Search

• This study investigates the (mis)alignment between teachers' beliefs of WCF practice and their actual WCF practice. • The results indicate a degree of alignment between teachers' beliefs and practice but only in certain instances. • Most teachers mistakenly believed they primarily provide direct feedback while providing more indirect feedback in practice. • WCF was more frequent for local than global issues, despite teachers believing they offered more WCF on global issues. • Time constraints, excess workload and perceptions of students' attitude to WCF appear responsible for the misalignment. Written corrective feedback (WCF) refers to the feedback provided by writing teachers on students' writing. While much attention has been given to the (in)effectiveness of WCF on writing accuracy or skills in L2 writing research, there has been relatively less research on whether teachers' beliefs regarding WCF are aligned with their actual correction practices. This study investigates the (mis)alignment between teachers' beliefs of their WCF practice and their actual practice, using questionnaire and interview data from five English writing teachers in a Chinese EFL context who provided WCF on 100 student essays. The results indicate a degree of alignment between teachers' beliefs and practice in certain instances. However, three key areas of misalignment between beliefs and WCF practice were found, namely (1) most teachers mistakenly believed they primarily provide direct feedback while providing more indirect feedback in practice; (2) the teachers believed they often indicated the total number of errors in the margin, despite never doing so in practice, and; (3) WCF on local issues received more attention than global issues, despite teachers believing they offered more feedback on global issues. Contextual issues including time constraints, excess workload and perceptions of students' attitude to WCF were found to result in the eventual misalignment between beliefs and WCF practice. To resolve this issue, it is recommended that students and teachers cooperate to achieve the ultimate goals of written feedback, while in-service teachers should undertake periodic explicit professional training on WCF provision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Error types affect how frequently learners correct errors in L2 essays using a corpus. • Error types affect how accurately learners correct errors in L2 essays using a corpus. • Corpus use helps learners' easy access to the L2 target phrases. • Corpus use helps learners' easy access to frequency information of co-occurring words. • Corpus use especially helps learners correct omission errors in their L2 essays. This study reports classroom research on corpus use in second-language (L2) error correction to explore how information from corpus data influences L2 writing. As the error types for which corpus consultation is helpful remain uncertain, this study examined the error types for which data-driven learning (DDL) provides good error correction in L2 writing to maximize the benefits of corpus use in L2 class instruction. First, 55 undergraduate students from a university in Tokyo wrote an essay in 25 min without access to reference resources and received teacher or peer feedback on their errors. They then performed revision tasks for 15 min with either use or non-use of reference resources (corpus or dictionary). This procedure was carried out 9–11 times during the term. Error analysis found that error types affected how frequently and accurately learners corrected their errors using corpus data. Corpus use allowed easy access to the exact target phrases and frequency information of co-occurring words, which especially helped participants correct omission errors, and corpus consultation to correct omission errors increased over time. Teachers should consider error types so that DDL can promote accurate error correction in L2 writing and serve as a practical option in L2 classrooms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]