Download
1 / 24
240 likes | 417 Views
Evidence on the Effectiveness of Comprehensive Error Correction in Second Language Writing. Instructor ： Dr. Chung, Raung-fu Student ： Livia Wen June 16, 2013. Introduction. Background and Motivation.
E N D
Evidence on the Effectiveness of Comprehensive Error Correction in Second Language Writing Instructor：Dr. Chung, Raung-fu Student：Livia Wen June 16, 2013
Background and Motivation • Error correction or corrective feedback (CF) is probably the most widely used feedback form in present-day second language (L2) classrooms. • Its usefulness, however, has been fiercely debated ever since Truscott’s (1996) article, in which he claimed error correction is necessarily ineffective and potentially harmful.
In the decade that followed, he repeatedly presented objections with respect to the use of CF in L2 writing classes (Truscott, 1996, 1999, 2004, 2007, and elsewhere).
Research Question (1/2) RQ1: Is comprehensible written CF useful as an editing tool─does it enable learners to improve the accuracy of an initial text during revision? RQ2: Does comprehensive plausible that learners benefit from taking a critical look at their own text and revising it, even without teacher intervention, the present study furthermore opted to test if comprehensive CF has an added value above self-correction? RQ3: Is comprehensive CF more beneficial to learners’ accuracy development than having the opportunity to correct their own writing (without feedback)?
Research Question (2/2) RQ4: How effective are direct and indirect (comprehensive) CF relative to each other and to no CF? RQ5: Are grammatical errors less amenable to correction than other types of errors (i.e., nongrammatical errors)? RQ6: Is comprehensive CF more beneficial to learners’ accuracy development than writing practice? RQ7: Does error correction lead to avoidance of lexically and structurally (more) complex utterances?
This section referred that the related literatures about correct feedback (CF): • Research into the Effectiveness of Written CF • The Relative Effectiveness of Direct and Indirect CF • The Value of CF for Different Error Types • The Potential Harmful Side Effects of CF
Research into the effectiveness of written CF • The recognition that a focus on grammar learning benefits rather than on revision skills is needed has led the way into a growing body of tightly controlled investigations that has begun to explore the long-term effects of CF on L2 writing by comparing learners’ accuracy performance on pretest and (delayed) posttests. • The rationale behind this focused approach is that learners might be more likely to notice and understand corrections when just one feature is targeted (Ellis et al., 2008), particularly in light of a limited processing capacity model of L2 acquisition (Bitchener, 2008; Sheen, 2007).
The relative effectiveness of direct and indirect CF • Various alternative hypotheses concerning the relative effectiveness of direct and indirect CF have been put forward. • In support of indirect CF, it has been suggested that leaners will benefit from it because it engages students in a more profound form of language processing while they self-edit their writing (e.g., Ferris, 1995; Lalande, 1982). • In support of direct CF, on the other hand, it has been claimed that the indirect approach might fail because it provides learners with sufficient information to resolve complex linguist errors (e.g., syntactic errors).
The Value of CF for different error types • Truscott (2001, 2007) concluded that if CF has any value for L2 development, this could only be true for “errors that involve simple problems in relatively discrete items” (Truscott, 2001, p.94)─such as spelling errors─and not for errors in grammar. • A number of studies explored the effects of CF on separate error types, and all reported differing levels of improvement for different types of errors (e.g., Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005; Ferris, 2006; Ferris & Robert, 2001; Frantzen, 1995; Lalande, 1982; Sheppard, 1992).
The potential harmful side effects of CF • Truscott has argued not only that CF is ineffective but also that it has at least two harmful side effects. • One is simplified writing, based on the assumption that CF encourages learners to avoid situations in which they make errors. • The second harmful side effect of CF identified by Truscott (1996, 2004) was the diversion of time and energy away from more productive aspects of writing instruction, such as sheer writing practice.
Subjects and Instruments(1/2) • This part was divided into four factors: • subjects- 268 secondary school L2 learners in Dutch whose mean age was 14 (minimum 14, maximum 15). • instruments-the quantitative, a computer program (SPSS)─ANOVA two-way and ANCOVAs • criterion for analysis- The main aim is to cater for the special needs of L2 learners and learners with limited language proficiency, who might experience problems understanding and acquiring the content due to the linguistic demands of the input.
Subjects and Instruments(2/2) • D. general procedure- The present investigation included four sessions: • a pretest session (S1) • a treatment/ control session (S2) • a posttest session (S3) • a delayed-posttest session (S4) Figure 1 presents an overview of the procedure, which is described in detail below.
We will first present some relevant descriptive and inferential results on the language proficiency and writing in S1 that help ascertain the comparability of the four study groups in terms of learners’ proficiency profiles and baseline performance at the onset of the study, prior to delivery of the two treatments and two control conditions. • A series of ANOVAs on pupils’ baseline texts (S1) with group condition as a between-subjects variable showed that there were no initial differences grammatical accuracy, F(3.264)=1.30, p= .276, nongrammatical<1, p= .484. We did find a significant initial difference on our measure of structural complexity, F(3,264)=3.04, p= .029.
Post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that the pretest writing of pupils in the practice group exhibited slightly but statistically significantly higher levels of subordination than that of learners in the self-correction group (p= .033). • On the other hand, however, a series of ANCOVAs with educational level as a between-subjects variable and language proficiency as a covariate revealed that these two factors did influence learners’ pretest writing.
We found that both educational level, F(1.250)=14.20, p< .001, and language proficiency, F(1,250)= 15.45, p< .001, predicted the overall accuracy of pupils’ S1 texts in such a way that the lower pupils committed significantly more errors than pupils with a higher level of education and language proficiency.
Despite the limitations and qualifications listed in this essay, our results clearly showed that comprehensive CF is effective in promoting both grammatical and nongrammatical accuracy during revision as well as in new pieces of writing, irrespective of learners’ educational level. • Moreover, our results offered counterevidence against learners avoiding complex structures due to correction, and we did not find writing practice to be more beneficial than CF.
Hence, the present study does not support Truscott’s (1996, 1999, 2004, 2007) claim that written error correction is ineffective and can be even harmful. • We concluded that comprehensive CF is a useful educational tool that L2 teachers can use to help learners improve their accuracy in writing.
