scholarly journals The role of corrective feedback and lexical guidance in perceptual learning of a novel L2 accent in dialogue

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Emily Felker ◽  
Mirjam Broersma ◽  
Mirjam Ernestus
Keyword(s):  
Perceptual Learning ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Learning Context ◽  
Learning Mechanisms ◽  
Lexical Information ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Online Processing ◽  
Minimal Pairs ◽  
Computer Based ◽  
Vowel Shift

Abstract Perceptual learning of novel accents is a critical skill for second-language speech perception, but little is known about the mechanisms that facilitate perceptual learning in communicative contexts. To study perceptual learning in an interactive dialogue setting while maintaining experimental control of the phonetic input, we employed an innovative experimental method incorporating prerecorded speech into a naturalistic conversation. Using both computer-based and face-to-face dialogue settings, we investigated the effect of two types of learning mechanisms in interaction: explicit corrective feedback and implicit lexical guidance. Dutch participants played an information-gap game featuring minimal pairs with an accented English speaker whose /ε/ pronunciations were shifted to /ɪ/. Evidence for the vowel shift came either from corrective feedback about participants’ perceptual mistakes or from onscreen lexical information that constrained their interpretation of the interlocutor’s words. Corrective feedback explicitly contrasting the minimal pairs was more effective than generic feedback. Additionally, both receiving lexical guidance and exhibiting more uptake for the vowel shift improved listeners’ subsequent online processing of accented words. Comparable learning effects were found in both the computer-based and face-to-face interactions, showing that our results can be generalized to a more naturalistic learning context than traditional computer-based perception training programs.

scholarly journals A comparative study of collaborative learning in Paper Scribbles and Group Scribbles

2010 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fang Hao Chen
Keyword(s):  
Collaborative Learning ◽  
High Performance ◽  
Collective Intelligence ◽  
Learning Mechanisms ◽  
Pedagogical Tool ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Grade 5 ◽  
Elementary Grade ◽  
Computer Based ◽  
Physical Limitations

<em>Paper Scribbles</em><span> (PS) consisting of markers, vanguard sheets and 3M </span><em>Post-It</em><span> notes, is a pedagogical tool to harness collective intelligence of groups for collaborative learning in the classroom. Borrowing the key features of PS and yet avoiding some of their physical limitations, a computer-based tool called </span><em>Group Scribbles</em><span> (GS) was designed to enable high performance synchronous, face to face collaborative experiences in the classroom. In our exploratory study, we discuss and compare the different properties of PS and GS technologies in two elementary grade 5 classes. The findings reveal that there are not only physical and technical differences but more importantly, pedagogical differences between the two technologies that accounts for different collaborative learning mechanisms.</span>

scholarly journals Second Language Learners’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of Delayed Immediate Corrective Feedback in an Asynchronous Online Setting An Exploratory Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-209
Author(s):  
Laia Canals ◽  
Gisela Granena ◽  
Yucel Yilmaz ◽  
Aleksandra Malicka
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Nous Avons ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Second Language Learners ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Learning Context ◽  
Teachers Perceptions ◽  
Language Courses ◽  
Oral Interaction

Online language courses that rely on asynchronous teacher-learner communication face a practical problem when it comes to the provision of immediate corrective feedback by the teacher in oral interaction tasks. In this learning context, learners can still communicate synchronously and record their interaction without the teacher being present, but feedback by the teacher will be delayed in time. Research indicates that the effectiveness of feedback decreases as the time between the error and the correction increases and that immediate feedback is more effective (Arroyo & Yilmaz, 2018; Shintani & Aubrey, 2016). In this exploratory study conducted at an online university, we implemented a novel type of feedback we referred to as delayed immediate corrective feedback (DICF) and analyzed second language learners’ and teachers’ perceptions regarding its effectiveness and usefulness. Our goal was to assess the feasibility of implementing this type of feedback in our context and, ultimately, in other contexts where communication between teachers and learners takes place asynchronously. DICF was provided by teachers orally via screencast video. Learners and teachers’ perceptions were collected via two separate questionnaires. The results showed that teachers and learners responded positively to DICF and several potential benefits were identified. Les cours de langue en ligne qui s’appuient sur la communication asynchrone enseignant-apprenant rencontrent un problème pratique quand vient le temps de fournir de la rétroaction corrective immédiate par l’enseignant lors des tâches d’interaction orale. Dans ce contexte d’apprentissage, les apprenants peuvent toujours communiquer de manière synchrone et enregistrer leur interaction sans que l’enseignant soit présent, mais la rétroaction de l’enseignant sera décalée dans le temps. La recherche indique que l’efficacité de la rétroaction diminue au fur et à mesure que le temps entre l’erreur et la correction augmente, et que la rétroaction immédiate est plus efficace (Arroyo & Yilmaz, 2018; Shintani & Aubrey, 2016). Dans cette étude exploratoire menée auprès d’une université en ligne, nous avons mis en place une nouvelle forme de rétroaction, que nous avons appelée rétroaction corrective immédiate retardée (RCIR), et nous avons analysé les perceptions des apprenants de langue seconde et des enseignants quant à son utilité et à son efficacité. Notre objectif était d’évaluer la faisabilité de mettre en place ce type de rétroaction dans notre contexte, et par extension, dans d’autres contextes où la communication entre apprenants et enseignants se passe de manière asynchrone. La RCIR a été fournie oralement par des enseignants à l’aide de vidéos d’écrans. Les perceptions des apprenants et des enseignants ont été recueillies dans deux questionnaires distincts. Les résultats ont montré qu’apprenants et enseignants ont réagi à la RCIR de manière positive et plusieurs avantages potentiels ont été identifiés.

Technology Support for Collaborative Learning

2011 ◽  
pp. 888-893
Author(s):  
David A. Banks
Keyword(s):  
Collaborative Learning ◽  
Learning Experience ◽  
Audience Response ◽  
Technology Support ◽  
Electronic Meeting Systems ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Use Of Technology ◽  
The Face ◽  
Response Systems ◽  
Computer Based

Collaborative learning is an activity that takes place between a teacher and a learner, between learner and learner, and sometimes, one would hope, between learner and teacher. The free flow of ideas between the various parties can be inhibited by a variety of factors, including perceived or actual power barriers, language skills, previous learning experience, and personal factors such as shyness or dominance. Technology can be used as a way of overcoming, or reducing, some of these inhibitory factors, and this chapter outlines some of the computer-based technologies that can be used. The use of technology to support distant learners is well documented, and this chapter concentrates instead on the less well-reported use of technology in the face-to-face classroom. The chapter opens with a brief consideration of collaborative learning and then focuses on the technologies that can be used to support collaborative learning process in a variety of time and place settings. These technologies include audience response systems, electronic meeting systems, and more recently, and rapidly developing, blended versions of these technologies.

Perceptual Sequence Learning Is More Severely Impaired than Motor Sequence Learning in Patients with Chronic Cerebellar Stroke

2013 ◽  
Vol 25 (12) ◽  
pp. 2207-2215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georg Dirnberger ◽  
Judith Novak ◽  
Christian Nasel
Keyword(s):  
Motor Learning ◽  
Perceptual Learning ◽  
Sequence Learning ◽  
Procedural Learning ◽  
Perceptual Information ◽  
Healthy Controls ◽  
Learning Mechanisms ◽  
Cerebellar Stroke ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Significant Motor

Patients with cerebellar stroke are impaired in procedural learning. Several different learning mechanisms contribute to procedural learning in healthy individuals. The aim was to compare the relative share of different learning mechanisms in patients and healthy controls. Ten patients with cerebellar stroke and 12 healthy controls practiced a visuomotor serial reaction time task. Learning blocks with high stimulus–response compatibility were exercised repeatedly; in between these, participants performed test blocks with the same or a different (mirror-inverted or unrelated) stimulus sequence and/or the same or a different (mirror-inverted) stimulus–response allocation. This design allowed to measure the impact of motor learning and perceptual learning independently and to separate both mechanisms from the learning of stimulus–response pairs. Analysis of the learning blocks showed that, as expected, both patients and controls improved their performance over time, although patients remained significantly slower. Analysis of the test blocks revealed that controls showed significant motor learning as well as significant visual perceptual learning, whereas cerebellar patients showed only significant motor learning. Healthy participants were able to use perceptual information for procedural learning even when the rule linking stimuli and responses had been changed, whereas patients with cerebellar lesions could not recruit this perception-based mechanism. Therefore, the cerebellum appears involved in the accurate processing of perceptual information independent from prelearned stimulus–response mappings.

Perception, action planning, and cognitive maps

2001 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 882-882
Author(s):  
Eric Chown ◽  
Lashon B. Booker ◽  
Stephen Kaplan
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Perceptual Learning ◽  
Action Planning ◽  
Cognitive Maps ◽  
Learning Mechanisms ◽  
Cell Assemblies ◽  
Family Resemblances ◽  
Theory Of Event Coding ◽  
Representational Power ◽  
Perception Action

Perceptual learning mechanisms derived from Hebb's theory of cell assemblies can generate prototypic representations capable of extending the representational power of TEC (Theory of Event Coding) event codes. The extended capability includes categorization that accommodates “family resemblances” and problem solving that uses cognitive maps.

EXPLORING LEARNER PERCEPTION AND USE OF TASK-BASED INTERACTIONAL FEEDBACK IN FTF AND CMC MODES

2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Gurzynski-Weiss ◽  
Melissa Baralt
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Language ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Intermediate Level ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Stimulated Recall ◽  
Computer Mediated ◽  
Accurate Perception ◽  
Learner Perception

Theoretical claims about the benefits of corrective feedback have been largely premised on learners’ noticing of feedback (e.g., Gass & Mackey, 2006; Long, 1996; Schmidt, 1990, 1995; Swain, 1995), and findings have demonstrated that both the feedback target (Mackey, Gass, & McDonough, 2000) and the mode of provision (Lai & Zhao, 2006) can affect learners’ accurate perception of feedback. The current study extended this research by investigating learners’ perception and use of feedback provided in task-based interaction in both computer-mediated (CMC) and face-to-face (FTF) modes. Utilizing stimulated recall, the study examined if 24 intermediate-level learners of Spanish as a foreign language accurately noticed feedback as feedback, if they noticed the feedback target, and if the environment in which they interacted (CMC vs. FTF) made a difference in their accuracy. The study also investigated if modality affected opportunities for modified output immediately following feedback and if learners used those opportunities differently according to mode. Results demonstrated that, overall, learners did notice feedback as feedback in both modes. Contrary to expectations, there were no statistical differences between modes in feedback perception accuracy. Significant differences were found, however, in learners’ opportunities for and use of feedback depending on the interaction environment and the type of error being addressed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document