Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/289801
Title:
Feedback on ESL writing: Can we integrate form
Author:
Ibrahim, Nizar
Issue Date:
2002
Publisher:
The University of Arizona.
Rights:
Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Abstract:
Giving grammar feedback to ESL writers is still debatable among researchers. While researchers like Truscott (1996) argue that grammar feedback does not help ESL students, others like Ferris (2001) argue that it does. Moreover, scholars debate whether the modes of feedback (written and oral versus computer) might affect student revisions. Research has been conducted on the effectiveness of different types and modes of feedback, but it is inconclusive and decontextualized. The present study addresses the effectiveness of different types and modes of feedback in the ESL writing classroom. Thirteen ESL students at a southwestern university participated, where they were required to write three papers. They were divided into two groups. Group 1 received rhetorical and grammatical feedback combined on the first paper, while Group 2 received only rhetorical feedback on that paper. On Paper 2, the order was reversed. For Paper 3, the students were re-grouped into two groups. Group 1 received rhetorical and grammar feedback combined through computer and Group 2 received it in the written mode. A mixed approach, quantitative and qualitative, was used. The frequencies of the errors and the corrections that the students made on each paper were calculated and tabulated. The students wrote journals and were interviewed regarding their reaction to the different types and modes of feedback. The study revealed rather a complex picture of how and why students use different types and modes of feedback. The students' backgrounds, their perception of writing, their writing and revision processes and their motivation affected their use of grammar feedback as well as computer feedback. Although the students did not make a lot of changes, error feedback drew their attention to their errors and made them more aware of these errors. Students did not use computer feedback successfully and they attributed that to their cultural background, attitudes, writing styles and the dynamics of computer feedback. This study suggests that training students on self-editing might help them in detecting and correcting their errors. It also suggests that we need to integrate computer feedback with other formats of feedback and to assess the students' reactions to using computer as well as the ways in which they use it. This assessment can be employed to adjust our pedagogical approaches.
Type:
text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic)
Keywords:
Education, Language and Literature.; Language, Linguistics.; Education, Technology of.
Degree Name:
Ph.D.
Degree Level:
doctoral
Degree Program:
Graduate College; Second Language Acquisition and Teaching
Degree Grantor:
University of Arizona
Advisor:
Liu, Jun

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.titleFeedback on ESL writing: Can we integrate formen_US
dc.creatorIbrahim, Nizaren_US
dc.contributor.authorIbrahim, Nizaren_US
dc.date.issued2002en_US
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.en_US
dc.description.abstractGiving grammar feedback to ESL writers is still debatable among researchers. While researchers like Truscott (1996) argue that grammar feedback does not help ESL students, others like Ferris (2001) argue that it does. Moreover, scholars debate whether the modes of feedback (written and oral versus computer) might affect student revisions. Research has been conducted on the effectiveness of different types and modes of feedback, but it is inconclusive and decontextualized. The present study addresses the effectiveness of different types and modes of feedback in the ESL writing classroom. Thirteen ESL students at a southwestern university participated, where they were required to write three papers. They were divided into two groups. Group 1 received rhetorical and grammatical feedback combined on the first paper, while Group 2 received only rhetorical feedback on that paper. On Paper 2, the order was reversed. For Paper 3, the students were re-grouped into two groups. Group 1 received rhetorical and grammar feedback combined through computer and Group 2 received it in the written mode. A mixed approach, quantitative and qualitative, was used. The frequencies of the errors and the corrections that the students made on each paper were calculated and tabulated. The students wrote journals and were interviewed regarding their reaction to the different types and modes of feedback. The study revealed rather a complex picture of how and why students use different types and modes of feedback. The students' backgrounds, their perception of writing, their writing and revision processes and their motivation affected their use of grammar feedback as well as computer feedback. Although the students did not make a lot of changes, error feedback drew their attention to their errors and made them more aware of these errors. Students did not use computer feedback successfully and they attributed that to their cultural background, attitudes, writing styles and the dynamics of computer feedback. This study suggests that training students on self-editing might help them in detecting and correcting their errors. It also suggests that we need to integrate computer feedback with other formats of feedback and to assess the students' reactions to using computer as well as the ways in which they use it. This assessment can be employed to adjust our pedagogical approaches.en_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeDissertation-Reproduction (electronic)en_US
dc.subjectEducation, Language and Literature.en_US
dc.subjectLanguage, Linguistics.en_US
dc.subjectEducation, Technology of.en_US
thesis.degree.namePh.D.en_US
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineGraduate Collegeen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineSecond Language Acquisition and Teachingen_US
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen_US
dc.contributor.advisorLiu, Junen_US
dc.identifier.proquest3053859en_US
dc.identifier.bibrecord.b42810346en_US
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.