TEACHER’S FEEDBACK ON STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTIVE TEXTS: A CASE STUDY CONDUCTED IN A JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL IN BANDUNG.

(1)

Teacher’s Feedback on Students’ Descriptive Texts: A Case Study

conducted in A Junior High School in Bandung

A Research Paper

(Submitted to the English Department of FPBS UPI as a partial requirement to achieve Sarjana Pendidikan Degree)

Indri Eka Pertiwi 0900213

English Education Department

Faculty of Language and Arts Education

Indonesia University of Education

2013

(2)

Tea her’s Feed a k on Students’

Descriptive Texts: A Case Study conducted

in A Junior High School in Bandung

Oleh Indri Eka Pertiwi

Sebuah skripsi yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Sarjana pada Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni

Juni 2013

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

Skripsi ini tidak boleh diperbanyak seluruhya atau sebagian, dengan dicetak ulang, difoto kopi, atau cara lainnya tanpa ijin dari penulis.

(3)

PAGE OF APPROVAL

TEACHER’S FEEDBACK ON STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTIVE TEXTS: A CASE STUDY

CONDUCTED IN A JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL IN BANDUNG

By:

Indri Eka Pertiwi 0900213

Approved by:

Main Supervisor Co-Supervisor

Drs. Prawoto S. Purnomo, M.Pd Pupung Purnawarman, M.S.Ed.,Ph.D

NIP. 195110081980021002 NIP. 196810131998031001

The Head of English Department Faculty of Language and Arts Education

Indonesia University of Education

(4)

(5)

ABSTRACT

This study intends to investigate the way of teacher in providing feedback for students’ descriptive texts, and examine the responses of the students toward the given feedback. It employed a descriptive case study, involving an English teacher who taught twenty students as the respondents. The data were gathered from classroom observations, questionnaires, and interviews. The obtained data were mainly analyzed based on Hedge (1988), Kaplan & Grabe (1996), Ferris (2002) and Hyland (2003) explaining forms of feedback. The findings showed that the teacher provided four forms of feedback as proposed by Hedge et al (1988); whole class conference, one-on-one conference, commentary, and minimal marking. Most students tended to respond positively toward the feedback provided by the teacher and they considered it helpful for them to write better. In conclusion, feedback from teacher is an essential aspect for students in helping them make better writing. However, for the sake of clarity and understanding, it is also important to pay attention on the forms of feedback given.

(6)

ABSTRAK

Penelitian ini ditujukan untuk mengetahui strategi yang digunakan oleh guru dalam memberikan umpan balik (feedback) kepada siswa, khususnya pada teks deskriptif siswa. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode descriptive case study yang melibatkan seorang guru dan dua puluh siswa sebagai respondennya. Data dalam penelitian ini diperoleh dengan observasi, kuesioner, dan wawancara. Data yang telah dieroleh di analsis dengan menggunakan teori Hedge (1988), Kaplan & Grabe (1996), Ferris (2002) and Hyland (2003) yang berkaitan dengan bentuk-bentuk feedback. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa guru tersebut menggunakan empat macam bentuk feedback yang dikemumkakan oleh Hedge, dkk (1988); whole class conference, one-on-one conference, commentary, dan minimal marking. Sebagian besar siswa merespon secara positif feedback yang diberikan oleh guru. Mereka berpendapat bahwa feedback tersebut sangat membantu mereka dalam menulis teks deskriptif dengan lebih baik. Maka dari itu, guru hendaknya dapat mempertimbangkan jenis atau bentuk feedback yang akan diberikan kepada siswa agar siswa dapat memahaminya secara menyeluruh.

(7)

Page of Approval ……… i

Authorization statement……….. ii

Preface………. iii

Acknowledgments……….. iv

Abstract……….. vi

Table of contents……… vii

List of tables………... xii

List of figures ………. xiii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background ………. 1

1.2 Research questions of the study ………. 3

` 1.3 The aims of the study ………. 3

1.4 Scope of the study ……….. 3

(8)

1.6 Research design ………. 4

1.7 Participants ………. 5

1.8 Instruments ………. 5

1.9 Data collection and data analysis ……… 6

1.10 Clarification of terms ……… 7

1.11 Organization of paper ……… 7

CHAPTER II THEORITICAL FOUNDATION 2.1 Introduction ………. 8

2.2 Definition of feedback………..………... 8

2.3 Purposes of feedback ……….. 10

2.4 Types of feedback ……….. 11

2.5 Strategies in providing feedback: direct and indirect feedback 14 2.6 Writing skill ……… 15

2.6.1 Definition of writing ……… 15

(9)

2.6.3 Teacher’s roles in students’ writing ……… 18

2.7 Text types ………... 19

2.7.1 Descriptive text ……….. 20

2.8 Feedback and writing ……….. 22

CHAPTER III RESEACH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction ………. 25

3.2 Formulation of problem ……….. 25

3.3 Research design ……….. 25

3.4 Research site and participants ……….... 26

3.5 Data collection ……… 26

3.6 Data collecting procedure ………... 30

3.7 Data analysis ………... 31

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 4.1 Introduction ………. 33

(10)

4.2.1 Teacher’s strategies in providing feedback to the

student’ descriptive texts ………. 33

4.2.1.1 Direct feedback ……… 33

4.2.1.2 Indirect feedback ………. 42

4.2.1.2.1 Commentary ………. 42

4.2.1.2.2 Minimal marking ………. 44

4.2.2 Students’ responses toward teacher feedback …… 49

4.2.2.1 Questionnaire ………. 49

4.2.2.2 Interview ………. 66

4.2.2.2.1 Synthesis of findings ………… 79

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1 Introduction ……….. 81

5.2 Conclusions ……….. 81

5.3 Suggestions ……….. 83

(11)

Appendices

Appendix I Transcript of Videotaping Lesson

Appendix II Example of Students’ Descriptive Texts Appendix III Semi-structured Interview with Teacher

Appendix IV Semi-structured Interview with Students Appendix V Official Letters

(12)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Forms of Feedback ……… 17

(13)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1 The Result of Computation on statement 1 ………... 50

Figure 4.2 The Result of Computation on Statement 2 ……….. 51

Figure 4.3 The Result of Computation on Statement 3 ……….. 52

Figure 4.4 The Result of Computation on Statement 4 ……….. 53

Figure 4.5 The Result of Computation on Statement 5 ……….. 54

Figure 4.6 The Result of Computation on Statement 6 ……….. 55

Figure 4.7 The Result of Computation on Statement 7 ……….. 56

Figure 4.8 The Result of Computation on Statement 8 ……… 57

Figure 4.9 The Result of Computation on Statement 9 ……… 58

(14)

Figure 4.11 The Result of Computation on Statement 11 ……… 60

Figure 4.12 The Result of Computation on Statement 12 ………. 61

Figure 4.13 The Result of Computation on Statement 13 ………. 62

Figure 4.14 The Result of Computation on Statement 14 ………. 63

(15)

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1Background

English as a global language in all over the world seems to be a priority for people to learn. It is because as social creatures, people absolutely need to communicate in their everyday life in order to socialize or to express their thought, feeling, understanding, opinion, critic, and everything that they want to share to others. Language, for that reason, becomes a major instrument serving as facilitator both in its spoken and written forms. Therefore, regarding to this phenomenon, people indirectly are demanded to master more than one languages, including English as a global language. This is also awakening Indonesia to insert English as a subject in every school from elementary until senior high schools. Besides, government states that English becomes one of the subjects included in national examination as a requirement for the students to go to the higher level of education. Consequently, every school needs to encourage their students to master at least four language skills well.

The four language skills to be mastered are listening, speaking, reading and writing. By mastering four language skills, students are expected to be able to communicate fluently in English both spoken and written. But, many students had difficulties in mastering writing skill. Sometimes they may understand what the teacher means but they are not able to deliver it well in the written form. Besides, other difficulties that are faced by the students in mastering writing skill are, firstly the process of writing requires an entirely different set of competencies and is fundamentally different from speaking (Brown, 2001: 335). Secondly, written products are often the result of thinking, drafting, and revising procedures that require specialized skills, skills that not every speaker develops naturally (Brown, 2001:

(16)

335). Thirdly, many students either think or say that they cannot, or do not want to write because they lack of confident, think it is boring or believe they have „nothing

to say‟ (Harmer, 2007, p.113).

In Indonesian context, English is not a second language since most Indonesian people have different mother tongue making bahasa Indonesia becomes the second language in their acquisition. By this situation, English becomes a more language to learn because it is placed as a foreign language. Apart from the difficulties faced by the students in writing new ideas and information in a language that is not their mother tongue, writing English becomes more challenging and difficult because English is a foreign language to both students and teachers. In other words, they should try to express ideas without recourse to objects and events in their own immediate physical environment or that of their reader(s), or writing can potentially push learners closer to the limits of their current level of linguistic knowledge than can speech (Saville and Troike, 2006, p.164). Therefore, it means that the students need to collaborate their knowledge of linguistic elements such as vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics and so on and so forth to create a comprehensible product.

As a consequence, students require effective teaching method and positive improving feedback from the teacher in order to enable them to achieve progress one step at a time. On the other hand, the practice of giving feedback in Indonesia, especially in junior high schools, seems to be unclear. What is meant by unclear in this case is that it is given inconsistently by the teacher. In fact, essentially, the

teacher needs to check the students‟ work and gives the feedback to it in order to

make them aware that something „wrong‟ appears and they need to consider it for their improvement (Wena, 2011, p.58). Besides, in many cases, the teacher only

grades the students‟ work without further explanation to the students about the reasons of why they can get particular score. Yet, this phenomenon seems to be

(17)

considered as an ineffective way because by only knowing the grade, the students will learn nothing but happiness for those who get a high score (Sanjaya, 2010, p.33). Therefore, regarding to those difficulties faced by the students, this research will unpack the way of teacher in encouraging the students to master writing skill. Since there are a lot of possible ways in encouraging them to master that skill, the

writer will focus on the way of teacher in giving feedback to the students‟ writing,

especially in the students‟ writing descriptive texts. Moreover, the writer comes up with a research entitled; Teacher‟s Feedback on Students‟ Descriptive Texts: A Case Study in Junior High School in Bandung. Furthermore, this study also intends to ascertain the understanding or the responses of the students toward the feedback given to them.

1.2Research Questions of the Study The research questions are as follows:

1. How does teacher provide feedback on students‟ descriptive texts? 2. What are the responses of the students toward teacher feedback?

1.3The Aims of the Study The aims of this study are:

1. To investigate the way of teacher in providing feedback for students‟ descriptive texts.

2. To examine the responses of the students toward the given feedback.

1.4 Scope of the Study

Limitation is made to specify the problems that will be analyzed and to make them clear. This study was limited to second quarter of year eight students of a Junior

(18)

high school in North Bandung. An English teacher and ten students were taken as samples of this study as random selection.

1.5 Significance of the Study

The result of this study is expected to give contribution to teachers, to students and to other researcher.

1. To teachers, this hopefully can be an alarm to give the students a clear and appropriate feedback for their improvement in later future.

2. To students, this hopefully can give them motivation to express their needs to be given appropriate feedback by the teacher in other to help them in improving their writing skill.

3. To other researchers, this study is expected to be used as one of the references especially for those who conduct the research on how to improve students‟ writing skill.

1.6 Research Design

Using qualitative approach as the basic framework of this study, a case study method used to analyze data collected and to produce understanding of the entity being studied. It was mostly based on the data collected from the observation towards the teacher and students‟ descriptive texts. Besides, questionnaires and interviews were conducted to know the responses of the students toward the feedback given to them.

After all the processes were completed, the researcher analyzed the data collected by implementing explanation building analysis, a procedure in qualitative approach in which the researcher should give narrative data which reflects some

(19)

able to show the evidence in the study and relate it to findings. Finally, suggestions and recommendations were made for the future feedback development.

1.7 Participants

This study involved an English teacher as the one who gave feedback to the students. The strategies of the teacher in providing feedback to the students were the focus of the study. Besides, twenty students of eight grade of one of junior high school in North Bandung were taken for the population of this study as random selection. Those students gave information about their responses toward the feedback given to them.

1.8 Instruments

Some topics of descriptive texts offered by the teacher used as the instruments of this study. It kept the students on the track in constructing the content of their descriptive texts. Besides, recorded observation (videotape) used in identifying spoken feedback given by the teacher. On the other hand, the students‟ writing descriptive texts was analyzed to notice the written feedback given by the teacher. Furthermore, questionnaires were distributed to find out the students‟ responses toward teacher feedback. It was strengthened by conducting an interview to both students and teacher to enrich the data in this study. To the teacher, the interview was conducted to find out their point of view about feedback that the teacher gives to the

students‟ writing descriptive texts. Meanwhile, to the students, it gave information about their understanding towards the feedback given to them. Therefore, it described the responses of the students toward the feedback.

(20)

1.9 Data collection and Data Analysis

This study used multiple sources in gathering the data by employing several processes. Firstly, the students were given an explanation about descriptive text by the teacher. Secondly, they were asked to write their own descriptive texts based on some topics offered by the teacher to them. Thirdly, the teacher assessed their writing descriptive texts. In the process of assessing the students‟ writing descriptive texts, the researcher observed how the teacher gave feedback to the students by observing what the teacher did during the process of it. Besides, the researcher also observed if there was any written or spoken feedback given to the students‟ writing descriptive texts. These observations were recorded during the class. Fifthly, after the teacher assessed them, the teacher returned them and asked the students to revise them and finally they gave the revised version to the teacher to be assessed again.

Another process that was conducted to enrich the data in this study was distributing questionnaires to the students. The questionnaires contained fifteen

statements that can be used to find out the students‟ responses toward teacher

feedback. The last process to enrich the data was conducting an interview to the teacher and also the students. To the teacher, the interview unpacked the teacher‟s point of view towards the types of feedback that the teacher gives to the students. On the other hand, to the students, this interview was aimed to carry out their responses toward the given feedback.

After all the processes were completed, the researcher analyzed the data collected by implementing explanation building analysis, a procedure in qualitative approach in which the writer should give narrative data which reflects some theoretical propositions (Burn, 1994,p.324), as the main procedure. It was used to be

(21)

able to show the evidence in the study and relate it to findings. Finally, suggestions and recommendations were made for the future feedback development.

1. 10 Clarification of Terms

To avoid misinterpretation in understanding the problems, the writer would like to clarify the following terms :

1. Descriptive is a kind of text which is aimed to describe a particular person, place, or thing (Feez, 1998:208). Besides, Descriptive paragraph is a paragraph which consists of three important qualities such as dominant impression, mood, and logical development (Riyadi, 2011).

