On Feedback Provision Strategies in CALL Software

George S. Ypsilandis

5th International Conference on LAP/LSP, University of Macedonia, October 2005

1

On Feedback Provision Strategies in CALL Software

Dr George S. Ypsilandis Department of Italian Language and Literature,

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki [email protected]

Abstract

Feedback on the learning of vocabulary as provided by computer software for language learning has, to a great extent, been seen in terms of the variety of means provided by the machine i.e. text, picture, sound and video. This study investigates feedback provision strategies and, further, reports on their effectiveness in students' short- and long-term memory and in relation to the students’ personal style of language learning. These reports emerged from two studies in which the subjects were university students provided with the same software, but offered different types of feedback: a) direct feedback offering definitions or equivalents in the students’ mother tongue (traditional), b) developmental feedback, actively engaging the student in the feedback process, c) challenging feedback, tempting students to infer from context and test their hypothesis (in multiple-choice format) and d) invitational feedback, asking students to produce off-screen examples with new words. Findings are seen in relation to students' learning styles, student preferred modes of receiving feedback and successful feedback for long-term memory. 1. Introduction Research on feedback can be traced back to the Behaviourist era and, in particular, to the work of B.F. Skinner who is considered to be the Father of Behaviourism and who defined learning as a sequence of stimulus and response actions in observable cause and effect relationships. Skinner expanded on the foundations of Behaviourism, established by Watson, and on the work of Edward Thorndike, by concentrating on operant conditioning, and he claimed that voluntary or automatic behaviour can be either strengthened or weakened. Operant conditioning, in Skinner's studies, is seen in terms of an immediate presence of feedback (in the form of reward or punishment). The learning principle which lies behind operant conditioning succeeds, in the words of Belkin and Gray (1977:59), when “… new learning occurs as a result of positive reinforcement, and old patterns are abandoned as a result of negative reinforcement." In contrast, teaching, in Skinner's words (1968:64) is “… the arrangement of contingencies of reinforcement under which students learn” and he believed that more complex learning could be achieved by this process of contingencies and reinforcement “... through successive stages in the shaping process, the contingencies of reinforcement being changed progressively in the direction of the required behaviour” (1968:10). Although there have been many criticisms of Behaviourism and more theories of learning were investigated in the years that followed, this particular theory has had a great impact on educational systems and on the way in which we perceive the notion of feedback even today. Notice that feedback, following this reasoning, is seen as a corrective mechanism provided by the teacher (or a machine) and received by the learner to direct him/her towards successful learning. This principle seems to have been maintained for many years, as can be verified in the two following quotations:

The first is provided by Crystal (1985) who describes feedback as “the process whereby the sender of a message obtains a reaction from his receiver which enables him to check on the efficiency of his communication” clearly focusing on meaning and not on form; however, understanding the notion of feedback as a control mechanism (my italics).



2

In agreement with Crystal, Ellis (1985) claims that “it has been suggested that feedback plays a major role in helping learners test the hypothesis they have formed…” (my italics).

The above two quotations are not altogether different from the notion of feedback presented by McDonald (1957) who describes it as a link between an information source and an information user, assuming that: a) the learner is an info-processing organism, b) the learner is goal-directed, and s/he behaves in such a way as to achieve certain desirable states and c) the learner uses information/info-processing to achieve these goals. 2. This study This study discusses the notion of feedback and concentrates on feedback strategies provided in CALL software as a support mechanism to assist the process of learning and long-term memory. We argue that these strategies may promote learner self-regulation (and thus autonomy), may increase motivation and further support learners’ long-term memories. In recent years, feedback has been getting a lot of attention in language learning research studies, and in CALL in particular, as it is a strong indication (Psaltou 2004:51) of macro and micro aims and targets in a course or syllabus. If, for example, we focus on form (in our feedback provision strategies) we clearly tell our learners indirectly to focus on form. If we focus on meaning, then our students understand that it is meaning that is important. If we focus on both, then we send the message that both are necessary and equally important. In the following chapters, we argue that recent developments in language pedagogy and, in particular, the shift of attention from teaching to learning, has affected the notion of feedback, from being viewed simply as a control mechanism to being appreciated as a support mechanism. We report on the results of two major studies that investigated the effectiveness of the provision of traditional feedback strategies as compared with several other experimental feedback tactics. Further, possible links between feedback provision strategies and learner styles are reported, together with students’ preferred modes of receiving feedback in CALL software. 3. Developments in Teaching and Learning The terms teaching and learning often appear in the related bibliography, separated by a mere slash, both in book titles and in articles, indicating that the latter typically results from the former. For many years, learning, with the Behaviourist influence, was considered to be the natural outcome of teaching, a product that was understood through observable indicators of the known process of stimulus and response. In this light, learning has been investigated not as an internal mental procedure, per se, that is triggered by the individual (identifying how it could best be supported) but rather as a research area which can serve and be used in the production and development of new teaching methods; in Littlewood's words (1984:90) “to help us in our constant search for better ways of teaching”. Thus, language pedagogy concentrated for many years on developing teaching methods and activities which would lead to learning. Consequently, scholars around the world, for many years, showed more interest in the teaching aspect of language, or conducted research to “increase the second language learner's likelihood of success in acquiring a new language” (Dulay, Burt and Krashen 1982), which they considered to be their side of the arrangement (procedure), rather than the learning aspect, which was understood as the product or `concept' belonging



3

to the òther side' (students) of which linguists had “practically no understanding at all” (Littlewood, ibid). Everhard (1999:12) in her description of past views of à good language teacher' and à good language learner' stresses this liaison:

“A `good language teacher' was one who was able to transmit knowledge with the few means available and a `good language learner' was one who was able to absorb the knowledge prescribed and gain good grades in tests”.

A number of teaching methodologies were developed. the famous and, at the same time, infamous Grammar Translation Method; Audio-Lingualism, which is generally accepted as being the predecessor of Computer Assisted Language Learning; Situational Teaching; Audio Visual Teaching (developed in the UK and operated in France) and, of course, the much talked-about Communicative Approach. This range of approaches indicates that behaviourist theories of habit formation of the 60s fell out of fashion, and although these theories clearly investigated learning procedures “Theories of habit formation were theories of learning in general” (Ellis 1985:21). Towards the end of the 80s, as well as in the 90s and at the dawning of the last decade we witnessed very significant developments in the area of language education. Scholars, we see, had begun to think of learning, not as a product immediately and directly subsequent to teaching, but rather as a process which needs to be supported. These changes occurred through a general shifting of interest from the teacher to the learner and as a consequence from teacher-centred to learner-centred classrooms and finally from teaching to learning in general. The development of many current theories and approaches to language pedagogy has been affected by this discussion, i.e. Learner Autonomy and the Information Processing Approach (IPA), where the emphasis lies not on knowledge as a product but on the processing abilities of the individual. In the IPA the focus lies on the learner's ability to mentally construct meaning through Zones of Proximal Development, by building on what they already know, and by making knowledge and learning their own. This view of cognitive psychology, which is put forward by the Theory of Constructivism and the work of Vygotsky, sees teaching practice as being related to different degrees of non-teacher-directed learning (learning without being formally taught). Johnson (2001) claims that this is the future of language pedagogy. In particular, while in the past there was considered to be a clear-cut distinction between the work of teachers and learners in that teachers teach and learners learn (behaviourist view of directed learning), today it is believed that teachers need to offer more in the way of scaffolding to support learners in their learning (which is understood as an internal process and not as an externally observable behaviour). More specifically:

Language teaching was seen as a form of delivery and learning as a type of an observable product while today learning is regarded as an internal mental process that is non-directed (constructivist and cognitive view)

Teaching was believed to be the teacher's job while learning was thought of as the learner's job and reflected the amount of understanding of teaching (see Nicol and Miligan (in press) above/below). In this light, it would have been possible to witness situations in which there has been teaching success without much learning taking place. Indeed, Smith (2004) describes the purposes of teacher evaluation to be: a) accountability (evaluative), b) diagnostic



4

(formative), c) career development and d) summative (gate-keeping certification) and further presents the tools for this task: 1. tests, 2. observations, 3. pupil's feedback and 4. portfolios. It is possible to identify in this well-organised Israeli system of teacher evaluation that everything is weighed up except learning itself. At no instance in this system is any account taken of how much learning takes place in a specific situation in the language classroom. Today, teaching is becoming more and more understood as offering support in the learning process (and not to the learner per se) and learning success or failure is seen to reflect teacher decisions.

In the past, teachers were understood to be the ones who possessed knowledge, while learners were understood to learn only from teachers. Today, in contrast, learning is accepted as being able to take place without formal face-to-face teaching, and the notion and practice of distance learning has found wide application in many institutions.

In relation to the above, in the past, teachers were not thought of as having anything to learn, nor was it thought possible for learners to learn with or from other learners, or alone, while today there are both paper and electronic materials designed to enhance both collaborative learning and learner autonomy. Autonomous Language Learning (ALL), currently much-proclaimed in language education, is based on the ability of learners to organize their own learning and to learn together or alone from well-organised and carefully-graded didactic materials. ALL, however, seems to attempt to shift responsibility from the teacher to the learner. This is inferred implicitly in the ALL argument that has become cliché and has appeared in many articles since the monograph produced by Holec (1979) for the Council of Europe that “learners should accept responsibility for their own learning”. The immediate question that comes to mind is then “Who has been responsible for learning success or failure so far?” If it is the learner who is now expected to take responsibility for learning, one can only conclude that it has been the teacher who was responsible till now!! How many teachers, however, have gone back to change their curricula, syllabi, materials, their methodology of teaching and techniques in cases of learning failure and how many have simply awarded the learner a bad mark (punishment and reward method)? How much has learning failure affected this job? It is surprising that those who for many years have evaluated others are now obstinately refusing to be evaluated themselves, in accordance with the Bologna agreement. Quality in education, which has been related to teacher evaluation, has not been welcomed in Europe and has not been developed so far in all member states, and among them, Greece. It is our view that learning failure can be hypothesised as a shared responsibility between teachers and learners who would need to work in harmony to achieve the desired success.

Similarly, in the past, teachers were used to employing teaching methods which took little account of learners' strategies and styles of learning. Learners were left on their own to develop and use learning strategies (subconsciously) while today it is desirable that teachers should teach in harmony with learners' styles and that the teaching of learning strategies should be done overtly or be embedded in the language teaching curriculum.

Teachers were once accepted as the authority in the classroom and they were the ones to set the rules, while learners had no authority and simply obeyed the



5

rules. Today we tend to avoid authoritative rules, and if rules are to be set, they are discussed and agreed upon by both parties involved.

Lastly, teachers traditionally selected the syllabus, the materials, the method and finally, the method of testing, while learners were punished in cases of failure to learn. As for today, teachers' methods, materials etc. are themselves under evaluation, particularly, in cases of the existence of a certain percentage of learning failure, and teachers are to be evaluated and made accountable for their decisions and choices concerning the above areas.

It may then be possible to argue that: (a) learning, is today also accepted as occurring without formal teaching, with the learner being viewed as an “information processing organism” (McDonald 1957:74) while, unfortunately, there can also be cases of teaching without much learning taking place, and (b) the purpose of teaching is to support learning and teaching does not have a purpose without this consensus. This argued shift of interest can also be noticed from the development of theories related to learning: Constructivism, Behaviourism, Piaget's Method, the interest on Learning Styles, Multiple Intelligences, Right Brain / Left Brain Thinking, E-learning and Learning Communities or Communities of Practice, Control Theory, Observational Learning, Vygotsky and Social Interaction, and the foundation and operation of Learning Support Infrastructures in many universities in Europe (particularly in the UK). 4. The Impact of this discussion on Feedback From the earliest stages of language learning theorising, the notion of feedback and, in particular, its form and its role in second language learning has been discussed and been subject to great debate. Although a great deal has been said about feedback in language learning and teaching in general, comparatively little has been said about feedback in CALL software. As mentioned above, feedback has been seen predominately as a corrective mechanism on two levels: a) Internal and b) External. Internal, is the feedback that is self-generated by the learners as they monitor their engagement with learning activities and tasks. This feedback derives from a comparison between their actual performance and the personal goals they have set. External corrective feedback is that received from other learners, the teacher or a co-speaker (diagram 1).



6

Diagram 1.

A traditional and typical initial distinction made in corrective feedback is between a) feedback on meaning and b) feedback on form, although most research is inclined to investigate the latter. Investigating the former could be done on two levels: the semantic (sentence structure) and the pragmatic (speaker intention). While the first could be straightforward and would require explicit correction, the second might involve several problems and might require implicit correction or awareness-raising (James, Scholfield and Ypsilandis 1992, 1994, Ypsilandis 1994, and Psaltou and Ypsilandis 2000). A second distinction could be made between implicit and explicit correction. Psaltou-Joycey (2004:51) makes a distinction between the two: “Implicit corrective feedback includes corrections but the learners are not informed directly that their utterance was wrong and they have to infer the correction from the interaction. Explicit corrective feedback, on the other hand, states overtly that a learner's utterance contained an error”. On the implicit side there are most feedback types, such as:

Recasts, which have been defined by Long (2005) as “a reformulation of all or part of a learner's immediately preceding utterance in which one or more non-target-like (lexical, grammatical, etc.) items is/are replaced by the corresponding target language form(s), and where, throughout the exchange, the focus of the interlocutors is on meaning, not language per se. That is to say, unlike various traditional pedagogic procedures for delivering ‘error correction’, the ‘corrections’ in recasts are implicit and incidental.”

Expansion, is a term which appeared in Ellis (1985) and is very similar to recasts; however, it deserves a category of its own, as expansion is a technique used by mothers who mainly complete the incomplete utterances produced by children focussing on expanding their language while recasts act mainly as a corrective mechanism of learners’ deviant constructions. Also, expansion does not focus on the error or mistake which is considered to be part of the child's idiolect, but aim to carry on the discussion.

Repetition, which is what it says; that is, teachers repeating deviant constructions by stressing the error intentionally, and thus implying something is wrong.



7

Backchannel cues (from Ellis 1985), which could be cognitive signs such as Mmmm!!! or Aha!!!!, which work similarly to repetition.

Metalinguistic feedback, which is providing the rules without indicating the error, strengthening understanding of a syntactical rule and asking the learner to apply it in the context. This method raises language awareness.

Requests for clarification, which are activated by asking `What do you mean?' Negotiation between the teacher and the learner or among the learners

themselves, which could focus on meaning or on form, e.g. Is this how we say that? This type of feedback has been reported to have a positive effect on the learner's long-term memory (Rees 1998).

On the explicit correction side, we have:

Overt Correction in the form of yes/no, which is a feedback type used in many CALL programs either in their first versions which were of the WIDA type, or in the newer HOT POTATOES.

Overt Plus, which is yes/no but adds more information about adopting one or more of the implicit feedback types.

Overt Plus Elicitation, which in addition to yes/no and to backchannel cues (cognitive signs), could allow for self or peer correction by elicitation.

Notice that all the feedback types that have been described above take place at a productive stage of language learning or acquisition, where learners are expected to produce language and receive feedback on their production of language constructions. In computer didactic software there have been employed various corrective feedback strategies, such as sound-effects, visual effects, voice-overs and scoring systems. The following diagram presents this schematically. Diagram 2.



8

While, so far, the notion of feedback has been investigated merely as a corrective mechanism, supportive feedback has always been employed by language teachers (and recent multimedia hypertext CALL software) as a way, together with initial input, of reinforcing the learning process. This typically operates by pressing on a hyperlink in the software, a decision which lies in the hands of the language learner e.g. the learner expresses a question on a new vocabulary item by clicking on it and receives immediate feedback to answer his/her question. There are two major forces pushing towards an understanding of the notion of feedback as support; the shift of attention in language pedagogy from the teacher to the learner and from teaching to learning as has been discussed above and developments in computer hardware and software in terms of hypertext, video, audio, and pictures which today allow us to offer a rich variety of feedback in CALL software. In more detail:

Feedback in the past was thought of more as a control mechanism while today it is also seen as a support mechanism. In all multimedia CALL software of the integrative type there is supportive feedback offered at the presentation and analysis (initial input) stage of language learning.

Feedback in the past was thought to be provided by the teacher and received by the learner while today learners are recommended or encouraged to obtain feedback from a variety of sources; other learners, from computers, or to find it alone by locating information through the relevant bibliographic and website references and may or may not choose to share the feedback with the teacher

Although what type of feedback best supports the learning process has not been clarified, in the past it was often implied that providing feedback was good and beneficial to learning while today this hypothesis is being investigated together with knowledge about learners’ learning styles e.g. what type of feedback provision strategy best supports long-term retainment and recall

Finally, the achievement of the designed goals were thought to be a responsibility of the learner, while today this responsibility is thought not to belong only to the learner and to be shared with the teacher

The following diagram summarizes means of feedback (sources) and feedback provision strategies (direct and engaging) which in contrast to feedback as a corrective mechanism occur at a receptive stage of language learning. Direct feedback provision strategies are those offered straightforward at a click of a button and usually contain information concerning the vocabulary item i.e. definitions, an equivalent term in learner's L1, morphosyntactic information, and pronunciation. The information is typically presented in a pop-up menu with no specific strategy. On the other hand, engaging strategies are usually developmental, attempting to engage the learner in a hybrid discussion and challenge and invite him/her to identify the new item through examples, definitions, pictures, repetition and association techniques, or through an off-screen task or through some kind of inference in a multiple-choice format, before offering the relevant equivalent in their mother tongue. Notice that feedback, as support, is typically provided at a receptive stage of language learning.



9

5. Feedback and Motivation A number of studies, reported in Nicol and Miligan (in press), concentrated on feedback and motivation. In their article, the authors offer a detailed discussion on the topic and conclude that good feedback practice can “encourage positive motivational beliefs and self-esteem”. Following, is a summary of the major findings discussed in the above-mentioned article (all references in this discussion appear in Nicol and Miligan). A major factor in encouraging and enhancing student motivation is reported to be that of self-esteem and this topic has therefore attracted a number of studies. Dweck (1999) has researched motivation in relation to theories of self and found that those students who believe that ability is fixed would be more likely to give up as they feel there is a limit as to what they are able to do. Clearly, these students perceive ability in the same way that learning was perceived in the past, which is in terms of performance. Students, on the other hand, who believe that ability is malleable and depends on the effort they exert, would interpret this as a challenge to be taken up. These students see learning as a procedure and therefore may attempt new and different strategies if they find the ones they have used in the past to be unsuccessful. Grant and Dweck (2003) and Yorke and Knight (2004) have confirmed validity of this model in higher education. Black and William (1998) have come to the conclusion that as that feedback can have a negative or positive effect on self esteem and influences how students feel about themselves, this in turn affects what and how they learn. Accordingly, on-line assessment can help increase student motivation (Grebenik and Rust 2002; Bostock 2004) as it provides a private and secure environment in which self-esteem is protected as students “are able to assess their understanding in private and make comparisons with their own learning goals rather than with the performance of other students” Nicol and Miligan (in press). Repetition of on-line assessment is



10

also found to be motivational (Grebenik and Rust 2002; Bostock 2004). Consequently, Gibbs and Simpson (2004) come to the conclusion that teachers should increase in number the frequency of low-stake assessments where students get feedback on performance, and decrease the number of high-stake assessments where marks are given. In agreement with this view, Elliot and Dweck (1988) maintain that motivation is higher if students’ efforts are on making improvements in their own learning rather than just on competing and comparing themselves with their peers (peer pressure). Another important factor seems to be student appraisal of the teaching, learning and assessment context (Paris and Turner 1994), which influences the goals that students set (personal and academic) as well as their commitment to these goals. Raising awareness about the learning goals has also been found to be essential for self-regulation (Pintrich 1995). Finally, on-line games have also been found to be motivational as students see their progress in terms of their goals, while receiving immediate feedback at the same time (Nicol & Miligan, ibid). 6. The studies In this article we refer very briefly to two studies in progress that are being pursued in order to investigate the effectiveness of feedback provision strategies as a support mechanism in long-term memory. Both studies follow the same method for data collection. In short, subjects were offered a list of vocabulary items for which they had to provide equivalents in their mother tongue. In this manner, it was possible to identify which items were new to them prior to the experiment. At a second stage, the subjects were guided to read a text which included the items previously given on the list, and were offered supportive feedback as to their meaning, with direct feedback for half of the items and with specific engaging feedback strategies described above for the other half. Finally, the subjects were asked to complete the same list one hour later and one week after the experiment. In addition, the subjects completed two questionnaires; one to identify their learning style and a second one with introspective questions as to their preferred mode of receiving feedback and their views about the best feedback provision strategy for their learning. The following graph summarizes the major findings of the two studies. The first three cases refer to one experiment which compared the direct/traditional method [2] with an off-screen task [1] and inference in multiple-choice format [3]. Cases 4 and 5 refer to another experiment which compared the traditional/direct method [5] with a number of engaging strategies [4] such as, definitions, examples, pictures etc. in a format of hybrid discussion with the learner. The first column indicates the total number of new items, the second column refers to items retained after one hour and the third column reports on the items retained after one week.



