Vol. 3, No.

2, September 2017| Indonesian Journal of English Language Studies

Types and Frequencies of Written Corrective Feedbacks in Adult ESL

Classroom

Wimbo Pambudi Wicaksono

Sanata Dharma University
e-mail: [email protected]
https://doi.org/10.24071/ijels.v3i2.1065
ABSTRACT
Feedbacks have been seen as an effective way to help language learners acquire second
language competence. This study aims to find out how the written corrective feedback (CF)
has been used in the adult ESL classroom. In this study, the data were generated through the
learner’s writing. Then the data were put into direct, coded and uncoded type of the written
corrective feedback. In addition, those types of feedback were categorized into content and
form category to find the scope of the written corrective feedback. As the result, the direct
written corrective feedback was mostly used by the teachers. Interestingly, the teachers only
used the uncoded written corrective feedback when it refers to the content of the writing.
Besides, the dynamic corrective feedbacks that occur several times can be a proof that the
teachers not only focus on the form the writing but also the content.
Keywords: written corrective feedback, ESL

INTRODUCTION of L2 but also be able to demonstrate the

proper use of the lexis in the right context.
Speaking and writing have been often
valued as a way to assess ability in Despite the fact that producing a good
mastering a language. Still, writing has writing is not easy, there is a way to achieve
been considered as the most difficult skill to successful writing. Hyland (2006) states
master (Hartshorn, et al., 2010). Many that successful writing requires an
second language learners have their “hard” awareness of the importance of cognitive
time in writing. They struggle to produce and motivational factor. It implies that
writing that is linguistically correct and teachers have their own role in assisting
accurate. It seems that having adequate learners in the process of producing a good
knowledge of lexical and grammatical piece of writing. The teachers should be
components of the second language (L2) able to provide an effective and
are not enough. Tangmpermpoon (2008) constructive corrective written feedback to
reason that writing require the L2 learners their learners’ writing. Hopefully, the
to have a certain amount of L2 background quality of the learners’ writing can be
knowledge about the rhetorical improved through the written corrective
organizations, appropriate language use or feedbacks (CF) and also revising processes.
specific lexicon with which they want to However, Truscott (1966) reviewing on
communicate to their readers. Therefore, a written CF studies ends up with a
successful writing may require the writer to controversial conclusion that CF is
not only master the grammatical component ineffective and even harmful in promoting

58
Vol. 3, No. 2, September 2017| Indonesian Journal of English Language Studies

L2 acquisition. As one of the counter learner’s motivation is important to push

arguments, Ellis (2008) argues that CF has them naturally to engage in error correction
been acknowledged as one of the central strategies following error detection. It may
element in the classroom discourse. He also motivate them to continue pursuing the
even claims that the CF has a vital role to goal or reducing the gap between current
supports the interaction in the classroom. knowledge and the goal.
Mi-mi (2009) defines written CF as any Regarding to the benefits of giving the
indication to the learners that their language written CF, researches on written CF have
use is incorrect. It is supported by Suzuki been conducted and published several
(2003) that claims written CF as the times. Bitchener (2012) claims that written
provision of negative evidence which corrective feedback (CF) on the learners’
encourages learners’ repair involving writing is necessary. He also adds that most
accuracy and precision. Conversely, the second language teachers’ goal is to foster
negative evidence that show the L2 their learners to be able to communicate
learners’ weakness or errors should be seen with their L2 (second language).
in a “positive” view. It actually indicates Nevertheless, the question about what is the
that the acquisition of the second language best type of written CF that the teachers
acquisition is on process (Tavakoli, 2012). should give to the learners is not yet
Besides, the negative evidence or a answered. Although there are several types
situation where the learners made mistake of written CF, Hyland (1998) notes that
is required to trigger teachers’ response in a “good feedback can only really be defined
form of CF (Suzuki, 2003). Hopefully, the with reference to the individual writers,
CF from the teachers can help the learners their problems, and their reasons for
to acquire the L2 by helping them to writing” (p. 2). Therefore, this study intends
overcome their negative evidences. to find how to use different types of written
CF effectively by examining the pattern of
Interestingly, written CF can also have a
each type of feedback. In order to do that,
negative impact on subsequent motivation
this study aim to answer these research
and performance of the L2 learners. Kernis,
questions: (1) What are the different types
et al. (1989) claims that these particular
of written corrective feedback and their
situations happened if the learners have
distribution in adult ESL classrooms? (2)
only been experiencing negative feedbacks.
What type of learner errors leads to what
This statement is supported by Van-Dijk &
types of corrective feedback?
Kluger (2000) that state a positive written
CF should be also addressed to the learners This study does not intend to present a
for it demonstrates an increase of learners’ model of correcting learners’ writing nor
motivation instead of the negative give impression that a single type of written
feedback. They continue that positive CF is perfect compare to the other types.
feedback should give an impression that the Yet, it intends to help the teacher, especially
learners “want to” achieve the goal instead writing teacher, to be able to give of a
of “have to do” (Van-Dijk & Kluger, 2000). ‘good’ written CF to their learners. By
Therefore, the written CF given to the showing the distribution or how a teacher
learners should not only focus on the treats each type of error differently, the
learners’ errors but it is also expected to reader can actually learn from the other
enhance the learners’ motivation. The teachers’ experience. Besides, they can also

