Effects of Corrective Feedback on Students’ Linguistic Errors

Nirwana AR

Abstract


The research aimed at finding out (i) Whether corrective feedback could minimize students’ linguistic error; (ii) Which type of corrective feedback had more permanent effect on students’ writing accuracy. The research applied single-subject experiment design. Data analysis in single-subject research typically was based on visual inspection and analysis of graphic presentation. The step are writing test, ratio, scoring and compare. In this study, six treatment groups and no control group were used. All treatment groups received in different types of CF on their writing tests. Treatment 1 (T1) received Direct CF, treatment 2 (T2) received indirect CF, treatment 3 (T3) received metalinguistic CF, treatment 4 (T4) received reformulation CF, treatment 5 (T5) received focused CF, Treatment 6 (T6) received unfocused CF. The findings indicated that (i) CF could minimize students’ linguistic errors except focused CF on vocabulary; (ii) Based the result of the data analysis using analytic rating scale and composite rating scale showed that direct CF had the most effective in minimizing students’ linguistic error in vocabulary, language use and mechanics than the other types of CF, so direct CF could be categorized having more permanent effect on students’ writing accuracy.

Keywords


Linguistic Error; Writing Accuracy; Corrective Feedback.

Full Text:

Download [PDF]

References


Arikunto. (2010). Metodelogi Penelitian. Pendekatan Penelitian, 61–84.

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004

Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Book Reviews. RELC Journal, 44(1), 121–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688212473292

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002

Boggs, J. A. (2018). Book review. System, 72, 251–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.12.014

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

Henning, G. (1990). Writing English language test. Heaton, J. B. London and New York: Longman, 1988, 192 pp., £6.50 (Longman Handbooks for Language Teachers). In System (Vol. 18, Issue 1, pp. 114–115). https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(90)90037-6

Politzer, R. L., & Ramirez, A. G. (1981). Linguistic and communicative competence of students in a spanish/english bilingual high school program. NABE Journal, 5(3), 81–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/08855072.1981.10668411

Zhan, L. (2016). Written Teacher Feedback: Student Perceptions, Teacher Perceptions, and Actual Teacher Performance. English Language Teaching, 9(8), 73. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n8p73




DOI: https://doi.org/10.31764/ijeca.v1i2.2147

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2018 IJECA (International Journal of Education and Curriculum Application)

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

IJECA (International Journal of Education and Curriculum Application) already indexed:

            

___________________________________________________________________

  
   https://doi.org/10.31764/ijeca.

   Creative Commons License
   IJECA (International Journal of Education and Curriculum Application)
   is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

 View IJECA Stats

____________________________________________________________________

 IJECA Publisher Office: