The Students’ and Teachers’ Preference of Written Corrective Feedback
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/ehss.v8i.4366Keywords:
Written Corrective Feedback; Students’ Preference; Teachers’ Preference; Direct Feedback; Indirect Feedback.Abstract
Previous research mainly shows students’ improvement of composition benefits from Written Corrective Feedback (WCF). According to the five types of WCF mentioned by Ellis, containing direct WCF, indirect WCF, metalinguistic WCF, focused and unfocused WCF and reformulation, the paper reviews previous literature to help teachers adjust their WCF method to students’ preferences. The paper’s main findings are: 1) teachers’ preference for WCF is inconsistent with students’ preferences; 2) students prefer detailed and explicit feedback such as direct WCF; 3) teachers prefer indirect WCF to encourage students to reflect on their mistakes. This paper contributes to improving the teaching method of WCF.
Downloads
References
Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181-201.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63, 204-211.
Dayat, D. (2021). Written Corrective Feedback in Academic Writing Class: How Does Experienced Teacher Lead the Effective Practice. Edukasi: Journal Pendidikan, 19(1), 150-160.
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2006). Sugaring the pill praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185-212.
Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.
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
Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203-218.
Cohen, A. D., & Cavalcanti, M. C. (1990). Feedback on compositions: teacher and students verbal reports. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge University Press.y Press.
Diab, R. L. (2005). Teachers’ and students’ beliefs about responding to ESL writing: A case study. TESL Canada Journal, 23, 28-43.
Lee, I. (2005). Error correction in the L2 classroom: What do students think? TESL Canada Journal, 22, 1-16
Agung Setia Raharjo. (2014). Students’ Preference Toward Teacher written Corrective Feedback in Narrative Writing Class. English Teacher Education Program Faculty of Language and Literature Satya Wacana Christian University Salatiga, 112010092
Talisa Devi Setiyani. (2020). Students’ Preference of Written Feedback on Professional Narrative Writing Essays. English Language Education Program Faculty of Language and Arts Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana, 112016100
Adrefiza & Fortunasari. (2020). Written corrective feedback on students’ thesis writing: An analysis of student-supervisory interactions. The Journal of English Language Teaching, Innovation and Materials (JELTIM), 2(1), 14–24.
Fathman, A. K., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to students writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2007). Written corrective feedback: What students and teachers prefer and why? 96-121.
Aridah. (2004). Students’ preferences and reactions to teacher feedback. In B. Y. Cahyono & U. Widiati (Eds.), The teperstry of English language teaching and learning in Indonesia. Malang: State University of Malang Press.
Ferguson, G. (1993). Implementing Innovation in Language Education. Edinburgh Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 4, 27-39.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
