.png)
.png)
The Use of Written Corrective Feedback in SMKN 6 Jakarta Students’ English Writings
Abstract
Students who live in a non-English-speaking country or EFL students often face difficulties in mastering English writing. The teachers need to fix it by giving written corrective feedback which would let the students know the linguistic errors they make in written production and improve from their errors. The aims of this research study are to find out what kind of error that EFL students usually make in English writing, the most common type(s) of WCF that teachers use, and the reason why teachers mostly use one type of WCF. This study was carried out by using Descriptive Analysis Qualitative Method since the results of this study were explained descriptively. The participants that were involved in this study are 20 students of tenth graders and 2 English teachers of SMKN 6 Jakarta. The instruments that were used in this study are Table Analysis (RQ1 & RQ2) and Interview (RQ3). In the end of the study, the results showed that Grammatical Error gained the highest number of errors found in the students’ assignments. The study also found that the English teachers frequently use Direct Correction to correct the students because it is easy, useful, and fast to use. It is suggested for the English teachers correct errors based on their contexts in the assignments and future researchers should also conduct cases about WCF which emphasizes the difference of writing errors that are produced by male and female students.
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Alhaysony, M. (2012). An analysis of article errors among Saudi female EFL students: case study. Asian Social Science, 8(12), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v8n12p55
Banaruee, H., Khatin-Zadeh, O., & Ruegg, R. (2018). Recasts vs. direct corrective feedback on writing performance of high school EFL learners. Cogent Education, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1455333
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. T. E. (2009). The Contribution of Written Corrective Feedback to Language Development: A Ten Month Investigation. May, 193–214. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp016
Dabboub, A. E. (2019). The effectiveness of comprehensive corrective feedback direct and indirect-on EFL learners’ language accuracy, structural complexity and lexical diversity. April. http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/38102/
Fengjie, L. (2016). Grammatical Mistakes in College English Writing: Problem Analysis, Reasons and Solutions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and Translation, 2(3), 20. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijalt.20160203.11
Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2019). Academic emotions in written corrective feedback situations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.12.003
Husna, A., & Multazim, A. (2019). Students’ Difficulties in Writing Recount Text At Inclusion Classes. LET: Linguistics, Literature and English Teaching Journal, 9(1), 52. https://doi.org/10.18592/let.v9i1.3077
Karim, K. (2013). The effects of direct and indirect written corrective feedback (CF) on English-as- a-second- language (ESL) students’ revision accuracy and writing skills.
Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2019). The effects of written corrective feedback: A critical synthesis of past and present research. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(1), 28–52.
Khider, A., & Othman, A. (2017). An investigation of the most common spelling errors in English writing committed by English-major male students. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(1), 1–6.
Kılıçkaya, F. (2022). Pre-service language teachers’ online written corrective feedback preferences and timing of feedback in computer-supported L2 grammar instruction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(1–2), 62–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1668811
Muhsin, M. A. (2016). Analyzing the students errors in using simple present (A case study at Junior High School in Makassar). Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(3), 81–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psrb.2016.09.006
Reynolds, B. L., & Kao, C. W. (2021). The effects of digital game-based instruction, teacher instruction, and direct focused written corrective feedback on the grammatical accuracy of English articles. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(4), 462–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1617747
Shahid Farooq, M., Uzair-Ul-Hassan, M., & Wahid, S. (2012). Opinion of Second Language Learners about Writing Difficulties in English Language. South Asian Studies A Research Journal of South Asian Studies, 27(1), 183–194.
Suharyanti, E. M., & Fauziati, E. (2020). Written Corrective Feedback on Efl Students at an Islamic Junior High School. JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics & Literature), 5(2), 161– 173. https://doi.org/10.33369/joall.v5i2.11207
Tanveer, A., Malghani, M., Khosa, D., & Khosa, M. (2018). Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback as a Tool to Reduce Learners’ Errors on L2 Writing. International Journal of English Linguistics, 8(5), 166. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v8n5p166
Watcharapunyawong, S., & Usaha, S. (2013). Thai EFL Students’ Writing Errors in Different Text Types: The Interference of the First Language. 6(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n1p67
Wicaksono, W. P. (2018). Types and Frequencies of Written Corrective Feedbacks in Adult ESL Classroom. Indonesian Journal of English Language Studies, 3(2), 17–24.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30870/jels.v7i2.16461
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2022 Journal of English Language Studies
Journal of English Language Studies is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright @ 2024 Journal of English Language Studies.
View My Stats