Providing effective feedback on L2 academic writing

Rachael REUGG (Victoria University of Wellington, School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, New Zealand)
RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi
1 2
Yıl: 2018 Cilt: 13 Sayı: 13 Sayfa Aralığı: 161 - 178 Metin Dili: İngilizce İndeks Tarihi: 06-03-2020

Providing effective feedback on L2 academic writing

Öz:
Different articles give different suggestions about how to provide effective feedback on L2 studentwriting. However, context is an important factor influencing research results. The suggestions inresearch articles may not be effective when taken out of the context of the article. The purpose of thisarticle is to provide an overview of a wide range of feedback practices that can be effectively used withL2 learners to promote learning, based on a review of literature. As context is such an importantfactor, in this article suggestions will be organized based on the purpose of the class for which thewriting is undertaken and the purpose of the feedback. In particular, suggestions will be made interms of the focus of feedback, medium of feedback delivery, level of explicitness, amount of feedbackand source of feedback. Finally, specific suggestions will be summarized for each stage of L2 writinglearning, limitations of the article and suggestions for further empirical research will be made.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Dil ve Dil Bilim

İkinci dilde akademik yazmada etkili dönüt sağlama

Öz:
Öğrencilerin ikinci dilde yazmalarına nasıl etkili dönüt sağlanabileceğine dair farklı makalelerde farklı öneriler bulunmaktadır. Ancak bağlam, araştırma sonuçlarını etkileyen önemli bir unsurdur. Makalelerdeki öneriler, makalenin bağlamından soyutlandığında etkili olmayabilir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, alan yazın taramasına bağlı olarak, ikinci dil öğrenenlerin öğrenmelerini geliştirmek amacıyla etkili bir şekilde kullanılabilecek geniş çaplı dönüt uygulamalarının bir taramasını yapmaktır. Bağlam önemli bir unsur olduğu için, bu çalışmadaki öneriler yazmanın öğrenildiği dersin ve dönütün amacına bağlı olarak düzenlenecektir. Öneriler özellikle dönütün odak noktasına, dönüt verme yoluna, direk dönüt seviyesine, dönüt miktarına ve dönütün kaynağına göre verilecektir. Son olarak, yabancı dilde yazmayı öğrenmenin her bir safhası için öneriler özetlenecektir ve makalenin sınırlılıklarının yanı sıra daha ileri deneysel araştırmalar için öneriler yapılacaktır.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Dil ve Dil Bilim
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Andrade, M. & Evans, N. (2013). Principles and practices for response in Second Language Writing: Developing self-regulated learners. New York: Routledge.
  • Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  • Baddeley, A. (1990). Human memory. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Bauer, S. (2011). When I Stopped Writing on Their Papers: Accommodating the Needs of Student Writers with Audio Comments. The English Journal, 101(2), 64-67.
  • Berger, V. (1990). The effects of peer and self-feedback. The CATESOL Journal, 3, 21-35.
  • Biber, D., Nekrasova, T. & Horn, B. (2011). The effectiveness of feedback for L1-English and L2-writing development: A meta-analysis. TOEFL iBT Research Report 14.
  • Bitchener, J. (2009). Measuring the effectiveness of written corrective feedback: A response to “Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Bitchener (2008)”. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 276-279.
  • Bitchener, J. & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge.
  • Chickering, A. & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven Principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin.
  • Cleary, L. (1990). The fragile inclination to write: Praise and criticism in the classroom. English journal, 79(2), 22-28.
  • Cohen, A. (1987). Student processing of feedback on their compositions. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.) Learner strategies in language learning. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
  • Eckerth, J. & Tavakoli, P. (2012). The effects of word exposure frequency and elaboration of word processing on incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading. Language Teaching Research, 16(2): 227-252.
  • Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Fazio, L. (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minorityand majority-language students. Journal of Second Language Writing 10, 235-249.
  • Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbour: The University of Michigan Press.
  • Ferris, D. (2003). Response to Student Writing. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.). Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues (pp. 81-104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Ferris, D. & Hedgcock, J. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process and practice. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Ferris, D., Liu, H., Sinha, A. & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307-329.
  • Ferris, D. & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184.
  • Folse, K. (2006). The effect of type of written exercise on L2 vocabulary retention. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2): 273-293.
  • Foster, P. (1998) A classroom perspective on negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 1998.
  • Gere, A. (1987). Writing groups: History, theory and implications. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
  • Goldstein, L. & Conrad, S. (1990). Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly, 24(3), 443-460.
  • Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. Harlow: Pearson Education.
  • Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of Teacher Written Feedback on Individual Learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 255-286.
  • Hyland, F. & Hyland, K. (2001) Sugaring the Pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 10, 185-212
  • Hyland, K. (1996). Second language writing. New York: Cambridge.
  • Hyland, K. (2016). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 58-69.
  • Keating, G. (2008). ‘Task Effectiveness and Word Learning in a Second language: The Involvement Load Hypothesis on Trial.’ Language Teaching Research, 12: 365-368.
  • Kepner, C. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of Second language writing skills. Modern Language Journal 75, 305-313.
  • Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J., Bridges, B. & Hayek, J. (2006). What matters to student success: A review of the literature. National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.
  • Lalande, J. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal 66, 140- 149.
  • Laufer, B. & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Applied Linguistics, 22(1): 1-26.
  • Leki, I., Cumming, A. & Silva, T. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language writing in English. New York: Routledge.
  • Liu, J. & Hansen, J. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
  • Manchon, R. (2011). Situating the learning-to-write and writing-to-learn dimensions of L2 writing. In R. Manchon (Ed.). Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 3- 14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
  • Mawlawi Diab, N. (2016). A comparison of peer, teacher and self-feedback on the reduction of language errors in student essays. System, 57, 55-65.
  • Min, H. (2006). The effects of trained peer-review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing 15, 118-141.
  • Moxley, J. (1989). Responding to student writing: Goals, methods, alternatives. Freshman English News, 17(3-4), 9-11.
  • Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Nemec, E., & Dintzner, M. (2016). Comparison of audio versus written feedback on writing assignments. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 155-159.
  • Patchan, M., Schunn, C. & Correnti, R. (2016). The nature of feedback: How peer feedback features affect students’ implementation rate and quality of revisions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(8), 1098-1120.
  • Raimes, A. (1983). How English works: A grammar handbook with readings. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Robb, T., Ross, S. & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83-95.
  • Ruegg, R. (2015a). The relative effects of peer and teacher feedback on improvement in EFL students` writing ability. Linguistics and Education, 29(1), 73-82.
  • Ruegg, R. (2015b). Student uptake of teacher written feedback on writing. Asian EFL Journal, 17(1), 36-56.
  • Sachs, R. & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67-100.
  • Semke, H. (1982). Effects of the Red Pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195-202.
  • Séror, J. (2013). Show me! Enhanced Feedback Through Screencasting Technology. TESL Canada Journal, 30(1), 104-116.
  • Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal 23, 103-110.
  • Sipple, S. (2007). Ideas in practice: Developmental writers' attitudes toward audio and written feedback. Journal of Developmental Education, 30(3), 22-31.
  • Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 217-233.
  • Swain M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In H. Byrnes. (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95– 108). New York: Continuum.
  • Tinkham, T. (1993), The effect of semantic clustering on the learning of second language vocabulary. System, 21, 371-380.
  • Wakabayashi, R. (2013). The effects of the peer feedback process on the reviewer’s own writing. English Language Teaching, 6(9), 177-191.
  • Walker, C. & Elias, D. (1987). Writing conference talk: Factors associated with high- and low-rated writing conferences. Research in the Teaching of English, 21(3), 266-283.
  • Weigle, S. (2013). English language learners and automated scoring of essays: Critical considerations. Assessing Writing, 18(1), 85-99.
  • Xu, C. (2008). Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Ellis et al. (2008) and Bitchener (2008). Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 270-275.
  • Yu, S. & Hu, G. (2017). Can higher-proficiency learners benefit from working with lower-proficiency partners in peer feedback? Teaching in Higher Education, 22(2), 178-192.
  • Zhu, W. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on students' comments and interaction. Written Communication, 12(4), 492-528.
APA REUGG R (2018). Providing effective feedback on L2 academic writing. , 161 - 178.
Chicago REUGG Rachael Providing effective feedback on L2 academic writing. (2018): 161 - 178.
MLA REUGG Rachael Providing effective feedback on L2 academic writing. , 2018, ss.161 - 178.
AMA REUGG R Providing effective feedback on L2 academic writing. . 2018; 161 - 178.
Vancouver REUGG R Providing effective feedback on L2 academic writing. . 2018; 161 - 178.
IEEE REUGG R "Providing effective feedback on L2 academic writing." , ss.161 - 178, 2018.
ISNAD REUGG, Rachael. "Providing effective feedback on L2 academic writing". (2018), 161-178.
APA REUGG R (2018). Providing effective feedback on L2 academic writing. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(13), 161 - 178.
Chicago REUGG Rachael Providing effective feedback on L2 academic writing. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi 13, no.13 (2018): 161 - 178.
MLA REUGG Rachael Providing effective feedback on L2 academic writing. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, vol.13, no.13, 2018, ss.161 - 178.
AMA REUGG R Providing effective feedback on L2 academic writing. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2018; 13(13): 161 - 178.
Vancouver REUGG R Providing effective feedback on L2 academic writing. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2018; 13(13): 161 - 178.
IEEE REUGG R "Providing effective feedback on L2 academic writing." RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13, ss.161 - 178, 2018.
ISNAD REUGG, Rachael. "Providing effective feedback on L2 academic writing". RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi 13/13 (2018), 161-178.
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
17-04-2024 13:39

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları