Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T00:49:01.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EXPLORING THE ROLE PLAYED BY ERROR CORRECTION AND MODELS ON CHILDREN’S REPORTED NOTICING AND OUTPUT PRODUCTION IN A L2 WRITING TASK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2013

Yvette Coyle  and
Julio Roca de Larios
Yvette Coyle*
Affiliation:
Universidad de Murcia
Julio Roca de Larios
Affiliation:
Universidad de Murcia
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Yvette Coyle, Departamento de Didáctica de la Lengua y la Literatura, Facultad de Educación, Campus de Espinardo, University of Murcia, 30100 Murcia, Spain. E-mail: ycoyle@um.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article reports an empirical study in which we explored the role played by two forms of feedback—error correction and model texts—on child English as a foreign language learners’ reported noticing and written output. The study was carried out with 11- and 12-year-old children placed in proficiency-matched pairs who engaged in a three-stage collaborative writing task involving (a) spontaneous noticing of linguistic problems while composing, (b) comparison of their texts with the feedback provided, and (c) rewriting of their original output. Results indicate that although the children noticed and later incorporated mainly lexical features into their output, gains in the linguistic acceptability and comprehensibility of their revised texts showed an advantage for error correction over models. Learners in the error correction condition reported more noticing of grammar at the comparison stage, which later emerged in their revisions. The potential effects of both feedback strategies on children’s reported noticing and output production are discussed, and conclusions are drawn for the role of feedback in children’s classroom second language acquisition.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 451 - 485
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, reformulation and noticing: Implications for IL development. Language Teaching Research, 7, 347–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on “the language-learning-potential” of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 348–363.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research Journal, 12, 409–431.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193–214.Google Scholar
Bowles, M. A. (2008). Task type and reactivity of verbal reports in SLA: A first look at a L2 task other than reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 359–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowles, M. A. (2010). The think-aloud controversy in language acquisition research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bowles, M. A., & Leow, R. P. (2005). Reactivity and type of verbal report in SLA research methodology: Expanding the scope of investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 415–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cambridge, ESOL. (2012). Cambridge Young Learners English Tests 7 Movers Student’s Book: Examination papers from University of Cambridge ESOL examinations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Campillo Ferrer, J. M. (2008). Children’s use of writing strategies in English as a foreign language (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Murcia, Spain.Google Scholar
Cánovas Guirao, J. (2011). The use of models as a written feedback tool in primary education (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Murcia, Spain.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, 267–296.Google Scholar
Chong, F. H. (2002). Children writing in English in the Singapore upper primary school: A case study of six 12-year-old students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Lancaster University.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In Doughty, C. J. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197–261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Egi, T. (2004). Verbal reports, noticing, and SLA research. Language Awareness, 13, 243–264.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(s1), 1–46.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63, 97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335–349.Google Scholar
Fagan, W., & Hayden, H. (1988). Writing processes in French and English of fifth grade French immersion students. Canadian Modern Language Review, 44, 653–667.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. (1999). The case of grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181–201.Google Scholar
Ferris, D., & Helte, M. (2000, March). 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.Google Scholar
García, F. J. (2011). Written corrective feedback: Testing the effects of reformulation with year 5 primary school learners (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Murcia, Spain.Google Scholar
Hanaoka, O. (2006). Exploring the role of models in promoting noticing in L2 writing. JACET Bulletin, 42, 1–13.Google Scholar
Hanaoka, O. (2007a). Noticing from models and reformulations: A case study of two Japanese EFL Learners. Sophia Linguistica, 54, 167–192.Google Scholar
Hanaoka, O. (2007b). Output, noticing, and learning: An investigation into the role of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research, 11, 459–479.Google Scholar
Hanaoka, O., & Izumi, S. (2012). Noticing and uptake: Addressing pre-articulated covert problems in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 332–347.Google Scholar
Hirvela, A. (2004). Connecting reading and writing in second language writing instruction. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 255–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, F. (2010). Future directions in feedback on second language writing: Overview and research agenda. International Journal of English Studies, 2, 173–185.Google Scholar
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study of ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the Output Hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24, 168–196.Google Scholar
Jourdenais, R. (2001). Cognition, instruction and protocol analysis. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 354–375). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 390–403.Google Scholar
Lapkin, S., & Swain, M. (2004). What underlies immersion students’ production: The case of avoir besoin de. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 349–355.Google Scholar
Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Smith, M. (2002). Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian French immersion context. Modern Language Journal, 86, 485–507.Google Scholar
Lázaro Ibarrola, A. (2009). Reformulation and self-correction: Testing the validity of correction strategies in the classroom. RESLA, 22, 189–215.Google Scholar
Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285–312.Google Scholar
Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81.Google Scholar
Lennon, P. (1991). Error: Some problems of definition, identification, and distinction. Applied Linguistics, 12, 180–196.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (1999). The role of attention in foreign/second language classroom research: Methodological issues. In Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. & Martínez-Gil, F. (Eds.), Advances in Hispanic linguistics (pp. 60–71). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Lo, J., & Hyland, F. (2007). Enhancing students’ engagement and motivation in writing: The case of primary students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 219–237.Google Scholar
Macaro, E. (2007). Do near-beginner learners of French have any writing strategies? Language Learning Journal, 35, 23–35.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 405–430.Google Scholar
Manchón, R. M. (2009). Broadening the perspective of L2 writing scholarship: The contribution of research on foreign language writing. In Manchón, R. M. (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 1–19). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R. M. (2011a). The language learning potential of writing in foreign language contexts: Lessons from research. In Reichelt, M. & Chimasko, T. (Eds.), Foreign language writing: Research insights (pp. 44–64). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.Google Scholar
Manchón, R. M. (2011b). Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. In Manchón, R. M. (Ed.), Learning to write and writing to learn in an additional language (pp. 61–82). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Manchón, R. M., Murphy, L., & Roca de Larios, J. (2007). Lexical retrieval processes and strategies in second language writing: A synthesis of empirical research. International Journal of English Studies, 2, 149–174.Google Scholar
Martínez, F., & 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, 2, 143–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niu, R. (2009). Effect of task-inherent production modes on EFL learners’ focus on form. Language Awareness, 18, 384–402.Google Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2009). Studying writing across EFL contexts: Looking back and moving forward. In Manchón, R. M. (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts. Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 232–255). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2012). Epilogue: Exploring L2 writing-SLA interfaces. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 404–415.Google Scholar
Plakans, L. (2009). The role of reading strategies in integrated L2 writing tasks. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 252–266.Google Scholar
Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 375–389.Google Scholar
Polio, C., & Williams, J. (2009). Teaching and testing writing. In Long, M. H. & Doughty, C. (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 486–517). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google 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, 10, 277–303.Google Scholar
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83–95.Google 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, 29, 67–100.Google 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, 131–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11–26.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semke, H. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annuals, 17, 195–202.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Smagorinsky, P. (2008). The Method section as conceptual epicenter in constructing social science research reports. Written Communication, 25, 389–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 11, 143–159.Google Scholar
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2007). Writing tasks: The effect of collaboration. In García Mayo, M. P. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in foreign language learning (pp. 157–177). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303–334.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. G. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypotheses and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf, J. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285–304.Google Scholar
Tocalli-Beller, A., & Swain, M. (2005). Reformulation: The cognitive conflict and L2 learning it generates. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15, 5–28.Google Scholar
Torras, R. (2005). Procesos psicolingüísticos implicados en la adquisición del inglés en el contexto de la enseñanza primaria [Psycholinguistic processes involved in learning English in a primary school context]. Lenguaje y Textos, 23, 89–112.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337–343.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Beuningen, C. G. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 1–27.Google Scholar
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 364–374.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2001). Learner-generated attention to form. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Form-focused instruction and second language learning (pp. 303–346). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2008). The speaking-writing connection in second language and academic literacy development. In Belcher, D. & Hirvela, A. (Eds.), The oral-literate connection: Perspectives on L2 speaking, writing, and other media interactions (pp. 1–25). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 321–331.Google Scholar
Yang, L., & Zhang, L. (2010). Exploring the role of reformulations and a model text in EFL students’ writing performance. Language Teaching Research, 14, 464–484.Google Scholar
Yarrow, F., & Topping, K. J. (2001). Collaborative writing: The effects of metacognitive prompting and structured peer interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 261–282.Google Scholar