Teacher indirect feedback on students’discussion text writing
TEACHER INDIRECT FEEDBACK ON STUDENTS’DISCUSSION
TEXT WRITING
Agus Sufyan
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
E-mail: [email protected]
Alek
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract. As English has been taught for years, Indonesian students at the twelfth grade are
expected to have adequate skills in four language areas, for instance, writing. In fact, some
students still encountered difficulties in mastering English writing skills. This study,
following Kurt Lewin’s action research design, aimed at improving twelfth grade students’
discussion text writing skills by implementing teacher indirect feedback (TIF) technique
and at examining 31 students’ participation during the learning process as another criterion
of success in this study. Moreover, by conducting pre-interview, doing observation,
administering tests and distributing questionnaire sheets, findings of this study are
presented quantitatively and qualitatively. Further, this study suggests that TIF helps
students not only improve their writing skills but also their active participation during the
process.
Keywords: teacher indirect feedback; writing
Background of the Study
Teaching writing has been an issue for some teachers since this skill is not fully gifted,
meaning that students need to make continuous efforts through repetitions, trials and
errors, and reinforcement so that they could master this skill (Meyers, 2003). Thus, the
ability of teachers to engage their students in the processes of writing should be maintained
well. However, it is also clear that teachers may also encounter several problems in teaching
writing since, as compared to teaching speaking, Raymond (1980) states that information
delivery process becomes one that differs between both language skills. For example, while,
in speaking, teachers can use their body movements or different voice to help them deliver
their thoughts, it needs even harder work in writing as we can only use some mechanisms,
such as punctuation, word order, etc., to help us deliver what we would like to inform.
Thus, it can be considered that our ability to use those mechanisms is important to avoid
readers’ misinterpretation.
Unfortunately, having explained that writers need to be careful in their writing, the
fact shows that some Indonesian students at the twelfth grade who have learnt English for
years still found it difficult to produce better quality of writing. The following responses
Copyright © 2016 | The 4th ELITE International Conference
Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education | Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
in the pre-interview held to one of English teachers at SMAN 8 Kota Tangerang Selatan
also described how teaching writing skills becomes a burden for both the teacher and the
students.
In teaching writing, the teacher reported that, based on her observation, while students
were asked to do writing, they preferred joking with their peers and playing with their own
smartphone rather than making any efforts to finish their writing their assignment until the
class ended. As a result, they left the assignment not completely finished. Moreover, the
teacher also added that her students usually argued that finishing writing assignments in
the class was frustrating for them as they did not have much time to finish the assignment
at one time. Further, based on the interview result, teacher also seemed to neglect having
some stages in the writing process, for instance, revision stage. This could be found when
the teacher impliedly stated that she found it difficult to immediately assess students’ work
after they had submitted their work without informing students about, for instance, what
mistakes that they had made, what they needed to improve, etc.
Furthermore, the problem mentioned by the teacher went on when students could not
finish the assignment at school and make it as homework. She stated that students had not
yet shown their effort as could be seen from their writing. For example, she found that her
students still had problems in some writing components, such as grammar, spelling, and so
on. As a result, she also felt frustrating to assess her students’ work. Lastly, when students’
work had been scored and they asked about the reasoning of their scores, the teacher, then,
could not give them clear responses on why her students got the scores.
Furthermore, in attempt to obtain earlier data based on the teacher’s responses on the
interview, pre-test and pre-observation were held to capture students’ writing skills and
also their activity during the writing process. In addition, students were assigned to write a
discussion text on the chosen topic (Note: discussion text was chosen based on: teacher’s
responses in the interview and time schedule made by the teacher on her lesson plan.)
Surprisingly, while the observation during the pre-test was being held (twelfth grade of
science class, the class is chosen purposively), findings in the observation supported the
teacher’s responses in the interview. Supervision should be done attentively since students
doing the test carefully and seriously were less than half of them. Moreover, some students
sitting at the corner preferred playing games on their smartphone while some others sitting
in the third and fourth row near the door liked to chat during the test. Besides of that,
some students prefer doing the test together with their group of friends than doing it
individually. In addition, after conducting pre-test, more than half of the students are
reported to fail to meet the minimum standard score (75), meaning that most students still
needed to improve their writing skills.
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
571
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
For all those early findings, the responses mentioned by the teacher were technically
supported by the findings found in the observation process during the pre-test. Moreover,
it is also clear that the current teaching writing cycle that the teacher did in the class was as
short as possible, meaning that (a) teacher gave a writing assignment; (b) students did the
assignment and submitted their work, and; (c) teacher assessed their work.
At one point, it is agreeable that the teacher had not yet given her students
opportunities to do revision as a matter of producing better quality of writing. Thus,
students will end up having the score and not improving their writing skills. In this case,
indeed, both the teacher and her students need some strategies to help them improve both
students’ writing skills and students’ engagement in the writing process.
To respond to the case, numerous research have proved that feedback, in various ways,
is helpful to improve students writing skills at the revision process (e.g. Ferris, 1995;
Lalande, 1982; Chandler, 2003; Baleghizadeh and Dadashi, 2011). A study by Ferris
(1995), for example, proved that almost all students participating in the study believed
that teacher feedback is really helpful as it provides information related to their writing.
Besides improving students writing skills, other advantages have also been noted, such as
giving students opportunity to know whether they perform well or not, what are their
strength and weaknesses, why they made mistake, and so on (Lewis, 2002; Littleton,
2011); letting them know that they are progressing in their learning process (Ur, 1996;
Hino, 2006); and helping them revise their writing to better final product (Russell and
Spada, 2006).
However, of many variations of feedback, in relation to students’ written work, the
two most prominent types are usually referred to direct feedback and indirect feedback. In
giving direct feedback, teachers write down the correct forms on students’ errors and
students will just transcribe the correct forms onto their work in revision stage, while in
indirect feedback, teachers only give the location of errors by underlining or circling the
errors and students will recognise the error and do self-correction on the errors (Lee,
2004; Ferris, 2003). Thus, while, in direct feedback, teachers become the main actors in
correcting correct students’ errors, in indirect feedback, students are also involved and
engaged in the revising process. Moreover, Lee (2004) adds that upon giving indirect
feedback, teachers only need to put symbols or marks, such as T= verb tenses, Sp=
spelling, and so on, to indicate the errors.
The teacher actually can minimise students’ further errors after they have revised their
writing based on teacher’s direct feedback, however, it is also undeniable that the teacher
may consume lots of time to put correct forms on every students’ work since she teaches
more than two classes consisting of more than 30 students per each. Those statements
have been supported in Chandler’s (2003) study. This study, using terms ―Correcting‖ as
direct correction and ―Underlining‖ as indirect correction, finds that while direct feedback
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
572
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
will benefit students as they could do the revision fast and easily, indirect feedback will
benefit the teacher as it takes lesser time for the teacher to give feedback on students’
writing draft. Though this study suggests that both methods are useful depending on the
what goals that teachers want to achieve, the students involving in this study feel that they
could learn more from doing self-correction based on what their teacher has underlined.
The response of students involved in the Chandler’s (2003) study, regarding to
students feeling of improvement, is also supported by others’ findings (e.g. Lalande, 1982).
For example, students involving in Lalande’s (1982) study preferred indirect feedback than
direct feedback as the students are at advantage of doing self-reflection and problemsolving that can help them to have long-term development on their writing skills.
Research Question
Given the advantages of applying teacher indirect on students’ writing, this study is
intended to find out
a) Does teacher indirect feedback improve writing skills of students of XII-IPA-4?
b) How is students’ participation during the writing process?
The Objective of the Study
The objective of the study was to find out whether teacher indirect feedback improves
writing skills of students of XII-IPA-4 and to find out how is students’ participation
during the writing process.
Significance of the Study
Some significance of this study, not only theoretically but also practically, go to:
a. The teacher, this study further may help English teachers not only solve some
problems but also improve their quality in teaching writing
b. Students, this study is expected to help them improve their writing skills, achieve
the minimum standard score (at least), increase their long-term memory regarding
to writing in English.
c. Future researchers, this study is hoped to enrich the literature in the discussion of
written corrective feedback, especially those who will focus on teacher indirect
feedback.
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
573
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
Literature Review
Discussion Text Writing
Discussion text can be defined as ―a text which presents a problematic discourse
discussed from different viewpoints‖ (Astuti, 2010), meaning that this text provides two
or more perspectives about particular unsolved issue to help readers enrich their
understanding about the issue. However, writers need to be careful in avoiding audiences’
imbalance in viewing an issue as can be seen in a persuasive text, which is designed to drive
audiences' thoughts based the reasons mentioned (Dietsch, 2006). In writing discussion
text, writers are required to be fair in presenting arguments or, in other words, to give
readers broader insights that may help them take their stances or make their own decision
(Anderson and Anderson, 1998; Crusius and Channell, 2006; Sudarwati and Grace,
2007). Thus, the contents of writing should contain both perspectives such as strengths
and weaknesses, positive and the negative, etc.
