The Differential Effect of Two Types of Direct Written Corrective Feedback on Noticing and UptakeReformulation vs. Error Correction

  1. Santos, María
  2. López Serrano, Sonia
  3. Manchón Ruiz, Rosa María
Revista:
IJES: international journal of English studies

ISSN: 1578-7044

Año de publicación: 2010

Título del ejemplar: Cognitive processes, Instructed Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching Materials

Volumen: 10

Número: 1

Páginas: 131-154

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.6018/IJES/2010/1/114011 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: IJES: international journal of English studies

Resumen

Framed in a cognitively-oriented strand of research on corrective feedback (CF) in SLA, the controlled three- stage (composition/comparison-noticing/revision) study reported in this paper investigated the effects of two forms of direct CF (error correction and reformulation) on noticing and uptake, as evidenced in the written output produced by a group of 8 secondary school EFL learners. Noticing was operationalized as the amount of corrections noticed in the comparison stage of the writing task, whereas uptake was operationally defined as the type and amount of accurate revisions incorporated in the participants� revised versions of their original texts. Results support previous research findings on the positive effects of written CF on noticing and uptake, with a clear advantage of error correction over reformulation as far as uptake was concerned. Data also point to the existence of individual differences in the way EFL learners process and make use of CF in their writing. These findings are discussed from the perspective of the light they shed on the learning potential of CF in instructed SLA, and suggestions for future research are put forward.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, reformulation, and noticing: Implications for interlanguage development. Language Teaching Research, 7(3), 347-376.
  • Adams, R. & Ross-Feldman, L. (2008). Does writing influence learner attention to form? In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), The oral-literate connection. Perspectives on L2 speaking, writing, and other media interactions (pp. 243-266. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
  • Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118.
  • Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback in migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409-431.
  • Leki, I., Cumming, A. & Silva, T. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language writing in English. New York: Routledge.
  • Ellis, R., Shenn, Y, Murakami, M. & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects if focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353-371.
  • Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181-201.
  • Hanaoka, O. (2007). Output, noticing, and learning: An investigation into the role of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research, 11(4), 459-479.
  • Lapkin, S., Swain, M. & Smith, M. (2002). Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian French immersion context. The Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 485-507.
  • Lázaro, A. (2009). Reformulation and self-correction: Testing the validity of correction strategies in the classroom. RESLA, 22, 189-215.
  • Leow, R. P. 2000. A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 557-584.
  • Manchón, R.M. (In press a). The language learning potential of writing in foreign language contexts. Lessons from research. In M. Reichelt & T. Chimasko (Eds.), Foreign language writing. Research insights. West Lafayette: Parlour Press.
  • Manchón, R.M. (In press b). Teaching writing. The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Manchón, R.M. (Forthcoming). Writing to learn the language. Issues in theory and research. In R.M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning to write and writing to learn in an additional language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Manchón, R.M. & Roca, J. (Forthcoming). Writing to learn in FL contexts: Learners’ perceptions of the language learning potential of L2 writing. In R.M. Manchón (Ed). Learning to write and writing to learn in an additional language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Nassaji, H. & Swain, M. 2000. A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34-51.
  • Niu, R. 2009. Effect of task-inherent production modes on EFL learners’ focus on form. Language Awareness, 18(3-4), 384-402.
  • Ortega, L. (2009). Studying writing across English as a foreign language contexts: Looking back and moving forward. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 232-255). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  • 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(4), 277-303.
  • Robinson, P. 1995. Attention, memory and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283- 331.
  • Rosa, E. & O’Neill, M. 1999. Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness. Another piece of the puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511-556.
  • 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.
  • Schmidt, R. W. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 206-226.
  • Schmidt, R. W. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 11-26.
  • Schmidt, R. 2001. Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3- 32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sheen, Y. 2007. The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 4,255-283.
  • Sheen, Y. (2010a). The role of oral and written corrective feedback on SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 169-179.
  • Sheen, Y. (2010b). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 203-234.
  • Storch, N. (2002a). Relationships formed in dyadic interaction and opportunity for learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 305-322.
  • Storch, N. (2002b). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119-158.
  • Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 143-159.
  • Storch, N. 2009. Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17(2), 95-114.
  • Storch, N. & Wiglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303-334.
  • Suzuki, W. (2008). The effect of written languaging combined with feedback on second language writing. Paper presented at the AAAL 2008 Annual Conference, Washington, DC, March.
  • Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-153). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
  • Swain M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Applied linguistics. Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • 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: Cambridge University Press.
  • Swain, M. 2000. The output hypotheses and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 329-337.
  • Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners´ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 85-304.
  • Thornbury, S. (1997). Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promote “noticing”. ELT Journal, 51, 326-335.
  • Tocalli-Beller, A. & Swain. M. 2005. Reformulation: The cognitive conflict and L2 learning it generates. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 5-28.
  • Tomlin, R. S. & Villa, V. 1994. Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183-203.
  • Toth P. D. 2006. Processing instruction and a role for output in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 56(2), 319-85.
  • Watanabe, Y. & Swain, M. 2007. Effect of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121-142.
  • Williams, J. (2001). Learner-generated attention to form. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Form-focused instruction and second language learning (pp. 303-346). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  • Williams, J. (2008). The speaking-writing connection in second language and academic literacy development. In D. Belcher and A. Hirvela (Eds.), The oral/literate connection: Perspectives on L2 speaking, writing, and other media interactions (pp. 10-25). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
  • Xu, C. (2009). Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Ellis et al. (2008) and Bitchener (2008). Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 270-275.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet