Effects of indirect coded corrective feedback with and without short affective teacher comments on L2 writing performance, learner uptake and motivation

Tang, Chiachieh; Liu, Yeu Ting

doi:10.1016/j.asw.2017.12.002

Cited by 51 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Results showed improvement in the experimental group (the one that received such a remedial teaching) after being provided with Corrective Feedback in the form of mini-lessons and self-study materials. However, these results argue against those studies that state that Corrective Feedback has little or no effect on learners' writing (Robb et al, 1986;Tang and Liu, 2018).…”

Section: Empirical Work On Error Analysis and Feedbackcontrasting

confidence: 90%

The Impact of Error Analysis and Feedback in English Second Language Learning

Calderón¹,

Plaza²

2021

ELLR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines written errors in a corpus of 30 compositions produced by 15 students of English as a second language (L2), whose first language (L1) is Spanish. Their ages range from 10 to 11. This paper identifies grammar errors as the most frequent due to L1’s interference in L2 learning. Positive, focused, indirect written feedback is proven to be the most effective, and the L1 seems to help the students to understand the teacher’s metalinguistic explanation to correct errors and avoid mistakes. These results provide insight into language learning given that they offer information regarding the teaching practice.

show abstract

Section: Empirical Work On Error Analysis and Feedbackcontrasting

confidence: 90%

The Impact of Error Analysis and Feedback in English Second Language Learning

Calderón¹,

Plaza²

2021

ELLR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Table 3 presents a synthesis of the interests of different researchers when studying the wcf. For example, the specification criterion includes the classic distinction between direct and indirect wcf proposed and used by various authors (Bitchener & Knoch, 2008, Ellis, 2009a, Muñoz & Ferreira, 2017, Tang & Liu, 2018. This distinction is the most widely recognized in this type of studies.…”

Section: A Proposal For Describing Types Of Written Corrective Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This criterion has been proposed based on studies focused on the effect of the wcf delivered by means of a computer in contrast to the more usual written method (Ghazi & Zamanian, 2016;Kluger & Adler, 1993;Stevenson & Phakiti, 2014). Finally, with respect to the criterion of notes, it considers the inclusion as a variable of metalinguistic comments in the corrections (Bitchener & Knoch, 2008;Diab, 2015;Ellis, 2009a) and, from more recent studies, the affectivity involved and transmitted in these comments, which also has significant effects on student writing (Tang & Liu, 2018).…”

Section: A Proposal For Describing Types Of Written Corrective Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Today there is a high interest to analyze the effects of the different styles of wcf that can be delivered. For example, Tang and Liu (2018) sought to establish whether or not indirect feedback with affective comments was more effective than without comments. Researchers in this study found that both improve writing; however, affective comments also reinforce a positive mindset and increase motivation for writing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Classifying Written Corrective Feedback for Research and Educational Purposes: A Typology Proposal

Cárcamo¹

2020

Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although several investigations have been carried out in recent years on written corrective feedback (WCF), there is a lack of agreement about its definition and the effect on students’ writings of different types of feedback. This may be due to the lack of systematicity regarding the characterization of WCF used in those studies. This article seeks to review the concept of WCF in studies in the field and to systematize the various aspects considered in a typology, which includes specification, focus, scope, source, mode of delivery, and notes. The resulting typology should help improve the effectiveness in the comparison of WCF studies and serve as a reference for teachers interested in expanding their practices.

show abstract

“…To manage such constrains, teachers need to employ some professional adjustment (Ferris, Brown, Liu, Eugenia, and Stine, 2011) by dealing with three crucial contextual variables that are learners, situation, and instructional methodology (Hartshorn, McCollum, and Wolfersberger, 2010). Several attempts have also been empirically tested for example the use of video which is multimodal for conferencing thus the information delivered to the students could be richer (Ozkul and Ortactepe, 2017), the addition of affective comments to complement the written corrective feedback (Tang and Liu, 2018), the use of models (Mayo and Labandibar, 2017), and the application of supplementary rubrics (Ene and Kosobucki, 2016). Besides, reciprocal caring and dialogue interactions between teachers and students during the writing process could improve trust (Lee and Schallert, 2008) which then facilitate the linguistic revisions of the student writing (Merkel, 2018).…”

Section: Teachers' Perceptions and Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teachers’ Corrective Feedback on Students’ L2 Writing: State of the Art

Susanti

2017

Abjada

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teachers’ corrective feedback has been largely practiced in L2 writing programs and still extensively researched especially in the last decade. In the literature about ESL and EFL writing pedagogy, it is not only the typology but also the effectiveness as well as the relationship to others have been discussed. This paper synthesizes the current progress in the field to draw what has been done by the researchers in the area particularly in both ESL and EFL setting. As many as sixty-six studies mostly published in reputable journals from 2008 to 2018 are synthesized; and the result is categorized into five themes that include: first, the effectiveness of teachers’ corrective feedback on L2 writing accuracy; second, the stance of teachers’ corrective feedback comparing to peer feedback and computer-generated feedback; third, teachers’ perceptions and practices, fourth, students’ response and engagements; and finally experts’ recommendation for further studies and for synergizing research findings and practices.لقد تم استخدام التغذية الراجعة للمدرسين بشكل كبير في برامج كتابة المستوى الثاني، ولا تزال تبحث على نطاق واسع خاصة في العقد الأخير. في الأدب حول تدريس اللغة الإنجليزية كلغة أجنبية (ESL) وعلم اللغة الإنجليزية (EFL)، لا يقتصر الأمر على التصنيف فحسب ، بل تمت أيضاً مناقشة الفعالية بالإضافة إلى العلاقة مع الآخرين. هذه الورقة تجمع التقدم الحالي في المجال لرسم ما قام به الباحثون في المنطقة خاصة في كل من ESL و EFL. يتم تجميع ما يصل إلى ستة وستين دراسة يتم نشرها في الغالب في المجلات ذات السمعة الجيدة من عام 2008 إلى عام 2018؛ ويتم تصنيف النتيجة في خمسة محاور تتضمن: أولاً، مدى فاعلية ملاحظات المدرسين التصحيحية على دقة الكتابة في المستوى الثاني؛ ثانياً، موقف المدرسين التصحيحي التصحيحي مقارنةً بملاحظات الزملاء والمعلومات المرتجعة بالحاسوب؛ ثالثا، تصورات وممارسات المدرسين، رابعاً، استجابة الطلاب ومشاركاتهم؛ وأخيرًا توصية الخبراء بإجراء المزيد من الدراسات وتوحيد نتائج البحوث والممارسات.Umpan balik korektif para guru telah banyak dipraktekkan dalam program penulisan L2 dan masih banyak diteliti terutama dalam dekade terakhir. Dalam literatur tentang pedagogi penulisan ESL dan EFL, tidak hanya tipologi tetapi juga efektivitas serta hubungan dengan orang lain telah dibahas. Makalah ini mensintesis kemajuan saat ini di lapangan untuk menggambarkan apa yang telah dilakukan oleh para peneliti di daerah tersebut terutama dalam pengaturan ESL dan EFL. Sebanyak enam puluh enam studi yang kebanyakan diterbitkan dalam jurnal terkemuka dari tahun 2008 hingga 2018 disintesis; dan hasilnya dikategorikan ke dalam lima tema yang meliputi: pertama, efektivitas umpan balik korektif guru pada akurasi penulisan L2; kedua, sikap umpan balik koreksi guru dibandingkan dengan umpan balik teman dan umpan balik yang dihasilkan komputer; ketiga, persepsi dan praktik guru, keempat, respon dan keterlibatan siswa; dan akhirnya rekomendasi para ahli untuk studi lebih lanjut dan untuk mensinergikan temuan dan praktik penelitian.

show abstract

Effects of indirect coded corrective feedback with and without short affective teacher comments on L2 writing performance, learner uptake and motivation

Cited by 51 publications

References 21 publications

The Impact of Error Analysis and Feedback in English Second Language Learning

The Impact of Error Analysis and Feedback in English Second Language Learning

Classifying Written Corrective Feedback for Research and Educational Purposes: A Typology Proposal

Teachers’ Corrective Feedback on Students’ L2 Writing: State of the Art

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About