View Item 

Effects of written feedback and revision on learners' accuracy in using two English grammatical structures

Access Status
Open access
Authors
Shintani, N.
Ellis, Rod
Suzuki, W.
Date
2014
Type
Journal Article

Metadata
Show full item record
Citation
Shintani, N. and Ellis, R. and Suzuki, W. 2014. Effects of written feedback and revision on learners' accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning. 64 (1): pp. 103-131.
Source Title
Language Learning
DOI
ISSN
School
School of Education
Remarks

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Shintani, N. and Ellis, R. and Suzuki, W. 2014. Effects of written feedback and revision on learners' accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning. 64 (1): pp. 103-131, which has been published in final form at http://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12029 This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving at http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-828039.html

URI
Collection
Abstract

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. © 2013 Language Learning Research Club, University of Michigan.