The article “Tandem Language Learning Through a Cross- Cultural Keypal Project” by Kaori Kabata (University of Alberta) and Yasuyo Edasawa (Doshish Women’s College) examined how student language learning learning happens in a meaning- focused communication project. The study focused on the Canadian students learning Japanese and interest was particularly strong on how the students responded to different types of input from their keypals. Data was gathered from student logs in which they reported what they learned and how. Messages were also examined and crosschecked with each log entry.
The article touched on previous studies that had been done as well as defined the term incidental learning which according to the authors is “… a form of learning that takes place when their attention is ‘focused on meaning rather than foreign language’ ” (Hulstijin, 2003, pg. 349 qt. in Kabata & Edasawa, pg. 105). A second term that the authors defined is intentional learning which is learning that “involves a deliberate attempt to commit new information to memory… [through] rehearsal and/or mnemonic techniques” (Hulstijin, 2003, pg. 360 qt. in Kabata & Edasawa, pg. 105). The article cautions the reader that these two notions should be differentiated from implicit and explicit learning. Implicit and explicit learning according to the authors refer to “the absence or presence of conscious control or awareness (emphasis authors’), whereas incidental vs. intentional learning is more concerned with the methodology or the form of learning” (Kabata and Edasawa, 105).
According the authors, much of the earlier literature on incidental learning focuses mainly in the area of vocabulary acquisition (i.e. Huckin & Coady, 1999) and rarely in other areas of language learning. The authors cited only two articles that investigated incidental learning in grammar: Loewan (2005) and Lee (2008). The Loewan article focused on how students received corrections from teachers while engaging in meaning- focused activities. The Lee article examined CMC interaction with native and non- native speakers of Spanish. However, the authors of this study investigated language learning via bilingual exchanges like the study done with UA and DWC- something they said very if few of the previous studies they discussed did.
The aim of the study was to address the following: “(a) what kinds of linguistic items are learned through the keypal project?; (b) do students recognize and learn from keypals’ corrective input differently when they are presented explicitly as opposed to when they are presented implicitly without overt instruction?; and (c) what kind of incidental learning, if any, is observed?” ( Kabata & Edasawa, pg. 107). The project itself is carried out each fall for 8 weeks, October through November which is according to the authors, is the longest they can go because of different academic calendars. The form is tandem learning and the UA students have has three years of Japanese and the DWC students have had three or four years of English. Students were told to post questions in the L2 language and to answer their partners’ question in their native language. The students are divided into groups of four or five, two or three UA students and two or three DWC students. Groups work together on a range of topics from differences in communication between men and women to how silence is perceived in a discussion as well as more common areas such as student life to women’s role in family and society. Students are paired according to their interests and at the end, UA students are expected to do a presentation and DWC students are expected to write a research paper. The study is worth a significant part of student grades in both institutions.
The total number of participants from UA was 40 and from the DWC, 35. The UA students submitted their logs four times during the project. Each entry in the student logs was divided between linguistic terms and learning style. The linguistic terms were subdivided as vocabulary (V), Kanji (K), grammar (G) and expression of sentences and phrases (E). Learning styles were subdivided into LS- I (learned through explicit error corrections by keypal), LS- II (noticed own error without keypal’s explicit correction), LS- III (learned through Q&A with keypal) and LS- IV (other) (students were asked to specify ‘how’ they learned).
370 entries were collected from UA students and 62 from DWC students. Some interesting trends in the distribution were that with Kanji, there were 59 entries in the grammar section under LS- I and 0 under LS- III and for vocabulary there 21 entries under LS- I and 158 under LS- IV. The LS- IV had a grand total of 210 entries under it while LS- I had 117, LS- II and III had 19 and 24, respectively. The 117 entries in LS- I were the keypals’ explicit corrections.
Conclusions from the project were that students frequently learned vocabulary from their keypals’ postings but often did not notice grammatical items unless they were explicitly corrected. The keypal project provided many opportunities for incidental learning through a variety of ways including explicit and implicit error communications to exposure to authentic texts. The study also found that students learned better with explicit corrections than with implicit corrections. Students reported that they learned more vocabulary and grammar than spelling and reading.
The article was laid out in an easy to read format. The definitions of the terms used were very helpful in following the article. I also liked how the study is repeated every year. This allows for researchers to study a range of students with different levels of proficiency (third year really does not mean anything. Any experienced foreign language instructor will tell you that students at this level all have varying degrees of capability in their chosen language). This study could also be used to determine how strong the language programs are at UA and DWC. At the UA end, the fact that students learned more vocabulary and grammar might suggest that first and second year students should receive more training in those two areas. But this is just speculation on my part. Overall, the article was well written and unique because of its exploration of student L2 learning in meaning- focused communication through bilingual exchanges.
Russkiy's Blog 