Iranian EFL High School Students’ Perceptions Regarding Written Grammar Feedback
محورهای موضوعی : language teaching
Mina Jodaie
1
(
Khosrowshah Branch, Islamic Azad University, Khosrowshah
)
کلید واژه: Written corrective feedback, Comprehensive written grammar feedback, students’ perceptions ,
چکیده مقاله :
This paper reports on a study thatinvestigated Iranian EFL high school students’ perceptions of written grammar feedback to specify their reasons for preferring comprehensive or selective feedback and choosing some feedback strategies. A questionnaire was administered to 100 EFL intermediate high school students who were selected based on their scores on a proficiency test. Moreover, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 of them.The results showed that the students had a strong desire for receiving written grammar feedback and favored direct feedback comprehensively on each draft. However, the correction of errors in word and verb categories was more important to them than that of other grammatical errors. They also had common evaluations of written corrective feedback strategies. The findings of this study have some implications for EFL writing instruction.
تحقیق حاضر نظرات زبان‌آموزان دبیرستانی را در ارتباط با اصلاح نوشتاری خطاهای گرامری مورد بررسی قرار داده است. به این منظور پرشس‌نامه‌ای بین 100 زبان‌آموز سطح متوسط که از طریق آزمون تعیین سطح انتخاب شده بودند توزیع گردید.هم‌چنین مصاحبه شفاهی با 10 نفر از آن‌هاانجام شد. نتایج نشان می‌دهد که زبان‌آموزان تمایل بالایی به دریافت اصلاحات جامع گرامری درهر مرحله‌ای از بازنویسی متن اصلی داشتند. با این وجود اصلاح کاربرد نادرست کلمات و زمان افعال برای آن‌ها مهم‌تر از سایر خطاهای گرامری بود. زبان‌آموزان هم‌چنین نظرات مشترکی نسبت به روش‌های مختلف اصلاح خطاهای نوشتاری ابراز کردند. این نتایج می‌تواند کاربردهای برای تدریس مهارت نگارش به فراگیران زبان انگلیسی داشته باشد.
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 – 258.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of Written Corrective Feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102–118.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267-296.
Chandler, J. (2004). A response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing. 13, 345-348.
Cohen, A., and Cavalcanti, M. (1990).Feedback on written compositions: Teachers and student verbal reports. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom, (pp.155-177). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deng, K. (2010). Rethinking error feedback on L2 writing. Retrieved December 5, 2011 from http://www.jalt-publications.org/proceedings/2009/.
Diab, R. (2005). EFL university students’ preferences for error correction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 44, 53-55.
Diab, R. L. ( 2006). “Error correction and feedback in the EFL writing classroom: Comparing instructor and student preferences”. English Teaching Forum, 44 (1), 2-13
Ellis, R., (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 67- 107.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353–371.
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes. A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of second Language Writing,8, 1-10.
Ferris, D. R. (2002).Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan press.
Ferris, D. R. (2004). The grammar correction debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? Journal of Second Language Writing,13, 49-62.
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.
Halimi, S. S. (2008). Indonesian teachers’ and students’ preferences for error correction. Wacana, 10(1), 50-71.
Hamouda, A. (2011). Study of students and teachers' preferences and attitudes towards correction of classroom written errors in Saudi EFL context. English Language Teaching, 4 (3),128-141.
Hong, P. C. (2003). Investigating teachers’ and secondary students’ preferences towards direct or indirect feedback on students’ writing: Which way is more helpful. Retrieved December 5 2011 from http://www2.ied.edu.hk.
Ken, C. K. (2004).An investigation into students’ preferences for and responses to teacher feedback and its implications for writing teachers. Hong Kong Teachers’ Centre Journal, 3, 98 - 115.
Lalande, J. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal 66.2, 140–149
Lee, I. (2003a).How do Hong Kong English teachers correct errors in writing? Education Journal, 31 (1)153-169.
Lee, I. (2003b). L2 writing teachers’ perspectives, practices and problems regarding error feedback. Assessing Writing, 8, 216 - 237.
Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 144-164.
Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203 - 218.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. De Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Makino, T. (1993).Learner self- correction in EFL written compositions. ELT Journal , 47(4), 337-341.
Oladejo, A. J. (1993). Error correction in FSL: Learners' preferences. TESL Canada Journal ,10 (2), 71-89.
Pica, T. (2000). Tradition and transition in English language teaching methodology. System, 28, 1–18.
Radecki, P. M., & Swales, J. M. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work. System, 16 (3), 355–65.
Rahimi, M. (2010). Iranian EFL students’ perceptions and preferences for teachers’ written feedback: Do students’ ideas reflect teachers’ practice? The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 2(2), 75-98.
Richards, J. C., Hull, J. & Proctor, S. (2005). Interchange Student's Book 2. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., Hull, J. & Proctor, S. (2005). Interchange Student's Book 3. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Satio, H. (1994). Teachers’ and students’ preferences for feedback on second language acquisition: A case study of adult ESL learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11 (2), 46 - 68.
Schulz, R. A. (1996). “Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar”. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 343-364.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 103-110.
Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “The case for 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.
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers' choice and learners' preference of corrective feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78 - 93.
