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
Fatemeh Soltanpour
Pages
132–150
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️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:Research Article
📍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. (2022). 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://ajindex.com/articles/506956

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Anderson, J. R. (1993).
  2. Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 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 Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York, NY: Routledge. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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 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
  10. Bruton, A. (2009). Improving accuracy is not the only reason for writing, and even