Corrective Feedback in Students’ Writing Mushi Li Tufts University

Does error correction promote writing accuracy?

One line of argument: effectiveness of corrective feedback is questionable.

 Fails to produce any Fazio 2001) improvements in subsequent writings (Robb, Ross & Shortreed 1986; Kepner 1991; Sheppard 1992; Polio, Fleck & Leder 1998;  Truscott (1996): Grammar correction “should be abandoned”.  Theoretical problem: transfer of information ≠ grammar acquisition  Practical problem: teacher preparation, student preparation, time, energy  Harmful effects

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 “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)   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)

Corrective Feedback

– A valuable teaching practice

 Extensive grammar instruction: “afford the opportunity to attend to large numbers of grammatical structures” (Ellis, 2006) “repeatedly over a period of time” (Ellis, 2006)  Individualized, student-centered, and contextualized: 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) Appreciation for accuracy, self-editing, and proof reading:

The utilization of corrective feedback - how, why, what

“There are more and less effective ways to approach error correction” (Ferris, 2004)

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 It encourages learner reflection and self-editing. (Lalande, 1982)  limitations: student level, type of error Lower proficiency students may be unable to identify and correct errors (Ferris & Hedgcock, 2005)  Supplemental grammar instruction  individualized self-study materials   additional instruction and practice keeping error charts – highlights weaknesses & improvement

有一天,一位老太太在麦当劳买了 一杯咖啡.麦当劳的咖啡很热, 她被咖啡 烧 伤了.

八天他住在医院.

两年以后, 就身体变好了 .她告了 麦当劳,要麦当劳 付 她钱.

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

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

麦当劳的咖啡很热,她被咖 啡 烧 伤了.

八天他住在医院.

两年以后, 就身体变好了 .

WHAT – types of errors & focus of correction  types of grammar forms 1.我们打交道 跟中国人 。 2.两天 他住了院。 3.很多中国人 知道 英文。 4.从北京到纽约没有 直飞 。 5.使用一次性产品 造成污染 环境。 6.我这次考试考 了 很好。 7.明天考试，我 心理 有点紧张。 “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)



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

How do we approach error correction?

How What Why Student back ground Instructional context Hold on to “preparation, practice, and prioritizing” (Ferris, 1999) “execute it faithfully and consistently” (Ferris, 2004)

Additional considerations

 Be realistic in expectation toward students’ uptake Grammar acquisition ≠ simple transfer of information = gradual process “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)  grammar correction “cannot deal effectively with avoidance” (Ellis, 2006)

Conclusion