scholarly journals Dynamic written corrective feedback: A Tool to improve multilingual student writing

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurie Miller ◽  
Anna Sophia Habib ◽  
Paul Michiels
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Program ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Writing Classes ◽  
Writing Assignments ◽  
Intensive Courses ◽  
Multilingual Students ◽  
Grammar Correction ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Writing Intensive Courses

With Mason’s increasing population of multilingual students, faculty in writing intensive courses at the undergraduate and graduate level are often looking for innovative, efficient approaches to providing feedback on student writing.This session will provide an overview of dynamic written corrective feedback (Hartshorn et. al, 2010; Ferris,1999), a strategy that allows faculty to look past errors in accuracy by prioritizing attention to student efforts towards complexity. We use this model in English composition classes to help multilingual students become more reflective, self-reliant writers in terms of their idea development, critical analysis and language accuracy. During the session composition and language faculty from INTO-Mason’s undergraduate and graduate program will explain the research behind the technique, provide examples of this feedback approach and engage participants in a discussion of its potential use in their classes.  This method can be used to support all students across a variety of disciplines that require writing assignments. References:Ferris, D. (1999). The case of grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11.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 writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44(1), 84–109. 

Outcomes from a Baccalaureate Program's Writing Improvement Initiative

2007 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Betsy Vourlekis ◽  
Diane M. Harnek Hall
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Teaching Writing ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Writing Assignments ◽  
Intensive Courses ◽  
Writing Improvement ◽  
Repeated Measures Analysis ◽  
Quasi Experimental ◽  
Writing Intensive Courses

Using a writing-in-the-discipline approach, our department explored teaching writing through faculty development and evaluated the results achieved after designating writing-intensive courses in the major. A pre- and posttest quasi-experimental evaluation design examined the effect of the department's writing-intensive methods classes on a cohort of majors, and the effect of an additional instructional intervention. Trained faculty assessed student writing from required writing assignments. Sixty-one students (62 percent of the cohort) comprised the study sample. Paired t-tests revealed the cohort's improved writing over time in four of six criteria. Repeated measures analysis revealed no main effect for the additional intervention. The initiative introduced ideas and techniques that promote confidence and enthusiasm for teaching writing as a product of critical thinking. It also provided outcome data for a key component of the educational endeavor.

scholarly journals Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback among Graduate Students: The Effects of Feedback Timing

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 78-102
Author(s):  
Grant Eckstein ◽  
Maureen Sims ◽  
Lisa Rohm
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Students ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Writing Assignments ◽  
Feedback Timing ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Grammatical Accuracy ◽  
Premier Cycle ◽  
College Writers ◽  
Effects Of Feedback

Dynamic written corrective feedback (DWCF) is a pedagogical approach that offer meaningful, manageable, constant, and timely corrective feedback on student writing (Hartshorn et al., 2010). It emphasizes indirect and comprehensive writte error correction on short, daily writing assignments. Numerous studies have demonstrated that its use can lead to fewer language errors among undergraduate and pre-matriculated college writers (see Kurzer, 2018). However, the benefits of DWCF among second language (L2) graduate writers and the role of feedback timing have not been well examined. We analyzed timed writing samples over a 12-week intervention from 22 L2 graduate students who either received biweekly feedback on their writing throughout a semester, or postponed feedback until the last two weeks of the semester. Writing was analyzed for grammatical errors, lexical and syntactic complexity, and fluency. Results showed that neither timely nor postponed feedback led to significant improvement in grammatical accuracy or lexical complexity, but timely feedback did result in more fluent and complex writing. These findings suggest that the timing of feedback may be trivial for accuracy development but is more important for complexity among graduate writers. Teachers, teacher trainers, and writing administrators may use these insights as they plan curricula and design grammar and writing interventions. La rétroaction corrective écrite dynamique (RCED) est une approche pédagogique qui propose une rétroaction significative, gérable, constante et opportune sur les rédactions des étudiants (Hartshorn et al. 2010). Elle insiste sur la correction complète et indirecte d’erreurs dans de courts devoirs de rédaction quotidiens. De nombreuses études ont démontré que son utilisation peut amener les rédacteurs de premier cycle ou pré-inscrits au collège à faire moins d’erreurs de langue (voir Kurzer, 2018). Cependant, les avantages de la RCED chez les rédacteurs diplômés de seconde langue (L2) et le rôle joué par l’opportunité de la rétroaction n’ont pas été bien étudiés. Nous avons analysé des échantillons de rédaction écrites en temps limité sur une période d’intervention de 12 semaines chez 22 étudiants diplômés de L2 qui recevaient de la rétroaction deux fois par semaine sur leurs rédactions pendant la durée du semestre, ou une rétroaction différée jusqu’à deux semaines avant la fin du semestre. Les rédactions ont été analysées pour découvrir les erreurs grammaticales, la complexité lexicale et syntaxique, ainsi que la fluidité Les résultats ont montré que ni la rétroaction opportune, ni la rétraction différé ne se traduisaient par une amélioration marquée de la précision grammaticale ou de la complexité lexicale, mais la rétroaction opportune menait à une rédaction plus fluide et plus complexe. Ces résultats suggèrent que l’opportunité de la rétroaction peut ne pas beaucoup influer sur le développement de la précision, mais s’avère plus importante pour la complexité chez les rédacteurs diplômés. Les enseignants, les formateurs d’enseignants et les administrateurs de programmes de rédaction peuvent se servir de ces résultats lorsqu’ils planifient les programmes et conçoivent les interventions en grammaire et en rédaction.

scholarly journals A model of developing language teachers’ professional communicative skills of providing written teacher feedback

Rhema ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 118-135
Author(s):  
T. Ershova
Keyword(s):  
Writing Skills ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Language Teachers ◽  
Teacher Feedback ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Training Module ◽  
Communicative Skills ◽  
Reading And Writing ◽  
Special Training ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback

This article looks at the process of assessing L2 student writing and providing written corrective feedback as a part of language teachers’ professional and communicative competences. The author suggests a model of designing a special training module for pre-service teachers aimed at the development of corresponding professional reading and writing skills, as well as the analysis of the results of its approbation.

scholarly journals Written corrective feedback on students’ thesis writing: an analysis of student-supervisory interactions

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 14
Author(s):  
Adrefiza Adrefiza ◽  
Fortunasari Fortunasari
Keyword(s):  
Speech Acts ◽  
English Education ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Linguistic Features ◽  
Self Directed Learning ◽  
Writing Assignments ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Directed Learning ◽  
Faculty Of Education ◽  
Thesis Writing

This study examines written corrective feedback (WCF) provided by the lecturers on their supervisee-students' thesis drafts at the English Education Program, Faculty of Education, Jambi University. Following Kumar and Stracke (2007), the analysis focuses on the types and distribution of WCF by Holmes' (2008) three main categories of speech acts: (a) Referential (editorial, organization, content); (b) Directive (suggestion, question, instruction); and (c) Expressive (praise, criticism, opinion). The use of non-linguistic features such as question mark, interjection, circle, and underline was also identified to see the supervisors' emotional expressions during the interactions. The findings show that Referential was the most frequent types of WCF identified (131 out of 271 or 48.3 %), followed by Directive (107 or 39.5 %). Expressive, on the other hand, was not very common with only 33 instances (12.2%) found in the data. Overall, the majority of the lecturers' WCF were dominated by the use of Editorial (102 = 37.6 %) but with a very limited number of Opinion (4 = 1.5%)) and Content (6 = 2.2%).  A total number of 394 non-linguistic symbols were identified along with the lecturers' WCF to show their personal and psychological expressions. Apart from its frequent absence in many students' writing assignments, the provision of WCF on the students' writing does not only play a key role in improving the students' writing but also accelerates their self-directed learning.

scholarly journals Written Corrective Feedback: What Do Malaysian Learners Prefer And Why?

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (5C) ◽  
pp. 1221-1225
Keyword(s):  
Language Learners ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Written Feedback ◽  
Esl Students ◽  
Writing Assignments ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Language Classes ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Direct Feedback ◽  
Malaysian Students

There has been an ongoing debate about the value of providing corrective feedback in writing assignments in English as a foreign/second language classes. Despite the fact, corrective feedback in writing has been analyzed from various perspectives, learners’ expectations regarding feedback given by language instructors are still to be considered. This paper investigates the types of written feedback preferred by the Malaysian students. This study investigated how language learners perceive the usefulness of different types and amounts of written corrective feedback, and also the reasons they have for their preferences. Qualitative and quantitative data was collected from 103 ESL students by means of computer generated written questionnaires. The results showed that Malaysian learners react in favor of direct feedback to their written work, and yet they show little tolerance for simply marking the error without explanation. Moreover, considerable number of the respondents favored indirect corrective feedback with a clue. Possible explanations for the results were given with reference to the theoretical constructs of SLA.

scholarly journals Investigating Teacher Written Corrective Feedback as a Formative Assessment Tool

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khalid SAID ◽  
Abdelouahid El MOUZRATI
Keyword(s):  
Formative Assessment ◽  
English Language ◽  
Classroom Practices ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Language Teachers ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Attitudes And Practices ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback

The present study seeks to lay the foundations for a firmly-grounded understanding of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) as a Formative Assessment (FA) tool through student writing. More specifically yet, it is concerned with examining the intricate correlation between Moroccan English Language Teachers’ (ELT) attitudes and practices with respect to the way they understand and apply FA by means of WCF on students’ written productions. To that end, the study seeks to investigate this issue in the light of the following guiding questions: What beliefs do Moroccan ELT teachers hold about FA and WCF? How do these teachers provide WCF to their students during the writing lesson? To address these questions, we have opted for a mixed method approach that includes questionnaires for 110 teachers, document analysis of 30 writing productions and a follow- up semi-structured interviews with teachers. Date has been interpreted through an Explanatory Sequential Design. Inspired by Lee‘s (2009) analytical model and Perumanathan (2014) study, major findings have been presented regarding mismatches. These findings have revealed strong mismatches between teachers espoused beliefs concerning WCF, as a formative assessment tool, and their actual classroom practices. Finally, the study sets some implications for teachers, supervisors underlining the implementation of WCF in classroom practices.

scholarly journals Use of “Comment Bubbles” in a Writing-intensive, Social and Economic Justice Course

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 463-477
Author(s):  
Ninive Sanchez ◽  
Megan Corbin ◽  
Alexander Norka
Keyword(s):  
Economic Justice ◽  
Teaching Writing ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Career Interests ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Intensive Courses ◽  
Self Reflection ◽  
Microsoft Word ◽  
Personal Experiences ◽  
Writing Intensive Courses

A central question among instructors teaching writing-intensive courses is how to best respond to student writing. This study posits that the margin of the essay should not be reserved for instructor feedback only, and that allowing students to comment on their writing choices in this space has pedagogical aims. This study examined the use of “comment bubbles” to engage students in thinking about their writing choices in argumentative writing in an undergraduate social and economic justice course. Comment bubbles are comments and questions students inserted in the margin of their essays using the comment function in Microsoft Word. The margin of student essays was framed as a safe writing environment to encourage student self-expression beyond that already expressed in the essay. A thematic analysis of student comment bubbles found that students used the comment bubbles to react to research they read in journal articles, elaborate on their writing choices, share their personal experiences, and reflect on their future career interests. Allowing students to comment on their writing choices in this space facilitates student self-expression, self-reflection, and critical thinking.

Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more

2019 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 524-536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Icy Lee
Keyword(s):  
Teacher Educators ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Position Paper ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Less Is More ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Recommendations For Action ◽  
Grammatical Errors ◽  
Teachers And Students ◽  
Giving Feedback

AbstractIn different parts of the world second language (L2) teachers devote a massive amount of time to giving feedback on grammatical errors in student writing. Such written corrective feedback, which is unfocused and comprehensive, is fraught with problems for both teachers and students. Nonetheless, it remains a prevalent practice in many L2 contexts. In this position paper, I argue that more written corrective feedback is not better, but instead less is more. After presenting the problems emanating from comprehensive written corrective feedback, I argue for a focused approach to written corrective feedback and examine its benefits for teachers and students. Through discussing five impediments to the implementation of focused written corrective feedback, I scrutinize and refute the counter-claims, and bolster my overall argument in support of focused written corrective feedback. I conclude the position paper with recommendations for action for teachers, teacher educators and researchers.

Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 702-726 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Benson ◽  
Robert DeKeyser
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Past Tense ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Feedback Group ◽  
Writing Classes ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Metalinguistic Feedback ◽  
Learner Differences ◽  
Direct Feedback

Most second language researchers agree that there is a role for corrective feedback in second language writing classes. However, many unanswered questions remain concerning the linguistic features to target and the type and amount of feedback to offer. This study examined essays by 151 learners of English as a second language (ESL), in order to investigate the effect of either direct or metalinguistic written feedback on errors with the simple past tense and the present perfect tense. This inquiry also considered the extent to which learner differences in language-analytic ability (LAA), as measured by the LLAMA F, mediated the effects of these two types of explicit written corrective feedback. Learners in both feedback groups were provided with corrective feedback on two essays whereas the control group received general comments on content. Learners in all three groups then completed two additional writing tasks to determine whether or not the provision of corrective feedback led to greater gains in accuracy compared to no feedback. Both treatment groups performed better than the comparison group on new pieces of writing immediately following the treatment sessions, yet direct feedback was more durable than metalinguistic feedback for one structure, the simple past tense. Participants with greater LAA proved more likely to achieve gains in the direct feedback group than in the metalinguistic group, whereas learners with lower LAA benefited more from metalinguistic feedback.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document