Corrective Feedback in Students

1
Corrective Feedback in Students Writing

• Mushi Li
• Tufts University

2
Does error correction promote writing accuracy?

• One line of argument
• effectiveness of corrective feedback is
  questionable.
• Fails to produce any improvements in subsequent
  writings
• (Robb, Ross Shortreed 1986 Kepner 1991
  Sheppard 1992 Polio, Fleck Leder 1998
  Fazio 2001)
• Truscott (1996)
• Grammar correction should be abandoned.
• Theoretical problem transfer of information ?
  grammar acquisition
• Practical problem teacher preparation, student
  preparation, time, energy
• Harmful effects

3

• Another line of argument
• Corrective feedback is predicted to be effective
• Current research studies are not conclusive to
  reach any generalization (inconsistency in
  population, treatments, and research designs)
• Studies that found corrective feedback leads to
  improvement in accuracy (Polio et al. 1998 F.
  Hyland 2003 Chandler 2003)
• Avoid fossilization and assist language
  acquisition
• Affective standpoint students expect comments on
  their errors
• (Cohen Cavalcanti 1990 Leki 1991 Hedgcock
  Lefkowitz 1994 Cumming 1995 Ferris 1995 F.
  Hyland 1998 Ferris Roberts 2001 Lee 2004)
• U-shaped SLA development (Ellis,1997)
• The influence of feedback on learners long term
  writing development fits with this developmental
  curve. (Goldstein)

Adult acquirers may fossilize and not continue
to make progress in accuracy of linguistic forms
without explicit instruction and feedback on
their errors. (Ferris, 2004)
4

• Corrective Feedback
• A valuable teaching practice
• Extensive grammar instruction
• Individualized, student-centered, and
  contextualized
• Appreciation for accuracy, self-editing, and
  proof-reading

afford the opportunity to attend to large
numbers of grammatical structures (Ellis, 2006)
repeatedly over a period of time (Ellis, 2006)
The selection of grammatical content could be
based on the known errors produced by learners
(Ellis, 2006)
the operating conditions in which they went
wrong (Johnson, 1988)
5
The utilization of corrective feedback- how,
why, what
There are more and less effective ways to
approach error correction (Ferris, 2004)
6

• HOW options, forms of Corrective Feedback
• Direct correction where errors are noted and
  corrected
• merits quick, straightforward, comprehensive
  input
• limitations not cognitively engaging
• Indirect correction followed by revision
• a continuum of explicitness
• merits
• limitations student level, type of error
• Supplemental grammar instruction
• individualized self-study materials
• additional instruction and practice
• keeping error charts highlights weaknesses
  improvement

It encourages learner reflection and
self-editing. (Lalande, 1982)
Lower proficiency students may be unable to
identify and correct errors (Ferris Hedgcock,
2005)
7

• ???,???????????
• ????.????????,
• ???????.???????.
• ????,??????.???
• ???,???????.

Duration of time sentence structure
? is more suitable ? usu. involves fire, e.g.
?? ? burned with hot liquid, or hot surface
8

• WHY Purpose of corrective feedback, what do we
  want to achieve
• Factors to consider - types of learning
  difficulty (Ellis, 2006)
• difficulty with understanding a certain grammar
• difficulty to internalize it

????????,???????.???????.????,??????.
9

• WHAT types of errors focus of correction
• types of grammar forms

1. ??????????
2. ???????
3. ??????????
4. ???????????
5. ??????????????
6. ??????????
7. ????,????????

There is some reason to think that syntactic,
morphological, and lexical knowledge are acquired
in different manners. If this is the case, then
probably no single form of correction can be
effective for all three. (Truscott, 1996)
10

• Prioritizing and focusing
• Correcting every error?
• Focused corrective feedback
• - focus on a few errors each time, and recycle
  over time
• Error selection
• Repeated, consistent errors
• Errors that fall within one category
• Key grammar
• Local, straightforward or global, more complex
• Error chart/portfolio

11
How do we approach error correction?
Hold on to preparation, practice, and
prioritizing (Ferris, 1999) execute it
faithfully and consistently (Ferris, 2004)
12
Additional considerations

• Be realistic in expectation toward students
  uptake
• Grammar acquisition ? simple transfer of
  information
• gradual process
• grammar correction cannot deal effectively with
  avoidance (Ellis, 2006)

We can not expect that a target form will be
acquired either immediately or permanently after
it has been highlighted through feedback.
(Hyland Hyland, 2006)
13
Conclusion