquisition field information about corrective feedback provided by instructors t o learners in online asynchronous and synchronous environments in Spanish as a foreign la nguage classes. This study has established that corrective feedback is provided in asynchronous and synchronous environments and to what extent corrective feedback is present in both environments. It has verified the types and variations of corrective feedback found in online environments and which of these are most abundant in each enviro nment. This study has determined that certain types of learner error lead to certain types of corrective feedback. And finally, this study has presented the distribution of learner response to various types of corrective feedback. This study found that correct ive feedback types that offer an opportunity to negotiate form are more effective in eliciting a learner response. Consequently, it appears that metalinguistic feedba ck, clarification request, elicitation, and repetition types of corrective feedback are a p otential tool for promoting language development in Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) classes.

PAGE 176

164 Although very important contributions to the second language acquisition field have been made, questions of long-term effects of c orrective feedback still remain unanswered. This study has only begun to scratch t he surface and it cannot make any definite statements about the consequences of corre ctive feedback on the language acquisition process. Pedagogical Implications In addition to the implications for the field of s econd language acquisition, the findings of this study have pedagogical implication s. In the asynchronous environment, results showed that learners overall did not respon d to instructor postings. Instructions for bulletin board assignments should be very clear and specific. Instructors may need to require students to go back and respond to the inst ructor’s posting. A three-part assignment can be devised where students post their original posting, instructors reply, and students respond. This type of assignment woul d lead to more learner responses in the asynchronous environment. The percentage of corrective feedback provided in the synchronous mode of interaction was quite low. Nonetheless, if more co rrective feedback is provided in the synchronous environment, the task may be converted into a grammatical accuracy instead of a communicative effectiveness task. If instruct ors want to maintain the communicative orientation of the activity and still provide corrective feedback, instructors may want to consider alternative ways o f providing this feedback to learners. One alternative approach for providing corrective f eedback is to print the chatscripts and

PAGE 177

165 go through these either individually for each stude nt or as a whole with individually selected chatscripts. Given that the provision of explicit correction wa s dominant in the asynchronous mode of interaction, instructors may want to vary t he types of corrective feedback provided in this environment. In the synchronous m ode of interaction, recasts were the most common type of corrective feedback. This find ing parallels results from other studies that found that teachers have a tendency to overuse recasts in face-to-face interaction (Lyster, 1998, Lyster and Ranta, 1997, Panova and Lyster, 2002). A variety of corrective feedback moves should also be utilize d in the synchronous mode of interaction. Pedagogical recommendations can also be made with respect to the relationship between corrective feedback type and learner respon se. Since there is a tendency for learner responses to result in repair when an instr uctor provides an opportunity to negotiate form, it is recommended that corrective f eedback types that offer an opportunity to negotiate form should be used in onl ine environments. This study found that explicit correction and recasts were the most common types of corrective feedback in the asynchronous and synchronous environments respe ctively. Instructors are encouraged to use clarification requests, metalingu istic feedback, elicitation, and repetition as viable options to provide corrective feedback to learner turns containing errors. These types of corrective feedback that af ford the learner with the opportunity to negotiate form, may lead to more learner responses with repair in online interactions.

PAGE 178

166 Directions for Future Research As mentioned above, this study cannot attest to th e long term effects of corrective feedback provided by instructors to learners and le arner response following corrective feedback in online interaction. Future research sh ould test the long-term effects of corrective feedback. Long-term effects of correcti ve feedback on proficiency development can be examined. In addition, future r esearch can examine the resilience of learner repair prompted from corrective feedback. This particular study examined second semester Spa nish classes, future research could examine other populations at higher or lower levels of proficiency. In addition, special populations such as heritage speakers could also be examined. This study examined instructor-learner interaction. Future re search could consider a variety of interactions including: learner-learner, native sp eaker-non-native speaker, non-native speakernon native speaker, heritage learner-non-n ative speaker, or heritage learnernative speaker. One unintentional discovery in this study was that learner turns contained more errors in the asynchronous mode of interaction. Th is may be attributed to the language complexity in the learner turns in this environment but this cannot be confirmed. Future studies can examine language complexity in the asyn chronous discussion using measures like the Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) or the Type -Token Ratio (TTR). Another expected finding in the data of this study was peer corrective feedback. Peer corrective feedback was observed, although in small numbers, i n this study. Nonetheless, the examination of peer feedback was beyond the scope o f this study. Future research can

