Teachers’ Perception and Attitude in Using Corrective Feedback
Associated with Character Education
Izef Puspadani Damanik, Arif Husein Lubis, Gilang Rajasa, and Dida Firman Hidayat
Department of English Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Setiabudhi 229, Bandung, Indonesia
Keywords: Teacher’s perception, attitude, written corrective feedback, oral corrective feedback, character education.
Abstract: Recent developments in the field of corrective feedback have managed to a renewed interest that corrective
feedback might be interrelated with attitudinal development. Nonetheless, its appearance might be still vague
in Indonesian educational setting which emphasizes character education as the foremost foundation of
teaching and learning. This article seeks to capture Indonesian English teacher’s perception and attitude on
the use of corrective feedback and its association with character education. Employing a descriptive study,
this paper elaborates nineteen English teachers’ responses using open-ended questionnaire and interview. The
findings support the idea that implicit corrective feedback is preferable to the teachers rather than the explicit
one in delivering characters to their students. In addition, the study also highlighted some positive characters
taken from the teachers’ perspective. However, the result should be interpreted with caution since there are
some limitations this study could not provide.
1 INTRODUCTION
Feedback is one of the interactions mostly used by
teachers in the class. Hattie and Timperley (2007)
clearly state feedback as a ‘consequence of
performance’ that could be used explicitly or
implicitly. An abundance of study has exposed that
feedback implementation could improve student’s
cognitive (Al-Bashir, Kabir, and Rahman, 2016),
affective (Grawemeyer et al., 2015), and
psychomotor (Milde, 1988). Even so, the study done
by Karanezi and Rapti (2015) signaled some
differences in teachers' perception and attitude over
traditional and modern teaching method with positive
and negative results at their own classes. Another
study concluded by Halimi (2008) who found that
most teachers employ CF as a constructive means of
providing guidance for students to get them familiar
with grammatical and lexical patterns of good
English. However, most of the respondents prefer
explicit strategy to correct the students’ work by
crossing out the incorrect form and giving the correct
form. In contrast with Halimi, Mendez and Cruz
(2012) noted that most teachers believe that implicit
strategy was more preferred to use in correcting the
students’ errors compared to explicit one. Supported
by Park (2010), the implicit error correction would
likely influence student’s affective skills related to
character building such as autonomy and confidence.
Furthermore, Basalama and Machmud (2014) also
concluded the development of character building
could be facilitated by implementing corrective
feedback.
Reflected from the previous studies, there seems
no clear-cut evidence found regarding the concurrent
relationship between the preferences and types of
corrective feedback associated to the promotion of
character education in the process of students’ writing
and speaking assignment. Under those circumstances,
this study was aimed at seeking the perception and
attitude of Indonesian English teachers on corrective
feedback associated with character education.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Broadly speaking, corrective feedback (CF) is
defined as any strategy used by the teacher to ask for,
indirectly demand, students’ improvement on their
language awareness and language proficiency
(Chaudron, 1977). Therefore, two major strategies of
CF based on its form are written and oral corrective
feedback.
Written corrective feedback consists of six types:
direct, indirect, metalinguistic, unfocused, focused,
206
Damanik, I., Lubis, A., Rajasa, G. and Hidayat, D.
Teachers’ Perception and Attitude in Using Corrective Feedback Associated with Character Education.
DOI: 10.5220/0007164602060212
In Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference
on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education (CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017) - Literacy, Culture, and Technology in Language Pedagogy and Use, pages 206-212
ISBN: 978-989-758-332-2
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved

and reformulation. Meanwhile, oral corrective
feedback consists of six types: recast, repetition,
clarification, explicit, elicitation, and paralinguistic
signal. The description of each type of both corrective
feedbacks is provided in the following tables (Halimi,
2008).
Table 1: Types of written corrective feedback.
Corrective
feedback
Type
Description
Written
Direct
Indirect
Metalinguistic
Unfocused
.
Focused
Reformulation
Teacher provides the
correct form.
Teacher indicates
that an error exists,
but no explanation.
It can be indicating
or plus locating the
error.
