Giving Feedback to Language Learners PDF - Cambridge 2020

Giving feedback to language learners Part of the Cambridge Papers in ELT series March 2020 CONTENTS 2 The importance of feedback 6 Corrective feedback 11 Peer feedback 14 Responses to feedback 16 Feedback and technology 19 Individual differences...

Giving feedback to language learners Part of the Cambridge Papers in ELT series March 2020 CONTENTS 2 The importance of feedback 6 Corrective feedback 11 Peer feedback 14 Responses to feedback 16 Feedback and technology 19 Individual differences 21 Key takeaways from research 23 Recommendations for further reading 24 Bibliography  The importance of feedback In a very widely-cited educational article, feedback was Feedback can be both summative (an evaluation, typically described as ‘one of the most powerful influences on given by a score, of a student’s work or at the end of a learning’ (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 81). This influence can period of study) and formative (information that is intended be both positive and negative, and this paper investigates to help the learner in some way, given continuously what research can tell us about how feedback may be during learning) (Lee, 2017, p. 11). This distinction is often shaped to be more positive. Feedback is information that captured in the terms ‘assessment of learning (AoL)’ and a learner receives about their language learning and most ‘assessment for learning (AfL)’. In practice, feedback is commonly refers to information about their language almost always to some extent judgmental and it is often production (speaking and writing), although it can also intended to serve both purposes, but how feedback concern reading and listening, study skills, attitudes, is given will depend on the relative importance that is effort and so on. This paper focuses on feedback on given to these broad purposes. This paper is concerned speaking and writing, with most attention given to the particularly with formative feedback: ‘feed forward’ might latter,1 and all the research discussed here concerns adult be a better term, as this kind of feedback provides or teenage learners. Whilst some of this is relevant to information about what the learner can or should do next. learners of all ages, feedback with younger learners at less advanced stages of cognitive, social and emotional The most common form of feedback in language growth needs to be approached rather differently.2 classes is probably error correction (corrective feedback), where the objective is usually to facilitate improvements in a learner’s accuracy; but feedback in this paper is understood more broadly. Its three fundamental and interrelated purposes are: improving the fluency, accuracy or complexity of learners’ speaking and writing, motivating learners, and developing learner autonomy. In the light of these objectives, summative feedback in the form of scores is often problematic. It is known that comments and prompts lead to more learning gains than providing scores (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 92), and that comments and prompts are more likely to contribute to learning when they are not accompanied 1 A more detailed discussion of feedback on spoken language can be found in another paper in this series: ‘Giving feedback on speaking’ (Kerr, 2017a). 2 McKay (2006) provides a good overview of the reasons why assessment of young learners (including the giving of feedback) is a ‘special case’. 2  The importance of feedback by scores (Lee, 2017, p. 20). If, as is sometimes the 2. Effective feedback is specific and case with written work, it is necessary for a teacher to related to learning goals. combine the formative and summative functions of feedback, the possibility of withholding or delaying the Successful learning is most likely to take place when reporting of scores should be considered. This increases learners have clear and specific learning goals. the likelihood of learners’ paying attention to qualitative Feedback which provides information about how comments and of promoting a focus on future learning. to achieve these goals (for example, for a particular task) is more effective than general feedback. Comments and prompts lead to 3. Effective feedback is appropriately challenging. more learning gains than providing Effective feedback targets areas where improvement scores, and are more likely to is possible. This is most likely to be the case when contribute to learning when they a learner has partial understanding or control of an aspect of their learning, rather than a complete lack of are not accompanied by scores. understanding or control. As a result, effective feedback typically focuses on things that the learner has studied recently or has previously received feedback on. It is more concerned with what a learner might be able to do Characteristics of effective feedback better than it is with what a learner needs to get right. In practice, there are often a number of differences between 4. Effective feedback entails the active feedback on speaking and on writing. The former is often involvement of the learner. less direct, more immediate and more public than the latter, but it is possible to describe a set of characteristics One key role of effective feedback is to nudge learners of effective feedback that are common to both. towards greater autonomy. Feedback from a teacher is not the last event in this process (Hyland, 1990, p. 285): to 1. Effective feedback is about learning tasks. be effective, it needs to prompt a learner to modify their knowledge, language production or learning strategies. Hattie and Timperley (2007, p. 90–91) distinguish Active involvement on the part of the learner is therefore feedback about the individual learner, feedback about necessary and this is likely, over time, to entail a change the learner’s performance on a particular task and in the teacher’s role, as they become less ‘centre-stage’. feedback about the way that a learner has approached a task. Of these, the first is least likely to contribute to the realization of the goals of feedback. Conversely, the … receives third, if it suggests ways that a similar task can be more feedback successfully tackled on a subsequent occasion, offers the greatest potential. In classrooms, teachers often combine these three kinds of feedback, but this runs … improves … actively the risk of diluting the power of feedback on task and their language engages with approaches to task (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 91). production the feedback The learner … … modifies their knowledge 3  The importance of feedback 5. Effective feedback is a combination the dangers of critical comments, but it needs to be of the positive and the negative. approached with caution. Most, but certainly not all, learners like to be praised, publicly or privately (Hattie & Although feedback is often seen first and foremost as Timperley, 2007, p. 97), but praise may be discounted as the drawing of attention to errors, it has been found in ‘mere dressing’ (Hyland & Hyland, 2019b, p. 181). General general educational contexts that feedback on correct praise (such as ‘Good work!’) may lead to short-term bursts responses is more effective than feedback on incorrect of motivation, but is more effective in the long-term when responses (Hattie, 2009, p. 175). It is all too easy in the it focuses on the process of a learner’s work (for example, course of a lesson to focus on errors and miss positive their use of strategies or improvement in a specific area) contributions (Dörnyei, 2001, p. 124), but learners need rather than on the end product (Mercer & Ryan, 2013, p. 30). to know when they are doing something well. What is more, when feedback is public (for example, during Teachers may also try to limit the potential damage or after a speaking activity), confirming that a student of negativity by using what is known as the ‘feedback has produced accurate and appropriate language in a sandwich’, where positive feedback is presented first, particular instance (such as their having avoided a very followed by more critical comments, before being rounded common mistake) is likely to benefit both the individual off with more positive feedback. Although popular as a student and others in the class, who will have their attention feedback strategy, there is little evidence that it is effective. drawn to the language item in question (Ur, 2012, p. 91). The manner of feedback delivery will also play an More generally, it can be said that feedback is most important role. Many teachers instinctively feel that it effective when it is given in the context of a supportive, is best to tone down the force of critical comments by non-threatening learning environment. Teachers have to using vague language or avoiding personal pronouns and balance different linguistic and interpersonal objectives imperatives (Hyland & Hyland, 2019b, p. 168). Desirable when deciding what kind of feedback to give, how to give it as this may be, the danger is that the feedback may be and who to give it to (Hyland & Hyland, 2019a, p. 5), so they misunderstood. Non-verbal behaviour (facial expressions, invariably adopt some sort of stance towards their students. eye movements, body postures) may also be used by The giving of feedback can be a sensitive moment. Knowing teachers to soften the directness of feedback, but it is that students will respond to it in different ways (and some difficult to make clear recommendations in this area, given will feel threatened), many teachers seek to soften feedback both the lack of research (Nakatsukasa & Loewen, 2017, p. by focusing, in part, on the positive (Rinvolucri, 1994, p. 288). 169) and the number of individual and cultural variables. There are, however, two areas where researchers are It is all too easy in the course of unambivalent. In normal school classroom contexts, rewards (in the form of stickers or badges, for example) a lesson to focus on errors and correlate negatively with both task performance and miss positive contributions, but enhanced motivation, and should not, perhaps, be learners need to know when they thought of as feedback at all (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 84). Likewise, authoritarian feedback, which is are doing something well. negative in content and manner and which discourages discussion, will do little to motivate learners; nor will it help them develop their language proficiency. Praise is one way in which teachers attempt to build a supportive learning environment and to mitigate 4  The importance of feedback Beyond these general guidelines, advice to teachers is usually less clear-cut. The rest of this paper will consider the more detailed questions that need to be considered. These include3: 1. What sort of feedback is most beneficial to learners: corrective or non-corrective? 2. Which aspects of a learner’s performance will most benefit from feedback? 3. Who should learners receive their feedback from: teachers or peers? 4. How should feedback be given: directly or indirectly? Orally or in writing? 5. When will learners most benefit from being given feedback? 3 These questions have been adapted from a list prepared by James Hendrickson (1978) over forty years ago. Hendrickson’s focus was on correction, but in this paper the focus has been broadened to include non-corrective feedback. 5  Corrective feedback The most common type of feedback given by most teachers be more helpful than grammar correction, not only in most classrooms is corrective feedback, which focuses on because these areas lead more often than grammar to learners’ errors (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 91). It has been breakdowns in communication, but also because they may argued, most notably by Krashen (1982, 1985) and Truscott lead to greater learning gains (Lyster et al., 2013, p. 22). (1996, 1999), that corrective feedback can be harmful to language acquisition, that it leads to no demonstrable gains Similarly, in discussions about feedback on writing, it in grammatical accuracy and that it can impact negatively is common to differentiate feedback on the content on learners’ feelings. Teachers, it has been suggested, and organization of the writing from feedback on the should consider dropping such feedback altogether. language forms that have been used. It is generally agreed that feedback on content is at least as important However, a considerable body of research (at least eighteen as feedback on form / accuracy. One meta-analysis (Biber meta-analyses to date) now indicates that corrective et al., 2011, p. 47) found that there were greater gains in feedback on both speaking and writing can indeed grammatical accuracy when feedback focused on both promote language learning, but will not necessarily do so. content and accuracy, than when it focused on accuracy This finding, in itself, is not terribly helpful. What is needed alone. Teachers who focus predominantly on grammatical is clearer guidance about which kinds of errors should be accuracy in their feedback are well advised to reconsider. focused on, which feedback techniques are most effective, when the feedback should be given and who should give it. Learners may benefit more from feedback on their use of speaking The focus of corrective feedback strategies, such as checking There is evidence that many teachers tend to focus understanding, buying time or self- on grammatical issues when giving feedback on their correction, than from correction students’ performance (Lyster et al., 2013, p. 22), but grammar is not the only aspect of a learner’s language of their grammatical errors. production that may benefit from feedback. In feedback on speaking, learners may benefit more, Examples of the range of areas that I, as a teacher, for example, from feedback on their use of speaking considered when deciding on feedback for a speaking strategies (such as checking understanding, buying and a writing task can be found overleaf (Figure time or self-correction) than they will from correction of 1). These were decided during lesson-planning their grammatical errors. Research also suggests that and, in the lesson, the students were notified that feedback on vocabulary and pronunciation issues may feedback would only be given on these points. 6  Corrective feedback A R O L E P L AY ( C E F R L E V E L : B 1 ) Both common sense and research suggest that corrective FLUENCY AND Does the speaker speak fluently feedback will only be effective if it suits a learner’s level of INTER AC TIVE and coherently without too language development (Sheen, 2011, p. 11), and therefore, C O M M U N I C AT I O N much hesitation or repetition? their readiness for the feedback. In spoken language, this Does the speaker maintain the means that mistakes caused by time pressure or competing conversation through appropriate attentional resources are likely to be most appropriate as turn-taking (initiating and responding targets for feedback. In both speaking and writing, forms to utterances) and the use of a that a learner has not yet begun to acquire may be better variety of speaking strategies? ignored for the time being. Since different students in a Does the speaker make use of a class will be at different levels of language development, range of discourse markers? a degree of personalization in feedback will be necessary. P R O N U N C I AT I O N , How intelligible is the speaker (i.e. However, judging a learner’s readiness for a particular VOCABUL ARY do problems with sounds, stress kind of feedback will remain an art, not a science. AND GR AMMAR or intonation cause problems with comprehension?)? Does the speaker have a wide enough range of vocabulary Some learners may expect the teacher to express their ideas? to correct all the errors in their written Does the speaker use work, but comprehensive error grammar accurately enough to be comprehensible? correction has little to recommend it. W R I T I N G A N A R R AT I V E ( C E F R L E V E L : B 1 ) It is common practice to categorize errors as a CONTENT AND Is the story interesting? way of deciding which corrections will be most C O M M U N I C AT I V E beneficial. Useful categories include the following: Does the story hold the ACHIE VEMENT reader’s attention? ‘Global errors’, i.e. those which interfere O R G A N I Z AT I O N Is the story organized in a with comprehension, rather than ‘local clear, readable way? errors’, which do not affect intelligibility, Is the sequence of events in the story easy to follow? Errors that are made frequently by the student(s), rather than infrequent error types, Does the story have a clear beginning, middle and end? ‘Stigmatizing errors’, i.e. those which may L ANGUAGE Does the writing contain a offend the target reader or interlocutor, good range of appropriate vocabulary to tell the story? Errors that are specific to the kind of spoken interaction that students are engaged Does the writer use appropriate in, or to the genre of text they are writing past tenses and linking words to (such as degrees of formality), help the reader follow the story? Do errors of grammar, vocabulary, Errors that can, after some prompting, be punctuation or spelling make it self-corrected by the student, and difficult to understand the story? Errors that are related to areas of language Figure 1. Examples of the range of areas for which feedback which have recently been studied in class. could be given on a typical speaking or writing task 7  Corrective feedback It cannot be said that any one of these categories is a stronger candidate for correction than the others. All of them may be justifiably used. With written work, some learners may expect the teacher to correct all their errors, but comprehensive error correction has little to recommend it. It is extremely time-consuming for teachers, and the returns in terms of learning gains may be very limited. It may encourage students to over- prioritize grammatical accuracy, at the expense of other aspects of their writing, and it may be confusing and discouraging. In practice, especially with feedback on spoken language, teachers will need to operate some sort of selection policy, because, without it, the feedback would be overwhelming. For corrective feedback on both speaking and writing, less is often more (Lee, 2017; 2019). Techniques for corrective feedback The choice of feedback techniques available to teachers is wide, but may be broadly categorized by the degree of directness. TECHNIQUES FOR FEEDBACK TECHNIQUES FOR FEEDBACK ON SPOKEN L ANGUAGE ON WRIT TEN L ANGUAGE INDIRECT The teacher says that they do not A mark in the margin indicates that there understand the learner’s utterance. is an error in a particular line of text. The teacher uses rising intonation to repeat An error is underlined, but no the phrase and stresses the error it contains. further information is given. A mark in the margin, accompanied by an The teacher repeats the beginning of the error code (such as ‘Sp’ for spelling, or ‘WO’ phrase which contained the error, but stops for word order), indicates that there is an error before the error in order to elicit the correction. of a particular kind in a particular line of text. The teacher gives a short clue to the An error is underlined, accompanied way an error needs to be corrected by an error code. (e.g. ‘Past tense?’ or ‘Article?’) An error is underlined, accompanied by a brief The teacher provides the corrected explanation of why a correction is needed. form and stresses the correction. A correction is provided. The teacher gives a short explanation A correction is provided, accompanied of why an error needs to be corrected by a brief explanation of why DIRECT and provides the correct form. the correction is needed. Figure 2. Examples of more or less direct techniques for giving corrective feedback on speaking or writing tasks 8  Corrective feedback In feedback on both spoken and written language, there be able to self-correct after prompting. Direct feedback appears to be a strong preference for indirect feedback on may also, at times, be preferable to indirect feedback the part of language teaching methodologists and many because there is less risk of learners misunderstanding teachers. There are two main reasons for this. Firstly, it is the teacher’s signal. For these reasons, it is likely that thought that indirect feedback may induce less anxiety direct feedback will feature more often in classes of in learners, especially in the case of feedback on spoken lower-level students than with more advanced learners. language. Secondly, it is believed that indirect feedback is more likely to lead to learning because it requires Researchers are divided on the issue. Some, like Ellis learners to do more of the work themselves: they are et al. (2006), have found direct correction to be more required to take a more active role in their own learning, effective than indirect correction. Others, like Li (2010), and this should help memorization and automatization. have found direct correction to be more effective in the short-term, but less so in the long-term. Still others, In feedback on writing, correction codes are popular like Lyster & Saito (2010), have found little difference with many teachers (see Figure 3). An interesting between the two. It is unlikely that researchers will ever variation on correction codes has been offered by be able to state that one kind of feedback is always Valenzuela (2005), who suggests a colour system where better than another. In the absence of a verdict, practical good work as well as errors can be highlighted. considerations, specific to particular classroom moments, will inevitably influence the teacher’s approach. G T Ø grammar tense not necessary A majority of learners seem to prefer MW WC / more direct, explicit feedback to more missing word word choice start a new sentence indirect approaches, but research P WO ʎ is divided on the issue. It is unlikely punctuation word order something is missing that researchers will ever be able Sp WW ??? to state that one kind of feedback spelling wrong word very unclear is always better than another. Figure 3. An example of a correction code for giving feedback on written work A majority of learners, however, both adults and those in The timing, audience and channel secondary education, seem to prefer more direct, explicit of corrective feedback feedback (Lyster et al., 2013, p. 7; Zhang & Rahimi, 2014, p. 433; Li & Vuono, 2019, p. 104). It is possible that they like The questions of when, to whom (to individuals the idea of direct correction more than the reality of it: for or to groups) and how (spoken, written or digital) example, when direct correction is too negative and too feedback should be given are closely interrelated. public, they might in fact prefer something more indirect. In feedback on spoken language, teachers may choose In some cases, direct feedback is the only realistic possibility to wait until the end of an activity or to correct errors (Ferris, 2002). For example, there may be occasions when immediately. The former is often recommended by a teacher wishes to correct an error because it interferes methodologists4 for several practical reasons: with communication, but it is unlikely that the learner will 4 A distinction is often drawn between ‘methodologists’, such as Harmer (2015) or Ur (2012), who focus on offering practical, classroom-based advice to teachers, and ‘researchers’, whose work is often more academic. 9  Corrective feedback it does not interrupt the flow of communication, of the opportunity to self-correct? This is not to say that on-the-spot correction of writing has no value, but it it is less likely to cause anxiety (since may be better left to occasions when the feedback is feedback can be directed towards the requested by the learner or when the learner is off-task. whole class rather than one individual), Feedback on written language most often takes place it makes it possible to focus the attention of the after the writing, but teachers are still faced with a large whole class on an error and its correction, number of options. Written feedback is probably the it allows teachers to be more selective in most frequently used approach and has the advantage their choice of errors to focus on, and of providing a permanent record, but oral feedback allows for more dialogue and negotiation. Teachers can it is easier to combine positive, non-corrective begin with less direct feedback, encouraging learners feedback with the error correction. to self-correct, before moving on, if necessary, to more direct comments (Nassaji, 2017, p. 120). Many learners Such feedback can be given via audio or video recordings, prefer feedback when there is an opportunity to as can transcriptions of speech that have been made discuss it, and the more actively they take part in such with speech-to-text software. With smaller classes, discussions, the more likely they are to benefit from it. individualized feedback sheets may be provided. As with delayed feedback on spoken tasks, teachers may Researchers, in contrast to methodologists, have shown choose to give feedback to the whole class (especially if more interest in immediate feedback than in delayed there are common problems); or they may choose to give feedback and have suggested that it may lead to more illustrative feedback. Nation (2009, p. 141) suggests that learning gains (Doughty, 2001). Some research has one way of doing this is by selecting the work of two or shown that learners generally prefer immediate feedback three students (with their permission, and, possibly, without (Zhang & Rahimi, 2014, p. 433), but other studies have naming the students concerned), projecting it on to the painted a picture that is less clear. In short, there is no board and going through it orally with the whole class, clear consensus about whether immediate or delayed using a combination of direct and indirect comments. feedback is better (Ellis & Shintani, 2013, p. 276). Given the difficulties in separating out the various issues that are Individualized oral feedback may be possible in some involved, it is unlikely that there will ever be a consensus. contexts, but it is extremely time-consuming. One approach that is widely used in higher education settings As for feedback on written language, this can take place is known as ‘conferencing’, where feedback is given on during or after the writing itself. In the former case, a portfolio containing several pieces of a student’s work. teachers may go around the class correcting as students Conferences are usually popular with both teachers write, but this raises two significant problems. The first and students, but still require a lot of time. In order for is practical: how feasible is it to allocate equal attention them to be time-effective, they require careful planning5 to students in a large class? The second concerns the and a range of interaction skills from both the teacher impact on the writing: will the feedback break a learner’s and the student (Hyland & Hyland, 2019a, p. 6). flow or concentration, and might it deprive the learner 5 Valuable practical advice about the planning and management of conferences can be found in Chapter 8 (‘Portfolios in Classroom L2 Writing Assessment’) of Lee (2017). 10  Peer feedback Peer feedback, where one learner gives feedback to is no evidence that clearly demonstrates the superiority another, is often recommended by both methodologists of peer feedback over teacher feedback in all contexts. and researchers (Burkert & Wally, 2013). The reasons given in support of peer feedback include the following: Attractive as it sounds, peer feedback is not without its problems and may not always be possible. The most It can benefit both the receiver and the giver of common problem concerns learners’ attitudes towards feedback, although it remains unclear who will peer feedback: some learners are not receptive to feedback benefit more (Storch & Aldossary, 2019, p. 124). from their peers, preferring feedback from their teachers It requires the givers of feedback to listen to or (Maas, 2017), and some learners may be reluctant to offer read attentively the language of their peers, and, in peer feedback for fear of giving offence. Resistance of this the process, may provide opportunities for them kind may be found stereotypically in classes of teenagers, to make improvements in their own speaking and but, more generally, may be expected in very teacher- writing (Alshuraidah & Storch, 2019, p. 166–167). centred, accuracy-focused or examination-driven contexts. It can facilitate a move away from a teacher- centred classroom, and promote independent learning (and the skill of self-correction) as well as Peer feedback is likely to be most critical thinking (Hyland & Hyland, 2019a, p. 7). effective when it is integrated The target reader is an important consideration in into classroom practice as a any piece of writing (it is often specified in formal normal and regular activity, assessment tasks). Peer feedback may be especially rather than as a one-off. helpful in developing the idea of what audience the writer is writing for (Nation, 2009, p. 139). Many learners are very receptive to peer In addition, learners have a tendency to focus on feedback (Biber et al., 2011, p. 54). grammatical accuracy, rather than on the communicative success (or otherwise) of their peers’ speaking or It can reduce a teacher’s workload. writing. This raises issues concerning the language level and the grouping of the learners involved in peer Peer feedback is likely to be most effective when it is feedback, but it is also probable that peer feedback integrated into classroom practice as a normal and regular is of greater value when it focuses on the content activity, rather than as a one-off (Lee, 2017, p. 95). It should and organization of what has been expressed. be noted that, despite these possible advantages, there 11  Peer feedback Both methodologists and researchers conclude that learners Decide whether the feedback should be given in all contexts will benefit from being given feedback orally or in writing, in English or in the learners’ own by peers. The following suggestions may be helpful: language (if the latter is likely to be clearer). Try to make sure that all learners are both Provide a model yourself (perhaps using a piece of givers and receivers of feedback. writing or a recording of a speaking task from another class) of how the peer feedback should proceed. Make sure that learners are aware of what the focus of peer feedback should be. Checklists, written Explain the reasons for doing peer feedback activities. guidelines or adapted versions of the evaluation Encourage learners to talk about how they feel forms in the section ‘The focus of corrective about peer feedback and how they would like to feedback’ (pp. 6–7, above) will play a useful role. do things differently on a subsequent occasion. Encourage learners to give more global feedback Consider using teacher feedback after there (i.e. comments on the overall communicative have been opportunities for peer feedback and impact) before more specific comments. If a for learners to incorporate the ideas from peer speaking or writing task is going to be repeated feedback into subsequent iterations of the task. in some way, the focus of peer feedback can shift from more global to more specific in the second or third iteration of the task. 12  Peer feedback In delayed feedback on speaking activities, it is common Researchers have found that for teachers to invite all the students in a class to suggest collaborative writing leads to improvements on an error from an anonymized utterance. When working with recordings or transcriptions of speech, more accurate texts than those it is possible for peer feedback to be more extensive produced by individuals. and more independent of the teacher’s promptings, in a very similar way to peer feedback on written work. This can be done with learners working in pairs or in small groups. Both require suitable matches of the attitudes, Learner-directed feedback personalities and interactive skills of the participants. An appropriate match of language proficiency level will It was suggested above that peer feedback may be also be desirable if the focus of feedback is on accuracy. a valuable stepping-stone on the way towards more Groups may offer a wider and more interesting range independent learning. On the path towards this goal, of feedback (Burkert & Wally, 2013, p. 75), but pairs are feedback will need to accommodate individual expectations often more manageable, especially with younger learners, and this means that some sort of dialogue about the kind of as long as both learners get along (Lee, 2017, p. 94). feedback that is desired will be appropriate (Hyland, 2003, p. 180). Nancy Campbell and Jennifer Schumm Fauster (2013) have proposed a system where students prepare a set of Collaborative writing questions to guide the feedback from their teachers on a piece of academic writing. Students are given suggestions, Collaborative writing6 , where two or more learners work ranging from broad questions about the organization of together to produce a jointly composed text, necessarily their text or reader-friendliness to more detailed questions entails considerable amounts of peer feedback (Alshuraidah about word choice, sentence structure or layout. & Storch, 2019, p. 166). This may take place in the classroom or with online sharing tools, such as Google Docs and Although their suggestions and further discussion of these wikis, which are two of the most popular for this purpose, ideas (such as by Maas, 2017) concern teacher feedback especially in EAP contexts. Because the learners share on academic writing, the approach may also be used responsibility for shaping and prioritizing their ideas, and with more advanced learners as a way of structuring because the dividing line between writing and editing peer feedback on spoken as well as written language. becomes blurred, a greater quantity of more constructive feedback may be offered than in feedback on individually produced texts and the participants are likely to be more motivated by and responsive to it (Tigchelaar & Polio, 2017, p. 108). Researchers have found that collaborative writing leads to more accurate texts than those produced by individuals and that the process of discussing the organization of ideas and issues of language use is likely to be beneficial to language learning more generally. As a follow-up to a collaborative writing task, learners may exchange their work with another pair or group of students to offer and receive further feedback. 6 For more detailed information about collaborative writing, see Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative Writing in L2 Classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 13  Responses to feedback Feedback of whatever kind is, of course, of little or no Learners often respond positively to task repetition with value unless learners learn from it. Some learners, some speaking activities. But with written work, many students, of the time, pay more attention to feedback than others however much they value a teacher’s corrections, are often (see ‘Individual differences,’ below). Learning from reluctant to engage in second or further iterations of their feedback cannot be forced: the teacher’s task is to try to work. Nevertheless, most researchers and methodologists create the right conditions for learning to take place. agree that redrafting, or what is known as ‘process writing’8, should form a key part of classroom practice (McGarrel, & Direct, explicit feedback in which the teacher provides Verbeem, 2007, p. 228). Seen as the most effective way a corrected reformulation of an error often requires the of improving learners’ writing skills (Sheen, 2011, p. 35), it learner to repeat the correction, especially in feedback needs considerable amounts of time and takes students on speaking. Since this may be no more than simple through a sequence of planning (brainstorming, evaluating parroting, there is little guarantee that benefits will and organising ideas), quick first drafts (leaving gaps or accrue. More indirect feedback, which requires learners using the first language if necessary) and subsequent to self-correct, would seem to offer more potential for drafts moving towards a final product. The focus at first, for learning (but see the discussion above in the section both the learners and for the teacher in giving feedback, ‘Techniques for corrective feedback’). In feedback during is on content and fluency, and only moves towards or immediately after speaking activities, there is very questions of grammatical accuracy in the later stages. little delay between the teacher’s prompt and the self- correction. An alternative to asking a learner to self- FEEDBACK FOCUS correct is a repetition of the task (with a different role, a different partner, or after additional planning time)7. GLOBAL SPECIFIC Learning from feedback cannot Content & Grammatical accuracy & be forced: the teacher’s task is to fluency word choice try to create the right conditions for learning to take place. 1st attempt 2nd attempt 3rd attempt at task at task at task Figure 4. The changing focus of feedback in repetitions of a task 7 For a fuller discussion of repetition of spoken tasks, see Kerr, P. (2017b). How much time should we give to speaking practice? Part of the Cambridge Papers in ELT series. [pdf] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 8 For a good description of process writing, see White, R. V. & Arndt, V. (1991). Process Writing. London: Longman. 14  Responses to feedback The feedback on process writing is, therefore, mostly indirect, taking the form of personalized, non-judgmental From the examples above, it becomes clear that attempts questions that are designed to help the writer better to promote engagement with feedback may entail fairly express their meanings. One of the key objectives of major changes to course planning and lesson structure. this formative, dialogic strategy is to motivate learners Feedback thus becomes a fundamental and integrated to undertake revisions to their earlier drafts (McGarrel & part of instruction, rather than just one feature of it. Verbeem, 2007, p. 229). As such, process writing represents a very significant departure from more traditional approaches to writing instruction where a single draft is evaluated with a grade, accompanied by more detailed feedback comments. As with collaborative writing, which can be combined with process writing, it will lead to greatest learning gains if it becomes a regular feature of classroom practice. Used most frequently with more advanced learners in both face-to-face and online contexts, it also lends itself readily to secondary school contexts, where further motivation may be generated by posting the final product on a blog, wiki or school magazine. 15  Feedback and technology In the last twenty years, we have seen a huge rise in the The online equivalent of immediate classroom feedback on numbers of learners following English courses partly spoken language is possible with most platforms (such as (blended) or fully online.9 At the same time, there has Skype or Messenger) where spoken interaction and text been a massive increase in the number of tools that comments may be combined. Digital technologies, however, are available to facilitate the provision of feedback on are most often used for asynchronous (or delayed) feedback learners’ spoken and written English. Any attempt to with both spoken and written English. These may be in the give recommendations for specific tools is likely to be form of text, audio (with or without video), or a combination out of date within a matter of months, so this review of the two. When introducing online feedback to learners, it will limit itself to more general considerations with is probably a good idea to begin with text-based feedback only occasional reference to particular products. before moving onto audio, which, if given in English, may be harder to understand (Olesova & Richardson, 2017, p. 89). The first affordance of digital technology in the area of feedback is the ease with which language can be recorded. Most text-based feedback is delivered by means of a word Texting and emailing, voice and video messaging, along processor, such as Microsoft Word or Google Docs, where with automatic transcription of speech on smartphones textual annotations (underlining, highlighting), comment and laptops, are becoming or have become part of boxes, footnotes, tracked changes and the possibility everyday life. These recordings enormously extend the of comparing two documents are possible. In addition, range of feedback possibilities, especially when compared hyperlinks to useful resources (dictionaries, grammar to the short-lived nature of spoken classroom speech. A references or model answers) can easily be included. Audio broad distinction may be drawn between feedback that is feedback, using either the sound-recording tool on a mobile mediated by technology (such as written feedback from phone or laptop, or a more specialized audio recorder like a teacher on an electronic document) and feedback that Vocaroo or Audacity, allows for more extensive feedback, is automated through technology (such as a spellcheck). since three to four times more feedback can be spoken than written in the same amount of time. When accompanied by written notes, greater clarity can also be achieved. It Once they are accustomed to also allows teachers to provide more easily a mixture of direct and indirect comments, appear more personalized it, it appears that most students and help to build rapport. Once they are accustomed to it, prefer multimedia feedback to it appears that most students prefer this kind of feedback purely written comments. to purely written comments (Stannard, 2017, p. 181). 9 For more discussion and examples of such courses, see Anny King’s (2016) paper in this series: Blended Language Learning. 16  Feedback and technology Combining text-based and audio feedback through screen- givers will benefit from training, in terms of both the capture software (such as Screencast-O-Matic or Snagit) focus of their feedback and its delivery (tone of voice, offers even greater potential. This allows a video-capture speed and clarity, and the ordering of ideas). In addition, of a teacher’s screen as they go through and annotate a training may be needed for the practical side of the student’s work whilst recording comments at the same time. technology and to avoid distractions while using it. It is, as Stannard (2017) observes, comparable to having a teacher sitting in the room next to the student, but with the additional advantage of allowing the student to play back Automated feedback the screen-capture multiple times, offering opportunities for extensive listening and reading practice. The danger of Recent years have also seen rapid advances in technologies audio- and screen-capture software is that teachers may for providing automated feedback. Using a combination be encouraged to overload the feedback. As noted earlier, of computational linguistics and artificial intelligence, less is often more. Decisions taken beforehand about what Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) systems scan a text type of feedback to focus on may help to prevent overload. (either a written text or a transcription of spoken language) in order to find possible errors. Most of these systems With all the options for technologically mediated have not been designed for English language learners feedback (whether it is teacher- or peer-led), feedback- 17  Feedback and technology and are not really suitable for them, but one example of accuracy is improving. It is unlikely, however, that AWE an automated feedback tool that has been developed for will ever be 100% reliable. These systems typically use this purpose is Write & Improve. Learners copy and paste a probability score to calculate the likelihood of an a text they have written into a box and receive a grade error and offer indirect, semi-directive feedback. They (using the Common European Framework of Reference10) are more effective at picking up lower-level errors for their work, along with suggestions for improvement. than they are at identifying problems with content, After making revisions, the text can be resubmitted as organization or style (Stevenson & Phakiti, 2019, p. 134). often as desired. Under development from the same team is Speak & Improve, where learners communicate with a Because of these limitations, AWE is best used in speech robot and receive feedback on their language. combination with teacher and peer feedback, in the context, for example, of a process writing approach. It may free teachers from some of their workload, but, if used as a replacement for other forms of feedback, risks Automatic Writing Evaluation systems promoting a restricted view of language proficiency as are best used in combination with concerned primarily with grammatical and collocational teacher and peer feedback. accuracy. We can expect AWE systems to develop further for the purposes of summative evaluation (in formal examinations, for example), but successful AWE systems are not foolproof and will sometimes automation of the complex interrelations of formative suggest modifications to correct language that is feedback (intended to promote individual learning) already appropriate or miss some errors, but their may not be achievable (Ferreira, et al., 2007, p. 398). 10 The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR) is available at https://www. coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages. An updated version, the CEFR Companion Volume (2017), is available at https://www.coe.int/en/web/education/-/the-cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-is-now-available-online-. 18  Individual differences As we have seen, research findings may help us to move needs immediate ‘survival English’, for example, in the direction of an appropriate policy towards feedback may well be less interested in accuracy than but they need to be considered in combination with an another who is preparing for an examination. understanding of individual differences. Feedback is ‘a Learners will also bring different sets of beliefs and highly complex psychological and social activity’ (Sheen, attitudes to feedback. To a certain extent, these 2011: 16) and individual learner differences of the kind listed will be shaped by previous learning experiences, below will impact on the way that learners respond to it. and it is not uncommon for students in secondary education to be accustomed to having all their errors corrected. The somewhat problematic result of this Age, level and cognitive differences practice may be that learners come to associate good speaking or writing with good grammar (Hyland, Very little research has been carried out into the significance 2019, p. 270–271). Research (Li & Vuono, 2019) has of a learner’s age in their response to feedback. Learners’ repeatedly shown that most students expect and level has been studied more often, but the findings want to be corrected (comprehensively, directly and are contradictory. For writing, one meta-analysis found by the teacher) and that they are more interested in that the accuracy of lower-level learners improved grades than they are in formative comments (Lam & more with feedback, while another found that more Lee, 2010). Paradoxically, of course, they may not be advanced learners benefited more.11 For speaking, the happy with the actual feedback that they receive! picture is no clearer. Besides age and level, it is likely that cognitive differences, such as language learning aptitude and working memory, will also play a role. Affective differences Equally important are affective differences. One of the most important affective differences is the anxiety levels of the learner. Low anxiety will almost certainly help learners to benefit from corrective feedback on their speaking (Zhang & Rahimi, 2014), but may be less significant with their writing, as the feedback is usually delayed. Motivation, too, will affect the degree to which a learner attends to feedback, and personal learning goals will play a part here. A learner who 11 The research referred to here can be found in Biber et al. (2011) and Kang & Han (2015). 19  Individual differences Contexts A third factor of importance is the context in which feedback is given and received. Schools and colleges, and the classes in them, vary in the extent to which accuracy is prioritized over communicative competence. In addition, social relationships in the classroom between students and between a student and a teacher are also likely to influence the extent to which feedback (both non-corrective and corrective) leads to learning gains. Teacher beliefs Icy Lee (2011) has suggested that feedback strategies will only work if teachers believe they can work. However, it would seem that that mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and their feedback approaches are common (Sheen, 2011, p. 49). Researchers have found, for example, that although teachers may believe that the awarding of grades may detract attention away from other comments, they often continue to score students’ work. Likewise, although they may have doubts about the payoff from detailed feedback, they often continue to provide it. In order to minimize these mismatches, teacher education may be helpful, but institutional support and allowing teachers to be more autonomous in their classrooms will also be necessary (Lee, 2011). All of these factors interact in complex, inter-related and dynamic ways (Bitchener & Storch, 2016, p. 26), meaning that it is very difficult to predict how a particular learner will react to a particular piece of feedback on a particular aspect of their performance. Clearly, the better that teachers and their students know each other, the more likely it is that reaction to feedback will be as hoped for. 20  Key takeaways from research After decades of research, applied linguists now generally After decades of research, applied agree that we are unlikely ever to be able to identify the perfect recipe for giving feedback to language learners linguists now generally agree that (Ellis, 2009, p. 106; Sheen, 2011, p. ix). It is understood we are unlikely ever to be able to that, for feedback to be effective, it must take into account identify the perfect recipe for giving a very wide range of linguistic, individual and contextual variables, meaning that what works for one learner on one feedback to language learners. occasion may not work for another. It is not uncommon for teachers to spend considerable amounts of time giving feedback on spoken and written language, but The table below is intended not as a list of still feel they could be doing it better (Hyland & Hyland, firm guidelines, but as a menu of suggestions 2006, p. 83). Methodologists and teacher trainers often for teachers to experiment with. give conflicting advice, so where can teachers turn? QUANTIT Y AND KIND OF FEEDBACK This paper has attempted to provide a partial answer to Correct fewer errors and reduce your workload. this question. Firstly, teachers (and their students) will benefit from a deeper understanding of the key issues Be more selective in giving feedback. that underpin decisions about feedback. Secondly, they Give more positive, and less corrective, feedback. will benefit from having a wider variety of practical Vary the focus of your feedback. feedback strategies to select from. Ellis (2009, p. 107) recommends that teachers systematically experiment with Announce, in advance, what the focus of feedback will be. different feedback options, constantly evaluating their Experiment with different balances of direct and effectiveness and relevance with particular learners. At the indirect, delayed and immediate feedback. very least, this should go some way towards meeting the Make feedback specific to different learning tasks (i.e. needs and preferences of individual learners, although not always with a focus on grammatical accuracy). there can be no guarantee of a perfect match. Variety Take individual learner differences into also has the added advantage of making feedback more account and personalize feedback. salient, and thus of encouraging learners to notice it. Encourage self-evaluation. Encourage peer feedback. Include more opportunities for spoken task repetition and redrafting of written work. 21  Key takeaways from research AT T I T U D E S T O W A R D S F E E D B A C K Find out about and respond to your learners’ preferences. Discuss your approach to feedback with your learners. Use feedback to build motivation and confidence. Give formative feedback first and withhold (or delay) grades on written work. Experiment with different channels for feedback (digital, audio). Incorporate feedback as a coherent and organic part of your approach to instruction. Figure 5. Practical options for teachers to experiment with giving feedback. Perhaps most importantly, feedback needs to be considered as an integral part of the approach to teaching. It is not just ‘a decoration on the cake or an additional asset that’s worth having’ (Dörnyei, 2001, p. 123). It defines and exemplifies a teacher’s approach to their work: to teach is to provide feedback (Fanselow, 1987, p. 267). Experiments with feedback strategies are, therefore, one of the most powerful forms of teacher development. Feedback defines and exemplifies a teacher’s approach to their work: to teach is to provide feedback. 22  Recommendations for further reading There are a number of practical guides to correction for language teachers. Two are especially recommended: Bartram, M. and Walton, R. (1991). Correction. Hove, Sussex: LTP. Edge, J. (1990). Mistakes and Correction. London: Longman. On positive, non-corrective feedback, there is a useful chapter in: Scrivener, J. (2012). Classroom Management Techniques. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 163–166. More detailed discussion of feedback on speaking may be found here: Kerr, P. (2017a). Giving feedback on speaking. Part of the Cambridge Papers in ELT series. [pdf] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at https://www.cambridge.org/gb files/4515/7488/5712/CambridgePapersinELT_FeedbackOnSpeaking_2018_ONLINE.pdf For feedback on writing, the following is highly recommended: Lee, I. (2017). Classroom Writing Assessment and Feedback in L2 School Contexts. Singapore: Springer. Philip Kerr is a teacher trainer and ELT materials writer based in Vienna, Austria. He is the author or co- author of titles in a number of coursebook series, including Evolve, Studio, Straightforward and Inside Out. He is also the author of the award-winning Translation and Own-Language Activities and two ebooks, A Short Guide to Adaptive Learning in ELT and How to Write Vocabulary Presentations and Practice. To cite this paper: Kerr, P. (2020). Giving feedback to language learners. Part of the Cambridge papers in ELT series. [pdf] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Available at cambridge.org/cambridge-papers-elt 23  Bibliography Alshuraidah, A. and Storch, N. (2019). Investigating a collaborative Ellis, R. and Shintani, N. (2013). Exploring Language approach to feedback. ELT Journal, 73(2), pp. 166–174. Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research. Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge. Bartram, M. and Walton, R. (1991). Correction. Hove, Sussex: LTP. Fanselow, J. (1987). Breaking Rules: Generating and Exploring Biber, D., Nekrasova, T., and Horn, B. (2011). The Effectiveness Alternatives in Language Teaching. New York: Longman. of Feedback for L1-English and L2-Writing Development: A Meta-Analysis, TOEFL iBT RR-11-05. Princeton: Educational Ferreira, A., Moore, J. D. and Mellish, C. (2007). A study Testing Service. Available at: https://www.ets.org/Media/ of feedback strategies in foreign language classrooms Research/pdf/RR-11-05.pdf [Accessed 30 November 2019] and tutorials with implications for intelligent computer- assisted language learning systems. International Journal Bitchener, J. and Storch, N. (2016). Written Corrective of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 17, pp. 389–422. Feedback for L2 Development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of Error in Second Language Burkert, A. and Wally, J. (2013). Peer-reviewing in a collaborative Writing Classes. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. teaching and learning environment. In Reitbauer, M., Campbell, N., Mercer, S., Schumm Fauster, J. and Vaupetitsch, R. (Eds.) Harmer, J. (2015). The Practice of English Language Feedback Matters. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 69–85. Teaching 5th Edition. Harlow: Pearson Education. Campbell, N. and Schumm Fauster, J. (2013). Learner-centred Hattie, J.A.C. (2009). Visible Learning. Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge. feedback on writing: Feedback as dialogue. In Reitbauer, M., Campbell, N., Mercer, S., Schumm Fauster, J. and Vaupetitsch, R. Hattie, J. and Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. (Eds.) Feedback Matters. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 55–67. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), pp. 81–112. Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational Strategies in the Language Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. language teaching: Recent research and practice. The Modern Language Journal 62, pp. 387–398. Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (Ed.) Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Hyland, K. (1990). Providing productive Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 206–257. feedback. ELT Journal, 44(4), pp. 279–285. Edge, J. (1990). Mistakes and Correction. London: Longman. Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), pp. 97–107. Hyland, K. (2019). What messages do students take from teacher feedback? In Hyland, K. and Hyland, F. (Eds.) Ellis, R., Loewen, S. and Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit Feedback in Second Language Writing. Cambridge: corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies Cambridge University Press, pp. 265–284. in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), pp. 339–368. 24  Bibliography Hyland, K. and Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language Lee, I. (2019). Teacher written corrective feedback: Less students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39, pp. 83–101. is more. Language Teaching, 52(4), pp. 524–536. Hyland K. and Hyland, F. (2019a). Contexts and issues in Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: feedback on L2 writing. In Hyland K. & Hyland, F. (Eds.) a meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), pp. 309–365. Feedback in Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–22. Li, S. and Vuono, A. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System. System, 84, pp. 93–109. Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2019b). Interpersonality and teacher-written feedback. In Hyland K. & Hyland, F. (Eds.) Lyster, R. and Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Feedback in Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), pp. 265–302. Cambridge University Press, pp. 165–183. Lyster, R., Saito, K. and Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in Kang, E., and Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), pp. 1–40. feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta‐ analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), pp. 1–18. Maas, C. (2017). Receptivity to learner-driven feedback. ELT Journal, 71(2), pp. 127–140. Kerr, P. (2017a). Giving feedback on speaking. Part of the Cambridge Papers in ELT series. [pdf] McGarrel, H. and Verbeem, J. (2007). Motivating revision of drafts Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at through formative feedback. ELT Journal, 61(3), pp. 228–236. https://www.cambridge.org/gb/files/4515/7488/5712/ CambridgePapersinELT_FeedbackOnSpeaking_2018_ McKay, P. (2006). Assessing Young Language Learners. ONLINE.pdf [Accessed 25 February 2020] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kerr, P. (2017b). How much time should we give to speaking Mercer, S. and Ryan, S. (2013). Praising to learn: Learning practice? Part of the Cambridge Papers in ELT series. [pdf] to praise. In Reitbauer, M., Campbell, N., Mercer, S., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at https://www. Schumm Fauster, J. and Vaupetitsch, R. (Eds.) Feedback cambridge.org/gb/files/8415/7488/4554/CambridgePapersinELT_ Matters. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 21–36. TimeForSpeaking_2017_ONLINE.pdf [Accessed 25 February 2020] Nakatsukasa, K. and Loewen, S. (2017). Non-verbal King, A. (2016). Blended language learning. Part of feedback. In Nassaji, H. and Kartchava, E. (Eds.) the Cambridge Papers in ELT series. [pdf] Cambridge: Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Cambridge University Press. Available at https://www. Learning. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 158–173. cambridge.org/gb/files/2115/7488/8334/CambridgePapersinELT_ BlendedLearning_2016_ONLINE.pdf [Accessed 25 February 2020] Nassaji, H. (2017). Oral feedback in response to written errors. In Nassaji, H. and Kartchava, E. (Eds.) Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Learning. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 114–128. Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues Nation, I. S. P. (2009). Teaching ESL / EFL Reading and Implications. New York: Longman ELT. and Writing. New York: Routledge. Lam, R. and Lee, I. (2010) Balancing the dual functions of portfolio Olesova, L. and Richardson, J. (2017). The effectiveness of feedback assessment. English Language Teaching Journal 64(1), pp. 54–64. in asynchronous online courses for non-native speakers of English. In Carrier, M., Damerow, R.M. and Bailey, K.M. (Eds.) Digital Lee, I. (2011). Feedback Revolution: What Gets Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Routledge. pp. 79–92. in the Way? ELT Journal, 65(1), pp. 1–12. Rinvolucri, M. (1994). Key concepts in ELT: Lee, I. (2017). Classroom Writing Assessment and Feedback. ELT Journal, 48(3), pp. 287–288. Feedback in L2 School Contexts. Singapore: Springer. 25  Bibliography Scrivener, J. (2012). Classroom Management Techniques. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective Feedback, Individual Differences and Second Language Learning. Dordrecht: Springer. Stannard, R. (2017). A genuine innovation in the delivery and form of feedback on students’ written work. In Carrier, M., Damerow, R.M. and Bailey, K.M. (Eds.) Digital Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Routledge, pp. 179–187. Stevenson, M. and Phakiti, A. (2019). Automated feedback and second language writing. In Hyland, K. and Hyland, F. (Eds.) Feedback in Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 125–141. Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative Writing in L2 Classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Storch, N. and Aldossary, K. (2019). Peer Feedback: An activity theory perspective on givers’ and receivers’ stances. In Sato, M. and Loewen, S. (Eds.) Evidence-based Second Language Pedagogy. New York: Routledge, pp. 123–144. Tigchelaar, M. and Polio, C. (2017). Language-focused peer corrective feedback in second language writing. In Nassaji, H. and Kartchava, E. (Eds.) Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 98–113. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), pp. 327–369. Truscott, J. (1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(4), pp. 437–456. Ur, P. (2012). A Course in English Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Valenzuela, H. (2005). Colourful Correction. Modern English Teacher 14(2), pp. 42–44. White, R. V. & Arndt, V. (1991). Process Writing. London: Longman. Zhang, L. J. and Rahimi, M. (2014). EFL Learners’ Anxiety Level and their Beliefs about Corrective Feedback in Oral Communication Classes. System, 42, pp. 429–439. 26 Find other Cambridge Papers in ELT at: cambridge.org/cambridge-papers-elt Developing The use of life skills L1 in English Learning language through play language in chunks Part of the Cambridge Papers in ELT series July 2019 Part of the Cambridge Papers in ELT series March 2019 teaching Part of the Cambridge Papers in ELT series February 2019 CONTENTS CONTENTS 2 Introduction 2 Executive Summary 3 Key terms 4 Introduction CONTENTS 4 Key issues 7 Creative Thinking 2 Introduction 5 Research and literature review: significant findings 10 Critical Thinking 4 L1 and the teacher 16 Key considerations 13 Learning to Learn 8 L1 and the student 17 Summary: What are the 15 Communication 10 Practical classroom implications implications for teachers? 17 Practical Examples 17 Conclusion 18 Conclusion 19 Suggestions for further reading 18 Recommendations for further reading 19 Recommendations for further reading plus useful websites 20 Bibliography 19 Bibliography 20 Bibliography 22 Appendix Developing young writers in ELT Teaching Grammar Part of the Cambridge Papers in ELT series August 2019 to Adults Part of the Cambridge Papers in ELT series March 2019 CONTENTS 2 Introduction 3 Writing and participation CONTENTS 4 Writing and ELT 2 Introduction 5 Writing for thinking and interaction 4 Thoughts on Teaching Grammar 11 Developing writing in the classroom 7 Grammar Teaching: Teachers and Curricula 15 Conclusion 9 Designing Activities to Teach Grammar 16 Suggestions for further reading 11 Conclusions, coda and caveats 18 Bibliography 12 References cambridge.org/betterlearning