current practice of providing corrective feedback in classrooms does not tackle

Current practice of providing corrective feedback in

This preview shows page 3 - 4 out of 4 pages.

current practice of providing corrective feedback in classrooms does not tackle this issue effectively. Learners’ linguistic ability develops at different paces, thus the current feedback practice is deemed ineffective because it does not facilitate individual language development.
Image of page 3
Even though Ferris (1999) disagrees with the overtly strong notion of abandoning grammar correction altogether, she does support the concern over the issue of developmental sequence. She acknowledges the fact that learners may not be able to effectively acquire information through corrective feedback consistently due to the different error types, since “syntactic, morphological and lexical knowledge are acquired in different manners” (Truscott, 1996). In order to deal with this problem, Ferris (1995; 1999), Ferris et al. (1997) and Ferris & Hedgcock (1998) suggest that learners are trained to self-edit their own written work and that teachers may provide indirect corrective feedback for “treatable” grammar errors, which are strictly rule-governed grammar items such as subjectverb agreement and missing articles. Furthermore, Ferris (2006) also suggests that teachers should consider combining self-editing training and direct corrective feedback for “untreatable errors”, of which there is no fixed set of rules that learners may refer to in order to make corrections, like word choice error.
Image of page 4

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 4 pages?

  • Summer '17
  • Iking
  • 1916, 1918, Truscott

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture