Lisansüstü EFL Öğrencilerinin Ikinci Dilde Yazma Üzerine Öğretmenler Tarafindan Verilen Geribildirime Yönelik Bakış Açıları

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2, 537 - 555, 16.09.2019

Mosab İsmail Banat Nayef Jomaa Jomaa , Ahmad Affendi Shabdin

Öz

Yazılı düzeltme geribildirimlerinin öğrencilerin yazma yetkinliğini geliştirmedeki verimliliği son zamanlarda geniş ölçüde tartışılmıştır. Ancak, oldukça az sayıda çalışma öğrencilerin edinegeldiği geribildirimlere dair bakış açılarını ele almıştır. Dolayısıyla, bu çalışmada kodlamalı düzeltme geribildirimlerine dair bakış açıları incelenmiştir. Araştırma Universiti Utara Malaysia’da hızlandırılmış İngilizce kursunda okuyan lisansüstü öğrencilerle yapılan yarı-yapılandırılmış görüşmeler vasıtasıyla nitel bir yaklaşım sergilemektedir. Öğrenciler bu amaca yönelik seçilmiş ve yeterlilik seviyelerine göre gruplandırılmıştır. Bu öğrenciler iki yazı ödevine dair doğrudan ve dolaylı kodlamalı olmak üzere iki türlü geribildirim almıştır. Daha sonra, öğrenciler ayrı ayrı mülakata alınmıştır. Edinilen veri, açık ve eksensel kodlama teknikleri kullanarak tematik çözümlemelerde bulunmak üzere şahsen-manüel bir şekilde incelenmiştir. Bulgular göstermektedir ki tüm katılımcılar düzenli aralıklarla yapılan düzeltme geribildirimlerine ihtiyaç duymaktadır. Katılımcılar doğrudan geri dönütün açık ve kolay bir geribildirimde bulunma yöntemi olduğunu ve hatalarının düzeltilmesinde öğretmenler tarafından ortaya konan ilgiyi gösterdiğini dile getirmektedir. Diğer yandan, doğrudan yapılan düzeltme geri dönütlerinin kendi üzerlerinde olumsuz psikolojik etkilere neden olabileceğini göstermişlerdir. Dolaylı kodlamalı geribildirimde ise katılımcılar bu türün bağımsız öğrenciler olarak kendi öz güvenlerini artırdığını belirtmişlerdir. İlaveten, bunun öğrenciler için hem zaman hem de güç sarf ettirici olduğunu yansıtmışlardır. Mevzubahis bulgular, en etkili düzetme geribildirim türünü saptamada öğretmenlere yardımcı olarak eğitimsel bir işlev kazanabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İkinci Dilde Yazma, Düzeltme Geribildirimi

EFL Postgraduate Students’ Perspectives towards Teachers’ Feedback on L2 Writing

Öz

The effectiveness of written corrective feedback in improving students’ writing proficiency has been widely studied recently. However, the students’ perspectives towards the feedback they receive have been considered by only few studies. Therefore, the perspectives towards the coded corrective feedback were explored in the current study. The study adopted a qualitative approach employing semi-structured interviews with ten postgraduate students studying Intensive English Course at Universiti Utara Malaysia. The students were selected purposefully and were divided based on their proficiency levels. They received two types of feedback as Direct and Indirect Coded Feedback on two writing tasks. After that, they were interviewed individually. The data were analysed manually by making thematic analyses using open and axial coding techniques. The findings revealed that all the participants need Corrective Feedback on a regular basis. They stated that the direct feedback is clear and an easy way of providing feedback and shows their teachers’ interest in correcting their mistakes. On the other hand, they illustrated that the direct corrective feedback might have negative psychological effects on them. As for the indirect coded feedback, the participants stated that it increases their self-confidence as independent learners. In addition, they revealed that it is both time and effort-consuming for the learners. These findings could have pedagogical implications by helping teachers realize the most effective type of corrective feedback.