2. Feedback is included in one of the purposes of systematic instructional design that

is to improve evaluation process “by means of the designated components and

sequence of events, including feedback and revision events, inherent in models of systematic instructional design” (Andrews and Godson in Purnawarman (2011) ). 3. Writing is the process of thinking to invent ideas, thinking about how to express into

good writing, and arranging the ideas into statement and paragraph clearly (Nunan, 1999, p.88).

1. 11 Organization of the Paper

The study is presented in five chapters. Chapter I is introduction covering background of the study, limitation of the study, research question, the aims of the study, significance of the study, research methodology, clarification of terms, and organization of the paper. Chapter II is theoretical foundation covering definition of feedback, purposes of feedback, types of feedback, strategies in providing feedback, writing skill, text types, and feedback and writing. Chapter III is research methodology covering formulation of problem, research design, site and participants, data collection, data collecting procedure, and data analysis. Chapter IV is finding

(22)

and discussion covering result of instruments analysis and the interpretation of the data analysis. Chapter V is conclusion and suggestion for the better feedback development.

(23)

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the method of the study. A number of important points that are discussed in this chapter cover formulation of problem, research design, site and participants, data collection, data collecting procedure, and data analysis.

3.2 Formulation of Problem

This study was conducted to find out the way of teacher in providing feedback to students’ descriptive texts. The present study mainly was aimed to:

1. To find out how strategies of feedback are given by the investigated teacher on students’ descriptive text

2. To find out the students’ responses toward teacher’s feedback

3.3 Research Design

Using qualitative approach as the basic framework of this study, a case study method was used to analyze data collected and to produce understanding of the entity being studied. It was mostly based on the data collected from the observation towards the teacher and students’ descriptive texts. Besides, interview was conducted to know the responses of the students toward the feedback given to them.

After all the processes were completed, the researcher analyzed the data collected by implementing explanation building analysis, a procedure in

(24)

qualitative approach in which the researcher should give narrative data which reflects some theoretical propositions (Burn, 1994, p.324), as the main procedure. It was used to be able to show the evidence in the study and relate it to findings. Finally, suggestions and recommendations were made for the future feedback development.

3.4 Research Site and Participants

This study was conducted in a Junior High School in North Bandung region. The respondents of this study were an English teacher and her twenty students of eight grade. The selection of participants in this school was based on the accessibility of the researcher to this school, the willingness of the teacher to be observed, and all the students taught by the teacher.

The teacher participating in this study had been taught in the Junior high school for fifteen years. All students as respondents were nonnative speakers of English. In this school, English had been taught twice a week with the allocation 2x35 minutes for each session.

3.5 Data Collection

To obtain data, this study employed four instruments. The first instrument was videotaped observation for three meetings. The second instrument was questionnaires distributed to all students. The third one is an interview to the teacher. The fourth instrument was an interview to ten students. Those instruments could be described as follows:

1. Observation

The observation was based on videotape. According to Burn (1994) , by using videotape, the researcher will not miss any detail that is the major focus of

(25)

the study. Besides, he further states that For instance, it can be useful to get an understanding of:

- who is taking part (e.g. number of children, adults, teenagers) - how people are involved (e.g. sitting, talking)

- how / when a particular space is being used / not used

- an assessment of certain quality criteria (e.g. atmosphere, levels of

Observation through videotape was more used to notice any possible verbal feedback given by the teacher which was one of the main data of this study. The observation was conducted three times. It was conducted in two weeks, since English was taught twice a week in the school. Besides, the result of students’ descriptive text also was observed to see any possible written feedback provided by the teacher.

In this study, the focus of feedback concerns with what types of feedback that the teacher provides to the students’ descriptive text and how it was given to the students. The feedback was categorized based on the strategies, direct or indirect, and also type of feedback suggested by Hedge et al. (1988). They were viewed whether they are categorized to teacher written feedback consisting of commentary, rubrics, minimal marking, taped commentary, and electronic feedback, or teacher-student conferencing consisting of teacher/whole class conference, teacher-mini conference, and one-on-one conference. Then the last focus concerned with the students’ responses toward the given feedback.

2. Interview to Teacher

Interview, as the second instrument of the study, was conducted to gain and confirm data and information that was collected from observation. Moreover, it offered the opportunity for the researcher to observe the subject and the total situation in which he or she is responding (Gronlund, 1985, p.361).

(26)

The interview itself was aimed to confirm the data collected from the work of students’ descriptive text. The interview used semi-structured interview which had several advantages conveyed by Burn (1994) as described below:

a. With the contacts being repeated, there is a greater length of time spent with the informant, which increases rapport.

b. The informant’s perspective is provided rather than the perspective of the researcher being imposed.

c. The informant uses language natural to them rather than trying to understand and fit into the concept of the study.

d. The informant is in equal status to the researcher in the dialogue

This interview consisted of nine questions related to how the teacher plays her role as an assessor and how she provides feedback to the students’ descriptive text. After teacher answered the questions in the interview, the data were transcribed and analyzed to describe the finding of this study.

