The Effectiveness of Direct and Metalinguistic Written Corrective Feedback to Deal With Errors in the Use of Information-Structuring Connectors

Steffanie Kloss; Angie Quintanilla

doi:10.17323/jle.2022.15906

Steffanie Kloss Centro de Investigación en Educación y Desarrollo, CIEDE-UCSC; Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7018-5395
Angie Quintanilla Universidad de Concepción https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1027-0579

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.15906

Keywords: written corrective feedback, information structuring connectors, news

Abstract

Background. Writing is a complex skill, even more so, if the student does not handle the generic structure of the institutionalized practices imposed on Higher Education.

Purpose. The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of direct and metalinguistic focused written corrective feedback (WCF) on information structuring connectors.

Methods. This quantitative study compares focused WCF effectiveness in 39 subjects who are divided into three groups: the first one is the control group, which did not receive feedback, the second is the experimental group 1 that was corrected through direct WCF and the third one corresponds to experimental group 2 that received feedback through metalinguistic cues.

Results. The findings indicate that WCF is effective for the experimental groups. There is a significant decrease in the number of errors of information-structuring connectors in experimental group 2, while experimental group 1 shows a reduction, but without statistical significance. As for the control group, it did not present improvements. In addition, the development of writing tasks corrected through metalinguistic WCF strategies led to textual cohesion improvement with the accurate use of connective devices.

Conclusions. It is important to reflect on the use of focused feedback as part of the writing process, firstly, because writing cannot be taught without reviewing a student's writing, and secondly, considering that focused feedback supports the noticing of errors and decreases teacher correction time.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Andújar, M., & Cañada, M.D. (2021). Modalidades de retroalimentación correctiva escrita: estudio exploratorio de prácticas docentes en el aula de traducción [Modalities of Written Corrective Feedback: An Exploratory Study of Teaching Practices in the Translation Classroom]. REDIT: Revista electrónica de didáctica de la traducción y la interpretación, (14) 50-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24310/REDIT.2020.v1i14.13726

Balanga, R. A., Fidel, I. V. B., Gumapac, M. V. G. P., Ho, H. T., Tullo, R. M. C., Villaraza, P. M. L., & Vizconde, C. J. (2016). Student beliefs towards written corrective feedback: The case of Filipino high school students. I-Manager's Journal on English Language Teaching, 6(3), 22-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26634/jelt.6.3.8176

Bazerman, Ch. (2004). Speech acts, genres, and activity systems: How texts organize activity and people. In P. Prior & Ch. Bazerman (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it (pp. 309-339). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Benson, S., & DeKeyser, R. (2019). Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research, 23(6), 702-726. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818770921

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of corrective feedback, Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102-118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-431. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924

Boillos, M. (2021). Incidencia de la revisión por pares en la construcción de textos académicos a nivel Universitario [Incidence of peer review in the construction of academic texts at the university level]. Revista DELTA, 37(3), 1-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-460X202153017

Bozorgian, H., & Yazdani, A. (2021). Direct Written Corrective Feedback with Metalinguistic Explanation: Investigating Language Analytic Ability. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 9(1), 65-85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2021.120976

Cassany, D. (2014). Reparar la escritura. Didáctica de la corrección de errores [Repair writing. Didactics of written error correction]. México: Graó.

Coyle, Y., & Roca de Larios, J. (2014). Exploring the role played by error correction and models on children's reported noticing and output production in a L2 writing task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(3), 451-485. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263113000612

Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023

Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353-371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060141

Estaire, S. (2011). Principios básicos y aplicación del aprendizaje mediante tareas [Basic principles and application of task-based learning]. MarcoELE: Revista de Didáctica Español como Lengua Extranjera, 12, 1-26.

Ferreira, A. (2017). El efecto del Feedback Correctivo para mejorar la destreza escrita en ELE [Corrective Feedback to Improve Students'Writing Skills in SFL]. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 19(1), 37-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14483/calj.v19n1.10220

Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short-and long-term effects of written error correction. Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues, 81-104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524742.007

Ferris, D., & Robert, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X

Gallego, J., García, A. & Rodríguez, A. (2015). ¿Qué ocurre en la mente del estudiante universitario cuando escribe?: Estudio de caso con alumnado de Magisterio [What does a Teacher College Student think when writing? A Case Study]. Lengua y Habla, 19, 1- 20.

Gravet, K., & Kinchin, I.M. (2020). Referencing and empowerment: exploring barriers to agency in the higher education student experience. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(1), 84-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1541883

Kloss, S., Quintanilla, A., & Alexandre, M. (2020). La función de la retroalimentación correctiva indirecta en la reescritura de géneros académicos con modalidad narrativa elaborados por estudiantes novatos [The function of Indirect Corrective Feedback in the academics rewriting with narrative modality developed by novice students]. Nueva Revista del Pacífico, (73), 306-331. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0719-51762020000200306

Kloss, S., & Ferreira, & A. (2019). La escritura de crónicas periodísticas informativas: una propuesta de avance desde el feedback correctivo escrito [The writing of informative journalistic chronicles: an advance proposal from written corrective feedback]. Onomázein, (46), 161-185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7764/onomazein.46.02

Kloss, S., & Quintanilla, A. (2020). Representaciones sociales de estudiantes de periodismo, contextos posibles para favorecer las prácticas de escritura especializada [Social representations of journalism students, possible contexts to favor specialized writing practices ]. Revista Espacios, 41(18), Article 8.

Lee, I. (2003). How do Hong Kong English teachers correct errors in student writing? Education Journal, 31(1),153-169.

Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: the case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 285-312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.08.00

Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). Oxford University.

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie &Tej K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). Academic Press.

Montolío, E. (2015). Conectores de la lengua escrita [Connectors in writing]. Editorial Planeta.

Myhill, D., Jones, S., y Lines, H. (2018). Supporting less proficient writers through linguistically aware teaching. Language and Education, 32(4), 333-349. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2018.1438468

Portolés, J. (2014). Marcadores del discurso [Discourse markers]. Ariel.

Pourdana, N., Nour, P. & Yousefi, F. Investigating metalinguistic written corrective feedback focused on EFL learners' discourse markers accuracy in mobile-mediated context. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. 6, 7 (2021). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-021-00111-8

Quintanilla. E., Kloss, S., & Lagos, P. (2018). How do Chilean pre-service teachers correct errors in writing? Revista Brasileira de Lingüística Aplicada, 18(3), 561-79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-6398201812447

Roger, B. (2015). First-year undergraduate students' perceptions of lecturer and peer feedback: A New Zealand action research project. Studies in Higher Education, 40(5), 933-944. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.881343

Salaberri, S., & Altamirano, A. (2001). Instruction in learning strategies. In L. García (Ed.), Present and future trends in TEFL (pp. 97-110). Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Almería.

Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback individual differences and second language learning. Springster.

Tapia-Ladino,M., Arancibia, B., & Correa, R. (2016). Rol de los Comentarios Escritos en la construcción de la tesis desde la perspectiva de estudiantes tesistas y profesores guía [Written comments role in the thesis development from undergaduate students and supervisor teachers' perspective]. Universitas Psychologica, 15(4), 1-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy15-4.rcec

Timofeeva-Timofeev, L. (2021). Phraseological manipulation as a humour tool in 8-12-year-olds' written narratives in Spanish. Studies in Psychology, 42(2), 462-486. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02109395.2021.1911056

Valizadeh, M. (2022). The effect of comprehensive written corrective feedback on EFL learners' written syntactic complexity. Journal of Language and Education, 8(1), 196-208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.12052

Van Beuningen, C. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions.International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119171

Van Dijk, T. (1978). La ciencia del texto [The science of text]. Paidós.

Van Dijk, T., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. Academic Press.