Where SLA and L2 writing research meet

Ferris, D.R. (2010). Second Language Writing Research and Written Corrective Feedback      
              in SLA: Intersections and Practical Applications. Studies in Second Language  
              Acquisition, 32, 181-201.

I have chosen another Ferris article as her research is related to my interests. I am focusing on corrective feedback for my blogposts. The 2014 Ferris article I reviewed in blogpost 1, “Responding to student writing: Teachers’ philosophies and practices,” was a more general introduction to philosophies toward corrective feedback, not specifically related to Second Language Acquisition. The 2010 Ferris article is perfect for someone like me who has done more research related to linguistics rather than composition studies.

In “Second Language Writing Research and Written Corrective Feedback in SLA: Intersections and Practical Applications,” Ferris spells out some differences and similarities between Second Language Acquisition researchers and L2 writing researchers. L2 refers to any language learned after the native language. Second Language Acquisition researchers generally narrow their research to whether written corrective feedback helps students acquire specific language skills whereas L2 writing researchers want to know whether written corrective feedback improves students’ overall writing effectiveness. Ferris postulates that this is the reason for the disparities in the results of corrective feedback research between disciplines.

There are also differences between the support for direct versus indirect corrective feedback. Indirect feedback is when an error is pointed out to the student and they must correct it for themselves, direct feedback is a correction provided by the teacher. Second Language Acquisition researchers support direct feedback more than L2 writing researchers, at least for certain features.

I agree with Ferris that the two lines of research are not in opposition to each other but that researchers in both Second Language Acquisition and L2 writing should cooperate and learn from each other’s work. It is less a difference of ideas than methodology. Ferris has a section of suggestions for how to merge the two schools of thought for further research. The Second Language Acquisition studies could be geared more toward practical applications than they have been and L2 studies could be more rigorous and scientific in their approaches.