Volume 7, Issue 2 (6-2022)
IJREE 2022, 7(2): 101-118 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Davari M. Online Reformulation and Collaborative Feedback: Its Effect on EFL Learners’ Writing Performance during the COVID-19
Pandemic. IJREE 2022; 7 (2)
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-656-en.html
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-656-en.html
Department of English Language, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (1960 Views)
The present study examined the effect of the online reformulation and collaborative feedback on Iranian learners’ writing in an English as a foreign language (EFL) context. To this end, three female intact classes (N = 55) at the upper-intermediate level were selected. Two of these classes were thence randomly selected as the experimental groups (1 & 2) and the other one as the control group. Experimental group 1 was provided with online writing feedback in the form of reformulation. Experimental group 2 received online feedback through reformulation followed by general online sessions with the participants for extra individual guidance, i.e., online collaborative feedback in the form of post-writing conferences. The control group experienced the same amount of online writing instruction. They were, however, provided feedback conventionally without reformulation tasks and collaborative feedback. To measure writing proficiency, IELTS task 2 was administered as the pre-treatment and the post-treatment test. One-way ANOVA and Post-hoc Tukey Test were used to compare the mean score of the composition tests between groups. The significant effect of online reformulation and collaborative feedback on writing was confirmed. This study has pedagogical implications for EFL English teachers and stakeholders in providing feedback on EFL learners’ writings.
References
1. Adobe Systems. (2019). Adobe Connect (version 10.6). App store.
2. Allwright, R. L., Woodley, M. P., & Allwright, J. M. (1988). Investigating reformulation as a practical strategy for the teaching of academic writing. Applied Linguistics,9(3), 236-256. doi:10.1093/applin/9.3.236 [DOI:10.1093/applin/9.3.236]
3. Amin, M. M., & Saadatmanesh, S. (2018). Discovering the effectiveness of direct versus indirect corrective feedback on EFL learners' writings: a case of an Iranian context. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies, 5(2), 171-181. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328601356_Discovering_the_Effectiveness_of_Direct_Versus_Indirect_Corrective_Feedback_on_EFL_Learners%27_Writings_a_case_of_an_Iranian_Context
4. Barnawi, O. Z. (2010). Promoting noticing through collaborative feedback tasks in EFL college writing classrooms. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22(2), 209-217. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ930155.pdf
5. Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296. doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(03)00038-9 [DOI:10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9]
6. Cohen, A. D. (1982). Writing like a native: The process of reformulation. ERIC ED 224 338.
7. Cohen, A. D. (1983). Reformulating second-language compositions: A potential source of input for the learner. ERIC ED, 228 866.
8. Cohen, A. D. (1989). Reformulation: A technique for providing advanced feedback in writing. Guidelines. A Periodical for Classroom Language Teachers, 11(2), 1-9. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ468957
9. Coyle, Y., Mora, P. F., & Becerra, J. S. (2020). Improving reference cohesion in young EFL learners' collaboratively written narratives: Is there a role for reformulation? System, 94(2020), 102333 102333. doi:10.1016/j.system.2020.102333 [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2020.102333]
10. Dang, T. T. D. (2016). Vietnamese EFL students' perceptions of noticing-based collaborative feedback on their writing performance. English Language Teaching, 9(5), 141-153. doi:10.5539/elt.v9n5p141 [DOI:10.5539/elt.v9n5p141]
11. Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. English Language Teaching Journal, 63(2), 97-107. doi:10.1093/elt/ccn023 [DOI:10.1093/elt/ccn023]
12. Er, E., Dimitriadis, Y., & Gasevic, D. (2020). Collaborative peer feedback and learning analytics: theory-oriented design for supporting class-wide interventions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(2), 169-190. doi:10.1080/02602938.2020.1764490 [DOI:10.1080/02602938.2020.1764490]
13. Farsi, L. (2016). Looking at reformulation task types in writing classrooms: theoretical and empirical perspective. JIEB, 4, 54-60. http://www.psp-ltd.com/JIEB_37_4_2016.pdf
14. Giri, R. A. (2018). CAF: a collaborative approach to providing feedback. Indonesian JELT, 13(2), 85-114. [DOI:10.25170/ijelt.v13i2.1452]
15. Hanaoka, O. (2006). Noticing from models and reformulations a case study of two Japanese EFL learners. Sophia Linguistica: Working Papers in Linguistics, 54, 167-192. https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110006392456/
16. Hemmati, F., & Khodabandeh, F. (2017). Advanced Writing. Tehran: Payam Noor University.
17. Hernandez, F. J. G. (2017). Analysis of the effects of reformulation as a written corrective feedback technique in English with grade six pupils. Doctoral dissertation, University of Murcia, Spain.
18. Hyland, K. (2007). Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 266-285. doi:10.1093/applin/amm011 [DOI:10.1093/applin/amm011]
19. Ibarrola, A. L. (2013). Reformulation and self-correction: Insights into correction strategies for EFL writing in a school context. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 29(10), 29-49. https://revistas.webs.uvigo.es/index.php/vial/article/view/55/55
20. Kadkhodaei, N., Gorjian, B., & Pazhakh, A. (2013). The role of reformulation tasks in EFL learners' writing accuracy. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 4(4), 269-282.
21. Khezrlou, S. (2020). The role of task repetition with direct written corrective feedback in L2 writing complexity, accuracy and fluency. Journal of Second Language Studies, 3(1), 31-54. doi:10.1075/jsls.19025.khe [DOI:10.1075/jsls.19025.khe]
22. Koumachi, B. (2021). Evaluating the evaluator: Towards understanding feed-back, feed-up, and feed-forward of Moroccan Doctorate supervisors' reports. IJREE, 6(4), 91-105. http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-615-en.html [DOI:10.52547/ijree.6.4.91]
23. Langin, K. A. (2016). An introspective study on an intermediate Korean learner's experience using reformulation: Noticing the gap and improving writing. Master's thesis, University of Minnesota.
24. Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Smith, M. (2002). Reformulation and the learning of French pro¬nominal verbs in a Canadian French immersion context. The Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 485-507. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1540-4781.00157 [DOI:10.1111/1540-4781.00157]
25. Levenston, E. A. (1978). Error analysis of free comparison: The theory and the practice. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 1-11.
26. Li, S., Zhu, Y., & Ellis, R. (2016). The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 276-95. doi:10.1111/modl.12315 [DOI:10.1111/modl.12315]
27. Liu, S. (2021). The study of corrective feedback strategy in college spoken English class. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 582, 394-398. doi:10.2991/assehr.k.211011.071 [DOI:10.2991/assehr.k.211011.071]
28. Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [DOI:10.1075/sibil.2.07lon]
29. Maatouk, Z., & Payant, C. (2020). Moving beyond individual peer review tasks: a collaborative written corrective feedback framework. BC TEAL Journal, 5(1), 19-31.
30. Nassaji, H. (2007). Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with learner repair in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 57(4), 511-548. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00427.x [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00427.x]
31. Pica, T. (1982). Variations on a theme: An interactional approach to ESL writing. Philadelphia: Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania.
32. Quinn, P. (2014). Delayed versus immediate corrective feedback on orally produced passive errors in English. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Toronto.
33. Ranta, L., & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students' oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.) Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (141-160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511667275.009]
34. Rachmajanti, S. (2018). The effects of collaborative feedback on Indonesian EFL students' writing performance. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 5(4), 60-68.
35. Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (Ed.). (2002). Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511667190]
36. Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J.M. Norris & L. Ortega (Ed), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (133-164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [DOI:10.1075/lllt.13.09val]
37. Santos, M., Lopez-Serrano, S., & Manchon, R. M. (2010). The differential effect of two types of direct written corrective feedback on noticing and uptake: Reformulation vs. error correction. International Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 131-154. doi:10.6018/ijes/2010/1/114011 [DOI:10.6018/ijes/2010/1/114011]
38. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158. doi:10.1093/applin/11.2.129 [DOI:10.1093/applin/11.2.129]
39. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (3-32). New York: Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003]
40. Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. Dordrecht: Springer. [DOI:10.1007/978-94-007-0548-7]
41. Sippel, L., & Jackson, C. N. (2015). Teacher vs. peer oral corrective feedback in the German language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 48(4), 688-705. doi:10.1111/flan.12164 [DOI:10.1111/flan.12164]
42. Soleimani, M., & Modirkhamene, S. (2020). Various corrective feedback types in collaborative vs. individual writing conditions. IJREE, 5(3), 24-39. http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-352-en.html [DOI:10.29252/ijree.5.3.24]
43. Sulistyo, T., & Heriyawati, D. F. (2017). Reformulation, text modeling, and the development ofEFL academic writing. Journal on English as a Foreign Language, 7(1), 1-16. doi:10.23971/jefl.v7i1.457 [DOI:10.23971/jefl.v7i1.457]
44. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. and Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (235-256). New York: Newbury House.
45. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seildlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners' response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3-4), 285-304. doi:10.1016/s0883-0355(03)00006-5 [DOI:10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00006-5]
47. Thao, N. T. T. (2017). Teachers' corrective feedback on English students' writing. European Journal of English Language Teaching, 2(1), 177-197. https://www.oapub.org/edu/index.php/ejel/article/view/607
48. Thornbury, S. (1997). Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promote noticing. ELT Journal, 51(4), 326-335. doi:10.1093/elt/51.4.326 [DOI:10.1093/elt/51.4.326]
49. Tocalli-Beller, A., & Swain, M. (2005). Reformulation: the cognitive conflict and L2 learning it generates. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 5-28. doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2005.00078.x [DOI:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2005.00078.x]
50. Van Beuningen, C. G. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1-27. doi:10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119171 [DOI:10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119171]
51. Wang, J. (2020). Bidirectional and collaborative feedback between instructors and students for scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344699536_Bidirectional_and_Collaborative_Feedback_Between_Instructors_and_Students_for_Scholarship_of_Teaching_and_Learning_SoTL
52. Wang, Y. H., & Liao, H. C. (2008). The application of learning portfolio assessment for students in the technological and vocational education system. Asian EFL Journal, 10(2), 132-154. https://asian-efl-journal.com/June_2008_EBook_editions.pdf#page=132
53. WhatsApp LLC. (2020). WhatsApp LLC (version 2.20.8.10). App Store. https://www.whatsapp.com
54. Woodcock, C. A., Lassonde, C. A., & Rutten, I. R. (2004). How does collaborative reflection play a role in a teacher researcher's beliefs about herself and her teaching?: Discovering the power of relationships. Teaching and Learning: The Journal of Natural Inquiry and Reflective Practice, 18(2), 51-75.
55. Yang, L., & Zhang, L. (2010). Exploring the role of reformulations and a model text in EFL students' writing performance. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 464-484. doi:10.1177/1362168810375369 [DOI:10.1177/1362168810375369]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
