scholarly journals THE EFFECT OF WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENTS’ WRITING ACCURACY

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yustina Priska Kisnanto
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
L2 Writing ◽  
Accuracy Improvement ◽  
Student Groups ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Proficiency Level ◽  
Writing Accuracy ◽  
Writing Tests ◽  
The University

AbstractWith the higher demand of accuracy on students’ writing in university level, the present study examines the effect of direct and indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) on students’ L2 writing accuracy. The study was conducted in a six-week period with 43 Indonesian university student participants majoring IT. The results of the pre- and post-writing tests showed that 1) the writing accuracy improvement of the students receiving direct WCF was statistically significant while the writing accuracy improvement of the students given the indirect WCF treatment was not; 2) the accuracy improvement in the untreatable error rate of the direct WCF group was the most significant compared to all types of error in both WFC student groups. The study concludes that considering the students’ current English proficiency level and learning setting with limited English exposure, written corrective feedback, especially the direct one, helps the university students improve their writing accuracy.Keywords: corrective feedback, L2 writing, higher education

scholarly journals Written Corrective Feedback: The Practitioners’ Perspective

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norman W. Evans ◽  
K. James Hartshorn ◽  
Emily Allen Tuioti
Keyword(s):  
Second Language Writing ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Writing Pedagogy ◽  
L2 Writing ◽  
Writing Classroom ◽  
Writing Teachers ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Language Writing ◽  
Fundamental Research ◽  
Research Questions

Considerable attention has been given to written corrective feedback (WCF) in second language writing (L2) over the past several decades. One of the central questions has focused on the appropriateness of its use in L2 writing. In these academic discussions, scholars frequently describe how WCF is utilized in the classroom. However, many of these claims of teacher practice have no research base, since few studies have actually asked teachers what place WCF has in their writing classroom (Ferris, et al., in press/2011a; Ferris, et al., in press/2011b; Hyland, 2003; Lee, 2004). This paucity of data from teachers about their WCF practices is problematic. Understanding teacher perspectives on corrective feedback is integral to our understanding the place of WCF in L2 writing pedagogy. Accordingly, this article reports on a study that asks two fundamental research questions: (a) To what extent do current L2 writing teachers provide WCF? and (b) What determines whether or not practitioners choose to provide WCF? These questions were answered by means of an international survey completed by 1,053 L2 writing practitioners in 69 different countries. Results suggest that WCF is commonly practiced in L2 pedagogy by experienced and well-educated L2 practitioners for sound pedagogical reasons.

scholarly journals The Role of Written Corrective Feedback in Developing Writing in L2

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 89-98
Author(s):  
Gabrijela Petra Nagode ◽  
Karmen Pižorn ◽  
Mojca Juriševič
Keyword(s):  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Educational Background ◽  
L2 Writing ◽  
Young Learners ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Sociocultural Perspectives ◽  
History Of ◽  
Giving Feedback ◽  
Cognitive Perspectives

Feedback plays an important role in developing L2 writing in young learners. The article provides a brief overview of the history of giving feedback and of some contemporary views within this field. Special attention is paid to cognitive perspectives, such as the influence of written corrective feedback on shortterm memory, the influence of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback on error correction, the influence of written corrective feedback on a particular category of error, the influence of direct and indirect written corrective feedback and combinations of various types of written corrective feedback, and the influence of educational background and L2 learning background on the effectiveness of written corrective feedback in terms of sociocultural perspectives. The main aim of the article is to present readers (especially teachers) with the variety of aspects of giving written corrective feedback in developing L2 writing and thus in enabling young learners to develop their L2 writing skills more effectively.

scholarly journals Saudi EFL Preparatory Year Students’ Perception about Corrective Feedback in Oral Communication

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maha Alhaysony
Keyword(s):  
English Language ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Oral Communication ◽  
Immediate Feedback ◽  
Proficiency Level ◽  
Efl Students ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Main Instrument ◽  
Preparatory Year ◽  
The University

This study sought to investigate the attitudes of Saudi EFL students towards corrective feedback (henceforth CF) on classroom oral errors. The subjects were 3200 (1223 male and 1977 female) students enrolled in an intensive English language programme in the preparatory year at the University of Ha'il. A questionnaire was the main instrument. This study seeks to extend our knowledge by examining the relationship between CF and gender, proficiency level, and students’ track. The results revealed that students generally have a positive perception of oral CF. Further, delayed CF was more favoured than immediate feedback. Of the methods of CF used by the teacher, the students preferred asking for clarification, repetition, explicit feedback, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, and recasting; the majority of them regarded no correction as a poor method. Although the students wanted all of their oral errors to be corrected, they reported wanting their serious errors to be corrected first, followed by frequent errors, individual errors, and then, less serious errors; less frequent errors was the least preferred category. Regarding the choice of correctors, students favoured teacher correction, then self-correction, and finally, classmate correction. As far as the three variables considered, the analysis of the data revealed that in sum, regardless of gender, students’ proficiency level, and track, all students had similar beliefs about CF and strongly favoured receiving frequent CF in English oral communication classes once they were made aware of the purpose, significance, and methods of CF. However, the findings of the study showed that there was a significant gender difference, with women responding to CF significantly more than men. Moreover, the results revealed that highly proficient students preferred CF more than students with a lower proficiency, although there were no significant differences for most of the items. Additionally, there were some significant differences among students with different tracks. Pedagogical implications, limitations of the study, and recommendations for further research are also discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document