Negative feedback as perceived by English language education study program students batch 2012.

(1)

ABSTRACT

Krismawan, Hari. (2016). Negative Feedback as Perceived by English Language Education Study Program Batch 2012 Students. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Department of Language and Arts Education, Faculty of Teachers Training and Education, Sanata Dharma University.

Negative feedback is one of the important components of education. The negative feedback is used to tell students when they make mistakes. It is the key of improvement for students. It shows students which parts they are still lacking on and makes the students possible to fix those parts. However, the negative feedback may give negative impacts to students’ motivation. Thus, a research concerning students’ perception on negative feedback is done.

The research was done at the English Language Education Study Program Students batch 2012. Two research problems were discussed in the research. The first problem was related to students’ perception on negative feedback and the second problem was about their preferred negative feedback.

The research used survey in gathering the data. The survey started with questionnaire adaptation and testing. Then, the questionnaire was distributed to the respondents. Finally, the data was recorded and analysed.

Based on the data analysis, the answer to the first research question was that the ELESP students perceived negative feedback positively. They felt the need of negative feedback for their improvement. Moreover, negative feedback gave them motivation. Meanwhile, the answer to the second research question was that the students preferred direct negative feedback with clarity, form, and impact on negative feeling as the consideration. Thus, it was imperative for teachers to give negative feedback that was motivating and clear with appropriate form.

Keywords: Negative feedback, perception, motivation, clarity, preference, and English Language Education Study Program Students

(2)

ABSTRAK

Hari, Krismawan. (2016). Negative Feedback as Perceived by English Language Education Study Program Batch 2012 Students. Yogyakarta: Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Umpan balik negatif merupakan salah satu bagian yang penting dalam dunia pendidikan. Umpan balik negatif digunakan untuk memberitahukan kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh peserta didik. Umpan balik negatif merupakan kunci dari proses pembelajaran. Dari umpan balik ini peserta didik dapat mengetahui bagian yang masih perlu diperbaiki. Akan tetapi, umpan balik negatif juga berpotensi memberikan dampak negatif terhadap motivasi. Oleh karena itu, sebuah penelitian berkaitan dengan persepsi peserta didik terhadap umpan balik negatif ini dilakukan.

Penelitian ini dilakukan terhadap mahasiswa Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris angkatan 2012. Terdapat dua inti pertanyaan pada penelitian ini. Pertanyaan pertama berkaitan dengan persepsi mahasiswa terhadap umpan balik negatif. Pertanyaan kedua berkaitan pilihan umpan balik negatif oleh mahasiswa.

Penelitian ini menggunakan metode survey. Penelitian ini dimulai dengan pembuatan kuesioner yang disertai dengan uji coba kuesioner dan kemudian kuesioner tersebut dibagikan kepada para responden. Data yang didapat kemudian dicatat dan dianalisis.

Berdasarkan analisis data, jawaban dari pertanyaan penelitian pertama adalah mahasiswa PBI memiliki persepsi positif terhadap umpan balik negatif. Mereka berpendapat bahwa umpan balik negatif diperlukan untuk proses pembelajaran. Terlebih lagi, umpan balik negatif memberi motivasi. Jawaban pertanyaan penelitian kedua adalah mahasiswa PBI lebih memilih umpan balik negatif yang eksplisit dengan mempertimbangkan tingkat kejelasan, bentuk, dan efek terhadap perasaan. Oleh karena itu, seorang guru diharuskan memberikan umpan balik negatif yang dapat memotivasi, jelas dan memiliki bentuk yang sesuai. Keywords: Negative feedback, perception, motivation, clarity, preference, and English Language Education Study Program Students

(3)

NEGATIVE FEEDBACK AS PERCEIVED

BY ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

BATCH 2012 STUDENTS

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By Hari Krismawan Student Number: 121214050

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

(4)

NEGATIVE FEEDBACK AS PERCEIVED

BY ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

BATCH 2012 STUDENTS

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By Hari Krismawan Student Number: 121214050

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

(5)

A Sarjana Pendidikan Thesis on

NEGATIVE FEEDBACK AS PERCEIVED

BY ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

BATCH 2012 STUDENTS

By Hari Krismawan Student Number: 121214050

Approved by

Advisor

(6)

iii

A Sarjana Pendidikan Thesis on

NEGATIVE FEEDBACK AS PERCEIVED

BY ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

BATCH 2012 STUDENTS

HARI KRISMAWAN Student Number: 121214050

Defended before the Board of Examiners on 14 July 2016

and Declared Acceptable

Board of Examiners:

Chairperson : Paulus Kuswandono, Ph.D. _________ Secretary : Ch. Lhaksmita Anandari, S.Pd., Ed.M. _________ Member : Drs. Barli Bram, M.Ed., Ph.D. _________ Member : Christina Kristiyani, S.Pd., M.Pd. _________ Member : Ch. Lhaksmita Anandari, S.Pd., Ed.M. _________

Yogyakarta, 14 July 2016

Faculty of Teachers Training and Education Sanata Dharma University

Dean,

(7)

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY

I honestly declare that this thesis, which I have written, does not contain the work or parts of the work of other people, except those in the quotations and the references, as a scientific paper should.

Yogyakarta, 14 July 2016

The Writer

Hari Krismawan 121214050

(8)

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN

PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN

AKADEMIS

Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma:

Nama : Hari Krismawan

Nomor Mahasiswa : 121214050

Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Unversitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:

NEGATIVE FEEDBACK AS PERCEIVED

BY ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM BATCH 2012 STUDENTS

beserta alat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Unversitas Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan, mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengeolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data, mendistribusikannya secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya di Internet atau media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin dari saya maupun memberikan royalti kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis.

Demikian pernyataan ini saya buat dengan sebenarnya.

Dibuat di Yogyakarta Pada tanggal: 14 Juli 2016 Yang menyatakan

(9)

ABSTRACT

students’ perception on negative feedback is done.

Keywords: Negative feedback, perception, motivation, clarity, preference, and English Language Education Study Program Students

(10)

vii

ABSTRAK

(11)

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to the Almighty for giving me His blessing, guidance, and good health mentally and physically so that I could finish my thesis. I especially expressed my thanks to God for sending me these people, which I would mention for making my thesis possible.

The first is Pak Barli Bram, M.Ed., Ph.D. who guided me through the obstacles in completing this thesis. He willingly spared his time to read my draft and helped me forge it through his feedback, encouragement, and suggestion into this thesis. Moreover, I also thanked him for giving signature to this thesis so that it became legible for thesis defence.

I also wanted to express my gratitude to those who were close to me and who had helped me in finishing this thesis. I wanted to express my gratitude to my father, Venantius Purwanto, my mother, Margaretha Purwani Lestari, and also my brother, Yohanes Eko Herwanto, for giving me shelter and support in completing my thesis. I thanked them for giving me the chance to do my study in PBI Sanata Dharma University. I also wanted to thank my beloved girlfriend, Anastasia Nelladia Cendra, for giving me support, pushing me forward, giving me a hand in finishing my thesis, and being there in time of distress.

I also thanked all of my fellow PBI students and to my respondents for filling out the questionnaire so that I could gather the data for my thesis. Moreover, I

(12)

thanked all of PBI USD lecturers and staff for giving me a place to study and for enriching me with resourceful knowledge.

(13)

TITLE PAGE………..…… . i

APPROVAL PAGES ... ii

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ... iv

PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ... v

ABSTRACT ... vi

ABSTRAK ... vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... x

LIST OF TABLES ... xiii

LIST OF FIGURES ... xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES ... xv

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1

A. Research Background ... 1

B. Research Problems ... 6

C. Problem Limitation ... 6

D. Research Objectives ... 6

E. Research Benefits... 7

F. Definition of Terms... 8

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ... 10

A. Theoretical Description ... 10

1. Feedback and the Impact on Motivation ... 10

2. Criteria of Effective Feedback ... 11

a. Clarity ... 11

b. Specific ... 12

c. Proper Tone and Word Choice ... 13

(14)

4. Forms of Giving Feedback ... 16

a. Written Feedback ... 16

b. Oral Feedback ... 16

5. Directness in Negative Feedback ... 17

6. The Use of Hedging Devices in Negative Feedback ... 19

7. Review of Related Study ... 21

B. Theoretical Framework ... 22

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 24

A. Research Method ... 24

B. Research Setting... 26

C. Research Participants ... 27

D. Research Instrument... 27

E. Data Gathering and Analysis Technique ... 30

F. Research Procedures ... 31

CHAPTER IV RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ... 33

A. Negative Feedback Perceived by ELESP Students ... 33

1. The Need of Negative Feedback ... 34

2. The Impact of Negative Feedback on Motivation ... 36

a. Motivation from Direct Negative Feedback ... 37

b. Motivation from Indirect Negative Feedback ... 37

3. Clarity of Negative Feedback ... 38

a. Clarity of Direct Negative Feedback ... 39

b. Clarity of Indirect Negative Feedback ... 39

B. ELESP Students’ Preference for Negative Feedback ... 40

1. Preference Part A ... 41

a. Oral vs Written Negative Feedback ... 41

b. Direct vs Indirect Negative Feedback ... 42

2. Preference Part B ... 43

a. Case I ... 43

(15)

xii

c. Combined Analysis of Case I and II ... 50

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 55

A. Conclusions ... 55

B. Recommendations ... 57

(16)

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

4.1 ELESP Students’ Perception on negative feedback ... 34

4.2 Questionnaire part B case I number 1 Data Summary ... 43

4.3 Questionnaire part B number 2 case I Data Summary ... 44

4.4 Questionnaire part B number 3 case I Data Summary ... 46

4.5 Questionnaire part B number 1 case II Data Summary... 47

4.6 Questionnaire part B number 2 case II Data Summary... 48

4.7 Questionnaire part B number 3 case II Data Summary... 50

4.8 Questionnaire Part B Question 1 Case I+II Data Summary ... 51

4.9 Questionnaire Part B Question 2 Combined Data Summary ... 52

(17)

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

2.1 RQ 1 Framework ... 22

2.2 RQ 2 Framework ... 23

3.1 Survey Process ... 25

3.2 Questionnaire Blueprint Part A ... 29

3.3 Questionnaire Blueprint Part B ... 30

4.1 Data Summary QA 1-2... 35

4.2 Data Summary QA 3-5... 36

4.3 Data Summary QA 3-5, 9, and 12 ... 38

(18)

LIST OF APPENDICES

Page

APPENDIX A ... 62

APPENDIX B ... 64

APPENDIX C ... 65

APPENDIX D ... 67

APPENDIX E ... 68

APPENDIX F ... 70

(19)

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, the researcher introduces the background of this research. There will be six sections in this chapter. They are research background, problem formulation, problem limitations, research objectives, research benefits, and definition of terms.

A. Research Background

Feedback is a powerful tool in education. It could help students to develop themselves. Through feedback, students are to know what they are lacking on and on what they are already good at. The problem is on giving the feedback effectively. As Brinko (2010) states “Feedback is more effective when the consultant is authentic, respectful, supportive, empathic, non-judgmental, and able to keep consultation confidential” (p. 578). Through this view, an effective feedback should be given based on several categories. One of them is that feedback should not be used too often because it would be meaningless. In addition, the feedback should be given only when needed.

To be effective, feedback should be given in the right moment, from the right person, respectfully with a supportive and empathic meaning, neutral, and confidential. When the teacher feels no need for giving feedback, it is okay to do so instead of giving meaningless feedback that will not help students on learning. Moreover, Irani (2008) states “In most cases highly personalized feedback will be

(20)

perceived more positively than highly depersonalized feedback.” (p. 105). Feedback should have a personal feeling on it to make it more effective. A general feedback to a class will have less personal feeling and might not be as effective as personal feedback.

There was an event related to feedback that happened in one of the classes in Sanata Dharma University. The class was Micro Teaching class. In Micro Teaching class in 2015, one of the students of English Language Education Study Program

(ELESP) in Sanata Dharma University said “no” while doing a teaching practice and later was commented by the lecturer of the Micro Teaching class. The lecturer

said that the word “no” is a very strong word. When a teacher said “no” too often, what the students will remember would be the word “no”. After the feedback from

the lecturer, the students had a discussion about the word “no” that was used during the teaching practice. They discussed that what was meant by saying “no” was

“bukan yang itu” or “not that”. However, because it was said reflexively it was uttered as “no” instead of “not that”. The researcher agreed with the discussion and intended to find out how to use negative feedback effectively because what matters is the impression received by the students, not the meaning trying to be conveyed by the teacher.

The event in the previous paragraph was related to direct negative feedback. Direct negative feedback may affect students’ motivation. From this perspective, direct negative feedback should not be used during teaching because it gave

negative effect to students’ performance. As found by Lepper, Iyengar, and Corpus

(21)

suggesting that they may be largely orthogonal dimensions of motivation in school.” There are intrinsic and extrinsic factors that affect their motivation in studying. Intrinsic and extrinsic factors are correlated. An extrinsic factor can develop an intrinsic factor. Motivation given by a teacher is considered an extrinsic factor, which may cause a student to be motivated and becomes an intrinsic factor. When feedback is given as a negative factor, it may cause negative motivation in studying and results in loss of interest in studying.

Furthermore, Skinner and Belmont (1993) also state “Teacher behavior

influences students’ perceptions of their interaction with teachers” (p. 577). When a teacher gives a wrong impression to students, the impression may affect students’ motivation on learning. The negative feedback from a teacher is intended to correct students. The teacher wants to tell his students that their answer or action is not as expected. A teacher should not let his students be wrong; he should correct them.

However, in correcting students, often a teacher gives direct negative feedback to the students’ performance and sometimes the negative feedback discourages the students. A student who is trying to do something, answering a question for example, may be discouraged when the teacher says no as the reaction.

The “no” causes a negative impression to the student, he/she may feel that what he/she is doing is wrong and he/she may not want to try that again. The student will not try to answer question again because the student has his/her mind set that the teacher will say no again to his/her answer. This may also affect other students because when they see their friends get rejected with the word “no”, they may also think “What if I give another incorrect answer?” For some students, being wrong is

(22)

embarrassing, especially when the teacher emphasizes it by directly saying “no” in front of the class. Thus, as it gives negative impact to motivation, direct negative feedback should be handled with care when teaching.

In Bahasa Indonesia, “no” has some varieties of meaning and sometimes when Indonesian teachers are trying to say bukan or jangan, they unconsciously say “no”. It is common to people to do something automatically, responding to something that happened to or around them or people call it as reflex. Reflex happens as people react to something and it could be in form of movement, expression, or speech. This reflex also happens during teaching. Sometimes when a teacher teaches in a class, he/she reflexively says something that he/she does not realize that he/she is saying that. The “no” used in teaching might be not the

negative “no”, not forbidding the student to do something, but rather the teacher

wants the student to choose another action or what the student’s doing is not like what the teacher expects.

On her research, Restuningtyas (2010) concludes that “The majority of Microteaching students perceived the feedback as something motivating and that it was resulting on the improvement on their performance in Microteaching class”

(p.64). Restuningtyas’s research shows that Microteaching students perceive

feedback positively and the feedback motivates the students. With successful feedback, the students become motivated. That is why teachers must pay attention to their feedback for the students because their feedback may cause not only positive but also negative impacts. Through the teachers’ perspective, it is true that all of their feedback is always for the sake of the students. The word “no” might be

(23)

used in teaching as what they mean when saying “no” was tidak, bukan, or jangan and it is intended to help the student to improve. However, the most important thing is not only the intention of the teachers, but also the impression perceived by the students. Thus, teachers must be aware of the feedback they give to their students. Negative feedback should be used in teaching. Though the researcher concedes that negative feedback has a strong negative feeling, the researcher still believes that negative feedback should be used in teaching for it is to help the students to improve as seen in Restuningtyas’s research. Rather than trying to ban negative feedback on teaching, it would be better if negative feedback is used in teaching, but with adaptation of the level of negativity by using indirect approach in giving the feedback. For example, a teacher may use a combination of sentences that implicitly tells that answer is wrong and it is okay to be wrong. There is nothing wrong with the teacher’s intention, the problem is that students may be discouraged when they are given a negative feedback directly and it could affect their motivation on their study.

In order to improve the quality of the students of ELESP of Sanata Dharma University, the lecturers have to give feedback to them. The feedback can be in a form of positive or negative. In some points, the lecturers have to give negative feedback in response to the students’ performance. However, the problem is that some of the students who receive the negative feedback may not be able to take it as constructive criticisms. Some students may find negative feedback discouraging. The lecturers intend to help the students to improve, but sometimes they cause the opposite effect to the students. In order to make the negative feedback effective, the

(24)

researcher intends to find out the negative feedback perceived by the students and

the effective way of giving negative feedback based on students’ perspective.

B. Research Problems

The research problems for this research are:

1. How do English Language Education Study Program batch 2012 students perceive negative feedback?

2. Which negative feedback is preferred by ELESP students?

C. Problem Limitation

In order to keep this research from going too broad, three limitations are set. The first limitation is the area and time. The research is conducted in Sanata Dharma University campus I Mrican in 2015. The second are the participants. They are from the English Language Education Study Program (ELESP) Students of Sanata Dharma University batch 2012. The third is the feedback. The feedback is only focused on the negative feedback that is in the form of written and direct or non-direct oral feedback. Positive feedback may be mentioned, but will not be discussed in detail.

D. Research Objectives

This research is intended to find out:

1. ELESP students’ perception on negative feedback. 2. The negative feedback preferred by ELESP students.

(25)

E. Research Benefits

There are three benefits from this research. The first is the benefit for English Language Education Department. The second is for teaching in general. The last is for future researchers.

1. For English Language Education Department

This research has a significance in education especially for ELESP of Sanata Dharma University. The result of this research could become a consideration for lecturers and students in giving negative feedback. It is crucial to keep the students motivated during their study. This research is done in order to find out how to give effective feedback to ELESP students, which later can be used as a reference in giving feedback. An effective negative feedback will help students in their study. Through this research, ELESP lecturers and students can be more aware of giving a negative feedback to their students in the future.

2. For Teaching in General

As the result of this research is based on the ELESP students of Sanata Dharma University, it may not be applicable for general teaching. However, the result of this research can be used for teachers as a reference and consideration in giving negative effective feedback.

3. For Future Researchers

Hopefully, the result of this research can be helpful for future research related to the topic. Moreover, this research contains information that can be used for future research related to the topic.

(26)

F. Definition of Terms

In this section, the terms used in this research are defined. There are two terms that require further definition. The definitions are to prevent misunderstanding on the terms that are used in this research.

1. Negative Feedback

Negative feedback is any kind of feedback given in response to students’ performance that fails to meet the expectation and it is intended to tell the students their mistakes so they can improve. Negative feedback can be in form of written and oral. Reitbauer, Campbell, Mercer, Fauster, and Vaupetitsch (2013) mention

“Negative feedback points out features of the learner’s language use which do not conform to a norm.” (p. 9). Negative feedback is the term used in psychology field. Rizi and Ketabi (2015) also mention “The current familiar term “Corrective

feedback” has been variously named in the history of the fields of second language teaching and learning, linguistics and psychology” (p. 63). Negative feedback is also known as corrective feedback in teaching and learning field.

2. Directness

In this research, directness refers to the message of the feedback, not whether the feedback is given directly to the student or delayed. There are two types of directness in giving negative feedback, namely direct negative feedback and

indirect negative feedback. Smith (1991) describes “An indirect speech act is an utterance that contains the illocutionary force indicators for one kind of illocutionary act, but which is uttered to perform another type of illocutionary act.”

(27)

(p. 19). Based on Smith’s description, indirect means the meaning of an utterance is not shown in the sentence explicitly, but the meaning is received implicitly from the utterance. Direct negative feedback means that the sentence itself shows the mistakes that the student makes, whereas indirect feedback means that the message is shown implicitly from the sentence.

(28)

10 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter includes two major sections. The first section is to review the theories related to negative feedback. The second section contains the theoretical framework explaining how the researcher uses the related theories to find out the answers for the research problems mentioned in the first chapter.

A. Theoretical Description

The second section contains six sub sections, namely feedback and the impact on motivation, criteria of an effective feedback, negative feedback and the impact on motivation, forms of negative feedback, directness in negative feedback, and the use of hedging in negative feedback.

1. Feedback and the Impact on Motivation

Weiner (1979) states “Feedback is a vital concept in most theories of learning and is closely related to motivation. Behavioral theories tend to focus on extrinsic motivation such as rewards” (as cited in Petchprasert, 2012, p. 1112). In learning, students need to be motivated and the job for giving the motivation is the job for the lecturer/teacher. The motivation is usually in form of feedback based on

students’ performance. Feedback contains the students’ lacks and goods. Through feedback, students are able to know how their current position are to the learning goals.

(29)

Schunk (1982) finds that effort feedback for past achievement led to more rapid progress in skill development (p. 18). Effort feedback is used to recognize

student’s effort or performance. When students make progression on their learning or when they make mistakes, the lecturers have to give comments in form of feedback to their performance. Knowing that they are making progress will motivate the students on learning activity and make them more confident. In addition, students will be more motivated when the lecturers pay attention to the

students’ progression. It is similar to when someone is giving a speech; he will be more excited and will perform a good speech when the audience listen to him. However, if the audience ignore his speech, he will just want to finish the speech as soon as possible and will not care about the quality of his speech. The students must know that the lecturers care about what they are doing in order to progress in class. Thus, giving feedback is a must for lecturers to keep the students motivated.

2. Criteria of Effective Feedback

The criteria of effective feedback are based on Brookhart’s (2008) theory of giving effective feedback. There are three aspects to consider in giving effective feedback according to Brookhart (2008). They must be clear, specific, and using appropriate tone and word choice.

a. Clarity

The first criterion of good feedback is that the feedback should be understandable by the student. According to Brookhart (2008), good feedback contains information that a student can use, which means that the student has to be able to hear and understand it (p. 2). Every student has different vocabulary and

(30)

ability in processing feedback. Feedback may be considered having a good clarity by a student, but may also be considered being not so clear by another student. Each

student’s competency level in one class will differ. Their knowledge about language

and their ability to process information are not the same one and another. One student may be able to understand that one plus one equals two only from an explanation by the teacher. However, other students may not. Some students may need further explanation about the material and some other may need examples. For native English learners, the teacher may use more complex vocabulary, while for non-native English speakers the teacher should use less complex vocabulary. That is why in giving feedback to a student, a lecturer must also consider the student’s

profile and give a clear feedback based on each student’s ability to receive

information. b. Specific

More specific feedback is considered to be more effective. As stated by Brookhart (2008), “Teachers should make feedback specific enough so that students know what to do, but not so specific that it’s done for them” (p. 2). By giving a specific feedback, the student will know exactly where he/she has already been good at and what he/she should improve. Giving feedback that is too general will have less impact compared to more specific feedback. Telling a student that he/she needs to study more instead of telling him/her that he/she needs to improve specifically will only make the student confused on what he/she should do in order to improve his/her performance.

