Written Corrective Feedback: The need for collaboration and multidirectional interaction

Nicholas Carr, Michiko Weinmann

Abstract


Over the last two decades, there has been significant debate surrounding the potential benefits, or potential harm, generated from the provision of written corrective feedback (WCF) on the writing of language learners. The majority of research in the field has been conducted within a positivist paradigm, which often adopted experimental research designs that measured language development in the form of correct output of targeted linguistic items, with the output sometimes being limited to a single writing task. Through the use of an interpretive paradigm and a socio-culturally informed theoretical framework, this case study examines language development reflected by progression within the language learners’ zone of proximal development (ZPD), generated via the provision of direct WCF. Retrospective interviews provide rich qualitative data that highlight the experiences of participants as they process three different types of WCF. This case study found that WCF was not able to generate any significant shifts towards self regulation within the participants’ ZPD, and thus learning generated via WCF was, at best, minimal. The need for learners to collaborate in order to co-construct their ZPDs during both the processing of WCF and construction stage of writing tasks was identified. Pedagogical implications for language teachers are discussed.

Keywords


written corrective feedback; sociocultural theory; zone of proximal development; TESOL; adult learners

Full Text:

PDF

References


Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465-483. doi: 10.2307/328585

Amrhein, H., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers think is right and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 95-127.

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004

Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on ‘the learning potential’ of WCF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 348-363.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009a). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322-329. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. system.2008.12.006

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009b). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204-211. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccn043

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193-214. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp016

Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappa(2),139-148.

Carr, N., & Weinmann, M. (2016). Japanese EFL learners’ experiences with written corrective feedback. In IAFOR The Asian Conference on Education 2016 (199–213), Kobe, Japan.

Diab, R. (2005). Teachers’ and students’ beliefs about responding to ESL writing: A case study. TESL Canada Journal, 23(1), 28-43.

Dobao, A. F. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 40-58. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002

Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Company.

Education Testing Services. (n.d.). Correlation table. Retrieved from https://www.muvs.cvut.cz/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Correlation_table.pdf

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. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001

Erlam, R., Ellis, R., & Batstone, R. (2013). Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing: Two approaches compared. System, 41(2), 257-268. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.03.004

Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307-329. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009

Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255-286. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90017-0

IELTS. (n.d.-a). IELTS scoring in detail. Retrieved from http://www.ielts.org/researchers/score_processing_and_reporting.aspx#Writing

IELTS. (n.d.-b). Writing task 2: Band descriptors. Retrieved from http://ielts.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/ Writing-Band-descriptors-Task-2.pdf

Kepner, C. G. (1991). An Experiment in the Relationship of Types of Written Feedback to the Development of Second-Language Writing Skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305-313. doi: 10.2307/328724

Lantolf, J., & Appel, G. (1994). Theoreical framework: An introduction to Vygotskian perspectives on second language research. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Lantolf, J., Thorne, S., & Poehner, M. (2014). Sociocultural theory and second language development. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 207-226): Taylor and Francis. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.ezproxy-b.deakin.edu.au/lib/deakin/detail.action?docID=1829286.

Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 285-312. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.08.001

Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 144-164. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.12.001

Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66-81. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.011

Nassaji, H. (2012). Correcting students’ written grammatical errors: The effects of negotiated versus nonnegotiated feedback. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(3), 315-334.

Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34-51. doi: 10.1080/09658410008667135

Nunan, D. (2001). Teaching grammar in context. In C. C. N. Mercer (Ed.), English language teaching in its social context (pp. 191-199). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Ohta, A. (2005). Interlanguage pragmatics in the zone of proximal development. System, 33(3), 503-517. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.06.001

Semke, H. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17(3), 194-205.

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. doi:10.2307/40264353

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.

Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103-131. doi: 10.1111/lang.12029

Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29-46.

Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303-334. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532

Swan, M. (2005). Practical English usage (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tocalli-Beller, A., & Swain, M. (2005). Reformulation: the cognitive conf lict and L2 learning it generates. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 5-28. doi: 10.1111/j.1473-4192.2005.00078.x

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.

Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292-305. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003

van Beuningen, C., De Jong, N., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1-41. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x

Victorian Department of Education and Training. (n.d.-a). Tools for enhancing assessment literacy for teachers of English as an additional language. Retrieved from http://teal.global2.vic.edu.au

Victorian Department of Education and Training. (n.d.-b). Enhancing feedback. Retrieved from http://teal.global2.vic.edu.au/professional-learning/enhancing-teachersfeedback/

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher pyschological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wells, C. G. (1998). Using L1 to master L2: a response to Antón and DiCamilla’s ‘Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom’. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(3), 343-353. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.54.3.343

Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321-331. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.007

Xu, C. (2009). Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Ellis et al. (2008) and Bitchener (2008). Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 270-275. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.05.005




DOI: https://doi.org/10.21153/tesol2018vol27no1art770770

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


ISSN  2209-0916