The Written Corrective Feedback Debate: Next Steps for Classroom Teachers and Practitioners

Brown, Dan

doi:10.1002/tesq.63

Cited by 27 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although some studies involved writing genres less conducive to grading (e.g., journals), 32% reported grades on writings and only 7% reported grades for accuracy specifically. If researchers or teachers are hesitant to give grades on accuracy because it can encourage avoidance or discourage risk-taking, an alternative approach could be to grade the effort students put forth in attempting revision (Brown, 2012).…”

Section: Research Question 2: Study Design In Wcf Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing

Liu

Brown

2015

Journal of Second Language Writing

Self Cite

167

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Research Question 2: Study Design In Wcf Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing

Liu

Brown

2015

Journal of Second Language Writing

Self Cite

167

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Table 1. Two English preparatory programs: 2010-2012-2019 While the differences between the two programs outnumbered the similarities in the earlier period, the similarities between the preparatory program at Qassim University in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and that of Düzce University in the Republic of Turkey are important to consider. The most obvious characteristic shared by the two programs has been that they were preparatory programs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Writing evaluation in university English preparatory programs: Two universities of Turkey and Saudi Arabia

Peaci¹

2020

Dil Ve Dilbilimi Çalışmaları Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars have given little attention to testing's influence on the outcomes of university English preparatory programs (UEPP). Variations on the two main classifications of writing evaluation, the holistic and the analytic were examined. The objectives were to identify the assumptions for inclusion of writing in UEPPs, analyze the skills and abilities tested and finally, to examine the correlation between program assumptions and testing and the potential of different testing methods to impact student motivation. The aims and assumptions of the programs and course materials were analyzed via synchronic and diachronic comparisons of program structures and teaching materials, using two examples from the past and one currently in use. Results revealed that testing instruments designed and used only for grading, failing and promotion of students do not provide constructive student feedback, which is a demotivating factor. Testing and evaluation in general should be primarily constructive and positive. UEPP writing examinations should be evaluated analytically rather than holistically for reasons of fairness and to provide constructive and serious feedback to students. Rubrics should be constructed for the marking of paragraphs and essays to ensure fair and consistent marking in large programs with team teaching. The objective testing of writing skills must be implemented to support instructional goals. Thus, evaluation should be analytical, not holistic. The attention drawn to the linking of student motivation to elements of analytical writing evaluation is the significant contribution of this study.

show abstract

“…I coded those errors indicated by the English composition teacher in the students' exercise books using the six plus one method, that is, [20]'s six types of corrective feedback: Explicit Correction, Recasts, Clarification Requests, Metalinguistic…”

Section: Findings Research Question Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of Teacher-written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Writing Pedagogy in Secondary Schools, Bulilima, Zimbabwe

Muchemwa

Amimo

Allida

2019

JESBS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the teachers' practice on written corrective feedback as well as the students' response to it in a bid to find practical solutions to the problem of low performance in English composition writing at "O" Level in Zimbabwe. The study sought to find out the nature of corrective feedback that "O" Level students get from their composition teachers and how these students respond to it. In this qualitative research, seven informants ("O" Level students) were interviewed; the researchers used a semi-structured interview schedule to address them and their English exercise books were also analyzed using a document analysis guide designed by the researchers. The study concluded that the composition teacher marked the compositions thoroughly highlighting most of the errors for students' benefit. The teacher's focus on feedback was in line with the syllabus demands. The teacher also satisfied the Feed Up, Feed Back and the Feed Forward types of effective feedback. She had strength on mark allocation which acted as student guide to their stance in composition writing. However, although the students largely benefited from the teacher's corrective written feedback as well as the oral feedback, some of them Muchemwa et al.; JESBS, 31(3): 1-13, 2019; Article no.JESBS.42527 2 failed to get the maximum benefit because they could not understand the correction codes. It is therefore imperative for composition teachers to provide students with a correction code elaboration whenever using a marking correction code. Original Research Article

show abstract

The Written Corrective Feedback Debate: Next Steps for Classroom Teachers and Practitioners

Cited by 27 publications

References 28 publications

Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing

Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing

Writing evaluation in university English preparatory programs: Two universities of Turkey and Saudi Arabia

Analysis of Teacher-written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Writing Pedagogy in Secondary Schools, Bulilima, Zimbabwe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About