An Investigation of the Effects of Three Post-writing Methods: Focused Feedback, Learner-oriented Focused Feedback, and No Feedback

Mozhgan Jamali, Fatemeh Khonamri

Abstract


There have been inconclusive results regarding the issue of feedback and no feedback to student compositions. The present study investigated potential differences in the effect, on writing accuracy, of focused meta-linguistic feedback, learner-oriented focused meta-linguistic feedback, and mere writing practice on overall accuracy in Iranian EFL writings. Because of dramatic student attrition and two failures in the data collection phase which was due to lack of student commitment to performing the tasks, the study involved three groups: a) experimental A (33→9) who wrote on topics, received feedback, and kept edit logs and error tally sheets; b) experimental B (33→7) who only received feedback; and c) control (33→6) who merely wrote on topics. The results indicated that all the three methods are almost equally ineffective to accuracy improvement of student writings in the targeted areas, thus refuting claims for the effectiveness of both feedback and no feedback methods.

 


Keywords


Focused CF; meta-linguistic feedback; writing accuracy

Full Text:

PDF

References


Alghazo, K., Bani Abdelrahman, M. & Abu Qbeitah, A. (2009). The effect of teachers' error feedback on AL-Hussein Bin Talal university students' self-correction ability. European Journal of Social Sciences, 12(1), 142-156.

Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of a focused approach to written corrective

feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204-217.

Bitchener, J., Young, S. & Cameron, D. (2005). The effects of different types of learners on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191-205.

Ellis, R. (2004). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press,

Oxford.

Ellis, R. (2006). A typology of written error types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.

Ellis, R. Sheen, Y., Murakami, M. & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written learners in English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353-371.

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.

Ferris, D. (2004). The grammar correction debate in second language writing:" Where are we, and where do we go from here? Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49-62.

Ferris, D. & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it

need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184.

Goldstein, L. M. (2004). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and

student revision: Teachers and learners working together. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 63-80.

Greene, L. (2003). Does the coupling of error log maintenance with individualized conferencing improve the writing of L2 students? Unpublished manuscript,Youngstown State University, Ohio.

Guenette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40-53.p

Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255-286.

Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language teaching, 39, 83-101.

Keshavarz, M. (2008). Contrastive analysis and error analysis. Iran: Tehran.

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Polio, C., Fleck, C. & Leder, N. (1998). If I only had more time: ESL learners' changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 43-68.

Rob, T., Ross, S. & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83-93.

Sachs, R. & Polio, C. (2007). Learners' use of two types of written feedback on L2 writing

revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29 (1), 67-100.

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.

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.

Truscott, J. (1996). Review article: The case against grammar correction in L2 writing

classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.

Truscott, J. (1999). The case for "the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes": a response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111-122.

Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: a response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337-343.

Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write accurately.

Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272.

Truscott, J. & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second

Language Writing. 17 (4), 292- 305.

Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. New York: Routledge.

Wong, J. &Waring, H. (2009). Very good as a teacher response. ELT Journal, 63(3), 195- 203.

Wolfe-quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. (1998). Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Hawaii: University of Hawaii at Manoa.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.5p.180

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




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

2012-2020 (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.