Students' perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback in critical reading and writing 1 class.

(1)

ABSTRACT

Sekartaji, Claudia Yessie Dewi. 2013. Students’ Perception on the Implementation of Teacher Written Feedback in Critical Reading and Writing 1 Class. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.

Writing is one way of communication which conveys meanings. It also helps people in establishing new information over time throughout the world. In the educational field, writing is very important as one of the English productive skills. Second language writing students should have a good writing ability. They are also assigned to write their own writings. Teacher, as the facilitator, take a part in responding to students’ writing by giving useful feedback. Teacher written feedback is the most common feedback technique used in second language writing classrooms. Yet, it still has many weaknesses.

This study was conducted to see the English Language Education Study Program (ELESP) students’ perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback and its implication. The research problems were formulated as follows: 1) What is ELESP students’ of Sanata Dharma University perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback in Critical Reading and Writing (CRW) 1 class? 2) What is the implication of the findings?

This research was a qualitative research specifically on survey method. In gathering the data, the researcher distributed the questionnaire to 140 students of ELESP Sanata Dharma University in the academic year 2011 who had taken CRW 1 class. After having the questionnaire result, the researcher conducted several interviews to six students to clarify and strengthen the data of the questionnaire. The data analysis was in the form of percentage. The researcher analyzed the data by seeing the most frequent degree of agreement chosen.

The result shows that the students had positive perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback especially on the writing process. They preferred to have teacher written feedback because it was very helpful and useful for the students. It also led to the students’ improvements in their writing performance. It is implied that the teacher written feedback implementation in CRW 1 class had been good. However, the lecturers should be more careful in reading and responding to the students writing. Besides, using variations in the written feedback such as compliments and simple drawings might encourage the students to start writing. Therefore, the researcher addresses several recommendations to 1) lecturers to keep using teacher written feedback by providing clear and encouraging feedback, 2) students to reflect and evaluate their process of writing, and 3) future researchers to explore the implementation of teacher written feedback in other writing classrooms.

(2)

vii

ABSTRAK

Sekartaji, Claudia Yessie Dewi. 2013. Students’ Perception on the Implementation of Teacher Written Feedback in Critical Reading and Writing 1 Class. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.

Menulis merupakan salah satu cara berkomunikasi dan menyampaikan informasi baru tanpa terbatas ruang dan waktu. Dalam bidang pendidikan, menulis merupakan salah satu keterampilan yang sangat penting. Para siswa diberi tugas untuk menciptakan sebuah karya tulis. Para guru berperan sebagai fasilitator dengan memberikan umpan balik yang bermanfaat. Teacher written feedback merupakan salah satu teknik yang sering digunakan di kelas menulis bahasa asing. Namun, teknik tersebut masih memiliki banyak kelemahan. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk melihat persepsi mahasiswa terhadap penerapan teacher written feedback dan implikasinya.

Beberapa rumusan masalah dalam penelitian ini adalah 1) bagaimana persepsi mahasiswa Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris di Universitas Sanata Dharma terhadap penerapan teacher written feedback di kelas Critical Reading and Writing 1? 2) Apakah implikasi dari hasil penelitian tersebut?

Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian kualitatif dengan metode survei. Peneliti menyebarkan kuesioner ke 140 mahasiswa Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Universitas Sanata Dharma angkatan tahun 2011 yang sudah mengambil mata kuliah CRW 1. Peneliti juga mewawancarai enam mahasiswa dengan tujuan untuk mengklarifikasi dan memperkuat data dari kuesioner. Hasil dari analisis data berupa persentase yang digunakan untuk melihat tingkat kesepakatan yang paling sering dipilih oleh responden.

Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa, mahasiswa memiliki persepsi positif terhadap penerapan teacher written feedback. Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa penerapan teacher written feedback di kelas CRW 1 sudah baik. Akan tetapi para dosen harus lebih berhati-hati dalam menanggapi tulisan mahasiswa. Selain itu, variasi dalam penulisan teacher written feedback seperti pemberian pujian dan gambar sederhana dapat mendorong mahasiswa untuk terus menulis. Peneliti mengusulkan beberapa rekomendasi kepada: 1) para dosen untuk tetap menggunakan teacher written feedback yang jelas dan dapat mendorong mahasiswa untuk menciptakan karya tulis yang lebih baik 2) para mahasiswa untuk merefleksikan dan mengevaluasi proses menulis mereka, dan 3) para calon peneliti untuk lebih menggali penerapan teacher written feedback di kelas menulis lainnya.

Kata kunci: persepsi, teacher written feedback, Critical Reading and Writing 1

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

(3)

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION

OF TEACHER WRITTEN FEEDBACK IN CRITICAL

READING AND WRITING 1 CLASS

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN_THESIS

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

in English Language Education

Claudia Yessie Dewi Sekartaji Student Number: 091214056

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

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

(4)

A Sarjana Pendidikan Thesis on

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION

OF TEACHER WRITTEN FEEDBACK IN CRITICAL

READING AND WRITING 1 CLASS

CLAUDIA YESSIE DEWI SEKARTAJI Student Number: 091214056

Defended before the Board of Examiners on November 7, 2013

and Declared Acceptable

Board of Examiners

Chairperson : C. Tutyandari, S.Pd., M.Pd. _______ Secretary : Drs. Barli Bram, M.Ed., Ph.D. _______ Member : V. Triprihatmini, S.Pd., M.Hum., M.A. _______

Member : Drs. F.X. Mukarto, M.S., Ph.D. _______

Member : Dr. Ant. Herujiyanto, M.A. _______

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

vi ABSTRACT

Sekartaji, Claudia Yessie Dewi. 2013. Students’ Perception on the Implementation of Teacher Written Feedback in Critical Reading and Writing 1 Class. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.

Writing is one of the ways of communication which conveys meanings. It also helps people in establishing new information over time throughout the world. In the educational field, writing is very important as one of the English productive skills. Second language writing students should have a good writing ability. They are also assigned to write their own writings. Teacher, as the facilitator, take a part in responding to students’ writing by giving useful feedback. Teacher written feedback is the most common feedback technique used in second language writing classrooms. Yet, it still has many weaknesses.

Keywords: perception, teacher written feedback, Critical Reading and Writing 1

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

(9)

ABSTRAK

Sekartaji, Claudia Yessie Dewi. 2013. Students’ Perception on the Implementation of Teacher Written Feedback in Critical Reading and Writing 1 Class. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.

(10)

viii

Fall

seven

times,

stand up

eight.

Japanese Proverb

---

I dedicate this thesis to:

My Almighty God, Jesus Christ. My Grandpa, W.J. Hendrowarsito. My Parents, Willy T.H. and Russuharini Sekartaji. My Brother, Yohanes Rendy S.P. My friends, and all thesis fighters.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

(11)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to thank my Lord, Jesus Christ, who is always willing to raise me up when I am down, to guide me when I am stuck, and to listen to all my prayers. I thank Him for creating a hardworking person like me. For His blessings have assisted me to give my best and my very best in writing this thesis. I believe that without His greatest love I would not have been able to finish this thesis.

I dedicate my greatest gratitude to my major sponsor Veronica Triprihatmini, S.Pd., M.Hum., M.A. who has patiently guided and encouraged me during the process of completing this thesis. Her attention, suggestion, correction, comments, advice, and criticism were so beneficial for me. I also would like to thank Drs. Barli Bram M. Ed., Ph.D. for his useful and helpful advice for my thesis, for his jokes which made me a little bit relieve. I would to thank C. Sih Prabandari S.Pd., M.Hum. For being the best academic advisor for ELESP of class B (2009). I thank all lecturers, staff, and students of ELESP Sanata Dharma_{University for giving me valuable experiences which helped me}

to bring out the best in me during my study. I also address my thanks to Sr. Margaret O’Donohue FCJ and Adesti Komalasari S.Pd., M.A. for proofreading my thesis and being the nicest thesis consultants.

I deeply thank my lovely grandfather and grandmother, the late WJ Hendrowarsito and Sri Mahjarati, as my role models of life, for their living inspiration which always makes me keep fighting to grasp my future. My father and mother, Willy Tunggul Hendrarto and Russuharini Sekartaji, who

(12)

physically and mentally support me. They are the heroes of my life whose love, patience, and guidance are sincerely given in finishing my thesis. I also thank my brother, Yohanes Rendy Saksono Putro, who becomes my best mood booster, thanks for keeping the tabs on me for years.

My sincerest thanks also go to my beloved Gajah Gajah Semut Jerapah, Elisabeth Rosalia, Rieska Dwi, Maria Wulandari, Ruth Septi and Yoga Marutadewa, for the love, care, and support which go along this true friendship. I also would like to thank Diana Wibawaningtyas, Asiska Bunga, and Jenny Keita for the joy and sorrow shared being a thesis fighter. I wish us a good luck. I thank all class B (2009) members as my second family, for sharing the tears and laughter, for making my life colorful and meaningful. I also address my thanks to Adria Cemara S.Pd., for kindly helped me being my proofreader. Sandy Ferianda S.Pd., for being my motivator. For his words made a huge sense of relief. The last but not least, I thank my friend of life, Gregorius Pambudi Laksono, for enormously loving, motivating and caring me and for teaching me not to sweat the small stuff in my life especially on completing this thesis.

Finally, I thank all of the people whose names I cannot mention one by one for their supports and prayers.

Claudia Yessie Dewi Sekartaji

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

(13)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE PAGE ……….. i

APPROVAL PAGES ……….. ii

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ………... iv

PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ……….. v

ABSTRACT ……….... vi

ABSTRAK ………. vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……….... ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS ……… xi

LIST OF TABLES ……….. xiv

LIST OF FIGURES ………. xv

LIST OF APPENDICES ………. xvi

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION A. Research Background ……… 1

B. Problem Formulation ………... 4

C. Problem Limitation ………... 4

D. Research Objectives ……….. 5

E. Research Benefits ……….. 5

F. Definition of Terms ………... 7

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE A. Theoretical Description ………. 10

1. Perception ………... 10

a. Definition of Perception ………... 10

b. Perception, Learning & Thinking ………... 11

2. Feedback ………. 13

(14)

1) Teacher Written Feedback ……….. 16

a) Forms of Teacher Written Feedback ……… 17

b) Types of Teacher Written Feedback ……… 18

c) Focus of Teacher Written Feedback ……… 18

d) Review of Existing Studies of Teacher Written Feedback ……… 20

3. Critical Reading and Writing ……… 22

a. Nature of Reading ……… 22

b. Nature of Writing ……… 25

c. Critical Reading and Writing 1 in ELESP Sanata Dharma University ……….………. 28

B. Theoretical Framework ………... 31

CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A. Research Method ………. 33

B. Research Setting ……….. 34

C. Research Participants ……….. 35

D. Instruments and Data Gathering Technique………. 35

1. Questionnaire ……….... 35

2. Interview Framework ………..…………... 37

E. Data Analysis Technique ………... 41

F. Research Procedure ……… 43

CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS A. ELESP Students’ Perception on the Implementation of Teacher Written Feedback in CRW 1 ……….. 46

1. Students’ Perception on the Process of Teaching and Learning Activities in CRW 1 ………... 47

xii

(15)

2. Students’ Perception on the Process of Teacher Written

Feedback Implementation in CRW 1 ……….. 52

3. Students’ Perception on the Implementation of Teacher Written Feedback in CRW 1 ………... 62

B. The Implications of ELESP Students’ Perception on the Implementation of Teacher Written Feedback in CRW 1…………. 76

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Conclusions ……….... 86

B. Recommendations ……….. 90

1. Recommendations for Lecturers of CRW 1 ……… 91

2. Recommendations for Students of CRW 1 ………. 91

3. Recommendations for Future Researchers ………. 92

REFERENCES ………..…... 93

(16)

LIST OF TABLES

Page Table 3.1 Questionnaire Blueprint of Students’ Perception ………. 36 Table 3.2 Interview Framework Blueprint of Students’ Perception ………. 38 Table 3.3 Data Analysis of Questionnaire ……… 42 Table 4.1 The Result of Students’ Perception on the Process of Teaching

and Learning Activities ...………... 48 Table 4.2 The Result of Students’ Perception on the Forms, Types,

and Media ………...………. 53

Table 4.3 The Result of Students’ Perception on the Content Focus .…... 59 Table 4.4 The Result of Students’ Perception on the Clarity ……….. 63 Table 4.5 The Result of Students’ Perception on the Use

of Teacher Written Feedback ……….. 69 Table 4.6 The Result of Students’ Perception on the Possible

Follow-up Action ……….…… 72

xiv

(17)

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 2.1 Relationship between Perception and Learning & Thinking …. 12

Figure 2.2 The Graphic of Interactive Models ………. 24

Figure 2.3 White and Arndt’s Process Writing Model ………. 26

(18)

Appendix

LIST OF APPENDICES

Page

A. Sample of Surat Permohonan Ijin Penelitian……… 98

B. Blueprint of Questionnaire ……… 100

C. Questionnaire ……… 105

D. Sample of Students’ Questionnaire ………... 108

E. Percentage Result of Questionnaire ………. 121

F. Blueprint of Interview Framework ……….. 124

G. Interview Question List ……… 128

H. Transcripts of Interview ……….. 130

I. Syllabus of Critical Reading and Writing 1 ……… 138

J. Sample of Buku Panduan Akademik Universitas Sanata Dharma (CRW 1) …………... 141

xvi

(19)

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This study discusses the English Language Education Study Program (ELESP) students’ perception of Sanata Dharma_{University on the} implementation of teacher written feedback in Critical Reading and Writing (CRW) 1 class. Chapter one is divided into six main parts, namely research background, problem formulation, problem limitation, research objectives, research benefits and definition of terms.

A. Research Background

Focusing on the educational field in this modern era, writing is one productive skill that is no less important than the others. Writing helps people in carrying new information over time throughout the world. “One of the best ways to try out people’s writing ability is to make them write and create their own writing” (Hughes, 1989:75, in Weigle, 2002, p. 1). In writing classrooms, the students are trained to write their own writings in order to practice their writing skills. At the same time, it indicates that the student also practice and try out their writing ability.

In writing classrooms, the students are assigned to create their own writings. Teachers, as the facilitators in writing activities, really take a main role to respond to the students’ writings by giving useful feedback. “Feedback is widely seen in education as crucial for both encouraging and consolidating

(20)

learning and this significance has also been recognized by those working in the field of second language writing” (Anderson, 1982; Brophy, 1981; Vygotsky, 1978, as cited in Hyland, 2002). Feedback nowadays is popularly used in language classrooms in both first language (L1) and second language (L2) classrooms in assisting the students in the process of writing.

Concerning about the L2 writing classrooms, feedback is one useful tool to measure and improve students’ writing. Hyland (2003) addresses several kinds of feedback such as teacher written feedback, peer feedback and teacher-student conferencing. Each feedback has its own strengths and weaknesses. Focusing on teacher written feedback, this technique of feedback has several weaknesses as it has described:

“Much written feedback has poor quality and frequently misunderstood by the students. The teachers are sometimes overwhelmed, they tend to misread students’ text and they are inconsistent in their reactions by giving arbitrary corrections, contradictory comments, provide vague

prescriptions, impose abstract rules, respond to texts as fixed of final products and rarely make content-specific comments for revising the texts (Sommers, 1982, as cited in Hyland, 2003, p. 178).

Despite these weaknesses, it is found that students highly value the implementation of teacher written feedback rather than other alternative forms such as peer feedback and oral feedback. In addition, it is stated that feedback on early drafts of a paper can lead to students’ improvements in following drafts (Knoblauch and Brannon, 1981, as cited in Hyland, 2003). However, Ferris (1997, as cited in Hyland, 2003) finds out that although three quarters of substantives teachers’ comments on drafts were used by the students, only half of the revisions could be considered improving while a third made the matters even worse.

(21)

Since this issue related to teacher written feedback has been discussed in L2 writing classrooms, it is interesting to discuss by directly involving L2 writing students who have experienced teacher written feedback to come up with their perception. Recently, based on some students’ experiences, some L2 writing lecturers had not given complete or useful feedback as detailed as what students expected. However, feedback is very important in order to improve students’ writing skills and increase their quality of writing. Besides, it can be a way to monitor the writing progress of the students.

This research mainly discusses three variables; perception, teacher written feedback and CRW 1 class. In order to find out the truth of teacher written feedback implementation in certain L2 writing classroom, this research employs perception which was gained through the students. This research chooses teacher written feedback because this kind of feedback is considered as an effective way of giving feedback yet it still has many weaknesses. Later, it will be proven in this research by directly involving L2 writing students. One of the L2 writing classrooms chosen is CRW 1 class. Focusing on the writing skill, CRW 1 no longer discusses the technical terms such as minimum requirements, etc. but also the development of ideas and its organization in students’ writing. That is why it needs more concern from L2 writing lecturers to pay attention to its process.

Thus, this research is very significant to conduct in order to see how teacher written feedback can help the students in the process of writing. Besides, it is to give meaningful information to the L2 writing lecturers by finding out students’ perception in the implementation of teacher written feedback in a

(22)

particular L2 classroom. Yet, the result of the data found later can be used for the L2 writing lecturers to see how far their teaching practice especially in providing feedback works well. Thus, there will be some suggestions provided for L2 writing lecturers as the implication of this study.

B. Problem Formulation

This research tries to answer two research problems which are formulated as follows:

1. What is ELESP students’ perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback in Critical Reading and Writing (CRW) 1 class of Sanata Dharma University?

2. What are the implications of the findings?

C. Problem Limitation

This research about ELESP students’ perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback of Sanata Dharma_{University in Critical Reading and} Writing (CRW) 1 class has some limitations. First, it focuses only on CRW 1 students’ perception and its implications in the teacher written feedback given by CRW 1 lecturers. Besides it only focuses on the teacher written feedback of the writing skill since this class is divided into two different skills, reading and writing. Next, it only focuses on the CRW 1 students of Sanata Dharma

(23)

University as the research population, who have taken CRW 1 course and obtained teacher written feedback as one of the feedback techniques.

D. Research Objectives

Based on the problem formulation above this research has several objectives, they are:

1. To figure out the students’ perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback

2. To find out why students have a positive or negative perception

3. To present the implications of the students’ perception

E. Research Benefits

The research findings are expected to make some positive contributions to:

1. Lecturers of Critical Reading and Writing 1

This study does not only provide descriptions of students’ perception on the teacher written feedback given, what and how the students perceive and understand the feedback given but also presenting its implications. The study also finds out the implication on the students’ perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback. It provides the deeper meaning of what students perceive after having teacher written feedback in the writing activities. The

(24)

implied findings are expected to give some useful suggestions and recommendations for the lecturers of CRW 1 class in providing teacher written feedback to accommodate the students’ needs in writing activities. The benefits are not only limited to lecturers of CRW 1 class but also for other English writing teachers who may try to implement or even have implemented teacher written feedback so that they can provide this technique of feedback effectively.

2. Students of Critical Reading and Writing 1

Through this study, the students may reflect and evaluate the teaching and learning activities in CRW 1 class especially in the implementation of teacher written feedback. This research investigates the students’ perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback. Its purpose is to find out whether the students have positive perception toward the implementation of teacher written feedback. After having the results of research findings, it is expected for the students to be really aware of how the implementation of teacher written feedback helps them in the process of writing. Besides it is also expected that teacher written feedback technique can really meet students’ needs in writing activities so that the students may optimize their writing skill. The benefits are not only limited to the students of CRW 1 but also other second language writing students, which also experience this technique of feedback in their writing activities.

(25)

3. Future Researchers

The researcher hopes that this study can inspire other researchers, who have a concern in this field and interested in this topic, to explore more about the use of teacher written feedback not only in CRW 1 class but also in other second language writing classrooms. The researcher expects that this study can stimulate other researchers to conduct a further research and find other essential findings of teacher written feedback through the result of the students’ perception and also its implication through the implementation of teacher written feedback itself.

F. Definition of Terms

This research contains several terms in the scope of writing that are going to be discussed, they are:

1. Perception

According to Altman, Valenzi & Hodgetts (1985) perception is defined as “The way stimuli are selected and grouped by a person so that they can be meaningfully interpreted. The process of perception enables us to understand and cope with the environment in which we live.” In this research, this term will discuss generally on the way the students think about or interpret the implementation of teacher written feedback.

(26)

2. Teacher Written Feedback

According to Sherman (2004), feedback is a response from someone to a person does in order to assess and improve his or her performance. Focusing on the written form, Kaweera (2008) notes that teacher written feedback refers to written responses provided by the teacher to the students writing. The teacher written feedback means feedback in form of written that consists of any markings, comments, revision, suggestions, responses or reactions provided by a teacher to students’ writing.

3. Critical Reading and Writing (CRW) 1 Class

According to CRW 1 syllabus, CRW 1 class is offered for ELESP students who are in the third semester. It is designed to give students practice to write responses critically based on the given texts or passages, or even write passages to develop new ideas within the same topic. The texts are related to argumentative, persuasive and expository genres. The students are trained to apply logical principles, careful standard of evidence and reasoning to the analysis and discussion of claims, beliefs and issues. So, on completing this course, the students are able to comprehend the texts given and write their responses critically.

(27)

4. English Language Education Study Program (ELESP) Students

ELESP students are the university students who are taking English Education as the major. They learn four English skills; speaking, reading, listening, and writing. They are prepared and trained to be a certified English teacher. They do not only take English course works related to the four skills but also other courses which support them to be a good English teacher. In order to practice the students’ teaching skills, the students also get micro teaching class. Besides they get opportunities to teach English in public or private school for some months.

(28)

10 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter is divided into two main parts namely theoretical description and theoretical framework. Theoretical description focuses on reviews of related literature underlying this study, while theoretical framework discusses the implementation of the theories which are used to answer the research problems.

A. Theoretical Description

This part consists of the review of related literature namely perception, feedback and critical reading and writing.

1. Perception

a. Definition of Perception

Altman, Valenzi and Hodgetts (1985) defines perception as a person’s view of reality which comes from stimuli in our environment:

Perception is the way stimuli are selected and grouped by a person so that they can be meaningfully interpreted. It is a person’s view of reality. The process of perception enables us to understand and cope with the

environment in which we live (p. 85).

It is obviously stated that the input of perception itself is the stimuli that come from environment, which is grouped and processed by human sensory system to produce meaningful interpretation. Another similar definition comes from. Atkinson & Atkinson and Hilgard (1981), they state that perception is the process where people organize and interpret the patterns of stimuli in the environment.

(29)

Deriving from these two definitions, there are several things that should be highlighted: stimuli, stimuli selection, stimuli organization and then interpretation. However, Leontiev (1981) proposes “Perception is the process whereby the external tokens of objects and phenomena are reflected in man’s consciousness” (p. 31). In other words, the intended external tokens of objects and phenomena also occur in the environments that are reflected in man’s consciousness which also deals with human sensory organs.

From several definitions preceded, it can be concluded that the perceptual process is aroused by stimuli in environment. It can be in form of objects or phenomena as it is proposed by Leontiev, which is then selected by the sensory organs to be organized and arranged in order to make meaningful interpretation or it can be considered as perception itself which resulted in the people’s behavioral response.

b. Perception, Learning and Thinking

Since this study is dealing with students’ perception in its relation to the learning and thinking of second language writing, it is worth to explore how these three things are related to each other. According toForgus (1966), perception can be generally defined as the process by which an organism receives or extracts certain information about the environment. Learning itself can be seen as the process where this information itself is acquired through experiences. Since learning is growing, it needs more information extraction which brings further into the more complex cognitive processes called thinking. It is a complex

(30)

cognitive process where organisms are engaged in solving problems, which also involves the use of models or the stored facts in the preceding learning process.

Having referred to perception, learning and thinking as cognitive processes, the relationship of perception, learning and thinking can be drawn as followed:

Modifies perception Modifies organism of stimulus

Stimulus _ Organism _ Learning _ Thinking

Modifies perception Modifies organism of stimulus through learning

Figure 2.1 Relationship between Perception, and Learning & Thinking (Source: Forgus; 1966:4)

The figure above indicates that stimulus possesses information, which is extracted by the organism as learning. Next, the more complex process comes to the process of thinking in which it also modifies new learning process that involves organism in modifying the perception of stimuli. In other words, the result of thinking modifies future learning and that learning in turn can influence the way people perceive our stimuli in the environment.

Related to this study, knowing deeper the precise meaning of perception and relationship between students’ perception and learning & thinking is important. Later, the data of this research will be gained from the students’ perception based on their experience in having teacher written feedback, it is worth to see how the learning and thinking process can form students’ perception.

(31)

Besides it helps to see the process of the students when they come up with different or even negative opinions which is caused by human’s way of thinking and it has its own interpretation in the same stimuli within an environment.

2. Feedback

Feedback, which has two different forms; written and spoken, also has several different definitions which come from several experts. Generally, according to Sherman (1994) feedback is a response or reaction from a person to something that another person does, that can be used to assess and improve a person’s performance in the future. In the educational field, F. Hyland & K. Hyland (2006) note that feedback is important in providing students with the rhetorical choices central to new academic or professional literacy skills and as a way of assisting students in negotiating access to new knowledge and practices. Limited to L2 writing classrooms, Hyland (2003) addresses. “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” (p.177).

Although the definitions above have different meanings in context, these definitions are centered on a person’s development in the process of learning in order to improve his skills and bring him into wider knowledge. As it is proposed by Hyland & Hyland (2006) and Hyland (2003), it can be referred that feedback provides the students meaningful and useful information in the process of learning in order to assist them to develop their skills and broaden their knowledge. As

(32)

well as in the application of feedback in writing, it is concerned about the process of learning in creating proper writings, which becomes the starting point to create other texts. These synthesized definitions will be the base where feedback is used in this study.

Deriving from its definition, feedback aims to assist the students to develop their skills and knowledge into broader context of writing. As Lewis (2002) has described, it provides information both for the teacher and student, in which it is rather like an ongoing form of assessment than grades and marks. In addition, it also provides advice and language input in learning where it illustrates how language is used in one-to-one communication. Being a language input, it is a form of motivation. It means that the more the teachers know about the students through their writings, the more encouragement takes place in personal circumstances. One long-term purpose of feedback is to lead the students towards autonomy which means students are led into the point where they make mistakes.

Previously, feedback was identical to teachers’ markings in which bundles of students’ works are corrected and evaluated. There are some ways to deliver feedback in L2 writing classrooms, one of them is by seeing the source of feedback itself. According to Lewis (2002), “ …several sources of feedback: teacher feedback, peer feedback and self-correction feedback” (pp.15-23). In many classes, teachers are still considered as the main source of feedback in spoken and written language. On the contrary, it is possible that the students may give feedback to one another by exchanging their papers or conducting a role-play, which is called peer feedback and the source of feedback is given by the

(33)

students themselves. The last source of feedback comes from the student himself. The student who has his own writing may give his own feedback to his writing in order to evaluate it.

a. Kinds of Feedback

Hyland (2003) states that there are several kinds of feedback; “peer feedback, teacher-students conferencing feedback and teacher written feedback” (p. 177). One alternative in receiving feedback is by having peer feedback, it occurs when students give feedback to one another by exchanging their papers, having role-play, comparing papers, etc. It is both improving writer’s drafts and developing readers’ understandings of good writing. Another kind of feedback is teacher-students conferencing. It is done by giving the students feedback through face-to-face conferencing, which allows the students to negotiate the meaning of their texts through dialogue. The third kind of feedback is teacher written feedback. It is like the comments on students’ papers that take the various written form such as praise, questions, suggestions, marks, grades, etc. These three kinds of feedback have their own strengths and weaknesses. However, in the following discussion, this study will only focus on teacher written feedback since nowadays it plays a central role in most L2 writing classes compared to other kinds of feedback.

(34)

1) Teacher Written Feedback

Limited to its term, this kind of feedback involves teachers as the source of feedback to provide written feedback to students’ text. Written comments here mean the teacher writes comments on different aspects of the written tasks in the margins, spaces between paragraphs or at the end (Rairnes 1988; Fathmen and Whalley, 1990; Leki 1990 as cited in Karim & Ivy, 2011). Another definition comes from Kaweera (2008), she notes that teacher written feedback refers to written responses provided by the teacher to the students writing. The responses are limited to comments on grammatical errors and content of the students’ writing. In order to know further about teacher written feedback, this study elaborates its forms, types and focus.

In addition, Harmer (2001) states that the way the teachers give feedback depends on the kind of writing task. When we give feedback more on the longer texts and not on the workbook exercises, we have to demonstrate our interest on the content of students’ work. Harmer proposed that there are two techniques of feedback, responding and coding. Responding here means one way of considering feedback as ‘responding’ rather than assessing or evaluating. It means we respond to how text appears to us, how successful the texts are and what needs to be improved. While coding is where the teachers put codes in the body of writing or in a corresponding margin. Of course, the codes or symbols are decided both by the teachers and students. As the techniques of giving feedback, coding helps the

(35)

teachers to avoid over-correction scripts and helps the students to concentrate on particular features of written English.

a) Forms of Teacher Written Feedback

According to Hyland (2003), the most common forms of teacher written feedback are “commentary, rubrics, minimal marking, taped commentary and electronic feedback” (pp. 180-183). Commentary refers to the handwritten commentary on the students’ paper, which directly discusses the exact point where the students make mistakes. It states how the text appears to us as readers, how successful it is and how the text can be improved. Raimes (1983) notes, “Comments on students’ paper which is in form of paraphrase of the ideas expressed, praise, questions, and suggestions are more productive yet encouraging and motivating” (p. 143)

One of the variations of commentary is rubrics. It is the use of cover sheets which consists of the criteria that will be used to assess students’ assignment and performances related to the criteria. Another form of teacher written feedback is minimal marking, which indicates the location and perhaps type of error, rather than direct correction. Since it only provides ‘code correction’ in every part of students’ texts in students’ paper, it leads to a neater correction and less threatening for the students, which help the students to find and identify their mistakes.

However, there is a kind of feedback where the teachers give their feedback via recording which is called taped commentary. Teachers will record

(36)

their own voice talking about the correction based on the students’ texts then they will put numbers where the comments refer to. The numbers will help the students to follow the feedback into the text orderly. The last form of teacher written feedback is electronic feedback. It allows the students to submit their texts via email or any other online writing facilities that makes the teachers flexible in providing feedback.

b) Types of Teacher Written Feedback

Biber, Nekrasova and Horn (2011, p.7) conclude that there are two types of teacher written feedback: direct and indirect feedback. The term direct feedback is used to denote instances where the writing instructor makes an explicit correction to the student’s text (e.g.: providing the correct grammatical form in the ungrammatical sentences). While indirect feedback is where the instructor indicates that something about the student’s writing is problematic (e.g.: by underlining ungrammatical sentences)

c) Focus of Teacher Written Feedback

The focus of this feedback deals with the language features used in students’ text such as lexis, grammar, mechanics, etc. According to Fathman and Whalley (1990 in Chiang, 2004: 99 as cited in Wulandari, 2007, p. 18) the focuses of teacher written feedback are form-focused feedback and content-based feedback. The first focus of teacher written feedback is usually known as grammar correction. It is where the students are corrected only on the scope of grammatical terms. This type of feedback has been a long discussion among the

(37)

scholars since it is rather speculative and grammar-grounded, which does not show the nature process of learning. In addition, it is considered beneficial for students in some cases but it is not an effective way to all L2 writing classrooms. Next, is content-based feedback which is known as meaning-based feedback. Different from form-focused feedback, it concerns more on content quality and organizational features of the overall text. For instance, teachers provide the overall feedback in which the text is relevant and make sense within the content selected and how the text is organized well in logical ways without pointing any grammatical errors and mistakes that students made. As the improvements of the needs of L2 writing classrooms nowadays, there is a new focus which concern on both form-focused and content-based feedback which is called integrative feedback. It leads to students’ writing accuracy improvements and motivates the students to create better writings with qualified contents.

In relation to this study, these theories about feedback specifically on teacher written feedback with its forms, types and focus help us to understand what is really meant by feedback itself especially about teacher written feedback. Having known this kind of feedback, it is clearly seen that it is written form of feedback such as grades, marks, questions, praise, suggestions, etc. in students’ paper which covers all language features used in writings. These theories will be the base for designing the instruments. Since this research employs questionnaire and interview, these theories can be elaborated to design the blueprint category of questionnaire and interview before making the instruments’ items. It is expected

(38)

that every item of the questionnaire and interview is precise to the research objectives in order to get maximum result.

d)Review of Existing Studies of Teacher Written Feedback

There are several researches discussing teacher written feedback. In this section, two studies will be reviewed. The first research entitled Students’

Perception toward Teacher Written Feedback on their Composition: A Case

Study written by Christina Dyah Kurniyati (2006). The second research entitled

Improving SMAN 1 Depok Students’ Accuracy of Simple Past Tense in

Narrative through Teacher’s Feedback written by Bernadeta Diah Ratih

Angguratami (2012).

Kurniyati (2006) investigated the types of written feedback that the teacher gave on the students’ compositions and the students’ perception toward teacher written feedback on their writing compositions. It was a mixed mode of case study and document analysis. The instruments used were students’ compositions, interview and questionnaire. The findings show that the type of written feedback given was only in the surface level of students’ composition. The students also have a good perception toward teacher written feedback. it shows that teacher written feedback given is clear because it is readable and understandable. It is objective, which indicates no personal bias, and proportional, which indicates that teacher has given appropriate written feedback to the students. Teacher written feedback also assists the students to improve their writing compositions. In

(39)

addition, teacher written feedback given is also encouraging in the sense of motivating the students to revise their compositions.

Angguratami (2012) conducted CAR (Classroom Action Research) using teacher’s feedback as one best strategy to improve tenth grade students’ grammar accuracy of simple past tense in narrative writing. In conducting the research, Angguratami used two cycles of CAR. Besides, it used students’ drafts, observation sheets, field notes, questionnaires, and interviews as the data sources. The findings show that the students’ error percentage of simple past tense decreased from 56% to 27% in the first cycle and 21% in the second cycle. The findings show that teacher’s feedback helped the students to understand their mistakes and to get new knowledge about grammar, vocabulary and simple past tense forms. In addition, the students also felt motivated after receiving teacher’s feedback.

This current study has similar topic to the two previous reviews of research which talking about teacher written feedback. This study investigates the students’ perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback and its implications while these two researches investigates types of written feedback, students’ perception on written feedback and on the use of teacher’s feedback to improve students’ grammar accuracy of simple past tense in narrative writing.

(40)

3. Critical Reading and Writing

In order to see deeper about critical reading and writing, it is better to elaborate first the nature of reading and writing. The relation between these two skills is included in the Critical Reading and Writing 1 course, as it is intended in the scope of the English Language Education Study Program.

a. Nature of Reading

According to Nunan (2003), reading is a fluent process of readers combining information from a text and their own background knowledge to build meaning. The goal of reading is comprehension. It can be described as an active process — a dynamic, meaning-making interaction between the page and your brain. Understanding the reading processhelps people become critical thinkers. In addition, Nunan also proposes that there are three models of the reading processes; bottom-up, top-down, and interactive models. The most typical classroom which focuses on bottom-up approach is intensive reading classroom, while top-down approach is usually used in extensive reading classroom.

Focusing on the first model which is bottom-up models, Nunan (2003) describes the process of bottom up models:

Bottom-models typically consist of lower-reading processes. Students start with the fundamental basics of letter and sound recognition, which in turn allows for morpheme recognition followed by word recognition, building up to the identification of grammatical structures, sentences, and longer texts. Letters, letter clusters, words, phrases, sentences, longer text, and finally meaning is the order in achieving comprehension. (p. 70)

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

(41)

In addition, he also describes the process of the second model which is top-down models:

Top-down models, on the other hand, begin with the idea that

comprehension resides in the reader. The readers use the background knowledge, makes prediction, and searches the text to confirm or reject the predictions that are made. A passage can thus be understood even if all of the individual words are not understood. Within a top-down approach to reading the teacher should focus on meaning generating activities rather than on mastery of word recognition. (p. 71)

In other words, bottom-up model is started from the small part of language that is letter. Bottom-up here also means decoding. It is where the readers build meaning from the smallest units of meaning to achieve comprehension. However, top-model is the direct opposition of bottom-up top-model. In top-down top-model, the readers employ their background knowledge to build meaning in order to achieve the comprehension. However, these two models are still inadequate in the process of reading in achieving comprehension.

Despite these two models, there is another model accepted as the most comprehensive description in the reading process; interactive model. Interactive model combines the elements of bottom-up and top-down models. It includes aspects of intensive and extensive reading. It is where the teachers should provide the shorter passage in order to teach specific reading skills and strategies. Besides the teacher should encourage the students to read longer texts without emphasizing on testing their skills. The graphic of interactive models is pictured as follows.

(42)

Reader background knowledge

Individual letters and sound

Figure 2.2 The Graphic of Interactive Models

Alderson (2000) notes that the process of reading and the product of that process (as a result) are different. The process is what is meant by ‘reading’ proper between the text and the reader where the reader also thinks about what he is reading, what it means, how he relates to things he know, etc. While product of the process itself is the result of the reading process, for example reader’s understanding of particular texts.

Related to reader’s understanding above, there are two levels of understanding. First, literal understanding of a text, which means the readers understand every detail in the text. Second, the main implication understanding where the readers understand the meaning of a text which is indirectly stated in the text. Being able to read here simply means understand the words, meanings, sentences and the organization of the text which is related to the former to ‘micro

Comprehension

(43)

processes’ which deals with the local phrase-by-phrase understanding and ‘macro processes’ which deals with global understanding (Kintsch and van Dijk, 1978, as cited in Alderson, 2000.)

b. Nature of Writing

Nunan (2003) states that writing can be defined by series of contrast. It is both a physical and mental act which means writing is the physical act of committing words or ideas into passage, on the other hand, it is also the mental work of inventing ideas, thinking about expressing them and organizing them into passage. Besides its purpose is both to express and impress in which writers are trying both to express their ideas and feelings also impress the readers as the audience. It is also both a process and product since the writers experience cyclical process of writing, which is by imagining, organizing, drafting, editing, reading and rereading.

On the contrary, Weigle (2002) defines the nature of writing by comparing to the other productive skill that is speaking, writing as social and cultural phenomenon, and then as cognitive activity. There are two fundamental differences from Brown’s list as written in the book entitled Assessing Writing, permanence and production time in which in particular speaking and writing are frequently used in different settings, for different reasons, and to meet different communicative goals. On the other hand, (Hamp-Lyons and Kroll, 1997:8, as cited in Weigle, 2002) it was said that it is important to view writing not solely as

(44)

the product of an individual, but as a social and cultural act that takes place within a context, that accomplishes a particular purpose, and that is appropriately shaped for its intended audience. While writing as a cognitive activity deals with novice and expert writers where they acquire new knowledge through writing. Expert writers tend to spend more time in planning their writings than novice and revise them not only in surface but also the content and the organization which also consider their audience in reading their works.

In relation to the process of writing, (White and Arndt, 1991:5, as cited in Harmer, 2001) process of writing is an interrelated set of stages which include drafting, structuring, reviewing, focusing, evaluating and generating ideas. The adopted White and Arndt’s model of the process of writing is presented as follows.

Figure 2.3 White and Arndts’ Process Writing Model

It is shown by the figure above that the writing process composed by White and Arndts is a cycle process. From the arrows, it is seen that it is not a linear process; it does not go like a straight line which start and finish in certain

Evaluating Generating

Ideas

Reviewing Focusing

Structuring

Drafting

(45)

stage. For instance, starting from the generating ideas, the writers draw information from the long-term memory, experiences, and beliefs. Next stage is focusing on where the writers decide the main ideas consisting of message that the writers intend to deliver to the readers. Then, the writers begin structuring by ordering information, combining ideas, and experimenting with arrangements. Start drafting, and begin evaluating. After that, the writers start reviewing, which means that they go back to the writing then editing and see it with the new set of eyes. However, after reviewing, the writers may go back to the structuring if the writers feel that the logical development of ideas is not developed yet or even any other stages to complete their writings.

As it is seen in the process of writing above, it shows that teacher holds several roles. As stated by Harmer (2001), teacher plays several roles, as a motivator, resource, and feedback provider. As a motivator, the teachers are assigned to motivate the students to make efforts as much as possible in order to reach the maximum benefits. As a resource, the teachers should provide information, guidance, advice, suggestions, etc. In fact, the teachers also become the feedback providers, in which the teachers should respond to the students writing positively and encouragingly.

(46)

c. Critical Reading and Writing 1 in ELESP Sanata Dharma University

Based on Buku Panduan Akademik Universitas Sanata Dharma

Yogyakarta, Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris; Critical Reading and

Writing 1 – KPE 220 (4 CR / 4 CH), Critical Reading and Writing 1 class is one

of the courses given which is offered for the third semester students. Since it is the collaboration of two skills, reading and writing; the students who are eligible to take this course need to pass Basic Reading 1 & 2, Basic Writing and Paragraph Writing. CRW 1 is designed for the students to write critical responses based on the given texts. The texts discussed are argumentative, persuasive and expository. Its aim is to train the student to apply the logical principles, give strong and meaningful evidence and reasoning to certain discussion of claims, beliefs and issues. In this course, the students are expected to be able to comprehend the passage given and write their own response critically.

Focusing on the writing skill compared to the CRW 1 course description, Brown (2004) states that this kind of writing performance is categorized as responsive and extensive types. It means that the assessment of this stage of writing performance is no longer only grammatical things but also in the limited discourse level such as sentences connection between paragraphs to paragraphs and its logical sequence. Besides it focuses on achieving a purpose, organizing, and developing ideas logically and engages in the process of writing which deals with multiple drafts to achieve final product.

(47)

Being critical means becoming fully aware of an idea or an action, reflect on it, and ultimately react to it.Having defined the nature of reading and writing in the previous review, it can be concluded that critical reading and writing is the way that people read, understand and comprehend written texts and respond to the particular texts through writing critically by comparing and adding existing knowledge or experiences that the people have in mind.In this relation to CRW 1, this course also applies what the nature of reading and writing hold. The utmost goal of reading is reading comprehension, where at the same time in CRW 1 students are expected to be able to comprehend the passage given. Besides, Nunan (2003) states that writing is physical and mental act. It requires students’ physical act to commit words, paragraphs into a passage. On the other hand, students are also working with mental act where they have to think and invent ideas then organize them into a passage. One of the students’ writing activities in CRW 1 course is to write response critically based on their comprehension on the passage given.

Wallace and Wray (2011) describe that our critical reading to the others’ work can be the beginning in producing our written text:

Your critical reading of others’ work will usually be in preparation for producing your own written text. This marriage of reading and writing has many benefits. First, you will develop the sense of what is and is not a robust piece of research – essential when you come to plan your own empirical investigation (for a dissertation, say). Second, you will soon begin identifying where the existing research has left a gap that your investigation can fill. Third, the attention you pay to different authors’ texts will naturally affect the quality of your own writing. (p. 07)

(48)

In addition, the relation between critical reading and self-critical writing is very close. Wallace and Wray (2011) said, “A secret of successful writing is to anticipate the expectations and potential objections of the audience of critical readers for whom you are writing.” It shows that the combination of critical reading and writing is recommended to apply in academic context especially in academic writing. This is what Critical Reading and Writing 1 class try to apply. In addition, Celce-Murcia (2001) also states that the use of readings in writing class can give practical purposes. It gives models of English writings which help the students to develop their awareness of English language prose style. Besides the students can practice English reading skills such as summarizing, paraphrasing, interpreting, and synthesizing concepts.

Related to this study, it is essential to see the nature of reading and writing which are especially applied in CRW 1 class of ELESP Sanata Dharma University. It has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs that reading, whose goal is to comprehend texts, is a process of readers combining information from a text with their background knowledge to make meaning. While writing is the process of physical act and mental work in committing words and inventing ideas to organize a passage. These two processes are the main activities found in the CRW 1 class because it is one of the higher levels of writing which needs the collaboration of two skills, reading and writing. That is why this study used CRW 1 by providing and discussing the implementation of teacher written feedback itself as one way to monitor the students’ progress in writing.

(49)

B. Theoretical Framework

Begin with several weaknesses of teacher written feedback, the implementation of teacher written feedback itself has been discussed within the use of feedback in L2 writing classrooms. However, feedback takes essential part for L2 writers in the process of writing. It emphasizes on the writing and rewriting process that leads to other further texts. It also improves students’ writing skills that motivate students to create better pieces of writing even if students themselves know how to use the feedback well. Therefore, this research focuses on the students’ perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback and its implication. Besides having a research and survey to answer the research problems of this study, the elaboration of several theories about perception, teacher written feedback and critical reading and writing will also help this study to find the answers.

