Rod Ellis University of Auckland

and Shanghai International Studies University

The problem … while feedback is a central aspect of L2 writing programs across the world, the research literature has not been equivocally positive about its role in L2 development, and teachers often have a sense they are not making use of its full potential (Hyland and Hyland 2006: 83).

Focus of feedback 1. Content 2. Organisation 3. Language (corrective feedback)

Aims of corrective feedback 1. To enable students to revise their own writing. 2. To assist students to acquire correct English

Two types of evidence 1. Negative evidence. (i.e. it signals that something

that learner has said or written does not conform to target language norms)

2. Positive evidence (i.e. it tell the student what the correct linguistic form is).

This distinction between negative and positive evidence is an important one when considering the role that WCF plays in L2 acquisition.

A typology of options for written corrective feedback

Two dimensions of WCF 1. Strategies for providing corrective feedback 2. How students respond to the feedback

WCF Strategies 1. Direct WCF 2. Indirect WCF 3. Metalinguistic WCF

Direct WCF The teacher provides the student with the correct form

(i.e. provides both negative and positive evidence). It can take a number of different forms: • crossing out an unnecessary word, phrase or

morpheme • inserting a missing word or morpheme • writing the correct form above or near to the erroneous

form.

Example of Direct WCF A a a The dog stole bone from butcher. He escaped the with having bone. When the dog was going over a a the through bridge over the river he found dog in the river.

Indirect WCF Indirect CF involves indicating that the student has made an error but without actually correcting it (i.e. it only provides negative evidence). It can take a number of different forms: • underlining the errors • using cursors to show omissions in the students text • placing a cross in the margin next to the line

containing the error.

An example XAX dog stole X bone from X butcher. He escaped with XhavingX X bone. When the dog was going XthroughX X bridge over XtheX river he found X dog in the river. X = missing word X __X = wrong word

Metalinguistic WCF This involves providing learners with an explicit comment

about the nature of the errors they have made but not providing the actual correction.

Two ways: 1. Using of error codes (i.e. abbreviated labels for different

kinds of errors placed over the location of the error in the text or in the margin).

2. Metalinguistic clues (e.g. numbering errors and providing brief metalinguistic comments at the end of the text).

3. Metalinguistic explanation (i.e. detailed explanation of a specific error).

Example of using error codes Art. x 3; WW A dog stole bone from butcher. He escaped with having bone. Prep.; art. When the dog was going through bridge over the river he Art. found dog in the river. ________________________________ art. art. art WW/ art A dog stole bone from butcher. He escaped with having bone. When the dog prep. art art. art was going through bridge over the river he found dog in the river.

Example of metalinguistic comments (1) (2) (3) (4) A dog stole bone from butcher. He escaped with having bone. When the dog (5) (6) (7) (8) was going through bridge over the river he found dog in the river. (1), (2), (3), (6) (7) – you need ‘a’ before the noun when a

person or thing is mentioned for the first time. (4), (8) - you need ‘the’ before the noun when the person

or thing has been mentioned previously (5) – you need ‘over’ when you go across the surface of

something; you use ‘though’ when you go inside something (e.g. ‘go through the forest’).

Example of metalinguistic explanation

Brumfit’s Model of WCF This model involved both indirect correction and the use of an error coding system. It consisted of five main stages, starting from ‘underlining a mistake and diagnosing it in the margin’ and concluding with ‘put a cross in each line with a mistake but do not show where’. The underlying idea was to gradually remove the amount of assistance the teacher provided so as to foster self-dependence on the part of the student. It is notable that Brumfit’s model did not include direct teacher correction.

Focused vs. unfocused WCF 1. Focused = correcting just one type of error 2. Unfocused = correcting all or most of the errors. The distinction between unfocused and focused CF applies to all of the previous options.

Students response to WCF 1. Revision required 2. No revisions required a. students asked to study corrections b. students just given back corrected text

Reformulation This involves a native-speaker rewriting the student’s

text in such a way as ‘to preserve as many of the writer’s ideas as possible, while expressing them in his/her own words so as to make the piece sound native-like’ (Cohen 1989: 4).

The writer then revises by deciding which of the native-speaker’s reconstructions to accept.

In essence, then, reformulation involves two options ‘direct correction’ + ‘revision’ but it differs from how these options are typically executed in that the whole of the student’s text is reformulated thus laying the burden on the learner to identify the specific changes that have been made.

Some controversies

Truscott

Error correction has no effect on the acquisition of ‘genuine knowledge of language’.

It can have a negative effect by causing learners to avoid using problematic grammatical structures

It can have an impact on the explicit knowledge needed for monitoring in grammar tests or when rewriting a written text that has been corrected.

Ferris Written corrective feedback is a valuable pedagogic tool because it can help learners to write more accurately when revising a first draft or in a new piece of writing.

Reconciling these positions Truscott may be right in asserting that error correction does not contribute to what he called “genuine knowledge of language”– i.e., implicit knowledge. However, the empirical evidence indicates that he is wrong in claiming that it has no effect on accuracy in writing for communicative purposes. Error correction may be effective because it assists learners’ explicit knowledge which they can then use to eliminate errors in their writing.

Direct WCF 1. Advantage - provides learners with explicit guidance

about how to correct their errors. 2. 2. Disadvantage - requires minimal processing by

learners so although it might help them to produce the correct form when they revise their writing, it may not contribute to long-term learning.

Direct WCF may be preferable for low proficiency

learners.

Indirect WCF 1. Advantages: caters to ‘guided learning and problem solving’

(Lalande 1982) and encourages students to reflect about linguistic forms.

considered more likely to lead to long-term learning (Ferris and Roberts 2002).

2. Disadvantages: learners cannot correct if they do not know the

correct form Learners may be able to correct but will not be

certain that they are correct.

Van Beuningen et al.’s (2012) study This study compared the effects of direct and indirect WCF on 268 Dutch multilingual secondary school learners’ writing. • Direct and indirect WCF equally effective for

correcting lexical errors. • Only the direct CF resulted in significant gains in

grammatical accuracy in new pieces of writing.

Direct vs. metalinguistic feedback 1. Shintani and Ellis (2013) - direct WCF had no effect

on accurate use of the indefinite article whereas the metalinguistic explanation led to gains in accuracy in a new piece of writing completed immediately after the treatment but not in one completed two weeks later.

2. Shintani, Ellis and Suzuki (2014) – both direct WCF and metalinguistic explanation led to acquisition of the hypothetical conditional but not of the indefinite article. The effectiveness of the direct WCF proved longer lasting than the metalinguistic explanation.

Focused vs. unfocused WCF Advantages of unfocused WCF: • writing tasks can be more authentic • accords more with normal pedagogic practice as a teacher’s

purpose in correcting his/her pupils written work is to improve accuracy in general, not just the use of one grammatical feature.

Advantages of focused CF: • enhances the likelihood that learners will not just memorize the

specific corrections but develop an awareness of the underlying rule (i.e., develop explicit knowledge).

• Teachers can vary the feature they focus on in different writing tasks and thus achieve a wide coverage of grammar over time.

Research investigating focused and unfocused WCF 1. Ellis et al. (2008) reported no difference in the effect of

focused and unfocused WCF on new pieces of writing either in the short or the long term. However, they noted that their unfocused condition was in fact quite focused as it provided multiple correction of the target error.

2. Sheen et al. (2009) set out to make a clearer distinction between the two types. They concluded that unfocused WCF was of limited value whereas focused WCF led to clear gains in grammatical accuracy in new pieces of writing.

3. Farrokhi and Sittapour (2012) also found focused WCF more effective

Tiered feedback One way of combining focused and unfocused WCF might be ‘tiered feedback’ (i.e. feedback that begins by focusing on one grammatical feature and then adds an additional feature each time feedback is given). Andersen (2010) investigated this but found that the effectiveness of the feedback decreased as the number of corrected features increased.

Should learners be told to revise? Argument against revision: • Learners learn from input not from output (Krashen) Argument for revision: • Encourages ‘pushed output’ (Swain) • Involves explicit attention to form WCF plus revision has been shown to be more more effective than WCF alone. Irrespective of whether there were multiple opportunities to revise following WCF (as in Chandler) or only a single opportunity (as in Frear and Van Beuningen et al.), revision following WCF led to greater accuracy in new writing.

Conclusions

WCF works There is now ample evidence that WCF contributes to greater accuracy not just when revising but also in new pieces of writing. But the evidence does not show that WCF results in implicit knowledge (i.e. the kind of knowledge needed for spontaneous communication). It is more likely that it assists the development of explicit knowledge.

Which type of WCF is most effective? • Direct WCF • Metalinguistic WCF • Focused WCF • WCF followed by revision

Teachers need an explicit policy Teachers need to consider the various options and

formulate an explicit policy for correcting errors in students’ written work.

They also need to subject their policy to evaluation by

evaluating the effects of their error correction

Situated nature of WCF Hyland and Hyland (2006) comment: ‘it may be …

that what is effective feedback for one student in one setting is less so in another’ (p. 88).

A sociocultural perspective on CF would emphasise the need to adjust the type of feedback offered to learners to suit their stage of development although how this can be achieved practically remains unclear in the case of written CF.

What next? Most of the research that has investigated WCF has consisted of short-term experimental studies. There is a need for longitudinal studies of WCF (i.e. investigating its effects over a period of time).