Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Dolaylı Yönden Yazılara Geri Dönüş Verirken En Etkili Kişi Kimdir?

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 18 Sayı: 76, 73 - 92, 31.07.2018

Öz

Problem Durumu: İngilizce dilini yabancı dil olarak öğrenen öğrencilere dolaylı yoldan yazılı düzeltici geribildirim verilmesinde en etkili etken kişinin kim olduğu sorusunun cevabı halen belirsizliğini sürdürmekte ve cinsiyet gibi faktörlerin etkisi göz ardı edilmektedir.

Araştırmanın Amacı: Yukarıda belirtilen nedenlerden dolayı bu çalışma ile dolaylı yoldan yazılı düzeltici geribildirim verilmesinde en etkili etken kişiyi bulmak ve farklı etken kişilerden dolaylı yoldan yazılı düzeltici geribildirim alınmasında cinsiyet faktörünün etkisini bulmak amaçlanmaktadır.

Araştırmanın Yöntemi: Yarı deneysel yöntem izlenerek yapılan bu çalışmanın katılımcıları, özel bir ünivesitede hazırlık okulunda İngilizce dilini yabancı dil olarak öğrenen üç farklı sınıfın öğrencileridir. Beş haftalık bir süreç boyunca sadece öğretmen tarafından dolaylı yoldan yazılı düzeltici geribildirim alan sınıf, A sınıfı; sadece öğrencilerden dolaylı yoldan yazılı düzeltici geribildirim alan sınıf, B sınıfı; ve hem öğretmen hem öğrencilerin katılımı ile işbirlikçi bir şekilde dolaylı yoldan yazılı düzeltici geribildirim alan öğrencilerin bulundukları sınıf ise C sınıfı olarak adlandırılmıştır. Her grup, toplamda beş haftada beş farklı konulu yazılı metin olmak

Hanife Bensen BOSTANCI – Fatma SENGUL

Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 76 (2018) 73-92

91

üzere her hafta aynı zamanda yazılı metin üretmişlerdir. Öğrencilerin yazmış oldukları bu yazılı metinlerden elde edilen veriler, nicel olarak analiz edilmiştir.

Araştırma Sonuçları: Araştırma sonucuda, hem öğretmen hem de öğrencilerin işbirlikçi bir şekilde dolaylı yoldan yazılı düzeltici geribildirim verdikleri C sınıfındaki katılımcılar, diğer sınıflardaki katılımcılara önemli ölçüde kıyasla yazma yeteneklerini geliştirdikleri bulgusuna varılmıştır. Cinsiyet açısından ise A sınıfındaki erkek katılımcıların, aynı sınıftaki kadın katılımcılara oranla daha iyi bir performans göstermesine karşın, B ve C sınıfındaki kadın katılımcıların erkek katılımcılara oranla daha iyi performans sergilediği ortaya konmuştur.

Araştırmanın Sonuçları ve Önerileri: Öğretmen adayı ve öğretmenlerin, cinsiyet faktörünü göz önünde bulundurarak, İngilizceyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenmekte olan öğrencilere, hem öğretmen hem de öğrencilerin işbirlikçi bir şekilde dolaylı yoldan yazılı düzeltici geribildirim verdikleri bir yöntem izlemeleri sağlanmalıdır. Bu nedenle, ileride yapılacak olan araştırmaların yaş ve dil yeterlik gibi diğer faktörler üzerine yoğunlaşmaları önerilmektedir. Aynı zamanda araştırmacılara doğrudan yazılı düzeltici geribildirim gibi diğer geribildirim çeşitleri üzerine odaklanmaları önerilmektedir.


