What is the impact of CF on learner behaviour?

Perspectives on L2 learning such as sociocultural theory, interactionist theory, and dynamic systems theory (Aljaafreh & Lantolf 1994; Mackey & Gass 2006; De Bot, Lowie & Verspoor 2007), and in addition the disagreements in SLA research on beneficial learner behaviour (e.g. the role of uptake) emphasise the importance of analysing the learning process (Chapelle 2009b). As our study shows, the effects of CF differ according to individual differences. Outcome measures do not provide information on learner interactions with CF, and thus do not inform us why CF may

be more or less effective for individuals. GREET logged the data of the learners, which allowed insight into how their practice sessions proceeded.

In Chapter 3, inspection of learner behaviour in the two conditions revealed significantly different practice sessions, even though learners' proficiency had improved equally. The groups practiced an equal number of questions, but the CF group produced significantly more spoken output, and repaired their errors significantly more often.

Though we improved the logging module of the GREET system to record more learner behaviour data (e.g. time spent per page, time reading questions, etc.) for the experiment in Chapter 4, analyses revealed that the relevant features remained the number of questions practiced, and number of (correct) attempts. In Chapter 4, there were also clear differences in learner behaviour between the two conditions. Here, however, the CF condition was found to outperform the NOCF condition. Analyses showed that the number of questions practiced was equal between conditions, and that the CF condition produced more spoken output overall, and more correct instances of V2. 19

Learner behaviour as given by the total number of questions or attempts practiced in 90 minutes was related to learner proficiency (i.e. a higher proficient learner could practice more questions), but did not correlate with proficiency gain. In the CF condition, learners required fewer instances of CF and attempts to provide the correct answer as they progressed through practice. Evidence of learning could be found in both conditions, as the learners improved their ratio of correct answers over time. As a result, we were able to link proficiency gain in the post-tests to characteristics of learner behaviour.

In Chapter 5 we inspected learner behaviour to increase our understanding of why the low educated learners did not improve as a result of practice. A salient difference between the educational levels was the number of correct sentences produced, which was lower for low educated learners. Similar to Chapter 4, we analysed the change over time in the learner sessions. Here we found that learner behaviour varied according to educational level. High educated learners improved their proficiency, used fewer instances of CF over time, and produced a higher ratio of correct answers over time; Medium educated learners improved their proficiency, but their learner behaviour did not change significantly. Low educated learners did not improve their proficiency, and their learner behaviour did not change

significantly.

In the discussions in Chapter 3, 4, and 5, learner behaviour is regarded as indicative of cognitive processes. As Hegelheimer and Chapelle (2000) discuss, only indirect inferences can be made about the processes that occur during practice. Through comparison and correlation with proficiency test data, we find that it is possible to distil relevant learner behaviour.

19 _{The number of repairs from Chapter 3 was broken down into two measures: the attempts}

The number of questions that were practiced were relatively similar between the conditions. This is relevant from the point of view of input processing and task- essential practice (Sanz & Morgan-Short 2004; VanPatten 2004). As we have argued earlier (6.3), this may have been effective for practice in both conditions, though perhaps more so in the NOCF condition, as learners were more cognitively involved.

The clearest difference between the experiment conditions is that the CF condition produces more attempts, and more attempts per question than the NOCF condition. This is the result of CF, which requires learners to retry after an error. The number of attempts in the CF condition should be seen as both (a) more produced output (relevant for production of a V2 sentence (Swain 1985; De Bot 1996) and skill-specific practice (DeKeyser 2007)), and (b) as received instances of CF (facilitates noticing the error (Schmidt 1995), or confirmation of correct), and for providing (modified) input (Long 1996; Gass 1997), whereas in the NOCF condition, the number of attempts only indicates (a) produced output.

Based on the findings in the three experiments, we assume that produced output per se may not be the important measure, but rather the amount of produced output that is grammatically correct. Whether this is more important than the instances of CF received is difficult to discern in our data, but certainly the CF stimulates the learner to produce more grammatically correct utterances. In addition, the CF seems to motivate the learners to produce more output (which may be beneficial also for non-target skills such as pronunciation).

In analyses of changes in learner behaviour over time, effectiveness of practice (in terms of proficiency gain) was found to co-occur with a decrease in the number of attempts that a learner needed to correctly answer a question. As a result, we argue that characteristics of learner behaviour can be employed to signal learning. For future use, this measure could be used to determine if the CF type was effective: if the number of attempts per question does not decrease, a different CF type can be applied, or it can be seen as an indication that the current difficulty level of practice is too hard. Using this measure would indicate that, in Chapter 5, the number of attempts per question stays high for the low educated learners, and practice should be adapted. Through trial of different instructional techniques, an effective method could be determined. Learning could also be detected in the learner behaviour in the NOCF condition, as proficiency gain coincided with the accuracy on answering questions improving. This measure can be used to determine when a learner may not be practicing effectively, and (a type of) CF could improve performance.