EFL Learners' Response to Teacher Written Feedback: An Exploratory Cross-case Analysis
Vol. 130 No. 6D (2021), Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities
Vol. 130 No. 6D (2021)

EFL Learners' Response to Teacher Written Feedback: An Exploratory Cross-case Analysis

Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities
https://doi.org/10.26459/hueunijssh.v130i6D.6389
Published 2021-09-23
Thi Linh Giang Hoang
Hue University, University of Foreign Languages
PDF

Keywords

Written feedback
Revisions
Learner proficiency
Writing improvement
CAF measures Phản hồi bài viết
Chỉnh sửa
Trình độ ngôn ngữ
Cải thiện bài viết
Các chỉ số CAF

Abstract

Teacher feedback plays a central role in second language writing research. Although this area of enquiry has been extensively investigated, there is still limited research into learner engagement with the feedback as well as individual difference factors that mediate learner revision processes. Inspired by the ongoing debate around the effectiveness of teacher written feedback and the roles of individual learner factors in feedback activities, the current exploratory multiple-case study examined how two Vietnamese EFL learners of different proficiency levels revised their essays following written feedback provision. Data came from text analyses of the first and revised drafts written by the two case studies. The learners’ revision practices were analyzed using both quantitative and qualitative measures. Qualitatively, revision operations were identified using Min’s (2006) revision taxonomy to look at both micro-text-based and macro-text-based changes, while quantitative measures examined the accuracy, fluency, and complexity changes observed from students’ first to revised drafts. Findings suggest some interaction between learner proficiency, revision behaviors, and short-term writing improvement across different drafts within the same essay. Implications for feedback practices are accordingly presented.

https://doi.org/10.26459/hueunijssh.v130i6D.6389
PDF

References

  1. Bitchener, J., & Knock, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37, 322-329.
  2. Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters.
  3. Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.
  4. 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, 353-371.
  5. Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Erlbaum.
  6. Harran, M. (2011). What higher education students do with teacher feedback: Feedback-practice implications. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 29(4), 419-434. http://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2011.651941
  7. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83-101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399
  8. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 24(7), 590-619.
  9. Lee, G., & Schallert, D. L. (2008). Meeting in the margins: Effects of the teacher-student relationship on revision processes of EFL college students taking a composition course. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 165-182.
  10. Lee, I. (2014). Revisiting teacher feedback in EFL writing from sociocultural perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 48(1), 201-213.
  11. Li, J., Link, S., & Hegelheimer, V. (2015). Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback in ESL writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 1-18.
  12. Long, M. H. (2009). Methodological principles for language teaching. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 371-394). Wiley-Blackwell.
  13. Min, H. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118-141.
  14. Mubarak, M. (2013). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: A study of practices and effectiveness in the Bahrain context. forms (Doctoral dissertation, University o of Sheffield). Retrieved from https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/4129/1/PhD_MMubarak_2013.pdf
  15. Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277-303.
  16. Reid, J. (1994). Responding to ESL students’ texts: The myths of appropriation. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 273-292.
  17. Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2015). Does language analytical ability mediate the effect of writing feedback on grammatical accuracy in second language writing? System, 49, 110-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.01.006
  18. Storch, N. (2009). The impact of studying in a second language (L2) medium university on the development of L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 103-118.
  19. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303-334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532
  20. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.