The Secondary School Students’ Usage of English Learning Websites to Self-Correct Writing Errors

Alia Nur Dodgson Bt Tariq, Masdinah Alauyah Md. Yusof

Abstract


Corrective feedback (CF) is an inevitable teaching strategy carried out by educators, especially in an English Language classroom. Past studies have shown that corrective feedback is effective; however, indirect corrective feedback seems to have a variety of issues that has caused it to be unsuccessful. Some studies found that one of the setbacks of indirect corrective feedback is students are still having difficulties in dealing with and learning from the indirect corrective feedback itself. Students could not rectify their errors as they do not have sufficient linguistic knowledge to facilitate them, especially when they have to deal with complex linguistic errors all by themselves. Hence, this research was carried out to address this problem via the utilization of the English Language learning websites as the reference materials for the students to deal with complex linguistic errors. It was hoped that the students would be able to deal with indirect corrective feedback and successfully self-correct their errors. The qualitative research approach was employed in this research, where participants recorded their usage of the English Language learning websites in a logbook. Five randomly selected participants were interviewed to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of their experience, feedback and comments. The results showed that there were positive reactions and comments which indicated that the use of the English Language learning websites has been successful in assisting the participants in dealing with indirect corrective feedback and in doing self-correction. However, there were also negative reactions to be taken into account. Thus, this presentation will highlight some insights from the research.

Keywords


English Language learning Websites; Indirect corrective feedback; Self-correction

Full Text:

PDF

References


BestariNet (2012). 1BestariNet kementerian pendidikan Malaysia. Retrieved May 2, 2015 from http://1bestarinet.net/

Ahmadi-Azad, S. (2014). The effect of coded and uncoded written corrective feedback types on Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 4 (5). 1001-1008.

Ambigapathy Pandian (2002). English language teacher in Malaysia today. Asia-Pacific Journal of Education, 22 (2). 35-52.

BBC Learning English (2015). Learning english : Inspiring language learning since 1943. Retrieved March 5, 2015 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningenglish/

Bitchener, J., Young, S. & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191-205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001

Boykin, D. (2003). Growing online education opportunities. Engineering Times, 25 (9), 11.

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.

Doughty, C., and J. Williams. (1998). “Pedagogical choices in focus on form”. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds) Focus on form in classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. R. (1999). “The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes. A response to Truscott (1996)”. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8: 1-11.

Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3587804

Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the shortand long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland, & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues. (pp. 84-104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Firth, S. (1987). Developing self-correcting and self-monitoring strategies. TESL Talk, 17(1),148-152.

Ghandi, M. & Maghsoudi, M. (2014). The effects of direct and indirect corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ spelling errors. English Language Teaching. 7 (8). 53- 60.

Guénette, D. (2007). “Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing”. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16: 40-53.

Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany: State Universoty of New York Press.

Hauser, J. (1987). Stimulating critical thinking and discussion formats: Research and strategies for educators to ponder. Paper presented at the Annual Meting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Houston. (ERIC Document Reproduction Servce No. ED277704).

Ibarrola, A. L. (2013). Reformulation and Self-correction: Insights into correction strategies for EFL writing in a school context. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 10,29- 49.

Kassim, A. & Ng, L. L. (2014). Investigating the efficacy of focused and unfocused corrective feedback on the accurate use of prepositions in written work. English Language Teaching.7 (2). 119- 130.

Killen, R. (2009). Effecive teaching strategies: Lesson from research and practice (5th Ed.). Australia: Cengage Learning.

Kinchin, I. M. (2004). Achieving a shared understanding of the learner’s role through teacher-student dialogue. Education Today, 54, 28-30.

Krashen, S.D., (1982). Principles and practices in Second Language Acquisition. Pergamon Press, New York.

Lyster, R. (1998). “Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20: 51-81.

Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). “Corrective feedback and learner uptake”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19: 37-66.

Makino, T. (1993). Learner self-correction in EFL written compositions. ELT Journal. 47 (4) 337-341.

Maleki, A. & Eslami, E. (2013). The effects of written corrective feedback techniques on EFL students’ control over grammatical construction of their written English. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 3 (7). 1250-1257.

Marsh, C. (2008). Becoming a teacher: Knowledge, skills and issues. Australia: Pearson Education Australia.

Masdinah Alauyah Md. Yusof (2002). Perceptions of students and lecturers towards self access English language learning (SAELL) approach and programme: a case study (PhD thesis). The University of Reading, United Kingdom.

Melor Md Yunus. (2007). Malaysian ESL teachers’ use of ICT in their classrooms: expectations and realities. European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning. ReCALL 19(1):79-95

Moganashwari, K & Parilah, M. S. (2013). Knowledge, attitude and use of ICT among ESL teachers. GSE Journal of Education. Retrieved April 4, 2015 from: http://worldconferences.net/journals/gse/GSE%2012%20MOGANASHWARI.pdf

Noriah (2002). Expanding traditional classroom through technology: A collaborative learning process. Journal of Teacher Education. 12:17-28.

Pamela, K. (2006). Factors affecting the online delivery of English Language Courses in a virtual learning environment, UPM, Jilid 2, Bilangan 2.

Sarantakos , S. (1993). Social Research. South Melbourne: Macmillan Education Australia.

Sou,G. (2006). The real value of e-education. Education Today, 56 (2). 23- 27.

Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners' processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies on Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303-334.

Taylor, G. R. (2005). Integrating quantitative and qualitative methods in research (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: University Press of America.

Tocalli-Beller, A. & Swain, M. (2005). “Reformulation: The cognitive conflict and L2 learning it generates”. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15: 5-28.

University of Worcester (2012). Study skills advice sheet: Learning journal. Retrieve April 20, 2015 from:

http://www.worcester.ac.uk/studyskills/documents/Learning_Journals_2012.pdf

Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language learning. 62 (1). 1– 41.

Vickers, C. (2001). Indirect Negative Evidence as Corrective Feedback in Second Language Writing: Comparing Output to Input. Arizona Working Papers in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching, 8.27-44.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21462/asiantefl.v1i1.3

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.



Creative Commons License
ASIAN TEFL: Journal of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics by http://www.asian-tefl.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://www.asian-tefl.com.
View My Stats
Indexed and Abstracted by:

          


ASIAN TEFL: Journal of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics

web: www.asian-tefl.com

email: asian.teflj@gmail.com

Publisher: Asosiasi Dosen Linguistik, Pendidikan Bahasa, dan Sastra di Indonesia (Lecturer Association of Linguistics, Language Teaching, and Literature Studies in Indonesia)

Address: Prodi Sastra Inggris, Universitas Dian Nuswantoro, Jl Imam Bonjol No. 207, Semarang