Kaynakça

  • Alharbi, H. S. (2016). Effects of teachers' written corrective feedback on Saudi EFL university students' writing achievements. International Journal of Linguistics, 8(5), 15-29.
  • Alhumidi, H. A., & Uba, S. Y. (2016). The effect of indirect written corrective feedback to Arabic language intermediate students’ in Kuwait. European Scientific Journal, 12(28), 361-374.
  • Azevedo, R., Landis, R. S., Behnagh, R. F., Duffy, M., Trevors, G., Harley, J. M., . . . Hossain, G. (2012). The effectiveness of pedagogical agents’ prompting and feedback in facilitating co-adapted learning with meta-tutor. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 212-221.
  • Barnawi, O. Z. (2010). Promoting noticing through collaborative feedback tasks in EFL college writing classrooms. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 209-217.
  • Bijami, M., Kashef, S. H., & Nejad, M. S. (2013). Peer feedback in learning English writing: Advantages and disadvantages. Journal of Studies in Education, 3(4), 91-97.
  • Bensen, H., Cavusoglu, C. (2017). The impact of blended learning in an EFL writing course. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing. ISBN: 978-3-659-54027-1.
  • Business Dictionary. (n.d.). Factor. Retreived from http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/factor.html Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues in field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
  • Dang, T. T. (2016). Vietnamese EFL students’ perceptions of noticing-based collaborative feedback on their writing performance. English Language Teaching, 9(5), 141-153.
  • Eslami, E. (2014). The effects of direct and indirect corrective feedback techniques on EFL students' writing. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 445-452.
  • Guénette, D. (2012). The pedagogy of error correction: Surviving the written corrective feedback challenge. TESL Canada Journal, 30(1), 117-126.
  • Hosseiny, M. (2014). The role of direct and indirect written corrective feedback in improving Iranian EFL students' writing skills. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 668–674.
  • Jahin, J. H. (2012). The effect of peer reviewing on writing apprehension and essay writing ability of prospective EFL teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(11), 60-84. Kahn, J. (2010). Reporting statistics in APA style. American Psychological Association.
  • Washington, DC: Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.).
  • Kahraman, A., & Yalvac, F. (2015). EFL Turkish university students’ preferences about teacher feedback and its Importance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 73-80.
  • Kahyalar, E., & Yılmaz, F. (2016). Teachers' corrective feedback in writing classes: The impact of collaborating with a peer during the editing process on students' uptake and retention. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 16(1), 148-160.
  • Khorshidi, E., & Rassaei, E. (2013). The effects of learners’ gender on their preferences for corrective feedback. Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English, 1(4), 71-83.
  • Li, H., & He, Q. (2017). Chinese secondary EFL learners’ and teachers’ preferences for types of written corrective feedback. English Language Teaching, 10(3), 63-73.
  • 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, 1250-1257.
  • Marzban, A., & Sarjami, S. M. (2014). Collaborative negotiated feedback versus teacher written feedback: Impact on Iranian intermediate EFL learners' writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(2), 293-302.
  • Motallebzadeh, K., & Amirabadi S. (2013). Online international feedback in second language writing: Through peer or tutor. MJAL, 3(2), 156-174.
  • Mowlaie, B. (2014). The effect of teacher feedback, peer feedback, and self revision on Iranian EFL learners’ form and content revision. English Language Teaching, 1(1), 37-57.
  • Phiewma, W., & Padgate, W. (2017). The effects of teacher indirect feedback and collaborative revision activity on grammatical accuracy of Thai college students’ writing. Journal of Community Development Research (Humanities and Social Sciences), 2(10), 1-10.
  • Raja, M. S., Albasher, K. B., & Farid, A. (2016). Error treatment in teaching English to EFL adult learners: A study in current English language teaching practices in native versus non-native divide context in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(5), 1-16.
  • Ravid, R. (2011). Practical statistics for educators (4th ed.). UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
  • Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 611-633.
  • Sengul, F., & Bostanci, H. B. (2018). Indirect written corrective feedback in EFL. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing. ISBN: 978-613-9-85797-5.
  • Su, Z. (2011). Peer feedback: A new approach to English writing instruction in a Chinese college setting. Sino-US English Teaching, 8(6), 364-368.
  • Yoon, S. Y. (2013). Students’ reflection on feedback in L2 writing in blended learning. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 235-261.
  • Yugandhar, D. K. (2015). Practicing teacher organized peer review to advance EFL students’ writing skills. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature, 3(1), 25-29.
  • Zaman, M., & Azad, A. K. (2012). Feedback in EFL writing at tertiary level: Teachers' and learners' perceptions. ASA University Review, 6(1), 139-156.
  • Zareil, A. A., & Rahnama, M. (2013). The effect of written corrective feedback modes on EFL learners’ grammatical and lexical writing accuracy: From perceptions to facts. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature, 1-14.

Who is the Most Effective Agent When Giving Indirect Written Corrective Feedback?

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 18 Sayı: 76, 73 - 92, 31.07.2018

Öz

Purpose: Who is the most effective agent when giving indirect written corrective feedback (IWCF) to English as a foreign language (EFL)? The answer is ambiguous, and factors such as gender have been neglected. For these reasons, this study attempts to reveal the most effective agent when giving IWCF and seeks to highlight the impact of gender when receiving IWCF from different agents. Method: A quasi-experimental study was carried out in which the participants were three classes of EFL learners studying at a private university’s preparatory school. One of the classes was named class A, which only recieved instructor IWCF, another class B, which only recieved peer IWCF, and the last class C, which only recieved collaborative IWCF for a five-week period. Each group produced five written texts regarding the same topic each week at the same time. The data, or the participants’ texts, were analyzed quantitatively. Findings: It was revealed that class C—who received only collaborative IWCF—significantly improved their writing skills compared to the other classes that received teacher and peer IWCF. In terms of gender, it was revealed that the male participants performed better than the female participants in class A, and the female participants in classes B and C produced better written texts compared to the male participants. Implications for Research and Practice: Pre-service and in-service teachers should provide IWCF to their EFL learners collaboratively, and they should consider the gender factor. It is suggested that future research focuses on other factors (i.e. age, proficiency). It is also suggested that researchers focus on the other type of feedback, namely direct written corrective feedback.

Kaynakça

  • Alharbi, H. S. (2016). Effects of teachers' written corrective feedback on Saudi EFL university students' writing achievements. International Journal of Linguistics, 8(5), 15-29.
  • Alhumidi, H. A., & Uba, S. Y. (2016). The effect of indirect written corrective feedback to Arabic language intermediate students’ in Kuwait. European Scientific Journal, 12(28), 361-374.
  • Azevedo, R., Landis, R. S., Behnagh, R. F., Duffy, M., Trevors, G., Harley, J. M., . . . Hossain, G. (2012). The effectiveness of pedagogical agents’ prompting and feedback in facilitating co-adapted learning with meta-tutor. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 212-221.
  • Barnawi, O. Z. (2010). Promoting noticing through collaborative feedback tasks in EFL college writing classrooms. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 209-217.
  • Bijami, M., Kashef, S. H., & Nejad, M. S. (2013). Peer feedback in learning English writing: Advantages and disadvantages. Journal of Studies in Education, 3(4), 91-97.
  • Bensen, H., Cavusoglu, C. (2017). The impact of blended learning in an EFL writing course. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing. ISBN: 978-3-659-54027-1.
  • Business Dictionary. (n.d.). Factor. Retreived from http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/factor.html Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues in field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
  • Dang, T. T. (2016). Vietnamese EFL students’ perceptions of noticing-based collaborative feedback on their writing performance. English Language Teaching, 9(5), 141-153.
  • Eslami, E. (2014). The effects of direct and indirect corrective feedback techniques on EFL students' writing. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 445-452.
  • Guénette, D. (2012). The pedagogy of error correction: Surviving the written corrective feedback challenge. TESL Canada Journal, 30(1), 117-126.
  • Hosseiny, M. (2014). The role of direct and indirect written corrective feedback in improving Iranian EFL students' writing skills. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 668–674.
  • Jahin, J. H. (2012). The effect of peer reviewing on writing apprehension and essay writing ability of prospective EFL teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(11), 60-84. Kahn, J. (2010). Reporting statistics in APA style. American Psychological Association.
  • Washington, DC: Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.).
  • Kahraman, A., & Yalvac, F. (2015). EFL Turkish university students’ preferences about teacher feedback and its Importance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 73-80.
  • Kahyalar, E., & Yılmaz, F. (2016). Teachers' corrective feedback in writing classes: The impact of collaborating with a peer during the editing process on students' uptake and retention. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 16(1), 148-160.
  • Khorshidi, E., & Rassaei, E. (2013). The effects of learners’ gender on their preferences for corrective feedback. Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English, 1(4), 71-83.
  • Li, H., & He, Q. (2017). Chinese secondary EFL learners’ and teachers’ preferences for types of written corrective feedback. English Language Teaching, 10(3), 63-73.
  • 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, 1250-1257.
  • Marzban, A., & Sarjami, S. M. (2014). Collaborative negotiated feedback versus teacher written feedback: Impact on Iranian intermediate EFL learners' writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(2), 293-302.
  • Motallebzadeh, K., & Amirabadi S. (2013). Online international feedback in second language writing: Through peer or tutor. MJAL, 3(2), 156-174.
  • Mowlaie, B. (2014). The effect of teacher feedback, peer feedback, and self revision on Iranian EFL learners’ form and content revision. English Language Teaching, 1(1), 37-57.
  • Phiewma, W., & Padgate, W. (2017). The effects of teacher indirect feedback and collaborative revision activity on grammatical accuracy of Thai college students’ writing. Journal of Community Development Research (Humanities and Social Sciences), 2(10), 1-10.
  • Raja, M. S., Albasher, K. B., & Farid, A. (2016). Error treatment in teaching English to EFL adult learners: A study in current English language teaching practices in native versus non-native divide context in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(5), 1-16.
  • Ravid, R. (2011). Practical statistics for educators (4th ed.). UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
  • Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 611-633.
  • Sengul, F., & Bostanci, H. B. (2018). Indirect written corrective feedback in EFL. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing. ISBN: 978-613-9-85797-5.
  • Su, Z. (2011). Peer feedback: A new approach to English writing instruction in a Chinese college setting. Sino-US English Teaching, 8(6), 364-368.
  • Yoon, S. Y. (2013). Students’ reflection on feedback in L2 writing in blended learning. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 235-261.
  • Yugandhar, D. K. (2015). Practicing teacher organized peer review to advance EFL students’ writing skills. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature, 3(1), 25-29.
  • Zaman, M., & Azad, A. K. (2012). Feedback in EFL writing at tertiary level: Teachers' and learners' perceptions. ASA University Review, 6(1), 139-156.
  • Zareil, A. A., & Rahnama, M. (2013). The effect of written corrective feedback modes on EFL learners’ grammatical and lexical writing accuracy: From perceptions to facts. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature, 1-14.
Toplam 31 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Hanife Bensen Bostancı Bu kişi benim

Fatma Sengul Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 31 Temmuz 2018
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2018 Cilt: 18 Sayı: 76

Kaynak Göster

APA Bensen Bostancı, H., & Sengul, F. (2018). Who is the Most Effective Agent When Giving Indirect Written Corrective Feedback?. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 18(76), 73-92.
AMA Bensen Bostancı H, Sengul F. Who is the Most Effective Agent When Giving Indirect Written Corrective Feedback?. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research. Temmuz 2018;18(76):73-92.
Chicago Bensen Bostancı, Hanife, ve Fatma Sengul. “Who Is the Most Effective Agent When Giving Indirect Written Corrective Feedback?”. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 18, sy. 76 (Temmuz 2018): 73-92.
EndNote Bensen Bostancı H, Sengul F (01 Temmuz 2018) Who is the Most Effective Agent When Giving Indirect Written Corrective Feedback?. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 18 76 73–92.
IEEE H. Bensen Bostancı ve F. Sengul, “Who is the Most Effective Agent When Giving Indirect Written Corrective Feedback?”, Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, c. 18, sy. 76, ss. 73–92, 2018.
ISNAD Bensen Bostancı, Hanife - Sengul, Fatma. “Who Is the Most Effective Agent When Giving Indirect Written Corrective Feedback?”. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 18/76 (Temmuz 2018), 73-92.
JAMA Bensen Bostancı H, Sengul F. Who is the Most Effective Agent When Giving Indirect Written Corrective Feedback?. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research. 2018;18:73–92.
MLA Bensen Bostancı, Hanife ve Fatma Sengul. “Who Is the Most Effective Agent When Giving Indirect Written Corrective Feedback?”. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, c. 18, sy. 76, 2018, ss. 73-92.
Vancouver Bensen Bostancı H, Sengul F. Who is the Most Effective Agent When Giving Indirect Written Corrective Feedback?. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research. 2018;18(76):73-92.