Previous research has shown that corrective feedback on an assignment helps learners reduce their errors during the revision process. Does this finding constitute evidence that learning resulted from the feedback? Differing answers play an important role in the ongoing debate over the effectiveness of error correction, suggesting a need for empirical investigation. In this study, two groups of EFL learners were asked to write an in-class narrative. Their papers were collected, revised and returned to them in the next session. Half of the students had their errors underlined and used this feedback in the revision task while the other half did the same task without feedback. Results matched those of the previous studies: the underlined group was significantly more successful than the control group. Later on, the students were identically taught in 9 sessions. In the 12th session, however, the students were asked to write the same narrative they had produced in the first and second session as a measure of long-term learning. On this measure, the two groups were virtually identical. Thus, successful error reduction during revision is not a predicator of learning as the two groups differed dramatically on the former but were indistinguishable on the later. Improvements made during revision are not evidence on the effectiveness of correction for improving learners’ writing ability in the long run.
Table of Contents
1.1. Preliminaries
1.2. The Nature of Written Response
1.3. Assessing Written Response
1.4. The Role of Feedback in Improving Teaching
1.5. Corrective Feedback in Natural and Instructed FL Learning
1.6. Types of Corrective Feedback in Instructed FL Learning
1.7. Feedback and Performance
1.8. Peer Feedback and Performance
1.8.1. Peer Feedback in the Domain of Writing
1.9. Teacher vs. Peer feedback
1.10. Instructional Interventions to Foster Peer Feedback Effectiveness
1.11. Error Correction, Revision, and Learning
1.12. Statement of the Problem
1.13. Research Questions
1.14. Research Hypotheses
1.15. Significance of the Study
1.16. Scope of the Study
1.17. Definition of Key Terms
2.1. Effectiveness of Teacher's Feedback
2.1.1. The Impact of Peer and Teacher Feedback
2.1.2 Student Views of Peer and Teacher Feedback
2.2. The Pedagogical Effectiveness of Peer Reviews
2.3. Surveys of Teachers' Assessment Practice
2.4. Academic Writing
2.5. Empirical Studies
2.5.1. Studies Comparing Different Types of Corrective Feedback
2.6. Design Issues
2.7. Feedback and Performance
2.8. L2Writers in the Writing Center
2.9. Responding to Language in L2 Writers' Texts
2.10. Impact of Subject Matter on Writing Performance
2.10.1. Effective Practices in Assessing and Providing Feedback on Classroom Writing
2.11. Students' Perceptions of Feedback by Teachers
2.12. Repeated Feedback
2.13. Context and Overview of Bitchener (2008)
2.14. Response to Xu's Critique of Bitchener (2008)
2.15. The Relative Effectiveness of Explicit and Implicit Written Corrective Feedback
3.1. Participants
3.2. Materials
3.3. Procedure
3.4. Data Analysis
4.1. Results
5.1. Discussion
Research Objectives and Themes
This study investigates the role of written corrective feedback in the long-term writing improvement of Iranian EFL learners, specifically examining whether short-term error reduction during revision translates into sustained language learning.
- The distinction between short-term feedback effects and long-term learning outcomes.
- Effectiveness of various corrective feedback strategies in L2 writing instruction.
- The impact of teacher-provided versus peer-provided feedback on student writing development.
- Challenges in measuring learning through traditional revision-focused error correction.
Excerpt from the Book
1.2. The Nature of Written Response
Providing written feedback to writers is presented in the literature as a problematic practice. Comments on students’ drafts are seen, in general, as not effective in improving writing (Hyland, 2000; Muncie, 2000). Generally, it seems that the nature of feedback influences impact. Certain sorts of feedback, like that focusing on personal qualities, can impede learning by shifting focus from instructional to social goals (Kluger & DeNisi, 1998), while outcomes-focused feedback (e.g. a grade) seldom provides sufficient information to advance learning. The nature of feedback can also encourage surface versus deep learning. Feedback that focuses on the correctness of content in a domain generally contains insufficient information to affect the development of knowledge construction, whereas feedback directed at deeper learning may trigger forms of cognitive processing such as searching for relationships or developing knowledge to elaborate information (Balzer, Doherty, & O’Connor, 1989).
Studies on the nature of written response to writing have shown that college teachers’ comments tend to focus on low level, technical concerns, rather than on meaning-making (e.g. Connors & Lunsford, 1993; Sommers, 1982). It has also been reported that school teachers similarly give excessive consideration to surface features, particularly with regard to revision (Hargreaves & McCallum, 1998). Teachers have been portrayed as unable to articulate deeper feature, rhetorical concerns (Schwartz, 1984). Although several of the studies documenting the nature of teachers’ responses have been criticized as having methodological weaknesses (Ferris, 1997), findings regarding surface level feedback have been replicated more recently (Stern & Solomon, 2006).
Summary of Chapters
1.1. Preliminaries: Introduces the theoretical context of written response within formative assessment and emphasizes the gap in research regarding the relationship between feedback and actual writing progress.
1.2. The Nature of Written Response: Discusses the problematic nature of feedback, noting that it often focuses on surface-level errors rather than meaning-making or deep learning.
1.3. Assessing Written Response: Explores the role of assessment for learning, framing feedback as a tool for student engagement and progress monitoring rather than just correction.
1.4. The Role of Feedback in Improving Teaching: Examines how teachers can effectively use formative assessment and feedback, arguing that pedagogical content knowledge is essential for meaningful intervention.
1.5. Corrective Feedback in Natural and Instructed FL Learning: Situates corrective feedback within second language acquisition theory, contrasting nativist and interactionist perspectives on negative evidence.
1.6. Types of Corrective Feedback in Instructed FL Learning: Defines different feedback techniques such as recasts and negotiation of form, analyzing how they may help learners notice gaps in their interlanguage.
1.7. Feedback and Performance: Details various perspectives on how feedback supports learning, from incentive-based models to the provision of scaffolds for internalizing processes.
1.8. Peer Feedback and Performance: Evaluates peer feedback as a form of collaborative learning, highlighting both its potential for autonomy and its limitations compared to teacher expertise.
1.9. Teacher vs. Peer feedback: Contrasts teacher and peer feedback, discussing criteria for quality such as accuracy and the impact of the perceived "knowledge authority" of the assessor.
1.10. Instructional Interventions to Foster Peer Feedback Effectiveness: Reviews strategies to improve the quality of peer feedback, including training and structured question forms.
1.11. Error Correction, Revision, and Learning: Reviews the debate between Truscott and Ferris regarding the efficacy of grammar correction in L2 writing and frames the objectives of the current study.
1.12. Statement of the Problem: Identifies the central research problem: the potential discrepancy between short-term error correction and long-term language learning.
1.13. Research Questions: Outlines the specific questions regarding the role of corrective feedback and its impact on short-term vs. long-term writing improvement.
1.14. Research Hypotheses: Presents the study's primary hypotheses regarding the necessity and differential effects of corrective feedback.
1.15. Significance of the Study: Argues for the study’s importance in helping teachers optimize feedback strategies for better student outcomes in both short and long term.
1.16. Scope of the Study: Describes the study's longitudinal design and the selection process of the research participants to ensure valid findings.
1.17. Definition of Key Terms: Provides operational definitions for terms like feedback, error correction, grammar clusters, and recasts.
Keywords
Corrective Feedback, Written Response, Error Correction, Language Acquisition, Formative Assessment, Peer Feedback, Writing Improvement, Second Language Writing, Classroom Interaction, Teacher Feedback, Long-term Learning, Metalinguistic Explanation, Scaffolding, Student Perception, Writing Center.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The research fundamentally explores whether corrective feedback, which is commonly used to help learners reduce errors during the revision process, actually contributes to long-term language learning or just short-term performance gains.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
The study covers written response theories, the role of formative assessment, teacher versus peer feedback dynamics, instructional interventions, and the distinction between short-term revision effectiveness and long-term internalized learning.
What is the central research question?
The study aims to determine if teacher-provided corrective feedback plays a significant role in improving essay writing for Iranian EFL learners and whether its effect remains consistent between short-term tasks and long-term proficiency.
Which scientific methods are utilized in the study?
The research uses a longitudinal pre-test/post-test experimental design, involving two groups of Iranian EFL learners. It employs statistical analysis (such as ANOVA and t-tests) to compare the efficacy of different feedback conditions on narrative writing accuracy over a 12-week period.
What does the main body of the work address?
The main body reviews existing literature on teacher and peer feedback, discusses various research design issues, and details the pedagogical practices involved in providing feedback to students in writing courses.
Which keywords characterize this work?
Key terms include Corrective Feedback, Written Response, Error Correction, Second Language Writing, Formative Assessment, and Long-term Learning, among others.
How does the researcher define the "gap" in previous studies?
The researcher highlights that many previous studies only measure accuracy during the revision process itself, failing to account for whether students actually internalize the corrections for future, independent writing tasks.
What role does the "Pink Panther" cartoon play in the study?
It serves as the standardized stimulus material for the narrative writing tasks, used for both the pre-test and the long-term learning post-test, ensuring consistency in the writing prompts across participants.
What is the author's ultimate conclusion regarding teacher feedback?
The author suggests that while corrective feedback may lead to immediate improvements in revision, it does not guarantee long-term internalization of grammatical rules, urging teachers to rethink their reliance on immediate error correction as a primary teaching device.
- Quote paper
- Sajad Sadeghi (Author), 2014, The Role of Corrective Feedback in Writing Improvement. A Case of Iranian EFL Learners, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/283925
