دانشگاه الزهرا

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات25
تعداد شماره‌ها938
تعداد مقالات7,697
تعداد مشاهده مقاله12,623,685
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله8,986,279
Mohammad Hosseinpur, Rasoul, Bagheri Nevisi, Reza, Bagheri, Bahareh. (1403). The Most Common Feedback Types Provided by EFL Teachers in Essay Writing Class. جلوه هنر, 8(2), 151-178. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2023.43382.1798
Rasoul Mohammad Hosseinpur; Reza Bagheri Nevisi; Bahareh Bagheri. "The Most Common Feedback Types Provided by EFL Teachers in Essay Writing Class". جلوه هنر, 8, 2, 1403, 151-178. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2023.43382.1798
Mohammad Hosseinpur, Rasoul, Bagheri Nevisi, Reza, Bagheri, Bahareh. (1403). 'The Most Common Feedback Types Provided by EFL Teachers in Essay Writing Class', جلوه هنر, 8(2), pp. 151-178. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2023.43382.1798
Mohammad Hosseinpur, Rasoul, Bagheri Nevisi, Reza, Bagheri, Bahareh. The Most Common Feedback Types Provided by EFL Teachers in Essay Writing Class. جلوه هنر, 1403; 8(2): 151-178. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2023.43382.1798

The Most Common Feedback Types Provided by EFL Teachers in Essay Writing Class

Journal of Language Horizons
مقاله 6، دوره 8، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 20، آبان 2024، صفحه 151-178    اصل مقاله (483.53 K)
نوع مقاله: Research article
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/lghor.2023.43382.1798
نویسندگان
Rasoul Mohammad Hosseinpur* 1؛ Reza Bagheri Nevisi2؛ Bahareh Bagheri3
1English Language and Literature Department, University of Qom, Qom-Iran .
2English Language and Literature Department, University of Qom, Qom-Iran.
3English Language and Literature Department, University of Qom, Qom-Iran
چکیده
Despite the importance of the perception behind teachers' feedback, it is astonishing to note that there are not many studies regarding how teachers provide feedback. Drawing upon Ellis’ (2009) typology of written Corrective Feedback (CF), this study explored the most common feedback types provided by EFL teachers. Moreover, the study aimed at finding out whether teachers’ teaching experience and learners’ proficiency level had any bearing on the type of feedback the teachers provided. Eleven teachers provided feedback on 301 descriptive essays written by EFL students in English. The findings revealed that teachers mostly tended to employ direct CF to correct their students’ linguistic errors. This was followed by indirect CF and metalinguistic CF, respectively. It came to light that focused CF, electronic feedback, and reformulation had no popularity among Iranian EFL teachers. The experienced teachers opted more for indirect feedback while the inexperienced ones preferred direct feedback.  Teachers were more inclined to provide intermediate students with direct CF whereas they provided more indirect CF to the upper intermediate students. The results suggest that not all teachers’ perceptions about feedback can necessarily be rendered into classroom practices and various factors, including culture, society, learners and teachers themselves impact teachers’ beliefs and practices. 
کلیدواژه‌ها
direct CF؛ indirect CF؛ reformulation؛ teaching experience؛ teacher feedback
عنوان مقاله [English]
رایج ترین انواع بازخوردهای ارائه شده توسط معلمان زبان انگلیسی در کلاس های مقاله نویسی
نویسندگان [English]
رسول محمد حسین پور1؛ رضا باقری نویسی2؛ بهاره باقری3
1دانشیار گروه زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی، دانشگاه قم، ایران
2دانشیار گروه زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی، دانشگاه قم، قم، ایران.
3فارغ التحصیل کارشناسی ارشد آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه قم، قم، ایران
چکیده [English]
علیرغم اهمیت درک بازخورد معلمان، جالب توجه است که مطالعات زیادی در مورد نحوه ارائه بازخورد معلمان وجود ندارد. این مطالعه با تکیه بر چارچوب الیس (2009) درباره بازخورد نوشتاری، رایج‌ترین انواع بازخورد ارائه شده توسط معلمان زبان انگلیسی را بررسی کرد. علاوه بر این، این مطالعه به بررسی اینکه آیا تجربه تدریس معلمان و سطح مهارت فراگیران تأثیری بر نوع بازخورد ارائه شده توسط معلمان دارد یا خیر نیز پرداخته است. یازده معلم زبان انگلیسی درباره 301 مقاله توصیفی نوشته شده توسط دانش آموزان انگلیسی بازخورد ارائه کردند. یافته‌ها نشان داد که معلمان عمدتاً تمایل داشتند از بازخورد مستقیم برای تصحیح خطاهای زبانی دانش‌آموزان خود استفاده کنند. به دنبال آن بازخورد غیرمستقیم و بازخورد فرازبانی به ترتیب قرار گرفتند. مشخص شد که بازخورد متمرکز، بازخورد الکترونیکی و فرموله کردن مجدد در بین معلمان ایرانی زبان انگلیسی محبوبیتی ندارند. معلمان با تجربه بیشتر بازخورد غیرمستقیم را انتخاب کردند در حالی که معلمان بی تجربه بازخورد مستقیم را ترجیح دادند. معلمان بیشتر تمایل داشتند که بازخوردهای متوسط را با بازخورد مستقیم ارائه کنند.این مطالعه نشان می‌دهد که همه ادراکات معلمان در مورد بازخورد لزوماً نمی‌توانند در شیوه‌های کلاس درس ارائه شوند و عوامل مختلفی مانند متغیرهای فرهنگی، اجتماعی، یادگیرنده و معلم بر باورها و عملکرد معلمان تأثیر می‌گذارند.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
بازخورد معلم, بازخورد مستقیم, بازخورد غیر مستقیم, فرموله کردن مجدد, تجربه تدریس
مراجع
  1. Al Bakri, S. (2015). Written corrective feedback: Teachers' beliefs, practices and challenges in an Omani context. Arab Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 44-73. https://www.arjals.com/ajal/article/view/44
  2. Bagheri Nevisi, R., & Mohammad Hosseinpur, R., & Kolahkaj, R. (2019). The impact of marginal glosses and network tree advance organizers on EFL learners’ summary writing ability. The Journal of Asia TEFL 16(4), 1168-1181. http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2019.16.4.7.1168
  3. Benson, S., & DeKeyser, R. (2019). Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research, 23, 702-726. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818770921
  4. Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
  5. Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832400
  6. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-431.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924
  7. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322-329.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006
  8. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193-214.  https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp016
  9. Bobanović, M. (2016). Investigation of university students’ EFL writing apprehension: A longitudinal study in Croatia. Review of Innovation and Competitiveness, 2(1), 5-18.   https://doi.org/10.32728/ric.2016.21/1
  10. 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(3), 267-269.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9
  11. Chen, S., Nassaji, H., & Liu, Q. (2016). EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback: A case study of university students from Mainland China. Asian Pacific Journal of Second or Foreign Language Education, 1, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-016-0010-y
  12. Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.  https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
  13. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
  14. M., & Sadeghi, K. (2020). The effect of direct versus indirect focused written corrective feedback on developing EFL learners‟ written and oral skills.  Language Related Research, 11(5), 89-124. https://doi.org/10.21859/LRR.11.5.124
  15. Fazio, L. (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority- and majority-language students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 235-249.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00042-X
  16. Ferris, D. (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 University Press.
  17. Ferris, D. (2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 165-193.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.003
  18. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X
  19. Gao, L. X., & Zhang, L. J. (2020). Teacher learning in difficult times: Examining foreign language teachers’ cognitions about online teaching to tide over COVID 19. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 549653. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.549653
  20. Goldstein, L. M. (2004). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: Teachers and students working together. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 63-80.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.006
  21. 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), 128-141.  https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n3p128
  22. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.  https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
  23. Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667251
  24. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83-101.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399
  25. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2019). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge University Press.
  26. Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2020). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 519-539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818802469
  27. Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69-85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.10.001
  28. Lee, I. (2017). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3924-9
  29. Lee, I. (2020). Utility of focused/comprehensive written corrective feedback research for authentic L2 writing classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49(2), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-5103-4.ch001
  30. Mao, S. S., & Crosthwaite, P. (2019). Investigating written corrective feedback: (Mis)alignment of teachers’ beliefs and practice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45(3), 46-60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.05.004
  31. Mohammad Hosseinpur, R. (2015). The impact of teaching summarizing on EFL learners’ microgenetic development of summary writing. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 7(2), 69-92.  https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2015.3531
  32. Norouzian, R. (2015). Does teaching experience affect type, amount, and precision of the written corrective feedback? Journal of Advances in English Language Teaching, 3(5), 93-105. http://www.european-science.com /jaelt
  33. O’Sullivan, I., & Chambers, A. (2006). Learners’ writing skills in French: Corpus consultation and learner evaluation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(1), 49-68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.002
  34. Rahimi, M. (2021). A comparative study of the impact of focused vs. comprehensive  corrective feedback and revision on ESL learners' writing accuracy and quality. Language Teaching Research, 25(5), 687-710.  
  35. Reid, J. (1994). Responding to ESL students' texts: The myths of appropriation. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 273-292.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3587434
  36. Rezaei, A. A., & Mohammad Hosseinpur, R. (2011). On the role of consciousness-raising tasks in learning grammar: A learner perspective. The Iranian EFL Journal, 7(4), 237-254. https://profdoc.um.ac.ir/articles/a/1023483.pdf
  37. -Ekin, G., & Balçikanli, C. (2019). Written corrective feedback: EFL teachers' beliefs and practices. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 19(1), 114-128. https://www.readingmatrix.com/files/20-47d49p9h.pdf
  38. Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263-300.  https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr146oa
  39. Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. Springer.
  40. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
  41. Wahyuni, S. (2017). The effect of different feedback on writing quality of college students with different cognitive styles. Dinamika Ilmu, 17(1), 39-58. https://doi.org/10.21093/di.v17i1.649
  42. Wiboolyasarin, W. (2021). Written corrective feedback beliefs and practices in Thai  as a foreign language context: A perspective from experienced teachers. Language Related Research, 12 (3), 81-119. https://doi.org/10.29252/LRR.12.3.4
  43. Yu, S., Wang, B., & Teo, T. (2018). Understanding linguistic, individual and contextual factors in oral feedback research: A review of empirical studies in L2 classrooms. Educational Research Review, 24(2), 181-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.06.001
  44. Yu, S., Xu, H., Jiang, L., & Chan, I. (2020). Understanding Macau novice secondary teachers’ beliefs and practices of EFL writing instruction: A complexity theory perspective. Journal of Second Language Writing, 48(2), 100728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100728
  45. Zhang, L. J. (2018). Appraising the role of written corrective feedback in EFL writing. In Y. N. Leung, J. Katchen, S. Y. Hwang, & Y. Chen (Eds.), Reconceptualizing English language teaching and learning in the 21st century (pp. 134-146). Crane.
  46. Zhang, L. J., & Cheng, X. (2021). Examining the effects of comprehensive written corrective feedback on L2 EAP students’ linguistic performance: A mixed-methods study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 54(4), 101043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101043
  47. Zhang, T. F., Chen, X., Hu, J. H., & Ketwan, P. (2021). EFL students’ preferences for written corrective feedback: Do error types, language proficiency, and foreign language enjoyment matter? Frontiers in Psychology, 12(2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.660564
  48. Zheng, Y.& Yu, S. (2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37(2), 13-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.001
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 338
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 249


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. طراحی و پیاده سازی از سیناوب