Anahtar Kelimeler

L2 Writing, EFL Students

Kaynakça

• Abdulkareem, M. N. (2013). An investigation study of academic writing problems faced by Arab postgraduate students at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM). Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(9), 1552-1557. Al-Khasawneh, F. M. S. (2010). Writing for academic purposes: Problems faced by Arab postgraduate students of the college of business, UUM. ESP World, 9(2), 1-23. A. D., & Cavalcanti, M. C. (1990). Feedback on compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports. Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom, 155-177. Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational research: planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). USA, Boston: Pearson Education. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of second language writing, 17(2), 102-118. Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The Contribution of Written Corrective Feedback to Language Development: A Ten Month Investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193-214. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Pearson Education. 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(3), 267-296. Corpuz, V. A. F. (2011). Error correction in second language writing: Teachers’ beliefs, practices, and students’ preferences (Doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology). Do rnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 2(2), 97-107. doi:10.1093/elt/ccn023 Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in second language acquisition, 28(2), 339-368. 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. Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple‐draft composition classrooms. TESOL quarterly, 29(1), 33-53. Ferris, D. (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. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “Grammar Correction” Debate in L2 Writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime …?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 49-62. Ferris, D. (2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 165-193. Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second Language Writing Research and Written Corrective Feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181-201. Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(2), 141-163. Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. The modern language journal, 62(8), 387-398. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jomaa, N. J. & Bidin, S. J. (2017). Perspectives of EFL doctoral students on challenges of citations in academic writing. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 14(2), 177-209. Kagimoto, E., & Rodgers, M. P. (2008). Students' perceptions of corrective feedback. In K. Bradford Watts, T. Muller, & M. Swanson, JALT 2007 Conference Proceedings (pp. 868-878). Tokyo: JALT. 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, 75(3), 305-313. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2005). Error Correction: Students’ Versus Teachers’ Perceptions. Language Awareness, 14(2-3), 112-127. Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 285-312. Lee, I. (2005). Error correction in the L2 writing classroom: What do students think? TESL Canada Journal, 22(2), 1-16. Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69-85. Leki, I. (1991). The Preferences of ESL Students for Error Correction in College-Level Writing Classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203-218. Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology. In: de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R., Kramsch, C. (Eds.), Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective. John Benjamin, Amsterdam, pp. 39–52 Othman, N. (2006). Assessment of Direct Writing in ESL Classrooms in Selected Malaysian Secondary Schools. (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Putra Malaysia). Rabab’ah, G. (2003). Communicating Problems Facing Arab Learners of English. Journal of Language and Learning, 3(1), 180-197. Rahimi, M. (2009). The role of teacher’s corrective feedback in improving Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy over time: Is learner’s mother tongue relevant? Reading and Writing, 22(2), 219-243. Razali, R., & Jupri, R. (2014). Exploring Teacher Written Feedback and Student Revisions on ESL Students’ Writing. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science IOSRJHSS, 19(5), 63-70. Renko, K. (2012). Finnish EFL learners’ perceptions on errors, corrective feedback and foreign language anxiety. (Master’s Dissertations, University of Jyväskylä, Department of Languages). Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching, 133-164. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119-144. Sakui, K., & Gaies, S. (1999). Investigating Japanese learners' beliefs about language learning. System, 27(4), 473-492. Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. In J. H. Hulstijn and R. Schmidt (eds). Consciousness in second language learning, AILA REVIEW, 11, 237-326. Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural Differences in Student and Teacher Perceptions Concerning the Role of Grammar Instruction and Corrective Feedback: USA-Colombia. Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244-258. Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects of the Red Pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17(3), 195-202. Sheppard, K. (1992). Two Feedback Types: Do They Make A Difference? RELC Journal, 23(1), 103-110. Truscott, J. (1996). The Case against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369. 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(2), 111-122. Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255-272. Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. P. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292-305. Varnosfadrani, A. D., & Basturkmen, H. (2009). The Effectiveness of Implicit and Explicit Error Correction on Learners’ Performance. System, 37(1), 82-98. Wiggins, G. (2004). Assessment as feedback. New Horizons for Learning Online Journal, 10(2), 1-8. Wilmot, A. (2005). Designing sampling strategies for qualitative social research: with particular reference to the Office for National Statistics' Qualitative Respondent Register. Survey Methodology Bulletin-Office For National Statistics-, 56, 53. Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers' choice and learners' preference of corrective feedback types. Language awareness, 17(1), 78-93.