Developing Process Writing Ability in Virtual Learning Environment via (Reinforced) Metalinguistic Corrective Feedback
محورهای موضوعی : English Language Teaching (ELT)Maryam Naderi Farsani 1 , پرویز علوی نیا 2 , Mehdi Sarkhosh 3
1 - Urmia University
2 - دانشگاه ارومیه
3 - Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Humanities, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
کلید واژه: Written Metalinguistic Feedback, Oral metalinguistic feedback, error logs, virtual learning environment,
چکیده مقاله :
The current study was performed to investigate the impact of metalinguistic oral and written corrective feedback on learners’ process writing ability through virtual learning environment. To this aim, a total of 66 Iranian EFL students in Shahrekord University participated in the study. To conduct the study, a sample of IELTS expository writing (Writing Task 1) was administered to all participants for homogeneity purposes. Then, each of the two classes was divided into two parts, and each was randomly assigned to one of the four comparison groups (oral metalinguistic feedback, written metalinguistic feedback, oral metalinguistic + error logs, and written metalinguistic + error logs). Next, the writing pretest (a process writing task) was given to participants prior to instruction. The treatment lasted for eight weeks, and then process writing posttest was administered. The results revealed that all groups made progress from pretest to posttest. However, no significant difference was found among the four types of metalinguistic corrective feedback. The implications of the findings are discussed throughout the paper.
The current study was performed to investigate the impact of metalinguistic oral and written corrective feedback on learners’ process writing ability through virtual learning environment. To this aim, a total of 66 Iranian EFL students in Shahrekord University participated in the study. To conduct the study, a sample of IELTS expository writing (Writing Task 1) was administered to all participants for homogeneity purposes. Then, each of the two classes was divided into two parts, and each was randomly assigned to one of the four comparison groups (oral metalinguistic feedback, written metalinguistic feedback, oral metalinguistic + error logs, and written metalinguistic + error logs). Next, the writing pretest (a process writing task) was given to participants prior to instruction. The treatment lasted for eight weeks, and then process writing posttest was administered. The results revealed that all groups made progress from pretest to posttest. However, no significant difference was found among the four types of metalinguistic corrective feedback. The implications of the findings are discussed throughout the paper.
AbuSeileek, A., & Rabab'ah, G. (2013). Discourse functions and vocabulary use in English language learners' synchronous computer-mediated communication. Teaching English with Technology, 13(1), 42–61.
Altamimi, O. A., & Masood, M. (2021). Teacher electronic written corrective feedback, trends and future directions. Arab World English Journal, 12(3) 308–322. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol12no3.21
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, 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001
Cambridge Books, (2020). IELTS Academic 1-17. Cambridge University Press.
Duong, Th. M., & Nguyen, T. N. (2022). Providing written corrective feedback in IELTS writing task 2: EFL teachers’ practices. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 43, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.34044/j.kjss.2022.43.1.34
Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focused instruction on L2 acquisition. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & Z. Dornyei (Eds.), Themes in SLA Research. AILA, 19 (pp. 18-41). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.19.04ell
Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. English Language Teaching Journal, 63, 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime . . .?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005
Ferris, D. R. (2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 165–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.003
Gao, J., & Ma, S. (2020). Instructor feedback on free writing and automated corrective feedback in drills: Intensity and efficiency. Language Teaching Research, 83, 1–24.
Hashemian, M., & Farhang-Ju, M. (2018). Effects of metalinguistic feedback on grammatical accuracy of Iranian field (in) dependent L2 learners’ writing ability. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 141–161.
Hewett, B. (2006). Synchronous online conference-based instruction: A study of whiteboard interactions and student writing. Computers and Composition, 23, 4–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2005.12.004
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667251
Kara, S., & Abdulrahman, S. A. (2022). The effects of direct written corrective feedback (WCF) on language preparatory school students` IELTS independent writing section score. Canadian Journal of Language and Literature Studies, 2(4), 66–88. https://doi.org/10.53103/cjlls.v2i4.58
Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2020). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 519–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818802469.
Khodi, A., & Abbasi Sardari, S. (2015). The effect of metalinguistic corrective feedback on students’ writing performance. International Journal of Educational Investigations, 2(4), 102–108.
Kocaman, O., & Maral, B.N. (2022). Effects of explicit corrective feedback writing skill: A private middle school example. The Literacy Trek, 8(1), 108–120. https://doi.org/10.47216/literacytrek.1121256
Marboyeh, A. (2011). The impact of teacher feedback and peer feedback on the writing performance of EFL students with different learning styles. International Online Language Conference (IOLC), 2, 445–452.
Muncie, J. (2000). Using written teacher feedback in EFL composition classes. ELT Journal, 54(1), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/54.1.47
Myers, J. (1997). Second language writing and research: The writing process and error analysis in student texts. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 6(2), 361–386.
Nassaji, H. (2020). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2 grammar. The Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 353–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12387
Ortega, L. (2013). Understanding second language acquisi¬tion (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203777282
Rabiee, M. (2010). Facilitating learning to gather in Iranian context: Three collaborative oral feedback models in EFL writing classes. Sino-US English Teaching, 7(3), 10–22.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics (4th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
Truscott J. & Hsu, A.Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003
White, R. & Arndt, V. (1991) Process Writing. Addison Wesley Longman Ltd.
Xu, J., & Zhang, S. (2021). Understanding AWE feedback and English writing of learners with different proficiency levels in an EFL classroom: A sociocultural perspective. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 31, 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00577-7.
