Docstoc

Corrective Feedback: An Indispensable Teaching Strategy in Language Classes

Document Sample
Corrective Feedback: An Indispensable Teaching Strategy in Language Classes Powered By Docstoc
					        Adventist International Institute

              of Advanced Studies




          CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK:
  AN INDISPENSABLE TEACHING STRATEGY
FOR SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION CLASSES




                  A term paper

         presented in partial fulfillment

        of the requirements for the course

        PROCESS OF CURRICULUM




                       by

             Kathleen Ferrer Bienes

              September 24, 2010




                        i
                                           TABLE OF CONTENTS


INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1

REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...................................................................................... 3

        The Need to Address Student Errors .................................................................. 3
        Errors and Error Treatment ................................................................................ 4
           Errors Students Make .................................................................................... 5
              Student errors in conversation. ................................................................. 5
              Student errors in composition ................................................................... 6
           Error Treatment: Error Correction or Corrective Feedback .......................... 6
              Defining corrective feedback ................................................................... 7
              Types of corrective feedback.................................................................... 7
        Learners‘ Responses to Corrective Feedback .................................................... 9
           Learners‘ Responses to Corrections in Oral Discourse ................................. 9
           Learners‘ Responses to Corrections in Written Discourse .......................... 10
        Roles of Corrective Feedback in SLA ............................................................. 11
           Teachers‘ Employment of Corrective Feedback ......................................... 11
           Perceptions on the Use of Corrective Feedback .......................................... 12
              Teachers and students‘ stance. ............................................................... 12
              Experts and researchers‘ point of view. ................................................. 13
                 Against corrective feedback .............................................................. 13
                 For corrective feedback ..................................................................... 13
           What Research Reveals ............................................................................... 14
        Implications to Language Teaching ................................................................. 15

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 17

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 18




                                                       ii
                                    INTRODUCTION


       Feedback, as a teaching strategy, is a necessity in any classroom setting. Teachers

admit to its importance, and students both value and expect it from their instructors. In

fact, feedback is a ―researched-based strategy‖ found to ―make a significant difference‖

in students‘ learning and achievement (Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory,

2005, para. 1). It is also one of the most essential activities a teacher should get involved

in to motivate his/her students, and help them succeed in their studies (Hattie, as cited in

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 2005). In addition, Askew and Lodge

(2000) also supportively note that it is ―a crucial feature of teaching and learning process‖

(p. 1). In other words, feedback is a key component in classroom instruction that aids the

learning process, and eventually leads to students‘ success.

       Corrective feedback is one type of feedback that proves to be very interesting. It is

a strategy that teachers use when they identify an error in students‘ utterance; hence, it is

also called error correction (Campillo, 2004-05) or error treatment (Tedick & de Gortari,

1998). This is in particular a common feature among second and/or foreign language

classes, particularly in English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign

Language (EFL) classes. I am personally aware of this since I have been teaching English

to Koreans for a considerable amount of time, and I am always concerned whether I

should always correct every error that my students make in their use of the target

language.



                                              1
       Studies reveal that the effectiveness of corrective feedback in second (or foreign)

language classes for language development and acquisition is still debatable (Russell,

2009; Sheen, 2004; Zhang, Zhang, & Ma, 2010). Moreover, there is still a gap between

teachers‘ and students‘ perceptions regarding the use of corrective feedback in the class

(Russell, 2009; Zhang et al., 2010). These issues will serve as the major framework of

this paper. In addition, this study will endeavor to examine researches in second language

(L2) classes, and see if there is really a need for corrective feedback in the taught

curriculum, and find out how it can be used effectively in highlighting the lesson that

should be instilled into the students‘ learned curriculum. This paper will also try to

explore the role of corrective feedback in second language acquisition (SLA), look into

the type of corrective feedback commonly employed by L2 teachers, and examine how

learners respond to it.




                                              2
                              REVIEW OF LITERATURE


                          The Need to Address Student Errors

       Learning a second and/or a foreign language, especially the international

language—English, is deemed necessary in order to function globally. As a result, people

from non-English speaking countries feel the necessity to study and learn English for

their personal and their countries‘ national progress. Consequently, these people usually

spend a great deal of time and money just to be able to speak and communicate in

English. However, the question is, ―Do second language classes equip non-native

speakers with proper knowledge and training enough to enable them to communicate and

function effectively in their target language?‖

       Researches done since the 1970‘s reveal that ―immersion students' L2 productive

skills are not on a par with those of their native-speaking counterparts‖ (Tedick & de

Gortari, 1998, para. 1). This means that language learners may not actually learn adequate

language skills to fully function in the target language. There are several reasons that

would explain this issue, but some attribute this to the fact that subject matter is the only

thing that gets into the taught curriculum (Tedick & Gortari, 1998). The kind of teaching

that language teachers generally engage in is geared toward students‘ academic success.

       This fact should raise concern because ―subject-matter teaching does not on its

own provide adequate language teaching‖ (Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p. 41). That is why,

recently, ―language teaching has focused on the learning process rather than [just] the


                                              3
teaching of the language‖ (Krish, 2001, para. 1). This could be the reason for language

teaching going away from the traditional method and espousing the communicative

approach. The focus of the latter‘s teaching approach ―is not only on linguistic

competence of the language learners but also on the development of their communicative

ability‖ (Krish, 2001, para.1).

       Nonetheless, the emphasis on the subject matter in language teaching may not just

be the only major cause of L2 learner‘s insufficient communicative skills in their second

language. ―Instructional issues,‖ particularly, language teachers‘ ―lack of systematic

approaches for teaching . . . language structures‖ in meaningful ways, and failure to

address student errors appropriately ―contribute to less than optimal levels of [language]

proficiency‖ (Krish, 2001, para. 2-3). If research reveals that language teachers failed to

diagnose the mistakes their students made which contributed to the latter‘s less than

optimum development in their L2 proficiency, then, this only shows that there is a real

need to take time in addressing students‘ error in the target language.



                               Errors and Error Treatment

       What types of error do L2 students make? How should language teachers address

these errors? As much as these two questions are deemed important in language teaching

that certainly seeks immediate answers, Hendrickson‘s (1978) basic, yet mind-boggling

questions—(1) Should learners' errors be corrected? (2)When should learners' errors be

corrected? (3) Which errors should be corrected? (4) How should errors be corrected?

(5) Who should do the correcting?—take center stage when it comes to the topic of error

correction. Three decades have already passed since he posed his questions regarding

error correction, but there are still no definite answers for these questions. Until now,

                                              4
several researchers (Ellis, 2009; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Ridder, 2005; Rusell, 2009;

Sheen, 2004; Tedick & de Gortari, 1998) still continue to cite or refer to Hendrickson‘s

over three-decade old questions.



Errors Students Make

        Defining errors is not exactly a simple task for language specialists and

practitioners. This is partly due to the fact that there are ―relative notions of accuracy;‖

hence, based on this premise, it can be deduced that the concept of accuracy and

acceptable is actually ―sociolinguistically determined‖ (Mhundwa, 2010, p. 225).

        For the purpose of this paper, error stands for any deviation from the standard of

the target language, either in oral or written discourse (Mhundwa, 2010). Following this

proposition, student errors would refer to the erroneous utterance of language learners in

their use of the target language.

        Student errors in conversation. Lyster (2001), in his study among French

immersion classes, identified four types of errors that focus on forms among language

learners:

        1. Grammatical errors. These are errors in the use of determiners, pronouns,

prepositions, grammatical gender, tenses, verb morphology, auxiliaries, subject/verb

agreement, pluralization, question formation, word order, etc.

        2. Lexical errors. These refer to inaccurate, imprecise, and inappropriate choice of

words, and non-target derivations of nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, including incorrect

use of affixes.




                                               5
          3. Phonological errors. These are mispronunciation of the words, pronunciation

of silent letters, addition of other elements, or omission of the obligatory ones in the

target language.

          4. Unsolicited use of L1. These are the instances when language learners used

their native language instead of the target language that is expected from them.

