Dergiler / Eurasian Journal of Educational Research / 2018 / Cilt: 76 - Sayı: 76

Who is the Most Effective Agent When Giving Indirect Written Corrective Feedback?

Sayfa
73–92
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

It is also suggested that researchers focus on the other type of feedback, namely direct written corrective feedback.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Purpose: Who is the most effective agent when giving indirect written corrective feedback (IWCF) to English as a foreign language (EFL)?
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Findings: It was revealed that class C—who received only collaborative IWCF—significantly improved their writing skills compared to the other classes that received teacher and peer IWCF.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:It is also suggested that researchers focus on the other type of feedback, namely direct written corrective feedback.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Purpose: Who is the most effective agent when giving indirect written corrective feedback (IWCF) to English as a foreign language (EFL)? The answer is ambiguous, and factors such as gender have been neglected. For these reasons, this study attempts to reveal the most effective agent when giving IWCF and seeks to highlight the impact of gender when receiving IWCF from different agents. Method: A quasi-experimental study was carried out in which the participants were three classes of EFL learners studying at a private university’s preparatory school. One of the classes was named class A, which only recieved instructor IWCF, another class B, which only recieved peer IWCF, and the last class C, which only recieved collaborative IWCF for a five-week period. Each group produced five written texts regarding the same topic each week at the same time. The data, or the participants’ texts, were analyzed quantitatively. Findings: It was revealed that class C—who received only collaborative IWCF—significantly improved their writing skills compared to the other classes that received teacher and peer IWCF. In terms of gender, it was revealed that the male participants performed better than the female participants in class A, and the female participants in classes B and C produced better written texts compared to the male participants. Implications for Research and Practice: Pre-service and in-service teachers should provide IWCF to their EFL learners collaboratively, and they should consider the gender factor. It is suggested that future research focuses on other factors (i.e. age, proficiency). It is also suggested that researchers focus on the other type of feedback, namely direct written corrective feedback.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

BOSTANCI, H. B., ŞENGÜL, F. (2022). Who is the Most Effective Agent When Giving Indirect Written Corrective Feedback?. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, Cilt: 76 - Sayı: 76, 73–92. https://ajindex.com/articles/507176

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (11)

  1. Alharbi, H. S. (2016). Effects of teachers' written corrective feedback on Saudi EFL university students' writing achievements. International Journal of Linguistics, 8(5), 15-29.
  2. Alhumidi, H. A., & Uba, S. Y. (2016). The effect of indirect written corrective feedback to Arabic language intermediate students’ in Kuwait. European Scientific Journal, 12(28), 361-374.
  3. Azevedo, R., Landis, R. S., Behnagh, R. F., Duffy, M., Trevors, G., Harley, J. M.,. Hossain, G. (2012). The effectiveness of pedagogical agents’ prompting and feedback in facilitating co-adapted learning with meta-tutor. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 212-221.
  4. Barnawi, O. Z. (2010). Promoting noticing through collaborative feedback tasks in EFL college writing classrooms. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 209-217.
  5. Bijami, M., Kashef, S. H., & Nejad, M. S. (2013). Peer feedback in learning English writing: Advantages and disadvantages. Journal of Studies in Education, 3(4), 91-97.
  6. Bensen, H., Cavusoglu, C. (2017). The impact of blended learning in an EFL writing course. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing. ISBN: 978-3-659-54027-1. Business Dictionary. (n.d.). Factor. Retreived from http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/factor.html
  7. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues in field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Dang, T. T. (2016). Vietnamese EFL students’ perceptions of noticing-based collaborative feedback on their writing performance. English Language Teaching, 9(5), 141-153.
  8. Eslami, E. (2014). The effects of direct and indirect corrective feedback techniques on EFL students' writing. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 445-452. Guénette, D. (2012). The pedagogy of error correction: Surviving the written corrective feedback challenge. TESL Canada Journal, 30(1), 117-126.
  9. Hosseiny, M. (2014). The role of direct and indirect written corrective feedback in improving Iranian EFL students' writing skills. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 668–674.
  10. Jahin, J. H. (2012). The effect of peer reviewing on writing apprehension and essay writing ability of prospective EFL teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(11), 60-84.
  11. Kahn, J. (2010). Reporting statistics in APA style. American Psychological Association. Washington, DC: Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Kahraman, A., & Yalvac, F. (2015). EFL Turkish university students’ preferences about teacher feedback and i