IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/eltjnl/v7y2014i10p22.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback and Language Analytic Ability on Chinese Learners’ Explicit and Implicit Knowledge of English Articles

Author

Listed:
  • Lin Jiang
  • Hailing Xiao

Abstract

This article reports on an 8-week study that investigated the differential effects of two written corrective feedback (CF) options on 92 low-intermediate EFL students’ explicit and implicit knowledge of English articles and the extent to which language analytic ability might influence the effect of written CF. The study used a pretest-treatment-posttest-delayed posttest design with three groups- a direct-only correction (DOC) group, a direct metalinguistic correction (DMC) group, and a control group. The acquisition of explicit knowledge was measured by an error correction test, and implicit knowledge was measured by a picture-cued writing test. It was found that both the DOC and the DMC benefited explicit and implicit knowledge, but no significant differences were reported in their effects on each type of knowledge. This study also showed that language analytic ability mediated the effectiveness of the DOC rather than that of the DMC. These findings are discussed from the perspective of cognitive psychology and implications and suggestions for further research are put forward.

Suggested Citation

  • Lin Jiang & Hailing Xiao, 2014. "The Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback and Language Analytic Ability on Chinese Learners’ Explicit and Implicit Knowledge of English Articles," English Language Teaching, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 7(10), pages 1-22, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:ibn:eltjnl:v:7:y:2014:i:10:p:22
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/download/40550/22304
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/view/40550
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:eltjnl:v:7:y:2014:i:10:p:22. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.