Running Head: EFFECTS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON LEARNING IN L2 SPANISH 1

Effects of Implicit and Explicit Feedback on Gender, Number, and New Knowledge in L2 Spanish

Cameron BanderaUniversity of South Carolina

Abstract

EFFECTS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON LEARNING IN L2 SPANISH 2

This research tested the effects of implicit and explicit feedback with a mixed group of 30 low

level to intermediate Spanish L2 learners from a private, resource center for home schooled

children from the southern region of the United States. Participants watched a twelve minute

Spanish grammar lesson on the target structure (demonstratives) and a distractor lesson (present

progressive) and completed an elicited written production pretest. Two days later, they

participated in a fill in the blank picture treatment task in which they received immediate implicit

feedback (recast), immediate explicit feedback (metalinguistic explanation), or nothing as

members of a control group. Students finally took an elicited written production posttest which

included the same questions as the pretest but in a randomized order to prevent test effects. No

statistical analysis was done, so all results are based on the trends found from raw scores.

Posttest results showed that participants were more accurate assigning number than gender and

also showed a positive effect for explicit feedback when learning new material.

Introduction

EFFECTS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON LEARNING IN L2 SPANISH 3

Within the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and teaching, feedback is a diverse and

widely-studied topic. Many linguists and psychologists have been intently researching this

phenomenon for years. One reason researchers have been so engaged in this topic is that if

proven effective, corrective feedback could have important pedagogical implications in language

classrooms.

Although many researchers would love to think their experiments in feedback could in some way

improve teaching methods, there is an issue with what types of feedback are being used. There

are so many types of feedback that researching can seem exhausting. To better prove this, I will

go into a quick review of some of the varying types of feedback. Researchers have identified

negative and positive feedback. The major difference between these two types is in negative

feedback, learners see what is ungrammatical, whereas in positive evidence they see what is

correct in the positive use and understanding of those around them. Another type of feedback

that has been explored is negotiation, in which learners together bring attention to flaws by

displaying a lack of understanding each other’s speech and thereby forcing the other to

circumnavigate the language and find a new and correct way to express himself. Feedback may

also be in the form of questions, repetition, or prompts. With all of these variances in feedback,

it’s understandable why this area has been studied for so many years.

Two of the most frequently used categories of corrective feedback, and the focus of this study,

are implicit and explicit. Within implicit feedback, teachers may choose to use recasts in which

they correct what the student has said, bringing attention to a term or phrase and making an

opportunity for the student to notice his error and correct it. This study will follow the definition

of Sheen (2006) for recasts as “the teacher’s reformulation of all or part of a student’s utterance

EFFECTS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON LEARNING IN L2 SPANISH 4

thatcontains at least one error within the context of a communicative activity in the classroom.”

The following is illustrated in (1).

(1) •Student: *You speak English?•Teacher: Do you speak English?•Student: Do you speak English?

In this area, Dilans (2010) studied the effects of feedback with 23 adult ESL participants in a

southwestern community college. By looking at different types of feedback, prompts and

recasts, he found that prompts were a slightly more successful form of feedback in the long term.

Yet another way teachers might implicitly correct their students is by repeating their utterance in

hopes that students will themselves identify the error.

Contrastingly, explicit feedback does not encourage students to create their own answers.

Within explicit feedback, students are not only made aware of their error but receive

metalinguistic explanation as to why the answer given was incorrect. The following is

illustrated in (2).

(2) • Student: *You speak English?•Teacher: You should say, ‘Do you speak English?’ because we put the word ‘do’ in front of the sentence to indicate that this is a question and not a statement. It

is in second person (you), so it would be ‘do’ instead of ‘does.

With all of these differing types of feedback and varying results of the studies on feedback, it is

obvious that research must continue. The present study researches implicit and explicit feedback

in well-defined terms, recasts and metalinguistic explanation, with the hope of continuing the

elusive search for the most effective feedback method.

EFFECTS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON LEARNING IN L2 SPANISH 5

Literature Review

Previous research has shown a multitude of differing results for the most effective form of

feedback. Ellis, Loewen & Erlam (2006) presented a large scale review of previous literature

and experiments on the topic of corrective feedback and explained that the topic of feedback has

so many differing results because researchers have varying definitions of feedback. Long (1996)

states recasts are the best type of implicit feedback because it promotes microprocessing that

encourages implicit learning. However, others such as Doughty and Varela (1998) feel that

many recasts can be incredibly explicit. Then there are researchers such as Carroll (2001) and

her autonomous induction theory claiming feedback is only effective if the learner recognizes the

intentions. With these problems of studies in mind, Ellis et. al (2006) then developed their own

study in which they tested implicit (recasts) and explicit feedback (metalinguistic explanation)

with past tense –ed on low-intermediate learners of L2 English with two communicative tasks.

During these tasks, participants received implicit, explicit, or no feedback. The results indicated

that participants in the explicit condition outperformed those in the implicit condition. One

might presume that since Ellis et. al (2006) was so careful in defining their terms and reviewing

previous information that their research would be final; however, future studies continue to have

varying results.

A differing result can be found in the study by Erlam & Loewen (2010) who investigated the

effects of recasts within L2 French, specifically studying its effects on oral interaction. They

studied this by using interactive tasks and then administering three separate tests consisting of a

spontaneous production test, and elicited imitation test, and an untimed written grammaticality

judgment test. They focused on the effects of explicit feedback on noun-adjective agreement

errors. They found that there was little to no difference in the importance of the type of feedback

EFFECTS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON LEARNING IN L2 SPANISH 6

given, but that all participants benefitted from receiving feedback in their oral interaction. It is

interesting to note that these two researchers Erlam and Lowen were also involved in the

previously mentioned study four years prior, which proved explicit was better and in 2010, these

two researchers performed a different experiments and received different

results.

There are also other researchers who believe that maybe implicit and explicit feedback are

equally beneficial but at different stages in learning. Varnosfadrani & Basturkmen (2007)

studied the effectiveness of implicit/explicit feedback on early acquired structure vs. late

acquired structures among 56 intermediate Iranians L2 learners of English. In this study,

participants read a story and were then asked to retell that story in an interview setting where

they received implicit or explicit feedback to their errors. It was found that implicit feedback

was more helpful when learning late acquired features and explicit feedback was more helpful

when learning early acquired features.

With the idea of implicit and explicit feedback working better in different stages of learning, Li

(2013) recently studied the interaction between feedback and individual differences. In his

study, he used implicit and explicit feedback to study oral interaction with Chinese classifiers.

Using a grammaticality judgment test and an elicited imitation test, he found statistically

significant results that showed language analytic ability was predicative of the effects of implicit

feedback and that the effects of explicit feedback were shown in the working memory. In this

regard, it is interesting to consider that these types of feedback may work better at different

stages because they are utilized by different parts of the brain.

Finally, it cannot go unmentioned. There are also studies that show feedback as having no

specific benefits to learning. Adams, Nuevo, & Egi (2001) studied effectiveness of different

EFFECTS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON LEARNING IN L2 SPANISH 7

styles of feedback by examining English past tense and locatives with a personal interest in the

potential success of group feedback. ESL participants performed an oral task while receiving

implicit, explicit, or no feedback. The study’s results showed the implicit/explicit feedback was

not supported, and their ultimate goal of looking into the benefits of group feedback only

provided limited evidence of positive effects.

There are many more studies that have been done over the last few decades that also show

varying results, but in these few previously listed (and I might add rather recent) studies, there is

support for explicit feedback. There is the idea that implicit is better for different stages of

learning. We have looked at the idea that implicit and explicit feedback utilize different parts of

memory. We have seen results that showed there were no differences between types of

feedback. This study aims to use the best and avoid the worst of all the previous studies to create

an experiment which will reinforce the importance of explicit learning and its benefits.

An example of things to be avoided can be seen in Ellis, Loewen & Erlam (2006). In their study

they found that explicit feedback had a greater effect than their control group; however, their

control group did not perform any of the same communicative tasks as the implicit and explicit

feedback groups did. Their control group simply stayed in their regular classroom with their

normal teacher and participated in the pretest and posttest. The implicit and explicit groups

completed two communicative tasks with researchers. This was a major limitation to the study

that goes unmentioned. The control group not performing the same type of tasks and not

receiving a differing teacher could have had a major impact on those results. This will be

something this study seeks to correct; providing a consistent task to all groups.

