Bài viết nghiên cứu các chiến lược chữa lỗi với mục đích phân tích những điểm mạnh và điểm yếu khác nhau của mỗi phương pháp, để từ đó giúp giáo viên có lựa chọn chiến lược phù hợp trong giờ giảng dạy kỹ năng Viết cho người học ngoại ngữ.
Trang 1During the history of teaching writing to
EFL learners, there has been a constant dispute
among the scholars and the teachers on the role of
the teachers’ error feedback in learners’ second
language acquisition (SLA) Although the issue
of error feedback has produced a wealth of studies
over the years, these studies have mostly looked
at the effect of error feedback (Bitchener, 2008;
Truscott, 2007) or the appropriateness of error
feedback (Ferris, 2008) Even that many feedback
strategies have been mentioned and studied in
LÊ THU HƯƠNG *
* Đại học Kinh thế Quốc dân, ✉ lethuhuongp@gmail.com
Ngày nhận: 13/3/2017; Ngày hoàn thiện: 26/4/2017; Ngày duyệt đăng: 10/5/2017
CHIẾN LƯỢC CHỮA LỖI BÀI VIẾT
TRONG GIẢNG DẠY KỸ NĂNG VIẾT CHO NGƯỜI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ
TÓM TẮT
Trong những năm gần đây đã có rất nhiều những tranh luận xung quanh hiệu quả của việc chữa lỗi bài viết cho người học ngoại ngữ trong giờ giảng dạy kỹ năng Viết Những nghiên cứu đầu tiên
về chữa lỗi viết được thực hiện bởi Truscott (1996) Ông cho rằng, không nên chữa lỗi ngữ pháp trong bài viết của người học, bởi việc này không hiệu quả đối với việc nâng cao kỹ năng Viết cho người học Phản đối quan điểm của Truscott, Ferris (2008) cho rằng, việc xử lý lỗi viết, bao gồm việc chữa lỗi của giáo viên, là rất quan trọng trong việc giảng dạy kỹ năng viết Xung quanh vấn
đề này còn có rất nhiều nghiên cứu về cách tiếp cận lỗi của người học ra sao cho phù hợp cũng như các chiến lược chữa lỗi hiệu quả cần được áp dụng như thế nào trong giờ dạy kỹ năng Viết cho người học ngoại ngữ Do có nhiều tranh luận về các biện pháp chữa lỗi khác nhau nên bài viết sẽ nghiên cứu các chiến lược chữa lỗi với mục đích phân tích những điểm mạnh và điểm yếu khác nhau của mỗi phương pháp, để từ đó giúp giáo viên có lựa chọn chiến lược phù hợp trong giờ giảng dạy kỹ năng Viết cho người học ngoại ngữ
Từ khóa: chữa lỗi, giảng dạy tiếng Anh, kỹ năng Viết.
some researches, far too little attention has been paid to analyze and compare error feedback types themselves without referring to any other related components such as self-correction, writing practice or different linguistic error categories in specific cases Therefore, the aim
of this paper is to fill the gap by reviewing recent researches into commonly applied feedback strategies only on EFL learners’ writing skills with deep analysis and then supports teachers in selecting the most appropriate strategies in their own writing classes
Trang 2ERROR FEEDBACK AND EFL
LEARNERS’ WRITING SKILL
Recently, researchers have shown an
increased interest in the effect of error feedback
on EFL learners’ writing including Truscott
J., Ferris D.R., Roberts or Abedi The issue of
whether error correction works or not continues
to be controversial and the strongest debate
is being made by two big names Truscott and
Ferris in the field of EFL error feedback
Truscott (1999; 2007) strongly argues against
the effectiveness of grammatical feedback in
EFL writing by pointing out the numerous
problems in practice such as the teachers’ lack
of knowledge or the learners’ different behaviors
with the teachers’ feedback Therefore, it is his
belief that error correction is of little benefit or
even counterproductive so it should be kept aside
in EFL writing classrooms In an earlier study
of Zamel (1985), the quality of error feedback
is doubted as the teachers are neither consistent
nor systematic in providing feedback to learners
Championing the case against Truscott’s
firmly held position, Ferris and Roberts (2001)
argue that Truscott’s arguments were premature
and also strongly give the rapidly growing
research evidence pointing out that error
correction is widely seen as an essential factor
in writing improvement by the teachers and
learners, providing it is selective, prioritized and
clear Regarding this point, the study of Ferris
and Roberts (2001) emphasizes the importance
of accuracy in writing and therefore error
correction has contributed a lot in the learners’
written output accuracy Fathman and Walley
(1990) conduct a study on the effect of error
feedback on learners’ improvement in writing
Two groups including one group receiving error
feedback and one receiving little feedback were
observed It has been demonstrated that the
former did much better in grammatical writing
than those received little feedback
Finally, Ferris and Roberts (2001) conclude that controversy continues as regards whether error feedback improves learners’ writing accuracy and their writing ability As Bitcherner (2008) reminds us, it has been too early to draw out the conclusive answer to the question of whether error feedback is effective to improve EFL learners’ accuracy As a result, the teachers cannot dismiss the learners’ strong desire for error feedback While there seems to be growing evidence showing that some strategies for error feedback may be more effective than the others, the research to date has tended to focus
on investigating the different types of feedback strategies for the discussion of efficiency and prominence for the sake of the EFL learners’ writing skill improvement
OVERVIEW OF WRITTEN ERROR FEEDBACK STRATEGIES
In the analysis of Ferris (2008), error is widely seen as crucial writing development by the teachers In the present study, the learners’ errors are also welcomed on their writing for the progress of writing ability
A number of different ways in which errors can be corrected have been identified based
on a theoretical view on how feedback works for acquisition by methodologists and SLA researchers Delgado (2007) takes the view that the teachers decide to implement what types
of errors to focus on following the relevant decisions of the students Ferris (2008) argues that the most significant dichotomy is between direct and indirect feedback At this point, it seems that the research of Ellis (2008) on the typology of written feedback types covered nearly all the types of written error feedback strategies, particularly six basic strategies for providing feedback as follow:
The first is direct feedback (the teacher provides the learners with the correct form)
Trang 3The second is indirect feedback with two
main types (indicating and locating the error or
indication only)
The third is metalinguistic feedback in which
the teacher provides some kinds of metalinguistic
clue as to the nature of the error
The fourth is the focus of the feedback which
concerns whether the teacher attempts to correct
most of the learners’ errors or only select one
or two types for correction At this strategy,
the terms of unfocused feedback and focused
feedback needs to be analyzed
The fifth is electronic feedback which teacher
indicates an error and provides a hyperlink to a
concordance file providing examples of correct usage
The last is reformulation which relates to
a native speaker’s reworking of the learners’
entire text to make the language native – like
while keeping the original content
While a variety of researches on error
feedback strategies has been suggested, debate
continues about the influence of the different
feedback strategies on EFL learners’ writing
ability in the past years In the pages that follow,
the pros and cons of each strategy will be
discussed before reaching the conclusion which
will be more advantageous than the others
DIRECT FEEDBACK
In the case of direct feedback, the teacher
provides the learners with the correct form
(Ellis, 2008) According to Ferris and Roberts
(2001), direct or explicit feedback occurs when
the teacher identifies the errors and provides
correct form Moreover, direct error feedback
can be shown with a number of different forms
like crossing out an unnecessary words, phrases
or morphemes, inserting words or morphemes
or writing the correct form above or near the
wrong ones Ellis (2008, p.99) also discusses
the advantages of direct error feedback on the
learners Accordingly, “direct error feedback provides learners with explicit guidance about how to correct their errors This is clearly desirable
if learners do not know what the correct form is (i.e are not capable of self-correcting the error)”
INDIRECT FEEDBACK
On the contrary, indirect feedback is applied when the teacher indicates learners’ errors by underlying or pointing out the errors’ location then let learners diagnose and solve
by themselves Additionally, Bitchener (2008) reports that the studies investigating effect of indirect feedback strategies have tended to make a further distinction between those that
do or do not use a code Coded feedback points
to the exact location Uncoded feedback refers
to the cases when the teachers underline, circle
or place an error in the margin and then leave learners solve by themselves
Indirect error feedback can be done by various forms as listed by Ellis (2008) such as underlining the errors, using cursors to show omissions or placing a cross in the margin next
to the line containing the error
According to Lalande (1982), indirect error feedback serves for “guided learning and problem solving” and encourages learners to reflect about linguistic forms (as cited in Ellis, 2008) Therefore, indirect error feedback seems
to be considered as the contribution to long-term learning
METALINGUISTIC FEEDBACK
According to Ellis (2008), metalinguistic feedback provides some forms of explicit comment about the nature of errors At this point, the explicit comment is divided into two forms: the use of error codes and metalinguistic explanations
The most commonly used is the first one, error codes which are abbreviated labels for different
Trang 4kinds of errors The places of the labels can be
various: over the location of the error in the text
or in the margin In the former case, learners
will work out the correction required from the
clues while in the latter, learners need to locate
the error first before working out the correction
The second type of metalinguistic feedback
is providing learners with metalinguistic
explanations of their errors Using this kind
of feedback means that the teachers need to
locate the error and then expound the nature
of errors to the learners As stated by Ellis
(2008), metalinguistic explanations are far less
common as its time consumption Moreover,
metalinguistic explaining is not really an easy task
for teachers It involves sufficient metalinguistic
knowledge of the teachers with clear and
accurate explanation for a variety of errors
FOCUSED AND UNFOCUSED
FEEDBACK
As for unfocused feedback, the teachers
select to correct all the learners’ errors in their
compositions Alternatively they can select
specific error types such as article, verb tense
errors for correction which means focused
feedback
It is likely more difficult to process corrections
in unfocused feedback as the learners must attend to
a variety of errors which leads to the insufficiency
in each error reflection In this respect, focused
feedback can promote the learners’ attention as
well as their understanding of the errors’ nature
However, unfocused feedback can be superior in
the long run or at the advanced level as it addresses
a wide range of errors at the same time
ELECTRONIC FEEDBACK
Ellis (2008, p.103) supports the usefulness
of software programs in supporting the learners’
writing “electronic resources provide learners with
the means where they can appropriate the usage of
more experienced writers” As cited in Ellis (2008),
Milton offers an approach based on a software program named Mark My Words The program shows an electronic store of approximately 100 recurrent lexico-grammatical and style errors found
in Chinese learners’ writing A brief comment
on each error is provided with the links to the correct form The electronic store can be useful
to the teacher by inserting brief metalinguistic comments into the learners’ text Then the text will
be given back to the learner for their consultation
of the electronic resources to compare his/her errors with illustrated language samples To some extent, it can assist learners in self correction Following the report of Milton, by using Mark
My Words, the learners’ revisions were successful
In her paper, Ellis points out some obvious benefits of this option Firstly, electronic feedback can eliminate the domination of the teachers in providing correct forms Moreover,
a usage-based approach is more reliable as
it can avoid fallible teachers’ intuition about grammatical correctness The last point which
is undeniable is the role of this feedback type
in promoting the role or the independence of learners in their writings
REFORMULATION
The last option offered in Ellis’s paper (2008)
is reformulation To some extent, reformulation
is similar to the use of concordances which aims
to provide learners with a resource for their error correction However, reformulation places the responsibility on the learners for the final decision whether and how to correct their errors
In order to identify an error, the teacher will construct a native-speaker version of the part which contains an error As cited by Ellis (2008, p.103), the idea for reformulation is “to preserve
as many of the writer’s ideas as possible while expressing them in their own words so as to make the piece sound native-like” Then the writer revises by deciding which of the native-speaker’s reconstructions to accept
Trang 5At this point, reformulation is completely
different from direct error correction Sachs and
Polio (2007) reports that the main difference
between these two types was the matter of
presentation and task requirements and there
is no relation with the kinds of errors that were
corrected As in an example conducted by
Sachs and Polio (2007), the learners are shown
their corrected stories, study the stories in 20
minutes and take notes if they want The next
day, they were given a clean sheet of paper and
asked to revise their stories without looking
at the corrected texts or notes The correction
group produces more accurate revisions than
the reformulation group As pointed out,
reformulation is a technique is not only for
assisting learners with their surface level
linguistic errors but also for drawing attention to
higher order stylistic and organizational errors
Accordingly, reformulation is by far a technique
for teaching writing composition in sense of
linguistic error revision but it is also far more
than the path to lead the writers to the native-like
style and their self-control in writing process
APPLICATION OF DIFFERENT
ERROR FEEDBACK STRATEGIES IN
EFL WRITING CLASSES
Over the past years there has been a dramatic
increase in the studies which investigate whether
the certain kinds of feedback works more than
the others in helping EFL learners’ writing
improvement (Bitchener et al, 2005)
A good number of studies have distinguished
between direct and indirect strategies and
investigated the extent to which they facilitate
greater accuracy A recent study by Abedi et al
(2010) involves the effect of direct and indirect
feedback on Iranian Pre-intermediate EFL
learners’ writing achievement In the study,
30 pre-intermediate learners were randomly
divided into two groups: group one (DFG)
receiving direct feedback on their writing
through error correction and group two (IFG)
receiving indirect feedback In DFG, the teacher underlined the learners’ writing errors and gave learners the correct form so that they can aware
of their errors and the corrected ones for their writing improvement In IFG, the metalinguistic strategy was also applied at the same time with the error codes without metalinguistic explanation The errors were detected by underlining or using error codes; for example, “S.P” means spelling error or “W.O” means word order error and then delivered to learners so that learners had to correct the errors by themselves and handed in the corrected writings in the following lessons
In fact, using the indirect feedback was shown to exert a positive effect on writing ability development compared to the direct ones As a result, the learners performed better on writing test through exposure to the indirect feedback, not the direct counterpart As stated in their research, Abedi and his colleagues’ statistics also supports Truscott’s belief that provision of direct feedback on EFL writing is ineffective since the learners of DFG have shown no significant improvement compared to their peers in IDG Besides the greater improvement of IFG in producing new writing pieces, one more reason for better progress in indirect feedback could be considered as the learners’ effort in locating and providing codes which can lead to consciousness raising task or more encouragement and independency Therefore, in their research, Abedi and his colleagues confirmed the idea of indirect error feedback over the direct ones Sharing the same view, Bitchener’s finding also adds to the growing body of research that indirect feedback is more effective than direct feedback in helping learners improve accuracy
of their writing Ferris (2002) states that indirect error feedback is more beneficial than direct one because it pushes learners to engage in hypothesis testing which helps the learners to induce deeper internal processing and internalize the correct forms
Trang 6However, empirical evidence to date
suggests that there is no advantage for indirect
error feedback over direct error feedback In
fact, Chandler finds that direct correction was
more prominent than any other types of indirect
correction in producing more accurate writing
Chandler hypothesizes that a teacher’s direct
correction helps EFL learners internalize the
correct form more productively because indirect
feedback, though it demands greater cognitive
processing, delays confirmation of learners’
hypotheses She also reports that her EFL
learners favoured direct correction
As stated by Ferris (2002), direct feedback
may be appropriate for beginner learners and
when the errors are “untreatable” which learners
are not able to self-correct like vocabulary or
pragmatics errors However, Ferris (2002) also
points out the danger of direct error feedback
is that the teacher may misinterpret learners’
meaning and put words into their mouth
Furthermore, the hypotheses could not yet be
confirmed since results from studies exploring
the efficacy of direct and indirect feedback are
inclusive It is worth noticing the arguments
that direct and indirect feedbacks were equally
efficient At this point, Ferris (2008) expose
that indirect correction was proved to be most
effective in enhancing learners’ accuracy in
subsequent writing whereas learners receiving
direct feedback made the most accurate
revisions The last point given by Chandler
(2003) as the opponent of Bitchener (2008) that
direct feedback contributes most in accuracy
achievement, not only in revisions but also
in subsequent writing In brief, these findings
suggest that contrary to pedagogical suggestions
in the EFL writing literature, indirect written
error feedback may not be superior to direct
error feedback
In the study of Delgado (2002), indirect
strategy was applied between coded and uncoded
groups The research shows that learners
benefited from coded feedback over uncoded feedback which encourages EFL the teachers
to continue providing learners with coded feedback According to Deng (2010, p 601), the teachers reported making the most frequent use
of indirect coded feedback followed by direct feedback Indirect coded feedback is preferred due to its efficiency in saving marking time Direct feedback is preferred as some the teachers think it is not sufficient to just give learners the codes One teacher noted “Codes alone are not enough I correct the errors so they can work on these and avoid the same errors next time” Besides the ebullient debate on direct versus indirect feedback, Ferris and Roberts (2001) also support the benefit of error feedback on learners’ writing as long as error feedback is selective or focused From the view of learners in the paper
of Deng (2010, p.602), they seem to prefer comprehensive or unfocused feedback because
it helps to eradicate all errors Only 7% of the learners prefer selective or focused feedback with the argument that unfocused feedback is de-motivating “I don’t like my teacher mark
so many on my paper… it looks so much and I don’t know how to start”
Accordingly, Delgado (2007) concludes that there appears to be mismatch between the strategies expected by the teachers and learners
By using the narrative writing test and error correction test, it is stated that there are no statistically significant differences between focused and unfocused strategies Both types
of feedback are equally effective However, there is some evidence to suggest that focused feedback may be more effective in the long run
It is noted that according to Ellis (2008), it might
be better to characterize the differences between the two types of feedback as “focused” versus
“less focused” rather than “focused” versus
“unfocused”
As in a research of Ellis (2008), the results suggest that it is essential that error feedback
Trang 7should help learners with metalinguistic
understanding or metalinguistic strategy should
be applied which allows for and surely benefits
from the conscious monitoring in writing When
taking direct and metalinguistic feedback into
account, it is suggested that whether the teachers
should combine direct and metalinguistic into
direct metalinguistic feedback Sheen (2007)
takes the view that direct metalinguistic group
in the study shows a consistent increase over
time whereas the direct – only group shows a
slight decrease in their writing process At this
point, Sheen (2007) cites the view of Schmidt
on second language acquisition Schmidt
distinguishes awareness at the level of noticing
and at the level of understanding which is a
higher level of awareness Noticing involves
simply attending to exemplars of specific forms
which direct feedback provides Understanding
entails knowing a rule or principle that governs
an aspect of language which metalinguistic
feedback contributes to
In terms of reformulation, a study conducted
by Sachs and Polio (2007) gives an insight into
reformulation on linguistic writing accuracy It
is noted that different types of feedback which
were written in a familiar way on the learners’
papers in purple ink, indicating the locations
more clearly than the case in the reformulation
conditions and the learners do not have to find
the errors as well Yet reformulation lets learners
search for differences by themselves and then
they might be better able to devote cognitive
resources to understanding and remembering the
corrections longer
To sum up, the debate about the different
effect of feedback strategies is still inconclusive
Ferris (2008) states that teacher may decide to
combine different types of feedback strategies,
depending on whether he/she expects the
learners to focus on some certain patterns of
error As a result, some pedagogical implications
which hope to contribute to the quality in writing
instruction will be given in the following part
PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATION
In the study, Deng (2010) offers some implications on how to apply error feedback strategies effectively in writing instruction Firstly, the researcher confirms the value and benefit of error feedback on the learners’ written output In order to take advantage
of error feedback strategies, teacher should apply focused feedback in helping learners to discover the rules of language by responding
to errors selectively Secondly, so as to avoid mismatches between the teachers and learners
in feedback strategies’ preferences, it is recommended that the teachers should establish better communication with learners with regards to the feedback strategies used such as listening to learners’ views on feedback strategy application or discussion on the effectiveness
of the teachers’ actual feedback methods Furthermore, according to Deng (2010), when error codes used, the teachers should pay attention to systematic application of error codes
as learners can be easily confused about the meanings denoted by different codes
Moreover, Ferris (2008) suggests that learners have demonstrated an overwhelming desire for feedback and each type of error feedback certainly has its own benefit In the study of Ferris, it was observed that direct feedback led
to greater accuracy in text revision while indirect feedback resulted in the production of fewer initial errors Thus, it is suggested that learners may be served best when the method of feedback
is dictated by the error type and context
For example, when examining the actual error feedback strategies provided by the teachers, Ferris saw that direct and indirect feedback are used most of the time The treatable errors received indirect feedback in about 59%
of the time while untreatable errors received direct feedback in 65% respectively To sum up, Ferris hypothesizes that perhaps teacher should
Trang 8consider the type of error and their own belief
of each situation to come to the final conclusion
which would be most helpful to learners
Lastly, learners’ autonomy should be
encouraged along with error identification and
correction Various activities can be utilized like
peer editing or self-check lists to promote more
learners’ responsibility, which leads to the success
in the learners’ written output in a long term
CONCLUSION
As Chandler (2003, p 348) notes in her
rebuttal of Truscott’s (1999, 2007) criticism
of written error correction, the controversy
surrounding the effectiveness of error feedback
on written output can only be resolved through
carefully designed studies:
I accept [his] argument that the efficacy of
error correction for accuracy of subsequent
writing can only be demonstrated by studies
containing a control group which receives no
correction and experimental groups which
correct their errors after either receiving direct
correction or having the location of their errors
pointed out So I hope someone will do such a
well-designed study
So far the discussion in this paper has
provided the overview of error feedback
strategies on EFL learners’ written output with
pedagogical implication in writing instruction It
is obvious that the effectiveness of error feedback
addresses various aspects which lead to ceaseless
controversy among researchers At this point, the
role of error feedback strategies is undeniable in
learners’ writing ability improvement The paper
set out to determine the main issues about the
effect of different error feedback strategies on
EFL learners’ writing skill After discussing the
pros and cons of each strategy, the results of this
paper suggest that it seems to be a bias if some
certain types are concluded to be more preferred
over the others as they can be applied at the same
time for the best results The findings from this paper hope to make several contributions to the current literature which highly recommended that the teachers need to be aware that the destination of any error feedback strategies is the learners’ writing ability improvement Thus, the teachers could make the most of error feedback strategies’ advantages by combining or using them separately in accordance with particular situation’s consideration to find how these strategies would be most helpful to learners
References:
1 Abedi, R., Latifi, M & Moinzadeh, A (2010), “The Effect of Error Correction vs, Error Detection on Iranian Pre-intermediate EFL Learners’ Writing Achievement” [Electronic
version], English Language Teaching, 3, 168-174.
2 Bitchener, J (2008), “Evidence in Support
of Written Corrective Feedback”, Journal of Second Language Writing, doi: 10.1016/j.
jslw.2007.11.004
3 Chandler, J (2003), “The Efficiency
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.
4 Delgado, R (2002), “Effects of Different Error Feedback: Approaches in Students’ Ability
to Self-edit Their Writing”, Revista de Studios Linguisticos y Literarios, 4(2), 3-16.
5 Deng, K (2010), “Rethinking Error Feedback on L2 Writing”, In A.M Stoke (Ed.),
JALT2009 Conference Proceedings, Tokyo: JALT.
6 Ellis, R (2008), “A Typology of Written
Corrective Feedback Types”, ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107 doi:10.1093/elt/ccn023.
7 Fathman, A & Walley, E (1990), “Teacher Response to Student Writing: Focus on Form
versus Content”, In: B Kroll (Ed.), Second
Trang 9FEEDBACK STRATEGIES IN EFL LEARNERS’ WRITING CLASSES
LE THU HUONG
Abstract: Debate about the effect of providing error feedback on English as Foreign Language
(EFL) writing has been the outstanding issue in recent years The preliminary work on error correction was undertaken by Truscott (1996) which claims that grammar error feedback should
be abandoned because of its ineffectiveness and harmfulness In response to Truscott, Ferris (2008) states in her summary that error treatment, including error feedback by the teachers,
is a necessary component of second language (EFL) writing instruction In order to settle the debate, the investigation into how error feedback should be given to learners or the error feedback strategies applied in writing instruction needs addressing As the error feedback strategies have received numerous controversies with different views, the paper intends to give an insight into error feedback strategies with different strengths and weaknesses of each strategy, which aims to support EFL teachers in selecting the most appropriate ones in their writing classes
Keywords: error feedback, English language teaching, writing skill.
Language Writing: Research Insights for the
Classroom, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 178-190
8 Ferris, D.R (2008), Treatment of Error in
Second Language Student Writing, Michigan:
University of Michigan Press
9 Ferris, D.R., & Roberts, B (2001), “Error
Feedback in L2 Writing Classes: How Explicit
Does It Need to Be?”, Journal of Second
Language Writing, 10, 161-184.
10 Sachs, R., & Polio, C.G (2007), “Learners’
Use of Two Types of Written Feedback on a
L2 Writing Revision Task”, Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 29, 67-100.
11 Truscott, J (1999), “The Case for Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes:
A Response to Ferris”, Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 111-122.
12 Truscott, J (2007), “The Effect of Error Correction on Learners’ Ability to Write
Accurately”, Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272.
13 Zamel, V (1985), “Responding to Student
Writing”, TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79-101.