The Effects of Written Corrective Feedback on Expressing Simple Present Tense

Year 2020, Volume: 9 Issue: 2, 233 - 251, 31.12.2020

Çiğdem Güneş

Abstract

The present study compared the effects of direct and indirect written corrective feedback (CF) on the accurate use of simple present tense for describing daily routines. Written assignments of secondary school EFL (English as a foreign language) learners, enrolled in the 6th grade of a Turkish secondary school, were investigated during a period of two months. The experimental study included pretest, treatment, immediate posttest, and delayed posttest sessions. There were two experimental groups and one control group whose treatments comprised direct, indirect, and no written CF. Results indicated that the group receiving indirect CF outperformed the groups receiving direct CF and no CF on the delayed posttest.

Keywords

Corrective feedback, direct feedback, indirect corrective feedback, written corrective feedback, english as a foreign language, error correction

References

• Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102-118.
• Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207-217.
• 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.
• Corder, S. P. (1973). The Significance of Learners’ Errors. In J. Richards (Ed.). Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. London: Longman.
• Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (2012). How to design and analyze surveys in SLA research? In A. Mackey & S. Gass (Eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp. 74-94). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.
• Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed second language acquisition a literature review: Report to the Ministry of Education. New Zealand, Wellington: Research Division Ministry of Education.
• Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. SSLA, 28, 339–368.
• 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, 353-371.
• Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: a response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11.
• 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 Second Language Writing, 13, 49–62.
• Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83-101.
• Kahyalar, E. & Okan, Z. (2014). An investigation into the impact of corrective feedback on second language learners’ written production. International Journal of Language Academy, 2(2), 70-94.
• Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. SSLA, 20, 37-66. Meihami, H. (2013). Truscott’s claims in giving corrective feedback: does it matter in EFL writing context? International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 8, 8-23.
• Mennim, P. (2007). Long term effects of noticing on oral input. Language Teaching Research, 11(3), 265-280.
• Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2013). İlköğretim Kurumları İngilizce Dersi Öğretim Programı.
• Sachs, R. & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. SSLA, 29, 67–100.
• Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
• Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206-226.
• 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.
• Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of the grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37, 556-569.
• 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, 286–306.
• Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• 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(2), 111-122.
• Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–272.
• Truscott, J. & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292–305.
• Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, D. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the Effectiveness of Comprehensive Error Correction in Second Language Writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1-41.
• Yeh, S., Lo, J., & Chu, H. (2014). Application of online annotations to develop a web-based Error Correction Practice System for English writing instruction. System, 47, 39-52.
• Yilmaz, Y. (2013). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedbackin the acquisition of English articles. System, 41, 691-705.