The Contribution of Written Corrective Feedback to Language Development: A Ten Month Investigation

Bitchener, John; Knoch, Ute

doi:10.1093/applin/amp016

Cited by 279 publications

(297 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

258

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These tightly controlled studies all found robust positive effects of focused CF 7 . Moreover, the reported accuracy gains proved to be very durable; Bitchener and Knoch (2010a), for example, showed that students who had received focused CF (only once) continued to outperform students whose errors had not been corrected over a 10-month period.…”

Section: 12a Research On the Effectiveness Of Focused Cfmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Insights, and Future Directions

Beuningen¹

2010

ijes

157

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of (written) corrective feedback (CF) in the process of acquiring a second language (L2) has been an issue of considerable controversy among theorists and researchers alike. Although CF is a widely applied pedagogical tool and its use finds support in SLA theory, practical and theoretical objections to its usefulness have been raised (e.g. Truscott, 1996;. In the present paper, I start by summarizing the theoretical arguments underpinning the use of CF in L2 classrooms. Subsequently, the objections raised against error correction are reviewed, and some controversies concerning different CF methodologies and error types are discussed. Next, the paper provides a critical summary of the findings produced by empirical work to date, and sketches out some of the issues that need to be attended to in future research. Based on the available empirical evidence, I conclude that, by offering learners opportunities to notice the gaps in their developing L2 systems, test interlanguage hypotheses, and engage in metalinguistic reflection, written CF has the ability to foster SLA and to lead to accuracy development. KEYWORDS:written corrective feedback, error correction, second language writing, accuracy development, second language acquisition RESUMEN El papel que la corrección de trabajos escritos (written corrective feedback) (CF) desempeña en el proceso de adquisición de una segunda lengua (L2) ha sido objeto de controversia tanto desde el punto de vista teórico como empírico. Aunque el empleo de este tipo de corrección como herramienta pedagógica está muy extendido, y su utilización se apoya en teorías de adquisición de segundas lenguas, su utilidad ha sido cuestionada tanto desde el punto de vista práctico como teórico (Truscott, 1996;. En el presente artículo se incluye, primero, un resumen de los argumentos teóricos que apoyan el uso de la corrección de trabajos escritos en el aula. Seguidamente se presenta una revisión de las objeciones planteadas en contra de su utilización y una discusión de algunas de las principales controversias que han surgido en torno a las distintas metodologías de corrección empleadas y a las tipologías de errores establecidas. Finalmente, se incluye un resumen crítico de los resultados obtenidos en la investigación empírica hasta la fecha y se plantean algunos aspectos que han de tenerse en cuenta en futuras investigaciones. Teniendo en cuenta la evidencia empírica existente, se concluye que la corrección de trabajos escritos ofrece a los aprendices oportunidades de detectar problemas en su interlengua, comprobar hipótesis sobre la L2 e involucrarse en procesos de reflexión metalingüística, y que, por tanto, tiene el potencial de facilitar la adquisición de segundas lenguas y de fomentar el desarrollo de la precisión lingüística (accuracy). PALABRAS CLAVE:corrección de trabajos escritos, corrección de errores, escritura en segundas lenguas, desarrollo de la corrección lingüística, adquisición de segundas lenguas

show abstract

Section: 12a Research On the Effectiveness Of Focused Cfmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bitchener & Knoch, 2008;Bitchener & Knoch, 2009;Bitchener & Knoch, 2010a;Bitchener & Knoch, 2010b;Ellis et al, 2008;Sheen, 2007;Sheen, 2010b). Following the methodology of oral feedback studies (e.g.…”

Section: 12a Research On the Effectiveness Of Focused Cfmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Insights, and Future Directions

Beuningen¹

2010

ijes

157

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Direct feedback takes different forms; it may be done by striking out an incorrect word; inserting a missing word, phrase, or morpheme; and providing the correct linguistic form usually above the wrong form or in the margin (Ferris, 2006;Ellis, 2008). Bitchener and Knoch (2010) argue that direct feedback is more helpful to writers because it explicitly shows learners what is wrong and how it should be written correctly; minimizing students' confusion over teachers' feedback. Therefore, this type is more appropriate to student writers of low proficiency level who do not have the ability to self-correct their errors even when they are marked for them (Ferris & Many researchers (e.g., Ko & Hirvela, 2010;Elashri, 2013) argue that direct teacher feedback is one of the least effective methods of giving feedback to students.…”

Section: Direct (Explicit) Corrective Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Direct-indirect Corrective E-feedback on EFL Students’ Writing Accuracy

Seiffedin¹,

El-Sakka

2017

TPLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of direct-indirect corrective feedback via email on the writing accuracy students at kindergarten section, Suez Faculty of Education, Egypt. The design of the study was a pre-post quasi experimental design. The main instrument of the study was a pre-post writing test. The participants were forty eight junior EFL students at the kindergarten section, randomly divided into two groups: experimental group (n=25) and control group (n=23). Both groups were tested using the pre-post writing test before and after the experiment. During the treatment, the experimental group received directindirect teacher corrective feedback on their writing compositions via e-mail while the control group received no feedback. Differences between the participants' mean scores on the pre test and post test were calculated for each group separately using Paired Samples T-Test which revealed significant differences between the pretest and posttest of the experimental group mean scores. Independent Samples T-Test was used to calculate the differences between the experimental and the control groups' mean gain scores on the pre and post test of writing. Significant differences existed in favor of the experimental group mean gain scores.Index Terms-direct corrective feedback, direct-indirect corrective feedback, indirect corrective feedback, kindergarten University students, writing accuracy

show abstract

“…Much interest has been expressed in recent years in literature on the effectiveness of giving CF for helping L2 writers to improve the accuracy of their writing (see Bitchener & Knoch, 2010;Sheen, 2010). Besides, there is evidence that written CF can help writers improve their written accuracy when asked to revise their texts (Ferris, 1999(Ferris, , 2006.…”

Section: Review Of Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Correct I or I Don’t Correct myself: Corrective Feedback on EFL Students Writing

Meihami

2013

ILSHS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The hot debate is in progress between giving corrective feedback (CF) to students to promote their writing ability and accuracy or not giving CF. This kind of dilemma that might be caused by the controversial researches that published over the last 20 years baffled teachers about giving or not giving the CF. After Truscott, J. (1996) gave a case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes and Ferris, D.R. (1999) gave a case for grammar correction the question got tougher. The essence of this experimental investigation is to explain giving written CF to the EFL students writing. For the purpose of this study, 160 EFL students of Azad University participated in an extracurricular course; there were three experimental groups and a control group. After the results were manifested, it was cleared that giving corrective feedback should be considered as a productive way in improving EFL students writing.

show abstract

The Contribution of Written Corrective Feedback to Language Development: A Ten Month Investigation

Cited by 279 publications

References 32 publications

Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Insights, and Future Directions

Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Insights, and Future Directions

The Impact of Direct-indirect Corrective E-feedback on EFL Students’ Writing Accuracy

Correct I or I Don’t Correct myself: Corrective Feedback on EFL Students Writing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About