Wed, Jan 15, 2025
[Archive]
Volume 17, Issue 53 (2024)
JMED 2024, 17(53): 82-90 |
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:
Ramazani M. Written corrective feedback in English for specific purposes nursing students’ writing courses: A quasi-experimental study. JMED 2024; 17 (53) :82-90
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-2031-en.html
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-2031-en.html
Department of English Language, Urmia Branch, Islamic Azad University, Urmia, Iran. , ramazani.milad@gmail.com
Abstract: (1047 Views)
Background & Objective: In the field language, teaching Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) has attracted considerable attention as a beneficial pedagogical technique. The present study aimed to determine the short-term and long-term effectiveness of WCF strategies for ameliorating English for Specific Purposes (ESP) nursing students' writing ability in English nursing reports.
Materials & Methods: In this quasi-experimental study, the researcher employed convenience sampling to select 93 intermediate-level learners from three intact classes at a university of medical sciences in Iran as participants based on their results on the Oxford Placement Test. The researcher then assigned these classes to three experimental groups, including direct WCF, indirect WCF, and meta-linguistic WCF groups. He administered a writing pre-test to all groups. Subsequently, each of these groups received their pertinent WCF treatment in 10 sessions. Following the completion of the treatment, a post-test was administered to all of the groups. The researcher conducted a follow-up test one month after the post-test. Finally, SPSS 24 was used to analyze the data.
Results: The results highlighted the fact that the meta-linguistic WCF proved more effective than the direct and indirect WCF strategies (p < 0.05. Furthermore, the direct WCF strategy had a more positive effect on the ESP nursing students’ writing ability in comparison with the indirect WCF strategy (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: These results may provide the ESP teacher educators, syllabus designers, and instructors guiding principles regarding the use of WCF in ESP nursing students’ writing courses.
Materials & Methods: In this quasi-experimental study, the researcher employed convenience sampling to select 93 intermediate-level learners from three intact classes at a university of medical sciences in Iran as participants based on their results on the Oxford Placement Test. The researcher then assigned these classes to three experimental groups, including direct WCF, indirect WCF, and meta-linguistic WCF groups. He administered a writing pre-test to all groups. Subsequently, each of these groups received their pertinent WCF treatment in 10 sessions. Following the completion of the treatment, a post-test was administered to all of the groups. The researcher conducted a follow-up test one month after the post-test. Finally, SPSS 24 was used to analyze the data.
Results: The results highlighted the fact that the meta-linguistic WCF proved more effective than the direct and indirect WCF strategies (p < 0.05. Furthermore, the direct WCF strategy had a more positive effect on the ESP nursing students’ writing ability in comparison with the indirect WCF strategy (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: These results may provide the ESP teacher educators, syllabus designers, and instructors guiding principles regarding the use of WCF in ESP nursing students’ writing courses.
Article Type : Orginal Research |
Subject:
Education
Received: 2023/08/21 | Accepted: 2023/12/16 | Published: 2024/04/16
Received: 2023/08/21 | Accepted: 2023/12/16 | Published: 2024/04/16
References
1. Chan ZC, Lai CK. The nurse-patient communication: Voices from nursing students. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health. 2016;29(6):20160023. [DOI]
2. de Swardt HC, Van Rensburg GH, Oosthuizen MJ. Supporting students in professional socialisation: Guidelines for professional nurses and educators. International Journal of Africa Nursing Sciences. 2017;6:1-7. [DOI]
3. Karim K, Nassaji H. The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research. 2020;24(4):519-39. [DOI]
4. Mohammadi G, Ghanbari N, Abbasi A. The integrative effect of direct corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners' accuracy in using English articles. Applied Research on English Language. 2019;8(4):489-510. https://doi.org/10.22108/ARE.2019.115702.1432
5. Bitchener J. Why some L2 learners fail to benefit from written corrective feedback. Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Routledge; 2017. p. 129-40.
6. Bitchener J. Direct versus indirect grammar feedback. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. 2018;12:1-8. [DOI]
7. Ellis R. A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal. 2009;63(2):97-107. [DOI]
8. Ellis R, Sheen Y, Murakami M, Takashima H. The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System. 2008;36(3):353-71. [DOI]
9. Bitchener J. Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing. 2008;17(2):102-18. [DOI]
10. Takahashi J. Exploring Written Corrective Feedback Engagement from a Sociocognitive Perspective: A Case Study of Learners of Japanese as a Foreign Language. Indiana University; 2022.
11. Leacock C, Gamon M, Mejia JA, Chodorow M. Automated grammatical error detection for language learners. Springer Nature; 2022.
12. Truscott J. The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing. 2007;16(4):255-72. [DOI]
13. Kim Y, Emeliyanova L. The effects of written corrective feedback on the accuracy of L2 writing: Comparing collaborative and individual revision behavior. Language Teaching Research. 2021;25(2):234-55.
14. Guenette D. Is feedback pedagogically correct?: Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing. 2007;16(1):40-53. [DOI]
15. Truscott J. Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing. 2004;13(4):337-43. [DOI]
16. Van Beuningen C. Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies. 2010;10(2):1-27. [DOI]
17. Ferris D. The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing. 1999;8(1):1-1. [DOI]
18. Jouzi M, Vanaki Z, Mohammadi E. Factors affecting the communication competence in Iranian nursing students: A qualitative study. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal. 2015 Mar;17(3). [DOI]
19. Bozorgian H, Yazdani A. Direct written corrective feedback with metalinguistic explanation: Investigating language analytic ability. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research. 2021;9(1):65-85. [DOI]
20. Guo Q, Barrot JS. Effects of metalinguistic explanation and direct correction on EFL learners’ linguistic accuracy. Reading & Writing Quarterly. 2019;35(3):261-76. [DOI]
21. Karim K, Endley MJ. Should Feedback Be Direct or Indirect? Comparing the Effectiveness of Different Types of WCF on L1 Arabic Writers' Use of English Prepositions. Language Teaching Research Quarterly. 2019;13:68-84. [DOI]
22. Karim K, Nassaji H. The effects of written corrective feedback: a critical synthesis of past and present research. Instructed Second Language Acquisition. 2019 Jan 1;3(1). [DOI]
23. Rastgou A, Storch N, Knoch U. The effect of sustained teacher feedback on CAF, content and organization in EFL writing. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research. 2020;8(2):41-61. [DOI]
24. Zarshenas L, Sharif F, Molazem Z, Khayyer M, Zare N, Ebadi A. Professional socialization in nursing: A qualitative content analysis. Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research. 2014;19(4):432. [PubMed]
25. Allan D. Placement test 1 (test+ marking kit). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004.
26. Lesley T, Hansen C, Zukowski J. Interchange: Passages, placement and evaluation package: Cambridge University Press New York City, NY; 2005.
27. Brown JD, Bailey KM. A categorical instrument for scoring second language writing skills. Language Learning. 1984;34(4):21-38. [DOI]
28. Suzuki W, Nassaji H, Sato K. The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System. 2019;81:135-45. [DOI]
29. Abbaspour E, Atai MR, Maftoon P. The effect of scaffolded written corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ writing quality: An activity theory perspective. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research. 2020;8(30 (Spring 2020-No. 2)):177-96.
30. Ferris DR. Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 2010;32(2):181-201. [DOI]
31. Pourdana N, Nour P, Yousefi F. Investigating metalinguistic written corrective feedback focused on EFL learners’ discourse markers accuracy in mobile-mediated context. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education. 2021;6:1-18. [DOI]
32. Kim HR, Mathes G. Explicit vs. implicit corrective feedback. The Korea TESOL Journal. 2001;4(1):57-72.
33. Rosa EM, Leow RP. Awareness, different learning conditions, and second language development. Applied Psycholinguistics. 2004;25(2):269-92. [DOI]
34. Tomlin RS, Villa V. Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 1994;16(2):183-203. [DOI]
35. Lantolf JP. Sociocultural theory and second language learning: Oxford University Press; 2000.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
