Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Publisher Login
amazon logo
More Info


New from Oxford University Press!

ad

Cognitive Literary Science

Edited by Michael Burke and Emily T. Troscianko

Cognitive Literary Science "Brings together researchers in cognitive-scientific fields and with literary backgrounds for a comprehensive look at cognition and literature."


New from Cambridge University Press!

ad

Intonation and Prosodic Structure

By Caroline Féry

Intonation and Prosodic Structure "provides a state-of-the-art survey of intonation and prosodic structure."


Academic Paper


Title: Web-based collaborative reading exercises for learners in remote locations: the effects of computer-mediated feedback and interaction via computer-mediated communication
Author: Philip Murphy
Institution: Kanda University of International Studies
Linguistic Field: Applied Linguistics; Computational Linguistics
Abstract: Despite the fact that the benefits of pair and group work for those espousing an interactionist view of second language learning are well documented (Lightbown & Spada, ; Long, ; Pica, , ; Van Lier, ), learning environments exist in which students have no option but to study alone. Of particular interest for this research are learners who, despite studying in contexts supportive of collaborative interaction in the classroom, have little opportunity to interact with partners when trying to participate in collaborative reading comprehension exercises outside school. In an attempt to find a solution to this potentially inhibiting learning context, this research comprises an investigation into (a) whether the introduction of computer-mediated Elaborative feedback before Knowledge of Correct Response (KCR) feedback better promotes quality interaction and comprehension of a web-based reading text and (b) whether computer-mediated communication (CMC) offers a suitable means for generating quality interaction between peers in remote locations. While completing a web-based multiple-choice reading comprehension exercise, students worked in pairs and received either KCR feedback only, or Elaborative feedback before KCR feedback. In contrast to KCR feedback which simply comprises the correct answers, Elaborative feedback was produced in the form of hints to foster interaction and to support dyads in their attempts at self-correcting any incorrect answers. Using a multiple-try methodology, hints became increasingly specific for questions repeatedly answered incorrectly. Upon completing a follow-up comprehension exercise alone, all students were provided with KCR feedback only. Results from a quantitative analysis of the comprehension scores indicate that students who were provided with Elaborative feedback subsequently scored significantly higher on the follow-up exercise. Furthermore, results from a qualitative analysis of interactions suggest that CMC is a suitable way of generating quality interaction between students, particularly when Elaborative feedback is included.

CUP AT LINGUIST

This article appears IN ReCALL Vol. 22, Issue 2.

Return to TOC.

Add a new paper
Return to Academic Papers main page
Return to Directory of Linguists main page