Upload
farah-hasaban
View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
1/50
1
THE OUTCOME OF CODED CORRECTIVE
FEEDBACK (CF) ON MALAYSIAN PUPILS
WRITING
MPB1734RESEARCH ONE
NAME:FARAH BINTI HASABAN
MATRICS NO:MP!"13#$
ATTENDED SUPERVISOR:
PMDR MASDINAH ALAUYAH BT MOHD YUSOF
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
2/50
2
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
11 I%&'*+&,%
For many second language learners, receiving a feedback on their
written work is significant as it highlights the errors made thus enable
learners to execute an immediate correction. Learners benefited from such
approach for they get the opportunity to note and modify their errors into
accurate forms which result to a good piece of writing. Such positive impact
signifies the crucial role of corrective feedback (CF in second language
(L! learning. "esides that, corrective feedback can greatly influence the
learner#s motivation and the linguistic accuracy of their writing. $herefore,
it is not surprising that corrective feedback (CF has a place in the theories
of second language (L! learning and in language pedagogy. "oth
perspectives share the same opinion which agrees upon the poignancy of
giving feedback to students# written work as a vital strategy for it helps to
promote a better L! writing. $o date, there are growing amount of studies in
attempt to investigate the type of corrective feedback that cater the
development of L! ac%uisition. $hese studies are %uintessentially important
as the findings obtained would provide in depth clarification on issues
concerning corrective feedback.
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
3/50
3
Corrective feedback (CF, as aforementioned, constitutes a negative
type of feedback that responds to a linguistic error committed by the learner
which can be represented by (& an indication that an error has been made,
(! a provision of the correct language form, (' metalinguistic information
on the nature of error, or ( a combination of these ()llis, Loewen, * )rlam,
!++. For L! teachers, the usual response to learners# errors would be
number (&. $he indication of errors, as outlined in number (&, is commonly
responded by the teachers through an employment of two kinds of symbols,
which are first, giving a tick to the correct form and secondly, placing a cross
or an underline to the incorrect forms. "y doing so, learners would be
informed implicitly of the errors occurred thus enable them to proceed with
the correction task. $his task usually involves the process of modifying the
incorrect forms into correct forms of the target language. Such process results
a refined version of L! writing.
-et, in alaysian classroom, such an ideal scenario does not always
take place in all settings. $here are still many pupils, in some settings,
struggling to correct errors in their writing although the teachers have
highlighted the errors through the aforementioned two symbols (i.e. crosses
or underlines. Such cases are evident among the pupils who reside in the
rural parts of alaysia. /ue to their limited exposure of L! (which is
restricted during school hours only, these pupils often display a poor grasp
of L! thus fail to identify the type of language form or grammatical items that
should be corrected. $herefore, many pupils, especially in the rural area, will
face a huge difficulty to construct simple sentences as well as to create a flow
of ideas in their L! written work.
0aving said that, there are cases in which although teachers have
provided corrective feedback on their pupils# writing, their latter writing
version would be repetitively displayed as a 1recycle# of the same
grammatical errors, articles and tenses in particular. $his is because the
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
4/50
4
remarks given by the teachers are of a variety. $eachers sometimes make
wavy lines to indicate grammatical errors in their students# writing, without
clearly emphasi2ing the type of tenses and articles that should be used. 3s a
result, students have little clue of what they need to correct and they will later
end up being confused and will resort to copying their friends# work. Such
scenario often occurs at primary level, for many pupils could not decipher the
symbols placed by their teacher on their inaccuracy usage on L!.
0ence, to help the students and teachers of L! in the primary schools
in alaysia, the need to discover a good practice of corrective feedback is
clearly significant. 4t is clear that the real issue that should be focused here is
the explicitness of corrective feedback to be offered as it will affect the
%uality of corrections made by the pupils. "esides that, the type of errors to
be highlighted by the teachers should be thought carefully. $his is because
the implications of such thought would determine the teachers# choice of
symbols or coded signs as indication of errors in their pupils# written work.
oreover, it would also signify the type of corrective feedback (CF that they
believe is sufficient for the pupils to do their self5correction. $his calls for
further studies on what is an ideal type of corrective feedback that teachers
could practised when assessing the pupils# writing.
$his study, therefore attempts to find out whether coded type
corrective feedback has a significant impact on the pupils# accuracy of L!
usage particularly of the 5grammatical items (i.e. tenses, articles,prepositions and con6unctions and 5technical items (i.e. missing word, word
usage7vocabulary, spelling, punctuation. $his is followed by the preceded
focus which is to find out whether coded corrective feedback enables the
pupils to practice self5correction of their own writing.
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
5/50
5
1- B.+/0'*% S&*2
$his study will take place in a primary school in a rural part of
ersing, 8ohor. $he school is located in a F)L/3 settlers# area, where a
ma6ority of the pupils come from the middle to low social 5economic
background. $he learning of L! in this school of 95period a week: each
period entails a '+5minute lesson. ;ut of the five5day schooling hours, there
are '5day of !5period of a +5minute L! lessons and a day of '+5minute
lesson. $he writing lessons usually overrules the reading, listening and
speaking lessons because the pupils always complain that they have difficulty
to write using the correct L! forms and that their written work are often of
poor %uality with a lot of errors on the L! forms, such as the use of articles,
tenses (simple present, simple past, prepositions, con6unctions, word error,
punctuation marks and spelling.
/uring a writing lesson, usually the teacher would provide a stimulus
or a series of pictures with some words. $he stimulus would entitle the pupils
to strictly write
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
6/50
6
the given words into a few paragraphs to form an essay. 3like the first task,
the pupils tend to repeat the same grammatical errors (i.e. articles, tenses
(present and past, prepositions, con6unctions and the same gross errors (i.e.
spelling, word error and punctuation marks. Such poor performance by the
pupils causes a constant worry of the teacher5in5charge, whom has put
laborious efforts on correcting the pupils# written tasks every day.
Clearly, the above scenario depicts an irony that shows even though
corrective feedback (CF is provided by the teacher5in5charge, if it is not
executed explicitly: it could be construed as insufficient and ineffective to
ensure a development of the pupils# L! writing. )vidently, through the above
corrective feedback type, instead of a show of a progress, the pupils tend to
repeat the same grammatical errors and other types of gross errors (i.e.
spelling, word error and punctuation marks in their latter L! writing. $his
clearly signals the need for a more explicit type of corrective feedback to be
employed in order to refine the pupils# ability to self5correct their errors in
their L! writing.
$herefore, the aim of the study is to discover whether explicit type of
corrective feedback can be helpful for the pupils to identify the type of errors
of L! forms and modify the errors into its accurate version. 4t is decided that
coded corrective feedback (CF is employed throughout the study. 3 set of
codes are employed in this study: and the codes represent either of these twocategories which are first, the usage of 5grammatical items namely articles,
tenses, prepositions and con6unctions. $he second category is on 5common
errors in writing which are: omission of a word, word error, punctuation and
spelling. Such focus is based on two ma6or reasons. $he former is due to the
fact that these pupils, who are in the thyear of schooling, have been taught
on the aforementioned two categories as one of the integral parts of writing.
-et, the ma6or errors made in their written work are rooted from the improper
usage of these items. $he latter reason for such focus is the pupils#
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
7/50
7
misconceptions on few grammatical items: particularly the mixed5up tenses
usage, deletion of articles 1a# and 1the#, and inaccurate usage of prepositions
and con6unctions.
13 S&.&%& P'56
3lthough a lot of effort has been derived by teachers to correct their
pupils# writings, it turns out that not many pupils are capable to self5correct
their writing confidently. a6ority of them will repeat a variety of errors
which roots from the tenses, pronouns, prepositions, articles and spelling in
their writings. ;n top of that, the pupils are often incapable to decipher the
teacher#s symbols on the errors committed, which are of a range of
grammatical items and technical items. 0ence, the final product would
always display their incompetency to write using the target L! forms
correctly which then resulted to a poor grade with a very few scores (the
pupils often obtained the score of =' over &< which is full marks for an
essay.
$he pupils, for example, have the tendency to generalise the regular
and irregular past tense rules by adding the suffix51ed# to all verbs in the
story5writing. 4t results to a poor piece of writing thus reflects a need to
correct the misconceptions. 3 similar effect is obtained with the rest of the
remaining 95type of errors where the final product would display a poor
display of L! forms. $his shows the lacking of linguistic accuracy in the
pupils# writings. $herefore, it clearly signals the need of a consistent, clear
and explicit indication of errors as a means to help these pupils to modify the
errors to accurate forms thus would later indicate a better %uality of L!
writing. Such need 6ustify the decision to employ coded corrective feedback
(CF as to represent an explicit reference to the type of errors committed by
the pupils and allows them to self5correct thus produce a refined version of
L! writing.
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
8/50
8
14 P*'8 S&*2
$his study aims to find out how far the coded corrective feedback
(CF helps L! pupils to self5correct their writings.
19 O5+&,;8 S&*2
$he ob6ectives of this study are>
&. $o investigate the pupils# understanding of the codes used by their
teachers in their writings.
!. $o find out whether the pupils can self5correct their errors after receiving
the coded corrective feedback from their teachers.
1# R8.'+< =*8&,%
$o achieve the above ob6ectives, the following %uestions were formulated>
&. /o L! pupils know what to correct after receiving the corrective
feedback for their writings?
!. /o young L! learners make the right corrections after
receiving the coded corrective feedback for their writings?
17 S,0%,,+.%+ S&*2
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
9/50
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
10/50
10
1" C%+&*.6 F'.>'/
F,0*' 11: I.+&8 T.+
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
11/50
11
learning.
11! D,%,&,% &'8
11!1 C''+&,; F5.+/ (CF)
Corrective feedback is defined as information offered to learners
with regards to the linguistic error they have made (Loewen, !+&! and
Sheen, !++9.
11!- C F5.+/
Coded feedback refers to the use of specific symbols as a clue of
the nature of error made. 4t serves as a tool for learners to self5correct or
self5edit their written work (Lee, !++A * )llis, !++@ 4n this study, coded
feedback such as using Conj.to represent the error is on conjunctionand
Spis the coded sign forspelling error will be employed by the teacher to
correct student#s writing.
11!3 E'''
)rrors is defined as the gap of learners interlanguage system and
could be refined into its systematic pattern over a period of time (Corder,
&@9.
111 C
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
12/50
12
coded corrective feedback as a means to help pupils self5correct their
writings. Finally, the conceptual framework and definition of terms are
discussed in the attempt to set a clear insight upon the focus of the study.
CHAPTER -
LITERATURE REVIEW
-1 I%&'*+&,%
4n order to better understand how corrective feedback works in the
learning of L!, it is highly significant to look up on its theoretical grounds.
0ence, in the following sections of this chapter !, some theoretical grounds
underpinning the use of corrective feedback (CF in L! will be explained.
3longside the explanation, the notions and significance within the theories in
relation to corrective feedback (CF will be discussed.
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
13/50
13
-- C''+&,; F5.+/ (CF) .% ,&8 8,0%,,+.%+
$he complexity of providing a sufficient corrective feedback to
learners of L! as a means to achieve a better accuracy in writing has become
an incessant worry to many L! teachers. 4n the attempt to help the learners,
many teachers spent hours laboriously correcting their students# writing
errors through corrective feedback (CF. hile some teachers highlighted the
errors and scribbled the correct ones on the top of each error, other teachers
might 6ust offer simple two lines comments and give a tick on the students#work which they feel is sufficient to be referred as corrective feedback.
0ence, although the techni%ues are different, both ways are mutually in line
with the similar learning goal: which is supposed to be like : 1#y student
should be able to make his correctionsafter he sees the feedback 4 have
given##. Such thought, in other words, means that the teachers instinctively
believe that these kinds of feedbacks are sufficient to engage the learners to
self5correct their work. $he learners however will naturally, depend on
teacher#s feedback to modify the incorrect items to accurate ones while
producing their latter version of the original work.
Dnfortunately, in the attempt to execute their corrections, many L!
learners are still struggling to self5correct their writing although the feedback
has been provided by the teachers. $his scenario often occurs with learners of
L! settingsthey are unprivileged of experiencing an L!5rich environment due
to logistical factors: such as their learning settings, socio5background and
community. 4n alaysia, although )nglish is regarded as the second official
language of the country, many learners are still struggling with their writing
skills. $he young learners or commonly known as the pupils, are of no
exception. $hese pupils, who reside in the rural settings in alaysia share the
same difficulty akin the above case,thus resulted in a consistently low score
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
14/50
14
for their writings. Such depressing experience causes an incessant worry
among the teachers who wish to witness some progress in the pupils# writing.
Dpon this dilemma, therefore in this study, it is hoped that coded
corrective feedback (CF can help the pupils in alaysian primary schools to
improve the accuracy in their writing. 4n a similar vein, it is hoped the pupils
are able to understand coded feedback while executing their self5corrections.
;n that, it is also hoped that the impact of coded corrective feedback (CF on
the pupils# linguistic accuracy could be obtained.
-3 T'/
"ack in the early &@9+s, communicative language teaching has been
dominating the field of L! instruction. $he distinct elements of
communicative approaches steer far and wide from the traditional teaching
method which primarily focuses upon the isolated teaching of linguistic
features and grammar rules. $he communicative approaches, on the other
hand, embrace the theories of communicative competence as pioneered by
0ymes (&@9&, and Canale and Swain (&@A+. $hrough the approaches, they
believe that learners would be able to use L! in many realistic,
communicative situations. 4n congruent with this view is the work by
Erashen (&@A&, &@A!, &@A
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
15/50
15
"ased on a naturalist view of learning, L& and L! are of no difference
in terms of the learning processes. $his opinion has brought to several studies
looking into the impacts of a fully naturalistic approach to L! teaching (i.e.
Erashen * $errell, &@A
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
16/50
16
recoverable even if its form is incorrect## (p. &A'. ;n top of that, due to the
absence of L! accuracy, learners might adopt non5target like linguistic
solutions to communicate thus resulting to a premature fossili2ation of errors.
(Skehan and Foster, !++&.
4t is definitely worthwhile to note that the main focus in L! instruction
is to achieve a good level of L! accuracy. "y referring to the above, it implies
tacitly that the sole5reliance upon meaning based approach to obtain a good
L! accuracy is insufficient and should be taken into careful consideration.
$herefore, there are suggestions for learners to have an attention on linguistic
forms as it is inevitable towards a well5formness in L! ( )llis, !++
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
17/50
17
meaning or communication. $he temporary shifts in focal attention are
triggered by students# problems with comprehension or production (p.
&A
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
18/50
18
-- Noticing the gap :T
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
19/50
19
sense represents the cognitive focusing devices as they direct learners#
attention (0ulsti6n and Schmidt, &@@ and raising learner#s awareness on
the L! forms. 4t also allows learners to notice their 1gaps# between the
interlanguage outputs and the target inputs by referring to the given
feedback (Han "euningen, !+&+. 3s a result, these noticing processes
would promote learners to destabili2e and restructure their development of
the interlanguage grammar (Pass, &@@9: Long ,&@@.
3 CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN L- INSTRUCTION
$he previous sections have discussed in breadth the theoretical
foundations of corrective feedback and the prere%uisite conditions. hile
drawing into its %uintessential role in facilitating a development on L!
accuracy, there are some crucial points that should be discussed at length,
which have been briefly elucidated in chapter &> (& direct corrective
feedback, (! indirect corrective feedback (' coded corrective feedback.
31 T28 C''+&,; F5.+/
4n spite of the growing amount of research conducted on corrective
feedback, at present, there are few corrective feedback that received the
utmost attention. $hey are as follows>
311 D,'+& C''+&,; F5.+/
/irect corrective feedback refers to the action of supplying the
learners with correct target language forms for errors they have committed
()llis, !++A. $he learners are likely benefit from this feedback due to its
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
20/50
20
essence in ac%uiring the internalisation on new linguistic forms. 3s
described by 0eift (!+&+, direct CF weighs more on its explicit continuum.
$his is because the correct linguistic form or structure is provided by the
teacher above each error of the written work. $he example of a direct CF is
as follows>
A The ran
;ne rainy day, there was the dog. 3 dog was thin. 0e run very fast.
(adapted from Ellis, !!"#
3s a result to the above practice of feedback, learners would receive a
clear reference while executing their correction task. 0ence, such
convenience has its limitations in terms of engaging the learners
cognitively, which might inhibit their progress towards a better L! accuracy.
31- I%,'+& C''+&,; F5.+/
4ndirect corrective feedback refers to various strategies applied with
intention to indicate learners# errors thus encouraged them to self5correct()llis, !++A. 4t is more on the less explicit continuum (0eift, !+&+ and it
re%uires a certain level of cognitive processing. Learners would be engaged
cognitively while doing their self5correction task because they need to
discover the linguistic forms themselves by deciphering the given symbols.
"y doing so, they gradually ac%uired the potential to develop a control over
a partially5internalised linguistic form, yet are unlikely able to internalise
new forms ()llis, !++A.
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
21/50
21
31-1C 5.+/
Coded feedback refers to the use of specific symbols or a clue to the
nature of error which serves as a tool for learners to self5correct or self5edit
their written work (Lee, !++ and )llis, !++@. /ue to this less explicit
feature, coded feedback does fit into the category of indirect type of
corrective feedback. 3lthough coded feedback has its ample share on
cognitive5learning experience for the learners, it comes with an exceptional
condition. 4t is to ensure that learners are able to understand all symbols
highlighted by the teacher in their writings. ith that capability, the learners
would be able to self5correct their errors independently thus gain control
over the problematic target forms over a certain time. 3n example of coded
corrective feedback is as illustrated below>
Art. Art. $T (%ast#
;ne rainy day, there was the dog. 3 dog was thin. 0e run very fast.
(adapted from Ellis, !!"#
3- E,',+.6 '8.'+< % C''+&,; F5.+/
(CF) ,% L- ,%8&'*+&,%
;ver the years, the role of corrective feedback (CF in
facilitating L! accuracy is still debated until today. $he following
sections review empirical studies which investigate the role of
corrective feedback (CF upon learners# written accuracy.
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
22/50
22
3-1 R6.&,; +&,;%88
CF % D,'+& .% I%,'+& M&
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
23/50
23
$his opinion is proven through a study pioneered by )rel * "ulut (!++9
which attempt to draw a distinction between direct coded feedback and
indirect coded feedback. $he result indicates that indirect coded feedback has
a better effect of learners accuracy as compared to direct coded feedback.
0ence, such result illuminates Puenette#s (!++9 opinion that by cognitively5
engaged, learners have developed a control to self5correct their errors
confidently.
4n contrast to the above findings are the unfavourable results from
several studies (Ferris * oberts, !++&: obb et. al, &@A: Semke, &@A
which suggest that coded feedback may potentially unable to foster accuracy
development. 3ccording to the reported results by Ferris * oberts (!++&,
there were no significant differences obtained between learners who do self5
correction of errors marked with codes and those who corrected the
underlined errors. 4n a similar vein, obb et. al (&@A concluded
pessimistically that there is inconsistent and unclear advantages upon the use
of coded and uncoded approaches in facilitating towards a better accuracy in
L!.
Ievertheless, in recent studies conducted by Han "euningen, /e 8ong
and Euiken (!+&! and "itchener and -oung (!+&+b, the findings indicated
that both direct and indirect feedback contribute positive short5term effect
and only direct error correction weighs great significance for long5term
effect. Hyatkina#s study (!+&+ also indicated a similar findings in which she
highlighted that the usage of many codes tend to confuse the learners and
lead them to inaccurate corrections.
3s elucidated in the studies above, it is best to conclude that the
relative effectiveness between direct and indirect feedback is still ambiguous.
/ue to this, the need for more studies and investigations to find significant
results is to be considered and taken into account by prospective researchers.
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
24/50
24
3-- L.'%'8 U%'8&.%,%0 D,'%& C''+&,; F5.+/ (CF)
hile drawing into the effectiveness of corrective feedback (CF upon L!
accuracy, a focal point that should not be overlooked is the capability of the
learners to understand the type of corrective feedback that they are experiencing.
"elow are some studies carried out by researchers that hinge upon thefundamentals of learner#s understanding on corrective feedback (CF and their
impacts.
3--1 D,'%+ P'8+&,; % C''+&,; F5.+/
3s put by Iassa6i and 3mrhein (!+&+ , the root cause for ineffective
cases of CF implementation is due to the discrepancy of perspectives by the
teacher and the learners. For example, when the teacher correct the learner#s
written work, often they would change the language usage according to what
they assume the learner trying to express. -et, occasionally there are few
corrections made do not exemplify the learner#s idea (Ferris, &@@
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
25/50
25
3--- L.'%'8 P''%+8 % C''+&,; F5.+/ (CF)
3ccording to 3mrhein and Iassa6i (!+&+ , the positive outcomes of
corrective feedback is suggested to pivot upon learners# preferences for it.
$he learners# preference for certain types of CF will determine the effects of
it in their writings. For example, if the learner believes that one type of CF is
useful, he or she will put more concentration on the corrections executed and
use it for L! learning (cCargar, &@@': Schul2, !++&. 4n terms of
complexity, the research investigating on learners# preferences of CF are vary.
$here are several studies discovered that learners appreciates massive
amounts of different CF irrespective of the types of errors in focus
(e.g.,Cathcart * ;lsen, &@9: Ferris, &@@
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
26/50
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
27/50
27
4 CONTROVERSIES ON CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK (CF) IN L-
INSTRUCTION
$here are some controversial opinions with regards to the necessity of having
corrective feedback as a pedagogical intervention in L! instruction. $he
controversies, as surmised by )llis (!++@ and Han "euningen (!+&+, are
primarily scoped into two main issues> (& the efficacy of different types of
corrective feedback and (! the choice of errors to correct.
4- T
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
28/50
28
processing which are of great benefits for the learners. 4n a similar vein,
"itchener and Enoch (!++A conclude that indirect approach could foster
long5term ac%uisition due to the participation of the learners in problem
solving and guided learning experience. $his opinion, however, is
unfavourable to some advocates of direct approach. Chandler (!++', for
instance, has claimed that the use of indirect approach might result to
unsuccessful learning due to the insufficient information to solve complex
errors. /irect feedback, in his argument, is more accessible for learners to
internalise linguistic forms whereas indirect approach is not capable at
confirming the learners on their hypothesi2ed corrections as accurate. 3lign
with this argument is the suggestion by "itchener and Enoch (!+&+b which
points out the explicitness of direct feedback is the key of accurate
corrections executed by the learners
43 T
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
29/50
29
word order errors. )ocal errors, on the other hand, infer the minor linguistic
problems that have not interfered with the meaning of the intended message. ith
that, 0endrickson (&@9A suggested onlyglo'alerrors to be corrected by teachers
as it potentially could disturb the actual message conveyed thus impair the
intended communication to occur successfully.
4t is agreed by some researchers such as Erashen (&@A&:&@A!: &@A
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
30/50
30
effects. Finally, it surmises two ma6or controversies on CF which includes the
efficacy of direct and indirect feedback and the choice of errors to be
corrected by the teachers
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
31 I%&'*+&,%
$his chapter will discuss the methodological approach in this study. 4t
is divided into the following sections> research design, respondents and
sampling, instruments involved, data collection and data analysis procedure.
3- R8.'+< D8,0%
4n this study, the researcher employs %ualitative method to collect the
re%uired data and is obtained from the essay5writings, pre5test, post5test and
semi5structured interviews. 3s stated by Creswell (!++', the general
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
31/50
31
characteristics of a %ualitative research are based on the task of dealing with
collecting5data process. 4t also implies the use of forms that are embedded
with unspecific (or general %uestions to specific %uestions as an attempt to
generate responses from the participants. $hese responses may vary from the
task of gathering words (texts or image (picture and compiling information
from a certain amount of individuals or locations.
For this study, therefore, an experimental design is implemented.
$here is a total of '+ pupils from year class selected and assigned into two
groups (IQ&< participants in each in which one is the experimental group
and the other represents the control group. "oth groups will complete a pre5
test, treatment and a post5test , where all of the tests involve essay writings
based on picture series with few helping words. For the three completed
essays, the experimental group would have the teacher underline 5
grammatical errors (i.e. tenses, articles, prepositions and con6unctions and 5
common errors (i.e. omission of words, word error, punctuation and spelling
and write the coded signs on them. eanwhile, for the control group, the
teacher would 6ust underline the same type of errors but with no provision of
the coded signs.
33 R8%%&8 S&*2
$here are two ma6or respondents involved in this study. )ach respondent
represents a different entity: first, the pupils as the sample (or participants
and second, the teachers as the raters.
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
32/50
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
33/50
33
34 R8.'+< I%8&'*%& U8
$he process of collecting data re%uires the researcher to decide upon
appropriate instruments to gather data. 4n this study, the researcher aims to
find out whether coded corrective feedback can help pupils to self5correct
their writings. $o collect data on pupils# self5correction, the researcher will
run pre5test and post5test by assigning an essay5writing task for the pupils to
do. $he pre5test, according to Creswell (!++A, provides a measure on some
attributes for the researcher to assess for participants before they are giventhe treatment. $he post5test, on the other hand, offers a measure on the
attributes for the researcher to assess after they receive the treatment
(Creswell, !++A. 4n this study, the treatment refers to coded corrective
feedback provided by the assigned teacher.
341 E88.2?>',&,%0
$his study will focus on one group test. $he design is as illustrated
below (see $able '.&
T.56 31: E@',%&.6 R8.'+< D8,0%
;ne Proup Rre and Rost5test /esign
;ne group Rre5test $reatment Rost5test
Source* )ammers, +. . adia, %. (!!/#. 0undamentals of eha1ioral
2esearch, 345.
Selection of measure is based on measures used in similar research
(Chandler, !++': )llis, !++A, Han "euningen, !++A: 3hmadi532ad: !+&.
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
34/50
34
$he studies conducted in the past were mainly focused upon secondary to
tertiary learners, and there were limited studies focusing upon primary school
pupils. 0owever, all of the studies have included essay writing task as a way
to obtain data from the learners# writings. $herefore, in this study, the same
method is used with some adaptation on the format of the %uestion.
4n the public primary school in alaysia, pupils aged &+ to &! years
old are referred to as Level ! pupils. $he selected sample as participants in
this study is year pupils, whose age is && to&! years old. $hese pupils are
also known as young learners of L!, while the students in secondary and
tertiary level are commonly referred as L! learners. $heir assigned written
task (the essay writing is simpler and more of a guided version which suits
their cognitive and maturity level. For this study, the essay5writing %uestion is
outlined with series of guided pictures and few helping words (see Figure
'.!.
F,0*' 3-: A 8.6 &',&,%0 &8&
For this task, both groups are expected to write an essay using the
helping words and given pictures as guidance. $he essay should consist of at
least '5paragraphs and is written within A+5&
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
35/50
35
34- T
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
36/50
36
si2e sample (IQ&+.
39 R8.'+< P'+*'8
391 E88.2 >',&,%0 '? &8& 8&? &8&
$he duration of the study is two weeks. "efore the study is conducted,
the researcher has to send an application to the Rlanning and esearch
/ivision of inistry of )ducation ()R/ and an application letter of
approval from Faculty of )ducation, Dniversiti $eknologi alaysia. 3nother
application for permission to conduct the study in the selected school is also
forwarded to 8ohor )ducation /epartment. hen the approval from )R/
and other divisions are received, the data collection will be executed.
$he first step to do is to administer a pre5test to all respondents as it is
significant to establish homogeneity in the two groups5the experimental
group and the control group. /uring the pre5test, no assistance or guidance is
provided in order to ensure the data gained from the first composition serves
its purpose on homogeneity establishment within the two groups.
0aving taken the pre5test, based on the findings obtained, the pupils
will be carefully assigned into two groups. 3ll pupils in the first group will be
taught the selected coded signs for the purpose of providing coded corrective
feedback during the treatment session (see $able '.' below. ;n the contrary,
the pupils in the second group will be excluded and they do not have to learn
any coded sign. $hen, the pupils in both groups will be assigned to complete
an essay5writing task (see Figure '.! in '+5minutes. /uring the writing time,
the teacher will monitor, observe and provide hints to the pupils who have
difficulty to complete the given task.
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
37/50
37
T.56 3-: C S,0%8
S,0%8 K,% ''' [email protected]
V P.8&V P' Herb $ense (Rresent 7past Last weekend, 3li go to alacca.
A'& 3rticles She bought a ice5cream for him.
P' Rrepositions 3li sat between 3bu.
C% Con6unctions 0e lives at Felda $enggaroh !
;mission of a word She receivedK.. key chain.
WW rong ord $hey on the television.
S Spelling She likes swiming.
P Runctuation 0er mother K.Ruan Siti is a nurse.
0aving gathered the essay5writings, the researcher will correct the
papers following two methods. Since in this study there will be two different
teachers participated as raters, the allocation of the groups will be e%ual and
each will be assigned to only one group type (i.e. experimental group only or
control group only. For the experimental group, the assigned teacher will
underline the errors and write coded signs on them, while for the control
group: the teacher will underline the errors only. $hen, in the next session, the
corrected papers will be handed to the pupils for corrective feedback
purposes. "oth groups will be given &< to !+ minutes to do their correction.
Rupils in the experimental group will correct their errors showed by the
coded signs and the teacher will provide hints when they face difficulty to do
the self5correction. eanwhile, the pupils in the control group are to check
and do correction by referring to the underlined errors and comments given.
$his procedure is followed for the second and third essay5writing tasks, and
towards the end of the second week, the post5test will be administered to see
whether the treatment had been effective.
39- T
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
38/50
38
4n order to obtain profound data from the respondents (i.e. the pupils
and raters on their perceptions about coded corrective feedback, the semi5
structured interview will be conducted. 4t is important to identify topics and
sub5topics rather than specific %uestions as it allows the researcher to explore
the issue on coded corrective feedback as a matter of course and not as pre5
empting issue (Rathak and 4ntratat,!+&!. 3nother opinion on semi5
structured interview is the vitality in the beginning stage to pose broad and
general %uestions or topics first rather than to pinpoint on the sub6ect (3rksey
* Enight &@@@.
$his interview will take place after the pupils receive their second
essays with the provision of coded feedback. Such condition is to ensure the
respondents have experienced the task of writing and correcting the errors
using coded feedback. 0ence, the information obtained will be profound and
realistic as the aim is to get the pupils improving their accuracy in writing.
oving on, there will be selected respondents involved during the interview(i.e. the raters and &+ pupils from the experimental group. 3 list of ten
%uestions will be employed (see 3ppendix / and 3ppendix ) for both
respondents and the session will be one5to5one. $he data will be recorded
whereby the researcher will ask the %uestion and record the response from the
respondent one at a time.
3# D.&. A%.628,8
Statistical Rackage for the Social Sciences (SRSSversion & for personal
computers is to be used to compute descriptive statistics and perform a Raired
Sample $5test for analysis of each group.
37 C
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
39/50
39
4n this chapter, the research methodology has been discussed which
consists of the design, respondent, the instrument and data collection. ore
information on data collection and data analysis will be added when the
actual study is executed.
3RR)I/4 3
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
40/50
40
Rre5test )ssay riting Tuestion
3RR)I/4 "
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
41/50
41
Rost5test )ssay riting Tuestion
3RR)I/4 C
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
42/50
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
43/50
43
&. hat do you think of your writing class? /o you like it?
!. Can you state some examples of the writing exercise that you have learnt?
0ave you done any correction in them?
'. /oes the teacher correct the errors using code signs in your writing? 0ow
does the teacher correct the errors? Can you give some examples?
. /o you find the coded signs given by the teacher help you to correct the
errors in your writing? 4f yes, can you state the reason? 4f no, can you explain why?
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
44/50
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
45/50
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
46/50
46
)llis, . (&@@ 0owexplicit does it need to be?ournal of Second )anguage +riting, 3!(', &&5
&A.
Frat2en, /. (&@@
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
47/50
47
Pass, S. . (&@@9.7nput, interaction and the de1elopment of second
languages. ahwah, I8> Lawrence )rlbaum 3ssociates.
Puenette, /. !++9. 14s feedback pedagogically correct? esearch design issues
in studies of feedback on writing#.ournal of Second )anguage+riting &>
+N
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
48/50
48
Lee, 4. (!++ hat do students think?
TES) Canada ournal, , &5&.
Lee, 4. (!++A. Dnderstanding teachers# written feedback practices in 0ong
Eong secondary classrooms. ournal of Second )anguage +riting, 35, @NA Iewbury 0ouse.
Long, . 0. (&@@. $he role of linguistic environment in second language
ac%uisition. 4n . C. itchie * ". E. "ahtia ()ds.,>and'oo& of second
language ac 8ohn "en6amins
Rublishing Company.
cCargar, /. (&@@'. $eacher and student role expectations> Cross5culturaldifferences and implications. The @odern )anguage ournal, 99,&@!5!+9.
Iassa6i ,0.. * 3mrhein,, 0.. (!+&+ ritten Corrective Feedback> hat do
students and teachers prefer and why? Canadian ournal of Applied )inguistics.
&'>@ 3 research
synthesis and %uantitative meta5analysis.)anguage )earning /!(', &95
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
49/50
8/9/2019 Coded Feedback on Malaysian Pupils' writing (draft chapter 1,2,3):Project
50/50
50
Skehan, R. (&@@A.A cogniti1e approach to language learning. ;xford> ;xford
Dniversity Rress.
Skehan, R., * Foster, R. (!++&. Cognition and tasks. 4n R. obinson ()d.,
Cognition and second language instruction (pp. &A'5!+
Cambridge Dniversity Rress.
Swain, . (&@A Some roles of comprehensible
input and comprehensible output in its development. 4n S. . Pass * C. P.
adden ()ds., 7nput in second language ac Iewbury 0ouse.
$ruscott, 8. (&@@. $he case against grammar correction in L! writing classes.
)anguage )earning 4;(!, '!95'@.
$ruscott, 8. (!++. )vidence and con6ecture on the effects of correction> 3response to Chandler..ournal of Second )anguage +riting 3?(, ''95''.
$ruscott, 8. (!++9. $he effect of error correction on learners# ability to write
accurately.ournal of Second )anguage +riting 3;(, !