EFL Students’ Perception of Oral and Written feedback in Professional Narrative Writing

Courses

By Juniardin Tulak Tonapa

112014092

CHAPTER I

Introduction

Writing is done to convey meanings. A descriptive writing, for example, communicate

meanings through describing a person or a thing. A procedural text communicates meanings
through explaining how to make or use something. To convey meanings, language expressions
are used. For example, to convey procedures of making something, action verbs like “put the
noodle...” and “cut the onion...” are used. Besides, conjunction like “first”, “second...” are also
used. Those language features and expressions are helpful for expressing meanings in an
organized way. In these ways, writing is “a permanent record, a form of expression and as a
means of communication” (White, 1991, p.1)

However, writing is not an easy process. White (1991) stated some reasons why it is
always easy. First, it requires a thinking process and intellectual effort that need to be maintained
over in a prolonged period of time. Second, it needs not only one’s intellectual ability, but also
language proficiency to make a writing process easier. These two reasons may lead EFL learners
to have difficulties in writing.

Because of this problem EFL writing, teachers should assist the students to write better
writing to improve by feedback. According to Cole (2006) feedback is “a verbal or written
reaction given to help students to write better.” Feedback may consist of written and oral types.
In an EFL writing, oral feedback is given orally through an interaction between teachers and
learners. Furthermore, Brookhart (2008) added that this kind of feedback is given to one learner,
some learners, and even the whole class either before, during, or after writing tasks. Written
feedback is given through writing instead of speaking and given after doing a writing task. In this
type of feedback, the teachers usually write correct forms and inform the errors and mistakes
made.

Feedback is importance in EFL writing classroom to help students improve their writing.
as argued by Hattie and Timperley, (2007, P.81), Feedback was described as “one of the most
powerful influence on learning. Teachers feedback in writing is needed in very students writing
assignment because in has some advantages for students to improving their writing.

Because of the importance of feedback, a great deal of studies about feedback in EFL
writing have been done. For example, Rahmati (2015), Listiyani (2021). Those studies focus on
improving students' writing through feedback. Rahmati’s study is about Oral and written
feedback on EFL students’ writing quality and Listiyani’s study focuses on students’ responses
to teacher written feedback. The previous studies have investigated feedback in conventional or
offline writing classroom. An issue on students’ response to teachers’ online feedback was then
raised. Therefore, this study is aimed at investigating what are the student’s perceptions of online
teacher feedback during online classes.

This study will explore EFL student’s perception of online Oral and Written feedback in
EFL writing classes. There are two research questions that need to answer

1. What are EFL students’ perceptions of online oral feedback in EFL writing classes?

2. What are EFL student's perceptions of online written feedback in EFL writing classes?

The finding of this study is important for writing teachers to know what students’ perception of
feedback and which certain type of feedback that student’s preference, so they can help students
to improve their writing by consider students perception and preference.
 CHAPTER II

Literature Review

This section presents key word teaching writing, teacher feedback in writing, online feedback in
writing and the review previous studies.

Teaching Writing

Teaching writing is an ongoing process which facilitates in a number of ways most of

teachers seems agree that writing skills are increasingly important and often not adequately
taught. Teaching writing can be divided into two categorize; writing as a product and writing as a
process

a.Writing process

Writing is a complex combination of skills which is best taught by breaking down the
process. Educators have found that by focusing on the process of writing, almost everyone learns
to write successfully. Most importantly, students discover the benefits of constructive feedback
on their writing, and they progressively master, and even enjoy, writing. Hayland(2003) figure
the model of writing below.

Generating
ideas

Re-viewing
Focusing Evaluating

Structuring Drafting
 Figure above is the process of writing starting from generating ideas, evaluating, drafting,

structuring and focusing. Generating ideas is a grouping of ideas that want to be written, it is

conceptualized with runtut. evaluating is the testing stage of generating ideas, this determines the

alignment between ideas. while drafting is the process before doing writing that is to start

random drafting. then the writing is sorted using the structuring stage. the last stage is focusing

which is the final result of the writing. There is one way that the center of the chart is re-viewing.

Reviewing is used for checking done by experts can be teachers or seniors. therefore, feedback

occurs at the re-viewing stage that can occur in any process.

a.Writing as a product

Writing usually turns up as a finished product if it has past the writing process. Here the

spelling to be correct, the nouns and verbs to be agree which each other and the punctuation and

layout to obey certain conversation, Hammer (2004).

Response to student writing has been a source of interest and debate in L1 composition theory
and research since early 1970s, when the process approach to teaching composition began to take
hold in classroom around the United States (e.g., Elbow, 1973; Garisson,1974). These scholars
strongly suggested that teachers allow students to complete multiple drafts of their paper,
encourage substantive revision, and give students feedback while they were in the process of
writing rather that at the end of that process

Teacher Feedback in writing

Feedback is a significant part of the developmental appraisal measure. Developmental

appraisal offers data to educators and students about how students are getting along

comparative with homeroom learning objectives (Brookhart, 2008). From the students’
perspective, the developmental appraisal "content" peruses this way: "What information or

abilities do I expect to create? How close am I now? What do I need to do straightaway?"

Giving great feedback is one of the abilities educators need to dominate as a component of

good developmental appraisal. Other developmental appraisal abilities incorporate having

clear mastering targets, creating clear exercises and tasks that impart those objectives to

students, and—normally in the wake of giving great Feedback —helping students with

figuring out how to form new objectives for themselves and activity designs that will prompt

accomplishment of those objectives.

Feedback can be incredible whenever progressed nicely. The force of developmental

feedback lies in its twofold barreled methodology, tending to both psychological and

persuasive factors simultaneously (Brookhart, 2008). Great Feedback gives students data

they need so they can comprehend where they are in their realizing and what to do

straightaway—the intellectual factor. When they believe they comprehend what to do and

why, most students build up an inclination that they have authority over their own

learning—the persuasive factor.

There are several types of feedback based on Brookhart (2008). There are three kinds of

feedback, namely timing, amount and mode feedback. The detail will be discussed below:

1. Timing

The reason for giving prompt or just marginally deferred feedback is to assist

students with hearing it and use it. Feedback needs to come while students are as yet

aware of the point, task, or execution being referred to. It needs to come while they

actually consider the learning objective a learning objective—that is, something they are

as yet taking a stab at, not something they previously did. It particularly needs to come
 while they actually have some motivation to deal with the learning objective. Feedback

about a subject they will not need to manage again the entire year will strike students as

inconsequential. An overall standard for checking the circumstance of feedback is to

placed yourself in the understudies' place. When might understudies need to hear your

feedback? At the point when they are as yet contemplating the work, obviously. What's

more, when they can in any case take care of business. Figure 2.1 sums up certain

instances of good and awful planning of feedback, and the accompanying sections

expand on one model.

Figure 2.1 Feedback Timing

Purpose:
• For students to get feedback while they are still mindful of the learning target
• For students to get feedback while there is still time for them to act on it

Examples of Good Feedback Timing Examples of Bad Feedback Timing

• Returning a test or assignment the
next day
• Giving immediate oral responses to
questions of fact
• Giving immediate oral responses to
student misconceptions
• Providing fl ash cards (which give
immediate right/wrong feedback) for
studying facts
• Returning a test or assignment two
weeks after it is completed
• Ignoring errors or misconceptions
(thereby implying acceptance)
• Going over a test or assignment
when the unit is over and there is no
opportunity to show improvement

2. Amount

Most likely the hardest choice to make about feedback is the add up to give. A

characteristic tendency is to need to "fix" all that you see. That is the instructor's eye see,

where the objective is ideal accomplishment of all learning objectives. For genuine

realizing, what has the effect is a usable measure of data that interfaces with something
 students definitely know and takes them starting there to the following level. Passing

judgment on the perfect measure of feedback to give—how much, on the number of

focuses—requires profound information and thought of the accompanying:

 The subject when all is said in done and your learning objective or focuses

specifically

 Typical formative learning movements for those themes or targets

 Your singular students

Moreover, making a judgment about the measure of feedback requires considering

every one of the three at the same time. Your feedback should give students an

unmistakable comprehension of what to do next on a point or focuses that they can see

they need to deal with. This expects you to know your students; for certain students,

basically getting clearness and enhancement for one point would be sufficient, while

others can deal with additional. To realize what should come straightaway, dive into your

insight into the subject (what else would it be a good idea for them to know?) and your

showing experience with the point (what regularly comes next?).

Figure 2.2 Amount of Feedback

Purpose:
• For students to get enough feedback so that they understand what to do but not so
much that the work has been done
• for them (differs case by case) For students to get feedback on “teachable moment”
points but not an overwhelming number

Examples of Good Amounts of Feedback Examples of Bad Amounts of Feedback

• Selecting two or three main points • Returning a student’s paper with
about a paper for comment every error in mechanics edited
• Giving feedback on important • Writing comments on a paper that
learning targets are more voluminous than the paper
• Commenting on at least as many itself
 strengths as weaknesses • Writing voluminous comments on
poor-quality papers and almost
nothing on good-quality papers
3. Mode

Choices about whether to give the feedback orally or in composed structure ought to

be halfway founded on the students' understanding capacity, particularly for more youthful

students. Could they comprehend what you would compose? Such choices are additionally

mostly dependent on a promising circumstance. Chatting with students is generally best,

since you can have a discussion. Be that as it may, you don't have the opportunity to converse

with each understudy about everything. Figure 2.4 presents instances of good and terrible

decisions about the method of introduction for feedback, and the accompanying sections give

further outlines.

Good choice of mode: Taking advantage of a teachable moment. Review that the

feedback for the "Noon" passage in Figure 2.3 framed the reason for a discussion with the

understudy around two moderately straightforward focuses: the section was clear, and more

subtleties were required. These two remarks are task-related feedback. Giving extra feedback

about the way toward getting subtleties into the work would include a larger number of

words than the understudy composed. All things considered, you can't compose that much,

and regardless of whether you did, it would have the impact, outwardly, of overpowering the

understudy work. Also, this feedback could start an accommodating, brief discussion with

the understudy at a workable second. Subsequently, giving the feedback orally is a decent

choice.

Bad choice of mode: Writing things the student can’t comprehend. Shockingly, the

accompanying illustration of a terrible decision is a genuine story. A rudimentary instructor

 appointed her class to work on penmanship by replicating a story from the board. A young

man with a gentle learning inability was having difficulty moving the story he was to

duplicate from the board onto his paper. Utilizing a radiant purple marker, the educator made

a slice on his words each time a letter was.

Figure 2.4 Feedback Mode

Purpose:
• To communicate the feedback message in the most appropriate way

Examples of Good Feedback Mode Examples of Bad Feedback Mode

• Using written feedback for • Speaking to students to save

comments that students need to be yourself the trouble of writing
able to save and look over • Writing to students who don’t read
• Using oral feedback for students well
who don’t read well
• Using oral feedback if there is more
information to convey than students
would want to read
• Demonstrating how to do something
if the student needs to see how to do
something or what something “looks
like”

a. Oral Feedback

The effectiveness of oral feedback in improving student writing is still uncertain (Hyland

& Hyland, 2006). Several studies examined the teacher-student dialogue and found that

regardless of the feedback technique. Patthey-Chavez and Ferris (1997, Hyland and Hyland,

cited in 2006) studied how four writing teachers held meetings with weaker and more

capable students. They found that although there are useful teacher suggestions that need to
be revised, less able students seem to use the suggestions more often than their peers. Higher-

ability students are more confident, and they often revise their writing based on the teacher's

suggestions. However, the results of these studies are based on a small sample size, so it is

not clear whether meeting strategies and other contextual factors play a role in improving

student writing.

In another study, Goldstein and Conrad (1990, as cited in Hyland & Lyland, 2006)

pointed out that second language learners are subject to cultural or social restrictions in

informal interaction with teachers. It is possible to use the teacher’s suggestions to modify

their writing passively and without flinching. The co-researchers found that only students

who negotiate well in the meeting can successfully make revisions. This finding is similar to

that of Williams (2004, Hyland & Hyland, 2006), in that when the teacher’s advice is direct

and the student actively negotiates meaning and takes down the teacher’s notes, the student

will successfully use the advice Comment during the conversation. Williams Alsio added that

negotiation is a prerequisite for the revision of high-level texts, although her research shows

that meetings have a greater impact on correcting local errors (as cited in Hyland & Hyland,

2006). However, the results of all four studies are based on small sample sizes, so it is not

clear whether meeting attitudes and other background factors have played a role in improving

student writing.

Consistent with SLW-based studies, many studies have been conducted based on SLA to

study the effects of indirect and direct correction of food fasting, focusing on a single

language structure. For example, Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam (2006, as cited in Sheen, 2010b)

conducted an experimental study to test that implicit or explicit feedback is more appropriate

for adult ESL learners to acquire the conventional past tense. They divided the students into
three groups: the group with implicit recasting, the group with explicit meta-language

feedback, and the group without any corrective feedback. Research results show that implicit

and explicit feedback have no effect on immediate post-testing, but the latter is more

effective than the former in delayed post-testing. In another study. Sheen (2007, as cited in

Sheen, 2010b) found that explicit corrective feedback is superior to implicit corrective

feedback in terms of formal acquisition in both the immediate and delayed post-tests when

the former is provided in the form of metalanguage and the latter in the form of recasts.

b. Written Feedback

Related to this, many comments focus on whether the type of comment affects the

revision and which type is more effective (if not the most effective). For example, Sugita

(2006) analyzed 115 revised essays by 75 EFL students from a private university in Japan.

He found that commands in feedback were more effective than statements and questions. In

contrast. Conrad and Goldstein (1990, as cited in Hyland & Hyland, 2006) found that the

imperative, declarative, or question in the feedback is more ineffective than the question type

in the feedback. They further explained that issues related to facts and details were

successfully revised by 50%, while issues of argumentation and analysis were successfully

revised by only 10%. Treglia (2008) interviewed two teachers and fourteen students at a

community college in the United States to study how students respond to teacher feedback in

a mitigating and mitigating manner. This research shows that students can easily view

mitigation and instructional comments and make modifications, but they like feedback

provided in the form of confirmations, suggestions, and choices. Alamis (2010) surveyed 141

students' responses to teacher written feedback. Through questionnaire surveys and student

essays, Aramis found that praise is better than criticism, and content feedback should include
suggestions instead of three forms: questions, direct corrections and indirect corrections.

However, the research is the result of responses based on opinions, so it may be difficult to

conclude that its findings are valid.

Many other researchers conducted further investigations to find out how clearly and

adequately the teacher’s written feedback should be reflected in order to encourage

understanding and revision. Enginarlar (1993). For example, a 20-item questionnaire was

used to survey 47 freshmen's attitudes towards coding feedback and short comments in

English Writing I. This research shows that participants like these two types of feedback.

They view review work as a form of cooperative learning, where students and teachers share

work and responsibilities. Ferris and Roberts (2001) also discussed how explicit error

feedback can help students revise their papers. By analyzing papers written by 72 university

ESL students, they found that in terms of self-revision, the treatment group was better than

the control group, but there was no statistical difference between the coded feedback group

and the uncoded feedback group. Ferris and Roberts also concluded that less clear feedback

seemed to help self-revision and corrections coded by error type. Ferris (2003) proposed in a

review of three key studies that comprehensive feedback (that is, marking all errors) is better

than selective feedback (that is, only marking some errors), and indirect correction (that is,

coding and uncoded errors) is preferable. It is more effective than direct correction (that is,

the teacher makes corrections for the students). Lee (2004) analyzed the error correction

tasks of teachers and used questionnaires and follow-up interviews with teachers and students

to examine their views on error correction practices in writing classrooms in Hong Kong

middle schools. Like the research reviewed by Ferris (2003), the research shows that
comprehensive error feedback encourages substantial revisions, and students rely on teachers

to correct errors.

c. Previous Study

This research has been researched by several researchers before. There are some several

studies about online oral and written feedback in EFL classroom. Researcher found three

researcher which can be support for this research.

The first is Improving Student’s Writing Skills Using Online Feedback (MusferaNara,

2019). This research aims to improve students writing skills by providing online feedback

using online tools (Edmodo). The second one is The Art of Giving Online Feedback (Leibold

& Schwarz, 2015). This article provides information about the best practice for delivering

online feedback to learners. Additionally, a discussion of the various avenue of delivering

online feedback, such as written word, audio file, video recording, pre-set automated

feedback and live web-based conferencing. The Third Students oral and written feedback on

student writing quality at one of pre intermediate writing class (Rahmawati, Raja, Nurweni,

2015). This study is to find out wether there are changes between before and after being

given oral and written feedback, and to find out which type of feedback result in better

writing quality improvement.

Those studies have difference and same things. The different are those studies focus

about improving students writing skills, online feedback for students and oral and written

feedback. Beside their have same topic is feedback. However, the present study is about

exploring EFL student’s perception of online Oral and Written feedback in EFL writing

classes.
 CHAPTER III

THE STUDY

The study presents the research design comprising the research question, construct, data

collection, and data analysis. It also has descriptions of participants, the context of the study, data

collection, data analysis, and instrument of data collection.

A. Participants/materials

This study involves 40 students of English Teacher Education Program who are taking

Professional Narrative Writing. Researcher involves their participation because students who

take professional narrative writing courses receive several types of feedback given by their

lecturers. These types include oral and written feedback. Therefore, the researcher asked

them to become participants in order to find the criteria of participants who must know about

feedback in this study.

B. The context of the study

This study takes place at Professional Narrative Writing classes, English Teacher

Education Program, Faculty of Language and Arts, Satya Wacana Christian University. The

research setting is chosen because the course is offered in this department. There are writing

courses offered to students, it is Professional Narrative writing. Moreover, in Professional

Narrative Writing, there are two classes’ students commonly got oral and written feedback

from the writing teachers.

C. Research Methodology

This research uses the qualitative method which is relying on verbal data and non-

numeric as fundamental analysis and problem solving for this research. According to
 Creswel (2013) qualitative research is research procedure that produces descriptive data not

only in the form of written or spoken by people but also attitudes being observed. This

research is conducted using qualitative approach because the result of the data is the

interpretation of students’ perception.

D. Instrument of data collection.

There are two kinds of instruments in this research for collecting the data. The

instruments are questionnaire and interview. The questionnaire is made in close-ended

questions. The questionnaire is distributed through google form. Besides, the interview used

for getting deeper insights form participants about their answer in the questionnaire. The

student who become the participants are 40 students.

E. Data collection procedures

Beverly Hancock (2001) stated, qualitative research is concerned with the opinions,

experiences and feelings of individuals producing subjective data. Based on the statement

above the writer used qualitative method to the research by doing some steps. It analyzed and

interpreted based on the result of questionnaire and interview about students’ perception. The

process of collecting the data is divided into several steps: First asked permission to the

lectures in Professional narrative writing classes. Second after getting permission then the

writer asked the participant for those classes to do the questionnaire. Third is interviewing

several students to become the representative about their perception of teachers’ feedback.

F. Data analysis procedures

According to Miles and Huberman (1994:10), analysis can be defined as consisting as

three current flows of activity that is data reduction, data display, and conclusion
drawing/verification. In this research, the researcher used Miles and Huberman’s theory in

analyzing the data, so there are three steps to do, they are:

1. Data Reduction

Data reduction becomes the first steps to do in analyzing the data in this research.

According to Miles (1994:10), data reduction refers to the process of selecting, focusing,

simplifying, abstracting, and transforming the data in written up field note or transcript.

In this stage, the researcher determines or compiles questions for questionnaire and

interviews that relate to students 'perception about teachers' oral and written feedback.

This was done before distributing the instrument to participants. After that it is distributed

in the data display stage.

2. Data Display

The second step is data display. According to Miles (1994:11), generally a display is an

organized, compressed assembly of information that permits conclusion drawing and

action. In this step, the researcher shows or displays the data which is contains the deixis,

not only as generally but specifically and clearly. At this stage, the researcher analyzed

the participants' answers through questionnaire and interviews. After that the researcher

connected the two to get the answer alignment. Then, the researcher connected the results

of these answers with the theory of the experts. This was done to draw conclusions later.

3. Conclusion Drawing / Verification

After finished doing data reduction and data display, the last step is to analyze the data in

this research is drawing conclusion. According to Miles (1994:11), final conclusion may

not appear until data collection is over, depending on the size of the corpus of field notes;

coding storage and retrieval methods of the funding agency, but they often have been
 prefigured from the beginning even when a researcher claims to have been proceeding

inductively. At this stage is the final stage for researchers, researchers in this section

interpret the results of the display data to get research conclusions. Conclusion drawing

aims to obtain answers to questions on research questions about students' perception

about oral and written feedback by their teachers.

References
Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. United State: Association for
supervision ad Curriculum Development.

Broughton, G. (1980). Teaching English As A Foreign Language. Routledge.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches. Los
Angeles: SAGE.

Hyland, K. (2004). Second Language Writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K. (2006). Writing Academic English. USA: Longman.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An expanded Sourcebook 2nd Edition.
London: SAGE.