36
Yessi Widyasari, 2014 Ateacher’s Written Feedback On Students’ Writing
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
West Java. She is also the principal of the school who is taking her master degree in English education at one state university in Bandung.
Nine students involved in this study, whose names were pseudonyms, were chosen for four reasons. First, they were involved because the teacher provided
them with the written feedback which was relevant to the focus of this study. Second, nine students were considered enough to provide information needed for
this study. Third, since this study was about writing while the syllabus also required the students to write, this
study of the teacher’s written feedback was appropriate to be conducted. Fourth, these students were recommended by the
teacher as they were able to provide the important information needed in this study.
The students were categorized into high and low achievers based on their grammar scores in TOEFL test. Five students who scored from 53 to 56, were
categorized as high achievers. Meanwhile, four students, who scored from 44 to 50, were categorized as low achievers. All of students were Christians between
17-19 years of age while English is a foreign language for them, meaning that this study was undertaken in an EFL context.
3.2.5 Data Collection Techniques
As mentioned in Section 3.2.2, this study employed multiple data gatherings over a nine-meeting period. The teacher met her class three times a week and
taught them for a total of five hours per week. The study was carried out from February 10
th
to March 4
th
, 2014. The methods used in this study include classroom observations, document
analysis, and interviews. The interviews were divided into teacher interview and student interviews.
3.2.5.1 Classroom Observations
Classroom observations were intended to find out the teacher’s focus and
strategies in giving the written feedback as well as the students’ preferences for
37
Yessi Widyasari, 2014 Ateacher’s Written Feedback On Students’ Writing
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
the teacher’s focus and strategies. Classroom observations were conducted as they allowed for collecting data that could not be covered by the other data collection
methods Maxwell, 1996, p. 76. The researcher took a role as non-participant observer since she was not involved physically and psychologically in the
interaction in the classroom McMillan Schumacher, 2001, p. 435. Observations were undertaken three times in a week to record the detailed
classroom activities. The teacher ’s talks during each lesson were videotaped and
subsequently transcribed.
3.2.5.2 Document Analysis
Document analysis was used in order to answer the first two research questions, as stated in Chapter I, including the teacher’s main focus and strategies
in giving the written feedback on the students’ writing. In this study, the students’
texts were collected to analyze the two aspects. The students were required to produce Discussion textS. They were informed by the teacher that their writing
tasks would be used for the assessment for School Exam Ujian Sekolah of speaking. They were also informed that they were free to select the topic of their
writing. The selection of the topic was under the t
eacher’s guideline covering three points. First, the topic should contain a controversial issue. In this regard, they
should find a topic which invited pros and cons. Second, the topic should be familiar and interesting to them. As the teacher stated, by choosing an interesting
topic, the students would be motivated to find the sources. Third, the topic should be understandable for them. The selection of the topic was then approved by the
teacher in order to ensure that the students had fulfilled the guidelines stated above. When the teacher found a particular topic was not appropriate for the
students to write regarding the difficulty to find the terms, the teacher asked them to find out another topic and submit it to her.
In the writing, the length of the students’ compositions was not limited by
the teacher. They were free to develop their compositions based on the ideas they
38
Yessi Widyasari, 2014 Ateacher’s Written Feedback On Students’ Writing
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
had. There were five procedures in the writing class. First, the students should have in-class writing. Second, in the next meeting, the students handed in their
compositions. Third, the teacher gave out-class written feedback. The written feedback covered content-focused feedback e.g., organization and content and
form-focused feedback e.g., grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics which appeared on the students’ compositions see Appendix 1.1. Fourth, in the next
meeting, the teacher handed the papers back to the students along with her written feedback. Fifth, the students were asked to revise their compositions in the
classroom. If they did not finish the revision yet, they were allowed to continue it at home.
3.2.5.3 Interviews
