The Effect of Coded and Uncoded Written Corrective Feedback on the Accuracy of Learners Writing in Pre-intermediate Level

Salimi, Asghar; Valizadeh, Maryam

doi:10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.4n.3p.116

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The research findings also corroborate those of (Buckingham & Ekinci (2017) saying that indirect coded corrective feedback helps learners make fewer errors. It is also in compliance with (Salimi, 2015) saying that students typically have a strong desire to improve the accuracy of their text if they know that these will be shared later on. This follow-on accuracy work, or editing, is the process whereby the students themselves, other students, and /or/ teachers read their written work and suggest changes which can be incorporated in a new version of that work.…”

Section: The Effectiveness Of Using Indirect Non-coded Cf On Students' Self-editing In the Second Draft Of Efl Student's Writing Under Tementioning

confidence: 61%

“…Its role is viewed not only as a means to inform students about their errors, but has also been viewed as a means of channelling reactions and advice to facilitate improvement (Seker & Dincer, 2014). Because of its significant role on students' improvement, (Salimi, 2015) argues that the written corrective feedback that teachers provide on their students' writing should be more than marks on a page. Errors serve as an important means for teachers to observe the students' learning process.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Effect Of Indirect Coded Versus Indirect Non-Coded Corrective Feedback On Improving Students’ Grammatical Accuracy Of EFL Writing Class

Doi

Separ

Wanggai

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aimed at investigating the effectiveness of indirect coded CF and indirect non-coded CF on improving grammatical accuracy at the fourth semester students of English Literature Study Program Flores University in 2013/2014. This research was quasi-experiment with pre-test-post-test non-equivalent design. As the sample, 54 students in three intact classes with 18 students of each class were randomly assigned to three groups; indirect coded CF, indirect non-coded CF, and control groups. Free writing was the major source of data. The scoring scheme adopted based on the five categories; content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics. The instrument reliability was assessed by the inter-rater technique. ANCOVA was to analyze data continued by post-hoc Scheffe. The upshots denote that (1) indirect-coded CF and indirect non-coded CF have a significant difference of effectiveness on grammatical accuracy in the second draft with self editing strategy: (2) indirect coded CF is more effective than indirect non-coded CF, and that of control group in the second draft with self-editing strategy; (3) indirect coded CF and indirect non-coded CF have a significant different in a new draft; (4) indirect coded CF is more effective than indirect non-coded CF, and that of control group in a new draft

show abstract

Section: The Effectiveness Of Using Indirect Non-coded Cf On Students' Self-editing In the Second Draft Of Efl Student's Writing Under Tementioning

confidence: 61%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect Of Indirect Coded Versus Indirect Non-Coded Corrective Feedback On Improving Students’ Grammatical Accuracy Of EFL Writing Class

Doi

Separ

Wanggai

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With respect to indirect feedback, we can have two subtypes: coded and un-coded feedback. Research regarding this topic has demonstrated that indirect coded feedback could be more effective than indirect un-coded feedback (e.g., Salimi & Valizadeh, 2015;Saukah et al, 2017).…”

Section: Feedback On L2 Writingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of Teacher and Peer Feedback in EFL Writing: A Case of High School Students

Gonzalez-Torres

Sarango

2023

IJLTER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study is to assess and compare the effectiveness of three types of EFL writing feedback: teacher direct, teacher indirect, and peer feedback, while also exploring student perceptions of the feedback they receive. For this purpose, a mixed-method approach was used, combining a quasi-experimental and a survey design. Eighty-two EFL learners (aged 17-18 years old) were divided into four groups (three intervention groups who received feedback and one control group who did not) and practised EFL writing skills for a two-month period. After the intervention, the students from the intervention groups (62) answered a questionnaire related to their perceptions about the feedback received. The results of pre- and post-tests showed an improvement in EFL writing skills in all the groups. Likewise, there was a statistically significant difference in the results of the post-test between the groups who received feedback and those who did not, which means that feedback was effective. However, when comparing the three types of feedback, there were no statistically significant differences among the intervention groups. As for the perceptions of the feedback received during their EFL writing practice, students believed that feedback was a positive aspect of writing instruction. They thought that feedback was important for their learning, and they would like to receive a combination of teacher and peer feedback. This study contributes to the ongoing discussion around the effectiveness of different types of feedback on EFL writing skills.

show abstract

Written Corrective Feedback in Writing Instruction: A Qualitative Synthesis of Recent Research

Sia¹,

Cheung²

2017

ILS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Giving written feedback to students is an important part of writing instruction. However, few studies have been conducted to investigate current trends of written corrective feedback in the secondary and university contexts. To identify and evaluate the current state of empirical evidence, we conducted a qualitative synthesis of published research that examined written corrective feedback in both English-as-the-first-language and English-as-the second/foreign-language settings. Four claims emerged in our analyses of 68 empirical studies published in journals from 2006-2016. Each claim is supported by empirical evidence. The claims are: (1) Individual differences play a part in the effectiveness of written corrective feedback; (2) Students’ and teachers’ perceptions affect the effectiveness of written corrective feedback; (3) Giving corrective feedback through technology is beneficial to students; and (4) Written corrective feedback is more effective when it is used concurrently with collaborative tasks. This meta-synthesis study sheds light on the written corrective practice of English Language teachers across different pedagogical settings and the factors that may affect student engagement in teacher written feedback. Keywords: written corrective feedback, secondary school, university

show abstract

The Effect of Coded and Uncoded Written Corrective Feedback on the Accuracy of Learners Writing in Pre-intermediate Level

Cited by 3 publications

References 33 publications

The Effect Of Indirect Coded Versus Indirect Non-Coded Corrective Feedback On Improving Students’ Grammatical Accuracy Of EFL Writing Class

The Effect Of Indirect Coded Versus Indirect Non-Coded Corrective Feedback On Improving Students’ Grammatical Accuracy Of EFL Writing Class

Effectiveness of Teacher and Peer Feedback in EFL Writing: A Case of High School Students

Written Corrective Feedback in Writing Instruction: A Qualitative Synthesis of Recent Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About