Evans, N.W., Hartshorn, K.J., McCollum, R.M., & Wolfersberger, M. (2010).

Contextualizing Corrective Feedback in Second Language Writing Pedagogy

Presented by:

Elizabeth Bolton, Nicole Jiang, Tianfei Jiang

Outline

Activity I

Article Overview

Activity II

Discussion

Critique / Concluding Thoughts

Activity IWriting Sample Correction I

Article OverviewEvans et al., 2010.

Contextualizing Corrective Feedback in Second Language Writing Pedagogy

Two Principal Characteristics of Dynamic WCF

1. Feedback reflects what the learner needs most as demonstrated by what the learner produces. 

2. For both the teacher and the learner, tasks/feedback are:

Manageable Meaningful

Timely Constant

Overview of Error-Correction Strategy

Write a 10-minute paragraph

Record errors with tally sheet, type and edit the

paragraph, submit Edit, resubmit

Student:

Teacher:

Appendix 2 Indirect Coding Symbols

Sample Tally Sheet

(Hartshorn et al., 2010)

Activity IIWriting Sample Correction II

Appendix 2 Indirect Coding Symbols

Discussion1. Share with your group a little bit about your personal method of written corrective feedback. Why do you use this method? What are its strengths and weaknesses? Would you use a different method if this paragraph were written in a different L2?

2. As a group, consider Dynamic WCF. Do you prefer it to your own methods? dislike it? or prefer some combination of multiple methods?

3. As a group, come up with your three most important priorities to consider when practicing written corrective feedback. 

Critique/Concluding ThoughtsPOSITIVESThis article is systematic and easy to follow. Contextual variables and reciprocity of the learning process are taken into account. It would be a good reference for novice teachers.

NEGATIVES○  Further research needs a control group.○ Highly motivated subjects might be improved with any method.

A POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE This article focuses on micro-correction, rather than macro-

correction.

Thanks!