A Study on the Effect of Teachers’ Text Specific Comments and Rubber-Stamped Comments on Iranian EFL Learners’ Writing Ability
محورهای موضوعی : language teaching
مهرنوش عطاآفرین
1
(
گروه زبان انگلیسی، واحد آیت ا...آملی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، آمل، ایران
)
وصال آیات
2
(
گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران ، ایران
)
علی اصغر یوسفی آذرفام
3
(
English Language Department, Soufian Branch, Islamic Azad University, Soufian, Iran
)
کلید واژه: writing skill, text-specific, rubber-stamped, teacher comments,
چکیده مقاله :
Written corrective feedback (WCF) refers to the feedback given by writing instructors and tutors on novice writers’ performances. Although extensive importance has been attached to the implications of WCF for improving writing skill in L2 writing studies, there is a paucity of research into research on whether student writers benefit differently from elaborated and evaluative feedback. Having this in mind, the aim of this research was to examine the effect of teacher’s text-specific and rubber-stamped comments on Iranian EFL learners’ writing ability at intermediate level. Quick Placement Test was employed to select 40 pre-intermediate EFL learners as the participants of this research. Then, they were randomly assigned into two experimental and control groups. Prior to the treatment, the participants of both groups were given a pretest to disclose their initial writing ability. After administering the rubber-stamped comments to the experimental group and text specific to the control group, a posttest was administered to seek the effect of two types of instruments. An independent samples t-test was used to see if the treatment was effective. Paired samples t-test was also employed to determine the amount of progression between pretest and posttest of the experimental group. The results of the study revealed that rubber-stamped comments improved the learners’ writing ability. Implicationally, instructors can use rubber-stamped comments to help learners improve their writing ability.
هدف از این تحقیق بررسی تأثیر نظرات اصلاحی معلم و نظرات اشاره ای معلم بر توانایی نوشتن زبان آموزان EFL در سطح متوسط بود. برای انتخاب شرکت کنندگان این تحقیق، 40 زبان آموز EFL در سطح قبل از میانی، از آزمون Quick Placement Test استفاده شد. سپس شرکت کنندگان به طور تصادفی در دو گروه آزمایش و کنترل قرار گرفتند. قبل از آزمایش، به شرکت کنندگان هر دو گروه پیش آزمون داده شد تا به توانایی نوشتن اولیه شان پی برده شود. پس از ارائه نظرات اشاره ای به گروه آزمایش و نظرات اصلاحی برای گروه کنترل، یک پس آزمون برای یافتن تأثیر دو نوع ابزار اجرا شد. برای بررسی اینکه آیا روش جدید موثر است، از آزمون t-test مستقل استفاده شد. برای تعیین میزان پیشرفت بین پیش آزمون و پس آزمون از گروه آزمایش، از آزمون t-test زوجی استفاده شد. نتایج مطالعه نشان داد که نظرات اشاره ای معلم توانایی نوشتن دانش آموزان را بهبود می بخشد. بدین ترتیب، مربیان می توانند از نظرات اشاره ای برای کمک به زبان آموزان برای بهبود توانایی نوشتن استفاده کنند.
Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227–257.
Bitchener, J. (2012). Written corrective feedback for L2 development: Current knowledge and future research. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 855–860. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.62.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214.
Ebrahimzadeh, M., & Khodareza, M. R. (2015). The Effect of Post-text Feedback vs. Recast on Written Grammatical Accuracy of Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 3(9), 27–35.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107.
Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 335–349. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990544.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001.
Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher Response to Student Writing: Focus on Form versus Content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom (pp. 178-190). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524551.016
Ferris, D. R. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing (2nd ed.). University of Michigan Press.
Gad, E. E., Li, Y., Kliewer, J., Langberg, M., Jiang, A. A., & Bruck, J. (2016). Asymmetric error correction and flash-memory rewriting using polar codes. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 62(7), 4024–4038.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. London and New York. Addison Wesley Longman.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (Eds.). (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
Jacobs, H. L., Zinkgraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Khansir, A. A., & Dashti, J. G. (2014). The Effect of Question-Generation Strategy on Iranian EFL Learners’ Reading Comprehension Development. English Language Teaching, 7(4), 38–45.
Lee, I. (2020). Utility of focused/comprehensive written corrective feedback research for authentic L2 writing classrooms. Second Language Writing, 49, 1-7. doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100734
Maleki, A., & Eslami, E. (2013). The effects of written corrective feedback techniques on EFL students’ control over grammatical construction of their written English. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(7), 1250.
Mao, S. S., & Crosthwaite, P. (2019). Investigating written corrective feedback: (Mis)alignment of teachers’ beliefs and practice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45,46-60. doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.05.004
Mousavi, S. A. (2009). An encyclopaedic dictionary of language testing (4 th ed.). Rahnama Press, Tehran.
Rahimi, M. (2009). The role of teacher’s corrective feedback in improving Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy over time: is learner’s mother tongue relevant? Reading and Writing, 22(2), 219–243.
Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002.
Sivaji, K. (2012). The Effect of Direct and Indirect Correction Feedback on the Grammatical Accuracy of ESL Writing of Undergraduates. Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences, 8, 78-94.
Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communication, 33(2), 148–156.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369.
Van Beuningen, C. G. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119171.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. 1978. In The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Williams, J. G. (2003). Providing feedback on ESL students’ written assignments. The Internet TESL Journal, 9(10), 1–5.
Zareil, 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 Language and Literature (IJSELL), 1(3), 1–14.
Zheng, Y., & Yu, S. (2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 37, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.001.
