Cover not available
Article published In:
Technology-mediated feedback and instruction
Edited by Hossein Nassaji and Eva Kartchava
[ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 170:2] 2019
► pp. 154–179

A longitudinal observation of technology-mediated feedback for L2 learners of German

| Simon Fraser University
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.
Keywords: feedback, computer-assisted language learning, German, grammar instruction
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Corrective feedback in CALL
  • 3.Our study
    • 3.1Study participants and our ICALL system
    • 3.2Background questionnaire
    • 3.3Practice phase
    • 3.4Metalinguistic feedback
    • 3.5Repetition
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Comparison of two feedback types
    • 4.2Analysis of variance
      • 4.2.1Effects of feedback type and course on correct responses
      • 4.2.2Effects of feedback type and course on errors
      • 4.2.3Effects of feedback type and course on skipping exercises
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.19009.hei
References (85)
References
Baker & Bricker. (2010). The effects of direct and indirect speech acts on native English and ESL speakers’ perception of teacher written feedback. System, 381, 75–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Bitchener, J. & Knoch. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research Journal, 121, 409–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowles, M. (2005). Effects of Verbalization Condition and Type of Feedback on L2 Development in a CALL Task. PhD diss., Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Bowles, M. & Montrul, S. (2008). The role of explicit instruction in the L2 acquisition of the a-personal. In Mayella Almazan, Joyce Bruhn de Garavito & Elena Valenzuela (eds.). Selected papers from the 8th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 25–35. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Braidi, S. M. (2002). Reexamining the role of recasts in native-speaker/nonnative-speaker interactions. Language Learning, 521, 1–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burt, M. (1975). Error analysis in the adult EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 91, 53–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canale, M. & M. Swain. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 11, 1–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition. Foundations for Teaching, Testing, and Research. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Choi, Y. (2016). Writing strategies in the process of L2 computer-mode academic writing with the use of multiple resources. English Teaching, 711, 3–28.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 51, 161–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 131, 431–469. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erlam, R., & Loewen, S. (2010). Implicit and explicit recasts in L2 oral French interaction. Canadian Modern Language Review/La revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 661, 877–905. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues, (pp. 81–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Donato, R., Clyde, M. D., & Vansant, J. (2011). Deutsch: Na klar! An introductory German course. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 361, 353–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Lewis, K. (2007). Perceptions of interactional feedback: Differences between heritage language learners and non-heritage language learners. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 79–99). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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, 441, 84–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Havranek, G., & Cesnik, H. (2001). Factors Affecting the Success of Corrective Feedback (Vol. 11). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Heift, T. (2016). Web Delivery of Adaptive and Interactive Language Tutoring: Revisited. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 489–503. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010a). Prompting in CALL: A longitudinal study of learner uptake. Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 198–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010b). Developing an Intelligent Language Tutor. CALICO, 27(3), 443–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL. ReCALL, 161, 416–431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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
(2002). Learner control and error correction in ICALL: Browsers, peekers and adamants. CALICO Journal, 191, 295–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Error-Specific and Individualized Feedback in a Web-based Language Tutoring System: Do They Read It? ReCALL, 13(2), 129–142.Google Scholar
Heift, T. & Rimrott, A. (2008). Learner Responses to Corrective Feedback for Spelling Errors in CALL. System, 36(2), 196–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heift, T. & Schulze, M. (2007). Errors and Intelligence in Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Parsers and Pedagogues. Routledge New York. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hendrickson, J. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research and practice. Modern Language Journal, 621, 387–98.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1966). Two types of linguistic relativity. In W. Bright (ed.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 114–158). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Kregar, S. (2011). Relative Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback Types in Computer-Assisted Language Learning. PhD diss., Florida State University.Google Scholar
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, 181, 320–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of error feedback in second language writing. Arizona working papers in SLA & Teaching, 151, 65–79.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia, (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 591, 453–498. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 11, 129–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 221, 471–498. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 821, 338–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moreno, N. (2007). The effects of type of task and type of feedback on L2 development in CALL. PhD diss., Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Murphy, P. (2007). Reading comprehension exercises online: The effects of, feedback, proficiency and interaction. Language Learning & Technology, 111, 107–129.Google Scholar
Nagata, N. (1997). An experimental comparison of deductive and inductive feedback generated by a simple parser. System, 25(4), 515–534. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996). Computer vs. workbook instruction in second language acquisition. CALICO Journal, 141, 53–75.Google Scholar
(1993). Intelligent Computer Feedback for Second Language Instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77(iii), 330–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 591, 411–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2 grammar. The Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 353–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (2017). Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning: Research, Theory, Applications, Implications. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51(4), 719–758. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peterson, K. (2010). Implicit Corrective Feedback in Computer-Guided Interaction. Does Mode Matter? PhD diss., Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493–527. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pujolà, J.-T. (2002). CALLing for help: Researching language learning strategies using help facilities in a web-based multimedia program. ReCALL, 141, 253–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Did CALL Feedback Feed Back? Researching Learners’ Use of Feedback. ReCALL, 13(1), 79–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rimrott, A. & Heift, T. (2008). Evaluating Automatic Detection of Misspellings in German. Language Learning &Technology, 12(3), pp. 73–92.Google Scholar
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
Rosa, E. and Leow, R. (2004). Computerized task-based exposure, explicitness and type of feedback on Spanish L2 development. Modern Language Journal, 881, 192–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanz, C. (2004). Computer delivered implicit vs. explicit feedback in processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 241–255). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness. In R. 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
(1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schulze, M. & Heift, T. (2013). Intelligent CALL. In M. Thomas, H. Reinders & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary Computer-Assisted Language Learning (pp. 249–265). London & New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58(4), 835–874. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y.-H. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings, Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 371, 556–569. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G. (2010a). Learners’ processing, uptake and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 321, 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytic ability. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 171–195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 171, 292–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J. 1996. The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 461, 327–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsay, C., Kofinas, A., Luo, J. (2018). Enhancing student learning experience with technology-mediated gamification: an empirical study, Computers and Education, 1211, pp.1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Linden, E. (1993). Does Feedback Enhance Computer-Assisted Language Learning? Computers in Education, 21(1/2), 61–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Loncar, Michael, Wayne Schams & Jong-Shing Liang
2023. Multiple technologies, multiple sources: trends and analyses of the literature on technology-mediated feedback for L2 English writing published from 2015-2019. Computer Assisted Language Learning 36:4 ► pp. 722 ff. DOI logo
Cárdenas-Claros, Mónica Stella
2022. Conceptualizing feedback in computer-based L2 language listening. Computer Assisted Language Learning 35:5-6 ► pp. 1168 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.