LEARNERSAo ENGAGEMENT WITH TEACHER WCF OR LEARNERSAo ENGAGEMENT WITH PEER WCF? LEARNERSAo PERSPECTIVES.
Nirwanto Maruf A Universitas Muhammadiyah Gresik maruf@umg.
Indyra MahdianaA Universitas Muhammadiyah Gresik indyramahdii@gmail.
Bahar3 Universitas Fajar 17070956004@mhs.
Abstract Written corrective feedback (WCF) is defined as some responses related to learnersAo linguistic errors in written and used by teachers to help learners for improving their writingAos accuracy.
It is necessary to understand regarding learnersAo engagement with corrective feedback.
By understanding learnersAo engagement with written corrective feedback, teacher can determine the appropriate type of written corrective feedback which used as effective strategy in improving learnersAo writing ability.
This study aims to reveal learnersAo perspectives on their engagement with written corrective feedback and learnersAo engagement with peer written corrective feedback (WCF).
This quantitative research obtained the data through questionnaires.
These questionnaires aim to measure both learnersAo engagement with teacher written corrective feedback and learnersAo engagement with peer written corrective feedback.
The results of the study indicate that learners are more engage and agree with teacher WCF practice .
, rather than engagement with peer WCF practice .
since teacher WCF had greater positive impact for learnersAo writing rather than peer WCF.
This researches conclude that learners believe that teacher WCF more useful to locate their errors.
Meanwhile, related to peer WCF, learners engage in affective by feeling happy, enthusiastic, and interested in receiving and reading peer WCF.
Keywords: Written corrective feedback, learnersAo perspectives, teacher WCF, peer WCF
INTRODUCTION
Corrective feedback is defined as comments related to learnersAo foreign or second language comprehension or production, especially for accuracy, suitability, appropriateness or correctness (Eslami & Derakhshan, 2020.
Li & Vuono, 2.
Corrective feedback can be provided in the form of oral, called as oral corrective feedback and written, called as written corrective feedback(Li & Vuono, 2019.
Nassaji & Kartchava, 2017.
Sheen & Ellis, 2.
Then, (Ha & Murray, 2.
simplify the term of oral corrective feedback as the responses on learnersAo British.
Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris Volume 11.
No 2.
September 2022 spoken errors.
Moreover, written corrective feedback (WCF) is defined as some responses related to learnersAo linguistic errors in written and used by teachers to help learners for improving their writingAos accuracy(Li & Roshan, 2019.
Mao & Lee, 2.
Studies related to WCF have showed positive effect of written corrective feedback in second language learning(Evans et al.
, 2.
It is necessary to understand regarding learnersAo engagement with corrective feedback.
understanding learnersAo engagement with written corrective feedback, teacher can determine the appropriate type of written corrective feedback which used as effective strategy in improving learnersAo writing ability(Ulyah, et al.
, 2.
Thus, by looking at its effect, it can be concluded that the existence of written corrective feedback as one of effective strategies in improving learnersAo writing ability is In other words, written corrective feedback can be considered as one of writing strategies which is good and effective in improving learnersAo writing ability in second language learning.
Kang & Han .
mention that generally, teachers have spent a great deal of time in providing some kinds of corrections .
, grammar, spellin.
to another extents .
, correcting every error or selectively a fe.
for their learners Tsao .
also states that in providing written corrective feedback, teacher can pay attention and focus to some linguistic errors .
, technical details regarding contractions, capitalization, and punctuation.
grammatical errors.
vocabulary and collocations.
organizational structur.
on learnersAo writing By having this consideration, thus, as a writing teacher, providing feedback and giving review for learnersAo writing work become their main duty.
Thus, feedback which provided by writing teachers on learnersAo writing task may called as teacher written corrective feedback (WCF) (Mao and Croshwaite, 2.
Meanwhile, feedback which provided by a learner for another learnerAos writing task may called as Peer Written Corrective Feedback.
Peer Written Corrective Feedback is a respond from Ferris .
regarding the weakness of teacher written corrective feedback.
(Iriarte &Alastuey, 2.
argued that providing feedback for each learner in class will certainly need a lot of time.
Not only that.
British.
Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris Volume 11.
No 2.
September 2022 most of teacher written corrective feedback ask some revisions which contain some requirement sentences that can be a burden for learners.
Previous researchers which defined written corrective feedback in similar Begin from the simple one that written corrective feedback is some responses related to studentsAo linguistic errors in written and used by teachers to help learners for improving their writingAos accuracy(Li & Roshan, 2019.
Mao & Lee, 2.
This means that everything written by teacher related to linguistic error made by learners on their writing work, it is called as written corrective Move to more complete understanding related written corrective feedback,(Bitchener & Knoch, 2010.
Mao & Crosthwaite, 2.
defined written corrective feedback as feedback which provided by teacher related studentsAo assignment and use for helping students to understand their error and let them making such as revision based on the feedback.
Most of recent studies regarding written corrective feedback have found its positive effects on second language writing(Benson & DeKeyser, 2018.
Bitchener & Knoch, 2010.
Fan & Ma, 2018.
Kim et al.
, 2020.
Nemati et al.
, 2019.
Rummel & Bitchener, 2015.
Vyatkina, 2.
Benson & DeKeyser .
which conducted an experimental research regarding effect type of written corrective feedback .
irect and metalinguistic written corrective feedbac.
on grammatical accuracy of verb tense had showed that both treatment feedback groups .
irect and metalinguistic written corective feedbac.
performed better than control group .
o written corrective feedbac.
by showing an improvements in grammatical accuracy of both verb tenses structures .
imple past tense and the present perfexct tens.
This study describes learnersAo perspectives regard to their engagement with both teacher and peer written corrective feedback.
By understandinglearnersAo engagement with teacher and peer written corrective feedback, teacher can determine the appropriate type of written corrective feedback which used as effective strategy in improving learnersAo writing ability (Asari.
, &Maruf.
British.
Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris Volume 11.
No 2.
September 2022
RESEARCH METHOD
The research design of this study is quantitative research design since this research focuses on learnersAo perspective on their engagement with written corrective feedback and learnersAo engagement with peer written corrective feedback (WCF).
The instrument uses in collecting the data was questionnaires.
There are two kinds of questionnaires administer in this research, a questionnaire for learnersAo engagement with teacher WCF and questionnaire for learnersAo engagement with peer WCF.
The questionnaires were adapted from Tsao et al.
These questionnaires aim to measure both learnersAo engagement with teacher written corrective feedback and learnersAo engagement with peer written corrective feedback.
Each of them consist of nine items.
So, each learner filled eighteen items of questionnaire.
The answer of each questionnaire item were given a 5-point Likert scale .
strongly disagree=1, disagree=2, neutral=3, agree=4, strongly agree=.
So, the maximum score of each questionnaire was 45.
Here, if learnersAo score of questionnaire below 22.
It means they possess low engagement with written corrective feedback, meanwhile if learnersAo score of questionnaire above 22.
5, they belongs to high engagement with written corrective feedback.
The participants of this study were students of senior high school at 11 th grade in MA.
Masyhudiyah Giri.
There were 88 learners which taken from class of XI IPA 1, class of XI IPA 2, and XI IPS.
They have learn English as compulsory subject to pass their study at 11th grade.
Moreover, based on information from their English teacher, these participants had an average ability level in English, especially for writing.
It was seen from the English teaching and learning process, including writing on the previous semester.
The study conducted quantitative analysis of learnersAo questionnaire results by calculating descriptive statistics .
, mean, standard deviation, sum and rang.
of learnersAo engagement with teacher and peer written corrective feedback through SPSS software by usingPearson Product Moment formula.
Before conducted the study, researchers needed to ensure the normal distribution of the data by British.
Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris Volume 11.
No 2.
September 2022 checkingwhether a data set was in normal distribution or not.
To conduct normality test, the researcher used Kolmogorov-Smirnov by using SPSS software.
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The result of descriptive statistic for 2 .
kinds of questionnaires, which were learnersAo engagement with teacher WCF and learnersAo engagement with peer WCF, and to determine significance of the difference between the mean scores of learnersAo engagement with teacher WCF and learnersAo engagement with peer WCF, the researchers usedPaired Sample T-Testsince the datawas normally The result of the test was presented in table below:
Table 1.
The Result of Comparison Between LearnersAo Perspectives on Engagement With Teacher WCF and Engagement with Peer WCF.
Mean
Pair 1
Engag
Teache r WCF
Engag
Peer
WCF
Paired Differences Std.
Std.
95% Confidence Deviati Error Interval of the Mean Difference Lower Upper Sig.
taile The table1 above shows that the significance level of the difference between learnersAo engagement with teacher WCF and learnersAo engagement with peer WCF was 0.
It was lower than 0.
05 which means there is significant difference between learnersAo engagement with teacher WCF and learnersAo engagement with peer WCF.
Then, in order to determine the direction of significance, the mean of each type of learnersAo engagement is calculated and presented in the table below:
Table 2.
The Mean of LearnersAo Perspectives on Engagement With Teacher WCF and Engagement with Peer WCF.
Pair 1 Engagement with Teacher WCF Mean Std.
Deviation Std.
Error Mean British.
Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris Volume 11.
No 2.
September 2022 Engagement with Peer WCF Table 2 above shows that the mean of learnersAo perspectives on engagement with teacher WCF is 35.
5, while the mean of learnersAoperspectives on engagement with peer WCF was 30.
5 > 30.
It means that the mean of learnersAo perspectives on engagement with teacher WCF is greater than the mean of learnersAo perspectives on engagement with peer WCF.
It indicats that learners are more engage and agree with teacher WCF practice .
, rather than engagement with peer WCF practice .
since teacher WCF had greater positive impact for learnersAo writing rather than peer WCF did.
The research results of the way learners engage with teacher and peer written corrective feedback are divided into 4.
dimensions of engagement.
First, related to behavior engagement with teacher written corrective feedback, most of learners engage in behavior by reading and revising their writing based on teacher written corrective feedback.
Meanwhile, related to peer written corrective feedback, most of learners engage in behavior by using peer written corrective feedback as sole reference to revise their writing draft.
As stated by (Fredricks et , 2.
that behavior engagement including positive action, involvement and participation in academic task.
In line with this, (Stipek, 2.
stated that behavioral engagement could be incuding positive behaviors, effort, attention and other participatory in task.
Another study about learnersAo engage with teacher written corrective feedback also conducted by (Zhang & Hyland, 2.
The results revealed that learners who engage behaviorally, they seem become as Auself regulatedAy learner in which they were metacognitively, motivationally and behaviorally become active learners in learning process.
It was similar with this study in which learners do revision by themselves and they also become active in participating written corrective feedback process.
Next, related to cognitive engagement with teacher written corrective feedback, most of learners engage in cognitive by reading, thinking and understanding well about their errors in writing.
Not only that, they also think and British.
Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris Volume 11.
No 2.
September 2022 memorize their errors when they read teacher written corrective feedback and during the process of revision.
It is because they want to revise their writing better and correctly.
They know well about their errors and keep it on their minds, so that it did not happen again.
Meanwhile, related to peer written corrective feedback, most of learners engage in cognitive by understanding their errors and thinking of revision based on peer written corrective feedback.
Moreover, as stated by (Han & Hyland, 2.
that cognitive engagement concerned on the depth processing of written corrective feedback during revision It could be in the form of noticing and understanding the written corrective feedback (Qi & Lapkin, 2001.
Sachs & Polio, 2.
Another study about how learners engage with teacher written corrective feedback cognitively also conducted by (Zheng & Yu, 2.
Their study revealed that in processing the written corrective feedback, cognitive engagement with written corrective feedback could be showed in some ways, for examples: learners simply read through the text in conjunction with the teacherAos feedback and made modifications in revision, they read the words and phrases which received in WCF and some of them focus in editing the correct answer.
This results similar with this study in which learners engage cognitively by reading, thinking and understanding their errors in writing.
Next, related to social engagement with teacher written corrective feedback, most of learners engage in social by interacting with their teacher and classmates in the form of asking and discussing about the content of teacher written corrective feedback.
Some of them asked to teacher when they did not understand with the teacher written corrective feedback.
Meanwhile, related to peer written corrective feedback, most of learners engage in social by interacting with their teacher and classmates in the form of asking and discussing about the content of peer written corrective feedback.
In line with this, (Svalberg, 2.
stated that social engagement concerned on how to be interactive and initiating.
Moreover, research of (Baralt et al.
, 2.
showed that learners who initiated a social relationship with peers were tend to engage to language task rather than learners who did not have.
Then, when it was British.
Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris Volume 11.
No 2.
September 2022 connected to engagement on both teacher and peer written corrective feedback, learners would get more insights related teacher and peer written corrective feedback when they share and interact each other.
Thus, learners become engage in their social.
Next, related to affective engagement with teacher written corrective feedback, most of learners engage in affective by feeling happy toward teacher written corrective feedback, because they believed that teacher written corrective feedback help them to know about their errors.
Thus, it made them ease to revise their writing.
Meanwhile, related to peer written corrective feedback, most of learners engage in affective by feeling happy, enthusiastic, and interested in receiving and reading peer WCF.
They also felt satisfied with peer written corrective feedback.
It was consistent with statement of (Fredricks et al.
, 2.
that affective engagement concerned on learnersAo affective responses, such as sadness, happiness, interest, anxiety, boredom, other emotional aspects.
Moreover, (Storch & Wigglesworth, 2.
state that affective engagement could influenced by learnersAo attitudes, beliefs and goals.
It was not only influenced on learnersAo action in responding written corrective feedback, but also could affect to learnersAo willingness in accepting or retaining the feedback.
Another study conducted by (Benson & DeKeyser, 2.
revealed that written corrective feedback is useful for helping to fix grammatical linguistic error It was related with the results of this study in which learners feel happy on receiving written corrective feedback since it helped them to ease revise their writing.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
From the research finding and the discussion above, there are some conclusions which can be concluded such as the way learners engage with teacher WCF in social was by interacting with their teacher and classmates in the form of asking and discussing about the content of teacher WCF.
Meanwhile, related to peer WCF, learners engage in social by interacting with their teacher and classmates in the form of asking and discussing about the content of peer written corrective feedback.
Meanwhile, learners engage with teacher WCF in affective British.
Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris Volume 11.
No 2.
September 2022 was by feeling happy toward teacher WCF, because they believed that teacher WCF helped them to know about their errors.
Meanwhile, related to peer WCF, learners engage in affective by feeling happy, enthusiastic, and interested in receiving and reading peer WCF.
REFERENCES