Written Corrective Feedback

Top PDF Written Corrective Feedback:

Investigating the Practice of Providing Written Corrective Feedback Types by ESL Teachers at the Upper Secondary Level in High Performance Schools

Investigating the Practice of Providing Written Corrective Feedback Types by ESL Teachers at the Upper Secondary Level in High Performance Schools

The past few decades has seen the rapid development of WCF (written corrective feedback) study. The present study examined the practice of providing WCF by teachers. The aim of this study was to determine the types of WCF used by English teachers. The study is an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design using open-ended and close- ended survey questionnaire, interviews, and content analysis of students’ essays. It involved 54 English teachers of high performance schools in a state in West Malaysia to answer the questionnaire, 8 teachers were interviewed and 48 students’ essay scripts were analysed. WCF types studied were by Ellis (2008), namely; Direct, Indirect, Metalinguistic, Focused, Unfocused, Electronic and Reformulation, with two additional types, Personal comment and No feedback. Direct and Metalinguistic comment were the perceived WCF types from the questionnaire findings; however, both teacher interviews and sample essays analysis indicated teachers practised Unfocused and Indirect types the most. The two salient findings to emerge from the data comparison are the teachers were unaware of the available WCF types to provide in the teaching of ESL writing; and teachers’ marking is very much influenced by the LPM (Lembaga Peperiksaan Malaysia) types or marking symbols, which appears to be the only reference teachers have in providing WCF. These findings suggest that teachers need to be given sufficient exposure to all the available WCF types so that more effective WCF practices will take place.
Show more

13 Read more

The Effect of Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback on Iranian Elementary Learners’ Writing

The Effect of Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback on Iranian Elementary Learners’ Writing

Error correction is probably the most widely used technique for responding to students’ writing. Although many studies have attempted to investigate the efficacy of providing error correction through different types of written corrective feedback (WCF), there has been relatively little research on any one new approach to writing pedagogy in foreign language learning which is called dynamic WCF. The purpose of the current research was to test the effect of WCF on the improvement of writing abilities of EFL learners. Two groups of EFL students who were learning English as a foreign language participated in this study. Both groups (A and B) were given treatments. Core components of the treatment included having the students to write a composition every session (twice a week) and the teacher providing the students with feedbacks (dynamic WCF or direct WCF) on their writing tasks. Group A (n=24) was instructed through dynamic WCF because it was intended to improve L2 writing ability in general by raising linguistic awareness of learners through the error corrections performed by the teacher. On the other hand, group B (n= 22) received direct WCF on their writings. Four essential characteristics were taken into consideration for the error correction, i.e. feedback needed to be manageable, meaningful, timely and constant. The data obtained for Group A and Group B was analyzed using paired sample test and the results indicated that both groups had improved on their writing abilities. Also, administrating an independent sample T-test the findings revealed that Group A which received dynamic WCF could outperform Group B.
Show more

10 Read more

The Effect of Written Corrective Feedback on the Accuracy of English Article Usage in L2 Writing

The Effect of Written Corrective Feedback on the Accuracy of English Article Usage in L2 Writing

Although we know that our groups differ, we don’t know the exact location of different, Thus, in order to discover where these differences occur, Post-hoc comparison was run. On the other hand, since here exist more than two levels to our independent variables, Post-hoc seems to be the best choice because this test systematically compares each of our pairs of groups, and indicate whether there is a significant difference in the means of each (Pallant, 2005). To be more precise, Post-hoc comparison demonstrated that the mean score for experimental group 1(Direct written corrective feedback) (M=69.00, SD=6.92) was significantly different from experimental group 2 (indirect written corrective feedback) (M=60.30, SD=3.61), and control group (M=52.65, SD=6.49). In fact, There was a significant difference between experimental group one and control group (P=.001>.05) and experimental group 2 and control group (001<.05). There was also significant difference between two experimental groups (P=.000<.05). As it is evident, students who received direct written feedback obtained higher score on the posttest compared to those students who received indirect written corrective feedback. Thus, it can safely be claimed that direct written corrective feedback was more influential than indirect written corrective feedback regarding writing skill and appropriate use of article “the” and articles “a” and “an” in terms of Iranian intermediate EFL learners.
Show more

11 Read more

Iranian EFL Learners’ Reaction to Teacher’s Written Corrective Feedback

Iranian EFL Learners’ Reaction to Teacher’s Written Corrective Feedback

Providing different types of corrective feedback on learners’ writing is a common practice in writing classes. Applied linguists have also invested huge attempt in investigating the impact that coorective feedback might have on developing different language skills among EFL/ESL writers. Despite the breadth of empirical research on the issue, literature has witnessed very few studies addressing the writer thought processes in dealing with the corrective feedback they recieve from their instructors. Therefore, the present qualitative study, which explores the way Iranian EFL learners respond to teacher corrective feedback, is an answer to this research need. The study included a sample of ten female high school students who were purposively selected and investigated for the cognitive process they assumed in responding to teacher written corrective feedback and their preferences for CF in writing tasks. Findings of the study have revealed that EFL learners go through a long and sophisticated thought process, reviewing, evaluating and finally accepting or ‘submiting to’ teacher corrective feedback.
Show more

8 Read more

Assessing the effect of focused direct and focused indirect written corrective feedback on explicit and implicit knowledge of language learners

Assessing the effect of focused direct and focused indirect written corrective feedback on explicit and implicit knowledge of language learners

This study investigates the effect of teacher ’ s written corrective feedback (WCF) on acquisition of explicit and implicit knowledge of simple past tense by language learners. Eighty-seven Iranian beginner learners of English participated in this study. The participants were randomly assigned to three groups: focused direct WCF, focused indirect WCF, and control groups. The participants completed text summary tasks. They also took placement test, pretest narrative writing task, text summary tasks, pretest and posttest untimed grammaticality judgment test, metalinguistic test, and timed grammaticality judgment test. The results of the data analysis showed the positive effect of WCF on acquisition of explicit and implicit knowledge of simple past tense by Iranian beginner learners of English in an English as a foreign language classroom context. However, the findings of the study should be interpreted cautiously due to different factors involved in explicit and implicit acquisition of a structure and also the nature of a structure and its difficulty and complexity. The findings of the study are discussed in detail and future venues for research are suggested.
Show more

18 Read more

Effects of Different Types of Teacher Written Corrective Feedback on Iranian EFL Learners’ Writing Accuracy

Effects of Different Types of Teacher Written Corrective Feedback on Iranian EFL Learners’ Writing Accuracy

are helpful and effective in improving student writings. However, there have been controversies on the effectiveness of feedback on student writings (e.g., Fazio 2001; Kepner, 1991; Truscott, 1996, 1999, 2007; Truscott & Hsu, 2008) and conflicting findings in different areas of feedback such as feedback focus and strategy (e.g., Ashwell, 2000; Bitchener, 2008, 2009; Bitchener & Knock, 2009; Chandler, 2003; Ferris, 1999; Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Lalande, 1982; Robb, Ross, & Shortreed, 1986). Reviews on previous researches reveal that disagreement on the findings on the effectiveness of corrective feedback on student writing may be due to design flaws in those studies as highlighted by Bitchener (2008), Ellis, Sheen, Murakami, and Takashima, (2008), and Guénette (2007). Such flaws may include the absence of a control group and too many areas of errors addressed in the studies. Moreover, recent studies (e.g., Bitchener, 2008; Ellis, Murakami, & Takashima, 2008; Sheen, 2007) included a control group, addressed only one error category, and required a new piece of writing as a post-test. However, these studies used direct feedback only and none of these studies used indirect feedback as a treatment. Consequently, these studies did not provide answers to questions of effectiveness of indirect teacher written corrective feedback on student writing. However, this study adds some more sugar to the work by regarding combination of indirect and direct written corrective feedback, besides investigating the effects of direct and indirect written corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy which covers two areas of errors most frequently made by ESL/EFL learners (i.e., English articles and the simple past tense).
Show more

14 Read more

Combining the strategies of using focused written corrective feedback: a study with upper elementary Chilean EFL learners

Combining the strategies of using focused written corrective feedback: a study with upper elementary Chilean EFL learners

first step should be students’ observation of their specific needs, but it also depends on the complexity and nature of the errors (Ferris, 2006; Lee, 2008). Ferris (2006) coined the terms ‘treatable’ and ‘untreatable’ errors. Treatable errors refer to those linguistic structures that are rule-governed; students acquire the structure in the short term by applying the rule properly. On the contrary, untreatable errors refer to those linguistic errors that are item-based; they require a deeper knowledge of the language such as, for example, errors of lexis. Written corrective feedback is a powerful strategy if the different aspects that are part of the process are consistent. To begin, making decisions related to the scope of feedback is crucial; choosing to give feedback to all linguistic categories or just a few based on students’ observations and not just the teacher or researcher’s preconceived ideas. Secondly, the type (direct or indirect) and form of feedback chosen (coding, brief grammar explanation or highlighting) has to be methodical and rigorous. The systematic approach of using WCF to improve writing skills can be enhanced by using a strategy that emphasizes the process of writing itself: the writing portfolio. Thus, this academic record would help self-awareness on frequent language errors along with the systematic feedback received. Due to this fact, students would improve accuracy.
Show more

12 Read more

A Case Study of EFL Teachers’ Perceptions and Practices in Written Corrective Feedback

A Case Study of EFL Teachers’ Perceptions and Practices in Written Corrective Feedback

Written corrective feedback (WCF) is considered one of the most important tasks that writing teachers can provide for their students (Ferris 2006). Interest in WCF research has grown in the last two decades. However, in the Saudi context, research in the corrective feedback field has been hitherto neglected and scarce. Teachers’ concerns and opinions are of paramount importance and usefulness in a successful learning environment. Nevertheless, many teachers view research as unrelated to their work environment and often perceive that others’ research findings are inapplicable to their own particular classroom settings (Mackey & Gass 2005). As Lacorte and Krastel (2002) have observed, “teachers must take a critical look at their own actions within the classroom and consider possible issues within their systems of practical knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes that could be improved” (p. 914). Bailey (2001) concurs, noting that “By reading or hearing accounts of other people’s research, [teachers] can get new ideas for teaching and for their investigations, as well as becoming better connected with their profession at large” (p. 496). Furthermore, Wallace (1991) argues that reflective teaching provides an opportunity for the development of professional competence by combining two prime sources of knowledge in practice: received and experiential knowledge.
Show more

13 Read more

The Effect of Coded and Uncoded Written Corrective Feedback on the Accuracy of Learners Writing in  Pre-intermediate Level

The Effect of Coded and Uncoded Written Corrective Feedback on the Accuracy of Learners Writing in Pre-intermediate Level

In the process of learning, especially something new, there is always the possibility of making mistakes. In the history of language acquisition and learning, students and learners face so many difficulties in the process of learning. One of the most important difficulties is eliminating students' linguistic errors. When errors occur in the second language acquisition, we face another problem called error correction which always confuses teachers because they do not know whether this error should be corrected or not, and if so, when is the best time to correct it. Whether and how corrective feedback can help students to become good writers is of great interest for researchers (Chandler, 2003; Ferris, 2010). Written corrective feedback (CF) is an important part of second language writing because it allows of providing teacher-to-student interaction in L2 writing class (Ferris, Pezone, Tade, & Tinti, 1997). Many L2 writing teachers feel that written corrective feedback is influential in the improvement of their students' L2 writing accuracy (Brown, 2007; Hyland & Hyland, 2006), although its effectiveness is under question (Truscott, 1996; Truscott & Hsu, 2008). In addition, L2 writing students want and expect their teachers to correct written errors (Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Lee, 2004) and prefer to receive written corrective feedback such as peer and oral feedback (Leki, 1991; Ferris, 1995). Students believe that a learning task is not complete without corrective feedback. Although there are various views on the impact of providing written corrective feedback on the improvement of L2 writing accuracy, both teachers and students feel the need for its use (Van Beuningen, 2010; Van Beuningen, De Jong, & Kuiken, 2012).
Show more

7 Read more

The effect of direct and indirect written corrective feedback on grammatical collocations in L2 writing

The effect of direct and indirect written corrective feedback on grammatical collocations in L2 writing

Recent studies have demonstrated the effective role of direct and indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) in the use of grammar, but little research has investigated the role of WCF in the use of collocations. This study is an attempt to investigate the effect of both direct and indirect WCF on the use of grammatical collocations in L2 writing. The participants of this study included 90 EFL learners in Shahrekord University, randomly assigned into three groups: two experimental groups (i.e., direct and indirect groups) and one control group. To collect data, they were asked to write three distinct essays as pretests, posttests, and delayed posttests, in which they were given key words to make collocations with. Sheen’s (2007) techniques were employed to correct the grammatical collocation errors in the direct and indirect groups. The results of ANOVA showed that, first, both experimental groups performed better than the control group. Second, the indirect group outperformed the direct group on the posttests. Third, the effect of indirect WCF was retained in both immediate and delayed posttests.
Show more

23 Read more

Differential Effects of Written Corrective Feedback on Iranian High School Students’ Grammatical Accuracy

Differential Effects of Written Corrective Feedback on Iranian High School Students’ Grammatical Accuracy

Although the issue of CF is less controversial nowadays, one of the challenges and current concerns in L2 learning is the effectiveness of the type of written corrective feedback (WCF) and degree of its explicitness in the development of L2 learners’ grammatical accuracy. As Gass and Mackey (2006) states, there is disagreement on what type of feedback should be provided at different contexts and it is difficult to draw firm and unequivocal conclusions regarding the comparative effectiveness of implicit (such as recast), and explicit (such as metalinguistic), feedback in L2 learning. Evidently, it is far from clear what type of WCF allows English as foreign language (EFL) learners to make better gains in grammatical accuracy. This current study was designed to investigate the differential effect of three types of WCF i.e., an error feedback given by teachers as response to students’ errors in writing, on the Iranian EFL learners’ grammatical accuracy in picture description tasks/activities. That is to say, it sought to differentiate interactional feedback of recast without saliency, recast with saliency, and metalinguistic in terms of its explicitness with respect to the grammatical accuracy gains by the EFL learners with the aim of helping Iranian EFL teachers to provide more good-quality feedback in their classrooms.
Show more

32 Read more

Feeding Written Corrective Feedback Forward: English Language Learners' Writing Improvement in a Portfolio-Keeping Atmosphere

Feeding Written Corrective Feedback Forward: English Language Learners' Writing Improvement in a Portfolio-Keeping Atmosphere

Keeping portfolio opens a window on the way teachers try to assess students' writing improvement and learning capacity. Implementing this curricular innovation, the present study was an attempt to grow tutor-student dynamic involvement in giving/receiving written corrective feedback (WCF). To this end, two intact classes of EFL university students participated, each experiencing a distinct portfolio- keeping model (working vs. showcase) while receiving WCF from triadic sources (self, peer, & tutor) and varying tutor feedback types (indirect- unfocused vs. direct-focused). Students' performance on "TOEFL Test of Written English" and their grades in the previous writing course, namely "Advanced Grammar and Sentence Writing" were averaged out for both groups (Working Portfolio Group/WPG and Showcase Portfolio Group/ SPG) to assign them as low-, medium- and high-proficiency L2 writers. Written products kept in their portfolios were examined to see how differently the participants benefited from WCF sources/types. The findings revealed that WPG participants were more responsive to the working portfolio model than those in SPG who received delayed tutor evaluation in showcase portfolio approach. The article concludes with some pedagogical implications on how to use feedback to improve the quality of revised written texts and to support learning through writing.
Show more

40 Read more

Comparison of the effects of Written Corrective Feedback and Task-complexity Manipulation on the Grammatical Accuracy of EFL Learners’ Writing

Comparison of the effects of Written Corrective Feedback and Task-complexity Manipulation on the Grammatical Accuracy of EFL Learners’ Writing

In summary, the present study proposed the manipulation of task cognitive-complexity as an alternative to WCF. It was also hypothesized that, by its inherent potential to open-up appropriate cognitive channels towards linguistic and functional resources, the cognitive manipulation would significantly increase the grammatical accuracy of Iranian learners’ writing productions. For the comparison purposes then, learners’ productions under the effects of resource-directing manipulation of +/- Here and Now and writing samples collected from groups receiving direct and indirect corrective feedback were analyzed. Nevertheless, the results were in favor of direct written corrective feedback group, the students of which outperformed both indirect WCF participants and TM group. Though the intention of the present study was not to evaluate long-lasting effects, it is recommended to the researchers of the future studies to consider the effects of task manipulation both during a longer period of time and for long-lasting effects. In this sense, time may allow more practical opportunities for applying task manipulation in the classroom, and learners may find the tasks more relevant. Further, larger sample size can contribute to the final results of future studies. It is also recommended to apply different resource-directing manipulations (+/- few elements and +/- reasoning demands) as well as different types of written corrective feedback (peer-correction, self-correction).
Show more

27 Read more

The Effect of Direct Vs. Indirect Written Corrective Feedback on L2 Learners Written Accuracy in EFL Context

The Effect of Direct Vs. Indirect Written Corrective Feedback on L2 Learners Written Accuracy in EFL Context

The participants were divided into three groups. Each group was asked to write a task (paragraph with a same topic). The topic was chosen from American English File 3 (Student‟s book). Their written task was collected. Then one group received direct written corrective feedback; correct structure were provided, unnecessary words, phrase, or morpheme crossed out, correct form was written above or near to the erroneous form. The other group received indirect written corrective feedback; this time it is indicated that student has made an error without actually correcting it. The control group didn‟t receive any corrective feedback. The number and type of the errors was collected. It made known which category students had problems. A post-test has been done. Again students were asked to do a writing task this time. Of course the topics were the same. The second writings of students were collected. There were three kinds of papers; one group received direct corrective feedback, the second group received indirect corrective feedback and the third group received no corrective feedback as control group. The results were compared. The number of the errors and their type were analyzed.
Show more

10 Read more

The Effect of Written Corrective Feedback on Grammatical Accuracy of EFL Students: An Improvement over Previous Unfocused Designs

The Effect of Written Corrective Feedback on Grammatical Accuracy of EFL Students: An Improvement over Previous Unfocused Designs

This study aimed to investigate how direct unfocused WCF affects the grammatical accuracy of elementary EFL students during the revision process as well as on a delayed posttest. With respect to the first objective, it was found that provision of WCF resulted in significantly higher grammatical accuracy in the revisions made by experimental group compared to those of control group. Concerning the second objective, the findings indicated that although the experimental group slightly outperformed the control group regarding grammatical accuracy on a new writing task, the difference was not statistically significant and the error reduction during the revision process did not extend to the posttest. In conclusion, provision of typical written corrective feedback, without any follow-up teacher-student interaction, only helps elementary EGP students reduce their grammatical errors during the revision process, and it does not have a significant impact on their overall grammatical accuracy in the future on a new writing task. However, we do not argue for total abandonment of WCF; rather we believe it must be up to teachers whether or not to provide WCF. In our view, provision of WCF must be regarded as only one of the options teachers have for improving learners’ grammatical accuracy. In fact, based on their previous experience with similar students, the number of students, learners’ age and proficiency level, purpose of the course, available time and other classroom limitations, as professionals, teachers should make their own professional decisions.
Show more

14 Read more

The Role of Written Corrective Feedback in Developing Writing in L2

The Role of Written Corrective Feedback in Developing Writing in L2

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 short- term 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. Key words: L2, young learners, writing, corrective feedback, written corrective feedback
Show more

10 Read more

Contrasting Perceptions of Students and Teachers: Written Corrective Feedback

Contrasting Perceptions of Students and Teachers: Written Corrective Feedback

This study aimed to find out the similarities and differences between intermediate-advanced learners and writing instructors in terms of amount and types of written corrective feedback in Turkish EFL context. Based on mixed-methods research design, the study employed both a questionnaire and some open-ended questions to get more detailed insights about the phenomenon in question. In light of the statistical data analysis procedures, no statistically significant differences were found between the students and teachers in terms of the amount and type of written corrective feedback. However, there were some contrasting ideas between the students and teachers in terms of the amount and types of written corrective feedback. Even there were differences within the same groups. In other words, the students and teachers held different views from their peers or colleaques. For example, some students were in favour of marking of all errors for noticing their errors and avoiding repetation while some others claimed agency for their own learning and opposed teacher intervention. The similar situation also goes for teachers in that some teachers favoured marking all errors to prevent future errors due to the fact that these participants will become English teachers and English will become their profession while some others differentiated the major and minor erros examining whether the error hinders written communication or not. One teacher suggested integration of writing classes into literature classes to help students gain consciousness about various genres and improve their writing skills at the same time. As indicated above, while some students expected complete corrective feedback by marking of all errors, some students explained the need for more autonomous and guiding teaching style. In this sense, the teacher may act like a facilitator or guide while leading the learning of their students. S/he can make different preferences depending upon the level of students, frequency and type of occurrence of the error, or complexity of the new input.
Show more

17 Read more

Revisiting the Role of Indirect Written Corrective Feedback in the Light of Written Languaging

Revisiting the Role of Indirect Written Corrective Feedback in the Light of Written Languaging

Grounded in the sociocultural perspective, talking with/writing to others and the self as mediating cognitive processes has been identified as an origin of second language learning. This crucial role of language has been known as oral and written languaging. This study investigated whether written corrective feedback (WCF) and written languaging bring about improvement in English foreign language (EFL) learners' compositions. To this aim, two groups of EFL learners wrote compositions based on the prompt they received. In the next session, one group reviewed their errors which were indicated by indirect WCF and then languaged about their grammatical errors in their compositions by writing down the rationales behind them. Participants' deliberations and explanations were construed as written languaging episodes (WLEs). On the other hand, the other group reviewed and numbered their errors highlighted by indirect, underlining, WCF, without languaging about them. Moreover, this study sought to probe whether numbers and types of written languaging episodes differed over the five compositions. The micro-analysis of the five writings proved that participants produced the highest number of correctly resolved WLEs. They mostly offered correct reasons behind their errors in response to indirect WCF; unresolved WLEs were the least. The participants did not know the reasons behind their errors in response to WCF. Finally, the results of the study demonstrated that the indirect WCF group producing written languaging outperformed more significantly than the mere indirect WCF group on the posttest.
Show more

17 Read more

The Effect of Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners' Writing Performance: Explicit vs. Implicit

The Effect of Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners' Writing Performance: Explicit vs. Implicit

Abstract: The effectiveness of written corrective feedback has gained much interest among second language acquisition researchers since Truscott’s (1996) argument that grammar correction in L2 writing classes should be abandoned. In spite of the large body of research, there seems to be no unified agreement on the effectiveness of written corrective feedback on L2 learners' written performance. The present study seeks to investigate whether there is any positive effect of giving explicit or implicit written corrective feedback on 20 intermediate L2 learners’ ability to write in English by giving them three writing tasks: a pre-test, an immediate post-test and a delayed post-test. The participants performed on a written task, then, half of the learners received explicit feedback which means that the correct form of specific structures was provided and the other half received implicit feedback which means that the erroneous form was underlined with no correction. Two weeks later they were asked to write another essay in which the rubrics made them use the same forms, namely past tense and definite/indefinite article. A month later, the delayed post-test was conducted on a similar topic. Based on the results of mixed between-within ANOVA analysis, the students writing ability in using past tense and article use on the immediate post-test outperformed that of the pre-test. The effect was also long lasting since their performance on the delayed post-test showed an increase in the learners’ writing ability in the specified structures and this effect retained in their memory for one month. There was no statistically significant difference between the implicit and explicit group on their correct use of the specified structures.
Show more

6 Read more

The Role of Written Corrective Feedback in Enhancing the Linguistic Accuracy of Iranian Japanese Learners’ Writing

The Role of Written Corrective Feedback in Enhancing the Linguistic Accuracy of Iranian Japanese Learners’ Writing

scholars’ point of view, narrowing down the research to a few categories may solve the problems of how to provide corrective feedback which previously faced writing teachers and practitioners. Amirghassemi, Azabdaftari and Saeidi (2013) researched on direct (the teacher provided the correct forms above each student’s linguistic errors), indirect (via underlining) and scaffolded corrective feedback (the teacher gave indirect CF to the group through underlining the errors and using a cursor for omissions) on English articles and past tenses. They report that scaffolded written corrective feedback is helpful in improving L2 students’ written accuracy. Unlike that Rouhiand Samiei (2010) said that corrective feedback on EFL learners’ writing did not result in improved accuracy in new piece of writing over the time. They understand that the effectiveness of corrective feedback is much dependent on the type of error to be corrected, and maintain that there were no significant differences among the four groups in accurate use of articles. The scaffolded corrective feedback group outperformed the other groups in accurate use of past tenses. They said that for certain linguistic categories, the amount and way of corrective feedback presentation are determining factors in efficacy of corrective feedback.
Show more

20 Read more

Show all 4402 documents...