The effectiveness of written corrective feedback has gained much interest among second language acquisition researchers since Truscott’s (1996) argument that grammar correction in L2 writing classes should be abandoned. In spite of the large body of research, there seems to be no unified agreement on the effectiveness of written corrective feedback on L2 learners' written performance. The present study seeks to investigate whether there is any positive effect of giving explicit or implicit written corrective feedback on 20 intermediate L2 learners’ ability to write in English by giving them three writing tasks: a pre-test, an immediate post-test and a delayed post-test. The participants performed on a written task, then, half of the learners received explicit feedback which means that the correct form of specific structures was provided and the other half received implicit feedback which means that the erroneous form was underlined with no correction. Two weeks later they were asked to write another essay in which the rubrics made them use the same forms, namely past tense and definite/indefinite article. A month later, the delayed post-test was conducted on a similar topic. Based on the results of mixed between-within ANOVA analysis, the students writing ability in using past tense and article use on the immediate post-test outperformed that of the pre-test. The effect was also long lasting since their performance on the delayed post-test showed an increase in the learners’ writing ability in the specified structures and this effect retained in their memory for one month. There was no statistically significant difference between the implicit and explicit group on their correct use of the specified structures.
| Published in |
International Journal of Language and Linguistics (Volume 2, Issue 5-1)
This article belongs to the Special Issue Teaching English as a Foreign/Second Language |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020501.12 |
| Page(s) | 12-17 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2014. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Written Corrective Feedback, Second Language Acquisition, Writing Ability, Implicit Feedback, Explicit Feedback
| [1] | Akbarzadeh, R., Saeidi, M., & Chehreh,M. (2014). The effect of oral interactive feedback on the accuracy and complexity of EFL learners' writing performance: Uptake and retention. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research 2(2), 105-126 |
| [2] | Allan, D. (1992). The Oxford Quick Placement Test. Oxford University Press. |
| [3] | Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102–118. |
| [4] | Bitchener, J., Knoch, U., (2008). The value of written corrective feedback form migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research Journal 12(2),409–431. |
| [5] | Bitchener, J., Knoch, U., (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System 37, 322–329. |
| [6] | 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, 191-205. |
| [7] | Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles: Interactive language teaching methodology. New York: Prentice Hall Regents. |
| [8] | Bygate, M. (2001). Effect of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds,), Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23-48). HarLow: Longman. |
| [9] | Carroll,S.,&Swain,M.(1993).Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357–386. |
| [10] | 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, 100 ¬– 111. |
| [11] | Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. |
| [12] | Chuang, W. (2009). The effect of four different types of corrective feedback on EFL students' writing in Taiwan. Dayeh University Bulletin, 4, 123-138. |
| [13] | Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition: Learning in the classroom. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd. |
| [14] | Ellis, R.(1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
| [15] | Ferris, D. R. (1997).The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315–339. |
| [16] | Ferris, D. R. (1999). The Case for Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes: A Response to Truscott (1996).Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (1) l-l1. |
| [17] | Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press |
| [18] | Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. |
| [19] | Ferris, D. R., & Helt, M. (2000).Was Truscott right? New evidence on the effects of error correction in L2 writing classes. Paper presented at Proceedings of the American Association of Applied Linguistics Conference, Vancouver, B.C., March11–14, 2000. |
| [20] | Ferris, D.R., Roberts, B., (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: how explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184. |
| [21] | Gass, S.(1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. |
| [22] | Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 7, 305-313. |
| [23] | Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press. |
| [24] | Long, M. (1990). The least a second language acquisition theory needs to explain. TESOL Quarterly, 24 (4), 649-666. |
| [25] | Panova, I., &Lyster, R. (2002).Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36 (4), 573-595. |
| [26] | Semke, H.(1984).The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195–202. |
| [27] | Truscott, J. (1996). The Case against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes. Language Learning, 46:2, 327-369. |
| [28] | Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Language Learning, 57, 220-24. |
APA Style
Roya Pakbaz. (2014). The Effect of Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners' Writing Performance: Explicit vs. Implicit. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(5-1), 12-17. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020501.12
ACS Style
Roya Pakbaz. The Effect of Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners' Writing Performance: Explicit vs. Implicit. Int. J. Lang. Linguist. 2014, 2(5-1), 12-17. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020501.12
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020501.12,
author = {Roya Pakbaz},
title = {The Effect of Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners' Writing Performance: Explicit vs. Implicit},
journal = {International Journal of Language and Linguistics},
volume = {2},
number = {5-1},
pages = {12-17},
doi = {10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020501.12},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020501.12},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijll.s.2014020501.12},
abstract = {The effectiveness of written corrective feedback has gained much interest among second language acquisition researchers since Truscott’s (1996) argument that grammar correction in L2 writing classes should be abandoned. In spite of the large body of research, there seems to be no unified agreement on the effectiveness of written corrective feedback on L2 learners' written performance. The present study seeks to investigate whether there is any positive effect of giving explicit or implicit written corrective feedback on 20 intermediate L2 learners’ ability to write in English by giving them three writing tasks: a pre-test, an immediate post-test and a delayed post-test. The participants performed on a written task, then, half of the learners received explicit feedback which means that the correct form of specific structures was provided and the other half received implicit feedback which means that the erroneous form was underlined with no correction. Two weeks later they were asked to write another essay in which the rubrics made them use the same forms, namely past tense and definite/indefinite article. A month later, the delayed post-test was conducted on a similar topic. Based on the results of mixed between-within ANOVA analysis, the students writing ability in using past tense and article use on the immediate post-test outperformed that of the pre-test. The effect was also long lasting since their performance on the delayed post-test showed an increase in the learners’ writing ability in the specified structures and this effect retained in their memory for one month. There was no statistically significant difference between the implicit and explicit group on their correct use of the specified structures.},
year = {2014}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - The Effect of Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners' Writing Performance: Explicit vs. Implicit AU - Roya Pakbaz Y1 - 2014/08/24 PY - 2014 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020501.12 DO - 10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020501.12 T2 - International Journal of Language and Linguistics JF - International Journal of Language and Linguistics JO - International Journal of Language and Linguistics SP - 12 EP - 17 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2330-0221 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020501.12 AB - The effectiveness of written corrective feedback has gained much interest among second language acquisition researchers since Truscott’s (1996) argument that grammar correction in L2 writing classes should be abandoned. In spite of the large body of research, there seems to be no unified agreement on the effectiveness of written corrective feedback on L2 learners' written performance. The present study seeks to investigate whether there is any positive effect of giving explicit or implicit written corrective feedback on 20 intermediate L2 learners’ ability to write in English by giving them three writing tasks: a pre-test, an immediate post-test and a delayed post-test. The participants performed on a written task, then, half of the learners received explicit feedback which means that the correct form of specific structures was provided and the other half received implicit feedback which means that the erroneous form was underlined with no correction. Two weeks later they were asked to write another essay in which the rubrics made them use the same forms, namely past tense and definite/indefinite article. A month later, the delayed post-test was conducted on a similar topic. Based on the results of mixed between-within ANOVA analysis, the students writing ability in using past tense and article use on the immediate post-test outperformed that of the pre-test. The effect was also long lasting since their performance on the delayed post-test showed an increase in the learners’ writing ability in the specified structures and this effect retained in their memory for one month. There was no statistically significant difference between the implicit and explicit group on their correct use of the specified structures. VL - 2 IS - 5-1 ER -
Email: