Journals / Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 3

Student Responses to Written Corrective Feedback on Multiple Draft Essays in an EFL Context

Yabancı Dil Olarak İngilizce Öğretilen Ortamda Çok Taslaklı Kompozisyonlara Verilen Yazılı Düzeltici Geribildirime Öğrenci Tepkileri

Pages
577–597
Publication Date
2020-10-05
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 showed that all proficiency groups believed in the necessity of written corrective feedback to their multiple draft essays.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study discusses tertiary level student beliefs and reactions to written corrective feedback to multiple draft essays in an EFL setting where the students were in a process-based writing program for two semesters.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Through convenience sampling, a total of 208 students from four different levels of foreign language proficiency took part in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results showed that all proficiency groups believed in the necessity of written corrective feedback to their multiple draft essays.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:EFL · Multiple drafts · Student reactions

Abstract

This study discusses tertiary level student beliefs and reactions to written corrective feedback to multiple draft essays in an EFL setting where the students were in a process-based writing program for two semesters. As the study design, a structured survey approach was adopted. The variable tested was the effect of foreign language proficiency on student beliefs and reactions. Through convenience sampling, a total of 208 students from four different levels of foreign language proficiency took part in the study. The results showed that all proficiency groups believed in the necessity of written corrective feedback to their multiple draft essays. Yet, higher proficiency groups read more and paid a lot more attention to the teacher feedback when compared to the lower proficiency groups and all the groups asked for more written corrective feedback on grammar, lexis and structure. Lower level proficiency groups paid more attention to preliminary draft corrections. All the groups preferred to be given oral metalinguistic explanations on their multiple drafts to indirect feedback tiered through symbols. The advanced group rated their essay writing skills in a second language as good and the other groups rated themselves as adequate. The study offers implications for tertiary level academic writing instructors.

Özet

Bu çalışma, yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğretilen bir ortamda hazırlık okulu öğrencilerinin çoklu taslak içeren kompozisyonlarına aldıkları yazılı düzeltici geribildirimine dair inanışlarını ve reaksiyonlarını tartışmaktadır. Test edilen değişken öğrencilerin yabancı dil yeterlilik düzeylerinin inanışlarına ve reaksiyonlarına etkisidir. Çalışma deseni olarak yapılandırılmış anket yaklaşımı kullanılmıştır. Seçkisiz örneklem yöntemiyle dört farklı dil seviyesinden toplamda 208 öğrenci çalışmada yer almıştır. Sonuçlar, tüm seviye gruplarındaki öğrencilerin yazılı düzeltici geribildirimin gerekliliğine inandıkları yönündedir. Fakat ileri seviye grupları, daha düşük düzey dil gruplarına göre, öğretmen dönütlerine daha cok dikkat etmektedirler. Tüm gruplar dilbilgisi, kelime bilgisi ve de yapısal dönüte daha fazla değer verdiklerini belirtmişlerdir. Alt düzey dil grupları ilk müsveddelerdeki düzeltmelere daha çok dikkat etmektedirler. Tüm gruplar, çoklu taslaklarına sözel üstdilsel açıklamaları içeren direkt dönütü, sembol kullanılarak verilen dolaylı dönüte yeğlemişlerdir. İleri seviye grupları ikinci dilde kompozisyon yazma yeterliliklerini iyi olarak değerlendirirlerken, diğer gruplar kendilerini yeterli olarak değerlendirmişlerdir. Bu çalışma akademik yazma dersi veren hazırlık okulu öğretmenlerine öneriler sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

GECKİN, V. (2020). Student Responses to Written Corrective Feedback on Multiple Draft Essays in an EFL Context. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 3, 577–597. https://ajindex.com/articles/85115

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Amirghassemi, A., Azabdaftari, B., & Saeidi, M. (2013). The effect of scaffolded vs. non-scaffolded written corrective feedback on EFL learners' written accuracy. World Applied Sciences Journal, 22(2), 256-263.
  2. Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: what do students and teachers prefer and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 95-127.
  3. Balanga, R.A., Fidel, I.B., Gumapac, M.V.G.P., Ho, H.T., Tullo, R. M. C., Villaraza, P.M.L., & Vizconde, C. J. (2016). Student beliefs towards written corrective feedback: The case of Filipina high school students. Journal of English Language Teaching, 6(3), 22-38.
  4. Berg, C. E. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215-241.
  5. 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.
  6. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-431.
  7. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322-329.
  8. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207-217.
  9. Bruton, A. (2009). Improving accuracy is not the only reason for writing, and even if it were… System, 37, 600- 613. Budianto, S., Mukminatien, N., & Latief, M.A. (2017). The superiority of written corrective feedback outcome on EFL writing at different proficiency levels. International Journal of English and Education, 6(3), 40-53.
  10. 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(3), 267- 296. Diab, N. M. (2015). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does type of error and type of correction matter? Assessing Writing, 24, 16-34.
  11. Diab, R. (2005). Teachers’ and Students’ Beliefs About Responding to ESL Writing: A Case Study. TESL Canada Journal, 23(1), 28- 43. Eksi, G. Y. (2012). Peer review versus teacher feedback in process writing: How effective? International Journal of Applied Educational Studies, 13(1), 33-48.
  12. Eslami, E. (2014). The effects of direct and indirect corrective feedback t