- Email: [email protected]
Der korrektur auf der spur—Untersuchungen zum mündlichen korrekturverhalten von fremdsprachenlehrern
REVIEWS
399
will first of all want to know what to do with a program in the classroom, how to integrate a computer activity into the series of tasks and activities which form a lesson, and perhaps even how to use CALL as an integral element in the curriculum. The book would have been stronger if the chapters on the hardware and using configurations (Chapters 2, 3 and 5) had been presented in three or four checklists in an appendix. Then the main part of the book could have addressed teachers’ main concern about CALL: how to use it in the classroom. REFERENCE HARDISTY,
D. and WINDEATT,
S. (1989) CALL.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Judith Janssen University of Amsterdam Institute of Applied Linguistics Spuistraat 134 1012 VB Amsterdam The Netherlands
Q&m, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 399403, 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd. Printed in Great Britain
KLEPPIN, KARIN and KGNIGS, FRANK G., Der Korrektur auf der SpurUntersuchungen zum miindlichen Korrekturverhalten von Fremdsprachenlehrern. Bochum: Dr. N. Brockmeyer, 1991, 317pp., DM 39.80. (Manuskripte zur Sprachlehrforschung 34.) This book is, to my knowledge, so far the fullest empirical study in the field of LZclassroom research concerning oral corrections in foreign language teaching. It is an excellent supplement to some previous publications written in German (cf. Rehbein, 1984; Henrici and Herlemann, 1986). English-speaking researchers should take note of this book. It makes the research topic “corrections” one of the best explored topics in the field of instructed second language acquisition research. The study was carried out in the context of a thirdlanguage acquisition project (“Bochumer Tertiarsprachenprojekt”). The project is of interest both for those who carry out research on second language teaching and learning under theoretical and practical aspects, and for those who teach languages within an institutional context. Since I belong to the first group I was mainly interested in aspects of research methodology while reading the book. Before I turn to these aspects, however, I will first give a survey of the structure and contents. The book is clearly structured and the metaphor employed in the title is continued in the headings of the individual chapters, which is an amusing idea and in addition makes a vivid reconstruction of the research process possible, e.g.: 1. ‘Picking up the truck’. The starting position (a brief description of the present research situation);
400
REVIEWS
2. What are we actually looking for? (definitions correction,
contextualization
of error and correction
of foreign language teaching, error, within foreign language teaching);
2.3.3. ‘Getting onto the trail’. The concept
of correction in the context of this study, (concepts which are used as research instruments in the course of the analysis are defined and illustrated on the basis of examples taken from the corpus, for example, correction, correction sequences, participants of the teaching process, phase, cause of correction, initiator of corrections, initiation time, initiation type, affective characteristics of the initiator, addressee of the initiation, reacting person, types of reactions, corrector, . . . retarded reaction, . . . mother tongue and foreign language in correction sequences, number of errors per correction sequence, levels of the correction process, teaching style, reasons for the structure of the correction process, effects on learner behaviour, effects on retention capacity-altogether 3 1 research parameters); 3. ‘The systematicpursuit of the trail’. Reflections on research methodology (data gathering and research methodology: teacher interviews, observation of the teaching process, introspective data, student questionnaires, retrospective teacher interviews, triangulation);
4. ‘The trail branches out’. Correction
analyses (analysis of 16 lessons: eight Italian, eight Spanish: two lessons per teacher are presented together with the results of the retrospective interviews and the student questionnaires);
5. ‘Corning to the end of the trail-final teachers’
theories/subjective
theory,
5.6. ‘At the end of the trail’. Possible
step’. The results (e.g. correction
students’
behaviour,
wishes and expectations);
recommendations.
A bibliography completes this typographically free of typographical errors.
carefully
produced
book,
which is almost
I will now turn to the individual aspects involving my interest in research methodology, which was intensively stimulated during the reading of this book. In many cases I can only ask questions and point out problems without being able to offer solutions. I share the authors’ general judgement that only empirical studies and their results can lead to genuine progress in the conceptualization of foreign language teaching and learning. Research in foreign language acquisition in its empirical procedures has to be orientated towards those problems which are of importance in the practice of foreign language teaching. As far as possible, research in foreign language acquisition should include the practitioners (teachers and students) in the research process. This book tries to do so (cf. teacher interviews, student questionnaires). The authors regard themselves as advocates of an exploratory-interpretative design (p. 117), one of the increasingly applied paradigms in the research of instructed second language acquisition, In this study, central characteristics of this paradigm are employed: for example, the starting-point is natural or quasi-natural data; there is investigation of single cases or groups of cases, internally valid results and the formulation of revisable assumptions
REVIEWS
(hypothesis-generating). I would continuation of the study. Should which are formulated be tested way to external validity? What “effects”?
have further within might
401
appreciated information about the intended case studies be added, should the assumptions a quantitative paradigm, so to speak on the be the best way for empirical research on
The way chosen or implied by the authors (cf. Sections 2.3.3.30 and 2.3.3.31) represent a satisfactory solution. The connection between this problem and questions and research methodology is unmistakable: the authors do not deal fundamental relation between interaction and cognition and their impact on foreign acquisition.
does not research with the language
The authors have chosen a design which they consider to be appropriate for their subject: what struck me first was the fact that Kleppin and Konigs employ the term “research method” in an idiosyncratic way. The third chapter “considerations on research methodology” (also the section on “research methods”) deals with questions concerning the data (data collection and types of data) and not-as I would have expected-questions of the analysis and interpretation of data. These questions are preliminarily dealt with in Section 2.3.3 and, on a concrete basis, in Chapter 4. I appreciate the authors’ attempt to differentiate and extend the research instrument of discourse analysis, as employed by Rehbein (1984), Henrici and Herlemann (1986) and others (e.g. “affective dimension”, “retarded reaction”, “number of errors per correction sequence”, “teaching style”), in order to find an adequate description of specific language learning situations. The equation of the terms “discourse analysis” and “conversational analysis” (pp. 67-68) is wrong and may be unintentional. The following questions, which are all closely connected with the focus of interest in a narrower sense (= specific aims of the investigation), came to my mind. If my interest is mainly focused on describing correction activities in the LZclassroom-which I think is a legitimate restriction-is it sensible then to work with a multitude of descriptive parameters or would it be better to limit oneself to a few which allow an understanding of central structures (patterns)? The danger is-and this also becomes apparent in the research carried out by Kleppin and Konigs-that the distinction between the vast number of single parameters (3 1 ! !) and their relations (dependencies) are partly lost or hard to reconstruct; the result is lack of clarity and redundancy. Also, the mixture of different categories (interactional ones with content ones) causes problems. In addition to that, I find it necessary to consider carefully whether one wants to break with the tradition of well-defined categories, which proved to be efficient in their empirical application (e.g. other-corrections or self-corrections; other-initiation or selfinitiation; expansions; side sequences), in order to arrive at new definitions, thus starting a debate on terminology which we could easily do without. Breaking with tradition in the above-mentioned way would also mean violating one of the principles of research on instructed second language acquisition: an inter-disciplinary approach with recourse to relevant results from related disciplines. I find it hardly acceptable that the authors want to justify their research approach by pointing out the specific character of the investigated object. There are efficient descriptive methods and corresponding terminologies for the investigation of communicative procedures-corrective acts belong to this area-which can, of course, be extended.
402
REVIEWS
Another important question for me is how the descriptive categories are arrived at. It seems to me that the authors employ a mixed procedure: partly the categories are gained from the material itself; mostly, however, the authors return to categories already introduced and define them anew (i.e. deduced categories are applied to the material). I consider such an approach appropriate if the investigation deals mainly with the description of interactive procedures as is the case here. Furthermore, 1 consider it possible to quantify parts of the data within a qualitative approach. Another question concerns the perspective of the analyst. The authors employ an external perspective which, for the most part, corresponds to the focus of interest and the object. For the description and explanation of the processes of understanding-the “study of effects”-a description and explanation from an internal perspective is of importance if one wants to follow a qualitative paradigm. The question of appropriate explanations is plainly answered by the authors: the explanations are related to the results of the preceding descriptions of interactive processes. Even so it sometimes seems as if the authors also wanted to explain aspects of cognitive development (acquisition; cf., for example, “effects on the capacity for retention”). For future research a vital question seems to be to what extent interactive procedures employed as descriptive and explanatory methods are also useful for the reconstruction of cognitive processes and how far these methods reach. The authors employ different sets of data in order to describe and explain their object. The primary data which are recorded on video are transcribed in a “most simple way”. I consider this kind of transcription insufficient because important phenomena like verbal vs non-verbal can only be covered inadequately and others like loud voice vs low voice, friendly vs unfriendly, humorous vs ironical vs stern, simultaneous and interrupted speech are either inadequately covered or not at all. The analyses based on these simple transcriptions can thus only partly be reconstructed and accepted. The primary data are described according to the above mentioned parameters (cf. Chapter 4). Together with the secondary data (Chapter 3) they are then analysed and explained according to a uniform pattern, which clearly enhances the readability of these passages. Like the authors, I too am inclined to think that the context of the object should be recorded as comprehensively as possible, i.e. the people “investigated” should be included in the analysis of the object as extensively as possible. Unlike the authors, I am of the opinion that, in spite of the difficulties which the authors mention, comments by selected learners concerning selected problems should be presented. They are at least as important as the teachers’ comments. It seems conceivable and should be carefully considered whether longitudinal studies could supply explanations which are more reliable and easier to reconstruct than the explanations presented by the application of very shaky secondary data. This question cannot, however, be considered in detail here. The authors’ critical comments are stimulating and helpful, in particular for people who are not yet so familiar with the problems of data and their functions for specific research targets. The analyses lead to results which on the one hand corroborate the results of earlier studies and, on the other hand, differentiate and extend these results (cf. Chapter 5), e.g. the heterogeneity of correction procedures in different situations concerning different teaching objects, the dominance of corrections initiated by the teacher, the subordinate role of the fellow students in the process of correction.
