Impact of Written Corrective Feedback via Dynamic Assessment on Iranian EFL Learners’ Writing: Micro and Macro Levels

Subject Areas : All areas of language and translation

Mohammad Reza Rafizade Tafti ¹ , Fariba Rahimi ² , Sajad Shafiee ³

1 - English Department, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran
2 - English Department, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran
3 - English Department, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran

Received: 2022-03-11 Accepted : 2022-08-18 Published : 2023-04-01

Keywords: Dynamic Assessment, Written corrective feedback, Writing Accuracy, Micro-Macro Levels, Static Assessment,

Abstract :

The present study aimed to assess the effects of written corrective feedback (WCF) on Iranian EFL learners' writing at the macro (i.e., rhetorical organization, task response, cohesion, and coherence) and micro levels (i.e., lexical resource, punctuation, grammatical range, and accuracy) with a dynamic assessment approach in focus. To this end, the Oxford Quick Placement Test was administered to 150 male and female Iranian EFL learners, of whom 80 homogeneous intermediate learners were selected and assigned to an experimental group and a control group. The two groups received WCF in the sense that the teacher provided symbols such as WW for the wrong word, SP for spelling, T for tense, WO for word order, etc. while marking their written productions. The difference was that the experimental group experienced dynamic assessment of L2 writing during the term (in which the teacher taught and tested the learners in an ongoing fashion and provided prompts, hints, support, and encouragement every session), whereas the participants in the control group experienced a conventional class, devoid of an ongoing dynamic assessment component. At the end of the treatment, the collected data were statistically analyzed. The results showed that although the experimental group significantly outpaced the control group regarding the micro-levels of writing, no substantial difference was detected between the macro levels of writing in both groups. It was, thus, concluded that written corrective feedback along with the dynamic assessment can significantly improve the writing of the students at micro-levels.

References:

Aghaebrahimian, A., Rahimirad, M., Ahmadic, A., & Khalilpour Alamdari, J. (2014). Dynamic assessment of writ-ing skills in advanced EFL Iranian learners. Social and Behavioral Scienc-es, 98, 60 – 67.
Alvarez, I., Espasa, A., & Guasch, T. (2012). The value of feedback in improving col-laborative writing assignments in an online learning environment. Studies in Higher Education, 37(4), 387-400. Antón, M. (2009). Dynamic assessment of advanced second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), pp. 576-598.
Azizi, M., Behjat, F., & Sorahi, M. (2014). Effect of metalinguistic teacher correc-tive feedback on writing performance of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2, 17-25.
Berry, R. A. (2010). Preservice and early ca-reer teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion, instructional accommodations, and fair-ness: Three profiles. The Teacher Edu-cator, 45(2), 75-95.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102-118.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with WCF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207-217.
Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. White Plains.
Cohen, A. (2011). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Harlow, UK: Longman. Cox, R. & Kersten, M. (2016). Mortality sali-ence increases language style matching and well-being. Self and Identity. 15(4), 452–467.
Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland and F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in Second lan-guage writing: Context and issues (pp. 81-104). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ghazi, S., & Zamanian, M. (2016). The effect of asynchronous versus conventional corrective feedback on the correct use of prepositions in an EFL context. Interna-tional Journal of English and Educa-tion, 5(2), 152-160.
Graham, C. & Perin, K. (2007). The effects of parents' working conditions and family economic hardship on parenting behav-iors and children's self-efficacy. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60(4), 291-303.
Hill, K., & Sabet, M. (2009). Dynamic speak-ing assessments. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 537–545.
Hosseini, S. B. (2012). Asynchronous comput-er-mediated corrective feedback and the correct use of prepositions: Is it effec-tive? Turkish Online Journal of Dis-tance Education, 13(4), 95-111.
Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second lan-guage writing. London: The University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing. Lan-guage Teaching, 39(2), 83-101.
Jung, E-h, & Kim, S.-H. (2003). A study on the motivating factors and the strategy use by different levels of middle school students. Foreign Languages Education, 10(2), 227–250.
Kagan, S., & High, J. (2002). Kagan struc-tures for English language learners. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing.
Keh, C. (1990). Feedback in the writing pro-cess: A model and methods for imple-mentation. ELT Journal, 44, 294 -304.
Kepner, C. (1991). An experiment in the re-lationship of types of written feedback to the development of writing skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305-313.
Kim, J. S., & Quinn, D. M. (2013). The ef-fects of summer reading on low-income children's literacy achievement from kindergarten to grade 8: A meta-analysis of classroom and home inter-ventions. Review of Educational Re-search, 83, 386-431.
Journal of language and translation, Volume 13, Number 2, 2023 91
Kırmızı, Ö., & Kömeç, F. (2016). An Investi-gation of Performance-Based Assess-ment at High Schools. Üniversitepark Bülten, 5(1-2), 53-65.
Kolade, T. A. (2012). The influence of pro-cess approach on English as second language students’ performances in es-say writing. English Language Teach-ing, 5(3), 16-29.
Lalande, J. (1982). Reducing composition er-rors: An experiment. The Modern Lan-guage Journal, 66 (2), 140-149.
Lee, I. (2007). Feedback in Hong Kong sec-ondary writing classrooms: Assessment for learning or assessment of learning? Assessing Writing, 12(3), 180-198.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 167-184.
Naeini, J., & Duvall, E. (2012). Dynamic as-sessment and the impact on English lan-guage learners' reading comprehension performance. Language Testing in Asia, 2(2), 22- 41.
Rahimi, M. (2009). The role of teacher's cor-rective feedback in improving Iranian EFL learners' writing accuracy over time: Is learner's mother tongue rele-vant? Reading and Writing, 22 (2), 219-243.
Raoofi, S., Binandeh, M., & Rahmani, S. (2017). An investigation into writing strategies and writing proficiency of university students. Journal of Lan-guage Teaching and Research, 8(1), 191-198.
Rashidi, N., & Bahadori Nejad, Z. (2018). An investigation into the effect of dynamic assessment on the EFL learners’ pro-cess writing development. Sage Open, 8(2), 1-14.
Razzagifard, P., & Razzaghifard, V. (2011). Corrective feedback in a computer-mediated communicative context and the development of second language grammar. Teaching English with Technology, 11(2), 1-17.
Robinson, P. (2001). Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes, and learning conditions in second languageacquisition. Second Language Research, 17(4), 368-392. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and for-eign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learn-ing. Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning, 9, 1-63.
Shang, H.F. (2019). Exploring online peer feedback and automated corrective feedback on EFL writing performance. Journal of Interactive Learning Envi-ronments.DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2019.1629601
Taras, M. (2005). Assessment -summative and formative- Some theoretical reflections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 466-478.
Troyka, L. Q. (2010). Simon & Schuster Handbook for Writers. Toronto: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Vaseghi, R., Ramezani, A. E., & Gholami, R. (2012). Language learning style prefer-ences: A theoretical and empirical study. Advances in Asian Social Sci-ence, 2(2), 441-451.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yeh, S. & Lo, J. (2009). Using online annota-tions to support error correction and cor-rective feedback. Computers & Educa-tion, 52, 882-892.
Zarei, A. A., & Rahnama, M. (2013). The effect of written corrective feedback modes on EFL learners’ grammatical and lexical writing accuracy: from perceptions to facts. International Journal on Studies in English Lan-guage and Literature, 1(3), 1-14.
Zhang, Y. H. (2010). Constructing dynamic assessment mode in college English writing class. Journal of PLA Univer-sity of Foreign Languages, 1, 46-50.