Research Article
PDF EndNote BibTex RIS Cite

Year 2023, Volume 24, Issue 1, 74 - 87, 01.01.2023
https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.1025572

Abstract

References

  • Alavi, S. S., Foo, T. C. V., & Amini, M. (2015). L2 learners’ proficiency development through noticing feedback. International Journal of Multicultural and Multi-religious Understanding, 2(5), 25-41. https://doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v2i5.24
  • Allwright, R. L. (1975). Problems in the study of the lan¬guage teacher’s treatment of error. In M. K. Burt & H. D. Dulay (Eds.), New directions in second language learning, teaching, and bilingual education. Selected papers from the Ninth Annual TESOL Convention. Washington, DC: TESOL.
  • Asassfeh, S. M. (2013). Corrective feedback (CF) and English-Major EFL learners’ ability in grammatical error detection and correction. English Language Teaching, 6(8), 85-94. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n8p85
  • Banaruee, H. (2016). Recast in writing. Isfahan: Sana Gostar Publications.
  • Banaruee, H., & Askari, A. (2016). Typology of corrective feedback and error analysis. Isfahan: Sana Gostar Publications.
  • Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge. New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832400
  • Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924
  • Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783095056
  • Boggs, Jill A. (2019). Effects of teacher-scaffolded and self-scaffolded corrective feedback compared to direct corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in English L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100671
  • Brown, D. H. (2007). First language acquisition. Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson ESL.
  • Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15 (3), 357-366. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100012158
  • Carroll, S., Swain, M., & Roberge, Y. (1992). The role of feedback in adult second language acquisition: Error correction and morphological generalizations. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13(2), 173-198. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716400005555
  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(03)00038-9
  • Chang, C., Cunnigham, K. J., Satar, H. M., & Strobl, C. (2018). Electronic feedback on second language writing: A retrospective and prospective essay on multimodality. Writing & Pedagogy, 9 (3), 405-428. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.32515
  • Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27 (1), 29-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1977.tb00290.x
  • Cho, H. (2017) Synchronous web-based collaborative writing: Factors mediating interaction among second-language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 37-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.05.013
  • Chong, S. W. (2019). College students’ perception of e-feedback: a grounded theory perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44 (7), 1090-1105. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1572067
  • Chun, A., Day, R. R., Chenoweth, A., & Luppescu, S. (1982). Errors, interaction, and correction: A study of native-nonnative conversation. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 537-547. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586471
  • Ellis, R. (1994). A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit language learning (pp. 79-114). London: Academic Press.
  • Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001a). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281-318. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00156
  • Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001b). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 407-432. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588029
  • Ene, E., & Upton, T. A. (2018). Synchronous and asynchronous teacher electronic feedback and learner uptake in ESL composition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.05.005.
  • Ferris, D. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29 (1), 33-53. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587804
  • Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31 (2), 315-339. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588049
  • Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. University of Michigan Press.
  • Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410607201
  • Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes Journal of Second Language Writing, 10 (3), 161-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(01)00039-x
  • Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224-255). Oxford: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch9
  • Ghasemi, T., Noroozi, Z., & Salehan, Z. (2021). Teacher`s corrective feedback in paragraph writing in terms of accuracy: teacher`s comments vs. error making. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 4 (4), 200-207. http://doi.org/10.32996/ijllt.2021.4.4.22
  • Guardado, M. and Shi, L. (2007) EFL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition 24 (4), 443-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2007.03.002
  • Hadiyanto, S. (2019). The effect of computer-mediated corrective feedback on the students’ writing. Journal of English Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1-11. Retrieved from https://www.riset.unisma.ac.id/index.php/LANG/article/view/2881
  • Han, Z. H. (2008). Error correction: Towards a differential approach. Paper presented at The Fourth QCC Collo¬quium on Second Language Acquisition. New York, NY. Retrieved from http://www.tc.columbia.edu/academics/?facid=zhh2
  • Ho, M. C., & Savignon, S. J. (2007). Face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review in EFL writing. CALICO Journal, 24 (2), 269-290. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v24i2.269-290
  • Ishii, Y. (2011). A survey of learners` preferences about teacher’s feedback on writing. Proceedings of the PAAL. China, 16, 403-409.
  • Kim, S. (2010). Revising the Rrevision process with Google Docs. In TESOL Classroom Practice Series, edited by S. Kasten S 171-178 (Effective Second Language Writing Chapter 18). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
  • Khadawardi, A. H. (2020). The effect of implicit corrective feedback on English writing of international second language learners. English Language Teaching, 14 (1), 123-139. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v14n1p123
  • Khoshsima, H., & Banaruee, H. (2017). L1 interfering and L2 developmental writing errors among Iranian EFL learners. European Journal of English Language Teaching, 2(4), 1–14. doi:10.5281/zenodo.802945
  • Lalande, J. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language Journal, 66 (2), 140-149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb06973.x
  • Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for teaching. System, 25 (4), 465-477. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0346-251x(97)00045-6
  • 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
  • Lee, I. (2019). Teacher written corrective feedback: less is more. Language Teaching, 52 (4), 524-536. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000247
  • 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/10.6111/flan.1991.24.issue-3
  • Leki, I. (2001). Material, educational, and ideological challenges of teaching EFL writing at the turn of the century. International Journal of English Studies, 1 (2), 197-209. Retrieved from https://revistas.um.es/ijes/article/view/48301
  • Lightbown, P.M., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Listiani, L. (2017). Students ’ perception toward teacher’s written corrective feedback in writing 3 class. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), 109 (AECON), 164-167. https://doi.org/10.2991/aecon-17.2017.30
  • Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thomson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., & Chen, X. (2009). L2 learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. The Modern Language Journal, 93 (1), 91-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00830.x
  • Long, M. (1977). Teacher feedback on learner error: Map¬ping cognitions. In H. Brown, C. Yorio & R. Crymes (Eds.), TESOL’77. Teaching and learning English as a second language: Trends in research and practice (pp. 278-294). Washington DC: TESOL.
  • Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012589042-7/50015-3
  • Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28 (2), 269-300. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263106060128
  • Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19 (1), 37-66. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263197001034
  • Maleki, A., & Eslami, E. (2013). The effects of written corrective feedback techniques on EFL students’ control over grammatical construction of their written English. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3 (7), 1250-1257. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.7.1250-1257
  • Mendez, H. E., & Cruz, R. R. D. M. (2012). Teachers` perceptions about oral corrective feedback and their practice in EFL classrooms. PROFILE, 14 (2), pp. 63-75.
  • Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9 (1), 34-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667135
  • Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59 (2), 411-452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00511.x
  • Odo, D. M. and Yi, Y. (2014). Engaging in computer-mediated feedback in academic writing: Voices from L2 doctoral students in TESOL. English Teaching, 69 (3), 129-50. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.69.3.201409.129
  • Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36 (4), 573-595. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588241
  • Papi, M., Bondarenko, A., Wawire, D., Jiang, C., & Zhou, S. (2020). Feedback-seeking behaviour in second language writing: Motivational mechanisms. Reading and Writing, 33 (2), 485-505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09971-6
  • Rashtchi, M. & Bakar, ZA (2019). Written corrective feedback: what do Malaysian learners prefer and why? International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology, 8 (5), 1221-1225. doi: 10.35940/ijeat.E1173.0585C19
  • Razi, S. (2016) Open and anonymous peer review in a digital online environment compared in academic writing context. In C. Goria, O. Speicher & S. Stollhans (Eds) Innovative language teaching and learning at university: Enhancing participation and collaboration (pp. 49-56). Dublin: Research publishing.net. Retrieved on 14 December 2017 from https://reference.research-publishing.net/publication/chapters/978-1-908416-32-2/404.pdf
  • Reinders, H., & Mohebbi, H. (2018). Written corrective feedback: The road ahead. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 6, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2018.06.01
  • Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi. org/10.6017/CBO9780511667190
  • Rouhi, A., Dibah, M. & Mohebbi, H. Assessing the effect of giving and receiving written corrective feedback on improving L2 writing accuracy: does giving and receiving feedback have fair mutual benefit?. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. 5, 11 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-020-00093-z
  • Ruegg, R. (2010). Who wants feedback and does it make any difference? In A. M. Stoke (Ed.), JALT2009 Conference Proceedings (pp. 683-691). Tokyo: JALT.
  • Ruegg, R. (2017). Learner revision practices and perceptions of peer and teacher feedback. Writing & Pedagogy, 9 (2), 275-300. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.33157
  • Ruegg, R. (2018). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on changes in EFL students’ writing self-efficacy. The Language Learning Journal, 46 (2), 87-102. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.958190
  • Sampson, A. (2012). Coded and uncoded error feedback: Effects on error frequencies in adult Colombian EFL learners’ writing. System, 40 (4), 494-504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.10.001
  • Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 237-326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  • Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11 (2), 129-158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
  • Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139524780.003
  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1996.tb01247.x
  • Shang, H. (2017). An Exploration of asynchronous and synchronous feedback modes in EFL writing.” Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29 (3), 496–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9154-0.
  • Shintani, N. (2016). The effects of computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous direct corrective feedback on writing: A case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29 (3), 517-538. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09588221.2014.993400.
  • Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  • Swain, M. (1995). Three Functions of Output in Second Language Learning. Principles and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honor of H. G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Swain, M. (1997). The output hypothesis, focus on form and second language learning. In V. Berry, B. Adamson & W. Littlewood (Eds.). Applying linguistics: Insights into language in education (pp. 1-21). Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong, the English Centre.
  • Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62 (1), 1-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x
  • Wu, W. C. V., Petit, E., & Chen, C. H. (2015). EFL writing revision with blind expert and peer review using a CMC open forum. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28 (1), 58-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.937442
  • Yang, Y. F. (2011). A reciprocal peer review system to support college students’ writing. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42 (4), 687-700. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01059.x

THE EFFECT OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK VIA A COMPUTERIZED COURSE ON OMANI EFL LEARNERS` WRITING PERFORMANCE

Year 2023, Volume 24, Issue 1, 74 - 87, 01.01.2023
https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.1025572

Abstract

The present research investigates the efficiency of interactional corrective feedback on Omani EFL learners` writing performance through electronic platforms. To this end, 94 Omani English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners were selected based on the college placement criteria. The participants were randomly assigned into one experimental group and one control group, each including 47 students. Before starting the treatment, both groups were pretested by a writing test to collect the required data. The experimental group then received the treatment using interactional corrective feedback and additional comments, whereas the control group received only corrective input on forms and structures of the final draft. In addition, to elicit the students’ attitude towards interactional corrective feedback, a survey was distributed among the experimental group’s participants. The Mann-Whitney U test for comparing the control and experimental groups showed a significant difference between the mean scores of the two groups. It means that interactional corrective feedback had a statistically significant effect on EFL learners’ writing performance. Besides, the survey findings showed that participants emphasized the importance of receiving interactional corrective feedback from their teachers. The current study results can have some implications for teachers to implement more feedback sessions, not only on students’ writing tasks but also on the other skills equally.

References

  • Alavi, S. S., Foo, T. C. V., & Amini, M. (2015). L2 learners’ proficiency development through noticing feedback. International Journal of Multicultural and Multi-religious Understanding, 2(5), 25-41. https://doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v2i5.24
  • Allwright, R. L. (1975). Problems in the study of the lan¬guage teacher’s treatment of error. In M. K. Burt & H. D. Dulay (Eds.), New directions in second language learning, teaching, and bilingual education. Selected papers from the Ninth Annual TESOL Convention. Washington, DC: TESOL.
  • Asassfeh, S. M. (2013). Corrective feedback (CF) and English-Major EFL learners’ ability in grammatical error detection and correction. English Language Teaching, 6(8), 85-94. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n8p85
  • Banaruee, H. (2016). Recast in writing. Isfahan: Sana Gostar Publications.
  • Banaruee, H., & Askari, A. (2016). Typology of corrective feedback and error analysis. Isfahan: Sana Gostar Publications.
  • Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge. New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832400
  • Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924
  • Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783095056
  • Boggs, Jill A. (2019). Effects of teacher-scaffolded and self-scaffolded corrective feedback compared to direct corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in English L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100671
  • Brown, D. H. (2007). First language acquisition. Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson ESL.
  • Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15 (3), 357-366. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100012158
  • Carroll, S., Swain, M., & Roberge, Y. (1992). The role of feedback in adult second language acquisition: Error correction and morphological generalizations. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13(2), 173-198. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716400005555
  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(03)00038-9
  • Chang, C., Cunnigham, K. J., Satar, H. M., & Strobl, C. (2018). Electronic feedback on second language writing: A retrospective and prospective essay on multimodality. Writing & Pedagogy, 9 (3), 405-428. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.32515
  • Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27 (1), 29-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1977.tb00290.x
  • Cho, H. (2017) Synchronous web-based collaborative writing: Factors mediating interaction among second-language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 37-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.05.013
  • Chong, S. W. (2019). College students’ perception of e-feedback: a grounded theory perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44 (7), 1090-1105. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1572067
  • Chun, A., Day, R. R., Chenoweth, A., & Luppescu, S. (1982). Errors, interaction, and correction: A study of native-nonnative conversation. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 537-547. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586471
  • Ellis, R. (1994). A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit language learning (pp. 79-114). London: Academic Press.
  • Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001a). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281-318. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00156
  • Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001b). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 407-432. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588029
