Abstract
This paper describes an opportunity for theoretical linguists to make a particular sort of contribution to the teaching of second-language (L2) grammar. Currently, a popular procedure in L2 instruction for teaching grammar is indirect Written Corrective Feedback (WCF). In this procedure, instructors do not provide corrections but rather merely flag L2 students’ errors with proofreading symbols. These symbols are intended to guide learners to self-correct errors, and it is hoped that through this process, learners might make fewer errors in future writing with these points of grammar. Despite its widespread use, there is evidence that indirect WCF only leads to increased competence for a limited subset of grammatical patterns, exerting no significant positive effect with points of grammar not in this subset. A plausible explanation in such cases is that indirect WCF can fail to provide learners with sufficient feedback to acquire the grammatical paradigm. In such cases, direct WCF may be more helpful, but there is another option, which is to supplement indirect or direct WCF with metalinguistic explanation (ME) of targeted grammatical structures. However, the exact nature of this ME could be critical. As the view of language acquisition depicted under Skill Acquisition Theory (SAT) would predict, learners would specifically require ME that consists of accurate and concisely formulated declarative knowledge of the grammar point in a format that permits the pattern to be proceduralized and eventually automatized. Since formulating concise, accurate, and proceduralizable declarative knowledge for grammar points is a challenge in and of itself, theoretical linguists could pursue this objective and thus helpfully make a particular contribution to L2 grammar instruction. Addressing learner errors involving the articles in English is discussed as an example.
Highlights
Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) is today a common procedure for teaching writing, to include second-language (L2) writing instruction. Russell and Spada (2006: p. 134) define Corrective Feedback (CF) as “any feedback provided to a learner, from any source, that contains evidence of learner error of language form
This demonstrates that declarative knowledge provided via these diagnostics can successfully assist with accurate proceduralization in locating and self-correcting article errors even when these have not been flagged by any form of WCF
It seems clear that WCF, indirect or direct, is ineffective for treating some points of grammar in English
Summary
Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) is today a common procedure for teaching writing, to include second-language (L2) writing instruction. Russell and Spada (2006: p. 134) define Corrective Feedback (CF) as “any feedback provided to a learner, from any source, that contains evidence of learner error of language form. This paper argues that ME provided in the context of feedback on grammar could be helpful if the ME is formulated in conformity with the view of language acquisition described under Skill Acquisition Theory (SAT) This is because the ME would not be informative to learners, but would be designed to be of immediate practical utility to the learners in the process of grammar acquisition, assuming we regard this process as the acquisition of a skill or a set of skills. The basic rationale for writing this paper is to highlight the importance of providing feedback and grammatical explanations to learners that we may anticipate can successfully be used by the learners to assist in the acquisition of targeted grammatical patterns In this regard, the feedback provided must be accurate, sufficiently informative, and formatted so that it can be proceduralized (i.e., implemented in actual language practice).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
