Corrective Feedback in Students Writing.pptVIP

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 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 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) 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”