Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Improving Young Learners’ L2 Writing Accuracy with Written Corrective Feedback: a Case Study

使用書面修正性反饋提高年輕學習者第二語言寫作正確度:個案研究

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
English Teaching & Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The effects of written corrective feedback (WCF) have long been debated. While several studies found that WCF improved students’ overall L2 writing accuracy, much remains unknown as to specific linguistic structures. Additionally, the majority of WCF research was situated at the tertiary level; its effects on younger learners are elusive. Therefore, this study explored the effects of WCF on 60 students in a Chinese secondary school, focusing on the third person singular structure. The participants were randomly assigned to one of the groups: (1) direct written corrective feedback (DCF, n = 20), (2) direct corrective feedback plus metalinguistic explanation (DCF + META, n = 20) and (3) control (CON, n = 20). The picture description tasks and the blank-filling tasks were used to evaluate their L2 writing accuracy. The results demonstrated an overall positive impact of WCF over time, but the impact did not reach statistical significance in the delayed post-test. DCF + META was found statistically significant in both task types in the post-test, but DCF was only found significant in the picture description tasks. No superiority was found in DCF + META over DCF alone. The research questions were discussed, and implications on instruction and research were offered.

摘要

書面修正性回饋的效果早已廣受討論, 雖有研究顯示書面修正性回饋能改善學生第二語言整體寫作的正確度, 但對於特定語言結構的效果仍有待探討。此外, 大部分此類研究都只著重在高等教育的範疇, 書面修正性回饋對於年輕學習者產生的效果仍有待進一步研究。因此, 本研究針對書面修正性回饋的效果, 對60位中國的中學生進行研究, 並特別聚焦在第三人稱單數的結構。學生被隨機分配至以下組別:(1) 直接書面修正性回饋組 (20人)、(2) 直接書面修正性回饋並結合後設語言講解組 (20人)、(3) 控制組 (20人)。本研究使用看圖寫作測驗及填空測驗來評量學生第二語言寫作的正確度, 研究結果顯示書面修正性回饋對寫作正確度整體的正面效益, 但其影響在延宕後測則未達統計顯著性。直接修正性回饋結合後設語言講解組在兩種測驗中的後測均有顯著差異, 但直接修正性回饋組僅在看圖寫作測驗的後測有顯著差異, 且直接回饋結合後設語言講解的效果並未較直接回饋的效果優異。本文針對研究問題進行探討, 並提出對教學與研究上的啟示。

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all?: Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Akakura, M. (2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of explicit instruction on implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 9–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Benson, S., & DeKeyser, R. (2019). Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research, 23(6), 702–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on ‘the language learning potential’ of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 348–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010a). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010b). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1997). Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. BMJ, 314(7080), 572–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Blom, E., Paradis, J., & Duncan, T. S. (2012). Effects of input properties, vocabulary size, and L1 on the development of third person singular –s in child L2 English. Language Learning, 62(3), 965–994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bryfonski, L., & Ma, X. (2019). Effects of implicit versus explicit corrective feedback on Mandarin tone acquisition in a SCMC learning environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(1), 61–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chen, T. (2016). Technology-supported peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing classes: A research synthesis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(2), 365–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Coyle, Y., & Larios, J. (2014). Exploring the role played by error correction and models on children’s reported noticing and output production in a L2 writing task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(3), 451–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Crosthwaite, P., Storch, N., & Schweinberger, M. (2020). Less is more? The impact of written corrective feedback on corpus-assisted L2 error resolution. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49, 101–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). A review of issues: What makes learning L2 grammar difficult? Language Learning, 55(S1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Diab, M. N. (2015). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does type of error and type of correction matter? Assessing Writing, 24, 16–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 305–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ellis, R. (2009). Second language acquisition, teacher education and language pedagogy. Language Teaching, 43(2), 182–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ferris, D., Chaney, S., Komura, K., Roberts, B., & McKee, S. (2000). Perspectives, problems, and practices in treating written error. Colloquium presented at the International TESOL Convention. Vancouver, B.C.

  26. Ferris, D. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime …?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Frear, D., & Chiu, Y. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gorman, M., & Ellis, R. (2019). The relative effects of metalinguistic explanation and direct written corrective feedback on children’s grammatical accuracy in new writing. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 1(1), 57–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hadar, U., Wenkert-Olenik, D., Krauss, R., & Soroker, N. (1998). Gesture and the processing of speech: Neuropsychological evidence. Brain and Language, 62(1), 107–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Han, N.-R., Chodorow, M., & Leacock, C. (2006). Detecting errors in English article usage by non-native speakers. Natural Language Engineering, 12(2), 115–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hanaoka, O., & Izumi, S. (2012). Noticing and uptake: Addressing pre-articulated covert problems in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 332–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hulstijn, J. H. (2005). Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning: Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 129–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2018). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818802469.

