Teachers Do NOT Provide Error Correction Provide Corrective

Teachers: Do NOT Provide Error Correction: Provide Corrective Feedback Hussam Rajab

Do you like controversial topics?

This presentation is one of them

Shall We Begin?

Have a look at the following Last weakend I go taif

5 /10 ! 1. It is a sentence. 2. Lexical items. 3. Readable. 4. Conveyed idea and the past tense.

What is Corrective Feedback?

Any indication to learners by teachers that their use of the target language is incorrect is referred to as “written corrective feedback” (Lightbown & Spada, 1999) Corrective feedback is information given to learners regarding a linguistic error they have made (Loewen, 2012; Sheen, 2007) “teacher response and evaluation are typically the principal means by which L 2 learners measure their progress as writers” (Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1996, p. 1).

Some of the most frequently used terms: ◦ Written feedback ◦Corrective feedback ◦Error Correction ◦Teacher Response ◦Error Feedback ◦Negative evidence ◦Negative feedback

There are six major types of written corrective feedback: 1. Direct CF : Teacher provides the correct form. 2. Indirect CF : Teacher tells the students that there is an error, but doesn’t correct it. This may or may not include locating the problem (via underling etc). 3. Metalinguistic CF: Teacher gives metalinguistic clues to students to help them understand the nature of the problem. This can be done by using error codes or by providing brief grammatical descriptions 4. Focused and unfocused CF: Teacher can choose to provide feedback on selective errors (called focused or intensive feedback), or provide feedback on all (or most) errors (called unfocused or extensive feedback).

Research on WCF The recent dramatic change in WCF research started with this guy John Truscott

The case against grammar correction in L 2 writing classes. (1996) 1086 Citations! Dana Ferris The Influence of Teacher Commentary on Student Revision. (Ferris, 1997) 500 Citations! The case for grammar correction in L 2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). (January, 1999) 594 Citations! The case for “The case against grammar correction in L 2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. (May, 1999) 394 Citations!

Was Truscott right? New evidence on the effects of error correction in L 2 writing classes. Paper presented at AAAL Conference, Vancouver, BC. (Ferris, 2000) The efficacy of error correction for improvement in the accuracy of L 2 student writing. Paper presented at the AAAL Conference, Vancouver, BC. (Chandler, 2000) The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L 2 student writing. (Chandler, 2000) Treatment of error in second language writing classes. (Ferris, 2002) Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. (Ferris, 2003) Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: a response to Chandler (2002). (Truscott, 2004) The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write accurately. (Truscott, 2007) Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. (Bitchener, 2008) The effects of focused and un-focused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. (Ellis, Sheen, Murakami, and Takashima, 2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. (Ellis, 2009).

Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Ellis et al. (2008) and Bitchener (2008). (Cuiqin Xu, 2009) Measuring the effectiveness of written corrective feedback: A response to ‘‘Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Bitchener (2008). (Bitchener, 2009) The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. (Bitchener & Knoch, 2010) Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. (Ferris, 2010). Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition and Writing. (BOOK – Bitchener & Ferris, 2012) Recommended ! “I just want to do it right, but it's so hard”: A novice teacher's written feedback beliefs and practices. (Junqueira & Payant,

1. According to research, is written corrective feedback effective? Almost all the recent studies found positive and significant effects of written CF. (Except Truscott and Hsu, 2008; Liu, 2008, Hartshorn et al. , 2010) 2. Which type of feedback is more effective? No straight answer! 3. When should errors be corrected? No straight answer! 4. Which errors should be corrected? No straight answer!

The Research Study Mixed Methods (Sequential Explanatory) 8 Months of Data Collection (ONLY!) Participants were males and females 840 Students and 320 Teachers (questionnaire part) • 20 Students and 20 Teachers in (semistructures interviews) • •

• 89% teachers preferred coded feedback. • 75% of the students preferred unfocussed (full feedback). • Magic occurred in the interviews! 1. Students understood the issue of TIME and they expressed an alternative! 2. Teachers ALSO expressed a different cognitive approach to WCF 3. Most suggestions from both teachers and students was to establish a writing centre.