No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Two Feedback Types: Do They Make a Difference?
Abstract
This study contrasts the effects of two distinct ways of respon ding to a student essay: discrete-item attention to form and holistic feedback on meaning. In examining the before- and after-essays of a linguistically diverse group of 26 college freshmen, it shows that the use of a holistic response is likely to increase a student's awareness of sentence boundaries more than the alternative. In other words, responding to content results in improvements in grammatical accu racy. General implications are also addressed.
... In much of the early research on WCF (Kepner, 1991;Semke, 1980Semke, , 1984Sheppard, 1992) this point was recognized, or more likely taken as a background assumption, not requiring any explicit discussion or defense. These studies simply took normal writing instruction as their context, comparing the accuracy of students who received WCF to that of students who underwent the same standard instruction but without WCF. ...
... This movement from the practical to the in-principle is illustrated in the comments by Bitchener and Ferris (2012, p. 56) on Sheppard's (1992) ...
... And, again, van Beuningen et al. (2008 were also inappropriately included. Excluded without explanation were Kepner (1991), Semke (1984), and Sheppard (1992). ...
Validity is the most important factor in good research, and it cannot be taken for granted. As the term is used here, validity is determined by (a) whether the research actually addresses the question that it is intended to address; and (b) whether the inferences drawn from it, by its authors and by subsequent reviewers, are legitimate. Validity thus depends on the goals of the research. While a variety of meaningful goals can be identified, the primary goal of WCF research is to determine if WCF is an effective way to improve learners' ability to write accurately and should therefore be used in language instruction. Judging validity in terms of this goal, it is argued here that problems are pervasive. Goals are confused, a variety of fundamental issues in design and analysis make a study unable to address the primary question, and far too much emphasis is placed on one very narrow feature, commonly studied in ways which themselves lack validity. These problems are reflected in the meta-analyses done on this topic; as a result, this work is not presenting us with a valid picture of the effects of WCF. Altogether, this research area has major validity problems; dealing with these problems should be the top priority for researchers.
... Ferris & Roberts, 2001;Karim & Nassaji, 2018;Lalande, 1982;van Beuningen et al., 2008) while other studies have looked into the effect of WCF on other domains, such as linguistic complexity (e.g. Hartshorn & Evans, 2015;Robb et al., 1986;Sheppard, 1992;van Beuningen et al., 2012). Given the possibility that the mixed findings are due to the linguistic targets, the current study adopted a holistic approach and examined multiple linguistic dimensions, focusing on both linguistic complexity and accuracy in L2 writing. ...
... For syntactic and lexical complexity, significant changes have been observed in revisions following indirect WCF (e.g. Robb et al., 1986;Sheppard, 1992), while other studies reported no clear advantage of indirect WCF over direct WCF (e.g. Hartshorn & Evans, 2015;van Beuningen et al., 2012). ...
... Indeed, findings from previous empirical studies show that the effects of WCF type on different linguistic dimensions can be complex in terms of directionality: Improvements in some subsystems can simultaneously lead to decreases in other subsystems. For instance, Sheppard (1992) found that indirect WCF (error locating plus metalinguistic comments, and clarification requests) improved learners' accuracy of verb use as well as punctuation use (clarification requests). However, error locating and metalinguistic comments (but not clarification requests) also led to decreasing syntactic complexity in terms of subordination. ...
This study examined the combined effects of written corrective feedback (WCF) and think-aloud protocols (TAPs) as two types of pedagogical intervention for improving the revision quality of second language (L2) writing. With a quasi-experimental design, it explored whether TAPs trigger deeper processing of WCF under two WCF-type conditions: direct or indirect WCF. Participants were 80 high-intermediate learners of English as a second language (ESL) at a US university who were divided into (1) direct WCF+TAPs; (2) direct WCF-only; (3) indirect WCF+TAPs; and (4) indirect WCF-only. The impacts of the interventions were gauged by changes in seven subsystems of complexity–accuracy–lexis (CAL) between the first and final drafts of narrative essays. Results showed differential impacts of the four conditions depending on the linguistic dimensions, including some negative impacts of TAPs. Participants’ comments during TAP sessions were used to triangulate the interventions’ effects. We conclude that WCF and TAPs promoted different types of processing; while WCF contributed to the potential restructuring of learners’ interlanguage systems, TAPs triggered learners’ higher-order thinking and served as a self-reflection tool to make strategic decisions in revising the text.
... Form and content have long been organizing dimensions in the study of feedback, which has primarily been done with English language learners (e.g., Chandler, 2003). Distinguishing between agentic feedback on form and content components of writing is valuable because direct correction (i.e., less agentic feedback) of students' form has been identified as less conducive to students' writing development than content feedback (Sheppard et al, 1992;Butler & Nisan, 1986). Form-only feedback may even hinder learning when unaccompanied by more hands-off suggestion (i.e. ...
... Second, in Study 1 we sought to descriptively understand how agentic feedback, as measured by our coding scheme, manifests across different components of writing -are teachers more likely to give students agency for revision in feedback on their form or content? There is some evidence that direct correction of purely form components of writing (e.g., simply correcting student spelling; removing agency) is not conducive to long-term learning (Sheppard et al, 1992;Butler & Nisan, 1986), so it is valuable to be able to measure how often teachers are engaging in less agentic form feedback relative to more agentic feedback practices. ...
... However, we see that teachers are most likely to engage in less agentic feedback practices when dealing with form, i.e., rewriting, adding, or deleting words and punctuation. It is important to be able to identify when and how often teachers offer less agentic feedback because prior research suggests that direct correction of form (less agentic feedback) is unhelpful to students' spelling and grammar skill development (Sheppard et al, 1992;Butler & Nisan, 1986). ...
Teachers are not only tasked with communicating facts, figures, and skills to their students, but they are also responsible for equipping students to be self-sufficient learners who believe in their own capacity to learn and improve. In this paper, we propose that written feedback that offers students agency (what we call ‘agentic feedback’) can be a way for teachers to build more independent and self-efficacious learners, and to instill in students the trust that their teacher believes in them. In the first study, we develop a novel qualitative coding scheme to measure the degree of agency offered in teachers’ written feedback (N=136) and produce a coherent ‘agentic feedback’ variable. In the second study, we find that middle and high school students (N=1,260) are sensitive to the amount of agency provided in teachers’ feedback: they perceive that agentic feedback affords more choice and requires more effort for revision, encourages greater learning and improvement on writing, and that teachers who offer more agentic feedback have higher expectations. We discuss implications for future research and application in classrooms.
... Few studies have investigated the impact of written CF on linguistic complexity, and, in our opinion, studies that did (Chandler, 2003;Robb et al., 1986;Sheppard, 1992) could not come to any warranted conclusions. Sheppard (1992), for example, reported a negative effect of CF on the structural complexity of learners' writing, but in fact his finding was nonsignificant. ...
... Few studies have investigated the impact of written CF on linguistic complexity, and, in our opinion, studies that did (Chandler, 2003;Robb et al., 1986;Sheppard, 1992) could not come to any warranted conclusions. Sheppard (1992), for example, reported a negative effect of CF on the structural complexity of learners' writing, but in fact his finding was nonsignificant. Robb et al. (1986) found that CF had a significant positive effect on written complexity, but they did not include a control group without Corrective Feedback. ...
... as cited in Van Beuningen et al, 2011) concluded that if CF has any value for L2 development, this could only be true for "errors that involve simple problems in relatively discrete items"(Truscott, 2001, p. 94)-such as spelling errors-and not for errors in grammar.A number of studies explored the effects of CF on separate error types, and all reported differing levels of improvement for different types of errors (e.g. ,Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005; Ferris, 2006; Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Frantzen, 1995; Lalande, 1982;Sheppard, 1992).Ferris (2006), for instance, differentiated among five major error categories: verb errors, noun errors, article errors, lexical errors, and sentence errors. ...
Giving Corrective Feedback in students’ writings has got the center of attention in the recent years. The question of whether to give CF to students or not to do so has become a controversial quest. In this research three Truscott’s claims on giving CF were investigated to EFL students’ writing. For the purpose of this investigation Direct Feedback has been used to draw the conclusion on Truscott’s claims. These claims are: (a) correction may have value for non-grammatical errors but not for errors in grammar; (b) students are inclined to avoid more complex constructions due to error correction; and (c) the time spent on CF may be more wisely spent on additional writing practice to improve writing ability. The obtained results indicated that giving CF to students’ grammatical errors has a significant result on their accuracy improvement. The research also showed that students don’t tend to avoid Complex Structures due to the CF provided on these structures. And finally it indicated that in a class without any provided CF and just with doing exercises on a specific subject the accuracy of students decrease during a writing program.
... In a later study, Truscott and Hsu (2008) came to the conclusion that error correction may become harmful to the learning process in L2 writing classrooms, an argument which is supported by other researchers (e.g., Fazio, 2001;Truscott, 2007). In this respect, Kepner (1991), Semke (1984) and Sheppard (1992) argue that students who receive error correction can be affected in a way that makes them tend to simplify and shorten their writing in an attempt to avoid making errors. Moreover, in an empirical study that investigated the effect of only responding to macro level features and the effect of only responding to micro level features, Sheppard (1992) found that the former is likely to improve grammatical accuracy more than the latter (i.e., by only responding to micro level). ...
... In this respect, Kepner (1991), Semke (1984) and Sheppard (1992) argue that students who receive error correction can be affected in a way that makes them tend to simplify and shorten their writing in an attempt to avoid making errors. Moreover, in an empirical study that investigated the effect of only responding to macro level features and the effect of only responding to micro level features, Sheppard (1992) found that the former is likely to improve grammatical accuracy more than the latter (i.e., by only responding to micro level). He explains this by saying that prompting learners to go back and make the meaning of their writing clearer can lead to more learning about the micro level. ...
... Yes: Chandler (2003), Ferris (1995a), Ferris and Helt (2000), Frantzen (1995), Lalande (1982), Robb et al. (1986), Sheppard (1992). ...
Although many researchers have explored the use of Peer Feedback (PF) in writing (e.g., Hu & Lam, 2010), several have reported concerns with this technique, such as a tendency to shift most of the attention to micro features (e.g., mechanics, vocabulary) while giving little attention to macro features such as organisation and coherence (e.g., Van Steendam et al., 2010), even though macro features can be argued to be a highly important aspect of good writing (Truscott, 1996). This is one of the factors that have led researchers (e.g., Gielen et al., 2010b) to propose forms of this technique in which emphasis is placed on particular aspects of the PF process. This study introduces one such form of PF technique which requires learners to focus on macro features in writing and the teacher to focus on micro features, in order to give learners more time to critique essays at a macro level while receiving micro level FB from a reliable source. The study investigates the impact of the introduced form on: learners’ motivation to use PF and to learn writing; learners’ attitudes towards PF and towards writing; learners’ linguistic progress, and learners’ preference for giving and receiving macro and/or micro level feedback when practising PF technique. The research was conducted on 41 Saudi Arabian undergraduate students in their final year of an English degree course. An action research approach was adopted using a one-group design, with the PF activities divided into two consecutive phases. During the first phase, subjects practised the conventional use (i.e, providing PF on macro and micro features) of this technique (T1), while during the second phase they practised the new form of the technique (T2). The data were gathered over 15 weeks from pre-, mid- and post-tests; pre-, mid- and post-questionnaires; mid- and post-interviews; field notes; documentary evidence, and recording of several verbal protocol sessions. The findings suggest that both treatments can have a significant impact on the overall quality of learners’ writing, with the second treatment resulting in significantly better quality. Despite these findings, the learners showed a strong preference for conventional PF, suggesting they have difficulty in accepting the prohibition from providing PF on micro features owing to a negative transfer effect from their previous experience of approaches to teaching writing, which placed a great emphasis on the importance of micro features. It is likely that this transfer effect may be found in other contexts with a similar approach to teaching writing; further research is needed in order to test this hypothesis. In addition, in this study, the participants did not have the chance to see how much better they performed in their post-test, which raises the question of whether or not their views would have changed if they had.
... However, further investigation cleared that those teachers mostly preferred comprehensive WCF as their usual way of offering feedback in the authentic L2 writing classes (Cheng & Zhang, 2021;Ellis et al., 2008;Wei & Cao, 2020) and correspondingly, students desired it more than selective WCF (Lee, 2005;Leki, 1991;McMartin-Miller, 2014). Additionally, comprehensive WCF was found influential in catering for student awareness (e.g., Sheppard, 1992;Storch, 2010). Nonetheless, focused WCF was found more feasible in authentic classrooms to apply (Lee et al., 2021). ...
... Delving into the details of the practice change, corresponding to the previous literature, instructors provided more comprehensive WCF compared to selective WCF in this study (e.g., Cheng & Zhang, 2021;Lee, 2003;Lee, 2008;Sheppard, 1992;Storch, 2010;Wei & Cao, 2020). Their overall preferences did not change after the WCF training. ...
This study examined the formation of writing instructors' written corrective feedback (WCF) philosophies and evaluated the effectiveness of a one-shot WCF training session in facilitating teacher transformation in WCF practices, a common professional development practice to train in- service language instructors at universities. Four writing instructors, with varying levels of experience and educational background, teaching in a school of foreign languages in Türkiye volunteered for the study. Prior to the training, seven essays that the instructors provided WCF for were collected. To expand their knowledge of WCF, the instructors then participated in a one-hour WCF training program, which covered types of WCF, forms of WCF, stages of WCF, the benefits of WCF, and some helpful tips for WCF. After the training, the instructors assessed and provided WCF for an additional seven essays. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and WCF analysis of essays and analyzed using a rubric including all themes covered in the training and a thematic analysis of interview themes. The results suggested instructors' WCF philosophies were shaped by a combination of experience, school policies, and master's education. Furthermore, while the one-shot training program did not entirely transform the instructors' WCF philosophies, it had some impact on their practices.
... Findings from several of these studies displayed no meaningful advantage for WCF (e.g., Kepner, 1991;Polio, Fleck, & Leder, 1998;Semke, 1984). However, several other studies claimed that correction of errors was useful (e.g., Fathman & Whalley, 1990;Ferris, 1997;Lalande, 1982;Robb, Ross, & Shortreed, 1986;Sheppard, 1992). Notably, most of these studies investigated the effects of revision on accuracy improvement, and only a handful of them measured the efficacy of WCF on new writing tasks (Ferris, 2010(Ferris, , 2012. ...
... However, only a few studies compared the impact of various types of feedback, and even among those studies, the results were contradictory. For example, some studies found no differences between different types of feedback (e.g., Robb et al., 1986;Semke, 1984) and some studies discovered that indirect feedback groups performed better than the direct feedback groups (e.g., Lalande, 1982;Sheppard, 1992). There have also been a number of other methodological limitations with these studies, one of which is focusing on revisions only and not measuring accuracy gains in new writings. ...
This study investigated the effects of direct and two types of indirect comprehensive written corrective feedback (WCF) that differed in their degree of explicitness on students' revision accuracy as well as short-term and delayed transfer effects of WCF on new writings over time. Feedback treatment was provided three times to test the durability of the effect of feedback. Participants were fifty-three intermediate level adult ESL students studying at a private ESL school in Canada. In order to explore the differential effects of explicit and implicit WCF on non-grammatical accuracy participants were randomly divided into four groups: direct, two indirect (underlining only and underlining+metalinguistic cues), and control group. Participants were asked to produce four pieces of narrative writing from four different picture prompts. They also had to revise those narratives over a three-week period. To find out the delayed effects of feedback on accuracy, all groups were asked to write a new narrative two weeks after the last WCF treatment. Findings demonstrated that both Direct and Underline only feedback groups made significant gains in non-grammatical accuracy in revision tasks. However, none of the feedback groups displayed any significant short-term and delayed non-grammatical accuracy improvements.
... Previous studies have investigated WCF's effects on or relation to lexical complexity. Sheppard (1992) evaluated WCF's effects on syntactic and lexical complexity in university students' essay writing products. Results suggested that WCF exerted greater effects on the verb forms of lexical complexity than subordination of syntactic complexity. ...
... Additionally, our study extends these insights by highlighting the positive correlation between students' perceptions of writing feedback and their lexical complexity, further corroborating the notion that students' preferences for WCF, particularly provided via peers and AWE, are predictive of lexical complexity. This discovery not only corroborates prior research but also extends it, suggesting the necessity for students to establish co-construction with AWE to enhance their multidimensional lexical capacity (Fazilatfar et al., 2014;Li, 2017;Sheppard, 1992). Moreover, the absence of a clear feedback preference in Profile 1 students aligns with their lower lexical complexity scores, suggesting the potential challenge of juggling diverse feedback sources without a focused preference (Shang, 2022). ...
Within the context of Chinese university education, effective communication in the field of second language writing heavily relies on lexical complexity, yet the role of writing feedback perception in relation to lexical complexity remains elusive. This study introduces a comprehensive writing feedback perception model encompassing perceptions of teacher-, peer-, and automated written corrective (AWE) feedback, alongside two lexical complexity metrics—Uber and Lambda. By employing latent profile analysis, this research profiles Chinese university students based on their writing feedback perceptions and investigates the resultant lexical complexity variations. Analyzing data from 442 participants, three distinct profiles emerged: students demonstrating preference for feedback from all three agents (teachers, peers, and AWE); students with hold preferable perceptions of teacher and AWE feedback; and students exhibiting no preferable perceptions of feedback of any agents. The means of lexical complexity scores differed significantly across the three profiles. Retrodictive qualitative modeling further unveiled the interplay of feedback perceptions, positive AWE attitudes, and language proficiency in shaping lexical complexity. Remarkably, diverse directional influences emerged across the profiles. Our study underscores the intricate dynamics between writing feedback perception and lexical complexity, with implications for enhancing both teacher feedback literacy and students’ feedback perceptions.
... Despite the role feedback plays in the EFL context, however, not very many studies have been conducted to directly look into whether EFL students who receive corrective feedback in a given area do improve as compared with those who do not receive such feedback (Bitchener, Young & Cameron, 2005). Interestingly, most of the studies that have been carried out (for example, Kepner, 1991;Semke, 1984;Sheppard, 1992) report that there is no significant difference in terms of learner improvement. ...
... Some studies have been looking into whether certain types of corrective feedback are more likely than others to help L2 students improve their EFL skills, such as, for example, the accuracy of their writing. Truscott (1996), for example, noted that none (Kepner, 1991;Semke, 1984;Sheppard, 1992) had found significant differences across any of the different treatment groups (content comments only; error correction only; a combination of content comments and error correction; error identification but no correction), yet when the evidence from studies that have considered other feedback distinctions is examined, it is clear that such a conclusion should at this stage be treated with caution (Bitchener, Young & Cameron, 2005). Many EFL teachers, for example, see teacher-student conferences to be potentially more effective than other types of corrective feedback because the one-on-one meetings enable them to clarify, instruct, and negotiate (Ferris, 1995;Ferris & Roberts, 2001), but the absence of published empirical research on this means that this popularly held belief cannot be taken as evidence of effectiveness. ...
Writing and speaking are termed productive or active skills due to the fact that learners need to produce language when doing these. As EFL teaching is increasingly becoming more and more oriented toward helping learners develop and improve their communicative competence, it is not surprising that speaking and writing skills are becoming ever-more important. Though it goes without saying that speaking and writing undoubtedly go hand in hand with the receptive skills, reading and listening, EFL learners, and instructors, are, nevertheless, focusing their attention on improving speaking and writing skills. This is why it is so significant that clear and objective criteria is established and provided in the EFL teaching and learning environment, as this criteria will benefit not only the learners, but the teachers as well. As assessment is an integral part of the teaching and learning process, it goes without saying that learners are bound to find themselves receiving some kind of feedback at some point in their acquisition of these skills. However, the issue that arises is the fact that this assessment tends to be seen by many learners as subjective rather than objective, which is not the case with assessing listening and reading comprehension, for example, where it is easier to pinpoint the mistakes. This paper takes a closer look at what this includes, and how it can be done, without disrupting either the teachers’ or the learners’ autonomy, and hence make the whole process that much smoother.
... Since Truscott published his 1996 article, "The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes", debate has been heatedly generated ever since. Concluded from studies done by Kepner (1991), Semke (1984), Robb et al (1986), andSheppard (1992), Truscott argued that error correction, specifically grammar correction, was "not only unhelpful in these studies but actually hinders the learning process" (Truscott, 1996, p.333). ...
... Investigations were also probed into the effects of different feedback strategies on improved accuracy in L2 students' writing. However, by using a meta-analysis to see the actual effect size of error correction, Truscott (2007) re-examined some of the controlled experiments (Sheppard, 1992;Kepner, 1991;Smeke;1980, 1984Fazio;Polio et al. 1998), and found the effect size shown in these studies were "merely ineffective or mildly harmful" (p.p. 262-263)", regardless of the various types of feedbacks were given. In examining the additional evidence which looked at the given gains by corrected students without control groups for comparison (Lalande, 1982; Chandler 2003, Fazio, 2001Polio et al. ,1998;Bitchener et al., 2005;Ferris , 2006), Truscott (2007) pointed out that only Chandler's study (2003) yielded significant effect size of error feedback on students' L2 writing. ...
This paper aims to investigate the effect of teacher’s error correction feedback on EFL students’ ability to correct their own writing errors for better accuracy. It intends to find out whether the instructor’s explicit error feedback followed by students’ extensive revisions, has any effect on students’ ability in revising their errors with their own writing pieces. A group of nineteen EFL Taiwanese college students, with low to intermediate English level proficiency, participated in this study. The results indicated that the effect of teachers’ error feedback on students’ ability to self-correct was not significant. Most of the errors, after given extensive feedback and revision, were not significantly revised after a three-month interval. The result of this case study tends to support the claim that teachers’ error feedback does not help much with EFL students improving their writing accuracy. Other findings regarding students’ interpretation towards their writing errors and unsatisfactory self-correction results and teacher’s perspective and observation are discussed.
... In some earlier studies, corrective feedback of written errors did not prove particularly useful as the students who received correction and those who did not differed insignificantly in writing accuracy (e.g. Robb et al., 1986;Sheppard, 1992). In some more recent studies, feedback has proved to be beneficial to students' writing accuracy (Bitchener, 2017;Bitchener & Storch, 2016;Bruton, 2010;Chandler, 2009;Chen & Nassaji, 2018;Ferris 2006;Kang & Han, 2015;Karim & Nassaji, 2019), though the degree to which it can improve L2 writing is still debatable (Karim & Nassaji, 2019). ...
... Thus, too much feedback can hinder students' achievement as they might feel controlled, which results in putting less effort into learning activities. Therefore, as it was confirmed previously by the great majority of studies, correction should take place in EFL classrooms, since it improves students' accuracy (see Kepner, 1991;Sheppard, 1992), but teachers should be cautious as to how frequently they employ it especially during speaking activities. To sum up, it seems that learners with positive attitude towards CF will benefit more from correction and will, thus, succeed in increasing their language proficiency than those with negative attitudes as correction can impact the scope of their engagement in learning activities (Sheen, 2007). ...
Introduction. Despite the fact that error correction has significant and long-term effects on facilitating language learning and development, there has not been any research that investigates its influence on learners' motivation within the classroom context of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Purpose. This research aims to examine the impact of written and oral corrective feedback on students' motivation and achievement within this EFL context.
Method. For this quantitative study, the questionnaire has been used to collect the data from 160 middle and high school students in central Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Results. The findings indicated that the respondents generally like to be corrected and they are moderately to highly motivated to speak and write in English as a foreign language. Furthermore, learners with positive attitudes towards the received feedback feel significantly more motivated to keep learning than those with negative attitudes.
Conclusion. The study is expected to provide teachers with suggestions on how to transform their classrooms into an environment conducive to the development of higher levels of writing and speaking motivation and how to provide corrective feedback that will positively influence students' EFL achievement.
... Studies and articles have typically been launched with distinct domains based on opposing points of view; for example, those presenting evidence for the ineffectiveness of CF and those advocating for its provision. Among the researchers who hold the position that the CF does not provide any significant effect on language learning [18,[38][39][40][41][42] were few of them; however, Truscott is known to be at the heart of the argument having the most extremist viewpoints on downplaying the role of CF in classrooms. In his advocacy against CF, he underlined the psychological effect that may inflict on the learners and the fact that he thought feedback had a very negligible impact on the learning process. ...
... Regarding this, even scholars with the same stance as Truscott, such as Kepner [39], who compared the feedback on grammatical structure with feedback on the content of the writing of students, reached on a conclusion that those who received feedback on content performed better in their papers. A similar result was reported by Sheppard [40], who was one of the opponents of the role of CF. ...
An increasing number of studies have confirmed that written corrective feedback (hereafter WCF) is vital for improving learners’ L2 writing. However, many scholars could not agree whether this improvement was due to direct, indirect, or both forms of WCF. Thus, this study first investigated the role of WCF students’ writing achievement; it then investigated if there was a statistically significant difference in writing achievement between groups that received direct and indirect WCF forms. To this end, a quasi-experimental research design involving three intact first-year classes from a university found in northwest Ethiopia was used. Two experimental groups and one comparison group of learners were participants in this study. Test scores analyzed by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) revealed that WCF has an influential role in enhancing learners’ writing performance. Moreover, this study showed that learners in the direct WCF accompanied by a metalinguistic explanation group outperformed their counterparts in the indirect WCF group in writing paragraphs. Based on the study’s findings, it is possible to conclude that the provision of WCF is vital in the Ethiopian context; moreover, learners could benefit more from using linguistic structures correctly if metalinguistic explanations accompany the provision of direct WCF.
... However, a number of renowned researchers have challenged that the gains obtained from the provision of corrective feedback can stand the test of time. Classic work on feedback provision (Semke, 1984;Fathman & Whalley, 1990;Kepner, 1991;Sheppard, 1992) claimed that corrective feedback was only momentarily constructive. Truscott (1996) and his advocates (Polio et al., 1998;Fazio, 2001;Chandler, 2003;Truscott and Hsu, 2008) did not only cast doubt on the effectiveness of feedback provision, but they also dared to claim that it could be harmful. ...
... What this basically means is that language acquisition involves subtle processes that require more than just a collection of discrete items. Roughly equivalent to Sheppard's (1992) holistic comments, global approaches towards corrective feedback would establish a meaningful whole. ...
The goal of this research was to find out which corrective feedback technique would be most effective in some EFL contexts. Concisely, we wanted to find out whether the feedback techniques commonly used in this context (namely indirect feedback and oral meta-linguistic explanation) were structure-, learner-, and task-dependent. We chose to experiment with all the functional uses of one linguistic structure, namely adjective clauses. Whereas the experimental group received two types of feedback (indirect coded written corrective feedback and oral meta-linguistic feedback), the control group received no corrective feedback at all on the targeted features. The findings showed that the experimental group’s linguistic accuracy in using adjectival clauses improved far better than that of the control group. However, this improvement, quite expectedly, declined gradually over the course of time; hence the experimental group’s linguistic accuracy was a little better on the immediate posttest than on the delayed post-test. Our argument was that a combination of indirect feedback and meta-linguistic explanation would be rewarding for adult learners with low-proficiency levels probably because such feedback techniques require them to exert maximum cognitive effort, especially when getting engaged in a problem-solving process.
... Studies of the effect of WCF on written complexity have, to date, yielded conflicting findings. Sheppard (1992) found a negative effect for WCF on structural complexity, but in fact, his finding was non-significant. Robb et al. (1986) found a significant positive effect for indirect CF on one of their complexity measures but this study did not include a control group who did not receive WCF. ...
... However, not all the studies in this line of research had positive results. Some studies, such as Kepner (1991), Polio andFleck (1998), and Sheppard (1992), failed to find evidence of learning from corrective feedback. Their studies found no significant effects on learning due to corrective feedback in the analysis of new writing tasks. ...
This study investigated (i) the effects of direct and indirect focused written corrective feedback (WCF) on the grammatical accuracy of Bhutanese grade eight students’ (n = 45) with high, average and low levels of English language proficiency. The grammatical accuracy was measured in two targeted error areas, past tense and articles. The study also explored (ii) the extent to which the use of WCF may affect the syntactic complexity in written outputs of Bhutanese students with high, average and low levels of English language proficiency. Forty five students were selected using convenience sampling from two sections of grade eight, followed by dividing them into three levels of English language proficiency (high, average and low) using purposive sampling. They were further randomly assigned from the three proficiency levels into two treatment groups and one control group. The study followed a true experimental design in which a control group (no WCF) and two treatment groups (direct WCF and indirect WCF) wrote narrative essays on a given topic for the pretest, followed by three treatment sessions, posttest and delayed posttest. The treatment instrument used was direct WCF and indirect WCF for two treatment groups and no WCF for control group. Narrative essay writing was used to collect data for the study. It is revealed that the indirect WCF group (M = 75.26, SD =12.83) outperformed significantly on the grammatical accuracy measures taken at posttest when compared with the direct WCF group (M = 60.98, SD = 13.14) and the control group (M = 56.64, SD = 20.42). In addition, it was also found that the use of WCF did not affect the syntactic complexity of the students’ writing. The findings suggest that indirect WCF might be an appropriate tool within Bhutanese context to improve students’ written grammatical accuracy when implemented in a sustained and extensive manner.
... First, it is hard to know whether Truscott is cherry-picking only those studies that support his side of the argument, and second, he draws conclusions from the studies that may not necessarily be shared by the authors. On the second point, for instance, Truscott equates the equal gains made by content-only and grammar-only correction groups in one study (Sheppard, 1992) as evidence that grammar correction is unhelpful. Based on the logic, it is hard to square such grammatical improvement with actually being unhelpful. ...
This paper examines the effect of written corrective feedback (WCF) on eliminating sentence-initial conjunctions (SICs) from paragraphs written by Japanese university students in an English as a foreign language course. This research has shown that East Asian learners tend to overuse SICs, and the paper first discusses possible motivations for doing so. The paper then addresses WCF, analyzing the arguments for and against it while providing a taxonomy of the four major types, along with studies that support each type. The paper subsequently presents a study in which 28 first-year Japanese students completed two writing assignments while receiving a sequence of different types of WCF, along with a grammar intervention, in attempts to eliminate SICs from their work. The results showed that error rates only minimally decreased when students were provided a grammar intervention or WCF that did not include the target structure. It was only when the instructor provided WCF for the target structure that the error rates plummeted to nearly zero. In the following discussion, the researcher concludes that process writing can significantly reduce specific grammatical errors, but only if students receive WCF that addresses these errors at some point in their learning.
... This is in line with some researchers who already did researches on the form-written feedback on writing. They are Kepner (1991) and Sheppard (1992). They argue that the grammar corrections or correction on forms do not have a positive effect on the development of L2 writing accuracy. ...
This research was based on a phenomenon that the students’ writing ability was still low. It was assumed that there were two main factors influencing the students’ writing. One of them was about facilitating the students with appropriate written feedbacks. In line with that, this research was a kind of descriptive study, which was aimed at finding a deep description of the implementation of minimal marking technique given by teachers at MAN Koto Baru Padang Panjang. Participants of the research were all English teachers there. Furthermore, the data were collected by using two instruments, documents and interview. There were two findings of the research. First, almost all of the written feedback items given through the minimal marking technique were provided to help students working on their grammatical mistakes or forms of the writing, it was proven by the percentage that 99.66% of the written feedback items were focused on forms whereas only 0.34% of the written feedback items were focused on contents. Second, the written feedback technique applied by the English teachers was minimal marking technique. It is used since it is effective for teachers, particularly, in the process of giving the feedback which is time-saving. In addition, it also helps the students to be a critical writer because this technique lets the students working on the mistakes they have made.
... There is substantial debate in the field of explicit mistake correction, specifically concerning whether such correction aids students in strengthening the precision and quality of their writing in second language or foreign language contexts [9,10]. Studies [11][12][13] suggest that teachers of writing in both second language and foreign language contexts should offer comments on the content and organization of their students' work. However, research on pedagogy demonstrates that instructors' feedback often focuses on form rather than substance [14]. ...
The purpose of this study was to investigate the feedback of English as a Second Language (ESL) learners on their writing skills, with a focus on exploring ESL students' progress in writing skills based on tenses through open-source software. The software is employed to assess each student's improvement. This research follows a qualitative method, and data were collected through semi-structured interviews and the think-aloud protocol. The results are categorized into four main areas: (a) Feedback provided by students; (b) Students' perception of tenses and writing skills; (c) Students' views on teachers' teaching; and (d) practice through open-source software. The study revealed that ESL students had a positive perception of tenses, and their writing skills were enhanced by the semi-structured interviews conducted by ESL learners. The conclusion of the study highlighted that students themselves could recognize improvements in their syntax errors and sentence formation, with very few exceptions. It is advisable for teachers to incorporate a variety of proper grammatical topics in the future to assist students in improving their writing abilities.
... Chun et al. (1982) carried out a study on corrective feedback and claimed that teacher feedback rarely occurred in the language classroom, and in most cases, it was employed carelessly and was not noticed by the learners. In the same line, Sheppard (1992) applied two different kinds of feedback to an essay writing class. The learners consisted of two groups: Group A received coded error feedback, focusing on the error's type and location. ...
Grammatical accuracy has been controversial in L2 writing, and the utility of different types of corrective feedback has been enigmatic. Therefore, the present study attempted to explicate the impact of intensive versus extensive recasts through grammar-focused tasks on Iranian EFL learners' grammatical accuracy in writing. To do so, 60 Iranian male and female EFL learners were assigned into two experimental groups (i.e., intensive and extensive groups) and one control group. After taking the Oxford Placement Test (OPT), the experimental groups received intended corrective feedback, while the control group did not receive any feedback. Then, the data were analyzed deploying both descriptive and inferential statistics. The results revealed the outperformance of experimental groups compared to the control group in the writing post-test. Also, it was concluded that extensive recast can improve EFL learners' writing performance much better than intensive recast. The findings have some fruitful pedagogical implications for both teachers and materials developers. Original Research
... Lyster and Ranta (1997) report that recasts, repeating the learners' utterance without the error, are the most frequent type of corrective feedback, although its effectiveness varies with individuals and the context (Han, 2002). The effectiveness of written feedback has also been questioned (Sheppard, 1992) although explicit form-focused instruction together with feedback has been found to be successful (Ellis, 2009;Hyland, 2011;Lopez-Ozieblo, 2021). ...
... There is substantial debate in the field of explicit mistake correction, specifically concerning whether such correction aids students in strengthening the precision and quality of their writing in second language or foreign language contexts [9,10]. Studies [11][12][13] suggest that teachers of writing in both second language and foreign language contexts should offer comments on the content and organization of their students' work. However, research on pedagogy demonstrates that instructors' feedback often focuses on form rather than substance [14]. ...
The purpose of this study was to investigate the feedback of English as a Second Language (ESL) learners on their writing skills, with a focus on exploring ESL students' progress in writing skills based on tenses through open-source software. The software is employed to assess each student's improvement. This research follows a qualitative method, and data were collected through semi-structured interviews and the think-aloud protocol. The results are categorized into four main areas: (a) Feedback provided by students; (b) Students' perception of tenses and writing skills; (c) Students' views on teachers' teaching; and (d) practice through open-source software. The study revealed that ESL students had a positive perception of tenses, and their writing skills were enhanced by the semi-structured interviews conducted by ESL learners. The conclusion of the study highlighted that students themselves could recognize improvements in their syntax errors and sentence formation, with very few exceptions. It is advisable for teachers to incorporate a variety of proper grammatical topics in the future to assist students in improving their writing abilities.
... This is in line with some researchers who already did researches on the form-written feedback on writing. They are Kepner (1991) and Sheppard (1992). They argue that the grammar corrections or correction on forms do not have a positive effect on the development of L2 writing accuracy. ...
This research was based on a phenomenon that the students’ writing ability was still low. It was assumed that there were two main factors influencing the students’ writing. One of them was about facilitating the students with appropriate written feedbacks. In line with that, this research was a kind of descriptive study, which was aimed at finding a deep description of the implementation of written feedback at MAN Koto Baru Padang Panjang. Participants of the research were all English teachers there. Furthermore, the data were collected by using two instruments, documents and interview. There were two findings of the research. First, almost all of the written feedback items were provided to help students working on their grammatical mistakes or forms of the writing, it was proven by the percentage that 99.66% of the written feedback items were focused on forms whereas only 0.34% of the written feedback items were focused on contents. Second, the technique used in giving the written feedback was written commentary. This technique was used due to its effectiveness in helping the students’ writing. In short, giving written feedback through the written commentary technique is really worth for the development of students’ writing, especially for non-native of English.
... These studies, conducted between 1982 and 2004, investigated the effects of WCF versus no WCF. While some of these studies demonstrated no effect of WCF (Kepner, 1991;Polio et al., 1998;Semke, 1984, Robb et al., 1986, others showed that WCF had a positive effect (Fathman & Whalley, 1990;Ferris & Roberts, 2001;Lalande, 1982;Sheppard, 1992). However, studies that demonstrated that WCF was effective in improving students' writing accuracy were not without methodological limitations. ...
The current study provides literature review on research conducted over the past four decades focused on written corrective feedback (WCF). This metanalysis reveals that, although the field of WCF has matured, there is still considerable debate among research scholars over its efficacy. This article provides a synthesis of the literature on WCR in five areas the efficacy: (1) of WCF, in general; (2) of different forms of WCF; (3) of focused versus unfocused WCF; (4) of WCF on revised and new pieces of writing; and (5) of the results of WCF studies and the instructional context. Research has thus shown the general usefulness of WCF and examined a host of variables that influence it, such as the focus of the WCF, the nature of the target grammatical structure, forms of WCF, and instructional teaching context. Resumen El estudio actual proporciona una revisión de la literatura sobre la investigación realizada durante las últimas cuatro décadas centradas en la retroalimentación correctiva escrita (WCF). Este metanálisis revela que, aunque el campo de WCF ha madurado, todavía existe un debate considerable entre los investigadores sobre su eficacia. Este artículo proporciona una síntesis de la literatura sobre WCR en cinco áreas de eficacia: (1) de WCF, en general; (2) de diferentes formas de WCF; (3) de WCF enfocado versus no enfocado; (4) de WCF sobre escritos nuevos y revisados; y (5) de los resultados de los estudios WCF y el contexto educativo. Por lo tanto, la investigación ha demostrado la utilidad general de WCF y examinado una serie de variables que influyen en ella, como el enfoque de WCF, la naturaleza de la estructura gramatical objetivo, las formas de WCF y el contexto de enseñanza de instrucción.
... Similar studies to the one I have made include Lalande (1982), Fathman and Whalley (1990), Goring-Kepner (1991), Sheppard (1992), Frantzen (1995), Ashwell (2000), Fazio (2001), and Chandler (2003). Their studies all included groups who were receiving feedback on form or content feedback, or both. ...
Significant research on error correction and methods of providing corrective feedback on students' written assignments has been conducted over the last two decades. Predominant methods range between the two ends of the continuum: form-and content-related feedback. Widely used techniques include: direct error correction, indirect content feedback, oral conferences, peer feedback and self-correction. The bone of contention seems to be the dilemma whether grammar errors should be corrected or not. Dana R. Ferris (2002) is in favour of the stance that initially it is content that ought to be commented on, while grammar errors should be corrected in the final stages of the writing process. This article aims to test this hypothesis and provide insight into possible effective ways of written feedback. To this end, a small-scale longitudinal study was conducted with 20 ESL students over the course of a two-month period. The control group was initially given grammar-related comments, whereas the experimental group first received feedback which was pertinent to content. Results have shown that the latter is a slightly more effective way of correcting students' writing in lower levels of language proficiency.
... Some studies, for instance, have concluded that direct feedback is more productive as it offers sufficient information to figure out grammatical errors, especially complicated ones, and helps L2 learners deal with any confusion in processing the feedback (Benson & DeKeyser, 2019;Bitchener & Knoch, 2010;Ellis et al., 2008;Kim & Bowles, 2020;Lim & Renandya, 2020;Sheen, 2007;Shintani & Ellis, 2013;Van Beuningen et al., 2012). However, other studies have pointed out to an advantage for indirect feedback as it involves students in discovery learning and thus promotes learner autonomy (Ferris 2003(Ferris , 2006Sheppard, 1992). ...
Written corrective feedback (WCF) has gained considerable attention from both researchers and teachers in the field of English language teaching (ELT). Although a large bulk of research on WCF has focused on the link between different feedback types and language development, more research is needed to understand how language learners perceive written corrective feedback and what feedback practices they favor more than others. Therefore, this study aims to investigate Turkish EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback in terms of the feedback strategies employed in their classrooms as well as their revision practices upon getting feedback. 90 Turkish Intermediate EFL undergraduates from a public university in Turkey completed a 21-item Likert-scale questionnaire online. Using descriptive statistics, the questionnaire data were analyzed. The findings showed that the learners’ perceptions and their teachers’ feedback practices mostly aligned, and most learners preferred to receive comprehensive and indirect feedback that focuses on grammatical, mechanical, and lexical errors rather than organization and content. These findings highlighted the importance of learner expectations in relation to the perceived efficacy of feedback practices.
... Therefore, he suggests that grammar correction should be avoided or abandoned. Truscott (1996) bases his rejection of error feedback on his review of the research findings (e.g., Kepner, 1991;Sheppard, 1992) which show that feedback had very little or no impact on student writing improvement. Thus, in Truscott's view, feedback is ineffective and unhelpful. ...
... While some researchers (e.g. Sheppard, 1992;Truscott, 1996; are against the use of written corrective feedback by claiming that it does not promote accurate writing, there are also various studies (e.g. Chandler, 2003;Ferris, 2006;Bitchener & Knoch, 2008) supporting the idea that it has potential to improve learners' grammatical accuracy in their writing. ...
In language education, instructor’s feedback is considered to be of high value as it provides learners with individualized attention. Regarding the absence of personal interaction between learners and instructors in remote teaching, it is expected that instructor’s feedback plays a more significant role compared to the case in face-to-face education because it does not only help to increase learners’ performance in the target language and but it also serves as a tool in building a strong relationship between learners and instructor. Based on this, the present paper which was designed as a case study attempted to reveal university level English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ perspectives on written feedback given by their instructor on their writing assignments on the distance education platform of the university in emergency remote teaching. The data were collected through interviews conducted with eight English preparatory class students and the instructor’s research diary. Thematic analysis was carried out on the collected data. The findings showed the interviewees had positive viewpoints about the instructor’s written feedback. They stated that the instructor’s feedback had an interpersonal side, gave them affective support and helped them improve in the target language. Moreover, the use of online distance education platform for giving feedback was found to be useful by the interviewees in that it provided the learners with the opportunity to have access to the feedback documents whenever they wanted. The results may imply new insights into the way foreign language instructors give written feedback.
... There exists research-based evidence that bolsters the importance and effects of written corrective feedback on students' progress in written accuracy over time (Chandler, 2000;Sheppard, 1992). Despite not being conclusive to the ultimate success of corrective feedback types in improving the overall quality of students' written products, these studies provide evidence for the short-term effects of these feedback types. ...
... Countering Truscott (1996), Ferris (1999) argued for the benefits of a clear and selective WCF. She further criticised the former's evidence and methodology, maintaining that: a) subjects across studies were incomparable; (b) research paradigms and teaching strategies varied widely across these studies; and (c) he overstated negative evidence while disregarding research contradicting his thesis, namely Lalande (1982), Fathman and Whalley (1990), and Sheppard (1992). In conclusion, there was no sufficient reason to abandon the longstanding tradition of correcting errors (Ferris 1999). ...
In the field of Second Language (L2) Acquisition, writing is nowadays observed as a tool to facilitate the learning process rather than a mere result of it. Errors are an inextricable part of the L2 writing learning process. Some teachers and learners consider them as a purely negative phenomenon, that is, something to avoid. For others, however, errors are learning opportunities that are necessary to the learning process. Regardless of which position is adopted, all L2 learners commit errors and most teachers correct or provide feedback to them, which is generally seen as a valuable and necessary practice in the L2 classroom. Why should there be such a controversy about this issue?
Whether Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) − also known as “error correction” − facilitates L2 learners’ improvement of their writing skills remains a polemic topic in L2 studies. The debate was initiated by Truscott’s (1996) review article, where he purported that grammar correction is ineffective and potentially counterproductive for L2 learners and should therefore be abandoned. In response to this assertion, researchers argued that WCF could be beneficial for some learners when a clearly targeted correction is made. They also pointed out that Truscott’s investigation was methodologically flawed and his research evidence too limited to support such a strong claim. Truscott’s critics could not find any reason to justify abandoning error correction in foreign language pedagogy, although there was a scholarly agreement at the time that existing research evidence remained inconclusive in determining the efficacy of error. This signalled a specific call for more carefully designed longitudinal studies, including a control group that received no feedback at all. Subsequently, many experimental studies were conducted addressing the efficacy of WFC and trying to overcome the shortcomings of prior research.
This article offers a review of empirical studies on WCF from 1996 onwards, examining their findings and limitations, in an attempt to extract new pedagogical and research implications. Research suggests that correcting L2 learners’ errors improves writing accuracy and might facilitate acquisition in the long term, provided that the WCF is consciously prepared and adapted to the L2 learners’ needs. It also seems that WCF benefits L2 learners independently of the medium (e.g., digital, via the teacher) and the time frame of the feedback (i.e. synchronous or asynchronous) provided. Nonetheless, more mixed-methods longitudinal studies, clearly differentiating error types and diligently tracking L2 learners’ development, would unquestionably move research forward.
... Semke (1980Semke ( , 1984 and Polio, Fleck, and Leder (1998) found essentially no effect at all for WCF. Sheppard (1992) found substantial negative effects. I am not aware of any pre-2001 studies that found WCF beneficial in any meaningful way. ...
Lim and Renandya's (2020) meta-analysis on the effectiveness of written corrective feedback concluded that the practice is effective and should be used by teachers. This paper critically examines the meta-analysis and challenges its conclusion. The average effect size of the 35 included studies is unimpressive, even if taken at face value. The authors reported strong effects for 13 of the studies, while for the other 22 overall results were dismal. Of the 13, five or six (including the top two) focused on the same very simple target and largely disregarded possible harmful effects (found in subsequent research). Most of these used procedures that both biased them toward favorable results and distanced them from practical issues of classroom practice. Of the remaining seven strong-effect studies, only one provides support for the use of WCF, and that only in a narrow, specialized context. For the other six, the strong effect sizes are the product of a variety of fundamental problems in the way they were determined and in the studies themselves. The meta-analysis also inappropriately excluded (at least) eight relevant studies, all except one of which obtained very poor results.
... For example, Kepner (1991) and Semke (1984) indicated that teachers' feedback did not help students learn a second language. Conversely, Fathman and Whalley (1994) and Sheppard (1992) showed that teachers' corrective feedback addressed content and form errors in writing tasks. Moreover, Sommers (1982) reported that students received vague and meaningless comments from teachers. ...
This study explored the feedback practices of secondary school teachers of English as a foreign language in Tanzania. It employed the mixed approach using a concurrent embedded design to collect data from 22 secondary schools in six districts of the Kilimanjaro region. From convenient sampling, 22 Form Three teachers filled in questionnaires; six of whom participated in semi-structured interviews. A documentary review collected information on teachers' feedback practices from 176 students' written texts using purposive random sampling. Cronbach’s alpha was .800 and .766, indicating high and acceptable reliability of the questionnaire items. Besides, the reliability of qualitative data was established by interrater and member checks. Findings showed that the teachers marked students' written tasks using a holistic approach, focusing mainly on content errors. They paid little attention to form errors using indirect feedback strategies. The written comments were also controlling and judgmental. The teachers had a positive belief about feedback in writing lessons, but there was a mismatch between what the teachers perceived to do and their actual feedback practices. Such practices were influenced by inadequate training, a large number of students, a shortage of time and too many written errors for teachers to handle. Feedback practices that would help students develop writing skills in both form and content should be encouraged among teachers. Teachers also need professional development on feedback practices for effective writing lessons.
... Research on WCF started with the studies that investigated its efficacy in general (e.g., Fazio, 2001;Ferris, 1999;Sheppard, 1992;Truscott, 1996). Later, studies on WCF aimed at identifying the most effective strategies for providing WCF that sparked off a dichotomy of various approaches to WCF-namely, direct vs. indirect and focused vs. comprehensive. ...
Implicit theory (Dweck, 2000) suggests that learners’ theories about the malleability of their individual traits (learning style, here) determine the extent to which they can stretch their learning style (Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014; Young, 2010) and benefit from the instruction that mismatches their preferred styles. The present study aimed at investigating the extent to which Iranian EFL learners with inductive vs. deductive learning styles would benefit from the written corrective feedback (WCF) that does not match their learning styles (i.e., implicit vs. explicit WCF). The study also examined if their success (or lack of) in style stretching and improving their written accuracy is due to the implicit theory (entity vs. incremental) they hold about their learning style. The result showed that students with an incremental theory significantly improved their written accuracy more than those with an entity theory. Also, the findings revealed that inductive learners were more successful in adapting to the mismatched WCF (explicit) and made greater improvement in their written accuracy than deductive students who received implicit WCF.
... He reviewed a large number of studies which show that written correction does not lead to more accuracy in the long run. Sheppard (1992) for example, concluded in his study, where he tested the effects of explicit correction versus content-focused feedback, that students who were constantly corrected developed an avoidance strategy for the critical forms and hence produced language of lesser complexity. According to this rationale error correction can actually be harmful for language learning, although it is questionable if such an avoidance strategy could also be observed in naturalistic settings or if it is a consequence of the judgmental nature of a classroom. ...
For almost as long as the computer has been around, there have been computer applications that aimed to aid second language learning. Despite their long history, language learning apps do not seem to use their full potential and include all concepts that are currently considered important by language learning scientists. This work aims to analyze contemporary language learning apps with regards to their implementation of scientific findings from Second Language Acquisition theory. The results show that most applications lack exercises for language production and interaction. Apps that include interaction with other humans generally fulfill more criteria for beneficial language learning than those that are entirely digital. Moreover, even those concepts, that would be easy to implement digitally, are only insufficiently implemented by most applications.
... e contradiction between high-and low-effect sizes mainly exists between direct and indirect, and explicit and implicit categories. Such conflicting research results are not accidental, and there has long been a considerable controversy about the effect of CF in academic circles [19][20][21]. As a group of variables in subgroup analysis, different types of CF produce different effect sizes, which needs further exploration. ...
Corrective feedback (CF) is provided to learners to rectify errors. In recent years, the study of CF in oral and written forms has attracted considerable attention in language acquisition studies. Some studies have comprehensively summarized the effects of CF through meta-analysis, but there are still some differences and limitations in CF meta-analysis, which need to be resurveyed. Based on the findings of a meta-analysis of five different types of CF, this study evaluates the procedures, ideas, and conclusions of the CF meta-analysis. The findings show that different types of CF effects have inconsistent and conflicting findings because of different data sources, variable collinearities, learner differences, and effect generation differences. Consequently, the research systematically discusses the publication bias, the influence of learner variables, the method of measurement for each type of effect, and the connotations of the meta-analysis results.
... Also, it is unlikely that the corrections would correspond with the natural sequences of acquisition. Truscott's thesis against grammar correction is supported by a body of empirical research studies (e.g., Cohen & Robbins, 1976;Frantzen & Rissel, 1987;Hendrickson, 1978;Kepner, 1991;Semke, 1984;Sheppard, 1992;Robb, Ross, & Shortreed, 1986). ...
The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of written corrective feedback (WCF) on grammatical errors as a method for improving English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing. The research questions we asked were what the most commonly occurring errors are in Korean students' English writing and whether WCF leads to the improvement of grammatical accuracy. Thirty-one Korean college students participated in an experiment which lasted for 12 weeks from March 30 until June 19 in 2015. In the experiment each participant took two-hour long writing classes and received WCF on grammatical errors in four essays. The results of the study showed that the most common errors were in the use of articles, prepositions, punctuation, verb-formation, and singular for plural, which is consistent with earlier studies (Cha, 1990; Han, 2014). It was found, however, that there was not a statistically significant difference between pre-and post-tests in terms of accuracy, suggesting that WCF is not helpful for improving grammatical accuracy of L2 writing. Informal interviews with seven participants revealed four possible reasons as to the ineffectiveness of WCF as a method of improving EFL writing: ① students' beliefs that grammatical errors are inherent and consequently inevitable parts of L2 writing; ② instructors' unclear feedback; ③ habit-formed errors; and ④ intimidating red-pen based corrections.
... The findings are also in contrast with Sheppard (1992) and Fazio (2001) who did not report a positive role for corrective feedback on the learners' writing accuracy improvement to the factor of practice effect. The findings of the study are consistent with Ashwell (2000) and Ferris and Roberts' (2001) claim that corrective feedback has some beneficial effects on learners' improvement in writing. ...
Dubliners by James Joyce provides a candid portrayal of the early 20th century Irish capital, with its overwhelming paralysis
and stagnation that affects the life of every citizen, despite their age, gender or social standing. Dubliners find it hard to
avoid the debilitating influence of their environment and although they are unable to break the mould and change the
situation, they still resort to coping mechanisms like drinking, self-imposed isolation or violence to forget the grim reality.
The paper discusses the incidents of violence in two stories by Joyce - A Little Cloud and Counterparts. The stories belong
to the same, adulthood cycle of the collection, but the protagonists are quite different in their age, characteristic features
or lifestyle. Still, both stories refer to violence as a coping mechanism, a means of escaping from reality. The paper
discusses similarities and differences between these two cases.
Key words: Dublin, paralysis, coping mechanism, violence, escape, isolation
Content creation today often takes place via collaborative writing. A longstanding interest of CSCW research lies in understanding and promoting the coordination between co-writers. However, little attention has been paid to individuals who write in their non-native language and to co-writer groups involving them. We present a mixed-method study that fills the above gap. Our participants included 32 co-writer groups, each consisting of one native speaker (NS) of English and one non-native speaker (NNS) with limited proficiency. They performed collaborative writing adopting two different workflows: half of the groups began with NNSs taking the first editing turn and half had NNSs act after NSs. Our data revealed a 'late-mover disadvantage' exclusively experienced by NNSs: an NNS's ideational contributions to the joint document were suppressed when their editing turn was placed after an NS's turn, as opposed to ahead of it. Surprisingly, editing help provided by AI-powered tools did not exempt NNSs from being disadvantaged. Instead, it triggered NSs' overestimation of NNSs' English proficiency and agency displayed in the writing, introducing unintended tensions into the collaboration. These findings shed light on the fair assessment and effective promotion of a co-writer's contributions in language diverse settings. In particular, they underscore the necessity of disentangling contributions made to the ideational, expressional, and lexical aspects of the joint writing.
Résumé
Ce travail compare les effets du feedback correctif (FC) direct et indirect sur la réécriture du texte et les subséquentes productions de 26 apprenants francophones de l’italien LV3. L’impact de leur engagement lors du traitement du FC est également évalué. Les apprenants ont été répartis en trois groupes (feedback direct, feedback indirect et groupe contrôle). Le protocole d’enquête a prévu un pré-test, une phase d’administration du FC, ainsi qu’un post-test immédiat et différé. Les groupes expérimentaux obtiennent de meilleurs résultats par rapport au groupe contrôle dans la réécriture du texte et dans les productions subséquentes. À un niveau d’engagement plus élevé lors du traitement du FC correspondent de meilleurs résultats dans la réécriture du texte. Le FC indirect conduit les apprenants à s’engager davantage dans le traitement, ce qui leur permet de corriger leurs erreurs dans la réécriture. Cet effort serait atténué, dans le plus long terme, par le fait de ne pas savoir si leurs hypothèses de résolution sont correctes. Le FC direct, qui donne de l’input en langue cible et la possibilité de le traiter immédiatement, porte les apprenants à améliorer davantage la correction de leurs subséquentes productions.
Dialogue journals (DJs) are a type of extensive writing assignment, in which students write for the purpose of communication with their instructor. Previous research has shown that DJs can help students develop writing skills; however, few studies have analyzed how DJs compare with traditional prompt‐based assignments (TAs). The present study, therefore, presents a quasi‐experimental comparison of texts from first‐ and second‐year German classrooms that used either DJs or TAs. Analysis focused on five metrics: (1) word count, (2) sentence count, (3) words per sentence, (4) text‐type ratio (TTR), and (5) measure of textual lexical diversity (MTLD). Results for word and sentence count indicated that TA texts were longer. However, DJs resulted in more complex writing, as measured by sentence length, MTLD, and TTR. Taken together, results suggest that journals can promote writing that is both communicatively oriented and linguistically complex. The article concludes by offering suggestions for practical implementation of DJs.
Written corrective feedback (hereafter WCF) has gained great emphasis from a considerable number of studies in second language (L2) writing history; however, an increasing number of previous studies have stressed its importance in helping learners develop their L2 writing abilities there are unresolved controversies regarding the significance and efficacy of various forms of written corrective feedback. Thus, this study was initiated to see the effects of teachers' written corrective feedback on university-entrant students' English language writing achievement. A quasi-experimental research design involving a test as a data-gathering tool was used. To that end, three intact freshman classes were selected and assigned into two experimental groups and one comparison group from a university in northwest Ethiopia. Test scores from self-descriptive paragraph writing were analyzed using a one-way ANCOVA, and the results showed that WCF has an influential role in improving university entrat learners' writing performance. Therefore, the findings from the study showed that both experimental groups performed better than the participants in the control group, indicating that both WCF provision strategies play vital roles in enhancing English language learners' writing performance as university entrants. Nevertheless, the study's findings revealed that statistically significant improvements in the writing proficiency of the study participants in both experimental groups were found the results confirmed that learners who received direct WCF along with metalinguistic explanations performed better than their peers in the indirect group who received indirect WCF. Consequently, it can be concluded that both direct and indirect WCF are crucial pedagogical strategies in improving learners' writing abilities, even though it was still found that direct WCF with a metalinguistic explanation was the most effective strategy in assisting EFL university entrants in improving their writing skills.
The researches on peer feedback and L2 proficiency as an influencing factor has reached a considerable scale both domestically and internationally, and has been put into practice in practical teaching. In recent years, online peer feedback and automated corrective feedback have also been constantly emerging. Every empirical research related to it has its own focus, strengths, and areas for improvement. How to organically combine relevant researches and apply it to EFL learners is also worth paying attention to.
This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of interactive metalinguistic feedback (IMF) on the Iranian middle school students’ ability in argumentative writing. In order to fulfill this purpose, a mixed method design was adopted. The participants of this study were selected based on multi-stage sampling procedure in which, first 5 middle school were selected among the 35 existing high schools in Varamin and then 6 classes were selected from these schools randomly. Finally, 40 EFL students were sampled from the classes as the main participants of this study. In order to collect the required data, two sets of instruments were employed. To collect the quantitative data, a proficiency test, a researcher made writing test, and a self-assessment questionnaire were utilized. In the quantitative phase of the study, before the starting of the treatment, the participants were divided into two groups i.e., Interactive Metalinguistic Feedback Group (IMFG) and Control Group (CG) which were give the writing test as pre-test to ensure the homogeneity of them in terms of initial writing ability. Then, a 12-session treatment was offered to examine the effect of the intervention. At the end of the treatment sessions, a post test of writing was given to the participants to determine the effectiveness of treatment. Furthermore, a self-assessment questionnaire was also administered to collect data on the students’ attitudes toward the integration of IMF in the learning process. For the purpose of gathering the qualitative data as the complimentary to the quantitative results, an interview accompanied by an observation was also conducted after the treatment. The findings of this study suggested that integration of IMF had significant impact on the development of argumentative writing ability among the EFL students. It was also found that the Iranian EFL students showed positive tendencies and attitudes toward the using IMF as a teaching procedure in the classroom. They also believed that IMF could potentially provide an opportunity for effective scaffolding; situated learning, meaning construction, social learning, and dialogic interaction.
The present PhD attempted to contribute to two relevant SLA-oriented lines of research: (i) effects of composing medium on written texts; and effects of feedback processing conditions on writing processes and products. The intended contribution was empirical, including a central methodological aim. The motivation for these global aims derives from the following considerations. On the one hand, in response to the mass shift seen in language classrooms to more online, digital learning environments, L2 writing scholars have advocated for research to explore and compare the effects of traditional pen-and-paper versus digital composing environments on the cognitive processes involved in writing and feedback processing, as well as on the characteristics of the resulting written texts (e.g., Vasylets & Marín, 2022; Vasylets et al., 2022; Zhi & Huang, 2021). On the other hand, SLA-oriented research on written corrective feedback (WCF) has received ample attention throughout the years (as recently reviewed by Bitchener, 2021; Roca de Larios & Coyle, 2021; Hyland & Hyland, 2018; Kang & Han, 2015, 2021), with studies that focus specifically on the processing of WCF gaining increased attention more recently. The construct of depth of processing (DoP, Leow, 2015, 2020) of WCF has become a key concern in theoretical and empirical feedback research. Studies in this domain have employed diverse methodological procedures -including think-aloud protocols (e.g., Bowles & Gastañaga, 2022: Caras, 2019; Kim & Bowles, 2019; Leow et al. 2022; Sachs & Polio, 2007) and written languaging (e.g., Cerezo et al, 2019; Manchón et al, 2020; Suzuki, 2012, 2017) to obtain data on potential (i) effects of DoP on how deeply L2 users engage with the feedback provided on their writing, and (ii) correlations between DoP and language acquisition (usually operationalized in terms of improvements in text revisions). Importantly, scholarly debates have more recently focused on research methodological considerations regarding data elicitation procedures in this research. In this regard, some critics (e.g., Leow & Manchón, 2021; Manchón, 2023a) have called for more controlled, methodologically oriented studies in which the validity of the data collection instruments is tested, whilst also advocating for investigations in more diverse writing environments.
In response to these calls, the main aims of the present doctoral thesis were to contribute empirically to previous research by exploring writing and feedback processing in both pen-and-paper and digital environments, and to shed light on the affordances of diverse introspective measures (individually and combined) commonly used for WCF processing. To achieve these global aims, the following research questions guided our study:
RQ.1 How does writing in a traditional pen-and-paper environment versus writing in a computer-mediated environment affect L2 written production in terms of CAF measures?
RQ. 2 How does the experimental manipulation during WCF processing affect L2 written production (in terms of CAF measures) in pen-and-paper versus computer-mediated writing environments?
RQ.3. How does the experimental manipulation during WCF processing affect L2 learners’ levels of depth of processing of the feedback received in pen-and- paper versus computer-mediated writing environments?
To answer RQ2 and RQ3, the study explored the methodological affordances of three WCF processing conditions: (i) think-aloud protocols, (ii) written languaging, and (iii) a combination of think-aloud protocols and written languaging in two writing environments (computer-mediated and pen-and-paper writing conditions).
The study followed a pre-test/treatment/post-test design in which 36 English undergraduate students participated. Participants were invited to write an initial text (pre- test) in time-constrained conditions. The writing task was the problem-solving, picture- based “Fire Chief” task (Gilabert, 2007), which was completed by half of the participants (18) online, via GoogleDocs, and by the remaining 18 participants on pen-and-paper. Regardless of the writing and processing conditions, all participants received unfocused, direct WCF on their initial written texts. The participants were then invited back to process the feedback received, according to the treatment group to which they were assigned: (i) think-aloud only, (ii) written languaging only, and (iii) simultaneous think- aloud and written languaging. The final task (post-test) invited participants back to rewrite their original text under the same conditions as in the pre-test. Once the processing data had been collected, the think-aloud protocols were transcribed and coded following Leow’s (2015) definition of DoP and the written languaging data was coded according to the levels of engagement and noticing, guided by the coding scheme elaborated in Cerezo et al. (2019). The written products were analysed in terms of a range of CAF measures.
Results show that, as regards composing medium, computer-mediated written texts were initially found to be more accurate and more fluent when compared to more traditional pen-and-paper written texts. Additionally, composing medium played a role on how the participants engaged with feedback: the pen-and-paper condition was more successful in engaging students in metalinguistic languaging, which, as a result, led to higher levels of accuracy in subsequent revised texts. In terms of feedback processing conditions, results show that the combination of think aloud and written languaging whilst processing WCF was not only the processing condition that provided the most insights into WCF processing, but it also constituted the most favourable treatment condition for promoting higher levels of DoP. These deeper levels of processing also led to higher L2 accuracy in subsequent text revisions.
These results represent relevant, novel insights into writing and feedback processing in diverse writing environments, while at the same time the insights obtained point to equally relevant and novel methodological implications for future research by shedding light on the affordances of WCF processing instruments and conditions. In addition, and from a pedagogical perspective, the results also present a series of potential implications relevant to pedagogical decision-making in the second language classroom with regards to writing task implementation and feedback processing conditions.
La presencia de la industria extractivista en América Latina se ha convertido en la principal fuente de conflicto en el continente. Las políticas desarrollistas impulsadas desde gobiernos de distintas tendencias ideológicas se han traducido en la amenaza constante en comunidades y territorios, el asesinato de líderes ambientales, la aparición de actores armados legales e ilegales y el desplazamiento de poblaciones. Desde una perspectiva de género, el impacto ambiental de los proyectos supone el incremento de la vulnerabilidad de las mujeres que se ven afectadas por la militarización de los territorios y la pérdida de las formas de vida tradicionales.
En un contexto de despojo caracterizado por la interrelación entre patriarcado, capitalismo y colonialismo, emergen estrategias en defensa del territorio y la vida con protagonismo de mujeres lideresas en las que la comunicación adquiere un papel relevante. Asociados a los conflictos ambientales que se suceden en el continente, es posible identificar, a su vez, prácticas comunicativas lideradas por mujeres activistas que se enmarcan en las estrategias de resistencia y de lucha por la defensa del territorio y la vida.
El objetivo de este trabajo es llevar a cabo una aproximación a las prácticas comunicativas realizadas por mujeres en contextos de conflictos ambientales en América Latina. Para ello, se toman como referencia experiencias de algunos de los países con mayores tasas de violencia, como son Colombia y Honduras. Esta aproximación se construye a partir de dos ejes: por un lado, el de las prácticas comunicativas populares en el contexto de la comunicación para el cambio social y, por otro, las prácticas comunicativas realizadas por mujeres en defensa del territorio que aquí son enmarcadas en la corriente del ecofeminismo.
En un momento histórico del capital denominado como “acumulación por despojo” por David Harvey, las autoras identifican las prácticas comunicativas analizadas como formas de disputa en diversos aspectos. En primera instancia, como disputa a la comunicación hegemónica, desde experiencias que pueden considerarse alternativas y contrahegemónicas y que persiguen una “comunicación otra”; y, en segundo lugar, como estrategia de denuncia, resistencia y organización desde el ecofeminismo en defensa de la centralidad de la vida y los bienes comunes.
During the development of writing as a macro skill, teachers provide indirect corrective feedback (ICF) to improve the written outputs of their students. To find out the effects of this scaffolding initiative, this study underscores the application of ICF to students' writing errors and investigates whether the interpretation of students to the ICF corresponds to the actual justification of their teacher. Following a descriptive-qualitative design, the corpora were collected by assigning a writing task to Grade 12 public senior high school ABM students and by conducting a follow-up semi-structured interview to both the English teacher and the student-participants. Samples from the data were organized, coded, and interpreted through thematic analysis. Findings indicate that the recorded writing errors were subject- verb disagreement and incorrect/ lack of pronoun as well as incorrect/ lack of punctuations and incorrect/ unnecessary capitalization found in the students' language use and mechanics component, respectively. A number of incongruities between the students' and the teacher's interpretations on the given ICF were also unveiled, but similarities of interpretations were still relatively greater. Likewise, it was revealed that the student-participants manifested strong positive viewpoint towards ICF and considered this as beneficial in improving their writing skills. This study, therefore, recommends to language teachers the use of ICF to help learners translate their writing difficulties into holistic skill and aid them in attaining both the content and performance standards in the area of academic writing.
The current study investigated whether there exists a differential effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback (CF) on the acquisition of rule-based features (simple present) and item-based features (prepositions). Fifty students enrolled in an EFL writing class were divided into four groups. Each group received one of the following treatments: direct CF on simple present, indirect CF on simple present, direct CF on prepositions, or indirect CF on prepositions over three sessions. In this pretest/immediate posttest/delayed posttest design, students received written CF, revised writing tasks, and completed new tasks and tests. Results showed that simple present, a type of rule-based feature, responded better to indirect CF while prepositions, a type of item-based feature, responded better to direct CF. The findings suggest that teachers should consider addressing different types of linguistic features through different types of CF.
This comparative study explored teacher feedback on college student writing from the teacher's perspective by investigating the written feedback practices among teachers of Korean as a foreign language (KFL) and teachers of English as a second language (ESL) in North America. Using an online questionnaire, this study inquired into the written feedback practices of 153 college KFL/ESL instructors across North America. A major difference between the two groups was found in terms of the scope of issues chosen for feedback: KFL teachers in relation to ESL teachers were more concerned with language-related local issues over writing-related global issues. The dissimilarity was consistent even with multiple-draft approach usage: ESL teachers changed their focus of concern from global issues on early drafts to local issues on later drafts, while KFL teachers focused on local issues across all drafts. The difference between KFL and ESL teachers' feedback might be explained by a variety of factors including the number and types of feedback-related training, cultural-developmental factors, student proficiency, and learner needs.
To date, few empirical studies have been designed to evaluate the effects of different types of feedback on error in the written work of second language writers. The study reported in this article contrasted four methods of providing feedback on written error. These methods differed in the degree of salience provided to the writer in the revision process. In the study, a factor analysis was used to reduce an initial set of 19 measures of writing skill to a subset of 7. Each of the 7 measures in the subset was then used as a dependent variable in an analysis of covariance design which contrasted the effects of the feedback methods on subsequent narrative compositions. Evidence against direct correction of error in written work is discussed.
Because writing teachers invest so much time responding to student writing and because these responses reveal the assumptions teachers hold about writing, L1 writing researchers have investigated how composition teachers respond to their students' texts. These investigations have revealed that teachers respond to most writing as if it were a final draft, thus reinforcing an extremely constricted notion of composing. Their comments often reflect the application of a single ideal standard rather than criteria that take into account how composing constraints can affect writing performance. Furthermore, teachers' marks and comments usually take the form of abstract and vague prescriptions and directives that students find difficult to interpret.A study was undertaken to examine ESL teachers' responses to student writing. The findings suggest that ESL composition teachers make similar types of comments and are even more concerned with language-specific errors and problems. The marks and comments are often confusing, arbitrary, and inaccessible. In addition, ESL teachers, like their native-language counterparts, rarely seem to expect students to revise the text beyond the surface level.Such responses to texts give students a very limited and limiting notion of writing, for they fail to provide students with the understanding that writing involves producing a text that evolves over time. Teachers therefore need to develop more appropriate responses for commenting on student writing. They need to facilitate revision by responding to writing as work in progress rather than judging it as a finished product.
Problems and principles in English teaching. Ox-ford
- C J Brumfit
Brumfit, C. J. (1980). Problems and principles in English teaching. Ox-ford : Pergamon Press.
The Gooficon: A repair manual for English Descriptive tests of language skills of the College Board: Reading comprehension
- M K Burt
- C Kiparsky
Burt, M. K. and Kiparsky, C. (1972). The Gooficon: A repair manual for English. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. _ (1977). Descriptive tests of language skills of the College Board: Reading comprehension. (1977). Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
A comprehensive English lan-guage test for speakers of English as a second language
- D P Harris
- L A Palmer
Harris, D. P. and Palmer, L. A. (1970). A comprehensive English lan-guage test for speakers of English as a second language: Structure. N.Y.: McGraw-Hill.
Writing: Research, theory and applications
- S Krashen
Krashen, S. (1984). Writing: Research, theory and applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stranger on the road
- L Markstein
- D Grunbaum
Markstein, L. and Grunbaum, D. (1985). Stranger on the road. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Responding to student writing. College Composi-tion and Communication
- N Sommers
Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to student writing. College Composi-tion and Communication, 33, 148-156.