Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol 3, No 1 (2012), 118-125, Jan 2012
doi:10.4304/jltr.3.1.118-125

The Effect of Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners’ Performance after Collaborative Output

Shirin Abadikhah, Azadeh Ashoori

Abstract


The purpose of the present study is to investigate the effect of written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ performance after completing a set of output activities. The study involved two groups of learners (24 male students) at intermediate level. The first group, consisting of six pairs, worked on four output activities (text editing, composition, transformation and substitution). The second group received written feedback after completing the same activities. Twelve tailor-made dyad-specific tests were constructed and administered to the pairs of learners. Results revealed that the participants who received written corrective feedback after completing the activities outperformed those who did not receive written feedback. The study confirms the view that providing an opportunity for interaction after receiving feedback triggers noticing the gaps between the learners' interlanguage and target language, which facilitates L2 development.


Keywords


corrective feedback; output activities; collaborative dialogue

References


Carrol, S. (1996). The irrelevance of verbal feedback to language learning. In L. Eubank, L. Selinker & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), The current state of interlanguage (pp.73-88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carroll, S., Roberge, Y., & Swain, M. (1992). The role of feedback in second language acquisition: Error correction and morphological generalization. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 173-198.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400005555

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.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9

Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27, 29-46.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1977.tb00290.x

Chun, A., Day, R. R., Chenoweth, A., & Luppescu, S. (1982). Errors, interaction, and correction: A study of native-nonnative conversation. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 537-547.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3586471

Dekeyser, R. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 77, 501-514.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1993.tb01999.x

Doughty, C. (1994). Fine-tuning of feedback by competent speakers to language learners. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table 1993 (pp.96-108). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinning of focus on form. In P. Robinson (ed.) Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206-257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281-318.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00156

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28,339-368.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060141

Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315-339.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3588049

Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

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.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X

García-Mayo, M., & Pica, T. (2000). L2 learner interaction in a foreign language setting: Are learning needs addressed? IRAL, 38, 35-58.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/iral.2000.38.1.35

Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25,1-36.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263103000019

LaPierre, D. (1994). Language output in a cooperative learning setting: Determining its effects on second language learning. Unpublished master’s thesis, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Lightbown, P.M., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Long, M. (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. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.

Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness,9, 34-50.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667135

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 17–46.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. M. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 15, 205-224.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100011967

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics; Studies in honour of William E. Rutherford (pp.125–144).Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (1997). The output hypothesis, focus on form and second language learning. In V. Berry, B. Adamson & W. Littlewood (Eds.). Applying linguistics: Insights into language in education (pp. 1–21). Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong, The English Centre.

Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M., Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–118) London: Longman.

Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29, 325-340.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00022-7


Full Text: PDF


Journal of Language Teaching and Research (JLTR, ISSN 1798-4769)

Copyright @ 2006-2014 by ACADEMY PUBLISHER – All rights reserved.