Cover not available
Article published In:
ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 171:2 (2020) ► pp.253–279

Oral corrective feedback on written errors

Graduated feedback vs. supplemented direct feedback

| University of Isfahan
| University of Isfahan
| University of Isfahan

The current study investigated the differential effect of two types of oral feedback – graduated oral corrective feedback (GOCF) in accordance with sociocultural theory (SCT) and supplemented direct oral corrective feedback (SDOCF) in accordance with cognitive-interactionist theory (CIT) – on Iranian pre-intermediate EFL learners’ written errors. The study used a pretest-treatment-immediate posttest-delayed posttest design with three groups. Two types of tests were employed to measure the learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of English articles. The results of the repeated measures mixed-design ANOVAs and post-hoc analyses demonstrated that while both types of feedback significantly improved both types of knowledge in the immediate posttest, a clear advantage was found for the GOCF in the long term. The findings indicate that oral feedback, especially the GOCF within SCT, could be an effective means of addressing learners’ written errors and improving their implicit knowledge.

Keywords: oral corrective feedback, written errors, sociocultural theory, cognitive-interactionist theory, implicit knowledge
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Literature review
    • Direct and indirect CF in accordance with Cognitive-interactionist Theory
    • Graduated CF in accordance with Sociocultural Theory
    • Explicit knowledge, implicit knowledge, and their measurement
    • Studies on the impact of oral CF on written errors
  • The current study
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Target structures
    • Design and procedures
    • Instruments
      • Oxford placement test
      • Picture-cued narrative writing tasks
      • Error correction test
    • A description of feedback types
      • Supplemented direct oral corrective feedback
      • Graduated oral corrective feedback
    • Scoring and data analysis
  • Results
    • Results for the ECT
    • Results for the PNW tasks
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 25 June 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.18023.afs
References
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J.
(1994) Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 781, 465–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allan, D.
(1992) Oxford Placement Test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Althobaiti, N.
(2014) Corrective feedback: A bridge between cognitive interactionist and social interactionist perspectives. American Journal of Educational Research, 2(10). 950–954. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Amirghassemi, A.
(2015) The effect of scaffolded corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accurate use of articles and past tenses in writing. Science Journal (CSJ), 36(3), 1982–1990.Google Scholar
Ammar, A., & Spada, N.
(2006) One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543–574. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E.
(1981) The role of linguistic knowledge in second language use. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 31–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R.
(2012) Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U.
(2008) The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research Journal, 12(3), 409–431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N.
(2013) Written corrective feedback for SLA: Theoretical perspectives and empirical research. UK: Multilingual Matters.Google 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, 91, 227–258.Google Scholar
Byrne, D.
(1967) Progressive Picture Compositions: Pupils’ Book. Longman: London.Google 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(3), 267–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R.
(1998) Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2003) Implicit and explicit learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Williams, J.
(1998) Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N.
(2005) At the interface: How explicit knowledge affects implicit language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 271, 305–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R.
(1994) The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(1997) SLA Research and Language Teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2004) The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 541, 227–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, J. Philp, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 31–64). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 335–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 405–428. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G.
(2005) Analyzing Learner Language. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google 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, 361, 353–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erlam, R., Ellis, R., & Batstone, R.
(2013) Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing: Two approaches compared. System, 411, 257–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. R.
(1995) Can advanced ESL students be taught to correct their most serious and frequent errors? CATESOL Journal, 81, 41–62.Google Scholar
(1999) The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 81, 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S.
(1982) Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
(1985) The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Kim, J. H.
(2004) Issues of corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 41, 1–24.Google Scholar
Lalande, J. F.
(1982) Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 661, 140–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J.
(2000) Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 331, 79–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Sh
(2013) The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the linguistic target. Language Teaching Research, 0(0), 1–24.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P.
(1998) Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In: C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Mori, H.
(2006) Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. & L. Ranta
(1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M.
(2013) Oral corrective feedback in second language classroom. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, B.
(1990) Restructuring. Applied linguistics, 11(2), 113–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H.
(2011) Correcting students’ written grammatical errors: The effects of negotiated versus nonnegotiated feedback. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(3), 315–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H., & Swain, M.
(2000) A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: the effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rezazadeh, M., Tavakoli, M., & Eslami, A.
(2015) The effects of direct corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on EFL learners’ implicit and explicit knowledge of English definite and indefinite articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 161, 113–146.Google Scholar
Reichelt, M.
(2001) A critical review of foreign language writing research on pedagogical approaches. Modern Language Journal, 851, 578–598. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russell, V.
(2009) Corrective feedback, over a decade of research since Lyster and Ranta (1997): Where do we stand today?. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 6(1), 21–31.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R.
(1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 111, 129–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995) Attention & awareness in foreign language learning. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
(2001) Attention. In: P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S.
(1986) Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portguese. In: R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B.
(1993) On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic Behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 151, 147–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seedhouse, P.
(2004) The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y.
(2007) The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010b) Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 201–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R.
(2013) The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W.
(2014) Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M.
(1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. Input in second language acquisition, 151, 165–179.Google Scholar
(1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidhofer (Eds.), Principals and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Truscott, J.
(1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 461, 327–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998) Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second Language Research, 141, 103–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 161, 255–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Some thoughts on Anthony Bruton’s critique of the correction debate. System, 381, 329–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 1561, 279–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in Dutch multilingual classroom. Language Learning, 621, 1–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky‚, L.
(1978) Mind in society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L.
(1986) Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Yang, Y. & Lyster, R.
(2010) Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 321, 235–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Piyumi Udeshinee, W. A., Ola Knutsson, Sirkku Männikkö Barbutiu & Chitra Jayathilake
2022. Re-designing a regulatory scale for dynamic assessment in the synchronous text chat environment in collaboration with teachers. Computer Assisted Language Learning ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.