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

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-139
Author(s):  
Ehsan Abbaspour

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.

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fiona Hyland

This article provides an overview of the contributions made to this special issue on feedback by the seven papers, examining how they reflect both the growing interest in different areas of research into feedback on writing and the continuing search by teachers for more effective feedback practices. Focusing first on the papers by Van Beuningen, Storch, Evans, Hartshorn and Allen, it discusses how these papers situate written corrective feedback research in the wider area of second language acquisition research and contribute to the debate in feedback research on research design issues. This is followed by an examination of the major findings of the four situated empirical studies by Bitchener, Ma, El-ebyary and Windeatt, and Martinez and Roca, which make up the second section. Echoing the authors of these papers, this article argues that we need more longitudinal naturalistic studies, adopting both cognitive and socio-cultural SLA frameworks to investigate the role of feedback and its impact on individual learners in more depth. Finally some pedagogic implications are discussed, including the need for feedback practices which facilitate students’ abilities to self regulate and evaluate their performance, and the need to raise teachers’ awareness of the different feedback sources and modes of delivery available to them.


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.


2021 ◽  
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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
Abbas Mustafa Abbas ◽  
Hogar Mohammed Tawfeeq

The effectiveness of providing Corrective Feedback (CF) on L2 writing has long been a matter of considerable debate. A growing body of research has been conducted to investigate the value of various types of CF on improving grammatical accuracy in the writing of English as a second or foreign language. This article is mainly concerned with the role of Corrective Feedback (CF) in developing the L2 writers’ ability to produce an accurate text, and argues that CF is considered to be one of the fundamental techniques in teaching second language (L2) writing. Bearing this in mind, it attempts to maintain the effectiveness of CF on the L2 students’ abilities to develop the accuracy of their written output. This topic has recently produced a significant interest among both teachers and researchers in the areas of L2 writing and second language acquisition. A key issue to be addressed is the degree to which CF effectively helps the second language writers obtain long-term accuracy. Currently, the author of this paper has been conducting a PhD study on the effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on the academic writing accuracy of Kurdish EFL university students, and the data was collected from writing testing samples (pre-test, post-test and delayed post-test) produced by105 undergraduate students of English department from two public universities. The results could be obtained from the study should have important implications for L2 writing practitioners and researchers.


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.


2015 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ting Wang ◽  
Lin Jiang

AbstractThe role of written corrective feedback (CF) in the process of acquiring a second language (L2) has been an issue of considerable controversies over past decades. This study thus endeavors to extend current work on written CF by investigating and comparing the effect on collocation learning of one traditional type of feedback—direct corrective feedback (DCF)—with an innovative type of error correction, feedback provided within context—situated feedback (SF). The effects of the two types of written feedback were measured by examining the accurate use of target collocations in a translation test and a multiple choice test completed by 73 intermediate EFL students in China. Three groups were formed: a DCF group, an SF group, and a control group. The study found that both treatment groups outperformed the control group in the posttests and delayed posttests and that there were significant advantages of the SF group in comparison to the DCF group in both posttests. The results suggested that the provision of written CF was helpful for collocation learning and that situational context could promote the facilitative role of written CF in language acquisition. These findings are discussed from the perspectives of both second language acquisition (SLA) theory and language pedagogy and implications for future research efforts are put forward.


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.


Author(s):  
Stella Muchemwa ◽  
Catherine Amimo ◽  
Vencie Allida

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document