No description available.

This study investigated the efficacy of dynamic written corrective feedback (DWCF) on intermediate-high students' writing accuracy when compared to a traditional grammar instruction approach. DWCF is an innovative written corrective feedback method that requires a multifaceted process and interaction between the teacher and the students in order to help the students improve their writing accuracy. The central principle of DWCF is that feedback should be manageable, meaningful, timely, and constant. The research question was raised based on the positive effects of DWCF found in advanced-low and advanced-mid proficiency level students (Evans et al., in press; Evans, Hartshorn, & Strong-Krause, 2009; Hartshorn, 2008; Hartshorn et al., in press). Similar to previous studies, this study attempted to examine the effectiveness of DWCF in terms of proficiency level. It further explored students' perspectives and attitudes towards DWCF. Two groups of ESL students participated in this study: a control group (n=18) that was taught using a traditional grammar instruction method, and a treatment group (n=35) that was taught using a DWCF approach. The findings in this study revealed that both methods improved the intermediate-high students' linguistic accuracy in writing. However, the findings of this study suggest that the instruction utilizing DWCF is preferable to traditional grammar instruction when it comes to improving intermediate-high students' writing accuracy for two reasons: first, DWCF was slightly more effective than the traditional grammar instruction used, and second, students strongly preferred the instruction using DWCF to traditional grammar instruction. The findings of this study further validate other work suggesting the positive effects found in advanced proficiency levels. This study indicates that ESL learners benefit from manageable, meaningful, timely, and constant error feedback in improving their linguistic accuracy in writing. Furthermore, this study suggests the desirability of applying DWCF to other contexts.

Recasting (i.e., corrective feedback in which the teacher paraphrases a learner's incorrect utterance without explicitly labeling it as erroneous) is a frequent phenomenon in classroom discourse. Despite its frequency and naturalness, educators continue to debate its efficacy. At issue is whether learners notice such implicit feedback in order to make use of it. This on-going debate centers on the following question: What makes a teacher's recast noticeable to a student? While most of the studies in the recast literature have emphasized student factors such as working memory and/or developmental readiness (e.g., Havranek & Cesnik, 2001), few studies have explored how teacher factors affect learner perceptions of and receptivity to recasts. This study fills this gap by employing qualitative methods to investigate student perceptions of their teacher recasts. Six classes in Applied English Departments at three different institutes of technology in mid-southern Taiwan participated in this study. Different methods were employed to gather student and teacher data in order to arrive at a more complete understanding of classroom recasts: classroom observations, individual student interviews, group stimulated recall interviews, and teacher interviews. According to student interview data, seven teacher categories (e.g., nativeness, teacher language use, teacher affect, etc.) were found to have a significant impact on students’ noticing of and receptivity to recasts. In particular, the findings indicate that EFL student perceptions of recasts are profoundly affected by teachers’ language use (e.g. phonetic and syntactic features) and teachers' nativeness (e.g., native vs. nonnative). Other factors such as teacher-student rapport also mediate students’ attention to and understanding of feedback. In addition to the student self-report data, classroom observation data of teachers' behavior indicated striking differences as well--native teachers tended to correct more grammatical errors while nonnative teachers corrected more phonological errors. In light of these findings, suggestions for improving student awareness of corrective recasts are given to both native and nonnative teachers. It is hoped that the qualitative categories uncovered in this study will lead to more rigorous, testable hypotheses for future quantitative analysis. / text

This report seeks to examine the literature related to written corrective feedback in second/foreign language classrooms in order to inform the most effective pedagogical practices related to this topic. I begin with an article by Truscott which would set the tone for the academic debate on whether or not to provide written corrective feedback in L2 classrooms. In his 1996 article Truscott claims that written corrective feedback a) is not helpful, b) is harmful, and c) should be eliminated entirely. Chapter 1 covers this debate, referred to as the Truscott Debate, reviewing the many articles that directly answer the challenge laid down by Truscott (1996). Following a review of this academic debate, I examine the literature that investigates the specific providers of feedback (teachers or peer feedback), the types of feedback (direct or indirect) and the degree of focus related to those feedback options. Chapter 4 reviews other factors that can also affect the efficacy of written corrective feedback, such as student motivation, learner levels, and oral feedback in conjunction with written feedback and online feedback. Chapter 5 puts forth particular circumstances in which each type of feedback can be efficacious, offering a guide for the provision of feedback in a variety of circumstances. / text

This mixed design multiple case study of learners' interactions explores the effects of teacher participation during third semester German in-class chatting activities. Three third-semester German courses taught by two different teachers were investigated over the course of one semester, during which the class members were asked to chat for 20 minutes per week using activities design by the researcher and adapted from the textbook.Multiple data sets were collected: teachers' participation styles and feedback moves; students' language learning achievement levels; students' attitudes towards corrective feedback and technology; their experience with feedback and technology; and evidence in chat transcripts of errors, uptake, and error uptake. Students were administered a pre- and post-instruction achievement test on the structures taught during third semester German. In addition, they were surveyed at the beginning and the end of the semester on their attitudes and experiences with feedback and technology in the foreign language classroom. Furthermore, chat transcripts were analyzed to identify errors, corrective feedback, teacher moves, uptake, error uptake, student and teacher word count and words per minute, error rate, and target language use. In order to better understand the context of the transcripts, classroom observations were conducted once a month, and students completed a self-report form after each chat session. Informal conversations with the teachers provided additional insights.It was found that the students overwhelmingly appreciated teacher involvement and feedback, and that they saw chatting as both fun and beneficial for language learning. The corrective feedback rate was generally low, as were rates of uptake and error uptake. The two teachers were found to have different interaction and feedback styles. Furthermore, the three classes operated with differing levels of technical support during the lab sessions, which did not appear to influence the students' experiences except for the amount of teacher output. Six case study subjects, namely the two students from each class who contributed the most to chat sessions, were selected for an in-depth analysis of their chat transcripts.

This study explored the comparison of microlab discussions of interpersonal competencies and corrective feedback on counselor trainees' defensiveness levels. Additionally, the effects of microlab discussions of interpersonal competencies or corrective feedback on counselor trainees' beliefs about their ability to communicate more clearly, receive corrective feedback with less difficulty, and act on corrective feedback receive more easily were explored. Participants in this study (N = 72) were counselor trainees enrolled in three different universities within the New Orleans metropolitan area. Participants completed the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale: Second Edition (TSCS: 2; Fitts & Warren, 1996) at least three weeks before taking part in a microlab discussion of interpersonal competencies or corrective feedback or not taking part in any discussion. Upon completion of the microlab discussion, participants in the treatment conditions completed the TSCS: 2 for the second time. Participants in the control condition simply met and completed the second administration of the TSCS: 2. Analyses of covariance were conducted on the posttest scores using the pretest as a covariate. Also, interaction effects were explored between demographic characteristics and treatment condition on posttest scores as well as responses to a group evaluation. Results did not support any of the hypotheses associated with participants who engaged in microlab discussion would have a lower defensiveness score as compared to a control group. Promising findings resulted from reactions to both microlabs by participants regarding their beliefs about their abilities to communicate more clearly, receive corrective feedback with less difficulty, and act on corrective feedback received more easily in the future. Also, a pattern associated with the number of courses completed was indicated due to a significant correlation with change in defensiveness course and interaction effects with treatment condition on responses to question 1 and 3 of the group evaluation. Counselor education programs, counselors who work with groups, and counselor trainees may benefit from exploring the possible benefits associated with microlab discussions as a form of pregroup training. Future research may provide more insight into the development of an instrument to more effectively measure defensiveness within the context of receiving corrective feedback. Also, the development of multi-session pregroup training may prove to be more effective in reducing defensiveness levels.

An area of research that has witnessed an enormous surge of research studies as well as extensive debates in the field of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), is the Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) concept and practices in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) or English as a Second Language (ESL) contexts. Over the past three decades, there has been a plethora of research studies on WCF, however, most studies had few limitations which necessitated a wider prospect into the various issues concerned with WCF. This research study, following an explanatory sequential mixed methods design, which was conducted in the Saudi context, brought a new angle into this heavily debatable area of research where a link was sought to bridge the gap between the teachers and students’ perceptions of WCF and their preferred WCF type in an EFL context taking advantage of a large number of participants to take part in a single study on WCF. Online teacher and learner questionnaires were utilised with the participation of 320, both male and female, EFL teachers, and 840 EFL male and female learners from Preparatory Year Program (PYP) at six government universities in Saudi Arabia. Then, semi-structured interviews with 10 EFL, male and female teachers and 10, male and female learners were conducted to explore their perceptions, attitudes and practices (in the case of the EFL teachers) towards this important issue in TESOL and where differences as well as agreements among the teachers and learners exist, so as to attempt to enlighten EFL/ESL professionals on various aspect of WCF as seen by both teachers and learners. Data analysis included quantitative analysis of the teacher and learner questionnaires as well as qualitative and thematic analysis of the transcribed interviews. The teachers, as well as the learners expressed high level of interest towards WCF. Similarly, the learners also believed that their overall language learning can be elevated by having a well-structured WCF which they need to be familiar with. Results of the data analysis also indicated that there are still some differences in the way teachers and learners perceive the WCF in general where teachers prefer coded WCF, whereas, learners prefer unfocussed WCF. There were positive unified agreements, however, between the EFL teachers and learners which gave the indication that there should be more discussions and research studies in order to reach a mutual understanding and a beneficial solution that aims to elevate the scope of TESOL teaching and learning. Furthermore, establishing writing centres at universities in Saudi Arabia where WCF is fully detailed for learners, may also represent an area for continued focus. Recommendations and suggestions for future research include conducting a similar research study in a different EFL context and compare the results to the outcome in this study.

<p>The aim of this paper is to investigate the amount of feedback given in language-focused exchanges and communicative exchanges. I also investigated if recasting is the feedback method most frequently used in communicative activities.<strong> </strong>Errors are natural parts of learning and cannot be avoided. However, corrective feedback is very important because fossilization can occur if students are not aware of their errors. Several different types of corrective feedback can be used to correct the students’ speech, but the most subtle one is recasts. Studies show that recasting is the method most common in communicative exchanges in the classroom.<strong> </strong>I have observed three different classes, at different levels of the Swedish school system, and also interviewed the teachers. It was shown that feedback was more frequently provided during the language-focused exchanges. It was also shown that two of the teachers were very reluctant to provide their students corrective feedback during communicative activities. All three teachers agreed that recasting is the best method to use for correcting the students’ speech because it does not interrupt the<strong> </strong>communication and does not inhibit the students. Communicating with students about feedback is something that I believe could help and facilitate some of the issues about giving corrective feedback. I believe that clarification requests and other types of feedback could be used more frequently without damaging the students’ self-confidence if there is a dialogue between the teacher and the students.</p>

The aim of this paper is to investigate the amount of feedback given in language-focused exchanges and communicative exchanges. I also investigated if recasting is the feedback method most frequently used in communicative activities. Errors are natural parts of learning and cannot be avoided. However, corrective feedback is very important because fossilization can occur if students are not aware of their errors. Several different types of corrective feedback can be used to correct the students’ speech, but the most subtle one is recasts. Studies show that recasting is the method most common in communicative exchanges in the classroom. I have observed three different classes, at different levels of the Swedish school system, and also interviewed the teachers. It was shown that feedback was more frequently provided during the language-focused exchanges. It was also shown that two of the teachers were very reluctant to provide their students corrective feedback during communicative activities. All three teachers agreed that recasting is the best method to use for correcting the students’ speech because it does not interrupt the communication and does not inhibit the students. Communicating with students about feedback is something that I believe could help and facilitate some of the issues about giving corrective feedback. I believe that clarification requests and other types of feedback could be used more frequently without damaging the students’ self-confidence if there is a dialogue between the teacher and the students.

When asked to draw, most people are hesitant because they believe themselves unable to draw well. A human instructor can teach students how to draw by encouraging them to practice established drawing techniques and by providing personal and directed feedback to foster their artistic intuition and perception. This thesis describes the first methodology for a computer application to mimic a human instructor by providing direction and feedback to assist a student in drawing a human face from a photograph. Nine design principles were discovered and developed for providing such instruction, presenting reference media, giving corrective feedback, and receiving actions from the student. Face recognition is used to model the human face in a photograph so that sketch recognition can map a drawing to the model and evaluate it. New sketch recognition techniques and algorithms were created in order to perform sketch understanding on such subjective content. After two iterations of development and user studies for this methodology, the result is a computer application that can guide a person toward producing his/her own sketch of a human model in a reference photograph with step-bystep instruction and computer generated feedback.