Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T00:33:16.056Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Practitioners respond to Icy Lee's ‘Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2020

Gerry McLellan
Gerry McLellan*
Affiliation:
Aichi University of Education, Nagoya, Japan
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In her article, Icy Lee (2019, pp. 524–536) discusses the differences between comprehensive written corrective feedback (CWCF) and focused written corrective feedback (FWCF). She argues that teachers should concentrate more on focused feedback, and highlight and correct only a few grammar errors or issues with organisation, for example, instead of marking every single mistake made by a student. In this paper, I will critically analyse the points she makes and argue that her opinions, while valid in many respects, are not substantiated enough to persuade teachers to follow her lead.

Type
Pedagogical Implications
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , January 2021 , pp. 144 - 148
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersson, S. (2011). Comprehensive or selective feedback, that is the question. Univeristy of Gothenburg, Sweden. Retrieved from https://gupea.ub.gu.se›bitstream›gupea_2077_38729_1Google ScholarPubMed
Brown, D. H. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York, NY: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Chen, S., Hossein, N., & Qian, L. (2016). EFL learner's perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback: A case study of university students from mainland China. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1(5), 2–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fathman, A. K., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In Kroll, B. (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178–190). California State University, CA. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, M., Sri, P. A, & Nilwati, H. (2017). In their shoes: What successful Indonesian school teachers do to motivate their pupils. In Apple, M. A., Da Silva, D., & Fellner, T. (Eds.), L2 selves and motivations in Asian contexts (pp. 195–227). Bristol, UK/Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Lee, I. (2019). Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more. Language Teaching, 52(4), 524–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLellan, G. (2019). Written analysis: A brief account of how three classes compared when given differing methods of instruction and feedback. KOTESOL (Korea TESOL journal), 15(1), 167–186.Google Scholar
Modirkhamene, S., Soleimani, M., & Sadeghi, K. (2017). Selective vs. comprehensive grammar correction in writing pedagogy: Counter evidence to Truscott's view. Applied Research on English Language, 6(2), 193–212.Google Scholar
Taferner, R. (2015). Pedagogical implications of effective corrective feedback on L2 writing. JALT 2104 conference proceedings. Tokyo, Japan. Retrieved from https://jalt-publications.org›files›pdf-articleGoogle Scholar