1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
  4. Volume 32, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 32, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0213-2028
  • E-ISSN: 2254-6774
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The role of Corrective Feedback (CF) in the process of acquiring a second language (L2) has been deemed an issue of controversy among theorists and researchers alike. In this empirical study, the objective is to investigate the quality of EFL learners’ processing of feedback employing models and different types of noticing (perfunctory or substantive [Qi & Lapkin, 2001]). The study was carried out with 13- and 14-year-old learners placed in two groups and engaged in a three-stage writing task that included composing a picture-based story (Stage 1), comparing their texts with a model (Stage 2), and rewriting the story (Stage 3). The groups differed in the way they were prompted to process the model text. The findings indicate that there are no differences between the two feedback groups within stages. All the participants increased the number of features reported across stages regardless of the feedback condition. The employment of a model text provided the students with alternative features related to lexis, form, and ideas. The potential effects of model texts and types of noticing on L2 learners’ language development are discussed.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/resla.00013.mon
2019-07-24
2024-09-17

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/resla.00013.mon
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adams, R.
    (2003) L2 output, reformulation and noticing: Implications for IL development. Language Teaching Research, 7, 347–376. 10.1191/1362168803LR127OA
     https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168803LR127OA [Google Scholar]
  2. Bitchener, J.
    (2012) A reflection on “the language-learning-potential” of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 348–363. 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.006 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bitchener, J. & Ferris, D. R.
    (2012) Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203832400
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832400 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U.
    (2008) The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research Journal, 12, 409–431. 10.1177/1362168808089924
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2010) The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193–214. 10.1093/applin/amp016
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp016 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bitchener, J. & Storch, N.
    (2016) Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783095056
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783095056 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bygate, M.
    (2001) Effects of tasks repetition on the structure and control of language. In M. Bygate , P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (pp.23–48). Harlow, UK: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 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, 267–296. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(03)00038‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cohen, A. D.
    (1983) Reformulating second-language compositions: A potential source of input for the learner. Revised version of a paper presented at theAnnual Convention of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Toronto, On. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 228 866).
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Coyle, Y. & Roca de Larios, J.
    (2014) Exploring the role played by error correction and models on children’s reported noticing and output production in a L2 writing task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1–35.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Cumming, A.
    (1990) Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 7, 482–511. 10.1177/0741088390007004003
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088390007004003 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dekeyser, R. M.
    (1998) Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.42–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Doughty, C.
    (2001) Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.206–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.010
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.010 [Google Scholar]
  14. Ellis, R.
    (1993) Second Language Acquisition and the structural syllabus. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 91–113. 10.2307/3586953
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3586953 [Google Scholar]
  15. (1994) A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In N. C. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp.79–114). San Diego: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. (2005) Principles of instructed language learning. Asian EFL Journal, 9(4).
     [Google Scholar]
  17. (2009) A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63, 97–107. 10.1093/elt/ccn023
     https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2010) A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 335–349. 10.1017/S0272263109990544
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990544 [Google Scholar]
  19. Ferris, D.
    (2010) Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181–201. 10.1017/S0272263109990490
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ferris, D. & Helt, M.
    (2000) Was Truscott right?New evidence on the effects of error correction in L2 writing classes. Paper presented at theconference of the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Vancouver, BC., March 11–14.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Fletcher, M. & Munns, R.
    (2005) Storyboard. 24 Stories Through Pictures. London: Mary Glasgow Magazines (Scholastic Ltd.).
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Hanaoka, O.
    (2006) Noticing from models and reformulations: A case study of two Japanese EFL learners. Sophia Linguistica, 54, 167–192.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. (2007) Output, noticing and learning: An investigation into the roles of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research, 11(4), 459–479. 10.1177/1362168807080963
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807080963 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hanaoka, O. & Izumi, S.
    (2012) Noticing and uptake: Addressing pre-articulated covert problems in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 332–347. 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.008 [Google Scholar]
  25. Harklau, L.
    (2002) The role of writing in classroom second language acquisition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(4), 329–350. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(02)00091‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00091-7 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hedgecock, J. & Lefkowitz, N.
    (1994) Feedback on feedback: assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 141–163. 10.1016/1060‑3743(94)90012‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(94)90012-4 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hyland, F.
    (1998) The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 255–288. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(98)90017‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90017-0 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kang, E. & Han, Z.
    (2015) The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99, 1–18. 10.1111/modl.12189
     https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12189 [Google Scholar]
  29. Krashen, S.
    (1982) Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. (1985) The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Lapkin, S. & Swain, M.
    (2004) What underlies immersion students’ production: The case of avoir besoin de . Foreign Language Annals, 37, 349–355. 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.2004.tb02693.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2004.tb02693.x [Google Scholar]
  32. Lapkin, S. , Swain, M. , & Smith, M.
    (2004) Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian French immersion context. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 485–507. 10.1111/1540‑4781.00157
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00157 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lee, I.
    (2004) Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285–312. 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.08.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Long, M. H.
    (2000) Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In R. Lambert & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy. Essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton (pp.179–192). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/z.96.11lon
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.96.11lon [Google Scholar]
  35. Mackey, A.
    (2006) Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 405–430. 10.1093/applin/ami051
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami051 [Google Scholar]
  36. Manchón, R. M.
    (2011) Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning to write and writing to learn in an additional language (pp.61–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/lllt.31.07man
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.31.07man [Google Scholar]
  37. Martínez, N. & Roca de Larios, J.
    (2010) The use of models as a form of written feedback to secondary school pupils of English. International Journal of English Studies, 2, 143–170. 10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119241
     https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119241 [Google Scholar]
  38. Ortega, L.
    (2012) Epilogue: Exploring L2 writing-SLA interfaces. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 404–415. 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  39. Philp, J.
    (2003) Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99–126. 10.1017/S0272263103000044
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263103000044 [Google Scholar]
  40. Qi, D. S. & Lapkin, S.
    (2001) Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277–303. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(01)00046‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00046-7 [Google Scholar]
  41. Robinson, P.
    (1995) Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283–331. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1995.tb00441.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00441.x [Google Scholar]
  42. Sachs, R. & Polio, C.
    (2007) Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67–100. 10.1017/S0272263107070039
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263107070039 [Google Scholar]
  43. Santos, M. , López-Serrano, S. , & Manchón, R. M.
    (2010) The differential effects of two types of direct written corrective feedback on noticing and uptake: Reformulation vs. error correction. International Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 131–154. 10.6018/ijes/2010/1/114011
     https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/1/114011 [Google Scholar]
  44. Schmidt, R.
    (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]
  45. (1995) Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning. Honolulu: University of Hawai’s Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. (2001) Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003 [Google Scholar]
  47. Schwartz, B. D.
    (1993) On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behaviour. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 147–163. 10.1017/S0272263100011931
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100011931 [Google Scholar]
  48. Suzuki, W.
    (2012) Written languaging, direct correction, and Second Language Writing Revision. Language Learning, 62(4), 1110–1133. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00720.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00720.x [Google Scholar]
  49. Swain, M.
    (2006) Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp.95–108). London: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Swain, M. & Lapkin, S.
    (2002) Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285–304. 10.1016/S0883‑0355(03)00006‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00006-5 [Google Scholar]
  51. Tocalli-Beller, A. & Swain, M.
    (2005) Reformulation: The cognitive conflict and L2 learning it generates. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 5–28. 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2005.00078.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2005.00078.x [Google Scholar]
  52. Truscott, J.
    (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1996.tb01238.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x [Google Scholar]
  53. Uggen, M.
    (2012) Reinvestigating the noticing function of output. Language Learning, 62(2), 506–540. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00693.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00693.x [Google Scholar]
  54. Van Beuningen, C. G.
    (2010) Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1–27. 10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119171
     https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119171 [Google Scholar]
  55. Williams, J.
    (2001) Learner generated attention to form. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Form focused instruction and second language learning (pp.303–346). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. (2012) The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 321–331. 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  57. Yang, L. & Zhang, L.
    (2010) Exploring the role of reformulation and a model text in EFL students’ writing performance. Language Teaching Research, 14, 464–484. 10.1177/1362168810375369
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375369 [Google Scholar]
  58. Yuan, F. & Ellis, R.
    (2003) The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1–27. 10.1093/applin/24.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  59. Zhao, H.
    (2010) Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: a comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 15, 3–17. 10.1016/j.asw.2010.01.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2010.01.002 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/resla.00013.mon
Loading
Exploring the learning potential of models with secondary school EFL learners
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 32, 155 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.00013.mon
/content/journals/10.1075/resla.00013.mon
/content/journals/10.1075/resla.00013.mon
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): corrective feedback; EFL learners; estudiantes de inglés como lengua extranjera; feedback correctivo; L2; models; noticing; percepción; segunda lengua; textos modelo

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