STUDENTS’ PREFERENCES OF THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL WRITING FEEDBACK
(1) University of Bengkulu
(2) UNIVERSITAS BENGKULU
(3) UNIVERSITAS BENGKULU
(*) Corresponding Author
Abstract
Students' feedback preferences are essential in the research proposal writing process. This research aims to reveal the students' preferences toward the supervisor has written feedback and the types of written feedback provided by the supervisors in the students' research proposal in terms of the error correction feedback and the comment feedback. This research employed a mixed-method design. There were 39 samples chosen purposively to gain the quantitative data and 16 documents chosen from five random students to gain the qualitative data. Based on the data analysis, the type of error correction feedback and comment feedback preferred by the students respectively are the direct error correction feedback with the score of 155 (38,46%) and the directive comment feedback with 293 (22,37%). Besides, the type of error correction feedback and comment feedback provided by the supervisors respectively are the direct error correction feedback with 79 (51,97%) scores and the referential comment feedback with the scores of 206 (63,00%). This study implies that various feedback should address the students' preferences and learning styles since the outputs are their academic writing achievement.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Adrefiza, A., & Fortunasari, F. (2020). Written corrective feedback on students’ thesis writing: an analysis of student-supervisory interactions. JELTIM (Journal of English Language Teaching Innovation and Materials), 2(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.26418/jeltim.v2i1.37317
Aridah, A., Atmowardoyo, H., & Salija, K. (2017). Teacher Practices and Students’ Preferences for Written Corrective Feedback and Their Implications on Writing Instruction. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7(1), 112. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v7n1p112
Basturkmen, H., East, M., & Bitchener, J. (2014). Supervisors’ on-script feedback comments on drafts of dissertations: socialising students into the academic discourse community. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(4), 432–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.752728
Chokwe, J. M. (2015). Students’ and tutors’ perceptions of feedback on academic essays in an open and distance learning context. Open Praxis, 7(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.7.1.154
Chuang, P., Susanty, M. T., Silmawati, H., & Effendi, S. (2019). EFL students’ preference in receiving written corrective feedback. Indonesian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 2(2), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.25134/ijli.v2i2.1990.Received
Chugh, R., Macht, S., & Harreveld, B. (2021). Supervisory feedback to postgraduate research students: a literature review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 0(0), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1955241
Creswell, J. w. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed-Methods Approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Danial, H., & Idul, R. (2020). Preferensi Peserta Didik Terhadap Umpan Balik Guru Pada Kemampuan Menulis Bahasa Inggris di Sekolah Menengah Kawasan Teluk Tomini. Jurnal KIBASP (Kajian Bahasa, Sastra Dan Pengajaran), 4(1), 36–48.
Dwihandini, L. A., Marhaeni, A. A. I. N., & I.W.Suarnajaya. (2013). The analysis of the factors affecting undergraduate students ’ difficulties in writing thesis in the English department of Mahasaraswati University. E-Journal Program Pascasarjana Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha, 2, 1–12.
Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student Reactions to Teacher Response in Multiple-Draft Composition Classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587804
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The Influence of Teacher Commentary on Student Revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588049
Firza, F., & Aisiah, A. (2019). Error of Proposal Writing by Students. 3rd Asian Education Symposium (AES 2018). Atlantis Press, 253, 359–363. https://doi.org/10.2991/aes-18.2019.81
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2012). Competencies for Analysis and Applications 10th Edition. In Pearson Education, Inc (10th ed., Vol. 6). New Jersey: Pearson. Retrieved from http://library1.nida.ac.th/termpaper6/sd/2554/19755.pdf
Irwin, B. (2018). Written Corrective Feedback: Student Preferences and Teacher Feedback Practices. IAFOR Journal of Language Learning, 3(2), 35–58. https://doi.org/10.22492/ijll.3.2.02
Jiang, S., & Yan, X. (2019). Research on the Effect of Supervisor Feedback for Undergraduate Thesis Writing. English Language Teaching, 13(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v13n1p43
Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2007). An Analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4), 461–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510701415433
Li, H., & He, Q. (2017). Chinese Secondary EFL Learners’ and Teachers’ Preferences for Types of Written Corrective Feedback. English Language Teaching, 10(3), 63. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n3p63
Nicol, D., & MacFarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and selfregulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
Paterson, C., Paterson, N., Jackson, W., & Work, F. (2020). What are students’ needs and preferences for academic feedback in higher education? A systematic review. Nurse Education Today, 85, 104236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2019.104236
Razali, R., & Jupri, R. (2014). Exploring Teacher Written Feedback and Student Revisions on ESL Students’ Writing. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 19(5), 63–70. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-19556370
Rupiper Taggart, A., & Laughlin, M. (2017). Affect Matters: When Writing Feedback Leads to Negative Feeling. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2017.110213
Saeli, H. (2019). Teachers’ Practices and Students’ Preferences: Grammar-Centered Written Corrective Feedback in Iran. In Research in English Language Pedagogy RELP (Vol. 7).
Sermsook, K., Liamnimitr, J., & Pochakorn, R. (2017). The Impact of Teacher Corrective Feedback on EFL Student Writers’ Grammatical Improvement. English Language Teaching, 10(10), 43. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n10p43
Silver, R., & Lee, S. (2007). What does it take to make a change? Teacher feedback and student revisions. 6(1), 25–49.
Sugita, Y. (2006). The impact of teachers’ comment types on students’ revision. ELT Journal, 60(1), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci079
Truscott, J. (2016). The effectiveness of error correction: Why do meta-analytic reviews produce such different answers. Epoch Making in English Teaching and Learning: A Special Monograph for Celebration of ETA-ROC’s 25th Anniversary, (August), 129–141.
Turmudi, D. (2020). English Scholarly Publishing Activities in the Industrial Revolution 4 . 0 : What , Why , and How ? ELTEJ, 3(1), 52–63. Retrieved from http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/article/view/1890
Wan Mohd Yunus, W. N. M. (2020). Written corrective feedback in English compositions: Teachers’ practices and students’ expectations. English Language Teaching Educational Journal, 3(2), 95. https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v3i2.2255
Westmacott, A. (2017). Direct vs. Indirect Written Corrective Feedback: Student Perceptions. Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 22(2), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.v22n01a02
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24127/pj.v11i1.4548
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2022 Premise: Journal of English Education and Applied Linguistics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Published by Universitas Muhammadiyah Metro
Scientific Publication Unit (UPI)
Gd. HI, Lt1 Kampus 1 Universitas Muhammadiyah Metro
Jl. Ki Hajar Dewantara 116 A
Kota Metro Lampung 34145 Indonesia
Email : help.upi@ummetro.ac.id
Phone : +62-725-42445
Fax : +62-725-42454
Mobile : +62-8570914-1060
Certificate of Accreditation (Volume 11 No 1, 2022-Volume 15 No 2, 2026
