The Effect of Indirect Corrective Feedback in Reducing Error on Students’ Writing | Rahma | Proceedings of AICS Social Sciences 1 SM
Proceedings of The 6th Annuual International Conference Syiah Kuala University (AIC Unsyiah) in conjunction with The 12th
International Conference on Mathematics, Statistics and Its Application (ICMSA) 2016
October 4-6, 2016, Banda Aceh, Indonesia
The Effect of Indirect Corrective Feedback in Reducing Error on
Students’ Writing
1*Endah
Anisa Rahma, 2Siti Sarah Fitriani
1University
of Teuku Umar, Meulaboh 23681, Indonesia;
of English Education, University of Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh 23111, Indonesia;
2Department
*Corresponding
Author: endahdarussalam89@gmail.com
Abstract
This experimental study aims to investigate the application of Indirect Corrective Feedback
in reducing errors on students’ writing recount text. The subjects of the study were 60 tenth
grade students of SMAN 1 Meulaboh chosen by random sampling. True experimental
research was employed involving experimental group which was given Indirect Corrective
Feedback and control group which was not given feedback. The instrument used was writing
tests and the data were analysed by using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS).
This study focuses on giving Indirect Corrective Feedback on students’ writing recount in
terms of grammatical features of the text. Therefore, there are nine error aspects mainly
analysed, those are: verb, noun ending, spelling, word form, word order, pronoun,
conjunction, missing and unnecessary word. The findings indicate that Indirect Corrective
Feedback helps students to reduce errors in nine aspects. It is shown from the decrease of
mean number of error in the post-test ( ̅ = 12.17) which was lower than in the pre-test ( ̅ =
27.07 ). It was also proven from errors performed in the pre-test as much as 388 and in
the post-test as much as 250 from nine error categories. The results revealed that there
was the reduction of error in the post-test. The finding confirmed that there is a significant
difference between the results of post-test from both groups. It means that Indirect
Corrective Feedback significantly improved the students’ writing achievement by the
reduction of errors.
Key words: Indirect Corrective Feedback, error, writing.
Introduction
English is taught in Indonesian formal education as foreign language. Therefore, some difficulties are
common in learning English. One aspect of teaching and learning process is writing. Hence, writing is
the skill needs to be learnt by the students. In the context of the teaching English in senior high school
in Indonesia, particularly for first grade students, the students are expected to be able to write a simple
recount text based on its context and understand the social function, text structures and grammatical
features of the text. Teaching writing for senior high school aims to develop the students’ competence
in writing various types of texts from functional text to different text genres (Syllabus Diknas, 2013).
The difficulty in writing can come up from lack of understanding about grammar. Besides, the students
were not interested in learning writing because they made the same error. From the writing task
collection, it was shown that teacher did not give error correction to the students’ writing task. Teachers
just put cross mark on the error part without providing the correct form. Most of them give composition
assignment without any marks of correction to the students’ work and no discussion of error in the
classroom before or after giving the work back to the students (Hartono, 2010). In this situation, this
present study assumes that teachers need to apply new technique that can utilize students’ mistake by
using correction code on students’ writing so that they can improve their writing easily, which is called
as corrective feedback.
Using corrective feedback helps the learners to improve students’ grammatical accuracy of their text
(Ferris, 2003). Students who wish to compose well in writing need to help in understanding and avoiding
mistake in their writing since they need ways to know whether they are on track or not. The error
correction can be done by providing correction symbol or by locating the error that is called Indirect
Corrective Feedback (Ferris, 2003). Riddel (2001) stated that teacher can use correction symbols to
students on their writing and teachers can underline the errors to signify the mistake and write the
symbol for these mistakes. The students can correct the mistakes by themselves. Many teachers believed
that feedback should be provided indirectly through the use error correction codes because this gives
Social Science
358
Proceedings of The 6th Annuual International Conference Syiah Kuala University (AIC Unsyiah) in conjunction with The 12th
International Conference on Mathematics, Statistics and Its Application (ICMSA) 2016
October 4-6, 2016, Banda Aceh, Indonesia
students the opportunity to look up their errors (Corpuz, 2011). Therefore, this study investigated to
the use indirect corrective feedback in students’ recount text to reduce errors on their writing. The
research question posed by this study is “Is there any significant difference between the students who
are given Indirect Corrective Feedback and those who are not given Indirect Corrective Feedback in
terms of grammatical errors?”
Literature Review
Writing
According to Nunan (2003, p. 88), writing is the process of thinking to invent ideas, thinking about how
to express into good writing, arranging ideas into statement and paragraph clearly. It means that when
learners want to writes a composition well; they have to organize idea as well. In the context of the
teaching English in senior high school in Indonesia, particularly for first grade students, they are
expected to be able to compose descriptive, recount and narrative text. The focus of this present study
is recount text. According to Derewianka (1990, p. 14), recount is the unfolding of a sequence of events
over time.
Error
Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982, p. 70) define errors as the flawed side of learners’ speech or writing,
which deviates from some selected norm of mature language performance. In other words, error occurs
because the learners do not know what is correct, and thus it cannot be self-corrected. Grammatical
error categories have been identified by Ferris and Robert (2001) into five categories, they are
considered verb errors, noun ending errors, article errors, wrong word and sentence structure errors.
In this study, the aspect of errors focus on grammatical feature of recount text which was adapted from
Ferris and Robert (2001), Dewerianka (1990) and Butt, Fahey, Feez, Spinks and Yallop (2003).
Therefore, there are nine aspect of errors mainly focus; verb, noun ending, spelling, word from, word
order, pronoun, conjunction, missing and unnecessary word.
Feedback
In addressing grammatical errors on students’ writing, teacher can use two types of strategies, Direct
Corrective Feedback (DCF) and Indirect Corrective Feedback (ICF) (Ferris & Hegdcock, 2005;
Hendrickson, 1984; Lalande, 1982).
Direct Corrective Feedback (DCF) is done by providing the correct form (Ellis, 2009, p. 99). In other
words, DCF is the provision of correct answer in response to students’ error (Lee, 2008, p. 67). Indirect
Corrective Feedback refers to the situations when the teacher marks the errors have been made but the
teacher does not supply the correct form so that the learners diagnose and correct the error (Lee, 2004).
Coded ICF refers to locate the errors and the types of errors that are marked. In this study, the
researcher used coded ICF.
Research Method
Research Design
This is experimental research which consists of two classes, chosen as the sample by using random
sampling technique. One class was chosen as experimental group which was given IDF on writing
recount, whereas another class was chosen as control group which was not given error correction.
Participants
The participants of the present study contained 60 X/MIA students of SMAN 1 Meulaboh. They were
randomly assigned into two groups (one experimental and one control group). Each group consists of
30 students.
Data Collection Technique
To answer the research question, the researcher analyse by test. Therefore, there were pre-test and
post-test in this study. There were five meetings which included pre-test, treatment and post-test. In
the pre-test which conducted on the first meeting, the students were given the topic about “Idul Adha
Holiday” with the length of words 100. While on the treatment conducted from second meeting to fourth
meeting, the students were given with code after they completed a simple recount text about “My best
holiday”. Then the tasks were revised by them and recollect by researcher to be given second feedback.
Social Science
359
Proceedings of The 6th Annuual International Conference Syiah Kuala University (AIC Unsyiah) in conjunction with The 12th
International Conference on Mathematics, Statistics and Its Application (ICMSA) 2016
October 4-6, 2016, Banda Aceh, Indonesia
Next meeting, the writing task with second feedback was returned and the students did second revision.
Post-test was conducted the last meeting. Students were given the topic about “unforgettable
experience”.
Result and Discussion
The result from the statistical data analysis is presented in Table 1 as follows:
Table 1. Statistic result summary from pre-test of Control and Experimental Group
Independent Samples Test
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean
Difference
Sig. (2Differe Std. Error
F
Sig.
T
Df
tailed)
nce
Difference
Lower
Upper
Pre-test Equal
.51
.477
58
,240 -2.800
2.358
-7.519 1.919
variances
2
1.18
assumed
8
Equal
.1,18 57.47
.240 -2.800
2.358
-7.520 1.920
variances
8
2
not
assumed
The result from Table 1 shows that t-counted from the pre-test of both groups is -1.18. T-table for df =
58 at the level significance 5% (α = 0.05) is 1.68. The result shows that t counted ޒttable (-1.188 ޒ1.68).
Therefore, H0 is accepted and Ha is rejected. This has indicated that there is no significant difference in
the pre-test results between the two groups. Meanwhile, Table 2 shows that the statistical result of
post-test from both groups.
Table 2. Statistic result summary from post-test of Control and Experimental Group
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
95%
Confidence
Interval of
the
Std.
Difference
Mean
Error
Sig. (2Differen Differe
Uppe
F
Sig.
T
Df
tailed)
ce
nce
Lower
r
Post-test
Equal
.824
.368 1.82
58
.01
-2.333
1.639
- .948
varianc
3
5.615
es
assume
d
Equal
1.82 56.55
.01
-2.333
1.639
- .950
varianc
3
7
5.616
es not
assume
d
Table 2 shows that t-counted from the post-test of both groups is 1.823. The result of t-table with df =
58 and significance 0.05 is 1.68. Hence, tcounted is higher than ttable (1.823 ޓ1.68). Therefore, Ho is
rejected and Ha is accepted. This finding indicates that there is a significant difference between the
result of the post-test in the experimental and control groups. It means that there is a progress of
Social Science
360
Proceedings of The 6th Annuual International Conference Syiah Kuala University (AIC Unsyiah) in conjunction with The 12th
International Conference on Mathematics, Statistics and Its Application (ICMSA) 2016
October 4-6, 2016, Banda Aceh, Indonesia
students’ writing recount text in the experimental group in terms of error reduction after the treatment
is given. This following table shows that the description of error aspect in pre- and post-test.
Table 3. Total error aspect and reduction from the Experimental Group
Error Aspect
Verb
Pre-test
Post-test
64
48
48
77
48
34
2
27
21
26
1
388
40
16
22
61
34
22
4
14
13
23
0
250
Verb Tense
Verb form
Word order
Word form
Spelling
Pronoun
Noun ending
Plural marks
Possessive
Unnecessary word
Missing word
Conjunction
Total
Frequency of
reduction
24
32
18
16
14
12
-2
13
8
3
1
139
The table above shows list of total error aspects from pre-test and post-test in experimental group. The
table shows that verb is the dominant error and the most reduced error. Meanwhile, conjunction is the
lowest error. The following is total error and reduction from control group.
Table 4. Total error aspect and reduction from the Control Group
Error Aspect
Verb
Word order
Noun ending
Pronoun
Spelling
Unnecessary word
Missing word
Word from
Conjunction
Total
Verb Tense
Verb form
Plural Mark
Possessive
Pre-test
Post-test
80
43
55
8
35
37
46
19
31
66
0
417
42
38
21
7
2
8
32
6
22
74
0
255
Frequency of
Reduction
38
5
34
1
27
28
14
13
9
-8
0
204
The table above show list of total error aspects from pre-test and post-test in control group. The table
also shows that verb is the dominant error and the most reduced error. Word form is aspect that does
not have improvement since there is the higher error found on post-test.
Conclusion and Recommendation
According to the result analysis, there was a significant difference in writing achievement between the
students who are given Indirect Corrective Feedback and those who are not given Indirect Corrective
Feedback (1.823 ޓ1.68). It can be concluded that the implementation of Indirect Corrective Feedback
in assessing students’ writings reduces the students’ errors in writing recount text in terms of
grammatical errors: verb, noun ending, word form, word order, spelling, pronoun, conjunction, missing
and unnecessary word, compared to students who are not given this type of correction feedback.
However, the present study had some limitations in terms of grammatical error aspects. There were
two grammatical aspects that did not have improvement between pre- and post-test: word form and
plural mark (noun ending). The researcher did not teach extensively about the aspects since the recount
text mainly focus on verb, pronoun, and conjunction aspects Hence, this study recommends further
studies to include the teaching of all aspects in grammatical features of a recount text when teaching
writing to students.
Social Science
361
Proceedings of The 6th Annuual International Conference Syiah Kuala University (AIC Unsyiah) in conjunction with The 12th
International Conference on Mathematics, Statistics and Its Application (ICMSA) 2016
October 4-6, 2016, Banda Aceh, Indonesia
References
Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks, S., & Yallop, C. (2003). Using functional grammar: An explorer’s
guide. 2nd Ed. Sidney: National Centre for English Teaching and Research.
Corpuz, V. F. (2011). Error correction in second language writing: Teachers’ beliefs, practices, and
students’ preferences. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Queensland, University of Technology.
Available at: http:/www.eprints.qut.edu.au/49160/1/Victor_Corpuz_Thesis.pdf/
Derewianka, B. (1990). Exploring how texts work. Sydney: Primary Teaching Association.
Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. 2009. A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63: 97-107.
Ferris, D. R., Chaney, S. J., Komura, K., Robert, B. J., & McKee, S. (2000). Perspective, problem, and
practice in treating written error. Presented at the International TESOL Convention. March 1418Vancouver, B. C.
Ferris, D., & Robert, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?
Journal of Second Language Writing, 10: 161-184.
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to writing: Implication for second language students. Mahwah, N. J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hartono. (2010). The effectiveness of grammar correction to improve students’ writing. ELT Journal,
63(1): 91-102.
Hendricson, J. (1984). The treatment of written work. Modern Language Journal, 64: 216-221.
Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2013). Buku guru SMA/MA/SMK/MAK. Jakarta: Kemdikbud.
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition error: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66(22):
142-149.
Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 13(4): 285–312.
Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practise in Hong Kong secondary classroom.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 17: 69-85
Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English language teaching. Singapore: McGraw Hill.
Riddel, D. (2001). Teach yourself: Teaching English as a foreign language. London: Hodder Headline
Ltd.
Social Science
362
International Conference on Mathematics, Statistics and Its Application (ICMSA) 2016
October 4-6, 2016, Banda Aceh, Indonesia
The Effect of Indirect Corrective Feedback in Reducing Error on
Students’ Writing
1*Endah
Anisa Rahma, 2Siti Sarah Fitriani
1University
of Teuku Umar, Meulaboh 23681, Indonesia;
of English Education, University of Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh 23111, Indonesia;
2Department
*Corresponding
Author: endahdarussalam89@gmail.com
Abstract
This experimental study aims to investigate the application of Indirect Corrective Feedback
in reducing errors on students’ writing recount text. The subjects of the study were 60 tenth
grade students of SMAN 1 Meulaboh chosen by random sampling. True experimental
research was employed involving experimental group which was given Indirect Corrective
Feedback and control group which was not given feedback. The instrument used was writing
tests and the data were analysed by using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS).
This study focuses on giving Indirect Corrective Feedback on students’ writing recount in
terms of grammatical features of the text. Therefore, there are nine error aspects mainly
analysed, those are: verb, noun ending, spelling, word form, word order, pronoun,
conjunction, missing and unnecessary word. The findings indicate that Indirect Corrective
Feedback helps students to reduce errors in nine aspects. It is shown from the decrease of
mean number of error in the post-test ( ̅ = 12.17) which was lower than in the pre-test ( ̅ =
27.07 ). It was also proven from errors performed in the pre-test as much as 388 and in
the post-test as much as 250 from nine error categories. The results revealed that there
was the reduction of error in the post-test. The finding confirmed that there is a significant
difference between the results of post-test from both groups. It means that Indirect
Corrective Feedback significantly improved the students’ writing achievement by the
reduction of errors.
Key words: Indirect Corrective Feedback, error, writing.
Introduction
English is taught in Indonesian formal education as foreign language. Therefore, some difficulties are
common in learning English. One aspect of teaching and learning process is writing. Hence, writing is
the skill needs to be learnt by the students. In the context of the teaching English in senior high school
in Indonesia, particularly for first grade students, the students are expected to be able to write a simple
recount text based on its context and understand the social function, text structures and grammatical
features of the text. Teaching writing for senior high school aims to develop the students’ competence
in writing various types of texts from functional text to different text genres (Syllabus Diknas, 2013).
The difficulty in writing can come up from lack of understanding about grammar. Besides, the students
were not interested in learning writing because they made the same error. From the writing task
collection, it was shown that teacher did not give error correction to the students’ writing task. Teachers
just put cross mark on the error part without providing the correct form. Most of them give composition
assignment without any marks of correction to the students’ work and no discussion of error in the
classroom before or after giving the work back to the students (Hartono, 2010). In this situation, this
present study assumes that teachers need to apply new technique that can utilize students’ mistake by
using correction code on students’ writing so that they can improve their writing easily, which is called
as corrective feedback.
Using corrective feedback helps the learners to improve students’ grammatical accuracy of their text
(Ferris, 2003). Students who wish to compose well in writing need to help in understanding and avoiding
mistake in their writing since they need ways to know whether they are on track or not. The error
correction can be done by providing correction symbol or by locating the error that is called Indirect
Corrective Feedback (Ferris, 2003). Riddel (2001) stated that teacher can use correction symbols to
students on their writing and teachers can underline the errors to signify the mistake and write the
symbol for these mistakes. The students can correct the mistakes by themselves. Many teachers believed
that feedback should be provided indirectly through the use error correction codes because this gives
Social Science
358
Proceedings of The 6th Annuual International Conference Syiah Kuala University (AIC Unsyiah) in conjunction with The 12th
International Conference on Mathematics, Statistics and Its Application (ICMSA) 2016
October 4-6, 2016, Banda Aceh, Indonesia
students the opportunity to look up their errors (Corpuz, 2011). Therefore, this study investigated to
the use indirect corrective feedback in students’ recount text to reduce errors on their writing. The
research question posed by this study is “Is there any significant difference between the students who
are given Indirect Corrective Feedback and those who are not given Indirect Corrective Feedback in
terms of grammatical errors?”
Literature Review
Writing
According to Nunan (2003, p. 88), writing is the process of thinking to invent ideas, thinking about how
to express into good writing, arranging ideas into statement and paragraph clearly. It means that when
learners want to writes a composition well; they have to organize idea as well. In the context of the
teaching English in senior high school in Indonesia, particularly for first grade students, they are
expected to be able to compose descriptive, recount and narrative text. The focus of this present study
is recount text. According to Derewianka (1990, p. 14), recount is the unfolding of a sequence of events
over time.
Error
Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982, p. 70) define errors as the flawed side of learners’ speech or writing,
which deviates from some selected norm of mature language performance. In other words, error occurs
because the learners do not know what is correct, and thus it cannot be self-corrected. Grammatical
error categories have been identified by Ferris and Robert (2001) into five categories, they are
considered verb errors, noun ending errors, article errors, wrong word and sentence structure errors.
In this study, the aspect of errors focus on grammatical feature of recount text which was adapted from
Ferris and Robert (2001), Dewerianka (1990) and Butt, Fahey, Feez, Spinks and Yallop (2003).
Therefore, there are nine aspect of errors mainly focus; verb, noun ending, spelling, word from, word
order, pronoun, conjunction, missing and unnecessary word.
Feedback
In addressing grammatical errors on students’ writing, teacher can use two types of strategies, Direct
Corrective Feedback (DCF) and Indirect Corrective Feedback (ICF) (Ferris & Hegdcock, 2005;
Hendrickson, 1984; Lalande, 1982).
Direct Corrective Feedback (DCF) is done by providing the correct form (Ellis, 2009, p. 99). In other
words, DCF is the provision of correct answer in response to students’ error (Lee, 2008, p. 67). Indirect
Corrective Feedback refers to the situations when the teacher marks the errors have been made but the
teacher does not supply the correct form so that the learners diagnose and correct the error (Lee, 2004).
Coded ICF refers to locate the errors and the types of errors that are marked. In this study, the
researcher used coded ICF.
Research Method
Research Design
This is experimental research which consists of two classes, chosen as the sample by using random
sampling technique. One class was chosen as experimental group which was given IDF on writing
recount, whereas another class was chosen as control group which was not given error correction.
Participants
The participants of the present study contained 60 X/MIA students of SMAN 1 Meulaboh. They were
randomly assigned into two groups (one experimental and one control group). Each group consists of
30 students.
Data Collection Technique
To answer the research question, the researcher analyse by test. Therefore, there were pre-test and
post-test in this study. There were five meetings which included pre-test, treatment and post-test. In
the pre-test which conducted on the first meeting, the students were given the topic about “Idul Adha
Holiday” with the length of words 100. While on the treatment conducted from second meeting to fourth
meeting, the students were given with code after they completed a simple recount text about “My best
holiday”. Then the tasks were revised by them and recollect by researcher to be given second feedback.
Social Science
359
Proceedings of The 6th Annuual International Conference Syiah Kuala University (AIC Unsyiah) in conjunction with The 12th
International Conference on Mathematics, Statistics and Its Application (ICMSA) 2016
October 4-6, 2016, Banda Aceh, Indonesia
Next meeting, the writing task with second feedback was returned and the students did second revision.
Post-test was conducted the last meeting. Students were given the topic about “unforgettable
experience”.
Result and Discussion
The result from the statistical data analysis is presented in Table 1 as follows:
Table 1. Statistic result summary from pre-test of Control and Experimental Group
Independent Samples Test
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean
Difference
Sig. (2Differe Std. Error
F
Sig.
T
Df
tailed)
nce
Difference
Lower
Upper
Pre-test Equal
.51
.477
58
,240 -2.800
2.358
-7.519 1.919
variances
2
1.18
assumed
8
Equal
.1,18 57.47
.240 -2.800
2.358
-7.520 1.920
variances
8
2
not
assumed
The result from Table 1 shows that t-counted from the pre-test of both groups is -1.18. T-table for df =
58 at the level significance 5% (α = 0.05) is 1.68. The result shows that t counted ޒttable (-1.188 ޒ1.68).
Therefore, H0 is accepted and Ha is rejected. This has indicated that there is no significant difference in
the pre-test results between the two groups. Meanwhile, Table 2 shows that the statistical result of
post-test from both groups.
Table 2. Statistic result summary from post-test of Control and Experimental Group
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
95%
Confidence
Interval of
the
Std.
Difference
Mean
Error
Sig. (2Differen Differe
Uppe
F
Sig.
T
Df
tailed)
ce
nce
Lower
r
Post-test
Equal
.824
.368 1.82
58
.01
-2.333
1.639
- .948
varianc
3
5.615
es
assume
d
Equal
1.82 56.55
.01
-2.333
1.639
- .950
varianc
3
7
5.616
es not
assume
d
Table 2 shows that t-counted from the post-test of both groups is 1.823. The result of t-table with df =
58 and significance 0.05 is 1.68. Hence, tcounted is higher than ttable (1.823 ޓ1.68). Therefore, Ho is
rejected and Ha is accepted. This finding indicates that there is a significant difference between the
result of the post-test in the experimental and control groups. It means that there is a progress of
Social Science
360
Proceedings of The 6th Annuual International Conference Syiah Kuala University (AIC Unsyiah) in conjunction with The 12th
International Conference on Mathematics, Statistics and Its Application (ICMSA) 2016
October 4-6, 2016, Banda Aceh, Indonesia
students’ writing recount text in the experimental group in terms of error reduction after the treatment
is given. This following table shows that the description of error aspect in pre- and post-test.
Table 3. Total error aspect and reduction from the Experimental Group
Error Aspect
Verb
Pre-test
Post-test
64
48
48
77
48
34
2
27
21
26
1
388
40
16
22
61
34
22
4
14
13
23
0
250
Verb Tense
Verb form
Word order
Word form
Spelling
Pronoun
Noun ending
Plural marks
Possessive
Unnecessary word
Missing word
Conjunction
Total
Frequency of
reduction
24
32
18
16
14
12
-2
13
8
3
1
139
The table above shows list of total error aspects from pre-test and post-test in experimental group. The
table shows that verb is the dominant error and the most reduced error. Meanwhile, conjunction is the
lowest error. The following is total error and reduction from control group.
Table 4. Total error aspect and reduction from the Control Group
Error Aspect
Verb
Word order
Noun ending
Pronoun
Spelling
Unnecessary word
Missing word
Word from
Conjunction
Total
Verb Tense
Verb form
Plural Mark
Possessive
Pre-test
Post-test
80
43
55
8
35
37
46
19
31
66
0
417
42
38
21
7
2
8
32
6
22
74
0
255
Frequency of
Reduction
38
5
34
1
27
28
14
13
9
-8
0
204
The table above show list of total error aspects from pre-test and post-test in control group. The table
also shows that verb is the dominant error and the most reduced error. Word form is aspect that does
not have improvement since there is the higher error found on post-test.
Conclusion and Recommendation
According to the result analysis, there was a significant difference in writing achievement between the
students who are given Indirect Corrective Feedback and those who are not given Indirect Corrective
Feedback (1.823 ޓ1.68). It can be concluded that the implementation of Indirect Corrective Feedback
in assessing students’ writings reduces the students’ errors in writing recount text in terms of
grammatical errors: verb, noun ending, word form, word order, spelling, pronoun, conjunction, missing
and unnecessary word, compared to students who are not given this type of correction feedback.
However, the present study had some limitations in terms of grammatical error aspects. There were
two grammatical aspects that did not have improvement between pre- and post-test: word form and
plural mark (noun ending). The researcher did not teach extensively about the aspects since the recount
text mainly focus on verb, pronoun, and conjunction aspects Hence, this study recommends further
studies to include the teaching of all aspects in grammatical features of a recount text when teaching
writing to students.
Social Science
361
Proceedings of The 6th Annuual International Conference Syiah Kuala University (AIC Unsyiah) in conjunction with The 12th
International Conference on Mathematics, Statistics and Its Application (ICMSA) 2016
October 4-6, 2016, Banda Aceh, Indonesia
References
Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks, S., & Yallop, C. (2003). Using functional grammar: An explorer’s
guide. 2nd Ed. Sidney: National Centre for English Teaching and Research.
Corpuz, V. F. (2011). Error correction in second language writing: Teachers’ beliefs, practices, and
students’ preferences. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Queensland, University of Technology.
Available at: http:/www.eprints.qut.edu.au/49160/1/Victor_Corpuz_Thesis.pdf/
Derewianka, B. (1990). Exploring how texts work. Sydney: Primary Teaching Association.
Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. 2009. A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63: 97-107.
Ferris, D. R., Chaney, S. J., Komura, K., Robert, B. J., & McKee, S. (2000). Perspective, problem, and
practice in treating written error. Presented at the International TESOL Convention. March 1418Vancouver, B. C.
Ferris, D., & Robert, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?
Journal of Second Language Writing, 10: 161-184.
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to writing: Implication for second language students. Mahwah, N. J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hartono. (2010). The effectiveness of grammar correction to improve students’ writing. ELT Journal,
63(1): 91-102.
Hendricson, J. (1984). The treatment of written work. Modern Language Journal, 64: 216-221.
Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2013). Buku guru SMA/MA/SMK/MAK. Jakarta: Kemdikbud.
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition error: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66(22):
142-149.
Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 13(4): 285–312.
Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practise in Hong Kong secondary classroom.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 17: 69-85
Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English language teaching. Singapore: McGraw Hill.
Riddel, D. (2001). Teach yourself: Teaching English as a foreign language. London: Hodder Headline
Ltd.
Social Science
362