چکیده:
Second language acquisition (SLA) literature is replete with studies exploring the effect of teachers’ corrective feedback or comments on the improvement of students’ writing accuracy, with little attention paid to the true nature of the process of revision. This case study was intended to understand the type and nature of revision that writing teachers required students to make to their drafts based on the feedback they were provided. A second aim of the study was to reveal how students evaluated teachers' comments and what problems they faced in revising their writing drafts. A close scrutiny of four university teachers’ comments on the papers of 32 student-writers reveals that writing teachers provide, to a large extent, common and identical comments which mainly deal with language-bound errors and problems. They hardly seem to expect students to re-examine the text beyond its surface level. In the current study, almost 97 per cent of teachers’ comments directed students’ attention to low level skills such as punctuation, spelling and grammatical structure. Teachers’ comments did not seem to communicate to student writers the meaning of revision anything more than editing or proofreading. The results also indicated that
خلاصه ماشینی:
"Editing or revision: An examination of EFL teachers' feedback on writing drafts Maghsoud Alizadeh Salteh Instructor, Islamic Azad University, Khoy Branch, Iran Oktay Yağız Assistant Professor, Ataturk University, Turkey Reza Hamdami Instructor, Islamic Azad University, Khoy Branch, Iran Karim Sadeghi1 1 Associate Professor, Urmia University, Iran Received on October 8, 2013 Accepted on January 2, 2014 Abstract Second language acquisition (SLA) literature is replete with studies exploring the effect of teachers’ corrective feedback or comments on the improvement of students’ writing accuracy, with little attention paid to the true nature of the process of revision.
5. 2 Analysis of Students’ Answers to Open-Ended Questions As stated before, in addition to making changes to their drafts in response to teachers' comments, students were also given a questionnaire which helped the researchers to gain an in-depth understanding of their purpose of making textual changes and the revision strategies (see appendix A).
Through careful scrutiny of the answers, it became evident that a great majority of the answers revolve around eight themes as in the following table: Table 3: Students responses to open-ended questions pertaining to various themes Theme Examples of Students’ Responses1-Students’ purpose of revision: 2-Students’ strategy of handling teachers’ comments : 3-Mistaking rewording, editing, or reviewing for revision : 4-The relationship between the teachers’ comments and students’ responses: -Revision improves scores -Not reading the whole text, just correcting the errors in sequence.
Though the students promulgated that they incorporated their self-initiated changes besides those of teachers, in actual revision session and while scrutinizing the revised papers, it became evident that students’ did not apply any self-initiated changes but just responded directly to teachers’ highlighted comments, making surface level changes that seem to worsen, let alone to ameliorate the original quality."