Many English language teachers expend a great deal of time and energy providing their students with written corrective feedback (WCF), also known as grammar correction or written error correction, in order to help them improve their linguistic accuracy. However, the extent to which WCF facilitates linguistic accuracy and the best methods of practicing WCF have been the subject of debate and controversy for nearly two decades. In early studies, second language (L2) practitioners debated whether WCF even facilitated second language linguistic accuracy. More recently, L2 researchers have focused on the scope of WCF (i.e., whether WCF should be selective or comprehensive) as well as what methods or types of WCF are most effective.

Turning to the research can be a time-consuming and daunting task for busy teachers and practitioners who are looking for practical advice. This article offers suggestions and strategies for teachers seeking practical guidance as they provide their students with WCF.

Does Written Corrective Feedback Facilitate Second Language Linguistic Accuracy?

In a highly controversial article published in Language Learning, Truscott (1996) argued that error correction was detrimental to students’ second language development and thus should be abolished, which began the debate on WCF. Since that time, both second language acquisition (SLA) and L2 writing researchers have put this assertion to the test, carefully researching the effects of WCF in various contexts. The majority of the studies, while they differ in methodology, scope, and design, have found that WCF does indeed improve students’ linguistic accuracy. For example, Bitchener and Knoch (2010) demonstrated how WCF raised the linguistic accuracy of advanced L2 writers’ use of English articles. With similar findings published over the past decade, the question has become not if we should practice WCF, but when and how we should practice it.

Should Written Corrective Feedback Be Selective or Comprehensive?

L2 writers tend to produce a wide range of errors in their writing, and teachers must decide whether they will be selective or comprehensive in their feedback. Ferris and Hedgcock (2005) argue that selective feedback, rather than comprehensive feedback, is more beneficial to second language development. They go on to say that selective feedback is less overwhelming to students and allows the teacher to focus attention on frequent patterns of errors, thus giving students the opportunity to apply focused attention to their mistakes and gain the understanding they need to acquire the correct forms. Comprehensive feedback, on the other hand, requires students to attend to multiple errors and corrections, making it nearly impossible for students to reflect on each linguistic error and why it is erroneous (Ferris & Hedgcock, 2005, p. 265). Therefore, drawing from a large body of SLA research, Ferris and Hedgcock conclude that it is not optimal to correct every error in a student’s text; rather, teachers should aim to direct their feedback toward a limited number of salient or recurring errors. In some cases, this may mean focusing on tense errors, while in other cases, it may mean focusing on sentencing and punctuation.

Nevertheless, there are situations in which a more comprehensive approach is warranted. For instance, researchers such as Hartshorn et al. (2010) have argued that focusing on only a select number of errors might not be practical in a classroom where students are highly motivated and “anxious to improve the overall accuracy of their writing” (p. 89). For this reason, they argue for what they call dynamic WCF, a more comprehensive approach in which the length of student writing is limited, allowing teachers to “identify all linguistic errors produced by their students” (p. 89). While this approach will not be appropriate in all L2 learning contexts, their research demonstrated positive effects on the linguistic accuracy of advanced-low to advanced-mid L2 writers’ texts (Hartshorn et al., 2010, p. 102).

Teachers who use a selective approach to WCF may wonder what types of errors they should correct. In most cases, it is probably most productive to correct errors that are “rule governed and can be addressed constructively through instruction and strategy training” (Ferris & Hedgcock, 2005, p. 264). That is, it is best to stay away from issues of style (e.g., awkward sentence constructions, idiomatic language, overall writing fluency) and instead focus on errors that violate grammatical rules. As a result, teachers can address errors with strategic grammar instruction, and students can reference grammatical rules that help them self-correct. In essence, teachers want to target errors that are easy to explain (i.e., errors that clearly violate universal grammar rules) and easy to correct because this gives students an opportunity to learn the underlying rule and correct their own mistakes in the future. For example, a subject-verb agreement error might be easier to explain from a linguistic standpoint than an awkwardly worded phrase that does not necessarily violate a universal grammar rule.

What is the Most Effective Type of Written Corrective Feedback?

Once errors are identified, teachers must decide which type of WCF they will use. A distinction has been made in WCF research between direct and indirect feedback. When providing direct WCF, the teacher identifies the error and provides the student with the correct form, whereas when providing indirect WCF, the teacher only identifies the error and does not provide the correct form. Studies on the effects of these different types of feedback are mixed, and many researchers agree that there are benefits to both types. Ellis (2009) suggested that direct WCF may be more helpful for lower proficiency second language writers because they may not have the metalinguistic knowledge to correct an error that has been identified to them. However, Ellis also noted that a disadvantage to direct WCF is that it requires no reflection or thought process on the part of the student, thus limiting the probability of long-term learning.

A middle ground between direct and indirect feedback, known as metalinguistic WCF, involves providing students with explicit comments about the nature of their errors. For example, the teacher would either code the errors that students produce, identifying the types of errors (e.g., subject-verb agreement), or provide students with metalinguistic explanations of their errors (i.e., explanations of the grammar rule or pattern that was violated). The benefit of this approach is that it identifies the type of error for the student while still requiring the student to mentally process the error and make a correction.

Teachers would do well to understand the strengths and weaknesses of these three types of feedback. In most cases, a balanced approach in which teachers make decisions based on their knowledge of their students is optimal. For example, if a student has an extensive background in grammar instruction, indirect feedback may be most appropriate, as the feedback may elicit grammar rules a student has previously learned. If a student has not received much grammar instruction or is at a lower level of proficiency, direct feedback would probably be best. Nevertheless, teachers should try to opt for indirect or metalinguistic feedback, as these types of feedback engage students in the revision and editing process and are more likely to facilitate long-term learning.

Practical Recommendations

• Try to focus on a pattern of errors in students’ texts rather than addressing all students’ errors. For example, you may address a pattern of verb tense errors in one student’s text and a pattern of subject-verb agreement errors in another’s.

• Try not to overwhelm students with feedback by providing manageable amounts that students can reasonably process to make corrections. While these amounts will differ from student to student, limiting the categories or types of errors (e.g., tense error, plural ending error) to between four and five may be optimal.

• Try to correct errors that violate universal grammar patterns or rules (e.g., subject-verb agreement, verb tense, plural endings), rather than stylistic errors such as awkward sentence structure, idiomatic language, or overall writing fluency.

• Wherever possible, taking into account students’ backgrounds and proficiencies, try to provide indirect or metalinguistic feedback, engaging students in the editing and revision process. One way of doing so is coding errors, identifying the type of error (e.g., tense error), and giving students the opportunity to self-correct.
  
  

Conclusion

There is no “one size fits all” approach to WCF. Multiple factors such as classroom learning outcomes, students’ backgrounds and levels of proficiency, and teachers’ experiences will help determine the different approaches to feedback used. However, with the substantial amount of research findings on WCF over the past decade, teachers now have access to practical and effective strategies with which to help their students develop and improve their linguistic accuracy. While the hard work of WCF still remains, we no longer need to guess at the best ways to provide feedback.

References

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207–217.

Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107.

Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, D., & Anderson, N. J. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 84–109.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.

Mitchell Goins currently serves as the assistant director of ESL at Triton College, in River Grove, Illinois. He earned his master’s degree in writing, rhetoric, and discourse with an emphasis in TESOL from DePaul University and has taught advanced ESL as well as college writing. His primary interests include teaching second language writing and helping students develop academic literacy.