Oskoz, Ana (2009) Learners’ Feedback in Online Chats: What Does It Reveal about Students’ Learning?, CALICO Journal, 27(1): 48-68.
Oskoz (2009) investigates learner’s feedback (or assistance) in L2 synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC)—or ‘chat’—environments as a potential driver for language development. Do patterns of peer assistance occur in SCMC, as they are known to occur in face-to-face interaction? What is their nature? And what is their impact on L2 learning?
In line with a now well-established school within CMC studies, Ozkoz works from a socio-cultural theory (SCT) perspective which sees learning as a socially-mediated activity, a process of psychological internalization of experienced interactions on the social plane. It therefore attributes paramount importance to the social process of interaction and assistance by which a learner progresses from what she can achieve individually to what is attainable through the help—or ‘mediation’—of an expert or more capable peer or tool. According to Vygotskyan theory this social process has a cognitive correlate in the learners’ mind and is referred to as his zone of proximal development (ZPD). In this view learning occurs over an individual’s lifetime (ontologically) yet also as interaction develops within the ZPD (microgenetically), and can thus be measured as ‘microgenetic growth’—“the cognitive development that occurs moment-by-moment in social interaction within a single task.”(p.??)
Oskoz intends to revisit the understanding of the ZDP beyond the evident notion that assistance is necessary for learning, calling instead for attention to the nature of “effective” assistance. She grounds her inquiry into the nature of SCMC learner feedback and its impact on language development on L2 learning research which confirms 1) the observability of microgenetic growth; 2) that learners do provide each other assistance even though often on their own ‘learning agendas’ (thus distancing themselves from work on teacher-prescribed structures or functions); 3) that learning is in fact enhanced by learner-learner interaction, and made particularly effective when help is “contingent, gradual and systematic” (pp.??); 4) and that feedback in SCMC is both implicit and explicit in nature, and makes occasional use of the L1 as a “psychological mediating tool”.
Ozkoz analyzes the transcripts of four sessions of task-driven SCMC interactions within two college-level Intermediate Spanish I classes in search for instances of assistance and microgenetic growth, measured in terms of uptake of the provided assistance. The evidence for the following three aspects is categorized along an explicit-implicit continuum: 1) the form of help provided by the expert learner of the moment; 2) the type of error noticing and request for help; and 3) the degree of acceptance and integration of the feedback by the novice learner of the moment. As to the form of help provided, analysis shows that expert learners do provide assistance voluntarily and in varied ways. Over 70% of the times learners do notice errors and very often ask for help, mostly explicitly, 25% of the instances of assistance also reveal intervention by the expert learner when it has not been required. Finally, as to integration, the analysis reveals that in 80% of feedback instances novice learners see and understand the error; of those who see understand and accept it, 60% do not use it and about 40% do.
. In more general terms, findings are thus seen to reveal that due to learners lack of pedagogical and linguistic expertise assistance is significant, explicit and implicit in nature, but random with students following their own agendas for learning and displaying patterns of collaboration which are stable over time but unpredictable. Nonetheless, microgenetic growth happens when the novice is ready for it and is likely supported by a beneficial use of the L1. Pedagogically, these findings are seen as recommending flexibility as to the directions of development as well as a cautious monitoring of the extent to which what is being learnt corresponds to instructions goals. In terms of further research, the study’s results on the “own learning agenda” phenomenon invite us to investigate how more or less form-based styles of instruction correlate with different contents of learner-learner feedback. The results which provide evidence for microgenetic growth, on the other hand, request further inquiry on the long-term impact and integration of feedback into the learner’s L2.
This thorough analysis of SCMC interactive dynamics, made from a descriptive rather than a prescriptive perspective, clearly addresses the pedagogical implications of its findings. In that sense, it seems like a great reminder of the unpredictability entailed in fostering learner autonomy as well as of the complex nature of the role of learner agency in the teaching/learning process and what this in turn means for the role of instructors. In my view it points to the imperative of trusting learners’ intuitions and engagement with the learning process while perfecting instructors’ ways of observing and remaining vigilant about the various courses learning might take. It is also a reminder of the importance of instructors’ ability to think on their feet—based on flexibility and preparedness—in order to maximize the impact of our interventions.
On a less bright side, even though Ozkoz makes a point of looking into the CMC environment to expand our knowledge on general L2 classroom interaction, it does not address the possible effects or value of the medium itself on the results obtained. SCMC is treated as any other means of communication. Given the fact that evident uptake only occurs in 35% to 40% of instances of feedback—a fact which Ozkoz tends to background when discussing results---, addressing the potential enabling or restricting power of the medium might be an interesting route to take. Finally, Ozkoz’s interesting initial argument on education scholars misunderstanding of the relevance of the ZDP is not pursued in light of her data analysis and findings, beyond the assertion that learners cannot be as professional as their teacher in their provision of feedback. A more in-depth discussion of what it means to provide “contingent and gradual” assistance means might have been helpful.
No comments:
Post a Comment