Abstract
This study primarily aims at capturing the nature of how highly proficiency learners (HPLs) employ noticing strategies in processing the indirect corrective feedback. The results of this study can be adapted by others learners to apply the strategy used by HPLs in noticing corrective feedback so that they can improve their writing ability. To meet the goal, a study on the way highly proficiency learners notice indirect corrective feedback that focused on three language aspects, i.e., lexis, grammar, and content was conducted. Observation and in depth- interview were used as the instruments to collect the data. The subjects chosen were six students who have a good performance on their writing. This study revealed that the HPLs are able to employ various noticing strategies when they are processing the indirect corrective feedback. They seem more cognizant of the problems they encounter and more capable of taking an action to respond the feedback given. Some noticing strategies are identified to apply in processing the feedback that are suited on the nature of the problems, such as by making any comparison, connection, correlation, identification of error, recalling the past experience/ knowledge and self-inquiry. However, three aspects that often applied by HPLs are identification of error well, recalling the past knowledge and self-inquiry.
Highlights
Learning is fundamentally a process that involves making mistakes, but it forms an important aspect of learning virtually any skill or acquiring information (Brown, 2007:257)
A study conducted by Eslami (2014: 451) that compare the efficacy of the two types of WCF namely direct red pen and indirect feedback in which the results show, the indirect feedback group proved to be significantly better than the red pen feedback group on the delayed posttest
The fact showed that students tend to receive direct corrective feedback than indirect corrective feedback because they do not need to think the correct version, they are unrealized that direct corrective feedback make them lazy to think
Summary
Learning is fundamentally a process that involves making mistakes, but it forms an important aspect of learning virtually any skill or acquiring information (Brown, 2007:257). In L2 writing classroom, for instance, it is quite often that students make occasional errors on JOURNAL OF ENGLISH EDUCATORS SOCIETY (JEES) Volume 1, April 2016, Page 19-30 ISSN 2503-3492 some language aspects, on grammar and lexis. In response to this matter, teachers occasionally provide corrective feedback prior to the students’ errors in writing. A study conducted by Eslami (2014: 451) that compare the efficacy of the two types of WCF namely direct red pen and indirect feedback in which the results show, the indirect feedback group proved to be significantly better than the red pen feedback group on the delayed posttest This suggests the lasting effectiveness of the indirect WCF over direct red pen feedback, giving direct corrective feedback cannot help to improve their English. Giving indirect corrective feedback will give more beneficial for students to improve their English
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
