Cover not available

Article published In: Learner Corpus Research for Pedagogical Purposes
Edited by Sandra Götz and Sylviane Granger
[International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 10:1] 2024
► pp. 107–145

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Using learner corpus data for grammatical accuracy development in written productions

The role of corrective feedback

 | Sorbonne Université – CELISO (UR7332)
 | Sorbonne Université – CELISO (UR7332)
 | Le CNAM – FOAP (EA7529)
Published online: 28 June 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.00042.sar
Abstract
This study investigates the differential effect of various noticing activities on grammatical accuracy development in EFL learners’ written productions. We focus on different types of noticing activities based on an error-tagged learner corpus and report on effective practical experiments involving learner corpus data. A pretest/posttest quasi-experimental design is used with three experimental groups (receiving different treatments) and one control group. Error frequencies, at both group and individual levels, and proportions of learners producing errors on three specific error types (articles, verb tense, verb agreement) are compared. Our results suggest that accuracy in the use of articles and verb agreement could be more easily fostered through the comparison of learner output with native data (the BNC, in our case). As for verb tenses, the impact of a more traditional form of corrective feedback seems greater while the use of online machine translation tools does not seem to foster much accuracy development.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Corrective feedback and data-driven learning
    • 2.1Classroom DDL and L2 research
    • 2.2Methodological considerations
    • 2.3Research questions
  • 3.Data and methodology
    • 3.1Learner corpus data
    • 3.2Data collection procedure
    • 3.3Data annotation
    • 3.4Measures
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Corpus size
    • 4.2Evolution of error frequencies (per number of words) at the group level
      • 4.2.1Overall error frequencies at the group level
      • 4.2.2Error frequencies per error type at the group level
    • 4.3Evolution of error frequencies at the individual level
      • 4.3.1Evolution of overall error frequencies per learner
      • 4.3.2Evolution of the proportion of learners producing errors
      • 4.3.3Evolution of error frequencies per error type per learner
        • Articles
        • Verb agreement
        • Verb tense
      • 4.3.4Comparison of the proportions of learners producing fewer grammatical errors
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (68)
References
Allan, R. (2018, July). Recycling the data: Building and using a learner business English writing corpus. Paper presented at the Call Your Data: XIXth CALL Conference, University of Bruges, Belgium.
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, 91, 227–258. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benson, S., & DeKeyser, R. (2019). Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research, 23(6), 702–726. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bestgen, Y., & Granger, S. (2018). Tracking L2 writers’ phraseological development using collgrams: Evidence from a longitudinal EFL corpus. In S. Hoffmann, A. Sand, S. Arndt-Lappe, & L. M. Dillmann (Eds.), Corpora and Lexis (pp. 277–301). Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Nekrasova, T., & Horn, B. (2011). The effectiveness of feedback for L1-English and L2-writing development: A meta-analysis (ETS Research Report RR-11-05). ETS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322–329. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 141, 191–205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boulton, A. (2016). Integrating corpus tools and techniques in ESP courses. ASp. La Revue Du GERAS, 691, 113–137. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Research in data-driven learning. In P. Pérez-Paredes, & G. Mark (Eds.), Beyond concordance lines: Corpora in language education (pp. 9–34). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brand, C., & Götz, S. (2011). Fluency versus accuracy in advanced spoken learner language: A multi-method approach. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(2), 255–275. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brudermann, C., Grosbois, M., & Sarré, C. (2021). Accuracy development in L2 writing: Exploring the potential of computer-assisted unfocused indirect corrective feedback in an online EFL course. ReCALL, 33(3), 248–264. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brudermann, C., Mattioli, M.-A., Roussel, A.-M., & Sarré, C. (2016). Le secteur des langues pour spécialistes d’autres disciplines dans les universités françaises : Résultats d’une enquête nationale menée par la SAES. Recherche et pratiques pédagogiques en langues de spécialité. Cahiers de l’Apliut, 35(1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Callies, M. (2019). Integrating corpus literacy into language teacher education. In S. Götz, & J. Mukherjee (Eds.), Learner corpora and language teaching (pp. 245–263). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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, 121, 267–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chung, E. S., & Ahn, S. (2022). The effect of using machine translation on linguistic features in L2 writing across proficiency levels and text genres. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(9), 2239–2264. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cornillie, F., Clarebout, G., & Desmet, P. (2012). The role of feedback in foreign language learning through digital role playing games. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 341, 49–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crosthwaite, P. (2023). Corpus Linguistics: Mixed-Methods Research. In C. Chappelle (Ed.), Wiley encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, 2nd Edition (pp. 1–6). Wiley. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dagneaux, E., Denness, S., Granger, S., Meunier, F., Neff, J. A., & Thewissen, J. (2008). The Louvain error tagging manual. Version 1.3. Centre for English Corpus linguistics. Université Catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development. L2 Journal, 11, 3–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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, 361, 353–371. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Farr, F., & Karlsen, P. H. (2022). DDL Pedagogy, Participants, and Perspectives. In R. R. Jablonkai, & E. Csomay (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpora and English Language Teaching and learning (pp. 329–343). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes. A response to Truscott, J. (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–10. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 161, 165–193. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. J. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 101, 161–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fuster-Márquez, M., & Gregori-Signes, C. (2016). Learning from learners: a non-standard direct approach to the teaching of writing skills in EFL in a university context. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 12(2), 164–176. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garshol, L. (2019). I just doesn’t know: Agreement errors in English texts by Norwegian L2 learners: Causes and remedies. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. University of Agder.
Gilquin, G., & Granger, S. (2010). How can data-driven learning be used in language teaching. In A. O’Keeffe, & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 359–370). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Granger, S. (1999). Use of tenses by advanced EFL learners: evidence from an error-tagged computer corpus. In H. Hasselgård, & S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson (pp. 191–202). Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Granger, S., Swallow, H., & Thewissen, J. (2022). The Louvain error tagging manual. Version 2.0. CECL Papers 4. Centre for English Corpus Linguistics/Université catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Granger, S., & Tribble, C. (1998). Learner corpus data in the foreign language classroom: Form-focused instruction and data-driven learning. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 199–209). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hamilton, C. E. (2015). The contribution of systemic functional grammar to the error analysis framework. TESOL International Journal, 10(1), 11–28.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hashemifardnia, A., Namaziandost, E., & Sepehri, M. (2019). The effectiveness of giving grade, corrective feedback, and corrective feedback-plus-giving grade on grammatical accuracy. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 8(1), 15–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 391, 83–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johns, T. (1990). From printout to handout: Grammar and vocabulary teaching in the context of data-driven learning. CALL Austria, 101, 14–34.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1991). Should you be persuaded: Two examples of data-driven learning. In T. Johns, & P. King (Eds.), Classroom concordancing. English Language Research Journal, 41, 1–16.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 661, 140–149. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, S.-M. (2020). The impact of using machine translation on EFL students’ writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(3), 157–175, Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022). Different effects of machine translation on L2 revisions across students’ L2 writing proficiency levels. Language Learning & Technology, 26(1), 1–21. [URL]
Li, S. (2018). Data collection in the research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback. A synthetic and critical review. In A. Gudmestad, & A. Edmonds (Eds.), Critical reflections on data in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 33–61). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022). A Dynamic Systems Theory perspective on L2 writing development. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Loock, R. (2020). No more rage against the machine: how the corpus-based identification of machine-translationese can lead to student empowerment. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 341, 150–170.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Loock, R., Léchauguette, S., & Holt, B. (2022). Dealing with the “Elephant in the classroom”: Developing language students’ machine translation literacy. Australian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 118–134. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2015). Variability and variation in second language acquisition orders: A dynamic reevaluation. Language Learning, 65(1), 63–88. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lu, X. (2022). What can corpus software reveal about language development?. In A. O’Keeffe, & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (2nd ed., pp.155–167). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 251, 399–432. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meunier, F. (2012). Learner corpora in the classroom: A useful and sustainable didactic resource. In L. Pedrazzini, & A. Nava (Eds.), Learning and teaching English: Insights from research (p. 211–228). Poliletrica.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (2017). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paquot, M., & Plonsky, L. (2017). Quantitative research methods and study quality in learner corpus research. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 3(1), 61–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pérez Cañado, M. L., & Díez Bedmar, M. B. (2006). Data-driven learning and awareness-raising: An effective tandem to improve grammar in written composition? International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 1(3), 1–11.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. (2013). Study quality in SLA: An assessment of designs, analyses, and reporting practices in quantitative L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 351, 655–687. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Study quality in quantitative L2 research (1990–2010): A methodological synthesis and call for reform, The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 450–470. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Polio, C. G. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47(1), 101–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 201, 83–93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2002). Learning conditions, aptitude complexes, and SLA: A framework for research and pedagogy. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 113–133). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sarré, C., Grosbois, M., & Brudermann, C. (2019). Fostering accuracy in L2 writing: impact of different types of corrective feedback in an experimental blended learning EFL course. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(5/6), 707–729. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Satake, Y. (2022). The effects of corpus use on L2 collocation learning. The JALT CALL, 18(1), 34–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 101, 361–392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 411, 255–283. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2013). Nurturing noticing. In J. M. Bergsleithner, S. N. Frota, & J. K. Yoshioka (Eds.), Noticing and Second Language Acquisition: Studies in honor of Richard Schmidt (pp. 169–180). University of Hawaii.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tono, Y., Satake, Y., & Miura, A. (2014). The effects of using corpora on revision tasks in L2 writing with coded error feedback. ReCALL, 26(2), 147–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yang, Y., Wei, X., Li, P., & Zhai, X. (2023). Assessing the effectiveness of machine translation in the Chinese EFL writing context: A replication of Lee (2020). ReCALL, 35(2), 211–224. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, L. J., & Cheng, X. (2021). Examining the effects of comprehensive written corrective feedback on L2 EAP students’ linguistic performance: A mixed-methods study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 541, 1–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Götz, Sandra
2025. Learner Corpora in Data-Driven Learning. In The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Computer-Assisted Language Learning, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Sahraei, Rezamorad, Zahra Haghighi Naseri & Mehrdad Vasheghani Farahani
2025. Assessing Collocational Errors of Russian Learners of Persian: A Learner Corpus-based Research. In New Frontiers in Corpus Based Studies of Persian, ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue