CONTEMPORARY PRACTICES OF INDIRECT WRITTEN FEEDBACK IN HIGH SCHOOL CONTEXT
Department of English Language, Postgraduate Studies, Indonesia University of Education
Indonesia
Computer Science Department, Faculty of Humanities, Bina Nusantara
Indonesia
Communication Science Program, Faculty of Communication Science, Universitas Gunadarma
Indonesia
Abstract
Indirect written feedback is crucial to be conducted since errors are unavoidable in the process of writing. However, many studies have been undertaken in university contexts. Thus, this qualitative case study was carried out to examine a teacher's indirect written feedback practices in senior high school context. The data were obtained from observations, document analysis, and semi-structured interviews through purposive sampling. The findings revealed that coded feedback was mainly used, supplemented by uncoded feedback and commentary. These imply that the coding system is effective in guiding the students to be problem solvers and independent writers. However, the teacher's inconsistency in giving codes emerged because of the use of a large number of codes. Thus, it is suggested to reduce the number of codes and provide sufficient activity to increase students' understanding of the codes. The results of the study are significant to help teachers adjust appropriate methods to teach writing. The results also give long-term benefits for the development of students' writing ability. For further research, it is important to analyze the effect of indirect written feedback strategies on the students' revisions as well as students' preferences on these strategies.
Keywords
References
Chen, W. (2018). The effects of corrective feedback strategies on English majors’ writing. English Language Teaching. English Language Teaching, 11(11), 55–64. http://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v11n11p55
Ciesielska, M., Bostrom, K. ., & Ohlander, M. (2018). Observation methods. Qualitative Methodologies in Organization Studies (Pp. 33-52). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65442-3_2
Coffin, C., Curry, M. J., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lilis, T. M., & Swann, J. (2003). Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education. Routledge.
Ene, E. (2016). Rubrics and corrective feedback in ESL writing: A longitudinal case study of an L2 writer. Assessing Writing, 30(4), 217–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.06.003
Erlingsson, C., & Brysiewicz, P. (2017). A hands-on guide to doing content analysis. African Journal of Emergency Medicine, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2017.08.001
Ferris, D. R. (2011a). Treatment of error in second language student writing. The University of Michigan.
Ferris, D. R. (2011b). Treatment of error in second language student writing. The University of Michigan.
Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S., Tade, C. R., & Tinti, S. (1997). Teacher commentary on student writing: Descriptions & implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 155–182. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90032-1
Haradhan, M. (2018). Qualitative research methodology in social sciences and related subjects. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/85654/
Irwin, B. (2018). Written corrective feedback: student preferences and teacher feedback practices. IAFOR Journal of Language Learning, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.22492/ijll.3.2.02
Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2016). Silabus Bahasa Inggris Kemdikbud. Retrieved from. https://www.academia.edu/37142125/Silabus_inggris_kemendikbud
Kim, V., & Kim, J. (2020). Roles of teacher feedback in promoting effective English-medium instruction of a business subject. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 17(3). https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2020.17.3.9.889
Maarof, N., Yamat, H., & Li. (2011). Role of teacher, peer, and teacher-peer feedback in enhancing ESL students’ writing. World Applied Sciences Journal, 15(29–35). https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.390.1221&rep=rep1&type=pdf%0A
O’Keeffe, J., Mijic, A., Brozovic, N., & Sinha, R. (2016). The use of semi-structured interviews for the characterisation of farmer irrigation practices. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 20(5). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-1911-2016
Park, J. (2018). Effectiveness of teacher and peer feedback: through the lens of Korean tertiary writing classroom. The Journal of Asia TEFL. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 15(2), 429–444. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2018.15.2.11.429
Rizkiani, S., Bhuana, G. P., & Rizqiya, R. . (2020). Coded vs uncoded corrective feedback in teaching writing descriptive text. Journal of English Language Teaching in Indonesia, 8(1), 55–66. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22460/eltin.v8i1.p%p
Santos, P. R. ., Araujo, L. F. S., & Bellato, R. (2016). The observation field on research. Escola Anna Nery, 20(3). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5935/1414-8145.20160055
Strirakarn, N. O. (2018). A comparison of teacher’s and senior students’ feedback: Student attitudes and their writing improvement. Journal of Asia TEFL, 15(2), 329–348. https://doi.org/http://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2018.15.2.1.329
Than, K. ., & Manochphinyo, A. (2017). Improving grammatical accuracy in Thai learners’ writing: comparing direct and indirect written corrective feedback. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 14(3), 430–442. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2017.14.3.4.430
Westmacott, A. (2017). Direct vs. indirect written corrective feedback: Student perceptions. Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 22(2), 17–32. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.v22n01a02
Wicaksono, W. . (2017). Types and frequencies of written corrective feedback in adult ESL classroom. Indonesian Journal of English Language Studies, 3(2), 60–67. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.24071/ijels.v3i2.1065.g846
