Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-888d5979f-p9qdq Total loading time: 0.467 Render date: 2021-10-26T16:29:14.850Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF ORAL AND WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN THE ESL CLASSROOM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2010

Younghee Sheen*
Affiliation:
American University, Washington DC
*
*Address correspondence to: Younghee Sheen, American University, 4400 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington DC, 20016; e-mail: sheen@american.edu.

Abstract

This article examines whether there is any difference between the effect of oral and written corrective feedback (CF) on learners’ accurate use of English articles. To this end, the current research presents the results of a quasi-experimental study with a pretest, immediate-posttest, delayed-posttest design, using 12 intact intermediate English-as-a-second-language classes with adult learners of various first language backgrounds. Five groups were formed: oral recasts (n = 26), oral metalinguistic (n = 26), written direct correction (n = 31), written direct metalinguistic (n = 32), and control (n = 28). All four experimental groups completed two 30-min communicative narrative tasks. For the oral CF groups, students were asked to retell a story during which CF was provided. For the written CF groups, students were first asked to rewrite a story and then given CF. The acquisition of English articles was measured by means of a speeded dictation test, a written narrative test, and an error correction test. One-way ANOVAs with post hoc comparisons indicated that all CF groups, except for oral recasts, significantly outperformed the control group in the immediate and delayed posttests. These findings show that, whereas implicit oral recasts that involve article errors were not facilitative to learning, the other CF types were effective in helping learners improve the grammatical accuracy of English articles irrespective of language analytic ability. Overall, these results suggest that the degree of explicitness of both oral and written CF—rather than the medium in which the CF is provided—is the key factor that influences CF effectiveness.

Type
Research Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 191205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R., & Chaudron, C. (1994). Elirefd imitation as a measure of second-language competence. In Tarone, E. & Cohen, A. D. (Eds.), Research methodology in second-language acquisition (pp. 245262). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Butler, Y. (2002). Second language learners’ theories on the use of English articles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 451480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S., Swain, M., & Roberge, Y. (1992). The role of feedback in adult second language acquisition: Error correction and morphological generalizations. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 173198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 267296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256310). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In Doughty, C. J. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114138). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Egi, T. (2007). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The role of linguistic target, length, and degree of change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 511537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: How explicit knowledge affects implicit language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005a). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005b). Researching the effects of form-focussed instruction on L2 acquisition. In Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Dörnyei, Z. (Eds.), Themes in SLA research (pp. 6982). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Re-examining the role of recasts in L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 353371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In Kroll, B. F. (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178190). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 3353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 Second Language Writing, 13, 4962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Taking stock of research and pedagogy in L2 writing. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 597613). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hedgcock, J. S., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 5170.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lalande, J. (1982). Reducing composition error: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and L2 development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 3763.Google Scholar
Leeman, J. (2007). Feedback in L2 learning: Responding to errors during practice. In DeKeyser, R. (Ed.), Practice in a second language (pp. 111137). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leki, I. (2000). Writing, literacy, and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 99115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, D., & Gleason, J. (2002). Acquisition of the article the by nonnative speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in adult English L2 classrooms: Characteristics, explicitness and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2007). Recasts in SLA: The story so far. In Long, M. H. (Ed.), Problems in SLA (pp. 75116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 5181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 399432.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59, 453498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1999). A response to Truscott’s ‘What’s wrong with oral grammar correction.’ Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 457467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 3766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2007). The role of conversational interaction in second language acquisition. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 126). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2006). Pushing the methodological boundaries in interaction research: An introduction to the special issue. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 169178.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S. M., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50, 617673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 87, 519533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1984). Methods of morpheme quantification: Their effect on the interpretation of second language data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 6978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polio, C. (2001). Research methodology in second language writing research: The case of text-based studies. In Silva, T. & Matsuda, P. K. (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 91116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
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, 4368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichelt, M. (2001). A critical review of foreign language writing research on pedagogical approaches. Modern Language Journal, 85, 578598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 8393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second language acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research. In Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133164). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1995). Attention and awareness in foreign language learning. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 332). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. (1993). On explicit and negative evidence effecting and affecting competence and “linguistic behavior.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 11, 361392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007a). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007b). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 301322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58, 835874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 556569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Susser, B. (1993). ESL/EFL process writing with computers. CAELL Journal, 4, 1622.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 171195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zamel, V. (1987). Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 697715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
77
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF ORAL AND WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN THE ESL CLASSROOM
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF ORAL AND WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN THE ESL CLASSROOM
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF ORAL AND WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN THE ESL CLASSROOM
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *