T1 112009105 Full text
Students’ Views toward Kinds of Feedback Given by Teachers
in Narrative and Descriptive Class
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Yusuf Firmanto
112009105
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
SALATIGA
2013
STUDENTS’ VIEW TOWARD KINDS OF FEEDBACK GIVEN BY
TEACHERS IN NARRATIVE AND DESCRIPTIVE CLASS
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Yusuf Firmanto
112009105
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
SALATIGA
2013
i
ii
PUBLICATION AGREEMENT DECLARATION
As a member of the (SWCU) Satya Wacana Christian University academic community, I
verify that:
Name
Student ID Number
Study Program
Faculty
Kind of Work
: Yusuf Firmanto
: 112009105
: English Language Teaching Department
: Language and Literature
: Undergraduate Thesis
In developing my knowledge, I agree to provide SWCU with a non-exclusive royalty free right
for my intellectual property and the contents therein entitled:
STUDENTS’ VIEW TOWARD KINDS OF FEEDBACK GIVEN BY TEACHERS
IN NARRATIVE AND DESCRIPTIVE CLASS
along with any pertinent equipment.
With this non-exclusive royalty free right, SWCU maintains the right to copy, reproduce, print,
publish, post, display, incorporate, store in or scan into a retrieval system or database, transmit,
broadcast, barter or sell my intellectual property, in whole or in part without my express written
permission, as long as my name is still included as the writer.
This declaration is made according to the best of my knowledge.
Made in
: Salatiga
Date
: May 22, 2013
Verified by signee,
Yusuf Firmanto
iii
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT
This thesis contains no such material as has been submitted for examination in any course or
accepted for the fulfillment of any degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my
knowledge and belief, this contains no material previously published or written by any other
except where due reference is made in the text.
Copyright @2013 Yusuf Firmanto and Anita Kurniawati H, M. Hum
All right reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced by any means without the prior
written permission of at least one of the copyright owners or the English Department of Satya
Wacana Christian University, Salatiga.
Yusuf Firmanto :
iv
Students’ Views toward Kinds of Feedback Given by Teachers
in Narrative and Descriptive Class
Abstract
This study is aimed to identify students’ view toward kinds of feedback given by teacher in
Narrative and Descriptive class of Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Satya Wacana Christian
University. Twenty students of 2011, who already took the class, were asked to collect their draft
and fifteen of them were interviewed as the participants. The finding of the study found kinds of
feedback students got from the teacher shown in table 1 and 2 and 4 heading. The result of this
study shows the students prefer direct feedback rather than indirect feedback, explanation on
codes is still needed and also students need positive feedback from the teacher. This study is
hoped that teacher will be aware of the way they give feedback so that students can recognize
and use it well.
Introduction
Every student definitely wants to make a good writing. To make a good writing, students need
feedback and error correction from their teacher. Feedback sessions can be a beneficial
experience for the student if the teacher shows strong points as well. Research findings indicate
that students favor error feedback from teachers because they believe that they will benefit
greatly from it (Leki, 1991; Radecki & Swales, 1988; Straub, 1997). For me myself as a student,
when I write journal or free writing I also need feedback from my teacher, moreover clear
feedback. I think teacher feedback is very beneficial when I get the point of the feedback which I
can recognize and use it into my paper.
Considering about students’ need of feedback from their teacher, previous studies on
students’ views about error feedback (Ferris, 1995; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994; Komura,
1
1999; Leki, 1991; Roberts, 1999) have consistently showed that L2 learners really expect and
value teacher feedback on their writing. Basically, there are 2 kinds of corrective feedback; direct
and indirect corrective feedback. Direct correction refers to the provision of correct forms or
structures for students’ sentences, whereas indirect correction, as the term implies, simply
underlines the errors (Hendrickson, 1980). Moreover, Komura (1999) and Leki (1991) have
shown that students prefer indirect feedback. In addition, indirect feedback is provided when the
teacher simply marks the error but does not correct it (non-coded). In providing indirect
feedback, some teachers tend to code mistakes to indicate the precise location and type of error,
while others provide un-coded feedback that simply locates the error without disclosing the error
type. It becomes the student’s task to diagnose and correct the mistake with un-coded feedback.
By using indirect feedback, notably un-code feedback, sometimes students do not get what the
teacher’s mean because usually the students’ expectation is the teacher will provide the feedback
as complete as well.
Considering about students’ view toward kinds of feedback, the purpose of study is to
identify students’ view toward kinds of feedback given by the teacher in Narrative and
Descriptive Writing class. This study analyzed students’ view and perception toward kinds of
feedback that they got from the teacher. Considering about the purpose of this study, the research
question of the study is how is students’ view toward kinds of feedback given by teacher? This
study is hoped to provide the students that teacher will be aware of students’ perception toward
kinds of feedback that student need. Because each student may need different treatment of
feedback; some students may need feedback on the grammar with the clear code, some may need
the content and form of their writing, etc. Teacher is hoped to be aware of the way teacher give
feedback so that student can recognize and use it well in their writing.
2
Literature Review
Several studies found that error feedback from the teacher was not significantly more
effective for developing accuracy in L2 student writing (Kepner, 1991; Polio, Fleck, & Leder,
1998; Sheppard, 1992). In addition, studies conducted by Truscott (1996, 2007) reveal that error
correction may be harmful because it distracts attention from much more important issues, such
as the development of ideas. A number of research studies in various L2 contexts investigating
the effects of different types of feedback on students’ writing skills have suggested that explicit
error correction seems to be generally ineffective (Ihde, 1993; Kepner, 1991; Robb, Ross, &
Shortreed, 1986; Semke, 1984; Sheppard, 1992). However, research on this topic is far from
conclusive. For example, studies by Ashwell (2000), Cardelle and Corno (1981), and Ferris
(2003) demonstrate a positive correlation between students writing accuracy and teacher error
feedback. Furthermore, Ellis (1998) and Lightbrown (1998) maintain that explicit error
correction prevents adult learners from fossilization and ensures the continued development of
their L2 proficiency.
Moreover, to provide the students’ view toward teacher feedback, Hong (2004)
conducted a study to see the effect of teachers' error feedback on international students' self
correction ability. One hundred and nineteen international students enrolled in ESL composition
classes at Brigham Young University's English Language Center participated in the study. The
participants were randomly assigned to three treatment groups: (1) a coded feedback group, (2) a
non-coded feedback group, and (3) a no-feedback control group. All participants were asked to
write an in-class essay during 20-minute time period. A grammar test and attitudinal survey were
administered at the same time. The results of Hong's study indicated that teacher feedback was
3
the most significant factors influencing students' self correction, compared to proficiency level
and performance on the grammar test. There was a significant difference between the control
group that did not receive any feedback from teachers and the two experimental groups that were
given either coded or non-coded feedback. The results showed there was no significant
difference in performance on self-correction between the coded feedback group and the noncoded feedback group. In addition survey results showed that students preferred receiving coded
feedback over other feedback methods. The results showed also that error feedback helps ESL
learners self-correct grammatical errors and students preferred coded feedback.
More study regarding to students’ view toward kinds of feedback, Lee (2004) explored
the existing error correction practices in the Hong Kong secondary writing classroom from both
the teachers’ and the students’ perspectives. The analysis of the data collected through
questionnaires showed that most students (82%) expressed their desire for teacher feedback.
However, 67% of the students said that, in spite of receiving teacher feedback, they were making
the same errors again, and only 9% believed that they were making good progress. In other
words, the students asserted that they liked to receive feedback mainly to know what type of
errors they had made.
Research findings indicate that students favor error feedback from teachers because they
believe that they will benefit greatly from it (Leki, 1991; Radecki & Swales, 1988; Straub,
1997). In spite of this desire for detailed feedback on errors, there is an ongoing debate in current
literature whether error correction actually helps improve the accuracy of student writing.
Moreover, due to practical time constraints most teachers offer only perfunctory comments such
as “well-written”, “poorly organized”, or “awkward wording” on the majority of student papers.
4
Moreover there are several studies continue discussing kinds of feedback by students’
view. One type of feedback that the research does advocate is feedback on content and
organization. Such feedback is necessary and does result in improvement in students’ writing
(Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Huntley, 1992; Kepner, 1991; Sheppard, 1992). Huntley maintains
that feedback on content and organization should be provided to students while feedback on form
should be avoided, and she recommends that L2 teachers incorporate peer reviews and studentteacher conferences in their teaching as two valuable alternative feedback methods to traditional
error correction.
Another study done by Chandler (2003) aimed at examining how error correction should
be done. Findings showed that both direct correction and simple underlining of errors are
significantly superior to describing the type of error, even with underlining, for reducing longterm error. Direct correction is best for producing accurate revisions, and students prefer it
because it is the fastest and easiest way for them as well as the fastest way for teachers over
several drafts. However, students feel that they learn more from self-correction, and simple
underlining of errors takes less teacher time on the first draft.
Nevertheless, the relatively few studies that have investigated L2 students’ preferences
and reactions to teacher marking techniques and their beliefs about what constitutes effective
feedback to writing suggest that surface-level correction is often the kind of feedback these
students want and expect from their teachers. For instance, based on a survey of 59 English as
second language (ESL) students’ attitudes towards feedback on their written work, Radecki and
Swales (1988) conclude that ESL teachers might lose their credibility among their students if
they do not correct all surface errors, since findings revealed that students seem to need and
5
expect correction of all errors. In a similar survey of 100 ESL students’ preferences for error
correction, Leki (1991) found that students equate good writing in English with error-free writing
and that they expect and want all errors in their written work to be corrected.
Finally, based on several studies above, it can be identified that there are several kinds of
feedback teacher give to the students by their view. Students surely need teacher feedback.
Students expect they get the necessary corrective feedback from their teacher. Students prefer to
get revisions on the content and organization whether the teacher give a clear instruction
corrective feedback rather than just say “it was poor” or just underlining the error content but do
not give anything to improvement or revision. Nevertheless, it depends on how students’ view
toward these kinds of feedback and how they deal with them.
The Study
The setting of the study was in Satya Wacana Christian University (SWCU) which is
located in Salatiga, Central Java, Indonesia. Faculty of Language and Literature has adopted and
implemented teacher error feedback or teacher corrective feedback through students’ assignment;
free writings, journals, and summaries, in one of courses, Narrative and Descriptive Writing
course. The context of this study is the PBI students who have taken Narrative and Descriptive
Writing course, which they got teacher error feedback from the teacher through their writing
assignments. This teacher error feedback has provided in order to improve the students’ skill and
attitude especially on writing skill. The reason of choosing this department for my study is its
high standing in the region as an English language department with an excellent reputation.
6
Participants
Twenty participants were selected to be analyzed their writing draft and fifteen students
to be interviewed. The participants are the students who have taken Narrative and Descriptive
Writing course on the third semester in PBI. There are four classes of Narrative and Descriptive
Writing provided on third semester hopefully can complete the data from the students of each
class which opened on that semester. I used sample of convenience technique for choosing the
participants because it may be easier to meet and contact them and gain the data and interviewing
them.
Instruments
Considering about the purpose of this study, that is to identify students’ view toward kind
of feedback given by teacher, I selected twenty participants who have taken Narrative and
Descriptive Writing. To gain the deeper data, I used 2 instruments:
1. Writing draft
This session, I selected twenty participants to be analyzed their writing draft on what
kinds of feedback they get from the teacher. The purpose of analyzing writing draft is
to identify what kinds of feedback that students get from the teacher. Does it show
feedback on content, grammatical error, word choice or the whole paragraph?
2. Semi structured interview
This session was the next step after I did analyze the students’ writing draft. The
purpose of this semi structured interview is to gain the deeper data about students’
view toward kind of feedback given by teacher. This session took fifteen selected
7
students to participate. I combined the language I used between English and Bahasa
Indonesia. It took ten minutes long and four basic questions. The questions are below:
a. What do you think about the feedback? Is it clear and beneficial enough?
b. In your opinion, can you gain the main point of those kinds of feedback?
c. Is that kinds of feedback that you need for your writing?
d. Can it improve your writing draft to be better and how it works?
Data Collection Procedures
The first procedure was analyzing the students’ writing draft. There were twenty selected
students from four classes of Narrative and Descriptive Writing course. I borrowed their writing
draft then copied it into my sheet. Then I started to analyze them one by one using checklist
table. There were six points kinds of feedback that students got from the teacher such as
feedback on the content, grammatical, lexical, semantic, perfunctory comment, and direct code.
Considering about students’ view toward kind of feedback teachers given, I also used
semi structured interview. The interview session needed fifteen selected participants and took ten
minutes long. The participants asked to answer 4 basic questions and several additional questions
while I recorded it. Then I transcribed it in order of using for data report and finding.
Data Analysis Procedure
On the first step I used checklist table. The table showed what kinds of feedback that
students got from the teacher in Narrative and Descriptive class. There were 2 tables that were
discussed. The first table discussed about kind of feedback that students get on language, and
8
second table discussed kind of feedback that students get in general. Every point that included in
students’ draft represented one check in the table.
The second step I made 4 headings. Each heading contained finding that found through
interview section then how it related to previous study finding. The heading might represent both
what the table says and data from interview section.
Finding and Discussion
Students’ errors are categorized into three error types (grammatical, lexical, and
semantic). Grammatical errors include sentence fragments, incorrect punctuation, verb tenses,
nouns, adjectives, clauses, participles, and improper use of subjunctive mood. Lexical errors
result from incorrect application of vocabulary. Semantic errors refer to sentences incoherent in
meaning or unnatural in wording. (Ferris, 2003)
Whereas, Hendrickson (1980) stated basically there are 2 kinds of feedback; direct and
indirect feedback. Direct feedback refers to the provision of correct forms or structures for
students’ sentences, whereas indirect feedback, as the term implies, simply underlines the errors.
In this case, indirect feedback is identified by feedback on content and perfunctory comments, as
table 2 showed.
Considering about kinds of feedback that student got from the teacher without any
regardless for students’ view, this study found several kinds of feedback students of Narrative
and Descriptive Writing got from the teacher on semester 3.
9
Participants
A
Kinds
of feedback
Grammatical V
V V V V V V V V V V
V V
V V V V V V
Semantic
V V V
V V
V V V V V V
V
V V V V V V
V
Lexical
B C D E
V
F
G H
I
J
K L M N
V V V V V V
V V V V V V V V V
O
P
Q R
S
T
Table 1. Kinds of Feedback Students Got on Language
Participants
Kinds
of feedback
Content
A
B C D E
V
V V V V V V V V V V V
Perfunctory
Comments
Direct Code
F
G H
I
J
K L M N
O O Q R
S
T
V
V V V
V V
V
V V V V V V
V V V V V V V
V
V V V V V V V V V V V V
Table 2. Kinds of Feedback Students Got Based on Direct and Indirect Feedback
From the finding on table 1 above, students were divided into 4 classes. A-F was class 1,
J-K was class B, K-L was class C, and O-T was class D. Almost each student got grammatical
feedback but only student L did not get grammatical feedback. It shows that almost all teachers
correct students’ grammatical error. Students also deal with their feedback on grammar. As
students B said “The feedback is more on grammatical error so when the grammatical is
incorrect, we can revise it as soon as the teacher says what I should do.”
Semantic feedback is almost the same as grammatical feedback, only student E and L did
not get semantic feedback. But, overall every student got feedback on lexical item by their
teacher. Student E and L were in the different classes, so that the teacher might not give feedback
10
on semantic, but another feedback on grammar and lexical. On the lexical feedback, there were 3
students, student A, C, M did not get lexical feedback. Student A, C and M were in the different
classes. The more students did not get lexical feedback, it may show that the more student have
been mastering lexical term. But students also still deal with lexical feedback. As Student G said
“If the feedback is only on grammar and lexical, it is OK.”
From table 2, the students also were divided into 4 classes. A-F was class A, J-K was
class B, K-L was class C, and O-T was class D. Almost all students except student M and R got
feedback on content. The teacher gave feedback on content to almost all students in each class
that showed generally students got everything about the content in their draft. Both teacher and
students deal with feedback on content. Students thought feedback in content were still needed in
their draft. But there was student G that gave comment in feedback on content, “If the revision is
on the content, it is more difficult and takes longer time to revise.”
Only 7 students got perfunctory comments such as “well written, “poorly organized”,
“awkward wording” etc. Regarding to Leki (1991), many teachers still believe in using
perfunctory comments to help the students instead of only corrective feedback. Students also
deal with perfunctory comments from the teacher. Student F argues that “Perfunctory comments
are kinds of positive feedback that can make the students become clearer moreover motivated.”
Regarding to students’ view toward kinds of feedback teacher given, there are 4 main
heading found in the interview section to 15 students that took Narrative and Descriptive Writing
class.
11
Students prefer direct feedback rather than indirect feedback.
Direct feedback refers to the provision of correct forms or structures for students’
sentences (Hendrickson, 1980). Direct code is the most popular feedback that students get from
the teacher, like table 2 shows. It shows that direct feedback is still needed for students and the
students also deal with direct code from the teacher. This idea is also supported by Ferris (2003)
that stated direct feedback may be appropriate for students and cases when students are unable to
correct structural or lexical mistakes themselves. As student M in Narrative and Descriptive
Writing argues some point that show student deal with using direct code in indirect feedback.
“Maybe if I get direct feedback for example the wrong verb is crossed I will understand the
point. But if only circling or underlining I can’t get the point.”
As Leki (1991) found that students may prefer direct correction on language in order to
avoid making the same error, but not in content and organization. Student Q also said “The
teacher corrects the wrong grammar directly so I can easily understand the teacher’s purposes.”
According to Johnson (1995), learning a language must follow three stages:
verbalization, automatization, and autonomy. In the first stage of verbalization, students are
described and demonstrated the language to be learned by the teacher, and then students perceive
it and attempt to understand it. After that, learning moves on to the second stage, automatization,
in which the students are given exercises and then students practice the language in order to
internalize it. Finally, in the autonomy stage, students continue to use the language on their own,
becoming more proficient and creative. This idea is also supported by Richards’ (2002) who
argues that model of the three-stage learning process might be an alternative to facilitate
12
students’ ability to efficiently absorb and accurately use direct feedback in language points
(grammar, lexical, semantic).
Explanation on code is still needed, included oral consultation
Several studies discuss how indirect feedback should be given to students. A lot of
teachers favor indirect feedback for pedagogical reasons as it gives the students the chance to
correct themselves (Ferris (2002); Hendrickson (1984); Robb, Ross & Shortreed(1986)). But
students sometime do not get the point and they will have no revision at all. Students want more
explanation and detail rather than unclear feedback on the content. This study analyzed how
students perceive unclear feedback.
Student L said, “I think it depends. The meaning is sometimes clear, but also sometimes
is not clear. Sometimes the teacher just gives underlining or some comments, but I don’t know
the meaning. So far I always ask the teacher if I don’t understand.” Student M also added some
points toward this problem. “I think indirect feedback is sometime not beneficial enough if it is
only circling or underlining. The teacher should give more explanation about those codes rather
than only giving those codes.”
Some students will ask the teacher if they do not get the point. They prefer oral feedback
through his/her consultation time. They believe oral feedback will help them much in revising
their draft. Nevertheless, there are several students who interpret the unclear feedback by
themselves. Student J is one of the students who sometimes do not consult with the teacher.
“Sometimes I do consultation but sometimes I do assuming it by myself.”
13
This finding is also similar to Ferris (2002) who stated that many writing teachers
consider one-on one teacher-student conferences to be more effective than written corrective
feedback alone because they provide opportunities for students to ask questions and for teachers
to explain and instruct once corrections are made clear.
Students need any clues toward indirect feedback they got
Another positive finding is that most of these students would rather receive a clue about
correcting errors on their first drafts rather than the correction itself, even though the latter would
presumably make it “easier” to revise the draft. Such a preference for “clues” in teacher feedback
was also found among the ESL students surveyed in Leki’s (1991) study. Regarding students’
preferences for the amount of feedback/marks on their papers, most students stated that they
would prefer their teacher to correct all errors, especially when responding to a final draft.
Considering that in most cases a final draft includes a final grade for the paper, this finding is
encouraging; these students seem to care about having their written errors corrected, for reasons
beyond that of obtaining a good grade on the paper.
Several students explain they have got clues considering to any code in their paper. As
Student E said.
“Bisa dong, kan sebelumnya juga udah dijelasin sama dosennya. Misal kalo digaris
bawahi itu salah kata, kalo dilingkari itu salah idiomatic terus kalo RO itu kalimate
kepanjangen.”
Yes I can, because we have given the clues before we receive the feedback. For example
underlining is wording error, circling is idiomatic error, RO is sentence error or too long
sentence. (My translation, 1.5.13)
14
As Kavaliauskienė (2003) stated, EFL practitioners agree that error correction is an
essential condition for successful acquisition of any language, although they are at variance on
ways of conducting it. Reconciliation of viewpoints might be secured by turning to selfcorrection. The prevailing opinion among some practitioners is that the primary teachers’ task in
initiating self-correction in written work is to indicate the mistakes, but not correct them. The
indication can be performed either by underlining errors or coding them ( T for a wrong tense, SP
for a wrong spelling, WO for a wrong word order).
Students also need positive feedback.
Several studies found that error feedback from the teacher was not significantly more
effective for developing accuracy in L2 student writing than content-related comments or no
feedback (e.g. Kepner, 1991; Polio, Fleck, & Leder, 1998; Sheppard, 1992). Students do not
need only on corrective feedback abut also positive feedback. Study by Truscott (2007) finds that
students also desire positive feedback that make the students’ interaction and emotional to
teacher more intense. Student will also be more motivated rather than just receiving corrective
feedback at all. Student K argues that positive feedback is important for students needed in
revising students’ draft.
“Berguna sekali. Soalnya kan ini biarpun cuman dra ft tapi kita juga udah berusaha
semaksimal mungkin, jadi kalo dapat positive feedback itu akan membuat siswanya lebih
termotivasi lagi.”
It’s very helpful. Even though it is just draft writing, but we have worked hard to do the
best. If we also get positive feedback, it is very good that will make the students be more
motivated. (My translation, 3.5.13)
Student D also added some point about this positive feedback.
15
“Iya penting juga sih, soalnya kalo disalah-salahin semua kan bisa membuat kita down.
Nah kalo ada positive feedbacknya kan bisa untuk memicu kita untuk lebih termotivasi
lagi.”
Yes, it’s very important because if the teacher gives many correcting errors, it will
disappoint us. If there is positive feedback, it will motivate us to be better. (My
translation, 3.5.13)
Regarding to Edge (1989:20), when teachers decide to correct the students, stated "We
have to be sure that we are using correction positively to support learning." It is almost the same
as students needs on this Narrative and Descriptive Writing.
Conclusion
The purpose of study is to identify students’ view toward kinds of feedback given by the
teacher in Narrative and Descriptive Writing class. This study analyzed students’ view and
perception toward kinds of feedback that they get from the teacher. Answering these questions,
this study used writing draft analyzing and 4 heading from the interview section.
As shown in table 1, almost each student got grammatical feedback but only student L
did not get grammatical feedback. It shows that almost all teachers correct students’
grammatical. Students also deal with their feedback on grammar. It is also almost the same as
semantic feedback, only student E and L did not get semantic feedback. But, overall every
student got feedback on lexical item by their teacher. Student E and L were in the different
classes, so that the teacher may not give feedback on semantic, but another feedback on grammar
and lexical. On the lexical feedback, there were 3 students, student A, C, M did not get lexical
feedback. The more students do not get lexical feedback, it may show that the more students
have been mastering lexical term.
16
From table 2, almost all students except student M and R got feedback on content.
Teacher gave feedback on content to almost all students in each class that shows generally
students got everything about the content in their draft. Both teacher and students deal with
feedback on content. But, only 7 students got perfunctory comments such as “well written,
“poorly organized”, “awkward wording” etc. Leki (1991) stated that many teachers still believe
in using perfunctory comments to help the students, instead of only giving corrective feedback.
Students also deal with perfunctory comments from the teacher. Overall, all students in each
class get and deal with direct feedback from the teacher. Students said that direct feedback is
easy to understand and revise all the error term in their draft.
The result of this study shows that the students in this study prefer direct feedback rather
than indirect feedback from the teacher. It is shown in table 2 that all students in each class get
direct feedback. This idea also supported by Ferris (2003) direct feedback may be appropriate for
students and cases when students are unable to correct structural or lexical mistakes by
themselves. Another result is students needs explanation on codes included oral consultation.
Almost all of the students argued they got unclear codes or another indirect feedback from the
teacher and the need more explanation toward the unclear codes so that they can gain the points
of those codes. Students also deal with oral consultation to ask furthermore about the unclear
feedback in their draft. The last result from this study is students also need positive feedback.
They argued that positive feedback can rise their motivation to revise their draft.
Therefore, it is hoped that EFL teachers will be aware on the way they give feedback so
that students can recognize and apply it well. Teacher and students sometimes have different
perception about how feedback is given to the student but through this study is hoped that
17
teacher knows students’ needed about their feedback. In conclusion, the present research implies
that students should get both positive feedback and clues for indirect feedback from the teacher
in order to they can apply it well in their draft.
This study is limited in certain aspects. This study cannot be generalized to all cases
because there are several aspects that will make difference. For example this study identified the
students’ view toward feedback in writing class, so that it cannot be used in listening class.
Because some aspects such as kinds of feedback that teacher give is different. Nevertheless, this
research may be the same as reading and grammar class feedback research. The aspect of
students’ view toward kinds of feedback is almost the same with writing aspect.
18
Acknowledgement
This journal would not have been possible without the support of many people. Firstly I
would like to thank Jesus Christ for His bless to me every day since I was born, more
importantly those few months when I worked on this journal. I wish to express my gratitude to
my supervisor, Anita Kurniawati H, M. Hum, for his availability to give his best assistance in
any time needed. And also for my examiner, Christian Rudianto M. Appling., for his guidance on
examining and making this journal more appropriate. Big thanks to the participants, 2011ers,
who willingly be interviewed; thanks a bunch. Special thanks to ED’s friends and teachers, also
to all my dearest best friends, Niners Touring Club and the big family of “Niners”; Shikaka! And
also friends from F Lobby, keep singing together! My deepest gratitude goes to my beloved
family, Mom, Dad, Naomi, and Monika thank you for the continuous support through the
duration of my study; for being the best family ever.
19
References
Ancker, W. Errors and Corrective Feedback: Updated Theory and Classroom Practice . English
Teaching Forum, vol. 38, No 4, October 2000, pp. 20 – 24.
Ashwell, T. 2000. Patterns of Teacher Response to Student Writing in a
Multiple-Draft Composition Classrooms: Is Content Feedback Followed
by Form Feedback the Best Method? Journal of Second Language
Writing, 9(3): 227-257.
Cardelle, M., & Corno, L. 1981. Effects on Second Language Learning of
Variations in Written Feedback on Homework Assignments. TESOL
Quarterly, 15: 251-261.
Chandler, J. 2003. The Efficacy of Various Kinds of Error Feedback for Improvement in the
Accuracy and Fluency of Student Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12 (3),
267-296.
Edge, J. 1989. Mistakes and correction. London: Longman.
Ellis, R. 1998. Teaching and Research: Options in Grammar Teaching. TESOL
Quarterly, 32: 39-60.
Fathman, A. K. & Whalley, E. 1990. Teacher response to student writing: Focus on
form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research
Insights For the Classroom (pp. 178-190). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R. 2001. "Teaching writing for Academic Purposes". In .J. Flowerdew & M.Peacock
(Ed.). Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. Pp.298-314.
Ferris, D. R. 2003. Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second
Language Students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Harmer, J. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching . Pearson Education Ltd. p.99.
20
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. 1994. Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner
receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 3, 141-63.
Hendricson, J. M.1978. Error correction in foreign language teaching:
Recent theory, research, and practice. Modern Language Journal,
62, 387–398
Hendrickson, J.M.1984. The treatment of error in written work. In .S.Mckay. (Ed).).
Composing I a second language (pp.145-159). Cambridge, Mass: Newbury House.
Hong, Youngju. 2004. The Effect of Teachers' Error Feedback on Internationa Students' Self
Correction Ability. MA thesis, Department of Linguistics and English Language.
