Efficacy of written corrective feedback in the short and long term
List of Authors
  • Rouhi, Afsar , Samiei, Mitra , Tam, Shu Sim

Keyword
  • Written corrective feedback; past simple tense; metalinguistic corrective feedback; experimental research design

Abstract
  • The purpose of this study was twofold: 1) to examine the general efficacy of different types of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) on the errors of the target structure (past simple tense) in the short and long term and 2) to compare the possible difference in the effect that different WCF types might have on improving the target structure in the short and long term. One hundred and five EFL (English as Foreign Language) Iranian learners participated in this quasi-experimental study. They were divided into four experimental groups (20 in each) that received different WCF, that is, metalinguistic, direct, indirect, reformulation and a control group (n=25) that did not receive any feedback. The effects of the WCF types were measured using a Picture Description Test and an Error Correction Test as a pre-test, an immediate post-test, and a delayed post-test. It was found that all experimental groups performed better than the control group in the short term, but the metalinguistic and indirect WCF did not lose their effect in the long term. The findings from the delayed post-test confirmed the superiority of the metalinguistic and indirect WCF over the reformulation and direct WCF in the long term.

Reference
  • 1. Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 17, 102–118.
    2. Bitchener J. (2009). Measuring the effectiveness of written corrective feedback: A response to ‘‘Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Bitchener (2008)’’. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 276–279.
    3. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. 2008. The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409–431.
    4. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. 2009. The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63, 204-211.
    5. 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, 191–205.
    6. 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.
    7. Clahsen, H., Meisel. J. M., & Pienemann, M. (1983). Deutsch als Zweitsprache: Der Spracherwerb ausländischer Arbeiter. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
    8. Ellis, N. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 164–194.
    9. Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 335–349.
    10. 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, 353–371.
    11. Farrokhi, F., & Sattarpour, S. (2012). The effects of direct written corrective feedback on improvement of grammatical accuracy of high-proficient L2 learners. World Journal of Education, 2, 49–57.
    12. Fazio, L. L. (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority- and majority language students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 235–249.
    13. Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1–11.
    14. Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah NJ.
    15. Ferris, D. R. (2014). Responding to student writing: Teachers’ philosophies and practices. Assessing Writing, 19, 6–23.
    16. Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.
    17. Guenette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40–-53.
    18. Harley, B. (1993). Instructional strategies and SLA in early French immersion. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 245–260.
    19. Hendrickson, J. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387–98.
    20. Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    21. Lee, I. (2014). Feedback in writing: Issues and challenges. Assessing Writing, 19, 1–5.
    22. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned (2nd Ed). New York: Oxford University Press.
    23. Long, M.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In: Ritchie, W. C, & Bhatia, T. K (Ed.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego: Academic Press.
    24. McMartin-Miller, C. (2014). How much feedback is enough?: Instructor practices and student attitudes toward error treatment in second language writing. Assessing Writing, 19, 24–35.
    25. Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    26. Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on an L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67–100.
    27. Schmidt, R. (19900. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
    28. Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283.
    29. 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, 286–306.
    30. Storch, N. (2010). Critical Feedback on Written Corrective Feedback Research. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 29-46.
    31. Suzuki, M. (2005). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in adult ESL classrooms. TESOL & Applied Linguistics. Columbia: Columbia University Press.
    32. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 269–327.
    33. Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: a response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111–122.
    34. Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: a response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337–343.
    35. Van Beuningen, C., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296.