Cover not available

Article published In: Language, Interaction and Acquisition
Vol. 14:2 (2023) ► pp.191–217

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

Effets du feedback correctif écrit direct et indirect sur la réécriture du texte et les subséquentes productions d’apprenants de l’italien LV3 au lycée

ORCiD logo with link | Università di Roma La Sapienza

Article language: French

Published online: 22 March 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lia.22010.lar
Résumé
Ce travail compare les effets du feedback correctif (FC) direct et indirect sur la réécriture du texte et les subséquentes productions de 26 apprenants francophones de l’italien LV3. L’impact de leur engagement lors du traitement du FC est également évalué. Les apprenants ont été répartis en trois groupes (feedback direct, feedback indirect et groupe contrôle). Le protocole d’enquête a prévu un pré-test, une phase d’administration du FC, ainsi qu’un post-test immédiat et différé. Les groupes expérimentaux obtiennent de meilleurs résultats par rapport au groupe contrôle dans la réécriture du texte et dans les productions subséquentes. À un niveau d’engagement plus élevé lors du traitement du FC correspondent de meilleurs résultats dans la réécriture du texte. Le FC indirect conduit les apprenants à s’engager davantage dans le traitement, ce qui leur permet de corriger leurs erreurs dans la réécriture. Cet effort serait atténué, dans le plus long terme, par le fait de ne pas savoir si leurs hypothèses de résolution sont correctes. Le FC direct, qui donne de l’input en langue cible et la possibilité de le traiter immédiatement, porte les apprenants à améliorer davantage la correction de leurs subséquentes productions.
Abstract
Effects of direct and indirect written corrective feedback on text rewriting and subsequent production by learners of Italian as a foreign language at secondary school
A comparison is made between the effects of direct and indirect corrective feedback (CF) on text rewriting and on the following written and oral productions made by 26 French-speaking learners of Italian LV3. The impact of learners’ engagement while processing the CF is also evaluated. The participants were divided into three groups (direct feedback, indirect feedback and control group). The experimental design included a pre-test, a feedback treatment phase, an immediate post-test and a delayed post-test. The experimental groups outperformed the control group both on text rewriting and on the following written and oral productions. A high level of engagement during FC processing led to better results on text rewriting. Learners that received indirect CF showed a high level of engagement which helped them correct their errors in text rewriting. Nevertheless, this effort might have been mitigated in the long term by not knowing whether their solutions were correct. Learners that received direct CF, which gave them input in the TL and the possibility to process it immediately, showed greater accuracy improvements in subsequent written and oral productions.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Le feedback écrit direct et indirect
  • 3.Le traitement du feedback correctif par les apprenants
  • 4.Objectifs de l’étude et questions de recherche
  • 5.Méthodologie et données
    • 5.1Contexte et participants
    • 5.2Protocole d’enquête
    • 5.3Méthodologie d’analyse
  • 6.Résultats
    • 6.1Effets du feedback correctif sur la réécriture du texte
    • 6.2Engagement des apprenants lors du traitement du feedback
    • 6.3Effets du feedback correctif sur les productions écrites et orales subséquentes
  • 7.Discussion
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Remarques
  • References
References (47)
References
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, 9(3), 227–257. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 171, 102–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 121, 409–431. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010a). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010b). Written corrective feedback and advanced ESL learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207–217. 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
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, 12(3), 267–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christenson, S., Reschly, A., & Wylie, C. (2012). Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Conseil de l’Europe. (2001). Cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues : apprendre, enseigner, évaluer. Didier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT journal, 63(2), 97–107. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 335–349. 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, 36(3), 353–371. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research insights for the classroom (178–190). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 321, 181–201. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing studies. Language Teaching, 45(4), 446–459. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferris, D., & Kurzer, K. (2019). Does error feedback help L2 writers? Latest evidence on the efficacy of written corrective feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (106–124). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferris, D., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gass, S. (2005). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldstein, L. (2006). Feedback and revision in second language writing: Contextual, teacher, and student variables. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 185–205). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guo, Q. (2015). The effectiveness of written CF for L2 development: A mixed-method study of written CF types, error categories and proficiency levels. Doctoral dissertation, Auckland University of Technology.
Han, Y. (2017). Mediating and being mediated: Learner beliefs and learner engagement with written corrective feedback. System, 691, 133–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 1–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2020). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 519–539. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language Journal, 661, 140–149. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
La Russa, F., & Nuzzo, E. (2016). Effetti del feedback diretto e indiretto sulla produzione scritta di apprendenti di italiano LS. Rassegna italiana di linguistica applicata, 11, 93–107.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69–85. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 37–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Oliver, R. (2002). Interactional feedback and children’s L2 development. System, 30(4), 459–477. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Qi, D., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 101, 277–303. 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
Rummel, S. (2014). Student and teacher beliefs about written CF and the effect those beliefs have on uptake: a multiple case study of Laos and Kuwait. Doctoral dissertation. Auckland University of Technology.
Semke, H. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 171, 195–202. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. Tesol Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556–569. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23(1), 103–110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286–306. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanou, C. (2014). L2 article use for generic and specific plural reference: The role of written corrective feedback, learner factors and awareness. Doctoral dissertation. Lancaster University.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 321, 303–334. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 831, 320–337. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Study, 10(2), 1–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Beuningen, C., De Jong, N., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1561. 279–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, Z. V., & Hyland, K. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 361, 90–102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zheng, Y., & Yu, S. (2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 371, 13–24.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue