Writing Teaching through Context-based Explicit Grammar Instruction

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 논문은 문맥을 바탕으로 한 명시적 문법수업과 오류수정 피드백을 통하여 EFL 상황에 놓여있는 한국 고등학생들의 영작문을 어떻게 지도할 것인지에 대하여 연구하였다. 영작문 지도의 여러 범주 중 문법적 오류에 초점을 맞추었으며 피드백 대상으로서는 학생들의 영작문 과제가 사용되었다. 본 연구에 사용된 피드백의 종류는 크게 교사의 직접 피드백 및 간접 피드백, 그리고 동료의 간접 피드백과 자기 수정의 네 가지로 분류된다. 본 연구에 설정한 구체적인 연구 문제는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 문맥을 바탕으로 한 명시적 문법수업 형태의 문법 교수가 학생들의 교수 대상 문법 카테고리의 이해와 문법의 정확성에 기여하는가? 둘째, 다른 유형의 오류수정 피드백을 통한 영작문 지도가 학생들의 영작문에 각각 어떤 영향을 미치는가? 셋째, EFL 학습자들의 영작문에 나타나는 문법 오류는 어떠한 것들이 있는가? 넷째, 문맥을 바탕으로 한 명시적 문법수업, 영작문, 그리고 다른 유형의 오류수정 피드백에 대한 학생들의 태도는 각각 어떠한가?
연구 참가자는 부산에 위치한 한 과학 영재학교 신입생 집중 강좌 코스에 참여한 134명의 고등학생들로서 한 반 평균 인원이 18명으로 구성된 여덟 반을 대상으로 세 가지 문법 카테고리, 즉 시제, 태, 관계절을 수업내용으로 하여 문맥을 바탕으로 한 명시적 문법수업을 통해 영작문을 지도하였으며, 세 그룹으로 나누어 서로 다른 유형의 피드백을 제공하였다. Group A는 통제 집단으로서 과제에 대한 피드백이 제공되지 않았으며 단락중심의 오류수정 연습만 이루어졌다. 한편 Group B는 두 번의 피드백 즉 동료의 간접 피드백과 교사의 간접 피드백이 제공되었으며, Group C는 교사의 간접 피드백만 제공되었다. 또한 Group B와 Group C에게는 공통으로 자기 수정의 시간이 제공되었으며, 샘플을 통한 교사의 직접 피드백이 문맥을 바탕으로 한 명시적 문법수업의 한 부분으로 제공되었다.
본 연구의 테이터 분석을 위해 사용된 도구로는 공백 메우기 형태의 사전 테스트와, 두 개의 사후 테스트이다. 즉 점수 비교를 위하여 사전 테스트와 같은 내용으로 구성된 공백 메우기 사후 테스트와 에세이 영작문 사후 테스트 두 가지인데, 에세이 영작문 사후 테스트는 학생들의 수준을 고려하여 우리말을 영어로 옮기는 형태를 띄었다. 데이터 분석을 위한 준거로는 11가지의 문법 카테고리가 사용되어졌다. 또한 학생들의 영작문에 나타난 T-unit 및 문법 오류를 수준별로 분석하였고 사후 설문지 조사를 통해 문맥을 바탕으로 한 명시적 문법수업, 영작문, 그리고 오류수정 피드백에 대한 학생들의 반응도 살펴보았다.
주요 연구 결과를 요약하면, 첫째, 공백 메우기 사전 테스트와 공백 메우기 사후 테스트 결과를 비교했을 때 모든 집단이 문법의 정확성에 있어서 향상을 보였고, 특히 실험집단 Group B가 가장 많은 향상을 보였으며, 그룹 간 비교를 하였을 때 Group A와 Group B, Group A와 Group C간에 유의미한 차이를 보였다. 이는 피드백의 종류와 상관없이 문법의 정확성에 피드백이 영향을 끼쳤음을 보여준다. 둘째, 에세이 영작문 사후 테스트 점수를 문법 카테고리 및 그룹별로 비교했을 때, 본 연구에서 교수한 세 가지 카테고리에서만 유의미한 차이가 나타났고, Group B, Group C, Group A 순서로 점수 차를 보였다. 또한 이 세 가지 카테고리 점수를 대상으로 그룹 간 비교를 하였을 때, Group A와 Group B, Group B와 Group C간 유의미한 차이를 보였는데, 이는 동료의 간접 피드백이 문법 향상에 도움이 되었고 교사 및 동료 간접 피드백이 결합된 형태가 가장 효과적이었음을 보여준다고 할 수 있다. 이외에도 두 가지 사후 테스트간의 상호 관련성은 철자를 제외한 10개의 카테고리에서 모두 유의미한 차이를 보였는데, 철자 카테고리에서 차이가 없는 이유는 연구 참가자의 영어 평균 수준이 중상위단계이기 때문인 것으로 여겨진다. 셋째, 영작문에서 나타난 오류를 수준별로 나누어 분석하였을 때 공통적으로 오류가 가장 많이 나타난 카테고리는 관사, 인칭 및 수의 일치, 단어 선택이었으며, 특히 하위 집단의 잘못된 어휘의 선택은 글의 문법성에는 크게 영향을 안 미쳤으나, 글의 질을 떨어뜨리는 원인이 되었다. 마지막으로 설문지를 통한 태도 조사 결과, 대부분의 참가자들이 문맥을 바탕으로 한 명시적 문법수업을 통한 영작문지도와 문법 오류수정 피드백에 대해 긍정적인 태도를 보였고, 영어 학습에서 우선적으로 필요한 세 가지 영역에 대한 질문에는, 말하기, 문법 및 영작문, 듣기 순으로 응답하였는데, 이는 일반 고등하교 학생들에 비해 영작문의 필요성이 더 많은 참가자의 특수한 교육환경에 기인한다고 해석 할 수 있다.
본 연구 결과가 EFL 영어교육에 시사하는 점은 영작문 지도 시, 문맥을 중심으로 지도하되, 다양한 진정성이 있는 자료를 동원하여 명시적 문법 수업과 결합하는 것이 영작문의 문법적 정확성을 높이는 데 기여한다는 것이다. 또한 영작문의 문법적 정확성을 높이기 위해서는 오류수정 피드백이 반드시 필요하며, 다양한 유형의 피드백 중에서 교사 및 동료의 간접 피드백이 동시에 제공될 때 가장 효과적이라는 것이다. 이상의 연구 결과에도 불구하고 본 연구에는 몇 가지 한계가 있다. 6주간의 짧은 기간, 영어 수준이 중상위 단계인 참여자, 또한 영작문 지도 시, 문법적 정확성에 초점을 두었다는 것이다. 하지만 이러한 한계에도 불구하고 글의 문법적 정확성을 향상시키는 데 명시적 문법 지도와 피드백의 필요성에 시사하는 바는 무리가 없는 것으로 보이며, 이 연구 결과가 앞으로 한국인 영어 학습자에게 보다 바람직한 영작문 수업의 모델을 제시하는 데 도움이 되기를 기대한다.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Chapter 1. Introduction 1
• 1.1. Overview 1
• 1.2. Purpose of the Study 5
• Chapter 2. Literature Review 7
• 2.1. Context-based EGI and Writing 7
• 2.1.1. Explicit Grammar Instruction 7
• 2.1.2. Context-based EGI 12
• 2.1.3. Writing through Context-based EGI 16
• 2.2. Error Feedback on Grammar in Writing 20
• 2.3. Types of Feedback 24
• 2.3.1. Teacher Feedback and Peer Feedback 25
• 2.3.2. Direct Feedback and Indirect Feedback 29
• 2.3.3. Self-editing 33
• Chapter 3. Research Design 39
• 3.1. Participants 39
• 3.2. Development of Instructional Materials 41
• 3.2.1. Selection of Target Grammar Structures 41
• 3.2.2. Selection of Texts 42
• 3.2.3. Development of Tasks 43
• 3.3. Procedures 44
• 3.3.1. Procedures of Instruction 44
• 3.3.2. Procedures of Error Feedback 46
• 3.4. Data Collection and Analysis 48
• Chapter 4. Results and Discussion 51
• 4.1. Effects of Context-based EGI on Posttest Results 51
• 4.1.1. Comparison of Pretest and Posttest Results by Group 52
• 4.1.2. Comparison of Posttest Results between Groups 54
• 4.2. Analysis of Grammatical Accuracy in Writing Posttest 55
• 4.2.1. Comparison of Writing Posttest Results by Group 56
• 4.2.2. Comparison of Results of Syntax Subarea Ⅰ, Ⅱ, and Morphology between Group 59
• 4.2.3. Comparison of Results of Syntax Subarea Ⅰ
• between Groups 62
• 4.2.4. Comparison of Writing Posttest Results by Level 65
• 4.3. Comparison of Results of T-unit Analysis 69
• 4.4. Correlations between Two Posttests 71
• 4.5. Analysis of Errors in Writing Posttest by Level 72
• 4.6. Students’ Responses in Postcourse Questionnaire 77
• 4.6.1. Attitudes toward Grammar and Feedback 77
• 4.6.2. Attitudes toward Writing 79
• 4.6.3. Attitudes toward Activity Form 82
• Chapter 5. Conclusion 85
• 5.1. Summary of the Findings 85
• 5.2. Conclusion and Implications 87
• 5.3. Limitations and Suggestions for Further Studies 90
• References 92

참고문헌 (Reference)

1. Thegrammarbook, Larsen-Freeman, Celce-Murcia, , 1983

2. Grammarin writing, Frodesen, , 2001

3. Richnessinwriting, Roen, Johnson, , 1989

4. Fluencyandaccuracy, Hammerly, , 1991

5. Instructed grammar, Byrd, , 2005

6. Mosaic 2 : Grammar, Werner, Patricia K., McGraw-Hill Contemporary, , 2002

7. Oxfordpracticegrammar, Yule, , 2006

8. How languagearelearned, Lightbown, Spada, , 1993

9. The effects ofthe red pen, Semke, , 1984

10. The Little, Brown handbook, Fowler, H. Ramsey, Longman, , 1997

11. Rediscovering interlanguage, Selinker, Larry, Longman, , 1992

12. Teaching grammar in context, Weaver, Constance, Boynton/Cook Publishers, , 1996

13. Closing the books on Alchemy, Kolln, , 1981

14. Materials and methods in ELT, McDonough J, Shaw C., , 1993

15. Responding to student writing, Rosen, Lois Matz, UMI, "TESOL Quarterly, , 1982

16. Explaining grammaticalconcepts, Harris, , 1989

17. Peerevaluation:Iam notateacher, Sengupta, , 1998

18. The pu sh toward communication, Higgs, Clifford, Thepush toward communication, , 1982

19. Error analysis and interlanguage, Corder, Stephen Pit, Oxford University Press, , 1981

20. Language learners and their errors, Norrish, John, Modern English Pub., , 1983

21. SLA research and language teaching, Ellis, Rod, Oxford University Press, SLA researchandlanguageteaching, , 1997

22. Feedback in second language writing, Hyland, , 2006

23. Scoring procedures for ESL contexts, Hamp-Lyons, , 1991

24. Talking off the tops of their heads, Wilga, , 1972

25. Agendas for second language literacy, McKay, Sandra, Cambridge University Press, , 1993

26. Pedagogical choices in focus on form, Doughty,C., Williams,J., Pedagogicalchoicesin focuson form, , 1998

27. Relationalgrammarandlanguageteaching, Hubbard, , 1983

28. Rethinking grammar and communication, Mitchell, , 1993

29. The treatmentoferror in written work, Hendrickson, , 1980

30. A criticallook at authentic materials, Day, , 2004

31. Academic writing for graduate students, Swales, , 1994

32. Understanding and using English grammar, Azar, , 1999

33. Evaluating compositions with large class, Chimombo, , 1986

34. Language teaching approaches:An overview, Celce-Murcia, , 1991

35. The study of second language acquisition, Ellis, Rod, Oxford University Press, , 1994

36. Interpretation Tasks for Grammar Teaching, Ellis, R, Ellis, Interpretation tasks forgrammarteaching, , 1995

37. Writing: Research theory, and application, Krashen, "Writing: Research theory, , 1984

38. Reducing composition errors: An experiment, Lalande, , 1982

39. Ways ofknowing writing with grammarin mind, Myhill, , 2005

40. Peertutoringandthe¡°conversationofmankind, Bruffee, , 1984

41. Focus on grammaticalform:Explicitorimplicit?, Burgess, , 2002

42. Theroleofcontextin thepresentation ofgrammar, Patrovitz, , 1997

43. Writing clearly:Responding to ESLcompositions, Lane, Bates, Lange, , 1993

44. An experiment with a miniature language system, DeKeyser, , 1995

45. Yes,it¡?sacontext,butisitreal?Paneldiscussion, Smith, "Yes, , 1987

46. A Comprehensive grammar of the English language, Quirk, Randolph, Longman, , 1985

47. Revisiting erroranalysis in English composition, Park, , 2007

48. TheendofCLT:A contextapproachtolanguageteaching, Bax, , 2003

49. Holisticassessment:Whatgoeson in theratersminds?, Vaughn, , 1991

50. Grammarteachinginwritingclasses:Tensesandcohesion, Hinkel, , 2002

51. Grammaticalstructureswritten atthree grade levels, Hunt, , 1965

52. Peer response in second language writingclassroom, Hansen, Liu, , 2002

53. Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach, Fotos, Ellis, , 1991

54. Thecaseforgrammarcorrection in L2writing classes:A, Ferris, , 1999

55. Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing, DeGuerrero, Villamil, , 1998

56. Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments?, Tsui, , 2000

57. Learner self-correction in EFL written compositions, Makino, , 1993

58. The teaching ofwriting:a pedagogy ofhiddenquestions, Watkins-Goffman, , 1989

59. Treatmentoferrorin second language students writing, Ferris, , 2002

60. Teaching ESL compositions:Purpose,process,& practice, Hedgcock, Ferris, "Teaching ESL compositions:Purpose, , 1998

61. The effect of genre awareness on linguistic transfer, Mustafa, Theeffectofgenreawarenessonlinguistictransfer, , 1995

62. Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response, Leki, I., Coaching from the margins:Issues in written response, , 1990

63. Relativeclausereduction in technicalresearch articles, Master, , 2002

64. Shifting thefocusfrom formstoform in theEFL classroom, Fotos, , 1998

65. The role of consciousness in second language learning, Schmidt, Theroleofconsciousnessin second languagelearning, , 1990

66. Finding a place for grammar in EFL composition classes, Muncie, , 2002

67. Comparing teacher and student responses to written work, Caulk, Comparing teacher and studentresponses to written work, , 1994

68. Interlanguage and learnability: From Chinese to English, Yip, , 1995

69. Structure-basedinteractivetasksfortheEFL grammarlearner, Fotos, , 2002

70. The influence of teacher commentary on student revision, Ferris, , 1997

71. ESL studentreaction towritten commentsontheirwrittenwork, Radecki, , 1988

72. Text, role, and context : developing academic literacies, Johns, Ann M, Cambridge University Press, "Text role, , 1997

73. The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes, Truscott, , 1996

74. Thetowerofbabeland theteaching in thecompositionclassroom, Martinsen, , 2000

75. An error analysis of Korean university students¡? writing, Cha, , 2004

76. Genre analysis : English in academic and research settings, Swales, John, Cambridge University Press, Genre analysis:English in academic and research settings, , 1990

77. Socio-cognitivedimensionsofinteraction in L2 peer revision, DeGuerrero, Villamil, , 1994

78. Teaching writing in second and foreign language classrooms, Williams, Jessica, McGraw-Hill, , 2005

79. The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing, Paulus, The effect of peer and teacher feedback on studentwriting, , 1999

80. Whyitmakessensetoteachgrammarincontextandthrough discourse, Celce-Murcia, , 2002

81. Erroranalysis:A study ofwritten errors ofKorean EFLlearners, Kim, , 1998

82. TakingstockofresearchandpedagogyinL2writing.InE.Hinkel(Ed.), Hedgcock, , 2005

83. Teacherresponsetostudentwriting:Focuson form versus content, Fathman, Whalley, , 1990

84. The role of grammar instruction in a communicativ eapproach, Terrell,T.D., , 1991

85. TheroleofrevisionandteacherfeedbackinaChinesecollegecontext, Lin, , 2007

86. A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction, Skehan, Skehan,P., , 1996

87. Multiple effects and the learnability ofEnglishunaccusatives, Chung, , 2006

88. Patternsandpreferencesofcorrectivefeedbackand learner repair, Han, Jung, , 2007

89. Response to writing:Implications for second languagestudents, Ferris, , 2003

90. Second language acquisition research:Skating outtheterritory, Larsen-Freeman, , 1991

91. Students¡?reactions to teacher comments:An exploratorystudy, Straub, , 1997

92. The Powers of literacy : a genre approach to teaching writing, Cope, Bill, University of Pittsburgh Press, , 1993

93. Anevaluationofgenre-basedapproachtotheteachingofEAP/ESPwriting, Henry, , 1998

94. Errors in language learning and use : exploring error analysis, James, Carl, Longman, , 1998

95. StudentinputandthenegotiationofmeaninginESL writingconferences, Conrad, Goldstein, , 1990

96. TeachingESL compositionstudentstobecomeindependentself-editors, Ferris, , 1995

97. Feedback on written compositions:Teacherandstudentverbalreports, Cohen, Cavalcanti, , 1990

98. Contextandcontexualizedlanguagepracticeinforeignlanguageteaching, Walz, , 1989

99. Focus on form: A design feature in language teachingmethodlology, Long, , 1991

100. Explicitnessin pedagogicalinterventions:Inputpractice,andfeedback, Sanz, "Explicitnessin pedagogicalinterventions:Inputpractice, , 2005

101. Theplaceofgrammarinstructioninthesecond/foreignlanguagecurriculum, Ellis, , 2002

102. Salience of feedback on errorand its effect on EFL writing quality, Shortreed, Ross, Robb, SalienceoffeedbackonerroranditseffectonEFL writingquality, , 1986

103. TheEnglish patient:English grammarandteachinginthetwentiethcentury, Walmsley, Hudson, , 2005

104. Error feedback in L2 writing classes howexplicit does it need to be, Ferris, Roberts, , 2001

105. The unaccusative trap: L2 acquisition of English intransitive verbs, Oshita, H., , 1997

106. Hesitancy working with a peer:Comparison oftwo studies 1995 and 1996, Linden-Martin, , 1997

107. Input enhancement and rule presentation in second languageacquisition, Alanen, Inputenhancementand rulepresentation in second languageacquisition, , 1992

108. Simplicity withoutelegance:Featuresofsentencesin L2andL1academictexts, Hinkel, , 2003

109. Theeffectofdifferenttypesofcorrective feedback on ESL student writing, Cameron, Young, Bitchner, , 2005

110. Anniversary article: Classroom SLA research andsecond language teaching, Lightbown, Anniversary article:Classroom SLA research and secondlanguageteaching, , 2000

111. Differenterrortypes in second-language students¡?writtenandspokentexts, Makalela, , 2004

112. Feedback in the writing process: a model and methods for implementation, Keh, Feedback in the writing process:a modeland methods forimplementation, , 1990

113. In the middle:New understandingsaboutwritingreading,andlearning(2nded.), Atwell, "In the middle:New understandingsaboutwritingreading, , 1998

114. Nontransformationaltheories ofgrammar:Implications forlanguage teaching, Hubbard, , 1994

115. Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction, Lefkowitz, Hedgcock, , 1992

116. Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision?, Connor, Asenavage, Peer response groups in ESL writingclasses:How much impacton revision?, , 1994

117. Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom:What do the students think?, Mangelsdorf, Peerreviewsin theESL composition classroom:Whatdothestudentsthink?, , 1992

118. Responding to ESL studentlanguage problems:Erroranalysisand revision plans, Reid, , 1998

119. The effect of error correction on L2 grammarknowledge and oral proficiency, DeKeyser, , 1993

120. A summarizingstrategytoimprovemiddlegradestudents¡?readingandwritingskills, Taylor, , 1982

121. The role oferror correction in the process-oriented ESLcompositionclassroom, Bosher, , 1990

122. Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class, Zhang, Reexamining theaffectiveadvantageofpeerfeedback in theESL writing class, , 1995

123. Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity in second language writing, Hedgcock, Lefkowitz, , 1994

124. Some inputon input:Two analyses ofstudentresponsetoexpertfeedback on L2writing, Hedgcock, J, Lefkowitz, Hedgcock, , 1996

125. Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms, Ferris, Studentreactions to teacher response in multiple-draftcompositionclassrooms, , 1995

126. WasTruscottright? New evidenceontheeffectsoferrorcorrectioninL2writing classes, Ferris, , 2000

127. Can advanced ESL students be taughtto correcttheirmostseriousandfrequenterrors?, Ferris, D. R., Ferris, , 1995

128. Errorcorrection in foreign languageteaching:Recenttheory research, and practice, Hendrickson, "Errorcorrection in foreign languageteaching:Recenttheory research, , 1978

129. Grammarinthecompositionclassroom:Essayson teaching ESL forcollege-bound students, Byrd, , 1998

130. Thecasefor¡°thecaseforgrammarcorrectioninL2writingclasses¡±:A responseto Ferris, Truscott, , 1999

131. Toward assessing interlanguageperformance: The relationship between selected errors, Cohen, Robbins, , 1976

132. ESL learners¡?performance in errorcorrection in writing:Someimplicationsforteaching, Lee, , 1997

133. The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes, Leki, , 1991

134. A criticalreflectiononthe¡®teachingEnglishthroughEnglish¡?classesintheKoreancontext, Kim.S.-A, , 2002

135. Formal instruction from a processing perspective: Aninvestigation intoSpanish pasttense, Cadierno, , 1995

136. Rulesandinstancesinforeignlanguagelearning:Interactionsofexplicit and implicit knowledge, Ellis, , 1993

137. A rationale fordirectinstruction to teachsummary writing following expository textreading, Guido, , 1987

138. Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives onlearning andpractising secondlanguagegrammar, DeKeyser, , 1998

139. Error analysis:Whatproblems do learners face in theproduction of the English passive voice?, Jung, , 2006

140. L2 acquisition of English unaccusative verbs under implicit and explicit learning conditions, Hwang, L2acquisitionofEnglishunaccusativeverbsunderimplicitandexplicitlearningconditions, , 1999

141. Whatishappenedmaynotbewhatappearstobehappening:A corpus ofpassive unaccusatives in L2 English, Oshita, , 2000

142. The effects of grammar supplementation on writtenaccuracy inanintermediateSpanishcontentcourse, Frantzen, Frantzen, D, , 1995

143. Informalelements in English academicwriting:Threatsoropportunitiesforadvanced non-nativespeakers, Chang, Swales, , 1999

144. Assessing grammaticalandtextualfeaturesin L2writingsamples:The case of French as a foreign language, Chiang, , 1999

145. Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL-research and its implications, Silva, Towardan understanding ofthedistinctnatureofL2writing:The ESL research and its implications, , 1996

146. Adverbplacementinsecondlanguageacquisition:Someeffectson positiveand negativeevidencein theclassroom, White, , 1991

147. Overpassivization errors by second language learners:Theeffect of conceptualizable agents in discourse, Ju, , 2000

148. Second language instruction does make a difference:Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization, Doughty, C. J, Doughty,C., , 1991

149. Theeffectoffocusedwrittencorrectivefeedbackandlanguageaptitude on ESL learners¡?acquisition of articles, Sheen, , 2007

150. Consciousness-raising and noticing through focus on form:Grammar task performance versus formal instruction, Fotos,S., , 1993

151. Focus-on-form and corrective feedback incommunicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning, Spada, Lightbown, , 1990

152. RevisionprocessesofcollegeESL students:How teachercomments discourse types, and writing tools shape revision, Lam, "RevisionprocessesofcollegeESL students:How teachercomments discourse types, , 1991

153. The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing, ler, , 2003

154. The¡°grammarcorrection¡±debateinL2writing:Wherearewe,andwheredowegofrom here?(andwhatdowedointhemeantime...?), Ferris, "The¡°grammarcorrection¡±debateinL2writing:Wherearewe, , 2004

155. Second language acquisition research and thelearning/teachingof Spanish: Some research findings and theirimplications, VanPatten, , 1986

156. Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction, Ferris, , 2006

157. Breaking the tradition:An exploration ofthe historicalrelationship between theoryand practicein second languageteaching, Musumeci, , 1997

158. Generalizability and automaticity ofsecond languagelearning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructedconditions, Robinson, "Generalizability and automaticity of second languagelearning underimplicitincidental, , 1997

159. Multiple discoursesmultiple identities:Investment and agency in second-language learning among Chineseadolescent immigrant students, Wong, McKay, , 1996

160. The effects ofdeductive andguidedinductiveinstructionalapproachesonthelearningofgrammarintheelementary foreign languagecollegeclassroom, Herron, Haight, Cole, , 2007

161. Patterns of teacher response to student writing in amultiple-draftcomposition classrooms:Iscontentfeedback followed byform feedback thebestmethod?, Ashwell, , 2000

162. A comparison ofthe effectiveness ofpeer vsteacherevaluation for helping students ofEnglish as a second language toimprove the quality oftheir written compositions, Patridge, , 1981