Fark Etme Destekli Hata Düzeltmenin Öğrencinin Doğru Yazması Üzerine Etkileri

Neredeyse yirmi beş yıldır, araştırmacılar Truscott’un yazılı düzeltici geribildirimin (YDG) dilbilgisi gelişimi için yetersiz olduğu iddiasını çürütmeye çalışmışlardır. Çok sayıda çabaya rağmen, YDG’nin dilbilgisi öğreniminde oynadığı rol halen çözülememiştir. Truscott’un iddiasını çürütmeye çalışan ilk çalışmalar, son çalışmaların üstesinden geldiği yöntemsel ve etik kusurlar içeriyordu. Yine de Truscott’un iddiası tamamen çürütülememiştir. Bu çalışma, bunun olası nedenlerini tartışmakta ve fark etmeyi destekleyen hata düzeltme koşullarının (HDK) yazma doğruluğu üzerindeki etkilerini inceleyen yarı deneysel bir araştırmayla desteklemektedir. Araştırma açık, kontrolsüz ve öğrenci merkezli bir yazma göreviyle YDG’yi kapsamlı bir şekilde ele almaktadır.  Geribildirimin her aşamasında öğrenci tarafından başlatılan fark etme olanakları HDK’lara eklenerek yazma doğruluğunun etkilenip etkilenmediğini araştırılmıştır. YDG üzerine yapılan çok sayıda araştırmadan pek azı  geribildirim esnasında fark etme konusunu incelemiştir  Çalışmanın kuramsal çerçevesini “fark etme” “yazmanın dil öğrenmede potansiyeli”, “öğrenmek için yazma” ve “edinim için geribildirim” kavramları oluşturmaktadır. Sonuçlar: Truscott’un YDG’nin dilbilgisel gelişimde yetersizliği iddiasına destek verebilecek istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olmayan bulgular ve KONTROL ve ÖZ-HDK'lar arasındaki istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulgular olmak üzere iki temel başlık altında tartışılmıştır. Bu bulgulardan ilki, Truscott’un öğrencilerin zaman ve çabasının yazma pratiğine odaklanarak daha verimli bir şekilde değerlendirilebileceği iddiasını destekleyebilir. İkincisi ise, yazıda doğru kullanımı geliştirmenin YDG tekniğine bağlı olmadığını, ancak fark etme fırsatlarına bağlı olabileceğini düşündürmektedir.

The Immediate and Delayed Effects of Noticing-Supported Error Correction on Learners’ Writing Accuracy

For nearly twenty-five years, researchers have tried to refute Truscott’s claim for the inefficiency of written corrective feedback (WCF) for grammar improvement. Despite numerous attempts, the role WCF plays in grammar learning is still unresolved. Problems with early studies trying to negate Truscott’s claim included methodological and ethical flaws that recent studies have overcome. Researchers are, however, still unable to totally refute Truscott’s claim. This research outlines possible reasons for this. These reasons are presented with the support of a quasi-experimental study on the effects of noticing-supported error correction conditions (ECCs) on learners’ writing accuracy. The research tackles comprehensive WCF in an open, uncontrolled and learner-centred writing task. Learner-initiated noticing opportunities were encouraged in each ECC during the feedback stage with the aim to investigate whether learner-initiated noticing opportunities added to ECCs influence writing accuracy. Regardless of numerous studies on WCF, little research has paid attention to noticing while receiving feedback. The study is framed within the ‘noticing’ debate, the ‘language learning potential of writing’ and the ‘writing-to-learn’ and ‘feedback-for-acquisition’ dimensions. Results are discussed under the main findings: the lack of statistically significant results for grammatical features that might lend support to Truscott’s claim for the inefficacy of WCF for grammatical features, and; the statistically significant results found for the CONTROL- and the SELF- ECCs. The former might support Truscott’s claim that learners’ time and effort would be more productively spent on writing practice. The latter, might suggest that accuracy improvement might not depend on the WCF technique but on noticing opportunities.

