BibTex RIS Cite

-

Year 2013, Volume: 17 Issue: 2, 0 - , 03.01.2014

Abstract

Feedback in ESL/EFL writing has been inconclusive. In literature, several studies are available about the degree of the effect of the varying feedbacks (explicit vs. implicit; coded vs. uncoded, etc.) on the learners’ motivation and success. The effect of optimum number of writing exams on the success of L2 learners may be important as much as the effectiveness of feedback types on learners’ errors in their compositions. The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of number of writing exams on the linguistic errors in EFL/ESL student compositions. In this study there are two groups (e.g. experimental and control groups) consisting of 20 intermediate level students, each studying in the Department of Tourism Guidance at a state university in Turkey. Control group participants took three administrative examinations, which are two midterm exams and one final exam and experimental group participants took three more exams. No feedback was provided for students compositions. The results showed that group students who took more three exams (e.g. experimental group) slightly outperformed those of control group.

References

  • Ashwell, T. (2000). “Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method?”. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-258.
  • Chandler, J. (2003). “The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2student writing”. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296.
  • Delgado, R. (2007). Effects of Different Error Feedback: Approaches in Students’ Ability to Self-edit Their Writing. Divergencias. Revista de Estudios Lingüisticos y Literarios, 5 (2), 7.
  • Efe, H. (2008). “Punctuation Mistakes Committed by Lycée Graduate Turkish Students”. Atatürk Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt : 8, Sayı: 41, Erzurum
  • Ellis, R. (2001). “Investigation form-focused instruction”. In E.Rod (Ed.), FormaFocused Instruction in Second Language Learning, (pp. 1-46). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
  • Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315-339.
  • Ferris D. R. (1999). “The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996)”. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (1), 1-11.
  • Ferris, D.R, Chaney, S.J., Komura, K., Roberst, B.J., & McKee, S. (2000). Perspectives, Problems, and Practices in Treating Written Error. Colloquium Presented at Intenational TESOL Convention, March 14-18, Vancouver, B.C.
  • Ferris, D. & Hedgcock, J.S. (1998). Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Ferris, D. R. & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: Howexplicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3),161-184 Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing, USA: University of Michigan Press.
  • Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Fratzen, D. (1995). “The effect of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course”. Modern Language Journal, 79(3), 329-3
  • Hedgcock, J. & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). “Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing”. Journal of second language writing, 3, 141-163.
  • Kepner, C. G. (1991). “An Experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills”. The Modern Language Journal,75(3), 305-313.
  • James, C. (1980). Contrastive Analysis. London: Longman.
  • Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.
  • Lane, J., & Lange, E. (1999). Writing Clearly: An Editing Guide, 2 nd Edition. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
  • Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of error feedback in second language writing. Arizona Working Papers in SLA & Teaching, 15, 65-79.
  • Madsen, H. S. (1983). Techniques in Testing. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Raimes, A. (1992). Grammar Troublespots. New York: St. Martin’s Press
  • Truscott, J. (1996). “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.
  • Truscott, J. (1999). “The Case for the case against grammar correction in L2 writing Classes”. A Response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (2), 111-122.
  • Truscott, J. (2004) Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337 – 343.
  • Truscott, J. (2007). “The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately”. Journal of Second Language Writing 16(4), 255-272.
  • Truscott, J. (2009). “Arguments and appearances: A response to Chandler”. Journal of Second Language Writing 19(1), 59-60.
  • Van Beuningen, C.G., De Jong, N.H., & Kuiken, F. (2008a). “The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy”. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics 156 , 279-296
  • White, E. M. (1985). Teaching and assessing writing: Recent advances in understanding, evaluating, and improving student performance. San Francisco: JoseyBass.

The Effect of the Quantity of Writing Exams on De0veloping ESL/EL Writing Skills / İkinci Dilde Yazma Becerisinin Değerlendirilmesi Üzerine Nicel Bir Yaklaşım

Year 2013, Volume: 17 Issue: 2, 0 - , 03.01.2014

Abstract

Abstract: Feedback in ESL/EFL writing has been inconclusive. In literature, several studies
are available about the degree of the effect of the varying feedbacks (explicit vs. implicit; coded vs.
uncoded, etc.) on the learners’ motivation and success. The effect of optimum number of writing
exams on the success of L2 learners may be important as much as the effectiveness of feedback
types on learners’ errors in their compositions. The aim of this study is to investigate the impact
of number of writing exams on the linguistic errors in EFL/ESL student compositions. In this
study there are two groups (e.g. experimental and control groups) consisting of 20 intermediate
level students, each studying in the Department of Tourism Guidance at a state university in
Turkey. Control group participants took three administrative examinations, which are two midterm
exams and one final exam and experimental group participants took three more exams. No
feedback was provided for students compositions. The results showed that group students who
took more three exams (e.g. experimental group) slightly outperformed those of control group.


Öz: İkinci ve yabancı dil İngilizcede yazma becerileri geribildirimi sonuçsuz kalmaktadır.
Alanyazında öğrencilerin motivasyonları ve başarıları üzerine farklı türlerde(açık, kapalı, kodlanmış
veya kodlanmamış) geribildirimin etkililik derecesiyle ilgili birçok çalışmaya ulaşılabilir.
Önemli sayıda yazılı sınavların öğrenenlerin ikinci dil başarıları üzerine etkisi,onların yazdıkları
kompozisyonlarında karşılaşılan hatalarla ilgili olarak verilen çeşitli geribildirimlerin
etkililikleri kadar önemlidir. Bu araştırma, birçok sayıda yazılı sınavların ikici/yabancı dil öğrencilerinin
dilbilim hataları üzerine etkisini araştırmaktır. Bu çalışmada her biri bir Türkiye’de
bir devlet üniversitesi Turizim Rehberliği bölümünde öğrenim gören 20 orta düzeye sahip öğrenciden
oluşan iki grup (control grubu ve deney grubu) bulunmaktadır. Kontrol grubu katılımcıları
tanımlayıcı iki ara ve bir final sınavına ve deney grubu katılımcıları da fazladan üç sınava daha
alınmışlardır. Öğrencilerin kompozisyon çalışmalarına herhangi bir geribildirim verilmemiştir.
Sonuç; üç adet daha fazla sınava giren öğrenciler (deney grubu)control grubundan daha fazla
performans ortaya koyduklarını göstermiştir.


Keywords: Feedback; EFL/ESL Writing, Error Treatment.


Anahtar Kelimeler: Geribildirim, İkinci/yabancı dilde yazma, Hata düzeltme

References

  • Ashwell, T. (2000). “Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method?”. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-258.
  • Chandler, J. (2003). “The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2student writing”. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296.
  • Delgado, R. (2007). Effects of Different Error Feedback: Approaches in Students’ Ability to Self-edit Their Writing. Divergencias. Revista de Estudios Lingüisticos y Literarios, 5 (2), 7.
  • Efe, H. (2008). “Punctuation Mistakes Committed by Lycée Graduate Turkish Students”. Atatürk Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt : 8, Sayı: 41, Erzurum
  • Ellis, R. (2001). “Investigation form-focused instruction”. In E.Rod (Ed.), FormaFocused Instruction in Second Language Learning, (pp. 1-46). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
  • Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315-339.
  • Ferris D. R. (1999). “The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996)”. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (1), 1-11.
  • Ferris, D.R, Chaney, S.J., Komura, K., Roberst, B.J., & McKee, S. (2000). Perspectives, Problems, and Practices in Treating Written Error. Colloquium Presented at Intenational TESOL Convention, March 14-18, Vancouver, B.C.
  • Ferris, D. & Hedgcock, J.S. (1998). Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Ferris, D. R. & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: Howexplicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3),161-184 Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing, USA: University of Michigan Press.
  • Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Fratzen, D. (1995). “The effect of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course”. Modern Language Journal, 79(3), 329-3
  • Hedgcock, J. & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). “Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing”. Journal of second language writing, 3, 141-163.
  • Kepner, C. G. (1991). “An Experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills”. The Modern Language Journal,75(3), 305-313.
  • James, C. (1980). Contrastive Analysis. London: Longman.
  • Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.
  • Lane, J., & Lange, E. (1999). Writing Clearly: An Editing Guide, 2 nd Edition. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
  • Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of error feedback in second language writing. Arizona Working Papers in SLA & Teaching, 15, 65-79.
  • Madsen, H. S. (1983). Techniques in Testing. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Raimes, A. (1992). Grammar Troublespots. New York: St. Martin’s Press
  • Truscott, J. (1996). “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.
  • Truscott, J. (1999). “The Case for the case against grammar correction in L2 writing Classes”. A Response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (2), 111-122.
  • Truscott, J. (2004) Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337 – 343.
  • Truscott, J. (2007). “The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately”. Journal of Second Language Writing 16(4), 255-272.
  • Truscott, J. (2009). “Arguments and appearances: A response to Chandler”. Journal of Second Language Writing 19(1), 59-60.
  • Van Beuningen, C.G., De Jong, N.H., & Kuiken, F. (2008a). “The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy”. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics 156 , 279-296
  • White, E. M. (1985). Teaching and assessing writing: Recent advances in understanding, evaluating, and improving student performance. San Francisco: JoseyBass.
There are 27 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language en;tr
Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Ali Engin This is me

Turgay Han This is me

Assiye Burgucu This is me

Publication Date January 3, 2014
Published in Issue Year 2013 Volume: 17 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Engin, A., Han, T., & Burgucu, A. (2014). The Effect of the Quantity of Writing Exams on De0veloping ESL/EL Writing Skills / İkinci Dilde Yazma Becerisinin Değerlendirilmesi Üzerine Nicel Bir Yaklaşım. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 17(2).

Creative Commons Lisansı
ATASOBEDAtatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi Creative Commons Atıf-GayriTicari-AynıLisanslaPaylaş 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.