RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Submitted by
Asad Hussain
M.Phil Scholar (English Linguistics)-2014
2k14/Eng/05

Institute of English Language & Literature

University of Sindh, Jamshoro

January 2015

A Comparative Study of Direct-Indirect &

Metalinguistics Corrective Feedback Types
By

Asad Hussain

Under the Supervision of

Dr. Faraz Bughio
Assistant Professor

In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of M.Phil

(English Linguistics)

Presented to

University of Sindh, Jamshoro

February 2015
INTRODUCTION

English Language teachers have often been interested to discover feasible ways which
could improve writing skills of their pupils. For this purpose, they give corrective feedback to
their students. These corrective feedbacks play a vital role in minimizing linguistic errors in
students draft. Truscott (1996) suggested that teachers should not give any kind of corrective
feedback to students. For him, these corrective feedbacks produce hindrances in learning;
therefore, it should be abandoned. The other linguists such as Bitchener & Knoch (2008);
Sheen(2007); Chandler(2003) & Ferris(2002) are in favour of corrective feedback they state
that enough empirical evidence is available which show that corrective feedback help overcome
some types of linguistics errors in drafting; however, it has yet to prove which one corrective
feedback type is more effective than others. Whether a combination of two or more corrective
feedback type may also be used or not is to be explored. The aim of the present study is to
conduct a comparative study between direct indirect and Metalinguistics corrective feedback
types using inferential statistics.

BACKGROUND

In 1996, Truscott published his article named The case against grammar correction in L2
writing classes has started a new debate among the linguistics which compelled linguists to
think about the feasible and effective ways of imparting corrective feedback to the learners.
There major concern was how to give feedback to students. Truscott (1996) stated on several
grounds that there is no place of grammar correction in a writing course.
In line with Truscott (1996), other linguists such as Kepner (1991), Sheppard (1992) and Semke
(1984) are of the view that there are not ample convincing evidence which state that these
feedbacks produce accuracy in writings. Ferris (1992) on the other hand claimed that corrective
feedback does help students in achieving accuracy. Chandler (2003) did not agree with Truscott
on the ground that the difference should be proved statistically. Truscott didnt prove it;
therefore, his statement about corrective feedback is weak and has no weightage. Ferris on the
other hand maintained that there are many solid reasons in favour of giving corrective feedback.
Truscott kept becoming adamant to his views whereas Ferris appeared as an advocate of
corrective feedback. During this debate, another thing came under discussion was the long-term
& short-term learning. Researcher emphasized that linguists and teachers should be cautious
about method, techniques and approach for error correction and always thinking in terms of
short term and long term learning.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE

Fleck, & Leder (1998) , Kepner1(991) & Robb, Ross & Shortreed(1986) mentioned the
results of few studies of corrective feedback conducted between direct-indirect corrective
feedbacks , and reported that there was no statistically significant difference with respect to
writing accuracy in the results . Among these studies no control group (which didnt receive any
type of feedback at all) was incorporated. Fatham and Whalley (1990) reported that the group
which received corrective feedback committed fewer grammatical errors as compared to that
group which didnt receive any type of feedback. There is a dire need to conduct comparing
studies among corrective feedback group and controlled group; moreover, studies which could
measure long-term and short-term learning should also be initiated (Ferris, 2002; Truscott, 1999).
After reaching this stage, a new debate has started that whether a certain type of corrective
feedback is more beneficial than others or not. Kepner (1991); Sheppard (1992) and Semke
(1984) found no significant difference in comparative studies of corrective feedbacks.

Ferris & Hedcock (1998) , Ferris (1995); Shortreed (1986) conducted comparative studies
between direct-indirect and Metalinguistics corrective feedback and found that both the methods
of corrective feedback were found beneficial in reducing the number of grammatical errors but
Metalinguistics corrective feedback contributed towards long-term learning and direct-indirect
towards short-term learning.

Another study conducted by Cheyney & Komura (2000), Helt (2000) and Frantzen ( 1995)
reported that Metalinguistics corrective feedback increase accuracy over the period of time and it
contributes towards long-term learning. Lalande, 1982 & Robb, 1986 had conducted studies
without controlled group and found no significant difference in accuracy.

Ferris and Robert (2001) & Lee (1997) conducted another study at Hong Kong in an EFL
College with a controlled group and reported significant difference in a group which received
corrective feedback in blending form i.e. a mixture of direct-indirect & Metalinguistics. Ferris &
Robert (2001) conducted another study and compared three types of feedbacks. Out of which one
was controlled group. They reported that both the groups improved and minimized the number of
errors except the control group which didnt receive any kind of feedback.

Ferris (2001) compared a new piece of writing and text revision with the help of corrective
feedbacks and reported his results that direct-indirect groups accuracy was 88% whereas
Metalinguistics corrective feedback groups was 77%. It was also reported that Metalinguistics
groups accuracy was increasing with each passing day.

RESEARCH ON LINGUISTIC ERRORS

Different linguistic errors should be treated differently. They are not equivalent at all. Each
error needs to be rectified differently with a specific strategy (Truscott, 1996; Chaney, 1999;
Ferris, 1995).

Ferris (1999) introduced the concept of treatable and untreatable linguistics errors. He
simplified that all those linguistic errors which are rule governed may be called treatable whereas
the others untreatable. Ferris (2000) conducted a study between treatable and untreatable errors
and reported that treatable group reduced grammatical errors comparatively better than
untreatable errors. Treatable errors means here Subject verb agreement, singular-plural,
sequence of tenses and possessive pronouns etc) whereas untreatable means here word choice,
idioms and preposition.

A good number of studies have been conducted so far in foreign countries among different
types of corrective feedbacks, but none of such study has been conducted in Pakistan. If there is ,
no research evidence is available of it.

In this research we typically focus on comparative study between direct-indirect &

Metalinguistics corrective feedbacks.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this research is to conduct a comparative study using inferential statistics
between Direct-indirect and Metalinguistics corrective feedback types in typical Pakistani
context where out of 6 types of corrective feedbacks only two to three types of feedbacks are
imparted. By conducting this research, researcher will also try to know which one feedback type
is more beneficial to learners or a combination of two or more may give better results.

SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

This thesis will covers in general all types of corrective feedbacks usually given by ESL
and EFL teachers in various English learning programs across the world & will particularly
focus on direct-indirect and Metalinguistics corrective feedback types The results of these
feedbacks type may vary in different regions and countries. Using of one feedback type and a
combination of two or more is the discretionary power of the teachers and these combinations of
corrective feedbacks may give different results on testing. The better the diagnosis of errors, the
better the performance of learners will be in subsequent writings. So far as the limitations of
feedbacks types are concerned. Limitations are age and class-level bounded. Different age
group and different class levels performance will be different, for all feedback types differ in
nature and they are meant for different age groups and class levels; however, there is no doubt in
efficacy of these feedbacks types.
STATEMENT OF RESEARCH PROBLEM

Different types of feedbacks are imparted to English language learners by ESL or EFL
teachers at various levels. Which one type of feedback is more beneficial at a certain level? Or a
combination of two or more may be more helpful to students minimize number of errors in the
subsequent writings are the questions to be explored. What are the strengthens and weakness of
each feedback type? Whether the feedback type is age and class level bounded. Keeping all
these question in view, there was a need to conduct a scientific study to measure the efficacy of
imparted feedback types using inferential statistics so that teachers could bring betterment in
their future feedbacks.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What are the feedbacks type being used across the world by ESL teachers?
2. What are the strengthens and weakness of each feedback type?
3. What does a comparative study of direct-indirect & Metalinguistics feedback types reveal
or prove?
4. Is there any difference between Direct-Indirect & Metalinguistics corrective feedback
types' efficacy or not?
5. For the present study the following hypothesis has also been developed:
H0
=
There is no different between Direct-Indirect & Metalinguistics corrective
Feedback types with respect to efficacy.
H1
=
There is a significant difference between the two.

KEY WORDS:

Direct-Indirect, Metalinguistics Corrective feedback

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Design
The study employed a quasi-experimental research design with a pre-test, post-test and
delayed post test.

Participants

Forty students (20 in Direct-Indirect corrective feedback group & 20 in Metalinguistics

corrective feedback group) who will participate in this research will be the students of class IX
of Government run schools in Pakistani , and they are supposed to go in class X after a year.

Instruments
As an instrument, students compositions, questionnaire (for teachers and students),
assessment rubrics and class observations will be used.

Population
Population consists of all the ESL teachers teaching English at secondary level in the
jurisdiction of Gulshan-e-Iqbal Town, Karachi.

Sampling
Fifty samples of students written compositions will be analyzed that would have been
assessed by the concerned ESL teachers using different corrective feedback methods whereas
interview of 20 teachers from different schools will also be conducted , and the questionnaires

will also be get them filled.

Data Collection Method

The following procedure was carried out to collect the data:

1. The data collected for this research will be based on the weekly writings of the
students for the period of six months
2. The writing session will be carried out in a guided way in three hours a week.
3. Before every writing session, a topic related reading session will be carried out in the
class to provide the necessary content.
4. Then the useful language, related vocabulary, structures and appropriate forms will be
introduced.
5. The students will be asked to write double-spaced texts in class and submit their
writings by the end of the class period.
6. Examiners will assesse students composition according to feedback type i.e. DirectIndirect vs. Metalinguistics.
7. Interview with the teachers using questionnaire.
8. Interview with the students using questionnaire.
9. Observation of existing practice.

Data Analysis Method

The collected data will be analyzed through inferential statistics.

Bibliography
Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft
composition classroom: Is content Treatment followed by form Treatment the best
method? Journal of Second Language Writing,

Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error Treatment for Improvement in the
accuracy and fluency of L2student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing,

Ferris, D. R. (1995). Teaching ESL composition students to become independent self-editors.

TESOL Journal,
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly,
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S., Tade, C. R., & Tinti, S (1997). Teacher commentary on student writing:
Descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing,
Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error Treatment in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it
need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing,
Fratzen, D. (1995). The effect of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an
intermediate Spanish content course. Modern Language Journal,
Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory,
research, and practice. Modern Language Journal,
Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written Treatment to the
development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal,
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal,
Lavery C. (2001). Language assistant fromhttp://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/

Lee, I. (1997). ESL Learners Performance in Error Correction in Writing. System,

Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong.
Journal of Second Language Writing,
Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing
classes. Foreign Language Annals,
Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). If only I had more time: ESL learners changes in
linguistic accuracy on essay revision. Journal of Second Language Writing,
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of Treatment on error and its effect on EFL
writing quality. TESOL Quarterly,
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes.

Language Learning,
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly,