Marisela Bonilla López, E. Steendam, D. Speelman, Kris Buyse
{"title":"二语写作中的综合纠正反馈:个别错误类别的反应","authors":"Marisela Bonilla López, E. Steendam, D. Speelman, Kris Buyse","doi":"10.17239/JOWR-2021.13.01.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While the literature on the effect of comprehensive corrective feedback (CF) on overall accuracy is abundant, the body of work employing such a scope to explore error treatability is not, especially when it comes to blended (cf. Ferris, 2010) design studies. Consequently, this investigation extends the analyses from the data set of Bonilla et al. (2018) to report on individual linguistic features. Specifically, to address crucial amenabilityrelated questions in need of perusal, the present blended design study explores the effect of two types of comprehensive CF (with direct correction and metalinguistic codes) on the treatability of separate grammatical and non-grammatical structures. To this end, a group of EFL learners (N = 139) were required to do editing that involved error-correction, deferred (on a draft), and focused on language as well as to produce two independent essays (in an immediate and a delayed posttest). Main results from logistic regression (to test the effect in revised essays) and mixed-effect models (to test the effect on independent essays) render seven variables that can explain correctability differences: out of those, three have also explained overall accuracy gains (cf. Bonilla et al., 2018), one has not been identified thus far, and three consolidate themselves as relevant factors under other conditions as well. Theoretical and pedagogical implications are discussed.","PeriodicalId":30549,"journal":{"name":"Libellarium Journal for the Research of Writing Books and Cultural Heritage Institutions","volume":"163 1","pages":"31-70"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comprehensive corrective feedback in second language writing: The response of individual error categories\",\"authors\":\"Marisela Bonilla López, E. Steendam, D. Speelman, Kris Buyse\",\"doi\":\"10.17239/JOWR-2021.13.01.02\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"While the literature on the effect of comprehensive corrective feedback (CF) on overall accuracy is abundant, the body of work employing such a scope to explore error treatability is not, especially when it comes to blended (cf. Ferris, 2010) design studies. Consequently, this investigation extends the analyses from the data set of Bonilla et al. (2018) to report on individual linguistic features. Specifically, to address crucial amenabilityrelated questions in need of perusal, the present blended design study explores the effect of two types of comprehensive CF (with direct correction and metalinguistic codes) on the treatability of separate grammatical and non-grammatical structures. To this end, a group of EFL learners (N = 139) were required to do editing that involved error-correction, deferred (on a draft), and focused on language as well as to produce two independent essays (in an immediate and a delayed posttest). Main results from logistic regression (to test the effect in revised essays) and mixed-effect models (to test the effect on independent essays) render seven variables that can explain correctability differences: out of those, three have also explained overall accuracy gains (cf. Bonilla et al., 2018), one has not been identified thus far, and three consolidate themselves as relevant factors under other conditions as well. Theoretical and pedagogical implications are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30549,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Libellarium Journal for the Research of Writing Books and Cultural Heritage Institutions\",\"volume\":\"163 1\",\"pages\":\"31-70\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Libellarium Journal for the Research of Writing Books and Cultural Heritage Institutions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17239/JOWR-2021.13.01.02\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Libellarium Journal for the Research of Writing Books and Cultural Heritage Institutions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17239/JOWR-2021.13.01.02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
摘要
虽然关于综合纠正反馈(CF)对整体准确性的影响的文献很多,但采用这种范围来探索错误可治疗性的工作却很少,特别是在混合设计研究中(CF . Ferris, 2010)。因此,本研究扩展了Bonilla等人(2018)的数据集分析,以报告单个语言特征。具体来说,为了解决需要仔细阅读的关键易受影响性问题,本混合设计研究探讨了两种类型的综合CF(直接纠正和元语言代码)对单独的语法和非语法结构的可治疗性的影响。为此,一组英语学习者(N = 139)被要求进行编辑,包括纠错,延期(在草稿上),专注于语言,以及撰写两篇独立的文章(在即时测试和延迟后测中)。逻辑回归(用于测试修订论文中的效果)和混合效应模型(用于测试对独立论文的影响)的主要结果提供了七个可以解释可纠正性差异的变量:其中三个变量也解释了总体准确性的提高(cf. Bonilla et al., 2018),到目前为止尚未确定一个变量,另外三个变量在其他条件下也将自己整合为相关因素。讨论了理论和教学意义。
Comprehensive corrective feedback in second language writing: The response of individual error categories
While the literature on the effect of comprehensive corrective feedback (CF) on overall accuracy is abundant, the body of work employing such a scope to explore error treatability is not, especially when it comes to blended (cf. Ferris, 2010) design studies. Consequently, this investigation extends the analyses from the data set of Bonilla et al. (2018) to report on individual linguistic features. Specifically, to address crucial amenabilityrelated questions in need of perusal, the present blended design study explores the effect of two types of comprehensive CF (with direct correction and metalinguistic codes) on the treatability of separate grammatical and non-grammatical structures. To this end, a group of EFL learners (N = 139) were required to do editing that involved error-correction, deferred (on a draft), and focused on language as well as to produce two independent essays (in an immediate and a delayed posttest). Main results from logistic regression (to test the effect in revised essays) and mixed-effect models (to test the effect on independent essays) render seven variables that can explain correctability differences: out of those, three have also explained overall accuracy gains (cf. Bonilla et al., 2018), one has not been identified thus far, and three consolidate themselves as relevant factors under other conditions as well. Theoretical and pedagogical implications are discussed.