Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 348–363
A reflection on ‘the language learning potential’ of written CF John Bitchener AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand
Abstract For more than 30 years, different opinions about whether written corrective feedback (CF) is a worthwhile pedagogical practice for L2 learning and acquisition have been voiced. Despite the arguments for and against its potential to help L2 learners acquire the target language and the inconclusive findings across studies that have sought answers to key questions about whether it can play a role, the extent to which it might be able to play a role, and how it might be most effectively provided, the field is still awaiting more conclusive answers. The aim of this article is to take stock of what we know, both theoretically and empirically, and what we do not know about the language learning potential of written CF. It looks therefore at what the theoretical literature has to say about such a role and assesses what empirical studies have found about the effectiveness of written CF for L2 learning and acquisition. To move the field forward, a range of recommendations for further research are discussed. # 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: L2 learning & acquisition; L2 development; Potential of written CF; Written CF theoretical perspectives; Written CF research
Introduction Given the controversy about whether or not written corrective feedback (CF) can contribute to second language (L2) acquisition and the growing body of research literature into the various claims and counter-claims, the aim of this article is to reflect on its potential from both theoretical and empirical perspectives and determine whether we can expect written CF to play a role and, if so, the nature of that role and the extent to which such a role can be predicted. The first section of this discussion will focus on what is meant by ‘learning’ and ‘acquisition’ – an important launching pad – because on some occasions the two words have been used interchangeably in the literature while on other occasions they have been used to refer to ‘learning’ as the process learners engage in and ‘acquisition’ as the end point of learning (defined in the next section). The second section will examine the theoretical perspectives that have something to say about the potential of written CF to facilitate L2 learning and acquisition. The third section will look at what the research literature on written CF reveals about the language learning potential of written CF. Section four will then consider the mediating factors that have been theorised and shown empirically to impact on learners’ engagement with written CF. Finally, section five will offer some concluding remarks on what has been presented in the article and, based on what we know and do not know about the potential of written CF for L2 learning and acquisition, recommendations for further work will be suggested.
E-mail address: john.bitchener@aut.ac.nz. 1060-3743/$ – see front matter # 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.006
J. Bitchener / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 348–363
349
L2 ‘learning’ and ‘acquisition’ The words ‘learning’ and ‘acquisition,’ as applied to SLA (second language acquisition) are often used in different ways in the literature. They are sometimes used interchangeably, although they can be used separately with ‘learning’ referring more often to the process(es) of learning and with ‘acquisition’ referring to the ultimate goal of the ‘learning’ process, that is, multi-competence. The focus of this article is on the development of one aspect of multi-competence – a consistent and accurate use of the L2. A third term is also used in the literature – ‘development’ – but this always refers to the ‘learning’ process, to stages or phases of development within the learning process. Throughout this article, and unless stated otherwise, I will be using the words ‘learning’ and ‘development’ to refer to the process(es) involved in the ‘acquisition’ of L2 forms and structures. If the word ‘acquisition’ is used in the literature without definition or explanation, questions inevitably arise concerning (1) the level of competence/accuracy that a learner needs to demonstrate before it can be said that s/he has acquired a particular linguistic form or structure and (2) the mode of use (spoken and/or written) considered best for revealing when forms and structures have been mastered. In determining what level of competence/accuracy is indicative of acquisition, further questions can arise about the sufficiency of measures that are adopted. First, is a statistically significant increase in accuracy on one or a few occasions sufficient evidence that acquisition has occurred? With regard to increases in accuracy that result from written CF, a distinction has been made between ‘feedback for accuracy’ and ‘feedback for acquisition’ (Manchon, 2011). Second, are there other criteria that need to be met as well? For example, can we only say that a learner has acquired L2 forms and structures when we see evidence in different genres, in different contexts, and in relation to fluency and complexity? I think most would agree that the wider the evidence-base, the more certain we can be that a learner has acquired features of the L2. The second question to be addressed about the use of the word ‘acquisition’ is whether an accurate written use of L2 forms and structures can be considered a valid and reliable indicator of acquisition. While it is generally agreed that a learner can be said to have acquired the L2 if s/he can make a consistent, automatized, unconscious, accurate, and appropriate use of it under on-line conditions in oral communicative contexts, there is more controversy about whether an accurate written use of the L2 can be regarded as an equally valid and reliable measure of acquisition, especially if it resulted only from the learner’s explicit knowledge. (See Manchon, 2011, and Williams and Ortega, this volume, for discussions of the potential contribution of language learning that can result from writing.) While some theorists maintain that implicit, procedural, unconscious knowledge alone (such as that most often drawn upon in on-line, oral contexts) can facilitate learning that leads to acquisition, others argue that explicit, declarative knowledge (such as that which can be drawn upon in off-line written contexts) can be converted to implicit knowledge and facilitate L2 acquisition through written output practice. The potential of written CF to play a role in this process has been posited in several theoretical predictions, as discussed in the next section. Theoretical perspectives on the language learning potential of written CF Theories, in that they offer statements about why one might expect a particular independent variable (e.g. corrective feedback) to influence a particular dependent variables (e.g. accuracy), are the best place to start a discussion on what the potential might be for written CF to play a role in L2 learning and acquisition. This section considers, then, the SLA theories (Krashen’s Monitor Model, skill acquisition, interaction, and socio-cultural theories) that have something to say about the role of CF generally and written CF specifically for L2 learning/development and acquisition. (See Polio, this special issue, for an elaborate discussion of SLA theories that have something and nothing to say explicitly about a role for CF in L2 learning and acquisition.) Krashen’s Monitor Model Each of the five hypotheses of Krashen’s (1985) Monitor Model – the first general SLA theory – have something to say, either directly or indirectly, about the language learning potential of written CF. His first hypothesis – the Acquisition-learning Hypothesis – makes a distinction between ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning,’ claiming that they are completely separate processes. He claims that ‘acquisition’ occurs as a result of learners interacting in natural, meaningful communication and that ‘learning’ occurs as a result of classroom instruction and activities in which the attention of learners is focused on form, including, for example, that which is provided by written CF. In other words,
350
J. Bitchener / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 348–363
