SOME EFFECTS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON STUDENTS' WRITING
Abstract
Several researchers have investigated the effects of corrective feedback (C.F.)
Several researchers have investigated the effects of corrective feedback (C.F.) on learners' linguistic competence. Still, there was an opportunity to research some effects of WCF on students' linguistic errors by comparing six types of C.F. (direct, indirect, metalinguistic, reformulation, focused, and unfocused C.F.). Single-subject experiment design with alternating treatment design was beneficial in assessing the relative effectiveness of six types of C.F. Linguistic errors categories on vocabulary, language use and mechanics were targeted in C.F. The results of research findings for five weeks study and six students for one group or thirty-six students in the Muhammadiyah University of Makassar showed that direct C.F. had the most significant effect in reducing students' linguistic error and improving students' writing quality in vocabulary, language use and mechanics than the other types of C.F. and direct C.F. also could be suggested for using long-term to the teacher and students at a low intermediate proficiency level.
Downloads
References
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback in New Zealand. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102-118. DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
Bitchener, J. & Ferris, D.R. (2012). Writing corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. (New York).
Bitchener. J. & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback in New Zealand. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207-217. DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002
Corder, S. P. (1974). Error Analysis. In J. P. B. Allen and S. Pit Corder (eds.) Techniques in Applied Linguistics (The Edinburgh Course in Applied Linguistics:3), London: Oxford University Press (Language and Language Learning), pp. 122-154.
Diab, N.M. (2015). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does the type of error and kind of correction matter? in Lebanon. Assessing Writing, 24, 16-34.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63 (2), 97-107. DOI:10.1093/elt/ccno23
Eslami. E. (2014). The effects of direct and indirect corrective feedback techniques on EFL students' writing in Iran. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 445-452. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro. 2014.03.438
Ferris, D.R. (2011). Treatment of Error in Second Language Student. Writing Second Edition. USA. 1.
Ferris, D. & Hedgcock, J. (1998). Teaching ESL composition. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Frear, D. & Chiu, Y. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners' accuracy in new pieces of writing in the United Arab Emirates. System, 53, 24-34.
George, H.V. (1972). Common errors in language learning. Rowley, Massachusetts.
Harmer, J., 1991. The Practice of English Language Teaching. New York: Logman Inc.
Heaton, J. (1988). Writing English Language Test. London: Logman Group.
Jokar, M. & Soyoof, A. (2014). The influence of written corrective feedback on two Iranian learners' grammatical accuracy in Iran. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 799-805. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.484
Montgomery, J.I. & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance in the USA. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 82-99. DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.04.002
Norman, W., Evans, K., Hartshorn, J. & Strong-Krause, D. (2011). The efficacy of dynamic written corrective feedback for university-matriculated ESL learners in the USA. System, 39, 229-239. DOI:10.1016/j.system.2011.04.012
Sanayi, R.V. & Nemati, M. (2014). The effect of six different corrective feedback strategies on Iranian English language learners' IELTS writing task 2 in Iran. SAGE, 1-9 DOI: 10.1177/2158244014538271
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners' acquisition of articles in the United States. TESOL Quarterly, 41 (2), 255 – 283.
Ulper, H. & Cetinkaya, G. (2014). Identifying the students' corrective textual actions towards teachers' feedback in Turkey. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 227-230. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.198
Copyright notice:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access)