Öğretmen Eğitiminin Dil Öğretmenlerinin Yazılı Düzeltici Geri Bildirim Bilgisi Üzerindeki Etkisinin Açığa Çıkarılması

Year 2024, Volume: 26 Issue: 2, 217 - 228, 30.06.2024

Pınar Kır , Nur Yigitoglu Aptoula

https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.1441772

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, İngilizce öğretmenlerinin yazma dersinde verdiği yazılı düzeltici geri bildirimlerin (WCF) nasıl ortaya çıktığı incelenmiştir. Ayrıca, bu çalışma, Türkiye’deki üniversitelerde yaygın bir mesleki gelişim uygulaması olarak kabul gören tek seferlik WCF eğitimi oturumunun etkililiğini, öğretmenlerin WCF kullanımındaki değişimlere bakarak değerlendirmiştir. Araştırmaya Türkiye'de bir yabancı diller yüksekokulunda öğretmenlik yapan, farklı deneyim ve eğitim düzeylerine sahip dört İngilizce yazma dersi öğretmeni gönüllü olarak katılmıştır. WCF eğitimi öncesinde eğitmenlerin WCF verdiği yedi öğrenci makalesi toplanmıştır. Ardından, öğretmenlerin WCF bilgisini geliştirmek amacıyla WCF türlerini, WCF formlarını, WCF aşamalarını, WCF'nin yararlarını ve bazı faydalı WCF ipuçlarını kapsayan bir saatlik bir eğitim verilmiştir. Eğitimin ardından, öğretmenler ek olarak yedi öğrenci makalesini daha WCF kullanarak notlandırmıştır. Veriler, yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler ve makalelere verilen WCF örneklerinin analizi yoluyla toplanmıştır. Veri analizi için eğitimde ele alınan tüm temaların yer aldığı bir değerlendirme listesi hazırlanmış ve röportaj temaları tematik analiz yöntemi kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Sonuçlar, İngilizce yazma dersi öğretmenlerinin WCF felsefelerinin deneyim, okul politikaları ve yüksek lisans eğitiminin birleşimiyle nasıl şekillendiğini ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca, tek seferlik eğitim programının öğretmenlerin WCF felsefelerini tamamen değiştirmese de onların pratik uygulamaları üzerinde bir miktar etki yarattığını da ortaya koymuştur.

Keywords

Yazılı düzeltici geri bildirim okuryazarlığı, ikinci dilde yazma, mesleki gelişim, yüksek öğrenim

Unlocking the Influence of Training on Language Instructors’ Written Corrective Feedback Literacy

Abstract

This study examined the formation of writing instructors' written corrective feedback (WCF) philosophies and evaluated the effectiveness of a one-shot WCF training session in facilitating teacher transformation in WCF practices, a common professional development practice to train in- service language instructors at universities. Four writing instructors, with varying levels of experience and educational background, teaching in a school of foreign languages in Türkiye volunteered for the study. Prior to the training, seven essays that the instructors provided WCF for were collected. To expand their knowledge of WCF, the instructors then participated in a one-hour WCF training program, which covered types of WCF, forms of WCF, stages of WCF, the benefits of WCF, and some helpful tips for WCF. After the training, the instructors assessed and provided WCF for an additional seven essays. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and WCF analysis of essays and analyzed using a rubric including all themes covered in the training and a thematic analysis of interview themes. The results suggested instructors' WCF philosophies were shaped by a combination of experience, school policies, and master's education. Furthermore, while the one-shot training program did not entirely transform the instructors' WCF philosophies, it had some impact on their practices.

Keywords

written corrective feedback literacy, L2 writing, professional development, higher education

References

• Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers think is right and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 95–127. Retrieved from https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/CJAL/article/view/19886
• Bailey, R., & Garner, M. (2010). Is the feedback in higher education assessment worth the paper it is written on? Teachers' reflections on their practices. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(2), 187-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562511003620019
• Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
• Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204–211. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn043
• Cheng, X., & Zhang, L. J. (2021). Teacher written feedback on English as a foreign language learners’ writing: Examining native and nonnative English-speaking teachers’ practices in feedback provision. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–16. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.629921
• Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.
• Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.5070/L2.V1I1.9054
• 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(3), 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
• Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33-53. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587804
• Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588049
• 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 & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81-104). Cambridge University Press.
• Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing studies. Language Teaching, 45(4), 446-459. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000250
• Ferris, D. R. (2014). Responding to student writing: Teachers’ philosophies and practices. Assessing Writing, 19, 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.09.004
• Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009
• Furneaux, C., Paran, A., & Fairfax, B. (2007). Teacher stance as reflected in feedback on student writing: An empirical study of secondary school teachers in five countries. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(1), 69–94. https://doi.org/10.1515/IRAL.2007.003
• Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (10th ed.). Pearson.
• Hammersley, M. (2004). Some questions about evidence-based practice in education. In G. Thomas & R. Pring (Eds.), Evidence-based practice in education (pp. 133–149). Open University Press.
• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
• Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 185–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00038-8
• Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (Eds.). (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge University Press.
• Karaağaç Zan, G., & Yiğitoğlu, N. (2018). Exploring novice and experienced teachers’ beliefs and practices of written feedback. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 19(2), 355-369. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.335443
• Kostoulas, A. (2018). Developing teacher research competence: Simpler than you think, more necessary than you realise. In D. Xerri & C. Pioquinto (Eds.), Becoming research literate: Supporting teacher research in English language teaching (pp. 13–18). English Teachers Association Switzerland.
• Lalande, J. F. II. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language, 66(2), 140-149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb06973.x
• Lam, R. (2015). Language assessment training in Hong Kong: Implications for language assessment literacy. Language Testing, 32(2), 161–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214554321
• Lee, I. (2003). L2 writing teachers’ perspectives, practices and problems regarding error feedback. Assessing Writing, 8(3), 216–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2003.08.002
• 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
• Lee, I. (2005). Error correction in the L2 classroom: What do students think? TESL Canada Journal, 22(2), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v22i2.84
• Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.10.001
• Lee, I. (2009). Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT Journal, 63(1), 13–22. https://doi-org.eres.qnl.qa/10.1093/elt/ccn010
• Lee, I. (2011). Working smarter, not working harder: revisiting teacher feedback in the L2 writing classrooms. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 67(3), 377-399. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.67.3.377
• Lee, I. (2014). Revisiting teacher feedback in EFL writing from sociocultural perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 48(1), 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.153
• Lee, I. (2017). Issues in classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Springer.
• Lee, I. (2019). Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more. Language Teaching, 52(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444819000247
• Lee, I., Luo, N., & Mak, P. (2021). Teachers’ attempts at focused written corrective feedback in situ. Journal of Second Language Writing, 54, 100-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100809
• Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1991.tb00464.x
• Li, J. (2012). University tutors’ beliefs about and practices in assessing undergraduates’ writing - A New Zealand case study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, the University of Waikato, New Zealand).
• Liu, Y., Storch, N., & Morton, J. (2022). It takes two to tango: Investigating teacher-student interactions related to written corrective feedback with activity theory. Assessing Writing, 53, 100647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100647
• McMartin-Miller, C. (2014). How much feedback is enough?: Instructor practices and student attitudes toward error treatment in second language writing. Assessing Writing, 19, 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.003
• Montgomery, J. L., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self- assessment and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 82-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.04.002
• Plonsky, L., & Mills, S.V. (2006). An exploratory study of differing perceptions of error correction between a teacher and students: Bridging the gap. Northern Arizona University Applied Language Learning, 16(1), 55–77. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1474600/
• Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255-284. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x
• Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23(1), 103-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829202300107
• Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12029
• Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29–46. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes.10.2.119181
• Timperley, H., & Alton-Lee, A. (2008). Reframing teacher professional learning: An alternative policy approach to strengthening valued outcomes for diverse learners. Review of Research in Education, 32(5), 328–369. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07308968
• Truscott, J. (1996). Review Article: The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
• Vogt, K., & Tsagari, D. (2014). Assessment literacy of foreign language teachers: findings of a European study. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(4), 374-402. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2014.960046
• Wei, W., & Cao, Y. (2020). Written corrective feedback strategies employed by university English lecturers: A teacher cognition perspective. SAGE Open, 10(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020934886
• Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to students’ writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79–101. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586773