Corrective Feedback and its Effects on Memoranda and Letters of Students of Sunyani Technical University, Ghana

Abstract

Corrective Feedback and its Effects on Memoranda and Letters of Students of Sunyani Technical University, Ghana 1. Introduction and Background One of the earliest definitions on CF was given by Chaudron (1977:31) who considered it as "any reaction of the teacher which clearly transforms, disapprovingly refers to, or demands improvement of the learner utterance." Synonyms of CF which have been used by other authors include: error correction, negative evidence, and negative feedback (Méndez et al., 2010:241). Han (2008) as cited in Méndez et al., (2010:241) proposes that error correction implies an evident and direct correction, whereas CF is a generic way of providing some clues, or eliciting some correction, besides the direct correction made by the teacher. Han (2008) has thus, conceptualised the term error correction as an immediate and a palpable way of correcting errors and CF as broad term of offering feedback on students' errors. Lightbown and Spada (1999:171-172) on their part define corrective feedback as: '…any indication to the learners that their use of the target language is incorrect.' This indication according to Lightbown and Spada (1999) could take the form of both explicit and implicit responses geared towards helping the learner attain correct usage of the target language. Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam(2006:340) define CF as: '… the form of responses to learner utterances that contain error. The responses can consist of (a) an indication that an error has been committed, (b) provision of the correct target language form, or (c) metalinguistic information about the nature of the nature of the error, or any combination of these.' (2006:340). Ferris (2003) has drawn a line between explicit or direct CF and implicit or indirect CF and has defined the direct or explicit one as a CF providing the correct linguistic form or structure by the teacher to the student by scripting it above the linguistic error. This may comprise the crossing out of an unnecessary structure-morpheme, word, phrase, clause, or sentence-; the insertion of a missing structure; or writing the correct form or structure. She has accordingly defined the indirect or implicit CF as indicating that an error has been made without clearly mentioning the type of error or writing the correct form (Ferris, 2003). This may take the form of underlining or circling the error, recording in the margin of the script the number of errors made in a given line, or using a code to show where the error has been made and what type of error it is (Ferris and Roberts, 2001). Here, students are left to reread and subsequently edit the errors in their scripts rather than the teacher indicating it clearly. Correction of errors in Second Language Teaching and Learning has long been a contentious issue. Earlier, Fanselow (1977) had recommended the provision of effective CF-isolating the error and giving explicit information. Conversely, earlier studies by Allwright (1975), Chaudron (1977) Long (1977), and Zamel (1985) revealed that the provision of corrective feed...

A Study of the Grading of English Language Scripts of Technical University Students in Ghana

“…The results of the field data show that DCF is effective in treating errors. The findings are in consonance with Ferris (1999), Chandler (2003), Mubarak (2013), Owusu (2017), Owusu (2019), Owusu (2020.…”

“…Here, students are left to reread and subsequently edit the errors in their scripts rather than the teacher indicating it clearly. As stated earlier, several empirical studies (for example, Mubarak, 2013;Owusu, 2017;Owusu, 2019;Owusu, 2020) have revealed the efficacy of the DCF method. Consequently, these studies recommended DCF for teachers to use in their various SLA classrooms.…”

“…Since the publication of Truscott (1996) and the subsequent rebuttal of Ferris (1996), there has been a huge debate in grammar correction. For example, in Chandler (2003), Mubarak (2013), Owusu (2017Owusu ( , 2019Owusu ( , 2020b) Direct Corrective Feedback (DCF) was strong in correcting errors as against Indirect Corrective Feedback (ICF), and No Corrective Feedback (NCF) techniques. Also, Bitchener et al, (2005), argued that L2 teachers should provide their learners with both oral and written CF on errors.…”

The Effects of Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedbacks on the Business Communication Texts of Technical University Students

“…Because there are always many scripts to be graded by relatively fewer language teachers, the issue of grading of scripts has always been problematic, as teachers use their own style. In Owusu (2019), it was found out that DF and IF have positive effect on students' scripts, and that no feedback (NF) doesn't have a place in grading of texts. This paper is therefore an attempt to find out the effects that DF and IF have on the business communication texts of selected students of Ho Technical University.…”

“…For 5 IF Group members to have maintained the same pre-test results at the post-test stage, as against 2 DF pre-test results which did not change at the post-test level, is a further indication of the superiority of DF over IF. In Owusu (2019), it came to light that both DF and IF have significant effect on learners' written language. The results, therefore, suggest that DF should be embraced in grading the texts of second language learners.…”