Testing the Effectiveness of Oral Corrective Feedback with L2 Secondary Level Students by Ana Yslas A proposal submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION with an emphasis in CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, UT February 10, 2023 Approved by: ______________________________ Katarina Pantic, Ph.D. ______________________________ David R. Byrd, Ph.D. ______________________________ Andrea Garavito Martinez, Ph.D.2 Acknowledgments First and foremost, I would like to thank my husband for the countless hours he watched our children while I was locked in my room reading or writing for my assignments. He never complained or made me feel guilty. He always encouraged me, as I often doubted myself because of my English proficiency. He is undeniably my best cheerleader. Without his unselfish character, I could not have done it. I express genuine appreciation to my children. I thank them for their patience and support. Through this experience, I influenced them for good. I wish to witness their efforts to educate their minds, as they become better assets to society and their families. I would also like to knowledge Dr. Katarina Pantic, who I can confidently blame for my existing writing skills. I was blessed to have her as my mentor and my careful editor. No matter what time of the day I would reach out, she would always be there to guide me through. She is gifted and makes you feel you can do anything, one paragraph at a time. I also want to thank my other committee members: Dr. Martinez and Dr. Byrd for their contribution and feedback. Most of all, I acknowledge my Heavenly Father for letting me see His hand in everything I do. Talking to Him in my thoughts and prayers is the best part of my everyday life. To Him, I own everything. 3 Table of Contents Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................. 2 Literature Review ................................................................................................................................... 7 Theoretical Framework .................................................................................................................................... 7 Types of Oral Corrective Feedback .............................................................................................................. 9 Considering The Variables that Influence Disparity in Results ..................................................... 13 Interaction Between Age and Oral Corrective Feedback ................................................................. 14 Purpose .................................................................................................................................................... 16 Methods ................................................................................................................................................... 17 Settings ................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Participants ......................................................................................................................................................... 20 Instruments ........................................................................................................................................................ 21 Research Design ................................................................................................................................................ 22 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 30 Results ...................................................................................................................................................... 31 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................... 37 Limitations .......................................................................................................................................................... 40 References .............................................................................................................................................. 42 Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................. 54 Appendix B ............................................................................................................................................. 58 IRB STUDY #AY22-23-78 .................................................................................................................. 67 WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY ........................................................................................................... 67 INFORMED CONSENT ........................................................................................................................ 67 Table of Figures Figure 1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 3 ..................................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 4 .................................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 5 ..................................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 6 ..................................................................................................................................................... 34 5 Table of Tables Table 1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 Table 2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 11 Table 3 ...................................................................................................................................................... 12 Table 4 ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 Table 5 ...................................................................................................................................................... 28 Table 6 ...................................................................................................................................................... 29 Table 7 ...................................................................................................................................................... 36 Table 8 ...................................................................................................................................................... 36 6 Nature of the Problem Mistakes can help support learning by giving us opportunities to improve (Dawes, 2007). Second language (L2) learners are not the exception to this assertion. Generally, in the L2 classrooms, students who make mistakes in the target language often expect to receive a variety of oral or written corrective feedback from their teachers (Fan, 2019). For more than two decades, the effectiveness of corrective feedback (CF) for developing accurate usage of grammar by L2 students has been discussed and debated by researchers (e.g., Ferris, 1999, 2003, 2004; Truscott, 1996, 1999a, 2007). However, recommendations on the best practice of oral or written grammar correction for teachers in second language classrooms are still vague (Lyster et al., 1999; Pawlak, 2013; Truscott, 1999a, 1999b). A significant number of studies that have been done so far show that error feedback by a teacher can be both significantly effective (e.g., Bitchener, 2008, Bitchener & Knoch, 2009; Chandler, 2003; Li, 2010; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Mackey & Goo, 2007) or significantly ineffective for promoting the development of oral or written proficiency in L2 students (e.g., Kepner, 1991; Ferris, 2007, 2010; James, 2013; Polio & Fleck, 1998; Semke, 1984; Sheppard, 1992). Such discrepancy in findings is attributed to a large number of variables that influenced the results, such as the setting where the study was conducted (Li, 2010; Mackey & Goo, 2007), type and frequency of CF (Fan, 2019), learner and teacher preferences (Schulz, 1996, 2001), the intent of the CF (Goo & Mackey, 2013) and so on. This is problematic because due to the countless conflicting findings and lack of consistent patterns of results within the large body of feedback research, second language educators are not ready to confidently use a specific CF catalog of strategies for their 7 instruction time. In this paper, I define CF catalog of strategies as a series of described mistakes with a proven effective CF method that would aid learners and teachers in dealing with L2 classroom learners’ grammar errors. In addition, mixed results have created confusion in the type of recommendations that are given to foreign language and dual immersion teachers during conferences and professional teacher development sessions throughout the school districts. For that reason, Russell and Spada (2006) suggest that ‘there is a need not only for a greater volume of studies on corrective feedback but also studies that investigate similar variables in a consistent manner’ (p. 156). In order to determine the best oral corrective feedback (OCF) strategy to use when teaching a second language, the problem needs to be examined by having a better understanding of the types of OCF and how they affect students’ performance. These findings will help those who teach second languages make more informed decisions when providing OCF. In this study, I will specifically examine the effectiveness of OCF types in L2 adolescent students whose proficiency in the target language is novice-low to novice-high. Literature Review Theoretical Framework One of the most widely known and well-accepted theories of second language (L2) acquisition is the theory of the Natural Approach by Stephen Krashen (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). This theory has had a large impact on all areas of L2 research and teaching since the 1980s. Krashen promoted the ‘traditional’ approaches to language, which are defined as “based on the use of language in communicative situations without recourse to 8 the native language” (Krashen & Terrell, 1983, p. 9) and possibly without reference to grammatical analysis or drilling. The principles underlying this method were believed to follow the principles of naturalistic language learning in young children (Early Childhood Personnel Center, 2018). In other words, the Natural Approach suggests that L2 teachers should place less emphasis on the accurate production of the target language and more emphasis on acquisition based on comprehension-based approaches (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). Krashen and Terrell (1983) further argued that “grammatical structure does not require explicit analysis or attention by the language teacher, by the language learner, or in language teaching materials” (p. 180). It is this approach, for example, that is commonly used in dual-immersion programs across the US. The most widely known hypothesis in Krashen’s theories is the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis. This hypothesis posits that there are two distinctive ways of developing competence in a foreign language: 1) acquisition and 2) learning (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). Acquisition, which parallels first language development in children, refers to “an unconscious process that involves the naturalist development of language proficiency through understanding [of the] language and through using [the] language for meaningful communication” (Richards, 2015, p.73). Learning, on the other hand, refers to “a process in which conscious rules about a language are developed. It results in explicit knowledge about the forms of a language and the ability to verbalize this knowledge” (Richards, 2015, p.73). According to Krashen’s theory of the Natural Approach, learning cannot lead to acquisition. Since the Natural Approach theory was introduced, scholars have been invested in finding the appropriate balance between acquisition and learning in the L2 classroom, 9 including the role of oral correction interventions whether it is in the native or target language. Corrective feedback (CF), also called negative evidence, and negative feedback can be defined as the response to the learner’s erroneous utterances (Ellis, 2006). Lightbown and Spada (2013) define CF in the context of second language learning as “any indication to the learners that their use of the target language is incorrect” (p.216). Interestingly, throughout literature, written corrective feedback (WCF) and oral corrective feedback (OCF) have had striking similarities (Li & Vuono, 2019). However, in this thesis, I will focus on OCF alone. The following section will contain a brief review of terminology and different types of OCF. Types of Oral Corrective Feedback There has been an active stream of research surrounding the taxonomy of OCF (e.g., Panova & Lyster, 2002; Sheen, 2004; Iwashita, 2003; Mackey et al., 2003; Philp, 2003; Sari et al., 2021). One of the most common and accepted classifications of types of OCF was done by Lyster & Ranta in 1997. They identified six types of OCF that teachers used in response to students’ utterances. This classification has been subsequently reorganized by Ranta & Lyster (2007) and other researchers in the years that followed (e.g., Ellis, 2012; Ranta & Lyster, 2007; Sheen & Ellis, 2011; Wang, 2009). Table 1 describes those six types of OCF identified by Lyster & Ranta (1997) in their descriptive research of teacher-student interactions in French immersion classrooms. Lyster & Ranta (1997) further categorized these six types of oral corrective feedback (OCF) into two categories: (a) explicit, when there is a clear indication of an error, or (b) implicit when there is not a clear indication of an error. For example, it would be an explicit CF if the language learner says, ‘She have the pencil,’ and the teacher responds, ‘no, you should 10 say has, not have.’ It would be implicit, if the teacher does not openly say that a mistake has been made, ‘yes, she has the pencil.’ The latter example is a type of recast (see Table 1). Table 1 Type of OCF According to Lyster & Ranta (1997) CF Type Definition Example Recast Most common. Reformulating all or part of the sentence with the wrong form replaced and the rest of the message intact. S: “She have a dog” T: “She has a dog.” Explicit correction Inform the learner of the error followed by the provision of the correct form. S: “She have a dog” T: “Not ‘have’, she has” Metalinguistic Clues A comment on the nature of the error without providing the correct form. S: “She have a dog” T: “You need the correct present-tense verb conjugation for the third person ‘she’”. Elicitation Eliciting the correct form from the learner. S: “She have a dog” T: “She…?” Repetition Repeating the error. S: “She have a dog” T: “Have?” Clarification Requests Teacher pretends not to understand the student or asks the student for a clarification to push self-repair. S: “She have a dog” T: “Sorry, what?” Recasts, which are defined as “the teacher’ reformulation of all or part of a student’s utterance minus the error” (Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p. 46), are often considered implicit (Long, 2017; Long & Robinson, 1998; Sarandi, 2016). However, recasts can also be relatively explicit depending on the particular way in which it is being delivered (Nicholas et al., 2001; Sheen, 2004, 2006; Ellis & Sheen 2006; Philp 2003, Sato 2011). For example, a recast can become quite explicit if the person doing the correction uses a rising intonation and/or body gestures to emphasize the component or components (e.g., subject, verb, or object) that are being reformulated. In other words, based on its context and characteristics, recasts can actually be noticed by an L2 learner, which can potentially increase the probability to stimulate self-repair. Concerning the way OCF is 11 delivered, whether explicitly or implicitly, research indicates that learners demonstrate more gains from explicit correction (See Table 1) than from recasts (Ellis, 2012; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Lyster et al., 2013; Mackey & Goo, 2007; Sheen, 2011). In a study conducted in 2007, Ranta & Lyster further divided their six types of OCF into two general families or subgroups (see Table 2 for more details). In summation, these two families are: (I) Reformulation, which is when the teacher gives the right form to the language learner, whether it is explicit or implicit, and (II) Prompts (or the negotiation of a form), which happens when the teacher does not give the right form, but rather uses a variety of signals other than reformulations to push their students to self-repair (Ranta & Lyster, 2007). Table 2 Type of OCF according to Ranta & Lyster (2007) CF Group CF Type Example I) Reformulation: - Right form is given. - Input-providing: Attention drawn to the error. Recast S: “I go to the store yesterday.” T: “I went to the store yesterday.” Explicit correction S: “I go to the store yesterday.” T: “Not ‘go’, I went.” II) Prompts: - Right form is not given. - Output-prompting: Self- repair is encouraged. Metalinguistic Clues S: “I go to the store yesterday.” T: “Your verb needs to be in past tense if the event already happened.” Elicitation S: “I go to the store yesterday.” T: “I…?” Repetition S: “I go to the store yesterday.” T: “Go?” Clarification Requests S: “I go to the store yesterday” T: “Excuse me?” Other terms used for reformulations and prompts are input-providing CF, which is when learner’s attention is overtly drawn to the error, and output-prompting CF, which is when self-repair is encouraged from the student. In a study conducted in 1997, Lyster & Ranta found that recast, a type of reformulation, is the most common type of CF used in 12 the classroom. Many years later, Brown (2014) did a meta-analysis of 18 studies in which he looked at the distribution of the same six types of OCF and found that teachers still predominantly used recast over half of the time when giving feedback. A comparison of the average percentage of the types of OCF can be found in Table 3. Table 3 Average Percentages of CF Types According to Lyster & Ranta (1997) and Brown (2014) Teachers’ inclination for using recast in the L2 classrooms can probably be attributed to the belief that recast can maintain the flow of communication without undermining students’ confidence (Li & Vuono, 2019). However, the fact that recast is the most used method of OCF in L2 classrooms does not necessarily make it the most effective strategy (Goo & Mackey, 2013; Gordon, 1990; Grimshaw & Pinker, 1989; Morgan et al., 1995; Pinker, 1989). In a study conducted with young dual-immersion students, it was determined that, even though teachers use recast much more than other OCF types, recast was inefficient in stimulating self-repair in students (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). This may be because when using recast the L2 learners may or may not understand that their teacher is correcting them. According to Lyster et al. (2013), prompts are more effective, because they include more than one way of providing CF Type Lyster & Ranta (1997) (%) Brown (2014) (%) Recast 55 57 Explicit correction 7 9.7 Metalinguistic Clues 8 7.9 Elicitation 14 11.6 Repetition 5 13 Clarification Requests 11 9.4 13 negative evidence, which is information about what is not possible in the language, while withholding positive evidence, which is information about what is possible. However, the variety that prompts offer has been criticized by researchers (e.g., Goo & Mackey, 2013), who claim that comparing recast with prompts is like comparing one variable with multiple variables. Considering The Variables that Influence Disparity in Results The discrepancy of findings in the oral corrective feedback (OCF) literature continues, because of a large number of variables that influenced the results of such studies in one-way or another. For example, research shows that laboratory studies have significantly larger effect sizes than classroom studies (Mackey & Goo, 2007). This may be attributed to the fact that there is more distraction in the classroom setting, and feedback is often directed to a group of learners instead of an individual learner (Li, 2010). In addition to the outcomes yielded by classroom studies versus those yielded by laboratory studies, research has also shown conflicting results of types, frequency, and distribution of OCF across a range of instructional settings (Fan, 2019; Sarandi, 2016). Another variable that has influenced the validity of studies is explicitness (Lyster et al., 2013), which in this case is the learner’s ability to state something clearly or directly. This may be attributed to the fact that the way learners perceive or express content is affected not only by variables such as age, but also by contextual variables, such as the instructional context (Ellis & Sheen 2006; Nicholas et al., 2001; Lyster & Mori 2006; Sato, 2011). Findings have also been significantly influenced by the learner and teacher preferences of CF. For instance, studies have shown a tendency for learners to have a 14 preference for receiving CF over having their errors ignored (Schulz, 1996). Interestingly enough, this general tendency varies based on learners’ cultural background, proficiency levels and previous and current language experiences (Schulz, 2001). Another variable that has been shown to play a role among studies in this field is whether CF is intended to stimulate the acquisition of new knowledge or to strengthen partially acquired knowledge. Goo & Mackey (2013) argue that previous studies have jeopardized the accuracy of their overall findings because they have not always controlled their students’ prior knowledge. Finally, another intervening variable that is difficult to hold constant across studies is the learners’ perception about feedback when CF is given (e.g., Brock et al., 1986; Chaudron, 1997; Doughty, 1994; Gass & Varonis, 1989; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Oliver, 1995). Even though there is a long list of variables that have produced inconsistent findings on the effectiveness of different types of OCF in the L2 classroom, current research is increasingly suggesting that CF is fundamental in providing scaffolding to individual learners as well as promoting continuing growth in the L2 (Lyster et al., 2013). Therefore, to avoid errors to become fossilized (Columbia University, 2018), educators should continue practicing a variety of OCF types in the foreign language classroom until there is more consistency in the research. Interaction Between Age and Oral Corrective Feedback It is currently unknown whether there is an interaction between age and certain types of oral corrective feedback (OCF). This is due to methodological discrepancy involving age differences across studies. As a matter of fact, what we know so far in terms of the effects of OCF on second language (L2) learners mainly come from studies 15 that have used subjects enrolled in university level classes or elementary dual-immersion schools (e.g., Carroll, 2001; Carroll & Swain, 1993; DeKeyser 1993; Havranek & Cesnik, 2001; Kim & Mathes, 2001; Lyster, 2004; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Muranoi, 2000). For example, Ellis (2006) reviewed previous studies comparing the effects of different types of feedback on second-language acquisition (SLA). This article used 11 studies conducted from 1993 to 2004 and pointed out a variety of methodological disparities when comparing these studies, such as differences in participants, target structure, and design. In terms of participants, of the 11 studies that they reviewed, nine were conducted using students enrolled in SLA classes at a university level, while the other two used elementary and secondary education students. Further evidence includes research on OCF types done by Lyster and Ranta (1997). The study was mainly conducted on fourth, fifth and sixth grade students in a dual-immersion (English-French) program. In spite of the fact that research outcomes on the topic of written or OCF in the L2 classroom have primarily come from dual-immersion elementary students and university level students, L2 teachers cannot disregard their instructive and revealing. For example, in terms of the benefits of CF, studies have found that younger learners actually benefit more from CF than older learners (Li & Vuono, 2019). Researchers suggest that this may be because CF facilitates implicit learning which is equivalent to children’s learning mechanisms (Li & Vuono, 2019). In addition, variables such as the preferences of the source of the CF in the L2 classroom have been studied through surveys and questionnaires often conducted among university students (e.g., Cohen, 1987; Connor & Asenavage, 1994; George, 1991; Hedgcock & Lekowitz, 1994; Leki, 1990). From a questionnaire given to eighty-one academically oriented college ESL learners, Zhang’s 16 (1995) concluded that even though they may value peer feedback and self-correction, students actually overwhelmingly preferred teacher feedback. The outcome of this study is consistent with the conclusions from other studies (e.g., Connor & Asenavage, 1994; Hedgcock & Lekowitz, 1994) done with adult students. Some rare studies on secondary school students written work determined that secondary learners prefer direct feedback (Lee, 2005) that locates the error, explains the nature of the error, and provides the correct form (Chen et al., 2016). Even though research findings on children and adults may be taken into consideration when instructing secondary level students, it cannot be assumed that L2 high school learners will have similar outcomes on the benefits of OCF types than that of younger or older participants. Therefore, it is important to add to the present literature by taking into account high-school-age students when investigating the effect of the types of OCF given to written production in L2 learners. Purpose There has been an ongoing stream of research concerning the role of corrective feedback (CF) and its influence on second-language acquisition (SLA) in the last two decades. In recent years, it has been determined through a series of experimental classroom studies that oral corrective feedback (OCF) is significantly more effective than lack of OCF (Lyster et al., 2013). However, due to the number of variables and methodological differences that have influenced the research, conflicting results still exist concerning the effectiveness of different types of OCF across instructional settings. In addition, mixed results have also created confusion in the type of recommendations that 17 are given to foreign language and dual immersion teachers during conferences and professional teacher development sessions through the school districts. In order to have a better understanding on the role of OCF types (prompts or reformulation) given during written production, this study will attempt to contribute to the existing literature by investigating the effect of OCF on secondary level students, specifically in high school students, who will be taking a Spanish level-1 class. These students will be at a novice-low to novice-high level of proficiency (see Table 4 for definition) and will be learning a simple target structure (present-tense verb conjugation). Therefore, this study will attempt to address the following two research questions: RQ1: Will students under each condition (Group 1 or Group 2) experience a difference from pre- to post-test of present tense conjugations of verbs in the Spanish language after being instructed on conjugation of verbs with OCF? RQ2: While controlling for the initial knowledge of present tense conjugations of verbs in the Spanish language, will there be a difference in their post-test between the two groups who received OCF in the form of reformulations (G1), mainly recast, and prompts (G2)? Method The present study compared the effectiveness of two sub-groups of oral corrective feedback (OCF) as an intervention for written production: reformulations and prompts. To address the purpose of this study, I collected three sources of data. First, I used a pre-instruction survey (Leavy, 2017) to gather data concerning the students’ probable level of proficiency in the target language. The pre-instruction survey included (a) general and demographic information, (b) preference of OCF, and (c) target previous knowledge of 18 language and background (see Appendix A). In addition, a pre- and a post-knowledge test were used to gather performance results (see Appendix B). The post-tests collected data on the effectiveness of reformulations and prompts (intervention), as defined by Lyster and Ranta (1997), and specifically measured knowledge by identifying present-tense Spanish regular verb conjugations in a written form. Settings This study was conducted in a high school in the Intermountain West part of the US. According to the National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] (2022), during the 2021-2022 school year, this high school served 1,741 students in grades 10 to 12, 52% of which were female and 48% of which were male. Of this population of students, 73.7% were white non-Hispanic, followed by 18.6% of Hispanic students. During the 2021-2022 school year, 20% of students were eligible for free lunch and 48% were eligible for reduced-price lunch. In addition, the high school was placed in the bottom 50% of all schools in the state overall, based on the test scores for the 2018-2019 year. Daily attendance at the high school was at 94%, the graduation rate was 96%, and the median class size was 30. The whole school proficiencies levels for Student Assessment of Growth and Excellence (SAGE) in 2021 were the following: English Language Arts 38.85%, Mathematics 29.95%, and Science 38.05% (Utah Board of Education Data and Statistics Report, 2021). The course that was used to collect data in this study was a Spanish Level-1 class, whose goal is to provide students with suitable training to support them with the necessary skills to conjugate regular, and few irregular verbs, in present tense. The Spanish program in this high school consists of 4 levels of courses, with Spanish 1 being 19 the lowest and Spanish 4 being the highest level. The Spanish Level-1 classes are designed for non-native Spanish speakers whose Spanish proficiency is novice-low to novice-high (see Table 4 for definition). Table 4 Novice Low to Novice High Speaking Proficiency Guidelines (SPG) According to the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL, 2012, pp. 9, 14, 19, 24) Spanish level-1 provides basic practice in Spanish grammar, reading, listening and writing. It also introduces students to the basic culture of Spanish speaking countries around the world. Conjugation of regular and irregular verbs is introduced in level-1 Spanish and used throughout all levels. Therefore, it is imperative for students to understand the basics of conjugation in order to move forward in the program. SPG Level Definition Example Novice-Low Speakers have no real functional ability and, because of their pronunciation, may be unintelligible. Given adequate time and familiar cues, they may be able to exchange greetings, give their identity, and name a number of familiar objects from their immediate environment. T: Do you have any siblings? S: (use of native language to express confusion) Yes? Novice-Mid Speakers communicate minimally by using a number of isolated words and memorized phrases limited by the particular context in which the language has been learned. When responding to direct questions, they may say only two or three words at a time or give an occasional stock answer. They pause frequently as they search for simple vocabulary or attempt to recycle their own and their interlocutor’s words. T: Do you have any siblings? S: One brother. One sister. Novice-High Speakers are able to manage successfully a number of uncomplicated communicative tasks in straightforward social situations. Conversation is restricted to a few of the predictable topics necessary for survival in the target language culture, such as basic personal information, basic objects, and a limited number of activities, preferences, and immediate needs. T: Do you have any siblings? S: Yes. I have an older brother and a younger sister. 20 Participants This study was conducted in two classrooms with a total of sixty-one students. The students were divided into two classes, or experimental groups: Group 1 (G1) with 31 students and Group 2 (G2) with 30 students. The specific number of subjects I used for the study varied based on the parent/guardian consent forms signed and received, the student’s proficiency level (previous Spanish background), and attendance. Of the 31 students that belong to G1, 30 parents/guardians allowed their child to participate in this study and one did not. Out of the 30 students that had parental consent to participate, one student moved out during the study, one changed class, and four were above proficiency level. Students were considered to be above proficiency level if they were found to have a background in the Spanish language (were native or heritage speakers, had taken previous Spanish classes or had participated in an Immersion program), and had answered most or all of the questions correctly in the pre-test. Of the 24 students left, five were removed from the study because of low attendance. In other words, they were removed from the study if they missed two or more of the 30-minutes lessons dedicated to learning present-tense verb conjugations. Before the post-test was conducted, G1 had a total of 19 participants in this study (n1=19). Out of the 30 students that belong to G2, 28 parents/guardians allowed their child to participate in this study and two did not. Out of the 28 students who had consented to participate in the study, three students were above proficiency level and six students were removed from the study because of attendance. Therefore, before the post-test was conducted, G2 also had a total of 19 participants (n2=19). 21 Therefore, the total number of participants used for this study was 38 students (n1=19, n2=19). Students in both groups were enrolled in grades 10th, 11th and 12th with ages ranging from 15 to 17 years. The average age was 15 years. In G1, ten participants were male and nine were female; in G2, 13 were male and six were female. All of the students who were chosen for this study were at the novice-low-to-novice-high level and willingly enrolled in their Spanish Level-1 elective class at a high school in a public school district in the Intermountain West part of the US. Both groups, G1 and G2, were enrolled in their Spanish Level-1 classes from August 2022 through Dec 2022 and were instructed by the same teacher. The teacher was a native speaker of the Spanish language. The same teacher/researcher taught both classes. The students were non-native speakers and heritage speakers. For the purpose of this study, a native speaker is defined as someone who learned the target language as their primary or first language, while a non-native speaker is someone whose target language is not their primary or first language (Thompson & Fioramonte, 2012). A heritage speaker is someone who was exposed to the target language in early childhood, but who lost proficiency in that language. Instruments The first source of data for this study was collected by means of a survey questionnaire (Leavy, 2017) (see Appendix A) that was administered to the students before instruction and any oral corrective feedback (OCF) intervention. The questionnaire had closed questions (yes/no questions, multiple choice, and scaled questions), which had a series of predetermined responses that they could choose from. The questions collected data on participants’ (a) general and demographic information, 22 (b) preference of OCF and (c) target previous knowledge of language and background. The questionnaire was in English and piloted by three different teachers before being distributed by the researcher to students for this research study. The second source of data was collected by means of pre- and post-tests (see Appendix B). The pretest determined the subject’s baseline measure of language knowledge on regular verb conjugation in the present tense prior to introducing the experimental intervention (Leavy, 2017). The post-test assessed the impact of the previously mentioned intervention. The pre-test was composed of three sections of 10 questions each: pre-test 1, 2, and 3. Each section was administered to G1 and G2 before the instruction. The first 10-question pre-test only included present tense –AR regular verbs; the second 10-question pre-test only included present tense –ER regular verbs; and the third 10-question pre-test only included present tense –IR regular verbs. The pre- and post-test were exactly the same. Research Design This study is approved both by WSU IRB and Davis School District IRB. To conduct this study, I started by giving consent forms to the parents/guardians of the students who enrolled in a Spanish level-1 class. Only those students who received permission from their parents/guardians to participate in the study were given the pre-instruction survey questionnaire and the pre-test. Students were informed that the questionnaire was confidential and was not going to affect their grades. The survey questionnaire (see Appendix A) allowed me to determine if students were native, non-native, or heritage speakers. I took into account that sometimes students who have an intermediate to advance proficient level in the target language enroll in a level-1 or level-23 2 classes hoping to get easy credits for graduation. The questionnaire also allowed me to determine the student’s level of proficiency by the number of years they had taken Spanish in elementary school (dual-immersion) or junior high school (dual immersion or regular Spanish classes). If I had a student who reported to have been in a dual immersion school or in two or more previous Spanish classes, I looked at their pre-test and determined by their answers if they had an understanding of simple-tense Spanish verb conjugations. If students got 85% or more of the answers correct (25 or more out of the 30 questions) from pre-test 1, 2, and 3, they were removed from the study. Therefore, only those students who did not demonstrate an understanding of simple-tense Spanish verb conjugations and whose level of proficiency was between novice-low to novice-high (see Table 4 for definition) according to the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL, 2012) participated in this study. After collecting all survey questionnaires and pre-tests 1, 2 and 3 (n=38), I (native speaker teacher/researcher) instructed both classes (G1 and G2) on the basics of Spanish regular verb conjugations in the same way. However, G1 only received reformulations (mainly recast), where the correct form was given and self-repair was not encouraged. G2, on the other hand, only received prompts (mainly metalinguistic clues, elicitation, and clarification requests), where the correct form was not given and self-repair was encouraged. Having the same teacher giving instructions in both experimental groups, and consciously correcting students with two different types of OCF, mainly recast for G1 and metalinguistic clues, elicitation, and clarification request for G2), allowed comparisons possible between pre- and post-test results. 24 It is important to emphasize that the class was given in an A/B day format for five weeks (see Figure 1 for a timeline). G1 was instructed on B days and G2 on A days. In the first week, G1 had a Spanish class on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, while G2 had a class on Tuesday and Thursday. In the second week, G1 had Spanish class on Tuesday and Thursday, while G2 had it on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. This pattern repeated every week and allowed the instructor/researcher to focus on one type of feedback daily. In addition, we had holidays and school activities happening on certain days. For this reason, in order to receive the same amount of instruction, each class was specifically taught during eight A or B classes, which took about five weeks. Classes were 80 minutes long. However, only the first 30 minutes of this time were dedicated to teaching and giving OCF focus on present-tense regular-verb conjugations to the L2 learners. I notified students that during those 30 minutes, we were going to focus on present-tense verb conjugations. Over the period of the eight 30-minutes classes, students received a total of 240 minutes of instruction. In the first 30-minute lesson, I gave an introduction to G1 and G2 on the definition of regular and irregular verbs in the English and Spanish languages. First, I explained to my students that, like in Spanish, English regular verbs also follow a pattern (e.g., I dance, she dances, I danced, she danced, I will dance, she will dance, etc.). English or Spanish irregular verbs, on the other hand, do not follow a pattern (I am, he is, I buy, I bought, I have, she has, etc.). Second, I explained that all verbs in Spanish, whether they be regular or irregular, always end with an -–AR, –ER, or an –IR. I asked students to tell me any verb that would come to their mind in English. I translated these verbs into Spanish, wrote them on the whiteboard and underlined their endings. Students 25 were able to visually see how all the verbs they came up with in English, after being translated into Spanish, ended with an –AR, –ER, and –IR. Figure 1 Timeline of the Study 26 The following seven 30-minute instruction periods given to G1 and G2 were dedicated to learning and practicing present-tense Spanish regular verbs. Three lessons were dedicated to –AR verbs, two lessons to –ER verbs, one lesson to –IR verbs, and the last lesson to review –AR, –ER, and –IR verbs all together. Different numbers of lesson were dedicated to each verb ending because of their complexity. Students were taught how to conjugate present-tense verbs in Spanish using verbs ending with –AR. However, since the same rules apply to –ER, and –IR verbs, fewer lessons were required for those two endings. In other words, with –AR verbs, students had to learn the rules and the endings (e.g., for –AR verbs: –o, –a, –as, –amos, –áis, and –an), while with –ER, and –IR verbs, they only had to apply the already learned rules with new endings (e.g., for –ER verbs: –o, –e, –es, –emos, –éis, and –en and for –IR verbs: –o, –e, –es, –imos, –ís, and –en). While students practiced verb conjugations, I used a variety of learning activities to administer formative assessments, such as “the wood-sticks activity”. I would use this time to give my students OCF on the concepts they were learning. The wood-sticks activity consisted of two piles of wood sticks for every two students. One pile had Spanish personal pronouns (e.g., I, you, he, she, etc.). The other pile had a variety of –AR, –ER, and –IR regular verbs (e.g., cantar, bailar, correr, leer, vivir, escribir etc.), which would match the verb endings we were studying that day. Students would randomly choose a personal pronoun and a verb in its infinitive form; they would then conjugate the verb. For example, if students picked the personal pronoun “ellos (they)” and the verb “cantar (to sing)”, the students should have said and written on a piece of 27 paper “ellos cantan.” However, sometimes they would not spell the conjugation correctly (e.g., “ellos cantamos” or “ellos cantan” instead of “ellos cantan”) or if they had conjugated correctly in a written form, but may not have pronounced it right. While students practiced verb conjugations with this activity, I would walk around the classroom and provide OCF. Students in G1 only received reformulations (mainly recast with minimal body gestures or voice intonation), where the correct form was given and self-repair was not encouraged. G2, on the other hand, only received prompts (mainly metalinguistic clues, elicitation, and clarification requests), where the correct form was not given and self-repair was encouraged. Another formative assessment I used was what I call the “white-board activity.” For this activity each student was given a white board, a dry-erase marker and a dry-erase whiteboard eraser. I would then show some slides from a presentation to the class (see Figure 2 for an example) with a variety of personal pronouns and an –AR, –ER, and/or –IR infinite regular verb in English (with the Spanish translation of the verb in parenthesis). Figure 2 Examples of Exercises Found in the Presentation Used for the “White-Board Activity” 28 Only –AR regular verbs were practiced with this activity during the four-30-minutes lessons dedicated to these verbs. Similarly, only –ER or –IR verbs were practiced during the two-30-minutes lessons or one-30-minutes lesson dedicated to these verbs respectively. For our last 30-minutes lesson, which was a review of all verbs in present tense, we use this same activity with a variety of –AR, –ER, and –IR present-tense Spanish verbs. During our white-board activity, students tried to conjugate the infinite verb according to the pronoun given and would write it on their white boards. They will then show me their work by lifting up the white board in the air. Students waited for my feedback, which was given differently in each group. If the conjugation was correct, I said affirmative phrases such as “good job,” “that’s correct,” or “very well” (see Table 5). Table 5 Example of OCF Given by the Teacher When Students Gave a Correct Answer G1- Correct Answer G2- Correct Answer Teacher: (looking at presentation) “Our personal pronoun is ‘I.’ Our infinitive verb is ‘to love’ (amar). We want to conjugate this infinitive verb. How would you write “I love” in Spanish?” Teacher: (looking at presentation) “Our personal pronoun is ‘I.’ Our infinitive verb is ‘to love’ (amar). We want to conjugate this infinitive verb. How would you write “I love” in Spanish?” Student: (student write the correct conjugation in the white-board: “Yo amo”, lifts the white-board up in the air and wait for the teacher’s feedback). Student: (student write the correct conjugation in the white-board: “Yo amo”, lifts the white-board up in the air and wait for the teacher’s feedback). Teacher: ¡Muy bien!/ ¡Correcto! Teacher: ¡Muy bien!/ ¡Correcto! Student: (student puts the white-board down, erases what was written, and waits for the next exercise on the presentation) Student: (student puts the white-board down, erases what was written, and waits for the next exercise on the presentation) If the verb conjugation was written incorrectly on a student’s white-board, for G1, I would tell the student the correct form (recast) and avoid body gestures or voice 29 intonation that would suggest that the answers was wrong. In addition, I would not encourage self-repair (see Table 6). For G2, I would give the student feedback using different types of prompts (mainly metalinguistic clues, elicitation, and clarification requests), and would ask students to self-repair. Students would erase their mistakes, try again and show their work to me again (see Table 6). Students were expected to put their white-board down when they heard their work was correct. Table 6 Example of OCF Given by the Teacher When Students Gave an Incorrect Answer G1-Incorrect Answer G2-Incorrect Answer Teacher: (looking at presentation) “Our personal pronoun is ‘he.’ Our infinitive verb is ‘to read’ (leer). We want to conjugate this infinitive verb. How would you write “he reads” in Spanish?” Teacher: (looking at presentation) “Our personal pronoun is ‘he.’ Our infinitive verb is ‘to read’ (leer). We want to conjugate this infinitive verb. How would you write “he reads” in Spanish?” Student: (student write the incorrect conjugation in the white-board: “él lees”, lifts the white-board up in the air and wait for the teacher’s feedback). Student: (student write the incorrect conjugation in the white-board: “él lees”, lifts the white-board up in the air and wait for the teacher’s feedback). Teacher: (using eye contact and/or pointing at the student’s whiteboard) “él lee” (teacher continues to give feedback to another student). Teacher: “él?”/ “lees?” / “For he or she in Spanish, we drop the –ER and add…what...?” Ok. Now let’s make it right. (Teacher continues giving feedback to other students and waits until the student who made the mistake writes it correctly on the whiteboard.) Student: (student puts the white-board down, may or may not self-repair, erases what was written and waits for the next exercise in the presentation) Student: (student puts the whiteboard down, erased what was written, and corrects) “él lee” (student lifts the whiteboard up and waits for the teacher's feedback). Teacher: Ok. Let me see. (Teacher checks that the student has corrected the answer).¡Muy bien!/ ¡Correcto! Student: (student puts the white-board down, erases what was written, and waits for the next exercise in the presentation) Note: *G1: Students only received reformulations (mainly recast with minimal body gestures or voice intonation that would indicate that the answer is wrong), where the correct forms were given and self-repair 30 was not encouraged. *G2: Students received prompts (mainly metalinguistic clues, elicitation, and clarification requests), where the correct form was not given and self-repair was encouraged. Finally, after finishing the eight 30-minutes instruction periods, where students were taught the fundamentals of present-tense regular verb conjugations in Spanish, a post-test was given to each class. The post-test was exactly the same as the pre-test 1, 2, and 3. The post-test was administered on a different day after the eight 30-minutes instruction periods were taught. The students from each group who participated in the study were separated from the rest of the class and seated by themselves in individual tables lowering their chance to copy information from other classmates. Students were not timed while taking the pre-instruction questionnaire, pre or post-test. Data Analysis The RQ1 in this study aims to examine if students under each condition (Group 1 or Group 2) experienced an increase from pre- to post-test of present tense conjugations of verbs in the Spanish language. After administrating both the pre- and post-tests, I conducted two separate paired t-tests (see Table 7 and 8 below), one for G1 and one for G2. A paired t-test is commonly “performed when each subject is measured twice, typically before and after some treatment” (Cody, 2019 RQ2 aimed to investigate whether there was a statistically significant difference between the two types of OCF in influencing students’ learning. To test for that, I conducted an ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) test while controlling for their pre-test as a co-variate. ANCOVA tests detect whether the independent variable still influences the dependent variable after the covariate(s) has been removed (Mishra et al., 2019). ANCOVA is used for cross-group differences when there is a co-variant, which in this case is my pre-test. 31 Results The results of this study were based on data collected from 38 students that received two different oral corrective feedback (OCF) treatments in experimental group 1 (G1, n1=19) and experimental group 2 (G2, n2=19). First, I will speak a bit about the demographic data collected in the survey questionnaire at the beginning of the study and then I will present the results for each RQ. Demographic Results The survey questionnaire (see Appendix A) showed that students in both groups were enrolled in grades 10th, 11th, and 12th with ages ranging from 15 to 17 years (M=15). Most of the students were in 10th grade (G1= 82% and G2=71%). The average age for G1 was 15.4 and for G2 was 15.6. In G1, ten participants were male and nine were female, while in G2, 13 were male and six were female. Out of the 19 students from G1, twelve indicated to have taken a Spanish course before (not including a dual-immersion program) (11 for one year and one took two years). In G2, nine of the 19 students took a Spanish course before (11 for one year and one for two years). Two of the 19 students from G1 stated having attended a dual-immersion program with zero students reporting the same from G2. Most students in G1 and G2 stated that the main reason for taking the Spanish 1 class was because they (1) wanted to actually utilize the target language in the real world (G1=74%, G2= 68%), (2) wanted to get credits to graduate (G1=21%, G2= 21%), or (3) were told to take the class by their parents/guardian (G1=5%, G2= 11%). The survey responses reported that 79% of learners in G1 and G2 preferred to be corrected in class when they made mistakes (See Figure 3 for more details on their preference). 32 Figure 3 Students’ Preferences on How They Would Like to Be Corrected During Class When rating their Spanish oral proficiency on a scale of one to ten, participants mostly selected high levels of confidence in their personal Spanish oral proficiency (see Figure 4). In G1, 73% of the students rated their Spanish oral proficiency above number 4, in G2, 80% of them did (1= “I don’t speak at all” – 10 = “I speak smoothly and effectively in a range of topics in the Spanish language”), indicating a high level of confidence in speaking Spanish. However, participants also indicated that they do not speak or understand Spanish (see Figure 5) at this point. From the 38 students that participated in this study, 84% reported that they did not have any background with the Spanish language (they spoke English or another language rather than Spanish at home) or they did have someone in their family who spoke Spanish, such as their grandparents, but the people they lived with did not speak Spanish. Therefore, they did not either. 33 Figure 4 Students’ Personal Rate on Their Spanish Oral Proficiency Figure 5 Students’ Report on Their Spanish Language Background When students were asked what kind of correction they would rather have from their teacher, 71.5% of them expressed an inclination towards receiving reformulations as 34 their choice of OCF. In order of preference, 45% reported preferring explicit corrections, where the correct form is given and there is a clear indication that a mistake has been made (e.g., S: She run. T: Not ‘run’, she runs) (see Figure 6 for more details). This preference was followed by recast (26.5%), where the correct form is given and there is not a clear indication that a mistake has been made (e.g., S: She run. T: Yes, she runs). The other 29.5% of participants expressed a preference for receiving prompts. Twenty-four percent chose metalinguistic clues as their OCF of preference (e.g., She run. T: What do we do with a verb when your personal pronounce is in third person?) and 4.5% leaned towards repetition (e.g., She run. T: Run?). Figure 6 Student’s OCF Preference When Making a Mistake in Class Finally, the survey made known that students favored (68%) have more in-depth instructions in all areas of the Spanish language: writing, reading (fluency and pronunciation), listening (understanding what Spanish speakers say), and speaking (fluency and pronunciation), instead of each area individually. In other words, students 35 not only wanted to just be able to speak in the target language but rather wanted to achieve fluency by gaining a wide range of abilities and language skills in Spanish. RQ1: Changes of Assessment Scores from Pre- to Post Tests The first research question asked about changes in participants’ assessment scores from pre- to post-test after students received instruction under each condition (Group 1 or Group 2) on present tense conjugations of verbs in the Spanish language. To look for differences from the pre- to post-test, I created two new variables: pre-test, which contained a cumulative score from all three pre-tests (-AR, -ER, and -IR verbs), and post-test, which contained a cumulative score from all three post-tests (-AR, -ER and -IR). With these two variables, I conducted a paired-sample t-test. Results showed that assessment scores increased significantly from pre- to post-test for both groups. For G1(reformulations), I found a statistically significant difference from pretest (M=12.1, SD=4.68) to post-test (M=24.4, SD=5.19), t(18) = -8.645, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = -1.983, indicating a large effect size. For G2 (prompts), I also found a statistically significant difference from pre- (M=12.98, SD=5.03) to post-test (M=26.3, SD=5.43), t(18) = -12.029, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = -2.76, indicating a large effect size. This suggests that instruction with OCF both in the form of reformulations (mainly recast) and in the form of prompts (mainly metalinguistic clues, elicitation, and clarification requests) was effective in improving their understanding of present-tense conjugations of verbs in the Spanish language from pre- to post-test. As it can be seen from Tables 7 and 8, Group 2 (prompts) performed slightly better on the pre-test and had a bit more diversity in student performance, as indicated by the standard deviations. 36 Table 7 Descriptive statistics for Group 1 (reformulations) from pre- to post-test Paired Samples Statistics Mean N SD Std. Error Mean Pair 1 pretest 12.1053 19 4.67731 1.07305 posttest 24.4211 19 5.18883 1.19040 a. Group = Reformulations (mainly recast) Table 8 Descriptive statistics for Group 2 (prompts) from pre- to post-test Paired Samples Statistics Mean N SD Std. Error Mean Pair 1 pretest 12.9474 19 5.02741 1.15337 posttest 26.3158 19 5.42681 1.24500 a. Group = Prompts RQ2: Comparing Results of the Two Groups (G1 and G2) The second research question tested whether there was a statistically significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2 in their post-tests. To test for that, I conducted an ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) test while controlling for the pre-test as a co-variate. The results indicated that there was no significant difference between the treatment used in G1, which only received reformulations (mainly recast), and G2, which only received prompts (mainly metalinguistic clues, elicitation, and clarification requests), F=(1,35)=0.901, p>.05. This suggests that both reformulations and prompts contributed to learning, but I did not have evidence that one was better than the other in the context of this study. 37 Discussion A meta-analysis of quasi-experimental corrective feedback (CF) studies (Mackey & Goo, 2007), which involved teacher-student interactions in classroom settings, similar to the one in this research paper, established that oral corrective feedback (OCF) has an educational value in second language (L2) classrooms by facilitating the target language development. To contribute to the literature in this field (e.g., Li, 2010; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Mackey & Goo, 2007; Russell & Spada, 2006), this study considered the effect of two different OCF treatments provided during the instruction of the conjugation of verbs in a high school classroom with L2 learners (RQ1). Results showed that assessment scores increased significantly from pre- to post- test for both groups, with a large effect size. This suggests that instruction with OCF, regardless of the type of OCF used, was effective for both high-school-student groups in improving their understanding of this simple linguistic form in the Spanish language (aka verb conjugation). These findings corroborate the research on the general effect of OCF in L2 classrooms, which has appraised that OCF is significantly more effective than no CF (Li, 2010; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Lyster et al., 2013; Mackey & Goo, 2007; Russell & Spada, 2006). They also specifically add to the body of literature on the positive effect of OCF with L2 high school students, which are rare (e.g., Chen et al., 2016; DeKeyser, 1993; Lee, 2005; Li & Vuono, 2019; Lochtman, 2002; Simard & Jean, 2011; Tsang, 2004; Yang, 2009). In RQ2, I examined if there was a difference in the learners’ post-test between the two treatment groups who received OCF in the form of reformulations (G1), mainly recast, and prompts (G2). The results in this classroom study did not report a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups. Therefore, the question 38 concerning which OCF type is better to use in the L2 classroom still remains unanswered. An instructive example of research outcomes where there was a statistical difference between OCF types is found in a meta-analysis done by Mackey & Goo (2007), which reported much larger effects for recasts. However, these results may be attributed to the fact that in their study they included more laboratory studies (n=18) than classroom studies (n=10). In contrast, results from some research done in classroom studies found that prompts (explicit OCF) are significantly more effective than recast (e.g., Clark, 1995; Ellis, et al., 2006; Ellis, 2012; Lyster, 2004; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Lyster et al., 2013; Sheen, 2011; Yang, 2009), and that this outcome is most likely attributed to the salient characteristic of prompts (Li & Vuono, 2019). In addition, Clark (1995) found that students tend to remember what they learn better when they actively participate in the production of that information (prompts), rather than it being given to them (reformulations). Likewise, in an elementary school context with 179 fifth graders, a five-weeks quasi-experiment investigating the effects of form-focus instruction (FFI) with or without OCF found that, in their paper-and-pencil tasks, the group who received FFI-prompts significantly outperformed the FFI-recast and FFI-only groups (Lyster, 2004). In a university learners’ context, research shows that prompts and explicit corrections (a type of reformulation) done in adults result in more gains for L2 learners than recasts (Ellis, 2012; Sheen, 2011). However, none of these studies were done in a secondary education setting. Mackey & Goo (2007), however, concluded in their meta-analysis on recasts that recasts “seem to be developmentally helpful, with large effect sizes across all post-tests; however, [they could] not say they were more or less helpful than other sorts of feedback 39 due to the insufficient number of studies” (p. 442), which is similar to my findings in this study. They went on to express the need for more studies in order to achieve a better understanding of the effectiveness of different types of feedback, which I agree with after conducing this study. This study results also align with Lyster et al. (2012) conclusion that “older learners with substantial analytical abilities might be able to make the most of different CF types to noticed linguistic information in an autonomous manner, resulting in similar gains irrespective of OCF types” (p. 27). I also wonder if a longer intervention or a study with a post-test conducted six months later would have shown different results. On the topic of laboratory studies versus classroom studies, this study has undermined the effect of OCF in laboratory studies. As reported in my literature review, research findings report that laboratory studies have significantly larger effect sizes than classroom studies (medium effect sizes) (Mackey & Goo, 2007) likely attributed to distractions and to OCF being directed to a group versus to individual learners (Li, 2010). However, this study’s results show huge effect sizes in a classroom setting from pre to post-test in a period of 5 weeks (G1: reformulations, mainly recast, G2: prompts), which is contrary to Mackey and Goo’s (2007) conclusion. One possible reason for the difference in results between existing research and this study could be that participants knew they were going to be learning a pre-determined and specific target feature for a number of timed lessons, and that they were going to be corrected during that specific time. Informing the participants in this study before treatment could have predisposed them towards CF, even to noticing implicit OCF, such as recast that provide the correct form without indicating an erroneous utterance. Research concerning different types of OCF used in classroom settings 40 indicates that teachers use recast much more than other OCF types (Brown, 2014; Lyster & Ranta, 1997), and that the implicit feature of recast makes it inefficient in stimulating self-repair in students (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). However, from this study we learn that recasts cannot only be noticed by a L2 learner based on its context and characteristics (e.g., adding voice intonation or body gesture), but also by simply announcing the use of OCF before instruction, which can potentially increase the probability to stimulate self-repair (Ranta & Lyster, 2007). I will call this phenomenon: Informed Oral Corrective Feedback (IOCF), which is when L2 learners are told before instruction (1) what they will be learning, (2) how long the instruction will last, (3) the value of CF given by an instructor, (4) and how making mistakes is acceptable and in fact necessary to learn a second language. This procedure followed the recommendations for CF given by Ellis (2009), who proposed a general guideline for correcting learners’ errors in her meta-analysis. She suggested that L2 teachers should determine their students’ attitudes towards CF, let them know of the value of CF, set goals with them, and ensure that they know they are being corrected. To conclude this section, I would like to point out that there is a need to study the age-related effect of OCF types when teaching simple and/or complex linguistic forms in L2 classroom settings. Likewise, it is beneficial to investigate the impact of IOCF before instruction, the efficacy of opportunities to self-repair after providing different types of OCF, and the effect of short versus long-term classroom studies in L2 learners among different age groups. Limitations 41 The first limitation of this study could be its duration. Each group in this study received eight 30-minute sessions (4 hours) of instruction and intervention, with additional 30 minutes for a post-test, which according to Lyster and Saito (2010) classifies the length of this study as “medium”. A longer study or a study with a delayed post-test following the same method might have given different results. The second limitation could be the Test Effect, which occurs when scores on the post-test are influenced by simple exposure to the pre-test (Tulving, 1967). In other words, it is possible that by simple exposure to the pre-test, students performed better on the post-test. However, I would argue that this effect, if it exists, is minimal due to the fact that the pre-test results were not revealed to the students and they did not have access to the test key after taking the pre-test. Finally, regarding the survey conducted previous to instruction, I noticed that students rated their own level of proficiency in the target language considerably high but later stated in another question that they did not speak Spanish. This question could have been written differently to provide clarity and consequently obtain more accurate answers (see Appendix A). 42 References ACTFL Language Connects. (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines 2012. https://www.actfl.org/resources/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012 Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006 Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006 Brock, C., Crookes, G., Day, R., & Long, M. (1986). The differential effects of corrective feedback in native speaker-nonnative speaker conversation. Talking to Learn, 229-236. Brown, D. (2014). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436-458. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814563200 Carroll, S. E. (2001). Input and evidence. Input and Evidence, 1-479. Carroll, S., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100012158 Chandler, J (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9 43 Chaudron, C. (1977). A Descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ error 1. Language Learning, 27(1), 29-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1977.tb00290.x Chen, S., Nassaji, H., & Liu, Q. (2016). EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback: A case study of university students from Mainland China. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-016-0010-y Clark, S. E. (1995). The generation effect and the modeling of associations in memory. Memory & Cognition, 23(4), 442-455. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197245 Cody, R. (2019). A gentle introduction to statistics using SAS studio. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. Cohen, A. D. (1987). Student processing of feedback on their compositions. Learner Strategies in Language Learning, 57-69. Columbia University. (2018, April 17). Oral corrective feedback as a catalyst for second language development [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bpbCzY0d20 Connor, U., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(3), 257-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(94)90019-1 Dawes, G. (2007). Mistakes – How can we learn from them? Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 21(2), 20–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777280710727352 44 DeKeyser, R. M. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 77(4), 501-514. https://doi.org/10.2307/329675 Doughty, C. (1994). Fine-tuning of feedback by competent speakers to language learners. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics: Educational Linguistics, Cross-Cultural Communication, and Global Interdependence, 96-108. Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focused instruction on L2 acquisition. AILA Review, 19(1), 18-41. https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/aila.19.04ell Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.5070/l2.v1i1.9054 Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. John Wiley & Sons. 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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060141 Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 575-600. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310606027X Early Childhood Personnel Center (ECPC). (2018). Naturalistic Practice Instruction Practice Guide. https://ecpcprofessionaldevelopment.dec-sped.org/naturalistic-instruction-practice- 45 Fan, N. (2019). An investigation of oral corrective feedback in an ESL listening and speaking class. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10(1), 197. https://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1001.22 Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6 Ferris, D. (2003). Response To Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410607201 Ferris, D. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime…?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 49-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005 Ferris, D. (2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 165-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.003 Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181-201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490 Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1989). Incorporated repairs in nonnative discourse. In The Dynamic Interlanguage (pp. 71-86). Springer, Boston, MA. 46 George, J. E. (1991). The role of teacher feedback in student revision: A case study. Unpublished Manuscript. Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 127-165. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000708 Gordon, P. (1990). Learnability and feedback. Developmental Psychology, 26, 217 – 220. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0012-1649.26.2.217 Grimshaw, J., & Pinker, S. (1989). Positive and negative evidence in language acquisition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 341 – 342. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00048950 Havranek, G., & Cesnik, H. (2001). Factors affecting the success of corrective feedback. EUROSLA Yearbook, 1(1), 99-122. https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.1.10hav Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(2), 141-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(94)90012-4 Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263103000019 James, C. (2013). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315842912 Kent State University (2022). SPSS Tutorials: Independent Sample Test. Retrieved Dec 27, 2022, from https://libguides.library.kent.edu/SPSS/IndependentTTest 47 Kim, H. R., & Mathes, G. (2001). Explicit vs. implicit corrective feedback. The Korea TESOL Journal, 4(1), 57-72. Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305-313. https://doi.org/10.2307/328724 Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. (1982). Natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. New York: Pergamon. Leavy, P. (2017). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches. Guilford Publications. Lee, I. (2005). Error correction in the L2 writing classroom: What do students think? TESL Canada Journal, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v22i2.84 Leki, I. (1990). Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes. CATESOL Journal, 3(1), 5-19. Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta‐analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309-365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x Li, S., & Vuono, A. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System. System, 84, 93-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.05.006 Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. Lochtman, K. (2002). Oral corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom: How it affects interaction in analytic foreign language teaching. International Journal of 48 Educational Research, 37(3-4), 271-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00005-3 Long, M. H. (2017). Problems in SLA (1st ed). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315089447 Long, M & P. Robinson (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, 2, 15-41. Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399-432. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104263021 Lyster, R., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1999). A response to Truscott's ‘What's wrong with oral grammar correction’. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(4), 457-467. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.55.4.457 Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269-300. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060128 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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034 Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265-302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990520 49 Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365 Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (ed.), 407-452. https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/59863 Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS–NNS and NNS–NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53(1), 35-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00210 Mishra, P., Singh, U., Pandey, C. M., Mishra, P., & Pandey, G. (2019). Application of student's t-test, analysis of variance, and covariance. Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia, 22(4), 407. https://doi.org/10.4103%2Faca.ACA_94_19 Morgan, J. L., Bonamo, K. M., & Travis, L. L. (1995). Negative evidence on negative evidence. Developmental Psychology, 31, 180-197. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.31.2.180 Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50(4), 617-673. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00142 National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]. (2022). https://nces.ed.gov/globallocator/sch_info_popup.asp?Type=Public&ID=490021000045 50 Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51(4), 719-758. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00172 Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(4), 459-481. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014418 Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588241 Pawlak, M. (2013). Error correction in the foreign language classroom: Reconsidering the issues. Springer. Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Nonnative speakers' noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 99-126. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263103000044 Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. MIT Press. Polio, C., & Fleck, C. (1998). “If I only had more time:” ESL learners' changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 43-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90005-4 Ranta, L., & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In R. DeKeyser, Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics 51 and Cognitive Psychology (pp. 41–160). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667275.009 Richards, J. C. (2015). Key issues in language teaching. Cambridge University Press. Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second language acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research. Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching, 131–164. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.13.09val Sato, M. (2011). Constitution of form-orientation: Contributions of context and explicit knowledge to learning from recasts. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 1-28. Sarandi, H. (2016). Oral corrective feedback: A question of classification and application. TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 235-246. Sari, Y. A., Septiyana, L., Suhono, S., Anggaira, A. S., & Umar Al Faruq, A. H. (2021). Corrective feedback in learning interaction: Integration of surface strategy taxonomy. AL-ISHLAH: Journal Pendidikan, 13(3), 2266-2280. https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v13i3.847 Schulz, R. A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students' and teachers' views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 343-364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1996.tb01247.x 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00107 52 Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17(3), 195-202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1984.tb01727.x Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263-300. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr146oa Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 361-392. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr203oa Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0548-7 Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, 593-610. Routledge. Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23(1), 103-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829202300107 Simard, D., & Jean, G. (2011). An exploration of L2 teachers’ use of pedagogical interventions devised to draw L2 learners’ attention to form. Language Learning, 61(3), 759-785. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00656.x Thompson, A., & Fioramonte, A. (2012) Nonnative speaker teachers of Spanish: Insights from novice teachers. Foreign Language Annals, 45(4), 564–579. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.01210.x Tulving, E. (1967). The effects of presentation and recall of material in free-recall learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 175–184. 29 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(67)80092-6 53 Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x Truscott, J. (1999a). The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80124-6 Truscott, J. (1999b). What's wrong with oral grammar correction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(4), 437-456. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.55.4.437 Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003 Tsang, W. K. (2004). Feedback and uptake in teacher-student interaction: An analysis of 18 English lessons in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. RELC journal, 35(2), 187-209. Utah Board of Education. (2021). Data and statistics report. Retrieved July 30, 2022, from https://www.schools.utah.gov/data/reports?mid=1424&tid=6 Wang, W. (2009). The noticing and effect of teacher feedback in ESL classrooms. Michigan State University. Yang, Y. (2009). Feedback and uptake in Chinese EFL classrooms: In search of instructional variables. Journal of Asia TEFL, 6(4). Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(95)90010-1 54 Appendix A Pre-instruction close-ended question Survey Instrument 55 Spanish 1 Class Survey In order to become a better teacher, your valuable input is sought to better understand secondary students who are taking a Spanish Level-1 class. Note: This survey is anonymous and will not affect your grade. Section 1. Please answer the following questions: Age: (a) 14 (b) 15 (c) 16 (d) 17 (e) Other Current grade level: (a) 10th (b) 11th (c) 12th Section 2: Please circle the answer that best describes you. Choose one answer only. 1. Have you taken a Spanish course before? (Participation of a dual- immersion program does not apply here) (a) Yes. (b) No. 2. If your answer was “yes” to the above question, please indicate how many years of Spanish courses you have taken: (a) One year. (b) Two years. (c) Three or more years. (d) My answer in the previous question was “no.” 3. Were you ever in a Spanish dual-immersion program? (a) Yes. (b) No. 4. If your answer was “yes” to the above question, which grades were you enrolled in within the dual-immersion program? (Circle all that apply) (a) Zero. My answer in the previous question was “no.” (b) First grade. (c) Second grade. (d) Third grade. (e) Fourth grade. (f) Fifth grade. (g) Sixth grade. (Section 2 continues on the following page) 56 5. What would best describe the reason why you took this class? (a) I want to learn Spanish to use it in the real world. (b) I want to get the credits to graduate. (c) I already know Spanish and this would be a super easy class for me. (d) I want to prepare for the AP Spanish class. (e) My parents told me to. They think it would help me in the future. (f) I don’t care much about this class. I just enrolled because my friends are also enrolled. 6. Learning a language involves making mistakes regularly. This is completely normal. Would you like to be corrected in class when you make a mistake? (a) Yes, otherwise how would I learn! (b) No, I hate being corrected, especially in front of other people. (c) I don’t care. (d) I don’t mind it, as long as the correction is done in private. 7. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate your Spanish oral proficiency? (Oral proficiency means how good you are at speaking Spanish). Please, circle the number that best describes you. 1: I don’t speak Spanish at all! 10: I speak smoothly and effectively in a range of topics in the Spanish language. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8. What is your Spanish background? (a) I don’t have any background with the Spanish language. We speak English or/and another language at home. (b) Someone in my family, such as my grandparents, speak Spanish. However, the people I live with, do not. Therefore, I don’t either. (c) At least one person in my house speaks Spanish. I don’t. I only understand a little bit. (d) At least one person in my house speaks Spanish. I also speak it. (e) There are not native Spanish speakers in my house, but I love Spanish and have been learning it. 9. What kind of correction would you rather have from your teacher if you say, “I go to the store yesterday”? (T: teacher) (a) T: yes, you went to the store yesterday. (b) T: Not ‘go’, I went. (c) T: Your verb needs to be in past tense if the event already happened. (d) T: I…? (e) T: Go? (f) T: Excuse me? (Section 2 continues on the following page) 57 10. Please indicate which areas you would like to have more in-depth instruction (circle all that apply): (a) Writing in Spanish. (b) Reading in Spanish (fluency and pronunciation). (c) Listening (understand what Spanish speakers say). (d) Speaking (fluency and pronunciation). (e) All of the above. Please write any additional comments you may have below. Thank you for your participation! 58 Appendix B Pre-test and Post-test Instrument 59 Pre-Test 1: -AR verbs. Note: This test is formative. In other words, even though it is graded, it will not go towards your final grade in this class. Please, complete the test to the best of your abilities. Circle the correct answer: 1. She sings (cantar): 6. They jog (trotar): (a) Ella canto. (a) Ellos trotas. (b) Ella canta. (b) Ellos trota. (c) Ella cantas. (c) Ellos trotan. (d) Ella cantamos. (d) Ellos trotáis. 2. He works (trabajar): 7. I teach (enseñar): (a) Él trabajamos. (a) Yo enseñan. (b) Él trabajo. (b) Yo enseñamos. (c) Él trabajas. (c) Yo enseñas. (d) Él trabaja. (d) Yo enseño 3. They dance (bailar): 8. You clean (limpiar): (a) Ellos bailas. (a) Tú limpias. (b) Ellos bailáis. (b) Tú limpiamos. (c) Ellos bailan. (c) Tú limpio. (d) Ellos bailo. (d) Tú limpiáis. 4. I speak (hablar): 9. She shops (comprar): (a) Yo hablo. (a) Ella compras. (b) Yo hablas. (b) Ella compramos. (c) Yo habla. (c) Ella compra. (d) Yo hablamos. (d) Ella compran. 5. We cook (cocinar): 10. I drive (manejar): (a) Nosotros cocináis. (a) Yo manejas. (b) Nosotros cocinamos. (b) Yo manejo. (c) Nosotros cocino. (c) Yo manejáis. (d) Nosotros cocinas. (d) Yo manejáis. 60 Post-Test 1: -AR verbs. Note: This test will be graded. You are expected to answer to the best of your abilities. Circle the correct answer: 6. She sings (cantar): 6. They jog (trotar): (e) Ella canto. (a) Ellos trotas. (f) Ella canta. (b) Ellos trota. (g) Ella cantas. (c) Ellos trotan. (h) Ella cantamos. (d) Ellos trotáis. 7. He works (trabajar): 7. I teach (enseñar): (e) Él trabajamos. (a) Yo enseñan. (f) Él trabajo. (b) Yo enseñamos. (g) Él trabajas. (c) Yo enseñas. (h) Él trabaja. (d) Yo enseño 8. They dance (bailar): 8. You clean (limpiar): (e) Ellos bailas. (a) Tú limpias. (f) Ellos bailáis. (b) Tú limpiamos. (g) Ellos bailan. (c) Tú limpio. (h) Ellos bailo. (d) Tú limpiáis. 9. I speak (hablar): 9. She shops (comprar): (e) Yo hablo. (a) Ella compras. (f) Yo hablas. (b) Ella compramos. (g) Yo habla. (c) Ella compra. (h) Yo hablamos. (d) Ella compran. 10. We cook (cocinar): 10. I drive (manejar): (e) Nosotros cocináis. (a) Yo manejas. (f) Nosotros cocinamos. (b) Yo manejo. (g) Nosotros cocino. (c) Yo manejáis. (h) Nosotros cocinas. (d) Yo manejáis. 61 Pre-Test 2: -ER verbs. Note: This test is formative. In other words, even though it is graded, it will not go towards your final grade in this class. Please, complete the test to the best of your abilities. Circle the correct answer: 1. She runs (correr): 6. They cough (toser): (a) Ella corro. (a) Ellos toses. (b) Ella corre. (b) Ellos tose. (c) Ella corres. (c) Ellos tosen. (d) Ella corremos. (d) Ellos toséis. 2. He drinks (beber): 7. I sweep (barrer): (a) Él bebemos. (a) Yo barro. (b) Él bebo. (b) Yo barremos. (c) Él bebes. (c) Yo barres. (d) Él bebe. (d) Yo barréis. 3. They eat (comer): 8. You read (leer): (a) Ellos comes. (a) Tú leemos. (b) Ellos coméis. (b) Tú leéis. (c) Ellos comen. (c) Tú leo. (d) Ellos como. (d) Tú lees. 4. I sell (vender): 9. She understand (comprender): (a) Yo vendo. (a) Ella comprendes. (b) Yo vendes. (b) Ella comprendemos. (c) Yo venden. (c) Ella comprende. (d) Yo vendemos. (d) Ella comprenden. 5. We fear (temer): 10. I turn on (prender): (a) Nosotros teméis. (a) Yo prendes. (b) Nosotros tememos. (b) Yo prendo. (c) Nosotros temo. (c) Yo prendéis. (d) Nosotros temes. (d) Yo prendemos. 62 Post-Test 2: -ER verbs. Note: This test will be graded. You are expected to answer to the best of your abilities. Circle the correct answer: 1. She runs (correr): 6. They cough (toser): (a) Ella corro. (a) Ellos toses. (b) Ella corre. (b) Ellos tose. (c) Ella corres. (c) Ellos tosen. (d) Ella corremos. (d) Ellos toséis. 2. He drinks (beber): 7. I sweep (barrer): (a) Él bebemos. (a) Yo barro. (b) Él bebo. (b) Yo barremos. (c) Él bebes. (c) Yo barres. (d) Él bebe. (d) Yo barréis. 