Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Being effective or being corrective in writing classes?

Year 2022, Volume: 11 Issue: 21, 42 - 56, 29.06.2022

Faranak Abbaszad Tehrani

Abstract

Providing corrective teacher feedback to English language learners is a significant and effective point for Turkish students. Many studies have been done to fix the importance of corrective teacher feedback. The overall aim of this study was to focus on the way that the instructors can change the students` point of view from teacher-corrective feedback to peer- feedback. Data gathered from this case study revealed that almost all of the instructors had positive view of peer-feedback and also had a high opinion of illuminating the path of students for giving peer-feedback.

Keywords

English language learners written feedback teacher-corrective feedback peer-feedback

Thanks

Tesekkur

References

  • Allei, S. K., & Connor, U. M. (1990). Exploring the dynamics of cross-cultural collaboration in writing classrooms. The Writing Instructor 10, 19-28.
  • Berg, E. C. (1999a)."Preparing ESL students for peer response". TESOL Journal. 8, 20-25.
  • Bijami, M. (2013). Peer feedback in learning English writing: Advantages and disadvantages. Journal of Studies in Education, 3(4), 91-98.
  • Chaudron, C. (1984). The effects of feedback on students’ composition revisions. RELC Journal I5(2), l-14
  • Connor, U., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(3), 257–276.
  • 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.
  • George, D. (1984). Working with peer groups in the composition classroom. College Composition and Communication 35, 320-326.
  • Gielen, M ., & De Waver. (2015) Structuring peer assessment: Comparing the impact of the degree of structure on peer feedback content. November 2015 Computers in Human Behavior 52:315-325.
  • Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collective oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 255–276.
  • Kamberi, L. (2013). The Significance of Teacher Feedback in EFL Writing for Tertiary Level Foreign Language Learners
  • Keh, C. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal, 44(4), 294–304.
  • Konold, C., & Miller, C. D. (2005). TinkerPlots: Dynamic data exploration. Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.
  • Mendonca, C. O & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly 28, 745-769.
  • Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: what do the students think? ELT Journal 46,274-284.
  • Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1993). Peer response groups: do L2 writers use peer comments in writing their drafts? TESOL Quarterly 27, 135-142.
  • Paulus, T. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265–289. Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 1, 52–79.
  • Raimes, A. (1983). How English works: A grammar handbook with readings. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Tillema, M. (2012). Writing in first and second language. Empirical studies on text quality and writing processes. Utrecht: University of Utrecht (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved October 17, 2020, from http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/241028.
  • Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179–200.
  • Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly I9,79-101.

Yazma derslerinde etkili olmak veya düzeltici olmak?

Year 2022, Volume: 11 Issue: 21, 42 - 56, 29.06.2022

Faranak Abbaszad Tehrani

Abstract

İngilizce öğrenenlere düzeltici öğretmen geribildirimi sağlamak, Türk öğrenciler için önemli ve etkili bir noktadır. Düzeltici öğretmen geribildiriminin önemini tesbit etmek için birçok çalışma yapılmıştır. Bu çalışmanın genel amacı, eğitmenlerin öğrencilerin bakış açısını öğretmen düzeltici geribildirimden akran geribildirimine nasıl değiştirebileceklerine odaklanmaktır. Bu vaka çalışmasından elde edilen veriler, öğretim elemanlarının neredeyse tamamının akran geri bildirimi konusunda olumlu görüşe sahip olduğunu ve ayrıca öğrencilerin akran geri bildirimi verme yolunu aydınlatma konusunda yüksek görüşe sahip olduğunu ortaya koymuştur.

Keywords

yazılı geri bildirim öğretmen düzeltici geri bildirim akran geri bildirimi İngilizce öğrencileri

References

  • Allei, S. K., & Connor, U. M. (1990). Exploring the dynamics of cross-cultural collaboration in writing classrooms. The Writing Instructor 10, 19-28.
  • Berg, E. C. (1999a)."Preparing ESL students for peer response". TESOL Journal. 8, 20-25.
  • Bijami, M. (2013). Peer feedback in learning English writing: Advantages and disadvantages. Journal of Studies in Education, 3(4), 91-98.
  • Chaudron, C. (1984). The effects of feedback on students’ composition revisions. RELC Journal I5(2), l-14
  • Connor, U., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(3), 257–276.
  • 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.
  • George, D. (1984). Working with peer groups in the composition classroom. College Composition and Communication 35, 320-326.
  • Gielen, M ., & De Waver. (2015) Structuring peer assessment: Comparing the impact of the degree of structure on peer feedback content. November 2015 Computers in Human Behavior 52:315-325.
  • Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collective oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 255–276.
  • Kamberi, L. (2013). The Significance of Teacher Feedback in EFL Writing for Tertiary Level Foreign Language Learners
  • Keh, C. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal, 44(4), 294–304.
  • Konold, C., & Miller, C. D. (2005). TinkerPlots: Dynamic data exploration. Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.
  • Mendonca, C. O & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly 28, 745-769.
  • Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: what do the students think? ELT Journal 46,274-284.
  • Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1993). Peer response groups: do L2 writers use peer comments in writing their drafts? TESOL Quarterly 27, 135-142.
  • Paulus, T. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265–289. Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 1, 52–79.
  • Raimes, A. (1983). How English works: A grammar handbook with readings. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Tillema, M. (2012). Writing in first and second language. Empirical studies on text quality and writing processes. Utrecht: University of Utrecht (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved October 17, 2020, from http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/241028.
  • Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179–200.
  • Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly I9,79-101.
There are 20 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Faranak Abbaszad Tehrani 0000-0001-5971-2094

Publication Date June 29, 2022
Submission Date June 8, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2022 Volume: 11 Issue: 21

Cite

APA Abbaszad Tehrani, F. (2022). Being effective or being corrective in writing classes?. Ufuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(21), 42-56.
AMA Abbaszad Tehrani F. Being effective or being corrective in writing classes?. Ufuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. June 2022;11(21):42-56.
Chicago Abbaszad Tehrani, Faranak. “Being Effective or Being Corrective in Writing Classes?”. Ufuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 11, no. 21 (June 2022): 42-56.
EndNote Abbaszad Tehrani F (June 1, 2022) Being effective or being corrective in writing classes?. Ufuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 11 21 42–56.
IEEE F. Abbaszad Tehrani, “Being effective or being corrective in writing classes?”, Ufuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, vol. 11, no. 21, pp. 42–56, 2022.
ISNAD Abbaszad Tehrani, Faranak. “Being Effective or Being Corrective in Writing Classes?”. Ufuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 11/21 (June 2022), 42-56.
JAMA Abbaszad Tehrani F. Being effective or being corrective in writing classes?. Ufuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2022;11:42–56.
MLA Abbaszad Tehrani, Faranak. “Being Effective or Being Corrective in Writing Classes?”. Ufuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, vol. 11, no. 21, 2022, pp. 42-56.
Vancouver Abbaszad Tehrani F. Being effective or being corrective in writing classes?. Ufuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2022;11(21):42-56.