A Brief Review on Current Research in Written Corrective Feedback and Implication on L2 Writing Class

Abstract：The most common written corrective feedback （WCF） that Chinese L2 teachers give to their students may be the traditional way of direct feedback， with teachers circling and correcting errors for students. However， to facilitate language acquisition， the best way of correction is found to be related to learner differences， such as learners proficiency levels and learner preferences. In real classroom practice， it is advisable that L2 teachers pay attention to individual differences and search for a suitable way of WCF for students.

Key words：written corrective feedback; L2 writing class; learner differences

1. Introduction

Providing students with WCF in their writing seems obligatory for L2 teachers in China. However， in what way WCF best facilitates studentslearning is still a remaining question for researchers and practitioners. Some of them compare direct feedback （teachers mark and correct mistakes for students or teacher indicate the location of errors with a code referring to the type of mistakes） with indirect feedback （teachers indicate a mistake without marks or explanation） （Ferris and Roberts， 2001）， while others believe that best types of feedback are related to individual differences， such as learners proficiency levels and preferences （Sheen， 2007; Horbacauskiene & Kasperaviciene， 2015）. This paper summarizes recent research findings on L2 writing corrective feedback and reflects on real practice of college English teacher.

2. Recent Research on WCF

2.1 WCF and Learners Proficiency Level

There has been a boost of research comparing the effectiveness of direct feedback and indirect feedback after the year 2000， but results are still in controversy. For example， some research finds direct feedback more efficient in enhancing learners language ability （Chandler， 2003）， while others come to totally opposite conclusion （Eslami， 2014）. However， these studies have their limitation in that learner differences are overlooked. Therefore， variables in individual differences have drawn attention from recent researchers. For example， Sheen （2007） believes that since the aim for corrective feedback is to learn specific knowledge， it is likely that higher level of learners would be more easily involved in the comparison cognition of target knowledge and it is supposed that meta-linguistic correction would work more efficient for high level learners. In her 2007 experiment， meta-linguistic correction does improve high level learners acquisition of article. Although increasing attention has been placed on proficiency level， results vary from indirect feedback helping higher levels of students （Park et al.， 2016） and direct feedback beneficial for lower learners （吳菲，2010） to totally opposite conclusions （Sheen， 2007）.

2.2. Students and Teachers Attitude toward WCF

Learners attitude is another key to the effectiveness of WCF， because it is associated with motivation， proficiency， learner anxiety， autonomous learning， etc. （Elwood & Bode， 2014）. Although controversy over the effectiveness of L2 WCF exists and still continues， research on students attitude towards teachers WCF seems unanimous. Many studies yield the same result that students want their teachers to give them feedback （Ferris & Roberts， 2001; Chandler， 2003）， and that students feel they learn more from self-correction （Chandler， 2003）.

While Ferris and Roberts （2001） report that the most popular form of CF among students is underlining with description， there is a gap between students expectation of teachers WCF and teachers actual practice. In another study done by Lee （2008）， she investigates teachers practice and students preferences on WCF in two secondary schools. Results show that the most common way teachers give feedback is to underline or circle the errors and provide corrections， which was favored by most low proficiency students. But as for high proficiency students， their favorite way of CF was to underline or circle errors， categorize them， and provide corrections. Therefore， the gap between students expectation and teachers practice may result in a negative learning motivation from students to teachers WCF.

3. Implication on teaching practice

In the researchers recent survey with 78 college students， only 21.79% of them prefer feedback with error codes， while the majority expect the teacher to correct errors directly. The high dependence of students on teachers may be derived from teacher-dominated feedback practices （Lee， 2008）. Obviously， traditional way of feedback doesnt help every student to the same extend， and what students believe to facilitate their study may also turn out in an opposite way. Therefore， what type of feedback should teachers provide may be confined to specific teaching environment.

First， students English proficiency level should be one of the factors for determining the type of feedback to adopt. Recent studies regarding the relationship between students level and types of feedback have yet reached a consensus. This is mainly due to different experimental settings. Therefore， it is necessary for teachers to investigate based on their own classroom context. Teachers could separate the class by students English proficiency and provide different levels of students with certain types of feedback， for example， a general belief is that lower students would be benefited more from direct correction while higher students indirect one. During the process， teachers could mark the results and make comparison and finally draw a conclusion for target students. Besides， as students preferences could be factors to motivate study， it is also necessary to know what students want. Before teachers implement WCF， a questionnaire can be conducted with students to know their preferences. If teachers could take proficiency levels and learner preferences into account when giving WCF， it is likely that teachers may find their learners make progress greater than before.

5. Conclusion

Recent research on WCF not only focuses on the form of feedback， but emphasizes on learner differences. This topic is worth exploring because it is in accordance with student-centered learning， a teaching methodology that has been advocated in Chinese education. As the implementers to conduct WCF in real settings， teachers may also need to play the role of ‘researcher， investigating the best form of feedback to suit the needs of different students.

REFERENCES

[1]Chandler， J. . （2003）. The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of l2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing， 12（3）， 267-296.

[2]Elwood， J. A. ， & Bode， J. . （2014）. Student preferences vis-à-vis teacher feedback in university efl writing classes in japan. System， 42， 333-343.

[3]Eslami， E. （2014）. The effects of direct and indirect corrective feedback techniques on EFL students writing.?Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences，?98， 445-452.

[4]Ferris， D. ， & Roberts， B. . （2001）. Error feedback in l2 writing classes： how explicit does it need to be？. Journal of Second Language Writing， 10（3）， 161-184.

[5]Horbacauskiene， J. ， & Kasperaviciene， R. . （2015）. Learners' preferences towards corrective feedback in writing assignments in tertiary education. ExELL， 3（2）.

[6]Lee， I. . （2008）. Student reactions to teacher feedback in two hong kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing， 17（3）， 144-164.

[7]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.

[8]吳菲. （2010）.?英語寫作教學(xué)中教師語法錯誤反饋有效性的實證研究（Doctoral dissertation， 上海： 上海外國語大學(xué)）.

作者簡介：陳瑩瑩（1984—），女，廣東人，碩士，主要從事二語習(xí)得與英語教學(xué)研究。