Abstract
Incidental focus on form (FonF) refers to the treatment of linguistic elements incidentally arising in a communicative setting during a meaning-focused activity. Videoconferencing for Online Intercultural Exchange (OIE) projects represents a typical meaning-focused communication activity but incidental FonF in group-based OIE projects is underexplored. The present study investigated the longitudinal changes of feedback types and factors related to successful uptake in Zoom-based videoconferences during a five-week OIE project. Chinese students and US students participated in weekly Zoom videoconferences to collect intercultural student ethnography data for their group projects with English as the exchange language. The videoconferences were recorded, transcribed, coded, and subsequently analysed quantitatively. Results returned that recast, clarification request, and translation were more frequently used but their frequencies did not significantly fluctuate throughout the OIE project, while metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, and explicit corrective feedback were less commonly used but their frequencies of use varied significantly. Repair provider (self-repair vs. other repair) and English proficiency were significantly associated with Chinese students’ successful uptake. The findings have implications for incorporating OIE and similar virtual exchange models into language teaching and learning.
Highlights
Incidental Focus on Form (FonF) has been defined as the treatment of linguistic elements incidentally arising in a communicative setting during a meaning-focused activity (e.g. Doughty & Williams, 1998; Ellis, 2001)
The present study explored the changes in feedback and uptake in students’ verbal production during a five-week Native Speakers-Non-Native Speakers (NSs-NNSs) videoconferencing-based Online Intercultural Exchange (OIE) project, and we examined what factors were related to successful uptake
Three feedback types did not show significant differences throughout the five-week OIE project, namely recast, clarification request, and translation, while the other three types revealed significant differences, i.e. they were employed in significantly different amounts across the weeks
Summary
Incidental FonF has been defined as the treatment of linguistic elements incidentally arising in a communicative setting during a meaning-focused activity (e.g. Doughty & Williams, 1998; Ellis, 2001). Incidental FonF has been defined as the treatment of linguistic elements incidentally arising in a communicative setting during a meaning-focused activity FonF can be further classified into two types: reactive and preemptive. The reactive type refers to an FFE where feedback follows an error, while the preemptive type is initiated with a query without the presence of an error (Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2001). Allwright (1984) defined uptake as all that learners obtain from language classes. Lyster and Ranta (1997) claimed that uptake is a reactive move that immediately follows the teacher’s feedback (any response regardless of its quality). Successful uptake means that the learners successfully incorporate the linguistic information of feedback into their response (Egi, 2010; Ellis et al, 2001). Successful uptake helps learners to benefit the most from feedback (Shekary & Tahririan, 2006)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
