Metalinguistic Explanation Research Articles

The Impact of Teacher’s Implicit versus Explicit Corrective Feedback on Learning L2 grammar by Iranian English learners

This study aimed to investigate the impact of oral corrective feedback on acquiring simple past tense and quantifiers by Persian EFL learners in spring 2012. In an experimental design (two experimental groups and a control group), 90 low-intermediate learners of second language English performed communicative tasks (spot different test) during which they received either recasts (implicit feedback) or metalinguistic explanation (explicit feedback) in response to any utterance that contained an error in the target structure. Acquisition was measured by means of a multiple choice test. The test was administered prior to the instruction, 1 day after the instruction, and again 2 weeks late. Statistical comparisons of the learners’ performance on the immediate and delayed posttest showed a clear advantage for explicit feedback over implicit feedback.

Learning Corrected Target Forms: Students’ Corrective Feedback through Teacher’s Written Corrective Feedback in Iranian EFL Context

As a result of Truscott's (1996) claim that written corrective feedback (WCF) should be abandoned because it is both ineffective and harmful, different opinions about the value of WCF have been voiced. The aim of this article was to investigate (1) the possible effect of WCF on accurate use of quantifiers over a 2-month period; (2) the possible differential effectiveness for three types of feedback. Seventy EFL students at junior high school in Iran formed a control group and three experimental groups (1) those who received direct WCF with written metalinguistic explanation; (2) direct corrective feedback only; (3) indirect WCF. The subject in experimental groups accomplished a collaborative task (correcting five weak examinees' papers) in pairs. Then on three occasions (pre-test, immediate post-test and delayed post-test) the participants were asked to complete seventeen grammar items and write sentences about the given picture. The study found that each of the WCF groups significantly outperformed the control group on immediate post-test and this level of accuracy was retained 2 month later. Furthermore, no meaningful difference in effectiveness was found between the three WCF groups.

Effects of Written Feedback and Revision on Learners’ Accuracy in Using Two English Grammatical Structures

The study compared the effects of two types of form‐focused written feedback—direct corrective feedback (DCF) and metalinguistic explanation (ME) given to the whole class—on Japanese university students’ accuracy of use of two grammatical structures: indefinite article and the hypothetical conditional. Both types of feedback were given with and without an opportunity to rewrite. Accuracy of use was measured in new pieces of writing. The feedback led to increased accuracy for the hypothetical conditional but not for the indefinite article. The effectiveness of the DCF proved longer lasting than the ME. Also, providing opportunity for revision enhanced the effect of the feedback. Overall, DCF followed by revision proved the most effective type of feedback. The results suggest that when form‐focused written feedback is directed at two features that vary in saliency and complexity, learners are likely to focus on the structure that contributes more to the global meaning of the text. The results also indicate that directly correcting the errors learners make with respect to a complex syntactical structure is more beneficial than giving them a metalinguistic explanation.

The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article

The study extends current work on written error feedback in writing in two ways. First, it examines whether it has an effect on adult ESL learners’ L2 implicit and explicit knowledge. Second, the study compares the effect of one common type of feedback – direct corrective feedback (DCF) – with an alternative type of error feedback – the provision of metalinguistic explanation (ME). The effect of these two types of error feedback was measured by an Error Correction Test (ECT) and by examining the accuracy of use of the target feature (the English indefinite article) in both a revised text and in new pieces of writing by 49 low-intermediate ESL students in an intensive language programme in the United States. In addition, eye-tracking data and self-reports elicited from the learners provided information about the use that they made of the DCF and ME. It was found that the DCF had no effect on accurate use of the target feature suggesting that it benefited neither implicit nor explicit knowledge. In contrast, the ME led to gains in accuracy in the ECT and in a new piece of writing completed immediately after the treatment but not in a second new text completed two weeks later. These results are interpreted as indicating that the ME helped to develop learners’ L2 explicit knowledge but that the effect was not durable and thus probably had no effect on their implicit knowledge. Learners’ self-reports indicate that the learners receiving the DCF did not develop awareness of the rule whereas those receiving the ME did and were able to use it when revising their original text. These findings are discussed from the perspective of both SLA theory and language pedagogy and suggestions for further research are put forward.

Online Peer Feedback in Beginners’ Writing Tasks

This study contributes to the body of research that aims to understandthe relationship between online communication and foreign language(FL) learning, in particular when teachers seek to provide authenticopportunities for interaction for their learners. The study wasmotivated by efforts made in the New Zealand context to overcome thegeographic limitations of interaction between FL learners and nativespeakers. We report on the findings of an exploratory study into anonline reciprocal peer tutoring program established to enhance the FLlearning of a group of beginner eleven-year old students of Spanish,with particular focus on the benefits of written corrective feedback. Theproject aimed to examine the processes by which students tutored eachother in the online environment as they responded to each other’s texts.The analysis of the students’ messages focused on (1) the aspects oflanguage corrected by the tutors, (2) the frequency with which tutorsaccurately identified and provided input on errors, (3) the types offeedback provided by the tutors, and (4) what the learners did with thecorrections and feedback. The findings indicate that the students werewilling to contribute to peer correction and used different strategiesand correction techniques to foster attention to linguistic form,although they were not always capable of providing accurate feedbackor metalinguistic explanations.

Effects of Different Kind of Direct Feedback on Students’ Writing

Error feedbacks can help students in their writings and one of these questions is that whether teachers should use or not use error correction and feedbacks in writing classes. This study analyzed the holistic use of verbs considered as errors in the writings of upper intermediate international students studying in University Teknologi Malaysia. This study is a quantitative research with experimental design. Three different treatment groups received three different kinds of direct feedback: Direct feedback with written meta-linguistic explanation, direct feedback with oral meta-linguistic explanation, and direct feedback only. T-test was carried out to identify the effectiveness of each type of direct feedback on errors that had helped the more advanced students improve their writings. The results show that all types of direct feedback were effective but different typ es of feedback can be ranked in terms of importance.

Types of Information in Written Corrective Feedback and Its Efficacy on L2 Acquisition

This study investigates whether the effect of written corrective feedback (CF) on learners' acquisition of English article usage is mediated by the type of information CF provides. To tap into this issue, four types of information on error were identified: its existence, location, correct form and nature. Written CF was categorized into three types according to the sorts of information it contained: indirect CF that supplies information on existence and location, direct CF that provides information on existence, location and correct form, and metalinguistic CF that includes metalinguistic explanation on error nature and all the other information types. Three CF groups were accordingly formed along with a control group in a quasi-experiment, where the groups engaged in three narrative-writing tasks. Error correction and narrative writing tests were administered to measure the acquisition of explicit and implicit knowledge of English articles respectively. The results revealed that written CF was beneficial to acquisition of both L2 explicit and implicit knowledge and that such positive effects emerged only in the metalinguistic CF group. The findings added counterevidence to Truscott's (1996) argument against written CF utility and suggested that metalinguistic explanation on error may play a pivotal role in written CF-triggered L2 acquisition.

The Role of Noticing in L2 Learners’ Production of Intonation Patterns

This study was an attempt to explore the role that the increased perceptual saliency of L2 input features or output flaws and hereby promoting L2 learners’ noticing (through planned instructional activities) can play in the learners’ use of correct English intonation patterns. The participants were 80 Iranian EFL students attending four intact classes, two low-intermediate and two upper-intermediate levels, in a language institute in Shahrekord. The classes at each level were assigned to control and experimental groups. The experimental groups received the noticing-enhancing instruction while listening to native speakers' English audio-recorded on a CD and through in-class intonation assessment tasks, repeated activation of intonation patterns in both L2 input and output, metalinguistic explanations, picture descriptions, and interactive role-playings. An English native-speaker instructor was then hired to rate the learners’ audio-recorded data at both pretest and posttest times. The results of the statistical data analysis demonstrated that both the ‘noticing groups’ achieved significant improvement from their pretests to their posttests. Complementary gain score analysis indicated that the attainment of the lower-level group was relatively more than that of the higher-level group, perhaps due to the fact that they initially had more room for improvement. It is finally discussed that selective attention, or noticing, can influence the processing of the commonly neglected aspects of L2 input and thus leads to more learning. The findings also suggest that L2 practitioners include in their pedagogy activities that aim to increase the prominence or saliency of such intrinsic features of L2 input and communication in order to make them available for processing and internalization.

Focus-on-form through peer feedback in a Spanish–American telecollaborative exchange

Using a reactive approach to focus-on-form, this study explored the types of feedback and strategies that L2 learners used to draw attention to linguistic problems in a Spanish–American telecollaborative exchange. Data from the readily available transcripts of online postings were utilised and analysed to report the findings. The results showed that the American students produced a much higher rate of lexical and morphosyntactic feedback than did the students from Spain, while the latter used a much greater percentage of affective feedback than their US partners. The Spanish students tended to use reformulations as a quick way to provide target-like forms, whereas the US students offered metalinguistic explanations to help their partners understand sophisticated lexical items and grammatical structures. Despite the fact that both groups received valuable linguistic feedback from their native speaker partners, most of the students did not make error corrections. The study concludes that error correction in a message board might not be a good format for meaningful feedback. Furthermore, specific instructions of how to effectively attend to feedback in conjunction with appropriate training should have been made available for L2 learners.

Triadic Text-Based SCMC and Focus on Form: Fluency, Accuracy, and Complexity

This study explored the interactional processes and outcomes of triadic interaction in text-based synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) in relation to fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Three EFL teachers and six Korean college students formed three triads, with one teacher and two students in each. They regularly met twice a week via Windows Live Messenger for communicative interaction. The teachers implemented their focus on form (FonF) lessons by providing corrective feedback, and by answering students’ form-related questions. To a lesser extent, the teachers provided metalinguistic explanation. At the completion of research, the teachers and learners filled out a questionnaire designed to tap into their perceptions of the learners’ fluency, accuracy, and complexity patterns. The chat scripts were analyzed to obtain indicators of fluency, accuracy, and complexity with respect to time progress and task types. The analysis revealed that the learners’linguistic performances were largely influenced by task types rather than linear time progress. Arranging time, preventing student absence, and balancing interaction between two learners were found to be critical in successful implementation of triadic interaction in a SCMC setting. Implications are discussed for future empirical studies of FonF and triadic text-based SCMC.

Metalinguistic explanations and self‐reports as triangulation data for interpreting second language sociolinguistic performance

The study reported here explores the use of learners' metalinguistic explanations and self‐reports of variable language production as triangulation data for interpreting second language (L2) sociolinguistic performance, focusing on the variable retention versus omission of the negative morpheme ne. Our central argument is that performance data alone are not sufficient for evaluating how L2 learners perceive social and stylistic variation in the language they are studying. To this end, an analysis of data from a variety of sources is presented. The results illustrate how multiple data sources can provide a multidimensional view of sociolinguistic performance that is not necessarily revealed when performance data alone are considered as a single source of analysis.Nous explorons l'utilisation d'explications métalinguistiques et d'auto‐rapports de production langagière variable d'apprenants en tant que données de triangulation pour l'interprétation de la performance sociolinguistique en langue seconde, tout en nous concentrant sur la rétention et l'omission du morphème de négation ne. Nous proposons que les données de performance ne sont pas suffisantes pour évaluer la compréhension de la variation sociale et stylistique de la part des étudiants dans la langue qu'ils apprennent. À cette fin, une analyse de données provenant de diverses sources est présentée. Les résultats montrent comment plusieurs sources de données peuvent fournir une perspective multidimensionnelle de la performance sociolinguistique, une perspective qui n'aurait pas été révélée si nous n'avions considéré que les données de performance.

Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback

This article presents the findings of a study that investigated (1) the extent to which written corrective feedback (CF) can help advanced L2 learners, who already demonstrate a high level of accuracy in two functional uses of the English article system (the use of ‘a’ for first mention and ‘the’ for subsequent or anaphoric mentions), further increase that level of accuracy; and (2) the extent to which there may be a differential effect for different types of feedback on any observed improvement. Sixty-three advanced L2 learners at a university in the USA formed a control group and three treatment groups: (1) those who received written meta-linguistic explanation; (2) indirect circling of errors; and (3) written meta-linguistic feedback and oral form-focused instruction. On three occasions (pre-test, immediate post-test, delayed post-test) the participants were asked to describe what was happening in a picture of a different social setting. Significant differences were found in the level of accuracy on (1) the immediate post-test piece of writing between the control group and all three treatment groups; and (2) on the delayed post-test piece between the control and indirect groups and the two direct treatment groups.

Prompting in CALL: A Longitudinal Study of Learner Uptake

This research presents a longitudinal study of learner uptake in a computer‐assisted language learning (CALL) environment. Over the course of 3 semesters, 10 second language learners of German at a Canadian university used an online, parser‐based CALL program that, for the purpose of this research, provided 2 different types of feedback of varying degrees of specificity: Metalinguistic explanations (ME) and metalinguistic clues (MC). Results indicate that feedback specificity affects learner uptake in different ways. Cross‐sectionally, the study reveals significant differences in learner uptake for the 2 more advanced courses, German 103 and 201, whereas for the introductory course, German 102, no significant difference for the 2 feedback types and their effect on learner uptake was found. Results of the longitudinal data indicate that there is a significant increase in learner uptake from German 102 to 201 for the error‐specific feedback (ME), whereas learner uptake for the generic feedback type (MC) varies insignificantly across the 3 courses. Finally, the study shows a significant impact of the 2 feedback types on learner uptake independent of error type (grammar and spelling).

The Contribution of Written Corrective Feedback to Language Development: A Ten Month Investigation

The call for longitudinal evidence on the efficacy of written corrective feedback (WCF) for ESL (English as a second language) writers has been made repeatedly since Truscott (1996) claimed that it is ineffective, harmful, and should therefore be abandoned. This article discusses some of the theoretical issues raised against the practice, outlines the status of recent empirical evidence and presents a 10-month study of the effects of WCF on two functional uses of the English article system given to 52 low-intermediate ESL students in Auckland, New Zealand. Assigned to four groups (direct corrective feedback, written, and oral meta-linguistic explanation; direct corrective feedback and written meta-linguistic explanation; direct corrective feedback only; the control group), the students produced five pieces of writing (pre-test, immediate post-test, and three delayed post-tests). Each of the treatment groups outperformed the control group on all post-tests and no difference in effectiveness was found between the three treatment groups.

The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback

The effectiveness of different types of written corrective feedback has been investigated over the last twenty years but it is still not possible to make firm conclusions about which options are the most beneficial to ESL learners. This article first provides an overview of the currently available research findings and then presents the results of a six month study of the relative effectiveness of providing thirty-nine low intermediate ESL learners in Auckland, New Zealand, with three different direct written corrective feedback options. Assigned to three groups (direct corrective feedback, written and oral meta-linguistic explanation; direct corrective feedback and written meta-linguistic explanation; direct corrective feedback only), the subjects produced four pieces of writing (pre-test, immediate post-test, and two delayed post-tests). Two functional uses of the English article system (referential indefinite “a” and referential definite “the”) were targeted in the feedback. No difference in effect upon accuracy was found between the three treatment options, suggesting that the provision of error correction alone may be sufficient for learners at a low intermediate proficiency level.

L’enfant apprenti-scripteur… De l’autocopie à l’auto-langage

The 4/ 6 years old child writing without coding oral is likely to copy himself. Our hypothesis is that the encouragement to mobilize self-language promotes the disappearance of self-copy processes to the benefit of oral processes. 38 paired children have been taught during 8 didactic sessions. The 19 GE children write a sentence with an encouraging protocol. The 19 TG children write and draw. All children take three tests of individual invented spelling : a pretest, a middle-test and a post-test. We observe that the child who uses self-language overcomes visual conception of writing and gives up self-copy processes. Self-language allows him to memorise information in order to analyse the speech. The learning of this behaviour is essential to the mobilization of phonographic knowledge. This learning comes close to a procedural didactic that does not require any metalinguistic explanation.

The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students

This article provides an overview of research that has investigated the effectiveness of written corrective feedback (WCF) on ESL student writing. In doing so, it highlights a number of shortcomings in the design of some studies and explains what needs to be done in future research so that answers to the issues that have been raised can be effectively addressed. The article reports on a two-month study (with 144 international and migrant ESL students in Auckland, New Zealand) that investigated the extent to which different WCF options (direct corrective feedback, written and oral meta-linguistic explanation; direct corrective feedback and written meta-linguistic explanation; direct corrective feedback only; no corrective feedback) help students improve their accuracy in the use of two functional uses of the English article system (referential indefinite `a' and referential definite `the'). The study found (1) that students who received all three WCF options outperformed those who did not receive WCF, (2) that their level of accuracy was retained over seven weeks and (3) that there was no difference in the extent to which migrant and international students improved the accuracy of their writing as a result of WCF.

Evidence in support of written corrective feedback

The extent to which ESL learners benefit from written corrective feedback has been debated at length since Truscott (1996) mounted a case for its abolition. Ten years later, the debate continues, not only because little attention has been given to testing its efficacy over time but also because studies that have investigated the issue have not always been well designed and have produced conflicting results (Ferris, 2004, 2006). This article presents the results of a 2-month study of the efficacy of written corrective feedback to 75 low intermediate international ESL students in Auckland, New Zealand. Assigned to 4 groups (direct corrective feedback, written and oral meta-linguistic explanation; direct corrective feedback and written meta-linguistic explanation; direct corrective feedback only; the control group received no corrective feedback), the students produced three pieces of writing (pre-test, immediate post-test, and delayed post-test) that described what was happening in a given picture. Two functional uses of the English article system (referential indefinite “a” and referential definite “the”) were targeted in the feedback. The study found that the accuracy of students who received written corrective feedback in the immediate post-test outperformed those in the control group and that this level of performance was retained 2 months later.

The vowel path

This study probes Hebrew-speaking children’s knowledge about vowel representation by diacritics and by vowel letters in emergent literacy stages, and how this knowledge changes with formal instruction in first grade. Sixteen kindergartners and sixteen first graders were administered two reading tasks, two meta-linguistic explanation tasks, and two writing tasks involving vowels in different phonological and orthographic constructions and morphological roles. The results show that kindergartners already have some knowledge about writing consonants, and proceed to meaningful reading and writing in first grade through learning about writing vowels. Reading and writing syllables were easier than word reading and writing in kindergarten, and converged in first grade. Explaining vowel differences in words was better than in syllables, since children made use of the lexical context. Learning to represent morphemes at word final position by vowel letters emerged gradually in kindergarten, in the following order: H, standing for a and e, then W and Y, representing o, u and i. The development of vowel letters is shown to be dependent on a variety of considerations — orthographic, morphological, phonological, and perceptual. These results are discussed in the context of general theories about the consolidation of spelling.

IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND THE ACQUISITION OF L2 GRAMMAR

This article reviews previous studies of the effects of implicit and explicit corrective feedback on SLA, pointing out a number of methodological problems. It then reports on a new study of the effects of these two types of corrective feedback on the acquisition of past tense -ed. In an experimental design (two experimental groups and a control group), low-intermediate learners of second language English completed two communicative tasks during which they received either recasts (implicit feedback) or metalinguistic explanation (explicit feedback) in response to any utterance that contained an error in the target structure. Acquisition was measured by means of an oral imitation test (designed to measure implicit knowledge) and both an untimed grammaticality judgment test and a metalinguistic knowledge test (both designed to measure explicit knowledge). The tests were administered prior to the instruction, 1 day after the instruction, and again 2 weeks later. Statistical comparisons of the learners' performance on the posttests showed a clear advantage for explicit feedback over implicit feedback for both the delayed imitation and grammaticality judgment posttests. Thus, the results indicate that metalinguistic explanation benefited implicit as well as explicit knowledge and point to the importance of including measures of both types of knowledge in experimental studies.This research was funded by a Marsden Fund grant awarded by the Royal Society of Arts of New Zealand. Researchers other than the authors who contributed to the research were Jenefer Philip, Satomi Mizutami, Keiko Sakui, and Thomas Delaney. Thanks go to the editors of this special issue and to two anonymous SSLA reviewers of a draft of the article for their constructive comments.