article 151

Melissa L. Fiori 567

CALICO Journal, 22 (3), p-p 567-602. © 2005 CALICO Journal

The Development of Grammatical Competence through Synchronous

Computer-mediated CommunicationMELISSA L. FIORI

Juniata College

ABSTRACTThis article reviews the findings of a study which set out to examine the role that consciousness raising (CR) plays in grammatical development in synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC). Students participated in weekly SCMC sessions. Spanish L2 forms por/para and ser/estar were chosen, and the data from two groups—form-and-meaning focused (FMF) group and meaning-focused (MF) group—were analyzed. Three pre- and posttest measures were administered (elicited imitation/sentence repetition testing, grammaticality pref-erences component, and orals). Pretest scores demonstrated homogeneity at the onset of the study and pre-to-post score analysis revealed improvement for both groups, excluding grammaticality preference scores for the MF group. Posttest scores revealed significant statistical differences in the outcomes in favor of the FMF group. Analysis of the chatscripts for the FMF group revealed (a) higher levels of syntactic maturity and equal levels of lexical density, (b) greater quanti-ties and more accurate productions of the target forms, and (c) absence of using a default form of the copular verb. Analysis of the chatscripts for the MF group revealed (a) a primary focus on meaning, with instances of attention to form, and (b) adoption of ser as the default copular verb. Social behavior was an important element in the study. First, the instructor engaged in equal feedback practices for both groups. She chose not to alter her feedback practices in the chats and en-gaged uniformly in terms of correction with both groups. The FMF participants actively engaged in self- and peer-to-peer corrective strategies. In addition they stayed on task, were less likely to resort to L1 use, were cooperative, and were more likely to recognize instructor-to-student feedback. On the contrary, the MF group was likely to joke, bully, and resort to L1 use, and was less likely to col-laborate. It was concluded that CR had a greater impact on development in chat with a specific focus on form than in chat without such specific instructions and that unintentional focus on form was insufficient to facilitate growth to the same degree as deliberate focus on form.

KEYWORDSSynchronous Computer-mediated Communication, Consciousness Raising, Focus on Form, Focus on Meaning, Social Interaction

568 CALICO Journal, Vol. 22, No. 3

INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

There have been mixed results about the efficacy of synchronous computer-medi-ated communication (SCMC) as a tool for grammar acquisition. While SCMC has been established as a tool for increased participation (Beauvois, 1992; Kern, 1995; Pratt & Sullivan, 1996; Warschauer, 1996, 1997; Chun, 1998) and student-directed learning (Peterson, 1997; Abrams, 2001; Kern, 2000; Warschauer, 1997), few agree that it fosters grammatical acquisition. Most agree that formal accuracy suffers since participants tend to respond to this environment as an informal arena for information exchange in which abbreviations, casualness, and speedy com-munication have priority over grammatical accuracy (Kern, 1995, 1998; Blake, 2000; Lee, 2000; Sotillo, 2000). Two studies examined grammatical development in terms of negotiation of meaning, task type, and feedback (Blake, 2000; Pellet-tieri, 2000), one investigated modification devices (Lee, 2000); and one analyzed the acquisition of past tense morphology (Salaberry, 2000). Both Blake (2000) and Pellettieri (2000) focused on corrective feedback, nego-tiation, and task type in their studies. However, while Pellettieri correlated SCMC with the development of grammatical competence, Blake remained unconvinced. Pellettieri set out to identify instances of negotiation of meaning in task-based chat and whether negotiation of meaning facilitated mutual comprehension. She also set out to determine whether negotiation of meaning emerges in written chat as it does in verbal chat and whether target-like L2 forms resulted from the nego-tiation process. Pellettieri administered five 30-minute tasks to 20 participants and observed greater negotiation of meaning and greater attention to form in single/minimal outcome tasks, but not in multiple outcome or open conversation tasks. She also observed that students negotiated at all levels of discourse and were compelled to focus on form in order to attain mutual comprehension. Based on her observations, Pellettieri concluded that task-based SCMC cultivates negotiation of meaning and argued that the structure of SCMC environments allows for the “think time” that in all probability plays a significant role in the development of grammatical competence. Blake (2000) also investigated language modification devices in chat versus face-to-face environments and linguistically categorized the modifications in his study of L2 Spanish interlanguage development in SCMC. Additionally, he com-pared task type—jigsaw and information gap—and its relation to negotiation of meaning. Blake reported that well designed tasks, especially jigsaws, did in fact encourage students to focus on form as they noticed the gaps in their lexical inter-language. However, he also reported that most negotiations were lexical in nature, with the largest part of all negotiation arising from misunderstandings of the lexi-con. Syntactical negotiation was not only less frequent but also incidental. Lee (2002) examined modification devices as they surfaced in SCMC envi-ronments in a third-year, university-level Spanish class. She found that the most common modification devices (help requests, clarification checks, and self-cor-rection) facilitated comprehension of input and output and enhanced the negotia-tion of both meaning and form. While some students were aware of their linguis-tic performance and sought assistance, others were not interested in correcting


linguistic mistakes, preferring to ignore these errors. She also found that students used simple sentence structure due to the rapidity of the medium and, therefore, that the SCMC environment encouraged fluency rather than accuracy. As a result, she suggested that “students should be advised of the need to write correctly to maintain a balance between function, content, and fluency” (p. 7-8). A study by Salaberry (2000) showed greater evidence of morphosyntactic development for past tense verbal endings in L2 Spanish in the SCMC dialogues than in the face-to-face dialogues. Finally, Sotillo (2000) examined syntactic complexity in the discourse functions that surfaced in synchronous and asynchronous CMC in order to determine which approach offered greater prospects for the production of syntactically complex language. Two groups of undergraduate ESL students enrolled in an advanced-placement writing course participated in her study. Class work was supplemented by 90 minutes of synchronous group discussion or asynchronous communica-tion via a message board, respectively. Sotillo demonstrated that asynchronous CMC sparked greater syntactic complexity and length, that the nature of SCMC facilitated learner output in the midst of the learners’ collaborative efforts, and that asynchronous CMC tended to resemble formal written discourse. In addition, she claimed that the text-based nature of SCMC was not enough to overcome the incessant urge for fluency and rapidity and, thus, resulted in syntactic reduction and diminished accuracy. She attributed the difference to students’ attitude that bulletin board documents are more formal and entail planning and revising before submitting the final version as opposed to their attitude that SCMC documents are quick paced and conversational in nature in which form is not of great importance. Nonetheless, another observation reported by Sotillo bears mentioning because it emphasizes the need for further research on SCMC’s utility in the development of grammatical competence. While Sotillo reported that grammatical accuracy may suffer in the SCMC environment, her data revealed that the synchronous group’s interactions exhibited fewer errors than the asynchronous group’s utterances. While the benefits of SCMC in terms of the quantity and quality of learner out-put and the student centeredness of the environment have been established, what remains uncertain is the extent to which SCMC fosters grammatical development. This article outlines the findings of a study which set out to determine whether consciousness raising (CR) in SCMC assists in the development of distinctions between por/para and ser/estar in L2 learners of Spanish to a greater degree than SCMC without CR. CR, in general terms, helps students in the learning process by drawing attention to features of the L2. Rutherford and Sharwood Smith (1985) contended that CR, “the deliberate attempt to draw the learner’s attention specifi-cally to the formal properties of the target language” (p. 274), facilitates language learning. Rutherford (1987) further defined CR as increasing the salience of prin-ciple grammatical structures.

STUDY OVERVIEW

Data were gathered from level-three Spanish courses at a large state university and consisted of a series of readings on personalities, histories, and writings of the


Spanish-speaking world complemented by a textbook grammar component. For this study, all students were required to read the materials prior to class in order to be prepared to participate and lead discussions on the materials. At the end of each week, all participants addressed the same discussion topics in chat session, and the instructor participated in these sessions. Topics required students to debate, compare and contrast, argue and defend their points of view. The structure of the level-three courses followed a basic Spanish program characterized by a task-based, whole language approach in which students were minimally exposed to grammar and vocabulary. Three sections were originally chosen for the study, but only the data from two were analyzed since the researcher was unable to obtain the equipment necessary to gather the data for the third group. The sections were designated as form and meaning focused, with and without chat, versus meaning focused with chat. The form- and meaning-focused chat group was to serve as the experimental group. The form- and meaning-focused face-to-face group and the meaning-focused chat group were to function as controls for the SCMC environ-ment and the treatment of CR, or lack thereof. The data lacking for the form- and meaning-focused face-to-face group required the data to be analyzed in terms of the SCMC groups only. The study set out to determine, then,

1. whether CR assists in the emergence of the distinctions between por/para and ser/estar in SCMC,

2. whether the lack of CR for por/para, ser/estar hinders the emergence of these structures for the group that does not focus on form in SCMC, and

3. The role that CR plays in development of por/para and ser/estar in SCMC.

PARTICIPANTS AND INSTRUCTOR

The participants in the project were all between the ages of 19 and 25 and had been put into the level-three courses by university instructors or placement ex-ams. All students reported to have no known disabilities or incapacities to pre-vent their participation. There were 27 students in the form-and-meaning-focused (FMF) group and 17 students in the meaning-focused (MF) group. One instructor, a native speaker of Spanish, taught all participating sections. She had taught at the university for 4 years prior to this study and completed its summer intensive teaching preparation program in teaching methodologies. Training sessions on the chat client and the course management system were held by university technical services personnel. The instructor, a chatter herself, was very familiar with the chat environment and was enthusiastic about using a SCMC component in the course for the first time. The course materials, manuals, design, components, and expectations were reviewed by the researcher so that the instructor could address any concerns and questions about the study before it began. The researcher and the instructor were in constant contact during the study until the close of the data collection. A number of formal and informal meetings were conducted to prepare for data collection and instructor participation. Finally, the instructor had been


teaching under a basic program in which communication was highly valued and grammar was frowned upon. The instructor valued a balance between commu-nication and grammar and did in fact introduce grammar-based exercises in the classroom.

PRODECURES

Pre-and Posttest ProceduresIn order to address the main areas of inquiry, three pre- and posttests were ad-ministered in the second week of classes and in the week before the university’s final examination period. The first test involved elicited imitation, also known as sentence repetition testing (EI/SRT). EI/SRT is a process in which participants listen to a series of sentences of varying levels of difficulty and attempt to repeat the sentences verbatim within a 3-second time frame (see EI/SRT test in Appendix A). EI/SRT is considered to be a measure of language development (see Radloff, 1992; Vinther, 2002). A perfect score consisted of three points per sentence, and all three points were earned if the student repeated the sentence accurately in its entirety. Two points were awarded for one error, and one point was awarded for two errors. Errors consisted of word substitution or exclusion, additions of words or phrases, repetitions and false starts, incorrect endings, and incomprehensible utterances/garble. No more than one error classification was marked for a given utterance. For example, if the participant were to repeat the phrase “Su libro es de fama internacional” as “su, su libro es de fama internacional,” that utterance would merit a one point deduction with “su, su” being marked as either a repeti-tion or a false start but not both. In the second test, oral exam topics were assigned by the course instructor and were thematically related to the course material. Students in both groups covered the same subject matter (skits in groups of four for the first oral exam, PowerPoint presentations in groups of two for the second oral exam) and were held to the same expectations and standards. Since the format did not test spontaneous lan-guage production (i.e., students prepared their oral presentations outside of class), oral exam represents a limitation to the study. Students were evaluated on accent, grammar, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension on a 6-point range from begin-ner (1 point) to native speaker (6 points). The standards utilized in this study were borrowed from Radloff (1992, pp. 147-151). The third test consisted of a grammaticality preference component (GPC) in which students were asked to review 55 paired phrases in Spanish and choose their preference from five options: (a) phrase a, (b) phrase b, (c) neither phrase, (d) both phrases, (e) not sure (see GPC test in Appendix B). Students recorded their answers on bubble sheets. Scores were determined in accordance with how well the participants’ preferences matched those of the instructor’s for por/para and ser/estar.

Chat ProceduresEach chat session lasted approximately 50 minutes for the MF group and approxi-


mately 40 minutes for the FMF group, for a total of 350 minutes (5.83 hours) and 280 minutes (4.67 hours), respectively. Participants chatted once weekly during class time in the departmental language laboratory, which housed thirty comput-ers, over a period of 11 weeks. Eight weeks of data were analyzed because two sessions served as training sessions and one session was lost due to universi-ty-wide technical difficulties. Participants were given a manual explaining the laboratory procedures and expectations. Discussion questions were posted on an overhead projector during the chat sessions for easy reference. All students were to maintain Spanish for the entire session, to be respectful of one another, to con-centrate on the discussion questions and related themes, and to not use the hour to socialize. Students in the FMF group were requested to come to class on time and log on immediately, have prepared their prechat questions before coming to the chat session, and have reviewed por/para and ser/estar. They were encouraged to work together to develop and explore their ideas in depth and detail, to express and defend their opinions, and to focus on grammatical forms and accuracy, espe-cially with regard to por/para and ser/estar. Students in MF group were also re-quired to adhere to the same set of rules in terms of respectfulness and punctuality, but no mention of form-focused attention was made. As part of the CR treatment, the FMF group was required to prepare prechat questions. These questions, whose purpose was to expose learners to the target forms in context before beginning each session, were available to the students on Wednesday evenings so that they could prepare for Thursday’s chats. Prechat questions were made available to the students the evening before so that they would come to class prepared for discus-sion. The instructor took approximately 10 minutes to review the answers to these questions before the FMF participants started their chat sessions. In addition, the FMF students were given access to a consolidated version of the textbook’s gram-mar pages for quick reference during the semester, but not for use during the chat sessions. The instructor was directed not to correct the grammatical errors of the students in the MF group, especially local errors that did not impede com-prehension. She was also instructed to solicit more information through recasts or clarification requests in response to students’ global errors (provided that the clarification requests focused on the message’s content rather than its grammatical structure). For the FMF group, she was asked to pay particular attention to ser/estar and por/para and was given the option to engage in a number of corrective strategies: (a) restate the incorrect statement correctly (recast), (b) ask for clarifi-cation of both meaning and form, (c) ask students to elaborate on their intended message so as to encourage them and to give them an opportunity to produce the correct form, (d) solicit clarification for an unclear or incorrectly stated utterance, (e) provide explicit feedback by calling direct attention to the nontarget-like utter-ance, and (f) provide metalinguistic feedback. Analysis of the data revealed that the instructor relied on clarification requests and recasts as her primary feedback strategies; the single example of metalinguistic feedback that surfaced in the FMF group was not corrective in nature, and the three instances of explicit correction were lexical and not grammatical in nature.


RESULTS

Pre- and Posttest ResultsIn order to determine whether the participants were drawn from the same popula-tion, t tests for independent samples were run on the results of the pretest scores. The results did not indicate any significant differences between the groups on any of the three measures (EI/SRT, GPC, or oral exam) (see Table 1).

Table 1Analysis of EI/SRT, GPC, and Oral Exam Pretest ScoresPretest FMF group means MF group means t (37) pEI/SRT 23.86 15.00 2.010 .052GPC 26.45 24.65 1.095 .281Oral exam 18.78 18.79 -0.021 .983

The results of the t tests on the posttest scores revealed significant differences between the groups on two of the three measures (see Table 2). The difference be-tween the means of the two groups was significant on the EI/SRT and GPC post-tests by not on the oral exam posttest. Students in the FMF group outperformed those in the MF group on EI/SRT and GPC posttests but not on the oral exam posttest.

Table 2Analysis of EI/SRT, GPC, and Oral Exam Posttest ScoresPosttest FMF group means MF group means t (37) pEI/SRT 40.09 28.29 2.241 .031GPC 29.95 25.71 2.095 .046Oral exam 21.91 20.24 1.158 .138

Chat TranscriptsGroup ComparisonsThe first step in the data analysis required examination of group focus. Analy-sis of the data shows that the FMF group explicitly focused on form through self and peer-to-peer corrections and also by marking errors for saliency through capital letters and/or asterisks. The FMF group also produced 1,990 verb forms, compared to 1,657 in the MF groups, with a greater variety of tense and mood represented. The MF data demonstrated a primary focus on meaning with some attention to form. Examples (1-3) demonstrate the complex structures that characterized the FMF group. In the first sample, Derechista2 produces two if-clause statements very well: (a) if + present (si tengo) + future (lloraré) ‘if I have to …, I will …’ and (b) if + present (si paso) + conditional (estaría) ‘if I spend …, I would be.’


Example 1 (FMF sample of syntactic maturity)

derechista2 llorare si tengo que dejar porque si paso mi vida en un solo lugar no estaria comfortable en un lugar otro

[I will cry if I have to leave because if I spend my life in one place I wouldn’t be comfortable in another place]

Example (2) demonstrates a growing presence of the subjunctive in the FMF participants’ interlanguage. Here, students recognized that expressing ideas such as “it is funny that” or “I don’t think/believe that” require the subjunctive, al-though neither statement is perfectly formed (*atace should be written ataque and no creo should be followed by que).


diego_rivera2 es muy comedia de Don Quijote atace molinas de viento [It is very funny that Don Quijote attacks the windmills]chaparrastique2 No creo personas en 2003 luchen molinas de viento [I don’t think people in 2003 would fight windmills]

Example (3) demonstrates reflexive verb usage. Reflexive verbs require the pronoun to be placed before the inflected verb (me despierto ‘I get up’) or onto the infinitive form as in al levantarse ‘upon waking up.’ Given those options, the following are also possibilities: (a) se puede despertar and (b) puede despertarse. Pronoun placement with reflexive verbs tends to be a difficult feature to master. However, the FMF group not only produced the reflexives but also exercised a wide range of possibilities in expressing them. Aside from one misspelling (*a vezes), the exchange is characterized by correct use of the imperfect for both meaning and form, a sound implementation of the principle of the present perfect, and accurate subject-verb agreement.


cubanacan2 pero a vezes mi mente se puede despertar pero no puedo mover mi cuerpo

[But sometimes my mind can wake itself up but I can’t move my body]

bandera2 recuerdo algunos de mis suenos cuando me despierto, pero despues de un poco tiempo usualmente les olvido

[I remember some of my dreams when I wake up, but after a little while I usually forget them]

besazo2 Mi amiga, pero ha oido de un hombre que sabe mucho de los sue-nos

[My friend, but she has heard of a man that knows a lot about dreams]

chequere2 no creo muchas personas recuredan sus suenos al levantarse [I don’t think many people remember their dreams when they wake]


Group focus was also examined in terms of student-to-student feedback practices. Metalinguistic feedback, recasting, explicit correction, clarification requests, or-thographic correction, and joking behaviors were examined. Explicit correction and orthographic correction were the most commonly deployed feedback mea-sures in the FMF group, while the MF group relied on clarification requests. Twenty-six instances of explicit correction surfaced in the FMF group. Feed-back ranged from student-to-student to self-corrections, and participants marked their corrections with an asterisk for saliency. Students self-corrected for subject-verb agreement (Example 4), for gender-agreement (Examples 5 and 6), and for the indirect object pronoun (Example 7). Note that in Example (5), Cubanacan2 writes i\un to call attention to the need for the masculine form.

Example 4 (FMF sample of student-to student explicit correction)

cubanacan2 no es [It isn’t]cubanacan2 no son [They aren’t]


cubanacan2 es una quimico malo [It is a bad chemical]cubanacan2 i\un [i = incorrect \ un]


cencerro2 sin imagincion, vida es aburrido [Without imagination, life is boring]cencerro2 aburrida [boring]


derechista2 pienso que mis suenos hablan sobre cosas estan en mi vida o estaren en mi vida

[I think my dreams speak about things that are in my life or will be in my life]

derechista2 me hablan* [Speak to me* (student-generated asterisk)]

Students generated 20 orthographic corrections in the FMF group. In each case, the students self-corrected and, at times, marked their corrections with an aster-isk.


Example 8 (MFM sample of student-to student orthographic correction)

cubanacan2 lo que yo pienso es que no es el sitio que vas a echar de menos pero la gente que vive con tigo

[What I think is that it isn’t the place you’ll miss but the people that live with you]

cubanacan2 contigo [With you]

Example 9 (MFM sample of student-to student orthographic correction)

diego_rivera2 hoy, atacando molinas de viente en un acto de una persona con muchas problemas mentales

[Today, attacking windmills is an act of a person with many mental problems]

diego_rivera2 es* [is]

In contrast, the utterances produced by the students in the MF group were typi-cally characterized by: (a) code switching (e.g., shot, court ruling, communism, break, concern, yes, mature, so), (b) literal translations (e.g., este ir ser un larga vez explicar ‘this is going to take a long time to explain’), and (c) well stated ut-terances that were overlooked in subsequent postings by other participants (e.g., student 1: el communism es la solución porque ha sido endosado por frida kahlo ‘Communism is the solution because it has been supported by frida kahlo;’ student 2: frida endosado communismo? ‘She *supported communism?’) (see Example 10).

Example 10 (MF sample of syntactic maturity)

ojos_verdes2 el communisim es la solución ciertamente [Communism is a solution, certainly]juan_carlos2 communism es uno teoria [Communism is a theory]ojos_verdes2 el communisim es la solución porque ha sido endosado por frida

kahlo [Communism is the solution because it has been supported by frida

kahlo]loquito2 frida endosado communismo? [She *supported communism?]jose_marti2 !tienen una “break” de primavera buena! [Have a good spring “break”!]loquito2 Los periodicos no hablan a lecturas no “concern” EEUU [The newspapers don’t talk about things that don’t “concern” the

US]juan_carlos2 communism es uno teoria [Communism is a theory]


moctezuma2 este ir ser un larga vez explicar [This is going to take a long time to explain (literal translation)]margarita2 yes, es muy triste [Yes, it is very sad]margarita2 por que Moncho no es Don Gregorio amigo [Because Moncho is not Don Gregorio’s friend]guisante2 moncho es joven pero muy mature [Moncho is young but very mature]gato_violeto2 so moncho no entiende [So moncho doesn’t understand]

Twenty five clarification requests were generated by the MF group. Overall, their exchanges were lengthy and were typically accompanied by code switching to English. In Example (11), the students were distressed by the US’s decision to go to war with Iraq and had trouble moving the conversation forward because they ended up bantering over whether the correct reference for los cadejos was ‘wolves’ or ‘dogs.’

Example 11 (MF sample of student-to-student clarification requests)

juan_carlos2 !la literatura! [The literature!]margarita2 no comprendo nuestra gobierno [I don’t understand our government]juan_carlos2 por favor [Please]los_cadejos2 por que hablar con la literatura mientras una guerra hoy [Why talk about the literature while there’s a war today]ojos_verdes2 lobos magicos … hablamos sobre lobos magicos [Magic wolves… we’re talking about magic wolves]inca2 quien los lobos representan?? [What do the wolves represent?]el_pachuco2 no lobos. perros [Not wolves. Dogs]margarita2 que es lobos? [What is lobos?]gato_violeto2 los cajotes ayudan la gente [The coyotes help the people]inca2 que nos ensenan los perros de la vida? [What do the dogs teach us about life?]margarita2 donde esta los perros? [Where are the dogs?]habichuela2 lobos significa de perros? [Lobos means dogs?]los_cadejos2 los perros son magicos … [The dogs are magic …]


ojos_verdes2 lobos estaban en la cuenta [Wolves are in the story]el_pachuco2 los cadejos no son lobos. son perros [Los cadejos aren’t wolves. They’re dogs]ojos_verdes2 oh [oh]jose_marti2 ni lobos ni venados [Not wolves nor deer]margarita2 si, los lobos/perros es de los vvalcan [Yes, the wolves/dogs are from the volcanoes]

The impact of grammatical CR evaluated against the lack of it created different social environments. First, in the classroom environment, all participating groups were socially comparable. The researcher observed no drastic social differences among the sections and the instructor rated the social dynamic as consistent across groups: all students were cooperative and respectful in the face-to-face environ-ment. In the chat environment, however, the FMF group remained serious and very much on task; the chatscripts contained a low frequency of joking behavior. On the other hand, the MF group was very likely to joke with and bully each other. Example (12) exhibits the most demonstrative of language play; the students not only played on words (Freud/fraud), but also continued the word play through a rhyme in the next to the last line.

Example 12 (MF sample of joking behavior and word play)

choclo2 freud es fraude? [Freud is fraude?]choclo2 no!!! [No!!!]bosque_verde2 freud fue loco [Freud was crazy]azteca2 si [Yes]chaparrastique2 si si [Yes yes]desaparecido2 si [Yes]choclo2 el es loco un poco, pero no fraude [He is crazy a bit, but not fraud]castillo2 si freud es muy intelligente, pero es un fraude [Yes freud is very intelligent, but he is a fraud]

The students in the MF group were inclined to ridicule each other, likely to engage in language play, and often worked to display extralinguistic cues such as those listed in Example (15) below. In as much as the students were jovial,


good humored, and playful, they were also bullies who taunted and mocked one another, at times generating an atmosphere of interpersonal conflict. Furthermore, they were much more inclined to code switch. A total of 22 instances of joking or bullying surfaced in the data. Example (13) not only demonstrates language play, but also shows how the students sometimes assumed the identity of their pseudonyms. In the short story Los perros mágicos de los volcanes, los Cadejos are magic dogs. The participant whose nickname is Los_Cadejos realized this and commented on it. Two other participants followed suit, and language play ensued.


los_cadejos2 me llamo los cadejos [My name is los cadejos]el_pachuco2 te llamas los cadejos?? [Your name is los cadejos??]ojos_verdes2 hola los_cadejos2, puedes hacer magico ? [Hello los_cadejos2, can you make magic?]los_cadejos2 puedo hacer magico [I can make magic]los_cadejos2 por que soy un cadejo [because I’m a cadejo]ojos_verdes2 que magico tienes, los_cadejos2 ? [What magic do you have, los_cadejos2?]los_cadejos2 x-ray [x-ray]los_cadejos2 puedo volar [I can fly]los_cadejos2 soy mas fuerte por que soy mas inteligente y tengo mas magico que

los salvadores [I’m very strong because I’m more intelligent and I have more

magic than the salvadorans]los_cadejos2 soldados, perdon [Soldiers, sorry]el_pachuco2 los soldados quiere mato los cadejos [The soldiers want to kil*l the cadejos]el_pachuco2 mate [kill]

Example (14) represents the manner in which students bullied each other through accusations of incompetence made against fellow participants.


loquito2 GRACIAS, INCA!!! [THANKS, INCA!!]


inca2 no problemo!! [No problem!!]el_pachuco2 inca! de nada es “you’re welcome!!” [Inca! De nada is “you’re welcome!!]mar_rojo2 jaja [haha]ojos_verdes2 JA [HA]loquito2 es muy facil, inca [It’s very easy, inca]inca2 de nada! [You’re welcome!]inca2 muy dificil [Very difficult]

Finally, the use of emoticons and other extra verbal linguistic cues was a com-mon feature of the language generated by the MF group (see Example 15).


moctezuma2 la espiral siginifique venir en conscience porque la espiral comen-zar a un punto y hace circulo. el circulo va a la misma punta pero venir mas cerca cada vez alrededor es similar a la proceso de crecer (ganar conscience)

[the spiral means to come into consciousness because the spiral be-gins at one point and makes a circle. The circle is going to the same point but it comes closer each time around it’s similar to the process of growing (to gain consciousness)]

moctezuma2 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^]moctezuma2 <--- anarquista [<--- anarchist]moctezuma2 que cree la espiral signifique? [What do you think the spiral means?]ojos_verdes2 la espiral significa un maestro muy loco … jajaja [the spiral means a crazy teacher … hahaha]mar_rojo2 no sabes nada ojos!! Jaja [you don’t know anything ojos!! haha]

In sum, the analysis of the data demonstrates that when the FMF group was instructed to engage in CR for specific L2 forms, participants did not limit their focus to por/para and ser/estar alone and, consequently, generated syntactically complex language overall. The absence of deliberate focus on form in the MF group led to chat sessions characterized by code switching, literal translation, and bullying. While students in the MF group paid some attention, their primary focus was clearly on meaning.


Usage of Por/Para and Ser/Estar

The second step in the data analysis involved examining por/para and ser/estar in terms of usage and focus. First, the total number of attempts and overall accuracy rates for por/para, ser/estar were determined. The next step was to document ex-plicit evidence of focused attention on por/para, ser/estar in the FMF group and to determine whether the MF group paid any attention to form for these items. The same categories for ser/estar, por/para described by the textbook, catego-ries to which the students were exposed in the course, were used for the quantita-tive analysis of students’ utterance in the chat sessions. These categories consisted of ser/estar, por/para, ser/estar + meaning changing adjectives, and additional expressions. Each utterance was coded according to the context of use and as-signed a category according to intended use. Next, in terms of ser/estar, the tran-scripts were evaluated for verb choice and correct usage for each category (i.e., subject-verb, gender, and number agreement). The total number of correct/incor-rect utterances was then tabulated for each section, and the percentage of correct productions was calculated. Table 3 lists the total number of forms produced for a given category, the number of incorrectly produced forms within that category, and the percent correct for both the FMF and the MF groups.

Table 3Total Incorrect, Total Attempts, and Overall Accuracy Rates for Ser/Estar and Por/Para

FMF group MF group

Total incorrect

Total produced

% correct Total incorrect

Total produced

% correct

Ser 39 597 93.47 70 486 85.60

Estar 27 85 58.00 34 66 48.48

Ser/estar + meaning changing adjective

8 44 81.82 27 42 35.71

Additional expressions

6 67 91.04 19 38 50.00

Por 25 175 85.71 28 156 82.05

Para 4 37 89.19 12 20 40.00

Overall, the FMF group outperformed the MF group in terms of correct usage of ser, estar and por, para. Analysis revealed that the FMF group distinguished between the various L2 ‘to be’ options, while the MF group relied on ser as the default form. Contexts requiring por or para revealed that errors for both partici-pation sections stemmed from substituting one preposition for the other. A total of eight examples which clearly demonstrated focused attention on ser and estar surfaced in the FMF group throughout the semester; six are posted be-low (Examples 16-21). While there were a number of instances in which it is likely that participants focused on form, they are not included here because of the lack of explicit output. It is noteworthy that in Examples (16) and (18) the


students provided corrective feedback to one another; in Example (18) the student self-corrected; in Example (19) the learner corrected himself when he realized that he produced the conditional form (sería) in place of the imperfect form (era), writing seria = era a few lines after the mistake appeared. Examples (16) and (18) demonstrate students’ system of marking corrections with an asterisk for salience, and Examples (20) and (21) demonstrate students’ growing awareness of the use of ser in impersonal expressions.


alambra Soy cansada por que miro la television todas las noche [I’m* tired because I watch television every night]besazo2 estoy*alambra estoy si lo siento [estoy, yes sorry]


diego_rivera2 muchos gigantes en espana? [many giants in Spain?]cencerro2 si hay muchas gigantes en espana [Yes there are many giants in Spain]


diego_rivera2 hoy, atacando molinas de viente en un acto de una persona con mucha s problemas mentales

[today, attacking windmills is* an act of a person with many men-tal problems]

diego_rivera2 es*


azteca2 Mi reaccion, estaria muy irrita [my reaction, I’d be very irritated]besazo2 seria muy dificil ir a un otra pais donde no coneces nadia [it would be very difficult to go to another country where you don’t

know anyone]diego_rivera2 es muy dificil de mover a un otro pais, especialmente cuando seria

un rey [it is very difficult to move to another country, especially when he

would be* a king]bandera2 creo que el rey moro se fue del pais con dignidad [I think the Moorish King left with dignity]diego_rivera2 seria = era [would be = was]



derechista2 Es importante que los ninos entiendan el himno proque no deben cantar cuando no saben que cantan

[It’s important that children understand the pledge because they shouldn’t recite it if they don’t know what they’re reciting]

bandera2 si, es importante que lo entiendan [yes, it’s important that they understand it]derechista2 porque*


diego_rivera2 pero es necesita a levanta durante el pledge [it’s necessary to stand during the pledge]azucar_moreno2 LevantE [to stand]azucar_moreno2 es necesario que levantE [it’s necessary to stand]azucar_moreno2 el subjunctive [the subjunctive]

There were some instances of attention to form in the MF group even though its primary focus was on meaning. Three of four form-focused instances are posted below. In Example (22), Santo_domingo2 inquired about the subjunctive in the context of the dialogue.

Example 22 (MF sample of attention to form)

velazquez2 hola [hello]santo_domingo2 hola mi professora [hello my professor]santo_domingo2 ?como estas? [how are you?]jose_marti2 bien, ?y tu? [I’m well, and you?]santo_domingo2 asi asi, muy cansado … [ok, very tired]santo_domingo2 subjunctivo? [subjunctive?]

In example (23), Ojos_verdes2’s production of the phrase que será, será ‘what will be, will be’ prompted three explanatory responses, one of which provided the L1 equivalent of the verb form (i.e., maya2 sera = will be). Also, Ojos_verdes2 made an attempt to provide written accents in the chat by writing the accents as a separate entity alongside his production. The chat client did not contain an accent


panel, and accent marking was not addressed by the researcher or the instructor. The question of written accents occasionally attracted students’ attention, as seen in Example (24). Maya2 asked Ojos_Verdes2 how to generate them, but Ojos did not cooperate, stating that “it’s a secret.”


ojos_verdes2 que sera’ sera’-- S Hawking [what will be, will be-S. Hawking]moctezuma2 que es sera? [what is sera?]jose_marti2 el cancion famosa [the famous song]maya2 sera= will beojos_verdes2 Stephen Hawking no escribo’ la cancion … pero, lo amo’ [Stephen Hawking didn’t write the song … but he loved it]


maya2 ojos verde, como tu haces los accentos? [Ojos verde, how do you do the accents?]ojos_verdes2 es un secretom maya2 [It’s a secre*, Maya2]ojos_verdes2 secreto [Secret]maya2 okay [okay]

In Example (25), Guisante2 switched to English. This prompted Ojos_verdes2 to offer assistance in the L2. Although Ojos_verdes2 provided two options for ex-pressing ‘would be’ in Spanish, he marked his suggestion interrogatively, which suggested that while he was providing assistance to Guisante2, he may have also been soliciting assistance on his own feedback.


guisante2 creo que el would be en chatahoochee en el hospital [I think he would be in Chatahoochee in the hospital]ojos_verdes2 would be = seria o estaria ... no?guisante2 that is where the psychiatric hospital is

The examples above reveal that the FMF participants demonstrated sensitivity to grammar in terms of the production of syntactically complex structures and a specific focus on the designated L2 forms. The examples also reveal that the MF group paid a limited amount of attention to form, and that each group engaged in activities within its expected focus.


Instructor-student InteractionThe third step was to determine the nature of the instructor-to-student interaction. That is, one instructor taught all participating sections of the study to control for a myriad of variables that could surface if various instructors had participated. However, the manner in which she engaged with the students could have threat-ened internal validity of the study. The instructor had the liberty to focus on form and meaning in her feedback strategies for the FMF group: recasts, clarification requests, explicit correction, and metalinguistic feedback. Conversely, she had two options for MF feedback: recasts and clarification requests. Analysis of the instructor-to-student interaction reveals equal corrective measures employed for both groups. Analysis of the FMF data indicates that it is likely that the partici-pants recognized the feedback they received, while that of the MF data demon-strates instances in which feedback clearly went unrecognized. Additionally, re-casts were the instructor’s preferred strategy, followed by clarification requests, although she corrected little overall. The FMF group did respond to interrogative recasts, which suggests that when combined with CR, interrogative recasts are effective. One instance of metalinguistic feedback surfaced in the FMF group, but the nature of that feedback was not corrective; the instructor praised a students’ well stated utterance. The chatscripts contain three instances of explicit correc-tion, all of which revolved around vocabulary rather than form. The instructor did not limit her corrections to por/para, ser/estar alone. Table 4 summarizes the instructor’s corrective practices.

Table 4Instructor-to-student Feedback Practices

FMF group MF groupMetalinguistic feedback 1a 0Recasts Direct repetition Introduced by ‘yes’ Salient recast Interrogative recast

2444

3314

Explicit correction 3b 0Clarification request 5 4Total 23 15

aThis comment was in response to a well formed student utterance, not a correc-tive measurebAll instructor feedback in this category focused on lexical items, not grammatical items.

Since recasting was the preferred strategy, it will be discussed in more detail here. Of the four recasting strategies listed in Table 4, interrogative recasts gener-


ated responses by the FMF group. While noticing may or may not have resulted from the other recasting strategies, there are clear examples of noticing in the out-put of students in this group. However, the data for the MF group includes clear examples of disregarding recasts. In example (26), the instructor modeled Castillo’s statement in an interrogative recast in order to obtain more information from him. Castillo responded with a more sophisticated production, provided an example, and demonstrated uptake with regard to both the structure of the sentence and the instructor’s feedback on the term realistas.

Example 26 (FMF sample of instructor-to-student recast)

castillo2 los cuentos no requeren factos ser efectivo [stories don’t have to be factual to be effective]velazquez2 castillo dices que no necesitan ser realistas los cuentos para ser efec-

tivos? Por que? [Castillo, you say that stories don’t have to be real to be effective?

Why?]castillo2 no, ser realistas es importante, pero no necesita ser el facto [No, being real is important, but it doesn’t have to be factual]castillo2 el ejemplo bien es “pedro y el lobo” [a good example is “peter and the wolf”]

In example (27), Alhambra stated that he was tired because he watched TV every night. The instructor asked, through an interrogative recast, whether he was tired because he did not get enough sleep. However, before she published her remark, Besazo published the correct verb form and marked it with an asterisk for salience. Alhambra responded with a correction and an apology.

Example 27 (FMF sample of instructor-to-student recast)

alhambra Soy cansada por que miro la television todas las noche [I’m tired because I watch TV every night]besazo2 estoy* [I am*]velazquez2 alhambra estas cansada porque no duermes lo suficiente? [Alhambra, you’re tired because you don’t get enough sleep?]Alhambra estoy si lo siento [I am~ sorry]

Students in the MF group responded differently to interrogative recasts. In Ex-ample (28), El Pachuco was so interested in Juan_carlos’s statement in the first line that he and the other participants did not comprehend the nature of the inter-rogative recast and carried on the conversation without uptake or output.


Example 28 (MF sample of instructor-to-student interrogative recast)

juan_carlos2 los indigenas de eeuu fueron suerte [the US indigenous are lucky]el_pachuco2 porque los indigenas en EEUU fueron suerte? [why are the US indigenous lucky?]velazquez2 tuvieron suerte porque pachuco? [why were they lucky pachuco?]margarita2 si, no comprede porque los indigenas en EEUU fueron suerte! [yes, I don’t understand why the US indigenous were lucky]juan_carlos2 las indigenes fueron suerte porque el gobierno quisen la tierra de

indigenes [the indigenous were lucky because the government wanted their

land]el_pachuco2 juan_carlos dice “los indigenas de EEUU fueron suerte” quiero

conocer porque [juan_carlos says “the US indigenous were lucky” I want to know

why]

In Example (29), it is unclear as to whether Margarita2 recognized the correc-tion behind Velazquez2’s interrogative recast or whether she simply understood the utterance, answered the question, and continued the conversational flow.

Example 29 (MF sample of instructor-to-student interrogative recast)

margarita2 el gobierno de EEUU nunca son verdad [the US government is never right]velazquez2 margarita el gobierno nunca tiene razon? Por que? [margarita the government is never right? Why?]margarita2 La rica ayda la rica [the rich help the rich]

While there are examples in which it is difficult to determine whether or not recasts went noticed or unnoticed in the FMF group as well, the exchanges that surfaced in the two groups are distinct. In Example (30), Besazo2 may or may not have noticed the direct repetition recast, however it is likely that Castillo2 did because she clearly re-read the exchange before posting her orthographic correc-tion for her misspelling of ‘Jack.’ In addition, the context was inappropriate for a repetition because the instructor’s feedback came after Castillo2 had already replied.

Example 30 (FMF sample of instructor-to-student direct repetition recast)

besazo2 que es tu leyendo favorita? [What is your favorite legend?]castillo2 me gusta “Jck and the beanstalk” [I like “Jack and the beanstalk”]


velazquez2 cual es tu leyenda favorita? [What is your favorite legend?]castillo2 *Jack [*Jack (student-generated asterisk)]

Similarly, it is likely that the next exchange was noticed because it concluded a lengthy conversation which revolved around form.

Example 31 (FMF sample of instructor-to-student recast introduced by “yes”)

desaparecido2 femeninas es no mascelino [Feminine is not masculine]velazquez2 si femeninas es diferente de masculinas, desaparecido [Yes feminine is different from masculine, desaparecido]

The FMF group established a pattern in which it is likely that the recasts were recognized. In the MF group, and although not true in every case, there were in-stances which demonstrated that feedback went unnoticed. In Example (32) for direct repetition recasts, it is clear that the participant in the MF group did not notice the instructor’s correction because he restated the error in a subsequent posting. Likewise, Loquito2 in Example (33) clearly demonstrated that he did not recognize the instructor’s recast, as evident in line three of that exchange.

Example 32 (MF sample of instructor-to-student direct repetition recast)

planeta_azul2 bueno puenta [good point]velazquez2 buen punto [good point]planeta_azul2 si bueno puenta juan [yes, good point juan]

Example 33 (MF sample of instructor-to-student recast introduced by “yes”)

loquito2 La guerra es Hell [War is hell]velazquez2 si la guerra es un infierno :) [Yes, war is hell]loquito2 como se dice “hell” en espanol? [How does one say “hell” in Spanish?]

Another reason that it is unlikely that the recasts were unnoticed is due to the time elapsed between the student posting, the recast, and the subsequent student posting, or lack thereof. Recasts and postings were not generally submitted at the same time, which means that student responses were not posted before the recast was published by the instructor.


The differences that surfaced in the FMF versus MF groups offer evidence that the students in each group exhibited different behaviors during the sessions ac-cording to whether or not their attention was focused on form or both form and meaning. Given the behavior that surfaced in the groups with regard to inter-rogative recasts, it is possible that an environment in which CR is made explicit through specific instructions to focus on form is needed for learners to pay atten-tion to, to comprehend the nature of, and to know how to respond to form-focused recasts. The fact that participants have the liberty to reread the posted dialogue as it transpires allows learners to compensate for the large number of chat partici-pants. Whether engaged in CR or not, its presence or absence may determine the extent to which participants revisit the dialogue to read and reprocess the infor-mation and may impact their decision to post corrections. Furthermore, the FMF group had five more students than the MF group and 10 minutes less chat time each week. Under those circumstances, they not only produced more language in that time, but more syntactically complex language. Also, they had more postings to tend to because of the larger number of participants but still managed to outper-form the MF group when asked to pay attention to both form and meaning. This is a compelling finding which supports Lee’s (2000) suggestion that: “students should be advised of the need to write correctly to maintain a balance between function, content, and fluency” (p. 7-8). It also support’s Blake’s claim (2000) that incidental focus is insufficient for grammatical development. Finally, this finding addresses the concern that open-ended communicative tasks push grammar to the side in SCMC.

Chat Transcripts: Syntactic Maturity and Lexical DensitySyntactic MaturityMinimal terminal units, or t-units (a main clause with all subordinate clauses and modifiers attached to it), were calculated in order to determine the degree of syn-tactic maturity of the students’ utterances. The t-units were tracked line by line in the chatscript to account for publishing styles in which the participants held the floor by posting thoughts in bits and pieces over a number of lines rather than posting a larger chunk of information in one posting. For example, lines 12 and 23 below constitute 1 t-unit in which there are a total of 18 words.

Line 12: the large, rather strongLine 15: animal with a limpLine 19: who had made an offeringLine 23: finally returned to the pride.

Each participant’s utterances were tracked, t-units were determined, and the number of words per t-unit was established in order to calculate the syntactic ma-turity of each group’s participants as a whole. The results are displayed in Table 5.


Table 5Median t-units by Group by Chat SessionChat number FMF group MF group

1 9.24 7.58

2 7.44 7.30

3 7.08 7.08

4 10.48 7.59

5 9.41 7.06

7 8.27 7.83

8 10.57 8.96

A Mann-Whitney nonparametric test was run on the data to investigate differ-ences between the two groups. The nonparametric test was chosen because no assumptions were made about the distribution of the levels of syntactic maturity. The results of the Mann-Whitney test (1-tailed test) are displayed in Table 6. The results indicate that the FMF group outperformed MF group.

Table 6Mann-Whitney U TestGroup Mean rank Mann-Whitney p

MFM (n = 7) 9.50 10.50 .037MF (n = 7) 5.50

Lexical Density In addition to establishing syntactic maturity levels for the chat groups, lexi-cal density, the proportion of novel to repeated lexical items in a text (excluding articles, prepositions, conjunctions, etc.) was also calculated. Novel words were calculated as nonrepeated forms; verb forms with varying tense and aspect mark-ers were counted only once regardless of their ending, and gender and number markers were not counted as novel items. Table 7 summarizes the results of the range of lexical densities for each chat session. A Mann-Whitney test did not re-veal any significant differences between the groups.

Table 7Lexical Density Chat number FMF group MF group

1 29.41 23.07

2 25.28 21.36

3 24.20 29.17

4 26.99 29.89

5 34.70 29.54

7 30.66 39.62

8 24.67 30.20


Units for Data Analysis The SCMC environment is a unique environment in that it is a social domain in which friends, family, and colleagues may communicate with one another. The social aspect tied to chat may generate an air of informality among its partici-pants. However, the means by which chatters communicate is text based, and written conventions may apply as well. This informality of the “chattiness” of SCMC coupled with the formality of the classroom and the written medium has consequences for the choice of analytical measures applied to the data. The choice amounted to applying either utterance units (c-units) (used for oral discourse) or minimal terminal units (t-units) (used for written discourse). T-units were cho-sen for a variety of reasons. First, utterance units have been broadly defined and have assumed a number of definitions. Second, c-units are the primary unit of analysis in the study of spoken dialogue. The SCMC environment is discursive, but it is not a clone of spoken dialogue. Third, utterance units may be identified by shifts in speakers, but turn taking in SCMC does not adhere to the turn-taking shifts typical of oral discourse and would require a re-defining of the c-unit to ac-commodate this new medium. Stresses, silence markings, and/or marking single speech acts as c-units works well for spoken discourse but does not reflect written real-time discourse. Furthermore, analysis of utterances in SCMC environments cannot address questions of prosody because the patterns of stress and intonation cannot be monitored in SCMC, and speech acts such as turn taking or rhetorical relations in SCMC do not adhere to the norms of spoken dialogue either. Fourth, a c-unit may be defined as a syntactic measure such as the sentence or the clause, but it does not indicate syntactic maturity as the t-unit does. Fifth, while sentences are the primary object of study in written dialogue, the SCMC environment is not the typical written environment either. The selection of a unit of analysis which respects the nature of SCMC was imperative, and, given that t-units overcome the problem of determining what is or is not a sentence, they provided a strong unit of analysis from which the chatscripts could be systematically investigated. The use of t-units reveals the underlying grammatical complexity of the learners’ productions, is a consistent measure that eliminates the subjectivity in defining ut-terance units, and establishes a base unit to systematically and reliably investigate the learner’s productions. SCMC is text based, and the productions in this envi-ronment are permanent, not transient like the spoken utterance. The permanency of the dialogue changes the nature of the communication and could be a sound environment for communicative and syntactic growth. Finally, grammatical de-velopment and the impact of CR in SCMC was the object of study in this project, making the t-unit a better unit of measurement.

SummaryPretest results revealed that the students were from the same population at the out-set of the study. Analysis of the posttest scores revealed no statistically significant difference for the oral exam posttest, but did show statistically significant differ-ences in favor of the FMF group for the EI/SRT posttest and the GPC posttest.


Analysis of the chatscripts revealed greater levels of syntactic maturity in the FMF group but statistically comparable levels of lexical density in both groups. The FMF group attempted to employ por/para, ser/estar more often than the MF group and was more accurate in its production. The FMF group distinguished be-tween ser/estar, while the MF group used ser as a default form. The FMF group stayed on task, assumed responsibility for self- and peer-corrective feedback, and recognized the instructor’s feedback in a number of cases. Conversely, the MF group did not seem to recognize the nature of the instructor’s feedback; it was more likely to incorporate the L1 into its conversations and more likely to engage in joking and bullying. While the MF group did not ignore form, it did not pro-duce language as qualitatively sound as its FMF counterpart.

