Lecturer’s Written Corrective Feedback From The Lecturer In Argumentative Writing Observed In The Fourth Semester Of English Language Education Of Universitas PGRI Ronggolawe Tuban

  • Definta Nurrohmah
  • Mansur
  • Adria Rosy Starinne
  • Agus Wardhono
Keywords: lecturer, written corrective feedback, worksheet, argumentative writing


Written corrective feedback plays an important role in English writing when EFL students are concerned. This research shows written corrective feedback from the lecturer during the fourth semester of English Language Education, especially dealing with English writing. This research describes 1) the kind of remedial criticism utilized by the lecturer; 2) the dominance of remedial input. To reach these targets, the analysts made use of subjective investigation to gather and dissect the information. The research was conducted during English classes in the fourth semester of Universitas PGRI Ronggolawe Tuban (UNIROW). The analysts selected a speaker as the subject of this inquiry, and obtained the information containing the thoughts and ideas derived from these meetings and from further documentation. The strategies for collecting the information include interviews held in the fourth semester, and meetings with the teacher, at that point collected the documentation such as students' worksheets, along with a few information items from these meetings. The result of the findings reveal that the speaker utilized two kinds of composed remedial criticisms in verbal input, whereas in the actual composed input, the instructor utilized coordinate criticism and roundabout criticism (uncoded). Furthermore, as the dominant types of oral corrective feedback, the lecturer used explicit correction, while in written corrective feedback direct feedback was preferred.


Ashwell. 2000. "writting assignments." student preferences for corrective feedback in writing assignments in higher education . Written or Writing Assignments or intended as a facetious title?


Creswell, John W. 2012. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research 4th 218.

Ellis, Sheen, Murakami, & Takashima. 2008. The correct or not to correct written error.

Endang. 1998. Error feedback.

Faizo. 2001. "Focused feedback ."

Fauziati. 2008. " In the ESL class also applies several steps and according to guidelines as in the opinion of White and Ardnt." who argue that the stages in the writing process include generating ideas, focus, structuring, compiling, evaluating 144.

Fauziati. 2008. "Distinguishes." distinguishes the steps of writing 144.

Ferri. 2002. Referred to as error.

Ferris. 2002. "Type of indirect feedback." Ferri. 2002. Reffered to as error.

Ferris. 2002. "Type of indirect feedback."

Goddard, and Hoy. n.d. The differences in the effectiveness collective teacher.

Guenette. 2007. "claims that research on student attitudes and preferences is also important among other studies that reveal different feedback dimensions."

Huberman, Miles &. 1994. Consisting of Data Collection 10.

Hyland, Jolita Horbacauskiene & Ramune Kasperaviciene. 2003. oubt the long-term effects of corrective form-based feedback.

Hadfield. 2011. The learners are communicating 150.

Harmer. 2007. The teacher has usual roles that are important 330.

Hoy. 2000. The teachers in their ability.

Hoy, Sweet,, and Smith. 2002. The positive effects of the efficacy.

Huberman, Miles &. 1994. Consisting of Data Collection 10.

Lee. 2003. Several research studies have proposed not to focus on written corrective feedback.

Lee. 2004. The feedback that learners received on the liguistic errors that corrective feedback may improve writing accuracy .

Sirluck. 2008. "Types of lecturer's written corrective feedback."

Sugita. 2006. show that students' writing problems are more effectively dealt with when explicit and direct feedback such as requests or necessity is received. Ellis. 2009. "Both Behaviourist and Cognitive Theories of Second Language Learning" feedback.