TEACHERS’ CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON ENGLISH STUDENTS’ WRITING

Authors

  • Nguyen Thi Thanh Thao Dong Thap University, Vietnam
  • Le Hai Duy Dong Thap University, Vietnam

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46827/ejel.v0i0.607

Abstract

This investigates the participants’ attitudes towards corrective feedback as well as the types of corrective feedback on learners’ performance by questionnaires for both students and teachers. Fifty–eight 2nd-year students and 5 teachers of English at a university in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam participated in the study. The results indicated that students had a positive attitude towards teachers’ corrective feedback. Besides, with the analyzed data, correction with comments and teacher correction was considered as the most useful strategy when giving feedback in the learners’ performance. The outcomes of the study suggest a widespread employment of corrective feedback in teaching writing at universities and colleges in the region. 

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter

DOI

References

Amrhein, H., Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers think is right and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics (CJAL), 13(2), 95-127.

Chang, N., Watson, A. B., Bakerson, M. A., Williams, E. E., McGoron, F. X., and Spitzer, B. (2012). Electronic feedback or handwritten feedback: What do undergraduate students prefer and Why? Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 1(1), 1-23.

Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.

Ghaith, G. M. (2002). Using cooperative learning to facilitate alternative assessment. English Teaching Forum, 40(3), 26-31.

Hashemnezhad, H. and Mohammadnejad, S. (2012). A case for direct and indirect feedback: The other side of coin. English Language Teaching, 5(3), 230-239.

Ibarrola, A. (2013). Reformulation and self-correction: Insights into correction strategies for EFL writing in a school context. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics,10, 29-49.

Jarvis, D. (2002). The process writing method. The Internet TESL Journal, VIII (7), available from http://iteslj.org/

Kadkhodaei, N., Gorjian, B., Pazhakh, A. (2013). The role of reformulation tasks in EFL learners’ writing accuracy. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 4(4), 51-57.

Kao, C. (2013). Effects of focused feedback on the acquisition of two English articles. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 17(1), 1-15.

Klein, M. (1985). The writings of Melanie Klein. London: Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psychoanalysis.

Maleki, A., Eslami, E. (2013). The effects of written corrective feedback techniques on EFL students’ control over grammatical construction of their written English. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(7), 1250-1257.

McGrath, A., Leadbeater, K. (2016). Instructor comments on student writing: Learner response to electronic written feedback. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal, 8(3), 1-16.

Purnawarman, P. (2011). Impacts of teacher feedback on ESL/EFL students’ writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA.

Sheen, Y., Wright, D., Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556-569.

Storch, N., Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303-334.

Zareil, A., Rahnama, M. (2013). The effect of written corrective feedback modes on EFL learners’ grammatical and lexical writing accuracy: from perceptions to facts. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL), 1(3), 1-14.

Downloads

Published

2017-03-23

Issue

Vol 2, No 1 (2017)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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).