Yabancı Dil Olarak İngilizce Öğretilen Ortamda Çok Taslaklı Kompozisyonlara Verilen Yazılı Düzeltici Geribildirime Öğrenci Tepkileri

Year 2020, Volume: 9 Issue: 3, 577 - 597, 05.10.2020

Vasfiye Geckin

https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.685527

Abstract

Bu çalışma, yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğretilen bir ortamda hazırlık okulu öğrencilerinin çoklu taslak içeren kompozisyonlarına aldıkları yazılı düzeltici geribildirimine dair inanışlarını ve reaksiyonlarını tartışmaktadır. Test edilen değişken öğrencilerin yabancı dil yeterlilik düzeylerinin inanışlarına ve reaksiyonlarına etkisidir. Çalışma deseni olarak yapılandırılmış anket yaklaşımı kullanılmıştır. Seçkisiz örneklem yöntemiyle dört farklı dil seviyesinden toplamda 208 öğrenci çalışmada yer almıştır. Sonuçlar, tüm seviye gruplarındaki öğrencilerin yazılı düzeltici geribildirimin gerekliliğine inandıkları yönündedir. Fakat ileri seviye grupları, daha düşük düzey dil gruplarına göre, öğretmen dönütlerine daha cok dikkat etmektedirler. Tüm gruplar dilbilgisi, kelime bilgisi ve de yapısal dönüte daha fazla değer verdiklerini belirtmişlerdir. Alt düzey dil grupları ilk müsveddelerdeki düzeltmelere daha çok dikkat etmektedirler. Tüm gruplar, çoklu taslaklarına sözel üstdilsel açıklamaları içeren direkt dönütü, sembol kullanılarak verilen dolaylı dönüte yeğlemişlerdir. İleri seviye grupları ikinci dilde kompozisyon yazma yeterliliklerini iyi olarak değerlendirirlerken, diğer gruplar kendilerini yeterli olarak değerlendirmişlerdir. Bu çalışma akademik yazma dersi veren hazırlık okulu öğretmenlerine öneriler sunmaktadır.

Keywords

Yabancı dil olarak İngilizce, Çoklu taslak, Öğrenci reaksiyonu

Student Responses to Written Corrective Feedback on Multiple Draft Essays in an EFL Context

Abstract

This study discusses tertiary level student beliefs and reactions to written corrective feedback to multiple draft essays in an EFL setting where the students were in a process-based writing program for two semesters. As the study design, a structured survey approach was adopted. The variable tested was the effect of foreign language proficiency on student beliefs and reactions. Through convenience sampling, a total of 208 students from four different levels of foreign language proficiency took part in the study. The results showed that all proficiency groups believed in the necessity of written corrective feedback to their multiple draft essays. Yet, higher proficiency groups read more and paid a lot more attention to the teacher feedback when compared to the lower proficiency groups and all the groups asked for more written corrective feedback on grammar, lexis and structure. Lower level proficiency groups paid more attention to preliminary draft corrections. All the groups preferred to be given oral metalinguistic explanations on their multiple drafts to indirect feedback tiered through symbols. The advanced group rated their essay writing skills in a second language as good and the other groups rated themselves as adequate. The study offers implications for tertiary level academic writing instructors.

Keywords

EFL, Multiple drafts, Student reactions, Written corrective feedback

References

• Amirghassemi, A., Azabdaftari, B., & Saeidi, M. (2013). The effect of scaffolded vs. non-scaffolded written corrective feedback on EFL learners' written accuracy. World Applied Sciences Journal, 22 (2), 256-263.
• Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: what do students and teachers prefer and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 95-127.
• Balanga, R.A., Fidel, I.B., Gumapac, M.V.G.P., Ho, H.T., Tullo, R. M. C., Villaraza, P.M.L., & Vizconde, C. J. (2016). Student beliefs towards written corrective feedback: The case of Filipina high school students. Journal of English Language Teaching, 6 (3), 22-38.
• Berg, C. E. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (3), 215-241.
• Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of second language writing, 14 (3), 191-205.
• Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12 (3), 409-431.
• Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37 (2), 322-329.
• Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207-217.
• Budianto, S., Mukminatien, N., & Latief, M.A. (2017). The superiority of written corrective feedback outcome on EFL writing at different proficiency levels. International Journal of English and Education, 6 (3), 40-53.
• Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12 (3), 267- 296.
• Diab, N. M. (2015). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does type of error and type of correction matter? Assessing Writing, 24, 16-34.
• Diab, R. (2005). Teachers’ and Students’ Beliefs About Responding to ESL Writing: A Case Study. TESL Canada Journal, 23 (1), 28- 43.
• Eksi, G. Y. (2012). Peer review versus teacher feedback in process writing: How effective? International Journal of Applied Educational Studies, 13(1), 33-48.
• Eslami, E. (2014). The effects of direct and indirect corrective feedback techniques on EFL students’ writings. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 445-452.
• Ferris, D. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33-53.
• Ferris, D. (2004). The ‘grammar correction’ debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (And what do we do in the meantime..?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13 (1), 49-62.
• Ferris, D. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
• Ferris, D. & Hedgecock, J. S. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process and practice. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Ferris, D. & Hedgcock, J. S. (2013). Teaching L2 composition: Purpose, process and practice (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184.
• Göksoy, A.S., & Nazlı, Ö.P. (2017). The effect of direct and indirect written corrective feedback on students’ writing. Uluslararası Liderlik Eğitimi Dergisi [International Journal of Leadership Training], 1 (1), 16-25.
• IBM Corp. (2017). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
• Harmer, J. (2004). How to teach English: An introduction to the practice of English Language. London: Longman.
• Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge England: Cambridge University press. Irvin, B. (2017). Written corrective feedback: Student preferences and teacher feedback practices. IAFOR Journal of Language Learning, 3 (2), 35-58.
• Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17 (3), 144-164.
• Miao, Y., Badger, R., & Zhen, Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15 (3), 179–200
• Nemati, M., Alavi, S. M., Mohebbi, H., & Masjedlou A. P. (2017). Speaking on behalf of the voiceless learners: Written corrective feedback for English language learners in Iran. Issues in Educational Research 27 (4), 822-841.
• Park, E.S. (2011). Learner-generated noticing of written L2 input: What do they notice and why? Language Learning, 61, 146-186.
• Park, E.S. (2013). Learner-generated noticing behavior by novice learners: Tracing the effects of learners’ L1 on their emerging L2. Applied Linguistics, 34, 74-98.
• Park, E.S., Song, S., & Shin Y. K. (2016). To what extent do learners benefit from indirect written corrective feedback? A study targeting learners of different proficiency and heritage language status. Language Teaching Research, 29 (6), 678-699.
• Purnawarman, P. (2011). Impacts of different types of teacher corrective feedback in reducing grammatical errors on ESL/EFL students’ writing. Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech, VA, USA.
• Rahimi, M. & Asadi, E. (2014). Effect of different types of written corrective feedback on accuracy and overall quality of L2 learners’ writing. European Journal of Academic Essays, 1 (6), 1-7.
• Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20 (1), 83-96.
• Rouhi A., & Samiei, M. (2010). The Effects of Focused and Unfocused Indirect Feedback on Accuracy in EFL Writing. The Social Sciences, 5, 481-485.
• 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.
• Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly 41, 255-283.
• Van Beuningen, C. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 1-27.
• Van Beuningen, C., De Jong, N., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279-296.