NORM-(NON)DEVIANT FORM – THE STARTING POINT AND END POINT OF FEEDBACK EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH
Main Article Content
Abstract
Research on written students’ assignments collectively displays the most common types of norm-deviant forms (Travinić, 1957/1958; Rosandić, 2002; Alerić, 2009). With the aim of their reduction and elimination, the application of different feedback strategies is proposed in the teaching methodology literature. In order to determine the effectiveness of the teacher’s feedback, the use of norm-(non)deviant forms in written assignments of the same students was recorded longitudinally. Due to its broad scope, the analysis was focused on the use of the 1st p. sing. aorist form of the verb biti (‘be’). The analysis comprised six written assignments of the same primary school students (N=44). The descriptive analysis has determined the frequent use of the observed norm-(non)deviant form in written assignments over time, teacher feedback, and its transient effectiveness, whereas the qualitative analysis has shown whether there is a reduction in the use of norm-deviant forms over time and if it can be attributed to feedback.
Downloads
Article Details
References
Bitchener, J., Young, S., Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (3): 191–205.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2): 102–118.
Bitchener, J., Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research 12 (3): 409–431.
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 (3): 267–296.
Connors, R., Lunsford, A. (1988). Frequency of Formal Errors in Current College Writing, or Ma and Pa Kettle Do Research. College Composition and Communication 39 (4): 395–409.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System 36 (3): 353–371.
Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction, u Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues, ed. Hyland, K., Hyland, F. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 81–104.
Haswell, R. H. (1983). Minimal marking. College English 45 (6): 600–604.
Jelaska, Z., Bjedov, V. (2015). Pogreške ili promjene – ovladanost odabranim hrvatskim morfosintaktičkim sadržajima učenika završnoga razreda osnovne škole. Jezikoslovlje 16 (2/3): 227–252.
Lalande, J. F. II. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal 66: 140–149.
Robb, T., Ross, S., Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of Feedback on Error and Its Effect on EFL Writing Quality. TESOL Quarterly 20 (1): 83–95.
Rosandić, D. (2002). Od slova do teksta i metateksta. Zagreb: Profil.
Semke, H. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals 17 (3): 195–202.
Sović, I. (1967). Neka zapažanja o učeničkoj pismenosti. Jezik 15 (1): 22–29.
Težak, S. (1998) Teorija i praksa nastave hrvatskoga jezika 2. Zagreb: Školska knjiga.
Travinić, R. (1957/1958). Jedno mišljenje o obradi pravopisa u srednjoj školi. Jezik 6: 22–24.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing 16 (4): 255–272.
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics 156 (1): 279–296.
Visinko, K. (2010). Jezično izražavanje u nastavi Hrvatskoga jezika – pisanje. Zagreb: Školska knjiga.