3. Interview to Students

Interview was also conducted to the 10 students of eight grades from low, average and high groups. It was aimed to confirm data that are gathered from observation in the class and observation to their work, descriptive texts, questionnaire and also the teacher interview.

The interview was administered related to students’ responses toward the teacher’s feedback. The interview used semi-structured interview which consisted of 7 questions. The interview focused on three aspects: 1) teacher’s feedback, 2) students’ responses toward the teacher’s feedback, 3) feedback helpfulness for them.

(27)

There were ten students involved in the process of interview. They came from different groups; 3 students from low group, 4 students from average one and 3 students from high one. The interview was conducted in Bahasa Indonesia for better understanding. After the students answered the questions in the interview, the data were transcribed to make it easier in describing the finding of this study.

4. Questionnaire

Questionnaire was given to twenty students of eight grade. It was aimed to confirm and strengthen the data gained from observation in the class for three meetings, observation to their work, descriptive text, and also interview. It is because by contributing a questionnaire, the respondents, in this case the students, may be free to answer their own time and pace, thus eliciting more truthful responses toward the field being asked ( Burn, 1994, p.359).

Since the students are non-native speakers of English, the questionnaire were designed in Bahasa to avoid misunderstanding thus resulting an accurate data. The data gained from the questionnaire were analyzed by using Likert scale formula. It was analyzed by using two steps. The first one was that the respondents chose the options that were counted. They are as follows:

ST = Sangat Setuju (strongly agree) Score 5

S = Setuju (agree) Score 4

RG = Ragu-ragu (doubt) Score 3

TS = Tidak Setuju (disagree) Score 2 STS = Sangat tidak setuju (strongly disagree) Score 1

(28)

The second one, the number of respondents was changed into percentage form. After that it was conferred with the criterion presented on the following table.

No R% Criterion

1 0 None

2 1-25 Small number of

3 26 - 49 Nearly half of

4 50 Half of

5 51 - 75 More than half of

6 76 - 99 Almost half of

7 100 All of

Table 3.1 R% (Percentage of Respondents) Criterion

( Taken from Burn, 1994:356)

3.6 Data Collecting Procedures

There were several steps that were employed in conducting this study, among others:

1. Determining the population

In this step, the researcher did the preliminary research to decide whether the sample was suitable for the research or not.

(29)

In this step, the researcher observed the teaching and learning process by videotaping it. It was used to gather any verbal feedback given to the students’ descriptive text.

3. Observing students’ descriptive texts

This step was aimed to observe any possible written feedback provided by the teacher.

4. Analyzing the result of observation

In this step, the researcher analyzed the result of observation to figure out types of feedback and the strategies given by the teacher to the students’ descriptive text.

5. Distributing Questionnaire

The questionnaire was distributed to twenty students in the class. It was conducted at the end of the observation.

6. Analyzing data from questionnaire

The questionnaire was aimed to confirm and strengthen the data gained from the observation in the class, the observation of respondents work, descriptive texts, and also interview.

7. Conducting Interview

The interview was conducted to both teacher and students. The respondents were taken from low, average and high groups. The interview was conducted at the end of the observation after analyzing the result of questionnaire.

8. Analyzing the interview transcript

The analysis of the interview transcript was used to confirm the data gathered through observation.

9. Presenting the result of the study

In this step, the researcher compared all the data gathered from three instruments and then interpreted them in the form of narrative analysis.

(30)

Using descriptive analysis to present the results of the study, the researcher aimed to describe the data obtained to present them in the findings and explain them in the discussion. The analysis in the findings and the discussion were then interpreted to finally draw a conclusion. There were several steps used to analyze and interpret data. They are:

- Classifying and interpreting the teacher’s feedback

The feedback given by the teacher was classified based on the types of feedback proposed by Hedge et al. (1988). They were viewed whether they were categorized to teacher written feedback consisting of commentary, rubrics, minimal marking, taped commentary, and electronic feedback, or teacher-student conferencing consisting of teacher/whole class conference, teacher-mini conference, and one-on-one conference. Besides, the feedback was also viewed based on the strategies used by the teacher, direct and indirect feedback.

- Interpreting the students’ responses toward the given feedback

The interpretation of students’ responses toward the feedback from the teacher was derived from the interviews and questionnaires conducted to the students. Therefore, it could be beneficial to make the data more representative.

- _{Drawing conclusion}

The conclusion of this study was derived from the data obtained from the result of three instruments of this study.

(31)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Introduction

This chapter is the last chapter of the study comprising two parts. The first part puts forward conclusions based on the findings and discussions in the previous chapters. The second part puts forward suggestions expected to give benefits and meaningful input generally for the readers who are interested in feedback development.

5.2 Conclusions

The conclusions have been drawn based on the findings and discussion in the chapter IV. There are two major conclusions found. They are (1) based on types of feedback proposed by Hedge et al (1988), the teacher used for types of feedback; (2) the given feedback was responded positively and negatively by the students. The more elaboration of each point will be presented below.