  39. Kaivanpanah, S., Alavi, S. M., & Sepehrinia, S. (2015). Preferences for interactional feedback: Differences between learners and teachers. The Language Learning Journal, 43(1), 74–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kim, Y., & Emeliyanova, L. (2019). The effects of written corrective feedback on the accuracy of L2 writing: Comparing collaborative and individual revision behavior. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819831406.

  41. Kim, Y., Choi, B., Kang, S., Kim, B., & Yun, H. (2020). Comparing the effects of direct and indirect synchronous written corrective feedback: Learning outcomes and students’ perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 53(1), 176–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Lalande, J. F. I. I. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Lee, I. (2020). Utility of focused/comprehensive written corrective feedback research for authentic L2 writing classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49, 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Leow, R. P. (2018). Noticing hypothesis. In J. I. Liontas, TESOL International Association, & M. DelliCarpini (Eds.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–6). Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Li, S. (2014). The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the linguistic target. Language Teaching Research, 18, 373–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lightbown, P. (2008). Transfer appropriate processing as a model for classroom second language acquisition. In Z. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 27–44). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Mao, Z., & Lee, I. (2020). Feedback scope in written corrective feedback: Analysis of empirical research in L2 contexts. Assessing Writing, 45, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (2017). Introduction: The role of corrective feedback: Theoretical and pedagogical perspectives. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. ix–xv). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  53. Paltridge, B., & Phakiti, A. (2015). Research methods in applied linguistics. A practical resource. London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10, 52–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Rassaei, E. (2015). Oral corrective feedback, foreign language anxiety and L2 development. System, 49, 98–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Reynolds, B. L., & Kao, C. W. (2019). The effects of digital game-based instruction, teacher instruction, and direct focused written corrective feedback on the grammatical accuracy of English articles. Computer Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1617747.

  57. Rutgers, D. (2012). Multilingualism and multilinguistic development in context: Learning German as a third language in a Dutch-English bilingual education setting and a regular secondary education setting in the Netherlands. In A. Baucal & J. Radišić (Eds.), Conference proceedings: Patchwork, learning, diversities (pp. 26–35). Belgrade: Institute of Psychology Belgrade.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Schmidt, R. (2010). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In W. M. Chan, S. Chi, K. N. Cin, J. Istanto, M. Nagami, J. W. Sew, T. Suthiwan, & I. Walker (Eds.), Proceedings of CLaSIC 2010 (pp. 721–737). Singapore: National University of Singapore.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Shepherdson, P., & Miller, J. (2016). Non-semantic contributions to “semantic” redundancy gain. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(8), 1564–1582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (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(3), 286–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Stefanou, C., & Révész, A. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 263–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010a). Learners’ processing, uptake and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010b). Students’ engagement with feedback on writing: The role of learner agency. In R. Batestone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 166–185). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Sundara, M., Demuth, K., & Kuhl, P. K. (2011). Sentence-position effects on children’s perception and production of English third person singular -s. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 54(1), 55–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Suzuki, W. (2012). Written languaging, direct correction, and second language writing revision. Language Learning, 62(4), 1110–1133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Suzuki, W., Nassaji, H., & Sato, K. (2019). The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System, 81, 135–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley: Newbury House.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in the study of language: Studies in honour of H. G Widdowson (pp. 153–182). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  74. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypotheses and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M., & Tomasello, M. (2003). The role of the input in the acquisition of third person singular verbs in English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46(4), 863–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “the case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. van Beuningen, C. G. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. van Beuningen, C. G., de Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. van Beuningen, C. G., de Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Wang, Y., & Zhao, H. (2015). A light rule-based approach to English subject-verb agreement errors on the third person singular forms. In Proceedings of the 29th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation: Posters (pp. 345–353).

  85. Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, 6140, New Zealand

    Zhenhao Cao

Authors
  1. Zhenhao Cao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhenhao Cao.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cao, Z. Improving Young Learners’ L2 Writing Accuracy with Written Corrective Feedback: a Case Study. English Teaching & Learning 45, 375–396 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-020-00071-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-020-00071-1

Keywords

關鍵詞

Search

Navigation