A Contribution of Teacher vs. Student Languaging in Response to Direct Corrective Feedback to Iranian EFL Learners' Writing Accuracy

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Lorestan University

2 Lorestan University,

10.22132/tel.2021.134980

Abstract

This study endeavored to investigate into teacher vs. student languaging in response to Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) and its effect on promoting writing accuracy. To this end, 45 pre-intermediate Iranian English learners were selected based on their performance on an Oxford Placement Test and were randomly assigned into the three groups of Student-Generated Languaging (SGL), Teacher-Generated languaging (TWCF), and Non-generated Languaging (NGL). The groups were invited to write a composition with the same topic based on the written prompts in their textbook as the pretest while they revised the composition on the final session as the posttest. During 14 sessions of treatment, each group was provided with direct WCF on the erroneous parts of their compositions differing from each other in that the SGL group was requested to language about the reasons behind the erroneous items; the TWCF group received direct languaging by the teacher while the NGL group received direct WCF without any languaging. The results of the ANOVA revealed that the SGWL group significantly outperformed the other two groups in writing accuracy on the posttest. It came to light that direct WCF followed by written languaging by the learners led to increased gains in English learners' writing accuracy.

Keywords


Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465-483.
Almasi, E., & Nemat Tabrizi, A. R. (2016). The effects of direct vs. indirect corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners' writing accuracy. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(1), 74-85.
Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written feedback: What do students and teachers think is right and why? Canadian Journal of applied Linguistics, 13(2), 95-127.
Antón, M., & DiCamilla, F. J. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 314-342.
Ashwell, T. (2005). 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, 227-258.
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.
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.
Brooks, L., Swain, M., Lapkin, S., & Knouzi, I. (2010). Mediating between scientific and spontaneous concepts through languaging. Language Awareness, 19, 89-110.
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
Cohen, A. D. (1988). Reformulation: A technique for providing advanced feedback in writing. A Periodical for Classroom Language Teachers, 11, 1-9.
DiCamilla, F., & Lantolf, J. (1994). The linguistic analysis of private writing. Language Sciences, 16, 347-369.
Ebrahimzade, M., & Mashhadiheidar, D. (2014). The effect of post-text written corrective feedback on written grammatical accuracy: Iranian intermediate EFL learners. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching & Research, 2(7), 54-64.
Ellis, R. (Ed.). (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. John Benjamins.
Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 4, 474-509.
Farjadnasab, A. H., & Khodashenas, M. R. (2017). The effect of written corrective feedback on EFL students' writing accuracy. International Journal of Research in English Education, 1, 30-42.
Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33-53.
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.
Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
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 (Ed.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R., Chaney, S. J., Komura, K., Roberts, B. J., & McKee, S. (2000). Perspectives, problems, and practices in treating written error. In Proceedings of Colloquium Presented at International TESOL Convention, Vancouver, BC, 14 March 2000 (pp. 14-18). Canada: Vancouver, The University of British Columbia Press.
Ferris, D., Pezone, S., Tade, C., & Tinti, S. (1997). Teacher commentary on student writing: Descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 155-182.
Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: how explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184.
Frear, D., & Chiu, Yi-hui. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24-34.
Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogical correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40-53.
Han, Z. H. (2001). Fine-tuning corrective feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 34, 582-599.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 141-163.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). State of the art article: Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83-101.
Ishikawa, M. (2013). Metanotes (written languaging) in a translation task: do L2 proficiency and task outcome matter. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 9, 2, 1-15.
Jia, G., Wang, H., Yan, L., Wang, X., Pei, R., Yan, T., & Guo, X. (2005). Cytotoxicity of carbon nanomaterials: Single-wall nanotube, multi-wall nanotube, and fullerene. Environmental science & technology, 39(5), 1378-1383.
Khanlarzadeh, M., & Taheri, P. (2017). Written corrective feedback in second language writing: Does SEMI feedback suffice? European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 6(2), 329-349.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: New Pergamon.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis. America: Addison-Wedley Longman Group Limited.
Krashen, S. D. (1987). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kulhavy, R. (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 47, 211-232.
Lee, I. (2003). L2 writing teachers’ perspectives, practices and problems regarding error feedback. Assessment Writing, 8, 216-237.
Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 69-85.
Leki, I. (1991). The preference of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annuals, 24, 203-228.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia (Ed.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
Long, M. H. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In R. L. Lambert & E. Shohamy (Ed.), Language policy and pedagogy (pp. 179-192). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399-432.
Moradian, M. R., & Hossein Nasab, M. (2019). Revisiting the role of                      indirect written corrective feedback in the light of written languaging. Teaching English Language, 13(3), 79-95.
Moradian, M., Miri, M., & Hossein Nasab, M. (2017). Contribution of written languaging to enhancing the efficiency of written corrective feedback. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 1-23.
Niu, R. & Li, L. (2017). A Review of studies on languaging and second language learning. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(12), 1222-1228.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417-528.
Ohta, A. (2001). Second language acquisition process in the classroom. New York: Routledge.
Pallant, J. (2013). Survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. USA: McGraw Hill.
Perez-Nuez, A. B. (2015). The effects of comprehensive written corrective feedback on the revision and acquisition of specific L2 forms. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Pycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 52-79.
Radecki, P. M., & Swales, J. M. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work. System, 16, 355-365.
Reid, J. M. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Halle Regents.
Roebuck, R. (2000). Subjects speak out: How learners position themselves in a psycholinguistic task. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 79-95). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Rummel, S., & Bitchener, J. (2015). The effectiveness of written corrective feedback and the impact of Lao learners’ beliefs have on uptake. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 38(1), 64-82.
Saslow, J., & Asher, A. (2011). Top notch: English for today's world: 3B with workbook. 2nd Ed., New York: Pearson Longman Press.
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. N. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In Day, R. R. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237-369). Rowley, MA: Newbury.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147–163.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ELS learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255-284.
Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147–163.
Sultan H. A. (2020). Efficacy of different types of written corrective feedback on EFL university students' writing quality. International Journal of English Linguistics, 10(4), 217-226.
Suzuki, W. (2009). Improving Japanese university students' second    language writing accuracy: Effects of languaging. Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 20, 81-90.
Suzuki, W. (2012). Written languaging, direct correction, and second language writing revision. Language Learning, 62, 1-24.
Suzuki, W. (2017). The effect of quality of written languaging on second language learning. Writing and Pedagogy, 8(3), 461-482.
Suzuki, W., & Itagaki, N. (2009). Languaging in grammar exercises by Japanese EFL learners of differing proficiency. System, 37, 217-225.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Ed.), Input in second language acquisition (235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 232-53.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, & B. Seidlhofer (Ed.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Truscott, J. (1996). Review article: The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 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 Beuningen, C., De Jong, N. H., and Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in Dutch multilingual classrooms. Language Learning, 61, 1-41.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.