Learning Outcomes Generated through the Collaborative Processing of Expert Peer Feedback

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Background. Studies have shown that the collaborative processing of feedback on a jointly produced text facilitates language learning in a traditional classroom. However, it is still unknown whether there are similar learning benefits when the feedback is provided through an online modality from an expert peer during an international virtual exchange (IVE).

Purpose. The present study fills this gap in the literature by investigating Japanese learners engaged in processing written corrective feedback from expert language users in the United States.

Methods. Qualitative data concerning students’ perceptions of learning outcomes were collected via retrospective interviews and narrative frames, then triangulated with their first and final drafts of written texts and analyzed using activity theory (AT).

Results. Findings indicate that learning benefits accrued in areas of language skills such as vocabulary, spelling, and grammar, as well as deepening learners’ reflexive awareness of themselves as language users.

Conclusion. A discussion of these findings, informed by sociocultural theory and shaped by the categories of AT, brings to light some of the interactional dynamics that contributed to the creation of these outcomes. These interactional dynamics show that the learning benefits of the activity primarily resided in the peer-to-peer interactions rather than interactions with the expert-peer.

About the authors

N. Carr

University of Aizu

Email: carr.nicholas.au@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4948-6473

P. Wicking

Meijo University

Author for correspondence.
Email: wicking@meijo-u.ac.jp
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7614-4671

References

  1. Antoniadou, V. (2016). Using activity theory to understand the contradictions in an online transatlantic collaboration between student-teachers of English as a foreign language. ReCALL, 23(3), 233-251. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344011000164
  2. Aranha, S., & Cavalari, S. (2015). Institutional integrated teletandem: What have we been learning about writing and peer feedback? DELTA, 31(3), 763-780. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-445039175922916369
  3. Avgousti, M. (2018).Intercultural communicative competence and online exchanges: A systematic review.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(8), 819-853. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1455713
  4. Barahona, M. (2015). English Language teacher education in Chile: A cultural historical activity theory perspective. Taylor and Francis. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315689937
  5. Barkhuisen, G., & Wette, R. (2008). Narrative frames for investigating the experiences of language teachers. System, 36(3), 372-387. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.002
  6. Barnard, R., & Viet, N. (2010). Task-based language learning (TBLT): A Vietnamese case study using narrative frames to elicit teachers' beliefs. Language Education in Asia, 1(1), 77-86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5746/LEiA/10/V1/A07/Barnard_Nguyen
  7. Bower, J., & Kawaguchi, S. (2011). Negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in Japanese/English eTandem. Language Learning & Technology, 15(1), 41-71. http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2011/bowerkawaguchi.pdf.
  8. Brooks, L., & Swain, M. (2009). Languaging in collaborative writing: Creation and response to expertise. In A. Mackay & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction in SLA (pp. 58-89). Lawrence Erlbaum.
  9. Bueno-Alastuey, M. C., & Kleban, M. (2016). Matching linguistic and pedagogical objectives in a telecollaboration project: A case study.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(1), 148-166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.904360
  10. Butzkamm, W. (2003). We only learn language once. The role of the mother tongue in FL classrooms: Death of a dogma. Language Learning Journal, 28(1), 29-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09571730385200181
  11. Carney, N. (2006). Telecollaboration for intercultural learning: An overview of projects involving Japan. JALT CALL Journal, 2(1), 37-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v2n1.21
  12. Carr, N. (2021).Internalizing Interactions: Use of the dominant language and an inanimate expert. Language and Sociocultural Theory 8(2), 180-205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1558/lst.19232
  13. Chang, C.-F. (2012). Peer review via three modes in an EFL writing course.Computers and Composition, 29(1), 63-78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2012.01.001
  14. Çiftçi, E. Y., & Savaş, P. (2017). The role of telecollaboration in language and intercultural learning: A synthesis of studies published between 2010 and 2015. ReCALL, 30(3), 278-298. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344017000313
  15. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: a once and future discipline. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
  16. Coyle, Y., Cánovas Guirao, J., & Roca de Larios, J. (2018). Identifying the trajectories of young EFL learners across multi-stage writing and feedback processing tasks with model texts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 42, 25-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.09.002
  17. De Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (1994). Social-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 484-496. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/328586
  18. De Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 Peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51-68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00052
  19. Díez-Bedmar, M., & Pérez-Paredes, P. (2012). The types and effects of peer native speakers' feedback on CMC. Language Learning and Technology, 16(1), 62-90. http://dx.doi.org/10125/44275.
  20. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Ablex Publishing Company.
  21. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit.
  22. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive Learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747
  23. Ennis, M. J., Verzella, M., Montanari, S., Sendur, A. M., Simeonova Pissaro M., Kaiser, S., & Wimhurst, A. (2021). A telecollaboration project on giving online peer feedback: Implementing a multilateral virtual exchange during a pandemic. Journal of Language Education, 7(4), 66-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2021.11914
  24. Guardado, M., & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students' experiences of online peer feedback.Computers and Composition, 24(4), 443-461. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2007.03.002
  25. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83-101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399
  26. Iwasaki, J., & Oliver, R. (2003). Chat-line interaction and negative feedback. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics. Supplement Series, 17(1), 60-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/aralss.17.05iwa
  27. Jones, R. H., Garralda, A., Li, D. C. S., & Lock, G. (2006).Interactional dynamics in on-line and face-to-face peer-tutoring sessions for second language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(1), 1-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.12.001
  28. Kirchhoff, C. (2015). Global personnel development through study abroad and study + work abroad. The Language Teacher, 39(3), 9-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTTLT39.3
  29. Konishi, M. (2017). Effects of international online video talk in a language exchange situation on Japanese EFL college students taking a teacher training program. Language Education & Technology, 54, 113-133.
  30. Lantolf, J., & Poehner, M. (2014). Sociocultural Theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education: Vygotskian praxis and the Research/practice divide. Taylor and Francis. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203813850
  31. Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 144-164. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.12.001
  32. Lee, L. (2006). A study of native and nonnative speakers' feedback and responses in Spanish-American networked collaborative interaction. In J. Belz & S. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 147-176). Thomson Heinle.
  33. Leont'ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consiousness and personality (M. Hall, trans.). Prentice-Hall. https://www.marxists.org/archive/leontev/works/1978/activity-consciousness-personality.pdf.
  34. Lewis, T., O'Rourke, B., & Dooly, M. (2016). Innovation in language learning and teaching: Online intercultural exchange. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 1-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2015.1133541
  35. Liu, J., & Sadler, R.W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 193-227. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00025-0
  36. Mackey, A., Park, H.I., & Tagarelli, K. (2016). Errors, corrective feedback and repair: Variations and learning outcomes. In G. Hall (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of English language teaching (pp. 499-512). Routledge.
  37. Mahfoodh, O. H. A. (2017). I feel disappointed: EFL university students' emotional responses towards teacher written feedback. Assessing Writing, 31, 53-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.07.001
  38. Martí, N. M., & Fernández, S. S. (2016). Telecollaboration and sociopragmatic awareness in the foreign language classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 34-48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2016.1138577
  39. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook: Vol. Second edition. (Second edition.). Sage Publications.
  40. Müller-Hartmann, A., & Kurek, M. (2016). Virtual group formation and the process of task design in online intercultural exchanges. In R. O'Dowd & T. Lewis (Eds.), Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice (pp. 131-149). Routledge.
  41. Nishio, T., & Nakatsugawa, M. (2020). ‘Successful' participation in intercultural exchange: Tensions in American-Japanese telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 24(1), 154-168. https://doi.org/10125/44714.
  42. Nunan, D., & Bailey, K. (2009). Exploring second language classroom research. Heinle.
  43. O'Dowd, R. (2020). A transnational model of virtual exchange for global citizenship education. Language Teaching, 53(4), 477-490. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000077
  44. O'Dowd, R., & Lewis, T. (2016).Introduction to online intercultural exchange and this volume. In R. O'Dowd & T. Lewis (Eds.), Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice (pp. 3-20). Routledge.
  45. O'Rourke, B. (2005). Form-focused interaction in online tandem learning. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 433-466. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24147933.
  46. Priego, S., & Liaw, M. (2017). Understanding different levels of group functionality: Activity systems analysis of an intercultural telecollaborative multilingual digital storytelling project.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(5), 368-398. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1306567
  47. Sadler, R., & Dooly, M. (2016). Twelve years of telecollaboration: What we have learnt. ELT Journal, 70(4), 401-412. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccw041
  48. Schulz, J. (2000).Computers and collaborative writing in the foreign language curriculum. In M. Warschauer and R. Kern (Eds.), Networked-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 121-150). Cambridge University Press.
  49. Scott, V. M., & de la Fuente, M. J. (2008). What's the problem? La learners' use of the L1 during consciousness-raising, form-focused tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 100-113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00689.x
  50. Storch, N. (2021). Collaborative writing: Promoting languaging among language learners. In M. García Mayo (Ed.), Working collaboratively in second/foreign language learning (pp.13-34). Degruyter Mouton. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501511318-002
  51. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners' processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303-334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532
  52. Strenski, E., Feagin, C. O., & Singer, J. A. (2005). Email small group peer review revisited.Computers and Composition, 22(2), 191-208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2005.02.005
  53. Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced Language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95-108). Continuum.
  54. Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 51-75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(96)90015-6
  55. Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1998). Assessing the impact of Peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 491-514. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.4.491
  56. Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (2019). Sociocultural theory: A framework for understanding the socio-cognitive dimensions of peer feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing (pp. 25-44). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108635547
  57. Vygotsky, L. (2012). Thought and language (revised and expanded edition). The MIT Press.
  58. Ware, P. D., & O'Dowd, R. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 43-63. https://doi.org/10125/44130.
  59. Wells, C. G. (2002). The role of dialogue in activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(1), 43-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327884MCA0901_04
  60. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2010). Activity systems analysis methods: Understanding complex learning environments. Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6321-5

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download


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