The Effect of Comprehensive Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners’ Written Syntactic Complexity

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Research background: The effectiveness of Corrective feedback has been a controversial issue and thus a central part of second language writing instruction worldwide.
Gap in knowledge and Purpose of the study: It has been argued that the provision of written corrective feedback can affect the complexity of the written text negatively, and the issue is not sufficiently investigated. Therefore, this studyinvestigated the effects of two types of comprehensive written corrective feedback strategies: direct corrective feedback (DCF), and metalinguistic explanation (ME) on L2 learners’ written syntactic complexity.
Methods: This study was quasi-experimental and used a pretest-intervention-posttest-delayed-posttest design. Participants were 90 Turkish EFL upper-intermediate learners, whose L2 proficiency and L2 writing skills were controlled by administering the Oxford Placement Test and the IELTS Writing Task 2 test. They were assigned to three groups: DCF, ME, and NF (i.e., no feedback on grammatical errors).The treatment/control period lasted for five weeks. Every week, each participant wrote an essay of argument-led type in class and then received the specified feedback. No work was done on writing for the two-week interval between the posttest and delayed posttest. Lu’s (2010) web-based L2 Syntactic Complexity Analyser was utilised to calculate the syntactic complexity measures. The MANOVA test was utilized to find the results.
Findings and Value added: It was revealed the ME group was not significantly different from the NF group. The DCF group significantly outperformed the ME group in the clauses per sentence (C/S) of the texts both in posttests and delayed-posttests. The DCF group also significantly outperformed the NF group in the clauses per T-unit (C/T), complex T-units per T-unit (CP/T), and C/S in posttests, but the positive effect of the DCF on CP/T was not durable after the two-week interval.

About the authors

M. Valizadeh

Cappadocia University

Author for correspondence.
Email: mrvalizadeh2015@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4312-9731

References

  1. Abbott, M. L. (2011). Understanding educational statistics using Microsoft EXCEL and SPSS. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  2. Anderson, J. R. (1993).Rules of the mind. Lawrence Erlbaum.
  3. Balanga, R. A., Fidel, I. V. B., Gumapac, M. V. G. P., Ho, H. T., Tullo, R. M. C., Villaraza, P. M. L., & Vizconde, C. J. (2016). Student beliefs towards written corrective feedback: The case of Filipino high school students. I-Manager's Journal on English Language Teaching, 6(3), 22-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26634/jelt.6.3.8176
  4. Benson, S., & DeKeyser, R. (2019). Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research, 23(6), 702-726. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818770921
  5. Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
  6. Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.
  7. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-431. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924
  8. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322-329. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006
  9. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207-217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002
  10. Brown, D. (2017). The interaction between grammatical knowledge and explicitness in L2 written corrective feedback [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Northern Arizona University.
  11. 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: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9
  12. Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  13. Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). Does writing development equal writing quality? A computational investigation of syntactic complexity in L2 learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 66-79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.006
  14. Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2), 209-224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.12.006
  15. Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. English Language Teaching, 63(2), 97-107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
  16. Fazilatfar, A. M., Fallah, N., Hamavandi, M., & Rostamian, M. (2014). The effect of unfocused written corrective feedback on syntactic and lexical complexity of L2 writing. In International Conference on Current Trends in ELT (vol. 98, pp. 482-488). Elsevier. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.443
  17. Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  18. Ferris, D. R. (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 Response to Writing, 13(1), 49-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005
  19. Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(02), 181-201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490
  20. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using SPSS (4th ed.). Sage.
  21. Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction and the development of second languages. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  22. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten, & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 180-206). Routledge.
  23. Geranpayeh, A. (2003). A quick review of the English quick placement test. Extract from Research Notes, 12, 8-10. Retrieved from http://www.lingue.uniss.it/documenti/lingue/what_is_the_QPT.pdf.
  24. Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.01.001
  25. Guénette, D. (2012). The pedagogy of error correction: Surviving the written corrective feedback challenge. TESL Canada Journala, 30(1), 117-126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v30i1.1129
  26. Higgins, D., Xi, X., Zechner, K., & Williamson, D. (2011). A three-stage approach to the automated scoring of spontaneous spoken responses.Computer Speech and Language, 25(2), 282-306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2010.06.001
  27. Hulstijn, J. H., & Schmidt, R. (1994). Guest editors' introduction. AILA Review, 11, 5-10. Retrieved from http://www.aila.info/download/publications/review/AILA11.pdf.
  28. Jiang, J., Bi, P., & Liu, H. (2019). Writing syntactic complexity development in the writings of EFL learners: Insights from a dependency syntactically-annotated corpus. Journal of Second Language Writing, 46, 1-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100666
  29. Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2020). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students' writing. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 519-539. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818802469
  30. Kellogg, R. T. (1988). Attentional overload and writing performance: Effects of rough draft and outline strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(2), 355-365. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.14.2.355
  31. Kellogg, R. T. (1990). Effectiveness of prewriting strategies as a function of task demands. American Journal of Psychology, 103(3), 327-339. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1423213
  32. Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57-71). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  33. Khushik, G. A., & Huhta, A. (2020). Investigating syntactic complexity in EFL learners' writing across Common European Framework of Reference. Applied Linguistics, 41(4), 506-532. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy064
  34. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2019). Syntactic complexity across proficiency and languages: L2 and L1 writing in Dutch, Italian and Spanish.International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 29(2), 192-210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12256
  35. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2007). Sociocultural theory. In B. VanPatten, & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 201-224). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  36. Larson-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. Routledge.
  37. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 438-468). Academic Press.
  38. Long, M. H. (2006). Problems in SLA. Lawrence Erlbaum.
  39. Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. J. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge University Press.
  40. Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing.International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474-496. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu
  41. Lu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers' language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 36-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859
  42. Lu, X. (2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners' oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 190-208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01232_1.x
  43. Lu, X., & Ai, H. (2015). Syntactic complexity in college-level English writing: Differences among writers with diverse L1 backgrounds. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 16-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.003
  44. McLaughlin, B. (1990). Conscious versus unconscious learning. TESOL Quarterly, 24(4), 617-634. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3587111
  45. Mostafa, T., & Crossley, S. A. (2020). Verb argument construction complexity indices and L2 writing quality: Effects of writing tasks and prompts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49, 1-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100730
  46. Ögeyik, M. C. (2018). The comparative effectiveness of noticing in language learning.International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 56(4), 337-400. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-0049
  47. Ortega, L. (2015). Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Progress and expansion. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 82-94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.008
  48. Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (5th ed.). Open University Press.
  49. Phakiti, A. (2010). Analysing quantitative data. In B. Paltridge, & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Continuum companion to research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 39-49). Continuum Companions.
  50. Pienemann, M. (1987). Determining the influence of instruction on L2 speech processing. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 83-113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.10.2.07pie
  51. Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 52-79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.52
  52. Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language acquisition: Processability theory. John Benjamins.
  53. Polio, C. G. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47(1), 101-143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.31997003
  54. Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). If only I had more time: ESL learners' changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 43-68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90005-4
  55. Polio, C., & Shea, M. C. (2014). An investigation into current measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 10-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.003
  56. Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83-93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3586390
  57. Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
  58. Schmidt, R. W. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge University Press.
  59. Sheen, Y. (2010).Introduction: The role of oral and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(02), 169-179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990489
  60. Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556-569. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002
  61. Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23(1), 285-304. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829202300107
  62. 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: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011
  63. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
  64. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183-205). Cambridge University Press.
  65. Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research.International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29-46. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/3424315.pdf.
  66. Ströbel, M., Kerz, E., & Wiechmann, D. (2020). The relationship between first and second language writing: Investigating the effects of first language complexity on second language complexity in advanced stages of learning. Language Learning, 70(3), 732-767. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12394
  67. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.
  68. Torrance, M., & Galbraith, D. (2006). The processing demands of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 67-80). Guilford Press.
  69. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
  70. Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 337-343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.05.002
  71. Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255-272. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003
  72. Valizadeh, M., & Soltanpour, F. (2021). Focused direct corrective feedback: Effects on the elementary English learners' written syntactic complexity. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 132-150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.911207
  73. Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x
  74. Yang, W., Lu, X., & Cushing Weigle, S. (2015). Different topics, different discourse: Relationships among writing topic, measures of syntactic complexity, and judgments of writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 53-67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.002
  75. Yoon, H. J. (2017). Linguistic complexity in L2 writing revisited: Issues of topic, proficiency, and construct multidimensionality. System, 66, 130-141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.03.007

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.