Where SLA and L2 writing research meet

Ferris, D.R. (2010). Second Language Writing Research and Written Corrective Feedback      
              in SLA: Intersections and Practical Applications. Studies in Second Language  
              Acquisition, 32, 181-201.

I have chosen another Ferris article as her research is related to my interests. I am focusing on corrective feedback for my blogposts. The 2014 Ferris article I reviewed in blogpost 1, “Responding to student writing: Teachers’ philosophies and practices,” was a more general introduction to philosophies toward corrective feedback, not specifically related to Second Language Acquisition. The 2010 Ferris article is perfect for someone like me who has done more research related to linguistics rather than composition studies.

In “Second Language Writing Research and Written Corrective Feedback in SLA: Intersections and Practical Applications,” Ferris spells out some differences and similarities between Second Language Acquisition researchers and L2 writing researchers. L2 refers to any language learned after the native language. Second Language Acquisition researchers generally narrow their research to whether written corrective feedback helps students acquire specific language skills whereas L2 writing researchers want to know whether written corrective feedback improves students’ overall writing effectiveness. Ferris postulates that this is the reason for the disparities in the results of corrective feedback research between disciplines.

There are also differences between the support for direct versus indirect corrective feedback. Indirect feedback is when an error is pointed out to the student and they must correct it for themselves, direct feedback is a correction provided by the teacher. Second Language Acquisition researchers support direct feedback more than L2 writing researchers, at least for certain features.

I agree with Ferris that the two lines of research are not in opposition to each other but that researchers in both Second Language Acquisition and L2 writing should cooperate and learn from each other’s work. It is less a difference of ideas than methodology. Ferris has a section of suggestions for how to merge the two schools of thought for further research. The Second Language Acquisition studies could be geared more toward practical applications than they have been and L2 studies could be more rigorous and scientific in their approaches.

Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback

Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., McCollum, R. M., & Wolfersberger, M. (2010)    

               Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy.   

               Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 445–463.

In the article, Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language pedagogy, the authors, Evans, Hartshorn, McCollum and Wolfersberger, attempt to provide a guideline for more effective versions of written corrective feedback. They identify three contextual variables, the learner, situation and instructional methodology, that can affect the accuracy of research into the effectiveness of written corrective feedback. Evans et al. claim that the debate on whether written corrective feedback is a useful tool is framed by the fact that the current research provides conflicting results.

The authors suggest to use a form of written corrective feedback called dynamic corrective feedback. They outline a step-by-step example of how to implement this technique. It is more geared toward a second language learning environment. The authors provide results from an exploratory pilot study. In dynamic written corrective feedback, students provide small chunks of writing and the teacher marks them using established error correction symbols. The student then makes a list of errors by type and edits and types the paragraph for a second review. This process is repeated until there are no more errors. Evans at al. emphasize the importance of rapid turnaround for these assignments so the writing and errors are fresh.

This article presents some interesting techniques for low order concerns in a second language composition course. I liked that it brought student expectations into the debate. It is difficult to get away from error correction if your students are expecting that behavior from you. It also pointed out, with the three contextual variables, that it is not all the responsibility of the instructor to get the concepts into a student’s long-term memory. This lifts a weight off of instructors who may be frustrated that their students are not retaining information. Some students may not be worried about improving, if their errors do not interfere with communication, while others may have a language more distant from English, such as a native Chinese speaker vs. a native Spanish speaker. The actual technique of dynamic written corrective feedback is a good exercise to improve mechanical errors but may not be practical for actual larger writing assignments in an integrated composition course.