1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics
  4. Volume 167, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 167, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This article assesses the current status of written CF research. It focuses specifically on the potential of written CF to facilitate L2 development, seeking answers to five of the most frequently asked umbrella questions: (1) Can written CF facilitate L2 development? (2) Are some types of written CF more effective than other types for L2 development? (3) Is written CF more effective for the development of certain linguistic forms and structures than for others? (4) Is focused or unfocused written CF more effective for L2 development? (5) Can individual and contextual factors moderate the effectiveness of written CF for L2 development? The article assesses the extent to which the reported findings reported in this body of research provide valid and consistent answers to these questions and suggests where future written CF research would do well to focus its attention. From the limitations and shortcomings of the available research, new approaches to answering some of the umbrella questions are suggested and recommendations for research that seeks answers to why written CF may or may not be effective for some learners are presented. Finally and most importantly, emphasis is given to the need to recognise the interactional effect of a wide range of individual and contextual factors (especially those that characterize the whole learner and his/her learning environment) on learner response to and use of written CF.

© 2016 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/itl.167.2.01bit
2017-02-06
2024-12-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/itl.167.2.01bit
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, J
    (1976) Language, memory, and thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. (1983) The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. (1993) Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. 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
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bitchener, J. , & Ferris, D
    (2012) Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bitchener, J. , & Storch, N
    (2016) Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bitchener, J. , & Knoch, U
    (2008) The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–431. doi: 10.1177/1362168808089924
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2009) The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322–329. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2010a) The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp016
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp016 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2010b) Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207–217. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  11. 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: 10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  12. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2009.02.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  13. 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), 267–296. doi: 10.1016/S1060‑3743(03)00038‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dekeyser, R.M
    (1997) Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195–221. doi: 10.1017/S0272263197002040
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197002040 [Google Scholar]
  15. (1998) Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practising second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Ellis, N.C
    (2005) At the interface: How explicit knowledge affects implicit language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Ellis, R
    (2008) The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. (2010) Cognitive, social, and psychological dimensions corrective feedback. In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp.151–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ferris, D
    (1999) The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11. doi: 10.1016/S1060‑3743(99)80110‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2003) Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. (2010) Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181–201. doi: 10.1017/S0272263109990490
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490 [Google Scholar]
  23. Frear, D
    (2012) The effect of written CF and revision on intermediate Chinese learners’ acquisition of English. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Auckland, New Zealand.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Gass, S
    (1997) Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Guenette, D
    (2007) Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback in writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40–53. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.01.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  26. 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 PhD dissertation, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Kepner, C.G
    (1991) An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305–313. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1991.tb05359.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb05359.x [Google Scholar]
  28. Kormos, J
    (2012) The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 390–403. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lalande, J.F
    (1982) Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–149. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1982.tb06973.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb06973.x [Google Scholar]
  30. McLaughlin, B
    (1978) The monitor model: Some methodological considerations. Language Learning, 28, 309–332. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1978.tb00137.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1978.tb00137.x [Google Scholar]
  31. (1990) Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 113–128. doi: 10.1093/applin/11.2.113
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.113 [Google Scholar]
  32. Ortega, L
    (2009) Understanding second langauge acquisition. London: Hodder Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Robb, T. , Ross, S. , & Shortreed, I
    (1986) Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. Tesol Quarterly, 20(1), 83–95. doi: 10.2307/3586390
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3586390 [Google Scholar]
  34. Rummel, S
    (2014) Student and teacher beliefs about written CF and the effect these bliefs have on uptake: A multiple case study of Laos and Kuwait. Unpublished PhD dissertation. AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Schmidt, R
    (2001) Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second lanugage instruction (pp.3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003 [Google Scholar]
  36. Semke, H.D
    (1984) Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17(3), 195–202. doi: 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.1984.tb01727.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1984.tb01727.x [Google Scholar]
  37. 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.x
     https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x [Google Scholar]
  38. (2010) Introduction: The role of oral and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 169–179. doi: 10.1017/S0272263109990489
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990489 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2011) Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑0548‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0548-7 [Google Scholar]
  40. Sheen, Y. , Wright, D. , & Moldawa, A
    (2009) Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556–569. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  41. Sheppard, K
    (1992) Two feedback types: Do they make a difference?RELC Journal, 23(1), 103–110. doi: 10.1177/003368829202300107
     https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829202300107 [Google Scholar]
  42. Shintani, N. , & Ellis, R
    (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), 286–306. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011 [Google Scholar]
  43. 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
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12029 [Google Scholar]
  44. Stefanou, C
    (2014) L2 article use for generic and specific plural reference: The role of written CF, learner factors and awareness. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Lancaster University, UK.: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Storch, N
    (2014) Investigating feedback on writing from a sociocultural theoretical perspective. Paper delivered at the AILA World Congress , Brisbane, Australia.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 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
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x [Google Scholar]
  47. (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
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003 [Google Scholar]
  48. 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.2008.05.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  49. 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: 10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034439
     https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034439 [Google Scholar]
  50. (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
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x [Google Scholar]
  51. Williams, J
    (2012) The potential role (s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321–331. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.007 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/itl.167.2.01bit
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): L2 learning; written CF

Most Cited

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