Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

LEARNERS' USES OF TWO TYPES OF WRITTEN FEEDBACK ON A L2 WRITING REVISION TASK

  • Rebecca Sachs (a1) and Charlene Polio (a2)
Abstract

This study examines the effectiveness of written error corrections versus reformulations of second language learners' writing as two means of improving learners' grammatical accuracy on a three-stage composition-comparison-revision task. Concurrent verbal protocols were employed during the comparison stage in order to study the learners' reported awareness of the more targetlike reformulations. The reactivity of think-alouds as a research tool was also assessed. First, 15 adult learners of English participated in a repeated-measures study with three experimental conditions: error correction, reformulation, and reformulation + think-aloud. Participant reports of awareness in the reformulation + think-aloud condition suggested that noticing of feedback was related to the accuracy of subsequent revisions. A second nonrepeated-measures study was then carried out with 54 participants; a control group was added and the design was modified in an attempt to eliminate the reported tendency of learners to develop and use memorization strategies while processing the written feedback. In both experiments, participants performed significantly better in the error correction condition than in the reformulation condition. The think-alouds, used to examine learners' attentional processes, were found to be reactive in the first study; learners in the reformulation condition produced significantly more accurate revisions than those who were asked to think aloud while processing the reformulations they received. The results suggest that whereas verbal protocols might be able to shed some light on learner-internal processes in relation to written feedback, they should be employed and interpreted with care.We would like to thank Alison Mackey and the anonymous SSLA reviewers for their helpful suggestions on this article.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Rebecca Sachs, Georgetown University, Department of Linguistics, Intercultural Center, 4th floor, Washington, DC 20057; e-mail: rrs8@georgetown.edu
Charlene Polio, Michigan State University, Department of Linguistics, Wells Hall, A714, East Lansing, MI 48824; e-mail: polio@msu.edu
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Baddeley, A., Papagno, C., & Vallar, G. (1988). When long-term learning depends on short-term storage. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 586595.

Bowles, M.A. & Leow, R.P. (2005). Reactivity and type of verbal report in SLA research methodology: Expanding the scope of investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 415440.

Braidi, S. (2002). Reexamining the role of recasts in native-speaker/non-native speaker interactions. Language Learning, 52, 142.

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, 267296.

Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 7, 482511.

DeKeyser, R.M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379410.

Ellis, N.C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 91126.

Ellis, N.C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305352.

Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(Suppl. 1), 146.

Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111.

Ferris, D. (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 Writing, 13, 4962.

Iwashita, N. (2003). Positive and negative input in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 136.

Laufer, B. & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 126.

Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 3763.

Leow, R.P. (1997). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 47, 467506.

Leow, R.P. (2001). Do learners notice enhanced forms while interacting with the L2? An online and offline study of the role of written input enhancement in L2 reading. Hispania, 84, 496509.

Leow, R.P. & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). To think aloud or not to think aloud: The issue of reactivity in SLA research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 3557.

Loewen, S. & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536556.

Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 5181.

Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 3666.

Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557587.

Mackey, A., Gass, S.M., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471497.

Mackey, A. & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings?Modern Language Journal, 82, 338356.

Makino, T. (1993). Learner self-correction in EFL written compositions. ELT Journal, 47, 337341.

Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P.M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719758.

Norris, J.M. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417528.

Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Nonnative speakers' noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99126.

Polio, C. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47, 101143.

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 Writing, 7, 4368.

Polio, C. & Gass, S.M. (1998). The role of interaction in native speaker comprehension of nonnative speaker speech. Modern Language Journal, 82, 308319.

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, 277303.

Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 8395.

Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283331.

Robinson, P. (2001). Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning conditions in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 17, 368392.

Rosa, E.M. & Leow, R.P. (2004). Awareness, different learning conditions, and second language development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 269292.

Rosa, E.M. & O'Neill, M. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness: Another piece of the puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511556.

Saxton, M. (1997). The contrast theory of negative input. Journal of Child Language, 24, 139161.

Schmidt, R.W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129158.

Sheen, Y.H. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263300.

Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371391.

Thornbury, S. (1997). Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promote “noticing.”ELT Journal, 51, 326335.

Tomlin, R.S. & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183203.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327369.

Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337343.

VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287301.

Wong, W. (2001). Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 345368.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition
  • ISSN: 0272-2631
  • EISSN: 1470-1545
  • URL: /core/journals/studies-in-second-language-acquisition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 3
Total number of PDF views: 212 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 773 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 26th March 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.