Buradasınız

AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE IMPACT OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS’ WRITTEN PRODUCTION

HATA DÖNÜTÜNÜN İKİNCİ DİL ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN YAZILI METİNLERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Keywords (Original Language):

Abstract (2. Language): 
Bu çalışmada yazma derslerinde öğretmenin kodlar kullanarak verdiği kapsamlı hata dönütünün üç öğrencinin yazılı metinlerindeki etkileri araştırılmaktadır. Çalışmanın diğer bir amacı ise, öğrencilere yazdıkları her metinle ilgili hatalarının kayıtlarını tutturarak bunun onların en sık yaptıkları hatalar konusundaki farkındalıklarını arttırıp daha doğru yazmalarına yardımcı olup olmadığını ortaya çıkarmaktır. Ayrıca, katılımcıların öğrenme günlükleri ve araştırmacıyla çalışma sonunda yaptıkları görüşmelerin verileri kullanılarak bu öğrencilerin yaşadıkları deneyimlerin ayrıntılı olarak incelenmesi ve hata dönütü konusundaki görüşlerinin belirlenmesi de amaçlanmaktadır. Analiz sonuçları, öğrencilerin verilen hata dönütünü neredeyse her zaman dikkate aldığını ve verilen hata dönütünü kullanarak yeni taslaklarında çoğunlukla (% 82.46) doğru değişiklikler yaptığını göstermiştir. Bu sonuç verilen hata dönütünün öğrencilerin yeni taslaklarında hatalarını düzeltmeleri konusunda genelde olumlu bir etkiye sahip olduğunu göstermiştir. Öğrencilerin yazdıkları ilk ve son kompozisyonlar karşılaştırıldığında, ilk kompozisyonlarında cümle yapısı, sıfatların formu, kelimelerin formu, büyük/küçük harf kullanma ve noktalama konularında hata yapan katılımcıların son kompozisyonlarında bu hatalarının sayılarının azaldığı, sayısal değişiklik (tekil/çoğul, sayılabilir/sayılamaz isimler) konularında ise üç katılımcının da son kompozisyonlarında hatalarının arttığı görülmüştür. Diğer hata türleri incelendiğinde katılımcılar arasında zaman içindeki gelişme konusunda bireysel farklılıklar olduğu bulunmuştur. Öğrenme günlükleri ve görüşme verilerinin analizi sonucunda katılımcıların uygulanan hata dönütü yönteminden genel olarak memnun oldukları ve bu sürecin genel görüş ve beklentileriyle uyumlu olduğu belirlenmiştir. Katılımcılar sık yaptıkları hataların farkına vardıklarını ve bu yöntemin öğrenmelerine katkıda bulunduğuna inandıklarını belirtmişlerdir.
Abstract (Original Language): 
In the current study, the effects of comprehensive coded indirect corrective feedback (CCICF) on three learners’ written productions are investigated. Another aim of the study is to find out whether recording their errors help the participants to become better acquainted with their frequent error types and to make fewer errors. Furthermore, by using the data from the learning diaries and interviews, we aim to explore the participants’ feedback about the process they have gone through during the study and their general views about corrective feedback (CF). Results indicated that the participants almost always acted on CCICF and made successful revisions in a large majority of cases (82.46 %), which indicated that, in general terms, it had a positive impact on the revisions of errors. The comparison of the first and the last essays showed that the participant/s who had made sentence structure, adjective form, word form, capitalization and punctuation errors in their first essay/s reduced the number of errors related to these error categories/types in their last compositions. However, for the three participants, there was an increase in the number of numeric shift errors. Regarding the other categories, there was individual variation in the amount of improvement over time. The analysis of the learning diary and interview data revealed that they were satisfied with the CF practices in the study and the practices matched their perceptions about effective CF strategies. They believed they gained awareness of their frequent errors and the CF practices contributed to their learning.

REFERENCES

References: 

Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft
composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best
method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-257.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th edition). New York:
Longman.
Corder, S. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 9, 147-159.
Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In
C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp.
197-261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C. & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J.
Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-
138). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2), 209-224.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and
unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language
context. System, 36, 353-371.
Fathman, A. & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form
versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for
the classroom (pp. 178-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL
Quarterly, 31, 315-339.
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to
Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-11.
Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Michigan: The
University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the shortand
long-term effects of written correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.),
Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. (pp.81-104).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Goldstein, L. (2006). Feedback and revision in second language writing: Contextual,
teacher, and student variables. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in
second language writing: Contexts and issues. (pp.185-205). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Han, Z. (2002). Rethinking the role of corrective feedback in communicative language
teaching. RELC Journal 33 (1), 1-34.
Hartshorn, J. K. (2008). The effects of manageable corrective feedback on ESL writing
accuracy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University, Provo
UT.
Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255-286.
Hyland, F. (2000). ESL Writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students.
Language Teaching Research, 4(1), 33-54.
Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System,
31 (2), 217-230.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language
Journal, 66(2), 140-149.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In
K. Bot, R. B. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in crosscultural
perspectives (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition.
In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition
(pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Long, M. H. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In R. D. Lambert &
E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy. Essays in honor of A. Ronald
Walton (pp. 179-192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
McCargar, D. (1993). Teacher and student role expectations: Cross-cultural differences
and implications. The Modern Language Journal, 77(2), 192-207.
Montgomery, J. L. & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions,
teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 16(2), 82-99.
Najmaddin, S. M-A. (2010). Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of types of corrective
feedback in writing. Unpublished master’s thesis, Bilkent University, Ankara.
Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and
quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417-528.
Qi, D. S. & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second
language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277-303
.
Saito, H. (1994). Teachers’ practices and students’ preferences for feedback on second
language writing: A case study of adult ESL learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11,
46-70.
Sakalı, R. B. (2007). Investigating changes in students’ writing feedback perceptions.
Unpublished master’s thesis, Bilkent University, Ankara.
Schmidt, R. (1990a). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for
applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11-26.
Schmidt, R. (1990b). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language
instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning
the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA-Columbia. The
Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244-258.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude
on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255-283.
Sheen, Y. (2010). The role of oral and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 169-179.
Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback. International Journal of
English Studies, 10(2), 29-46.
Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of
corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2),
303-334.
Svalberg, A. M-L. (2007). Language awareness and language learning. Language Teaching,
40(4), 287-308.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language
Learning, 46, 327-369.
Truscott, J. (2001). Selecting errors for selective error correction. Concentric: Studies in
English Literature and Linguistics, 27, 225-240.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255-272.
Truscott, J. & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 17, 292-305.
Van Beuningen, C. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives,
empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies,
10(2), 1-27.
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & 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.
Zhang, S. (1995). Re-examining the affective advantages of peer feedback in the ESL
writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 209-222.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com