Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
The Effects of corrective feedback on Taiwan high school EFL low-achievers' paragraph writing: “direct correction” vs. “reformulation”
|Issue Date:||2011-10-11 17:07:12 (UTC+8)|
This study aimed to compare the efficacy of “direct correction” with that of “reformulation” on Taiwan EFL low-achievers’ paragraph writing. Fifty-six students in a vocational high school in Taipei City participated in this study from Sep. 2009 through Jan. 2010. When conducting revision activities, the teacher implemented the “reformulation” technique in the experimental group. The students compared the originals with the reformulated versions given by the teacher, and detected, recorded, and corrected all the grammatical errors mainly on their own. The control group received the “direct correction” treatment, examining their originals with the teacher’s corrections on them. With the pre-test and the post-test on a paragraph-length English picture description, the comparison of the post-test results between the experimental and control groups, and interviews with the experimental group, the results are as follows: First, in holistic rating, “reformulation” was more helpful than “direct correction” in improving the participants’ writing performance. Second, the low-achievers with lower proficiency benefited more from “reformulation” than those with better proficiency. Third, “direct correction” was more effective than “reformulation” in reducing the participants’ grammatical errors. Fourth, the majority in the experimental group were positive of “reformulation” as a way to improve writing. Finally, some implications for pedagogy and suggestions for future studies were made.
|Reference:||Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227-257.|
Baars, B. (1988). A cognitive theory of consciousness. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning, 28, 69-84.
Bitchener J., Young, S., & Cameron. D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191-205.
Chaudron, C. (1985). Intake: On models and methods for discovering learners’ processing of input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7 (1), 1-14.
Cohen, A. D. (1987). Student processing of feedback on their compositions. In Rubin, W., & Rubin, J. (Eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning, 57-69. London: Prentice Hall International.
Cohen, A. D. (1982). Writing like a native: The process of reformulation. (ERIC ED 224 338).
Cohen, A. D. (1983). Reformulating second-language compositions: A potential source of input for the learner. (ERIC ED 228 866).
Cohen, A. D. (1989). Reformulation: A technique for providing advanced feedback in writing. Guidelines: A Periodical for Classroom Language Teachers, 11 (2), 1-9.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Dekeyster, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Diliberto, J. A. (2004). Improving Descriptive Sentence Writing in Elementary Students. Preventing School Failure, 48(4), 34-36.
Gass, S.M. (1988). Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied linguistics, 9, 198-217.
Gregg, N., and Mather, N. (2002). School is fun at recess: Informal analyses of written language for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 7-12.
Ellis, N. (1999). Cognitive approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 22-42.
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition: Learning in the classroom. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 87-105.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51 (1), 1-46.
Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In Kroll, B. (Ed.) Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom, 178-190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-11.
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184.
Flower, L.S. (1989). Problem-solving strategies for writing. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Fotos, S. (1993). Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14, 385-407.
Fotos, S. (2001). Cognitive approaches to grammar instruction. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (3rd ed.), 267-283. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
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.
Hairston, M. (1986). On not being a composition slave. In C. W. Bridges (Ed.), Training the new teacher of college composition, 117-124. Urbana, Ill.: NCTE.
Havranek, G. (2002). When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed? International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3-4), 2002, 255-270
Horowitz, D. (1986). What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20 (3), 445-462.
Huang, Y. P. (2006). The effects of error correction on the English writing of senior high school students in Taiwan. Master thesis. Unpublished.
Hyland, F. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use: exploring error analysis. New York: Longman.
Klein, W. (1986). Second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S.D. (1979). The monitor model: Some methodological considerations. Language Learning, 29, 151-167.
Krashen, S. D. (1984). Immersion: Why it works and what it has taught us. Language and Society, 12, 61-64.
Kroll, B. (2001). Considerations for teaching an ESL/EFL wriring course. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (3rd ed.), 219-247. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001). Teaching grammar. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (3rd ed.), 251-266. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Lee, R. C.T. (2009). 英文作文 兩萬多顆蛋的背後。聯合報《民意論壇》。98年7月18日取自：http://mag.udn.com/mag/campus/storypage.jsp?f_MAIN_ID=12&f_SUB_ID=27&f_ART_ID=178916。
Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24 (3), 203-218.
Levenston, E. A. (1978). Error analysis of free composition: The theory and the practice. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4 (1), 1-11.
Li, Chiung-Li. (2004).The analytical study of college students’ English writing: A case study at Mei-Ho Institute of Technology. Journal of Da-Yeh University, 13(2),19-37.
Lightbown, P., & Spade, N. (1990). Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429-446.
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126-141.
Miao, Y., Badger, R., & Zhen, Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179-200.
Myers, S. (1997). Teaching writing as a process and teaching sentence-level syntax: Reformulation as ESL composition feedback. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 2 (4). Retrieved August 1st, 2009 from http://cwp60.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej08/a2.html.
Naeini, J. (2008 ). Error Correction: An indication of consciousness-raising. Novitas-Royal, 2 (2), 120-137.
O’ Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265-289.
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, 43-68.
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 (4), 277-303.
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “Noticing” Hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283-331.
Rosen, L. M. (1987). Developing correctness in student writing: Alternatives to the error-hunt. The English Journal, 76(3), 62-69.
Rutherford, W., & Sharwood Smith, M. (1985). Conscious-raising and universal grammar. Applied Linguistics, 6 (3), 274-282.
Sachs, R.R. (2003). Reformulation, noticing, and second language writing. M.A. thesis. Michigan State University. UMI No. 1416107. ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA-Colombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 244-258.
Semke, H. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195-202.
Seow, A., & Tay, G. (2004). The acquisition of English personal and possessive pronouns in two classroom learning environments. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 8 (3). Retrieved July 27th, 2009 from http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/tesl-ej/ej31/a1.html
Sharwood Smith, M. A. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2, 159-168.
Sharwood Smith, M. A. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7, 118-132.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language processing. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (2002). Theorizing and update aptitude. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning, 69-94. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Swain, M. (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass and C. Madden (Eds.) Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, M.A.: Newberry House.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus of form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, 64-81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swain,M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step toward second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16 (3), 371-391.
Tomasello, M. (1998) (Ed.). The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272.
White, L., Spade, N., Lightbown, P., & Randa, L. (1991). Input enhancement and L2 question information. Applied Linguistics, 12, 416-432.
Wu. C.P. (2003). A study on the use of feedback in senior high school English composition: students’ preferences and teachers’ practices. Master thesis. Taiwan: National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19 (1), 79-102.
Zamel, V. (1988). The author responds to comments on Vivian Zamel’s “Recent research on writing pedagogy”. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 520- 524.
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4 (3), 209-222.
|Appears in Collections:||[英語教學碩士在職專班] 學位論文|
Files in This Item:
All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.