coded feedback on malaysian pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):project

8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project

1/50

1

THE OUTCOME OF CODED CORRECTIVE

FEEDBACK (CF) ON MALAYSIAN PUPILS

WRITING

MPB1734RESEARCH ONE

NAME:FARAH BINTI HASABAN

MATRICS NO:MP!"13#$

ATTENDED SUPERVISOR:

PMDR MASDINAH ALAUYAH BT MOHD YUSOF


2/50

2

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

11 I%&'*+&,%

For many second language learners, receiving a feedback on their

written work is significant as it highlights the errors made thus enable

learners to execute an immediate correction. Learners benefited from such

approach for they get the opportunity to note and modify their errors into

accurate forms which result to a good piece of writing. Such positive impact

signifies the crucial role of corrective feedback (CF in second language

(L! learning. "esides that, corrective feedback can greatly influence the

learner#s motivation and the linguistic accuracy of their writing. $herefore,

it is not surprising that corrective feedback (CF has a place in the theories

of second language (L! learning and in language pedagogy. "oth

perspectives share the same opinion which agrees upon the poignancy of

giving feedback to students# written work as a vital strategy for it helps to

promote a better L! writing. $o date, there are growing amount of studies in

attempt to investigate the type of corrective feedback that cater the

development of L! ac%uisition. $hese studies are %uintessentially important

as the findings obtained would provide in depth clarification on issues

concerning corrective feedback.


3/50

3

Corrective feedback (CF, as aforementioned, constitutes a negative

type of feedback that responds to a linguistic error committed by the learner

which can be represented by (& an indication that an error has been made,

(! a provision of the correct language form, (' metalinguistic information

on the nature of error, or ( a combination of these ()llis, Loewen, * )rlam,

!++. For L! teachers, the usual response to learners# errors would be

number (&. $he indication of errors, as outlined in number (&, is commonly

responded by the teachers through an employment of two kinds of symbols,

which are first, giving a tick to the correct form and secondly, placing a cross

or an underline to the incorrect forms. "y doing so, learners would be

informed implicitly of the errors occurred thus enable them to proceed with

the correction task. $his task usually involves the process of modifying the

incorrect forms into correct forms of the target language. Such process results

a refined version of L! writing.

-et, in alaysian classroom, such an ideal scenario does not always

take place in all settings. $here are still many pupils, in some settings,

struggling to correct errors in their writing although the teachers have

highlighted the errors through the aforementioned two symbols (i.e. crosses

or underlines. Such cases are evident among the pupils who reside in the

rural parts of alaysia. /ue to their limited exposure of L! (which is

restricted during school hours only, these pupils often display a poor grasp

of L! thus fail to identify the type of language form or grammatical items that

should be corrected. $herefore, many pupils, especially in the rural area, will

face a huge difficulty to construct simple sentences as well as to create a flow

of ideas in their L! written work.

0aving said that, there are cases in which although teachers have

provided corrective feedback on their pupils# writing, their latter writing

version would be repetitively displayed as a 1recycle# of the same

grammatical errors, articles and tenses in particular. $his is because the


4/50

4

remarks given by the teachers are of a variety. $eachers sometimes make

wavy lines to indicate grammatical errors in their students# writing, without

clearly emphasi2ing the type of tenses and articles that should be used. 3s a

result, students have little clue of what they need to correct and they will later

end up being confused and will resort to copying their friends# work. Such

scenario often occurs at primary level, for many pupils could not decipher the

symbols placed by their teacher on their inaccuracy usage on L!.

0ence, to help the students and teachers of L! in the primary schools

in alaysia, the need to discover a good practice of corrective feedback is

clearly significant. 4t is clear that the real issue that should be focused here is

the explicitness of corrective feedback to be offered as it will affect the

%uality of corrections made by the pupils. "esides that, the type of errors to

be highlighted by the teachers should be thought carefully. $his is because

the implications of such thought would determine the teachers# choice of

symbols or coded signs as indication of errors in their pupils# written work.

oreover, it would also signify the type of corrective feedback (CF that they

believe is sufficient for the pupils to do their self5correction. $his calls for

further studies on what is an ideal type of corrective feedback that teachers

could practised when assessing the pupils# writing.

$his study, therefore attempts to find out whether coded type

corrective feedback has a significant impact on the pupils# accuracy of L!

usage particularly of the 5grammatical items (i.e. tenses, articles,prepositions and con6unctions and 5technical items (i.e. missing word, word

usage7vocabulary, spelling, punctuation. $his is followed by the preceded

focus which is to find out whether coded corrective feedback enables the

pupils to practice self5correction of their own writing.


5/50

5

1- B.+/0'*% S&*2

$his study will take place in a primary school in a rural part of

ersing, 8ohor. $he school is located in a F)L/3 settlers# area, where a

ma6ority of the pupils come from the middle to low social 5economic

background. $he learning of L! in this school of 95period a week: each

period entails a '+5minute lesson. ;ut of the five5day schooling hours, there

are '5day of !5period of a +5minute L! lessons and a day of '+5minute

lesson. $he writing lessons usually overrules the reading, listening and

speaking lessons because the pupils always complain that they have difficulty

to write using the correct L! forms and that their written work are often of

poor %uality with a lot of errors on the L! forms, such as the use of articles,

tenses (simple present, simple past, prepositions, con6unctions, word error,

punctuation marks and spelling.

/uring a writing lesson, usually the teacher would provide a stimulus

or a series of pictures with some words. $he stimulus would entitle the pupils

to strictly write


6/50

6

the given words into a few paragraphs to form an essay. 3like the first task,

the pupils tend to repeat the same grammatical errors (i.e. articles, tenses

(present and past, prepositions, con6unctions and the same gross errors (i.e.

spelling, word error and punctuation marks. Such poor performance by the

pupils causes a constant worry of the teacher5in5charge, whom has put

laborious efforts on correcting the pupils# written tasks every day.

Clearly, the above scenario depicts an irony that shows even though

corrective feedback (CF is provided by the teacher5in5charge, if it is not

executed explicitly: it could be construed as insufficient and ineffective to

ensure a development of the pupils# L! writing. )vidently, through the above

corrective feedback type, instead of a show of a progress, the pupils tend to

repeat the same grammatical errors and other types of gross errors (i.e.

spelling, word error and punctuation marks in their latter L! writing. $his

clearly signals the need for a more explicit type of corrective feedback to be

employed in order to refine the pupils# ability to self5correct their errors in

their L! writing.

$herefore, the aim of the study is to discover whether explicit type of

corrective feedback can be helpful for the pupils to identify the type of errors

of L! forms and modify the errors into its accurate version. 4t is decided that

coded corrective feedback (CF is employed throughout the study. 3 set of

codes are employed in this study: and the codes represent either of these twocategories which are first, the usage of 5grammatical items namely articles,

tenses, prepositions and con6unctions. $he second category is on 5common

errors in writing which are: omission of a word, word error, punctuation and

spelling. Such focus is based on two ma6or reasons. $he former is due to the

fact that these pupils, who are in the thyear of schooling, have been taught

on the aforementioned two categories as one of the integral parts of writing.

-et, the ma6or errors made in their written work are rooted from the improper

usage of these items. $he latter reason for such focus is the pupils#


7/50

7

misconceptions on few grammatical items: particularly the mixed5up tenses

usage, deletion of articles 1a# and 1the#, and inaccurate usage of prepositions

and con6unctions.

13 S&.&%& P'56

3lthough a lot of effort has been derived by teachers to correct their

pupils# writings, it turns out that not many pupils are capable to self5correct

their writing confidently. a6ority of them will repeat a variety of errors

which roots from the tenses, pronouns, prepositions, articles and spelling in

their writings. ;n top of that, the pupils are often incapable to decipher the

teacher#s symbols on the errors committed, which are of a range of

grammatical items and technical items. 0ence, the final product would

always display their incompetency to write using the target L! forms

correctly which then resulted to a poor grade with a very few scores (the

pupils often obtained the score of =' over &< which is full marks for an

essay.

$he pupils, for example, have the tendency to generalise the regular

and irregular past tense rules by adding the suffix51ed# to all verbs in the

story5writing. 4t results to a poor piece of writing thus reflects a need to

correct the misconceptions. 3 similar effect is obtained with the rest of the

remaining 95type of errors where the final product would display a poor

display of L! forms. $his shows the lacking of linguistic accuracy in the

pupils# writings. $herefore, it clearly signals the need of a consistent, clear

and explicit indication of errors as a means to help these pupils to modify the

errors to accurate forms thus would later indicate a better %uality of L!

writing. Such need 6ustify the decision to employ coded corrective feedback

(CF as to represent an explicit reference to the type of errors committed by

the pupils and allows them to self5correct thus produce a refined version of

L! writing.


8/50

8

14 P*'8 S&*2

$his study aims to find out how far the coded corrective feedback

(CF helps L! pupils to self5correct their writings.

19 O5+&,;8 S&*2

$he ob6ectives of this study are>

&. $o investigate the pupils# understanding of the codes used by their

teachers in their writings.

!. $o find out whether the pupils can self5correct their errors after receiving

the coded corrective feedback from their teachers.

1# R8.'+< =*8&,%

$o achieve the above ob6ectives, the following %uestions were formulated>

&. /o L! pupils know what to correct after receiving the corrective

feedback for their writings?

!. /o young L! learners make the right corrections after

receiving the coded corrective feedback for their writings?

17 S,0%,,+.%+ S&*2


9/50


10/50

10

1" C%+&*.6 F'.>'/

F,0*' 11: I.+&8 T.+


11/50

11

learning.

11! D,%,&,% &'8

11!1 C''+&,; F5.+/ (CF)

Corrective feedback is defined as information offered to learners

with regards to the linguistic error they have made (Loewen, !+&! and

Sheen, !++9.

11!- C F5.+/

Coded feedback refers to the use of specific symbols as a clue of

the nature of error made. 4t serves as a tool for learners to self5correct or

self5edit their written work (Lee, !++A * )llis, !++@ 4n this study, coded

feedback such as using Conj.to represent the error is on conjunctionand

Spis the coded sign forspelling error will be employed by the teacher to

correct student#s writing.

11!3 E'''

)rrors is defined as the gap of learners interlanguage system and

could be refined into its systematic pattern over a period of time (Corder,

&@9.

111 C


12/50

12

coded corrective feedback as a means to help pupils self5correct their

writings. Finally, the conceptual framework and definition of terms are

discussed in the attempt to set a clear insight upon the focus of the study.

CHAPTER -

LITERATURE REVIEW

-1 I%&'*+&,%

4n order to better understand how corrective feedback works in the

learning of L!, it is highly significant to look up on its theoretical grounds.

0ence, in the following sections of this chapter !, some theoretical grounds

underpinning the use of corrective feedback (CF in L! will be explained.

3longside the explanation, the notions and significance within the theories in

relation to corrective feedback (CF will be discussed.


13/50

13

-- C''+&,; F5.+/ (CF) .% ,&8 8,0%,,+.%+

$he complexity of providing a sufficient corrective feedback to

learners of L! as a means to achieve a better accuracy in writing has become

an incessant worry to many L! teachers. 4n the attempt to help the learners,

many teachers spent hours laboriously correcting their students# writing

errors through corrective feedback (CF. hile some teachers highlighted the

errors and scribbled the correct ones on the top of each error, other teachers

might 6ust offer simple two lines comments and give a tick on the students#work which they feel is sufficient to be referred as corrective feedback.

0ence, although the techni%ues are different, both ways are mutually in line

with the similar learning goal: which is supposed to be like : 1#y student

should be able to make his correctionsafter he sees the feedback 4 have

given##. Such thought, in other words, means that the teachers instinctively

believe that these kinds of feedbacks are sufficient to engage the learners to

self5correct their work. $he learners however will naturally, depend on

teacher#s feedback to modify the incorrect items to accurate ones while

producing their latter version of the original work.

Dnfortunately, in the attempt to execute their corrections, many L!

learners are still struggling to self5correct their writing although the feedback

has been provided by the teachers. $his scenario often occurs with learners of

L! settingsthey are unprivileged of experiencing an L!5rich environment due

to logistical factors: such as their learning settings, socio5background and

community. 4n alaysia, although )nglish is regarded as the second official

language of the country, many learners are still struggling with their writing

skills. $he young learners or commonly known as the pupils, are of no

exception. $hese pupils, who reside in the rural settings in alaysia share the

same difficulty akin the above case,thus resulted in a consistently low score


14/50

14

for their writings. Such depressing experience causes an incessant worry

among the teachers who wish to witness some progress in the pupils# writing.

Dpon this dilemma, therefore in this study, it is hoped that coded

corrective feedback (CF can help the pupils in alaysian primary schools to

improve the accuracy in their writing. 4n a similar vein, it is hoped the pupils

are able to understand coded feedback while executing their self5corrections.

;n that, it is also hoped that the impact of coded corrective feedback (CF on

the pupils# linguistic accuracy could be obtained.

-3 T'/

"ack in the early &@9+s, communicative language teaching has been

dominating the field of L! instruction. $he distinct elements of

communicative approaches steer far and wide from the traditional teaching

method which primarily focuses upon the isolated teaching of linguistic

features and grammar rules. $he communicative approaches, on the other

hand, embrace the theories of communicative competence as pioneered by

0ymes (&@9&, and Canale and Swain (&@A+. $hrough the approaches, they

believe that learners would be able to use L! in many realistic,

communicative situations. 4n congruent with this view is the work by

Erashen (&@A&, &@A!, &@A


15/50

15

"ased on a naturalist view of learning, L& and L! are of no difference

in terms of the learning processes. $his opinion has brought to several studies

looking into the impacts of a fully naturalistic approach to L! teaching (i.e.

Erashen * $errell, &@A


16/50

16

recoverable even if its form is incorrect## (p. &A'. ;n top of that, due to the

absence of L! accuracy, learners might adopt non5target like linguistic

solutions to communicate thus resulting to a premature fossili2ation of errors.

(Skehan and Foster, !++&.

4t is definitely worthwhile to note that the main focus in L! instruction

is to achieve a good level of L! accuracy. "y referring to the above, it implies

tacitly that the sole5reliance upon meaning based approach to obtain a good

L! accuracy is insufficient and should be taken into careful consideration.

$herefore, there are suggestions for learners to have an attention on linguistic

forms as it is inevitable towards a well5formness in L! ( )llis, !++


17/50

17

meaning or communication. $he temporary shifts in focal attention are

triggered by students# problems with comprehension or production (p.

&A


18/50

18

-- Noticing the gap :T


19/50

19

sense represents the cognitive focusing devices as they direct learners#

attention (0ulsti6n and Schmidt, &@@ and raising learner#s awareness on

the L! forms. 4t also allows learners to notice their 1gaps# between the

interlanguage outputs and the target inputs by referring to the given

feedback (Han "euningen, !+&+. 3s a result, these noticing processes

would promote learners to destabili2e and restructure their development of

the interlanguage grammar (Pass, &@@9: Long ,&@@.

3 CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN L- INSTRUCTION

$he previous sections have discussed in breadth the theoretical

foundations of corrective feedback and the prere%uisite conditions. hile

drawing into its %uintessential role in facilitating a development on L!

accuracy, there are some crucial points that should be discussed at length,

which have been briefly elucidated in chapter &> (& direct corrective

feedback, (! indirect corrective feedback (' coded corrective feedback.

31 T28 C''+&,; F5.+/

4n spite of the growing amount of research conducted on corrective

feedback, at present, there are few corrective feedback that received the

utmost attention. $hey are as follows>

311 D,'+& C''+&,; F5.+/

/irect corrective feedback refers to the action of supplying the

learners with correct target language forms for errors they have committed

()llis, !++A. $he learners are likely benefit from this feedback due to its


20/50

20

essence in ac%uiring the internalisation on new linguistic forms. 3s

described by 0eift (!+&+, direct CF weighs more on its explicit continuum.

$his is because the correct linguistic form or structure is provided by the

teacher above each error of the written work. $he example of a direct CF is

as follows>

A The ran

;ne rainy day, there was the dog. 3 dog was thin. 0e run very fast.

(adapted from Ellis, !!"#

3s a result to the above practice of feedback, learners would receive a

clear reference while executing their correction task. 0ence, such

convenience has its limitations in terms of engaging the learners

cognitively, which might inhibit their progress towards a better L! accuracy.

31- I%,'+& C''+&,; F5.+/

4ndirect corrective feedback refers to various strategies applied with

intention to indicate learners# errors thus encouraged them to self5correct()llis, !++A. 4t is more on the less explicit continuum (0eift, !+&+ and it

re%uires a certain level of cognitive processing. Learners would be engaged

cognitively while doing their self5correction task because they need to

discover the linguistic forms themselves by deciphering the given symbols.

"y doing so, they gradually ac%uired the potential to develop a control over

a partially5internalised linguistic form, yet are unlikely able to internalise

new forms ()llis, !++A.


21/50

21

31-1C 5.+/

Coded feedback refers to the use of specific symbols or a clue to the

nature of error which serves as a tool for learners to self5correct or self5edit

their written work (Lee, !++ and )llis, !++@. /ue to this less explicit

feature, coded feedback does fit into the category of indirect type of

corrective feedback. 3lthough coded feedback has its ample share on

cognitive5learning experience for the learners, it comes with an exceptional

condition. 4t is to ensure that learners are able to understand all symbols

highlighted by the teacher in their writings. ith that capability, the learners

would be able to self5correct their errors independently thus gain control

over the problematic target forms over a certain time. 3n example of coded

corrective feedback is as illustrated below>

Art. Art. $T (%ast#

;ne rainy day, there was the dog. 3 dog was thin. 0e run very fast.

(adapted from Ellis, !!"#

3- E,',+.6 '8.'+< % C''+&,; F5.+/

(CF) ,% L- ,%8&'*+&,%

;ver the years, the role of corrective feedback (CF in

facilitating L! accuracy is still debated until today. $he following

sections review empirical studies which investigate the role of

corrective feedback (CF upon learners# written accuracy.


22/50

22

3-1 R6.&,; +&,;%88

CF % D,'+& .% I%,'+& M&


23/50

23

$his opinion is proven through a study pioneered by )rel * "ulut (!++9

which attempt to draw a distinction between direct coded feedback and

indirect coded feedback. $he result indicates that indirect coded feedback has

a better effect of learners accuracy as compared to direct coded feedback.

0ence, such result illuminates Puenette#s (!++9 opinion that by cognitively5

engaged, learners have developed a control to self5correct their errors

confidently.

4n contrast to the above findings are the unfavourable results from

several studies (Ferris * oberts, !++&: obb et. al, &@A: Semke, &@A

which suggest that coded feedback may potentially unable to foster accuracy

development. 3ccording to the reported results by Ferris * oberts (!++&,

there were no significant differences obtained between learners who do self5

correction of errors marked with codes and those who corrected the

underlined errors. 4n a similar vein, obb et. al (&@A concluded

pessimistically that there is inconsistent and unclear advantages upon the use

of coded and uncoded approaches in facilitating towards a better accuracy in

L!.

Ievertheless, in recent studies conducted by Han "euningen, /e 8ong

and Euiken (!+&! and "itchener and -oung (!+&+b, the findings indicated

that both direct and indirect feedback contribute positive short5term effect

and only direct error correction weighs great significance for long5term

effect. Hyatkina#s study (!+&+ also indicated a similar findings in which she

highlighted that the usage of many codes tend to confuse the learners and

lead them to inaccurate corrections.

3s elucidated in the studies above, it is best to conclude that the

relative effectiveness between direct and indirect feedback is still ambiguous.

/ue to this, the need for more studies and investigations to find significant

results is to be considered and taken into account by prospective researchers.


24/50

24

3-- L.'%'8 U%'8&.%,%0 D,'%& C''+&,; F5.+/ (CF)

hile drawing into the effectiveness of corrective feedback (CF upon L!

accuracy, a focal point that should not be overlooked is the capability of the

learners to understand the type of corrective feedback that they are experiencing.

"elow are some studies carried out by researchers that hinge upon thefundamentals of learner#s understanding on corrective feedback (CF and their

impacts.

3--1 D,'%+ P'8+&,; % C''+&,; F5.+/

3s put by Iassa6i and 3mrhein (!+&+ , the root cause for ineffective

cases of CF implementation is due to the discrepancy of perspectives by the

teacher and the learners. For example, when the teacher correct the learner#s

written work, often they would change the language usage according to what

they assume the learner trying to express. -et, occasionally there are few

corrections made do not exemplify the learner#s idea (Ferris, &@@


25/50

25

3--- L.'%'8 P''%+8 % C''+&,; F5.+/ (CF)

3ccording to 3mrhein and Iassa6i (!+&+ , the positive outcomes of

corrective feedback is suggested to pivot upon learners# preferences for it.

$he learners# preference for certain types of CF will determine the effects of

it in their writings. For example, if the learner believes that one type of CF is

useful, he or she will put more concentration on the corrections executed and

use it for L! learning (cCargar, &@@': Schul2, !++&. 4n terms of

complexity, the research investigating on learners# preferences of CF are vary.

$here are several studies discovered that learners appreciates massive

amounts of different CF irrespective of the types of errors in focus

(e.g.,Cathcart * ;lsen, &@9: Ferris, &@@


26/50


27/50

27

4 CONTROVERSIES ON CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK (CF) IN L-

INSTRUCTION

$here are some controversial opinions with regards to the necessity of having

corrective feedback as a pedagogical intervention in L! instruction. $he

controversies, as surmised by )llis (!++@ and Han "euningen (!+&+, are

primarily scoped into two main issues> (& the efficacy of different types of

corrective feedback and (! the choice of errors to correct.

4- T


28/50

28

processing which are of great benefits for the learners. 4n a similar vein,

"itchener and Enoch (!++A conclude that indirect approach could foster

long5term ac%uisition due to the participation of the learners in problem

solving and guided learning experience. $his opinion, however, is

unfavourable to some advocates of direct approach. Chandler (!++', for

instance, has claimed that the use of indirect approach might result to

unsuccessful learning due to the insufficient information to solve complex

errors. /irect feedback, in his argument, is more accessible for learners to

internalise linguistic forms whereas indirect approach is not capable at

confirming the learners on their hypothesi2ed corrections as accurate. 3lign

with this argument is the suggestion by "itchener and Enoch (!+&+b which

points out the explicitness of direct feedback is the key of accurate

corrections executed by the learners

43 T


29/50

29

word order errors. )ocal errors, on the other hand, infer the minor linguistic

problems that have not interfered with the meaning of the intended message. ith

that, 0endrickson (&@9A suggested onlyglo'alerrors to be corrected by teachers

as it potentially could disturb the actual message conveyed thus impair the

intended communication to occur successfully.

4t is agreed by some researchers such as Erashen (&@A&:&@A!: &@A


30/50

30

effects. Finally, it surmises two ma6or controversies on CF which includes the

efficacy of direct and indirect feedback and the choice of errors to be

corrected by the teachers

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

31 I%&'*+&,%

$his chapter will discuss the methodological approach in this study. 4t

is divided into the following sections> research design, respondents and

sampling, instruments involved, data collection and data analysis procedure.

3- R8.'+< D8,0%

4n this study, the researcher employs %ualitative method to collect the

re%uired data and is obtained from the essay5writings, pre5test, post5test and

semi5structured interviews. 3s stated by Creswell (!++', the general


31/50

31

characteristics of a %ualitative research are based on the task of dealing with

collecting5data process. 4t also implies the use of forms that are embedded

with unspecific (or general %uestions to specific %uestions as an attempt to

generate responses from the participants. $hese responses may vary from the

task of gathering words (texts or image (picture and compiling information

from a certain amount of individuals or locations.

For this study, therefore, an experimental design is implemented.

$here is a total of '+ pupils from year class selected and assigned into two

groups (IQ&< participants in each in which one is the experimental group

and the other represents the control group. "oth groups will complete a pre5

test, treatment and a post5test , where all of the tests involve essay writings

based on picture series with few helping words. For the three completed

essays, the experimental group would have the teacher underline 5

grammatical errors (i.e. tenses, articles, prepositions and con6unctions and 5

common errors (i.e. omission of words, word error, punctuation and spelling

and write the coded signs on them. eanwhile, for the control group, the

teacher would 6ust underline the same type of errors but with no provision of

the coded signs.

33 R8%%&8 S&*2

$here are two ma6or respondents involved in this study. )ach respondent

represents a different entity: first, the pupils as the sample (or participants

and second, the teachers as the raters.


32/50


33/50

33

34 R8.'+< I%8&'*%& U8

$he process of collecting data re%uires the researcher to decide upon

appropriate instruments to gather data. 4n this study, the researcher aims to

find out whether coded corrective feedback can help pupils to self5correct

their writings. $o collect data on pupils# self5correction, the researcher will

run pre5test and post5test by assigning an essay5writing task for the pupils to

do. $he pre5test, according to Creswell (!++A, provides a measure on some

attributes for the researcher to assess for participants before they are giventhe treatment. $he post5test, on the other hand, offers a measure on the

attributes for the researcher to assess after they receive the treatment

(Creswell, !++A. 4n this study, the treatment refers to coded corrective

feedback provided by the assigned teacher.

341 E88.2?>',&,%0

$his study will focus on one group test. $he design is as illustrated

below (see $able '.&

T.56 31: E@',%&.6 R8.'+< D8,0%

;ne Proup Rre and Rost5test /esign

;ne group Rre5test $reatment Rost5test

Source* )ammers, +. . adia, %. (!!/#. 0undamentals of eha1ioral

2esearch, 345.

Selection of measure is based on measures used in similar research

(Chandler, !++': )llis, !++A, Han "euningen, !++A: 3hmadi532ad: !+&.


34/50

34

$he studies conducted in the past were mainly focused upon secondary to

tertiary learners, and there were limited studies focusing upon primary school

pupils. 0owever, all of the studies have included essay writing task as a way

to obtain data from the learners# writings. $herefore, in this study, the same

method is used with some adaptation on the format of the %uestion.

4n the public primary school in alaysia, pupils aged &+ to &! years

old are referred to as Level ! pupils. $he selected sample as participants in

this study is year pupils, whose age is && to&! years old. $hese pupils are

also known as young learners of L!, while the students in secondary and

tertiary level are commonly referred as L! learners. $heir assigned written

task (the essay writing is simpler and more of a guided version which suits

their cognitive and maturity level. For this study, the essay5writing %uestion is

outlined with series of guided pictures and few helping words (see Figure

'.!.

F,0*' 3-: A 8.6 &',&,%0 &8&

For this task, both groups are expected to write an essay using the

helping words and given pictures as guidance. $he essay should consist of at

least '5paragraphs and is written within A+5&


35/50

35

34- T


36/50

36

si2e sample (IQ&+.

39 R8.'+< P'+*'8

391 E88.2 >',&,%0 '? &8& 8&? &8&

$he duration of the study is two weeks. "efore the study is conducted,

the researcher has to send an application to the Rlanning and esearch

/ivision of inistry of )ducation ()R/ and an application letter of

approval from Faculty of )ducation, Dniversiti $eknologi alaysia. 3nother

application for permission to conduct the study in the selected school is also

forwarded to 8ohor )ducation /epartment. hen the approval from )R/

and other divisions are received, the data collection will be executed.

$he first step to do is to administer a pre5test to all respondents as it is

significant to establish homogeneity in the two groups5the experimental

group and the control group. /uring the pre5test, no assistance or guidance is

provided in order to ensure the data gained from the first composition serves

its purpose on homogeneity establishment within the two groups.

0aving taken the pre5test, based on the findings obtained, the pupils

will be carefully assigned into two groups. 3ll pupils in the first group will be

taught the selected coded signs for the purpose of providing coded corrective

feedback during the treatment session (see $able '.' below. ;n the contrary,

the pupils in the second group will be excluded and they do not have to learn

any coded sign. $hen, the pupils in both groups will be assigned to complete

an essay5writing task (see Figure '.! in '+5minutes. /uring the writing time,

the teacher will monitor, observe and provide hints to the pupils who have

difficulty to complete the given task.


37/50

37

T.56 3-: C S,0%8

S,0%8 K,% ''' [email protected]

V P.8&V P' Herb $ense (Rresent 7past Last weekend, 3li go to alacca.

A'& 3rticles She bought a ice5cream for him.

P' Rrepositions 3li sat between 3bu.

C% Con6unctions 0e lives at Felda $enggaroh !

;mission of a word She receivedK.. key chain.

WW rong ord $hey on the television.

S Spelling She likes swiming.

P Runctuation 0er mother K.Ruan Siti is a nurse.

0aving gathered the essay5writings, the researcher will correct the

papers following two methods. Since in this study there will be two different

teachers participated as raters, the allocation of the groups will be e%ual and

each will be assigned to only one group type (i.e. experimental group only or

control group only. For the experimental group, the assigned teacher will

underline the errors and write coded signs on them, while for the control

group: the teacher will underline the errors only. $hen, in the next session, the

corrected papers will be handed to the pupils for corrective feedback

purposes. "oth groups will be given &< to !+ minutes to do their correction.

Rupils in the experimental group will correct their errors showed by the

coded signs and the teacher will provide hints when they face difficulty to do

the self5correction. eanwhile, the pupils in the control group are to check

and do correction by referring to the underlined errors and comments given.

$his procedure is followed for the second and third essay5writing tasks, and

towards the end of the second week, the post5test will be administered to see

whether the treatment had been effective.

39- T


38/50

38

4n order to obtain profound data from the respondents (i.e. the pupils

and raters on their perceptions about coded corrective feedback, the semi5

structured interview will be conducted. 4t is important to identify topics and

sub5topics rather than specific %uestions as it allows the researcher to explore

the issue on coded corrective feedback as a matter of course and not as pre5

empting issue (Rathak and 4ntratat,!+&!. 3nother opinion on semi5

structured interview is the vitality in the beginning stage to pose broad and

general %uestions or topics first rather than to pinpoint on the sub6ect (3rksey

* Enight &@@@.

$his interview will take place after the pupils receive their second

essays with the provision of coded feedback. Such condition is to ensure the

respondents have experienced the task of writing and correcting the errors

using coded feedback. 0ence, the information obtained will be profound and

realistic as the aim is to get the pupils improving their accuracy in writing.

oving on, there will be selected respondents involved during the interview(i.e. the raters and &+ pupils from the experimental group. 3 list of ten

%uestions will be employed (see 3ppendix / and 3ppendix ) for both

respondents and the session will be one5to5one. $he data will be recorded

whereby the researcher will ask the %uestion and record the response from the

respondent one at a time.

3# D.&. A%.628,8

Statistical Rackage for the Social Sciences (SRSSversion & for personal

computers is to be used to compute descriptive statistics and perform a Raired

Sample $5test for analysis of each group.

37 C


39/50

39

4n this chapter, the research methodology has been discussed which

consists of the design, respondent, the instrument and data collection. ore

information on data collection and data analysis will be added when the

actual study is executed.

3RR)I/4 3


40/50

40

Rre5test )ssay riting Tuestion

3RR)I/4 "


41/50

41

Rost5test )ssay riting Tuestion

3RR)I/4 C


42/50


43/50

43

&. hat do you think of your writing class? /o you like it?

!. Can you state some examples of the writing exercise that you have learnt?

0ave you done any correction in them?

'. /oes the teacher correct the errors using code signs in your writing? 0ow

does the teacher correct the errors? Can you give some examples?

. /o you find the coded signs given by the teacher help you to correct the

errors in your writing? 4f yes, can you state the reason? 4f no, can you explain why?


44/50


45/50


46/50

46

)llis, . (&@@ 0owexplicit does it need to be?ournal of Second )anguage +riting, 3!(', &&5

&A.

Frat2en, /. (&@@


47/50

47

Pass, S. . (&@@9.7nput, interaction and the de1elopment of second

languages. ahwah, I8> Lawrence )rlbaum 3ssociates.

Puenette, /. !++9. 14s feedback pedagogically correct? esearch design issues

in studies of feedback on writing#.ournal of Second )anguage+riting &>

+N


48/50

48

Lee, 4. (!++ hat do students think?

TES) Canada ournal, , &5&.

Lee, 4. (!++A. Dnderstanding teachers# written feedback practices in 0ong

Eong secondary classrooms. ournal of Second )anguage +riting, 35, @NA Iewbury 0ouse.

Long, . 0. (&@@. $he role of linguistic environment in second language

ac%uisition. 4n . C. itchie * ". E. "ahtia ()ds.,>and'oo& of second

language ac 8ohn "en6amins

Rublishing Company.

cCargar, /. (&@@'. $eacher and student role expectations> Cross5culturaldifferences and implications. The @odern )anguage ournal, 99,&@!5!+9.

Iassa6i ,0.. * 3mrhein,, 0.. (!+&+ ritten Corrective Feedback> hat do

students and teachers prefer and why? Canadian ournal of Applied )inguistics.

&'>@ 3 research

synthesis and %uantitative meta5analysis.)anguage )earning /!(', &95


49/50


50/50

50

Skehan, R. (&@@A.A cogniti1e approach to language learning. ;xford> ;xford

Dniversity Rress.

Skehan, R., * Foster, R. (!++&. Cognition and tasks. 4n R. obinson ()d.,

Cognition and second language instruction (pp. &A'5!+

Cambridge Dniversity Rress.

Swain, . (&@A Some roles of comprehensible

input and comprehensible output in its development. 4n S. . Pass * C. P.

adden ()ds., 7nput in second language ac Iewbury 0ouse.

$ruscott, 8. (&@@. $he case against grammar correction in L! writing classes.

)anguage )earning 4;(!, '!95'@.

$ruscott, 8. (!++. )vidence and con6ecture on the effects of correction> 3response to Chandler..ournal of Second )anguage +riting 3?(, ''95''.

$ruscott, 8. (!++9. $he effect of error correction on learners# ability to write

accurately.ournal of Second )anguage +riting 3;(, !

coded feedback on malaysian pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):project

Documents