Contribution of Corrective Feedback to English Language Learners’ Writing Skills Development through Workfolio Based Tasks
Abstract
This study investigates the relationship between corrective feedback through workfolio based tasks and English Language learners’ writing skills development. The study was carried out with 64 B1 level students at a foundation university in the city of Ankara in Turkey. The study took thirteen weeks during which the experimental group received explicit corrective feedback on their written tasks while the control group didn’t receive any feedback. Throughout this process, participants took three progress tests. In addition to the quantitative data, qualitative data were also obtained via interviews with both instructors and participants. While the quantitative data were analyzed in independent samples t-tests through SPSS 20©, the qualitative data were interpreted on. Results from the analyses show that there is a statistically significant difference between the experimental and the control group. The study also found out that while both females and males improved their writing skills, females in the experimental group outperformed the males in the same group. Furthermore, students stated that getting corrective feedback was beneficial for them as they could learn from their mistakes and be more motivated towards the lesson. As for the instructors, they believed that corrective feedback sessions were useful for their students as they were low proficiency learners. To conclude, the results of the study show that corrective feedback does have a positive impact on improving writing skills and helps to motivate students as well.
References
Brown, J. D., & Hudson, T. (1998). The alternatives in language assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 653-675.
Burt, M. (1975). Error analysis in the adult EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 53-63.
Collins, A. (1992). Portfolios for science education: Issues in purpose, structure, and authenticity. Science Education, 76(4) 451-463.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161-169.
Dellinger, D. (1993). Portfolios: A personal history. In M. A. Smith and M. Ylvsikes, (Eds.), Teachers’ Voices: Portfolios in the Classroom, 11-24. Berkeley: National Writing Project.
Ellis, R. (2012). Second language research and language pedagogy. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. English Language Teaching Journal, 63, 97-107.
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.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-368.
Ellis, R. (1993). Second language acquisition and the structural syllabus. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 91-113.
Fanselow, J. (1977). The treatment of error in oral work. Foreign Language Annals, 10(4), 583-593.
Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-10.
Goodman, Y. (1991). Informal methods of evaluation. In J. Flood, J. Jensen, D. Lapp & J. Squire (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching of the English language arts, 502-509. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory & Practice of Writing: An applied linguistic perspective. UK: Longman.
Hamps-Lyons, L., & Condon, W. (2000). Assessing the portfolio: Principles for practice, theory & research. Cresskill: Hampton Press.
Heaton, J.B. (1988). Writing English Language Tests. Harlow: Longman.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Kulik, J. A, & Kulik, C.-L. C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research, 58, 79-97.
Long, M. (1977). Teacher feedback on learner error: Mapping cognitions. In H. Brown, C. Yorio, & R. Crymes (Eds.), TESOL`77, 278-294. Washington D.C.: TESOL.
O’Malley, J. M., & Pierce, L. V. (1996). Authentic assessment for English language learners: Practical approaches for language teachers. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
O'Neil, J. (1992). Putting performance assessment to the test. Educational Leadership, 49(8), 14-19.
Quinn, P. (2014). Delayed versus immediate corrective feedback on orally produced passive errors in English. Retrieved 15.03.2016, from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/65728/1/Quinn_Paul_201406_PhD_thesis.pdf
Rahimi, M. & Zhang, L. J. (2014). EFL learners’ anxiety level and their beliefs about corrective feedback in oral communication classes. System, 42(1), 429-439.
Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2nd Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255-283.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. and Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition, 235-256. New York: Newbury House Publishers.
Tierney, R. J., Carter, M., & Desai, L. (1991). Portfolio assessment in the reading writing classroom. Norwood: Christopher Gordon Publishers.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
Vann, R., Meyer, D., & Lorenz, F. (1984). Error gravity: A study of faculty opinion of ESL errors. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 427-440.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Submission of an article implies that the work described has not been published previously (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out, and that, if accepted, will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English or in any other language, without the written consent of the Publisher. The Editors reserve the right to edit or otherwise alter all contributions, but authors will receive proofs for approval before publication.
Copyrights for articles published in International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction are retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. The journal/publisher is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work. It is the author's responsibility to bring an infringement action if so desired by the author.
