The dynamic influence of interactive feedback on elevating EFL students’ writing skills

Masrul Masrul, Bayu Hendro Wicaksono, Sri Yuliani, Santi Erliana, Ummi Rasyidah

Abstract


This study investigates the effect of interactional feedback on students’ writing skills. One hundred participants enrolled in an intermediate EFL course at the State University of Malang, Indonesia, were recruited for this research. The quantitative method was employed for data analysis. The primary data analysis method used was the ANCOVA test, followed by the Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney tests. The results reveal that the dependent variables in the experimental group exhibited higher means compared to the control group. The ANCOVA test show that the dependent variables (writing length, accuracy, and effectiveness) were significantly affected by the addition of feedback (p = 0.000). However, no significant differences were found between the experimental and control groups regarding accuracy (p = 0.425) and writing length variables (p = 0.731). As a result, interactional feedback significantly impacted EFL students’ writing ability. This result highlights the need for thorough planning and preparation, including preparing ESL/EFL students through explicit instruction prior to peer review, to ensure that learners’ interactional feedback is useful. The findings suggest that EFL teachers should carefully select feedback styles that align with the intended purpose of providing feedback. For instance, more specific feedback options may prove more effective in assisting students in revising and improving their written assignments. Finally, this study provides valuable recommendations for further research in this field.

Keywords


EFL learner; interactional feedback; writing ability; writing assessment; writing performance

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abdollahifam, S. (2014). Investigating the effects of interactional feedback on EFL students’ writings. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 16-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.383

Arrad, G., Vinkler, Y., Aharonov, D., & Retzker, A. (2014). Increasing sensing resolution with error correction. Physical Review Letters, 112(15), 150801. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.150801

Benson, S., & Dekeyser, R. (2018). Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research, 23(6), 702-726. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818770921

Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on “the language learning potential” of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 348-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.006

Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832400

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002

Boggs, J. A. (2019). Effects of teacher-scaffolded and self-scaffolded corrective feedback compared to direct corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in English L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 46, 100671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100671

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications.

Crosthwaite, P. (2018). Does EAP writing instruction reduce L2 errors? Evidence from a longitudinal corpus of L2 EAP essays and reports. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 56(3), 315-343. https://doi.org/10.1515/IRAL-2016-0129

Dabbagh, A. (2017). The effect of dialogue journal writing on EFL learners’ descriptive writing performance: A quantitative study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 6(3), 71-80. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.3p.71

Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107. https://doi.org/10.1093/ELT/CCN023

Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2016). Supporting second language writing using multimodal feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 58-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/FLAN.12183

Ferris, D. R. (2014). Responding to student writing: Teachers’ philosophies and practices. Assessing Writing, 19, 6-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.09.004

Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009

Grindle, C. F., Cianfaglione, R., Corbel, L., Wormald, E. V, Brown, F. J., Hastings, R. P., & Carl Hughes, J. (2017). Teaching handwriting skills to children with intellectual disabilities using an adapted handwriting programme. Support for Learning, 32(4), 313-336. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12178

Hardman, W., & Bell, H. (2018). ‘More fronted adverbials than ever before’. Writing feedback practices and grammatical metalanguage in an English primary school. Language and Education, 33(1), 33-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2018.1488864

Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 263-285). Routledge.

Hosseiny, M. (2014). The role of direct and indirect written corrective feedback in improving Iranian EFL students’ writing skill. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 668-674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.466

Hua, Z., Seedhouse, P., Wei, L., & Cook, V. (Eds.). (2007). Language learning and teaching as social inter-action. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230591240

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2017). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524742

Jamalinesari, A., Rahimi, F., Gowhary, H., & Azizifar, A. (2015). The effects of teacher-written direct vs. indirect feedback on students' writing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 116-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.018

Kaivanpanah, S., Alavi, S. M., & Sepehrinia, S. (2015). Preferences for interactional feedback: differences between learners and teachers. Language Learning Journal, 43(1), 74-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2012.705571

Kapur, R. (2019). Constructivism in teaching-learning process. University of Delhi.

Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 144-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.12.001

Mao, S. S., & Crosthwaite, P. (2019). Investigating written corrective feedback: (Mis)alignment of teachers’ beliefs and practice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 46-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.05.004

McGroarty, M. E., & Zhu, W. (2017). Triangulation in classroom research: A study of peer revision. Language Learning, 47(1), 1-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.11997001

Mehrpour, S., & Agheshteh, H. (2017). Supervisory feedback efficiency: Developing a framework based on Iranian EFL teachers’ and supervisors’ perceptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 6(3), 24-33. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.3p.24

Miller, T. M., & Geraci, L. (2011). Training metacognition in the classroom: The influence of incentives and feedback on exam predictions. Metacognition and Learning, 6(3), 303-314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9083-7

Min, H.-T. (2015). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2), 293-308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003

Nassaji, H. (2015). The interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning: Linking theory, research, and practice. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Nassaji, H. (2020). Assessing the effectiveness of interactional feedback for L2 acquisition: Issues and challenges. Language Teaching, 53(1), 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000375

Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (Eds.). (2017). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315621432

Nava, A., & Pedrazzini, L. (2018). Second language acquisition in action: Principles from practice. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Polio, C., & Park, J.-H. (2016). Language development in second language writing. In R. M. Manchón & P. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 287-306). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511335-016

Poorebrahim, F. (2017). Indirect written corrective feedback, revision, and learning. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 184-192. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v6i2.4843

Ravand, H., & Rasekh, A. E. (2011). Feedback in ESL writing: Toward an interactional approach. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(5), 1136-1145. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.2.5.1136-1145

Saeed, M. A., Ghazali, K., & Aljaberi, M. A. (2018). A review of previous studies on ESL/EFL learners’ interactional feedback exchanges in face-to-face and computer-assisted peer review of writing. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15, Article 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0084-8

Sarré, C., Grosbois, M., & Brudermann, C. (2021). 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

Scott, R. B., & Dienes, Z. (2010). Knowledge applied to new domains: The unconscious succeeds where the conscious fails. Consciousness and Cognition, 19(1), 391-398.

Seedhouse, P. (2007). Interaction and constructs. In Z. Hua, P. Seedhouse, L. Wei, & V. Cook (Eds.), Language learning and teaching as social inter-action (pp. 9-21). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230591240_2

Siyoto, S., & Sodik, M. A. (2015). Dasar metodologi penelitian [Fundamentals of research methodology]. Literasi Media Publishing.

Stanley, J. (2012). Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 217-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(92)90004-9

Thorne, B. (2002). Widening the conceptual scope: Gender and interaction. In B. Bettina & H. Kotthoff (Eds.), Gender in Interaction: Perspectives on femininity and masculinity in ethnography and discourse (pp. 3-18). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/PBNS.93.03THO

Thurlings, M., Vermeulen, M., Bastiaens, T., & Stijnen, S. (2013). Understanding feedback: A learning theory perspective. Educational Research Review, 9, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.11.004

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

van Ruler, B. (2018). Communication theory: An underrated pillar on which strategic communication rests. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(4), 367-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2018.1452240

Warsidi, W. (2017). The effect of texts-based interactional feedback (TIF) on the students’ EFL writing. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, 2(3), 245-258. https://doi.org/10.21462/jeltl.v2i3.82

Wiliam, D. (2018). Feedback: At the heart of—but definitely not all of—formative assessment. In A. Lipnevic & J. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback (pp. 3-28). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316832134.003

Wrench, J. S., Punyanunt-Carter, N. M., & Thweatt, K. S. (2023). Interpersonal communication: A mindful approach to relationships. LibreTexts.

Zarifi, A. (2017). Iranian EFL learners’ reaction to teacher’s written corrective feedback. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 6(3), 254-261. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.3p.254

Zhu, W. (2015). Effects of training for peer response on students’ comments and interaction. Written Communication, 12(4), 492-528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088395012004004




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v11i1.30836

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