The effect of recorded oral feedback on EFL learners' writing

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 1, 1 - 13, 29.03.2020

Mehdi Solhi İlknur Eğinli

https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.712628

Öz

While there is general agreement among learners, teachers, and scholars that constructive feedback on writing is necessary to revision, there are fewer consensuses on how feedback should be given, when, by whom, and what sort of feedback is most effective (Weigle, 2014). Providing feedback on writing is generally categorized into three types: written comments, individual conferences, and recorded oral feedback. As the first two types are believed to be very time-consuming and lots of workloads, recording comments, along with the advances in technology over the last decades, has opened new possibilities for feedback in the form of podcasts or other digitally recorded means. In this study, the effect of recorded oral feedback to the writing of the English as a foreign language (EFL) learners was taken into scrutiny. In so doing, two different types of feedback (i.e., audio-recorded comments and metalinguistic written corrective feedback) were given to the learner writing in two groups respectively. The treatment lasted for approximately two months, in which the participants received two different types of feedback to their writing (e.g., recorded oral feedback and metalinguistic written corrective feedback). Results indicated that the group receiving audio-recorded comments on their writing outperformed the latter in their content, and organization, while no significant difference was observed between the two groups in clarity and sentence-level accuracy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

teacher feedback; recorded oral feedback; metalinguistic written feedback

Kaynakça

• Ali, A. D. (2016). Effectiveness of using screencast feedback on EFL students’ writing and perception. English Language Teaching, 9(8), 106-121.
• Anson, C. (1997). In our own voices: Using recorded commentary to respond to writing. In M. D. Sorcinelli & P. Elbow (Eds.), Writing to learn: Strategies for assigning and responding to writing across the disciplines (pp. 105-113). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Bakla, A. (2018). An overview of screencast feedback in EFL writing: Fad or the future? Yabancı Dil Olarak Türkçe Öğretimi ve Yabancı Dil Öğretimi Araştırmaları, 319-331.
• Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193-214.
• Cavanaugh, J. L., & Song, L. (3014). Audio feedback versus written feedback: Instructors' and students' perspectives. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 122-138.
• Dalton, Z. J. (2018). The discourse of written and audio feedback (Unpublished MA thesis). Central Washington University.
• Ferris, D. (2003). Responding to writing. In B. Kroll (Eds.), Exploring second language writing (pp. 119-140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ferris, D. (2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 165-193.
• Freedman, S. (1979). How characteristics of student essays influence teachers’ evaluations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(3):328-338.
• Hays, J. (1978). Play it again, Sandra: The use of tape cassettes to evaluate student compositions. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 162332).
• Hyland, K. (1990). Providing productive feedback. ELT Journal, 44(4), 279-285.
• Hynson, Y. T. A. (2012). An innovative alternative to providing writing feedback on students’ essays. Teaching English with Technology, 12(1), 53-57.
• Ice, P., Curtis, R., Phillips, P., & Wells, J. (2007). Using asynchronous feedback to enhance teaching presence and student sense of community. Journal of Asynchronous Leaning Networks, 11, 3-25.
• Issa, T., Isaias, P., & Issa, T. (2014). Does MP3 audio feedback enhance students’ learning skills? An international case study. The International Journal of Learning, 19, 15-28.
• Johnson, G. M., & Cooke, A. (2015). Self-regulation of learning and preference for written versus audio-recorded feedback by distance education students. Distance Education, 37(1), 107-120.
• Kelly, P., & Ryan, S. (1983). Using tutor tapes to support the distance learner. International Council for Distance Education Bulletin, 3, 1-18.
• Kirschner, P. A., van der Brink, H., & Meester, M. (1991). Audiotape feedback for essays in distance education. Innovative Higher Education, 15(2), 185-195.
• Klammer, E. (1973). Cassettes in the classroom. College English, 35(2), 179-181.
• LaFontana, V. R. (1996). Throw away that correcting pen. English Journal, 85(6), 71-73.
• Leki, I. (1991). Twenty years of constructive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 123-143.
• Li, S., & Vuono, A. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System, System, 84, 93-109.
• Logan, H. L., Logan, N. S., Fuller, J. L., & Denehy. G. E. (1976). The role of audiotape cassettes in providing student feedback. Educational Technology, 16(12), 38-39.
• Lunt, T., & Curran, J. (2010). Are you listening please? The advantages of electronic audio feedback compared to written feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(7), 759-769.
• Macgregor, G., Spiers, A., & Taylor, C. (2011). Exploratory evaluation of audio email technology in formative assessment feedback. Research in Learning Technology, 19, 39-59.
• McGarrell, H., & Verbeem, J. (2007). Motivating revision of drafts through formative feedback. ELT Journal, 61(3), 228-236
• Merry, S., & Orsmond, P. (2008). Students’ attitudes to and usage of academic feedback provided via audio files. Bioscience Education, 11(1), 1-11.
• Moore, N. S., & Filling, M. L. (2012). iFeedback: Using video technology for improving student writing. Journal of College Literacy & Learning, 38, 3-14.
• Morra, A. M., & Asís, M. I. (2009). The effect of audio and written teacher responses on EFL student revision. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 39, 68-81.
• Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
• Özkul, S., & Ortaçtepe, D. (2017). The use of video feedback in teaching process-approach EFL writing. TESOL Journal, 8, 862-877.
• Pearce, C. G., & Ackley, R. J. (1995). Audiotaped feedback in business writing: An exploratory study. Business Communication Quarterly, 58(3), 31-34.
• Seow, A. (2002). The writing process and process writing. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 315-320). The UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Silva, M. L. (2012). Camtasia in the classroom: Student attitudes and preferences for video commentary or Microsoft Word comments during the revision process. Computers & Composition, 29(1), 1-22.
• Stern, L. A., & Solomon, A. (2006). Effective faculty feedback: The road less traveled. Assessing Writing, 11(1), 22-41.
• Zheng, Y. (1999). Providing the students with effective feedback in the writing process. Teaching English in China, 36. 41-43.