AU-IR: Recent submissions
Student response, in terms of attention/awareness, actions, and attitudes, to written corrective feedback (WCF) is believed to influence the effectiveness of such feedback. To determine how Thai university students respond to WCF and whether there were differences in their responses to three common types of WCF, a survey was conducted. Three sections of a foundation academic English course were involved, each receiving consistent focused WCF – one section with direct corrective feedback, another with indirect corrective feedback, and the third ...
It is believed that students’ perception of how they are taught is essential in evaluating teachers for faculty development and personnel decision-making purposes. Thus, student evaluation of teaching, or SET, is a staple in educational institutions, especially in colleges and universities. There are, however, questions about the reliability and fairness of such practice. Many factors are perceived to influence student ratings of their teachers’ performance, and grading is a persistent concern. As results of such evaluations are commonly used f...
Written corrective feedback impact on grammatical accuracy in L2 writing: a quantitative and qualitative look
This quasi-experimental study examined the efficacy of the three types of written corrective feedback (WCF), namely, direct, indirect and coded WCF, and the no-correction approach. A diary study on student responses to WCF was also conducted. The one-semester investigation involved 68 Thai students in an undergraduate English course. Results showed that the three WCF types had significantly better revision effects than the no-correction approach, but only the coded WCF produced significant delayed effect. However, analyses of diary entries sugg...