BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Meihami Hussein (Islamic Azad University, Ghorveh, Iran)
Truscott's Claims in Giving Corrective Feedback : Does It Matter in EFL Writing Context?
International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences (ILSHS), 2013, vol. 8, s. 8-23, rys., tab., bibliogr. 35 poz.
Słowa kluczowe
Edukacja, Studenci, Język angielski, Przegląd literatury, Wyniki badań
Education, Students, English language, Literature review, Research results
Giving Corrective Feedback in students' writings has got the center of attention in the recent years. The question of whether to give CF to students or not to do so has become a controversial quest. In this research three Truscott's claims on giving CF were investigated to EFL students' writing. For the purpose of this investigation Direct Feedback has been used to draw the conclusion on Truscott's claims. These claims are: (a) correction may have value for non-grammatical errors but not for errors in grammar; (b) students are inclined to avoid more complex constructions due to error correction; and (c) the time spent on CF may be more wisely spent on additional writing practice to improve writing ability. The obtained results indicated that giving CF to students' grammatical errors has a significant result on their accuracy improvement. The research also showed that students don't tend to avoid Complex Structures due to the CF provided on these structures. And finally it indicated that in a class without any provided CF and just with doing exercises on a specific subject the accuracy of students decrease during a writing program. (original abstract)
Pełny tekst
  1. 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, 227-258.
  2. Beglar, D., & Hunt, H. (1999). Revising and validating the 2000 word level and university word level vocabulary tests. Language Testing, 16, 131-162.
  3. Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102-118.
  4. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 227-258.
  5. Broekkamp, H., Van Hout-Wolters, H., Van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2004). Teachers' task demands, students' test expectations, and actual test content. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 205-220.
  6. Bruton, A. (2009). Designing research into the effect of error correction in L2 writing: Not so straightforward. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 136-140.
  7. 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.
  8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  9. DeKeyser, R. M. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313-348). Oxford: Blackwell.
  10. Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54, 227-275.
  11. 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.
  12. Ferris, D. (1995). Teaching ESL composition students to become independent self-editors. TESOL Journal, 4, 18-22.
  13. Ferris, D. (1997). The impact of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315-339.
  14. Guenette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40-53.
  15. Guiraud, H. (1954). Lescaract `eres statistiques du vocabulaire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
  16. Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, D., & Anderson, N. J. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 84-109.
  17. Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60:309-365.
  18. Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learning, 54, 153-188.
  19. Lyster, R. (2004). Different effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399-432.
  20. Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265-302.
  21. MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  22. Norris, J. M ., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555-578.
  23. Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 201-234.
  24. Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37, 556-569.
  25. Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103-110.
  26. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  27. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183-205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  28. Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272.
  29. Truscott, J. (2010). Some thoughts on Anthony Bruton's critique of the correction debate. System, 38, 329-335.
  30. Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y.-p. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292-305.
  31. Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners' written accuracy. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279-296.
  32. Van Eerde, H. A. A., & Hajer, M. (2005). Language sensitive mathematics teaching- Students' talking and writing enlighten hidden problems. In M. Bosch, (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1215-1225). Sant Feliu de Gu´ıxols, Spain: Fundemi IQS - Universitat Ramon Llull.
  33. Wolfe Quintero, K., Inagaki, S ., & Kim, H. Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and syntactic complexity. Honolulu: National Foreign Language Resource Center.
  34. Xu, C. (2009). Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Ellis et al. (2008) and Bitchener (2008). Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 270-275.
  35. Zareva, A., Schwanenflugel, P., & Nikolova, Y. (2005). Relationship between lexical competence and language proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 567-595.
Cytowane przez
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu