1887
image of A longitudinal observation of technology-mediated feedback for L2 learners of German
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN 1783-1490
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article provides a longitudinal study of L2 learners of German who used a computer-assisted language learning (CALL) system that formed part of their regular classroom instruction. The 42 learners were enrolled in four consecutive university language courses at a beginner and intermediate level. The study compares two different feedback types, metalinguistic feedback and repetition, which were provided for the same exercise type over the course of four semesters. The exercise type required learners to build sentences from a set of predefined, uninflected words. While the grammatical focus of the exercises changed over time, many of the same grammatical constructions were present in all four courses. The study discusses the changes in learner performance and error correction behavior as students became more proficient in their knowledge of the L2 grammar and were exposed to the technology-mediated feedback that remained consistent throughout system use over the four language courses.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/itl.19009.hei
2019-08-05
2019-09-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baker & Bricker
    (2010) The effects of direct and indirect speech acts on native English and ESL speakers’ perception of teacher written feedback. System, 38, 75–84. 10.1016/j.system.2009.12.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.12.007 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bationo, B. D.
    (1992) The Effects of Three Feedback Forms on Learning Through a Computer-Based Tutorial. CALICO Journal, 10(1), 45–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bitchener, J. & Knoch
    (2008) The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research Journal, 12, 409–31. 10.1177/1362168808089924
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bowles, M.
    (2005) Effects of Verbalization Condition and Type of Feedback on L2 Development in a CALL Task. PhD diss., Georgetown University.
  5. Bowles, M. & Montrul, S.
    (2008) The role of explicit instruction in the L2 acquisition of the a-personal. InMayella Almazan, Joyce Bruhn de Garavito & Elena Valenzuela (eds.). Selected papers from the8th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 25–35. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Braidi, S. M.
    (2002) Reexamining the role of recasts in native-speaker/nonnative-speaker interactions. Language Learning, 52, 1–42. 10.1111/1467‑9922.00176
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00176 [Google Scholar]
  7. Burt, M.
    (1975) Error analysis in the adult EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 53–63. 10.2307/3586012
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586012 [Google Scholar]
  8. Canale, M. & M. Swain
    (1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47. 10.1093/applin/1.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/1.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chapelle, C.
    (2001) Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition. Foundations for Teaching, Testing, and Research. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524681
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524681 [Google Scholar]
  10. Choi, Y.
    (2016) Writing strategies in the process of L2 computer-mode academic writing with the use of multiple resources. English Teaching, 71, 3–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Corder, S. P.
    (1967) The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161–169. 10.1515/iral.1967.5.1‑4.161
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1967.5.1-4.161 [Google Scholar]
  12. Doughty, C.
    (2001) Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. InP. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.206–57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.010 [Google Scholar]
  13. (1991) Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431–469. 10.1017/S0272263100010287
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100010287 [Google Scholar]
  14. Erlam, R., & Loewen, S.
    (2010) Implicit and explicit recasts in L2 oral French interaction. Canadian Modern Language Review/La revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 66, 877–905. 10.3138/cmlr.66.6.877
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.66.6.877 [Google Scholar]
  15. Ferris, D.
    (2006) Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. InK. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues, (pp.81–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524742.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524742.007 [Google Scholar]
  16. Di Donato, R., Clyde, M. D., & Vansant, J.
    (2011) Deutsch: Na klar!An introductory German course. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Ellis, R.
    (2009) Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3–18. 10.5070/L2.V1I1.9054
    https://doi.org/10.5070/L2.V1I1.9054 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H.
    (2008) The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353–371. 10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Ferris, D.
    (2010) Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201. 10.1017/S0272263109990490
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2002) Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Fischer, R.
    (2007) How do we know what students are actually doing? Monitoring students’ behaviour in CALL Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(5), 409–442. 10.1080/09588220701746013
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220701746013 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gass, S.
    (1997) Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gass, S. M., & Lewis, K.
    (2007) Perceptions of interactional feedback: Differences between heritage language learners and non-heritage language learners. InA. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp.79–99). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hartshorn, K. J. Evans, N. W. Merrill, P. F. Sudweeks, R. R. Strong-Krause & Anderson, N. J.
    (2010) Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL wiring accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 84–109. 10.5054/tq.2010.213781
    https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.213781 [Google Scholar]
  25. Havranek, G., & Cesnik, H.
    (2001) Factors Affecting the Success of Corrective Feedback (Vol.1). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/eurosla.1.10hav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.1.10hav [Google Scholar]
  26. Hegleheimer, V. & Chapelle, C.
    (2000) Methodological Issues in Research on Learner-Computer Interactions in Call. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), May 2000, 41–59.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Heift, T.
    (2016) Web Delivery of Adaptive and Interactive Language Tutoring: Revisited. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 489–503. 10.1007/s40593‑015‑0061‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0061-0 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2010a) Prompting in CALL: A longitudinal study of learner uptake. Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 198–216. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2010.01017.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01017.x [Google Scholar]
  29. (2010b) Developing an Intelligent Language Tutor. CALICO, 27(3), 443–459. 10.11139/cj.27.3.443‑459
    https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.27.3.443-459 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2004) Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL. ReCALL, 16, 416–431. 10.1017/S0958344004001120
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344004001120 [Google Scholar]
  31. (2003) Type or Drag, but don’t Click: A Study on the Effectiveness of Different CALL Exercise Types. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(3), 69–87.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (2002) Learner control and error correction in ICALL: Browsers, peekers and adamants. CALICO Journal, 19, 295–313. 10.1558/cj.v19i2.295‑313
    https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v19i2.295-313 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2001) Error-Specific and Individualized Feedback in a Web-based Language Tutoring System: Do They Read It?ReCALL, 13(2), 129–142.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Heift, T. & Rimrott, A.
    (2008) Learner Responses to Corrective Feedback for Spelling Errors in CALL. System, 36(2), 196–213. 10.1016/j.system.2007.09.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  35. Heift, T. & Schulze, M.
    (2007) Errors and Intelligence in Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Parsers and Pedagogues. Routledge New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Hendrickson, J.
    (1978) Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387–98.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Hymes, D.
    (1966) Two types of linguistic relativity. InW. Bright (ed.), Sociolinguistics (pp.114–158). The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Krashen, S.
    (1982) Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kregar, S.
    (2011) Relative Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback Types in Computer-Assisted Language Learning. PhD diss., Florida State University.
  40. Lado, B., Wood Bowden, H., Stafford, C. and Sanz, C.
    (2014) A fine-grained analysis of the Eefects of negative evidence with and without metalinguistic information in language development. Language Teaching Research, 18, 320–244. 10.1177/1362168813510382
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813510382 [Google Scholar]
  41. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N.
    (1999) How languages are learned. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Liu, Y.
    (2008) The effects of error feedback in second language writing. Arizona working papers in SLA & Teaching, 15, 65–79.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Long, M. H.
    (1996) The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. InW. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia, (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp.413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L.
    (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66. 10.1017/S0272263197001034
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034 [Google Scholar]
  45. Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J.
    (2009) Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59, 453–498. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00512.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00512.x [Google Scholar]
  46. Mackey, A., Al-Khalil, M., Atanassova, G., Hama, M., Logan-Terry, A., & Nakatsukasa, K.
    (2007) Teachers’ intentions and learners’ perceptions about corrective feedback in the L2classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 129–152. 10.2167/illt047.0
    https://doi.org/10.2167/illt047.0 [Google Scholar]
  47. Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K.
    (2000) How do learners perceive interactional feedback?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–498. 10.1017/S0272263100004022
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004022 [Google Scholar]
  48. Mackey, A., & Philp, J.
    (1998) Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings?The Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1998.tb01211.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01211.x [Google Scholar]
  49. Moreno, N.
    (2007) The effects of type of task and type of feedback on L2 development in CALL. PhD diss., Georgetown University.
  50. Murphy, P.
    (2007) Reading comprehension exercises online: The effects of, feedback, proficiency and interaction. Language Learning & Technology, 11, 107–129.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Nagata, N.
    (1997) An experimental comparison of deductive and inductive feedback generated by a simple parser. System, 25(4), 515–534. 10.1016/S0346‑251X(97)00052‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(97)00052-3 [Google Scholar]
  52. (1996) Computer vs. workbook instruction in second language acquisition. CALICO Journal, 14, 53–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. (1993) Intelligent Computer Feedback for Second Language Instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77(iii), 330–339. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1993.tb01980.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1993.tb01980.x [Google Scholar]
  54. Nagata, N., & Swisher, M. V.
    (1995) A study of consciousness-raising by computer: The effect of metalinguistic feedback on second language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 28(3), 337–347. 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.1995.tb00803.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1995.tb00803.x [Google Scholar]
  55. Nassaji, H.
    (2009) Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59, 411–452. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00511.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00511.x [Google Scholar]
  56. (2017) The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2 grammar. The Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 353–368. 10.1111/modl.12387
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12387 [Google Scholar]
  57. Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E.
    (2017) Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning: Research, Theory, Applications, Implications. Routledge, New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Nassaji, H. & Swain, M.
    (2000) A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: the effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9, 1, 34–51. 10.1080/09658410008667135
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667135 [Google Scholar]
  59. Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N.
    (2001) Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51(4), 719–758. 10.1111/0023‑8333.00172
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00172 [Google Scholar]
  60. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
    (2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528. 10.1111/0023‑8333.00136
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136 [Google Scholar]
  61. Peterson, K.
    (2010) Implicit Corrective Feedback in Computer-Guided Interaction. Does Mode Matter?PhD diss., Georgetown University.
  62. Pica, T.
    (1994) Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes?Language Learning, 44(3), 493–527. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1994.tb01115.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01115.x [Google Scholar]
  63. Pujolà, J.-T.
    (2002) CALLing for help: Researching language learning strategies using help facilities in a web-based multimedia program. ReCALL, 14, 253–262. 10.1017/S0958344002000423
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344002000423 [Google Scholar]
  64. (2001) Did CALL Feedback Feed Back? Researching Learners’ Use of Feedback. ReCALL, 13(1), 79–98. 10.1017/S0958344001000817
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344001000817 [Google Scholar]
  65. Rimrott, A. & Heift, T.
    (2008) Evaluating Automatic Detection of Misspellings in German. Language Learning &Technology, 12(3), pp.73–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Robinson, G., Underwood, J., Rivers, W., Hernandez, J., Rudisill, C., Eseñat, C.
    (1985) Computer-Assisted Instruction in Foreign Language Education: A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Different Methodologies and Different Forms of Error Correction. San Francisco: Center for Language and Crosscultural Skills. ERIC ED 262 626.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Rosa, E. and Leow, R.
    (2004) Computerized task-based exposure, explicitness and type of feedback on Spanish L2 development. Modern Language Journal, 88, 192–217. 10.1111/j.0026‑7902.2004.00225.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.00225.x [Google Scholar]
  68. Sagarra, N., & Abbuhl, R.
    (2013) Optimizing the noticing of recasts via computer-delivered feedback: Evidence that oral input enhancement and working memory help second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 97(1), 196–216. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2013.01427.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.01427.x [Google Scholar]
  69. Sanz, C.
    (2004) Computer delivered implicit vs. explicit feedback in processing instruction. InB. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp.241–255). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K.
    (2004) Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54 (1), 35–78. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2004.00248.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00248.x [Google Scholar]
  71. Schmidt, R.
    (1995) Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness. InR. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language teaching and learning (Technical Report No. 9) (pp.1–64). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i at Manoa.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. 10.1093/applin/11.2.129
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129 [Google Scholar]
  73. Schulze, M. & Heift, T.
    (2013) Intelligent CALL. InM. Thomas, H. Reinders & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary Computer-Assisted Language Learning (pp.249–265). London & New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Sheen, Y.
    (2008) Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58(4), 835–874. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2008.00480.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00480.x [Google Scholar]
  75. Sheen, Y.-H.
    (2004) Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings, Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263–300. 10.1191/1362168804lr146oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr146oa [Google Scholar]
  76. Sheen, Y., Wright, D. & Moldawa, A.
    (2009) Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37, 556–569. 10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  77. Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G.
    (2010a) Learners’ processing, uptake and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 1–32. 10.1017/S0272263109990532
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532 [Google Scholar]
  78. Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E.
    (2007) How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytic ability. InA. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp.171–195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y.
    (2008) Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292–305. 10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  80. Truscott, J.
    1996 The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1996.tb01238.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x [Google Scholar]
  81. Tsay, C., Kofinas, A., Luo, J.
    (2018) Enhancing student learning experience with technology-mediated gamification: an empirical study, Computers and Education, 121, pp.1–17. 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.009 [Google Scholar]
  82. Wong, M., Zhao, H., & MacWhinney, B.
    (2018) A cognitive linguistics application for second language pedagogy: The English preposition tutor. Language Learning, 68(2), 438–468. 10.1111/lang.12278
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12278 [Google Scholar]
  83. van der Linden, E.
    (1993) Does Feedback Enhance Computer-Assisted Language Learning?Computers in Education, 21(1/2), 61–65. 10.1016/0360‑1315(93)90048‑N
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-1315(93)90048-N [Google Scholar]
  84. Yang, J. C., & Akahori, K.
    (1999) An Evaluation of Japanese CALL Systems on the WWW Comparing a Freely Input Approach with Multiple Selection. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12(1), 59–79. 10.1076/call.12.1.59.5717
    https://doi.org/10.1076/call.12.1.59.5717 [Google Scholar]
  85. Ziegler, N., Meurers, D., Rebuschat, P., Ruiz, S., Moreno-Vega, J. L., Chinkina, M.
    (2017) Interdisciplinary research at the intersection of CALL, NLP, and SLA: Methodological implications from an input enhancement project. Language Learning, 67(S1), 210–232. 10.1111/lang.12227
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12227 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/itl.19009.hei
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/itl.19009.hei
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: feedback; grammar instruction; computer-assisted language learning; German
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error