Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T11:02:29.751Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Use of Models as Written Corrective Feedback in English as a Foreign Language (EFL)Writing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2017

María del Pilar García Mayo  and
Udane Loidi Labandibar
María del Pilar García Mayo
Affiliation:
Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU)[email protected]
Udane Loidi Labandibar
Affiliation:
Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU)[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The language learning potential of writing has been an underresearched topic in the English as a foreign language (EFL) context. The present study investigates what Basque-Spanish EFL teenage learners (n = 60) notice when writing a composition in response to visual stimuli in a three-stage writing task including output, comparison, and delayed revision. The present study also explores how this noticing and feedback processing affects their subsequent revisions. The findings revealed that participants noticed mainly lexical problems, although they also paid attention to content features. Moreover, more proficient learners and guided learners noticed more features. A qualitative analysis of the results indicated that, overall, learners had a negative attitude toward writing and modeling, but those with more positive beliefs incorporated more items in subsequent revisions. A number of implications for research and pedagogy will be discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 37 , September 2017 , pp. 110 - 127
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press, 2017 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, reformulation and noticing: Implications for IL development. Language Teaching Research, 7, 347–376.Google Scholar
Bowles, M., & Leow, R. (2005). Reactivity and type of verbal report in SLA research methodology: Expanding the scope of investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 415–440.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R. (Eds.). (2014) Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cánovas Guirao, J., Roca de Larios, J., & Coyle, Y. (2015). The use of models as a written feedback technique with young EFL learners. System, 52, 63–77.Google Scholar
Coyle, Y., & Roca de Larios, J. (2014). Exploring the role played by error correction and models on children's reported noticing and output production in a L2 writing task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 451–485.Google Scholar
Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 7 (4), 482–511.Google Scholar
Hanaoka, O. (2006a). Exploring the role of models in promoting noticing in L2 writing. Jacket Bulletin, 42, 1–13.Google Scholar
Hanaoka, O. (2006b). Noticing from models and reformulations: A case study of two Japanese EFL learners. Sophia Linguistica: Working Papers in Linguistics, 54, 167–192.Google Scholar
Hanaoka, O. (2007). Output, noticing, and learning: An investigation into the role of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research, 11 (4), 73–93.Google Scholar
Hanaoka, O., & Izumi, S. (2012). Noticing and uptake: Addressing pre-articulated covert problems in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 332–347.Google Scholar
Hyland, F. (2011). The language learning potential of form-focused feedback. In Manchón, R. M. (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 159–179). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24, 168–196.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 390–403.Google Scholar
Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Smith, M. (2002). Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian French immersion context. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 485– 507.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching 46, 1–40.Google Scholar
Manchón, R. M. (Ed.). (2011). Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Manchón, R. M., & Roca de Larios, J. (2011). Writing to learn in FL contexts: Exploring learners’ perceptions of the language learning potential of L2 writing. In Manchón, R. M. (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 181–207). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Marsden, E. (2006). Exploring input processing in the classroom: An experimental comparison of processing instruction and enriched input. Language Learning, 56 (3), 507–566.Google Scholar
Marsden, E., & Torgerson, C. (2012). Single group, pre- and post-test research designs: Some methodological concerns. Oxford Review of Education. 38 (5), 583–616.Google Scholar
Martínez Esteban, N., & Roca de Larios, J. (2010). The use of models as a form of written feedback to secondary school pupils of English. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 143–170.Google Scholar
Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277–303.Google Scholar
Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67–100.Google Scholar
Santos, M., López-Serrano, S., & Manchón, R. M. (2010). The differential effect of two types of direct written corrective feedback on noticing and uptake: Reformulation vs. error correction. International Journal of English Studies, 10 (1), 131–154.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209–231.Google Scholar
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303–334.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285–304.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Yang, L., & Zhang, L. (2010). Exploring the role of reformulations and a model text in EFL students’ writing performance. Language Teaching Research, 14, 464–484.Google Scholar
Zeigarnik, B. (1999). On finished and unfinished tasks. In Ellis, W. D. (Ed.), A source book of gestalt psychology (pp. 300–314). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar