Effects of Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners’ Written Accuracy in Using the English Passive Structure: Individual Differences in Focus
Tohid Golqasem Qarebagh
1
(
Department of English Language and Literature, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
)
Mehdi Sarkhosh
2
(
Department of English Language and Literature, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
)
Parviz Alavinia
3
(
Department of English Language and Literature, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
)
Javad Gholami
4
(
Department of English Language and Literature, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
)
Keywords: English passive voice, second language acquisition, individual differences, written corrective feedback,
Abstract :
The extent to which written CF plays a role in learners’ acquiring the target language is a question that has received a lot of attention over the last 20-30 years. This paper, by drawing on a cognitive view, continued with that focus, exploring not only the efficacy of written CF on the improved accuracy of learners but also the extent to which working memory and phonological short-term memory may moderate the effects of different types of feedback.
The study was undertaken with 100 university students in Iran. Firstly, a quasi-experimental study was used, with a pre-test, treatment, immediate and delayed post-tests, to investigate the effectiveness of four types of written CF (direct CF, direct CF plus revision, metalinguistic explanation, metalinguistic explanation plus revision) on a complex linguistic structure, the English passive voice. The results regarding the moderating effect of working memory and phonological short term memory revealed that (1) working memory moderated the impact of the metalinguistic explanation and combined metalinguistic explanation groups and the combined metalinguistic and direct CF groups both immediately and over time; and (2) working memory moderated the direct CF plus revision and combined revision groups only in the long term. Furthermore, the findings suggest that more explicit types of written CF may be more effective than less explicit types of written CF.
Anderson, J. R. (2000). Cognitive psychology and its implications (5th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17 (2), 102–118. doi:10.1016/ j.jslw. 2007 .11
.004
Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on ‘the language learning potential’ of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21 (2) 348–363. doi:10. 10 16 /j. jslw.2012.09.006
Bitchener, J. (2016). To what extent has the published written CF research aided our understanding of its potential for L2 development? ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 167(2), 111-131. doi: 10.1075/ itl. 167. 2. 01 bit.
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written Corrective Feedback for L2 Development. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of second language writing, 14(3), 191-205. doi:10. 10 16 /j. js lw.2005.08.001
Bruton, A., (2009). Designing research into the effect of error correction in L2 writing: not so straightforward. Journal of Second Language Writing 18 (2), 136- 140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.07.001
Handler, 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), 267-296. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(03)
00038-9
Creswell, J. W. & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. London: SAGE Publication Ltd.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications.
Diab, N. M. (2015). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does type of error and type of correction matter? Assessing Writing, 24, 16-34.
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in second language acquisition, 27(02), 305- 352. https://doi.org/ 10.1017 /S027226310505014X
Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2010). A Framework for Investigating Oral and Written Corrective Feedback. Studies in Second Langage Acquisition, 32, 335– 349. doi:101017
/S02722631 0 9990544
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353-371. https://doi. org/10. 1016 /j. system.2008.02.001
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(1), 49-62. https://doi.org/ 10. 1016
/j.jslw.2004.04.005
Frear, D. (2012). The effect of written corrective feedback and revision on intermediate Chines learners’ acquisition of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction- driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 445-474. https://doi.org/10. 1017/S0 27 22 63 112000149
Guo, Q. (2015). The effectiveness of written CF for L2 development: A mixed method study of written CF types, error categories and proficiency levels. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand.
Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 390-403. https://doi.org /10.1016/ j. jslw. 2012.09.003 Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(2), 261-271.https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728908003416
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language Journal, 66(2), 140-149.doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781. 1982. tb0 69 73.x
Li, S. (2013). The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the linguistic target. Language Teaching Research, 97(3), 634-654.doi: 10. 1177 /1362 1 688 13510384
Light, L. L., & Anderson, P. A. (1985). Working-memory capacity, age, and memory for discourse. Journal of Gerontology, 40(6), 737-747. https://doi. org/ 10.1093/geronj/ 40.6.737
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. New York: Routledge.
McLaughlin, B. (1987) Theories of Second-Language Learning, London: Edward Arnold.
Rummel, S. (2014). Student and Teacher Beliefs about Written CF and the Effect those Beliefs Have on Uptake: A Multiple Case Study of Laos and Kuwait.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand.
Rummel, S., & Bitchener, J. (2015). The effectiveness of written corrective feedback and the impact Lao learners’ beliefs have on uptake. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 38(1), 66-84.
Sagarra, N. (2007). Working memory and L2 processing of redundant grammatical forms. In Z. Han & E. S. Park (eds.), Understanding second language process (pp. 133–147). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Shahnazari, M. (2012). The role of working memory in second language reading comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Shah, P., & Miyake, A. (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. doi: 10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.
Knowledge of the Linguistic Target. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(1), 129-166. doi:10.1017/S0272263116000127
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of metalinguistic explanation and direct written corrective feedback on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 23(3), 286-306.doi: 10. 1016/ j. jslw. 2013.03.011
Shintani, N., Aubrey, S., & Donnellan, M. (2016). The Effects of Pre‐Task and Post‐Task Metalinguistic Explanations on Accuracy in Second Language Writing. TESOL Quarterly, 50(4), 945-955.doi: 10.1002/tesq.323
Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of Written Feedback and Revision on Learners’ Accuracy in Using Two English Grammatical Structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103-131. doi:10.1111/lang.12029
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(02), 303-334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532.
Trofimovich, P., & Baker, W. (2007). Learning prosody and fluency characteristics of second language speech: The effect of experience on child learners' acquisition of five suprasegmentals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(2), 251- 276. https://doi.org/10. /S01 42 716407070130
Truscott, J. (2010). Some thoughts on Anthony Bruton’s critique of the correction debate. System, 38(2), 329-335. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.system. 2010. 03.
014.
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. p. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292-305. Doi:10.1016 /j. jslw.2007.05.003.
Van Beuningen, C. G. (2011). The effectiveness of comprehensive corrective feedback in second. Studies, 10(2), 1-27.
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL- Review of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279-296.doi: 10.1075/itl.156.24beu
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1-41.doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x
VanPatten, B. (Ed.). (2004). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Routledge.
VanPatten, B., & Benati, A. G. (2010). Key terms in second language acquisition.
London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(04), 495-510. https://doi.org /10. 10 0272263100015394