B. Research Discussion and Justification of Research Findings
This research aims to improve student’s grammar mastery and to know the strengths and
the weaknesses of teacher’s feedback. The research finding shows that student’s grammar
mastery was improved by implementing teacher’s feedback. In this section, this finding will be discussed by justifying the finding with the theories from the expert. Each of the findings will be
discussed below.
1. Teacher’s feedback is able to improve student’s grammar mastery.
In the first cycle of this research, there was a little improvement achieved when the researcher implemented one of the feedbacks, namely underlining feedback. The improvement of
students’ grammar mastery can be seen from the students’ ability in correcting the errors of composition. This statement is supported by the following table which shows the pretest and the
post-test score. The pretest was taken at the first meeting which has all students take the test. On the other hand, the post test was taken at the end of the class. Having carried out the research in
which the teacher uses teacher’s feedback to improve student’s grammar mastery to senior high students, the teacher can increase the students’ achievement in English grammar competence.
The following is the table describing the student’s score result which is taken from the end of the first cycle.
Scoring Total Score
Mean Score
Total Score
Pre-Test 1780
178033= 53. 9 Post-Test 1
1940 194033=58.78
This little improvement was caused by the lack of information given at the errors made by the students on their composition. It is supported by the student’s comment to the
researcher when they were correcting the error. “Mas, kita disuruh ngapain dengan karangan kita yang sudah diberitanda garis bawah? Fieldnote 1
This problem is also supported by the researcher observation. “Some students looked so confused in understanding the feedback because it was written in underlining feedback.”
fieldnote 3.
This finding is similar to what Robb et.al 1986 says about the non-coded or underlining feedback. He said that: “Non-coded feedback is more difficult for students to use in
correcting their grammar because teachers do not specify the error types or correct them.”
Then, on the second cycle, the result of teaching learning process of English grammar mastery by using another teacher’s feedback, namely coding feedback, showed improvement
from cycle one to cycle two. The improvement can be seen by comparing the score from the previous post test in first cycle and the post test in the second cycle.
The following is the table describing the student’s score result which is taken from the end of the second cycle.
This better improvement shows the better overview of the researcher to use another teacher’s feedback given at the errors made by the students on their composition. It gives
students more information about the presence of grammatical errors on their composition and makes students more aware and challenged to correct the error. This result is in accordance with
Ferris et.al 2001 who says that explicit error feedback is needed to help ESL writers’ self correction ability. Then, to support the finding about the student’s awareness of the presence of
grammatical errors, here is the observation made by the researcher during the second meeting on the second cycle. “Students seemed serious and were challenged to correct the grammatical
mistakes given underlining and coding feedback by AS.” fieldnote 4. Then, another finding which can be used as an important consideration is the result of
reflection from the first cycle to the second cycle is that when the teacher was implementing underlining feedback in the class, students were passive in joining teaching learning process.
Therefore, the researcher made a simple game as a review technique in order that the students understood and grasped the material delivered by the teacher more easily. This simple game was
carried out in the class to enable the students in recognizing the verb form in a sentence. When this game was being implemented, the students were more active in doing activities and they had
high motivation in joining English lesson. This finding is supported by Hadfield 1997: iii who Scoring
Total Score Mean Score
Total Score
Post-Test 1 1940
194033= 58.78 Post-Test 2
2260 226033=68.48
says that games is an activity with rules, a goal and an element of fun. Game is not only to education role, but game also to fun and entertain.
2. The strength and the weaknesses of teacher’s feedback.
There are some important aspects to be considered dealing with the teacher’s feedback. The writer finds some strengths in implementing the teacher’s feedback.
1. The teacher’s feedback on grammatical error in composition improves the student’s accuracy in writing.
It is similar to Chandler 2003 who says that teacher’s feedback has positive long term- effect on improvement of accuracy in writing. Teacher can offer a self-correction opportunity
for their students by providing indirect feedback on students’ grammatical errors. So, it is helpful in enabling the students to minimize the grammatical errors and improve the quality of
their writing. According to what Chandler 2003 says that many students prefer indirect feedback because it is fast and accurate for them in making correction.
2. Teacher’s feedback makes students more aware in their writing task. Teacher’s feedback gives students more information about their writing weaknesses on
the aspect of grammar. It is implemented either by using underlining or coding feedback on their grammatical errors on writing. It also raises the students’ responses because they want to receive
error feedback from their teacher.
Another aspect is the weaknesses of teacher’s feedback.
a. It requires much time allotment by the researcher to give feedback to all students’ composition.
Since teacher’s feedback is used by the researcher in the class which consisted of 33 students; considered as a big class, it needs more time and energy of the teacher to check and
give feedback to each students’ writing task, so what the teacher does by implementing teacher’s feedback takes time and needs much effort. It is in line with Ferris et.al 2001 who stated that
providing coded feedback to students’ writing requires more time and effort.
b. Some students still find difficulties in memorizing all the error feedback codes written and copied by the researcher.
Because there are too many codes given on the grammatical errors, students get difficulty to remember so they often forget the meaning of each code. Also, too many codes can make
students frustrated because they have to deal with symbols and markings on their writing. Based on the literature about students’ responses, Ferris 2002 says that students sometimes found that
teacher’s marking systems confusing or cumbersome.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, AND SUGGESTION
This chapter presents the conclusion, implication and suggestions of the classroom action research conducted in the eleventh grade of IPA 4 of SMA Negeri 8 Surakarta in academic year
20092010. It presents the final discussion from the research result.
A. Conclusion
Kategori