Moreover, related to the structure of the text, discussion text has three main parts.
Warner (2009) divides the parts into: (a) statement, outlining the subject to give readers
boundaries about what is going to be discussed; arguments, while providing or listing the
balanced arguments on both sides; and (c) conclusion, summing up all the arguments
choosing his/her preference. In addition, though Anderson and Anderson’s (1998) generic
structure is similar to the above mentioned parts, they have different view in the
description of conclusion part. They argue that conclusion should actually allow writer to
decide his/her position in the subject. Moreover, Astuti (2010) also share different view
by stating that writers are allowed to give readers suggestion based on the writers’ view,
meaning that it does not really matter to give suggestion if different and contrastive
viewpoints have been discussed proportionally.
Teacher Indirect Feedback
Numerous research have proven that written corrective feedback, which is done by
teachers on students’ errors on their writing, help students improve their writing skills
(Ferris and Roberts, 2001; Chandler, 2003; Lalande, 1982). Further, the most prominent
ways in giving written corrective feedback have been pointed to two contrastive ways,
namely teacher direct feedback (TDF) and teacher indirect feedback (TIF). Lee (2004)
supports that to do written error correction, teachers can operate two ways, either direct
correction or indirect correction. Many (e.g. Lee, 2004; Ferris, 2003) have agreed that
while teachers can simply put the correct form on students’ error in direct correction, on
the other hand, teachers can minimize their time by underlining or leaving symbols, that
indicate the error, in indirect correction.
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
574
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
However, discussion of looking for the better way between the TIF and TDF have not
yet met the conclusion. While some scholars (e.g. Mirzaii and Aliabadi, 2013) preferred
TDF rather than TIF, other scholars (e.g. Baleghizadeh and Dadashi, 2011) preferred TIF
rather than TDF. Besides of that, other studies (e.g. Chandler, 2003) also find that both
are useful. Previous studies below may describe those preferences.
A study by Mirzaii and Aliabadi (2013).
This study is aimed to investigate the impact of written corrective feedback in the context
of genre based instruction on job application letters. To this end, 120 Iranian advancedlevel EFL learners at Kish Institute of Science and Technology participated in the present
study. After administering the TOEFL test, 80 students scoring within ±1 SD of the
mean score were randomly assigned to one of two experimental groups―namely, Direct
Feedback Group or Indirect Feedback Group. Having sat a writing pre-test, the
participants received genre-based instruction on how to compose job application letters.
Meanwhile, they were supplied with direct or indirect feedback on their writing. Following
this instruction, a writing post-test was administered, the results of which showed that
direct corrective feedback was more effective than indirect corrective feedback in the
context of genre-based instruction on letters of job application.
A study by Baleghizadeh and Dadashi (2011)
This study examines the role of indirect feedback in promoting junior high school
students’ spelling accuracy in English. It compares the effect of direct feedback with
indirect feedback on students’ written work dictated by their teacher from their textbooks.
Two classes were selected from the Zanjanrood District in Iran. Forty-four male students
in two groups, one from School A (the direct feedback group) and the other from School
B (the indirect feedback group) were treated differently regarding their spelling errors for
six weeks. The results obtained revealed that indirect feedback is a more effective tool than
direct feedback in rectifying students’ spelling errors.
A study by Lee (2004)
This study seeks to explore the existing error correction practices in the Hong Kong
secondary writing classroom from both the teacher and student perspectives. Data were
gathered from three main sources: (1) a teacher survey comprising a questionnaire and
follow-up interviews, (2) a teacher error correction task, and (3) a student survey made up
of a questionnaire and follow-up interviews. The results revealed that both teachers and
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
575
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
students preferred comprehensive error feedback, the teachers used a limited range of error
feedback strategies, and only about half of the teacher corrections of student errors were
accurate. The study also showed that the students were reliant on teachers in error
correction, and that the teachers were not much aware of the long-term significance of
error feedback. Possible implications pertaining to ways to improve current error
correction practices were discussed.
A study by Chandler (2003)
This research uses experimental and control group data to show that students’ correction
of grammatical and lexical error between assignments reduces such error in subsequent
writing over one semester without reducing fluency or quality. A second study further
examines how error correction should be done. Should a teacher correct errors or mark
errors for student self-correction? If the latter, should the teacher indicate location or type
of error or both? Measures include change in the accuracy of both revisions and of
subsequent writing, change in fluency, change in holistic ratings, student attitudes toward
the four different kinds of teacher response, and time required by student and teacher for
each kind of response. Findings are that both direct correction and simple underlining of
errors are significantly superior to describing the type of error, even with underlining, for
reducing long-term error. Direct correction is best for producing accurate revisions, and
students prefer it because it is the fastest and easiest way for them as well as the fastest way
for teachers over several drafts. However, students feel that they learn more from selfcorrection, and simple underlining of errors takes less teacher time on the first draft. Both
are viable methods depending on other goals.
Method
Setting and participants
The research took place at SMAN 8 Kota Tangerang Selatan, located at Jl. Cirendeu
Raya No. 5, Kota Tangerang Selatan, Banten, 15419. Moreover, the research was
conducted only on Tuesday and Wednesday for approximately a month, which was started
from January 6th until February 10th, 2015. Moreover, the subject of the research was the
students at XII IPA 4 class of SMA Negeri 8 Kota Tangerang Selatan, academic year
2014/2015. They consisted of male (N= 14) and female students (N= 17).
Research method and procedure
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
576
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
The method used in this research was Classroom Action Research (CAR). The
rationale behind the application of this method is that, firstly, it attempted to solve the
problems in the classroom. Secondly, students’ improvement was also needed to succeed
the learning process. Lastly, the teacher’s ability in teaching this subject needed improving.
The Classroom Action Research (CAR) procedures used in this research was Kurt
Lewin's design. Among several designs that could be used in classroom action research,
Lewin’s design was more comprehensible and understandable for the researcher. Moreover,
generally, Kurt Lewin's design consists of cycles having four phases per each. The phases
are planning, acting, observing, and reflecting. The figure below represents the cycles of
Kurt Lewin's design:
Figure 1: A Modified Kurt Lewin’s CAR Design (Ghony, 2008)
Planning
Acting
Cycle
Observing
Reflecting
Data collection technique and instrumentation
The data were collected both quantitatively and qualitatively. To obtain quantitative
data, tests and questionnaire were administered. While doing writing tests, the tests
themselves were divided into two kinds namely pre- and post-test. Moreover, while
questionnaire was administered, the questionnaire sheets were spread to the students after
the whole process of writing at the last cycle. In addition, questionnaire sheets were made
by following the indicator in the following table:
Table 1: Specification of Questionnaire
Total
No.
Indicators
Items Number
Positive
Negative
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
577
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
1
Guidance
3
2
Help
5
8, 9, 10, 14, 15
3
Information
2
2, 3
4
Knowledge
3
11, 12, 13
Total
2
13
1, 4, 5, 6, 7
2
Moreover, to obtain qualitative data, interview to the teacher and class observation
were also administered to support quantitative data. To do the interview, the unstructured
interview guide was used to reveal the problems faced by the teacher. Moreover, in doing
observation, observation sheets consisting of the aspects of students’ participation was
conducted to describe students’ activity during teaching and learning process of writing.
The observation sheets, then, followed the rubric of observation sheets in the following
table:
Table 2: Rubric of Observation Sheets
No
1
2
Aspects
Sub-Aspects
Diligence
Involvement
in learning
process
Response to
teacher’s
explanation
Involvement in
group
Score
Assessment Criteria
3
Seriously doing the task
2
Seriously doing the task if supervised
1
Not seriously doing the task
3
Actively paying attention to teacher’s
explanation
2
Not really actively paying attention
teacher’s explanation, sometimes
1
Not paying attention to teacher’s
explanation
3
Actively involved in group discussion
2
Not really actively involved in group
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
578
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
discussion, sometimes
Interaction
with the
teacher
3
Preparation
Submission
Punctuality
4
1
Not actively involved in group
discussion
3
Often or Actively interact
2
Sometimes
1
Never
3
Bring the framework and has met the
criteria
2
Bring the framework but has not met
the criteria
1
Do not bring the framework
3
On time/On the day
2
On the next day
1
On the next two days or more
Lastly, besides the observation sheets, observation journals were also administered to
capture more findings which were not included in the rubric of observation sheets above.
Further, the observation journal would also be used in the reflection process. Below is the
blueprint of observation journals.
Table 3: Blueprint of Observation Journal
Cycle
Meeting
I
I
Date
Activities
Findings
II
III
Data analysis technique
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
579
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
Data from Questionnaire Sheets
Data gained from questionnaire sheets was analyzed by tabulating the frequency of
students’ responses, transforming into percentage, and reading the percentage. Further,
Likert scale was used in tabulation process as can be seen in the following table:
Table 4: Likert Rating Score, Adapted from Sugiono (2010)
Positive responses
Negative Responses
Agree
3
1
Not Sure
2
2
Disagree
1
3
Separately, data gained from observation and questionnaire were tabulated, formed
into percentage, and then analysed. Below is the formula to form the data into percentage
(Riduwan and Sunarto, 2013):
After the data had been formed into percentage, they were, then, analysed and
interpreted according to the following table adapted from Riduwan and Sunarto (2013):
Table 5: Score Interpretation Criteria
Percentage Interval
Description
81% - 100%
Very Good
61% - 80%
Good
41% - 60%
Enough
21% - 40%
Bad
0% - 20%
Very Bad
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
580
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
Moreover, students' tests writing ability, analytical scoring rubric adapted from
Heaton (1988) was used. There are five aspects in the analytical scoring rubric, i.e.,
content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics. The table below is the
analytical scoring rubric:
Table 6: Analytical Scoring Rubric from Heaton (1988)
Aspects
Score
Judgement
30–27
knowledgeable, substantive
26–22
some knowledge of subject, adequate range
21–17
limited knowledge of subject, little substance
16–13
does not show knowledge of subject, non-substantive
20–18
fluent expression, ideas clearly stated
17–14
somewhat choppy, but main ideas stand out
13–10
non-fluent, ideas confused or disconnected
Content
Organization
9–7
20–18
sophisticated range, effective word choice and usage
17–14
adequate range, occasional errors, but meaning not
obscured
13–10
limited range, frequent errors
Vocabulary
9–7
Language Use
does not communicate, no organization
little knowledge of English vocabulary
25–22
effective complex construction
21–19
effective but simple construction
17–11
major problems in simple/complex construction
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
581
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
10–5
virtually no mastery of sentence construction rules
5
demonstrates mastery of conventions
4
occasional errors of spelling, punctuation
3
frequent errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization
2
dominated by errors of spelling, punctuation, etc.
Mechanics
Criteria of Success
To determine the criteria of success in each cycle, the English teacher and also the
researcher decided to make requirements that the cycle would be concluded as success only
if both the result of observation was categorised as very good (81%—100%) and the
Minimum Mastery Criterion could be passed by, at least, 75% of the students. In
conclusion, if one of both aspects had not yet met the requirements, then the next cycle
should be conducted to solve the problems having not yet been solved in the previous
cycle.
Research Findings
Findings before the Implementation of CAR
Before implementing the research, any kinds of information were gathered through
teacher pre-interview, pre-questionnaire, pre-observation, and also pre-action test.
Result of Interview
The English teacher was interviewed on Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at 10 am. It was done
to know generally the class situation, students’ achievement, and also students’ and
teachers’ attitude toward the teaching and learning process of writing.
Three problems were pointed out based on teacher’s interview. Firstly, problem
mentioned was that the students sometimes had not yet been interested to prepare what
they were going to write; they preferred talking and joking with their friends until the class
ended. They argued that they were depressed while working under pressure, and needed a
lot of time to get the inspiration and the data needed. Thus, it was hard for them to collect
their work in the end of the meeting and for the teacher to directly correct their work.
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
582
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
Secondly, after the writing tasks became a homework, the teacher found that the students
had not yet put their best performance in their writing. They just wrote what they wanted
to write, neglected the text structure, and put little attention about what they wrote which
led to some problems, for example, grammatical errors. It is true that they had not yet
interested in writing because of its complexity. Thus, there were so many students that
were hard to achieve minimum mastery criterion ( KKM) made by the teacher. Lastly, the
teacher said that it had been so hard when her students asked her to give them reasons for
their score since she just gave them the score without any comments or feedback.
Moreover, she argued that it took a lot of time to give them comments to each work since
she taught more than three class per week. As a result, students became unmotivated since
some of them felt like they were hard to have clear direction about how to write well, and
some others felt like their teacher had not yet found appropriate techniques to improve
their skills.
It could be concluded that four aspects need considering; they are students’
preparation to write, diligence in doing writing tasks, involvement while learning writing
skills, submission punctuality.
Result of Pre-Observation
Pre-observation was conducted to observe the process of pre-action writing test before
implementing the action. It was held on Tuesday, January 6 th, 2015, and started from
07.00—08.30 a.m. The class consisted of 31 students; 17 male students and 14 female
students. Below is the result of pre-observation.
Table 7: Results of Pre-Observation Sheets
Students’ Number
Diligence
Submission Punctuality
S1
2
3
S2
2
3
S3
3
3
S4
2
3
S5
2
3
S6
2
3
S7
2
3
S8
2
3
S9
1
3
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
583
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
S10
2
3
S11
2
3
S12
2
3
S13
2
3
S14
1
3
S15
1
3
S16
3
3
S17
2
3
S18
2
3
S19
2
3
S20
2
3
S21
2
3
S22
2
3
S23
2
3
S24
1
3
S25
3
3
S26
1
3
S27
1
3
S28
2
3
S29
3
3
S30
2
3
S31
2
3
Each Aspect’s Score
Total
60
93
Percentage
64.52%
100%
Overall Aspects’ Score
Total
153
Percentage
82.26%
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
584
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
Based on the result of pre-observation above, generally, it could be concluded that the
teaching and learning process was Very Good. However, the description could be seen in
one aspect, submission punctuality. Another aspect, students’ diligence, could actually be
concluded that they are diligent enough. Most students seriously did the test though
teacher should always supervise what they were doing.
Moreover, based on teacher’s observation journal, some students sitting in the first two
front rows seriously did the test. However, those sitting in the next rows should always be
supervised. Then if the teacher did not pay attention or supervise them, some students
preferred to play games on their smartphone than to do the test. For example, four
students in the right corner preferred to play games on their smartphone than to do the
test. Besides of that, they also liked to chat with their friends during the test. For example,
five female students sitting in the third and fourth row near the door liked to chat during
the test. Lastly, some students tended to do the test with their friends in group rather than
work individually. In conclusion, generally, they are diligent enough in doing the test
though some of them really needed supervising.
Pre-Action Test
Lastly, pre-action test was done in January 6, 2015 at 07.00—8.30 a.m. This test was
actually conducted in order to mainly prove what the teacher had said about the class
situation when writing test being conducted and about students’ achievement which were
found below the standard. Findings showed that almost half of the class could not reach
the Minimum Mastery Criterion (75). Below is the students’ pre-action writing test scores:
Table 8: Students’ Pre-Action Writing Test Scores
Students’ Number
Scores
Number of Words
S1
73
231
S2
76*
247
S3
86*
297
S4
61
253
S5
79*
289
S6
78*
247
S7
77*
260
S8
75*
257
S9
57
225
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
585
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
S10
72
290
S11
73
220
S12
71
283
S13
73
281
S14
53
254
S15
68
280
S16
86*
226
S17
74
292
S18
72
267
S19
72
239
S20
77*
245
S21
74
241
S22
72
251
S23
78*
289
S24
63
262
S25
82*
243
S26
59
288
S27
57
294
S28
69
242
S29
81*
296
S30
73
235
S31
74
287
Mean:
72.1
261.65
*Students who could pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion (75)
Based the result of pre-action test, it could be concluded that there were still 20
students having not yet met the Minimum Mastery Criterion (75). The minimum score
gained was 53, while the highest was 86. From the data above, it could be concluded that
students of XII IPA 4 needed to improve their writing skills. Besides of that, the range
number of words students could write was between 220—297 words, with the average
number of words students could produce was 262 (261.65). Then, as the test was also
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
586
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
designed to standardise the range number of words for the next cycles, the researcher
decided the range number of words between 200—300 words.
Findings during the Implementation of CAR
Cycle 1: Planning
In this phase, a lesson plan was designed to try solving problems in the teaching and
learning process of writing skills. The problems needed solving were not only about the
students’ achievement but also students’ attitude in the classroom. It was started from
making a lesson plan consisted of standard competence, basic competence, and indicators
that will be reached by the students. In addition, the selected material and exercises were
also determined into a lesson plan. Besides of that, based on the findings in the preobservation, as students liked to chat with their friends during the test and tended to do
the test with their friends in group rather than work individually, then they would be
divided into some groups in order to make the learning process be more active. Lastly, the
teacher decided to take three meetings in this cycle. The first one is for teaching and
learning about discussion text, the second one was for conducting the test, and the last day
was used for students to revise their writing the teacher had given feedback on.
Cycle 1: Acting
The action in the first cycle was completely done in three meetings; January 7 th, 13th,
and 20th, 2015. The teaching and learning process was done based on the lesson plan
having been made. The first one was the introduction to the materials. Students were
introduced with the schematic structure which they should also made. Moreover, based on
the findings in the pre-observation, as students liked to chat with their friends during the
test and tended to do the test with their friends in group rather than work individually,
then they were divided into some groups in order to make the learning process be more
active. The groups consisted of five students per each and were freely chosen by students.
Then, three topics to discuss were also distributed. After that, they were asked to make a
framework of the text and then presented it by choosing one representative person. After
all, the teacher provided five topics for students to choose. Then, as a homework, they
were asked to make a framework based on the topics students chose. In this meeting, three
aspects were observed, they were students’ response to teacher’s explanation, active
discussion in group, and active interaction with the teacher.
In the second meeting, firstly students were asked to submit their own framework they
would use for their own writing. While teacher was examining the frameworks, students
were preparing for everything they needed for the writing test. After that, the frameworks
were given back to students and then they were asked to exemplify the framework they had
made into a four-paragraph discussion text. After this meeting, students’ writing was
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
587
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
corrected and feedback was given by the teacher outside the classroom. In this meeting,
three aspects were observed, they were students’ preparation, diligence in doing the test,
and submission punctuality.
In the third meeting, students’ writing was distributed. Then, teacher explained the
codes given on their paper in order to make students understand the meaning of all codes.
Then, they were asked to directly revise their own writing. In this meeting, three aspects
were observed, they were students’ response to teacher’s explanation, diligence, and
submission punctuality.
Cycle 1: Observing
In this phase, the teacher observed the four aspects that should be improved in the
teaching and learning process. In the first meeting, findings showed that most students
paid little attention to teacher’s explanation. Though they listened to teacher’s explanation,
sometimes they preferred talking to their friends, playing games on their gadgets. Even,
some students paid no attention at all on teacher’s explanation. Two students were
sleeping. Others went outside for the number one, but went back to class very late. Besides
of that, students’ interaction with the teacher was also still low. Though some of them had
tried to ask the teacher, the frequency was still rare. After that, when they were grouped,
some students liked to be in group with those who have sufficient knowledge about
English, for example, Students 3, 5, and 16. However, when they had been in group, they
did not want to be involved in the group and spent more time joking and chatting with
their friends. Besides, after observing some students, students 17 and 21 could be classified
as silent students. The positive thing was that they still did what teacher asked. In addition,
while they presented the results of their discussion, the situation were conducive and
students paid full attention.
In the second meeting, generally overall activities could be categorised as Very Good.
All students could submit their work on time. When the bell rang as a sign that the subject
was over, the submitted their work. However, while checking students’ homework, teacher
found that most students had a trouble making framework of the text. It could be seen as
some of them actually brought their framework but did not meet the criteria and some
others, even, did not bring and make the framework. However, there were still some
students bringing and making a good framework. After that, generally, students did the test
seriously though some of them should be supervised by the teacher. An important thing
that should be noted was that some students who did not bring or make the framework
found difficulties in doing the test as they were confused about what they had to write.
This problem should be solved in the next cycle.
In the third meeting, generally, students were very diligent in revising their work
though some of them still needed supervising. While teacher was explaining the codes or
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
588
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
feedback codes on students’ paper, most students were seriously listening to teacher’s
explanation. However, teacher also noticed that some students felt confused about the
codes given by the teacher, then they prefer asking their peer than asking the teacher
though sometimes they had to ask the teacher too. Lastly, students’ submission punctuality
still needed to be considered. There were still some students who could not submit their
revised writing on time; they took two or more than two days to revise their writing. To
observe this aspect, observation was not only done in the classroom, but also outside
classroom. To make it clear, below is the results of observation sheets of the first cycle:
Table 9: Results of Observation Sheets of Cycle I
Students’
Number
Meeting I
Meeting II
Meeting III
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
S1
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
S2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
S3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
S4
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
S5
2
2
1
3
2
3
3
2
3
S6
2
2
1
2
3
3
2
2
3
S7
1
1
1
2
1
3
2
2
3
S8
2
2
1
2
3
3
2
2
2
S9
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
1
S10
2
1
1
2
2
3
2
3
1
S11
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
S12
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
S13
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
S14
1
2
1
1
2
3
2
2
3
S15
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
2
3
S16
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
S17
3
2
3
1
3
3
2
2
1
S18
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
589
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
S19
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
3
S20
2
2
2
1
2
3
3
2
1
S21
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
S22
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
S23
2
2
1
3
3
3
2
2
3
S24
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
S25
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
3
S26
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
S27
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
S28
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
S29
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
S30
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
S31
2
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
Each Aspect’s Score in Each Meeting
Total
Percent.
(%)
64
66
54
64
73
93
79
72
72
68.82
70.97
58.06
68.82
78.49
100
84.95
77.42
77.42
Overall Aspects’ Score in Each Meeting
Total
184
230
223
Percent.
(%)
65.95%
82.44%
79.93%
Overall Aspects’ Score for Overall Meetings
Percent.
(%)
76.12%
Notes:
Table 10: Description of the Codes in Table 4.3
Codes
Meeting I
Meeting II
Meeting III
A
Students’ response to
teacher’s explanation
Students’
preparation
Students’ response to
teacher’s explanation
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
590
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
B
Discuss actively in group
Students’ diligence
Students’ diligence
C
Active interaction with
the teacher
Students’ submission
punctuality
Students’ submission
punctuality
Based on the data analysis of table 4.3 above, it could be concluded that students’
overall activities in the first cycle was 76.12% which could be categorised as Good. In the
first meeting, students’ overall activities was 65.95 which could be categorised as Enough.
The first aspect, students’ response to teacher’s explanation was 68.82% could be
categorised as Enough, the second aspect was 70.97% which could be categorised as
Good, however, the third aspects was only 58.06% which could be categorised as Bad.
Moreover, in the second meeting, students’ overall activities was 82.44 which could be
categorised as Very Good. The first aspect, students’ response to teacher’s explanation was
68.82% which could be categorised as Enough, the second aspect was 78.49% which
could be categorised as Good, and the third aspects was only 100% which could be
categorised as Very Good. Lastly, in the third meeting, students’ overall activities was
79.93% which could be categorised as Good. The first aspect, students’ response to
teacher’s explanation was 84.95% which could be categorised as Very Good, the second
aspect was 77.42% which could be categorised as Good, and the third aspects was only
77.42% which could be categorised as Good.
Besides data from observation sheets, students’ post-action writing test I scores were
also used to observe students’ writing improvement. Below is the students’ post-action
writing test I scores:
Table 11: Students’ Post-Action I Writing Test Scores
Students’ Number
Post-Action I Scores
Students’ Number
Post-Action I Scores
S1
87*
S17
76*
S2
78*
S18
89*
S3
93*
S19
82*
S4
92*
S20
92*
S5
89*
S21
84*
S6
79*
S22
76*
S7
85*
S23
86*
S8
77*
S24
93*
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
591
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
S9
94*
S25
91*
S10
82*
S26
79*
S11
89*
S27
90*
S12
76*
S28
85*
S13
86*
S29
81*
S14
81*
S30
78*
S15
78*
S31
86*
S16
93*
Total
2627
Mean:
84.74
*Students who could pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion (75)
Based on the result of Students’ Post-Action I Writing Test Scores above, it could be
concluded that after revising their writing, all students could pass the Minimum Mastery
Criterion (75). Besides of that, the average score was also increased to 84.74 while in preaction test, the average was only 72.1 which meant that it was still under the Minimum
Mastery Criterion.
Cycle 1: Reflecting
After the first cycle had been conducted, the conclusion of this cycle was drawn. It
could be seen that students’ writing score in this cycle actually could be improved.
However, there were still many things that should be improved. In the first meeting, all of
the aspects observed needed to be observed as they had not yet meet the criteria of success.
Moreover, in the second meeting, students’ preparation should be improved in the next
cycle. Lastly, in the last meeting, students’ submission punctuality should be noted to get
improved. After reflecting the teaching and learning process in the first cycle, it could be
concluded that next cycle needed to be conducted to solve the problems having not yet
been solved in the first cycle.
Cycle 2: Planning
In this phase, a lesson plan was designed to try solving problems having not been
solved in the first cycle. Though students’ achievement had met the requirement for criteria
of success, there were still students’ response to teacher’s explanation, students’
participation in group, students’ interaction with the teacher, students’ preparation, and
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
592
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
students’ submission punctuality after revising their work that still needed to be improved.
Thus, the next cycle should be done to solve those problems.
Generally, the second cycle was almost the same as the previous one. However, some
changes were planned and had been inserted in the lesson plan of the second cycle in order
to enhance students’ activities. Firstly, as students did not prepare well for the test, then in
the second cycle the teaching process was focussed on making the framework of what they
wanted to elaborate. It was hoped that it might solve the problems of students’ preparation
and submission punctuality as they might be more prepared. Secondly, as students were
tended to be more passive and to spend their time talking, joking, and chatting with their
close friends in group, the teacher himself divided the students to prevent students being
with their close friend. It was hoped that it might solve the problems of students’
participation in their group and also interaction with the teacher. Lastly, the teacher
decided to take three meetings in this cycle. The first one is for teaching and learning
about making a good framework, the second one was for conducting the test, and the last
day was used for students to revise their writing the teacher had given feedback on.
Cycle 2: Acting
The action in the second cycle was completely done in three meetings; January 27 th,
January 28th, and February 10th, 2015. The teaching and learning process was done based
on the lesson plan having been made. The first meeting was about making a good
framework. Students were taught about how to make a good framework step by step.
Moreover, based on the findings in the first cycle, as students liked to chat with their
friends in group they chose, then teacher himself divided the students into five group
consisted of six students per each
TEXT WRITING
Agus Sufyan
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
E-mail: [email protected]
Alek
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract. As English has been taught for years, Indonesian students at the twelfth grade are
expected to have adequate skills in four language areas, for instance, writing. In fact, some
students still encountered difficulties in mastering English writing skills. This study,
following Kurt Lewin’s action research design, aimed at improving twelfth grade students’
discussion text writing skills by implementing teacher indirect feedback (TIF) technique
and at examining 31 students’ participation during the learning process as another criterion
of success in this study. Moreover, by conducting pre-interview, doing observation,
administering tests and distributing questionnaire sheets, findings of this study are
presented quantitatively and qualitatively. Further, this study suggests that TIF helps
students not only improve their writing skills but also their active participation during the
process.
Keywords: teacher indirect feedback; writing
Background of the Study
Teaching writing has been an issue for some teachers since this skill is not fully gifted,
meaning that students need to make continuous efforts through repetitions, trials and
errors, and reinforcement so that they could master this skill (Meyers, 2003). Thus, the
ability of teachers to engage their students in the processes of writing should be maintained
well. However, it is also clear that teachers may also encounter several problems in teaching
writing since, as compared to teaching speaking, Raymond (1980) states that information
delivery process becomes one that differs between both language skills. For example, while,
in speaking, teachers can use their body movements or different voice to help them deliver
their thoughts, it needs even harder work in writing as we can only use some mechanisms,
such as punctuation, word order, etc., to help us deliver what we would like to inform.
Thus, it can be considered that our ability to use those mechanisms is important to avoid
readers’ misinterpretation.
Unfortunately, having explained that writers need to be careful in their writing, the
fact shows that some Indonesian students at the twelfth grade who have learnt English for
years still found it difficult to produce better quality of writing. The following responses
Copyright © 2016 | The 4th ELITE International Conference
Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education | Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
in the pre-interview held to one of English teachers at SMAN 8 Kota Tangerang Selatan
also described how teaching writing skills becomes a burden for both the teacher and the
students.
In teaching writing, the teacher reported that, based on her observation, while students
were asked to do writing, they preferred joking with their peers and playing with their own
smartphone rather than making any efforts to finish their writing their assignment until the
class ended. As a result, they left the assignment not completely finished. Moreover, the
teacher also added that her students usually argued that finishing writing assignments in
the class was frustrating for them as they did not have much time to finish the assignment
at one time. Further, based on the interview result, teacher also seemed to neglect having
some stages in the writing process, for instance, revision stage. This could be found when
the teacher impliedly stated that she found it difficult to immediately assess students’ work
after they had submitted their work without informing students about, for instance, what
mistakes that they had made, what they needed to improve, etc.
Furthermore, the problem mentioned by the teacher went on when students could not
finish the assignment at school and make it as homework. She stated that students had not
yet shown their effort as could be seen from their writing. For example, she found that her
students still had problems in some writing components, such as grammar, spelling, and so
on. As a result, she also felt frustrating to assess her students’ work. Lastly, when students’
work had been scored and they asked about the reasoning of their scores, the teacher, then,
could not give them clear responses on why her students got the scores.
Furthermore, in attempt to obtain earlier data based on the teacher’s responses on the
interview, pre-test and pre-observation were held to capture students’ writing skills and
also their activity during the writing process. In addition, students were assigned to write a
discussion text on the chosen topic (Note: discussion text was chosen based on: teacher’s
responses in the interview and time schedule made by the teacher on her lesson plan.)
Surprisingly, while the observation during the pre-test was being held (twelfth grade of
science class, the class is chosen purposively), findings in the observation supported the
teacher’s responses in the interview. Supervision should be done attentively since students
doing the test carefully and seriously were less than half of them. Moreover, some students
sitting at the corner preferred playing games on their smartphone while some others sitting
in the third and fourth row near the door liked to chat during the test. Besides of that,
some students prefer doing the test together with their group of friends than doing it
individually. In addition, after conducting pre-test, more than half of the students are
reported to fail to meet the minimum standard score (75), meaning that most students still
needed to improve their writing skills.
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
571
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
For all those early findings, the responses mentioned by the teacher were technically
supported by the findings found in the observation process during the pre-test. Moreover,
it is also clear that the current teaching writing cycle that the teacher did in the class was as
short as possible, meaning that (a) teacher gave a writing assignment; (b) students did the
assignment and submitted their work, and; (c) teacher assessed their work.
At one point, it is agreeable that the teacher had not yet given her students
opportunities to do revision as a matter of producing better quality of writing. Thus,
students will end up having the score and not improving their writing skills. In this case,
indeed, both the teacher and her students need some strategies to help them improve both
students’ writing skills and students’ engagement in the writing process.
To respond to the case, numerous research have proved that feedback, in various ways,
is helpful to improve students writing skills at the revision process (e.g. Ferris, 1995;
Lalande, 1982; Chandler, 2003; Baleghizadeh and Dadashi, 2011). A study by Ferris
(1995), for example, proved that almost all students participating in the study believed
that teacher feedback is really helpful as it provides information related to their writing.
Besides improving students writing skills, other advantages have also been noted, such as
giving students opportunity to know whether they perform well or not, what are their
strength and weaknesses, why they made mistake, and so on (Lewis, 2002; Littleton,
2011); letting them know that they are progressing in their learning process (Ur, 1996;
Hino, 2006); and helping them revise their writing to better final product (Russell and
Spada, 2006).
However, of many variations of feedback, in relation to students’ written work, the
two most prominent types are usually referred to direct feedback and indirect feedback. In
giving direct feedback, teachers write down the correct forms on students’ errors and
students will just transcribe the correct forms onto their work in revision stage, while in
indirect feedback, teachers only give the location of errors by underlining or circling the
errors and students will recognise the error and do self-correction on the errors (Lee,
2004; Ferris, 2003). Thus, while, in direct feedback, teachers become the main actors in
correcting correct students’ errors, in indirect feedback, students are also involved and
engaged in the revising process. Moreover, Lee (2004) adds that upon giving indirect
feedback, teachers only need to put symbols or marks, such as T= verb tenses, Sp=
spelling, and so on, to indicate the errors.
The teacher actually can minimise students’ further errors after they have revised their
writing based on teacher’s direct feedback, however, it is also undeniable that the teacher
may consume lots of time to put correct forms on every students’ work since she teaches
more than two classes consisting of more than 30 students per each. Those statements
have been supported in Chandler’s (2003) study. This study, using terms ―Correcting‖ as
direct correction and ―Underlining‖ as indirect correction, finds that while direct feedback
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
572
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
will benefit students as they could do the revision fast and easily, indirect feedback will
benefit the teacher as it takes lesser time for the teacher to give feedback on students’
writing draft. Though this study suggests that both methods are useful depending on the
what goals that teachers want to achieve, the students involving in this study feel that they
could learn more from doing self-correction based on what their teacher has underlined.
The response of students involved in the Chandler’s (2003) study, regarding to
students feeling of improvement, is also supported by others’ findings (e.g. Lalande, 1982).
For example, students involving in Lalande’s (1982) study preferred indirect feedback than
direct feedback as the students are at advantage of doing self-reflection and problemsolving that can help them to have long-term development on their writing skills.
Research Question
Given the advantages of applying teacher indirect on students’ writing, this study is
intended to find out
a) Does teacher indirect feedback improve writing skills of students of XII-IPA-4?
b) How is students’ participation during the writing process?
The Objective of the Study
The objective of the study was to find out whether teacher indirect feedback improves
writing skills of students of XII-IPA-4 and to find out how is students’ participation
during the writing process.
Significance of the Study
Some significance of this study, not only theoretically but also practically, go to:
a. The teacher, this study further may help English teachers not only solve some
problems but also improve their quality in teaching writing
b. Students, this study is expected to help them improve their writing skills, achieve
the minimum standard score (at least), increase their long-term memory regarding
to writing in English.
c. Future researchers, this study is hoped to enrich the literature in the discussion of
written corrective feedback, especially those who will focus on teacher indirect
feedback.
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
573
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
Literature Review
Discussion Text Writing
Discussion text can be defined as ―a text which presents a problematic discourse
discussed from different viewpoints‖ (Astuti, 2010), meaning that this text provides two
or more perspectives about particular unsolved issue to help readers enrich their
understanding about the issue. However, writers need to be careful in avoiding audiences’
imbalance in viewing an issue as can be seen in a persuasive text, which is designed to drive
audiences' thoughts based the reasons mentioned (Dietsch, 2006). In writing discussion
text, writers are required to be fair in presenting arguments or, in other words, to give
readers broader insights that may help them take their stances or make their own decision
(Anderson and Anderson, 1998; Crusius and Channell, 2006; Sudarwati and Grace,
2007). Thus, the contents of writing should contain both perspectives such as strengths
and weaknesses, positive and the negative, etc.
Moreover, related to the structure of the text, discussion text has three main parts.
Warner (2009) divides the parts into: (a) statement, outlining the subject to give readers
boundaries about what is going to be discussed; arguments, while providing or listing the
balanced arguments on both sides; and (c) conclusion, summing up all the arguments
choosing his/her preference. In addition, though Anderson and Anderson’s (1998) generic
structure is similar to the above mentioned parts, they have different view in the
description of conclusion part. They argue that conclusion should actually allow writer to
decide his/her position in the subject. Moreover, Astuti (2010) also share different view
by stating that writers are allowed to give readers suggestion based on the writers’ view,
meaning that it does not really matter to give suggestion if different and contrastive
viewpoints have been discussed proportionally.
Teacher Indirect Feedback
Numerous research have proven that written corrective feedback, which is done by
teachers on students’ errors on their writing, help students improve their writing skills
(Ferris and Roberts, 2001; Chandler, 2003; Lalande, 1982). Further, the most prominent
ways in giving written corrective feedback have been pointed to two contrastive ways,
namely teacher direct feedback (TDF) and teacher indirect feedback (TIF). Lee (2004)
supports that to do written error correction, teachers can operate two ways, either direct
correction or indirect correction. Many (e.g. Lee, 2004; Ferris, 2003) have agreed that
while teachers can simply put the correct form on students’ error in direct correction, on
the other hand, teachers can minimize their time by underlining or leaving symbols, that
indicate the error, in indirect correction.
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
574
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
However, discussion of looking for the better way between the TIF and TDF have not
yet met the conclusion. While some scholars (e.g. Mirzaii and Aliabadi, 2013) preferred
TDF rather than TIF, other scholars (e.g. Baleghizadeh and Dadashi, 2011) preferred TIF
rather than TDF. Besides of that, other studies (e.g. Chandler, 2003) also find that both
are useful. Previous studies below may describe those preferences.
A study by Mirzaii and Aliabadi (2013).
This study is aimed to investigate the impact of written corrective feedback in the context
of genre based instruction on job application letters. To this end, 120 Iranian advancedlevel EFL learners at Kish Institute of Science and Technology participated in the present
study. After administering the TOEFL test, 80 students scoring within ±1 SD of the
mean score were randomly assigned to one of two experimental groups―namely, Direct
Feedback Group or Indirect Feedback Group. Having sat a writing pre-test, the
participants received genre-based instruction on how to compose job application letters.
Meanwhile, they were supplied with direct or indirect feedback on their writing. Following
this instruction, a writing post-test was administered, the results of which showed that
direct corrective feedback was more effective than indirect corrective feedback in the
context of genre-based instruction on letters of job application.
A study by Baleghizadeh and Dadashi (2011)
This study examines the role of indirect feedback in promoting junior high school
students’ spelling accuracy in English. It compares the effect of direct feedback with
indirect feedback on students’ written work dictated by their teacher from their textbooks.
Two classes were selected from the Zanjanrood District in Iran. Forty-four male students
in two groups, one from School A (the direct feedback group) and the other from School
B (the indirect feedback group) were treated differently regarding their spelling errors for
six weeks. The results obtained revealed that indirect feedback is a more effective tool than
direct feedback in rectifying students’ spelling errors.
A study by Lee (2004)
This study seeks to explore the existing error correction practices in the Hong Kong
secondary writing classroom from both the teacher and student perspectives. Data were
gathered from three main sources: (1) a teacher survey comprising a questionnaire and
follow-up interviews, (2) a teacher error correction task, and (3) a student survey made up
of a questionnaire and follow-up interviews. The results revealed that both teachers and
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
575
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
students preferred comprehensive error feedback, the teachers used a limited range of error
feedback strategies, and only about half of the teacher corrections of student errors were
accurate. The study also showed that the students were reliant on teachers in error
correction, and that the teachers were not much aware of the long-term significance of
error feedback. Possible implications pertaining to ways to improve current error
correction practices were discussed.
A study by Chandler (2003)
This research uses experimental and control group data to show that students’ correction
of grammatical and lexical error between assignments reduces such error in subsequent
writing over one semester without reducing fluency or quality. A second study further
examines how error correction should be done. Should a teacher correct errors or mark
errors for student self-correction? If the latter, should the teacher indicate location or type
of error or both? Measures include change in the accuracy of both revisions and of
subsequent writing, change in fluency, change in holistic ratings, student attitudes toward
the four different kinds of teacher response, and time required by student and teacher for
each kind of response. Findings are that both direct correction and simple underlining of
errors are significantly superior to describing the type of error, even with underlining, for
reducing long-term error. Direct correction is best for producing accurate revisions, and
students prefer it because it is the fastest and easiest way for them as well as the fastest way
for teachers over several drafts. However, students feel that they learn more from selfcorrection, and simple underlining of errors takes less teacher time on the first draft. Both
are viable methods depending on other goals.
Method
Setting and participants
The research took place at SMAN 8 Kota Tangerang Selatan, located at Jl. Cirendeu
Raya No. 5, Kota Tangerang Selatan, Banten, 15419. Moreover, the research was
conducted only on Tuesday and Wednesday for approximately a month, which was started
from January 6th until February 10th, 2015. Moreover, the subject of the research was the
students at XII IPA 4 class of SMA Negeri 8 Kota Tangerang Selatan, academic year
2014/2015. They consisted of male (N= 14) and female students (N= 17).
Research method and procedure
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
576
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
The method used in this research was Classroom Action Research (CAR). The
rationale behind the application of this method is that, firstly, it attempted to solve the
problems in the classroom. Secondly, students’ improvement was also needed to succeed
the learning process. Lastly, the teacher’s ability in teaching this subject needed improving.
The Classroom Action Research (CAR) procedures used in this research was Kurt
Lewin's design. Among several designs that could be used in classroom action research,
Lewin’s design was more comprehensible and understandable for the researcher. Moreover,
generally, Kurt Lewin's design consists of cycles having four phases per each. The phases
are planning, acting, observing, and reflecting. The figure below represents the cycles of
Kurt Lewin's design:
Figure 1: A Modified Kurt Lewin’s CAR Design (Ghony, 2008)
Planning
Acting
Cycle
Observing
Reflecting
Data collection technique and instrumentation
The data were collected both quantitatively and qualitatively. To obtain quantitative
data, tests and questionnaire were administered. While doing writing tests, the tests
themselves were divided into two kinds namely pre- and post-test. Moreover, while
questionnaire was administered, the questionnaire sheets were spread to the students after
the whole process of writing at the last cycle. In addition, questionnaire sheets were made
by following the indicator in the following table:
Table 1: Specification of Questionnaire
Total
No.
Indicators
Items Number
Positive
Negative
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
577
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
1
Guidance
3
2
Help
5
8, 9, 10, 14, 15
3
Information
2
2, 3
4
Knowledge
3
11, 12, 13
Total
2
13
1, 4, 5, 6, 7
2
Moreover, to obtain qualitative data, interview to the teacher and class observation
were also administered to support quantitative data. To do the interview, the unstructured
interview guide was used to reveal the problems faced by the teacher. Moreover, in doing
observation, observation sheets consisting of the aspects of students’ participation was
conducted to describe students’ activity during teaching and learning process of writing.
The observation sheets, then, followed the rubric of observation sheets in the following
table:
Table 2: Rubric of Observation Sheets
No
1
2
Aspects
Sub-Aspects
Diligence
Involvement
in learning
process
Response to
teacher’s
explanation
Involvement in
group
Score
Assessment Criteria
3
Seriously doing the task
2
Seriously doing the task if supervised
1
Not seriously doing the task
3
Actively paying attention to teacher’s
explanation
2
Not really actively paying attention
teacher’s explanation, sometimes
1
Not paying attention to teacher’s
explanation
3
Actively involved in group discussion
2
Not really actively involved in group
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
578
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
discussion, sometimes
Interaction
with the
teacher
3
Preparation
Submission
Punctuality
4
1
Not actively involved in group
discussion
3
Often or Actively interact
2
Sometimes
1
Never
3
Bring the framework and has met the
criteria
2
Bring the framework but has not met
the criteria
1
Do not bring the framework
3
On time/On the day
2
On the next day
1
On the next two days or more
Lastly, besides the observation sheets, observation journals were also administered to
capture more findings which were not included in the rubric of observation sheets above.
Further, the observation journal would also be used in the reflection process. Below is the
blueprint of observation journals.
Table 3: Blueprint of Observation Journal
Cycle
Meeting
I
I
Date
Activities
Findings
II
III
Data analysis technique
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
579
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
Data from Questionnaire Sheets
Data gained from questionnaire sheets was analyzed by tabulating the frequency of
students’ responses, transforming into percentage, and reading the percentage. Further,
Likert scale was used in tabulation process as can be seen in the following table:
Table 4: Likert Rating Score, Adapted from Sugiono (2010)
Positive responses
Negative Responses
Agree
3
1
Not Sure
2
2
Disagree
1
3
Separately, data gained from observation and questionnaire were tabulated, formed
into percentage, and then analysed. Below is the formula to form the data into percentage
(Riduwan and Sunarto, 2013):
After the data had been formed into percentage, they were, then, analysed and
interpreted according to the following table adapted from Riduwan and Sunarto (2013):
Table 5: Score Interpretation Criteria
Percentage Interval
Description
81% - 100%
Very Good
61% - 80%
Good
41% - 60%
Enough
21% - 40%
Bad
0% - 20%
Very Bad
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
580
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
Moreover, students' tests writing ability, analytical scoring rubric adapted from
Heaton (1988) was used. There are five aspects in the analytical scoring rubric, i.e.,
content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics. The table below is the
analytical scoring rubric:
Table 6: Analytical Scoring Rubric from Heaton (1988)
Aspects
Score
Judgement
30–27
knowledgeable, substantive
26–22
some knowledge of subject, adequate range
21–17
limited knowledge of subject, little substance
16–13
does not show knowledge of subject, non-substantive
20–18
fluent expression, ideas clearly stated
17–14
somewhat choppy, but main ideas stand out
13–10
non-fluent, ideas confused or disconnected
Content
Organization
9–7
20–18
sophisticated range, effective word choice and usage
17–14
adequate range, occasional errors, but meaning not
obscured
13–10
limited range, frequent errors
Vocabulary
9–7
Language Use
does not communicate, no organization
little knowledge of English vocabulary
25–22
effective complex construction
21–19
effective but simple construction
17–11
major problems in simple/complex construction
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
581
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
10–5
virtually no mastery of sentence construction rules
5
demonstrates mastery of conventions
4
occasional errors of spelling, punctuation
3
frequent errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization
2
dominated by errors of spelling, punctuation, etc.
Mechanics
Criteria of Success
To determine the criteria of success in each cycle, the English teacher and also the
researcher decided to make requirements that the cycle would be concluded as success only
if both the result of observation was categorised as very good (81%—100%) and the
Minimum Mastery Criterion could be passed by, at least, 75% of the students. In
conclusion, if one of both aspects had not yet met the requirements, then the next cycle
should be conducted to solve the problems having not yet been solved in the previous
cycle.
Research Findings
Findings before the Implementation of CAR
Before implementing the research, any kinds of information were gathered through
teacher pre-interview, pre-questionnaire, pre-observation, and also pre-action test.
Result of Interview
The English teacher was interviewed on Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at 10 am. It was done
to know generally the class situation, students’ achievement, and also students’ and
teachers’ attitude toward the teaching and learning process of writing.
Three problems were pointed out based on teacher’s interview. Firstly, problem
mentioned was that the students sometimes had not yet been interested to prepare what
they were going to write; they preferred talking and joking with their friends until the class
ended. They argued that they were depressed while working under pressure, and needed a
lot of time to get the inspiration and the data needed. Thus, it was hard for them to collect
their work in the end of the meeting and for the teacher to directly correct their work.
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
582
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
Secondly, after the writing tasks became a homework, the teacher found that the students
had not yet put their best performance in their writing. They just wrote what they wanted
to write, neglected the text structure, and put little attention about what they wrote which
led to some problems, for example, grammatical errors. It is true that they had not yet
interested in writing because of its complexity. Thus, there were so many students that
were hard to achieve minimum mastery criterion ( KKM) made by the teacher. Lastly, the
teacher said that it had been so hard when her students asked her to give them reasons for
their score since she just gave them the score without any comments or feedback.
Moreover, she argued that it took a lot of time to give them comments to each work since
she taught more than three class per week. As a result, students became unmotivated since
some of them felt like they were hard to have clear direction about how to write well, and
some others felt like their teacher had not yet found appropriate techniques to improve
their skills.
It could be concluded that four aspects need considering; they are students’
preparation to write, diligence in doing writing tasks, involvement while learning writing
skills, submission punctuality.
Result of Pre-Observation
Pre-observation was conducted to observe the process of pre-action writing test before
implementing the action. It was held on Tuesday, January 6 th, 2015, and started from
07.00—08.30 a.m. The class consisted of 31 students; 17 male students and 14 female
students. Below is the result of pre-observation.
Table 7: Results of Pre-Observation Sheets
Students’ Number
Diligence
Submission Punctuality
S1
2
3
S2
2
3
S3
3
3
S4
2
3
S5
2
3
S6
2
3
S7
2
3
S8
2
3
S9
1
3
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
583
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
S10
2
3
S11
2
3
S12
2
3
S13
2
3
S14
1
3
S15
1
3
S16
3
3
S17
2
3
S18
2
3
S19
2
3
S20
2
3
S21
2
3
S22
2
3
S23
2
3
S24
1
3
S25
3
3
S26
1
3
S27
1
3
S28
2
3
S29
3
3
S30
2
3
S31
2
3
Each Aspect’s Score
Total
60
93
Percentage
64.52%
100%
Overall Aspects’ Score
Total
153
Percentage
82.26%
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
584
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
Based on the result of pre-observation above, generally, it could be concluded that the
teaching and learning process was Very Good. However, the description could be seen in
one aspect, submission punctuality. Another aspect, students’ diligence, could actually be
concluded that they are diligent enough. Most students seriously did the test though
teacher should always supervise what they were doing.
Moreover, based on teacher’s observation journal, some students sitting in the first two
front rows seriously did the test. However, those sitting in the next rows should always be
supervised. Then if the teacher did not pay attention or supervise them, some students
preferred to play games on their smartphone than to do the test. For example, four
students in the right corner preferred to play games on their smartphone than to do the
test. Besides of that, they also liked to chat with their friends during the test. For example,
five female students sitting in the third and fourth row near the door liked to chat during
the test. Lastly, some students tended to do the test with their friends in group rather than
work individually. In conclusion, generally, they are diligent enough in doing the test
though some of them really needed supervising.
Pre-Action Test
Lastly, pre-action test was done in January 6, 2015 at 07.00—8.30 a.m. This test was
actually conducted in order to mainly prove what the teacher had said about the class
situation when writing test being conducted and about students’ achievement which were
found below the standard. Findings showed that almost half of the class could not reach
the Minimum Mastery Criterion (75). Below is the students’ pre-action writing test scores:
Table 8: Students’ Pre-Action Writing Test Scores
Students’ Number
Scores
Number of Words
S1
73
231
S2
76*
247
S3
86*
297
S4
61
253
S5
79*
289
S6
78*
247
S7
77*
260
S8
75*
257
S9
57
225
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
585
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
S10
72
290
S11
73
220
S12
71
283
S13
73
281
S14
53
254
S15
68
280
S16
86*
226
S17
74
292
S18
72
267
S19
72
239
S20
77*
245
S21
74
241
S22
72
251
S23
78*
289
S24
63
262
S25
82*
243
S26
59
288
S27
57
294
S28
69
242
S29
81*
296
S30
73
235
S31
74
287
Mean:
72.1
261.65
*Students who could pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion (75)
Based the result of pre-action test, it could be concluded that there were still 20
students having not yet met the Minimum Mastery Criterion (75). The minimum score
gained was 53, while the highest was 86. From the data above, it could be concluded that
students of XII IPA 4 needed to improve their writing skills. Besides of that, the range
number of words students could write was between 220—297 words, with the average
number of words students could produce was 262 (261.65). Then, as the test was also
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
586
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
designed to standardise the range number of words for the next cycles, the researcher
decided the range number of words between 200—300 words.
Findings during the Implementation of CAR
Cycle 1: Planning
In this phase, a lesson plan was designed to try solving problems in the teaching and
learning process of writing skills. The problems needed solving were not only about the
students’ achievement but also students’ attitude in the classroom. It was started from
making a lesson plan consisted of standard competence, basic competence, and indicators
that will be reached by the students. In addition, the selected material and exercises were
also determined into a lesson plan. Besides of that, based on the findings in the preobservation, as students liked to chat with their friends during the test and tended to do
the test with their friends in group rather than work individually, then they would be
divided into some groups in order to make the learning process be more active. Lastly, the
teacher decided to take three meetings in this cycle. The first one is for teaching and
learning about discussion text, the second one was for conducting the test, and the last day
was used for students to revise their writing the teacher had given feedback on.
Cycle 1: Acting
The action in the first cycle was completely done in three meetings; January 7 th, 13th,
and 20th, 2015. The teaching and learning process was done based on the lesson plan
having been made. The first one was the introduction to the materials. Students were
introduced with the schematic structure which they should also made. Moreover, based on
the findings in the pre-observation, as students liked to chat with their friends during the
test and tended to do the test with their friends in group rather than work individually,
then they were divided into some groups in order to make the learning process be more
active. The groups consisted of five students per each and were freely chosen by students.
Then, three topics to discuss were also distributed. After that, they were asked to make a
framework of the text and then presented it by choosing one representative person. After
all, the teacher provided five topics for students to choose. Then, as a homework, they
were asked to make a framework based on the topics students chose. In this meeting, three
aspects were observed, they were students’ response to teacher’s explanation, active
discussion in group, and active interaction with the teacher.
In the second meeting, firstly students were asked to submit their own framework they
would use for their own writing. While teacher was examining the frameworks, students
were preparing for everything they needed for the writing test. After that, the frameworks
were given back to students and then they were asked to exemplify the framework they had
made into a four-paragraph discussion text. After this meeting, students’ writing was
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
587
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
corrected and feedback was given by the teacher outside the classroom. In this meeting,
three aspects were observed, they were students’ preparation, diligence in doing the test,
and submission punctuality.
In the third meeting, students’ writing was distributed. Then, teacher explained the
codes given on their paper in order to make students understand the meaning of all codes.
Then, they were asked to directly revise their own writing. In this meeting, three aspects
were observed, they were students’ response to teacher’s explanation, diligence, and
submission punctuality.
Cycle 1: Observing
In this phase, the teacher observed the four aspects that should be improved in the
teaching and learning process. In the first meeting, findings showed that most students
paid little attention to teacher’s explanation. Though they listened to teacher’s explanation,
sometimes they preferred talking to their friends, playing games on their gadgets. Even,
some students paid no attention at all on teacher’s explanation. Two students were
sleeping. Others went outside for the number one, but went back to class very late. Besides
of that, students’ interaction with the teacher was also still low. Though some of them had
tried to ask the teacher, the frequency was still rare. After that, when they were grouped,
some students liked to be in group with those who have sufficient knowledge about
English, for example, Students 3, 5, and 16. However, when they had been in group, they
did not want to be involved in the group and spent more time joking and chatting with
their friends. Besides, after observing some students, students 17 and 21 could be classified
as silent students. The positive thing was that they still did what teacher asked. In addition,
while they presented the results of their discussion, the situation were conducive and
students paid full attention.
In the second meeting, generally overall activities could be categorised as Very Good.
All students could submit their work on time. When the bell rang as a sign that the subject
was over, the submitted their work. However, while checking students’ homework, teacher
found that most students had a trouble making framework of the text. It could be seen as
some of them actually brought their framework but did not meet the criteria and some
others, even, did not bring and make the framework. However, there were still some
students bringing and making a good framework. After that, generally, students did the test
seriously though some of them should be supervised by the teacher. An important thing
that should be noted was that some students who did not bring or make the framework
found difficulties in doing the test as they were confused about what they had to write.
This problem should be solved in the next cycle.
In the third meeting, generally, students were very diligent in revising their work
though some of them still needed supervising. While teacher was explaining the codes or
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
588
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
feedback codes on students’ paper, most students were seriously listening to teacher’s
explanation. However, teacher also noticed that some students felt confused about the
codes given by the teacher, then they prefer asking their peer than asking the teacher
though sometimes they had to ask the teacher too. Lastly, students’ submission punctuality
still needed to be considered. There were still some students who could not submit their
revised writing on time; they took two or more than two days to revise their writing. To
observe this aspect, observation was not only done in the classroom, but also outside
classroom. To make it clear, below is the results of observation sheets of the first cycle:
Table 9: Results of Observation Sheets of Cycle I
Students’
Number
Meeting I
Meeting II
Meeting III
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
S1
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
S2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
S3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
S4
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
S5
2
2
1
3
2
3
3
2
3
S6
2
2
1
2
3
3
2
2
3
S7
1
1
1
2
1
3
2
2
3
S8
2
2
1
2
3
3
2
2
2
S9
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
1
S10
2
1
1
2
2
3
2
3
1
S11
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
S12
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
S13
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
S14
1
2
1
1
2
3
2
2
3
S15
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
2
3
S16
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
S17
3
2
3
1
3
3
2
2
1
S18
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
589
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
S19
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
3
S20
2
2
2
1
2
3
3
2
1
S21
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
S22
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
S23
2
2
1
3
3
3
2
2
3
S24
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
S25
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
3
S26
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
S27
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
S28
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
S29
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
S30
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
S31
2
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
Each Aspect’s Score in Each Meeting
Total
Percent.
(%)
64
66
54
64
73
93
79
72
72
68.82
70.97
58.06
68.82
78.49
100
84.95
77.42
77.42
Overall Aspects’ Score in Each Meeting
Total
184
230
223
Percent.
(%)
65.95%
82.44%
79.93%
Overall Aspects’ Score for Overall Meetings
Percent.
(%)
76.12%
Notes:
Table 10: Description of the Codes in Table 4.3
Codes
Meeting I
Meeting II
Meeting III
A
Students’ response to
teacher’s explanation
Students’
preparation
Students’ response to
teacher’s explanation
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
590
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
B
Discuss actively in group
Students’ diligence
Students’ diligence
C
Active interaction with
the teacher
Students’ submission
punctuality
Students’ submission
punctuality
Based on the data analysis of table 4.3 above, it could be concluded that students’
overall activities in the first cycle was 76.12% which could be categorised as Good. In the
first meeting, students’ overall activities was 65.95 which could be categorised as Enough.
The first aspect, students’ response to teacher’s explanation was 68.82% could be
categorised as Enough, the second aspect was 70.97% which could be categorised as
Good, however, the third aspects was only 58.06% which could be categorised as Bad.
Moreover, in the second meeting, students’ overall activities was 82.44 which could be
categorised as Very Good. The first aspect, students’ response to teacher’s explanation was
68.82% which could be categorised as Enough, the second aspect was 78.49% which
could be categorised as Good, and the third aspects was only 100% which could be
categorised as Very Good. Lastly, in the third meeting, students’ overall activities was
79.93% which could be categorised as Good. The first aspect, students’ response to
teacher’s explanation was 84.95% which could be categorised as Very Good, the second
aspect was 77.42% which could be categorised as Good, and the third aspects was only
77.42% which could be categorised as Good.
Besides data from observation sheets, students’ post-action writing test I scores were
also used to observe students’ writing improvement. Below is the students’ post-action
writing test I scores:
Table 11: Students’ Post-Action I Writing Test Scores
Students’ Number
Post-Action I Scores
Students’ Number
Post-Action I Scores
S1
87*
S17
76*
S2
78*
S18
89*
S3
93*
S19
82*
S4
92*
S20
92*
S5
89*
S21
84*
S6
79*
S22
76*
S7
85*
S23
86*
S8
77*
S24
93*
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
591
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
S9
94*
S25
91*
S10
82*
S26
79*
S11
89*
S27
90*
S12
76*
S28
85*
S13
86*
S29
81*
S14
81*
S30
78*
S15
78*
S31
86*
S16
93*
Total
2627
Mean:
84.74
*Students who could pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion (75)
Based on the result of Students’ Post-Action I Writing Test Scores above, it could be
concluded that after revising their writing, all students could pass the Minimum Mastery
Criterion (75). Besides of that, the average score was also increased to 84.74 while in preaction test, the average was only 72.1 which meant that it was still under the Minimum
Mastery Criterion.
Cycle 1: Reflecting
After the first cycle had been conducted, the conclusion of this cycle was drawn. It
could be seen that students’ writing score in this cycle actually could be improved.
However, there were still many things that should be improved. In the first meeting, all of
the aspects observed needed to be observed as they had not yet meet the criteria of success.
Moreover, in the second meeting, students’ preparation should be improved in the next
cycle. Lastly, in the last meeting, students’ submission punctuality should be noted to get
improved. After reflecting the teaching and learning process in the first cycle, it could be
concluded that next cycle needed to be conducted to solve the problems having not yet
been solved in the first cycle.
Cycle 2: Planning
In this phase, a lesson plan was designed to try solving problems having not been
solved in the first cycle. Though students’ achievement had met the requirement for criteria
of success, there were still students’ response to teacher’s explanation, students’
participation in group, students’ interaction with the teacher, students’ preparation, and
Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta
592
The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016
students’ submission punctuality after revising their work that still needed to be improved.
Thus, the next cycle should be done to solve those problems.
Generally, the second cycle was almost the same as the previous one. However, some
changes were planned and had been inserted in the lesson plan of the second cycle in order
to enhance students’ activities. Firstly, as students did not prepare well for the test, then in
the second cycle the teaching process was focussed on making the framework of what they
wanted to elaborate. It was hoped that it might solve the problems of students’ preparation
and submission punctuality as they might be more prepared. Secondly, as students were
tended to be more passive and to spend their time talking, joking, and chatting with their
close friends in group, the teacher himself divided the students to prevent students being
with their close friend. It was hoped that it might solve the problems of students’
participation in their group and also interaction with the teacher. Lastly, the teacher
decided to take three meetings in this cycle. The first one is for teaching and learning
about making a good framework, the second one was for conducting the test, and the last
day was used for students to revise their writing the teacher had given feedback on.
Cycle 2: Acting
The action in the second cycle was completely done in three meetings; January 27 th,
January 28th, and February 10th, 2015. The teaching and learning process was done based
on the lesson plan having been made. The first meeting was about making a good
framework. Students were taught about how to make a good framework step by step.
Moreover, based on the findings in the first cycle, as students liked to chat with their
friends in group they chose, then teacher himself divided the students into five group
consisted of six students per each