Incidental focus on form in teacher–learner and learner–learner interactions

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

SYSTEM System 35 (2007) 431–447 www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Incidental focus on form in teacher–learner and learner–learner interactions Susan Yuqin Zhao a, John Bitchener a

b,*

Harbin Institute of Technology, No. 92, West Dazhi Street, Nangang District, Harbin 15001, PR China b AUT University, School of Languages, Private Bag, Auckland 92006, New Zealand Received 13 November 2006; received in revised form 5 March 2007; accepted 12 April 2007

Abstract Current attention in L2 acquisition research focuses on the integration of message-focused and form-focused instruction. One way to accomplish this is through the incidental focus on form during meaning-focused activities. Some studies have investigated incidental focus on form in different contexts and shown that it exists in L2 classes and facilitates L2 acquisition. This study investigated the effects of interactional patterns (teacher–learner and learner–learner) on several features of incidental focus on form (types of focus on form; types of feedback; linguistic forms focused on and types of immediate uptake). The data from over 10 h of task-based interaction revealed a significant difference in the types of form-focused episode (FFE) that occurred between the two interactional patterns. In terms of the type of feedback provided, no difference was found between the teacher and learner interactional patterns but a difference in uptake responses between the two interactional patterns was revealed. The study notes that, in both teacher–learner and learner–learner interactions, incidental FFEs occur frequently, and that the high frequency of immediate uptake facilitates opportunities for L2 learning. Because learners were able to work as an effective knowledge source for each other, spoken interactions should be encouraged between learners in the L2 classroom. Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Focus on form; Incidental focus on form; Form-focused instruction; Second language acquisition; Second language learning; Task-based instruction

*

Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Bitchener).

0346-251X/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.system.2007.04.004

432

S.Y. Zhao, J. Bitchener / System 35 (2007) 431–447

1. Introduction Since the early 1990s, considerable attention in SLA research has been given to formfocused instruction. It is claimed that form-focused instruction involves attempts to intervene directly in the process of interlanguage construction by drawing learner’s attention to or providing opportunities for them to practise specific linguistic features (Ellis, 2001; Ellis et al., 2001a). Two kinds of form-focused instruction can be distinguished – focus on form S and focus on form. The former involves the pre-selection of specific features based on a linguistic syllabus and the intensive and systematic treatment of those features. Thus, in focus on form S instruction the primary focus of attention is on the form that is being targeted. By contrast, in focus on form instruction, the primary focus of attention is on meaning. The attention to form arises out of meaning-centered activity derived from the performance of a communicative task (Ellis et al., 2002, p. 420). Two types of focus on form instruction can be further distinguished: planned focus on form and incidental focus on form. The former involves the use of focused tasks, that is, communicative tasks that have been designed to elicit the use of specific linguistic form in the context of meaningcentered language use. Incidental focus on form involves the use of unfocused tasks, that is, communicative tasks designed to elicit general samples of the language rather than specific forms (Ellis, 2001; Ellis et al., 2002). Studies by Doughty (1999, 2001), Ellis (2000), Ellis et al. (2001a), Long and Robinson (1998), Lyster (1994, 1998), Pica (1996, 1997) and Williams (1999, 2001) have shown that instruction in linguistic form is, to some extent, successful, especially if the approach adopted involves activities that facilitate a focus on form during communicative activity. Most studies of focus on form have investigated the value of pre-planned focus on form. Only a few descriptive studies have investigated incidental focus on form (Basturkmen et al., 2002; Ellis et al., 1999; Loewen, 2002, 2003; Lyster, 1998; Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Williams, 1999, 2001). Studies investigating the occurence of incidental focus on form in teacher-initiated FFEs and learner-initiated FFEs have found that incidental focus on form exists in L2 classes and that it does facilitate immediate uptake. However, little attention has been given to an examination of whether there is a differential effect for certain interactional patterns on incidental focus on form. The present study investigated the effect of this variable on the quantity (frequency of occurrence) and quality (types of focus on form; types of feedback; linguistic forms focused on and types of immediate uptake) of incidental focus on form. 2. Background Theoretically, focus on form is compatible with a psycholinguistic, information-processing view of L2 acquisition. It is claimed that learners possess limited processing capabilities and therefore may have difficulty attending simultaneously to both form and meaning (VanPatten, 1990). However, it is also claimed that a focus on form may provide learners with the opportunity to take ‘time-out’ from focusing on message construction so that they can pay attention to specific forms and meanings they realize (Ellis et al., 1999). It may facilitate the noticing of linguistic items, a process that Schmidt (1990, 1994) argues is necessary for second language acquisition. Additionally, focus on form during meaningfocused activities may provide learners with opportunities to incorporate targeted linguistic forms into their own verbal output as they seek to convey their message fluently,

S.Y. Zhao, J. Bitchener / System 35 (2007) 431–447

433

accurately and appropriately. In the classroom context, when teachers respond to learner errors with corrective feedback, they potentially create conditions for them to attempt to produce the correct forms themselves. This ‘pushed output’, as Swain (1985, 1995) argues, stretches the ability of learners to produce accurate language as they are pushed to process language syntactically as well as semantically. Empirically, only a limited number of descriptive studies have investigated incidental focus on form. Ellis et al. (1999) investigated the ways in which a focus on form occurred in two ESL classrooms during lessons that were primarily communicative in nature and found that both reactive (50%) and pre-emptive (50%) focus on form occurred frequently in adult ESL classes in New Zealand and that uptake levels were also relatively high (75%). Williams (1999, 2001) investigated whether unplanned, incidental focus on form exists in the classroom and during what types of activities it is most likely to occur. Unlike Ellis et al. (1999) who investigated communicative activities between the teacher and the whole class, Williams examined learner–learner interactions. She found that learners did generate focus on form episodes, though not very often (7.77 episodes per 10,000 words). A recent study by Loewen (2003) in New Zealand language school classes also found that incidental focus on form exists in ESL classes and, by testing learners’ immediate uptake of incidental focused forms with tailor-made tests, found that students were able to score correctly or partially correctly on about 60% of the items during an immediate post-test and 50% on a delayed post-test. Loewen suggests that success in recalling the targeted forms is an important step in the second language learning process. Each of these studies examined the occurrence of FFE in either teacher-led activities or in learner–learner activities but we do not know whether there are any important differences in the extent to which T–L and L–L interactions provide opportunities for incidental focus on form. The following section backgrounds why the two interactional patterns should be investigated within a single study. 3. Teacher–learner and learner–learner interaction In language classroom settings, two general categories of interaction may be identified. The first is plenary interaction between teacher and learners and the second is interaction among or between learners themselves in small groups or dyads (also referred to as pair work or peer work). Recent research on focus on form has explored ways in which the teacher can attempt to manipulate learners’ attention to form (Doughty and Varela, 1998; Harley, 1998; Long et al., 1998). It is assumed (Williams, 1999) that the degree of attention given to form in form-focused instruction is controlled by the teacher in response to learner needs. It is more often the teacher than other learners who realizes that learners are making systematic errors on a given form and who responds accordingly, either in the form of explicit or implicit feedback. Sometimes the teacher might anticipate that learners are grasping for a form or word that they do not know and provide it at an appropriate juncture. However, some studies have identified disadvantages with this pattern of interaction, especially in the context of a CLT (communicative language teaching) approach (Harmer, 2001; Pica and Doughty, 1985; Pica, 1987; Porter, 1986). Pica (1987), for example, suggests that teacher-centred classroom discourse is not favoured for interactions between teachers and learners that seek to promote mutual comprehension. Firstly, the teacher may not be able to take sufficient time with individual students so that opportunities for negotiating

434

S.Y. Zhao, J. Bitchener / System 35 (2007) 431–447

mutual comprehension are taken advantage of. Secondly, opportunities to modify and restructure interaction towards mutual comprehension seldom arise in language classrooms because a necessary precondition for interactional modification is often lacking in the design and organization of classroom activities. Learners often have to do the same thing at the same time and at the same pace. Additionally, individual learners may not get the opportunity to say anything on their own. Some may not like to participate in front of the whole class for fear of losing face. Therefore, this type of interaction may not encourage students to take responsibility for their own learning. The learner–learner interactional pattern is an attractive alternative to the ‘teacher-led lockstep’ mode since it can facilitate more and better quality negotiated interaction (Long and Porter, 1985). Harmer (2001) proposed that pair work increases the amount of speaking time available to any one student in class. It allows learners to work and interact independently without the necessary guidance of the teacher, thus promoting learner independence. It allows teachers time to work with one or more pairs while other students continue working. It recognizes the old maxim that ‘two heads are better than one’, and this cooperation helps the classroom become a more relaxed and friendly place. From the teacher’s point of view, it is relatively quick and easy to organize. Long et al. (1976) found that learner discussions in pairs promoted a greater quantity of speech and a greater variety of speech acts and social uses of language than teacher-led discussions. Later, Long and Porter (1985) found that learner dyads provide more opportunities for engagement in negotiation work than NS-NNS dyads. Doughty and Pica (1986) found that in the classroom pair rather than group work on two-way tasks might ultimately be more conductive to negotiated modification of interaction, and hence to second language acquisition. Pica et al. (1996) investigated whether learner–learner interaction could address their need for L2 input modified toward comprehensibility, for feedback that focused on form, and for modification of output in the same way as in interactions between learners and native speakers. They found that, although learners provided only a limited source of modified input and modified output, they are able to provide opportunities for feedback in simplified form. Such utterances may serve as a source of useful L2 input. Mayo et al. (2000) examined the same questions and concerns. They found that learner–learner dyads used interactional strategies of scaffolding, completion and self-correction, which further related to their input, feedback and output needs. In a study investigating pre-emptive focus on form, Ellis et al. (2001b) found that the majority of pre-emptive FFEs were initiated by students rather than by the teacher and that students were more likely to uptake a form if the FFE was student-initiated. In sum, for language learners in classroom settings, interactional language activities occur either between the teacher and other learners or between learners themselves. It is important to investigate the nature of the two types of interaction in terms of the opportunities they can provide for comprehensible input, modified output and feedback of various kinds. For this reason, the following research questions were investigated in this study: (1) Is there a differential effect for interactional patterns (teacher–learner versus learner– learner) on FFE types? (2) Is there a differential effect for interactional patterns (teacher–learner versus learner– learner) on feedback types?

S.Y. Zhao, J. Bitchener / System 35 (2007) 431–447

435

(3) Is there a differential effect for interactional patterns (teacher–learner versus learner– learner) on linguistic focus of FFEs? (4) Is there a differential effect for interactional patterns (teacher–learner versus learner– learner) on uptake types of FFEs?

4. Methodology 4.1. Setting The study was conducted in the English language centre of a large University in Auckland, New Zealand. The 16 participants (8 females and 8 males), from two intact classes, were adult migrants who had come to improve their level of English in the four skill areas of reading, writing, speaking and listening. In one class, a variety of ethnic backgrounds were represented: Chinese (8), Korean (1), Russian (1), Iranian (3), Egyptian (1) and Sri Lankan (2). Their age range was 20–48 years, with the average being 32 years. In the second class, there were 19 students, 5 males and 14 females. Their ethnic backgrounds included Chinese (11), Korean (5), Russian (1) and Cambodian (1). Their age range was 20–40 years, with the average being 30 years. Audio-recordings were made while the participants performed the selected communication tasks in each of the interactional patterns. 4.2. Instruments Ten information exchange communication tasks were selected because (1) they are meaning-focused, with no specially targeted grammatical forms/structures; (2) they can be conducted either between the teacher with the whole class or between learners in pairs; and (3) they are two-way tasks. They were also chosen because they are pedagogical (Nunan, 1993), communication-driven (Skehan, 1998), unfocused (Ellis, 2000) and twoway (Long, 1981). As Long (1989) argues, two-way tasks produce more negotiation than one-way tasks. Pica et al. (1993) claim that two-way tasks are more effective in terms of their potential to generate comprehension of input, feedback on production, and interlanguage modification. Because interactants hold a different portion of the information needed to complete each task, each participant must interact with one another so that the information is exchanged and the convergent goals of the task are reached. 4.3. Data collection Data from the learner–learner interactions and the teacher–learner interactions were recorded in each of the classes. For the learner–learner interactions, the participants were randomly paired. They were given 20 min to perform each task. For the teacher–learner interactions, the teacher led a plenary teacher – whole class discussion of the tasks with the whole class. While such interactions can involve the teacher and small groups and individual learners, particularly if the teacher circulates amongst the students, this was not the case in this study.The recorded data was transcribed and all the FFEs were identified and coded for analysis. An inter-rater reliability check on FFE identification and coding for 20% of the data resulted in a 96% rate of agreement.

436

S.Y. Zhao, J. Bitchener / System 35 (2007) 431–447

4.4. The framework for identifying FFEs The four features examined in the study were: FFE types, feedback types, linguistic focus and uptake types. The framework for identifying these features was based on the descriptive system of Ellis et al. (1999) and Ellis et al. (2001a). Tables 1–4 present the FFE features that were examined in this study. With each example, the bold references (1–4) refer to the type of FFE illustrated (1), the type of feedback given (2), the linguistic focus of the FFE (3), and the type of response to the feedback (4). ‘T’ refers to the teacher, ‘L’ to learner, ‘A’ to learner A, and ‘B’ to learner B. Table 1 defines and illustrates the two types of FFE: Reactive and Pre-emptive. Preemptive FFEs were further divided into teacher-initiated and learner-initiated FFEs. Table 2 defines and illustrates the eight types of feedback that may occur in the FFEs. Table 3 defines and illustrates three grammatical categories identified in the FFEs. Table 4 defines and illustrates the eight types of uptake identified in the FFEs. 4.5. Statistical analysis The coded FFEs were computed using the SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) 10.0. Chi-square tests were used to search for possible associations or group differences. An alpha level of p < 0.05 was set for each of these tests. The strength of association or the real difference between the dependent and independent variables was indicated by Cramer’s V (a correlation coefficient that indicates the relationship among two categorical variables), ranging from 0 to 1, with 0–0.3 = a weak association; 0.3–0.5 = a moderate

Table 1 FFE types Definition

Examples

Reactive

A reactive FFE ‘‘arises when learners produce an utterance containing an actual or perceived error, which is then addressed usually by the teacher but sometimes by another learner. Thus, it supplies learners with negative evidence’’ (Ellis et al., 2001a, p. 413)

T-initiated preemptive L-initiated preemptive

A preemptive FFE ‘‘involves the teacher or learner initiating attention to form even though no actual problem in production has arisen’’ (Ellis et al., 2001a: 414)

Example 1 B: Number four? A: Tea brush (should be toothbrush), that one B: Tea-brush? Toothbrush! A: Yeah. Because you need it every day B: Yes. I think so. I need it too. I think same as you 1 = reactive, 2 = recast, 3 = pronunciation, 4 = acknowledgement Example 2 L: Also shoes T: Why? L: Go away What is the name for the flower, that is white, you put it before the tomb T: It is Christianise L: Christianise T: That is not good 1 = preemptive, 2 = inform, 3 = vocabulary, 4 = successful

S.Y. Zhao, J. Bitchener / System 35 (2007) 431–447

437

Table 2 Feedback types

1. Inform

2. Recast

3. Repetition

Definition

Examples

An ‘inform’ involves the provision of explicit information about the problematic linguistic form that is perceived as the problem. It can be by means of definition, an example, an explanation or by signalling the problem, given by one participant or the teacher A ‘recast’ reformulates all or part of the Trigger by correcting the linguistic error. It can be a statement modelling the correct form or a confirmation request by correctly reformulating all or part of the error ‘Repetition’ is when a learner repeats the Trigger or part of the Trigger, including the part containing the linguistic error

See Example 2

4. No feedback

It occurs in learner-initiated preemptive FFEs. When a student poses a question to another learner, the other learner may also be unable to provide an answer

5. Clarification request

A ‘clarification request’ occurs when a participant asks the person who has produced the error to make a previous statement clearer. This often involves the use of expressions such as ‘‘pardon’’, ‘‘what do you mean?’’ or ‘‘what’’ A ‘prompt’ is an attempt to get the participant who has produced the Trigger to correct the error or answer their own query. Typically it involves the use of a clue to indicate the location and/ or nature of the error

6. Prompt

See Example 1

Example 3 B: Next one is camera (sounds like Kamerle) A: Kamerle (repeated)? B: Camera (corrected) 1 = reactive, 2 = repeat, 3 = pronunciation, 4 = successful Example 4 A: Do you have? I don’t know the name of this thing? B: No. I don’t know 1 = pre-emptive, 2 = no feedback, 3 = vocabulary, 4 = no feedback no uptake Example 5 B: Oh, I know. She wearing the glass A: She wearing the gardigon B: Pardon? A: Gardigon B: Yes 1 = reactive, 2 = request clarification, 3 = pronunciation, 4 = incorrect uptake Example 6 T: Tell me, first one. Hands please L: On the left book sheft. There is a sign on the second level T: What do you call those things? L: Bookshelf T: On the second— Ls: Shelf T: Shelf? L: Second shelf! T: Ok, there is a sign? 1 = reactive, 2 = prompt, 3 = vocabulary, 4 = successful (continued on next page)

438

S.Y. Zhao, J. Bitchener / System 35 (2007) 431–447

Table 2 (continued) Definition

Examples

7. Uptake of incorrect feedback

‘Uptake of incorrect feedback’ refers to the non-target like information, usually provided by learners in learner–learner interactions. N.B. This category has not been identified in earlier research

8. Anticipatory feedback

One possible consequence of a teacher-initiated preemptive FFE is that the question proposed about a presumed problem might not be an actual problem for students. In this case, the type of feedback was coded as ‘anticipatory feedback’ N.B. This category has not been identified in earlier research

Example 7 A: Listen the tape B: Listen with . . . the tape A: With tape, with the tape B: With, with the tape A: Kiwi friend, watching friend, listen with the tape 1 = reactive, 2 = uptake of incorrect feedback, 3 = grammar, 4 = incorrect uptake Example 8 T: Signs, for minute or hour. What do you call these? They are hands. This is the hour hand. How about this. . . Ls: Minute hand 1 = pre-emptive, 2 = anticipatory feedback, 3 = vocabulary, 4 = no need for uptake

Table 3 Linguistic focus

Grammar

Vocabulary Pronunciation

Definition

Examples

This category includes determiners, prepositions and pronouns, word order, tense, verb morphology, auxiliaries, subject–verb agreement, plurals, negation, question formation, plural-s, sentence construction, etc. This category includes the meaning of single words, idioms, phrases and sentences This category includes segmental and supra-segmental aspects of the phonological system that are not related to bound grammatical morphemes. Generally, it involves the pronunciation of individual words

See Example 7

See Example 2 See Example 1

association; 0.5 or more = a strong association (Fielding and Gilbert, 2000). Posthoc pairwise comparisons were included to identify exactly where any differences lie. 5. Results 5.1. Is there a differential effect for interactional patterns (teacher–learner and learner– learner) on FFE types? Because teacher-initiated pre-emptive FFEs did not occur in L–L interactions, differences in FFE types between T–L and L–L interactions were compared in terms of reactive and learner-initiated pre-emptive FFEs. Table 5 reveals the frequency and percentage of the two types. It can be seen that the percentage of reactive FFEs is much higher than that of L-initiated preemptive FFEs in T–L interaction and that the percentage of both types

S.Y. Zhao, J. Bitchener / System 35 (2007) 431–447

439

Table 4 Uptake types Definition

Examples

The learner who has produced the Trigger corrects the ‘error’ by reformulating all or the erroneous part of the Trigger (Ellis et al., 1999) The student simply acknowledges the feedback with a yes, mm, oh or a similar acknowledgement token, without incorporating the correct form into his own production Because uptake is optional, it is possible for learners who made the error to ignore the feedback provided but continue the conversation. The ignorance might be due to the learner’s failure in understanding the provided information, or due to his concentration on the conversation

See Example 2

1.

Successful

2.

Acknowledgement

3.

No uptake

4.

No opportunity

In this category, there is no chance for the learner who has made the error to produce uptake because the teacher or the other learner who has provided the feedback continues his or her turn by asking a question unrelated to the incorrect linguistic form or continues the discussion about the topic after they provide the feedback

5.

Incorrect uptake

6. 7.

No feedback No uptake

8.

No need for uptake

It occurs when one learner provides incorrect feedback and the other learner who makes the uptake move takes it as a correct form In learner–learner interactions, when the required learner fails to provide feedback about a linguistic item When the teacher initiates a preemptive FFE and the student provides a correct answer in the feedback move, this would end the FFE. However, this type of FFE is included as one feature of preemptive FFE in teacher–learner interactions, and the uptake was coded as ‘no need for uptake’, since it can tell to what extent the teacher is not addressing the real knowledge gap of the students

See Example 1

Example 9 A: Record, usually record B: Small recorder A: And small mirror, man need small mirror too 1 = reactive, 2 = recast, 3 = vocabulary, 4 = no uptake Example 10 L: Het (should be ‘hat’) T: Hat. How many of you have hats? Anything else? L: Blanket 1 = reactive, 2 = recast, 3 = pronunciation, 4 = no opportunity See Example 5 and 7

See Example 4

See Example 8

of FFE are quite close to each other in L–L interactions. A Chi-square analysis reveals that FFE types are not independent of interactional patterns (v2=31.17; p < .05). The association test indicates that there is a moderate association between the interactional patterns and FFE types (Cramer’s V = 0.313). Thus, there is a significant difference in reactive FFEs (0.27, 0.432) and learner-initiated pre-emptive FFEs ( 0.432, 0.27) between T–L and L–L interactions. To our knowledge, no other studies have compared the occurrence of FFEs between the two interactional patterns. However, the occurrence of FFEs in the teacher–learner interactions of this study can be compared with those of earlier studies. In Ellis et al. (1999), FFEs in teacher-fronted class were examined and it was found that 50% were reactive FFEs provided by the teachers. In Lyster and Ranta (1997), it was found that teachers

