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...
Saved in:
Published in: | The Australian journal of teacher education 2021-10, Vol.46 (10), p.1-20 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
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 |