There are four types of feedback based on Hedge et al (1988) used by the teacher. First, it was found that the teacher used whole class conference in providing feedback to the students. It was usually done by giving the students direct explanation orally, in front of the class, to the students by telling them the mistakes on their writing, the reason of the mistakes and the solution of how to revise it. Second, the teacher also used one-on-one conference to the students. In this stage, the teacher also tended to give the students direct explanation of what they have to for their writing improvement. On the other hand, in the written level, the teacher tended to give indirect feedback to the students. It was done by applying what is called as minimal marking. The teacher gave them several signs to indicate mistakes that they have

(32)

made. The signs were in the form of circle, underline and arrow. Those signs were used to indicate different kinds of mistakes. The circle one indicated that there was something wrong with the grammar or the spelling of the word. The underline one indicated that there was something missing on the part of the sentence. The arrow one indicated that the students need to pay attention on the word order that they have made. Besides, the teacher also used commentary. The comments were very good

indicating no mistakes on the students’ writing, good, there are one until four mistakes on their writing, not bad indicating that there are more than four mistakes on their writing, poor indicating that their writing could not be understood as a whole. But above all, regardless of those strategies given, it was also indicated that the teacher believed that feedback is needed by the students and it should be given to all students. This is basically in line with Lewis (2000) stating that feedback, written or spoken, is beneficial and meaningful to enhance the students’ language input. Thus, the teacher kept providing feedback for the students.

In terms of responses of the students toward the feedback given by the teacher, the students responded positively and negatively to the teacher feedback. From the interview to the teacher, she assumed that the students tended to respond positively to the feedback since it has been given continually to the students. This assumption is basically supported Thomson (2007) stating that to succeed any kinds of feedback, it would be beneficial for the students to have feedback continually and consistantly from the teacher. If the students make several mistakes, and the teacher helps them to repair them by giving them feedback, it challenges them to consider it and really learn from it.

Besides, it is also strengthened by the result of the questionnaires which was found that, in general, students gave positive responses toward the teacher feedback. The result of it showed that the most students agreed that feedback in any forms is

(33)

students, it was found that there were also negative responses conveyed by the students. This negative response came from low achieving students who had difficulties in understanding written indirect feedback from the teacher. They preferred to have spoken direct explanation to reduce their confusion in revising their writing. This kind of negative response indicates that basically, the students have different strengths and weaknesses, especially in writing descriptive texts. Moreover, as Lewis (2002) proposed, it is essential for the teacher to know that since every student has his or her own mistakes, the input should be more specific and personal, thus addressing his or her needs. Besides, both high achiever and low achiever students need reinforcement and encouragement but they need to be given in different ways.

5.3 Suggestions

There are several suggestions recommended for the follow-up studies. These suggestions will be focused on two parts; suggestions for English teachers and for the researchers who are interested in the same field.

To English teachers, there are several suggestions in providing feedback to the students. Firstly, teachers need to know exactly what the students really need for their writing. They need to know the characteristics of the students which can be used as the considerations for choosing strategies of providing feedback to the students in order to make them understand about what they have to do to their writing. It is also suggested that teachers should pay more attention to the low achiever students. They need to give more them direct explanation about their mistakes and what they have to do to revise them. Therefore, all of the students can comprehend the feedback, thus giving benefits for them.

There are also several suggestions for the researcher who are interested in the same field. Firstly, it would be better to dig deeper each strategy applied by the

(34)

teacher in this study and the effect of it for the students. Secondly, it is also suggested that further researchers to have well consideration in choosing the teacher since he or she is the main participant in the study. Lastly, it is recommended to find other strategies in providing feedback for the shake of student writing development.

(35)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agustine, H.I.R. (2006). Genre-based Approach and The 2004 English Curriculum. A plenary paper presented at UPI national seminar.

Akhter, Tahera. (2007). Giving Feedback and Correcting Errors in ESL Classroom.

[online] available at:

http://dspace.bracu.ac.bd/bitstream/handle/10361/128/Giving%20feedback%2 0and%20correcting%20errors%20in%20ESL%20classroom.PDF [ July 6, 2012]

Alwasilah, A. Chaedar, & Alwasilah, Senny Suzanna. (2005). Pokoknya Menulis. Kiblat Buku Utama: Bandung.

Buranapatana, and Kaen. (2012). The Effect of Feedback in Teaching Thai as Foreign Language. [online] available at: http://www.irma-international.org/viewtitle/58769/ [February 20, 2013]

Burn, Robert B. (1994). Introduction to Research Methods. Melbourne : Longman Australia pty Ltd.

Brown, H.Douglas.(2001). Teaching by principle: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy Second Edition. New jersey : prentice hall regents prentice – all, Inc.

Cameron, Lynne. (2001). Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chawla, Vibha, and Thurkla, Praveen. (2011). Effects of Student Feedback on Teaching Competence of Student Teachers: A Microteching Experiment. [online] available at: http://www.cedtech.net/articles/21/215.pdf [ July 18, 2012]

Eggins, Suxanne. (2004). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics:Second Edition. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Emilia, Emi. (2005). A Critical Genre-based Approach to Teaching Academic Writing in A tertiary EFL Context in Indonesia. Dissertation to University of Melbourne: Unpublished.

(36)

Feez, S and H Joyce. 1998. Text-based Syllabus design. Sydney: Macquarie University.

Fromkin, Victoria, and Rodman, Robert. (1974). An Introduction to Language. Ney York: Harcount Brace College Publishers.

Gerlach, Vernon S, and Ely, Donald P. (1980). Teaching and Media: A systematic Approach: Second Edition. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Gronlund, Norman E. (1985). Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching: Fifth Edition. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Hacth, Evelyn, and Farhady, H.( 1982). Research design and statistics for applied linguistics. U.S.A : Newbury House Publisher Inc.

Harmer, Jeremy. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching. U.K: Pearson Education Limited.

Harmer, Jeremy. (2007). How to Teach English. China: Pearson Education Limited. Hedge, et al. (1998). Teacher Feedback to Students in Numeracy Lessons: Are

Students Getting Good Value?. [online] available at: http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/June_05_yk&jk.pdf [January 9, 2013]

Hornby, HS. (2000). Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary. Oxford University Press Hunt, G., & Timothy, J.T. (2009). Effective Teaching: Preparation and

Implementation. Illinois: Charles C Thomas Publisher.

Karamanis, Nikiforos. (2004). Entity Coherence for Descriptive Text Structuring. Dissertation of Doctor of Philosophy in Institute for Communicating and Collaborative Systems School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh. [online] available at

http://lac-repo-live7.is.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/315/1/IP040021.pdf [ January 17, 2013] Kayfetz, Janet L, and Stice, Randy L. (1987). Academically Speaking. California:

(37)

Kim, Taemie, and Alex. (2010). Understanding Effects of Feedback on Group Collaboration. [online] available at: http://hd.media.mit.edu/tech-reports/TR-625.pdf [ December 4, 2012]

Lewis, M. (2002). Giving Feedback in Language Classes. SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Lie, Anita. (2007). Cooperative learning: Mempraktekan CooperativeLlearning di Ruang-ruang Kelas. Jakarta : PT. Gramedia

Mc. Grath, Ian. (2002). Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press Ltd.

Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers

Peterson, Shelley Stagg. (2010). Improving Student Writing: Using Feedback as a Teaching Tool. [online] available at:

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/WW_Impro ving_Student_Writing.pdf [December 1, 2012]

Purnawarman, Pupung. (2011). IMPACTS OF TEACHER FEEDBACK ON ESL/EFL

STUDENTS’ WRITING: Impacts of Different Types of Teacher Corrective Feedback in Reducing Grammatical Errors on ESL/EFL Students’ Writing. Dissertation to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University: Unpublished

Riyadi, Wahid. (2011). Teaching Writing Descriptive Text to Improve Students’s

Writing Skill through Weblog. Skripsi to the Faculty of Language and Arts of Indonesia University of Education: Unpiblished.

Sanjaya, Wina. (2010). Strategi Pembelajaran Berorientasi Standar Proses Pendidikan. Jakarta: Prenada Media Group.

Styati, Erlik Widiyani. (2010). THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CLUSTERING TECHNIQUE TO TEACH WRITING SKILL VIEWED FROM STUDENTS’ LINGUISTIC INTELLIGENCE: (An Experimental Research on Descriptive Writing for the Second Semester of English Department. Thesis to the English Education Department Graduate School Sebelas Maret University Surakarta. [online] available at http://eprints.uns.ac.id/8/1/169372009201010121.pdf [January 17, 2013]

(38)

Saville and Troike.(2006). Introducing Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Srichanyachon, Napaporn. (2012). Teacher Written Feedback for L2 Learners’

Writing Development. [online] available at:

http://www.journal.su.ac.th/index.php/suij/article/viewFile/270/284 [August 20, 2012]

Thompson, Julia G. (2007). The First-Year Teacher’s Survival Gude: Second Edition.

San Fransisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Wena, Made. (2011). Strategi Pembelajaran Inovatif Kontemporer: Suatu Tujuan Konseptual Operasional. Jakarta: PT Bumi Aksara.

Wiersma, William, and Jurs, Stephan G. (1990). Educational Measurement and Testing:Second Edition. Canada: Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Yusak, Muchlas. (2004). A brief Introduction to Genre. Jawa Tengah: Widyaiswara Madya.

(1)

5.3 Suggestions

(2)

Indri Eka Pertiwi , 2013

(3)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agustine, H.I.R. (2006). Genre-based Approach and The 2004 English Curriculum. A plenary paper presented at UPI national seminar.

Akhter, Tahera. (2007). Giving Feedback and Correcting Errors in ESL Classroom.

[online] available at:

http://dspace.bracu.ac.bd/bitstream/handle/10361/128/Giving%20feedback%2 0and%20correcting%20errors%20in%20ESL%20classroom.PDF [ July 6, 2012]

Alwasilah, A. Chaedar, & Alwasilah, Senny Suzanna. (2005). Pokoknya Menulis. Kiblat Buku Utama: Bandung.

Buranapatana, and Kaen. (2012). The Effect of Feedback in Teaching Thai as Foreign Language. [online] available at: http://www.irma-international.org/viewtitle/58769/ [February 20, 2013]

Burn, Robert B. (1994). Introduction to Research Methods. Melbourne : Longman Australia pty Ltd.

Brown, H.Douglas.(2001). Teaching by principle: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy Second Edition. New jersey : prentice hall regents prentice – all, Inc.

Cameron, Lynne. (2001). Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chawla, Vibha, and Thurkla, Praveen. (2011). Effects of Student Feedback on Teaching Competence of Student Teachers: A Microteching Experiment. [online] available at: http://www.cedtech.net/articles/21/215.pdf [ July 18, 2012]

Eggins, Suxanne. (2004). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics:Second Edition. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Emilia, Emi. (2005). A Critical Genre-based Approach to Teaching Academic Writing in A tertiary EFL Context in Indonesia. Dissertation to University of Melbourne: Unpublished.

(4)

Indri Eka Pertiwi , 2013

Feez, S and H Joyce. 1998. Text-based Syllabus design. Sydney: Macquarie University.

Fromkin, Victoria, and Rodman, Robert. (1974). An Introduction to Language. Ney York: Harcount Brace College Publishers.

Gerlach, Vernon S, and Ely, Donald P. (1980). Teaching and Media: A systematic Approach: Second Edition. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Gronlund, Norman E. (1985). Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching: Fifth Edition. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Hacth, Evelyn, and Farhady, H.( 1982). Research design and statistics for applied linguistics. U.S.A : Newbury House Publisher Inc.

Harmer, Jeremy. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching. U.K: Pearson Education Limited.

Harmer, Jeremy. (2007). How to Teach English. China: Pearson Education Limited. Hedge, et al. (1998). Teacher Feedback to Students in Numeracy Lessons: Are

Students Getting Good Value?. [online] available at: http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/June_05_yk&jk.pdf [January 9, 2013]

Hornby, HS. (2000). Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary. Oxford University Press Hunt, G., & Timothy, J.T. (2009). Effective Teaching: Preparation and

Implementation. Illinois: Charles C Thomas Publisher.

Karamanis, Nikiforos. (2004). Entity Coherence for Descriptive Text Structuring. Dissertation of Doctor of Philosophy in Institute for Communicating and Collaborative Systems School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh. [online] available at

http://lac-repo-live7.is.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/315/1/IP040021.pdf [ January 17, 2013] Kayfetz, Janet L, and Stice, Randy L. (1987). Academically Speaking. California:

(5)

Kim, Taemie, and Alex. (2010). Understanding Effects of Feedback on Group Collaboration. [online] available at: http://hd.media.mit.edu/tech-reports/TR-625.pdf [ December 4, 2012]

Lewis, M. (2002). Giving Feedback in Language Classes. SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Lie, Anita. (2007). Cooperative learning: Mempraktekan CooperativeLlearning di Ruang-ruang Kelas. Jakarta : PT. Gramedia

Mc. Grath, Ian. (2002). Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press Ltd.

Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers

Peterson, Shelley Stagg. (2010). Improving Student Writing: Using Feedback as a

Teaching Tool. [online] available at:

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/WW_Impro ving_Student_Writing.pdf [December 1, 2012]

Purnawarman, Pupung. (2011). IMPACTS OF TEACHER FEEDBACK ON ESL/EFL STUDENTS’ WRITING: Impacts of Different Types of Teacher Corrective

Feedback in Reducing Grammatical Errors on ESL/EFL Students’ Writing.

Dissertation to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University: Unpublished

Riyadi, Wahid. (2011). Teaching Writing Descriptive Text to Improve Students’s Writing Skill through Weblog. Skripsi to the Faculty of Language and Arts of Indonesia University of Education: Unpiblished.

Sanjaya, Wina. (2010). Strategi Pembelajaran Berorientasi Standar Proses Pendidikan. Jakarta: Prenada Media Group.

(6)

Indri Eka Pertiwi , 2013

Saville and Troike.(2006). Introducing Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Srichanyachon, Napaporn. (2012). Teacher Written Feedback for L2 Learners’

Writing Development. [online] available at:

http://www.journal.su.ac.th/index.php/suij/article/viewFile/270/284 [August 20, 2012]

Thompson, Julia G. (2007). The First-Year Teacher’s Survival Gude: Second Edition. San Fransisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Wena, Made. (2011). Strategi Pembelajaran Inovatif Kontemporer: Suatu Tujuan Konseptual Operasional. Jakarta: PT Bumi Aksara.

Wiersma, William, and Jurs, Stephan G. (1990). Educational Measurement and Testing:Second Edition. Canada: Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Yusak, Muchlas. (2004). A brief Introduction to Genre. Jawa Tengah: Widyaiswara Madya.

TEACHER’S FEEDBACK ON STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTIVE TEXTS: A CASE STUDY CONDUCTED IN A JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL IN BANDUNG.