The locus of written corrective feedback in various SLA theories
List of Authors
  • Abbaspour, Ehsan

Keyword
  • Second language acquisition, Second language writing, Written corrective feedback

Abstract
  • Whether corrective feedback is effective in L2 writing has always been a controversial issue among Second Language Acquisition (SLA) scholars despite a vast body of research investigating the issue. This conflict is rooted in the fact that different researchers subscribe to different theories of SLA which are at times contradictory in nature. The present article reviews and investigates major SLA theories with respect to their views and stance toward the efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) and error correction in second language writing. Many of these theories do not address the role of corrective feedback explicitly or merely focus on the role of oral feedback. Polio (2012) and Bitchener and Ferris (2012) have partially investigated the issue at stake reviewing a number of SLA theories. In this study, however, attempt is made to shed light on the role of WCF especially in the theories which are not directly concerned with L2 writing.

Reference
  • 1. Abbaspour, E., Atai, M., Maftoon, P. (2020). The effect of scaffolded written corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ writing quality: An activity theory perspective. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 8(30), 177-196.
    2. Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465-83.
    3. Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369-403.
    4. Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    5. Anderson, J. R., & Gluck, K. (2001). What role do cognitive architectures play in intelligent tutoring systems? In D. Klahr & S. M. Carver (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 227–262). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    6. Anderson, J. R., & Reder, L. M. (1999). The fan effect: New results and new theories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 186-197.
    7. Anderson, J. R., Fincham, J. M., & Douglass, S. (1999). Practice and retention: A unifying analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(5),1120-1136.
    8. Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In E. Wanner & L. Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 173–218). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    9. Benati, A. (2004). The effects of structured input activities and explicit information on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 207–225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    10. Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York, NY: Routledge.
    11. Byrne, M. D. (2002). Cognitive architecture. In A. Sears & J. A. Jacko (Eds.), The human-computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications (pp. 97-117). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
    12. Carroll, S. E. (1999). Putting ‘input’ in its proper place. Second Language Research, 15(4), 337-388.
    13. Carroll, S. E. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
    14. Carroll, S. E. (2002). Induction in a modular learner. Second Language Research, 18(3), 224-249.
    15. 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.
    16. Di Biase, B. (2008). Focus-on-form and development in L2 learning. In J. U. Keßler (Ed.), Processability approaches to second language development and second language learning (pp. 197-219). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    17. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
    18. Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24(1), 37-53.
    19. Dyson, B. P. (2019). Are speech and writing teachable? Re-examining developmental constraints on pedagogy. In R. Arntzen, G. Håkansson, A. Hjelde, & J. Keßler (Eds.), Teachability and learnability across languages (pp. 72–93). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
    20. Ellis, N. C. (2006). Cognitive perspectives on SLA: The associative-cognitive CREED. AILA Review, 19(1), 100-121.
    21. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd Ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    22. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.
    23. Engeström, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a test bench of activity theory: the case of primary care medical practice. In J. Lave, & S. Chaiklin (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 64-103). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    24. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity-theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133-156.
    25. Evans, N., Hartshorn, K. J., & Strong-Krause, D. (2011). The efficacy of dynamic written corrective feedback for university-matriculated ESL learners. System, 39, 229–239.
    26. Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1–11.
    27. Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    28. Gholami, J., & Zeinolabedini, M. (2018). Learnability and teachability hypothesis. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
    29. Håkansson, G., & Norrby, C. (2007). Processability Theory applied to written and oral L2 Swedish. In F. Mansouri (Ed.), Second language acquisition research: Theory-construction and testing (pp. 81–94). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press.
    30. Håkansson, G., & Norrby, C. (2010). Environmental influence on language acquisition: Comparing second and foreign language acquisition of Swedish. Language Learning, 60(3), 628-650.
    31. Hartshorn, K., Evans, N., Merrill, P., Sudweeks, R., Strong-Krause, D., & Anderson, N. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 84–109.
    32. Henry, N., Culman, H., & VanPatten, B. (2009). More on the effects of explicit information in instructed SLA: A partial replication and a response to Fernández (2008). Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(4), 559-575.
    33. Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    34. Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    35. Johnson, K. (1988). Mistake correction. ELT Journal, 42(2), 89-96.
    36. Johnson, K. (1996). Language teaching and skill learning. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
    37. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1986). Stage/structure versus phase/process in modelling linguistic and cognitive development. In I. Levin (Ed.), Stage and structure (pp. 164–190). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    38. Krashen, S. D. (1977). Some issues relating to the Monitor Model. In H. D. Brown, C. Yorio & R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL'77: Teaching and learning English as a second language: Trends in research and practice (pp. 144–158). Washington, DC: TESOL.
    39. Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
    40. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
    41. Krashen, S. D. (1984). Writing: Research, theory, and applications. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
    42. Krashen, S. D. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use: The Taipei lectures. Portsmouth, UK: Heinemann.
    43. Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17-44). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    44. Lantolf, J. P. (2006). Sociocultural theory and L2: State of the art. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 67–109.
    45. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    46. Lee, I. (2014). Revisiting teacher feedback in EFL writing from sociocultural perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 48(1), 201-213.
    47. Lee, I. (2017). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Singapore, Singapore: Springer.
    48. Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    49. Levelt, W.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    50. Li, P., & MacWhinney, B. (2013). Competition model. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley.
    51. Long, M. H. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177–193.
    52. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York, UK: Academic Press.
    53. MacWhinney, B. (1992). Transfer and competition in second language learning. In R. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 371-390). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
    54. Mak, P., & Lee, I. (2014). Implementing assessment for learning in L2 writing: An activity theory perspective. System, 47, 73-87.
    55. McDonald, J. L. (1986). The development of sentence comprehension strategies in English and Dutch. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41, 317–35.
    56. McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language acquisition. London: Edward Arnold.
    57. Meisel, J., Clahsen H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3(1), 109–35.
    58. Nardi, B. (2005). Objects of desire: Power and passion in collaborative activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12, 37–51.
    59. Nassaji, H. (2011). Correcting students’ written grammatical errors: The effects of negotiated versus nonnegotiated feedback. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(3), 315–334.
    60. Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9, 34-51.
    61. Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.
    62. Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(2), 186–214.
    63. Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 52–79.
    64. Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamin.
    65. Pienemann, M. (2005). Discussing processability theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Crosslinguistic aspects of processability theory (pp. 61–83). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
    66. Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 375-389.
    67. Prenkert, F. (2010). Tracing the roots of activity systems theory: An analysis of the concept of mediation. Theory & Psychology, 20(5), 641-665.
    68. 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.
    69. 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.
    70. Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K.(2004). Positive evidence vs. explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer assisted study. Language Learning, 54, 35–78.
    71. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    72. Sharwood Smith, M. (2013). Only connect: The interface debate in second language acquisition. In K. Droz ́dział-Szelest & M. Pawlak (Eds.), Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives on second language learning and teaching. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
    73. Spinner, P. (2011). Second language assessment and morphosyntactic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(4), 529-561.
    74. Sun, Y. A. (2008). Input processing in second language acquisition: A discussion of four input processing models. Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 1-10.
    75. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input and second language acquisition (pp. 235–256). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
    76. Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    77. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.
    78. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.
    79. VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755–803.
    80. VanPatten, B. (2009). Processing matters in input enhancement. In T. Piske & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Input matters (pp. 47-61). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
    81. VanPatten, B. (Ed.). (2004). Processing instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    82. VanPatten, B., & Cardieno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-243.
    83. VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495 –510.
    84. Whong, M. (2007). Seeking consensus: Generative linguistics and language teaching. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics, 12, 143–155.
    85. Wong, W. 2004. The nature of processing instruction. In B.VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction (pp. 33-63). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    86. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.
    87. Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2015). Understanding EFL students’ participation in group peer feedback of L2 writing: A case study from an activity theory perspective. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 572-593
    88. Zhu, W., & Mitchell, D. (2012). Participation in peer response as activity: An examination of peer response stances from an activity theory perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 362–386