Direct Written Corrective Feedback, Learner Differences, and the Acquisition of Second

Language Article Use for Generic and Specific Plural Reference

Author(s): CHARIS STEFANOU and ANDREA RÉVÉSZ
Source: The Modern Language Journal , Summer 2015, Vol. 99, No. 2 (Summer 2015), pp.
263-282
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers
Associations

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43650027

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations and Wiley are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal

This content downloaded from

115.164.119.199 on Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:16:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Direct Written Corrective Feedback,
Learner Differences, and the
Acquisition of Second Language
Article Use for Generic and Specific
Plural Reference
CHARIS STEFANOU ANDREA RÉVÉSZ
Lancaster University University College London
Linguistics and English Language UCL Institute of Education
County South 20 Bedford Way
Lancaster LAI 4 YT London WC1H0AL

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Email: hstefanou. ling@gmail com Email: a.revesz@ioe.ac.uk

This article reports on a classroom-based study that investigated the effectiveness of direct written cor-
rective feedback in relation to learner differences in grammatical sensitivity and knowledge of meta
language. The study employed a pretest-posttest-delayed posttest design with two treatment sessions
Eighty-nine Greek English as a foreign language (EFL) learners were randomly assigned to 3 groups: d
rect feedback only, direct feedback plus metalinguistic comments, and comparison. The linguistic target
was article use for specific and generic plural reference. A text summary and a truth value judgment tes
were employed to measure any development in learners' ability to use articles. The results revealed an
advantage for receiving direct feedback over no feedback, but provided no clear evidence for the benefit
of supplying metalinguistic information. Additionally, participants with greater grammatical sensitivity
and knowledge of metalanguage proved more likely to achieve gains in the direct feedback only group
Keywords: written corrective feedback; individual differences; article use

THE ROLE OF WRITTEN CORRECTIVE (e.g., Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener 8c Knoch, 2008;
feedback (WCF) has received considerable Ellis et al.,inter-
2008; Ferris 8c Roberts, 2001; Sheen,
est among instructed second language 2007,acquisition
2010; Sheen, Wright, 8c Moldawa, 2009; Van
(SLA) researchers for the past two decades.
Beuningen, In- 8c Kuiken, 2012). As a result,
De Jong,
terest in the topic has partly been driven
researchers are by
now focusing on investigating
Truscott's (1996) controversial claim thethat
factorsWCF,
actually influencing the efficacy of
a widely used pedagogical tool, is ineffective WCF, among them and its consistency in focusing
potentially harmful to second language (L2) on particular linguistic targets (e.g., Ferris 8c
learners. Contrary to Truscott's supposition, Roberts, 2001), the number of linguistic targets
recent years have seen an accumulation of em- (e.g., Ellis et al., 2008; Farrokhi 8c Sattaipour,
pirical evidence attesting that WCF can be useful 2012), the amount of metalinguistic information
and effective in promoting L2 development accompanying the feedback (e.g., Bitchener,
2008; Bitchener 8c Knoch, 2008; Sheen, 2007,
2010), the availability of the correct construction
The Modern Language Journal, 99, 2, (2015) (e.g., Storch 8c Wigglesworth, 2010; Suh, 2010),
DOI: 10.1 1 1 l/modl.12212
and learner differences in cognitive abilities, such
0026-7902/15/263-282 $1.50/0
as inductive language learning capacity (Sheen,
©2015 The Modern Language Journal
2007).

This content downloaded from

115.164.119.199 on Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:16:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 264 The Modern Language Journal 99 (2015)
One aim of the current study
patternsis
in to
SLA.extend ex-
Truscott did not only question
isting research by further exploring
the efficacy of the extent
feedback, but wenttoas far as to sug-
which metalinguistic information
gest that the may influence
provision of corrective feedback may
the effectiveness of WCF. The additional aims
be counterproductive and constitute a source of
and novel aspects of our research include exam-
anxiety and stress for students, who may ultimately
ining whether WCF can facilitate the acquisition
avoid using complex features in fear of receiving
feedback.
of a new linguistic target - article use for generic
and specific plural reference - and whether the
In response to calls from both proponents and
link between WCF type and SLA may be moder-
opponents of WCF for improved research designs,
ated by grammatical sensitivity and knowledge
by nowof a large number of tightly controlled stud-
metalanguage. ies have accrued, examining mainly two dimen-
sions: direct/indirect and focused/unfocused
feedback. The distinction between direct and in-
BACKGROUND
direct feedback concerns whether the correct

Written Corrective Feedback construction is supplied or not. Direct feedback

entails the correct construction, whereas indirect
Written corrective feedback refers to the
WCF only indicates the presence of an error, leav-
information provided to L2 learners about ingthe
theill-
responsibility of correction to learners.
formedness of their written production Focused
(Loewen,feedback consistently targets a single or
a limited
2012). The vast msyority of SLA researchers (e.g.,number of problematic linguistic fea-
Ferris, 1999, 2002) agree that there are atures, while unfocused or comprehensive feed-
number
back in
of potential benefits to supplying WCF addresses
L2 all errors in the learners' writ-
classrooms. For example, in line with the ingwidely
irrespective of their nature. Previous research
accepted view that acquisition requires some the effectiveness of feedback along
comparing
focus on form, WCF can function as such these a device
two dimensions has yielded mixed findings
and draw learners' attention to L2 constructions (see Van Beuningen et al., 2012, for a review).
(e.g., Ellis, 2005), thereby helping them to notice
Nonetheless, focused direct feedback, the object
gaps in their current L2 knowledge (Schmidt, of this investigation, has consistently been shown
1990). WCF may additionally engage learnerstoinenhance grammatical accuracy (e.g., Bitch-
"guided learning and problem solving and, as ener,
a 2008; Bitchener & Knoch, 2008, 2010; Far-
rokhi 8c Sattarpour, 2012; Sheen et al., 2009). Rel-
result, promote the type of reflection that is more
likely to foster long-term acquisition" (Bitchener
atively little is known, however, about the effects
& Knoch, 2008, p. 415). of different kinds of focused direct feedback on
SLA.
Contrary to these arguments, a few researchers
The handful of studies that have explored the
have raised concerns regarding the use of WCF on
L2 writing, Truscott's (1996, 2007) counterclaims learning potential of different types of focused
being the most influential among them. Truscott direct feedback have primarily been concerned
objected to the use of WCF on the ground thatwith the determining the utility of enhancing direct
feedback with metalinguistic information. Sheen
way it is practiced in the majority of language class-
rooms disregards well-established understandings (2007) looked into whether direct written correc-
from SLA research, including that (a) L2 develop- tions with or without metalinguistic comments
ment is a gradual and intricate process, whichhave en- a greater capacity to promote the acquisition
tails more than just the sudden discovery of rules of article use for first mention and anaphoric
and simple knowledge transfer from teachers to
reference. She found that the participants - adult
students, (b) there is little probability that a intermediate
sin- ESL learners from various first lan-

gle form of feedback will promote the acquisition guage (LI) backgrounds - benefited to a greater
of features from various linguistic domains such extent
as from direct feedback with the addition of
lexis, morphology, and syntax, (c) WCF is likely metalinguistic
to information. Using the same lin-
have no value for promoting implicit knowledge guistic target, Bitchener and Knoch (2008, 2009;
and only has the capacity to assist in developing Bitchener,
a 2008) examined, in a series of studies,
limited degree of explicit knowledge, which may the extent to which learners' accuracy can be fos-
be helpful for revision purposes but not for gen- tered by four types of WCF conditions: (a) direct
uine L2 improvement, and (d) teachers are not written corrections with written and oral metalin-

equipped to provide feedback that is adjustedguisticto comments, (b) direct written corrections
the developmental needs of their learners given with written metalinguistic comments, (c) direct
the absence of well-documented developmental written corrections only, and (d) no feedback.

