No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
EFL College Students’ Reactions to Their Writing Teachers’ Corrective Feedback
... Moreover, another respond that students show after having feedback, according to Xuelian and Won (2014), the students are satisfied if corrective feedback is delivered to the students who have good proficiency. ...
The objective of this research was to reveal students’ reaction and preferences to teachers’ feedback on weekly journal activity. This study was qualitative research that the data were compiled from six students batch of 2015 at English Education Department of Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta through in-depth interviews. The results showed that, with regard to the reactions of the students were satisfied with teachers’ feedback, showed enjoyment in learning, felt curious in learning, and got demotivated in learning. The result also showed that the students preferred written feedback to oral feedback as they were easier to identify their errors, and oral feedback became second choice to comment their work. The students also believed that language and behavior of the teachers became the strongest effect creating the reaction of the students. On giving feedback, the teacher sometimes delivered it by using casual language that made the students easy to understand the feedback. Apparently, the language used by the teacher on delivering the feedback sometimes the teacher used funny words, so it could make the students enthusiasm to learn.
... Notwithstanding those studies that support Truscott's critique (in Liu & Lee, 2014), there remains a wealth of other research showing how different forms of WCF can be beneficial (Berg, 1999;Pearce, Mulder, & Baik, 2009). Indeed, there is an increasing body of research in L2 WCF which takes into consideration the range and shifting perceptions of peer feedback processes (Moore & Teather, 2013), the relative value of teacher versus peer feedback (Patchen, Schunn, & Clark, 2011), and the effect of online versus in person learning environments (Liou & Peng, 2009). ...
2018). L2 students' perceptions and practice of both giving and receiving online peer-feedback. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 21(1), 11-34. Citing a lack of discussion about the particular effect of giving peer feedback, this study of student perceptions and actual practice seeks to map out and account rather for the benefits afforded by both sides of the online peer review process. A group of 61 university English education majors completed seven peer-to-peer (P2P) process writing tasks during one semester and then completed an in-house developed P2P perceptions questionnaire. Results suggest encouraging continuities between the peer review practice itself and its role in alleviating student writing anxieties. In so doing, the study hopes to provide a better understanding of the training students need in order to benefit from computer assisted collaborative learning activities such as P2P writing tasks. While students proved able to focus on a wide range of different grammar, content, and organizational aspects of their peer's work, they appeared also to enjoy the responsibility of helping one another improve their writing. Furthermore, they reported a larger number of higher-level improvements associated with the giving part of the peer review process than with the feedback received. Finally, this accounting of student perceptions the peer review process correlate positively with an analysis of their actual peer comments, and provide therefore insight into the language learning strategy training afforded by the P2P process as well as into its mitigating effects on L2 writing anxiety.
ABSTRACT The work of researchers like Zamel (24) and Krashen (12) on the effectiveness of teacher feedback on second language writing does not support a focus on surface error to help students improve their writing. However, students of English as a Second Language (ESL) may come to U.S. institutions of higher education with a notion different from that of their teachers here about what kind of teacher responses will help them improve their writing. This paper presents the results of a survey of 100 ESL students in freshman composition classes, asking the students to analyze their sense of what kinds of paper marking techniques help them the most to improve their writing, which kinds of corrections they even read, which corrections they feel they retain best, and what reactions they have to positive and negative comments on both the form and the content of their writing. The results of this preliminary study suggest that these students equate good writing in English with error-free writing and, therefore, that they want and expect their composition teachers to correct all errors in their written work. This paper argues that a given teacher and class of students must agree about what constitutes improvement in writing and suggests that students' expectations may need to be modified if students are to profit from teacher feedback on their compositions.
The influence of metalinguistic feedback on language learning was examined based on conversational data. Native-Spanish-speaking interviewers elicited spoken interactions with, & provided corrections to, low-proficiency Chinese immigrants to Spain & high-proficiency Chinese university students with extensive formal training in Spanish (N = 4 each). Analysis revealed striking differences in the detection of ungrammaticality & in negative feedback incorporation: Whereas the university students evinced awareness of error & successfully incorporated native speakers' corrections, the immigrants manifested little sensitivity to negative feedback, suggesting that their interlanguage systems were closed to further modification. Results indicate that the internalization of negative feedback may depend on learners' metalingual receptivity.