Keywords
written errors
feedback
oral negotiation
How to Cite
Number of views: 1490
Number of downloads: 594
Abstract
A substantial number of studies have examined the effects of grammar correction on second language (L2) written errors. However, most of the existing research has involved unidirectional written feedback. This classroom-based study examined the effects of oral negotiation in addressing L2 written errors. Data were collected in two intermediate adult English as a second language classes. Three types of feedback were compared: nonnegotiated direct reformulation, feedback with limited negotiation (i.e., prompt + reformulation) and feedback with negotiation. The linguistic targets chosen were the two most common grammatical errors in English: articles and prepositions. The effects of feedback were measured by means of learner-specific error identification/correction tasks administered three days, and again ten days, after the treatment. The results showed an overall advantage for feedback that involved negotiation. However, a comparison of data per error types showed that the differential effects of feedback types were mainly apparent for article errors rather than preposition errors. These results suggest that while negotiated feedback may play an important role in addressing L2 written errors, the degree of its effects may differ for different linguistic targets.
References
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465-483.
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, 227-257.
Bitchener, J. (2003). The effects of individual learner factors and task type on negotiation: A study of advanced Japanese and Korean ESL learners. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 63-83.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102-118.
Bitchener, J. (2009). Measuring the effectiveness of written corrective feedback: A response to ‘Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Bitchener (2008).’ Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 276-279.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409-431.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37, 322-329.
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, 191-205.
Braidi, S. M. (2002). Reexamining the role of recasts in native-speaker/nonnative-speaker interactions. Language Learning, 52, 1-42.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
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, 267-296.
Chandler, J. (2004). A response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 345-348.
Crystal, D. (1992). An encyclopedic dictionary of language and languages. Oxford: Blackwell.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-59). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44, 449-491.
Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33-53.
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-11.
Ferris, D. (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, 49-62.
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). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D., Chaney, S. J., Komura, K., Roberts, B. J., & McKee, S. (2000, March). Perspectives, problems, and practices in treating written error. Colluquium paper presented at the International TESOL Convention, Vancouver, BC.
Ferris, D., & Helt, M. (2000, March). Was Truscott right? New evidence on the effects of error correction in L2 writing classes. Paper presented at the Conference of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Vacouver, BC.
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.
Frantzen, D. (1995). The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course. Modern Language Journal, 79, 329-344.
Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Pica, T. (1998). The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition. Introduction to the special issue. Modern Language Journal, 82, 299-307.
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283-302.
Guenette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct?: Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40-53.
Hendrickson, J. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387-398.
Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 305-313.
Kiparsky, P. (1971). Historical linguistics. In W. O. Dingwall (Ed.), A survey of linguistic science (pp. 577-649). College Park, MD: University of Maryland Press.
Lalande, J. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140-149.
Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (1994a). Theoretical framework: An introduction to Vygotskian perspectives on second language research. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 1-31). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (Eds.). (1994b). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for college-level teaching. System, 25, 465-447.
Long, M. (2006). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183-218.
Lyster, R. (2002). Negotiation in immersion teacher-student interaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 237-253.
Lyster, R., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1999). A response to Truscott’s ‘What’s wrong with oral grammar correction.’ Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 457-467.
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471-497.
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338-356.
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.
Nassaji, H. (2007a). Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with learner repair in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 57, 511-548.
Nassaji, H. (2007b). Reactive focus on form through negotiation on learners' written errors. In S. Fotos & H. Nassaji (Eds.), Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honour of Rod Ellis (pp. 117-129). Ox-ford: Oxford University Press.
Nassaji, H. (2009). The effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59, 411-452.
Nassaji, H., & Cumming, A. (2000). What’s in a ZPD? A case study of a young ESL student and teacher interacting through dialogue journals. Language Teaching Research, 4, 95-121.
Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9, 34-51.
Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking recasts: A learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese classroom. In J. K. Hall & L. Verplaeste (Eds.), The construction of second and foreign language through classroom interaction (pp. 47-71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 459-481.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493-527.
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83-93.
Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of writen feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67-100.
Semke, H. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195-202.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitude on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 301-322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal: A Journal of Language Teaching and Research in Southeast Asia, 23, 103-110.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272.
Van den Branden, K. (1997). Effects of negotiation on language learners’ output. Language Learning, 47, 589-636.
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.