Skip to main content

The Effectiveness of Written Corrective Feedback in the Acquisition of the English Article System by Polish Learners in View of the Counterbalance Hypothesis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 1415 Accesses

Part of the book series: Second Language Learning and Teaching ((SLLT))

Abstract

The main aim of this article is to investigate the effectiveness of written error correction based on the principles of the Counterbalance Hypothesis [Lyster and Mori (Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28:321–334, 2006)]. The hypothesis assumes that learners’ ability to notice the gap between the ill-formed utterance produced in their interlanguage and the target linguistic form is enhanced by the shift in their attentional focus from meaning to form in a meaning-focused context and from form to meaning in in a form-oriented setting. Thus, instructional activities such as corrective feedback should act as a counterbalance to the classroom’s predominant orientation and are predicted to be more effective than interactional feedback which is congruent with the predominant foreign language teaching methodology. The study examines the differential effect of two types of written corrective feedback (CF) and the extent to which the type of foreign language instruction mediates the effects of CF on the acquisition of articles by adult intermediate Polish learners of English (N = 59). Four research groups were formed: (1) a direct-only correction group taught inductively, (2) a direct-only correction group taught deductively, (3) a direct meta-linguistic correction group taught inductively, and (4) a direct meta-linguistic correction group taught deductively. The study revealed that all the treatment groups outperformed the control group on the immediate post-tests, and the direct meta-linguistic group taught inductively performed significantly better than the remaining research groups. The results also showed that written CF targeting a single linguistic feature improved the learners’ accuracy, especially when meta-linguistic feedback was provided and the learners received the inductive type of formal instruction (FI).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    You need ‘a’ before the noun when it is mentioned for the first time.

  2. 2.

    You need ‘a’ before the noun when it is mentioned for the first time.

  3. 3.

    You need ‘a’ before the noun when it is mentioned for the first time.

  4. 4.

    You need ‘a’ before the noun when it is mentioned for the first time.

  5. 5.

    You need ‘the’ before the noun in the superlative, ‘the nearest’.

References

  • Allan, D. 2004. Oxford placement test 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, D. 2003. L2 writing in the post-process era. Journal of Second Language Writing 12: 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, W., and R. Brickner. 2010. The effects of direct and indirect speech acts on native English and ESL speakers’ perception of teacher written feedback. System 38: 75–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, R. 1993. Collins Cobuild English guides 3 – Articles. London: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickerton, D. 1981. Roots of language. Ann Abor: Karoma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, N. 1960. Language and language learning. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaudron, C. 1977. A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning 25: 153–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. 1975. Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doughty, C., and E. Varela. 1998. Communicative focus on form. In Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, ed. C. Doughty and J. Williams, 114–138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R. 2008. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R. 2009. A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal 63: 97–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falla, T., P. Davies, and D. Gryca. 2011. Matura solutions intermediate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. 2002. Treatment of error in second language writing classes. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. 2004. The grammar correction debate in L2 writing. Where are we, where do we go from here (and what do we do in the meantime…?). Journal of Second Language Writing 13: 49–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. 2006. Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short and long-term effects of written error correction. In Feedback in second language writing: Context and issues, ed. K. Hyland and F. Hyland, 81–104. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D., and B. Roberts. 2001. Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing 10: 161–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, Z.-H. 2002. A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly 41: 387–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastings, B., R. Raczyńska, and S. McKinley. 2011. New matura success intermediate. London: Pearson Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedgcock, J. 2005. Taking stock of research and pedagogy in L2 writing. In Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, ed. E. Hinkel, 597–613. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendrickson, J.M. 1980. Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent research and practice. The Modern Language Journal 62: 387–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, F. 2003. Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System 31: 217–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K., and F. Hyland. 2006. Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing: An introduction. In Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues, ed. K. Hyland, 1–19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lightbown, P., and N. Spada. 1999. How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krashen, S.D. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, M. 1996. The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Handbook of second language acquisition, ed. W.C. Ritchie and B.K. Bahtia, 413–468. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyster, R. 2004. Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26: 399–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyster, R., and H. Mori. 2006. Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28: 321–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, A. 2007. The role of conversational intraction in second language acquisition. In Conversational interaction in second language acquisition, ed. A. Mackey, 1–26. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarell, H., and J. Verbeen. 2007. Motivating revision of drafts through formative feedback. ELT Journal 61: 228–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pawlak, M. 2012. Error correction in the foreign language classroom: Reconsidering the issue. Poznan-Kalisz: Wydawnictwo UAM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichelt, M. 2001. A critical review of foreign language writing research on pedagogical approaches. The Modern Language Journal 85: 578–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. 2001. Attention. In Cognition and second language instruction, ed. P. Robinson, 3–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sheen, Y. 2011. Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Swain, M. 1995. Three functions of output in second language learning. In Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson, ed. G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer, 125–144. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarone, E., and B. Parrish. 1988. Task-related variation in interlanguage: The case of articles. Language Learning 38: 21–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Truscott, J. 1996. The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Canadian Modern Language Review 55: 327–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Truscott, J. 2007. The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing 16: 255–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ur, P. 1996. A course in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lech Zabor .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendices

Appendix 1

1.1 The Forced-Choice Elicitation Test on the English Articles (30 Items)

Direction: Underline the missing article a, an, the or zero article (Ø)

Example: I have (a, an, the, Ø) dog and two hamsters.

  1. 1.

    Woman: I bought a blue cup and a green cup. Unfortunately, (a, an, the, Ø) blue cup broke before I even got home.

  2. 2.

    Woman: Don’t go in that yard. (a, an, the, Ø) dog will bite you!

  3. 3.

    Man: They’ve just returned from New York. (a, an, the, Ø) plane was 5 h late.

  4. 4.

    Woman: The pet shop had five puppies and seven kittens. Sue thought for (a, an, the, Ø) while and chose (a, an, the, Ø) puppy.

  5. 5.

    Teacher: Amy, you probably have something on your desk in your room. What is it?

    Schoolgirl: It is (a, an, the, Ø) computer.

  6. 6.

    Boy: Mum, I haven’t got anything to write with.

    Woman: Wait, I have three pens in my bag. I will give you (a, an, the, Ø) pen.

  7. 7.

    Man: When I was walking down the street (a, an, the, Ø) girl came up to me and asked me about the most interesting places in the city. I told her that I couldn’t answer (a, an, the, Ø) question because I was a stranger there.

  8. 8.

    Man: Mark went to see our local football team in training. He even got an autograph from (a, an, the, Ø) player. I have no idea which one, but he was very happy.

  9. 9.

    Man: (at the dinner table) Please pass (a, an, the, Ø) butter.

  10. 10.

    Woman: We had dinner in that new Italian restaurant. I had (a, an, the, Ø) chicken and salad—both were great, but (a, an, the, Ø) dessert was far too sweet for my taste.

  11. 11.

    Boy: I dropped five coins and found only four of them, (a, an, the, Ø) missing coin is probably under (a, an, the, Ø) sofa.

  12. 12.

    Security guard: If you want to talk to (a, an, the, Ø) winner, wait until the end of (a, an, the, Ø) race.

  13. 13.

    Man: I had to get (a, an, the, Ø) taxi from the station. On the way (a, an, the, Ø) driver told me there was (a, an, the, Ø) bus strike.

  14. 14.

    Boy: Paul has many old records. His cousin borrowed (a, an, the, Ø) record from him.

  15. 15.

    Teacher: A man went to (a, an, the, Ø) jungle because he wanted to see a lion or a zebra. He looked all over and looked and looked. Who came running at (a, an, the, Ø) man?

    Child:(a, an, the, Ø) zebra.

  16. 16.

    Shop owner: We will offer a huge discount to (a, an, the, Ø) next customer.

  17. 17.

    Woman: My daughter is studying to be a lawyer. She wants to help (a, an, the, Ø) poor.

  18. 18.

    Man: We went to a wedding yesterday. I must say (a, an, the, Ø) bride was very pretty.

  19. 19.

    Passenger: (At the airport) Excuse me, I’m looking for (a, an, the, Ø) tall, red-haired girl. She’s my daughter. She was on (a, an, the, Ø) flight 239.

  20. 20.

    Hotel receptionist: Are you looking for something, madam?

    Woman: Yes, I’m looking for (a, an, the, Ø) brown bag that I left here.

Key: 1 the blue cup, 2 the dog, 3 the plane, 4 a while, a puppy 5 a computer, 6 a pen, 7 a girl, the question, 8 a player, 9 the butter, 10 the chicken, the dessert, 11 the missing coin, the sofa, 12 the winner, the race, 13 a taxi, the driver, a bus strike, 14 a record, 15 the jungle, the man, a zebra, 16 the next customer, 17 the poor, 18 the bride, 19 a tall red-haired girl, flight 20 the brown bag.

Appendix 2

2.1 A Sample of a Student’s Writing Assignment with Corrections. Noun Phrases Coded for the Analysis of the Article Use Are in Boldface

One week ago I saw very interesting movie Footnote 1 I would like to write about. The movie calls Noi Albinoi, was made in Iceland and shows different problems of living in a small village. The main actor is 18 years old guy Footnote 2 with only one plan for his life. He tries to run away from this little village and look for better place Footnote 3 to live. The society try to convince him to stay because they don’t believe he should go away. He doesn’t go to school and makes new friends that’s why the rest of the villagers pull him back. He is so frustrated that’s why he decides to escape. He jumps to the boat Footnote 4 to get to nearest island Footnote 5 . Suddenly the weather changes and starts to snowing.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Zabor, L., Rychlewska, A. (2015). The Effectiveness of Written Corrective Feedback in the Acquisition of the English Article System by Polish Learners in View of the Counterbalance Hypothesis. In: Piasecka, L., Adams-Tukiendorf, M., Wilk, P. (eds) New Media and Perennial Problems in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07686-7_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics