Bryfonski & Sanz (2018) - Peer CF & SA

The experiment in this article earned an Open Materials badge for transparent practices.
The materials are available at https://www.iris-

database.org/iris/app/home/detail?id=york% 3a934331&ref=search
1 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. McGill University Libraries, on 07 Oct 2018 at 01:31:38, subject to
the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 38 (2018), pp. 1–32. © Cambridge University Press, 2018 doi:
10.1017/S0267190518000016
Research Article
Opportunities for Corrective Feedback During Study Abroad: A Mixed Methods Approach
LARA BRYFONSKI Georgetown University [email protected]
CRISTINA SANZ Georgetown University [email protected]
ABSTRACT
The provision of corrective feedback during oral interaction has been deemed an essential element for successful second language
acquisition (Gass & Mackey, 2015a). However, corrective feedback—especially corrective feedback provided by peer interlocutors—
remains understudied in naturalistic settings. The present mixed methods study aimed to identify the target and type of corrective feedback
provided by both native-speaker and peer interlocutors during conversation groups while abroad. U.S. study abroad students ( N = 19)
recorded group conversations with native speakers (N = 10) at the beginning, middle, and end of a 6-week stay in Barcelona, Spain. Results
indicate a significant decrease in the provision of corrective feedback by both native speakers and peer learners over the course of the
program. Qualitative analyses revealed that both learners and natives alike engage in negotiations for meaning throughout the program,
which for learners resulted in successful recall on tailor-made quizzes. The use of the first language by both the study abroad students and
the native speakers promoted these opportunities in some instances. Results are discussed in terms of their contribution to the study abroad
literature as well as to research into the effects of feedback on second language development.
INTRODUCTION
One of the undisputed assumptions about the effects of studying abroad is the extensive access it grants to the kind of quality input
and interaction necessary for successful language acquisition. But how much do study abroad learners actually engage in the types
of interactions known to promote successful language learning? Despite the expectations students or practitioners might have
about access to quality interactions, Collentine (2009) stated that “there has been no attempt independently to document in a fully
quantified manner the types of input and
2 LARA BRYFONSKI AND CRISTINA SANZ
interaction that learners have abroad” (p. 226). Furthermore, little is known about the access study abroad students have to
corrective feedback, or the corrections learners receive on their language production, while interacting in naturalistic settings.
Much of what we know about the links between interaction, corrective feedback, and language development has been found
through research either in the classroom or the laboratory in the home country of the learners. This large body of work spans three
decades (for meta-analyses, see Li, 2010; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Mackey & Goo, 2007) and has continuously affirmed the
connection between corrective feedback and successful acquisition. While previous work traditionally explored the role of the
teacher or native speaker (NS) as the provider of the feedback, the provision of feedback by language-learning peers has also been
explored (e.g., Fujii, Ziegler & Mackey, 2016, Sato & Lyster, 2007, 2012; Varonis & Gass, 1985) in addition to studies examining
how peers collaborate on tasks (Swain, 1997) and engage in language-related episodes (LREs; Swain, 1998; Swain & Lapkin, 1995,
1998). However, these studies typically examine tightly controlled laboratory interactions or task-based classroom interactions. Few
studies have examined interactions in naturalistic contexts abroad (but see Fernández García & Martínez Arbelaiz, 2007;
Fernández-García & Martínez- Arbelaiz, 2014; McMeekin, 2006). By employing an interactionist perspective on second language
acquisition (SLA; Gass, 1997; Gass & Mackey, 2015a; Long, 1996, 2007; Mackey, 1999), the current study attempts to fill this gap
by providing primary data on the interactions learners engage in abroad and how the type of feedback they give and receive changes
over the course of a short-term stay, the most popular study abroad option for U.S. students (Grey, Cox, Serafini, & Sanz, 2015).
The study additionally investigates the role of the learners’ first language (L1) in the opportunities to engage with corrective
feedback.
BACKGROUND
Interaction and L2 Development
Interaction between language learners and more proficient speakers is one of the driving forces of successful language acquisition.
The interaction approach (Gass, 1997; Gass & Mackey, 2015a; Long, 1996, 2007; Mackey, 1999) posits that the combination of
exposure to modified input and output and negotiation for meaning via the provision of negative corrective feedback is essential to
second language (L2) development. This link between interaction and language development has been empirically tested in more
than 100 studies since the 1980s (Keck, Iberri- Shea, Tracy-Ventura, & Wa-Mbaleka, 2006; Mackey & Goo, 2007; Russell &
Spada, 2006), providing robust evidence on a variety of grammatical and discourse features. Input, the first key component of L2
development, can be modified during interaction to suit the needs of the learner at a given point in time (Mackey, 2012). This most
often occurs through negotiation for meaning, adjustments made during
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. McGill University Libraries, on 07 Oct 2018 at 01:31:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
OPPORTUNITIES FOR CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK DURING STUDY ABROAD 3
conversation that make input more comprehensible to learners. Negotiation for meaning often entails the provision of corrective
feedback, which can provide the positive or negative evidence that learners need to “notice the gap” (Schmidt, 1990) between their
own production and that of native or proficient speakers.
SLA researchers have extensively investigated the effects of corrective feedback on various aspects of SLA (Mackey,
2012) both in classroom and laboratory settings. Feedback ranges from simply an indication than an error has occurred and has
caused a communication breakdown, such as output-prompting clarification requests (“Sorry, what did you say?”), to metalinguistic
explanations of how the error should be corrected (“You need to use the past tense ending –ed...”). In this regard, corrective
feedback moves are frequently discussed and studied in terms of their relative explicit or implicitness. On the implicit end, recasts
occur when an interlocutor reformulates all or part of a student’s utterance, a type of feedback that has received considerable
attention in previous literature (e.g., Ammar & Spada, 2006; Carpenter, Jeon, MacGregor & Mackey, 2006; Lyster & Ranta, 1997;
Mackey, Gass, & McDonough, 2000; Mackey & Philp, 1998; McDonough & Mackey, 2006). Explicit forms include metalinguistic
or grammatical explanations of the error or providing translations.
The degree to which explicit or implicit feedback is more or less effective has been hotly debated in previous literature
(Goo & Mackey, 2013; Lyster & Saito, 2010), yet these issues have mainly been discussed in terms of research in language
classrooms or laboratory settings. Whether or not implicit or more explicit forms of corrective feedback are the most effective,
recasts are the feedback move most often used by teachers in language classrooms (Brown, 2016). It has been argued that this is
because implicit feedback does not interrupt the flow of meaning making in the classroom and is more naturalistic (Long, 1996,
2007). Furthermore, the opportunity learners have to modify their output following correction has been shown to enable learners to
compare their productions to their perceptions of the instructor’s model, thereby fostering automaticity (Swain, 2005). While this is
the case for classroom and laboratory settings, corrective feedback—especially corrective feedback provided by peer interlocutors
—remains understudied in naturalistic settings.
Peer Interaction and L2 Development
In many language-learning environments, learners are grouped together to work collaboratively on a given task. To better
understand how pairs or groups of language learners working together impacts L2 performance and development, researchers
have examined the ways in which peers provide each other input, prompt for modified output, and offer corrective feedback. Often,
learners briefly transi- tion from a meaning-focused interaction to attend to linguistic form. The nature of these interactions has
been operationalized as collaborative dialogue (Swain 1997), collaborative scaffolding (Donato, 1994), and LREs (Swain &
Lapkin, 1998). Pre- vious research demonstrated a connection between peer-to-peer collaboration and language learning (Swain,
Brooks, & Tocalli-Beller, 2002).
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
While fewer studies have explored peer-to-peer feedback than those that have examined teacher or NS feedback, some
patterns have emerged (for an overview, see Sato, 2017). A study by Sippel and Jackson (2015) compared three groups of
intermediate learners of German: One group received oral corrective feedback from their course instructor, one group was trained to
provide peer feedback to one another, and one was the control group. While both experimental conditions demonstrated significant
improvements in terms of grammatical accuracy in the two forms under study, the peer feedback group showed the greatest
improvements on posttests and delayed-posttests. Sippel and Jackson argued that when peers provide feedback to each other, they
stand to gain not only from receiving the feedback, but also from providing the feedback to their peers. Both receiving and
providing oral feedback worked to heighten learners’ awareness of linguistic forms. Various other studies have found that learners
tend to negotiate for meaning more often with each other as compared with NSs (e.g., Mackey, Oliver, & Leeman, 2003; Varonis &
Gass, 1985). Others found that peers provide similar interactive moves as NSs, including modified input, opportunities for modified
output, and corrective feedback (Mackey et al., 2003; Pica, Lincoln-Porter, Paninos, & Linnell, 1996; Sato & Lyster, 2007). In a
study by Mackey et al. (2003), adult learner- learner dyads completing a task produced more opportunities for modified output, and
child learner-learner dyads produced more modified output than they did with NSs. Additionally, several studies have found that
learners tend to self-correct more often when interacting with peers than with NSs (Sato, 2007; Shehadeh, 2001).
Despite these positive findings, some additional studies have uncovered draw- backs to peer interaction. Loschky & Bley-
Vroman (1993) found that, depending on the task, learners might avoid negotiating for meaning and instead focus exclusively on
task completion. Sato and Lyster (2012) argued that a common type of feedback provided by peers consists of simple
segmentations of their peer- interlocutor’s erroneous utterances, and this feedback is of lesser quality than feedback provided by
NSs. Other research has found that learners might not attune to feedback provided by peers because they do not always believe in
each other’s linguistic capabilities (Yoshida, 2008) or because they simply prefer feedback from teachers over feedback delivered
by peers (Chu, 2013). Additionally, cultural backgrounds and the avoidance of face-threatening behaviors may affect the degree to
which learners are willing to provide each other feedback (Fujii & Mackey, 2009; Sato & Lyster, 2007). However, many of the
disadvantages for peer-to-peer interaction and feedback are heavily influenced by task conditions, either in the classroom or
laboratory, and are typically contextualized in foreign language, nonimmersion settings.
Of the studies that have examined learners interacting and negotiating for meaning together in groups, few have studied
learners in naturalistic (nonclassroom, nonlaboratory testing) settings (but see McDonough & Hernández González, 2013; Polio,
Gass, & Chapin, 2006; Ranta & Meckelborg, 2013; Ziegler et al., 2013). While very early work on L2 interaction did focus on
learners interacting in informal conversations (e.g., Long, 1981), also known as “conversations-for- learning” (for a review, see
Kasper & Kim, 2015), since then, most studies using an
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
interactionist approach have examined learners in instructional or laboratory settings. The current study examined small groups of
peer language learners interacting with one or two NSs (also peers of a similar age range). One similar study (Ziegler et al., 2013)
examined the learning opportunities of German learners at a U.S. institution interacting in weekly conversation groups. This study
took a discourse analytic approach to understanding the learners’ development of German conversational style and found that the
naturalistic setting of the conversation groups played an important role in the development of native-like conversational styles.
While this is evidence that naturalistic learning is effective for conversational style in foreign language setting, these
findings should be extended to learners interacting in conversation groups while studying abroad. Investigating the unique context
of studying abroad is critical, especially in light of some evidence that learners abroad do not uniformly take advantage of the
opportunities they have to interact in natural settings (e.g., Ranta & Meckelborg, 2013).
Feedback in Study Abroad
Studying abroad is commonly regarded by students and teachers as one of the best methods of increasing access to quality linguistic
input and authentic interaction (Freed, 1998). However, empirical research into the effects of study abroad experiences on L2
development has shown mixed results, with some studies indicating limited improvements when compared with learners who
stayed at home, especially in short-term programs (e.g., Churchill & DuFon, 2006) and other studies showing domain-specific
gains, with study abroad students improving fluency and pragmatic abilities rather than grammatical aspects (e.g., Collentine,
2009). Other studies have posited a connection between length of stay abroad and L2 development (e.g., Davidson, 2010), with
some results indicating that even small increases in the duration of stay, such as 4 weeks instead of 3, can play a role in subsequent
linguistic gains (Llanes & Muñoz, 2009). However, short-term programs (less than 8 weeks), such as the one investigated in the
current study, remain the least investigated in the literature (Llanes, 2011). Despite the inconclusive evidence on the effects of
study abroad, there is little research on the nature of the interactions students engage in with NSs or peers in the nonformal
instructional settings they encounter while abroad (Wilkinson, 2002), which leads to the question: Are the interactions that learners
are exposed to in study abroad supportive of language acquisition?
A limited number of studies have sought to describe and understand conversations students have with NSs “in the wild”
(Hutchins, 1995) of the host country (Fernández García & Martínez Arbelaiz, 2007; Fernández-García & Martínez- Arbelaiz, 2014;
McMeekin, 2006; Wilkinson, 2002). Some have adopted an interactionist perspective (Fernández García & Martínez Arbelaiz,
2007; Fernández- García & Martínez-Arbelaiz, 2014; for an overview, see Bryfonski & Mackey, in press) while others have
utilized conversational analysis methods (Wilkin- son, 2002) or qualitative case studies (McMeekin, 2006). In two studies of NS
learner dyads interacting during informal conversation groups abroad in Spain,
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
Fernández García & Martínez Arbelaiz (2007; Fernández-García & Martínez- Arbelaiz, 2014) descriptively analyzed how learners
negotiated for meaning and whether or not learners had opportunities for feedback and uptake. These researchers found that
recasts were the most frequent moves during these interactions, followed by other moves that the researchers termed “lexical
assistance,” “form assistance,” and “completion.” The learners in this study often self-initiated LREs by prompting their
interlocutors for input.
Other researchers have also demonstrated how learners adopt classroom roles and discourse structures while interacting
abroad. In observations and interviews with learners studying abroad in France, Wilkinson (2002) found that learners interacting
with their host families and other interlocutors, such as travel agents and children, relied mostly on classroom-instructional norms—
with the NSs adopting the role of the teacher and the learners taking on the role of the student. Wilkinson concluded that “perhaps
immersion in a target-language community during study abroad does not always take students as far beyond the classroom as one
might intuitively believe” (p. 169). Similarly, McMeekin (2006) reported on a case study of five students interacting while studying
abroad in Japan in their classroom and with their host families. McMeekin found that host-family negotiations provided more
comprehensible input than classroom discourse, but not output because the NSs corrected or rephrased the learners’ potentially
troubled utterances and left no opportunities for modified output. The classroom abroad, however, provided more opportunities for
modified output, but focus on form was part of both settings. McMeekin concluded that a combination of both settings abroad
would provide students with maximum opportunities for exposures to the types of interaction deemed necessary for language
acquisition. However, these studies were cross- sectional; few have looked at the effects of negotiation for meaning and corrective
feedback on interlanguage development over time. One longitudinal study by Ranta and Meckelborg ( 2013) examined the quantity
and quality of exposure to English that Chinese graduate students had while studying at a Canadian university. Over the course of 6
months, learners used computerized logs to record their daily interactions. Findings indicated that while learners were exposed to
high levels of English input, they interacted in English relatively infrequently. These students were not able to engage in the kinds
of interactions known to be beneficial to the SLA process (Long, 1996) despite their immersive setting. Ranta and Meckelborg
considered as possible factors that contributed to their findings the learners’ low willingness to communicate, cultural background,
and motivation to stay con- nected with the Chinese expatriate community by using their L1. However, the use of the students’ L1
has not yet been factored into the opportunities learners have to receive input and corrective feedback or to produce modified output
while studying abroad.
First Language (L1) Use
The use of the L1 in the context of classroom language learning has been examined and debated in a variety of past work (Cook,
2001; Duff & Polio, 1990; Levine,
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
2003; Polio & Duff, 1994), with researchers proposing various situations where the L1 is appropriate to use (or not use) by both
teachers and language learners. A study by Antón and DiCamilla (1999) found that learners working together on a task used their
mutual L1 to build collaborative dialogue that enhanced their language acquisition. Antón and DiCamilla rejected the notion that
the L1 should be banned from language classrooms and instead advocated for L1 use in certain contexts as a communicative tool.
The strategic use of the L1 in foreign language classroom environments has also been advocated for in a variety of previous work
(Azkarai & García Mayo, 2015, 2017; Tognini & Oliver, 2012) with some research showing that despite instructors’ fears (Storch
& Wigglesworth, 2003; Tognini & Oliver, 2012), learners do not make excessive use of their L1 when collaborating on tasks
(Azkarai & García Mayo, 2015). A study by Tognini and Oliver (2012) examined how children used their mutual L1 while
collaborating on foreign language tasks and found that the learners used their L1 in peer-to-peer interactions to scaffold each
other’s production and did so more often in negotiations for meaning rather than in form-focused exchanges. Learners might also
employ their L1 in self-directed or private-verbal speech when working on a task, which has been shown to aid in their process of
reasoning (Centeno-Cortés & Jiménez Jiménez, 2004).
In immersion contexts, studies have found that L1 use during task-based activities was implemented by students for a
variety of reasons, including to manage the task, to focus in on particular vocabulary or grammar items, and to enhance
interpersonal interaction, and that it was particularly effective for lower- proficiency students (Swain & Lapkin, 2000). Study
abroad students are often prohibited from using the L1 in order to take advantage of the immersive environment in which they are
learning. Many immersion programs require students to sign a language pledge agreeing to “communicate only in their language of
study throughout the program” and touting benefits to the pledge such as “rapid acquisition of linguistic and cultural fluency”
(Middlebury Language Schools, 2016). Previous studies have indicated that learners take the pledge very seriously (Dewey, 2004)
and some programs penalize students with grade reductions or even suspension from the program for violations (Grey et al., 2015).
One study (Du, 2013) found positive effects on fluency measures for study abroad students who stated in interviews that they
observed the language pledge strictly in comparison to those students who stated that they spoke their L1 whenever they had the
opportunity. However, the effectiveness of language pledges is still under in- vestigation, and some authors cite negative effects
such as resentment toward the target language (Kuntz & Belnap, 2001) or tension between students who strictly observe the pledge
and those who do not (Du, 2013). To date, little is known about if, how, or why study abroad students who have taken the language
pledge use their L1 when interacting with NSs or with each other during their study abroad experiences.
On the basis of the theoretical foundations discussed here and considering current gaps in the literature, the current study
will shed light on the following research questions:
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
RQ1. What is the relationship between the time spent abroad and the amount and type
of corrective feedback provided in conversation groups? RQ2. What differences exist between the corrective feedback provided by
native speakers versus nonnative peer interlocutors during study abroad conversation groups? RQ3. What is the role of the L1 in facilitating
opportunities to engage with corrective
feedback in these conversation groups?
METHOD
Participants
The study was conducted in the summer of 2016 with 29 participants; 19 were university students from a U.S. University (see Table
1 for an overview of participant biodata). These 19 students were native or very close near-native speakers of English; one student
identified as a heritage speaker of Spanish and two other students listed languages other than English as their native languages
(Italian and Korean). Other students listed additional L2s at varying levels of proficiency (He- brew, Russian, French, and
Portuguese). Students had been studying Spanish for an average of 8.6 years prior to their trip to Barcelona (range: 4 to 11 years)
and were rated intermediate-high by their home institution, meaning they had previously completed two advanced Spanish language
courses.
Ten of the NS participants were students at the local university in Barcelona where the study abroad program took place.
The study abroad students were required to attend the regularly scheduled conversation groups, and the NS students were paid to
act as weekly conversation partners. This program component was meant to develop learner autonomy and to foster the exchange of
ideas. Learners and NSs were given no specific instructions or training on how to interact or what to talk about, and they formed
groups according to their own preferences. They were
TABLE 1. Participant Biodata
Study Abroad Students Native Speakers
a) Gender
Male n = 2 n = 5 Female n = 17 n = 5 b) Age M = 20 years,
range = 18–27 years c) Years studying Spanish M = 8.6 years,
range = 4–11 years d) University major/minor
Spanish n = 5 Politics n = 5 Government n = 2 Economics n = 2 Undeclared/other n = 5
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
6-Week Study Abroad: Summer 2016 Post–Study Abroad: Fall 2016
Primary data collection Semistructured interviews, Stimulated- recall interviews

Quantitative data analysis Semistructured interviews, Stimulated- recall interviews
Qualitative follow-up Semistructured interviews, Stimulated- recall interviews
Qualitative follow-up Semistructured interviews, Stimulated- recall interviews
Quantitative follow-up Tailored Tests
Tailored Tests
Week 1: Students record first meeting of conversation groups
Tailored Tests
ion groups
onversation groups
onversation groups
gs transcribed and coded
FIGURE 1. Research Time Frame and Events.
required to meet for at least 1 hour twice a week, but in practice, participants spent anywhere between 1 and 4 hours interacting,
depending on the day and group.
Context
All study abroad participants were taking part in a faculty-led U.S. institution’s 6-week program in Barcelona, Spain, where Catalan
is also spoken. Participants in the program were there to continue their study of Spanish, and all their coursework and activities
were conducted in Spanish. The program website characterizes its program as emphasizing writing, the development of students’
autonomy as language learners, and the conceptual connections between experiences both within and outside the classroom. While
abroad, the students enrolled in three courses on politics, art history, and linguistics, taught in Spanish at the local university by
faculty from their home institution and by host faculty. Students were required to complete 12 hours per week of coursework and an
additional 10 hours of homework per week. Students also regularly participated in daylong organized excursions with NSs,
participated in conversation exchanges, and completed daily reflective writing assignments. Students lived together in a dormitory
throughout the course of the program, supervised by an NS instructor.
At the beginning of the program, all students were required to sign a language pledge promising to only speak in Spanish
during the duration of the program. Students and faculty were expected to take this pledge very seriously; resident assistants
monitored language use in the residence halls and during meals, and they prohibited cell phones during activities. Significant
violations to this language pledge could lead to sanctions by the program and home institution.
Data Collection
The current study employed a sequential embedded mixed methods design (Mackey & Bryfonski, in press), with quantitative and
qualitative data collected in multiple iterations to inform and follow up on one another (see Figure 1).
The main source of data for this study was from audio recordings of conversation exchanges between groups of study
abroad students and local NSs (see Table 2 for an overview of the audio-recording data sample). These conversation groups were
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
TABLE 2. Audio Recordings Overview
Time in Time Frame n NNS Study abroad students n NS Native speaker(s) minutes
Week 1
Group A 4 Catherine, Maria, Heather, Carol
1 Elena 30:41
Group B 2 Bob, Cliff 1 Theo 33:14 Group C 3 Jessica, Giselle, Aubrey 1 Maynor 33:51 Group D 2 Jaime, Ashley 1 Samantha 30:26 Group E 2 Molly,
Ellen 1 Diego 43:50 Total: 13 5 170:82 Week 3
Group F 3 Bob, Cliff, Aubrey 2 Diego, Anne 8:00 Group G 3 Elisa, Maria, Catherine 2 Isaac, Simon 21:09 Group H 3 Jessica, Giselle, Sara 1 Elena 28:01
Group I 3 Kate, Gabby, Elisa 3 Isaac, Simon, Pilar 30:03 Total: 12 8 124:85 Week 6
Group J 3 Catherine, Elisa, Maria 2 Isaac, Simon 30:20 Group K 4 Bob, Cliff, Heather,
Carol
1 Alba 31:56
Group L 3 Kate, Jaime, Ashley 2 Samantha, Theo 31:42 Group M 4 Tracey, Jenny, Molly,
Ellen
1 Eva 30:01
Total: 14 6 123:19
Note: All names are pseudonyms. NS = native speaker; NNS = nonnative speaker.
part of the study abroad program’s regular programming. Selected study abroad students also participated in
semistructured and stimulated-recall interviews, and they took a custom quiz approximately 4 months after completion of
the study abroad program.
As part of the program’s emphasis on student autonomy, students were able to form conversation groups freely with
whomever they wished. Some students tended to group together; however, it is not necessarily the case that all students
contributed equally to recordings at each time frame sampled. Only four participants appear across all three time
intervals.
Students were asked by the study abroad program practitioners to meet in any mutually agreed-upon location, record 30
minutes of natural conversation out of their 1-hour conversations, and send their recordings to the researcher. In practice,
the students and NSs met at cafes, bars, and restaurants, or took walks around the city. Collentine and Freed ( 2004)
referred to this setting as a “hybrid communicative-learning context” because the students must negotiate both for- mal
learning contexts and purely communicative contexts. In these settings, study abroad learners “often consciously attempt
to utilize in communicative interactions explicit knowledge they have attained from their (concurrent classroom) learning
experiences” (Collentine & Freed, 2004, p. 156). This is what Wilkinson (2002) referred to as the “omnipresent
classroom” where students and NSs alike adopt
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. McGill University Libraries, on 07 Oct 2018 at 01:31:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
classroom roles and discourse patterns, such as requesting or providing feedback, to manage interactions with study abroad
students.
Approximately 4 months later, a select number of the study abroad students (n = 9) volunteered to participate in follow-up
interviews, back at their U.S. home institution. Interviews followed a semistructured protocol and targeted the following themes of
interest: interactions with NSs abroad (questions based on Zappa- Hollman & Duff, 2015), the role of corrections abroad and in the
conversation groups, and the use of English abroad (adapted from Duff & Polio, 1990).
Eight of the nine interviewees also took part in a tailor-made quiz following the interview. Previous research has used
tailor-made quizzes or tests for learners, following a given treatment to assess recall or the efficacy of collaborative tasks (LaPierre,
1994; Loewen & Philp, 2006; McDonough & Sunitham, 2009; Swain & Lapkin, 2001; Zeng & Takatsuka, 2009). These tailored
quizzes address what learners actually did and said during interactions. The expectation is that when students collaborate, discuss,
or receive feedback on a linguistic form, they will be more likely to remember it on the tailored quiz (Loewen & Philp, 2006).
While previous research has found that the majority of LREs that are correctly resolved during collaborative dialogues are retained
on tailored posttests (Swain, 1998), incorrectly resolved or unresolved LREs lead to much lower rates of accuracy on tailored
posttests (Williams, 2001).
The tailored quizzes in the current study targeted lexical items and grammatical forms (following McDonough & Sunitham,
2009) that were involved in corrective feedback episodes via either implicit or explicit feedback during the participants’
conversation groups. For example, if a student received corrective feedback or discussed the meaning of the word contraseña in the
conversation groups, then on the tailor-made test, they would be given the word password and asked to provide the Spanish word.
For grammatical forms, learners were provided with an English phrase or sentence and asked to supply the Spanish translation. For
example, if the learner received feedback on the conjugation for a preterit or imperfect verb in a sentence, on the tailored test the
learner was presented with an entire sentence in English and asked to say that sentence in Spanish. Each student was tested on two
to four words or phrases; 24 words in total were tested. The excerpts were ran- domly chosen from all the corrective feedback and
provision of corrective feedback episodes the student engaged in during data collection. The words were written in English and
presented one at a time to the participant. Each participant was asked to say the word or words in Spanish if they could remember
them. As Loewen and Philp (2006) pointed out: When tailor-made quizzes are used as posttests without pretests, it is impossible to
say whether or not the test measures the acquisition of new forms or simply “the consolidation of latent knowledge” (p. 542).
Therefore, these quizzes only demonstrate the ability to recall after feedback forms that were previously problematic for students.
Eight interviewees also participated in a stimulated-recall interview after the custom quiz and upon conclusion of the
interview. The stimulated-recall interviews were conducted based on the recommendations provided in Gass and Mackey ( 2015b).
Previous research has shown that the reactivity and time-delays can cause
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
validity issues as learners move from accessing memories in their short-term memory to retrieving information from their long-
term memory, which has been shown to be less reliable (for a description of issues of reactivity, see Egi, 2007, 2008; Leow &
Morgan-Short, 2004). Therefore, as a result of the time delay between the initial conversations and the interviews (4 months), the
stimulated-recall aimed to obtain only perceptions and reactions rather than attempt to access processes involved in the interactions.
During the stimulated-recall portion, the researcher played between two and seven pre-identified clips from the participant’s
conversation groups. Each clip involved a corrective feedback move directed toward the participant from either an NS or one of
the nonnative-speaker (NNS) peers in the conversation group. Clips in which the participant provided feedback to a peer were also
played if they occurred in the data. Each clip was played two times, and the participant was asked to describe what they were
thinking at the time or, since these stimulated-recall interviews did not occur immediately following the interactions, simply to
describe their reaction to the feedback.
Analysis
To address RQ1 and RQ2, all corrective feedback episodes were identified in the audio recordings of the conversation groups and
then transcribed by the researcher.1 Means for the number of corrective feedback moves in each conversation group over the three
time periods were calculated. The feedback moves were then coded in terms of (a) the interlocutor who produced the feedback (the
NS or the NNS study abroad students) and (b) whether the feedback was implicit or explicit in nature. Following Mackey ( 2012),
feedback was coded with a meaning-based di- chotomy. Feedback was coded as implicit feedback when the feedback provider
focused exclusively on meaning, that is, by not indicating the error’s location, by clarifying understanding in order to move the
conversation forward, or by simply negotiating for meaning. Implicit feedback includes recasts (reformulations), clarification
requests (prompts), and confirmation checks (see Example 1; NSs appear in bold in all of the examples).
EXAMPLE 1. Implicit Feedback Coding
1 Maria Yo use ur- yo uso un. Keurig?

