SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2003 / Cilt: 2003 - Sayı: 25

Öğrencilerin Komposizyonlarına Verilen İki Farklı Geribildirim Yöntemi

Two Different Feedback Procedures Given to Students' Writing

Umman TÜMKAYA
Gölge SEFEROĞLU
Pages
186–193
Publication Date
2022-10-19
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, however, suggest that teachers do not need to spend hours to give feedback on all errors; selective feedback via general comments will help students improve their writing to a comparable level.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to compare two teacher-written feedback procedures (total feedback via error codes vs. selective feedback via general comments) for the students' structural errors - grammar, vocabulary, mechanics.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this purpose, two groups of students in the Department of Basic English at Middle East Technical University were given feedback on their writing with the above mentioned techniques for eight weeks and their performance was tested in a writing exam at the end of the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results, however, suggest that teachers do not need to spend hours to give feedback on all errors; selective feedback via general comments will help students improve their writing to a comparable level.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study aims to compare two teacher-written feedback procedures (total feedback via error codes vs. selective feedback via general comments) for the students' structural errors - grammar, vocabulary, mechanics. For this purpose, two groups of students in the Department of Basic English at Middle East Technical University were given feedback on their writing with the above mentioned techniques for eight weeks and their performance was tested in a writing exam at the end of the study. The analysis of the data collected through the post-test indicated that the different treatments applied proved no difference in terms of improving students' accurate language use. The results, however, suggest that teachers do not need to spend hours to give feedback on all errors; selective feedback via general comments will help students improve their writing to a comparable level.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı öğrencilerin İngilizce kompozisyonlarındaki yapısal hatalarına (dilbilgisi, kelime, yazım ve imla) verilen iki farklı geribildirim yöntemini (tüm hataları kodlama ile seçilmiş hatalara genel yorumlar yazma) karşılaştırmaktır. Bu amaçla, iki grup öğrenciye 8 hafta boyunca yukarıda belirtilen teknikler kullanılarak geribildirim verilmiş ve çalışma sonunda bir yazılı sınavla performansları test edilmiştir. Test sonuçlarından elde edilen veriler, iki grubun ortalamaları arasında belirgin bir fark olmadığını ortaya koymuştur. Böylece, uygulanan iki farklı geribildirim yönteminin, öğrencinin doğru dil kullanımını geliştirmede bir fark yaratmadığı görülmüştür. Bunun yanında, öğretmenlerin öğrenci kompozisyonlarındaki tüm hatalara geribildirim vermek için saatlerini harcamaları gerekmeyebileceği, genel yorumlar yoluyla verilen seçici geribildirimin öğrenci kompozisyonlarını eşdeğer düzeyde geliştirebileceği görülmüştür.

🔖

Cite This Article

TÜMKAYA, U., SEFEROĞLU, G. (2022). Öğrencilerin Komposizyonlarına Verilen İki Farklı Geribildirim Yöntemi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 2003 - Sayı: 25, 186–193. https://ajindex.com/articles/532578

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Al-Mekhlafi, A. M. (1997). Corrective feedback in EFL written work. The Journal of English Language Teaching, 32(3), 53-65.
  2. Ancker, W. (2000). Errors and corrective feedback: Updated theory and classroom practice. English Teaching Forum, 38(4), 20-26.
  3. Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multi-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-257.
  4. Bright, J. A. & McGregor, G. P. (1983). Teaching English as a second language. Essex: Longman. Brown, J. & Bailey, K.M. (1984). A categorical instrument for scoring second language writing skills. Language Learning, 34(4), 21-42.
  5. Celce-Murcia. M. (1985). Making informed decisions about the role of grammar in language teaching. TESOL Newsletter, 19(1), 4-5.
  6. Dulay, H., Burt, M. & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. New York: Oxford University Press.
  7. Enginarlar, H. (1993). Student response to teacher feedback in EFL writing. System, 21(2), 193-204.
  8. 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.
  9. Ferris, D. & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes, How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10,161-184.
  10. Mahili, I. (1994). Responding to student writing. English Teaching Forum, 32(4), 24-27.
  11. Muncie, J. (2000). Using written teacher feedback in EFL composition classes. ELT Journal, 54(1), 47-53.
  12. Myers, S. (1997). Teaching writing as a process and teaching sentence-level syntax: Reformulation as ESL composition feedback. _____http://www.kvotosu.ac.jp /information/tesl-ei/ei08/a2.html> (2002, November 13).