초록 열기/닫기 버튼
The study extends current research into written corrective feedback (WCF) in two ways. First, it compared the effect of three different types of explicit WCF (i.e., direct correction, metalinguistic explanations, and direct correction + metalinguistic explanations) on the accuracy development of a syntactic feature (the hypothetical conditional) and a grammatical morpheme (the indefinite English article). Second, the study explored whether or not learners’ language analytic ability (LAA) facilitated the extent to which WCF benefited their accuracy gains. The study followed a pretest-posttest-delayed posttest design, and the data were collected from four intact classrooms at a university. It was found that all types of WCF contributed to the accuracy gains in both forms. However, the degree and the length of effectiveness was subject to the type of feedback and the target forms. The study’s findings as regards LAA show that for the hypothetical conditional, learners with strong LAA improved accuracy more than learners with weak LAA via the direct correction and the metalinguistic explanations. But in the direct correction + metalinguistic explanation conditions, LAA was unrelated to the degree of gains. For the indefinite article, no relationship was found between learners’ LAA and their accuracy gains.
