The Effect of Different Types of Teacher Written Corrective Feedback on Iranian EFL Learners’ Writing Accuracy
محورهای موضوعی : English Language Teaching (ELT)مهران داوری بینا 1 , سیدحسین کریمی 2
1 - Department of Language Teaching, Ardabil Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ardabil, Iran
2 - Department of Language Teaching, Ardabil Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ardabil, Iran
کلید واژه: Direct Feedback, Indirect Feedback, Written Corrective Feedback (WCF), Picture Description Task,
چکیده مقاله :
This research is a quasi-experimental study investigating the effect of different types of teacher Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) on Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy in using two functions of English articles (the first mention and anaphoric reference) and simple past tense (regular and irregular). Ninety-four Iranian learners of English were assigned into three experimental groups of direct feedback group (n=24), indirect feedback group (n=24), direct plus indirect feedback group (n=24), and one pilot group (n=22). The participating groups’ homogeneity was checked by their performance in the proficiency test and the pre-test. During six treatment sessions, each of the three groups received feedback type. The papers with attached comments were returned to the participants. On two occasions (pre-test and post-test), the participants completed a picture description task. The results of one-way ANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference in the performance of the three groups. Furthermore, Scheffe post-hoc analysis indicated that the direct group outperformed direct plus indirect group, and direct plus indirect group outperformed the indirect group.
پژوهش حاضر که یک تحقیق شبه تجربی بوده و بدنبال بررسی تاثیر انواع مختلف بازخورد اصلاحی نوشتاری معلم بر روی صحت نوشته های زبان آموزان ایرانی در استفاده از حروف تعریف انگلیسی(معین و نامعین) و زمان گذشته ساده(افعال باقاعده و بی قاعده) می باشد. نود و چهار زبان آموز ایرانی در قالب سه گروه آزمایشی شامل گروه بازخورد مستقیم(24نفر)،گروه بازخورد غیر مستقیم(24نفر)،گروه بازخورد مستقیم+غیر مستقیم(24نفر) گروهبندی شدند. همسانی گروههای شرکت کننده از طریق عملکرد آنها در آزمون مهارت و پیش آزمون بررسی شد. در طول شش جلسه ،هر یک از سه گروه بازخورد مربوطه را دریافت کردند.ورقه ها به انضمام توضیحات به دانش آموزان بازگردانده شد. در دو مرحله(پیش آزمون و پس آزمون) دانش آموزان آزمون توصیف تصویر را کامل کردند.نتایج تحلیل واریانس یک طرفه،به لحاظ آماری تفاوت معناداری در عملکرد سه گروه نشان داد.علاوه بر این،تحلیل تعقیبی Scheffeنشان داد که گروه مستقیم نسبت به گروه مستقیم+غیرمستقیم بهتر عمل کردند و گروه مستقیم+غیرمستقیم نیز نسبت به گروه غیر مستقیم بهتر عمل کردند.
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. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 17, 102-118.
Bitchener, J. (2009). Measuring the effectiveness of written corrective feedback: A response to
“Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Bitchener (2008)”. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 276-279.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37, 322-329.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to
language development: A Ten Month Investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2),193-214.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing,
12, 267-269.
Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 28(2), 97-107.
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, 353-371.
Fazio, L, L. (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority- and majority-language students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 235-249.
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to
Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-11.
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
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 & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in Second language writing: Context and issues (pp. 81-104). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 16,165–193.
Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and
practice (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does
it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184.
Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of
feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40–53.
Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the
development second-language writing skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305-313.
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal,
66(2), 142-149.
Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary
classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 69-85.
Mackey, A. & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal
instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50, 17−673.
O'Sullivan, I., & Chambers, A. (2006).Learners' writing skills in French Corpus consultation and learner evaluation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 49-68.
Pollard, A. (1990).Towards a sociology of learning in primary schools. British Journal of
Sociology of Education, 11(3), 241-256.
Rob, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL
writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83-95.
Salaberry, M. R., & Ortega. N. (1998). Accurate L2 production across language tasks: focus on
form, focus on meaning, and communication control. The Modern Language Journal, 82 (4), 514−532.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude
on ELS learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255-284.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “the case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A
response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111-122.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272.
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 17, 292-305.
