INVESTIGATING LEARNER PREFERENCES FOR WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK  IN A THAI HIGHER EDUCATION CONTEXT

Nattwut Jinowat; Watcharapol Wiboolyasarin

doi:10.15639/teflinjournal.v33i2/386-402

Authors

Nattwut Jinowat Suan Sunandha Rajabat University, Thailand
Watcharapol Wiboolyasarin
watcharapol.wib@mahidol.ac.th
Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia, Mahidol University, Thailand http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0920-0423

Vol. 33 No. 2 (2022)

Articles

Downloads

PDF

Abstract
How to Cite
Author Biography
Metrics
References

The current study investigated EFL learners’ preferences for written corrective feedback (WCF) and the rationale for their preferences. A mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative data collection, was used to explore this phenomenon. The data were collected using an internet-based questionnaire and a semi-structured interview. The questionnaire was utilized to gather quantitative information from 93 Thai EFL students at a Bangkok-based Rajabhat University, while the interview collected qualitative data from ten respondents who were willing to be interviewed. The findings indicated that Thai EFL undergraduate students, on the whole, appreciated receiving WCF in several forms. The most desired type of WCF was direct feedback, while feedback given to learners regarding global errors was not favourable. Additionally, the rationale for the students’ WCF preferences included: 1) clarity of feedback in pointing out the grammatical errors and the proper forms; 2) feedback resulting in improvement of the written text in the amended version; and 3) feedback resulting in better writing scores. The outcomes of this study may encourage Thai EFL teachers, as well as teachers in similar EFL situations, to deliver more precise types of WCF on learners’ faults in writing and utilise a chosen WCF method to involve students in learning to write

Jinowat, N., & Wiboolyasarin, W. (2022). INVESTIGATING LEARNER PREFERENCES FOR WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN A THAI HIGHER EDUCATION CONTEXT. TEFLIN Journal, 33(2), 386–402. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v33i2/386-402

Download Citation

Al-Ahmad, S., & Al-Jarrah, R. S. (2015). The impact of direct corrective feedback type on the linguistic accuracy of EFL students’ writing. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 17(2), 8–36. https://www.asian-efl-journal.com/main-editions-new/volume-17-issue-2-june-2015-quarterly-journal/index.htm

Al-Bakri, S. (2016). Written corrective feedback: Teachers’ beliefs, practices and challenges in an Omani context. Arab Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 44–73. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1207970.pdf

Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers prefer and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 95–127. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ944129

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002

Black, D. A., & Nanni, A. (2016). Written corrective feedback: Preferences and justifications of teachers and students in a Thai context. Journal of Language Studies, 16(3), 99–114. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2016-1603-07

Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2018). Doing interviews (2nd ed.). Sage.

Chen, S., Nassaji, H., & Liu, Q. (2016). EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback: A case study of university students from Mainland China. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1(5), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-016-0010-y

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023

Ellis, R. (2017). Oral corrective feedback in L2 classrooms: What we know so far. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 3–18). Routledge.

Elwood, J. A., & Bode, J. (2014). Student preferences vis-à-vis teacher feedback in university EFL writing classes in Japan. System, 42, 333–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.023

Fry, G. W., & Bi, H. (2013). The evolution of educational reform in Thailand: The Thai educational paradox. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(3), 290–319. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311311483

German, E., & Mahmud, Y. S. (2021). Students’ perception and preference on corrective feedback in online writing classes. TESOL International Journal, 16(8), 54–71. https://www.tesol-international-journal.com/tij-16-8-2021/

Hamouda, A. (2011). A study of students and teachers’ preferences and attitudes towards correction of classroom written errors in Saudi EFL context. English Language Teaching, 4(3), 128–141. https://doi.org/10.55 etelt.v4n3p128

Heift, T., & Hegelheimer, V. (2017). Computer-assisted corrective feedback and language learning. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 51–65). Routledge.

Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. National Conference on Research in English; ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills National Institute of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED265552.pdf

Huong, D. T. T. (2018). Teachers’ written feedback and writing performance of teacher education students. The Asian ESP Journal, 14(6), 95–120. https://www.asian-esp-journal.com/aesp-14-issue-6/

Irwin, B. (2018). Written corrective feedback Student preferences and teacher feedback practices. IAFOR Journal of Language Learning, 3(2), 35–58. https://doi.org/10.22492/ijll.3.2.02

Jolley, K. (2019). Student perceptions of group writing processes and feedback. In F. Meunier, J. Van de Vyver, L. Bradley, & S. Thouësny (Eds.), CALL and complexity – short papers from EUROCALL 2019 (pp. 212–217). Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2019.38.1011

Kılıçkaya, F. (2022). Pre-service language teachers’ online written corrective feedback preferences and timing of feedback in computer-supported L2 grammar instruction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(1-2), 62–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1668811

Köksal, D., Ozdemir, E., Tercan, G., Gun, S., & Bilgin, E. (2018). The relationship between teachers’ written feedback preferences, self-efficacy beliefs and burnout levels. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(4), 316–327. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jlls/issue/43366/528125

