1887
Volume 10, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2215-1478
  • E-ISSN: 2215-1486
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study investigates the differential effect of various noticing activities on grammatical accuracy development in EFL learners’ written productions. We focus on different types of noticing activities based on an error-tagged learner corpus and report on effective practical experiments involving learner corpus data. A pretest/posttest quasi-experimental design is used with three experimental groups (receiving different treatments) and one control group. Error frequencies, at both group and individual levels, and proportions of learners producing errors on three specific error types (articles, verb tense, verb agreement) are compared. Our results suggest that accuracy in the use of articles and verb agreement could be more easily fostered through the comparison of learner output with native data (the BNC, in our case). As for verb tenses, the impact of a more traditional form of corrective feedback seems greater while the use of online machine translation tools does not seem to foster much accuracy development.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.00042.sar
2024-06-28
2024-07-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allan, R.
    (2018, July). Recycling the data: Building and using a learner business English writing corpus. Paper presented at theCall Your Data: XIXth CALL Conference, University of Bruges, Belgium.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 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, 91, 227–258. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(00)00027‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00027-8 [Google Scholar]
  3. Benson, S., & DeKeyser, R.
    (2019) Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research, 23(6), 702–726. 10.1177/1362168818770921
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818770921 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bestgen, Y., & Granger, S.
    (2018) Tracking L2 writers’ phraseological development using collgrams: Evidence from a longitudinal EFL corpus. InS. Hoffmann, A. Sand, S. Arndt-Lappe, & L. M. Dillmann (Eds.), Corpora and Lexis (pp. 277–301). Brill. 10.1163/9789004361133_011
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004361133_011 [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, D., Nekrasova, T., & Horn, B.
    (2011) The effectiveness of feedback for L1-English and L2-writing development: A meta-analysis (ETS Research Report RR-11-05). ETS.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bitchener, J.
    (2008) Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118. 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U.
    (2009) The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322–329. 10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bitchener, J., & Storch, N.
    (2016) Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783095056
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783095056 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D.
    (2005) The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 141, 191–205. 10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Boulton, A.
    (2016) Integrating corpus tools and techniques in ESP courses. ASp. La Revue Du GERAS, 691, 113–137. 10.4000/asp.4826
    https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.4826 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2021) Research in data-driven learning. InP. Pérez-Paredes, & G. Mark (Eds.), Beyond concordance lines: Corpora in language education (pp. 9–34). John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.102.01bou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.102.01bou [Google Scholar]
  12. Brand, C., & Götz, S.
    (2011) Fluency versus accuracy in advanced spoken learner language: A multi-method approach. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(2), 255–275. 10.1075/ijcl.16.2.05bra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.16.2.05bra [Google Scholar]
  13. Brudermann, C., Grosbois, M., & Sarré, C.
    (2021) Accuracy development in L2 writing: Exploring the potential of computer-assisted unfocused indirect corrective feedback in an online EFL course. ReCALL, 33(3), 248–264. 10.1017/S095834402100015X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S095834402100015X [Google Scholar]
  14. Brudermann, C., Mattioli, M.-A., Roussel, A.-M., & Sarré, C.
    (2016) Le secteur des langues pour spécialistes d’autres disciplines dans les universités françaises : Résultats d’une enquête nationale menée par la SAES. Recherche et pratiques pédagogiques en langues de spécialité. Cahiers de l’Apliut, 35(1). 10.4000/apliut.5564
    https://doi.org/10.4000/apliut.5564 [Google Scholar]
  15. Callies, M.
    (2019) Integrating corpus literacy into language teacher education. InS. Götz, & J. Mukherjee (Eds.), Learner corpora and language teaching (pp. 245–263). John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.92.12cal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.92.12cal [Google Scholar]
  16. 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, 121, 267–296. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(03)00038‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9 [Google Scholar]
  17. Chung, E. S., & Ahn, S.
    (2022) The effect of using machine translation on linguistic features in L2 writing across proficiency levels and text genres. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(9), 2239–2264. 10.1080/09588221.2020.1871029
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1871029 [Google Scholar]
  18. Cornillie, F., Clarebout, G., & Desmet, P.
    (2012) The role of feedback in foreign language learning through digital role playing games. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 341, 49–53. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.02.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.02.011 [Google Scholar]
  19. Crosthwaite, P.
    (2023) Corpus Linguistics: Mixed-Methods Research. InC. Chappelle (Ed.), Wiley encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, 2nd Edition (pp. 1–6). Wiley. 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal20019
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal20019 [Google Scholar]
  20. Dagneaux, E., Denness, S., Granger, S., Meunier, F., Neff, J. A., & Thewissen, J.
    (2008) The Louvain error tagging manual. Version 1.3. Centre for English Corpus linguistics. Université Catholique de Louvain.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Ellis, R.