3. They eat (comer): 8. You read (leer): (a) Ellos comes. (a) Tú leemos. (b) Ellos coméis. (b) Tú leéis. (c) Ellos comen. (c) Tú leo. (d) Ellos como. (d) Tú lees. 4. I sell (vender): 9. She understand (comprender): (a) Yo vendo. (a) Ella comprendes. (b) Yo vendes. (b) Ella comprendemos. (c) Yo venden. (c) Ella comprende. (d) Yo vendemos. (d) Ella comprenden. 5. We fear (temer): 10. I turn on (prender): (a) Nosotros teméis. (a) Yo prendes. (b) Nosotros tememos. (b) Yo prendo. (c) Nosotros temo. (c) Yo prendéis. (d) Nosotros temes. (d) Yo prendemos. 63 Pre-Test 3: -IR verbs. Note: This test is formative. In other words, even though it is graded, it will not go towards your final grade in this class. Please, complete the test to the best of your abilities. Circle the correct answer: 1. She lives (vivir): 6. They admit (admitir): (a) Ella vivo. (a) Ellos admites. (b) Ella vive. (b) Ellos admite. (c) Ella vivis. (c) Ellos admiten. (d) Ella vivimos. (d) Ellos admitís. 2. He writes (escribir): 7. I go up (subir): (a) Él escribimos. (a) Yo suben. (b) Él escribo. (b) Yo subimos. (c) Él escribis. (c) Yo subes. (d) Él escribe. (d) Yo subo 3. They receive (recibir): 8. You share (compartir): (a) Ellos recibes. (a) Tú compartes. (b) Ellos recibís. (b) Tú compartimos. (c) Ellos reciben. (c) Tú comparto. (d) Ellos recibo. (d) Tú compartís. 4. I discover (descubrir): 9. She allows (permitir): (a) Yo descubro. (a) Ella permites. (b) Yo descubres. (b) Ella permitimos. (c) Yo descubre. (c) Ella permite. (d) Yo descibrimos. (d) Ella permiten. 5. We open (abrir): 10. I cover (cubrir): (a) Nosotros abrís. (a) Yo cubres. (b) Nosotros abrimos. (b) Yo cubro. (c) Nosotros abro. (c) Yo cubrís. (d) Nosotros abren. (d) Yo cubrimos. 64 Post-Test 3: -IR verbs. Note: This test will be graded. You are expected to answer to the best of your abilities. Circle the correct answer: 1. She lives (vivir): 6. They admit (admitir): (a) Ella vivo. (a) Ellos admites. (b) Ella vive. (b) Ellos admite. (c) Ella vivis. (c) Ellos admiten. (d) Ella vivimos. (d) Ellos admitís. 2. He writes (escribir): 7. I go up (subir): (a) Él escribimos. (a) Yo suben. (b) Él escribo. (b) Yo subimos. (c) Él escribis. (c) Yo subes. (d) Él escribe. (d) Yo subo 3. They receive (recibir): 8. You share (compartir): (a) Ellos recibes. (a) Tú compartes. (b) Ellos recibís. (b) Tú compartimos. (c) Ellos reciben. (c) Tú comparto. (d) Ellos recibo. (d) Tú compartís. 4. I discover (descubrir): 9. She allows (permitir): (a) Yo descubro. (a) Ella permites. (b) Yo descubres. (b) Ella permitimos. (c) Yo descubre. (c) Ella permite. (d) Yo descibrimos. (d) Ella permiten. 5. We open (abrir): 10. I cover (cubrir): (a) Nosotros abrís. (a) Yo cubres. (b) Nosotros abrimos. (b) Yo cubro. (c) Nosotros abro. (c) Yo cubrís. (d) Nosotros abren. (d) Yo cubrimos. 65 Dear Parent/Guardian, First, I would like to tell you that I am really enjoying teaching your child my first language, Spanish. They are learning fast and they are starting to appreciate the value of learning a second language. Thank you so much for supporting them. A “Parent Consent Form” is attached to this letter. I am currently studying to get my Masters in Education from Weber State University. For my thesis project, I am studying how the way I give feedback to my students affects their learning of Spanish. For example, is it better if I am explicit or if I just hint at the error. To study this, which I call oral corrective feedback, I will be teaching regular verb conjugation in Spanish and I will conduct some tests and one survey. These data will be analyzed for my thesis, but all personal information about your child will be anonymized. The importance of this study is to find the best oral corrective feedbacks foreign language educators can use to teach in the second language classroom. Please read the Parent Inform Consent and sign if you give your consent for your child to participate in my study. If not, you have the option to opt your child out of this project. If you have any questions, please contact me at ayslas@dsdmail.net or 801-762-7753. Thank you in advance, Ana Yslas Spanish Teacher Northridge High School 66 Querido Padres/Representantes, Primero, me gustaría decirles que estoy disfrutando muchísimo enseñar a sus hijos mi primer idioma, español. Ellos están aprendiendo rápido y están empezando a apreciar el valor de saber un segundo idioma. Gracias por apoyarlos. Con está carta encontrará un “Formulario de Consentimiento Paterno.” Actualmente estoy haciendo una maestría en educación en la Universidad de Weber State. En mi tesis, estoy estudiando el efecto que tiene la manera en que corrijo a mis estudiantes en el aprendizaje de su segundo idioma. Por ejemplo, investigaré si es mejor darles retroalimentación de una manera directa o si es mejor darles solo una pista. Para estudiar este tema de “Retroalimentación Oral,” yo enseñaré a mis estudiantes como conjugar verbos regulares en español. Ellos responderán a un cuestionario y tomarán algunos exámenes. Los resultados del cuestionario y de los exámenes serán analizados para la tesis, pero la información personal de los estudiantes será completamente anónima. Esta investigación es importante porque con ella los maestros de idiomas podrán tener un mejor conocimiento de cómo retroalimentar a sus estudiantes en sus clases de idiomas. Por favor, lea el “Formulario de Consentimiento Paterno” y firme si da su consentimiento para que su hijo participe en este estudio. Si no desea dar su consentimiento, usted tiene el derecho de sacar a su hijo de este proyecto. Si tiene alguna pregunta, favor de contactarme a través de mi email: ayslas@dsdmail.net, o mi teléfono: 801-762-7753. Atentamente, Ana Yslas Maestra de Español Northridge High School 67 IRB STUDY #AY22-23-78 WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY INFORMED CONSENT Testing the Effectiveness of Oral Corrective Feedback with L2 Secondary Level Students You are invited to participate in a research study on the effectiveness of oral corrective feedback on secondary students who are learning a second language. Your child is selected as a possible participant in this study, because they are enrolled in a Level 1 Spanish class at Northridge High. We ask that you read this form and ask any questions you may have before agreeing for your child to be in the study. The study is being conducted by Ana Yslas, a student of the Master in Education program, at Weber State University. The purpose of this study is to better understand the role of oral corrective feedback when teaching a second language to high school students. This study will not involve the use of an investigational drug or device. NUMBER OF PEOPLE TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: If you agree to participate, you will be one of 62 subjects who will be participating in this research. PROCEDURES FOR THE STUDY: If you agree to be in the study, your child will do the following things: • Survey: Your child will be asked to take a survey, which will not be part of their grade. • Pre-test: During a one-week period, and while attending your regular Spanish class, you will do three pre-tests. These pre-tests will have 10-multiple-choice questions each. The pre-tests will not be timed and they will not affect your grade. • Instruction: After the pre-tests, all students will be taught how to conjugate regular verbs in present tense in the Spanish language. Instruction will be provided on their respective A or B day for a period of three weeks. Instruction time will include oral corrective feedback. • Post-test: After instruction time, your child will take a post-test to test their knowledge of regular verb conjugation, during three different time periods. The post-test is not timed, but will be graded. All students will only be able to take the post-test one time. Pre-test and post-test will be the same. RISKS OF TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: 68 For face-to-face research, the risks include the possibility of being infected by the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) or other communicable diseases. Other risks may include: The risks of being uncomfortable to answer the questions. The risks of possible loss of confidentiality. BENEFITS OF TAKING PART IN THE STUDY Your child will not receive payment for taking part in this study. ALTERNATIVES TO TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: Instead of being in the study, your child has the option not to participate. They will still be in the class and receive the same instruction as those who will decide to participate. Your child will also take the pre and post-test as part of their class assessments. COSTS/ COMPENSATION FOR INJURY There is no cost for participating in this investigation. CONFIDENTIALITY Efforts will be made to keep your child’s personal information confidential. We cannot guarantee absolute confidentiality. Their personal information may be disclosed if required by law. Their identity will be held in confidence in reports in which the study may be published. No videotapes will be made. Organizations that may inspect and/or copy my research records for quality assurance and data analysis include groups such as the study investigator and his/her research associates, the Weber State University Institutional Review Board or its designees, and (as allowed by law) state or federal agencies, specifically the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and similar, who may need to access my research records. CONTACTS FOR QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS For questions about the study, contact the researcher Ana Yslas at 801-762-7753 or the researcher’s mentor Dr. Katarina Pantic at 801-332-9767. For questions about your rights as a research participant or to discuss problems, complaints or concerns about a research study, or to obtain information, or offer input, contact the Chair of the IRB Committee IRB@weber.edu. VOLUNTARY NATURE OF STUDY Taking part in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to take part or may leave the study at any time. Leaving the study will not result in any penalty or loss of benefits to which you are entitled. Your decision whether or not to participate in this study will not affect your current or future relations with Weber State University. 69 SUBJECT’S CONSENT In consideration of all of the above, I give my consent for my child to participate in this research study. I will be given a copy of this informed consent document to keep for my records. I agree for my child to take part in this study. Printed Name of Parent: Signature of Parent: Date: Printed Name of Person Obtaining Consent: Signature of Person Obtaining Consent: Date: If the study involves children who will be providing their assent on this consent document, rather than on a separate assent document, use the following signatures: Subject’s Printed Name: Subject’s Signature: Date: (must be dated by the subject) 70 Katarina Pantic Ana Yslas Students, Teacher Education Re: Expedited Review - Initial - IRB-AY22-23-78 Testing the Effectiveness of Oral Corrective Feedback with L2 Secondary Level Students Dear Katarina Pantic: The Weber State University Institutional Review Board has rendered the decision below for Testing the Effectiveness of Oral Corrective Feedback with L2 Secondary Level Students. Decision: Approved Approval: October 18, 2022 Selected Category: 4. Collection of data through noninvasive procedures (not involving general anesthesia or sedation) routinely employed in clinical practice, excluding procedures involving x-rays or microwaves. Where medical devices are employed, they must be cleared/approved for marketing. (Studies intended to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the medical device are not generally eligible for expedited review, including studies of cleared medical devices for new indications.) Findings: Research Notes: Subjects are considered adults, signatures/consent are required, and they may choose not to participate. Anonymity and confidentiality are addressed appropriately, and the type of information gathered could not "reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation" (Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46, Subpart D). You may proceed at this time; you have one year to complete the study. Please remember that any anticipated changes to the project and approved procedures must be submitted to the IRB prior to implementation. Any unanticipated problems that arise during any stage of the project require a written report to the IRB and possible suspension of the project. If you have any question please contact your review committee chair or irb@weber.edu. Sincerely, Dr.s Natalie Williams, Daniel Hulber & Logan Toone College of Education IRB Sub-committee Weber State Institutional Review Board