Reading comprehension exercises online: the effects of feedback, proficiency and interaction.

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).