Teacher provides a
clue or code as the
helpful point to
correct the errors.
Teacher concerns to
most or all of the
errors identified.
Teacher concerns to
specific types of
errors only.
Teacher urges
students to rework
the content or
meaning of the text.
Table 2: Types of oral corrective feedback.
Corrective
feedback
Types
Description
Oral
Recast
Repetition
Clarification
Teacher incorporates
the content words of
the preceding
incorrect part and
changes and corrects
the error directly.
Teacher repeats the
expression and
highlights the error by
using emphatic stress.
Teacher questions
back the student
indicating that he/she
has not understood
the expression.
Explicit
Elicitation
Paralinguistic
signal
Teacher tells there has
been an error and
provides the
correction.
Teacher repeats some
parts of the
expression, but not
the erroneous part and
uses rising intonation
to signal that the
following part is the
erroneous one.
Teacher uses gesture
or facial expression to
indicate that there is
an error.
Recently, Indonesia has developed character
education to promote their students’ ability in life
skill and manner because Indonesia has several
diversities that should be united by tolerant behavior.
In 2004, Elkind and Sweet stated that character
education is a deliberate effort to help people
understand, care about, and act upon core ethical
values. Following Josephson's (2002) six pillars of
character education, as follows trustworthiness which
also concerns a variety of qualities such as honesty,
integrity, reliability, and loyalty, respect in all
situations, even when dealing with unpleasant people,
responsibility of being in charge of our choices and
being accountable for what we do and who we are,
fairness which probably more subject to legitimate
debate and interpretation than any other ethical value,
caring which is an honest expression of benevolence,
or altruism, and citizenship which includes civic
virtues and duties that prescribe how we ought to
behave as part of a community.
According to Indonesian Government Decree No.
20 in 2003, there are eighteen character values that
teachers should teach to the learners. The characters
are religious, honest, tolerant, discipline, hard work,
creative, independent, democratic, curious,
nationality passionate, loyalty to the nation, respect to
achievement, communicative, love peace, love to
read, care to the environment, social care, and
responsible.
3 METHODOLOGY
This study employed descriptive qualitative design
using an open- and close-ended questionnaire and an
interview protocol to gain teacher’s perception on and
attitudes toward corrective feedback. The
Teachers’ Perception and Attitude in Using Corrective Feedback Associated with Character Education
207

questionnaire was distributed to thirty teachers
purposively since they have more than five years
teaching experiences. However, only nineteen
teachers returned the questionnaire. They are
enrolling their Master degree at one state university
in Bandung, Indonesia, and at the same time teaching
at schools from different levels (elementary, junior
high, and senior high). Four teachers then volunteered
to be interviewed to further notice the belief of the
teachers.
The questionnaire is adapted from (Ellis, 2009);
Halimi (2008); and Kartchava (2016), with specific
adjustments to the need for the research. The
interview protocol was created based on the
questionnaire to obtain the respondents’ supporting
reasons or explanations. The former consists of four
parts. Part 1 consists of four questions used to obtain
information related to the personal background of the
respondents. Part 2 consists of eight questions used to
obtain information about their attitude toward
corrective feedback in students’ writing work: 4
multiple choice questions and 4 short essay questions.
Part 3 consists of eight questions concerning that on
using corrective feedback to students’ speaking
performance: 4 multiple choice questions and 4 short
essay questions. Part 4 consists of three questions
concerning their perception on using corrective
feedback in general in the forms of Likert-scale and
short-essay questions.
Meanwhile, the interview protocol was used to
obtain the respondents' reasons or explanations about
the preference and process of corrective feedback
practice in the classroom they have provided in the
questionnaire. It is intended to recognize what
characters are encouraged as the costs of their
preference on using a particular type of CF. The
interview protocol consists of three parts. Part A
consists of 5 questions used to obtain information
about their general perception and attitude on
students' errors and feedback. Part B and C consist of
6 questions respectively used to obtain information
about their perception of and attitude towards oral and
written corrective feedback.
The raw data gained were analyzed qualitatively
by employing Miles and Huberman (1994) four-step
data analysis model. The questionnaire results were
classified into two major themes: perception on and
attitudes toward corrective feedback within each oral
and written feedbacks are covered. Meanwhile, the
interview transcripts were firstly read and discussed
by each researcher regarding the emerging codes.
Then, the recurrent codes were classified into some
categories, i.e., perception, belief, attitudes,
preferences, and process. Lastly, these categories are
associated with the main themes, i.e., oral and written
corrective feedbacks that will directly address the
research question.
To gain data trustworthiness, the interview
transcript was distributed to the respective participant
to proofread any mistyped words. Besides, each
researcher re-checked the transcript for any
grammatical errors.
4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Teachers’ Perception of the Use of
Written and Oral Corrective
Feedback Strategies
The findings were aimed at addressing the first
research question, “how are the perception and
attitude of Indonesian English teacher on the use of
corrective feedback regarding the students’ writing
work and speaking performance?”
Furthermore, the open-ended questionnaire
indicated teacher's perception on the benefits of CF
implementation in English teaching and learning
process. It classified 3 different benefits – students,
teachers, and both – related to enhancement. In terms
of student's enhancement, 5 teachers perceived that
CF can help students to correct and minimize their
own errors as well as their motivation and knowledge
skill. In terms of teachers' enhancement, 5 teachers
believed that CF eased them to measure student's
achievement and progress. Eight (8) teachers believed
both sides were benefited from the use of CF in
classroom evaluation and teaching quality.
Regarding the learning experience, major
respondents (11) indicated that CF would provide
students with the information about the errors that
contribute to the student's language proficiency and
learning achievement. Further, it could be an
indicator of student's achievement in the classroom.
Taken from the interview dataset, teachers clarified
that CF may affect both teachers’ teaching quality and
students’ learning motivation.
4.2 Teachers’ Perception and Attitudes
on Corrective Feedback Associated
with Character Building
These findings were aimed to answer the second
research question "How are the teachers' perception
and attitude on corrective feedback associated with
character education?". Explicitly stated before, there
are 18 types of national character education in
CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017 - Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology
Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education
208

character building development; Religious, Honest,
Tolerance, Discipline, Hard work, Creative,
Independent, Democracy, Curiosity, Nationality
Spirit, Nationality Loyalty, Achievement
Appreciation, Friendly or Communicative, Love
Peace, Love Reading, Environment Caring, Social
Caring, Responsibility. Other perceptions not related
to the aim of the study will be included at the end of
the chapter.
4.2.1 Written Corrective Feedback
Table 3: Questionnaire result.
WCF Types
Types of corrective
feedback on writing
Tick
()
Direct
Crossing out the error
and providing the
correct form.
8
Indirect
Showing the error
and giving a
clue/editing symbol
to correct it.
6
Underlining or
circling the error.
2
Indirect + verbal
explanation
Putting a sign on the
incorrect parts and
providing oral
feedback as well.
1
Focused + verbal
explanation
Providing general
feedback in class on
common errors
2
Referring to the WCF typology, several types of
WCF were detected; direct, indirect, and focused.
However, the data also suggested that there is also a
verbal explanation or communication between the
teacher and the students in order to clarify the errors
and the feedback. Besides, the aforementioned
typology (Table 1) seems not clear enough to classify
the types of WCF since there is a possible relationship
in each type of WCF. It means, in a logical sense,
while direct and direct CF focus on the procedure of
providing the feedback, focused and unfocused CF
deal with the frequency of errors occurrence.
Meanwhile, reformulation CF concerns about the
coverage of the whole content. In contrast with the
literature, this article claims that there must be a
preceding classification which explains the
discrepancy of these types. Thus, focused, unfocused,
and reformulation types were not detected on the data.