This content downloaded from

115.164.119.199 on Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:16:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Chatis Stefanou and Andrea Révêsz 265

All three studies converged on the

matical sensitivity same
as a potential finding
mediating vari-
that the provision of direct able was driven feedback
by the assumption was that this more
capac-
beneficial than receiving nobe feedback,
ity would particularly relevant to regardless
learners' abil-
of whether the feedback occurred on its own ity to benefit from WCF targeting a grammatical
or was complemented with metalinguistic phenomenon.
com-
ments. More recently, Shintani and Ellis (2013) Knowledge of metalanguage refers to the
also compared the potential benefits afforded ability to use subject-specific terminology to artic-
by direct corrective feedback and metalinguistic ulate metalinguistic rules. Tests of metalanguage
comments. Unlike in previous research, however, typically ask participants to identify examples of
metalinguistic comments did not complement grammatical terms in LI and/or L2 sentences
corrections, but were provided on their(Alderson, own. Clapham, & Steel, 1997; Berry, 2009;
The researchers found that, while metalinguistic Elder, 2009) and/or to give stand-alone examples
comments facilitated the acquisition of of explicit
grammatical terms (Berry, 2009) . Knowledge of
knowledge of the target feature (English metalanguage,
indefi- which was operationalized here as
nite article) , direct feedback did not lead to learners'
gains.knowledge of the appropriate terminol-
Drawing on the participants' stimulated ogy recall
to describe structures and forms in their L2,
comments, Shintani and Ellis concluded that was presumed to be especially important to the
metalinguistic information may have enabled capability to learn from metalinguistic comments.
learners to develop awareness of the target rule, We expected that familiarity with metalanguage
which they were able to apply in the revisionwould assist learners in understanding and
process. Clearly, the results to date are mixedmaking use of the metalinguistic explanations
regarding the impact of supplementing direct fo- offered, thus leading to larger instructional gains.
cused feedback with metalinguistic information. Although the importance of investigating
One goal of the present study is to help clarify aptitude-treatment interactions has increasingly
the value of providing metalinguistic comments.been emphasized (e.g., DeKeyser, 2012; Robin-
Additionally, we intend to begin investigating son, 2002, 2005; Vatz et al., 2013) in the L2
whether existing findings on direct focused feed-literature, empirical research exploring potential
back may be extended to other linguistic con-links between learners' cognitive abilities and
structions. As discussed earlier, several studies propensity to benefit from particular instruc-
have focused on the same linguistic rule: article tional treatments remains relatively limited (see
use for first mention and anaphoric reference. Vatz et al., 2013, for a recent summary). To
Here, we examined the extent to which various date, only the previously mentioned study by
types of direct WCF may facilitate the acquisition Sheen (2007) looked into the relationship be-
of another aspect of English article use: generic tween WCF and learner differences in cognitive
and specific plural reference. Additionally, a key abilities. In particular, she examined whether
contribution of our research lies in exploring the inductive language learning ability may moderate
moderating effects of two learner factors on WCF, the efficacy of direct written feedback. The results
addressing recent calls to explore how learners revealed greater benefits for learners with high
with differential cognitive abilities may benefit inductive language learning ability under both
from different kinds of WCF (Bitchener & Ferris, feedback conditions investigated, direct feedback
2012; Kormos, 2012). only and direct feedback with metalinguistic
comments. Sheen additionally found that high
Learner Differences
language analytic ability posed a greater advan-
tage when the written feedback was accompanied
In the present study, learner differences or learner by metalinguistic information.
factors are used as cover terms to encompass dif- To the best of our knowledge, grammatical sen-
ferential capacities among learners in grammat- sitivity and knowledge of metalanguage have not
ical sensitivity and knowledge of metalanguage. yet been studied in the context of WCF research.
Grammatical sensitivity is a cognitive ability that Nevertheless, there is some evidence indicating
has traditionally been conceptualized as a com- that learners who differ along these factors may
ponent of language learning aptitude (e.g., Car- respond differently to particular instructional
roll, 1981; Skehan, 2002). It refers to the abil- techniques. Among other individual difference
ity to recognize the different syntactic patterns factors, Erlam (2005) examined the moderating
and grammatical functions of words in a given effects of grammatical sensitivity on the effec-
sentence structure, irrespective of knowledge of tiveness of three types of instruction: inductive,
grammatical terminology. The choice of gram- structured input, and deductive. She found that,

This content downloaded from

115.164.119.199 on Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:16:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 266 The Modern Language Journal 99 (2015)

in L2 French classrooms, (N= students

89) were randomly with assigned to onehigher
of three
groups: direct feedback
grammatical sensitivity benefited moreonly ( n - 30;
fromhenceforth, in-
ductive and structured input direct feedback
training only) , direct
than feedbackdeduc-
plus meta-
linguistic commentsemerged
tive instruction. Similar findings (n = 30; henceforth,from direct
metalinguistic), orfeedback
a recent study of oral corrective the comparison group by (n =Li
(2013), who observed that 29) grammatical
. The participants' ability to usesensitivity
articles for spe-
was positively linked to learning
cific and generic plural from
reference wasimplicit
measured in
feedback (operationalized two as recasts)
assessment tasks - a textbut
summarynot to
and a truth
value judgment (TVJ)
learning from explicit feedback. test. During the two treat-
Trofimovich,
Ammar, and Gatbontonment (2007)sessions, the also
two direct reported
feedback groups car- a
positive correlation between ried out learners'
additional versions ofgrammat-
the text summary
ical sensitivity and ability task
to and received feedback
benefit from in response to arti-
recasts.
Sachs (2010), however, incleexploring
errors according to their the groupeffects
assignment.
of computer-mediated feedback on L2
The comparison group completed devel-
the same tasks,
but received feedback
opment, found that grammatical only on spelling errors.
sensitivity A
pre-
dicted gains under the nowords-in-sentences
feedback test and
anda test of metalanguageex-
more
were also administered
plicit feedback condition (right/ wrong to all participants,
feedback in or-
der to measure their
plus metalinguistic information in grammatical
the sensitivity
form and of
knowledge of
tree diagrams) in her research, metalanguage respectively.
whereas grammat-
ical sensitivity was not significantly related to gains
in the more implicit condition (right/ wrong feed-
Participants
back). For the no feedback group, metalinguistic
knowledge also emerged as The a 89 participants were of
predictor EFL students
learn- who
ing. Based on these studies, were no
in their first yearpatterns
clear in the same public can
high
be discerned regarding the school moderating
in Cyprus. All of them wereeffects
native speakers
of grammatical sensitivity of Greek
and and had been studying English for 6 to
metalinguistic
knowledge on L2 instruction. 7 years. Fifty-one
More were female and 38 were male.
research is
needed to clarify the roleThey ofwere all 16 years
these of age. Using the
factors Oxford
under
various instructional conditions, Placement Test (Dave,
and 2004), intermediate-level
the present
study takes up this research participants were selected for the study.1 The ra-
direction.
tionale for including participants with intermedi-
METHOD
ate proficiency was that they were likely to have
Research Questions at least some knowledge of the English article sys-
tem, but were unlikely to have already mastered
In light of the research needs outlined the earlier,
rules associated with generic article use. Addi-
the following research questions were formed: tionally, using participants with intermediate pro-
ficiency was thought to increase the comparability
RQ1. a. Does direct written corrective feedback
help improve Greek EFL learners' of useourofresearch to previous WCF studies, most of
which
articles for specific and generic plural ref- also involved participants of intermediate
erence? level proficiency in English.
b. If yes, which type is more beneficial: di-
rect written feedback only or direct written
Linguistic Target
feedback with metalinguistic information?
RQ2. a. Are there any relationships between
In the present study, the written feedback tar-
learning benefits from direct written cor-
rective feedback and learner differences geted article use with specific and generic plu-
in grammatical sensitivity, or knowledgeral ofreferents. Languages with articles vary as to
metalanguage? whether they allow both definite and bare plural
referents, and the two languages involved in this
b. If yes, does the strength of the relation-
study, English and Greek, exemplify this distinc-
ships differ by type of feedback, direct writ-
ten feedback only or direct written feed- tion. English, the target language, permits both
back with metalinguistic information? definite and bare plural referents and assigns a
different meaning to each. As illustrated in the
Design
following examples, definite plural noun phrases
The study followed a pretest-posttest-delayed (la) carry a specific meaning like demonstrative
posttest design, with two treatment sessions plurals (lc); that is, they describe referents that
between the pretest and posttest. The participants are known to both the speaker and the hearer. By

