Main Article Content
This study investigated the teachers’ practice on written corrective feedback as well as the students’ response to it in a bid to find practical solutions to the problem of low performance in English composition writing at “O” Level in Zimbabwe. The study sought to find out the nature of corrective feedback that “O” Level students get from their composition teachers and how these students respond to it. In this qualitative research, seven informants (“O” Level students) were interviewed; the researchers used a semi-structured interview schedule to address them and their English exercise books were also analyzed using a document analysis guide designed by the researchers. The study concluded that the composition teacher marked the compositions thoroughly highlighting most of the errors for students’ benefit. The teacher’s focus on feedback was in line with the syllabus demands. The teacher also satisfied the Feed Up, Feed Back and the Feed Forward types of effective feedback. She had strength on mark allocation which acted as student guide to their stance in composition writing. However, although the students largely benefited from the teacher’s corrective written feedback as well as the oral feedback, some of them failed to get the maximum benefit because they could not understand the correction codes. It is therefore imperative for composition teachers to provide students with a correction code elaboration whenever using a marking correction code.
Saaris N. Effective feedback for deeper learning; 2016.
McCarthy J. Timely feedback: Now or never; 2016.
USAP. Education in Zimbabwe; 2012.
Chinyani H, Madungwe L, Kadodo M, Mandiudza L. The impact of examinations on the school curriculum: A Zimbabwean perspective; 2012.
NewsDay. June ‘O’, ‘A’ exams record lowest pass rate; 2014.
TECHZIM. Zimbabwe’s 2015 ‘O’ level STEM performance & how it informs the STEM strategy; 2016.
Hall AH, Grisham-Brown J. Writing development over time: Examining preservice teachers' attitudes and beliefs about writing. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education. 2011;32(2):148-158.
Sobhani M, Tayebipour F. The effects of oral vs. written corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ essay writing; 2015.
Alvira R. The impact of oral and written feedback on EFL writers with the use of screencasts; 2016.
Çagla A. Contrasting perceptions of students and teachers: Written corrective feedback. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. 2016;12(2):166-182.
Ferdouse F. Learning from mistakes: Using correction code to improve student’s writing skill in English composition class; 2011.
Yang M, Carless D. The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogic feedback process. Teaching in higher education; 2013.
Hadzic S. Oral and written teacher feedback in English as a foreign language classroom in Sweden; 2016.
Lee I. Working smarter, not working harder: Revisiting teacher feedback in the L2 writing classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review. 2011;67(3):377-399.
Tsvere Swamy, Nyaruwata. Perceived competence of Zimbabwean academics in the use of information technology in university academic business; 2013.
Hattie J, Timperly H. The power of feedback; 2007.
Bruno I, Santos L. Written comments as a form of feedback. Studies in educational evaluation. ERIC. 2010;36(3):111-120.
Parr JM, Timperley HS. Feedback to writing, assessment for teaching and learning and student progress. ERIC. 2010;15(2):68-85.
Brown D. The written corrective feedback debate: Next steps for classroom teachers and practitioners. TESOL Quarterly: A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages and of Standard English as a Second Dialect. 2012;46(4):861-867.
Gamarra R. Communicative practice: Corrective feedback in the conversation class; 2014.
Al-Jarrah RS. A suggested model of corrective feedback provision. Ampersand Open Access. 2016;3:95-107.
ZGCE. “O” Level English Syllabus (1122) - ZIMSEC; 2013–2017.
Hattie JAC, Yates GCR. Using feedback to promote learning; 2014.
Wiggins G. What feedback is and is not; 2014.
Crimmins G, Nash G, Oprescu F, Liebergreen M, Turley J, Bond R, Dayton J. A written, reflective and dialogic strategy for assessment feedback that can enhance student/teacher relationships. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2016;41(1):141- 153.