SMA. The treatment was conducted in three meetings. In those three meetings the students was guided to write a descriptive text. Indirect feedback was
given to the errors on every students’ composition until the student make a good composition from the first to the final draft.After the treatment was
given, the posttest was given to the students to evaluate their ability in writing descriptive text after the implementation of teacher’s indirect feedback.
5. Administering the posttest
In order to see the improvement of student’s writing ability, the posttest was conducted in the experimental class after they were being given the treatment.
The test was in form of writing. The students were asked to develop their descriptive text writing based on the topic of important person in my life. The
posttest was conducted in 90 minutes.
6. Analyzing the test result pretest and posttest
After scoring pretest and posttest, the data was analyzed by using SPSS version 17.0 software program. It was used to find out the means of pretest
and posttest and how significant the improvement was.
3.5 Scoring Criteria
The students could succeed in writing if their writing includes five aspects of writing. Therefore, the aspects of writing were
evaluated in the students’ paragraph writing in the form of simple descriptive text. They were content, organization, grammar,
mechanics, and vocabulary. The scoring criteria was modified from ESL composition profile designed by Jacobs et al 1981 as can be seen below:
Table 3.1. The Scoring Criteria
ASPECTS OF WRITING
SCORE CRITERIA
Content
20
15
10 5
EXCELLENT TO
VERY GOOD:
knowledgeable. substantive. thorough development of thesis. relevant to
assigned topic. GOOD TO AVERAGE: some knowledge of subject. adequate
range. limited development of thesis. mostly relevant to topic, but lacks in detail.
FAIR TO POOR: limited knowledge of subject. little substance. inadequate development of topic.
VERY POOR: limited knowledge of subject. non-substantive. not pertinent. or not enough to evaluate.
Organization
20
15 10
5 EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: fluent expression. ideas
clearly statedsupported. succint. well-organized. logical sequencing. cohesive.
GOOD TO AVERAGE: somewhat choppy. loosely organized but main ideas stand out. limited support. logical but
incomplete sequencing. FAIR TO POOR: non-fluent. ideas confused or disconnected.
lacks logical sequencing and development. VERY POOR: does not communicate. no organization. Or not
enough to evaluate.
Vocabulary
20
15
10
5 EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: sophisticated range.
effective wordidiom choice and usage. word form mastery. appropriate register
GOOD TO AVERAGE: adequate range. occasional errors of wordidiom form, choice, and usage but meaning not
obscured. FAIR TO POOR: limited range. frequent errors of
wordidiom form, choice, and usage. meaning confused or obscured.
VERY POOR: essentialy translation. little knowledge of
English vocabulary, idioms, word form. or not enough to evaluate.
Language use grammar
20
15
10
5 EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: effective complex
constructions. few errors of agreement, tense, number, word orderfunction, articles, pronouns, prepositions.
GOOD TO AVERAGE: effective but simple constructions. minor problems in complex constructions. several errors of
agreement, tense, number, word orderfunction, articles, pronouns, prepositions. but meaning seldom obscured.
FAIR TO POOR: major problems in simplecomplex constructions. frequent errors of negation, agreement, tense,
number, word orderfunction, articles, pronouns, prepositions andor fragments, run-ons, deletions. meaning confused or
obscured VERY POOR: virtually no mastery of sentence construction
rules. dominated by errors. does not communicate. or not enough to evaluate.
Mechanics
20
15 10
5 EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: demonstrates mastery of
conventions. few
errors of
spelling, punctuation,
capitalization, and paragraphing. GOOD TO AVERAGE: occasional errors of spelling,
punctuation, capitalization, and paragraphing but meaning not obscured.
FAIR TO POOR: frequent errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and paragraphing. poor handwriting. meaning
confused or obscured. VERY POOR: no mastery of conventions. dominated by
errors
of spelling,
punctuation, capitalization,
and paragraphing. handwriting illegible or not enough to evaluate.
Jacobs et al 1981
3.6 Instruments
Writing test was a device which requires the students to compose their own idea, and extends responses to problem set by the teacher. The instrument of this research was
descriptive text writing. The researcher administered writing test to find out whether there was any
improvement of students’ descriptive text writing ability after the
