Evaluation of Bitchener, Young, & Cameron (2005) by Hung-Tzu

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.

Bitchener, Young, and Cameron (2005) examined how different types of corrective feedback on linguistic errors determine accuracy performance in learner writing. 53 post-intermediate adult ESL learners were divided into three treatment groups: direct written feedback on the target features, direct written corrective feedback + 5 minute student-researcher conference, and no corrective feedback on the target features. In four different pieces of writing within 12 weeks, learners’ errors on the use of preposition, simple past tense, and definite articles were corrected. The study found that when the three targeted errors were considered as a single group, the type of feedback provided did not have a significant effect on accuracy, however, when linguistic categories were considered separately, the types of feedback had a significant effect on the accuracy performance. Learners who were in the written feedback + conference group outperformed the other two groups significantly in accuracy performance of simple past tense and definite articles, but not prepositions.

The researchers indicated that the difference of learner improvement on the three linguistic errors could be explained with the notions of “treatable” and “untreatable” errors proposed by Ferris (1999). Ferris distinguished “treatable” and “untreatable” errors, defining the former as rule-governed error (such as verb tense forms) and the letter as idiosyncratic error, which require learners’ acquired language knowledge to correct the error (such as word choice). Based on the results of Bitchener et al., more “treatable” errors (in this case, the use of simple past tense and definite articles) were amendable through explicit written feedback and one-to-one conferences in which rules were explained and clarified.

Rather than examining the accuracy performance with text revision on the same writing, Bitchener et al. specifically stated that this study attempted to investigate long-term improvement of linguistic features by using four new pieces of writing within 12 weeks. Since one of the most crucial factors contributing to the diverse results in written corrective feedback research lies in the difference on how researchers define effectiveness, Bitchener et al. were careful in formulating what they intend to measure. The results showed that there was significant variation in accuracy performance across the four pieces of writing and that learners’ progress did not show a linear and upward pattern, leading the researchers to suggest that in order to measure long-term effect of corrective feedback on writing, a period longer than a semester is needed.

I think the article is straightforward and therefore fairly easy to read. With a brief summery of the Truscott and Ferris debate as a start, the study offers a clear picture of the research and discussion involved in whether and how to give L2 learners feedback on their written grammatical error. For those who are familiar with the domain, this article could be a nice review, and for those who are more interested in oral corrective feedback, this could be an introduction to read without going much into details. My overall evaluation to the article is therefore “recommended”.

One article that seem particular interesting to me when reading this study was:

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.

The distinction on “treatable” and “untreatable” errors was examined in this study. Since lexical errors were categorized as a more “untreatable” error, looking at how lexical errors were treated in this study will help me fine-tune my own research.