Examining the differential effects of focused vs. unfocused ZPD and explicit feedback on second language writing

被引:0
作者
Shalizar, Reza [1 ]
Rezaei, Amir [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Toronto, Ontario Inst Studies Educ, Toronto, ON, Canada
[2] York Univ, Toronto, ON, Canada
关键词
ZPD feedback; corrective feedback; oral conferencing; focused and unfocused corrective feedback; accuracy; L2; development; WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK; THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES; GRAMMAR-CORRECTION; L2; ACCURACY; ACQUISITION; RECASTS; ERRORS;
D O I
10.1080/09571736.2022.2042366
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
This study compares the effect of ZPD feedback with explicit feedback on accuracy in second language (L2) writing. It also examines the effect of focused vs. unfocused ZPD feedback on L2 writing development during teacher-student tutorial sessions. Four participants wrote five persuasive essays and were provided with ZPD or explicit feedback either in focused or unfocused form during five tutorial sessions. Following sociocultural theory (SCT) principles, the ZPD feedback provided was graduated, contingent, and dialogical. The results revealed that the learners who received ZPD feedback performed better than those who received explicit feedback in terms of accuracy. The results also showed that the use of focused and unfocused ZPD feedback yields different results both in terms of accuracy across sessions and shifts in the quality of feedback learners need within and across sessions. The findings lend support to the supremacy of SCT-inspired ZPD feedback in general and focused ZPD feedback in particular but raise important questions regarding the nature of teacher-student interaction during tutorial sessions, and the number and function of linguistic targets. The findings are discussed in the light of SCT and cognitive-interactionist views of corrective feedback, and their implications for theory, practice, and research are discussed in detail.
引用
收藏
页码:359 / 375
页数:17
相关论文
共 79 条
[11]   The Contribution of Written Corrective Feedback to Language Development: A Ten Month Investigation [J].
Bitchener, John ;
Knoch, Ute .
APPLIED LINGUISTICS, 2010, 31 (02) :193-214
[12]   The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback [J].
Bitchener, John ;
Knoch, Ute .
ELT JOURNAL, 2009, 63 (03) :204-211
[13]   Designing research into the effects of grammar correction in L2 writing: Not so straightforward [J].
Bruton, Anthony .
JOURNAL OF SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING, 2009, 18 (02) :136-140
[14]  
Carroll S., 1993, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, V15, P357, DOI [10.1017/S0272263100012158, DOI 10.1017/S0272263100012158]
[15]   The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing [J].
Chandler, J .
JOURNAL OF SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING, 2003, 12 (03) :267-296
[16]  
Donato R., 1994, VYGOTSKIAN APPROACHE, P33
[17]   Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar [J].
Ellis, R ;
Loewen, S ;
Erlam, R .
STUDIES IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION, 2006, 28 (02) :339-368
[18]  
Ellis R., 2005, ANAL LEARNER LANGUAG
[19]   Anniversary article Focus on form: A critical review [J].
Ellis, Rod .
LANGUAGE TEACHING RESEARCH, 2016, 20 (03) :405-428
[20]   The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context [J].
Ellis, Rod ;
Sheen, Younghee ;
Murakami, Mihoko ;
Takashima, Hide .
SYSTEM, 2008, 36 (03) :353-371