Användningen av quiz i spel för undervisning är effektivt för lärande. Det har även visats att corrective feedback bar en betydande inverkan på hur effektivt ett quiz är för lärande. Tidigare studier har undersökt timingen för corrective feedback (omedelbar eller fördröjd) men det saknas forskning om feedbackens varaktighet. Denna studie undersöker hur kort varaktigheten av omedelbar feedback kan vara i ett quizspel utan att påverka dess positiva effekt på lärande. Det undersöks också om feedbackens varaktighet har samma effekt på vuxna som på yngre elever i olika miljöer. Studien genomförs i två experiment med kvantitativa metoder med en inomgruppsdesign. Experiment 1 genomförs på 18 stycken vuxna deltagare i en experimentell miljö och Experiment 2 genomförs på 31 stycken 12-åriga barn i en skolmiljö. För vuxengruppen används även en kvalitativ metod. Deltagarna spelar ett quizspel med flervalsfrågor och får corrective feedback med varierande visningstid (2, 3, 5 och 7 sekunder). Efter spelet besvarar de samma frågor i ett posttest. Det som har jämförts är deltagarnas prestationer i spelomgång och posttest beroende på varaktigheten av feedback. Resultaten visar att olika visningstider för feedback inte ger signifikanta skillnader i prestation eller lärande. Feedback i 2 sekunder är tillräckligt för att upprätthålla den positiva effekten. Experiment 2 hade tekniska problem som resulterade i bortfall och bristfälliga data vilket minskar trovärdigheten. Studien öppnar upp för framtida fortsatt forskning inom varaktigheten av corrective feedback då det uppmuntras att se om samma resultat skulle visas på ett större antal deltagare med icke-bristfälligt data.

Corrective feedback (CF) has been demonstrated in the literature to have a positive effect on language learners' grammatical accuracy in second-language (L2) writing. However, while much work has been done on feedback type (e.g. direct and indirect CF), studies continue to produce results which seem to contradict each other, indicating that a different focus might be useful. Moreover, much of the work on CF has been conducted with English majors or with participants studying (or preparing to study) in universities in English-speaking settings, but the generalisability of these studies to settings where English is neither the dominant language nor the learners' principal academic focus is unclear. The current study shifts the focus from type of CF to ways of facilitating CF use, exploring the issue with Korean L1 learners of English who are natural science majors at a university in South Korea taking a required English L2 writing course. The current study contributes to the body of knowledge on CF provision by quantitatively and qualitatively investigating how participants' use of feedback in this context is facilitated by their Western teachers, and how the effects of facilitated feedback use compares to effects in a group whose use of feedback is not facilitated. Working within a cognitive framework of language learning and using a quasi-experimental, mixed-methods, pre-test/post-test/delayed post-test study design, the study explores the differential effects of two ways of facilitating use of CF on the development of grammatical accuracy in written work, which was academic in style. Effects of these two methods of facilitating the use of CF are compared to effects of an unfacilitated condition. The hypothesis that learners would apply explicit knowledge to analyse and address errors in their writing, resulting in increased accuracy in the use of standard forms, is a cognitive one; and the facilitating of the interventions applies concepts from sociocultural theory. Participants in one facilitated condition received CF orally in individual conferences, with the teacher giving contingent assistance and only providing direct CF if needed; participants in the other facilitated condition received direct written CF, and were provided with worksheets designed to structure their independent reflection upon their writing. Finally, the Comparison Group received direct written CF without any facilitation. Measures of the development of accuracy focused on specific grammatical features targeted for instructional and feedback purposes, and assessed improvement in the accuracy in use of those features in new writing. The study applied a process-writing protocol: Write - Receive CF - Revise - Write a new paragraph. Effects of self-efficacy and language aptitude on the effectiveness of the treatments are also considered. Quantitative analyses of the data suggest that providing direct written CF without facilitating its use enabled the development of accuracy equally as well as CF whose use was facilitated, whether by the conferences or the reflective worksheets. Qualitative analyses reveal how teachers facilitated the use of CF in conferences, and how students participated in both forms of facilitation. Findings suggest that previous educational experience may influence learners' ability to effectively use facilitated CF. Finally, interviews with participating teachers and students provide insight into both parties' experiences with these interventions, contributing to knowledge about intervention development and implementation, both in research and in classroom settings.

Written corrective feedback is extensively used in second language writing courses. Although some think it detrimental to student learning (i.e. Truscott, 1996), much research over the last decade has proven a place for written corrective feedback in the classroom. The present report seeks to review literature on such feedback. This includes research on more recent approaches such as dynamic written corrective feedback, computer-based feedback, concordance use as feedback, and peer feedback. The report discusses pedagogical implications and areas for future research. / text

Pragmatics “focuses on how people perform, interpret, and respond to language functions in a social context” (Taguchi, 2012, p.1), and therefore its development is key to the development of language competence. Pragmatics entails both linguistic knowledge to perform language functions (pragmalinguistics) and knowledge about the appropriateness of linguistic forms in a given social context (sociopragmatics) (Thomas, 1983). The acquisition of this skill has been shown to be one of the most difficult and latest acquired aspects of L2 learning (Bardovi-Harlig & Vellenga, 2012), and in this context, corrective feedback (information about the accuracy of learners’output), has been considered to be essential to the mastery of this knowledge. This study attempted to answer whether corrective feedback on L2 request and refusal forms provided through Face-to-Face (FF) or through Technology-Mediated (TM) modes can lead to an improvement in the learners’ performance in comprehension and production. Forty-four ELL students in three parallel intact classes were chosen to participate in the study. A Role-play test was used to collect production data and a multiple-choice discourse completion test was used to gather comprehension data. A mixed-model Analysis of Variance was conducted to examine the main and interaction effects of the treatment (corrective feedback), delivery mode (FF and TM), speech act type (request and refusal), and time (pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-test). The results demonstrated that CF led to improved performance in L2 pragmatics. Significant effects for corrective feedback were clear for both pragmatic comprehension and production, and there was no difference between comprehension and production improvement. Furthermore, the results showed that both FF and TM corrective feedback were effective modalities for improving pragmatic production while only TM delivery was effective in comprehending the target speech acts. The findings of the present study also suggest that CF effects were durable both in production and comprehension. The possibility of the effects of type of speech acts in influencing CF effects was generally rejected as CF improved comprehending and producing both speech acts significantly. In summary, the findings of the study generally support the application of CF and technology to the acquisition of second language pragmatic ability. / Graduate

This mixed-methods project was designed to answer four questions around the quality of oral production of French Immersion students: How does the nature of the interactions between intermediate-level FI students provide possibilities for them to engage in peer oral corrective feedback (OCF)? To what extent do students engage in peer OCF following targeted instruction in the technique? If peer OCF is taking place, to what extent is it having an impact on the accuracy of the targeted forms for correctors and correctees in terms of noticing and production? How comfortable (or willing) are students with providing and receiving OCF to and from their peers (both higher & lower proficiency)? A pre- & post-test, and questionnaire, format was used, and detailed analysis of participants in L2 interaction was carried out. The results indicated that the target structures and the OCF techniques may have been too cumbersome to elicit any improvement, or to elicit much peer OCF. However the conversation analysis indicated that in certain circumstances intermediate FI students could participate in sustained L2 interaction, and that within their interactions there were many openings for other forms of active assistance between learners.

The goal of this study is to examine teacher feedback, learner uptake, and feedback perceptions in an adult Chinese as a Foreign Language (CFL) context. A 200-level Chinese reading course was observed for data collection. Participants included 13 students and one teacher. Thirteen class sessions (10 hours) were video-taped. A short survey, given at the end of each of the last six class sessions, was designed to elicit the teacher’s and the students’ perceptions of feedback frequency. The participants were not informed of the focus of this research at the beginning of data collection. Video-recorded data was fully transcribed and coded using Panova and Lyster’s (2002) feedback categorization. The teacher’s response to the survey was compared to that of the students’ regarding perceptions of feedback frequency. The results showed that the teacher provided feedback to 68.1% of all students’ errors. On average there was one feedback move every 2.4 minutes. All feedback types in Panova and Lyster’s model were present, and there were a few new moves, namely “asking a direct question,” “directing question to other students,” and “using L1-English.” A total of 245 teacher feedback moves occurred during the observation. Recasts accounted for 56.7% of all feedback moves, followed by metalinguistic feedback which accounted for 10.6%. Elicitation moves achieved the highest uptake rate (94.1%). Next, explicit correction and metalinguistic feedback had 88.9% and 53.8% uptake rate respectively. Concerning perceptions of feedback, the teacher was more accurate in perceiving four types of feedback while the students were accurate about three. It was concluded that recast was the predominant type of feedback in this study. Other explicit types of feedback were more successful in leading to learner uptake. The teacher and the students were generally not accurate in perceiving the frequency of each feedback type, due to the challenge of remembering the feedback move after the lesson had finished. The pedagogical implication is that teachers should consider a wide range of feedback techniques, especially more explicit types, to better engage students in a reading class. / Graduate

This study looks at the effectiveness of direct and indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) when using them with 26 intermediate ESL learners’ writings. The study also investigates whether giving the learners the type of feedback they preferred or less preferred would influence their actual performance. WCF, a pedagogy that is often used when helping learners improve their written accuracy, has captured researchers’ attention in recent decades. Truscott (1996) claimed that WCF is ineffective and suggested teachers should abandon it. Therefore, in the early studies, researchers concentrated on examining the effectiveness of WCF, in order to justify the value of using WCF. In recent studies, researchers have proved that WCF is effective in certain contexts, and they have also investigated the value of using different types of WCF, and the value of using it over time. Moreover, in order to help learners to improve in written accuracy, recent studies in the field have also investigated whether WCF is more effective when used on a certain type of linguistic form/structure. With respect to different types of WCF, researchers in recent decades have also paid some attention to learner preference in WCF. However, the relationship between learner preference and the value of using the type of feedback learners prefer has not yet been investigated. In essence, the relationship between learner preference and their actual performance when using the type of feedback they preferred was examined in this study. The study also aimed to look at the effectiveness of WCF over time, and to investigate whether direct feedback or indirect feedback helped learners better. Furthermore, the study also aimed to investigate whether there was a certain type of linguistic form that WCF works best with. A quantitative approach was used in this study in order to show the results more clearly, and to provide statistical evidence on each finding. The study involved questionnaires, and three writing tests: pre-test, immediate post-test, and a delayed post-test. Before the learners did the pre-test, they were asked to complete a questionnaire to select their preferred type of feedback (direct feedback or indirect feedback). Based on their preferences on feedback, they were put into different groups. Group one received direct feedback; group two received indirect feedback; group three received the feedback they preferred (indirect feedback); group four received no linguistic feedback, but general commentaries on their writing were given. The participants (twenty-six students who enrolled in a general English program at AUT University) had completed the questionnaire and the three writing tests. Findings from the study revealed that, most of the learners preferred receiving direct feedback. When examining learner performance between those who received the type of feedback they preferred and those who did not, the former did not outperform than others. However, factors like different levels of scaffolding assistance may have affected the results. Other findings from the study revealed that WCF was effective overtime, especially when using it on errors of present simple tense. The study also found that indirect feedback was more effective than direct feedback. A possible factor that appeared to influence learners’ performance was identified as learners’ motivation in learning. The results of the study contribute to an understanding of the type of feedback that is most suitable for learners at intermediate level, and on which type of linguistic form WCF can work best with. Practical suggestions for pedagogy and further research are also made.

abstract: This case study explores similarities and differences between the instructors' beliefs about oral corrective feedback and their actual practices in a summer Chinese program. This kind of feedback is beneficial for beginning college-level learners of Chinese to improve their speaking accuracy. The researcher conducted face-to-face interviews with two teachers of Chinese, focusing on their beliefs about oral corrective feedback in their language classrooms. In addition, the researcher recorded teacher-student interactions through class observation in order to analyze the teachers' actual practices of oral corrective feedback. The main findings show that the teachers hold similar beliefs on oral corrective feedback and its beneficial role in helping improve learners speaking accuracy. The fact is that they frequently provide oral corrective feedback in classroom, mostly using recasts. Implications are discussed in view of the necessity of using explicit feedback and recasts appropriately. In addition, this study demonstrates the need for specific professional development and teacher training about how to provide efficient corrective feedback. / Dissertation/Thesis / M.A. Asian Languages and Civilizations 2012

This study investigates the effectiveness of dynamic written corrective feedback (DWCF) for intermediate learners of Korean as a foreign language (KFL) compared to traditional types of written corrective feedback. DWCF is an innovative method of providing written corrective feedback on students' writing that has primarily been used in English as a second language (ESL) settings. It aims to improve learners' linguistic accuracy and requires multilayered interaction between teachers and students. Although DWCF has been effectively used to increase linguistic accuracy in various ESL settings, it has not yet been widely applied to other language learning settings. This study demonstrates the extent to which DWCF increases the linguistic accuracy of intermediate KFL learners and determines DWCF's impact on fluency and complexity. The treatment group (n = 9) was managed with DWCF and the control group (n = 10) wrote six essays over a 12-week period. The pre- and post-test results were analyzed to determine differences in linguistic accuracy, fluency, and complexity between the two groups. A mixed-model repeated measures ANOVA revealed that the treatment group's accuracy significantly increased compared to the control group, whereas there was no significant difference in fluency or complexity for either group. Limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed in the conclusion.

Grammatical accuracy in second language (L2) writing is one of the key issues that English as a Second Language (ESL) learners struggle with, both in intensive English language programs and continuing after their university matriculation. Numerous instructional methodologies exist that center around the concept of error correction—how can or should ESL instructors correct grammatical errors in L2 students' writing to best facilitate improvements in written linguistic accuracy? Error correction in L2 writing has been a controversial issue for over a decade (e.g., Ferris, 1999; Truscott, 1996), and in an effort to contribute to an understanding of this controversial topic, this study investigated an innovative method of error correction known as dynamic written corrective feedback (WCF). For 15 weeks, 24 students at the Brigham Young University (BYU) English Language Center (ELC) received a form of dynamic WCF dramatically modified from Hartshorn's (2008) original method with the objective of increased practicality. These students produced a 30-minute pretest and posttest essay, and researchers calculated the complexity, accuracy, and fluency of each pretest and posttest. Data from the current study is compared against data from Hartshorn (2008), which found dynamic WCF to be successful in improving accuracy after carrying out similar research. The results validate previous findings and confirm that dynamic WCF is an effective approach to error correction, even when dramatically modified.