Implementing Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback in a distance learning environment: lessons and challenges

Número

Downloads

Article abstract page views:  188  

DOI

https://doi.org/10.25267/Hachetetepe.2023.i27.2204

Info

No. 27 (2023)
Articles
2204
Published: 17-10-2023
PlumX
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Authors

Abstract

This study is a qualitative investigation of four English for Academic Purposes students’ thought processes as they engaged with Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback (DWCF) within a synchronous distance online setting. The virtual setting involved the use of the Canvas Learning Management System and Zoom video conferencing for participant engagement. It also used Camtasia screen capture, Audacity, and Otter.ai to facilitate data collection and preparation of detailed transcripts with verbal reports and concurrent actions to use in data analysis. Findings indicate that the participants generally had a positive uptake in DWCF activities conducted over this online setting as demonstrated by overall trends in the transcript data. A discussion of lessons learned and challenges to implementation of online synchronous DWCF is provided

Keywords

Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback Google Schoolar
Written corrective feedback Google Schoolar
Second language writing Google Schoolar
Online distance learning Google Schoolar

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

How to Cite

Torres, C., & Mihai, F. M. (2023). Implementing Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback in a distance learning environment: lessons and challenges. Hachetetepé. Scientific Journal of Education and Communication, (27), 2204. https://doi.org/10.25267/Hachetetepe.2023.i27.2204

Author Biographies

Christina Torres, University of Central Florida

Is an assistant professor in TESOL in the Modern Languages and Literatures Department/College of Arts and Humanities at the University of Central Florida. Her research interests include written corrective feedback, second language writing, teacher training, and instructional design. She has presented on English language teaching pedagogy in the United States at TESOL International and Southeast Regional TESOL as well as in Bangladesh BELTA and Nepal NELTA conferences. Author A is also principal investigator and coordinator for the Center of Language Outreach, Research, and Study (COLORS) at UCF.

Florin M. Mihai, University of Central Florida

Is a Professor of TESOL and the Director of the Undergraduate TEFL Certificate in the Modern Languages and Literatures Department/College of Arts and Humanities at the University of Central Florida. In addition to articles published in TESOL Journal, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, CATESOL Journal, and Middle School Journal, he has published several books and book chapters with University of Michigan Press, Harvard Education Press, Routledge, and Pearson. He is also co-principal investigator in three federal funded grants through the U.S. Department of Education and Office of English Language Acquisition totaling more than US$ 7.5 million.

License

Copyright (c) 2023 Christina Torres, Florin M. Mihai

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Those authors who have published with this journal, accept the following terms:

  1. They will retain their copyright and guarantee the journal the right to first publication of their work, which will simultaneously be subject to the Creative Commons Attribution License . They may be copied, used, disseminated, transmitted and publicly displayed, provided that the authorship, url, and magazine are cited, and are not used for commercial purposes. No derivative works are allowed.
  2. They may adopt other non-exclusive license agreements for the distribution of the published version of the work (e.g., deposit it in an institutional telematic archive or publish it in a monographic volume) provided that the initial publication in this journal is indicated.
  3. Disseminate your work through the Internet (e.g., in institutional telematic archives or on your website) once the manuscript is accepted, which may lead to interesting exchanges and increased citations of the published work. (See The effect of open access).

Hachetetepé. Scientific journal of education and communication does not charge a fee for the submission of manuscripts or for the publication of its articles.

References

Berry, R. (2005). Making the most of metalanguage. Language Awareness, 14(1), 3-20.

Bitchener (2019) The intersection between SLA and feedback research. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (2nd ed). (pp. 85-105). Cambridge University Press.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193-214.

Bowles, M. A. (2010). The Think-Aloud Controversy in Second Language Research. Routledge.

Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 students writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9

Eckstein, G., & Bell, L. (2021). Dynamic written corrective feedback in first-year composition: Accuracy and lexical and syntactic complexity. RELC Journal, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882211061624

Eckstein, G., Sims, M., & Rohm, L. (2020). Dynamic written corrective feedback among graduate students: The effects of feedback timing. TESL

Canada Journal, 37(2), 78-102. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v37i2.1339

Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. MIT Press.

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.

Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., & Strong-Krause, D. (2011). The efficacy of dynamic written corrective feedback for university-matriculated ESL learners. System, 39(2), 229-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.04.012

Ferris, D. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing (2nd ed.).University of Michigan Press.

Ferris, D. & Kurzer, K. (2019) Does error feedback help L2 writers? In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (2nd ed). (pp. 106-124). Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184.

Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, D., & Anderson, N. J. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44(1), 84-109. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27785071

Hartshorn, K. J., & Evans, N. W. (2012). The differential effects of comprehensive corrective feedback on L2 writing accuracy. Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching, 3(2), 217–247.

Hartshorn, K. J., & Evans, N. W. (2015). The effects of dynamic written corrective feedback: A 30-Week Study. Journal of Response to Writing, 1(2), 6-34.

Kurzer, K. (2018a). Dynamic written corrective feedback in developmental multilingual writing classes. TESOL Quarterly, 52(1), 5-33.

https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.366

Kurzer, K. (2018b). Student perceptions of dynamic written corrective feedback in developmental multilingual writing classes. Journal of Response to Writing, 4(2). 34–68.

Mayer, R. (2011) Applying the science of learning. Pearson

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6

McCabe, J.A., Banasik, C. S., Jackson, M. G., Postlethwait, E. M., Steitz, A., & Wenzel, A. R. (2023). Exploring perceptions of cognitive load and mental fatigue in pandemic-era zoom classes. Scholarship of Teaching and

Learning in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000347

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371-391. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.371

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.

Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003