abstract: This study provides insights into the nature of L2 writers' engagement with written corrective feedback (WCF) - how they process it and what they understand about the nature of the error - to explore its potential for language development. It also explores various factors, such as individual, socio-contextual, and pedagogical, which influence the extent of student engagement. Data include students' revisions recorded with screen-capture software and video-stimulated recall. The video-stimulated recall data were transcribed and coded for evidence of processing, error awareness, and error resolution. In addition, I conducted interviews with students and their instructors, and through a thematic analysis, I identified individual and socio-contextual factors that appeared to influence students' engagement. The findings of the study indicate that the processing of WCF and error awareness may be affected by pedagogical factors, such as the type of feedback and its delivery method. In addition, I found that while socio-contextual factors, such as grading policy, may influence students' attitudes toward the importance of grammar accuracy in their writing or motivation to seek help with grammar outside of class, such factors do not appear to affect students' engagement with WCF at the time of revision. Based on the insights gained from this study, I suggest that direct feedback may be more beneficial if it is provided in a comment or in the margin of the paper, and that both direct and indirect feedback may be more effective if a brief explanation about the nature of the error is included. In addition, students may need to be provided with guidelines on how to engage with their instructors' feedback. I conclude by suggesting that if WCF is provided, students should be held accountable for making revisions, and I recommend ways in which this can be done without penalizing students for not showing immediate improvements on subsequent writing projects. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation English 2015

No description available.

Thesis (M.A. (English Studies)) -- University of Limpopo, 2020 / This study explored the perceptions of students and lecturers with regard to written and oral corrective feedback in a first-level English course at the University of Limpopo. Specifically, the study was designed to establish the views of first entering students and lecturers around oral and written feedback. This study responds to widely-held views that students do not pay much attention to feedback, that even if feedback is provided, some do not know how use feedback systematically to improve their works, and that some lecturers are not investing sufficiently on provision of detailed, usable feedback. This study made use of classroom observations, questionnaires and focus group interviews to establish from students’ perceptions about oral and written corrective feedback in their studies and overall attainment of study goals. Furthermore, lecturers were also invited to participate in interviews to ascertain their perception on whether they consider written feedback essential and how it improves the students’ written English grammar. The study uncovered among others that students view oral and written corrective feedback as a tool that improves their grammar in English challenging long standing views that students are mostly interested in marks obtained in assessments. Data emerging from this study further suggests that participants view oral and written feedback as a device that helps students to improve in their usage of grammar and highlight the need to provide detailed, timely and constructive feedback in student’s academic work.

In recent years, language awareness (LA) has received increasing attention and is an aim for the English subject in the Swedish curriculum for upper secondary school. The present study aims to connect LA to a practice that teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL) perform on a regular basis, namely written corrective feedback (WCF), which focuses on linguistic or pragmatic errors in students’ texts. To explore what contributions WCF can make towards developing LA, a mixed-methods approach was employed with the participation of 111 Swedish EFL students. The data were collected through semi-structured interviews and a questionnaire. The results revealed that a majority of the participating students believe that WCF can support their development of LA. However, the findings also suggest that students’ views, experience and preferences of WCF might affect their understanding of it and also, to a certain extent, their motivation to attend to it. Therefore, in order for EFL teachers to work towards developing upper secondary students’ LA through WCF, it is important to work with it in class and explore it together with the students by engaging with language (EWL) through WCF.

What started as a discussion of the efficacy of explicit grammar instruction has over time led to a debate about the need for and effectiveness of written corrective feedback (WCF) within the field of English language teaching (ELT). Dynamic written corrective feedback (DWCF) is a relatively new strategy developed by Dr. Norman Evans to provide WCF to English as a second language (ESL) students through systematic, coded feedback. While previous studies on DWCF have looked at its effects among other groups, few studies have examined DWCF in the context of ESL students studying at the graduate level. This study analyzes the linguistic accuracy and lexical and syntactic complexity of these students before and after a fourteen-week DWCF intervention.

The purpose of this study is to determine two types of error gravity in a corpus of texts written by native Chinese learners of English (ELLs)—one that enriches the traditional construct of gravity found in error gravity research by including error frequency, or how often an error occurs in a text relative to others, as an intervening variable, and one that applies the new error gravity data in a practical way to help establish salient grammatical focal points for written corrective feedback (WCF). Previous error gravity research has suggested that the amount of irritation caused by error is determined by the extent to which an utterance departs from "native-like" speech. However, because these studies often neglect the role of frequency in determining gravity—relying on isolated sentences, pre-determined errors, and manipulated texts to define it—a more complete view of error gravity is needed. Forty-eight native English speakers without ESL teaching experience and 10 experienced ESL teachers evaluated a set of 18 timed, 30-minute essays written by high intermediate to advanced native-Chinese ELLs. Errors were identified, verified, tagged, and classified by the level of irritation they produced. Results show the most serious errors included count/non-count (C/NC), insert verb (INSERT V), omit verb (OMIT V), and subject-verb agreement (SV). The most frequent error type was word choice (WC), followed by singular/plural (S/PL), awkward (AWK), and word form (WF). When combined, singular/plural (S/PL), word form (WF), word choice (WC), and awkward (AWK) errors were found to be the most critical. These findings support Burt and Kiparsky's (1972) global/local error distinction in which global errors, or those lexical, grammatical and syntactic errors that affect the overall organization or meaning of the sentence (Burt, 1975) are deemed more grievous than local ones, which affect only "single elements (constituents)" (Burt, 1975, p. 57). Implications are discussed in terms of future research and possible uses in the Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback classroom.

No description available.

The influence of affective factors on learning has been studied by researchers in a range of disciplines, including within SLA research, where tests measuring anxiety specific to second language writing have been developed (Cheng, 2004). Recent studies on instructor perceptions show increasing numbers of second language learners (SLL) enrolled in mainstream university courses with instructors providing varying types of feedback to these learners. The current study investigates how the writing anxiety of second language learners in a mainstream context may relate to writing performance and how feedback anxiety resulting from one written assignment may be connected to writing performance on a subsequent assignment. Using modified writing anxiety survey instruments, 16 SLLs enrolled in two mainstream university English composition courses (taught by two instructors) completed two surveys, an informal interview, and an online questionnaire about feedback on two writing assignments prepared for their course; feedback and a grade from one assignment and a grade from a second assignment were also collected. Mainstream instructors were found to balance feedback provided to learners between content and organization feedback and grammatical feedback, similar to findings on feedback practices for second language instructors (Evans et al., 2010). Statistical analyses between survey results and grades revealed negative (non-statistically significant) correlations between anxiety scores (from surveys) and grades. Participants expressed 16 different emotions in response to feedback through qualitative data collection methods (open-ended survey questions, interviews, and online questionnaire); hope, acceptance, and anxiety were the three most commonly emotions reported. The number and complexity of emotional responses reported indicate that anxiety is only one of numerous responses to feedback and research on the effects of affective factors on learning may benefit from investigations of other emotions, including pleasant or positive emotions. Two data collection methods converged in reporting that nearly all participants made use of feedback through one or more forms of follow up action. Continued research into the complex emotions inspired by writing feedback may provide a deeper understanding of how SLLs may moderate their own emotional responses and provide instructors insight into additional factors that may affect learners’ writing performance. / Graduate / 0290 / amalec@uvic.ca

Feedback can be given in many different forms, and the type that is written and strives to either correct students written errors or support their overall writing ability is suitably enough referred to as written corrective feedback (WCF) of which there are two main types of: indirect and direct WCF. We know that second language writers meet many obstacles, be that lack of motivation and vocabulary or misspellings and phrasal issues; nonetheless, teachers thought processes about what type of feedback to give on what type of error is of importance for the continuation of the development of sound feedback approaches. Therefore, we intend to investigate English teachers perceptions on the WCF they give with the help of the following research questions: What are primary school English teachers’ perceptions about WCF in order to promote their ESL students writing development? What are primary school English teachers’ perceptions regarding their choice between written direct CF or written indirect CF on their ESL students written production?To investigate these questions we wrote an interview guide, and conducted interviews with seven teachers in 4th to 6th grade, asking about their perceptions on the development of writing in English as a second language and how they would describe their corrective feedback and their thought process on what type to give and when to give it on their student’s writing. Our findings showed that all teachers acknowledged two types of students in their ESL classroom: the high proficiency and the low proficiency. The low proficiency need more direct, clear and specific corrections on most of their writing whilst the high proficiency benefit from more indirect CF in order to make use of their metacognitive thinking skills. The findings also revealed that teachers choose to use indirect or direct CF based on the activity and whether the purpose is to learn grammar or not. If the focus is grammar, they would choose direct CF, and if it was to write a fictional story, they would give more indirect CF in order to not stifle the student’s creative process and “take the fun out of it”. Our study points to a need of more research within the field of feedback in general, since there is not much evidence showing what approaches are the most beneficial. Another issue is that there are practically no guidelines for teachers to follow, telling them what type to choose and for what activities. This is something for future research to dig deeper into.

The purpose of this study was to test the effect of one approach to writing pedagogy on second-language (L2) writing accuracy. This study used two groups of L2 writers who were learning English as a second language: a control group (n = 19) who were taught with traditional process writing methods and a treatment group (n = 28) who were taught with an innovative approach to L2 writing pedagogy. The methodology for the treatment group was designed to improve L2 writing accuracy by raising the linguistic awareness of the learners through error correction. Central to the instructional methodology were four essential characteristics of error correction including feedback that was manageable, meaningful, timely, and constant. Core components of the treatment included having students write a 10-minute composition each day, and having teachers provide students with coded feedback on their daily writing, help students to use a variety of resources to track their progress, and encourage students to apply what they learned in subsequent writing. Fourteen repeated measures tests using a mixed model ANOVA suggest that the treatment improved mechanical accuracy, lexical accuracy, and certain categories of grammatical accuracy. Though the treatment had a negligible effect on rhetorical competence and writing fluency, findings suggest a small to moderate effect favoring the control group in the development of writing complexity. These findings seem to contradict claims from researchers such as Truscott (2007) who have maintained that error correction is not helpful for improving the grammatical accuracy of L2 writing. The positive results of this study are largely attributed to the innovative methodology for teaching and learning L2 writing that emphasizes linguistic accuracy rather than restricting instruction and learning to other dimensions of writing such as rhetorical competence. The limitations and pedagogical implications of this study are also examined.