Contrasting perceptions of students and teachers: written corrective feedback

Yazılı dil üretimi için düzeltici dönüt bakımından öğretmen-öğrenci anlaşması İngilizce'nin ikinci dil olarak okutulduğu bazı yerlerde çalışılmıştır fakat farklı bağlamlarda daha çok çalışmalara ihtiyaç vardır. Bu yüzden bu çalışma İngilizce'nin yabancı dil olarak okutulduğu bir bağlamda yazılı düzeltici dönüt hakkında öğrenci ve öğretmen görüşleri arasındaki benzerlikleri ve farklılıkları bulmayı ve yazılı hata yaklaşımında eğitimsel uygulamalar sunmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaçla İngilizce'nin yabancı dil olarak okutulduğu bir bağlamda 34 İngilizce öğretmenine ve 34 İngilizce öğrenene bir anket uygulanmış ve birkaç açık uçlu soruya cevap vermeleri istenmitştir. Elde edilen veri istatistiksel yöntemlerle ve betimleyici nitel analiziyle çözümlenmiştir. Iki grup arasında yazılı düzeltici dönütün miktarı ve türü açısından herhangi farklılıklar olmamasına rağmen (t (66) = 0.406; p > 0.05), açık uçlu soruların bulgularında bazı farklılıklar mevcut olduğu bulunmuştur. Buna ek olarak, aynı grup içerisinde bazı farklılıklara rastlanmıştır, yani, öğrencilerin ve öğretmenlerin kendi aralarında yazılı düzeltici dönütün kullanımıyla ilgili bazı farklılıklar vardır. Eğer öğretmenler öğrencileri, yazı eğitiminin başında ne tür yazılı dönütün verileceğini ve onlardan ne beklendiği konusunda onları bilgilendirirse, öğrenciler kendi rolleri ve verilen dönütün uzun vadedeki değeri hakkında farkındalık kazanacaklardır.

Öğrenci ve öğretmenlerin çelişen görüşleri: yazılı düzeltici dönüt

Teacher-student negotiation in terms of corrective feedback types for written language production has been studied in some ESL (English as a Second Language) contexts. However, there needs to be more studies in some other contexts. Therefore, this study aims to find out the similarities and differences between students' and teachers' perceptions about written corrective feedback in an EFL (English as a Foreign Language) context and provide educational implications in written error treatment. For this purpose, 34 EFL teachers and 34 EFL learners were administered a questionnaire and some open-ended questions, and the gathered data were analyzed with statistical procedures and descriptive qualitative analyses. Although it was found out that there are no significant differences (t (66) = 0.406; p > 0.05) between the two groups in terms of amount and type of written corrective feedback, there exist some differences in the findings of the open-ended questions. Furthermore, some differences were fixed even within the same group, that is, there are differences in the adoption of written corrective feedback among students or teachers themselves. If teachers inform their students about what kind of written feedback will be given and what is expected from students at the onset of writing instruction, students will gain consciousness about their roles in learning and the value of the feedback in the long term. © 2016 JLLS and the Authors - Published by JLLS

PDF

___

Ahangari, S., & Amirzadeh, S. (2011). Exploring the teachers' use of spoken corrective feedback in teaching Iranian EFL learners at different levels of proficiency. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1859-1868.
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543-574.
Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers prefer and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 95-127.
Baleghizadeh, S., & Rezaei, s. (2010). Pre-service teacher cognition on corrective feedback: a case study. Journal of Technology & Education, 4(4), 321-327.
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191-205.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204-211.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193-214.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.
Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 335-349.
Farrokhi, F. (2005). Teachers' stated beliefs about corrective feedback in relation to their practices in EFL classes. Journal of Faculty of Letters and Humanities, 49, 91-131.
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315-329.
Ferris, D. (1999). The case of grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996).Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11.
Ferris, D. (2004). The "grammar correction" debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime?). Journal of Second Language Writing 13(1), 49-62.
Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181-201. DOI:10.1017/S0272263109990490.
Gass, S. M., Behney, J., & Plonsky, L. (2013). Second Language Acquisiton: an introductory course. (4th Ed.) New York: Routledge.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. London and New York: Longman.
Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 543-572.
Heffernan,N., Otoshi, J., & Kaneko, Y. (2014). Written feedback in Japanese EFL classrooms: A focus on content and organization. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 55-68.
Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing. Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (Eds.) (pp.1-19). Feedback in second language writing: contexts and issues. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Knoch, U. (2011). Rating scales for diagnostic assessment of writing: What should they look like and where should the criteria come from? Assessing Writing, 16, 81-96.
Lee, I. (2011). Feedback revolution: what gets in the way? ELT Journal, 65(1), 1-12.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66.
Lyster, R. (1998b). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48(2), 183-218.
Rydahl, S. (2005). Oral feedback in the English classroom: Teachers' thoughts and awareness. Retrieved on May 15, 2014 from http://www.diva- portal.org/smash/get/diva2:6576/FULLTEXT01.pdf.
Russel, V.( 2009). Corrective feedback, over a decade of research since Lyster and Ranta (1997): Where do we stand today? Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 6(1), 21-31.
Sung, K. & Tsai, H. (2014). Exploring student errors, teachers' corrective fFeedback, learner uptake and repair, and learners' preferences of corrective feedback. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 37-54.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255-272.
van Beuningen, C. G., de Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners' written accuracy. Review of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279-296.
van Beuningen, C. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1-27.
Yangın Ekşi, G. (2012). Peer review versus teacher feedback in process writing: How effective? International Journal of Applied Educational Studies, 13(1), 33-48.
Yılmaz, Y. (2013). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34(3), 344-368.
Zhao, H. (2014). Investigating teacher-supported peer assessment for EFL writing. ELT Journal, 68(2), 155-168.