ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work

Radecki, Patricia M.; Swales, John M.

doi:10.1016/0346-251x(88)90078-4

Cited by 163 publications

(140 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

109

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Students prefer teachers to provide feedback on all errors, rather than focusing on global errors or those that impede communication only or those that deal with the content of writing. Radecki and Swales (1988), supporting the viewpoints of students in this study and the stance adopted by Amrhein and Nassaji (2010), believe that if teachers do not correct all errors whether they are mechanical, surface level errors, or major ones, the students might lose their faith in their teachers. In a similar vein, Leki (1991) concludes that students believe that good writing is equal to error-free writing and accordingly desire that all their errors be corrected.…”

Section: The Amount Of Corrective Feedback Students and Teachers Thinsupporting

confidence: 83%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Teachers’ and Students’ Attitudes Toward Error Correction in L2 Writing

Maghsoud¹,

Sadeghi²

2015

J. AsiaTEFL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparing student and teacher attitudes toward various aspects of language and instruction including the way writing errors are corrected is a fruitful activity in langage education and SLA classroom research. To contribute to this line of inquiry, the present study investigated the preferences of 30 EFL teachers and 100 L2 students as to various language features as well as error marking techniques in writing. Two questionnaires were developed to elicit views of students and teachers on various error correction techniques in L2 writing. To add a qualitative dimension to the study and to triangulate the findings, nine teachers who took part in the survey study were invited for follow-up interviews. The results revealed that there are noticeable differences in the preferences and attitudes of teachers and students toward issues related to marking writing papers. Furthermore, not only were differences observed between students and teachers in terms of their preferences and attitudes, but there was also disagreement between teachers themselves and among students as to the most appropriate error correction techniques. Further results and implications of the study are discussed in the paper. Keywords: preferences, features of language, error marking techniques, attitudesTeachers' and Students' Attitudes Toward Error Correction in L2 Writing 2 IntroductionResponding to student writers' errors is a controversial issue and this controversy still rages between the supporters of both options -pro-correction and non-correction -since research has not been conclusive as to whether providing feedback has a significant effect on attaining fluency and accuracy in writing (Guenette, 2007).For years and years, error correction in writing has been a matter of debate among language practitioners and researchers. Attitudes towards error correction range from the utter abolition of errors before 1960s, to strong disapproval of error correction as being noxious and unjustified in the late 1970s, and to an appreciation of the value of correcting errors in the 1980s (Lee, 1997). There is abundant evidence to indicate that ESL students crave for error correction and that it is effective (Agudo, 2012;Oladejo, 1993;Zhu, 2010). So, teachers are forced to deal with errors in the classroom (Ferris & Roberts, 2001;Ferris, 2002;Truscott, 1999). In spite of a sort of partnership or association that holds between error correction and the ESL / EFL classroom, the literature in language teaching includes evidence to substantiate the feebleness of error correction to guarantee that henceforth the learners will perform flawlessly (Amrhein & Nassaji, 2010;Truscott, 1996Truscott, , 1999Truscott, , 2007Truscott & Hsu, 2008).Albeit the literature is abundant in arguments for and against the teachers' corrective feedback and comments, of course, with no apparent conclusive resolution, there exists paucity of arguments inquiring the preferences of students and teachers as far as corrective feedback is concerned.There is not enough published work on studen...

show abstract

Section: The Amount Of Corrective Feedback Students and Teachers Thinsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…Students' need for error correction does not necessarily imply the usefulness of such feedback (Radecki & Swales, 1988). Some students may "hold unrealistic beliefs about writing, usually based on limited knowledge or experience .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teachers’ and Students’ Attitudes Toward Error Correction in L2 Writing

