87.Impact of Classroom Dynamics on the Effectiveness of Recasts in SLA

  • 格式:pdf
  • 大小:164.69 KB
  • 文档页数:44

Language Learning53:2,June2003,pp.325±368Impact of Classroom Dynamics on the Effectiveness of Recasts in Second LanguageAcquisitionFrank A.MorrisUniversity of MiamiElaine E.TaroneUniversity of MinnesotaInterpersonal conflict arose in the interactions of threedyads of learners engaged in collaborative work in aforeign language classroom.Results show that althoughlearners corrected each other's errors using recasts,inseveral cases the learners continued to produce the erro-neous form in posttests.Stimulated recall revealed thatnegative feelings about their conversation partnersseemed to have caused some learners to interpret recastsnot as helpful corrective feedback,but as criticism andeven mockery.The social dynamics of the language class-room may in some cases dramatically alter the way thecognitive processes of attention,or noticing,are deployedFrank A.Morris,Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures; Elaine E.Tarone,Institute of Linguistics,English as a Second Language, and Slavic Languages and Literatures.We would like to thank Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig and the anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments and suggestions.Special thanks go to Martha Bigelow,Ann Lazaraton,Patsy Lightbown,Andrew Lynch,Neomy Storch,and Merrill Swain for their feedback on earlier versions of the article.Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to Frank A. Morris,Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures,504Ashe Building,PO Box248093,University of Miami,Coral Gables,FL 33124-4650.Internet:fmorris@.325326Language Learning Vol.53,No.2in cooperative learning activities in which feedbackoccurs,and this in turn appears to affect acquisition.Long and Robinson(1998)review the research on the role of attention in the process of second language(L2)acquisition and conclude that acquisition benefits most when L2learners focus not on linguistic form alone,or on communicative meaning alone,but on both form and meaning when they use the L2. Focus on Form(FonF)has been most frequently operationalized as a brief shift of attention from meaningful content to linguistic code features.Such a shift can occur in a variety of classroom activities,including when the learner's conversational partners provide her with either implicit or explicit corrective feedback.One common form of implicit negative(corrective)feedback is the recast,a listener's correct reformulation of the learner's incor-rectly formed utterance.An example of a recast is shown in(1).(1)John:*El levanta por el dia muy temper.(`He wakes up[not-reflexive]very early[wrongform]').Pete:Se levanta temprano!Verdad?(`He wakes up[reflexive]early!Right?')Note that in Pete's recast of John's incorrect utterance,there is no explicit indication that an error has been made;thus, the recast is an implicit form of corrective feedback.Recasts are inherently ambiguous in that,as repetitions of a speaker's utterance,they may be interpreted as focused on meaning or form or both.In the exchange above,the recast both confirms that Pete has understood the meaning in John's assertion and also corrects the form of the erroneous verb in John's original utterance,without explicitly telling John the original verb form was wrong.John may or may not notice that he has received corrective feedback;he may or may not focus on form as a result of receiving this kind of feedback.Thus,theMorris and Tarone327 interlocutor's supplying of a recast does not guarantee a learner's attentional shift to form;making that shift depends on the learner.Long and Robinson(1998)call for studies in second lan-guage acquisition(SLA)that explore the causal relationship between FonF,noticing,and learning.Central in this causal sequence is noticing,or learner awareness of the feedback he receives.As Long and Robinson would argue,if John is to learn the targeted linguistic form,he needs to notice and accurately identify,however briefly,the corrective feedback he has received.It is this noticing that triggers the cognitive process of SLA.This process has been referred to as``cognitive compari-son,''because the learner is supposed to be able to compare the form he produced to the form provided in the recast(Doughty& Williams,1998).But how can we unambiguously document what learners notice,or pay attention to,when they are engaged in a mean-ingful interaction and then receive a recast?Noticing during interaction is inherently difficult to operationalize in comparison to concurrent measures such as think-aloud protocols.One way to determine whether noticing has occurred,Long and Robinson suggest,is to include debriefing questionnaires``to probe the extent to which learners were focused on form during the instruc-tional treatments,rather than assuming that the instructional treatment translated directly into the quality of learner attention and awareness''(Long&Robinson,1998,p.40).But debriefing questionnaires or stimulated recall interviews(Mackey,Gass,& McDonough,2000)are limited in that they depend on the learn-er's ability to reconstruct thought processes after they have occurred.If the learning process is implicit,this kind of explicit measure is mismatched with regard to the process it is intended to measure.For this reason,such tools are usually also accompa-nied by an analysis of the language-related episodes occurring naturally in the interaction and assumed to permit the researcher to pinpoint moments of attention to form concurrently(Swain& Lapkin,1998).328Language Learning Vol.53,No.2 In addition to establishing whether learners accurately identify corrective feedback,researchers also need to establish clearly whether learning has resulted from the feedback. Uptake,or the learner's repetition of a recast,is not a reliable indicator of acquisition.Learners'uptake cannot necessarily be taken as evidence of learning(Lyster&Ranta,1997),and learn-ing may take place without uptake(Mackey&Philp,1998; Morris,2002a).One way to determine whether language develop-ment has occurred is to use longer-term measurement of learn-ers'acquisition of items on which they have received corrective feedback:not just posttests that are administered immediately after feedback is provided,but delayed posttests that take place weeks later(Long&Robinson,1998,p.40).The theoretical importance of noticing,or attention to speech,is one that has been discussed before,in our field and others.If learner language,or interlanguage,is a natural human language,we can assume that it obeys the same con-straints and principles that all human languages obey,including sociolinguistic constraints and principles of style shifting (Tarone,1979).One set of such principles relates the role of noticing,or attention to language form,to style shifting,or linguistic variation in speech.According to Labov(1970),attention affects the speech style a speaker uses;as the speaker pays more attention to language form,she uses one style,and when she pays more attention to meaning,she uses another style.We can translate Labov's framework into the FonF framework for SLA:When the speaker is Focused on Meaning,she produces linguistic forms with little attention to accuracy,and when the speaker is Focused on Form, she may try to produce a set of linguistic forms that are more accurate.1Attention to either language form or language meaning is thus an important cognitive mechanism that influences learn-ers'variable attempts to be accurate when speaking in the L2.However,it is important to note that most sociolinguists do not now regard attention as the root cause of stylistic variation. Bell(1984)argued that it cannot be:Morris and Tarone329Attention is a mechanism,through which other factorscan affect style.Certain topics or addressees or settingstend to evoke graded degrees of attention which mayresult in parallel graded styles.But the behaviouralresults of a given level of attention can also be quitediverse....Attention is at most a mechanism of responseintervening between a situation and a style.(p.150)Bell proposes a style axiom:Variation on the style dimension within the speech of a single speaker derives from and echoes the variation which exists between speakers on the``social''dimension (p.151).Bell makes a crucial point here:Attention is not solely cognitive.Attention,or noticing,is a construct that bridges the cognitive(attention is a cognitive process)and the social(attention is differentially directed by social factors).It is not a root cause; rather,the speaker's responsiveness to the social relationships among speakers is what causes attention to shift.Bell's style axiom,applied to an SLA situation,would suggest that what L2 learners notice is influenced in a major way by social contextual factors,such as the social group membership of interlocutors.There is growing evidence that this is the case:that social context influences L2learners'ability to perceive accurately the corrective feedback that is provided to them and thus constrains its effectiveness.2For example,Nicholas,Lightbown,and Spada (2001)conclude,on the basis of a comprehensive review of research on recasts as a form of corrective feedback to language learners,that context can alter the effectiveness of recasts in substantial ways.3Specifically,they assert,there are differences between the findings of laboratoryand classroom studies,differences between primarilystructure-focused and primarily content-focused class-rooms,and differences between observational studies ofnaturally occurring feedback patterns in classrooms andexperimental studies that focus on specific linguistic fea-tures and feedback types.(p.751)How do these different contexts affect learners'ability to accurately perceive recasts?Nicholas et al.(2001)conclude,from330Language Learning Vol.53,No.2 results of observational studies on recasts,that classroom con-texts(as compared to experimental ones)may make it hard for learners to identify recasts clearly as focused on form as opposed to content.It is particularly difficult for learners to make the distinction between the two when the classroom is content-based,as was the case in Lyster and Ranta(1997)and Lyster (1998).If the classroom is clearly focused on language form,as in studies by Ohta(2000)and Ellis,Basturkmen,and Loewen (2001),learners seem better able to identify recasts as corrective feedback.For example,Ellis et al.(2001)found that FonF epi-sodes occurred frequently in the adult English as a second lan-guage classes they studied in New Zealand,and that learner uptake occurred in almost74%of those episodes.H owever, even in language-focused classrooms,the ability of learners to identify recasts accurately as corrective feedback doesn't seem to be universal(Havranek,1999;Lochtman,2000),to be univer-sally effective in promoting acquisition or``successful uptake'' (Ellis et al.,2001),or to hold equally for all error types(Mackey et al.,2000;Morris,2002b).4In general,it would be useful to have more information on the contextual factors that make it difficult for classroom learn-ers to identify recasts accurately as corrective feedback and make use of the information contained in them,even when the primary focus of the classroom is on language form,rather than on content.It appears that at least some of those factors have to do with the social structure of language classrooms:specifically, the social relationships between students.Preston(1989)has argued that language classrooms can function like speech communities,in sociolinguistic terms.5Sev-eral studies support this view.For example,the university-level immersion classrooms Lynch,Klee,and Tedick(2001)studied were speech communities,though not diglossic ones,as elemen-tary immersion classrooms seem to be.6Rather,in adult immer-sion classrooms two major social groupings emerged,one of which used the L2extensively both inside and outside the class,for both academic and social purposes,and the other ofMorris and Tarone331 which used the L2only for very restricted academic purposes and hardly ever for social interactions inside or outside the class. The members of these two social groups reported having nega-tive feelings about one another and interacted minimally with one another in class.When language students are asked to work in pairs in such complex social contexts,we might expect their interaction pat-terns to be affected.For example,we know that conversation partners with different proficiency levels may have unproductive interaction patterns,because more proficient learners may exert power in unproductive ways.In Yule and MacDonald(1990), high-proficiency learners paired with low-proficiency learners ignored their partners'contributions in problem-solving inter-actions so that less negotiation of meaning occurred than in other interactions.Less negotiation of meaning would then mean fewer opportunities for SLA.Storch(2002)reinforces this conclusion.She identifies four distinct patterns of dyadic interactions in language classrooms and shows that certain patterns of dyadic interaction are more conducive than others to language learning.In her study,there was more evidence of acquisition in dyads whose interaction pattern was collaborative or expert/novice than in dyads in which the interaction patterns were dominant/dominant or dominant/passive.7Storch concludes that the language class-room is an``essentially social event''(p.150).Storch's study is intriguing in that it shows us that there may be a good deal of variability in language classrooms in the way corrective feedback is perceived.H owever,we would like to know more:To what degree did the learners in her four dyadic interaction types correctly identify recasts as corrective feedback on error?Was there a relationship between what they noticed, whether they accurately identified corrective feedback,and what they acquired?And in considering the types of interaction that occurred:What were the preexisting social relationships among students in Storch's language classroom?Knowing the answer to this last question would be helpful,for example,in understanding332Language Learning Vol.53,No.2 why in Storch's study some partners were dominant in dyadic interaction and others were passive.Was this just a matter of personality,or was there a social dynamic traceable to the class-room as a whole that resulted in some learners acting passively in pair work and others acting in a dominant manner?The current article will address many of these questions.It focuses on the way in which the social dynamics of the language classroom and learners'perceptions of their classmates'atti-tudes toward them may,for some individuals,significantly alter the accuracy with which the cognitive processes of atten-tion,or noticing,are deployed in cooperative learning activities in which feedback occurs.We will also determine whether these dynamics have an impact on the acquisition of items on which feedback was provided.The overall question motivating the present article is:Do social dynamics in the Spanish foreign language classroom affect learners'ability to accurately perceive recasts in conversational interactions with their nonnative speaker(NNS)peers,thereby affecting the role that recasts may play in the development of the forms that were corrected?We may break this question down into two parts,the first relating to the existence of negative social dynamics in pair work,and the second,to whether those dynamics affect SLA:1.Does interpersonal conflict and negative social inter-action take place in pair work in the class?2.Do these negative social dynamics interfere with theSLA of pair work participants?MethodClassroom ContextData for this article are drawn from a larger study(Morris, 2002a)that was designed to study the degree to which learnersMorris and Tarone333 provide one another with negative feedback in pair work in intact,ongoing Spanish language classrooms.Data were col-lected in an accelerated beginning Spanish foreign language course at a large Midwestern university.The course(average size:23students)is intended for students who have studied2or more years of Spanish in high school and provides a quick review of beginning Spanish.It focuses on the development of commu-nicative skills:listening,speaking,reading,and writing.Stu-dents are given the option of enrolling in Web-enhanced sections of Spanish that meet3days per week or in``nontechnol-ogy''(traditional)enhanced sections that meet5days per week. The section in which this study was conducted was Web enhanced.During the course of the semester the class met Mon-days,Wednesdays,and Fridays for50min each day.The instruc-tional approach used at the university at which data were collected is communicative in nature,and the text used is ¿SabõÂas QueÂ?(VanPatten,Lee,&Ballman,2000).The text intro-duces new language structures via``processing instruction''(Van Patten,1995).All input activities in the text,as well as all the workbook activities,are delivered to students via the Web.In classroom instruction,following the textbook guidelines,once students are exposed to new language structures via processing instruction,textbook activities and class activities engage learn-ers in interactive tasks in which meaningful(``real-world'') information is exchanged.Grammar is covered in the homework assignments and reinforced in class with a variety of paired and small-group activities.After successful completion of the course, learners are ready to enroll in2nd-year Spanish. ParticipantsThe present article focuses on10participants(Morris, 2002)who were beginning foreign language learners of Spanish registered for the same Spanish class.A survey/questionnaire was used to gather personal information,including gender,age, years of studying Spanish,and motivation toward learning334Language Learning Vol.53,No.2 Spanish.The participants(mean age of19)self-reported that their native language was English,and all participants reported having studied Spanish in high school before entering college; the mean number of years of Spanish study was2.65.Table1 provides additional information regarding each of the10partici-pants and also illustrates how learners arranged themselves in pairs.On the day the data were collected,in the2nd week of class,all the students in the class were told to pair up and to find their own partners.All10learners who participated in the original study were part of a larger class with an enrollment of23students,all of whom completed the same instruments used for data collection procedures (all tests and the jigsaw task),as the teacher treated them as part of each day's lesson plan.H owever,the researchers collected data only from the10students who volunteered for the study.8Data Collection ProceduresNeither researcher was the instructor for the course.The first author conducted all data collection procedures.Most treat-ments and procedures were completed at the beginning of the semester(first4weeks)during class time,while the learners engaged in regular classroom activities.(The only exception occurred during stimulated recall.)In the sixth class period, the2nd week,a pretest was administered that participants had to complete in10min.Immediately following the pretest, participants were asked to form pairs and participate in a com-municative task.Neither the teacher nor the researcher assigned the learners to the pairs in which they worked;learners formed their own pairs.At this point,the students did not know one another well.The task they were given for the pair work was an information gap activity,a jigsaw task,which learners had to complete in20min.The jigsaw used was a set of pictures numbered1through15that represent La rutina de Esteban (`Steven's Routine').The task was designed to promote attention to meaning and to create obligatory contexts for the targetTable1 ParticipantsPair Name Gender Age Major Years studyingSpanish Reason for studyingSpanishSelf-reportedmotivation1Sarah F19Undecided2Language requirement Slightly motivated Maggie F18Child Psychology3Interest in Spanishculture and speakersHighly motivated2Kelly F18International Business3Career/professional purposes Highly motivated Susan F18Undecided2Not sure Slightly motivated 3Mary F20Psychology2Likes learning languages Slightly motivated Stacy F18Biology4Interest in Spanishculture and speakersHighly motivated4Paula F19English 2.5Language requirement Not motivated Mike M19Journalism2Language requirement Not motivated5John M19Political Science3Language requirement Not motivatedPete M22International Business3Interest in Spanish cultureand speakers Highly motivatedMorrisandTarone335336Language Learning Vol.53,No.2 structure(third-person singular form of present tense indicative verbs).There were a total of15obligatory contexts,one for each picture,in which learners had to produce the third-person singu-lar form of present tense verbs.9A picture,for example,would have a representation of a man running on a treadmill.Students would have to identify what the picture represented.Thus,they would produce the third-person singular verb corre(runs),as in EÂl corre en la treadmill(`He runs on the treadmill')or EÂl corre en el gimnasio todas las tardes(`He runs at the gym every day').Participants received a set of numbered pictures that repre-sented Steven's routine,and each dyad member received half the pictures.The partners sat facing each other in two desks fitted together with a12-inch screen between them so that they could not see each other's pictures and were asked to work together using the pictures available to produce a written record of Steven's routine.The instructions read as follows:Based on the pictures you and your partner have,try togenerate Steven's routine.Then,on a blank piece ofpaper write,with as much detail,a short essay thatrepresents``Steven's routine.''You have20minutes toproduce one collaborative essay.Note:It is importantthat you share your ideas with your peer and alloweach partner to contribute as much as possible.Youshould not look at each other's pictures.The collaborative work was tape-recorded using an audio recorder placed on the students'desk,and the dialogue on the jigsaw task was transcribed and coded(by the first author and an additional rater)during the week after the jigsaw task was completed.After they completed the jigsaw task,participants were immediately given a posttest that had to be completed in 10min.Thus,the pretest,jigsaw task,and posttest were all completed on the6th day the class was in session.On the13th class period,in the3rd week,participants completed a delayed posttest,and like the pre-and posttest,it had to be completed in10min.Between the posttest and the delayed posttest,weMorris and Tarone337 must assume that the participants had additional input and instruction that may have included the target items,so that improvement between the posttest and the delayed posttest could never be attributed to feedback provided in the recorded interactions.Delayed posttests were given simply to determine whether improvement on posttests,when it occurred,was maintained.The tests and jigsaw task employed in the current study were of the type used by the classroom teacher as typical daily pop quizzes that would be administered throughout the semester and also for group tasks planned for students to engage in interactional sequences with their peers.The time restrictions established for the study's tests(10min)and the jigsaw(20min) were consistent with the teacher's lesson plan and curriculum design,which employs small pop quizzes to be completed in 10min and communicative group activities that need to be completed within20min.One week after the delayed posttest,each participant met individually with the first author in his office for a stimulated recall session.Stimulated recall is a type of introspective method in which learners are asked to articulate their thoughts after a task has been completed.10During the session,the learners had the opportunity to hear the tape recording and read the transcript of their recorded interactions with their partners. For each occasion in which learners had produced an error of the target structure and had been provided with a piece of corrective feedback by their partner,they were asked to recon-struct retrospectively their thoughts at the time they received the feedback.The learners'comments were tape-recorded and later transcribed.Stimulated recall was aimed at eliciting the learners'perceptions about feedback,that is,their perceptions at the time they were taking part in the interaction.The first researcher did not conduct stimulated recall sessions until after the posttests,because stimulated recall could have raised learners'awareness of feedback and therefore influenced their posttest scores.338Language Learning Vol.53,No.2Target StructureThe target structure being considered in this article is the Spanish third-person singular form of present tense indicative verbs.The form was identified by the language program and teachers in the department as one that was typically targeted by the curriculum and acquired by most students during the course.The third-person singular form of present tense(indica-tive)verbs is used for actions,states,processes,and events produced by someone or something,for example,``He runs,'' ``He speaks,''``The woman works,''``The dog eats.''In Spanish, there are three sets of verb endings or conjugations,one for each of the three verb types-ar,-er,and-ir:Infinitive ending-ar Hablar(`to speak')eÂl/ella habla(`he/she speaks') Infinitive ending-er Comer(`to eat')eÂl/ella come(`he/she eats') Infinitive ending-ir Escribir(`to write')eÂl/ella escribe(`he/she writes') Not all verbs follow these regular conjugations;exceptions include irregular verbs(for example:ir,`to go,'has the third-person form eÂl/ella va,`he/she goes')and stem-changing verbs (for example:dormir,`to sleep,'has the third-person form eÂl/ella duerme,`he/she sleeps').Stem-changing verbs change the stem vowel of the infinitive form of the verb according to the following rules:e®ie,o®ue,e®i.On occasion,some verbs must be used with a reflexive pronoun;these are called reflexive verbs.To make a verb reflexive,English often uses a pronoun with-self or-selves.The reflexive for the third-person singular in Spanish is formed by the addition of se:for example,Ella se mira(`She looks at herself');such verbs can be identified by the addition of -se to the infinitive forms.Three of the15target verbs in this study were reflexive verbs(levantarse/vestirse/acostarse),three were stem-changing verbs(dormir/vestirse/acostarse)and one was irregular(ir).Because the third-person singular present tense forms required in this exercise include forms arising from irregular,stem-changing,and reflexive verbs,they may present a challenge for learners of Spanish who are English speakers,asMorris and Tarone339 these learners move from a system of morphology in English to a system of syntax in Spanish.The15obligatory contexts for the target structure that appear in the jigsaw and all three tests are as follows:1.Levantarse El/Ella se levanta`He/She wakes up/gets up'2.Escuchar El/Ella escucha`He/She listens'3.Leer El/Ella lee`He/She reads'4.Dormir El/Ella duerme`He/She sleeps'5.Hablar El/Ella habla`He/She talks/speaks'6.Limpiar El/Ella limpia`He/She cleans'7.Correr El/Ella corre`He/She runs'8.Manejar El/Ella maneja`He/She drives'9.Escribir El/Ella escribe`He/She writes'10.Mirar El/Ella mira`He/She watches'11.Vestirse El/Ella se viste`He/She dresses himself/herself'12.Ir El/Ella va`He/She goes'er El/Ella come`He/She eats'var El/Ella lava`He/She washes'15.Acostarse El/Ella se acuesta`He/She goes to bed/goes to sleep' Pre-,Post-,and Delayed PosttestsThe pre-,post-and delayed posttests were based on a semi-spontaneous oral production task that consisted of15pictures. Participants were given written directions in English informing them that the goal of the task was to identify and verbalize what the character in the picture does.The instructions read as follows:You have available a total of15pictures.The goal is toidentify,using Spanish,what the character in the picturedoes,for example,He runs in the afternoon,She listens tomusic.Your answers will be tape-recorded.Again,makesure you use Spanish when speaking to the recorder.For each picture the participants were required to produce a single but different verb using the target structure,third-person singular form of present tense indicative verbs.The same15obliga-tory contexts appeared in all three tests.To avoid possible order and redundancy effects,the pre-,post-and delayed posttest each。