The effects of feedback timing on L2 development in written SCMC

Figures & data

Table

SCENE 3
Your answers (participant 13)	My comments
It is in a κούνια. (crib) It drinks some milk. It uses a κανάτα. (jug) He cut a piece of a chair to make a yoyo for the baby. Because he cares the baby.	It is laying in a sling. It is drinking some milk. It is using a tea pot. He is cutting a chair to make a home-made pottie for the baby. He is taking care of the baby.

Note. Learners referred to the baby as ‘it’ or ‘he’. Although ‘he’ is more appropriate, the researcher accepted both pronouns because the film referred to the baby as ‘it’.

Table 1. Categorizing clauses for accuracy.

Clause Category	Score	Definition	Examples from the current study
Entirely accurate	1.00	The clause is accurately constructed.	He is a good father.
Level 1	0.80	The clause has only minor errors that do not compromise meaning.	He want to keep the baby.
Level 2	0.50	The clause contains serious errors but the meaning is recoverable, though not always obvious.	and to took some money
Level 3	0.10	The clause has very serious errors that make the intended meaning far from obvious and only partly recoverable.	fly stones

Note. The classification and description of different levels is from Foster and Wigglesworth (2016).

Table 2. Procedures for marking errors. From Liu (2008) and Smith (2012).

Type of error	Description	Examples from the current study
Morphological errors	All errors in verb tense or form; plural or possessive ending incorrect, omitted, or unnecessary; subject-verb agreement errors; article or other determiner incorrect, omitted, or unnecessary.	He want to keep the baby.
Syntactic errors	Errors in sentence/clause boundaries (run-ons, fragments, comma splices), word order, other ungrammatical sentence constructions.	Because they left parents (instead of ‘His parents left him’).
Semantic errors	Errors in word choice, including preposition and pronoun errors; omitted words or phrases, unnecessary words or phrases.	It is using a μπιμπερό (baby bottle).

Table 3. Descriptive statistics for gain scores per group.

	Immediate posttest	Delayed posttest
Group	M (SD)	M (SD)
Immediate feedback	21.25 (16.1)	18.47 (11.92)
Delayed feedback	33.68 (18.86)	21.52 (16.76)

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for gain scores of semantic features per group.

	Immediate posttest	Delayed posttest
Group	M (SD)	M (SD)
Immediate feedback	24.32 (16.89)	21.92 (15.09)
Delayed feedback	38.42 (21.19)	26.07 (17.91)

Table 5. Descriptive statistics for gain scores of morphosyntactic features per group.

	Immediate posttest	Delayed posttest
Group	median (IQR)	median (IQR)
Immediate feedback	8.33 (27.45)	3.22 (13.66)
Delayed feedback	13.04 (32.33)	6.66 (15.99)

Table 6. Distribution of types of errors and accurate changes in the immediate and delayed postinteraction tests in the immediate feedback group.

	Total	Immediate postinteraction changes	Delayed postinteraction changes
Types of errors	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)
Word/phrase choice	329/567 (58.02%)	80/329 (24.31%)	70/329 (21.27%)
Word/phrase omission	64/567 (11.28%)	6/64 (9.37%)	5/64 (7.81%)
L1 use	174/567 (30.68%)	50/174 (28.73%)	47/174 (27.01%)
Verb form/ tense	290/406 (71.42%)	63/290 (21.72%)	40/290 (13.79%)
Determiners	66/406 (16.25%)	2/66 (3.03%)	3/66 (4.54%)
Word form	15/406 (3.69%)	3/15 (20%)	0/15 (0%)
Word order/embedded questions/fragments	35/406 (8.62%)	2/35 (5.71%)	2/35 (5.71%)

Note. 567 errors were classified as semantic and 406 errors were classified as morphosyntactic.

Table 7. Distribution of types of errors and accurate changes in the immediate and delayed postinteraction tests in the delayed feedback group.

	Total	Immediate postinteraction changes	Delayed postinteraction changes
Types of errors	n(%)	n(%)	n(%)
Word/phrase choice	323/600 (53.83%)	112/323 (34.67%)	65/323 (20.12%)
Word/phrase omission	58/600 (9.66%)	14/58 (24.13%)	10/58 (17.24%)
L1 use	219/600 (36.5%)	89/219 (40.63%)	71/219 (32.42%)
Verb form/ tense	250/363 (68.87%)	71/250 (28.4%)	35/250 (14%)
Determiners	75/363 (20.66%)	7/75 (9.33%)	1/75 (1.33%)
Word form	13/363 (3.58%)	2/13 (15.38%)	1/13 (7.69%)
Word order/ embedded questions/ fragments	25/363 (6.88%)	4/25 (16%)	2/25 (8%)

Note. 600 errors were classified as semantic and 363 errors were classified as morphosyntactic.

Foster, P., & Wigglesworth, G. (2016). Capturing accuracy in second language performance: The case for a weighted clause ratio. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 98–116. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000082

 Google Scholar

Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of error feedback in second language writing. Arizona Working Papers in SLA & Teaching, 15, 65–79.

 Google Scholar

Smith, B. (2012). Eye tracking as a measure of noticing: A study of explicit recasts in SCMC. Language Learning & Technology, 16(3), 53–81. https://doi.org/10.125/44300

 Google Scholar