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.