|
|
 |
| |
|
|
|
Preferred Methods of Providing Critique to Students and Teachers in the English Language Classroom |
|
|
|
PP: 2199-2210 |
|
|
|
doi:10.18576/isl/120925
|
|
|
|
Author(s) |
|
|
|
R. Purba,
A. Hassan,
T. Mulyadi,
R. R. Fatubun,
S. Syanurdin,
S. Suantoko,
Y. R. Sari,
H. Herianah,
N. Saputra,
|
|
|
|
Abstract |
|
|
| The basic objective of English language instruction is to help students achieve language competency for communicative purposes while making as few errors as feasible. Corrective feedback is essential because of how well it improves students English language skills. The connection between language learners and teachers views on the forms, methods, and timing of corrective feedback has not yet received the attention it deserves from educational researchers. Examining the perspectives of both teachers and students in higher education, this study seeks to better understand the effects of constructive criticism. Quantitative and qualitative approaches were used by using a survey questionnaire the researcher designed and conducted interviews. The surveys were completed by the students by Google form and to participate in follow-up interviews with Microsoft representatives. Three hundred fifty law school sophomores took part in the multi-method study. The data from the surveys, the students follow-up interviews, and the discussion with 10 ESL instructors. The findings demonstrated that both educators and students valued the use of remedial feedback delivered verbally to improve English language skills. Metalinguistic feedback, immediate feedback on grammatical and lexical mistakes, and explicit correction and recast were all highlighted by the authors as effective treatments for phonological problems. Teachers thought that students were not negatively affected by timely correction, but they did see that students preferred delayed corrective input. From a pedagogically relevant stance, these results have consequences for language teachers and students alike.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