With this as a goal of the study, it is also important to address another difference in so

many of these previous studies. Everyone is using different target structures as well. There have

EFFECTS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON LEARNING IN L2 SPANISH 8

been studies on classifiers, gender agreement, past tense, progressive. For this reason, it is

important to consider which types of target structures will suit the needs and goals of the study.

This study will focus on gender and number of demonstratives as these acquiring these is usually

a challenging task for students. Alarcón (2010 & 2011) discusses the difficulties that English

learners often have when acquiring L2 Spanish. As English is a morphologically poor language,

Spanish has gender and number on many of their grammatical categories where English does

not. This often makes gender a more difficult concept to master. Alarcón then mentions the idea

that students may have a better grasp on the subject than once thought. She argues that students

may suffer from a computational deficit instead of a representation deficit.

Research Questions

After closely reading several important pieces of previous literature on the topic of corrective

feedback, it seems that the area does not have enough studies addressing the effects of feedback

on learning new concepts. If explicit feedback is most beneficial on early acquired grammatical

structures as those such as Varnosfadrani & Basturkmen (2007) prove, it seems plausible to think

there are benefits to explicit feedback when introducing new target structures to L2 learners.

With this in mind, I have come up with the following questions:

1. What are the effects of implicit and explicit feedback on the development of L2 Spanish

gender on new knowledge?

2. What are the effects of implicit and explicit feedback on the development of L2 Spanish

number on new knowledge?

EFFECTS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON LEARNING IN L2 SPANISH 9

Methodology

Participants

Participants for the study consisted of 30 students from a small resource center for home

schooled children located in the South of the United States. Three groups of participants were

created for this study, made up of 7 for the implicit task, 7 for the control group, and 16 for the

explicit group. The two groups of seven were each evaluated as intermediate level speakers and

the group of 16 were identified as low level learners. Participants were all between the ages of

15 and 18. No one officially studied abroad in a Spanish speaking country although several had

spent up to two weeks in Spanish speaking countries while on vacation. No participants were

heritage speakers, although several who have siblings indicated that they practice with their

brothers or sisters (also not heritage speakers). Students were not paid for their participation.

Target form/structure

In terms of giving feedback to participants, implicit feedback was given in the form of the

correct answer with no explanation recasts and explicit feedback was given in the form of

explicit metalinguistic explanation. In terms of the target structure of demonstratives, the

Spanish language uses number and gender on their demonstratives. These are features that are

usually taught at the low intermediate level of L2 Spanish and continually reinforced through the

advanced stages of language learning. While English does have number with demonstratives

(singular or plural), it does not recognize gender. This structure was chosen because half the

participants had instruction in this form, while the other group did not.

EFFECTS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON LEARNING IN L2 SPANISH 10

Table 1Spanish Demonstratives Gender and English Translation

este (this one - masculine)estos (these ones - masculine)esta (this one - feminine)estas (these ones - feminine)

ese (that one - masculine)esos (those ones - masculine)esa (that one - feminine)esas (those ones - feminine)

aquel (that one over there - masc.)aquellos (those ones over there - masc.)aquella (that one over there - fem.)aquellas (those ones over there - fem.)

Experimental vs. control group’s procedure

This study looks at the independent variables of types of feedback as well as level of learner. All

participants took part in the same assessment, background questionnaire, pretest, and posttest.

Each group received a differing type of feedback by the same teacher, an experience Spanish

teacher and fellow linguist who was detailed how to perform the study.

EFFECTS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON LEARNING IN L2 SPANISH 11

Table 2Participant Procedures

Level A Level B Level CDay 1

AssessmentBackground Questionnaire

Mini LessonPretest (Written Production task)

Day 2 (2 Days After Day 1)Explicit Feedback

(Level A)Implicit Feedback

(Level B)No feedback

(Level C)

Post Test (Written Production task)

Students were grouped by the resource center into three groups at different learning levels (we

will refer to them as level A, level B, and level C). Due to the lack of knowledge of what these

numbers meant outside of the school grouping, an initial written assessment was given to each

participant. A simple “Calvin and Hobbes” comic strip was enlarged and shown in each class and

participants were instructed to write about what they saw. After analysis of that assessment,

students were identified as level A being comprised of low level Spanish learners, and levels B

and C as intermediate levels of learners. The basic group was designated to receive explicit

feedback because they had not been exposed to the target structure of demonstratives. The other

two had been exposed to the structure in previous classes. Level B was then assigned the

implicit feedback and C became the control group.

After the assessment, participants completed a background questionnaire and then watched two

videos around 12 minutes total in length. These videos were found in an additional resource CD

of an intermediate level textbook named Puentes. They first watched a distractor video about the

EFFECTS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON LEARNING IN L2 SPANISH 12

use of the present progressive use of estar, and then they watched a clip about demonstratives.

After the videos, students were given a pretest to assess their initial knowledge.

Two days later, participants returned and were given a treatment in which they viewed a prompt

and wrote down an answer. They were then asked to announce their answers aloud as a class

and then received immediate feedback after each question. Feedback was given one answer at a

time (not all at the end). The implicit group was given the correct answer but they were given no

explanation why. The explicit group was not only informed of the correct answer, but also given

exact metalinguistic detail explaining why. After the treatment, participants took a posttest

which included the same questions as the pretest but in a randomized order to decrease the

possibility of test effects.

Assessment instruments

For the pretest and posttest, students were asked to fill in one blank in a sentence that was

accompanied by a picture and a question in English (found in Appendix B). The sentence with

the blank to be filled in was in Spanish. There were 30 prompts total with 10 being distractors,

10 containing tokens from the treatment, and 10 novel tokens. An example of a prompt from the

pretest or posttest would be:

EFFECTS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON LEARNING IN L2 SPANISH 13

What are those chickens doing?

Esas _ gallinas están comiendo maíz. DEM.ADJ.F.PL chicken-N.F.PL to eat-PRES.3.PROG corn-N.M.SG‘Those chickens are eating corn.’Figure 1- Example of plural feminine

The treatment was set up in a similar manner as the pretest and posttest; however, each answer

prompt contained instead of one blank two to be filled, one of which acted as a distractor.

What is this lady doing?

Esta dama está caminando a la oficina.DEM.ADJ.F.SG lady-N.F.S to walk-PRES.1.PROG to-PREP.F DET.F.SG office-N.F.SG‘This lady is walking to the office.’Figure 2 – Example of feminine singular

Coding

Participants were assigned 1 point for correctly assigning number, 1 point for correctly assigning

gender, and 1 point for assigning the official correct answer (without consideration for number or

gender). For example, if a participant gave the answer “este” (this) and the correct answer were

EFFECTS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON LEARNING IN L2 SPANISH 14

“ese (that),” they received 1 point for assigning the correct gender (masculine) and another point

for assigning the correct number (singular). However, they received a zero because they

provided an incorrect answer. However, if the correct answer was “este (this),” and they

answered “esto (a mistaken presumption that this has a canonical ending), they would receive 1

point for assigning correct gender (masculine) and 1 point for assigning the correct number

(singular). Finally, they receive another point for being correct because their intention to use the

correct form was obvious. Inferential statistics were not run on the data, and the following

results will be inferred based on the trends of the raw scores.

Results

Results were coded and analyzed in a manner to look at correct answers, gender, and number.

All of the results are out of a possible perfect score of 20. These raw scores were then averaged

to complete the charts below. Averages were rounded to the nearest whole number. For

example, in the pretest for Level A of gender, the actual mean was 14.2; however, since there is

no way to answer .2 of a question correctly, it was rounded and recorded as 14.

EFFECTS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON LEARNING IN L2 SPANISH 15

Pretest Posttest0

5

10

15

20

25

Explicit ImplicitControl

Gender Results

Participants were overall pretty accurate with agreeing in gender. All groups also improved from

the pretest to the posttest. The explicit group had an initial pretest score of 14 and finished the

posttest with an average score of 16. The implicit group began at a level of 18 in the pretest and

finished the posttest with an average score of 20. Finally, the control group scored an average of

19 correct in the pretest and 20 in the posttest.

EFFECTS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON LEARNING IN L2 SPANISH 16

Pretest Posttest0

5

10

15

20

25

ExplicitImplicitControl

Number Results

Again, here it is clear that participants are generally pretty accurate in assigning correct number

as well. The explicit group began the pretest with an average score of 15 and finished the

posttest with an average score of 17. The Implicit group scored high in the pretest with an 18

and finished with a perfect score of 20. Finally, the control group averaged a perfect 20 on both

the pretest and posttest.

EFFECTS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON LEARNING IN L2 SPANISH 17

Pretest Posttest0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

ExplicitImplicitControl

Correct Demonstrative Results

This area of correct demonstrative use shows the largest differentiation between participants.

Everyone improved from the pretest to the posttest. The explicit group finished the pretest with

an average score of 4 and in the posttest jumped to an average of 8. The implicit group began

the pretest with a score of 9 and ended the posttest with an average score of 14. Finally, the

control group improved from a beginning average of 14 to a final average on the posttest of 15.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study found results similar to the study by Ellis, Loewen & Erlam (2006) that explicit

feedback is indeed beneficial to learners. Addressing the previous issue of the control group not

receiving the same type of tasks as the other feedback groups, this study ensured that all

participants received the same type of activity. Also similar to their study, this study performed

treatments not on individuals but on classrooms of participants. The results of the study do

EFFECTS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON LEARNING IN L2 SPANISH 18

indeed follow the pattern of the previous study; however, there are still all those other differing

experiments in the literature review. It is necessary as future work is done in the area of

feedback that researchers are clearly defining their terms and the types of feedback that are being

used within the study. This will be the only way of ever having comparable studies in the future.

In the similar vein of Alarcón (2009), the results do show that learners are slightly more

accurate at assigning number than agreeing in gender. All groups test high in gender and number

agreement in the pretest and posttest. This could be because this study only used a forced

production task. Alarcón (2011) discussed the difference between how learners test in

comprehension and how they tend to be less accurate in production. Although it’s not fair to say

that this study proves the same, the high scores in number and gender are in line with the belief

that students score higher in written tasks. This study did not have an oral component to

compare with.

It’s important to mention that although the study started with 30 individuals, some had to

be eliminated from the above results. Three individuals from the explicit group were not in class

on the first day. They performed the treatment and posttest but since there was no pretest or

assessment, they were not included. There were also three outliers, one in each feedback group.

For individual results, readers may be interested in Appendix C.

Limitations and Future Studies

A common limitation to many studies, it would have been better to have more participants.

Initial participant involvement was limited. Another limitation to the study was that the levels of

the students varied as much as they did. Although a fair case could be made that the implicit and

control group were at similar levels of learning, the group receiving the explicit feedback was at

a lower level that the other two. Results could have been more trustworthy if all participants

EFFECTS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON LEARNING IN L2 SPANISH 19

were at the same or even more similar stages of Spanish learning. Of course a consequence of

having a limited pool of participants also meant that results were not run through any form of

statistical analysis program. Therefore, only raw scores were obtained. Finally, the study

remains limited in that it only had the students do one type of task (forced written production).

An oral task would have been a great way to test the previous studies of Alarcón and her ideas on

computation vs. representational deficits in learning.

In future studies, it would be interesting to continue researching the effects of feedback on more

than just written skills. It would be beneficial to see how feedback works orally and with

speakers on a more one to one situation, as opposed to the classroom settings in which the

current study took place. Another way to improve future studies would be the include picture

prompts that have semantic value. In this study, learners saw pictures but were forced to follow

the grammatical structure of the question only. Because demonstratives do have semantic as

well as grammatical value, it would be a good idea to include perspective on the prompts that

would provide semantic as well as grammatical value to the task.

EFFECTS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON LEARNING IN L2 SPANISH 20

References

Adams, R., Nuevo, A., & Egi, T. (2011). Explicit and implicit feedback, modified output, and

SLA: Does explicit and implicit feedback promote learning and learner-learner

interactions? The Modern Language Journal, 95, 42-63.

Alarcón, I., ( 2011). Spanish gender agreement under complete and incomplete acquisition: Early

and late bilinguals' linguistic behavior within the noun phrase. Bilingualism: Language

and Cognition 14, 332-350.

Benati, A. (2004). The effects of processing instruction and its components on the acquisition

of gender agreement in Italian. Language Awareness, 13 (2), 67-80.

Dilans, G. (2010) Corrective feedback and L2 vocabulary development: Prompts and recasts

In the adult ESL classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66 (6), 787-

816.

