Different Types of Focused Direct Written Feedback Effects on Learners＇ English Article Acquisition： A Meta-analysis  

作　　者：Chian-Wen Kao 

机构地区：[1]National Central University, Jhongli, Taiwan

出　　处：《US-China Foreign Language》2012年第9期1569-1576,共8页美中外语（英文版）

摘　　要：Whether students＇ grammatical errors should be treated has been debated in second language writing instruction for some years （Bruton, 2009, 2010; Truscott, 1996, 1999, 2010; Ferris, 1999, 2004, 2010）. Several meta-analyses have been conducted to investigate correction effects （Russell ＆ Spada, 2006; Truscott, 2007）. Their findings, however, have been conflicting. A recent trend to distinguish specific grammar error types from one another to evaluate correction effects has attracted much attention in written feedback literature （Bitchener ＆ Knoch, 2010a, 2010b; Bitchener, Young, ＆ Cameron, 2005; Bruton, 2009; Sheen, Wright, ＆ Moldawa, 2009）. The present meta-analysis, following the recent trend, attempts to assess different types of focused direct correction effects on learners＇ acquisition of the English article system. Based on Truscott＇s （2007） inclusion and exclusion criteria, six and five effect sizes （the difference between experimental and control groups in terms of accuracy of English article use） are extracted for direct correction type and metalinguistic explanation type separately from seven focused feedback studies. It is found that both direct correction and metalinguistic explanation have large positive effects on learners＇ ability to accurately use English articles in their writings in terms of long-term learning. This suggests that direct correction may be sufficient for students＇ acquisition of English articles. Studies to correct other error types in students＇ writings should be conducted in the future.

关 键 词：WCF （written corrective feedback） focused feedback English article direct correction META-ANALYSIS 

分 类 号：TP278[自动化与计算机技术—检测技术与自动化装置] Q141[自动化与计算机技术—控制科学与工程]