This content downloaded from

115.fff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Charis Stefanou and Andrea Révész 267
contrast, the only readingof the text summary
available task.bare
for As part plu-
of the text
summary task, (lb).
rals is that of generic reference they were required first to read a
short text in Greek. Half of the text introduced
(1) Plural Reference in an English
animal species using generic reference, and
a. Definite plural the other half described a specific pair of animals
The parrots are colorful, [specific refer-
of the same species. Next, without consulting
ence: parrots are known the text,to both inter-
the participants were asked to provide
locutors]
short descriptions of eight pictures in English,
b. Bare plural each of which corresponded to part of the in-
Parrots are colorful, [generic refer- formation presented earlier in the text. Four
ence: all parrots in general]
of the pictures targeted generic reference (e.g.,
c. Demonstrative plural Bears sleep in the winter, henceforth, generic text
These parrots are colorful, [specific ref-
summary) , and the other four were designed to
erence: parrots are known to both inter-
elicit specific referents (e.g., The bears in my town
locutors]
came from Northern Europe, henceforth, specific
In Greek, the participants' LI, plural referents text summary) . Thus, the two treatment sessions,
can only be definite, and both generic and spe- overall, intended to elicit the use of 16 generic
cific readings can be assigned to them. In other and 16 specific referents (both treatment ses-
sions included two treatment tasks, with each
words, a definite plural noun phrase can describe
either some specific referents or a species in gen- treatment task designed to elicit four generic and
eral, as exemplified in (2): four specific uses). Three different versions of
the text summary task were also used as part of
(2) Definite Plural Reference in Greek the assessment. The task had no time limit, and
Ol TtaTtayákoi eivai nokvxpcofjLOi. participants could seek assistance with unfamiliar
the (pl.) parrots are colorful vocabulary. Except for the LI reading compo-
nent, this task format was aligned well with the
"(the) parrots are colorful." [specific ref-
activities that the students would normally carry
erence: parrots known to both interlocu-
out during their English classes.
tors OR generic reference: all parrots in
Once all students had finished the task, their
general]
task sheets were collected for marking. In the
In sum, English employs articles to map two two experimental groups, all article errors with
different meanings (generic and specific refer- generic and specific plural referents were cor-
ence) onto two different forms (bare and definite rected by one of the researchers using direct
plurals), whereas Greek marks both meanings WCF. Other error types, including different
onto a single form (definite plural). Thus, the errors in article use, were ignored. For the direct
interpretation of Greek definite plurals as either feedback only group, the feedback took the
form of insertions of the definite article when
specific or generic is dependent on the context.
This type of cross-linguistic difference has been the context required specific instead of generic
demonstrated to pose a challenge for Spanish plural reference, or deletions of the definite
learners of English, whose LI, in line with most article when the use of bare generics rather
Romance languages, behaves like Greek with than definite specific plurals would have been
regard to plural referents (see Ionin & Montrul, appropriate. In the direct metalinguistic group,
2010; Snape, García Mayo, & Gûrel, 2009). Im- the direct corrections were complemented with
portantly, Greek EFL learners themselves have relevant metalinguistic information, which was
been found to show difficulty in using plural handwritten at the top of each task sheet in
generics (Stefanou, 2010). Therefore, it appears English. This information made reference to the
worthwhile to investigate the extent to which actual content of the text summary task (lions in
written corrective feedback techniques may help the example that follows), and read as:
learners master this construction.
Use "the" + plural noun (e.g., The lions...)
to describe some particular animals.
Treatment

Use0 + plural noun (e.g., Lions. . .)

The two treatment sessions took place during
to describe all animals in general.
the participants' normally scheduled classes, in
which one of the researchers acted as the teacher. In the comparison group, article errors with spe-
First, the participants completed two versions cific and generic referents were ignored and

This content downloaded from

115.164.119.199 on Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:16:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 268 The Modern Language Journal 99 (2015)

corrections of spelling oferrors were

generic and specific provided
article use. In line with
instead. its specifications, it succeeded in eliciting the use
In the next session, the students received back of plural referents 88.3% of the time in both the
their text summaries with the WCF and were given generic and specific sections of the assessment.
five minutes to look over their errors and the re- To assess the internal consistency reliability of the
spective corrections, with the advice to attendthree to versions of the test, Cronbach's alpha was
the feedback carefully because, as they were told, calculated by aggregating the scores of the three
they would later have to complete a similar task. versions of the text summary across the three
Piloting suggested that 5 minutes allowed suffi- testing sessions. This was found to be high for all
cient time for learners to examine the feedback. three versions of the generic (a > .77) as well as
No further comments were provided by thethe re-specific (a > .88) parts of the assessment. The
searcher, and the students were not asked to revise total score was four points for both the generic
their writing, as in Bitchener & Knoch (2009) and , El-specific components of the test. Participants
lis et al. (2008), and Sheen (2010). This method- received one point for each correct response.
ological choice was in line with normal feedback We decided against utilising obligatory occasion
practice in this context, since the studentsanalysis are given that the use of the target construc-
usually not asked to revise their work based tiononwas found to be essential in describing each
teacher feedback. It was also deemed more picture ap- prompt based on native speaker baseline
propriate given the availability of the correctdata. con-
struction in the feedback provided, which would
Truth Value Judgment Test. The aim of the truth
have made revisions resemble passive copying on
value judgment test was to probe the students' re-
the part of the students. As Polio (2012) notes,
"it is obvious that a writer can look at direct cor-
ceptive knowledge of plural generic and specific
noun phrases; it was modeled on the instrument
rections and copy them onto a new piece of writ-
used in Ionin and Montrul's (2009) study investi-
ing" (p. 377) ; what is key to the success of WCF
gating article use by Spanish learners of English.
is drawing learner attention to the target of the
In keeping with Ionin and Montrul's task specifi-
feedback provided. Referring to Sachs and Polio
cations, each item involved a short story of about
(2007) , she suggests this might be achieved by ask-
20-40 words, which juxtaposed a specific with a
ing students to take time to look over their cor-
generic reading. Based on the story, participants
rections before revising. The revision component,
were asked to judge the truth value of a subse-
however, does not seem necessary to trigger notic-
quent statement. Each version of the test included
ing, as evidenced in some existing studies of WCF
18 items: 12 target and 6 distractor items. The 12
(Ellis et al., 2008; Sheen, 2010) and the findings
obtained here.
target items were constructed using four stories,
each repeated three times: once with a definite
plural in the subsequent statement, once with a
Assessment Tasks bare plural, and a third time with a demonstrative
plural. The item with the demonstrative plural
Two testing tasks were designed to assess arti- statement served as the control, since anaphoric
cle use with specific and generic plural referents: reference is the only possible reading for both En-
a text summary and a truth value judgment test. glish and Greek demonstrative plurals. In two sto-
Both tasks entailed two types of items - items tar- ries, the target statement was true with a definite
geting article use for specific reference and items plural, true with a bare plural, and false with a
designed to elicit article use for generic refer- demonstrative plural. For the other two stories,
ence. Our rationale for using two different types the values were reversed. An example of a story
of assessment tasks was to assess any effects of the and a corresponding statement with a definite
treatment on the participants' productive and re- plural ( the libraries) is the following:
ceptive knowledge of the targeted constructions.
Three parallel versions of the testing tasks were
developed and counterbalanced across the three 3. Example of a Truth Value Judgment Item
testing sessions in a split-block design. Version Most libraries are full of millions of printed books.
A of the assessment tasks can be found in the
But there are three strange libraries. They don't
Appendix. have printed books , they only have millions of elec-
tronic books.
Text Summary Test. This test had exactly the
same format as the treatment task; it aimed at The libraries have electronic books.

assessing the participants' productive knowledge TRUE FALSE

This content downloaded from

115.164.119.199 on Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:16:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Charis Stefanou and Andrea Révész 269
The six distractor items also consisted of a 20- identify words and phrases that corresponded to
a list of 10 grammatical terms (e.g., adjective , prepo-
40 word story, followed by a true-false statement.
The stories juxtaposed interpretations of passive sition), some of which were potentially relevant
and active voice. The six items altogethertoin- describing rules about the target construction
cluded three stories, each appearing twice: once (e.g., definite article , noun). The same sentence
with a true target statement and a second time used by Bloor and Alderson et al., translated into
with a false one. Greek, was used as the source for the examples:
As indicated by Web VocabProfiler v3 (Cobb, Materials are delivered to the factory by a supplier, who
n.d.), the vast majority of the vocabulary items in
usually has no technical knowledge , but who happens
the test were among the first thousand most fre- to have the right contacts. The internal consistency
quent words in the English language, and a fewreliability for the test was good (a = .845).
were among the second thousand most frequently
used words. In addition, students were allowed to
Procedure
ask for the meaning of any unknown words in or-
der to ensure that lack of vocabulary knowledge
As Figure 1 illustrates, the learners were ini-
does not interfere with test performance. The
tially screened using the grammar part of the
internal consistency reliability coefficients, com-
Oxford Placement Test (Dave, 2004). On the
puted separately for the items included in the dif-
second day of the study, the pretest was admin-
ferent versions of the assessment, were at accept-
istered, followed by the first treatment task. A
able or good levels for both the generic and spe-
few days later within the same week, the partici-
cific TVJ test versions (a > .70 and a > .78). For
pants received WCF in response to errors they
the generic as well as the specific items, the maxi-
made on the first treatment task. After studying
mum total score was 4 points.
the feedback for 5 minutes, they completed the
second treatment task. The second week of the
Measures of Learner Differences study started with the participants looking over
the WCF, which addressed errors in their perfor-
Participants were administered two tests, a
words-in-sentences test and a test of metalan- mance on the second treatment task. They were
again given 5 minutes to process the feedback,
guage, in order to obtain information about their
then the immediate posttest followed just like
grammatical sensitivity, and knowledge of meta-
in previous research by Bitchener and Knoch
language respectively.
(2009). In the third week, the two measures of
Words in Sentences Test. The words-in-sentences learner factors were administered. Finally, in the
test was an adapted version of the correspondingfourth week, the delayed posttest was completed,
component of the MLAT and aimed to assess the2 weeks after the second treatment session. The
participants' grammatical sensitivity or ability to pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest lasted ap-
understand the functions of words in sentences. proximately 40 minutes, and the participants on
Fifteen Greek sentences were utilized as stimuli. average took about 20 minutes to carry out each
Each key sentence included an underlined word, treatment task. The words-in-sentences and meta-
and was followed by a second sentence in which language tests were completed within the time
five words were underlined. The participants had limit of a normally scheduled 45-minute class.
to choose which of the five words in the second During the period of the study, the teachers of the
sentence filled the same grammatical role as the
participating classes were asked not to provide
underlined word in the key sentence. The inter-any input on article use in their English lessons in
nal consistency reliability for the test was good
an attempt to control for exposure to the target
(a = .774). construction outside of the experiment.
Test of Metalanguage. The test of metalanguage
was an adaptation of an instrument originally de-
Data Analyses
veloped for this purpose by Bloor (1986) and
more recently used by Alderson et al. (1997) . ThisScoring. Both the assessment tasks and the
measures of learner differences were marked
test was deemed appropriate for use in the present
study, since receptive knowledge of metalanguage dichotomously. One point was awarded for each
correct answer, and zero points were given for
was hypothesized to be relevant in instructional
conditions that prompted learners to interpretincorrect responses. For the two assessment tasks,
metalinguistic feedback. The participants wereseparate scores were calculated for the generic
presented with a Greek sentence and asked toand the specific reference items.

This content downloaded from

115.164.119.199 on Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:16:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 270 The Modern Language Journal 99 (2015)
FIGURE 1

Study Design

Weekl 1
Day 1: Oxford Placement Tes
Day 2: Pretest
Treatment Task 1

Day 3: Corrective Feedback on Treatment Task 1

Treatment Task 2

S
TT
Week 2

Day 4: Corrective Feedback on Treatment Task 2

Immediate Posttest

f
TT
Week 3

Day 5: Learner Factors Measures

S A

Week 4

Day 6: Delayed Posttest

i J

Statisti pretest scores and the learner difference factors

statisti in order to detect any relationships between
mance the variables at the time of the pretest. Next,
posttes we correlated the learners' pretest-posttest and
difference measures. In order to address the pretest-delayed posttest gain scores in the as-
sessment tasks with their scores in the measures
first research question and examine the effects
of direct WCF on learner gains in article of use,learner
a differences. Following Cohen (1992),
p2 values of .01, .09, and .25 were interpreted
series of ANOVAs was conducted. First, one-way
ANOVAs were run on the pretest scores for as each
small, medium, and large effect sizes. For all
assessment task in order to detect any analyses,
initial the alpha level for significance was set
at .01 to adjust for multiple comparisons. All
group differences. Next, the data were submitted
to a series of mixed-model ANOVAs. Since the statistical analyses were conducted using the IBM
results of Mauchly's test for sphericity wereStatistical
sta- Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 19.
tistical in the analyses, the Greenhouse-Geisser
correction was applied to the degrees of freedom.
RESULTS
Where appropriate, post hoc independent sam-
ples ¿-tests were performed. To measure effect
RQ1: Effects of Direct Written Corrective Feedback on
sizes, we computed partial eta-squared (rjp2)Article
for Use
the ANOVAs and Cohen's d for the ¿-tests. Follow-

ing Cohen (1988), rjp2 values of .01, .06, and .14 Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for
and d values of .20, .50, and .80 were considered the learners' scores on the two assessment tasks
small, medium, and large. The second research of the pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest. As
question was addressed by computing SpearmanTable 1 and Figures 2-5 show, the comparison
two-tailed bivariate correlations. First, correla- group improved slightly from the pretest to the
tions were calculated between the participants'posttest in generic article use on both tests but

This content downloaded from

115.164.119.199 on Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:16:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Charis Stefanou and Andrea Révész 271
^ /-V
Q ^ ^ X J>
Ö3 Ol ^ rH
declined in the accurate article use with plural
ir « <?> rH* r4
¡2 WW
specific referents. The same trends were observed
^ CO 1> CO O
0 <u oo m co o>
for the pretest-delayed posttest gain scores of the
comparison group, except for a slight decrease in
^ Q co co co* evi
the generic TVJ scores. As compared to the com-
parison group, both feedback groups exhibited
•ä Q -00 00
S2 52. CM CO Tf CO considerable pretest-posttest improvement in the
s, S! Sá dó generic as well as the specific sections of both as-
1 ! ®o
S co co co cm
sessment tasks, and maintained their improved
scores on the delayed posttest. The only excep-
s
w
u
tion to this pattern was the direct metalinguistic
y -s ^-v - - - group's posttest performance on the generic part
.b Q i> co m co
n £3 cm cm co
rH rH rH rH of the TVJ test, where the participants retained,
^ WW WW rather than increased, their pretest scores.
o O co CO
2; ai o r-ļ i-ļ
Ph CM CO h h Spearman correlational analyses, run sepa-
rately for the participants' pretest, posttest, and
delayed posttest scores, found four significant cor-
Q - - co in
^ CT> i> Tt» IO relations between the participants' performance
i: oo o» ^ ^
¡Ç WW WW on the assessment tasks: between (a) the generic
_h O J> CO l>
<U CO Tf rH 00 and specific parts of the text summary pretest, (b)
Û CO CO M ri
the generic and specific components of the TVJ
§ pretest, (c) the specific part of the text summary
posttest and generic part of the TVJ posttest, and
5. §. §2 ?? (d) the specific parts of the text summary and
>-x ¡^! rH r-t t-H i-H
Jr +-> o o co J> TVJ delayed posttest. The strength of these cor-
O g iq rtļ o> cq relations were all in the small to medium range
■g CO CO N H
K (.09 < p2 < .16, p < .01). The remaining 14 cor-
&
ex
s relations did not yield significant links. Overall,
3
O
S-i 5 oT 00
^ 00 <J> * 0>
© ^ these results suggest that the tests did not tap ex-
0 acdy the same constructs.
<L>
§ OO Co
'S
fl, O J> 1> co
£ Ttļ rH Oí 1>
Turning to the inferential statistics conducted
O-i CO co
CA
CA to test group differences, one-way ANOVAs found
a no significant difference in the pretest scores of
the three groups (comparison, direct only, direct
J2 Q O Cû CM
Co CO CO O o
metalinguistic) on any of the assessments, generic
1 ^ rH f- t r-HtextrH summary: Ķ 2,86) = 2.83, p = .07, rjp 2 = .06,
bc CM 00 CO
C <U rH I> Tf 1>
•Ö
CA Ö CO CM r-i specific text summary: 7^2,86) = 2.41, p = .10,
fS oT
CM
rip2 = .05; generic TVJ: /¡1(2,86) = .29, p = .75,
<L>

II -V rjp2 < .01; specific TVJ: /^2,86) = 1.30, p = .28,

■s
Ö Q ^ írT oh r)p2 = .03. Having established that no significant
o w 52. r-H O CD in
CA G rH rH i- I r-H to differences existed between the groups at the
Q <1 W W W W Q
K .£ % 00 00 i> rH ~ pretest, an overall mixed-model ANOVA was run,
o
u C % g CO CO H CO .g
C/5 A Ph CO CO 1-H 1-H Ci with time as the within-subjects factor and group
CA e ü as the between-subjects variable, for each assess-
¿i
w
ó 12 ment task. Except for the generic part of the text
^ ~ ^ ^ a
CA
0
PH Q CO rH to C
13
co ^ tCì 00 "q summary test, /^3.43,86) = 2.26, p = .08, rjp2 = .05,
^ H WW i-i ri WW ri Oh the interaction between time and group emerged
1
13
< WW WW ^
flj Oi co CM l> -,
flj 6 CO Oì 1> CM -, £ as statistically significant. The effect size was large
Q Pi CM CM r-i rH I for the specific text summary test: /^3.64,86) =
CA

e
tf
Si
o 12.13, p < .01, r)p2 = .22, and specific TVJ test,
CA t- &- a /^3.49,86) = 6.30, p < .01, rjp2 = .13, but medium
rt «Ī -
£
e e 2 for the generic TVJ test, 7^3.39,86) = 3.09, p- .02,
Ē g 2
CA

0 S <u rip2 = .07.

u ^ (J C3 ,C

3 I" Post^
£ X ^)5S >< hoc^paired comparisons revealed signifi-
cant differences, with medium to large effect sizes,
§1HHP<
P< c5 C5D between the comparison and direct feedback only

This content downloaded from

115.164.119.199 on Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:16:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 272 The Modem Language Journal 99(2015)
FIGURE 2
Generic Text Summary: Performance Across Groups

group and between the comparison and meta- 7^(1.67,58) = 1.84, p= .43, r'p2 = .01. As shown in
linguistic group for the specific component of 2, independent samples i-tests confirmed
Table
both the text summary test, direct only, that and the direct only and metalinguistic groups
comparison: F( 1.59, 57) = 21.34, p < .01, r'p2 -
achieved significantly higher pretest-posttest
.27; metalinguistic and comparison: F( 1.9 1,57)
gains= than the comparison group on the specific
15.54, p < .01, rjp2 = .21, and TVJT, direct part
only of the text summary test, and displayed
and comparison: F{ 1.84, 57) = 8.66, p < .01, rjp2 =
greater pretest-delayed posttest gains on the spe-
.13; metalinguistic and comparison: F{ 1.74,cific
57) =part of both the text summary and TVJ tests.
The effect sizes were in the large range. For the
10.64, p < .01, rjp2 = .16. However, no significant
differences were detected in the performance generic TVJ test, post hoc mixed-model ANOVAs
of the two feedback groups, text summaryfound test: a significant difference between the per-
/*1(1.78,58) < .01, p = .99, r)p2 < .01, TVJ test:
formance of the comparison and metalinguistic

FIGURE 3

Specific Text Summary: Performance Across Groups

This content downloaded from

115.164.119.199 on Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:16:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Charis Stefanou and Andrea Révész 273
FIGURE 4
Generic TVJ: Performance Across Groups

group, /¡1(1.71,57) = 5.S6, p < .01, rjp2 but no significant differences were found between
= .09.
these groups on the generic component of the
However, an independent samples ¿-test revealed
tests. Nor was any difference detected between the
that this was due to a posttest-delayed posttest
difference, ¿(57) = 4.20, p < .01, d = gains 1.07, of the direct only and metalinguistic groups
rather than differences in pretest-posttest, on any of the assessments.
i(57) = 1.04, p = .30, d = .27, or pretest-delayed
ļposttest gains, f(57) = 1.90, p = .06, d = .49. RQ2: Moderating Effects of Learner Factors on the
In sum, the two direct feedback groups demon-
Effectiveness of Direct WCF
strated significantly greater pretest-posttest and
pretest-delayed posttest development than the Table 3 displays the descriptive statistics of the
comparison group in article use for specific plural learners' performance on the words-in-sentences
reference on both the text summary and TVJ tests, test and the test of metalanguage for the two

FIGURE 5

Specific TVJ: Performance Across Groups

This content downloaded from

115.164.119.199 on Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:16:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 274 The Modern Language Journal 99 (2015)
TABLE 2
Results of ¿-tests Comparing the Comparison Group With the Direct Only and Direct Metalinguistic Groups
in Specific Reference Contexts

Groups/Testing Task Gain Score ¿(57) p d

Comparison-direct only
Specific text summary Pretest-posttest 5.44 <.01* 1.41
Pretest-del. posttest 4.73 <.01* 1.34
Specific TVJ Pretest-posttest 2.12 .04 .55
Pretest-del. posttest 3.87 <.01* 1.00
Comparison-direct metalinguistic
Specific text summary Pretest-posttest 4.69 <.01* 1.17
Pretest-del. posttest 4.48 <.01* 1.20
Specific TVJ Pretest-posttest 2.00 .05 .52
Pretest-del. posttest 4.50 <.01* 1.17
Note. *p < .01.

feedback groups. Independent samplesback only group

¿-tests in the specific text summary
re-
test. Both
vealed no significant group difference learners' pretest-posttest and pretest-
in gram-
delayed
matical sensitivity, ¿(57) = 1.54, p= .13, posttest
d = .40,gain scores were found to have
and knowledge of metalanguage, ¿(57)strong
positive, = 1.32,
links to grammatical sensitivity, as
p = .19, d = .34. Spearman correlational
assessed by analy-
the words-in-sentences test (p2 = .36,
ses found medium size relationships p2 = .36 respectively),
between the and the test of metalan-
two learner difference measures ( p guage
2 - .12,(p2 n = 60,
= .25, p2 = .24 respectively).
p< .01).
To assess whether the impact of direct WCF on
DISCUSSION
article use, with or without metalinguistic com-
The first
ments, was related to learner differences research question asked whethe
in gram-
matical sensitivity and knowledgethe ofprovision
metalan- of direct WCF can improve Greek
guage (RQ2), a series of SpearmanEFL learners' article use for generic and specifi
correlations
were calculated. As shown in Table 4, there
plural were
reference. Our statistical analyses reveal
no significant correlations between that thepretest
the two feedback groups achieved superio
performance
scores and the learner factors for any of the four over the comparison group in th
testing tasks in the two experimentalspecific
groups,reference
indi- component of both the tex
summary
cating no initial significant relationships and the TVJ tests, but they showed n
between
significantly greater gains on the generic par
the learner factors and the pretest assessments.
Table 5 shows the results of the correlations of the assessments. The differences between

computed between the measures of learner the dif- experimental groups and the comparison
ferences and the pretest-posttest and pretest- in the specific sections provide evidence that
direct WCF can assist in increasing the accuracy
delayed posttest gain scores of the two experimen-
tal groups on the two assessment tasks. Four withsig- which Greek EFL learners supply articles
nificant correlations were identified, all of which
to mark specific plural reference. The present
concerned the gain scores of the direct feed- study, therefore, corroborates the findings of

TABLE 3
Performance on Learner Difference Measures Across the Experimental Groups

Direct Only Direct Metalinguistic

(N= 30) (N= 30)

Test M SD M SD

Grammatical sensitivity 11.90 3.19 10.67 3.01

Metalanguage 8.50 2.16 7.63 2.88
Note. The total scores were 15 and 10 points for

This content downloaded from

115.164.119.199 on Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:16:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Chatis Stefanou and Andrea Rêvêsz 275
TABLE 4

Correlations Between Measures of Learner Differences and Pretest Scores of the Direct Only and Direct
Metalinguistic Groups

Metalanguage Grammatical Sensitivity

Direct Only Direct Meta Direct Only Direct Meta

Testing Task p p p p p p p p
Generic
Text sum. .44 .02 .15 .44 .04 .83 .19 .31
TVJ -.24 .20 .13 .49 .12 .52 .04 .83
Specific
Text sum. -.21 .26 -.22 .24 -.13 .48 <-.01 .97
TVJ -.05 .80 .16 .41 -.08 .69 .31 .10

Note. Direct meta = direct metalinguistic.

previous in a ceiling effect. In other research

effects-of-instruction words, given that the
indic
that focused direct WCF
participants' can
scores lead
in generic article to impr
use were al-
post-treatment performance ready reasonably high on the (e.g.,
pretest, WCFBitchen
could
2008; Bitchener & Knoch, 2008;
not lead to substantial gains dueEllis et al.,
to the treatment.
Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Sheen,
It is worth noting, 2007,
however, that 2010;
the learners' cor-
et al., 2009; Van Beuningen rect use of the zero etarticleal.,
for generic reference con
2012),
toTruscotťs (1996) claims. may not have been governed by the correct un-
Two issues are worth discussing
derlying rule in relatio
on the pretest. It is possible that the
the results obtained for the overall effectiveness seemingly correct suppliance of bare plurals in
of direct WCF in the present study. First, a logi- generic contexts was a reflection of the oft-cited
cal question is why the participants demonstrated tendency among L2 learners to omit the definite
greater gains in the specific, as compared to article
the (e.g., García Mayo, 2008; Liu 8c Gleason,
generic, parts of the testing tasks. A possible2002; ex- Snape et al., 2009; Trenkic, 2007). It would
planation lies in the fact that the generic com- be interesting to test the validity of this hypothesis
in a follow-up study by tapping the reasoning that
ponents of the assessments yielded relatively high
underlies learners' article choices with the help
scores for all three groups on the pretest, resulting

TABLE 5
Correlations Between Measures of Learner Differences and Gain Scores of the Direct Only and Direct
Metalinguistic Groups

Metalanguage Grammatical Sensitivity

Direct Only Direct Meta Direct Only Direct Meta

Testing Task Gain Score p p p p p p p p

Generic
Text sum. Pre-post .08 .67 -.20 .29 -.20 .30 -.16 .39
Pre-del. post -.01 .95 -.18 .33 -.16 .40 -.08 .67
TVJ Pre-post -.08 .68 .21 .26 .43 .02 .17 .38
Pre-del. post -.10 .60 .18 .34 .34 .06 .04 .82
Specific
Text sum. Pre-post .50 <.01* .25 .19 .60 <.01* .34 .06
Pre-del. post .49 <.01* .18 .35 .60 <.01* .32 .09
TVJ Pre-post <-.01 .99 -.37 .04 .04 .82 -.11 .55
Pre-del. post .02 .93 -.07 .73 -.15 .42 -.11 .58

Note. Direct Meta = direct metalinguistic, *p < .01, pre-post = pretest-pos

posttest.

This content downloaded from

115.164.119.199 on Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:16:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 276 The Modern Language Journal 99 (2015)

of introspective methods relative (e.g.,simplicity

stimulated recall
of the learner output produced
protocols). in terms of discourse features might have made
A second issue that deserves the target of the directregard-
attention WCF more salient and
ing the results for the overall transparent in these studies,
effectiveness ofthus
WCF participants
is the fact that the differences might havein gainsrelatively
experienced between little difficulty
the experimental and comparison in deducing the relevant were
groups article rules
of on their
a much larger effect sizeown onwithout
the thetextaddedsummary
help of metalinguistic
test as compared to the TVJ information.
test. The Sheen, in contrast, requested
principle of her
Transfer Appropriate Processing participants (TAP) may
to reproduce offer
narratives as part of the
an explanation for this finding. treatment. The
This task probably led to the creation
fundamental
tenet of TAP is that we can better transfer and "re- of more cohesive and complex texts, which might
member what we have learned if the cognitive pro- have imposed more demands on the learners
when processing the feedback, thereby making it
cesses that are active during learning are similar to
those that are active during retrieval" (Lightbown, more difficult for them to discern the target rule
2008, p. 27). One implication of TAP is that when in the absence of metalinguistic comments.
there is a match between the learning and test- The second research question asked about the
ing conditions in an effects-of-instruction exper- extent to which the effectiveness of direct WCF on

iment, participants will be better able to retrieve article errors is moderated by learner differences
what they have learned during the instructional in grammatical sensitivity and knowledge of meta-
treatment and use it in the assessment. Applying language. An additional subquestion queried the
extent to which the strength of any relationships
this principle to the present study, the participants
may have demonstrated higher gains on the text differs depending on whether learners received
summary test because, unlike the TVJ test, the text direct feedback only or direct feedback plus meta-
summary required them to use articles under con- linguistic comments. Spearman correlations,
ditions that were very similar to those they had which were run between the learner difference

previously encountered during the treatment. measures and the combined gain scores of both
Having established the positive effects of directexperimental groups on the two assessment tasks,
WCF on L2 article use, we examined the extent revealed three medium-sized links, all involving
to which the learners' development differed gain scores on the specific section of the text
depending on whether they received direct feed- summary task. Grammatical sensitivity was found
back only or direct feedback supplemented with to correlate with the learners' pretest-posttest
metalinguistic information. The statistical anal- and pretest-delayed posttest gain scores, and
yses, conducted to compare the pretest-posttest knowledge of metalanguage with their pretest-
and pretest-delayed posttest gains of the two posttest gains. In other words, the participants
experimental groups on the two assessment tasks, who demonstrated greater grammatical sensitivity
yielded no significant difference. Our results then and familiarity with metalinguistic terminology
largely reflect those documented by Bitchener were found to benefit more from the feedback
(2008) and Bitchener and Knoch (2008), who provided.
found no benefits for complementing direct The same type of correlational analyses, con-
feedback with metalinguistic comments, andducted for the two experimental groups sepa-
run contrary to Sheen's (2007) findings, whorately, yielded the same but large-size correlations
detected superior gains in article use on all of for the direct feedback only group. No significant
her three assessment tasks when metalinguisticcorrelations were detected for the direct meta-
information was also available to learners. linguistic group. Overall, these results suggest
A possible explanation for the conflicting find- that, while the participants with greater grammat-
ings might lie in the nature of the treatment ical taskssensitivity and knowledge of metalanguage
employed. In Bitchener and Enoch's research, were more likely to learn from the WCF in the
the participants completed picture description direct feedback only group, the participants' per-
tasks in a way that is similar to the present study formance was not affected by learner differences
where participants were asked to provide short when metalinguistic information was also made
descriptions of pictures based on a descriptive available.

text they had previously heard. The descriptive An issue worthy of discussion is that the two
learner factors in focus, grammatical sensitivity
task in the current study elicited a list of sentences
rather than a cohesive text, and it is likely and thatknowledge of metalanguage, were only linked
the written output produced by Bitchenerto andthe participants' gains in the direct feedback
Knoch 's participants was similar in nature. only Thisgroup, but not to the extent of development

This content downloaded from

115.164.119.199 on Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:16:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Charis Stefanou and Andrea Révész 277
exhibited by the direct metalinguistic cus on learner difference factors that have not
group. A
possible explanation for the lack of moderating yet been investigated (grammatical sensitivity and
effects observed for the familiarity participants with metalinguistic
in the terms).met- Corrobo-
alinguistic group may be that rating thethe results of previous empirical
provision of ad-research
ditional metalinguistic information, and contrary to Truscotťsin fact,(1996) claims,
neu-the pro-
tralised any advantage that vision of direct potentially
could WCF on article use washave
found

been afforded by higher to be superior to the sensitivity

grammatical comparison condition. In-
or knowledge of metalanguage. terestingly, In however,
other supplementing
words,direct WCF
the information supplied with in the metalinguistic
metalinguistic comments afforded little ad-
comments probably enabled ditional the
benefitparticipants
to learners. Furthermore,to partic-
compensate for their potentially ipants with weaker
greater grammatical
ability sensitivity
to and
recognize grammatical functions familiarity withandmetalinguistic
to use gram- terminology ap-
matical terminology. A similar peared to improve
argument more only was when direct feed-
put
forward by Erlam (2005) in back, in the absence of
explaining whymetalinguistic
gram-comments,
matical sensitivity was found was supplied in response to
to facilitate L2article errors. No sig-
learn-
ing under the more implicit, nificant links
but emerged
not between
the more the measures of
explicit, instructional conditions learner differences
in her and the gains ofof
study the experi-
aptitude-treatment interactions. mental group that received direct feedback and
Finally, a question that arises metalinguistic
is why comments.
all This
thepattern
sig- of findings
nificant relations between the learner factors and is in line with Erlam 's (2005) proposal that condi-
gain scores were detected on the task component tions rich in input may have the capacity to neu-
that targeted article use with specific referents. tralize learner differences in cognitive abilities.
Again, this finding may be accounted for by the Finally, some limitations of the study need to be
high scores achieved by the participants on theacknowledged and considered in future research.
generic items. As already mentioned, the parti- First, the text summary task constituted a focused
cipants already produced relatively high scores pedagogic task, which was designed to elicit spe-
cific and generic article use. As a consequence, it
on the pretest tasks assessing their ability to mark
generic reference (as noted earlier, this mightlacked situational authenticity (Ellis, 2003), and
not have corresponded to accurate underlyinginvolved article use in relatively controlled con-
knowledge) . This initial strong performance left texts only. To address these limitations, an im-
little room to demonstrate pretest-posttest devel- portant avenue for future research would involve
opment on the part of the learners, leading to extending
a the research questions posed here to
correspondingly low variance in the gain scores tasks that resemble more real-life uses of language
targeting generic items. This limited variance, and elicit less controlled application of the tar-
in turn, is likely to have restricted the chances get rule. Second, we focused on only one aspect
of detecting significant correlations between the of article use, thus it is not straightforward that
measures of learner differences and gains in our results would transfer to other linguistic tar-
the generic sections of the assessment tasks. Ingets (Xu, 2009). This imposes limits on the gener-
contrast, the larger variance of the learners' gainalizability of the findings and weakens the claims
scores in the specific items made it more probable we made about feedback efficacy. Thus, a replica-
that any moderating effects of the learner factors
tion of this study with complex linguistic construc-
would surface. tions would be especially desirable, given that lit-
tle is known about the impact of WCF on com-
CONCLUSION plex L2 features. A third, related limitation con-
cerns the fact that we only sought evidence about
the extent
The present study set out to examine the participants' development in producing and
to which direct WCF can help Greek EFL comprehending
learn- the linguistic target. No attempt
ers improve their article use for genericwas
and made
spe-to examine the potential impact of feed-
cific plural reference. Two feedback types were
back on the linguistic complexity of learners' pro-
compared: direct written feedback only duction as in Hartshorn et al. (2010) and Van Be-
and di-
rect written feedback plus metalinguisticuningen
informa-et al. (2012). Given that the text sum-
tion. Two learner factors were also investigated
mary test elicited a list of simple sentences rather
in relation to the participants' abilitythan
to learn
a text, the learners' output was not amenable
to analysis in terms of linguistic complexity mea-
from WCF: grammatical sensitivity and knowledge
of metalanguage. The novel aspects ofsures.
the re-Using less controlled tasks in future re-
search included its new linguistic targetsearch, as suggested before, would help resolve
and fo-

This content downloaded from

115.164.119.199 on Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:16:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 278 The Modern Language Journal 99 (2015)

this issue. Fourth, our investigation included

Bitchener, J., 8c Knoch, U. (2009). Theonly
contribution of
two learner factors. Thus, as written corrective feedback
suggested by to language
Kor-develop-
ment: A ten month the
mos (2012), further studies exploring investigation.
moder- Applied Linguis-
tics, 31, 193-214.
ating effects of other learner factors, such as work-
Bloor, T. (1986) . What do language students know about
ing memory capacity and motivation, are also war-
grammar? British Journal of Language Teaching ; 24,
ranted. In future research, context-specific 157-162. factors
should also be taken into consideration, since is-
Carroll, J. B. (1981). Twenty-five years of research in for-
sues such as learners' schooling environment to- eign language aptitude. In K. C. Diller (Ed.), In-
gether with their teachers' guidance and assess- dividual differences and universais in language learn-
ment practices may shape their capacity to bene- ing aptitude (pp. 83-118). Rowley, MA: Newbury
fit from pedagogical interventions. Finally, follow- House.

up research would profit from utilizing introspec- Cobb, T. (n.d.). Web Vocabprofile. Acccessed 16 July 2014
tive methods to uncover how learners engage with at http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/eng/

different types of WCF, and whether this might Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
be influenced by learner differences in cognitive
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin,
abilities.
112, 155-159.
Dave, A. (2004). Oxford Placement Test 1. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS DeKeyser, R. (2012). Interactions between individual
differences, treatments, and structures in SLA.
Language Learning, 62, 189-200.
We would like to thank the editor and the three
Elder, C. (2009). Validating a test of metalinguistic
anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions on
knowledge. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Er-
this article. Any errors, of course, are our own. This re-
lam, J. Philp, 8c H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and
search was supported by the Language Learning Disser-
explicit knowledge in second language learning , testing
tation Grant awarded to Charis Stefanou.
and teaching (pp. 113-138). Bristol, UK: Multilin-
gual Matters.
Ellis, R. (2003) . Task-based language learning and teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
NOTE
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learn-
ing. System, 33, 209-224.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., 8c Takashima, H.
1 According to the manual of the Oxford Placement
(2008) . The effects of focused and unfocused writ-
Test, scores ranging between 120 and 149 correspond
ten corrective feedback in an English as a foreign
to an intermediate level of proficiency, or B1 threshold
language context. System, 36, 353-371.
and B2 vantage of the Common European Framework
Erlam, R. (2005). Language aptitude and its relation-
ranking. Keeping with these guidelines, learners were
ship to instructional effectiveness in second lan-
chosen for participation in the study if their test scores
guage acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9,
fell within the aforementioned range.
147-171.

Farrokhi, F., 8c Sattarpour, S. (2012). The effects of di-

rect written corrective feedback on improvement
REFERENCES
of grammatical accuracy of high-proficiency L2
learners. World Journal of Education, 2, 49-57.
Ferris, D. R. (1999) . The case for grammar correction in
L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996).
Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C., 8c Steel, D. (1997). Met-
alinguistic knowledge, language aptitude, and lan-
Journal of Second Language Writing ; 8, 1-10.
guage proficiency. Language Teaching Research Ferris,
, 1, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language
93-121. writing classes. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of
Berry, R. (2009) . EFL mayors' knowledge of metalinguis- Michigan Press.
tic terminology: A comparative study. Language Ferris, D. R., 8c Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2
Awareness, 18, 113-128. writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written cor- Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184.
rective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writ- García Mayo, M. (2008) . The acquisition of four non-
ing, 17, 102-118. generic uses of the article the by Spanish EFL learn-
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feed- ers. System, 36, 550-565.
Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P. F., Sud-
back in second language acquisition and writing. New
York: Routledge. weeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, D., 8c Anderson, N.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written J. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback
corrective feedback for migrant and international on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 84-
students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409-431. 106.

This content downloaded from

115.164.119.199 on Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:16:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Charis Stefanou and Andrea Révész 279
Ionin, T., 8c Montrai, S. (2009). Article use and rection on the accurate use of grammatical forms
generic reference: Parallels between LI- and L2- by ESL learners. System, 37, 556-569.
acquisition. In M. García Mayo & R. Hawkins
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative ef-
(Eds.), Second language acquisition of articles: Em- fect of direct written corrective feedback and met-

pirical findings and theoretical implications (pp. 147- alinguistic explanation on learners' explicit and
171). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. implicit knowledge of the English indefinite ar-
Ionin, T., 8c Montini, S. (2010). The role of LI transfer ticle. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 286-
in the interpretation of articles with definite plu- 306.