Regarding the character education, the answers
expressed by the respondents were specified as
building awareness from the students’ errors. Some
respondents agree that by marking or pointing out the
error (indirect), the students would directly recognize
the error and the way to correct the error. Moreover,
one respondent claimed, with error correction
provision, students would be able to imitate the
correct answer. Also mentioned by one respondent, a
clue-type correction will trigger the students’ to be
more enthusiastic and thorough in doing their
assignments. Further, Sally, who prefers clue-type
written feedback, said:
“Some of the students really reflect it. I mean
that high-level students will tend to correct
themselves right away, but other students just
neglect it. Some try to consult it with me whether
the feedback is really helpful or not.” (Sally,
R9)
Based on Sally’s explanation, there is a
classification of students’ reflection based on their
level. According to her statement, while high-level
students would use CF in leading them to find the
correct answer, low-level students might ignore the
CF. By looking what Sally implied, a clue-type
correction will lead to a possible connection between
students’ types and self-understanding. R19 also
suggested that ‘teachers should not directly provide
the correct answer but let students repair the incorrect
one’. This type of CF creates a demanding situation
where the clues will lead students to be curious and
seeking the right answer and responsible at the same
time.
Two teachers believed the best way of giving
WCF is by signaling the error. They chose to provide
a signal (e.g., underlines or circles) on the error
without any note. To them students will be able to
think critically by asking the teacher of the error,
therefore teacher could provide detail feedback to the
students. Ward also argued:
“…with circling or underlining to the error (the
sentences or words), without providing any
note, would stimulate students’ curiosity to ask
questions to the teacher. Lastly, I explain their
errors one by one.” (Ward, R13)
Logically, types of WCF could be used as a tool
to promote character education in learning context
consciously or unconsciously. Conscious character
education means teachers would deliberately build
their students’ character with a demanding situation.
The demanding situation then could increase
students’ curiosity to seek correction of their errors.
An unconscious character education means teachers
are actually focused on the learning content but
indirectly lead the students to build their own
Teachers’ Perception and Attitude in Using Corrective Feedback Associated with Character Education
209

character. Thus, it will draw students’ consideration
by paying attention to the errors and the correction
(awareness) and being responsible to correct the
errors (responsibility). Most of the respondents in the
present study agree that character education would
possibly occur during their WCF implementation.
However, this perception might interfere with the
instruments used in this study since there is no
obvious explanation whether or not character
education is deliberately conducted.
In general, most teachers in the present study have
a similar perception that CF is used to avoid students’
confusion and create a motivational learning
atmosphere. It is because some students may lack
understanding of what should be done with the errors
(R17) or feeling demotivated to join the cause.
Therefore, these perceptions may result in building
students’ awareness. The awareness will then lead the
students to be more careful and pay attention to their
next performance. In other words, judging from
teachers’ perspective, while students’ awareness of
their error is already maintained, it might probably
lead them to be responsible for their later
performance.
Regarding the approach used in the process of
providing corrective feedback on the students’
written works, explicit explanation and direct error
corrections were the most preferred ways represented
by 10 respondents. Two (2) respondents did not
provide any explanation about the rationale of their
using in which it becomes quite ambiguous to reflect
on whether character education is asserted in the
learning process. On the other hand, 7 other
respondents argued that they preferred to employ
strategies emphasizing student-centeredness. They
mostly concerned to the students’ responsibility in
which direct guidance and guided clues were
employed.
It is in line with the interview results suggesting
that by providing notes on the correction would
encourage the students to figure out how to correct
the errors under their guidance. In contrast, providing
clues (e.g., circles or underlines), without any notes,
would stimulate their curiosity. These perspectives,
eventually, have a similar result in nature. It reflects
that even though the participants are different in ways
of addressing their feedback, however, the expected
result is actually to take over students’ awareness and
curiosity in the learning process.
“...I provide the feedback by writing it down on
each student’s paper. After that, I invite all
students to discuss it together focusing only on
the repeated errors.” (Eddie, R19: L44, 45)
Additionally, related to the teacher’s attitude
towards the same context, the datasets deduced the
use of WCF would trigger to be autonomous and
responsible at the same time. However, teachers’
holistic correction such as clues, editing symbols,
direct correction, explicit correction still become the
major reasons for such attitudes. By far, according to
the teachers, students are still dependent on it.
