Acil Uzaktan Öğretimde Öğretmenin Yazılı Geri Bildirimi: Yabancı Dil Olarak İngilizce Öğrenenlerin Görüşleri

Year 2023, , 47 - 56, 30.01.2023

Gülin Balıkcıoğlu Akkuş , İsmail Firat Altay

https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.977978

Cited By: 3

Abstract

Dil eğitiminde öğretmenin geri bildirimi, öğrencilere bireyselleştirilmiş ilgi sağladığından oldukça değerli kabul edilir. Uzaktan eğitimde öğrenciler ve öğretmen arasında kişisel etkileşim yokluğu hesaba katıldığında, öğretmen tarafından sağlanan geri bildirimlerin yüz yüze eğitime göre daha önemli bir rol oynaması beklenir. Çünkü bu geri bildirimler sadece öğrencilerin performansının artmasına yardımcı olmakla kalmaz, öğrenciler ve öğretmen arasında güçlü bir ilişki kurmak için de araç görevi görür. Buna dayanarak, vaka çalışması olarak tasarlan bu makalede, üniversite düzeyinde yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğrenen öğrencilerin, acil uzaktan öğretimde üniversitenin uzaktan eğitim platformundaki yazı ödevlerine öğretmenleri tarafından sağlanan yazılı geri bildirimlere ilişkin bakış açıları ortaya konulmaya çalışılmıştır. Veriler, sekiz İngilizce hazırlık sınıfı öğrencisi ile yapılan görüşmeler ve öğretmenin araştırma günlüğüyle toplanmıştır. Elde edilen veriler tematik olarak analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, öğrencilerin yazılı geri bildirimler hakkında olumlu görüşlere sahip olduğunu göstermiştir. Öğrenciler, öğretmen tarafından sağlanan geri bildirimlerin kişiler arası bir yönü olduğunu, onlara duyuşsal destek verdiğini ve hedef dilde gelişmelerine yardımcı olduğunu ifade etmişlerdir. Ayrıca üniversitenin çevrim içi uzaktan eğitim platformunun geri bildirim vermek için kullanılması, öğrencilere geri bildirim belgelerine istedikleri zaman ulaşma fırsatı sunması nedeniyle yararlı bulunmuştur. Çalışmanın sonuçları dil öğretmenlerinin yazılı geri bildirim verme yöntemlerine ilişkin yeni bakış açıları sağlayabilir.

Keywords

acil uzaktan öğretim, yazılı geri bildirim, dil eğitimi

Instructor’s Written Feedback in Emergency Remote Teaching: EFL Learners’ Perspectives

Abstract

In language education, instructor’s feedback is considered to be of high value as it provides learners with individualized attention. Regarding the absence of personal interaction between learners and instructors in remote teaching, it is expected that instructor’s feedback plays a more significant role compared to the case in face-to-face education because it does not only help to increase learners’ performance in the target language and but it also serves as a tool in building a strong relationship between learners and instructor. Based on this, the present paper which was designed as a case study attempted to reveal university level English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ perspectives on written feedback given by their instructor on their writing assignments on the distance education platform of the university in emergency remote teaching. The data were collected through interviews conducted with eight English preparatory class students and the instructor’s research diary. Thematic analysis was carried out on the collected data. The findings showed the interviewees had positive viewpoints about the instructor’s written feedback. They stated that the instructor’s feedback had an interpersonal side, gave them affective support and helped them improve in the target language. Moreover, the use of online distance education platform for giving feedback was found to be useful by the interviewees in that it provided the learners with the opportunity to have access to the feedback documents whenever they wanted. The results may imply new insights into the way foreign language instructors give written feedback.

Keywords

emergency remote teaching, written feedback, language education

References

• Agbayahoun, J. P. (2016). Teacher written feedback on student writing: Teachers’ and learners’ perspectives. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(10), 1895-1904.
• Atmaca, Ç. (2016). Contrasting perceptions of students and teachers: written corrective feedback. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(2), 166-182.
• Bell, R. (1983). An introduction to applied linguistics. London: Batsford.
• Biber, D., Nekrasova, T., & Horn, B. (2011). The effectiveness of feedback for L1- English and L2-writing development: A meta-analysis. ETS Research Report Series, 2011(1), i-99.
• Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language teaching research, 12(3), 409-431.
• Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied linguistics, 31(2), 193-214.
• Bonnel, W., Ludwig, C., & Smith, J. (2007). Providing feedback in online courses: What do students want? How do we do that? Annual Review of Nursing Education, 6, 205-221.
• Bozkurt, S., & ACAR, Z. C. (2017). EFL students’ reflections on explicit and implicit written corrective feedback. The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational and Social Sciences, 7, 98-102.
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297-298.
• Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267–96.
• Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Çakır, İ. (2007). An overall analysis of teaching compulsory foreign language at Turkish state universities. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 3(2).
• Doğançay-Aktuna, S., & Kızıltepe, Z. (2005). English in Turkey. World Englishes, 24(2), 253-265.
• Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1).
• Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American journal of theoretical and applied statistics, 5(1), 1-4.
• Ferris, D. R. (2006). ‘Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short and long-term effects of written error correction’ in K. Hyland and F. Hyland (eds): Perspectives on Response. Cambridge University Press.
• Flick, U. (2004). Triangulation in qualitative research. A companion to qualitative research, 3, 178-183.
• Hamidun, N., Hashim, S. H. M., & Othman, N. F. (2012). Enhancing students' motivation by providing feedback on writing: The case of international students from Thailand. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 2(6), 591.
• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81-112.
• Hişmanoğlu, M., & Hişmanoğlu, S. (2009). Providing feedback on student work in distance education in Turkey: Practices and Recommendations. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 10(4), 91-103.
• Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review, 27.
• Hyland, F. (2001). Providing effective support: Investigating feedback to distance language learners. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 16(3), 233-247.
• Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language teaching, 39(2), 83-101.
• Kerr, P. (2020). Giving feedback to language learners. Part of the Cambridge papers in ELT series. [pdf] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Leibold, N., & Schwarz, L. M. (2015). The art of giving online feedback. Journal of Effective Teaching, 15(1), 34-46.
• Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (2nd ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Pyke, J. G., & Sherlock, J. J. (2010). A closer look at instructor-student feedback online: A case study analysis of the types and frequency. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 110-121.
• Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103–110.
• Shvidko, E. (2020). Taking into Account Interpersonal Aspects of Teacher Feedback: Principles of Responding to Student Writing. Journal on Empowering Teaching Excellence, 4(2), 7.
• Simpson, J. M. (2006). Feedback on Writing: Changing EFL Students' Attitudes. TESL Canada Journal, 24(1), 96-112.
• Sommers, N. (2013). Responding to student writers. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
• Şentürk, B. (2019). The (mis)match between students and teachers’ preferences of corrective feedack. Near East University Online Journal of Education, 2(1), 22-31.
• Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language learning, 46(2), 327-369.
• Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of second language Writing, 16(4), 255-272.
• Vengadasamy, R. (2002). Responding to student writing: Motivate, not criticise. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 2.
• Zhang, T. (2020). Learning from the emergency remote teaching-learning in China when primary and secondary schools were disrupted by COVID-19 pandemic. Research Square.