THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN EFL WRITING PERFORMANCE

Aridah Aridah

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN EFL WRITING PERFORMANCE

Aridah Aridah

Abstract

A long debate among scholars about the effect of feedback on students writing has never come to the end. Since Truscott (1996) claimed that error correction is not useful and even harmful, some researchers then come up with their findings in reaction to this claim (Hyland, 1998; Ferris, 2006; Ellis, et.al.. 2008; Sheen, 2010). They proved that feedback provision on students’ writing is still required because it is able to improve students’ writing. However, it is still a question, what type of feedback is most effective to improve students’ writing? This study aims to find out the effectiveness of direct and indirect feedback in EFL writing performance. Sixty-three students participated in this study, divided into three groups: 2 experimental groups and one control group. They were required to write five essays with different topics. Then, their papers were provided with different feedback: direct and indirect feedback for the experimental groups and peer feedback for the control group. When their papers were returned, the students were required to rewrite and revise their papers based on the corrections given by the teacher. The final versions of the papers were assessed in terms of content, organization, vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics to find out how effective one particular type of feedback improve the students’ writing performance. The findings revealed that the three types of feedback were able to improve the students’ writing performance.

Keywords

direct feedback, indirect feedback, writing performance

Full Text:

PDF

References

Aridah. (2003). The role of feedback in the teaching andlearning of writing. CELT, 3 (2), pp.105- 114.

Baleghizadeh, S., &Dadashi, M. (2012). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on students’ spelling errors. ProfileVol. 13, No. 1, pp.129-137.

Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge.

Chang, N., Watson, A. B., Bakerson , M.A., William, E.E., McGoron, F.X., and Spitzer, B. (2012) Electronic feedback or handwritten feedback: What do undergraduate students prefer and why? Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 1 (1), pp.1 – 23.

Clark, I.L. (2003). Concepts in composition: Theory and practice in the teaching of writing. London:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ellis, R. (2009). Typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal Volume 63(2), pp. 97-107.

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 pp. 353–371.

Fathman, A.K & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to students writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.) Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp.178-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, pp 181-2001.

Ferris, D. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing (2nd Ed,). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Ferris, D. and Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes : How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184.

Ferris, D.( 2006). Does error feedback help student writers?: New evidence on short- and long-term effects of written error correction’ in K. Hyland and F. Hyland (eds.). Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge: University Press.

Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. (2005). Teaching ESL Composition. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F (2006) Interpersonal aspects of response: Constructing and interpreting teacher written feedback in Ken Hyland &Fiona Hyland (eds.) Feedback in Second Language Writing. Cambridge: CUP.

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

Hyland, K. (2009). Teaching and researching writing, England: Pearson Education

Jacobs, H.L., Zingraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfield, V. F., and Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL compositions: a practical approach. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House

Kepner, C. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75, pp.305-313.

Knapp, P., & Watkins, M. (2005). Genre, text, grammar: Technologies for teaching and assessing writing. Sidney: University of New South Wales Press.

Laerd Statistics (2015). One-way repeated measures ANOVA using SPSS Statistics. Statistical tutorials and software guides. Retrieved from https://statistics.laerd.com

Lalande , J. F. , II . ( 1982 ). Reducing composition errors: An experiment . Modern Language Journal , 66 , 140 – 149 .

Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly , 20, pp. 83-93.

Ryan, L. (2013). Giving feedback on student writing in the sciences: Making it work. Sidney: University of Sydney, 2013.

Semke, H.D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, pp.195-202.

Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,32, pp. 203– 234.

Truscott; J. (1996). Review article: The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46,2, pp. 327-369.

Weigle, S. C., (2009). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frantzen, D. (1995). The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course. The Modern Language Journal 79(3), 329-344.