SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics / 2021 / Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1

Focused direct corrective feedback: Effects on the elementary English learners’ written syntactic complexity

Mohammadreza Valizadeh(CAPPADOCIA UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-4312-9731
Fatemeh Soltanpour(Kar Higher Education Institute)0000-0002-2022-6096
Pages
132–150
Publication Date
2021-04-08
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The MANOVA test revealed no statistically significant difference between the two groups.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This experimental study, using a pretest-treatment-posttest design, compared the effects of focused direct written corrective feedback and additional writing practice on L2 learners’ written syntactic complexity.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The participants were 60 Iranian elementary EFL learners, whose L2 proficiency as well as L2 writing syntactic complexity and accuracy were controlled by administering the Oxford Quick Placement Test and a paragraph writing test.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The MANOVA test revealed no statistically significant difference between the two groups.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Focused written corrective feedback · direct corrective feedback · syntactic complexity

Abstract

This experimental study, using a pretest-treatment-posttest design, compared the effects of focused direct written corrective feedback and additional writing practice on L2 learners’ written syntactic complexity. The participants were 60 Iranian elementary EFL learners, whose L2 proficiency as well as L2 writing syntactic complexity and accuracy were controlled by administering the Oxford Quick Placement Test and a paragraph writing test. They were assigned to two groups: Focused direct corrective feedback (FDCF) and additional writing practice without feedback (No CF). The investigation included five sessions and lasted for three weeks. Every session, each participant wrote a paragraph of descriptive type in class. The experimental group received FDCF, while the control (i.e. No CF) group was provided only with additional writing practice. Lu's (2010) web-based L2 Syntactic Complexity Analyzer was utilized to calculate the five indices of syntactic complexity measures, including mean length of clause (MLC), mean length of sentence (MLS), mean length of T-unit (MLT), clauses per sentence (C/S), and verb phrases per T-unit (VP/T). The MANOVA test revealed no statistically significant difference between the two groups.

🔖

Cite This Article

Valizadeh, M., Soltanpour, F. (2021). Focused direct corrective feedback: Effects on the elementary English learners’ written syntactic complexity. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1, 132–150. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.911207

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (93)

  1. Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  2. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). A second look at T-unit analysis: Reconsidering the sentence. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 390–395. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587016
  3. Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
  4. Bitchener, J., East, M., & Cartner, H. (2010). The effectiveness of providing second language (L2) writers with on-line written corrective feedback. Ako Aotearoa. Ako Aotearoa Publication. Retrieved from https://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/download/ng/file/group-5/the-effectiveness-of-providing-second-language-writers-with-on-line-written- corrective-feedback.pdf
  5. Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York, NY: Routledge.
  6. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924
  7. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006
  8. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010a). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002
  9. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010b). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193– 214. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp016
  10. Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2015). Written corrective feedback studies: Approximate replication of Bitchener & Knoch (2010a) and Van Beuningen, de Jong & Kuiken (2012). Language Teaching, 48(3), 405–414. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444815000130
  11. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001
  12. Bonilla López, M., Van Steendam, E., Speelman, D., & Buyse, K. (2018). The differential effects of comprehensive feedback forms in the second language writing class. Language Learning, 68(3), 813–850. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12295
  13. Bruton, A. (2009). Improving accuracy is not the only reason for writing, and even if it were. System, 37(4), 600–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.005
  14. Bruton, A. (2010). Another reply to Truscott on error correction: Improved situated designs over statistics. System, 38(3), 491–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.07.001
  15. Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9
  16. Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). Does writing development equal writing quality? A computational investigation of syntactic complexity in L2 learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 66–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.006
  17. Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. English Language Teaching, 63(2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
  18. Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  19. Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
  20. Farrokhi, F., & Sattarpour, S. (2012). The effects of direct written corrective feedback on improvement of grammatical accuracy of high-proficient L2 learners. World Journal of Education, 2(2), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v2n2p49
  21. Fazilatfar, A. M., Fallah, N., Hamavandi, M., & Rostamian, M. (2014). The effect of unfocused written corrective feedback on syntactic and lexical complexity of L2 writing. International Conference on Current Trends in ELT, 98, 482–488. Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.443
  22. Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes, a response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6
  23. Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime.?). Journal of Response to Writing, 13(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005
  24. Ferris, D. R. (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, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  25. Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(02), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490
  26. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using SPSS (4th. ed.). London: Sage.
  27. Frantzen, D. (1995). The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course. The Modern Language Journal, 79(3), 329– 344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb01108.x
  28. Frear, D. (2010). The effect of focused and unfocused direct written corrective feedback on a new piece of writing. College English: Issues and Trends, 3, 57–71. Retrieved from http://flc.nccu.edu.tw/Conference/3rd/paper.pdf
  29. Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction and the development of second languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  30. Geranpayeh, A. (2003). A quick review of the English quick placement test. Extract from Research Notes, 12, 8–10. Retrieved from http://www.lingue.uniss.it/documenti/lingue/what_is_the_QPT.pdf
  31. Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.01.001
  32. Guénette, D. (2012). The pedagogy of error correction: Surviving the written corrective feedback challenge. TESL CANADA JOURNAL/REVUE TESL DU CANADA, 30(1), 117–126. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v30i1.1129
  33. Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. Boston, US: Heinle & Heinle.
  34. Higgins, D., Xi, X., Zechner, K., & Williamson, D. (2011). A three-stage approach to the automated scoring of spontaneous spoken responses. Computer Speech and Language, 25(2), 282–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2010.06.001
  35. Hulstijn, J. H., & Schmidt, R. (1994). Guest editors’ introduction. AILA Review, 11, 5–10. Retrieved from http://www.aila.info/download/publications/review/AILA11.pdf
  36. Jiang, J., Bi, P., & Liu, H. (2019). Writing syntactic complexity development in the writings of EFL learners: Insights from a dependency syntactically-annotated corpus. Journal of Second Language Writing, 46, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100666
  37. Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2020). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 519–539. http://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818802469
  38. Kasiri, F., & Fazilatfar, M. A. (2016). The impact of task complexity on cognitive processes of L2 writers and writing quality: The case of writing expertise, L1, and lexical retrieval. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232(April), 561–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.077
  39. Kassim, A., & Ng, L. L. (2014). Investigating the efficacy of focused and unfocused corrective feedback on the accurate use of prepositions in written work. English Language Teaching, 7(2), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n2p119
  40. Kellogg, R. T. (1988). Attentional overload and writing performance: Effects of rough draft and outline strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(2), 355–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.14.2.355
  41. Kellogg, R. T. (1990). Effectiveness of prewriting strategies as a function of task demands. American Journal of Psychology, 103(3), 327–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/1423213
  42. Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57–71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  43. Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationships of types of written feedback to the development of second language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb05359.x
  44. Khushik, G. A., & Huhta, A. (2020). Investigating syntactic complexity in EFL learners’ writing across Common European Framework of Reference. Applied Linguistics, 41(4), 506–532. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy064
  45. Kristia, C. V. (2018). The relative effects of focused and unfocused direct written corrective feedback on the accurate use of English articles in Hong Kong primary ESL context. Retrieved from http://libdr1.ied.edu.hk/pubdata/img00/arch00/link/archive/1/instarh/4718.pdf
  46. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2019). Syntactic complexity across proficiency and languages: L2 and L1 writing in Dutch, Italian and Spanish. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 29(2), 192–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12256
  47. Larson-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York, NY: Routledge.
  48. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 438–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  49. Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474–496. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu
  50. Lu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 36–62. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859
  51. Lu, X., & Ai, H. (2015). Syntactic complexity in college-level English writing: Differences among writers with diverse L1 backgrounds. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.003
  52. McLaughlin, B. (1990). “Conscious” versus “unconscious” learning. TESOL Quarterly, 24(4), 617–634. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587111
  53. Mostafa, T. & Crossley, S. A. (2020). Verb argument construction complexity indices and L2 writing quality: Effects of writing tasks and prompts. Journal of Second Language Writing. 49, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100730
  54. Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044
  55. Ögeyik, M. C. (2018). The comparative effectiveness of noticing in language learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 56(4), 337–400. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-0049
  56. Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college‐level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 492– 518. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.492
  57. Ortega, L. (2015). Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Progress and expansion. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.008
  58. Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (5th. ed.). Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
  59. Phakiti, A. (2010). Analysing quantitative data. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Continuum companion to research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 39–49). New York, NY: Continuum Companions.
  60. Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). “If only I had more time”: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 43–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90005-4
  61. Polio, C., & Yoon, H. J. (2018). The reliability and validity of automated tools for examining variation in syntactic complexity across genres. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 165–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12200
  62. Rahimi, M. (2019). A comparative study of the impact of focused vs. comprehensive corrective feedback and revision on ESL learners’ writing accuracy and quality. Language Teaching Research, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819879182
  63. Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586390
  64. Saslow, J., & Ascher, A. (2015a). Top Notch 1 (3rd. ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education, Inc.
  65. Saslow, J., & Ascher, A. (2015b). Top Notch Fundamentals (3rd. ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education, Inc.
  66. Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
  67. Schmidt, R. W. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  68. Semke, H. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17(3), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1984.tb01727.x
  69. Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x
  70. Sheen, Y. (2010a). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(02), 203–234. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990507
  71. Sheen, Y. (2010b). Introduction: The role of oral and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(02), 169–179. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990489
  72. Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002
  73. Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23(1), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829202300107
  74. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  75. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183–205). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  76. Soltanpour, F., & Valizadeh, M. (2018). Revision-mediated and attention-mediated feedback: Effects on EFL learners’ written syntactic accuracy. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 9(4), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.4p.83
  77. Ströbel, M., Kerz, E., & Wiechmann, D. (2020). The relationship between first and second language writing: Investigating the effects of first language complexity on second language complexity in advanced stages of learning. Language Learning, 70(3), 732-767. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12394
  78. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  79. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Gook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  80. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th. ed.). New Jersey, US: Pearson Education, Inc.
  81. Torrance, M., & Galbraith, D. (2006). The processing demands of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 67–80). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  82. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
  83. Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 337–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.05.002
  84. Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003
  85. Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003
  86. Valizadeh, M. (2020). The effect of comprehensive written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ written syntactic accuracy. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 11(1), 17-26. http://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.11n.1p.17
  87. Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.156.24beu
  88. Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x
  89. Vyatkina, N. (2012). The development of second language writing complexity in groups and individuals: A longitudinal learner corpus study. Modern Language Journal, 96(4), 572–594. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01401.x
  90. Yang, W., Lu, X., & Cushing Weigle, S. (2015). Different topics, different discourse: Relationships among writing topic, measures of syntactic complexity, and judgments of writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.002
  91. Yoon, H. J. (2017). Linguistic complexity in L2 writing revisited: Issues of topic, proficiency, and construct multidimensionality. System, 66, 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.03.007
  92. Bruton, A. (2009). Improving accuracy is not the only reason for writing, and even if it were. System, 37(4), 600–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.005
  93. Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime.?). Journal of Response to Writing, 13(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005