RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

46

CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the data and its discussion to answer the two formulated problems as presented in the first chapter. It consists of two parts; the first part discusses the findings of ELESP students’ perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback in CRW 1 class to answer the first research problem. The second part discusses the implication of the findings which answers the second research problem. Each discussion will be supported by some related theories. A. ELESP Students’ Perception on the Implementation of Teacher Written Feedback in Critical Reading and Writing CRW 1 The first research problem investigates ELESP students’ perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback in CRW 1 class. In order to answer the first research problem, the researcher gained the data by distributing questionnaire to all students in academic year 2011 who already took CRW 1 class and by interviewing several students to get additional information related to the answer of the questionnaire. It is intended to clarify and strengthen the result of questionnaire and later on supported by some writing experts’ theories. According to Buku Panduan Akademik Universitas Sanata Dharma Yogyakarta, Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris; Critical Reading and Writing 1 – KPE 220 4 CR 4 CH, this course is designed to give students 47 practice to write responses critically based on the given texts or passages. The texts are related to argumentative, persuasive and expository. On completing this course, the students are supposed to be able to comprehend the passage and write their responses critically which is obtained by training the students to write responses critically to the passage given. Teacher written feedback as one way of giving feedback is commonly used to assist the students to comprehend texts well and, to be critical and logical in responding to a discussion of issues raised in CRW 1 course. In elaborating the result of the data, this section is divided into three parts namely 1 Students’ Perception on the Process of Teaching and Learning Activities in CRW 1 2 Students’ Perception on the Process of Teacher Written Feedback Implementation in CRW 1, and 3 Students’ Perception on the Implementation of Teacher Written Feedback in CRW 1.

1. Students’ Perception on the Process of Teaching and Learning Activities in CRW 1

One person’s writing is another person’s reading. It shows that reading and writing have strong relation. By taking position as a critical reader, we know what the target readers expect in reading a text before we start to write our own texts. This is in line with CRW 1 class as it is described in the course description. In this part, the research investigates the students’ perception on the process of teaching and learning activities in CRW 1 class. In order to find the students’ 48 perception on the process of teaching and learning activities, there are five statements posted in the questionnaire. Table 4.1 Students’ Perception on the Process of Teaching and Learning Activities SA: Strongly Agree, A: Agree, D: Disagree, SD: Strongly Disagree Table 4.1 presents the students’ perception on the process of teaching and learning activities in CRW 1. Referring to the course description, these three statements are seen as the core activities in CRW 1. From the first statement, it is clearly seen that 73 students 52.14 chose SA strongly agree. 62 students 44.28 chose A agree while only 5 students 3.57 chose D disagree and none chose SD strongly disagree. From the result, it indicates that almost all students more than 90 used to read passages given by the lecturers as one of the main activities in CRW 1. One goal of CRW 1 is the students are able to comprehend the passage well. Based on the interview, the students were asked to write critical analysis based on the reading passage given. The findings are in line with the nature of reading stated by Nunan 2003, reading is the process of readers combining the information from the texts and their background knowledge to build meaning. The students in CRW 1 also No Statements SA A D SD 1. In CRW 1 class, I used to read passages 73 52.14 62 44.28 5 3.57 2. In CRW 1 class, I used to write passages 80 57.14 57 40.71 2 1.42 1 0.71 3. In CRW 1 class, I used to read passages and critically write responses to the passages 50 35.71 79 56.42 11 7.85 49 experienced this process. He also noted that there are three categories in reading process; top-down, bottom-up, and interactive models. CRW 1 is included as the interactive models because it trains the students to comprehend the reading passages by using their background knowledge. In addition, it also allows the students to guess the meaning within a context. In order to comprehend the passage, the students combined the background knowledge, individual letters and sound with the information from the reading. These theories accommodate the findings and one of CRW 1 goals that the students used to read passages in order to comprehend the passage well. However, the students did not only experience the process of the reading but also product of reading as it is proposed by Alderson 2002. Product of the reading means the readers start to understand the text. As the product of the process of reading, the critical analysis composed by the students could be the actual proof that they had understood the reading text given. Similar to the first statement, this second statement is one of the main activities found in CRW 1. This statement investigates the students’ perception on another students’ teaching and learning activity which is writing. As the center of the following discussion, this research focuses on writing activities especially on the implementation of the teacher written feedback. From 140 students, 80 students 57.14 chose SA strongly agree, 57 students 40.71 chose A agree, 2 students 1.42 chose D disagree and 1 student 0.71 chose SD strongly disagree. It is proven that another English skill learned was writing since more than 90 percent of the population chose SA strongly agree and A 50 agree. It is clearly shown that they used to write passages. Having interviewed the students, the current researcher found that the students were asked to write their own texts similar to the passage given, by discovering some related new ideas and combine those new ideas with other relevant sources which could be developed well. For some students, they were allowed to choose the topic they are interested in, as long as the genre is in line to the course outline. However, the writing activities experienced by the students are the reflection of the nature of writing proposed by Nunan 2003. Writing is a physical and mental act, which means that the students committed words or ideas into passage, at the same time, they also invented ideas, expressed and organized them into passage. Since the students also experienced the cyclical process of writing, it is also both process and product of the writing. Based on the CRW 1 syllabus, the writing activities consist of modeling, outlining, drafting, and giving peer feedback which are similar to the process of writing proposed by White and Arndt White and Arndt, 1991:5, as cited in Harmer, 2001. Modeling is similar to generating ideas where the students draw some information from the text models given. Meanwhile, outlining and giving peer feedback are included in the process of structuring and evaluating. Third statement carries out the relationship between reading and writing in CRW 1, which leads the students to be critical and logical. It investigates the students’ perception on the process of how these two skills. reading and writing, were related to each other. In this statement, 50 students 35.71 chose SA strongly agree, 79 students 56.42 chose A agree, 11 students 7.85 chose 51 D disagree and none chose SD strongly disagree. It points out that the students used to read passages and critically responded to the passages like it is done by the students in the reading activities. Seeing the interview result, the students explained some distinctive differences from the teaching and learning activities in reading and writing skill at once with its relationship. “In CRW 1, I practiced to analyze some articles and how to write responses critically. In the reading activity, the articles were given by the lecturers and we had to analyze them critically. In the writing activity, we were taught to explore and discover new things as long as it is in line with the guideline. For example, the topics had to be similar with the articles that had been read, and they can be the guideline in producing our own articles by seeing its format, etc.” Focusing on the teaching and learning activities, there are some points that needed to be highlighted. First, it was only reading activity where the students read passages and critically responded to the passages by writing an analysis or summary. There was no relation between the main activities of reading and writing which involved these two skills in such cases as it is stated in the third statement. Second, writing activities experienced by the students were slightly different to reading activities. In fact, the researcher found that the actual relationship between reading and writing skill was that the articles that have been read in the reading section could be the example or the guideline for the students in creating their own writings. The more the students read texts, the easier they start to write because they have been positioned as the readers. It becomes easier because they precisely know the target readers expectation in reading texts. 52 The findings above are in line with the relation between reading and writing as proposed by Wallace and Wray 2011. It shows that our critical reading of others’ work will usually be in preparation for producing our own written text. For example, the students had to carefully look at the format of the article as the guidance to write their own texts, and they were allowed to use the same topic or even the main idea of the passage and developed it using other sources. Having read and analyzed several texts before starting to write becomes a good starting point for the writers. It provides several advantages such as it can develop our sense of what good texts look like, help us in identifying and filling the gap of the existing research to the new one, and help us in increasing our quality of writing. 2. Students’ Perception on the Process of Teacher Written Feedback Implementation in CRW 1 This part investigates the students’ perception on the process of teacher written feedback implementation. In order to find the students’ perception on the process of teacher written feedback implementation, there are six statements posted in the questionnaire. The statements mainly cover the forms, types and media of teacher written feedback implemented in CRW 1 class. 53 Table 4.2 Students’ Perception on the Forms, Types and Media SA: Strongly Agree, A: Agree, D: Disagree, SD: Strongly Disagree As one way of feedback implementation, teacher written feedback is commonly used by writing teachers. Table 4.2 presents the students’ perception on the forms, types and media of teacher written feedback implementation in CRW 1. Statement four and five are related to the necessity of the revision and feedback in the process of writing. It refers to the students’ awareness based on their experience in having revision and feedback in CRW 1. Statement six No Statements SA A D SD 4. Revision is needed in writing process 121 86.42 19 13.57 5. Feedback is needed in writing process 124 88.57 16 11.42 6. I am familiar with teacher-written feedback as one of feedback techniques implemented in second language writing classrooms 77 55 61

