The effect of coded feedback on Korean EFL learners' ability to use grammatical forms accurately
2
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study investigated the effect of indirect coded corrective feedback on intermediate-level Korean EFL learners’ ability to use L2 grammatical forms accurately. Thirty-nine college students in an intact classroom were divided into three groups: a coded correction group, a direct correction group, and a content feedback group. The coded group received feedback using error codes on three grammatical forms: articles, prepositions, and verb tenses. The direct group received overt corrections on the same forms. The content group received feedback only on content and discourse structure. They had written a total of eight essays for twelve weeks, among which four were selected for analysis. The study found that all the three groups showed a significant improvement in accuracy as a function of time and that the effect of direct correction lasted longer than the other two types of feedback. Furthermore, self-correction triggered by coded feedback promoted the learners’ noticing of the forms in focus. When learners successfully noticed the forms, they were more likely to uptake and retain them. This result corroborates the facilitative role of conscious attention to form in the development of accuracy. Finally, although the students’ accuracy had actually been enhanced, their perception of corrective feedback had become more negative over time. One possible explanation was drawn from the fact that there was a substantial gap between what the subjects believed to be most important in L2 writing (i.e., accuracy) and what they believed had been cultivated in their own writing (i.e., fluency).
Abstract
This study investigated the effect of indirect coded corrective feedback on intermediate-level Korean EFL learners’ ability to use L2 grammatical forms accurately. Thirty-nine college students in an intact classroom were divided into three groups: a coded correction group, a direct correction group, and a content feedback group. The coded group received feedback using error codes on three grammatical forms: articles, prepositions, and verb tenses. The direct group received overt corrections on the same forms. The content group received feedback only on content and discourse structure. They had written a total of eight essays for twelve weeks, among which four were selected for analysis. The study found that all the three groups showed a significant improvement in accuracy as a function of time and that the effect of direct correction lasted longer than the other two types of feedback. Furthermore, self-correction triggered by coded feedback promoted the learners’ noticing of the forms in focus. When learners successfully noticed the forms, they were more likely to uptake and retain them. This result corroborates the facilitative role of conscious attention to form in the development of accuracy. Finally, although the students’ accuracy had actually been enhanced, their perception of corrective feedback had become more negative over time. One possible explanation was drawn from the fact that there was a substantial gap between what the subjects believed to be most important in L2 writing (i.e., accuracy) and what they believed had been cultivated in their own writing (i.e., fluency).
참고문헌 (45)
- Adams, R., "L2 output, reformulation, and noticing : Implications for interlanguage development", Language Teaching Research, 7, pp.347~376 (2003)
- Bitchener, J., "Evidence in support of written corrective feedback", Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, pp.102~118 (2008)
- Bitchener, J., "Measuring the effectiveness of written corrective feedback : A response to"Overgeneralization from a narrow focus : A response to Bitchener(2008)", Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, pp.276~279 (2009)
- Bitchener, J., "Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and second language writing" (2012), Routledge
- Bitchener, J., "The effectiveness of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing", Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, pp.191~205 (2005)
- Bitchener, J., "The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback", System, 37, pp.322~329 (2009)
- Bitchener, J., "The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback", ELT Journal, 63, pp.204~211 (2009)
- Bitchener, J., "The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development : A ten-month investigation", Applied Linguistics, 31, pp.193~214 (2010)
- Bruton, A., "Designing research into the effect of error correction in L2 writing : Not so straightforward", Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, pp.136~140 (2009)
- Chandler, J., "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, pp.267~296 (2003)
- Cohen, A., "Learner strategies in language learning", pp.57~69 (1987), Prentice-Hall
- Ellis, R., "A typology of written corrective feedback types", ELT Journal, 63, pp.97~107 (2009)
- Ellis, R., "The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context", System, 36, pp.353~371 (2008)
- Ferris, D. R., "Can advanced ESL students be taught to correct their most serious and frequent errors?", CATESOL Journal, 8, pp.41~62 (1995)
- Ferris, D. R., "Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms", TESOL Quarterly, 29, pp.33~53 (1995)
- Ferris, D. R., "The case of grammar correction in L2 writing classes : A response to Truscott(1996)", Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, pp.1~11 (1999)
- Ferris, D. R., "Treatment of error in second language student writing" (2002), University of Michigan Press
- Ferris, D. R., "Response to student writing: Research implications for second language students" (2003), Lawrence Erlbaum
- Ferris, D. R., "Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues", pp.81~104 (2006), Cambridge University Press
- Ferris D. R., "Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?", Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, pp.161~184 (2001)
- Ferris, D. R., "Responding to L2 writers in college writing classes : What teachers say and what they do", TESOL Quarterly, 45, pp.207~234 (2011)
- Guénette, D., "Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback in writing", Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, pp.40~53 (2007)
- Hyland, K., "Teaching and researching writing" (2002), Longman
- Hyland, K., "Feedback on second language students’ writing", Language Teaching, 39, pp.83~101 (2006)
- Krashen, S., "Principles and practice in second language acquisition" (1982), Prentice-Hall
- Kepner, C. G., "An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills", Modern Language Journal, 5, pp.305~313 (1991)
- Lalande, J. F. II, "Reducing composition errors : An experiment", Modern Language Journal, 66, pp.140~149 (1982)
- Larsen-Freeman, D., "Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy", pp.131~150 (1995), Lawrence Erlbaum
- Robb, T., "Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality", TESOL Quarterly, 20, pp.83~93 (1986)
- Sampson, A., "Coded and uncoded error feedback: Effects on error frequencies in adult Colombian EFL learners’ writing", System, 40, pp.494~504 (2012)
- Schmidt, R., "The role of consciousness in second language learning", Applied Linguistics, 11, pp.129~158 (1990)
- Schmidt, R., "Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics", AILA Review, 11, pp.11~26 (1994)
- Schwartz, B., "On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior", Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, pp.147~163 (1993)
- Semke, H., "The effects of the red pen", Foreign Language Annals, 17, pp.195~202 (1984)
- Sheen, Y., "The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles", TESOL Quarterly, 41, pp.255~283 (2007)
- Sheen, Y., "Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners", System, 37, pp.556~569 (2009)
- Sheppard, K., "Two feedback types: Do they make a difference?", RELC Journal, 23, pp.103~110 (1992)
- Storch, N., "Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing : Case studies", Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, pp.303~334 (2010)
- Truscott, J., "The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes", Language Learning, 46, pp.327~369 (1996)
- Truscott, J., "The case for"the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes" : A response to Ferris", Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, pp.111~122 (1999)
- Truscott, J., "The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately", Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, pp.255~272 (2007)
- van Beuningen, C., "Corrective feedback in L2 writing : Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions", International Journal of English Studies, 10, pp.1~27 (2010)
- van Beuningen, C., "The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy", International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, pp.279~296 (2008)
- van Beuningen, C., "Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in Dutch multilingual classrooms", Language Learning, 62, pp.1~41 (2012)
- Xu, C., "Overgeneralization from a narrow focus : A response to Ellis et al. (2008)and Bitchener(2008)", Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, pp.270~275 (2009)