Language Analytic Ability And The Effectiveness Of Written Corrective Feedback On Chinese EFL Learners’ Development Of Implicit And Explicit Knowledge Of English Articles

The effectiveness of written corrective feedback (CF) has been an issue ofconsiderable debate and much discussion in the field of second language acquisition(SLA) over decades. Most previous SLA research into written CF focused oninvestigating the role of written CF in improving learners’ explicit knowledge.However, few studies have examined the effect of written CF on implicit knowledgedevelopment.Based on the previous empirical studies on the efficacy of written CF, this studyadopted the methodology of SLA research into written CF with apretest-treatment-immediate posttest-delayed posttest design. It attempted to explorethe relative effectiveness of direct written CF and direct metalinguistic written CF onChinese English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ development of explicit andimplicit knowledge of the two functional uses of the English article system: the use of‘a(n)’ for first mention and ‘the’ for subsequent or anaphoric mentions. Besides, theextent to which the effects of these two direct written CF options were mediated bylearners’ language analytic ability was also examined.The subjects were92freshmen of non-English majors from three intact classesof a junior college in Guangzhou, Guangdong province. These three intact classeswere randomly assigned to three groups: the direct written CF group, the directmetalinguistic written CF group and the control group. The whole experiment lastedfor a period of eight weeks, covering three testing sessions and two treatment sessions.The effects of written CF were measured in terms of explicit and implicit knowledge.Three assessment tests: Picture-cued Writing Test (designed to primarily measureimplicit knowledge), Speeded Dictation Test (designed to primarily measure implicitknowledge), and Error Correction Test (designed to measure explicit knowledge) wereadministered in the three testing sessions to measure learners’ development of implicitand explicit knowledge of the two functional uses of English articles. The twotreatment sessions were based on two picture-cued writing tests, that is, picture-cuedwriting test1in the pretest, and picture-cued writing test2. Subjects in the directwritten CF group (n=29) received direct correction on article errors through locating the errors and providing the correct forms. Subjects in the direct metalinguistic writtenCF group (n=31) were corrected through indication of the locations of errors and theprovision of correct forms in combination with written metalinguistic explanation.Besides the corrections on English articles, both treatment groups also receivedcorrections on other linguistic errors like verb forms, agreement in subject andpredicate, etc. Subjects in the control group (n=32) did not get any feedback duringthe experiment, instead, their texts with written CF were given back to them at the endof the experiment.All the data collected were entered into the statistic tool of SPSS (StatisticalPackage for the Social Sciences, Version16.0) for analyses. The current studyobtained the following research results:(i) Direct metalinguistic written CF groupperformed significantly better than the control group in both posttests of the threeassessment tests; direct written CF group performed significantly better than thecontrol group in all tests except in posttest2of the Speeded Dictation Test;(ii) Whileboth treatment groups can equally facilitate the development of explicit knowledge ofEnglish articles, the direct metalinguistic written CF group performed better than thedirect written CF group in fostering the development of implicit knowledge of Englisharticles;(iii) While the effect of direct metalinguistic written CF was not mediated bylearners’ language analytic ability, the effect of direct written CF was mediated bylearners’ language analytic ability to certain extent.This thesis provided further evidence for the efficacy of explicit form-focusedinstruction in the form of written CF, indicating that both direct written CF optionswere effective in promoting the development of implicit and explicit knowledge ofEnglish articles. Therefore, teachers should not hesitate to provide learners withwritten CF in reviewing their texts. This study also gives us implication that weshould not neglect learners’ individual difference factors while evaluating theeffectiveness of written CF. Rather, it should be born in mind that an appropriate CFoption should be selected based on the analyses of learners’ individual differencessuch as language proficiency, learning motivation and language aptitude, so as tomaximize the effects of written CF and promote learners’ interlanguage developmentmore efficiently.