Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 36
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Ruegg, Rachael 2016. The effect of assessment of process after receiving teacher feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 41, Issue. 2, p. 199.


    Shintani, Natsuko 2016. The effects of computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous direct corrective feedback on writing: a case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, Vol. 29, Issue. 3, p. 517.


    Cánovas Guirao, Josefa Roca de Larios, Julio and Coyle, Yvette 2015. The use of models as a written feedback technique with young EFL learners. System, Vol. 52, p. 63.


    Gass, Susan M. 2015. The Handbook of Classroom Discourse and Interaction.


    Godfroid, Aline and Spino, Le Anne 2015. Reconceptualizing Reactivity of Think-Alouds and Eye Tracking: Absence of Evidence Is Not Evidence of Absence. Language Learning, Vol. 65, Issue. 4, p. 896.


    Han, Ye and Hyland, Fiona 2015. Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, Vol. 30, p. 31.


    Lee, Icy Mak, Pauline and Burns, Anne 2015. Bringing innovation to conventional feedback approaches in EFL secondary writing classrooms. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, Vol. 14, Issue. 2, p. 140.


    Saadi, Zahra Kheradmand and Saadat, Mahboobeh 2015. EFL Learners’ Writing Accuracy: Effects of Direct and Metalinguistic Electronic Feedback. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 5, Issue. 10, p. 2053.


    Simard, Daphnée Guénette, Danièle and Bergeron, Annie 2015. L2 learners' interpretation and understanding of written corrective feedback: insights from their metalinguistic reflections. Language Awareness, Vol. 24, Issue. 3, p. 233.


    STEFANOU, CHARIS and RÉVÉSZ, ANDREA 2015. Direct Written Corrective Feedback, Learner Differences, and the Acquisition of Second Language Article Use for Generic and Specific Plural Reference. The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 99, Issue. 2, p. 263.


    Cicres Bosch, Jordi Llach, Silvia and De-Ribot, María Dolors 2014. Detection and correction of linguistic errors: results according to linguistic preferences and uses. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, Vol. 9, Issue. 1, p. 14.


    Mak, Pauline and Lee, Icy 2014. Implementing assessment for learning in L2 writing: An activity theory perspective. System, Vol. 47, p. 73.


    Yang, Chengsong Hu, Guangwei and Zhang, Lawrence Jun 2014. Reactivity of concurrent verbal reporting in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, Vol. 24, p. 51.


    Lim, Jason Miin-Hwa 2013. Providing an Overview of the Research Context: Pedagogical Implications for the Writing of Research Reports in Applied Linguistics. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, p. 480.


    Nas, Marly and van Esch, Kees 2013. The Handbook of Spanish Second Language Acquisition.


    Shintani, Natsuko and Ellis, Rod 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, Vol. 22, Issue. 3, p. 286.


    Alwi, Nik Aloesnita Nik Mohd Adams, Rebecca and Newton, Jonathan 2012. Writing to learn via text chat: Task implementation and focus on form. Journal of Second Language Writing, Vol. 21, Issue. 1, p. 23.


    Hanaoka, Osamu and Izumi, Shinichi 2012. Noticing and uptake: Addressing pre-articulated covert problems in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, Vol. 21, Issue. 4, p. 332.


    Polio, Charlene 2012. The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, Vol. 21, Issue. 4, p. 375.


    Polio, Charlene 2012. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics.


    ×

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

  • Rebecca Sachs (a1) and Charlene Polio (a2)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263107070039
  • Published online: 01 January 2007
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
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? *
×