The third research question investigates on how the four different types of CF approaches help to promote noticing among ESL learners. The discussion on the effectiveness of CF in improving the written grammatical accuracy of ESL learners is always aligned with its role as the facilitator for error noticing. Swain’s (1995, 2005) Output Hypothesis suggests that the language acquisition process of L2 learners will be further stimulated if they are able to notice the linguistic gaps that exist in their current IL system as compared to the TL-like structures. In this context, the provision of focus- on-form interventions like CF is seen as an important aspect that saliently highlights the negative evidences in the learners’ writing, promotes their noticing towards the linguistic gaps in their IL, and subsequently assists them in rectifying their linguistic inaccuracies. This creates a correlation between the effectiveness of a CF approach in improving learners’ grammatical accuracy with the extent of its efficacy in promoting noticing.
The learners’ responses during the interview indicate that all of them share a similar strategy in attending to the given CF. They began by reading and scanning the corrected essays while paying attention to the remarks and corrections given. The purpose of such action is for them to gain as much information as possible that informs them on the grammatical errors that they had produced in their writing, which subsequently leads to their noticing towards the linguistic gaps in their IL. However, the effectiveness of
University
these CF approaches to promote noticing varies according to its explicitness in correcting the grammatical errors as well as its comprehensiveness in addressing the learners’ errors.
Direct Feedback as Effective Noticing Facilitator
Based on the findings, it is shown that the direct feedback possesses superior efficacy in playing its role as the facilitator of noticing. During the interview, learners from the FD and UD group admitted that the use of the error-crossing technique and the availability of the TL-like answers in the direct feedback saliently highlight the negative evidences in their writing. Aligned with Chandler (2003), such information provides them with clear and sufficient assistances that inform them about their inaccurate production of the TL and direct their attention towards noticing the grammatical inaccuracies that exist in their IL. This is evident by their ability to explain the grammatical structures involved with their inaccurate TL production such as the missing of suffix ‘s’ and ‘es’, the inaccurate usage of certain words like ‘the’ and ‘a’, and incorrect spelling of the word ‘unfortunately’.
However, the effectiveness of such noticing in facilitating towards improved grammatical accuracy in the learners’ subsequent writing is influenced by its selective and comprehensive nature of addressing the earners’ written grammatical accuracy. In this context, the focused provision of the direct feedback thoroughly addresses the three targeted grammatical structures as opposed to the unfocused direct feedback that only manages to address six out of the thirteen targeted grammatical structures. Aligned with Shitani & Ellis (2014), the former provides those in the FD group with the opportunity to examine multiple and repeated corrections on a limited number of grammatical structures, which supplies them with the rich information and evidences that further amplify their
University
understanding towards the targeted structures. This enables them to better comprehend and internalise the structures and it is evident by their further improvement in written grammatical accuracy at the end of the 8-weeks study. On the other hand, the unfocused direct feedback supplies the learners with an abundance of linguistic information that might be too vast and complex for them to process and comprehend, hence limiting their further improvement in written grammatical accuracy during the delayed posttest. Such findings hence suggest on the superior efficacy that the direct feedback has in promoting noticing among ESL learners, with the noticing promoted by the focused direct feedback proven as having superior efficacy in facilitating towards longitudinal improvement in written grammatical accuracy.
Limited Noticing by Indirect Feedback
Meanwhile, the efficacy of the indirect feedback in playing its role as the facilitator of noticing is limited to the focused indirect only. Apart from indicating its limited efficacy in promoting noticing as compared to the direct feedback, the finding also shows that the utilisation of indirect feedback in achieving such purpose is accompanied by two risks. The first risk suggests that although the independent revision and editing process promoted by the indirect feedback may assist in the development of metacognitive skills among L2 learners (Lalande, 1982; Ferris & Roberts, 2001), researchers like Hyland & Hyland (2006) and Ellis et al. (2008) believe that the use of error codes and indirect clues in its provision may be too complex and confusing to be comprehended and processed by learners. Such disadvantage is displayed by the inability of those in the UI group in utilising the unfocused indirect feedback to notice the grammatical inaccuracies that they had produced in their writing. In this context, the use of error codes in the indirect feedback along with its comprehensive provision that
University
addresses thirteen types of grammatical structures may have been too vast and complex for the learners to comprehend and process. This provides them with insufficient information on the grammatical inaccuracies that they had produced in their writing, limits their noticing towards the linguistic gaps that exist in the IL, and resulted in their stagnant progress in written grammatical accuracy throughout the 8-weeks experiment.
On the other hand, the second risk suggests that the effectiveness of indirect feedback to promote noticing may also be jeopardised if the ESL learners fail to comprehend the error codes used, particularly when it involves learners with low proficiency (Ellis et al., 2008). In this context, although the provision of the focused indirect feedback to the FI group reduces the complexity of the indirect feedback by providing them with the opportunity to examine multiple and repeated corrections that supply them with the rich information and evidences on the three types of targeted grammatical structures, the extent of its efficacy in promoting noticing is still dependent on the learners’ ability to comprehend the error codes used in the corrections, which might be a disadvantage to those with low proficiency. This is evident by its limited efficacy that only benefitted those with high and intermediate proficiency as well as the learners’ misinterpretation of the indirect feedback directed upon the three targeted grammatical structures of prepositions, articles, and SVA as errors of other structures. The learners also admitted that the focused indirect feedback also provides less assistance in order for them to retain similar grammatical accuracy in the subsequent writing as portrayed by their decrease in written grammatical accuracy at the end of the 8-weeks experiment. These evidences hence suggest that although the indirect feedback possesses the ability to promote noticing among ESL learners, its efficacy is limited to the focused indirect feedback, has the possibility of being influenced by the learners’ level of proficiency, and does not assist in retaining learners’ written grammatical accuracy in subsequent writing.
University
Conclusion
The findings reveal that superior efficacy to promote noticing among ESL learners is demonstrated by the focused and unfocused direct feedback, with the former offering better assistance in their subsequent writing. Meanwhile, limited efficacy is shown by the focused indirect feedback where the noticing is influenced by the learners’ level of proficiency and it does not assist in retaining their written grammatical accuracy in their future writing.