11

Graph 1: Summary of results from the two studies

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 2 3 4 5

Σειρά1Σειρά2Σειρά3

1. Off-Screen Task, 2. Direct, 3. Inference in multiple-choice, 4. Engaging techniques, 5. Direct The most successful feedback provision strategy, with regard to both short and long-term memory, proved to be the off-screen task [1] in which subjects were asked to provide, on paper, their own examples clarifying the meaning of the new item to a friend. Despite the drop in retention of 20% (80% retainment) of the new items after one hour, the subjects maintained 100% of the new items gained after one week. It is surprising that this strategy is never used in CALL software. The direct method of feedback provision in the first experiment [2] seems to assist in retainment of a high percentage of newly learned vocabulary items, with 73.3% after one hour which drops to 66.6% after one week. This indicates that there is a retainment drop of 6,7% between the two time periods. Inference in multiple-choice format [3] as a feedback provision strategy seems to be less successful than the previous two strategies, with 46.6% retainment after one hour which, however, remains the same after one week, and indicates that despite the considerable drop, the new words that are learned remain in the long-term memory. In the case of engaging strategies [4], which is part of the second experiment, there seems to be a significant drop of 65%, with only 35% retainment of new vocabulary after one hour. The retainment of word-items in the long-term memory in this case is 57%. These results are very close to the direct/traditional method of vocabulary feedback provision, with 36% retainment after one hour and 49% after one week. Indeed, a paired sample T test showed that there are no statistically significant pair sample correlations in the two cases [4], either [5] between new words, words remembered after one hour or words remembered after one week. However, considerable differences have been registered between preference and performance in both studies. The majority of subjects who claimed they prefer direct feedback performed better with experimental feedback, while almost all (except two cases) of the subjects involved recognized that engaging feedback assists their learning. Most subjects (using the learner style questionnaires) were found to be extroverted, with a mainly visual modality strength, split between intuitive and concrete learning styles, with no particular Left / Right brain dominance. The experimental feedback provision strategies seemed to offer support beyond just the visual modality strength of the subjects involved, while the opposite is true for the direct/traditional strategies.



12

7. Conclusion It appears from these findings that the study on feedback as a support mechanism will continue since the data is not sufficient to provide any definite outcomes as to the most suitable feedback provision strategy in CALL software for long-term memory. It may be concluded at this stage that engaging/activating the learner (on-screen) seems to be beneficial for the learning process and that feedback provision strategies need to be carefully designed taking into account learner style characteristics. Today a number of internet sites provide ready-made tools for learners to discover their learning styles (www.engr.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/ilsweb.html) on-line. Questionnaires of this type may be included on ready-made dedicated language learning CDs to act as a preliminary instrument revealing the users’ learning style and be used thereon as a value around which the presentation of the learning materials and the feedback provision strategies can be automatically shaped. Last, the off-screen element of CALL needs to be further exploited as it seems to have a clear positive influence on long-term memory. References Belkin, Gary, S. and Gray Jerry, L. (1977). Educational Psychology: An Introduction. Dubuque Iowa:

Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998). “Assessment and classroom learning” Assessment in Education, 5(1),

