Integrating Online Written Corrective Feedback into EFL Article Writing: An Autobiographical Narrative Inquiry
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the EFL Pre-service teacher’s engagement in online written corrective feedback, especially in cognitive engagement. This study used autobiographical narrative inquiry methods and the participant is the researcher herself as a learner who joined the Article Writing course. The data are based on the researcher's diary and artifacts when receiving Written Corrective Feedback from the lecturer. This study to what extent the pre-service teacher understood Written Corrective Feedback and revised it. The findings of this study showed that the pre-service teacher was fairly engaged cognitively in Written Corrective Feedback. The participant had difficulties with some of the feedback. In order to understand and revise the feedback, the EFL pre-service teacher had several strategies. The EFL pre-service teacher did self-correction, discussed with other friends, looked for information related to the feedback, and clarified the feedback to the lecturer to get an explanation. Moreover, the pre-service teacher’s cognitive engagement based on the types of written corrective feedback positively impacted on her writing skills. This study had the implication that Written Corrective Feedback provides alternative solutions to improve the pre-service teacher writing result and develop writing skills.
Keywords
References
Ariyanti, A., & Fitriana, R. (2017, October). EFL students’ difficulties and needs in essay writing. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research. International Conference on Teacher Training and Education 2017 (ICTTE 2017), Surakarta, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.2991/ictte-17.2017.4
Barkhuizen, G., Benson, P., & Chik, A. (2014). Narrative inquiry in language teaching and learning research. Routledge. ISBN: 978-0-203-12499-4 (ebk)
Beuningen, C. G., de Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. Journal ITL-Review of Applied Linguistics. 156. 279-296
Bitchener, J., Young, S., Cameron, D. (2005) The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing. 191- 205. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.00
Ducken, D. (2014). Written corrective feedback in the l2 writing classroom. EWU Masters Thesis Collection. 221.
Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal. 63(2). 97–107. doi:10.1093/elt/ccn023
Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 32. 335–349
Fredricks, J. A. & McColskey W. (2012.) The measurement of student engagement: a comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. S.L. Christenson et al (eds). Springer Science Busniess Media.
Gilakjani,P, A. (2017). A review of the literature on the integration of technology into the learning and teaching of English language skills. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7(5), 95-106.
Ginting, S. A. (2019). Lexical formation error in the descriptive writing of Indonesian tertiary EFL learners. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature, and Translation. 2(1). 5. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijllt.2019.2.1.11
Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31–44.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(02), 83. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399
Jabulani, S. (2017). Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback on University
Students’ Writing. Journal of Social Sciences, 45:2, 84-95, DOI: 10.1080/09718923.2015.11893490
Kieu, V, L., Anh, D, T., Tran, P, D, B., Thanh Nga, V, T., Phi Ho, P. 2021.The Effectiveness of Using Technology in Learning English. AsiaCALL Online Journal,. 12 (2). 24-40.
Marbouti, F., Mendoza, J., Diefes, H., Cardella, M. (2019). Written feedback provided by first-year engineering students, undergraduate teaching assistants, and educators on design project work. European Journal of Engineering Education, Volume 44, Issue 1-2, p.179-195. DOI. 10.1080/03043797.2017.1340931
Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (2017). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning. New York/London. Routledge
Nunan, D. (2001). Second language teaching and learning. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Sabarun. (2019). Needs analysis on developing EFL paragraph writing materials at Kalimantan L2 learners. Canadian Center of Science and Education, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n1p186
Saragih, N, A., Madya, S., Siregar, R, A., Saragih, W. (2021). Written corrective feedback: students’ perception and preferences. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 8(2). 676-690.
Seiffedin, A. H., & El-Sakka, S. M. F. (2017). The Impact of Direct-indirect Corrective E-feedback on EFL Students’ Writing Accuracy. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(3), 166. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0703.02
Storch, N., G. Wigglesworth. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32. 303–334
Toba, R., Noor, W. N., & Sanu, L. O. (2019). The current issues of Indonesian EFL students’ writing skills: Ability, problem, and reason in writing comparison and contrast essay. Dinamika Ilmu, 19(1), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.21093/di.v19i1.1506
Tsao, J., Tseng, W., Hsiao, T., Wang, C., Gao, A, X. (2021). Toward a Motivation-Regulated Learner Engagement WCF Model of L2 Writing Performance. Original Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211023
Zhang, Z. (2017). Student engagement with computer-generated feedback: A case study. ELT Journal, 71, 317–328.
Zheng, Y., & Yu, S. (2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 37, 13–24.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
