scholarly journals WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN ACADEMIC WRITING CLASS: HOW DOES EXPERIENCED TEACHER LEAD THE EFFECTIVE PRACTICE?

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 150
Author(s):  
Dayat Dayat
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Learning Experience ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Experienced Teacher ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Writing Class ◽  
Teacher Students

<p class="StyleAuthorBold"><strong>Abstract</strong></p><p>The research aimed to investigate an Indonesian academic writing teacher’s practice on written corrective feedback (WCF) in academic writing class. A case study involving an experienced Indonesian academic writing teacher and teacher students were employed. To gather data, a semi-structured interview was conducted. The data were then analyzed using the content analysis method. The findings indicated that the teacher’s practice on WCF was mediated by her language learning experience. Thus, the teacher provided WCF on her students’ writing drafts by considering the students’ personalities and their level of writing ability. In correcting student writing errors, the teacher used several types of WCF; direct and indirect correction; metalinguistic clues to the errors; and the reformulation of the wrong words. The relevant pedagogical implications for teachers in conceptualizing WCF and in learning and practicing it on their daily instruction based on their knowledge, experience, and reflection-on-practice.</p><p> </p><p class="StyleAuthorBold"><strong><em>Abstrak</em></strong></p><p><em>Penelitian bertujuan untuk mendeskripsikan praktik dosen Indonesia dalam penulisan akademik tentang umpan balik korektif tertulis (WCF) di kelas penulisan akademik. Penelitian termasuk studi kasus yang melibatkan seorang dosen Indonesia dalam menulis akademik yang berpengalaman dan mahasiswa. Untuk mengumpulkan data, dilakukan wawancara semi-terstruktur. Data tersebut kemudian dianalisis dengan menggunakan metode analisis isi. Temuan menunjukkan bahwa praktik dosen pada WCF dimediasi oleh pengalaman belajar bahasanya. Dosen memberikan WCF pada draf tulisan mahasiswanya dengan mempertimbangkan kepribadian mahasiswa dan tingkat kemampuan menulisnya. Dalam mengoreksi kesalahan menulis mahasiswa, dosen menggunakan beberapa jenis WCF; koreksi langsung dan tidak langsung; petunjuk kesalahan metalinguistik; dan perumusan ulang kata yang salah. Implikasi pedagogis yang relevan bagi dosen dalam membuat konsep WCF dan dalam mempelajari serta mempraktikkannya pada instruksi harian berdasarkan pada pengetahuan, pengalaman, dan refleksi pada praktik yang dilaksanakan.</em></p>

Scaffolding student engagement with written corrective feedback: Transforming feedback sessions into learning affordances

2021 ◽  
pp. 136216882110409
Author(s):  
Chi-Duc Nguyen
Keyword(s):  
Student Engagement ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Error Correction ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Attentional Focus ◽  
Assessment Practice ◽  
Writing Conference ◽  
Teacher Student ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Future Learning

This study proposed a three-step writing conference in which foreign/second language (L2) students, under the guidance of their writing instructor, first fastened their attentional focus on a form-related error, analysed a collection of standard L2 samples to deduce the underlying knowledge, and then planned for their error correction as well as future learning of this knowledge. The ultimate goal of this formative assessment practice was to scaffold student engagement with written corrective feedback (WCF). Using a between-group experiment design, the present study compared the effects on the success rate of error correction and L2 uptake of the above writing conference ( n = 14) against those brought about by a typical Teacher–Student ( n = 12) and a typical Student–Student one ( n = 12). Research participants were 38 intermediate learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) recruited from three intact classes at a language-learning center in Vietnam. The suggested writing conference was indeed found to yield better error correction and L2 uptake than the other counterparts. A closer look at the students’ mental engagement with WCF revealed that such engagement was moderately correlated with their L2 uptake. These findings altogether suggest that student engagement with WCF should not be taken for granted or, in other words, this engagement should be contingently supported by the writing instructor in order to foster learning from WCF.

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.

scholarly journals Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback among Graduate Students: The Effects of Feedback Timing

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 78-102
Author(s):  
Grant Eckstein ◽  
Maureen Sims ◽  
Lisa Rohm
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Students ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Writing Assignments ◽  
Feedback Timing ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Grammatical Accuracy ◽  
Premier Cycle ◽  
College Writers ◽  
Effects Of Feedback

Dynamic written corrective feedback (DWCF) is a pedagogical approach that offer meaningful, manageable, constant, and timely corrective feedback on student writing (Hartshorn et al., 2010). It emphasizes indirect and comprehensive writte error correction on short, daily writing assignments. Numerous studies have demonstrated that its use can lead to fewer language errors among undergraduate and pre-matriculated college writers (see Kurzer, 2018). However, the benefits of DWCF among second language (L2) graduate writers and the role of feedback timing have not been well examined. We analyzed timed writing samples over a 12-week intervention from 22 L2 graduate students who either received biweekly feedback on their writing throughout a semester, or postponed feedback until the last two weeks of the semester. Writing was analyzed for grammatical errors, lexical and syntactic complexity, and fluency. Results showed that neither timely nor postponed feedback led to significant improvement in grammatical accuracy or lexical complexity, but timely feedback did result in more fluent and complex writing. These findings suggest that the timing of feedback may be trivial for accuracy development but is more important for complexity among graduate writers. Teachers, teacher trainers, and writing administrators may use these insights as they plan curricula and design grammar and writing interventions. La rétroaction corrective écrite dynamique (RCED) est une approche pédagogique qui propose une rétroaction significative, gérable, constante et opportune sur les rédactions des étudiants (Hartshorn et al. 2010). Elle insiste sur la correction complète et indirecte d’erreurs dans de courts devoirs de rédaction quotidiens. De nombreuses études ont démontré que son utilisation peut amener les rédacteurs de premier cycle ou pré-inscrits au collège à faire moins d’erreurs de langue (voir Kurzer, 2018). Cependant, les avantages de la RCED chez les rédacteurs diplômés de seconde langue (L2) et le rôle joué par l’opportunité de la rétroaction n’ont pas été bien étudiés. Nous avons analysé des échantillons de rédaction écrites en temps limité sur une période d’intervention de 12 semaines chez 22 étudiants diplômés de L2 qui recevaient de la rétroaction deux fois par semaine sur leurs rédactions pendant la durée du semestre, ou une rétroaction différée jusqu’à deux semaines avant la fin du semestre. Les rédactions ont été analysées pour découvrir les erreurs grammaticales, la complexité lexicale et syntaxique, ainsi que la fluidité Les résultats ont montré que ni la rétroaction opportune, ni la rétraction différé ne se traduisaient par une amélioration marquée de la précision grammaticale ou de la complexité lexicale, mais la rétroaction opportune menait à une rédaction plus fluide et plus complexe. Ces résultats suggèrent que l’opportunité de la rétroaction peut ne pas beaucoup influer sur le développement de la précision, mais s’avère plus importante pour la complexité chez les rédacteurs diplômés. Les enseignants, les formateurs d’enseignants et les administrateurs de programmes de rédaction peuvent se servir de ces résultats lorsqu’ils planifient les programmes et conçoivent les interventions en grammaire et en rédaction.

scholarly journals Reformulation, text modeling, and the development of EFL academic writing

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Teguh Sulistyo ◽  
Dwi Fita Heriyawati
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Efl Writing ◽  
Academic Texts ◽  
Writing Class ◽  
Efl Students

<p>This paper mainly investigates the benefits of the implementation of Reformulation and Text Modelling in an EFL writing setting. Reformulation and Text Modeling (henceforth RTM) is intended to help EFL students understand better how to write academic texts to make their texts sound as nativelike as possible. Therefore, RTM was implemented in a writing class in which 35 students participated as the respondents of the study. They were treated with RTM and their essays were then analyzed to examine the effects of the implementation of RTM on their writing products. Besides, this study investigated further the students’ perception towards RTM in EFL writing settings. The findings of this study proved that RTM is beneficial to improve students’ writing performances and students have positive perceptions on RTM. The implications of the findings for language learning are also discussed.</p>

scholarly journals A model of developing language teachers’ professional communicative skills of providing written teacher feedback

Rhema ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 118-135
Author(s):  
T. Ershova
Keyword(s):  
Writing Skills ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Language Teachers ◽  
Teacher Feedback ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Training Module ◽  
Communicative Skills ◽  
Reading And Writing ◽  
Special Training ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback

This article looks at the process of assessing L2 student writing and providing written corrective feedback as a part of language teachers’ professional and communicative competences. The author suggests a model of designing a special training module for pre-service teachers aimed at the development of corresponding professional reading and writing skills, as well as the analysis of the results of its approbation.

scholarly journals Investigating Teacher Written Corrective Feedback as a Formative Assessment Tool

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khalid SAID ◽  
Abdelouahid El MOUZRATI
Keyword(s):  
Formative Assessment ◽  
English Language ◽  
Classroom Practices ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Language Teachers ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Attitudes And Practices ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback

The present study seeks to lay the foundations for a firmly-grounded understanding of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) as a Formative Assessment (FA) tool through student writing. More specifically yet, it is concerned with examining the intricate correlation between Moroccan English Language Teachers’ (ELT) attitudes and practices with respect to the way they understand and apply FA by means of WCF on students’ written productions. To that end, the study seeks to investigate this issue in the light of the following guiding questions: What beliefs do Moroccan ELT teachers hold about FA and WCF? How do these teachers provide WCF to their students during the writing lesson? To address these questions, we have opted for a mixed method approach that includes questionnaires for 110 teachers, document analysis of 30 writing productions and a follow- up semi-structured interviews with teachers. Date has been interpreted through an Explanatory Sequential Design. Inspired by Lee‘s (2009) analytical model and Perumanathan (2014) study, major findings have been presented regarding mismatches. These findings have revealed strong mismatches between teachers espoused beliefs concerning WCF, as a formative assessment tool, and their actual classroom practices. Finally, the study sets some implications for teachers, supervisors underlining the implementation of WCF in classroom practices.

scholarly journals Teachers’ Corrective Feedback Strategies in Assessing Essay Writing

2018 ◽  
pp. 208-212
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Error Correction ◽  
English Language ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Language Teachers ◽  
Esl Teachers ◽  
Essay Writing ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Feedback Strategies ◽  
English Language Teachers

Feedback has been an important topic of discussion in language learning. Although research on written corrective feedback is available, there is little research on the specific strategies employed by teachers in order to provide feedback on their students’ essay writing. This paper reports part of a larger research. One of the objectives of this study was to explore corrective feedback strategies employed by the English as a second language (ESL) teachers and English language expert raters when assessing their students’ written essays. This study used qualitative case study which involved 12 participants. Data were collected through interviewing nine English language teachers and three English language expert raters to obtain their pedagogic practices in providing written corrective feedback. The strategies identified are based on Ellis’s typology of strategies for providing written corrective feedback. The findings showed that the preferred written corrective feedback strategy used by the teachers and raters was Metalinguistic Corrective Feedback with Direct Corrective Feedback and Focused Corrective Feedback used by only a few of them. This study has pedagogical implications in that it explains the ESL teachers/expert raters’ pedagogical attitude and practices towards error correction and their preferred written corrective feedback strategies in dealing with error correction.

Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more

2019 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 524-536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Icy Lee
Keyword(s):  
Teacher Educators ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Position Paper ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Less Is More ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Recommendations For Action ◽  
Grammatical Errors ◽  
Teachers And Students ◽  
Giving Feedback

AbstractIn different parts of the world second language (L2) teachers devote a massive amount of time to giving feedback on grammatical errors in student writing. Such written corrective feedback, which is unfocused and comprehensive, is fraught with problems for both teachers and students. Nonetheless, it remains a prevalent practice in many L2 contexts. In this position paper, I argue that more written corrective feedback is not better, but instead less is more. After presenting the problems emanating from comprehensive written corrective feedback, I argue for a focused approach to written corrective feedback and examine its benefits for teachers and students. Through discussing five impediments to the implementation of focused written corrective feedback, I scrutinize and refute the counter-claims, and bolster my overall argument in support of focused written corrective feedback. I conclude the position paper with recommendations for action for teachers, teacher educators and researchers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document