Yabancı dil olarak İngilizcenin öğretildiği bir ortamda çoklu taslak kompozisyonlara verilen yazılı düzeltici geribildirimine öğrenci tepki ve yeğleyişlerinin ne kadarını cinsiyet farklılıkları açıklayabilir?

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de İngilizce’nin yabancı dil olarak öğretildiği bir ortamda, hazırlık okulu öğrencilerinin, çoklu taslak kompozisyonlarına aldıkları yazılı düzeltici geri bildirime (YDG) dair tepki ve yeğleyişlerinin ne kadarının cinsiyet farklılıkları açısından açıklanabileceğini araştırmaktadır. İnceleme altındaki araştırma alanları (a) öğrencilerin ilk ve daha sonraki taslaklarına verilen geribildirimin ne kadarını okuyup ne kadarına dikkat ettikleri, (b) tercih edilen (i) ana geribildirim veren kişiler (ii) düzeltme metotları, (iii) geribildirim dili, (c) (i) geribildirimin içeriğine (ii) çoklu taslaklarda nelerin düzeltilmesi gerektiğine dair inanışları ve en son olarak da (d) öğrencilerin yabancı dil olarak İngilizce’deki yazı becerilerini kişisel değerlendirmeleridir. Benimsenen desen Ferris (1995) ve Lee (2008)’den adapte edilen 5’li Likert tipi tutum ölçeğinin cevaplandırıldığı yapılandırılmış ankettir (α=.85). 160 öğrenci (yarısı kadın) çalışmaya katılmıştır. İlişkisiz örneklemler t-testi sonuçları her iki grubun da ilk taslaklara verilen YDG’nin çoğunu, daha sonraki taslaklara verilen YDG’nin sadece bir kısmını okuduğunu, geribildirim dili olarak anlamakta da güçlük çekmediği İngilizce’yi tercih ettiklerini göstermiştir. Akademik yazmadan sorumlu öğretim görevlisi tercih edilen ana YDG’nin kaynağı olarak görülmektedir. Kadın öğrenciler, erkek yaşıtlarından, ilk taslaklarına, daha fazla içerikle alakalı YDG istemeleri ve daha sonraki taslaklarına da dilbilgisi ve sözcüksel hatalarına yönelik YDG istemeleri açısından ayrışmaktadırlar. Bu iki grubun bir başka ayrıldığı nokta, kadın öğrencilerin, YDG olarak kodlamayı daha fazla tercih etmeleri, yorum, düzeltme ve öğretmenin notuyla değerlendirilmenin harmanlandığı bir YDG kombinasyonunu erkek öğrencilerden daha fazla yeğlemeleridir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cinsiyet farklılıkları
• yabancı dil olarak İngilizce
• öğrenci inanışları
• yazılı düzeltici geribildirim
• çoklu taslak kompozisyonlar

How well can differences in gender explain student reactions to written corrective feedback to multiple draft essays in an EFL context?

Abstract

This paper explores whether gender differences can account for reactions and preferences of tertiary level students to written corrective feedback (WCF) given to their multiple draft essays in an EFL setting in Turkey. The specific areas under investigation are (a) how much of the feedback given to the preliminary and final drafts are read and paid attention to, (b) the preferred (i) main feedback providing agent(s) (ii) method(s) of correction, (iii) language of feedback, (c) the beliefs on (i) the content of feedback (ii) what needs to be corrected in multiple draft essays and finally (d) students’ self-evaluations of their writing skills in L2 English. By adopting a structured survey approach, the data were collected from 160 students (half females) who responded to a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire (α=.85) adapted from Ferris (1995) and Lee (2008). Independent sample T-test results revealed that both groups read most of the WCF given to their preliminary drafts but only some of the WCF given to their final drafts, preferred English as the language of WCF and had no trouble comprehending the feedback given in English. The writing instructor was the preferred main feedback providing agent for both groups. The female students differed significantly from their male peers in that the females asked for more content related feedback to their first drafts, grammar and lexical feedback to their final drafts, preferred coded feedback and valued a combination of comments, corrections and teacher grades more than the males did.

Keywords

• Gender differences
• EFL
• student beliefs
• written corrective feedback
• multiple draft essays

References

1. Agbayahoun, J. P. (2016). Teacher written feedback on student writing: Teachers’ and learners’ perspectives. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6 (19), 1895–1904. Alavi, S. M., & Kaivanpanah, S. (2007). Feedback expectancy and EFL learners’ achievement in English. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 3 (2), 181–196.
2. Al-Shammari, S. R. (2011). The attitude of male and female teachers and students towards teachers' feedback on the writings of secondary school students in Rafha City, Saudi Arabia. MA Thesis King Saud University, Saudi Arabia.
3. Bijami, M., Kashef, S.H., & Khaksari, M. (2013). Gender differences and writing performance: A brief review. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 1 (2), 8–11.
4. Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102–118.
5. Black, D. A., & Nanni, A. (2016). Written corrective feedback: Preferences and justifications of teachers and students on a Thai context. Journal of Language Studies, 16 (3), 99–114.
6. Brown, D. (2012). The written corrective feedback debate: The next steps for classroom teachers and practitioners. TESOL Quarterly, 46 (4), 861–867.
7. Chiang, K. (2004). An Investigation into students’ preferences for and responses to teacher feedback and its implications for writing teachers. Hong Kong Teachers’ Centre Journal, 3, 98–115.
8. Ferdouse, F. (2012). Learning from mistakes: Using correction code to improve student’s writing skill in English composition class. Stamford Journal of English, 7, 62–86.

9. Ferris, D. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33–53.
10. Ferris, D. (1999). The case of grammar correction in L2 writing classes: a response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (1), 1–11.
11. 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, UK. Cambridge University Press.
12. Ferris, D. R. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing (2nd edition). Ann Arbor. The University of Michigan Press.
13. Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2013). Teaching L2 composition: Purpose, process, and practice (3rd edition). New York. Routledge.
14. Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10 (3), 161–184.
15. Francis, B., Robson, J., & Read, B. (2001). An analysis of undergraduate writing styles in the context of gender and achievement. Studies in Higher Education, 26 (3), 313–326. Hamouda, A. (2011). A study of students and teacher’s preference and attitudes towards correction of classroom written errors in Saudi EFL context. English Language Teaching, 4 (3), 128–141.
16. Harmer, J. (2004). How to teach writing. Pearson Education Limited.
17. Hartshorn, J., & Evans, N. (2012). The Differential Effects of Comprehensive Corrective Feedback on L2 Writing Accuracy. Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching, 3 (2), 217–248.
18. 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.
19. Hawthorne, S. (2008). Students’ beliefs and barriers to engagement with writing in secondary school English: A focus group study. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31 (1), 30–42.
20. Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press. IBM Corp. Released 2017. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0.
21. Jacobs, G. M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S-Y. (1998). Feedback on student writing: Taking the middle path. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 307–317.
22. Kahraman, A. (2013). Affective and cognitive effects of coded teacher feedback on writing students. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [Hacettepe University Journal of Education], 28 (1), 189–201.
23. Kahraman, A., & Yalvaç, F. (2015). EFL Turkish university students’ preferences about teacher feedback and its importance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 73−80.
24. Kamari, E., Gorjian, B., & Pazhakh, A. (2012). Examining the effects of gender on second language writing proficiency of Iranian EFL students: Descriptive vs opinion one-paragraph essay. Advances in Asian Social Science, 3 (4), 759–763.
25. Kubota, R. (2003). New approaches to gender, class, and race in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12 (1), 31–47.
26. Lee, I. (2005). Error correction in the L2 writing classroom: What do students think? TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL Du Canada, 22 (2), 1–16.
27. Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 144–164.
28. Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24 (3), 203–218.
29. Liu, J., & Hansen, J. (2002). Peer Response in Second Language Writing Classrooms. Ann Arbor. The University of Michigan Press.
30. Motlagh, L. N. (2015). Who do learners prefer to be corrected by? Teachers or classmates? Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 381–386.
31. Oladejo, J. A. (1993). Error correction in ESL: Learners’ preferences. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL Du Canada, 10 (2), 71–89.
32. Oscarson, A. D. (2009). Self-assessment of writing in learning English as a foreign language. Göteborg Studies in Educational Sciences (277).
33. Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2006). Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Motivation in Writing Development. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 158–170). The Guilford Press.
34. Peterson, S. (2006). Influence of Gender on Writing Development. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 311–323). The Guilford Press.
35. Radecki, P. M., & Swales, J. M. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work. System, 16 (3), 355–365.
36. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46 (2), 327–369.
37. Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. (2008). Error Correction, Revision, and Learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292–305.