Comparing Oral and Written Corrective Feedback

Abstract

Historically, the study of oral corrective feedback and the study of written corrective feedback have been carried out independently of each other. This reflects the differing concerns of SLA and second language writing researchers. Whereas SLA researchers have been largely concerned with whether corrective feedback (CF) has any impact on interlanguage development (e.g., Doughty and Varela, 1998) or on improvement in linguistic accuracy (e.g., Ellis et al., 2006; Lyster, 2004; Sheen, 2007b), second language writing researchers have examined CF in relation to feedback in general (i.e., feedback on organizational and content aspects of writing) and, until recently, have measured this in terms of whether it helps learners to improve their original draft during the revision process (e.g., Ashwell, 2000; Chandler, 2003). In effect, whereas SLA researchers have been primarily concerned with CF in relation to how it affects learning processes and outcomes, such as noticing the changes in linguistic competence, L2 writing researchers have been primarily concerned with how CF can improve writing performance (see Ferris, 2010).