The Effect of Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback on Iranian Elementary Learners’ Writing

Amaneh Kamalian, Anita Lashkarian

Abstract


Error correction is probably the most widely used technique for responding to students’ writing. Although many studies have attempted to investigate the efficacy of providing error correction through different types of written corrective feedback (WCF), there has been relatively little research on any one new approach to writing pedagogy in foreign language learning which is called dynamic WCF. The purpose of the current research was to test the effect of WCF on the improvement of writing abilities of EFL learners. Two groups of EFL students who were learning English as a foreign language participated in this study. Both groups (A and B) were given treatments. Core components of the treatment included having the students to write a composition every session (twice a week) and the teacher providing the students with feedbacks (dynamic WCF or direct WCF) on their writing tasks. Group A (n=24) was instructed through dynamic WCF because it was intended to improve L2 writing ability in general by raising linguistic awareness of learners through the error corrections performed by the teacher.  On the other hand, group B (n= 22) received direct WCF on their writings. Four essential characteristics were taken into consideration for the error correction, i.e. feedback needed to be manageable, meaningful, timely and constant. The data obtained for Group A and Group B was analyzed using paired sample test and the results indicated that both groups had improved on their writing abilities. Also, administrating an independent sample T-test the findings revealed that Group A which received dynamic WCF could outperform Group B.

 


Keywords


Corrective feedback; dynamic written corrective feedback; direct error correction

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abedi, R., Latifi, M., & Moinzadeh, A., (2010). The Effect of Error Correction vs. Error Detection on Iranian EFL

Learners’ Writing Achievement. English Language Teaching,Vol.3, No. 4, pp. 168-174.

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, Vol. 9, pp

-257.

Beuningen, C.G, Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The Effect of Direct and Indirect Corrective Feedback on L2

Learners’ Writing Accuracy. Experimental and intervention studies, pp: 279-296.

Beuningen, C., (2010). Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing: Theoretical Perspective, Empirical Insights, and Future

Direction. International Journal of English Studies, Vol. 10(2), pp. 1-27.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U., (2008). The Value of Written Corrective Feedback for Migrant and International

Students. Language Teaching Research, Vol. 12(3), pp. 409-431.

Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D., (2005). The effect of Different types of Corrective Feedback on ESL

students’ Writing. Journal of Second language Writing.Vol. 14, pp. 191-205.

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, Vol. 12, pp. 267-296.

Corpuz, V., (2011). Error Correction in Second Language Writing: Teacher’s Beliefs Practices and Students’

Performance. (Unpublished Master dissertation). Queensland University of Technology, Australia.

Erel, s. & Bulut, T. (2007). Error Treatment in L2 Writing: A comparative study of direct and indirect coded

feedback in Turkish context. Journal of Social Science Institute, Vol. 1, pp. 379-415.

Evans, N., Hartshorn, K.J., Mc Collum, R., & Wolfersberger, M., (2010). Contextualizing Corrective Feedback in

Second Language Writing Pedagogy.Language Teaching Research, Vol. 14(4), pp. 445-463.

Evans, N., Hartshorn, J., & Strong, D., (2011). The Efficacy of Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback for

University-Matriculated ESL Learners. System, Vol. 33, pp. 229-239.

Farrokhi, F., & Chehrazad, M., (2012). The Effects of Planned Focused on Form on Iranian EFL Learners’ Oral

Accuracy. World Journal of Education, Vol. 2, No. 1,pp. 70-81.

Farrokhi, F., & sattarpour, S., (2011). The Effects of Focused and Unfocused Written Corrective Feedback on

Grammatical Accuracy of Iranian EFL Learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 1, No. 12, pp.

-1803.

Ferris, D. (1999). The case for Grammar Correction in L2 Writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of

Second Language Writing, Vol. 8, 1-11.

Ferris, D. (2004). The “ Grammar Correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from

here?(and what do we do in the meantime…?). Journal of Second Language Writing, Vol. 13, pp. 49-62.

Hartshorn, J., (2008). The Effects of manageable Corrective Feedback on ESL Writing Accuracy. (Unpublished

Doctoral Dissertation). Brigham Young University. United States.

Hartshorn, K.J., Evans, N., Merrill, P., Sudweeks, R., Strong, D., & Anderson, N., (2010). Effects of Dynamic

Corrective Feedback on ESL Writing Accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 84-109.

Hashemzadeh, H., & Mohammadnejad, S., (2012). A Case for Direct and Indirect Feedback. The Other Side of Coin. English Language Teaching,Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 230-239.

Mahmood, A., (2000). Coded Corrective Feedback: In search of a Compromise. TESL Reporter, Vol. 33(2), pp.

- 17.

Sheen, Y., (2007). The Effect of Focused Written Corrective Feedback and Language Aptitude on ESL Learners’

Acquisition of Articles. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 255-183.

Truscott, J., (1996). The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes. Language Learning, Vol. 46(2),

pp. 327-369.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.5p.47

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.