The Impact of Three Feedback Types on Postgraduate TEFL Student Teachers’ Writing Accuracy and Organization
محورهای موضوعی : language teaching
1 - Department of English Language, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
کلید واژه: Writing, Accuracy, Organization, interactive feedback, Metalinguistic Feedback, peer-feedback,
چکیده مقاله :
One skill that student teachers need to develop during their academic studies is the capacity to produce accurate and well-organized texts. This study reports on the comparative impact of metalinguistic feedback (MLF), teacher interactive feedback (TIF(, and the peer-feedback (PF) on the accuracy and organization of postgraduate ELT student teachers’ writing. The participants were 57 postgraduate students who were recruited from a population of 70 postgraduate students, in three classes, that were randomly assigned as the MLF group, the TIF group, and the PF group based on the focus of the presentation and the feedback type they would receive during the 14 session treatment. A hybrid process-oriented and genre-based methodology was employed to teach the identical teaching materials to all the groups with a focus on grammatical features and relevant grammatical exercises in the MLF group, on reflective and interactive negotiation of form and meaning in the TIF group, and on individual peer-assessment of the peer’s writing in the PF group. The results revealed significantly higher levels of accuracy among the MLF group with no significant difference in the organization of the groups’ writing. The findings underscore the role of MLF in enhancing accuracy.
یکی از مهارتهایی که لازم است دانشجویان آموزش زبان انگلیسی در طول تحصیلات دانشگاهی خود بیاموزند توانایی نگارش متون صحیح و ساختارمند انگلیسی است. تحقیق حاضر به بررسی مقایسه ایی تاثیر سه نوع بازخورد فراشناختی، بازخورد تعاملی معلم، و بازخورد همتایان بر صحت دستوری و ساختارمندی نوشتار دانشجویان کارشناسی ارشد آموزش زبان انگلیسی می پردازد. آزمودنیهای تحقیق شامل 57 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد در سه کلاس نگارش پیشرفته بودند که از بین 70 دانشجو انتخاب شدند و به صورت تصادفی و با توجه به نوع بازخورد دریافتی به گروههای بازخورد فرازبانی، بازخورد تعاملی معلم، و بازخورد همتایان تعیین شدند. در طول دوره آموزشی 8 جلسه ایی روش تدریس فرآیند-محور و ژانر-محور برای تدریس مطالب آموزشی یکسان در گروهها مورد استفاده قرار گرفت که در گروه بازخورد فرازبانی بر ویژگیهای صورتهای زبانی و تمرینات دستوری مربوطه تاکید داشت، در گروه بازخورد تعاملی معلم تاکید بر مذاکره تعاملی صورت و معنا بود و در گروه بازخورد همتایان، همکلاسان به ارزیابی نوشتار همتایان می پرداختند. تحلیل آماری داده های حاصل از پس آزمون نگارش نشانگر تفاوت معنی دار در صحت دستوری گروه بازخورد فرازبانی بود. تفاوت معناداری در ساختارمندی نوشتاری گروهها مشاهده نگردید. نتایج موکد تاثیر بازخورد فرازبانی در ارتقاء صحت دستوری نوشتاری است که کاربردهای آموزشی بسیاری دارد.
Allavi, S. M., & AshariTabar, N. (2012).The effect of task type and pre-task planning condition on the accuracy of intermediate EFL learners’ writing performance.The Journal of Applied Linguistics 5(1), 36-60.
Azar, B. S. (2009). Understanding and Using English Grammar. NY: Pearson, Longman
Birjandi, P., Alavi, S. M., &Salmani-Nodoushan, M. (2004).Advanced writing. Tehran: Zabankadeh.
Cazden, C. R. (1974). Play with language and metalinguistic awareness: One dimension of language experience. The Urban Review, 7, 28-29.
Crookes, G., & Gass, S. M. (1993).Tasks in a pedagogic context: Integrating theory and practice. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
Cumming, A. (2006). Goals for academic writing: ESL students and their instructors. Amsterdam, Piladelphia: John Benjamins.
Eckman, F., Bell, L., & Nelson, D. (1988).On the generalization of relative clause instruction in the acquisition of English as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 9, 1-20.
Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed second language acquisition: A literature review. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004).The effects of planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in second language narrative writing.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 59-84.
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(1), 49-62.
Field, J. (2004). An insight into listeners’ problems: Too much bottom-up or too much top- down? System, 32, 3, 363-377.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning ontask-based performance.Language Teaching Research, 3(3), 215-247.
Fuente, M. J. (2012). Learners’ attention to input during focus on form listening tasks: The role of mobile technology in the second language classroom. Retrieved February 12, 2013, from www.tanfonline.com.
Graaff, R., & Housen, A. (2009). Investigating the effects and effectiveness of L2 Instruction.In H. L. Michael & J. D. Catherine (Eds.).The handbook of language teaching, (pp.726-755). Oxford: Blackwell.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). 'Is learning a second language like learning a first language all over again?'. In D.E. Ingram, & T.J. Quinn (Eds.), Language learning in Australian society: Proceedings of the 1976 Congress of the Applied Linguistics Associations of Australia (pp. 3-19). Melbourne: Australian International Press & Publications.
Jacobs, H. L., Zingraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfield, V. F., and Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Johnson, M. D., Mercado, L., & Acevedo, A. (2012). The effect of planning sub-processes on L2 writing fluency, grammatical complexity, and lexical complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 264-282.
Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 148-161.
Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev, V. S., & Miller, S. M. (2003). Socio-cultural theory and education: Students, teachers and knowledge. In A Kozulin, B. Gindis, V.S. Ageyev, V.S. Ageyev, & S.M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (2003). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. (1985).The input hypothesis. London: Longman.
Krashen, S. (1982).Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Kurita, T. (2012).Issues in second language listening comprehension and the pedagogical implications.Accents Asia, 5(1), 30-44.
Lan, T. W. (2011). English metalanguage awareness among primary school teachers in Hong Kong. GEMA Online TM Journal of Language Studies, 11(1), 1-16.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching 33, 79-96.Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (Eds.) (1994).Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood: Ablex.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27, 90- 619.
Lightbown, P., Spada, N., & Wallace, R. (1980). Some effects of instruction on child and adolescent ESL learners. In R. Scarcella & S. Krashen (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition (pp. 162-172). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Long, M. H. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177-193.
Ojima, M. (2006). Concept mapping as pre-task planning: A case study of three Japanese ESL writers. System, 34, 566-585.
Ong, J., & Zhang, L., J. (2010). Effects of task complexity on fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing.Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 218- 233.
Pica, T. (1983).Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure.Language Learning, 33(4), 465-497.
Pica, T. (1985).The selective impact of classroom instruction on second language acquisition.Applied Linguistics, 6(3), 214-222.
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Applied Linguistics, 10, 52-79.
Richards, J.C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nded.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sadeghi, K., & Mosalli, Z. (2013). The effect of task complexity on the quality of EFL learners argumentative writing. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 1 (2), 115-134.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning.Applied Linguistics, 11,129-158.
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in asecond language: A case study of an adult learner.In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237-322)Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Seifoori. (2009). The impact of metacognitive strategies-based training and levels of planning on accuracy, complexity and fluency of focused task-based oral performance, (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Campus, Tehran, Iran.
Seifoori, Z., & Shokri, A. (2012).The effect of formal instruction of conjunctions and lexical ties on the cohesion of Iranian EFL students’ written discourse. Paper presented at the 38th International Systemic Functional Congress, Lisbon, Portugal
Seifoori, Z., Zeraatpishe, M., & Hadidi Tamjid, N. (2014).The impact of MI-oriented task- supported instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ writing. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Seifoori, Z., Zeraatpishe, M., & Ahangari, S. (2013).The impact of task-supported Interactive feedback on the accuracy, fluency and organization of Iranian EFL learners’ writing.The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 239-270.
Shang, H-F. (2007). An exploratory study of E-mail application on FL writing performance. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20 (1), 79-96.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction.Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62.
Subasi, G. (2007).Written Peer Feedback Training and Its Impact on Students’ Writing Outcome.Paper presented at the10th International Conference for English Teachers, he University of Tarapaca, Chile., 05/09/2007. Retrieved from: ttpd://academy.analolu,edu.tr.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing are not enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158-164.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles ofcomprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp.235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M., &Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics 16(3), 371-391.
VanPatten, B. (1990). The acquisition of Clitic pronouns in Spanish: Two case studies’. In B.VanPatten, & J. Lee (Eds.), Second language acquisition-foreign language learning, (pp. 118-139). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Weinert, R. (1987). Processes in classroom second language development: The acquisition of negation in German, In R. Ellis (Ed.) Second language acquisition in context, London: Prentice-Hall.
White, J., & Ranta, L. (2002).Examining the interface between metalinguistic task performance and oral production in a second language.Language Awareness, 11(4), 259- 290.
Yantis, S. (2004). Visual attention: Bottom-up versus top-down. Current Biology, 14, 850- 872.
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003).The effects of pre-task planning and online planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production.Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1-27.
Zimmerman, C. B., (1997). Do reading and interactive vocabulary instruction make a difference? An empirical study.TESOL Quarterly, 31 (1), 121- 140.
Zhu, H. (2011). The application of multiple intelligences theory in task-based language teaching. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(4), 408-412.
