Understanding Written Teacher Feedback in L2 Writing in Higher Education: Perceptions, Emotions and Practices of Pre-service English Language Teachers

Year 2023, Volume: 52 Issue: 3, 819 - 833, 31.12.2023

Fatma Kaya

https://doi.org/10.14812/cuefd.1245489

Abstract

This study aimed to explore pre-service English language teacher’s performance in revising their writing assignments based on written teacher feedback. Moreover, the participants’ perceptions and emotions were investigated in addition to their writing self-efficacy levels. A total of 15 pre-service teachers took part in the study. Data were collected through teacher written feedback, students’ drafts, an open-ended survey and a semi-structured interview with the participants. Both qualitative and quantitative data analysis tools were employed in the study. Quantitative data analysis results revealed that the participants were more successful in revising direct teacher feedback compared to indirect teacher feedback, and there was not a positive correlation between the participants’ feedback revision success and self-efficacy levels. The results of qualitative data analysis showed that the pre-service teachers were in favor of written teacher feedback and considered it a necessity for the L2 writing class. Moreover, they opted for indirect feedback and feedback on all errors. Finally, they experienced both positive and negative emotions although negative emotions were more prevalent.

Keywords

L2 writing, Written Teacher Feedback, Writing self-efficacy

Yüksek Öğretimde Yazılı Öğretmen Dönütünü Anlama Üzerine Bir Çalışma: İngilizce Öğretmen Adaylarının Düşünce, Duygu ve Performansları

Abstract

Bu çalışma, İngilizce öğretmen adaylarının yazılı öğretmen dönütüne dayalı yazma ödevlerini gözden geçirme ve düzeltme performanslarını ortaya koymayı amaçlamıştır. Katılımcıların yazma öz-yeterlik düzeylerine ek olarak öğretmen dönütü ile ilgili düşünceleri ve deneyimledikleri duyguları da incelenmiştir. Ayrıca, katılımcıların yazma öz-yeterlik düzeyi ile dönüt düzeltme performansları arasındaki ilişkide incelenmiştir. Araştırmaya toplam 15 öğretmen adayı katılmıştır. Çalışma için gerekli veriler, öğretmen yazılı dönütü, öğrenci taslakları, açık uçlu anket ve katılımcılarla gerçekleştirilen yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme yoluyla toplanmıştır. Araştırmada hem nitel hem de nicel veri analiz araçları kullanılmıştır. Araştırmadan elde edilen bulgulara göre, katılımcıların dolaylı öğretmen dönütlerine göre doğrudan öğretmen dönütlerini gözden geçirmede daha başarılı oldukları sonucu ortaya çıkmıştır. Bununla birlikte, nicel veri analizi sonuçları katılımcıların dönüt düzeltme başarıları ile özyeterlik düzeyleri arasında pozitif bir ilişki olmadığını ortaya koymuştur. Nitel veri analizinin sonuçları, öğretmen adaylarının yazılı öğretmen dönütünden yana olduklarını ve bunu ikinci dil yazma dersi için bir gereklilik olarak gördüklerini göstermiştir. Ayrıca, katılımcılar dolaylı öğretmen dönütünü doğrudan öğretmen dönütüne tercih ettiklerini belirtmişlerdir ve belirli türden hatalara odaklı öğretmen dönütü yerine tüm hatalar ile ilgili dönüt almanın daha faydalı olacağını belirtmişlerdir. Son olarak, katılımcılar öğretmen dönütü aldıkları süreçte olumsuz duyguları daha yaygın olarak deneyimlemelerine rağmen hem olumlu hem de olumsuz duyguları bir arada deneyimlediklerini belirtmişlerdir.

Keywords

İkinci Dilde Yazma, Yazılı Öğretmen Dönütü, Yazma Öz-yeterliliği

References

• Arslan, R. Ş. (2014). Integrating feedback into prospective English language teachers' writing process via blogs and portfolios. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 13(1), 131–150.
• Atmaca, Ç. (2016). Contrasting perceptions of students and teachers: Written corrective feedback. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(2), 166–182.
• Bakla, A. (2020). A mixed-methods study of feedback modes in EFL writing. Language Learning & Technology, 24(1), 107–128. https://doi.org/10125/44712
• Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares, & TS Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Information Age Pub.
• 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.
• Buckingham, L., & Aktuğ-Ekinci, D. (2017). Interpreting coded feedback on writing: Turkish EFL students' approaches to revision. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 26, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.01.001
• Conrad, S. M., & Goldstein, L. M. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher-written comments: Text, contexts, and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 147–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80126-X
• Creswell, J., & Miller, D. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 19(3), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
• Çınar, S. (2017). The Efficacy of Corrective Feedback on L2 Writings of EFL Students. European Journal of Language and Literature, 3(2), 110–120. https://doi.org/10.26417/ejls.v8i1.p110-120
• Dlaska, A., & Krekeler, C. (2017). Does grading undermine feedback? The influence of grades on the effectiveness of corrective feedback on L2 writing. The Language Learning Journal, 45(2), 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2013.848226
• Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
• Elo, S., & Kyngas, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
• Elwood, J. A., & Bode, J. (2014). Student preferences vis-à-vis teacher feedback in university EFL writing classes in Japan. System, 42, 333–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.023
• Ene, E., & Upton, T. A. (2014). Learner uptake of teacher electronic feedback in ESL composition. System, 46, 80–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.011
• Ene, E., & Upton, T. A. (2018). Synchronous and asynchronous teacher electronic feedback and learner uptake in ESL composition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.05.005
• Erkan, D. Y., & Saban, A. İ. (2011). Writing performance relative to writing apprehension, self-efficacy in writing, and attitudes towards writing: A correlational study in Turkish tertiary-level EFL. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 13(1), 164–192.
• Erkan, G. (2022). The impact of teacher e-feedback on students’ writing: A waste of time or a road to success? Focus on ELT Journal, 4(1), 46–59. https://doi.org/10.14744/felt.2022.4.1.4
• Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490
• Ferris, D. R. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing (2nd ed.). University of Michigan Press.
• Guénette, D., & Lyster, R. (2013). Written corrective feedback and its challenges for pre-service ESL teachers. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69(2), 129–153. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.1346
• Han, T., & Sari, E. (2022). An investigation on the use of automated feedback in Turkish EFL students’ writing classes. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2067179
• Han, S., & Shin, J. A. (2017). Teaching google search techniques in an L2 academic writing context. Language Learning and Technology, 21(3), 172–194.
• Havnes, A., Smith, K., Dysthe, O., & Ludvigsen, K. (2012). Formative assessment and feedback: Making learning visible. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 38(1), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.04.001
• Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399
• Jamalinesari, A., Rahimi, F., Gowhary, H., & Azizifar, A. (2015). The effects of teacher-written direct vs. indirect feedback on students’ writing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 116–123.
• James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. Longman.
• Kahraman, A., & Yalvac, F. (2015). EFL Turkish university students’ preferences about teacher feedback and its importance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.489
• Kirmizi, Ö., & Kirmizi, G. D. (2015). An investigation of l2 learners' writing self-efficacy, writing anxiety and its causes at higher education in Turkey. International Journal of Higher Education, 4(2), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v4n2p57
• Latifah, Y., Suwarno, B., & Diani, I. (2018). The effect of teachers’ direct and indirect feedback on student’s writing ability. JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 3(2), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.33369/joall.v3i2.6846
• Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 285–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.08.001
• Li, H., & He, Q. (2017). Chinese secondary EFL learners’ and teachers’ preferences for types of written corrective feedback. English Language Teaching, 10(3), 63−73. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n3p63
• Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x
• Lindgren, B. M., Lundman, B., & Graneheim, U. H. (2020). Abstraction and interpretation during the qualitative content analysis process. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 108, 103632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103632
• Liu, Q., & Wu, S. (2019). Same goal, varying beliefs: How students and teachers see the effectiveness of feedback on second language writing. Journal of Writing Research, 11(2), 299–330. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2019.11.02.03
• Loan, N. T. T. (2017). A case study of combined peer-teacher feedback on paragraph writing at a university in Thailand. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v7i2.8345
• Maarof, N., Yamat, H., & Li, K. L. (2011). Role of teacher, peer and teacher-peer feedback in enhancing ESL students’ writing. World Applied Sciences Journal, 15(1), 29–35.
• Mahfoodh, O. H. A. (2017). “I feel disappointed”: EFL university students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback. Assessing Writing, 31, 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.07.001
• Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2001). Gender differences in writing motivation and achievement of middle school students: A function of gender orientation? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(3), 366–381. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2000.1069
• Park, E. S., Song, S., & Shin, Y. K. (2016). To what extent do learners benefit from indirect written corrective feedback? A study targeting learners of different proficiency and heritage language status. Language Teaching Research, 20(6), 678–699. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815609617
• Price, M., Handley, K., & Millar, J. (2011). Feedback: Focusing attention on engagement. Studies in Higher Education, 36(8), 879–896. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.483513
• Ruegg, R. (2018). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on changes in EFL students’ writing self-efficacy. The Language Learning Journal, 46(2), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.958190
• Seker, M. &Dincer, A. (2014). An insight to students’ perceptions on teacher feedback in second language writing classes. English Language Teaching, 7(2), 73–83. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n2p73
• Sherafati, N., & Mahmoudi Largani, F. (2023). The potentiality of computer-based feedback in fostering EFL learners’ writing performance, self-regulation ability, and self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Computers in Education, 10(1), 27–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-022-00221-3
• Simons, H. (2009). Case study research in practice. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446268322
• Srichanyachon, N. (2012). Teacher written feedback for L2 learners’ writing development. Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences Studies (Former Name Silpakorn University Journal of Social Sciences, Humanities, and Arts), 12(1), 7–17.
• Şener, S., & Erol, İ. K. (2017). Motivational orientations and self-efficacy beliefs of Turkish students towards EFL learning. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 16(67), 251–267. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2017.67.15
• Westmacott, A. (2017). Direct vs indirect written corrective feedback: Students’ perceptions. İkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 22(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.v22n01a02
• Tang, C., & Liu, Y. T. (2018). Effects of indirect coded corrective feedback with and without short affective teacher comments on L2 writing performance, learner uptake and motivation. Assessing Writing, 35, 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2017.12.002
• Tsao, J. J. (2021). Effects of EFL learners’ L2 writing self-efficacy on engagement with written corrective feedback. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 30(6), 575–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00591-9
• Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003
• Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21(2), 217–235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2004.02.003
• Vasu, K., Ling, C. H., & Nimehchisalem, V. (2016). Malaysian tertiary level ESL students’ perceptions toward teacher feedback, peer feedback and self-assessment in their writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 5(5), 158–170. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.5p.158
• Zheng, Y., & Yu, S. (2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 37, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.001