Thursday, August 30, 2007
Evaluation of Sheen (2007) by Sang-Ki (2nd evaluation assignment)
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255-283.
What are the purposes of giving feedback on learner errors? This is surely an important question to be addressed when evaluating studies on error feedback. I understand that the purposes can vary substantially depending on the language mode, that is, whether the feedback is given orally or given in a written format. This is because written feedback could demand less cognitive load for learner memory than oral feedback, since feedback given in a written format will be available for a longer period of time than the other type of feedback. Thus, by giving written feedback, teachers may expect their students to benefit more not only in terms of the depth of its effectiveness, but they also expect that the benefit would reach wider contexts of language use.
Most of the oral feedback studies to date have focused on the correction of form-related errors, with an (exclusive) aim of improving the accuracy of a focused linguistic element (e.g., Doughty & Varela, 1998; Iwashita, 2003; Long, Inagaki, & Ortega, 1998; Mackey & Philp, 1998). Conversely, written feedback studies have usually had varied foci other than the improvement of accuracy in student writings; they have also intended to improve writing content, organization, and the overall quality and fluency of writing products. This difference in purposes may account for why “in contrast to the SLA research that in general has shown that oral CF [corrective feedback] is effective, L2 writing researchers have not been able to convincingly demonstrate that written CF leads to improvement in grammatical accuracy in new pieces of writing” (p. 257).
The researcher’s main question in the current study is whether written feedback, if given in a focused manner, improves the accuracy in writing. In order to employ the focused type of feedback by design, teacher written feedback was given only on the article-related errors (i.e., inappropriate uses of a and the) as target to be acquired by the 91 adult intermediate-level research participants. The two factors presumed by Sheen to affect the efficiency of written feedback were (1) two types of written feedback: direct-only correction (provisions of corrected forms) versus direct metalinguistic correction (provisions of corrected forms and metalinguistic comments) and (2) individual differences in language-analytic ability. The patterns of major findings turned out to be predictable. The focused, metalinguistic feedback was found more beneficial for accuracy improvement, and the positive effects appeared to last over a month. In addition, significant benefits from the higher levels of language-analytic ability were found, and the benefits were most prominent within the direct metalinguistic correction condition. The helpful role of metalinguistic information in grammar learning would be in line with what has generally been found from the accumulated oral feedback studies (e.g., Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005; Carroll & Swain, 1993; Ellis, Loewen, & Erlam, 2006).
I enjoyed reading this article, and I think this article is useful for a couple of reasons at least. First, this study is the first to my knowledge which looks into the effectiveness of written feedback on accuracy improvement in student writings, with methodologically sound designs (e.g., true control group design with a focused target rule, and the like). Second, this study rightfully switches our attention to the mediating roles of individual differences in grammar learning through written feedback (i.e., individual differences in language-analytic ability). An improvement of the study design could be made, however, if the individual difference factor could serve as an independent variable. (The current study examines only the correlations between language-analytic scores and acquisition scores.) That is, having different independent groups with differential language-analytic abilities and giving them various types of written feedback could shed more light on the potential causal role of the individual difference variable across different feedback types.
Again, if I have rating scales, I would vote for the “recommended” option.
(Personally, I prefer this article to my previous choice (Sheen, 2006) as our course reading.)
Evaluation of Weissberg (2006): Watanabe, Y.
Weissberg, R. (2006). Scaffolded feedback: Tutorial conversations with advanced L2 writers. In K. Hyland., & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 246-265).
Weissberg (2006) investigated the underlying mechanism of oral tutor feedback to L2 students’ writing in one-on-one writing center sessions. Borrowing socio-cultural framework, he examined linguistic and discourse features of scaffolding specific to writing tutorials. Two NNS graduate students each participated in four one-on-one writing conference sessions. The tutorial conversations were audio recorded and analyzed, utilizing inductive analysis (IA). IA is “an iterative process consisting of repeated cycles of data analysis and hypothesis revision” (Weissberg, 2006, p. 252). In other words, themes and discourse categories, and their underlying structures are identified and revised through repetitive reading of the transcripts.
Weissberg found three levels of categories in writing tutorial discourse: a surface discourse level (i.e., overt conversation moves which structure scaffolding: confirmation checks, information questions, etc.), semantic content level (i.e., topical episodes: grammar, citations, writing process, etc.), and pragmatic level (i.e., the goals of the tutoring session: identification of problem areas, evaluation, reflection, etc.). It was concluded that the most salient components of scaffolding were (a) the tutor’s “lexical, ideational, and affective” (p. 259) attachment to tutee’s discourse, and (b) the utilization of conversational linkages (e.g., acknowledgement) to create instructional point.
Weissberg’s study was unique in that he was concerned on the role of oral feedback on global issues of writing, such as “planning, organizing, [and] revising” (p. 252). The study focus was on the nature of interaction during tutoring, and it is unfortunate that it did not further investigate how scaffolded feedback led to advancement in learners’ writing. However, Weissberg’s list of writing tutorial discourse categories (see Table 13.1, p. 254) will be useful for those who plan to investigate such question.
Although I did enjoy the article because I am particularly interested in oral feedback on writing, I do not recommend reading this article in class. It would be a great article for our classmates to take a look as a reference, since the focus of the class is on the effect of feedback.
Evaluation of McDonough & Mackey (2006) by Sorin
McDonough, K. & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693-720.
This study examined one of the most oft-mentioned issues of recasts, whether recasts facilitate L2 development, by investigating the relationships among recasts, different responses to recasts, and L2 development. The researchers distinguished simple repetitions of a recast from primed production and compared their effects on the development of English question. Primed production was defined as a learner’s new utterance using the syntactic structure provided in the recast either immediately or a few turns later (in this paper, within six turns). In a pre- and posttest design, 58 Thai EFL university students performed a series of communicative tasks with NS interlocutors (during three treatment sessions) and completed four tests (one pretest and three posttests) over a 9-week period. L2 development was operationalized in this study as the production of higher level questions on all three posttests according to Pienemann’s developmental sequence. The results indicated that recasts and primed production were predictive of ESL question development whereas mere repetition of recasts was not significantly correlated with ESL question development.
I found this article worth reading since it was among the few studies investigating the relationships among recasts, responses, and L2 development, and showed relatively long-term effects (9-week period) of recasts. It also provided evidence that merely repeating recasts was not necessarily associated with development, and it was more beneficial to produce the form in one’s own way. The findings that learners without immediate responses to recasts were able to successfully formulate advanced questions later on supported delayed effects of recasts on L2 development, thus indicating that the absence of learner responses to recasts, which was often criticized, does not necessarily limit the effectiveness of recasts. Another interesting result of the study was that most of the learners in the control group, which did not receive any feedback, did not produce primed production involving advanced-level questions, even though their NS interlocutor’s use of the targeted form created opportunities for it, which requires further investigation.
This study would be useful to those who are interested in the effectiveness of recasts including its impact on language development, long-term (and/or delayed) effects of recasts, different types of responses to recasts, and their effects on L2 acquisition. The brief summaries of previous studies, addressing various issues regarding the effectiveness of recasts, would be helpful resources for those conducing research on these issues. Thus, I would like to recommend this article to be included in the reading packet.
This study examined one of the most oft-mentioned issues of recasts, whether recasts facilitate L2 development, by investigating the relationships among recasts, different responses to recasts, and L2 development. The researchers distinguished simple repetitions of a recast from primed production and compared their effects on the development of English question. Primed production was defined as a learner’s new utterance using the syntactic structure provided in the recast either immediately or a few turns later (in this paper, within six turns). In a pre- and posttest design, 58 Thai EFL university students performed a series of communicative tasks with NS interlocutors (during three treatment sessions) and completed four tests (one pretest and three posttests) over a 9-week period. L2 development was operationalized in this study as the production of higher level questions on all three posttests according to Pienemann’s developmental sequence. The results indicated that recasts and primed production were predictive of ESL question development whereas mere repetition of recasts was not significantly correlated with ESL question development.
I found this article worth reading since it was among the few studies investigating the relationships among recasts, responses, and L2 development, and showed relatively long-term effects (9-week period) of recasts. It also provided evidence that merely repeating recasts was not necessarily associated with development, and it was more beneficial to produce the form in one’s own way. The findings that learners without immediate responses to recasts were able to successfully formulate advanced questions later on supported delayed effects of recasts on L2 development, thus indicating that the absence of learner responses to recasts, which was often criticized, does not necessarily limit the effectiveness of recasts. Another interesting result of the study was that most of the learners in the control group, which did not receive any feedback, did not produce primed production involving advanced-level questions, even though their NS interlocutor’s use of the targeted form created opportunities for it, which requires further investigation.
This study would be useful to those who are interested in the effectiveness of recasts including its impact on language development, long-term (and/or delayed) effects of recasts, different types of responses to recasts, and their effects on L2 acquisition. The brief summaries of previous studies, addressing various issues regarding the effectiveness of recasts, would be helpful resources for those conducing research on these issues. Thus, I would like to recommend this article to be included in the reading packet.
Evaluation of Gaskell & Cobb (2004) by Myong Hee
Gaskell, D., & Cobb, T. (2004). Can learners use concordance feedback for writing errors? System, 32, 301-319.
This article demonstrates whether L2 learners can use concordance feedback to correct their sentence-level writing errors. Twenty adult low intermediate Chinese EFL learners in Canada participated in the present study. Each student provided a 200-word writing sample and 10 prominent errors among the samples were determined for concordance feedback. Over a 15 week semester, students handed in 10 assignments. For the teacher’s feedback, a maximum of 5 concordanced errors (hyperlinks) were given for each assignment. The findings show that (1) over 50% of the participants responded that their ability to use grammar points had improved; (2) the vast majority reported that they used concordances to correct their errors; (3) and many of them, especially seven became persistent users of the online concordance.
I felt this article very useful. It shows another way to provide feedback for students’ writings. I have learned that online concordance can be a useful tool for not only teaching vocabulary but also teaching grammatical points. Once you train your students, they can be independent users of concordance who can correct their sentence-level grammatical errors. The ultimate goal of teaching L2 writing is to make a learner an independent proficient writer. Besides, given the fact that most English courses in Korea (probably other Asian countries) are relatively big, learners’ autonomy in L2 writing is highly desirable. In this respect, this article provides good information on learner autonomy in sentence-level error correction.
I really enjoyed reading this study. It is rather a short article and easy to read. The findings interested me a lot as a teacher because they provide valuable information for future writing teachers and researchers.
I’d like to recommend this article to our 750 reading packet. This study suggests another perspective on written feedback. Most studies in written feedback are concerned about teachers’ giving comments on students’ writings. However, this article suggests another possibility that students correct their own sentence-level errors through being a concordance user.
Gaskell, D., & Cobb, T. (2004). Can learners use concordance feedback for writing errors? System, 32, 301-319.
This article demonstrates whether L2 learners can use concordance feedback to correct their sentence-level writing errors. Twenty adult low intermediate Chinese EFL learners in Canada participated in the present study. Each student provided a 200-word writing sample and 10 prominent errors among the samples were determined for concordance feedback. Over a 15 week semester, students handed in 10 assignments. For the teacher’s feedback, a maximum of 5 concordanced errors (hyperlinks) were given for each assignment. The findings show that (1) over 50% of the participants responded that their ability to use grammar points had improved; (2) the vast majority reported that they used concordances to correct their errors; (3) and many of them, especially seven became persistent users of the online concordance.
I felt this article very useful. It shows another way to provide feedback for students’ writings. I have learned that online concordance can be a useful tool for not only teaching vocabulary but also teaching grammatical points. Once you train your students, they can be independent users of concordance who can correct their sentence-level grammatical errors. The ultimate goal of teaching L2 writing is to make a learner an independent proficient writer. Besides, given the fact that most English courses in Korea (probably other Asian countries) are relatively big, learners’ autonomy in L2 writing is highly desirable. In this respect, this article provides good information on learner autonomy in sentence-level error correction.
I really enjoyed reading this study. It is rather a short article and easy to read. The findings interested me a lot as a teacher because they provide valuable information for future writing teachers and researchers.
I’d like to recommend this article to our 750 reading packet. This study suggests another perspective on written feedback. Most studies in written feedback are concerned about teachers’ giving comments on students’ writings. However, this article suggests another possibility that students correct their own sentence-level errors through being a concordance user.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)