|کد مقاله||کد نشریه||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||نسخه تمام متن|
|344262||617361||2014||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||دانلود رایگان|
• Three instructor participants differed in how much feedback they provided.
• Student participants generally preferred comprehensive error treatment.
• Student participants of one instructor accepted selective error treatment.
• Students and instructors differed in how same error treatment was described.
• Students relied primarily on feedback to edit and used few other strategies.
Among second language writing scholars who believe that error treatment is an effective means of improving accuracy in second language writing, most advocate that instructors take a selective approach to marking errors. However, to what extent do instructors of second language writing implement this “best practice”? What are student perceptions of their instructors’ approaches? The purpose of this qualitative study was to investigate (1) what percentage of errors instructors of second language writing marked in student work and why and (2) student attitudes toward selective versus comprehensive error treatment. The participants included three instructors and 19 students of a first-year composition course for international students at a large U.S. university. Interviews revealed that the three instructor participants each differed in how much feedback they provided but that their approaches were flexible and context-dependent. Reflecting previous studies, the student participants also preferred comprehensive error treatment but reported being satisfied with the approach of an instructor who marked errors selectively. Additional findings show that there were discrepancies in how instructors and students of the same class describe the instructor's approach to error treatment and that students relied overwhelmingly on instructor feedback when editing. Pedagogical implications are included.
Journal: Assessing Writing - Volume 19, January 2014, Pages 24–35