Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback among Graduate Students: The Effects of Feedback Timing

Abstract

Dynamic written corrective feedback (DWCF) is a pedagogical approach that offer meaningful, manageable, constant, and timely corrective feedback on student writing (Hartshorn et al., 2010). It emphasizes indirect and comprehensive writte error correction on short, daily writing assignments. Numerous studies have demonstrated that its use can lead to fewer language errors among undergraduate and pre-matriculated college writers (see Kurzer, 2018). However, the benefits of DWCF among second language (L2) graduate writers and the role of feedback timing have not been well examined. We analyzed timed writing samples over a 12-week intervention from 22 L2 graduate students who either received biweekly feedback on their writing throughout a semester, or postponed feedback until the last two weeks of the semester. Writing was analyzed for grammatical errors, lexical and syntactic complexity, and fluency. Results showed that neither timely nor postponed feedback led to significant improvement in grammatical accuracy or lexical complexity, but timely feedback did result in more fluent and complex writing. These findings suggest that the timing of feedback may be trivial for accuracy development but is more important for complexity among graduate writers. Teachers, teacher trainers, and writing administrators may use these insights as they plan curricula and design grammar and writing interventions.
 La rétroaction corrective écrite dynamique (RCED) est une approche pédagogique qui propose une rétroaction significative, gérable, constante et opportune sur les rédactions des étudiants (Hartshorn et al. 2010). Elle insiste sur la correction complète et indirecte d’erreurs dans de courts devoirs de rédaction quotidiens. De nombreuses études ont démontré que son utilisation peut amener les rédacteurs de premier cycle ou pré-inscrits au collège à faire moins d’erreurs de langue (voir Kurzer, 2018). Cependant, les avantages de la RCED chez les rédacteurs diplômés de seconde langue (L2) et le rôle joué par l’opportunité de la rétroaction n’ont pas été bien étudiés. Nous avons analysé des échantillons de rédaction écrites en temps limité sur une période d’intervention de 12 semaines chez 22 étudiants diplômés de L2 qui recevaient de la rétroaction deux fois par semaine sur leurs rédactions pendant la durée du semestre, ou une rétroaction différée jusqu’à deux semaines avant la fin du semestre. Les rédactions ont été analysées pour découvrir les erreurs grammaticales, la complexité lexicale et syntaxique, ainsi que la fluidité Les résultats ont montré que ni la rétroaction opportune, ni la rétraction différé ne se traduisaient par une amélioration marquée de la précision grammaticale ou de la complexité lexicale, mais la rétroaction opportune menait à une rédaction plus fluide et plus complexe. Ces résultats suggèrent que l’opportunité de la rétroaction peut ne pas beaucoup influer sur le développement de la précision, mais s’avère plus importante pour la complexité chez les rédacteurs diplômés. Les enseignants, les formateurs d’enseignants et les administrateurs de programmes de rédaction peuvent se servir de ces résultats lorsqu’ils planifient les programmes et conçoivent les interventions en grammaire et en rédaction.

Effects of teacher, automated, and combined feedback on syntactic complexity in EFL students’ writing

“…This finding corresponded to the previous studies in which the students with dynamic WCF exhibited a decrease in MLT, C/T, and CN/T from pre-to post-tests (Eckstein & Bell, 2021;Hartshorn et al, 2010). One explanation outlined by previous research is that students' attempts to improve accuracy may hinder the development of their syntactic complexity (Eckstein et al, 2020;Hartshorn et al, 2010). In Eckstein et al 's (2020) study, it was argued that L2 writers might employ linguistically simplified structures to improve their linguistic accuracy.…”

“…Limited studies in WCF research examined whether and how the provision of WCF influences students' syntactic complexity in writing (Eckstein & Bell, 2021;Eckstein et al, 2020;Hartshorn & Evans, 2015;Van Beuningen et al, 2012;Xu & Zhang, 2021) (Table 1). Generally, findings from such studies have remained inconclusive: some studies (e.g., Van Beuningen et al, 2012) found that WCF did not cause students to produce structures that were linguistically simplified, whereas others (e.g., Hartshorn & Evans, 2015) stressed an adverse effect on writing complexity.…”

Thirty-Two Years of Corrective Feedback in Language Teaching and Learning: A Review of the Literature

“…They also expressed some other issues such as time constraints and the amount of workload they had misaligned with their beliefs towards WCF practice. However, the study by Eckstein et al (2020) was conducted on the effects of dynamic WCF and feedback timing on graduate students. The researchers investigated how the given feedback impacts grammatical accuracy and lexical complexity.…”

Accuracy Gains from Unfocused Feedback: Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback as Meaningful Pedagogy

“…A final article-the only research study investigating graduate students specifically-reported on a study that contrasted the timing of DWCF (spread throughout the term or lumped together at the end of the term) with 22 multilingual graduate students, finding gains in fluency and complexity in the group that received regular feedback, but no statistically significant improvements regarding grammatical accuracy in either group (Eckstein et al, 2020). These results may identify a ceiling level upon which DWCF may no longer be effective at supporting increased grammatical accuracy in student writing, although it may still be helpful at influencing student writing in other manners.…”