Masatoshi Sato Universidad Andrés Bello TBLT, November 19, 2011 Effects and effectiveness of TBLT and strategy training: Transforming learners into corrective feedback providers Masatoshi Sato Universidad Andrés Bello TBLT, November 19, 2011 Nice title.

Project Overview Goals Classroom intervention Two dimensions To help adult foreign language learners use their grammatical knowledge during spontaneous production and improve their oral accuracy and fluency Classroom intervention Aimed to create collaborative interaction between learners Taught learners how to provide corrective feedback to each other Two dimensions Examination 1: Effects of the intervention on interactional patterns Examination 2: Effectiveness of the intervention on L2 development What I did to tackle these issues was to manipulate the way in which learners interact with each other in classrooms because I thought peer interaction provides contextualized practice These three examinations will be separately presented, each containing its literature review, methodology, result, and discussion. Then, I will synthesize these three dimensions of the study, which will be followed by some concluding statements.

TBLT and Learner factors L2 processing and cognitive orientations (CF research) Foreign language learners tend to pay more attention to language form than second language learners do (amount of uptake) Japanese immersion in the States > French immersion in Canada (Lyster & Mori, 2006) English learners in Korea & in NZ > French learners in Canada (Sheen, 2004) Explicit knowledge that foreign language learners possess may affect their processing (i.e., noticing) (Sato, 2011) Meaning-oriented learners vs. Form-oriented learners Need for tasks that are adjusted to learners’ cognitive orientations In SLA research, there is growing discussion ….

TBLT and learner factors TBLT and cognitive orientations Meaning-oriented learners Learners: Young learners in immersion (e.g., Swain & Lapkin, 1995; 2002) L2 problem: Grammatical accuracy Tasks: Dictogloss tasks, writing tasks Goal: Shift meaning-oriented learners’ attention to form Form-oriented learners Learners: college-level EFL learners (e.g., Fotos, 1994; Fotos & Ellis, 1999) L2 problem: Fluent production using grammatical knowledge Tasks: Consciousness-raising tasks Goal: Rectify grammar-translation methods and find a better way to acquire new grammatical structures For form-oriented learners to improve their speaking skills, they may need meaning-oriented tasks in which their attention to form is maintained but not facilitated This idea can be applied to TYPES of tasks. Thus, in the present study, meaning-oriented tasks were used to improve learners’ spontaneous L2 production and they were trained to give corrective feedback as a strategy.

TBLT and Strategy Training Learners can be taught strategies such as corrective feedback (interactional patterns) Bajarano et al. (1997): How to clarify when communication breakdowns occur (i.e., prompts) Naughton (2006): How to provide correct versions of grammatical errors during peer interaction (i.e., recasts) Learners improve their L2 performance when taught a strategy (L2 development) Cohen et al. (1998): Deep breathing, positive self-talk vocabulary size Dörnyei (1995): Topic avoidance, using pauses Speech rates No studies have examined CF training on improvement of spontaneous production (accuracy and fluency)

methodology

Contexts and Participants University students in Japan (N = 167: Biology, Human Development, Economics/Business) Good grammatical knowledge yet poor speakers Typical learning pattern of foreign language learning (especially in Asian contexts) Classroom context 4 second-year required English classes Communicative classes Once a week for 1.5 hrs Duration: 60 min/week X 10 weeks (10 hours)

Design PI + CF instruction PI instruction

Intervention (Peer Interaction) Fluency-focused activity Paired information-exchange Authentic materials (e.g., movies) Change partners multiple times Information increases but the delivery time remains the same Attention is drawn to meaning Learners develop confidence each round Learners engage in repeated practice: proceduralization

Intervention (Corrective Feedback) Modelling Practice Use-in-context

Modelling Prompts and recasts Prompts: “When you hear an error, let your partner know that without giving the correct form.” Metalinguistic feedback (“You need a past tense”) Clarification request (“Excuse me?”) Recasts: “When you hear an error, give the correct answer to your partner.” Role-play by the teachers: First three weeks Following modification moves (modified output) were evenly distributed (i.e., either MO or Ø)

Practice Learners practiced providing CF Procedures: 10 weeks Groups of three (Speaker, Feedback Provider, Observer) Scenario and Error List Create original stories to hide the error sentences Observer reports back to the group which errors were given CF and missed 10 scenarios: One target/day PI-only group was given a similar role-play activity and their attention was drawn to the same grammatical features on the error lists

Use-in-Context During the peer interaction activity that all the experimental groups were given (i.e., fluency-focused activity), the CF groups were encouraged to use the CF technique

The effect of the intervention

Research Questions Does the intervention affect interactional patterns over time?

Testing Task: Decision making tasks (peer interaction) Timing: Week 1, Week 6, & Week 10 Frequency of CF Statistical analysis: Repeated-measures of ANOVA

Results Prompt: Week 10 > Week 6 > Week 1 Recast: Week 10 > Week 6 > Week 1 In Week 10: Prompt & Recast > Peer-only

The effectiveness of the intervention

Research Questions Does corrective feedback embedded in task- based interaction improve L2 accuracy and fluency? Does task-based interaction alone improve L2 accuracy and fluency?

Testing Task: Picture description tasks (Weeks 1 & 10) Grammatical accuracy Scoring: Overall accuracy (% of correct clauses) Fluency Scoring: Speech rates (words per minute) Statistical analysis: ANCOVAs

Results Accuracy CF groups improved over time CF groups outperformed both PI-only and Control at posttest No significant difference between PI-prompt and PI-recast

Results Fluency Those groups outperformed Control at posttest CF groups and PI-only improved over time Those groups outperformed Control at posttest

discussion

Peer CF as a Strategy (Effect) CF is a teachable strategy Learners do not talk about language forms unless they receive feedback from their classmates OR the task itself is designed so (e.g., consciousness-raising tasks) Recasts were easier to give: Doesn’t conflict with teacher CF findings (e.g., Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Ellis et al., 2001)

Peer CF and L2 development (Effectiveness) CF training contributed to accuracy development Task-based interaction + CF training contributed to fluency development Peer CF didn’t contribute to fluency development? CF embedded in communicative tasks facilitated grammatical development while maintaining fluency development No grammatical development in PI-only group Task-based interaction alone was insufficient for accuracy development just like teachers‘ CF, peer CF offered external support that helped learners to improve their monitoring and gave a chance to engage in practice.

Conclusion In many foreign language classrooms, learners do not have the opportunity to engage in contextualized practice Task-based interaction provides transfer-appropriate practice In these contexts, teacher CF is often difficult to implement Transforming learners into CF providers is an effective pedagogical option However, for many FL learners, developing spontaneous production skills is more important than engaging in cognitive comparison (= form-orientation) The extent to which learners attention should be drawn to form depends on learning contexts (FL? Immersion?)

Thank you! masatoshi.sato@mail.mcgill.ca Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (in press). Raising language awareness in peer interaction: A cross-context, cross-method examination. Language Awareness 20(3-4). Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (in press). Corrective feedback and peer interaction for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34(4).