Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Akses terbuka Jurnal

Written Corrective Feedback for Students’ Research Proposal in English: What Do Students and Lecturers Prefer and Why?

Indonesian Research Journal in Education |IRJE| · Vol. 5 No. 2 (2021) · hlm. 404–416

DOI
10.22437/irje.v5i2.13064
ISSN
2580-5711
Terbit
2021-12-01
Penerbit
Universitas Jambi, Indonesia
Bahasa
en
Lisensi
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0

Abstrak

The purposes of this study were to describe types of written corrective feedback applied by the lecturers on students’ research proposal and to find out the favorable types of written corrective feedback for the students of English study program at a public university in Jambi. This research used a questionnaire to collect the data from students and lecturers. The results of this research revealed that there were three types of written corrective feedback that were often used by the lecturers. They were direct corrective feedback, grammatical description, and electronic corrective feedback from metalinguistic feedback. Additionally, there were four types that sometimes were used by the lecturers. They were indirect corrective feedback, error codes by metalinguistic feedback, unfocused and focused feedback. The last type was reformulation. It was rarely used by the lecturers. The results also showed that direct, electronic, and unfocused corrective feedbacks were very favorable for students while a brief grammatical description (metalinguistic), focused feedback, error codes (metalinguistic), and reformulation feedback were somewhat favorable. The last type was indirect corrective feedback which was very unfavorable for the students. Implications and recommendations are discussed.

Jaringan kolaborasi para penulis

40 penulis · 118 tautan kepenulisan bersama · menampilkan 40 yang paling banyak terhubung

Arahkan kursor atau ketuk sebuah nama untuk menyorot rekan penulisnya. Klik dua kali untuk membuka halaman penulis.

  • Indonesia University of Education
  • Institut Agama Islam Negeri Kendari
  • Afiliasi tidak diketahui
  • Organisasi berbeda
  • Organisasi sama
  • Afiliasi tidak diketahui
  • Garis lebih tebal = lebih banyak artikel bersama · lingkaran lebih besar = lebih banyak artikel
Tampilkan sebagai tabel
Rekan penulisOrganisasiArtikel bersama
Ahmad RidhaInstitut Agama Islam Negeri Kendari8
Marzul HidayatAfiliasi tidak diketahui6
Ella MasitaAfiliasi tidak diketahui5
Indri AnastasiaAfiliasi tidak diketahui4
Adrefiza AdrefizaAfiliasi tidak diketahui3
Rosinta NorawatiAfiliasi tidak diketahui3
Reny HeryantiAfiliasi tidak diketahui3
Rachmawati RachmawatiAfiliasi tidak diketahui3
Mukhlas AbrarAfiliasi tidak diketahui3
Masbirorotni MasbirorotniAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Destrinelli DestrinelliAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
RD. M. AliAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Mukhlash AbrarAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
MasbirorotniAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
FailasofahAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Tatang HermanIndonesia University of Education2
Qania Agustika SiagianAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Erisa KurniatiAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Radiatan MardiahAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Hastari MayritaAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Shopia RahmawatiAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Hani Atus SholikhahAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Wuttipong WongprakobAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Lenny MarzulinaAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Anugrah SetiawanAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Michael Yudha PratamaAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Nurhidayah MuharayuAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Radini RadiniAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Marisa Al MarindAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Rosmiati RosmiatiAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Pitriyani PitriyaniAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Firman FirmanAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Siti SundariAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Ade IrwanAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Darhim DarhimIndonesia University of Education1
Dadang JuandiIndonesia University of Education1

Afiliasi berasal dari OpenAlex; metadata OAI-PMH jurnal tidak memuatnya. Penulis tanpa ID OpenAlex dicocokkan berdasarkan nama, sehingga dua orang bisa tergabung atau satu orang bisa terpisah.

Sumber metadata: OAI-PMH (metadata jurnal) https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/oai, pertama di-harvest 6 Nov 2026, terakhir terlihat 6 Nov 2026.
Metadata asli (oai_dc) 
<oai_dc:dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/  http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
	<dc:title xml:lang="en">Written Corrective Feedback for Students’ Research Proposal in English: What Do Students and Lecturers Prefer and Why?</dc:title>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Fortunasari, Fortunasari</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Fajaryani, Nunung</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Wulandari, Bunga Ayu</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Khairunnisa, Khairunnisa</dc:creator>
	<dc:description xml:lang="en">The purposes of this study were to describe types of written corrective feedback applied by the lecturers on students’ research proposal and to find out the favorable types of written corrective feedback for the students of English study program at a public university in Jambi. This research used a questionnaire to collect the data from students and lecturers. The results of this research revealed that there were three types of written corrective feedback that were often used by the lecturers. They were direct corrective feedback, grammatical description, and electronic corrective feedback from metalinguistic feedback. Additionally, there were four types that sometimes were used by the lecturers. They were indirect corrective feedback, error codes by metalinguistic feedback, unfocused and focused feedback. The last type was reformulation. It was rarely used by the lecturers. The results also showed that direct, electronic, and unfocused corrective feedbacks were very favorable for students while a brief grammatical description (metalinguistic), focused feedback, error codes (metalinguistic), and reformulation feedback were somewhat favorable. The last type was indirect corrective feedback which was very unfavorable for the students. Implications and recommendations are discussed.</dc:description>
	<dc:publisher xml:lang="en">Universitas Jambi, Indonesia</dc:publisher>
	<dc:date>2021-12-01</dc:date>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion</dc:type>
	<dc:type xml:lang="en">Peer-reviewed Article</dc:type>
	<dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
	<dc:identifier>https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/irje/article/view/13064</dc:identifier>
	<dc:identifier>10.22437/irje.v5i2.13064</dc:identifier>
	<dc:source xml:lang="en">Indonesian Research Journal in Education |IRJE|; Vol. 5 No. 2 (2021): IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| ; 404-416</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2580-5711</dc:source>
	<dc:language>en</dc:language>
	<dc:relation>https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/irje/article/view/13064/12131</dc:relation>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en">Copyright (c) 2021 | IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education|</dc:rights>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>