Monday, 13 November 2017

Try this, it works! Written Error Correction



I've come across a few posts on written error correction recently. ELT research Bites took on the topic in a two part post (2) and earlier in the year Gianfranco Conti (PhD applied linguistics, MA TEFL, MA English lit, PGCE modern languages an P.E.) wrote one. Conti claims that marking students books should be the 'least of a language teacher's priorities' but is he right?


Conti's post starts with a reference to Hattie who has suggested that feedback is very effective. Conti notes that giving corrective feedback on writing has now been given top priority in many state schools. He then goes on to write that his post is a response to the numerous teachers who have written to him asking whether the time and effort they put into marking is justified. Conti states:
I intend to answer this question by drawing on thirty years of error-correction research, my personal experience as a learner of 14 languages and teacher of five and, more importantly, neuroscience and common sense.
Impressive stuff. 14 languages! 30 years of error correction research! AND neuroscience! However when we get to the research we run into a problem. 


What jumps out initially is the age of the references. Conti promises 'thirty years of error correction research' but sadly those 30 years seem to be 1974-2004. The most recent reference, Conti 2004, is to his own writing. In fact, the only post 2000 references are to his own writing. I would have liked to read the works in question to evaluate the claims made but as Conti doesn't provide a reference list or hyperlink to the texts referenced in the post, this wasn't possible. 

Now, references don't have best before dates, and to this day E still equals MC squared. That said, the age of Conti's references does present an issue in this case. For instance, Dana Ferris, possibly the world's leading expert on written corrective feedback (WCF) is only mentioned in relation to a 1999 paper. She has, since then, written extensively on the subject including three books (Response to student Writing 2003, treatment of error in second language 2002, 2011, and with BitchenerWritten Corrective Feedback 2012). None of these are mentioned in the section called "What L2 error-correction research says". 

What's more, the research findings show a distinct change in the period Conti leaves out. For instance, Ellis and Shintani note that whereas in 1996 it was possible for Truscott to argue that the effectiveness of WCF could not be supported, this position is no longer tenable (2013:271). And as if spookily preempting Conti,  Ferris, in a 'state of the art' paper from 2004 notes that 'since 1999, I have done a considerable amount of both primary and secondary research work on the issues surrounding error correction in L2 writing' (2004:50). 

A lot is missed if we miss out the last 15 years of research. In a recent meta-analysis looking at WCF, of the 21 studies that met the inclusion criteria, only four were published before 2004. Conti's post does not include any of the 17 remaining studies. This is important as the research design of 'early (pre-Truscott, 1996) studies' contained design and execution flaws (Bitchener and Ferris 2012:50) perhaps indicating why 'studies published after the year 2000 showed a significantly higher effect size...than that of the studies published before 2000' (Kang and Han 2015:99). 

So what does the research say about corrective feedback? 


Research tends to suggest that error correction is effective. Ellis and Shintani state that 'both oral and written CF can assist L2 acquisition.' (2014:268) It has a positive effect on student writing (Ferris 2011, Bitchener and Ferris 2012). Kang and Han conducted a meta analysis of current research and concluded that "written corrective feedback appears to have a moderate to large effect on the grammatical accuracy of L2 students(2015:7)Research by Van Beuningen et al (2012) also points to the efficacy of WCF noting that it can improve subsequent pieces of research. This contrasts Conti's claims  that 'both direct and indirect correction do not impact students’ accuracy more effectively than no correction at all' (though it is perhaps possible that the bold font cancels out the research evidence).

It isn't clear from his post, but Conti may be talking about lower level students. As Schmidt notes on the ELT research bytes webpage, the Kang and Han meta Analysis found that '[WCF's] efficacy is mediated by a host of variables, including learners’ proficiency, the setting, and the genre of the writing task' (2015). Notably, Kang and Han's analysis suggests WCF is less beneficial among lower level learners. 

And what type of feedback is best? 

Conti claims that direct correction is 'pretty much a waste of time'  and 'Indirect correction, on the other hand, is not likely to contribute much to acquisition as the learner will not be able to correct what s/he does not know' (section 2) But what does the research say about types of correction? 

Direct or indirect? 
direct*

Direct correction, that is telling the students exactly what is wrong, and what they ought to write, 'is more effective than indirect' and direct feedback alone 'resulted in gains in grammatical accuracy' (Ellis and Shintani 2014:271). According to Shintani and Ellis 'Bitchener and Knoch (2010), Hashemnezhad and Mohammadnejad (2012) and Frear (2012) all reported direct feedback to be more effective than indirect' (2015:111In older studies no difference was detected, or indirect CF appeared superior  (Ferris 2011:32) but 'recent studies report a clear advantage for direct forms of feedback.' (Bitchener and Ferris 2012:74). As an interesting side note, teaching guides tend to promote indirect feedback (Ellis and Shintani's 2014:279). 

In conclusion, we can say fairly confidently that feedback of some kind is, in most cases, better than no feedback. Research suggests that even a 'single treatment', particularly if focused on a grammar point with a clear rule, is effective. (Ellis and Shintani 2014:271). 


indirect coded 
Coded or uncoded? 

Coded feedback is using some kind of code like 'V' for verb or 'S/V' for subject verb problems. These are usually accompanied by some kind of meta-linguistic explanation. Uncoded feedback, on the other hand, would just be highlighting that an error had occurred but not providing an indication as to what it was. The theory behind correction codes is that students will have to work a bit harder to work out what their errors are. 


indirect uncoded 
Interestingly, there is no evidence that coded feedback is superior to uncoded (Ferris 2011:34). Both teachers and students, however,  believe that coded feedback is more effective. (Ferris and Bitchener 2012:93) and there is some research supporting the idea that meta-linguistics explanations make feedback more effective (Ferris 2011:100). 

Focused or unfocused?

Focused just means concentrating on one type of error, verb forms or articles for example, rather than picking up different types of errors. The research is not that clear here. According to Ferris most researchers now believe focused feedback is more effective than unfocused (Ferris 2011:51, 2010:182). Shintani and Ellis (2015:111) are more cautious, noting that research has shown focused feedback to be effective 'in the sense that it results in gains in grammatical accuracy in new pieces of writing' and adding that it is more effective than unfocused feedback 'in some cases'. 

So the jury is seemingly out on focused vs unfocused WFC. However, whereas a study that compared focused and unfocused feedback found no difference between the two (Ellis et al., 2008) both were superior to the 'no feedback' group. A finding which seems to contradict Conti's bold statement. 

Doesn't error correction demotivate students? 


Finally, a common complaint is that error correction demotivates or humiliates students. This is certainly possibleConti quotes research from 1998 noting that 'an excessive concern with error treatment may affect students’ motivation negatively'. Well yes, it may, but (ready the bold font) it also may not. Ellis and Shintani argue that the case for this is perhaps overstated, pointing to the fact that 'learners typically state that they want to be corrected' (2014:275) a point Ferris (2011:51)  and Conti himself (see point 1) concur with. In my context (academic English writing) a study by Weaver (2006, N=44) suggests, like much research on this subject, that when students are asked, they say they like and want feedback. In fact, 96% of business students surveyed by Weaver agreed that 'tutors don't provide enough feedback'. Unless they actively enjoy humiliation (a hypothesis I'm sure someone could investigate,) then it seems unlikely that students mind WCF.  

Conclusion 


Conti has written a great deal on this subject. His blog includes posts explaining how current essay feedback practices are questionable, '7 reasons why traditional error correction doesn't work', 'why asking students to self correct is a waste of time' and 'why teachers should not bother correcting errors in their students writing'. Clearly, there is a theme here (and no, it's not starting blog posts with the word 'why'). Conti doesn't think error correction is all that worthwhile. To be clear, he doesn't think it is worthless either, just that it shouldn't be given as much importance as it currently is. It would be really useful though, when making statements like "There is no conclusive empirical evidence that EC can be effective" (2.7), if he could explain why he chooses to only discuss evidence that is 15 or more years old. I don't know Conti's teaching context so can't comment on whether or not there is an overemphasis on WCF there. What I can say is that, on my reading of the evidence at least, 'there is a clear case for correcting learners written errors' (Ellis and Shintani 2014:276). 




*I realise 'I like dogs and I like cats' isn't a great sentence. 