he equates ‘acquisition’ with implicit knowledge and ‘learning’ with explicit knowledge. He adds that CF (both written and oral) plays no role in helping learners develop their acquired knowledge. However, in his second hypothesis – the Monitor Hypothesis – he does not completely rule out a monitoring role for ‘learning’ and therefore a certain limited role for explicit CF. But, as McLaughlin (1987) explains, ‘‘the monitor is thought to alter the output of the acquired system before or after the utterance is actually written or spoken, and the utterance is initiated entirely by the acquired system’’ (p. 24). This means that the monitor can operate when there is sufficient time (certainly during written performance) and can enable learners to draw on their explicit knowledge when responding to written CF if a focus on accuracy is important to them and if they have sufficient linguistic knowledge (relevant to the linguistic category under consideration) to draw upon. In his Natural Order Hypothesis, Krashen states that learners acquire linguistic features of the target language in a predictable order and that this order is not changed by the order in which they are taught in class. Thus, he implies that any acquisitional benefits from CF and form-focused teaching should not be expected. This leads onto his fourth hypothesis – the Input Hypothesis – in which he claims that exposure to comprehensible input alone is sufficient for L2 acquisition. The fifth hypothesis – the Affective Filter Hypothesis – then qualifies the conditions necessary for the fourth hypothesis, namely, that if learners have a strong or high affective filter, they are unlikely to internalize any form of input, be it positive or negative feedback. Considering the five hypotheses as a whole, it can be seen that Krashen does not see a role for CF in developing acquired knowledge, that which learners unconsciously and automatically draw upon as competent L2 users, but he does concede that teaching and CF can play an editing role in ‘learning,’ that is, in developing explicit knowledge. Because he sees ‘learning’ and ‘acquisition’ as completely different processes, he does not see a role for CF in the conversion of explicit knowledge to implicit knowledge. Perspectives by those who support the interface position, or at least a mild version of it (see Ellis, 1997, 2008) are discussed in the next section. Skill acquisition theories Although skill acquisition models developed by McLaughlin (1987, 1990) and Anderson (1983, 1985) are first and foremost about the learning of skills in general, they do refer to language learning as well because it involves processes similar to those of other skills, namely, processes that lead to complex behaviour as a result of the mastery of simple processes. McLaughlin (1987), for example, explains that it is appropriate to view L2 learning in this light because it involves the acquisition of a cognitive skill: Learning is a cognitive process, because it is thought to involve internal representations that regulate and guide performance. . .. As performance improves, there is constant restructuring as learners simplify, unify and gain increasing control over their internal representations. These two notions – automatization and restructuring – are central to cognitive theory (pp. 133–134) Moreover, the theory states that information may be processed in either a controlled (drawing on explicit knowledge) or automatic (drawing on implicit knowledge) manner and that learning involves a shift from controlled toward automatic processing. It explains that intentional learning can play a role in the controlled phase and, through ‘practice’ or ‘repeated activation,’ become automatized over time. In other words, it accommodates the view that explicit learning and explicit knowledge from instruction and CF (including written CF) can be converted to implicit knowledge considered necessary for acquisition. It is Anderson’s ACT (Adaptive Control of Thought) model that specifically refers to the role of explicit knowledge (including that which can be gained from explicit written CF) and implicit knowledge in learning. Anderson refers to explicit knowledge as declarative knowledge and to implicit knowledge as procedural knowledge and claims that declarative knowledge can be converted to procedural knowledge through practice which leads to automatization. Central to skill acquisition theory is the accumulation of explicit knowledge at its various smaller stages and the speed with which it can be applied. The effects gained from giving learners opportunities to practice applying their developing linguistic knowledge have been commented on by theorists and researchers like DeKeyser and N. Ellis. DeKeyser (1997), for example, explains how explicit, declarative knowledge of the L2 grammar rules can be gradually automatized through prolonged systematic practice. Ellis (2011) argues that retrieving and using explicit knowledge may facilitate L2 development even if it does not have a direct effect. As the next section explains, the tenets of this theory are supported by the specific internalization and consolidation stages of the L2 learning processes identified by interaction theories.
J. Bitchener / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 348–363
351
Interaction theories Of all the theories that have something to say about a role for CF in L2 learning and acquisition, the interactionist perspective has arguably the most to offer. Interactionists explain first the role of input, output, and feedback in L2 learning. Input can be in the form of positive evidence (about what is acceptable in the L2) and negative evidence (about what is not acceptable in the L2). Unlike Krashen, they claim that exposure to L2 input alone is not sufficient for language learning/development and that learners need to be ‘pushed’ to produce modified output in oral interactions (Long, 1996; Swain, 1985, 1995). In this regard, they argue that CF has an important role to play. For example, they explain how explicit instruction on linguistic form, including CF, have been found to be effective in content-based and immersion instructional contexts where levels of grammatical accuracy are often considerably lower than levels of L2 fluency (Swain, 1985; Swain & Lapkin, 1998). They add, however, that if linguistic form is to become incorporated into a learner’s developing L2 system as L2 ‘intake,’ learners need to pay ‘attention’ to form when receiving input, including CF, and most crucially when producing output (Schmidt, 1990, 1994; Sharwood Smith, 1981, 1993; Swain, 1985, 1995). Schmidt distinguishes between different types of ‘attention’ when explaining the conditions upon which CF can be used for learning: ‘noticing’ refers to the process of registering that there is a mismatch or gap between a learner’s interlanguage output and the target L2 input, including CF, whereas ‘understanding’ and ‘awareness’ refer to explicit knowledge (e.g. understanding and awareness of a particular rule). He claims that if a learner ‘attends’, the potential exists for CF to be converted to intake and that the internalization process enables this to be stored in the learner’s long-term memory for retrieval over time. He adds that the amount of attention a learner pays to feedback may determine the extent to which it becomes intake and that the extent to which this occurs may be determined by a range of mediating factors, including individual cognitive (e.g. the learner’s working memory, developmental or proficiency level), motivational, and affective factors. Not only may they influence whether or not there is ‘uptake’ from the CF, they may also determine the extent to which consolidation occurs. (See Kormos and Williams, in this special issue, for further discussion.) To what extent, then, are these processes and conditions relevant to L2 learning in the written context? First, learners can receive input from what they read as positive evidence and from what they read as negative evidence (including CF) on their written output. Opportunities to produce written output can be given in the form of text revisions (i.e. opportunities to correct a text) and/or the writing of new texts (i.e. opportunities to retrieve linguistic knowledge for use in new written contexts). Whereas CF in the oral context is most often provided as implicit feedback through negotiations and recasts (except, of course, in classrooms, where it may also be explicit), feedback in the written context is always explicit (even when provided as indirect feedback, e.g. underlining or circling errors). Second, attention is also necessary in the written context if learners are to uptake the feedback. While it is possible for learners in oral contexts to not notice the feedback they are given because of time constraints during on-line interactions, it is less likely that they will not notice written CF because it is always explicit and because there is time for them to give it more attention. This time factor would seem to be critical for deeper processing (see Ortega, this volume). Third, individual difference factors would seem to have the potential to have similar facilitative and inhibitive effects on the learning processes in the written context to those identified in the oral context, though individual cognitive factors rather than individual affective factors may impact more on working memory in oral contexts, and therefore mediate noticing and response. On balance, it would seem, then, that the processes and conditions for language learning that can result from written CF are similar to those predicted to result from oral interaction. It may even be the case that the language learning potential of written CF is greater than that of oral CF given the advantage of time that learners have when engaging with written CF and producing a text revision and/or new texts. (See Williams and Ortega, this special issue, for further discussion.) Socio-cultural theory Socio-cultural theory (SCT) provides a different perspective on the role of interaction in L2 learning and is noteworthy for the kind of insights it offers about the learning process, including how learners respond to and use (or fail to respond to and use) the CF they are given. Based on the work of Vygotsky, it assumes that all cognitive development (including language development) occurs as a result of social interactions between individuals. For
352
J. Bitchener / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 348–363
language learners, this is believed to occur especially when they have opportunities to collaborate and interact with L2 speakers who are more knowledgeable than they are (e.g. teachers and more advanced learners). Lantolf and others (Lantolf & Thorne, 2007; Swain, Brooks, & Tocalli-Beller, 2002) have suggested that L2 learners can achieve higher levels of linguistic knowledge when they receive appropriate ‘scaffolding’ (including CF) and that the assistance of this ‘other regulation’ can eventually enable learners to be ‘self regulated’ (i.e. able to use the L2 independently and autonomously). In particular, it is believed to be most effective in the learner’s ‘zone of proximal development’ (ZPD) – the point at which learning is possible. (See Wigglesworth & Storch, this issue, for a wider discussion of the role of collaborative writing activities in the language learning process.) Two studies, situated in the written context, illustrate the potential role that CF can play in this socially mediated learning process. Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994) used a ‘regulatory scale’ to show how a tutor’s interventions involved more implicit CF than explicit CF as learners became more independent and self-regulated. They argued that this reduced need for other-regulation constitutes evidence of language development within the learner’s ZPD. The second study (Nassaji & Swain, 2000), also using the regulatory scale, investigated the claim that effective scaffolding is contingent on the state of the learner’s ZPD. One Korean ESL learner was given randomly selected feedback and another was given negotiated ZPD-related feedback. The first condition did not help the learner move towards self-regulation but the second condition did. Although these studies did not provide causal explanations in the same way that experimental and quasi-experimental studies have done, they, and others discussed in section four below, provide insights into the way learners may respond or not respond to CF or certain types of feedback. (See Wigglesworth & Storch, this issue, for a review of other studies of socially-mediated learning within the written context.) Another concept of SCT – Activity Theory – is important for understanding why CF may or may not be responded to in writing activities. Developed by Vygotsky’s colleague, Leontiev, it identifies three levels in an activity – the motives (beliefs and attitudes) which elicit the activity; the actions brought about by goals to achieve the action; the conditions or operations under which the activity is carried out – and explains how each of these may account for why some learners engage with CF while others fail to do so when doing a writing task or the way in which a written activity is performed or not performed. Considering, for example, the mediating role of particular learner goals in performing a written task, some may focus on accuracy and be keen to learn from the CF they are given while others may focus on fluency and the quality of their content and be less inclined to attend to and respond to CF. Thus, SCT, while predictive of the role that mediation can play in the learning process of any L2 learner, offers an approach that might be especially helpful for learners who need more scaffolding. Research on the language learning potential of written CF This section examines the SLA-oriented written CF research to see what it confirms about the theoretical predictions outlined in section two and what new insights it reveals about the contribution of written CF to L2 development. Before any of the SLA theories were published, teachers and researchers were interested in finding out what types of feedback and methods of delivery would be more likely to help their learners acquire the target language (Hendricksen, 1978, 1980). For the most part, this focus has continued to characterise the written CF research in more recent years despite the publication of a range of theoretical claims. To a large extent, this focus has been in response to Truscott’s (1996) claim that written CF is ineffective and harmful and should therefore be abandoned (see Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Ferris, 1999; Truscott, 1996, 1999, 2007). Nevertheless, many of the studies, in their design and discussion, have drawn upon theoretical constructs and explanations and, as a result, have confirmed the predictions of theory to some extent even though they were not necessarily set up to test their validity as such. Against this background, I examine the following key questions that studies have investigated in order to highlight what the research reveals about the language learning potential of written CF:
Can written CF facilitate improved accuracy? Are certain types of written CF more effective than others? Can written CF facilitate improved accuracy for only certain linguistic forms and structures? Is focused CF more effective than unfocused CF? How effective is a single written CF treatment?
J. Bitchener / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 348–363
353
Can written CF facilitate improved accuracy? Much of the early research on the role of written CF in language learning was focused on whether written CF can help learners develop effective revision and self-editing skills. As Manchon (2011, 2012) explains, the focus of this body of research was accuracy more than acquisition. Studies by Ashwell (2000), Fathman and Whalley (1990), Ferris (1997), and Ferris and Roberts (2001) found that L2 writers, using the CF they had received, were able to improve the accuracy of a particular written text but, as Polio, Fleck, and Leder (1998), and Truscott and Hsu (2008) explain, the revision of a text is not necessarily evidence of learning. Evidence of learning can only be seen when accuracy in one or more new texts is compared with inaccuracy in an earlier text. The first group of studies (see Table 1) that investigated the potential of written CF to facilitate L2 learning and acquisition did not find significant improvements in accuracy. To some extent, the reported differences may have been the result of (1) flaws in the design, execution, and analyses of data or (2) different design variables (see reviews of these issues by Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Guenette, 2007; Van Beuningan, de Jong, & Kuiken, 2008). Whatever the reasons, the call continued to be made for more rigorous designs. Responding to this call, Chandler’s (2003) study reported that written CF could improve accuracy over time but, as Truscott (2004) explained, the control group in that study was not in fact a control group because learners did receive CF. It was just that they were not required to revise their writing. Thus, the study was a comparison of error correction with revision and error correction without revision. Consequently, more recent research sought to overcome these issues. Most of the studies over the last five years have focused on only one or two error categories (Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener & Knoch, 2008, 2010a, 2010b; Ellis, Sheen, Murakami, & Takashima, 2008; Sheen, 2007; Sheen, Wright, & Moldawa, 2009) but two studies by Van Beuningan, de Jong, and Kuiken (2008, 2012) have investigated unfocused or comprehensive written CF on a wide range of errors. Table 2 provides an overview of these studies. In each of these studies, improved accuracy in the immediate and delayed post tests provided clear evidence of uptake, thereby demonstrating that learners had engaged in the information-processing stages described by interactionists. They had attended to the CF; they had noticed and understood the feedback; they had understood the difference between their own erroneous output and the target-like version provided in the feedback; and they had been able to accurately use this knowledge in their writing of a new text immediately after having attended to the CF. Perhaps more importantly, the studies found that the learners had retained their levels of improvement over time – validating the potential for learners to retrieve the explicit knowledge gained from written CF and stored in their longterm memory. Of particular interest, in this regard, is the sustained performance over ten months by learners in the study by Bitchener and Knoch (2010a). This research, then, provides clear evidence of the potential of written CF to facilitate certain aspects of language learning and therefore these studies support theoretical accounts of similar information processing conditions in written performance to those explained by interactionists. As a result, they begin to challenge Truscott’s position on the ineffectiveness of CF for language learning. Claims about the extent to which these studies reveal a wider role for written CF in the learning and development of other L2 forms and structures cannot be made at this stage. More will be said about this below. Not only do these studies provide evidence that it is possible for learners to internalize and consolidate their explicit knowledge as a result of explicit information provided in written CF, they also address the Table 1 Early studies of the effectiveness of written CF on new texts. Studies
Treatment
Control
Effectiveness
Kepner (1991) Semke (1984)
1. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 1.
