To date, few empirical studies have been designed to evaluate the effects of different types of feedback on error in the written work of second language writers. The study reported in this article contrasted four methods of providing feedback on written error. These methods differed in the degree of salience provided to the writer in the revision process. In the study, a factor analysis was used to reduce an initial set of 19 measures of writing skill to a subset of 7. Each of the 7 measures in the subset was then used as a dependent variable in an analysis of covariance design which contrasted the effects of the feedback methods on subsequent narrative compositions. Evidence against direct correction of error in written work is discussed.
Much of current L2 writing theory has been extrapolated from L 1 literature on native speaker writing processes (Zamel 1982(Zamel , 1983Raimes 1985). This has led to an influx of Ll instructional practices into L2 classrooms which remain largely untested on non-native populations. As a relatively new applied field, the teaching of composition to non-natives has been largely dependent upon the pedagogical practices modelled on research findings and practical experiences of first language composition teachers. The paucity of field testing of first language composition teaching techniques in the second language context, however, has led to widespread belief that whatever works for native speakers must be equally effective for non-native writers. Three such practices which are widely used in L2 classrooms are sentence combining and journal writing, and more recently, composition reformulation techniques. The present study reports a study of the relative effectiveness of these three composition strategies in a second language context. The rationale behind the use of journal writing in L2 instruction derives primarily from testimonials in Ll literature (Spack and Sadow 1983). Proponents of journal writing contend that increased opportunities for informal writing practice provide invaluable experience in the application of writing strategies in a context where there is less anxiety and concern with form (Kirchotter 1974;Esch 1975;Koch 1975; Fulwiler 1978;Scheuermann 1977). The primary focus of L 1 research has been to monitor these positive attitudinal changes rather than addressing the question of whether such instruction results in improved writing quality (Hull 1981, Staton, Shuy andKreft 1982). Research on the relationship betwen writing frequency and writing quality, however, suggests that the practice of writing for fluency alone may have a negligible effect on improving student writing (Hunting 1967, Azabdaftari 1981.In spite of recent research suggesting the ineffectiveness of corrective feedback on composition (Hendrickson
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.