1887
Volume 37, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139

Abstract

In recent years there have been a growing number of studies on written corrective feedback (WCF), particularly in terms of the efficacy of different types of WCF. However, few of these studies have investigated what shapes teachers’ WCF practices and how they align with students’ preferences. This study, conducted with staff and students in a large Saudi university that has strict guidelines on WCF provision, examined the teachers’ WCF practices in relation to the institutional guidelines, their own beliefs about the most effective forms of WCF as well as their students’ preferences. Data collected included the feedback given by three teachers on their students’ writing (15 students per teacher), follow-up interviews with the teachers, and questionnaires completed by the students. The study found that although the teachers followed the strict guidelines and provided comprehensive indirect feedback, these practices did not always accord with their beliefs. Most of the WCF given tended to be on mechanics, and the teachers seemed unaware that this was the main focus of their feedback. They were also largely unaware that their students preferred direct feedback and mainly on grammar. We conclude our paper with some policy recommendations.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/aral.37.2.02als
2014-01-01
2019-08-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bitchener, J. , & Knoch, U.
    (2010) Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207–217. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  2. Casanave, C. P.
    (2003) Looking ahead to more sociopolitically–oriented case study research in L2 writing scholarship: (But should it be called “post–process”?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 85–102. doi: 10.1016/S1060‑3743(03)00002‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00002-X [Google Scholar]
  3. Diab, R. L.
    (2005) EFL university students’ preferences for error correction and teacher feedback on writing. TESL Reporter, 38(1), 27–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Ellis, R.
    (2010) Cognitive, social, and psychological dimensions corrective feedback. In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp.151–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Ellis, R. , Sheen, Y. , Murakami, M. , & Takashima, H.
    (2008) The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353–371. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Ferris, D.
    (1999) The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11. doi: 10.1016/S1060‑3743(99)80110‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2002) Treatment of error in second language student writing: University of Michigan Press Ann Arbor, MI.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (2003) Response to student writing: Implications for second language students: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Ferris, D. R.
    (2006) Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short–and long–term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp.81–104). New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524742.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524742.007 [Google Scholar]
  10. Ferris, D. , Brown, J. , Liu, H. S. , & Stine, M. E. A.
    (2011) Responding to L2 students in college writing classes: Teacher perspectives. Tesol Quarterly, 45(2), 207–234. doi: 10.5054/tq.2011.247706
    https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.247706 [Google Scholar]
  11. Grami, M.
    (2005) The effect of teachers’ written feedback on ESL students’ perception: A study in a Saudi ESL university–level context. Annual Review of Education, Communication and Language Sciences, 2.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Halimi, S. S.
    (2008) Indonesian teachers’ and students’ preferences for error correction. Wacana, 10(1), 50–71. doi: 10.17510/wjhi.v10i1.178
    https://doi.org/10.17510/wjhi.v10i1.178 [Google Scholar]
  13. Hamouda, A.
    (2011) A study of students and teachers’ preferences and attitudes towards correction of classroom written errors in Saudi EFL context. English Language Teaching, 4(3), p128. doi: 10.5539/elt.v4n3p128
    https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n3p128 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hamp-Lyons, L.
    (2007) The impact of testing practices on teaching.International handbook of English language teaching (pp.487–504): Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑46301‑8_35
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_35 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hyland, K.
    (2003) Second language writing. Ernst Klett Sprachen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511667251
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667251 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hyland, K. , & Hyland, F.
    (2006) Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524742
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524742 [Google Scholar]
  17. Lee, I.
    (2004) Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 285–312. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2008) Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69–85. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2009) Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback practices. ELT Journal, 63(1), 12–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Leki, I.
    (1991) The Preferences of ESL Students for Error Correction in College‐Level Writing Classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203–218. doi: 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.1991.tb00464.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1991.tb00464.x [Google Scholar]
  21. (2006) “You cannot ignore”: Graduate L2 students’ experience of and response to written feedback practices within their disciplines. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in ESL writing: Contexts and issues (pp.266–285). Campbridge: Cambridge University Press.
  22. (2007) Undergraduates in a second language: Challenges and complexities of academic literacy development. New York: Lawarence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Merriam, S. B.
    (2002) Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  24. Montgomery, J. L. , & Baker, W.
    (2007) Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 82–99. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.04.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  25. Polio, C.
    (2003) Research on second language writing: An overview of what we investigate and how. Exploring the dynamics of second language writing, 35–65. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524810.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524810.005 [Google Scholar]
  26. Sheen, Y.
    (2007) The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. Tesol Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. doi: 10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2007.tb00059.x
    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x [Google Scholar]
  27. (2010) Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 201–234. doi: 10.1017/S0272263109990507
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990507 [Google Scholar]
  28. 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(4), 556–569. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  29. Storch, N. , & Tapper, J.
    (2000) The focus of teacher and student concerns in discipline–specific writing by university students. Higher Education Research and Development, 19(3), 337–355. doi: 10.1080/758484345
    https://doi.org/10.1080/758484345 [Google Scholar]
  30. Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G.
    (2010a) Students’ engagement with feedback on writing: the role of learner agency/beliefs. In Batstone R (ed), Sociocognitive Perspectives on Language Use and Language Learning (pp.166–185). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (2010b) Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303–334. doi: 10.1017/S0272263109990532
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532 [Google Scholar]
  32. Truscott, J.
    (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language learning, 46(2), 327–369. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1996.tb01238.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x [Google Scholar]
  33. Van Beuningen, C. , de Jong, N. , & Kuiken, F.
    (2012) Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2011.00674.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/aral.37.2.02als
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): EFL , students' preferences , teachers' beliefs and written corrective feedback
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error