i
A STUDY OF THE STUDENTS
’
VIEWS TOWARD WRITTEN
AND ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN WRITING
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Herinta Dyan Pratiwi 112009107
ENGLISH TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
SALATIGA
v
A STUDY OF THE STUDENTS
’
VIEWS TOWARD WRITTEN
AND ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN WRITING
Herinta Dyan Pratiwi
Abstract
The issue of which feedback, oral or written corrective feedback, is effective for students’ writing improvement both in the process and the quality of product is still questionable, since each feedback has its own features. Oral corrective feedback has the strength of providing face-to-face conversing in which offering the students opportunity to discuss complex ideas. On the other hand, written corrective feedback get the excess of improving students’ accuracy and providing a guideline with sufficient information for writing process. Inspired by the issue, the study was held to explore The English Department students’ perspectives towards the feedbacks in proposal writing. The participants of this study were 20 students of Satya Wacana Christian University who were taking proposal writing class. All of the 20 students were interviewed. The findings showed that students found both written and oral corrective feedback effective in generating ideas, improving accuracy, and facilitating sufficient information for revision. However, students preferred written corrective feedback better than the oral corrective feedback.
1
INTRODUCTION
Most teachers provide students with written feedback especially in writing. Written feedback is usually full of red ink and marks like circles and underlines, and short comments or suggestions. Here, students often get confused of the meaning of the marks in their paper. Ironically, those marks were often abandoned by the students.
Written corrective feedback is often impaired by a large number of students’ error categories like grammatical errors and jumping ideas. Therefore, the efficacy of such feedback is still being questioned. In 1996, Truscott found out that written corrective feedback (WCF) in ESL student writing was ineffective and harmful that it should be ignored (Bitchener and Knoch, 2008). On the other hand, the study of Bitchener and Knoch (2008) in two private language schools and at the English Department of a university in Auckland, found that WCF had a valuable effect to improve students’ accuracy in using the target functions of the
English article system and that they maintained the level of accuracy when writing a new text seven weeks after they got the treatment.
2
showed that feedback must provide sufficient information which could be easily used by students. Thus, the information students got from the provision of feedback could help them to improve their capability in the present and future writing.
In contrast, oral corrective feedback has produced clear and positive effects for the learners by focusing on a single error category (Lyster in Bitchener & Knoch, 2008). Conversational situation is interactive, allowing people to coordinate with one another in a communication in order to proceed properly (Appelbaum & Musial, 2005). As a result, oral corrective feedback is needed in a writing course in order to improve the effectiveness of feedback provision in the students’ paper revision. Since active interaction was included in oral corrective feedback, it will give many chances for the students to ask more questions related to their errors orally. It was shown in the study of Appelbaum and Musial (2005), 80% of 20 writing students enrolled in a psychology of language class prefer to talk with someone to help them improve the clarity of their writing.
3
Realizing that feedback is crucial in improving students’ writing, I decided
to conduct a study on how oral and written corrective feedbacks work on students’ writing. The aim of the study was to examine which feedback brought beneficial effects for the students’ development in the writing process and the quality of the writing product in their proposal and report writing class. The study was guided by the research question “what kind of feedback is beneficial to improve the students’ proposal writing at the English Department, Satya Wacana Christian University?”
LITERATURE REVIEW
Second or Foreign Language Writing
Writing is a combined skill which focuses on the mechanism, syntactical, lexical, drawing conclusion, and the organization discourse (Williams, 2007). A writer has to be able to convey their ideas into a written product in order to be understood by the reader as a part of communication. Here, writing is not only a product but also a process which include planning, drafting, revising, editing and evaluating (Soori, Janfaza, & Zamani, 2012).
4
hard to get the readers understanding when a writer has to convey their ideas sentence by sentence. The main point is not about how the word stringed into a correct sentence, but it’s generally about how the sentences could be a medium for
the writer to interact with their readers.
Writing includes both as a process and product which is not only considered as a physical act but also a work that demands the writer to deliver and organize their thoughts clearly to the reader (Sokolik, 2003). Here, writing has a role as a product in which the writer can be communicate with the reader indirectly (Soori, Janfaza, & Zamani, 2012). In an ESL and/or EFL academic writing courses, students often find difficulties in delivering their thoughts since it is different from their daily conversational situation where they could express their thoughts spontaneously and easily. If the writing product is not well organized, the writer might fail to get the readers’ understanding. In other words, the writer fails to communicate with the readers. It is not only a media that the writer could express their thoughts in a written paper, but also how that written paper can be well understood by the readers. Therefore, to have a good writing, a writer needs to do the process of planning, drafting, revising, editing, and evaluating (Soori, Janfaza, & Zamani, 2012; Mi-mi, 2009)
5
students in developing a paragraph by making the topic sentence, supporting sentences, transitions and developing another type of paragraphs in academic writing. Third, the focus on creative expressions takes more on the writer rather than the form in which the writer are freely to develop their ideas and state their opinions. A creative expression is like sharing the writer’s personal thoughts to the reader about their own view on a topic (Hyland, 2000). In this case, the writer should be aware of the connection between their own ideas with the topic they are discussing about in their academic writing.
Teacher’s Feedback inStudents’ Writing
Since writing academically is hard to do, many students’ errors cannot be avoided. In a writing process, some errors always occur, for instance in grammar, words choices, unorganized ideas, punctuation, spelling, and even repetition of ideas. The teacher has to concern about the students’ errors in their writing in order to develop the students’ writing capability. Therefore, teacher has to provide the students with feedback in order to help them in revising, editing, organizing, and evaluating their writing product (Soori, Janfaza, & Zamani, 2012). However, teacher often finds difficulties in giving feedback due to the large number of students’ writing products and the various kinds of mistakes that the students
made.
6
Teachers’ feedback provision is an essential concern to any teachers of writing in improving students’ learning with helpful writing command. Feedback provision also has a function as scaffolding provided by the teachers to build students’ confidence in the learning process. Those who get involved in second language writing field argued that feedback is a pivotal factor for giving approval to the students in learning, so that the students are able to evaluate their own errors and revise their paper where necessary (Hyland & Hyland in Soori, et al, 2012).
The concern of feedback provision is in the way of how the teachers have to provide a fruitful feedback for the student, so that it will give a positive effect for the students’ writing development process and the quality of their writing
products. Therefore, teachers’ role is not only as a feedback provider but also as an examiner, reader, critic, judge, consultant, coach, guide, and facilitator (Soori, Janfaza, Zamani, 2012).
There are many ways to provide feedback for students’ writing improvements, but the most common that we could see in many academic writing courses, such as proposal and report writing course, is written corrective feedback provision which could be a critical feedback for students’ accuracy. Whereas,
7
of their own errors, and in their errors correction and evaluation (Soori, et al, 2012). In other words, feedback starts from the teachers and lead to the students.
Written Corrective Feedback
Feedback as an essential factor in writing becomes a wide concern for writing teachers as an only way to respond to the students’ paper. For a long time,
written corrective feedback appears as the most common feedback given by teachers to the students in an ESL/EFL writing class in order to respond to the students’ writing product. Of course, as a traditional feedback, it has its own advantages which other feedback cannot perform. It provides a critical instructional opportunity for the students to achieve a practical one-on-one communication that might be impossible in day-to-day class activities (Mi-mi, 2009). Since feedback provision is often impaired by the large number of students with their various errors, written corrective feedback provision might become a practical feedback which can overcome this problem.
8
In WCF, teachers often correct the students’ errors in every single word (give a circle or underline the errors on grammar or spelling) and might be giving them a short critical comment in their writing. Negative comments are often given by teachers to the students in their writing without any balance of positive suggestions which will not be valuable and give positive effects for the students’ writing improvement. Receiving a low quality of suggestion and a critical feedback will lead the students into negative emotions (Cafarella & Barnett in Gulfidan Can, 2011). Unluckily, students will more likely ignore the feedback. Even worse, the marks in WCF often drag the students’ motivation and interest in writing getting down. WCF may confuse the students in how they should deal with such marks or comments on their paper in the revising process. Positive feedback which integrates with a critical one will give the students the feeling of encouragement, confidence, and acceptance in their writing (Kumar & Stracke in Gulfidan Can, 2011). That’s why teachers have to combine both negative and positive comments on the students’ writing in order to make it balanced since it will be useful for the students’ written work (Eyres in Gulfidan Can, 2011)
9
awareness of their own errors. It might occur because of the lack of direct interaction between students and the teachers.
In the context of L2 writing, feedback which focuses on errors correction is seen as an essential part that should give the students benefit, in both short and long term. Commonly, WCF is given with the focus on linguistic matters rather than in how to develop and generate more ideas in students’ writing product. It
has been long regarded by those who are working in area of corrective feedback that WCF helps the students to learn and be able to master the use of linguistic forms and structures (Bitchener & Knoch, 2008). Six studies (Ashwell, 2008; Bitchener et all., 2005; Fathman & Walley, 1990; Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Sheen, 2006) found that students who received a single WCF meaningfully improved the accuracy of their writing and that the benefits increased from this input are not only temporary but also clearly found in a new piece of writing.
Oral Corrective Feedback
time-10
consuming in face-to-face interaction between the students and the teachers individually.
In particular, students prefer to talk to someone in order to discuss and to get advices about their paper in the revising process. The benefit of oral corrective feedback compared with written corrective feedback is that it provides a direct communication which allows the students to talk and ask question freely about their writing. Conversation is interactive and it requires people to work together effectively in order to communicate properly. Social coordination is needed to plan of what they say and will do next (Bavelas & Chovil in Appelbaum & Musial 2005). People not only create the content of their conversation (the who, what, when. where) but they also provide a proof of their understanding by nodding, asking questions, gesturing, among other techniques (Appelbaum & Musial, 2005).
11
information to reveal more complex errors, and offer more quick feedback on hypotheses that have been made. Hence, the students will be given a further and clear explanation of what they will do next in the revising process of their writing.
METHODOLOGY
This study was qualitative descriptive research. It started with the assumption that the research topic must be understood holistically. Its purpose was to describe a phenomenon of students’ perspectives of feedbacks provision and the effects of each feedback in a proposal writing class.
Context of the Study
This study was conducted at The Faculty of Language and Literature, Satya Wacana Christian University which is located in Salatiga, Central Java, Indonesia. The subjects of this study were the English Department students. They were taking Proposal and Report Writing course.
Participants
12 Instruments of Data Collection
The writer used interview as the instrument for this study to get the data. The interviews were recorded. The interview questions were about the students’ perspective toward the kind of feedback their teachers provided in their Proposal Report and Writing course.
Data Analysis
The data from the recorded interview were transcribed. The data were displayed descriptively. It was described based on the participants’ words and stories that were translated and presented as extracts. The data analysis was interpretative analysis by categorizing data according to the emerging themes.
FINDINGS
In this study the writer found that students have different views about the feedbacks they got in their proposal and report writing class. They revealed that each feedback brought them different effects. Oral corrective feedback showed more influence on the content. On the other hand, written corrective feedback showed more influence on the detail of the writing.
13
subtopic was facilitating sufficient information for revision, and the last subtopic was students’ top choices of feedbacks technique to use in the future.
Facilitating in Generating Ideas
The participants of the study viewed that interactive conversation, as oral feedback provision, helped in generating ideas. They generate ideas by listing, finding sources, brainstorming, mind mapping, etc. The following is an extract from the interview of a participant who agreed that oral feedback was beneficial for facilitating in generating ideas.
Extract 1
“I often get confused in how to organize my ideas and connect it to each other. So, to overcome it I used to go to see a friend who also write proposal and discuss it together since my teacher is too busy for extra consultation”
(Participant J) In contrast, written corrective feedback didn’t show significant effect for facilitating in generating ideas, since, there’s no interactive communication in it. The following is extract interview of participant who considered written feedback didn’t give a significant effect in the process of generating ideas.
Extract 2
“Written feedback limits my opportunity to ask the supervisor, especially, in how I should relate my ideas with the topic”
14
writing is much more difficult. In the process, learners often found difficulties in deciding their main point and organizing and developing their ideas.
In my analysis, oral corrective feedback gave the learners an opportunity to talk about their writing content freely and deeply. Learners could ask questions and clarify directly how the ideas should be developed and organized. Giving feedback in the part of generating ideas is different with the part of grammatical errors which could be given through written language. Ideas are too wide to be discussed through written language. It needs a deep working through without any communication limits. As participant J said, if she talked to her friends and teacher face to face, she could gain more ideas to develop her topic. Here, the writer could see that to elaborate more ideas, it needs unlimited interaction.
Another result why oral corrective feedback could facilitate in generating ideas is that the learners could measure how well they make their audiences understand their writing. Oral interaction provided an opportunity to get immediate feedback on what the audiences currently understand and how this understanding might be different with the learner’s intention. Through oral
conversation between the writer and the audiences, writer would know how to re-arrange their ideas to more focus in delivering their intention. Having oral conversation gave much contribution to avoid jumping ideas.
15
mutually understood. An interactive direct communication between the writer and the facilitator was needed since generating ideas is complex enough to be discussed. It was like finding a solution for a problem in which a discussion was important to get the deal and to avoid misunderstanding.
Improving Students’ Accuracy
In EFL writing, accuracy is needed since students have to consider the use of targeted linguistic forms and structures. Writing is not only about how the message being understood by audiences, but it’s also about how the writers
organize their words into correct grammatical matters. The participants’ views in this study showed that written corrective feedback (WCF) did help them improving their accuracy. The following is extract interview of participants who agreed that WCF did have advantage in improving accuracy.
Extract 3
“Through written feedback I could be sure that my supervisor had read my whole writing, because it can be seen from the underlines, circles, and comments on my paper. I can see clearly in which part I should revise and improve. It shows in detail what kind of grammatical errors I had made”
(Participant L) On the other hand, there were 6 students who thought oral corrective feedback was harmful in the part of accuracy improvement. Oral corrective feedback didn’t show satisfactory effects on students’ writing. The following is extract interview of a participant who argued that oral corrective feedback did not help the improvement in accuracy.
Extract 4
16
(Participant N) Fourteen out of 20 participants who received WCF from their proposal and report writing supervisor, said that WCF had the strength to help them improving and acquiring the targeted linguistic forms and structures. Besides developing deeper ideas to be discussed, students have to consider the grammatical correctness in their writing. The participants of this study are all EFL writing students. In this context, accuracy is an essential part of writing which couldn’t be abandoned.
Hence, in EFL writing context, delivering the ideas of a writing product to audiences could be successfully achieved if it had a correct targeted linguistic forms and structures. English as a foreign language is not used in daily life communication in which students need to think about accuracy in the language they used for writing. The correctness of grammatical matters and word choices could influence the quality of students’ writing product and the audiences’
understanding. Good writing product does not only have an interesting topic discussion with a lot of great ideas in it, but it also has an organized structure.
Since it was EFL writing in which students used a foreign language that is not used in daily life communication, writing students more likely found obstacles in grammatical matters. They might be influenced by their L1. In this case, supervisor who acts as a reader and also facilitator should be careful in providing feedback to improve students’ accuracy.
17
through marks and comments they got on their draft. Discussing about grammatical errors is different from developing ideas since it needs to be showed in detail. The marks students got on their draft could help them to remember one by one in which part they made errors. It helped them in the process of revision.
