Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy

2010 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 445-463 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norman W. Evans ◽  
K. James Hartshorn ◽  
Robb M. McCollum ◽  
Mark Wolfersberger
2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norman W. Evans ◽  
K. James Hartshorn ◽  
Emily Allen Tuioti

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.


2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. James Hartshorn ◽  
Norman W. Evans ◽  
Emily Allen Tuioti

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 423-444
Author(s):  
Barry Lee Reynolds ◽  
Mark Feng Teng

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 308-322
Author(s):  
Omar Abdullah Altamimi ◽  
Mona Masood

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.


2010 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dana R. Ferris

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