Students’ and Teachers’ Beliefs about Written Corrective Feedback: Perspectives on Amount, Type, and Focus of Feedback in an EFL Setting

Q2 Arts and Humanities rEFLections Pub Date : 2023-09-28 DOI:10.61508/refl.v30i3.268135
Derek Hopper, Neil Bowen
{"title":"Students’ and Teachers’ Beliefs about Written Corrective Feedback: Perspectives on Amount, Type, and Focus of Feedback in an EFL Setting","authors":"Derek Hopper, Neil Bowen","doi":"10.61508/refl.v30i3.268135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many writing teachers believe that giving written corrective feedback (WCF) is an important part of learning to write. Equally, students like to receive it. However, most previous research on WCF has looked at its overall effectiveness, with less attention paid to the differences of opinion between students and their teachers, and the implications of these differences. Accordingly, our aim was to investigate further these differences by carrying out a partial replication of Amrhein and Nassaji (2010). Using a combination of multiple-choice questions, Likert scale items, and open-ended questions, we sampled the beliefs of 469 undergraduates and 40 of their teachers at two public Thai universities. Our findings revealed significant differences of opinion between both groups when it came to the ideal amount of WCF, preferred type of WCF for grammatical errors, and the most useful WCF for specific error types. Qualitative comments also highlighted the affective side of WCF, the realities of the task-at-hand for teachers, and a misalignment between theory and practice. Based on our findings, we make recommendations for teacher development, cross-cultural awareness in teaching writing, increased communication between students, teachers, and theorists, and the importance of assessment rubrics in the feedback process.","PeriodicalId":36332,"journal":{"name":"rEFLections","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"rEFLections","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.61508/refl.v30i3.268135","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Many writing teachers believe that giving written corrective feedback (WCF) is an important part of learning to write. Equally, students like to receive it. However, most previous research on WCF has looked at its overall effectiveness, with less attention paid to the differences of opinion between students and their teachers, and the implications of these differences. Accordingly, our aim was to investigate further these differences by carrying out a partial replication of Amrhein and Nassaji (2010). Using a combination of multiple-choice questions, Likert scale items, and open-ended questions, we sampled the beliefs of 469 undergraduates and 40 of their teachers at two public Thai universities. Our findings revealed significant differences of opinion between both groups when it came to the ideal amount of WCF, preferred type of WCF for grammatical errors, and the most useful WCF for specific error types. Qualitative comments also highlighted the affective side of WCF, the realities of the task-at-hand for teachers, and a misalignment between theory and practice. Based on our findings, we make recommendations for teacher development, cross-cultural awareness in teaching writing, increased communication between students, teachers, and theorists, and the importance of assessment rubrics in the feedback process.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
学生和教师对书面纠正性反馈的看法:英语环境下反馈的数量、类型和焦点
许多写作老师认为给予书面纠正反馈(WCF)是学习写作的重要组成部分。同样,学生们也喜欢收到它。然而,之前大多数关于WCF的研究都着眼于其整体有效性,而很少关注学生和教师之间的意见差异以及这些差异的含义。因此,我们的目标是通过部分复制Amrhein和Nassaji(2010)来进一步调查这些差异。使用多项选择题、李克特量表项目和开放式问题的组合,我们对泰国两所公立大学的469名本科生和40名教师的信念进行了抽样调查。我们的研究结果显示,当涉及到理想的WCF量、语法错误首选的WCF类型以及针对特定错误类型最有用的WCF时,两组之间的观点存在显著差异。定性评论还强调了WCF的情感方面,教师手头任务的现实,以及理论与实践之间的不一致。基于我们的研究结果,我们对教师发展、写作教学中的跨文化意识、增加学生、教师和理论家之间的交流以及在反馈过程中评估规则的重要性提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
rEFLections
rEFLections Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Verb Error Analysis of Thai EFL Generation Z and Generation Alpha Students in Thailand English-Medium Instruction in Higher Education A Bibliometric Analysis of Keywords of HyFlex Learning for the English Language Learning Skills of Teacher Students Vlogging: An Alternative to Role-play in Improving EFL Learners' Conversation Skills English for Business Communication
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1