fatma

The article I have read is ‘A typology of written corrective feedback types’ from Rod Ellis. In his article, he talks about different options by way of illustrating how they been investigated and the limitations of the corrective feedback types. Rod Ellis presents a Table and illusrates the types of corrective feedback, description and studies; which helped me to have an overall idea before I read. Ellis states that ‘**direct corrective feedback’** is advantageous as it provides learners with explicit guidance about how to correct their errors. In a table, he shows an example of direct corrective feedback which is very clear to understand. However, he finds it disadvantageous as it requires little learner processing. I totaly agree with him on the point of direct feedback. On the other hand**, ‘indirect corrective feedback’** is a bit different from direct one in terms of not showing the correct version of the error so that learners will have a little bit challenge in their papers. Ellis thinks it is more effective in learners long-term learning and that seems very reasonable to me. Another corrective feedback type which has made sense to me is ‘**metalinguistic corrective feedback’.** Ellis asserts that metalinguistic feedback provides learners with some form of explicitcomment about the errors they have made. It helps students to self-edit their writing. As we come to ‘**focused versus unfocused corrective feedback’**, Ellis claims that it is very effective as students are able to examine multiple corrections of a single error obtaining the rich evidence. In a way, they understand why they made the mistake and the correct form. I guess this would also work in the long run like indirect feedback. A different but necessary corrective feedback form is ‘**electronic feedback’** which I guess we are going to apply in our classes as the children of the day like to use technology. Electronic resources provide the learners with the means where they can appropriate the usage of more experienced writers. It allows tyhem to locate their corrections that are most appropriate for their own textual intentions by encouraging them to be free. And the last feedback type is ‘ **reformulation’**. Ellis says that it provides learners with a resource that tey can use to correct their errors but places the responsibility for the final decision on whether and how to correct on students themselves. I guess reformulation resembles indirect in terms of challenfing the student to find the correct version. It must be effective in the long run for the learners. All of the corrective feedback types seem reasoble to me. They have some advantages and disadvantages. Before I read the article, I had not known about the feedback types. So, it taught me what I did not know before and the language is very clear and understandable. As I said above, I did not know about the feedback types. The only thing I knew about feedback was ‘feedback sandwich’. So, I will try to apply what I have learned in my English classes, especially, in terms of writing. The types of feedback I told above are applicable in students wriiten papers. I can use direct feedback to cross out an unnecessary word, phrase or morpheme and insert the correct form above or near to the erroneous form. It would guide my students to see their errors. It may not help them in the long-term learning but it is very applicable for the low level students. I can also use indirect feedback underlining the errors so taht my students would correct their own errors and it would be more permanent for them. I can apply metalinguistic feedback on my students by using error codes such as abbreviated labels and students would see why they made the mistake and how they would correct it. In focused versus unfocused feedback, I wouldcorrect all of my students errors by not focusing on correction. That is, I would only focus on specific error types. This would help them to examine multiple correction of a single error. Another feedback type which is very applicable is electronic feedback. I would use some software programs in whish students can write their blogs or paragraphs. The program shows their mistakes and they correct in accordance with other options. The kids of 21.cc. would like to use such programs. Lastly, I would apply reformulation in my classes by reformulating what they had written. Afterwards, they would see their own mistakes. Actually, it very much resembles direct correction. To sum up, I used ‘I’ pronoun to show the applicability and variability of the ideas in the article. The feedback types can all be applied in Turkish EFL classes; which seem realistic and ideal to me. I agree to the writer in terms of validity and variability of the feedback types. I admit they all have some positive and negative sides. While some of them may work for low level learners, some can work for upper level learners. It depends on the teachers after examining students to decide on which corrective feedback type would work better. I like the article and I find it very useful. I will apply these feedback types in accordance with my students’ performance. There is no point in which I do not agree with the writer. J
 * My own evaluation of the author’s perspective in the article: **
 * The validity and range of applicability of the ideas in the article in relation to the Turkish EFL context with different learner profiles : **
 * The points I agree and disagree with : **