Effects of explicit corrective feedback on writing skill: A private middle school example

Year 2022, Volume: 8 Issue: 1, 108 - 120, 22.06.2022

Orhan Kocaman , Buse Nur Maral

https://doi.org/10.47216/literacytrek.1121256

Cited By: 3

Abstract

This study investigates and discusses the effects of explicit corrective feedback (ECF) on foreign language writing skills. In the process of learning a second language, the ability to write is one of the most important skills for gaining meaningful access to the target language. ECF is an indispensable part of practising writing while learning a second language. Despite the importance of ECF in language learning, many scholars often neglect the idea by accepting it as a behaviourist technique. The article first focuses on the definition of ECF and then reviews various research in the field. Besides, it discusses the research findings of the writing tasks applied to 43 private middle school students (B1 level) taking 5 subcategories into consideration. The study concludes that the research findings reveal a significant correlation between explicit corrective feedback and improving writing skills.

Keywords

explicit corrective feedback, writing, teacher, implicit, peer feedback, qualitative

References

• Abuseileek, A. F. (2013). Using track changes and word processor to provide corrective feedback to learner in writing. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(4), 319–333.
• Atmaca, Ç. (2016). Contrasting perceptions of students and teachers: written corrective feedback. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(2), 166-182.
• Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.
• Biber, D., Nekrasova, T., & Horn, B. (2011). The effectiveness of feedback for L1‐English and L2‐writing development: A meta‐analysis. ETS Research Report Series, 2011(1), i-99.
• 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.
• Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short-and long-term effects of written error correction. Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues, 81104.
• 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.
• Guenette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct?: Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of second language writing, 16(1), 40-53.
• 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(1), 84-109.
• Heift, T. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL. ReCALL, 16(2), 416-431.
• Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta‐analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1-18.
• Kim, J.H. (2004). Issues of corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 1-24.
• Beşkardeşler, S., Kocaman, O. (2019). The Effects of Written Corrective Feedback Types on the Prepositions of Place and Time in EFL Context. Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Education, Edugarden 1(3), 1-13.
• Lee, I. (2013). Research into practice: Written corrective feedback. Language Teaching, 46(1), 108-119.
• Lyddon, P. A. (2011). The efficacy of corrective feedback and textual enhancement in promoting the acquisition of grammatical redundancies. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 104-129.
• Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta‐analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309-365.
• Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in second language acquisition, 19(1), 37-66.
• Öztürk, G. (2016). An investigation on the use of oral corrective feedback in Turkish EFL classrooms. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(2), 22-37.
• Queirós, A., Faria, D., & Almeida, F. (2017). Strengths and limitations of qualitative and quantitative research methods. European journal of education studies.
• Stefanou, C., & Révész, A. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 263-282.
• Suzuki, W. (2012). Written languaging, direct correction, and second language writing revision. Language Learning, 62(4), 1110-1133.
• Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303-334.
• Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
• 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), 1-41.