English Learners Perception on Lecturers’ Corrective Feedback
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18533/journal.v5i4.700Keywords:
Lecturers, students’ perspective, written corrective feedback.Abstract
The importance of written corrective feedback (CF) has been an issue of substantial debate in the literature and this controversial issue has led to a development in latest studies to draw on foreign language acquisition (FLA) research as a way to further comprehend the complexities of this issue particularly how students and teachers perceive the effectiveness of written corrective feedback. This research has largely focused on students’ perception on Lecturers’ corrective feedback, perceives the usefulness of different types of corrective feedback and the reasons they have for their preferences. Qualitative data was collected from 40 EFL students in 6th semester, by means of written questionnaires, interview and observation. Four feedback strategies were employed in this research and ranked each statement by using five-point Likert scale. Findings showed that almost all students 81.43 % want correction or feedback from lecturers for the mistakes on their writing. For the type of written corrective feedback, students prefer lecturers mark their mistakes and give comment on their work with the percentage as follows: 93% students found that giving clues or comment about how to fix errors can improve their writing ability, 76.69% of the students found that error identification is the most useful type of feedback, and 57.50% of students have a positive opinion for the provision of correction which is accompanied by comment. Those percentages of students perspective is supported by students’ explanation in an open ended question of questionnaire. Pedagogical implications of the study are also discussed.
References
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102–118
Bitchener, J., & Knock, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research 12 (3) 409– 431
Chang, Y. F. (1997). Topic familiarity and second language learner's oral performance. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. AAT 9801659
Dabaghi, A. (2008) A comparison of the effect of implicit and explicit corrective feedback on learners’ performance in tailor-made tests. Journal of Apploed Sciences, 8(1), 1-13
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, S. (2006). Implicit and explicit Corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-368
Erel, O. S., and Bulut, D. (2007). Error treatment in L2 writing: A comparative study of direct and indirect coded feedback in Turkish EFL context, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi Sayı 1, 397-415
Ferguson, P (2011). Students’ perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assesment and evaluation in higher education. Vol. 36, No. 1, January 2011, 51–62
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in l2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second language Writing, 10, 161-184.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1980). The treatment of error in written work. Modern Language Journal, 64, 216-221.
Hillocks, G. Jr. (1982). The interaction of instruction, teacher comment, and revision in teaching the composition process. Research in the Teaching of English, 16, 261-278.
Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31 (2), 217-230.
Kagimoto, E & Rodgers, M.P.H (2007). Students’ perception of corrective feedback. JALT, Conference Proceeding.
Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second language writing skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75 (3) 305–313
Knoblauch, C.H., & Brannon, L. 1981. Teacher Commentary on Student Writing: The State of the Art. Freshman English News. 10(2)
Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll (ed.) Second Language Writing: Insights for the classroom (pp. 57-68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liu, Y., (2008). The effects of error feedback in second language writing. Arizona working Paper in SLA & Teaching, 15, 65-79
Makino, T. Y. (1993). Learner self-correction in EFL written compositions. ELT Journal, 47, 337-341
Polio, C., Fleck, N., & Leder, N. (1998). ‘‘If only I had more time’’: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7 (1) 43–68
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41 (2), 255-283
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
Wang, P. (2008). “Exploring Errors in Target Language Learning and Use: Practice Meets Theory.” English Language Teaching. (2): 182-187. Available from <http://www.ccsenet.org/journal. html> [12/03/31].
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- 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 acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- 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).
