The Effects of Direct Written Corrective Feedback and Model Texts on English Language Students’ Writings
Author :
DOI : 10.29228/ijla.66061
Year-Number: 2022-43
Yayımlanma Tarihi: 2022-12-13 23:54:15.0
Language : İngilizce
Konu : Yabancı Dil Eğitimi
Abstract
Keywords
Abstract
Although there exists some controversy regarding the effectiveness of written corrective feedback as a tool to improve the accuracy and overall quality of students’ writings, a new dimension is to be added to this discussion in the light of the Noticing Hypothesis and Output Hypothesis. Written corrective feedback types, in particular, was evaluated in this study regarding their effectiveness in reducing the number of errors in students’ subsequent writings. The focus of this study was to analyse the results of three groups formed depending on the corrective feedback type they received. The students wrote a narrative paragraph depending on the picture prompt used in a similar study by Izumi (2012). After the completion of the pre-test part, the first drafts, the first group received direct written corrective feedback; however, the second group read a model text and revised their first drafts. There is a control group in the current study and this group did not receive any kind of feedback for their previous writings. In the light of the statistical results of the study, it is plain that direct written corrective feedback is more effective in providing solutions to the erroneous parts in students’ writings; notwithstanding the model text was more instrumental with respect to authentic lexical items provided. The data also show that this sequence enables students to actively participate in the learning process by including corrections in their writing. As a result, a significant difference was observed between the number of errors before the feedback sections and after the review section, depending on the teacher's corrective feedback type.
Keywords
- There exists a continuous interplay between attention and language learning. Notwithstandingthe divergent opinions regarding the amount of attention needed for learning to take place, theintertwined relationship between attention and language learning is well-accepted in cognitivepsychology and SLA. In this vein, Schmidt proposed the Noticing Hypothesis claiming that“noticing is the necessary and sufficient condition for the conversion of input to intake forlearning” (Schmidt, 1994, p. 17). On the other hand, Tomlin and Villa (1994) draw attention toconscious registration by pointing out the significance of detection in language learning rather than awareness.
- Swain’s (1985) seminal article explicated the relationship between output and learning bypointing out the significance of output in stimulating language acquisition by forcing the learnerto produce and process language accordingly. Therefore, there was a proliferation of relatedstudies in the ensuing years. The role of output prompting activities have been pointed out by awhole host of authors. Current perspectives affirm the importance of ‘output’-namely learner’attempt to produce language - in prompting learners to notice the gaps between their IL and TLforms (Swain, 1998; Swain & Lapkin, 1995). Therefore, ELT practitioners are to situate learners’output at an interface where learner internal factors and external factors (input and feedback)have an impact on the other one. Learner noticing ensues, the result of which is that the learnermakes sense of language items h/she does not normally pay attention to in the receptive use oflanguage. As for the contribution of these explanations to L2 courses, the application of‘Noticing’ and ‘Output’ hypotheses in classroom practices is of great importance, and to this endactivities involving note-taking and underlining parts would substantially serve this purpose.
- Given the importance of ‘noticing’ in L2 learning, productive language use has a key role ininducing learners to notice the target structures in L2 classes. Schmidt (1990, 2001) claimedthat learners’ noticing is crucial in L2 development. The role of ‘notice the gap’ principle,referring to the gap between TL forms and learners’ IL, was highlighted in his works whileadding the factors that inhibit or promote noticing. External factors such as input frequencyand feedback together with internal factors (learners’ aptitude, affective factors ...) have a
- significant impact on students’ language skills development (Dörnyei, 2009; Izumi, 2002). All inall, of great interest is whether providing students with different types of written correctivefeedback would facilitate the internalization of some specific language items together with target structures.
- There exists research-based evidence that bolsters the importance and effects of writtencorrective feedback on students’ progress in written accuracy over time (Chandler, 2000;Sheppard, 1992). Despite not being conclusive to the ultimate success of corrective feedbacktypes in improving the overall quality of students’ written products, these studies provideevidence for the short-term effects of these feedback types. Notwithstanding that theeffectiveness of corrective feedback in improving the students’ accuracy in English language iscommensurate with related literature (Bitchener, 2008; Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Fathman &Whalley, 1990), the pendulum has swung back to the other extreme with the claims of Truscott(1996, 1999) regarding the drawbacks of studies in this field. Truscott questions theeffectiveness of corrective feedback in the overall quality of their writing together with the finaloutcomes of language learning process. Although Truscott’s preliminary studies try to shed lighton the exclusive and relative merits of longitudinal studies in providing evidence for theseissues, the examination of short-term effects can subsequently be applied to long-terms effects in terms of their function in improving students’ writings.
- Most of the scholars draw attention to the role of corrective feedback in reducing the number oferrors in students’ writings nevertheless, and accordingly there exist two conflicting viewpointson this issue. Although the results of these studies are possibly indicative of the effectiveness ofcorrective feedback in English courses, the lack of a control group in these studies (Ferris,1995; Chandler, 2000; Roberts & McKee, 2000) induces some authors to hold widely divergentopinions in this topic. Despite not being oblivious to the importance of corrective feedback typeson the reduction of errors in a given text, the researchers point out the necessity of alongitudinal study to show their effects in terms of developing students’ writing skills in the long run.
- To further explicate the matter, it is of great importance to focus on and define different types ofcorrective feedback since a common vein of research is to investigate the effects of various typesof corrective feedback on students’ writings. Most of the studies succinctly indicate that learnerswant and value a variety of types of teacher feedback, and by the same token the focus of theseresearch studies have been canalized into the analysis of students’ texts to determine the effectsof some type of intervention-namely types of written corrective feedback. In this vein, Bozyiğitand Ekşi (2017) focused on the instrumental value assigned to written constructivist feedbackand noted the effectiveness of feedback sessions in helping student teachers develop positive attitudes towards providing written corrective feedback.
- At first, direct corrective feedback is generally defined as the provision of the correct linguisticform above or near the linguistic error (Bitchener, Young & Cameron, 2005). Direct feedbackalso includes meta-linguistic explanations which are generally given at the end of a students’script with some references. As for indirect corrective feedback types, they indicate in some waythat an error is made in a given line or word. Indirect feedback is a versatile tool in urgingstudents to think about the language structures and elements. As Schmidt (1990) postulated inhis work, learners must first ‘notice’ that they have made an error. Therefore, indirect correctivefeedback fosters learners’ potential for forming hypotheses which help them to be engaged in deeper internal processing.
- In the light of the studies implemented in this field, it is clear that very often students andteachers express a preference for direct feedback in virtue of the positive upside of directcorrective feedback types (Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Komura, 1999). However, the proficiency levelof students is of importance in ascertaining the type of corrective feedback. Lower proficiencylearners can especially be confused about the meanings of error codes used by their languageteacher. Also, less proficient students did not value indirect error feedback as much as moreproficient learners. Accordingly, indirect corrective feedback types impose a cognitive burden onlanguage learners at large. The students also question the effectiveness of indirect feedback inproviding them with information to correct idiosyncratic and syntactic errors (Roberts, 1999). Use of Model Texts in Writing Classes
- The results of the studies conducted by Izumi and Bigelow (2000), meanwhile, indicated thatmodel texts are more effective in essay writing tasks rather than those targeting specificlanguage forms. Hanaoka’s studies (2006, 2007), based on the theoretical framework of theOutput Hypothesis, registered the effectiveness of model texts in assisting learners with theincorporation of the noticed features in their revised texts. As being free from the limitations ofthe approximating the original writing, the model texts functions as an exemplar of nativespeaker writing at the levels of sentence structures and vocabulary. Furthermore, these studiesbasically condense on the fact that learners L2 proficiency levels and task type are significant intervening variables that determine the extent to which model texts become instrumental.
- A three-staged writing task was employed to collect data and a picture prompt was provided inorder for the students to write a narrative text. The target structures were Simple Past Tense,Past Continuous Tense, and lastly lexical errors. Inappropriate use of lexical items together withthe missing words are counted in this category. The prompt used is one of the picture promptsused in Hanaoka’s (2006, 2007) studies. For the Stage 1 task, the students wrote a narrativeparagraph consisting of 11-12 sentences. The models text comprised 12 sentences and thisinstruction was given in order to achieve comparability in terms of the length of each text. Atthis stage, the students were provided with two sheets of paper. They wrote their narratives onthe first sheet, and they were expected to write the problematic parts of language in targetstructures that they were confronted with on the second sheet. They were allowed to take notesin Turkish, their mother tongue, in order to lessen the cognitive burden on their minds. In total, Stage 1 took 25 minutes to complete.
- Note-taking sheets clearly indicate that students notice the gaps in their lexicalknowledge to a great extent when they are required to submit a written product.Additionally, most of these notes are related with V2 forms and English equivalent of theword in question. It is plain that the positive effect of output is demonstrated once morein the current study and the results are consistent with the hypothesized function ofoutput in SLA. The results of this aspect are also in line with Izumi’s studies (2002, 2012)in terms of the focus on the interconnectedness of the noticing function and output processes in SLA.
- Based on the contribution of previous studies, it was hypothesized that learners’attention should be drawn to the substantial form features in order to promote theirlearning. Alsulami (2016) also drew attention to the role of noticing function in enablinglanguage learners to identify lexical and grammatical parts in their writings and to helpthem improve their writing style, too. In a similar vein, Uggen (2012) put an emphasis onthe influence of output on language learners’ subsequent noticing of lexical items andawareness of their linguistic limitations. This study yielded consistent results whencompared with the related studies conducted. Attention-inducing effect of output isobserved as well, however the quality of attention can be altered by involving a deeperand more elaborate processing. This part can be counted among the limitations of thestudy, hence various parts are to be included in these studies in order to prompt and measure a deeper analysis of attention in this process.
- Model texts are more effective in providing students with authentic lexical items. Whenthe note-taking sheets are examined, it can be clearly stated that the students have greatdifficulty finding the appropriate word without deviating from the TL structures.Furthermore, model text plays a different role vis-à-vis overt and covert problemsencountered in the process of writing. Model text was substantially functional in offeringsolutions to total avoidance and paraphrased features. The result with respect to theeffects of model text on students’ writing is in line with the study carried out by Hanaoka& Izumi (2012). As model text was related with the same picture set, it especially provided equivalents of lexical items necessary for the narration of the same story.
- The notion of type of processing is discussed in detail in SLA literature in some prominentstudies (Tomlin &Villa, 1994; Schmidt, 1995). These studies differed in terms of theirfocus on focal versus peripheral attention, implicit versus explicit learning, intentionalversus incidental learning and lastly noticing vs understanding. As for the results of thisstudy, two types of feedback (direct written corrective feedback and the model text) havewidely differing features with respect to the aforementioned attention and learningcategories. While the model texts provided solid examples of lexical items in the feedbacksessions, the direct written corrective feedback was more effective in givingstraightforward corrections and lexical equivalents. In a similar vein, the model text offered insights related with explicit and intentional learning.
- Preliminary findings of this research were presented orally in the 10th International ELT Research Conference, 25-27th April 2018, Antalya, Turkey.
- Alsulami, S. Q. (2016). Testing the noticing function of the output Hypothesis. English Language Teaching, 9(2), 136.
- Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of correctivefeedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191– 205.
- Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 17,102-118.
- Bozyigit, E., & Eksi, G. Y. (2017). Action research: video-assisted written constructivistfeedback of ELT student teachers in microteaching sessions. ELT Research Journal, 6(2), 174–192.
- Chandler, J. (2000). The efficacy of error correction for improvement in the accuracy of L2 student writing. Paper presented at the AAAL Conference, Vancouver, BC.
- Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Eschholz, P. A. (1980). The prose models approach: Using products in the process. In T. R.Donovan & B. W. McClelland (Eds.), Eight approaches to teaching composition, 21– 36. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
- Fathman, A. K., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on formversus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. 178–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Ferris, D. R. (1995a). Can advanced ESL students be taught to correct their most serious and frequent errors? CATESOL Journal, 8 (1), 41– 62.
- Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.
- Hanaoka, O. (2006a). Exploring the role of models in promoting noticing in L2 writing. JACET Bulletin, 42, 1–13.
- Hanaoka, O. (2006b). Noticing from models and reformulations: A case study of two Japanese EFL learners. Sophia Linguistica, 54, 167–192.
- Hanaoka, O. (2007). Output, noticing, and learning: An investigation into the role ofspontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research, 11, 459–479.
- Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239–278.
- Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the Noticing Hypothesis: Anexperimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577.
- Komura, K. (1999). Student response to error correction in ESL classrooms. MA thesis, Department of English, California State University, Sacramento.
- Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, Noticing and Instructed Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 405-530.
- Roberts, B. J. (1999). Can error logs raise more than consciousness? The effects of errorlogs and grammar feedback on ESL students’ final drafts. MA thesis, Department of English, California State University, Sacramento.
- Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
- Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction, 3–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103–110.
- 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., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes theygenerate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371– 391.
- Tomlin, R., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183–203.
- Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.
- Truscott, J. (1999). The case for ‘‘The case against grammar correction in L2 writingclasses’’: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111–122.
- Uggen, M. S. (2012). Reinvestigating the noticing function of output. Language Learning, 62, 506 – 640.
