Sheen (2007)

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
(TESOL)
The Effect of Focused Written Corrective Feedback and Language Aptitude on ESL Learners' Acquisition of Articles Author(s): Younghee Sheen Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 2 (Jun., 2007), pp. 255-283 Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40264353 . Accessed: 10/11/2013 12:40
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Sun, 10 Nov 2013 12:40:31 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Corrective The Effect ofFocused Written on Feedbackand LanguageAptitude ESL Learners'Acquisition ofArticles
YOUNGHEE SHEEN
American University States DC, United Washington,
coreffect of twotypes of written examinesthe differential This study to which feedback rective (CF) and theextent ability languageanalytic of articles of CF on theacquisition mediates theeffects byadultintermediateESL learnersof variousLI backgrounds(N = 91). Three
foundthatbothtreatcorrection group.The study group,and a control muchbetterthanthe controlgroupon the mentgroupsperformed but the directmetalinguistic immediate group performed posttests, It correction better thanthedirect-only posttests. groupin thedelayed between students' association also founda significantly gains positive forlanguageanalysis. and theiraptitude Moreover, languageanalytic in the directmetalinrelatedto acquisition was more strongly ability showedthat group.The results group thanin the direct-only guistic learners'aca singlelinguistic feature CF targeting written improved and the feedback was provided whenmetalinguistic curacy, especially had highlanguageanalytic learners ability.
correction metalinguistic group, a direct groups were formed: a direct-only
feedback(CF) in L2 acarticleexaminesthe role of corrective CF and the role of one individual written by addressing quisition is In addition, thisresearch factor: difference ability. languageanalytic aimsto improve to writing relevant giventhatsuchpedagogy pedagogy, is a complex written students' However, writing accuracy. grammatical thansecondlanguage view CF morebroadly teachers and writing activity, of concorrection (i.e., as encompassing (SLA) researchers acquisition as wellas linguistic and mechanics form).Thus,this tent, organization, students' writa modelforcorrecting does notintendto present article the of one to rather but model, linguisaspect investigate important ing ticaccuracy. of written CF studiesand his controversial Truscott's (1996) review in promoting and evenharmful CF is ineffective that written conclusion the a challengeto researchers. constituted L2 acquisition Subsequently, and an array of theoretical has offered CF literature counterarguments
TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 41 , No. 2, June 2007 255
studiesdemonstrating thatCF can lead to acquisition(e.g., empirical in thisarticle Chandler, 2004; Ferris, 1999,2004). The study reported further evidence Truscott's provides refuting position. I beginbyexamining howcorrective in feedback has been addressed I discuss a then the SLA and second language(L2) writing literatures, the to research on written issuesrelating number ofmethodological CF, relative effectiveness of different typesof CF and the role playedby theresults ofCF. I thenreport in mediating theeffects languageaptitude I the conclude ofa quasi-experimental study. byconsidering implications and L2 writing ofthestudy forbothSLA theory oftheresults pedagogy. CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK: SLA VS. L2 WRITING RESEARCH concerned withoral CF in SLA research intoCF has been primarily interaction role of and about the theoretical claims relationto input x on form and focus 2007) (Long,1996). There (e.g.,Gass,1997;Mackey, evidencethatoral CF, as a focus-on-form is now growing technique, facilitates althoughthereis less consensus development, interlanguage imversus of oral CF (e.g., explicit of different about the effects types . see Ellis,2006) versus plicit, prompts; input-providing the methodology from researchers can benefit L2 writing examining CF studies oforal CF research in SLA. For example, written (e.g.,Polio, Fleck,& Leder, 1998; Robb, Ross, & Shortreed, 1986) have typically of in terms ofoverall acrossa number outcomes compared improvement in SLA studies of oral CF different whereas structures, (e.g., grammatical feature on a specific Han, 2002;Lyster, 2004) havefocused grammatical in terms and measuredacquisition of thatfeature. The SLA research thatintensive CF thatrepeatedly a singlelinguistic feasuggests targets turecan have a beneficial effect on interlanguage development (e.g., & Varela,1998; Han, 2002; Iwashita, 2003; Long, Inagaki,& Doughty & Philp,1998). Ortega,1998; Mackey There are, however, some obviousdifferences and betweenwritten oral CF. Written CF is delayed after whereas oral CF occursimmediately an error has been committed. Written CF imposes lesscognitive load on thanoral CF, whichtypically demandsan immediate memory cognitive thusrequiring learners to heavily comparison, relyon theirshort-term Written CF is also different teachers memory. pedagogically. Writing oftentry to improve contentand organization whilefocusing on the
1Focus on a typeof pedagogical intervention. It refersto form(Long, 1996) constitutes to drawlearners'attention to form in the contextofcommunication. One wayin attempts whichthisoccurs is reactively errors. throughCF directedat learners'linguistic TESOL QUARTERLY
256
in whichcase accuracyis oftena overallqualityof students' writing, the other of oral CF issue. On hand, a teacher'sprovision secondary to their utterances as they draws learners' attention erroneous typically in activities. These differences arisein communicative mayexplainwhy, thatin generalhas shownthatoral CF is to the SLA research contrast demhavenotbeen able to convincingly researchers L2 writing effective, in grammatical CF leads to improvement thatwritten onstrate accuracy reasonthat theresults ofSLA another in newpiecesofwriting. However, intoCF research theresults ofL2 writing intoCF contrast with research researchers. used bywriting maylie in the methodologies
CF Research MethodologicalIssues in Written

CF was identified of written the efficacy A keyissue concerning by to improvein written CF help students Ferris(2004): "Does written thisquestionhas not been accuracyover time?"(p. 56). At present, unamhas failedto provide research because answered past definitively CF a of written the effectiveness of evidence (for comprehensive biguous for ofthisissue,see Ferris, discussion and influential 2004). The reasons are this primarily methodological. did lackeda control forexample, CF studies, written groupthat Many did In studies that Robb et CF notreceive (e.g.,Kepner, al., 1986). 1991; in fact differences were the or havea control comparison group, group not statistically (e.g., Lalande, 1982;Semke,1984). Also,the significant received CF studies or comparison control typically groupin thewritten content on comments feedback some kind of and/or organiza(e.g., at linguistic to CF directed (e.g.,Fazio,2001), tion)in addition accuracy to isolate.Researchers of CF difficult whichmakesthe effects adopted classesin When reasons. ethical for thisprocedure writing usingintact some kindof correction had to provide feltthey researchers the study, it and a to had becausestudents expectedit.The absence probably right in these a constitutes ofa truecontrol however, majorlimitation group, studies. ofCF. theeffectiveness measured also variedin howthey The studies learners of in terms whether Somemeasured incorporated improvement & Whalley, draft first oftheir in a revision thecorrections (e.g.,Fathman in homemeasured others & Roberts, 2001); 1990;Ferris improvement a over entries or workessayassignments journal long period of time measured A studies few 2003; Kepner,1991). improve(e.g., Chandler, as wellas fluency in of in terms gains linguistic mentin writing accuracy in howtheeffectiveness 2000;Robbet al., 1986). Thisvariation (Ashwell, difficult. conclusion definite makesreaching ofCF wasmeasured very any learnhavemeasured Otherstudies onlybyexamining improvement
FOCUSED WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND LANGUAGE APTITUDE 257
er's revised ESL texts. For example,in an examination of intermediate Fathman that feedstudents' and found (1990) college Whalley writing, backon form on content in producand feedback wereequallyeffective in also found the students' revisions. Ashwell (2000) ing improvement their correction learners with thatproviding adult improved grammar could One in argue,howcompositions. accuracy written grammatical alone does in revisions that ever,as Truscott (1999) did, improvement thaterror To claim has occurred. evidencethatlearning not constitute the must examine whether in one correction results learning, improveor iftheimproveoverto a newpiece ofwriting mentin revisions carries measures. or delayedposttest on posttest mentis manifested on CF and the ofpaststudies limitations In sum,themethodological in a somewhat have resulted their inconclusiveness of confusing findings of CF and to argueagainstthe effectiveness leadingCF critics picture, even to claimthatCF can be harmful 1996, 1982; Truscott, (Krashen, aboutthe concerns in thisveinincludepractical 1999,2004). Criticisms the and also thedangerofraising oftheCF thatteachers provide quality inwhich in learner the students' (i.e., provoking anxiety affective filter most stuthat out Ferris(1999, 2004) points hibits learning).However, and thatit is thejob errors to be corrected dentsdo wanttheir writing needs. teachers to attendto their of L2 writing
CF RelativeEfficacy of Different Types of Written

CF remainscontroversial, of written the absoluteefficacy Although feedofwritten has compareddifferent mostwritten CF research types more a certain of CF produce backto investigate whether positive types effect thanothers (e.g.,Fazio,2001;Lalande,1982;Robbet al., 1986). In of 134 EFL Robb et al. examinedthewriting one of theearliest studies, if CF types inJapanoverone academicyearto see four different students in on theimprovement their written effects essays. produceddifferential the errorsand The fourmethodswere (a) direct correction, indicating oferror thecorrect thetype form; (b) coded providing feedback, indicating based on an abbreviated code system; (c) uncoded indicating feedback, their errors in thetext with a yellow specifying highlighting pen without the total numberof errorsin the type;and (c) marginal, indicating In all treatments, ofthestudent's article. wererequired revisions margins and the instructor checkedforaccuracy. Robb et al. foundno major differences acrossthefourtreatment types. Ferris(2002) contends thatindirect ererror correction (i.e., identifying rorswithout thandirect the correct form)is morebeneficial providing correction because it pusheslearnersto engage in hypothesis testing, whichhelps theminterthereby inducingdeeper internal processing,
258 TESOL QUARTERLY
forms. evidenceto date suggests nalize the correct However, empirical forindirect CF over directCF (Chandler, thatthereis no advantage 2003; Lalande, 1982; Robb et al., 1986). In fact,Chandlerfoundthat in was superiorto othertypes of indirect correction directcorrection more accurate Chandler that a teachwriting. hypothesized producing in internalize thecorrect form er's direct correction helpsESL students because indirect it demands more a feedback, way though productive of students' delaysconfirmation hypothcognitive processing, greater direct correction. thatherESL students favored eses. She also reported in the thatcontrary to pedagogicalsuggestions These findings suggests & Ferris literature L2 writing 2002; Hedgcock,2005), indi(e.g.,Ferris, is also to direct CF. Thisconclusion CF maynotbe superior rectwritten on oral feedback, evidence whichprovides bySLA research supported better thanimplicit feedback facilitates feedback that acquisition explicit (Carroll& Swain,1993;Ellis,Loewen& Erlam,2006). on written and oralCF todatehasnotexplored theresearch However, of different thatthe effectiveness the possibility typesof CF willvary I nowturnto consider one major learner. on theindividual depending of CF. thatmaymediatethe effect factor difference individual
LanguageAptitude
and distinct from is a complexconstruct, intelligence general Aptitude thefolas having Carroll(1981) defineslanguage achievement. aptitude fourcomponents: (b) grammatical (a) phonemiccodingability, lowing and (d) rotelearning (c) inductive ability, languagelearning sensitivity, he labels Skehan (1998) combines(b) and (c) in a component ability. This study is concernedonlywiththiscompoability. analytic language and applying to analyze as theability defined nent, languagebycreating to think & Ranta,2001). It is reasonable rulesto newsentences (Sawyer willbe betterable to withhigh languageanalytic thatlearners ability thatis requiredifCF is to comparison engagein the kindof cognitive It can be further resultin learning. argued thatdirectmetalinguistic to a greater willbenefit correction languagelearners strong analytically willfindit weak learnersbecause the former extentthan analytically information. easierto use the metalinguistic in the To date, onlytwostudieshave exploredthe role of aptitude withhighprevious of CF. DeKeyser(1993) foundthatlearners efficacy benefited the and low anxiety achievement, high language aptitude, and Cesnik(2001) reHavranek errorcorrection. mostfrom Similarly, to benefit learners who have a is likely feedback portedthatcorrective Howand highlanguageability. error correction toward attitude positive ofCF. Nor did they did notisolatedifferent thesetwostudies ever, types
and CF on speof languageaptitude the interrelated effects investigate The of CF cific structures. nature (e.g.,implicit target linguistic complex raisesthe question or explicit, or input prompting) input providing whether different by language aspectsof CF are mediateddifferently theprevious studies Moreover, onlyexaminedlanguage ability. analytic chose languageanaas a whole.The current therefore, study, aptitude it seemed to be because to as the lytic ability component investigate direct two the to interact with most typesof CF in likely potentially task. a in of written the context outcomes learning determining The relationship betweenlanguageaptitudeand learningoutcome load imposedon the in terms of thecognitive been discussed has often of CF comIn the two learner(e.g.,DeKeyser, 1993;Snow,1987). types correction the direct the difference between in study, pared thecurrent received the learners whether correction was and directmetalinguistic from Schmidt comments. (2001) distinguishes noticing metalinguistic awareness and arguesthat awareness requires metalinguistic metalinguistic thatwhereas a deeper level of learning. Thus, it maybe hypothesized feeddirectmetalinguistic directfeedbackincreasesnoticing, written awareness-asbut also back increases not only noticing encourages (i.e., a deeperlevelof cognitive processing). understanding
Research Questions
to addresssome of the perceived This study an attempt constitutes and methodon thetheory in CF research written bydrawing problems that in CF SLA and of oral research byacknowledging individual ology mediate theeffect difference factors suchas languageanalytic may ability thefollowing research of CF. The study considers questions: an on intermehave effect corrective feedback 1. Does focused written of articles? diateESL learners' acquisition English in the effect of directcorrection withand 2. Is thereany difference ofEnfeedback on ESL learners' without metalinguistic acquisition articles? glish mediate 3. To whatextent does the learners' ability languageanalytic of CF? the effectiveness
METHOD Design
a pretestThis study used a quasi-experimental research designwith structure, using intactESL classposttest treatment-posttest-delayed
260 TESOL QUARTERLY
also involved a correlational of the relarooms.The research analysis one individual learner variable(i.e.,languageanalytic between tionship testscoresin the posttests and delayedposttests and criterion ability) themoderating effect oflanguageaptitude on a viewto examining with correction treatment. Twoweekspriorto thestart theeffect oftheerror feedback theparticipating students tooka of the corrective treatments, In thefollowing test. the week,they ability completed languageanalytic The immediate werecompleted the twoCF following posttests pretests. 3 to 4 weekslater. and thedelayed sessions Duringeach testing posttests a speeded dictation were administered: test,a session,threesubtests test. and an errorcorrection test, writing
Setting
in sixintact in theAmericlassrooms The current wasconducted study can Language Program(ALP) of a community college in the United and extensive intensive The ALP offers States. languagecourses English and fluently. forthosewho wishto speak and write Englishaccurately and each classlastsfrom1 hourand each semester, Classesare offered to 3 hourseach session.Teachershave eithernativeor na20 minutes FounThe program hasfour levels: tivelike languageproficiency. English dationand LevelsI, II, and III (mostadvancedlevel) withan average the researcher Priorto the current class size of 15-22 students. study, ofinstruand piloteda number times and observed thesitemany visited The LevelII classesconsisting levels. classesat different in several ments camefrom all areasof chosenforthestudy learners ofintermediate-level classes. not specifically theprogram, writing Participants teachers American werefive The participants native-English-speaking from weredrawn The students students. 111intermediate-level and their variand represented ESL populations and immigrant bothinternational The threemajor groupswere ous languageand ethnicbackgrounds. Korean,Hispanic,and Polish.Their ages variedfrom21-56 yearsand educationalbackgrounds (e.g., high school theycame fromdifferent In students. from sizes Class 15-22 to doctoral ranged degree). diploma the end, 91 students test, preability completedthe languageanalytic datasets students with and delayedposttests; tests, incomplete posttests, three were excluded fromthe sample. Out of six intactclassrooms, correction thedirect-only wereformed: group( n = 31) , thedirect groups group (n = 28). group (n = 32), and the control metalinguistic
Operationalizations
correction constitutes a traditional errorcorrection strategy Direct-only text thatconsists ofindicating on thestudent's thelocationof an error the of the correct form and theprovision and/orreplacing bydeleting or byaddinga linguistic element. error the locaas indicating is operationalized Direct correction metalinguistic and correct the tionofan error, form, metalinguisincluding providing form. ticcomments thatexplainthe correct
TargetStructure
with forthecurrent structure Articles werechosenas thetarget study effect from oferror correction a viewto isolating theeffect anypotential a series in general. Thisdecision wasmade after ofgrammar instruction the members at of discussions withthe participating college, faculty are not explicitly students whichrevealedthat(a) participating taught a structhesemester, and (b) articles, articles constituting though during corrected are infrequently makeerrors, turewherestudents commonly rule are nonsalient and because they explanathey requirecomplicated words mostfrequently tions.Theand a belongto the top five occurring in English to theCOBUILD corpus(Sinclair, 1991). However, according are considered articles shownthatEnglish theSLA literature has clearly to be a nonsalient feature. salient,and They are not phonologically breakdown leads to communication misuseof articles (Master, rarely in learning havebeen observed to experience 2002). Learners difficulty thatis,thechoiceofan article articles because oftheir complexnature; factors is determined and pragmatic 2002;Liu (Butler, bybothlinguistic &Gleason, 2002). For thisreason,care was takenin the current studyto focus the and ofindefinite on errors correction involving just twomajorfunctions as and the as anaphoricreference, in definite a as first mention articles: thefollowing example: snakeescaped. He hid a snakein hisbag,butthe
Instruments and Procedures

and tests. The two experimental groupscompletedthe treatments the The controlgroup completedthe testsonly.It did not perform narrative tasksand did not receiveanyfeedbackbut insteadfollowed normalclasses.
262 TESOL QUARTERLY
Narrative Task Instruments sessions. Each sessioninvolved a narrative Thereweretwotreatment from It shouldbe notedthat errors thelearners. stimulus to elicitarticle ofthis research wasnotan L2 writing itwasnot becausethecontext class, taskconstituted an to ensurethatthe narrative considerednecessary an task. The first narrative task involved valid writing ecologically adaptedAesop's fable,"The Fox and the Crow." a kitchen Therewas once a crowwho stolea piece of cheesefrom A foxsawwhat the thecheesetoa nearby tree. off with She flew window. overto thetree. had done,and he walked crow "Oh,Mistress Crow, you sucha beautiful suchlittle blackfeathers, havesuchlovely feet, yellow voice.Would You must havea beautiful beak,and suchfineblackeyes! She The felt for me?" crow openedherbeak very proud. youpleasesing and the Of coursethecheesefelldown, and sangCAW-CAW-CAW-CAW. foxate thepieceofcheese. the whenreproducing load on thelearners theprocessing To minimize in the words the researcher narrative, original replacedsome difficult The a fewsentencestructures. fablewitheasierwordsand simplified articles. and seven definite articles sevenindefinite contained narrative an interesting constructed For the second task,the researcher yet "The Pet Snake." titled simplestory a petshop.He tookthesnakehome.His a snakefrom A boybought She toldhimtotakethesnake shesawthesnake. when screamed mother refused to takethesnakeback.The backto thepetshopbuttheowner in thepark nearhishouse. it on a seat and left in a box snake the boyput thebox.Whenshe sawthesnakeshe had a heart found An old woman attack. and ten withsevenindefinite containedeasyvocabulary This narrative the twotaskssuitablefor considered The ALP faculty articles. definite would theirintermediate-level students, yetexpectedthatthe students errors. makearticle often Procedures Feedback Treatment Corrective attached wasaudio-recorded Each session microphone usinga clip-on and interval betweenthe first to the teacher.There was a one-week session of the treatment The specific tasks. secondnarrative procedures wereas follows: sheet with an empty the teacherhanded out the story 1. First, writing thatthey weregoingto read the to itand toldthestudents attached the story. and thenrewrite story
wereaskedto read the story 2. Students silently. 3. The teacherexplainedkeywordsand discussedthe moral of the withthe class. story to tear thestudents 4. The teacher thencollectedthestories byasking sheet and the off the story only. writing keep part read the theteacher the to rewrite the students 5. Before story, asking words. down noted the students once while aloud key story as they the story as closely wereasked to rewrite 6. Then the students remember. could whichwere narratives written 7. The teachercollectedthe students' thenhanded to the researcher. on article the narratives corrected 8. The researcher mainly focusing errors based on the correction guidelines. took class (typically 9. In thefollowing 2 or 4 dayslater),thestudents their received which session in feedback a corrective they during part were asked to look over The students withcorrections. narratives Howforat least5 minutes. errors and thecorrections their carefully errors or giveany on their further did notcomment theteacher ever, writtheir askedto revise norwerestudents additional explanation ing. Correction Guidelines the itwasdecidedthat oftimeand labourinvolved, Giventheamount all the corrected The researcher as thecorrector. researcher wouldserve one errors in the learners'narratives, whichcontainedbetween article corthe researcher To maskthe focusof the study, and sevenerrors. articles. otherthanthoseinvolving recteda fewerrors For correction. ofwritten used twodifferent This CF treatment types of consisted each correction thedirect-only correction indicating group, aboveit.For thedirect theerror and writing thecorrection metalinguisNotes a number. with each error wasfirst indicated ticcorrection group, sheet. of a learner's foreach numbered error weregivenat thebottom information The notesindicatedwhatwas wrongusingmetalinguistic and also provided the correct form.
and ScoringGuidelines TestingInstruments

Three testswere used to measureacquisitionin this study:(a) a test,and (c) an error test,(b) a narrative writing speeded dictation wasused forthe In thecase of (a) and (c), thesametest test. correction
264 TESOL QUARTERLY
and delayedposttest, but the orderof the itemswas posttest, pretest, from one session to another.In the case of randomly testing changed for the same test was used the and but thedelayed (b), pretest posttest, was based on a different narrative. This in response was posttest change in a to students' reactions to negative study beingaskedto preliminary in the same the The results of a pilotstudy story repeat posttest. involving a different of students from a similar intermediate-level class group tasks used forthetwodifferent showedthatthenarrative were posttests difference in comparable(i.e., a t testshowedno statistically significant thescoresobtained from thetwotasks) . The content ofthewriting tests the content of the CF treatment was different from and thusprotasks videda measureoftheextent to whichtheeffects oftheCF transferred to new pieces of writing. Students a language were also administered test. ability analytic
Dictation Test(8 Minutes) Speeded

This testconsisted of 14 items, each of whichcontainedone or two the use of indefinite and definite sentences articles(see Exinvolving 1 and It was to limit learners' to draw on 2). amples time-pressured ability their Each item in the test (Ellis, 2005). grammatical knowledge explicit had one or twostimuli contexts (see Appeninvolving article-obligatory dixA) . The total number ofarticle stimuli in thetest was9 indefinite and 1 articles. measures learners' and 12 definite Example receptive productiveknowledge of the indefinite articlea withthe referential-first mention articlefunction kind doctor" is the stimulus in the ("a very item). Exmeasures of the indefinite article a and the definite 2 ample knowledge articlethewiththe referential-second mention articlefunction(the two in the itemare "a movie"and "themovie"). stimuli kinddoctor in myhometown. Example1: Therewasa very lastnight. The movie mademe sad. 2: I sawa movie Example thistest, In administering each student was provided witha smallnotefirst book. The researcher explainedthe proceduresto the students. Then the teacherread twosamplesentences so thatthestudents could themselves familiarize with theprocedure. Each itemwasread at a normal speed and students weredirected to write downone itemper page as theyheard it. Once the students as fastas theycould and exactly turnedto the next page forthe next item,theywere not allowedto return to theprevious thestudents from page.Thisprocedure prevented whatthey had written. consciously reworking use (TLU) scoreswerecalculated(Pica, 1991). The TLU Target-like of articles was used to measurelearners'knowledge by taking analysis form intoconsideration. Articles werefirst scored of the target overuse
forcorrect use in obligatory contexts. This score thenbecame the numerator of a ratiowhosedenominator was the sum of the numberof contexts for articles and the numberof nonobligatory conobligatory textsin whicharticles forweresuppliedinappropriately. The scoring mula is shownin thefollowing equation: in contexts suppliance - n -correct x 100 = percent accuracy r + n obligatory contexts n suppliance in nonobligatory contexts Test (12 Minutes) Writing This test one of Muranoi's(2000) testinstruments wasadaptedfrom thestudents offoursequential articles. It consisted forEnglish pictures; them. Word coherent based on asked to write one were prompts story next to each picturewere included to elicitnoun phrasesinvolving article picturethe wordprompts usage. For example,nextto the first to the students and were old man,paint, thereby encouraging picture, a to as An old man likes a sentencesuch construct paint picture. testwas adof the writing version It shouldbe noted thata revised therevised to make Care was taken ministered forthedelayedposttest. and the task equivalentto the originalin termsof difficulty writing ofa The results articles. of eliciting noun phrases likelihood containing versions ofthewriting two whocompleted with 25 ALP students pilottest thatstudents tendedto scorehigheron the original testindicated test, but the difference betweenthe twosets of scoreswas not significant, t(24) = 0.89, ns. The writing datawerecoded usingTLU (Pica,1991) scores. Usingthe scores students' same TLU formula as was used forthe dictation tests, tests were calculatedas percentages. whereasthe dictation However, clearobligatory theconstrained afforded contexts based on thestimuli, test did not.It required thefollowing additional free-production writing guidelines: scoring an 1. When it was not clearwhether a noun phrase (NP) constituted NP for a or on the the context Abased student's writing, obligatory in unambiguous was not coded. Only suppliance/nonsuppliance could wherethe researchers contexts was coded (i.e., the contexts a or . This some determine that the was meant that needed) definitely in that errors were are noted the possible points ignored. Exceptions follow. both"in the 2. In thecase ofthewordprompt park"or "in a park" park, codwerepossible, so NPs containing this wordwereexcludedfrom when neitherarticlewas presentin the NP, it was ing. However, coded as nonsuppliance.
266 TESOL QUARTERLY
and girl, whenthestudent 3. In thecase ofthewordprompts wrote, boy NP "A boyand girl," the first "a coded was because (i.e., only boy") itwasnotclearwhether thestudent used theelisionrulecorrectly. In a similar used "theboyand girl"as second vein,whenthe student NP was coded. However, if the first NP was mention, onlythe first either as first mention or secondmention and erroneous, (e.g.,"boy a girl"or "boyand girl"),each NP was includedin the coding. and an articlewere 4. Coding excludedanyNP wherea determiner as in thefollowing example:"Aboyand girlare lookat the copresent, hispicture" - for example,all ofa sudden, in idiomaticphrases a few 5. Articles from were also excluded at the moment minutes, coding.
Test(15 Minutes) ErrorCorrection

consisted of 17 items(see Appendix Thistest B). Each itemcontained and containedan one ofwhichwas underlined tworelatedstatements, in writing. The items were wereaskedto correct thatthelearners error, used in Liu and Gleason (2002) and adapted fromtestinstruments theuse items wereincluded, Muranoi(2000). Four distracter involving The twoexof past tense,modal choice,and subject-verb agreement. answers. the test, followed bythe correct amplesare takenfrom I forgot thenameof movielastnight. Example1: I sawan interesting movie. I forgot thenameofthemovie. Answer: I'm looking to buya car unclecarsalesman? 2: Is your Example unclea carsalesman? Is your Answer: itembasis.One point test wasscoredon a discrete correction The error in the 14 obligatory of an article was givenforeach correct suppliance in thetest. thedistractsentences in theunderlined contexts Excluding final scores and students' scoreforthetest, wastheperfect ers,14 points as percentages. werecalculated
Test(20 Minutes) Ability Analytic Language

testdevelopedby The instrument was based on a languageanalysis and used Otto Drnyei, Adolphs,and Durow by Schmitt, previously were items. The learners 14 choice of consisted The test (2003). multiple from an artificial and sentences words of consisting givena glossary (see Figure1). Theywerethen Englishtranslations languageand their for each sentence wereaskedto choose and sentences given14 English
FIGURE 1 Test Examples Language Analysis
fromthe fourchoices provided.To make the the correcttranslation markers needed to analyze the learners correct choice, supgrammatical translations. to the in and these the multiple-choice glossary apply plied translaan examplequestion.To choose the correct Figure1 contains deduce the rule that"i" is a had to first tionin Example1, thestudent and marker and "o" is a present marker (progressive) past (progressive) choices. Because this testwas then apply that rule to the translated the the researcher to the students, guided themthrough challenging and ensured first itemin the test.This guidancereducedtheiranxiety The needed to follow. withthe procedurethey thatthey werefamiliar 14 basis with on a discrete item scored test was points languageanalysis finalscoreswere calculatedas perscore. Students' being the perfect centages.
Test Reliability
In thedictation coded a sample and writing a secondresearcher tests, from the pretests, of 25% of the totaldata. The samplecame equally In the and delayedposttests. the dictation test, percentage posttests, In thewriting scoreswere89.3%,87.2%,91.4%,respectively. agreement scoreswere 78.4%, 83.3%, 79.2%, retest,the percentage agreement testare forthe writing spectively. Although higherlevelsof reliability It thelevelsachievedall exceeded 75%, whichis satisfactory. desirable, shouldalso be noted thatthe complexity of the Englisharticlesystem makesa highlevel of consistency to achieve.As forthe error difficult correction and languageanalysis internal was tests, reliability consistency estimated coefficient forthe 14 usingCronbach'salpha. The reliability in the errorcorrection items was a = 0.84 (M= 5.17, SD = 3.59, pretest = n 111) , and forthelanguageanalysis a = 0.92 (M = 51.0,SD = 20.0, test, n= 111).
268 TESOL QUARTERLY
TABLE 1 Group Means and StandardDeviationsforTotal Test Scores Pretest Correction type
Direct-only group (n= 31) Direct metalingustic group (n= 32) Control group (n= 28)
Posttest 1 M
58.3 65.4 52.1
Posttest 2 M
57.5 69.4 51.2
M
44.1 49.6 48.3
SD
11.9 16.9 14.2
SD
15.3 16.3 15.6
SD
14.4 15.3 16.2
Analysis All scoreswereenteredintoSPSS (2002) and a rangeof descriptive were were computed.The following statistics and inferential analyses statistics research the three used to answer First, descriptive questions. forthe languageanalysis test,and test, test,speeded dictation writing Then ANOVAs with error correctiontestwere computed. one-way measures posthoc multiplecomparisontestsusing Tukey,repeated followed wereperformed, and ANCOVAs ANOVAs, byPearsonproduct correlation. moment
RESULTS statistics fortotalscoresfor thedescriptive 4 present Tables 1 through as well as forthe scoreson the dictation the teststakentogether test, overthe threetesting testseparately and errorcorrection test, writing 1 (i.e.,immediate and Posttest 2 (i.e., Posttest posttest) pretest, periods: no showed A ANOVA significant statistically delayedposttest). one-way in thepretest total scores F(2, groups, amongthethree groupdifferences 88) = 1.23,ns. testscoresfor Figure2 showseach group'smean speeded dictation dictation all In the thethreetesting test, threegroups speeded periods. thatonlythe indicates the 1. at Posttest However, graph producedgains
TABLE 2 Group Means and StandardDeviationsforthe Speeded DictationTest Pretest Correctiontype Direct-only group (n= 31) Directmetalinguistic group (n= 32) Controlgroup {n = 28) M 50.8 54.6 58.1 SD 15.7 18.6 12.9 Posttest 1 M 67.6 70.7 64.1 SD 14.1 17.2 13.9 Posttest 2 M 65.2 72.6 62.4 SD 15.6 15.6 13.7
FOCUSED WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND LANGUAGE APTITUDE
269
TABLE 3 Test Group Means and StandardDeviationsfor the Writing Pretest Correctiontype Direct-only group (w = 31) Directmetalinguistic group (w = 32) Controlgroup (n = 28) M 53.1 57.6 57.3 SD 19.8 21.0 21.4 Posttest 1 M 66.3 73.9 63.9 SD 21.4 19.3 24.4 Posttest 2 M 64.9 78.8 63.9 SD 19.8 18.4 22.8
direct directmetalinguistic meta) (henceforth groupshowsa consistent corincreaseovertimewhereasthe controlgroupand the direct-only Postdecreasefrom rection(henceforth direct-only) groupshowa slight reANOVAswithmultiplecomparisons test1 to Posttest 2. One-way 1 werenotsignifiin Posttest vealed thatwhereas thegroupdifferences the direct metagroupand control between cant,the differences group in Posttest 2 weresignificant, F(2, 88) = 3.74,p < 0.05 testovertime.The Figure3 showsthe mean scoresforthe writing meta thedirect different three had scores, especially considerably groups at almost the same started and the control who pretest group, group metagroupis consid1, the mean scoreof the direct point.At Posttest that The also shows of the control than that figure group. erably higher in that in the dictation test had the same as thedirect-only pattern group 1 indicated on Posttest sustained its the direct-only barely gains group into Posttest 2, whereasthe directmeta group continuedto gain in in a significant difference Posttest revealed 2. The posthoccomparisons Posttest 2 amongthe threegroups, F(2, 88) = 5.12,p < 0.01,indicating thatthe metagroupoutscored boththedirect-only and control group. 4 of for test. The pattern shows the results the error correction Figure the threegroupsin thisgraphrevealsthatthe twotreatment groups' but the controlgroupshowedno imgainsovertimeweresubstantial thegainsin themetagroupappearto be greater Moreover, provement. than those of the direct-only betweenthe group.Also the difference direct metagroupand thecontrol in this is shown to be greater groups testthan in the othertests.One-way ANOVAswiththe posthoctests
TABLE 4 Test Group Means and StandardDeviationsfor the ErrorCorrection Pretest Correctiontype Direct-only group(n= 31) Directmetalinguistic group (n = 32) Controlgroup(w= 28) M 28.3 36.6 29.5 SD 17.0 19.7 19.6 Posttest 1 M 41.2 51.7 28.4 SD 23.1 24.5 21.4 Posttest 2 M 42.4 56.9 27.4 SD 24.1 21.9 19.3
270
TESOL QUARTERLY
FIGURE 2 Group Means on Speeded DictationTest
in bothPosttest weresignificant thesedifferences that showed 1,F(2, 88) = 7.60,p = .001,and Posttest 2, jF(2,88) = 13.5,p < .001. More specifimetagroups and direct 1 bothdirect-only in Posttest outperformed cally, in Posttest the control, 2 the direct-only significantly groupmanifested
FIGURE 3 Test on Writing Means Group
271
FIGURE 4 Test Group Means on ErrorCorrection
and themetagroupoutperformed gainsthanthecontrol group, greater boththe direct-only and control groups. total It shouldbe notedthat measures ANOVAs with one-way repeated in the scoresshowedthateven the relatively moderategainsobserved Pretest 1 as wellas between control Pretest and Posttest groupbetween and Posttest 2 weresignificant: F(l, 27) = 9.57,p = <.O1,F(2, 27) = 4.93, lonGiventhatall the groupsshowedsignificant p = < .05, respectively. concerns whether there wasa timex gitudinal gains,thecrucialanalysis treatment interaction. Table 5 shows theresults ofa two-way measures ANOVAwith repeated totalscoresas the dependent variable and withtime (pretests, posttests, variand CF treatment (threelevels) as independent delayedposttests)
TABLE5 Conditionsand Repeated MeasuresANOVA of the Total Scores Acrossthe Three Treatment the Three TestingSessions Source Betweenstudents CF treatment Error Withinstudents Time Time x CF treatment Error Df 2 88 1.80 3.60 157.9 F 4.79 (617.8) 114.7 16.9 (40.2) p .01 <.001 <.001
272
TESOL QUARTERLY
TABLE 6 of Significant Contrasts Detected by Posthoc Comparisons Summary Total Posttest 1 Posttest 2 **D > C **M > C fM>D, C Dictation Writing ErrorCorrection **D > fM > fD > |M > C C C D, C
*M > C
**M > D, C
correction Note.D = Direct-only group,M = Direct metalinguistic group, C = Controlgroup; */><.O5, **/>< .01, t/>< .001.
ables.As can be seen in Table 5, thethreegroups performed differently forCF. Also there a significant effect was on totaltestscores, indicating timeand CF treatment. To statistically interaction between a significant combetween examinethedifferences posthocmultiple pairsofgroups, The results showedthatthe directmeta wereperformed. parisontests groupand the groupproducedhighertotalscoresthanthe direct-only revealed ANOVAs with theposthoc control comparisons group.One-way in bothPosttest in thescores weresignificant thatthedifferences 1,F (2, 2, F (2, 88) = 11.1,p < 0.001. More 88) = 5.40, p < 0.01, and Posttest thecontrol bothCF treatment group groupsoutperformed specifically, metagroupperformed better thanthedirect1 and thedirect in Posttest 2. onlygroupin Posttest differences thesignificant where Table 6 summarizes amongthethree groupsexistforthe threeseparatetestscoresas wellas totalscores.In 1 results favored both treatment totaltestscores,Posttest groups,but the directmeta group.Lookingat the tests favored Posttest 2 results 1 mainly the in Posttest came from contrasts the significant separately, the in Posttest favored test.However, errorcorrection 2, all threetests direct metagroup. test. statistics forthelanguageanalysis thedescriptive Table 7 displays The directmeta group had the highestmean score and the control ANOVA revealedthatthesedifa one-way However, groupthe lowest. of the were not significant, ferences F{2, 88) = 1.09, ns. The results effect there was a showed that ANCOVA measures significant repeated the as thecovariate, foraptitude words, F(2, 88) = 4.95,p < 0.05.In other
TABLE 7 Test forthe Language Analysis DescriptiveStatistics Group Directonly {n = 31) Directmeta (n = 32) Control (n = 28) M 48.39 52.23 45.66 SD 21.25 20.80 18.68 Min 14 14 21 Max 93 93 86
273
students'totalscores on the testsover timewere mediatedby their as measured test.However, languageaptitude, bythelanguageanalysis forCF theANCOVAalso showedthattherewasstilla significant effect = < That after for the effect of 0.001. P(2, 88) 2.45,p controlling aptitude, the over time after the test learners' is, removing changed performance effect of their ability. languageanalysis scores correlations betweenthe languageanalysis Table 8 presents calculated were and thetestgainscores.Short-term bysubtracting gains 1 scores.Longer-term scoresfromthe Posttest the pretest gainswere In scores. from the Posttest the scores 2 bysubtracting pretest computed a revealed the correlation both treatment significantly analysis groups, total and longer-term short-term between students' association positive on for scoregainson theone hand and their aptitude languageanalysis for the score thecorrelations theother. Whenexamining gains involving in the directmeta is stronger the relationship the threeseparatetests, coefcorrelation metagroupalso yieldedthehighest group.The direct = for score the ficient with (r 0.63) accounting approxilanguageanalysis totalgains. in the longer-term 39% of thevariance mately test correction in theimmediate error In sum,bothtreatment groups meta the direct the controlgroup,though group peroutperformed scoregainswere in all threedelayedposttests. Students' formed better and this forlanguageanalysis, correlated withtheiraptitude positively meta was greater forthe direct correlation group.
DISCUSSION
on CF focusing researchquestionasked whether written The first The on acquisition. articleerrors effect produceda significant positive 1 and all threetestsin results of the errorcorrection testin Posttest
TABLE 8 Betweenthe Score Gains and Language Analysis Scores Correlations
Test Total Dictation Writing Error correction

Note.*p< .05 **p< .01. 274
Gain Short term term Longer Short term term Longer Short term term Longer Short term term Longer
Score(r) Language Analysis = meta(n = 32) Direct Direct only(n 31) .46** .54** .11 .39* .30 .32* .38* .35* .57** .63** -.09 .28 .61** .59** .44** .49**
TESOL QUARTERLY
thatthewritten CF had a positive effect on thelearnPosttest 2 indicate In direct feedback of articles. metalinguistic English particular, ing in in students' all three tests to be effective accuracy improving proved in the second administration of these tests. total scores) (and in that from CF studies is different written The current study previous for the of CF and the feature was one targeted provision linguistic only alone. the students' written measured tests accuracy During developed the teacherdid not explicitly teach or 2-month period of thisstudy, in all groups The students wereof outsidethetreatment. articles correct of and received thesameamountand type thesamelevelofproficiency CF and materials. identical instruction Thus, writing reading involving ofEnglish articles. fortheacquisition alone couldbe seen as responsible the focused that this evidence of the Therefore, findings study provide in improved CF resulted written accuracy. oral CF has shownthatCF facilitates SLA research learning involving salient feature and makestheerror on a single whenitfocuses linguistic of the & (Han, 2002;Nicholas, Lightbown, Spada,2001). Also, provision a specificerrorincreasesits effectiveness CF targeting (Doughty& treated current The Varela,1998;Muranoi, 2000). onlytwosimple, study to have been werelikely and students of articles, functions rule-based In this ofthestudy. at thebeginning ofthearticles theform with familiar to learners in the effective CF written context, improve enabling proved and longerterm. use in boththe short in article their accuracy It shouldbe notedthatthecontrol groupas wellas theexperimental thatthere wasa test which over time, practice suggests improved groups the control CF treatment the effect. However, groupsoutperformed overand abovethe had an effect theCF treatment that indicating group, effect. testpractice of two effects The second researchquestionexaminedthe relative metaand without with correction direct on CF direct strategies learning: had the two CF that indicate The information. types findings linguistic was comments with correction direct effects: differential metalinguistic This recomments. without correction to direct metalinguistic superior in role of awareness of the L2 account Schmidt's can be sult by explained at thelevelof awareness Schmidt (1995,2001) distinguished acquisition. is a which of level the and at higherlevel of understanding, noticing of specific to involves awareness. attending exemplars simply Noticing understandthem has a and in the forms sentences); input(e.g.,English thataspectof lanthatgoverns a rule or principle ingentailsknowing of a noun and the mention first before the a uses guage (e.g., English both be it can beforethe second mention).Thus, arguedthatwhereas to are comments without directCF withand likely prometalinguistic comments direct CF with as noticing, moteawareness metalinguistic only that further contends Schmidt with awareness understanding. promotes
fasuch consciousrule awareness fromunderstanding strongly arising which cilitates laterlearning. This is borne out by the current study, foundthatlonger-term the direct metalinguistic gainsfavoured group. oforalCF. Carroll and Swain(1993) Thisviewis supported bystudies CF (i.e., and informative moreexplicit foundthata groupwhoreceived received other who direct CF) outperformed types metalinguistic groups Ellis verbs. ofEnglish dative theacquisition ofCF in a study investigating of metalinfeedback(in the form et al. (2006) also foundthatexplicit feedback(in the formof was superiorto implicit guisticcomments) in a that recasts) regular pasttense.A recent investigated English study metaofproviding to the of correction written importance points study that found Cameron & information. Bitchener, (2005) Young, linguistic learnthat in conjunction with written correction conferencing provided in statistically errors resulted comments on their erswith metalinguistic one ofwhich in in two structures, grammatical significant gains accuracy in contrast to the study article.It is interesting was the definite that, did not find Bitchener et al. in this article, any statistically reported metaalone (i.e.,without feedback fordirect corrective effect significant fothat these Taken comments). suggest findings together, linguistic learners' to feedback serves cused,metalinguistic grammatical improve accuracy. to which theextent The third research anyeffect questionconcerned The CF is mediated forwritten findings ability. by language analytic benshowedthatlearners witha highlevelof languageanalytic ability treatthat CF from both of CF. This result efitedmore suggests types ments are morelikely to increase awareness (bothat thelevelofnoticing have higheraptitudeforlanguage and understanding) when learners whenthe this was However, advantage foundtobe moreevident analysis. the CF includedmetalinguistic information. enhancing Again, greater effect of languageanalytic forthe metalinguistic group can be ability as understanding, explainedby Schmidt's(1995) notionof awareness which is triggered CF. Robinson(2001) founda strong bymetalinguistic In otherwords, correlation betweenaptitudeand awareness. positive learnCF affords a higher facilitates levelofawareness that metalinguistic is triggered ing and thisawareness by a processthattakesplace more in learners a greater with to engagein languageanalysis. readily capacity forthe metaThe greater beneficial effect of analytic evident ability If languageanalysis CF group is not surprising. is seen as a linguistic measure oflearners' to acquireexplicit (in particucapacity knowledge2
2 refersto knowledgethat is conscious,verbalizable,and declarativein Explicit knowledge nature (i.e., involvesknowledgeof stated grammatical with implicit rules). It contrasts whichis intuitive and automatic and morereadily availableforuse in unplanned knowledge, communication . TESOL QUARTERLY
276
thatsuch analytic skills willbe more strongly relatedto lar), it follows in the that in a test receives CF, especially gains group metalinguistic which the of such as an errorcorrection invites use test, metalinguistic On the otherhand,it is interesting in the case of the that, knowledge. testgainswere more strongly directmetalinguistic group,the writing withthe languageanalysis scoresthan the errorcorrection correlated is thatthe writing testmostclosely testgains.A possibleexplanation taskwherelearners resembled the treatment needed to apply initially abilities to understand the metalinguistic theirlanguageanalytic comthatlearnersused theirexplicit is simply ments.Anotherpossibility in thewriting extent test. to a greater knowledge in several the study was not The current is limited First, study ways. ofL2 writing classes. the effect of carried outin thecontext Investigating wouldhave afforded vaCF in thatcontext written stronger ecological A moresubstantasktreatment wasvery short. Second,thewriting lidity. and morerobust haveproducedevenstronger tialCF treatment might the effects of CF on the examined effects. Third, study just tworelatively results cannotbe and the of articles functions clearly English simple or even to other of other areas to accuracy, grammatical generalized in the treatment were not the students of articles. Fourth, groups aspects limitation. This be considered a revise their to might writing. required is thatit allowsforthe of excludingrevision one advantage However, to be itself of the CF treatment effect investigated. by CF. It was focusedtypeofwritten also examineda highly This study it addressed in senses. two focused Second, First, accuracy. only linguistic is needed research area. Further at a singlegrammatical itwasdirected of the selective to examine the effectiveness approach to CF recomif CF is at specific accrue directed benefits earlier. What mended writing students achieve CF focused Does skills? gains long term linguistic help CF? How foextentthanunfocused to a greater in accuracy linguistic or twoor feedback need to be? One structure cused does thecorrective studies need to conduct researchers three? L2 writing (especially longiof correction. Future of specific tudinal)thatisolatethe effects types and of CF on moreopen-ended shouldalso examinetheeffects studies tasks. extensive writing
CONCLUSION
of Truscott's As Chandler(2004) notedin her rebuttal (1996, 2004) of theeffectiveness ofwritten criticism CF, thecontroversy surrounding CF can onlybe resolved written carefully designedstudies: through for oferror correction that theefficacy I accept[his]argument accuracy a be demonstrated can only ofsubsequent bystudies containing writing
control and experimental no correction groups groupwhichreceives or havdirect correction which correct their errors after either receiving oftheir willdo errors out.So I hope someone ingthelocation pointed sucha well-designed study, (p. 348) the in mindto address thesepoints The current wasdesigned with study students' written central does error feedback L2 accuracy? help question, is a definite The answer to this Thus,thecurrent findings "yes." question Truscott CF is ineffective. Truscott's claimthatwritten do not support that writhad demonstrated based thisclaimon thefactthatno studies of written Truscott's effect on acquisition. tenCF had a positive critique to developmethto researchers a challenge feedback research presented in this In the research studies. this sound reported respect, odologically in thatdirection. article is a start CF is complex.It addressesdifferent Written aspectsof writing acas as well and rhetoric, mechanics, content, linguistic organization, CF should deal written The questionarises,however, whether curacy. selecat thesame timeor addressdifferent with all theseaspects aspects limhave learners of whencorrecting different L2 pieces writing. tively that attend to corrections and them to ited processing asking capacity to process address a rangeofissuesat thesametimemaytaxtheir ability have failed CF of written studies thefeedback. One reasonthatprevious in on students' to demonstrate writing accuracy subsequent anyeffect focused feedback was not sufficiently be thatthe linguistic maysimply to theimportance in this article and intensive. The study points reported work.Teachers students' written of a selective approachto correcting on focus in twosenses.First, can elect to can be selective variably they fosometimes at different different times, writing aspectsof a student's on occasions or organization and on other linguistic cusingon content teachers is on linguistic correctness. correctness, Second,whenthefocus ifthey results selecta specific problem grammatical mayachievebetter rather thana whole in theirstudents' thattheyhave observed writing thatfocused errors. The results of thisstudy suggest rangeof linguistic ofthe CF is moreeffective bothprovision whenitincorporates linguistic correct form and metalinguistic explanation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS in the This researchwould not have been possiblewithout the supportof thefaculty New AmericanLanguage Programat Bergen Community Paramus, Jersey, College, I am also deeplygrateUnited States, and thewilling of theirstudents. participation fulforthe valuable feedbackand supportby Zoltan Drnyeion earlierversionsof withdata coding thisarticle. Additionalthanks go to George Ganatforhis assistance criticism and reviewers for theirconstructive and the anonymousTESOL Quarterly A versionof thispaper was presentedat the 2005 Second Lanhelpfulsuggestions. 278 TESOL QUARTERLY
7-9 atTeachers Forum heldOctober Columbia guageResearch College, University, NewYork, United States. NewYork, THE AUTHOR Sheenhasrecently herdoctorate at theUniversity ofNottingcompleted Younghee In fall2007, shewill be an assistant inTESOL ham, Nottingham, England. professor Her research at American interests inDC, UnitedStates. University, Washington, secondlanguage oral and written clude instructed and, in particular, acquisition corrective feedback. REFERENCES ina multiple-draft ofteacher tostudent T. (2000).Patterns Ashwell, response writing Is content feedback followed feedback thebest classroom: byform composition D. (2005). The effect of different of Bitchener, types J.,Young,S., 8c Cameron, on ESL student Second feedback corrective 14, writing. Journal of Language Writing, 191-205. on theuse ofEnglish articles. learners' theories Y. (2002).Secondlanguage Butler, In K. ofresearch inforeign Carroll, language aptitude. J.B. (1981).Twenty-five years MA:Newbury House. 83-118).Rowley, Anempirical M. (1993).Explicit andimplicit feedback: Carroll, S.,& Swain, negative in Second AcStudies oflinguistic of thelearning Language generalizations. study 15,357-386. quisition, for ofvarious kinds oferror feedback Chandler, improvement J.(2003).The efficacy of L2 student and fluency in the accuracy writing. Journal ofSecond Language 12,267-296. Writing, to Truscott. 13, Chandler, Journal Language Writing, ofSecond J. (2004).A response 345-348. ot error correction on L2 grammar and R. (1993).The effect knowledge DeKeyser, on form. In C. Doughty E. (1998).Communicative focus & J. C, 8cVarela, Doughty, Press. Cambridge University Cambridge: and explicit ofa secondlanguage: A R. (2005).Measuring Ellis, knowledge implicit theeffects ofform-focused instruction on L2 acquisiR. (2006). Researching Ellis, 8cZ Drnyei inSLAResearch In K. Bartovi-Harlig tion. Review, (Eds.),Themes (AILA Vol. 19,pp. 18-41).Philadelphia: Benjamins. John R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback S., & Erlam, Ellis,R.,Loewen, 339-368. to student E. (1990). Teacherresponse Focuson A, 8cWhalley, Fathman, writing:
in SecondLanguageAcquisition, and the acquisitionof L2 grammar.Studies 28, in Second 27, 141-172. psychometric study.Studies Language Acquisition, in classroom second Williams(Eds.), Focusonform language acquisition (pp. 114-138). Modern oral proficiency. 77,501-514. Journal, Language in language and universals Diller (Ed.), Individualdifferences learning aptitude (pp. Studies in Second 24, 451-480. Language Acquisition, method? 9, 227-258. Journal ofSecond LanguageWriting,
Press. the classroom University (pp. 178-190).Cambridge: Cambridge ofcorrections and commentaries on the Fazio,L. (2001).The effect journal writing
Research versuscontent.In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second form language xvriting: insights for
and majority Language ofSecond language students. Journal accuracyof minority 10, 235-249. Writing, in L2 writing classes:A response D. (1999). The case forgrammar correction Ferris, to Truscott(1996). Journal 8, 1-10. ofSecond LanguageWriting, Ann Arbor:Uniclasses. in second D. (2002). Treatment Ferris, -writing language oferror of MichiganPress. versity Whereare we,and debate in L2 writing: D. (2004). The "grammar correction" Ferris, wheredo we go fromhere? (And whatdo we do in the meantime. . . ?). Journal 13, 49-62. ofSecond LanguageWriting, f practice ESL composition: D., & Hedgcock,J.(2005). Teaching Ferris, Purpose, process, (2nd d.). Mahwah,NT:LawrenceErlbaum. classes:How explicit B. (2001). Errorfeedbackin L2 writing Ferris, D., & Roberts, does it need to be? Tournai LanguageWriting, 10, 161-184. ofSecond and thesecondlanguagelearner. Mahwah, NJ: Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, LawrenceErlbaum. in L2 output. on tenseconsistency of theimpactof recasts Han, Z.-H. (2002). A study TESOL Quarterly, 36, 543-572. feedthe success of corrective Havranek,G., & Cesnik,H. (2001). Factorsaffecting back. EUROSLA Yearbook, 1, 99-122. interacN. (2003). Negativefeedbackand positiveevidence in task-based Iwashita, tion. Studies in Second 25, 1-36. LanguageAcquisition, feedback ofwritten of types in the relationship Kepner,C. G. (1991). An experiment Modern skills. ofsecond-language to thedevelopment 75, Journal, Language writing 305-313. New York: and practice in second Krashen,S. D. (1982). Principles acquisition. language of English. PergamonInstitute Modern Lalande, J. (1982). Reducing compositionerror:An experiment. Language 66, 140-149. Journal, nonnative of the articletheby Liu, D., & Gleason,J. (2002). Acquisition speakersof in Second 24, 1-26. LanguageAcquisition, English.Studies in second language acquienvironment Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic sition.In W. Ritchie& T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook (pp. language acquisition ofsecond 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. feedbackin negative Long, M., Inagaki,S., & Ortega,L. (1998). The role of implicit SLA: Models and recastsin Japanese and Spanish. Modern 82, Journal, Language instrucin form-focused and recasts effects of prompts ter,R. (2004). Differential Lys tion. Studies in Second 26, 399-432. LanguageAcquisition, in second as practice.In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice A. (2007). Interaction Mackey, Camand 85-110). (pp. fromlinguistics psychology languagelearning: Perspectives Press. bridge:CambridgeUniversity Mackey,A., 8c Philp,J. (1998). Conversationalinteractionand second language Modern and red herrings? 82, Recasts,responses, Journal, Language development: 338-356. and Englisharticlepedagogy.System, structure 30, Master,P. (2002). Information 331-348. enhancement:Integrating Muranoi,H. (2000). Focus on formthroughinteraction Learntaskin EFL classrooms. intoa communicative formal instruction Language 617-673. 50, ing, Nicholas,H., Lightbown, P., 8c Spada, N. (2001). Recastsas feedbackto language learners.LanguageLearning, 51, 719-758. and rePica, T. (1991). Foreignlanguage classrooms:Makingthemresearch-ready 280 TESOL QUARTERLY
357-371.
research and the classroom searchable.In B. Freed (Ed.), Foreign language acquisition (pp. 393-412). Lexington,MA: D.C. Heath. Polio, C, Fleck,N., 8c Leder, N. (1998). "If only I had more time":ESL learner's accuracyon essayrevisions. Journal ofSecond LanguageWritchanges in linguistic ing,7, 43-68. I. (1986). Salience offeedbackon errorand itseffect Robb,T., Ross,S., & Shortreed, on EFL writing 20, 83-93. quality.TESOL Quarterly, abilities, Robinson,P. (2001). Individualdifferences, cognitive aptitudecomplexes in second languageacquisition.Second and learningconditions Research, Language 1 7, 368-392. and instructional individualdifferences, M., 8c Ranta, L. (2001). Aptitude, Sawyer, and second (pp. 319language acquisition design. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition Press. 353). New York:CambridgeUniversity Honolulu: in foreign and awareness Schmidt,R. (1995). Attention languagelearning. of Hawaii Press. University and second In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition R. (2001). Attention. Schmidt, language Press. instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Z.,Adolphs,S., 8cDurow,V. (2003). Knowledgeand acquisition N., Drnyei, Schmitt, In N. Schmitt offormulaic (Ed.), Theacquisition, study. sequences:A longitudinal and useof JohnBenjamins. (pp. 55-86) . Amsterdam: sequences formulaic processing, of the red pen. Foreign Annals,17, 195-202. Semke,H. (1984). The effects Language Press. Oxford:OxfordUniversity collocation. M. (1991). Corpus, concordance, Sinclair, Oxford:OxfordUniversity tolanguage Skehan,P. (1998). A cognitive learning. approach Press. Snow,R. E. (1987). Aptitudecomplexes.In R. E. Snow 8cM. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, and instruction (pp. 13-59). Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum. learning SPSS. (2002). SPSS, version 11.5 [software]. Chicago, IL: Author.Available from http://www.spss.com/spss/. in L2 writing classes.Lancorrection Truscott, J. (1996). The case againstgrammar 46, 327-369. guageLearning, Truscott, J. (1999). The case for "the case for grammarcorrectionin L2 wnting classes":A responseto Ferris. 8, 111-122. ofSecond LanguageWriting, Journal A response of correction: Truscott, J. (2004). Evidenceand conjectureon the effects 337-343. Second to Chandler.Journal 13, LanguageWriting, of
APPENDIX A
Test Speeded Dictation
Name: (Direction) willread each sentenceonlyonce, so please There are 15 sentencesin thistest.The professor write downthesentencein thesmallnotebook to each sentence, After listencarefully. listening as you hear it. the sentenceexactly Writethe sentenceas fastas you can. Tryto write provided. turnto the nextpage and get readyforthe nextsentence.Once you After you have finished, each sentence,you mustNOT returnto the previouspage. finish about exact spelling.This is not a spellingtest.) (Note: Do not worry FOCUSED WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND LANGUAGE APTITUDE 281 Professor: Date:
1 Example Youwillhear: cannot buylove." "Money cannot Thenwrite, buylove." "Money TURNTO THE NEXTPAGE. Andthen,
For theProfessor
13 definite articles) Total15 items articles, (9 indefinite I when I feel 1: speakEnglish. good Example talented. He's very 2: Tomspeaks languages. many Example 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. this themanwhoruns I know college. theroadlookssuspicious. The redcaracross this whoflies thepilot Do youknow airplane? mademe sad. The movie lastnight. I sawa movie in NewYork. in a planecrash unclewaskilled John's husband. becamemy The manI metin NewYork down burned house.The temple nearmy Therewasa temple yesterday. the car move Can you driveway? blocking my clubis. Pleasetellmewhotheleaderofyour me. to marry wants The lawyer a lawyer. I know I sawa policeofficer dog. your chasing Yesterday, hasa dog.The dog bitherboyfriend. Jenny at BCC. ofbiology is a student John thecarthenext a car.He crashed Tombought day. hometown. in my kinddoctor Therewasa very
APPENDIX B
Test ErrorCorrection
One of the are related. that has twosentences Each statement Pleasereadeach statement. be Theremay at leastone error. contains sentence The underlined is underlined. sentences correctsentence outtheunderlined Write sentence. in eachunderlined than one error more or spelling errors.) (Note:Thereare no punctuation ingall theerrors. in She York 2001. New in lived have 1: Gloria living enjoys during really Example York. New since2001. in NewYork haslived Gloria Answer: to school went 2:John yesterday. gota cold.He couldn't Example He couldn't Answer: yesterday. go to school 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 282 now. in NewYork She lives in Chicago. usedto living Mary buttheboyisn't. wassmart little A on a little and a little I lookafter girl Saturday. boy girl Tests wasso difficult. tests I tookthree yesterday. out. He started lastweek. Tomquits againbecausehe is toostressed smoking smoking on the house his me show Can house. to to be easy map? Theremight you way get John's brother. carwasmy that themandriving I realized thestreet. I sawa manin a caracross broke that believe I couldn't up. they together. Jenand Bradusedtobeingso happy TESOL QUARTERLY
8. I saw a very movielast night.I forgot the name of movie. interesting 9. Last nightI read a magazineand a newsarticle.I don't knowwherea newsarticleis today. 10. A youngwomanand a tallman weretalking outsidemyhouse. Ten minutes later,a young womanwas shoutingat tall man. was fromCalifornia. 11. I read book about New York.The author,however, boat hit anotherboat and sank. 12. We renteda boat last summer.Unfortunately, 13. We wentto basketballgame on Saturday. The playersat the game were all verytall. 14. When you turnonto ParamusRoad, youwillsee twohouses: a blue one and a yellowone. I live in a blue house. 15. Is youruncle car salesman?I'm lookingto buya car. 16. Bill was so drunklast night.He couldn't even recognizedhis girlfriend. She willhave to findnew job. 17. Mymotherwas firedyesterday.
283

Sheen (2007)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sheen (2007)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

correction metalinguistic group, a direct groups were formed: a direct-only

CF Research MethodologicalIssues in Written

CF RelativeEfficacy of Different Types of Written

Instruments and Procedures

and ScoringGuidelines TestingInstruments

Dictation Test(8 Minutes) Speeded

Test(15 Minutes) ErrorCorrection

Test(20 Minutes) Ability Analytic Language

FIGURE 1 Test Examples Language Analysis

FOCUSED WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND LANGUAGE APTITUDE

FIGURE 2 Group Means on Speeded DictationTest

FOCUSED WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND LANGUAGE APTITUDE

FIGURE 4 Test Group Means on ErrorCorrection

FOCUSED WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND LANGUAGE APTITUDE

Test Total Dictation Writing Error correction

FOCUSED WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND LANGUAGE APTITUDE

You might also like