    (2009) Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development. L2 Journal, 11, 3–18. 10.5070/L2.V1I1.9054
    https://doi.org/10.5070/L2.V1I1.9054 [Google Scholar]
  22. 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, 361, 353–371. 10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Farr, F., & Karlsen, P. H.
    (2022) DDL Pedagogy, Participants, and Perspectives. InR. R. Jablonkai, & E. Csomay (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpora and English Language Teaching and learning (pp. 329–343). Routledge. 10.4324/9781003002901‑27
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003002901-27 [Google Scholar]
  24. Ferris, D. R.
    (1999) The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes. A response to Truscott, J. (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–10. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(99)80110‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2007) Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 161, 165–193. 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  26. Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. J.
    (2001) Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?Journal of Second Language Writing, 101, 161–184. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(01)00039‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X [Google Scholar]
  27. Fuster-Márquez, M., & Gregori-Signes, C.
    (2016) Learning from learners: a non-standard direct approach to the teaching of writing skills in EFL in a university context. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 12(2), 164–176. 10.1080/17501229.2016.1142549
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2016.1142549 [Google Scholar]
  28. Garshol, L.
    (2019) I just doesn’t know: Agreement errors in English texts by Norwegian L2 learners: Causes and remedies. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. University of Agder.
  29. Gilquin, G., & Granger, S.
    (2010) How can data-driven learning be used in language teaching. InA. O’Keeffe, & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 359–370). Routledge. 10.4324/9780203856949‑26
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203856949-26 [Google Scholar]
  30. Götz, S., & Mukherjee, J.
    (2019) Learner corpora and language teaching. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.92
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.92 [Google Scholar]
  31. Granger, S.
    (1999) Use of tenses by advanced EFL learners: evidence from an error-tagged computer corpus. InH. Hasselgård, & S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson (pp. 191–202). Rodopi. 10.1163/9789004653689_018
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004653689_018 [Google Scholar]
  32. Granger, S., Swallow, H., & Thewissen, J.
    (2022) The Louvain error tagging manual. Version 2.0. CECL Papers 4. Centre for English Corpus Linguistics/Université catholique de Louvain.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Granger, S., & Tribble, C.
    (1998) Learner corpus data in the foreign language classroom: Form-focused instruction and data-driven learning. InS. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 199–209). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315841342‑15
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315841342-15 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hamilton, C. E.
    (2015) The contribution of systemic functional grammar to the error analysis framework. TESOL International Journal, 10(1), 11–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Hashemifardnia, A., Namaziandost, E., & Sepehri, M.
    (2019) The effectiveness of giving grade, corrective feedback, and corrective feedback-plus-giving grade on grammatical accuracy. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 8(1), 15–27. 10.5861/ijrsll.2019.3012
    https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2019.3012 [Google Scholar]
  36. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F.
    (2006) Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 391, 83–101. 10.1017/S0261444806003399
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399 [Google Scholar]
  37. Johns, T.
    (1990) From printout to handout: Grammar and vocabulary teaching in the context of data-driven learning. CALL Austria, 101, 14–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (1991) Should you be persuaded: Two examples of data-driven learning. InT. Johns, & P. King (Eds.), Classroom concordancing. English Language Research Journal, 41, 1–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Lalande, J. F.
    (1982) Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 661, 140–149. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1982.tb06973.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb06973.x [Google Scholar]
  40. Lee, S.-M.
    (2020) The impact of using machine translation on EFL students’ writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(3), 157–175, 10.1080/09588221.2018.1553186
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1553186 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2022) Different effects of machine translation on L2 revisions across students’ L2 writing proficiency levels. Language Learning & Technology, 26(1), 1–21. https://hdl.handle.net/10125/73490
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Li, S.
    (2018) Data collection in the research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback. A synthetic and critical review. InA. Gudmestad, & A. Edmonds (Eds.), Critical reflections on data in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 33–61). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.51.03li
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.51.03li [Google Scholar]
  43. (2022) A Dynamic Systems Theory perspective on L2 writing development. Routledge. 10.4324/9781003273639
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003273639 [Google Scholar]
  44. Lightbown, P., & Spada, N.
    (1999) How languages are learned. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Loock, R.
    (2020) No more rage against the machine: how the corpus-based identification of machine-translationese can lead to student empowerment. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 341, 150–170.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Loock, R., Léchauguette, S., & Holt, B.
    (2022) Dealing with the “Elephant in the classroom”: Developing language students’ machine translation literacy. Australian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 118–134. 10.29140/ajal.v5n3.53si2
    https://doi.org/10.29140/ajal.v5n3.53si2 [Google Scholar]
  47. Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M.
    (2015) Variability and variation in second language acquisition orders: A dynamic reevaluation. Language Learning, 65(1), 63–88. 10.1111/lang.12093
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12093 [Google Scholar]
  48. Lu, X.
    (2022) What can corpus software reveal about language development?. InA. O’Keeffe, & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (2nd ed., pp.155–167). Routledge. 10.4324/9780367076399‑12
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367076399-12 [Google Scholar]
  49. Lyster, R.
    (2004) Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 251, 399–432. 10.1017/S0272263104263021
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104263021 [Google Scholar]
  50. Meunier, F.
    (2012) Learner corpora in the classroom: A useful and sustainable didactic resource. InL. Pedrazzini, & A. Nava (Eds.), Learning and teaching English: Insights from research (p.211–228). Poliletrica.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E.
    (2017) Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Paquot, M., & Plonsky, L.
    (2017) Quantitative research methods and study quality in learner corpus research. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 3(1), 61–94. 10.1075/ijlcr.3.1.03paq
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.3.1.03paq [Google Scholar]
  53. Pérez Cañado, M. L., & Díez Bedmar, M. B.
    (2006) Data-driven learning and awareness-raising: An effective tandem to improve grammar in written composition?International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 1(3), 1–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Plonsky, L.
    (2013) Study quality in SLA: An assessment of designs, analyses, and reporting practices in quantitative L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 351, 655–687. 10.1017/S0272263113000399
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263113000399 [Google Scholar]
  55. (2014) Study quality in quantitative L2 research (1990–2010): A methodological synthesis and call for reform, The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 450–470. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2014.12058.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12058.x [Google Scholar]
  56. Polio, C. G.
    (1997) Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47(1), 101–143. 10.1111/0023‑8333.31997003
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.31997003 [Google Scholar]
  57. Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I.
    (1986) Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 201, 83–93. 10.2307/3586390
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586390 [Google Scholar]
  58. Robinson, P.
    (2002) Learning conditions, aptitude complexes, and SLA: A framework for research and pedagogy. InP. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 113–133). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.2.08rob
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.2.08rob [Google Scholar]
  59. Sarré, C., Grosbois, M., & Brudermann, C.
    (2019) Fostering accuracy in L2 writing: impact of different types of corrective feedback in an experimental blended learning EFL course. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(5/6), 707–729. 10.1080/09588221.2019.1635164
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1635164 [Google Scholar]
  60. Satake, Y.
    (2022) The effects of corpus use on L2 collocation learning. The JALT CALL, 18(1), 34–53. 10.29140/jaltcall.v18n1.520
    https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v18n1.520 [Google Scholar]
  61. Schmidt, R. W.
    (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. 10.1093/applin/11.2.129
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129 [Google Scholar]
  62. Sheen, Y.
    (2006) Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 101, 361–392. 10.1191/1362168806lr203oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr203oa [Google Scholar]
  63. (2007) The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 411, 255–283. 10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2007.tb00059.x
    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x [Google Scholar]
  64. Skehan, P.
    (2013) Nurturing noticing. InJ. M. Bergsleithner, S. N. Frota, & J. K. Yoshioka (Eds.), Noticing and Second Language Acquisition: Studies in honor of Richard Schmidt (pp. 169–180). University of Hawaii.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Tono, Y., Satake, Y., & Miura, A.
    (2014) The effects of using corpora on revision tasks in L2 writing with coded error feedback. ReCALL, 26(2), 147–162. 10.1017/S095834401400007X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S095834401400007X [Google Scholar]
  66. Truscott, J.
    (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1996.tb01238.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x [Google Scholar]
  67. Yang, Y., Wei, X., Li, P., & Zhai, X.
    (2023) Assessing the effectiveness of machine translation in the Chinese EFL writing context: A replication of Lee (2020). ReCALL, 35(2), 211–224. 10.1017/S0958344023000022
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344023000022 [Google Scholar]
  68. Zhang, L. J., & Cheng, X.
    (2021) Examining the effects of comprehensive written corrective feedback on L2 EAP students’ linguistic performance: A mixed-methods study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 541, 1–15. 10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101043
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101043 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.00042.sar
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.00042.sar
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error