Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T23:28:36.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

LEARNERS’ PROCESSING, UPTAKE, AND RETENTION OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING

Case Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2010

Neomy Storch  and
Gillian Wigglesworth
Neomy Storch*
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne
Gillian Wigglesworth
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne
*
*Address correspondence to: Neomy Storch, School of Languages & Linguistics, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia; e-mail: neomys@unimelb.edu.au.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The literature on corrective feedback (CF) that second language writers receive in response to their grammatical and lexical errors is plagued by controversies and conflicting findings about the merits of feedback. Although more recent studies suggest that CF is valuable (e.g., Bitchener, 2008; Sheen, 2007), it is still not clear whether direct or indirect feedback is the most effective, or why. This study explored the efficacy of two different forms of CF. The investigation focused on the nature of the learners’ engagement with the feedback received to gain a better understanding of why some feedback is taken up and retained and some is not. The study was composed of three sessions. In session 1, learners worked in pairs to compose a text based on a graphic prompt. Feedback was provided either in the form of reformulations (direct feedback) or editing symbols (indirect feedback). In session 2 (day 5), the learners reviewed the feedback they received and rewrote their text. All pair talk was audio-recorded. In session 3 (day 28), each of the learners composed a text individually using the same prompt as in session 1. The texts produced by the pairs after feedback were analyzed for evidence of uptake of the feedback given and texts produced individually in session 3 for evidence of retention. The learners’ transcribed pair talk proved a very rich source of data that showed not only how learners processed the feedback received but also their attitudes toward the feedback and their beliefs about language conventions and use. Closer analysis of four case study pairs suggests that uptake and retention may be affected by a host of linguistic and affective factors, including the type of errors the learners make in their writing and, more importantly, learners’ attitudes, beliefs, and goals. The findings suggest that, although often ignored in research on CF, these affective factors play an important role in uptake and retention of feedback.

Type
Research Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 32 , Special Issue 2: The Role of Oral and Written Corrective Feedback in SLA , June 2010 , pp. 303 - 334
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

REFERENCES

Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102–118.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
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, 267–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummings, A., Busch, M., & Zhou, A. (2002). Investigating learners’ goals in the context of adult second language writing. In Ransdell, S. & Barbier, M. (Eds.), New directions for research for L2 writing (pp. 189–208). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Given, L., & Schallert, D. (2008). Meeting in the margins: Effects of the teacher-student relationship on revision processes of EFL college students taking a composition course. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 165–182.Google Scholar
Goldstein, L. (2004). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revisions: Teachers and students working together. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, L. (2005). Teacher written commentary in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 255–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31, 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Context and issues in feedback on L2 writing: An introduction. In Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing (pp. 1–20). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (2001). Second language activity theory: Understanding second language learners as people. In Breen, M. P. (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 141–158). New York: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9, 34–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67–100.CrossRefGoogle 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
Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17, 95–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2006, July). Reformulate or edit? Investigating the impact of different feedback practices. Paper presented at the 5th Pacific Second Language Research Forum, University of Queensland, Australia.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In Byrnes, H. (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2003). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tardy, C. (2006). Appropriation, ownership, and agency: Negotiating teacher feedback in academic settings. In Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing (pp. 60–78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornbury, S. (1997). Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promote “noticing.” ELT Journal, 51, 326–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tocalli-Beller, A., & Swain, M. (2005). Reformulation: The cognitive conflict and L2 learning it generates. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15, 5–28.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