english department students’ preference on the types of
TRANSCRIPT
i
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT STUDENTS’ PREFERENCE ON THE
TYPES OF WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Yoan Ida Ringu Paubun
112011090
ENGLISH TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
SALATIGA
2015
ii
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT STUDENTS’ PREFERENCE
iii
ON THE TYPES OF WRITTEN CORRECTIVE
iv
v
vi
1
TABLE OF CONTENT
Approval Page ....................................................................................................... i
Copyright Statement ............................................................................................. ii
Publication Agreement Declaration ...................................................................... iii
Table of Content ................................................................................................... 1
List of Table……………………………………………………………………..2
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... 3
Key Words ............................................................................................................ 3
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 3
LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................... 6
THE STUDY ........................................................................................................ 9
A. Context of the Study ................................................................................. 9
B. Participants of the study ............................................................................ 9
C. Instruments of Data Collection ................................................................. 10
D. Data Collection Procedure ........................................................................ 11
E. Data Analysis Procedure……………… ................................................. ..12
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................ ..12
The type of WCF preferred by ED students………………………………..........13
Reasons behind the students’ preference of Metaliguistic WCF…………..........16
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... ..22
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................. ..25
REFERENCES ................................................................................................... ..26
APPENDIX ......................................................................................................... ..29
2
LIST OF TABLE
Table 1 Total Students’ responses on each type of WCF………………………13
3
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT STUDENTS’ PREFERENCE
ON THE TYPES OF WRITTEN CORRECTIVE
FEEDBACK
Yoan Ida Ringu Paubun
ABSTRACT
This study aims at investigating the students’ preference on the
types of Written Corrective Feedback provided by the teacher and their
reasons behind those preferences. Six types of written feedback proposed
by Rod Ellis (2008) such as (1) Direct, (2) Indirect, (3) Metalinguistic, (4)
Focus of the feedback, (5) Electronic, and (6) Reformulation were
investigated in this study. The data were collected through a Focus Group
Discussion with four groups of 18 students of English Department. The
findings show that all the participants preferred to have Metalinguistic
Written Corrective Feedback in their writing. The reasons were because
firstly, besides it was easy and understandable, this feedback at the same
time forced them to put some efforts in making the revision instead having
the revised draft given by the teacher. Secondly, perceiving themselves as
adult learners, the students preferred to have a more challenging feedback
and this type is found to be their ideal type compare to other types of
feedback. Thirdly, the students’ great of exposure and experiences in using
this feedback made them preferred to have this type of feedback.
Keywords: students’ preference, Written Corrective Feedback,
Metalinguistic Written Corrective Feedback.
INTRODUCTION
Many studies have examined the usefulness of Corrective
Feedback, written and oral. Specifically, for both ESL and EFL
classrooms, students and teachers find the usefulness of Written
Corrective Feedback (WCF) to improve the students’ writing because it
can help them to correct their writing errors (e.g., Diab, 2005; Ferris &
4
Roberts, 2001; Montgomery & Baker, 2007). Some investigations that
have been done before exploring a variety of factors influenced the
effectiveness of corrective feedback (CF) for foreign language (FL),
especially on grammar learning.
Two of the factors that may contribute best are the mode of
feedback; oral or written (Doughty & Varella: 1998) and the other one,
that is specified in this study is the types of Written Corrective Feedback
(Ellis 2008). In short, some researchers may find CF was useful for
students and some may not. After all, Truscott (1996) argued against
corrective feedback’s ‘usefulness’ through his article “The case against
grammar correction” that was published in 1996. Since this article was
published, there have been some controversial issues continued arguing
whether WCF in classes were useful or not (Ferris, 1999; Truscott, 1999).
But then, there was also a growing of empirical evidence showing that
WCF can successfully target some types of linguistic errors (e.g.,
Bitchener & Knoch, 2008a; Chandler, 2003), that showed the usefulness
of WCF itself. This research has important implications for language
learning and teaching because students’ preference on certain types of
written corrective feedback is one of the factors that contribute best in the
students’ writing improvement, even though Elis (2008, p 10) said “of
course the type of CF is only one of several variables influencing the
effectiveness of written CF”.
5
The purpose of this study is to investigate the type of WCF
preferred by ED students and their reason(s) why they prefer certain type
of WCF compare to the others. Therefore, it is conducted to answer these
two research questions:
1. What are the types of written corrective feedback that English
Department students prefer to have in their Guided Writing
class?
2. Why do ED students prefer particular types of Written
Corrective Feedback?
This study is important to be conducted because students’
preference on the type of WCF is believed as an important factor that can
help them to correct their writings’ errors. Because the context of this
study is in English Department students (ED) of Satya Wacana Christian
University, it is important to know the students’ preference on the types of
WCF and their reason(s) behind their preference. Therefore, to investigate
their preference(s), there are six types of WCF used for this study based on
Ellis (2008) typology of WCF. This study is also important in case that it
can make the Writing courses teachers of ED teachers to know the kind of
correction that their students want or prefer to have. Since students’
opinions and preferences for certain types and amounts of WCF affect
their use of it for learning, it is important for the writing teachers to
recognize the students’ preference. For example, if a student prefers or
6
believes that one type of WCF is more useful, then he or she would be
more likely to pay more attention to the correction and use it for learning
than if he or she does not believe in its effects on their writing (Schulz,
2001, Ashwell, 2000; Chandler, 2003). Therefore, knowing the students’
preference and their reason(s) behind it is very important to the teachers to
help their students to make a piece of writing with lack of grammatical
errors.
LITERATURE REVIEW
As the researchers’ belief through many studies that have been
done before, WCF has a positive effect on students’ writing. In their study
about ‘The Role of Feedback in Second Language Writing’, Khaled Karim
and Dr. Hossein Nassaji (2012) summarized that in early research, some
studies even claimed to have found the positive evidence to support the
usefulness of WCF and almost all the recent studies found the positive and
significance effects of WCF for students’ writing. However, due to the
significance of WCF, studies (Amrhein & Nassaji, 2010; Diab, 2006;
Halimi, 2008) have showed that teachers are not very aware of students’
opinions and needs about the corrective feedback, what the students really
prefer or want to have. Whereas, Schulz (2001) said that if students’
specific expectations about corrective feedback are not met, then language
7
learning could be disturbed. Therefore, Freedman (1987) believes that if
students fail in writing well, further feedback is necessary to help them to
take correct actions about their writing in order to improve it and reach an
acceptable level of performance.
In giving feedback for the students’ writings, the teachers usually
decide the type of feedback that they would use to help the students to
correct their writing errors. Therefore, there are some types of written
corrective feedback that teachers often use in giving feedback for the
students. Ellis (2008) in his study about Typology of Written Corrective
Feedback proposed six types of WCF. These types refer to kinds of WCF
that students often get from the teacher with different context and
examples served in each type. The first type is Direct CF. In this type, the
teacher will provide the student the feedback with correct form. It contents
an explicit guidance about how to correct their errors, i.e. crossing out an
unnecessary word, phrase or morpheme, inserting a missing word, phrase
or morpheme, inserting a missing word or morpheme, and writing the
correct form above or near to the erroneous form; related study’s example
for this type is related to Robb et al. (1986). The second type is Indirect
CF. In this type, the teacher indicates that an error exists in the students’
writings but does not provide the correction. The teachers would simply
indicate and locate the errors of students writing by underlining and use of
cursors to show omissions in the students’ writing. The second one is
8
Indication only that takes the form of an indication in the margin that an
error or errors have taken place in a line of text.
The third type is Metalinguistic CF. In this type, the teacher
provides some kind of Metalinguistic clues as to the nature of the error,
like (1) The use of error code, where the teacher writes codes in the
margin (e.g. WW ¼ wrong word; art ¼ article). This type is related to
various studies that have examined the effects of using error codes (e.g.
Ferris and Roberts 2001; Chandler 2003). (2) Brief grammatical
descriptions, where the teacher numbers errors in text and writes a
grammatical description for each numbered error at the bottom of the text.
The fourth is the focus of the feedback. This type concerns whether
the teacher attempts to correct all (or most) of the students’ errors or
selects one or two specific types of errors to correct. For example, the
teacher could have chosen to correct just article errors; related study Sheen
(2007). The fifth one is Electronic Feedback. In this type of feedback, the
teacher indicates that an error occurs and provides examples of correct
usage (Milton: 2006). The last one is Reformulation Feedback where this
consists of a native speaker’s reworking of the students’ entire text to
make the language seem as native-like as possible while keeping the
content of the original intact. For this type, Sachs and Polio (2007)
compared the effects of direct correction and reformulation on students’
revisions of their text.
9
THE STUDY
Context of the study
This study was conducted in ED of Satya Wacana Christian
University (SWCU) Salatiga, specifically in Expository and
Argumentative Writing class. As a writing course for intermediate writer-
students, this course focuses more on the products or writing that the
students make and then the teacher will give them feedback to correct
mistakes that they made in their writing, like the grammatical error,
punctuation, conjunction, relevance of the content, and the
interconnectedness of the paragraphs. During the semester, the teacher
gives students some topics to write and they have to make up story and
write it as their own story. Then in each meeting teacher gives the students
feedback for their writings and after that the students have to revise the
drafts based on the feedback from the teacher. Lastly, the very last draft
should be submitted based on the feedback that they get.
Participants of the study
18 ED students who joined Expository and Argumentative class
participated in this study, both are male and female. These 18 students
were chosen because they have joined two writing classes like Guided
Writing, Narrative & Descriptive Writing classes before that, and at the
time they were experiencing Expository and Argumentative Writing class.
10
With these three classes that they have joined, therefore the students
should have had more exposure about Corrective Feedback as they have
experienced it in those classes. Therefore, the participants of this study
were chosen with purposive sampling (Patton, 1990) as the specific
criteria have been set above. This happened because especially by the
time, the participants experienced the writing class together.
Instrument of Data Collection
In this study the researcher provided information sheets for the
participants to help them to recognize six types of WCF. This study used
Focus Group Discussion (FGD) as the instrument of data collection since
it has benefits that suit to the atmosphere of the interview. As mentioned
in Zacharias (2013), in a FGD, the participants can “spark” when
discussing certain issues and it provides ‘safe’ atmosphere in which to
share opinions and a supportive environment. After doing the focus group,
then the collected data was analyzed descriptively. The reason of using
this kind of instrument was that the students can be more flexible and free
to express their opinion and give their reasons due to their preference
about the types of WCF. During the discussion, the tape recorder was used
to record the process of the discussion since it could help the researcher to
recall the interview process with the participants due to the transcribing
process of the data.
11
Data Collection Procedures
After doing the pilot interview to check whether the information
sheets and the questions were problematic or not, then in the main study,
firstly the researcher met the lecturer of Expository and Argumentative
course to ask permission to do the research on the class that she was
teaching. Secondly, the researcher put the participants in four different
groups and arranged the time to do the interview in form of Focus Group
Discussion. Thirdly, the researcher gave the information sheets to the
participants a week before the focus group discussion was held, so they
would have time to read it.
Furthermore, in the meeting with each group, before starting the
discussion, the researcher explained the six types of WCF on the shared
information sheets. To make the participants felt free and comfortable in
sharing their ideas, the researcher then told the participants to be flexible,
whether they want to use English or their mother tongue ‘Indonesian’ for
the interview. The interview process itself was recorded for more detail
explanations and the questions on the discussion were added with some
additional questions to clarify the participants’ answers and to find the
expected data.
12
Data Analysis Procedure
After doing all the discussions with the groups, then the researcher
transcribed the collected data using clean transcription that focuses on the
content of the interview, where it does not provide any extra information
as to the manner in which the content is communicated (Zacharias, 2013).
Since the language used for the discussion was Indonesian, therefore in
showing the results, the researcher translated the transcription into
English. The researcher combined each type of the WCF with another
types and found both the same and different reasons behind the students’
preference on the type of WCF. Next, the researcher did the coding
process for the transcription that has been translated. This coding included
highlighting the opinions about their preference and their reasons behind
it. Then the researcher described the students’ preference and their reasons
in the findings.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
As the research questions proposed for this study, this section
discusses about the students of Expository and Argumentative class’
responses about the type of WCF that they prefer to have and their reasons
behind their preference based on the types of WCF proposed by Rod Ellis
(2008). In general, the finding shows that the students have various
13
reasons in showing their preference(s). Furthermore the students
themselves have the WCF that they prefer the most, WCF that they do not
prefer at all, and WCFs that they do not prefer yet to have.
The type of WCF preferred by English Department students
Overall, the table below shows the total responses that the students
gave for each type of WCF when they were asked about their preference
on each type of these Written Corrective Feedback types.
Table 1: Total students’ responses on each type of WCF
No.
Type of WCF
Students’ Responses
Prefer Not Prefer Not Prefer
Yet
1.
Direct WCF
14
4
-
2.
Indirect WCF
-
18
-
3.
Metalinguistic WCF
18
-
-
4.
Focus of the feedback
6
7
5
5.
Electronic WCF
10
6
2
6.
Reformulation WCF
8
5
5
As the result of the study, Metalinguistic WCF was found to be the
feedback type that the students prefer the most. All students who
participated in this study prefer to have this type of feedback used by the
teacher to correct their drafts. Furthermore, the students elaborated various
responses related to this type, like;
14
“type ini lebih menantang karena kita dikasih clue yang
jelas misalnya art* apa atau prep* apa, jadi bisa mikir apa
yang harus diganti di writing kita.”(Student C)
(This type is more ‘challenging’ because we were given clear clues like
for example *art or *prep, so we can think about what we should revise
in our writing.)
“type ini bagus karena kita diajari untuk belajar dan
berpikir juga. Selain itu Metalinguistic ini cukup detail.”
(Student I)
(This type is good because it teaches us to think and study. Besides
that, it is detail enough.)
“Kalau menurut saya, yang metalinguistic ini lebih
membantu. Type ini cukup ringkas. Penjelasannya cukup
jelas kayak Direct feedback tapi cukup singkat juga kayak
Indirect feedback.” (Student Q)
(I think this type is more helpful. This type is brief enough. The
explanation is clear enough like the Direct WCF type but it is also short
enough like Indirect WCF.)
“Hampir sama menantang kayak feedback lainnya. Bagus
kalau dalam writing kita ada clue-cluenya itu. Jadinya kita
bisa belajar juga dengan feedback ini.” (Student O)
(It is challenging enough like those feedbacks. It is good if there are
such clues for us. We can study too with this feedback.)
In giving their views, student C, I, Q, and O elaborated positive
responses about Metalinguistic WCF. As they have experienced using this
type, these students valued this type as their ideal type of feedback that
they would have. To the students, Metalinguistic WCF was a challenging
type of feedback since it provided clearer clues that lead them to the
revision, and the clues were not confusing compare to some other types of
feedback. Then, those clearer clues that require further processing gave the
students enough sources of correction to make revision. Besides that, this
15
feedback provided a chance of self- learning, where the students could
study from the mistakes that they have made. Furthermore, they valued
this type of feedback was brief and clear enough. Besides that it also
provided details correction for the students to make revisions.
As mentioned in the Table, 14 out of 18 of the students preferred
Indirect WCF type as the second most preferred feedback to have. But, in
giving their ideas about this type, some students who prefer it were still
doubtful about their preference. Even though they viewed this type was
easier and helpful, this type seemed to have significant weakness for the
sake of the students’ improvement in their (future) writing. Therefore, in
showing their preference(s), student H elaborated his idea like;
“Iya, prefer ini, soalnya yang salah langsung dikasih tanda
dan langsung diberikan koreksinya jadi tinggal nulis ulang
tapi kita jadinya gak ada effort dan gak belajar karena
tinggal nulis ulang.”
(Yes, I prefer this type (Direct WCF) because the wrong parts are
already crossed and the revisions are given directly. But the problem is
we would have no effort to correct our mistakes and no further study
from the mistakes because we would just need to write the revised
revision.)
And furthermore student R compared the Metalinguistic and Direct WCF
like;
“Ini hampir sama kayak yang pertama tadi, Direct Written.
Tapi ini lebih membantu, misalnya Art, WW, Prepositions
salah, kita jadi bisa belajar lagi, spesifik ke article atau
preposition.”
(It is almost the same as Direct WCF but this type (Metalinguistic) is
more helpful. For example, if art, wrong word, or the prepositions are
wrong, then we can study about the use of article or preposition
specifically.)
16
At this point, the students valued Direct WCF made them became
‘too easy’ and they got nothing since the correct revisions were already
there and they only have to revise it. Furthermore, this feedback does not
provide reflection towards their writing products. Therefore,
Metalinguistic WCF was valued as the right feedback that can make them
learn from the mistakes that they have made, but they also would not feel
that easy or difficult in revising the drafts as well.
Reasons behind the Students’ Preference of Metalinguistic WCF
Following to the students’ preference part above, in this part the
researcher discusses the findings around the students’ reasons behind their
preference of Metalinguistic WCF. In this part, the researcher categorizes
and elaborates three main reasons behind the students’ preferences.
Firstly, compare to other types of feedback, the students found
Metalinguistic WCF as a very helpful feedback to them. It was not only
because it helped them in case that it was easy and understandable but this
feedback at the same time gave them courage to put some efforts in
making the revision.
These ideas of this 1st reason were presented by Student I and student F,
like;
“prefer type ini. Type ini bagus karena kita diajari untuk
berpikir dan belajar juga. Selain itu, Metalinguistic ini
17
cukup detail. Kita juga diajari buat mikir, kalau yang
pertama kan, dosennya kadang pake direct tapi jarang.
“(Student I)
(I prefer this type (Metalinguistic) because with this feedback we are
taught to think and study. Besides that this type is detail enough .we are
taught to think with this type. Well sometimes the lecturer uses Direct
WCF but it is very rare. )
“Ya, mending punya feedback kayak gini. Jelas karena kita
tau kita buat kesalahan dan tau yang salah verbnya, article
atau apa. Gak kayak Direct Feedback, kita tetap ada effort
dan tetap tau salahnya apa. Karena misalnya dibilang ganti
articlenya jadi langsung tau kalo ‘art’nya salah. Jadi lebih
fokus.” (student F)
(Well, it is better to have such a feedback like this (Metalinguistic
WCF). It is clear because we notice that we made mistakes and we
know that the verb or maybe the article is wrong. Unlike Direct
Feedback, we still show our effort and know the mistakes. For example
like if we are asked to change the article, we would directly know that
the article is wrong, so we can be more focus)
At this first reason, the students valued Metalinguistic WCF as a
helpful feedback because it provided reflection to the students’ writing
processes, where they became more aware of the process in learning from
the mistakes and made revision based on the correction. At this point, as
stated in Miller (2002), feedback lets students know how they are doing
and extend learning opportunities seems true. With this type of feedback,
the students can also see the progress in their writings based on the
mistakes recognition served by this type, whether they have performed
well or not, and they can also learn from this type of WCF. Furthermore,
since this type provided room for them to revise and not simply editing the
18
draft like some other types because it required more effort to make
revision with this type.
Secondly, from the students’ perspective, they valued themselves
as adult learners who would be better to have a more challenging
feedback. As mentioned before, Metalinguistic WCF was valued as a
challenging feedback, where the students would need efforts to make
revision with this type. In short, from any aspects, this type was valued as
the best type of feedback to the students. Therefore to represent this idea,
student E significantly stated,
“saya tidak sepaham sama teman-teman karena kalau buat
mahasiswa, kalau langsung dikasih revisian kayak gini
langsung, kita jadinya gak mikir dulu. Sudah langsung
dapat koreksiannya. Padahal ada kemungkinan kita bisa
membuat kesalahan yg sama lagi nantinya. Jadi ini tidak
cukup membantu untuk lain kali lebih teliti, oh ini pake ‘a’
atau ‘the’ gak ya, gitu. Kurang menantang.”
(I am not at the same idea with others (prefer to have Direct WCF)
because for University students, if such a revision like this is given
directly, we would not think about the correct form that we should use
because we have got the revision, whereas there is a possibility that we
will make the same mistakes in our future writing. This is not help us
enough to be more aware next time whether we should use article ‘a’ or
‘the’. It’s not challenging enough.)
Student E’s response emerged the idea of ‘challenging’ feedback,
where feedback that suit to University students should not be easy. At this
point, the student’s response bears a resemblance to Ferris’ statement,
where Ferris (2002) stated that direct CF is appropriate for beginner
learners. Furthermore, other students added that Direct WCF was too
19
simple and they cannot learn much if they use this type of feedback. At
this point, a ‘too easy’ feedback like what the students have mentioned
may not raise their awareness of the mistakes in their writing and
furthermore it did not facilitate their self -correction for their coming
writing. So, in this case, self –correction which was meant to make the
students learn not to repeat their errors in the future had a very significant
role, but it might not happened especially when the feedback like Direct
WCF promoted the correct revision directly.
Thirdly, the researcher found that students’ exposure about the
WCF became one of the significant factors that influenced the students in
showing their preference. In short, their experiences using this type of
feedback for the class and in some previous classes became the reason
why they prefer to have Metalinguistic WCF, the same as what student N
and F said in the interview like;
“Kurang lebih sama sih. Karena lebih familiar sama ini
juga jadi prefer. Selama ini juga pakenya ini. Untuk
betulin-betulin revisinya jadi lebih enak kalau pake kayak
gini. Yang pertama tadi enak sih, tapi lebih prefer pakai
yang ini” (Student N)
(More or less it is almost the same. I prefer this type because it is more
familiar to me. During this time we have used this and it is nice to
make revision with this type. The 1st one (Direct) is good but I prefer
this (Metalingustic.))
“Yah sama sih karena kita milih ini jg mungkin karena kita
sudah terbiasa sih dari awal belajar Writing sampai
sekarang masih pakai ini juga.” (Student F)
20
(Ya, it is the same with my friends. Besides that we choose this type
because are already accustomed to use this type since we join Writing
class until now.)
When the students were asked whether they were familiar with this
type or not, all of them answered yes they were. Therefore in gaining the
information, mostly all the students are actively participated in giving their
view and opinion about this type compare to another types. In this case,
the researcher found that the lack of exposure for certain types of feedback
influenced the students’ preference(s). A great deal of students’ exposure
toward this feedback became the reason behind their preference. Besides
that, even though feedback types like Focus of the feedback, Electronic
WCF, and Reformulation caught the students’ attention but lacking of
exposure of these types of feedback made the students not prefers to have
those types yet. Therefore as the result, not many ideas were shared or
elaborated in the discussion about these types.
Furthermore, when the students were asked about their views about
Indirect WCF, in contrast to Metalinguistic WCF where all of the students
preferred to have it, none of the students preferred to have this type of
feedback because they found it difficult and confusing to understand the
correction with this type, especially since the ‘clues’ were confusing and
not clear to them. Therefore, student O commented,
“kalau dari mahasiswanya sendiri pasti lebih susah dari
sebelumnya karena hanya simbol kayak gini sih.
21
Revisiannya susah untuk dipahami, untuk cari yang benar,
misalnya X = MW, Missing Wordnya gak jelas yang mana
yg hilang.”
(For the students themselves, this type would be more difficult compare
to the previous one (Direct WCF) because it only gives symbols like
this. The correction is difficult to understand, to find the correct form,
for example X = MW, it is not clear what exactly the word missed
there.)
and student B further assumed,
“Maybe this type is useful for advance learners because
they have sufficient knowledge about this compare to those
beginner or intermediate learners”
At this point, clear and understandable clues given in the revision
played a significant role for the students to show their preference. The
students needed a feedback which is clear and not confusing but not too
easy as well. Therefore, Indirect WCF was not the appropriate type that
can meet the students’ needs to make revision with it, especially since the
students valued that this type would be more appropriate for advance
learners with sufficient knowledge to understand the symbols.
22
CONCLUSION
The aim of this study is to investigate the students’ preference on
the types of Written Corrective Feedback and their reasons behind their
preferences. The findings of the study showed that all the participants
prefer to have Metalinguistic WCF in their writings. As the findings, the
students’ preference was influenced by three main reasons. Firstly,
compare to another types of feedback, the students found Metalinguistic
WCF as a very helpful feedback to them. It is not only because it helps
them in case that it is easy and understandable but this feedback at the
same time gave them courage to put some efforts in making the revision.
Secondly, viewing themselves as adult learners, the students thought that it
would be better to have a more challenging feedback like Metalinguistic in
their writing. Compare to other feedbacks, Metalinguistic WCF was
viewed as their ideal type of feedback. Thirdly, the researcher found that
students’ exposure about the WCF has become one of the significant
factors that influenced the students in showing their preference. The other
results of this study drew that Focus of the Feedback, Reformulation, and
Electronic WCF were types that the students did not prefer yet since they
had less exposure about these three types. Furthermore, Indirect WCF
became the type of feedback that the students did not prefer to have since
revision was not clear and the students felt confused about it as well.
23
The implication of the results in this study for teaching are first,
Writing teachers are supposed to provide Metalinguisitc WCF to students’
writing since this is the most preferable type of feedback by the students,
especially because all of them showed positive views about this type of
feedback. Besides giving explicit correction on the writing, this feedback
is able to enhance the students’ writing ability without using any
confusing symbols. Second, teachers have to think carefully when they
want to provide Indirect WCF because none of the students prefer to have
this type of feedback, despite their opinion that everything depended on
the teacher, whether she or he would use certain type of feedback.
Moreover, all the students showed negative views about this type since the
symbols used there are confusing and it is not understandable. Third, the
Writing teachers can also use Focus of the feedback, Electronic, and
Reformulation corrective feedback because as the finding on this study,
the researcher found that students’ lack of exposure toward these three
types of feedback made them not to prefer it yet. Besides that, despite
lacking of exposure toward these types, students viewed these feedbacks
positively like it is helpful as well. Therefore, it would be nice if the
students can experience different types of feedback.
The finding of this study cannot be generalized to all the FLL
university students because the subjects of this study are not general and
this study is conducted in a university only. Moreover, this study focuses
24
only on the students’ preference and reasons behind it without considering
the teachers’ preferences and reasons as well. Therefore, further research
is needed to find writing teachers’ preferences and reasons behind it since
it can make it easier to find the more effective and suitable type of
feedback for the students in improving their writing ability. Besides that,
further study to investigate how students work on their WCF is necessary,
whether the students do really make the revision based on the correction
given by the teacher or not and the study can also investigate the reasons
why the students do not make the revision based on the correction given
by the teacher as well.
.
25
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It is a genuine pleasure to express my deep sense of thanks and
gratitude to My Jesus Christ for every blessing that He put into my life,
especially for everything that were necessary for me to complete this
study. I owe a deep sense of gratitude to my supervisor Mrs. Athriyana
Santye Pattiwael M.Hum for her timely advice, meticulous security,
scholarly advice and scientific approach that have helped me to a very
great extent to accomplish this study. I wish to express my sincere thanks
to my examiner, Yustinus Calvin G. Mali, M.Hum for the sincere and
valuable guidance and encouragement extended to me. I am also grateful
to Mrs. Anne Timothius as she has helped me during my data collection
time and to the participants who has taken part on this study. It is my
privilege to thank my parents, Susi, Lory, Hans and Jack for their never
ending love and constant encouragement throughout my study period.
Lastly, I am extremely thankful to my beloved friends Femy, Wasty,
Venny, Mira, Ruth, and Eka who always supported and helped me
throughout this venture.
26
REFERENCES
Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What
do students and teachers prefer and why? Canadian Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 13, 95-127
Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a
multi-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed
by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language
Writing, 9, 227–57
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008) The value of a focused approach to
written corrective feedback, Language Teaching Research, 12,
409-431.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for
improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing.
Journal of second language writing, 12(3), 267-296.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9
Diab, R. L. (2005). Teachers' and students' beliefs about responding to
ESL writing: A case study. TESL Canada Journal, 23, 28-43.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C.
Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second
language acquisition (pp. 114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT
Journal, 63(2), 97-107.
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing
classes. A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second
27
Language Writing, 8, 1–10.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1060-
3743(99)80110-6
Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit
does it need to be? Journal of Second language Writing, 10, 161-
184.
Ferris, D. R. (2002) Treatment of Error in Second Language Writing. Ann
Arbour: University of Michigan.
Freedman, S. (1987). Response to student writing. Urbana: National
Council of Teachers of English.
Halimi, S. S. (2008). Indonesian teachers’ and students’ preferences for
error correction. Wacana, 10(1), 50-71
Miller, S. P. (2002). Using helpful teaching behaviors: Validated practices
for teaching students with diverse needs and abilities 189- 233.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Milton, J. (2006). ‘Resource-rich Web-based feedback: Helping learners
become independent writers’ in K. Hyland and F. Hyland (eds.).
Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Montgomery, J., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student
perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher
performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 82-99
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (pp. 169-
186). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
http://legacy.oise.utoronto.ca/research/field-centres/ross/ctl1014/Patton1990.pdf
28
Robb, T., S. Ross, & I. Shortreed. 1986. ‘Salience of feedback on error
and its effect on EFL writing quality’. TESOL Quarterly 20: 83–
93.
Sachs, R. & C. Polio. 2007. ‘Learners’ use of two types of written
feedback on an L2 writing task’.
Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher
perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and
corrective feedback: USA-Columbia. Modern Language Journal,
85,244-258.
Sheen, Y. 2007. ‘The effect of focused written corrective feedback and
language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles’. TESOL
Quarterly 41: 255–83.
Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “The case for grammar correction in L2
writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language
Writing,8,111-122.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S10603743(99)80124-6
Zacharias, N.T. (2013). Research Made Simple: A Course Book for
Beginning Researchers in Second Language Education. Salatiga:
Widya Sari Press.
29
APPENDIX A
Information sheet form
The types of Corrective Feedback and examples by Rod Ellis (2008)
1. Direct written corrective feedback
It provides learners with explicit guidance about how to correct their errors. Teachers
provide correct form, i.e. crossing out an unnecessary word, phrase or morpheme,
inserting a missing word, phrase or morpheme, inserting a missing word or morpheme,
and writing the correct form above or near to the erroneous form.
Example:
Student’s writing:
A boy stole wallet from girl. He escaped with having wallet. When the girl was going
through bridge over the river she found boy in the river.
Teacher’s correction:
a a the
A boy stole X wallet from X girl. He escaped with having X wallet. When the girl was
going
over a a saw a
through bridge over the river she found boy in the river.
2. Indirect written corrective feedback
Involves indicating that the learner has made an error but without actually correcting it.
This can be done by underlining the errors or using cursors to show omissions in the
learners’ text or by placing a cross in the margin next to the line containing the error.
30
Example:
Student’s writing:
A boy stole wallet from girl. He escaped with having wallet. When the girl was going
through bridge over the river she found boy in the river.
Teacher’s correction:
A boy stole X wallet from X girl. He escaped with XhavingX Xwallet. When the girl was
going XthroughX Xbridge over XtheX river she found X boy in the river.
Notes:
X : missing word
X___X : wrong word
3. Metalinguistic written corrective feedback
Provides learners with some form of explicit comment about the nature of the errors they
have made.
Use of error codes, i.e. abbreviated labels for different kinds of errors placed over
the location of the error in the text or in the margin. e.g. art = article, prep =
preposition, sp = spelling, ww = wrong word, t = tense, etc.
Metalinguistic explanations of their errors, e.g. numbering errors and providing
metalinguistic comments at the end of the text.
31
Examples:
art. art. WW art.
A boy stole wallet from girl. He escaped with having wallet. When
Prep. art. art. Art
the girl was going through bridge over the river she found boy in the
river.
Art. x 3; WW
A boy stole wallet from girl. He escaped with having
wallet
Prep.; art.
When the girl was going through bridge over the river
she
Art.
found boy in the
river.
4. Focus of the feedback
This concerns whether the teacher attempts to correct all (or most) of the students’ errors
or selects one or two specific types of errors to correct. This distinction can be applied to
each of the above options.
Example:
32
(1) (2) (3)
A boy stole wallet from girl. He escaped with having bone. When the girl was
(4) (5) (6) (7)
going through bridge over the river she found boy in the river.
Correction:
(1), (2), (5), and (6) (7)— you need ‘a’ before the noun when a person or thing is
mentioned for the first time.
(3)—you need ‘the’ before the noun when the person or thing has been mentioned
previously.
(4)—you need ‘over’ when you go across the surface of something; you use
‘through’ when you go inside something (e.g. ‘go through the forest’).
So, for the focus of the feedback, in the above examples the teacher could have chosen to
correct just article errors.
5. Electronic written corrective feedback
Extensive corpora of written English can be exploited to provide learners with assistance
in their writing. Electronic resources provide learners with the means where they can
appropriate the usage of more experienced writers.
An example of electronic written corrective feedback
“Mark My Words” (Milton 2006)
33
6. Reformulation written corrective feedback
This involves native-speakers rewriting learners’ texts in such a way as ‘to preserve as
many of the writers’ ideas as possible, while expressing them in their own words so as to
make the pieces sound native-like’.
Example:
Original version : As he was running, his knees were shaked.
Reformulation : As he was running, his knees were shaking.
knees shaking
Error correction : As he was jogging his tammy were shaked.
34
APPENDIX B
Interview Questions
Interview questions for each type of WCF in the information sheet.
1. Can you recognize this type of Feedback in your Writing?
2. If you are given this kind of feedback, will you prefer this type as your Corrective
Feedback or not? Why?
3. What do you think about this type? Does it helpful for you to recognize the errors
that you make in your writing?
4. Is this Feedback facilitates you to revise your drafts?