Document Type: Research Paper


1 Amirkabir University of Technology

2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Foreign Languages and Literatures, University of Tehran, Iran


One may not comment on the effectiveness of teacher corrective feedback (CF) before first ensuring learners’ attendance. The majority of the studies carried out on teacher CF have mistakenly presupposed learners’ attendance to and noticing of teacher feedback without any attempt to check or ensure them. The present study was an attempt to examine the effect of CF on learners’ writing ability when it is accompanied by Draft Specific Scoring, a technique designed to maximize learners’ motivation to attend to teacher feedback while minimizing the negative effect grading might have on learners’ attention (Azizi, 2013; Nemati & Azizi, 2013). In so doing, 57 intermediate students of English Language Literature at University of Tehran, in the form of two groups with one receiving CF and the other one receiving CF plus Draft-Specific Scoring (DSS), were studied. The results of the Split-plot ANOVA between the two groups’ pretest and posttest indicated that the treatment group could significantly outperform the control group in overall writing proficiency as well as the four components assessed in IELTS writing task 2. In addition, learners’ motivation, attendance, and attitudes were explored into using a questionnaire and a written interview. The participants experiencing DSS reported a high level of motivation and attendance. They also held a very positive attitude toward the technique they had undergone. The results indicate that it is possible to make teacher corrective feedback work if the intervening variables, more particularly motivation, are taken care of.


Article Title [Persian]

ارزشیابی پلکانی و بازخورد اصلاحی معلم در مهارت نوشتاری: آنچه که زبان آموزان می اندیشند

Authors [Persian]

  • مسعود عزیزی 1
  • مجید نعمتی 2

Abstract [Persian]

قبل از حصول اطمینان در خصوص توجه زبان آموزان به بازخوردهای اصلاحی از طرف معلم و کاربرد آن در نوشته های آتی خود، هرگونه قضاوت در مورد میزان تاثیرگزاری بازخوردهای اصلاحی معلم در مهارت نوشتاری غیرمنطقی به نظر می رسد. در اغلب مطالعات انجام شده در این خصوص، دریافت بازخورد به وسیلۀ زبان آموزان با توجه ایشان به آن و کاربرد آن در نوشته های آتی ایشان برابر فرض می شوند در حالیکه هیچ گونه تلاشی برای راستی آزمایی این فرضیه صورت نمی گیرد. مطالعه حاضر تلاشی بوده است در راستای بررسی تاثیر بازخوردهای اصلاحی معلم بر مهارت نوشتاری زبان آموزان بعد از حصول اطمینان از توجه ایشان به بازخودرهای دریافتی. در این راستا از تکنیک ارزشیابی پلکانی (عزیزی، 2013؛ نعمتی و عزیزی، 2013) استفاده شد. در ارزشیابی پلکانی، دانشجویان می توانند با اعمال نظرات استاد اقدام به بهبود کیفیت نوشته های اولیه خود نموده و بر اساس کیفیت نسخه ی اصلاح شده، نمره ی دریافتی خود را ارتقا بخشند. این روند می تواند تا ٢ مرتبه ادامه یابد. نمره نهایی دانشجو، میانگین نمراتی خواهد بود که وی در آخرین نسخه ی اصلاح شده ی هر یک از تکالیف خود در طول ترم تحصیلی کسب کرده است. مطالعه ی حاضر، تلاشی در راستای بررسی تاثیر این شیوه ی جدید بر توانایی نوشتاری بود. همچنین نظرات، احساسات و نوع نگرش دانشجویان نسبت به این نوع ارزشیابی مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. نتایج به دست آمده نشان داد که میزان پیشرفت توانایی نوشتاری زبان آموزان در گروه آزمایش به طور معنا داری از گروه گواه بیشتر بود. همچنین مشاهده گردید که دانشجویان گروه آزمایش از دید مثبت و انگیزه ی بالا در به کار گیری نظرات استاد برخوردار بودند.

Keywords [Persian]

  • بازخورد اصلاحی معلم
  • ارزشیابی پلکانی
  • مهارت نوشتاری
  • آیلتس
  • نظرات زبان آموزان
  • آنگیزه

Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multi-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227–257.

Azizi, M. (2013). Draft-Specific-Scoring: A technique to ensure learners’ attendance to teacher feedback in L2 writing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Tehran, Iran.

Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bruton, A. (2009). Improving accuracy is not the only reason for writing, and even if it were. System, 37, 600-613.

Bruton, A. (2010). Another reply to Truscott on error correction: Improved situated designs over statistics. System, 38, 491-498.

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, 267–296.  

Chandler, J. (2004). Dialogue: A response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 345-348.

Ferris, D.R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1–10.

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.

Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 307-329.

Guenette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40–53.

Hamp-Lyons, L. (2007). Editorial. Assessing Writing, 12 (1), 1–9.

Han, Y. (2017). Mediating and being mediated: Learner beliefs and learner engagement with written corrective feedback. System, 69, 133-142.

Han, Y. (2019). Written corrective feedback from an ecological perspective: The interaction between the context and individual learners. System, 80, 288-303.

Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31-44.

Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2019). Academic emotions in written corrective feedback situations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 1-13.

Klein, J. & Taub, D. (2005). The effect of variation in handwriting and print on evaluation of student essays. Writing Assessment, 10, 134-148.

Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 144-146.

Lee, I. (2009). Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT Journal, 63, 13–22.

Lee, I. (2014). Feedback in writing: Issues and challenges. Assessing Writing, 19, 1–5.

Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 57– 68). Cambridge:     Cambridge University Press.

Li, J., & Barnard, R. (2011). Academic tutors’ beliefs about and practices of giving feedback on students’ written assignments: A New Zealand case study. Assessing Writing, 16, 137-148.

Mawlawi-Diab, N. (2015). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does type of error and type of correction matter? Assessing Writing, 24, 16–34.

Nemati, M. & Azizi, M. (2013). Grading, no longer an obstacle to learners’ attendance to teacher feedback. Applied Research on English Language, 2(2), 129-143.

Russell, M. (2002). The influence of computer print on rater scores. Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative. CSTEEP, Boston College.

Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners' processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303-334.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.

Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–272.

Truscott, J. (2010). Further thoughts on Anthony Bruton’s critique of the correction debate. System, 38, 626-633.

Zhang, Z., & Hyland, K. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 90-102.

Zheng, Y., & Yu, S. (2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 37, 13-24.