[Type text]
ELT Voices – India Volume 3 Issue 5 | October 2013 ISSN 2230-9136 (Print) 2321 – 7170 (Online)
ELT Research Paper 2
The Effect of Direct Feedback on Student’s Spelling Errors Masoud Amiri Dehnoo & Ghodratollah Yousefvand Department of English Language Teaching, Ministry of Education, Aleshtar, Iran
© Ignite (India) Publishing, Bhavnagar, Gujarat – India
www.eltvoices.in
Masoud Amiri Dehnoo & Ghodratollah Yousefvand: The Effect of Direct Feedback on Student’s Spelling Errors
Abstract
Despite the existence of studies in the area of written teacher commentary, there are still doubts about the most effective types of teacher feedback. Spelling ability which is a part of the writing skill, has not been largely studied by researchers in Iran, even though development of this ability is very important. There are different ways to address spelling errors but in this paper we tried to investigate the effect of direct feedback which is mostly applied by Iranian teachers. To accomplish the expected goal, two classes, each consisted of 15 first grade students of high school, were selected. After 6 weeks we analyzed their errors and found that direct feedback didn’t improve the students’ accuracy as was expected. Key words: writing skill, spelling errors, direct feedback, students accuracy
23 | E L T
Voices – India (Vol.3 Issue 5) | October 2013 ISSN 2230-9136 (Print) 2321 – 7170(Online)
Masoud Amiri Dehnoo & Ghodratollah Yousefvand: The Effect of Direct Feedback on Student’s Spelling Errors
Introduction There are different types of dictation in order to measure students spelling ability such as standard dictation, partial dictation, elicited imitation, dicto-composition, but Iranian teachers mostly measure students spelling ability by dictating separate words or sentences and they mostly treat their errors via direct feedback which is providing students with correct form with a red pen over the incorrect forms given by students. Compared to native speakers, nominative speakers tend to produce errors that deviate from the correct spelling in more substantial ways. Native speakers generally make performance errors, namely mistyping that usually results in a single letter addition, omission, substitution or transposition, that is, there is a one letter difference between the misspelling and its target word. In contrast nonnative writers also make competence errors that are due to their insufficient command of the foreign language. Iranian students face a lot of problem because of lack of one to one correspondence between what they hear and what they should write. These errors are mostly treated via direct feedback. Ferris (1995) and Hendricksin (1978) believe traditional or direct correction would cause students to become bored with every error on paper. Ferris (2004) reviews the grammar correction debate in L2 writing and provides an overview of tangible results of the Second Language Acquisition research on error correction: Adult acquirers may fossilize and not continue to make progress in accuracy of Linguistic forms without explicit instruction and feedback on their errors. Students who receive feedback on their written errors will be more likely to self-correct them during revision than those who receive no feedback. Students are likely to attend to and appreciate feedback on their errors and this may motivate them both to make corrections and to work harder on improving their writing. The lack of such feedback may lead to anxiety or resentment, which could decrease motivation and lower confidence in their teachers. Ferris (2004) admits that these predictions are based on scarce research of error correction and concludes that longitudinal studies are needed to provide evidence for the efficiency of error correction over time. Along the same lines, Valezy and spade (2006) also conclude in 24 | E L T
Voices – India (Vol.3 Issue 5) | October 2013 ISSN 2230-9136 (Print) 2321 – 7170(Online)
Masoud Amiri Dehnoo & Ghodratollah Yousefvand: The Effect of Direct Feedback on Student’s Spelling Errors
their study that too little empirical research has been done on the effectiveness of corrective feedback but that the evidence so far supports the assumption that corrective feedback does work. But what kind of corrective feedback is effective? Allwright (1975), Hendrickson, vigil and Oller (1976) proposed that pushing learners in their output rather than providing them with correct forms could benefit their interlanguage development. Direct corrective feedback has the advantage that it provides learners with explicit guidance about how to correct their errors. This is clearly desirable if learners don’t know what the correct form is. Ferris and Roberts (2001) suggest direct feedback is probably better than indirect corrective feedback with students of low levels of proficiency. However, a disadvantage is that it requires minimal processing on the part of the learner and thus, although it might help them to produce the correct form when they revise their writing, it may not contribute to long-term learning. Because most Iranian teachers apply direct corrective feedback, in this paper we tried to answer this question: Is direct correction of spelling errors by the teacher effective in improving spelling abilities of the students? Review of the Related Literature Previous studies on students’ views about error feedback (Ferris 1995; komura, 1999; Leki 1991; Roberts, 1999) have consistently showed that L2 learners really expect and value teacher feedback on their writing. Some of these studies have also investigated students’ preferences for different types of feedback. For instance, komura (1999) and leki (1991) have shown that students prefer indirect feedback with error codes or specified labels to direct teacher correction. Lalande (1982) compared two groups, one with direct feedback and the other with indirect feedback using correction codes over a semester. It was found that the group which had received indirect coded error feedback had more accuracy in writing by the end of the semester. In one study carried out by Ferris and Roberts (2001) included groups which received no correction at all in their research . There were no significant differences between the groups’ ability to edit their papers; what is more, the students who were given corrective feedback outperformed the no feedback group on the self editing task.
25 | E L T
Voices – India (Vol.3 Issue 5) | October 2013 ISSN 2230-9136 (Print) 2321 – 7170(Online)
Masoud Amiri Dehnoo & Ghodratollah Yousefvand: The Effect of Direct Feedback on Student’s Spelling Errors
There is plenty of research evidence in both L2 and L1 to show that teacher feedback which focuses principally on correcting the errors tends not to produce substantive or even measurable improvement in the quality of students’ learning. Therefore, a group of researches see little, if any, benefit in devoting valuable classroom time to providing feedback to students’ errors (Brandl, 1995; Cohen, 1987; Henderickson, 1978) In this study the researchers want to show that correcting errors to some extend returns to students’ willingness and motivation to correct their errors and that providing students with direct feedback is not so effective in the classroom and that those students who are interested in removing their errors will do their best to correct their errors even in the absence of any correction on the part of teacher. Methodology Two classes in Aleshtar district in Iran were selected for this study. Participants’ age were between 16 to 17 and the number of the participants were (all 30 female students), each class had 15 students who were in the first grade of high school. For six weeks the treatment continued.
In each week, the students were supposed to have one dictation, the first
dictations were counted as pre-tests and the last ones as post-tests. In the final dictation, the researchers included almost all of those words and sentences which students had found problematic in the previous dictations and had received feedback on them. After the direct feedback, each student received their examination papers. Beside the dictation with the fist group the researchers had a class of first grades in the same school that didn’t received feedback on their dictations. All the papers were scored on the basis of the number of word errors, for each single erroneous word 0.5 points were subtracted. As common practice, dictated words and sentences were taken from students’ textbook. When sentences were dictated they were repeated three times, but because of the low level of the students, sometimes the researchers were obliged to dictate the words and sentences very slowly. The first grade English textbook was the source of the dictations. In each session, dialogue and pattern sentences plus words form word list of each lesson were dictated. Results and Conclusions To round up the results obtained, this study doesn’t show the beneficial role of direct feedback by teachers. The study revealed that receiving direct feedback or mere teacher 26 | E L T
Voices – India (Vol.3 Issue 5) | October 2013 ISSN 2230-9136 (Print) 2321 – 7170(Online)
Masoud Amiri Dehnoo & Ghodratollah Yousefvand: The Effect of Direct Feedback on Student’s Spelling Errors
feedback without the student’s engagement in the revision and correction process is not effective and not desirable in improving the spelling accuracy in such a classroom. Teacher feedback is believed to be the major and vital component of classroom events in EFL situations and is favored by most Iranian students. By considering the results obtained from the students in the table below we cannot see a palpable difference between the pre-test and post-test of the students that have undergone the direct feedback. Analysis of the Research Question This research attempted to provide answer to the following research question: RQ: Does direct feedback have any effect on improving students’ spelling errors? The descriptive statistics for the pre-test and posttest of the direct feedback group are shown in table 1 below. Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the direct feedback group Direct Feedback N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Pre-test
18
64.2000
3.32205
.78641
Post-test
18
66.1500
3.43207
.56930
The mean scores for the pre-test and post-test of the direct feedback group were 64.20 and 66.1500, respectively. To find whether this difference is statistically significant or not, an independent t-test is needed. In order to run a t-test, the researcher should meet at least one assumption and that was the homogeneity of variances. As it can be seen in table 2 below, the two groups were homogenous in terms of their variances as a condition to apply the t-test. As displayed in Table 2, the Levene F of 38.32 had a significance of .067. Since the probability associated with the Levene’s F is higher than the significance level at .05, it can be reasoned that the two groups enjoyed homogenous variances. Table 2. Independent t-test for the pre-test post-test comparison of the direct feedback group
27 | E L T
Voices – India (Vol.3 Issue 5) | October 2013 ISSN 2230-9136 (Print) 2321 – 7170(Online)
Masoud Amiri Dehnoo & Ghodratollah Yousefvand: The Effect of Direct Feedback on Student’s Spelling Errors
Levene's Test
for
Equality
of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval Sig. (2-
F Direct
Equal
Sig. t
of
the
Difference Std. Error
tailed) Difference Lower
Upper
38.322 .067 4.245 .143
2.08445
4.73652 8.27125
4.245 .143
2.08445
4.73652 8.27125
Feedback variances assumed Equal variances not assumed
As it can be seen in table 2 above, the probability of t(4.24) had the significance of .143, that is higher than the significance level of .05. Based on the results, it could be concluded that there was not a significant difference between the mean scores of the pre-test and post-test for the direct feedback group. Thus, it could be concluded that teacher’s direct feedback had no statistically meaningful effect on the spelling errors of the participants. The outcome of this study doesn’t evaluate teacher feedback but suggest its importance .since the study was not conducted in a tightly controlled and manipulated situation, we cannot rigorously generalize it to every situation. Considering the fact that teachers in this region (Aleshtar) most often use this kind of dictation and direct corrective feedback –and the second researcher himself used to practice the same procedure –he conducted this kind of action research to make sure that direct correction feedback on spelling errors would have no specific benefit. 28 | E L T
Voices – India (Vol.3 Issue 5) | October 2013 ISSN 2230-9136 (Print) 2321 – 7170(Online)
Masoud Amiri Dehnoo & Ghodratollah Yousefvand: The Effect of Direct Feedback on Student’s Spelling Errors
References [1] Boden, M., & Boden, M. (2008). Evolving spelling exercises to suit individual student needs. Applied Soft Computing, 7 (1), 126-135. [2] Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [3] Ellis, R. (2009). A Typology of written corrective feedback types. Retrieved October 2013 from lrc.cornell.edu/events/09docs/ellis.pdf [4] Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing, Where are we, and where do we go from here? And what do we do in the meantime? Journal of second language writing, 13, 49-62. [5] Golkar, M. (2010). Increaing feedback systems for teaching enhancement. Retrieved October 2013 from www.magiran.com/magtoc.asp?mgID=5943...16 [6] Kelley, C. (2011). Individual differences in the benefits of feedback for learning. Retrieved October 2013 from hfs.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/12/.../0018720811423919.full.pdf [7] Mitton, R. (2009). Ordering the suggestions of a spellchecker without using context. Natural Language Engineering, 15, 173-192. [8] Rahimi, M. (2010). Iranian EFL students’ perception and preferences for teachers’ written feedback: Do students’ ideas reflect teachers’ practice? Retrieved October 2013 from www.sid.ir/en/VEWSSID/J_pdf/13112010600404.pdf [9] Trude, H., & Rimrott, A. (2008). Learner responds to corrective feedback for spelling error in CALL. System, 36 (2).
29 | E L T
Voices – India (Vol.3 Issue 5) | October 2013 ISSN 2230-9136 (Print) 2321 – 7170(Online)
