A study on using corrective feedbacks in teaching essays at school of foreign languages, Thai Nguyen university
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51453/2354-1431/2018/171Từ khóa:
SLA, teaching writing, written corrective feedbackTóm tắt
The ability of writing is considered as a main communication skill and “a unique asset” in SLA (Chastain, 1998) that language learners should be fully aware of. Methodology in teaching writing therefore has experienced considerable changes in the approach to teaching and assessing learners. Written corrective feedback as a response channel to students’ writings in SLA classrooms has been a topic of inclusive debates and inquiries amongst the scholarly sphere. Contributing to this bulk of controversy, the present study investigates teachers’ perceptions and their students’ attitudes and evaluations as to the practice of error corrective feedback. To collect data, two different questionnaires of suitable reliability were delivered to sample respondents of 12 teachers and 34 students respectively to elicit data catering the study’s purposes. Findings were also triangulated with 5 participant teachers invited for follow up interviews and a comparative reference to previous studies on written corrective feedbacks. The results revealed that there are no dramatic differences in teachers’ attitudes towards the usefulness of written corrective feedbacks. However, when it comes to types and amount of errors they should comment on, teachers’ responses and preference cover a wide spectrum.
Tải xuống
Tài liệu tham khảo
1. Alimohammadi, B. & Nejadansari, D. (2014), Written Corrective Feedback: Focused and Unfocused, Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Volume 4, 581–587;
2. Azizi, M., Behjat, F., & Sorahi. M.A. (2014). Effect of Metalinguistic Teacher Corrective Feedback on Writing Performance of Iranian EFL Learners. International Journal of Language and Linguistics. Special Issue: Innovations in Foreign Language Teaching, 2, 54-63. Retrieved October 25, 2015, from http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648. j.ijll.s.2014020601.18.pdf;
3. Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102-118;
4. Cohen, A.D., & Cavalcanti M. C. (1990). Feedback on compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports. In Hamouda, A. (2011) A Study of Students and Teachers' Preferences and Attitudes towards Correction of Classroom Written Errors in Saudi EFL Context. Vol 4 (3). ELT;
5. Cumming, A. (2001). Learning to write in a second language: Two decades of research. International Journal of English Studies, Vol 1 (2), 1-23;
6. Ducken, D. (2014). Written Corrective Feedback in the L2 Writing Classroom. EWU Master's Thesis Collection, Paper 221, 1-78;
7. Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal Volume 63 , 97-107;
8. Farrokhi, F., & Sattarpour, S. (2011). The effects of Focused and Unfocused Written Corrective Feedback on Grammatical Accuracy of Iranian EFL Learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(12), 1797-1803;
9. Ferris and Roberts (2001) Ferris D.R. and Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184;
10. Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatmentof error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press;
11. Ferris, D. R. (2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 165-193;
12. Hansen, J.G. & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, Vol 59, 31-38;
13. Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185–212;
14. Karim, K. (2013). The effects of direct and indirect written corrective feedback (CF) on English-as-asecondlanguage (ESL) students’ revision accuracy and writing skills. MA, University of Victoria, 1-191;
15. Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: an experiment. In Karim, K. (2013). The effects of direct and indirect written corrective feedback (CF) on English-as-a-secondlanguage (ESL) students’ revision accuracy and writing skills. MA, University of Victoria, 1-191;
16. Lee, I. (2003). L2 writing teachers' perspectives, practices and problems regarding error feedback. Assessing Writing, 8, 216- 237;
17. Lee, I. (2005). Error correction in the L2 writing classroom: What do students think? TESL Canada Journal, 22 (2);
18. Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake. Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classrooms. SSLA, 19, 37-66;
19. Morris, G. (2014). Using Peer Review to Improve Student Writing. Univesity of Michigan. Retrieved on October 17, 2015, from http://www.lsa.umich.edu/UMICH/sweetland/Home/For%20Students/Writing%20References%20and%20Resources/Using%20Peer%20Review%20to%20Improve%20Student%20Writing.pdf;
20. Myles, J. (2002). Second Language Writing and Research: The Writing Process and Error Analysis in Student Texts. TESL – EJ. Vol. 6. Retrieved on October 15, 2015, from http://www.cc.kyotosu.ac.jp/information/tesl-ej/ej22/a1.html;
21. Norouzian, R. & Farahani, A.A.K. (2012). Written Error Feedback from Perception: A Feedback on Feedback. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. Vol. 3, p. 11-22;
22. Russell, J. & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research, Chapter 4;
23. Salimi, A. & Ahmadpour, M. (2015). The Effect of Direct vs. Indirect Written Corrective Feedback on L2 Learners Written Accuracy in EFL Context. International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 4(1), 10-19, Retrieved on October 22, 2015, fromhttp://www.aessweb.com/pdffiles/ijells-2015-4(1)-10-19.pdf;
24. Sanavi, V. R. & Nemati, M. (2014). The Effect of Six Different Corrective Feedback Strategies on Iranian English Language Learners ' IELTS Writing. SAGE Journal, Retrieved on October 20, 2015, from http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/4/2/2158244014538271 Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255-83;
25. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing. In D. Ducken (2014). Written Corrective Feedback in the L2 Writing Classroom. EWU Master's Thesis Collection, Paper 221, 1-78;
26. Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79–102.
Tải xuống
Đã Xuất bản
Cách trích dẫn
Số
Chuyên mục
Giấy phép
Tác phẩm này được cấp phép theo Giấy phép Quốc tế Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 .
Bài báo được xuất bản ở Tạp chí Khoa học Đại học Tân Trào được cấp phép theo giấy phép Ghi công - Chia sẻ tương tự 4.0 Quốc tế (CC BY-SA). Theo đó, các tác giả khác có thể sao chép, chuyển đổi hay phân phối lại các bài báo này với mục đích hợp pháp trên mọi phương tiện, với điều kiện họ trích dẫn tác giả, Tạp chí Khoa học Đại học Tân Trào và đường link đến bản quyền; nêu rõ các thay đổi đã thực hiện và các nghiên cứu đăng lại được tiến hành theo cùng một bản quyền.
Bản quyền bài báo thuộc về các tác giả, không hạn chế số lượng. Tạp chí Khoa học Tân Trào được cấp giấy phép không độc quyền để xuất bản bài báo với tư cách nhà xuất bản nguồn, kèm theo quyền thương mại để in các bài báo cung cấp cho các thư viện và cá nhân.
Mặc dù các điều khoản của giấy phép CC BY-SA không dành cho các tác giả (với tư cách là người giữ bản quyền của bài báo, họ không bị hạn chế về quyền hạn), khi gửi bài tới Tạp chí Khoa học Đại học Tân Trào, tác giả cần đáp ứng quyền của độc giả, và cần cấp quyền cho bên thứ 3 sử dụng bài báo của họ trong phạm vi của giấy phép.
