Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp.81-104). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Debate about the value of providing corrective feedback on L2 writing has been prominent in recent years as a result of Truscott (1996) who claimed that it is both ineffective and harmful and should therefore be abandoned. Dana Ferris is probably one of the most well-known researchers who have rigorously refuted Truscott by providing additional evidence on positive effects of error feedback in L2 writing. This book chapter is her latest work that summarizes research findings on: (1) the effects of error feedback on improvement in the short run and in the long run; (2) the impact of teacher marking strategies on students’ revisions; and (3) the relationship between error types and error treatment. Data for the study was collected in six sections of an ESL composition class where students (N=92) completed four three-draft persuasive essays over the semester. In order to investigate students’ long-term development, all three drafts of the first and fourth essays with teacher feedback were analyzed. The analysis of students’ responses from one draft to the next of a particular paper revealed that the student writers were able to successfully edit errors marked by teachers (80% of all the errors were successfully corrected). However, the longitudinal analysis showed that students’ short-term ability to edit certain types of errors (article errors, lexical errors, and sentence errors) did not always translate to long-term improvement (only “verb-form” demonstrated the progress over the semester). The analysis of teachers’ marking patterns illustrated that students utilized direct feedback more effectively than indirect feedback, since it involved mere transcribing or copying the teacher’s suggestion into the next draft of their papers. However, less explicit forms of feedback also led to accurate revisions most of the time. The analysis of student revision outcomes by error types elucidated that teachers responded to different types of errors in different ways. Specifically, “treatable” errors (errors that could occur in a rule-governed way: verb tense or forms, subject-verb agreement, run-ons, fragments, etc) were more often marked indirectly, while “untreatable” errors (no set of rules students can consult to avoid or fix errors: word choice, idioms, and the sentence structure) were overwhelmingly marked directly.
Ferris’s work fills an important niche in attempting to examine the longitudinal effects of teacher feedback and the effect of different types of feedback (direct/indirect) on different error types (treatable/untreatable). She provided evidence that students’ immediate revisions did not always lead to their longer term development. This evidence implies that students’ ability to utilize teacher feedback to successfully edit one draft for the next of a particular paper is not equivalent to their successful acquisition of the linguistic construct addressed by the feedback, and thus gives us a significant implication regarding the relationship between correction and learning. Ferris’s attempt to classify error types into treatable and untreatable ones is also invaluable. She found that treatable errors were more likely to be marked indirectly than untreatable errors which were more often marked directly. Of particular importance is that the indirect feedback that students received on verb errors may have helped them over time because verb form demonstrated the long-term improvement in accuracy. This means that indirect feedback can encourage learner reflection and therefore trigger the guided learning and problem-solving processes (Lalande, 1982). The evidence suggests possible feedback approach that could be employed by L2 writing teachers (i.e. varying feedback approaches for treatable and untreatable error types, and providing primarily indirect feedback for treatable errors).
Ferris’s study thus provides valuable insights into the effects of error feedback on L2 writers’ texts. However, as I read Ferris’s analysis and discussion of the data, I found myself unsatisfactory in a way I often am when I read feedback research pieces that are non-contextual. I hence doubt whether this article would be useful for our discussion in class. I think that there are at least two contextual factors that should have been addressed more clearly by Ferris: individual differences and classroom realities. First, by highlighting the fact that 80 percent of the total errors (4,590 out of 5,705 errors) were successfully corrected, Ferris claims a strong relationship between teachers’ feedback and successful student revisions. However, 80 percent of the cases does not say anything about how individual students responded to teacher feedback, given that 92 students participated in the study. In fact, the individual differences became apparent in the result of the quantitative analysis, indicating that the standard deviation of the total errors was extremely large. The same is true of a teacher variable. Ferris investigated three teachers’ marking strategies, and identified that their direct feedback accounted for 45 percent of the total corrections, while their indirect feedback with code accounted for 41 percent of the total. However, this triggers questions about individual teacher differences and consistency in treatment. There might have variation among the three teachers in their proportions of direct and indirect feedback. Second, classroom realities, that is, the relationship between class instruction and teacher feedback is unclear. Given that the study was conducted in an ESL composition classroom and the task was a persuasive essay, it is legitimate to speculate that a focus of the instruction was on writing as well as grammar, but Ferris’s primary concern in this study was put on grammatical accuracy alone. Such research design is skeptical in that the effect of teacher feedback is examined without regard to what was really taught in class. The issue of context that has been overlooked in research into feedback has been pointed out and discussed in class, and thus I do not think this article would serve as a topic for more productive and constructive discussion in class. My evaluation of this article is therefore “not recommended.”
References
Lalande, J. F. II (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language Journal, 66, 140-149.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
Friday, August 31, 2007
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.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Evaluation of Guenette (2007) by Dan
Guenette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40-53.
Rather than trying to interpret the conflicting results of research on feedback in L2 writing (form) as a demonstration of effectiveness or ineffectiveness, Guenette argues that such disparate results to date (which has failed to guide teachers in their practice) may be highly attributable to research design and methodology, as well as the "constellation of variables" that have been ignored. For example, in scrutinizing the research methodology, she points out that efficacy of feedback may be attributable to proficiency levels, which is a variable that is rarely measured and reported accurately. Also, while there is already a deficit in the amount of research that uses both a control group and experimental group, those few that do usually fail to keep all other variables consistent. Another design feature she raises attention to is the "elicitation task" (which I think refers to 'demand'--what do the students have to do with the feedback?). Some of the variables that teachers usually ignore include classroom contexts (is the control group and experimental group receiving the same instruction? Does their instruction place attention to focus on form?), student incentive (are students being graded on the way they react to the feedback?), and motivation, which is also usually overlooked. The article concludes by summarizing the benefits of descriptive studies, which reveal other dimensions of feedback: students' ability to engage with feedback, the type of errors that benefit from feedback, students' perceptions and preferences, and individual differences.
