Most second language researchers agree that there is a role for corrective feedback in second language writing classes. However, many unanswered questions remain concerning the linguistic features to target and the type and amount of feedback to offer. This study examined essays by 151 learners of English as a second language (ESL), in order to investigate the effect of either direct or metalinguistic written feedback on errors with the simple past tense and the present perfect tense. This inquiry also considered the extent to which learner differences in language-analytic ability (LAA), as measured by the LLAMA F, mediated the effects of these two types of explicit written corrective feedback. Learners in both feedback groups were provided with corrective feedback on two essays whereas the control group received general comments on content. Learners in all three groups then completed two additional writing tasks to determine whether or not the provision of corrective feedback led to greater gains in accuracy compared to no feedback. Both treatment groups performed better than the comparison group on new pieces of writing immediately following the treatment sessions, yet direct feedback was more durable than metalinguistic feedback for one structure, the simple past tense. Participants with greater LAA proved more likely to achieve gains in the direct feedback group than in the metalinguistic group, whereas learners with lower LAA benefited more from metalinguistic feedback.
AshwellT. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multi-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method?Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227–257.
2.
AyounD. (2001). The role of negative and positive feedback in the second language acquisition of passé composé and imparfait. Modern Language Journal, 85, 226–243.
3.
AyounD. (2004). The effectiveness of written recasts in the second language acquisition aspectual distinctions in French: A follow-up study. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 31–55.
4.
Bardovi-HarligK. (1995). The interaction of pedagogy and natural sequences in the acquisition of tense and aspect. In: EckmanF.HighlandD.LeeP.MilehamJ.WeberR. (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy (pp. 151–168). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB. (2011). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-40. Available at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4 (accessed March 2018).
6.
BitchenerJ. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102–118.
7.
BitchenerJ.FerrisD. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge.
8.
BitchenerJ.KnochU. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409–431.
9.
BitchenerJ.KnochU. (2010a). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193–214.
10.
BitchenerJ.KnochU. (2010b). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207–217.
11.
BitchenerJ.YoungS.CameronD. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191–205.
12.
Celce-MurciaM.Larsen-FreemanD. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. 2nd edition.Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
13.
DeKeyserR. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 77, 501–514.
14.
DeKeyserR. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55, 1–25.
15.
DeKeyserR. (2016). Of moving targets and chameleons: Why the concept of difficulty is so hard to pin down. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 353–363.
16.
DeKeyserR.KoethJ. (2011). Cognitive aptitudes for second language learning. In: HinkleE. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning: Volume 2 (pp. 395–406). London: Routledge.
17.
DiabN. (2015). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does type of error and type of correction matter?Assessing Writing, 24, 16–34.
18.
DörnyeiZ. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19.
DörnyeiZ.SkehanP. (2003). Individual differences in L2 learning. In: DoughtyC.J.LongM.H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589–630). Oxford: Blackwell.
20.
DoughtyC. (2013). Optimizing post-critical-period language learning. In: GranenaG.LongM.H. (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 153–175). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
21.
EllisR.SheenY.MurakamiM.TakashimaH. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353–371.
22.
ErlamR. (2005). Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9, 147–171.
23.
FerrisD.R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In: HylandK.HylandF. (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
FerrisD.R.RobertsB. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.
25.
FerrisD.R.LiuH.SinhaA.SennaM. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 307–329.
26.
FrearD. (2012). The effect of written feedback and revision on intermediate Chinese learners’ acquisition of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Auckland, New Zealand.
27.
HwuF.PanW.SunS. (2014). Aptitude-treatment interaction effects on explicit rule learning: A latent growth curve analysis. Language Teaching Research, 18, 294–319.
28.
IshidaM. (2004). Effects of recasts on the acquisition of the aspectual form -te i-(ru) by learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Language Learning, 54, 311–394.
29.
JaegerF. (2008) Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.
30.
KormosJ. (2013). New conceptualizations of language aptitude in second language attainment. In: GranenaG.LongM.H. (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 131–152). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
31.
LongM.H. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference?TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359–382.
32.
LongM.H. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In: BeebeL.M. (Ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115–141). New York: Harper and Row.
33.
MearaP. (2005). LLAMA language aptitude tests: The manual. Swansea: Lognostics.
34.
OrtegaL. (2009). Sequences and processes in language learning. In: LongM.H.DoughtyC.J. (Eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 81–105). Oxford: Blackwell.
35.
R Development Core Team (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: The R Foundation for Statistical Computing. ISBN: 3-900051-07-0. Available at: http://www.R-project.org/ (accessed March 2016).
36.
RobinsonP. (1997). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning, 47, 45–99.
37.
SasakiM. (1996). Second language proficiency, foreign language aptitude and intelligence. New York: Lang.
38.
SchmittN.DörnyeiZ.AdolphsS.DurowV. (2003). Knowledge and acquisition of formulaic sequences: A longitudinal study. In: SchmittN. (Ed.), The acquisition, processing, and use of formulaic sequences (pp. 55–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
39.
SheenY. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283.
40.
SheenY. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 203–234.
41.
SheenY.WrightD.MoldawaA. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37, 556–569.
42.
ShintaniN.EllisR. (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, 22, 286–306.
43.
ShintaniN.EllisR. (2015). Does language analytical ability mediate the effect of written feedback on grammatical accuracy in second language writing?System, 49, 110–119.
44.
ShintaniN.EllisR.SuzukiW. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64, 103–131.
45.
StefanouC.RévészA. (2015). Learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 263–282.
46.
TruscottJ. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.
47.
TruscottJ. (1999). The case for ‘the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes’: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111–122.
48.
TruscottJ. (2001). Selecting errors for selective correction. Concentric: Studies in English Literature and Linguistics, 27, 93–108.
49.
TruscottJ. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–272.
50.
Van BeuningenC.de JongN.H.KuikenF. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in Dutch multilingual classrooms. Language Learning, 62, 1–41.
51.
VatzK.TareM.JacksonS.R.DoughtyC.J. (2013). Aptitude-treatment interaction studies in second language acquisition. In: GranenaG.LongM.H. (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 273–292). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
52.
YangY.LysterR. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235–263.
