Grammatical Accuracy in L2 Writing: Comparing Different Types of Electronic Corrective Feedback

Authors
M. Shirazizadeh 1
R. Amirfazlian 2
1 Assistant Professor of English Language and Literature- Al-Zahra University – Tehran –Iran
2 M.A Student – Department of English Language and Literature - Al-Zahra University – Tehran –Iran
Abstract
Introduction



The usefulness of error correction in improving students’ grammatical accuracy has been the focus of attention in the past decades, and hot debates have raged on over this issue. There is yet no clear answer, to date, as to the efficacy of feedback and its various types. The aim of this study is, thus, to shed more light on the relative effectiveness of feedback per se and also the efficiency of some types of grammatical feedback, delivered electronically through MS Word software, over the others in improving students’ written accuracy.





Research questions




Is there any effect, whatsoever, for different types of feedback (i.e. direct, indication only & indication plus location) when delivered electronically in improving students’ level of grammatical accuracy?
Is there any priority for each of the above feedback types over the others?





Method



Participants



The participants of this study included 85 Iranian English majors. Of the total participants, 53 were female and 32 were male. The number of females and males were 15 and 11, 13 and 6, 12 and 8 and, 13 and 7 for control group, direct feedback group, indication group and indication and location group respectively.

Design and procedure

This study employed a pretest-treatment-posttest format. Of the four groups involved in the study, three were treatment groups and one was the control group. In the first treatment group, direct feedback group, the correct form of the students’ grammatical errors was provided. The two other treatment groups were, however, both provided with indirect feedback. In one of them, the indication-only group, the students were provided with an indication in the margin of the line in which the error was committed to show that an error or errors have occurred. The indication and location group was provided with feedback as to the exact word or phrase in the text that included a grammatical error.

Analysis

To answer the first research question (i.e. its three sub-questions), three paired sample T-test were used. The second research question (i.e. its three sub-questions) was answered using one-way ANOVA.

Results

Significant difference was found between the pretest and the posttest of the direct feedback group in the mean rate of errors (t=3.475; p‹.05). It means that the provision of direct written corrective feedback has been effective in improving students’ level of accuracy to a statistically significant level. However, the second group of the study, the indication only group, did not show any significant improvement in accuracy from the pretest to the posttest (t=1.627; p›.05). No significant improvement in grammatical accuracy was also observed for the indication and location group.

The primary result of the analysis indicated that there was a significant difference between the four groups with respect to their improvement from the pretest to the posttest (F=6.771; p‹.001). To further investigate the details of this comparison Tukey’s post hoc measure was used. Tukey’s index indicated that there were significant differences between direct feedback group on the one hand and control group (p‹.001), indication only group (p‹.05) and indication and location group (p‹.05). It was, in fact, the direct corrective feedback group whose improvement in accuracy was statistically significantly higher than the other groups. No other significant difference was found between other pairs of the groups with respect to accuracy improvement.



Conclusion

An explanation for the findings of the first question can be offered with regard to Schmidt (1990) noticing hypothesis. Among the three types of feedback offered to the groups of the study, direct feedback is apparently the most noticeable. This characteristic may lend this type of feedback to longer retention and quicker internalization. Comparison of the means of improvement for the three treatment groups clearly indicates that the direct group made the most substantial improvement of all. The second substantial improvement is made by indication and location group and the lowest improvement was made by the indication only group. This ranking of improvement is in other words a ranking of noticeability of feedback, and although not consistent with many parts of the literature, is totally consistent with some others especially Schmidt’s noticing hypothesis.



The findings of the second research question can also be interpreted and justified in light of the noticing hypothesis. This point that the direct feedback turned out to make a significant difference and is significantly different from other types of feedback can be justified in light of the fact that the participants of this study were roughly (and not definitely) of the intermediate level of proficiency. For these students, getting involved in problem solving (as the indirect types of feedback requires) while at the same time involved in the quite demanding task of following the ideas might be rather over-demanding, hence distracting their attention. Also, there are many grammatical points which are yet totally unknown to intermediate students and therefore any involvement in problem solving will lead nowhere, no matter how much effort the student makes. This point is also well recognized by Ferris and Roberts (2001) who suggest that direct feedback is perhaps more efficient than indirect corrective feedback with writers of low levels of proficiency.

Keywords

Subjects

• Abdollahifam, S. (2014). “Investigating the Effects of Interactional Feedback on EFL Students’ Writings”. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, pp. 16-21.
• 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, pp. 227–257.
• Bitchener, J. & U. Knoch (2009). “The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback”. System. 37, pp. 322–329.
• Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing. 17, pp. 69–124.
• Bitchener, J. & U. Knoch, (2009). “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 9, pp. 227–258.
• Ellis, R. (1998). “Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching”. TESOL Quarterly. 32, pp. 39-60.
• Ellis, R.; S. Loewen & R. Erlam (2006). “Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 28, pp. 339–368.
• Ellis, R.; Y. Sheen; M. Murakami & H. Takashima (2008). “The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context”. System. 36, pp. 353–371.
• Eslami, E. (2014). “The Effects of Direct and Indirect Corrective Feedback Techniques on EFL Students’ Writing”. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 445-452.
• Fazilatfar, A. M.; N. Fallah; M. Hamavandi & M. Rostamian (2014). “The effect of unfocused written corrective feedback on syntactic and lexical complexity of L2 writing”. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 98, PP. 482-488.
• Ferris, D. R. (2004). “The ‘‘Grammar Correction’’ debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime…?")”. Journal of Second Language Writing. 13, pp. 49–62.
• Ferris, D. R. (2006). “Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction”. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Ferris, D. R. & B. Roberts (2001). “Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How explicit does it need to be?”. Journal of Second Language Writing. 10, pp. 161–184.
• Frear, D. & Y. H. Chiu (2015). “The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing”. System. 53, pp. 24-34.
• Frear, D. & Y. H. Chiu (2015). “The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing”. System. 53, pp. 24-34.
• Gue`nette, D. (2007). “Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing”. Journal of Second Language Writing.16, PP. 40–53.
• Jokar, M. & A. Soyoof (2014). “The Influence of Written Corrective Feedback on Two Iranian Learners’ Grammatical Accuracy”. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 98, pp. 799-805.
• Kang, E. & , Z. Han (2015). “The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta‐analysis”. The Modern Language Journal. 99(1), PP. 1-18.
• 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, pp. 305–313.
• Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language Journal, 66, pp. 140–149.
• Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for college-level teaching. System, 25, pp. 465–477.
• Marzban, A. & S. Arabahmadi (2013). “The effect of written corrective feedback on Iranian EFL students’ writing”. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 83, pp. 1000-1005.
• Park, E. S.; S. Song & Y. K. Shin (2016). “To what extent do learners benefit from indirect written corrective feedback? A study targeting learners of different proficiency and heritage language status”. Language Teaching Research. 20(6), pp. 678-699.
• Polio, C.; C. Fleck & N. Leder (1998). “"If only I had more time": ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions”. Journal of Second Language Writing. 7, pp. 43–68.
• Rahimi, M. (2009). “The role of teacher’s corrective feedback in improving Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy over time: is learner’s mother tongue relevant?”. Reading and Writing. 22, pp. 219–243
• Robb, T.; S. Ross & I. Shortreed (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly. 20, pp. 83–91.
• Sanavi, R. V. & M. Nemati (2014). “The Effect of Six Different Corrective Feedback Strategies on Iranian English Language Learners’ IELTS Writing Task 2”. SAGE Open. 4(2), 2158244014538271.
• Schmidt, R. (1990). “The role of consciousness in second language learning”. Applied Linguistics. 11, pp. 129–158.
• Semke, H. (1984). “The effects of the red pen”. Foreign Language Annals. 17, pp. 195–202.
• Sheen, Wright & Moldawa (2009). “Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners”. System. 37, pp. 556-569.
• Sheen, Y. (2007). “The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles”. TESOL Quarterly. 41, PP. 255–283
• Sheppard, K. (1992). “Two feedback types: Do they make a difference?”. RELC Journal. 23, PP. 103 110.
• Stefanou, C. & A. Revesz (2015). “Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference”. The Modern Language Journal. 99(2), PP. 263-282.
• Tafazoli, D.; H. Nosratzadeh & N. Hosseini (2014). “Computer-mediated corrective feedback in ESP courses: Reducing grammatical errors via Email”. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 136, PP. 355-359.
• Truscott, J. (1996). “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”. Language Learning, 46, PP. 327–369.
Language Related Research
Volume 10, Issue 2 - Serial Number 50
May and June 2019
Pages 1-24