This study can be useful for researchers to fine-tune our research design and methodology so that our research can begin to become more comparable and meaningful; clearly something that is not really happening. We need to be more vigorous in our search for other variables that might affect studies, and this article serves as a good reminder for how to improve our research. I enjoyed the study because it's my area of interest and was vaguely familiar with many of the studies that were only briely referred to. So I'd recommend it as a reading....but maybe only if you're involved in research on feedback in L2 writing with a focus on form.
A study that I spotted in this article that seems particularly interesting to me was:
Han, Z. H. (2001). Fine-tuning corrective feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 34, 582-595. This is a longitudinal case study that reveals individual differences are an important factor in determining whether feedback is effective or not, and calls for fine-tuning the feedback to the learners' specific problems.
Rather than trying to interpret the conflicting results of research on feedback in L2 writing (form) as a demonstration of effectiveness or ineffectiveness, Guenette argues that such disparate results to date (which has failed to guide teachers in their practice) may be highly attributable to research design and methodology, as well as the "constellation of variables" that have been ignored. For example, in scrutinizing the research methodology, she points out that efficacy of feedback may be attributable to proficiency levels, which is a variable that is rarely measured and reported accurately. Also, while there is already a deficit in the amount of research that uses both a control group and experimental group, those few that do usually fail to keep all other variables consistent. Another design feature she raises attention to is the "elicitation task" (which I think refers to 'demand'--what do the students have to do with the feedback?). Some of the variables that teachers usually ignore include classroom contexts (is the control group and experimental group receiving the same instruction? Does their instruction place attention to focus on form?), student incentive (are students being graded on the way they react to the feedback?), and motivation, which is also usually overlooked. The article concludes by summarizing the benefits of descriptive studies, which reveal other dimensions of feedback: students' ability to engage with feedback, the type of errors that benefit from feedback, students' perceptions and preferences, and individual differences.
This study can be useful for researchers to fine-tune our research design and methodology so that our research can begin to become more comparable and meaningful; clearly something that is not really happening. We need to be more vigorous in our search for other variables that might affect studies, and this article serves as a good reminder for how to improve our research. I enjoyed the study because it's my area of interest and was vaguely familiar with many of the studies that were only briely referred to. So I'd recommend it as a reading....but maybe only if you're involved in research on feedback in L2 writing with a focus on form.
A study that I spotted in this article that seems particularly interesting to me was:
Han, Z. H. (2001). Fine-tuning corrective feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 34, 582-595. This is a longitudinal case study that reveals individual differences are an important factor in determining whether feedback is effective or not, and calls for fine-tuning the feedback to the learners' specific problems.
Evaluation of Loewen and Philip (2006) By Ping
Loewen, S., & Philip, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536-556.
This study examined the provision, the nature, and the effectiveness of recasts in 12 adult ESL classrooms. The findings indicated that recasts were widely used and were beneficial at least 50 % of the time. Although other forms of feedback had similar success rate measured by posttests, recasts differed in the connection between learner response and test performance. The study suggests that recasts vary widely in terms of stress, intonation, number of feedback moves, length of recasts, and degree of explicitness. These characteristics of recasts are likely to affect their effectiveness in classroom context. More specifically, it points out that stress, declarative intonation, and number of feedback moves can be associated with the effectiveness of recasts since these elemens increase the salience of recasts and therefore learners respond to them as explicit corrections. The study also suggests that other factors, such as degree of differences between the learner's utterance and the recast and the nature of discourse in which recasts are provided, should be taken into account.
I think this article brings up an important issue we talked about in previous session: the degree of explicitness of negative feedback. It investigates the differences within recasts and considers the impact of their characteristics on their effectiveness, instead of classifying them as one generic type of implicit negative feedback. Also, it highlights the importance to not only look at learners' immediate uptake, but also consider the overall interactional organization of the discourse. Using learners' immediate response to feedback might not be adequate to assess the effectiveness of recasts. For example, multiple feedback moves can contribute to further learner engagement and higher learner production, therefore serving as predictor of successful uptake.
If you are interested in variable elements of recasts and the complexities of their characteristics, this will be a good read. It has a comprehensive discussion on different perspectives regarding the benefits and limitations of recasts. I think it's a good introduction to those who are not familiar with recast studies. Even though I got confused with its coding categories, overall, I will recommend it to be added to the 750 reading packet.
This study examined the provision, the nature, and the effectiveness of recasts in 12 adult ESL classrooms. The findings indicated that recasts were widely used and were beneficial at least 50 % of the time. Although other forms of feedback had similar success rate measured by posttests, recasts differed in the connection between learner response and test performance. The study suggests that recasts vary widely in terms of stress, intonation, number of feedback moves, length of recasts, and degree of explicitness. These characteristics of recasts are likely to affect their effectiveness in classroom context. More specifically, it points out that stress, declarative intonation, and number of feedback moves can be associated with the effectiveness of recasts since these elemens increase the salience of recasts and therefore learners respond to them as explicit corrections. The study also suggests that other factors, such as degree of differences between the learner's utterance and the recast and the nature of discourse in which recasts are provided, should be taken into account.
I think this article brings up an important issue we talked about in previous session: the degree of explicitness of negative feedback. It investigates the differences within recasts and considers the impact of their characteristics on their effectiveness, instead of classifying them as one generic type of implicit negative feedback. Also, it highlights the importance to not only look at learners' immediate uptake, but also consider the overall interactional organization of the discourse. Using learners' immediate response to feedback might not be adequate to assess the effectiveness of recasts. For example, multiple feedback moves can contribute to further learner engagement and higher learner production, therefore serving as predictor of successful uptake.
If you are interested in variable elements of recasts and the complexities of their characteristics, this will be a good read. It has a comprehensive discussion on different perspectives regarding the benefits and limitations of recasts. I think it's a good introduction to those who are not familiar with recast studies. Even though I got confused with its coding categories, overall, I will recommend it to be added to the 750 reading packet.
Evaluation of Loewen and Erlam (2006) by BoSun Choi
Loewen and Erlam (2006). Corrective Feedback in the Chatroom: An experimental study Shawn. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 19, 1-14
This quasi-experimental study tried to investigate the effectiveness of the two types of corrective feedback, i.e., recasts (implicit) vs. meta-linguistic information (implicit) on in online chatting with 31 beginning L2 learners of English. The target structure is regular past tense (verb+ed), which is known as a morpheme acquired later in morphemes studies (see Dulay and Burt, 1974). After taking pretest, the participants went through 56 minutes of corrective feed session (treatment), where they received either type of corrective feedback while completing the two tasks; story retelling after seeing a picture with written narratives and verbal description of the pictures. Their learning is measured by timed and untimed grammaticality judgment test (GJT) immediately and two weeks later. ANOVA analysis displayed insignificant difference for the two corrective feedback types and for time, meaning that the two groups there is no significant gains in response to either feedback type nor was there significant gain over time.
Reading this article is somewhat useful in a sense that it gives some insight into differences between face-to-face and online study. The suggestion of three features of online chatting is acceptable to explain insignificant amount of uptake as follows; 1) reduced immediacy of the feedback due to the overlap between interlocutor turns 2) the lack /reduced incidence of uptake in response to feedback. 3) students’ frequent going off the target and instructor’s less control over the off-topic. However, such suggestion is a bit mitigated when the author mentions that the participants’ low proficiency level may lead to insignificant amount of uptake. If the participants were not ready to learn the target form their proficiency level would serve as a conclusive factor. Even though the picture is puzzling, the characteristics of online chatting suggested in this study would give some ideas for further studies about corrective errors in online setting, which may be beneficial those who are interested in CALL and error correction.
I personally enjoyed reading it since the research gave me some insights about the characteristics of online feedback. It would be more enjoyable, however, if this study provided more sound explanation about the design. First, it did not explicitly explain why it adopted timed and untimed GJT for measurement different from the one in Ellis et al.’s(2006) study, by which this research is motivated for replication. Even though the design of this study is not new but directly employed from classroom research, this article may be enjoyable for this class in a sense that it describes some characteristics of online classroom setting, which greatly differs from off-line class. Especially, the instructor’s low level of control over student’s utterance seems to be interesting factor in response to its effect on learning since CALL literature pointed out that student centeredness is one of the important benefit of the online instruction.
I would like to recommend this article for the class since there has been scarce literature about the effect of online feedback in SLA literature. Despite of the result that there was no significant effect for either online corrective feedback, it is worth reading the description of the characteristics of online chatting. Given students’ growing need for application of technology to language classrooms, it would be worth further studying the effect of using different tool in language classroom.
Evaluation of Ellis and Sheen (2006) by Kevin
Ellis and Sheen (2006) Reexamining the Role of Recasts in Second Language Acquisition. SSLA, 28, 575-600
This article assesses the current state of research concerning recasts. The authors identify and suggest solutions for several types of problems that have occurred in many studies to date. Specifically, they are argue that there are a variety of recast forms and functions and these are often not taken into account; the type of corrective strategy being studied, that is (implicit or explicit/negative or positive) is often unclear; social and sociocognitive perspectives are often not considered or factored into results; the significance of learner repair following recasts has not been examined in enough detail; developmental readiness should be investigated more thoroughly as a factor in acquisition by recast; other corrective strategies (such as elicitation, clarification requests, translation, metalinguistic feedback) have not received as much attention as recasts in the research literature.
One important issue that the article brings up is the question of classifying recasts. I think many of us tend to use the word recast to cover a huge group of varied corrective feedback. Should we classify types of recasts and treat them as separate types of one phenomenon for research purposes? The authors mention several types of recasts including repetition, reformulation, corrective and non-corrective, full or partial, single or multiple, simple complex and context-dependant. Clearly, the types of recasts listed above are not all equally effective and researchers should be aware of these distinctions when planning research. In addition to types of recasts, other factors also complicate the definition of a recast. Feedback can be in the form of addition, deletion, substitution or reordering. The student/teacher orientation must be taken into account in terms of whether the language is being treated as an object or for message conveyance; Is the recast didactically or communicatively motivated? The authors suggest the possibility of classifying in relation to effects recasts have on acquisition or successful uptake.
Another question that has been addressed, but not adequately, according to the researchers, is whether or not recasts are implicit or explicit forms of feedback. The authors state that it often depends on the linguistic or discourse context and that researchers should be more aware of this fact. Another interesting and related question is whether or not recasts result in metalinguistic awareness or an internalization of rules without being consciously aware of a rule or pattern. The research up to this point does not give a clear picture. Are implicit recasts noticed as being corrections or something else? The larger question posed here concerns the relationship between noticing and recasts. To what degree are the different types of recasts noticed? Is noticing a factor in acquisition by recasts? Added to this are the roles of positive and negative evidence and the further complicating effect that they have on the type of recast being used. The authors state tentatively that positive evidence arises naturally and may or may not be noticed and acquired and negative evidence is explicit feedback. The recast itself could be both, depending on the learner interpretation and the discourse context.
Having established that recasts come in many sizes shapes and forms, the authors address the most important question of all; Do recasts facilitate acquisition? That is, should we even bother?
The research to date shows that there is certainly potential, especially if the recast focuses on a single feature or is emphasized in some way. The research is inconclusive. A numbers of factors seem to contribute to the effectiveness of recasts for facilitating acquisition. The literacy or proficiency as well as the learner’s orientation may also affect recast effectiveness and should be taken into account when deciding on a recast strategy. Individual learner differences, type of recast, target of the recast, developmental readiness of the learner also appear to be part of the picture, but to what extent is not know at this point. Several questions remain; Is uptake and repair dependant on instructional and social context? . Is noticing present only if uptake and repair is present? Does subsequent usage of correct forms contribute to acquisition?
A lot of ideas are covered in this article, each one worthy of a long discussion. It may help to summarize some of the main ideas. This is done below:
1. Recasts come in a variety of forms and should not be treated as homogeneous
2. Recasts can be functionally different and this may affect acquisition.
3. Recast can be considered explicit as well as implicit feedback
4. Learner orientation is a factor in deciding if recasts can be considered positive or negative feedback.
5. Learners may not recognize corrective force of recasts
6. Socio-psychological factors, individual learner differences, target language and developmental readiness may determine receptiveness
7. The role of uptake is uncertain
8. Research tends to focus on focused recasts. These results cannot be applied to classroom situations where recasts are extensive.
9. No clear evidence that recasts work better for acquisition than other forms of interaction.
In terms of our previous discussion about effectiveness, the authors define an effective recast as one that facilitates acquisition. I recommend this article for inclusion in the reading packet.
This article assesses the current state of research concerning recasts. The authors identify and suggest solutions for several types of problems that have occurred in many studies to date. Specifically, they are argue that there are a variety of recast forms and functions and these are often not taken into account; the type of corrective strategy being studied, that is (implicit or explicit/negative or positive) is often unclear; social and sociocognitive perspectives are often not considered or factored into results; the significance of learner repair following recasts has not been examined in enough detail; developmental readiness should be investigated more thoroughly as a factor in acquisition by recast; other corrective strategies (such as elicitation, clarification requests, translation, metalinguistic feedback) have not received as much attention as recasts in the research literature.
One important issue that the article brings up is the question of classifying recasts. I think many of us tend to use the word recast to cover a huge group of varied corrective feedback. Should we classify types of recasts and treat them as separate types of one phenomenon for research purposes? The authors mention several types of recasts including repetition, reformulation, corrective and non-corrective, full or partial, single or multiple, simple complex and context-dependant. Clearly, the types of recasts listed above are not all equally effective and researchers should be aware of these distinctions when planning research. In addition to types of recasts, other factors also complicate the definition of a recast. Feedback can be in the form of addition, deletion, substitution or reordering. The student/teacher orientation must be taken into account in terms of whether the language is being treated as an object or for message conveyance; Is the recast didactically or communicatively motivated? The authors suggest the possibility of classifying in relation to effects recasts have on acquisition or successful uptake.
Another question that has been addressed, but not adequately, according to the researchers, is whether or not recasts are implicit or explicit forms of feedback. The authors state that it often depends on the linguistic or discourse context and that researchers should be more aware of this fact. Another interesting and related question is whether or not recasts result in metalinguistic awareness or an internalization of rules without being consciously aware of a rule or pattern. The research up to this point does not give a clear picture. Are implicit recasts noticed as being corrections or something else? The larger question posed here concerns the relationship between noticing and recasts. To what degree are the different types of recasts noticed? Is noticing a factor in acquisition by recasts? Added to this are the roles of positive and negative evidence and the further complicating effect that they have on the type of recast being used. The authors state tentatively that positive evidence arises naturally and may or may not be noticed and acquired and negative evidence is explicit feedback. The recast itself could be both, depending on the learner interpretation and the discourse context.
Having established that recasts come in many sizes shapes and forms, the authors address the most important question of all; Do recasts facilitate acquisition? That is, should we even bother?
The research to date shows that there is certainly potential, especially if the recast focuses on a single feature or is emphasized in some way. The research is inconclusive. A numbers of factors seem to contribute to the effectiveness of recasts for facilitating acquisition. The literacy or proficiency as well as the learner’s orientation may also affect recast effectiveness and should be taken into account when deciding on a recast strategy. Individual learner differences, type of recast, target of the recast, developmental readiness of the learner also appear to be part of the picture, but to what extent is not know at this point. Several questions remain; Is uptake and repair dependant on instructional and social context? . Is noticing present only if uptake and repair is present? Does subsequent usage of correct forms contribute to acquisition?
A lot of ideas are covered in this article, each one worthy of a long discussion. It may help to summarize some of the main ideas. This is done below:
1. Recasts come in a variety of forms and should not be treated as homogeneous
2. Recasts can be functionally different and this may affect acquisition.
3. Recast can be considered explicit as well as implicit feedback
4. Learner orientation is a factor in deciding if recasts can be considered positive or negative feedback.
5. Learners may not recognize corrective force of recasts
6. Socio-psychological factors, individual learner differences, target language and developmental readiness may determine receptiveness
7. The role of uptake is uncertain
8. Research tends to focus on focused recasts. These results cannot be applied to classroom situations where recasts are extensive.
9. No clear evidence that recasts work better for acquisition than other forms of interaction.
In terms of our previous discussion about effectiveness, the authors define an effective recast as one that facilitates acquisition. I recommend this article for inclusion in the reading packet.
Evaluation of Sachs & Polio (2007) by Hung-Tzu
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.
Reformulation refers to a native speaker's rewriting of an L2 learner's written composition in order to make the language seem more nativelike, while keeping the content of the original intact (Thornbury, 1997). Through three-stage composition-comparison-revision tasks, Sachs and Polio’s study (2007) examined first, the effectiveness of reformulations versus written error corrections; second, the relationship between higher quality noticing and revision outcome; and third, whether think aloud while comparing reformulated writings make a difference in linguistic accuracy of learner revision.
Fifteen adult learners of English participated in a repeated measure study with three experimental conditions: error correction, reformulation, and reformulation + think-aloud condition. Though this first experiment suggested that noticing of feedback was related to accuracy of subsequent revision, the error correction group outperformed the reformulation group probably because the error correction group had more time to memorize corrected forms. A second experiment was carried out to in attempt to eliminate the time variable. The nonrepeated measure design with 54 learners found similar results that reformulation did not prove to be more helpful than error corrections. Also, learners who were in the reformulation group outperformed their counterparts in the reformulation + think aloud group. Sachs and Polio suggested that while verbal protocols gave insights on learner-internal process in relation to written feedback, results on the effectiveness should be interpreted with care.
I do not think this article is the best option to be included in our course reading mainly because I doubt the feasibility of using reformulation as a feedback technique in writing courses. The problem lies not only in the time and effort required from the teachers to rewrite every student's composition but also the possibility that such technique could greatly endanger learners' ownership in writing. The study did not include any discussion on such concerns. In explaining the process of reformulation, the researchers indicated that grammatical errors, style, cohesion, and vocabulary were all part of the correction. This to me, is a very vague description on just how much rewriting was done.
While I feel that reformulation might not be the most practical written feedback in writing classrooms, I did enjoy the discussion on think-aloud as a measure of noticing. The researchers pointed out the difficulties in coding and determining awareness in metalinguistic verbalizations and also discussed the complex relationship between noticing during think aloud, accuracy in revision, and long-term acquisition.
The study might be useful for those considering using think-aloud as an effectiveness measure, but overall, my evaluation to the article is not recommended.
Reformulation refers to a native speaker's rewriting of an L2 learner's written composition in order to make the language seem more nativelike, while keeping the content of the original intact (Thornbury, 1997). Through three-stage composition-comparison-revision tasks, Sachs and Polio’s study (2007) examined first, the effectiveness of reformulations versus written error corrections; second, the relationship between higher quality noticing and revision outcome; and third, whether think aloud while comparing reformulated writings make a difference in linguistic accuracy of learner revision.
Fifteen adult learners of English participated in a repeated measure study with three experimental conditions: error correction, reformulation, and reformulation + think-aloud condition. Though this first experiment suggested that noticing of feedback was related to accuracy of subsequent revision, the error correction group outperformed the reformulation group probably because the error correction group had more time to memorize corrected forms. A second experiment was carried out to in attempt to eliminate the time variable. The nonrepeated measure design with 54 learners found similar results that reformulation did not prove to be more helpful than error corrections. Also, learners who were in the reformulation group outperformed their counterparts in the reformulation + think aloud group. Sachs and Polio suggested that while verbal protocols gave insights on learner-internal process in relation to written feedback, results on the effectiveness should be interpreted with care.
I do not think this article is the best option to be included in our course reading mainly because I doubt the feasibility of using reformulation as a feedback technique in writing courses. The problem lies not only in the time and effort required from the teachers to rewrite every student's composition but also the possibility that such technique could greatly endanger learners' ownership in writing. The study did not include any discussion on such concerns. In explaining the process of reformulation, the researchers indicated that grammatical errors, style, cohesion, and vocabulary were all part of the correction. This to me, is a very vague description on just how much rewriting was done.
While I feel that reformulation might not be the most practical written feedback in writing classrooms, I did enjoy the discussion on think-aloud as a measure of noticing. The researchers pointed out the difficulties in coding and determining awareness in metalinguistic verbalizations and also discussed the complex relationship between noticing during think aloud, accuracy in revision, and long-term acquisition.
The study might be useful for those considering using think-aloud as an effectiveness measure, but overall, my evaluation to the article is not recommended.
Evaluation of Ammar and Spada (2006)’ article by Yun Deok Choi
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? : Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543-574.
Based on the previous research findings that corrective feedback (CF) is facilitative for L2 learning, this quasi-experimental study investigated the effectiveness of CF and that of recasts and prompts, respectively, in conjunction with learner proficiency level. Sixty-four francophone students from an intensive ESL program were assigned into a recast, prompt, and control group. The target feature was third-person singular possessive determiners (PDs), namely, his and her, which are known to be difficult for French speaking ESL learners. As for treatment, instructional intervention was implemented, and it consisted of 1 instruction on PDs and 11 practice sessions. Learners’ knowledge of the target feature was measured by pretest, immediate posttest and delayed posttest that were composed of a passage correction and an oral picture description task. The researchers discovered the followings: utilizing CF during communicative activities was more beneficial for learners than without using it, prompts were more facilitative than recasts for learners with low proficiency, the two CF techniques were more helpful than no CF for learners with low proficiency, prompts were more beneficial than recasts for learners with low proficiency, and learners with high proficiency were able to get equal benefit from both CF techniques. The researchers explained the better efficiency of prompts by addressing their explicitness and numerous opportunities to uptake they provide.
