Learning Korean honorifics through individual and collaborative writing tasks and written corrective feedback
-
Hyejin Cho
Abstract
To date, the majority of task-based instructed second language acquisition studies have investigated the effects of tasks on second language morphosyntactic development, and little attention has been paid to the effectiveness of dialogic tasks on the learning of pragmatics in classroom contexts (Plonsky, L. & Y. Kim. 2016. Task-based learner production: A substantive and methodological review. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36. 73–97). The present study is a partial replication study of Taguchi and Kim (2016. Collaborative dialogue in learning pragmatics: Pragmatic-related episodes as an opportunity for learning request-making. Applied Linguistics 37. 416–437) and aims to compare learning outcomes between collaborative and individual task groups while written corrective feedback is provided.
Thirty-two high beginner learners of Korean from two classes participated in this study. Each class was randomly assigned to either a collaborative or an individual group to complete e-mail writing tasks. In the collaborative group, students wrote e-mails with a partner, whereas the individual group wrote e-mails independently to introduce their professors during study abroad using four types of Korean honorifics. Both groups received indirect corrective feedback on honorifics used during task performance. Written description tests (WDT) were designed to investigate the short-term and long-term learning of Korean honorifics in line with the instructional tasks. Students’ responses on the WDT were analyzed in terms of the number of suppliance and accurate production of each target feature. Students’ responses to teacher feedback were analyzed using the following categories: resolved correctly, resolved incorrectly, and unresolved.
The results showed that there was no significant difference in the production of target features during task performance when indirect WCF was provided to both conditions. Furthermore, both groups significantly outperformed in the immediate and delayed posttest than the pretest. However, the results found no difference in learning of Korean honorifics between the two groups.
Acknowledgements
We express our deep gratitude to Seyoung Park who helped us to collect the data.
References
Alwaleedi, M. A. 2017. Examining language related episodes (LREs) of Arabic as a second language (ASL) learners during collaborative writing activities. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 7(4). 256–263.10.17507/tpls.0704.03Suche in Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & N. Storch. 2016. Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781783095056Suche in Google Scholar
Brown, L. 2010. Questions of appropriateness and authenticity in the representation of Korean honorifics in textbooks for second language learners. Language, Culture & Curriculum 23(1). 35–50.10.1080/07908310903474246Suche in Google Scholar
Brown, L. 2011. Korean honorifics and politeness in second language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.10.1075/pbns.206Suche in Google Scholar
Cho, Y., H. Lee & C. Schulz. 2009. Integrated Korean: Beginning 2. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 2009. Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19(3). 221–246.10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.xSuche in Google Scholar
Fernández Dobao, A. 2012. Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing 21. 40–58.10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002Suche in Google Scholar
Fernández Dobao, A. & A. Blum. 2013. Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups: Leaners’ attitudes and perceptions. System 41. 365–378.10.1016/j.system.2013.02.002Suche in Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. 2003. Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.10.4324/9781410607201Suche in Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. & M. Helt. 2000, March. Was Truscott right? New evidence on the effects of error correction in L2 writing classes. Paper presented at the meeting of the AAAL Conference, Vancouver, B.C.Suche in Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R., H. Liu, A. Sinha & M. Senna. 2013. Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing 22. 307–329.10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009Suche in Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. & B. Roberts. 2001. Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing 10(2). 161–184.10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-XSuche in Google Scholar
Frantzen, D. 1995. The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course. Modern Language Journal 79(3). 329–344.10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb01108.xSuche in Google Scholar
Hosseiny, M. 2014. The role of direct and indirect written corrective feedback in improving Iranian EFL students’ writing skill. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98 (Proceedings of the International Conference on Current Trends in ELT), 668–674.10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.466Suche in Google Scholar
Kang, E. & Z. Han. 2015. The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal 99(1). 1–18.10.1111/modl.12189Suche in Google Scholar
Kim, J. 2016. Descriptive study of honorific use in Korean Email discourse. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics 6(1). 99–111.10.17509/ijal.v6i1.2742Suche in Google Scholar
Kim, M., H. Lee & Y. Kim. 2018. Learning of Korean honorifics through collaborative tasks: comparing heritage and foreign language learners. In N. Taguchi & Y. Kim (eds.), Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics, 28–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.10.02kimSuche in Google Scholar
Kim, Y. 2008. The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal 92. 114–130.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00690.xSuche in Google Scholar
Kim, Y., B. Choi, S. Kang, H. Yun & B. Kim. 2016, September. The effects of written corrective feedback during collaborative writing: Learning outcomes and students’ perceptions. Paper presented at the meeting of the Second Language Research Forum. Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.Suche in Google Scholar
Kim, Y., Y. Jung & N. Tracy-Ventura. 2017. Implementation of a localized task-based course in an EFL context: A study of students’ evolving perceptions. TESOL Quarterly 51(3). 632–660.10.1002/tesq.381Suche in Google Scholar
Kim, Y. & N. Taguchi. 2015. Promoting task-based pragmatics instruction in EFL classroom contexts: The role of task complexity. Modern Language Journal 99. 656–677.10.1111/modl.12273Suche in Google Scholar
Kim, Y. & N. Taguchi. 2016. Learner-learner interaction during collaborative pragmatic tasks: The role of cognitive and pragmatic task demands. Foreign Language Annals 49. 42–57.10.1111/flan.12180Suche in Google Scholar
Lalande, J. F. 1982. Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal 66. 140–149.10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb06973.xSuche in Google Scholar
Lee, I. & S. R. Ramsey. 2000. The Korean language. Albany: State University of New York Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Suche in Google Scholar