This study has two research problems. The first research problem talks about students’ perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback in CRW 1 class. It will be discussed and answered by one of the theories of perception, using Altman and Hodgetts’ (1985) theory in which perception itself is defined by person’s view of reality, which comes from the stimuli of environment. In this case, perception as a means of selection and grouping stimuli from the environment into meaningful information will help this study to see the process of how students can come up with certain responses to certain where in this context is the implementation of teacher written feedback. Besides, it also uses teacher written feedback theory from Kaweera (2008), teacher written

(50)

feedback refers to limited responses about comments on grammatical errors and content to students’ writing in form of written. As one kind of feedback and the independent variable in this study, it explains what really this kind of feedback means. So, the researcher, participants and the readers have the same understanding about teacher written feedback. The last is the knowledge of critical reading and writing, which is derived from the nature of each skill coming from Nunan (2003). The theories from Wallace and Wray (2001) are also needed to see what is meant by critical reading and writing nowadays and how it differs to reading and writing.

The second research problem figures out the implications of the findings. Similar to the first research problem, it will be discussed and answered by using these three theories about perception, teacher written feedback and critical reading and writing. Having defined each variable of this study also helps to avoid misleading and misunderstanding. In addition, to obtain maximum result, these theories will be used in designing every single question in the instruments so that it will get the intended answers from the participants. The clearer the questions composed based on the theories, the clearer the answers and the more precise the data gathered. It means that it facilitates this study to get the precise and clearer implication beyond this study.

(51)

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the methodology employed in this study in order to conduct the research. It describes six main parts of the research methodology, namely research method, research setting, research participants, instruments and data gathering technique, data analysis technique and research procedure.

A. Research Method

This research was qualitative research. According to Ary, Jacobs, and Sorensen (2010), qualitative research is research studies that investigate the quality of relationships, activities, situations, or materials. It is more on describing in detail all of what goes on in a particular activity or situation rather than comparing the effects of particular treatments, In addition, Fraenkel and Wallen (2009) note that qualitative researchers assume that the world is made up of multiple realities, socially constructed by different individual views of the same situation. In this study, the researcher figured out the students’ perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback in CRW 1 class. Within the implementation of teacher written feedback in CRW 1 class, the students in the same class might have different perception.

Besides, this study employed survey method in which the data of students’ perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback in CRW 1 class were obtained by questionnaire and interview. Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen and

(52)

Razavieh (2002) define that survey is a research technique in which data are gathered by asking questions of a group of individuals called respondents. Moreover, Wiersma (1995) states that surveys are used to measures attitudes, opinions, or achievements – any number of variables in natural settings. In collecting the data, this study also distributed questionnaire to all the respondents and interviewed several respondents. In addition, the objectives of this study were to figure out the students’ perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback and why the students have a good or bad perception. Therefore, survey research could accommodate this research in surveying students’ perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback and its implication.

B. Research Setting

In order to answer the first problem which is ELESP students’ perception on teacher written feedback in CRW 1 class, the researcher distributed questionnaires and conducted interviews. All respondents were the ones who had taken CRW 1 as the compulsory subject before taking CRW 2. The questionnaire distribution of this research took place in all six different classes of Critical Reading and Writing 2 (CRW 2) in Sanata Dharma University. The interview was conducted around Sanata Dharma University. This research started in May 2013 and ended up in June 2013.

(53)

C. Research Participants

In order to gain the reliable and valid data of the students’ perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback in CRW 1 class, this study selected the entire population. The population selected was 149 students of ELESP Sanata Dharma University in the academic year of 2011 who had taken CRW 1 course. The respondents only consist of 140 students because 9 of them skipped some statements in the questionnaire, which is considered invalid. There were 25 students from class A, 27 students from class B, 24 students from class C, 26 students from class D, 19 students from class E and 19 students from class F. By having the entire population as the research participants, the research got relevant and sufficient data to provide maximum insight and understanding of what they had been studying.

D. Instruments and Data Gathering Technique

In order to answer the two formulated problems, this research employed two research instruments: questionnaire and interview framework.

1. Questionnaire

Questionnaire was used both to get the data about students’ perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback and its implication. The description result was used as the main data which is supported by the result of the interview. According to Gall & Gall, and Borg (2007), questionnaires are

(54)

printed forms that ask the same questions of all individuals in the sample and for which the respondents record their answers in verbal form. This is how questionnaires were used in this research. The questionnaires were distributed to 140 students who had taken CRW 1 course.

In order to enhance the consistency of the responses throughout the respondents, and make the tabulation easier and faster, a close-ended questionnaire was used. There were thirty close-ended items provided which cover all the information needed to answer the research problem formulation. Each statement came up from several theories that were used to support this research. The questionnaire used English Language because the participants were all ELESP students and they were all capable enough in understanding and responding to the statements provided. The brief category questionnaire statements can be seen as follows.

Table 3.1 Questionnaire Blueprint of Students’ Perception

NO. STATEMENT

NUMBERS

THEORIES CATEGORIES

1. 1,2,3,4,5 Nature of reading and

Nature of writing (Nunan, 2003), etc.

Students’ perception on the process of teaching and learning activities in CRW 1 2. 6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,

and 14

Kinds and form of teacher written

feedback (Hyland, 2003), etc.

Students’ perception on the process of teacher written feedback implementation in

CRW 1 3. 15,16,17,18,19,20,

21,22,23,24,25,26, 27,28,29, and 30

Definition of perception (Altman, Valenzi and Hodgetts, 1985; R. L.

Atkinson & R. C. Atkinson and Hilgard, 1981; Leontiev, 1981), etc.

Students’ perception and the implication on the implementation of teacher

written feedback

Total : 30

(55)

The table above is the blueprint of the questionnaire items that has been distributed to CRW 1 students. This blueprint came up from the combination of the theories used to gain the intended data in answering the research problem formulations. Since this research has three variables: perception, teacher written feedback and CRW 1, and the problem formulations are finding out students’ perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback and its implication. Therefore, the blueprint is divided into three categories: the students’ perception on the process of CRW 1 teaching and learning activities, students’ perception on the process of teacher written feedback implementation and students’ perception on the teacher written feedback implementation and its implication.

2. Interview Framework

In order to get students’ perception on the implementation of teacher-written feedback, the second instrument used in this research was interview. According to Ary, Jacobs, and Sorensen (2010), interview was one of the most widely used and basic methods for obtaining the data in qualitative research. Besides, it is used to gather data from people about their opinions, beliefs and feelings about situations in their own words. In this research, it was used to gain deeper comprehensive understanding, as it is used to support the main data which is questionnaire’s result. In addition, it was also used to strengthen, clarify and to confirm all the answers gathered from the questionnaire. Personal interviews were used because the researcher directly meet the respondents face-to-face and it

(56)

allows the researcher to have follow-up questions to the unclear answers as it is noted by Fraenkel and Wallen (2009).

In conducting the interview, the researcher had prepared a question list consisting of sixteen open-ended questions. In line with what is defined by DeMarrais (2004, as cited in Merriam, 2009) that interview is a process where a researcher and participant engage in a conversation focused on questions related to a research study. In addition, Fraenkel and Wallen (2009) note that open-ended questions allow more freedom of response and permit follow-up by interviewer which give the opportunity to the researcher to ask expanded questions regarding to the responses. The sixteen questions became the guideline to get the specific data from the interviewees. Since in the interview the research used a question list as the guideline and used the questions flexibly, this type of interview is included as semistructured as it is proposed by Merriam (2009). The following table provides brief category, theories used and some question examples of the interview items.

Table 3.2 Interview Framework Blueprint of Students’ Perception

NO INTERVIEW

QUESTION EXAMPLE

THEORIES CATEGORIES

1. Could you please tell me the teaching and learning activities that usually occur in CRW 1 class? Did you use to read passages and critically write responses to them?

Nature of reading and nature of writing (Nunan, 2003) The relation between critical

reading and self critical writing (Wallace & Wray,

2011), etc.

Students’ perception on the process of teaching

and learning activities in CRW 1

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

(57)

Realizing the aims of the use of interview framework, it has the same categories with the questionnaire blueprint because it is intended to clarify the result of questionnaire. The statements of the questionnaire and the questions of interview framework are similar which aim to get the strong and valid answers to both problem formulations. The interview questions proposed were gained from several points of questionnaire items in which the researcher found a slight different data between the questionnaire result and the teacher written feedback implemented in certain cases. In order to avoid misunderstanding and gain the deeper answers, the interview was conducted bilingually, in Bahasa Indonesia and English. The interview result was used as the clarification and confirmation of the different questionnaire’s result showed. Despite several listed questions, in order to get complete and clear data, there were several extended questions related to the answers.

NO INTERVIEW

QUESTION EXAMPLE

THEORIES CATEGORIES

2. Do you get only markings

and underlines without any explanation on your

problematic areas? What do you think about it?

Kinds of feedback (Hyland, 2003) Forms of teacher written feedback (Hyland, 2003),

etc.

Students’ perception on the process of teacher

written feedback implementation in CRW 1

3. Does teacher written feedback help you to recognize your strengths and weaknesses in writing skill? What are your strengths and weaknesses?

Definition of perception (Altman, Valenzi and

Hodgetts, 1985) Perception, Learning and Thinking (Forgus, 1966),

etc.

The students’ perception on the teacher written feedback implementation

and its implication

(1)

3 ngerubah yang bener jadi salah karena pasti itu berhubungan satu sama lain. Interviewee

Saya hanya merevisi bagian yang dikomentari oleh dosen saya dan itu saya gunakan sebagai panduan.

Interviewee 5

Saya cukup hanya merevisi yang dikomentari dari dosen saja. Interviewee

Kebanyakan sih yang direvisi di bagian yang salah aja, yang dikomentari sama dosen.

Question 15: Do you prefer teacher written feedback? Or do you prefer mixed feedback? (teacher written feedback mixed with conferencing feedback and/or peer feedback) Why or why not?

Interviewee 1

Kalo boleh mix sih, aku lebih milih teacher written feedback yang diikuti sama konsultasi dosen.

Interviewee 2

Iya, written feedbacknya udah lumayan jelas kok. Kalo bisa di mixed, ketiga feedback seperti teacher written feedback, conferencing feedback sama peer feedback akan sangat lebih membantu.

Interviewee 3

Sebenernya kalau menurutku sih yang utama itu malah konsultasi face-to-face sama dosen. Kalau teacher written feedbacknya sendiri sih jadi pelengkap dan pengingat aja dibagian mana aku buat salah. Tapi kalau bisa kedua teknik feedback ini di mix, pasti ngebantu banget. Tapi di lain sisi, teacher written feedback juga essential soalnya bisa jadi panduan tertulis di writing kita. Tanpa teacher written feedback kadang kita lupa. Interviewee

Saya lebih cenderung suka mix feedback antara teacher written feedback sama face-to-face feedback tapi tetep teacher written feedback juga berperan penting dalam writing process

Interviewee 5

Kalau aku boleh milih, both of written feedback and face-to-face consultation. Tapi jelas written feedback sangat penting untuk kelas writing

Interviewee 6

Aku lebih milih dari teacher written feedback tapi kalau bisa mix aku pilih teacher written feedback sama peer feedback dari temen.

Question 16: Do you think that teacher written feedback should be implemented in second language writing classrooms?

Interviewee 1

Iya, written feedback dari dosen sangat penting karena para dosen juga bener-bener membaca dan mengerti tulisan kita satu-satu kalo feedback dari temen juga enggak cukup untuk improve writing skill kita. Saran aja sih untuk para dosen kalo ngasih written feedback yang jelas jangan muter-muter dan langsung to the point aja.

Interviewee 2

Teacher written feedback itu sangat penting dan bisa dibilang essential atau sebagai pokok dalam kegiatan writing. Baru kemudian bisa diikuti dengan teknik feedback yang lain seperti conferencing atau peer feedback sebagai pelengkap

Interviewee 3

Perlu sekali diterapkan. Interviewee

Kalau menurutku, teacher written feedback harus tetap diterapkan karena written feedback yang diberikan bisa dijadikan acuan.

Interviewee 5

Iya jelas harus ada dan diterapkan karena bisa jadi pedoman dan acuan serta bisa menjadi bukti tertulis dari progress in writing.

Interviewee 6

Iya, harus diterapkan. Menurut aku sih written feedback harus ada diseluruh aspek English skills.

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Appendix J

Students' perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback in critical reading and writing 1 class.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION

OF TEACHER WRITTEN FEEDBACK IN CRITICAL

READING AND WRITING 1 CLASS

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION

OF TEACHER WRITTEN FEEDBACK IN CRITICAL

READING AND WRITING 1 CLASS

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Fall

seven

times,

stand up

eight.

---

I dedicate this thesis to:

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Parts

Dokumen yang terkait

A study on the use of articles in students` written projects of critical reading and writing i class.

An analysis of teachers` written feedback and teacher's beliefs in critical reading and writing II class.

Students' perception on the implementation of peer feedback in writing report texts.

The influences of learning activities in critical reading and writing 2 class on students' critical reading and writing skills.

Elesp students` perception on critical reading and writing 1 course.

An analysis of teachers` written feedback and teacher's beliefs in critical reading and writing II class

The influences of learning activities in critical reading and writing 2 class on students' critical reading and writing skills

Students' perception on the implementation of peer feedback in writing report texts

Institutional Repository | Satya Wacana Christian University: Students’ Perception Towards Teacher Oral and Written Feedback in Guided Writing Class

Students' perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback in critical reading and writing 1 class - USD Repository

Dukungan

Links

Students' perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback in critical reading and writing 1 class.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION

OF TEACHER WRITTEN FEEDBACK IN CRITICAL

READING AND WRITING 1 CLASS

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION

OF TEACHER WRITTEN FEEDBACK IN CRITICAL

READING AND WRITING 1 CLASS

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Fall

seven

times,

stand up

eight.

---

I dedicate this thesis to:

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Parts

Dokumen yang terkait

A study on the use of articles in students` written projects of critical reading and writing i class.

An analysis of teachers` written feedback and teacher's beliefs in critical reading and writing II class.

Students' perception on the implementation of peer feedback in writing report texts.

The influences of learning activities in critical reading and writing 2 class on students' critical reading and writing skills.

Elesp students` perception on critical reading and writing 1 course.

An analysis of teachers` written feedback and teacher's beliefs in critical reading and writing II class

The influences of learning activities in critical reading and writing 2 class on students' critical reading and writing skills

Students' perception on the implementation of peer feedback in writing report texts

Institutional Repository | Satya Wacana Christian University: Students’ Perception Towards Teacher Oral and Written Feedback in Guided Writing Class

Students' perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback in critical reading and writing 1 class - USD Repository

Dokumen yang Anda mencari sudah siap untuk unduhkan