Kaynakça

Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, reformulation and noticing: Implications for IL development. Language Teaching Research, 7(3), 347–376.Allwright, R.L., Woodley, M.P., & Allwright, J.M. (1988). Investigating reformulation as a practical strategy for the teaching of academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 9(3), 236–256.Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227–258.Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102–118. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409–431.Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009a). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193–214.Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009b). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System 37, 322–29.Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191–205. Bruton, A. (2009). Improving accuracy is not the only reason for writing, and even if it were… System, 37, 600–613.Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267–296.Cohen, A.D. (1983). Reformulating second-language compositions: A potential source of input for the learner. (ERIC ED 228 866).Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353–371.Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., McCollum, R. M., & Wolfersberger, M. (2010). Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 445–463.Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178–190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Ferris, D. (2004). The ‘grammar correction’ debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime... ?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49–62.Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.Godfroid, A., Housen, A., & Boers, F. (2010). A procedure for testing the noticing hypothesis in the context of vocabulary acquisition. In M. Pütz & L. Sicola, (Eds.), Cognitive processing in second language acquisition. Inside the learner’s mind (pp. 169–198). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40–53.Hanaoka, O. (2007). Output, noticing, and learning: An investigation into the role of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research, 11(4), 459–479.Hanaoka, O., & Izumi, S. (2012). Noticing and uptake: Addressing pre-articulated covert problems in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 332–347.Izumi, S. (2013). Noticing and L2 development: Theoretical, empirical and pedagogical issues. In J.M. Bergsleithner, A.N. Frota & J.K. Yoshioka (Eds.), Noticing and second language acquisition: studies in honor of Richard Schmidt (pp. 25–38). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Johnson, K. (1988). Mistake correction. ELT Journal, 42(2), 89–96.Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–149.Lee, I. (2011). Working smarter, not working harder: Revisiting teacher feedback in the L2 writing classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 67(3), 377–399.Leow, R. (1997). Attention, awareness and foreign language behaviour. Language Learning, 47(3), 467–505.Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2001). A case of exercising: effects of immediate task repetition on learners’ performance. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M.Swain (Eds.) Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. (pp. 141–162). New York: Routledge.Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 405–430.Manchón, R. M. (2011a). The language learning potential of writing in foreign language contexts: Lessons from research. In T. Cimasko & M. Reichelt (Eds.), Foreign language instruction. Principles and practices (pp. 44–64). USA: Parlor Press.Manchón, R. M. (2011b). Writing-to-learn the language. In R.M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 61–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Manchón, R.M. (2013). Teaching writing. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopaedia of applied linguistics (pp. 2−7). USA: Blackwell Publishing.Park, E.S. (2011). Learner-generated noticing of written L2 input: What do learners notice and why? Language Learning, 61(1), 146–186.Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 375–389.Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 277–303.Reinders, H. W. (2005). The effects of different task types on L2 learners’ intake and acquisition of two grammatical structures (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Auckland, Auckland. Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45(2), 283–331.Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on an L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67–100.Santos, M., López-Serrano, S., & Manchón, R.M. (2010). The differential effect of two types of direct written corrective feedback on noticing and uptake: Reformulation vs. error correction. International Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 131–154.Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1–63). Honolulu, Hawai'i: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Centre.Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283.Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 203–234.Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37, 556–569.Solares-Altamirano, M.E. (2016). The effects of different error correction conditions on learner-initiated noticing (Unpublished PhD thesis). Lancaster University, United Kingdom.Storch, N. (2009). Comparing type of feedback and processing mode: Pair versus individual processing of feedback on writing. Paper presented at the Second Language Writing Symposium, Phoenix, Arizona.Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29–46.Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Case Studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303–334.Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step toward second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2007). The distributed nature of second language learning: Neil’s perspective. In S. Fotos & H. Nassaji (Eds.), Form-focused instruction and teacher education. Studies in honour of Rod Ellis (pp. 73–86). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Tomlin, R., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183–203. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369.Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–272.Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292–305.Van Beuningen, C. (2011). The effectiveness of comprehensive corrective feedback in second language writing (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Van Beuningen, C., De Jong, N., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296.Van Beuningen, C., De Jong, N., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41.Van Patten, B. (1994). Evaluating the role of consciousness in second language acquisition: Terms, linguistic features & research methodology. AILA Review,11, 27–36. Williams, J. (2001). Learner-generated attention to form. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Form focused instruction and second language learning (pp. 303–346). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Yang, L., & Zhang, L. (2010). Exploring the role of reformulations and a model text in EFL students’ writing performance. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 464- 484.