Abstract
This paper analyses how written corrective feedback was provided during the online teaching of Romanian as a foreign language at an Italian university in the context of the coronavirus pandemic. The retrospective analysis focuses on the most common types of mistakes identified in the students’ homework and on the strategies applied by the author as the lecturer for Romanian language in the revision of the homework. The first part of the research aimed to identify and classify the errors appearing in the students’ texts, investigating the possible causes of the errors. The findings revealed that grammar errors were made more frequently by the students at beginner level, while lexical errors were made by students at an intermediate or advanced level of knowledge. Results also show that the teacher tended to use various types of corrective feedback, depending on the error type that was identified. The teacher’s feedback took different forms, ranging from simple error correction to extended comments and the proposal of alternative solutions. Moreover, the corrective feedback was offered directly for beginner students, while the corrections tended to be hedged when addressing advanced students, in order to avoid their discouragement. The students found the teacher’s feedback useful and even used the homework as a means to signal their difficulties with learning and ask for help. These results contradict previous research claiming that effective feedback involved direct indications using the imperative.
Publisher
Asociatia Culturala A. Philippide
Reference12 articles.
1. "Boud și Molloy 2013: David Boud, Elizabeth Molloy, Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design, "Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education", nr. 38(6), p. 698-712.
2. Bruno, Santos 2010: Inês Bruno, Leonor Santos, Written comments as a form of feedback, "Studies in Educational Evaluation", nr. 36, p. 111-120.
3. Burke, Pieterick 2010: Deirdre Burke, Pieterick, Jackie, Giving students effective written feedback, Maidenhead, New York, McGraw-Hill, Open University Press.
4. Ferris 1999: Dana Ferris, The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: a response to Truscott (1996), "Journal of Second Language Writing", nr. 8, p. 1-11.
5. Ferris et al. 1997: Dana Ferris, Susan Pezone, Cathy R. Tade, Sharee Tinti, Teacher commentary on student writing: Description and implications, "Journal of Second Language Writing", nr. 6(2), p. 155-182.