1887
Volume 156, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Among scholars there is disagreement on the benefits of corrective feedback on second language learners’ written output. While some researchers advocate the usefulness of corrective feedback, Truscott claims that all error correction is unnecessary, ineffective, and even harmful, in that it diverts time and energy away from more productive aspects of writing instruction. Until now, research outcomes cannot settle this debate since only short-term effectiveness of corrective feedback could be demonstrated. Due to methodological shortcomings, results from studies that investigated long-term effects of error correction on accuracy improvement are inconclusive.

By trying to overcome some of these design related drawbacks (i.e. the lack of a proper control group and time-on task differences between treatment groups), the present study intends to make a contribution to the ongoing error correction debate. The effectiveness of direct and indirect corrective feedback was compared to the effect of two control treatments: a treatment that offered students an extra opportunity to practice their writing skills, and a treatment in which students self-corrected their errors without any available feedback. Results show that corrective feedback can be effective in improving students’ accuracy: while short-term effects were found for both direct and indirect corrective feedback, only direct feedback proved to have a significant long-term effect. Neither of the control treatments had a significant effect on students’ accuracy.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034439
2008-01-01
2019-10-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adams, R.
    (2003) L2 output, reformulation and noticing: implications for IL development. Language Teaching Research7 (3), 347–376.
    [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 Writing9 (3), 227–258.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Beglar, D. & Hunt, H.
    (1999) Revising and validating the 2000 word level and university word level vocabulary tests. Language Testing16 (2), 131–162.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 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 Writing12 (3), 267–296.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Ferris, D.
    (1995) Teaching ESL composition students to become independent self- editors. TESOL Journal4 (4), 18–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (1997) The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly31 (2), 315–339.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (1999) The case of grammar correction in L2 writing classes: a response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing8 (1), 1–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (2002) Treatment of error in second language student writing. Michigan, The University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (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 Writing13 (1), 49–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Ferris, D., Chaney, S., Komura, K., Roberts, B., & McKee, S.
    (2000) Perspectives, problems, and practices in treating written error. Colloquium presented at the International TESOL Convention. Vancouver, B.C.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Ferris, D., & Roberts, B.
    (2001) Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How explicit does it need to be?Journal of Second Language Writing10 (3), 161–184.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Frantzen, D.
    (1995) The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course. The Modern Language Journal79 (3), 329–344.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hajer, M. & Meestringa, T.
    (2004) Handboek taalgericht vakonderwijs. [The handbook of content-based second language instruction.] Bussum, Coutinho.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hazenberg, S.
    (1994) Een keur van woorden. De wenselijke en feitelijke receptieve woordenschat van anderstalige studenten. [A choice of words. The desired and factual receptive vocabulary of non-native students.] PhD dissertation, Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hazenberg, S. & Hulstijn, J.H.
    (1996) Defining a minimal receptive second-language vocabulary for non-native university students: an empirical investigation. Applied Linguistics17 (2), 145–163.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hedgcock, J. & Lefkowitz, N.
    (1994) Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing3 (2), 141–163.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hyland, K. & Hyland, F.
    (2006) Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching39 (2), 83–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kepner, C.
    (1991) An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second language writing skills. The Modern Language Journal75 (3), 305–313.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Lalande, J.F.
    (1982) Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language Journal66 (2), 140–149.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Leki, I.
    (1991) The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24 (3), 203–218.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N.
    (1998) “If only I had more time”: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing7 (1), 43–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Robb, T., Ross, S. & Shortreed, I.
    (1986) Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly20 (1), 83–95.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Sachs, R. & Polio, C.G.
    (2007) Learners’ use of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition29 (1), 67–100.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Schoonen, R.
    (2005) Generalizability of writing scores: An application of structural equation modeling. Language Testing22 (1), 1–30.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Semke, H.
    (1984) The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annuals17 (3), 195–202.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Swain, M.
    (1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. Principle and practice of applied linguistics: studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson. G. Cook and B. Seidlhoffer. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 125–144.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Truscott, J.
    (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning46 (2), 327–369.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (1999) The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A Response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing8 (2), 111–122. Truscott, J. (2004) Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing13 (4), 337–343.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (2007) The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing16 (4), 255–272.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034439
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
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