Forskarskolan i moderna språkens didaktik IKT – undervisning och lärande i språk Introduktion till projekt 2 2013-02-07 Jonas Granfeldt & Victoria Johansson

Schema Torsdag (B054) 9.15-16 Fredag (B054) 9.15-15 Introduktion till projekt 2 (Jonas+Victoria) 9.15-10.30 Introduktion till skärminspelning och kodning 10.45-12.00 LUNCH (Fakultetsklubben) 12-13 Introduktion till stimulated recall och ljudinsp 13-15 Uppsamling – frågor 15-16 Gemensam middag? (Tina) Fredag (B054) 9.15-15 Uppsamling - frågor projekt 2 9.15-10 Showcase-dagen börjar 10-15

Projektuppgifter (I) Projekt 1 Dokumentera och utvärdera IKT-resurser Syfte Projekt 1 syftar dels till att förstå och utveckla redskap för att kunna utvärdera och kritiskt granska IKT-resurser, dels till att undersöka ramvillkoren för användning av IKT på den egna arbetsplatsen. Expertstudie

Introduktion till projekt 2 Introducera Definiera Motivera Prova Reflektera Exemplifiera Beskriva

Projektuppgifter (II) Effekterna av feedback Syfte Syftet med projektet är att empiriskt undersöka hur elever använder stavnings- och grammatikkontroll i samband med skrivande på det främmande språket. Stavnings- och grammatikkontroll är exempel på sk skrivstöd. Användarstudie

Researching Student Use of Feedback and Help Levy & Stockwell (2006: 152-153) One important and developing strand of research in CALL concerns the investigation of patterns of learner behavior as learner engage with online tasks and tutoring programs. The focus is on what students actually do. […] This may involve recording the resources that students use (when, in what way, and for how long). Increasingly, researchers are relating this data to the students’ language proficiency with the goal of providing resources and guidance that meet the needs of the students at particular levels.

Varför ett projekt om feedback? Teoretiskt motiverad Språkinlärningsteori: Interaktionshypotesen Socio-kulturell teori (IT – som verktyg) Praktiskt motiverad Integrerad resurs Många användare Empiriskt motiverad Lite forskning

The interactionist approach to SLA The monitor model (Krashen) Acqusition-learning Monitor Natural order Input Affective filter ”Humans acquire language in only one way, by understanding messages or by receiving ’comprehensible input’…We move from i, our current level, to i+1, the next level along the natural order, by understanding input containing i+1” (Krashen, 1985: 2)

The interactionist approach to SLA INPUT > INTAKE = Interaction and negociation [Sama berättar när hon åkte skidor som barn] Sama: et là je peux heu montrier le # backe # je ne sais pas [skratt] c’est pas une montagne, c’est heu… Intervjuare: c’est quoi? C’est plus petit qu’une montagne? Sama: oui Intervjuare: hm une colline? Une colline? Sama: une colline, oui peut-être (Bozier, 2005)

The interactionist approach to SLA INTEGRATION Into the learner’s linguistic system Sem. & synt. Semantic COMPREH. Output Intake Input Apperception Correction of errors Feedback & Noticing of errors Output

The Comprehensible Output Hypothesis “... in producing the L2, a learner will on occasion become aware of (i.e. notice) a linguistic problem brought to his/her attention either by external feedback (e.g. clarification requests or internal feedback). Noticing a problem ”pushes” the learner to modify his/her output. In doing so, the learner may sometimes be forced into a more syntactic processing mode than might occur in comprehension” (Swain & Lapkin, 1995) Comprehensible Output Hypothesis (Swain) Notice the gap Hypothesis-testing Metalinguistic function

The Noticing Hypothesis (NH) The noticing hypothesis claims that awareness at the point of learning (Time1) is required for all learning. (Schmidt, 1995, p.27) The “noticing hypothesis” states that what learners notice in input is what becomes intake for learning. (Schmidt, 1995, p. 20) Men se Truscott (1996) för en kritik

Men hjälper det att rätta? ”This finding provides support for the effectiveness of CF (corrective feedback) in general for L2 grammar learning. […] Furthermore, the findings suggest that the benefits of CF are durable.” Russel & Spada (2006) (finns på wikin) Metastudie baserad på 56 vetenskaplig artiklar Typ av feedback (implicit vs explicit)

Sociokulturell teori Lärande som social aktivitet Språk som verktyg för tänkande (Vygostsky) ”Higher forms of human mental activity are always and everywhere mediated by symbolic means” (Lantolf, 1994) Skrivande intar en central plats Verktyg (program) som medierar (Haas, 1996) IT-som verktyg (Svensson, 2008)

Praktiskt motiverad Antalet 1-1 skolor ökar (70% i vår lilla undersökning) Granskningsprogram är integrerade verktyg Lätt tillgängliga Stor flexibilitet Språkkontrollen i Microsoft© Word© är den mest använda. Professionellt utvecklad (sedan Critique 1980-tal) Bland de mest kraftfulla (Domeij, 2005)

Empiriskt motiverad Få studier överlag “Very few studies have investigated the effectiveness of spell checkers in treating misspellings made by second language learners.” (Rimrott & Heift, 2005) Få studier på andra språk än engelska “A comparison across target languages may also be an interesting study goal and worthwhile pursuing as it may provide further insights into the efficacy of corrective feedback as well as student responses to it. Moreover, an analysis across languages may also reveal insights into the orthographic challenges posed by languages with varying degrees of sound–symbol correspondence and consistency.” (Heift & Rimrott, 2008)

Empiriskt motiverad Modererande inlärarvariabler På vilken språklig färdighetsnivå fungerar språkkontroll bättre eller sämre? I vilka åldrar fungerar språkkontroll bättre eller sämre? Hur påverkar metaspråklig kompetens effekterna av feedbacken? Modererande språkvariabler Typ av alfabet (teckensystem) Stavningssystem (relationen fonem-grafem)

Vad händer nu? 10-10.30 Prova göra en skärminspelning (en ny exempeltext) Introduktion till skärminspelning och kodning 10.45-12:00 (Exempeltext) Spela upp filmen Arbeta i par med kodningsschemat. För anteckningar! Koda text och inspelning

Introduktion till stimulated recall Sammanfattning av förmiddagen 13.15 – 13.30 Stimulated recall 13.30-14.00 Ljudinspelning 14.00-15.00 Uppsamling med diskussion 15.15-16.00

Language Learners and Generic Spell Checkers in CALL Rimrott & Heift (2005)

Study design Subjects: Data collection Corpus: 374 spelling errors 34 learners of German (L1 English) First year of university (13 first course, 16 second course, 5 third course) Data collection Task: Translation task (English – German) Access to bilingual on-line dictionary Corpus: 374 spelling errors

Method: 1. Extraction of all spelling errors 2. Classification of spelling errors in the corpus (Competence vs performance errors) 3. MS Word 2003 checks spelling 4. Comparisons between human and automated correction

Research questions RQ1: How many misspellings are detected and corrected by the spell checker? RQ2: If a misspelling is detected, at what point in the correction list does the target word appear?

Definitions A misspelling is a ”non existing word in a given language independent of the source of the error” (p.21) He went to canada They came at ate She go home He Plays the piano

”Competence errors are systematic spelling mistakes that are due to language influence (L1 or L2 related) of different linguistic subsystems”. (p.18) ”Performance errors are random, unsystematic mistakes that capture the specific deviation from the target spelling”. (p.18)

Classification of Spelling Errors Competence errors ”insufficient command of the foreign language” Language influence Interlingual errors - transfer (p.21) Intralingual errors - f ex overgeneralizations (p.21) Linguistic subsystem Performance errors “misspellings that are random and accidental” Addition Omission Substitution Transposition Multiple letter violation Word boundary violation

Analysis 80% of the misspellings are due to competence errors 20% of the misspellings are due to performance errors 71% of the competence errors are caused by intralingual influence

Results (RQ1) RQ1: How many misspellings are detected and corrected by the spell checker? a) Corrected (detected and corrected) b) Uncorrected (detected but not corrected) c) Undetected (not detected) MS Word 2003 corrects 56% of the spelling errors Competence errors 52% Performance errors 69%

Results (RQ2) RQ2: If a misspelling is detected, at what point in the correction list does the target word appear? Single-error words: 52% of target words appear among the first four words in the list (37% - first word) Multiple-error words: 16% of target words appear among first four words in the list.

Learner responses to corrective feedback for spelling errors in CALL Heift & Rimrott (2008) SYSTEM

Study design Subjects: Data collection: via E-Tutor 28 native speakers of English 14 beginner and 14 intermediate students of German Data collection: via E-Tutor Corpus: 1268 misspellings

Method: Three types of feedback Gender Language proficiency Meta-linguistic with emphasis Meta-linguistic Repetition Gender Language proficiency

Results More explicit feedback leads to more revisions (but not necessarily more correct answers) Gender and language proficiency not significant The position of the target word in the list seems important – higher up leads to more corrections