Advertisement

The Effect of EFL Correction Practices on Developing Moroccan Students’ English Writing Skills

  • Hicham Zyad
  • Abdelmajid Bouziane
Chapter
  • 24 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter investigates the effect of self-review, peer review and teacher feedback on the English narrative writing skills of EFL students of different proficiency levels. It particularly focuses on the correction of content (story grammar) and form (grammar accuracy). Two lecturers and six first-year students at a Moroccan university of different writing ability (two high-level, two mid-level and two low-level) participated in the study. The students were asked to write timed narrative essays and then correct their drafts, in untimed conditions, based on self-review (by means of a checklist), peer review and lecturer feedback. They also expressed their views on the three types of feedback through a think-aloud protocol. Our findings suggest that the higher the ability level, the more self-corrections take place. The benefits of peer review are largely determined by student ability level. While lecturer review seems to better address accuracy, salience is a determinant factor: the more salient the teacher’s feedback is, the more students correct their drafts accordingly. Results of the think-aloud protocol suggest that unlike high-ability and medium-ability students, low-ability students tend to lack trust in their peers’ feedback. Moreover, content was neglected by both students and lecturers in our study and thus very little change was identified across students’ drafts.

Keywords

Feedback practices Error correction EFL writing Morocco Narratives 

References

  1. Ahmed, A., & Myhill, D. (2016). The impact of the socio-cultural context on L2 English writing of Egyptian university students. Learning, Culture & Social Interaction, 11, 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrade, H., Du, Y., & Mycek, K. (2010). Rubric referenced self assessment and middle school students’ writing. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(2), 199–214.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09695941003696172Google Scholar
  3. Baker, K. (2016). Peer review as a strategy for improving students’ writing process. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(3), 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787416654794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, A. (2016). Student-generated scoring rubrics: Examining their formative value for improving ESL students’ writing performance. Assessing Writing, 29, 15–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.05.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benson, S. (2016). Explicit written corrective feedback and language aptitude in SLA: Implications for improvement of linguistic accuracy (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1841914771?accountid=172684 (Order No. 10160393).
  6. Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214.  https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Covill, A. (2010). Comparing peer review and self-review as ways to improve college students’ writing. Journal of Literacy Research, 42, 199–226.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10862961003796207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ericsson, K. (2003). Valid and non-reactive verbalization of thoughts during performance of tasks: Towards a solution to the central problems of introspection as a source of scientific data. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10(9–10), 1–18.Google Scholar
  11. Fahimi, Z., & Rahimi, A. (2015). On the impact of self-assessment practice on writing skill. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 730–736.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111–122.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80124-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guenette, D. (2012). The Pedagogy of error correction: Surviving the written corrective feedback challenge. TESL Canada Journal, 30(1), 117–126.  https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v30i1.1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hamer, J., Purchase, H., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Denny, P. (2015). A comparison of peer and tutor feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(1), 151–164.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.893418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Honsa, S. (2013). Self-assessment in EFL writing: A study of intermediate EFL students at a Thai University. Voices in Asia Journal, 1(1), 34–57.Google Scholar
  17. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  18. Krashen, S. (1984). Writing: Research, theory and application. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  19. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  20. Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mulder, R., Pearce, J., & Baik, C. (2014). Peer review in higher education: Student perceptions before and after participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(2), 157–171.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787414527391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Paulus, T. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265–289.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80117-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ross, J. (2006). The reliability, validity, and utility of self-assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 11(10), 1–13.Google Scholar
  24. Sheen, Y. (2007). The Effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stein, A., & Glenn, C. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (pp. 53–119). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  26. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80124-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tsui, A., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147–170.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00022-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zheng, H., Huang, J., & Chen, Y. (2012). Effects of self-assessment training on Chinese students’ performance on college English writing tests. Polyglossia, 23, 33–42.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hicham Zyad
    • 1
  • Abdelmajid Bouziane
    • 2
  1. 1.The Faculty of Letters and Humanities, Department of English StudiesChouaib Doukkali UniversityEl-JadidaMorocco
  2. 2.The School of Humanities, University of Hassan II CasablancaCasablancaMorocco

Personalised recommendations