Studies in English Language and Literature

Vol. 35, 00-00, August 2015

EFL Writer’s Noticing and Uptake: A

Comparison between Models and Error
Correction
Yichun Yang
Department of English Language, Literature and Linguistics
Providence University, Taichung, R.O.C

Abstract

Little research has been conducted regarding the

comparison between the effects of models (i.e., sample
articles) and error correction on EFL learners’ writing ability
and what students noticed during the comparison activities.
The goal of this study was to examine what students’
noticing of their writing issues may have contributed to their
uptake after the two treatments. Twenty-four EFL college
students participated in this study in which they completed a
picture-cued first draft. Students then compared their
compositions with a model written by a native speaker,
along with the completion of writing logs, to identify what
they noticed during the comparison following the immediate
completion of their second drafts. Later, the same procedure
was conducted with the provision of a different picture story,
but using teacher’s error corrections for the comparison.
Additionally, teacher-student conferences were administered
for a further discussion of students’ writing issues. Then six
students randomly selected from the class were interviewed
for their perceptions of the two treatments. The results show
that both treatments contributed to students’ progress. A
further analysis of students’ writing logs and teacher-student
conferences suggests that students noticed their lack of the
ability to describe details the most frequently in writing logs
in the model treatment, the lexical issue in error correction,
and grammar issues in teacher-student conferences. The
qualitative data revealed that students perceived error
correction to be more conducive to their writing ability than
models. Four pedagogical implications were provided for
language teachers’ references in future writing instruction.

Keywords: EFL writing, models, error correction, noticing

1
Yichun Yang

Introduction
ESL/EFL writing instructors have utilized numerous
approaches to advance students’ abilities and support the learning
process (e.g., the product approach, the process approach, the
genre approach, models, and peer feedback). Drawing upon the
history of ESL/EFL writing research, researchers have been
studying the efficacy of those approaches and the focus of
instruction shifted from accuracy to fluency and content-related
issues without putting much emphasis on students’ grammar (e.g.,
Ashwell, 2000; Bitchener & Knoch, 2008; Bitchener et al., 2005;
Chandler, 2003; Chen, 2007; Ellis et al., 2008; Ferris, 2006;
Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Hasan & Akhand, 2010; Lee, 2004, 2008,
2011, 2013; Meihami, 2013; Rahimi, 2009; Raimes, 1991; Sheen,
2007). Among them, two approaches frequently used in SL/FL
classrooms are models, sample articles for students to refer to
when writing on the same or similar topics, and error correction.
Whereas models are central to pedagogies in academic writing
(Macbeth, 2010), error correction has also been under
investigation concerning its effects on EFL students’ writing
accuracy (e.g., Ferris, 1999, 2001, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2010;
Truscott, 1996, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010). Two lines of research
regarding the efficacy of error correction have been developed yet
the findings are conflicting. Truscott’s research claims that error
correction does not bear much impact on language learners’
improvement in writing accuracy while Ferris argues that
students benefit from teacher’s error correction (henceforth EC).
Nevertheless, few studies explored the effects of models and error
correction through the application of both writing/grammar logs
and teacher-student conferences (Henceforth T-S conferences).
Thus, the study was to investigate how the writing logs and T-S
conferences enabled college EFL learners to attend to the
contrasts between their compositions with models and with
teachers’ EC as well as learners’ uptake after the comparison.

2
 EFL Writer’s Noticing and Uptake

Literature Review
Models
The utilization of models in the 1960s and later in the 1970s
was to provide learners with a sample to follow and imitate while
controlling and directing students’ learning processes towards
certain respects (e.g., Eschholz, 1980; McCampbell, 1966;
Paulston, 1972). Teachers used models in a manner which
required learners to analyze model texts and mimic the rules that
students identified in the process as to enable learners to produce
a new piece of writing (Gabrielatos, 2002; Hasan & Akhand,
2010). Nevertheless, the application of models varied in ESL/EFL
writing research. For example, in a product-based writing
classroom, models were used for learners as a tool to enhance
their comprehension of the gaps between their written output and
similarly based works written by native-speaking teachers. In
SLA research, models can be considered as positive evidence
because they expose learners to the correct form of the target
language as well as how to write the same topics in a western
style (Hanaoka, 2007). Furthermore, “a model essay provided
relief from the vague terms and occult objects of what was for
them a cultural curriculum,” as Macbeth (2010) suggested. As
Abbuhl (2011) stated, it was daunting for novice writers to
appropriate the rhetorical structures and the hidden conventions
embedded in the social-cultural contexts in which the language is
the tool for mediating and constructing knowledge. Hence,
models have been widely used in both L1 and L2 writing
classrooms to assist learners in acquiring the ability to write in
conformity with the conventions as the rhetoric of the target
language (Canovas, 2011; Charney & Carlson, 1995; Hanaoka,
2007; Hilocks, 1986; Macbeth, 2010; Stolarek, 1994).
Models have been associated with reformulations in writing
research in an endeavor to find how students’ attentions were
directed during the comparison activities. Yang and Zhang (2010)

3
Yichun Yang

examined the role that both models and reformulations played in

EFL students’ writing. They found that students noticed most of
the differences between their drafts and the reformulated versions.
However, students also indicated that they benefitted abundantly
from models due to a “broad range of language input” that
models offered (p. 464). However, the findings were mixed and
there wasn’t indication regarding how students revised versions
had been changed by models. Focusing on locating students’
noticing process and students’ attempts to try out the solutions,
Hanaoka and Izumi (2012) involved 38 Japanese university
students in this multi-stage writing task. The model provided
students with solutions to both the covert and the overt problems
and it enabled students to notice the solutions in the input (i.e.,
reformulation and models) and applied the solutions into the
following writing activity. However, the problematic features that
the majority of the students noticed in this study were more prone
to be syntactic-level ones whereas the content-wise issues were
not addressed. Moreover, the two types of feedback in this study
led more of students’ attention to the surface writing problems
than to those deeper writing issues, such as logic, organization
and coherence, which could be provided by models.

Error Correction
Owing to its product-oriented background, error correction
(EC) has been a type of teacher’s feedback frequently employed
in writing classes. EC was operationalized in this study as the
written corrective feedback provided by teachers to explicitly
indicate students’ linguistic errors in their compositions as well as
show them the correct forms of the language
Writing research in L2/FL has been debating over the
effectiveness of EC and two lines of studies have been
undertaken to validate the perspective that ER is beneficial to
L2/FL writing accuracy. One line of research conducted by

4
 EFL Writer’s Noticing and Uptake

Truscott (1999, 2007, 2010) and others (e.g., Robb, Ross, &
Shortreed, 1986; Semeke, 1984), for instance, concluded that EC
did not enhance EFL learners’ writing accuracy. Truscott (2010)
argued that despite the common sense of EC and its practice in
the majority of writing classes, research findings suggested that
EC did not work for SL/FL students in fostering their accuracy.
Drawing upon the research findings of EC, there are still some
controversies and unsolved problems. As Coyle and Larios (2014)
explicated, how EC has been used consistently, precisely, and
how clear the role that EC played in the writing process remained
open to debate (Ellis, 2009; Lee, 2004). In addition, what effects
EC may have brought to learners still needed further exploration
(Bitchener, 2012; Hyland & Hyland, 2006). In a similar vein,
researchers postulated that unfocused EC distracted learners from
attending to their written errors, thus proving to be less effective
in enhancing learners’ writing accuracy, whereas focused EC (i.e.,
correct only one or two types of errors that recurred in most of
learners’ compositions) appeared to be more beneficial to their
accuracy (Bitchener, 2008; Ellis et al., 2008; Ferris, 2002; Sheen,
Wright, & Moldawa, 2009; Van Beuningen, 2010; Van Beuningen,
Jong, & Kuiken, 2012).
Studies in EC which stand for its contribution to SL/FL
learners’ writing accuracy argue that EC cannot act as a tool to
foster EFL learners’ inter-language development (Ferris, 1999,
2001, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2012). Along with this line of
research, the findings indicate that EC is conducive to L2 learners’
language learning or even acquisition (Ashwell, 2000; Bitchener,
2008; Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Bitchener & Knoch, 2008;
Bitchener et al., 2005; Chandler, 2003; Ellis et al., 2008; Ferris,
1997, 1999, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2010; Ferris & Roberts, 2001;
Sheen, 2007). Bruton (2010) also argued that the designs and the
ecological validity of the studies which spoke against EC’s effects
on promoting learners’ writing accuracy were open to questions
since “…situated corrective feedback is not only possible, but

5
Yichun Yang

also necessary, and process writing is still very much a common

pedagogical option” (p. 492). Bruton’s perspective pinpointed the
factors that may have been neglected under the process of
statistical analyses in Truscott’s studies. In other words, written
corrective feedback indeed plays a role in SL/FL learners’ written
language development and it is prominent to locate the factors
that foster or mediate students’ writing accuracy.

Noticing and ESL/EFL Writing

Schmidt (1990, 1994, 2001) argued that noticing plays a
critical role in the advancement of second/foreign language
development. He particularly proclaimed the noticing of the “gap”
between students’ current inter-language (IL) development and
the target language that is presented in the input. Likewise, Swain
(2000) indicated that learners’ pushed output functions as a role
for students to form and test their hypotheses regarding how the
target language works by speaking and writing. As Hanaoka and
Izumi (2012) further stated, “The metalinguistic function
highlights the role of output in making learners engage in
conscious reflection on their language use.” (p. 333). Thus, an
abundance of ESL/EFL writing research has been associated with
the relationship between noticing and the effects of different
types of feedback on L2 writing to examine the potential path of
language acquisition in writing through the provision of models,
reformulations, and different types of feedback (e.g., Eckstein et
al., 2011; Hanakona, 2007; Nassaji & Swain, 2000; Santos,
Lopez-Serrano & Manchon, 2010; Suzuki, 2008; Yang & Zhang,
2010).
As a consequence, one of the factors in question is the
function of noticing in fostering students’ linguistic accuracy in
SL/FL writing (e.g., Hanoaka, 2007a, 2007b; Hanokoa & Izumi,
2012; Yang & Zhang, 2010). Despite studies conducted to
understand how models and EC have respectively affected

6
 EFL Writer’s Noticing and Uptake

ESL/EFL students’ writing accuracy, what aspects SL/FL learners

notice when comparing their original writing with models and
with teachers’ EC and how this noticing of the feedback may
have contributed to learners’ uptake are not well understood.
Grammar logs and teacher-student conferences. As it is
critical to raise students’ awareness of errors in writing insomuch
as fostering their metacognitive knowledge and strategies in
writing, Brown and Abeywickrama (2012) states that “Grammar
journals (error logs)…are especially appropriate for courses that
focus on grammar…can be instructive processes of
consciousness-raising for students: Their successes in noticing
and treating errors spur them to maintain the process of
awareness of errors.” (p. 137). Furthermore, Brown (2012) claims
that techniques for raising learners’ awareness with respect to
their written errors as well as other writing issues can “encourage
proactive self-analysis of language learning needs” (p. 864). In
this review, he suggested that teachers adapt methods such as
teacher-student conferences or error logs to foster students’
consciousness of their writing problems of different aspects. In
the study the error logs were changed to be writing logs to record
students’ writing issues of any kinds. Through the drafting,
comparison/noticing activities and revision, students’ awareness
of their errors and other writing issues could be enhanced and as
such different aspects of writing issues that students noticed in
the model and the EC treatment would provide language teachers
with insights regarding what students need to improve in writing.
For example, EC may direct students’ attention to their
grammatical problems in writing whereas the model provided by
native speakers based on the same prompts may not only offer
them positive evidence but also entice their attention towards the
content issues. The comparison would contribute to their
improvement in accuracy and other respects such as organization
and content, as Hanaoka and Izumi (2012) claimed that models
provided EFL learners with content and language examples to

7
Yichun Yang

expand EFL learners’ vocabulary capacity and their content

development.

Research Questions
1. Do EFL students notice errors and/or problems in their English
writing? If so, what writing issues do they notice in the two
treatments, namely model and error correction?
2. What is students’ uptake after the implementation of the
treatments?
3. What are students’ perceptions with respect to the effectiveness
of the treatments on their compositions?

Method
Participants
An intact class of twenty-four university students majoring
in English participated in this study. They were eight males and
sixteen females, aged from 18 to 21. Two of them were senior
students retaking the class. Students’ writing ability ranged from
beginning to high intermediate-level, according to the grades of
their first writing homework in this class. The experiments were
conducted in two phases; that is to say, the first phase of the
experiment would be using the model as the sample for students
to compare with their first draft whereas in the following phase
teacher’s EC would be used in the comparison activity.

Data Collection
Quantitative method. The teacher asked individual students
to write first drafts based on one picture prompt in stage one. The
prompt was a true story and consisted of six small pictures. A
model (sample article) written by a native-speaking teacher was
then provided for students to compare their compositions with.
Concurrently, students wrote down what they noticed during the
comparison in the writing logs and immediately completed the

8
 EFL Writer’s Noticing and Uptake

second drafts afterwards. The procedure took the class two weeks
to complete.
Three weeks after the model treatment, the EC treatment
started by requiring students to write a story based on a different
picture prompt of the same genre provided by the instructor to
avoid practice effects as well as the possible effects of writing
instruction outside of the experiment. After completing the first
draft, the instructor corrected students’ writing errors and returned
the corrected drafts to students the following week for the
comparison activity. Students again indicated what they noticed
during the comparison in writing logs and wrote the second drafts
immediately based on the instructor’s correction of errors. The
procedure took the class another two weeks to complete. During
data collection students did not know what they were expected to
write until the teacher distributed the picture to them. Thus,
students did not have time to prepare for what they would be
writing in their drafts. Upon completion of the two treatments, the
instructor had teacher-student conferences with individual
students to help students understand their writing issues,
including content and linguistic errors that they made in their
compositions.
After the researcher completed the two treatments, she
proceeded to teacher-student conferences to help students have a
better grasp of their overall writing issues as well as collect data
related to students’ awareness of their writing issues as a
supplementary source to further validate the data found in the
comparison activities. The conferences were categorized as one
of the quantitative methods because the researcher showed
students their first drafts and the second drafts in both treatments.
Then she let students figure out the frequencies of writing issues
they located in the drafts and which included both those at the
content and the linguistic level along with a brief discussion
about their writing issues.
Qualitative method. Following the completion of

9
Yichun Yang

teacher-student conferences, six students who volunteered from

the class were interviewed for a survey of students’ perceptions of
the effects of models and error correction. In the current study,
not each student was interviewed because the researcher was also
the teacher and students expressed concerns with respect to the
likely impact of interviews on their final grades of the course. All
of the interviews were audio-taped for further analysis as the
source of the qualitative data for the study.

Data Analysis
Quantitative data. The four drafts obtained before and
after the two treatments were collected and rated by the teacher
and another researcher to achieve the inter-rater reliability. The
procedure of achieving inter-rater reliability was as follows: First,
the teacher graded all of the drafts with the grading rubric
invented by Brown and Bailey (1984) (see appendix A). While
grading the drafts, portions of each component in the rubric were
modified according to the nature of the treatment. For example,
students’ accuracy in grammatical structures as well as lexical use
was more stressed when their drafts in EC were scored. After the
teacher’s grading, another researcher was invited to grade the
drafts. Before starting the grading work, the teacher showed the
researcher the rubric without informing her of any details as to
the teacher’s grades based on the same measure. After completion
of the researcher’s grading, the teacher and the researcher
examined whether their scores on students’ drafts were consistent
to a great extent or not. The first comparison of the grades
between the teacher and the researcher suggested approximately
85% of consistency. Regarding the grades that were not
consistent, the two researchers discussed about the reasons that
they gave the grades and re-graded the student’s writing to
achieve consistency. Then students’ grades on their first drafts
and the revisions were compared using paired sample t-tests to

10
 EFL Writer’s Noticing and Uptake

validate their progress in writing during the two treatments.

Students’ writing logs were analyzed in accordance with the
frequencies of writing issues in two main categories, namely
content level and linguistic level. Content level was referred to as
writing issues such as length of articles, coherence, creativity, and
detail description. Among those issues, creativity, according to
students’ writing logs (for examples, see appendix B), was
referred to as students’ ability to create plots to connect the six
pictures in each story. On the other hand, linguistic level was
referred to as those issues in lexicon, grammar, sentence structure,
and cohesion. The frequencies of these issues were tallied to
examine what writing issues, including content and linguistic
level, students mentioned during the two comparison activities
and how these issues were related to their reflection during
teacher-student conferences.
Teacher-student conferences were analyzed in accordance
with the frequencies of writing issues that student mentioned
during the meetings and was hence another source to further
validate the result found in the writing logs.
The criterion of dividing students’ levels was based on the
scores of the first versions in the two treatments. Students whose
scores were ranked as the last 25% were categorized as the
low-ability group whereas those who were ranked the first 25%
were categorized as the high-ability group. Others who were not
ranked the first or the last 25% in their pre-tests were categorized
as the middle-ability group.
Qualitative data. The constant comparison method was
employed to analyze the interview data. Two conceptions
emerged during the interviews: 1) students’ preferences with
respect to the two treatments, and 2) how the two treatments have
been beneficial to students’ writing ability.

11
Yichun Yang

Results and Discussion

Quantitative Results
The analysis of the quantitative data of the two second drafts
from the two treatments showed significant differences between
the two drafts in each treatment. A paired-samples t-test was
conducted to compare the means of the scores of the first and the
second draft in the two treatments. There was a significant
difference in the scores for the first (M = 64.25, SD = 10.11) and
the second draft (M = 74.54, SD = 9.03) in the model treatment; t
(24) = -10.74, p = 0.000. Specifically, when students were
provided with models to compare with their drafts, they were
more able to produce a better and even a longer second version.
There was a significant difference in the scores for the first (M =
60.25, SD = 11.99) and the second draft (M = 69.96, SD = 11.91)
in the EC treatment; t(24) = -6.69, p = 0.000. These results
suggested that the comparison between their first draft and the
version embedded with teacher’s corrective feedback enabled
students to integrate the correct forms to produce a better second
version.
An analysis of students’ writing logs echoed that of
teacher-student conferences (T-S conferences). One of the most
commonly seen writing issues among the students was their
inability to describe details of the pictures. Figure one and two
show the frequencies of writing issues in writing logs and T-S
conferences.

12
 EFL Writer’s Noticing and Uptake

Figure 1. Frequencies of writing issues indicated

in students’ writing logs

Figure 2. Frequencies of writing issues indicated in

teacher-student conferences

As shown in the two figures, detail description has the

highest frequency among the content-level issues in students’
writing logs in the model treatment while lexical issue and
grammar have been most frequently mentioned in writing logs in
the EC treatment and grammar in the T-S conferences. Tense has
also been frequently mentioned in the EC treatment and T-S
conferences. The two frequency charts suggest that students

13
Yichun Yang

noticed many issues in their writing during the comparison

activities. Another often indicated writing issue in both the EC
treatment and the T-S conferences is organization. Many students
addressed their inability to use conjunctions or coordinating
conjunctions to connect sentences and form paragraphs.
Figures three and four illustrate a further analysis of students’
writing logs on the basis of students’ scores on the first drafts in
the two treatments and showing students’ different focuses on
their writing issues according to their different writing abilities.

Figure 3. Frequencies of writing issues indicated in

students’ writing logs in accordance with students’ scores
on the first drafts in the model treatment

14
 EFL Writer’s Noticing and Uptake

Figure 4. Frequencies of writing issues indicated in

students’ writing logs in accordance with students’ scores
on the first drafts in the EC treatment

Students of high-ability were concerned more about the

issues at the content level in the model treatment. Comparing to
high-ability students, low-ability students’ noticing of writing
issues was more comprehensive as they noticed ten out of the
twelve writing issues identified whereas high-ability students
only attended to eight issues.
The middle-ability group noticed their lack of sufficient
vocabulary or the inability to find appropriate words and/or
expressions to enrich their content in both treatments whereas in
the EC treatment, the second highest frequency of the issues that
they noticed was their inability to organize their writing well.
It strikes that in the EC treatment the high- and the low
ability students noticed dominantly the writing issues at the
linguistic level while the middle-ability group’s noticing of
writing issues was rather comprehensive. Lexical issue has been
the most frequently mentioned in the high- and the middle-ability
group when grammar has been the most frequently mentioned
issue for the low-ability group.

15
Yichun Yang

Qualitative Results
The interview data to understand students’ perceptions of the
effectiveness of the two treatments showed very interesting, yet
contradicting, results that were opposite to the quantitative data.
Students of the low-ability group indicated that they preferred
error correction because teacher’s correction helped them
understand their linguistic errors and know how to write
target-like sentences. Furthermore, one of the students pinpointed
that EC would raise their awareness about Chinese English in
their writing. However, a high achiever mentioned that the model
was more beneficial to him because through the reading and the
comparison, he was more able to detect the nuances between his
first draft and the sample text, which would enrich the content of
his second draft.
Research findings in both models and EC show that they are
conducive to students’ writing though those in the field of error
correction have been controversial as to its effects on students’
writing accuracy (e.g., Bitchener, 2008; Ellis et al., 2008; Ferris,
2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2012, 2013; Robb, Ross, &
Shortreed, 1986; Sampson, 2012; Semeke, 1984; Sheen, Wright,
& Moldawa, 2009; Truscott, 1999, 2007, 2008, 2010; Van
Beuningen, 2010; Van Beuningen, Jong, & Kuiken, 2012). Some
studies in EC investigated the difference between the first and the
revised version (e.g., Ashwell, 2000; Chandler, 2003; Fathman &
Whalley, 1990; Ferris, 2006; Ferris & Roberts, 2001) whereas
many others examined whether the effects of EC could be shown
in a new piece of writing (e.g., Bitchener et al., 2005; Ellis et al.,
2008; Hartshorn et al., 2010; Van Beuningen et al., 2010). One of
the purposes of the current study is to find the relationship
between corrective feedback and students’ writing accuracy with
one shot design (Storch, 2010); that is, requiring students to
revise the first draft without asking them to produce a new piece
of writing as a post- or even a delayed post-test. Additionally, the
results show that students benefitted from teacher’s direct written

16
 EFL Writer’s Noticing and Uptake

corrective feedback to a great extent.

The general findings in the field of EC also conclude that
indirect feedback is more beneficial to students’ writing accuracy
(Ferris, 2011). Indirect feedback, in contrast to direct feedback,
refers to the feedback presented in a variety of codes that
represent the types of errors that students make in their writing.
Nevertheless, the results of a number of studies indicate that
direct feedback can be more conducive than indirect feedback
(e.g., Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener & Knoch, 2008; Hartshorn et al.,
2010). For example, Farrokhi and Sattarpour (2012) selected
high-proficient learners as the target participants to examine
whether direct written corrective feedback assisted students in
enhancing their correct use of English definite and indefinite
articles. The finding shows that direct written corrective feedback
bears positive influence on students’ grammatical accuracy.
Furthermore, as Bitchener (2008) states, “direct feedback reduces
the kind of confusion that can result when students fail to
understand or remember the meaning of error codes used by
teachers” (p. 106). Accordingly, the results in the current study as
to the efficacy of EC on EFL students’ writing accuracy are
positive as some of those studies related to direct feedback. It is
likely that during the comparison activity, students had more time
to see the contrast between their first draft and teachers’
correction of their linguistic errors and hence were more aware of
their errors. Put differently, students, instead of taking back the
first draft and reading teacher’s corrective feedback by
themselves, had the opportunity to reflect on what they had
written and the types of errors that they made in the first draft.
The comparison may have led to students’ high rate of correcting
the majority of the errors in their first draft later and therefore the
significant difference between the two drafts.

17
Yichun Yang

Pedagogical Implications
The following are four pedagogical implications derived
from this study.
First, it is prominent to identify students’ writing issues both
in content and the language part. For example, teachers can
collect students’ most commonly made linguistic errors in writing,
which can be teachers’ references about learners’ needs and
design mini-grammar lessons (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012) to
improve their grammar and sentence structures. Put differently,
the teacher can locate the linguistic errors that certain students
made the most and put them into a group so as to provide
customized grammar instruction based on these common errors
that students in the group made the most frequently.
Second, a teacher can provide students with models and a
further analysis of the content of the models for students to
compare with their writing, so as to promote students’ awareness
of their writing issues, such as content and lexicon. A teacher can
show students the differences between their native language and
English based on the model that they compare with. Through the
comparison, students are able to find their problems in expressing
what they intend to say in their writings and how their native
language may have affected their English compositions.
Third, teachers can assist students of low ability in raising
their awareness regarding the appropriation of the grammatical
and lexical features in models and teacher’s written corrective
feedback into their compositions by specifying their problems
through keeping error logs and help students review their error
logs regularly through T-S conferences. Additionally, T-S
conferences discussing about students’ error logs in comparison
with their writing at different stages will also assist students in
knowing how to improve their writing and what other writing
issues they still have to address. The conferences can be preceded
either individually or in groups. A teacher can gather students
who have similar writing issues either at the content or the

18
 EFL Writer’s Noticing and Uptake

linguistic level or both in a conference and discuss with them

what they can do to improve their writing.
Fourth, teachers can direct students’ attention to the
expressions and special usages of language in a model,
particularly how the details have been described and add it as an
exercise for students to imitate the sentences or write short
paragraphs to practice describing details in a story or an event.
Furthermore, a teacher can give students English sentences
describing details in a story and ask them to discuss about how
the description of details in English has been different from that
in Chinese. In this way, students are able to understand the
nuances in English when describing details and how they can
depict something in details in English.

Conclusion
The results of this study have offered insights into EFL
writing instruction. Although students’ perceptions of the two
treatments favored error correction, their performance before and
after the two treatments showed that both models and EC were
beneficial to their writing ability in different respects.
Furthermore, students of different proficiency levels have noticed
writing issues varyingly from the two treatments. As can be seen,
students in the high-ability group focused more on the content
issues whereas the middle and the low-ability students’ noticing
of writing issues was more comprehensive. However, the
generalizability of these findings was limited and the
interpretation of the results should be cautious due to the very
small sample of the study (N = 24). One limitation of the study is
that the two stories used in the two treatments may have affected
the findings because the story used in error correction was
different from the one in the model treatment. Furthermore, the
delayed effects of the model treatment were not accounted for in
the current study because of the possible confounded influence of

19
Yichun Yang

the writing instruction given between the two treatments. For

future research, students’ current writing proficiency and other
factors, such as gender or students’ attitudes towards EFL writing
should be accounted for, in order to produce a clearer picture of
the advantages and disadvantages of the application of models
and error correction in EFL writing.

References
Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student
writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is
content feedback followed by form feedback the
bestmethod? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9,
227-258 .
Bawarshi, A., & Reiff, M. J. (2010). Genre: An introduction to
history, theory, research, and pedagogy. West Lafayette, IN:
Parlor Press.
Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on “the language learning
potential” of written CF. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 21(4), 348-363.
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback
in second language acquisition and writing. New York:
Routledge.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written
corrective feedback for migrant and international students.
Language Teaching Research , 12, 409-431 .
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The value of a focused
approach to written corrective feedback. ELT journal, 63(3),
204-211.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written
corrective feedback to language development: A ten month
investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193-214.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy
level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective
feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4),
207-217.
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of
different types of corrective feedback on ESL student

20
 EFL Writer’s Noticing and Uptake

writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227-258 .

Brown, D. (2012). The written corrective feedback debate: Next
steps for classroom teachers and practitioners. TESOL
Quarterly, 46(4), 861-867.
Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, A. (2012). Language
assessment. NY: Pearson Education.
Brown, D., & Bailey, K. M. (1984). A categorical instrument for
scoring second language writing skills. Language Learning,
34(4), 21-38.
Brown, J. D. (2005). Testing in language programs. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Bruton, A. (2010). Another reply to Truscott on error correction:
Improved situated designs over statistics. System, 38(3),
491-498.
Canovas, G. J. (2011). The use of models as a written feedback
tool in primary education (Unpublished master’s thesis).
University of Murcia, Spain.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error
feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of
L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12,
267-296.
Charney, D., & Carlson, R. (1995). Learning to write in a genre:
What student writers take from model texts. Research in the
Teaching of English, 29, 88-125.
Chen, Y. (2007). Learning to learn: The impact of strategy
training. ELT Journal, 61(1), 20-29.
Coyle, Y., & Roca de Larios, J. (2014). Exploring the role played
by error correction and models on children’s reported
noticing and output production in an L2 writing task.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 451-485.
Eckstein, G. J., Chariton, J., & McCollum, R. M. (2011).
Multi-draft composing: An iterative model for academic
argument writing. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 10(3), 162-172.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The
effects of focused and unfocused written corrective
feedback in an English as a foreign language context.
System, 36(3), 353-371.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types.
ELT Journal , 63, 97-107 .

