Browsing by Subject "Noticing the gap"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1

Corrective feedback and learner uptake in Spanish heritage and second language learner interaction
(2018-10-10) Yoon, Hyunjee; Koike, Dale April; Toribio, Almeida J; Nishida, Chiyo; Kelm, Orlando R; Schallert, Diane L
The corrective feedback of teachers has been investigated extensively (e.g.,Chaudron, 1977; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Panova & Lyster, 2000; Lyster & Mori, 2006). However, only a limited number of empirical studies have examined peer feedback produced by second language (L2) learners; as for corrective feedback from heritage language (HL) speakers, empirical studies are even fewer (Bowles, Adams, & Toth, 2014). In fact, a number of areas remain under-investigated. These include peer correction talk (PCT) between HL speakers and L2 learners, who represent varying proficiency levels, as well as error correction sequences that involve both corrective feedback and the interlocutor’s uptake. This lack exists despite a substantial body of literature on the types of corrective feedback (e.g., Panova & Lyster, 2002; Lyster & Saito, 2010). Regarding theories of language learning, a growing body of literature from the cognitive view of learning addresses the possible effect of particular types of corrective feedback on language learning (Panova & Lyster, 2002; Lyster & Mori, 2006; Lyster & Saito, 2010). However, the literature offers few empirical studies of corrective feedback from a sociocultural view of interaction (e.g., Foster & Ohta, 2005). In order to address the gaps in the literature, this study focuses on conversational interaction in PCT between Spanish HL speaker-L2 learner and L2 learner-L2 learner interactions. The study employs two theoretical approaches. From the cognitive view of language learning, it focuses on how particular types of corrective feedback and uptake facilitate learners to notice the gap between target-like and non-target-like items, compare them, and incorporate them into their output (Krashen, 1983; Schmidt & Frota, 1986; R. Ellis, 1993). Drawing on the notions of 'interactional competence' (Cogo & House, 2017; Taguchi, 2017) and 'relational work' (Watts, 2003), this study examines how learners in PCT employ, mutually and reciprocally, linguistic and interactional resources and contexts. In order to address this issue, conversational data were collected from 32 pairs of learners, which involved the following eight pair types: high proficiency HL learner (HL[H]) provider and high proficiency L2 learner (L2[H]) receiver; HL[H] provider and low proficiency L2 (L2[L]) receiver; L2[H] provider and L2[H] receiver; L2[H] provider and L2[L] receiver; low proficiency HL (HL[L]) provider and L2[H] receiver; HL[L] provider and L2[L] receiver; L2[L] provider and L2[H] receiver; L2[L] provider and L2[L] receiver. Each pair member was assigned a role: either as a feedback receiver or feedback provider, working to improve the quality of the feedback receiver’s essay during PCT. The analysis of the conversational data from 32 learner dyads employed a mixed-methods approach of qualitative and quantitative analyses. From the cognitive perspective, this study reveals that in leading learners to notice the gap between the target-like item and their existing interlanguage, explicitness as well as the proficiency of learners played a central role (Dabagh, 2005; Falhasiri et al, 2011). From the sociocultural perspective, the study indicates that the L2/HL learners mutually construct their talk based on contextual factors such as speaker roles, relationships, perceived target language ability, and learners’ interactional supportive work (Bardovi-Harlig, 2000, 2001; Félix-Brasdefer, 2007; Lovejoy, 2015). The significance of the study lies in advancing our knowledge of research on HL-L2 learner and L2-L2 learner talk by examining their corrective feedback and uptake from these cognitive and sociocultural views. It also sheds light on patterns of conversational interactions (i.e., error-correction sequences) among distinct learner pairs involving variables of proficiency and language background in the context of PCT. This study adds to the empirical evidence of the potential effects of PCT on L2 learning and what factors possibly lead to such learning through PCT. Drawing on the cognitive view of learning and sociocultural views of interaction, this study supports the claim that the learners interactively and affectively co-construct PCT and thereby learn the L2/HL in a meaningful way.