  • Ene, E., & Upton, T. A. (2018). Synchronous and asynchronous teacher electronic feedback and learner uptake in ESL composition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.05.005.
  • Ferris, D. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29 (1), 33-53. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587804
  • Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31 (2), 315-339. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588049
  • Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. University of Michigan Press.
  • Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410607201
  • Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes Journal of Second Language Writing, 10 (3), 161-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(01)00039-x
  • Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224-255). Oxford: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch9
  • Ghasemi, T., Noroozi, Z., & Salehan, Z. (2021). Teacher`s corrective feedback in paragraph writing in terms of accuracy: teacher`s comments vs. error making. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 4 (4), 200-207. http://doi.org/10.32996/ijllt.2021.4.4.22
  • Guardado, M. and Shi, L. (2007) EFL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition 24 (4), 443-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2007.03.002
  • Hadiyanto, S. (2019). The effect of computer-mediated corrective feedback on the students’ writing. Journal of English Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1-11. Retrieved from https://www.riset.unisma.ac.id/index.php/LANG/article/view/2881
  • Han, Z. H. (2008). Error correction: Towards a differential approach. Paper presented at The Fourth QCC Collo¬quium on Second Language Acquisition. New York, NY. Retrieved from http://www.tc.columbia.edu/academics/?facid=zhh2
  • Ho, M. C., & Savignon, S. J. (2007). Face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review in EFL writing. CALICO Journal, 24 (2), 269-290. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v24i2.269-290
  • Ishii, Y. (2011). A survey of learners` preferences about teacher’s feedback on writing. Proceedings of the PAAL. China, 16, 403-409.
  • Kim, S. (2010). Revising the Rrevision process with Google Docs. In TESOL Classroom Practice Series, edited by S. Kasten S 171-178 (Effective Second Language Writing Chapter 18). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
  • Khadawardi, A. H. (2020). The effect of implicit corrective feedback on English writing of international second language learners. English Language Teaching, 14 (1), 123-139. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v14n1p123
  • Khoshsima, H., & Banaruee, H. (2017). L1 interfering and L2 developmental writing errors among Iranian EFL learners. European Journal of English Language Teaching, 2(4), 1–14. doi:10.5281/zenodo.802945
  • Lalande, J. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language Journal, 66 (2), 140-149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb06973.x
  • Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for teaching. System, 25 (4), 465-477. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0346-251x(97)00045-6
  • 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
  • Lee, I. (2019). Teacher written corrective feedback: less is more. Language Teaching, 52 (4), 524-536. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000247
  • 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/10.6111/flan.1991.24.issue-3
  • Leki, I. (2001). Material, educational, and ideological challenges of teaching EFL writing at the turn of the century. International Journal of English Studies, 1 (2), 197-209. Retrieved from https://revistas.um.es/ijes/article/view/48301
  • Lightbown, P.M., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Listiani, L. (2017). Students ’ perception toward teacher’s written corrective feedback in writing 3 class. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), 109 (AECON), 164-167. https://doi.org/10.2991/aecon-17.2017.30
  • Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thomson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., & Chen, X. (2009). L2 learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. The Modern Language Journal, 93 (1), 91-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00830.x
  • Long, M. (1977). Teacher feedback on learner error: Map¬ping cognitions. In H. Brown, C. Yorio & R. Crymes (Eds.), TESOL’77. Teaching and learning English as a second language: Trends in research and practice (pp. 278-294). Washington DC: TESOL.
  • Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012589042-7/50015-3
  • Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28 (2), 269-300. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263106060128
  • Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19 (1), 37-66. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263197001034
  • Maleki, A., & Eslami, E. (2013). The effects of written corrective feedback techniques on EFL students’ control over grammatical construction of their written English. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3 (7), 1250-1257. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.7.1250-1257
  • Mendez, H. E., & Cruz, R. R. D. M. (2012). Teachers` perceptions about oral corrective feedback and their practice in EFL classrooms. PROFILE, 14 (2), pp. 63-75.
  • Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9 (1), 34-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667135
  • Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59 (2), 411-452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00511.x
  • Odo, D. M. and Yi, Y. (2014). Engaging in computer-mediated feedback in academic writing: Voices from L2 doctoral students in TESOL. English Teaching, 69 (3), 129-50. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.69.3.201409.129
  • Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36 (4), 573-595. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588241
  • Papi, M., Bondarenko, A., Wawire, D., Jiang, C., & Zhou, S. (2020). Feedback-seeking behaviour in second language writing: Motivational mechanisms. Reading and Writing, 33 (2), 485-505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09971-6
  • Rashtchi, M. & Bakar, ZA (2019). Written corrective feedback: what do Malaysian learners prefer and why? International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology, 8 (5), 1221-1225. doi: 10.35940/ijeat.E1173.0585C19
  • Razi, S. (2016) Open and anonymous peer review in a digital online environment compared in academic writing context. In C. Goria, O. Speicher & S. Stollhans (Eds) Innovative language teaching and learning at university: Enhancing participation and collaboration (pp. 49-56). Dublin: Research publishing.net. Retrieved on 14 December 2017 from https://reference.research-publishing.net/publication/chapters/978-1-908416-32-2/404.pdf
  • Reinders, H., & Mohebbi, H. (2018). Written corrective feedback: The road ahead. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 6, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2018.06.01
  • Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi. org/10.6017/CBO9780511667190
  • Rouhi, A., Dibah, M. & Mohebbi, H. Assessing the effect of giving and receiving written corrective feedback on improving L2 writing accuracy: does giving and receiving feedback have fair mutual benefit?. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. 5, 11 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-020-00093-z
  • Ruegg, R. (2010). Who wants feedback and does it make any difference? In A. M. Stoke (Ed.), JALT2009 Conference Proceedings (pp. 683-691). Tokyo: JALT.
  • Ruegg, R. (2017). Learner revision practices and perceptions of peer and teacher feedback. Writing & Pedagogy, 9 (2), 275-300. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.33157
  • Ruegg, R. (2018). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on changes in EFL students’ writing self-efficacy. The Language Learning Journal, 46 (2), 87-102. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.958190
  • Sampson, A. (2012). Coded and uncoded error feedback: Effects on error frequencies in adult Colombian EFL learners’ writing. System, 40 (4), 494-504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.10.001
  • Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 237-326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  • Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11 (2), 129-158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
  • Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139524780.003
  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1996.tb01247.x
  • Shang, H. (2017). An Exploration of asynchronous and synchronous feedback modes in EFL writing.” Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29 (3), 496–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9154-0.
  • Shintani, N. (2016). The effects of computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous direct corrective feedback on writing: A case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29 (3), 517-538. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09588221.2014.993400.
  • Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  • Swain, M. (1995). Three Functions of Output in Second Language Learning. Principles and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honor of H. G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Swain, M. (1997). The output hypothesis, focus on form and second language learning. In V. Berry, B. Adamson & W. Littlewood (Eds.). Applying linguistics: Insights into language in education (pp. 1-21). Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong, the English Centre.
  • Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62 (1), 1-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x
  • Wu, W. C. V., Petit, E., & Chen, C. H. (2015). EFL writing revision with blind expert and peer review using a CMC open forum. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28 (1), 58-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.937442
  • Yang, Y. F. (2011). A reciprocal peer review system to support college students’ writing. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42 (4), 687-700. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01059.x

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Social
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Ali AL GHAITHI This is me
Sohar University
0000-0002-9653-508X
Oman


Behnam BEHFOROUZ> (Primary Author)
University of Technology and Applied Sciences-Shinas
0000-0002-0078-2757
Oman

Publication Date January 1, 2023
Submission Date November 18, 2021
Acceptance Date April 28, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2023, Volume 24, Issue 1

Cite

APA Al Ghaıthı, A. & Behforouz, B. (2023). THE EFFECT OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK VIA A COMPUTERIZED COURSE ON OMANI EFL LEARNERS` WRITING PERFORMANCE . Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education , 24 (1) , 74-87 . DOI: 10.17718/tojde.1025572