Investigating English Lecturers’ Strategies of Committing Online Written Corrective Feedback during Covid-19 Pandemic

Authors

  • Ahmad Hanan Universitas Pendidikan Mandalika, Indonesia
  • Edi Firman Universitas Pendidikan Mandalika, Indonesia
  • Terasne Terasne Universitas Pendidikan Mandalika, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v10i1.4471

Keywords:

Lecturers’ Strategies, Online Learning, Written Corrective Feedback,

Abstract

Written corrective feedback is essential in the teaching of writing skills to help prospective teacher enhance their writing performance. Lecturers try to apply strategies in committing written corrective feedback in fully online learning. In addition, written corrective feedback can improve learners’ metalinguistics, metacognition, teachers-learners interaction, and peer connection. Consequently, the present study will be aimed at investigating English lecturers’ common practices and strategies in committing online written corrective feedback during Covid-19 pandemic at higher education. This study is classified as a qualitative study which is a descriptive qualitative study. It is chosen because the data of this study relates to opinions or attitudes in the form of lecturers’ strategies in the teaching of writing skills and online corrective feedback. The data are elaborated in the form of words, phrases, sentences, and paragraphs. To attain the data, researchers use interview technique. There are five English lecturers involved in the current study. The data are analyzed by using qualitative processes which are data condensation, data display, and conclusion drawing or verification. The novelty of this study lies on written feedback, written corrective feedback, and online written corrective feedback. Due to Covid-19 pandemic, the teaching-learning process is done in fully online learning.

Author Biographies

Ahmad Hanan, Universitas Pendidikan Mandalika

English Language Department

Edi Firman, Universitas Pendidikan Mandalika

English Language Education

Terasne Terasne, Universitas Pendidikan Mandalika

English Language Education

References

Benson, S., & DeKeyser, R. (2019). Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research, 23(6), 702–726. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818770921

Beuningen, C. Van. (2010). Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Insights, and Future Directions. International Journal of Language Studies, 10(0), 1–27. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119171

Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters.

Borg, S. (2012). Current approaches to language teacher cognition research: A methodological analysis. In R. Barnard & A. Burns (Eds.), Researching language teacher cognition and practice: International case studies (pp. 11–29). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.

Chukharev-hudilainen, E., & Saricaoglu, A. (2016). Causal discourse analyzer: improving automated feedback on academic ESL writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 8221(February), 0–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.991795

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education (8th Edition). New York: Routledge.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (Fifth Edition). In Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (Vol. 53, Issue 9). Los Angeles: Sage Publication. https://doi.org/https://lccn.loc.gov/2017044644

DeWitt, D., Siraj, S., & Alias, N. (2014). Collaborative m-Learning: A module for learning secondary school science. Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 89–101

Dippold, D. (2009). Peer feedback through blogs: Student and teacher perceptions in an advanced German class. ReCALL, 21, 18–36.

Du, Q. J. (2013). On course design of business English teaching based on QQ platform. Overseas English, 7, 106–108.

Ebyary, K., & Windeat, S. (2010). The Impact of Computer-Based Feedback on Students’ Written Work. International Journal of Language Studies, 10(2), 121–142. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119231

Ellis, R. (2010). Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 335–349. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990544

Gao, X., Moses, M., & Adelina, A. (2016). Online Features of Qzone Weblog for Critical Peer Feedback to Facilitate Business English Writing. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 45(2), 285–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239516659865

Gao, J., & Ma, S. (2019). The effect of two forms of computer-automated metalinguistic corrective feedback. Language Learning and Technology, 23(2), 65–83. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10125/44683

Ghosn-chelala, M., & Al-chibani, W. (2018). Screencasting : Supportive Feedback for EFL Remedial Writing Students. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-08-2017-0075

Haerazi, H., Utama, I. M. P., & Hidayatullah, H. (2020). Mobile Applications to Improve English Writing Skills Viewed from Critical Thinking Ability for Pre-Service Teachers. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (IJIM), 14(07), 58. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v14i07.11900

Haerazi, H., Irawan, L. A., Suadiyatno, T., & Hidayatullah, H. (2020). Triggering Preservice Teachers’ Writing Skills through Genre-Based Instructional Model Viewed from Creativity. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(1), 234–244. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i1.203945

Huun, K. (2018). Student Prsence and Faculty Availability in Fully Online Course: Is Alignment Requisite? Journal of Educators Online, 15(2). https://www.thejeo.com/archive/2018_15_2/huun_kummerow

Jacob, L., Lachner, A., & Scheiter, K. (2020). Learning by explaining orally or in written form? Text complexity matters. Learning and Instruction, 68(October 2019), 101344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101344

Lee, I. (2019). Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more. Language Teaching, 52(4), 524–536. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000247

Lee, I., Mak, P., & Burns, A. (2015). Bringing Innovation to Conventional Feedback Approaches in EFL Secondary Writing Classrooms. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 14(2), 140–163. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-02-2015-0004

Lomicka, L. (2020). Creating and sustaining virtual language communities. Foreign Language Annals, 53(2), 306–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12456

Lord, G., & Lomicka, L. (2014). Twitter as a tool to promote community among language teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22(2), 187–212. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/49768/

Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. In Studies in Second Language Acquisition (Vol. 32, Issue 2). Kean University. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990520

Ma, J. (2019). The effect of two forms of computer-automated metalinguistic corrective feedback. Language Learning and Technology, 23(2), 65–83. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10125/44683

Mandernach, B. J. (2018). Strategies to Maximize the Impact of Feedback and Streamline Your Time. Journal of Educators Online, 15(3). Retrieve from https://www.thejeo.com/archive/archive/2018_153/mandernachpdf

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2016). Quantitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (Third). Los Angeles: Sage Publication.

Milla, R., & Mayo, M. P. G. (2013). Corrective feedback episodes in oral interaction: A comparison of a CLIL and an EFL classroom. International Journal of Language Studies, 14(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/14/1/151841

Paesani, K. (2020). Teacher Professional Development and Online Instruction: Cultivating Coherence and Sustainability. Foreign Language Annals, 53(2), 292–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12468

Papi, M., Bondarenko, A., Wawire, D., Jiang, C., & Zhou, S. (2020). Feedback-seeking behaviour in second language writing: Motivational mechanisms. Reading and Writing, 33, page 485–

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09971-6

Ranalli, J. (2019). The affordances of process-tracing technologies for supporting L2 writing instruction. Language Learning and Technology, 23(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10125/44678

Sato, M., & Loewen, S. (2018). Metacognitive Instruction Enhances the Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback: Variable Effects of Feedback Types and Linguistic Targets. Language Learning, 68(2), 507–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12283

Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. In Studies in Second Language Acquisition (Vol. 32, Issue 2). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990507

Shintani, N. (2015). The effects of computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous direct corrective feedback on writing: a case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, February, 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.993400

Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 286–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011

Sippel, L. (2019). The impact of peer corrective feedback on vocabulary development. Foreign Language Annals, 52(3), 595–611. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12416

Song, S. Y. (2015). Teacher beliefs about language learning and teaching. In M. Bigelow & J. Ennserâ€Kananen (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 263–275). New York, NY: Routledge.

Stefanou, C., & Révész, A. (2015). Direct Written Corrective Feedback, Learner Differences, and the Acquisition of Second Language Article Use for Generic and Specific Plural Reference. Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12212

Storch, N. (2010). Critical Feedback on Written Corrective Feedback Research. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119181

Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. In Studies in Second Language Acquisition (Vol. 32, Issue 2). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532

Strickland, B. M. (2019). Writing for the (virtual) other: Bakhtinian intertextuality within online L2 writing exchanges. Language Learning Journal, 47(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1146915

Xianwie, X., Samuel, S., & Asmawi, A. (2016). A model of critical peer feedback to facilitate Business English Writing using Qzone weblogs among Chinese undergraduates. Malaysia Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17220/mojet

Yuan, R., & Stapleton, P. (2020). Student teachers’ perceptions of critical thinking and its teaching. ELT Journal, 74(1), 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccz044

Downloads

Published

2022-01-21

How to Cite

Hanan, A., Firman, E., & Terasne, T. (2022). Investigating English Lecturers’ Strategies of Committing Online Written Corrective Feedback during Covid-19 Pandemic. Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 10(1), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v10i1.4471

Issue

Vol. 10 No. 1 (2022)

Section

Articles

Citation Check

License

License and Publishing Agreement
In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:

  1. They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
  2. The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
  3. That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
  4. That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
  5. They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
  6. They agree to the following license and publishing agreement.

Copyright
Authors who publish with JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. 
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

Licensing for Data Publication

JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching uses a variety of waivers and licenses, that are specifically designed for and appropriate for the treatment of data:
Other data publishing licenses may be allowed as exceptions (subject to approval by the editor on a case-by-case basis) and should be justified with a written statement from the author, which will be published with the article.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.