��

“I declare that this thesis entitled “Indirect Corrective Feedback: A Tool to Students’

Self-Editing of ESL Writing” is the result of my own research except as cited in the

references. The thesis has not been accepted for any degree and is not concurrently

submitted in candidature of any other degree”.

Signature : ...................................................

Name : Azrinda Binti Hassan Mohamad

Date : June 2013

���

“I hereby declare that I have read this thesis and in my opinion this thesis

is sufficient in terms of scope and quality for the award of the degree of Master of

Education (TESL).”

Signature : …….....................................................................

Name of Supervisor : Assoc. Prof. Dr. Masdinah Alauyah Bt Md. Yusof

Date : June 2013

����

To my beloved

Mother, Fatimah Binti Ishak,

and my one and only darling sister,

Azizah Binti Hassan Mohamad,

Both of you

are my strengths.

���

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The accomplishment of this thesis required the help of various individuals.

Without them, I might not meet my objectives in doing this study. I want to give my

deepest gratitude to the following people for their invaluable help and support.

First and foremost, I am truly indebted to my supervisor, Assoc. Prof. Dr.

Masdinah Alauyah Bt Md. Yusof for her continuous support and guidance. Without

her understanding, patience and encouragement, I would never accomplish this thesis

successfully. Next in the list is to my wonderful mother, Fatimah, who has been a

source of encouragement and inspiration to me throughout my life. And also my

darling sister, Azizah who is always be there for me through thick and thin. Without

both of you, I know that I would never go far.

Not forgotten, my closest friend, Hafizan Kono who was always a great

support in all my struggles and frustrations during my topsy-turvy study life. Cheers

to Hafizan Kono for being a great reliable person to whom I could always talk about

my problems and excitements. Without her, I could not have made it here and lastly,

to the people who helped and contribute great ideas and advices, especially

classmates, colleagues for without them, this thesis would not be possible.

Thank you Allah and thank you, everyone.

��

ABSTRACT

The issue of the roles of corrective feedback in writing classroom has long

been debated. Some researchers believed that giving feedback could hamper

students` motivation to write while others felt that giving the right corrective

feedback could improve students’ ability to self-correct their written work.

Nevertheless, many ESL teachers often face dilemma when teaching writing,

especially when choosing a suitable feedback to give to students` writings; i.e. to

give direct or indirect feedback; coded or non-coded feedback. This research was

aimed to investigate which indirect corrective feedback (coded or non-coded) gives

better correction in self-editing of ESL writing and also to find out students’ attitude

towards indirect corrective feedback in writing classroom. The respondents of this

research were a class of thirty Form Four students in one of secondary schools in

Pasir Gudang district. Data for this research was collected from students’ writing

task, questionnaire and interview. The findings of this research have shown that the

coded corrective feedback gives better correction in self-editing compared than non-

coded corrective feedback. The respondents also agreed the importance of corrective

feedback in their writing and they preferred coded corrective feedback more than

non-coded. It is also hoped that this research could benefit writing teachers to opt

the best tool to students’ self-editing of ESL writing to train them to be independent

writers.

���

ABSTRAK

Isu tentang peranan respons korektif di dalam kelas penulisan telah lama

diperdebatkan. Sesetengah pengkaji berpendapat bahawa respons korektif akan

menurunkan motivasi pelajar untuk menulis dan ada juga sesetengah pengkaji yang

lain berpendapat bahawa pemilihan respons korektif yang baik boleh meningkatkan

kebolehan pelajar di dalam proses suntingan kendiri. Tidak kurang juga terdapat

guru-guru Bahasa Inggeris yang dibelenggu dilema apabila mengajar penulisan,

terutama di dalam pemilihan respons korektif yang sesuai kepada pelajar; sama ada

perlu memberikan respons korektif secara langsung atau tidak langsung;

menggunakan kod atau tidak. Kajian ini dijalankan untuk mengkaji respons korektif

tidak langsung yang manakah mampu membantu pelajar melakukan penyuntingan

dengan baik di dalam penulisan Bahasa Inggeris dan untuk mengenal pasti sikap

pelajar terhadap respons korektif tidak langsung di dalam kelas penulisan. Kajian ini

melibatkan tiga puluh orang pelajar Tingkatan 4 di salah sebuah sekolah menengah

di daerah Pasir Gudang. Data kajian ini diperolehi dari hasil penulisan pelajar,

borang kaji selidik dan temuramah. Hasil kajian mendapati pelajar-pelajar mampu

membuat penyuntingan dengan lebih baik dengan menggunakan respons korektif

berkod berbanding dengan tidak berkod. Pelajar-pelajar juga bersetuju tentang

kepentingan respons korektif di dalam penulisan mereka dan mereka memilih

respons korektif berkod berbanding tidak berkod. Adalah diharapkan kajian ini

dapat memberi manfaat kepada guru-guru penulisan untuk memilih kaedah terbaik

dalam proses penyuntingan penulisan bagi melatih pelajar-pelajar menjadi penulis

yang berdikari.

����

TABLE OF CONTENT

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

DECLARATION ii

DEDICATION iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv

ABSTRACT v

ABSTRAK vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

LIST OF TABLES xii

LIST OF FIGURES xiii

LIST OF APPENDICES xiv

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Background of the study 2

1.3 Statement of Problem 4

1.4 Purpose of the Study 6

�����

1.5 Objectives of the Study 6

1.6 Research Questions 6

1.7 Significance of the Study 7

1.8 Scope of the Study 8

1.9 Definition of the Terms 8

1.10 Chapter Summary 10

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction 11

2.2 Corrective Feedback 11

2.3 Indirect Corrective Feedback 13

2.4 Coded and Non-Coded Feedback 15

2.5 Self-editing Strategy 17

2.6 Form-focused Corrective Feedback 20

2.7 Focused Corrective Feedback 20

2.8 Students’ Attitude on Corrective Feedback 22

2.9 Chapter Summary 24

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction 25

3.2 Research Design 25

3.3 Participants 26

3.4 Research Instruments 27

���

3.4.1 In-class Writing Task 28

3.4.2 Self-editing Exercises 28

3.4.3 Questionnaire 29

3.4.4 Interview 30

3.5 Research Procedure 31

3.6 Data Analysis 33

3.6.1 In-class writing task 34

3.6.2 Self-editing exercises 34

3.6.3 Questionnaire questions 35

3.6.4 Interview questions 35

3.7 Triangulating the computed data 36

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction 37

4.2 Which Indirect Corrective Feedback Methods 38

(coded or non-coded) gives better correction

to self-edit ESL writing

4.2.1 Errors produced in overall 39

4.2.2 Errors produced according to the gender 43

4.2.3 Indirect Corrective Feedback

(coded and non-coded) in Self-Editing 46

4.2.4 Using coded and non-coded CF 48

in self-editing in overall

��

4.2.5 Using Coded and Non-coded CF 51

in Self-Editing According to the Gender

4.3 Students’ Perception towards Corrective 54

Feedback in ESL Writing

4.3.1 Students’ concern about 54

grammatical accuracy

4.3.2 Reasons on choosing types 56

of indirect corrective feedback

4.3.3 Students’ perception towards self-editing 59

4.4 Chapter Summary 61

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction 62

5.2 Summary of Findings 62

5.2.1 Which Indirect Corrective Feedback Methods 63

(Coded or Non-Coded) Gives Better Correction

to Self-Edit ESL Writing

5.2.2 Students’ Perception towards Corrective 64

Feedback in Writing

5.3 Pedagogical Implications 65

5.3.1 The Role of Corrective Feedback on 65

Students’ Self-Editing

5.3.2 The Level of Explicitness of Indirect 66

Corrective Feedback

5.3.3 Importance of self-editing task 66

���

5.3.4 Implications of students’ preferences 68

for corrective feedback

5.4 Suggestions for Further Research 68

5.5 Conclusion 69

REFERENCES 71

APPENDICES 75

����

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE

3.1 Data Triangulation 36

4.1 Average number of errors marked 40

4.2 Students’ prior grammar knowledge 41

4.3 Types of grammar problems identified by teachers 42

4.4 Types of grammar problems self-identified 42

4.5 Types of grammar problems identified by teachers 45

according to gender

4.6 Types of grammar problems self-identified 46

according to gender

4.7 The mean errors corrected 47

(coded and non-coded corrective feedback)

4.8 Students’ Preferences for error feedback types 51

4.9 Seriousness of grammar problems from 55

students’ perspective

4.10 Students’ preferences for corrective feedback types 56

�����

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

4.1 Mean scores of the number of errors produced 44

across three error categories by gender

4.2 Mean of number of errors corrected by coded and 48

non-coded CF

4.3 Meann of number of errors corrected by coded and 52

non-coded CF (male respondents)

4.4 Meann of number of errors corrected by coded and 53

non-coded CF (female respondents)

����

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX TITLE PAGE

A Self-editing Session 1 75

B Self-editing Session 2 76

C Questionnaire 77

D Interview Questions 81

E Analysed Data 83

F Sample Essay Marked by Coded Feedback 87

G Sample Essay Marked by Non-coded Feedback 89

�

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

There are a number of language scholars have debated on the efficacy of

corrective feedback in teaching English as a second language to the learners (Ferris,

1999; Fathman and Whalley, 1990; Ellis 1990; Truscott, 1996). Explaining the same

errors repeatedly may be intimidating to every language teacher. On the other hand,

learners deserve to receive feedback from the teachers on the errors they have done

and eventually learn to lessen the frequent errors based on the substantial given

feedback from the teachers (Ferris, 1999).

Thus, this study believes on the beauty of corrective feedback that may lead to

high performance in learners’ ability to self-edit their L2 writing. By providing

corrective feedback, eventually one will be able to improve his/her grammatical

accuracy in ESL writing. As an effort to determine the best type of written

corrective feedback, this study investigated types of indirect corrective feedback that

give better correction in self-editing of ESL writing.

As a part of this effort, students’ commitment in self-editing on their own writing

may contribute to the success of effective corrective feedback. Teachers and

�

students should work hand in hand; the students will able to be independent writers

and the teachers are not pressured to treat every error. It is a win-win situation where

it needs both parties to work together.

1.2 Background of the study

Traditional English Language educators would prefer having corrective feedback

in writing classrooms mostly with the same intention; hoping that the students would

learn their mistakes and not to repeat the same mistakes on the next writing texts.

This belief has also been supported by a few studies which believe that corrective

feedback has its own role in writing processes and in fact the students actually value

the teachers’ feedback (Ferris, 2004; Lee, 2005; Sheen, 2007). On the contrary, there

are also studies that have negated the beauty of having corrective feedback in

writing.

“The sight of the red ink all over their writing” is claimed as harmful and

ineffective to the students affectively (Truscott, 1996). While the debate

between to have or not to have the corrective feedback continues among

the scholars, teachers still continue correcting their students’ error in the

classroom. They believe that the students need the feedback to help them

to be a good writer and the teachers think that they have to be responsible

too, and “so the error correction continues” (Lee, 2005).

Since ESL writing is one of the most complicated aspects of becoming proficient

in the language, writing teachers should be more realistic in choosing a suitable

corrective feedback for the students. For instance, Higher English Proficiency (HEP)

and Lower English Proficiency (LEP) students may have different needs of

corrective feedback methods. Hence, teachers should consider a few factors before

�

implementing corrective feedback in their writing classrooms and a few preliminary

WH questions should be identified and clarified in choosing the best written

corrective feedback. For example, who are the learners? How much information

should be provided? When is the best time to give feedback? These questions

should be clarified or explained before implementing the corrective feedback in

writing classes (Hong, 2007).

In Malaysia, corrective feedback plays a vital role when teaching English as a

second language. Teachers in primary and secondary schools are required to provide

sufficient feedback to students’ work especially for writing. English writing carries a

large portion of marks in every public examination where students’ compositions are

marked by using holistic marking scheme. Even though with the holistic marking,

grammar still has its top priority in determining the composition marks. Hence,

teaching writing in Malaysian public schools is seen important and inevitable where

the students are required to be competent in writing. They are expected to be fluent

writer as at the end of the examination as the examination result matters most.

Currently, most of good students are aware on their frequent grammar errors due to

lack of corrective feedback given by the teachers. Some teachers circle or underline

the errors when they provide corrective feedback on students’ composition, in further

discussion between the teachers and the students regarding the errors, the students

are actually able to correct the errors with minimum input from the teachers. The

students have claimed that they need more explicit input from the teachers on the

corrective feedback given by the teachers rather than underlining and circling. On

the other hand, some weak students may not be able to be independent on correcting

the errors with minimal corrective feedback; they require explicit feedback from the

teachers in order to do the correction. No matter which feedback is chosen; direct or

indirect feedback, the corrective feedback in writing classrooms is seen as a helpful

tool for the students to have accuracy and fluency in their writing and this has

contradicted findings from some researchers who have opposed on the idea of having

corrective feedback in a classroom (Truscott, 1996; Krashen, 1985). Thus, this study

believes that corrective feedback has an important place in ESL classroom especially

in writing and the corrective feedback could be given to them either direct or

indirect. However, the question of which method is best to be applied is still a big

question mark among the researchers and even to the educators. There are many

�

studies which have focused on whether or not to apply the corrective feedback on

students’ writing and also studies on which method is the best way to apply by the

teacher, but answers of these two questions are still contradicted.

Majority of the language teachers would be in a dilemma of choosing the correct

feedback for students’ writing. They are contemplating to give either direct or

indirect corrective feedback on students’ composition texts. Hence, some teachers

would diligently give explicit feedback as explicit as they could, but some would

rather do it implicitly. Some studies have shown that there is no different effect

between these two (Semke, 1984). However, other studies have proven that indirect

feedback is more beneficial to the students compared to direct feedback (Ferris,

2002; Lalande, 1982). Direct feedback is seen beneficial to the LEP students who

are unable to do self-editing (Ferris, 2002).

The problem here is how far the effectiveness of corrective feedback may

improve the students’ self-editing ability. In a writing process, editing is important as

it helps the students to control error occurrences in their writing and they could be

independent in detecting and correcting their errors but this phase could not be

achieved effectively without a suitable corrective feedback.

1.3 Statement of the problem

Language teachers are pressured by their students’ expectation to treat every

error. Parents also have high expectation on teachers to give feedback on errors

made by their children, thus, the teachers have to consider their learner types before

implementing any corrective feedback in writing classrooms and they should bear in

mind that there is definitely no one-size-fits-all approach. On reality, due to

numerous workloads some teachers may take corrective feedback for granted.

Frequent errors made by the students may contribute to less corrective feedback on

students’ compositions. Teachers are having burnout when they have to provide the

�

same corrective feedback over and over. Some ESL teachers may not differentiate

types of corrective feedback given to their students; they would just provide one type

of feedback for all types of students. Looking at the needs of each student, their

needs of types of feedback may vary from one and another. The students may not be

able to do self-editing when the teachers fail to identify the most feasible corrective

feedback to them. They would end up not doing any self-editing and wait to be

spoon-fed by the teachers when the errors occur. The cycle of producing the same

errors will continue and both teachers and students will be at the losing sides; the

students will never be independent writers and the teachers will continue correcting

the same errors.

Therefore, the teachers should be alert and decisive when handling mix ability

students as for instance HEP students may need less explicit feedback rather than the

LEPs. Thus, the teachers should identify their learners’ level of English proficiency

before they apply direct or indirect corrective feedback. Besides that, they also have

to tally the feedback with the purposes of lessons. For instance, corrective feedback

given in teaching rational cloze exercises probably has a different role than feedback

in teaching writing tasks. Besides, the teachers should also aware on the nature of

particular errors too. Errors are made mainly due to mother tongue interference or

maybe because of overgeneralization of certain grammar rules. So, with these

factors in mind, it leads the writing teachers to decide on applying either selective or

comprehensive feedback, whether to treat the errors or not, which errors to treat and

how to treat them most effectively (Makino, 1993).

�

1.4 Purpose of the study

The purpose of this study was to find out which type of corrective feedback

(coded or non-coded) would help students to self-edit their ESL writing. This study

was also done to find out students’ perception towards the implementation of

corrective feedback in ESL writing classroom.

1.5 Objectives of the study

The objectives of this study are:

1. To find out which indirect corrective feedback (coded or non-coded)

helps students to better self-edit their ESL writing.

2. To identify students’ perception towards the indirect corrective feedback

in writing.

1.6 Research questions

Based on the objectives, the following research questions are formed:

1. Which indirect corrective feedback (coded or non-coded) helps students to better

self-edit their ESL writing?

2. What are students’ perception towards corrective feedback (coded and non-coded)

in writing?

1.7 Significance of the study

The use of corrective feedback is important in improving students’ writing. It is

significant as the students need to have good skill in writing to become proficient in

English Language. The needs of accuracy in writing are demanded in Malaysian

public examinations especially for the group of students who are going to sit for Sijil

Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) examination especially the English 1119 Paper 1 which

focuses on writing.

This study was seen important to identify the best tool of corrective feedback to

be applied in correcting students’ essay. Choosing the most feasible indirect

corrective feedback helps the students to be independent in self-editing and at the

same time it could improve teachers’ teaching approaches in activating the grammar

competency. Gradually, the students may improve grammatical accuracy in their

writing tasks.

Apart from that, the study was also seen essential to help the teachers from being

burnout. Writing teachers are always faced a dilemma. They want to help their

students to develop in every facet of their writing, including their accuracy and

control over standard written English. Yet responding to students’ written errors can

be time consuming and tedious. Applying the most feasible indirect corrective

feedback may not only help the students to be independent writers but it is also seen

as one of the ways to help the teachers from being burnout. Therefore, the choice of

coded or non-coded corrective feedback was significant in this research.

1.8 Scope of the study

This study focused on a class of thirty secondary school students from a sub-

urban school in Johor. The participants were conveniently chosen as the researcher

was their English teacher and it was easy to conduct the research in the classroom

where teaching and research could be done at the same time. The focuses of the

study were on the coded and non-coded corrective feedback in self-editing of ESL

writing and the students’ attitude towards corrective feedback in writing.

1.9 Definition of terms

The study uses a few terms such as corrective feedback, error, indirect

feedback, self-editing, form-focused corrective feedback and focused corrective

feedback.

1.9.1 Corrective Feedback

Corrective feedback can be defined as “any indication to the learners that their

use of the target language is incorrect” (El Tatawy, 2002), and since it does not

always provide the correct form, it will force learners to make use of their own

language knowledge.

�

1.9.2 Error

An error is seen as an objective evaluation of linguistic or content errors

according to linguistic norms or evident misconstrual of facts, and any additional

linguistic or other behaviour that the teachers have reacted to negatively or with an

indication that improvement of the response is expected (Chaudron, 1986:67).

1.9.3 Indirect Feedback

Teachers give feedback by indicating the errors without correcting them

explicitly. They may give the indirect feedback by underlining or circling the errors

or commonly known as non-coded feedback. Some teachers may put some marks

on the errors location and some use codes or symbols that are written above every

error or on its margin and this is known as coded feedback (Lee, 2005).

1.9.4 Self-Editing

Editing is a process of revising or correcting a piece of writing to make it

more comprehensible to the reader. Before submitting the writing, it is always a

good idea to first do self-editing, even when there are people other than the writer to

do the final editing and proofreading.

��

1.9.5 Form Focused Corrective Feedback

Focus on form is defined as a type of instruction drawing “students’ attention

to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons where overriding focus is

on meaning or communication” (Lee, 2005)

1.9.6 Focused Corrective Feedback

Focused corrective feedback provides corrective feedbacks on selective forms

that have been identified earlier while unfocused corrective feedback provides on

comprehensive feedback that cover any kinds of errors on students’ texts (Frear,

2010).

1.10 Chapter Summary

This chapter has discussed the overview of the study, the statement of the

problem, the purpose of the study, the objectives of the study, the research questions,

the significance of the study, the scope of the study and the definition of terms.