4.2.2 Oral Corrective Feedback
Before elaborating the data, the article would
underline the context of speaking performance. Since
the performance might be, to some extent, interpreted
as a daily interaction between the teacher and the
students, the activities emphasized in this article are
students' interaction e.g. telling stories, debating,
transactional and interpersonal dialogue.
Table 4: While-perform corrective feedback.
OCF Types
Types of corrective
feedback on speaking
Tick
()
Clarification
By directly
interrupting and
asking for
clarification what has
the student said
3
Explicit
By directly
interrupting, telling
the incorrect part(s),
and giving the correct
form
4
Elicitation
By directly
interrupting and
repeating some parts
of the utterance
before the incorrect
part(s) by rising the
intonation on the last
word before the
incorrect part(s)
2
Sign paralinguistic
By directly
interrupting through
the use of gestures or
fingers to show the
incorrect part(s)
1
The data also disclosed another possibility in
providing the feedback. Nine respondents would
imply that feedback should be given at the end of the
performance (post-perform), while the others in the
middle of the performance (while-perform).
CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017 - Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology
Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education
210

Table 5: Post-perform corrective feedback.
OCF Types
Types of corrective
feedback on
speaking
Tick
()
Waiting (Without
notes)
Feedback provided at
the end of the
performance
3
Waiting (without
notes + reward)
Give reward and
provide feedback at
the end of the
performance.
1
Waiting + with notes
Make a note of the
errors and provide
feedback at the end of
the performance.
4
Unclassified
(Indecisive)
Collect the students’
errors and provide
feedback at the end of
the lesson.
1
Four of nine respondents preferred taking notes of
the errors before providing the feedback. The other
three respondents would give feedback at the end of
the performance without preparing any notes. In a
similar way, the other one would firstly give rewards
before feedback is given. However, one indecisive
response was detected since there was no clear
explanation whether the notes were prepared.
Seeing the perspective of the teacher, there are two
types of oral corrective feedback; while-perform type
and post-perform type. While the former is given in
the middle of speaking performance, the latter is
given at the end of student’s speaking performance.
To some respondents, the perception of the use of
post-perform type correction would not distract the
students’ concentration span and maintain students’
motivation in generating ideas of their talking.
Suggested by interview datasets, some interviewees
believe post-perform type would maintain students’
confidence, carefulness, and precision. Moreover, as
a respondent noticed, giving correction after the
students’ speaking performance would initiate
students’ acceptance towards the correction.
On the contrary, a different perception was
gained. The interruption in while-perform type is a
short-intervention feedback which is more positive
than a long-intervention feedback. Within this type,
the respondents believed students being accustomed
to critical thinking and thoroughness could be
maintained. To some other proponents, awareness
could be perceived as soon as students commit errors
while they perform.
Towards the attitude on the use of oral corrective
feedback, some teachers were positively
(consciously) slipping character education while they
used corrective feedback. The intention of it was to
make the students responsible and autonomy of their
errors. To the others, teachers negatively
(unconsciously) slipping character education on their
correction. However, the teachers agreed on
interruption on students' speaking performance will
lead to losing concentration and decrease in terms of
motivation; therefore, taking notes was preferable to
do.
5 CONCLUSION
This article has reached the conclusion that there were
several types of WCF and OCF. Regarding the
former, there is a limitation of a theory that could
explain all types of WCF mentioned by the
respondents. It would likely happen since there is an
overlapping feature of each type that could not be
properly interpreted on the result of the study.
Regarding the latter, there should be an additional
classification which explains how the feedback is
given (whether in the middle or at the end of the
performance). Therefore, this article would eagerly
suggest that the existing literature should be expanded
in terms of the classification of types of WCF and
OCF.
Based on the finding, there are three types of
character education displayed in implementing
corrective feedback; curiosity, responsibility, and
achievement appreciation. However, more positive
affection such as motivation, awareness, critical
thinking, and confidence are also presented in
corrective feedback.
Driving from WCF and OCF, there are types of
correction that could promote positive character
learning directly or indirectly and conscious and
unconsciously. Further, teacher’s perception may
influence the result of character learning in correction
feedback. Those lead to the process of
accommodating character education itself in using
either written or oral corrective feedback strategies.
Regarding the former, explicit CF strategy strongly
tends not to trigger students’ involvement from which
neglection and dependency were mostly indicated.
On the other hand, the teachers emphasizing student-
centeredness through implicit CF strategy conforms
to the promotion of character education, which
comprise; curiosity, autonomy, and carefulness.
Regarding the latter, the majority also confirmed
similar consideration that students’ involvement in
the process of providing the feedback becomes the
basis of their choosing implicit CF strategy. As a
Teachers’ Perception and Attitude in Using Corrective Feedback Associated with Character Education
211

result, self-confidence, bravery, and competence of
the students were majorly accommodated. Thus, the
choice of a particular strategy fundamentally
influences the students’ attitude toward the feedback
in which a revisit on the actual practices of providing
the feedback and actualizing sensitivity upon the
students’ circumstances might contribute to the better
quality of character education accommodation
through either written or oral CF strategies.
REFERENCES
Al-Bashir, M., Kabir, R. & Rahman, I., 2016, ‘The value
and effectiveness of feedback in improving students’
learning and professionalizing teaching in higher
education’, Journal of Education and Practice, 7(16),
pp. 38–41.
Basalama, N. & Machmud, K., 2014, Peran Role Model
dalam Pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris pada Konteks
‘Foreign Language': Suatu Penelitian Kualitatif
Tentang Identitas & Budaya dalam Pembangunan
Karakter Bangsa. Universitas Negeri Gorontalo.
Available at: http://repository.ung.ac.id
Chaudron, C., 1977, ‘A descriptive model of discourse in
the corrective treatment of learners’ errors’, Language
Learning, 27(1), pp. 29–46.
Elkind, D. H. & Sweet, F., 2004, ‘How to do character
education’, Live Wire Media. Available at:
http://www.goodcharacter.com/Article_4.html.
Ellis, R., 2009, ‘A typology of written corrective feedback
types’, ELT Journal, 63(2), pp. 97–107.
Grawemeyer, B. et al., 2015, ‘The impact of feedback on
students’ affective states’, CEUR Workshop
Proceedings, 1432, pp. 4–13.
Halimi, S. S., 2008, ‘Indonesian teachers’ and students’
preferences for error correction.’, WACANA, 10(1), pp.
50–71.
Hattie, J. & Timperley, H., 2007, ‘The power of feedback’,
Review of Educational Research, 77(1), pp. 81–112.
Josephson, M. S., 2002, Making Ethical Decisions. Los
Angeles: The Josephson Institute of Ethics.
Karanezi, X. & Rapti, E., 2015, ‘Teachers ’ attitudes and
perceptions : Association of teachers ’ attitudes toward
traditional and modern teaching methodology
according to RWCT as well as teachers ’ perceptions
for teaching as a profession’, Creative Education, 6, pp.
623–630.
Kartchava, E., 2016, ‘Learners’ beliefs about corrective
feedback in the language classroom: Perspectives from
two international contexts’, TESL Canada Journal,
33(2), pp. 19–45.
Mendez, E. H. & Cruz, M. del R. R., 2012, ‘Teachers’
perceptions about oral corrective feedback and their
practice in EFL classrooms’, Profile Issues in
Teachers’ Professional Development, 14(2), pp. 63–75.
Milde, F. K., 1988, ‘The function of feedback in
psychomotor-skill learning’, Western Journal of
Nursing Research, 10(4), pp. 425–434.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M., 1994, Qualitative Data
Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks,
USA: Sage Publication, Inc.
Park, G., 2010, ‘Preference of corrective feedback
approaches perceived by native English teachers and
students', The Journal of Asia TEFL, 7(4), pp. 29–52.
Presiden Republik Indonesia, 2003, Undang-Undang
Republik Indonesia no 20 tentang Sistem Pendidikan
Nasional, Direktorat Pendidikan Menengah Umum.
Indonesia. Available at:
http://www.kelembagaan.ristekdikti.go.id.
CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017 - Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology
Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education
212