STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION ON WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK VIA

GOOGLE EMAIL: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY

INTRODUCTION

Rationale

Most of the countries around the world had changed the learning process from

face to face learning into distance learning due to the widespread pandemic we call

coronavirus (Al Lily, Ismail, Abunasser, & Alqahtani, 2020). In response to it, the

education system has utilized online learning particularly for the students who are in

higher education. Because of these changes, online learning has an impact on learning

a Second Language (Al Bataineh, Banikalef, Abdullah, & Albashtawi, 2019) which is

the focus of giving written corrective feedback. WCF is one of the highly valued tools

in improving grammatical aspects in writing (Tangkiengsirisin, & Kalra, 2016).

Besides, students who receive feedback will know which part of their writing should

be improved and correct. However, students' perception affects their attitude and

behavior in receiving feedback either they are happy or sad (Prawiro, & Kholisna,

2020).

A lot of studies showed that feedback practice is still debatable because of

many different studies that are also investigating if a particular the written corrective

feedback is effective to improve students’ writing. Shen (2004) as cited by Kang, &

Han (2015), stressed that learners in foreign language context tend to be more apt at

adjusting their outputs after receiving a written corrective feedback in second

language contexts. Meanwhile, a study of Elhawwa (2019) conduced in College of

Palangkaraya in Indonesia cited 3 important issues on how students perceive written

corrective feedback, namely: their attitudes towards their lecturer, peer, and self. It

further claimed that the students have a positive perception towards written corrective
feedback in L2 writing class through the three stages of WCF: pre-writing, whilst-

writing, and post-writing.

Moreover, one study in the Philippines by Balanga, Fidel, Gumapad, Tullo,

Villaraza, & Vizconde, (2016), infers that they believe in the importance of corrective

feedback as:

“it is important to have good grammar which has a mean of 93.07, having

good grammar is very important in academic writing having a mean of 90.66,

and having good grammar is important for my academic success with the

mean score of 87.65.” (page 35).

Also, Ferris, Liu, Sinha, & Senna, (2013) suggests that the teachers should also

consider how to fine-tune their feedback, hence, to make it more focused and explicit.

They added that teachers must give students opportunities to ask questions, whether in

class or conference revision sessions.

In this study, the researchers would like to analyze the student’s perception

towards direct corrective feedback among BSEd-English in Compostela Valley State

College Main Campus. This study aims to evaluate the following solutions, concepts,

and becoming aware of this problem. Since the ‘new normal' became part of the

curriculum, new dilemmas, adjustments, and solutions have to be taken care of.

Therefore, researchers discerned the urgency to conduct this research.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this phenomenological study is to explore the students’

perception towards written corrective feedback given by the teachers thru Gmail

among third-year college students of Compostela Valley State College.

In this research, written corrective feedback is generally defined as

grammatical error feedback on the output of the students. The researcher would
scrutinize, analyze, and explore the possible perceptions of the students after

receiving feedback, particularly in the Gmail platform as it is becoming a major

concern of the vastly developing education system.

Research Question

The study aims to answer the following questions:

1. What are the perceptions of the third-year student on written corrective feedback

via google mail?

2. How do students perceive the following feedback:

a. Direct Corrective Feedback

b. Indirect Corrective Feedback

3. How do students perceive written corrective feedback if it is provided by the

following:

a. the teacher?

b. the knowledgeable peer?

4. How can written corrective feedback improve the grammatical skill and accuracy

of the students?

Theoretical Framework

This study is inclined on Lev Vygotsky’s Socio-Cultural Theory formulated in

the year 1978. This study believes that the cognitive development of humans occurs in

mediated social interaction wherein an appropriate form of assistance was given by

the experts in the society to a novice (Storch, 2018). According to Nassaji (2017),

Socio-cultural theory has three basic concepts, such as Zone of Proximal

Development (ZPD), scaffolding, and regulation.

Zone of Proximal Development. Base on the study of Vygotsky (1978) as

cited by Silalahi (2019), it is the distance between actual development determined by

learners’ able to do task independently and potential development determined by

learners able to do task with the guidance of an adult.

Scaffolding. It is the dynamic and negotiated assistance provided by

knowledgeable people to a learner (Storch, 2018). Scaffolding, in general, is defined

by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) as cited by Azi (2020) as an

“adult controlling those elements of the task that are essentially beyond the

learner‟s capacity, thus permitting him to concentrate upon and complete only those

elements that are within his range of competence” (p. 9). elaborate further. Make this

contextualized and comprehensive.

Regulation. Wertsch (1985) as cited by Nassaji (2017) stated that regulation

refers to the ability of an individual in managing his/her own learning.

In this study, the Zone of Proximal Development mentioned in the theory

emphasizes as negotiation discovery between the teacher and the student during

language learning. It means that there is a collaboration between the two. In that case,

teacher will discover student’s learned competence in ESL, especially during the

actual development of the student. Through that, teacher will be able to give

assistance, scaffolding or appropriate written corrective feedback to student’s written

output. Also, the concept of regulation mentioned above can be applied in this study,

that is when student perception about WCF is positive and he/she learned about those

feedback, student will be able to manage his/her own learning. With that, student will

be able to do written task without the guidance of an adult. In other words, the

provided feedback effective, because student will able to do self-regulation.

The mediating tool is another key construct of Vygotsky’s Socio-Cultural

Theory (1978). It is a fundamental claim that the cognitive development of humans is

mediated by a tool or a means that is culturally constructed. These tools can be

material (e.g. abacus, computer) or symbolic (e.g. language, gestures). The tools can

regulate the thinking process of humans (Storch, 2018). Che Mustafa et al. (2019)

stated that Language can serve as a symbolic tool that facilitates social interaction in

the world or even between student and teacher. Storch (2018) added that tools will

evolve as the time pass by, however those tools has an impact on human cognitive

development particularly in language learning. In giving WCF, the evolution of tools

influences its provision and student’s perception of the feedback. In this study, the

evolve tools or means is google mail which might affect the nature of the feedback as

well as how students perceived the appropriate feedback given to them.

Conceptual Framework

The figures below show the conceptual framework of the study highlighting

the three basic concepts of the Socio-Cultural Theory; zone of proximal development,

scaffolding, and regulation. Base on the shown figure, when assistance is provided

which is the written corrective feedback and student perceived it positively either

direct or indirect there is a big possibility that student will be able to manage and

regulate their own learning that would lead to a successful cognitive development

particularly in language learning.

Figure 2: FLOW CHART

 Social Interaction

STUDENT TEACHER, PEER, PARENTS

Actual Development

Negotiation Discovery Feedback of the

Written Output
Written Output/Written
Essay, Research, Journal
Checking of Written Corrected Feedback
(Student do
independently) Output

Assistance

Direct Corrective Indirect Corrective

Feedback Feedback

Students’ Perception
on Contingent
Written Corrective Assistance GMAIL
Feedback

Student Scaffolding Mediated Means

Perception

Negative Positive
Student can do
without assistance

Regulation

Significance of the Study

The significance of this proposed study is to explore the students’ perception

on written corrective feedback via Gmail. The results of this study could be beneficial

specifically to the following:

School Administrators. The study can help the School Administration to

analyze the importance of written corrective feedback via Gmail and to see its effects

on the students’ perception. This study can also help the School to see the positive and
negative side of the feedback coming from the teacher that will possibly affect

students’ academic performance.

Language Teachers. This study can significantly help the teachers to manage

their feedback, on how they will help their students without having a negative

approach. Instead, the purpose is to make the students more aware and learn from

their mistakes as well as an encouragement to do more of what they are capable of.

ESL Students. The study will benefit ESL learners, as they will be allowed to

review their mishaps on their checked written output via Gmail from their

instructors/teachers. In this study, they will be able to share their thoughts and

opinions on how they deal with comments, suggestions, and subject for revisions

coming from their instructors. As well as have they learned new things especially

about language, that would help both teachers and students to become more

productive and sensitive to rigorous learning.

Parents. In this study, the parents will be able to help their children and to

assist them in the time of their needs, because, parents play a big role in the students’

overall development. They must know the struggles of their children for them to

monitor not just the academic aspects of their children but also their emotional

aspects. hence, the parents can have a piece of advice on their children that will serve

as feedback, and primarily enhancing the student’s holistic being.

Future researchers/Readers. This study can help the future researchers and

readers in investigating or knowing the students’ perceptions towards written

corrective feedback of the teachers that helps them to answer their questions and

uncertainty. This is also an advantage for them to widen and expound their knowledge

and understanding about written corrective feedback that will lead them in more vivid

conclusion from their chosen topic.

 Definition of Terms

For a better understanding of this study, the following terms are operationally defined.

Written Corrective Feedback (WCF). It is broadly defined as direct or indirect error

correction, words of encouragement or praise, comments, advice, and suggestions that

instruct the student to make changes to their written composition (Irwin, 2017). In this

study, WCF defines as a strategy that a teacher gives to his/her student for correcting

a grammatical error on their written output. It is also a basis of student perception.

Direct Corrective Feedback. It occurs when a teacher identifies the student error and

provides the correction directly (Tursina, et.al., 2019). In this study, direct corrective

feedback is defined as a direct correction error on student written output. The teacher

provides the correction that student may take it as positive or negative feedback

depends on how they percept it.

Perception. It is an individual’s or group’s unique way of viewing a phenomenon that

involves the processing of stimuli and incorporates memories and experiences in the

process of understanding (Mcdonald, 2011). In this study, perception is used to

perceive the direct corrective feedback given by teachers. It is about their belief and

how they react to direct corrective feedback.

Google Email. It stands as the most dominant online email service with more than 1.5

billion global active users (Elias & Petrova, 2019). In this study, google email serve

as channel in giving written corrective feedback.

.Limitations and Delimitations of the Study

This study will involve 16 participants in BSEd English third year student who

are currently enrolled at Compostela Valley State College Main Campus located at

Poblacion, Compostela, Davao de Oro. All of them will undergo in-depth interview.
 The researcher will conduct an online interview by utilizing social media

platforms, particularly messenger to have one-on-one video conferencing with the

participants of the study. After giving the overview and introduction, the researcher

will give the questionnaires as a tool and a follow-up question if necessary to gather

more data information during the interview.

The researcher recognizes the weakness and limitation of the study, like for

some instance, since the interview is via online due to the pandemic that serves as the

limitation of conducting the study, one of the factor is that for having an internet

interruption that will make the interview more difficult especially in gathering the

data from the respondents and some answers didn’t match for the expected results

coming from the prepared questionnaires and the follow-up questions that can cause

data error for this study, the availability of the respondents is also the concern during

the conduct of the interview.

REFERENCES

Elhawwa, T. (2019). THE PROGRESSIVE IMPACT OF WRITTEN CORRECTIVE

FEEDBACK ON ESSAYS IN A MULTICULTURAL CLASS AT HIGHER

EDUCATION (Doctoral dissertation, Universitas Negeri Semarang).

Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for

individual L2 writers. Journal of second language writing, 22(3), 307-329.

Balanga, R. A., Fidel, I. V. B., Gumapac, M. V. G. P., Ho, H. T., Tullo, R. M. C.,

Villaraza, P. M. L., & Vizconde, C. J. (2016). Student Beliefs towards Written

Corrective Feedback: The Case of Filipino High School Students. Journal on

English Language Teaching, 6(3), 22-38.

Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving

L2 written accuracy: A meta‐analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1),

1-18.