Writtencfdebate

The Written Corrective Feedback Debate: Next Steps for Classroom Teachers and Practitioners DAN BROWN Toyo University Tokyo, Japan doi: 10.1002/tesq.63 &

Language teachers spend much of their time providing corrective feedback on students’ writing in hope of helping them improve grammatical accuracy. Turning to research for guidance, however, can leave practitioners with few concrete answers as to the effectiveness of written corrective feedback (CF). Debate in the literature continues, reflecting dichotomies in language learning theory, inconsistent research methodology, and inherent challenges in designing controlled classroom research (Ferris, 2004; Gue´nette, 2007; Truscott, 2007). As the debate evolves, few teachers are waiting for concrete empirical support and instead provide written CF based on intuition, experience, and student expectations (Ferris, 2011; Hyland & Hyland, 2006). Second language and foreign language writing teachers, therefore, face the immediate challenges of assessing their students’ abilities, needs, goals, and preferences with respect to written accuracy and then designing feedback to fit teaching contexts in ways that are manageable and useful. This article will identify factors that warrant consideration when teachers make decisions about the provision of written CF and highlight trends in research that provide practical insights for its design.

INSTRUCTIONAL CONTEXT: FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE EFFECTIVENESS OF WRITTEN CF Bruton (2009) and Evans, Hartshorn, McCollum, and Wolfersberger (2010) highlighted the inherent limitations of current research on written CF due to the vast complexity of contextual factors that account for (or limit) effectiveness for particular learners or groups of learners in particular classroom settings. As Hyland (1998) noted, it may be that “‘good’ feedback can only really be defined with reference to the individual writers, their problems, and their reasons for writing” (p. 275). With this in mind, teachers hold considerable responsibility in identifying the factors that influence effectiveness in their unique teaching contexts to inform their methodological decisions.

TEACHING ISSUES

861

Evans et al. (2010) introduced a useful paradigm in considering contextual variables that influence effectiveness, dividing contextual variables into three groups: learner, situational, and methodological.

Learner variables include individual differences, such as students’ L1 background, motivations, perceptions, past experiences, beliefs, attitudes, learning styles, time available for responding to feedback, and formal knowledge of grammar. Situational variables account for factors in the instructional context, including curriculum guidelines and objectives, class sizes, teacher workload, and frequency of class meetings, as well as teacher variables: personality, motivations, beliefs, priorities, teaching philosophies, training, competencies, teaching experience, and relationship with students. Practitioners should consider techniques and resources that can develop sensitivity to learner variables, such as using diagnostic writing assignments to assess needs, administering student surveys, and drawing on the experience of colleagues. Weighing learners’ needs and preferences in relation to situational constraints will inform the design and delivery of written CF for best practices in specific contexts.

CONSIDERATIONS IN DESIGNING WRITTEN CF: IMPLICATIONS FROM RESEARCH The following outline introduces some of the central methodological options in the design of written CF, highlighting practical implications from research relative to some of the learner and situational variables listed above (for a more detailed description of options in designing written CF, see Ferris, 2011).

Explicitness of Feedback Explicitness refers to how feedback draws learners’ attention to the location or nature of an error. Indirect feedback, in which the teacher marks the location of an error for students to then self-correct, is argued to promote deeper cognitive engagement, “pushing learners to engage in hypothesis testing” (Bitchener, 2008, p. 105) as opposed to direct feedback, in which the teacher makes corrections supplying the correct form for students. Ferris (2006, 2011) concluded that, in the long term, indirect feedback may have greater potential to help students learn to monitor their writing autonomously. Students also tend to favor an indirect approach, with errors labeled by type (Ferris, 2006; Ferris & Roberts, 2001), as long as the code does not lead to confusion.

862

TESOL QUARTERLY

Ferris’s (2011) distinction between treatable and untreatable errors has important implications in deciding the explicitness of CF. A more treatable error category, such as subject-verb agreement, lends itself to an indirect approach because students can reference straightforward rules to self-correct, while untreatable idiosyncratic errors, such as word choice, require students to use acquired knowledge to make corrections.

With this distinction in mind, a combination of approaches with judicious use of direct feedback for less treatable errors may be optimal.

Scope of Feedback Scope refers to the number and type of errors that are addressed— either a comprehensive approach or a focus on a limited range of error categories. Recent studies with increasingly consistent design have shown evidence that written CF improves grammatical accuracy in future writings, typically focusing narrowly on a single grammatical feature to track development (Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener & Knoch, 2010; Ellis, Sheen, Murakami, & Takashima, 2008; Sheen, 2007). Ellis et al. (2008) pointed out that at least a somewhat focused approach follows cognitive theories of L2 acquisition by helping students focus attention. Such an approach seems most useful if priority areas can be identified based on learners’ output or developmental readiness. If teachers opt for a coded system, it may be beneficial to limit the number and size of error categories to keep each broadly enough constituted to address a range of students’ most frequent (and treatable) errors (Ferris, 2011). A code should be manageable for students and teachers, limiting confusion and allowing students to internalize the categories and notice patterns.

While a focused approach has intuitive appeal for improving accuracy on particular grammar features, it may have limited application for L2 writing classrooms, where students need to deal with a range of language features simultaneously to develop overall accuracy and selfediting skills (Bruton, 2009; Evans et al., 2010; Ferris, 2010). In this respect, Evans et al. (2010) and Hartshorn et al. (2010) took a more classroom-oriented approach, outlining guidelines for what they termed dynamic CF, in which they address a wide range of errors simultaneously. They argued for written CF that is comprehensive but manageable, timely, and constant, with short texts and frequent provision of CF that is returned quickly to students. Course and assignment goals may help instructors determine whether a focused or comprehensive approach to feedback—or a combination of both depending on the task—is most suitable for their specific context.

TEACHING ISSUES

863

DESIGNING VALUE IN WRITTEN CF: RECOMMENDATIONS MOVING FORWARD The design options described above are decisions that practitioners need to make in administering written CF. Below, I focus on principles in second language acquisition theory that are particularly relevant to written CF—attention, awareness, and motivation—and offer recommendations for how these guiding principles can inform the design of written CF to maximize pedagogical value.

Promoting Awareness Noticing, awareness, and attention have been established as cognitive processes that have strong links to L2 development (Gass, 1997; Schmidt, 2001). The main purpose of CF, therefore, should be to draw learners’ attention to language form to trigger conscious analysis (Hyland, 2003; Qi & Lapkin, 2001; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2010), which teachers can support through their design and delivery of CF. Designating time in class to train students to become familiar with a coded system with the opportunity to ask questions, and providing metalinguistic information to explain grammar rules (potentially within a key for a coded system), can help students effectively attend to feedback. Certain awareness-oriented techniques for the provision of written CF, such as holding one-on-one writing conferences (Hyland & Hyland, 2006), or keeping an error log (Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Hartshorn et al., 2010) can encourage proactive self-analysis of language learning needs. Using highlighters with different colors as a nonverbal visual code to represent different error categories can help raise students’ awareness of their strengths and weaknesses, making development of accuracy over time (or lack thereof) more salient across error types— potentially a less tedious alternative to keeping error logs. Techniques such as these can encourage students to be more reflective about their written accuracy and make greater use of the feedback they receive.

Motivating Student Engagement Learner affect, largely overlooked in the literature on written CF (for exceptions see Bruton, 2009, and Ferris, 2011), plays a significant role in how students benefit from instruction and attend to language form (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Do¨rnyei, 2005). One way that teachers influence student motivation in engaging with written CF is through their

864

TESOL QUARTERLY

pedagogical attitude towards errors, which Bruton (2009) described as climate, either encouraging or discouraging (e.g., whether the tone of feedback is authoritative: Be more careful, we studied this last week! or supportive and sensitive to the complex nature of interlanguage development: Can you notice your strengths and weaknesses?). Rather than making the priority to eradicate errors, teachers should remind students that errors are natural and necessary in language learning. This attitude will also be reflected in the design of assessment. If students receive a grade based on the proportion of errors they produce, they may take a more conservative approach of error avoidance, relying on shorter sentences and taking fewer chances in syntax and grammar construction, limiting risk-taking and hypothesis testing. A more supportive approach to assessment might take into consideration student effort in the editing process (effort to respond to feedback on grammar as part of a rubric, for example).

Escalating the debate over the value of written CF, Truscott (1996) argued that written CF has mainly negative effects for students in motivational terms. However, if feedback is tailored to students’ needs and preferences (possibly involving them in the design of the process), if they are trained to readily make sense of feedback they receive, if they are equipped with enough knowledge to respond, if they are challenged with the appropriate amount (in length of writing and in scope of errors), if they have enough time and incentive to meet the challenge, and if they perceive positive intentions and encouragement from their teacher, feedback can and should be motivating. Such feedback will likely be beneficial in the complex process of developing accuracy and self-editing skills for student writers. As the debate continues, practitioners may find more immediate benefit in defining value in written CF incrementally, looking to improve on each of these goals in their feedback design.

THE AUTHOR Dan Brown teaches EFL at Toyo University in Tokyo, Japan, and has worked as a teacher trainer, curriculum designer, and ESL/EFL teacher in Thailand, Chile, and the United States. His research interests include instructed second language acquisition, task-based language learning, second language writing, error correction, and learner motivation.

REFERENCES Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102–118. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004 Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207–217. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002

TEACHING ISSUES

865

Bruton, A. (2009). Improving accuracy is not the only reason for writing, and even if it were… System, 37, 600–613. doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.09.005 Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda.

Language Learning, 41, 469–512. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1991.tb00690.x Do¨rnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

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, 353–371. doi:10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001 Evans, N., Hartshorn, J., McCollum, R., & Wolfersberger, M. (2010). Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 14, 445–464. doi:10.1177/1362168810375367 Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and what do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime…?).

Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49–62. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005 Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp.

81–104). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181–201. doi:10.1017/S0272263109990490 Ferris, D. R. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing (2nd ed.).

Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gue´nette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40–53. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.01.001 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, 84–109. doi:10.5054/tq.2010.213781 Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers.

Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 255–286. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(98) 90017-0 Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback.

System, 31, 217–230. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00021-6 Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (Eds.). (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277–303. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00046-7 Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–33). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283.

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

866

TESOL QUARTERLY

Truscott, J. (1996). The Language Learning, 46, Truscott, J. (2007). The accurately. Journal of jslw.2007.06.003

TEACHING ISSUES

case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes.

327–369. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x effects of error correction on learners’ ability to write Second Language Writing, 16, 255–272. doi:10.1016/j.

867