Show simple item record

Files in this item

Cover for THE EFFECTS OF TYPE OF FEEDBACK, AMOUNT OF FEEDBACK AND TASK-ESSENTIALNESS IN A L2 COMPUTER-ASSISTED STUDY
dc.contributor.advisorLeow, Ronald Pen
dc.creatoren
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-09T20:14:21Zen
dc.date.available2017-01-09T20:14:21Zen
dc.date.created2016en
dc.date.issueden
dc.date.submitted01/01/2016en
dc.identifier.otherAPT-BAG: georgetown.edu.10822_1042952.tar;APT-ETAG: 2ddb25596df9d7d76d22448cf3e0d055; APT-DATE: 2017-10-26_15:53:40en-US
dc.identifier.urien
dc.descriptionPh.D.en
dc.description.abstractFor decades SLA research has looked at learner-external factors as influencers of learning outcomes, one of them being computerized types of feedback, with non-conclusive results. Moreover, a potentially significant characteristic of feedback, amount of feedback, has often been overlooked in previous investigations (Li, 2010; Loewen, 2012). To date, only one study (Ellis, Sheen, Murakami, & Takashima, 2008) has addressed the effects of providing different amounts of feedback on the same error with results indicating no advantage for single or multiple corrections. In addition, while task-essential (TE) practice has been identified as a desirable and optimal feature when designing a task (Loschky & Bley-Vroman, 1993), and has been included in several studies, its isolated contribution has not yet been identified.en
dc.description.abstractWithin CALL, the present study seeks to fill these gaps by investigating the effects of type of feedback provided (i.e., “right/wrong” vs. rule explanation) during input-based practice (task-essential vs. non task-essential). Participants were randomly distributed in three groups: Rules [task-essential practice with rule explanation in the feedback], Right/Wrong [task-essential practice with right/wrong feedback], and NF [task-essential practice without feedback]. In addition, the amount of feedback was tracked in order to investigate whether there was a threshold from which participants started to require fewer feedback episodes to achieve accuracy. Finally, to determine the isolated contribution of TE practice, a fourth group, NTE (Non Task-essential practice without feedback), was included. Results indicated that “right/wrong” feedback was more beneficial than rule explanation when interpreting temporal sentences at immediate post- and delayed posttests. The production of critical items at immediate post- and delayed posttests was similar for both feedback groups. As for amount of feedback, different types of feedback did not require different amounts, and the same amount of feedback led to L2 development regardless of feedback types. Interestingly, feedback was negatively correlated to development. Regarding the trajectory of the feedback during treatment, the learning process had the shape of an inverted U that showed a gradual decline in the need for feedback. Finally, with regard to the role of task-essentialness, NF and NTE groups performed similarly indicating no clear benefit of task-essentialness.en
dc.formatPDFen
dc.format.extent342 leavesen
dc.languageenen
dc.publisherGeorgetown Universityen
dc.sourceGeorgetown University-Graduate School of Arts & Sciencesen
dc.sourceSpanish & Portugueseen
dc.subjectamount of feedbacken
dc.subjectfeedbacken
dc.subjectpracticeen
dc.subjectsubjunctiveen
dc.subjecttask-essentialen
dc.subjecttype of feedbacken
dc.subject.lcshLinguisticsen
dc.subject.lcshLanguages, Modernen
dc.subject.lcshLanguage and languages -- Study and teachingen
dc.subject.otherLinguisticsen
dc.subject.otherModern languageen
dc.subject.otherForeign language educationen
dc.titleTHE EFFECTS OF TYPE OF FEEDBACK, AMOUNT OF FEEDBACK AND TASK-ESSENTIALNESS IN A L2 COMPUTER-ASSISTED STUDYen
dc.typethesisen


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record