The Effect Of Different Types Of Written Corrective Feedback On Accuracy Of Efl Student Chinese-english Translation

Both classroom teachers and researchers value error analysis and teacher feedback as is shown in the abundant research literature and the heated debate among scholars concerning the role and value of corrective feedback (CF). During the past few decades, various researchers had explored different aspects of corrective feedback, and the results were rather conflicting and inconsistent, thus researchers have been making great efforts to add something new to the complete picture or provide any practical suggestions for classroom teachers. Since Truscott (1996:327) claimed that grammar correction was both ineffective and harmful and should be abandoned, other researchers (Baker & Bricker, 2010; Ellis et al., 2008; Ferris, 2006; Bichener et al., 2005 etc.) had launched a good many empirical researches, of which the results were mostly in favor of corrective feedback, indicating that corrective feedback was not only helpful for students to self edit but also helpful for them to produce new pieces of writing. However, strictly speaking, few studies on the effect of corrective feedback were done in a Chinese context, except a few reviews and general discussions. Empirical studies on either the short term or the long term effect of corrective feedback in a Chinese EFL classroom were highly expected. The majority of studies on the effect of feedback were related to either writing or grammar, while teachers and researchers involved in other courses may wish to know how they should treat students'errors in their courses. How teachers should treat errors in translation, for example, could be one of their enquiries.To provide evidence that CF is effective in an EFL context in China and to explore the effects of corrective feedback on translation errors, the study investigated whether the type of feedback (direct and underline CF feedback) given to 62 junior English language major students on three types of error (prepositions, conjunctions and the articles) resulted in improved accuracy in either revising the translation texts or in producing new pieces of translations over a 12 week period. Using three intact EFL classes in Chongqing University, three groups were formed: underline corrective feedback group (n=16), direct corrective feedback group (n=27) and control group (n=19). The underline CF group received indirect corrections of the three target errors (underline the error with no explanation or provision of correct form) while the direct CF group received direct correction of these errors. The data was collected from a pretest, a revision of pretest and three posttests. A series of T tests and ANOVAs indicated 1) that in revision of the translation texts, CF was effective in helping students to become more accurate in the use of articles but not prepositions and conjunctions; 2) the effect of CF on article errors can be maintained while producing new texts, but not on prepositions and conjunctions and 3) direct and underline CF was equally effective in producing new translation texts, but direct feedback was superior to underline feedback in the revision test. There were also two additional findings that all the three groups gained from the pretest to the revision test and the posttests, including the control group, indicating that students were able to self correct their translation errors concerning articles, prepositions and conjunctions, and that some students who got scores above 90 in the pretest seemed suffer from corrective feedback, but it was unclear whether CF had any negative effect on high proficiency learners due to the small sample in this study. Generally speaking, these findings suggested that corrective feedback was effective, where treatable errors (e.g. articles) were concerned. However, corrective feedback was of limited pedagogical value where untreatable errors (e.g. prepositions and conjunctions) were concerned, instead, students can self correct these errors without the provision of corrective feedback. Consequently, teachers are encouraged to provide corrective feedback accordingly.