Lee, E. J. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System, 41, 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.01.022

Li, S., & Vuono, A. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System. System, 84, 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.05.006

Morris, C., & Chikwa, G. (2016). Audio versus written feedback: Exploring learners’ preference and the impact of feedback format on students’ academic performance. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(2), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787416637482

Moslemi, N., & Dastgoshadeh, A. (2017). The relationship between cognitive styles and young adult learners’ preferences for written corrective feedback. HOW, 24(2), 11–34. https://doi.org/10.19183/how.24.2.338

Nemati, M., Alavi, S. M., Mohebbi, H., & Masjedlou, A. P. (2017). Speaking out on behalf of the voiceless learners: Written corrective feedback for English language learners in Iran. Issues in Educational Research, 27(4), 822–841. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1159905

Nurie, Y. (2018). Doctoral students’ perceived needs and preferences for supervisors’ written feedback. PASAA, 56, 112–144. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1224436

Orts, S., & Salazar, P. (2016). EFL students’ preferences towards written corrective feedback: An exploratory study on age and level of proficiency. The Grove - Working Papers on English Studies, 23, 109–129. https://doi.org/10.17561/grove.v23.a8

Parkes, M., & Fletcher, P. (2017). A longitudinal, quantitative study of student attitudes towards audio feedback for assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(7), 1046–1053. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1224810

Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29(5), 489–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147

Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(4), 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199

Qutob, M. M., & Madini, A. A. (2020). Saudi EFL learners’ preferences of the corrective feedback on written assignment. English Language Teaching, 13(2), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v13n2p16

Reynolds, B. L., & Kao, C.-W. (2019). The effects of digital game-based instruction, teacher instruction, and direct focused written corrective feedback on the grammatical accuracy of English articles. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(4), 462–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1617747

Roy, S. (2019). Exploring multilingual writers’ preference between audio and written feedback, and the impact of feedback format on their revision process in a U.S. composition class (Publication No. 13859498) [Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

Saadat, M., Mehrpour, S., & Khajavi, Y. (2016). Internet-mediated corrective feedback for digital natives. TESOL Journal, 7(1), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.232

Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17(3), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1984.tb01727.x

Shaik, N. (2016). Teachers’ beliefs about child participation in Grade R. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 6(1), 248–256. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v6i1.248

Shi, J., Mo, X., & Sun, Z. (2012). Content validity index in scale development. Zhong Na Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban, 37(2), 152–155. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-7347.2012.02.007.

Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011

Tasdemir, M. S., & Yalcin Arslan, F. (2018). Feedback preferences of EFL learners with respect to their learning styles. Cogent Education, 5(1), 148–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1481560

Tiranant, P., Khumsat, T., Ngamnikorn, T., & Wiboolyasarin, W. (2022). Beliefs about native-speaking teachers in grammar and pronunciation instruction: Views and voices from second language learners. International Journal of Language Studies, 16(1), 45–72.

Trabelsi, S. (2019). The perceptions and preferences of the general foundation programme students regarding written corrective feedback in an Omani EFL context. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 10(1), 91–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.10n.1p.91

Ur, P. (2012). A course in English language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Uzuntiryaki, E., Boz, Y., Kirbulut, D., & Bektas, O. (2010). Do pre-service chemistry teachers reflect their beliefs about constructivism in their teaching practices. Research in Science Education, 40(3), 403–424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9127-z

Vásquez, C., & Harvey J. (2010). Raising teachers’ awareness about corrective feedback through research replication. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 421–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375365

Wiboolyasarin, W. (2021). Written corrective feedback beliefs and practices in Thai as a foreign language context: A perspective from experienced teachers. Language Related Research, 12(3), 81–119. https://doi.org/10.29252/LRR.12.3.4

Wiboolyasarin, W., Wiboolyasarin, K., & Jinowat, N. (2020). Learners’ oral corrective feedback perceptions and preferences in Thai as a Foreign language tertiary setting. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(2), 912–929. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.759344

Yang, J. (2016). Learners’ oral corrective feedback preferences in relation to their cultural background, proficiency level and types of error. System, 61, 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.08.004

Yunus, W. N. M. W. M. (2020). Written corrective feedback in English compositions: Teachers’ practices and students’ expectations. English Language Teaching Educational Journal, 3(2), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v3i2.2255

Zhang, T., Chen, X., Hu, J., & Ketwan, P. (2021). EFL students’ preferences for written corrective feedback: Do error types, language proficiency, and foreign language enjoyment matter? Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.660564

INVESTIGATING LEARNER PREFERENCES FOR WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN A THAI HIGHER EDUCATION CONTEXT

Authors

Downloads

Watcharapol Wiboolyasarin, Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia, Mahidol University

Downloads

Login

Scopus Indexing

IndexedBy

Indexed on

Visitors

Statistics

indexing

Address

Contact Info: