Does Error Feedback Help L2 Writers?

Ferris, Dana R.; Kurzer, Kendon

doi:10.1017/9781108635547.008

Cited by 19 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, while errors of grammar and mechanics received more direct feedback, lexical and spelling errors resulted in more indirect feedback. This finding aligns with Ferris (2006) that showed spelling errors receiving more indirect feedback. This finding could be partly explained by the teachers' understanding of the correctability of lexical versus grammatical errors (Truscott, 2001).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Feedback can either overtly correct an erroneous form, which is referred to as direct correction or can indicate that an error has been made without providing the correct form, which is referred to as indirect feedback. Direct correction may take various forms, including crossing out superfluous words or phrases, inserting missing words, bracketing misplaced words and indicating their proper place in a sentence, or writing the correct form above the error or in the margin (Ferris, 2006). Indirect correction can be either coded or uncoded feedback.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, students' responses to CF were analyzed using the categories adapted from Ferris (2006). As can be seen in Table 4, Ferris proposed three types of successful revisions (error corrected, correct substitution, and averted erroneous teacher marking) and four types of unsuccessful revisions (incorrect change, deleted text, incorrect substitution, and teacher-induced error).…”

Section: Indirect Error Identification With Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Amount and Usefulness of Written Corrective Feedback Across Different Educational Contexts and Levels

Lira-Gonzales¹,

Nassaji²

2020

TESL Canada

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined and compared different written corrective feedback techniques used by English as a second language (ESL) teachers in three different educational contexts and levels (primary, secondary, and college) in Quebec, Canada. In particular, it examined whether there were any differences in the types of errors made, the kind and degree of feedback provided, as well as the students’ ability to incorporate the feedback while revising their texts. Data were collected at the three aforementioned contexts from six ESL teachers in their intact classes when they corrected their students’ (N = 128) written essays (drafts and revisions). Results revealed an important difference across the three levels in terms of students’ errors, teachers’ feedback, and students’ revisions. They showed that (a) while grammatical errors were made more frequently by primary students, lexical errors were made more frequently by college students; (b) primary and secondary students received more direct than indirect feedback, while college students received more indirect feedback; (c) the secondary and college students were more successful in incorporating the feedback into their revisions than primary students. La présente étude a examiné et comparé plusieurs techniques de rétroactions correctives écrites utilisées par des enseignants d’anglais langue seconde (ALS) dans trois contextes et niveaux d’éducation différents (primaire, secondaire et collégial) au Québec, au Canada. En particulier, elle a examiné s’il existait des différences dans les types d’erreurs qui étaient faites, quelle sorte et quel niveau de rétroaction étaient fournis ainsi que la capacité des élèves à intégrer la rétroaction lorsqu’ils révisaient leurs textes. On a recueilli des données dans les trois contextes susmentionnés auprès de six enseignants d’ALS dans leurs classes intactes lorsqu’ils corrigeaient les rédactions (brouillons et révisions) de leurs élèves (N = 128). Les résultats ont révélé une différenc importante dans les trois niveaux en ce qui concerne les erreurs des élèves, la rétroaction des enseignants et les révisions des élèves. Les résultats ont montré que (a), alors que les élèves de primaire faisaient plus d’erreurs grammaticales, les élèves de collège faisaient plus d’erreurs lexicales; (b) les élèves de primaire et de secondaire recevaient plus de rétroaction directe qu’indirecte, alors que les élèves de collège recevaient plus de rétroaction indirecte; (c) les élèves de secondaire et de collège réussissaient mieux à incorporer la rétroaction dans leurs révisions que les élèves de primaire.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Indirect Error Identification With Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Amount and Usefulness of Written Corrective Feedback Across Different Educational Contexts and Levels

Lira-Gonzales¹,

Nassaji²

2020

TESL Canada

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As to whether direct or indirect feedback is more effective for FL learners, there is no conclusive evidence. Some researchers believe that indirect feedback provides learners opportunities to use their existing knowledge to correct the errors themselves, which not only can engage learners in the revising processes but tends to be more effective to promote accuracy in writing in the long term (e.g., Ferris, 2006 ; Bitchener and Ferris, 2012 ). More recent studies, however, reported that it seemed to be more effective to provide direct corrective feedback involving metalinguistic explanations, through which learners’ cognitive engagement could also be enhanced ( Bitchener and Knoch, 2008 , 2009 , 2010 ; Esfandiar et al, 2014 ).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Teacher Feedback and Automated Feedback on Cognitive and Psychological Aspects of Foreign Language Writing: A Mixed-Methods Research

Wang

Han

2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feedback plays a crucial role in the writing processes. However, in the literature on foreign language (FL) writing, there is a dearth of studies that compare the effects of teacher feedback and automated feedback on both cognitive and psychological aspects of FL writing. To fill this gap, the current study compared the effects of teacher feedback and automated feedback on both revision quality and writing proficiency development (i.e., the cognitive aspects), and perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of the feedback (i.e., the psychological aspects) in English writing among English learners as an FL (EFLs) in China. It also investigated students’ perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of the two types of feedback. The study adopted a mixed-methods design. The quantitative method collected the data through (1) a pre-test and a post-test, which measured the participants’ English writing proficiency development; (2) a writing task, which received either teacher feedback or automated feedback; and (3) a close-ended questionnaire, which examined students’ perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of the feedback. The qualitative method collected the data through an open-ended questionnaire, which examined the participants’ perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of teacher feedback or automated feedback depending on the type of feedback they received. Chinese university EFLs in two English classes (n = 35 in each class) taught by the same English teacher participated in the study: one class received teacher feedback while the other received automated feedback using Pigaiwang. While the students in the two classes did not differ significantly on the pre-test of students’ writing proficiency, students who received teacher feedback scored significantly higher on revision than those who received automated feedback. Students in the teacher feedback class also had significantly higher ratings on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of the feedback than those in the automated feedback class. However, students in the automated feedback class obtained significantly higher scores on the post-test of the writing proficiency. The qualitative results identified three themes of strengths and two themes of weaknesses for the teacher feedback and the automated feedback, respectively. The results suggest that while teacher feedback has a more positive effect on the psychological aspect of FL writing, automated feedback may be more effective in developing FL writing proficiency in the long run.

show abstract

“…Since the kinds of issues covered by indirect feedback with error codes are classified by the teacher, such as common errors made by students in the context, they tend to be exclusively surface level issues such as grammatical forms and punctuation. Example error codes can be seen in Ferris (2006), Ferris, Liu, Sinha and Senna (2013), and Ferris and Roberts (2001). The main disadvantage of error codes is that providing feedback using them is a very time-consuming process for an instructor.…”

Section: Indirect Feedback With Error Codesmentioning

confidence: 99%

İkinci dilde akademik yazmada etkili dönüt sağlama

Ruegg

2018

RumeliDE Dil Ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Different articles give different suggestions about how to provide effective feedback on L2 student writing. However, context is an important factor influencing research results. The suggestions in research articles may not be effective when taken out of the context of the article. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of a wide range of feedback practices that can be effectively used with L2 learners to promote learning, based on a review of literature. As context is such an important factor, in this article suggestions will be organized based on the purpose of the class for which the writing is undertaken and the purpose of the feedback. In particular, suggestions will be made in terms of the focus of feedback, medium of feedback delivery, level of explicitness, amount of feedback and source of feedback. Finally, specific suggestions will be summarized for each stage of L2 writing learning, limitations of the article and suggestions for further empirical research will be made.

show abstract

Does Error Feedback Help L2 Writers?

Cited by 19 publications

References 40 publications

The Amount and Usefulness of Written Corrective Feedback Across Different Educational Contexts and Levels

The Amount and Usefulness of Written Corrective Feedback Across Different Educational Contexts and Levels

The Effects of Teacher Feedback and Automated Feedback on Cognitive and Psychological Aspects of Foreign Language Writing: A Mixed-Methods Research

İkinci dilde akademik yazmada etkili dönüt sağlama

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About