This paper looks at student response to different types of corrective feedback in an English for Academic Purposes [EAP] program. Reactions were collected by means of two questionnaires. The first was completed at the end of the semester and reflected actual experience with the feedback discussed. The second provided a wider overview of attitudes to the issue and was collected at the beginning of the following semester and with a different group of learners. The results suggest that, given the demand for correction and feedback, the time devoted to it, and the pressure on students and staff in EAP programs to develop learners’ accuracy and fluency, it seems essential to make procedures and their rationale more explicit and to explore how effective various techniques are in actually producing permanent change in learners’ interlanguage development.
(1990) Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal 44, 4:294–304.
(1991) The preference of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals 24, 2:203–218.
(1984) Making sense of learners’ errors: A psycholinguistic appraisal. British Journal of Language Teaching 221:105–113.
(1988) Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. In W. Rutherford and M. Sharwood Smith (eds) Grammar and second language teaching. New York, Newbury House.
Porter, P. A.
(1986) How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in task-centred discussions. In R. R. Day (ed.) Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition. Rowley, Mass., Newbury House.
Robb, T., S. Ross & I. Shortreed
(1986) Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly 20, 1:83–95.
(1991) Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language Research 7, 2, 89–102.
Schmidt, R. W. & N. G. Frota
(1986) Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. R. Day (ed.) Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition. Rowley, Mass., Newbury House.
Sharwood Smith, M.
(1991) Speaking to many minds: on the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research 7, 2:118–132.
Tomasello, M. and C. Herron
(1989) Feedback for language transfer errors. The garden path technique. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 111:385–395.
Walz, J. C.
(1982) Error correction techniques for the foreign language classroom. Language in education: Theory and practice. No. 50. ED217704.
Cited by 5 other publications
Conrad, Susan M. & Lynn M. Goldstein
1999. ESL student revision after teacher-written comments: Text, contexts, and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing 8:2 ► pp. 147 ff.
Goldstein, Lynn M.
2004. Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: teachers and students working together. Journal of Second Language Writing 13:1 ► pp. 63 ff.
Mathisen, Petter & Cato Bjørndal
2016. Tablets as a digital tool in supervision of student teachers’ practical training. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy 11:4 ► pp. 227 ff.
Storch, Neomy & Joanna Tapper
1996. Patterns of NNS student annotations when identifying areas of concern in their writing. System 24:3 ► pp. 323 ff.
Storch, Neomy & Joanna Tapper
1997. Student annotations: What NNS and NS university students say about their own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 6:3 ► pp. 245 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 september 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.