I use or- I use a. Keurig? 2 Isaac [un?] ← Implicit feedback
[a?] 3 Simon [un?] ← Implicit feedback
[a?] 4 Maria [Keurig?] 5 Catherine [Keurig.] es=
[Keurig.] it’s= 6 Maria =es una máquina que um: ← Modified Output
=it a machine that um:
Explicit corrections were those that focused on form and offered either specific grammar rules or a translation or where
form was discussed explicitly.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
Metalinguistic feedback or other LREs, where form was explicitly discussed, and translations were both coded as explicit feedback
(see Example 2).
EXAMPLE 2. Explicit Feedback Coding
50 Elisa & [Una copa] Maria [One glass] 51 Simon Oh. Oh. 52 Una copa no ← Explicit NS feedback
Not a glass 53 Una taza de café
A cup of coffee 54 Una copa es. u:h
A glass is u:h 55 Isaac Copa es para vi:no. ← Explicit NS feedback
Glass is for wi:ne.
A trained rater coded a subsample (20%) of the identified feedback moves for both coding features (whether the feedback
provider was an NS or NNS and whether the feedback was implicit or explicit), and any differences were discussed for an initial
reliability estimate of 85%. The remaining 15% were considered again by the two coders, and a final agreement of 100% was
reached.
The responses on the custom quizzes provided additional quantitative data to address RQ1 and RQ2. Each item on the
tailored quizzes was graded categorically as either completely correct or incorrect. The total number of correct responses was
divided by the total number of items on the tailored quizzes to produce a percent- age accuracy score. Accuracy scores were
compared with findings from previous studies that utilized tailored quizzes to measure uptake of lexical and grammatical forms
following negotiations for meaning (e.g., McDonough & Sunitham, 2009; Williams, 2001).
To address RQ3, all instances of L1 English use were identified in the audio recordings of the conversation groups and then
were transcribed by the researcher. The use of the L1 was counted in terms c-units, that is, a multiword utterance clause was
counted as 1 unit (e.g., I don’t know), as was the insertion of a single English word (cómo se dice password?).
We used quantitative analyses to address all three research questions. One-way ANOVAs tested for statistically significant
changes in the number of feedback moves across the three time periods, as well as statistical differences between the type of
feedback provided (implicit or explicit), the provider of the feedback (NS or NNS), and change in L1 use over time. Effect sizes
were calculated by Cohen’s d (Cohen, 1988). Qualitative analyses were used to inform and follow up on the quantitative findings
for each research question. Semistructured interviews were coded using a thematic, grounded approach using QSR International’s
qualitative analysis software NVivo. The resulting themes were then associated with relevant excerpts from the audio recordings.
The stimulated-recall portion of the interviews were transcribed, and any perceptions or reflections were coded thematically and
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
FIGURE 2. Change in Total Amount of Feedback per Conversation Group Over Time.
categorized according to the type of feedback and the feedback provider in each example discussed during the interview.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RQ1: What is the relationship between the time spent abroad and the amount and type of corrective
feedback provided in conversation groups?
In total, 176 feedback moves were identified and transcribed; 74 moves at Week 1 (M = 14.8, SD = 4.32), 69 at Week 3 (M = 17.3,
SD = 2.06), and 33 at Week 6 (M = 8.25, SD = 5.56). As shown in Figure 2, there was a decrease in the amount of feedback
provided by both NSs and peers per conversation group between the first week and the last week of the program.
Results from a one-way ANOVA demonstrate statistically significant change in total feedback moves over time ( F = 4.85,
df = 2, p = .03, η2 = .49). An LSD post hoc comparison (as recommended by Howell [2002] and Larson-Hall [2010] for three
comparisons) revealed a statistically significant difference between Weeks 1 and 6 (mean difference = 6.55, 95% CI = .20, 12.9, p
= .04), as well as a statistically significant difference between Weeks 3 and 6 (mean difference = 9.00, 95% CI = 2.31, 15.69, p = .
01). No difference was found between Weeks 1 and 3 (mean difference = −2.45, 95% CI = −8.80, 3.90, p = .41). Effect sizes
revealed a small to medium effect (d = 0.7) for the change in feedback between Weeks 1 and 3, a medium to large effect (d = 1.30)
for the change in feedback between Weeks 1 and 6, and large effect (d = 2.10) for the change in feedback between Weeks 3 and 6.
The overall result that the total amount of feedback decreased over time is supported by the interview data. Seven of the
interviewees reported that they perceived a change during the course of the 6 weeks of conversation groups. Their comments
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
FIGURE 3. Changes in Type of Feedback per Conversation Group Over Time.
indicate that they believed the conversations had less of a language focus, were more natural, and led to fewer communication
breakdowns by the end of the study abroad program. For example, Cliff (all names pseudonyms) described how he did not feel the
need to translate from English to Spanish by the end of the program:
It got to the point ... that I kind of just started thinking in it. I wasn’t thinking like, “How do I say this in Spanish?” I would sort of just say
whatever was on my mind.
Jessica also perceived this change and described how the conversation groups shifted from being stilted and awkward to
just catching up with Elena, the NS her group met with each week.
It was natural ... especially towards the end of the sessions because we knew we were going to [Elena] and we knew we could catch up and
then it was nice because we all wanted to talk.
In terms of the type of feedback per conversation group, the amounts of implicit and explicit feedback decreased similarly
over time (as shown in Figure 3). How- ever, the difference between the total amount of explicit (total = 80) and implicit feedback
(total = 96) was not statistically significant.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
This finding was also supported by the qualitative data. When asked if the NSs in the group corrected the study abroad
students all the time, or only when there was a misunderstanding, all nine participants in the interviews agreed that they were not
corrected all the time, only when there were misunderstandings. One student said that they were only corrected “when it came up ...
it never felt like an interruption.” Excerpt 1 demonstrates one student receiving implicit feedback on the incorrect use of a lexical
item (Note: NSs are highlighted in bold in all of the excerpts.)
EXCERPT 1. Implicit Feedback
1 Maria Nunca de mis bromas pueden ser. traslados

None of my jokes can be. translated 2 Isaac ...Pueden ser? ← Implicit feedback
...They can be? 3 Maria Traslados?=
Translated?= 4 Isaac =Traducidas. ← Implicit feedback
=Translated. 5 Maria Traducidas ← Modified Output
Translated
Maria recalled the word for “translated” correctly on her custom quiz and very clearly remembered this correction during the
stimulated-recall interview. She said:I remembered that one just because when I was saying it I didn’t really stutter on it.... I was taught this ...
it was something that I was confident in saying ... then they were like no you’re doing it wrong. How many other things have I been saying
incorrectly?
However, the success of the implicit feedback in terms of later retrieval of correct forms was mixed. Excerpt 2 is an
example of one such implicit correction taken from the first week of the program with the same participant:
EXCERPT 2. Implicit Feedback
1 Maria Es interesante porque

It’s interesting because 2 Creo que um or
I believe that um or 3 Estoy uh debajo la impresión que uh I am uh under the impression that uh 4 Mucha de la
gente esta.. tre-lingue?
Alot of people are trilingual? 5 Elena Trilingüe. ← Implicit feedback
Trilingual 6 Maria Sí, y eso es increíble para mí
Yes, and that is incredible to me
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
Maria did not correctly recall the word “trilingüe” on her tailored quiz and stated in the stimulated-recall interview:
I don’t think I realized. I don’t think I was really sure what I was trying to say. But I just knew “bilingual” and then went with that.
One difference to point out between these two exchanges is that Maria recalled noticing the feedback in Excerpt 1 and modified her
output. She also received both an output-prompting clarification request, “They can be?” (line 2), as well as a recast, “Translated”
(line 4), adding to the salience of the feedback. However, in Excerpt 2 she received only positive input and did not modify her
output, but simply continued on in the conversation, an indication that the feedback the NS provided was most likely not noticed.
Or if the feedback was noticed at the time, it only helped her to be sensitive to future patterns in the input, rather than explicit
knowledge (for more evidence of salience in implicit feedback, see Leeman, 2003). On the other hand, several students stated that
they explicitly asked the NSs to correct them and often stopped to ask for translations or grammatical explanations. In Excerpt 3,
Aubrey asked for explicit feedback on an unknown lexical item from the NS.
EXCERPT 3. Explicit Feedback
13 Aubrey Pero yo perdí el um..

But I lost the um.. 14 ¿Cómo se dice <password<In English> otra vez?
How do you say <password<In English> again? 15 Maynor Contraseña? ← Explicit feedback
Password? 16 Aubrey El col- la- colaseña ← Modified Output (ill-formed)
The col- the – <password<ill-formed> 17 Uh yo perdí la colaseña
Uh I lost the <password<ill-formed>
In Excerpt 3, Audrey did not accurately modify her output. However, the results from the custom quiz indicate that she remembered
the correct form. When played this clip during the stimulated-recall interview, Aubrey stated that she remembered the word because
she asked about it so many times throughout the program. She said:There were a few words that came up like “contraseña” that I definitely
learned throughout the program.... A few, like 20 or so words I had weird contact with. I will always remember them now.
Although Aubrey did not appear to notice the feedback in this particular example during the conversation groups, she
successfully learned the word through other encounters in her study abroad (or post–study abroad) experience.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
However, explicit correction did not always result in successful recollection. In Excerpt 4 the NSs Diego and Anne
negotiated with Cliff to break down his ill-formed utterance. They repeated it together until he understood his error:
EXCERPT 4. Explicit Feedback

6 Cliff =Yo sólo crean que ellos =I only thought that they 7 estaba.n extranjeros
were foreigners= 8 Diego =Yo creía que.. ellos ← Explicit feedback
=I thought that..they 9 Cliff Yo creí:a que ellos.. fue:ron extra:njeros= ← Modified Output
I thou:ght they.. we:re fo:reigners= 10 Anne =[eran] <laughing> ← Explicit feedback
=[were]< laughing> 11 Diego =[eran] ← Explicit feedback
=[were] 12 Cliff Fueron?
Were? 13 Diego Eran. ← Explicit feedback
Were. 14 Cliff Eran. Were. 15 Diego <Yo creía que ellos eran extranjeros <rapidly> ← Explicit feedback
<I thought they were foreigners <rapidly>
However, when Cliff was asked to recall how to say “I thought that they were foreigners” on his custom quiz, he was
incorrect, although he stated that he considered this kind of feedback helpful. He recalled in the stimulated-recall portion of the
interview:
[Diego] would do that it a lot ... sometimes we would have to ask him to repeat that or sound it out and try to internalize it.
This sentiment was not felt by everyone, however. When Carol reflected on asking for the translation for “spelling” and
receiving corrective feedback, she stated “just from her [the NS] telling me, I couldn’t remember.” Carol also did not correctly
recall the Spanish word for “spelling” during her tailored quiz.
As Mackey et al. (2000) pointed out, learners receive and notice as much feedback as they need for their given stage of
development. Therefore, the finding of a decrease in feedback over the course of the program might be interpreted as a sign of
development during these informal conversation groups in this study abroad context. Additionally, the results from the tailored quiz
revealed a 48% (10 out of 21 items) success rate on remembering the target word or phrase several months after the abroad
experience. Previous work utilizing tailored quizzes following corrective feedback has found success rates ranging from 30% to
60% for lexical items and grammatical forms (McDonough & Sunitham, 2009; Williams, 2001). The finding from the present study
indicates a potential relationship between suc-
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
FIGURE 4. Change in Feedback Providers per Conversation Group Over Time.

cessful uptake of language following corrective feedback in this context. However, as the excerpts above show, there is no clear
indication as to what either explicit or implicit feedback or the combination contributed to this finding.
RQ2: What differences exist between the corrective feedback provided by native speakers versus nonnative
peer interlocutors during study abroad conversation groups?
Of the total number of feedback moves, the majority were provided by the NSs (total = 132; Time 1: M = 10.04, SD = 3.05; Time
2: M = 14.5, SD = 3.7; Time 3: M = 5.5, SD = 4.73), though NNS peer feedback did occur (total = 44; Time 1: M= 4.4, SD= 3.43;
Time 2: M= 2.75, SD = 1.70; Time 3:M= 2.75, SD = 2.75). The difference found between NS and NNS feedback provision per
conversation group was statistically significant (F = 22.38, df = 2, p = .001, η2 = .69; see Figure 4), with NSs consistently providing
the majority of the feedback throughout the 6 weeks of conversation groups.
These findings are also supported by interview data. As indicated above, the interviewed students stated that they asked
specifically to be corrected by the NSs. However, their reaction to peer feedback was met with mixed reviews. Giselle
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
described how one student who often explicitly corrected her peers was perceived as annoying and rude by the others. She stated
that she preferred to be corrected by an NS rather than a language learning peer. This can be seen in Excerpt 5, in the dialogue
between Ellen and Molly and the NS Diego. Here in line 8, Ellen, who wanted to talk about policies, used the false cognate policía,
which means police. She was corrected by her fellow study abroad student Molly in line 11 (“políticas”); however, Ellen continued
on with the same error despite this peer feedback. Ellen only modified her output to the correct form in line 14 after receiving
feedback from the NS in line 13.EXCERPT 5. NS Versus NNS Feedback
7 Ellen =<No<high-pitched> 8 No tiene [ningún idea] de una policía

He doesn’t have any idea about a police 9 Diego [yeah yeah] 10 Ellen De de=
Of of= 11 Molly =[¿?] políticas? ← NNS peer feedback
= [¿?] policies? 12 Ellen Inter- Un policía internacional
Inter- An international police 13 Diego Política internacional= ← NS feedback
International policy 14 Ellen =sí política internacional ← Modified Output
= yes international policy 15 Diego Yeah yeah yeah
Note. NS = native speaker; NNS = nonnative speaker.
The discourse exhibited in Excerpt 5 is in line with previously documented findings that learners do not always attune to
feedback provided by peers due to a lack of confidence in the peers’ linguistic capabilities (Yoshida, 2008). Learners also
sometimes exhibit a preference for feedback delivered by NSs over feedback delivered by peers, as was found in Chu ( 2013).
However, in other instances when learners noticed that an NNS peer was stuck or struggling to communicate a word or phrase, all
of the interviewed students agreed that they would jump in to assist, as can be seen in Excerpt 6.
After hearing this example in the stimulated-recall interview, Jessica stated that she was really open to this type of feedback
and appreciated assistance from her peers. One student, Holly, stated that she did not perceive this type of feedback as a correction,
per se, but more supportive and collaborative in nature. She stated during the interview:
When it’s your same language and obviously as [University] students we have such similar experiences, you get halfway through your
sentence and someone will know where you’re going with it. Everyone kind of knows what you’re going for so you kind of just shout things
out until you find the best way to say it.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
EXCERPT 6. NS and NNS Feedback
1 Jessica Con los grabaciones? With the recordings? 2 Siempre estoy un poco nerviosa? Um.
I’m always a little nervous? Um. 3 Que cuando yo..
That when I.. 4 ...um..a-.. 5 Sara Apago? ← NNS peer feedback
Turn off? 6 Jessica Apago la la grabación
Turn off the the recoreding 7 Accedentemente yo um delt=
Accidentally I um delt= 8 Elena =Borro ← NS feedback
=Erase 9 Jessica Sí [yo borro] Yes [I erase]
This feeling was echoed by the six interviewed students who stated that NNS peers did not correct each other but rather
described negotiation for meaning or peer feedback as “supporting each other,” “debating over which verb to use,” “helping
nervous people speak,” “similar to helping a classmate,” “only to say, ‘did you mean this?’” and “only to help with a word or
phrase.”
Four students described a sequence of strategies they would employ when there was a misunderstanding or they were
struggling with a word or phrase: They would first ask their NNS peers if they knew the word, then attempt to work together to
explain the word or phrase in Spanish, and finally, if they were still stuck, they would directly ask the NSs for a translation because
many of them knew English. These examples were characterized by overlapping speech as the NNSs participants jumped in to
assist their peers in explaining the concept in Spanish. In the scaffolding excerpt (Excerpt 7), Maria was describing a Keurig coffee
maker to the NSs. After several attempts to explain the type of coffee maker to the NSs, Elisa provided an example in English to
help distinguish the concept and work toward understanding on the part of the NSs.
As can be seen in lines 46 to 50, the three peer NNSs worked together, scaffolding off one another’s ideas. Although not
all suggestions are correct (“copa” instead of “taza” in lines 49 and 50), by negotiating with one another, the NS was able to
understand Maria’s original intended meaning.
RQ3: What is the role of the L1 in facilitating opportunities to engage with corrective feedback in these
conversation groups?
The results from the analysis of L1 English use revealed that students and NSs used English at times throughout the course of the 6-
week program (total of 163
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
EXCERPT 7. Scaffolding Excerpt
40 Maria Pero yo u-uso algo

But I u-use something 41 Um.. 42 Simon Más moderno. More modern. 43 Maria Sí.. sí claro que sí
Yes.. yes of course 44 Elisa Es como [es um] <single serve<In English>um ← L1 Use
It’s like [it’s um]<single serve<In English>um 45 Maria & [<laughing>]
Catherine 46 Maria [Sí Sí]
[yes yes] 47 Elisa [solo] solo puede ah:[crear]
[only] it only can ah: [create] 48 Maria [Sólo hace un]
[it only makes one] ← NNS peer scaffolding 49 Catherine [copa individual]
[individual glass] ← NNS peer scaffolding 50 Elisa & [Una copa] Maria [One glass] 51 Simon Oh. Oh. 52
Una copa no ← Explicit NS feedback
Not a glass 53 Una taza de café
A cup of coffee 54 Una copa es. u:h
A glass is u:h 55 Isaac Copa es para vi:no. ← Explicit NS feedback
Glass is for wi:ne.
c-units of L1 use). Both NSs and NNSs produced slightly more English utterances per conversation group at the beginning of the
program (n = 72 c-units) than at the end (n = 46 c-units). However, this change was not statistically significant (F = .652, df = 2, p
= .54, see Figure 5).
The results from the interviews and stimulated recalls revealed mixed perceptions concerning the use of English during
these conversation groups. Three students stated that they did not notice any English use at all during the conversations groups.
Ashley said they would avoid English so as to not make the NS students feel awkward. Overall, the use of English as a strategy
(rather than simple code-switching) led to mixed effects with regard to the opportunities to engage in corrective feedback and
negotiation for meaning.
Two students mentioned that they would only use an English word or phrase for American cultural references, idioms, or
jokes, as was the case in Excerpt 8. In this example, Holly’s use of the English word “surge” in line 6 did not lead to an
instantaneous translation on the part of Elena (the NS); instead, Holly continued to explain “surge” in Spanish, receiving feedback
and further scaffolding from her
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
FIGURE 5. Changes in L1 (English) Use per Conversation Group Over Time.
peers, until Elena understood her message in line 16. The use of English here (and the explanation that follows) initiates a sequence
of facilitative peer scaffolding and corrective feedback episodes that enabled Holly to explain her message more clearly. Holly
recalled after hearing an example in her stimulated-recall clip that she used the English word “surge” when talking about the car-
sharing app Uber because:
That was an example of ... I just didn’t know. “Surge prices” to me is like not a word, it’s not the same thing as a “surge,” ... it’s like a
brand word, which is why I was like “surge [in English]” and then tried to define it.
In this case, Elena (the NS) did not simply translate “surge,” and instead the study abroad students engaged in a negotiation
for meaning to explain this cultural reference. The breakdown in communication that the use of “surge” triggered allowed all of the
learners in the group to engage in opportunities for corrective feedback.
However, the use of English did not always produce the same types of negotiations for meaning. In one example (also
seen previously in Excerpt 3), a request for a vocabulary translation resulted in explicit feedback from the NS in Excerpt 9. When
Audrey was asked why she used English words instead of trying to talk around the word in Spanish during her stimulated-recall
interview, she recalled:
Even though in that situation I broke the language pledge ... it was more about having a conversation than technically saying things in
Spanish.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
EXCERPT 8. English Use for Cultural References
1 Holly Pienso es.. el propósito de Uber

I think it’s the purpose of Uber [pero] 2 ¿? [yeah] 3 Porque es tan popular?
Because it’s so popular? 4 Um. Sólo hay a:h
Um. Only there is a:h 5 No sé la frase pero es um.
I don’t know the phrase but it’s um. 6 Una precio de <surge<in English>? ← L1 Use
It’s a <surge<In English> price? 7 Entonces hay una demanda tan grand. [entonces]
So there is too large a demand [so] 8 Elena [a:h vale]
[a:h ok] 9 Holly Ellos um. They um. 10 [a:h] 11 Maria [uh Aumentan?]= ← NNS peer feedback
[Increase?] = 12 Carol =Suben? ← NNS peer feedback
=Raise? 13 Elena [Aumentan?] ← NS feedback
[Increase?] 14 Holly [Aumentan.] um el precio ← Modified Output
[Increase.] um the price 15 durante estas[. tiempos]
during these[. times] 16 Elena [a:h]
EXCERPT 9. English use to Request Vocabulary
13 Aubrey Pero yo perdí el um..

But I lost the um.. 14 ¿Cómo se dice <password<In English> otra vez? ← L1 Use
How do you say <password<In English> again? 15 Maynor Contraseña? ← Translation
Password?
Although Excerpt 9 demonstrates how L1 use promoted conversation by allow- ing Aubrey to continue her utterance, it did
not promote further negotiation for meaning. Maria described a similar feeling after listening to a clip of her asking for the word
“expelled,” as shown in Excerpt 10.
She added that she would use English so that she did not drag out a conversation too long looking for the right way to
explain a concept:
If I had no idea what the word is or similar words to it, I would say it in English. I always feel bad when I’m taking too long speaking ...
trying to explain something that I could say in English really quickly. Trying to not monopolize any conversation. Like, just speed this up,
someone will know this word.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
EXCERPT 10. English Use to Request Vocabulary
1 Maria Hay casi dos escuelas privados en su estado y solamente una persona..
There are about two private schools in her state and only a person.. 2 Va a estos escuelas privados si um. no podían entrar en la escuela pública
Goes to those private schools if um. they couldn’t enter in public school 3 →porque eran um u:h um <expelled<in English>? ← L1
Use
→because they were um u:h um <expelled<in English>? 4 Catherine o:h 5 Maria [como si-] 6 Simon [expulsaba] ←
Explicit feedback
[expelled] 7 Maria SíYes
Both excerpts indicate that learners utilized their L1 judiciously to continue the flow of meaning making in their
conversation. The frequent use of the vocabulary request strategy allowed NSs to offer quick feedback so that the learners could
make themselves better understood. However, it is clear that the vocabulary translation, while effective for keeping the conversation
moving, did not initiate the same type of negotiation for meaning as when the NS did not understand or did not provide a
translation. While it is unclear which type of L1 use promoted the most effective environment for uptake, these results indicate a
tendency for learners to engage more following a communication breakdown that is not immediately resolved by the NS providing
a translation or further instruction.
Overall, the learners in this study abroad program indicated that the little English that did occur in the conversation groups
was used productively and encouraged the flow of conversation and meaning making, and therefore the learners were not in
violation of the language pledge. As these data demonstrate, instances of L1 use that were not immediately resolved by an
interlocutor enabled learners to engage in more opportunities to receive corrective feedback and negotiate for meaning with the NSs
and their NNS peers.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
There were several limitations to the current study that should be considered when reflecting on the generalizability of the results.
First, the audio recordings obtained from the participants contained background noise, simultaneous conversations, and other
sounds that were part of the natural environment that foregrounded the interactions but also, at times, obscured the data such that
transcriptions could not be made. Similarly, although leaving recording in the hands of the participants themselves minimized
intrusion and preserved the naturalistic setting, it also resulted in data loss, as not every participant was equally represented. It is
also necessary to consider the possibility of the observer’s paradox (Labov, 1972), given that learners knew they were being
recorded by their study abroad program, which could have affected how often they used their L1 or otherwise interacted.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
While coding these recordings, only corrective feedback moves were transcribed, and therefore there are no total word
counts for each conversation. There- fore, the amount of corrective feedback found in these data does not control for pauses or the
varying recording times of the conversations that could have affected overall corrective feedback or English L1 use counts. Future
iterations of this project should involve more tightly controlled recording requirements, possibly with the addition of video so that
gesture and paralinguistic information could be obtained, as some previous research has indicated that gestures coupled with cor-
rective feedback can impact development (Nakatsukasa, 2016). Video recordings would also enhance the clarity of some
interactions and would make it easier to track particular participants. New innovations in technology such as unobtrusive 360
degree cameras, which sit in one place on a table yet capture everything happening around it, might be used in future studies.
The time lag of 4 months between the students’ sojourn and the qualitative and quantitative follow-up interviews and
quizzes also significantly limited the validity of the post–study abroad data. While this was unavoidable due to geographic and
time-related constraints, memory decay and potential exposure to the target language post–study abroad would likely have
interfered with the perceptions that the learners shared during the interviews and their achievement on the tailored quizzes. Future
studies should aim to collect stimulated-recall data as close to the interactions as possible, in keeping with the recommendations
suggested by Gass and Mackey (2015b).
Another limitation of the study concerns the personalities and relationships of the interlocutors. First, it is possible that some
NSs or peers (such as the heritage speakers) were more willing to provide feedback than others, as previous research has shown that
more confident learners are more willing to interact (Ranta & Meckelborg, 2013). The NSs also had various levels of English
proficiency. This would lead to unbalanced data in the various recordings. Sato and Lyster ( 2012) trained their learners to offer
peer-to-peer feedback; however, the learners in this study were not explicitly told to offer feedback. For these reasons, some
recordings might contain learners who were more willing to provide feedback. Addition- ally, the amount of times individual
learners provided feedback versus received feedback, either from the NS or the NNSs, was not controlled for in this study. Previous
research has shown that learners benefit from providing feedback as well as receiving it (Sippel & Jackson, 2015).
This research could profitably be replicated with study abroad students of different cultural backgrounds, as some cultures
find providing peer feedback face- threatening (Sato & Lyster, 2007; Fujii & Mackey, 2009) or socially inappropriate. The current
study also was located in a short-term study abroad program and involved interactions with NSs peers with proficiency in the L1
(English) of the study abroad students. This unique context makes the findings of this study difficult to generalize to other contexts.
Replications with different interlocutors such as in service encounters or with interlocutors without proficiency in the students’ L1
are needed to enhance generalizability. Future studies might also compare these informal conversation groups with contexts of
interaction such as classrooms abroad,
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
homestays abroad, or laboratory task experiments to determine how the interactions compare in these diverse settings.
CONCLUSION
The implications for this study are twofold. First, in the field of SLA, corrective feedback is understudied in naturalistic settings.
Therefore, this study offers a new contribution to the literature, which until now has focused almost exclusively on the types and
targets of corrective feedback in classrooms or laboratory settings. Furthermore, peer feedback, an understudied type of feedback in
and of itself, has until now not been studied in study abroad settings. This study offers a first look into learners’ engagement with
corrective feedback and negotiation for meaning while abroad, a foundation that could be used to examine future theoretical and
empirical questions.
Second, for practitioners in the study abroad field, this study offers a window into the conversations their students have with
NSs during their stays in the host countries. Practitioners, and potentially students themselves, may have preconcep- tions about
these informal conversation groups, namely, that feedback would not be present due to the focus on meaning making and pure
socialization. However, the data clearly show that the rich input and modified output opportunities provided by these conversation
groups go above and beyond the expectations of these simple meet-ups.
Finally, the use of study abroad students’ L1 while interacting in naturalistic settings, especially students who have taken a
language pledge, remains underin- vestigated. While the current study has uncovered the productive use of the L1 to engage in
negotiation for meaning and corrective feedback episodes, future studies should examine which types of L1 use best promote
opportunities for feedback and negotiation for meaning and make explicit connections to noticing and subsequent development.
Practitioners of study abroad programs might consider developing workshops or other materials that show learners what kinds of
L1 strategies best promote language development in their context. They might also show learners how to make the most of the
corrective feedback they receive while interacting with NSs and peers throughout their sojourn. Overall, study abroad practitioners
can have confidence that conversation groups are not just fun for study abroad students but also offer rich opportunities for learners
to continue to develop their language skills.
Acknowledgments
The study is part of the BarSA Project developed by Dr. Cristina Sanz with George- town University and Language Learning
funds. Thank you to the students of the Georgetown @ Barcelona summer program for their participation in data collection, as
well as Natalia Curto Garcia-Nieto, Janire Zalbidea, and Brandon Tullock,
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
who collected the data in Barcelona. A big thank you to the students in Dr. Sanz’s seminar on study abroad and L2 development
who commented on an earlier version of this work. Thank you to Dr. Alison Mackey, Dr. Luke Plonsky, and the three anonymous
reviewers who provided feedback on this project.
NOTES 1. Transcription Conventions Transcription conventions used in this analysis include the following
adapted from Tannen, Kendall, and Gordon (2007):
? indicates rising intonation at the end of a unit . indicates falling intonation. .. two dots indicate a noticeable pause ... three dots indicate a
significant pause → An arrow indicates the intonation unit continue to the next line. = Equal sign shows latching (second voice begins without
perceptible
pause) [ Brackets show overlap (two voices heard at the same time) (??) Indicates inaudible utterance (h) indicates laughter during a
word <manner>words> Angle brackets enclose descriptions of the manner in which an
utterance is spoken, e.g., high-pitched, laughing, etc. word italics indicate emphatic stress bold indicates speech spoken loudly : colon following
a vowel indicates elongated vowel sound – indicates an abrupt stop in speech; a truncated word or syllable
REFERENCES Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574. Antón, M., & DiCamilla, F. J. (1999). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the
L2 classroom. Modern Language Journal, 83, 233–247. Azkarai, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2015). Task-modality and L1 use in EFL oral interaction.
Language
Teaching Research, 19(5), 550–571. Azkarai, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2017). Task repetition effects on L1 use in EFL child task-based
interaction. Language Teaching Research, 21(4), 480–495. Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A
meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436–458. Bryfonski, L. & Mackey, A. (in press). Interaction in study abroad settings. In C. Sanz & A.
Morales- Front (Eds.). The Routledge handbook of study abroad research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge. Carpenter, H., Jeon, K.-S., MacGregor, D., &
Mackey, A. (2006). Learners’ interpretations of recasts.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 209–236. Centeno-Cortés, B., & Jiménez Jiménez, A. F. (2004). Problem-solving tasks in a foreign language:
The importance of the L1 in private verbal thinking. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 7–35. Chu, R.-X. (2013). Effects of peer feedback on
Taiwanese adolescents’ English speaking practices and
development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. Churchill, E., & DuFon, M. A. (2006). Evolving threads in study
abroad research. In M. A. DuFon & E. E. Churchill (Eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp. 1–29). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Academic Press. Collentine, J. (2009). Study abroad research: Findings, implications, and future directions. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The
handbook of language teaching (pp. 218–233). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781444315783.ch13 Collentine, J., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Learning
context and its effects on second language acquisition: Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 153–171. http://doi.org/10.1017/
S0272263104262015 Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57,
402–423. Davidson, D. 2010. Study abroad: When, how long, and with what results? New data from the Russian
front. Foreign Language Annals, 43(1), 6–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01057.x Dewey, D. P. (2004). A comparison of reading development by
learners of Japanese in intensive domes- tic immersion and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 303–327.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104262076 Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel
(Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Du, H. (2013). The development of Chinese fluency during study
abroad in China. Modern Language
Journal, 97(1), 131–143. Duff, P., & Polio, C. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign language classroom?
Modern Language Journal, 74(2), 154–166. Egi, T. (2007). Recasts, learners’ interpretations, and L2 development. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversa- tional
interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 249–267). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Egi, T. (2008). Investigating
stimulated recall as a cognitive measure: Reactivity and verbal reports in
SLA research methodology. Language Awareness, 17(3), 212–228. Fernández García, M., & Martínez Arbelaiz, A. (2007). Negotiated Interaction in a study
abroad context: Gauging the opportunities for interlanguage development. In F. Boers, J. Darquennes, & R. Temmerman (Eds.), Multilingualism and applied
comparative linguistics (Vol. 1, pp. 41–66). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars. Fernández-García, M., & Martínez-Arbelaiz, A. (2014). Native speaker-
non-native speaker study abroad conversations: Do they provide feedback and opportunities for pushed output? System, 42(1), 93–104.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.10.020 Freed, B. F. (1998). An overview of issues and research in language learning in a study abroad setting.
Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 9, 31–60. Fujii, A., & Mackey, A. (2009). Interactional feedback in learner-learner interactions in a
task-based
EFL classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47, 267–301. Fujii, A., Ziegler, N., & Mackey, A. (2016). Learner-learner interaction and
metacognitive instruction in the EFL classroom. In M. Sato & Ballinger, (Eds.), Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning (pp. 63–89). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins. Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2015a). Input, interaction and
output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 175–199). New York, NY: Routledge.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2015b). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research (2nd
ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 35(1), 127. doi:10.1017/S0272263112000708 Grey, S., Cox, J. G., Serafini, E. J., & Sanz, C. (2015). The role of individual differences in the
study abroad context: Cognitive capacity and language development during short-term intensive language exposure. Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 137–157.
Howell, D. C. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury/Thomson Learn-
ing. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kasper, G., & Kim, Y. (2015). Conversation-for-learning: Institutional talk
beyond the classroom. In N. Markee (Ed.), Handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 390–408). Malden, MA: Wiley. Keck, C. M., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-
Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between interaction and acquisition: A quantitative meta-analysis. In L. Ortega & J. Norris
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
(Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–131). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Kuntz, P., & Belnap, R. K. (2001).
Beliefs about language learning held by teachers and their students
at two Arabic programs abroad. al-’Arabiyya, 34, 91–113. Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
LaPierre, D. (1994). Language output in a cooperative learning setting: Determining its effects on second language learning (Unpublished master’s thesis). Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Canada. Larson-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New
York.
NY: Routledge. Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63. Leow, R., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). To think aloud or not to think aloud: The issue of reactivity in
SLA research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 35–57. Levine, G. S. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target
language use, first language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. Modern Language Journal, 87(3), 343–364. Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of
corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning,
60(2), 309–365. Llanes, À. 2011. The many faces of study abroad: An update on the research on L2 gains emerged during a study abroad experience.
International Journal of Multilingualism, 8(3), 189–215. doi: 10.1080/14790718.2010.550297 Llanes, À., & Muñoz, C. 2009. A short stay abroad: Does it make a
difference? System, 37(3), 353–365. Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness,
and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–556. Long, M. H. (1981). Questions in foreigner talk discourse. Language learning, 31(1), 135–157.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language
acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993).
Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes &
S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning (pp. 123–167). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake:
negotiation of form in com-
municative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66. Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis.
Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302. Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development: An empirical study of question
formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 557–587. Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 classrooms.
Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press. Mackey, A., & Bryfonski, L. (in press). Mixed methodology. In A. Phakiti, P. De Costa, L. Plonsky, & S. Starfield (Eds.), The Palgrave
handbook of applied linguistics research methodology. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive
interactional feedback?
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497. Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In
A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407–452). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback:
An exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53, 35–66. Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction
and second language development: Recasts,
responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356. McDonough, K., & Hernández González, T. H. (2013). Language production
opportunities during whole-group interaction in conversation group settings. In K. McDonough & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse
educational contexts(pp. 293–314). Amsterdam, The Nether- lands: John Benjamins. McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed
production, and
linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693–720. McDonough, K., & Sunitham, W. (2009). Collaborative dialogue between Thai EFL learners during
self-access computer activities. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 231–254.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
McMeekin, A. (2006). Negotiation in a Japanese study abroad setting. In M. A. DuFon & E. E. Churchill (Eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp. 177–
202). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Middlebury Language Schools. (2016). Why study a language at Middlebury? Retrieved from http:
//www.middlebury.edu/ls/node/197491 Nakatsukasa, K. (2016). Efficacy of recasts and gestures on the acquisition of locative prepositions.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(4), 1–29. Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learners’ interaction: How does
it address the input, output and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 59– 84. http://doi.org/10.2307/3587607 Polio, C. G., & Duff, P. A. (1994).
Teachers’ language use in university foreign language classrooms: A qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation. Modern Language Journal, 78(3),
313–326. Polio, C., Gass, S., & Chapin, L. (2006). Using stimulated recall to investigate native speaker perceptions in native-nonnative speaker interaction. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 237–267. Ranta, L., & Meckelborg, A. (2013). How much exposure to English do international graduate students really get?
Measuring language use in a naturalistic setting. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69(1), 1–33. Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective
feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In L. Ortega & J. Norris (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: John Benjamins. Sato, M. (2007). Social relationships in conversational interaction: A comparison between learner-
learner and learner-NS dyads. JALT Journal, 29, 183–208. Sato, M. (2017). Oral peer corrective feedback: Multiple theoretical perspectives. In H. Nassaji &
E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 19–34). New York, NY:
Routledge. Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2007). Modified output of Japanese EFL learners: Variable effects of interlocutor vs. feedback types. In A. Mackey (Ed.),
Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 123–142). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Sato, M., & Lyster,
R. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(4), 591–626.
http://doi.org/10.1017/ S0272263112000356 Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11,
129–158. Shehadeh, A. (2001). Self- and other-initiated modified output during task-based interaction. TESOL
Quarterly, 35, 433–457. Sippel, L., & Jackson, C. N. (2015). Teacher vs. peer oral corrective feedback in the German language
classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 48(4), 688–705. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2003). Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting? TESOL
Quarterly, 37(4), 760–769. Swain, M. (1997). Collaborative dialogue: Its contribution to second language learning.Revista Canaria
de Estudios Ingleses, 34, 115–132. Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in
classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In
E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of
research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). Peer-Peer
dialogue as a means of second language
learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171–185. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate:
A step
towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(4), 371–391. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two
adolescent French
immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: the
uses of the first language.
Language Teaching Research, 4, 251–274. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M.
Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–118). London, UK: Longman.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016
Tannen, D., Kendall, S., & Gordon, C. (Eds.). (2007). Family talk: Discourse and identity in four
American families. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Tognini, R., & Oliver, R. (2012). L1 use in primary and secondary foreign language classrooms
and its contribution to learning. In E. Alcón Soler, & M. P. Safont Jordá (Eds.), Discourse and learning across L2 instructional contexts (pp. 53–78). Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: Rodopi. Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. (1985). Miscommunication in native/nonnative conversation. Language in
Society, 14, 327–343. Wilkinson, S. (2002). The omnipresent classroom during summer study abroad: American students in conversation with their French
hosts. Modern Language Journal, 86(2), 157–173. http://doi.org/10. 1111/1540-4781.00142 Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form.
System, 29, 325–340. Yoshida, R. (2008). Learners’ perception of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign Language Annals,
41, 525–541. Zappa-Hollman, S., & Duff, P. (2015). Academic English socialization through individual networks of
practice. TESOL Quarterly, 49(2), 333–368. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.188 Zeng, G., & Takatsuka, S. (2009). Text-based peer–peer collaborative dialogue in
a computer- mediated
learning environment in the EFL context. System, 37, 434–446. Ziegler, N., Seas, C., Ammons, S., Lake, J., Hamrick, P., & Rebuschat, P. (2013). Interaction
in conversation groups: The development of L2 conversational styles. In K. McDonough & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational
contexts (pp. 269–292). John Benjamins.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000016

Bryfonski & Sanz (2018) - Peer CF & SA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bryfonski & Sanz (2018) - Peer CF & SA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bryfonski & Sanz (2018) - Peer CF & SA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The experiment in this article earned an Open Materials badge for transparent practices.

The materials are available at https://www.iris-

CRISTINA SANZ Georgetown University [email protected]

Interaction and L2 Development

Peer Interaction and L2 Development

Feedback in Study Abroad

First Language (L1) Use

TABLE 1. Participant Biodata

Study Abroad Students Native Speakers

6-Week Study Abroad: Summer 2016 Post–Study Abroad: Fall 2016

Primary data collection Semistructured interviews, Stimulated- recall interviews

EXAMPLE 1. Implicit Feedback Coding

1 Maria Yo use ur- yo uso un. Keurig?

EXAMPLE 2. Explicit Feedback Coding

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

EXCERPT 1. Implicit Feedback

1 Maria Nunca de mis bromas pueden ser. traslados

EXCERPT 2. Implicit Feedback

1 Maria Es interesante porque

EXCERPT 3. Explicit Feedback

13 Aubrey Pero yo perdí el um..

EXCERPT 4. Explicit Feedback

FIGURE 4. Change in Feedback Providers per Conversation Group Over Time.

7 Ellen =<No<high-pitched> 8 No tiene [ningún idea] de una policía

Note. NS = native speaker; NNS = nonnative speaker.

EXCERPT 6. NS and NNS Feedback

Note. NS = native speaker; NNS = nonnative speaker.

EXCERPT 7. Scaffolding Excerpt

40 Maria Pero yo u-uso algo

Note. NS = native speaker; NNS = nonnative speaker.

FIGURE 5. Changes in L1 (English) Use per Conversation Group Over Time.

EXCERPT 8. English Use for Cultural References

1 Holly Pienso es.. el propósito de Uber

Note. NS = native speaker; NNS = nonnative speaker.

EXCERPT 9. English use to Request Vocabulary

13 Aubrey Pero yo perdí el um..

[expelled] 7 Maria SíYes

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

You might also like