21
Yichun Yang

Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written

corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 32, 335-349.
Eschholz, P. (1980). The prose models approach: Using product
the process. In T. Donovan & B. McClelland (Eds.), Eight
approaches to teaching composition (pp. 21-36). Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English.
Evans, N. W., James Hartshorn, K., & Strong-Krause, D. (2011).
The efficacy of dynamic written corrective feedback for
university-matriculated ESL learners. System, 39(2),
229-239.
Farid, S., & Samad, A. A. (2012). Effects of different kind of
direct feedback on students’ writing. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 66, 232-239.
Fathman, A. K., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to
student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll
(Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the
classroom (pp. 178-190). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ferris, D. (1999). The case of grammar correction in L2 writing
classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second
Language Writing , 8, 1-11 .
Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New
evidence on the short-and long-term effects of written error
correction. In K. Hyland (Ed.), Feedback in second
language writing (pp. 81-104). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ferris, D. (2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 165-193.
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on
student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315-339.
Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language
student writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “Grammar Correction” debate in L2
writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and
what do we do in the meantime…?). Journal of Second
Language Writing, 13(1), 49-62.
Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and
written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181-201.

22
 EFL Writer’s Noticing and Uptake

Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written
corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307-329.
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing
classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second
Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184.
Gabrielatos, C. (2002). EFL writing: product and process.
Retrieved December 25, 2013 from
http:// www.gabrielatos.com/Writing.pdf
Garcia, F. J. (2011). Written corrective feedback: Testing the
effects of reformulation with year 5 primary school learners
(Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Murcia, Spain.
Hanaoka, O. (2006). Exploring the role of models in promoting
noticing in L2 writing. JACET Bulletin , 42, 1-13.
Hanaoka, O. (2007). Output, noticing, and learning: An
investigation into the role of spontaneous attention to form
in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research,
11, 459-479.
Hanaoka, O. (2007a). Noticing from models and reformulations:
A case study of two Japanese EFL Learners. Sophia
Linguistica, 54, 167-192 .
Hanaoka, O. (2007b). Output, noticing, and learning: An
investigation into the role of spontaneous attention to form
in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research,
11, 459-479.
Hanaoka, O., & Izumi, S. (2012). Noticing and uptake:
Addressing pre-articulated covert problems in L2 writing.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 332-347.
Hansan, M. K., & Akhand, M. M. (2010). Approaches to writing
in EFL/ESL context: Balancing product and process in
writing class at tertiary level. Journal of NELTA, 15(1-2),
77-87.
Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R.,
Strong-Krause, D., & Anderson, N. J. (2010). Effects of
dynamic corrective feedback on ESL wiring accuracy.
TESOL Quarterly, 44(1), 84-109.
Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition: New
directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: National Council of
Teachers of English.
Hirsh, D., & Nation, P. (1992). What vocabulary size is needed to

23
Yichun Yang

read unsimplified texts for pleasure? Reading in a Foreign

Language, 8(2), 689-696.
Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to
process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 17-29.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language
students' writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83-101.
Lapkin, S., & Swain, M. (2004). What underlies immersion
students’ production: The case of avoir besoin de. Foreign
Language Annals, 37, 349-355 .
Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Smith, M. (2002). Reformulation and
the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian
French immersion context. Modern Language Journal, 86,
485-507.
Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing
classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 13, 285-312 .
Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback
practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69-85.
Lee, I. (2011). Working smarter, not working harder: Revisiting
teacher feedback in the L2 writing classroom. Canadian
Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des
langues vivantes, 67(3), 377-399.
Lee, I. (2013). Research into practice: Written corrective
feedback. Language Teaching, 46(01), 108-119.
Macbeth, K. P. (2010). Deliberate false provisions: The use and
usefulness of models in learning academic writing. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 19(1), 33-48.
Manchon, R. M., Murphy, L., & Roca de Larios, J. (2007).
Lexical retrieval processes and strategies in second
language writing: A synthesis of empirical research.
International Journal of English Studies, 2, 149-174.
Martinez , F., & Roca de Larios, J. (2010). The use of models as a
form of written feedback to secondary school pupils of
English. International Journal of English Studies, 2,
143-170.
McCampbell, J. (1966). Using models for improving composition.
English Journal, 55, 772-776.
Meihami, H. (2013). Truscott’s claims in giving corrective
feedback: Does it matter in EFL writing context?

24
 EFL Writer’s Noticing and Uptake

International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 8,

8-23.
Miao, Y., Badgar, R., & Zhen, Y. (2006). A comparative study of
peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179–200.
Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on
corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus
negotiated help on the learning of English articles.
Language Awareness, 9(1), 34-51.
Paulston, C. (1972). Teaching writing in the ESOL classroom:
Techniques of controlled composition. TESOL Quarterly, 6,
33-59.
Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition
theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 21, 375-389.
Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a
three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 10, 277-303.
Rahimi, M. (2009). The role of teacher’s corrective feedback in
improving Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy over time:
Is learner’s mother tongue relevant? Reading and Writing,
22(2), 219-243.
Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the
teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 407-430.
Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of
written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67-100.
Sampson, A. (2012). Coded and uncoded error feedback: Effects
on error frequencies in adult Colombian EFL learners'
writing. System, 40(4), 494-504.
Santos, M., Lo´pez-Serrano, S., & Mancho´n, R. M. (2010). The
differential effect of two types of direct written corrective
feedback on noticing and uptake: Reformulation vs. error
correction. International Journal of English Studies, 10,
131-154.
Sheen, Y. (2010b). Differential effects of oral and written
corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 32, 203-234.
Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and
second language learning. New York : Springer.

25
Yichun Yang

Sheen, Y., Wright D., & Moldawa A. (2009). Differential effects

of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate
use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System
37(4), 556-569.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language
learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158 .
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of
useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11,
11-26 .
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition
and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press .
Stolarek, E. (1994). Prose modeling and metacognition: The
effect of modeling on developing a metacognitive stance
toward writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 28,
154-174.
Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective
feedback research. IJES, 10(2), 29-42.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing,
uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303-334.
Suzuki, W. (2008). The effect of written languaging combined
with feedback on second language writing. Paper presented
at the AAAL 2008 Annual Conference, Washington, DC,
March.
Suzuki, W. (2012). Written languaging, direct correction, and
second language writing revision. Language Learning,
62(4), 1110-1133.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypotheses and beyond: Mediating
acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf
(Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning
(pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin , S . (2002). Talking it through: Two French
immersion learners’ response to reformulation.
International Journal of Educational Research, 37,
285-304 .
Tocalli-Beller, A., & Swain, M. (2005). Reformulation: The
cognitive conflict and L2 learning it generates.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15, 5-28.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2

26
 EFL Writer’s Noticing and Uptake

writing classes. Language learning, 46(2), 327-369.

Truscott, J. (2001). Selecting errors for selective error correction.
Concentric: Studies in English Literature and Linguistics,
27, 93-108.
Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of
correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 13(4), 337-343.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’
ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 16(4), 255-272.
Truscott, J. (2010). Further thoughts on Anthony Bruton?
Critique of the correction debate. System, 38(4), 626-633.
Van Beuningen, C. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing:
Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future
directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2),
1-27.
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012).
Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error
correction in second language writing. Language Learning,
62(1), 1-41.
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012). What role for
collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 21, 364-374 .
Yang, L., & Zhang, L. (2010). Exploring the role of
reformulations and a model text in EFL students’ writing
performance. Language Teaching Research, 14, 464-484 .
Yeh, S. W., & Lo, J. J. (2009). Using online annotations to
support error correction and corrective feedback. Computers
& Education, 52(4), 882-892.
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer
feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of second
language writing, 4(3), 209-222.

27
Yichun Yang

Appendix A
The Grading Rubric
(adapted from Brown & Bailey, 1984, pp. 39-41)

28
 EFL Writer’s Noticing and Uptake

Appendix B

Examples of Students’ Writing Logs

John (model)
1. Characters setting
2. Plots setting
3. Events setting
4. Details describing

Mary (error correction)

1. 文法錯太多 (Too many grammatical errors)
2. 時態要注意 (Pay attention to the tense issue)
3. 可在描述的更多更詳細 (Could have described more details)
4. 複數要記得加 s (Remember to add s to show the plural form)
5. 用詞要注意 (Pay attention to word usage)
6. 時態該分清楚現在式、完成式、過去式 (I should distinguish
between the present, the present perfect, and the past tense).

29
Yichun Yang

英語為外語學習者對於英文寫作錯誤的認知
以及領會：範例以及錯誤糾正的比較

楊逸君
靜宜大學英國語文學系助理教授

摘要

在英語為外語學習方面很少研究是有關於範
例和錯誤糾正對寫作能力的影響，以及學生在比
較活動當中注意到甚麼。這項研究的目的即為探
討此現象。二十四位大學生參與這項研究，他們
完成二個看圖說故事的寫作活動以及師生會議，
在比較活動中將第一稿分別與範例和老師糾正其
錯誤後之內容比較，在比較同時於日誌上寫出他
們所注意到的不同。學生訪談為了解其對兩種活
動的看法。結果顯示這兩種活動對學生的英文寫
作能力有不同的助益。進一步分析顯示學生們注
意到他們最缺乏描述細節的能力，詞彙和語法問
題。此外，學生認為錯誤糾正對寫作更有幫助。

關鍵詞：英語為外語學習寫作、範例、錯誤糾正、
注意

30