403
REVIEWS
It seems that the results of case studies, even if they are of different origin, can be confirmed and extended sensibly, thus crossing the border of internal validity. The results are presented carefully and unobtrusively, thus meeting the claims of the paradigm cmn,oyed. The recommendations are also formulated in an appropriately unobtrusive way, e.g. variation of corrections and their flexible applications according to situation and learner group (e.g. children vs adults), the importance of non-verbal behaviour, the normality of errors, the natural course of corrections. Not only these recommendations but also the analyses and the results themselves are useful for the practitioners of foreign language teaching. Open-minded teachers can use these results in order to reflect on the language learning processes which they initiate, thus possibly changing these processes. If only some do this, studies like the one conducted by Kleppin and Konigs are justified. (Translated
by Frank
Kostrzewa.)
REFERENCES HENRICI, G. and HERLEMANN, Goethe-Institut. REHBEIN, Universitets
B. (1986) Miindliche Korrekturen im Fremdsprachenunterricht.
Miinchen:
J. (1984) Reparative Handlungsmuster und ihre Verwendung im Fremdsprachnunterricht. Roskilde: Center.
Gert Henrici Universitat Bielefeld Fakultat fur Linguistik und Literaturwissenschaft Postfach 100131 D-4800 Bielefeld Bundesrepublik Deutschland
399
will first of all want to know what to do with a program in the classroom, how to integrate a computer activity into the series of tasks and activities which form a lesson, and perhaps even how to use CALL as an integral element in the curriculum. The book would have been stronger if the chapters on the hardware and using configurations (Chapters 2, 3 and 5) had been presented in three or four checklists in an appendix. Then the main part of the book could have addressed teachers’ main concern about CALL: how to use it in the classroom. REFERENCE HARDISTY,
D. and WINDEATT,
S. (1989) CALL.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Judith Janssen University of Amsterdam Institute of Applied Linguistics Spuistraat 134 1012 VB Amsterdam The Netherlands
Q&m, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 399403, 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd. Printed in Great Britain
KLEPPIN, KARIN and KGNIGS, FRANK G., Der Korrektur auf der SpurUntersuchungen zum miindlichen Korrekturverhalten von Fremdsprachenlehrern. Bochum: Dr. N. Brockmeyer, 1991, 317pp., DM 39.80. (Manuskripte zur Sprachlehrforschung 34.) This book is, to my knowledge, so far the fullest empirical study in the field of LZclassroom research concerning oral corrections in foreign language teaching. It is an excellent supplement to some previous publications written in German (cf. Rehbein, 1984; Henrici and Herlemann, 1986). English-speaking researchers should take note of this book. It makes the research topic “corrections” one of the best explored topics in the field of instructed second language acquisition research. The study was carried out in the context of a thirdlanguage acquisition project (“Bochumer Tertiarsprachenprojekt”). The project is of interest both for those who carry out research on second language teaching and learning under theoretical and practical aspects, and for those who teach languages within an institutional context. Since I belong to the first group I was mainly interested in aspects of research methodology while reading the book. Before I turn to these aspects, however, I will first give a survey of the structure and contents. The book is clearly structured and the metaphor employed in the title is continued in the headings of the individual chapters, which is an amusing idea and in addition makes a vivid reconstruction of the research process possible, e.g.: 1. ‘Picking up the truck’. The starting position (a brief description of the present research situation);
400
REVIEWS
2. What are we actually looking for? (definitions correction,
contextualization
of error and correction
of foreign language teaching, error, within foreign language teaching);
2.3.3. ‘Getting onto the trail’. The concept
of correction in the context of this study, (concepts which are used as research instruments in the course of the analysis are defined and illustrated on the basis of examples taken from the corpus, for example, correction, correction sequences, participants of the teaching process, phase, cause of correction, initiator of corrections, initiation time, initiation type, affective characteristics of the initiator, addressee of the initiation, reacting person, types of reactions, corrector, . . . retarded reaction, . . . mother tongue and foreign language in correction sequences, number of errors per correction sequence, levels of the correction process, teaching style, reasons for the structure of the correction process, effects on learner behaviour, effects on retention capacity-altogether 3 1 research parameters); 3. ‘The systematicpursuit of the trail’. Reflections on research methodology (data gathering and research methodology: teacher interviews, observation of the teaching process, introspective data, student questionnaires, retrospective teacher interviews, triangulation);
4. ‘The trail branches out’. Correction
analyses (analysis of 16 lessons: eight Italian, eight Spanish: two lessons per teacher are presented together with the results of the retrospective interviews and the student questionnaires);
5. ‘Corning to the end of the trail-final teachers’
theories/subjective
theory,
5.6. ‘At the end of the trail’. Possible
step’. The results (e.g. correction
students’
behaviour,
wishes and expectations);
recommendations.
A bibliography completes this typographically free of typographical errors.
carefully
produced
book,
which is almost
I will now turn to the individual aspects involving my interest in research methodology, which was intensively stimulated during the reading of this book. In many cases I can only ask questions and point out problems without being able to offer solutions. I share the authors’ general judgement that only empirical studies and their results can lead to genuine progress in the conceptualization of foreign language teaching and learning. Research in foreign language acquisition in its empirical procedures has to be orientated towards those problems which are of importance in the practice of foreign language teaching. As far as possible, research in foreign language acquisition should include the practitioners (teachers and students) in the research process. This book tries to do so (cf. teacher interviews, student questionnaires). The authors regard themselves as advocates of an exploratory-interpretative design (p. 117), one of the increasingly applied paradigms in the research of instructed second language acquisition, In this study, central characteristics of this paradigm are employed: for example, the starting-point is natural or quasi-natural data; there is investigation of single cases or groups of cases, internally valid results and the formulation of revisable assumptions
REVIEWS
(hypothesis-generating). I would continuation of the study. Should which are formulated be tested way to external validity? What “effects”?
have further within might
401
appreciated information about the intended case studies be added, should the assumptions a quantitative paradigm, so to speak on the be the best way for empirical research on
The way chosen or implied by the authors (cf. Sections 2.3.3.30 and 2.3.3.31) represent a satisfactory solution. The connection between this problem and questions and research methodology is unmistakable: the authors do not deal fundamental relation between interaction and cognition and their impact on foreign acquisition.
does not research with the language
The authors have chosen a design which they consider to be appropriate for their subject: what struck me first was the fact that Kleppin and Konigs employ the term “research method” in an idiosyncratic way. The third chapter “considerations on research methodology” (also the section on “research methods”) deals with questions concerning the data (data collection and types of data) and not-as I would have expected-questions of the analysis and interpretation of data. These questions are preliminarily dealt with in Section 2.3.3 and, on a concrete basis, in Chapter 4. I appreciate the authors’ attempt to differentiate and extend the research instrument of discourse analysis, as employed by Rehbein (1984), Henrici and Herlemann (1986) and others (e.g. “affective dimension”, “retarded reaction”, “number of errors per correction sequence”, “teaching style”), in order to find an adequate description of specific language learning situations. The equation of the terms “discourse analysis” and “conversational analysis” (pp. 67-68) is wrong and may be unintentional. The following questions, which are all closely connected with the focus of interest in a narrower sense (= specific aims of the investigation), came to my mind. If my interest is mainly focused on describing correction activities in the LZclassroom-which I think is a legitimate restriction-is it sensible then to work with a multitude of descriptive parameters or would it be better to limit oneself to a few which allow an understanding of central structures (patterns)? The danger is-and this also becomes apparent in the research carried out by Kleppin and Konigs-that the distinction between the vast number of single parameters (3 1 ! !) and their relations (dependencies) are partly lost or hard to reconstruct; the result is lack of clarity and redundancy. Also, the mixture of different categories (interactional ones with content ones) causes problems. In addition to that, I find it necessary to consider carefully whether one wants to break with the tradition of well-defined categories, which proved to be efficient in their empirical application (e.g. other-corrections or self-corrections; other-initiation or selfinitiation; expansions; side sequences), in order to arrive at new definitions, thus starting a debate on terminology which we could easily do without. Breaking with tradition in the above-mentioned way would also mean violating one of the principles of research on instructed second language acquisition: an inter-disciplinary approach with recourse to relevant results from related disciplines. I find it hardly acceptable that the authors want to justify their research approach by pointing out the specific character of the investigated object. There are efficient descriptive methods and corresponding terminologies for the investigation of communicative procedures-corrective acts belong to this area-which can, of course, be extended.
402
REVIEWS
Another important question for me is how the descriptive categories are arrived at. It seems to me that the authors employ a mixed procedure: partly the categories are gained from the material itself; mostly, however, the authors return to categories already introduced and define them anew (i.e. deduced categories are applied to the material). I consider such an approach appropriate if the investigation deals mainly with the description of interactive procedures as is the case here. Furthermore, 1 consider it possible to quantify parts of the data within a qualitative approach. Another question concerns the perspective of the analyst. The authors employ an external perspective which, for the most part, corresponds to the focus of interest and the object. For the description and explanation of the processes of understanding-the “study of effects”-a description and explanation from an internal perspective is of importance if one wants to follow a qualitative paradigm. The question of appropriate explanations is plainly answered by the authors: the explanations are related to the results of the preceding descriptions of interactive processes. Even so it sometimes seems as if the authors also wanted to explain aspects of cognitive development (acquisition; cf., for example, “effects on the capacity for retention”). For future research a vital question seems to be to what extent interactive procedures employed as descriptive and explanatory methods are also useful for the reconstruction of cognitive processes and how far these methods reach. The authors employ different sets of data in order to describe and explain their object. The primary data which are recorded on video are transcribed in a “most simple way”. I consider this kind of transcription insufficient because important phenomena like verbal vs non-verbal can only be covered inadequately and others like loud voice vs low voice, friendly vs unfriendly, humorous vs ironical vs stern, simultaneous and interrupted speech are either inadequately covered or not at all. The analyses based on these simple transcriptions can thus only partly be reconstructed and accepted. The primary data are described according to the above mentioned parameters (cf. Chapter 4). Together with the secondary data (Chapter 3) they are then analysed and explained according to a uniform pattern, which clearly enhances the readability of these passages. Like the authors, I too am inclined to think that the context of the object should be recorded as comprehensively as possible, i.e. the people “investigated” should be included in the analysis of the object as extensively as possible. Unlike the authors, I am of the opinion that, in spite of the difficulties which the authors mention, comments by selected learners concerning selected problems should be presented. They are at least as important as the teachers’ comments. It seems conceivable and should be carefully considered whether longitudinal studies could supply explanations which are more reliable and easier to reconstruct than the explanations presented by the application of very shaky secondary data. This question cannot, however, be considered in detail here. The authors’ critical comments are stimulating and helpful, in particular for people who are not yet so familiar with the problems of data and their functions for specific research targets. The analyses lead to results which on the one hand corroborate the results of earlier studies and, on the other hand, differentiate and extend these results (cf. Chapter 5), e.g. the heterogeneity of correction procedures in different situations concerning different teaching objects, the dominance of corrections initiated by the teacher, the subordinate role of the fellow students in the process of correction.
403
REVIEWS
It seems that the results of case studies, even if they are of different origin, can be confirmed and extended sensibly, thus crossing the border of internal validity. The results are presented carefully and unobtrusively, thus meeting the claims of the paradigm cmn,oyed. The recommendations are also formulated in an appropriately unobtrusive way, e.g. variation of corrections and their flexible applications according to situation and learner group (e.g. children vs adults), the importance of non-verbal behaviour, the normality of errors, the natural course of corrections. Not only these recommendations but also the analyses and the results themselves are useful for the practitioners of foreign language teaching. Open-minded teachers can use these results in order to reflect on the language learning processes which they initiate, thus possibly changing these processes. If only some do this, studies like the one conducted by Kleppin and Konigs are justified. (Translated
by Frank
Kostrzewa.)
REFERENCES HENRICI, G. and HERLEMANN, Goethe-Institut. REHBEIN, Universitets
B. (1986) Miindliche Korrekturen im Fremdsprachenunterricht.
Miinchen:
J. (1984) Reparative Handlungsmuster und ihre Verwendung im Fremdsprachnunterricht. Roskilde: Center.
Gert Henrici Universitat Bielefeld Fakultat fur Linguistik und Literaturwissenschaft Postfach 100131 D-4800 Bielefeld Bundesrepublik Deutschland