Loading…

The Role of Individual Preferences in the Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback in an English for Academic Purposes Writing Course

This study examined the effectiveness of written corrective and the role of individual differences (ID) in the uptake of the feedback. Data was taken from a nine-week, English as a foreign language (EFL) writing course from 101 intermediate (n=101) students at a private university in Kobe, Japan. Us...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Australian journal of teacher education 2021-10, Vol.46 (10), p.1-20
Main Authors: Perks, Bradley, Colpitts, Bradley, Michaud, Matthew
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3381-d4a091f6fe1f2338cb4e8c1ecbf67f627101487a3f2eec5e28ab6d805575c8b73
cites
container_end_page 20
container_issue 10
container_start_page 1
container_title The Australian journal of teacher education
container_volume 46
creator Perks, Bradley
Colpitts, Bradley
Michaud, Matthew
description This study examined the effectiveness of written corrective and the role of individual differences (ID) in the uptake of the feedback. Data was taken from a nine-week, English as a foreign language (EFL) writing course from 101 intermediate (n=101) students at a private university in Kobe, Japan. Using an explanatory sequential mixed methods design, quantitative data was first collected concerning writing errors, followed by qualitative semi-structured interviews. Three classes were placed into either two treatment groups (direct and indirect) or a control group, and completed four writing tasks (pre-test, post-test and two delayed post-tests). The study found the two treatment groups showed significant improvements on local and global errors, whereas the control group did not. Additionally, the qualitative component elicited the influence of affective factors. The study adds to the body of literature addressing the impact of written corrective feedback, specifically on students' self-editing strategies. [Author abstract]
doi_str_mv 10.14221/ajte.2021v46n10.1
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>eric_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_14221_ajte_2021v46n10_1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1323375</ericid><informt_id>10.3316/aeipt.229929</informt_id><sourcerecordid>EJ1323375</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3381-d4a091f6fe1f2338cb4e8c1ecbf67f627101487a3f2eec5e28ab6d805575c8b73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkMtKAzEUhoMoWC8vIAh5gdGcZDIz3QhS6o2CIhXdhUzmpI22mZJMC-59cDNWFNy5OvBfPjg_ISfAziDnHM71a4dnnHHY5IXv1R0ygErITEL5sksGTIDIpCjFPjmI8ZWxpEs-IB_TOdLHdoG0tfTWN27jmrVe0IeAFgN6g5E6T7uUGlvrjDbvffI5uK5DT0dtCGg6t0F6hdjU2rz1ce3p2M8WLs6pbQO9NLrBpTP0YR1WbUzIvu_8LPXXIeIR2bN6EfH4-x6Sp6vxdHSTTe6vb0eXk8wIUUHW5JoNwRYWwfKkmDrHygCa2halLXgJDPKq1MJyRCORV7oumopJWUpT1aU4JKdbLgZn1Cq4pQ7vanwHIuFKmXy-9U1oY0wL_GSAqa-dVb-z-t1ZQSpdbEth6TqlV9p2KqIOZq6cT9_3ahtmqmldjxECCqXRrTrF-XDIh38BX9a_AJ-HEZ8r</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Role of Individual Preferences in the Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback in an English for Academic Purposes Writing Course</title><source>Freely Accessible Journals</source><creator>Perks, Bradley ; Colpitts, Bradley ; Michaud, Matthew</creator><creatorcontrib>Perks, Bradley ; Colpitts, Bradley ; Michaud, Matthew ; University of Southern Queensland ; Capilano University, Canada ; Kwansei Gakuin University, Japan</creatorcontrib><description>This study examined the effectiveness of written corrective and the role of individual differences (ID) in the uptake of the feedback. Data was taken from a nine-week, English as a foreign language (EFL) writing course from 101 intermediate (n=101) students at a private university in Kobe, Japan. Using an explanatory sequential mixed methods design, quantitative data was first collected concerning writing errors, followed by qualitative semi-structured interviews. Three classes were placed into either two treatment groups (direct and indirect) or a control group, and completed four writing tasks (pre-test, post-test and two delayed post-tests). The study found the two treatment groups showed significant improvements on local and global errors, whereas the control group did not. Additionally, the qualitative component elicited the influence of affective factors. The study adds to the body of literature addressing the impact of written corrective feedback, specifically on students' self-editing strategies. [Author abstract]</description><identifier>ISSN: 0313-5373</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1835-517X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1835-517X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.14221/ajte.2021v46n10.1</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Edith Cowan University</publisher><subject>Academic writing ; College Students ; Corrective feedback ; English (Second language) ; English for Academic Purposes ; English teaching ; Error Correction ; Feedback ; Feedback (Response) ; First year students ; Foreign Countries ; Higher education ; Individual Differences ; Instructional Effectiveness ; Multimethod techniques ; Preferences ; Second Language Acquisition (SLA) ; Second Language Learning ; Student Attitudes ; Writing (Composition) ; Writing ability ; Writing Instruction ; Writing skills ; Writing teaching ; Written corrective feedback (WCF) ; Written Language</subject><ispartof>The Australian journal of teacher education, 2021-10, Vol.46 (10), p.1-20</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3381-d4a091f6fe1f2338cb4e8c1ecbf67f627101487a3f2eec5e28ab6d805575c8b73</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1323375$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Perks, Bradley</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Colpitts, Bradley</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Michaud, Matthew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>University of Southern Queensland</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Capilano University, Canada</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kwansei Gakuin University, Japan</creatorcontrib><title>The Role of Individual Preferences in the Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback in an English for Academic Purposes Writing Course</title><title>The Australian journal of teacher education</title><description>This study examined the effectiveness of written corrective and the role of individual differences (ID) in the uptake of the feedback. Data was taken from a nine-week, English as a foreign language (EFL) writing course from 101 intermediate (n=101) students at a private university in Kobe, Japan. Using an explanatory sequential mixed methods design, quantitative data was first collected concerning writing errors, followed by qualitative semi-structured interviews. Three classes were placed into either two treatment groups (direct and indirect) or a control group, and completed four writing tasks (pre-test, post-test and two delayed post-tests). The study found the two treatment groups showed significant improvements on local and global errors, whereas the control group did not. Additionally, the qualitative component elicited the influence of affective factors. The study adds to the body of literature addressing the impact of written corrective feedback, specifically on students' self-editing strategies. [Author abstract]</description><subject>Academic writing</subject><subject>College Students</subject><subject>Corrective feedback</subject><subject>English (Second language)</subject><subject>English for Academic Purposes</subject><subject>English teaching</subject><subject>Error Correction</subject><subject>Feedback</subject><subject>Feedback (Response)</subject><subject>First year students</subject><subject>Foreign Countries</subject><subject>Higher education</subject><subject>Individual Differences</subject><subject>Instructional Effectiveness</subject><subject>Multimethod techniques</subject><subject>Preferences</subject><subject>Second Language Acquisition (SLA)</subject><subject>Second Language Learning</subject><subject>Student Attitudes</subject><subject>Writing (Composition)</subject><subject>Writing ability</subject><subject>Writing Instruction</subject><subject>Writing skills</subject><subject>Writing teaching</subject><subject>Written corrective feedback (WCF)</subject><subject>Written Language</subject><issn>0313-5373</issn><issn>1835-517X</issn><issn>1835-517X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqVkMtKAzEUhoMoWC8vIAh5gdGcZDIz3QhS6o2CIhXdhUzmpI22mZJMC-59cDNWFNy5OvBfPjg_ISfAziDnHM71a4dnnHHY5IXv1R0ygErITEL5sksGTIDIpCjFPjmI8ZWxpEs-IB_TOdLHdoG0tfTWN27jmrVe0IeAFgN6g5E6T7uUGlvrjDbvffI5uK5DT0dtCGg6t0F6hdjU2rz1ce3p2M8WLs6pbQO9NLrBpTP0YR1WbUzIvu_8LPXXIeIR2bN6EfH4-x6Sp6vxdHSTTe6vb0eXk8wIUUHW5JoNwRYWwfKkmDrHygCa2halLXgJDPKq1MJyRCORV7oumopJWUpT1aU4JKdbLgZn1Cq4pQ7vanwHIuFKmXy-9U1oY0wL_GSAqa-dVb-z-t1ZQSpdbEth6TqlV9p2KqIOZq6cT9_3ahtmqmldjxECCqXRrTrF-XDIh38BX9a_AJ-HEZ8r</recordid><startdate>20211001</startdate><enddate>20211001</enddate><creator>Perks, Bradley</creator><creator>Colpitts, Bradley</creator><creator>Michaud, Matthew</creator><general>Edith Cowan University</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>GA5</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20211001</creationdate><title>The Role of Individual Preferences in the Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback in an English for Academic Purposes Writing Course</title><author>Perks, Bradley ; Colpitts, Bradley ; Michaud, Matthew</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3381-d4a091f6fe1f2338cb4e8c1ecbf67f627101487a3f2eec5e28ab6d805575c8b73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Academic writing</topic><topic>College Students</topic><topic>Corrective feedback</topic><topic>English (Second language)</topic><topic>English for Academic Purposes</topic><topic>English teaching</topic><topic>Error Correction</topic><topic>Feedback</topic><topic>Feedback (Response)</topic><topic>First year students</topic><topic>Foreign Countries</topic><topic>Higher education</topic><topic>Individual Differences</topic><topic>Instructional Effectiveness</topic><topic>Multimethod techniques</topic><topic>Preferences</topic><topic>Second Language Acquisition (SLA)</topic><topic>Second Language Learning</topic><topic>Student Attitudes</topic><topic>Writing (Composition)</topic><topic>Writing ability</topic><topic>Writing Instruction</topic><topic>Writing skills</topic><topic>Writing teaching</topic><topic>Written corrective feedback (WCF)</topic><topic>Written Language</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Perks, Bradley</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Colpitts, Bradley</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Michaud, Matthew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>University of Southern Queensland</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Capilano University, Canada</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kwansei Gakuin University, Japan</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC - Full Text Only (Discovery)</collection><jtitle>The Australian journal of teacher education</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Perks, Bradley</au><au>Colpitts, Bradley</au><au>Michaud, Matthew</au><aucorp>University of Southern Queensland</aucorp><aucorp>Capilano University, Canada</aucorp><aucorp>Kwansei Gakuin University, Japan</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1323375</ericid><atitle>The Role of Individual Preferences in the Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback in an English for Academic Purposes Writing Course</atitle><jtitle>The Australian journal of teacher education</jtitle><date>2021-10-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>46</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>20</epage><pages>1-20</pages><issn>0313-5373</issn><issn>1835-517X</issn><eissn>1835-517X</eissn><abstract>This study examined the effectiveness of written corrective and the role of individual differences (ID) in the uptake of the feedback. Data was taken from a nine-week, English as a foreign language (EFL) writing course from 101 intermediate (n=101) students at a private university in Kobe, Japan. Using an explanatory sequential mixed methods design, quantitative data was first collected concerning writing errors, followed by qualitative semi-structured interviews. Three classes were placed into either two treatment groups (direct and indirect) or a control group, and completed four writing tasks (pre-test, post-test and two delayed post-tests). The study found the two treatment groups showed significant improvements on local and global errors, whereas the control group did not. Additionally, the qualitative component elicited the influence of affective factors. The study adds to the body of literature addressing the impact of written corrective feedback, specifically on students' self-editing strategies. [Author abstract]</abstract><pub>Edith Cowan University</pub><doi>10.14221/ajte.2021v46n10.1</doi><tpages>20</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0313-5373
ispartof The Australian journal of teacher education, 2021-10, Vol.46 (10), p.1-20
issn 0313-5373
1835-517X
1835-517X
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_14221_ajte_2021v46n10_1
source Freely Accessible Journals
subjects Academic writing
College Students
Corrective feedback
English (Second language)
English for Academic Purposes
English teaching
Error Correction
Feedback
Feedback (Response)
First year students
Foreign Countries
Higher education
Individual Differences
Instructional Effectiveness
Multimethod techniques
Preferences
Second Language Acquisition (SLA)
Second Language Learning
Student Attitudes
Writing (Composition)
Writing ability
Writing Instruction
Writing skills
Writing teaching
Written corrective feedback (WCF)
Written Language
title The Role of Individual Preferences in the Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback in an English for Academic Purposes Writing Course
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T12%3A30%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-eric_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Role%20of%20Individual%20Preferences%20in%20the%20Efficacy%20of%20Written%20Corrective%20Feedback%20in%20an%20English%20for%20Academic%20Purposes%20Writing%20Course&rft.jtitle=The%20Australian%20journal%20of%20teacher%20education&rft.au=Perks,%20Bradley&rft.aucorp=University%20of%20Southern%20Queensland&rft.date=2021-10-01&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=20&rft.pages=1-20&rft.issn=0313-5373&rft.eissn=1835-517X&rft_id=info:doi/10.14221/ajte.2021v46n10.1&rft_dat=%3Ceric_cross%3EEJ1323375%3C/eric_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3381-d4a091f6fe1f2338cb4e8c1ecbf67f627101487a3f2eec5e28ab6d805575c8b73%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ1323375&rft_informt_id=10.3316/aeipt.229929&rfr_iscdi=true