EFFECT OF GENDER AND THE TYPES OF WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON THE L2 LEARNERS’ WRITING PERFORMANCE
(1) English Department, IAIN Palangka Raya
(*) Corresponding Author
Abstract
The study is aimed at measuring the influence of the types of WCF on EFL students’ writing performance with involving gender factors. The research design was a pretest-posttest quasi experimental design. A pre-post writing test for both experiment and control groups was the main instrument. The participants of the study were 72 L2 learners at IAIN Palangka Raya of 2018/ 2019 academic years. During the learning process, the experimental group 1 was given treatment using Direct Corrective Feedback (DCF); the experimental group 2 was given treatment using Indirect Corrective Feedback (ICF); and the control group was not given treatment or received No Feedback (NF). The data were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA analysis. The analysis revealed that there was a statistically different effect for the types of WCF on the learners’ writing performance (F= 34.354, p= 0.000). Meanwhile, there were no differences between gender to the learners’ writing performance (F= 0.739; p=0.393 eta squared= 0.011). The interaction effect of gender and types of feedback also did not show significantly different among other groups F (2,66) =.1.120; p= 0.332; eta squared= 0.033).
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227–257.
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Research on Written CF in Language Classes. In Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition and Writing (pp. 49–74).
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191–205
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp016
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9
Elashri, I. (2013). The impact of the direct teacher feedback strategy on the EFL secondary stage students' writing performance. (Unpublished Ph.d. dissertation). Faculty of Education, Mansoura University, Egypt.
Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 28(2), 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, 353–371.
Ellis, R. 2009. Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal 1: 3-18.
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1–11.
Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. (2003). Treatment of Error in Second Language Writing Classes. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. (2004). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly 31(2), 315–339.
Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short-and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp.81–104). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing. 10(3), 161–184.
Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Guenette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.01.001
Hyland, K. and Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: contexts and issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Ko, K. & Hirvela, A. (2010).Perceptions of KFL/ESL Teachers in North America Regarding Feedback on College Student Writing. (Unpublished PhD. Dissertation). The Ohio State University, 3425442.
Lee, E. J. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System, 41, 217-230.
Moser, M & Jasmine, J. (2010).Using Peer Feedback with High School Students to Improve the Use of Analogies and Symbolism within Creative Writing. Unpublished, MA, Thesis, Caldwell College .1475259.
O'Malley, J.M., & Pierce, L.V. (1996). Authentic assessment for English language learner: Practical approach for teacher. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
O'Sullivan, I., & Chambers, A. (2006). Learners' writing skills in French Corpus consultation and learner evaluation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 49–68.
Sadeghi, K., Khonbi, Z. A., & Gheitaranzadeh, F. The Effect of Type of Corrective Feedback (Direct vs. Indirect) on Iranian Pre-Intermediate EFL Learners' Writing. Social and Behavioral Sciences 98 (2014), 445 – 452
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of Focused Written Corrective Feedback and Language Aptitude on ESL Learners’ Acquisition of Articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255-283.
Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. IJES, 10(2). Retrieved from www.um.es/ijes, 29–46.
Talatifard, S. (2016). The Effect of reactive focused corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ writing performance. Journal of Advances in English Language Teaching, 4 (3), pp.40-48
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292–305.
Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.05.002.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003
Truscott, J. (2009). Arguments and appearances: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.09.001
Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337–343.
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the Effectiveness of Comprehensive Error Correction in Second Language Writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x
Article Metrics
Abstract view : 610 timesPDF - 67 times
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2019 English Language and Literature International Conference (ELLiC) Proceedings
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Electronic ISSN: 2579-7263
CD-ROM ISSN: 2579-7549
Published by
FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE AND CULTURE
UNIVERSITAS MUHAMMADIYAH SEMARANG
Jl. Kedungmundu Raya No.18 Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia
Phone: +622476740295, email: [email protected]
