1 / 12

TANDEM LANGUAGE LEARNING THROUGH A CROSS-CULTURAL KEYPAL PROJECT

TANDEM LANGUAGE LEARNING THROUGH A CROSS-CULTURAL KEYPAL PROJECT. Kaoro Kabata , Univeristy of Alberta, Canada Yasuyo Edasawa , Doshisa Woman’s College, Japan. Why “Keypal Project” ?. Penpal ? Regular Project between two universities Opportunities for cultural and language learning

deo
Download Presentation

TANDEM LANGUAGE LEARNING THROUGH A CROSS-CULTURAL KEYPAL PROJECT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TANDEM LANGUAGE LEARNING THROUGH A CROSS-CULTURAL KEYPAL PROJECT Kaoro Kabata, Univeristy of Alberta, Canada Yasuyo Edasawa, Doshisa Woman’s College, Japan

  2. Why “Keypal Project”? • Penpal ? • Regular Project between two universities • Opportunities for cultural and language learning • Ideal opportunity for incidental learning • Message exchanges on adiscussion board

  3. Types of research • Semi-classroom based research • Quantitative research

  4. Data Collection • Canadian students (UA) were required to report learning notes 4 times about WHAT they learned and HOW. see • Their reports will be graded in their learning course. • Japanese students (DWC) were just asked but not required to report what they learned, noticed and corrected their partners. • 370 entries were collected from UA students and 67 entries from DWCs

  5. Data founded Reported by UA students Reported by DWC students back

  6. Results • As reported by UA students • Linguistic items learned are • Vocabulary(55%) • Grammar (22%) • Expression (17%) • Kanji (6%) • Preferred learning styles are • Others (57%) • With explicit error correction (31%) • Learn through Q&A (6%) • Without explicit error correction (5%)

  7. Results • Notice: DWC students were not assigned to report all of what they found so the data would not match with from UA students. • Explicit error correction is provided 29 times with 18 times of recognition (the recognition information is correspond with 13 entries reported by UAs) • Implicit error correction is provided 13 times with 0 times of recognition • Other errors were found 20 times but no correction provided

  8. Data analysis • UA data indicated that non-explicit correction may not lead to learning as often as explicit correction. • DWC data showed that UA students often failed to recognize their errors without explicit correction. • However, UA data also yielded that implicit correction and correction through negotiation could lead to better understanding of their errors when they noticed. see

  9. Comments • Wrong information

  10. Limitations • Limited information • Weak argument • Possible problematic variable • Data Collection see

More Related