Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback among Graduate Students: The Effects of Feedback Timing

被引:5
作者
Eckstein, Grant [1 ]
Sims, Maureen [2 ]
Rohm, Lisa [3 ]
机构
[1] Brigham Young Univ, Linguist, Grad Acad Writing & Teacher Training Courses, Provo, UT 84602 USA
[2] Brigham Young Univ, MA TESL, Provo, UT 84602 USA
[3] Brigham Young Univ, Provo, UT 84602 USA
来源
TESL CANADA JOURNAL | 2020年 / 37卷 / 02期
关键词
written corrective feedback; DWCF; graduate student; grammar; complexity; COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY; SYNTACTIC COMPLEXITY; ERROR-CORRECTION; DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE; GRAMMAR-CORRECTION; WRITERS; ACQUISITION; ENGLISH; LEVEL; ACCURACY;
D O I
10.18806/tesl.v37i2.1339
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Dynamic written corrective feedback (DWCF) is a pedagogical approach that offers meaningful, manageable, constant, and timely corrective feedback on student writing (Hartshorn et al., 2010). It emphasizes indirect and comprehensive written error correction on short, daily writing assignments. Numerous studies have demonstrated that its use can lead to fewer language errors among undergraduate and pre-matriculated college writers (see Kurzer, 2018). However, the benefits of DWCF among second language (L2) graduate writers and the role of feedback timing have not been well examined. We analyzed timed writing samples over a 12-week intervention from 22 L2 graduate students who either received biweekly feedback on their writing throughout a semester, or postponed feedback until the last two weeks of the semester. Writing was analyzed for grammatical errors, lexical and syntactic complexity, and fluency. Results showed that neither timely nor postponed feedback led to significant improvement in grammatical accuracy or lexical complexity, but timely feedback did result in more fluent and complex writing. These findings suggest that the timing of feedback may be trivial for accuracy development but is more important for complexity among graduate writers. Teachers, teacher trainers, and writing administrators may use these insights as they plan curricula and design grammar and writing interventions.
引用
收藏
页码:78 / 102
页数:25
相关论文
共 68 条
[1]  
Ai H., 2013, Automatic treatment and analysis of learner corpus data, P249, DOI DOI 10.1075/SCL.59.15AI
[2]  
Anderson T, 2015, CAN J HIGH EDUC, V45, P166
[3]   Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness [J].
Biber, Douglas ;
Gray, Bethany .
JOURNAL OF ENGLISH FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES, 2010, 9 (01) :2-20
[4]   Should We Use Characteristics of Conversation to Measure Grammatical Complexity in L2 Writing Development? [J].
Biber, Douglas ;
Gray, Bethany ;
Poonpon, Kornwipa .
TESOL QUARTERLY, 2011, 45 (01) :5-35
[5]  
Biber Douglas., 1998, Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use
[6]   Effects of distributed practice on the acquisition of second language English syntax [J].
Bird, Steve .
APPLIED PSYCHOLINGUISTICS, 2010, 31 (04) :635-650
[7]  
Bitchener J., 2006, J ENGL ACAD PURP, V5, P4, DOI [DOI 10.1016/J.JEAP.2005.10.002, 10.1016/j.jeap.2005.10.002]
[8]   Evidence in support of written corrective feedback [J].
Bitchener, John .
JOURNAL OF SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING, 2008, 17 (02) :102-118
[9]   Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback [J].
Bitchener, John ;
Knoch, Ute .
JOURNAL OF SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING, 2010, 19 (04) :207-217
[10]   The Contribution of Written Corrective Feedback to Language Development: A Ten Month Investigation [J].
Bitchener, John ;
Knoch, Ute .
APPLIED LINGUISTICS, 2010, 31 (02) :193-214