- Email: [email protected]
Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition and Writing
Book reviews / System 41 (2013) 484e495
493
Overall, this volume is an excellent resource for any student wanting to engage in SLA research. The practical information, example studies, and step-by-step instructions provide a logical starting point for empirical endeavours. In spite of its many strengths, there are also some limitations. Mixed methods research, which is covered in Do¨rnyei (2007), is unfortunately not discussed. Students committed to qualitative research may be better served by Heigham and Croker (2009) and those interested in case study research might prefer to consult Duff (2008). In addition, statistical terms are not kept constant between chapters, which could cause confusion for the novice researcher. For example, in Chapter 11, Re´ve´sz distinguishes between and clearly explains nominal, ordinal, and interval data (p. 208), while in Chapter 13, Larson-Hall refers to continuous and categorical data (p. 249). Despite these limitations, however, both students and teachers should consider this volume for use in any SLA or research methods course. References Cohen, J., 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, second ed. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Crossley, S.A., Salsbury, T., McNamara, D.S., Jarvis, S., 2011. Predicting lexical proficiency in language learner texts using computational indices. Lang. Test. 28 (4), 561e580. Do¨rnyei, Z., 2007. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Methodologies. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Duff, P., 2008. Case Study Research in Applied Linguistics. Lawrence Erlbaum/Taylor & Francis, New York. Graesser, A.C., McNamara, D.S., Louwerse, M.M., Cai, Z., 2004. Coh-Metrix: analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behav. Res. Methods Instr. Comput. 36, 193e202. Heigham, J., Croker, R.A., 2009. Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics: a Practical Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK. Mackey, A., Gass, S.M., 2005. Second Language Research: Methodology and Design. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Ortega, L., 2012. Epistemological diversity and moral ends of research in instructed SLA. Lang. Teach. Res. 16 (2), 206e226.
Kristopher Kyle Georgia State University, Applied Linguistics Department, 34 Peachtree Street Building, Suite 1200, Atlanta, GA, USA E-mail address: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.04.009
Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition and Writing, John Bitchener, Dana R. Ferris. Routledge New York (2012). 218 pp. How can we support the development of students’ writing skills? How effective is error correction in this respect? Bitchener and Ferris shed light on these questions by drawing on Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research and studies on written corrective feedback (CF) conducted in foreign and second language classes as well as composition classes. They also show ways of implementing these insights in the teaching classroom. The end-product is a balanced mixture of information and practical advice, which should strike a significant chord not only with researchers but also with language teachers given the time and effort which is usually spent on error corrections. Some readers may already be familiar with Ferris’ book Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students (2002). There are, however, compelling reasons for investing in a new book on CF, not least because this joint collaboration is more ample in scope and presents a range of recent studies in the field. The book features three parts which are further broken down in two to four chapters. Part I deals with the theory and history of error treatment in SLA and composition studies. Part II analyses research on written CF and Part III discusses the practical applications of theory and research. Chapters 1, 3 and 6 are written by SLA researcher Bitchener and Chapters 2, 4 and 7 by writing researcher Ferris. The synthesis chapters 5 and 8 are jointly authored.
494
Book reviews / System 41 (2013) 484e495
Part I comprises two chapters. Chapter 1 provides an overview of different perspectives on error and CF in SLA. Readers are presented with cognitive, interactionist and socio-cultural perspectives on SLA and standard models. Literature reviews like these are always a bit slow going, but Bitchener manages to keep the review focused on its relevance for written CF, which makes it very readable. For instance, CF may fall short of its potential if it is not geared at students’ proficiency level. In other words, certain grammatical features can only be acquired at certain stages in the language development. (Note the lapsus on page 11, line 23, ‘must sufficiently low’, and on page 14, line 13, ‘all to familiar’.). Chapter 2 looks at views on error in composition studies. Ferris first explores research on L1 before moving to L2 and the interactions between the two fields. I particularly enjoyed her entertaining exploration of early views on error in first language (L1) composition research. One may sigh with relief that the time when error was equated with “character flaw” is over, but is it really? Without going into the field of sociolinguistics, it is worth highlighting the low prestige accorded to the language of particular speech communities, in particular, minority communities; an issue only fleetingly touched on in this chapter. The author engagingly describes how composition researchers gradually came to recognise error as a socially constructed notion, which subsequently led scholars to question the traditional focus on the identification and eradication of error in composition classes. However, practitioners continued to respond to error in their feedback, which led to a widening gap between CF theory and practice. The chapter concludes with a short reference to the infamous error correction debate, where Truscott called for the abandonment of error correction. While admitting that too much attention to error in student writing is counterproductive, Ferris convincingly argues that CF is useful as one tool among others to make students aware of error patterns. Chapters 3 and 4 critically examine relevant research on CF in language classes and composition studies and identify research design pitfalls. Nice additions are the overview tables in these chapters, which allow for a quick comparison of relevant studies and research findings. As Ferris states in the second chapter, the question for most researchers is not anymore if they should respond to error rather how they should respond. Recent studies discussed in Chapters 3 and 4 support this view and indicate that CF on certain aspects of students’ writing can indeed improve writing performance. However, teachers should not foster any illusions that it is easy to bring about (lasting) change. On the basis of recent studies, it can be concluded that students can make more accurate text revisions when they receive written CF, but more longitudinal studies are needed to explore how lasting these effects are. In general, focused feedback, that is, feedback which focuses on certain linguistic error domains, is more effective than unfocused feedback. The question whether direct feedback (feedback which provides explicit error correction) is better than indirect feedback, (feedback where an error is marked but not corrected) is still open. In recent studies, direct feedback has proved more effective than indirect feedback, yet more research is warranted to see whether different kinds of error categories require either direct or indirect feedback and whether a combination of direct feedback with metalinguistic explanations is more effective. Naturally, there is no panacea for all learners, and individual differences may also play a role in how students respond to feedback. As the authors point out, research on the effect of cognitive and motivational variables on CF is still in its infancy but it appears that interest in this field of research is on the rise (see also recent publications by Kormos, 2012; Sheen, 2011). One may assume that individual differences also influence students’ preferences: there is evidence to suggest that students want, expect and value written CF as discussed in Chapter 4. In other words, getting rid of error correction would not even be an option if the gains were minimal. However, individual differences will probably have quite an effect on the kind of feedback students prefer (and need), an aspect of CF which will hopefully stimulate further investigations. Another aspect of CF which deserves closer attention is whether and how research on CF changes classroom practice: Ferris’ literature review shows that there is a large body of intervention studies examining the effect of different kinds of feedback but there is relatively less field-based research which looks at CF in practice. Chapter 4 provides an overview of the few existing studies of the latter type which indicate that modern composition teachers still provide quite a bit of feedback on form and errors, although teachers may be more reticent than in the old days. Based on my own experience as a university lecturer and teacher educator, my guess is that the average teacher may have fewer qualms than the teacher-participants in these studies and that the old-style feedback focusing on error correction over content is far from dying out. Note that the teachers involved in the studies under discussion are experienced instructors, a fact which may bias results as Ferris points out. In order to see how much of the research on CF in general and the valuable insights regarding focused CF in particular actually filters through to teaching practice, more field studies are needed, a desideratum which may be added to the future research agenda presented in Chapter 5. Ferris and Bitchener highlight twelve future research questions in Chapter 5 addressing the temporal dimension of written CF (for example, how lasting are effects?) the pedagogical dimension (do specific types of errors require either focused or unfocused feedback?) the individual dimension (to what extent do different learning goals and motivations
Book reviews / System 41 (2013) 484e495
495
influence the way CF is received?) and the contextual dimension (which contextual factors reduce students’ engagement with CF?). Researchers can find an overview in tabular form on page 106 (Figure 5.1) which contrasts current research questions with future research questions. Readers may note that there are only eleven research questions instead of twelve in the overview, because research question 9 is missing: “Does the educational and L2 learning background determine the extent to which they benefit from written CF?”. In addition, there is another overview provided on page 109 (Figure 5.2) which explicitly focuses on written CF in L2 writing contexts. It highlights research problems such as the obvious practical and ethical problems which arise when control groups are included in longitudinal designs, and points out under-explored questions concerning CF in L2 writing contexts. The latter include questions regarding the content, the form and the amount of CF. In addition, the authors emphasise that there is a need to examine the extent to which a combination of CF and other classroom activities such as revision, strategy training etc. can lead to better progress in terms of accuracy. The third question referring to the amount of written CF (“What helps students develop better writings skills: selective feedback that trains them to focus on error patterns or comprehensive feedback that trains them to carefully edit entire texts?”) may come a bit out of the blue as the readers’ attention has so far been directed towards the general issue of focused versus unfocused feedback. It is true that the question of whether to mark papers comprehensively or selectively is touched upon in Chapter 4, but the discussion is somewhat hidden away. For instance, it was only when I returned to page 92 in Chapter 4 that I noticed that Ferris had already posed the question as to “how many errors or error types in a given paper can productively be marked without overwhelming the students” (p. 92), which surely is of great interest to teachers, as it touches upon the motivational aspect of feedback. More could have been said on this topic in Chapter 4 in order to help the reader understand why questions regarding the amount of written CF as outlined in Chapter 5 are very important indeed. The last three chapters should be read attentively by all language teachers as they shift the focus from theory to practice. Chapter 6 shows how teachers can use CF in their language classes, while Chapter 7 focuses on the use of CF for L2 students in particular. While research findings are insightful to both L2 and FL teachers, the author cautions that learning goals in L2 contexts may be different from FL contexts and that CF will have to be adapted accordingly. What language teachers will all have in common, one may add, is that they must meet a number of challenges if research findings are to be taken seriously: when providing CF, language proficiency is an issue to be considered, which refers back to the question whether the student is ready for the acquisition of new grammatical forms. With regard to the amount of CF to be provided, teachers will have to strike a balance between too much CF (which may overwhelm students) and too little CF (which may under-challenge students and make for slow progress). When determining which errors to focus on, teachers will have to decide whether the observed error is not just a typing or writing slip and, once a genuine error is identified, decide how to treat it. In the L2 context, additional challenges with regard to style are likely to come up. Chapter 7 concludes with an extensive appendix showing different examples of how to deliver written CF. All in all, Chapters 6 and 7 illustrate well that each teacher training seminar worth its salt will need to allow sufficient time to prepare future practitioners for the treatment of error, and Chapter 8 makes very sensible suggestions in this regard. It is with this in mind that I hope that this valuable book will be read by a wide audience consisting not only of researchers, but also of teachers, especially prospective teachers, as well as teacher educators and curriculum designers. References Ferris, D.R., 2002. Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing. University of Michigan Press, Michigan. Kormos, J., 2012. The role of individual differences in L2 writing. J. Second Lang. Writing 21, 390e403. Sheen, Y., 2011. Corrective Feedback, Individual Differences and Second Language Learning. Springer, New York.
Vera Busse Carl von Ossietzky Universita¨t, Fakulta¨t I Bildungs- und Sozialwissenschaften, Institut fu¨r Pa¨dagogik, 26111 Oldenburg, Germany E-mail address: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.04.010
493
Overall, this volume is an excellent resource for any student wanting to engage in SLA research. The practical information, example studies, and step-by-step instructions provide a logical starting point for empirical endeavours. In spite of its many strengths, there are also some limitations. Mixed methods research, which is covered in Do¨rnyei (2007), is unfortunately not discussed. Students committed to qualitative research may be better served by Heigham and Croker (2009) and those interested in case study research might prefer to consult Duff (2008). In addition, statistical terms are not kept constant between chapters, which could cause confusion for the novice researcher. For example, in Chapter 11, Re´ve´sz distinguishes between and clearly explains nominal, ordinal, and interval data (p. 208), while in Chapter 13, Larson-Hall refers to continuous and categorical data (p. 249). Despite these limitations, however, both students and teachers should consider this volume for use in any SLA or research methods course. References Cohen, J., 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, second ed. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Crossley, S.A., Salsbury, T., McNamara, D.S., Jarvis, S., 2011. Predicting lexical proficiency in language learner texts using computational indices. Lang. Test. 28 (4), 561e580. Do¨rnyei, Z., 2007. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Methodologies. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Duff, P., 2008. Case Study Research in Applied Linguistics. Lawrence Erlbaum/Taylor & Francis, New York. Graesser, A.C., McNamara, D.S., Louwerse, M.M., Cai, Z., 2004. Coh-Metrix: analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behav. Res. Methods Instr. Comput. 36, 193e202. Heigham, J., Croker, R.A., 2009. Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics: a Practical Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK. Mackey, A., Gass, S.M., 2005. Second Language Research: Methodology and Design. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Ortega, L., 2012. Epistemological diversity and moral ends of research in instructed SLA. Lang. Teach. Res. 16 (2), 206e226.
Kristopher Kyle Georgia State University, Applied Linguistics Department, 34 Peachtree Street Building, Suite 1200, Atlanta, GA, USA E-mail address: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.04.009
Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition and Writing, John Bitchener, Dana R. Ferris. Routledge New York (2012). 218 pp. How can we support the development of students’ writing skills? How effective is error correction in this respect? Bitchener and Ferris shed light on these questions by drawing on Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research and studies on written corrective feedback (CF) conducted in foreign and second language classes as well as composition classes. They also show ways of implementing these insights in the teaching classroom. The end-product is a balanced mixture of information and practical advice, which should strike a significant chord not only with researchers but also with language teachers given the time and effort which is usually spent on error corrections. Some readers may already be familiar with Ferris’ book Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students (2002). There are, however, compelling reasons for investing in a new book on CF, not least because this joint collaboration is more ample in scope and presents a range of recent studies in the field. The book features three parts which are further broken down in two to four chapters. Part I deals with the theory and history of error treatment in SLA and composition studies. Part II analyses research on written CF and Part III discusses the practical applications of theory and research. Chapters 1, 3 and 6 are written by SLA researcher Bitchener and Chapters 2, 4 and 7 by writing researcher Ferris. The synthesis chapters 5 and 8 are jointly authored.
494
Book reviews / System 41 (2013) 484e495
Part I comprises two chapters. Chapter 1 provides an overview of different perspectives on error and CF in SLA. Readers are presented with cognitive, interactionist and socio-cultural perspectives on SLA and standard models. Literature reviews like these are always a bit slow going, but Bitchener manages to keep the review focused on its relevance for written CF, which makes it very readable. For instance, CF may fall short of its potential if it is not geared at students’ proficiency level. In other words, certain grammatical features can only be acquired at certain stages in the language development. (Note the lapsus on page 11, line 23, ‘must sufficiently low’, and on page 14, line 13, ‘all to familiar’.). Chapter 2 looks at views on error in composition studies. Ferris first explores research on L1 before moving to L2 and the interactions between the two fields. I particularly enjoyed her entertaining exploration of early views on error in first language (L1) composition research. One may sigh with relief that the time when error was equated with “character flaw” is over, but is it really? Without going into the field of sociolinguistics, it is worth highlighting the low prestige accorded to the language of particular speech communities, in particular, minority communities; an issue only fleetingly touched on in this chapter. The author engagingly describes how composition researchers gradually came to recognise error as a socially constructed notion, which subsequently led scholars to question the traditional focus on the identification and eradication of error in composition classes. However, practitioners continued to respond to error in their feedback, which led to a widening gap between CF theory and practice. The chapter concludes with a short reference to the infamous error correction debate, where Truscott called for the abandonment of error correction. While admitting that too much attention to error in student writing is counterproductive, Ferris convincingly argues that CF is useful as one tool among others to make students aware of error patterns. Chapters 3 and 4 critically examine relevant research on CF in language classes and composition studies and identify research design pitfalls. Nice additions are the overview tables in these chapters, which allow for a quick comparison of relevant studies and research findings. As Ferris states in the second chapter, the question for most researchers is not anymore if they should respond to error rather how they should respond. Recent studies discussed in Chapters 3 and 4 support this view and indicate that CF on certain aspects of students’ writing can indeed improve writing performance. However, teachers should not foster any illusions that it is easy to bring about (lasting) change. On the basis of recent studies, it can be concluded that students can make more accurate text revisions when they receive written CF, but more longitudinal studies are needed to explore how lasting these effects are. In general, focused feedback, that is, feedback which focuses on certain linguistic error domains, is more effective than unfocused feedback. The question whether direct feedback (feedback which provides explicit error correction) is better than indirect feedback, (feedback where an error is marked but not corrected) is still open. In recent studies, direct feedback has proved more effective than indirect feedback, yet more research is warranted to see whether different kinds of error categories require either direct or indirect feedback and whether a combination of direct feedback with metalinguistic explanations is more effective. Naturally, there is no panacea for all learners, and individual differences may also play a role in how students respond to feedback. As the authors point out, research on the effect of cognitive and motivational variables on CF is still in its infancy but it appears that interest in this field of research is on the rise (see also recent publications by Kormos, 2012; Sheen, 2011). One may assume that individual differences also influence students’ preferences: there is evidence to suggest that students want, expect and value written CF as discussed in Chapter 4. In other words, getting rid of error correction would not even be an option if the gains were minimal. However, individual differences will probably have quite an effect on the kind of feedback students prefer (and need), an aspect of CF which will hopefully stimulate further investigations. Another aspect of CF which deserves closer attention is whether and how research on CF changes classroom practice: Ferris’ literature review shows that there is a large body of intervention studies examining the effect of different kinds of feedback but there is relatively less field-based research which looks at CF in practice. Chapter 4 provides an overview of the few existing studies of the latter type which indicate that modern composition teachers still provide quite a bit of feedback on form and errors, although teachers may be more reticent than in the old days. Based on my own experience as a university lecturer and teacher educator, my guess is that the average teacher may have fewer qualms than the teacher-participants in these studies and that the old-style feedback focusing on error correction over content is far from dying out. Note that the teachers involved in the studies under discussion are experienced instructors, a fact which may bias results as Ferris points out. In order to see how much of the research on CF in general and the valuable insights regarding focused CF in particular actually filters through to teaching practice, more field studies are needed, a desideratum which may be added to the future research agenda presented in Chapter 5. Ferris and Bitchener highlight twelve future research questions in Chapter 5 addressing the temporal dimension of written CF (for example, how lasting are effects?) the pedagogical dimension (do specific types of errors require either focused or unfocused feedback?) the individual dimension (to what extent do different learning goals and motivations
Book reviews / System 41 (2013) 484e495
495
influence the way CF is received?) and the contextual dimension (which contextual factors reduce students’ engagement with CF?). Researchers can find an overview in tabular form on page 106 (Figure 5.1) which contrasts current research questions with future research questions. Readers may note that there are only eleven research questions instead of twelve in the overview, because research question 9 is missing: “Does the educational and L2 learning background determine the extent to which they benefit from written CF?”. In addition, there is another overview provided on page 109 (Figure 5.2) which explicitly focuses on written CF in L2 writing contexts. It highlights research problems such as the obvious practical and ethical problems which arise when control groups are included in longitudinal designs, and points out under-explored questions concerning CF in L2 writing contexts. The latter include questions regarding the content, the form and the amount of CF. In addition, the authors emphasise that there is a need to examine the extent to which a combination of CF and other classroom activities such as revision, strategy training etc. can lead to better progress in terms of accuracy. The third question referring to the amount of written CF (“What helps students develop better writings skills: selective feedback that trains them to focus on error patterns or comprehensive feedback that trains them to carefully edit entire texts?”) may come a bit out of the blue as the readers’ attention has so far been directed towards the general issue of focused versus unfocused feedback. It is true that the question of whether to mark papers comprehensively or selectively is touched upon in Chapter 4, but the discussion is somewhat hidden away. For instance, it was only when I returned to page 92 in Chapter 4 that I noticed that Ferris had already posed the question as to “how many errors or error types in a given paper can productively be marked without overwhelming the students” (p. 92), which surely is of great interest to teachers, as it touches upon the motivational aspect of feedback. More could have been said on this topic in Chapter 4 in order to help the reader understand why questions regarding the amount of written CF as outlined in Chapter 5 are very important indeed. The last three chapters should be read attentively by all language teachers as they shift the focus from theory to practice. Chapter 6 shows how teachers can use CF in their language classes, while Chapter 7 focuses on the use of CF for L2 students in particular. While research findings are insightful to both L2 and FL teachers, the author cautions that learning goals in L2 contexts may be different from FL contexts and that CF will have to be adapted accordingly. What language teachers will all have in common, one may add, is that they must meet a number of challenges if research findings are to be taken seriously: when providing CF, language proficiency is an issue to be considered, which refers back to the question whether the student is ready for the acquisition of new grammatical forms. With regard to the amount of CF to be provided, teachers will have to strike a balance between too much CF (which may overwhelm students) and too little CF (which may under-challenge students and make for slow progress). When determining which errors to focus on, teachers will have to decide whether the observed error is not just a typing or writing slip and, once a genuine error is identified, decide how to treat it. In the L2 context, additional challenges with regard to style are likely to come up. Chapter 7 concludes with an extensive appendix showing different examples of how to deliver written CF. All in all, Chapters 6 and 7 illustrate well that each teacher training seminar worth its salt will need to allow sufficient time to prepare future practitioners for the treatment of error, and Chapter 8 makes very sensible suggestions in this regard. It is with this in mind that I hope that this valuable book will be read by a wide audience consisting not only of researchers, but also of teachers, especially prospective teachers, as well as teacher educators and curriculum designers. References Ferris, D.R., 2002. Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing. University of Michigan Press, Michigan. Kormos, J., 2012. The role of individual differences in L2 writing. J. Second Lang. Writing 21, 390e403. Sheen, Y., 2011. Corrective Feedback, Individual Differences and Second Language Learning. Springer, New York.
Vera Busse Carl von Ossietzky Universita¨t, Fakulta¨t I Bildungs- und Sozialwissenschaften, Institut fu¨r Pa¨dagogik, 26111 Oldenburg, Germany E-mail address: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.04.010