SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dil ve Dilbilimi Çalışmaları Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 4

The relationship between teachers’ written feedback preferences, self-efficacy beliefs and burnout levels

Dinçay KÖKSAL
Emrah ÖZDEMİR
Gülşah TERCAN
Süleyman GÜN
Emrah BİLGİN
Pages
316–327
Publication Date
2018-12-15
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results demonstrated a significant correlation between written corrective feedback preferences and burnout levels of the participant teachers.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Öz Please fill up the following information accurately. (Please use Times New Roman, 12 pt.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In order to investigate the effect of these contextual factors on teacher perceptions and preferences in an EFL setting, a mixed-methods design which integrated quantitative and qualitative techniques and methods was used.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results demonstrated a significant correlation between written corrective feedback preferences and burnout levels of the participant teachers.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Anahtar Kelimeler Written corrective feedback · teacher burnout

Özet

Öz Please fill up the following information accurately. (Please use Times New Roman, 12 pt. The relationship between teachers’ written feedback preferences, self-efficacy beliefs and burnout levels This study investigated EFL teachers’ perceptions of written corrective feedback and the relationship between their written corrective feedback preferences, self-efficacy beliefs and burnout levels. In order to investigate the effect of these contextual factors on teacher perceptions and preferences in an EFL setting, a mixed-methods design which integrated quantitative and qualitative techniques and methods was used. A total of 36 instructors teaching English at various state universities in Turkey participated in the study. For data collection, three different questionnaires and semi-structured interviews were used. Results demonstrated a significant correlation between written corrective feedback preferences and burnout levels of the participant teachers. They also indicated a significant correlation between written corrective feedback preferences of teachers and their self-efficacy levels. Among other results, explicit and unfocused written feedback preferences of teachers and the relationship between their preferences and their experience levels were significant.

🔖

Cite This Article

KÖKSAL, D., ÖZDEMİR, E., TERCAN, G., GÜN, S., BİLGİN, E. (2018). The relationship between teachers’ written feedback preferences, self-efficacy beliefs and burnout levels. Dil ve Dilbilimi Çalışmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 4, 316–327. https://ajindex.com/articles/29103

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Adams, R., Nuevo, A. M., & Egi, T. (2011). Explicit and implicit feedback, modified output, and SLA: does explicit and implicit feedback promote learning and learner–learner interactions? The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 42-63.
  2. Alschuler, A. S. (1980). Teacher Burnout. Analysis and Action Series. NEA Distribution Center, Academic Building, West Haven, CN. Aridah, A., Atmowardoyo, H., & Salija, K. (2017). Teacher Practices and Students’ Preferences for Written Corrective Feedback and Their Implications on Writing Instruction. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7(1), 112. Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman. Ashton, P., Webb, R., & Doda, N. (1983). A study of teachers' sense of efficacy: Final report, executive summary. Gainesville: University of Florida, Foundations for Education. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
  3. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman. Beuningen, C. G. V., Jong, N. H. D., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning 62(1), 1-41.
  4. Bousquet, S. (2012). Teacher Burnout: Causes, Cures and Prevention. Online Submission. Brock, B. L., & Grady, M. L. (2000). Rekindling the flame: Principals combating teacher burnout. Corwin Press.
  5. Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1984). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3d ed., pp. 328-375).
  6. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher education, 16(2), 239-253.
  7. Bümen, N. T. (2010). The relationship between demographics, self efficacy, and burnout among teachers. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 40, 17-36.
  8. Cansoy, R., Parlar, H., & Kılınç, A. Ç. (2017). Teacher Self-Efficacy as a Predictor of Burnout. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 9(1). Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education (4th ed). London: Routledge Coskun, A. (2010). A classroom research study on oral error correction. Humanizing Language Teaching Ma