Home⇛LAMDAG⇛vol. 12 no. 1 (2021)

Building Students’ Language Accuracy and Structural Complexity in Writing Through Direct Corrective Feedback

Krisha Angela Omayao

 

Abstract:

Feedback on written output is essential for students’ learning and improvement of performance. This study investigated the effectiveness of direct corrective feedback in improving students’ written language accuracy and structural complexity. It covered the two sections of 1st year Education students in a community college of Misamis Oriental. This study also examined the students’ strategies in dealing with feedback. It explored students’ experiences and identified the factors that affected learners’ responses to direct corrective feedback. These objectives were achieved by conducting a quasi-experiment followed by students’. They were given pre-test and post-test after the intervention using Direct Corrective Feedback. Descriptive statistics and inferential analysis such as T-test were used as statistical tools to determine if there was significant difference between the means of the two groups in this study. Results showed that majority of the respondents were females who fell in the 18-year-old age bracket. It also revealed the effectiveness of direct corrective feedback in improving learners’ overall language accuracy according to four domains which scores of the respondents improved from upper-intermediate in pretest to advanced level in posttest. Moreover, results indicated in Structural Complexity among its five domains that the proficiency level of Intermediate in the pretest had accelerated to Advance level in the posttest. These findings were attributable to the fact that the participants preferred to have direct corrective feedback, as it was easy to understand and less time consuming when applying it to new written texts. This could be related to the fact that some students preferred direct corrective feedback for they believed that it encouraged them to recognize the errors. Hence, the study concludes that direct corrective feedback has shown to be valuable practice in improving students’ accuracy and complexity [in writing] and its effectiveness is durable. Thus, students are recommended to use this strategy in the other subject to make them successful in the class and help them establish their learning goals.



References:

  1. Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge. Taylor & Francis Group.
  2. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level  of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Second Language Writing. Prentice Hall.
  3. Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written Corrective Feedback for L2  Development: Multilingual Matters. Prentice Hall.
  4. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different  types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Second Language Writing. Prentice Hall.
  5. Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective  feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, TESOL Quarterly, 25(4), 719. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587088
  6. 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, 267-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9
  7. Covic, Y. & Jones, D. (2008). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002
  8. Furnborough, D. & Truman, J. (2009). Responding to L2 students in college writing classes: Teacher perspective. TESOL. Buckingham: Society for research into higher education.
  9. Gustilo, A. (2009). Classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470, 3270–3274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2376-6
  10. Magno, M. (2012). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. (3rd Ed.). Heinle ELT.
  11. Mohebbi, H. (2013). Written corrective feedback in L2 pedagogy: Claims and counter-claims, recent finding, and future research directions. International Journal of Innovative Ideas. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.
  12. Lewis, D. (2002). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design  issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.01.001
  13. Lizzio, G. & Wilson, J. (2015). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does type of error and type of correction matter? Assessing Writing, 24,16–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2015.02.001
  14. Masangya, E. & Kosada, J. (2009). The Language Anxiety and Language Exposure of ESL Students’ on Their Writing Proficiency. Advanced Science Letters. Volume 24, Number 4, April 2018, pp. 2328-2332 https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2018.10946
  15. Pennebaker, D. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing. Volume 22, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 286-306, ISSN 1060-3743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011.
  16. Raymond, S. (2016). When gesture does promote learning. Language and Cognition 2 (1): 1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/langcog.2010.001  
  17. Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved April 12, 2021 from http://assets.cambridge.org/052166/0483/sample/0521660483wsn01.pdf
  18. Shintani, M. (2009). Ways of Teaching Vocabularies to Beginner. https://symmaruna.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/ways-of-teaching-vocabularies-to-beginners/
  19. Truscott. H. (2008). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 438–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  20. Tuckman, A. & Monetti, R. (2011). Problems in the study of thw language teacher’s treatment of learner error. New directions in second language learning, teaching, and bilingual education. Washington. Falmer Press.

Tools

All Comments (1)


Copyright © 2024  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic