The Effect of Different Feedback on Writing Quality of College Students with Different Cognitive Styles

Wahyuni, Sri

doi:10.21093/di.v17i1.649

Cited by 15 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Ferris (Ferris, 1999), however, keeps arguing that there have been a lot of research findings which show that error corrections can and do help. Though the debate on its effectiveness is still going on until these days, the results remain inconclusive (Alimohammadi & Nejadansari, 2014;Bitchener & Knoch, 2009;Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005;Diab, 2005;Hyland, 1998;Hyland & Hyland, 2006a;Jusa & Kuang, 2016;Karim & Nassaji, 2015;Maharani, 2017;Storch, 2010;Vyatkina, 2011;Wahyuni, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corrective Feedbacks and Grammar Teaching in a Situated Teaching Context of Process-Based Writing

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was aimed at finding out 1) how learners in a specific teaching-learning context namely process-based academic essay writing perceived the importance of corrective feedbacks (CF); 2) what CF was expected the most; 3) in what way learners preferred to have their CF provided; and 4) how learners perceived the importance of grammar teaching. It was conducted at English Literature Department of a university in Central Java Indonesia. Forty two students who were taking Essay Writing course served as the subjects for the study. The course itself was delivered in a process-based writing in which content development and rhetoric were given more emphasis than grammar accuracy was. Data for the study were collected by questionnaire and a semi-structured interview with 5 guided questions. The findings suggest that learners still considered CFs as highly important and useful for their writing improvement. Learners expected to have comprehensive CFs of grammar, vocabulary, spelling, organization and punctuation, and CF on grammar was the most preferred one. In terms of CF provision technique, underlying and making notes were the most preferred techniques. Finally, this study concludes that the shift of approach from a product-based to a process-based did not significantly change learners’ focus from forms to content.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corrective Feedbacks and Grammar Teaching in a Situated Teaching Context of Process-Based Writing

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, the importance of giving feedback on students writing is equal to the importance of doing revisions and/or editing in the writing process. Feedback given is as a source of information about the students' strengths and weaknesses on their writing improvement (Wahyuni, 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Ability of Indonesian EFL Learners in Writing Academic Papers

Husin

Nurbayani

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study is meant to examine the thesis quality of students of English Department at IAIN Samarinda. Through the descriptive-quantitative research, the thesis quality of students of English Department at IAIN Samarinda is reviewed from the aspects of language, structure, concepts understanding, theoretical framework, methodology, content, writing mechanism, and references used. This study also tries to figure out any factors that affect the thesis quality of English Department students. Fourteen English Department Students' thesis tested in 2013 are used as the main data. In addition, other data are obtained from respondents i.e. 19 students, and informants i.e. lecturers of English Department who are also their thesis advisors. The result shows that the average score of thesis written by 14 English Department students at IAIN Samarinda academic year of 2013 is 3.16 which is in the range of 2.61-3.40 scale, which is quite good quality. This quality is relevant with the informants' perceptions about the quality of thesis written by their students. Judging from some aspects, they assume that their students are able to write a good quality of thesis with an average score of 2.81 which is at a scale of 2.61-3.40. The quality is affected by internal factors and external factors. The most decisive internal factor is the respondents' low score of writing with appropriate and acceptable structure in English. This is the effect of respondents' lack of ability of composing adequate paragraphs in English. Meanwhile, the most concerning external factor is the quality of learning structure course and the professionalism of the informants in guiding the students to improve their writing ability in thesis writing.

show abstract

“…Short-term effects are related to improvement from one draft to another whereas long-term effects refer to improved performance in new tasks (Ferris, 2006). Another study conducted by Wahyuni (2017) concluded that WCF did not have a significant impact on the grammatical accuracy of written productions of low-proficiency learners; however, the author recognized that the study had limitations like confusion when interpreting feedback and student's proficiency level, lack of time to solve students' doubts, and teacher's inexperience for teaching writing. Lastly, the main opponent of WCF, Truscott (1996), advocated for the inefficacy of WCF and determined that it is harmful for students as it may produce students' demotivation to keep writing as they would avoid making errors.…”

Section: Written Corrective Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ferris (2010) calls for WCF as the means to make errors stand out for students in order to amend them; hence, avoiding error fossilization and allowing development of linguistic competence (Ferris, 2004). In fact, research evidence (Ferris, 2006;Hosseiny, 2014;Farshi & Safa, 2015;Atmaca, 2016;Westmacott, 2017;Nematzadeh & Siahpoosh, 2017;Wahyuni, 2017) shows that WCF has been used in its different strategies by teachers to correct written errors and help learners polish their writing skill. Despite the existence of studies presenting a positive impact by WCF, there are still opponents to error correction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Direct Focused Feedback and No Feedback on Run-on Sentences, Sentence Fragments, and Noun-pronoun Agreement Errors of EFL Tertiary Students

2021

JEP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This quasi-experimental study set out to explore the effects of direct focused feedback and no feedback on runon sentences, sentence fragments, and noun-pronoun agreement errors in A2 writing tasks of EFL students at Universidad de Cuenca, Ecuador. The study comprised 39 participants divided into a treatment (n=20) and control group (n=19). The feedback strategies were applied on 6 different tasks, and the first and last task were used as the pre-and posttest, respectively. After tallying the number of errors in the pre-and posttest, a statistical analysis was run. The results indicated that direct focused feedback, unlike the control group, produced significant changes in terms of run-on sentences and sentence fragments.

show abstract

The Effect of Different Feedback on Writing Quality of College Students with Different Cognitive Styles

Cited by 15 publications

References 21 publications

Corrective Feedbacks and Grammar Teaching in a Situated Teaching Context of Process-Based Writing

Corrective Feedbacks and Grammar Teaching in a Situated Teaching Context of Process-Based Writing

The Ability of Indonesian EFL Learners in Writing Academic Papers

Effects of Direct Focused Feedback and No Feedback on Run-on Sentences, Sentence Fragments, and Noun-pronoun Agreement Errors of EFL Tertiary Students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About