59
Vol. 3, No. 2, September 2017| Indonesian Journal of English Language Studies

learn how to read the situation for a “good” On the other side, the indirect CF also
written CF should be able to help the brings benefit to the learners. The indirect
learners’ to solve the problem. The CF is believed as a medium to push the
distribution of the different type of written learner to engage in the hypothesis testing
CF will give an illustration how each type (Bitchener, 2012). It is possible since the
of written CF is used in the classroom. teacher only marks the location of the error.
Expectedly, it will also give an insight to The correction part is intended to the
the reader to conduct a further research learners. So, it requires their analytical skill
related to this issue. to recognize the error and give the correct
answer. By doing the correction by
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE
themselves, learner will experience and
TEACHER IN DETERMINING
actually know what they have to do. In
WRITTEN CORRECTIVE
addition, Ferris (2010) believed that the
FEEDBACKS
indirect CF will also help the learners to
Though the written corrective feedback has monitor their writing autonomously.
been a main topic of several discussions in
2. Scope of Feedback
this millennium era, (Suzuki, 2003; Hattie
& Timperley, 2007; Tangmpermpoon, Scope refers to the number and type of
2008; Ellis, 2008; Bitchener, 2012) there errors that are addressed (Brown, 2012). An
are still argumentations on assessing the effective feedback can be focused on a
effectiveness of written corrective feedback particular error or a comprehensive
(Brown 2012). As a L2 teacher, I often find approach. Sheen (2007) finds out that
myself in confusion when I need to give the written CF that improves grammatical
most appropriate corrective feedback to my accuracy in future writings is typically
students. However, Brown (2012) has focused on a single grammatical feature. In
described two factors that might influence this case, the teachers can set the priority
second language teachers in determining areas that they want to focus. This approach
the written CF. suits well with the coded system in the
writing (Brown, 2012). The particular code
1. Explicitness of Feedback
will only be used to refer to particular error.
Explicitness refers to how feedback draws As long as it’s manageable, it will not lead
the learners to notice the location or nature the learners to confusion.
of error (Brown, 2012). Ellis (2008) also
However, the focused approach may have
adds that learners like to be corrected if the
limited in the L2 classroom where the
feedback is explicit. From the learners’
learners need to deal with various language
point of view, the explicit feedback will
features. In this respect, Hartshorn, et al.
help them to know directly what they have
(2010) introduced what is called as
to do, therefore it is also called as a direct
dynamic CF. They argued that written CF
feedback. In addition, the learners’
should not only focus on the form or
miscorrection can be avoided through the
grammatical aspects since it will not help
explicit feedback. Sheen (2007) proves that
the learners to produce writing that is
direct correction is more superior to other
linguistically correct and accurate. They
types of indirect correction in producing
also claim that dynamic CF is
more accurate writing.
comprehensive but manageable, timely and

60
Vol. 3, No. 2, September 2017| Indonesian Journal of English Language Studies

constant. Hence, this approach will enable of the error and elicit the error to the
the teacher to return learners’ work quickly. learners, yet the correct answer of the error
will not be provided. The other way to do it
Kim & Kim (2005) conducted a similar
is by giving the clue to the learners in order
study about the scope of feedback in writing
to help them correcting their error.
classes in Korean. They found that the
Therefore, the learners will have to correct
teachers examined three factors from the
it by their self. Brown (2012) defined it as
learners; writing, which were: form, content
the combination of the direct and indirect
and writing style. The finding of their study
feedback. However, he also added that the
indicated that the teachers did not only
codes/clue should be manageable to not
focus on the linguistic aspect which refers
lead the learners to confusion.
to the form but also on the content and the
writing style (Kim & Kim, 2005) The other 3. Uncoded feedback
finding also indicated that the learners
In this type of feedback, the teachers will
expected feedback from their teacher since
only mark the location of the error without
it generally helps them to improve their
any elicitation. The marking is usually done
writing.
by highlighting the error (Sheen, 2007).
TYPES OF WRITTEN CORRECTIVE Then, the learners are expected to be able to
FEEDBACK analyse the error that they made since no
clue will be provided.
In one of the earliest study, Rob et al.
(1986) examined the writing of EFL 4. Marginal
learners in Japan. The study was conducted
The teachers will write the total number of
over one academic year to see if four
errors that the learners made on their paper.
different types of written CF produce more
There will not be any clue to help the
positive effect than others. There were four
learners to correct their error nor any mark
methods of written CF that they examined,
to locate the error. The learners are required
which were:
to read and analyse their overall writing and
1. Direct correction revised it. Though it might be more
challenging compared to the other types of
The direct correction is the most explicit
feedback, it is believed that this kind of
feedback design. It will not only indicate
feedback will improve the control of the
the location of error but also provide the
language since the learners are expected to
correct answer. In addition, Ellis (2008)
autonomously do correction. Besides, the
stated that this type of feedback raises the
teacher can quickly return the papers to the
interaction of the learners in the class. The
learners.
other researchers also found it beneficial for
the learners since it improves the control of METHODOLOGY
the language since it will not lead the
The data were generated through the
learner to a miscorrection.
learners’ writing to answer the research
2. Coded feedback questions. Learners who are taking the
writing class have to produce English
The coded feedback is less explicit
writing. Since they are still learning English
compared to the pervious type of feedback.
as their foreign language, they might need
The code will function to mark the location
to revise their writing. This situation gave

61
Vol. 3, No. 2, September 2017| Indonesian Journal of English Language Studies

the opportunity to gather the written CF “form” and “content”. As the final result,
gave by their teachers. However, the the data representation will be described in
quality of the writing will not be examined. the descriptive form.
This paper will only examine the feedback
FINDINGS
that the lecturers gave on their writing.
The distribution of Written Corrective
Participants
Feedback.
Ten writings were randomly taken from the
adult ESL classes. All of the writings were Types of Feedbacks
written by learners who sit on the respective
English language classes. English was their
foreign language and all of them are
Indonesians. Those writings were
purposively selected from English language
classes for their writing always got
feedback from lecturers who are competent
in teaching English language. All names
mentioned in this study are pseudonyms.
Data Analysis Procedure
This research aims to investigate the types
and frequencies of written corrective
feedbacks in adult ESL classroom. As the
initial steps, all of the feedbacks that have Direct Coded Uncoded
been gathered will be categorized into types
of feedback that are frequently used by the The chart has shown that the direct
teachers. These procedures were adapted feedback was the most dominant written CF
from Panova & Lyster (2002). Different in the classroom. With the number of 70 out
from what they have done, this study is of 103 written CF, the total number of direct
specifically focus on the written corrective feedback was beyond the other types. The
feedback. All of the written CF were number of the uncoded feedback was 29,
counted and categorized based on the type while the coded/clue feedback’s number
of feedback that has been proposed by Rob was 14. Interestingly, the marginal
et al. (1986). Those categories were: 1) feedback was not found in the data.
direct feedback, 2) coded feedback, 3)
uncoded feedback and 4) marginal.
In order to answer the second research
question, the types of the written corrective
feedback were analysed deeper. Each type
of the feedback was categorized into
specific error that they have been made. In
order to do that, each of the type of written
CF was examined and categorized into two
different scopes. The scopes of the error are

62
Vol. 3, No. 2, September 2017| Indonesian Journal of English Language Studies

The Scope of Feedback lead to what types of corrective feedback?

In order answer those questions, the type of
Scope of Feedbacks written corrective feedbacks that occurred
in the learners’ writing were observed and
analysed. Then, the frequencies of each
type of corrective feedback was also
observed. After that, each feedback was
investigated to state its scope to determine
whether the written corrective feedback
was directed to correct the form or content
of the writing.
In answering the first research question, the
findings show that there were three types of
written corrective feedback that were found
from the data, which were: direct,
coded/clue and uncoded feedbacks. The
finding showed that all of these types of
Content Grammar
feedback could be used to correct the form
The result has shown that the feedbacks errors. Yet, the direct written corrective
were not only focused on the form but also feedback is the most favourable type of
on the content of the paper. With the written corrective feedback.
number of 7 feedbacks, the content has got
In answering the second research question,
attention from the teacher. However, the
the findings indicated that the teachers
feedback on the form or grammatical aspect
consider either the content or the form of
were dominated the scope of feedback
the writing as the scope that need to be
greatly. Its number was 96 feedbacks.
improved. Interestingly, the teachers were
There were possible factors why the
only used one type of feedback, which was
feedback of content was lesser than the
the uncoded feedback, in
form. First, there were a lot of grammatical
correcting/commenting the content.
aspects that could be checked and
Though the amount of direct written CF
corrected. Second, the content of the
was beyond the coded or uncoded written
writing might be seen as learners’ ‘personal
CF, none was used in commenting the
area’, therefore the teacher might only need
content. However, all of the three types of
to help them with the content a little bit and
written CF were used for correcting the
focus more on their grammatical errors.
form of writing.
ANALYSIS
In addition, the positive feedback always
This study aimed to find the types and occurred together with the uncoded
frequencies of written corrective feedbacks feedback. Fascinatingly, it only occurred
in adult ESL classroom. There were two when a feedback that focuses on the content
research questions in this study: 1). what was given. In addition, the dynamic written
are the different types of written corrective CF also occurred. On those writings, the
feedback and their distribution in adult ESL teachers gave feedback in both of the
classrooms? 2). what type of learner errors content and form in writing. Furthermore,

63
Vol. 3, No. 2, September 2017| Indonesian Journal of English Language Studies

they mostly chose uncoded written CF in Third, the dynamic feedbacks also occurred
giving the dynamic written CF. in the learners’ paper. It may indicate that
the teachers spent more time to help their
CONCLUSION
learners to produce a piece of writing that
This study was adapted from Lyster and linguistically correct and accurate.
Ranta’s (1997) yet, the goal and data of this
REFERENCES
study were different. This study focused on
the distribution written corrective feedback, Basiron, H. B. (2008). Corrective feedback
not the relationship of type of the corrective in dialogue-based computer-based
feedback and the learners’ uptake. language learning. The New
Hopefully, the result of the study can help Zealand Computer Science
the teachers, especially the new writing Research Student Conference, (pp.
teachers, to select and consider the type of 192-194). Christchurch.
written corrective feedback for their
Bitchener, J. (2012). Written corrective
classes. Besides, the result of this study
feedback for l2 development:
indicates that further research can be
current knowledge and future
conducted to improve the research about
research. (D. Ferris, Ed.) TESOL
written corrective feedback.
Quarterly, 4, 855-860. Retrieved
With regard to the limitation of this study, from
firstly, the small number of uncoded http://www.jstor.org/stable/432678
feedbacks found in this study should be 94
noted. As the indirect feedback is believed
Brown, D. (2012, December). The written
as an effective tool to help the learners to
corrective feedback debate: next
learn the language better than the direct
steps for classroom teachers and
feedback, it is not right to say that the
practitioners. TESOL Quarterly,
uncoded feedback is probably not effective.
861-867. Retrieved from
A further research to find the relationship
http://www.jstor.org/stable/432678
between type of feedback and the uptake in
95
this context needs to be conducted.
Secondly, the teachers’ instruction might Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second
have effected on the choice of the type of language acquisition. New York:
written corrective feedback. Hence, a Oxford University Press.
further study needs to consider it as one of
the aspect. Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing
research and written corrective
However, the result of this study was feedback in SLA: Intersections and
unique in several aspects. First, the direct practical applications. Studies in
written corrective feedback numbers is way Second Language Acquisition, 181-
beyond the others feedback. Although it 201.
might take more time to do the correction,
teachers prefer to use it compare the other Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merill, P.
type of feedback. Second, in term of giving F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause,
correction on the content of the writing, the D., & Anderson, N. J. (2010).
indirect feedback was the only type that has Effects of dynamic corrective
always been used, not the direct feedback. feedback on ESL writing accuracy.

64
Vol. 3, No. 2, September 2017| Indonesian Journal of English Language Studies

TESOL Quarterly, 44, 84-109. class. US-China Foreign Language,

Retrieved 30-03-2017, from 60-63.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/277850
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of
71
corrective feedback and uptake in
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007, March). an adult ESL classroom. TESOL
The power of feedback. Review of Quarterly, 573-595.
Educational Research, 81-112.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused
Retrieved from
written corrective feedback and
http://www.jstor.org/stable/462488
languange aptitude on ESL learners'
8
acquisition of articles. TESOL
Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher Quarterly, 255-283.
written feedback on individual
Suzuki, M. (2003). Corrective feedback and
writers. Journal of Second
learner uptake in adult ESL.
Language Writing, 255-286.
Columbia University Working
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Context Papers in TESOL & Applied
and issues in feedback on L2 Linguistics, 1-21.
writing: An introduction. In K.
Tangmpermpoon, T. (2008). Integrated
Hyland, & F. Hyland, Feedback in
approaches to improve students
second language writing (pp. 1-19).
writing skill for English major
Cambridge: Cambridge Univesity
students. ABAC Journal, 1-9.
Press.
Tavakoli, H. (2012). A dictionary of
Kim, Y., & Kim, J. (2005). Teaching
language acquisition: A
Korean university writing class:
comprehensive overview of key
Balancing the process and the genre
terms in first and second language
approach. The Asian EFL Journal,
acquisition. Tehran: Rahnama
69-90.
Press.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective
Van-Dijk, D., & Kluger, A. (2000). Positive
feedback and learner uptake:
(negative) feedback:
Negotiation of form in
encouragement or
communicative classrooms. Studies
discouragement?. 15th annual
in Second Language Acquisition,
convention of the Society for
37-66.
Industrial and Organizational
Mi-mi, L. (2009). Adopting varied Psychology. New Orleans, LA.
feedback modes in the EFL writing

65