Vol 5 No 2 (2020): October
Articles

Effect of teacher and peer written corrective feedback on writing components in EFL classrooms


Sonny Elfiyanto
Department of English Language Education, Graduate School of Education, Hiroshima University, Japan
Bio
Seiji Fukazawa
Department of English Language Education, Graduate School of Education, Hiroshima University, Japan
Bio
Picture in here are illustration from public domain image or provided by the author, as part of their works
Published October 9, 2020
Keywords
  • Teacher WCF, Peer WCF, Writing performance, Writing components, EFL
How to Cite
Elfiyanto, S., & Fukazawa, S. (2020). Effect of teacher and peer written corrective feedback on writing components in EFL classrooms. JEES (Journal of English Educators Society), 5(2), 185-191. https://doi.org/10.21070/jees.v5i2.826

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the impact of teacher and peer written corrective feedback (WCF) on Indonesian senior high school students’ writing performance. A total of 71 Indonesian senior high school students from Grade X participated in this study; 36 were provided teacher WCF and 35 peers WCF. To collect and data, the participants were asked to write a legend essay. Using qualitative data analysis, we aimed to reveal the effectiveness of teacher and peer WCF in improving students’ writing performance. Adapted scoring rubric was employed to measure students’ overall writing performance, and competencies in relation to writing components such as content, organization, grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics. The results revealed that peer WCF can better enhance students’ writing abilities compared to teacher WCF. Furthermore, students who received teacher WCF showed substantial improvement in performance relating to all writing components except mechanics. In contrast, peer WCF enhanced students’ organization and vocabulary related performance.

HIGHLIGHTS:

  • Peer WCF is more effective than teacher WCF in enhancing Indonesian senior high school students’ writing performance, especially in writing legend texts.
  • Teacher WCF helped significantly improve four components of writing competence: content, organization, vocabulary, and language, while peer WCF positively impacted organization and vocabulary components.
  • Combining both teacher and peer WCF could be more beneficial in improving students’ writing achievement than either type of WCF alone. 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Ariyanti, A., & Fitriana, R. (2017). EFL students' difficulties and needs in essay writing. In International Conference on Teacher Training and Education 2017 (ICTTE 2017). Atlantis Press.
  2. Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215-241.
  3. Biber, D., Nekrasova, T. & Horn, B. (2011). The effectiveness of feedback for L1-English and L2-writing development: A meta-analysis. ETS Research Report Series, 2011(1), i-99.
  4. Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge.
  5. Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  6. Conrad, S., & Goldstein, L. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher written comments: Texts, contexts and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 147-180.
  7. Double, K.S., McGrane, J.A., & Hopfenbeck, T.N. (2020). The impact of peer assessment on academic performance: A meta-analysis of control group studies. Educational Psychology Review, 32(2), 481-509.
  8. Elfiyanto, S. (2020). The effect of peer assessment on students’ performance in writing narrative essays. In International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICONELT 2019) (pp. 78-82). Atlantis Press.
  9. Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315-339.
  10. Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11.
  11. Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  12. Gibbs, G. & Simpson, C. (2004) Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3-31.
  13. Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Smeets, S. (2010). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback and of various peer feedback forms in a secondary school writing curriculum. British Educational Research Journal, 36(1), 143-162.
  14. Hartono, R. (2005). Genres of texts. Semarang: Semarang State University.
  15. Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
  16. Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(2), 141-163.
  17. Holt, M. (1992). The value of written peer criticism. College Composition and Communication, 43(3), 384-392.
  18. Homayounzadeh, M., Mehrpour, S., & Saadat, M. (2016). Peer corrective feedback on L2 writing: Does it help improve written accuracy and L2 explicit knowledge over time?. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 28-45.
  19. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing: An introduction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 1-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  20. Kebudayaan, K. P. (2016). Bahasa Inggris SMA/MA, SMK/MAK kelas X Edisi Revisi. (Jakarta: Pusat Kurikulum dan Pembukuan, Balitbang, Kemendikbud).
  21. Kemendikbud (Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan). (2013). Permendikbud Nomor 69 tahun 2013 tentang KD dan Struktur Kurikulum SMA-MA [The decree of the Ministry of Education number 69 2013 about senior high school’s basic competence and curriculum structure]. Retrieved July 7, 2018, from http://bsnp-indonesia.org/2013/06/20 /permendikbud-tentang-kurikulum-tahun-2013/
  22. Kurt, G., & Atay, D. (2007). The effects of peer feedback on the writing anxiety of prospective Turkish teachers of EFL. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 3(1), 12-23.
  23. Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30-43.
  24. Min, H. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 118-141.
  25. Myles, J. (2002). Second language writing and research: The writing process and error analysis in student texts. TESL-EJ, 6(2), 1-20.
  26. Nunan, D. (2001). Second language acquisition. In R. Carter, & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 87-92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  27. Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265-289.
  28. Peterson, S. S. (2013). Peer Feedback on writing: An assessment for learning tool. Research for Teacher: university of Toronto.
  29. Richards, J.C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  30. Ruegg, R. (2015). The relative effects of peer and teacher feedback on improvement in EFL students’ writing ability. Linguistics and Education, 29, 73-82.
  31. Saeli, H., & Cheng, A. (2019). Effects of L1 writing experiences on L2 writing perceptions: Evidence from an English as a foreign language context. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 35(6), 509-524.
  32. Saville-Troike, M., & Barto, K. (2016). Introducing second language acquisition. Cambridge: University Press.
  33. Straub, R. (1997). Students’ reactions to teacher comments: An exploratory study. Research in the Teaching of English, 31(1), 91-119.
  34. Tillema, M. (2012). Writing in first and second language: Empirical studies on text quality and writing processes. Utrecht: LOT.
  35. Tribble, C. (1996). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  36. Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170.
  37. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.
  38. Webster New World Dictionary. (1988). Legend. In Webster New World Dictionary (3rd, pp.771). Webster New World Dictionaries.
  39. Williams, J. G. (2003). Providing feedback on ESL students’ written assignments. The Internet TESL Journal, 9(10), 1-5.
  40. Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 697-715.