Though recent research has shown that written corrective feedback (WCF) may improve aspects of writing accuracy in some English as a second language (ESL) contexts, many teachers continue to be confused about the practical steps they should utilize to help their students improve their writing. Moreover, some have raised concerns as to whether commonly used approaches to ESL writing pedagogy and grammar instruction are effective in helping students improve their linguistic accuracy. This article describes an instructional strategy we developed for improving students' accuracy based on insights gleaned from practice, research, and theory. We refer to this instructional methodology as dynamic WCF. The article also discusses a test of the methodology's efficacy that compared the performance of two groups of students, one using a conventional process approach to writing instruction and the other using the dynamic WCF approach. Test results demonstrated that although rhetorical competence, writing fluency, and writing complexity were largely unaffected by the dynamic WCF pedagogy, significant improvement was observed for writing accuracy.

Although effective writing skills are vital to the success of university-level students, second language (L2) writers face unique challenges in developing these skills. This is particularly relevant to their ability to produce writing that is linguistically accurate. While many writing teachers feel a great commitment to these students, much of the research has either led to conflicting results or provided teachers with limited practical guidelines that can be utilized effectively in the classroom. This is especially true regarding written corrective feedback (WCF). Therefore, this article provides L2 writing teachers with a paradigm for understanding the WCF debate and interpreting the available research. We emphasize three contextual variables that must be considered if we are to understand the current research and maximize the utility of future research. These include the learner, the situation, and the instructional methodology. As an examination of how one of these contextual variables might affect L2 writing accuracy, this article presents an innovative instructional methodology specifically designed to improve L2 writing accuracy. We refer to the central component of this methodology as dynamic written corrective feedback. The article concludes with the preliminary results from an exploratory pilot study using this instructional methodology.

Objective: To study the extent to which general practitioners' questioning behaviour in routine practice is likely to encourage the adoption of evidence based medicine. Design: Self recording of questions by doctors during consultations immediately followed by semistructured interview. Setting: Urban Australian general practice. Subjects: Random sample of 27 general practitioners followed over a half day of consultations. Main outcome measures: Rate of recording of clinical questions about patients' care which doctors would like answered; frequency with which doctors found answers to their questions. Results: Doctors asked a total of 85 clinical questions, at a rate of 2.4 for every 10 patients seen. They found satisfactory answers to 67 (79%) of these questions. Doctors who worked in small practices (of one or two doctors) had a significantly lower rate of questioning than did those in larger practices (1.6 questions per 10 patients v 3.0 patients, P = 0.049). No other factors were significantly related to rate of questioning. Conclusions: These results do not support the view that doctors routinely generate a large number of unanswered clinical questions. It may be necessary to promote questioning behaviour in routine practice if evidence based medicine and other forms of self directed learning are to be successfully introduced.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

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;. 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. KEY WORDS:error correction, L2 writing, written corrective feedback, RESUMEN Durante las últimas décadas se ha prestado bastante atención a la pertinencia del empleo de feedback correctivo (FC) sobre los textos producidos por los alumnos en una segunda lengua. Aunque hay bastantes descripciones sobre cómo se emplea el FC en el aula, muchas de las afirmaciones sobre la práctica docente no tienen una base científica ya que son pocos los estudios en los que se ha preguntado directamente a los profesores el lugar que el FC ocupa en sus clases (Ferris, et al., in press/2011a; Ferris, et al., in press/2011b;. Esta escasez de datos es problemática ya que las percepciones de los profesores sobre el del FC son fundamentales a la hora de entender su puesta en práctica. Teniendo todo ello en cuenta, este artículo presenta un estudio que plantea dos preguntas de investigación fundamentales: (a) ¿En qué medida proporcionan FC los profesores de escritura en L2? y (b) ¿Cuáles son los factores que determinan ese uso o falta de uso? Por medio de una encuesta internacional, 1053 profesores de escritura en L2 en 69 países diferentes contestaron a estas preguntas. Los resultados indican que el FC es una práctica pedagógica común en L2 que se lleva a cabo por docentes experimentados y bien formados teniendo en cuenta sólidos motivos pedagógicos. PALABRAS CLAVE:Corrección de errores, escritura en segundas lenguas, feedback de corrección escrita

The present study investigated the relationship between student use of selfefficacy-building strategies through motivational partnerships (MPs) and student levels of self-efficacy and motivation in an adult intensive English program in the USA. The extent to which self-efficacy influenced motivation was also examined. After being organized into MPs and receiving self-efficacy-building strategy training from the participating teacher, 16 ESL students had their pre and post-levels of selfefficacy and motivation measured using Bandura's 'self-efficacy scale', and Guilloteaux and Dörnyei's 'student motivational state questionnaire'. Additionally, students discussed the effectiveness of MPs on their learning experience. Results show significant correlations between student use of self-efficacy-building strategies and improvement in both self-efficacy and motivation. The results also reaffirm that significant self-efficacy levels enhance motivation. Lastly, MPs benefited students in other social, affective, and educational ways.