Exploring Students’ Writing Performance through Corrective Feedback
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31597/sl.v9i1.1011Keywords:
corrective feedback, writing performance, exploring writing, feedbackAbstract
Prior studies on corrective feedback have highlighted the effect of feedback on students writing accuracy. In this present study, the impacts of corrective feedback on students’ writing performance; grammatical accuracy, complexity, fluency, content and organization, appropriateness, argumentation, interpersonal, textual, lexical were examined. Participants were 96 students who were assigned into different groups to accept written corrective feedback, content and organization of ideas, multilateral feedback (i.e., on grammatical accuracy, complexity, fluency, appropriateness, argumentation, interpersonal, textual, lexical), and control group that did not accept any feedback during learning sessions. Pre-test, post-test and delayed post-test and weekly writing revisions were carried out. The results showed that the four experiment groups showed significant improvements. The results of this study showed that students had language learning potential which can be enhanced when teachers provide corrective feedbacks. This study suggested that students’ writing skills can be improved by providing sustained feedback.
References
Bae, J., Bentler, P. M., & Lee, Y. (2016). On the Role of Content in Writing Assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(4), 302–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2016.1246552
Bae, J., & Lee, Y. (2011). Language Testing assessment of language skills. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210382446
Bitchener, J. (2012). Written Corrective Feedback for L2 Development: Current Knowledge and Future Research. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 855–860. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.62
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005a). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001
Chang, W., Liao, C., & Chan, T. (2019). Improving children ’ s textual cohesion and writing attitude in a game-based writing environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 0(0), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1671459
Chen, Y., Aguirre-mendez, C., Terada, T., Chen, Y., & Aguirre-mendez, C. (2020). Argumentative writing as a tool to develop conceptual and epistemic knowledge in a college chemistry course designed for non-science majors. International Journal of Science Education, 0(0), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1837990
DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). BEYOND EXPLICIT RULE LEARNING. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(2), 195–221. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263197002040
Ellis, N. C. (2011). Implicit and explicit SLA and their interface.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
Evans, N. W., James Hartshorn, K., & Strong-Krause, D. (2011). The efficacy of dynamic written corrective feedback for university-matriculated ESL learners. System, 39(2), 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.04.012
Ferris, D., Brown, J., Liu, H., Eugenia, M., & Stine, A. (2011). Responding to L2 students in college writing classes: Teacher perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 207–234. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.247706
Gao, C. Z., Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 372. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587964
Gharehbagh, M. J., Stapa, S. H., & Darus, S. (2019). The Effects of Written Corrective Feedback Using Wikis among ESL Learners. 25(1), 1–10.
Hardman, W., & Bell, H. (2018). ‘ More fronted adverbials than ever before ’. Writing feedback practices and grammatical metalanguage in an English primary school. Language and Education, 0(0), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2018.1488864
Hosseiny, M. (2014). The Role of Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback in Improving Iranian EFL Students’ Writing Skill. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 668–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.466
Hsu, H., & Yuan, C. (2018). Using wiki-mediated collaboration to foster L2 writing performance. 22(3), 103–123.
Jacobs, G. M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S. Y. (1998). Feedback on student writing: Taking the middle path. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90019-4
Kim, Y. J., Choi, B., Yun, H., Kim, B., & Choi, S. (2020). Task repetition, synchronous written corrective feedback and the learning of Korean grammar: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820912354
Kim, Youjin, & Choi, B. (2020). Comparing the effects of direct and indirect synchronous written corrective feedback : Learning outcomes and students ’ perceptions. January. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12443
Kim, Youjin, & Emeliyanova, L. (2019). The effects of written corrective feedback on the accuracy of L2 writing : Comparing collaborative and individual revision behavior. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819831406
Kim, Youjin, & Kim, B. (2020). Task repetition , synchronous written corrective feedback and the learning of Korean grammar : A classroom-based study. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820912354
Lee, I. (2020). Utility of focused/comprehensive written corrective feedback research for authentic L2 writing classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49(May), 100734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100734
Mei, W. S. (2001). Investigating Raters ’ Use of Analytic Descriptors in Assessing Writing. 9(2), 69–104.
Nicolás–Conesa, F., Manchón, R. M., & Cerezo, L. (2019). The Effect of Unfocused Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback on Rewritten Texts and New Texts: Looking into Feedback for Accuracy and Feedback for Acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 103(4), 848–873. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12592
Phillips, W. A., & Goodall, W. C. (2007). Lexical writing can be non- semantic and it can be fluent without practice. March 2015, 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643299508251994
Rouhi, A., & Azizian, E. (2013). Peer review: Is Giving Corrective Feedback Better than Receiving it in L2 Writing? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1349–1354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.042
Sarré, C., Grosbois, M., & Brudermann, C. (2019). Fostering accuracy in L2 writing: impact of different types of corrective feedback in an experimental blended learning EFL course. Computer Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1635164
SCHMIDT, R. W. (1990). The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning1. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x
Simard, D., Guénette, D., & Bergeron, A. (2015). L2 learners ’ interpretation and understanding of written corrective feedback : insights from their metalinguistic reflections. 8416(November). https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2015.1076432
STEFANOU, C., & RÉVÉSZ, A. (2015). Direct Written Corrective Feedback, Learner Differences, and the Acquisition of Second Language Article Use for Generic and Specific Plural Reference. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12212
Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 235–263. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990519
Zhang, X. (2015). Reading – writing integrated tasks , comprehensive corrective feedback , and EFL writing development. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815623291
Zhao, H. (2018). Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education Exploring tertiary English as a Foreign Language writing tutors ’ perceptions of the appropriateness of peer assessment for writing Exploring tertiary English as a Foreign Language writing tutors ’ perceptions of the appropriateness of peer assessment for writing. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2938, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1434610
Bae, J., & Lee, Y. (2011). Language Testing assessment of language skills. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210382446
Bitchener, J. (2012). Written Corrective Feedback for L2 Development: Current Knowledge and Future Research. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 855–860. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.62
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005a). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001
Chang, W., Liao, C., & Chan, T. (2019). Improving children ’ s textual cohesion and writing attitude in a game-based writing environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 0(0), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1671459
Chen, Y., Aguirre-mendez, C., Terada, T., Chen, Y., & Aguirre-mendez, C. (2020). Argumentative writing as a tool to develop conceptual and epistemic knowledge in a college chemistry course designed for non-science majors. International Journal of Science Education, 0(0), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1837990
DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). BEYOND EXPLICIT RULE LEARNING. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(2), 195–221. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263197002040
Ellis, N. C. (2011). Implicit and explicit SLA and their interface.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
Evans, N. W., James Hartshorn, K., & Strong-Krause, D. (2011). The efficacy of dynamic written corrective feedback for university-matriculated ESL learners. System, 39(2), 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.04.012
Ferris, D., Brown, J., Liu, H., Eugenia, M., & Stine, A. (2011). Responding to L2 students in college writing classes: Teacher perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 207–234. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.247706
Gao, C. Z., Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 372. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587964
Gharehbagh, M. J., Stapa, S. H., & Darus, S. (2019). The Effects of Written Corrective Feedback Using Wikis among ESL Learners. 25(1), 1–10.
Hardman, W., & Bell, H. (2018). ‘ More fronted adverbials than ever before ’. Writing feedback practices and grammatical metalanguage in an English primary school. Language and Education, 0(0), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2018.1488864
Hosseiny, M. (2014). The Role of Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback in Improving Iranian EFL Students’ Writing Skill. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 668–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.466
Hsu, H., & Yuan, C. (2018). Using wiki-mediated collaboration to foster L2 writing performance. 22(3), 103–123.
Jacobs, G. M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S. Y. (1998). Feedback on student writing: Taking the middle path. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90019-4
Kim, Y. J., Choi, B., Yun, H., Kim, B., & Choi, S. (2020). Task repetition, synchronous written corrective feedback and the learning of Korean grammar: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820912354
Kim, Youjin, & Choi, B. (2020). Comparing the effects of direct and indirect synchronous written corrective feedback : Learning outcomes and students ’ perceptions. January. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12443
Kim, Youjin, & Emeliyanova, L. (2019). The effects of written corrective feedback on the accuracy of L2 writing : Comparing collaborative and individual revision behavior. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819831406
Kim, Youjin, & Kim, B. (2020). Task repetition , synchronous written corrective feedback and the learning of Korean grammar : A classroom-based study. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820912354
Lee, I. (2020). Utility of focused/comprehensive written corrective feedback research for authentic L2 writing classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49(May), 100734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100734
Mei, W. S. (2001). Investigating Raters ’ Use of Analytic Descriptors in Assessing Writing. 9(2), 69–104.
Nicolás–Conesa, F., Manchón, R. M., & Cerezo, L. (2019). The Effect of Unfocused Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback on Rewritten Texts and New Texts: Looking into Feedback for Accuracy and Feedback for Acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 103(4), 848–873. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12592
Phillips, W. A., & Goodall, W. C. (2007). Lexical writing can be non- semantic and it can be fluent without practice. March 2015, 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643299508251994
Rouhi, A., & Azizian, E. (2013). Peer review: Is Giving Corrective Feedback Better than Receiving it in L2 Writing? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1349–1354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.042
Sarré, C., Grosbois, M., & Brudermann, C. (2019). Fostering accuracy in L2 writing: impact of different types of corrective feedback in an experimental blended learning EFL course. Computer Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1635164
SCHMIDT, R. W. (1990). The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning1. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x
Simard, D., Guénette, D., & Bergeron, A. (2015). L2 learners ’ interpretation and understanding of written corrective feedback : insights from their metalinguistic reflections. 8416(November). https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2015.1076432
STEFANOU, C., & RÉVÉSZ, A. (2015). Direct Written Corrective Feedback, Learner Differences, and the Acquisition of Second Language Article Use for Generic and Specific Plural Reference. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12212
Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 235–263. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990519
Zhang, X. (2015). Reading – writing integrated tasks , comprehensive corrective feedback , and EFL writing development. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815623291
Zhao, H. (2018). Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education Exploring tertiary English as a Foreign Language writing tutors ’ perceptions of the appropriateness of peer assessment for writing Exploring tertiary English as a Foreign Language writing tutors ’ perceptions of the appropriateness of peer assessment for writing. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2938, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1434610
Downloads
Published
2024-02-02
How to Cite
Masrul, & Wicaksono, B. H. (2024). Exploring Students’ Writing Performance through Corrective Feedback. SELL (Scope of English Language Teaching, Linguistics, and Literature) Journal, 9(1), 29–64. https://doi.org/10.31597/sl.v9i1.1011
Issue
Section
Articles
License
1. Copyright of this journal is possession of Editorial Board and Journal Manager, by the knowledge of author, whilst the moral right of the publication belongs to the author.
2. Legal formal aspect of journal publication accessibility refers to Creative Commons Atribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA), implies that this license lets others remix, adapt, and build upon your work even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. This license is often compared to “copyleft” free and open source software licenses.
3. Every publications (printed/electronic) are open access for educational purposes, research, and library. Other that the aims mentioned above, editorial board is not responsible for copyright violation
