The Reaction of Three English Grammatical Structures to Different Types of Written Feedback

Authors
H. Marefat 1
A. Pashazadeh 2
1 Associate Professor of TEFL, English Department, Faculty of Foreign Languages and Literatures, University of Tehran
2 PhD Student, Faculty of Foreign Languages and Literatures, University of Tehran
Abstract
PhD Student of TEFL, English Department, Faculty of Foreign Languages and The available empirical evidence on the long-term efficacy of written corrections is limited to the studies that have investigated the effect of focused feedback on improving grammatical accuracy of two specific aspects of English articles. It is clear that focused corrections, which target only one or two grammatical error types at a time, lack ecological validity in writing courses. The aim of the present study is to investigate the reaction of different structures to corrections which enjoy more validity in writing classes. Using a pretest-posttest design, the long-term reaction of three features of English grammar (articles, the infinitive, and the present unreal conditional) to mid-focused and unfocused written feedback and revision were investigated. The results showed that on the delayed posttest, which was administered one month after the feedback treatment, the performance of the students in the experimental groups was not significantly different from the control group and that there were no significant absolute gains in any of the groups compared with pretest scores.

Keywords

  • زندمقدم، امیر و علی‏زاده، مهناز (1394). «تأثیر بازخورد تصحیح‌کننده بر پیشرفت جنبه‌های کلامی و فراکلامیِ نگارش: مقایسه بازخورد تصحیح‌کننده نوشتاری و شفاهی». جستارهای زبانی. د 6. ش 3. صص 141-164.


 



  • Bitchener, J. (2008). “Evidence in support of written corrective feedback”. Journal of Second Language Writing. 17(2). pp. 102-118.

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

  • Bitchener, J. & U. Knoch (2010). “The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation”. Applied Linguistics. 31(2). pp. 193-214.

  • Bitchener, J.; S. Young & D. Cameron (2005). “The effect of different types of corrective feedback on esl student writing”. Journal of Second Language Writing. 14(3). pp. 191-205.

  • Bruton, A. (2009). “Designing Research into the effects of grammar correction in l2 writing: not so straightforward”. Journal of Second Language Writing. 18(2). pp. 136-140.

  • Chandler, J. (2003). “The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of l2 student writing”. Journal of Second Language Writing. 12(3). pp. 267-296.

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale: Earlbaum.

  • Ellis, R. et. al. (2008). “The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context”. System. 36(3). pp. 353-371.

  • Fazio, L. L. (2001). “The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority-and majority-language students”. Journal of Second Language Writing. 10(4). pp. 235-249.

  • Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Ferris, D. R. (2010). “Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 32(2). pp. 181-201.

  • Hartshorn, K. et. al. (2010). “Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on esl writing accuracy”. TESOL Quarterly. 44(1). pp. 84–109.

  • Huck, S. W. & A. R. McLean (1975). “Using a repeated measures ANOVA to analyze the data from a pretest-posttest design: A potentially confusing task”. Psychological Bulletin. 82(4). pp. 511-518.

  • Izumi, S. et. al. (1999). “Testing the output hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 21(3). pp. 421–452.

  • Kellerman, E. (1983). “Now you see it, now you don’t”. In S. M. Gass, & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language Transfer in Language Learning(pp. 112-134). Rowley. MA: Newbury House.

  • Lee, I. (2003). “L2 Writing Teachers’ perspectives, practices and problems regarding error feedback”. Assessing Writing. 8(3). pp. 216-237.

  • Liu, Q. & D. Brown (2015). “Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing”. Journal of Second Language Writing. 30(4). pp. 66-81.

  • Norris, J. M., & L. Ortega (2000). “Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta‐analysis”. Language Learning. 50(3). pp. 417-528.

  • Polio, C., & C. Fleck (1998). “If I only had more time: ESL learners' changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions”. Journal of Second Language Writing. 7(1). pp. 43-68.

  • Schmidt, R. (1994). “Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics”. In Hulstijn, J. H., & R. Schmidt (Eds.). Thematic issue of AILA Review. 11. pp. 11-26.

  • Sheen, Y. (2007). “The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on esl learners’ acquisition of articles”. TESOL Quarterly. 41(2). pp. 255-283.

  • Shintani, N. & R. Ellis (2013). “The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the english indefinite article”. Journal of Second Language Writing. 22(3). pp. 286-306.

  • Truscott, J. (1996). “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing Classes”. Language Learning. 46(2). pp. 327-369.

  • Truscott, J. (2007). “The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately”. Journal of Second Language Writing. 16(4). pp. 255-272.

  • Truscott, J., A. Y. P. Hsu (2008). “Error Correction, revision, and learning”. Journal of Second Language Writing. 17(4). pp. 292-305.

  • Van Beuningen, C. G. et. al. (2012). “Evidence of the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing”. Language Learning. 62(1). pp. 1–41.


 

Language Related Research
Volume 7, Issue 5
November and December 2016
Pages 149-170