Результаты обучения, полученные в результате совместных экспертно-коллегиальных отзывов
Аннотация
Введение. Исследования показали, что совместная обработка отзывов о совместно подготовленном тексте облегчает изучение языка на привычных занятиях в классе. Однако до сих пор неизвестно, есть ли аналогичные преимущества в обучении, когда обратная связь предоставляется через онлайн-форму от эксперта-партнера во время международного виртуального обмена (IVE).
Цель. Настоящее исследование восполняет этот пробел в литературе, исследуя учащихся японского языка, занятых обработкой письменных корректирующих отзывов от опытных пользователей языка в Соединенных Штатах.
Методы. Качественные данные, касающиеся восприятия учащимися результатов обучения, были собраны с помощью ретроспективных интервью и повествовательных рамок, затем сопоставлены с их первыми и окончательными набросками письменных текстов и проанализированы с использованием теории деятельности (ТД).
Результаты. Результаты показывают, что преимущества обучения проявляются в таких областях языковых навыков, как словарный запас, правописание и грамматика, а также в углублении рефлексивного осознания учащимися самих себя как пользователей языка.
Вывод. Обсуждение этих выводов, основанное на социокультурной теории и сформированное категориями теории деятельности (ТД), проливает свет на некоторую динамику взаимодействия, которая способствовала созданию этих результатов. Эта динамика взаимодействия показывает, что преимущества обучения от деятельности в основном заключались в взаимодействиях сверстников со сверстниками, а не во взаимодействии с экспертом.
Скачивания
Литература
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
Copyright (c) 2022 Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики»
Это произведение доступно по лицензии Creative Commons «Attribution» («Атрибуция») 4.0 Всемирная.
Авторы, публикующие статьи в журнале, соглашаются с условиями политики авторских прав.