QUESTIONS ANSWERED

Regarding whether CR assists in the emergence of por/para and ser/estar distinc-tions in SCMC, analysis of the data revealed that when students were instructed to focus on both form and meaning, they not only focused on ser/estar but on grammar as a whole. Although the cognitive demands were high for this group, it performed as well as the MF group in terms of lexical density and better than the MF group in terms of syntactic maturity. It is concluded that CR had a positive impact on grammatical development in SCMC. In terms of whether the lack of CR on por/para, ser/estar hinders the emer-gence of these structures for the group that does not focus on form in SCMC, the MF students did not completely ignore form in SCMC and did manipulate the text-based medium for creative expression. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the absence of CR hindered grammatical development. However, the participants produced less language, and the language they did produce was less accurate and less syntactically complex on qualitative and quantitative measures. Furthermore, they relied on ser as the default “to be” form. This environment was also charac-terized by conversational strategies (emoticons, clarification requests, and code switching), self-correction (orthographic errors), interpersonal conflict (bullying, name calling, and belittling) where participants ignored each others’ errors—es-pecially morphosyntactic errors—in favor of communication, and lack of coop-eration (ignored requests for help and information sharing). It is concluded that while the absence of focusing on por/para, ser/estar did not hinder the emergence of these structures over the course of the semester, nondeliberate focus on form was insufficient to facilitate development to the same degree as CR. The role CR played in development of por/para, ser/estar in SCMC yielded positive results for this data set. The impact that it had on the instructor and the participants is noteworthy. The instructor did not adjust her interaction with the students according to group focus. Rather, she adopted feedback strategies and applied them equally to both groups. The FMF students responded to CR through corroboration and by engaging in self- and peer correction. In sum, it is concluded that the role of CR in grammatical development served to raise students’ awareness of grammatical form; it resulted in self-correction and constructive peer-to-peer correction, positively impacted the peer-to-peer dynam-


ic as collaborators in the SCMC environment, encouraged learners to stay on task, and discouraged reliance on the L1. Overall, it served as a tool which facilitated grammatical development in the SCMC forum. In the case of the FMF group, the SCMC environment was fundamental to grammatical CR. In the case of the MF group, the SCMC environment played a positive role in calling attention to gram-matical features and structures, but this role was minimal when the FMF and MF environments were compared.

IMPLICATIONS

The results of this project have demonstrated the potential that SCMC holds for grammatical development when combined with CR. Implementing SCMC with CR at an early stage may prove to accelerate grammatical development such that learners could work to refine conversational and communicative skills at more ad-vanced levels. Furthermore, CR in this highly communicative environment may be the key to maintaining a solid focus on grammatical structures. It is possible that the demands placed on participants in the FMF group proved to be beneficial because they managed to stay on task and assist one another. On the other hand, it is possible that a meaning-only focus may have lightened the cognitive load to the extent that participants channeled their energy into teasing, playing around, and casual exchanges. This possibility is important because the potential to inhibit development was present because the presence of negative social relations could have inhibited the recognition of constructive, corrective, peer-to-peer feedback (see Morris & Tarone, 2003). The MF group recognized and responded to peer ag-gression, and the stress that it caused was evident in subsequent postings. The im-pact of the lack of grammatical CR is such that in its absence learners channeled their energy unconstructively when compared to the FMF group. In addition, the combination of SCMC and CR speaks to task orientation (full-class chat, open-ended topics, meaning vs. form-meaning focus), participation, and evaluation. Two very different outcomes surfaced in the FMF and MF groups, and SCMC must be implemented with end goals in mind. Since it is unclear whether or not CR can be “switched off” once students are asked to focus on form and meaning, careful consideration and planning must go into task design and determining the level that SCMC with CR will be introduced to learners. Furthermore, expecta-tions of participation must be considered for evaluation. Not only will assessment need to reflect the various roles that may emerge through the different options in SCMC, but it will need to reflect the participatory possibilities that also emerge in these environments.

FUTURE WORK

A limitation of the study can be found in the results of one of the pretests. The difference between the group means on EI/SRT pretest was close to significance (p = 0.052). The argument could be made against homogeneity with the idea that preexisting differences in proficiency in favor of the FMF group were present. If this were the case, the GPC and oral exam pretests should have reflected this


proficiency difference since the GPC examined the same features in written form and the oral exam reflected overall spoken proficiency. Furthermore, one student of Hispanic background (although still qualifying as a level three learner) was matriculated in the FMF group and did score well on the EI/SRT. Given that this individual was exposed to the L2 outside the classroom, it is not surprising that this listening exercise did not present him with the same challenges as his peers. Whereas his higher score may have brought the EI/SRT scores debatably close statistically, he alone does not account for the syntactic maturity and lexical density levels demonstrated in the chatscripts. Future work must track individual contributions in order to be able to account for specific individual cases. Techni-cal difficulties prevented such tracking for this study, except in general terms, because participants relied on a pool of reserve log-on names whenever they were unable to log on with their assigned pseudonym. Another limitation of this study was the lack of data on the third group. Bearing this in mind, future work should gather data on a third group which engages in CR in the traditional classroom so as to scrutinize the instructor-to-student, student-to-student, and form-focused results compared to the FMF and MF chat groups. Establishing quantity and quality of the language produced and the dynamic and group focus would serve as a basis of comparison for evaluating the utility of CR in the various environments. Furthermore, knowing the social make up that resulted from CR in the face-to-face group would have provided valuable insight for analysis and pedagogical consideration. Future studies should include person-ality tests in order to make a statement about the impact chat may have on how the participants engaged socially. Developing a questionnaire to evaluate students’ perceptions about their social engagement in chat versus face-to-face discussions would also be informative. Data analysis revealed that the MF students played with their identities in the chat room (Example 33), and this social behavior in chat merits future research in and of itself. Another limitation of the study is the chat client’s time stamp. This particular software did not log the time that elapsed between postings. The ability to calcu-late the pauses and response time would permit more fine-grained analysis. Future oral exams should be based upon spontaneous production so that a com-parison between the spontaneity in chatting versus spoken dialogue may be exam-ined. Finally, future work will need to compare the work of a third (face-to-face, form-focused) and a fourth (face-to-face, meaning-focused) non-SCMC group in order to investigate whether CR in face-to-face interaction in the traditional class-room is comparable to the awareness that was evident in both SCMC environ-ments.

REFERENCES

Abrams, Z. I. (2001). Computer mediated communication and group journals: Expanding the repertoire of participant roles. System, 29, 489-503.


Beauvois, M. H. (1992). Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25 (5), 455-464.

Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlan-guage. Language Learning and Technology, 4 (1), 120-136. Retrieved April 26, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/blake/default.html

Chun, D. M. (1998). Using computer-assisted class discussions to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. In J. Swaffar, S. Romano, P. Markley, & K. Arens (Eds.), Language learning online: Theory and practice in the ESL and L2 com-puter classroom (pp. 57-80). Austin, TX: Labyrinth Publications.

Kelm, O. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruc-tion: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25 (5), 441-454.

Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Jour-nal, 79 (4), 457-476.

Kern, R. (1998). Technology, social interaction and FL literacy. In J. A. Muyskens (Ed.), New ways of learning and teaching: Focus on technology and foreign language education (pp. 57-92). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Kern, R. (2000). Computers, language, and literacy. In R. Kern (Ed.), Literacy and lan-guage teaching (pp. 223-266). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Theory and practice of network-based language teach-ing. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 1-19). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, L. (2000). Synchronous online exchanges: A study of modification devices on nonna-tive discourse. System, 30, 275-288.

Morris, F. A., & Tarone, E. E. (2003). The impact of classroom dynamics on effectiveness of recasts in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 53 (2), 325-368.

Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59-86). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Peterson, M. (1997). Language teaching and networking. System, 25 (1), 29-37.Pratt, E., & Sullivan, N. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A

computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 24, 491-501.

Radloff, C. F. (1992). Sentence repetition testing for studies of community bilingualism (SIL International and the University of Texas at Arlington Publications in Lin-guistics 104). Arlington, TX: University of Texas.

Rutherford, W., & Sharwood Smith, M. (1985). Consciousness-raising and universal gram-mar. Applied Linguistics, 6 (3), 274-281.

Rutherford, W. (1987). Second language grammar: Learning and teaching. London: Long-man.

Salaberry, M. R. (2000). L2 morphosyntactic development in text based computer medi-ated communication. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13 (1), 5-27.


Sotillo, S. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asyn-chronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4 (1), 82-119. Re-trieved April 26, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/sotillo/default.html

Vinther, T. (2002). Elicited imitation: A brief overview. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12 (1), 54-73.

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13 (2), 7-26.

Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Modern Language Journal, 81 (3), 470-481.

APPENDIX A

Elicited Imitation/Sentence Repetition Testing: Experimental

INSTRUCTIONSThank you for your participation in this research.

For this component of the study you will be asked to listen to a number of phrases in Spanish. After each phrase please repeat the phrase out loud, as you just heard it, to the best of your ability in Spanish. Some sentences are easy, some are difficult. The phrases you will hear are downloaded on the masterboard. When you are given the signal please activate the recording device at your desk. Once you have set the tape deck to record your responses at your desk, the masterboard will be activated. Once the masterboard and the recording device at your desk are activated please do not stop, rewind or forward the recording. Please let the recording run without interruption. You will have 3 seconds between recordings to repeat the phrase as you heard it.

Practice

a. Su libro es de fama internacional.b. Esas manzanas son verdes pero no están para comer.c. Esos poemas fueron escritos por Octavio Paz.d. Mis amigos no están en casa este fin de semana. e. Creo que van a viajar por tren.

EI/SRT 1. Miami es una ciudad muy rica y moderna. 2. Lo admiran por su carácter. 3. La fiesta es en el centro estudiantil. 4. La mayoría de los Mexicanos son mestizos. 5. La historia y la cultura de México son muy variadas. 6. Las composiciones son para el viernes. 7. Salgo para Madrid el mes próximo.


8. Principalmente está relacionada con el petróleo. 9. Muchos turistas visitan por curiosidad. 10. La reunión es el viernes a las diez. 11. Usó el oro para financiar las guerras. 12. Esos muebles antiguos son de mi abuela. 13. Pedro rompió la taza y ahora está rota. 14. Hay mucho turismo para un país tan pequeño. 15. Miles de Cubanos lucharon por la independencia. 16. Compré las flores para mis amigas. 17. Caminamos para el parque por la calle principal. 18. Por más que intento dejarlo, no puedo. 19. Estoy atrasada y ya son las ocho de la mañana. 20. Ese estudiante es listo pero no está preparado para el examen. 21. Los Cubanoamericanos son los que lograron mayor prosperidad. 22. Mis padres están en Texas pero son de California. 23. Fue a la conferencia para apoyar a sus colegas. 24. Fue el fanatismo que causó tantos problemas. 25. Las tierras estaban habitadas por sociedades complejas. 26. En este país hay un médico por cada dos mil habitantes. 27. Para cualquier visitante México es una tierra de contrastes. 28. Marín fue el primer gobernador elegido por los puertorriqueños. 29. La mamá está furiosa porque los quehaceres no están terminados. 30. Llámale a Carlos por teléfono para decirle que vamos esta noche.

APPENDIX B

Grammaticality Preferences ComponentThank you for your participation in this research.

For this component of the study you will be asked to review a number of phrases in Spanish. For each phrase determine your preference by choosing among the following options: a if you prefer sentence a, b if you prefer sentence b, c if you prefer neither of the two phrases, d if you prefer both, and e if you are not sure about which you prefer.

There are a total of fifty-five questions and you will have twenty-five minutes to review the phrases and mark your preferences.

Name:

Section:

Professor:

Date:


1. a.b..

El libro está en la cabeza del hombre.El libro está en la cabeza del hombre.

A B Neither Both Not sure

2. a.b.

Están dos personas en la reunion.Son dos personas en la reunion.


3. a.b.

Jugué al fútbol por tres años.Jugué al fútbol para tres años.


4. a.b.

Tiene esperanza para el futuro.Tiene esperanza por el futuro.


5. a.

b.

Si une persona está sufriendo es una buena idea para elle usar marihuana.Si une persona está sufriendo es una buena idea que use marihuana.


6. a.b.

Es mucho calor en Florida.Hace mucho calor en Florida.


7. a.b.

Elles son niños.Ellas son niños.


8. a.

b.

Cuando yo era 16 obtuve mi licencia de conducir.Cuando yo estuve 16 obtuve mi licencia de conducir.


9. a.

b.

Los gatos están rodeados por un grupo de perros.Los gatos están rodeados para un grupo de perros.


10. a.

b.

Los estereotipos son dificiles de entender.Los estereotipos son dificiles para entender.


11. a.b.

El médico traen los libros.El médico traemos los libros.


12. a.

b.

Es importante decir la verdad a tus seres queridos.Es importante para decir la verdad a tus seres queridos.



13. a.b.

La taza es rota.La taza está rota.


14. a.b.

El niño gordo no puede toca la mesa.El niño gordo no puede toca la mesa.


15. a.

b.

La tierra originaria de los Marcianos es Marte.La tierra originaria de los Marcianos es Marte.


16. a.b.

No cambia porque de esa razón.No cambia por esa razón.


17. a.b.

Son las seis de la mañana.Están las seis de la mañana.


18. a.b.

Para un país tan pequeño tiene muchos habitantes.Por un país tan pequeño tiene muchos habitantes.


19. a.b.

Los niños tienen sueño.Los niños son sueños.


20. a.b.

Salgo para Madrid el mes próximo.Salgo por Madrid el mes próximo.


21. a.b.

San Augustin estuvo fundada en 1565.San Augustin fue fundada en 1565.


22. a.b.

Los zapatos son para mío.Los zapatos son para mí.


23. a.b.

Tengo algo por ti.Tengo algo para ti.


24. a.

b.

La leche es caliente, ¡no la tomes ahora!La leche es caliente, ¡no la tomes ahora!


25. a.b.

Eres tarde.Llegas tarde.



26. a.b.

Alejandro Sanz es un cantante muy famoso.Alejandro Sanz está un cantante muy famoso.


27. a.

b.

Un hombre y una señora son enfermos.Un hombre y una señora están enfermos.


28. a.b.

Quería matricularme en esta clase para aprender español.Quería matricularme en esta clase por aprender español.


29. a.b.

Hay tres perros en la calle.Son tres perros en la calle.


30. a.b.

Puede no ir al cine.Puede no ir al cine.


31. a.b.

Está mucho frío en Pennsylvania.Es mucho frío en Pennsylvania.


32. a.b.

Las composiciones están terminadas.Las composiciones son terminadas.


33. a.b.

El hombre está el padre de los niños.El hombre es el padre de los niños.


34. a.b.

La próxima reunión estaba el viernes.La próxima reunión era el viernes.


35. a.b.

Lo haré por ti.Lo haré para ti.


36. a.

b.

Cambio este disco compacto por ese disco compacto.Cambio este disco compacto para ese disco compacto.


37. a.b.

La reunión es en la sala de profesores.La reunión está en la sala de profesores.



38. a.b.

Busco para mi amigo.Busco a mi amigo.


39. a.b.

Está tarde, ya son las once de la noche.Es tarde, ya son las once de la noche.


40. a.b.

El bebé está comiendo el pan.El bebé está comiendo la pan.


41. a.b.

Es muy guapa.Está muy guapa.


42. a.

b.

La población de hispanohablantes en los estados unidos está aumentando rápidamente.La población de hispanohablantes en los estados unidos es aumentando rápidamente.


43. a.b.

Vota por el candidato más honesto.Vota para el candidato más honesto.


44. a.b.

Estaba mucha gente en la fiesta.Había mucha gente en la fiesta.


45. a.b.

El hombre le besa a la señora.El hombre besa a la señora.


46. a.b.

Fidel Castro es de Cuba.Fidel Castro está de Cuba.


47. a.

b.

Espero a mis amigos y luego vamos a cenar.Espero para mis amigos y luego vamos a cenar.


48. a.b.

Madrid está al norte de Toledo.Madrid es al norte de Toledo.


49. a.b.

Ella está cocinando carne.Ella cocina carne.


50. a.b.

Es una persona muy inteligente.Es una muy inteligente persona.



51. a.b.

Vinieron a casa para ayudar a las tías.Vinieron a casa a ayudar a las tías.


52. a.

b.

Cuando era 5 años me gustaba jugar con muñecas.Cuando tenía 5 años me gustaba jugar con muñecas.


53. a.

b.

Para mí, la película tiene un mensaje muy fuerte.Por mí, la película tiene un mensaje muy fuerte.


54. a.b.

El bebé es hambre.El bebé tiene hambre.


55. a.

b.

Mi generación está rodeada por tecnología.Mi generación está rodeada de tecnología.


AUTHOR’S BIODATA

Melissa L. Fiori received her Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition from The Pennsylvania State University in 2004 with the Department of Spanish, Italian & Portuguese. She obtained her MA in Spanish Literature, Language and Culture of the Spanish Speaking World from Middlebury College in 1998 (Vermont and Madrid) and completed her undergraduate work at Buck-nell University in 1997. She has teaching experience in the United States, Spain, and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in Spanish, ESL, and Linguistics.

AUTHOR’S ADDRESS

Melissa L. Fiori4380 Main StreetAmherst, NY 14226-3952Email: [email protected]

article 151

Documents

specic focus

default form

focused fmf group

unintentional focus

primary focus

deliberate focus

grammatical development

fmf participants