Cover not available
Article published In:
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 32:1 (2019) ► pp.155–184

Exploring the learning potential of models with secondary school EFL learners

 | University of Murcia
The role of Corrective Feedback (CF) in the process of acquiring a second language (L2) has been deemed an issue of controversy among theorists and researchers alike. In this empirical study, the objective is to investigate the quality of EFL learners’ processing of feedback employing models and different types of noticing (perfunctory or substantive [Qi & Lapkin, 2001]). The study was carried out with 13- and 14-year-old learners placed in two groups and engaged in a three-stage writing task that included composing a picture-based story (Stage 1), comparing their texts with a model (Stage 2), and rewriting the story (Stage 3). The groups differed in the way they were prompted to process the model text. The findings indicate that there are no differences between the two feedback groups within stages. All the participants increased the number of features reported across stages regardless of the feedback condition. The employment of a model text provided the students with alternative features related to lexis, form, and ideas. The potential effects of model texts and types of noticing on L2 learners’ language development are discussed.
Keywords: corrective feedback, L2, models, EFL learners, noticing
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1The potential of WCF for language learning
      • 2.1.1Theoretical assumptions in favour of WCF
      • 2.1.2Theoretical objections to WCF
    • 2.2Research on WCF
      • 2.2.1Reformulations and models
      • 2.2.2Empirical research with models
  • 3.The study
    • 3.1Context and participants
    • 3.2Data collection and instruments
    • 3.3Data analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Qualitative analysis of Stages 1 and 2
    • 4.2Explanations and rehearsals by the RPG
    • 4.3Qualitative analysis of Stages 1 and 3
    • 4.4Qualitative analysis of Stages 2 and 3
    • 4.5Traceable and non-traceable incorporations in Stage 3
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusions, pedagogical implications and limitations of the study
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.00013.mon
References (59)
References
Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, reformulation and noticing: Implications for IL development. Language Teaching Research, 71, 347–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on “the language-learning-potential” of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 211, 348–363. 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, 121, 409–431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 311, 193–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of tasks repetition on the structure and control of language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (pp. 23–48). Harlow, UK: Longman.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, 121, 267–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A. D. (1983). Reformulating second-language compositions: A potential source of input for the learner. Revised version of a paper presented at the Annual Convention of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Toronto, On. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 228 866).
Coyle, Y. & Roca de Larios, J. (2014). Exploring the role played by error correction and models on children’s reported noticing and output production in a L2 writing task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1–35.Google Scholar
Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 71, 482–511. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dekeyser, R. M. (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: Cambridge University Press.Google 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
Ellis, R. (1993). Second Language Acquisition and the structural syllabus. TESOL Quarterly, 271, 91–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994). A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In N. C. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 79–114). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(2005). Principles of instructed language learning. Asian EFL Journal, 9(4).Google Scholar
(2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 631, 97–107. 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
Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 321, 181–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. & Helt, M. (2000). Was Truscott right? New evidence on the effects of error correction in L2 writing classes. Paper presented at the conference of the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Vancouver, BC., March 11–14.
Fletcher, M. & Munns, R. (2005). Storyboard. 24 Stories Through Pictures. London: Mary Glasgow Magazines (Scholastic Ltd.).Google Scholar
Hanaoka, O. (2006). Noticing from models and reformulations: A case study of two Japanese EFL learners. Sophia Linguistica, 541, 167–192.Google Scholar
(2007). Output, noticing and learning: An investigation into the roles of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research, 11(4), 459–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanaoka, O. & Izumi, S. (2012). Noticing and uptake: Addressing pre-articulated covert problems in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 211, 332–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harklau, L. (2002). The role of writing in classroom second language acquisition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(4), 329–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hedgecock, J. & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 141–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 71, 255–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kang, E. & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 991, 1–18. DOI logoGoogle 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
Lapkin, S. & Swain, M. (2004). What underlies immersion students’ production: The case of avoir besoin de . Foreign Language Annals, 371, 349–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Smith, M. (2004). Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian French immersion context. The Modern Language Journal, 861, 485–507. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 131, 285–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In R. Lambert & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy. Essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 179–192). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 271, 405–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R. M. (2011). Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning to write and writing to learn in an additional language (pp. 61–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martínez, N. & Roca de Larios, J. (2010). The use of models as a form of written feedback to secondary school pupils of English. International Journal of English Studies, 21, 143–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2012). Epilogue: Exploring L2 writing-SLA interfaces. Journal of Second Language Writing, 211, 404–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 251, 99–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Qi, D. S. & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 101, 277–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 451, 283–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sachs, R. & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 291, 67–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Santos, M., López-Serrano, S., & Manchón, R. M. (2010). The differential effects of two types of direct written corrective feedback on noticing and uptake: Reformulation vs. error correction. International Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 131–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning. Honolulu: University of Hawai’s Press.Google Scholar
(2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behaviour. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 147–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, W. (2012). Written languaging, direct correction, and Second Language Writing Revision. Language Learning, 62(4), 1110–1133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 371, 285–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tocalli-Beller, A. & Swain, M. (2005). Reformulation: The cognitive conflict and L2 learning it generates. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 5–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 461, 327–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uggen, M. (2012). Reinvestigating the noticing function of output. Language Learning, 62(2), 506–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. G. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (2001). Learner generated attention to form. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Form focused instruction and second language learning (pp. 303–346). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 211, 321–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, L. & Zhang, L. (2010). Exploring the role of reformulation and a model text in EFL students’ writing performance. Language Teaching Research, 141, 464–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yuan, F. & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhao, H. (2010). Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: a comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 151, 3–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Nguyen, Long Quoc, Phung Dao & Bao Trang Thi Nguyen
2024. Model texts as a feedback instrument in second language writing: A systematic review. Language Teaching Research DOI logo
Nguyen, Long Quoc & Duy Van Vu
2024. Exploring EFL learners’ engagement and draft quality in a multi-stage expository writing task using model texts as a feedback facilitator: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Second Language Writing 66 ► pp. 101161 ff. DOI logo
Wu, Zhixin, Jiaxin Qie & Xuehua Wang
2023. Using model texts as a type of feedback in EFL writing. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 december 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.