scholarly journals Written Corrective Feedback as Practiced by Instructors of Writing in English at Najran University

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 112
Author(s):  
Fatimah Mohammed M. Aseeri

The present study aimed to address the extent to which faulty members and students at the department of English language at Najran University practice using the ways of written corrective feedback. The questionnaire, as the main study instrument was used to collect data while the descriptive analytical approach was used to analyze these collected data. Findings revealed that the direct way of correction, i.e., the identification of student’s errors by underlining or circling and then telling them how to correct such errors without allowing them the chance to figure out what the corrections are, was the most practiced way of written corrective feedback. Using Arabic, as it was students’ mother tongue, to show them their errors and then explain to them how to correct these errors was the second practiced way. Indirect correction like for example correcting student’s errors through writing in the margin that there was an error without giving them the correct answer was the least used way, as indicated by faculty members. Nevertheless, correcting students’ errors by coding the exact error in the text without giving them the correct answer was the least used way from students’ viewpoint. Moreover, findings showed that both faculty members and students were in favor of the comprehensive not the selective way of correction.

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 76
Author(s):  
Shahinaz Abdullah Bukhari

The present study explored the challenges encountered through the transition from using the mother tongue as a medium of instruction at schools to using English as a medium of instruction at universities. Two focus groups were conducted with Saudi undergraduates and faculty members from different Saudi universities. The focus groups investigated how participants perceive this experience, what difficulties they face and how they cope. Participants expressed their preference for using English as a medium of instruction in higher education to maximise students’ future and international opportunities. Participant students reported difficulties in lecture comprehension, taking notes while listening and classroom communication. Participant content lecturers reported difficulties related to students’ reluctance to speak in English, lack of English terminology and insufficient lecture comprehension. Some suggestions that have been offered to overcome these challenges include the following: designing adequate trainings for content lecturers on teaching their content in English; using Arabic-English bilingualism as medium of instruction; giving emphasis to academic literacy and communication skills over the use of standard English models and enhancing the collaborative work between English language teaching practitioners and content lecturers.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khalid SAID ◽  
Abdelouahid El MOUZRATI

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.


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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 27
Author(s):  
Anita Ferreira ◽  
René Edgardo Oportus Torres

This study examines experimentally processing response time (rt) (Jiang 2012) of two types of written corrective feedback (WCF) in the treatment of errors of preposition a in the values of date, manner, and its use as a direct object marker. The researched types of WCF are Direct, and Indirect Written Metalinguistic Feedback (DWMF and IWMF, respectively) whose rt are analyzed according to its effectiveness and subjects’ variables of proficiency (Levels A2 and B1), and mother tongue (German, French, and English). Main findings include greater rt generated by IWMF, manner, and date. The latter also presents a cognitive load increase in level B1. Additionally, rt also appears to be affected by mother tongue, with the lowest cognitive load in English L1, and the greatest in German and French. This study contributes with evidence that indicates the complexity of WCF processing, particularly for the treatment of preposition a related errors.


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Farah Bahrouni ◽  
Victoria Tuzlukova

This paper focuses on written corrective feedback in the testing context of the English language foundation program at Sultan Qaboos University in Oman. In more detail, in response to the encountered testing problem that involves variability in written corrective feedback and, as a consequence, inconsistent evidence of student position in relation to their improvement in writing and ways to achieve it, the authors discuss the ways teachers respond to students’ writing, the type of feedback they deliver, and the strategies they adopt to provide their feedback. The reported study uses mixed methods research methodology, and is grounded on the understanding of giving feedback to students as a social action that is implemented in specific cultural, institutional, and interpersonal contexts with a purpose to accomplish educational and social goals. The participants of the study are foundation program students and English language teachers representing the multicultural teaching community of the Centre for Preparatory Studies at Sultan Qaboos University. The results of the study reveal that written corrective feedback is by no means unanimous among all students and teachers. Diversity in the teachers’ background yields a corresponding diversity in the way it is perceived, provided, and interpreted. Undoubtedly, teachers’ ultimate goal, in any context, is to help students improve their writing skills in all respects, be it in form, content, or organization. Yet, its effectiveness in improving students’ writing remains inconclusive.


2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-56
Author(s):  
Evelin Suij-Ojeda

This study takes place at a university in Venezuela where Spanish is the first language. The participants are teacher trainers on a five-year program in a subject area called English Practice, where future English language teachers develop their language skills. Adopting an interpretive stance by examining qualitative and quantitative data gathered from two online questionnaires, this exploratory research aims to explore the practices and beliefs teacher trainers have regarding written corrective feedback (WCF) on their learners’ writing in English. The findings reveal that trainers use more than one WCF strategy, favouring the use of codes and the provision of the correct form; the trainers report they aim to correct all errors encountered in their students’ written productions since they think it improves learners’ grammar accuracy while raising their language awareness. Data demonstrate that trainers WCF beliefs are influenced by previous experiences as language learners, institutional guidelines, views of second language teaching and learning and teacher development programs. Results show that trainers believe they should adopt a more rigorous WCF approach with pre-service teachers than with other learners due to the fact trainees are regarded as prospective language models who need to avoid errors in their future teaching practice.


2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rod Neilsen ◽  
Ruth Arber

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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pei Fen Dawn SIA ◽  
Yin Ling CHEUNG

Giving written feedback to students is an important part of writing instruction. However, few studies have been conducted to investigate current trends of written corrective feedback in the secondary and university contexts. To identify and evaluate the current state of empirical evidence, we conducted a qualitative synthesis of published research that examined written corrective feedback in both English-as-the-first-language and English-as-the second/foreign-language settings. Four claims emerged in our analyses of 68 empirical studies published in journals from 2006-2016. Each claim is supported by empirical evidence. The claims are: (1) Individual differences play a part in the effectiveness of written corrective feedback; (2) Students’ and teachers’ perceptions affect the effectiveness of written corrective feedback; (3) Giving corrective feedback through technology is beneficial to students; and (4) Written corrective feedback is more effective when it is used concurrently with collaborative tasks. This meta-synthesis study sheds light on the written corrective practice of English Language teachers across different pedagogical settings and the factors that may affect student engagement in teacher written feedback. Keywords: written corrective feedback, secondary school, university


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
Alireza Bonyadi

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 95
Author(s):  
Wan Noor Miza Wan Mohd Yunus

Written corrective feedback (WCF) has been the subject of many studies in the field of second language (L2) writing. This study sought to investigate: (1) teacher’s practices in marking students’ English language compositions, (2) students’ expectations of teacher’s WCF, and (3) compare whether students’ expectations correspond to teachers’ practices of WCF. Sixty-four students and three teachers of an upper secondary school in Malacca, Malaysia participated in this study. Teachers’ WCF practices and students’ preferences were elicited from two different sets of questionnaires. Findings revealed that both students and teachers generally believe that WCF is beneficial in improving students’ writing skills. It was also discovered that students prefer direct, specific, and comprehensive feedback over indirect feedback. However, the study showed some discrepancies between students’ preferences and teachers’ practices in composition classrooms in terms of the amount, type, and necessity of the feedback where most students were found to require more WCF than the amount their teacher was capable of giving. This misalignment calls for teachers’ and students’ adjustments to ensure the effectiveness of WCF strategies employed by teachers. Findings from this research also imply that the study of contextual factors and beliefs influencing preferences with regard to WCF may also be necessary.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document