Proposed Correction Techniques for Alleviating the Problem of Teachers’ Over-Correction and Developing Preparatory-Stage Students’ EFL Writing | ||||
| مجلة جامعة الفيوم للعلوم التربوية والنفسية | ||||
| Volume 18, Issue 3, April 2024, Page 538-589 PDF (780.1 K) | ||||
| Document Type: المقالة الأصلية | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/jfust.2024.295663.2163 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Author | ||||
Emad A Albaaly 
| ||||
| كلية التربية الاسماعيلية جامعة قناة السويس | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| This research aimed to investigate the effectiveness of ‘correction codes’, ‘whole-class oral feedback onThis research aimed to investigate the effectiveness of ‘correction codes’, ‘whole-class oral feedback on common issues in writing,’ and ‘metacognitive strategy encouragement’ as writing correction techniques in improving Preparatory-Stage students’ EFL writing and alleviating the problem of EFL teachers’ over-correction of their students’ writing. A quasi-experimental approach with one experimental and one control group design was adopted. The sample of the research comprised 56 students enrolled at the 24th of October Preparatory-Stage Official School; they were randomly selected and equally divided into two groups (24 students each). The research mainly designed two instruments: 1. a writing skill checklist and 2. a writing pre-post-test together with aiding writing correction rubrics (developed by the researcher) with criteria, elements, scores, and correction codes which were used for correcting the students’ writing. The results revealed that the experimental group outperformed the control one on the writing post-test. The related effect size was at a ‘medium’ level (p<0.05), and the numbers of students' errors were reduced at a higher rate in the experimental group than in the control group. Therefore, it was concluded that ‘correction codes, whole-class oral feedback on common issues in writing, and metacognitive strategy encouragement’ as writing correction techniques were more effective in both developing students’ writing and reducing their errors and thus teachers’ over-correction than ‘the teacher’s written comments. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| correction; feedback; metacognition; writing | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 161 PDF Download: 138 |
||||