440

S.Y. Zhao, J. Bitchener / System 35 (2007) 431–447

Table 5 Reactive and learner-initiated preemptive FFEs in T–L and L–L interactions Teacher–learner n Reactive L-initiated preemptive

68 4

Total

72

Learner–learner % 94.4 5.6 100

n 146 100 246

% 59.3 40.7 100

v2 = 31.17; n = 318; df = 1; p = 0.000; Cramer’s V = 0.313; 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 23.55.

provided feedback on 62% of the student turns with errors. Lyster and Ranta explained that teachers prefer reactive FFEs because they enable them to interact with students without causing frustration and because they believe that L2 students expect such interventions (Lyster and Ranta, 1997). With respect to learner-initiated preemptive FFEs, many more were produced in L–L interactions (40.7%) than in T–L interactions (5.6%). This suggests that learners are more willing to ask questions of each other than they are of their teacher. This result was similar to that found in Ellis et al. (2001a), where the majority of pre-emptive FFEs were initiated by students rather than by the teacher (77% in class one and 71% in class two). Accounting for this preference, Ellis et al. (1999) explained that when a teacher is organizing a discussion, students are more reluctant to signal a lack of understanding in front of the whole class because it might suggest their lack of competence or lack of attention. Another reason for this reluctance could be the fact that teachers often understand what their learners are saying to them more than other native speakers might and, because they are able to pitch their L2 input at a suitable level of comprehensibility (Ellis et al., 1999). 5.2. Is there a differential effect for interactional patterns (teacher–learner and learner– learner) on feedback types? Table 6 reveals the frequency and percentage of each type of feedback. It can be seen that in T–L interaction, the most frequent feedback is recast, while in L–L interaction it is inform. The second most frequent type of feedback in T–L interaction is inform and in L–L interaction it is recast. In T–L interaction, these are followed by clarification request, prompt, anticipatory feedback and repetition and in L–L interaction, by no feedback, clarification request, repetition, uptake of incorrect feedback and prompt. A Chi-square analysis reveals that feedback types are not independent of interactional patterns (v2 = 48.846; p < .05). The association test indicates that there is a moderate association between the feedback types and interactional patterns (Cramer’s V = .381). Thus, there is a significant difference in feedback types between T–L and L–L interactions. The posthoc pairwise comparison revealed a specific difference for prompt only (0.019, 0.154). It should be noted that even though differences were observed for anticipatory feedback, no feedback and uptake of incorrect feedback, such differences were the product of no scores for either T–L or L–L interaction. This was mainly caused by the fact that three types of feedback (‘no feedback’, ‘anticipatory feedback’ and ‘uptake of incorrect feedback’) were only employed in teacher–learner interactions or learner–learner interactions. Considering these three categories in turn,

S.Y. Zhao, J. Bitchener / System 35 (2007) 431–447

441

Table 6 Feedback types in T–L and L–L interactions Teacher–learner n Recast Inform Clarification request Prompt Correct feedback Repetition No feedback Incorrect feedback

30 27 10 10 8 5

Total

90

Learner–learner % 33.3 30.0 11.1 11.1 8.9 5.6

100

n

%

69 84 26 6

28.0 34.1 10.6 2.4

20 29 12

8.1 11.8 4.9

246

100

v2 = 48.846; df = 7; n = 336; p = 0.000. Cramer’s V = 0.381; 3 cells (18.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.14.

‘no feedback’ occurred 11.8% of the time in only learner–learner interactions. This category refers to situations in which one learner pre-emptively asks another learner about a linguistic form and where the other learner fails to provide feedback of any kind or just ignores the problem and focuses on forwarding the discussion. ‘Uptake of incorrect feedback’, occurring only in L–L interactions, refers to situations in which the feedback provided by one learner is in some way incorrect. Pica and Doughty (1985) also found that learner output can be ungrammatical in both small groups and during teacher-fronted activities but that it is more likely to occur in learner–learner interactions. However, Pica (1994) later explained that the effect of incorrect feedback is not too detrimental, because incorrect feedback does not occur very often. As this study also reveals, only 4.9% of the feedback provided was incorrect. ‘Anticipatory feedback’ occurred 8.9% of the time. It refers to situations in which learners provide a target-like answer to the teacher’s pre-emptive questions. Thus, it may indicate to some extent that the teacher was not addressing a real knowledge gap. Taking ‘inform’ and ‘recast’ as ‘providing a solution’ to language problems, there was little difference (1.2%) between teacher–learner interactions (63.3%) and learner–learner interactions (62.1%). This indicates that, in both interactional patterns, learners are able to access the same opportunities for feedback on their language difficulties. Thus, both interactional patterns seem equally beneficial to learners insofar as they provide opportunities for incidentally focusing on form. It has also been pointed out by Pica et al. (1996) that, even though L2 learners provide more ‘simple’ feedback than native speakers, their utterances nevertheless contain considerable amounts of L2 morpho-syntax that can serve as useful L2 input. In T–L interactions, the most frequent type of feedback was ‘recast’ (33.3%). Compared with recasts in other studies (55% in Lyster and Ranta, 1997; 75% in Ellis et al., 1999; 51.4% in Loewen, 2002), this percentage was not particularly high. This might be due to the different contexts in which these studies were conducted. In this study, T–L interactions were a summary discussion of the learners’ activities so this may have reduced the percentage of language difficulties. On the other hand, it needs to be recognized that the percentage of ‘recasts’ provided as feedback ranked the highest among all feedback types in this study. Therefore, the extent to which ‘recasts’ were used by teachers in this study

442

S.Y. Zhao, J. Bitchener / System 35 (2007) 431–447

confirms the findings of previous studies which have reported that ‘recasts’ are the predominant response option by teachers. Whereas studies by Lyster and Ranta (1997), Ellis et al. (1999) and Loewen (2002) only examined the occurrence of teacher ‘recast’, this study found that ‘recasts’ are also used by learners at a relatively high frequency (28%) and that this was the second most frequently used type of feedback in the L–L interactions. ‘Inform’ feedback occurred 30% of the time in teacher–learner interactions and was the second most frequent type provided. In teacher–learner interactions, ‘inform’ feedback occurred 34.1% of the time and was the most frequent type of feedback provided. This result indicates that both teachers and learners used inform equally frequently, and that learners used it even more than the teachers. In terms of ‘seeking solution’ (by means of either a clarification request, repetition or a prompt), there was no significant difference between the two interactional patterns. More ‘prompts’ were used in T–L interactions (11.1%) than in L–L interactions (2.4%). ‘Prompts’ were probably employed more by the teacher than the learners because they require more knowledge by the user. ‘Repetition’ and ‘clarification requests’ were used a little more by learners in L–L interactions (31.5%) than by teachers in T–L interactions (22.1%). This could be explained by the fact that both learners during pair work were having difficulty resolving the form or structure that was being focussed on. 5.3. Is there a differential effect for interactional patterns (teacher–learner and learner– learner) on the linguistic focus of FFEs? Table 7 reveals the frequency and percentage of each of the three types of linguistic focus. In T–L interaction, the most attended to linguistic form is vocabulary, followed by grammar, then pronunciation. In L–L interaction, the hierarchy is vocabulary, followed by pronunciation, then grammar. A Chi-square analysis reveals that linguistic items are not independent of the interactional patterns (v2 = 18.907; p < 0.05). The association test indicates that there is a weak association between the linguistic items and interactional patterns (Cramer’s V = .237). Thus, there is a weak difference in linguistic focus between the T–L and L–L interactions. The posthoc pairwise comparison revealed a difference for grammar (0.088, 0.293) and pronunciation ( 0.209, 0.019). In both interactional patterns, vocabulary was the linguistic feature most attended to (53.3% in T–L interactions and 61% in L–L interactions). Comparatively, a little more Table 7 Linguistic focus in T–L and L–L interactions Teacher–learner n Grammar Vocabulary Pronunciation

27 48 15

Total

90

2

Learner–learner % 30.0 53.3 16.7 100

n 27 150 69 246

% 11.0 61.0 28.0 100

v = 18.907; df = 2; n = 336; p = 0.000; Cramer’s V = 0.237; 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 14.46.

S.Y. Zhao, J. Bitchener / System 35 (2007) 431–447

443

attention was drawn to vocabulary in L–L interactions. Ellis et al. (2001b) also found that learners were more likely to deal with vocabulary problems. A little more attention was also given to pronunciation in L–L interactions too: 28% in L–L interactions and 16.7% in T–L interactions. Thus, compared with learners, it would seem that teachers may have less difficulty in understanding the pronunciation of their students given their superior knowledge of the language and greater experience in understanding various accents (Ellis et al., 1999). Grammatical errors received more attention in T–L interactions (30%) than in L–L interactions (11%). 5.4. Is there a differential effect for interactional patterns (teacher–learner and learner– learner) on uptake types in FFEs? Table 8 reveals the frequency and percentage of each type of uptake. In both T–L and L–L interaction, the most frequent uptake is successful uptake. In T–L interaction, acknowledgement scarcely features but in L–L interaction, it is the second most frequent type. In T–L interaction, no opportunity is the second most frequent and no uptake the third. In L–L interaction, no feedback and no uptake occur in second place while no uptake features in third place. A Chi-square analysis reveals that uptake types are not independent of interactional patterns (v2 = 96.727; p < 0.05). The association test indicates that there is a strong association between the uptake types and interactional patterns (Cramer’s V = .537). Thus, there is a significant difference in uptake types between T–L and L–L interactions. The posthoc pairwise comparison revealed specific differences for acknowledgement ( 0.238, 0.13) and no opportunity (0.127, 0.301). Differences in uptake responses mainly occurred in three of the categories: ‘no opportunity for uptake’, ‘no uptake’ and ‘incorrect uptake’. ‘No opportunity for uptake’ occurred 22.2% of the time in T–L interactions, and 0.8% in L–L interactions. In T–L interactions, teachers were more likely to continue with their talk after providing feedback, leaving no opportunity for learners to show their uptake. However, ‘no opportunity’ in T–L interactions does not mean that students were not producing uptake moves at all. Sometimes students were busy taking notes instead of responding orally to the teacher. In L–L interactions, learners were less likely to not respond because of the dyadic pairing.

Table 8 Uptake types in T–L and L–L interactions Teacher–learner n Successful uptake Acknowledgment No opportunity for uptake No uptake No feedback and no uptake Incorrect uptake No need for uptake

48 1 20 13 0 0 8

Total

90

2

Learner–learner % 53.3 1.1 22.2 14.4 0 0 8.9 100

n 130 48 2 30 31 5 0 246

% 52.8 19.5 0.8 12.2 12.6 2.0 0 100

v = 96.727; df = 6; n = 336; p = 0.000; Cramer’s V = 0.537; 3 cells (21.4%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.34.

444

S.Y. Zhao, J. Bitchener / System 35 (2007) 431–447

Similar patterns of ‘no uptake’ were evident in T–L interactions (14.4%) and in L–L interactions (11.8%). It should be pointed out that the identified ‘no uptake’ moves do not mean that students did not really understand the information provided. One possible reason for ‘no uptake’ might be that learners simply did not articulate an uptake move. ‘Incorrect uptake’ occurred only 2.0% of the time in L–L interactions and this was when the information provided by one learner in the feedback was incorrect and the other student regarded it as a correct form and therefore used it as uptake. In terms of successful uptake, there was no significant difference in the two interactional patterns. In both T–L and L–L interactions, the most frequent type of uptake was ‘successful uptake’ (53.3% in T–L interactions and 52.8% in L–L interactions). This means that in both interactional patterns, learners can access equal opportunities to produce successful uptake. ‘Acknowledgements’ scarcely occurred in T–L interactions (1.1%) but more frequently in L–L interactions (19.5%). The low percentage of acknowledgements in T–L interactions does not mean that there was no acknowledgement from the students. It might have been the result of difficulties in recording all students’ voices in a classroom setting. As observed in the class, when the teacher was providing feedback either orally or writing answers on the board, students tended to respond by taking notes down, instead of responding orally. Equally, ‘acknowledgements’ in L–L interactions may not necessarily have indicated a real understanding of the feedback. Thus, ‘acknowledgements’ are no guarantee that learners have understood the feedback provided (Loewen, 2002). However, ‘acknowledgments’ indicate at least that students have noticed the information provided. ‘Successful uptake’ and ‘acknowledgement’ were regarded as ‘occurrences of uptake production’. Some studies of the occurrence of uptake have only considered teacherfronted activities. Ellis et al. (2001b) investigated the association of certain characteristics of focus on form with higher levels of successful uptake. They examined T–L interactions and found that uptake was more frequent in reactive and student-initiated FFEs, whereas teacher-initiated FFEs had significantly lower levels of successful uptake. The present study found a higher occurrence of uptake in L–L interactions (72.3%) compared with that for T–L interactions (54.4%), which might suggest that this type of interaction was as beneficial as T–L interactions in providing opportunities for learners to produce uptake. 6. Results summary In terms of reactive and learner-initiated pre-emptive FFEs between teacher–learner and learner–learner interactions, a significant difference was found. There were more reactive FFEs in teacher–learner interactions than in learner–learner interaction. This implies that teachers were more active than learners in responding to learners’ errors. On the other hand, teachers were less active in initiating pre-emptive FFEs than learners. Learnerinitiated pre-emptive FFEs were more frequent in learner–learner interactions than in teacher–learner interactions. This implies that learners were more likely to ask questions of each other than of their teacher. As far as feedback types were concerned, a significant difference was found and this was mainly in ‘no feedback’, ‘uptake of incorrect feedback’ and ‘anticipatory feedback’ categories. However, no difference was found in ‘providing solutions’ and ‘seeking solutions’ categories. Teachers and learners employed a similar rate of ‘providing solution’ strategies (recast and inform), and a similar rate of ‘seeking solution’ strategies (repetition, clarification requests and prompts).

S.Y. Zhao, J. Bitchener / System 35 (2007) 431–447

445

Regarding the occurrence of linguistic focus in the two interactional patterns, no significant differences were found. Concerning uptake types in the two interactional patterns, a significant difference was found, but mainly in terms of ‘acknowledgment’, ‘no opportunity for uptake’, ‘no feedback and no uptake’ and ‘incorrect uptake’. The latter only occurred in learner–learner interactions and ‘no need for uptake’ only occurred in teacher–learner interactions. In terms of ‘successful uptake’, there was limited difference between the two interactional patterns. 7. Implications Theoretically, with regard to focus on form, SLA theorists have emphasized the importance of an integration of meaning-focused and form-focused instruction in the L2 classroom, claiming that such an approach benefits L2 learners’ fluency and accuracy (Doughty, 1999, 2001; Ellis et al., 2001a,b; Long and Robinson, 1998; Pica, 1996, 1997; Skehan, 1998; Swain, 2000; Williams, 1999, 2001). The results of this study confirm that incidental FFEs do occur in the process of meaning-focused communication, and that they are used by learners and teachers as a means of dealing with linguistic difficulties either in the interaction between learners or between the teacher and learners. Both teachers and learners are actually doing what SLA theorists claim is needed for L2 acquisition. This research goes further by adding to our understanding of how incidental FFEs occur between learners and between teachers and learners. The study shows that both teachers and learners provide similar amounts of ‘information’ on language problems during FFEs. Pedagogically, incidental FFEs during meaning-focused communication are beneficial for L2 learners. Therefore, teachers should think about how they can incorporate taskbased activities into their lessons that will provide learners with opportunities to attend to incidental FFEs. However, we are not advocating that teachers regularly focus on form if there is a risk of it inhibiting language fluency. 8. Limitations of the study and directions for further research This study only examined features of FFEs that occur in L–L and T–L interactions. It did not examine which interactional pattern benefits L2 acquisition the most. Future research might investigate whether second language acquisition is actually enhanced when learners take an active part in drawing attention to form rather than relying on the instructor to do so. Secondly, this study examined only two ESL classes and only two teachers. Thus, we acknowledge that the results of the study may not be typical of other ESL and EFL classes. We would suggest that further research consider teacher performance in generating attention to form in ESL classes. Future research might also incorporate into its design a means of explaining the relationship between teachers’ FFE practice and their beliefs (cognition) about incidental focus on form in L2 classroom instruction. 9. Conclusion This study was motivated by questions and concerns generated in earlier research (Ellis et al., 1999, 2001a, 2002; Williams, 1999, 2001) about form-focused instruction. It has made a further contribution to our understanding of form-focused instruction with its

446

S.Y. Zhao, J. Bitchener / System 35 (2007) 431–447

examination of the effects of interactional patterns on incidental FFEs in an L2 classroom setting. The study found that in both T–L and L–L interactions, incidental FFEs occurred frequently. It found that learners are as able as teachers to respond to one another’s errors with useful target language information. Moreover, learners were more active in preempting questions with one another than with their teachers so are able to initiate opportunities for accessing target language data for the immediate resolution of language difficulties as well as for their L2 learning and acquisition. The potential for effective L2 learning as a result of focus on form is evident by the high rate of ‘successful uptake’ and ‘acknowledgment’ moves. Therefore, spoken interactions should be encouraged between teachers and learners and between learners themselves. References Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., Ellis, R., 2002. Metalanguage in focus on form in the communicative classroom. Language Awareness 11 (1), 1–13. Doughty, C., 1999. The cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL 18, 1–69. Doughty, C., 2001. Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In: Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 206–257. Doughty, C., Pica, T., 1986. Information gap tasks: do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly 20 (2), 305–325. Doughty, C., Varela, E., 1998. Communicative focus on form. In: Doughty, C., Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 114–138. Ellis, R., 2000. Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research 4 (3), 193–220. Ellis, R., 2001. Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning 51 (Suppl. 1), 1–46. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., 2001a. Pre-emptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 35 (3), 407–432. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., 2001b. Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning 51, 281–318. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., 2002. Doing focus-on-form. System 30, 419–432. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Basturkmen, H., 1999. Focusing on form in classroom. Occasional Paper, No. 13. University of Auckland. Fielding, J.L., Gilbert, G.N., 2000. Understanding social statistics. Sage Publications, London. Harley, B., 1998. The role of focus-on-form tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition. In: Doughty, C., Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 156–176. Harmer, J., 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Longman, England. Loewen, S., 2002. The occurrence and effectiveness of incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. PhD thesis submitted to the University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. Loewen, S., 2003. The effectiveness of incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics 9 (1), 63–83. Long, M., 1981. Questions in foreigner talk discourse. Language Learning 31, 135–158. Long, M., 1989. Task, group, and task-group interactions. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL 8 (2), 1– 26. Long, M., Adam, L., Mclean, M., Castinos, F., 1976. Ding things with words: verbal interaction in lockstep and small group situations. In: Fanselow, J., Crymes, R. (Eds.), On TESOL ’76. TESOL, Washington, DC. Long, M., Inagaki, S., Ortega, L., 1998. The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal 82 (3), 357–371. Long, M., Porter, P.A., 1985. Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 19 (2), 207–225. Long, M., Robinson, P., 1998. Focus on form: theory, research and practice. In: Doughty, C., Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 15– 41.

S.Y. Zhao, J. Bitchener / System 35 (2007) 431–447

447

Lyster, R., 1994. The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics 15 (3), 263–287. Lyster, R., 1998. Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning 48, 183–218. Lyster, R., Ranta, L., 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19 (1), 37–66. Mayo, G., del Pilar, M., Pica, T., 2000. L2 learner interaction in a foreign language setting: are learning needs addressed? IRAL 38, 35–58. Nunan, D., 1993. Task-based syllabus design: selecting, grading and sequencing tasks. In: G. Crookes, S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks in Pedagogical Context: Integrating Theory and Practice. Clevedon, England, Multilingual Matters, pp. 55–68. Pica, T., 1987. Second language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied Linguistics 8 (1), 3–21. Pica, T., 1994. Research on negotiation: what does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, process and outcomes? Language Learning 44, 493–527. Pica, T., 1996. Do second language learners need negotiations? IRAL 34 (1), 1–21. Pica, T., 1997. Second language teaching and research relationships: a North American view. Language Teaching Research 1 (1), 48–72. Pica, T., Doughty, C., 1985. The role of group work in classroom second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7, 233–248. Pica, T., Kanagy, R., Falodun, J., 1993. Choosing and using communication tasks for second language research and instruction. In: Crookes, G., Gass, G. (Eds.), Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice. Clevedon, England, Multilingual Matters, 9–34. Pica, T., Porter, F., Paninos, D., Linnell, J., 1996. Language learners interaction: how does it address the input, output and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly 30 (1), 59–84. Porter, P., 1986. How learners talk to each other: input and interaction in task-centered discussion. In: Day, R. (Ed.), Talking to Learn. Newbury House, Rowley, MA, pp. 200–222. Schmidt, R., 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11, 17–46. Schmidt, R., 1994. Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review 11, 11–26. Skehan, P., 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Swain, M., 1985. Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In: Gass, S., Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition. Newbury, Rowley, MA, pp. 235–253. Swain, M., 1995. Three functions of output in second language learning. In: Cook, G., Seidlhofer, B. (Eds.), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 125–144. Swain, M., 2000. The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In: Lantolf, J. (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 97–114. VanPatten, B., 1990. Attending to content and form in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12, 287–301. Williams, J., 1999. Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning 49 (4), 583–625. Williams, J., 2001. The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System 29, 325–340.