The Effectiveness of Teachers Corrective Feedback in Enhancing Students Ability to Recount Text Writing
Abstract
Most junior high school students get some difficulties in recount text writing. The purpose of this research is to explain the kind of corrective feedback that is more effective for high achievers, for low achievers, and for mixed groups of high and low achievers in enhancing their ability in recount text writing and explain the interaction between corrective feedback, students prior achievement, and ability in recount text writing. The samples are eighth-graders ofSMP Agus Salim. The experiment group receives direct corrective feedback while the control group receives indirect corrective feedback. And from both groups, the researcher divides again into two groups of high and low achievers. Finally, direct feedback is more effective for mixed groups of high and low achievers. The sum of means score of the experimental group is 63.75. While the total means score of the control group is 63.50. The mean score of the high achievers that received direct corrective feedback is 62.00, while the low achievers were 65.5. And from the control group, the high achiever group mean is 66.00 while the low achiever group means is 61.00. So direct corrective feedback is better used for low achievers.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Anderson, Kathy and Mark Anderson. 1997. Text Types in English. Sydney: Macmillan Education Australia.
Brown, H.D. 2006. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey:Prentice Hall Inc.
___________. 2004. Language Assesment: Principles and Classroom Practises. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
Carless, D. 2006. Differing Perceptions in the Feedback Process. Studies in Higher Education,31(2).
Chandler, J. 2003. The Efficacy of Various Kinds of Feedback for Improvement in the Accuracy and Fluency of L2 Student Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (3), 267-296.
Dahar, M.A et al. 2009. Prior achievement is the indicator of use of school resources and the predictor of academic achievement in Punjab (Pakistan). Islamabad: Munich Personal RePEc Archive
Dulay, H, et all. 1982. Language Two. New York: Oxford Universuty Press.
Ferris, D. R. 2003. Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.
James, C. 2013. Errors in Language Learning and Use: Exploring Error Analysis. London: Longman.
Oshima, A and Ann Hogue. 2006. Writing Academic English. New York: Pearson Education.
Perkins, D. 1992. Smart school: Better thinking and learning for every child. New York: The Free Press.
Reigeluth, C.M. 2011. Instructional Theory and Technology for the New Paradigm of Education . Bloomington: Indiana University.
Saleh, M. 2012. Beginning Research in English Language Teaching. Semarang: Widya Karya
Sukestiyarno. 2011. Olah Data penelitian Bebantuan SPSS. Semarang: UNNES
DOI: https://doi.org/10.38114/joeel.v1i1.24
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2020 JOEEL: Journal of English Education and Literature

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
STKIP PAMANE TALINO
Hilir Ktr., Kec. Ngabang, Kabupaten Landak, Kalimantan Barat 79357
Copyright @2019 JOEEL (Journal of English Education and Literature)
