WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON THE PROCESS OF STUDENTS’ RESEARCH PROPOSAL WRITING
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/e54sxx80Keywords:
- written corrective feedback,, students’ research proposalAbstract
One of the activities that students' writing skills need to be corrected is error in writing process. Written Corrective Feedback can be effective technique in improving students' writing. This research aimed to describe the types of correction feedback given by the lecturer, students’ responds and students’ perceptions in utilizing WCF to correct their research proposal writing. Participant selected 10 students of 2017 academic year who propose the research proposal as the final projects. This study applied a descriptive qualitative method. The researcher analysed 10 students’ research proposals to know the types of WCF in correcting research proposal writing. Interview used to know students’ respond and perception toward using WCF. Research findings identified four forms of written corrective feedback that the lecturer used to provide guidance. 52% written correction feedback was classified as direct corrective feedback, 6% feedback was classified as indirect corrective feedback, 26% feedback was classified as focused feedback, and 16% feedback was classified as unfocused corrective feedback. These finding also supported by the result of interview which were 6 of 10 students preferred direct written corrective feedback.Students said that clear correction feedback provides specific instructions to students on how to correct their errors.
Downloads
References
1. Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227– 258.
2. Bawa, P., & Watson, S. L. (2017). A Phenomenological Study of Graduate Chinese Students’ English Writing Challenges. The Qualitative Report, 22(3), 779–796.
3. Beuningen, C., Jong, N. H., and Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the Effectiveness of Comprehensive Error Correction in Second Language Writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1-41.
4. Beuningen, C.G.V., Jong, N.H. de., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156(8), 279-296.
5. Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback for L2 development: Current knowledge and future research. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 855-860.
6. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. Language Teaching Research Journal 1, 12(3), 409-431.
7. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). he value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204-211.
8. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207–217.
9. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Ournal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 227-258.
10. Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 1, 17(2), 102-118.
11. Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267–296.
12. Chen et al. (2016). EFL Learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback: case study of university students from Mainland China. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education,
1(5). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-016-0010-y
13. Ebadi, E. (2014). The Effect of Focused Meta-Linguistic Written Corrective Feedback on Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners‟ Essay Writing Ability. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(4), 878–883.
14. 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. Science Direct, 36(3), 353-371.
15. Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.
16. Ene, E., & Upton, T. (2014). Learner uptake of teacher electronic feedback in ESL composition. System, 46, 80–95.
17. Eslami, E. (2014). The Effects of Direct and Indirect Corrective Feedaback Techniques on EFL Students’ Writing. Sciencedirect Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 445–452.
18. Evans, N.W., Hartshorn, K.J., & Allen, T. E. (2010). Written Corrective Feedback: Practitioners’ Perspectives. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 47–77.
19. Farid, S. & Samad, A. A. (2012). Effects of Different Kind of Direct Feedback on Students’ writing. Procedia
- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 66, 232 – 239.
20. Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.),Second language writing. cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.
22. Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes. A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1–10.
23. Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.),. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. . (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practic. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. Fraenkel. J, W. N. (2009). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. New York: Beth Mejia.
26. Frear, D. & Chiu, Y. (2015). The Effect of Focused and Unfocused Indirect Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners’ Accuracy in New pieces of Writing. System, 53, 24–34.
27. Ghandi, M., & Maghsoudi, M. (2014). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ spelling errors. English Language Teaching, 7(8), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n8p53
28. Heath, T. ., & Tynan. C. (2010). Crafting a research proposal. The Marketing Review, 10(2), 147–168.
29. Heydari, P., & Bagheri, M. S. (2012). Error Analysis: Sources of L2 Learners’ Errors. Theory and practice in language studies,. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(8), 1583-89.
30. Hosseiny, M. (2014). The Role of Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback in Improving Iranian EFL Students’ Writing Skill. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 668–674.
31. Ibarolla, A. . (2009). Reformulation and self-correction: testing the validity of correction srtategies in the classroom. RESLA, 22, 189–215.
32. Ibarolla, A. . (2013). Reformulation and Self-correction: Insights into correction strategies for EFL writing in a school context. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 29–49.
33. Jamalinesari, A. & Rahimi, F. & Gohhary, H. & Azizifar A, . (2015). The Effects of Teacher-Written Direct
vs. Indirect Feedabcak on Students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 116123.
34. Khanlarzadeh, M. & Nemati, M. (2016). The Effect of Written Corrective Feedback on Grammatical Accuracy of EFL students: An Improvement over Previous Unfocused Design. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 4(2), 55–68.
35. Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
36. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.) (3rd ed.; Oxford, ed.). Oxford University Press.
37. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2002). Qualitative data analysis: A methods source book. Los Angeles: Sage.
38. Mirzaii, M. & B. A. . (2013). Direct and indirect written corrective feedback in the context of genre-based instruction on job application letter writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(7), 1250–1257.
39. Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40. Pickton, M. (2013). Writing your research plan. In: Grant, M. J.,Sen, B. and Spring, H. (eds.) Research, Evaluation and Audit: Key Steps in Demonstrating Your Value. Retrieved from url:http://www.facetpublishing.co.uk/title.php?id=7418No
41. Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J.M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
42. Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37, 353 –371.
43. Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255-283.
44. Tomasello, M., & Herron, C. (1988). Feedback for language transfer errors: The garden path technique. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 385–395.
45. Uysal, N. D., & Aydin, S. (2017). Foreign Language Teachers’ Perceptions of Error Correction in Speaking Classes: A Qualitative Study. The Qualitative Report, 22(1), 123–135.
46. Yoke. S. K, Cecilia Bai Rajendran. C.B, Noridah Sain. N, Kamaludin,P, N. M. & Y. M. (2013). The Use of Online Corrective Feedback in Academic Writing by L1 Malay Learners. English Language Teaching, 6(12). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n12p175
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
