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.

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.

Assessing the Effect of Direct and Indirect Corrective Feedback in Process-based vs Product-based Instruction on Learners’ Writing

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 35-53
Author(s):  
Mojgan Khaki ◽  
Hossein Heidari Tabrizi
Keyword(s):  
English Language ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Teaching Writing ◽  
Intermediate Students ◽  
Efl Learners ◽  
Indirect Feedback ◽  
Product Approach ◽  
Based Instruction ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Direct Feedback

The present study peruses EFL learners in a kind of process-product approach in writing and investigates the possible effects of teachers’ direct and indirect corrective feedback in four English language institutes in Isfahan, Iran. Four groups of intermediate students participated as a case in this study. The total number of participants was 120 female EFL learners selected based on a convenient non-random sampling method but randomly divided into four experimental groups. In the first group, the product-based approach was used to teach writing, and the learners received direct corrective feedback. In the second group, again product-based approach was used to teach writing, and the learners received indirect corrective feedback. In the third group, the writing was taught using a process-based approach, and the learners received direct corrective feedback, and in the last group, the learners received indirect feedback in process-based writing. The writing performance of the students in all four groups was compared in terms of accuracy. ANOVA and Post-hoc tests revealed that the process-based approach through which direct feedback was provided was more effective than other teaching writing approaches.

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.

scholarly journals A preference analysis and justification of Arabic written corrective feedback among instructors and undergraduates

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohd Azrul Azlen Abd Hamid ◽  
Muhammad Sabri Sahrir ◽  
Khairil Azwar Razali
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Test Scores ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Foreign Language Learning ◽  
Arabic Language ◽  
Extensive Discussion ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Post Test ◽  
Indirect Feedback

There has been extensive discussion on the need to use corrective feedback in writing within foreign language learning. Essentially, corrective feedback is one of the important tools in improving students’ skills in learning a language. This study aims to find out the preference and justification of written corrective feedback (WCF) through the use of Google Docs among instructors and students in a higher learning institute. The effects of the direct and indirect feedback with metalinguistic comments were also studied to determine their suitability in teaching and learning the Arabic language. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected to (1) identify the preferred type of feedback among instructors and students, (2) identify justification of the preferred feedback type, and (3) examine post-test score differences between types of written correction feedback. Two questionnaires were adapted and distributed to 93 first-year students and four instructors of Arabic language for Academic Writing. Two instructors and five students were interviewed to find out their justification of the preferred types of WCF. A total of 50 respondents were divided into two groups according to the type of WCF provided, and post-test scores between the types of feedback were compared to determine if there was any significant difference between the types of feedback. The findings show that instructors prefer indirect WCF with metalinguistic comments while students prefer direct corrective feedback with metalinguistic comments.  Post-test scores indicate that higher scores were achieved by students who received indirect feedback with metalinguistic comments. This indicates that students are able to process indirect feedback that is supplemented with metalinguistic comments. Moreover, an online learning environment provides more opportunities for instructors to highlight the students’ errors more clearly.

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 Corrective Feedback On Accuracy Students’ Writing Paragraph

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-125
Author(s):  
Rulik Setiani
Keyword(s):  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Indirect Feedback ◽  
Direct Feedback

Menulis merupakan kemampuan yang harus dikuasai oleh siswa karena dengan menulis siswa dapat menuangkan ide dan pikiran. Untuk dapat menulis paragraf yang baik siswa harus memperhatikan bagian dari paragraf itu sendiri seperti kalimat utama, kalimat-kalimat pendukung, dan kalimat penutup. Maka dari itu untuk mengetahui ketepatan menulis paragraf, guru perlu memberikan umpan balik kepada siswa agar mereka mengetahui letak dan alasan ketidaktepatan hasil menulisnya. Umpan balik yang dapat diberikan guru kepada siswa dapat berupa umpan balik langsung (Direct Feedback) dan tidak langsung (Indirect Feedback). Umpan balik langsung yaitu guru menandai kesalahan atau ketidaktepatan dengan memberikan koreksi atau jawaban pada bagian yang salah, sedangkan umpan balik tidak langsung guru hanya mengoreksi dengan memberikan kode-kode tertentu seperti membulati bagian yang salah atau menggaris bawahi, dan menyilang tanpa memberitahu langsung jawaban atau alasan ketidaktepatan tersebut dengan jawaban yang benar. Oleh karena itu pemberian umpan balik diharapkan dapat meningkatkan minat positif dan meningkatkan hasil belajar siswa dalam menulis paragraf.

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.

Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 702-726 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Benson ◽  
Robert DeKeyser
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Past Tense ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Feedback Group ◽  
Writing Classes ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Metalinguistic Feedback ◽  
Learner Differences ◽  
Direct Feedback

Most second language researchers agree that there is a role for corrective feedback in second language writing classes. However, many unanswered questions remain concerning the linguistic features to target and the type and amount of feedback to offer. This study examined essays by 151 learners of English as a second language (ESL), in order to investigate the effect of either direct or metalinguistic written feedback on errors with the simple past tense and the present perfect tense. This inquiry also considered the extent to which learner differences in language-analytic ability (LAA), as measured by the LLAMA F, mediated the effects of these two types of explicit written corrective feedback. Learners in both feedback groups were provided with corrective feedback on two essays whereas the control group received general comments on content. Learners in all three groups then completed two additional writing tasks to determine whether or not the provision of corrective feedback led to greater gains in accuracy compared to no feedback. Both treatment groups performed better than the comparison group on new pieces of writing immediately following the treatment sessions, yet direct feedback was more durable than metalinguistic feedback for one structure, the simple past tense. Participants with greater LAA proved more likely to achieve gains in the direct feedback group than in the metalinguistic group, whereas learners with lower LAA benefited more from metalinguistic feedback.

scholarly journals The Effects of Digitally Mediated Multimodal Indirect Feedback on Narrations in L2 Spanish Writing: Eye Tracking as a Measure of Noticing

Languages ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 159
Author(s):  
Laura E. Valentin-Rivera ◽  
Li Yang
Keyword(s):  
Eye Tracking ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Eye Tracker ◽  
Revision Process ◽  
Video Tutorial ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
L2 Development ◽  
Indirect Feedback ◽  
The Impact

Written corrective feedback (CF) could pave the way for L2 development, especially when embedded in multimodality. Building on prior research, this descriptive study drew a relationship between specific types of errors that were most successfully revised and noticing measured by eye-tracking techniques. Additionally, this study furthers our understanding of the impact of indirect CF (i.e., codes accompanied by metalinguistic hints) delivered by two multimodal components: (a) a video tutorial on how to approach teachers’ comments and (b) a soundless video displaying individualized teacher feedback. To this end, three L2 learners of Spanish completed a narration in the target language, watched a tutorial on attending to CF, received indirect feedback via the personalized soundless video (i.e., option “b” above), and corrected their errors. An eye tracker recorded all ocular activity while the participants watched both recordings. The results suggested that receiving training on approaching teachers’ comments may enhance the overall success rate of revisions, especially in verb and vocabulary-related errors. Last, a detailed unfolding of the revision process unveiled by eye-tracking data accounted for (1) an explanation of why two specific types of errors were more successfully revised and (2) some pedagogical recommendations.

scholarly journals STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHERS’ WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN THE MALAYSIAN ESL CLASSROOM

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (Number 2) ◽  
pp. 103-136
Author(s):  
Malini N. G. Ganapathy ◽  
Debbita Tan Ai Lin ◽  
Jonathan Phan
Keyword(s):  
Secondary Schools ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Descriptive Statistics ◽  
Survey Questionnaire ◽  
Esl Students ◽  
Focus On Form ◽  
Writing Classes ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
The Many ◽  
Direct Feedback

Purpose – This study examined the types of written corrective feedback provided to ESL students in writing classes in Malaysian secondary schools, and their perceptions towards the provision of written corrective feedback in the Malaysian context. Methodology – A survey questionnaire was administered randomly among 720 Form Four students from 10 secondary schools in Penang. The questionnaire was based on a Likert scale and responses were analysed using descriptive statistics. Findings – Results showed that most learners benefited from and preferred direct feedback, and tended to focus on form such as grammar, paragraph organisation, content and clarity of ideas. Students preferred this form of feedback as they were able to understand errors more clearly. It was found that most students were unable to self-regulate their own errors; a majority could not locate their own errors and had become passive learners within the Malaysian schooling system. Significance – The study is significant to Malaysian secondary schools in its effects, depicting the many forms of corrective feedback available in the ESL context that can be employed in school besides the popularized direct feedback used within the syllabus.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document