Turkish EFL Learners’ Perceptions and Preferences of Written Corrective Feedback

Abstract

Written corrective feedback (WCF) has gained considerable attention from both researchers and teachers in the field of English language teaching (ELT). Although a large bulk of research on WCF has focused on the link between different feedback types and language development, more research is needed to understand how language learners perceive written corrective feedback and what feedback practices they favor more than others. Therefore, this study aims to investigate Turkish EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback in terms of the feedback strategies employed in their classrooms as well as their revision practices upon getting feedback. 90 Turkish Intermediate EFL undergraduates from a public university in Turkey completed a 21-item Likert-scale questionnaire online. Using descriptive statistics, the questionnaire data were analyzed. The findings showed that the learners’ perceptions and their teachers’ feedback practices mostly aligned, and most learners preferred to receive comprehensive and indirect feedback that focuses on grammatical, mechanical, and lexical errors rather than organization and content. These findings highlighted the importance of learner expectations in relation to the perceived efficacy of feedback practices.

Keywords

• L2 writing
• written corrective feedback
• error correction
• learner perceptions
• learner preferences

References

1. 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.
2. Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multi-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00027-8
3. Atmaca, Ç. (2016). Contrasting perceptions of students and teachers: Written corrective feedback. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(2), 166-182. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jlls/issue/36115/405548
4. Benson, S., & DeKeyser, R. (2019). Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research, 23(6), 702-726. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818770921
5. Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
6. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409-431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924
7. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006
8. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9

9. Chen, S., Nassaji, H., & Liu, Q. (2016). EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback: A case study of university students from Mainland China. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1(5), p. 1-17.
10. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Diab, R. L. (2005). EFL university students’ preferences for error correction and teacher feedback on writing. TESL Reporter, 38(1), 27-51.
12. Ekanayaka, W. I., & Ellis, R. (2020). Does asking learners to revise add to the effects of written corrective feedback on L2 acquisition? System, 94, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102341
13. 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
14. Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315-339. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588049
15. Ferris, D. (2003) Responding to writing. In Kroll, B. (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 119-140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Ferris, D. (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: Cambridge University Press.
17. Ferris, D. R. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing. University of Michigan Press.
18. 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
19. Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X
20. Frear, D., & Chiu, Y. H. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.06.006
21. Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224-255). Oxford: Blackwell.
22. Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 457-478). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Halimi, S. S. (2008). Indonesian teachers’ and students’ preferences for error correction. Wacana, 10(1), 50-71. https://doi.org/10.17510/wjhi.v10i1.178
24. Hammouda, A. (2011). A study of students and teachers’ preferences and attitudes towards correction of classroom written errors in Saudi EFL context. English Language Teaching, 4(3), 128-141.
25. Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2019). Academic emotions in written corrective feedback situations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.12.003
26. Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R, Strong-Krause, D., & Anderson, N. J. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 84-109.
27. Hedgcock, J. (2005). Taking stock of research and pedagogy on L2 writing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 597-615). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28. Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 7, 305-313. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12189
29. Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2020). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24, 519-539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818802469
30. Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. The Modern Language Journal, 7, 305-313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb05359.x
31. Kim, H. R., & Bowles, M. (2020). How deeply do second language learners process written corrective feedback? Insights gained from think-alouds. TESOL Quarterly, 53(4), 913-938. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.522
32. Kim, Y., Choi, B., Kang, S., Kim, B., & Yun, H. (2020). Comparing the effects of direct and indirect synchronous written corrective feedback: Learning outcomes and students’ perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 53(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12443
33. Lalande, J. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language Journal, 66, 140-149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb06973.x
34. 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
35. 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
36. Lee, I. (2020). Utility of focused/comprehensive written corrective feedback research for authentic L2 writing classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100734
37. Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college‐level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203-218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1991.tb00464.x
38. Liao, M., & Wong, C. (2010). Effects of dialogue journals on L2 students’ writing fluency, reflections, anxiety, and motivation. Journal of Reflections on English Language Teaching, 9(2), 139-170.
39. Lim, S. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2020). Efficacy of written corrective feedback in writing instruction: A meta-analysis. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 24(3), 1-26.
40. Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of error feedback in second language writing. Arizona Working Papers in SLA and Teaching, 15, 65-79.
41. Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.011 Lyster, R., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1999). A response to Truscott’s “What’s wrong with oral grammar correction.” Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 457-467. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.55.4.457
42. Nassaji, H. (2015). The interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning: Linking theory, research, and practice. London: Bloomsbury.
43. Nguyen, N. L. T., Nguyen, B. T. T., Hoang, G. T. L. (2021). Students’ perceptions of teachers’ written feedback on EFL writing in a Vietnamese tertiary context. Language Related Research, 12(5), 405-431.
44. Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). ‘If only I had more time’: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 43-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90005-4 Saragih, N, A., Madya, S., Siregar, R. A., & Saragih, W. (2021). Written corrective feedback: Students’ perception and preferences. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 8(2), 676-690.
45. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
46. Schulz, R. A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 343-364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1996.tb01247.x
47. Semke, H. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195-202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1984.tb01727.x
48. Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255-283. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x
49. Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37, 556-569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002
50. Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829202300107
51. Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 286-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011
52. 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), 103-131. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12029
53. Sinha, T. S., & Nassaji, H. (2021). ESL learners’ perception and its relationship with the efficacy of written corrective feedback. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32, 41-56.
54. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303-334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532
55. Suzuki, W., Nassaji, H., & Sato, K. (2019). The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System, 81, 135-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.017
56. Trabelsi, S. (2019). The perceptions and preferences of the General Foundation Programme students regarding written corrective feedback in an Omani EFL context. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 10(1), p. 91-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.10n.1p.91
57. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
58. Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “the case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80124-6
59. Truscott, J., & Hsu, A.Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003
60. Üstünbaş, Ü., & Çimen, S. (2016). EFL learners’ preferences for feedback types for their written products. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 6(4), 68-64. Retireved from https://www.tojned.net/journals/tojned/articles/v06i04/v06i04-07.pdf
61. Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279-296. https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034439
62. Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62, 1-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x
63. Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 321-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.007
64. Zacharias, N. T. (2007). Teacher and student attitudes toward teacher feedback. RELC Journal, 38(1), 38-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688206076157
65. Zhang, L. J., & Cheng, X. L. (2021). Examining the effects of comprehensive written corrective feedback on L2 EAP students’ linguistic performance: A mixed-methods study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 54, 101043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101043
66. Zhu, H. (2010). An analysis of college students’ attitudes towards error correction in EFL context. English Language Teaching, 3(4), 127-131. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n4p127