Investigating teachers’ written corrective feedback practices in a Saudi EFL context

2014 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdulaziz Alshahrani ◽  
Neomy Storch
Keyword(s):  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Policy Recommendations ◽  
Efl Context ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Indirect Feedback ◽  
Direct Feedback

In recent years there have been a growing number of studies on written corrective feedback (WCF), particularly in terms of the efficacy of different types of WCF. However, few of these studies have investigated what shapes teachers’ WCF practices and how they align with students’ preferences. This study, conducted with staff and students in a large Saudi university that has strict guidelines on WCF provision, examined the teachers’ WCF practices in relation to the institutional guidelines, their own beliefs about the most effective forms of WCF as well as their students’ preferences. Data collected included the feedback given by three teachers on their students’ writing (15 students per teacher), follow-up interviews with the teachers, and questionnaires completed by the students. The study found that although the teachers followed the strict guidelines and provided comprehensive indirect feedback, these practices did not always accord with their beliefs. Most of the WCF given tended to be on mechanics, and the teachers seemed unaware that this was the main focus of their feedback. They were also largely unaware that their students preferred direct feedback and mainly on grammar. We conclude our paper with some policy recommendations.

scholarly journals The Effect of Indirect Written Corrective Feedback to Arabic Language Intermediate Students’ in Kuwait

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (28) ◽  
pp. 361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamed A. Alhumidi ◽  
Sani Yantandu Uba
Keyword(s):  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Arabic Language ◽  
Spelling Errors ◽  
Intermediate Students ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Learning Tasks ◽  
Indirect Feedback ◽  
Direct Feedback

This study investigates the effect of indirect written corrective feedback to Arabic intermediate students in Kuwait. There are 20 participants altogether in this study, ten male and ten female. They each wrote two assignments on the same topic. No feedback was received on the first assignment, and the second was conducted after indirect feedback was offered to them on the first task. The results show that indirect feedback is effective in improving their writing and language skills. The results also indicated a higher number of spelling errors than any other errors. The findings of this study suggest some teaching implications which include raising students’ awareness of the need to avoid many writing errors. Teachers should not correct all students’ errors, but should only correct those errors which are deemed necessary to correct. Teachers should also focus their attention on teaching and learning tasks, which concentrate on indirect written feedback rather than direct feedback. Again, as the leaners seem to have more problems with spelling errors rather than any other errors, teachers should devise strategies which concentrate on improving such errors, and writing correct words. This study advocates a large scale of studies which cover the wider context of Kuwaiti intermediate students.

scholarly journals Written Corrective Feedback: What Do Malaysian Learners Prefer And Why?

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (5C) ◽  
pp. 1221-1225
Keyword(s):  
Language Learners ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Written Feedback ◽  
Esl Students ◽  
Writing Assignments ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Language Classes ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Direct Feedback ◽  
Malaysian Students

There has been an ongoing debate about the value of providing corrective feedback in writing assignments in English as a foreign/second language classes. Despite the fact, corrective feedback in writing has been analyzed from various perspectives, learners’ expectations regarding feedback given by language instructors are still to be considered. This paper investigates the types of written feedback preferred by the Malaysian students. This study investigated how language learners perceive the usefulness of different types and amounts of written corrective feedback, and also the reasons they have for their preferences. Qualitative and quantitative data was collected from 103 ESL students by means of computer generated written questionnaires. The results showed that Malaysian learners react in favor of direct feedback to their written work, and yet they show little tolerance for simply marking the error without explanation. Moreover, considerable number of the respondents favored indirect corrective feedback with a clue. Possible explanations for the results were given with reference to the theoretical constructs of SLA.

scholarly journals The effects of different types of written corrective feedback on students’ texting mistakes

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 174
Author(s):  
Hasan Güner Berkant ◽  
Nuriye Batmaz Derer ◽  
Ozgur Kursad Derer
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Data ◽  
Mixed Model ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Feedback Type ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Different Types ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Direct Feedback ◽  
Quantitative And Qualitative Methods

The main purpose of this research was to investigate the effects of different types of written corrective feedback on students' texting mistakes in English lessons. In the study, a mixed model including quantitative and qualitative methods was engaged. Two-factor ANOVA was used for mixed measurements to test the significance of the difference between the error numbers of the three types of feedback except direct feedback. The qualitative data of the study were collected by examining the texts and the interviews about the effect of the four feedbacks were made with the students. Content analysis and descriptive analysis were performed. At the end of the study, in the quantitative findings obtained, the most effective type of feedback is the underlined feedback. As for the qualitative findings obtained from the students' opinions, the feedback type in which the error is coded and the information is given is the most effective type.

scholarly journals Exploring Native and Non-Native EFL Teachers’ Oral Corrective Feedback Practices: An Observational Study

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yusuf Demir ◽  
Kemal Sinan Özmen
Keyword(s):  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Cultural Influences ◽  
Teaching Experience ◽  
Efl Context ◽  
Efl Teachers ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Oral Corrective Feedback ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Native English Speaking Teachers

Commonly defined as L2 teachers’ responses to learners’ erroneous utterances, oral correctivefeedback (OCF) is an interactional classroom phenomenon which frequently occurs in foreignlanguage classes and has gained growing momentum in SLA research in recent years.However, how OCF preferences of English teachers vary in terms of their native-nonnativespeaker status remains as an uncharted territory of inquiry specifically in an expanding-circlecontext. This study aims to reveal the differences between in-class OCF practices of native andnon-native English-speaking teachers (NESTs & NNESTs) in Turkish EFL context and toexplore the cross-cultural influences that might affect these practices. To these ends, structuredclassroom observations and interviews were conducted with seven NESTs and seven NNESTs.The findings of the observations showed that the NESTs’ and NNESTs’ in-class OCF practicesdiffered considerably in terms of their tolerance of errors, preferred OCF types, the amount ofOCF and different types of OCF to different types of errors. Moreover, the follow-up interviewfindings demonstrated some similar and different dispositions between the teacher groupsconcerning several dimensions (whether, how, when, and which errors should be corrected, andby whom) including the effect of teaching experience and teacher education on their OCF-giving patterns.

The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 519-539 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khaled Karim ◽  
Hossein Nassaji
Keyword(s):  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Esl Students ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Delayed Effects ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Metalinguistic Feedback ◽  
Indirect Feedback ◽  
Direct Feedback ◽  
Picture Prompts

This study investigated the short-term and delayed effects of comprehensive written corrective feedback (WCF) on L2 learners’ revision accuracy and new pieces of writing (i.e., the transfer effect of feedback). Three types of feedback were compared: direct feedback and two types of indirect feedback that differed in their degree of explicitness (i.e., underlining only and underlining+metalinguistic cues). Fifty-three intermediate level learners of English as a second language (ESL) were divided randomly into four groups: One direct, two indirect, and a control group. Students produced three pieces of writing from different picture prompts and revised them over a three-week period. Each group also produced a new piece of writing two weeks later. The study included seven sessions: Writing 1, revision of Writing 1, Writing 2, revision of Writing 2, Writing 3, revision of Writing 3, and Writing 4 (delayed writing). The results showed that all the three feedback groups significantly outperformed the control group in revision tasks. Some short-term accuracy improvements were also found on new pieces of writing for direct and underlining+metalinguistic feedback, but the effects were largely non-significant.

LEARNERS’ PROCESSING, UPTAKE, AND RETENTION OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING

2010 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 303-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neomy Storch ◽  
Gillian Wigglesworth
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Rich Source ◽  
Affective Factors ◽  
Indirect Feedback ◽  
Lexical Errors ◽  
Direct Feedback

The literature on corrective feedback (CF) that second language writers receive in response to their grammatical and lexical errors is plagued by controversies and conflicting findings about the merits of feedback. Although more recent studies suggest that CF is valuable (e.g., Bitchener, 2008; Sheen, 2007), it is still not clear whether direct or indirect feedback is the most effective, or why. This study explored the efficacy of two different forms of CF. The investigation focused on the nature of the learners’ engagement with the feedback received to gain a better understanding of why some feedback is taken up and retained and some is not. The study was composed of three sessions. In session 1, learners worked in pairs to compose a text based on a graphic prompt. Feedback was provided either in the form of reformulations (direct feedback) or editing symbols (indirect feedback). In session 2 (day 5), the learners reviewed the feedback they received and rewrote their text. All pair talk was audio-recorded. In session 3 (day 28), each of the learners composed a text individually using the same prompt as in session 1. The texts produced by the pairs after feedback were analyzed for evidence of uptake of the feedback given and texts produced individually in session 3 for evidence of retention. The learners’ transcribed pair talk proved a very rich source of data that showed not only how learners processed the feedback received but also their attitudes toward the feedback and their beliefs about language conventions and use. Closer analysis of four case study pairs suggests that uptake and retention may be affected by a host of linguistic and affective factors, including the type of errors the learners make in their writing and, more importantly, learners’ attitudes, beliefs, and goals. The findings suggest that, although often ignored in research on CF, these affective factors play an important role in uptake and retention of feedback.

scholarly journals Classifying Written Corrective Feedback for Research and Educational Purposes: A Typology Proposal

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-222
Author(s):  
Benjamín Cárcamo
Keyword(s):  
Mode Of Delivery ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Different Types

Although several investigations have been carried out in recent years on written corrective feedback (WCF), there is a lack of agreement about its definition and the effect on students’ writings of different types of feedback. This may be due to the lack of systematicity regarding the characterization of WCF used in those studies. This article seeks to review the concept of WCF in studies in the field and to systematize the various aspects considered in a typology, which includes specification, focus, scope, source, mode of delivery, and notes. The resulting typology should help improve the effectiveness in the comparison of WCF studies and serve as a reference for teachers interested in expanding their practices.

The Use of Models as Written Corrective Feedback in English as a Foreign Language (EFL)Writing

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 ◽  
pp. 110-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
María del Pilar García Mayo ◽  
Udane Loidi Labandibar
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Language ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Negative Attitude ◽  
Learning Potential ◽  
Feedback Processing ◽  
Efl Writing ◽  
Efl Context ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Writing Task

ABSTRACTThe language learning potential of writing has been an underresearched topic in the English as a foreign language (EFL) context. The present study investigates what Basque-Spanish EFL teenage learners (n = 60) notice when writing a composition in response to visual stimuli in a three-stage writing task including output, comparison, and delayed revision. The present study also explores how this noticing and feedback processing affects their subsequent revisions. The findings revealed that participants noticed mainly lexical problems, although they also paid attention to content features. Moreover, more proficient learners and guided learners noticed more features. A qualitative analysis of the results indicated that, overall, learners had a negative attitude toward writing and modeling, but those with more positive beliefs incorporated more items in subsequent revisions. A number of implications for research and pedagogy will be discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document