McDonough, K., J. De Vleeschauwer & W. Crawford. 2018. Comparing the quality of collaborative writing, collaborative prewriting, and individual texts in a Thai EFL context. System 74. 109–120.10.1016/j.system.2018.02.010Suche in Google Scholar
Nematzadeh, F. & H. Siahpoosh. 2017. The effect of teacher direct and indirect feedback on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ written performance. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Learning 3(5). 110–116.Suche in Google Scholar
Ortega, L. 2007. Meaningful L2 practice in foreign language classrooms: A cognitive-interactionist SLA perspective. In R. DeKeyser (ed.), Practicing in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology, 180–207. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511667275.011Suche in Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. & Y. Kim. 2016. Task-based learner production: A substantive and methodological review. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36. 73–97.10.1017/S0267190516000015Suche in Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. & F. L. Oswald. 2014. How big is "big"? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning 64(4). 878–912.10.1111/lang.12079Suche in Google Scholar
Poorebrahim, F. 2017. Indirect written corrective feedback, revision, and learning. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics 6(2). 184–192.10.17509/ijal.v6i2.4843Suche in Google Scholar
Robinson, P. 2001. Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics 22. 27–57.10.1093/applin/22.1.27Suche in Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11(2). 129–158.10.1093/applin/11.2.129Suche in Google Scholar
Seiffedin, A. H. & S. F. El-Sakka. 2017. The impact of direct-indirect corrective e-feedback on EFL students’ writing accuracy. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 7(3). 166–175.10.17507/tpls.0703.02Suche in Google Scholar
Shintani, N. & R. Ellis. 2013. The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing 22. 286–306.10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011Suche in Google Scholar
Skehan, P. 1998. Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 18. 268–286.10.1017/S0267190500003585Suche in Google Scholar
Song, J. J. 2005. The Korean language: Structure, use and context. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203390825Suche in Google Scholar
Storch, N. 2001. How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research 5(1). 29–53.10.1177/136216880100500103Suche in Google Scholar
Storch, N. 2005. Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing 14(3). 153–173.10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002Suche in Google Scholar
Storch, N. 2007. Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research 11(2). 143–159.10.1177/1362168807074600Suche in Google Scholar
Storch, N. 2011. Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31. 275–288.10.1017/S0267190511000079Suche in Google Scholar
Storch, N. 2013. Collaborative writing in L2 classroom. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781847699954Suche in Google Scholar
Storch, N. 2018. Written corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: A research agenda. Language Teaching 51(2). 262–277.10.1017/S0261444818000034Suche in Google Scholar
Swain, M. 2000. The output hypothesis and beyond. In J. P. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning, 97–114. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Swain, M. & S. Lapkin. 1998. Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal 82. 320–337.10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.xSuche in Google Scholar
Swain, M. & Y. Watanabe. 2013. Language: collaborative dialogue as a source of second language learning. In C. A. Chapelle (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics, 3218–3225. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0664Suche in Google Scholar
Sweller, J. 1988. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science 12. 257–285.10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4Suche in Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. 2009. Pragmatic competence. New York, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110218558Suche in Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. 2015. Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. State-of-the-art article. Language Teaching 48. 1–50.10.1017/S0261444814000263Suche in Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. & Y. Kim. 2016. Collaborative dialogue in learning pragmatics: Pragmatic-related episodes as an opportunity for learning request-making. Applied Linguistics 37. 416–437.10.1093/applin/amu039Suche in Google Scholar
Trosborg, A. 2010. Pragmatics across languages and cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110214444Suche in Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Wigglesworth, G. & N. Storch. 2009. Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing 26. 445–466.10.1177/0265532209104670Suche in Google Scholar
Willis, D. & J. Willis. 2007. Doing Task-based Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Appendix A: Sample treatment task
Scenario: You are studying in Korea as an exchange student and staying with a host family. You want to write an email to introduce your host mother to your Korean teacher. In your e-mail you must include all of the following information about your host mother.
Appendix B: Sample test item
For each person, personal information and their daily habits are given. Based on the information given, describe each person. You must include all the information.
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Point of View
- On reelecting monolingualism: Fortification, fragility, and stamina
- Research Articles
- Learning Korean honorifics through individual and collaborative writing tasks and written corrective feedback
- Young L2 learners’ online processing of information in a graded reader during reading-only and reading-while-listening conditions: A study of eye-movements
- Exploring identities of novice mainland Chinese teachers in Hong Kong: Insights from teaching creative writing at primary schools across borders
- Attitudinal bias, individual differences, and second language speakers’ interactional performance
- Effects of self-regulated learning strategy use on motivation in EFL writing: A comparison between high and low achievers in Hong Kong primary schools
- Bilinguals and knowledge of language: a commentary to “Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory”
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Point of View
- On reelecting monolingualism: Fortification, fragility, and stamina
- Research Articles
- Learning Korean honorifics through individual and collaborative writing tasks and written corrective feedback
- Young L2 learners’ online processing of information in a graded reader during reading-only and reading-while-listening conditions: A study of eye-movements
- Exploring identities of novice mainland Chinese teachers in Hong Kong: Insights from teaching creative writing at primary schools across borders
- Attitudinal bias, individual differences, and second language speakers’ interactional performance
- Effects of self-regulated learning strategy use on motivation in EFL writing: A comparison between high and low achievers in Hong Kong primary schools
- Bilinguals and knowledge of language: a commentary to “Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory”
