The Efficacy of Three Different kinds of Error Feedback on EFL Students’ Writing in China: Teacher’s Explicit and Implicit Feedback and the Guided Peer Review

Zhuxiu Tan; Chen Jiliang

doi:10.31686/ijier.vol3.iss3.335

Authors

Zhuxiu Tan
Chen Jiliang China West Normal University, China

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31686/ijier.vol3.iss3.335

Keywords:

Writing feedback, explicit feedback, implicit feedback, guided peer review

Abstract

Feedback is very important for learners to improve their writing but providing effective feedback is not an easy job for the teachers who teach English writing. This is particularly true in tertiary education in Chinese context. Teacher’s explicit feedback (TEF), implicit feedback (TIF) and the guided peer review (GPR) are three types of feedback commonly used by English teachers in the EFL writing classes in China. This paper aims to examine the effects of these three different types of feedback on college students’ writings in Chinese context by using a pretest and posttest treatment, questionnaires and a case study. The qualitative results reveal that the three types of feedback are all valued by students and do help to improve their writing. GPR and TIF are preferred mostly by advanced learners but GPR triggers more self-initiated revisions and more unsuccessful revisions are found in the TIF class. TEF is mostly favored by students with lower language abilities and more successful revisions are reported in this class. These findings are consistent with the results of the pretest and posttest from the three classes. The quantitative data show that GPR contributes the highest mean score to students’ writing, and TEF the second while TIF the last. The implications of these findings are also discussed.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Chen Jiliang, China West Normal University, China

School of Foreign Languages

References

Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227–257. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00027-8

Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

Berg, E. C. (1999) . The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of second language writing. 8, 215-241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80115-5

Carroll, S., and Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357-386. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100012158

Chandler, J., (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of second language writing. 12, 267-296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9

Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178–190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524551.016

Frodesen, J., & Holten, C. (2003). Grammar and the ESL writing class. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 141–161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524810.011

Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative language teaching in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 93–105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07908310208666636

Hyland, F., (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers, Journal of second language writing, 7 (3), 255-286. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90017-0

Guénette, D., (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. 16, 40-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.01.001

Jacobs, G. M. et al, (1998). Feedback on student writing: Taking the middle path. Journal of second language writing, 7 (3), 307-317. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90019-4

Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances, functions, and content. Language Learning 45, 605-655. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00456.x

Nagata, N, (1993). Intelligent computer feedback for second language instruction. The modern language journal, 77(3), 330-339. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1993.tb01980.x

Nelson, G. L. (1995). Peer response groups. In R. V. White (Ed.), new ways in teaching writing (pp.128-130). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L., (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language learning, 50(3), 417-528. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136

Paulus, T. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of second language writing, 8(3), 265-289. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80117-9

Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Roberts, B. & Ferris, D. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes-How explicit does it need to be? Journal of second language writing, Vol.10, 161-184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X

Rollinson, P., (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT journal, Vol. 59, 23-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci003

Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2005). Explicitness in pedagogical interventions: Input, practice, and feedback. In Sanz, C. (Ed.) Mind & context in adult second language acquisition. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

Yang Miao, et al, (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chines EFL writing class. Journal of second language writing, Vol.15, 179-200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004