scholarly journals On the Differential Effects of Individual and Collaborative Written Corrective Feedback on the Accuracy of Iranian Female EFL Learners’ Writing

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
Alireza Bonyadi
Keyword(s):  
English Language Learners ◽  
English Language ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Feedback Group ◽  
Test Analysis ◽  
Efl Learners ◽  
Differential Effects ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Writing Accuracy

This paper aimed at examining the differential effects of individual and collaborative written corrective feedbacks on EFL learners’ writing accuracy. To this end, 60 female English language learners were selected from among 80 students of intermediate EFL learners in private language institute in Urmia (West Azerbayjan, IRI). The participants were randomly divided into two groups namely, ‘individual feedback group’ and ‘collaborative feedback group’. Two different correction procedures were provided for both groups. For the first group, the assignment papers of the participants was gathered by the instructor in order to be provided with explicit written corrective feedback for their writings in terms of grammar and mechanics, while for the second group, six participants wrote on a topic and each composition was corrected by four EFL learners. Finally, a post-test on writing was conducted for both groups, and a t-test analysis was used to compare the mean scores of both groups. The findings of the study revealed that there was a significant difference between the individual and collaborative corrective feedback groups in terms of their writing accuracy.

The Effect of Immediate vs. Delayed Oral Corrective Feedback on the Writing Accuracy of Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (9) ◽  
pp. 1780
Author(s):  
Hasti Yasaei
Keyword(s):  
English Language ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Efl Learners ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Oral Corrective Feedback ◽  
Quasi Experimental ◽  
Writing Accuracy ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Experimental Group

This research used the quasi-experimental design to investigate the effects of immediate vs. delayed oral corrective feedback (CF) on the writing accuracy of Iranian intermediate EFL learners. A Nelson English Language Test (section 200 A) was used to homogenize three classes, two of which then were randomly assigned to experimental group and one to control group. During the treatment, the experimental group 1 received immediate oral CF through a face-to-face negotiation between the teacher and each individual after an error was made by a learner. The experimental group 2 received delayed oral CF in which learners received oral CF some time after an error was made by a learner. The control group received direct correction. After a 16-session treatment, the results of the post-test indicated a significant difference between the three groups.

Asynchronous Online Peer Written Corrective Feedback

2015 ◽  
pp. 271-297
Author(s):  
Shahin Vaezi ◽  
Ehsan Abbaspour
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Writing Achievement ◽  
Efl Learners ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Significant Difference

The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether there is any statistically significant difference between the effects of asynchronous online peer WCF through blogging and face-to-face peer WCF on the writing achievement of Iranian EFL learners. The study also investigated the extent to which students revise their writings based on peer comments provided. This study also measured the attitude of students towards peer WCF through blogging as compared with that of the participants receiving face-to-face peer WCF. The findings indicated that there is no statistically significant difference between the effects of face-to-face and asynchronous online peer WCF on the writing achievement of the Iranian EFL learners. In terms of the extent of incorporating the peer comments in their final drafts, the participants in the FF group incorporated more of the comments they received into their second drafts in comparison with the OL group. Finally, it was revealed that the participants of each group generally expressed their satisfaction with both methods of peer review.

scholarly journals Kurdish EFL Learners’ Perceptions towards Written Corrective Feedback and Its Types: An Investigative Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 103-117
Author(s):  
Rizgar Qasim Mahmood
Keyword(s):  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Survey Questionnaire ◽  
Writing Teachers ◽  
Learning Tool ◽  
Efl Learners ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Writing Accuracy

Written Corrective Feedback has been one of the most controversial topics (Waller, 2015), and it has been researched extensively. Still, the lack of research among Kurdish EFL learners made it necessary to conduct the current research. This study focuses on investigating learners’ perceptions of written corrective feedback and its types. It attempts to answer what the Kurdish EFL learners’ perceptions of written corrective feedback are, and what types of written corrective feedback among Kurdish Learners are preferred. Answering these questions is significant as the results can be used by both teachers and learners to improve learners’ writing accuracy. A survey questionnaire was distributed to collect data. After analyzing data, the results reveal that most Kurdish EFL participants were not fully aware of WCF and its effectiveness as a learning tool. However, they still expected their writing teachers to provide them with WCF in writing tasks. Also, the results indicate that Kurdish EFL learners preferred two types of WCF: explicit and implicit WCF. Hence, the results have many pedagogical implications for writing teachers and learners. Firstly, it shows how EFL learners from other countries and contexts perceive WCF, and secondly, results encourage writing teachers to give more attention and value to WCF.

scholarly journals The Effect of Recast vs. Clarification Request as Two Types of Corrective Feedback on Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners' Structural Knowledge

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 87
Author(s):  
Mahpareh Poorahmadi ◽  
Zahra Ghariblaki
Keyword(s):  
English Language Learners ◽  
English Language ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Structural Knowledge ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Homogeneity Test ◽  
Feedback Group ◽  
Feedback Type ◽  
Oral Feedback ◽  
Clarification Request

The present study, considering Form-Focused Instruction as the theoretical framework f the study, is an attempt to study the benefits of two types of teacher feedback in structural knowledge. In the current study, in the two experimental groups, students were taught syntactic items. One of these classes was offered recast as the main feedback type. The other groups offered clarification request feedback. Later the outcome of these groups compared to one another and to the control group who did receive no feedback on their structural knowledge errors. The participants in this study included three groups of Intermediate level English language learners from intact classes of Marefat Language Institute. The selected students were sampled based on their scores on PET proficiency test. In the main study 90 students (30 students in clarification request group, 30 students in oral feedback group, and 30 students in the control group) were selected out of 120 students based on the homogeneity test. Students in the clarification request group and oral feedback group received the related treatment while students in the control group received regular planning. The result of statistical analysis (ANOVA) suggested that recast group and clarification request group outperformed the control group and the clarification group outperformed the recast group.

scholarly journals Listening to Learners’ Voices

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rod Neilsen ◽  
Ruth Arber
Keyword(s):  
English Language Learners ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Adult Students ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
English Language ◽  
Linguistic Diversity ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Language Learner ◽  
Critical Examination ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback

This 2018 issue was initially intended as unthemed, but in fact a theme does emerge from the three papers – that of language learners’ voices, reminding us as educators of how much we need to listen – and the kinds of things we need to listen to more reflexively. Anna Filipi’s paper points to the frequent absence of the voices of international students in investigations, giving an account of their identities through a critical examination of English language learner categorisation. Suma Sumithran then asks how EAL/D teachers speak about their adult students’ language learning experiences, indicating that sometimes students’ voices are not heard in crucial ways, resulting in a perpetuation of cultural stereotyping, even if their teachers engage with them with the best of intentions. In an Australia characterised by cultural and linguistic diversity, an examination of the hybrid and fluid identities of its peoples reveal that ‘othering’ based on geographical nation-state boundaries is highly problematic. Finally, Nicholas Carr and Michiko Weinmann look at written corrective feedback from a sociocultural angle to give an account of how the voices of adult English language learners in Japan reveal their experiences of processing teacher feedback through collaboration, both with peers and with the language teacher.

scholarly journals The Effect of Comprehensive Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners’ Written Syntactic Accuracy

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 17
Author(s):  
Mohammadreza Valizadeh
Keyword(s):  
Control Period ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Placement Test ◽  
Treatment Control ◽  
Efl Learners ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grammatical Errors ◽  
Quasi Experimental ◽  
Feedback Strategies

This quasi-experimental study, using a pretest-treatment-posttest-delayed posttest design, investigated the effects of two comprehensive corrective feedback strategies: direct corrective feedback (DCF), and metalinguistic explanation (ME) on L2 learners’ written syntactic accuracy. The participants were 90 Turkish EFL learners. After ensuring their homogeneity in terms of L2 proficiency using Oxford Quick Placement Test, they were assigned to three groups: DCF, ME, and No Feedback (NF). The treatment/control period lasted for five weeks, during which the experimental groups wrote an argumentative essay in class, received the unfocused feedback, and revised their corrected text. The participants in the NF group were provided with feedback only on content, orthography, and organization, but not on grammatical errors. Results of the posttests and delayed-posttests (after a two-week interval) revealed that both experimental groups significantly outperformed the NF group; however, no statistically significant difference was found between the DCF and ME groups. Pedagogical implications are discussed in the paper.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document