Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study investigated the intensity and efficacy of automated corrective feedback (CF) in a tutorial CALL (computer-assisted language learning) environment during form-focused drills as compared with those of instructor CF on free writing in the classroom. The English simple past tense, a previously learned target structure, was selected as the target structure. A hundred and fifty-two Chinese intermediate learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) were randomly assigned to six groups and completed three writing tasks: a pretest, an immediate posttest, and a delayed posttest. The six groups included two automated feedback groups (direct correction on an error-correction test and metalinguistic feedback on an error-correction test), two feedback-on-writing groups (direct correction and metalinguistic feedback), a group who completed the error-correction test with no feedback, and a control group who participated in none of the interventions. The results showed that the error-correction test provided the participants with more intensive CF exposure than the writing task. However, the groups that received CF in the writing task were the only groups that performed better than the control in subsequent written production. Post hoc analyses of the production data revealed that the metalinguistic-feedback-on-writing group’s improvement could be attributable to error avoidance.

Keywords

automated feedback computer assisted language learning corrective feedback L2 writing second language acquisition

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ayoun

(2001). The role of negative and positive feedback in the second language acquisition of the passé compose and the imparfait. Modern Language Journal, 85, 226–243.

Bitchener

Young

Cameron

(2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191–205.

Bruton

(2009). Designing research into the effects of grammar correction in L2 writing: Not so straightforward. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 136–140.

Cornillie

Van den Noortgate

Van den Branden

Desmet

(2017). Examining focused L2 practice: From in vitro to in vivo. Language Learning & Technology, 21, 121–145.

DeKeyser

R.M.

(2015). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten

Williams

(Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 94–112). 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.

DeKeyser

R.M.

Sokalski

(2001). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. In Ellis

(Ed.), Form-focused instruction and second language learning (pp. 81–112). Oxford: Blackwell.

Ellis

Sheen

Murakami

Takashima

(2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353–371.

Evans

N.W.

Hartshorn

K.J.

Strong-Krause

(2011). The efficacy of dynamic written corrective feedback for university-matriculated ESL learners. System, 39, 229–239.

Ferris

D.R.

Liu

Rabie

(2011). ‘The job of teaching writing’: Teacher views on responding to student writing. Writing and Pedagogy, 3, 39–77.

10.

Frear

Chiu

Y.-H.

(2015). The effect of focuses and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24–34.

11.

Gao

Ma.

. (2019). The effect of two forms of computer-automated metalinguistic corrective feedback. Language Learning & Technology, 23, 65–83.

12.

Hair

J.F.

Black

W.C.

Babin

B.J.

Anderson

R.E.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis. 7th edition. New York: Pearson.

13.

Hartshorn

K.J.

Evans

N.W.

Merrill

P.F.

, et al. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 84–109.

14.

Heift

(2010). Prompting in CALL: A longitudinal study of learner uptake. Modern Language Journal, 94, 198–216.

15.

Heift

Hegelheimer

(2017). Computer-assisted corrective feedback and language learning. In Nassaji

Kartchava

(Eds.). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 51–65). New York: Routledge.

16.

Hinenoya

Lyster

(2015). Identifiability and accessibility in learning definite article usages: A quasi-experimental study with Japanese learners of English. Language Teaching Research, 19, 397–415.

17.

Kang

E.Y.

Han

(2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99, 1–18.

18.

Karim

Nassaji

(2018). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research. Epub ahead of print 5 October 2018. DOI: 10.1177/1362168818802469.

19.

Lado

Bowden

H.W.

Stafford

C.A.

Sanz

(2014). A fine-grained analysis of the effects of negative evidence with and without metalinguistic information in language development. Language Teaching Research, 18, 320–344.

20.

Lavolette

Polio

Kahng

(2015). The accuracy of computer-assisted feedback and students’ responses to it. Language Learning & Technology, 19, 50–68.

21.

Loschky

Bley-Vroman

(1993). Grammar and task-based learning. In Crookes

Gass

(Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123–167). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

22.

Link

Hegelheimer

(2015). Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback in ESL writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 1–18.

23.

(2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.

24.

Roshan

(2019). The associations between working memory and the effects of four different types of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 1–15.

25.

Hegelheimer

(2013). Mobile-assisted grammar exercises: Effects on self-editing in L2 writing. Language Learning & Technology, 17, 135–156.

26.

Monteiro

(2014). An experimental study of corrective feedback during video-conferencing. Language Learning & Technology, 18, 56–79.

27.

Norris

J.M.

Ortega

(2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.

28.

Pica

(1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493–527.

29.

Pienemann

Lenzing

(2015). Processability theory. In VanPatten

Williams

(Eds.) Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 159–179). 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.

30.

Polio

(2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 375–389.

31.

Sagarra

Abbuhl

(2013). Optimizing the noticing of recasts via computer-delivered feedback: Evidence that oral input enhancement and working memory help second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 97, 196–216.

32.

Sanz

(2003). Computer delivered implicit vs. explicit feedback in processing instruction. In VanPatten

(Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 241–256). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

33.

Sanz

Morgan-Short

(2004). Positive evidence vs. explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54, 35–78.

34.

Shintani

Ellis

(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.

35.

Shintani

Aubrey

Donnellan

(2016). The effects of pre-task and post-task metalinguistic explanations on accuracy in second language writing. TESOL Quarterly, 50, 945–955.

36.

Shintani

Ellis

Suzuki

(2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–131.

37.

Shintani

Ellis

(2013). Comprehension-based vs. production-based grammar instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Language Learning, 63, 296–329.

38.

Skehan

Foster

(2001). Cognition and tasks. In Robinson

(Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

39.

Truscott

(2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–272.

40.

Van Beuningen

C.G.

De Jong

N.H.

Kuiken

. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62, 1–41.

41.

Wong

Zhao

MacWhinney

(2018). A cognitive linguistics application for second language pedagogy: The English preposition tutor. Language Learning, 68, 438–468.

42.

Zhang

Hyland

(2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 90–102.

43.

Zhao

MacWhinney

(2018). The instructed learning of form–function mappings in the English article system. Modern Language Journal, 102, 1–21.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.79 MB

Instructor feedback on free writing and automated corrective feedback in drills: Intensity and efficacy

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material