The effects of two methods of error correction on L2 writing: The case of acquisition of the Spanish preterite and imperfect

Carlos A Munoz, Purdue University

Abstract

Very often, second language (L2) writers commit the same type of errors repeatedly, despite being corrected directly or indirectly by teachers or peers (Semke, 1984; Truscott, 1996). Apart from discouraging teachers from providing error correction feedback, this also makes them hesitant as to what form of corrective feedback to adopt. Ferris (2004) reports that some studies (mostly in ESL) which addressed the differences in accuracy and writing quality between learners who received error feedback and those who did not reported inconsistent outcomes. Thus, this study compared two methods of error correction and their efficacy in prompting students to edit their written texts accurately focusing on the Spanish preterite and imperfect morphology. Data collection included the writing of six compositions over an academic semester and completion of a language profile questionnaire. The first and last compositions were used as pre-test and post-test respectively. Participants received feedback on the Spanish preterite and the imperfect in the form of errors underlined and coded (coded condition), and errors underlined with no codes (uncoded condition). A control group received no explicit correction. It was hypothesized that the two experimental groups would outperform the control group. Results indicate that there is a significant effect, pertaining to the acquisition of the Spanish preterite and imperfect, of one the two experimental correction methods (the coded condition) over both the other correction method (uncoded) and the no-correction condition, based on the analyses of the pre-test and post-test measures. This means that the hypothesis claiming that the two experimental conditions would outperform the no-correction condition was partially supported since only the coded condition appeared to be more beneficial to students. This study suggests that more carefully designed research and more target structures are needed to fully acknowledge the benefits of corrective feedback. It also warns on the need to familiarize student writers with any of the correction methods to be used in the L2 classroom. However, the study concludes that the provision of error feedback to student writing is beneficial and necessary because it provides student writers with more information that helps them to supply accurate corrections and appears less misleading.

Degree

Ph.D.

Advisors

Hammond, Purdue University.

Subject Area

Linguistics|Foreign Language|Language

COinS