Theoretical Perspectives on L2 Writing and Language Learning in Collaborative Writing and the Collaborative Processing of Written Corrective Feedback

2021 ◽  
pp. 22-34
Author(s):  
Neomy Storch
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Collaborative Writing ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
L2 Writing ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
Collaborative Processing

Scaffolding student engagement with written corrective feedback: Transforming feedback sessions into learning affordances

2021 ◽  
pp. 136216882110409
Author(s):  
Chi-Duc Nguyen
Keyword(s):  
Student Engagement ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Error Correction ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Attentional Focus ◽  
Assessment Practice ◽  
Writing Conference ◽  
Teacher Student ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Future Learning

This study proposed a three-step writing conference in which foreign/second language (L2) students, under the guidance of their writing instructor, first fastened their attentional focus on a form-related error, analysed a collection of standard L2 samples to deduce the underlying knowledge, and then planned for their error correction as well as future learning of this knowledge. The ultimate goal of this formative assessment practice was to scaffold student engagement with written corrective feedback (WCF). Using a between-group experiment design, the present study compared the effects on the success rate of error correction and L2 uptake of the above writing conference ( n = 14) against those brought about by a typical Teacher–Student ( n = 12) and a typical Student–Student one ( n = 12). Research participants were 38 intermediate learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) recruited from three intact classes at a language-learning center in Vietnam. The suggested writing conference was indeed found to yield better error correction and L2 uptake than the other counterparts. A closer look at the students’ mental engagement with WCF revealed that such engagement was moderately correlated with their L2 uptake. These findings altogether suggest that student engagement with WCF should not be taken for granted or, in other words, this engagement should be contingently supported by the writing instructor in order to foster learning from WCF.

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.

The impact of one’s response to the teacher’s feedback on the same person’s and the partner’s learning in paired writing

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taichi Yamashita
Keyword(s):  
Collaborative Writing ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Posttest Score ◽  
Esl Students ◽  
American University ◽  
Google Docs ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Description Task ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract The present study investigated the relationship between one dyad member’s revision in response to written corrective feedback (CF) and the same person’s learning and the other dyad member’s learning during collaborative writing. Twenty-eight English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) students at an American university were paired up and collaborated on two animation description tasks in Google Docs while receiving the researcher’s written CF on their errors on the indefinite and definite articles. Learners worked individually on an animation description task one week prior to the written CF treatment (pretest), immediately after the treatment (posttest), and two weeks after (delayed posttest). When pretest score and CF frequency were controlled for, the number of one’s revisions was not related to the same person’s or the partner’s posttest score. However, the number of one’s revisions was significantly positively related to the same learner’s delayed posttest score, but not to the partner’s delayed posttest score.

The Empirical Evidence of the Effect of Written Corrective Feedback From Information Processing Perspective

2018 ◽  
pp. 30-56
Keyword(s):  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Theoretical Expectation ◽  
Affective Factors ◽  
Proficiency Levels ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
Information Processing Perspective ◽  
English Articles ◽  
Positive Effect

The theoretical perspectives reviewed in the previous chapter have led many in the field to believe that written CF can have a positive effect on L2 learning. The recent written CF studies reviewed in this chapter confirmed the theoretical expectation. However, it needs to be noted that although more explicit written CF types, such as metalinguistic explanation, direct correction, and direct correction plus metalinguistic explanation were proved to facilitate the learning of English articles and past tense for students of different proficiency levels, more research is needed to find out the correlation between the complexity and written CF type. Furthermore, whether these types of written CF could facilitate the learning of more complex language features needs to be examined. Last but not least, learner's factors, including affective factors, learning aptitude, motivation, and so on need to be investigated regarding the extent to which they may have an impact on the effect of written CF.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document