The language learning potential of writing through EFL students’ processing of feedback

  1. Florentina Nicolás Conesa 1
  2. Julio Roca de Larios 1
  3. María Ángeles Monteverde 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Murcia
    info

    Universidad de Murcia

    Murcia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03p3aeb86

Journal:
Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras

ISSN: 1697-7467

Year of publication: 2017

Issue Title: Nuevas tendencias en didáctica de la lengua y la literatura: desafíos y perspectivas

Issue: 2

Pages: 187-200

Type: Article

DOI: 10.30827/DIGIBUG.54146 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of low L2 proficiency students’ processing of two feedback types (direct and indirect) during a written languaging session on the accuracy of their rewritten texts. Data were collected during two weeks and were statistically analysed. The main findings showed that none of the two feedback groups reflected on and understood all the errors on which they received feedback, which in turn determined the accuracy of the rewritten texts. These results open a new window for the investigation of the effectiveness of different feedback types and the language learning potential of writing. The empirical and pedagogical implications of these findings are discussed.

Bibliographic References

  • Bitchener, J. (2012). “A reflection ‘on the language learning potential’ of written CF”, in Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 4: 348-363.
  • Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). “The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students”, in Language Teaching Research, 12, 3: 409-431.
  • Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  • Chandler, J. (2003). “The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing”, in Journal of Second Language Writing, 12: 267-296.
  • Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2013). Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Routledge.
  • Fortune, A., & Thorp, D. (2001). “Knotted and entangled: New light on the identification, classification and value of language related episodes in collaborative output tasks”, in Language Awareness, 10, 2:143-160.
  • Guénette, D. (2007). “Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing”, in Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 1:40-53.
  • Hanaoka, O. (2006). “Noticing from models and reformulations: A case study of two Japanese EFL Learners”, in Sophia Linguistics, 54: 167-192.
  • Hanaoka, O. (2007). “Output, noticing, and learning: An investigation into the role of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task”, in Language Teaching Research, 11, 4: 459-479.
  • Hanaoka, O., & Izumi, S. (2012). “Noticing and uptake: Addressing pre-articulated covert problems in L2 writing”, in Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 4: 332-347.
  • Kim, J.H. (2013). “Learner understanding of written corrective feedback and its relationship with immediate uptake and retention in EFL classrooms”, in English Teaching, 68, 3: 109-130.
  • Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2002). “Collaborative writing in L2: The effect of group interaction on text quality”, in S. Ransdell and M. Barbier (eds.), New Directions for Research in L2 Writing.Dordrecht: Kluwer, 168-188.
  • Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2008). “Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language”, in Journal of Second Language Writing, 17,1:48-60.
  • Leow, R. (1997). “Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior”, in Language Learning, 47, 3: 467-505.
  • Leeser, M.J. (2004). “Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue”, in Language Teaching Research, 8, 1: 55-81.
  • Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). “How do learners perceive interactional feed back?”, in Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 4: 471-497.
  • Manchón, R.M. (2011). “Writing to learn the language. Issues in theory and research”, in R.M.
  • Manchón (ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 61-82.
  • Martínez Esteban, N., & Roca de Larios, J. (2010). “The Use of Models as a Form of Written Feedback to Secondary School Pupils of English”, in International Journal of English Studies, 10, 2: 143-170.
  • Muñoz, B., Magliano, J. P., Sheridan, R., & McNamara, D. S. (2006). “Typing versus thinking aloud when reading: Implications for computer-based assessment and training tools”, in Behavior Research Methods, 38, 2: 211-217.
  • Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). “Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task”, in Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 4:277-303.
  • Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). “Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task”, in Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 1:67-100.
  • Schmidt, R. (1990). “The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning”, in Applied Linguistics, 11, 2: 129-158
  • Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). “Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese”, in R.R. Day (ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 237-326.
  • Sheen, Y. (2007). “The effects of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles”, in TESOL Quarterly, 41, 2: 255-283.
  • Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). “The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article”, in Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 3: 286-306.
  • Suzuki, W. (2012). “Written Languaging, Direct Correction, and Second Language Writing Revision”, in Language Learning, 62, 4: 1110-1133.
  • Swain, M. (1995) “Three functions of output in second language learning”, in G. Cook, and B. Seidelhofer(eds.), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honor of H.G. Widdowson.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 125-144.
  • Swain, M. (1998). “Focus on form through conscious reflection”, in C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge Universty Presss, 64-81.
  • Swain, M. (2006). “Languaging agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency”, in H. Byrnes (ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky. London: Continuum, 95-108
  • Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). “Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning”, in Applied Linguistics, 16: 371-391
  • Truscott, J. (1996). “The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes”, in Language Learning, 46, 1: 327-369
  • Truscott, J. (2007). “The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately”, in Journal of Second Language Writing 16: 255-272.
  • Williams, J. (2012). “The potential role(s) of writing in second language development”, in Journal of Second Language Writing, 21 ,4: 321-331.
Data source: Dialnet