Teacher Corrective Feedback VS Cambridge English Write and Improve (CEWI) in Improving EFL Students’ Writing Performance
Abstract
This study aimed to explore the students’ preference toward teacher’s feedback with different proficiency levels, to describe the most students’ preference in receiving feedback between teacher written feedback and CEWI at different proficiency levels and to figure out the strengths and weaknesses between teacher corrective feedback and CEWI. A qualitative design was chosen to conduct the study. 16 students from department of English education at STKIP Muhammadiyah Aceh Barat Daya in Aceh, Indonesia, were involved in this study. The participants were assigned into two different groups; high proficient students and risk proficient students after receiving the treatments. Students’ essays and semi-structured interviewed were used to collect the data. Data from the interview were coded and classified in a word processor by using NVivo 12 to get the conclusion. The findings showed that (1) all of them had a positive attitude toward the feedbacks because it helped them to improve their writing performance, (2) No matter high proficient students or risk proficient students assumed that most of them preferred teacher corrective feedback to Cambridge English Write and Improve (CEWI). Also, more than 10 students preferred to receive indirect feedback to direct feedback. In addition, teacher corrective feedback could check both global and local errors made by students meanwhile CEWI only focused on the local errors and (3) The strength of teacher corrective feedback was able to ask for the clarification directly and it provided the suggestions for both errors. While, CEWI provided the valuable feedback instantly in their writing. On the other hand, the weakness of teacher corrective feedback was spending a lot of time, while CEWI was only focused on local error and was not able to discuss. In conclusion, a teacher must be able in choosing and providing the appropriate feedback to students. A lot of things must be taken as his or her consideration so the feedback might assist and functional to students’ writing skill. In addition, both of feedback could give students benefit but a teacher’s role is the most important aspect needed by students to help them improving their writing.
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Ahmadi, D., Maftoon, P., & Mehdrad, A. G. (2012). Investigating the effects of two types of feedback on EFL students’ writing. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 46, 2590-2595.
Chen, S., Nassaji, H., & Liu, Q. (2016). EFL learners; perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback: a case study of university students from Mainland China. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1(5), 1-17.
Cheng, G. (2017). The impact of online automated feedback on students’ reflective Journal writing in an EFL course. The Internet and Higher Education, 34, 18-27.
Farrokhi, F., & Sattapour, S. (2011). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy of Iranian EFL learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(12), 1797-1803.
Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Guénette, D., & Lyster, R. (2013). Written corrective feedback and its challenges for pre-service ESL teachers. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69(2), 129-152.
Krashen, S.D. (1987). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. UK: Prentice Hall
Luo, S. (2016). Implementing scaffolded peer evaluation in MOOC: A Case with EFL writing tasks. Computer-Assisted Foreign Language Education, 172, 42-47.
Luo, Y., & Liu, Y. (2017). Comparison between peer feedback and automated feedback in college English writing: A case study. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 7(4),197-215.
Seifried, J., & Wuttke, E. (2010). Students errors: how teachers diagnose and respond to them. Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training, 2(2), 147-162.
Toro, M. F., & Hurd, S. (2014). A model of factors affecting independent learners’ engagement with feedback on language learning tasks. Distance education, 35(1), 106-125.
Tursina, P., & Chuang, M. T. (2016). Direct and indirect corrective feedback on EFL students’ writing performance. Proceedings of the 1st English Education International Conference (EEIC) in conjunction with the 2nd Reciprocal Graduate Research Symposium (RGRS) of the Consortium of Asia-Pacific Education Universities (CAPEU) between Sultan Idris Education University and Syiah Kuala University, 209-214.
Tursina, P., Chuang, M. T., Susanty, H., Silmawati, S., & Effendi, Z. (2019). EFL students’ preference in receiving written corrective feedback. Indonesian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 2(2), 23-32.
Van, B. C., 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.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. London Harvard University Press.
Wei, M. (2015). An empirical study into effects of feedback on college English writing. Journal of Tianjin Foreign Studies University, 22, 43-50.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Westmacott, A. (2017). Direct vs. indirect written corrective feedback: Student perceptions. Ikala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 22(1), 1-20.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.32672/elaste.v2i1.3337
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
The Journal has been Indexed by :
BARCODE E-ISSN
Copyright © English LAnguage Study and TEaching Journal (ELASTE) . English Education Departement, Faculity of Teacher Training and Education, University of Serambi Mekkah, Banda Aceh