The finding showed that most participants viewed WCF effective in helping them improving the grammar accuracy of their writing. The finding was similar to the study of Bitchener & Knoch in 2008 which found that WCF enables ESL writing students to improve the accuracy. Thus, the improvement of students’ accuracy could be reached through WCF provision that offered detail knowledge of grammatical matters. Here, students could see what grammatical errors they had made clearly one by one on their drafts.
Facilitating Sufficient Information for Revision
One of the steps in the process of writing is revision. What writers needed in order to be able to revise their writing is information they got from their facilitator. Through the information, writers will be able to know what exactly are needed to be revised in their writing. The result of this study demonstrated that WCF facilitated ED proposal and report writing students with sufficient information to help them in the process of revision. The following extract provides the participants’ statements who agreed that WCF facilitated sufficient information for revision.
Extract 5
18
(Participant Q) Compared to WCF, students argued that oral corrective feedback tends to be forgettable. It indicates that the information in the feedback is not sufficient. It was like when someone’s talking and the interlocutor didn’t record the
information of the conversation, it may become an incomplete memory of information. The following extract is one of participants’ statements who claimed that oral corrective feedback didn’t provide sufficient information for their revision.
Extract 6
“I got both oral and written feedback for my writing. Both are helpful, but the written one seems more detail and easier to remember with all marks and comments on the error parts rather than the oral feedback.”
(Participant B) There were 14 participants out of 20 who agreed that written feedback did provide them sufficient information which they could use to develop their writing product. As a pedagogical sort, teacher written feedback is drew to bring a heavy informational load, providing commentary on the form and content of a text to encourage students to enhance their writing and merge their learning (Hyland & Hyland, 2001). The information should offer the aid of an expert, take roles as a guidance which provides opportunities for the students to see how others respond to their work and learn from the responses.
19
oral comments. Practically, since it was provided in the written form, it gave an ease for the students to work in the process of revision without missing any point that they needed.
In this study, the writer found that those who received oral corrective feedback mostly said that they face difficulties to implement the information they got from the evaluator in revising their writing. It happened since their supervisor was inconsistent with their comments and suggestions. More often, most students found that their supervisor did not read the whole writing product. The supervisor only gave general comments of the content but not specify it that could lead the students into confusion.
Even worse, many of them asked their proposal writing students to change the idea for many times whereas they had already confirmed it in the previous consultation. It showed that the students got trapped in the supervisor inconsistency which could destruct students’ interest in writing. By providing
written corrective feedback, the students could clarify if there were an inconsistency from the previous consultation with the next consultation.
The writer also thought that WCF offers the students a clear step to follow for their revision. Since, the comments written were based on the part that should be revised. So, if the students forgot what they should do next, they would look at their draft.
Top Choices of Feedbacks Technique to Use in the Future
20
choosing a technique a teacher should consider who the target is and what they need. In this study, the writer found that 5 out of 20 participants prefer the combination of oral and written feedback, 6 out of 20 participants prefer oral corrective feedback alone, and 9 out of 20 participants prefer written corrective feedback alone to be implemented in the future of proposal writing.
Those who preferred the combination of both oral and written feedback claimed that it would be better since it could complete each other. WCF took role as a written guideline, whereas the oral corrective feedback took a role as explanation of the guideline. The following extract presents the participant statement that preferred technique of using the combination of oral and written Six participants that chose the provision of oral corrective feedback alone argued that it gave them more opportunity to ask freely. Since, it was a conversational condition. The following is the extract interview of a participant who preferred oral corrective feedback to be used in the future.
Extract 8
“I prefer oral feedback. It gives me more opportunity to ask my supervisor freely and shows my disagreement directly”
21
A conversational condition did allow the students to ask and clarified directly to the supervisor. They rated conversation as a useful writing technique more highly rather than the written one. The following extract is the participant’s statement why written corrective feedback tends to be not preferable.
“I think written feedback is unclear. There’s no interaction between the students and the teacher. It limits my opportunity to ask. Especially in how to relate my idea with my topic”
(Participant A)
The results showed that the highest preference of feedback techniques to be used was written corrective feedback alone. Nine participants who preferred this technique mostly had the same idea that WCF was more specific and unforgettable since it was in the written form. The following extract provides a statement of a participant who believed that WCF is better to be used in the future writing.
Extract 9
“I prefer written feedback because through written feedback it would be shown that the supervisor had read all of my writing and they must give marks or comments in the every error’s part. So, it will be clearer since I won’t forget in which part the errors are. Grammatically, it really helps and is more specific”
22 Extract 10
“Oral feedback tends to be unclear since the supervisor often forgot what they had said in the previous consultation. Oral feedback also takes time since it burdened by the number of students”
(Participant R)
The study found that the provision of feedback should concern about who the target is. It should consider the need of the target appropriately. Teacher couldn’t use a feedback technique as they pleased, since the one who need and use the information of the feedback was students.
The writer believed that inappropriate provision of feedback would give an impact to the quality of students’ writing product at the end. Each feedback had their own function and effect on students writing. In the case of ED proposal writing students, oral corrective feedback had the aid of facilitated generating idea. On the other hand, written corrective feedback had the function to assist the students in improving accuracy, providing sufficient information as a guideline in revising, and assuring them that the supervisor had completely read their writing.
CONCLUSION
23
Each participant had their different response toward the feedbacks. It could be seen from the interview results; first, generating ideas was achieved by oral corrective feedback. Interactive conversation did help the students developing and organizing their ideas. Generating ideas in writing need unlimited communication in which students could gain more valuable ideas since ideas is too wide. Second, in the case of improving students’ accuracy, written corrective feedback had the
strength to help students improving and acquiring the targeted linguistic forms and structures. It showed in the findings that WCF was systematically more detail to show the grammatical errors in students’ writing rather than oral corrective
feedback. Third, compared to oral corrective feedback, WCF provided sufficient information in the revision process. In this case, WCF had the role as a guideline in which students could follow and remember of what they needed for their revision. Last, written corrective feedback had been the top choice of feedback technique to be used in the future based on the ED proposal writing students’ preference. The participants argued that they could ensure that their writing product had been completely read by their supervisor through written corrective feedback. It indicated that they had been given reliable feedback for their further writing.
24
feedback strategies in the EFL writing class based on the type of assignment, the particular teaching environment, and students’ writing proficiency. The proper utilization of varied feedback techniques will contribute to the productive use of feedback in writing class and facilitate students’ writing improvement in a foreign
language.
25
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis would not have been completed without the help and support from many people. Therefore, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the following people who have assisted e in completing this thesis. First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to:
- The Lord who has made everything fit beautifully in its appropriate time. - Ms. Maria Christina Eko S., M.Hum, my beloved supervisor, who was
abundantly helpful and gave meaningful assistance, support, patience and guidance.
- Mrs. Drs. Martha Nandari, M.A., my second reader, without her knowledge and assistance this study would not have been completed. - My beloved parents and only son, thank you for always loving, supporting
and motivating me during the process of writing my thesis.
- My best friends: Putri, Angel, Finna, Elia, Shinta, and Vio, thank you for the motivation and support.
- My participants, for their cooperation during the process of data collection.
26 References:
Afshin Soori, A. J. (2012). The Impact of Teacher Feedback on Grammar and Content of the Performance of the EFL Students. European Journal of Social Sciences, 32 No.1 (1450-2267), 84-96. Retrieved October 22, 2013, from http://www.europeanjournalofsocialsciences.com
Beuningen, C. V. (2010). Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Insights,and Future Directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10 No.2 (1578-7044), 1-27. Retrieved October 22, 2013, from www.um.es/ijes
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. Retrieved October 23, 2013, from
http://faculty.uscupstate.edu/dmarlow/718/Error%20Correction%20-%20Chandler.pdf
Coterall, S., & Cohen, R. (2003). Scaffolding for second language writers: producing an academic essay. ELT journal, 57/2. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from http://web.b.ebscohost.com/
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. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from www.sciencedirect.com
Ferris, D. (2007). Preparing Teachers to Respond to Student Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 165-193. Retrieved November 4, 2013, from www.sciencedirect.com
Guenette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40-53. Retrieved November 10, 2013, from www.sciencedirect.com Gulfidan Can, A. W. (2011). A Model for Doctoral Students’ Perceptions and
Attitudes Toward Written Feedback for Academic Writing. Res High Educ , 52, 508-536. Retrieved November 10, 2013, from
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/
Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: giving more autonomy to students.
Open University of Hongkong, 4 (1), 33-54. Retrieved November 15, 2013, from from http://www2.caes.hku.hk/
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185-212. Retrieved November 14, 2013, from http://www2.caes.hku.hk/
John Bitchener, S. Y. (2005). The Effect of Different Types of Corrective
27
14, 191-205. Retrieved November 14, 2013, from http://peoplelearn.homestead.com/
John Bitchener, U. K. (2009). The Contribution of Written Corrective Feedback to Language Development: A Ten Month Investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31 No.2, 193-214. Retrieved November 17, 2013, from
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/
John Bitchener, U. K. (2008). The Value of a Focused Approach to Written Corrective Feedback. ELT Journal, 63, 204-210. Retrieved November 17, 2013, from http://web.a.ebscohost.com/
John Bitchener, U. K. (2008). The Value of Written Corrective Feedback for Migrant and International Students. Language Teaching Research , 409-431. Retrieved November 17, 2013, from http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ Liz Murphy, J. R. (2010). Feedback in Second Language Writing: An
introduction. International Journal of English Studies, 10 No.2, 1-15. Retrieved November 17, 2013, from http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/ Meredyth Krych-Appelbaum, J. M. (2005). Students' Perceptions of Value of
Interactive Oral Communication as Part of Writing Course Papers. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34 No.3. Retrieved November 20, 2013, from http://web.a.ebscohost.com/
Mi-mi, L. (2009). Adopting varied feedback modes in the EFL writing class. US-China Foreign Language, 7. Retrieved November 20, 2013, from
http://www.airitilibrary.com/
Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35 No. 5, 501-517. Retrieved November 26, 2013, from http://www.law.uwa.edu.au/
Perpignan, H. (2003). Exploring the written feedback dialogue: a research, learning and teaching practice. Language Teaching Research, 7,2, 259-278. Retrieved December 3, 2013, from http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ Sokolik, M. (2003). Writing in D. Nunan (Ed.). Practical English Language
Teaching . Retrieved December 3, 2013, from http://www.hss.nthu.edu.tw/ Truscott, J. (1999). The Case for “The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2
Writing Classes”: A Response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111-122. Retrieved December 3, 2013, from
http://www.hss.nthu.edu.tw/
William, J. (2007). Teaching writing in Second Language Writing Classroom.
28 APPENDIX
Interview Questions
1. Are you taking proposal and report writing class?
2. What difficulties do you face in your proposal writing process?
3. In what part do you find it difficult?
4. What kind of feedbacks do you usually get from your supervisor? (oral, written, balance of both)
5. What do you usually do with the feedback you got?
6. After you got the feedback, do you realize your weakness in writing? Please explain!
7. What kind of errors do you usually make?
8. How is your writing after you got the feedbacks? 9. Do the feedbacks help you in revising? Why?
10. What kind of teacher’s comment did you get in your writing? (positive, negative, balance of both)
11.Do the comments help to motivate you in writing? Why? 12.How do use the comments to improve your writing? 13.What kind of feedbacks do you think are unclear?
