Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
MPB1734
RESEARCH ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Both
perspectives share the same opinion which agrees upon the poignancy of
giving feedback to students written work as a vital strategy for it helps to
promote a better L2 writing. To date, there are growing amount of studies in
attempt to investigate the type of corrective feedback that cater the
development of L2 acquisition. These studies are quintessentially important
as the findings obtained would provide in depth clarification on issues
concerning corrective feedback.
Having said that, there are cases in which although teachers have
provided corrective feedback on their pupils writing, their latter writing
version would be repetitively displayed as a recycle of the same
grammatical errors, articles and tenses in particular. This is because the
the given words into a few paragraphs to form an essay. Alike the first task,
the pupils tend to repeat the same grammatical errors (i.e. articles, tenses
(present and past), prepositions, conjunctions) and the same gross errors (i.e.
spelling, word error and punctuation marks). Such poor performance by the
pupils causes a constant worry of the teacher-in-charge, whom has put
laborious efforts on correcting the pupils written tasks every day.
Clearly, the above scenario depicts an irony that shows even though
corrective feedback (CF) is provided by the teacher-in-charge, if it is not
executed explicitly; it could be construed as insufficient and ineffective to
ensure a development of the pupils L2 writing. Evidently, through the above
corrective feedback type, instead of a show of a progress, the pupils tend to
repeat the same grammatical errors and other types of gross errors (i.e.
spelling, word error and punctuation marks) in their latter L2 writing. This
clearly signals the need for a more explicit type of corrective feedback to be
employed in order to refine the pupils ability to self-correct their errors in
their L2 writing.
The pupils, for example, have the tendency to generalise the regular
and irregular past tense rules by adding the suffix-ed to all verbs in the
story-writing. It results to a poor piece of writing thus reflects a need to
correct the misconceptions. A similar effect is obtained with the rest of the
remaining 7-type of errors where the final product would display a poor
display of L2 forms. This shows the lacking of linguistic accuracy in the
pupils writings. Therefore, it clearly signals the need of a consistent, clear
and explicit indication of errors as a means to help these pupils to modify the
errors to accurate forms thus would later indicate a better quality of L2
writing. Such need justify the decision to employ coded corrective feedback
(CF) as to represent an explicit reference to the type of errors committed by
the pupils and allows them to self-correct thus produce a refined version of
L2 writing.
This study aims to find out how far the coded corrective feedback
(CF) helps L2 pupils to self-correct their writings.
To find out whether the pupils can self-correct their errors after receiving
10
The challenge of second language learning for the skill of writing has been
an interest among many practitioners. Some attempts have been projected to find
solution to solve and help the L2 learners to write better thus produce a quality
piece of writing. These attempts include the studies on coded corrective feedback
(CF) on writing, which have been conducted in several different contexts; for
example in an EFL setting such as Iran (Ahmadi, 2014). The findings suggested
that coded feedback is highly relevant in assisting the L2 learners thus promotes a
better accuracy for their linguistic items.
11
learning.
12
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
In order to better understand how corrective feedback works in the
learning of L2, it is highly significant to look up on its theoretical grounds.
Hence, in the following sections of this chapter 2, some theoretical grounds
underpinning the use of corrective feedback (CF) in L2 will be explained.
Alongside the explanation, the notions and significance within the theories in
relation to corrective feedback (CF) will be discussed.
13
14
2.3
Theoretical Framework
15
16
recoverable even if its form is incorrect (p. 183). On top of that, due to the
absence of L2 accuracy, learners might adopt non-target like linguistic
solutions to communicate thus resulting to a premature fossilization of errors.
(Skehan and Foster, 2001).
2.1
intervention
17
meaning or communication. The temporary shifts in focal attention are
triggered by students problems with comprehension or production (p.
185).
As a pedagogical intervention, it is important to note that focus-onform should be delivered within a communicative context, which is one of
its significant conditions. The essence behind such condition is explained by
Lyster (2007) illuminating Segalowitzs notion of transfer-appropriate
learning which is outlined as the kind of cognitive processing that
occurs while performing [language] learning tasks should ideally resemble
the kind of processing involved during communicative language use (p.
43). In other words, Lyster is suggesting that decontextualized linguistic
teaching or grammar instructions would be less impactful on learners due to
the lacking of experience on transferring the isolated grammar learning into
real communicative situations. On the contrary, focus-on-form approach
weighs more of the transfer-appropriate learning due to its communicative
context.
18
19
3.1
3.1.1
20
A
The
ran
One rainy day, there was the dog. A dog was thin. He run very fast.
(adapted from Ellis, 2009)
21
3.1.2.1Coded feedback
Art.
Art.
VT (Past)
One rainy day, there was the dog. A dog was thin. He run very fast.
(adapted from Ellis, 2009)
3.2
(CF) in L2 instruction
22
3.2.1
Relative effectiveness
23
This opinion is proven through a study pioneered by Erel & Bulut (2007)
which attempt to draw a distinction between direct coded feedback and
indirect coded feedback. The result indicates that indirect coded feedback has
a better effect of learners accuracy as compared to direct coded feedback.
Hence, such result illuminates Guenettes (2007) opinion that by cognitivelyengaged, learners have developed a control to self-correct their errors
confidently.
24
As put by Nassaji and Amrhein (2010 ), the root cause for ineffective
cases of CF implementation is due to the discrepancy of perspectives by the
teacher and the learners. For example, when the teacher correct the learners
written work, often they would change the language usage according to what
they assume the learner trying to express. Yet, occasionally there are few
corrections made do not exemplify the learners idea (Ferris, 1995; Gass &
Selinker, 1994; Zamel, 1985). This misunderstanding is evidently rooted from
a scenario whereby the learner does not understand the meaning of corrective
feedback (CF) on their writing thus is clueless of what to do with the feedback
to improvise the work. Ferris (1995) and Hyland (1995) also found evidence
that illustrated such scenario in which learners have problem understanding the
CF given to them and their modifications of errors do not meet the teachers
expectation.
25
3.2.3
Over the years, there has been various hypotheses about the value of
corrective feedback (CF) on different error types, yet the choice of errors to
be corrected remains an empirical one (Van Beuningen, 2010). Based on
26
several studies by (Ferris, 2006; Lalande, 1982, Bitchener and Young &
Cameron, 2005) on different error types via CF strategies, there are differing
levels of progress on certain errors. For instance, Ferris (2006) in a study
which explored 5-main errors categories (i.e. verb error, noun error, article
error, lexical error and sentence error, she found that there are improvements
made on verb-error only- from the pre-test to the post-test. On the other hand,
Bitchener et. al (2005) investigated the use of CF upon 3-types of structures
and the results revealed that CF has positive impact upon past tense and
articles usage but not on prepositions.
3.2.4
Truscott (1996) highlighted that one of the harmful side-effects of the use of
CF in L2 instruction is the learners tendency to produce simplified writings rather
than incorporating complex structures to avoid making errors. His subsequent
proposals (2004, 2007) upon Chandlers (2003) claim of accuracy gain was based on
the same argument that such accuracy was rooted from learners simplified product
and not naturally-gained accuracy.
Although there are few other studies (Chandler, 2003; Robb et.al. 1986;
Sheppard,1992; and Van Beuningen, 2010) with regards to linguistic complexity,
faced difficulty to reach the warranted conclusions due to scarce methodology and
surface-level analysis. For example, Sheppards (1992) study reported CF as
ineffective to foster linguistic complexity but his findings were statistically nonsignificant. On the contrary, in Robb et. als (1986) study, the results showed that CF
has a profound impact upon written complexity yet the study did not include a
control group with no provision to CF. It was, therefore, a doubted analysis although
the findings are seemingly favourable to CF usage.
27
4 CONTROVERSIES
ON
CORRECTIVE
FEEDBACK
(CF)
IN
L2
INSTRUCTION
There are some controversial opinions with regards to the necessity of having
corrective feedback as a pedagogical intervention in L2 instruction. The
controversies, as surmised by Ellis (2009) and Van Beuningen (2010), are
primarily scoped into two main issues: (1) the efficacy of different types of
corrective feedback and (2) the choice of errors to correct.
The fine line difference between these two types of feedback underlies
the involvement of the learners throughout the CF process. While the correct
forms are provided by the teachers when giving the direct feedback, learners
are to attend to their self-correction by deciphering the correction codes or
symbols (e.g. underlining of errors, coding of errors).
28
processing which are of great benefits for the learners. In a similar vein,
Bitchener and Knoch (2008) conclude that indirect approach could foster
long-term acquisition due to the participation of the learners in problem
solving and guided learning experience. This opinion, however, is
unfavourable to some advocates of direct approach. Chandler (2003), for
instance, has claimed that the use of indirect approach might result to
unsuccessful learning due to the insufficient information to solve complex
errors. Direct feedback, in his argument, is more accessible for learners to
internalise linguistic forms whereas indirect approach is not capable at
confirming the learners on their hypothesized corrections as accurate. Align
with this argument is the suggestion by Bitchener and Knoch (2010b) which
points out the explicitness of direct feedback is the key of accurate
corrections executed by the learners
Another distinguished terms for errors global and local errors are
introduced by Burt (1972) and Burt & Kiparsky ( 1975) . Global errors are
capable at leading to a communication breakdown, which includes lexical and
29
word order errors. Local errors, on the other hand, infer the minor linguistic
problems that have not interfered with the meaning of the intended message. With
that, Hendrickson (1978) suggested only global errors to be corrected by teachers
as it potentially could disturb the actual message conveyed thus impair the
intended communication to occur successfully.
5. CHAPTER SUMMARY
For some years, the use of corrective feedback in L2 instruction has
received a lot of attention from many researchers. In this chapter, firstly, it
covers the theoretical foundations underpinning corrective feedback in L2
learning. Then, it dwells upon a body of literature covering a range of issues
on corrective feedback such as the possible effective strategies (i.e. direct,
indirect and coded corrective feedback) and the potential harmful side-
30
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
31
There are two major respondents involved in this study. Each respondent
represents a different entity; first, the pupils as the sample (or participants)
and second, the teachers as the raters.
32
3.3.1 Sample
3.3.2 Raters
Two ESL teachers from the rural setting of Mersing, Johor would be
involved in this study as the raters. Both of them are practising teachers who
have a degree in TESL. One teacher will be assigned to the experimental
group while the other will focus on the control group. The former will
provide coded feedback on the pupils writings (i.e. three essays of each
pupil) by placing coded signs on the committed errors. Meanwhile, the latter
will need to underline the pupils errors only.
33
3.4.1 Essay-writing
This study will focus on one group test. The design is as illustrated
below (see Table 3.1)
34
The studies conducted in the past were mainly focused upon secondary to
tertiary learners, and there were limited studies focusing upon primary school
pupils. However, all of the studies have included essay writing task as a way
to obtain data from the learners writings. Therefore, in this study, the same
method is used with some adaptation on the format of the question.
For this task, both groups are expected to write an essay using the
helping words and given pictures as guidance. The essay should consist of at
least 3-paragraphs and is written within 80-150words at length.
35
36
The duration of the study is two weeks. Before the study is conducted,
the researcher has to send an application to the Planning and Research
Division of Ministry of Education (EPRD ) and an application letter of
approval from Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Another
application for permission to conduct the study in the selected school is also
forwarded to Johor Education Department. When the approval from EPRD
and other divisions are received, the data collection will be executed.
Having taken the pre-test, based on the findings obtained, the pupils
will be carefully assigned into two groups. All pupils in the first group will be
taught the selected coded signs for the purpose of providing coded corrective
feedback during the treatment session (see Table 3.3 below). On the contrary,
the pupils in the second group will be excluded and they do not have to learn
any coded sign. Then, the pupils in both groups will be assigned to complete
an essay-writing task (see Figure 3.2) in 30-minutes. During the writing time,
the teacher will monitor, observe and provide hints to the pupils who have
difficulty to complete the given task.
37
W.W
Sp.
P
Kind of error
Verb Tense (Present /past)
Articles
Prepositions
Conjunctions
Omission of a word
Wrong Word
Spelling
Punctuation
Example
Last weekend, Ali go to Malacca.
She bought a ice-cream for him.
Ali sat between Abu.
He lives at Felda Tenggaroh 2.
She received.. key chain.
They on the television.
She likes swiming.
Her mother .Puan Siti is a nurse.
38
In order to obtain profound data from the respondents (i.e. the pupils
and raters) on their perceptions about coded corrective feedback, the semistructured interview will be conducted. It is important to identify topics and
sub-topics rather than specific questions as it allows the researcher to explore
the issue on coded corrective feedback as a matter of course and not as preempting issue (Pathak and Intratat,2012).
structured interview is the vitality in the beginning stage to pose broad and
general questions or topics first rather than to pinpoint on the subject (Arksey
& Knight 1999).
This interview will take place after the pupils receive their second
essays with the provision of coded feedback. Such condition is to ensure the
respondents have experienced the task of writing and correcting the errors
using coded feedback. Hence, the information obtained will be profound and
realistic as the aim is to get the pupils improving their accuracy in writing.
Moving on, there will be selected respondents involved during the interview
(i.e. the raters and 10 pupils from the experimental group). A list of ten
questions will be employed (see Appendix D and Appendix E) for both
respondents and the session will be one-to-one. The data will be recorded
whereby the researcher will ask the question and record the response from the
respondent one at a time.
39
APPENDIX A
40
APPENDIX B
41
APPENDIX C
42
W.W
Sp.
P
Kind of error
Verb Tense (Present /past)
Articles
Prepositions
Conjunctions
Omission of a word
Wrong Word
Spelling
Punctuation
Example
Last weekend, Ali go to Malacca.
She bought a ice-cream for him.
Ali sat between Abu.
He lives at Felda Tenggaroh 2.
She received.. key chain.
They on the television.
She likes swiming.
Her mother .Puan Siti is a nurse.
APPENDIX D
43
1.
2.
Can you state some examples of the writing exercise that you have learnt?
Does the teacher correct the errors using code signs in your writing? How
does the teacher correct the errors? Can you give some examples?
4.
Do you find the coded signs given by the teacher help you to correct the
errors in your writing? If yes, can you state the reason? If no, can you explain why?
5.
Do you understand all of the coded signs given in your writing? Is there any
code that you dont understand? If yes, can you list them?
6.
How do you do the correction in your writing? Do you refer to the coded
Do you check the type of error you have made in your writing? Do you
Do you prefer to have the teacher correct your writing using coded signs? If
yes, can you state the reason? If no, can you explain why?
9.
Do you think the coded signs help you to correct the errors in your writing? If
yes, can you state some examples? If no, can you tell why?
10.
Would you like to have any other type of feedback in your writing?
APPENDIX E
44
45
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for
migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research Journal 12(3), 409431.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010b). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of
advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language
Writing 19(4), 207-217.
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of
corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing
14(3), 227-258.
Burt, M. (1975). Error analysis in the adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 9(1),
53-63.
Burt, M., & Kiparsky, C. (1972). The gooficon: A repair manual for English.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1(1), 1-47.
Cathcart, Ruth L. & Judy E.W..B. Olsen .(1976). Teachers and Students preferences
for correction of classroom conversation error. In On TESOL 76, John F. Fanselow
and Ruth H. Crymes, eds. Washington, DC: TESOL ED 138 089
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement
in the accuracy and fluency of L2student writing. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 12(3), 267-296.
Corder, P. (1967). The significance of learner errors. International Review of Applied
Linguistics 5(4),
161-169.
Creswell, J. W. (2003) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dekeyser, R. (1994) Implicit and ExplicitLearning of L2 Grammar: A Pilot
Study.Tesol Quaterly, Vol 28 (1),188-194
Drever , E.(1995) Using semi-structured interview in small scale research: A
Teachers Guide. Edinburgh: Scotland Council for Research Education.
Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and
enhancement. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second
language acquisition (pp. 256-310). Oxford: Blackwell.
46
47
48
49
50