7-74. Bostock, S.J. (2004). “Motivation and electronic assessment” in S Alexander and A Irons (eds)

Effective Learning and Teaching in Computing London: Routledge Falmer Crystal, D. (1985). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics Basil Blackwell Dulay, H., Burt, M., and Krashen, S. (1982). Language Two. Oxford University Press Dweck, C.S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development Philadelphia:

Psychology Press. Everhard, C.J. (1999). “Gone Fishing! Learner Autonomy and What It Implies for the Teacher”

Working Papers in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics Vol.6 Editions Ziti Elliot, E.S. and Dweck, C.S. (1988). “Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement” Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12. Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding Second Language Acquisition Oxford University Press Gibbs, G. and Simpson, C. (2004). “Conditions under which assessment supports student’s learning”

Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3-31. Online. Available at http://www.glos.ac.uk/adu/clt/lathe/issue1/index.cfm

Grant, H. and Dweck, C.S. (2003). “Clarifying achievement goals and their impact” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 541-553.

Grebenik, P. and Rust, C. (2002). “IT to the rescue, in: P Schwartz and G Webb (eds), Assessment: case studies, experience and practice in Higher Education, London: Kogan Page.

Holec (1979). Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. James, C. Scholfield, P.J. & Ypsilandis, G.S. (1992) "Communication Failures in Persuasive Writing:

Towards a Typology" Yearbook of English Studies Vol.3 Aristotle University of Thessaloniki James, C. Scholfield, P.J. & Ypsilandis, G.S. (1994) "Cross-Cultural Correspondence: Letters of

Application" World Englishes Journal Vol.13, 3. Blackwell Publishers. Johnson, K. (2001). An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Longman Littlewood, W. (1984). Foreign and Second Language Learning Cambridge University Press Long, M. H. (2005) “The delivery of negative feedback in natural, classroom, and artificial

environments” Keynote at the UNTELE 2005 conference, Compiegne, France Mc Donald, F. (1957). Educational Psychology Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., Belmont,

California Nicol, D. & Milligan, C. (in press). “Rethinking technology-supported assessment in terms of the seven

principles of good feedback practice”. In K. Clegg and C. Bryan (Eds), Innovating in Assessment, Routledge Falmer.



13

Paris, S.G. and Turner, J.C. (1994). “Situated Motivation” in P.R. Pintrich, D.R. Brown, and Weinstein, C.E. (eds) Student Motivation, Cognition and Learning Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Pintrich, P.R. (1995). Understanding self-regulated learning San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Psaltou-Joycey, A. (2004). “Variable effects of different types of corrective feedback on L2 learning”

in Sougari, A.M. and Joycey, E. Challenges in Teacher Education University Studio Press Psaltou-Joycey, A. and Ypsilandis, G. S. (2000) “Contrastive Discourse in Greek Application Letter

Writing” Proceedings of the Conference on Greek Language, Cyprus (University of Cyprus). Rees, D. (1998). “The Negotiation of Meaning in EFL Learning in the Language Laboratory” ASp

(Université Victor-Segalen Bordeaux 2) N° 19-22. pp 283-310. Scholfield, P.J. & Ypsilandis, G.S. (1994) "Computers in Second/Foreign Language Learning: What is

usable for what?" with the Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on English and Greek: Description and/or comparison of the two languages, published by the School of English, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, pp.220-238.

Smith, K. (2004) “New Methods and Perspectives on Teacher Evaluation: Who Evaluates What and for What Purposes?” Keynote delivered at the Belgrade 2004 conference organised by the Department of English of the University of Belgrade.

Skinner, B. F. (1968). The Technology of Teaching. New York: Meredith Corporation Yorke, M. and Knight, P. (2004). “Self-theories: some implications for teaching and learning in higher

education” Studies in Higher Education, 29(1), 25-37. Ypsilandis, G.S. (1994) "Logomachia: Pragmatic Failure in Letters of Application" in Douka-

Kabitoglou, E. Logomachia: Forms of Opposition in English Language/Literature Inaugural Conference Proceedings, Hellenic Association for the Study of English, pp.331-346.

Documents

On Feedback Provision Strategies in CALL Software