Error Correction in College EFL Writing Instruction: Students’ Expectations and Correction Effects

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The growing body of research on corrective error feedback in the past two decades has been mostly carried out in the ESL context and has concluded its effectiveness, with controversy remaining regarding its effects on EFL learners. The present study was set in the college EFL context. A survey at the beginning of the study suggested that students preferred indirect error correction where instructors underline errors and indicate error types at the same time. The one-semester experiment focused on the effects of two types of indirect error correction regarding seven treatable errors. The results showed that both types of indirect error correction were effective as the number of errors per hundred words decreased significantly in the post-test. In the delayed post-test, the group that received coded error correction maintained a significant improvement in language accuracy compared with the pre-test, suggesting that underlining errors coupled with providing error codes has better delayed effects. However, some types of errors showed an increase in frequency from the pre-test to the delayed post-test, despite the significant decrease in the total number of errors.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 Evans, N. W., "Written corrective feedback : The practitioners’ perspectives" 10 (10): 47-77, 2010

2 Ferris, D., "Treatment of error in second language student writing" University of Michigan Press 2002

3 Han, Y., "The intra-and inter-task effectiveness of direct and indirect written corrective feedback" 8 (8): 71-96, 2012

4 Jean Chandler, "The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing" Elsevier BV 12 (12): 267-296, 2003

5 Rod Ellis, "The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context" Elsevier BV 36 (36): 353-371, 2008

6 John Bitchener, "The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing" Elsevier BV 14 (14): 191-205, 2005

7 Ferris, D., "The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996)" 8 (8): 1-11, 1999

8 John Bitchener, "Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback" Elsevier BV 19 (19): 207-217, 2010

9 Chen, X., "Jiaoshi shumian xiuzhengxing fankui dui xuesheng yingyu xiezuo de yingxiang [Impact of instructor written corrective feedback on student English writing]" 41 (41): 351-358, 2009

10 Danielle Guénette, "Is feedback pedagogically correct?" Elsevier BV 16 (16): 40-53, 2007

11 Hedgcock, J., "Feedback on feedback : Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing" 3 (3): 141-163, 1994

12 Ferris, D., "Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues" Cambridge University Press 81-104, 2006

13 John Bitchener, "Evidence in support of written corrective feedback" Elsevier BV 17 (17): 102-118, 2008

14 Ferris, D., "Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?" 10 (10): 161-184, 2001