Hostname: page-component-669899f699-swprf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T20:48:39.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Focused written corrective feedback and linguistic target mastery: Conceptual replication of Bitchener and Knoch (2010)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2019

Monika Ekiert  and
Kristen di Gennaro
Monika Ekiert*
Affiliation:
Department of Education & Language Acquisition, LaGuardia CC, City University of New York, USA
Kristen di Gennaro
Affiliation:
English Department, Pace University, USA
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study replicates Bitchener and Knoch (2010), which reported that written corrective feedback (WCF) targeting two single-rule English article functions (first mention a and subsequent mention the) is effective. The current replication study repeats the original study in most respects but adds to the assessment of the intervention's efficacy by recording the impact of focused WCF on all functional article uses, and not just on the two uses targeted by the WCF. The results of the replication study partially confirm Bitchener & Knoch's results and introduce some further differentiated findings. It is concluded that while the focused WCF leads to increased accuracy in the targeted functions of articles, the same WCF may negatively impact the remaining non-targeted article functions, especially for the group that received the most explicit WCF in the form of metalinguistic explanation.

Type
Replication Study
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , January 2021 , pp. 71 - 89
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2019. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2015). Written corrective feedback studies: Approximate replication of Bitchener & Knoch (2010) and van Beuningen, de Jong, & Kuiken (2012). Language Teaching, 48(3), 405–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M. (2018). Learning language through task repetition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, R. (1995). Story cards: Aesop's fables. Brattleboro, VT: Pro Lingua.Google Scholar
Di Gennaro, K. (2016). Searching for differences and discovering similarities: Why international and resident second-language learners’ grammatical errors cannot serve as a proxy for placement into writing courses. Assessing Writing, 29(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256–310). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekiert, M. (2016). Article omission: How are referents tracked in L2 discourse? In Ortega, L., Tyler, A., Park, H-I., & Uno, M. (Eds.), The usage-based study of language learning and multilingualism (pp. 155–170). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Ekiert, M., & Han, Z-H. (2016). L1-fraught difficulty: The case of L2 acquisition of English articles by Slavic speakers. In Alonso, R. (Ed.), Cross-linguistic influence in second language acquisition (pp. 147–172). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 141–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing studies. Language Teaching, 45(4), 446–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, E., & Han, Z-H. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, I. (2013). Research into practice: Written corrective feedback. Language Teaching, 46, 108–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (2017). Instructed second language acquisition (ISLA): Geopolitics, methodological issues, and some major research questions. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 1, 7–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. (Eds.), Tasks and language learning (pp. 123–167). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, D., & Gleason, J. (2002) Acquisition of the article the by nonnative speakers of English: An analysis of four nongeneric uses. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Master, P. (2007). Article errors and article choices. The CATESOL Journal, 19(1), 107–131.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (2017). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning research: Theory, applications, implications. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Norouzian, R., & Plonsky, L. (2018). Eta- and partial eta-squared in L2 research: A cautionary review and guide to more appropriate usage. Second Language Research, 34(2), 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). ‘If I only had more time’: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porte, G. (2012). Replication research in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. (2014). How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 201–234.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, vol. 2 (pp. 593–610). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1999). The case for ‘The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes’: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 255–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J., & Hsu, Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J., & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139–155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yoo, I. (2009) The English definite article: What ESL/EFL grammars say and what corpus findings show. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(4), 267–278.Google Scholar