It will be very helpful for my classmates to read this article because it provides concisely summarized information about the previous studies on the effectiveness of corrective feedback on L2 development. That is, if you read it, you will easily understand the core aspects of prior studies in relation to the current topic since it deals with the previous experimental studies as well as descriptive studies related to the topic in depth. In addition, it also offers sufficient details with respect to every section, so you can readily comprehend not only the whole experimental situation but also the subsequent results and explanations for them.
I personally enjoy reading this article very much since I am interested in both the effectiveness of corrective feedback like recasts and prompts in classroom settings and learner proficiency level, which is the topic of the article. In addition, it was written in a very well-organized manner with plenty of detailed explanations. For example, at the end of the article, the researchers posed limitations of the current research that we have to keep in mind when we estimate the research and they also suggested some interesting areas to be dealt with in the future study. This information helps readers to comprehend the whole story more completely. Therefore, I strongly recommend that we should add it to our reading packet.
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? : Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543-574.
Based on the previous research findings that corrective feedback (CF) is facilitative for L2 learning, this quasi-experimental study investigated the effectiveness of CF and that of recasts and prompts, respectively, in conjunction with learner proficiency level. Sixty-four francophone students from an intensive ESL program were assigned into a recast, prompt, and control group. The target feature was third-person singular possessive determiners (PDs), namely, his and her, which are known to be difficult for French speaking ESL learners. As for treatment, instructional intervention was implemented, and it consisted of 1 instruction on PDs and 11 practice sessions. Learners’ knowledge of the target feature was measured by pretest, immediate posttest and delayed posttest that were composed of a passage correction and an oral picture description task. The researchers discovered the followings: utilizing CF during communicative activities was more beneficial for learners than without using it, prompts were more facilitative than recasts for learners with low proficiency, the two CF techniques were more helpful than no CF for learners with low proficiency, prompts were more beneficial than recasts for learners with low proficiency, and learners with high proficiency were able to get equal benefit from both CF techniques. The researchers explained the better efficiency of prompts by addressing their explicitness and numerous opportunities to uptake they provide.
It will be very helpful for my classmates to read this article because it provides concisely summarized information about the previous studies on the effectiveness of corrective feedback on L2 development. That is, if you read it, you will easily understand the core aspects of prior studies in relation to the current topic since it deals with the previous experimental studies as well as descriptive studies related to the topic in depth. In addition, it also offers sufficient details with respect to every section, so you can readily comprehend not only the whole experimental situation but also the subsequent results and explanations for them.
I personally enjoy reading this article very much since I am interested in both the effectiveness of corrective feedback like recasts and prompts in classroom settings and learner proficiency level, which is the topic of the article. In addition, it was written in a very well-organized manner with plenty of detailed explanations. For example, at the end of the article, the researchers posed limitations of the current research that we have to keep in mind when we estimate the research and they also suggested some interesting areas to be dealt with in the future study. This information helps readers to comprehend the whole story more completely. Therefore, I strongly recommend that we should add it to our reading packet.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Evaluation of Tocalli-Beller & Swain (2005) by Sachiko
Tocalli-Beller, A., & Swain, M. (2005). Reformulation: The cognitive conflict and L2 learning it generates. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 5-28.
This paper provides qualitative and quantitative evidence of the role that cognitive conflict plays in the process of learning a second language. Twelve grade 7 French immersion students participated in a multi-stage task: (1) writing a descriptive essay and getting back the essay reformulated by a native speaker of French, (2) noticing the changes, (3) stimulated recall that requires students to discuss the reformulation, (4) post-test, (5) interview that aims to investigate students’ learning experience. The qualitative data revealed that the reformulation of the writing became an effective technique for stimulating noticing and reflection/discussion about the language students used. The students did not always agree with the authority’s reformulation but questioned and disagreed with the reformulation. The cognitive conflict thus promoted discussions on their beliefs and theories of how language works, and as they did so, students constructed new knowledge. This was evidenced by the quantitative data, indicating that the majority of correct answers in the post-test came from cognitive conflict episodes in which students questioned and discussed the alternative provided in the reformulation. The authors conclude that the reformulation which brings about a cognitive conflict can enhance language learning, citing Vygotsky’s remark: “Great genius is formed with the help of another genius not so much by assimilation as through friction” (Vygostky, 1999, p.273, as cited in Tocalli-Beller & Swain, 2005, p.21).
It is interesting that the authors view reformulation as a source of cognitive conflict, and that they employ sociocultural theory to explore the role of cognitive conflict in the process of learning a second language. These theoretical underpinnings allow the authors to provide insight into how the reformulation was processed and understood by students in relation to social factors, such as interactions with peers and more knowledgeable person’s help. The cognitive and sociocultural approaches to the study probably constitute what makes this study distinct from other error correction research in the field of L2 writing, where discussion has focused largely on texts. The study showed that the reformulation provided by the authority (a native speaker of French) gave students an opportunity to notice a gap and advance their understanding of the target language by not only producing talk but also by causing them to reflect on the language production itself. Semiotic mediation (Wertsch & Stone, 1985) though explaining, questioning, and disagreeing thus played an important role in reconstructing and/or acquiring new knowledge. The combination of cognitive (how students understood teachers’ correction, and how they re-examined their own language use) and social (how interaction enhanced students’ discussion and reflection about their language use) factors would warrant further investigation in order to learn the effect of error correction on L2 writers’ development, and will therefore be useful for our discussion.
While this study provides a number of important implications about L2 learners’ use of error correction, some questions seem to remain unanswered or only partially addressed. The data showed that while some students who faced cognitive conflict got the answer correct in the post-test, others still reiterated the incorrect answer and appropriated the rule that was wrong. This was because they were not sure of the reasons for their errors, and did not understand why the change had been made by the authority. The students’ appropriation of the wrong rule seems to come from the research design where the person who reformulated students’ texts was instructed not to answer questions that arose during the discussion with the students. It seems that these students would need more explicit instruction and explanation about the reformulation. A question arises here: Would just reflecting and discussing the reformulation really enhance language learning even if learners are not given explicit explanation about the reasons for their errors? My stance is that if learners do not have the necessary knowledge to produce the correct form, that knowledge must be added to their knowledge bank, and if internalization of the necessary knowledge is insufficient, further internalization is necessary, as Tsutsui (2004) pointed out. This would probably serve as a discussion topic in the class. Further, the authors argue that the reformulation promoted the improvement of students’ language use, yet whether students’ short-term ability to correct their errors would translate into long-term improvement remains questionable. How a post-test needs to be designed to investigate the students’ long-term writing development would be an interesting topic for classroom discussion. Overall, I recommend that this article be added to the reading packet.
References
Tsutsui, M. (2004). Multimedia as a means to enhance feedback. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17, 377-402.
Wertsch, J .V. & Stone, C. A. (1985). The concept of internalization in Vygotsky’s account of the genesis of higher mental functions. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 162-179). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
This paper provides qualitative and quantitative evidence of the role that cognitive conflict plays in the process of learning a second language. Twelve grade 7 French immersion students participated in a multi-stage task: (1) writing a descriptive essay and getting back the essay reformulated by a native speaker of French, (2) noticing the changes, (3) stimulated recall that requires students to discuss the reformulation, (4) post-test, (5) interview that aims to investigate students’ learning experience. The qualitative data revealed that the reformulation of the writing became an effective technique for stimulating noticing and reflection/discussion about the language students used. The students did not always agree with the authority’s reformulation but questioned and disagreed with the reformulation. The cognitive conflict thus promoted discussions on their beliefs and theories of how language works, and as they did so, students constructed new knowledge. This was evidenced by the quantitative data, indicating that the majority of correct answers in the post-test came from cognitive conflict episodes in which students questioned and discussed the alternative provided in the reformulation. The authors conclude that the reformulation which brings about a cognitive conflict can enhance language learning, citing Vygotsky’s remark: “Great genius is formed with the help of another genius not so much by assimilation as through friction” (Vygostky, 1999, p.273, as cited in Tocalli-Beller & Swain, 2005, p.21).
It is interesting that the authors view reformulation as a source of cognitive conflict, and that they employ sociocultural theory to explore the role of cognitive conflict in the process of learning a second language. These theoretical underpinnings allow the authors to provide insight into how the reformulation was processed and understood by students in relation to social factors, such as interactions with peers and more knowledgeable person’s help. The cognitive and sociocultural approaches to the study probably constitute what makes this study distinct from other error correction research in the field of L2 writing, where discussion has focused largely on texts. The study showed that the reformulation provided by the authority (a native speaker of French) gave students an opportunity to notice a gap and advance their understanding of the target language by not only producing talk but also by causing them to reflect on the language production itself. Semiotic mediation (Wertsch & Stone, 1985) though explaining, questioning, and disagreeing thus played an important role in reconstructing and/or acquiring new knowledge. The combination of cognitive (how students understood teachers’ correction, and how they re-examined their own language use) and social (how interaction enhanced students’ discussion and reflection about their language use) factors would warrant further investigation in order to learn the effect of error correction on L2 writers’ development, and will therefore be useful for our discussion.
While this study provides a number of important implications about L2 learners’ use of error correction, some questions seem to remain unanswered or only partially addressed. The data showed that while some students who faced cognitive conflict got the answer correct in the post-test, others still reiterated the incorrect answer and appropriated the rule that was wrong. This was because they were not sure of the reasons for their errors, and did not understand why the change had been made by the authority. The students’ appropriation of the wrong rule seems to come from the research design where the person who reformulated students’ texts was instructed not to answer questions that arose during the discussion with the students. It seems that these students would need more explicit instruction and explanation about the reformulation. A question arises here: Would just reflecting and discussing the reformulation really enhance language learning even if learners are not given explicit explanation about the reasons for their errors? My stance is that if learners do not have the necessary knowledge to produce the correct form, that knowledge must be added to their knowledge bank, and if internalization of the necessary knowledge is insufficient, further internalization is necessary, as Tsutsui (2004) pointed out. This would probably serve as a discussion topic in the class. Further, the authors argue that the reformulation promoted the improvement of students’ language use, yet whether students’ short-term ability to correct their errors would translate into long-term improvement remains questionable. How a post-test needs to be designed to investigate the students’ long-term writing development would be an interesting topic for classroom discussion. Overall, I recommend that this article be added to the reading packet.
References
Tsutsui, M. (2004). Multimedia as a means to enhance feedback. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17, 377-402.
Wertsch, J .V. & Stone, C. A. (1985). The concept of internalization in Vygotsky’s account of the genesis of higher mental functions. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 162-179). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Evaluation of Sheen (2006) by Sang-Ki
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10, 361-392.
The study design and the main findings of Sheen (2006) are on the extension of other pioneering research on the descriptions of classroom interactions, where a special emphasis is laid on the role of recasts in learner uptake (e.g., Lyster 1998; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Mori, 2002). The most conspicuous point that would make this classroom observation study unique is that the researcher investigates the differential effects of types of recasts on learner uptake (and also on learner repair), by introducing the variable of “explicitness” to the extant literature on recasts in SLA. She argues that the previous understanding that recasts are implicit in nature should be reevaluated (see Long & Robinson’s (1998) definition), because recasts could exist on an implicit-explicit continuum. She argues further that explicit recasts, which are supposedly related to the psycholinguistic construct of “saliency,” would also be more beneficial for learner uptake and therefore have a potential benefit for subsequent acquisition. In this study a combination of such features as the length of recasts, the linguistic focus, the type of change, and others are thought to contribute to the extent to which recasts are explicit.
This study may be useful for our discussion in that it provides an extensive list of coding categories that would be employed in our future work. The coding schemes may leave room for scrutiny, however, and the examination into the schemes to find some necessary modifications would be a meaningful classroom exercise. Another merit of this study is its high readability. It is written in relatively simple language, having a logical thought flow in it.
Some issues remain open for further inquiry. One of the fundamental messages from the researcher is that the previous definitions of recasts, which tend to place an undue emphasis on the implicit nature of recasts, are questionable and should be reconsidered. However, I do not completely agree that the previous definitions (and actual research practices to date) do not recognize the potential for recasts to be more explicit. Rather, previous researchers have already suggested a possibility that there could be the explicit-implicit dimension of recasts (see Doughty & Varela, 1998). Additionally, the degree of explicitness is relative, and however explicit the recasts are, they will be relatively less explicit than other types of feedback, such as explicit correction with metalinguistic information. Another point that should be mentioned here is that the explicitness/implicitness of recasts was not a variable to be directly investigated by design, but was a corollary from in-depth analyses into the descriptive data obtained.
All in all, this article is very easy to read, interesting, and resourceful for further thinking as well as future research. If I have rating scales such as “highly recommended,” “recommended,” and “not recommended,” I would put my mark on the “recommended” option.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Learning and thinking more about wikis...
If anyone in the class wants to learn more about wikis, you can find some good reading here or here.
My problems with Blogger were due to my browser (Netscape), maybe Yuki's were too? Now that I am using Mozilla Firefox, I can login fine again.
Yuki: The message you were trying to post yesterday is saved in draft form. You can try and see if you can post it now.
My problems with Blogger were due to my browser (Netscape), maybe Yuki's were too? Now that I am using Mozilla Firefox, I can login fine again.
Yuki: The message you were trying to post yesterday is saved in draft form. You can try and see if you can post it now.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Structuring "Error Correction Wiki" page
Hi, class :) This is going to be an exciting class!
I thought it might be nice to start thinking about the structure of the Wiki page a bit before we start building up the page. Wiki is pretty flexible, so we can, of course, modify the structure later on. If you have any suggestions, let us know!
I read Russell and Spada's (2006) meta-analysis on corrective feedback before, and I thought it might be helpful to list some of the variables that are studied in the past. Here are some of the variables they list (I also added some variables from today's class):
Feedback (FB) characteristics:
- Type of FB
- Amount/intensiveness of FB
- Mode of FB
- Mode of error
- Source of FB
- Focus of FB
- Timing of FB
Learner variables:
- Proficiency level
- Attitudes towards FB
- Aptitude
- Motivation
- Anxiety
- Age
- Noticing & interpretation of FB
Study characteristics
- Design (experimental, quasi-experimental, etc.)
- Context (classroom, laboratory)
- Unit of analysis (individual, dyad, language event)
*Note: Russell & Spada (2006) is a good article to read at the beginning of the semester for this course, I think.
Please feel free to add any other variables you can think of.
I thought it might be nice to start thinking about the structure of the Wiki page a bit before we start building up the page. Wiki is pretty flexible, so we can, of course, modify the structure later on. If you have any suggestions, let us know!
I read Russell and Spada's (2006) meta-analysis on corrective feedback before, and I thought it might be helpful to list some of the variables that are studied in the past. Here are some of the variables they list (I also added some variables from today's class):
Feedback (FB) characteristics:
- Type of FB
- Amount/intensiveness of FB
- Mode of FB
- Mode of error
- Source of FB
- Focus of FB
- Timing of FB
Learner variables:
- Proficiency level
- Attitudes towards FB
- Aptitude
- Motivation
- Anxiety
- Age
- Noticing & interpretation of FB
Study characteristics
- Design (experimental, quasi-experimental, etc.)
- Context (classroom, laboratory)
- Unit of analysis (individual, dyad, language event)
*Note: Russell & Spada (2006) is a good article to read at the beginning of the semester for this course, I think.
Please feel free to add any other variables you can think of.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Welcome to SLS 750 message
Welcome to the Error Correction Seminar this fall 2007
I have created this class blog to enable us to communicate and interact about the topic of error correction. I will also ask you to post some of the assignments for the seminar in this class blog.
I look forward to a productive semester.
I have created this class blog to enable us to communicate and interact about the topic of error correction. I will also ask you to post some of the assignments for the seminar in this class blog.
I look forward to a productive semester.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)