In combination with instruction, feedback can assist students in comprehension, engagement, and strategy development in second language acquisition. Outcome feedback allows learners to understand whether they are correct or incorrect. Elaborative feedback can be used to remind learners of the underlying processes behind the activities or encourage them to use learning strategies. This study is part of a European project called iRead which aims to create and test personalised learning technologies to assist primary school children in reading development. We investigate to what extent elaborative feedback, rather than solely outcome feedback, is taken up by EFL learners. Data analytics from the games will be collected, including response correctness, feedback type received, and the impact of the feedback on subsequent responses. Results will be discussed in light of both serious games and SLA theories interested in the effects of feedback on second language reading development.
INTRODUCTION
Feedback is information given to learners to allow them to
evaluate their output. Corrective feedback (CF) is
information given to help learners fix errors in their output
and/or understanding. Based on cognitive interactionist
theories of language acquisition
This research is being conducted within the iRead project, which aims to develop a suite of educational software for android tablet computers, aimed at helping children to develop their reading skills. It is currently localised into four languages – English, Spanish, German, and Greek. The software covers over 250 aspects of phonology, morphology, morphosyntax, and syntax, and consists of learning games, a graded e-reader, and an analytics application. The software is presently only available for researchers, but aims to have a public release after trials have been conducted. This study will be focusing on the use of the learning games application by 10- and 11-year-old English as a foreign language (EFL) learners in Spain, and how the feedback in those games is designed and what impact it may have on their game behavior and reading development.
These types of games are known as serious games as they
are designed with a prevalent gaming element, but include
the intent to improve learning
Form of feedback
Regarding form of feedback, researchers have proposed
many categories of feedback
Elaborative feedback (also known as process feedback)
gives learners more details, such as explaining why an
answer is correct or incorrect, providing information about
the specific concepts or processes involved in the task, or
guiding learners to particular strategies that will help them
with the task. These types of feedback are not mutually
exclusive, and indeed it is difficult to give elaborative
feedback without also giving outcome feedback. There is
little evidence of the effectiveness of different types of
feedback in serious games for SLA, and Benton et. al.
(2018) found that many commercially available early
literacy games contained limited elaborative feedback.
However, there is some evidence from the fields of botany
Complexity of feedback One additional aspect that might be profitably explored is complexity of feedback. In terms of feedback complexity generally, Shute (2008) points out that there is no evidence for more complex feedback providing greater results, and some evidence that it worsens results. It seems possible that elaborative, metalinguistic feedback may be challenging to use for some lower level learners, or that these more explicit forms may be beneficial to older learners. As Li (2010) notes though, there is surprisingly little research on metalinguistic complexity of feedback.
Individual differences and feedback
Ellis also suggests individual differences as an area to study
for CF. While there are many possible individual
differences that could be explored, including age, language
aptitude, gender, prior knowledge, spatial ability, and
motivation, this research will target working memory.
Working memory is of particular relevance due to the
multimodal setting, which increases processing demands, in
addition to the audio only feedback delivered (mostly) by a
synthetic voice. Audio feedback is considered preferable to
reduce processing demands
AIMS AND METHODOLOGY The aim of this study is to gain a better understanding of the effects of feedback in serious literacy games. This will involve gathering data to attempt to answer a number of the questions posed above, such as: 1) In the context of serious literacy games, does outcome plus elaborative feedback lead to better in-game results than outcome feedback alone? 2) Are different types of elaborative feedback taken up differently by learners playing serious literacy games? 3) Do individual differences in working memory affect uptake of elaborative feedback by learners playing serious literacy games? 4) How do 10- and 11-year-old users of serious literacy games engage with the feedback provided to them on a cognitive, affective, and behavioural level? The primary data collection for the iRead program will consist of one academic year’s worth of use of the system, for at least one hour a week, by several classes of 10- and 11-year-old EFL learners in Spain. Several variables will be involved in the research. Type of feedback will be an independent variable. Working memory and engagement will be moderating variables.
The dependent variables will fall into two categories: data internal to the system, and data external to the system. Measures Internal measures will include data on which features and games learners are using, errors and error recovery, and timing of responses. These will allow us to judge the effectiveness of the feedback, and whether the different types are taken up in different ways. External measures will be assessed with a pre/post-test design, which will allow us to measure reading development and motivation. At the start of the academic year, all students taking part in the project will be given pre-tests, including tests of: 1) Reading skills, including measures of word and nonword recognition, listening comprehension, and oral reading fluency in L1 and L2. 2) Vocabulary size, as measured by a children’s productive vocabulary test developed by Anthony and Nation (2017). 3) Working memory, as measured by a backwards digit span. 4) A questionnaire gauging individual motivation for learning English, reading, and using learning games. Twice during the year, learners will complete interim engagement questionnaires with additional questions specifically relating to the application they have been using. At the end of the academic year, students will undergo posttests covering all the topics mentioned above in order to assess development over time.
To investigate cognitive and affective engagement, smaller samples of students will be taken out from their classrooms for additional study, including the use of think-aloud protocols, or using the application under feedback/no feedback conditions for a short period of time.
Additionally, one or two classes of students at the same grade level but who will not be using the system (but rather taking part in their regular reading development activities) will also undergo the pre- and post-tests in order to serve as a control group. Outcome feedback in the game is presented in numerous ways, including visual indicators (e.g. a bridge breaking) and as oral speech (e.g. “Great job!”). Elaborative feedback is all presented orally to the learner when they make an error. By undertaking (primarily) classroom research with a commercial quality application, the study will have strong ecological validity. In addition, the large numbers of participants involved and constant digital data collection will help to strengthen any findings.
CONCLUSION This is an ongoing study and as such does not yet have final results. However data collection has already begun and there are some emerging trends from the pilot testing and early data. In general, the elaborative feedback is not proving to be more effective than simple outcome feedback. The 10- and 11-year-old learners in the study are largely seen to ignore longer feedback explanations and make second attempts before the elaborative feedback has finished playing. In early think-aloud sessions, participants regularly refer to the outcome feedback (e.g. tiles turning red or green) as helping them understand their progression through the topic, but rarely mention using the longer audio hints. This finding is in contrast to those of Moreno (2004) and Mayer & Johnson (2010). A possible explanation for this is to do with the age of the participants – our learners are primary school children rather than university students. Another preliminary finding relates to the primacy of mechanics over language. Many participants struggle initially with some of the game mechanics and make numerous non-language errors. On the other hand, by their third game trial, learners seem to take actions by finding mechanical similarities with previous trials, rather than due to understanding and utilizing the target language points. Further data and analysis will be available for discussion at Gamilearn’19.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 731724.