Focus on form has been extensively studied in text-based online dyadic chats but much less has been explored in group chats with interlocutors from different language backgrounds. Additionally, there are very few studies investigating covert focus on form. This study investigated the effects of interlocutor types on errors and focus on form episodes, both covert and overt, in text-based online group chats. We collected chat logs from two collaborative online international learning projects. One project was developed for the collaboration between (...) an English course at a Chinese university and an art history course at a U.S. university; the other between another cohort of the same English course and a cultural studies course at a Mexican university. We compared errors, feedback, and other characteristics of focus on form episodes between the two projects. Analyses revealed significant differences in characteristics such as overtness, linguistic focus, and source. However, no significant differences were found for the type of focus on form, presence of uptake, uptake quality, and repair provider. Students showed a preference for self-repair over other-repair and for lexical focus over mechanical and grammatical foci in both projects. Overall, only a small proportion of errors were followed by feedback. Therefore, a small amount of uptake and successful uptake occurred in both projects. The results can shed light on how instructors could provide effective scaffolding and tasks to make virtual exchange projects more rewarding. (shrink)

For Pyun, Minjung theology is a "religion-neglect" and indigenization theology or han philosophy is "politics-neglect." However, he conceded that ...