Skip Navigation


ELT Journal Advance Access originally published online on May 20, 2008
ELT Journal 2009 63(2):97-107; doi:10.1093/elt/ccn023
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
63/2/97    most recent
ccn023v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ellis, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.

A typology of written corrective feedback types

Rod Ellis

Rod Ellis is Professor in the Department of Applied Language Studies and Linguistics, University of Auckland, where he teaches postgraduate courses on second language acquisition and task-based teaching. He is also Visiting Professor at Shanghai International Studies University. His books include Understanding Second Language Acquisition (BAAL prize 1986) and The Study of Second Language Acquisition (Duke of Edinburgh prize 1995). His recent books include Task-Based Learning and Teaching (2003) and (with Gary Barkhuizen) Analyzing Learner Language (2005). He has also published several English language textbooks, including Impact Grammar (Pearson: Longman). He is the editor of the journal Language Teaching Research

Email: r.ellis{at}auckland.ac.nz


  Abstract

As a basis for a systematic approach to investigating the effects of written corrective feedback, this article presents a typology of the different types available to teachers and researchers. The typology distinguishes two sets of options relating to (1) strategies for providing feedback (for example, direct, indirect, or metalinguistic feedback) and (2) the students' response to the feedback (for example, revision required, attention to correction only required). Each option is illustrated and relevant research examined.

Revised version received December 2007


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.