Explicit and Implicit Written Corrective Feedback in Higher EFL Education: Evidence from Turkey

Mine Pınar BABANOĞLU, (Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi, Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye)
Reyhan AĞÇAM, (Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi, Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye)
Nebahat BADEM (Adana Bilim ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi, Adana, Türkiye)
İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi
1 0
Yıl: 2018 Cilt: 19 Sayı: 3 Sayfa Aralığı: 104 - 116 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.17679/inuefd.364809 İndeks Tarihi: 21-02-2020

Explicit and Implicit Written Corrective Feedback in Higher EFL Education: Evidence from Turkey

Öz:
This study investigated the efficiency of explicit and implicit written corrective feedback in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) education in higher education. Participants of the study were late-elementary and pre-intermediate adult learners of English who were attending a preparatory school in a Turkish state university. During a period of four weeks, exercises on prepositions were delivered to subjects who were divided into three groups as two treatment groups receiving explicit and implicit written correction and a control group receiving no feedback. A pre-test and a post-test were applied to the groups at the start and the end of the fourweek treatment, respectively in order to examine possible development of the groups. The results indicated significant differences between pre-test and post-test scores of the groups receiving the two types of written corrective feedback.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Eğitim, Eğitim Araştırmaları

Yükseköğretimde Yabancı Dil Eğitiminde Açık ve Örtük Yazılı Düzeltici Geribildirim: Türkiye Örneği

Öz:
Bu çalışmada, yükseköğretimde yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğretiminde açık ve örtük yazılı düzeltici geribildirim kullanımının İngilizce ilgeç öğrenimi üzerindeki etkililiği araştırılmıştır. Çalışmanın katılımcıları, bir Türk devlet üniversitesinin hazırlık okulunda öğrenim görmekte olan geç-başlangıç ve ön-orta-seviyede İngilizce öğrenen yetişkin öğrencilerden oluşmaktadır. Doğrudan ve dolaylı yazılı geribildirim alan iki uygulama grubu ve geribildirim almayan kontrol grubu olmak üzere üç gruba ayrılan katılımcılara dört hafta süreyle ilgeçlerle ilgili alıştırmalar uygulanmıştır. Grupların gelişimini ölçmek amacıyla, dört haftalık uygulama sürecinin başında bir ön-test ve sonunda bir son test uygulanmıştır. Bulgular, doğrudan ve dolaylı yazılı geribildirim alan grupların ön- ve son-test sonuçlarının anlamlı bir şekilde farklılaştığını ortaya çıkarmıştır.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Eğitim, Eğitim Araştırmaları
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Alvira, R. (2016). The impact of oral and written feedback on EFL writers with the use of screencasts. PROFILE, 18(2), 7992. http://dx.doi.org/10.15446/profile.v18n2.53397
  • Ayoun, D. (2001). The role of negative and positive feedback in the second language acquisition of the passé composé and imparfait. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 226-243. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00106.
  • Babbie, E. R. (2010). ThePractice of SocialResearch. 12th ed. Belmont, CA: WadsworthCengage Learning.
  • Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative Research Methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
  • Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102-118.
  • Bitchener, J. (2018). Direct Versus Indirect Grammar Feedback. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0055
  • Bitchener, J. and Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322-329.
  • Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436-458. doi: 10.1177/1362168814563200
  • Bryman, A. (2008) Social Research Methods. 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Butler, D. L. and Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical syntheses. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245-281.
  • Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second language Writing, 12, 267-296.
  • Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners' errors. Language Learning, 27, 29-46.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approches. Singapore: Sage Publications.
  • Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63, (2), 97-107.
  • Ellis, R., Loewen, S. and Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, (2), 339-368.
  • Erel, S. and Bulut, D. (2007). Error treatment in L2 writing: a comparative study of direct and indirect coded feedback in Turkish EFL context. Erciyes University Journal of Social Sciences, 22, 397-415.
  • Fathman, A. K. and 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 University Press Cambridge.
  • Ferris, Dana (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. and Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes How explicit does it need to be?” Journal of second Language Writing, 10, 161-184.
  • Guenette, D. (2007). Is Feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing? Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40–53.
  • Hadzic, S. (2016). Oral and Written Teacher Feedback in an English as a Foreign Language Classroom in Sweden. Degree Project submitted to Linnaeus University. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:954880/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  • Havranek, G. (2002). When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed? International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 255-70.
  • Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., &Jurs, S. G. (2003). Applied Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  • James, C. (1998). Errors in Language Learning and Use. Exploring Error Analysis. Longman, Essex.
  • Jawaheer, G., Szomszor, M., &Kostkova, P. (2010). Characterisation of explicit feedback in an online music recommendation service. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM conference on Recommender systems (pp. 317–320).
  • Kazemifar, D. and Chakigar, P. (2016). A review on the contribution of oral and written feedback in grammar improvement. Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(2), 49-55.
  • Kırkgöz, Y., Babanoğlu, M. P. &Ağçam, R. (2015). Corrective feedback in primary EFL classrooms in Turkey. American International Journal of Social Science, 4(3), 90-101.
  • Lightbrown, P. M. and Spada, N. (1999). How Languages are Learned. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  • Li, S. (2010). The Effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60 (2), 309–365.
  • Lyster, R. and Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: negotiation form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66.
  • Lyster, R., Saito, K. and Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in L2 classrooms”, Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40. doi:10.1017/S0261444812000365
  • Mackey A. & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82(3): 338-356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01211.x
  • Noroozizadeh, S. (2009). Indirect feedback: a plausible suggestion for overcoming error occurrence in L2 writing. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 6 (4), 245-262.
  • Panova, L. and Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573-595.
  • Pfanner, N. (2015). Teacher corrective oral feedback in the classroom. Journal of Language and Education, 1(2), 46-55. doi:10.17323/2411-7390-2015-1-2-46-55
  • Rassaei, E. &Moinzadeh, A. (2011). Investigating the effects of three types of corrective feedback on the acquisition of English wh-question forms by Iranian EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 97-106. doi:10.5539/elt.v4n2p97
  • Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. (4th Ed). Pearson Education
  • Russel, J. and Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of l2 grammar. In J. M. Norris, and L. Ortega (eds.), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching, XIV, (pp: 133–164).
  • Schmidt, R. (1990). The Role of Consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
  • Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 203-234. doi:10.1017/S0272263109990507
  • So, M. (2011). The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback in Promoting Second Language Writing Accuracy among Hong Kong Junior Secondary Students. (Thesis). University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR.
  • Tedick, D.J. and de Gortari, B. (1998). Research on error correction and implications for classroom teaching. ACIE Newsletter, Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, 1(3), 1-4. http://www.carla.umn.edu/immersion/acie/vol1/May1998.pdf Accessed on July 2, 017.
  • Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
  • Van Beuningen, C..G., de Jong, N. and Kuiken, F. (2008). The Effect of Direct and Indirect Corrective Feedback on L2 Learners’ written accuracy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279-296.
  • Woolfolk, A. E., Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2003). Educational Psychology (2th ed.). Pearson Education Canada Inc: Allyn& Bacon, Inc Needham Height, MA.
  • Zengin, B. &Kaçar, I.G. (2015). Google search applications in foreign language classes at tertiary level: a case study in the Turkish context. In V. Turel (Ed.) Intelligent design of interactive multimedia listening software (pp:313-356). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  • Note: Findings of the study were orally presented in IATEFL TTEd SIG Conference, Gaziantep, Turkey, 22-26 April 2015.
APA BABANOĞLU M, Ağçam R, BADEM N (2018). Explicit and Implicit Written Corrective Feedback in Higher EFL Education: Evidence from Turkey. , 104 - 116. 10.17679/inuefd.364809
Chicago BABANOĞLU Mine Pınar,Ağçam Reyhan,BADEM Nebahat Explicit and Implicit Written Corrective Feedback in Higher EFL Education: Evidence from Turkey. (2018): 104 - 116. 10.17679/inuefd.364809
MLA BABANOĞLU Mine Pınar,Ağçam Reyhan,BADEM Nebahat Explicit and Implicit Written Corrective Feedback in Higher EFL Education: Evidence from Turkey. , 2018, ss.104 - 116. 10.17679/inuefd.364809
AMA BABANOĞLU M,Ağçam R,BADEM N Explicit and Implicit Written Corrective Feedback in Higher EFL Education: Evidence from Turkey. . 2018; 104 - 116. 10.17679/inuefd.364809
Vancouver BABANOĞLU M,Ağçam R,BADEM N Explicit and Implicit Written Corrective Feedback in Higher EFL Education: Evidence from Turkey. . 2018; 104 - 116. 10.17679/inuefd.364809
IEEE BABANOĞLU M,Ağçam R,BADEM N "Explicit and Implicit Written Corrective Feedback in Higher EFL Education: Evidence from Turkey." , ss.104 - 116, 2018. 10.17679/inuefd.364809
ISNAD BABANOĞLU, Mine Pınar vd. "Explicit and Implicit Written Corrective Feedback in Higher EFL Education: Evidence from Turkey". (2018), 104-116. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.364809
APA BABANOĞLU M, Ağçam R, BADEM N (2018). Explicit and Implicit Written Corrective Feedback in Higher EFL Education: Evidence from Turkey. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(3), 104 - 116. 10.17679/inuefd.364809
Chicago BABANOĞLU Mine Pınar,Ağçam Reyhan,BADEM Nebahat Explicit and Implicit Written Corrective Feedback in Higher EFL Education: Evidence from Turkey. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 19, no.3 (2018): 104 - 116. 10.17679/inuefd.364809
MLA BABANOĞLU Mine Pınar,Ağçam Reyhan,BADEM Nebahat Explicit and Implicit Written Corrective Feedback in Higher EFL Education: Evidence from Turkey. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, vol.19, no.3, 2018, ss.104 - 116. 10.17679/inuefd.364809
AMA BABANOĞLU M,Ağçam R,BADEM N Explicit and Implicit Written Corrective Feedback in Higher EFL Education: Evidence from Turkey. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2018; 19(3): 104 - 116. 10.17679/inuefd.364809
Vancouver BABANOĞLU M,Ağçam R,BADEM N Explicit and Implicit Written Corrective Feedback in Higher EFL Education: Evidence from Turkey. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2018; 19(3): 104 - 116. 10.17679/inuefd.364809
IEEE BABANOĞLU M,Ağçam R,BADEM N "Explicit and Implicit Written Corrective Feedback in Higher EFL Education: Evidence from Turkey." İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19, ss.104 - 116, 2018. 10.17679/inuefd.364809
ISNAD BABANOĞLU, Mine Pınar vd. "Explicit and Implicit Written Corrective Feedback in Higher EFL Education: Evidence from Turkey". İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 19/3 (2018), 104-116. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.364809
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
23-04-2024 10:29

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