Maghsoud¹,

Sadeghi²

2015

J. AsiaTEFL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hounsell (1987) discovered that two opposing camps described the preferences: one was inclined towards meaning and the other was focused on structure and content. Saito (1994) and Radecki and Swales (1988) found out that feedback on grammar was the most useful; likewise, Leki (1991) reported that students disapproved of the teachers' feedback that was concentrated only on content and organization. Hedgcock and Lefkowitz (1994; found that many L2 learners were concerned primarily with their problems in grammar and writing mechanics, and that feedback on content, organization, and style was of secondary importance to them.…”

Section: Studies Tackling Student Reactions and Perspectives On Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…This paper will focus only on two cohorts of research on feedback: studies aimed at establishing student preferences regarding instructor feedback (Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994;Leki, 1991;Radecki & Swales, 1988;Saito, 1994); and studies investigating the reaction of students to feedback already received for their writing (Brice, 1995;Cohen, 1987;Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990;Ferris, 1995).…”

Section: Studies Tackling Student Reactions and Perspectives On Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The question of the significance of student-teacher conferences was also discussed (Arndt, 1993;Zamel, 1985). Other researchers (Cathcart & Olsen, 1976;Ferris, 1995;Lee, 2005;Radecki & Swales, 1988) mentioned that L2 learners preferred large amounts of feedback as opposed to occasional or selective feedback.…”

Section: Studies Tackling Student Reactions and Perspectives On Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Feedback on the Feedback: Sociocultural Interpretation of Saudi ESL Learners’ Opinions about Writing Feedback

Mustafa

2012

ELT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This qualitative study employed informal conversational interviews and semi-structured individual interviews to capture the Saudi students' opinions about the feedback they receive, and about their perceptions on what constitutes helpful feedback. Sociocultural theory was used as the framework of this study. The findings suggest that the Saudi students do not think highly of the feedback, and that the feedback they desire is markedly different from what they receive. The students mentioned several impediments to feedback. From a sociocultural perspective, the feedback practices do not adhere to the best practices of the theory, resulting in major hindrances to the students' learning/writing development.

show abstract

The Effectiveness of Feedback for L1‐english and L2‐writing Development: A Meta‐analysis

Biber

Nekrasova

Horn

2011

ETS Research Report Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research project undertook a review and synthesis of previous research on the effectiveness of feedback for individual writing development. The work plan was divided into two main phases. First, we surveyed all available studies that have investigated the effectiveness of writing feedback, including both quantitative and qualitative research, for students who have learned English as a first language (L1‐English), students who have learned English as a second language (L2‐English), and students who have learned second languages other than English. The results of this survey are described in a narrative overview of previous research pertaining to the role of feedback in the development of writing proficiency. The survey also identified the major theoretical constructs used in this research domain, providing the basis for subsequent statistical analysis. Second, we built on this survey to carry out a meta‐analysis of empirical studies in this research area. The goal of the meta‐analysis was to provide a quantitative investigation of the extent and ways in which feedback has been effective, summarizing the findings of previous quantitative studies that have employed suitable statistical measures. Several analytical steps were required for the meta‐analysis: developing a coding rubric; analyzing the research design and adequacy of reporting in studies to determine if they were suitable for inclusion; coding each study for all relevant research design factors; computing effect sizes for each study; and analyzing and interpreting the general patterns that hold across this set of studies. The meta‐analysis compared the gains in writing development with respect to several different kinds of feedback. Overall, feedback was found to result in gains in writing development. Beyond that, there were several predictable findings (e.g., that written feedback is more effective than oral feedback for writing development) and several other more noteworthy trends (e.g., that peer feedback is more effective than teacher feedback for L2‐English students; commenting is more effective than error location; and in general, focus on form and content seems to be more effective than an exclusive focus on form).

show abstract

ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work

Cited by 163 publications

References 11 publications

Teachers’ and Students’ Attitudes Toward Error Correction in L2 Writing

Teachers’ and Students’ Attitudes Toward Error Correction in L2 Writing

Feedback on the Feedback: Sociocultural Interpretation of Saudi ESL Learners’ Opinions about Writing Feedback

The Effectiveness of Feedback for L1‐english and L2‐writing Development: A Meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About