          Student errors in composition. Mhundwa‘s (2010) study among 25 students of

Pragmatic and Discourse Analysis class suggests that learners‘ writing errors can be

classified under the following categories:

          1. Agreement errors. These are errors made when ―two significant relationships in

a sentence‖ do not agree or reconcile (Rosen et al., as cited in Mhundwa, 2010, p. 228).

An example of this is an error in subject-verb agreement, or an agreement between a

pronoun and its antecedent.

          2. Punctuation errors. These errors usually occur when students fail to use

punctuation marks, or did not use them correctly.

          3. Errors in choice of words. This type of errors has two forms: inappropriate

word choice (can be corrected by replacing the inappropriate word with the appropriate

one) and failure to use the appropriate form of the word, like using an adjective instead of

a verb.



Error Treatment: Error Correction or Corrective Feedback?

          The terms error correction and corrective feedback are often used

interchangeably. Nevertheless, some language specialists and researchers would rather

prefer the term corrective feedback (Mhundwa, 2010) because of its ―neutral‖

connotation, as opposed to the ―negative‖ connotation the term error correction conveys.

                                               6
       Defining corrective feedback. Language specialists may define corrective

feedback in slightly different ways, but all definitions given can be generalized to the fact

that it is an indication from the teacher that something is erroneous with the student‘s use

of the target language (Campillo, 2004-05; Kim, 2005; Sheen, 2004). Ohta (2001) states

that this term is ―defined as any utterance, produced by a teacher or learner, that either (a)

initiates repair on a malformed utterance, or (b) contrasts with a learner‘s malformed

utterance‖ (p. 135). Moreover, it is ―an umbrella term [used] to cover implicit and

explicit negative feedback occurring in both natural conversational and instructional

settings‖ (Sheen, 2004, p. 264). In short, it can refer to various signals that the teacher

gives to his/her students to make them see the flaws in their use of the L2.

       Types of corrective feedback. Generally, there are two major types of corrective

feedback—explicit and implicit feedback. However, for detailed understanding, Lyster

and Ranta (1997) identified six different types of feedback. The following brief

explanations of each type are taken from the studies of Lyster (2001), Lyster & Ranta

(1997), and Tedick & de Gortari (1998).

       1. Explicit correction – a clear indication that the student‘s utterance of the target

           language is incorrect and plainly provides the correct form.

       2. Recast – a reformulation of all or part of the student‘s utterance, except for the

           erroneous part, but without clearly indicating to the learner that his/her

           utterance was incorrect.

       3. Clarification request – the use of phrases or words like ―Excuse me?‖ or

           ―Pardon?‖ to signal to the student that he/she needs to repeat or reformulate




                                              7
           his/her language output because either the teacher did not understand what the

           student said, or the learner‘s utterance is ill-formed.

       4. Metalinguistic clues – offering some information and comments, or asking

           questions related to the student‘s utterance to make the learner elicit the

           correct information.

       5. Elicitation - getting the language learner to say the correct form by asking

           questions (except for those answerable with yes/no which will fall under the

           category of metalinguistic questions), pausing to give chance to the student to

           complete the teacher‘s statement, or asking the student to reformulate his/her

           previous utterance.

       6. Repetition - repeating the student‘s ill-formed utterance, and giving emphasis

           to the error by adjusting intonation for the student to notice the mistake.

       Recently, another addition to the types of corrective feedback came up. Ellis

(2009) added paralinguistic signal as another way of correcting students‘ errors. This

type of corrective feedback occurs when the teacher uses a ―gesture or facial expression‖

to call the student‘s attention to the error he/she made (p. 9). In addition, Ellis (2009)

identified that aside from the implicit and explicit categories of corrective feedback, it

can still be further categorized as either input-providing or output-prompting (p. 8).

Recast and explicit correction fall under the category of input-providing, with the former

as an implicit type, and the latter explicit. Output-prompting corrective feedback types

are repetition and clarification requests (implicit), metalinguistic explanation, elicitation,

and paralinguistic signal (explicit).




                                               8
                     Learners’ Responses to Corrective Feedback

       In SLA classes‘ actual taught curriculum, language teachers have various types of

corrective feedback at their disposal when learners commit mistakes in their language

output. Equally, L2 students have also different kinds of responses to choose from when

their errors are being corrected. In other words, learners have a ―wide range of responses‖

at their disposal after being presented with corrective feedback (Campillo, 2004-05, p.

210). These students‘ immediate responses to the correction given by their teacher are

termed uptake (Campillo, 2004-05; Sheen, 2004). Uptake, especially in oral

communication, may take on various forms that can also be any of the following

examples:

       1. Self-repair - the student who commits the error repairs it him/herself

       2. Peer-repair - a peer corrects the error for his/her classmate

       3. Incorporation - the student incorporates the teacher‘s feedback into his/her

            output

       4. Repetition - the student repeats the teacher‘s feedback

       5. Acknowledgement - a response to signal the teacher that the feedback has been

            noticed or understood

       6. Topic continuation - the student continues with the next obligatory context

       7. Same error - the mistake is made again after the teacher‘s feedback, and

       8. Combination - mixture of any types of uptake (Campillo, 2004-05).



Learners’ Responses to Corrections in Oral Discourse

       Campillo‘s (2004-05) analysis of uptake among Spanish EFL learners clearly

shows how learners respond to different kinds of feedback. Using the Kruskal-Wallis test

                                            9
to analyze the results of her study, it was found out that ―uptake seemed to be feedback-

related‖ (p. 216). Students receiving only recast and repetition of error usually repeat the

corrections given to them. Those who receive metalinguistic information and elicitation

do self-repair most of the time. The results of the study strengthen the earlier idea that

learners‘ responses depend on the kind of correction they receive.



Learners’ Responses to Corrections in Written Discourse

       Identifying how learners respond to corrections in their composition may prove to

be very challenging because of the way corrections are given. Feedbacks to writing are

generally given at a later time, unlike in oral discourse where teachers can easily give

their correction right after the students make a mistake, and students are provided with a

chance to respond immediately to the corrections given as well. Therefore, it can also be

inferred that students‘ uptake in compositions are likewise difficult to identify, unless

they directly tell their teachers so, or teachers take time to ask them for their responses to

corrections they received. Because of this challenge, studying the effect of corrections to

students‘ new compositions after the feedback given might just be the only probable way

(at this moment) to determine how learners‘ respond to corrective feedback.

       The study of Bitchener, Young, and Cameron (2005) appear to support Truscott‘s

claim that correcting students‘ errors in writing is of no use, because it [the study]

revealed that types of feedback did not cause any significant effect on accuracy among

students‘ targeted forms when the three targeted category in grammar are combined.

However, if each grammatical form is taken separately, ―the provision of full, explicit

written feedback, together with individual conference feedback, resulted in significantly

greater accuracy when . . . used in new pieces of writing‖ (Bitchener, Young, & Cameron,

                                              10
2005, p. 201). Nonetheless, this is only true in the use of simple past tense and definite

article, but not with prepositions. The rationale for this is that the first two forms are

―determined by sets of rules‖ (p. 201), while the latter is more complex and not easily

‗treatable‘ as Ferris (1999) puts it (as cited in Bitchener et al., 2005, p. 201).



                           Roles of Corrective Feedback in SLA

        Corrective feedback seems to play a dual role in language learning. Until now,

researchers and language specialists cannot still come to a united conclusion as to

whether corrective feedback is really a crucial teaching strategy that should always be a

part of the language teaching curriculum.



Teachers’ Employment of Corrective Feedback

      Teachers may be doubtful about the consequences of correcting students‘ error in

their use of the target language, but studies in language acquisition reveal that teachers

frequently employ corrective feedback in their L2 classrooms ―irrespective of

pedagogical focus and classroom setting‖ (Sheen, 2004, p. 265). Also, teachers make use

of the different types of feedback at their disposal based on different kinds of error

students elicit (Lyster, 2001).

