The Impact of Teacher Corrective Feedback on EFL Student Writers’ Grammatical Improvement

Sermsook, Kanyakorn; Liamnimitr, Jiraporn; Pochakorn, Rattaneekorn

doi:10.5539/elt.v10n10p43

Cited by 22 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The feedback is important to give to the students in writing text. The term of Indirect feedback (Ellis 2009) in Sermsook, Liamnimitr, & Pochakorn (2017) states that the technique gave information to the students about the location and the correct forms of the errors production, while direct feedback according to Ferrel (2006) in Seiffedin & El-Sakka, (2017) is strategy that provides feedback for the students about their task production to correct their errors by correcting structure or linguistic form of the target language. The teacher gave recount text material in teaching-learning process in the school.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, the writer concludes that the function of corrective feedback is for detecting the student's error production. On the other hand Sermsook, Liamnimitr, & Pochakorn, (2017) state that a good relationship was built between teachers and learners in the process of giving corrective feedback and also encouraging teacher corrective feedback can contribute to English Foreign Language Learners' in improving writing productions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Written Corrective Feedback on Efl Students at an Islamic Junior High School

Suharyanti

Fauziati

2020

J. appl. linguist. lit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teachers provide students with corrective feedback for guiding them in the process of teaching a language. This study aimed to investigate the types of corrective feedback that the teacher used in teaching writing recount text, this also employed to reveal the students' motivation for writing recount texts, and to explore the benefit of teacher corrective feedback to the students' ability in writing recount text at Manbaul Huda Islamic Junior High School Central Java Indonesia. Descriptive qualitative method was employed by interviewing both the teacher and the second-year students. The participants were three teachers and twenty students. There were three guided Interview questions for teachers and two questions for students. The findings of this study turned out that the teacher employed indirect corrective feedback and gave symbols to the student’s error production. Most of the students are highly motivated to be able to write a status on Facebook or other online media by using English. The most important advantage of obtaining corrective feedback for the students is to understand the use of grammar in making a sentence. This study concluded that the motivation of the students to write recount text was to get teacher corrective feedback to be able to write the appropriate sentence and to increase their ability in writing English. This also implied that different types of corrective feedback might impact differently to the students in improving their motivation to learn English more.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Written Corrective Feedback on Efl Students at an Islamic Junior High School

Suharyanti

Fauziati

2020

J. appl. linguist. lit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Simultaneously, there is not a consensus on which feedback strategy may be the most effective. Sermsook et al (2017) present direct feedback as one of the mostly debated strategies and insist on the need of further research in this realm. Direct feedback (DF) is defined as the replacement of an incorrect form (Saadi & Saadat, 2015) for a corrected version by the teacher and deemed as a clear guide for error correction (Ellis, 2008).…”

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

“…On the other hand, the advantages of non-coded feedback are to lead students to correct revision and potentially more long-term improvement (Bankier, 2012). Consequently, the effect of these types of feedback, cognitively, enables students' awareness to self-correct and edit errors, and may serve the short-term improvement (Wang & Jiang, 2015;Khanlarzadeh & Nemati, 2016) and the long-term improvement (Sermsook et al, 2017) of fostering student autonomy in monitoring their own writing. Ferris (2011) argues that indirect feedback is more helpful to students' writing because it leads to greater cognitive engagement, reflection, and problem-solving.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect Of Indirect Coded Versus Indirect Non-Coded Corrective Feedback On Improving Students’ Grammatical Accuracy Of EFL Writing Class

Doi

Separ

Wanggai

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aimed at investigating the effectiveness of indirect coded CF and indirect non-coded CF on improving grammatical accuracy at the fourth semester students of English Literature Study Program Flores University in 2013/2014. This research was quasi-experiment with pre-test-post-test non-equivalent design. As the sample, 54 students in three intact classes with 18 students of each class were randomly assigned to three groups; indirect coded CF, indirect non-coded CF, and control groups. Free writing was the major source of data. The scoring scheme adopted based on the five categories; content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics. The instrument reliability was assessed by the inter-rater technique. ANCOVA was to analyze data continued by post-hoc Scheffe. The upshots denote that (1) indirect-coded CF and indirect non-coded CF have a significant difference of effectiveness on grammatical accuracy in the second draft with self editing strategy: (2) indirect coded CF is more effective than indirect non-coded CF, and that of control group in the second draft with self-editing strategy; (3) indirect coded CF and indirect non-coded CF have a significant different in a new draft; (4) indirect coded CF is more effective than indirect non-coded CF, and that of control group in a new draft

show abstract

The Impact of Teacher Corrective Feedback on EFL Student Writers’ Grammatical Improvement

Cited by 22 publications

References 23 publications

Written Corrective Feedback on Efl Students at an Islamic Junior High School

Written Corrective Feedback on Efl Students at an Islamic Junior High School

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

The Effect Of Indirect Coded Versus Indirect Non-Coded Corrective Feedback On Improving Students’ Grammatical Accuracy Of EFL Writing Class

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About