Written Corrective Feedback for L2 Development

John Bitchener, Neomy Storch

• Verlag: Multilingual Matters
• Jahr: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781783095063
• Thema: Filología
• Thema: Enseñanza de las artes lingüísticas

Written corrective feedback (CF) is a written response to a linguistic error that has been made in the writing of a text by a second language (L2) learner. This book aims to further our understanding of whether or not written CF has the potential to facilitate L2 development over time. Chapters draw on cognitive and sociocultural theoretical perspectives and review empirical research to determine whether or not, and the extent to which, written CF has been found to assist L2 development. Cognitive processing conditions are considered in the examination of its effectiveness, as well as context-related and individual learner factors or variables that have been hypothesised and shown to facilitate or impede the effectiveness of written CF for L2 development.

1Introduction

1.0 The Aim of the Book

The overarching aim of the book is to consider from two theoretical and empirical perspectives (cognitive and sociocultural) the potential of written CF to facilitate L2 development and some of the factors that may explain why written CF may or may not lead to L2 development. Thus, our focus is on the learning of the L2 rather than on the editing of L2 writing for composition and other such purposes.

We begin our discussion of this chapter (Section 1.1) with a consideration of the two key terms referred to in the aim: written CF and L2 development. This is followed by a discussion of the importance of written CF for L2 development (Section 1.2) and an outline of the structure and focus of Chapters 2–6 (Section 1.3).

1.1 Defining Key Terms

1.1.1 Written CF

Written CF is a written response to a linguistic error that has been made in the writing of a text by an L2 learner. It seeks to either correct the inaccurate usage or provide information about where the error has occurred and/or about the cause of the error and how it may be corrected. If the focus is on correcting the error, the response will be in the form of a direct error correction. If the focus is on locating the error so that the learner can then attempt to correct it, an indirect response will be given. Typically, this will be provided as an underlining or circling of the error or by means of a line-by-line error tally in the margin of the text. As the third type of response, meta-linguistic information (e.g. explanations/rules and examples of correct usage) may be provided to help the learner understand why the error has occurred and how to correct it. Sometimes the meta-linguistic feedback may be in the form of a code (e.g. PT for Past Tense error). It is generally understood that written CF is provided on linguistic errors rather than on content or organisational errors or issues. Most frequently, it has tended to focus on grammatical errors but it can also be provided on lexical and non-grammatical errors (e.g. punctuation, spelling). Most L2 learners receive written CF from their language class teachers but sometimes they also receive it from native and more advanced non-native speakers outside the language classroom or from their peers in peer response activities. Although written CF has traditionally been delivered on hard paper copies of students’ texts, accompanied at times by oral face-to-face conferences, it is increasingly being delivered electronically via synchronous or asynchronous modes of communication and by means of a range of web-based commenting software.

1.1.2 L2 development

L2 development is about the processes and stages involved in developing knowledge of the L2 and about how to use it accurately as a native speaker/writer or a near native speaker/writer would be expected to use it. The development process begins immediately after some form of L2 information input (in this case, by means of written CF) has been provided and may continue for months or years, depending on the goals, proficiency and mastery of the L2 learner.

Sometimes the construct L2 development is used interchangeably with L2 learning and L2 acquisition but, in purist terms, each has its own particular focus or shade of meaning. The choice of terms may also depend on the theoretical perspective it is situated within (see discussion in Chapter 4). L2 learning and L2 development are most often used interchangeably to refer to the process or processes of learning from the learner’s perspective even though the term L2 development is, arguably, more about specific stages in the learning process. L2 acquisition can be understood in terms of either the acquired end-product (native speaker mastery and competence) or the process of acquiring the L2 and, in this regard, is similar to the process of L2 learning and L2 development.

In this book, we use the term L2 development because we believe it is a more precise term, namely, one that includes reference to any or all of the stages in the development of the L2, from the initial written CF input stage to the implicit, automatised output stage. From a sociocultural perspective, progress also includes a greater ability to self-correct. It is important to note that progress may not always be linear and forward-moving; it may sometimes involve small steps, both forwards and backwards, in the processing and use of the feedback.

Relating these definitions/explanations to the central aim of the book, it can be seen that our focus is on understanding whether or not written CF, in any of its forms, has the potential to facilitate L2 development over time. To understand its potential, we examine, in Chapters 2 and 4, the two theoretical perspectives on how and why written CF might be able to target L2 errors and facilitate development. Then, in Chapters 3 and 5, we review the empirical research to see whether or not, and the extent to which, written CF has been found to assist L2 development. In our examination of the extent of its effectiveness, we consider not only the cognitive processing conditions but also the context-related and individual learner factors or variables that have been hypothesised and shown to facilitate or impede the effectiveness of written CF for L2 development. Before we outline the focus of each Chapter, we discuss the importance of written CF as a topic of investigation.

1.2 The Importance of Written CF for L2 Development

A number of reasons can be given for discussing the potential of written CF for L2 development. The first concerns the amount of time that many language teachers spend correcting the written errors that their students make. Although some teachers do not agree that written CF is necessary or effective, most do, to some extent at least. Those who are sceptical of its value tend to base this view on their observations of students who fail to respond to the feedback they are given or who fail to retain over time the knowledge they appear to have gained immediately after feedback has been provided (as evident in revised and/or new texts). Nevertheless, many teachers are of the view that some of their students will benefit from some of the feedback they receive on some occasions at least, and that some improvement is better than no improvement or no opportunity for improvement. Thus, from a pedagogical perspective, questions concerning the potential of written CF for L2 development and factors that may facilitate and/or impede the development process are of interest and importance to teachers who want to know whether their practices are likely to benefit their learners’ development.

Although most teachers assume, to some extent at least, that giving their students written CF contributes to the learning process in some way (Ferris, 2003), Truscott’s (1996) call for the abandonment of the practice challenged these assumptions. He argued that there was no compelling research evidence of the benefits of written CF for L2 development. The studies he referred to as evidence were limited to four (see Chapter 3) and, as a number of critics (e.g. Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Ferris, 1999; Guenette, 2007; Van Beuningen et al., 2012) have explained, the validity and reliability of the findings of these studies as evidence should be questioned. He also claimed that there are conflicting theoretical views (see Chapter 2 for detail) about whether one could even expect written CF to facilitate such development. The controversy (see Ferris, 1999, 2004, 2010; Truscott, 1996, 1999, 2004, 2009) arising from this call did, however, lead to a number of theoretical discussions in the literature (see Chapter 2 and articles in Studies in Second Language Acquisition Special Issue, volume 32, and in Journal of Second Language Acquisition Special Issue, volume 21) about whether one could expect written CF to be effective as a means of facilitating L2 development. Overall, the claims made by Truscott (1996) did the field a service insofar as they led to research about the key questions of concern to teachers, theorists and researchers that had not been satisfactorily answered:

(1)Can written CF facilitate L2 development (measured in terms of the improved written accuracy of L2 learners)?

(2)Are more explicit types of written CF (e.g. indirect forms, direct error correction, meta-linguistic information) more effective than other types?

(3)Can written CF facilitate the learning of some linguistic forms/structures more than others?

(4)Is written CF more effective if it is focused (i.e. targets one or only a few forms/structures at a time) or unfocused (i.e. comprehensive)?

(5)Do some individual and contextual factors moderate the effectiveness of written CF more than others?

These questions, in one form or other, became the focus of most of the empirical studies situated within the cognitive perspective and tended to be more pedagogically motivated than theoretically motivated. They were more about whether written CF ‘worked’ (i.e. whether improved accuracy resulted from the feedback when measured in text revisions and new written texts) than about why and how it ‘worked’ or did not ‘work’. The focus was more on the revised output (the product) than on the cognitive processing of the feedback.

Another important reason for our focus on the contribution of written CF to L2 development is the fact that the feedback is written, that is, it relates to errors occurring in the written texts of L2 learners rather than to those occurring in their oral interactions. Until recently, second language acquisition (SLA) accounts of L2 learning have been more focused on acquired competence, namely, the consistent, implicit, automatised use of the target language, situated in the online, oral medium. Theorists and researchers (e.g. Bitchener, 2012; Polio, 2012; Williams, 2012) have already pointed out what they see as crucial advantages for L2 development if learners are given opportunities to write and receive written CF on the linguistic accuracy of their written texts. The first advantage concerns the permanence of the written text. Having written CF on a written text means that learners can refer to the feedback as often as they wish, whereas, in oral communication, the spoken utterance and any feedback received is fleeting and unable to be referred to again. Another advantage is the additional time that learners have to draw upon their stored L2 knowledge in their long-term memory and consider it in relation to the information provided in the written CF before hypothesising the correct L2 form/structure to use.

