Learners' Uses of Two Types of Written Feedback on a L2 Writing Revision Task

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.

Methodological considerations in studying awareness during learning. Part 2: Second Language Acquisition

“…In contrast with studies reviewed above, Sachs and Polio (2007) found clear evidence of reactivity. In their Experiment 1, Asian learners of English enrolled for three weeks of writing tasks.…”

“…Of these, some studies showed evidence of the reactivity (e.g., Bowles & Leow 2005;Rossomondo 2007;Sachs & Polio 2007;Sachs & Suh,2007;Sanz et al 2009), whereas others did not (e.g., Leow & Morgan-Short 2004) in terms of accuracy and/or latency in verbal task performance such as reading and writing. The first study that empirically examined the issue of reactivity was by Leow and Morgan-Short (2004; see also Bowles, 2008 and.…”

The Effect of Direct and Indirect Corrective Feedback on L2 Learners’ Written Accuracy

“…Studies that did include a control group and investigated the short-term effectiveness of error correction (e.g. Ashwell, 2000;Ferris, 1997;Ferris & Roberts, 2001;Sachs & Polio, 2007), found that participants whose errors were corrected were able to make more accurate revisions than those who did not receive any corrective feedback. In contrast, results from studies investigating the effect of corrective feedback on subsequent writing (e.g.…”

El feedback correctivo escrito indirecto en el aprendizaje de la forma comparativa de adjetivos en inglés

“…Robinson (2011) señala que el FC favorece el proceso de notar la brecha entre el input otorgado y la fase de interlengua del usuario. La información proporcionada al utilizar estrategias de FC requiere ser internalizada por el aprendiente para promover la precisión lingüística y, consecuentemente, el desarrollo de su interlengua (Sachs & Polio, 2007;Sheen, 2011).…”