LECTURER PRACTICES ON CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN ENHANCING STUDENTS WRITING ACCURACY (A Descriptive Study to the 3rd Semester Students Of English Study Program At IKIP PGRI Pontianak)

Vidia Apriani, Ikhsanudin Ikhsanudin, Clarry Sada

Abstract


Corrective Feedback has been the center of attention among language researchers and education experts. The purpose of this study is to find out the types of Corrective Feedback that the lecturer used to correcting the students writing errors. This study was designed in qualitative form. In this study, the participants were two English lecturers and the third-year semester students. These participants were interviewed about their preference of corrective feedback and how they applied corrective feedback in the teaching of writing in their class. In order to obtain the data, the researcher used interview and document analysis. To enrich the findings in this study, the researcher collected the answer sheets from 26 students in two interval periods. The results of the study revealed that grammar was the most corrected elements in writing, with the percentage of 49.25%, followed by vocabulary by 22.39% and organization and mechanic by 19.40% and 8.96%. These figures were consistent with the interview results where the lecturers stated that grammar is their focus for corrective feedback. This study also revealed that corrective feedback is something that the students expected from their lecturers.

Keywords


corrective feedback, teaching writing, error correction, descriptive study

Full Text:

PDF

References


Al Shahrani, Aziz. A. (2013). Investigation of written corrective feedback in an EFL context: beliefs of teachers, their real practices and students' preferences. [Masters by Coursework & Shorter thesis]. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.

Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written Corrective Feedback: What Do Students And Teachers Think Is Right And Why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique appliquee, 13(2), 95-127.

Baleghizadeh, S., & Dadashi, M. (2011). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on students spelling errors. Profile Issues in Teachers Professional Development, 13(1), 129-137.

Bauman, M. G. (2006). Ideas & details: A guide to college writing. Cengage Learning.

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.

Chang, S. C. (2011). A contrastive study of grammar translation method and communicative approach in teaching English grammar. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 13.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2005). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Corpuz, V. A. (2011). Error correction in second language writing: teachers beliefs, practices, and students preferences. [Master thesis]. Queensland: Queensland University of Technology.

Dayat. (2014). Lecturers Written Correction in Writing Class: A Case Study at Universitas Veteran Bangun Nusantara Sukoharjo in Academic Year 2013 / 2014. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa, 3, 161-172.

Doddy, A., Sugeng, A., Effendi. (2008). Developing English competencies for senior high school (SMA/MA) Grade X. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in second language acquisition, 28(02), 339-368.

El Tatawy, M. (2002). Corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Teachers College Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 2, 1-19.

Ferris, D. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

Ferris, D. R. (2004). The grammar correction debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here?(and what do we do in the meantime…?). Journal of second language writing, 13(1), 49-62.

Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education (Vol. 7). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Gass, S. M. (2013). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. London: Routledge.

Gitsaki, C., & Althobaiti, N. (2011). ESL teachers use of corrective feedback and its effect on learners uptake. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 7, 197-219.

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The qualitative report, 8(4), 597-606.

Gunette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct?: Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of second language writing, 16(1), 40-53.

Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong Krause, D. I. A. N. E., & Anderson, N. J. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. Tesol Quarterly, 44(1), 84-109.

James, C. (2013). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. Routledge.

Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: methods and techniques. New Delhi: New Age International.

Langan, J. (2010). Exploring writing: Paragraphs and essays. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lavin, C. (2013). Using Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback to Improve Pre-University ESL Students Written Accuracy. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, River Falls, USA).

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2015). Second language research: Methodology and design. New Jersey: Routledge.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded Sourcebook. London: Sage Publishing.

Oshima, A, & Hogue, A. (1998). Writing academic english. 3rd Edition. New York :Longman.

Park, H. S. (2010). Teachers' and learners' preferences for error correction. (Doctoral dissertation at California State University, Sacramento, USA). Retrieved from calstate.edu

Patel, M. F., & Praveen M. Jain. (2008). English language teaching. Jaipur: Sunrise Publishers.

Peha, S. (2010). The writing teachers strategy guide. New York: Teaching That Makes Sense. Retrieved from: https://www.ttms.org/

Pienemann, M. (1989). Is Language Teachable? Psycholinguistic Experiments and Hypotheses. Applied linguistics, 10 (1), 52-79.

Priyana, J., & Mumpuni, A. P. (2008). Interlanguage. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.

Rezeki, Y. S. (2017). Collaborative Written Feedback Experience: A Case Study of Indonesian EFL Students in an Essay Writing Class. International Journal of Educational Best Practices, 1(2), 24-37.

Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London: Routledge.

Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M., & Ormston, R. (2013). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. London: Sage.

Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren't enough. Canadian modern language review, 50(1), 158-164.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language learning, 46(2), 327-369.

Wang, T., & Jiang, L. (2015). Studies on Written Corrective Feedback: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Evidence, and Future Directions. English Language Teaching, 8(1), 110-120.

Weegar, M. A., & Pacis, D. (2012). A Comparison of Two Theories of Learning--Behaviorism and Constructivism as applied to Face-to-Face and Online Learning. In Proceedings E-Leader Conference, Manila.

Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Berlin: Ernst Klett Sprachen.

Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers' choice and learners' preference of corrective feedback types. Language awareness, 17(1), 78-93. DOI: 2167/la429.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.38114/joeel.v2i1.115

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2021 JOEEL: Journal of English Education and Literature

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

STKIP PAMANE TALINO
Hilir Ktr., Kec. Ngabang, Kabupaten Landak, Kalimantan Barat 79357
Copyright @2019 JOEEL (Journal of English Education and Literature)

SUPPORTED BY

 

Click Here fot View My Stats