Direct Written Corrective Feedback on Junior High School Students’ Recount Text Composition

Authors

  • Muhammad Irfan Madrasah Aliyah Negeri Flores Timur

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36052/andragogi.v8i2.171

Keywords:

direct written corrective feedback, junior high school students, recount text composition

Abstract

This present study is aimed to investigate the extent to which direct written corrective feedback (CF) assists students in minimizing students’ errors on recount text composition. This qualitative study was carried out in class VIII C at a junior high school in Malang. The Subjects of this study were the English teacher from class VIII C at the school and six students from three different levels of proficiency in this class. This present study found that: (1) Students made six types of errors on their recount text compositions after receiving direct written CF, 2) Direct written CF assists low proficiency students to a little extent in minimizing their errors on recount text compositions, (3) Direct written CF assists average proficiency students to a little extent in minimizing their errors on recount text compositions, (4) Direct written CF assists high proficiency students to a medium extent in minimizing their errors on recount text compositions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ary, D., Jacobs, L., & Razavieh, A. (2010). Introduction to research in education 8th edition, Wardswoth Cengage Learning. Canada: Nelson Education Ltd Exotic Classic.

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006

Coffin, C., Curry, M. J., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lillis, T., & Swann, J. (2003). Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education. Routledge.

Cornillie, F., Clarebout, G., & Desmet, P. (2012). The role of feedback in foreign language learning through digital role playing games. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 34, 49-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.02.011

DonYei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023

Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.5070/12.v1i1.9054

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368. https://doi.org/10/1017/S0272263106060141

Fakhrudin, F., & Munir, A. (2014). The use of word-processing to decrease the students’ errors in writing descriptive rext in SMAN 1 Babat Lamongan. RETAIN, 2(2).

Guénette, D., & Lyster, R. (2013). Written corrective feedback and its challenges for pre-service ESL teachers. Canadian modern language review, 69(2), 129-153. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.1346

Kamberi, L. (2013). The significance of teacher feedback in EFL writing for tertiary level foreign language learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70(0), 1686-1690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.241

Leng, K. T. P. (2014). An analysis of written feedback on ESL students’ writing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 123, 389-397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1437

McKenney, S., Nieveen, N., & van den Akker, J. (2006). Design research from a curriculum perspective. Educational design research, 67-90.

Muncie, J. (2000). Using written teacher feedback in EFL composition classes. ELT Journal, 54(1), 47- 53. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/54.1.47

Nasrullah. (2014). Teacher's feedback on junior high school students' interlingual errors in recount text [Post Graduate Unpublished Thesis, Universitas Negeri Surabaya]. Surabaya.

Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL QUARTERLY, 36(4), 573-595. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588241

Pawlak, M. (2014). Error correction in the foreign language classroom reconsidering the issues. Springer.

Rahmawati, E. (2013). Teacher’s written corrective feedback and its effects on the students’ rewriting errors in writing products [Post Graduate Unpublished Thesis, Universitas Negeri Surabaya]. Surabaya.

Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 2, 593-610.

Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103-131. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12029

Suarman, A. (2013). The effect of feedback on student’s writing accuracy. ELTIN JOURNAL, Journal of English Language Teaching in Indonesia, 1(1), 44-55.

Vyatkina, N. (2010). The effectiveness of written corrective feedback in teaching beginning German. Foreign Language Annals, 43(4), 671-689. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944- 9720.2010.01108.x

Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative Research from start to finish. New York: The Guilford Press.

Downloads

Published

2020-12-31

Issue

Vol. 8 No. 2 (2020): Andragogi: Jurnal Diklat Teknis Pendidikan dan Keagamaan

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).