Utility of focused/comprehensive written corrective feedback research for authentic L2 writing classrooms

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 ◽  
pp. 100734
Author(s):  
Icy Lee
Keyword(s):  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
L2 Writing ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback

scholarly journals Written Corrective Feedback: The Practitioners’ Perspective

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norman W. Evans ◽  
K. James Hartshorn ◽  
Emily Allen Tuioti
Keyword(s):  
Second Language Writing ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Writing Pedagogy ◽  
L2 Writing ◽  
Writing Classroom ◽  
Writing Teachers ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Language Writing ◽  
Fundamental Research ◽  
Research Questions

Considerable attention has been given to written corrective feedback (WCF) in second language writing (L2) over the past several decades. One of the central questions has focused on the appropriateness of its use in L2 writing. In these academic discussions, scholars frequently describe how WCF is utilized in the classroom. However, many of these claims of teacher practice have no research base, since few studies have actually asked teachers what place WCF has in their writing classroom (Ferris, et al., in press/2011a; Ferris, et al., in press/2011b; Hyland, 2003; Lee, 2004). This paucity of data from teachers about their WCF practices is problematic. Understanding teacher perspectives on corrective feedback is integral to our understanding the place of WCF in L2 writing pedagogy. Accordingly, this article reports on a study that asks two fundamental research questions: (a) To what extent do current L2 writing teachers provide WCF? and (b) What determines whether or not practitioners choose to provide WCF? These questions were answered by means of an international survey completed by 1,053 L2 writing practitioners in 69 different countries. Results suggest that WCF is commonly practiced in L2 pedagogy by experienced and well-educated L2 practitioners for sound pedagogical reasons.

scholarly journals The Role of Written Corrective Feedback in Developing Writing in L2

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 89-98
Author(s):  
Gabrijela Petra Nagode ◽  
Karmen Pižorn ◽  
Mojca Juriševič
Keyword(s):  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Educational Background ◽  
L2 Writing ◽  
Young Learners ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Sociocultural Perspectives ◽  
History Of ◽  
Giving Feedback ◽  
Cognitive Perspectives

Feedback plays an important role in developing L2 writing in young learners. The article provides a brief overview of the history of giving feedback and of some contemporary views within this field. Special attention is paid to cognitive perspectives, such as the influence of written corrective feedback on shortterm memory, the influence of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback on error correction, the influence of written corrective feedback on a particular category of error, the influence of direct and indirect written corrective feedback and combinations of various types of written corrective feedback, and the influence of educational background and L2 learning background on the effectiveness of written corrective feedback in terms of sociocultural perspectives. The main aim of the article is to present readers (especially teachers) with the variety of aspects of giving written corrective feedback in developing L2 writing and thus in enabling young learners to develop their L2 writing skills more effectively.

scholarly journals Investigating Metalinguistic Written Corrective Feedback Focused on EFL Learners' Discourse Markers Accuracy in Mobile-mediated Context

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natasha Pourdana ◽  
Payam Nour ◽  
Fariba Yousefi
Keyword(s):  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Preliminary Test ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
L2 Writing ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Writing Performance ◽  
Efl Learners ◽  
Intact Group ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Learning Platform

Abstract Among a growing body of research that examined the contradictory role of written corrective feedback (WCF) in development of L2 writing accuracy, this study investigated the possible impact of focused metalinguistic WCF on discourse markers (DMs) in writing performance of an intact group of 42 Iranian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners over an eight-week period. In an authentic, situated, and personalized learning platform, giving and receiving WCF were made possible only through the mobile-mediated application of WhatsApp. Before participants wrote on selected elicitation topics, they had taken part in a 2004 version of Oxford Preliminary Test in order to be screened for their initial differences in writing performance. After receiving metalinguistic WCF on their scripts, participants were required to work on the coded feedback and try to eliminate the DM errors in their revised writing assignment. After collecting the scripts over an eight-week period, the content of written assignment was thematically analyzed using NVivo 21 Software for the additive, adversative, causal and temporal DMs, following Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) typology. In a convergent mixed-methods design, the content analysis of the qualitative data showed a larger distribution of additive DM than adversative, causal, and temporal DMs in all participants’ written scripts. Exploring the possible impact of metalinguistic WCF on improving the DMs accuracy, analysis of the frequency count data with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) multivariate Chi-square test reported the fluctuation and unsystematic patterns of distribution for four types of DMs with no sign of significant long-term improvement in DMs accuracy after receiving metalinguistic WCF. These findings implied further research on practicing alternative WCF strategies focused on variety of error types in actual and virtual L2 writing environments.

The role of task repetition with direct written corrective feedback in L2 writing complexity, accuracy and fluency

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sima Khezrlou
Keyword(s):  
Error Correction ◽  
Task Performance ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
L2 Writing ◽  
Task Repetition ◽  
Linguistic Form ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Initial Task ◽  
Writing Complexity

Abstract This study explored whether the effects of task repetition in drawing learners’ attention to linguistic form could be reinforced through the provision of two types of unfocused direct written corrective feedback. Fifty-seven learners formed three conditions: (1) task repetition with no feedback (TR, control), (2) task repetition with error correction (TR+EC), and (3) task repetition with reformulation (TR+R). All groups repeated an identical writing narrative task but only the experimental groups received feedback after their initial task performance. All participants were then asked to complete a new task of the same type followed by a new task of a different type. Performance was gauged by multiple measures of complexity, accuracy and fluency. Results revealed the persistent superiority of the TR+EC condition on all measures of accuracy while the TR+R condition led to immediate written complexity improvement regarding subordination. Furthermore, both the TR+R and TR conditions resulted in delayed fluency gains.

SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING RESEARCH AND WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN SLA

2010 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dana R. Ferris
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Writing ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
L2 Writing ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Linguistic Features ◽  
Student Writers ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Language Writing ◽  
History Of

For more than a decade now, a great deal of research has been done on the topic of written corrective feedback (CF) in SLA and second language (L2) writing. Nonetheless, what those research efforts really have shown as well as the possible implications for practice remain in dispute. Although L2 writing and SLA researchers often examine similar phenomena in similar ways, they do not necessarily ask the same questions. SLA-focused researchers investigate whether written CF facilitates the acquisition of particular linguistic features. In contrast, L2 writing researchers generally emphasize the question of whether written CF helps student writers improve the overall effectiveness of their texts. Understanding these differences in starting points is important because it provides a possible explanation for the conflicting methodologies and conclusions of various reviews on this topic (e.g., Ferris, 2003, 2004; Truscott, 1996, 2007). This article briefly traces the history of these two parallel lines of research on written CF and notes both contrasts and convergences. It then moves to a focused discussion of the possible implications and applications of this body of work for the L2 language and writing classroom and for future research efforts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document