Academic Writing Analysis of Pesantren-Based University Students: Challenges, Practices,Preference, and Attitudes
Abstract
Reflecting on teachers’ feedback and students’ responses, the study investigated students’ challenges in conducting academic writing, their preferences, and attitudes toward feedback, and teachers’ strategies to handle feedback on students’ written works. A case study was administrated. Three teachers and twenty-six undergraduate students were involved in the study. The findings demonstrated that the students were challenged in terms of grammar/surface structures, content, organization, vocabulary, and mechanism. Then, the teachers practiced various feedback i.e.; correction without comment, comment without correction, correction with comments, suggestion, and identification errors. Furthermore, in language use, the teachers’ preferences varied namely Indonesia/L1, English/EFL, and a combination between L1 and EFL. Students preferred those various teachers’ feedback. Then, the students’ attitudes toward handling feedback varied depending on every teacher's feedback type. Furthermore, the study unveiled that students responded positively to their teachers’ feedback such as requesting a more thorough explanation from their teachers, reading earlier pertinent research to improve their writing, and requiring some reflection time in response to their teachers' revisions.
Downloads
References
Budianto, S., Sulistyo, T., Widiastuti, O., Heriyawati, D. F., & Marhaban, S. (2020). Written corrective feedback across different levels of EFL students’ academic writing proficiency: Outcome and implication. Studies in English Language and Education, 7(2), 472-482. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v7i2.16569
Chanock, K. (2000). Comments on essays: do students understand what tutors write? Teaching in Higher Education. 5(1). 95-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/135625100114984
Cohen, A. D. & Cavalcanti, M. C. (2009). Giving and getting feedback on composition: A comparison of teacher and student verbal report. Evaluation & Research in Education. 1(2), 63-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500798709533221
Cumming, A. (1985). Responding to the writing of ESL students. In M. Maguire & A Pare (Eds.), Pattern of development (58-75). Ottawa: Canadian Council of Teachers of English. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ329421
Diab, N. W. (2015). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does type of error and type of correction matter? Assessing Writing. 24(2015). 16-34. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2015.02.001
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2504d6w3
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal. 63(2). 97-107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
Fathman, A. K., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.). Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (178-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524551.016
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Teaching. 8(1). 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6
Ferris, D. & Robert, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it to be? Journal of Second Language Writing. 10(3). 161-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X
Flowerdew, J. (1999). Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing. 8(3). 243-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80116-7
Harwood, N. (2005). Nowhere has anyone attempted ….in this article I aim to do just that: a corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of pragmatics. 37(8). 1207-1231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.012
Harwood, N. (2007). Political scientists on the functions of personal pronouns in their writing: An interview-based study of “I” and “We”. Text & Talk. 27–1 (2007), pp. 27–54. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2007.002
Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition. Illinois, IL: Eric Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED265552.pdf
Lee, I (2008). Understanding teachers’ written corrective feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing. 17(2008). 69-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.10.001
Lee, I. (2019). Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more. Language Teaching. 52(4), 524-539. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000247
Li, S. & Roshan, S. (2019). The association between working memory and the effects of four different types of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing. 45(2019). 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.03.003
Miles, M. B, & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Paltridge, B, & Starfield, S. (2007). Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language: A handbook for supervisors. New York: Routledge.
Petrova, E. Y. (2018). Teaching academic writing: Challenges and solution. Belgorod State University Scientific Bulletin. Series Humanities 37(1). 131–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.18413/2075-4574-2018-37-1-131-141
Pham, V. P. H. (2019). The effects of lecturer’s model e-comments on graduate students’ peer e-comment and writing revision. Computer-Assisted Language Learning. 34(3). 324-357. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1609521
Rizkiyah, R., & Prianty, T. (2020). An analysis of focused metalinguistic written feedback: How would learners react? English: Journal of Language, Education, and Humanities, 8(1). 44-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.22373/ej.v8i1.5972
Saeb, F. (2014). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback on the grammatical accuracy of beginner EFL learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 3(2), 22-26. https://www.journals.aiac.org.au/index.php/IJALEL/article/view/1075
Salager-Meyer, F. (2014). Writing and publishing in peripheral scholarly journals: how to enhance the global influence of multilingual scholars. Journal of English for Specific Purpose. 13(2014). 78-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.11.003
Saito, H. (1994). Teachers’ practices and students’ preferences for feedback on second language writing: A case study of adult ESL learners. TESL CANADA JOURNAL/REVUE TESL DU CANADA. 11(2). https://teslcanadajournal.ca/index.php/tesl/article/view/633
Semke, H. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annuals, 17(3). 195-202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1984.tb01727.x
Sydney University (2022). Academic writing. https://www.sydney.edu.au/students/writing.html
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning: A Journal of Research in Language Studies. 46(2). 327-368. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
Truscott, J. (2007). The effects of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Learning. 16(2007). https://doi.org/255-272. 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning. 6(1). 1-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x
Yu, S. (2020): Giving genre-based peer feedback in academic writing: Sources of knowledge and skills, difficulties and challenges. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 46(1). 36-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1742872
Copyright (c) 2023 abdur rofik, Atinia Hidayah, Christina, Sahid
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Once an article was published in the journal, the author(s) are:
granted to the journal right licensed under Creative Commons License Attribution that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship.
permitted to publish their work online in third parties as it can lead wider dissemination of the work.
continue to be the copyright owner and allow the journal to publish the article with the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license
receiving a DOI (Digital Object Identifier) of the work.
