Reading Comprehension Exercises Online: The Effects of Feedback, Proficiency and Interaction N97C0025 Judith

＊ Introduction 1. Two goals of the current course: ▲ To provide students with the choice of an alternative and principled mode online study. ▲ To provide students with the choice of an alternative and principled mode online study. ▲ To promote learner autonomy (Benson, 2001). ▲ To promote learner autonomy (Benson, 2001). 2. Noticing a problem ‘ pushes ’ the learner to modify his/her output (Swain & Lapkin, 1995). 3. It ’ s useful to promote reading proficiency through interaction (Grabe & Stoller, 2002). Key words: ● Elaborative feedback Elaborative feedback Elaborative feedback ● Knowledge of Correct Response (KCR)

＊ Research Question 1. What kind of interaction is generated through pair work as a result of Elaborative feedback? 2. Whether the interaction is sufficient to promote comprehension?

＊ Hypothesis 1. Elaborative feedback will be more effective for promoting comprehension of the reading text than KCR feedback. 2. Pair work will be more effective for promoting comprehension of the reading text than individual work. 3. Students with a higher level of English proficiency will demonstrate higher levels of comprehension of the reading text than those with a lower level. 4. Students studying in pairs and receiving Elaborative feedback will demonstrate higher levels of comprehension of the reading text than other students. 5. Students with higher proficiency receiving Elaborative feedback will demonstrate higher levels of comprehension of the reading text than other students. 6. Students with higher proficiency studying in pairs will demonstrate higher levels of comprehension of the reading text than other students. 7. Students with higher proficiency studying in pairs and receiving Elaborative feedback will demonstrate higher levels of comprehension of the reading text than other students.

＊ Method Quan→qual ◆ Participants 407 First-Year English majors at university in Japan 407 First-Year English majors at university in Japan 162 for pilot study 162 for pilot study 14 absent or late 14 absent or late 231 to be the test 6 100% correct 231 to be the test 6 100% correct 225 for data analysis 225 for data analysis 6 pairs were video taped 6 pairs were video taped ◆ Materials 1. Reading materials 1. Reading materials 2. Feedback treatment 2. Feedback treatment

◆ Procedure 1. Students were divided into 2 levels. (upper and lower) 1. Students were divided into 2 levels. (upper and lower) 2. Students were randomly chosen to work either individually or 2. Students were randomly chosen to work either individually or in pairs. in pairs. 3. Give the students either KCR feedback or Elaborative 3. Give the students either KCR feedback or Elaborative feedback. feedback. 4. After these different treatments on the comprehension of the 4. After these different treatments on the comprehension of the text during the first comprehension exercise, all students were text during the first comprehension exercise, all students were given 20 minutes to complete a second exercise. given 20 minutes to complete a second exercise. 〈 There are three independent variables and one dependent variable. 〉 〈 There are three independent variables and one dependent variable. 〉 5. 6 pairs were video taped and the transcripts were written by 5. 6 pairs were video taped and the transcripts were written by the students and checked by researcher. the students and checked by researcher.

＊ Results ◆ Quantitative Results ( Three-way ANOVA) ( Three-way ANOVA)ANOVA 1. The results are obtained for : (1) the main effect of 1. The results are obtained for : (1) the main effect of English proficiency level (2) and the interaction English proficiency level (2) and the interaction between Manner of study and Type of feedback. between Manner of study and Type of feedback. 2. There are no significant results for Hypothesis 1, 2, 2. There are no significant results for Hypothesis 1, 2, 5, 6 & 7, but there are significant results for 5, 6 & 7, but there are significant results for Hypothesis 3 & 4. Hypothesis 3 & The interaction between Type of feedback and 3. The interaction between Type of feedback and Manner of study was statistically significant; students Manner of study was statistically significant; students performed best on a follow-up comprehension performed best on a follow-up comprehension exercise when in pairs with Elaborative feedback. exercise when in pairs with Elaborative feedback.

◆ Qualitative Results 1. All students working in pairs were seen interacting with their 1. All students working in pairs were seen interacting with their partners. partners. 2. Quality interaction was observed on numerous occasions 2. Quality interaction was observed on numerous occasions regardless of English proficiency level. regardless of English proficiency level. 3. All students interact in English. 3. All students interact in English. Quality interaction includes : Quality interaction includes : (a) initial interaction following the feedback, (a) initial interaction following the feedback, (b) discuss the feedback by trying to identify their errors, (b) discuss the feedback by trying to identify their errors, (c) respond to the feedback by selecting different answers and (c) respond to the feedback by selecting different answers and then clicking to check them again, then clicking to check them again, (d) receive further feedback following the changes which (d) receive further feedback following the changes which stimulates further interaction. stimulates further interaction.

＊ Discussion 1. Although there was no significant advantage of Elaborative over KCR feedback, the results also suggest that higher proficiency students do better work alone whereas lower proficiency students do better in pairs. 2. The combination of pair work and Elaborative feedback is more desirable because of the opportunities afford the students in developing not only the reading comprehension but also their language skills. 3. Pair work and Elaborative feedback is a preferable form of computer-mediated feedback in online multiple-choice reading comprehension exercises.

＊ Implication Students should be encouraged to work in pairs with Elaborative feedback. Students should be encouraged to work in pairs with Elaborative feedback. Future Research: Future Research: 1. same feedback V.S different students 1. same feedback V.S different students different amounts of time different amounts of time 2. same feedback V.S different manner of study 2. same feedback V.S different manner of study enough time (pair or individual) enough time (pair or individual) 3. How does Elaborative feedback affect students ’ 3. How does Elaborative feedback affect students ’ motivation? motivation? 4. How much students actually interact with their partners? 4. How much students actually interact with their partners?

＊ Conclusion The traditional answer paper (KCR feedback) may not always the optimal too for learning from mistakes. The traditional answer paper (KCR feedback) may not always the optimal too for learning from mistakes. Certain combinations of factors (Manner of study and Type of feedback) can have significant beneficial effects on students ’ learning outcomes. Certain combinations of factors (Manner of study and Type of feedback) can have significant beneficial effects on students ’ learning outcomes.