The Effect of Corrective Feedback on the Writing Accuracy of Feedback Givers and Receivers
محورهای موضوعی : language teachingالناز عزیزیان 1 , Afsar Rouhi 2
1 - Department of English, Ardabil Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ardabil, Iran
2 - Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
کلید واژه: peer review, feedback givers, feedback receivers, L2 writing,
چکیده مقاله :
This quasi-experimental study set out to examine the effect of peer corrective feedback on feedback givers and receivers in L2 writing. The forms in focus were a/an, the, and the past tense.The study was conducted in an EFL classroom setting with 45 learners of English in three writing classes which served as the feedback givers, receivers, and the control group. Over four sessions of treatment, the givers reviewed the writing of the receivers with two functions of English articles (a/an as the first mention and the as the anaphoric reference) and simple past tense (regular and irregular) as the features in focus without receiving any comments from others on their writing. The receivers received feedback from peers, but were excluded from giving any feedback to others. The control group neither gave nor received any peer feedback. The study followed a pretest, immediate post-test, delayed post-test design. Statistical analyses run on the data obtained from a picture description task and a grammaticality judgment task indicated that the givers group improved significantly more than the receivers group and the receivers group, in turn, improved significantly more than the control group in terms of the forms targeted. The results obtained imply that learners’ involvement in peer writing correction can result in significant L2 writing accuracy.
مطالعات پیشین نشان می‌دهد که بازخورد اصلاحی در عملکرد زبان‌آموزان تأثیر مثبتی دارد. پژوهش شبه-آزمایشی حاضر بر آن است تاثیر بازخورد اصلاحی بر نوشتار خود باز خورد دهندگان و دریافت کنندگان بازخورد اصلاحی را بسنجد. برای نیل به این هدف، 45 زبان آموز در 3 کلاس نگارش بازخورد دهندگان، دریافت کنندگان بازخورد و گروه گواه گمارده شدند. گروه اول آزمایشی، بر کاربرد ناصحیح حروف تعریف a/an، the و همچنین زمان گذشته در نوشته‌های دریافت کنندگان، بازخورد اصلاحی دادند. گروه دوم، باز خوردها را مرور کردند و در نوشته‌های بعدی خود بکار گرفتند و گروه سوم هیچ بازخورد اصلاحی ندادند و دریافت نکردند. پس از 4 هفته، پس‌آزمون بلافصل و 2 هفته بعد از آن پس‌آزمون تاخیری اجرا گردید. تحلیل داده‌های حاصل از پس‌آزمون‌های بلافصل و تاخیری حاکی از آن بود که گروه باز خورد دهندگان عملکرد بهتری نسبت به گروه دریافت کنندگان بازخورد اصلاحی داشتند. همچنین نتایج نشان داد که عملکرد هر دو گروه آزمایشی در استفاده از ساختارهای مورد هدف به صورت معنی‌داری بهتر از گروه گواه بود
Adams, R., Maria Nuevo, A., &Egi, T. (2011). Explicit and implicit feedback, modified output, and SLA: Does explicit and implicit feedback promote learning and learner-learner interactions? The Modern Language Journal, 95, 42–63.
Akakura, M. (2011).Evaluating the effectiveness of explicit instruction on implicit and explicit L2 knowledge.Language Teaching Research, 16, 1–29.
Allison, D., & Ng, P. (1992).Developing text revision abilities. In M. Lau & M. J. Murphy (Eds.),Developing writing: Purposes and practice (pp. 106–130). Hong Kong: Institute of Language in Education.
Ansarin, A. A. (2004). Nongeneric use of the definite article the by Persian learners.Journal of Faculty of Letters and Humanities, 47, 1–11.
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, 227–257.
Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students' revision types and writing quality.Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 215–241.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback.Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102–118.
Bitchener, J., &Knoch, U. (2008a). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students.Language Teaching Research Journal, 12, 409–431.
Bitchener, J., &Knoch, U. (2008b). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback.ELT Journal, 63, 204–211.
Bitchener, J., &Knoch, U. (2009).The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback.System, 37, 322–329.
Bitchener, J., &Knoch, U. (2010a). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193–214.
Bitchener, J., &Knoch, U. (2010b). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback.Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207–217.
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.
Bruffee, K. (1984). Collaborative learning and the ‘conversation of mankind’.College English, 46, 635–652.
Butler, Y. (2002). Second language learners' theories on the use of English articles.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 451–480.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing.Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267–296.
Chaulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student responses to written work.TESOL Quarterly, 28, 181–188.
Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010).Student revision with peer and expert reviewing.Learning and Instruction, 20, 328–338.
Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nded.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues.Language Learning, 55, 1–25.
Denny, H. C. (2008). Dangerous liaisons: Reflection on a pilot project for state-mandated outcome assessment of written communication. Assessing Writing, 13, 26–44.
Diab, N. M. (2010). Effects of peer- versus self-editing on students' revision of language errors in revised drafts.System, 38, 85–95.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998).Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974).A new perspective on the creative construction process in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 253–278.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., &Erlam, R. (2006).Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effect of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353–371.
Faghih, E. (1997). A contrastive analysis of the Persian and English definite articles.International Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 127–138.
Ferris, D. R. (2003).Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Geranpayeh, A. (2000). The acquisition of the English article system by Persian speakers.Edinburgh Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 10, 37–51.
Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005).Guiding principles for effective peer response.ELT Journal, 59, 31–38.
Hu, G. W. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers.Language Teaching Research, 9, 321–342.
Hu, G. W., & Lam, S. T. E. (2010). Issues of cultural appropriateness and pedagogical efficacy: Exploring peer review in a second language writing class. Instructional Science, 38, 371–394.
Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal, 44, 294–304.
Knowles, M. (1975).Self-directed learning. New York: Association Press.
Leki, I. (1990). Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes.CATESOL Journal, 3, 5–17.
Liou, H. C., &Peng, Z. Y. (2009). Training effects on computer-mediated peer review. System, 37, 514–525.
Little, D. (1991).Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues, and problems. Dublin: Authentik.
Liu, D., & Gleason, J. (2002).Acquisition of the article the by nonnative speakers of English.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 1–26.
Liu, J., & Sadler, R. W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 193–227.
Long, M., & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition.TESOL Quarterly, 19, 305–325.
Lundstorm, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30–43.
Makino, T. (1980).Acquisition order of English morphemes by Japanese secondary school students.Journal of Hokkaido University of Education, 30, 101–148.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal, 46, 274–284.
Mendonça, C., & Johnson, K. (1994). Peer review negotiation: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745–769.
Min, H. T. (2003). Why peer comments fail? English Teaching and Learning, 27, 85–103.
Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293–308.
Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students' revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118–141.
Min, H. T. (2008). Reviewer stances and writer perceptions in EFL peer review training. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 285–305.
Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1992). An L2 writing group: Task and social dimensions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 171–193.
Patri, M. (2002).The influence of peer feedback on self- and peer-assessment of oral skills.Language Testing, 19, 109–131.
Palawk, M. (2014).Error correction in the foreign language classroom: Reconsidering the issues. Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
Paulus, T. (1999).The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing.Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265–289.
Peterson, S. (2003). Peer response and students’ revisions of their narrative writing. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 3, 239–272.
Rahimi, M. (2009). The role of teacher's corrective feedback in improving Iranian EFL learners' writing accuracy over time: Is learners' mother tongue relevant? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 219–243.
Rahimi, M. (2013). Is training student reviewers worth its while? A study of how training influences the quality of students’ feedback and writing. Language Teaching Research, 17, 67–87.
Ridley, J. (1997). Reflection and strategies in foreign language learning. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59, 23–30.
Russell, V., &Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Schon, D. A. (1987).Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners' acquisition of articles.TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283.
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, 556–569.
Shintani, N., &Ellis, R. (2013).The comparative effect of direct written
corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286–306.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students' reflection. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153–173.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write accurately.Journal of Second Language Writing,16, 255–272.
Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 147–170.
Villamil, O. S., & De Guerrero, M. (1994). Social-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 484–496.
Villamil, O. S., & De Guerrero, M. (1998).Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing.Applied Linguistics, 19, 491–514.
Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006).A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class.Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179–200.
Yang, Y. F. (2010).Students' reflection on online self-correction and peer review to improve writing.Computers & Education, 55, 1202–1210.
Zacharias, N. T. (2007). Teacher and student attitudes toward teacher feedback.RELC Journal, 38, 38–52.
Zhao, H. (2010). Investigating learners' use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: A comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 15, 3–17.
Zhu, W. (2001).Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups.Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 251–276.
