Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-9k27k Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T02:42:07.274Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Written corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: A research agenda

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2018

Neomy Storch
Neomy Storch*
Affiliation:
The University of Melbourne, Australianeomys@unimelb.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using key constructs from sociocultural theory and activity theory, this paper outlines three broad areas of future research on written corrective feedback (WCF) that may be of interest to second language (L2) researchers and practitioners. The first area uses the constructs of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and scaffolding to assess the nature and appropriateness of the feedback provided. The second area uses the construct of tools and considers learners’ responses to the means used to provide WCF, including automated feedback. The third, and perhaps most important area, views WCF as an activity, and examines context-related and individual factors that impact on the provision and response to WCF. The paper provides concrete examples of small-scale longitudinal studies in each of these areas, including recommendations as to the kind of data and measures to employ.

Type
Thinking Allowed
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , April 2018 , pp. 262 - 277
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Al Shahrani, A. & Storch, N. (2014). Investigating teachers’ written corrective feedback practices in a Saudi EFL context: How do they align with their beliefs, institutional guidelines, and students’ preferences? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 37.1, 101–122.Google Scholar
Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal 78.4, 465–483.Google Scholar
Basturkmen, H., East, M. & Bitchener, J. (2014). Supervisors’ on-script feedback comments on drafts of dissertations: socialising students into the academic discourse community. Teaching in Higher Education 19.4, 432–445.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., Young, S. & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 14.3, 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 12.3, 267–296.Google Scholar
Chang, C. F. (2012). Peer review via three modes in an EFL writing course. Computers and Composition 29.1, 63–78.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work 14.1, 133–156.Google Scholar
Erlam, R., Ellis, R. & Batstone, R. (2013). Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing: Two approaches compared. System 41.2 257–268.Google Scholar
Evans, N., Hartshorn, J. & Tuioti, E. (2010). Written corrective feedback: Practitioners’ perspectives. International Journal of English Studies 10.2, 47–77.Google Scholar
Goldstein, L. (2001). For Kyla: What does the research say about responding to ESL writers? In Silva, T. & Matsuda, P. (eds.), On second language writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 73–90.Google Scholar
Goldstein, L. M. (2006). Feedback and revision in second language writing: Contextual, teacher, and student variables. In Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 185–205.Google Scholar
Guardado, M. & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition 24.4, 443–461.Google Scholar
Han, Y. & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing 30.1, 31–44.Google Scholar
Heift, T. & Schulze, M. (2007). Errors and intelligence in computer assisted language learning. Parsers and pedagogies. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Heift, T. & Schulze, M. (2015). Tutorial computer-assisted language learning. Language Teaching 48.4, 471–490.Google Scholar
Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing 7.3, 255–286.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching 39.1, 83–101.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In Lantolf, J. P. (ed.), 1–26.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. (ed.) (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. & Aljaafreh, A. (1995). Second language learning in the zone of proximal development: A revolutionary experience. International Journal of Educational Research 23.7, 619–623.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperatives in L2 education. Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of L2 development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics 27.4, 590–619.Google Scholar
Lee, G. & Schallert, D. (2008). Meeting in the margins: Effects of the teacher-student relationship on revision processes of EFL college students taking a composition course. Journal of Second Language Writing 17.3, 165–182.Google Scholar
Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing 17.1, 144–164.Google Scholar
Lee, I. (2014). Revising teacher feedback in EFL writing from sociocultural perspectives. TESOL Quarterly 48.1, 201–2013.Google Scholar
Leont'ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In Wertsch, J. V. (ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: Sharpe, 37–71.Google Scholar
Liu, J. & Sadler, R. W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2.3, 193–227.Google Scholar
Morton, J., Thompson, C. & Storch, N. (2014). Feedback in the supervision of postgraduate students: Insights from the work of Vygotsky and Bakhtin. Journal of Academic Language and Learning 8.1, 24–36.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness 9.1, 34–51.Google Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics 30.4, 590–601.Google Scholar
Poehner, M. E. (2009). Dynamic assessment as a dialectic framework for classroom activity: Evidence from second language (L2) learners. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology 8.3, 252–268.Google Scholar
Poehner, M. E. & Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing L2 development during computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA). Language Teaching Research 17.3, 323–342.Google Scholar
Polio, C. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning 47.1, 101–143.Google Scholar
Qi, D. S. & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing 10.4, 277–303.Google Scholar
Sachs, R. & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29.1, 67–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulze, M. & Smith, B. (2015). In theory – we could be better. Editorial. CALICO Journal 32.1, i–vi.Google Scholar
Stevenson, M. & Phakiti, A. (2014). The effects of computer-generated feedback on the quality of writing. Assessing Writing 19.1, 51–65.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback. International Journal of English Studies 10.2, 29–46.Google Scholar
Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G. (2010a). Learners' processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32.2, 303–334.Google Scholar
Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G. (2010b). Students' engagement with feedback on writing: The role of learner agency/beliefs. In Batstone, R. (ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 166–185.Google Scholar
Sullivan, P. (2000). Playfulness as mediation in communicative language teaching in a Vietnamese classroom. In Lantolf, J. P. (ed.), 115–132.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf, J. P. (ed.), 97–114.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In Byrnes, H. (ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky. London: Continuum, 95–108.Google Scholar
Swain, M., Kinnear, P. & Steinman, L. (2015). Sociocultural theory in second language education: An introduction through narratives (2nd edn.). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. (2004). Cultural historical activity theory and the object of innovation. In St John, O., van Esch, K. & Schalkwijk, E. (eds.), New insights into foreign language learning and teaching. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang, 51–70.Google Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H. & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL-Review of Applied Linguistics 156, 279–296.Google Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H. & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning 62.1, 1–41.Google Scholar
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotis of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In Wertsch, J. V. (ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 144–188.Google Scholar
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S. & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 17.2, 89–100.Google Scholar