Cover not available
Article published In:
Language Teaching for Young Learners
Vol. 1:1 (2019) ► pp.57–81

The relative effects of metalinguistic explanation and direct written corrective feedback on children’s grammatical accuracy in new writing

| University of Auckland
| Curtin University
There has been little research investigating the effects of form-focused instruction (FFI) on the second language acquisition of children. This article reports a quasi-experimental study of integrated form-focused instruction for 33 children aged 9–12 years. They completed four dictogloss tasks designed to elicit the use of the Present Perfect Tense and received instruction consisting of either explicit metalinguistic explanation (group 1), direct written correction (group 2) or no form-focused instruction (the comparison group) between performing the tasks. Accuracy in the production of the target structure across the four tasks was variable and showed no improvement from the first to the last. Nor were there any statistically significant differences in accuracy among the three groups. The results support some earlier studies of young children (e.g. Fazio, 2001) that have failed to show that FFI benefits young children. This may be because children fail to make use of their metalinguistic knowledge of grammatical features when undertaking meaning-focused writing tasks.
Keywords: children, form-focused instruction, metalinguistic information, written corrective feedback, acquisition
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Metalinguistic explanation
    • 1.2Written corrective feedback (WCF)
    • 1.3FFI and explicit knowledge
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Design
    • 2.3Target structure
    • 2.4Materials
      • 2.4.1Background questionnaire
      • 2.4.2Dictogloss tasks (Appendix A)
      • 2.4.3Procedure
      • 2.4.4Coding and scoring
      • 2.4.5Analysis
  • 3.Results
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 22 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.00005.gor
References (51)
References
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all?: Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(04), 543–574. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andrews, A. et al. (2004). The effect of grammar teaching (sentence combining) in English on 5 to 16 year olds’ accuracy and quality in written composition. Department of Educational Studies Research Paper, University of York.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning and use. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Nekrasova, T., & Horn, B. (2011). The effectiveness of feedback for L1-English and L2-writing development: A meta-analysis. ETS Research Report Series, 11, 1–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bouffard, L., & Sakar, M. (2008). Training 8-year-Ood French immersion students in metalinguistic analysis: An innovation in form-focused pedagogy. Language Awareness, 171, 3–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bryant, P., Devine, M., Ledward, A. & Nunes, T. (1997). Spelling with apostrophes and understanding possession. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 671, 91–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, J. (2001). Chinese speakers. In M. Swan & B. Smith (Eds.), Learner English: A teacher’s guide to interference and other problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fazio, L. (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority- and majority-language students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 235–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frear, D. & Chiu, Y.-H. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 531, 24–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanan, R. (2015). The effectiveness of explicit grammar instruction for the young foreign language learner: A classroom-based experimental study (Unpublished PhD dissertation). University of York, UK.Google Scholar
Harley, B. (1998). The role of focus-on-form tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 156–173). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Inhelder, B., Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence (Parsons, A., Milgram, S. Trans.), New York, NY: Basic Books. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laval, C. (2013). The age factor on the primary, secondary and cumulative transfer-of-training effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of French as a second language. In J. Lee & A. Benati (Eds.), Individual differences and processing instruction (pp. 105–130). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 301, 66–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCawley, J. (1971). Tense and time reference in English. In Fillmore, C. & Langendoen, D. T. (Eds), Studies in linguistic semantics (pp. 97–113). New York: Holt Rinehart.Google Scholar
McNamara, J. (1972). Cognitive basis of language learning in infants. Psychological Review, 79(1), 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. (1994). The ambiguity of the English present perfect. Journal of Linguistics, 30(1), 111–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mollestam, E., & Hu, L. (2016, March 18). Corrective feedback on L2 students’ writing. Degree project; Malmo Hogskola. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Muñoz, C. (2006). The effects of age on foreign language learning. In C. Muñoz (Ed.), Age and the rate of foreign language learning (pp. 1–40). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myhill, D., Jones, S., Watson, A. & Lines, H. (2013). Playful explicitness with grammar: A pedagogy for writing. Literacy, 471, 103–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myhill, D., Jones, S. & Wilson, A. (2016). Writing conversations: fostering metalinguistic discussion about writing. Research Papers in Education, 311, 23–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 501, 417–528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1984). Methods of morpheme quantification: Their effect of the interpretation of second language data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 61, 69–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinter, A. (2006). Teaching young language learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reyes, M. (1991). A process approach to literacy using dialogue journals and literature logs with second language learners. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(3), 291–313.Google Scholar
Rummel, S. (2014). Student and teacher beliefs about written CF and the effect those beliefs have on uptake: A multiple case study of Laos and Kuwait. (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Auckland University of Technology, Auckland.Google Scholar
Shak, J., & Gardner, S. (2008). Young learner perspectives on four focus-on-form tasks. Language Teaching Research, 121, 387–408. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer-mediated environment. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296–319. 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. (2013). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (2008). Form-focused instruction: isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 181–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 99–118). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Talif, R., & Edwin, M. (1989). Error analysis of form four English compositions. Retrieved September 20, 2017, from <[URL]>
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Beuningen, C., de Jong, N., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation vs. structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 181, 495–510. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wajnryb, R. (1990). Resource books for teachers: grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
White, J., & Ranta, L. (2002). Examining the interface between metalinguistic knowledge and oral production in a second language. Language Awareness, 111, 259–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, L., Spada, N., Lightbown, P. M. & Ranta, L. (1991). Input enhancement and L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics, 121, 416–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321–331. DOI logoGoogle 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, 32(2), 235–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yong, J. (2001). Malay/Indonesian speakers. In M. Swan & B. Smith (Eds), Learner English. A teacher’s guide to interference and other problems (pp. 279–295). Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (12)

Cited by 12 other publications

Delgado-Garza, Paloma & María del Pilar García Mayo
2024. Can we train young EFL learners to ‘notice the gap’? Exploring the relationship between metalinguistic awareness, grammar learning and the use of metalinguistic explanations in a dictogloss task. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching DOI logo
Guerrero-Gomez, Janire, María Orcasitas-Vicandi & Marta Kopinska
2024. Enhancing young EFL learners’ written skills: the role of repeated pre-task planning. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching DOI logo
Brown, Dan, Qiandi Liu & Reza Norouzian
2023. Effectiveness of written corrective feedback in developing L2 accuracy: A Bayesian meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research ► pp. 136216882211473 ff. DOI logo
Luquin, María & María del Pilar García Mayo
2023. The impact of textual enhancement on the acquisition of third person possessive pronouns by child EFL learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching DOI logo
Olioumtsevits, Konstantina, Despina Papadopoulou & Theodoros Marinis
2023. Second language grammar learning in refugee children. Pedagogical Linguistics 4:1 ► pp. 50 ff. DOI logo
Roothooft, Hanne, Amparo Lázaro-Ibarrola & Bram Bulté
2022. Task repetition and corrective feedback via models and direct corrections among young EFL writers: Draft quality and task motivation. Language Teaching Research ► pp. 136216882210820 ff. DOI logo
Yu, Xi, Frank Boers & Paul Tremblay
2022. Learning multiword items through dictation and dictogloss: How task performance predicts learning outcomes. Language Teaching Research ► pp. 136216882211172 ff. DOI logo
Calzada, Asier & María del Pilar García Mayo
2021. Child learners’ reflections about EFL grammar in a collaborative writing task: when form is not at odds with communication. Language Awareness 30:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Calzada, Asier & María del Pilar García Mayo
2023. Chapter 4. Do task repetition and pretask focus on form instruction impact collaborative writing performance?. In L2 Collaborative Writing in Diverse Learning Contexts [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 59], ► pp. 80 ff. DOI logo
Cao, Zhenhao
2021. Improving Young Learners’ L2 Writing Accuracy with Written Corrective Feedback: a Case Study. English Teaching & Learning 45:4 ► pp. 375 ff. DOI logo
Coyle, Yvette, Pedro Antonio Férez Mora & Juan Solís Becerra
2020. Improving reference cohesion in young EFL learners’ collaboratively written narratives: Is there a role for reformulation?. System 94 ► pp. 102333 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Child L2 Writers [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 32], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 september 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.