PAGE 179

167 examine the distributions of peer corrective feedba ck and the effects of peer corrective feedback. This study examined only learner responses to corr ective feedback from the learner who received the corrective feedback. Sinc e the online environments are public and all learners have access to the feedback provid ed in these environments, it might be interesting to observe how corrective feedback affe cts the other learners participating in the discussion. Future research can examine the classification of corrective feedback types more closely and in more detail. This study found some instances of recasts with confirmation checks and recasts with clarification requests. Fo r the purposes of this study, these were coded as recasts, but future research can examine t hese variations of recasts more closely and tease out the different categories within recas ts. The tasks were designed to elicit communicative ef fectiveness and grammatical accuracy. Other studies could examine the effect o f task type on provision of corrective feedback. The effects of tasks such as jigsaw acti vities, information gaps, and Webquests on corrective feedback and learner response could b e examined. In addition, this study unearthed several unexpect ed findings that should be examined closely. Instructor errors should be exam ined in their own right as well the use of technological features used to enhance correctiv e feedback. These results were beyond the scope of this study but deserve a closer examination.

PAGE 180

168 Conclusions Previous studies have examined corrective feedback in face-to face interactions, and previous studies have also examined language pr oduced in CMC environments. To the author’s knowledge, no study had observed corre ctive feedback provided by instructors to students in online asynchronous and synchronous foreign language contexts. This investigation focused on this gap i n the research. The results of this study demonstrate that instructors do provide corrective feedback in online asynchronous and synchronous environments, certain types of correcti ve feedback are more prevalent in each environment, particular kinds of learner error are followed by particular kinds of corrective feedback, and corrective feedback types more effective in eliciting repaired learner responses are those that provide the opport unity to negotiate form.

PAGE 181

169 References Asher, R. E., Ed. (1994). The encyclopedia of language and linguistics. New York, Pergamon press. Ayoun, D. (2001). The role of negative and positive feedback in the second language acquisition of the pass compos and imparfait. The modern language journal, 85(2), 226-243. Beauvois, M. H. (1992). Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25(5), 455463. Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120-136. Brandl, K. K. (2000). Foreign language TAs' percept ions of training components: Do we know how they like to be trained? Modern Language Journal, 84(3), 355-371. Carroll, S. and M. Swain (1993). Explicit and impli cit negative feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357-386. Carroll, S., M. Swain, et al. (1992). The role of f eedback in adult second language acquisition: Error correction and morphological gen eralizations. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 173-198. Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discour se in the corrective treatment of learners' errors. Language Learning, 27(1), 29-46. Chaudron, C. (1986). Teachers' priorities in correc ting learners' errors in French immersion classes. In R. R. Day (Ed.). Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp.64-84), Rowley, Newbury house publishers, Inc. Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to fa cilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22(1), 17-31. DeKeyser, R. M. (1993). The effect of error correct ion on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. The modern language journal, 77(4), 501-514. Doughty, C. (1993). Fine-tuning of feedback by comp etent speakers to language learners. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.) Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1993. (pp. 96-108). Washington, D.C., Georgetown Unive rsity Press. Doughty, C. and T. Pica (1986). "Information gap" t asks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 305-325.

PAGE 182

170 Doughty, C. and E. Varela (1998). Communicative foc us on form. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisi tion.. (pp. 114-138). New York, Cambridge University Press. Erben, T. (1999). Constucting learning in a virtual immersion bath: LOTE teacher education through audiographics. In R. Debski and M. Levy. Lisse (Eds.), World CALL: Global perspectives on computer-assisted lang uage learning. (pp. 229248). The Netherlands, Swets & Zeitlinger Publishe rs. Fanselow, J. F. (1977). The treatment of error in o ral work. Foreign language annals, 10, 583-593. Fernndez-Garca, M. and A. Martnez-Arbelaiz (2002 ). Negotiation of meaning in nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker synchronous dis cussions. CALICO Journal, 19(2), 278-294. Fidalgo-Eick, M. (2001). Synchronous on-line negotiation of meaning by inte rmediate learners of Spanish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City. Gall, M. D., W. R. Borg, et al. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. New York: Longman. Gass, S. and E. Varonis (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283-302. Hatch, E. (1978b). Discourse analysis and second la nguage acquisition. In E. Hatch. Rowley (Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 401-435). Newbury House Publishers. Kasper, G. (1985). Repair in foreign language teach ing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 200-215. Kelm, O. R. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25(5), 441-453. Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interac tion with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 457-476. Kern, R. G. (1998). Technology, social interaction, and FL literacy. In J. Muyskens (Ed.), New ways of learning and teaching: Focus on foreign language education. (pp. 57-92). Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodolog y. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

PAGE 183

171 Lee, L. (2002a). Enhancing learners' communication skills through synchronous electronic interaction and task-based instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 35(1), 16-24. Lee, L. (2002b). Synchronous online exchanges: a st udy of modification devices on nonnative discourse, System, 30, 275-288. Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language deve lopment: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37-63. Lightbown, P. M. and N. Spada (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429-448. Lightbown, P. M. and N. Spada (1999). How languages are learned. New York: Oxford University Press. Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. De Bot, R. B. Ginsberg and C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective. (pp. 39-52). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publis hing Company. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic envi ronment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia (Ed s.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 412-468). San Diego: Academic Press. Long, M. H., S. Inagaki, et al. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The modern language journal, 82(3), 357-371. Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, an d explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48(2), 183-218. Lyster, R. and L. Ranta (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20: 37-66. Mackey, A., S. Gass, et al. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471-497. Mackey, A., R. Oliver, et al. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS adul t and child dyads. Language Learning, 53(1), 35-66.

PAGE 184

172 Mackey, A. and J. Philp (1998). Conversational inte raction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The modern language journal, 82(3), 339-356. Morris, F. A. (2002). Negotiation moves and recasts in relation to error types and learner repair in the foreign language classroom. Foreign language annals, 35(4), 395404. Negretti, R. (1999). Web-based activities and SLA: A conversation analysis research approach. Language Learning & Technology, 3(1), 75-87. Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS-NN S conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 459-481. Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation a nd feedback in classroom and pair work. Language Learning, 50(1), 119-151. O'Relly, L. V., J. Flaitz, et al. (2001). Two modes of correcting communicative tasks: recent findings. Foreign language annals, 34(3), 246-257. Ortega, L. (1997). Processes and outcomes in networ ked classroom interaction: Defining the research agenda for L2 computer-assisted classr oom discussion. Language Learning & Technology, 1(1), 82-93. Panova, I. and R. Lyster (2003). Patterns of correc tive feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 572-595. Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. Network-based language t eaching: Concepts and practice M. Warschauer and R. G. Kern. New York, Cambridge University Press: 59-86. Pica, T. (1985). Variations in classroom interactio n as a function of participation pattern and task. In J. Fine. Norwood (Ed.), Second language discourse: A textbook of current research (pp. 41-55). Ablex Publishing Corporation. Pica, T. (1986). Making input comprehensible: Do in teractional modifications help? I. T. L. Review of Applied Linguistics, 72, 1-25. Pica, T. (1996). Do second language learners need n egotiation? International Review of Applied Linguistics, 34. Pica, T. and C. Doughty (1985). The role of group w ork in classroom second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 233-248.

PAGE 185

173 Pica, T., R. Young, et al. (1987). The impact of in teraction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 737-758. Pufahl, I., N. C. Rhodes, et al. (2000). Foreign la nguage teaching: What the United States can learn from other countries. Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved on July 9, 2003, from http://www.cal.org/ericcll/countries. html Shannon, D. M., D. J. Twale, et al. (1998). TA teac hing effectiveness: The impact of training and teaching experience. The Journal of Higher Education, 69(4), 440466. Smith, B. (2003a). Computer-mediated negotiated int eraction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 38-57. Smith, B. (2003b). The use of communication strateg ies in computer-mediated communication. System, 31, 29-53. Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and synt actic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 82-119. Spada, N. and P. M. Lightbown (1993). Instruction a nd the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 205-224. Sullivan, N. and E. Pratt (1996). A comparative stu dy of two ESL writing environments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional ora l classroom. System, 29(4): 491-501. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some ro les on comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gas s and C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Tashakkori, A. and C. Teddlie, Eds. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and e lectronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2 & 3), 7-26. Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborat ive learning: theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 470-481. Warschauer, M. (1998). Interaction, negotiation, an d computer-mediated learning. In M. Clay.(Ed.), Practical applications of educational technology in language learning. Lyon, France: National Institute of Applied Scienc es. Warschauer, M. and D. Healey (1998). Computer and l anguage learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31, 51-71.

PAGE 186

174 Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second langua ge acquisition: some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7(2), 133-161. White, L., N. Spada, et al. (1991). Input enhanceme nt and L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics, 12(4), 416-432. Yates, S. J. (1996). Oral and written linguistic as pects of computer conferencing: A corpus based study. In S. C. Herring.(Ed.) Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 47-63). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

PAGE 187

175 Appendixes

PAGE 188

176 Appendix A: Memorandum to Instructors Memorandum To: Instructor 1, Instructor 2, Instructor 3, Instruct or 4 CC: TA coordinator, Chair of department From: Martha E. Castaeda Date: 5/15/04 Re: Dissertation Research As some of you may already know, I will be conducti ng my dissertation research this summer. In case I have not had a chance to talk to you personally, I would first like to tell you my philosophy of research. I believe that research should include activities that are related to the language class, are fun for the students, and do no t require tons of work from the instructors. For the study, I attempted to make fun activities that support and enhance your course content and I plan to provide you with all required materials. Before planning out the details of the study, the f irst step I took was to obtain permission to carry out the research in the Spanish II classes from both the TA coordinator and the Chair of the department. I am happy to report that both are excited about the research and have granted me permission to work with all Spanish II classes t aught this Summer C term. The next step is to ensure that you are comfortable with carrying out the tasks in your classes. As I mentioned above, my aim is to provid e you with all the required materials and assist you in any way I can. As part of the study, what I would ask of you is that you attend an orientation session where I would give you more det ails about the study (food and drinks provided). I would then ask you to conduct four 45 -minute electronic discussions with your students using Blackboard. I will provide you and your students with an orientation of Blackboard and will provide you with guiding questi ons for conducting your electronic discussion. Summer courses can be long for both st udents and instructors and I believe that the electronic discussions will be an interesting and m otivating addition to the curriculum. I am looking forward to working with each and every one of you. I will come around to your offices next week to give you more details and to schedule the orientation. In the meantime, if you have any questions or if I can assist you in any way, please don’t hesitate to contact me at 974-3563 or mecastan@mail.usf.edu *names of instructors, TA coordinator, and chair of department have been deleted

PAGE 189

177 Appendix B: Instructor Background Questionnaire Thank you for completing this questionnaire 1. Name: __________________________________________ 2. Gender: M ______ F _____ 3. Age: _____ 4. Native Language ____________________________ 5. How long have you been teaching Spanish? _____ ___________________________ 6. Do you speak or study other language/s other th an Spanish and English? Yes ___ No___ If yes, specify which language/s and how would you grade your ability in each language. For example: I can read in Italian; I ca n read and write in Portuguese; I can speak, but not fluently in Chinese; I can speak flu ently in Japanese; etc. ___________________________________________________ __________________ ___________________________________________________ __________________ ___________________________________________________ __________________ 7. Have you visited a Spanish speaking country? Ye s ____ No____ If yes, which country? When? For how long? ___________________________________________________ __________________ ___________________________________________________ __________________ ___________________________________________________ __________________ 8. How long have you been using computers? ______ (years) 9. How comfortable are you working with computers? _____ Very comfortable _____ Somewhat comfortable _____ Uncomfortable _____ Very uncomfortable

PAGE 190

178 Appendix B (Continued) 10. What do you use computers for? Check as many as applicable: _____ E-mail _____ Word-processing programs (Microsoft Word, WordP erfect, etc.) _____ Games _____ Browsing the Internet (Internet Explorer, Netscape, et c.) _____ Programming _____ Online Chat (AOL, Yahoo, MSN Instant messenger, etc. ) _____ Electronic Bulletin/Discussion Boards _____ Others, please specify: ________________________ __________________________________ 11. Do you use electronic bulletin/discussion boards in the classes you teach ? Yes _____ No _____ If yes, how frequently? ________ (times per week) 12. Do you use electronic bulletin/discussion boards in the classes you take ? Yes _____ No _____ If yes, how frequently? ________ (times per week) 13. Do you use electronic bulletin/discussion boards for personal use ? Yes _____ No _____ If yes, how frequently? ________ (times per week) 14. Do you use chat programs (AOL, Yahoo, MSN Instant messenger, etc.) in the classes you teach ? Yes _____ No _____ If yes, how frequently? ________ (times per week) 15. Do you use chat programs (AOL, Yahoo, MSN Instant messenger, etc.) in the classes you take ? Yes _____ No _____ If yes, how frequently? ________ (times per week) 16. Do you use chat programs (AOL, Yahoo, MSN Instant messenger, etc.) for personal use ? Yes _____ No _____ If yes, how frequently? ________ (times per week) This questionnaire was adapted from O’Relly (1999), p. 157 and Smith (2001), p.359

PAGE 191

179 Appendix C: Student Background Questionnaire Thank you for completing this questionnaire 1. Name: __________________________________________ 2. Gender: M ______ F _____ 3. Age: _____ 4. Major: _________________ 5. Classification: Undergraduate: ______ Graduate: _______ Other:____ __ (Specify year of study):_____ (Specify year of study):_____ __ (Specify):_______ 6. Native Language ____________________________ 7. Do you speak or study other language/s? Yes __ ___ No______ If yes, specify which language/s and how would you grade your ability in each language. For example: I can read in Italian; I ca n read and write in Portuguese; I can speak, but not fluently in Chinese; I can speak flu ently in Japanese; etc. ___________________________________________________ __________________ ___________________________________________________ __________________ ___________________________________________________ __________________ 8. How long have you been studying Spanish? ______ ___________________________ 9. Why are you studying Spanish? ________________ ___________________________ 10. Have you visited a Spanish speaking country? Y es ____ No____ If yes, which country? When? For how long? ___________________________________________________ __________________ ___________________________________________________ __________________ ___________________________________________________ __________________

PAGE 192

180 Appendix C (Continued) 12. Do you have any contact with native speakers o f Spanish outside the classroom? Yes ____ No____ If yes, how frequently? Often _____ Occasionally ____ R arely ______ 13. How long have you been using computers? _____ (years) 14. What do you use computers for? Check as many as applicable: _____ E-mail _____ Word-processing (Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, et c.) _____ Games _____ Browsing the Internet (Internet Explorer, Netscape, et c.) _____ Programming _____ Online Chat (AOL, Yahoo, MSN Instant messenger, etc. ) _____ Electronic Bulletin/Discussion Boards _____ Others, please specify: ________________________ __________________________________ 14. How comfortable are you working with computers ? _____ Very comfortable _____ Somewhat comfortable _____ Uncomfortable _____ Very uncomfortable 16. Do you use electronic bulletin/discussion boards in your classes ? Yes _____ No _____ If yes, how frequently? ________ (times per week) 17. Do you use electronic bulletin/discussion boards for personal use ? Yes _____ No _____ If yes, how frequently? ________ (times per week) 18. Do you use chat programs (AOL, Yahoo, MSN Instant messenger, etc.) in your classes ? Yes _____ No _____ If yes, how frequently? ________ (times per week) 19. Do you use chat programs (AOL, Yahoo, MSN Instant messenger, etc.) for personal use ? Yes _____ No _____ If yes, how frequently? ________ (times per week) This questionnaire was adapted from O’Relly (1999), p. 15 7 and Smith (2001), p.359

PAGE 193

181 Appendix D: Discussion Questions for Chat Discussio n Chapter 11 Vocabulary: Professions Grammatical focus: Subjunctive Below you will find the text I will give Instructor s to guide discussion. Instructions: Below you will find a list of questio ns related to Chapter11. Use these questions to guide either the bulletin board discus sion or the chat room discussion with your class. These questions are a guide, you can u se them in any particular order or you can add questions of your own. Make sure to provid e students with feedback when appropriate. Provide students with feedback in the chat discussion (not orally or on the board). Spanish English Bienvenidos, hoy vamos a hablar de las profesiones Welcome, today we are going to talk about professions Bomberos Firefighters Qu hacen los bomberos en un da tpico? What do f irefighters do on a typical day? Dnde trabajan los bomberos? Where do firefighters work? Si hay un fuego, qu es importante que los bomberos lleguen temprano? If there is a fire, is it important that the firefighters get there early? Crees que los bomberos trabajan mucho o poco? Do you believe that firefighters work a lot or little? Crees que los bomberos reciben un buen o un mal sueldo? Do you believe that firefighters receive a good or bad salary? Crees que los bomberos tienen suficientes materiales para hacer su trabajo? Do you believe that firefighters have enough materials in order to do their jobs? Es importante que el gobierno pague los sueldos de los bomberos? o Es mejor que las compaas privadas paguen los sueldos de los bomberos? por qu? Is it important that the government pay the salary of the firefighters? Or is it better that private companies pay the salaries of the firefighters? Why? En tu opinin, es importante que todas las personas sepan apagar fuegos en su casa? In your opinion, is it important that everyone know how to put out a fire at home? En tu opinin, es importante que los bomberos sepan hablar espaol u otros idiomas comunes en la comunidad? In your opinion, is it important that firefighters know how to speak Spanish or other languages that are common in the community? Mdicos Medical Doctors Dnde trabajan los mdicos? Where do doctors work? Qu hacen los mdicos en un da tpico? What does a doctor do on a typical day? Crees que los mdicos reciben un buen o un mal sueldo? Do you believe that doctors receive a good or bad salary?

PAGE 194

182 Appendix D (Continued) Crees que los mdicos trabajan mucho o poco? Do you believe that doctors work much or little? En tu opinin, es importante que los mdicos sepan hablar espaol u otros idiomas comunes en la comunidad? In your opinion, is it important that doctors know how to speak Spanish or other languages common in the community? En tu opinin, crees que hay muchas demandas contra los mdicos? In your opinion, do you believe there are too many lawsuits against doctors? Cocineros Cooks Qu hace un cocinero en un da tpico? What does a cook do on a typical day? Crees que los cocineros reciben respeto de las personas que comen en los restaurantes? Do you believe that cooks receive respect from people that eat at their restaurants? En tu opinin, Es importante que un cocinero estudie antes de trabajar en un restaurante? In your opinion, is it important that a cook study before he or she works in a restaurant? Veterinario Veterinary Qu hace un veterinario en un da tpico? What doe s a veterinarian do on a typical day? Crees que los veterinarios reciben tanto respeto como los mdicos? Do you believe that veterinarians receive as much respect as medical doctors? Crees que los veterinarios ganan mucho o poco dinero? Do you believe that veterinarians earn much or little money? Un veterinario tiene que asistir a la universidad un promedio de seis aos en la universidad, cuatro aos estudiando y dos o tres aos de residencia. En tu opinin, es importante que un veterinario estudie cuatro aos en la universidad? A veterinary has to study an average of six years at the university, four years studying and two or three years in residency. In your opinion, is it important that a veterinarian study four year in the university? En tu opinin, es necesario que un veterinario haga dos o tres aos de residencia? In your opinion, is it necessary that a veterinarian do two or three years of residency? Subjunctive with verbs of denial and doubt (imagina ry Claudia) Vamos a hablar de Claudia (una mujer imaginaria) Crees que Claudia sea bombera? We are going to talk about Claudia (an imaginary woman) Do you believe Claudia wants to be a firefighter? Crees que ella trabaja igual que los otros hombres? Do you relieve she Works as much as the men? Dudas que ella tenga mucho trabajo? Do you doubt t hat she will have much work? Ests seguro que Claudia trabaja en esa oficina? Are you sure that Claudia works in that office? Subjunctive with verbs of denial and doubt (univers ity life) En tu opinin, Crees que la Universidad ofrece muchas clases? In your opinion, do you believe the university offers many classes?

PAGE 195

183 Appendix D (Continued) Crees que la Universidad trabaja para los estudiantes? Do you believe the university works for the students? Dudas que la Universidad de Florida del Sur tenga ms de 50 aos? Do you doubt that University of South Florida is more than 50 years old? Ests seguro que la Universidad de Florida del Sur tiene ms de 50 aos? Are you sure the university of South Florida is more than 50 years old? Subjunctive with impersonal expressions Es cierto que la Universidad de Florida del Sur tiene un caf en la biblioteca? Is it true that the University of South Florida has a caf in the library? Es bueno que la universidad tenga un caf en la biblioteca? por qu s o no? Is it a good idea that the university has a caf in the library? Why yes or why no?? Es comn que las universidades tengan cafs en las bibliotecas? Is it common that the universities have cafs in the libraries? Es necesario que los estudiantes tomen caf? por qu s o no? Is it necessary that the students drink coffee? Why yes or why no? Es necesario que la universidad venda caf orgnico? por qu s o no? Is it necessary that the university sell organic coffee? Why yes or why no? Es verdad que el caf gana mucho dinero? por qu s o no? Is it true that the caf earns quite a bit of of money? Why yes or why no? Es difcil conseguir trabajo en el caf? por qu s o no? Is it difficult to find a job in the caf? Why yes or why no? Professions En tu opinin, qu necesitas para obtener un puesto bueno? necesitas los estudios universitarios? necesitas experiencia prctica? In your opinion, what do you need to get a good job? Do you need a university degree? Do you need practical experience? Cul es un buen sueldo? What is a good salary? Qu beneficios debe tener una empresa? seguro mdico? plan de retiro? What benefits should a company have? Medical insurance? Retirement plan? Crees que los supervisores son justos? Do you beli eve supervisors are just? Crees que las empresas son justas con los empleados? Do you believe companies are just with their employees? Crees que todos los gerentes necesitan secretario/a? Do you believe that managers need a secretary? En tu opinin, Es necesario que las personas se jubilen a los 65 aos? por qu s o no? In your opinion, is it necessary that people retire at 65 years of age? Why yes or why no? Crees que las mayora de las personas se jubilan a los 65 aos? Do you believe that the majority of people retire at 65 years of age? Present Perfect Has trabajado en una empresa? Have you worked in a company? Has buscado un trabajo en el Internet? en el peridico? Have you looked for a job on the Internet? In the newspaper?

PAGE 196

184 Appendix D (Continued) Has visitado un pas latino? Have you visited a La tin American country? Est abierto el caf en la biblioteca todos los das? Is the caf in the library open every day? Crees que el examen final para esta clase est terminado? Do you believe the final exam for this class is finished?

PAGE 197

185 Appendix E: Discussion Questions for Bulletin Boar d Chapter 13 Vocabulary: Technology Grammatical focus: Future Instructions: Below you will find a list of questio ns related to Chapter11. Use these questions to guide either the bulletin board discus sion or the chat room discussion with your class. These questions are a guide, you can u se them in any particular order or you can add questions of your own. Make sure to provid e students with feedback when appropriate. Provide students with feedback in the bulletin board discussion. Situacin 1 El futuro….Usa tu imaginacin y escribe un prrafo describiendo la vida en el ao 2050. Qu tipo de tecnologa habr?, Qu tipo de tecnologa tendremos en las casas?, Qu tipo de tecnologa tendremos en el trabajo?, Etc., etc., etc.. Qu tipo de ropa usaremos? Qu tipo de comida comeremos?, Cmo sern las casas?, Cmo estudiarn los estudiantes?, Etc., etc., etc., Use your imagination and write a detailed paragraph describing what you think the future will be like and what type of technology we will have. Situacin 2 El futuro y tus deseos…., Usa tu imaginacin y escribe un prrafo describiendo tus deseos para el futuro. Usa las palabras “Ojal”, “Tal vez”, “Quizs” para describir tus deseos. Use your imagination and write a detailed paragraph describing your wishes for the future. Situation 1 In the future…. Use your imagination and write a paragraph describing life in the year 2050. What type of technology will there be?, What type of technology will we have in our houses?, What type of technology will we have at work?, Etc., etc., etc.. What type of clothes will we use? What type of food will we eat?, How will our houses be?, How will students study?, Etc., etc., etc. Use your imagination and write a detailed paragraph describing what you think the future will be like and what type of technology we will have. Situation 2 The future and your wishes…. Use your imagination and write a paragraph describing your wishes for the future. Use words like “Ojal”, “Maybe”, “Hopefully” in order to describe your wishes. Use your imagination and write a detailed paragraph describing your wishes for the future.

PAGE 198

186 Appendix F: Coding Form Corrective Feedback Coding Interaction Analysis Coding Form Instructor: _______________________________________ ____ Type of Interaction: _____ Asynchronous ______ Sy nchronous Date of Interaction: _____________________________ ______ Coder: ___________________________________________ __ Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 C olumn 6 Column 7 Turn Error Yes/No Error Type Corrective Feedback Yes/No Corrective Feedback Type Learner Response Yes/No Learner Response Type

PAGE 199

187 Appendix G: Codebook Corrective Feedback Coding Scheme Interaction Analysis Codebook Unit of Data Collection: The unit of analysis for this research study is the error treatment sequence. The error treatment sequence r efers to the student initial turn containing an error, the instructor’s response to t he error, and the student reaction or response to the correction. Error: An error is defined as an ill-formed language utte rance, an unacceptable utterance in the target language. The various type s of errors below will served as the a priori categories in the present study. It was als o expected that new varieties of errors would be found due to the nature of interactions ta king place in an asynchronous and synchronous environment, but this was not the case in this study. E-01 Grammatical: a grammatical error constitutes the following typ es of errors: the lack of or misuse of articles, determiners, prepositions pronouns, grammatical gender including noun/adjective agreements, verb tense, ve rb morphology, auxiliaries, subject/verb agreement, pluralization, negation, qu estion formation, and word order. E-02 Lexical: a lexical error includes inaccurate, imprecise, o r inappropriate choices of lexical items such as nouns, verbs, adverbs, and ad jectives. In addition, missing words due to a lack of vocabulary resources will also be considered a lexical error. Specific to the Spanish language, differences between ser and e star, conocer and saber, and por and para will also be considered lexical errors. E-03 Orthographic Conventions: These types of errors include omissions or additio ns of accent and punctuation marks and letters unique to the Spanish alphabet. These include : , , , , , , , , ¡. E-04 Typographical and Spelling: A typographical error is one made while inputting text via a keyboard, the error is made despite the user knowing the spelling of the word. This usually results from the person’s inexperience usin g a keyboard, from rushing, from not paying attention, or carelessness. A spelling erro r is one made when forming words with letters and the letters are not put in the acceptab le order. In this study, it is impossible to know whether the learner made a typographical error or spelling error and therefore these will be put in the same category. It should also b e noted that omission of specific orthographic marker such as accents and upside down question marks will not be considered typographical and spelling, these will b e grouped in a category labeled orthographic conventions. E-05 Unsolicited use of L1: use of the native language (L1) is not an error pe r se, but it is interesting to look at how instructors react to stu dents’ use of the unsolicited use of the

PAGE 200

188 Appendix G (Continued) L1. Literal translations that do not make sense in Spanish (example: “my bad” written as “mi mal”) will also be considered a unsolicited use of L1. Proper nouns will not be marked as unsolicited use of L1. E-06 Multiple: when more than one type of error occurs in a stud ent turn (for example, lexical and grammatical) these will be coded as mul tiple. If a turn has several of one type of error, it will be coded that type and not multip le. Corrective Feedback: Corrective feedback is defined as a response to a learner error made by the instructor that provides the learner wi th information about what is acceptable and unacceptable in the target language. Using Lys ter and Ranta’s (1997) findings of the various types of corrective feedback, the following a priori categories for corrective feedback were used in the present study. It was al so expected that new varieties of corrective feedback would be found because of the n ature of interactions taking place in an asynchronous and synchronous environment, but th is was not the case in this study. Variations of existing categories were identified. CF-01 Explicit correction: the explicit provision of the target-like form by the instructor. These corrections are often preceded by phrases suc h as “You mean,” “Use this word,” “You should say,” etc. In electronic discussions, these explicit corrections may be preceded by phrases such as “Correction” or by empl oying all caps function to emphasize correction. Using all caps in chat rooms is widely accepted as ‘screaming’ wi thin netiquette conventions. CF-02 Recasts: the instructor’s reformulation of all or part of a student’s utterance excluding the error. Recasts provide the student w ith the target-like form and can come in various forms including repetition with change, repetition with change and emphasis. Recasts are implicit and are not preceded by phrase s such as “You mean,” “Use this word,” “You should say,” etc. Recasts also include translations in response to a student’s use of the L1. CF-03 Opportunity to negotiate form: will include metalinguistic feedback, clarificatio n request, elicitation and repetition types of correc tive feedback because these do not provide the target-like form to learners. They pro vide information about the error and leave the window open for negotiation. Previous re search (Lyster and Ranta, 1997, Lyster, 1998) has categorized these corrective feed back types as negotiation of form, but this term is not clear and can lead to confusion. In this particular study, these corrective feedback types will be collapsed under the category opportunity to negotiate form to make the function of these corrective feedback type s more salient. CF-04 Clarification requests: indicating to the learner either that the utteranc e is not understood by the instructor or that the utterance is ill-formed in some way without providing the learner with the target-like form and that a repetition or a reformulation is

PAGE 201

189 Appendix G (Continued) required on the part of the student. This is typic ally done with questions such as “Pardon me?” “What do you mean by x?”, “I don’t understand” etc. CF-05 Metalinguistic feedback: constitutes either comments, information, or ques tions that indicate to the learner that there is an error somewhere without explicitly providing the target-like form. These comments can be in the form of grammatical metalanguage such as asking if we use a certain tense in that se ntence or can point to the nature of the error by stating to use a particular tense. CF-06 Elicitation: instructor directly elicits the correct form from the learner. These elicitations can come in various forms: the instruc tor can allow the student to fill in the blank, can use questions to elicit the correct form or can ask students to reformulate the utterance. Elicitation can also be preceded by som e metalinguistic comment. CF-07 Repetition: instructor repeats the student’s erroneous uttera nce in isolation. Learner Response: Response is defined as the student’s immediate re sponse in some way to the instructor’s intention to draw attention to some aspect of the student’s original written utterance. Following Lyster and Ranta’s (1 997) findings of response, the following a priori categories will be used in the p resent study. R-01 Results in repair : the error on which the feedback focused is repair ed by the learner. R-02 Needs repair : the error on which the feedback focused is not re paired by the learner.

PAGE 202

About the Author Martha E. Castaeda was born in Honduras where she completed her elementary education before moving to the United States. In t he United States, Ms. Castaeda completed her high school education and obtained a Bachelor’s degree in Spanish from the University of North Florida. After obtaining h er Bachelor’s degree, Ms. Castaeda taught high school Spanish and it was in this capac ity that she became interested in education. Ms. Castaeda continued her education a nd obtained a Master’s degree in Spanish linguistics from the University of Florida. She worked as a visiting instructor at the University of Central Florida where she became interested in the use of technology to enhance language learning. This interest led to Ms Castaeda enrolling in the Second Language Acquisition and Instructional Technology ( SLAIT) Ph.D. program at the University of South Florida. While in the Ph.D. pr ogram, Ms. Castaeda was very active. She taught Spanish classes, ESOL classes, Methods c lasses, supervised interns, worked as the SLAIT program assistant, presented at numero us conferences, and published several papers. Ms. Castaeda has accepted a tenur e-track position at DePaul University.