Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students

Zheng, Yao; Yu, Shulin

doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.001

Cited by 200 publications

(166 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

101

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Chen, Nassaji and Liu (2016) examined 64 Chinese university EFL learners' perceptions and preferences regarding written CF and found that the participants had positive attitudes towards CF and preferred direct over indirect CF. Chung's (2015) and Ishii's (2011) studies came to the same conclusion due to the lack of understanding that occurs with indirect CF (Zheng & Yu, 2018). However, the results of an Indonesian study conducted by Mohammad and Rahman (2016) indicated that learners prefer indirect CF, as they believe that the provision of clues that they can use to correct their mistakes improves their writing performance.…”

Section: University Learners' Preferencesmentioning

confidence: 92%

Saudi EFL Learners’ Preferences of the Corrective Feedback on Written Assignment

Qutob¹,

Madini²

2020

ELT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the current study is to investigate the Saudi English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ preferences for corrective feedback on written assignments. This mixed-method study used a closed-ended Likert scale questionnaire that was adopted and adapted to suit the participants under investigation. Additionally, an open-ended question was used to gain more insight. Both instruments were completed by 114 Saudi female EFL learners whose ages ranged from 12 to 13 years old and who were studying in the seventh grade at a private school in Jeddah. The instruments were given to the learners after 6 weeks of implementing three different types of feedback on written assignments. The quantitative part of the study was descriptively analysed using SPSS to find the learners’ preferences in corrective feedback, and a one-way ANOVA was used to find the differences between learners’ preferences among groups. The qualitative part of the study was thematically categorised and manually analysed using Excel. The findings revealed that the learners’ preferences did not vary according to the type of corrective feedback. However, the vast majority of learners preferred having constructive feedback on how to correct their mistakes. Additionally, learners preferred the use of electronic devices to receive corrective feedback. This study suggests that teachers consider learners’ preferences on corrective feedback so that they can incorporate these into their teaching plans.

show abstract

Section: University Learners' Preferencesmentioning

confidence: 92%

Saudi EFL Learners’ Preferences of the Corrective Feedback on Written Assignment

Qutob¹,

Madini²

2020

ELT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since the affective component can ‘moderate learners’ attention and processing’ (Bitchener & Storch, 2016, p. 28) of teacher WCF, CWCF may adversely affect students’ engagement, which impacts negatively on their learning from teacher WCF. In Zheng and Yu's (2018) recent study, the low-proficiency EFL students were found to be affectively engaged with teacher WCF that was focused, suggesting that FWCF could facilitate students’ affective engagement with WCF. From the SLA perspective, acquisition is less likely to take place when WCF targets all errors/error types (Schmidt, 1994; Ellis, 2005; Ellis, Sheen, Murakami, & Takashima, 2008).…”

Section: Teacher Wcf: Why ‘More Is Not Better’mentioning

confidence: 96%

Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more

Lee

2019

Lang. Teach.

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In different parts of the world second language (L2) teachers devote a massive amount of time to giving feedback on grammatical errors in student writing. Such written corrective feedback, which is unfocused and comprehensive, is fraught with problems for both teachers and students. Nonetheless, it remains a prevalent practice in many L2 contexts. In this position paper, I argue that more written corrective feedback is not better, but instead less is more. After presenting the problems emanating from comprehensive written corrective feedback, I argue for a focused approach to written corrective feedback and examine its benefits for teachers and students. Through discussing five impediments to the implementation of focused written corrective feedback, I scrutinize and refute the counter-claims, and bolster my overall argument in support of focused written corrective feedback. I conclude the position paper with recommendations for action for teachers, teacher educators and researchers.

show abstract

“…The learner's error writing composition production provide teacher corrective feedback as observed by Akmal & Mahrup (2019) ;Chen, (2018); Klimova, (2015); Zheng & Yu, (2018). Most of Indonesian learners' study English writing subject in the school.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Both experimental groups exceeded the control groups in the immediate and delayed post-tests. Based on Zheng & Yu (2018) Students' decreasing English proficiency may additionally negatively affect their cognitive and behavioural engagement with Written Corrective Feedback and reason imbalances many of the three sub-dimensions of engagement. Abuseileek, (2013) ;Ghufron, (2019) found that teacher corrective feedback is better in terms of improving the student's error of content, organization, and mechanics of writing than Grammarly checker in the computer or computer-mediated corrective feedback, but teacher corrective feedback in the terms of language use and diction is less effective.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Written Corrective Feedback on Efl Students at an Islamic Junior High School

Suharyanti

Fauziati

2020

J. appl. linguist. lit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teachers provide students with corrective feedback for guiding them in the process of teaching a language. This study aimed to investigate the types of corrective feedback that the teacher used in teaching writing recount text, this also employed to reveal the students' motivation for writing recount texts, and to explore the benefit of teacher corrective feedback to the students' ability in writing recount text at Manbaul Huda Islamic Junior High School Central Java Indonesia. Descriptive qualitative method was employed by interviewing both the teacher and the second-year students. The participants were three teachers and twenty students. There were three guided Interview questions for teachers and two questions for students. The findings of this study turned out that the teacher employed indirect corrective feedback and gave symbols to the student’s error production. Most of the students are highly motivated to be able to write a status on Facebook or other online media by using English. The most important advantage of obtaining corrective feedback for the students is to understand the use of grammar in making a sentence. This study concluded that the motivation of the students to write recount text was to get teacher corrective feedback to be able to write the appropriate sentence and to increase their ability in writing English. This also implied that different types of corrective feedback might impact differently to the students in improving their motivation to learn English more.

show abstract

Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students

Cited by 200 publications

References 27 publications

Saudi EFL Learners’ Preferences of the Corrective Feedback on Written Assignment

Saudi EFL Learners’ Preferences of the Corrective Feedback on Written Assignment

Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more

Written Corrective Feedback on Efl Students at an Islamic Junior High School

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About