| 21 |
Researching Acquisition Sequences: Idealization and De-idealization in SLA
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 22 |
Does language analytical ability mediate the effect of written feedback on grammatical accuracy in second language writing?
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 26 |
Effects of written feedback and revision on learners' accuracy in using two English grammatical structures
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 27 |
Tracking ‘learning behaviours’ in the incidental acquisition of two dimensional adjectives by Japanese beginner learners of L2 English
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 31 |
Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 32 |
The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners' explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article
|
|
|
|
Abstract:
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.
|
|
URL: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/54411
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
|
| 34 |
Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing: Two approaches compared
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 35 |
Investigating linguistic knowledge of a second language and its relationship to general language proficiency and individual learner differences in an EFL context
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
|
|
