Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:30:44.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Between learning and playing? Exploring learners’ perceptions of corrective feedback in an immersive game for English pragmatics*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2012

Frederik Cornillie ,
Geraldine Clarebout  and
Piet Desmet
Frederik Cornillie
Affiliation:
ITEC-IBBT-KU Leuven Kulak (Interdisciplinary Research on Technology, Education and Communication), E. Sabbelaan 53, 8500 Kortrijk, Belgium Franitalco, Research on French, Italian and Comparative Linguistics, KU Leuven, Blijde-Inkomststraat 21, 3000 Leuven, Belgium, ([email protected], [email protected])
Geraldine Clarebout
Affiliation:
ITEC-IBBT-KU Leuven Kulak (Interdisciplinary Research on Technology, Education and Communication), E. Sabbelaan 53, 8500 Kortrijk, Belgium CIP&T, Centre for Instructional Psychology and Technology, KU Leuven, Dekenstraat 2 box 3770, 3000 Leuven, Belgium ([email protected])
Piet Desmet
Affiliation:
ITEC-IBBT-KU Leuven Kulak (Interdisciplinary Research on Technology, Education and Communication), E. Sabbelaan 53, 8500 Kortrijk, Belgium Franitalco, Research on French, Italian and Comparative Linguistics, KU Leuven, Blijde-Inkomststraat 21, 3000 Leuven, Belgium, ([email protected], [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper aims to provide a rationale for the utility of corrective feedback (CF) in digital games designed for language learning, with specific reference to learners’ perceptions. Explicit and elaborate CF has the potential to increase learners’ understanding of language, but might not be found useful in a game-based learning environment where the primary focus for the learner is on meaningful interaction and experiential learning. Also, as CF can be perceived as a measure of performance, it could harm learners’ perception of competence. Eighty-three learners of English as a foreign language participated in a mixed-method experimental study that aimed to first explore the perceived usefulness of, and preferences for, explicit and implicit CF in an immersive educational game, and to secondly chart the relation between learners’ perceptions of CF as they pertain to three individual difference factors related to learners’ self-perception, namely intrinsic goal orientation, perceived competence and game experience. Survey and interview data showed that CF was found to be generally useful. A regression model indicated that the three measures of self-perception affected learners’ perceptions of explicit CF positively, and that there was no impact on perceptions of implicit CF. Further, learners reported having enjoyed the implicit CF, although they did not find it particularly useful for learning. These findings indicate that the type of CF should be considered in the design of effective and enjoyable educational games.

Keywords

game-based learningsecond language acquisitionfeedbackerror correctionlearners' perceptionsintrinsic motivation
Type
Research Article
Information
ReCALL , Volume 24 , Issue 3: Digital games for language learning: challenges and opportunities , September 2012 , pp. 257 - 278
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Contact author.

*

This study is based on research funded by IBBT (Interdisciplinary Institute for Broadband Technology) and was conducted within the LLINGO project “Language Learning in an Interactive Game Environment” (ICON 2009).

References

Aldrich, C. (2005) Learning by doing: a comprehensive guide to simulations, computer games, and pedagogy in e-learning and other educational experiences. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
Baltra, A. (1990) Language Learning through Computer Adventure Games. Simulation & Gaming, 21(4): 445–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, K. (2007) Pedagogy in commercial video games. In: Prensky, M., Aldrich, C. and Gibson, D. (eds.), Games and simulations in online learning: research and development frameworks. Hershey: Information science, 21–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandl, K. K. (1995) Strong and Weak Students’ Preferences for Error Feedback Options and Responses. The Modern Language Journal, 79(2): 194–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullard, N. (1990) Briefing and debriefing. In: Crookall, D. and Oxford, R. L. (eds.), Simulation, gaming and language learning. New York: Newbury House, 55–66.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. E.Swain, M. (1993) Explicit and implicit negative feedback. An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(3): 357–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cathcart, R.Olsen, J. (1976) Teachers’ and students’ preferences for correction of classroom conversation errors. In: Fanselow, J. E. and Crymes, R. (eds.), On TESOL ‘76. Washington, DC: TESOL, 41–53.Google Scholar
Chenoweth, N. A., Day, R. R., Chun, A. E.Luppescu, S. (1983) Attitudes and Preferences of ESL Students to Error Correction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(1): 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe (2011) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR). http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdfGoogle Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990) Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
De Grove, F., Van Looy, J.Courtouis, C. (2010) Towards a Serious Game Experience Model: Validation, Extension and Adaptation of the GEQ for Use in an Educational Context. In: Calvi, L., Nuijten, K. C. M. and Bouwknegt, H. (eds.), Playability and player experience – Proceedings of the Fun and Games 2010 Workshop. Breda: Breda University of Applied Sciences, 47–61.Google Scholar
de Jong, T. (2005) The Guided Discovery Principle in Multimedia Learning. In: Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press, 215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
deHaan, J., Reed, W. M.Kuwada, K. (2010) The effect of interactivity with a music video game on second language vocabulary recall. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2): 74–94.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1993) The Effect of Error Correction on L2 Grammar Knowledge and Oral Proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 77(4): 501–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2008) Skill Acquisition Theory. In: VanPatten, B. and Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge, 97–114.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (1997) Implicit and Explicit Language Learning – An Overview. In: Ellis, N. C. (ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages (2nd ed.). San Diego: Academic Press, 1–31.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S.Erlam, R. (2006) Implicit and Explicit Corrective Feedback and the Acquisition of L2 Grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2): 339–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gee, J. P. (2007) Good Video Games and Good Learning: Collected Essays. New York: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havranek, G. (2002) When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed? International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3-4): 255–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havranek, G.Cesnik, H. (2001) Factors affecting the success of corrective feedback. EUROSLA Yearbook, 1(1): 99–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedgcock, J.Lefkowitz, N. (1994) Feedback on Feedback: Assessing Learning Receptivity to Teacher Response in L2 Composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(2): 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heift, T. (2002) Learner Control and Error Correction in ICALL: Browsers, Peekers, and Adamants. CALICO Journal, 19(2): 295–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heift, T. (2004) Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL. ReCALL, 16(2): 416–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubbard, P. (2002) Interactive Participatory Dramas for Language Learning. Simulation & Gaming, 33(2): 210–216. http://sag.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/33/2/210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. (2005) Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning. Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2): 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kickmeier-Rust, M. D.Albert, D. (2010) Micro-adaptivity: protecting immersion in didactically adaptive digital educational games. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(2): 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiili, K. (2005) Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(1): 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, H.Mathes, G. (2001) Explicit vs. implicit corrective feedback. The Korea TESOL Journal,, 4: 1–15.Google Scholar
Koster, R. (2005) A Theory of Fun for Game Design. Scottsdale, Arizona: Paraglyph Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1981) Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Loewen, S.Philp, J. (2006) Recasts in the Adult English L2 Classroom: Characteristics, Explicitness, and Effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90(4): 536–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S.Reinders, H. (2011) Key concepts in second language acquisition. New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (2007) Problems in SLA. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., Inagaki, S.Ortega, L. (1998) The Role of Implicit Negative Feedback in SLA: Models and Recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3): 357–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R.Ranta, L. (1997) Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake. Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1): 37–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R.Saito, K. (2010) Oral Feedback in Classroom SLA. A Meta-Analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2): 265–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A.Goo, J. (2007) Interaction research in SLA: a meta-analysis and research synthesis. In: Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 407–452.Google Scholar
Magilow, D. H. (1999) Case Study #2: Error Correction and Classroom Affect. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 32(2): 125–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagata, N. (1993) Intelligent Computer Feedback for Second Language Instruction. Modern Language Journal, 77(3): 330–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M.Ortega, L. (2000) Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A Research Synthesis and Quantitative Meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3): 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T.Mckeachie, W. J. (1993) Reliability and Predictive Validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3): 801–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plant, R. W.Ryan, R. M. (1985) Intrinsic motivation and the effects of self- involvement: An investigation of internally controlling styles. Journal of Personality, 53(3): 435–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prensky, M. (2001) Digital game-based learning. St. Paul: Paragon House.Google Scholar
Pujolà, J.-T. (2001) Did CALL feedback feed back? Researching learners’ use of feedback. ReCALL, 13(1): 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purushotma, R., Thorne, S. L., Wheatley, J. (2008). 10 key principles for designing video games for foreign language learning. http://knol.google.com/k/ravi-purushotma/10-key-principles-for-designing-video/27mkxqba7b13d/2#doneGoogle Scholar
Radecki, P. M.Swales, J. M. (1988) ESL Student Reaction to Written Comments on Their Written Work. System, 16(3): 355–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranalli, J. (2008) Learning English with The Sims: exploiting authentic computer simulation games for L2 learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(5): 441–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rigby, C. S.Ryan, R. M. (2011) Glued to Games. How Video Games Draw Us In and Hold Us Spellbound. Santa Barbara: Praeger.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, G. L. (1991) Effective feedback strategies in CALL: learning theory and empirical research. In: Dunkel, P. A (ed.), Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Testing: Research Issues and Practice. New Jersey: Newbury House, 155–167.Google Scholar
Russell, J.Spada, N. (2006) The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In: Norris, J. M. and Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 133–164.Google Scholar
Ryan, R. M.Deci, E. L. (2000) Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1): 54–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saito, H. (1994) Teachers’ Practices and Students’ Preferences for Feedback on Second Language Writing: A Case Study of Adult ESL Learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11(2): 46–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2): 17–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulz, R. A. (2001) Cultural Differences in Student and Teacher Perceptions Concerning the Role of Grammar Instruction and Corrective Feedback: USA-Colombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2): 244–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulze, M. (2003) Grammatical Errors and Feedback: Some Theoretical Insights. CALICO Journal, 20(3): 437–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. (1993) On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and “linguistic behavior”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2): 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2008) Recasts, Language Anxiety, Modified Output, and L2 Learning. Language Learning, 58(4): 835–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takimoto, M. (2006) The effects of explicit feedback on the development of pragmatic proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 10(4): 393–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J. (1996) The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes. Language Learning, 46(2): 327–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Merriënboer, J. J. G.Kirschner, P. A. (2007) Ten steps to complex learning. A systematic approach to Four-Component Instructional Design. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandercruysse, S., Vandewaetere, M., Cornillie, F.Clarebout, G. (2012) Competition and students’ perceptions in a game-based language learning environment. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Willis, D.Willis, J. (2007) Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Winne, P. H. (1987) Why process-product research cannot explain process-product findings and a proposed remedy: The cognitive mediational paradigm. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(4): 333–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar