Modified Peer Written Corrective Feedback on Dialogue Drafting of Twelfth Graders: Focusing on Linguistic Features

Authors

  • Lasti'ah Lasti'ah SMK Negeri 1 Jombang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26740/nld.v2n2.p60-69

Abstract

Writing skill is regarded as troublesome for students, leading to errors occurring in the students’ writing. Thus, this paper aims to explore the linguistic feature errors in students' writing and how those errors can be minimized by modified peer-written corrective feedback. This study employed a qualitative method with Classroom Action Research (CAR) design through content analysis. The data was collected from vocational high school students’ composition of the dialogue draft on the ‘offering help’ theme. The results reveal that apart from their level of proficiency, students make errors more on linguistic features in their first phase than in their second phase. It is due to the role of modified peer-written corrective feedback given by their peers of different groups. This feedback assists the students in learning their linguistic aspect errors in their writing. In the process of writing, the modified written corrective feedback is imperative to spur students to apply good linguistic features in their writing. In such a case, learning from peer feedback is a good technique since the process becomes the priority rather than the final product. Finally, modified peer-written corrective feedback is effective in enhancing the students’ writing skills, particularly in writing dialogue.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Agustina, V., & Junining, E. (2015). Error analysis in the travel writing made by the students of English study program. Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 2(1), 1–28.

Al-Sobhi, B. M. S. (2019). The Nitty-gritty of language learners’ errors – Contrastive analysis, error analysis and interlanguage. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 7(2), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.7n.3p.49

Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2007). Student responses to criteria‐referenced self‐assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 159–181.

Ariyanti, A., & Fitriana, R. (2017). EFL students’ difficulties and needs in essay writing. International Conference on Teacher Training and Education (ICTTE), 158, 111–121. https://doi.org/10.2991/ictte-17.2017.4

Asfiyati, N. (2021). Analyzing students’ grammatical errors in writing narrative text at second semester students of UNISMA. Jurnal Penelitian, Pendidikan, Dan Pembelajaran, 16(26).

Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters.

Brown, H. D., & Lee, H. (2015). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (4th ed). Pearson Education Inc.

Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, (5th ed). Los Angeles: SAGE.

Elfiyanto, S., & Fukazawa, S. (2020). Effect of teacher and peer written corrective feedback on writing components in EFL classrooms. JEES (Journal of English Educators Society), 5(2), 185–191. https://doi.org/10.21070/jees.v5i2.826

Ferris, D. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing. University of Michigan Press.

Flora, F., Farhana, S., Nisa, K., & Mentari, R. (2020). The proportion of Peer Corrective Feedback (PCF) on writing aspects: Are they really effective? In A. for C. Machinery (Ed.), The 4th International Conference on Learning Innovation and Quality Education Surakarta. https://doi.org/10.1145/3452144.3453835

Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Smeets, S. (2010). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback and of various peer feedback forms in a secondary school writing curriculum. British Educational Research Journal, 36(1), 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902894070

James, C. (2013). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. Routledge.

Krippendoff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction its methodology. Sage publications.

Leng, K. T. P. (2014). An analysis of written feedback on ESL students’ writing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 123, 389–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1437

Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002

Myles, J. (2002). Second language writing and research: The writing process and error analysis in student texts. TESL-EJ, 6(2), 1–20.

Nunan, D. (2002). Second language acquisition. In The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 87–92). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.15864/ijelts.1407

Pawlak, M. (2014). Error correction in the foreign language classroom: Reconsidering the issues. Springer Science & Business Media.

Peterson, S. S. (2013). Peer feedback on writing: An assessment for learning. Research for Teacher.

Rana, A. M. K., & Peerven, U. (2013). Motivating students through self-correction. Educational Research International, 2(2), 192–196.

Ratnaningsih, S., & Azizah, A. (2019). Error analysis in the descriptive text writing of vocational high school students. Dinamika Ilmu, 19(1), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.21093/di.v19i1.1364

Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge university press.

Young, M. R., Rapp, E., & Murphy, J. W. (2010). Action research: Enhancing classroom practice and fulfilling educational responsibilities. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies Action, 1–10.

Zheng, Y., & Yu, S. (2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 37, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.001

Downloads

Published

2021-12-20
Abstract View: 179