Preferensi Peserta Didik terhadap Umpan Balik Guru pada Kemampuan Menulis Bahasa Inggris di Sekolah Menengah Kawasan Teluk Tomini
Abstract
This study aims to 1) Identify the problems and needs of students towards teacher feedback on English Writing Skills at Tomini Bay Middle Schools; 2) Analyze what kind of teacher feedback preferences students want on English Writing Ability at Tomini Bay Area Secondary Schools; 3) Develop students' preferences for teacher feedback on English Writing Ability at Tomini Bay Area Middle School. This study describes the results of student preferences for teacher feedback on the results of English writing in the Tomini Bay area secondary schools based on the results of data in the form of numbers that show the most dominant priority and become the choice of students towards the aspects that are in the feedback of teacher to the students' writing. The results of this study indicate that the results of the analysis of the recapitulation of the dominance of the teacher's feedback category on students 'written English, the students' preferences for teacher feedback emphasize more direct feedback, namely the teacher writes the correct or approaching error correction form and provides a brief explanation of the answer is wrong. This analysis shows that students prefer to have direct feedback because from the score obtained the highest average score is in the type of direct feedback.
Keywords: Student Preferences, Teacher Feedback, English Writing Ability
References
Bitchener.J & Knoch .U. (2009).The Value of a Focus Approach to Written Corrective Feedback.ELT Journal 63-73. 204-211.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353-371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
Fathman, A. K., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to students writing: Focus on form versus content. In B.
Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers?: New evidence on short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contextsand Issues (pp. 81-104). Cambridge: Cambridge: University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2011).Treatment of error in second language student writing (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.2173290
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Interpersonal aspects of response: Constructing and interpreting teacher written feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in Second Language Writing (pp. 206-224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524742.013
Junya Fukuta,Yu Tamura, Yusaku Kawaguchi. (2019). Written languaging with indirect feedback in writing revision: is feedback always effective?. Journal Language Awareness Volume 28, 2019 - Issue 1
Lewis, M. (2002). Giving feedback in language classes: RELC Portfolio Series 1. Singapore: SEAMEO-RELC.
López , M.B, Elke Van Steendam, Dirk Speelman, dan Kris Buyse. (2018). “The Differential Effects of Comprehensive Feedback Forms in the Second Language Writing Classâ€. Journal of Reearch in Language Study Vol. 68. Issue 3.
Nurarifah, M. (2016). The Types Of Corrective Feedback Implemented By The Teacher In Teaching Writing Descriptive Text To The Second Year Students Of SMP N 2 Baturetno†Skripsi. Universitas Negeri Muhammadiyah Surakarta
Pham, N.L & Iwashita, N. (2018). Using corrective feedback on writing to enhance Vietnamese learners' autonomy. International Perspectives on Teaching the Four Skills in ELT: Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing. Edited by Anne Burns and Joseph Siegel. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature.205-218.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63444-9
Ur, P. (1996). A Course in Language Teaching Practice and Theory.Cambridge Teacher Training and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