      Lyster‘s (2001) study among French immersion classes in the elementary level

revealed that most teachers use recasts in correcting erroneous utterances that students

commit. Recasts ―comprised over 50% of all feedback moves‖ (Lyster, 2001, p. 56)

among the six different types of feedbacks given. In addition, Sheen‘s (2004) research on

corrective feedback among four communicative classroom settings—French Immersion,

Canada ESL, New Zealand ESL and Korean EFL—also revealed that teachers frequently

                                               11
employ recasts in their use of corrective feedback. This may reveal that although teachers

cannot help correcting their students‘ ill-formed utterances in their use of the target

language, teachers still fear interrupting their students‘ discourse. Therefore, language

teachers often opt to using recast as their error treatment strategy for the reason that this

type of corrective feedback does not explicitly tell the students that their utterance is

erroneous.



Perceptions on the Use of Corrective Feedback

     Corrective feedback is often perceived differently by different groups of people,

particularly between L2 teachers and students (Russell, 2009; Zhang et al., 2010). As

Askew and Lodge (2000) supportively notes, ―People had different perceptions of

feedback, its functions and processes based on their perceptions of learning‖ (p. 2). In

other words, the way people see feedback—whether it is necessary or not, beneficial or

detrimental—all depends on their beliefs and how they view learning.

       Teachers and students’ stance. Generally, teachers feel that too much use of

corrective feedback is detrimental to an L2 student‘s learning because it interrupts the

train of thoughts of the student who is still in the process of acquiring a second language.

Lyster and Ranta (1997) concluded in their study that teachers fear error correction might

disrupt the flow of conversation inside the classroom; however, the results of their study

also showed that corrective feedback is not a disruption at all. It seems that students are

even expecting for it. When learners receive correction and they respond to it, it only

shows that students are still in control of the conversation, and they can still continue

with their discussion. Hence, corrective feedback and learner uptake—that is the learner‘s



                                              12
immediate response to the correction given—―constitute an adjacency pair that is clearly

anticipated in classroom discourse‖ (p. 58). In other words, error treatment and students‘

response to it are common features in the classrooms—especially among second

language classes—that are expected to take place.

       Experts and researchers’ point of view. Language experts, practitioners, and

researchers do not seem to agree about the role corrective feedback plays in SLA. The

topic of corrective feedback has stirred an issue in the field for a number of years because

of the possible dual role that it plays in L2 learning. Both experts and researchers alike

debate whether corrective feedback is beneficial or harmful in language acquisition (Kim,

2005; Sheen, 2004; Zhang et al., 2010).

       Against corrective feedback. On the side that opposes the use of corrective

feedback are the nativists. These are the language authorities who advocate that exposure

to a language for a long period of time is a major factor in SLA. In other words, positive

evidence is enough for the SLA of the learners (Sheen, 2004). Krashen, a nativist, further

asserts that ―corrective feedback is not only useless but also potentially harmful, since it

interrupts the flow of discourse that could provide comprehensible input‖ (as cited in

Kim, 2005, p. 2). This only shows that nativists believe in the effectiveness and

sufficiency of exposure to comprehensible input alone in language acquisition, as

opposed to error correction. Moreover, Truscott also argues that error correction does not

help improve students‘ writing skills (as cited in Bitchener et al., 2005), and that it is

―harmful and should be abolished‖ (as cited in Ferris, 2004, p. 49).

       For corrective feedback. In contrast to the nativists‘ stance, Rod Ellis, author of

several books in SLA, argues that ―comprehension alone does not necessarily lead to



                                              13
acquisition (as cited in Salazar, n.d., p. 5). In addition, Pica‘s (1994) paper showed that it

is ―difficult to find a direct relationship between comprehension of L2 input and the

internalization of L2 forms (as cited in Salazar, n.d., p. 5). Furthermore, ―corrective

feedback—whether oral or written—is an integral part of teaching‖ (Ellis, 2009, p. 11).

Ellis, then interestingly notes that the common perception that corrective feedback affects

students‘ fluency is not justified according to the study of Ellis, Basturkmen, and Loewen

(2001).



What Research Reveals

          Experts, practitioners, and researchers alike may continue to argue about the role

corrective feedback plays in the second language curriculum, but the study of Lyster and

Ranta (1997) revealed the necessity of corrective feedback in second language classes,

like ESL and EFL. This is because corrective feedback gives learners the opportunity to

think about their mistakes, and get the chance to be corrected; thus, helping them in their

L2 acquisition development. Moreover, when learners notice the gap between their use of

the target language and its correct form, they are given the chance to correct their error

(Sheen, 2004). In addition, corrective feedback is also helpful in writing as shown in

Bitchener and others‘ (2005) study. Correction helped students compose write-ups with

significantly greater accuracy, especially in the use of past tense and articles, after

receiving written corrections and oral conferences.

          Nevertheless, despite the positive results that studies show, researchers are still

not confident to give a definite conclusion regarding the efficacy of corrective feedback

in language acquisition. Language practitioners are cautioned to ensure that the corrective

feedback administered elicits long-lasting outcomes, because in order to know that it has

                                                14
been effective, its effect should be ―sustained over time‖ (Lightbrown, as cited in Sheen,

2004, p. 266).



                           Implications to Language Teaching

        It is one of the teacher‘s roles to provide corrective feedback in his/her second

language classes (Lightbrown, 1986, Abstract) because of its necessity in effective and

efficient language instruction and learning (Mhundwa, 2010). However, Lyster (2001)

notes that ―different feedback types could have differential effects on learning‖ (p. 268);

therefore, language teachers should always be aware of the various consequences that

their use of error treatment entails.

        Research shows that recast is the most frequently used type of corrective feedback

(Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Sheen, 2004). Even though recasts are effective in correcting

phonological errors, negotiation of form is still generally proven to effectively ―push‖

students to correct their lexical errors, grammatical errors, and unsolicited use of L1

(Lyster, 2001). The results of researches on corrective feedback inform teachers about the

need to consider other techniques in error correction instead of just ―relying so

extensively on recasts . . . to ensure more opportunities for uptake following feedback‖

(Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p. 56). For writing discourses on the other hand, oral feedback

should also supplement written corrections to reinforce students to use the accurate form.

        Aside from just exploring other types of feedback to use in the classroom,

teachers should also consider their students‘ proficiency in their decisions of what type of

feedback to employ. Sheen‘s (2004) study found out that learners‘ uptake and repair are

very much prevalent among adult L2 learners compared to children L2 students. Philps

(2003) gives additional support in suggesting that students‘ proficiency possibly

                                             15
influences their perception of teacher‘s feedback (as cited in Sheen, 2004). Hence, it can

be understood that when teachers use corrective feedback, a more explicit, input-

providing feedback might be more useful to younger learners, while an implicit, output-

prompting feedback will be more suitable to adult learners with more advanced level in

their L2 proficiency.




                                            16
                     CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS


        There is still uncertainty as to the role of corrective feedback in language

acquisition. Its effectiveness in L2 teaching cannot be definitely proven since no research

has been done yet on subjects whom error correction of any kind has not been

administered. Nevertheless, its effectiveness cannot be denied, as much as its uselessness

cannot also be proven. Therefore, I can confidently conclude that corrective feedback is

an essential teaching strategy that should be part of the taught curriculum of any

language-related courses, not just that of the L2 classes.

        To ensure the effectiveness of L2 teachers‘ employment of corrective feedback,

teachers should carefully consider the when, what, how, and why of corrective feedback

use every time they correct their students‘ errors. As much as the use of corrective

feedback in L2 classes is inevitable, the discernment of teachers of how it should be

properly administered, and their knowledge of their students‘ background, learning styles,

and proficiency are even more crucial elements in language teaching. Corrective

feedback is a useful and effective strategy, but it can also be detrimental if used without

giving proper consideration to the learner‘s situation.

        To end, I can only say that corrective feedback is only as effective as the teacher‘s

effectiveness in dealing with each of his/her students. Corrective feedback is a useful

strategy, but it is still up to the teacher to use it accordingly, and adapt it to other teaching

approaches used based on his/her knowledge of a particular student that is being

corrected, for the latter to ―catch‖ what is taught.

                                               17
                                      REFERENCES


Askew, S., & Lodge, C. (2000). Gifts, ping-pong and loops—linking feedback and
      learning. In S. Askew (Ed.), Feedback for learning (pp. 1-17). Retrieved from
      http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=9Xy_qSILQMC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq
      =Importance+of+feedback +in+learning&source=bl&ots=OeX2IROCPc&sig
      =mxPrVsFvYHkNZ4MrAxfqTJ0_zbs&hl=en&ei=9YRSTJWLGoaosQOq6eTOQ
      &sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEQQ6AEwCA#v=
      onepage&q=Importance%20of %20feedback %20in%20learning&f=false

Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective
       feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191–
       205. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001

Campillo, P. S. (2004-2005). An analysis of uptake following teacher‘s feedback in the
      EFL classroom. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada (RESLA), 17-18, 209-
      222. Retrieved from http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=1983833

Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18.
        Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2504d6w3

Ferris, D. (2004). The ‗‗Grammar Correction‘‘ debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and
        where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime . . .?). Journal of
        Second Language Writing, 13, 49–62. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005

Kim, J. H. (2005). Issues of corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Teachers
       College, Columbia University Working papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics,
       4(1), 1-24. Retrieved from http://www.tc.columbia.edu/academic/a&hdept/tesol
       /Webjournal /JihyunKim.pdf

Krish, P. (2001, July). A role play activity with distance learners in an English language
        classroom. The Internet TESL Journal, 7(7). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org
        /Articles /Krish-RolePlay.html

Lightbrown, P. M. (November, 1986). What's an ESL teacher good for? [Abstract]. TESL
       Canada Journal, 1, 1-15. ERIC No. EJ349391

Lyster, R. (2001). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error
        types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 51, 265-
        301. Retrieved from http://personnel.mcgill.ca/files/roy.lyster/Lyster2001_LL.pdf


                                             18
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of
        form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19,
        37-66. Retrieved from http://personnel.mcgill.ca/files/roy.lyster/Lyster
        _Ranta1997_SSLA.pdf

Mhundwa, P. H. (2010). Error treatment in students‘ written assignment in discourse
     analysis. Journal for Language Teaching, 37(2), 224-236. Retrieved from
     http://ajol.info/index.php/tvl/article/viewFile/53844/42394

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (2005). Providing feedback. In Focus on
      Effectiveness. Retrieved from http://www.netc.org/focus/strategies/prov.php

Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning
       Japanese. Retrieved from http://books.google.com.ph/books?id
       =xIbpWHPCDaYC&pg =PA135&lpg =PA135&dq=%22corrective+feedback
       %22+definition&source =bl&ots=qh420bwQk-&sig=BvFL_FyoeNP
       -6kGE56w0xAl0wHE&hl =en&ei=wvJDTK7EJILmsQOgt63pDA&sa
       =X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum =10&ved=0CD0Q6AEwCQ
       #v=onepage&q=%22corrective%20feedback%22%20 definition&f=false

Ridder, D. (2005). Corrective feedback and student reaction: An observational study on
       communication classrooms. doi: 10.3239/9783638808910

Russell, V. (2009). Corrective feedback, over a decade of research since Lyster and Ranta
       (1997): Where do we stand today? Electronic Journal of Foreign Language
       Teaching, 6(1), 21–31. Retrieved from http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/v6n12009/russell.pdf

Salazar, P. (n.d.). Comprehensible input and learning outcomes. Retrieved September 05,
       2010 from http://www.uji.es/bin/publ/edicions/jfi2/compren.pdf

Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms
       across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263–300.
       doi:10.1191 =1362168804lr146oa

Tedick, D. J., & de Gortari, B. (May, 1998). Research on error correction and
       implications for classroom teaching. ACIE Newsletter, 1(3). Retrieved from
       http://www .carla.umn.edu /immersion/acie/vol1/May1998.pdf

Van Beuningen, C. G., de Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and
      indirect corrective feedback on L2 leaners’ written accuracy. Retrieved from
      http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/c.g.vanbeuningen/bestanden/Van%20Beuningen%
      20et %20al_2008.pdf

Zhang, Y., Zhang, L., & Ma, L. (2010, May). A brief analysis of corrective feedback in
       oral interaction. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(3), 306-308.
       doi:10.4304 /jltr.1.3.306-308

                                           19

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Corrective Feedback--A teaching strategy to address and correct student errors, and its role in language teaching and learning.