Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning
- Part I Theoretical Perspectives on Corrective Feedback
- Part II Methodological Approaches in the Study of Corrective Feedback
- Part III Different Delivery Modes of Corrective Feedback
- 9 Oral Corrective Feedback
- 10 Written Corrective Feedback
- 11 Technology-Mediated Corrective Feedback
- 12 Gestures, Corrective Feedback, and Second Language Development
- Part IV Feedback Provider, Feedback Intensity, and Feedback Timing
- Part V Corrective Feedback and Language Skills
- Part VI Contexts of Corrective Feedback and Their Effects
- Part VII Learners’ and Teachers’ Feedback Perspectives, Perceptions, and Preferences
- Part VIII Individual Differences, Tasks, and Other Language- and Learner-Related Factors
- Index
- References
10 - Written Corrective Feedback
from Part III - Different Delivery Modes of Corrective Feedback
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 February 2021
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning
- Part I Theoretical Perspectives on Corrective Feedback
- Part II Methodological Approaches in the Study of Corrective Feedback
- Part III Different Delivery Modes of Corrective Feedback
- 9 Oral Corrective Feedback
- 10 Written Corrective Feedback
- 11 Technology-Mediated Corrective Feedback
- 12 Gestures, Corrective Feedback, and Second Language Development
- Part IV Feedback Provider, Feedback Intensity, and Feedback Timing
- Part V Corrective Feedback and Language Skills
- Part VI Contexts of Corrective Feedback and Their Effects
- Part VII Learners’ and Teachers’ Feedback Perspectives, Perceptions, and Preferences
- Part VIII Individual Differences, Tasks, and Other Language- and Learner-Related Factors
- Index
- References
Summary
Feedback delivery in the form of written corrective feedback on linguistic errors in L2 learners’ written texts has been central to much of the L2 writing and second language acquisition literature since the 1970s. This chapter surveys the various feedback options together with explanations of their typical pedagogical purposes and what we know from the research literature and recent theoretical proposals about the ways in which the feedback options may facilitate or impede the L2 learning process. The chapter closes with a range of recommended pedagogical options based on the available literature.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 207 - 225Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of second language writing, 17(2), 102–118.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2019). The intersection between SLA and feedback research. In Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (2nd ed., pp. 85–105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–431.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2010a). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2010b). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207–217.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., Young, S. & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M. & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Frear, D. & Chiu, Y. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24–34.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Guenette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback in writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40–53.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, J. (1980). The treatment of error in written work. Modern Language Journal, 64(2), 216–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305–313.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66(2), 140–149.Google Scholar
Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69–85.Google Scholar
Lee, I. (2017). Working hard or working smart: Comprehensive or focused written corrective feedback in L2 academic contexts. In J. Bitchener, N. Storch, R. Wette, (eds.), Teaching writing for academic purposes to multilingual students (pp. 168–180). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2017). The efficacy of written corrective feedback on second language development: The impact of feedback type, revision type, learning motivation and strtaegies. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48(2), 183–218.Google Scholar
Qi, G. (2015). The impact of explicitness of written CF, targeted linguistic form and proficiency level on the effectiveness of written CF: A mixed-methods study. Unpublished doctoral thesis, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Robb, T., Ross, S. & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. Tesol Quarterly, 20(1), 83–95.Google Scholar
Rummel, S. (2014). Student and teacher beliefs about written CF and the effect these beliefs have on uptake: A multiple case study of Laos and Kuwait. Unpublished doctoral thesis, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Rummel, S. & Bitchener, J. (2015). The effectiveness of written corrective feedback and the impact Lao learners’ beliefs have on uptake. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 38(1), 64–82.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. Tesol Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y., Wright, D. & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556–569.Google Scholar
Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23(1), 103–110.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286–306. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011.Google Scholar
Shintani, N., Ellis, R. & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–131. DOI:10.1111/lang.12029.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stefanou, C. & Revesz, A. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learners differences and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 263–282.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. S. & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(2), 183–203.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305.Google Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H. & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL-Review of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296.Google Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H. & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41.Google Scholar
- 6
- Cited by