1 / 18

The role of corrective feedback: formative assessment

The role of corrective feedback: formative assessment. Aim. To reflect on the practice of corrective feedback in L2 writing: What we do Students’ views What next?. ’Grammar correction has no place in writing classes and should be abandoned.’ Truscott, J. (1996). Research. Against

dayo
Télécharger la présentation

The role of corrective feedback: formative assessment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The role of corrective feedback:formative assessment

  2. Aim • To reflect on the practice of corrective feedback in L2 writing: • What we do • Students’ views • What next?

  3. ’Grammar correction has no place in writing classes and should be abandoned.’ Truscott, J. (1996)

  4. Research • Against • Lack of evidence to the contrary • Can be damaging • Ignores students views • Truscott (1996) • Leads to simplification • Sheppard (1992) & Truscott 2001 in Beuningen, De Jong & Kuiken 2012:1)

  5. Research For Students receiving cf demonstrated improved performance Ferris & Roberts (2001), Chandler (2003), Sheen (2007),Bitchener2008, Bitchener & Koch (2008:193), Van Beuningen, De Jong & Kuiken (2012)

  6. Types of cf Direct Correct form Reformulation Indirect Error codes Underlining/highlighting an error Marks in the margin Metalanguage Asking a question

  7. Student’s views • Want errors checked (Leki 1991 in Hyland 1998) • Preference for indirect (Ferris & Roberts 2001 & Leki 1991 in Ferris 2010:190) • Preference for direct(Elwood & Bode 2014:339) • Preference for negative cf citing the ‘insincerity of positive comments’ (Hyland 1998)

  8. Our students Very helpful Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Indirect Error codes 56 58 55 Underlining 78 58 73 Direct Correct form 89 83 55 Correct sp 78 66 27

  9. Our students Error Very codes helpful L2 56 L3 58 L4 55 Perceived ability to correct: 80% 60% 78% 100% 55% 88% 54% 72%

  10. Our students Under- Very lining helpful L2 78 L3 58 L4 73 Perceived ability to correct: 80% 60% 33% 67% 46% 67% 36% 54%

  11. Our students Spelling Very helpful L2 78 L3 67 L4 27 Perceived ability to correct 80% 60% 55% 66% 58% 75% 73% 91%

  12. Our students Organ- Very isation helpful L2 100 L3 83 L4 91 Perceived ability to address 80% 60% 55% 77% 79% 79% 81% 90%

  13. Our students Content Very helpful L2 89 L3 79 L4 64 Perceived ability to address 80% 60% 44% 77% 71%88% 63% 90%

  14. Our students: written comments Many corrections ‘I’m upset.’ ‘I feel demotivated a little but I feel I need to do more efforts to avoid that.’ ‘feeling bad at the beginning but it gives me an alarm that I should improve my writing more.’ ‘I feel we have someone want my benefits.’ ‘I’ll be happy because I would like to know my mistakes in brief.’

  15. Few corrections ‘I will think that it is going very well in my writing.’ ‘I feel good because I suppose that my writing skill has been improved.’ ‘It means my writing is good.’ ‘happy an I invite myself to dinner ’ ‘I feel the teacher don’t take my paragraph serious.’ ‘Not good as I will think I am good at English, and I will not improve my English skills.’ ‘hmmmm…good feeling but with doubts.’ ‘Lost. Not clear. Not motivated’ ‘Disappointed VERY MUCH and it makes me feel scared

  16. What next? • Adopt a gradual approach from direct to indirect • Dynamic assessment: mediated approach • Content, meaning & organisation • Follow up interviews • Teachers’ views • Consider affective factors • ‘…the feedback situation has great potential for miscommunication and misunderstanding.’ • Hyland (1998)

  17. References Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 17: 102-118 Bitchener, J. & U. Koch. (2009). The Contribution of Written Corrective Feedback to Language Development: A Ten Month Investigation. Applied Linguistics: 31/2: 193-214. OUP 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, 267-296. Ellis, R. & J. Chiang. (2009). Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development. L2 Journal, UC Consortium for Language Learning & Teaching, UC Davis Elwood, J. A. (2014). Student preferences vis-à-vis teacher feedback in university EFL writing classes in Japan. www.elsevier.com/locate/system. System 42 (2014) 333-343 Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second Language Writing Research and Written Corrective Feedback in SLA: Intersections and Practical Applications. Studies in Second Language Acauisition 32: 181-201 Hyland, F. (1998). The Impact of Teacher Written Feedback on Individual Writers. Journal of Second Language Writing 7(3), 255-286.

  18. Sheen, Y. (2007). The Effect of Focused Written Corrective Feedback and Language Aptitude on ESL Learners’ Acquisition of Articles. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 41, 255-283. Truscott, J. (1996). The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes. Language Learning 46:2, 327 – 369 Truscott, J. (1996). The Case for ‘The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes’: A Response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing 8(2), 111 – 122. Truscott, J. & A. Y. Hsu. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing 17: 292 – 305 Van Beuningen, C., De Jong, N. H. & F Kuiken. (2012). Evidence on the Effectiveness of Comprehensive Error Correction in Second Language Writing. Language Learning 62:1, pp1-41

More Related