Content comments Content comments
No difference No difference
Marginal error totals?
No difference
Content comments and conferences?
No difference
Robb, Ross, and Shortreed (1986)
Sheppard (1992)
Direct error correction Direct error correction Direct error correction and content comments Indirect coded feedback Direct error correction Indirect coded feedback Indirect highlighting Direct error correction and conferences
354
J. Bitchener / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 348–363
Table 2 Studies of improved accuracy from focused and comprehensive CF. Studies
Sample
Proficiency
Treatments
Findings
1. Direct focused correction, written and oral meta linguistic input 2. Direct focused correction and written meta linguistic input 3. Direct error correction 4. Control 1. Direct focused correction, written and oral meta linguistic input 2. Direct focused correction and written meta linguistic input 3. Direct focused correction 4. Control 1. Direct focused correction, written and oral meta linguistic input 2. Direct focused correction and written meta linguistic input 3. Direct focused correction 4. Control 1. Written meta linguistic input 2. Indirect focused circling 3. Written and oral meta linguistic input 4. Control
All 3 focused written CF groups outperformed control group in immediate and 2 months delayed post test
Bitchener (2008)
75
Low intermediate
Bitchener and Knoch (2008)
144
Low intermediate
Bitchener and Knoch (2010a)
52
Low intermediate
Bitchener and Knoch (2010b)
63
Advanced
Sheen (2007)
91
Intermediate
Sheen et al. (2009)
80
Intermediate
Ellis et al. (2008)
49
Intermediate
Van Beuningan et al. (2008)
62
High school learners of Dutch
Van Beuningan et al. (2012)
268
High school learners of Dutch
1. Direct focused correction 2. Direct focused correction and written meta linguistic input 3. Control 1. Direct focused correction 2. Unfocused correction 3. Writing practice 4. Control 1. Direct focused correction 2. Direct unfocused feedback 3. Control
1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4.
Direct comprehensive CF Indirect comprehensive CF Writing practice only Self correction only Direct comprehensive CF Indirect comprehensive CF Writing practice only Self correction only
All 3 focused written CF groups outperformed control group in immediate and 2 months delayed post test
All 3 focused written CF groups outperformed control group in immediate and 3 delayed post test over 10 months
All 3 treatment groups outperformed control group in immediate post test. Both direct focused treatment groups outperformed indirect and control groups in 10 week delayed post test Both treatment groups outperformed control group on immediate and delayed post test Groups 1–3 outperformed control group in immediate and delayed tests. Group 1 made greater gains than group 2 All 3 groups performed with greater accuracy in immediate post test. Focused and unfocused groups outperformed control group in 10 week delayed post test Short-term accuracy improvement for groups 1 and 2 but long-term improvement for only group 1. No improvement for groups 3 and 4. Groups 1 and 2 outperformed groups 3 and 4 in revision and next text writing over 4 weeks
question of whether more explicit types of written CF are more facilitative of learning and acquisition than less explicit types. Are certain types of written CF more effective than others? Determining whether certain types of CF are more helpful in facilitating L2 development and whether their degree of explicitness is a critical factor in this process are issues of both theoretical and pedagogical interest. Theoretically, they are important questions because if the more explicit types of CF are more beneficial than less explicit types, theoretical accounts that explain and predict how learners acquire the L2 need to include these differences as
J. Bitchener / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 348–363
355
conditions of L2 learning. Pedagogically, they are also important because teachers want to focus their attention on what is going to help their students the most. At the centre of this research has been the dichotomy between direct and indirect CF but, in more recent years, attention has also been directed at comparing the relative effectiveness of other types of CF, like meta linguistic feedback. Direct CF provides learners with a correct version of the erroneous use of form/structure whereas indirect CF indicates where an error has occurred, leaving the learner to work out what the correction should be, and meta linguistic feedback explains and/or exemplifies accurate target-like uses of linguistic forms/structures. A range of arguments in support of direct and indirect CF have been offered over the years and a good number of studies have attempted to investigate the claims. Those supporting indirect CF suggest that this approach is most useful because it invites learners to engage in guided learning and problem-solving. As a result, it promotes the type of reflection on existing knowledge or partially internalized knowledge and is more likely to foster deeper processing during the consolidation phase of the learning process. Learners at an advanced level of proficiency may be able to draw upon a more developed linguistic repertoire and use this in determining what correction is appropriate, but for learners at a lower level of proficiency, this might not work as they may not have such an extensive or deeply processed linguistic knowledge base to draw upon. Those more in favour of direct CF suggest that it may be more helpful to learners because (1) it reduces any confusion they may experience if they are unable to understand what it is saying, (2) it provides them with information to resolve more complex errors (such as syntactic structure and idiomatic usage), (3) it offers more explicit feedback on hypotheses that are tested by learners, and (4) it is more immediate. For these reasons, lower proficiency learners may find direct CF more beneficial than indirect CF. Higher proficiency learners may find both types helpful depending on how partially acquired the linguistic form/structure is. Comparing the relative effect of indirect and direct CF, Lalande’s (1982) study of 60 intermediate German FL learners noticed an advantage for indirect feedback over direct feedback but acknowledged that the difference was not statistically significant. Robb et al.’s (1986) study of 134 EFL learners in Japan reported no advantage for any of their direct and indirect options. Similarly, in Semke’s (1984) study of 141 German FL learners, no difference between the two approaches was found. Guenette (2007) explains that because the groups were treated differently, the results need to be treated with caution. (For a discussion of other design differences and possible shortcomings that may have impacted on the findings, see Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Guenette, 2007.) On the other hand, three recent studies by Van Beuningan et al. (2008, 2012) and Bitchener and Knoch (2010b), with secondary school learners in Dutch multilingual classrooms and advanced ESL learners in the USA respectively, sought to avoid the design and execution issues identified by Guenette (2007). These three studies reported that, even though there were positive short-term effects for both direct and indirect feedback, direct error correction had a more significant long-term effect than indirect CF. Although one might be inclined to conclude that the more robust and compelling evidence from the three recent studies is sufficient for claims to be made in favour of direct CF, it would be premature to take this position. On the one hand, comparisons between the two types of CF need to be tested when study designs include other potentially mediating variables. For instance, we do not know whether direct CF is potentially more helpful for low proficiency learners. Even though the arguments referred to at the beginning of this sub-section might lead one to this conclusion, the evidence from the Bitchener and Van Beuningen et al. studies contradict this view because they were conducted with advanced L2 learners. Equally, we do not know if certain types of linguistic error are more responsive to direct CF than to indirect CF and if these factors might be further dependent on proficiency level. Thus, further research that examines the interacting effects of these CF types with other variables is necessary. A second area of research interest on CF types – the relative effectiveness of written and oral meta linguistic explanation with or without examples – has emerged in recent years. Providing learners with meta linguistic information such as rules, explanations, and examples of correct usage is a more explicit type of CF than direct error correction and providing learners with meta-linguistic information as well as direct error correction is an even more explicit type of CF than direct error correction alone or meta-linguistic explanation alone. Thus, one might expect these more explicit types to be even more facilitative of learning. Other factors that might further determine the depth of learning include (1) the manner in which the meta linguistic information is provided (written format only or oral discussion only or a combination of written and oral delivery) and (2) whether it is given to individual learners or groups/class of learners. Only some of these issues have been investigated in the research so far. Two studies by Bitchener and Knoch (2008, 2010a) with intermediate learners found no difference between the direct error correction group and those who received (1) written meta linguistic information and (2) written and oral
