Unfocused Written Corrective Feedback and L2 Learners’ Writing Accuracy: Relationship Between Feedback Type and Learner Belief

IF 1 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Language and Education Pub Date : 2022-12-26 DOI:10.17323/jle.2022.15919
S. M. Mujtaba, M. K. A. Singh, Tiefu Zhang, Nisar Ahmed, Rakesh Parkash
{"title":"Unfocused Written Corrective Feedback and L2 Learners’ Writing Accuracy: Relationship Between Feedback Type and Learner Belief","authors":"S. M. Mujtaba, M. K. A. Singh, Tiefu Zhang, Nisar Ahmed, Rakesh Parkash","doi":"10.17323/jle.2022.15919","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Feedback provided to learners' writing is a construct of identifying a learner's performance, and it can be identified and trifurcated as grammatical form, location in the text, and pragmatic functions. Second language researchers worldwide consider written corrective feedback (WCF) as a vital and valuable teaching tool that enables learners to improve accuracy in L2 writing.  \nPurpose: In this context, there exists a plethora of studies that examine the efficacy of WCF on L2 learners’ writing accuracy.  However, literature is replete with research that looks into the effectiveness of unfocused WCF on L2 learners’ writing accuracy especially concerning learners’ belief of the feedback type. Not much research is available demonstrating unfocused WCF's efficacy on L2 learners’ writing accuracy.  \nMethods: Using a quasi-experimental design, three intact classes were recruited and were randomly placed into two experimental groups: indirect corrective feedback, direct corrective feedback, and one control group. The participants completed three narrative writings, one each at pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-test. \nResults: The results of the study unveiled that the WCF enabled the treatment group learners to produce text with fewer errors than the control group participants. The study also reported no relationship between the learners’ beliefs and the efficacy of WCF, meaning that the preference of learners for a particular type of feedback did not influence the efficacy of WCF. \nConclusion: Based on the results of the case study, important pedagogical implications for ESL/EFL instructors are provided","PeriodicalId":37020,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Language and Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Language and Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.15919","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Feedback provided to learners' writing is a construct of identifying a learner's performance, and it can be identified and trifurcated as grammatical form, location in the text, and pragmatic functions. Second language researchers worldwide consider written corrective feedback (WCF) as a vital and valuable teaching tool that enables learners to improve accuracy in L2 writing.  Purpose: In this context, there exists a plethora of studies that examine the efficacy of WCF on L2 learners’ writing accuracy.  However, literature is replete with research that looks into the effectiveness of unfocused WCF on L2 learners’ writing accuracy especially concerning learners’ belief of the feedback type. Not much research is available demonstrating unfocused WCF's efficacy on L2 learners’ writing accuracy.  Methods: Using a quasi-experimental design, three intact classes were recruited and were randomly placed into two experimental groups: indirect corrective feedback, direct corrective feedback, and one control group. The participants completed three narrative writings, one each at pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-test. Results: The results of the study unveiled that the WCF enabled the treatment group learners to produce text with fewer errors than the control group participants. The study also reported no relationship between the learners’ beliefs and the efficacy of WCF, meaning that the preference of learners for a particular type of feedback did not influence the efficacy of WCF. Conclusion: Based on the results of the case study, important pedagogical implications for ESL/EFL instructors are provided
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
非重点书面纠正反馈与二语学习者写作准确性:反馈类型与学习者信念的关系
背景:对学习者写作的反馈是识别学习者表现的一个结构,它可以被识别并分为语法形式、在文本中的位置和语用功能。世界各地的第二语言研究者都认为书面纠正反馈(WCF)是一种重要而有价值的教学工具,可以帮助学习者提高第二语言写作的准确性。目的:在这种背景下,有大量的研究考察了WCF对二语学习者写作准确性的影响。然而,文献中充满了关于非聚焦WCF对二语学习者写作准确性的有效性的研究,特别是关于学习者对反馈类型的信念的研究。没有太多的研究可以证明非焦点WCF对二语学习者写作准确性的影响。方法:采用准实验设计,招募3个完整班级,随机分为间接纠正反馈组、直接纠正反馈组和对照组。参与者完成了三篇叙事性写作,分别在测试前、测试后和延迟后测试中完成。结果:研究结果表明,WCF使实验组的学习者比对照组的学习者产生更少错误的文本。该研究还报告了学习者的信念与WCF的有效性之间没有关系,这意味着学习者对特定类型反馈的偏好并不影响WCF的有效性。结论:基于案例研究的结果,为ESL/EFL教师提供了重要的教学启示
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
Journal of Language and Education
Journal of Language and Education Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
14.30%
发文量
33
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Scrutinizing the Relationship between Vietnamese English Majors’ Intrinsic Motivation and Perceptions Towards Five Components of the 5Ts Framework Examining the Evolution and Components of the Culture of Learning in University Education: A Systematic Scoping Review Predictive Effects of English Classroom Anxiety and Motivation on Chinese Undergraduate EFL Learners’ English Achievement Literary Works and Technology Aids Inclusion in Foreign Language Learning: Case of Kosovo Students’ Approach Teacher Development in Technology-Enhanced Language Teaching: Book Review
×
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