43.57 2

1.42 7. I get written correction, suggestion and justification direct to the exact point of my mistakes from my lecturer in my writings 86

61.42 52

37.14 2

1.42 8. I get written feedback in a form of rubrics cover sheets which consist of criteria that will be used to assess students’ writing assignments from my lecturer 38 27.14 54 38,57 47 33,57 1 0.71 9. I get only markings and underlines on my problematic areas from my lecturer on my writings 17 12.14 45 32.14 64 45.71 14 9.85 10. I get written feedback via email or any other online writing facilities from my lecturer 4 2.85 28 20 71 50.71 37 26.42 11. I get taped-commentary feedback lecturer record hisher own voice talking about the correction based on the students’ texts and put numbers where the comments refer to from my lecturer 5 3.57 19 13,57 69 49.28 47 33,57 54 introduces teacher written feedback as the main topic to discuss in the following statements of questionnaire. Its purpose is to find out whether the students were familiar with the term of teacher written feedback in the writing process of CRW 1 class. In statement four, it is seen that 121 students 86.42 chose SA strongly agree, 19 students 13.57 chose A agree and none of them chose D disagree even SD strongly disagree. It shows that all students need revision to correct their writings. Meanwhile, in the statement, five it is seen that 124 students 88.57 chose SA strongly agree and 16 students 11.42 chose A agree and none of them chose D disagree and SD strongly disagree. It reveals that all of the students needed to have feedback in revising their writing. In line with feedback definition comes from Sherman 1994, feedback is a response from a person to something that another person does in order to assess and improve a person’s performance. In improving students’ writing, the students need to have feedback from others to see their mistakes and revise them. In addition, the findings are also in line with Hyland 2003. He addresses that feedback emphasizes a process of writing and rewriting where the text is not seen as self-contained but points forward to other texts the students will write. The process of writing and rewriting were also experienced by CRW 1 students. In fact, feedback had important role in the process of writing and became the starting point for the students to revise or even to write further texts. 55 In short, it can be concluded that all students needed revision and feedback in the writing process. On the other hand, a positive response was also gained from the interview result which showed that feedback and revision were the key to improve their writing skill because they really knew their mistakes and the most important thing was that the students knew how to correct and revise the part where they made mistakes. In statement six, it is clearly seen that 77 students 55 chose SA strongly agree, 61 students chose A agree, and only 2 students 1.42 chose D disagree and none of them chose SD strongly disagree. It shows that the students positively responded to the statement, which means that almost all the students were familiar with the use of teacher written feedback. Having interviewed the students, the current researcher found that the students were familiar with teacher written feedback because it was also implemented in CRW 1 class. In CRW 1, the students also experienced what Kaweera 2008 defines about teacher written feedback. It deals with written responses, teacher, and students’ writing. It was where the CRW 1 students got written responses provided by the teacher to their writing. Having seen the students’ perception on the process of the teaching and learning activities in CRW 1 class, the current researcher found that most of the students were familiar with teacher written feedback. It emphasizes that teacher written feedback was used in CRW 1 class as one technique of feedback implementation. Next statements focus on the forms, types and media of teacher written feedback used in CRW 1 class. These statements were composed based on some 56 experts’ theories. Statements seven, eight, and nine discuss the types and forms of teacher written feedback in CRW 1, while statements ten and eleven discuss the media of teacher written feedback that is used in CRW 1. These statements cover the theories proposed by Hyland 2003 that the common forms of teacher written feedback are commentary, rubrics, minimal marking, taped commentary and electronic feedback. At the same time, these statements also cover two types of teacher written feedback; direct and indirect feedback which are stated by Biber, Nekrasova and Horn 2011, p.7. However, one statement may cover two categories at once, for example statement seven cover the form and type of teacher written feedback implemented in CRW 1. In statement seven, the questionnaire result shows that 86 students 61.42 chose SA strongly agree, 52 students chose A agree, and only 2 students 1.42 chose D disagree and none chose SD strongly disagree. It shows a positive response to this statement, which reveals that almost all the students got commentary feedback direct to the mistakes of their writings. In line with the questionnaire result, the interview result shows that most of the students got this commentary feedback. Regarding to their experiences, they got some short comments, correction, and brief explanation directly to the mistakes they made from the beginning of the course. Only one of the six interviewees got commentary feedback at the end of the semester. Unlike the previous statements which have a high positive response, statement eight which talks about rubrics is a little bit different. There are only 38 students 27.14 chose SA strongly agree, 54 students 38.57 chose A 57 agree, while there are 47 students 33.57 chose D disagree and 1 student 0.71 chose SD strongly disagree. It can be concluded that most of the students experienced rubrics, however, a few people did not get rubrics. In other words, more than a quarter of the population of this research did not get rubrics in the implementation of teacher written feedback in CRW 1 class. Similar to statement seven, statement nine directly covers two categories. They are minimal marking as the form of teacher written feedback and indirect feedback as the type of teacher written feedback. As it is proposed by Hyland 2003, and Biber, Nekrasova and Horn 2011, p.7, one of teacher written feedback forms and types are minimal marking and indirect feedback, which are stated in statement nine. The questionnaire result shows that there are 17 students 12.14 chose SA strongly agree, 45 students 32.14 chose A agree, 64 students 45.71 chose D disagree and 14 students 9.85 chose SD strongly disagree. In other words, there are 62 students 44.28 agree and 78 students 55.56 disagree with the statements that they only got markings and underlines. It shows that even if most of the students got minimal marking, more than 40 of the students did not get minimal marking. Based on the interview result, the ones who had minimal marking on their writing usually got confused seeing the underlines, circles and other marks. “ …I only got markings without any explanation. We were forced to think what the correct version was and it was confusing. In my opinion, I prefer to have markings at once with the corrections.” It is found that some of the students had 58 the explanation of the marks at the conferencing feedback which they usually had after having teacher written feedback. Statements ten and eleven discuss the media used in the implementation of teacher written feedback in CRW 1 class. Statement ten finds out whether the students experience having teacher written feedback via email or any other online facilities. The result shows that 4 students 2.85 chose SA strongly agree, 28 students 20 chose A agree, while there are 71 students 50.71 chose D disagree and 37 students 26.42 chose SD strongly disagree.. It means that most of the students did not get online feedback in the process of writing. In line with the interview, most of the interviewees didn’t get any written feedback given by their lecturers. One reason found by the researcher is that there was troubles in sending the tasks and the feedback as it is said by one of the interviewees. “Once, I had a consultation via email but we often had some troubles in sending the files. Therefore, we no longer used it.” From six interviewees, only one who used online facility like Facebook to post their writing in a feature provided called note which allows people to post their writings and give any comments and suggestions include the lecturers to improve the students’ writing skill. The last statement is related to taped-commentary feedback in which the students get the teacher written feedback in a form of recording where the lecturers record their own voice discussing the mistakes in students’ writing. There are 5 students 3.57 chose SA strongly agree, 19 students 13.57 59 chose A agree, while 69 students 49.28 chose D disagree and 47 students 33.57 chose SD strongly disagree. In other words, there are 24 students chose SA strongly agree and A agree, which means that not few people agree with this statement. On the contrary, from the interview result, none of the interviewees got taped-commentary feedback. In this statement, misunderstanding occurs. Based on the additional questions asked to the interviewees, they clarified that they never got taped-commentary feedback. “I haven’t got that kind of feedback. Did I answer, agree? But so far, I haven’t that kind of recording. I believe that the ones who answered SAA also misunderstood the meaning of that statement.” Besides they assured that the ones who had chosen SA strongly agree or even A agree in the questionnaire also misunderstood the meaning of the statement. This is how the result of interview works, to clarify and to confirm the questionnaire result. Table 4.3 Students’ Perception on the Content Focus SA: Strongly Agree, A: Agree, D: Disagree, SD: Strongly Disagree In order to get deeper understanding about the implementation of teacher written feedback in CRW 1 class, the researcher composed the table above to find No Statements SA A D SD 12. I get written feedback on my spelling and grammar of writing from my lecturer 62 44.28 75 53.57 3 2.14 13. I get written feedback on the content of my writing from my lecturer 70 50 69

49.28 1

0.71 14. I get written feedback on the organization of my writing from my lecturer 59 42.14 76 54.28 5 3.57 60 out the focus of teacher written feedback. Table 4.3 investigates the students’ perception on the content of teacher written feedback in CRW 1 class especially on its focus. As it is proposed by Fathman and Whalley 1990 in Chiang, 2004: 99 as cited in Wulandari, 2007, p. 18, the focus of teacher written feedback is divided into two; form-focused and meaning-basedcontent-based feedback. In the table above, statement twelve is included as form-focused feedback while the last two statements are included as meaning-based feedback. In statement twelve, there are 62 students 44.28 chose SA strongly agree, 75 students 53.57 chose A agree, while only 3 students 2.14 chose D disagree and none chose SD strongly disagree. It shows that the students got the feedback focusing on the spelling and grammar. In addition, based on the interview result, most of the interviewees said that they got feedback in spelling and grammar which were considered as the small part of the feedback itself. However, they did not only get feedback on their spelling and grammar but also the other things. It implies that the lecturers still concerned on the students’ spelling and grammar which might help the students to be more careful in writing. In statement thirteen, there are 70 students 50 chose SA strongly agree, 69 students 49.28 chose A agree, while only 1 student 0.71 chose D disagree and none of them chose SD strongly disagree. It reveals that feedback focusing on the content of the students’ writing was the main part or became the major part of the written feedback given from the lecturer. Furthermore, based on the interview result, the researcher found that the students 61 were trained to be creative in the process of writing. That was why the focus mainly concerned on the content of the writing. The last statement deals with organization of the writing which covers the meaning-based feedback in the implementation of teacher written feedback in CRW 1 class. There are 59 students 42.14 chose SA strongly agree, 76 students 54.28 chose A agree, while only 5 students 3.57 chose D disagree and none of them chose SD strongly disagree. It is clearly shown that almost all the students were given written feedback focusing on the organization, as it was important for them to critically write well-organized passages. In addition, based on the interview section, at the beginning of the course the lecturers had explained the organization of the intended texts well to introduce the format of certain texts to the students. In short, the students were trained to be well-organized in organizing the content of writing. As it is stated in CRW 1 course description, on completing this course the students will be able to comprehend the passage given and write response critically which shows that the students must be well-organized in writing a passage and have a high quality of the content itself. It shows that almost all the students did not only got feedback focusing on the spelling and grammar form-focused feedback but also both on the content and the organization meaning-based feedback as the major part of the content focus. 62

3. Students’ Perception on the Implementation of Teacher Written Feedback in CRW 1

Having discussed the students’ perception on the process of the teaching and learning in CRW 1 and the process of teacher written feedback implementation, the current researcher sees that the students generally gave a positive response to the statements proposed in the questionnaire. In this part, the researcher directly investigates the students’ perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback itself. According to Altman, Valenzi and Hodgetts 1985, perception comes when the students select, group, and interpret certain stimuli from the environment. However, students’ perception may vary because the way the students think and extract the stimuli from the environment to certain information are different with one another. This is the process how students later on can come up with positive or negative response toward the implementation of teacher written feedback. In order to find the students’ perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback, the researcher provides the last 16 statements in the questionnaire which are used to define whether the students have a positive or negative perception to the implementation of teacher written feedback. These 16 statements point out how implementation of teacher written feedback affects the students’ performance especially their writing skill in CRW 1 class. The following data will be presented based on students’ perception on the clarity, the use, and the possible follow-up action of teacher written feedback in CRW 1. 63 Table 4.4 Students’ Perception on the Clarity SA: Strongly Agree, A: Agree, D: Disagree, SD: Strongly Disagree Table 4.4 presents the clarity of teacher written feedback implemented in CRW 1. Its purpose is to observe whether the students feel that teacher written feedback given is clear and satisfying. In statement fifteen, there are 64 students 45.71 chose SA strongly agree, 66 students 47.14 chose A agree, while there are only 10 students 7.14 chose D disagree and none of them chose SD strongly disagree. The result shows the positive response from the students. It is clearly shown that the written feedback given to the students had been clear No Statements SA A D SD 15. I feel that written feedback given by lecturer on my writings is clear 64

45.71 66

47.14 10

7.14 16. I am satisfied with the written feedback given by lecturer in my writings 72

51.42 57

40.71 11

7.85 17. The written feedback given by my lecturer is helpful and useful for me to correct my writings 84 60 54 38.57 2 1.42 18. I believe written feedback from my lecturer is important in the process of writing 106 75.71 34 24.28 19. Written feedback from my lecturer gives significant influence to the improvement of my writing quality 81 57.85 57 40.71 2 1.42 20. The use of teacher-written feedback helps me to develop my writing skill 77 55 61

43.57 2

1.42 21. The use of teacher-written feedback helps me to recognize my strength and weakness in writing skill. 77 55 59 42.14 4 2.85 22. I feel encouraged to learn how to write good writings and write more better writings after getting written feedback from my lecturer 68 48.57 69 49.28 3 2.14 23. I get more motivated to revise my writings after having written feedback from my lecturer 72 51.42 63 45 5 3.57 64 enough. Based on the additional information gained from the interview result, it was proven by the good score which had been achieved by the students. Well, statements fifteen and sixteen are related to each other. It is shown that there are 72 students 51.42 chose SA strongly agree, 57 students 40.71 chose A agree, 11 students 7.85 chose D disagree and none chose SD strongly disagree. It means that almost all the students more than 90 agreed that the teacher written feedback given was satisfying. The positive response of statement fifteen and sixteen shows the consistency of the answer. It is in which the students felt that the teacher written feedback given had been clear as it is stated in statement fifteen. Therefore, the students felt satisfied with the teacher written feedback given as it is stated in statement sixteen. Statement seventeen discusses how teacher written feedback helped the students to correct their writings. There are 84 students 60 chose SA strongly agree, 54 students 38.57 chose A agree, while only 2 students 1.42 chose D disagree and none of them chose SD strongly disagree in statement eighteen. Having seen the positive result above, it is clearly seen that the teacher written feedback given was helpful and useful for the students in correcting their writings. Next statement is about the importance of teacher written feedback. The students believed that written feedback given was important in the process of writing in CRW 1. Similar to the previous statement, all the students showed a positive response. It is seen that there are 106 students 75.71 chose SA 65 strongly agree, 34 students 24.28 chose A agree. In contrast, none of them chose D disagree or even SD strongly disagree. It shows that the implementation of teacher written feedback in CRW 1 was very important especially in the process of writing. Statements nineteen, twenty, and twenty-one are related to the students’ improvement. Statement nineteen finds whether written feedback can give significant influence to students’ writing quality. There are 81 students 57.85 chose SA strongly agree, 57 students 40.71 chose A agree and only 2 students 1.42 chose D disagree and none chose SD strongly disagree. Positive response also gained from this statement. It proves that the teacher written feedback given by the lecturers give significant influence in the improvement of the students’ writing quality. Similar to the previous statement, statement twenty is still dealing with students’ improvements. This statement focuses on how the students develop their writing skill after having the teacher written feedback. The result shows that there are 77 students 55 chose SA strongly agree, 61 students 43.57 chose A agree, while only 2 students 1.42 chose D disagree and none chose SD strongly disagree. In other words, based on the students’ experience, the students were able to develop their writing skills by using teacher written feedback given by the lecturer. In line with the data gained from interview result, the development of students’ writing skills was varying. “My writing skill is improved in developing 66 the ideas of the paragraphs and in brainstorming to find new ideas.” It is an example of students whose writing skills are developed in the brainstorming and developing their ideas. In addition, there are also some students whose vocabulary usage is improved. “ …For example in using appropriate vocabulary, sometimes I used inappropriate vocabulary seeing from the context. In this case, I learned how to use the appropriate vocabulary within its context.” Some interviewees said that it was in the way the students brainstormed their ideas in discovering new things and developed the ideas in paragraphs so that it could build a passage, which led to high quality content. Second, it was about the use of the vocabulary in context. Sometimes, the students used inappropriate vocabulary in certain context. Moreover, they tended to use the same vocabulary which made the passage seem monotonous and boring. In this case, the students learned new vocabulary and expanded their knowledge in using the vocabulary in the right context. Third, the students developed their writing skill especially on the organization of the passage and its format. Realizing students’ writing development is a good starting point to assist the students in exploring their potential writing skill. Statement twenty-one investigates the students’ strengths and weaknesses in the process of writing that later be supported by the description of interview result. There are 77 students 55 chose SA strongly agree, 59 students 42.14 chose A agree, while only 4 students 2.85 chose D disagree and none chose SD strongly disagree. From the result, it shows that the students really recognize their strengths and weaknesses since the students give the positive response to this statement. In 67 addition, realizing our own strengths and weaknesses really helps us to see which part of ourselves need to be maintained and improved. In addition, most interviewees said that their strengths were mostly on the developing ideas. It is in which one reason to another is related and supported. Besides it helped the students in organizing ideas especially putting the paragraphs systematically and logically which help them to build understandable passages. “My strength is on developing the ideas of my content. How the ideas are developed and related to each other. My weakness is in using the right punctuation and grammar. In each writing I always found some mistakes in using the correct punctuation and grammar.” At the same time, the students also realized that they had difficulties in using the right grammar and punctuation because they always found that the lecturers corrected some mistakes in terms of grammar and punctuation. Other weaknesses found were the repetition of ideas used in each paragraph and the selection of words used in a sentence which resulted on less effective sentences. Statements twenty-two and twenty-three focus on the students’ encouragement and motivation. Statement twenty-two deals with the encouragement in learning to write good writings that appears in students’ self- motivation. There are 68 students 48.57 chose SA strongly agree, 69 students 49.28 chose A agree, while only 3 students 2.14 chose D and none chose SD strongly disagree. Meanwhile, in the statement twenty-three which deals with the students’ motivation to revise their writings, there are 72 68 students 51.42 chose SA strongly agree, 63 students 45 chose A agree, while 5 students 3.57 chose D disagree and none of them chose SD strongly disagree. It is clearly seen from the result that the students were really encouraged and motivated in learning how to write good writings and compose more better writings. From these positive responses in both statements, it shows that these two statements are consistent. The students were not only encouraged to learn how to write good writing but also motivated to revise their writings. The researcher found some reasons why the students were encouraged and motivated to learn and compose more better writings from the interview result. One main reason is that the lecturer did not only give negative feedback to their writings but also positive feedback by giving simple drawing and compliment to the students’ improvements. Besides, the teacher written feedback itself given not only focused on the students’ writing but also the students’ ability in writing. Another reason is that the clear teacher written feedback also gave them encouragement because they precisely know what to do to revise or even to newly compose another writing. These reasons are the key to stimulate and maintain students’ encouragement and motivation in the process of writing. In line with the theory of feedback, Lewis 2002 states that feedback is one form of motivation. The more the teacher knows even understands the students through their writing; the more encouragement takes place in the students’ circumstances. 69 Table 4.5 Students’ Perception on the Use of Teacher Written Feedback SA: Strongly Agree, A: Agree, D: Disagree, SD: Strongly Disagree Table 4.5 investigates the students’ perception on the use of teacher written feedback in CRW 1 class. It deals with the students’ revision such as the sources of the revision and the parts where students revise. It shows the function of teacher written feedback in revising students’ writings. In order to find the students’ perception on the use of teacher written feedback in CRW 1, there are four statements posted in the questionnaire. These four statements are related to each other. Statements twenty-four and twenty-five find out the sources used by the students to revise their writings, while statement twenty-six and twenty-seven find out the parts where the students revise their writings. Statement twenty-four is dealing with the use of lecturer’s comments, suggestions and correction as the only source of revising the students’ writing. There are 13 students 9.28 chose SA strongly agree, 49 students 35 No Statements SA A D SD 24. I only use lecturer’s comments, suggestions and correction as my considerations to revise my writings 13 9.28 49 35 71 50.71 7 5 25. I use other sources of writing exclude the written feedback from my lecturer to revise my writings 32 22.85 86 61.42 17 12.14 5 3.57 26. I revise my writing only at the part in which I get the written feedback 17 12.14 49 35 71 50.71 3 2.14 27. I revise my writing not only at the part in which I get the written feedback but also other parts which need to be revised 36

25.71 76

54.28 27

19.28 1

0.71 70 chose A agree, and 71 students 50.71 chose D disagree and 7 students 5 chose SD disagree. It shows that this statement has higher response in D disagree and SD strongly disagree. It means that the students disagreed that they only use lecturer’s comments, suggestions and corrections in revising their writings. Based on the interview result, it is found that the students did not only use lecturer’s comments, suggestions and corrections but also other sources. In contrast, statement twenty-five has a higher response to the SA strongly agree and A agree instead of D disagree and SD strongly disagree. This statement is dealing with the use of other writing sources exclude the written feedback from the lecturer. There are 32 students 22.85 chose SA strongly agree, 86 students 61.42 chose A agree, while only 17 students 12.24 chose D disagree and 5 students 3.57 chose SD strongly disagree. It shows that most of the students more than 80 agreed that they use other sources beside lecturer’s comments to revise their writings. However, they still use written feedback from their lecturer as the main guideline to revise their writings. Related to the sources of the students’ revision, statement twenty-four is consistent with statement twenty-five and vice versa. This shows consistency in accordance to statements twenty-four and twenty-five. In statement twenty-four the students disagreed that they only used which is shown by the high response gained in the degree of agreement D disagree and SD strongly disagree. Therefore, in statement twenty-five the high response should be on the degree of agreement SA strongly agree and A agree which shows that students agree that they do not only use lecturer’s comments but also other sources. The result on 71 statement twenty-five precisely shows that the students agreed that they use other sources in revising their writings. Statements twenty-six and twenty-seven deal with the parts where the students revise their writings. Statement twenty-six refers to the part that the students only revise at the part where they get the teacher written feedback. In this statement, there are 17 students 12.14 chose SA strongly agree, 49 students 35 chose A agree and 71 students 50.71 chose D disagree and 3 students 2.14 chose SD strongly disagree. It means that the students disagreed that they only revise their writing at the part where they got the written feedback. However, there were 66 students who agreed that they only revise at the part where they get the written feedback. Based on the interview result, the ones who only revised at the part where they got written feedback also used the written feedback as the main guideline to revise. They tended to only revise the parts where they got comment from the lecturer because they were afraid to ruin the organization of the passage since the ideas of each paragraph were related to each other. Conversely, statement twenty-seven discusses the part that the students do not only revise at the part where they get the written feedback but also other parts which need to be revised. It shows that 36 students 25.71 chose SA strongly agree, 76 students 54.28 chose A agree, while only 27 students 19.28 chose D disagree and 1 student 0.71 chose SD strongly disagree. It means that the students agree that they do not only revise at the part where they got the written feedback but also the other parts too. Different with the previous statement, 72 this statement has a higher response in degree of agreement SA strongly agree and A agree which shows the consistency of the answer. In statement twenty-six, the students disagreed to revise only at the part where they got written feedback. Thus, the students agreed to revise the other parts exclude the parts where they got written feedback. It shows that these two statements are consistent to each other. Somehow, another perception came up from the students related to the positive response gained from questionnaire in statement twenty-seven. Automatically, they had to revise other parts besides the ones that had not got the feedback. One reason is that once they change even only one idea, they have to change the others too. It is not only in case of changing the idea but also adding more information to support the ideas or even erase some things that have no relation to the ideas used. Table 4.6 Students’ Perception on the Possible Follow-up Action SA: Strongly Agree, A: Agree, D: Disagree, SD: Strongly Disagree Having discussed all the students’ perception on the clarity and the use of teacher written feedback, the current researcher presents the final perception in No Statements SA A D SD 28. I prefer teacher-written feedback rather than other techniques of feedback, such as peer feedback and conferencing feedback. 42 30 58

41.42 37

26.42 3

2.14 29. I feel confident with my quality of writings when I get written feedback from my lecturer 42 30 85 60.71 12 8.57 1 0.71 30. Teacher-written feedback should be implemented in second language writing classrooms 74 52.85 66 47.14 73 table 4.6 in relation to the possible follow-up action of teacher written feedback. In order to find out the students’ perception on the possible follow-up action of teacher written feedback in CRW 1, there are three statements posted at the end of the questionnaire to sum up all the perceptions from the beginning until the end. Statement twenty-eight deals with the students’ preference in having teacher written feedback. Statement twenty-nine deals with the students’ confidence as the proof of the implementation of teacher written feedback. The last statement is used to see the sustainability of the implementation of teacher written feedback in CRW 1 or any other second language writing classrooms. Statement twenty-eight deals with the students’ preference in having teacher written feedback as one technique implemented in CRW 1. in order to achieve the ultimate goals of CRW 1, this statement also mentions other techniques of feedback such as peer and conferencing feedback to see what students need and want in the process of writing. There are 42 students 30 chose SA strongly agree, 58 students 41.42 chose A agree while 37 students 26.42 chose D disagree and 3 students 2.14 chose SD strongly disagree. It means that more than half of the population preferred to have teacher written feedback as one technique of feedback. However, a few students disagreed to have the teacher written feedback. Based on the information gained from the interview result, even they believed that teacher written feedback was very important in the writing process. If it was possible, they preferred to have mixed feedback instead, such as teacher written feedback followed by conferencing feedback or peer feedback. 74 “Well, the written feedback given has been already clear. If it is possible those three kinds of feedback such as teacher written feedback, conferencing feedback, and peer feedback can be mixed. I believe that that mixed feedback is very helpful and useful.” Mixed feedback provides several advantages. First, the students can get the written feedback to their writing directly from the lecturers. Second, they get the chance to have direct face-to-face consultation in conferencing feedback to discuss the written feedback given. In addition, peer feedback given by other writers is also expected to enrich students’ knowledge by learning the mistakes they usually make in the writing process. As an obvious proof of the teacher written feedback implementation, the researcher provides a statement related to the students’ confidence in writing after getting the teacher written feedback. Its purpose is to generally see the overall influence of teacher written feedback itself in students’ writing performance especially in their confidence. There are 42 students 30 chose SA strongly agree, 85 students 60.71 chose A agree, while only 12 students 8.57 chose D disagree and 1 student 0.71 chose SD strongly disagree. It shows that most of the students about 90 were confident with their quality of writings after getting teacher written feedback. The last statement is the final discussion of overall statements in the questionnaire. It deals with the sustainability of teacher written feedback. This statement gets absolute positive response from the students because all students agreed to implement teacher written feedback in second language writing classrooms. There are 74 students 52.85 chose SA strongly agree, 66 75 students 47.14 chose A agree while none of them chose D disagree or even SD strongly disagree. In line with the interview result, the students totally agreed that teacher written feedback should be implemented in CRW 1 or even in other writing classrooms. “Yes, teacher written feedback is very important in the process of writing. The lecturer knows well our writing since they read my writing one by one carefully. Peer feedback that comes from my friends will not be sufficient to revise and to improve my writing. I suggest to the lecturers not to give confusing written feedback and give direct written feedback to the mistakes instead.” There is a suggestion that researcher found from the interview result. As the main guideline for the students to revise their writings, the feedback given has to be clear and directly justify to their mistakes to avoid misunderstandings. It shows that ELESP students gave positive response to the implementation of teacher written feedback in CRW 1 class. The students could give positive response to the implementation of teacher written feedback because they had good experiences in the writing process especially in the implementation of teacher written feedback. Since the students realized that they had made improvements, the students also preferred to have teacher written feedback in CRW 1 class or any other second language writing classrooms. 76 B. The Implication of ELESP Students’ Perception on the Implementation of Teacher Written Feedback in CRW 1 As discussed in the preceding parts, the students used to read passages and writing their own text in CRW 1 class. As the reading activities, they read argumentative, persuasive and expository texts for the whole semester. Then, they wrote responses critically by summarizing and analyzing the texts based on the guiding questions given by the lecturer. In addition, they also had to find some sources to strengthen and claim their analysis and arguments. It is clearly seen that the students were positioned as the ones who read certain texts. Then, the students were asked to critically analyze the texts to make them know what they feel and expect from the texts. These findings are in line with Wallace and Wray 2011 that the writers should develop the sense of the readers to whom they write to see what readers’ expectation and possible objections. Therefore, they precisely know what things should be included to fill readers’ expectation and avoid readers’ objections in their writing. At the same time, the readings also can help the students to practice some skills such as summarizing, paraphrasing, interpreting, and synthesizing concepts as it is proposed by Celce-Murcia 2001. Having finished reading and analyzing the texts, the students were asked to write similar texts like what they have already read. The writing activity itself consists of modeling, outlining, drafting, and giving peer feedback. They were asked to write their own texts by choosing one interesting topic that the students 77 familiar with, within argumentative, persuasive and expository genre. The texts that had been read become the guidelines for the students. They might not only choose the same main topic or ideas but also adapt the writing style and its format. In CRW 1 syllabus, modeling becomes one activity at the beginning of the writing process before the students begin outlining their writing. Its aim is to give some models or examples for the students before they start writing. It is in line with Celce-Murcia 2001 in which readings give some practical purposes in the writing class. Readings provide models of what English language texts look like and provide input that helps students develop awareness of English language prose style. Thus, writing classrooms can use readings as the students’ preparation before they start to write academic writings as it is done in the CRW 1. Based on the interview, the researcher found that there was a restriction in choosing the topic of the writings. Related to the writing rules, some interviewees were free to choose the topic. In contrast, some interviewees in certain CRW 1 classes said that the topic chosen or even the main ideas for the writings should be based on reading passage that they had read. It is implied that not all lecturers gave the students freedom to choose their own interesting or familiar topic which led into difficulty and boredom in the process of writing. For some extent, it became the boundary for students to explore and express their writings. It limits the students’ creativity and knowledge. Once the students have to use the same main ideas from the reading passage, it has a tendency that the students will write the same thing, which may lead to plagiarism. 78 Therefore, it is suggested that the lecturers should give clear writing rules and let the students choose their own writing topics as long as it is relevant, or at least provide familiar and interesting topics for the students. Talking about writing, it cannot be separated from feedback and revision because these two elements are related to each other. The students use feedback to revise their writing in order to improve their writing skill. This is how the use of teacher written feedback takes a part in the process of writing in CRW 1 class. Based on the findings, even if most of the students used other sources beside the written feedback in revising, there were a few people who only depend on the teacher written feedback given. Some people only used teacher written feedback without using other sources to revise their writing. In addition, some information gained from the interview result which shows that the students suggested giving the clear and direct justification to their writing. It is implied that the teacher written feedback given was not clear enough for the students. Referring to that, the lecturers should really concern on giving appropriate and accurate feedback based on students’ writing composition and ability. The lecturers need to be very careful in reading the students’ writing one by one. Then, they may start to carefully give feedback based on the students’ writing. The lecturers also should be really detailed and clear in some parts which the students need to revise. Indirectly, it shows how teacher written feedback holds the important role in the students’ writing process. 79 Having seen the importance of teacher written feedback implementation in CRW 1 class, it can be implied that the students expected to have teacher written feedback in CRW 1 because all of the students chose SA strongly agree and A agree. Besides, some additional information was gained from the interview section. The students also expected to have mixed feedback in which teacher written feedback as the main technique followed by conferencing feedback or even peer feedback. Indirectly, it shows that the lecturers did not give sufficient mixed feedback as expected by the students. However, in some cases, the teacher written feedback was vague and ambiguous. That is why in order to avoid the weaknesses of the implementation of teacher written feedback, mixed feedback is recommended to use. Conferencing feedback can be a great way to communicate between the lecturers and students in clarifying and confirming the written feedback, while peer feedback is used to check their carefulness in writing. Based on the findings, the positive and negative sides of teacher written feedback are generally found. As it is written directly to the students’ writing, it can be the actual written reference for the students to repeatedly see their mistakes and correct them. In other words, the students can directly see the progress of their writing from time to time. Besides it can help the students to avoid making the same mistakes on their writings. The negative sides are that the written feedback can be vague and ambiguous. Sometimes, the students did not know the meaning of the written feedback in case if they only got minimal markings. This case may discourage the students to revise or even to write more pieces of writings. However, these weaknesses can be overcome by implementing mixed feedback. 80 Based on the discussion of the findings, almost all the students were familiar and got teacher written feedback in CRW 1. Students’ experience is varying. In relation to its forms, types, media, and content focus, almost all students got teacher written feedback in a form of commentary but not all students got rubrics and minimal markings. Based on its types, the students got both direct and indirect feedback in their teacher written feedback. Refer to the media used, most of the students never got teacher written feedback via email or any other writing online facilities, and recording. Fortunately, the content focus on the teacher written feedback in CRW 1 class was almost on all aspects of writing covering the spelling and grammar, content, and its organization. There are some suggestions for the lecturers to use and not to use certain forms and types of teacher written feedback. From the questionnaire result and the interview discussion, commentary and direct feedback are recommended to implement. In contrast, the lecturers should avoid using minimal markings and indirect feedback. It can be implied that the students prefer to have commentary feedback rather than minimal markings because commentary feedback has more explanation while minimal markings which are full of marks, circles, and underlines make the students confused. As a matter of fact, minimal marking is the easiest way for the lecturers in providing feedback. The use of coding in responding to students writing as it is proposed by Harmer 2001 can accommodate the findings in which coding can be the bridge for the lecturers to convey the feedback instead of using minimal markings. Firstly, the lecturers may decide the symbols or codes that will be used 81 in the feedback together with the students. Its purpose is to make the students familiar with the symbols or codes used. The lecturers should make sure that the symbols or codes used are clear enough for the students. In providing the feedback, the lecturers may start to mark the places where the students make mistakes and put symbols or codes in the margin to show the problem. This can be one way to avoid over-correction scripts. On the other hand, even if most of the students get teacher written feedback in form of rubrics, the lecturers should make sure that all students experience rubrics as one variation form of teacher written feedback. In line with Hyland 2003, one form of written-feedback is rubrics. In composing the rubrics, the lecturers should provide clear criteria based on the elements of writing. It is possible for the lecturers to decide the criteria together with the students. Rubrics with clear criteria will assist the students to be more focused and directed. The use of rubrics can help the students to see the criteria used by the lecturers in assessing their writings. So, the students can see the important writing elements and make those criteria as the guidelines. Thus, they will not miss some important writing elements in the process of writing. The students also prefer to have direct feedback. Based on their experience, lecturer’s comments in their problematic areas without directly pointing to their mistakes confused them. This became one reason why the teacher written feedback was sometimes vague and ambiguous. Avoiding minimal markings and indirect feedback is the best way for the lecturers to help the students develop their writing skill easier and faster. 82 Based on the interview result discussing the content focus of teacher written feedback, it shows that the students are likely to have the feedback not only focus on their composition of writing but also in their writing ability. It implies that the lecturers rarely commented on the students’ writing ability. They tended to give comments on the students’ writing composition. However, in order to keep the students’ motivation in writing, lecturers should also concern on the students’ writing ability and give some comments on the students’ improvements. Related to the media used in teacher written feedback implementation, it is seen from the result that most of the students did not get feedback via email and any other writing online facilities. Some of the interviewees admitted that they had got online feedback via email and Facebook at the beginning of the course but then the lecturer stopped it because they had some troubles in sending and receiving the emails. In order to get the students used to the development of the technology and to get maximum result, it is recommended for the lecturers to introduce online feedback such email or any other online writing facilities. There are some kinds of online writing facilities that can be used for the students such as email, blog, or even social network media. The students will get some advantages if the lecturer applies online feedback. First, the students will be familiar in using computer equipped with the Internet connection. Besides, it can enrich students’ knowledge and help them in dealing with some important experiences in using the online writing software. 83 Surprisingly, the findings show that teachers’ style in giving teacher written feedback could influence students’ motivation in the writing process. Each teacher has his own style in giving the written feedback for the students. Some of them seem so rigid and formal but some of them are friendly and nice. In relation to students’ motivation, they expected to have compliments related to their improvements and strengths. This finding is in line with Raimes 1983 that noticing and praising more on whatever the students have done well improves writing more rather than a bunch of correction that shows what they do is bad. Therefore, the lecturers should also give compliments to the students in order to build students’ confidence. The other things that could motivate the students were providing simple drawing and several alternatives of ideas. Using colored-pens in giving compliments and simple drawing is also suggested, as long as it is readable. For instance, the lecturer may simply draw ‘smile’ in students’ writing to show that they have made several improvements. It helps the students to build their confidence and avoids boredom in the process of writing. Meanwhile, providing several alternatives of ideas is also suggested in case if the ideas used by the students are inappropriate. When the lecturer provides several alternatives of ideas, the students can see the way the lecturer thinks, relate one idea to another and finally they are able to draw conclusion. It can assist the students to open their minds and try to apply their logical thinking in writing. In short, it is implied that the lecturers had not provided sufficient compliments, encouraging drawing, and alternatives of ideas. Therefore, it is 84 expected for the lecturers to have those three things in the teacher written feedback given to the students. These implications of the findings show the roles of teacher such as being the motivator, resource, and feedback provider in the academic writing as proposed by Harmer 2001. In line with what the lecturers did in CRW 1 class, they hold these three roles. As a motivator, the lecturers built right conditions in the process of writing and encouraged them to get their maximum result by providing compliments, for instance. As the resource, the lecturers provided several alternatives of ideas or information when it is necessary. At the same time, as the feedback provider, the lecturers not only responded to the students’ writing positively and encouragingly but also offered advice, correction and suggestion. Focusing on the students’ assessment, it is seen that the students really valued the score given by the lecturer. The researcher can imply that score also held the important role in reflecting students’ improvements. In other words, the good score given is the proof of achievement for they have made improvements. They believed that the teacher written feedback implementation could accommodate students’ improvements which resulted on a good score. Therefore, lecturers should be really meticulous in assessing students’ writing. In order to get accurate score in assessing students’ writing, what is proposed by Brown 2004 about scoring provide the lecturers precise guidelines what the students need in the writing process especially in CRW 1. The written performance in CRW 1 is responsive and imitative, where CRW 1 students used to write texts by developing ideas into connected paragraphs and also using some 85 other sources to support and claim their ideas. Related to students’ assessment, the scoring technique that can be used for this kind of writing performance is analytic scoring. Analytic scoring helps the lecturers to carefully see and assess students’ writing based on each writing element. Besides, it also helps the lecturers to be more focused in every detail of students’ writing. Thus, analytic scoring can be the best way to assess students’ writing. In short, it is implied that the teacher written feedback implementation was good. It is proven by the students’ perception that they expected to have teacher written feedback. In order to overcome the weaknesses of teacher written feedback that are sometimes ambiguous and vague, the students expected that the teacher written feedback given should be really clear and direct to their mistakes. In addition, it is found that the students expected to have compliments, simple drawings, and several alternatives of ideas not only on their writing composition but also their writing ability. Therefore, the implementation of teacher written feedback can meet both students’ needs and lecturers’ expectation. 86

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS