Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T07:53:54.263Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2019

Icy Lee
Icy Lee*
Affiliation:
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
*
Email: icylee@cuhk.edu.hk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In different parts of the world second language (L2) teachers devote a massive amount of time to giving feedback on grammatical errors in student writing. Such written corrective feedback, which is unfocused and comprehensive, is fraught with problems for both teachers and students. Nonetheless, it remains a prevalent practice in many L2 contexts. In this position paper, I argue that more written corrective feedback is not better, but instead less is more. After presenting the problems emanating from comprehensive written corrective feedback, I argue for a focused approach to written corrective feedback and examine its benefits for teachers and students. Through discussing five impediments to the implementation of focused written corrective feedback, I scrutinize and refute the counter-claims, and bolster my overall argument in support of focused written corrective feedback. I conclude the position paper with recommendations for action for teachers, teacher educators and researchers.

Type
First Person Singular
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 52 , Issue 4 , October 2019 , pp. 524 - 536
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Biggs, J. (1994). What are effective schools? Lessons from East and West. The Australian Educational Researcher, 21(1), 19–39.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2012). Written corrective feedback for L2 development: Current knowledge and future research. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 855–860.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409–431.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009a). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322–329.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009b). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204–211.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bonilla López, M., Van Steendam, E., & Buyse, K. (2017). Comprehensive corrective feedback on low and high proficiency writers: Examining attitudes and preferences. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 168, 91–128.Google Scholar
Bonilla López, M., Van Steendam, E., Speelman, D., & Buyse, K. (2018). The differential effects of comprehensive feedback forms in the second language writing class. Language Learning, 68, 813–850.Google Scholar
Brooks, N. (1960). Language and language learning. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2), 209–224.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353–371.Google Scholar
Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., McCollum, R. M., & Wolfersberger, M. (2010). Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 445–463.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201.Google Scholar
Furneaux, C., Paran, A., & Fairfax, B. (2007). Teacher stance as reflected in feedback on student writing: An empirical study of secondary school teachers in five countries. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 69–94.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Goldstein, L. (2001). For Kyla: What does the research say about responding to ESL writers. In Silva, T. & Matsuda, P. K. (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 73–89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Teaching and Practice, 8(3), 381–391.Google Scholar
Hairston, M. (1986). On not being a composition slave. In Bridges, C. W. (Ed.), Training the new teacher of college composition (pp. 117–124). Urbana, IL: NCTE.Google Scholar
Hartshorn, K. J., & Evans, N. W. (2015). The effects of dynamic written corrective feedback: A 30-week study. Journal of Response to Writing, 1(2), 6–34.Google Scholar
Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, D., & Anderson, N. J. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44(1), 84–109.Google Scholar
Hyland, F. (2010). Future directions in feedback in second language writing: Overview and research agenda. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 171–182.Google Scholar
Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75, 305–313.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of L2 development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, B., Cawthon, S., & Dawson, K. (2013). Elementary and secondary teacher self-efficacy for teaching and pedagogical conceptual change in a drama-based professional development program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 30, 84–98.Google Scholar
Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: the case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 285–312.Google Scholar
Lee, I. (2005). Error correction in the L2 writing classroom: What do students think? TESL Canada Journal, 22(2), 1–16.Google Scholar
Lee, I. (2008a). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69–85.Google Scholar
Lee, I. (2008b). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 144–164.Google Scholar
Lee, I. (2010). Writing teacher education and teacher learning: Testimonies of four EFL teachers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(3), 143–157.Google Scholar
Lee, I. (2014). Revisiting teacher feedback in EFL writing from sociocultural perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 48(1), 201–213.Google Scholar
Lee, I. (2016). Teacher education on feedback in EFL writing: Issues, challenges, and future directions. TESOL Quarterly, 50(2), 518–527.Google Scholar
Lee, I., Yu, S., & Liu, Y. (2018). Hong Kong secondary students’ motivation in EFL writing: A survey study. TESOL Quarterly, 52(1), 176–187.Google Scholar
Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203–218.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Oladejo, J. A. (1993). Error correction in ESL: Learner's preferences. TESL Canada Journal, 10(2), 71–89.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2012). Epilogue: Exploring L2 writing – SLA interfaces. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 404–415.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 52–79.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83–96.Google Scholar
Scarino, A. (2013). Language assessment literacy as self-awareness: Understanding the role of interpretation in assessment and in teacher learning. Language Testing, 30(3), 309–327.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11–26.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195–202.Google Scholar
Serdyukov, P. (2017). Innovation in education: What works, what doesn't, and what to do about it? Journal of Research on Innovation in Teaching and Learning, 10(1), 4–33.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL Learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556–569.Google Scholar
Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103–110.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2018). Written corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 51(2), 262–277.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369.Google Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. G. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1–27.Google Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learner's written accuracy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296.Google Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62, 1–41.Google Scholar
van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordances: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 245–260). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Watkins, D. A., & Biggs, J. B. (Eds.). (1996). The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological, and contextual influences. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre.Google Scholar
Zheng, Y., & Yu, S. (2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 37, 13–24.Google Scholar