It is understandable that writing and written CF have tended to be the poor cousin of oral communication and oral CF when it comes to understanding the role they may play in the learning process. Because oral communication is delivered and received under online conditions, it is more likely, more often, to draw on the learner’s implicit, automatised knowledge and, therefore, to be a potentially more reliable indicator of what the learner has acquired. However, this does not necessarily mean that, in terms of feedback, oral CF is any more effective than written CF. For learners to progress through the various information-processing stages (discussed in Chapter 2) and then consolidate what they have learnt from written CF over time, written CF would seem, theoretically, to be better able to help learners develop their explicit, conscious knowledge of the L2 in the early stages of development.

Thus, there are a number of reasons for writing a book that focuses on a traditionally popular pedagogical practice (written CF) and on one that has been relatively ignored in terms of its contribution to L2 development.

1.3 The Structure and Focus of Chapters 2–6

1.3.1 Chapter 2

In Chapter 2, we present a theoretical case or argument in support of the view that written CF has the potential to facilitate L2 development. This case is situated within a cognitive perspective and draws upon what SLA theories and hypotheses say about the nature and conditions of cognitively processing L2 information, including that provided by written CF. It explains how and why written CF has the potential to contribute to the development of a learner’s L2 knowledge and use.

The argument begins by stating that the central goal of L2 learning is the acquisition of native or near native speaker competence. Given that there are two types of linguistic competence (acquired and learnt), we explain that the goal of acquired competence (which draws upon implicit knowledge, accessed automatically and without conscious reflection) can be developed from learnt competence (which draws upon explicit input such as that provided by explicit written CF). To explain how this process works, we draw upon the skill acquisition theories and models of Anderson (1976, 1980, 1983, 1993) and McLaughlin (1978, 1980, 1987, 1990), because they explain how explicit/declarative L2 knowledge can be proceduralised through meaningful, contextualised practice (DeKeyser, 2007) over time, to a point where it may be converted to implicit, acquired knowledge. Then, we describe the conscious information-processing stages and conditions that have been identified by cognitive/interactionist theorists (e.g. Schmidt, 1990, 1994, 2001; Tomlin & Villa, 1994) from the point where learners are provided with written CF as input on their linguistic error(s) to the point where they are able to accurately modify the errors and produce new texts devoid of the errors. We refer to the framework of a single written CF episode, designed by Gass (1997), to explain the five stages in the processing of new knowledge: input (written CF) is provided; attention is given to the written CF input; noticing and understanding the difference between the written CF input and the linguistic error it refers to; internalising and integrating the written CF as input. We explain that producing accurate written output, as a result of this conscious processing, is the beginning of a longer consolidation process during which appropriately contextualised practice may facilitate acquired competence. Because this model only explains an idealised information-processing route, we conclude the chapter with a discussion of the factors or variables that might interrupt the development process (1) at any of the stages identified in the Gass (1997) framework and (2) at any stage in the retrieval and processing of new knowledge during the on-going consolidation phase. We consider, for example, individual internal factors (cognitive and affective) and individual external factors (contextual/social/pedagogical).

1.3.2 Chapter 3

In this chapter, we critically review the research on written CF that has been conducted within the cognitive perspective, in order to determine its contribution to L2 development. This body of research has been guided by the five overarching questions referred to earlier in Section 1.2. It would be fair to say that the questions have been more pedagogically motivated than theoretically motivated (Bitchener, 2012; Polio, 2012), and have therefore tended to focus more on the end-product of processing each episode of written CF input. In other words, the focus has been on whether explicit feedback has facilitated a significant improvement in accuracy on certain occasions (immediately after the feedback has been provided and on subsequent occasions over time). In terms of investigating why learners improve or fail to improve their written accuracy on such occasions, most of the research, it will be seen, has not fo...