1 / 10

Corrective Feedback of Student Writing in a Second Language

Corrective Feedback of Student Writing in a Second Language. Kristen Tangen Empowering Teachers as Leaders Spring 2014. Background.

mattox
Download Presentation

Corrective Feedback of Student Writing in a Second Language

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Corrective Feedback of Student Writing in a Second Language Kristen Tangen Empowering Teachers as Leaders Spring 2014

  2. Background • I currently teach two levels of high school French, 2nd Year (mainly 9th and 10th graders) and AP (Advanced Placement, 5th Year, mainly seniors.) I have taught French for twenty-five years, and I am passionate about what I do. I am aware, however, that language acquisition and instruction is somewhat “foreign” (pun intended) to many people. • Like many teachers, I love teaching about my subject area. I also feel strongly about preparing students for the future, whether that is college or a work environment. For example, I want students to practice sharing their ideas, either in writing or in presenting a project. I strive to teach the process of writing multiple drafts, checking for errors and ensuring that the product meets the intended criteria.

  3. Introduction: Area of Focus • The purpose of this study is to determine which elements are the most useful for students by implementing a process of dynamic corrective feedback in writing. • When providing corrective feedback, particularly in writing, students do not always find the value in writing drafts or in making corrections.  I want to research and implement several types of corrective feedback, and then determine which steps students find the most helpful, and also which actually improve student writing.

  4. Literature Review Research shows that providing feedback to student writing can leave the student frustrated and the teacher exhausted. Communication skills of students do improve, however, if the teacher uses dynamic written corrective feedback. This learning occurs when “tasks and feedback are manageable, meaningful, timely, and constant for both the learner and teacher(Evans, Hartshorn, McCollum, and Wolfersberg, 2010.)

  5. Research Questions • Which types of corrective feedback do students believe to be most useful?  Do their attitudes change as the year progresses? • Are the types of corrective feedback we are using effective, resulting in fewer errors, or are they ineffective, or perceived as negative by students?

  6. Research Group • Researchers include two teachers from the same Professional Learning Communities (PLC) group who teaches the same language/level, 2nd Year French.  This will allow the sharing of materials, and also the opportunity to look at and compare data from studentsin another classroom.  Each teacher will record data collected and student comments from her own classes on a common page on Docushare, accessible to all staff members and administrators. • Student participants include approximately 110-120 students, grades 9-12, enrolled in four French Level II classes.

  7. Statement of Ethical Considerations • Details of this project will be shared with our building administrator and district subject-area administrator prior to beginning for their input and support.   As this project will be part of our regular PLC work, or Internal Research, formal approval from the Director of Evaluation is not required.  Copies of the questionnaire, writing assessment questions and results will be posted on our Docushare site, accessible to district administrators and colleagues. • Parent consent will not be required, as it does not ask students to provide information listed in the district's Guidelines for Conducting Research. Information about the writing process for the class will be made available to students and parents via the class syllabus and expectations document, available in writing or online. • Individual student results and comments obtained in this research will remain confidential.   Any student comments used will be posted without names or other identifying information.  Student scores and data collected will be posted as a group, without names or other identifying information.

  8. Data Collection Timeline • At the beginning of the first semester, students will complete a questionnaire regarding their initial opinions of corrective feedback and writing in general. • As the semester continues, students will complete four writing assessments. After each, students will receive feedback from the teacher and complete a checklist noting the type and number of errors made on the rough draft and the final product. This checklist can be adjusted for fewer corrections at the beginning of the year, then adding types of corrections as students learn more material. • At the end of the semester, students will complete a second questionnaire regarding their end of term opinions of feedback and writing.

  9. Data Analysis • Teachers will use PLC (Professional Learning Community) time to record and track student scores on writing assessments as they are completed. Teachers will also use student feedback sheets to record and track the number of errors as the semester progresses. • Teachers will compare and record student responses to the questionnaires from the beginning and end of the semester, noting what students identify as helpful, and if their opinions shift. Anecdotal evidence will also be noted. • Adjustments will then be made for continuing the process during the second semester.

  10. References Mills, G.E. (2007).  Action research:  A guide for the teacher researcher(3rd ed.).  Upper Saddle River, NJ:  Pearson Education, Inc. Vásquez, C., & Harvey, J. (2010). Raising teachers’ awareness about corrective feedback through research replication. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 421-443. doi:10.1177/1362168810375365 Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A.,  Nakatsukasa K., Ahn, S., & Chen, X. (2009). Second Language Learners' Beliefs About Grammar Instruction and Error Correction. Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 91-104. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00830.x Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. (2005). Error Correction: Students' Versus Teachers’ Perceptions. Language Awareness, 14(2/3), 112-127. Lee, I. (2011). Working Smarter, Not Working Harder: Revisiting Teacher Feedback in the L2 Writing Classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 67(3), 377-399. doi:10.3138/cmlr.67.3.37 Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the Effectiveness of Comprehensive Error Correction in Second Language Writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1-41. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x Evans, N., Hartshorn K., McCollum, R., Wolfersberg, M. (2010)  Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy.  Language Learning, 14(4), 445-463. DOI: 10.1177/1362168810375367

More Related