Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

David Frear Department of English and Writing Studies.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "David Frear Department of English and Writing Studies."— Presentation transcript:

1 David Frear Department of English and Writing Studies

2 Written corrective feedback (CF) = grammar, lexis, mechanics, syntax and discourse features Direct CF Metalinguistic coded CF Metalinguistic feedback Indirect CF Focused CF Unfocused CF Revision Acquisition

3 Truscott (1996) Efficacy of CF on grammatical accuracy Largely been addressed (e.g. Sheen, 2007; Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener & Knoch 2008; Ellis, Sheen, Murakami & Takashima, 2008; Bitchener & Knoch, 2010a; Bitchener & Knoch 2010b) Issue of reduced complexity Largely been addressed (e.g. Chandler, 2003, 2004; 2009; Van Beuningen, De Jong and Kuiken, 2012) CF may be effective in a revised version of a task but will not be in new pieces of writing Truscott and Hsu (2008) Van Beuningen et al. (2012)

4 Fathman and Whalley (1990) Time = Unfocused indirect CF improved while control did not Truscott and Hsu (2008) Group = Unfocused indirect CF outperformed control group in revised draft Van Beuningen et al. (2012) Group = unfocused direct CF and unfocused metalinguistic coded CF outperformed self-editing and control

5 Truscott and Hsu (2008) No differences between unfocused indirect CF group and control group in short-term Van Bueningen et al. (2012) Short-term and long-term differences between both unfocused direct CF and unfocused metalinguistic coded CF and two control groups. Found unfocused direct CF lead to improvements in grammatical accuracy Found unfocused metalinguistic coded CF lead to improvements in non-grammatical accuracy

6 RQ1. What effect did CF have on the learners accurate use of the regular past tense in a revised version of a text? RQ2. Were there any differences in the effects of the different types of CF on the learners accurate use of the regular past tense in a revised version of a text? RQ3. What effect did CF followed by revision have on the learners accurate use of regular past tense structures in new pieces of writing? RQ4. Were there any differences in the effects of the different types of CF followed by revision on the learners accurate use of regular past tense structures in new pieces of writing?

7 Context Taiwanese college-level English majors Mortality rate Structure Regular past tense Design Quasi-experimental Focused Direct, Unfocused Direct, Focused Indirect, Unfocused Indirect and Control Step-up Instruments Procedures Writing tasks CF session Revision session Analysis Target-Like-Use Analysis (Pica, 1983) Intra-rater reliability of rho =.99 Inter-rater reliability of rho =.97 Non-parametric tests using SPSS version 17

8 Sample size = non-parametric tests Kolmorgorv-Smirnov Tests (normal distribution) = non-parametric tests Kruskal-Wallis Test for pre-test differences ( χ ² (4, 57) = 9.15, p =.06) Gain score 1

9 Corrective Feedback n Task 1Revised Version of Task 1 MSDM Focused Direct Unfocused Direct Focused Indirect Unfocused Indirect Control

10 Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests Focused direct CF ( z = -2.81, p <.01)* Unfocused direct CF ( z = -2.81, p <.01)* Focused indirect CF ( z = -3.41, p <.01)* Unfocused indirect CF ( z = -2.94, p <.01)* Control group ( z = -1.54, p =.12)

11 Kruskal-Wallis Test on gain score ( χ ² (4, 57) = 8.54, p =.07) Series of Mann-Whitney U Tests with Bonferroni adjustment for 10 comparisons ( p =.005) No significant differences Analysis on basis of focus and directness Kruskal-Wallis Test significant difference for directness ( χ ² (2, 57) = 6.67, p =.02)* Series of Mann-Whitney U Tests with Bonferroni adjustment for 3 comparisons ( p =.017) Direct groups versus Control Group ( U = 50.00, z = -2.20, p =.01)* Direct groups versus indirect groups ( U = , z = , p =.01)*

12 Sample size = non-parametric tests Kolmorgorov-Smirnov Test (normal distribution) = non-parametric tests Kruskal-Wallis Tests for initial pre-test differences (χ² (4, 51) = 12.95, p =.01) Gain score 1 and gain score 2

13 Corrective Feedback n Task 1Task 2Task 3 MSDM M Focused Direct Unfocused Direct Focused Indirect Unfocused Indirect Control

14 Individual Friedman Tests Focused Direct CF Group ( χ ² (2, 7) = 11.19, p <.01)* Unfocused Direct CF Group ( χ ² (2, 9) = 8.40, p =.02)* Post-hoc Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests with a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons ( p =.017). Focused Direct CF Group Task 1 and Task 2 ( z = -2.37, p =.018)* Task 1 to Task 3 ( z = -2.37, p =.018)* Unfocused Direct CF Group Task 1 and Task 2 approached significance ( z = -2.07, p =.04) Task 1 and Task 3 ( z = -2.43, p =.015)*

15 Kruskal-Wallis Tests on gain score 2 ( χ ² (4, 51) = 10.49, p =.03)* Series of Mann-Whitney U Tests with Bonferroni adjustment for 10 comparisons ( p =.005) No significant differences Analysis on basis of focus and directness Kruskal-Wallis Test significant difference for directness ( χ ² (2, 51) = 9.00, p =.01)* Series of Mann-Whitney U Tests with Bonferroni adjustment for 3 comparisons ( p =.017) Direct groups versus Control Group ( U = 32.50, z = -2.24, p =.01)* Direct groups versus indirect groups ( U = , z = , p <.01)*

16 RQ1 – Change in accuracy from task 1 to revised version of task 1 All CF groups improved from task 1 to revised version of task 1 Control group did not Same as Fathman and Whalley (1990), Truscott and Hsu (2008) andVan Beuningen et al. (2012) Not surprising as learners had access to corrections RQ2 – Differences between groups Major finding direct CF groups outperformed both indirect CF groups and control group in gain score Direct group had access to corrections Indirect groups used pre-existing linguistic knowledge for indicated and located errors Control group used pre-existing linguistic knowledge to locate errors

17 RQ3 – Changes over time No improvements for control group – pushed output (Swain, 1995) No improvement for indirect CF groups – also a type of pushed output with revision With two episodes of CF learners had reached a ceiling of pre-existing linguistic knowledge (Bruton, 2009) Continued improvement over time for direct CF groups with revision With two CF sessions, three opportunities to notice (Schmidt, 1990) and perhaps notice with metalinguistic understanding (Schmidt, 2001)

18 RQ4 – group differences Direct CF groups outperformed both indirect CF groups and control group in long-term Perhaps noticing with metalinguistic understanding for direct CF groups as revision gives additional opportunity to notice (Shintani & Ellis, 2013) Step-up design – Frear (2012) single episode CF focused groups outperformed unfocused groups but with two CF sessions direct outperformed indirect (3 chances to notice)

19 Summary Direct CF groups outperformed both indirect CF groups and control group in a revised version and new pieces of writing (long-term) Truscott (1996) both correct and incorrect Limitations An investigation of awareness of the target structure Sample size Pedagogic suggestions Direct vs. Indirect Future research CF plus revision and awareness of target structure


Download ppt "David Frear Department of English and Writing Studies."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google