SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics / 2019 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 3

Corrective Feedback on Writing in EFL Context: Comparison of Two Approaches

Mine Gündüz Kartal
Derin Atay
Pages
385–401
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

The results of the study showed that the students in the Graduated Feedback Groupwere more successful in terms of doing self-correction than the students in the Explicit Feedback Group.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Although there is a disagreement among researchers on the effectiveness of corrective feedback (CF) inL2 writing (Ferris, 1999; Truscott, 1996; Truscott 1999), many studies proved that CF improves L2learners’ accuracy in writing over time.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Bitchener, Young & Cameron, 2005; Chandler, 2003; Tootkaboni &Khatib, 2014) in L2 writing.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results of the study showed that the students in the Graduated Feedback Groupwere more successful in terms of doing self-correction than the students in the Explicit Feedback Group.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2005 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Although there is a disagreement among researchers on the effectiveness of corrective feedback (CF) inL2 writing (Ferris, 1999; Truscott, 1996; Truscott 1999), many studies proved that CF improves L2learners’ accuracy in writing over time. Therefore, instead of investigating the effectiveness of CF, someresearchers carried out studies to investigate the effectiveness of different methods, techniques,approaches of applying CF (e.g. Bitchener, Young & Cameron, 2005; Chandler, 2003; Tootkaboni &Khatib, 2014) in L2 writing. Similarly, this current study was conducted to investigate the effects of twodifferent corrective feedback types on L2 written performances. The first corrective feedback type isexplicit feedback (cognitive-interactionist approach) in which the feedback is given directly, the othercorrective feedback type is graduated feedback (sociocultural approach) in which the feedback is given asan assistance. The study conducted in one of the private universities in Turkey, with 11 Turkish EFLstudents. The students in the Explicit Feedback Group (n=5), and the students in the GraduatedFeedback Group (n=6) completed their opinion paragraphs and received feedback according to the groupthey were assigned. After two weeks, the same procedure was applied to find out if there were anychanges over time. The results of the study showed that the students in the Graduated Feedback Groupwere more successful in terms of doing self-correction than the students in the Explicit Feedback Group.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kartal, M. G., Atay, D. (2022). Corrective Feedback on Writing in EFL Context: Comparison of Two Approaches. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 3, 385–401. https://ajindex.com/articles/507005

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Adams, R., Nueve, A., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 4781.2011.01242.x Ai, H. (2017). Providing graduated corrective feedback in an intelligent computer-assisted language learning environment. ReCall, 29(3), 313-334. https://doi.org /10.1017/ S095834 401700012X Aljaafreh, A. L., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465- 483. https://doi.org /465-483. 10.2307/328585 Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060- 3743(00)00027-8
  2. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001
  3. Cohen, A. D., & Robbins, M. (1976). Toward assessing interlanguage performance: The relationship between selected errors, learners’ characteristics, and learners’ expectations. Language Learning, 26, 45–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1976.tb00259.x
  4. Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction: Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context, New York: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing,12, 267– 96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9
  6. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060141
  7. Erlam, R., Ellis, R., & Batstone, R. (2013). Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing: Two approaches compared. System, 41(2), 257-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013. 03.004 Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1060-3743(99)80110-6
  8. Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “gramm