Farklı Dil Seviyelerinde olan Öğrenciler üzerinde Doğrudan Düzeltme Geri Bildirimlerinin Etkisi

Author :  

DOI : 10.29228/ijla.39788
Year-Number: 2020-31
Language : English
Konu : English Language Teaching
Number of pages: 16-31
Mendeley EndNote Alıntı Yap

Abstract

Doğrudan düzeltme geri bildiriminin ortaya atıldığı günden bu yana dil öğretiminde popüler olduğu net bir şekilde ifade edilebilir. Bu nedenle bu çalışma, yabancı dili farklı seviyelerde olan öğrencilerin yazı hataları (eksik sözcük) üzerinde doğrudan fakat odaklanmış olduğu hissettirilmeden düzeltme geri bildiriminin etkisini incelemek ve dört haftalık deneme sürecinin ardından sonraki yazılarında benzer hataları tekrarlamayacak kadar yetkin bir hale gelip gelmediklerini saptamak amacıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmaya başlangıç düzeyinden ve orta dil seviyesinden yedişer öğrenci kolayda örneklem yöntemi kullanılarak seçilmiştir. Ön test olarak ilk yazı taslaklarını yazmaları istenmiş sonrasında uygulama her iki grup üzerinde tamamlanmıştır. Uygulamanın dördüncü haftasında son test olan ikinci yazı taslakları araştırmacı tarafından incelenmiştir. Nicel araştırma deseni ve betimsel istatistiklere göre doğrudan düzeltme geri bildirimini kullanarak ve hata sayılarına bakarak her iki taslaktaki eksik sözcüklerin düzeltilmesinin ardından bulgular Ellis (2009b) tarafından geliştirilen doğrudan üst dil yazı hataları bildirimi formuna göre değerlendirilmiştir. Sonuç olarak, doğrudan düzeltme geri bildiriminin her iki gruptaki öğrenci yazıları üzerinde anlamlı bir farklılığı tespit edilememiştir. Ancak, orta seviyedeki öğrencilerin hata sayılarındaki azalmaya bakarak başlangıç düzeyindekilere göre daha yüksek bir başarı elde ettikleri ortaya çıkmıştır. Çalışmanın sonunda, ileri araştırmalar için araştırmacı ve öğretmenlere pratik öneriler sunulmuştur.

Keywords

Abstract

It can be straightforwardly asserted that Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) has gained popularity since its existence in language teaching. The study is hence designed to examine the errors of learners from different proficiency levels by giving direct and seemingly unfocused WCF to their errors (word missing), and to determine whether L2 student writers are competent enough not to conduct similar errors again in their further assignments within four weeks’ time. To the present study, seven learners at elementary level and another seven learners at intermediate level were selected with convenience sampling method. They were asked to write their first writing tasks as pre-test, then the treatment was applied to both proficiency levels. Three weeks after the treatment, they submitted the second task (post-test) in the fourth week. Upon correcting the missing words in their two writing assignments via direct WCF and regarding the number of errors by applying quantitative research design and descriptive statistics, the findings were assessed according to direct (non) metalinguistic written error correction developed by Ellis (2009b). The result indicates that no significant benefit could be attained by two groups. However, the learners at intermediate group could achieve to reach higher success when compared with the elementary group referring to their number of errors. Suggestions for further related studies have also been provided for both researchers to consider and teachers to implement in their classes at the end of the study.

Keywords

Kaynakça

  • In the second half of 20th century, the earliest language learning theory, behaviourism,considered errors as the guilt of students, and hence behaviourists intended to removeerrors from student output in order not to impede L2 learning process. They opined thatwrong inputs of students must be corrected by submitting feedback. However, Audio-Lingual Method (ALM) acknowledged that all errors were to be eliminated from students’interlanguage with repetition of correct forms and memorizations. Afterwards, Chomsky(1959, 1967) rendered language learning as an internal process, and set againstincorporating any instructions or external feedback into that procedure, hence he putforward the notion of tacit knowledge which represented embedded L2 knowledge inmemory through personal experience and implicit learning. Though it requiredunconscious cognition in L2 learning similar to implicit knowledge, the latter made anoverwhelming impression regarding acquiring the target language fluently in SLA theory.In 1972, Hymes coined communicative competence in opposition to linguistic competence,since only through naturalistic process would language be obtained as supported byKrashen who explained the developmental sequences of L2 grammar under the name ofNatural Order Hypothesis (1982). However, due to differences between acquisition ofmother tongue and learning a second language, this notion would turn out to be futile in defining lexical, grammatical and syntactic developmental stages in L2.
  • Taking account of the cited attempts, it would be compatible to address that in factKrashen (1982) concurred with Truscott (1996) in terms of the readiness of the studentsto accept feedback and then comprehend the stimuli as intake. These two scholars alsotouched upon the potential frustration to be appeared among language learners in thecontrary case. In other words, Truscott (1996) referred that when instantaneous exposureof target L2 forms was entailed to students by means of teacher feedback, no languageacquisition could occur. This claim might also evoke Pienemann’s (1998) ProcessabilityTheory (PT), reconstructing interlanguage forms abiding by L2 structures on a stage basedmodel, the learnability and teachability hypotheses which demanded beingdevelopmentally ready for grammar acquisition of the target language. Although Truscott(1996) appeared to be reinforced by some researchers with regards to so-called one-dimensional, simplified grammar correction, the catastrophic results of feedback and itstime-consuming nature (Knoblauch & Brannon, 1981), he faced harsh criticism all overthe world (Bitchener, 2008; Evans, Harthson, & Tuioti, 2010; Ferris, 1995, 1999, 2013;Ferris & Hedgecock, 2004; Hartshorn et al., 2010; Polio, 2012; Robinson, 1995, 2003;Skehan, 1998; van Beuningen, 2010; van Beuningen, DeJong, & Kuiken, 2012; vanPattern, 2004) upon his claim that giving WCF was harmful and this time span ought tobe spent on contents of the language instead. As he was dwelled on basically the abovementioned SLA theories disregarding contemporary concerns in L2 writing classes, suchas offering explicit knowledge to student writers so as to discern their deficiencies in thetarget language, restructure interlanguage and occupy themselves with gaining learningautonomy, Truscott can be asserted to fall behind the dynamic feedback system (Hartshorn & Evans, 2012).
  • Van Beuningen (2010) also attributed the underlying causes of holding WCF in L2 to validgrounds: Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis (1990), Swain’s Output Hypothesis (1985), andLong’s Focus on Form Approach (1988). That is why, the concerns that learners might beoverwhelmed with cognitive process, appeal to adopt some common grammar featuresrather than getting any risks of including different grammatical structures in theircompositions and hence they may opt for a less systematic or comprehensive writing stylesturned out to be rootless allegations in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) setting. Inaddition to theoretical framework, inconsistent results due to inaccurate research designsand negligence of some learner variables in studies brought about a disdainful attitude toreliability and validity of his studies, too. In other words, a lot of variables, such as thegenre of the tasks or setting, demographic information (educational background, needs,motivation levels, expectations, attitudes, preferences, language levels or the success inL1 performance) of the target group should have been taken into account in order to make investigators interpret the outcome more reliably.
  • In short, respecting longitudinal analyses as would be discussed below, Truscott (1996)might be considered reasonable due to the decreasing power of feedback in the long run(Ellis, 2009b). Yet, in general terms errors cannot be regarded as prejudicial to languagelearning (Ferris, 2006). Thus, it is to be concluded that the critical point is not whether togive feedback to learners but to find the most effective methods of feedback provision (Ferris, 2007; Ferris et al., 2012).
  • This hotly-debated issue in ELT has also gained popularity owing to WCF types applied inresearch. Direct feedback is resorted to signalize the error explicitly when the feedbackprovider notes down its correct form as well as explanations. Nevertheless, indirect WCF isjust to mark errors without providing additional support to learners. Some researchers(Chandler, 2003; Kang & Han, 2015) qualified direct WCF as a solution of some failures inL2 writing, such as experiencing a complicated error during composition and distractionamong learners at low proficiencies. Furthermore, according to Chandler (2003), self-correction might not be so compatible in some language classes in spite of guiding learnersto be independent. This is because they do not have mistakes but errors as distinguishedby Corder (1967), hence they may not overcome this correction process on their own evenif they were supplied with coding in order to make errors evident. Still, Bitchener and Knoch(2008) and Lalande (1982) treated indirect WCF as the correct form for L2 student writersat high proficiencies to gain independency. The discussion about the efficacy of direct andindirect feedback (Saito, 1994) also triggered what error types to be worked on and howlong it would take effect on learners (Truscott & Hsu, 2008). In sober fact, Ellis et al. (2008)emphasized to bring direct feedback into the forefront in terms of long-term writingadvancement with the exclamations that direct approach would sound reasonable whenteachers aimed to stress one sort of specific errors or if learners were basic language usersand call for helps from outside. On the other hand, Van Beuingen et al. (2012) andBitchener (2012) found out indirect feedback to be practical than direct feedback whichmight only be utilized for grammatical errors, since merely direct WCF may bring in longergains of grammar whereas Hartshorn and Evans (2012) could not arrive at an exact answerabout the productivity of (in) direct WCF in their studies. In other words, as to thesuperiority of direct WCF over indirect WCF or vice versa, no conclusive findings could be recorded to date.
  • Regarding the errors that WCF was aimed to correct, Ferris (1999) divided them into twocategories as treatable errors (missing articles, subject-verb agreement or verb forms), anduntreatable errors (missing words, word order, lexical errors or sentence structure). Theywere also called as grammatical accuracy (Bitchener & Knoch, 2008; Bitchener, Young, &Cameron, 2005; Ellis, 2009b, Shintani, Ellis & Suzuki, 2013) such as capitalization,punctuation, spelling (Heift & Rimrott, 2008), and idiomatic usage, respectively. By takingcultural norms and individual World Englishes (Kachru, 1997) of each student in class intoconsideration, handing edited papers including idiomatic usages back to L2 composersmight prevent their yields and creativity, hence this should not be employed unless theerrors block the comprehension of learners. Nevertheless, as conducting WCF only tolearners’ syntactic knowledge may also entail some points of no return in mine of theirinformation and future learning, it seems that determining exact error types to be worked on will still be somehow contentious in ELT world.
  • Another conflict about WCF among academicians was whether to focus only someparticular error forms or to target quite a few or all errors exhaustively. As Schmidt (1994)and Ellis (2005) also put forward, some researchers (Bitchener, 2012; Ellis, Sheen,Murakami, & Takashima, 2008; Sheen, 2007) favoured focused error correction becausethe learners would explicitly pinpoint their errors, and concentrate on how to overcomethem, therefore its effect was to be in long-term run. However, due to identifying solelysome specific errors confined in writing tasks and the need to analyse them in-depth, notmany studies used to emerge based on focused WCF design. Moreover, Bruton (2009;2010), Hartshon and Evans (2012), and Leki (1992) underlined avoiding strategies thatlearners might embrace in tasks in order to deceive teachers and make them believe thatthey did their best. Therefore, as Farrokhi and Sattarpour (2011) did, they negatedresearchers favouring focused WCF, and discredited focused feedback treatment by takingsides with unfocused WCF on account of the fact that WCF must promote students totake responsibility of learning, to find, and correct errors so as to internalize the process.Still, when focused WCF started to gain a growing interest in the research paradigm, Elliset al. (2008) and van Beuningen et al. (2012) decided to carry out a probe on nearly 300English as a Second Language (ESL) students by comparing the impact of focused andunfocused WCF. Even though both groups’ success rates were far better than controlgroups, because of inadequate experiments about this issue, focused WCF was admittedto be more productive than unfocused WCF, which also leaves the door ajar for further related studies.
  • The last point to be touched upon is though ESL population in language schools or atuniversities has comprised the target group of most analyses as can be seen in theanalyses above, EFL does not appear to be covered in WCF studies (Lalande, 1982; Semke,1984) enough, due to the fact that these learners are mostly exposed to formal grammarinstructions and explicit feedback. Considering this shortcoming of previous studiesparticularly in EFL context, and the mystery behind finding the best WCF practices to beadministered in L2 classes, this probe has evolved to address the effect of direct WCF onone of the treatable errors, missing words, from EFL learners' writing tasks within a quantitative research design.
  • The most prominent analyses with regard to short and long-term impact of WCF onstudents must be of Ferris (1995) and Van Beuningen (2010) who thoroughlyconcentrated on this variable while working on their performance, and revealed that WCFhas improved learners’ written accuracy in the long-run. Ferris (2006) also conductedresearch and found out that feedback obtained by teachers would help students’ writingboth in short and long terms. Yet, Hartshorn and Evans (2012) and van Beuningen et al.(2012) could not arrive at a conclusive result in the end. As is seen, there is a lack ofchecking the short and long term effects of WCF in the field, thus this research has attempted to incorporate this aspect into the domain, too.
  • Originally, the study was to address the sentences with the errors of simple present tenseand past tense. Still, the researcher discerned that there were not enough errors inintermediate group. Provided that she had not applied any changes in research design,and put the first plan into practice, there would be two different error types to be correctedwith seemingly unfocused approach instead of one structure to aim at (Shintani et al.,2013). Furthermore, if solely the errors of simple present tense were investigated, then it could not have been a reliable test in terms of the mean rank (Kang & Han, 2015).
  • The intermediate group was assigned to write an informal letter to one of their friendsassuming that they were students in another town or in a foreign country. A model wasalso stated in the course-book so that they could take it as an example. Even though therewas just one aim expected from learners to gain within this probe, not solely the missingwords but all errors in their works were corrected by using direct WCF. The reason wasnot to have them feel uncomfortable or under-pressure by focusing on only one aspect oftheir work. In the following three weeks, any different techniques were not adopted tosubmit feedback nor were they asked to continue writing tasks related to the research.As to the main course-book utilized by all teachers in this institution, New Headway fourthedition series have been taught in the lessons according to the levels of target students.The first class using New Headway intermediate learners' book (Soars & Maris, 2009)wrote about the first unit's task which matched with the syllabus, and thus no extra-curricular activity was carried out. Similarly, the second class who practiced NewHeadway elementary (Soars & Maris, 2011) described a place upon learning relativepronouns which, who, where. This was the subject matter of 9th unit in that book.Therefore, they were asked to cover their favourite places in L2 compositions by building sentences with relative clauses.
  • That probe was arranged within the framework of the taxonomy developed by Ellis(2009a), and redesigned by Sheen (2011) including different forms of WCF as is seen below.
  • Upon regarding students at elementary level and not making them feel that they were inan experiment, the researcher handled first two principles in that typology. Not only didshe correct their all errors explicitly but added explanations of potential reasons behindthese errors as well. It means that both metalinguistic feedback which was of significanceso that it would indicate the cues of the teachers about the origin of the errors either withcodes or grammatical explanations (Ellis, 2009a) to promote learners’ uptake, non-metalinguistic feedback was also resorted. Inasmuch as the explications could also beillustrated with examples, the researcher intended learners to elicit their formerknowledge through the labels or other clues. It was also conducted so as to improve theirawareness, have them self-question, and in parallel reach higher cognitive thinking skills.To assess the efficiency of direct feedback according to language proficiency of theparticipants, reach solid evidence about the investigation and to interpret it thoroughly,Mann Whitney U test was utilized. This test type was developed to arrive at conclusionwhether or not constant assessment between two different groups would indicatestatistically significant difference (Pallant, 2001). After it categorized the scores of twogroups, the test also checked whether the ranks between the rates altered. Due to the factthat the scores were converted into the ranks, the distribution of real grades was ignored (Büyüköztürk, 2006).
  • As regards to the other group, elementary students, a similar result with the sameexplications can be inferred from Table 5. Nevertheless, displaying the improvement oftwo classes within tables provided the opportunity of comparing them in the light of directWCF. Respecting all these quasi correlations between two groups, learners at elementarylevel can be recorded to attain less accomplishment than the intermediate class whentheir errors and correction forms were revised. In other words, despite this nuance inresults, it would be compatible to proclaim in reference to what Mann Whitney U testindicated that in fact no significant difference can be noticed in both groups when directand seemingly unfocused WCF was considered. These results do correlate the findings offormer analyses (Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener, 2012; Bitchener & Knoch, 2008; Ellis,2009a, Ellis, et al. 2008; Parreño, 2014; Sheen, 2007) which sought the efficacy of focusedWCF on the tasks of L2 composers at low proficiency levels, and found its positive impacton this group. In the same vein, as learners appeared to obtain only unfocused feedback,nonetheless their errors were investigated under the light of focused WCF, theintermediate group, could attain higher success rates than the elementary, whichindicates that the more proficient the class is, the less potential they will be prone tocommit an error via unfocused WCF. Due to unfocused WCF, the researcher could recorddecreasing errors only in limited numbers in elementary class (Rank sum 61.00). Still, ifit were through direct focused WCF, the elementary group might have utilized it more andmade less errors in their second writing, which is in contrast with Bruton (2009; 2010),Farrokhi and Sattarpour (2011); Ferris (2004); Hartshon and Evans (2012), and Leki(1992) who favour indirect WCF. Moreover, the findings of Ellis (2005), Schmidt (1994)and Van Beuningen et al. (2012) could overlap with our analysis, whereas it contradictswith Lalande (1982) since the first three studies have asserted that direct WCF is muchbetter to be adopted for grammatical errors. In addition, the subjects were also checkedin terms of short and long-term effects of WCF in fourth weeks’ time, yet they could notappear to reflect the influence of WCF to their tasks unlike in the studies of Ferris (1995,1996) and Van Beuningen (2010). Finally, it would not be amiss to claim that the declarations of Truscott (1996) did contradict with this research context as well.
  • The researcher outlined this probe upon checking the general views towards WCF inliterature (Bitchener, 2012; Ellis, 2005; Ellis, Sheen, Murakami, & Takashima, 2008;Schmidt, 1994; Sheen, 2007) and respecting the results of studies (Bitchener & Knoch,2008; Chandler, 2003; Kang & Han, 2015; Lalande, 1982) prior to operationalizing any ofits steps. Having disclosed the well-accepted standpoints, and probable misconceptionsabout WCF in the light of highly charged discussions, she specified the study andnarrowed its scope to direct and seemingly unfocused WCF. Then, this analysisscrutinized 'word missing' errors in L2 compositions of intermediate and elementarystudents, and thereafter they obtained feedback though clearly edited versions of paperswith some explanations on the same page; even so, the learners did not seem to attainrecovery thoroughly. This would remind us the interpretation of Ellis et al. (2008) that both focused and unfocused WCF may be effective depending on the study.
  • Another shortcoming might be the absence of a control group. If a control group wereincorporated, it would have been more probable to reach valid results via examining threegroups in contrast (Bitchener & Knoch, 2008; Shintani et al., 2013; Kang & Han, 2015;Ellis, 2009a, 2009b). In other words, it would have been quite certain to allege that checking the errors made learners acquire the target language patterns.
  • A small sample size of data (N=14) has been used to collect data, which might evoke themisperception that overgeneralizations are produced about WCF. Still, it was an in-depthinvestigation and the subjects were examined only by one aspect of variable. In spite ofthat, other researchers may also scrutinize the study with a lot more participants.Besides, instead of only one specific grammatical feature, at least two syntactic itemscould be aimed to be investigated among all errors of L2 students writers in EFL context.Although not all but just 'word missing' errors have been taken into account inassessment, the teacher might have students understand it via direct focused WCF onlyfor missing words. Thus, the claims of Bruton (2009; 2010), Hartshon and Evans (2012),Leki (1992) and van Beuningen (2010) about learners’ avoiding strategies will be tested as well.
  • Last but certainly not least, the research might be conducted by a colleague, not theteacher who is the researcher of the study as well (Ferris et al., 2012). The reason is that a good researcher should not administer the data collection indeed.
  • Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118.
  • Bitchener, J. (2012). Written corrective feedback for L2 development: Current knowledgeand future research. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 855-860. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.62
  • Bitchener, J., and Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrantand international students. Language Teaching Research, 12 (3). 409– 431.
  • Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different kinds of correctivefeedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 227- 258.
  • Bruton, A. (2009). Improving accuracy is not the only reason for writing, and even if it were…. System, 37, 600-613.
  • Bruton, A. (2010). Another reply to Truscott on error correction: improved situated designs over statistics. System, 38, 491-498.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2006). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı [Manual of data analysis for social sciences]. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in theaccuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296.
  • Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of BF Skinner's verbal behavior. Language, 35(1), 26-58. https://doi.org/10.2307/411334
  • Chomsky, N. (1967) The responsibility of intellectuals [Special İssue]. The New York Review of Books, 8 (3).
  • Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner's errors. IRAL: International Review ofApplied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5(4), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1967.5.1-4.161
  • Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: How explicit knowledge affects implicit languagelearning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 305-352. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310505014X
  • Ellis, R. (2009a). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63 (2). 97- 107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
  • Ellis, R. (2009b). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1 (1). 3-18.
  • Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused andunfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
  • Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., & Tuioti, E. A. (2010). Written corrective feedback:Practitioners’ perspectives. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 47-77.Farrokhi, F., and Sattarpour, S. (2011). The effects of focused and unfocused writtencorrective feedback on grammatical accuracy of Iranian EFL learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(12), 1797-1803.
  • Ferris, D. R. (1995). Teaching ESL composition students to become independent self editors. TESOL Journal, 4(4), 18-22.
  • Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in l2 writing classes: A response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11.
  • 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). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Ferris, D. R. (2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16 (2007). 165–193.
  • Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2004). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., and Senna, M. (2012). Written corrective feedback forindividual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22 (2013). 307-329.
  • Gass, S. M., & Selinker. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. England, UK: Routledge.
  • Hartshorn, K. J., & Evans N. W. (2012). The differential effects of comprehensive correctivefeedback on l2 writing accuracy. Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching, 3(2), 25-50.
  • 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.
  • Heift, T. and Rimrott, A. (2008). Learner responses to corrective feedback for spellingerrors in CALL. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology andApplied Linguistics, 36(2), 196- 213. Retrievedfrom https://www.learntechlib.org/p/102432/.
  • Hymes, D. H. (1972).On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.),Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth, Londra, UK: Penguin,
  • Kachru, B. B. (1997). World englishes and english-using communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 17, 66-87.
  • Kang, E., and Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2written accuracy: A Meta-Analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99 (1). 1-18.
  • Knoblauch, C. H., & Brannon, L. (1981). Teacher commentary on student writing. Freshmen English News, 10, 1-4.
  • Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
  • Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal 66(2), 140-149.
  • Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writers: A guide for teachers. Portsmith, NH: Heinemann..
  • Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford, UK: OxfordUniversity Press.Long, M. H. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In L. Beebe (Ed.), Issues inSecond Language Acquisition: Multiple Perspectives (pp. 115-141). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  • Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. Newyork, NY: Open University Press.
  • Parreño, A. A. (2014). Student response to written corrective feedback. Language Education and Acquisition Research Network (LEARN) Journal, 7 (1). 1-21.
  • Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam, Netherland: Benjamins.
  • Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 375-389.
  • Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283-331.
  • Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long(Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 631-678). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
  • Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158. doi: 10.1093/applin/11.2.129
  • Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions forapplied linguistics. Consciousness in Second Language Learning, 11, 237-326.Semke, H. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17: 195-202.
  • Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitudeon ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. Tesol Quarterly, 41(2), 255-283. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x
  • Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning.Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0548-7
  • Shintani, N., Ellis, R. and Suzuki, W. (2013). Effects of written feedback and revision onlearners’ accuracy in using two english grammatical structures. Language learning. A Journal of Research in Language Studies, 1-29.
  • Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: OxfordSoars, L. J., and Maris, A. (2009). New headway intermediate student’s book (4th ed). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Soars, L. J., and Maris, A. (2011). New headway elementary student’s (4th ed). Oxford , UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input andcomprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  • Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning. A Journal of Research in Language Studies, 46 (2), 327-369.
  • Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. P. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal ofSecond Language Writing, 17(4), 292-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003
  • Van Beuningen, C. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives,empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies,Van Beuningen, C., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness ofcomprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning,Van Patten, B. (2004). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
MAKALE İSTATİSTİKLERİ

                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                                                                        



                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                                                                        
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                        
                      
                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                                                                        
LINKS

                                                                                                                                                                                                        
    
                                                                                                                                                                                                        
  • 
                                                                                                                                                                                                        
    
                                                                                                                                                                                                        
    

                                                                                                                                                                                                        
     Last issue
    
                                                                                                                                                                                                        
    
                                                                                                                                                                                                        
    • 
                                                                                                                                                                                                        
  • 
                                                                                                                                                                                                        
    
                                                                                                                                                                                                        
    
                                                                                                                                                                                                        
         Previous issues
    
                                                                                                                                                                                                        
    
                                                                                                                                                                                                        
    • 
                                                                                                                                                                                                        
  • 
                                                                                                                                                                                                        
    
                                                                                                                                                                                                        
    
                                                                                                                                                                                                        
    Article Statistics
    
                                                                                                                                                                                                        
    
                                                                                                                                                                                                        
    • 

                                                                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                                        




                                                                                                                                                                                                        


                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                                                                        



                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                                                                        
Share