Wednesday, 26 July 2017

New Oriental debate

If you attended IATEFL or watched it online, you might remember a debate between Jim Scrivener and Jocelyn Wang of 'New Oriental' (NO) school in ChinaA recent edition of ELGazette features an interview with  Wang. According to the article:
British teacher-training guru Jim Scrivener was roundly defeated in his defence of Communicative Language Teaching by [Wang] who argued passionately and in perfect English for the benefits of traditional Chinese teaching methods
I'm not sure how the writer was able to ascertain who 'won' the debate, but to me, Wang's argument, that CLT was in principle a great idea, just not suitable for China, put me in mind of one of my childhood heroes, Jackie Chan. In 2009, Chan, who hails from Hong Kong, wondered aloud about his country's democratic future:
I'm not sure if it's good to have freedom or not...I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we're not being controlled, we'll just do what we want." 
In this post, I want to examine some of the arguments Wang made in favour of 'traditional Chinese teaching methods'. 

Traditional teaching methods with Chinese characteristics

As the trad/prog debate rages online and particularly on twitter, some have pointed to China's impressive ranking on the PISA tests and suggested that we could learn a thing or two about teaching from listening to Chinese educators who stick to very traditional teaching methods. In simplistic terms the approaches differ in the following ways:



This idea reached its culmination in a BBC 'experiment' (reality TV show) in which Chinese teachers were brought to England to teach British kids. (You can see an example of a rather bizarre grammar lesson here). 

The debate between Scrivener and Wang was the latest salvo in the ongoing prog/trad war. It wasn't billed as such, because progressive teaching has largely been victorious in the UK ELT world and what would be labelled 'progressive' is considered, by many teachers, as just 'teaching'. 

During the debate, and in her article, Wang makes several specific claims that push against the progressive ethos of UK ELT such as:
  • CLT doesn't really work in the Chinese context.
  • The communicative approach doesn't help students memorise language.
  • It is perfectly OK for teachers to speak entirely in Chinese in the lesson
  • Students do not need to speak in the lesson (i.e to practice the target language) 
All of these claims are specific and research to either back up or contradict Wang's claims could've been presented. For instance, if we believe that input is the only thing necessary for acquisition, it might be perfectly defensible to have a class in which students say nothing. In fact, CLT's application in Chinese classrooms has been examined by a number  authors (see for instance Yu 2001Liao 2004Hu, 2005) yet none of this research is referred to, instead Wang chose to argue that Chinese learners learn best when taught using a 'Chinese approach'. 

A Chinese-centric approach 

The New York Times reported that the Japanese "once tried to ban foreign-made skis because they were deemed unsuitable for Japan's ''unique'' snow". Anyone who has lived in Japan will be familiar with this kind of argument. Japanese Stomachs are unsuited to American beef (sorry we can't import any!) and so on. As stomachs digest, so brains learn. And as Long notes “the architecture of human brains varies very little among adults or among children”(2011:375). Yet when Scrivener points out that the kind of teaching promoted by Wang was "contrary to all contemporary theory, about how people learn languages", Wang shot back with "are [the studies] based on Chinese learners?" Perhaps, like left brain, or right brained learners, there are also Chinese brained learners?

As Wang is Chinese it seems difficult to argue with her 'insider knowledge', of what Chinese students needs. When progressive education tell us that that 'everyone learns in different ways', then it makes sense that Chinese students may learn in a 'Chinese way'. So we nod along as we're told "when Chinese learners learn anything, they value quantity" and "the whole idea of practice sits awkwardly with our view of learning". 

However, there are a few problems with what she presents as the Chinese approach to learning languages. Firstly, What she describes as 'Chinese learning' is the same 'transmission approach' of teaching which was common in many countries at one point and is still common in many classrooms. Secondly, is it unfair to point out how conveniently the homogeneous 'Chinese learner' she describes, desires the kind of teaching New Oriental offers?

A final criticism is that NO's methods bear no resemblance to those of another famous Chinese educator, Yang Li, creator of Crazy English. For while NO boasts "73 schools, 803 learning centres and 20,400 teachers in 61 cities across the country", Crazy English has over 20 million students. Unlike NO, Crazy English promotes massive amounts of student oral practice and somehow still manages to draw in huge numbers of students. Crazy English teachers conduct mass rallies with lots of chanting in English which seems odd as we are to believe "the whole idea of practice sits awkwardly with our view of learning". 

Ancient Traditional Chinese wisdom! 

Another line of defence employed by Wang was cultural and historical. She defended silent language classes by referring to an old Chinese proverb:

三思而後行
sān sī ér hòu xíng
Three think, then act. 

Which she translated as 'think 3 times before you speak' and made the point that China had a 5000 year old history and that the teaching style is Confucian in origin.  

This would be a bit like saying that the silent way is a good method because in English we say 'Silence is golden'. Actually, that would be a better proverb since the Chinese phrase she quoted would be better rendered as 'look before you leap' which is really unrelated to speaking in a language class. This is basically ideology disguised as best practice. Chinese people are different, the culture is different. Our ways are better because they're older (argument from antiquity), they come from Confucius (argument from authority). I have discussed the problem with arguments from authority here and it should be obvious but something being old is no guarantee it's any good. The same arguments are routinely used to defend questionable practices like traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture.  

This post isn't a defence of CLT or an attack on traditional teaching. Wang is an eloquent speaker and it's good to hear a voice from one of the most populace countries in which English is taught. I think she and other Chinese teachers can give us an interesting insight into the Chinese context, but China and the Chinese are not monolithic and teaching practices shouldn't be defended with long dead philosophers or ancient wisdom. 








Saturday, 10 June 2017

Review of ELT podcasts part 3


When I started reviewing ELT podcasts there were hardly any. Now we find ourselves drowning in them! At present I count more than 10 ELT specific podcast. However, over half seem to have fallen to the wayside. Elliott's very good 'lives of teachers' podcast has very sporadic output these days. As does 'Masters of TESOL' which started strong and has since faded. The only three podcast that I have reviewed still regularly producing output are TEFLology, the TEFL show and the TEFL commute. Clearly the secret is having TEFL in your name somewhere. 

In my last review I had a wish list asking for, among other things, 'a podcast with a female host' and what do you know, three come along at once. 


1. One stop English podcast 

This podcast has only just started and is 8 episodes in but has made quite a nice start. Already the show has featured a debunking of learning styles, as well as featuring my former presentation partner Nicola Prentis, in the same episode. They have a 'guest teacher' slot, which is a nice idea and have so far featured, among others, the wonderful Natalia Guerreiro (who I cannot convince to write a guest blog post). In only 8 episodes they have had as guests, Hugh Dellar and Andrew Wakley, Adrian Underhill, Silvana Richardson and Scott Thornbury. This is quite a solid podcast, not too heavy and even including some practical teaching advice. It's a pleasant addition to the pod-o-sphere and it will be interesting to see how it develops. 



Tea with BVP has everything I have ever asked for in a podcast. It has a well established academic (Bill Van Patten) talking about language teaching research. It has veryhigh production value. It also has a NNS female host. The main host is also a bilingual Spanish speaker so we get insight into MFL. It also provides a fascinating window into the American ELT scene (lost since the minimal pair podcast disappeared). With all this going for it, why don't I love Tea with BVP more? I puzzled over this issue and it seems to me there are a few things which stop me enjoying this show more. 

Firstly, it's not a podcast. Sure, it is released in podcast form but it is recorded as a radio show and a radio show it is. There are phone ins, there are awkward pauses when no one phones in, there are some quite 'chatty' sections and so on. Secondly, it's very strongly wedded to a certain ideological position. I've listened to the whole 4(?) series and haven't yet been able to work out what this position is. It seems to be something along the lines of 'Krashen and Chomsky are right about everything' (I jest, but only a bit). 

One of the frustrating things about the show for me is that ideas about teaching are presented as settled science. That is, that doing X or Y is the only way students will acquire language and that language is acquired through method Z. There is nothing wrong with having a position and arguing from that position per se, I just wonder if say Long, or Ellis, would agree with BVP's take on language teaching. As a teacher with scant knowledge of the research discussed it's hard to know what to think. 

The certainty with which certain views were espoused looked a little less convincing when, in a recent episode BVP gave some credence to the idea of learning styles. In the following episode he responded to listener who had written in to challenge him on this (not me, I promise) and his response was a little disappointing. Rather than say 'yes, I got it wrong, learning styles aren't real.' he stated that individual differences don't matter much in learning languages. 

Early on I wrote to the show and asked them if they would detail alternate views to the one espoused. I was hoping to find out what their position would be defined as and what other researchers think. The show is usually very good at responding to people's questions on twitter and the like. They thanked me for my email but unfortunately this hasn't happened yet.

Thirdly, related to the last point, they favour a teaching methodology called TPRS which I had never heard of. I kept thinking it was a mutant variant of TPR, but no, it's something completely different. There are also frequent references to ACTFL which again, I had never heard of. But, it is interesting to learn that despite doing essentially the same job as these people, we seem to inhabit complete different worlds. TEA with BVP is a high quality podcast, but, for a British ELT teacher not familiar with the world of ACTFL, it can be a frustrating listen a times. 






This is a new and quite interesting little podcast. What I particularly like about it is that it seems to be set in China. The TEFL scene can be dominated by Spain/UK based teachers and so it's quite interesting to get a podcast from somewhere else. The hosts are a Ross Thorburn, a British guy and  Tracy Yu, a Chinese woman

There are about 24 episodes now and it's been around for less than a year, so the output is pretty high. The episodes are also really short at around 15 minutes each time. They generally tackle very general interest, practical issues like, monitoring, autonomy and materials. The format is usually the hosts (and perhaps a guest) reflecting on these topics. In that sense it's similar to other TEFL podcasts, but the Chinese perspective is interesting. 


So that's it! If you hear about a TEFL podcast (oh gawd, not another one!) please let me know. 


Other reviews of podcasts 

part 1

Part 2


 



Thursday, 4 May 2017

Student Feedback dos and don'ts

Which of the following do you think has the biggest impact on 'student evaluation of teaching' (SET) feedback?
  1. How hard the course is 
  2. The grade the student gets 
  3. The teacher’s gender 
  4. The teacher’s personality 
  5. How ‘hot’ the teacher is 


Ready...SET...


There is a ton of research into SETs starting over 80 years ago (Clayson 2009) and including, as of 1990 over 2000 articles (Feldman in Felder 1992). The literature includes several meta-analyses and even one meta-analysis of meta-analyses (Wright & Jenkins-Guarnieri 2012). In short, it is a well-researched field. Since university professors' careers can depend on these evaluations, perhaps this isn't surprising. Despite the large body of research (or perhaps because of it?) the science is not settled (Spooren et al 2013). 

There are however some general observations which can be made, reasonably confidently, about the effect of certain variables on SETs. So according to the literature* which factors have the biggest effect on student feedback? What follows is my hand list of dos and don'ts to improve your student feedback.

Do be likeable!

One of the variables which correlates highly with positive student feedback is personality and there is a substantial relationship between a teacher’s personality and the feedback they will be given (Feldman 1986Cardy and Dobbins 1986, Williams and Ceci 1997). Foote et al suggest that “[instructors] who score highly on evaluations may do so not because they teach well, but simply because they get along well with students” (2003:17). One researcher writes that personality is such a strong predictor of SET results that "the SET instrument could be replaced with a personality inventory with little loss of predictive validity” (Clayson online). 

There also seems to be something of a Halo effect at work with SETs. Basically, one positive attribute (Good looks) may cause people believe other positive things about a person (they are trustworthy, for instance). This is the reason handsome criminals get shorter prison sentences for the same crime than less attractive ones. This means that student opinions of personality might colour other variables and subsequently ‘likeable’ teachers may be judged positively in areas unrelated to ‘likeability’, such as teaching ability or professionalism. 


Does attraction affect scores?
This is problematic because it means the feedback you get will be tainted by the students general opinion of you. The picture on the left shows some feedback I recently received. Clearly the student had a high opinion of my teaching. Ho-hum.

The last column asks how useful the virtual self-access centre (VASC) was, the student has written 'very useful'. Now, being the teacher of the course, I can say with some confidence that I said not a word about the VSAC nor did any part of the course use the VSAC. Studies seem to corroborate this phenomenon showing that students are more than happy, to report false information to either reward of punish teachers (Clayson & Haley 2011).It should be noted that the Halo effect also works in reverse, so whatever happens, don't be disliked! 


Do be hot! 

Company promotes bribery
There is evidence that teachers who are perceived to be physically attractive tend to score more highly than their plainer colleagues. Riniolo et al (2006) found a 0.8 advantage on a 5 point scale for ‘hot’ teachers. After analysing the ratemyprofessor.com website, where teachers can be given a ‘hot’ rating, Felton et al (2004) found that ‘sexy’ teachers generally rated more highly than ‘non-sexy’ teachers. The authors note:


If these findings reflect the thinking of American college students when they complete in-class student opinion surveys, then universities need to rethink the validity of student opinion surveys as a measure of teaching effectiveness (91).

Do be expressive!


Despite various methodological flaws, the landmark ‘Dr. Fox’ studies (Naftulin et al. 1973), created interest in the question of the validity of SETs and what exactly it is that students are assessing when they complete feedback. In this study (see the actual study in the video below) an actor lectured a group of medical students with a largely meaningless talk that he had learnt the previous day. The student were told the speaker, Myron Fox was an expert in 'game theory'. 





The actor’s expressiveness and charm was seemingly enough for him to receive positive feedback from three separate audiences. Later researchers showed that even the meaningless talk was unnecessary. Ambady & Rosenthal's (1993) “thin slice” study asked students to evaluate teachers based on a silent 15 second clip of them teaching. The authors found a remarkable similarity between the term-end evaluations and those made after watching the short clips. 15 silent seconds was enough time to give an 'accurate' evaluation of the teacher. 


Do be a man!



Russell is annoying, his class is boring 
Researchers tend to agree that gender plays a minor role in overall evaluation. That is, one gender is not consistently rated lower than the other. In fact, “when significant differences were found, they generally favoured the female teacher” (Feldman in Pounder 2007). So what does 'be a man' mean? Well, despite this seeming equality, different genders may be rated on the basis of stereotyped views of gender (Laube et al 2007). For example, the most highly scoring men were described as ‘funny’ whereas the lowest scoring men were ‘boring’ in contrast the highest scoring women were ‘caring’ whereas the lowest scoring were either 'too smart' or 'not smart enough' or were simply a ‘bitch’ (Sprague & Massoni 2005).


There is also the question of whether a male teacher has to work as hard to get a top SET score as a female teacher. Women may suffer from the ‘Ginger Rogers effect’. That is "Ginger Rogers, one-half of the famous dance-team of 1930s movies, had to do everything Fred Astaire did, only she had to do it backwards and in high heels" (Sprague & Massoni 2005:791).  


Do grade generously!


There is a reasonably strong correlation between the grade, expected or real, and the type of feedback a teacher gets. This correlation can be summarised thus, “to put it succinctly, university teachers can buy ratings with grades” (Hocutt in Pounder 2007:185). 

The highest rated prof on RateMyProfessor.com
Clayson (online) notes that in his research 50% of students asked, admitted purposefully either lowering or inflating feedback grades as retribution or reward, and adds that whether or not grades actually affect scores is perhaps less important than whether faculty believe this to be the case as the belief is potentially enough to alter the way grades are given. Pounder backs this up noting “many university teachers believe that lenient grading produces higher SET scores and they tend to act on this belief” (Pounder 2007:185). However, It should be noted though that this is something of a controversial area with a large number of studies finding no relation between SET score and grades. (see Aleamoni 1999)


And if this isn't enough...

Here are a few more killer tips taken from the literature (Pounder 2007)

Do
  • bribe students with food 
  • let students leave early 
  • praise the class on its ability before doing SETs 
  • do the SETs when the weak students are absent 
  • do a ‘fun activity’ before the SETs 
  • stay in the room 
  • teach small classes 
Don't 


Not convinced yet? 


Here's a satisfied customer's testimony. From a remarkable paper published under the pen name name "A Great Teacher". This teacher, faced with the prospect of losing his job over poor SETs decided to throw out his morals and aim for good ratings. He stopped being such a 'tough' teacher and 'sucked up' to the students instead, making the course easy and trying to build rapport with his students:
What were the results of my experiment? The consequences for learning were not good. Students did less well than expected even on deliberately easy quizzes. Their final exam papers proved to be among the worst I had seen in years. Most students displayed only a superficial knowledge of the material. It was clear that some had concluded that with a kinder, gentler me, one didn’t need to work as hard. Although the pedagogical consequences were poor, the results for me were great! My [SET] scores went through the roof (2010:495-6)
And so, armed with this information, you too can become an well-loved teacher. Alternatively, you can treat student feedback with the caution it probably deserves.   







* Seldin (2010) suggests “one can find empirical support for any common allegation pertaining to student ratings” (in Hughes and Pate 2013:50). It's also worth noting that all of this research was carried out (like much research) on American University students. THere has been very little research on carried on in this are on FL students.