2 INTRODUCTION
Writing in L2 (second language) is a challenging task for L2 student writers
since writing in L2 is different from writing in students‟ L1 (first language). As a result, students often make many mistakes especially in the language structure, as we call it „grammar‟. Regarding that, writing teachers provide written feedback on students‟ first drafts to reduce their writing errors. “Supplemental grammar
instruction can facilitate progress in accuracy if it is driven by student needs” (Ferris,
2004).
One rationale for such feedback is that teacher written feedback is regarded as
a writing instruction tool to help students revise the errors and make an improvement
in their writing. According to Hyland and Hyland (2006), “written feedback has been
seen as purely informational, a means of channeling reactions and advise to facilitate improvements” (p. 206). In addition to it, the feedback can reduce grammatical errors
that lead the students not to make the same mistakes in their subsequent writing
(Chandler, 2003). Therefore, through written feedback the teachers assume that the
students would understand and use the feedback to improve their writing in the
future.
However, a decision to provide teacher feedback for student writers has not
3
maximally and make little improvement when submitting their revisions. A past
research conducted by Othman and Mohammad (2009) found students get difficulties
in responding teacher feedback in relation to verb, word choice, nouns, adverbs, etc.
One reason for this is that students at a lower level of L2 proficiency encounter
difficulties in self – editing their first drafts though the errors have been showed (Ferris, 2004). From those statements, it is known that not all L2 student writers are
able to read and understand the meaning of teacher written feedback successfully.
The problem above is similar to Truscott‟s (1996) observation that “students may well fail to understand” teacher grammar feedback. Further, Hedgcock and
Lefkowitz (1996) revealed that students found it difficult to interpret their TWF. The
fact remains that some teachers give the same types of TWF to mark some different error categories in the students‟ drafts. It makes students confused to understand the
TWF related to what kinds of errors they have made and the corrections of the errors.
From an analysis of studies by Kepner (1991), Semke (1984) and Sheppard (1992) as
cited in Bitchener et al. (2005), they concluded that there is no convincing research
evidence that error correction ever helps student writers improve the accuracy of their
writing. This study is designed to clarify the previous findings related to TWF by
using a much more controlled methodology. In particular this study is conducted to
4
The result of the study is expected to know the types of TWF that result in
improvement on the students‟ drafts. It is necessary to know those types of TWF. By
understanding those types of feedback, the teachers can give more appropriate written
feedback that could help students avoid misunderstanding to respond to the teacher
feedback and improve their subsequent writing. In addition, the result of this study
will be expected to help the teachers decide what types of TWF they can provide on students‟ drafts. Overall, the result of my study could become a guideline to promote
the quality of education in all second language writing classes (Jalali & Abdeli,
2011), especially the basic level of writing classes.
To achieve the objective of this study, the following question is posed:
What types of teacher written feedback result in improvement on the students‟
subsequent drafts?
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
With the development of globalization era, writing in L2 (second language) is
regarded as an important element in second language learning. According to
Zacharias (2007), writing is one of four language skills that students need to master in
language learning and also becomes an important element that exists in every
5
errors like grammar that reduce their writing performance. Therefore, composition
writers attempt to cope with this problem. One instructional teaching method aimed
at achieving this is teacher written feedback (TWF).
Teacher Written Feedback
Teacher written feedback (TWF) is a method that is used by L2 writing
teachers to deal with the writing errors and assist student writers. It is also called
handwritten commentary. Some experts suggest that teacher written feedback is a primary method to respond to students‟ essays and give assistance to their writing
development (Srichanyachon, 2012) and improve the accuracy of their use of
rule-governed linguistic features (Bitchener et al., 2005).
The Purpose of Providing TWF
The fact remains that TWF is a mean that is commonly used by teachers in a
writing class to respond to students‟ writing. According to Hyland and Hyland (2006: 83), TWF is “a key element of the scaffolding provided by the teacher to build learner confidence and the literacy resources to participate in target communities”. Ferris
(2004) states that feedback on students‟ errors may motivate the students both to make corrections and to work harder on improving their writing.
With TWF, the students can know their errors to revise and what needs to
6
aware of the mistakes they often make during writing the first drafts so that they do
not make the same mistakes in their future writing. Composition teachers may use
different types of feedback in responding to students‟ writing errors and enhancing students‟ writing ability. The provision method of TWF can be found in two ways
based on the level of explicitness: direct and indirect feedback.
Direct Feedback
adapted from Ferris (2002) that will be used to analyze the data in this study.
FIGURE 1 Direct Feedback
Types of teacher
feedback Definition Examples of forms
7
With direct feedback, the teachers mark the students‟ errors and directly correct the errors on grammatical items, such as tenses, articles and determiner. Also,
through direct feedback it is also known that the students utilized teacher direct
feedback more consistently and effectively than indirect types since they can easily
copy the correct form in their revisions (Ferris, 2006). Ellis (2009) states that direct
feedback has the advantage that it provides learners with explicit guidance about how
to correct their errors. This is clearly helpful for the learners when they do not know
the correct form of the errors or cannot self-correct the errors.
Indirect Feedback
Meanwhile, indirect method requires students to figure out their writing errors
and edit it independently (Frodesen & Holten, 2003, p. 146). This feedback is given
by means of giving forms such as underlines, circles, codes, symbols, verbal cues,
and commentary without providing the correct form of the errors (Ferris, 1998, 2002). Further, Srichanyachon (2012) adds that “indirect feedback can be done by a
code representing a specific kind of errors and use code to indicate the type of error
such as SP (spelling error), P (fault in punctuation), and VT (wrong verb tense)”
(p.10). Some examples of indirect feedback which are found in this study are taken
8 FIGURE 2 Indirect Feedback
Types of written
feedback Definition Examples of forms
Error Location Points out the errors without showing the correct form
Error Symbol Uses symbols to indicate the errors
Marginal Commentary Uses comments in the marginal
I buy the book yesterday. Pay attention to the tense and
verb form!
End commentary General comment at the end I buy the book yesterday. Go to look up your grammar
book and revise the errors I
underlined in your
composition.
With indirect feedback, the teachers only indicate the presence of errors using
underlines, codes (vt), symbols, verbal cues, and commentary completed with
descriptions about the errors, but do not provide the correct forms of the errors. Here,
the teachers let the students become independent self-editors to solve the problem in
9 Teacher Written Feedback Use
In L2 writing practices the way the teachers give the written feedback on students‟ drafts can vary among teachers. Ferris (1998) examined what strategies that
three composition teachers of California State University use to provide error
feedback. The findings showed the number of direct feedback provision is mostly given on students‟ drafts to reduce their grammar errors. Ferris (2002) classifies
grammar errors into two categories: „treatable‟ and „untreatable‟. Errors which were
related to linguistic structure that occurs in a rule-governed way, such as errors on
tense and forms, subject-verb agreement, etc., were defined as „treatable‟ errors. The
other kind was „untreatable‟, i.e., errors not amenable to self-correction such as sentence structure and word choice, possible exception of some pronoun and
preposition usage, or unidiomatic sentence structures. Thus, direct feedback can be
more beneficial to students in some contexts, especially when revising syntax and
vocabulary (Miceli, 2006 as cited in Srichanyachon, 2012). However, other findings
prove that teachers also provide indirect feedback such as underlining since it takes less teachers‟ time on students‟ drafts and, more importantly, students feel they are
learning more when they are involved in self-correction (Chandler, 2003).
Teachers’ and Students’ Preference toward Teacher Written Feedback
Other findings on teachers‟ and students‟ preference in using the feedback are
10
preference in Saito‟s (1994) study, the majority of ESL students found that teacher
feedback is most useful when it focused on grammatical errors. The students are more
interested in explicit, direct feedback where the teachers locate the errors and give the
correct forms (Jalali & Abdeli, 2011). It means that the teachers and the students prefer direct feedback rather than indirect feedback to correct students‟ grammar
errors.
In addition to it, direct feedback is appropriate for students with weak English
skills who may be less capable of self-editing the grammar errors although they have
been pointed out (Srichanyachon, 2012). From the statement above, direct feedback,
giving the correct form of the grammar error is the most teachers‟ and students‟ favorite feedback. The reason is that direct correction can prevent students‟ confusion in handling the teacher feedback and they directly get the correct grammatical form
easily. Ferris‟ (2002) study found that teachers are likely to provide direct feedback when the error falls into one the “untreatable” categories, such as word choice,
idioms, and sentence structure.
On the other hand, regarding the findings above, a study conducted by
Chandler (2003) found that students feel they learn more from indirect feedback such
as underlining without description and the correct form is not provided.
Self-correction makes students learn not to repeat their errors in the future. This finding is
11
engage students in the problem-solving task of writing. Therefore, indeed, indirect feedback also contributes to students‟ writing learning. Indirect feedback itself can
stimulate students to think and find the correction by themselves which can lead them
to become an independent self-editor in their revising process.
Teacher Written Feedback toward Students’ Writing Improvement
Zohrabi (2012) in his study found out that there is a direct relationship
between form-focused feedback and improving student writing skill. Furthermore,
Peloghitis (2011) suggests form-focused correction as compared to no form-focused
correction helps to improve grammatical accuracy. The result found that students who
receive error feedback show progress in written accuracy over time (Ferris, 1998).
This result is similar to Wang‟s (2004) study that most of students at Guizhou University believed that teacher written feedback could help them improve their
English writing in the long run.
However, the findings above stand in contrast to Truscott‟s (1996)
observation finding that teacher written feedback in grammar is harmful and should
be abandoned since the students may not understand to deal with the feedback. According to Ghabanchi‟s (2011) study on Persian learners of English, it showed that
grammar correction has very trivial effect on writing under control situations.
12
feedback, they find that some students make little improvement when they submit
their revisions (Othman & Mohammad, 2009).
The information above is clear that providing TWF on students‟ drafts is
important in the revising process to assist student writers and improve their accuracy
on writing. Students can revise their writing errors if the teachers provide appropriate
and clear feedback that could improve their writing. Appropriate and clear feedback
means the teachers locate the errors using either direct or indirect feedback with an adequate description by considering students‟ language proficiency level (Ferris,
2004). However, indeed, the teachers sometimes fail to give appropriate written
feedback so that the students make a little progress. Based on the discussion above,
this study is intended to answer the following research question:
What types of teacher written feedback result in improvement on the students‟
subsequent drafts?
THE STUDY
Regarding the framework written above about teacher written feedback (TWF), the teachers‟ and students‟ preference toward TWF, and its impacts towards students‟
writing improvement, this statistical descriptive study was designed to provide the
13 Context of the Study
Data for this study were collected in the Guided Writing course taught at a
private university in Salatiga, in the second semester in the period of 2013/2014. The
Guided Writing course was selected as the setting of the study because it is the basic
level of writing courses at the English Teacher Education Program in the university.
During the semester, the students were required to complete four essays based on the
required topics and they were required to submit three drafts (first, revised, and the
last drafts as the final score) on each essay. On the students‟ first drafts, the Guided
Writing teachers tend to give TWF more on grammar rather than feedback on
meaning. The teachers marked the error categories by using direct feedback and
indirect feedback. In this case, the students had been informed by their teachers about
correction symbols before starting to write.
Materials
The materials of this study were forty students‟ first and revised drafts of Guided Writing course in the second semester in the period of 2013/2014. The reason
of choosing the first and the revised drafts was that TWF was mostly found on the first drafts and students‟ revisions could be obtained through the revised drafts.
14
were those with TWF, such as sentences with teacher‟s direct correction, with circles or underlines, and with codes (vt, P, s/p, etc.). In this study, the data were taken from
one essay project in the same period of writing.
Data Collection Instrument
All the data were collected in the second semester of academic year
2013/2014. The forty pieces of students‟ first and revised drafts with TWF were documented, analyzed, and categorized. The different types of TWF were
documented and categorized based on the adaption of Ferris‟ correction options (Ferris, 2002, p. 70 & 1998, cited in Hyland and Hyland, 2006) and Wang‟s (2004).
Figure 3 shows teacher marking categories that were adapted from Ferris
(2002, p. 70) and Wang‟s (2004) study. These categories were used to analyze the types of teacher written feedback on the students‟ drafts in this study. The teacher
markings were divided into three big categories, direct feedback (corrected error,
deleted problem, and correct substitution), indirect feedback with codes (marking the
errors with codes: vt, P, s/p, art, etc.), and without codes (locating the errors with
15
Cross with correction Provides the correct forms of the errors, such as corrected errors, deleted problems, and correct substitution
I buy the book yesterday Bought
Deletion I was in the Gramedia
book store yesterday. 2. Indirect feedback with no codes (underline)
Error Location
Points out the errors by underlining without showing the target form
I buy the book yesterday
3. Indirect feedback with an error code
Error Code Giving an underline with a
16 FIGURE 4
Error Categories and Codes Used in Guided Writing Class
No Error type Code Description
1. Article art Missing/ incorrect article usage 2. Capitalization cap Incorrect capitalization
3. Conjunction cj Missing/ inappropriate conjunction 4. Preposition prep Missing/ wrong preposition
5. Pronoun pro Incorrect pronoun 6. Punctuation P Comma splices
7. Sentence structure Ss Included missing/ unnecessary words and phrases and word order problems
8. Singular/plural s/p Referred to noun ending errors 9. Spelling sp Wrong spelling
10. S/V agreement s/v agr Did not include other singular-plural/verb form errors
11. Transition (T) T Missing/ inappropriate transition 12. Verb form (vf) vf
Excluded verb tense 13. Verb tense (vt) vt
14. Word form (wf) wf
15. Wrong word (ww) ww Excluded informal and unidiomatic usage
Data Collection Procedures
In collecting the data, the first step was asking permission to the Guided
Writing teachers to take the data from their classes by copying the students‟ drafts of
17
before the teachers give them back to their students. The procedure above was also
done to collect the students‟ revised drafts. Then, the students‟ first and revised drafts
were purposively selected to categorize and compare to determine the types of TWF
that result in improvement on the students‟ subsequent drafts.
Data Analysis Procedures
The data were analyzed by categorizing TWF into three big groups (direct
correction, indirect feedback with codes, and with no codes. One first draft may
contain different types of feedback. The TWF on the forty selected first drafts were categorized based on Ferris‟ correction options (Ferris, 2002, p. 70 & 1998, cited in
Hyland and Hyland, 2006) and Wang‟s (2004). The different types of TWF from the
first drafts were counted and calculated through frequency to obtain the totals. The
number of feedback items for subcategory of feedback was divided by the total
number of the feedback to obtain the percentage for each type. After comparing the
first and revised drafts, the number of the revisions of each type of teacher feedback
was counted. Then, the types of TWF were analyzed based on „treatable‟ and „untreatable‟ error categories to see the number of correct and incorrect changes.
18
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Through the statistical analysis, this study examined the types of TWF that
result in improvement on the students‟ subsequent drafts. In one draft, the teachers might give different types of feedback. Table 1 summarizes the major teacher
marking patterns and the frequency of the occurrence that were taken from the students‟ first drafts.
Table 1
Summary of Teacher Marking Patterns from Forty First Drafts
Teacher feedback Frequency Percentage
Direct 86 19.2%
Indirect with standard codes 153 34.1%
Indirect without standard codes 209 46.7%
Totals 448 100%
The analysis of the teacher marking patterns showed that the teachers used
standard codes (vt, s/p, P, etc.) to mark the errors only 34.1 percent. The teachers only
locate the errors using underlines, circles, and spaces in more than 46 percent of the
cases. In about 19 percent, the teachers made direct correction in which they directly
gave the correct forms of the errors to the students such as, corrected error, deleted
problem, and correct substitution. The finding above indicated that indirect feedback
with no codes was often provided by the teachers on the students‟ drafts. According
19
cognitive problem-solving as they attempt to self-edit based upon the feedback that
they have received. Table 2 shows each example of each type of feedback that was taken from the students‟ first drafts.
Table 2
The Example of Types of Teacher Feedback from Students’ First Drafts
Types of feedback The example of sentence
Direct feedback It made me ridiculous wearing raincoat on motorcycle without any rain dropped ing.
Indirect feedback with a
standard code I like to wear many accesseries sp
.
Indirect feedback without a
standard code Most of them will buy expensive decoration.
In the example of direct feedback, the teacher located the grammar error by
crossing the suffix –ed on the word dropped and gave the correct change, the suffix –
ing showing gerund form. Then, in indirect feedback with a standard code, the
teacher underlined the word accesseries and gave a code (sp) to show a misspelled
word. Last, in the example of indirect feedback without a standard code, the teacher
underlined the word decoration which means the student made an error in the
singular/ plural form.
20
students. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 3. It seems that the
students would be most successful in integrating direct feedback into their revisions as it takes the students to transcribe or copy of the teachers‟ suggestion into their
subsequent drafts of their essays. In fact, the students did use direct feedback more
effectively than any other types.
Table 3
The Teacher Written Feedback and the Students’ Revisions
Feedback type Correct revision Incorrect revision No change
Direct 80 (93%) - 6 (7%)
Indirect with standard codes 134 (87.6%) 14 (9.1%) 5 (3.3%) Indirect with no codes 160 (76.6%) 35 (16.7%) 14 (6.7%) Note: Percentage reflects frequencies of each revision outcome within the feedback categories. For example, for 93 percent of the errors marked directly, the revision made were correct.
The students were able to make accurate revisions in response to direct
feedback in the majority (93%) of the cases. Indirect feedback, in which the errors
were underlined and marked with one of the standard codes, led to correct edits in
87.6 percent. It indicated that locating the error, by adding a code as a hint, provided
enough information for the students to revise and improve their subsequent drafts. This finding is line with Chandler‟s (2003) study that underlining with description
was the easiest way to see what kind of errors they had made, that they had learned
the most from this response, and that it had been the most help in writing correctly in
21
without codes at all could be drawn as high as the errors markings with codes, which
was 76.6 percent. According to Robb et al. (1986, cited in Hyland & Hyland, 2006),
subject groups who received less explicit error feedback progressed in accuracy at
about the same rate as those who received very detailed feedback. Interestingly, 7
percent of teacher‟s direct feedback did not get respond from the students in their immediate revision (see Table 3). Then, Table 4 would give an overview of each type
of TWF and how the students corrected the errors in their immediate revising process.
Table 4
The Types of TWF and the Students’ Revisions
Teacher written
student did not make any changes for their errors although the teacher has showed it
22
different view with the teacher with the pattern of verb in the sentence above. In this
case, direct feedback could cause confusion for the students. When they have
different opinion with the teacher, they may ignore the feedback and feel the
feedback is incorrect (Srichanyachon, 2012). This finding is contradictory with Ferris
(2006) that students utilized direct feedback more consistently and effectively than
indirect types, partly as it involves simply copying the teacher‟s suggestion into the next draft of their papers. It can thus be suggested that teachers should combine both
oral and written corrective feedback to give the students clear explanations about the
errors (Bitchener et al., 2005).
According to Ferris (1998, cited in Hyland and Hyland, 2006), for
pedagogical purposes, some errors could be considered „treatable‟ since they occur in a patterned, rule governed way (verb tense, singular/ plural, articles, etc.), whereas
other errors are „untreatable‟, meaning that there is no handbook or set of rules
students can consult to avoid or fix those types of errors (idioms, word choice,
sentence structure, and vocabulary). As shown in Table 5, a statistical analysis
23 Table 5
TWF toward ‘Treatable’ and ‘Untreatable’ Error Categories
Error Meanwhile, direct feedback, 45 percent of the case was given to correct „untreatable‟
errors. The number of its correct changes was nearly the same as the number of
correct changes of indirect feedback, 41 percent (see Table 5). As noted by Chaney
(1999, cited in Hyland and Hyland, 2006), the teachers may have given different
types of feedback to treatable and untreatable errors because they believed that their
students would not be able to self-correct untreatable errors marked indirectly. As
24 Table 6
Examples of TWF toward ‘Treatable’ and ‘Untreatable’ Error Categories
Error
New year eve is the great holiday. We playingwf music together with skin, and his hair short and black.
Direct feedback was commonly used to correct „untreatable‟ errors such as
wrong word choices, i.e. produce. The focus of direct feedback provision is that the
error is considered amenable to self-correction (Ferris, 2002). The other fact remains
that „treatable‟ error such as misspellings also got direct feedback, i.e. a slept.
Meanwhile, indirect feedback with standard codes was mostly used to mark „treatable‟ errors such as articles and wrong word forms. The focus of giving this
feedback is that the errors could be resolved and the students know the right words.
The most striking result to emerge from the data is that the teachers are likely to
provide indirect feedback although the error falls into the “untreatable” category,
25
According to Ferris (2004), providing more indirect feedback rather than
direct feedback stimulates students to think and find the correction by themselves
which can lead them to become independent self-editors in their revising process.
Consequently, the result of the revisions did not show a significant improvement in
accuracy using indirect feedback when the errors fall into „untreatable‟ category. For „treatable‟ errors, the students still could respond and revise correctly the errors
although the teachers marked them indirectly.
CONCLUSION
This study examines what types of teacher written feedback (TWF) which result in students‟ improvement in their subsequent drafts in the Guided Writing
course period 2013/2014. The findings suggest that in general that the students
addressed the teacher written feedback (TWF). As shown in Table 1, 80.8 percent
indirect feedback was mostly used to mark grammatical errors and only 19.2 percent
of the case, direct feedback was used to correct the errors. In addition, the data add to
the significant evidence from the previous studies that indirect feedback is the most
help in writing correctly in the future (Chandler, 2003). The various TWF patterns were compared to the students‟ revisions. We found that the students were able to
utilize both direct and indirect feedback correctly in their immediate revisions, even
26
finding support the previous research that subject groups who received less explicit
error feedback progress in accuracy at about the same rate as those who received very
detailed feedback (Robb et al., 1986, as cited in Hyland & Hyland, 2006). We also examined the TWF toward „treatable‟ and „untreatable‟ error categories with the
students‟ immediate revisions. The result found that the students were able to correct
errors which represented a wide range of linguistic categories which were divided into two, „treatable‟ and „untreatable‟, using the teacher direct and indirect feedback
(see Table 5). „Treatable‟ errors, such as articles, singular/ plural, punctuation, were mostly marked indirectly either with codes or no codes. Meanwhile, „untreatable‟
errors, such as idioms, sentence structure, vocabulary, were marked using direct
correction.
The findings as shown in Table 1, 3, and 5, make a strong case for the
superiority of indirect feedback over direct feedback to assist students during their
immediate revising process. According to Ferris (2004), providing indirect feedback
rather than direct feedback stimulates students to think and find the correction by
themselves which can lead them to become independent self-editors in their revising
process. The findings of this study contradict the finding of Othman and Mohammad
(2009), who found in their study that although the teachers have provided the
27
feedback in grammar is harmful and should be abandoned since the students may not
understand to deal with the feedback.
An implication of this study is the possibility that TWF had a strong impact on the students‟ immediate revising process. The students had a chance to revise and
correct their first drafts using TWF that they received. Further, TWF could help some
students with low level of L2 proficiency and the teachers should consider the
provision of the feedback as a valuable tool for the students because not all students
have an ability to successfully revise every single error category. According to Ferris
(2004) the students at lower level of L2 proficiency encounter difficulties in self – editing their first drafts although the errors have been showed.
Finally, a number of important limitations need to be considered. First, this
study might lead to different results and findings if it is applied in a higher level of
writing courses, like Academic Writing. The reason is that the teachers may not focus
to give written feedback on grammar, but on meaning. Then, this study only used first
and second drafts of the first essay, not the drafts throughout the semester. Therefore,
the results of this study could not be generalized for the other teacher feedback
studies in the writing course context.
The discussion in this paper should make it clear that there are still several
28
this study, two possible research issues may appear. The first issue is the long-term
effects of teacher written feedback for the basic level of writing course. To see
long-term the effect, if possible, the students‟ drafts in the whole semester are analyzed to know if the students make a significant progress on their revisions using the TWF. The second issue is the students‟ response to teacher written feedback. This further
study can be done to see how the students respond to the given teacher error markings
29 Acknowledgement
I am thanking God that I have finally finished my thesis on time. At the
beginning, it was seemed difficult to determine a topic related to a personal problem
in writing. Sometimes I got stuck and wanted to give up since it was a struggle to get
appropriate resources I needed. I was afraid if I could not make my thesis as ideal as I
have set on my mind. Thus, I believe that this work will never be done without the
help of the people who give contribution in my thesis making. My biggest thanks are
delivered to my supervisor, Ibu Martha Nandari, M.A. With her expertise, she
guided me to finish my thesis and was available for the consultation in the middle of
her busy schedule.
I am very thankful for the encouragement and prays sent by my beloved family.
A lot of thanks go to my father and mother who always supported me anytime
whenever I wanted to give up for making my thesis. Many thanks to the Guided
Writing teachers: Anne I. Timotius, Brandon Donelsonsims, Vica Ananta, who
permitted me to collect the data from their classes, and especially Andrew Thren who was such an Angel for giving me the copies of the students‟ drafts of his class;
Meytha (2013), Meidy (2013), Eva (2013), Argi (2013), Kezia (2013), and Annisa
(2013) for helping me collect the data. A lot of thanks also go to all of my friends
who support me to finish my thesis and graduate on time. Finally, my biggest
thank-you goes to my examiner Ibu Victoria Usadya Palupi, M.A-ELT for reading, giving
30
REFERENCES
Bitchener et al. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191 – 205.
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, 267 - 296.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63, 97 – 107.
Ferris D. R. (1998). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short and long – term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Context and issue (pp. 81 – 102). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language writing classes. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime . . .?) Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49 – 62.
Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does Error Feedback Help Student Writers? New Evidence on the Short- and Long-term Effects of Written Error Correction. In Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (Eds.), 81-104.
Frodesen, J., & Holten, C. (2003). Grammar and the ESL writing class. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 141 - 155). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ghabanchi, Z. (2011). The effect of grammatical error correction on the development of learning English writing as a foreign language. World Journal of English Language, 1(2), 37 – 42.
31
Hyland, K., & Hyland, K. (2006). Interpersonal aspects of response: Constructing and interpreting teacher written feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Context and issue (pp. 206 – 224). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Jalali, S., & Abdeli, S. (2011). The investigation of Iranian EFL university teachers‟ and students‟ preferences for different types of written feedback. International Conference on Languages, Literature and Linguistics, 16, 457 – 460.
Jodaie, M., and Farrokhi, F. (2012). An Exploration of private language institute teachers‟ perceptions of written grammar feedback in EFL classes. English Language Teaching, 5 (2), 58 – 67.
Othman, S. B., & Mohamad, F. (2009). Student response to teacher feedback on multiple-draft compositions in ESL classroom. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Teaching and Learning.
Peloghitis J. (2011). Form-focused feedback in writing: A study on quality and performance in accuracy. In A. Stewart (Ed.), JALT 2010 Conference Proceedings. JALT: Tokyo.
Saito, H. (1994). Teachers‟ practices and students‟ preferences for Feedback on second language writing: A case study of Adult ESL learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11 (2), 46-68.
Srichanyachon, N. (2012). Teacher written feedback for L2 learners‟ writing development. Journal of Social Sciences, Humanities, and Arts, 12 (1), 7 – 17.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327 – 369.
Wang, J. (2004). Written feedback on English majors’ compositions at Guizhou university. Unpublished master‟s thesis, Suranaree university of technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand.
Zacharias, N. T. (2007). Teacher and student attitudes toward teacher feedback. RELC Journal, 38 (1), 38 – 52.
