Correo Electrónico
DNINFOA - SIA
Bibliotecas
Convocatorias
Identidad U.N.
Published
Classifying Written Corrective Feedback for Research and Educational Purposes: A Typology Proposal
Clasificación de la retroalimentación correctiva escrita para propósitos investigativos y educativos: una propuesta de tipología
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v22n2.79924Keywords:
assessment, second language acquisition, typology, written corrective feedback (en)adquisición de una segunda lengua, evaluación, retroalimentación correctiva escrita (RCE), tipología (es)
Although several investigations have been carried out in recent years on written corrective feedback (WCF), there is a lack of agreement about its definition and the effect on students’ writings of different types of feedback. This may be due to the lack of systematicity regarding the characterization of WCF used in those studies. This article seeks to review the concept of WCF in studies in the field and to systematize the various aspects considered in a typology, which includes specification, focus, scope, source, mode of delivery, and notes. The resulting typology should help improve the effectiveness in the comparison of WCF studies and serve as a reference for teachers interested in expanding their practices.
A pesar de la variedad de estudios recientes sobre la retroalimentación correctiva escrita (RCE), no existe un acuerdo respecto a su definición ni al efecto que distintos tipos de retroalimentación tienen en la escritura de los estudiantes. Esto puede deberse a la falta de sistematicidad en dichos estudios para caracterizar la RCE. Así, en este artículo se hace una revisión de su noción y de los diversos aspectos considerados en los estudios, a fin de sintetizarlos en una tipología que incluya especificación, enfoque, alcance, fuente, modo de entrega y notas. Se espera que la tipología propuesta sea eficaz en la comparación de estudios sobre la RCE y sirva de consulta a docentes interesados en expandir sus prácticas.
References
Al-Jarrah, R. (2016). A suggested model of corrective feedback provision. Ampersand, 3, 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2016.06.003
Anderson, J. R. (1996). ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist, 51(4), 355–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.51.4.355
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832400
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924
Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Britton, J. (1970). Language and learning. University of Miami Press.
Brooks, N. H. (1960). Language and language learning: Theory and practice. Harcourt.
Chong, I. (2017). How students’ ability levels influence the relevance of their feedback to peers: A case study. Assessing Writing, 31, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.07.002
Cumming, A. (2001). Learning to write in a second language: Two decades of research. International Journal of English Studies, 1(2), 1–23.
Dai, J., Raine, R. B., Roscoe, R., Cai, Z., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). The writing-pal tutoring system: Development and design. Journal of Engineering and Computer Innovations, 2(1), 1–11.
De Beaugrande, R.-A., & Dressler, W. U. (1997). Introducción a la lingüística del texto [Introduction to textual linguistics]. Ariel.
Diab, N. M. (2011). Assessing the relationship between different types of student feedback and the quality of revised writing. Assessing Writing, 16(4), 274–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2011.08.001
Diab, N. M. (2015). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does type of error and type of correction matter? Assessing Writing, 24, 16–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2015.02.001
Dikli, S., & Bleyle, S. (2014). Automated essay scoring feedback for second language writers: How does it compare to instructor feedback? Assessing Writing, 22, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2014.03.006
Ellis, R. (2009a). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
Ellis, R. (2009b). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1, 3–18.
Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28(2), 122–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/356095
Everhard, C. (2015). The assessment–autonomy relationship. In C. Everhard & L. Murphy (Eds.), Assessment and autonomy in language learning (pp. 8–34). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137414380_2
Farrokhi, F., & Sattarpour, S. (2011). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy of Iranian EFL learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(12), 1797–1803. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.1.12.1797-1803
Fazio, L. L. (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority- and majority-language students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 235–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00042-X
Ferreira-Cabrera, A. (2017). El efecto del feedback correctivo para mejorar la destreza escrita en ELE [Corrective feedback to improve students’ writing skills in SFL]. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 19(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.14483/calj.v19n1.10220
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600
Ghazi, S., & Zamanian, M. (2016). The influence of asynchronous computer-mediated versus conventional corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy. Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English, 5(2), 169–181.
Han, Z. H. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 543–572. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588240
Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2019). Academic emotions in written corrective feedback situations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.12.003
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task–based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263103000019
Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A Meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12189
Kim, Y., & Emeliyanova, L. (2019). The effects of written corrective feedback on the accuracy of L2 writing: Comparing collaborative and individual revision behavior. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819831406
Kluger, A. N., & Adler, S. (1993). Person- versus computer-mediated feedback. Computers in Human Behavior, 9(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/0747-5632(93)90017-M
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon.
Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. (2017). Assessing syntactic sophistication in L2 writing: A usage-based approach. Language Testing, 34(4), 513–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532217712554
Lai, Y.-H. (2009). Which do students prefer to evaluate their essays: Peers or computer program? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 432–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00959.x
Laveault, D., & Allal, D. (Eds.). (2016). Assessment for learning: Meeting the challenge of implementation. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39211-0
Lillo, J., & Sáez, K. (2017). La efectividad del feedback correctivo escrito en la adquisición de segundas lenguas [The effect of written corrective feedback in second language acquisition]. Revista Signos, 50(94), 217–240. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342017000200217
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.
Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 357–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01213.x
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 51–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226319800103X
Lyster, R, & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. Edward Arnold.
Miao, Y., Badger, R., & Zhen, Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 179–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004
Milton, J. (2006). Resource-rich web-based feedback: Helping learners become independent writers. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 123–139). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524742.009
Muñoz, B., & Ferreira, A. (2017). El feedback correctivo escrito indirecto en el aprendizaje de la forma comparativa de adjetivos en inglés [Indirect written corrective feedback in the learning of English comparatives]. Logos: Revista de Lingüística, Filosofía y Literatura, 27(1), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.15443/RL2706
Nishino, T., & Atkinson, D. (2015). Second language writing as sociocognitive alignment. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.11.002
Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(2), 186–214. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100005015
Salami, M., & Raouf-Moini, M. (2013). The impact of focused and unfocused corrective feedback on written accuracy. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 2(4), 32–41.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(3), 209–231. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209
Shang, H.-F. (2019). Exploring online peer feedback and automated corrective feedback on EFL writing performance. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1629601
Stevenson, M., & Phakiti, A. (2014). The effects of computer-generated feedback on the quality of writing. Assessing Writing, 19, 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.007
Tang, C., & Liu, Y.-T. (2018). Effects of indirect coded corrective feedback with and without short affective teacher comments on L2 writing performance, learner uptake and motivation. Assessing Writing, 35, 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2017.12.002
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
Warschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2006). Automated writing evaluation: Defining the classroom research agenda. Language Teaching Research, 10(2), 157–180. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr190oa
Yu, S., & Hu, G. (2017). Understanding university students’ peer feedback practices in EFL writing: Insights from a case study. Assessing Writing, 33, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2017.03.004
How to Cite
APA
ACM
ACS
ABNT
Chicago
Harvard
IEEE
MLA
Turabian
Vancouver
Download Citation
CrossRef Cited-by
1. Llorenç Comajoan‐Colomé, Tania Salguero. (2024). The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. , p.1. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt1023.pub2.
2. Yara Abdelaty, Emad Alghamdi, Abdullah Alamer. (2025). The effects of self-regulation on L2 writing achievement: Examining the mediating roles of feedback quality and task complexity. System, 132, p.103715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2025.103715.
3. Natasha Pourdana. (2022). Impacts of computer-assisted diagnostic assessment on sustainability of L2 learners’ collaborative writing improvement and their engagement modes. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 7(1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-022-00139-4.
4. Mabel Andrea Ortiz-Navarrete, Belén Carolina Muñoz-Muñoz, Fernanda Isabel Méndez-González. (2026). Efecto del feedback a través de screencasting en la escritura de un ensayo discursivo. Folios, (63), p.117. https://doi.org/10.17227/folios.63-21951.
5. Jorge Villavicencio. (2023). A Systematic Literature Review: Direct and Indirect Feedback Strategies in EFL Contexts. rEFLections, 30(3), p.866. https://doi.org/10.61508/refl.v30i3.268895.
Dimensions
PlumX
Article abstract page views
Downloads
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Benjamín Cárcamo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
You are authorized to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format as long as you give appropriate credit to the authors of the articles and to Profile: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development as original source of publication. The use of the material for commercial purposes is not allowed. If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.
Authors retain the intellectual property of their manuscripts with the following restriction: first publication is granted to Profile: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development.
