1. Reading Comprehension Exercises Online: The Effects of Feedback, Proficiency and Interaction Betty, Frances, Gordon & Judith

2. ＊ 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)

3. ＊ 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?

4. ＊ 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

5. ◆ 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.

6. ＊ 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. The interaction between Type of feedback and 2. 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.

7. ＊ 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.

8. ＊ 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?

9. ＊ 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.

10. ＊ Good Sentences 1 Niche: 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. 2. Based on findings from Fisher ’ s (1992) study, students working on tutorial software exhibited the same IRF (Initiation, Discussion, Response, Follow-up / Feedback) discursive structure. → good verb → good verb 3. 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). → With a paragraph or sentence, identify elements in a series by lowercase letters in parentheses. Good verb → With a paragraph or sentence, identify elements in a series by lowercase letters in parentheses. Good verb

11. 4. Therefore, from both the qualitative analysis and an interactionist view of SLA, the combination of pair work and Elaborative feedback is more desirable because of the opportunities afforded the students in developing, not only their comprehension of reading texts, but also their English language proficiency skills through the quality interaction that is generated. → Parallel Construction → Parallel Construction 5. While in no way insinuating that computers can completely replace teachers and native speakers in all areas of teaching, the results here support the assumption that there are certain teaching roles that computers can perform to great effect. → Relative Pronouns and Subordinate Conjunctions → Relative Pronouns and Subordinate Conjunctions 6. As shown in this study, with suitably written software and Elaborative feedback, incorrect responses triggered feedback providing rephrased and/ or paraphrased questions and text. → good verb → good verb