Learning Outcomes Generated through the Collaborative Processing of Expert Peer Feedback

Keywords: active theory, collaborative writing, peer feedback, international virtual exchange, written corrective feedback

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.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: a once and future discipline. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

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

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

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

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.

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.

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit.

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

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

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

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83-101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook: Vol. Second edition. (Second edition.). Sage Publications.

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.

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.

Nunan, D., & Bailey, K. (2009). Exploring second language classroom research. Heinle.

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

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.

O'Rourke, B. (2005). Form-focused interaction in online tandem learning. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 433-466. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24147933.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Vygotsky, L. (2012). Thought and language (revised and expanded edition). The MIT Press.

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.

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

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

Published
2022-12-26
How to Cite
CarrN., & WickingP. (2022). Learning Outcomes Generated through the Collaborative Processing of Expert Peer Feedback. Journal of Language and Education, 8(4), 22-35. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.13425