（This is an English version of my previous post, フィードバック選択の判断材料.)

In my previous post, I shared some tips on how to continue assigning output tasks like essay writing without overburdening the teachers with feedback. This article will further explore feedback on writing.

Feedback (hereafter referred to as FB) on writing, especially dealing with language errors, is known as Written Corrective Feedback. This has been a subject of extensive research in the fields of second language acquisition and applied linguistics. However, due to its complexity, there still isn't a consensus on the best approach for FB. Teachers have to understand the different types of FB and their characteristics and choose the most suitable method based on the situation.

Types of FB for Language Errors

There are two major categories, direct FB and indirect FB, each of which can be subdivided into subcategories, but for simplicity, we will discuss the following three types:

1. Direct FB: Providing the correct expression directly.

2. Indirect FB I (Error Codes): Using a common code system shown beforehand or afterward to indicate errors (e.g., WC for word choice errors, VF for verb form errors).

3. Indirect FB II (Pointing Out Only): Without specific error codes, merely indicating the erroneous parts, like underlining them.

Teachers constantly face the challenge of deciding which type of FB is appropriate for different situations.

Criteria for Selecting Feedback

FB for output tasks involves many complex, intertwined elements. Key aspects include:

• Effectiveness: How much retention results from pointing out / correcting errors. 

• Emotional Impact: How students psychologically perceive the received feedback.

• Teacher's Burden: How much burden is placed on the teacher giving the feedback. 

Effectiveness

The effectiveness of pointing out and correcting language errors for long-term retention depends on the student's level. In psychology and SLA (Second Language Acquisition), there's a concept called "depth of processing." It suggests that deeper processing leads to better learning and retention.

Indirect FB that only points out errors requires the deepest processing from students, as they must figure out on their own why it's wrong. In contrast, direct FB, which provides the correct expression, requires the least processing.

However, the expected depth of processing varies among students. For those who can't understand why an error is incorrect or how to correct it, indirect FB may be meaningless. Conversely, highly motivated learners might deeply reflect on why a particular expression is preferable, even with direct FB.

The opportunity for revision also plays a significant role, especially in junior and high school education. Without mandatory revisions, students might not engage deeply with the feedback, regardless of its type. In such cases, direct FB might be more beneficial.

Emotional Impact

From a psychological standpoint, which type of FB is most effective? This depends largely on the student's personality and their relationship with the teacher. Most junior and high school students might feel more satisfied with direct FB, feeling that their work has been thoroughly reviewed. However, returning an essay full of corrections can demotivate them.

The effectiveness of indirect FB like underlining depends greatly on the student-teacher relationship. If the relationship isn't well-established, such feedback might give the impression that the teacher isn't paying adequate attention. As you build better relationship and tell your students the need for deep learning (depth of processing) on a regular basis and that direct FB is not always effective for this purpose, you will gradually find that indirect FB will be received more favorably.

Teacher's Burden

For teachers, providing feedback with only indications like underlining is the least burdensome. However, as mentioned earlier, this requires assigning revisions to prompt deep processing, which brings additional checking work. Whether to expect learning through direct FB without revisions or to provide indirect FB with revision opportunities requires thoughtful planning.

The teacher's burden is also tied to the emotional aspect. While underlining might seem less burdensome, it could lead to students feeling neglected, increasing the teacher's workload in classroom management. Conversely, gaining students' trust through thorough, direct FB might ease classroom management.

Deciding on the Appropriate Feedback Method

This post discussed criteria for choosing the type of feedback to give on students' output. Primarily, feedback should aim at enhancing students' learning and retention. Teachers should consider how to evoke deeper learning based on the student's level and task nature.

Additionally, considering the emotional aspect of students when selecting feedback is crucial. Especially at the beginning of the academic year, when the student-teacher relationship isn't strong, one needs to be careful in choosing the feedback type.

Regardless of the feedback type, if it excessively burdens the teacher, it becomes unsustainable to continue assigning writing tasks. Therefore, in considering the 'cost-effectiveness' of learning and relationships, it's important to plan and provide optimal feedback.