Students’ Preferences on the Lecturers’ Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) on Their Writing Tasks: A Study at the English Language Education Study Program (ELESP), Faculty of Education, Universitas Jambi

Adrefiza Adrefiza(1), Habizar Habizar(2*)

(1) Universitas Jambi
(2) Universitas Jambi
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


This study analyzes students’ preferences on the lecturer’s written corrective feedback (WCF) on their writing tasks. It looks at how the students want WCF to be written, delivered, and focused on to fulfill the students’ expectations. It also analyzes the students’ preferences on the use of English or Bahasa Indonesia in the WCF to accommodate their learning needs and styles. Through an internet survey delivered to 100 students’ emails, using 5 levels of Likert scales on preferences range, the results show that the students’ preferences varied in terms of types, focuses, and ways the WCF are provided and delivered. It is an evident that many students want the lecturers to provide the correct forms of the errors, to mark and to underline the errors with corrections, and to provide explanations for every single error in their writing tasks. A significant number of the students have a low preference for the use of indirect feedback through cues and prompts. Another interesting result is the fact that many students prefer WCF to be written in Bahasa Indonesia rather than in English. It is recommended that the lecturers flexibly provide WCF according to students’ preferences and expectations to increase their writing skills.

 


Keywords


Written corrective feedback (WCF); Autonomous learning; Writing; Preferences

Full Text:

PDF

References


Adrefiza & Fortunasari. (2020). Written corrective feedback on students’ thesis writing: an analysis student-supervisory interactions. Journal of English Language Teaching Innovations and Materials (JELTIM), 2(1), 14-24.

Adrefiza, Hidayat, & Fortunasari. (2021). Students’ voices on lecturers’ written corrective feedback in their writing tasks. IJEE, 8(1), 18-30.

Bitchener, J., & Knock, U. (2009). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research Journal, 12, 409-431.

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written orrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102–118.

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.

Corpuz, V. A. F. (2011). Error Correction in Second Language Writing: Teacher’s Beliefs, Practices, and Students’ Preferences (Master’s thesis). Queensland University of Technology.

Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

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

Irwin, B. (2017). Written corrective feedback: student preferences and teacher feedback practices. IAFOR Journal of Language Learning, 3(2), 35-58.

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

Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writingclasses. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203–218.

Nanni, A., & Black, D. A. (2017). Student and teacher preferences on written corrective feedback. The Journal of ASIA TEFL, 14(3), 540-547.

Sakrak-Ekin, G., & Balcikanli, C. (2019). Does autonomy really matter in language learning?. Journal of Language and Education, 5(4), 98-111.

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, Mahwah, NJ/London: Lawrence Erlbaum.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30998/scope.v7i2.14764

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2023 habizar habizar, Adrefiza Adrefiza

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

scope isjd

Portal Garuda Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Web
Analytics
View My Stats

Flag Counter