Dolaylı veya Doğrudan Düzeltme Geribildirimi: Bir Eylem Araştırması

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, bir mühendislik fakültesinin İngilizce Hazırlık sınıfına devam etmekte olan 28 öğrenci için yabancı dilde yazma öğretiminde doğrudan veya dolaylı olarak sağlanan düzeltme geribildirimi türlerinden hangisinin daha faydalı olduğunun saptanmasıdır. Eylem araştırması şeklinde tasarlanan çalışmanın gözlem ve yansıtma aşamaları var olan düzeltme geribildirimi uygulamasının incelenmesi şeklinde gerçekleştirmiştir. Eylem aşamasında ise öğrenciler işbirlikçi bir yazma etkinliği için altı gruba bölünmüş, bu gruplardan üçüne doğrudan, üçüne ise dolaylı düzeltme geribildirimi sağlanmıştır. Değerlendirme aşaması için yarı yapılandırılmış öğretmen gözlemi, katılımcı tartışmalarının ses kaydı ve yansıtma sorularına verilen yanıtlar kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, her iki düzeltme geribildirimi türünün de katılımcılar için faydalı olduğunu göstermektedir. Ancak, dolaylı düzeltme geribildirimi uygulamasının aynı zamanda doğrudan düzeltme geribildirimi ihtiyacı doğurduğu göz önüne alındığında, bu tür düzeltme geribildiriminin sınıf içi kullanım için daha uygun olduğu görülmüştür. 

Keywords

• Doğrudan Düzeltme Geribildirimi,Dolaylı Düzeltme Geribildirimi,Yabancı Dilde Yazma,Yazılı Düzeltme Geribildirimi

Direct vs Indirect Written Corrective Feedback: An Action Research

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to find out if direct or indirect written corrective feedback was more beneficial for a group of 28 students in the English Prep Year of an engineering department at a public university in Turkey. Utilizing an action research design, the observation and reflection phases of the study included the observation of the current written corrective feedback applications in the group. In the action phase, the students were divided into six groups for a collaborative writing task. Following the completion of the task, three groups were provided with direct written corrective feedback while the remaining three were given its indirect counterpart. Evaluation data was collected through semi-structured teacher observations, voice records of participant discussions and responses to guided reflection questions. The findings revealed that both types of written corrective feedback could be beneficial for the participants, however, indirect feedback was more suitable for classroom use since it also necessitated direct feedback for final drafts.  

Keywords

• Direct Feedback,Indirect Feedback,L2 Writing,Written Corrective Feedback

References

1. Ataman, D. Ş., & Mirici, İ. H. (2017). Contribution of corrective feedback to English language learners' writing skills development through workfolio based tasks. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 9(1), 1-30.
2. Atmaca, Ç. (2016). Contrasting perceptions of students and teachers: Written corrective feedback. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(2), 166-182.
3. Badger, R. & G. White. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54(2): 153-160.
4. Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102–11.
5. Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on ‘the language learning potential’ of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 348-363.
6. Bonzo, J. D. (2008). To assign a topic or not: Observing fluency and complexity in intermediate foreign language writing. Foreign language Annals, 41(4), 722-735.
7. Bostancı, H. B., & Şengül, F. (2018). Who is the Most Effective Agent When Giving Indirect Written Corrective Feedback? EJER, 76, 73-92.
8. Bozkurt, S., & Çamlıbel Acar, Z. (2017). EFL students’ reflections on explicit and implicit written corrective feedback. The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational & Social Sciences (EPESS), 7, 98-102.

9. Brown, H. D. (2010). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
10. Bruce, I. (2008). Academic writing and genre: A systematic analysis. New York, NY: Continuum.
11. Chau, J., & Cheng, G. (2012). Developing chinese students’ reflective second language learning skills in higher education. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 15-32.
12. Çınar, S. (2017). The efficacy of corrective feedback on L2 writing of EFL students. European Journal of Language and Literature, 3(2), 110-120. doi: 10.26417/ejls.v8i1.p110-120
13. Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. English Language Teaching Journal, 63(2), 97-107. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccn023.
14. Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Frear, D., & Chiu, Y. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24–34. doi:10.1016/j.system.2015.06.006
16. Graham, S., & Sandmel, K. (2011). The Process Writing Approach: A Meta-analysis. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(6), 396–407. doi:10.1080/00220671.2010.488703
17. Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy, and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 148-164. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.005
18. Johansson, A. W., & Lindhult, E. (2008). Emancipation or workability? Critical versus pragmatic scientific orientation in action research. Action Research, 6(1), 95–115.
19. Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. Singapore: Springer.
20. Kim, Y.-S. G., Gatlin, B., Al Otaiba, S., & Wanzek, J. (2017). Theorization and an Empirical Investigation of the Component-Based and Developmental Text Writing Fluency Construct. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(4), 320–335. doi:10.1177/0022219417712016
21. Köksal, H., & Çınar, S. (2012). Fehleranalyse zur Großschreibung beim L3-Lernen. In The 12. International Language, Literature and Stylistics Symposium: Book of Proceedings (pp. 516-523). Edirne: Trakya University.
22. Köksal, H. (2009). Yabancı Dil Olarak Almanca Öğretiminde Sınav Değerlendirmesi. Bağdaşık Yapıya ilişkin Yanlış Çözümlemesi. In H. Asutay, & E. Budak Bayır, The 5th International Balkan Education and Science Congress, “Education in the Balkans Today” Congress Papers, Vol II (pp. 75-78). Edirne: Trakya University.
23. Köksal, H. (2005). Textlinguistik und Fehlerkorrektur in der Deutschlehrerausbildung. Eine Praxisorientierte Aussicht. In: Kocadoru, Y. & Öztürk, K. (Hrsg.), Tagungsbeiträge zum IX. Internationales Germanistensymposium, Wissen-Sprache-Europa-Kultur - Neue Konstruktionen und neue Tendenzen (pp. 308-320). Eskişehir: Anadolu Universität.
24. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012). On the roles of repetition in language teaching and learning. Applied Linguistics Review, 3(2), 195-210.
25. Lee, C., & Tan, S. (2010). Scaffolding writing using feedback in students’ graphic organizers: Novice writers’ relevance of ideas and cognitive loads. Educational Media International, 47(2), 135–152.
26. Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language writing. London: Routledge.
27. McNiff, J. (2016). Writing up your action research project. New York, NY: Routledge.
28. McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2006). All you need to know about action research. London, UK: SAGE.
29. Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English Language Teaching. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies.
30. Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601. doi:10.1093/applin/amp045
31. Park, E. S., Song, S., & Shin, Y. K. (2016). To what extent do learners benefit from indirect written corrective feedback? A study targeting learners of different proficiency and heritage language status. Language Teaching Research, 20(6), 678–699. doi:10.1177/1362168815609617
32. Philippakos, Z. A. (2018). Using a task analysis process for reading and writing assignments. The Reading Teacher, 72(1), 107–114. doi:10.1002/trtr.1690
33. Richards, J. C, & Schmidt. (2010). Dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London, UK: Longman.
34. Rijlaarsdam, G., & Van den Bergh, H. (2006). Writing process theory: A functional dynamic approach. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 41–53). New York, NY: Guilford.
35. Robson, C. (2011). Real World Research (3rd ed.). London: John Wiley.
36. Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney school. Sheffield, UK: Equinox.
37. Schmitt, N. (2010). An introduction to applied linguistics (2nd ed.). London, UK: Hodder & Stoughton Ltd.
38. 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.
39. Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532. doi:10.1093/applin/amp047
40. Storch, N. (2018). Collaborative writing. Language Teaching, 52(1), 40–59. doi:10.1017/s0261444818000320
41. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303-334.
42. Tardy, C. M. (2012). A rhetorical genre theory perspective on L2 writing development. In R. M. Manchon (ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 165-190). Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
43. Uzun, K. (2019). Genre-based instruction and genre-focused feedback: A multiperspective study on writing performance and the psychology of writing [Unpublished PhD Dissertation], Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale, Turkey.
44. 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.
45. Voon, H. (2010). The use of brainstorming and role playing as prewriting strategy. The International Journal of Learning, 17(3), 537–558.
46. Yamashita, T. (2017). Review of written corrective feedback for L2 development. Journal of Response to Writing, 3(2): 93–97.Yangın Ekşi, G. (2012). Peer review versus teacher feedback in process writing: How effective? International Journal of Applied Educational Studies, 13(1), 33-48.