Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Past researchers in writing dedicated their time in examining the use of corrective
feedback in writing instruction. Many of these were found to be meaningless but some
are noted to reap meaningful and significant results. This made the researchers of this
experience that provides information about the writing ability of one’s peers (Driscoll,
2004). Gebhardt (1980) tells us that good teachers do give instruction about the writing
process but seldom have the time to monitor or evaluate it; yet Maimon (1979) feels it is
vital to make time because, "Composition teachers can do their most effective teaching as
they coach their students through successive drafts and revisions". Peer-editing can
relieve teachers of some editing tasks and thus enable them to give more individual
attention and consideration to students involved in the writing process (Ritchey, 1984). In
Philippine schools, researchers have yet to study the effectiveness of this practice.
INTRODUCTION
The ability to write well enables one “to participate fully in many aspects of
something (Cushing Weigle, 2011). These tell us that writing is a life skill and is central
to literacy.
In the behaviourist approach of the 1950s and 1960s, errors were perceived much
more negatively than today (Bitchener and Ferris 2012). According to the reference cited,
the term error refers mainly to grammatical errors. Behaviourists believed that teachers
1
should correct errors strictly and systematically. Later on, the perception of giving
corrective feedback was influenced by the first general second language acquisition
theory that was proposed by Krashen (1985), who did not believe that focusing on errors
should play a very important role; nor, consequently, should corrective feedback
it is vital that students be taught and corrected for their improvement. Written corrective
feedback, according to Bitchener and Ferris (2012), can be defined as grammar/ error
correction. It can be direct (the wrong word is crossed out and the right word is given),
indirect (an explanation, an example, a hint is given, but not the correction itself), or
focused (only one or a smaller number of errors are corrected), or unfocused (all errors
are corrected).
A key component of the writing process is peer editing. In this process, students
read each others’ papers and provide feedback. Peer response shows that readership does
not only belong exclusively to the teacher. Peer editing engaged students in a series of
cognitive processes such as reflection, analysis and reviewing (Diaz Galvis, 2010).
In view of these assumptions, the present study will determine the effect of using
written corrective feedback and peer editing in improving the writing skills of senior high
school students.
This paper generally seeks to examine the use of written corrective feedback and
peer editing in improving the writing skills of Senior High School students at Polangui
questions:
1. What is the topmost grammatical error of the participants based from the pre-test
result?
2. What writing tasks may be given during the revision stage in order to improve the
students’ skills?
2
3. What is the effect of written corrective feedback and peer editing in the writing skills
of the participants in the area of grammar based from the immediate post-test result?
4. What suggestions can be made to improve the use of written corrective feedback and
LITERATURE REVIEW
The following review of related literature and studies is of great value to the
current study.
that he or she uses the target language incorrectly (Lightbown & Spada 2006).
Ellis (2009) identifies six different types of CF. However, we will just present the
Direct CF: the teacher marks the error and provides the student with the correct form.
Indirect CF: the teacher indicates that the student has made an error without providing
few types of errors in a student text. In the case of unfocused CF the teacher correct all
student errors independent of how many and what types they are.
Many studies have since been conducted, researching and comparing different
types of CF with each other and to a control group. They claim different types and
aspects of CF to be most effective for L2 writers. Bitchener, Young and Cameron (2005)
conducted a study aiming to find out to what extent the type of CF given on ESL
students’ texts determined their accuracy when producing new writing. What they found
was that explicit, written feedback in combination with oral one-to-one feedback
significantly improved the participants writing in terms of both past simple tense and the
definite article. It also improved the writing accuracy over time. The researchers finally
suggest that “classroom L2 writing teachers provide their learners with both oral
3
feedback as well as written feedback on the more ‘‘treatable’’ types of linguistic error on
In contrast to Bitchener, Young and Cameron (2005), Sheen (2010) compared the
accurate use of English articles. The result revealed that the written direct correction
showed greater effects than oral recast in helping learners improve their grammatical
accuracy of English articles. There were no evidence showing that the oral recast group
and control group made any progress concerning grammatical accuracy of English
articles. The researcher concluded that there are differences between oral corrective
feedback and written corrective feedback: oral recasts are more implicit whereas written
corrective feedback is explicit and the corrective function is clear to the learner.
Therefore, learners might not notice errors they committed with oral corrective feedback
and that could be the reason why it was not effective. Sheen states that the effectiveness
functional uses of limited number of rule-based features) with unfocused (providing error
correction on all of the existing errors from different grammatical features in learners’
one piece of writing) direct WCF, Farrokhi (2012) found that both WCF groups
outperformed the control group. Even though the participants were already high-
proficient L2 learners, the effectiveness of WCF was evident immediately after it had
been provided. More than this, the study stated that focused direct WCF was more
For the focus of this research, the researchers utilize written direct and indirect CF
Peers have been used as tutors in several studies. One cited by Bruffee is Bloom's
study, "Peer and Cross- age Tutoring in the Schools," in which Bloom states that 90% of
the tutees in reported studies made significant gains (cited in Bruffee, 1980). Many
colleges have followed suit and instituted tutorial writing programs in hopes of improving
4
Whatever peer involvement procedures are used, educators are reporting
enthusiastic, if somewhat unscientific, results and point to the many advantages of peer
involvement in the composition process. Kirby and Liner (1981) summarize several of
the main advantages. First, peer evaluation helps students realize that there is a basis for
the grades they have been receiving from teachers. Second, by reading other students'
papers, writers become sensitized to problems in their own writing. As they offer editing
and proofreading advice to peers, they are also teaching themselves. The authors also
In connection, this study also investigates the effectiveness of using oral peer
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Cognitive Process Theory of Writing by Linda Flower and John Hayes (1981)
1. The process of writing is best understood as a set of distinctive thinking process which
2. These processes have a hierarchal, highly embedded organization in which any given
3. The act of composing itself is a goal-directed thinking process, guided by the writer’s
4. Writers create their own goals in two key ways: by generating both high level goals
and supporting sub-goals which embody the writer’s developing sense of purpose, and
then, at times, by changing major goals or even establishing entirely new ones based on
5
Figure 1. Cognitive Model of the Writing Process
The concept of this research is specifically anchored on the first key point stating
about the writing process itself, planning for writing, monitoring the task, evaluating the
text produced and all these can happen simultaneously. The process of reviewing or
revising a written work is the focus of this study involving the teacher, students, and
peers.
Research Methodology
students’ progress in the pre-test until the post test, the TOEFL tests about grammar is
utilized for five sessions of one week interval. The first session is the pre-test, followed
by three sessions and the last is the post test. The experimental group receives the
treatment which is a combination of direct and indirect written CF. Peer editing happens
after revision in every session. On the other hand, no amount of feedback or editing is
provided to the control group. Their papers are corrected but not returned. Since the
analyze data.
6
For the qualitative data, a survey questionnaire is provided to the selected
participants through fishbowl technique. This contains questions that require them to
describe and share their thoughts, feelings and experiences related to corrective feedback.
This serves as the basis for making a booklet that provides information on the use of
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bitchener, John, and Dana Ferris. 2012. Written Corrective Feedback in Second
Bitchener, J., Young, S. & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective
feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191-205.
(Eds.), Basic Writing Essays for Teachers. Researchers. and Administrators (pp. 141-
Cushing Weigle, Sara. 2011. Assessing Writing. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Diab, Nuwar Mawlawi (2009). Effects of peer- versus self-editing on students’ revision
Diaz Galvis, Nubia Mercedes (2010). Peer Editing: a strategic source in EFL students’
7
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-
107.
49-57.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/356600)
Hosseiny, Manije (2014). The Role of Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback in
Improving Iranian EFL Students' Writing Skill. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Krashen, Stephen D. 1985. The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London:
Longman.
Lightbown, P.M. & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned. (3. ed.) Oxford:
JQ, 364-369.
8
Mollestam, Emma and Hu, Lixia (2016). Corrective feedback on L2 students’ writing.
Nagode, Gabrijela et al. (2014). The Role of Written Corrective Feedback in Developing
Ritchey, Barbara J. (1984). The Effect of Peer-Editing on the Quality of 11th Grade
Sheen, Y. (2010). INTRODUCTION: The role of oral and written corrective feedback in
Vähäpässi, Anneli (1982). “On the specification of the domain of school writing.” In An