April 2007 Index
 
Home Page

Editor’s Note
: Feedback “makes the communication perfect.” How perfect depends on many factors. Immediate knowledge-of-results is better than delayed confirmation. This research studies three types of feedback and the ocus of control exercised by the student. It determines there are significant differences and individual learning styles play a role.

A Study on Different Types of Feedback
in a Language Multimedia Courseware

Yeap Lay Hwa, Fong Soon Fook, Hanafi Atan,
Omar Majid, Wong Su Luan
Malaysia

Abstract

This article reports on a study that examined the effects of different types of feedback in a language multimedia courseware. Three versions of the language multimedia courseware entitled Subject-Verb Agreement which incorporated three types of feedback, namely, Knowledge of Results (KOR), Knowledge of Correct Response (KCR) and Elaborated Feedback (EF), were developed. The moderator variable for this study was the students’ locus of control, which comprised two levels, namely, the internal and external locus of control for a Subject-Verb Agreement test. A total of 134 Semester-Two students enrolled in the Certificate in Mechanical Engineering was randomly divided into three groups with each group being assigned to one of the treatments. A 3 x 2 quasi-experimental factorial design was used in this study and an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to examine the effects of the types of feedback and the students’ locus of control on their performance in the Subject-Verb Agreement test. This study concluded that the EF, as compared to the KCR and KOR feedback, was the most useful to students with different loci of control in learning Subject-Verb Agreement. This study also revealed that students with the internal locus of control achieve better scores than students with the external locus of control. To the “external” students, EF was the most effective type of feedback in learning Subject-Verb Agreement. Thus, due consideration has to be accorded to learner characteristics while selecting the type of feedback in the design and development of instructional materials.

Keywords: Feedbacks, multimedia courseware, instructional design, locus of control, computer-based instruction, language courseware, student performance, learner characteristics

Introduction

Feedback is an important input for students in language learning. Immediate and informative feedback will keep students continuously aware of the result of their use of language. According to Vigil and Ollers (1976), feedback determines the degree of internalisation of grammatical rules. Findings from several studies (Tomasello and Herron, 1989; Lightbrown and Spada 1990; White, 1991; Caroll and Swain, 1993; McDonald et al., 2005; Jaehning & Miller, 2007) show that the provision of feedback immediately following an error is important to inform the learners of the discrepancies between faulty and correct forms in the target language. In other words, the information provided in the feedback guides the learners to abandon the wrong form and acquire the correct ones in their language learning.

In the current situation in Malaysia, besides the possible lack of emphasis on providing feedback in the communicative methodology used, the high student-teacher ratio in the classroom may deter teachers from giving enough and quality feedback needed by the students. Nor Hasimah (1999) found that due to this high ratio, teachers have been unable to provide individual attention to the students. Providing feedback and comments on students’ work was also a burden to the teachers. As a result, students did not receive enough attention and immediate feedback on their work from the teachers. According to Ross and Morrison (1991), a student-teacher ratio of 25:1 or higher, limits the frequency and quality of the feedback the student will receive. Hence, using the computer in the instructional process through the use of multimedia courseware may have great potential to improve the quality of feedback provided to a learner as this allows the 1:1 ratio of interaction between the computer and the learner. Studies by Waldrop et al., (1986), Clarina et al., (1991), Fong (1996), Myint (1995), Nor Hayati (2002), Rosa and Leow (2004) and Chong (2005) found that feedback provided through computer-based instruction enhances performance in biology, mathematics, and behavioural management courses as well as in text comprehension.

According to Dempsey et al. (1991), there are three common types of feedback in computer-based instruction. These are:

1.  Knowledge of Results (KOR) – this feedback informs the learner of a correct or incorrect response.

2.  Knowledge of Correct Response (KCR) – this feedback informs the learner what the correct response to a question should be.

3.  Elaborated Feedback (EF) – this feedback provides an explanation as to why the learner’s response is correct or incorrect.

Several studies have shown that the KCR feedback is superior to the KOR feedback while the latter feedback is better than the absence of feedback (Noonan 1984, Fong 1996, Nor Hayati, 2002). However, evidence also suggests that the EF does not show any significant improvement over the KOR or KCR feedback (Merrill 1987, Spock 1987, Myint, 1995). These findings replicated the results in Schimmel’s (1983, 1986) studies. Schimmel (1983, 1986) concluded that the hierarchy of feedback types has not been  well established. Hence, this study was undertaken to investigate the relative effectiveness of the KCR and KOR feedback and the EF in the learning of Subject-Verb Agreement, one of the topics in the English language grammar course.

Besides the inconclusive evidence on the hierarchy of feedback types, Clarina et. al. (1991) pointed out that there is still a lack of understanding on the situations in which different types of feedback tend to operate most effectively. They attributed this lacking to the failure to account adequately for the influences of factors such as learner characteristics. Several studies have shown that learner characteristics, such as the anxiety level (Nor Hayati, 2002; Chong, 2005) and the cognitive style (Myint, 1995; Fong, 1996; Fong and Ng, 2002), do influence the effectiveness of feedback. Apart from these two factors, the locus of control is another important learner characteristic.

The locus of control was first conceptualised by Rotter (1966) in his theory of social learning. It relates to the aspect of personality which is characterised by a sense of control over reward and reinforcement. There are two types of locus of control namely the internal locus of control and the external locus of control. Student with the internal locus of control exercise control over their life by the choices they make.  The external locus of control in the other hand are characterised by beliefs that their destiny is controlled by powerful others, forces outside their control, luck and other unpredictable forces. To add to Rotter’s definition of internality and externality, Jonassen and Grabowkli (1993) describe the internals as individuals who tend to attribute causes of success and failure to themselves. They believe that their success is the results of their effort, ability, or competence, and their failure is resulted from their lack of those. Conversely, the externals tend to attribute their successes and failures to external forces that control individual performance such as ability or likelihood to perform acceptably. Rotter (1996) believes that internal-external control is a prominent determinant of an individual alertness to information, which is potentially helpful in guiding the person’s future behaviour. Thus he hypothesised that internals would engage themselves more in achievement related activities than externals that tend to feel that they have little control over their rewards and punishment.

The study of the locus of control and types of feedback in determining learning has not been extensively studied. The few studied reported included those of Nishikawa (1988) and Lonky & Reihman (1980). Nishikawa (1988) investigated the effects of locus of control and varied feedback strategies on learner performance during computer-assisted instruction. They found that learners who attribute their successes and failures to internal events (internals) performed significantly better than those who attribute successes and failures to external events (externals) on the delayed feedback on the test for recall. Nishikawa (1988) however did not find any significant differences or interactions between feedback and locus of control. Lonky & Reihman (1980) looked at the effect of individual differences in locus of control school and positive verbal feedback towards student’s intrinsic motivation. For individuals lower in locus of control, verbal praise appeared to decrease motivation. For individuals with an external locus of control orientation, it appears that verbal praise given in support of individual performance on intrinsically motivated tasks may actually reduce intrinsic motivation when that praise is no longer forthcoming.

In this study, it was the contention that the locus of control may have significant effects on language learning, especially on the learning of grammar. Several studies (Kasin and Reber 1979, Bar-Tal et al. 1980, Maqsud 1983) have shown the significant effects of the locus of control on language learning. In Kasin and Reber’s (1979) study, students who tended to be more internal were able to extract more invariances and thus learned more about the underlying grammatical structure compared to those who tended to be external. Bar-Tal et. al. (1980) found that students who tended to be internal had higher academic achievements in mathematics, English, reading comprehension and Bible studies. Similarly, in an investigation on the effects of the locus of control on academic achievement in mathematics (Chong, 2005) and English, Maqsud (1983) found the levels of academic achievement in the two subjects for students who tended to be internal to be significantly higher than those for the students who tends to be external.

Given the relatively little research on the student’s locus of control and different types of feedback types, it was the objective of this study to investigate the effectiveness of three types of feedback, namely, the KCR and KOR feedback and the EF in relation to the students’ locus of control in the learning of Subject-Verb Agreement. In undertaking this study, the following research questions were asked:

  • Do students who received EF feedback, perform significantly better than students who received KCR feedback, who in turn, perform significantly better than students who received KOR feedback in a Subject-Verb Agreement Test?
  • Across the treatment group, do internals perform significantly better than externals in a Subject-Verb Agreement Test?
  • Do externals, who received EF feedback, perform significantly better than externals who received KCR feedback, who in turn, perform significantly better than externals who received KOR feedbacks in a Subject-Verb Agreement Test?

Methodology

Subjects and the Research Design

The study involved polytechnic students in four intact Semester Two Certificate classes in Mechanical Engineering. The subjects (a total of 134) were Form Five school leavers, aged between 19-20 years old, who had undergone the same English language curriculum for primary and secondary schools in Malaysia. They had also completed the English for Technical Purposes One course, which is compulsory for all technical students in Malaysian polytechnics.

This 3 x 2 factorial quasi-experimental study deployed a pre-test-post-test control group design. The independent variable was feedback, which comprised three levels – Knowledge of Results (KOR), Knowledge of Correct Response (KCR) and Elaborated Feedback (EF). The second factor was the locus of control, a moderator variable, which comprised two levels – the internal and external locus of control. The dependent variable was the students’ performance in a Subject-Verb Agreement test (measured by the gain score). The gain score was the difference between the post-test and pre-test scores.

Materials and Procedures

Three versions of a “Subject-verb Agreement” courseware, which were identical except for the types of feedback embedded in the practices were developed and used in this study. Figure 1 shows the three different types of feedback incorporated into the courseware. An equal number of each version of the courseware was installed in the computer laboratory. In addition, three sets of instruments – the pre-test paper, the post-test paper and the Intellectual Academic Responsibility (IAR) questionnaire (Crandall, Katskosky, & Crandall, 1965) were used in data collection. This questionnaire contained 34 questions and was administered to determine the students’ locus of control. In this study, students who scored above the mean score were identified as students with an internal locus of control while those who scored below the mean score were categorised as being those with an external locus of control. The pre-test/post-test contained 20 multiple-choice questions, which gauged students’ understanding and ability to apply the three subject-verb agreement rules learned from the courseware. The two tests were similar in content except for the sequence of items.

Figure 1. KOR type of feedback

Figure2. KCR type of feedback
 
 
Figure 3. EF type of feedback

The students were randomly assigned to three treatment groups. Upon receiving the treatment condition, the students sat for a pre-test and answered the IAR questionnaire. Two weeks after the pre-test, the students received instruction using the Subject-verb Agreement courseware. A pos-test was administered immediately after the treatment. A series of analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to examine the effects of the types of feedback and the students’ locus of control on their performance in the subject-verb agreement test.

Results and Discussion

Regardless of the type of feedback received and the category of locus of control, all the students in the study were essentially the same in the measure of the dependent variable at the beginning of the study. There was homogeneity in their performance prior to the treatment. The low pre-test mean scores of 31.68 at the beginning of the study indicated non-mastery of the subject-verb agreement grammar area before the treatment. Following the feedback treatment, the mean score was improved by 29.40 points in the post-test, which illustrated the efficacy and the role played by the feedback in enhancing the students’ performance.

Performance of Students by Feedback Groups

The first research question examined whether there was a significant difference in the performance of students who received different type of feedback. The results from the analysis of variance and post hoc multiple comparison tests indicated significant difference in the performance of students in the three feedback groups (see Tables 1 and 2). It was found that there was a significant difference in the performance of students who received EF, KCR and KOR feedback. Students who received the EF performed significantly better than students who received the KCR feedback as well as those who received the KOR feedback. Students in the KCR feedback group, in turn, outperformed students in the KOR feedback group significantly.

Table 1
ANOVA of mean gain scores by feedback groups

Source
of Variation

Sum
of Squares


Df

Mean
Square


F


Sig.

Main Effects

7278.181

2

3639.091

14.293

.000

Feedback

7278.181

2

3639.091

14.293

.000

 

 

 

 

 

 

Explained

7278.181

2

3639.091

14.293

.000

Residual

33353.162

131

254.604

 

 

Total

40631.343

133

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2
Post hoc tests: multiple comparisons of mean gain scores
by feedback groups

Feedback Group

Feedback Group

Mean Difference

Std. Error

Sig.

(I)(J)(I - J)  

KOR Feedback

KCR Feedback

-8.67*

3.365

.030

 

EF

-18.18*

3.402

.000

KCR Feedback

KOR Feedback

8.67*

3.365

.030

 

EF

-9.52*

3.365

.015

EF

KOR Feedback

18.18*

3.402

.000

 

KCR Feedback

9.52*

3.365

.015

     

The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

The results of this study are supportive of the positive value of feedback to enhance the performance of students. Figure 4 illustrates the hierarchy of feedback types in terms of their effects on students’ performance as found in this study.

Type of feedback

 

Student Performance


EF


Informative
 


high
 

 

 

 

KCR feedback

more

medium

 

 

 

KOR feedback

less

low


Figure 4: Hierarchy of types of feedback and effects on student performance


The results are consistent with the findings from previous studies by Nor Hayati (2002), Fong (1996), Myint (1995), Waldrop et. al. (1986) and Noonan (1984). The EF, as explained by Fong (1996), is superior to the KCR and KOR feedback because, apart from providing the correct answer, the EF provides an explanation to an answer. For an incorrect response, the EF assists students to arrive at the correct answer by providing corrective information. The KOR and KCR types of feedback, on the contrary, provide only verification information. The KOR feedback informs students on the correctness of their responses while the KCR feedback provides the correct answer in response to a student’s incorrect answer. Van der Linden (1993) as well as Caroll and Swain (1993) suggest that feedback with corrective information, as compared to verification feedback, enhances language learning because students are guided to abandon their faulty form and acquire the correct form of the target language. Kulhavy and Stock (1989) provided another explanation to the relative effectiveness of EF over the KCR and KOR feedback. Kulhavy and Stock (1989) found that if students are confident that their answers are correct but later discover that they are incorrect, they would spend more time to study the feedback. It is possible that during this type of response interaction, the EF assists students to correct their errors and this subsequently improves their performance.

Performance of Students by Locus of Control

The study second research questions explore the possible influence of locus of control on student performance. The finding of this study also revealed that students with the internal locus of control achieve better scores than students with the external locus of control (see Table 3). The students with an internal locus of control gained significantly higher scores than the students with an external locus of control in the three feedback groups (see Table 4). This finding is in line with the results of other studies such as those by Fong (2000), Khor (1999), Yeoh (1999), Park and Kim (1998), Ferguson (1988), Maqsud (1983) and Bar-Tal et.al.(1980). According to Rotter (1966), students with internal and external loci of control differ in their achievement due to their different alertness to information. Students with an internal locus of control are more attentive to information and they will engage more in learning activities compared with students with an external locus of control.

Table 3
ANOVA of gain scores by locus of control

Source
of Variation

Sum
of Squares


df

Mean
Square


F


Sig.

Main Effects

1765.792

1

1765.792

5.997

.016

LOCUS OF CONTROL

1765.792

1

1765.792

5.997

.016

 

 

 

 

 

 

Explained

1765.792

1

1765.792

5.997

.016

Residual

38865.551

132

294.436

 

 

Total

40631.343

133

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4
Comparisons of mean and standard deviation by locus of control

Feedback
Group

Locus
of control


N


Mean

Std.
Deviation

KOR Feedback

Internals

23

24.57

14.374

 

Externals

21

16.43

9.765

 

Total

44

20.68

12.922

 

 

 

 

 

KCR Feedback

Internals

29

32.59

20.117

 

Externals

17

23.82

15.261

 

Total

46

29.35

18.786

 

 

 

 

 

EF

Internals

21

42.62

13.381

 

Externals

23

35.43

16.714

 

Total

44

38.86

15.472

 

 

 

 

 

Total

Internals

73

32.95

17.889

 

Externals

61

25.66

16.240

 

Total

134

29.63

17.479


Student Performance with External Locus of Control
by Feedback Groups

The third research question in this study investigated whether the different types of feedback have any effect on performance of students with external locus of control. The ANOVA analysis on the effect of different types of feedback on the performance of student with external locus of control yielded a value of F=9.957 (2,58) which was significant at p=0.00 (see Table 5) indicating a significant difference in the performance of student with external locus of control in the three feedback groups. A further analysis on the mean gain scores of the three groups in the Post Hoc Multiple Comparison analysis (Table 6) shows that of the three types of feedback, the EF feedback was found to benefit the students with an external locus of control the most. These students in the EF group performed significantly better than the students with the external locus control in the KOR as well as the KCR group. It was also found that the KCR feedback group attained scores which were marginally higher than the KOR feedback group. However, there was no significant difference in the performance of these students in the KOR and KCR groups.

Table 5
ANOVA of gain scores of students with an external locus of control
in various treatment groups

Source
of Variation

Sum
of Squares


df

Mean
Square


F


Sig.

Main Effects

4044.505

2

2022.252

9.957

.000

FEEDBACK

4044.505

2

2022.252

9.957

.000

 

 

 

 

 

 

Explained

4044.505

2

2022.252

9.957

.000

Residual

11779.266

58

203.091

 

 

Total

15823.770

60

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6
Post hoc tests: multiple comparisons of mean gain scores of students
with an external locus of control in various treatment groups

Feedback Group

Feedback Group

Mean Difference

Std.

 

(I)(J)(I-J)ErrorSig.

KOR Feedback

KCR Feedback

-7.39

4.649

.258

 

EF

-19.01*

4.301

.000

KCR Feedback

KOR Feedback

7.39

4.649

.258

 

EF feedback

-11.61*

4.558

.036

EF

KOR Feedback

19.01*

4.301

.000

 

KCR Feedback

11.61*

4.558

.036

* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

The result of this study does not provide sufficient evidence to distinguish the effect of KOR and KCR. However, this result provides evidence that the EF feedback is the most effective feedback for the student with external locus of control in learning Subject-Verb Agreement. As discussed earlier, the corrective feedback in the EF feedback assists students to self-correct their errors, and therefore subsequently improve their performance. The insignificant difference between the KOR and KCR feedback group could be explained by the slight difference in the information provided in these two types of feedback. In addition to the knowledge on the correctness of their answer, student with external locus of control in the KCR feedback were informed of the correct answer to a question. Knowing the correct answer did not seem to be sufficient for the student with external locus of control to produce scores significantly higher than the external student in the KOR feedback group. More studies are needed to provide better understanding on the influence of the locus of control on the effect of the three type of feedback

Conclusion

Feedback is an essential element in a learning process. It provides learners with confirmation on the accomplishment of a learning purpose. A variation in the information provided in feedback seems to produce a different level of gains in learning. This study has shown that learning gains increase as the feedback provided becomes more informative. Elaborated feedback (EF), which provides verification of an answer and explanation to the correctness of an answer, has been found to be more beneficial to learners compared to the Knowledge of Results (KOR) and Knowledge of Correct Response (KCR) feedback. The KCR feedback that informs learners of the correct answer is found to be superior to the feedback that informs learners of the incorrectness of answer (the KOR feedback). The results of this study also showed the influence of the locus of control on the efficacy of the three types of feedback. On the whole, the EF benefits both the students with internal and external loci of control. Due considerations need to be accorded to learner characteristics while selecting the type of feedback in the design and development of instructional materials.

References

Bar-Tal, D., Kfir, D., Bar-Zohar,Y. & Chen, M.(1980). The relationship between locus of control and academic achievement, anxiety and level of aspiration. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 53-60.

Caroll, S.,& Swain, M.(1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: an empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357-386.

Chong, P.L., 2005. Effect of feedbacks among students of different anxiety levels in mathematics. M.Ed. Thesis. Universiti Sains Malaysia. Unpublished

Clarina, R.B., Ross, S.M. & Morrison, G.R.(1991). The effects of different feedback strategies using computer-administered multiple-choice questions as instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(2), 5-17.

Dempsey, J.V., Driscoll, M.P.,& Swindell, L.K.(1991). Text-based feedback. In Dempsey, J., and Sales, G.(Ed.). Interactive Instruction and Feedback. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.

Ferguson, H.L.(1988). The effect of locus of control on achievement and preference in CAI tutorial systems which vary in terms of system control, learner control with coaching, and learner control with no coaching. Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, 4652.

Fong, S.F.(1996). Effects of different levels of feedback using multimedia computer-based learning on the learning gain of students with different cognitive styles. Master Thesis. University Sains Malaysia. Unpublished.

Fong, S.F.(2000). The effect of animation towards teaching and learning meiosis among students various physiological. PhD Thesis. Universiti Sains Malaysia. Unpublished.

Fong, S.F.& Ng, W.K.(2002). Effects of feedback in a multimedia computer-based learning on the achievement of students with different cognitive styles. Paper presented at the IOSTE South East Asia Regional Symposium on Science and Technology Education, Copthorne Orchid Hotel, Penang, Malaysia, 30 March to 2 April 2000.

Jaehning, W. & Miller, M.L. (2007). Feedback types in programmed instruction: A systematic review. The Psychological Record, 57, 219-232.

Jonassen, D.H., & Grabowski, B.L.(1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction. New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Kasin, S. M.& Reber, A. S.(1979). Locus of control and the learning of an artificial language. Journal of Research in Personality, 13(1),112-118.

Khor, S.H.(1999). The effect of analogical teaching towards students achievement with different locus of control. Master Thesis. Universiti Sains Malaysia. Unpublished.

Kulhavy, R.W., & Stock, W.A. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: the place of response certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 279-308.

Lightbrown, P.M. & Spada, N.(1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429-448.

Lonky, E & Reihman, J. (1980). Cognitive evaluation theory, locus of control and positive verbal feedback. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, September 1-5. (ERIC Document195324).

Mc Donald, J.K. & Yanchar, S.C., Osguthrope, R.T. (2005). Learning from programmed instruction: Examining implication for modern instruction technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(2), 84-98.

Maqsud, M. (1983).Relationships of locus of control to self-esteem, academic achievement, and prediction of performance among Nigerian secondary school pupils. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 215-221.

Merrill, J. (1987). Levels of questioning and forms of feedback : instructional factors in courseware design. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 14, 18-22.

Myint, S.K.(1995). An experimental study on interactive effects between field dependent-independent students and varying level of feedback in multimedia presentation. Master Thesis. Universiti Sains Malaysia. Unpublished.

Nishikawa, S. (1988). A comparison of the effects of locus of control with feedback strategies on factual information recall and retention during computer assisted instruction. Proceedings of Selected Research Papers presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (New Orleans, LA, January 14-19). (ERIC Document 295655).

Noonan, V. J.(1984). Feedback procedures in computer-assisted instruction: knowledge of results, knowledge of correct response, process explanations, and second attempts after errors. Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 131-A.

Nor Hashimah Hashim. (1999). Teacher’s responses to class size at the primary level in Malaysia. Educators and Education, 16, 29-37.

Nor Hayati Abdul Rahman (2002). The effect of feedback on computer-based learning towards student’s performance with different mathematic anxiety. Master thesis. Universiti Sains Malaysia. Unpublished.

Park, Y.S.,& Kim, U.(1998). Locus of control, attributional style, and academic achievement: comparative analysis of Korean-Chinese, and Chinese students. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 191-208.

Rosa, E.M. & Leow, R.D. (2004). Computerised task-based exposure, explicitness, type of feedback, and Spanish L2 development. The Modern Language Journal, 88(2), 192-216.

Ross, S.M., & Morrison, G.R.(1991). Using feedback to adapt instruction for individuals. In Dempsey, J., and Sales, G.(Ed.). Interactive instruction and feedback. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.

Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychology Monograph, 80 (1, Whole No. 609).

Schimmel, B.J. (1983). A meta-analysis of feedback to learners in computerized and programmed instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal. (ERIC Document 233708).

Schimmel, B.J.(1986). Feedback use by low ability students in computer-based education. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 68A.

Spock, P.(1987). Feedback and confidence of response for a rule-learning task using computer-based instruction. Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 1109.

Tomasello, M. & Herron, C.(1989). Feedback for language transfer errors: The Garden Path technique. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 385-395.

Van der Linden, E.(1993). Does feedback enhance computer-assisted language learning? Computers Education, 21(1/2), 61-65.

Vigil, N.A.,& Oller, J.W. (1976). Rule fossilization:a tentative model. Language Learning, 26, 281-295.

Waldrop, P.B., Justen, J.E. III, & Adams, T.M. II.(1986). A comparison of three types of feedback in a computer-assisted instruction task. Educational Technology, 26(11), 43-45.

White, L.(1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7, 133-161.

Yeoh, L.S. (1999). The effect of different mode of presentation on students with different locus of control. Master Thesis. Universiti Sains Malaysia. Unpublished.
 

About the Authors

Dr Hanafi Atan
Deputy Dean (Postgraduate Studies and Research)
School of Distance Education
Universiti Sains Malaysia
11800 Penang, Malaysia
Tel: 604-6533265
Fax: 604-6576000

hanafi.atan@gmail.com, ahanafi@usm.my, itq5hanafi@yahoo.com

Yeap Lay Hwa,
Seberang Perai Polytechnic, 13500 Penang, Malaysia

Fong Soon Fook,
School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800, Penang, Malaysia

sffong@gmail.com

Omar Majid
School of Distance education, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800, Penang, Malaysia

momar@usm.my

Wong Su Luan
Faculty of Education, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Selangor, Malaysia

wsuluan@gmail.com
 

go top
April 2007 Index
Home Page