THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHER INDIRECT FEEDBACK TO IMPROVE STUDENTS’ ABILITY IN WRITING RECOUNT TEXT.
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount
Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve
Students’
Ability in Writing Recount Text
A Research Paper
(Submitted to the Department of English Education of FPBS UPI as a partial requirement to achieve Sarjana Pendidikan Degree)
By
Lutfia Putrinurani 0902343
Department of English Education Faculty of Language and Arts Education
Indonesia University of Education 2014
(2)
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount
Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect
Feed a k to I prove Stude ts’ A ility
in Writing Recount Text
Oleh Lutfia Putrinurani
Sebuah skripsi yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Sarjana pada Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni
© Lutfia Putrinurani 2014 Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
Januari 2014
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)
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount
Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
PAGE OF APPROVAL
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHER INDIRECT FEEDBACK TO IMPROVE STUDENTS’ ABILITY IN WRITING RECOUNT TEXT
By:
Lutfia Putrinurani 0902343
Approved by:
Main Supervisor Co-Supervisor
Pupung Purnawarman, M.S.Ed., Ph.D. Drs. Sudarsono, M.I, M.A. NIP. 196810131998031001 NIP. 196607051994031004
Head of Department of English Education Faculty of Language and Arts Education
Indonesia University of Education
(4)
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount
Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu NIP. 196211011987121001
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby state that this research paper entitled The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text is completely my original work regarding the procedure of writing the paper, except where due to references or acknowledgments are made in the texts. It contains no material which has been submitted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or institution.
Bandung, Desember 2013
(5)
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount
Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
PREFACE
Alhamdulillahirabbilalamin, in the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, the writer finally accomplished the study with this research paper. This research entitled “The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text”. It is submitted to the English Education Department of Indonesia University of Education as a partial requirement to achieve Sarjana Pendidikan Degree.
This paper investigated the use of teacher indirect feedback in teaching recount text. Besides, it also views the students’ responses toward teacher indirect feedback. Generally, the writer hopes that this paper could give some contributions to all readers. Specifically, the result of this study is expected to give some contributions to teacher in teaching writing and for those who may need a comparative resource in conducting a similar study in the future.
However, the writer realizes that this paper is not perfect one as there are many mistakes and flaws. The writer would be pleased to accept criticism and suggestions from the readers for the improvement and for better further study.
Bandung, Desember 2013
(6)
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount
Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Acknowledgments
First of all, I would like to thanks Allah for all His blessing in my life. Sometimes, I want to give up in finishing my final paper, but I believe that Allah always besides me all the time so there is no reason to give up. I also believe that Allah always listens my pray.
I would like to thanks to my beloved parents, Abdul Hasim and Euis Nuryatin who always pray, give me valuable suggestions, motivations and support for my success. Thanks to my grandmother, Anih Yuhaenih for endless prayers. Thanks to my aunt, Emilia and my big cousin, Andi Sutisno for helping me in many ways. Thanks to my brothers, Muhammad Haekal, Muhammad Ilman Alkausar, my little cousins Elvira Sandika Zahro and Syakib for cheering me up. It is with all my big family’s never ending love, understanding, and encouragement that I could finally reach the finish line to earn a Sarjana degree.
Thanks to my love Imam Ma’ruf Khaerulloh and my best friends Dini Mustaqima, Fitria Lathufirdaush, Risma Rahmawati, Linta Hayatunisa, Raihani Ferdila, Aini, Rainal Wempi Pasaka, Alfi Hayyi, Dimas Yulianto, Danis, Evi Mardiani, and Hindun Mustika Nurulhayati for always being here for me all the time when I need their help, through up and down during the whole process of completing my degree. I love you, Guys.
Very special thanks to my advisors, Pupung Purnawarman, M.S.Ed., Ph.D. and Drs. Sudarsono M.I., M.A. who had been very patient in advising me during the supervising sessions. Their feedbacks are very useful. Special thanks to all of my lectures at Indonesia University of Education for valuable knowledge that have been delivered to me.
(7)
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount
Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Special thanks to all of my students in SMPN 1 Cibatu, especially to VIII-H and VIII-I for their participation on my research. Special thanks to all of teachers and the headmaster in SMPN 1 Cibatu for supporting me to conduct this research. I also would like to thanks to Pak Nanang who give me suggestions related to my research.
Thanks to all of my friends in English Education A, BRITNINE, Abdun Wijaya and Is Pradausa for the unforgettable moments that we faced during study at Indonesia University of Education. Thanks to my lovely friends, Yanti Purnamasari, Anis Nugrahawati, Iis Nuryani, Nurwinda, Maya Marlina, and for those I cannot mention one by one, thanks for giving me best time of my life. All the words in the world would never be able to express my gratitude to all of you. May Alloh bless you all of you. Amin.
Finally, and most importantly, I would like to say “I love you Mama and Papa, thanks for everything”. My Sarjana degree is dedicated for both of you. I hope it can be the sweetest gift for both of you in this year.
(8)
vii Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT……… i
PREFACE………... ii
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS………...iii
ABSTRACT………... v
TABLE OF CONTENTS………..………... vii
LIST OF TABLES……….……... xiii
LIST OF FIGURES………... xiv
LIST OF APPENDIXES………...………… xv
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1Background……….………. 1
1.2Research Questions….……….………… 2
1.3Aims of the Study……… 3
1.4Scope of the Study………... 3
1.5Significance of the Study……….……… 3
1.6Clarification of Terms……….…………. 4
1.7Organization of the Paper………... 5
CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FOUNDATION 2.1 Feedback……….. 7
(9)
viii Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
2.1.1 Definition of Feedback………... 7
2.1.2 Purposes of Feedback………. 8
2.1.3 Types of Feedback……….…... 9
2.1.4 Source of Feedback………. 11
2.1.5 Benefits of Teacher Written Feedback………... 12
2.1.6 Weaknesses of Teacher Written Feedback………. 12
2.1.7 Strategies in Providing Feedback: Indirect feedback ………..………. 13
2.1.8 Teacher Feedback and Writing Improvement………... 15
2.2 The Process Approach………... 18
2.3 Self Assessment in Writing……… 21
2.4 The Roles of Teacher in Teaching Writing………... ……... 22
2.5 Recount Text……….... ……... 23
2.5.1 Definition of Recount Text……… 23
2.5.2 Generic Structures of Recount Text………... 24
2.5.3 Language Features of Recount Text………... 24
2.6 Concluding Remark………... 25
CHAPTER III REASEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research Methods………... 26
(10)
ix Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
3.1.1 Research Designs……….…...……… 26
3.1.2 Variables………...…………. 26
3.1.3 Hypothesis………...……….. 27
3.2 Population and Sample……….……….………. 27
3.3 Data Collection………...……….……… 28
3.3.1 Writing Practices………..………. 28
3.3.2 Questionnaires………..………. 29
3.4 Research Procedures……… 30
3.4.1 Administering the Pilot Test………. 30
3.4.2 Preparing the Lesson Plan………...……...….……... 30
3.4.3 Preparing the Materials………. 30
3.4.4 Teaching Procedures……….. 30
3.5 Data Analysis……….……… 40
3.5.1 Scoring Sheet for Writing Analysis………...…...……... 40
3.5.2 Data Analysis in the Pilot Test………... 41
3.5.3 Data Analysis in the First Draft and the Last Draft……….. ………... 41
3.5.3.1 Normality Distribution Test………..………... 41
(11)
x Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
3.5.3.3 Homogeneity of Variance Test………..……… 43
3.5.3.4 Independent t-test……….………... 43
3.5.3.5 Non Parametric Statistic Test: Wilcoxon Test……….……... 44
3.5.3.6 Normalized Gain……… 45
3.5.3.7 Effect Size………... 45
3.5.4 Data Analysis on Questionnaires……….…... 46
4.3 Concluding Remark……….……… 46
CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 4.1 Findings………...47
4.1.1 Findings from the Pilot Test……….…………. 47
4.1.2Findings from the First Draft Analysis in the Experimental Group and the Control Group……….…….………… 48
4.1.2.1 Normality Distribution Test……….. 49
4.1.2.2 Non Parametric Statistic Test: Mann Whitney U....…………..…... 50
4.1.3 Findings from the Last Draft Analysis in the Experimental Group and the Control Group……….…...………… 51
4.1.3.1 Normality Distribution Test………... 52
(12)
xi Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
4.1.3.3 Independent t-test…..………....…..……….. 53
4.1.4 Findings from the First Draft and the Last Draft Analysis in the Control Group... 54
4.1.5 Findings from the First Draft and the Last Draft Analysis in the Experimental Group... 55
4.1.6 Normalized Gain... 56
4.1.7 Effect Size... 57
4.1.8 Findings of Questionnaires……….………. 58
4.2 Discussions………... 58
4.2.1 The Effectiveness of Teacher Feedback in Teaching Writing…………... 58
4.2.2 Students’ Responses toward Teacher Feedback………..………..………… 60
4.2.1 Writing Skill and the Implementation of Teacher Feedback……….. 60
4.2.2 The Advantages of the Implementation of Teacher Feedback……….……... 62
4.3 Concluding Remark……… 63
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1 Conclusions……… 64
(13)
xii Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
REFERENCES……….. 66
APPENDICES BIOGRAPHY
(14)
1
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount
Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents background of the study, research questions, aims of the study, scope of the study, significance of the study, clarification of terms, and organization of the paper.
1.1Background
Writing is an important skill that is required to be mastered by students. However, most language learners assume that writing is a difficult skill, especially for students who learn English as a foreign language (Emilia, 2009).
There are some reasons why writing is assumed as a difficult skill. The first reason is writing is regarded as a complex skill because there are some procedures that should be conducted in writing, such as thinking, drafting, and revising (Brown, 2001, p. 335). This view is in line with Alwasilah and Alwasilah (2005) who state that writing is a complex skill because it is not only an activity to transfer spoken language into the written form, but also it is a mechanism to create, develop, combine idea, concept, and knowledge into correct structures, coherent paragraphs, and without mechanical errors. The second reason is students lack of confidence which made them think that they cannot or do not want to write (Harmer, 2007, p. 113). The third is there is no feedback from the teacher on students’ written text (Alwasilah and Alwasilah, 2005).
In solving those difficulties, feedback from the teacher is needed. In teaching writing, a teacher plays the role as a feedback provider who should encourage and provide positive responses toward students’ writing (Harmer, 2007). In addition, feedback is also important to build an awareness of the nature and the function of
(15)
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount
Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
feedback in order to have an effective teaching and learning of writing process (Dheram, 1995).
In a process approach of writing, feedback is considered as a basic element (Keh, 1990). In the process approach, a teacher helps students in building repertoires of strategies for pre-writing, drafting, and rewriting (Brown, 2001). Brown adds that the process approach gives students time to write and re-write. According to Krashen (1984) reveals that feedback is useful when it is given to students during the writing process because students can learn their errors in writing and revise their text based on feedback from the teacher. It means that teacher feedback can be used as an
alternative strategy to improve students’ writing.
Many researchers have conducted some studies related to teacher feedback. Although a lot of studies show the effectiveness of teacher feedback, the study on the implementation of teacher written feedback by using indirect feedback in the Junior High School is rare especially in the teaching of recount text. In order to fill the gap in the study about teacher feedback, this study aims to investigate whether teacher
indirect feedback is effective to improve students’ ability in writing recount text or not and to find out students’ responses of the implementation of teacher feedback by
using indirect feedback strategy in improving their writing of recount text.
1.2Research Questions
The study is aimed to investigate the use of teacher indirect feedback to
improve students’ writing of recount text. Research questions are as follows:
1. How effective is teacher indirect feedback to improve students’ writing of recount text?
2. What are students’ responses toward the implementation of teacher indirect feedback in improving their ability in writing recount text?
(16)
3
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount
Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
1.3Aims of the Study
Based on the description in the background, the study is aimed to:
1. Investigate whether teacher indirect feedback is effective to improve
students’ ability in writing recount text or not.
2. Find out students’ responses toward the implementation of teacher indirect feedback in improving their ability in writing recount text.
1.4Scope of the Study
This study focuses on investigating the implementation of teacher written feedback by using indirect feedback strategy about content, organization, and
language in students’ writing of recount text. This study also explains students’
responses of teacher feedback in improving their writing of recount text.
This study is conducted at a junior high school in Garut. The population of this study is the whole students of eighth grade in a junior high school. Specifically, there are two classes taken as the sample for the study. Teacher indirect feedback is used as a treatment which is given to the experimental group. Moreover, the context of the study is limited on teaching of writing recount text by using feedback from the teacher in a junior high school.
1.5Significance of the Study
This study is expected to improve students’ understanding about their errors
(17)
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount
Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
from the teacher can make students aware about their errors in writing and make their writing better.
This study can be useful and a helpful source for teachers in teaching English by using teacher indirect feedback. This study will inspire other researchers to conduct a research about issues which are related to the application and development of teacher indirect feedback.
1.6Clarification of Terms
This part explains terms that are used in this study in order to avoid misunderstanding. Three terms are clarified as follows:
1. Effectiveness can be defined as a measurement of achievement. In this study
effectiveness refers to a measurement of students’ ability in writing recount text.
In addition, the effectiveness of this study can be seen by the increase of
students’ score in writing recount text.
2. Teacher Indirect Feedback can be defined as an input from the teacher to students which provides the clues about their errors for students’ revision without providing the correct form (Purnawarman, 2011). In this study, indirect feedback strategy of this study use a color circle mark, an arrow mark, a cross mark, and
commentary to indicate students’ errors in writing. In addition, the type of feedback of this study is teacher written feedback.
3. Recount Text is a text which consists of an event and an experience that has already happened in the past (Martin, 2006; Emilia, 2011). The type of recount text in this study is personal type which tells about events that happen to the writer in the past. Students have to write a recount text based on the theme that given by the teacher. Recount texts that are used as learning materials of this study are taken from some books and internet.
(18)
5
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount
Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
1.7Organization of the Paper
This paper is presented in five chapters. Each chapter consists of several sub chapters as follows:
Chapter I
This chapter elaborates background of the study. It discusses writing which becomes the focus of the study. The chapter also explains about research questions, aims of the study, scope of the study, significances of the study, clarification of terms, and organization of the paper.
Chapter II
This chapter discusses some theories related to the study. It consists of theoretical background referring to the theory of feedback, process approach, self assessment in writing, the roles of teacher in teaching writing and recount text.
Chapter III
This chapter gives clear explanation about how the study is conducted and analyzed. The data analysis is also explained briefly. This chapter involves research design, research hypothesis, population and sample, research procedures, research instruments, and data analysis.
Chapter IV
This chapter analyzes findings and discussions of the study. It explores findings and discussions of data gained from the first draft, the last draft, and questionnaires.
(19)
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount
Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu Chapter V
This chapter presents conclusions and several suggestions of the study based on the findings and discussions in chapter four. Conclusions show the answer to the
research questions about the use of teacher indirect feedback to improve students’
writing of recount text. There are also several suggestions for further researchers related to the subject matter of teacher indirect feedback. `.
(20)
26
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the methodology of the study. It consists of research design, data collection technique, research procedures, and data analysis technique.
3.1 Research Methods 3.1.1 Research Design
This study used a quasi- experimental design by assigning one class as the experimental group and the other class as the control group. Hatch and Farhady (1982) reveal that:
By using a quasi-experimental design, we control as many variables as we can and also limit the kinds of interpretations we make about cause-effect relationship and hedge the power of our generalization statements.
A quasi experimental design was used in this study, due the limited time and cost. A true experimental design would not be feasible because of long time period. In addition, Hatch and Farhady (1982) affirm that this design is a comparison group design. The experimental group was treated by providing teacher written feedback by using indirect feedback strategy. In addition, students were asked to write a recount text and revise their text based on indirect feedback from the teacher. Meanwhile, in the control group which is students were asked to write a recount text and revise their text based on their understanding.
3.1.2 Variables
There were two variables in this study, namely an independent variable and a dependent variable. According to Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2007), independent variable is used to make a change in the value of one variable and dependent variable
(21)
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
is the effect that changes on another variable. In this study, the independent variable was teacher written feedback by using indirect feedback strategy. Indirect feedback from the teacher was applied to change and improve students‟ score in writing
recount text. Meanwhile, students‟ score in writing recount text was the dependent
variable that was observed and measured so as to determine the effect of teacher
indirect feedback towards students‟ score, especially in writing a recount text.
3.1.3 Hypothesis
Hatch and Farhady (1982) assert that “The null hypothesis is the most common hypothesis”. The null hypothesis of this study is that there is no significant
difference between students‟ writing score in the first draft and the last draft score. It
means that teacher indirect feedback is not effective in improving students‟ writing of
recount text. Meanwhile, the alternative hypothesis of this study is there is
significant difference between students‟ writing score in the first draft and the last draft that means that teacher indirect feedback is effective in improving students‟ ability in writing recount text.
3.2 Population and Sample
This study was conducted in a Junior High School in Garut. The population of this study was eighth graders in a Junior High School in Garut. They were in the 2013/2014 academic year. The study used two classes as samples. One class as the experimental group that received teacher indirect feedback treatments and consisting of 38 students. The other class acted as the control group that did not receive experimental treatments, they only were asked to revise their text based on their understanding. This group also had 38 students. The samples were chosen because both groups have similar ability.
(22)
28
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
3.3 Data Collection
To gain the data, this study used two instruments. The first instrument was writing practices in which students were asked to write recount text based on the theme that was determined by the teacher. The second instrument was questionnaires which were distributed to all students in the experimental group.
3.3.1 Writing Practices
In this study, writing practices were used to measure students‟ writing of
recount text. Writing practices were employed to the experimental group and the control group. At the beginning, students were given a diagnostic writing to collect the data about their writing ability in recount text before teacher indirect feedback was applied. In the diagnostic writing (first draft), students were asked to write a recount text based on their holiday experience in the previous semester as long as one hundred words in forty minutes. Then, in every meeting students in both groups were asked to make a recount text based on the theme that was determined by the teacher. They were also asked to make revision. For the experimental group, their text got indirect feedback from the teacher and they were asked to revise their text based on indirect feedback that they received from the teacher. Meanwhile, the control group did not receive feedback from the teacher so they were asked to revise their text based on their understanding. In the last meeting, students in both groups were submitted
their last draft to measure students‟ writing of recount text after teacher indirect
feedback treatment was applied.
Feedback that was used in this study was indirect feedback in form of minimal marking and written commentary from the teacher.
(23)
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu a. Minimal Marking
There were three kinds of mark that were used in indicating students‟ errors in
writing. First, the teacher used a color circle mark. There were a pink color circle mark, a green color circle mark, a red color circle mark, and a blue color circle mark. A pink color circle mark indicated inappropriate vocabularies. A green color circle mark indicated errors in using preposition or article. A red color circle mark indicated tenses errors. A blue color circle mark indicated there are sentences that cannot be understood.
Second, the teacher used an arrow mark. An arrow mark indicated errors in sentence structures. Third, the teacher used a cross mark. A cross mark indicated there are words or sentences that should be omitted.
b. Commentary
The teacher gave written comment related to the content, generic structures, language features, the good point and the bad point that exist on students‟ writing and what should be done next by students. For example: 1. your story is good, but there are still errors in using tenses, 2. there are some sentences that cannot be understood by the teacher as the reader, 3. orientation: yes, sequence of events: incomplete, re-orientation: no, 4. Please revise and complete your text. In addition, the teacher gives a motivation comment, for instance: I believe that you can write better than this.
3.3.2 Questionnaires
Questionnaires were administered to get the information about students‟ responses toward the use of teacher indirect feedback. Questionnaires were distributed merely to the experimental group after the final writing was submitted. Questionnaires consisted of ten statements related to students‟ responses toward
(24)
30
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
writing skill and the implementation of teacher indirect feedback in writing, especially in writing a recount text (see Appendix C).
3.4 Research Procedures
3.4.1 Administering the Pilot Test
The pilot test was given to six students in the similar level which were not included in the experimental group and the control group but has already learned recount text. In the pilot test students were asked to write a recount text based on the theme that given by the teacher. The result of pilot test can be seen in Appendix E.
3.4.2 Preparing the Lesson Plan
The lesson plan (see Appendix A) was designed to be implemented during treatment sections. The lesson plan related to recount text. The teacher designed the lesson plan for six meetings.
3.4.3 Preparing the Materials
The materials given were about recount texts taken from some resources such as some books and internet. Recount texts that were used in this study can be found in Appendix A.
3.4.4 Teaching Procedures
The teacher used indirect feedback strategy from the teacher in teaching recount texts to the experimental group. Meanwhile, students of the control group were asked to self assess. The lesson plan can be seen in Appendix A. The steps were below:
(25)
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Step 1: Class Presentation
In the class presentation step, the teacher delivered the material through lecturing (Aljanian, 2012, p.1). The class presentation was conducted to build
students‟ knowledge to write a recount text. The material given in this study was
about recount text. Recount text was chosen as the material of this study because it was appropriate with the SKKD. The class presentation was conducted in the second until seventh meeting in 40 minutes. The success of the class presentation steps can be seen from the students‟ in Chapter IV.
Step 2: Write a recount text based on the theme from the teacher
Writing practice was useful to improve students‟ ability in writing (Alwasilah
and Alwasilah (2005). In this step, the teacher used the process approach. As confirmed by Brown (2001) that focus on the process of writing can lead students to a better final paper. In line with this, Harmer (2007) asserts through a process of writing, students can have a good piece of work. By focusing on the writing process, students can evaluate their writing, According to Keh (1990), the process approach in writing consists of generating ideas (pre-writing); writing a first draft with an
emphasis on content (to „discover‟ meaning/author‟s ideas); second and third (and
(26)
32
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu Table 2. Research Schedule
No. Experimental Group Control Group Material Material
1. The Diagnostic Writing The Diagnostic Writing (First (First Draft) Draft) 2. Draft 2 Draft 2
3. Revision based on feedback Revision based on students‟ from the teacher understanding (self assessment) 4. Draft 3 Draft 3
5. Revision based on feedback Revision based on students‟ from the teacher understanding (self assessment) 6. Draft 4 Draft 4
7. Revision 3 based on feedback Revision 3 based on students‟ from the teacher understanding (self assessment) 8. Last Draft Last Draft
In the first meeting the teacher conducted the diagnostic writing to find out
students‟ writing ability in writing recount text before the treatment applied. In the
diagnostic writing, students were asked to write a recount text about their holiday experience in the previous semester (first draft). The result of the diagnostic writing (first draft) can be seen in Appendix E. After conducting the diagnostic writing, students of the experimental group were given treatment which was teacher feedback by using indirect feedback strategies that is believed can help students in developing their writing (Keh, 1990; Purnawarman, 2011; Hashemnezhad and Mohammadnejad , 2012; Zaman and Azad, 2012; Tabasi, Khodabandehlou and Jahandar, 2013).
(27)
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Meanwhile students of the control group were asked to self assess because self
assessment in writing can improve students‟ writing ability (Javaherbakhsh, 2010;
Lam, 2010).
In addition, for the experimental group, their text received indirect feedback from the teacher and they were asked to revise their text based on feedback that they got from the teacher. Meanwhile, the control group did not receive feedback from the teacher so they were asked to revise their text based on their understanding. In the last
meeting, students were asked to write the final writing to find out students‟ writing ability in writing recount text after treatments were applied. Students‟ writing can be
seen in Appendix B. Furthermore, the explanation below describes generally about
the improvement of students‟ writing in both groups in every meeting. Diagnostic Writing (First Draft)
In the first meeting, teacher conducted the diagnostic writing to find out
students‟ writing ability in writing recount text. In the diagnostic writing students were asked to write their holiday experience (first draft). Students‟ writing were analyzed by using numeric and rubric scoring guide adopted from Coffin (2003) and Hyland (2004) in Emilia (2011) as follows:
Table 3. Numeric and Rubric Scoring Guide
(Adopted from Coffin, 2003 and Hyland, 2004, in Emilia, 2011) Scores Content Organization of Structure Language 31-14 - Events are stated - The orientation provides - The language explicitly. all the important used is very
- Events are recorded information. well controlled. clearly and properly. - There are all the - The use of - The significance of necessary backgrounds. vocabulary is
(28)
34
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
events can be evaluated. - Story is writer in order. well used. - There is a personal - The re-orientation - The selection
comments of the event. “closes” the chain of of good events. grammar is well considered.
21-30 - Event is written clearly. - The orientation is well - The choice of - The story includes the developed. vocabulary is
sequential events. - Most of characters are quite - It provides evaluation mentioned in the story. appropriate.
of the event. - Most of events are well - The use of - It provides personal sequenced and coherent. grammar is
comment. - The orientation closes varied. the chain of events. - Most of the tone used is quite appropriate.
11-20 - Event is written broadly. - The orientation provides - The language - Event is recorded clearly. some information. mastery is - Evaluation is still little or - Some unimportant inconsistent.
weak. backgrounds should - There is less - Personal comments are be omitted. variation in the
not sufficient. - Some parts of the story choice of good are written coherent, grammar and some are not. vocabulary. - There is an attempt to - The use of tone write to the re- and style is orientation. inconsistent. 1-10 - Event is not written. - The orientation is - Mastery of a
(29)
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu identified. - There is no any low.
-The evaluation is still background. - The reader is confusing. - Sequence of events really annoyed -There is no any is written haphazardly by grammatical
personal comment. and incoherent. errors. - There is no part of - The use of re-orientation. vocabulary is still low.
There are three parts of generic structure of recount text, namely orientation, series of events, and re-orientation (Emilia, 2011). The first part is orientation. It is an introduction of events which provide main information, such as participants, what happened, where the place is, when the events happen (Emilia, 2011). In the first
draft, students‟ writing in the experimental and control groups were not enough good.
Most of them was not be explained the orientation clearly.
The second part is series of events which can be called body of text. This part includes how character within the text feels about events; events are told specifically (Emilia, 2011). Almost all of the students in both groups did not explain the events that faced by them clearly. They only mention some events without explain it in detail.
The third part is re-orientation that explains about personal comments and opinions of the writer related to events that the writer faces (Emilia, 2011). In this part, the writer also can tell how the experience ends. There were some students in both groups who did not write comment or their feeling related to the events that was faced by them.
As asserted by Derewianka (2004), Martin (2006), and Emilia (2011) that there are some language features of recount text. First, personal participant is introduced. Second, it uses chronological connection to connect sentences or
(30)
36
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
paragraphs. Third, it includes linking verb. Fourth, it uses action verb. Fifth, simple past tense is written by using the first or the third person. All of the students in both groups did not use past tense in retelling events; they used present tense in their recount text. They also did not use first, then, after that in explaining events that they faced. Their writing was not still understandable by the teacher. There were some vocabularies that were inappropriate to be used in their text. In addition, there was some unimportant information that should be omitted in their text.
Second Draft
In the second draft, students in both groups were asked to write their experience in celebrating their birthday. Almost all of students still did not write well. As affirmed by Emilia (2011) that there are three parts of generic structures of recount text, such as: orientation, series of events, and re-orientation. In the orientation, almost all of the students in both groups still did not write this part clearly. In telling the events, almost all of the students write the events briefly. They did not write it in detail. Some parts of the story were not written coherent. In the re-orientation part, most of them did not tell what they feel after events happened explicitly.
There are some language features of recount text (Derewianka, 2004; Martin, 2006, and Emilia, 2011). First, personal participant is introduced. Second, it uses chronological connection to connect sentences or paragraphs. Third, it includes linking verb. Fourth, it uses action verb. Fifth, simple past tense is written by using the first or the third person. Almost all of the students in both groups use present tense. It should not be used.
(31)
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Revision
Students in both groups were asked to revise their second draft. Students in the experimental group were asked to revise their text based on indirect feedback from the teacher. Teacher feedback by using indirect feedback strategies is believed can help students in developing their writing (Keh, 1990; Purnawarman, 2011; Hashemnezhad and Mohammadnejad , 2012; Zaman and Azad, 2012; Tabasi, Khodabandehlou and Jahandar, 2013). Meanwhile students of the control group were
asked to self assess because self assessment in writing can improve students‟ writing
ability (Javaherbakhsh, 2010; Lam, 2010).
There are three parts of generic structure of recount text, namely orientation, series of events, and re-orientation (Emilia, 2011). The first part is orientation. It is an introduction of events which provide main information, such as participants, what happened, where the place is, when the events happen (Emilia, 2011). In the orientation, most students in the experimental group could revise this part well. They added some information and also omitted unimportant information. Meanwhile, most students in the control group did not revise well. They seemed confused about what they should revise in their text but they tried hardly to write better. In telling events, some students in the experimental group elaborated the events that they faced. Their writing was coherent. They tried to write what they felt after facing the events. In addition, students in the control group added some information related to the events that they faced. They also tried to explain the events clearly. In the re-orientation, they added some personal comments related to the events that they faced.
There are some language features of recount text (Derewianka, 2004; Martin, 2006, and Emilia, 2011). First, personal participant is introduced. Second, it uses chronological connection to connect sentences or paragraphs. Third, it includes linking verb. Fourth, it uses action verb. Fifth, simple past tense is written by using the first or the third person. Some students in both groups used past tense and
(32)
38
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
chronological connection to connect sentences or paragraphs, some of them were not.
In addition, students‟ writing of the experimental group more coherent and understandable rather than the control group.
Third Draft
In the third draft, students in both groups were asked to write a recount text about their experience in celebrating Eid Al-Fitri. There were some improvements of students‟ writing in both groups. In the orientation, most students in the experimental group mentioned some important information, such as mention participants, what happened, where the place is, when the events happen. Meanwhile, some students in the control group still did not write this part clearly, they only mentioned what happened. In telling the events, most students in the experimental group explained the events in detail and understandable while some students in the control group did not write this part clearly. In the re-orientation, most students in both groups mention their personal comments related to the events that they faced. Most students in both group were understand about generic structure of recount text that was evidenced in their writing they wrote three parts of generic structure of recount text completely. It is in line with Emilia (2011) who reveals that there are three parts of generic structure of recount text, namely orientation, series of events, and re-orientation.
There are some language features of recount text (Derewianka, 2004; Martin, 2006, and Emilia, 2011). First, personal participant is introduced. Second, it uses chronological connection to connect sentences or paragraphs. Third, it includes linking verb. Fourth, it uses action verb. Fifth, simple past tense is written by using the first or the third person. Almost all of the students in the experimental group used past tense, action verb, linking verb, and chronological connection to connect sentences or paragraphs. Meanwhile, there were some students in both groups who still used present tense and past tense which means that inconsistency in using tenses.
(33)
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Revision
Students in both groups were asked to revise their third draft. Almost all of the students in the experimental group were able to revise their text and make their text better than before. They revised the text based on indirect feedback from the teacher. Indirect feedback from the teacher was understandable by them that were proved by their improvement in writing in every meeting. Meanwhile, some students in the control group revised their text well, some of them did not. It means that some students in the control group can assess their writing successfully, while some of them got confused in assessing their writing that was conducted by themselves (Lam, 2010).
Fourth Draft
In the fourth draft, students in both groups were asked to write a recount text
about their experience in celebrating Indonesia‟s Independence Day. In the fourth
draft, most students in both groups wrote the text well, especially students in the experimental group. Almost all of the students were able to minimize their errors in writing a recount text. It means that indirect feedback from the teacher was understandable by them although there were still inconsistency in using tenses that was conducted by some students. Meanwhile, some students of control group were able to write a good text which means that they could assess their text successfully by themselves. So, they were able to write better. On the other hand, there were some students in the control group who still could not assess their text, so they were not able to write better (Lam, 2010).
Revision
Students in both groups were asked to revise their fourth draft. All students in the experimental group were able to revise their text well based on indirect feedback
(34)
40
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
from the teacher. They understood about their errors in writing and they knew the correct form (Lalande, 1982; Purnawarman, 2011). In addition, some students in the control group were able to decrease their errors in writing but there were some texts that were categorized into a bad text. It happens because some students in the control group were not able to assess their text well, so they did not know what they should be improved by them in writing (Lam, 2010).
Last Draft
In the last meeting, students in both groups were asked to write last draft about their holiday experience. In the last draft almost all of the students in the experimental group were able to write very well. Meanwhile, there were some students in the control group who still did many errors in their writing.
From the general explanation above related to the students‟ writing in both
groups, it can be concluded that almost all of the students in the experimental group were able to improve their writing in every meeting. Meanwhile, there were some students in the control group that could not improve their writing successfully, their
text was not better than before. Furthermore, students‟ writing can be seen in
Appendix B, while students‟ score in every meeting can be seen in Appendix E. In
addition, students‟ score was analyzed by using the statistical computation in SPSS
16 for Windows. The description of research findings from the statistical computation in SPSS 16 for Windows and from questionnaires were discussed in the chapter IV.
3.5. Data Analysis
3.5.1. Scoring Sheet for Writing Analysis
Students‟ writing were analyzed by using numeric and rubric scoring guide
(35)
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
was examined was the content. The second aspect was structure organization. The last aspect was language. In detail, it can be seen in Appendix D.
The guiding score describes that those who got the range of score 31-40 as having achieved the excellent score, those who got the range of score 21-30 as having achieved the good score, those who got the range of score 11-20 as having average score (this range of scores is minimum score that should be acquired by students in order to the instrument is valid to be used), and those who got the range of 1-10 did not fulfill the requirement of the standard score.
3.5.2. Data Analysis in the Pilot Test
The aim of the pilot test is to check the validity and reliability of the instrument. The pilot test was carried out to six students at the same grade who were not included in both groups.
3.5.3. Data Analysis in the First Draft and the Last Draft
According to Coolidge (2000), there are three criteria before presenting the independent t-test. First, the participant must be different in each group. Second, the data should have a normal distribution. Third, the variance of two groups must be homogenous. Therefore, it is important to check whether the data are normally distributed and the variance in two groups is homogenous or not before calculating the independent t-test. If it is not, non parametric statistic is used.
3.5.3.1. Normality Distribution Test
Normality distribution test is aimed to check whether the distribution in the first draft and the last draft of the experimental group and the control group were normally distributed or not (Coolidge, 2000). The statistical calculation of normality test used Kolmogorov Smirnov in SPSS 16 for Windows. The steps are as follows:
(36)
42
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 1. Setting the hypothesis:
- H0: the scores of the experimental group and the control group are normally distributed.
- Ha: the scores of the experimental group and the control group are not normally distributed.
2. Setting = 0.05.
3. Analyzing the normality distribution by using Kolmogorov Smirnov test in SPSS 16 for Windows.
- The null hypothesis is acceppted if Asymp. Sig > 0.05 which means that the scores of the experimental and the control groups are normally distributed.
- The null hypothesis is rejected if Asymp. Sig < 0.05 which means that the scores of the experimental and the control groups are normally distributed.
3.5.3.2. Non Parametric Statistic Test: Mann Whitney U test
Since the first draft scores of the experimental and the control groups were not normally distributed so the next step was conducting non parametric statistic test (Coolidge, 2000). Mann-Whitney U test in SPSS 16 for Windows was used. The steps are as follows:
1. Setting the hypothesis:
- H0: there is no difference in the first draft scores in the experimental group and the control group.
- Ha: there is a difference in the first draft scores in the experimental group and the control group.
(37)
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
3. Analyzing data by using Mann-Whitney U test in SPSS 16 for Windows. - The null hypothesis is not rejected if the test result is higher than 0.05. - The null hypothesis is rejected if the test result is lower than 0.05.
3.5.3.3. Homogeneity of Variance Test
Homogeneity of Variance Test was conducted by using Levene test in SPSS 16 for Windows because the last draft scores of the experimental and the control group were normally distributed. It was aimed to check whether the last draft scores were homogenous or not (Coolidge, 2000). The steps are as below:
1. Setting the hypothesis:
- H0: The variance of the experimental group and the control group is homogenous.
- Ha:The variance of the experimental group and control group is not homogenous.
2. Setting = 0.05.
3. Analyzing the homogeneity variance by using Levene test. - The null hypothesis is acceppted if Asymp. Sig > 0.05 - The null hypothesis is rejected if Asymp. Sig < 0.05
3.5.3.4. Independent T-test
Independent T-test was only conducted in analyzing the last draft scores because the last draft scores were normally distributed and homogenous (Coolidge, 2000). It was calculated by using computation of SPSS 16 for Windows. The steps are as follows:
(38)
44
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 1. Setting the hypothesis.
- H0: there is no significant difference between students‟ last draft scores in the experimental group and the control group.
- Ha: there is a significant difference between students‟ last draft scores in the experimental group and the control group.
2. Setting = 0.05.
3. Analyzing data by using t-test in SPSS 16 for Windows.
4. Comparing tobtained and tcritical. If tobtained is higher than tcritical, the null hypothesis is rejected which means that there is a significant difference between the
students‟ last draft scores of the experimental group and the control group. Meanwhile, if tobtained is lower than tcritical, the null hypothesis is accepted which means that there is no significant difference between the students‟ last draft scores of the experimental and the control groups.
3.5.3.5. Non Parametric Statistic Test: Wilcoxon Test
The first draft scores were not normally distributed and not homogenous so non parametric statistic test for dependent (matched) samples was used (Coolidege, 2000). It was aimed to see whether or not there was a significant difference in the mean of the first draft and the last draft scores of each group (Coolidge, 2000). The steps are below:
1. Setting the hypothesis:
- H0= there is no significant difference between the first draft score and the last draft score.
- Ha= there is a significant difference between the first draft score and the last draft score.
2. Setting = 0.05.
(39)
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
- The null hypothesis is acceppted if Asymp. Sig (2-tailed) > 0.05 or Zobtained > -Zcritical
- The null hypothesis is rejected if Asymp. Sig (2-tailed) < 0.05 or Zobtained < -Zcritical
3.5.3.6. Normalized Gain
Normalized gain is aimed to measure the level of improvement in the means from the first draft score and the last draft score of each group after (Meltzer, 2002). According to Meltzer (2002), normalized gain (g) is categorized into three categories, namely low, medium, and high. If value of g is smaller than 0.3, it is categorized as low gain. If value of g is smaller than 0.7, it is categorized as medium gain. Furthermore, if value of g is equal or bigger than 0.7 so it is categorized as high gain. The formula of normalized gain can be seen in Appendix F.
3.5.3.7. Effect Size
The calculation of the effect size was conducted by using tobtained from the sample independent t-test of last draft. The effect size formula by Coolidge (2000) that can be found in Appendix F was used to determine the effect significance of the treatments to the experimental group.
In addition, Coolidge (2000) interprets the magnitude of the effect size into three categories, namely, small, medium, and large. The effect size is small if value of effect size is equal or smaller than 0.100. The effect size is medium if value of effect size is equal or smaller than 0.243. In addition, the effect size can be called large if value of effect size is equal or bigger than 0.371.
(40)
46
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
3.5.4. Data Analysis on Questionnaires
Data analysis on questionnaires was aimed to discover students‟ responses
toward the use of teacher indirect feedback in improving students‟ recount writing.
The data from questionnaires were analyzed based on the frequency of students‟
answer. The result would be calculated and interpreted into percentage by using formula from Sudijono (2008) as in Appendix F.
3.6 Concluding Remark
This chapter has presented a brief discussion of methodology related aspects of the study, including samples of the study, research method, data collection, data analysis, and research procedure. The next chapter focuses on description of the research findings from the statistical computation in SPSS 16 for Windows and from questionnaires. It also presents discussions of research findings.
(41)
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount
Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
This chapter presents conclusions and suggestions in detail. This chapter consists of two sections, the first is conclusions section and the second is suggestions section.
5.1. Conclusions
There are two main conclusions about the use of teacher indirect feedback in teaching writing. First, teacher feedback by using indirect feedback strategy could improve students’ ability in writing recount text. This was evidenced by the statistical computation of t-test by using SPSS 16 for Windows. Based on the independent t-test of last draft scores that was tobtained was higher than tcritical value (6.545 > 0.93). It means that the null hypothesis was rejected. In other words, there was a significant difference between students’ last draft scores in the experimental group and the control group. In addition, the result of normalized gain proved that the improvement scores in the experimental group was higher than the control group. Furthermore, the calculation of effect size shows that there was a large effect in the experimental group. It means that teacher feedback brought a significant effect in improving students’ability in writing recount text.
Second, the data from questionnaires analysis showed that students gave positive response toward the use of teacher indirect feedback. Almost all of students assumed that teacher indirect feedback was interesting and understandable to them. In addition, they affirmed that they needed teacher feedback because there were a lot of advantages that they received from the teacher indirect feedback. First, teacher indirect feedback made students aware towards their errors in writing. Second, teacher indirect feedback could help them to make their text better. Third, teacher
(42)
65
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount
Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
indirect feedback could improve their self confidence in writing. Fourth, teacher indirect feedback made students feel that their writing got attention from the teacher. The last advantage was teacher indirect feedback could improve their writing ability.
5.2. Suggestions
Some suggestions from the findings are addressed to English teachers and future researchers. There are several recommendations for English teachers who are interested in using teacher feedback. First, teachers are recommended to manage the time effectively. Second, it is better if the teachers use different strategies in providing feedback so that students do not get bored.
There are also some suggestions for further researchers who are interested to investigate the use of teacher indirect feedback. For further researchers who want to use teacher indirect feedback, it would be better to manage the time allocation effectively in order to optimize learning process. Further researchers are recommended to use teacher indirect feedback not only in recount text but also in other genres.
(43)
1
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
REFERENCES
Alwasilah, A.C, and Alwasilah, S.S. (2005). Pokoknya Menulis: Cara Menulis dengan Metode Kolaborasi. Bandung: PT Kiblat Buku Utama.
Anh, P.L. (2011). The Impact of Indirect Feedback on Learners’ Grammatical Error in EFL Writing Classes. Thesis to the faculty of the Vietnam University. Asyifa, N. (2012). The Use of Journal in Teaching Recount Texts. A Research Paper:
Indonesia University of Education.
Badger, R. & G. White. 2000. A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54(2): 153-160.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principle: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy Second Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents Prentice - all, Inc.
Byrne, D. 1995. Teaching Writing Skills. Longman In: London and New York.
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th Edition). London: Routledge Falmer.
Coolidge, F.L. (2000). Statistics: A Gentle Introduction. London: SAGE Publication Ltd.
(44)
67
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Dheram, P.K. (1995). Feedback as A two –Bullockcart: A Case Study of Teaching
Writing. Retrieved on September 26, 2013, from
http://203.72.145.166/elt/files/49-2-6.pdf.
Emilia, E. (2009). Menulis Tesis dan Disertasi. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Emilia, E. (2011). Pendekatan Genre Based dalam Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris. Bandung:Rizqi Press.
Ferris, D.R. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184. Grami, G. (2010). The Effects of Integrating Peer Feedback into University-Level
ESL Writing Curriculum: A Comparative Study in A Saudi Context.
Retrieved on September 20, 2013, from
http://theses.ncl.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/10443/933/1/grami_phd.pdf. Hashemnezhad, H. and Mohammadnejad, S. (2012). A Case for Direct and Indirect
Feedback: The Other Side of Coin. ELT Journal, 3(5), 230-239.
Hasan, M.K., and Akhand, M.M. (2010). Approaches Writing in EFL/ESL Context: Balancing Product and Process in Writing Class at Tertiary Level.
Retrieved on September 18, 2013, from
www.nepjol.info/index.php/NELTA/article/download/4612/3823.
Hasim, A. (2007). Model Pembelajaran Menulis Artikel Melalui Workshop dan Kolaborasi. Dissertation to the FPS of Indonesia University of Education: Unpublished.
(45)
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Hatch, E. and Farhady, H. (1982). Research Design and Statistic for Applied Linguistics. Newbury House Publishers, Inc: London.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(2), 141-163.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). State of the art article: Feedback on second
language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83-101.
Javaherbakhsh, M.R. (2010). The Impact of Self Assessment on Iranian EFL Learners’ Writing Skill. Retrieved on January 31, 2013 from http:
selfassessmentoniranianEFLlearners’writing Skill
Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. Retrieved on September 26, 2013, from http://203.72.145.166/elt/files/44-4-5.pdf.
Konttinen, Mia. (2009). The Reality of Teacher Written Feedback: A Quantitative Study. Thesis to the Department of Languages English of University Jyvaskyla. Retrieved on October 1, 2013, from https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/.../Miia_Konttinen.pdf?.
Krashen, S.D. (1984). Writing: Research, Theory, and Application. Trowbridge: Great Britain by Redwood Burn Ltd.
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66(2), 142-149.
Lam, R. (2010). The Role of Self Assessment in Students’ Writing Portfolios: A Classroom Investigation. TESL Reporter, 43(2), 16-34.
(46)
69
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong
secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 69-85. Lenggogeni, Puteri. (2011). The Use of Peer Feedback Technique in Improving
Students’ Narrative Text. A Research Paper: Indonesia University of Education.
Lewis, M. (2002). Giving Feedback in Language Classes. Singapore: SEAMAO Regional Language Centre.
Martin, J.R. (2006). Texts in the Middle School. London: Equinox.
Mc.Grath, A.L, Taylor, A., Pychyl, T.A. (2011). Writing Helpful Feedback:The Influence of Feedback Type on Students’ Perceptions and Writing
Performance. Retrieved on September 1, 2013, from
ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article.
Meltzer, D.E. (2002). Addendum to: The Relationship between Mathematics Preparation and Conceptual Learning Gains in Physics: A Possible “Hidden Variable” in Diagnostic Pretest Scores. Retrieved on November
17, 2013, from http://www. Physics
education.net/docs/addendum_on_normalized gain.pdf.
Nordin, S. Md., and Mohammad, N. Bt. (2006). The Best of Two Approaches: Process/ Genre-based Approach to Teaching Writing. Retrieved on September 24, 2013, from http://www.melta.org.my/et/2006/2006_6.pdf. Onozawa, C. (2010). A Study of the Process Writing Approach -A Suggestion for an
Eclectic Writing Approach-. Retrieved on January 10, 2013, from http://www. A_Study_of_the_Process_Writing_Approach_-A_Suggestion_for_an_Eclectic_Writing_Approach.pdf
(47)
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
O'Sullivan, I., & Chambers, A. (2006). Learners' writing skills in French Corpus consultation and learner evaluation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 49-68.
Peterson, S.S. (2010). Improving Student Writing: Using Feedback as a Teaching
Tool. Retrieved on October 5, 2013, from
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/WW_Im proving_Student_Writing.pdf.
Pollard, A. (1990). Towards a sociology of learning in primary schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 11(3), 241-256.
Prantama, C.S. (2010). Keeping a Journal: The Use of a Diary in Teaching Recount Texts to Improve Students’ Writing Ability. A Research Paper: Indonesia University of Education.
Pratiwi, E.I. (2013). Teacher’s Feedback on Students’ Descriptive Text: A Case Study Conducted in A Junior High School in Bandung. A Research Paper: Indonesia University of Education.
Primasari, T.W. (2012). The Use of Free Writing in Improving Students Writing Skill. A Research Paper: Indonesia University of Education
Purnawarman, P. (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.
Sudijono, A. (2008). Pengantar Statistik Pendidikan. Jakarta: PT.Raja Grafindo Persada.
(48)
71
Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014
The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Sun, C. (2009). Process Approach to Teaching Writing Applied in Different Teaching Models. ELT Journal, 1(2). 150-155.
Tabasi, H., Khodabandehlou, M. and Jahandar, S. (2013). The Impact of Feedback Types-Based Instruction on Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners’ Letter Writing Performance. Retrieved on January 10, 2013 from
http://www.cibtech.org/jls.htm 2013 Vol. 3 (1) January-March, pp.256-262/Tabasi et al. Research Article 256.
White, F.D. (1986). The Writer’s Art: A Practical Rhetoric and Handbook. California: Wadsworth.
Zaman, Md.M. and Azad, Md. A.K. (2012). Feedback in EFL Writing at Tertiary Level: Teachers' and Learners' Perceptions. ASA University Review, 1(6), 139-156.
(1)
REFERENCES
Alwasilah, A.C, and Alwasilah, S.S. (2005). Pokoknya Menulis: Cara Menulis dengan Metode Kolaborasi. Bandung: PT Kiblat Buku Utama.
Anh, P.L. (2011). The Impact of Indirect Feedback on Learners’ Grammatical Error in EFL Writing Classes. Thesis to the faculty of the Vietnam University. Asyifa, N. (2012). The Use of Journal in Teaching Recount Texts. A Research Paper:
Indonesia University of Education.
Badger, R. & G. White. 2000. A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54(2): 153-160.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principle: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy Second Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents Prentice - all, Inc.
Byrne, D. 1995. Teaching Writing Skills. Longman In: London and New York.
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th Edition). London: Routledge Falmer.
Coolidge, F.L. (2000). Statistics: A Gentle Introduction. London: SAGE Publication Ltd.
(2)
Dheram, P.K. (1995). Feedback as A two –Bullockcart: A Case Study of Teaching
Writing. Retrieved on September 26, 2013, from
http://203.72.145.166/elt/files/49-2-6.pdf.
Emilia, E. (2009). Menulis Tesis dan Disertasi. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Emilia, E. (2011). Pendekatan Genre Based dalam Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris. Bandung:Rizqi Press.
Ferris, D.R. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184. Grami, G. (2010). The Effects of Integrating Peer Feedback into University-Level
ESL Writing Curriculum: A Comparative Study in A Saudi Context.
Retrieved on September 20, 2013, from
http://theses.ncl.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/10443/933/1/grami_phd.pdf. Hashemnezhad, H. and Mohammadnejad, S. (2012). A Case for Direct and Indirect
Feedback: The Other Side of Coin. ELT Journal, 3(5), 230-239.
Hasan, M.K., and Akhand, M.M. (2010). Approaches Writing in EFL/ESL Context: Balancing Product and Process in Writing Class at Tertiary Level.
Retrieved on September 18, 2013, from
www.nepjol.info/index.php/NELTA/article/download/4612/3823.
Hasim, A. (2007). Model Pembelajaran Menulis Artikel Melalui Workshop dan Kolaborasi. Dissertation to the FPS of Indonesia University of Education: Unpublished.
(3)
Hatch, E. and Farhady, H. (1982). Research Design and Statistic for Applied Linguistics. Newbury House Publishers, Inc: London.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(2), 141-163.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). State of the art article: Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83-101.
Javaherbakhsh, M.R. (2010). The Impact of Self Assessment on Iranian EFL Learners’ Writing Skill. Retrieved on January 31, 2013 from http: selfassessmentoniranianEFLlearners’writing Skill
Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. Retrieved on September 26, 2013, from http://203.72.145.166/elt/files/44-4-5.pdf.
Konttinen, Mia. (2009). The Reality of Teacher Written Feedback: A Quantitative Study. Thesis to the Department of Languages English of University Jyvaskyla. Retrieved on October 1, 2013, from https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/.../Miia_Konttinen.pdf?.
Krashen, S.D. (1984). Writing: Research, Theory, and Application. Trowbridge: Great Britain by Redwood Burn Ltd.
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66(2), 142-149.
Lam, R. (2010). The Role of Self Assessment in Students’ Writing Portfolios: A Classroom Investigation. TESL Reporter, 43(2), 16-34.
(4)
Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 69-85. Lenggogeni, Puteri. (2011). The Use of Peer Feedback Technique in Improving
Students’ Narrative Text. A Research Paper: Indonesia University of Education.
Lewis, M. (2002). Giving Feedback in Language Classes. Singapore: SEAMAO Regional Language Centre.
Martin, J.R. (2006). Texts in the Middle School. London: Equinox.
Mc.Grath, A.L, Taylor, A., Pychyl, T.A. (2011). Writing Helpful Feedback:The Influence of Feedback Type on Students’ Perceptions and Writing
Performance. Retrieved on September 1, 2013, from
ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article.
Meltzer, D.E. (2002). Addendum to: The Relationship between Mathematics Preparation and Conceptual Learning Gains in Physics: A Possible “Hidden Variable” in Diagnostic Pretest Scores. Retrieved on November
17, 2013, from http://www. Physics
education.net/docs/addendum_on_normalized gain.pdf.
Nordin, S. Md., and Mohammad, N. Bt. (2006). The Best of Two Approaches: Process/ Genre-based Approach to Teaching Writing. Retrieved on September 24, 2013, from http://www.melta.org.my/et/2006/2006_6.pdf. Onozawa, C. (2010). A Study of the Process Writing Approach -A Suggestion for an
Eclectic Writing Approach-. Retrieved on January 10, 2013, from http://www. A_Study_of_the_Process_Writing_Approach_-A_Suggestion_for_an_Eclectic_Writing_Approach.pdf
(5)
O'Sullivan, I., & Chambers, A. (2006). Learners' writing skills in French Corpus consultation and learner evaluation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 49-68.
Peterson, S.S. (2010). Improving Student Writing: Using Feedback as a Teaching
Tool. Retrieved on October 5, 2013, from
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/WW_Im proving_Student_Writing.pdf.
Pollard, A. (1990). Towards a sociology of learning in primary schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 11(3), 241-256.
Prantama, C.S. (2010). Keeping a Journal: The Use of a Diary in Teaching Recount Texts to Improve Students’ Writing Ability. A Research Paper: Indonesia University of Education.
Pratiwi, E.I. (2013). Teacher’s Feedback on Students’ Descriptive Text: A Case Study
Conducted in A Junior High School in Bandung. A Research Paper: Indonesia University of Education.
Primasari, T.W. (2012). The Use of Free Writing in Improving Students Writing Skill.
A Research Paper: Indonesia University of Education
Purnawarman, P. (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.
Sudijono, A. (2008). Pengantar Statistik Pendidikan. Jakarta: PT.Raja Grafindo Persada.
(6)
Sun, C. (2009). Process Approach to Teaching Writing Applied in Different Teaching Models. ELT Journal, 1(2). 150-155.
Tabasi, H., Khodabandehlou, M. and Jahandar, S. (2013). The Impact of Feedback Types-Based Instruction on Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners’ Letter Writing Performance. Retrieved on January 10, 2013 from
http://www.cibtech.org/jls.htm 2013 Vol. 3 (1) January-March, pp.256-262/Tabasi et al. Research Article 256.
White, F.D. (1986). The Writer’s Art: A Practical Rhetoric and Handbook. California: Wadsworth.
Zaman, Md.M. and Azad, Md. A.K. (2012). Feedback in EFL Writing at Tertiary Level: Teachers' and Learners' Perceptions. ASA University Review, 1(6), 139-156.