The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback for the Acquisition of L2 Grammar

The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback

Within the rather recent communicative learning teaching approach, when to correct grammatical errors and how to correct errors is a constant issue for teachers. We are providing two very interesting studies that have been conducted regarding the effectiveness of corrective feedback. Corrective feedback is a very important aspect of second language acquisition pedagogy and should be a constant concern for teachers. But the most important questions, in our opinion, is how effective are the corrective feedback techniques for the acquisition of L2 (second language) grammar? and which techniques are the most effective? The analysis of most research on the subject such as the study conducted by Russell and Spada (2007) has shown that corrective feedback has a definite positive impact on students improvement with grammar, but what works and what doesn't? Research cannot tell. Teachers cannot rely on research to help them choose what type of corrective feedback they should promote (explicit or implicit, oral or written). On the other hand, some research like the one conducted by Ellis, Loewen and Erlam (2006) has shown that the effects of explicit feedback (metalinguistic feedback) is more effective on the acquisition of the past tense-ed than implicit feedback (recast). However, we believe that since corrective feedback in general has proven to be effective, teachers should use a balance between explicit and implicit corrective grammar feedback and use various different types of corrective feedback such as recast, repetition, elicitation or metalinguistic feedback. Also, we think that corrective feedback should be performed mainly by the teacher and not the peers considering a relevant research done on the importance of affective factors (Krashen, 1982) in any learning process. Accordingly, we think that corrective feedback, coming from the teacher, has a greater impact on the students improvement with their grammar structures and forms than peer corrective feedback. Also, it is our opinion that correction of grammatical errors plays a very important role that the teacher has to play on a regular basis in order to help his students use the correct grammatical structures and form in the acquisition of their L2. In conclusion, we believe that it is the teachers judgment that plays a major role in the effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. Guidelines for Corrective Feedback (CF) Here we have included a copy of 10 important principles provided by Ellis (2009) to help teachers to reflect on when determining their own policy for Corrective Feedback. We believe it can be very useful. 1. Teachers should ascertain their students attitudes towards CF, appraise them of the value of CF, and negotiate agreed goals for CF with them. The goals are likely to vary according to the social and situational context. 2. CF (both oral and written) works and so teachers should not be afraid to correct students errors. This is true for both accuracy and fluency work, so CF has a place in both. 3. Focused CF is potentially more effective than unfocused CF, so teachers should identify specific linguistic targets for correction in different lessons. This will occur naturally in accuracy work based on a structure-of-the-day approach but can also be usefully applied in fluency work. 4. Teachers should ensure that learners know they are being corrected (i.e., they should not attempt to hide the corrective force of their CF moves from the learners). Whereas it will generally be clear to learners that they are being corrected in the case of written CF, it may not always be clear in the case of oral CF. 5. Teachers need to be able to implement a variety of oral and written CF strategies and to adapt the specific strategies they use to the particular learner they are correcting. One way of doing this is to start with a relatively implicit form of correction (e.g., simply indicating that there is an error) and, if the learner is unable to self-correct, to move to a more explicit form (e.g., a direct correction). This requires that teachers be responsive to the feedback they get from learners on their own corrective feedback. 6. Oral CF can be both immediate and delayed. Teachers need to experiment with the timing of the CF. Written CF is almost invariably delayed. 7. Teachers need to create space following the corrective move for learners to uptake the correction [3]. However, whether the correction is or is not appropriated should be left to the learner (i.e., the teacher should not require the learner to produce the correct form). In the case of written CF, learners need the opportunity to attend to the corrections and revise their writing. 8. Teachers should be prepared to vary who, when, and how they correct in accordance with the cognitive and affective needs of the individual learner. In effect this means they do not need to follow a consistent set of procedures for all students. 9. Teachers should be prepared to correct a specific error on several occasions to enable the learner to achieve full self-regulation. 10. Teachers should monitor the extent to which corrective feedback causes anxiety in learners and should adapt the strategies they use to ensure that anxiety facilitates rather than debilitates. (p. 14)

References
References For our Wiki by buson

Links & Readings

Downloadable Documents Corrective_Feedback_Russell (PDF) Corrective_Feedback_Ellis (PDF)

Other Entries Content created by Benoit Uson Page: Peer Teaching - Using a Popular Song to Teach Grammar (ANG-1068 Practical Grammar II) Page: Response Journals and Grammar Journals (ANG-1068 Practical Grammar II) Page: Teaching Grammar through Dictation (ANG-1068 Practical Grammar II)

Page: The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback for the Acquisition of L2 Grammar (ANG-1068 Practical Grammar II)

Page: Visual Support to Teach and Memorize English Prepositions for L2 Learners (ANG-1068 Practical Grammar II)

Corrective Feedback by buson Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development by buson