The Teacher Helps Learners Self Correct Themselves With Giving Them A Sign

When we did peer reviews, then I notice that the teacher was not the only one making remarks in my paper. My classmate had difficult times to understand what I was writing. When I was asked to read my work aloud for others to follow, I noticed several grammatical errors. For the past four months, I learned several

Another study, similar to the design research project, showed how revision and self-regulation can essentially improve a student’s writing. This study included 17 students taking a 13-week course on “Women and Leadership” at Brescia University College at Western University in Ontario, Canada. “Students received detailing assignment instructions and a grading rubric covering writing, information gathering and presentation, and quality of ideas” (Feltham and Sharen, 114). The students received six hours of classroom instruction, which consisted of: library research, critical thinking, writing, giving and receiving feedback, and revision strategies. To determine whether the attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors of the subjects changed, a pre and post

In Word History I observed that many students would repeat the words. If the teacher were to be talking, the student would paraphrase back to the teacher to check for understanding. This helped the lesson to flow since students would make sure that they were understanding the curriculum. During the class, everyone was very good at keeping eye contact. No one seemed to be looking around the class spaced out. If the teacher was talking our eyes were on him to show that we were listening. For the people who weren’t paying attention I observed some of them stretched

Writer’s circle is an effective activity due to its allowance for students to hear from their peers who thinks differently, also, they possess that same knowledge on certain things. Few activities promote student learning as effectively as well-formed writing assignments bounded with personal, constructive feedback. Giving feedback can be time consuming,

Peer assessment in writing classes can be in many kinds of forms. It can be done in pairs and in small groups who exchange their first drafts with their peers. Sometimes drafts can be exchanged randomly and freely around the class. Feedback can be in the forms of oral comments or written feedback. Peer feedback is not limited to be used only for the first drafts. Although forms may differ, a typical peer feedback includes a set of guidelines to assist students in giving feedback on particular features of the writing (Hyland, 2003). Without guidelines, students may not be able to give effective

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of technology-enhanced formative assessment on student writing in terms of grammatical accuracy and writing quality in English learning contexts and on student motivation. This chapter discusses several areas in the literature and previous studies related to feedback and student writing in second and foreign language settings. This literature review begins with an overview of feedback from sociocultural perspectives. The zone of proximal development and scaffolding as the core concepts of sociocultural theory in second language (L2) writing will be reviewed. Discussion of the socioeducational model in relation to L2 writing motivation will follow. Research on teacher written corrective feedback on student writing and controversies regarding feedback provision in writing instruction will be deliberated. This review will continue with the different strategies of corrective feedback, such as focused feedback, unfocused feedback, indirect feedback, and direct feedback, found in the recent literature. Recent studies investigating feedback using automated writing evaluation tools on L2 writing will also be discussed. Studies comparing the effects of teacher corrective feedback on L2 writing and those of feedback using automated writing evaluation tools on L2 writing will follow. Finally, a summary of the literature review will be provided, addressing the research gaps in the findings of previous studies that serve as the

One of the challenges in peer assessment is generating effective feedback, therefore, a comprehensive understanding and guidance about effective peer comments is necessary to provide effective peer feedback GOOD

Researchers have identified how peer feedback in cyberspace retains the advantage of traditional written feedback as students put words together to write about writing. As Mark Mabrito (1991) put it, “the situation demands not only writing but also the skillful verbalization of one’s thoughts and ideas about writing and a peer’s text” (p. 510). When focusing on writing in cyberspace, students, in Jennifer Jordan-Henley and Barry M. Maid’s (1995) words, “are released from much of the responsibility that a face-to-face encounter sometimes forces on them. They are not affected, for instance, by students with bad breath, or by students who make them uncomfortable in some vague way, or by students who are angry with a teacher” (p. 212). Releasing from these kinds of responsibilities in the

Cooperation is a strategy that has been shown to have positive effectson both attitude and learning. (Richard –Amato & Snow, 1992 p.53) Instructor beliefs about language teaching are also sources to language anxiety to language learners. This happens when the teachers or instructions notion of their roles do not parallel to the students’ needs or expectations. One of the examples of how teachers deal with error corrections A teacher’s role is regarded as corrector when students make a mistake, rather than as facilitator (Young, 1991; Brandl, 1987). However, it is noted that Young (1991) the error correction at contribute to the anxiety but rather the manner of how error correction are being made. The students

The second area that needs to be addressed is the role the teacher and students play in the editing stage. Teachers, English teachers in particular, are “experts” in editing. This is suggested through their daily activities of correcting papers (Littauer, 1996; Parsons 2001). Joel Littauer (1996) also suggests that students have no editing skills because the teacher does all the editing. It is of no wonder that students do not

Written corrective feedback has been defined in some ways. In his controversial paper, Truscott (1996) defined it as “correction of grammatical errors for the purpose of improving a students’ ability to write accurately” (p.331), setting a focused parameter only on grammatical features of a piece of students’ writing.

The purpose of this research was to examine the existences of teacher-student verbal communication in my classroom and explore the reinforcing

Ammar and Spada (2006) investigated the effects of recasts and prompts on L2 learners’ written and oral ability across different proficiency levels. The study fits in with the previous research, as in previously the focus of research was just based on CF being a solution for low levels of grammatical efficiency, which have been explained as the proof against the accuracy of understandable input and exceptionally meaning-based direction. The researchers have thus proposed FFI in CF, which is based both on reactive and proactive form of feedback and which has been proposed by the researchers as the most important way of attracting the learners towards language form in case of communicative classroom environment. The main motivation, just as in previous article, is to explore the form-focused instruction as alternative way of instruction so as to make CF more proactive as well as reactive.

The article found significant positive effects for both explicit and implicit error correction on students’ texts. The mixed findings about feedback effectiveness concern mainly teacher comments on form. There is less disagreement about the value of feedback on content. The article also found that social feedback on writing processes (i.e., feedback given to a learner by others about his/her writing performance) promotes both

A learner spends a few minutes preparing a talk on a given topic. During this time the learner just thinks of what she will talk about and does not make notes. Then the learner pairs up with another learner and she talks on that topic for four minutes. The listener does not interrupt and does not ask questions. The listener’s job is just to listen. Then they change partners. The speaker now talks again on the same topic to the new listener, but this time she has only three minutes to give the same information. When this has been done the learners change partners again. The speaker gives the same talk for the third time to her new partner, but this time she has only two minutes. So, the speaker gives the same talk to a different partner with less time to do it each time. This technique has three important features. (1) The speaker has a different audience each time she speaks, so her attention will be on communicating the message. If partners did not change, there would be pressure on the speaker to add new information to keep the listener interested during the repetitions. The speaker might also be encouraged to focus more of her attention on formal features of her talk, which would reduce the value of the technique as a fluency activity. (2) The speaker repeats the same talk. This means that she will develop confidence in her ability to deliver the talk and will have less difficulty in accessing the language she needs to deliver the talk. The