Ryan Wiley

Determining the Efficacy Written Feedback

|

Ryan L. Wiley, Russell T. Rodrigo

Stamford International University, Bangkok, Thailand

ryan.wiley@stamford.edu, Russell.rodrigo@stamford.edu

Abstract

There is a wide body of literature showing that quality teacher feedback is directly related to academic success. What is not so clearly defined, however, is what exactly constitutes “quality” feedback, particularly when considering written corrective feedback strategies in ESL environments. Also unclear is whether or not established forms of feedback are equally as effective when applied in different cultural contexts. The aim of this study was to add to the existing body of knowledge associated with the efficacy of written corrective feedback and to examine its effectiveness with consideration of the Thai cultural context within which it was delivered. The findings of the study showed that indirect, coded, unfocused written corrective feedback was effective at improving the writing accuracy of Thai university students. It was also discovered that 52% of the 2718 writing errors marked for correction were semantic mistakes. The results of this study should help both foreign and local teachers choose written corrective feedback strategies when teaching in Thai higher education learning environments. It also calls for further research in regards to the possible connection between written semantic mistakes, L1 interference, and electronic translators. 

1. Introduction

            It is well proven in the literature that effective feedback contributes to successful student achievement (Davis, S. E., & Dargusch, J. M., 2015).  More than simple scores on formative evaluations, feedback includes adherence to accepted social practices and a responsibility for shared responsibilities between students and teachers (Davis, S. E., & Dargusch, J. M., 2015). As stated, the importance of feedback is well established. What feedback processes and procedures are most effective, however, is highly debated and not fully understood. With the established correlation between feedback and educational success, it is imperative that the most effective way of providing feedback is better understood.

            The effectiveness of providing corrective feedback to improve the writing accuracy of second language learners has been widely debated in the literature. Most notably, Truscott (1996, 1999, 2007) argued that providing written corrective feedback was not only ineffective, but, in fact, detrimental to second language learners working to improve writing accuracy. He went so far as to recommend abandoning the technique altogether (Truscott, 1996).

            Ferris (1999) subsequently argued that the Truscott’s analysis, of the studies by Kepner (1991), Semke (1984) and Sheppard (1992), which he used to support his argument, was overreaching and premature (Ferris, 1999). In his response to Ferris, Truscott (1999) accepted that the case should not be closed and that further research into what specific corrective feedback strategies were effective was warranted. Since these early debates, much new research has examined not just the overall effectiveness of corrective feedback, but many of the different strategies and techniques used to provide it.

2. Literature Review

            Early research completed by Robb et al. (1986), Fathman & Whalley (1990), Ashwell (2000), and Ferris & Roberts (2001) successfully proved that written corrective feedback, in various forms, was an effective way to improve writing accuracy (Storch, N., 2010). These early studies, however, were criticized for examining accuracy performance only in revised texts. As they were performed, these early studies did not prove that actual learning had taken place, only that students could use written corrective feedback to edit and improve second drafts.

            To address this problem, Truscott & Hsu (2008) completed a study that examined the accuracy of students’ writing not just on the rewrite of a first work, but also on the accuracy of the first draft of a subsequent work. The analyzed work was a narrative text. Half of the class received indirect feedback in the form of underlined mistakes, and the other half of the class received no feedback at all (Truscott, Hsu, 2008). As expected, the students who received feedback were successful at decreasing the number of errors they made in their final drafts (Truscott, Hsu, 2008). In a new assignment, completed one week later, however, the subjects error rates were nearly identical, showing that the decreased error rate in the revision of the previous assignment was not evidence that the indirect feedback improved learners writing abilities over time (Truscott, Hsu, 2008). This was in direct contradiction to the results of a previous study by Bitchener et al. (2005) that showed direct, explicit feedback and direct, explicit feedback with teacher/student meetings were both effective methods to improve writing accuracy over time. From these contradictory examples, it was clear that the question was not whether or not written corrective feedback was effective, but exactly what types of feedback are effective.

            To continue narrowing the focus of corrective feedback research, Kassim & Ng (2014) produced a study testing the results of focused and unfocused feedback. Focused corrective feedback occurs when teachers or researchers provide corrective feedback to a limited number of writing errors, for example simple past tense, prepositions, and articles (Ellis et al., 2008; Ellis, 2009, Lee 2009). Unfocused feedback, on the other hand, occurs when all types of grammar mistakes are marked for feedback. (Ellis et al., 2008; Ellis, 2009; Lee 2009). Kassim & Ng’s (2014) study compared the effects of subjects receiving no feedback, focused feedback, and unfocused feedback. The study showed a significant difference between the group who received no feedback and the groups who received either focused or unfocused feedback (Kassim & Ng, 2014). Both groups that received feedback showed higher post feedback grammar accuracy when compared to the group that received no feedback. However, the study did not show a significant difference between the groups who received focused and unfocused feedback (Kassim & Ng, 2014), providing conflicting data to Ellis’ beliefs that focused feedback would enhance learning (Ellis, 2009).   

            Aghajanloo, et al., (2016) narrowed the focus of research even further by combining and comparing combinations of direct, indirect, focused, and unfocused corrective feedback. Specifically, they compared the effectiveness of focused direct, unfocused direct, focused indirect, and unfocused indirect corrective feedback (Aghajanloo, et al., 2016). Their study included a pre-test administered before the term and a post-test administered at the completion of the term (18 teaching sessions). The research showed that all combinations of corrective feedback significantly improved the writing accuracy of their subjects. It also showed that unfocused direct feedback was the most effective technique (Aghajanloo, et al., 2016). This point is far from agreed upon, however, with many, such as Bitchner & Knoch, 2008; Ferris, 1995: and Lalande, 1982, arguing that the process of solving one’s own errors, inherent in indirect feedback, is beneficial to the learning process.

Significance of the Study

            While past research has thoroughly examined the effectiveness of different strategies for delivering corrective feedback, it is still not clear which methods are most effective. In addition, the greater body of literature focuses on the effectiveness of individual or combined feedback strategies with little consideration of the cultural context within which they were delivered. In this study, the researchers aim to add to the body of corrective feedback knowledge while also focusing on the types and frequencies of errors made, considering them in light of their cultural context, Thai university students. In order to do this, a 12-week study was administered to Thai university students in a B1 CEFR level English writing class. The data provided from this study will be helpful for future comparative culture studies and for local educational professionals searching for the most effective ways to deliver written corrective feedback.

Research Questions

  1. To what extent does indirect, coded, unfocused written corrective feedback improve writing accuracy for B1 CEFR level Thai ESL students?
  2. Which syntactic, semantic, and morphological errors do B1 CEFR level Thai ESL students commit most often?

Definitions of Terms

  1. Written corrective feedback is feedback written on essay assignments and returned to students for the purpose error correction
  2. Direct feedback is feedback that identifies mistakes and shows students exactly how to correct them
  3. Indirect feedback is feedback that identifies mistakes but does not show students how to correct them.
  4. Coded feedback is indirect feedback that uses codes to identify mistakes (ie. “s/v” identifies a subject/verb agreement mistake).
  5. Focused feedback is feedback that covers a limited number or errors (ie. only direct articles, subject/verb agreement, and preposition mistakes will be noted)
  6. Unfocused feedback is feedback that identifies all mistakes in a written work
  7. Syntactic errors are errors in sentence structure (ie. fragments, run-on sentences, and comma splices)
  8. Semantic errors are errors in word choice (ie. I ride my car to work)
  9. Morphological errors are errors in word formation (ie. Run is healthy.)

3. Methods

3.1 Learning Environment and Participants

            This study occurred in a bilingual university in Bangkok, Thailand. In this program, students complete the first half of their degrees in their native language, Thai. At the same time, they are enrolled in an intensive English program. At the completion of this intensive English program, participants switch to studying their undergraduate courses purely in English. The 16 participants in this study were all native Thai speakers enrolled in the abovementioned bilingual undergraduate program. They were 2nd year university students, and their English course was a 12-week B1 CEFR level Reading and Writing class. The researcher was the instructor for this course.  

3.2 Design

            6 works were analyzed in the study, 2 written homework assignments that each had 1st and 2nd drafts and 2 in-class writing assessments, a mid-term and final examination. Table 1 below displays the errors analyzed for each work.

Table 1 Writing Errors Marked for Feedback

SyntacticMorphologicalSemantic
Fragments Run-on sentences Comma splices Word orderNoun/verb form Noun/adjective form Subject/verb agreement Verb tense Singular/plural Verb/gerundArticles Prepositions Extra words Wrong word

Data Collection

3.21 Writing Tasks 1 & 2

            Writing task 1 was a 4-paragraph cause and effect essay. The participants first received classroom instruction in regards to the purpose and structure of the writing genre. After that, in class, participants completed brainstorming and mind mapping activities and created outlines for their written works. The written works were then completed as homework assignments. Upon completion, participants handed the assignments in to the researcher, who then provided indirect, coded, unfocused feedback using an error correction symbol sheet (appendix 1).

            The types and frequencies of syntactic, semantic, and morphological errors made were classified and documented and the assignments were handed back to the participants. The participants then used the feedback to re-write the assignments. They were handed them back to the researcher 1 week later. This 2nd draft was used as writing task 2, and, again, the types and frequencies of syntactic, semantic, and morphological errors were classified and recorded. At this stage, a final grade was given for the assignments.

3.22 Writing Task 3

            Writing task 3 was an in-class, hand-written mid-term examination. On this exam, students were tasked with writing the same type of cause and effect essay they produced for writing task 1. A previously unannounced topic was assigned on exam day. During the exam, students were not allowed to use any electronic devices or other syntactic, semantic, and morphological aids or references. The exams were collected, and the types and frequencies of syntactic, semantic, and morphological errors made were classified and documented. A grade was given without the benefit of a re-write.

3.23 Writing Tasks 4 & 5

            Writing task 4 was a compare and contrast essay, and the process of learning, preparing, producing, receiving feedback, and rewriting happened in the same way as it did for writing task 1 (see 3.21 writing task 1 above). The prewriting tasks were done in class with the help of the instructor. The production of the piece was completed as homework and then handed in to the researcher. The types and frequencies of syntactic, semantic, and morphological errors made were again classified and documented. Indirect, coded, unfocused written corrective was given. The essays were rewritten as writing task 5 and handed back to the instructor. The types and frequencies of syntactic, semantic, and morphological errors made were again classified and documented.

3.24 Writing task 6

            Writing task 6 was an in-class, hand-written final examination. As with writing task 3, the mid-term examination, the final examination required students to produce the same type of essay they had just learnt, in this case, the abovementioned compare and contrast essay that was writing task 4. Again, they were not allowed to use syntactic, semantic, and morphological aids or references, and final grades were given without the benefit of feedback and a re-write.  

4. Findings

            Analysis involved the types and frequencies of errors made, measured using two quantitate variables: total error frequency by error type and comparative chronological accuracy performance. To ascertain the total error frequency by error type, 2718 errors originating from 96 written works by 16 students were identified, categorized and documented. The total errors by error type were then calculated as a percentage of the total number of errors (see table 1).

            To find chronological accuracy performance, changes in writing accuracy in written works were compared. The number of errors made in assignments completed later in the course were taken as a percentage of the number of errors made in assignments completed earlier in the course. Where errors are calculated, A = assignment, D = draft, MT = mid-term exam and FT = final exam. The calculations were displayed as either positive or negative changes in accuracy.

Table 2 Error Rate Calculations

Calculation 1 (table 3): (A1D2—A1D1) / A1D2 Calculation 2 (table 3): (A2D2 – A2D1) / A2D2 Calculation 3 (table 4): (A2D1 – A1D1) / A2D1 Calculation 4 (table 4): (A2D2 – A1D2) / A2D2 Calculation 5 (table 5): [(A2D1+A2D2) – (A1D1+A1D2)] / (A2D1+A2D2) Calculation 6 (table 6): (FE-ME) / FE

Research Question 1

            This study’s primary research question was, “To what extent does indirect, coded, unfocused written coded feedback improve writing accuracy for CEFR B1 level Thai ESL students?” This question was answered by making six comparisons and calculations. The first comparisons were between the 1st and 2nd drafts of assignment 1 and the 1st and 2nd drafts of assignment 2.

Table 3 Draft Comparisons

 Assignment 1 Draft 1Assignment 1 Draft 2accuracy improvementAssignment 2 Draft 1Assignment 2 Draft 2accuracy improvement
Writing Error Totals53430144%56121861%

            There were 534 combined errors made in the 1st drafts assignment 1 and 301 combined errors made in the 2nd drafts of assignment 1. The difference was 233 errors between drafts, a 44% improvement in accuracy between drafts 1 and 2 of assignment 1. In the 1st drafts of assignment 2 there was a combined total of 561 errors. In the 2nd drafts of assignment 2, there was a combined total of 218 errors, a 61% improvement in writing accuracy.  The chart also shows a 44% accuracy improvement between drafts in assignment 1 and a 61% improvement in accuracy between drafts in assignment 2, a 17% improvement in participants’ abilities to improve accuracy from one draft to the next using indirect unfocused coded feedback. Next, accuracy improvement from the first drafts of assignment 1 to assignment 2 was measured.

Table 4 Assignment Comparisons

 Assignment 1 Draft 1Assignment 2 Draft 1accuracy improvementAssignment 1 Draft 2Assignment 2 Draft 2accuracy improvement
Writing Error Totals534561-5%30121828%

            In the 1st draft of assignment 1, 534 errors were made. In the 1st draft of assignment 2, 561 errors were made, a 5% decrease in writing accuracy. There were 301 errors in the 2nd drafts of assignment 1 and 218 errors in the 2nd drafts of assignment 2, a 28% increase in writing accuracy between second drafts. The researchers next calculated the accuracy improvement of both drafts of assignments 1 and 2.

Table 5 Total Mistakes by Assignment

 Assignment 1 Draft 1 & 2Assignment 2 Drafts 1 & 2Accuracy Improvement
Writing Error Totals8357797%

            The combined number of errors made in drafts 1 and 2 of assignment 1 was 835, and the combined number of errors in drafts 1 and 2 of assignment 2 was 779. There were 56 fewer total mistakes made in assignment 2, a 7% increase in overall writing accuracy. Next, the mid-term and final examinations were compared.

Table 6 Mid-Term & Final Exams

 Mid-Term ExamFinal ExamAccuracy Improvement
Writing Error Totals62547923%

There were a total of 625 writing errors on the mid-term exam and 479 errors made on the final exam, a 23% increase in writing accuracy from the mid-term to the final exam.

Research Question 2

This study’s secondary research questions was, “Which syntactic, semantic, and morphological errors do CEFR B1 level Thai ESL students commit most often?

Table 7 Errors and Percentages

Error TypesTotal Number of ErrorsError Percentages
wrong word49818%
singular / plural45117%
articles41815%
prepositions26010%
extra word2329%
subject/verb agreement1455%
tense1435%
gerund / verb1415%
fragment1184%
run on sentence974%
word order733%
noun / adjective (WF)592%
comma splice542%
noun / verb (WF)291%

            As table 5 (above) shows, the semantic mistake of using the wrong word accounted for 18% of total errors made. The morphological error, improper usage of the singular and plural forms, was the second most frequent error (17%), and another semantic mistake, the inappropriate use of articles, was the third most common error at 15%. Those three categories accounted for 50% of the 2718 errors made.

Table 8 Errors by Category

 Total Number of ErrorsError Percentages
Semantic140852%
Morphological82330%
Syntactic48718%

52% of the errors made were semantic, 30% were morphological, and 18% were syntactic.

5. Discussions

            Early research completed by Robb et al. (1986), Fathman & Whalley (1999), Ashwell (2000), and Ferris & Roberts (2001), showed that written corrective feedback could be used to improve writing accuracy from 1st to 2nd drafts of single assignments (Storch, N., 2010). In this study, there was a 44% improvement between draft 1 and draft 2 on assignment 1 and a 61% increase in writing accuracy from draft 1 to draft 2 of assignment number 2. These results support the data provided by Robb et al. (1986), Fathman & Whalley (1999), Ashwell (2000), and Ferris & Roberts (2001), and others, and suggests that written indirect, coded, unfocused written corrective feedback is an effective way for Thai students to increase writing accuracy from draft to draft on individual assignments. Furthermore, the jump from a 44% draft-to-draft accuracy improvement on assignment 1 to a 61% draft- to-draft accuracy improvement on assignment 2 suggests that legitimate transfer took place, resulting in an increased ability for Thai students to use indirect, coded, unfocused feedback to improve writing accuracy over time.   

            Truscott & Hsu’s 2008 study showed that using written corrective feedback for two assignments written one week apart did not improve students’ writing accuracy. Bitchner et al. (2005) completed a study that showing that written corrective feedback was an effective way to increase writing accuracy from assignment to assignment. This study also produced conflicting results. The first draft of assignment 2 had 7% more errors than the first draft of assignment 1, suggesting that the indirect, coded, unfocused, written feedback was not an effective way of improving writing accuracy over time. In contrast, however, there was a 23% increase in accuracy between the week 6 mid term exam and the week 12 final examination, suggesting that the indirect, coded, unfocused written feedback was an effective way of improving writing accuracy. The latter evidence is especially compelling given that fact that both exams were given in controlled environments with no help from electronic devices.

            In regards to our secondary research question, “Which syntactic, semantic, and morphological errors do CEFR B1 level Thai ESL students commit most often” Camilleri (2004) found, in an examination of 100 ESL essays, that the main cause of writing errors was direct translation from native languages into target languages. In this study, the most common error was using the wrong word. Notably, many of the wrong words that were used had no relation or similarity in meaning to the word that should have been used, suggesting that students were using their own knowledge or electronic devices to directly translate Thai words in to English, seeming to confirm the finding of Camilleri (2004). In addition, many of the syntactic errors showed little relation to proper English syntax. It did not appear to the researcher that students were trying and failing to use English syntax they had learnt, but rather that they were translating directly from Thai, even at the syntax level, again supporting conclusions drawn by Camilleri (2008)

6. Recommendations

            A wide body of literature has proven that written corrective feedback is an effective way to increase writing accuracy. This study, while having showed a decrease in accuracy in one writing comparison, found evidence in 5 others that using indirect, coded, unfocused written corrective feedback was an effective way to improve the writing accuracy of Thai university ESL students at the B1 CEFR level. In light of that, teachers in this marketplace should continue or begin using these feedback methods.

            In addition, the effectiveness of other individual and combinations of written corrective feedback types need to be used and studied in Thai cultural contexts. We know that feedback helps; we do not know exactly which type or combination of types provide the best results for Thai ESL students. To further explore this, the researcher suggests that academics in the Thai ESL field continue to replicate studies completed in other cultural settings in the Thai demographic.

            Finally, while natural L1 interference, as described by Camilleri (2008), does affect the writing accuracy of second language learners, this researcher suspects that the problem is being compounded by electronic devices, both in that they discourage students from learning the new vocabulary needed to express themselves and in that they provide direct translations of words that are oftentimes incorrect, which very well may account for the fact that using the wrong word was the most common mistake made in the 96 written works analyzed in this study. Further research in regards to the usefulness of electronic translators in university environments is needed.    

7. References

Aghajanloo, K., Mobini, F., & Khosravi, R. (2016). The Effect of Teachers’ Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) Types on Intermediate EFL Learners’ Writing Performance. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 7(3), 28-37. Retrieved from http://www.journals.aiac.org.au/index.php/alls/article/view/2261

Ashwell, T.  (2000).  Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method?  Journal of Second Language Writing, 9 (3): 227- 257. 

Bitchener, J. Young, S. & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227–58.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research Journal, 12(3), 409-431

Camilleri, G. (2004). Negative Transfer in Maltese Students’ Writing in English. Journal of Maltese Education Research, 2(1), 3-12.

Davis, S. E., & Dargusch, J. M. (2015). Feedback, Iterative Processing and Academic Trust – Teacher Education Students’ Perceptions of Assessment Feedback. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n1.10

Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. English Language Teaching Journal, 63, 97-107

Ellis, R. Sheen, Y. Murakami, M. & Takashima, H. (2008).  The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as foreign language context. System. 36: 353–371.

Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178–190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. R. (1995a). Can advanced ESL students be taught to correct their most serious and frequent errors? CATESOL Journal, 8, 41-62.

Ferris, Dana. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing. 8. 1-11. 10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6.

Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.

Kassim, A. & Ng, L.L. (2014). The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue in Enhancing Written Corrective Feedback Efficacy. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 16-30.

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. doi:10.2307/328724

Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: an experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140-149.

Lee, Soon Yeun, “The Efficacy of Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback on Intermediate-high ESL Learners’ Writing Accuracy” (2009). All Theses and Dissertations. 2304. 
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/2304

Storch, N. (2010). Critical Feedback on Written Corrective Feedback Research. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29-46. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119181

Semke Ph.D, Harriet. (1984). Effects of the Red Pen. Foreign Language Annals. 17. 195 – 202. 10.1111/j.1944-9720.1984.tb01727.x.

Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83–93.

Truscott, J. (1996). The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes. Language Learning,46(2), 327-369. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x

Truscott, J. (1999). The case for ‘‘the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes’’: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111–122.

Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing,16(4), 255-272. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003

Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292–305.

Bootstrap is the Most Popular HTML, CSS, and JS Framework

|

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam a fringilla elit, eu mattis arcu. Curabitur augue augue, scelerisque sit amet varius eget, tristique at nisl. In euismod suscipit tristique. Nulla sollicitudin pretium massa sit amet tristique.

Aenean porta quam quis tempus posuere. Integer tempor, elit in auctor scelerisque, arcu augue rhoncus mauris, et hendrerit sem tellus vitae eros. Nulla feugiat ultrices posuere. Nullam aliquet dolor orci. Curabitur tincidunt sem et libero dignissim, sed molestie felis ultricies. Phasellus malesuada tellus vitae eros bibendum, nec ultricies massa sollicitudin. Etiam justo neque, faucibus quis urna interdum, interdum rutrum massa. Mauris et velit ac dolor luctus fringilla. Integer in mattis dui, eget eleifend mauris. Fusce sagittis ipsum nec est finibus, vitae congue nunc elementum. Morbi imperdiet nisl sem, at commodo leo posuere a. Maecenas eu laoreet lorem. Aenean fringilla cursus augue, sed mollis dui.

Vivamus volutpat auctor metus, venenatis ornare mi dictum sit amet. Aliquam erat volutpat.

Praesent ac quam sed magna gravida interdum. Vivamus sed nunc lobortis, tempor ante ut, gravida nibh. Praesent sed euismod odio. Maecenas dui dui, euismod quis lobortis quis, dignissim ut eros. Curabitur cursus lacinia sollicitudin. Aenean vitae erat imperdiet, egestas nisi non, placerat sapien. In nec commodo justo. Nunc posuere lacinia neque eu malesuada. Sed lacus lacus, tincidunt id faucibus eget, sagittis sed enim. Nunc nec dapibus odio.

One Framework, Every Device

|

Nunc malesuada odio vel libero luctus eleifend. Suspendisse pretium, orci ut elementum dictum, mauris urna interdum massa, non tempus magna mauris a odio. Aenean ipsum ante, varius facilisis ipsum ut, convallis ultrices quam. Pellentesque imperdiet condimentum est nec ullamcorper. Ut sed libero urna. Pellentesque faucibus nisi quis tellus tempor euismod at vitae quam. Integer facilisis eget sem eu congue. In ullamcorper massa sit amet massa sodales condimentum.

Aliquam condimentum est iaculis egestas congue. Sed ultricies rutrum varius. In ac pellentesque lorem, eget viverra tellus. Aenean posuere, metus non consectetur gravida, leo leo ornare metus, vel varius augue nibh in lectus. Proin in enim scelerisque, eleifend ipsum sed, porta tellus. Nulla facilisi. Proin porttitor in eros ut porttitor. In aliquam, lorem varius hendrerit consequat, nisi ante efficitur lectus, eu ornare justo nibh vel diam. Nullam faucibus urna tortor, ac porta metus porta mollis. Suspendisse euismod non eros at porttitor. Cras quis ipsum nec augue blandit tempor. Quisque luctus lacus justo, id faucibus sem fermentum a. Sed quis enim faucibus odio euismod mollis. Aliquam laoreet feugiat pellentesque. Mauris nunc sapien, dictum at eros nec, mollis vulputate odio.

Nulla condimentum sem dui, vel tristique leo dignissim in. Praesent quis suscipit diam, in consequat odio. Proin rhoncus auctor felis vel sollicitudin. Phasellus euismod justo sit amet nisl ultrices, dignissim mollis nisi blandit. Integer tempor varius risus at consequat. Donec aliquet sit amet neque in suscipit. Etiam nec neque fermentum lorem pellentesque malesuada eu ac sem.

Ut posuere risus et eros vehicula bibendum. Quisque velit velit, scelerisque a augue vel, aliquet commodo massa.

Ut aliquam elit tellus, at consequat lacus egestas et. Vivamus porta iaculis est, at molestie odio facilisis quis. Sed vel tellus ornare, mollis arcu sed, rhoncus mi. Sed sollicitudin ultrices ipsum, sed blandit dui hendrerit quis. Aliquam nec velit at nibh venenatis faucibus et sollicitudin ligula. Nullam sed luctus enim, maximus elementum metus. Proin magna ante, dignissim a interdum nec, suscipit at mi. Curabitur bibendum mollis sem commodo malesuada. Cras bibendum arcu vel leo posuere placerat. Cras dolor leo, sagittis ac quam eu, dignissim mollis ipsum. Curabitur ornare condimentum urna sit amet porttitor. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nulla luctus, dolor id porta suscipit, elit augue vestibulum orci, at volutpat est ante ac justo. Donec velit quam, maximus sed dignissim et, ullamcorper at ligula.

Designed for Everyone, Everywhere

|

Aliquam tempus eros sit amet pretium accumsan. Nullam hendrerit massa justo, quis imperdiet magna gravida sit amet. Aenean viverra odio vel eros feugiat, vitae fringilla nisi blandit. Aenean tincidunt eleifend felis. Vivamus blandit arcu ligula, eu dignissim urna fermentum sit amet. Curabitur porttitor arcu quis mi faucibus, et accumsan est tempus. Curabitur lobortis iaculis posuere. Nullam nec lacus non justo tempor hendrerit. Phasellus eu erat posuere, ornare enim sed, elementum felis. Maecenas fermentum ut tellus non congue.

Vestibulum posuere velit in nisl laoreet, ac tincidunt nisi bibendum. Proin viverra id ligula eget elementum.

Ut pulvinar varius porta. Mauris ipsum ex, aliquet a vehicula in, ultricies in enim. Nunc ultricies orci sed egestas maximus. Nunc in placerat lorem. Cras eleifend eros eget consectetur convallis. Nulla at elit a odio varius volutpat eget vel tellus. Quisque ornare quam mi, in vehicula erat imperdiet nec. Fusce rhoncus, mauris eget convallis tincidunt, quam felis consequat odio, non pulvinar diam est at ex. Maecenas tortor lorem, consequat sit amet mattis et, porttitor eu purus.

Fusce dictum volutpat leo, vulputate tristique mi egestas ut. Ut eget nunc ante. Duis in est eget dolor pretium sollicitudin. Curabitur pretium metus sed quam tristique, ac varius nulla feugiat. Donec cursus euismod arcu, sit amet imperdiet libero viverra interdum. Etiam rhoncus mi auctor, vulputate massa a, mattis odio. Sed blandit sem eget erat euismod, a ornare quam cursus.

Aliquam vel varius quam. Aenean sed pulvinar leo, quis ultrices nunc. Proin facilisis nunc eget dapibus eleifend. Phasellus vitae lobortis urna. Integer porttitor posuere risus, quis feugiat felis ornare a. Donec rutrum ut odio id fermentum. Donec felis dolor, tempor sed pharetra in, interdum id ligula. Aenean maximus odio urna, sit amet vehicula mi imperdiet dictum.

Duis feugiat tempus eleifend. Quisque accumsan auctor ligula, id condimentum ex feugiat ut. Aenean eget viverra dolor. Aenean vestibulum a enim ut faucibus. Sed congue nisi ac ex fringilla iaculis. Donec a porttitor turpis, et eleifend tellus. Morbi nec iaculis lacus.

An Introduction To PostCSS

|

Vestibulum posuere velit in nisl laoreet, ac tincidunt nisi bibendum. Proin viverra id ligula eget elementum. Cras cursus tellus ut efficitur feugiat. Maecenas blandit massa eu ligula tempus dictum. Quisque congue lorem vel sollicitudin molestie. Morbi nec ex quis nulla euismod convallis. Ut nisi turpis, mattis in lobortis a, finibus sit amet felis. Nullam rutrum orci non dui porta ullamcorper. Donec fermentum blandit nibh et vestibulum. Proin congue nunc a interdum semper. Morbi mattis commodo eros. Praesent commodo felis aliquam est porttitor laoreet.

Nunc pulvinar bibendum enim accumsan viverra. Sed rutrum condimentum purus, sit amet dignissim ipsum malesuada eleifend. Morbi vulputate suscipit nunc. Phasellus orci est, imperdiet ac nulla eget, iaculis vulputate est. Aenean nisi sem, euismod quis ex eu, ultricies interdum libero. Mauris et fringilla ante. Fusce sodales lobortis orci. Donec leo libero, vulputate a viverra et, ultricies eget lectus. Integer non ipsum luctus, feugiat tortor vel, pharetra lacus. Donec non odio eu mi tempor aliquet quis ac massa. Nam nec suscipit erat, sit amet scelerisque justo. Praesent interdum scelerisque leo eget cursus. Vivamus congue dolor ac est porttitor, at ultricies purus scelerisque.

Duis feugiat tempus eleifend. Quisque accumsan auctor ligula, id condimentum ex feugiat ut. Aenean eget viverra dolor.

Pellentesque imperdiet ultrices tortor, nec consectetur libero mollis in. Praesent risus magna, ornare ut lorem vel, accumsan faucibus nunc. Fusce vitae risus facilisis, scelerisque velit quis, aliquam mi. Curabitur vitae viverra purus, non scelerisque lacus. Pellentesque interdum ullamcorper porta. Suspendisse id tellus elementum, suscipit ante sed, fermentum velit. Morbi sed est vitae enim ultrices ultricies. Sed sollicitudin lorem quis scelerisque pulvinar. Cras eu diam posuere, scelerisque purus a, auctor libero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quisque molestie ligula justo, ac varius lectus semper at. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.

Original and Innovative Web Layouts

|

Quisque neque libero, bibendum vitae sollicitudin aliquam, euismod vitae metus. Nam et felis tristique, elementum metus ut, consectetur arcu. Nulla nisl justo, malesuada ac lacus id, fringilla semper ipsum. Quisque ex turpis, pulvinar eget sodales at, aliquam ut ante. Mauris volutpat sollicitudin dolor. Nulla facilisi. Nulla purus leo, pellentesque sit amet finibus vitae, imperdiet sed lorem. Aenean diam nulla, sagittis vitae sapien eget, pretium bibendum mauris. Proin vel odio non est finibus lobortis. Suspendisse tempor urna ultrices metus tincidunt, vel luctus ligula congue. Sed vitae nisl nibh. Phasellus posuere felis id aliquam feugiat. Aenean bibendum facilisis massa, id dignissim risus suscipit in.

Etiam tempus erat sed massa blandit, sit amet commodo velit suscipit. Sed fringilla efficitur libero vel tincidunt. Donec dapibus malesuada nisl porttitor placerat. Vestibulum quis nisi velit. Phasellus facilisis urna in tincidunt tempor. Pellentesque id metus sed neque blandit ultricies. Nam id imperdiet sem, consequat mollis massa.

Proin iaculis a velit sed semper. Suspendisse potenti. Integer hendrerit in libero dapibus tempor. Pellentesque eget laoreet mi, vehicula congue arcu. Donec viverra lorem et luctus ornare. Cras viverra lacus sem, ut varius nisl auctor eu. Fusce ullamcorper urna ut malesuada finibus. Nam sed scelerisque velit. Nam fringilla dapibus laoreet. Donec commodo eu dolor vel tempor. Phasellus mi lorem, congue non lacus id, faucibus lobortis dui.

Maecenas eget tempor purus, sed faucibus mi. Nam nibh ante, varius eget hendrerit in, hendrerit vitae neque. In sit amet euismod velit. Maecenas hendrerit leo eget orci eleifend ullamcorper. Fusce efficitur velit ut dui euismod, vel ultrices metus consequat. Aenean vehicula ipsum magna, vehicula egestas nisl ultrices in. Aliquam id suscipit felis, nec suscipit turpis.

Creative and Innovative Navigation Designs

|

Aliquam vitae malesuada tellus, vel posuere nibh. Sed vitae nisi vel ante porta gravida. Integer tincidunt suscipit nibh vel ornare. Sed at placerat diam, quis pharetra nibh. Pellentesque in nisl massa. Fusce magna augue, vehicula quis ipsum facilisis, convallis tincidunt dolor. Maecenas vestibulum aliquet erat vitae finibus. Mauris mauris velit, consequat at tempus sollicitudin, condimentum quis nisl. Etiam auctor suscipit felis at laoreet. Duis laoreet laoreet purus, nec auctor dolor dictum in. Donec vitae congue ligula. Fusce dictum mauris est, eu dignissim magna tincidunt quis.

Vivamus venenatis vulputate ante, sit amet sodales dolor aliquet vitae. In gravida lacus nisl, nec ullamcorper dui rhoncus a. Nullam facilisis vel urna non hendrerit. Fusce mattis nec felis vel aliquam. Proin porttitor sapien sed sapien congue, ut porta ipsum vehicula. Nullam at elit sed massa volutpat pellentesque. Integer vitae pulvinar lacus, nec luctus neque. Suspendisse ullamcorper tincidunt sem, in aliquet mauris congue ac.

Phasellus aliquet arcu efficitur, lobortis enim ac, pretium dui. Praesent id felis ut dui iaculis pulvinar. Nam efficitur consectetur orci et pellentesque. Nulla aliquam massa id mi interdum iaculis eget sed nulla. Donec iaculis ipsum at ipsum eleifend, sed dictum lorem placerat. Praesent ac diam enim. Fusce scelerisque diam eu tellus condimentum condimentum. Donec ut orci viverra orci malesuada porttitor quis quis nisi. Phasellus venenatis in neque ac mollis. Aliquam nec nibh dignissim, tincidunt orci quis, ultrices turpis. Nulla a eros eget arcu ultricies efficitur. Suspendisse viverra blandit lorem, at accumsan orci scelerisque a. Donec feugiat ante in lectus faucibus ornare. Mauris ac ex id eros lobortis ornare nec in sapien.

Suspendisse faucibus ut magna vel tempus. Maecenas elit odio, iaculis ut lobortis ac, viverra at felis. Aenean consectetur interdum ante ut dictum.

Donec sagittis nibh ut lorem finibus aliquet. Mauris gravida, elit sed luctus viverra, leo velit faucibus elit, ut consectetur erat diam in arcu. Integer tempor magna suscipit mi sollicitudin, quis congue lorem cursus. Curabitur a ultricies mauris. Aenean nec placerat nisl, scelerisque commodo risus. Integer scelerisque turpis a urna luctus, sit amet lacinia magna viverra. Maecenas et varius turpis. Sed imperdiet nisi eget risus pharetra feugiat.

Navigation for Mega-Sites

|

Suspendisse elementum semper elit sit amet feugiat. Phasellus dictum metus et eros porta fermentum. Nunc vel elit at quam molestie euismod et sit amet sem. Phasellus id iaculis tellus, sit amet aliquet ex. Vestibulum ipsum magna, convallis nec ornare sit amet, tincidunt quis elit. Aliquam efficitur, est a gravida viverra, ipsum mauris pharetra neque, sit amet ultrices dolor leo eu tortor. Praesent bibendum sem ut luctus euismod. Donec vitae lobortis sem. Etiam cursus aliquam sodales. Etiam risus dui, aliquet id convallis at, volutpat ut ex. Mauris vitae tortor fringilla, egestas turpis at, ornare ante. Mauris et quam elementum, posuere tellus a, ultrices dolor. Etiam aliquet dictum lobortis. Suspendisse sagittis, sapien quis eleifend scelerisque, velit nisl volutpat ante, ut molestie lacus massa et nulla.

Fusce efficitur velit ut dui euismod, vel ultrices metus consequat. Aenean vehicula ipsum magna, vehicula egestas nisl ultrices in. Aliquam id suscipit felis, nec suscipit turpis.

Donec scelerisque vehicula tempus. Aenean ac scelerisque sem, ac tincidunt quam. Duis mattis ipsum non arcu luctus sagittis. Proin laoreet lectus mi. Nulla facilisi. Sed sit amet maximus mi. Sed iaculis id orci in congue. Mauris a interdum est, non condimentum libero. Curabitur ac aliquet nunc. Aenean eleifend dui ipsum. Pellentesque quam odio, ultricies ut nisi et, placerat tincidunt augue.

Phasellus viverra sapien non luctus venenatis. Nulla vestibulum metus orci, et mollis neque molestie ac. Praesent vitae imperdiet tortor, non finibus ante. Suspendisse potenti. Donec sagittis velit nisi, quis pretium felis elementum id. Etiam feugiat arcu at urna faucibus, nec sodales ligula dapibus. Nam ullamcorper augue ac semper luctus. Nunc vel enim at velit tristique molestie vel et tellus. Sed mauris tortor, dictum vitae odio sit amet, malesuada pharetra massa. Nullam justo lectus, blandit sit amet fermentum vitae, laoreet nec purus. Cras non magna nunc. Integer laoreet metus in tortor sagittis scelerisque. Proin sem mauris, blandit eget felis et, mattis auctor dui. Proin convallis congue nisi, sed rutrum eros viverra non.

Front-End Challenge Accepted: CSS 3D Cube

|

Sed bibendum turpis magna, a interdum tellus lobortis scelerisque. Curabitur eget sapien semper, consectetur ipsum et, tempor dui. In egestas tortor eu egestas vestibulum. Curabitur aliquam mattis quam, vel lacinia augue ullamcorper et. Nam auctor laoreet porttitor. Mauris tincidunt iaculis euismod. Curabitur convallis eget quam ac bibendum. Nam maximus varius nisi elementum volutpat. Maecenas aliquet dignissim porta. Curabitur rutrum tortor vitae odio malesuada consequat. Nulla non condimentum lectus. Fusce arcu felis, volutpat vel ligula vitae, malesuada ornare eros. Curabitur mollis velit ut mauris facilisis ultrices. Nulla facilisi.

Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Quisque id dui a mauris lacinia tempus.

Pellentesque lectus diam, pulvinar nec ultricies sed, commodo sit amet risus. Donec a libero volutpat, finibus magna at, vulputate justo. Suspendisse nec rhoncus dui. Integer eros nisi, elementum vitae eros a, blandit ultricies ex. Sed ligula dui, auctor facilisis justo eu, hendrerit semper turpis. Proin sit amet posuere tortor, non feugiat arcu. Mauris scelerisque id risus eget euismod. Fusce tincidunt iaculis nunc, sed luctus ipsum auctor eu. Aliquam maximus ornare vestibulum. Donec vel est nec massa finibus vulputate vitae sed libero.

Proin semper euismod ante, sed blandit nisl malesuada efficitur. In placerat congue eros vel feugiat. Aenean gravida neque quam, a dignissim quam pulvinar eu. Nunc quis efficitur mi, euismod porttitor leo. Maecenas ultrices varius dolor ornare posuere. Cras quis nulla vel est malesuada dictum a posuere odio. Curabitur at nibh blandit, efficitur est pellentesque, convallis ipsum. Fusce faucibus id metus ut bibendum. Praesent pellentesque ante ac mollis porta. Morbi dignissim augue orci, ac euismod felis dictum sit amet. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Sed elit turpis, congue sit amet nisi non, sagittis aliquet est.

Ut efficitur nec lectus quis faucibus. Proin malesuada ex et ante tincidunt molestie. Vestibulum mattis molestie ante, at porttitor magna euismod non. Nulla pulvinar nibh vel diam luctus accumsan. Donec tempus blandit diam et molestie. Sed pharetra nisl nec aliquam pretium. Donec aliquet tellus et leo tincidunt, quis rutrum lorem volutpat. Duis congue mi et velit pharetra, quis lacinia justo elementum. Curabitur vitae ante pellentesque, porta dolor non, euismod nisl. Duis rutrum ipsum sit amet velit faucibus vulputate eget non ante. Mauris blandit ligula risus, sit amet tincidunt felis vestibulum ac. Aliquam a orci magna. Etiam a nulla elit. Aenean elit erat, faucibus a venenatis molestie, placerat ut elit. Duis vitae dictum lacus.

Latest Posts

Categories

Calendar

October 2024
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031