Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T13:08:02.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Written corrective feedback studies: Approximate replication of Bitchener & Knoch (2010a) and Van Beuningen, De Jong & Kuiken (2012)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2015

John Bitchener  and
Ute Knoch
John Bitchener
Affiliation:
AUT University, Auckland, New Zealandjohn.bitchener@aut.ac.nz
Ute Knoch
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne, Australiauknoch@unimelb.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The question of whether written corrective feedback (CF) has a role to play in second language (L2) development has been controversial since Truscott (1996) published an article in Language Learning calling for the abandonment of the practice on theoretical, empirical and pedagogical grounds. As a result of his claims, an on-going debate about the efficacy of the practice has ensued while a number of dedicated researchers have focused their attention on empirically investigating whether learners benefit from the practice in terms of significantly improving their accuracy in subsequent texts over time. Responding not only to Truscott's doubts about the overall effectiveness of written CF for L2 learning and his specific doubts about whether certain types of provision could ever have a meaningful and enduring effect on acquisition, further questions about the potential impact of different variables were central to the thinking and research that followed his claims. Such variables include the linguistic focus of the feedback and the relative merits of targeting a limited number of error categories (focused feedback) rather than a more comprehensive range of error categories (unfocused feedback). While a growing body of research has begun investigating these issues over the last 15–20 years, the field is in need of replication studies before firm conclusions can be reached.

Type
Replication Studies
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , July 2015 , pp. 405 - 414
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, J. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1985).Cognitive psychology and its implications (2nd edn). New York, NY: Freeman.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 17, 102–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Ferris, D. R. (2012).Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research 12, 409–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2009a). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System 37, 322–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2009b). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal 63, 204–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2010a). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics 31, 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2010b). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 19, 207–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 195–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Doughty, C. J. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press, 42–63.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M. & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in English as a foreign language context. System 36, 353–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, D. & Anderson, N. J. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly 44, 84–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics 11, 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porte, G. (2012). Introduction. In Porte, G. (ed.), Replication research in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–18.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly 41, 255–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y., Wright, D. & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System 37.4, 556–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning 46, 327–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J. (1999). The case for ‘the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes’: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing 8, 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing 16, 255–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y-P. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing 17, 292–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Beuningen, C., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Beuningen, C., de Jong, N. H. & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in Dutch multilingual classrooms. Language Learning 62, 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar