英语论文网

ting studies which consequently makes the studies in the research base fundamentally incomparable, the fact that the term “students” is used as a general term can give the impression that, at least on the face of it, all students are considered the same in this regard. The idea needs to be revisited.

Fourth, regardless of whether learners’ beliefs, opinions and assumptions are right or wrong about what is best for them, as Lightbown and Spada state, “the available research indicates that learner beliefs can be strong mediating factors in their experience in the classroom” (p. 59). Ferris (2004) assumes that lack of feedback may lead to anxiety on the part of learners which may decrease motivation. Muncie (2002) also remarks that ignoring learner beliefs could consequently lower motivation which has negative effects on learning. On the whole, as Mori (2002) contends, there are correlations between learner beliefs and learner performance. This is not unexpected, since students’ beliefs about learning form a component of their metacognitive knowledge (Wenden, 1998), and, after all, “There is no clear consensus on the distinctions between knowledge and beliefs” (p. 517).

Fifth, the available research has not generally examined learners’ progress in relation to their beliefs and attitudes regarding what and how they learn. The number of studies that have considered students’ ideas, wants and desires in examining the effects of providing feedback on learners’ development over time seems inadequate which in turn makes getting to any generalization in this connection difficult.

Sixth, seemingly when it comes to error feedback in L2 writing classes, the idea of learner autonomy sides more with learner-initiated correction than teacher-initiated feedback. Students are expected to become autonomous learners and be able to self-monitor their process of learning. L2 learners’ self-monitoring, though compelling as it may seem, entails training on the part of learners. Cresswell (2000) considers this as one of the drawbacks of self-monitoring in student writing and further comments that students in his study suggested that feedback should not be exclusively student-oriented and that they wanted the teacher’s correction on the errors they do not ask questions about. Whether they initiate feedback or the teacher, students appear to opt for an approach which assures them that they know their errors. After all, even the best of students may at times have difficulty identifying their errors. Increasing learner autonomy, as it would seem, is by no means at odds with comprehensive error feedback. In simple terms, the fact that who initiates feedback (teacher or student) or who provides feedback on errors (teacher or peer) does not gainsay comprehensive error correction.

The implications of the studies which have investigated L2 writing feedback are ample and various. On the whole, the present study suggests that students’ perceptions and beliefs about what is best for them cannot be easily tuned out. Teachers should realize that students do want feedback. Equally important is that teachers should recognize that their students have ideas and opinions, and the further they are along the development of their language, the more credibility can be assigned to their ideas. Teachers have to negotiate with their students as to how error feedback should be provided.

This is what