Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Research Background
Corrective Feedback(CF)including both oral and written feedback，which is a reactive type of form-focused instruction，is considered useful in promoting noticing and is thus effective to L2 learning(Sheen，2006)．However, Truscott (1996) maintained that written corrective feedback is ineffective andeven harmful to linguistic accuracy. Limited research has been done on this key issue thoughmore than a decade has now passed and considerable debate has been presented in journalarticles and conference papers. However, Ferris (1999) made some progress and advanced hercounter claims. She stated that Truscott’s (1996) claim was premature and overly strong andeven proposed that correction would work if it was provided in a clear and consistent way. Thedispute continued (Truscott 1999, 2004, 2007, 2009; Ferris 2004; Chandler 2004, 2009;Guénette 2007), even until now there has been no consensus on this issue. The past empiricalstudies concerning the effect of written corrective feedback on accuracy also reportedconflicting results. A group of researches (Semke 1984; Kepner 1991; Sheppard 1992; Polio etal. 1998; Fazio 2001, etc.) did not find efficacy of written corrective feedback, whereas a bodyof studies (Lalande 1982; Fathman & Whalley 1990; Lee 1997; Bitchener et al. 2005, etc.)verified the positive effect of written corrective feedback on accuracy. Among the studieswhich reported the facilitative role of written corrective feedback on accuracy, some studies(Lalande 1982; Robb et al. 1986; Chandler 2003, etc.) included more than one type of feedback,in this way, they not only showed the efficacy of written corrective feedback but alsomanifested the relative effectiveness of different types of written corrective feedback, but thefact is that the agreement on which type of written corrective feedback was more advantageoushas not been fully reached.
……………
1.2 Purpose of the Study
Although a great many of studies have been done on the written corrective feedback in thewriting, the breakthrough of this thesis is that the written corrective feedback appears in thesingle-choice test paper. Because of this, a much more accurate conclusion will be made.The purpose of the study was twofold: (1) to investigate whether targeted correctivefeedback on ESL student test paper results in improved accuracy of English inverted sentencein new pieces of test paper over a 2-month period and (2) to investigate whether there is adifferential effect on accuracy of inverted sentence for different corrective feedback options.
………..
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1 Corrective Feedback
“Feedback” and “correction” are often used to describe the general method of errortreatment．Feedback is usually used as a general cover term for the information provided bylisteners on the comprehension and reception of messages. “Correction” refers to the attemptsto deal with linguistic errors． The term corrective feedback is usually shortened to be “CF”which means any indication of learners’ non-target use．CF is a frequently used practice in thefield of education and in learning generally. It typically refers to a student receiving eitherformal or informal feedback on his or her performance in various tasks by a peer(s) or teacher .According to Loewen (2006)，a) corrective feedback is the form of responses to learnerutterances which contain an error that consists of an indicator that an error has been made；b)thecorrection of correct target language form;or c) meta-linguistic information on the nature of theerror，or any combination of these errors．CF is the same with negative evidence or negativefeedback(Gass,1 997)．According to Ellis(1 994：584)，“negative evidence” is provided bycorrection in the form of feedback that draws the learners’ attention to the errors they havemade. Also the term “negative Feedback” and “negative evidence” are often usedinterchangeably with “CF” to indicate the “the implicit and explicit negative feedback” whenoccurred in both instructional settings and natural conversation”(Sheen，2006).According to interaction theory of teacher-student，feedback can be divided into threetypes：explicit correction ,prompts and recasts．Lyster and Ranta(1 997) pointed out that thereare six different types of feedback: explicit correction ， clarification request ， recast,meta-linguistic clues，repetition and elicitation respectively. Of which, prompts include(a)elicitation; (b)meta-linguistic clues; (c)repetition (d) clarification request．At the moment,the effectiveness of CF has become a hot topic for debates and empirical research.
…………
2.2 Definition of Written Corrective Feedback
CF can be used to show learners that an utterance they have just produced is incorrect. Itserves, therefore, to help learners notice the gap between their deviant productions andgrammatically correct productions. CF often occurs in conjunction with production practicesuch as speaking and writing (Ellis 1998). Keh (1990: 294) pointed out written correctivefeedback can be defined as the input from a reader to a writer with the effect of providinginformation to the writer for revision. Generally speaking, it is the comments, questions, andsuggestions a reader gives a writer on the paper to produce reader-based form as opposed towriter-based from.Based on the definitions above, written corrective feedback in the present paper refers toany written input from the teacher to the learners concerning some aspect of their written output(focusing both on form and content) with the hope to inform them that there is something wrongwith their output and provide suggestions for the learners to make revision and improvement.
…………..
Chapter 3 Methodology .......18
3.1 Formulation of the Research Questions.......18
3.2 Participants ....18
3.3 Target Structure.........19
3.4 Research Design........19
3.4.1 Procedures.......21
3.4.2 Instruments......22
3.4.3 Treatment materials and testing materials.........22
3.5 The study schedule .....23
3.6 Data Analysis ........25
Chapter 4 Results .....26
4.1The effect of corrective feedback......26
4.2 Effectiveness of the CF over Time ........31
Chapter 5 Discussion......33
5.1 The effects of written corrective feedback ........33
5.2 Effectiveness of the CF over time....36
Chapter 5 Discussion
5.1 The effects of written corrective feedback
The first research question investigated whether the two different types ofcorrective feedback work on the learners’ linguistic accuracy in using the Englishinverted sentences. Similar to Bitchener’s (2008) research result, this study indicatedthe written corrective feedback could greatly increase the grammar accuracy of L2learners. Therefore, this research provided new evidence for the argument of theeffectiveness of written corrective feedback.By means of an immediate post-test and a delayed post-test, the ANOVA testrevealed a statistically significant difference in accuracy scores for the three groups. Asone can see clearly that the pre-test scores for the three groups, a post hoc ANOVArevealed that the differences between the pre-test scores of the three groups were notstatistically significant. The group 1 went from an average score of 27.866 to 50.333 inthe immediate posttest on English inversion. In the immediate posttest, Pair wisecomparisons further revealed that the difference displayed between the control groupscore and those of treatment groups 1 ( p = .000) but not group 2 ( p = .065). Unlike thegroup 1, the group 2 went from an average score of 30.666 to 38.333 in the immediateposttest. Participants in group 1 who received written direct corrective feedback as wellas oral meta-linguistic explanation outperformed the group 2 who received only oralmeta-linguistic explanation and the control group who did not receive any correctivefeedback.
…………
Conclusion
This first part of this section summarizes the a few major findings of this research,then it presents its limitations and suggestions for the future studies of the correction onthe students’ paper, and finally it ends with the pedagogical implications of this study. Whether written corrective feedback was effective has been being under thedebate for years. As to this question, there were both empirical investigations andtheoretical explorations. However, as John Bitchener and Cameron (2005) pointed out,the existing research was still far from sufficient to give a much more correct andconclusive answer to this question because of their quantity and quality issue.According to the results displayed and discussed above in the previous chapters, somemain findings will be listed as follows.First, the results of this study indicate that written corrective feedback can betterthe grammar learning of English inversion, as the accuracy in the use of Englishinverted sentences could vary according to the type of corrective feedback providedby the researchers by means of an immediate post-test and a delayed post-test.Following Bitchener et al and Cameron. (2005) and Sheen (2006), it was not surprisingto find that students who received written direct corrective feedback as well as oralmeta-linguistic explanation outperformed those who received no corrective feedback.
..........
Reference (omitted)