Focused or Comprehensive Written Corrective Feedback: Exploring Students' Preferences for Written Corrective Feedback
Main Article Content
Abstract
Although researchers have theorized that focused written corrective feedback may be more conducive to noticing and internalization on account of the fact that learners have limited processing capacity and should not, therefore, be burdened with attending to feedback on multiple errors at the same time (Ellis et al., 2008; Frear & Chiu, 2015), several qualitative studies have reported that learners prefer comprehensive written corrective feedback targeting all their errors (Lee, 2005; Amrhein & Nassaji, 2010; McMartin-Miller, 2014). As most studies investigating the relative effectiveness of the two types of feedback focus have not produced any conclusive evidence (Ellis et al., 2008; Sheen et al., 2009; Frear& Chiu, 2015; Rahimi, 2019), it is worth investigating if students' preference for comprehensive written corrective feedback is ubiquitous, well-founded and in line with the findings from the empirical research. This paper reports a qualitative research that explored four EFL students' relative preferences of focused- and comprehensive written corrective feedback using semi-structured interviews and analyzed the data employing thematic analysis. The results revealed that the students showed a clear-cut preference for comprehensive feedback. However, since research in the domain of feedback focus is largely inconclusive, students' preferences might not be well-informed by the research in the field, as they were found to assess feedback based on its quantity rather than quality. They seemed to be guided by the fact that more is better. Teachers, therefore, need to strike a balance between their students' preferences for feedback focus and the findings from research. The study recommends that teachers provide WCF in a non-polar manner adapting it to their students' needs and writing proficiency rather than solely founding their feedback decisions on the basis of their students' priorities.
Article Details
References
Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written Corrective Feedback: What do Students and Teachers Think is Right and Why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), Article 2.
Crosthwaite, P., Ningrum, S., & Lee, I. (2022). Research trends in L2 written corrective feedback: A bibliometric analysis of three decades of Scopus-indexed research on L2 WCF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 58, 100934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100934
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
Falhasiri, M. (2021). Is Less Really More? The Case for Comprehensive Written Corrective Feedback. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(3), 145–165. https://doi.org/10.37213/cjal.2021.31242
Frear, D., & Chiu, Y. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.06.006
Jamoom, O. (2016.). Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices of Feedback and Preferences of Students for Feedback in University Level EFL Writing Classrooms.
Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 285–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.08.001
Lee, I. (2005). Error Correction in the L2 Writing Classroom: What Do Students Think? TESL Canada Journal, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v22i2.84
Lee, I. (2017). Working hard or working smart: Comprehensive versus Focused Written Corrective Feedback in L2 Academic Contexts. In Teaching Writing for Academic Purposes to Multilingual Students. Routledge.
Lee, I. (2019). Teachers’ frequently asked questions about focused written corrective feedback. TESOL Journal, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.427
Lee, I. (2020). Utility of focused/comprehensive written corrective feedback research for authentic L2 writing classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49, 100734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100734
Leki, I. (1991). The Preferences of ESL Students for Error Correction in College-Level Writing Classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1991.tb00464.x
Lopez, M., Van Steendam, E., Buyse, K., & Speelman, D. (2021). Comprehensive corrective feedback in foreign language writing: The response of individual error categories. Journal of Writing Research, 13(1), 31–70. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2021.13.01.02
McMartin-Miller, C. (2014). How much feedback is enough?: Instructor practices and student attitudes toward error treatment in second language writing. Assessing Writing, 19, 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.003
Oladejo, J. A. (1993). Error Correction in ESL: Learner’s Preferences. TESL Canada Journal, 10(2), 71. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v10i2.619
Rahimi, M. (2019). A comparative study of the impact of focused vs. Comprehensive corrective feedback and revision on ESL learners’ writing accuracy and quality. Language Teaching Research, 25(5), 687–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819879182
Sheen, Y. (2007). The Effect of Focused Written Corrective Feedback and Language Aptitude on ESL Learners’ Acquisition of Articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x
Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002
Sparks, J. R., Song, Y., Brantley, W., & Liu, O. L. (2014). Assessing Written Communication in Higher Education: Review and Recommendations for Next-Generation Assessment: Assessing Written Communication. ETS Research Report Series, 2014(2), 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12035