Online Peer Feedback Between Colombian and New Zealand FL Beginners: A Comparison and Lessons Learned

Published

2015-01-01

Retroalimentación virtual de pares entre aprendices principiantes de lengua de Colombia y Nueva Zelanda: una comparación y lecciones aprendidas

Keywords:

Collaborative on-line learning, foreign language learning, foreign language writing, online teaching and learning (en)
Aprendizaje de lengua extranjera, aprendizaje en colaboración en línea, enseñanza y aprendizaje en línea, escritura en lengua extranjera (es)

Downloads

PDF
HTML

Authors

Constanza Tolosa University of Auckland
Claudia Lucía Ordóñez Universidad Nacional de Colombia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9638-5157
Tania Alfonso Universidad Nacional de Colombia

Abstract (en)
Abstract (es)

We report on an exploratory study comparing the performance as online tutors of two groups of beginner eleven-year-old students of English in Colombia and Spanish in New Zealand. The native speaker students of the foreign language the others were learning corrected paragraphs written by their peers. The feedback provided by each group of tutors was analyzed for (1) language corrected, (2) input on errors, and (3) types of feedback provided. We found that both Colombian and New Zealand tutors willingly provided corrections to their peers and used other feedback strategies to foster attention to linguistic form. The Colombian tutors identified a higher number of errors, but the New Zealanders provided more detailed comments. We draw lessons from the exploration.

Éste es un estudio exploratorio en el que comparamos el desempeño como tutores-en-línea de dos grupos de niños de 11 años, principiantes en inglés en Colombia y español en Nueva Zelanda. Como nativos de la lengua extranjera que los otros aprendían, cada grupo corrigió párrafos de sus compañeros. Las correcciones se analizaron buscando (1) lenguaje corregido, (2) frecuencia y (3) tipos de correcciones. Encontramos que todos los tutores indicaron gustosamente correcciones a sus compañeros y utilizaron otras estrategias para llamar su atención hacia la forma del lenguaje. Los tutores colombianos identificaron más errores, pero los tutores neozelandeses produjeron comentarios más detallados. Concluimos extrayendo algunas lecciones de la exploración.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ayoun, D. (2001). The role of negative and positive feedback in the second language acquisition of the passé composé and imparfait. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 226-243. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00106

Ayoun, D. (2004). The effectiveness of written recasts in the second language acquisition of aspectual distinctions in French: A follow-up study. The Modern Language Journal, 88(1), 31-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.00217.x

Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and second language writing. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193-214. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp016

Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120-136. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/blake/default.html

Choi, S., & Li, S. (2012). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in a child ESOL classroom. RELC Journal, 43, 331-351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688212463274

Duran, D., & Monereo, C. (2005). Styles and sequences of cooperative interaction in fixed and reciprocal peer tutoring. Learning and Instruction, 15(3), 179-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.04.002

East, M., Tolosa, C., & Villers, H. M. (2012). Reciprocal role peer tutoring: Can it enhance students’ motivation and perceptions of proficiency when learning a foreign language? Babel, 47(1), 24-31.

Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-368. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060141

Fantuzzo, J. W., King, A. M., & Heller, L. R. (1992). Effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on mathematics and school adjustment: A component analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 331-339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.331

Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181-201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490

Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. Van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 175-199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

González-Lloret, M. (2003). Designing task-based CALL to promote interaction: en busca de esmeraldas. Language Learning & Technology, 7(1), 86-104. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num1/gonzalez/default.html

Guardado, M., & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers & Composition, 24(4), 443-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2007.03.002

Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667251

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39, 77-95. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399

Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 183-210. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264516

Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 1-19). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524735.003

Kitade, K. (2008). The role of offline metalanguage talk in asynchronous computer-mediated communication. Journal of Language Learning and Technology, 12, 64-84. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num1/pdf/kitade.pdf

Mackey, A., & Polio, C. (2009). Multiple perspectives on interaction. New York, NY: Routledge.

Mendonça, C. O., & Johnson, K. E., (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 745-769. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587558

Oliver, R. (1998). Negotiations of meaning in child interactions. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 372-386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01215.x

O’Rourke, B. (2005). Form-focused interaction in online tandem learning. The CALICO Journal, 22(3), 433-466. Retrieved from https://www.calico.org/html/article_144.pdf

Ortega, L. (2009). Interaction and attention to form in L2 text-based computer-mediated communication. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction (pp. 226-253). New York, NY: Routledge.

Schuetze, U. (2011). Do wikis affect grammatical aspects of second language writing. The IAALT Journal, 41(1), 90-107. Retrieved from http://www.iallt.org/iallt_journal/do_wikis_affect_grammatical_aspects_of_second_language_writing

Scott, A., & Butler, P. (2007). “My teacher is learning like us:” Teachers and students as language learners. The New Zealand Language Teacher, 33, 11-16.

Thurston, A., Duran, D., Cunningham, E., Blanch, S., & Topping, K. (2009). International on-line reciprocal peer tutoring to promote modern language development in primary schools. Computers & Education, 53(2), 462-472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.03.005

Tolosa, C., East, M., & Villers, H. (2013). Online peer feedback in beginners’ writing tasks: Lessons learned. IALLT Journal of Language Learning Technologies, 45(1), 1-24. Retrieved from http://www.iallt.org/iallt_journal/online_peer_feedback_in_beginners_writing_tasks_lessons_learned

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x

Vinagre, M., & Lera, M. (2008). The role of error correction in online exchanges. In F. Zhang & B. Barber (Eds.), Handbook of research on computer-enhanced language acquisition and learning (pp. 326-341). Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing.

Vinagre, M., & Muñoz, B. (2011). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and language accuracy in telecollaborative exchanges. Language Learning & Technology, 15(1), 72-103. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2011/vinagremunoz.pdf

Ware, P. (2004). Confidence and competition online: ESL student perspectives on web-based discussions in the classroom. Computers and Composition, 21(4), 451-468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2004.08.004

Ware, P., & O’Dowd, R. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 43-63. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num1/pdf/wareodowd.pdf

Warschauer, M. (2005). Sociocultural perspectives on CALL. In J. Egbert & G. M. Petrie (Eds.). CALL research perspectives (pp. 41-51). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Weaver, M. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written responses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 379-394. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500353061

License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

You are authorized to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format as long as you give appropriate credit to the authors of the articles and to Profile: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development as original source of publication. The use of the material for commercial purposes is not allowed. If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.

Authors retain the intellectual property of their manuscripts with the following restriction: first publication is granted to Profile: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development.