Contextualizing corrective feedback in scientific writing through online learning platforms

Erikson Saragih, T Thyrhaya Zein, Desri Maria Sumbayak

Abstract


Providing corrective feedback by teachers is one of the most crucial and central activities to improve the quality of student scientific writing. Although there has been much previous research on corrective feedback, few focused on lecturers' viewpoints, techniques, and assessments to guide students to write scientific papers. The objectives of this study are to describe lecturers' perceptions, practices, and self-evaluation when providing written corrective feedback in the context of scientific writing in the field of English research at multiple Indonesian teacher education institutes. The researchers employed a qualitative descriptive research method with a survey design to meet research objectives. A total of 53 lecturers were selected as respondents using purposive sampling criteria. This study used a survey questionnaire with ten questions of three categories (perception, activity, and evaluations) which were distributed to the research participants. The results of this study revealed that teachers prefer written corrective feedback, use various media and applications, emphasize the content of writing in providing feedback, and feel confident in doing this activity, even though sometimes they do not have enough time and continue to try to improve the quality of feedback provision to their students in writing scientific works. The results of this study can contribute as a reflection to improve teacher performance in the implementation of corrective feedback, especially in an online learning platform.

Keywords


contextualizing; corrective feedback; online learning; scientific writing

Full Text:

PDF

References


Adedoyin, O. B., & Soykan, E. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(2), 863-875. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180

Atmaca, Ç. (2016). Contrasting perceptions of students and teachers: Written corrective feedback. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(2), 166-182.

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), 1455333. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1455333

Castelló, M., McAlpine, L., & Pyhältö, K. (2017). Spanish and UK post-PhD researchers: Writing perceptions, well-being, and productivity. Higher Education Research and Development, 36(6), 1108-1122. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1296412

Choi, I. C. (2016). Efficacy of an ICALL tutoring system and process-oriented corrective feedback. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(2), 334-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.960941

Chu, Y. (2017). Twenty years of social studies textbook content analysis: Still “decidedly disappointing”? The Social Studies, 108(6), 229-241. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2017.1360240

Clarke, P., Schull, D., Coleman, G., Pitt, R., & Manathunga, C. (2013). Enhancing professional writing skills of veterinary technology students: Linking assessment and clinical practice in a communications course. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(3), 273-287. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.630975

DeKeyser, R. (2020). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPattern, G. D. Keating, & S. Wulff (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 83-104). Routledge.

Druschke, C. G., Reynolds, N., Morton-Aiken, J., Lofgren, I. E., Karraker, N. E., & McWilliams, S. R. (2018). Better science through rhetoric: A new model and pilot program for training graduate student science writers. Technical Communication Quarterly, 27(2), 175-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2018.1425735

Erlam, R., Ellis, R., & Batstone, R. (2013). Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing: Two approaches compared. System, 41(2), 257-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.03.004

Ezra, O., Cohen, A., Bronshtein, A., Gabbay, H., & Baruth, O. (2021). Equity factors during the COVID ‑ 19 pandemic: Difficulties in emergency remote teaching (ert) through online learning. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 7657-7681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10632-x

Faturrochman, R. G., Darmawan, A. A., & Hadi, F. (2021). Teacher talks in scientific approach in EFL classroom: A speech acts perspective. SAGA: Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 35-46. https://doi.org/10.21460/saga.2020.21.66

Ha, X. V. (2022). Effects of a professional development program on teachers’ oral corrective feedback practices. System, 110, 102917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102917

Ha, X. V., Tan, L., & Phu, B. (2021). Oral corrective feedback in English as a foreign language classrooms: A teaching and learning perspective. Heliyon, 7(7), e07550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07550

Han, Y. (2019). Written corrective feedback from an ecological perspective: The interaction between the context and individual learners. System, 80(2), 288-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.009

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.002

Hyland, K. (2013). Faculty feedback: Perceptions and practices in L2 disciplinary writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 240-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.003

Ion, G., Barrera-Corominas, A., & Tomàs-Folch, M. (2016). Written peer feedback to enhance students’ current and future learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13, Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0017-y

Irawan, E., & Salija, K. (2017). Teachers’ oral feedback in EFL classroom interaction: A descriptive study of senior high school in Indonesia. ELT Worldwide: Journal of English Language Teaching, 4(2), 138-152. https://doi.org/10.26858/eltww.v4i2.4496

Iswandari, D. C., Prayogo, J. A., & Cahyono, B. Y. (2017). Effect of environmental problem-based learning on the Indonesian EFL students’ environment-related vocabulary mastery and writing ability. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(8), 608-616. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0708.02

Jones, T. A., Vidal, G., & Taylor, C. (2020). Interprofessional education during the COVID-19 pandemic: Finding the good in a bad situation. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 34(5), 633-646. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2020.1801614

Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12189

Kang, E. Y. (2020). Using model texts as a form of feedback in L2 writing. System, 89, 102196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102196

Khalili, H. (2020). Online interprofessional education during and post the COVID-19 pandemic: A commentary abstract. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 34(5), 687-690. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2020.1792424

Kleinbort, T. A., Duffy, L. N., Powell, G. M., Fogle, E. L., Kakraba, K., Olsen, L., Stephens, L., Kleinbort, T. A., Duffy, L. N., Powell, G. M., Fogle, E. L., Kakraba, K., Olsen, L., & Stephens, L. (2020). Writing in the discipline: A writing mentorship program to enhance student writing skills in the leisure field. SCHOLES: A Journal of Leisure Studies and Recreation Education, 35(1), 46-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/1937156X.2020.1720467

Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 120-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092

Kuswandono, P. (2014). University mentors’ views on reflective practice in microteaching: Building trust and genuine feedback. Reflective Practice, 15(6), 701-717. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2014.944127

Lee, I. (2014). Research into practice: Written corrective feedback. Language Teaching Research, 46(1), 108-119. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000390

Lee, I., Luo, N., & Mak, P. (2021). Teachers’ attempts at focused written corrective feedback in situ. Journal of Second Language Writing, 54, 100809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100809

Li, J., Link, S., & Hegelheimer, V. (2015). Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback in ESL writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.10.004

Lim, S. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2020). Efficacy of written corrective feedback in writing instruction: A meta-analysis. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 24(3), 1-26.

Lin, V., Liu, G. Z., & Chen, N. S. (2022). The effects of an augmented-reality ubiquitous writing application: A comparative pilot project for enhancing EFL writing instruction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(5–6), 989-1030. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1770291

Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.011

Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365

Mao, Z., & Lee, I. (2020). Feedback scope in written corrective feedback: Analysis of empirical research in L2 contexts. Assessing Writing, 45, 100469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100469

Novawan, A., & Aisyiyah, S. (2020). The Role of leadership in education for sustainable development curriculum reform in Indonesian higher education. In E. Sengupta, P. Blessinger, & T. S. Yamin (Eds.), Introduction to sustainable development leadership and strategies in higher education (pp. 145-159). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2055-364120200000022014

Nurkamto, J. (2018). Oral corrective feedback: Exploring the relationship between teacher’s strategy and students’ willingness to communicate. Studies in English Language and Education, 5(2), 240-252. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v5i2.11532

Odena, O., & Burgess, H. (2017). How doctoral students and graduates describe facilitating experiences and strategies for their thesis writing learning process: A qualitative approach. Studies in Higher Education, 42(3), 572-590. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1063598

Ozdemir, E., & Papi, M. (2021). Mindsets as sources of L2 speaking anxiety and self-confidence: The case of international teaching assistants in the U.S. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 16(3), 234-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2021.1907750

Plonsky, L., & Brown, D. (2015). Domain definition and search techniques in meta-analyses of L2 research (Or why 18 meta-analyses of feedback have different results). Second Language Research, 31(2), 267-278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658314536436

Pon-Barry, H., Packard, B. W. L., & St. John, A. (2017). Expanding capacity and promoting inclusion in introductory computer science: A focus on near-peer mentor preparation and code review. Computer Science Education, 27(1), 54-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2017.1333270

Prihandoko, L. A., Anggawirya, A. M., & Rahman, F. (2021). Students’ perceptions towards autonomous learners concept in academic writing classes: Sequential mixed-method. In J. Fahri, Jumadi, N. Nuswardani, A. H. Sirat, A. W. Hasyim, T. Suyanto, A. L. Lonto, L. Riwu, D. Tandyonomanu, & R. Soleman (Eds.), Proceedings of International Joined Conference on Social Science (ICSS 2021) (pp. 487-491). Atlantis Press.

Ranalli, J. (2018). Automated written corrective feedback: How well can students make use of it ? Do students make use of it ? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(7), 653-674. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1428994

Rosyada, A., & Sundari, H. (2021). Learning from the home environment: Academic writing course for EFL undergraduates through google classroom application. Studies in English Language and Education, 8(2), 710-725. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v8i2.18374

Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535-550. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903541015

Sarré, C., Grosbois, M., & Brudermann, C. (2019). Fostering accuracy in L2 writing: Impact of different types of corrective feedback in an experimental blended learning EFL course. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(5-6), 707-729. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1635164

Saud, M., Mashud, M., & Ida, R. (2020). Usage of social media during the pandemic: Seeking support and awareness about COVID-19 through social media platforms. Journal of Public Affairs, 20(4), e2417. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2417

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158 https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129

Shabani, K. (2016). Applications of Vygotsky’s sociocultural approach for teachers’ professional development. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1252177. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1252177

Shang, H. (2019). Exploring online peer feedback and automated corrective feedback on EFL writing performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(1), 4-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1629601

Simard, D., Guénette, D., & Bergeron, A. (2015). L2 learners’ interpretation and understanding of written corrective feedback: Insights from their metalinguistic reflections. Language Awareness, 24(3), 233-254. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2015.1076432

Spezi, V., Wakeling, S., Pinfield, S., Creaser, C., Fry, J., & Willett, P. (2017). Open-access mega-journals: The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review. Journal of Documentation, 73(2), 263-283. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2016-0082

Stefanou, C. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 263-279. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12212

Syahputra, B. P., & Saragih, E. (2021). EFL teachers’ attitudes toward e-learning platforms during the Covid-19 pandemic. Tadris: Jurnal Keguruan Dan Ilmu Tarbiyah, 6(2), 335-347. https://doi.org/10.24042/tadris.v6i2.9668

Tian, L., & Li, L. (2018). Chinese EFL learners’ perception of peer oral and written feedback as providers, receivers, and observers. Language Awareness, 27(4), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2018.1535602

Wei, W., & Cao, Y. (2020). Written corrective feedback strategies employed by university English lecturers: A teacher cognition perspective. SAGE Open, 10(3), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020934886

Wilkes, J., Godwin, J., & Gurney, L. J. (2015). Developing information literacy and academic writing skills through the collaborative design of an assessment task for first-year engineering students. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 46(3), 164-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2015.1062260

Wong, J. O. (2020). A pandemic in 2020, Zoom, and the arrival of the online educator. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 2, 82-99. https://doi.org/10.46451/ijts.2020.09.19

Yu, S., Jiang, L., & Zhou, N. (2020). Investigating what feedback practices contribute to students’ writing motivation and engagement in Chinese EFL context: A large scale study. Assessing Writing, 44(19), 100451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100451

Zhu, M., Liu, O. L., & Lee, H. S. (2020). The effect of automated feedback on revision behavior and learning gains in formative assessment of scientific argument writing. Computers and Education, 143, 103668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103668

Zhu, Y., & Wang, B. (2019). Investigating English language learners’ beliefs about oral corrective feedback at Chinese universities: a large-scale survey. Language Awareness, 28(2), 139-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2019.1620755




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v10i3.25867

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 0 times
PDF - 0 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Print ISSN: 2355-2794, Online ISSN: 2461-0275

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


View Journal Stats