Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback

Bitchener, John; Knoch, Ute

doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002

Cited by 313 publications

(289 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

256

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The data showed that students who received MECF gained higher scores on accuracy than the group who received DECF; however, there was no significant difference in the effectiveness of the types of feedback that the students received. This finding is in contrast to the studies which showed that either direct or metalinguistic feedback was more effective (Bitchener & Knoch, 2010;Ellis, 2009;Ferris & Roberts, 2001;Sheen, 2007). An explanation for the obtained results can be the fact that both groups, irrespective of the type of feedback, similarly…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 94%

EFL Learners’ Writing Accuracy: Effects of Direct and Metalinguistic Electronic Feedback

Saadi¹,

Saadat²

2015

TPLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-The present study investigated the effects of direct and metalinguistic electronic feedback (Efeedback) on Iranian EFL learners' writing accuracy and attitudes toward computer assisted language learning (CALL). Twenty nine students in two intact English writing classes comprised the participants of the study. A mixed-method design was used for data collection and analysis. In addition to the instruction provided similarly in both classes, based on random assignment, the students in one group received direct electronic corrective feedback (DECF) using Ginger software. In the other class, the students received metalinguistic electronic corrective feedback (MECF) in the form of error codes provided through Markin4 software. Results revealed that the use of E-feedback developed the learners' writing accuracy and attitudes toward CALL. However, there were no significant differences between the final overall writing accuracy scores of the DECF and MECF groups and their gain scores. Regarding writing accuracy components (i.e., structure, vocabulary, and punctuation), although the MECF group obtained higher scores in three components, a statistically significant difference between the two groups was found only in terms of vocabulary gain scores. Finally, in the interviews, the students in both groups referred to some barriers in the implementation of CALL in their context as well as some of its merits.Index Terms-writing accuracy, corrective feedback, direct and metalinguistic feedback, electronic feedback, CALL

show abstract

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 94%

EFL Learners’ Writing Accuracy: Effects of Direct and Metalinguistic Electronic Feedback

Saadi¹,

Saadat²

2015

TPLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the difference between the two feedback groups only took the form of a trend at a p-value of .06. Bitchener and Knoch (2010b) also reported an advantage of direct correction. Whereas in this study direct and indirect CF proved to be equally effective in improving learners' accurate use of English articles over a one week period, only the effect of the two direct CF treatments was still present ten weeks later.…”

Section: Research On the Differential Effectiveness Of Direct And Indmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…This delay in access to the target form might level out the potential advantage of the additional cognitive effort associated with indirect CF. Additionally, Bitchener and Knoch (2010b) suggested that only direct CF offers learners the kind of explicit information that is needed for testing hypotheses about the target language.…”

Section: Direct and Indirect Cfmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Insights, and Future Directions

Beuningen¹

2010

ijes

158

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of (written) corrective feedback (CF) in the process of acquiring a second language (L2) has been an issue of considerable controversy among theorists and researchers alike. Although CF is a widely applied pedagogical tool and its use finds support in SLA theory, practical and theoretical objections to its usefulness have been raised (e.g. Truscott, 1996;. In the present paper, I start by summarizing the theoretical arguments underpinning the use of CF in L2 classrooms. Subsequently, the objections raised against error correction are reviewed, and some controversies concerning different CF methodologies and error types are discussed. Next, the paper provides a critical summary of the findings produced by empirical work to date, and sketches out some of the issues that need to be attended to in future research. Based on the available empirical evidence, I conclude that, by offering learners opportunities to notice the gaps in their developing L2 systems, test interlanguage hypotheses, and engage in metalinguistic reflection, written CF has the ability to foster SLA and to lead to accuracy development. KEYWORDS:written corrective feedback, error correction, second language writing, accuracy development, second language acquisition RESUMEN El papel que la corrección de trabajos escritos (written corrective feedback) (CF) desempeña en el proceso de adquisición de una segunda lengua (L2) ha sido objeto de controversia tanto desde el punto de vista teórico como empírico. Aunque el empleo de este tipo de corrección como herramienta pedagógica está muy extendido, y su utilización se apoya en teorías de adquisición de segundas lenguas, su utilidad ha sido cuestionada tanto desde el punto de vista práctico como teórico (Truscott, 1996;. En el presente artículo se incluye, primero, un resumen de los argumentos teóricos que apoyan el uso de la corrección de trabajos escritos en el aula. Seguidamente se presenta una revisión de las objeciones planteadas en contra de su utilización y una discusión de algunas de las principales controversias que han surgido en torno a las distintas metodologías de corrección empleadas y a las tipologías de errores establecidas. Finalmente, se incluye un resumen crítico de los resultados obtenidos en la investigación empírica hasta la fecha y se plantean algunos aspectos que han de tenerse en cuenta en futuras investigaciones. Teniendo en cuenta la evidencia empírica existente, se concluye que la corrección de trabajos escritos ofrece a los aprendices oportunidades de detectar problemas en su interlengua, comprobar hipótesis sobre la L2 e involucrarse en procesos de reflexión metalingüística, y que, por tanto, tiene el potencial de facilitar la adquisición de segundas lenguas y de fomentar el desarrollo de la precisión lingüística (accuracy). PALABRAS CLAVE:corrección de trabajos escritos, corrección de errores, escritura en segundas lenguas, desarrollo de la corrección lingüística, adquisición de segundas lenguas

show abstract

“…Researchers look into such matters as different types of correction, general issues related to correction (Chandler, 2003;Chaudron, 1986;James, 1998;Truscott & Hsu, 2008;Zybert, 1999), substantiation of positive approach to language mistakes, (Bartram & Walton, 1991), implicit and explicit corrective feedback (Ellis, Loewen & Erlam, 2006), oral and written corrective feedback (Bitchener & Knoch, 2010;Ellis, 2010), prompts and recasts (Ammar, 2008), errors as indicators of the development of interlanguage (Arabski, 1979), feedback in adult second language acquisition (Carrol, Swain & Roberge, 1992), individual differences in second language learning and difficulties caused by them (Ellis, 2004), modelling learning difficulties (Ellis, 2006), analysing learner language (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005), the short-and long-term effects of written error correction (Ferris, 2006), effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning (Watanabe & Swain, 2007).…”

Section: Problem Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis and classification of errors when shifting from general English to ESP teaching at University (the case of legal translation)

Chiknaverova¹

2018

PROSOC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teaching legal translation at university causes a number of challenges which are caused by linguistic and sociocultural characteristics of the corresponding original and translation texts and psycholinguistic peculiarities of the second language acquisition process. There are some aspects in teaching legal translation that are rarely under investigation, among them there are issues that arise when shifting from general English to legal translation teaching. The article aims to comprehensively analyse and classify errors that students make during the introductory course of legal translation as well as to reveal the causes thereof. The author is guided by a set of methods including inter alia analysis of research on errors made by foreign language learners, observation and representative method. It concludes with recommendations related to teaching legal translation at the introductory level, summarises sources, types of errors and the ways to minimise and avoid them.

show abstract

Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback

Cited by 313 publications

References 29 publications

EFL Learners’ Writing Accuracy: Effects of Direct and Metalinguistic Electronic Feedback

EFL Learners’ Writing Accuracy: Effects of Direct and Metalinguistic Electronic Feedback

Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Insights, and Future Directions

Analysis and classification of errors when shifting from general English to ESP teaching at University (the case of legal translation)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About