Volume 15, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This paper looks at student response to different types of corrective feedback in an English for Academic Purposes [EAP] program. Reactions were collected by means of two questionnaires. The first was completed at the end of the semester and reflected actual experience with the feedback discussed. The second provided a wider overview of attitudes to the issue and was collected at the beginning of the following semester and with a different group of learners. The results suggest that, given the demand for correction and feedback, the time devoted to it, and the pressure on students and staff in EAP programs to develop learners’ accuracy and fluency, it seems essential to make procedures and their rationale more explicit and to explore how effective various techniques are in actually producing permanent change in learners’ interlanguage development.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Allwright, D. and K. M. Bailey
    (1991) Focus on the language classroom. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Allwright, R.L. M.-P. Woodley , & J.M. Allwright
    (1988) Investigating reformulations as a practical strategy for the teaching of academic writing. Applied Linguistics9, 3:236–256. doi: 10.1093/applin/9.3.236
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/9.3.236 [Google Scholar]
  3. Burt, M.K. & C. Kiparsky
    (1972) The Gooficon: A repair manual for English. Rowley, Mass., Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Celce-Murcia, M. and S. Hilles
    (1988) Techniques and resources in teaching grammar. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chapin, R. & M. Terdal
    (1990) Responding to our response: Student strategies for responding to teacher written comments. ED328098
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chaudron, C.
    (1986) Teachers’ priorities in correcting learners’ errors in French immersion classes. In R. R. Day (ed.) Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition. Rowley, Mass., Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (1988) Second language classrooms. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524469
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524469 [Google Scholar]
  8. Ellis, R.
    (1985) Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (1988) Classroom second language development. London, Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Goldstein, L. M. and S. M. Conrad
    (1990) Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly24, 3:443–460. doi: 10.2307/3587229
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587229 [Google Scholar]
  11. Hendrickson, J. H.
    (1987) Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research and practice. In M. H. Long & J. C. Richards (eds) Methodology in TESOL. New York, Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Johnson, K.
    (1988) Mistake correction. ELT Journal42, 2:89–96. doi: 10.1093/elt/42.2.89
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/42.2.89 [Google Scholar]
  13. Keh, C. L.
    (1990) Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal44, 4:294–304. doi: 10.1093/elt/44.4.294
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/44.4.294 [Google Scholar]
  14. Leki, I.
    (1991) The preference of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals24, 2:203–218. doi: 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.1991.tb00464.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1991.tb00464.x [Google Scholar]
  15. Murray, I.
    (1984) Making sense of learners’ errors: A psycholinguistic appraisal. British Journal of Language Teaching22:105–113.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Pienemann, M.
    (1988) Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. In W. Rutherford and M. Sharwood Smith (eds) Grammar and second language teaching. New York, Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Porter, P. A.
    (1986) How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in task-centred discussions. In R. R. Day (ed.) Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition.Rowley, Mass., Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Robb, T. , S. Ross & I. Shortreed
    (1986) Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly20, 1:83–95. doi: 10.2307/3586390
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586390 [Google Scholar]
  19. Schachter, J.
    (1991) Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language Research7, 2, 89–102. doi: 10.1177/026765839100700202
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839100700202 [Google Scholar]
  20. Schmidt, R. W. & N. G. Frota
    (1986) Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. R. Day (ed.) Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition.Rowley, Mass., Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Sharwood Smith, M.
    (1991) Speaking to many minds: on the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research7, 2:118–132. doi: 10.1177/026765839100700204
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839100700204 [Google Scholar]
  22. Tomasello, M. and C. Herron
    (1989) Feedback for language transfer errors. The garden path technique. Studies in Second Language Acquisition11:385–395. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100008408
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100008408 [Google Scholar]
  23. Walz, J. C.
    (1982) Error correction techniques for the foreign language classroom. Language in education: Theory and practice. No.50. ED217704.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error