Issues of Error Selection for Focused Written Corrective Feedback in Authentic Classroom Contexts

RELC Journal ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 003368822110284
Author(s):  
Icy Lee ◽  
Na Luo ◽  
Pauline Mak
Keyword(s):  
Second Language Writing ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Language Writing ◽  
Quasi Experimental ◽  
Authentic Classroom

In conventional written corrective feedback (WCF) practice, teachers spend an inordinate amount of time identifying every error in student writing. Research evidence suggests that such a comprehensive WCF approach is both undesirable and ineffective. Recent research has shown that focused WCF, where teachers respond to errors selectively, is a good practice since it is more manageable and less discouraging for students. Much of existing WCF research on focused WCF, however, has adopted the experimental or quasi-experimental design, involving a very small number of error categories, without paying attention to the real-life classroom conditions in which WCF takes place. To fill the research gap, the present study investigates how two secondary teachers select target language features for focused WCF and the issues that arise from their WCF practice. The paper provides pedagogical implications that contribute to our understanding of how teachers can go about selecting errors for focused WCF in authentic second language writing classrooms, as contrasted with experimental classrooms.

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 Innovating teacher feedback with writing activities aimed at raising secondary school students’ awareness of collocation errors

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 423-444
Author(s):  
Barry Lee Reynolds ◽  
Mark Feng Teng
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Secondary School ◽  
Secondary School Students ◽  
Second Language Writing ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Word Choice ◽  
Writing Teachers ◽  
School Students ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Language Writing

The study examined the types of written corrective feedback given by second language writing teachers on Taiwanese secondary school students’ collocation errors. First, the written corrective feedback that teachers provided on learners’ word choice errors was examined to uncover the types of feedback provided. Then, analysis focused on verb–noun collocations to draw attention to how students had been receiving different types of written corrective feedback from teachers on a single collocation error type. Results showed that some sentences tagged as including word choice errors only contained rule-based errors. Furthermore, for verb-noun collocation errors, teachers chose to provide indirect and direct feedback almost equally at the expense of metalinguistic feedback. Based on the results, we suggested options for second language writing teachers when providing feedback on word choice errors.

scholarly journals Teacher Electronic Written Corrective Feedback, Trends and Future Directions

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 308-322
Author(s):  
Omar Abdullah Altamimi ◽  
Mona Masood
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Writing ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Esl Students ◽  
Esl Writing ◽  
Esl Teachers ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Language Writing

The past two decades witnessed increased attention in the role of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) in improving the English as a second language(ESL) students’ written linguistic accuracy. Several methods were suggested, including the use of the electronic means of providing corrective feedback. The electronic methods proved to be effective despite the limited numbers and contexts. However, the extent of these studies is still unknown. Furthermore, no comprehensive review of the studies had been conducted to date. This systematic literature review will identify and classify the research on providing ESL teachers with Electronic Written Corrective Feedback (EWCF). A survey of several experimental and analytical studies that focused on testing the effect of different methods of EWCF on ESL students was conducted, covering the period between 2006 and 2020. Two major groups of studies emerged from this research, and several gaps were identified. The research concluded with several recommendations regarding the potential tracks for future research on EWCF. The current research will serve as a guideline for ESL writing practitioners and researchers on future teacher corrective feedback in second language writing.

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.

scholarly journals Analysis of Teacher-written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Writing Pedagogy in Secondary Schools, Bulilima, Zimbabwe

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Stella Muchemwa ◽  
Catherine Amimo ◽  
Vencie Allida
Keyword(s):  
Second Language Writing ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Writing Pedagogy ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Oral Feedback ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Maximum Benefit ◽  
Composition Teachers ◽  
Language Writing ◽  
Low Performance

This study investigated the teachers’ practice on written corrective feedback as well as the students’ response to it in a bid to find practical solutions to the problem of low performance in English composition writing at “O” Level in Zimbabwe. The study sought to find out the nature of corrective feedback that “O” Level students get from their composition teachers and how these students respond to it. In this qualitative research, seven informants (“O” Level students) were interviewed; the researchers used a semi-structured interview schedule to address them and their English exercise books were also analyzed using a document analysis guide designed by the researchers. The study concluded that the composition teacher marked the compositions thoroughly highlighting most of the errors for students’ benefit. The teacher’s focus on feedback was in line with the syllabus demands. The teacher also satisfied the Feed Up, Feed Back and the Feed Forward types of effective feedback. She had strength on mark allocation which acted as student guide to their stance in composition writing. However, although the students largely benefited from the teacher’s corrective written feedback as well as the oral feedback, some of them failed to get the maximum benefit because they could not understand the correction codes. It is therefore imperative for composition teachers to provide students with a correction code elaboration whenever using a marking correction code.

scholarly journals The locus of written corrective feedback in various SLA theories

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-139
Author(s):  
Ehsan Abbaspour
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Second Language Writing ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
L2 Writing ◽  
Oral Feedback ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Language Writing ◽  
Shed Light

Whether corrective feedback is effective in L2 writing has always been a controversial issue among Second Language Acquisition (SLA) scholars despite a vast body of research investigating the issue. This conflict is rooted in the fact that different researchers subscribe to different theories of SLA which are at times contradictory in nature. The present article reviews and investigates major SLA theories with respect to their views and stance toward the efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) and error correction in second language writing. Many of these theories do not address the role of corrective feedback explicitly or merely focus on the role of oral feedback. Polio (2012) and Bitchener and Ferris (2012) have partially investigated the issue at stake reviewing a number of SLA theories. In this study, however, attempt is made to shed light on the role of WCF especially in the theories which are not directly concerned with L2 writing.

scholarly journals Effects of Written Corrective Feedback: A Synthesis of 10 Quasi-Experimental Studies

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 97
Author(s):  
Albatool Abalkheel ◽  
Tara Brandenburg
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Harmful Effect ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Language Teachers ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Written Feedback ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Quasi Experimental ◽  
Over Time

Many language teachers spend countless hours correcting student writing in hopes of improvement in accuracy, but as of yet, there has been little consensus regarding the efficacy of written corrective feedback (CF) or the type of CF that is most efficient. Although many studies have been conducted on the topic, conflicting results have arisen. In this meta-analysis, ten quasi-experimental studies of written corrective feedback are examined to analysis the overall effect of CF and compare the variations of CF. It is shown that written corrective feedback in general is inconclusive as a predictor of student improvement in writing over time and the efficacy of the feedback depends on its focus. It is also shown that focused written feedback has any overall positive effect on student’s writing, whereas comprehensive written feedback has the potential to have a harmful effect on student’s writing over time.

scholarly journals Teacher Electronic Written Corrective Feedback, Trends and Future Directions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Omar Abdullah Altamimi ◽  
Mona Masood
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Writing ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Esl Students ◽  
Esl Writing ◽  
Esl Teachers ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Language Writing

The past two decades witnessed increased attention in the role of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) in improving the English as a second language(ESL) students’ written linguistic accuracy. Several methods were suggested, including the use of the electronic means of providing corrective feedback. The electronic methods proved to be effective despite the limited numbers and contexts. However, the extent of these studies is still unknown. Furthermore, no comprehensive review of the studies had been conducted to date. This systematic literature review will identify and classify the research on providing ESL teachers with Electronic Written Corrective Feedback (EWCF). A survey of several experimental and analytical studies that focused on testing the effect of different methods of EWCF on ESL students was conducted, covering the period between 2006 and 2020. Two major groups of studies emerged from this research, and several gaps were identified. The research concluded with several recommendations regarding the potential tracks for future research on EWCF. The current research will serve as a guideline for ESL writing practitioners and researchers on future teacher corrective feedback in second language writing.

The Role of Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Writing Practice

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 1629 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ning Fan ◽  
Yingying Ma
Keyword(s):  
Skill Acquisition ◽  
Second Language Writing ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Student Writers ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Language Writing ◽  
Interaction Approach ◽  
Writing Practice

This paper argues that corrective feedback is effective in improving L2 student writers’ written accuracy, and what educational researchers should be concerned with is not only if corrective feedback should be used in writing practice, but also how. Two studies are analyzed to argue that corrective feedback is beneficial for students’ writing performance, but some types of feedback can lead to writing development in some aspects, while can result in negative effects in others. Also, an interaction approach and the skill acquisition theory are used to provide theoretical framework to each of the two studies, and to back up the usefulness of corrective feedback. In addition, some of the argument about the ineffectiveness of corrective feedback is refuted empirically and theoretically to further prove its effectiveness in L2 writing practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document