Students’ Voices on Lecturers’ Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) in Their Writing Tasks

Adrefiza Adrefiza, Didin Nuruddin Hidayat, Fortunasari Fortunasari

Abstract


ABSTRACT

Although studies on Written Corrective Feedback (WCF, hereafter) have been increasingly prevalent in the last few years, inquiries on how advisory students perceive the lecturers’ feedback on their writing tasks have been likely scarce, especially in Indonesian Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) contexts. This study examines the students’ perception and evaluation of the lecturers’ WCF in response to errors and inaccuracies in their academic writing tasks. Through an online survey questionnaire distributed to 46 respondents via email, the results show that the majority of students appreciated any forms of feedback from the lecturers. Their writing skills in four aspects (grammar, vocabulary, organization, and mechanics) also improved significantly through an enhancement of their self-directed learning. Following the analysis model by one of previous studies, the results showed that the students preferred direct WCF to the Indirect one (58.7 %: 15.2 %), while the “Praise” category was given the highest rate with an average score of (4.06). “Criticism”, on the other hand, was the lowest one with an average score of only (2.3) in the evaluation. It is recommended that lecturers always avoid unclear, vague, aggressive, thoughtless, and inappropriate feedback to improve students’ writing skills and performance.

 

ABSTRAK

Meskipun studi tentang Umpan Balik Korektif Tertulis (WCF, selanjutnya) semakin lazim dalam beberapa tahun terakhir, namun, diskusi tentang penilaian mahasiswa terhadap umpan balik dosen terkait tugas menulis mereka sangat terbatas, terutama dalam konteks Lembaga Pendidikan Tinggi Indonesia (PT). Penelitian ini mengkaji persepsi dan evaluasi mahasiswa terhadap WCF dosen dalam merespon kesalahan dan ketidaktepatan dalam tugas menulis akademik mahasiswa. Melalui kuesioner survei online yang dibagikan kepada 46 responden melalui email, hasilnya menunjukkan bahwa mayoritas mahasiswa mengapresiasi segala bentuk umpan balik dari dosen. Keterampilan menulis mereka dalam empat aspek (tata bahasa, kosakata, organisasi, dan mekanik) juga meningkat secara signifikan melalui peningkatan pembelajaran mandiri mereka. Mengacu kepada model analysis dari salah satu penelitian terdahulu, ditemukan bahwa penggunaan WCF Langsung lebih disukai oleh siswa daripada penggunaan Tidak Langsung (58,7%: 15,2%), sedangkan kategori “Pujian” diberikan nilai tertinggi dengan nilai rata-rata (4,06). Sementara, “Kritik” adalah yang paling rendah dengan skor rata-rata hanya (2,3) dalam evaluasi. Disarankan agar dosen selalu memberikan semangat, namun hindari umpan balik yang tidak jelas, kabur, agresif, ceroboh, dan tidak tepat untuk meningkatkan kemampuan menulis dan prestasi mahasiswa.


Keywords


umpan balik langsung dan tidak langsung; perguruan tinggi Indonesia; tugas menulis; umpan balik korektif tertulis, suara siswa; direct and indirect feedback; Indonesian higher education institutions; writing tasks; written corrective feedback

References


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.

Bitchener, J. (2010). Writing an applied linguistics thesis or dissertation. Palgrave Macmillan.

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of Written Corrective Feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102–118.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of Written Corrective Feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research Journal, 12, 409–431.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct Written Corrective Feedback. System, 37, 322 -329.

Bitchener, J. Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of Corrective Feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227-258.

Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-Regulated Learning: Where we are today? International Journal of Education Research, 31, 445–457.

Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and Self-Regulated Learning: A theoretical synthesis, Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281.

Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating Oral and Written Corrective Feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 335-349.

Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of Written Corrective Feedback types. English Language Teaching Journal, 63(2), 97-107.

Ene, E., & Upton, T. (2014). Learner uptake of teacher electronic feedback in ESL composition. System, 46, 80-95. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.011

Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersection and practical application. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181-201.

Ferris, D., & Kurzer, K. (2019). Does error feedback help L2 writers? Latest evidence on the efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback. In K. Hyland (Ed.), Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues (pp. 106-124). Cambridge University Press.

Holmes, J. (2001). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Pearson Education Limited.

Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2006). Feedback on Second Language Writing: Contexts and issues. #Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255–286.

Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2007). An analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4), 461- 470.

Lalande, J. (1982). Reducing composition error: An experiment. The Modern Language Journal, 66(2), 140-149.

Mullins, G., & Kiley, M. (1998). Quality in postgraduate research: The changing agenda. In M. Kiley and G. Mullins (Eds), Quality in Postgraduate Research: Managing the New Agenda (Adelaide, The University of Adelaide), 1–13.

Philips, E. M., & Pugh, D. S. (2005). How to get a PhD: A handbook for students and their supervisors (4th ed.). Open University Press.

Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on Written Corrective Feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29-46.

Stracke, E., & Kumar, V. (2010). Feedback and Self-Regulated Learning: Insights from supervisors’ and PhD examiners’ report. Reflective Practice, 11(1), 19–32.

Zimmermann, B. J. (2001). Theories of Self-Regulated Learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmermann and D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives, (2nd ed.), 1– 37. Lawrence Erlbaum.


Full Text: PDF

DOI: 10.15408/ijee.v1i1.17701

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.