title - Language Learning & Technology

READING COMPREHENSION EXERCISES ONLINE: THE EFFECTS OF FEEDBACK,
PROFICIENCY AND INTERACTION Philip Murphy
Kanda University of International Studies
This paper describes an ongoing project to create an online version of
a reading programme, a custom-designed English language proficiency
course at a university in Japan. Following an interactionist view of
second language acquisition, it was hypothesised that comprehension of
a reading passage could be enhanced by online materials promoting
interaction between students as they completed a multiple-choice
reading comprehension exercise. Interaction was promoted: (a) through
pair work at a single computer and (b) by providing Elaborative
feedback in the form of hints about incorrect answers as a means of
stimulating discussion about corrections. Students were randomly
selected from upper and lower levels of English proficiency, as
determined by the Kanda English Proficiency Test (Bonk & Ockey, 2003),
to receive either Elaborative feedback or Knowledge of Correct Response
feedback (which supplies the correct answers). Within these groups,
some students worked in pairs and some alone. Quantitative results show
that the interaction between Type of feedback and Manner of study
(individual or pair work) was statistically significant; students
performed best on a follow-up comprehension exercise when in pairs and
having been provided with Elaborative feedback. Furthermore,
qualitative analysis of transcribed interactions also shows that
Elaborative feedback was conducive to quality interaction.
INTRODUCTION Advancing the design and use of computer-assisted language learning (CALL)
activities is a key concern for researchers. As Chapelle (1997, pp. 19-22)
explains, critical questions need to be answered about how CALL can be used
to improve instructed second language acquisition (SLA). Two such questions
are: 1) What kind of language does the learner engage in during a CALL activity? 2) How good is the language experience in CALL for L2 learning? Chapelle (1997) describes how the answer to the second question is
dependent upon beliefs concerning what types of language use are expected
to be beneficial for second language development. For those espousing an
interactionist view of SLA (Lantolf, 2000; Lightbown & Spada, 1999; Long,
1981; Pica, 1996; Van Lier, 1996), there is an assumption that L2
acquisition is facilitated by learners' interaction in the target language,
thereby providing opportunities to comprehend message meaning. Accordingly,
to ensure that L2 tasks meet such assumptions, and to facilitate SLA,
researchers need to specify ideal observable features of learner language,
such as signals that focus attention on language and features that may
elicit a repetition or an expansion of previously acquired language. In line with Chapelle's recommendations, a key concern for research is how
these ideal features and appropriate tasks can be incorporated into an
experimental reading programme. This concern is relevant due to the two
goals of the current course, namely: 1) to provide students with the choice of an alternative and principled
mode of online study and 2) to promote learner autonomy (Benson, 2001). Throughout this paper, focus is placed on the first exercise that the
students meet in the course, a reading comprehension exercise. It was
hypothesised that increased interaction could be facilitated by requiring
students to collaborate in pairs at a single computer (Beatty & Nunan,
2004; Stevens, 1992), and by providing Elaborative feedback in the form of
hints to promote discussion as students self-correct errors. This type of
feedback was provided as an alternative to Knowledge of Correct Response
(KCR) feedback, which replicates traditional paper-based answer sheets by
providing correct answers. It was also hypothesised that increased
interaction through pair work with Elaborative feedback would be an
effective method for promoting comprehension of a reading text. Results are
analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Context of the Study During the second term of the reading course (see Murphy & Imrie, 2003 for
a description), students are encouraged to choose from a series of
activities and create, with guidance, an individualized syllabus. Students
select, complete and then check their answers to the exercises with answer
papers provided by the teachers. However, this procedure has proven to be
problematic on the paper-based course for the following reasons: 1) when correcting answers, it is uncertain whether students: a) fully
understand their errors and b) actively engage in the process of self-
correction and, 2) for those students who choose to work outside of lesson time, there is
potentially a wait of up to one week between lessons (and longer during
holidays) before they can check their answers. In a bid to overcome these challenges, this research focuses on the
contribution that computer-mediated feedback can make. A key question that
arises is: how and what kind of feedback maximizes comprehension? It is
towards this issue that the following discussion is directed.
INTERACTION IN THE READING PROCESS CALL researchers have turned to the work of interactionist SLA researchers
when evaluating the quality of learner language. As Chapelle (1997)
explains, the linguistic form of: " ... a good interaction is hypothesized
to occur when the normal interactional structure has been modified because
the learner has requested, for example, a repetition, clarification or
restatement of the original input" (pp. 25-26). This modified interaction
is thought to be good because it can function to promote both the
negotiation of meaning of the input (Beatty, 2003; Chapelle, 2001; Long,
1985; Nunan, 1993; Pica, 1994) and greatly contribute to language
acquisition (Ellis, 1998; Krashen, 1985; Van den Branden, 2000). From a
reading proficiency perspective, Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) note: Modification of the interactional structure of conversation or of
written discourse during reading ... is a [good] candidate for a
necessary (not sufficient) condition for acquisition. The role it plays
in negotiation for meaning helps to make input comprehensible while
still containing unknown linguistic elements, and, hence, potential
intake for acquisition. (p. 144) Following research that points to the importance of comprehensible output
to the acquisition of the target language (Chapelle, 1997; Swain, 1985), a
conscious effort was made in this study to investigate the effects of
feedback designed to promote negotiation of meaning, form and / or content
in situations similar to those described by Swain and Lapkin (1995): In producing the L2, a learner will on occasion become aware of (i.e.,
notice) a linguistic problem (brought to his / her attention either by
external feedback [e.g., clarification requests] or internal feedback).
Noticing a problem 'pushes' the learner to modify his / her output. (p.
373) Although the importance of both negotiation of meaning and comprehensible
output is well documented, few studies have investigated the effects on
reading comprehension (Van den Branden, 2000); nevertheless, the design of
this study was informed by research that was available and specifically by
studies that point to the usefulness of promoting reading proficiency
through interaction (Grabe & Stoller, 2002; Shanker & Ekwall, 2003).
Despite the fact that the studies such as Eldredge and Butterfield (1986),
Koskienen and Blum (1986) and Nes (2003) were carried out in non-computer-
mediated environments, they provide positive implications for promoting
interaction through paired online reading activities.
Quality Student Interaction Around Computers As with non-computer-mediated environments, it is important to consider the
interaction that is generated in computer-based tasks (Beatty, 2003;
Stevens, 1992), and the type of interaction that is desirable for promoting
comprehension, learning and language acquisition around computers. Based on
findings from Fisher's (1992) study, students working on tutorial software
exhibited the same IRF (Initiation, Response, Follow-up / Feedback)
discursive structure. However, researchers have attempted to increase
levels of interaction between students in various ways. For example,
Wegerif and Mercer (1996) proposed a transformation to an IDRF (Initiation,
Discussion, Response, Follow-up / Feedback) structure by including a
discussion stage. Furthermore, software can also be developed to replicate
techniques which teachers use to stimulate interaction, notably: (a)
eliciting knowledge from students, (b) responding to what students say
(confirmations, repetitions, elaborations and reformations) and (c)
describing significant aspects of shared experiences ('we' statements)
(Mercer, 2004). When considering the quality of interaction around computers, two key
features are particularly desirable: (1) learners need to be actively
involved (Van den Branden, 2000); and (2) learners need to produce
Exploratory talk in which partners engage critically and constructively
with each other's ideas (Mercer, 1995). Regarding the former, Mercer (2004)
explains how it is helpful for the analyst to perceive the degree in which
students in joint activities are: "(a) behaving cooperatively or
competitively and (b) engaging in the critical reflection or in the mutual
acceptance of ideas" (p. 146). As for promoting Exploratory talk among
learners, Wegerif, Mercer, & Dawes (1998), having been influenced by
findings of research into effective collaborative learning (summarized in
Wegerif & Mercer, 1996), note the importance of: sharing relevant
information, reaching agreement, expecting reasons and challenges,
discussing alternatives and encouraging peers. A key