(31)

When a person tells a singer that he needs more practice may only make the singer be less motivated to sing, but telling him that he needs to practice more on high-pitch notes will motivate him to improve his ability in singing high-pitch notes. Knowing specific areas to improve is good as the student will not be wasting time on trying to improve everything where most of them may have already been good, instead, he/she can just focus on some areas where he/she needs to improve. c. Proper Tone and Word Choice

Tone in giving feedback defines the result of the feedback. Brookhart (2008)

states “Tone can inspire or discourage” (p.34). Appropriate use of tone in giving feedback will result in a good response over the feedback. The only problem is how appropriate is appropriate. Similar to the clarity section, it depends on the students. Every student is unique, he/she will have his/her own criteria of appropriateness. One student may consider feedback as appropriate while others may consider it harsh. The point is that the lecturer has to know each individual and use tone and

word choice based on the student’s profile. The tone a lecturer should use in giving

feedback should show some respect to the student as a learner and inspire thought and curiosity. After receiving the feedback, the student must not feel that the lecturer is a boss and should do what he/she wants. The student must feel that he/she is given a chance to think of what he/she should do in order to improve.

The word choice for the feedback also matters. Feedback like “You have to practice more on using past tense and do the assignments on the book” may be too bossy and may not give the student the opportunity to think and do something as he/she has to obey the command. Instead of saying that, the lecturer can say “There

(32)

are still some mistakes on the grammar. On our book, we have some exercises that

can help you to practice.” The lecturer gives the student a chance to think about what he/she had done wrong and the lecturer also gives a suggestion to how to improve the grammar skill. The student will be more involved and he/she will be more active in responding to the feedback.

The three criteria show that it is all a matter of student’s understanding on the

feedback. Feedback is all about the students. Feedback are not for the lecturers to show how good they are. Feedback is not used to tell the students “You are wrong

and I (the lecturer) am smarter than you.” Instead, feedback should be telling the

students “You are good in that part, but you can improve this part to be better.” Good feedback should be able to help the students grow. Feedback must not be confusing and too bossy as the students are learners not employees. By being actively thinking, the learning activity will be more effective as “Student-centered methods have repeatedly been shown to be superior to the traditional teacher-centered approach“(Felder, n.d.). Being engaged in learning process will make the learning activity more effective. Students who try to improve because they want to and because they know they can will be more motivated compared to students who try to improve because they are told to. The lecturer should give a room for the students to think about the feedback and decide what they have to do to improve themselves.

3. Negative Feedback and Its Effect on Motivation

There are two kinds of feedback; positive and negative. Positive feedback is used to praise students for doing a good job. Meanwhile, negative feedback is

(33)

used to help students understand what has to be changed in an utterance (Rydahl, 2005, p. 4). Moreover, Reitbauer, et al. (2013) mention that negative

feedback points out features of the learner’s language use, which do not conform to a norm (p. 9). Positive feedback is like some praise while negative feedback often feels like a slap on your face. Negative feedback contains what a person is doing wrong and often tells the person what needs to be fixed. Negative feedback is the term used in psychology field. It is also known as corrective feedback in teaching and learning field. As explained by Rizi and Ketabi (2015) “The current familiar

term “Corrective feedback” has been variously named in the history of the fields of

second language teaching and learning, linguistics and psychology” (p. 63). Chaudron states that “Learners who do not work hard and perform poorly on a task may not benefit from feedback” (as cited in Petchprasert, 2012, p. 1113). Chaudron explains that negative feedback may not be beneficial to learners. It is possible as the learners may not be self-motivated, they do not see why they have to learn. However, this is a matter of how the negative feedback is given. When the negative feedback is given effectively, learners without self-motivation may become motivated. A student without any interest in English may become interested when he/she is told about the potential he or she has. Negative feedback on students writing assignment may make the students realize that they have potential in writing. From the negative feedback, they may realize that they have a good idea organizational skill but still lacking in grammar or vice versa. Hidden potential may be seen through negative feedback and it may motivate the students.

(34)

4. Forms of Giving Feedback

There are two forms of giving feedback based on how they are given to the students. They can be given as written or oral feedback. Each form has its own characteristics.

a. Written Feedback

Written feedback is the most common given to writing or reading assignment. The students will receive the feedback in the form of sentences written on their finished written assignments. Brookhart (2008) also states that “It (Feedback) can also be given after the students do a speaking or listening test in form of notes or written in the scoring sheets. In written feedback, word choice and tone matters” (p. 31). As in written feedback the lecturers will not be able to control on how the students will read the feedback, written feedback should be made carefully with appropriate tone and word choice. Too complex words will make the feedback hard to be understood by the students and if the feedback uses target language, it may cause misunderstanding especially for beginner language learners as their vocabulary is still limited.

b. Oral Feedback

Oral feedback is used frequently on speaking and listening related activities. However, oral feedback can also be given to written assignments too. The lecturer

can give an oral feedback after checking on the students’ written assignments.

Brookhart (2008) explains that “Oral feedback involves all the word choice issues that written feedback does, but it also includes some unique issues” (p. 47). The issue is that the feedback will give more impact compared to written feedback as

(35)

students hear the feedback directly from their lecturer. The impact is good when it gives good impression to the students, but if it does not, then the impact will still be great in size but negative.

Teachers find oral feedback as an important tool to help students achieve a higher proficiency in a second and foreign language (Rydahl, 2005, p. 2). Giving ineffective oral feedback may hinder the progression of the students, but giving effective oral feedback will be helpful for the students in improving their proficiency. Language learning will involve a lot of speaking and listening. In speaking and listening activity, this form of feedback is the most common. For language lecturers, mastering giving effective oral feedback will help them make the language learning more effective.

5. Directness in Negative Feedback

During a conversation, often a speaker tries to convey not only information but also their feeling through the words he/she uses. Smith (1991) describes “An indirect speech act is an utterance that contains the illocutionary force indicators for one kind of illocutionary act but which is uttered to perform another type of

illocutionary act.” (p. 19). Smith explains that a speaker may say something that causes the listener to feel something more than the literal meaning of the sentence. The sentence uttered by a speaker may have a hidden meaning behind the literal

meaning. A person may say “The room is cold” to ask someone to close the door. Saying “the room is cold” gives the signal to the listener that something is wrong

with the room that makes the room cold, thus, the listener should do something with it that is to close the door to prevent cold air coming in.

(36)

Moreover, “Speech acts must be planned by taking into account the relation

between the speaker and the hearer” (Ardissono, Boella, & Lesmo, 1995). When we are talking to someone we respect or with higher status or someone we are not really close to, we would use a polite form of a language. A speaker uses more complex sentences to prevent from offending the listener. The following statement

is often used in ending a conversation: “It was nice to chat with you, but someone is waiting for me now.” It means that he/she has to end the chat because he/she has to go to meet someone instead of saying “I’m going. Bye!” that may be not polite in some occasions.

Indirect approach is used to prevent the interlocutor from being offended (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Kasper, 1990; Leech, 1983, as cited by Ardissono, Boella, and Lesmo, p. 2). He uses some sentences for informing the interlocutor that he has to go. Instead of directly saying what the speaker wants to convey, he uses some sentences to prevent the interlocutor from being offended. Imagine you

are having a chat with someone and suddenly he says “I’m busy. Bye!” you will

feel that this person wants to avoid you or he hates you and wants to leave you as soon as possible. That is why in saying goodbye people use a set of sentences to make the goodbye more polite and less rude.

Giving negative feedback is also a speech act. There are two types of feedback based on its directness. Feedback can be direct or indirect. It depends on how the information on the feedback is presented. Direct feedback means that the meaning is directly implied to the sentence. The feedback is given directly to the student as it is. The sentence literally shows the meaning. For example, a lecturer wants to

(37)

correct the students on the pronunciation and he says “You pronounce the ‘th’ in

‘three’ incorrectly. It should be ‘th’ instead of ‘t’”. The lecturer directly mentions the mistake of the student. The student does not need to process the sentence complexly, he/she just needs to listen and to take the sentence as it is.

In indirect feedback, the student needs to analyse the sentence in order to get what the lecturer is trying to say. For example, “We do not pronounce the ‘th’ in

‘three’ like ‘t’ but we pronounce it as ‘th’” if this sentence is taken literally by the

student, then he/she will think that the lecturer only tells him facts, but actually the lecturer is telling the students that he had made a mistake on pronouncing the ‘th’

in ‘three’ and the student must correct his pronunciation. The student needs to

process the sentence in order to know what the lecturer is trying to say.

In short, indirect negative feedback will be more polite and less rude compared to direct negative feedback. The students hearing an indirect feedback will receive less negative feeling compared to direct feedback. However, there is a possibility that indirect negative feedback may not be as effective as direct negative feedback. The student who receives indirect negative feedback may not be able to find out what the actual meaning of the feedback is.

6. The Use of Hedging Devices in Negative Feedback

According to Wilamova (2013) “Hedges (particles, lexical and clausal hedges, pragmatic idioms) are pragmatic markers that attenuate (or weaken) the strength of an utterance” (p. 85). Hedging devices are often used to soften an utterance. Hedging devices are used to make the utterance less offending and can

(38)

also be used to make it more powerful. They are used often to increase the politeness of an utterance.

Based on Salager-Meyer’s taxonomy (as cited by Nasiri, 2012, p. 152), there are five types of hedges; (1) Shield hedges such as can, could, may, might, would, to appear, to seem, probably, and to suggest, (2) Approximators such as approximately, about, often, and occasionally, (3) Personal doubt and direct involvement such as I believe, to our knowledge, and it is our view that, (4) Emotionally-charged intensifiers such as extremely difficult/interesting, of particular importance, unexpectedly, surprisingly, etc., and (5) Compound hedges such as could be suggested, would seem likely, and would seem somewhat (p. 152). Brookhart (2008) states that a lecturer should choose words that communicate respect for the student and the work (p. 7). The hedges can be used by a lecturer to reduce the negative effect of negative feedback. As the negative feedback by the lecturer becomes less offensive, the students may take the negative feedback as a good thing for them. Using type 3 of Salager-Meyer’s taxonomy by saying “As we know that pronunciation is important, we need to practice our pronunciation every

day” will be less offensive to the student compared to “Your pronunciation is bad and you need to practice more” where the student may become demotivated or embarrassed as the teacher elaborate the student’s weakness directly and in front of other students. Using “as we know…, we need to…” makes the feedback more like it is normal and everyone agrees with that. Compared to using ‘your’ will cause the student that only him who has bad pronunciation, not other students.

(39)

In contrast, hedges may also reduce the strength of the feedback and make the feedback less effective. The use of hedges may reduce the power imposed on a

sentence. People will react to (a) “Open the door!” more than (b) “Could you please open the door?” Sentence (a) feels more commanding compared to (b), which is more like a request. This research will use hedges in creating the options for part B of the questionnaire where the respondents should choose one as their preferred negative feedback.

7. Review of Related Study

There was a similar research that was done before this research. Restuningtyas (2010) had done a research related to how students perceive feedback. However, there are two main differences in Restuningtyas research and

this research. Restuningtyas’ respondents were students of Microteaching class

2010/2011 and the topic was feedback. Meanwhile, in this research, the respondents were English Language Education Study Program batch 2012 students and the topic was negative feedback.

The area of research was more holistic compared to Restuningtyas’ that focuses on one subject. In this research, the area was not limited to a class. The area was the feedback the students received during their study in ELESP Sanata Dharma University. Through the more holistic area, it was expected that the result of this research could represent how ELESP students perceived feedback that they had during their study in Sanata Dharma University. This research also focused on negative feedback, excluding positive feedback.

(40)

B. Theoretical Framework

There are two research questions in this research. The first research question is related to perception and the second is related to preference. Each respondent may have different perception and preference for negative feedback. Their perception and preference are analysed based on Brookhart’s (2008) criteria of effective feedback, directness based on Smith (1991), Ardissono, Boella, and Lesmo (1995), and the use of hedging devices based on Salager-Meyer’s taxonomy (as cited by Nasiri, 2012).

In answering the first research questions, the researcher uses the framework displayed in Figure 2.1. In the framework, it can be seen that for the first research question related to how the respondents perceive negative feedback. The researcher focuses on the need, motivation, and clarity of negative feedback. The focuses are represented in the questionnaire part A, which is written as QA with its respective number shown in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1 RQ 1 Framework

Research

Question 1

Clarity QA

8, 11 Motivation

QA 3-5 QA 9, 12

(41)

The second research question is related to preference. ELESP students’

preference is decided using the framework shown in Figure 2.2. The analysis for the second research question is based on part A of the questionnaire and part B of the questionnaire. Part A of the questionnaire is used to decide ELESP students’ preference for negative feedback in general. Meanwhile, part B, which is written as QB, is used to know ELESP students’ preference for negative feedback.

Figure 2.2 RQ 2 Framework

The preferred negative feedback was concluded based on ELESP students’ answers to the questionnaire. Each student may have different combination for his or her preferred negative feedback. Their preference was analysed based on the

form based on Brookhart’s (2008) definition, directness based on Smith, Ardissono, Boella, and Lesmo (1995), and the use of hedging devices based on

Salager-Meyer’s taxonomy (as cited by Nasiri, 2012, p. 152).

Research

Question 2

From Part A

Oral/Written QA 6 Direct/Indirect QA 7, 10

From Part B

Case I Written

Preference, reason, and feeling

Case II Oral

(42)

24 CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Chapter three contains the methodology used in this research. This chapter includes seven sections, namely research method, research setting, research participants, research instrument, data gathering technique, data analysis technique, and research procedures.

A. Research Method

Survey is used in order to answer the research problems. Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen, & Razavieh (2010) state that the survey is a widely used research method for gathering data, ranging from physical counts and frequencies to attitudes and opinions (p. 379). Generalization can be drawn from a survey result and the main target of this research is to make a generalization from ELESP students. Thus, a survey is considered to be the most appropriate methodology as the focus of this research is about how ELESP students perceive negative feedback. The survey used questionnaire to gather the data.

In doing a survey, there are several steps to be followed. Based on a survey guide by Thayer-Hart, N., Dykema, J., Elver, K., Schaeffer, N. C., and Stevenson, J. (2010, p. 4), there are five steps to be done in conducting a survey. The steps are shown in Figure 3.1.

(43)

Figure 3.1 Survey Process

The first step was designing the survey process. In designing the survey process the researcher decided the goal, target population, the timing, and the mode. The goal of the survey was to make generalization about students’ perception and preference for negative feedback. The target population was ELESP students of Sanata Dharma University batch 2012. The survey took two months to collect the data from the respondents. The survey was using sample of the population due to the sheer size of the population.

After finishing the first step, the researcher moved on to the next step, developing questions. The form of questions in the questionnaire were adapted from

Restuningtyas’ (2010) questionnaire. The questions were adapted to the need of this research. To fulfil the need of this research, two types of questions were used. In part A, the researcher used close-ended questions and in part B, open-ended questions were used.

The next step was to test and train. The researcher only used the test step because in distributing the questionnaire the researcher used online media, thus, there was no need to train the distributor. In doing the test, the researcher tested the questionnaire to several colleagues and asked for feedback related to the

Design Survey Process

Develop Questions

Test & Train

Collect Data

Analyze Data

(44)

questionnaire. The questionnaire was then modified based on the feedback when necessary.

Having done the third step, the researcher started to collect the data. The questionnaire was distributed to the respondents via online messenger. The researcher sent a message containing a link to the questionnaire to the respondents. The respondents then opened the link and filled the questionnaire using their mobile phone or computer.

Then the research entered the final step, coding and analysing data. The raw data was coded and made easier to analyse. Then from the coded data, the researcher drew the conclusion to answer the research questions.

B. Research Setting

The research was started by doing a library data review. Theories related to feedback were gathered from two kinds of source, electronics such as articles, journals, and e-books, and physical books found in the library. The theories were to support the research and to build the pillars for this research. The library data review was started from May 2015 and was done at home through the Internet, at Sanata Dharma University Library, and also at Sanata Dharma University campus II Mrican.

The questionnaire was designed using Google Form in December 2015 and distributed in January 2016 to the respondents via a link, http://goo.gl/forms/xuEZjfLiVm, to direct the participant to the questionnaire. The link to the questionnaire was distributed to the participant via messenger

(45)

(WhatsApp). The participant accessed the questionnaire using their phone or computer.

Following the data gathering, the data analysis was done. It was conducted from March 2016. The data analysis started from questionnaire summarizing. The raw data from the Google Form was summarized in simpler tables. Then, the data was analyzed and written into the discussion and then concluded into the conclusion of this research.

C. Research Participants

Convenience sampling was used in this survey. Ary et al. (2010) explain

“Convenience sampling is choosing a sample based on availability, time, location, or ease of access” (p. 431). Simple and convenient questionnaire was used to support convenience sampling. The respondents were given freedom whether they want to fill the questionnaire or not. Moreover, the questionnaire could also be accessed anywhere and anytime as long as the respondents had access to the internet and their smartphones or laptops. The researcher waited for two months after the first questionnaire distribution before closing the data gathering. In the end of the two months, there were 35 ELESP students batch 2012 who responded to the questionnaire.

D. Research Instrument

The research instrument was a questionnaire (Appendix G). Ary et al. (2010) state that when a questionnaire is used, the questions are sent to all the members of

(46)

the sample group, who record and return their responses to the questions (p. 379). The questionnaire was designed to gather data from ELESP students about their perception and preference for negative feedback. The questionnaire was adapted from Restuningtyas’ (2010) questionnaire.Restuningtyas’ questionnaire has similar topic to the research. The difference was in the focus of the questions. The questions were adapted to the need of this research.

There were two kinds of questions in the questionnaire, close-ended and open-ended questions. In the close-ended questions, the respondents were given several options to choose and the answer would be used to find out the perception and preference by the participants. In addition, the open-ended questions were used to gather ELESP students’ opinion on the types, directness, and the use of hedging in negative feedback.

In part A of the questionnaire, the respondents were required give their agreement to 12 statements related to negative feedback. The respondents chose whether they strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree to the statements. Their choices were used to answer the research questions. The blueprint for the first part is displayed in Figure 3.2.

(47)

Figure 3.2 Questionnaire Blueprint Part A

In part B of the questionnaire, the respondents were required to choose one of eight options provided for each case. The options for questionnaire part B were based on the theories of effective feedback by Brookhart (2008) and hedging based on Salager-Meyer’s taxonomy (as cited by Nasiri, 2012, p. 152). There were two types of feedback; direct and indirect, two forms of feedback; oral and written, and two variations of feedback; with and without hedges. There were eight total combination of types, forms, and variations, namely indirect oral with hedges, indirect oral without hedges, indirect written with hedges, indirect written without hedges, direct oral with hedges, direct oral without hedges, direct written with hedges, and direct written without hedges. These combinations were used to provide options in the questionnaire where ELESP students would have to choose the negative feedback they preferred and would be used to answer the second research problem. The blueprint of questionnaire part B is displayed in Figure 3.3.

QA

Clarity _{8, 11}QA

Motivation QA

3-5, 9, 12

Need QA

1-2

(48)

Figure 3.3 Questionnaire Blueprint Part B

E. Data Gathering and Analysis Technique

The data for this research was gathered using the research instrument that was a questionnaire. Students in the late year of their study were rarely found around the campus as most of them only have three courses during their late semester. Thus, distributing the questionnaire via online was preferable as the respondents would be able to access the questionnaire almost anywhere and anytime. ELESP batch 2012 students were divided into six classes from A to F. Each class had its own WhatsApp class group. To enable access to the questionnaire for all ELESP students, the link to the questionnaire was distributed via messenger (WhatsApp) to each class group.

Following the data gathering, the researcher analysed the data. The analysis was started from part A of the questionnaire. There were 12 questions with 5 options for each question. The options were strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree. The responses of each option for each question in part A was summed up, resulting the number of respondents who chose the option. The

QB

Feeling QB 3 Case I & II

Reason QB 2 Case I & II

(49)

percentages showed how the respondents perceived negative feedback. High percentages on agree and strongly agree choices meant that negative feedback was perceived positively.

For part B of the questionnaire cases I and II, the number of responses of each option for question number one was summed and then divided by the total responses to find out the percentage of how popular the option was. The highest percentage showed the most popular option and became the preferred negative feedback. For question numbers 2 and 3 of questionnaire part B, the answers were recorded into table (Appendices C and E). The responses were simplified. For example, one of the respondents wrote “Because it would give a very clear information relating to my mistake”. In the table, it is recorded as clear. Then, the recorded data was summed up (Appendices D and F). The data summary showed the most popular reason and feeling mentioned by the respondents.

F. Research Procedures

This section states the research procedures for this research. There were three major steps that the researcher took, namely literature review, survey study, and analytical study.

1. Literature Review

The researcher read some literature related to feedback, especially negative feedback. The theories found in the literature then were compiled into the chapters I and II of this research. The theories were used to find the reason for doing the research and to be the pillars for this research.

(50)

2. Survey Study

The next procedure was the survey study. This procedure included four steps. The first was survey process designing (why, who, when, and how). The researcher decided the reason survey was used and then decided who would be the respondent, when it would be conducted, and how it would be done. The next was the questionnaire development. The researcher adapted a questionnaire to meet the need of the research. The third was questionnaire testing where the researcher tested the questionnaire to several people to check the validity of the questionnaire. After the testing, the data collection was done. The questionnaire was distributed to the respondents.

3. Analytical Study

The data were summarised and grouped based on the similarity. The summary was analysed using the theories in the chapter two. The data summary was then discussed and used to answer the research problems. Finally, the conclusion to the research was drawn based on the data summary and analytical study related to the research problems.

(51)

33 CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter, the research findings were discussed using the theories in chapter II to answer the research questions. The discussion was done in two parts, each part represents one research question. The first part discussed the first research question related to how ELESP students perceive negative feedback. The second part focused on the second research question related to ELESP students’ preference for negative feedback.

A. Negative Feedback Perceived by ELESP Students

In this part, the response to the questionnaire related to ELESP students’ perception on negative feedback was analysed. The raw data was retrieved from Google Form and recorded in Data A and Data B tables (Appendices A, C, and E) to ease the researcher in analysing the data to answer the research questions. There were three analyses in this part, namely the impact on motivation, and the clarity of negative feedback. The data related to the first research question is shown in Table 4.1. In general, the higher the percentage on agree and strongly agree columns, the

(52)

Table 4.1 ELESP Students’ Perception on negative feedback

QA SD D N A SA

1 2.86% 0.00% 8.57% 45.71% 42.86% 2 8.57% 11.43% 34.29% 31.43% 14.29% 3 2.86% 17.14% 22.86% 37.14% 20.00% 4 2.86% 8.57% 20.00% 57.14% 11.43% 5 2.86% 22.86% 20.00% 40.00% 14.29% 6 5.71% 8.57% 31.43% 20.00% 34.29% 7 2.86% 5.71% 11.43% 40.00% 40.00% 8 0.00% 11.43% 14.29% 34.29% 40.00% 9 0.00% 17.14% 28.57% 40.00% 14.29% 10 2.86% 28.57% 34.29% 20.00% 14.29% 11 8.57% 25.71% 31.43% 25.71% 8.57% 12 5.71% 28.57% 37.14% 20.00% 8.57%

The data from Table 4.1 was analysed based on the category. There are three main categories for questionnaire part A (QA). The first is the need of negative feedback, the second is the impact of negative feedback on motivation, and the third is about the clarity.

1. The Need of Negative Feedback

Weiner (as cited in Petchprasert, 2012) and Schunk (1982) state that feedback

was necessary for students’ improvement. Thus, it is imperative to know whether

the students themselves have the feeling of need of feedback or not. Therefore, this research was done. The respondents gave response to questions related to their perception related to the need of negative feedback for their improvement.

The need of negative feedback felt by the respondents was represented by QA 1 and 2. The question for QA 1 was whether negative feedback was needed for improvement in learning or not. The data for QA 1 showed high agreement by the respondents (45.71% agree and 42.86% strongly agree), 8.57% of the respondents

(53)

were neutral, and the rest (2.86%) disagreed strongly. The responses to QA 1 showed that the respondents perceived negative feedback as needed.

The second representation of the need of negative feedback was QA 2. In QA 2, the respondents were asked whether they prefer to be given negative feedback or not. Their responses were similar to QA 1, most of them agreed that they need to be given negative feedback (31.43% agree and 14.29% strongly agree). However, more respondents were neutral to this statement (34.29%) and the rest of the respondents were either disagree or strongly disagree to QA 2 (11.43% disagree and 8.57% strongly disagree). The data showed that almost half of the respondents agreed that negative feedback was necessary for their improvement.

To identify the need of negative feedback for improvement from the respondents, the data for QA 1 and 2 was summarized and displayed in Figure 4.1. The responses from QA 1 were added with QA 2 and divided by two to find the average response for both questions.

Figure 4.1 Data Summary QA 1-2

Based on the data preview in Figure 4.1, most of the respondents considered that negative feedback was needed for their improvement (38.57% agree and

5.71% 5.71% 21.43% 38.57% 28.57% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% 50.00%

(54)

28.57% strongly agree). A small part of the respondents considered that negative feedback was not necessary for their improvement (5.71% disagree and 5.71% strongly disagree) and the rest of the respondents were neutral (21.43%). This indicated that most of the respondents welcomed negative feedback with open arms. 2. The Impact of Negative Feedback on Motivation

Chaudron explains that negative feedback may not be beneficial to learners (as cited in Petchprasert, 2012). Thus, knowing how ELESP batch 2012 students perceived the impact of negative feedback on their motivation would be beneficial; for themselves and their lecturers. The data showed that most of the respondents had good perceptions on negative feedback in general. It is shown in Table 4.1, QA 3-5. Summarized and displayed in Figure 4.2, the responses related to the impact of negative feedback on motivation were relatively positive.

Figure 4.2 Data Summary QA 3-5

The data summary revealed the tendency of negative feedback to have a

positive effect on the respondents’ motivation. More than half of the respondents

(56.43%) agreed that negative feedback gave them motivation. A quarter of them (24.29%) were neutral and the rest disagreed (15% disagree and 4.29% strongly

4.29% 15.00% 24.29% 41.43% 15.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% 50.00%

(55)

disagree). Not all respondents agreed that negative feedback induced positive effect to their motivation. However, it was only 19.29% of the respondents and they were not in a complete disagreement, they still agreed to some of the questions. Thus, in general, it can be concluded that negative feedback induced positive effect on the

respondents’ motivation in learning.

The impact of negative feedback on motivation was also analysed based on the directness of the negative feedback. The respondents were asked for agreement related to the motivation induced by direct negative feedback and indirect negative feedback. This point was implied in QA 9 and 12.

a. Motivation from Direct Negative Feedback

The responses to QA 9 were positive. It could be seen on Table 4.1, 54.29% of the respondents agreed that direct negative feedback gave them motivation, 28.57% were neutral, and 17.14% disagreed. Their positive reaction for QA 9 showed that direct negative feedback could give motivation to them.

b. Motivation from Indirect Negative Feedback

The responses to QA 12 were negative, shown in Table 4.1. Less than a third of the respondents (28.57%) agreed that indirect negative feedback gave them motivation. More respondents were neutral to this question (37.14%) and more than a third of the respondents disagreed (34.28%). This shows negative responses related to the impact of indirect negative feedback on the respondents’ motivation.

Based on the respondents’ responses, the motivation induced by direct negative feedback was greater than the motivation induced by indirect negative feedback. Related to motivation, there were more respondents having a positive

(56)

perception to direct negative feedback compared to the respondents having a positive perception to indirect negative feedback (54.29% for direct negative feedback and 28.57% for indirect negative feedback).

In summary, for the responses to the impact of negative feedback on motivation and the impact of direct and indirect negative feedback on motivation, the data indicated positive responses from the respondents (shown in Figure 4.3).

Figure 4.3 Data Summary QA 3-5, 9, and 12

More than half of the respondents showed positive responses on the impact of negative feedback on motivation (51.83%). However, there were 20.41% of the respondents had negative responses and the rest of the respondents (27.76%) were neutral. In conclusion, negative feedback gave positive effect on most of the

respondents’ motivation and only around a quarter of the respondents got

discouraged when given negative feedback. 3. Clarity of Negative Feedback

Clarity in feedback is one of the most important criteria of effective feedback (Brookhart, 2008, p. 2). The idea presented on feedback should be easy to be

4.08%

16.33%

27.76%

35.10%

16.73%

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00%

(57)

understood by the students. When they could understand the content, then they would be able to know which part they needed to improve. The respondents’ opinions about the clarity of negative feedback were analysed from QA 8 and 11. QA 8 was related to the clarity of direct negative feedback and QA 11 was related to the clarity of indirect negative feedback.

a. Clarity of Direct Negative Feedback

QA 8 deals with the clarity of direct negative feedback. In this part, the respondents were asked whether they agreed or not that they could understand well when given direct negative feedback. The data from Table 4.1 shows that most of the respondents agreed that they could get the message when given direct negative feedback (40% agree and 40% strongly agree). Only 11.43% of the participants were neutral to this question and 8.57% of the participant disagreed. The superior number of agreement in QA 8 implied that most respondents agreed that the message on direct negative feedback was clear.

b. Clarity of Indirect Negative Feedback

The respondents’ opinion related to the clarity of indirect negative feedback was implied in QA 11. The respondents were to choose whether they agree or not that they could understand indirect negative feedback well. In Table 4.1, the result for QA 11 displayed that most of the respondents were neutral (31.43%). The percentage of respondents who agreed and disagreed to the statement were in the same percentage (34.28%). This implied that, in general, according to the respondents, indirect negative feedback was sometimes clear and sometimes not.

(58)

Based on the analysis of respondents’ perception related to the clarity of

negative feedback, the respondents were having more positive perceptions on direct negative feedback compared to indirect negative feedback. The percentage of respondents who agreed to direct negative feedback having a good clarity was greater compared to the percentage of the respondents who agreed to indirect negative feedback having a good clarity (80% for direct negative feedback and 34.28% for indirect negative feedback). It could be concluded that direct negative feedback was perceived to have a better clarity compared to indirect negative feedback.

In conclusion, the answer to the first research question was that the respondents showed positive perceptions. The respondents felt the need of negative feedback for their improvement. Moreover, based on the data analysis, direct negative feedback was perceived to have a better clarity and motivation compared to indirect negative feedback.

B. ELESP Students’ Preference for Negative Feedback

This part mainly discussed the data analysis related to the second research question, ELESP students’ preference for negative feedback. There were two parts of the questionnaire that were analysed; part A and B. In part A of the questionnaire, the respondents were to choose between oral or written negative feedback as their preferred negative feedback in QA 6 and between direct and indirect negative feedback in QA 7 and 10. Meanwhile in part B of the questionnaire, there were two cases. The respondents’ were to choose one of eight options for each case that later

(59)

be analysed for their preference for negative feedback in given situation. The raw data of part B was coded into a simpler table (Appendices D, E, & F) to ease the analysis.

The analysis for the second research questions was done in two parts. The first part used the data from questionnaire part A (QA) numbers 6, 7, 10, and 11 and the second part used the data from questionnaire part B (QB) cases I and II. The analysis of QA 6, 7, 10, and 11 was done in order to find out respondents’ preference for negative feedback in general. Meanwhile, the analysis of QB I and II was done in addition to the first analysis to strengthen the results. Finally, after analysing each part, final analysis would be made by combining the analysis result of both parts.

1. Preference Part A

The first analysis for respondents’ preference was done based on their answer

on Part A of the questionnaire. Their preferences to negative feedback in general were implied in QA 6, 7, and 10. QA 6 dealt with the form of negative feedback; oral or written while QA 7 and 10 dealt with directness of negative feedback. Based

on the data for QA 6, 7, and 10 a conclusion for respondents’ preference for negative feedback in general was made.

a. Oral vs Written Negative Feedback

Having to choose between oral and written feedback for their preferred form of negative feedback in general (QA 6), based on the data on Table 4.1, more than half of the respondents (54.29%) chose written feedback for their preferred negative feedback. Only 14.28% of the respondents chose oral feedback for their preferred

(60)

negative feedback. 31.43% of the respondents were neutral which meant they did not really care about the form of negative feedback. In conclusion, most of the respondents preferred written negative feedback to oral negative feedback.

b. Direct vs Indirect Negative Feedback

The respondents answered positively for QA 7 and for QA 10 they were mostly neutral. The popularity of direct vs indirect negative feedback can be drawn in Figure 4.4.

Figure 4.4 Data Comparison QA 7 and 10

The respondents had more positive responses to QA 7 (direct negative feedback). As shown in Figure 4.4, the graph rises on the right that showed that QA 7 had more positive responses than negative responses. QA 10 (indirect negative feedback) had low positive responses, shown in Figure 4.4. The graph was low on the right side. From the comparison, it could be concluded that the respondents preferred direct negative feedback to indirect negative feedback.

Based on the analysis of form and directness, a conclusion was drawn. In QA 6, the respondents preferred written to oral negative feedback. Meanwhile, in QA 7

1.43% 2.86%

5.71%

20.00% 20.00%

1.43%

14.29%

17.14%

10.00%

7.14% 0.00%

5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00%

SD D N A SA QA 7 QA 10

(61)

and 10, the respondents preferred direct to indirect negative feedback. Thus, considering both result, it could be concluded that direct written negative feedback was preferred by the respondents for negative feedback in general.

2. Preference Part B

This part discussed respondents’ preference for negative feedback for two situations. In case I, the respondents were given a situation where they would receive negative feedback for their written performance. Meanwhile in case II, the respondents were given a situation where they would receive negative feedback for their oral performance.

a. Case I

In Case I or QB I, the respondents were given a situation where they would be given negative feedback for their written performance. They had to choose one of the eight options and give the reason for choosing the option then state their feeling. The respondents’ responses to questionnaire part B case I were recorded in a table (Appendix B).

1). Preferred Option for Case I

The respondents’ choices for the questionnaire part B case I number 1 were varied. The data in Table 4.2 shows that there were options that were chosen several times. Those options were options 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6.

Table 4.2 Questionnaire part B case I number 1 Data Summary

Option Type Times chosen (%)

1 Direct Oral without Hedging 6 (17.14%)

2 Direct Written without Hedging 12 (34.29%)

3 Direct Oral with Hedging 4 (11.43%)

4 Direct Written with Hedging 8 (22.86%)

(62)

Option Type Times chosen (%) 6 Indirect Written without Hedging 3 (8.57%)

7 Indirect Oral with Hedging 0 (0%)

8 Indirect Written with Hedging 1 (2.86%)

Total 35 (100%)

However, there was one option that was chosen the most. Option 2 was chosen the most, compared to other options, a third of the respondents chose option 2, direct written negative feedback without hedging (34.29%). It showed that the respondents consider direct written negative feedback without hedging to be the most suitable for case I.

2). Consideration in Choosing the Option for Case I

The second question for case I was to find out the respondents’ reason for choosing the option for the case. There were various reasons. Those reasons were summarised in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 Questionnaire part B number 2 case I Data Summary

Option Reason

1 direct, detailed(2),clear(3), memorable, oral(2)

2 clear(5), detailed(2), written(3), memorable(2), private, can learn something, acceptable

3 clear, acceptable(2), direct, memorable, quick 4

written(3), clear(5), can be used for later(2), with hedging, polite(3), memorable, direct, can learn something, private, not insulting(2),

detailed

5 quick

6 can do self-correction, direct(2), clear(2)

7 (empty)

8 written, often offended by oral feedback

otal

can correct oneself(1),

acceptable(3), polite(3), not insulting(2), private(2), using hedging(1),

written(7),

can learn something(2), clear(16), detailed(5), memorable(5), direct(5), quick(2),

(63)

Option Reason

Motivation related (3) Negative feeling related (11)

Form related (7) Clarity (28)

Directness (7) Practicality (2)

The most common reasons were clarity related reasons, mentioned 28 times (Table 4.3). The second most mentioned reasons were related to negative feeling mentioned 11 times. Meanwhile, the third most mentioned reasons were related to form and directness. There were also other reasons related to motivation and practicality that appeared in their responses to questionnaire part B case I number 2, but they appeared less than 4 times. In brief, to give considerable negative feedback on written performance to the respondents, the negative feedback should be clear, cause no negative feeling, and in written form.

For the option number 2, there are seven main reasons (Table 4.3). Their reasons were because the negative feedback was clear, detailed, written, memorable, private, can learn something, and acceptable. The most common reason is that the negative feedback was clear, mentioned 5 times by the respondents who chose option 2. Similar to the most mentioned consideration for case I in total, the respondents who chose option 2 also mentioned clarity for their consideration. Thus, it could be concluded that the respondents used clarity as the first consideration in choosing the negative feedback for case I.

3). Feeling after Receiving The Chosen Option for Case I

Having given their reason for their preferred negative feedback for case I, the respondents were required to tell their feeling after receiving the chosen negative

(1)

71 APPENDIX G QUESTIONNAIRE

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Negative feedback as perceived by English language education study program students batch 2012.

ABSTRACT

ABSTRAK

NEGATIVE FEEDBACK AS PERCEIVED

BY ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

BATCH 2012 STUDENTS

NEGATIVE FEEDBACK AS PERCEIVED

BY ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

BATCH 2012 STUDENTS

NEGATIVE FEEDBACK AS PERCEIVED

BY ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

BATCH 2012 STUDENTS

NEGATIVE FEEDBACK AS PERCEIVED

BY ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

BATCH 2012 STUDENTS

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN

PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN

AKADEMIS

ABSTRACT

ABSTRAK

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF APPENDICES

Research

Question 1

Research

Question 2

QA

QB

Parts

Dokumen yang terkait

A Technique Practiced By The Students Of English Department To Study English As A Foreign Language

Teaching English As Foreign Language To Students With Autism (A Descriptive Study Conducted At Sma Lazuardi Global Islamic School Depok)

GOOD ENGLISH TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS AS PERCEIVED BY THE SEVENTH SEMESTER STUDENTS Good English Teacher Characteristics As Perceived By The Seventh Semester Students Of English Education Departement, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta.

GOOD ENGLISH TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS AS PERCEIVED BY THE SEVENTH SEMESTER STUDENTS Good English Teacher Characteristics As Perceived By The Seventh Semester Students Of English Education Departement, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta.

A componential analysis on synonymous nouns used by the third semester students of English language education study program.

The negative impact of frequent usage of English language toward English language education study program students` official Indonesian language.

Strategies to process the intended meanings of English idioms by semester four students of English Language Education Study Program.

A study of gender language of Sanata Dharma English Language Education Study Program students using Deborah Tannen`s gender language theory.

Mastery of defining and non-defining relative clauses by students of the English language education study program.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM EDUCATION TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

Dokumen yang Anda mencari sudah siap untuk unduhkan