Written Corrective Feedback

doi:10.1017/9781108589789.011

10 - Written Corrective Feedback

from Part III - Different Delivery Modes of Corrective Feedback

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 February 2021

John Bitchener

Edited by

Hossein Nassaji and

Eva Kartchava

Show author details

Hossein Nassaji: Affiliation:
University of Victoria, British Columbia
Eva Kartchava: Affiliation:
Carleton University, Ottawa

Book contents

Get access

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.

Keywords

Written feedback corrective feedback options feedback for language learning

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 207 - 225

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.011 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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

Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17(3), 195–202.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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. London: Springer.CrossRef Google 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

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.