Effect of Metalinguistic Feedback on Chilean Preservice Teachers’ Written Use of the Third Person Singular Suffix -s

Document Type: Research Article

Authors

1 Departamento de Ciencias del Lenguaje y Literatura, Facultad de Educación, Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Concepción, Chile

2 Departamento de Currículum e Instrucción, Facultad de Educación, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción, Chile

Abstract

This study addresses the impact of 2 types of written corrective feedback (WCF) on the acquisition of the third person singular -s in English. The study followed a quasi-experimental design: 2 experimental groups and 1 control group that included 57 preservice teachers from a Chilean university. The experimental groups underwent a treatment based on the provision of direct metalinguistic feedback (group 1) and indirect metalinguistic feedback (group 2). The control group did not receive any type of WCF. At the end of the treatment, a posttest was run and, 1 month later, a delayed posttest was given. Finally, a semistructured interview was conducted in order to identify the L2 learners’ perceptions about the provision of WCF through a Wiki environment. There was no significant difference between the experimental groups on the posttest. However, on the delayed test, group 2 outperformed group 1.

Keywords


Alvarez, I., Espasa, A., & Guasch, T. (2012). The value of feedback in improving collaborative writing assignments in an online learning environment. Studies in Higher Education, 37(4), 387-400.
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(3), 227-257.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118.
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2011). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge, Taylor, & Francis Group.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-431.
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191-205.
Brown, D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Longman.
Brown, S., & Larson-Hall, J. (2012). Second language acquisition myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Cabero, J. (2007). Nuevas tecnologías aplicadas a la educación. Madrid: McGraw-Hill.
Cassany, D. (2009). Reparar la escritura. Didáctica de la corrección de lo escrito. Barcelona: Editorial Graó.
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(3), 267-296.
Cots, J., Armengol, L., Arnó, E., Irún, M., & Llurda, E. (2007). La conciencia lingüística en la enseñanza de lenguas. Barcelona: Graó.
Dekeyser, R. (2005). What makes second language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55(1), 1-25.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Elgort, I., Smith, A. G., & Toland, J. (2008). Is Wiki an effective platform for group course work? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(2), 195-210.
Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition (Vol. 2).London: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar. An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181-201.
Ferris, D. (2013). What L2 writing means to me: Texts, writers, contexts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(4), 428-429.
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184.
Ferris, D., & Helt, M. (2000). Was Truscott right? New evidence on the effects of error correction in L2 writing classes. Association of Applied Linguistics, 11-14.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S., Behney, J., & Plonsky, L. (2013). Second language acquisition. An introductory course. New York: Routledge.
Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 543-572.
Hunzer, K. (2012). Connecting writing process with personality: Creating long-lasting trust circles in writing classes. In J. M. Hunzer (Ed.), Collaborative learning and writing: Essays on using small groups in teaching English and composition (pp. 15-35). North Carolina: McFarland.
Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31(2), 217-230.
Hsieh, F. (2009). The acquisition of English tense/agreement morphology and copula be by L1-Chinese-speaking learners. Papers from the Lancaster University Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 3, 46-59. Lancaster: Lancaster University.
Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning and Technology, 10(3), 102-120.
Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 285-312.
Lee, L. (2010). Exploring Wiki-media collaborative writing: A case study in an elementary Spanish course. CALICO Journal, 27(2), 260-276. 
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2008). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Liu, J., & Sadler, R. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 193-227.
London, M., & Sessa, V. (2006). Group feedback for continuous learning. Human Resource Development Review, 5(3), 303-329.
Meskill, C., & Anthony, N. (2005). Foreign language learning with CMC: Forms of online instructional discourse in a hybrid Russian class. System, 33(1), 89-105.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms. New York: Routledge.
Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34-51.
Nezami, A., & Sandraie, M. (2012). Common error types of Iranian learners of English. English Language Teaching, 5(3), 160-170.
O’Grady, W. (2006). The problem of verbal inflection in second language acquisition. Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics,1-21
O'Rourke, B. (2005). Form-focused interaction in online tandem learning. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 433-466.
Panova, L., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595.
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 25-45). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pienemann, M. (2005). Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Piscitelli, A. (2005). Distribución de contenidos y escritura colaborativa. In Piscitelli A Internet. La imprenta del siglo XXI. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, Wikis, podcasts, and other powerful Web tools for classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitudes on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255-283.
Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. New York: Springer Publishing.
Sotillo, S. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 82-119.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 181-207.
Srichanyachon, N. (2012). Teacher written feedback for L2 learners’ writing development. Journal of Social Sciences, Humanities, and Arts, 12(1), 7-17.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 8(2), 320-337.
Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21(2). 217-235.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292-305.
van Patten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(3), 287-301.
van Patten, B. (2003). From input to output: A teacher’s guide to second language acquisition. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
van Beuningen, C., De Jong, N., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1-41.
Ware, P., & O’Dowd, R. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning and Technology, 12(1), 43-63.
Warschauer, M., & Meskill, C. (2000). Technology and second language teaching and learning. In J. Rosenthal (Ed.), Handbook of undergraduate second language education (pp. 90-127). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zhang, S. (2012). Promoting noticing in EFL classroom. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(3), 579-584.