Main Article Content
The study examined the types of written corrective feedback given by second language writing teachers on Taiwanese secondary school students’ collocation errors. First, the written corrective feedback that teachers provided on learners’ word choice errors was examined to uncover the types of feedback provided. Then, analysis focused on verb–noun collocations to draw attention to how students had been receiving different types of written corrective feedback from teachers on a single collocation error type. Results showed that some sentences tagged as including word choice errors only contained rule-based errors. Furthermore, for verb-noun collocation errors, teachers chose to provide indirect and direct feedback almost equally at the expense of metalinguistic feedback. Based on the results, we suggested options for second language writing teachers when providing feedback on word choice errors.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.
- Agustín Llach, M. P. (2015). Lexical errors in writing at the end of primary and secondary education: Description and pedagogical implications. Porta Linguarum, 23, 109-124.
- Bahns J. (1993). Lexical collocations: A contrastive view. ELT Journal, 47(1), 56-63.
- Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102-118.
- Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.
- Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207-217.
- Butzkamm, W. (2001). Learning the language of loved ones: On the generative principle and the technique of mirroring. ELT Journal, 55(2), 149-154.
- Chen, T. (2014). Technology-supported peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing classes: A research synthesis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(2), 365-397. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.960942
- Chen, S. C., & Tsai, Y. C. (2012). Research on English teaching and learning: Taiwan (2004-2009). Language Teaching, 45(2), 180-201.
- Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37-46.
- Cornillie, F., Van den Noortgate, W., Van den Branden, K., & Desmet, P. (2017). Examining focused L2 practice: From in vitro to in vivo. Language Learning & Technology, 21, 121-145.
- Ekanayaka, W. I., & Ellis, R. (2020). Does asking learners to revise add to the effect of written corrective feedback on L2 acquisition? System, 94, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102341
- Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63, 97-107.
- Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184.
- Ferris, D. (2002). Feedback on error in second language student writing. University of Michigan Press.
- Ferris, D. (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). Cambridge University Press.
- Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181-210.
- Godfroid, A., Boers, F., & Housen, A. (2013). An eye for words: Gauging the role of attention in incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition by means of eye-tracking. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 483-517.
- Guichon, N., Bétrancourt, M., & Prié, Y. (2012). Managing written and oral negative feedback in a synchronous online teaching situation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(2), 181-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.636054
- House, J. (2009). Translation. Oxford University Press.
- Hyland, K., & Hyland. F. (Eds.) (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge University Press.
- Ilson, R. (1962). The dicto-comp: A specialized technique for controlling speech and writing in language learning. Language Learning, 12(4), 299-301.
- Johnson, M. D. (2020). Planning in L1 and L2 writing: Working memory, process, and product. Language Teaching, 53, 433-445.
- Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: a meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12189
- Kao, C.-W. (2015). Rethinking Focus: An investigation into the determinants of focused feedback effectiveness in EFL Writing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). National Central University, Taiwan.
- Kao, C.-W. (2019). Developing second language literacy: Taiwanese college students’ error types in focused feedback effectiveness. In B.L. Reynolds & M.F. Teng (Eds.), English literacy instruction for Chinese speakers (pp. 245-264). Palgrave Macmillan.
- Kao, C.-W. (2020). The effect of a digital game-based learning task on the acquisition of the English article system. System, 95, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102373
- Kao, C.-W., & Reynolds, B. L. (2017). A study on the relationship among Taiwanese college students’ EFL writing strategy use, writing ability and writing difficulty. English Teaching & Learning, 41(4), 31-64.
- Kao, C.-W., & Wible, D. (2014). A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of grammar correction in second language writing. English Teaching & Learning, 38(3), 29-69.
- Kılıçkaya, F. (2019). Pre-service language teachers’ online written corrective feedback preferences and timing of feedback in computer-supported L2 grammar instruction. Computer Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1668811
- Lalande, J. F., II. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140-149.
- Laufer, B. (1998). The development of passive and active vocabulary: Same or different? Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 255-271.
- Laufer, B., & Paribakht, T. S. (1998). The relationship between passive and active vocabularies: Effects of language learning context. Language Learning, 48(3), 365-391.
- Laufer, B., & Waldman, T. (2011). Verb-Noun collocations in second language writing: A corpus analysis of learners’ English. Language Learning, 61(2), 647-672.
- Lee, I. (2003). L2 writing teachers’ perspectives, practices and problems regarding error feedback. Assessing Writing, 8(3), 216-237.
- Lee, I. (2014). Revising teacher feedback in EFL writing from sociocultural perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 201-213.
- Lee, I. (2016). Teacher education on feedback in EFL writing: Issues, challenges, and future directions. TESOL Quarterly, 50(2), 518-527.
- Lee, I. (2017). Classroom assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Springer.
- Leow, R. P. (2001). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 51(s1), 113-155.
- Levin, B. B., He, Y., & Allen, M. H. (2013). Teacher beliefs in action: A cross-sectional, longitudinal follow-up study of teachers’ personal practical theories. Teacher Educator, 48(3), 1-17.
- Lewis, M. (2000). Teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach. Language Teaching Publications.
- Lindstromberg, S., Eyckmans, J., & Connabeer, R. (2016). A modified dictogloss for helping learners remember L2 academic English formulaic sequences for use in later writing. English for Specific Purposes, 41, 12-21.
- Liu, D.L. (1998). Ethnocentrism in TESOL: Teacher education and the neglected needs of international TESOL students. ELT Journal, 52(1), 3-10.
- Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 405-430.
- Nation, I. S. P. (1991). Dictation, dicto-comp, and related techniques. English Teaching Forum, 29(4), 12-14.
- Nation, I. S. P. (2007). The four strands. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 2-13.
- Pérez-Paredes, P. (2019). A systematic review of the uses and spread of corpora and data-driven learning in CALL research during 2011-2015. Computer Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1667832
- Reynolds, B. L. (2015). Helping Taiwanese graduate students help themselves: Applying corpora to industrial management English as a foreign language academic reading and writing. Computers in the Schools, 32(3-4), 300-317.
- Reynolds, B. L. (2016). Action research: Applying a bilingual parallel corpus collocational concordancer to Taiwanese medical school EFL academic writing. RELC Journal: A Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 47(2), 213-227.
- Reynolds, B. L., & Teng, M. F. (2019). English literacy instruction for Chinese speakers. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83-95.
- Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631-678). Blackwell Publishing.
- Sarré, C., Grosbois, M., & Brudermann, C. (2019). Fostering accuracy in L2 writing: Impact of different types of corrective feedback in an experimental blended learning EFL course. Computer Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1635164
- Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
- Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
- Shih, R. H.-H. (2000). Compiling Taiwanese learner corpus of English. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 5(2), 87-100.
- Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
- Snoder, P., & Reynolds, B. L. (2019). How dictogloss can facilitate collocation learning in ELT. ELT Journal, 73(1), 41-50.
- Ting, W., & Lin, J. (2015). The effects of written corrective feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of English collocations. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 38(3), 319-338.
- Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
- Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second Language Research, 14(2), 103-135.
- Van Beuningen, C., 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.
- Vedder, I., & Benigno, V. (2016). Lexical richness and collocational competence in second-language writing. IRAL, 54, 23-42.
- Wible, D., Kuo, C.-H., Tsao, N.-L., & Liu, A. (2001). An online writing platform for language learners. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 7(3), 278-289.
- Wible, D., Liu, A. L.-E., & Tsao, N.-L. (2011). A browser-based approach to incidental individualization of vocabulary learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(6), 530-543.
- Willis, D., & Willis, J. (1996). Consciousness-raising activities in the language classroom. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp.63-76). Heinemann.
- Zarei, A. A., & Mousavi, M. (2016). The effects of feedback types on learners’ recognition of lexical collocations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 5(2), 150-158.