Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorAkşit, Tijenen_US
dc.contributor.authorAktuğ, Duyguen_US
dc.date.accessioned2016-06-07T11:20:06Z
dc.date.available2016-06-07T11:20:06Z
dc.date.copyright2015-06
dc.date.issued2015-06
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11693/29142
dc.descriptionCataloged from PDF version of article.en_US
dc.descriptionIncludes bibliographical references (leaves 134-144).en_US
dc.descriptionThesis (M.S.): Bilkent University, The Program of Teaching English as a Foreign Language, İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University, 2015.en_US
dc.description.abstractProviding feedback is an intrinsic component of writing instruction, and arguably one of the most important components when teaching a second language. Learners of English generally receive feedback on their written texts through teachers’ written comments or correction code symbols. Among these two ways of feedback provision, writing instructors often prefer giving feedback through correction symbols as it enables the students to process acquired knowledge and correct their own errors accordingly. Yet, the writing instructors have little or no idea about cognitive processes the learners experience while utilizing the correction code symbols. Therefore, this study was designed to investigate how students having different proficiency levels interpret and respond to the correction code symbols on their written output while revising their work. The study also sought to identify how useful the students find the use of correction code symbols while revising their texts. The research was conducted at a public university in Turkey with thirty two participants, who were chosen among intermediate and elementary level students on a voluntary basis. The data for this research were collected via the think-aloud protocols (TAPs) of the students while they were re-drafting their output according to the correction symbols, and retrospective interviews conducted following the TAPs. Qualitative data analysis from the TAPs and interviews indicated that the students employed certain strategies while interpreting the symbols for different error categories. The study also showed that, with the exception of syntactic errors, the intermediate level participants were able to correct their errors slightly more frequently than the elementary level students. Finally, despite some surface-level difficulties, the data retrieved from the interviews indicated that all the students regardless of their levels of proficiency found using correction code symbols helpful.en_US
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityby Duygu Aktuğ.en_US
dc.format.extentxv, 152 leaves : illustrationsen_US
dc.language.isoEnglishen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectSecond-language writingen_US
dc.subjectFeedback in teaching writingen_US
dc.subjectIndirect corrective feedbacken_US
dc.subjectError correction codeen_US
dc.subjectError correction symbolsen_US
dc.subjectThink-aloud protocol (TAP) procedureen_US
dc.titleMaking the implicit explicit: Unpacking the revision processen_US
dc.title.alternativeGizli alanı açığa çıkarma: öğrencilerin metinlerini düzeltme esnasındaki bilişsel süreçlerien_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.departmentM.A. in Teaching English as a Foreign Languageen_US
dc.publisherBilkent Universityen_US
dc.description.degreeM.S.en_US
dc.identifier.itemidB150605


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record