356
J. Bitchener / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 348–363
meta linguistic information on two frequent uses of the English article system (the use of the indefinite article for first mention and the definite article for subsequent mentions). On the other hand, Bitchener, Young, and Cameron (2005) found with advanced learners that the inclusion of oral meta linguistic explanation with direct error correction was more effective than direct error correction alone. Sheen (2007) also found (but with intermediate learners) that those who received written meta linguistic information as well as direct error correction performed significantly better than those who received only direct error correction. Thus, two studies report no difference in effect for the inclusion of meta linguistic information and two studies find meta linguistic information is more effective. Although one might expect meta linguistic information with direct error correction to be more effective than direct error correction alone (because of its greater explicitness), other more potentially critical factors – like the nature and amount of meta linguistic information that is provided – may have a more determining effect. Future research should therefore investigate this possibility. In doing so, it should look at the potential for other variables (e.g. proficiency level – see Ortega, this special issue – and linguistic focus of the feedback) within single study designs to mediate the effects. It would seem, then, that the more relevant and pedagogically useful research questions on the effectiveness of different types of written CF will be those that focus on interactional designs rather than those that hope to find out whether a certain type of CF alone is more effective than another type. A focus on main effects alone is unlikely to provide consistent findings as the results from studies have already shown. Can written CF facilitate improved accuracy for only certain linguistic forms and structures? Theoretical predictions on this question have been limited. First, Pienemann (1989) argues that learners will only be able to acquire target linguistic forms/structures for which they show developmental readiness. This suggests that CF needs to be aligned to the learner’s current level of L2 development or, as socio-cultural theorists explain, be within their ‘zone of proximal development’ (ZPD). In terms of knowing whether or not a learner is ‘ready,’ the research literature on developmental sequences for the learning of English is relatively limited and has only been argued with respect to oral competence. Therefore, it is not known whether the same conditions apply to the written context and whether explicit CF can vary the acquisition route. Nevertheless, syllabi and course-books used by language teachers, because they typically focus on features of linguistic form/structure that have proven over time to be learnable at certain specific proficiency levels, can provide some guidance. Thus, it may be possible to align developmental readiness and CF. However, if they are not aligned, it is easy to see why CF may fail to be effective. Secondly, as Truscott (1996) argues, syntactic errors may be difficult to treat because they constitute integral parts of a more complex system in which knowledge of one constituent part is related to knowledge about other constituent parts that learners may or may not have acquired or may not even be aware of. Similarly, he argues that morphological errors may also be resistant to CF because their acquisition depends on an understanding of both form and meaning. Thus, it may be that some types of linguistic error are resistant to written CF and require other types of instructional intervention. Testing the extent to which written CF can effectively target different types of error is in the very early stages of investigation. So far, studies by Bitchener (2008), Bitchener and Knoch (2008, 2010a, 2010b), Bitchener et al. (2005), Ellis et al. (2008), Sheen (2007) and Sheen et al. (2009) have focused on whether written CF can effectively target one or two linguistic error categories. Bitchener et al. (2005) found that written CF given to advanced learners on the use of the English article system and the simple past tense was effective for uptake and retention over a 12 week period but that it was not effective in targeting prepositions. Because the study did not consider the extent to which written CF was effective in targeting different functional uses of the definite and indefinite articles, a number of follow-up studies were designed by Bitchener (2008) and Bitchener and Knoch (2008, 2010a, 2010b), Sheen (2007) and Sheen et al. (2009). In each of these studies, significant gains were found in both the immediate post-tests and delayed post-tests for the treatment groups while no gains were found for the control groups. A number of reasons may explain these findings. It may be that the rule-based nature of discrete items such as these meant that learners were able to process the CF without difficulty. It may also be that the learners already had a good understanding of the rules for their usage and only needed the CF to raise their consciousness. Another possibility is that the selective and intensive nature of the treatment focused their attention on these functional uses in a way that may not have occurred if more than one error category had been targeted or fewer instances of the error had been made. Fourthly, it may be that the learners’ focus was more on content than accuracy when they were doing their first piece of writing (the pre test). Irrespective of the reason or reasons, improved accuracy, as a result
J. Bitchener / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 348–363
357
of written CF, was evident over time for helping learners increase their mastery and control of both article and simple past tense usage. On the other hand, a few additional studies have investigated the effectiveness of written CF for other linguistic error categories and found it was not beneficial. Bitchener et al. (2005), Ferris (2006), Frantzen (1995), and Lalande (1982) reported that CF did not help learners improve the accuracy with which they used lexical items and prepositions. The reason lexical items have not proven to be so amenable to CF may be more a result of fewer uses of a particular word and therefore fewer occasions for learners to attend to and notice what is acceptable in the L2. With regard to prepositions, the reason may be that their use is more idiosyncratically-determined than rule-governed. It may be that forms/structures of this type need to be targeted according to their particular functional uses as researchers have done with two key uses of the English article system. It may also be that item learning processes are different to those for rule-governed forms and structures. Further research on these areas is therefore required. Considering this very limited amount of research on linguistic error categories, it is too early to speculate what the potential might be for learning other linguistic forms and structures from written CF. Without evidence about which categories are responsive to CF, pedagogical advice can only be given in the form of ‘maybes.’ It may be that discrete rule-based items can be more effectively targeted with written CF than complex error categories can be but, until we empirically test these different categories, we can only talk about theoretical possibilities. In carrying out further research, attention should also be given to studies that investigate the interactional effect of error categories and other variables like those discussed in the previous sub-sections (for example, type of CF and proficiency level of learners). Is focused CF more effective than unfocused CF? While the studies reported above have all targeted one or a few error categories at a time, there are other studies that have investigated whether learning can result from CF if it is less focused and more comprehensive. For language learners at lower proficiency levels, one might expect the focused approach to be more effective because it directs the learner’s attention to only one or a few categories at any one time. Theoretically, this has been explained in the limited processing capacity model of L2 acquisition (Robinson, 1995, 2003; Schmidt, 2001; Van Patten, 1996, 2004). For more advanced language learners, it would seem that a comprehensive approach might also be effective if they are able to attend to a range of linguistic foci. Five studies have investigated the learning potential of the comprehensive approach. Truscott and Hsu (2008) and Van Beuningan et al. (2008, 2012) compared the performance of advanced learners who received comprehensive CF with those who did not receive CF. Truscott and Hsu (2008) found that their ESL learners were able to improve the accuracy of a text revision but that it did not carry over to improved accuracy in the writing of a new text. Van Beuningan et al. (2008, 2012) found that the comprehensive error correction given to school-aged L2 learners of Dutch led to improved accuracy in both the revised version of a text and in the writing of a new text. Studies by Ellis et al. (2008) and Sheen et al. (2009) also compared the effectiveness of a focused and unfocused (comprehensive) approach. Ellis et al. (2008) reported improved accuracy for both the focused and unfocused groups but, as the authors themselves point out, there were some methodological shortcomings with the design of the study (and these have been further commented on by Xu, 2009). Because learners in the focused group received more CF on the targeted English articles than the other group, the conclusion that both types of CF are equally effective needs to be considered with caution. On the other hand, Sheen et al. (2009) reported that focused CF was more beneficial than comprehensive feedback, but again, as these authors explain, the feedback given to the comprehensive group was unsystematic with some errors being corrected while others were not corrected. Considering these findings as a group, it is clear that the jury is still out on whether focused or unfocused CF is more effective. Further research should continue exploring this issue, and in doing so, it should also investigate the extent to which an advantage for one approach might be mediated by its interaction with other variables like those referred to above. How effective is a single written CF treatment? All of the studies discussed so far have reported the extent to which learners have benefited from a single written CF treatment. This raises the question about whether learners who did not improve might have benefited if the type of feedback they had received was to have been provided on further occasions and/or if a different type of feedback (e.g. a more scaffolded type) had been provided. As I explained earlier, the potential effects of a scaffolded approach in which
358
J. Bitchener / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 348–363
different types and instances of CF are provided were tested by Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994) and Nassaji and Swain (2000) using a regulatory scale (a continuum from explicit to implicit CF) to illustrate how a number of teacher interventions were able to help learners become more independent in their use of target-like forms/structures. The potential for different types of CF (from direct to indirect, for example) to be used effectively and therefore on more than one occasion, indicates the potential of this approach for learners who fail to uptake from written CF on only one occasion. Scaffolded feedback like this does not only have to be delivered orally: it can also be provided in written format (including on-line delivery) as teachers engage in an on-going dialogue with their learners. Mediating individual and contextual factors on learner engagement with written CF Compared with the amount of research on the impact of individual learner differences on other aspects of L2 acquisition, few studies have investigated their impact on L2 writing and on learners’ response to written CF. In this special issue, Kormos (2012) considers individual difference factors that might explain variations in L2 writing practices as well as whether and how L2 learners ‘exploit the language learning potential of writing tasks,’ including, for example, their engagement with CF: aptitude; motivational factors like language learning goals, self-efficacy beliefs, self-regulatory capacities; attitudes; affective and personality factors. Studies that have specifically considered the extent to which some of these factors may mediate the engagement of learners with written CF are discussed in the next two sub sections. Individual factors The extent to which individual factors might influence whether or not learners engage with the CF they are given and the extent to which engagement results in learning (as determined by uptake, internalization, and consolidation) is an area of investigation that has been largely overlooked by researchers operating within the cognitive tradition where findings have focused on group performance more than individual performance. Sheen (2007, 2011), an exception, has reported on research that investigated the potential influence of three individual factors on uptake and retention from both oral and written CF: analytic ability, anxiety, and learners’ attitudes. In her 2007 study, she found that (1) learners with high analytic ability benefited more from direct CF with and without meta linguistic CF than learners with lower levels of meta linguistic ability and (2) high aptitude learners were even more advantaged when meta linguistic feedback is also provided. In her 2011 work, she reports that learners’ attitudes as well as their analytic ability had a mediating effect on both oral and written CF but that anxiety only had an effect on oral CF. By comparison, more attention has been given in the socioculturally oriented studies to the potential influence of individual factors in learners’ uptake, internalization, and consolidation. Storch and Wigglesworth (2010), for example, investigated the potential of several affective factors (beliefs, goals, and attitudes) to mediate these processes. They reported that advanced learners who felt the type of feedback they received contradicted their beliefs (shaped by previous language learning experiences) tended to not respond to it. However, they pointed out that this finding may not necessarily be found with lower proficiency learners if their beliefs are less firmly held. Similarly, Swain (2006) and Swain and Lapkin (2002) found that resistance to feedback resulted in no uptake if learners felt it was (1) violating their individual beliefs about language conventions or (2) altering their intended meaning (for example, through the use of reformulations). Secondly, Storch and Wigglesworth (2010) found that the goals of individual learners can influence engagement and uptake. They noted that learners who had a desire to improve the accuracy of their writing achieved high levels of uptake. Similarly, Hyland (1998, 2000, 2003) reported that learners tended to respond more positively to feedback if they considered grammatical accuracy to be important in their writing but that resistance occurred if they felt the teacher was trying to control the feedback process too much or was not taking their individual goals into account. Thirdly, learners’ attitudes towards the type of feedback they are given were also seen by Storch and Wigglesworth (2010) to be a factor that might determine whether or not they engage with CF. They noted that a negative attitude towards receiving a particular type of CF – in their case, reformulations – could mean that feedback is not attended to. Reflecting on what we can learn from these few findings on affective factors, it may be too early to make any firm conclusions about the extent to which they can mediate learner engagement with CF. Most of the studies have been qualitative case studies and as such do not reveal the extent to which the identified factors might impact on the performance of a wider population of learners. Nevertheless, they certainly point to behaviour that makes intuitive
J. Bitchener / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 348–363
359
sense. If learners are unwilling to attend to and engage with the feedback they are given, it would seem self evident that uptake will not occur and that learning will not occur. Even if uptake does result from engagement with the feedback received, individual factors, as Storch and Wigglesworth (2010) found, may mediate whether or not they consolidate their knowledge for on going retrieval. Thus, the potential effect of individual factors on engagement with CF has been identified but we need more longitudinal and quantitative studies that explore the extent to which they can be generalized for L2 learning and acquisition. We also need studies that will further explore the relationship that Storch and Wigglesworth (2010) found between individual factors, type of feedback (i.e. different types of CF) and focus of feedback (i.e. type of linguistic error) and depth of processing of feedback. Contextual factors An examination of the potential influence of contextual factors on engagement with written CF has not been prominent in the literature. Some consideration has been given to macro contexts, like foreign language and second language contexts, but little attention has been given to micro contexts where factors specifically related to learning activity (e.g. types of writing task) might impact upon engagement with CF. Speculating on the influence that foreign and second language learning contexts might have, Hedgcock and Lefkowitz (1994) suggested that a distinction can be made between second and foreign language learners/writers because of differences in the purposes for which they are learning and in the pedagogical contexts in which they have acquired their first and second language literacy. They suggest that foreign language learners might be less motivated than second language learners to attend to written CF because they are studying to acquire a qualification rather than studying to improve the accuracy and clarity of their English so that they can become active members of an English-speaking community. Referring to macro contexts, they add that the educational background of learners may determine their response to CF. For example, if learners have received summative feedback they may not be highly motivated to attend to written CF. Exposure to formal explicit knowledge of the target language has also been proposed as a factor that might determine a learner’s engagement with written CF (Ferris, 1999; Reid, 1998; Roberts, 1999). One study (Bitchener & Knoch, 2008) attempted to investigate the extent to which these factors might impact on learners’ responses to written CF. Bitchener and Knoch found that international students (most likely to have studied English as foreign language) were no more able than migrant students (defined as those who might be more likely to have ‘picked up’ the language rather than to have learned it formally in language learning classrooms) to engage with CF and improve the accuracy of their writing immediately after having received it. Reasons for this outcome are identified and discussed in Bitchener and Ferris (2012). At a more micro-contextual level, the effect of factors involving social relationships may be seen to have an effect on learner engagement. Given and Schallert (2008), in their case study, reported that the teacher–learner relationship can play a critical role in whether or not learners take up the CF they are given. They found that one student who had built a trusting relationship with his teacher faithfully used her written feedback in revision whereas the other student who had difficulty trusting her did not respond to her feedback positively, and, as a result, did not improve as much. However, the extent to which a trusting relationship with a teacher can impact upon learning from CF would need to be tested across a larger population of learners. In an earlier study, by Coughlan and Duff (1994), contextual factors were seen to interact with individual factors and influence how learners perform tasks in particular ways. Although the study did not look at the effect of task activity on learners’ engagement with CF, it did find that they performed tasks (and even the same task) in different ways on different occasions and they concluded that a range of individual and contextual factors could explain this observation: for example, time of day, physical setting, or emotional state of being. Even though these factors were identified as influential in oral activities, there is every reason to believe that they may also impact upon learner engagement with written tasks and consequently mediate the effectiveness of written CF. Further research into microcontextual factors may well find that the effect of these on learner uptake and retention are closely intertwined with individual factors. Conclusions and future research The aim of this reflection on the language learning potential of written CF was to consider (1) what various SLA theories predict about the role that written CF might play in L2 learning and acquisition and (2) what the research, in
360
J. Bitchener / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 348–363
turn, reveals about the role of written CF in L2 learning and acquisition. Even though various theoretical predictions indicate a role for CF in L2 learning and acquisition, I have argued that it should not be expected that all learners will necessarily attend to and engage with CF. A range of mediating individual and contextual factors have been identified by both cognitivists and socio-culturalists for the role they can play in facilitating or inhibiting engagement with written tasks and consequently with attention to written CF. However, the validity of such predictions can only be tested with empirical investigations. With respect to the available empirical evidence, the key question to have been investigated in the written CF studies has been the potential of written CF to facilitate L2 learning and acquisition. Often this question has been addressed in terms of ‘does it work?’ or ‘is it possible for written CF to play a role in L2 development?’ Recent studies in particular have shown that written CF does indeed have the potential to bring about learning – at least under certain conditions at least. Given the limited research so far and the sometimes conflicting findings on particular questions, it is too early to claim under what range of conditions it is effective. To an extent, these studies also corroborate theoretical predictions about the stages and conditions of L2 learning. Significantly improved accuracy on writing tasks completed immediately after written CF has been provided and attended to through text revisions and/or reading and thinking about what the CF is saying provides evidence of the prediction that learners must attend to the written CF by noticing and understanding it in order to uptake and internalize the knowledge it provides. Socio-cultural studies further reveal that uptake and internalization will not occur if mediating factors prevent learners from attending to or responding to CF. Further research that is framed by specific theoretical predictions is called for. (See Polio, 2012, this special issue for further discussion of the recommendation.) The second most frequently investigated question has been the degree of explicitness required for L2 learning and acquisition. Arguments supporting different types of written CF were presented earlier but the research has not been able to produce clear, consistent findings. Intuitively one might expect meta linguistic information to be the most effective type of CF because, if it provides explicit rules, explanations, and examples, learners might be able to increase their understanding and process more deeply the knowledge they have been provided with. However, this may be dependent upon (1) the nature of the information provided, (2) the frequency with which they receive it, (3) the proficiency level of the learner, (4) the ability of the learner to relate it to other linguistic knowledge that s/he may also be processing and consolidating, and (5) the complexity of the linguistic focus. Also, as I suggested earlier, looking for a ‘one-size-fits-all’ prescription, for example, when examining main effects in isolation, may not be the best route to take. Research on the effectiveness of written CF for developing learners’ accuracy in using targeted (focused/selective) and non-targeted (unfocused/comprehensive) L2 forms and structures has been very limited. Further research is required to examine a range of rule-based and item-based categories, especially those that are less discrete and more dependent on a learner’s knowledge of other linguistic features of a particular linguistic environment. Studies on the relative effects of focused and unfocused written CF have yet to produce consistent findings on whether there is an advantage for focused or unfocused feedback. Most of the cognitively-oriented studies have investigated the effect of a single written CF treatment, raising questions about the value of such an approach for learners who fail to benefit from this option. There is clear evidence that a ‘single-shot’ approach is sufficient for many learners who have partially-acquired a particular linguistic form/ structure but, when one considers the number of learners in studies who fail to uptake from the written CF, it is clear that more CF or different CF may be required. As socio-cultural mediation studies show, some learners can benefit from a more scaffolded approach. Further cognitively-oriented research should therefore investigate whether additional CF interventions can help learners uptake explicit CF and further socio culturally-oriented studies should investigate the potential of the mediated approach with larger sample sizes. To sum up, while the available research confirms the language learning potential of written CF for L2 learning and development, it is not clear how extensive its role might be. From the theoretical predictions and the available empirical evidence, we have a good understanding of the many stages that learners need to traverse during the learning process and of some of the conditions that determine whether or not they engage with, respond to, and consolidate their internalized knowledge. On the other hand, questions remain about (1) the extent to which written CF can play a role in the development of different L2 forms/structures, (2) the extent to which learners draw on their explicit knowledge (such as that offered in written CF) or their implicit (acquired) knowledge when writing a text, and (3) how the use of explicit knowledge in writing tasks can best be developed/consolidated through ‘practice.’ From the empirical
J. Bitchener / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 348–363
361
research, it is clear that consistent evidence has yet to be found on most of the questions that have been investigated and that there is a clear need for studies that investigate the interactional effect of potentially mediating variables on CF uptake, internalization, and consolidation. To end on a positive note, we do know that written CF can play a role at least in terms of developing explicit knowledge of and improved accuracy in the use of some L2 forms/structures. More research and less debate might provide more answers to the questions that have been asked and, as a result, enlighten us about the extent to which written CF has potential for L2 learning and acquisition. References Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483. Anderson, J. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Anderson, J. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Freeman. Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227–258. Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102–118. Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409–431. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010a). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193–214. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010b). 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 effective of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191–205. Chandler, J. (2003). 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, 267–296. Coughlan, P., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of an SLA task from an activity theory perspective. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 173–194). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195–222. Ellis, N. C. (2011). Implicit and explicit SLA and their interface. In C. Sanz & R. Leow (Eds.), Implicit and explicit language learning (pp. 35–47). Washington, DC: Georgetown University press. Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 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. Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178–190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315–339. Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case of grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11. Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. J. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184. Frantzen, D. (1995). The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course. The Modern Language Journal, 79(3), 329–344. Given, L., & Schallert, D. (2008). Meeting in the margins: Effects of the teacher–student relationship on revision processes of EFL college students taking a composition course. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 165–182. Guenette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback in writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40–53. Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 141–163. Hendricksen, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387– 398. Hendricksen, J. M. (1980). The treatment of error in written work. Modern Language Journal, 64, 216–221. Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 255–286. Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching Research, 4, 33–54. Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31, 217–230.
362
J. Bitchener / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 348–363
Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75, 305–313. Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jslw.2012.09.003. Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman. Lalande, J.F.I.I.. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–149. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. (2007). Sociocultural theory. In B. Van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Manchon, R. (Ed.). (2011). Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Manchon, R. (Ed.). (2012). L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives. Boston: Walter de Gruyter, Inc. McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold. McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11, 113–128. Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). AVygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34–51http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667135. Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10, 52–79. Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 375–389. Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). ‘If only I had more time’: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 43–68. Reid, J. (1998). ‘‘Eye’’ learners and ‘‘ear’’ learners: Identifying the language needs of international students and U.S. resident writers. In P. Byrd & J. . Reid (Eds.), Grammar in the composition classroom: Essays on teaching ESL for college-bound students (pp. 3–17). Boston: Heinle & Heinle M. Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83–93. Roberts, B. (1999). Can error logs raise more than consciousness? The effects of error logs and grammar feedback on ESL students’ final drafts. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University, Sacramento. Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory and the ‘‘noticing’’ hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283–331. Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. Malden, Mass: Blackwell. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158. Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11–26. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Semke, H. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195–202. Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2, 159–169. Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical base. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165–179. Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283. Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. New York: Springer. Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556–569. Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103–110. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303–334. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in the study of language: Studies in honour of H. G Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). New York: Continuum. Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). Peer-peer dialogue as a means of second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171–185. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285–304. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369. Truscott, J. (1999). The case for ‘‘the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes’’: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111–122. Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337–343. 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.-P. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292–305.
J. Bitchener / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 348–363
363
Van Beuningan, C., de Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296. Van Beuningan, C., de Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in Dutch multilingual classroom. Language Learning, 62, 1–41. Van Patten, B. (1996). Input-processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Van Patten, B. (2004). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Xu, C. (2009). Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Ellis et al. (2008) and Bitchener (2008). Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 270–275. John Bitchener is Professor of Applied Linguistics at AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand. Author (with Ferris) of ‘Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing’ (Routledge, 2012) and author of ‘Writing an applied linguistics thesis or dissertation: A guide to presenting empirical research’ (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), his research interests include the role of written corrective feedback in L2 development, the influence of individual and contextual factors in L2 learning, the discourse of academic genres, and supervisor advice and feedback on L1 and L2 writers’ thesis & dissertation drafts.