Explicit and Implicit Written Corrective Feedback in Higher EFL Education: Evidence from Turkey

Year 2018, Volume: 19 Issue: 3, 104 - 116, 30.12.2018

M. Pınar Babanoğlu Reyhan Ağçam Nebahat Badem

https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.364809

Abstract

This study
investigated the efficiency of explicit and implicit written corrective
feedback in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) education in higher education.
Participants of the study were late-elementary and pre-intermediate adult
learners of English who were attending a preparatory school in a Turkish state
university. During a period of four weeks, exercises on prepositions were
delivered to subjects who were divided into three groups as two treatment
groups receiving explicit and implicit written correction and a control group
receiving no feedback. A pre-test and a post-test were applied to the groups at
the start and the end of the four-week treatment, respectively in order to
examine possible development of the groups. The results indicated significant
differences between pre-test and post-test scores of the groups receiving the
two types of written corrective feedback.

Keywords

corrective feedback, explicit and implicit written corrective feedback, EFL teaching and learning in higher education.

Yükseköğretimde Yabancı Dil Eğitiminde Açık ve Örtük Yazılı Düzeltici Geribildirim: Türkiye Örneği

Abstract

Bu çalışmada,  yükseköğretimde yabancı dil olarak İngilizce
öğretiminde açık ve örtük yazılı düzeltici geribildirim kullanımının İngilizce
ilgeç öğrenimi üzerindeki etkililiği araştırılmıştır. Çalışmanın katılımcıları,
bir Türk devlet üniversitesinin hazırlık okulunda  öğrenim görmekte olan
geç-başlangıç ve ön-orta-seviyede İngilizce öğrenen yetişkin öğrencilerden
oluşmaktadır. Doğrudan ve dolaylı yazılı geribildirim alan iki uygulama grubu
ve geribildirim almayan kontrol grubu olmak üzere üç gruba ayrılan
katılımcılara  dört hafta süreyle ilgeçlerle ilgili alıştırmalar
uygulanmıştır. Grupların gelişimini ölçmek amacıyla, dört haftalık uygulama
sürecinin başında bir ön-test ve sonunda bir son test uygulanmıştır.
Bulgular, doğrudan ve dolaylı yazılı geribildirim alan grupların ön- ve son-test
sonuçlarının anlamlı bir şekilde farklılaştığını ortaya çıkarmıştır.

Keywords

Yazılı düzeltici geribildirim, doğrudan ve dolaylı yazılı geribildirim, yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğrenimi ve öğretimi

References

• Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102-118.
• Bitchener, J. and Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322-329.
• 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, 267-296.
• Chaudron, C. (1977). A Descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners' errors. Language Learning, 27, 29-46.
• Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal , 63, (2), 97-107.
• Ellis, R., Loewen, S. and Erlam, R. (2006) Implicit snd explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, (2), 339-368.
• Erel S.and Bulut D. (2007). Error treatment in L2 writing: a comparative study of direct and indirect coded feedback in Turkish EFL context. Erciyes University J. Soc. Sci. 22, 397-415.
• Fathman, A. K. and Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178–190). Cambridge University Press Cambridge.
• Ferris, Dana (1999), “The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996), Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, (1), 1-11.
• Ferris, D. and Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes How explicit does it need to be?” Journal of second Language Writing, 10, 161-184.
• Guenette, D. (2007). Is Feedback pedagogically correct? research design issues in studies of feedback on writing? Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40–53.
• Havranek, G. (2002). when is corrective feedback most likely to succeed? International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 255-70.
• Lightbrown, P. M. and Spada, N.(1999). How Languages are Learned. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Li, S. (2010). The Effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60 (2), 309–365.
• Lyster, R. and Ranta, L.. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: negotiation form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66.
• Lyster, R., Saito, K. and Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in L2 classrooms”, Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40.
• Noroozizadeh, S. (2009). Indirect feedback: a plausible suggestion for overcoming error occurrence in L2 writing. The Journal of Asia Tefl, 6 (4), 245-262.
• Panova, L. and Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573-595.
• Russel, J. and Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of l2 grammar. In J. M. Norris, and L. Ortega (eds.), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching, XIV, (pp: 133–164).
• Schmidt, R. (1990). The Role of Consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
• Tedick, D.J. and de Gortari, B. (1998). Research on error correction and implications for classroom teaching. ACIE Newsletter, Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, 1(3), 1-4. http://www.carla.umn.edu/immersion/acie/vol1/May1998.pdf (02.07.2017)
• Truscott, J. (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
• Van Beuningen, C..G., de Jong, N. and Kuiken, F.(2008). The Effect of Direct and Indirect Corrective Feedback on L2 Learners’ written accuracy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279-296.