Doughty, C., & Long, M. (2003). The handbook of second language acquistion. Malden, MA:

Blackwell Publishing.

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.

Erlam, R. & Loewen, S. (2010). Implicit and explicit recasts in L2 oral French interaction.

The Modern Canadian Language Review, 66 (6), 887-916.

Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and

individuals differences in language analytic ability and working memory. The Modern

Language Journal, 97 (3), 634-654.

Selinker, L., Kim, D., & Bandi-Rao (2004). Linguistic structure with processing in second

language research: Is a ‘unified theory’ possible? Second Language Research 20 (1),

EFFECTS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON LEARNING IN L2 SPANISH 21

77-94.

VanPatten, B. & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-243.

Varnosfadrani, A., & Basturkmen, Helen. (2009). The effectiveness of implicit and explicit

error correction on learners’ performance. ScienceDirect 37 (1), 82-98.

Appendix A

Figure 3- Initial Production Activity

EFFECTS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON LEARNING IN L2 SPANISH 22

Appendix B

Instructions

You will be viewing a series of slides with a picture prompt, question, and an answer with

blanks. The question will be in English and the answer prompt will be in Spanish. Please fill in

the blanks from each slide on the corresponding answer sheet provided. The slides are numbered

for your convenience.

Example Prompts (Correct Answers are placed in the blank for readers).

Where do these boys go?

_Estos_ chicos van a la escuela.

DEM.ADJ.M.PL boys-N.M.3.PL go-PRS to-PREP.F the-DET.F school-N.F.SG

‘These boys go to the school.’

Figure 4. Example of Plural Masculine

EFFECTS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON LEARNING IN L2 SPANISH 23

What is that gentleman doing?

Ese__ caballero está abriendo la puerta.

DEM.ADJ.M.SG gentleman-N.M.1.SG to open-PRES.3.PROG the-DET.F door-N.F.SG

‘That gentleman is opening the door.’

Figure 5 – Example of singular masculine

Appendix C

Table 3

Level A Individual Raw Scores

Pretest Treatment PosttestTS Correct Gender Number Correc

tGender Number Correct Gender Number

1 2 15 16 6 16 19 8 12 162 18 20 20 19 20 20 19 20 203 5 20 20 17 20 18 13 20 184 1 3 5 10 12 12 2 12 125 0 13 15 5 19 20 7 17 196 4 18 18 9 19 19 7 18 197 6 13 13 15 16 17 4 18 198 1 2 3 5 11 12 2 12 189 0 13 13 13 20 19 6 17 1710 7 18 20 9 19 20 16 19 19

EFFECTS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON LEARNING IN L2 SPANISH 24

11 6 16 17 6 18 19 9 16 1512 7 20 20 17 19 19 15 20 2013 10 18 18 16 20 20 2 12 10

AVG. 5 14 15 11 18 18 8 16 17

Note: TS = test subject (participants in Group A were given a random number between 1-16. TS 14, 15, and 16 are not represented because they were only able to participate on Day 2).

Table 4

Level B Individual Raw Scores

Pretest Treatment PosttestTS Correct Gender Number Correc

tGender Number Correct Gender Number

17 4 12 9 14 19 20 10 20 1918 2 20 20 18 20 20 18 20 2019 12 19 20 13 19 19 14 19 2020 8 16 20 13 18 20 9 19 1921 16 20 20 18 20 20 17 20 2022 14 20 20 20 20 20 18 19 2023 2 11 11 6 13 15 3 18 19

AVG 8 17 17 15 18 19 13 19 20

Note: Participants in Group B were given a random number between 17-23.

Table 5

Level C Individual Raw Scores

Pretest Treatment Posttest

TS Correct Gender Number Correct Gender Number Correct Gender Number24 12 16 18 15 20 20 12 20 2025 17 20 20 16 19 2 17 20 2026 3 16 17 6 17 19 5 16 1827 19 20 20 20 20 20 18 20 2028 7 20 20 15 20 20 12 20 2029 16 20 20 17 20 20 17 20 2030 13 19 20 16 16 20 15 20 20

AVG. 12 19 19 15 19 17 14 19 20

EFFECTS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON LEARNING IN L2 SPANISH 25

Note: Participants in Group C were given a random number between 24-30.