Skehan, P. (2002). Theorizing and updating aptitude.

rals in L2 English. Language Learning, 60, 877-925.
Kormos,J. (2012). The role of individual differences in In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and in-
L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21,structed language learning (pp. 69-94). Philadel-
390-403. phia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effectsSnape,
of N., García Mayo, M., 8c Gùrel, A. (2009). Span-
implicit and explicit feedback and individual dif-ish, Turkish, Japanese and Chinese L2 learners' ac-
ferences in language analytic ability and workingquisition of generic reference. In M. Bowles et al.
memory. Modern Language Journal, 97, 634-654. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Generative Approaches
Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Transfer appropriate process- to Second Language Acquisition Conference (pp. 1-8).
ing as a model for classroom second language ac- Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
quisition. In Z.-H. Han (Ed.), Understanding second
Stefanou, C. (2010). The use of the English article system
language process (pp. 27-44). Clevedon, UK: Multi-by Greek learners of English. (Unpublished master's
lingual Matters. thesis). Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Storch, N., 8c Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners' pro-
Liu, D., 8c Gleason, J. L. (2002). Acquisition of the arti-
cle the by nonnative speakers of English. Studies incessing, uptake and retention of corrective feed-
Second Language Acquisition, 24, 1-26. back on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisi-
Loewen, S. (2012) . The role of feedback. In S. M. Gass 8ction, 32, 303-334.
A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second
Suh, B. R. (2010). Written feedback in second language ac-
language acquisition (pp. 24-40). London: Rout-quisition: Exploring the roles of type of feedback , lin-
ledge. guistic targets, awareness and concurrent verbalization.
Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language ac- (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown
quisition theory to the written error correction de- University, Washington, DC.
bate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 375- Trenkic, D. (2007). Variability in second language ar-
389. ticle production: Beyond the representational
Robinson, P. (2002). Learning conditions, aptitude deficit vs. processing constraints debate. Second
complexes and SLA: A framework for research Language Research , 23, 289-327.
and pedagogy. In P. Robinson (Ed.) , Individual dif- Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007).
ferences and instructed language learning (pp. 113- How effective are recasts? The role of attention,
135). Philadelphia/ Amsterdam: John Benjamins. memory, and analytical ability. In A. Mackey (Ed.) ,
Robinson, P. (2005). Aptitude and second language ac- Conversational interaction in second language acquisi-
quisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, tion: A series of empirical studies (pp. 171-195). Ox-
46-73. ford: Oxford University Press.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correc-
Sachs, R. (2010). Individual differences and the effectiveness
of visual feedback on reflexive binding in L2 Japanese. tion in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46,
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown 327-369.
University, Washington, DC. Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on
Sachs, R., 8c Polio, C. (2007). Learners' uses of two learners' ability to write accurately. Journal of Sec-
types of written feedback on a L2 writing revi- ond Language Writing, 16, 255-272.
sion task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29,Van Beuningen, C. G., de Jong, N. H., 8c Kuiken, F.
67-100. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of compre-
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in hensive error correction in second language writ-
second language learning. Applied Linguistics , 1 1,
ing. Language Learning, 62, 1-41.
129-158. Vatz, K.,Tare, M., Jackson, S. R., & Doughty, C.J. (2013).
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written correc-Aptitude-treatment interactions in second lan-
tive feedback and language aptitude on ESL learn- guage acquisition: Findings and methodology. In
ers' acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41,G. Granena 8c M. Long (Eds.), Sensitive periods, lan-
255-281. guage aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 273-
Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written 292). Philadelphia/ Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies Xu, C. (2009). Overgeneralization from a narrow focus:
in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 203-234. A response to Ellis et al. (2008) and Bitchener
Sheen, Y., Wright, D., 8c Moldawa, A. (2009). Differen- (2008) .Journal of Second Language Writing, 1 8, 270-
tial effects of focused and unfocused written cor- 275.

This content downloaded from

115.164.119.199 on Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:16:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 280 The Modem Language Journal 99 (2015)

Appendix

Version A of Assessment Tasks

Task 1: Text Summary

As part of a school visit to the zoo you have to write a short description about some animals . First you have 3 minute
to read the given text. Then the text will be replaced with some pictures. You have to write a summary of the text
English using the pictures to help you remember what it was about.

Text 1:
Ta kiovxápia Oscopovvxai o ßaaikiäg x rjç Çovyickaç. Hvvr¡0cog ra kiovxápia Koißovvxai kolxól xrj
SiápKSia xrjç ļispag, svá) Kvvrjyovv Kaxá x r¡ òiápKSia x rjç vvx^ocç. īlokv crvxvá ra kiovxápia
Xpr'oiiionoiovvxai as x aipKa.
Ta kiovxápia aro ÇcookoyiKÒ icfino x rjç nókrjç ļiag fisxa<ķspQr]Kav ornò xr)v bjļ>pucr'. 'O krj fispa ra
kiovxápia TtaíÇovv ¡jls ßia ¡xnáka. īlpiv ßia ßSofiäSa ra kiovxápia ansKxrjaav Sv o ¡iiKpá. Us svol
fiffva ra kiovxápia Got ¡jLSxaýspOovv axrj Takkía.

This content downloaded from

115.164.119.199 on Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:16:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Charis Stefanou and Andrea Révész 281
(Translation)
Lions are the king of the jungle. Lions usually sleep
are usually used in circuses.
The lions in our town zoo were brought from Africa. T
had two babies. Next month the lions will be transferred to France.

Task 2: Truth Value Judgment

Read the following stories and decide if the sentence given below each story is True or False by circling
the corresponding choice. Your decision should be based on the story.

Story 1 :
Most cinemas have several rows with seats. But there are three strange cinemas. They don't have seats,
they only have several sofas.
The cinemas have several sofas. TRUE FALSE

Story 2:
Most hotels are very noisy places because of the hundreds of people who live there. But two hotels are
always very quiet. There is a rule that forbids guests to make loud noise.
Hotels are very quiet. TRUE FALSE

Story 3:
Yesterday I heard a very funny story that happened in a school. A little boy was being chased by a little
girl around the school yard because he had stolen her favorite doll.
A little girl was chasing a litde boy. TRUE FALSE

Story 4:
In our History class we were taught that most castles were made of big pieces of stone. But the teacher
said that there were two castles that were different. They were made of wood instead of stones.
These castles were made of stones. TRUE FALSE

Story 5:
Most hotels are very noisy places because of the hundreds of people who live there. But two hotels are
always very quiet. There is a rule that forbids guests to make loud noise.
The hotels are very noisy. TRUE FALSE

Story 6:
Yesterday I was at the park and I saw something unusual. A dog was being followed by two squirrels all
around the park.
A dog was following two squirrels. TRUE FALSE

Story 7:
Most cinemas have several rows with seats. But there are three strange cinemas. They don't have seats,
they only have several sofas.
Cinemas have several rows with seats. TRUE FALSE

Story 8:
In ancient Greece most temples didn't have guards to protect them. But two temples were very special.
They were very rich and so they had guards to protect them.
These temples had guards to protect them. TRUE FALSE

This content downloaded from

115.164.119.199 on Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:16:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 282 The Modern Language Journal 99 (2015)

Story 9:
Last night I saw a film about strange animal stories. There was a case of a sheep which was being protected
by a cow while it was injured in the farm.
A cow was protecting a sheep. TRUE FALSE

Story 10:
In ancient Greece most temples didn't have guards to protect them. But two temples were very special.
They were very rich and so they had guards to protect them.
Temples had guards to protect them. TRUE FALSE

Story 11:
In our History class we were taught that most castles were made of big pieces of stone. But the teacher
said that there were two castles that were different. They were made of wood instead of stones.
The castles were made of wood. TRUE FALSE

Story 12:
Last night I saw a film about strange animal stories. There was a case of a sheep which was being protected
by a cow while it was injured in the farm.
A sheep was protecting a cow. ŤRUE FALSE

Story 13:
Most hotels are very noisy places because of the hundreds of people who live there. But two hotels are
always very quiet. There is a rule that forbids guests to make loud noise.
These hotels are very quiet. TRUE FALSE

Story 14:
In ancient Greece most temples didn't have guards to protect them. But two temples were very special.
They were very rich and so they had guards to protect them.
The temples didn't have guards to protect them. TRUE FALSE

Story 15:
Yesterday I heard a very funny story that happened in a school. A little boy was being chased by a little
girl around the school yard because he had stolen her favorite doll.
A little boy was chasing a litde girl. TRUE FALSE

Story 16:
Most cinemas have several rows with seats. But there are three strange cinemas. They don't have seats,
they only have several sofas.
These cinemas have several rows with seats. TRUE FALSE

Story 17:
In our History class we were taught that most castles were made of big pieces of stone. But the teacher
said that there were two castles that were different. They were made of wood instead of stones.
Castles were made of stones. TRUE FALSE

Story 18:
Yesterday I was at the park and I saw something unusual. A dog was being followed by two squirrels all
around the park.
Two squirrels were following a dog. TRUE FALSE

This content downloaded from

115.164.119.199 on Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:16:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms