Dergiler / IOJET / 2021 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2

WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK: STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION ANDPREFERENCES

Dergi
IOJET
Sayfa
676–690
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

More research in this area are expected to furnish more contributive information.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:There have been noticeable studies probing into how written corrective feedback (WCF) could help to improve EFL students' awareness of grammatical terms.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:This survey study collected data by distributing a questionnaire to 387 participants from two different universities in Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:More research in this area are expected to furnish more contributive information.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

There have been noticeable studies probing into how written corrective feedback (WCF) could help to improve EFL students' awareness of grammatical terms. However, a few are known to investigate how the students’ perceptions and preferences could prompt their approbation toward the feedback. This study reports on Indonesian university students’ views of written corrective feedback in a writing class. Furthermore, their preferences for different types of WCF are also investigated. This survey study collected data by distributing a questionnaire to 387 participants from two different universities in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. The results indicated that although the participants favored different types of feedback, all of them shared a sympathetic attitude towards the feedback given. In particular, they believed that WCF could facilitate to improve their writing skills and language knowledge. Through WCF, they became aware of what to avoid and improve to create good writing. The results further indicated that of several different types of feedback strategies, direct feedback performed as the most favored to improve students’ writing skills, followed by metalinguistic, reformulation, and indirect strategy. Overall, the findings ratified the value of WCF for EFL students in Indonesia. More research in this area are expected to furnish more contributive information.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

SARAGİH, N. A., MADYA, S., SİREGAR, R. A., SARAGİH, W. (2022). WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK: STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION ANDPREFERENCES. IOJET, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2, 676–690. https://ajindex.com/articles/542188

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (7)

  1. Alhosani, N. M. (2008). Utilizing the writing process approach with English as a second language writers: A case study of five fifth grade ESL Arab students (Unpublished Ph.D thesis). Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas. https://krex.kstate.edu/dspace/handle/2097/1128
  2. Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers think is right and why?. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 95-127. DOI: 10.22492/ijll.3.2.02 Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29-58. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001029
  3. Birenbaum, M. (2007). Assessment and instruction preferences and their relationship with test anxiety and learning strategies. Higher Education, 53(6), 749-768. DOI: 10.1007/s10734- 005-4843-4
  4. Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-431. DOI: 10.1177/1362168808089924 Black, D. A., & Nanni, A. (2016). Written corrective feedback: Preferences and justifications of teachers and students in a Thai context. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 16(3), 99-114. http://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2016-1603-07
  5. Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. USA: ASCD. Caffarella, R. S., & Barnett, B. G. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 39-52. DOI: 10.1080/030750700116000 Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219-233. DOI: 10.1080/03075070600572132 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9
  6. Chung, B. (2015). Written Corrective Feedback: The Perception of Korean EFL Learners. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 75-88.
  7. Creswell, J. W. 2008. Educational research planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston: Pearson Ekholm, E., Zumbrunn, S., & Conklin, S. (2015). The relation of college student self-efficacy toward writing and writing self-regulation aptitude: Writing feedback percepti