Brigham Young University.
Kavaliauskienė, G. English for Specific Purposes: Learners’ Preferences and Attitudes. Journal
of Language and Learning, Vol. 1, No 1, 2003. pp. 14 – 23.
Kepner, C. G. 1991. An Experiment in the Relationship of Types of Written
Feedback to the Development of Second-Language Writing Skills.
The Modern Language Journal, 75: 305-313.
Komura, K. 1999. Student response to error correction in ESL classrooms . Unpublished
Master’s thesis, California State University, Sacramento.
Lee, I. 2004. Error correction in L2 secondary writing classroom.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 13 , 285-312.
Leki, I. 1991. The preferences of ESL students for error-correction in college-level
writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203-218.
Leki, I. 1994. Coaching from the Margins: Issues in Written Response. Second Language
Writing. Edited by B. Kroll. Cambridge University Press.
Lightbrown, P. 1998. The Importance of Timing in Focus on Form. In C.
Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom SLA (pp.
21
177-196). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Liu, J. and Hansen, J. (2005). Peer response in second language writing
classrooms. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. 1988. “If Only I Had More Time”: ESL
Learners’ Changes in Linguistic Accuracy on Essay Revisions. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 7: 43-68.
Radecki, P. M., & Swales, J. M. 1988. ESL student reaction to written comments
on their written work. System, 16, 355-365.
Roberts, B. 1999. Can error logs raise more than consciousness? The
effects of error logs and grammar feedback on esl students’ final
drafts. Unpublished M. A. thesis, Sacramento, California State University.
Sheppard, K. 1992. Two Feedback Types: Do They Make a Difference?
RELC Journal, 23: 103-110.
Straub, R. 1997. Students’ Reactions to Teacher Comments: An Exploratory
Study. Research in the Teaching of English , 31: 91-119.
Truscott, J. 1996. The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing
Classes. Language Learning, 46: 327-369.
Truscott, J. 2007. The Effect of Error Correction on Learners’ Ability to
Write Accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing , 16: 255-272.
22
Appendix
Interview 1
Me: good afternoon
Student L: afternoon
Me: hat’s your a e?
Student L: Tirza Agatha.
Me: last semester I borrowed your writing draft and analyzed your feedback and here is the result. You
can see how and what kind of feedback that you get. So, what do you think about the feedback?
Student L: I think it helpful. The feedback is to revise from the first draft to final draft. So I think it is very
helpful for me.
Me: is the feedback clear enough?
Student L: h
…I thi k it depe ds. “o eti es lear a d so eti e it’s ot lear hat the
Sometime the teacher just gives underlining or some comments but I do ’t k o the
ea i g is.
ea i g. But
so far I al ays ask the tea her if I do ’t u dersta d.
Me: so you always ask the teacher when the feedback is not clear?
Student L: yeah I always ask it.
Me: the in your opinion is it beneficial enough?
Student L: so far is so good even in my last semester I the grade is great. I think it means the feedback is
very beneficial and helpful for the first until the final draft.
Me: so even though there are some unclear comments, but when you ask it, then it becomes very
beneficial?
Student L: yeah very beneficial. More over the teacher always explain till I understand the purpose.
Me: well, the second question, in your opinion, can you gain the main point of those kinds of feedback?
Student L: overall is good enough, I can gain some of the feedback. But there is a little feedback that I
a ’t gai the poi t, ut o erall I get the idea.
Me: so, even it just underlining or circling feedback, but you still gain the main point of the feedback.
Student L: yeah, because we usually we are explained before to follow the comments. For example:
movement, so we have to smooth the coherence in order the movement is smoother.
Me: well, the next question, is that kind of feedback that you need for your writing?
Student L: yeah I think it appropriate with my needed of feedback. I can help me to do the revision.
23
Me: so that kind of feedback, for example the underlining or circling, that is the feedback that really
beneficial for your writing?
Student L: actually, my expectation is there are more feedback even comments from the teacher, I mean
from this feedback the teacher just gives comment for the page one that actually there are more
than two pages that need feedback. Even though it can help me but my expectation is more
feedback.
Me: well. So can it improve your writing draft to be better?
Student L: I think it can improve my writing because when I look into my first to final draft, it shows that
I get good grade so I think I helps me to improve my writing.
Me: ok, so the feedback can improve your writing right? How it works then?
Student L: yeah like I said before. My grade is become well when I learn to revise my writing from those
feedbacks.
Me: ok. Well I think that is it for the question. Anyway thanks for your time tirza.
Student L: ok you’re el o e.
24
Interview B
Me: good afternoon.
Student G: afternoon.
Me: hat’s your a e?
Student G: cristin.
Me: well, I borrowed your draft last semester and analyzed on your draft about the feedback that you
get from your teacher and here is the result. What do you think about the feedback?
Student G: the feedback is very detail and clear that makes me understand it. The teacher also put the
code that she/he explains before when she/he will give us the feedback so we can understand the
code.
Me: is it beneficial enough for you?
Student G: yes it is because it is not only very simple feedback but very detail for example she/he give
comments on the content in every paragraph.
Me: well. Next, in your opinion, can you gain the main point of those kinds of feedback?
Student G: ge erally it is lear e ough. But there is so e parts that I do ’t u dersta d hat the purpose
of the code is.
Me: have you ever met the teacher and asked him/her to consult your feedback?
Student G: sometime I do consultation, sometime I do assuming the feedback by myself.
Me: so, do you prefer to written or orally feedback?
Student G: both are better, but I prefer to orally because I can directly asking what I need to do.
Me: ok. So you prefer to orally feedback because you can directly asking what you need.
Student G: yes.
Me: then, is that kinds of feedback that you need for your writing?
Student G: so far is so good. I get what I needed. It is very detail.
Me: well. So do you also read the other part which has a little revision? Yeah because I see in your draft
there are many revisions.
Student G: if there is a little revision I just pass it.
Me: well, so the feedback that you get, can it improve your writing draft to be better?
Student G: well, since I joined this class with this teacher, I think I do several progresses. It is difficult to
ake people’s i terpretatio a out our riti g is sa e ith us. “o ki d of this feed a k is really
beneficial for me to help people has the same idea as ours.
25
Me: well, how about the result of your first, second, and so on draft? Do you get other difficulties when
you do the second draft based on the first draft feedback?
Student G: if only the grammatical or lexical it is ok. But if the revision is the content, it is more
difficulties and takes longer time.
Me: oh. So the difficulties it is also based on the kind of feedback that you get itself?
Student G: yes
Me: ok risti that’s all, tha ks for your parti ipatio .
Student G: yes you’re el o e.
26
Interview C
Me: selamat pagi.
Student K: selamat pagi
Me: siapa namanya?
Student K: meirista
Me: nah kemarin kan saya udah pernah pinjam draftmu nih buat dianalisis tentang feedbacknya. Terus
sekarang menurut pendapatmu feedbacknya bagaimana?
Student K: menurutku feedback itu sangat bermanfaat buat writing untuk memperbaiki segala bidang
yang salah dari grammar, penyusunan tiap kalimat/arrangement. Dan menurutku feedback itu
sangat bagus untuk membantu untuk membuat final draftnya lebih bagus dan lebih layak untuk
diberi nilai gitu.
Me: oh, oke. Terus menurutmu is it clear enough?
Student K: kadang jelas tapi kadang ada juga yang belum jelas.
Me: yang belum jelas itu contohnya gimana?
Student K: contohnya kalo cumin dilingkarin gitu ga ada keterangan suruh ngapain, terus kalo cuman
digaris gitu juga. Tapi biasanya kalo yang jelas gitu udah ada kaya komennya dikit disampingnya
la gsu g gitu harus diapai gitu,
isal ya paraphrase gitu, kalo gga ya
u gki kura g tepat
pemilihan katanya gitu.
Me: terus, kalo yang kurang jelas kamu tanyain ke dosennya ga?
Student K: iya ditanyain.
Me: bearti ada orally feedback juga gitu?
Student K: iya ada.
Me: terus ketika kamu tanya itu kira-kira dari dosennya langsung dibenerin atau cuman dikasih komen
contoh tentang gramarnya suruh dicek lagi gitu?
Student K: kalo biasanya sih cuma bilang suruh cari kata yang lebih tepat gitu tapi kalo memang beneran
bingung langsung tanya ke dosennya dan langsung dikasih tau.
Me: oke. Menurut kamu feedback kaya gitu sudah cukup beneficial ga?
Student K: hmm, ya masih ada yang kurang juga sih. Karena dari dosen yang mengampu kita itu ada
yang menganggap benar dan salah. Itu kan beda kalo sama pandangan orang lain.
Me: jadi udah cukup jelas feedbacknya?
Student K: cukup jelas kok.
27
Me: oke. Next, in your opinion can you gain the main point of those kinds of feedback?
Student K: kalo main pointnya ya sudah cukup mudeng sih soalnya ya emang sudah cukup jelas
ngasihnya. Misalnya kalo suruh ganti paragraph gitu juga sudah dikasih tanda gitu.
Me: kalo feedback on content yang biasanya paling banyak komennya gitu juga mudeng maksudnya?
Student K: iya soalnya point per pointnya dijelasin cukup detail kok.
Me: oke. terus is that kind of feedback that you need for your writing?
Student K: ya kalo nurutin kurang pasti ya kurang terus sih, tapi ya sudah cukup membantu daripada
dapat feedback cuma dari temen. Aku lebih suka dapat feedback dari dosen, karena ada juga dosen
yang ga kasih feedback.
Me: nah kalopun itu masih kurang, kurangnya itu bagaimana?
Student K: ya seperti yang ku bilang tadi, kalo cuman ada yang digarisin ato dilingkarin ya seharusnya
lebih dijelasin lagi.
Me: oke. can it improve your writing draft to be better?
Student K: ya
Me: how it works?
Student K: ya, kalo dijelasin lagi kaya ada waktu buat konsultasi gitu ya lebih bagus. Karena kan kita bisa
dijelasin satu-satu gitu. Jadi hasilnya ya lebih baik gitu.
Me: terus kalo suruh milih written feedback atau orally gitu kamu pilih yang mana?
Student K: ya dua-duanya bagus, tapi lebih ke written deh soalnya bisa lebih fokus ke kesalahan yang
harus dibenerin gitu.
Me: nah kalo kamu dapat positive feedback, menurutmu itu penting ga?
Student K: iya penting juga, soalnya kalo disalah-salahin semua kan bisa membuat down kita. Nah kalo
ada positif feedbacknya kan bisa untuk memicu kita untuk lebih termotivasi lagi. Jadi itu memang
penting banget sih.
Me: oke. that’s all for the i ter ie . Tha ks for the ti e ya Mei.
Student K: iya sama-sama.
28
in Narrative and Descriptive Class
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Yusuf Firmanto
112009105
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
SALATIGA
2013
STUDENTS’ VIEW TOWARD KINDS OF FEEDBACK GIVEN BY
TEACHERS IN NARRATIVE AND DESCRIPTIVE CLASS
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Yusuf Firmanto
112009105
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
SALATIGA
2013
i
ii
PUBLICATION AGREEMENT DECLARATION
As a member of the (SWCU) Satya Wacana Christian University academic community, I
verify that:
Name
Student ID Number
Study Program
Faculty
Kind of Work
: Yusuf Firmanto
: 112009105
: English Language Teaching Department
: Language and Literature
: Undergraduate Thesis
In developing my knowledge, I agree to provide SWCU with a non-exclusive royalty free right
for my intellectual property and the contents therein entitled:
STUDENTS’ VIEW TOWARD KINDS OF FEEDBACK GIVEN BY TEACHERS
IN NARRATIVE AND DESCRIPTIVE CLASS
along with any pertinent equipment.
With this non-exclusive royalty free right, SWCU maintains the right to copy, reproduce, print,
publish, post, display, incorporate, store in or scan into a retrieval system or database, transmit,
broadcast, barter or sell my intellectual property, in whole or in part without my express written
permission, as long as my name is still included as the writer.
This declaration is made according to the best of my knowledge.
Made in
: Salatiga
Date
: May 22, 2013
Verified by signee,
Yusuf Firmanto
iii
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT
This thesis contains no such material as has been submitted for examination in any course or
accepted for the fulfillment of any degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my
knowledge and belief, this contains no material previously published or written by any other
except where due reference is made in the text.
Copyright @2013 Yusuf Firmanto and Anita Kurniawati H, M. Hum
All right reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced by any means without the prior
written permission of at least one of the copyright owners or the English Department of Satya
Wacana Christian University, Salatiga.
Yusuf Firmanto :
iv
Students’ Views toward Kinds of Feedback Given by Teachers
in Narrative and Descriptive Class
Abstract
This study is aimed to identify students’ view toward kinds of feedback given by teacher in
Narrative and Descriptive class of Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Satya Wacana Christian
University. Twenty students of 2011, who already took the class, were asked to collect their draft
and fifteen of them were interviewed as the participants. The finding of the study found kinds of
feedback students got from the teacher shown in table 1 and 2 and 4 heading. The result of this
study shows the students prefer direct feedback rather than indirect feedback, explanation on
codes is still needed and also students need positive feedback from the teacher. This study is
hoped that teacher will be aware of the way they give feedback so that students can recognize
and use it well.
Introduction
Every student definitely wants to make a good writing. To make a good writing, students need
feedback and error correction from their teacher. Feedback sessions can be a beneficial
experience for the student if the teacher shows strong points as well. Research findings indicate
that students favor error feedback from teachers because they believe that they will benefit
greatly from it (Leki, 1991; Radecki & Swales, 1988; Straub, 1997). For me myself as a student,
when I write journal or free writing I also need feedback from my teacher, moreover clear
feedback. I think teacher feedback is very beneficial when I get the point of the feedback which I
can recognize and use it into my paper.
Considering about students’ need of feedback from their teacher, previous studies on
students’ views about error feedback (Ferris, 1995; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994; Komura,
1
1999; Leki, 1991; Roberts, 1999) have consistently showed that L2 learners really expect and
value teacher feedback on their writing. Basically, there are 2 kinds of corrective feedback; direct
and indirect corrective feedback. Direct correction refers to the provision of correct forms or
structures for students’ sentences, whereas indirect correction, as the term implies, simply
underlines the errors (Hendrickson, 1980). Moreover, Komura (1999) and Leki (1991) have
shown that students prefer indirect feedback. In addition, indirect feedback is provided when the
teacher simply marks the error but does not correct it (non-coded). In providing indirect
feedback, some teachers tend to code mistakes to indicate the precise location and type of error,
while others provide un-coded feedback that simply locates the error without disclosing the error
type. It becomes the student’s task to diagnose and correct the mistake with un-coded feedback.
By using indirect feedback, notably un-code feedback, sometimes students do not get what the
teacher’s mean because usually the students’ expectation is the teacher will provide the feedback
as complete as well.
Considering about students’ view toward kinds of feedback, the purpose of study is to
identify students’ view toward kinds of feedback given by the teacher in Narrative and
Descriptive Writing class. This study analyzed students’ view and perception toward kinds of
feedback that they got from the teacher. Considering about the purpose of this study, the research
question of the study is how is students’ view toward kinds of feedback given by teacher? This
study is hoped to provide the students that teacher will be aware of students’ perception toward
kinds of feedback that student need. Because each student may need different treatment of
feedback; some students may need feedback on the grammar with the clear code, some may need
the content and form of their writing, etc. Teacher is hoped to be aware of the way teacher give
feedback so that student can recognize and use it well in their writing.
2
Literature Review
Several studies found that error feedback from the teacher was not significantly more
effective for developing accuracy in L2 student writing (Kepner, 1991; Polio, Fleck, & Leder,
1998; Sheppard, 1992). In addition, studies conducted by Truscott (1996, 2007) reveal that error
correction may be harmful because it distracts attention from much more important issues, such
as the development of ideas. A number of research studies in various L2 contexts investigating
the effects of different types of feedback on students’ writing skills have suggested that explicit
error correction seems to be generally ineffective (Ihde, 1993; Kepner, 1991; Robb, Ross, &
Shortreed, 1986; Semke, 1984; Sheppard, 1992). However, research on this topic is far from
conclusive. For example, studies by Ashwell (2000), Cardelle and Corno (1981), and Ferris
(2003) demonstrate a positive correlation between students writing accuracy and teacher error
feedback. Furthermore, Ellis (1998) and Lightbrown (1998) maintain that explicit error
correction prevents adult learners from fossilization and ensures the continued development of
their L2 proficiency.
Moreover, to provide the students’ view toward teacher feedback, Hong (2004)
conducted a study to see the effect of teachers' error feedback on international students' self
correction ability. One hundred and nineteen international students enrolled in ESL composition
classes at Brigham Young University's English Language Center participated in the study. The
participants were randomly assigned to three treatment groups: (1) a coded feedback group, (2) a
non-coded feedback group, and (3) a no-feedback control group. All participants were asked to
write an in-class essay during 20-minute time period. A grammar test and attitudinal survey were
administered at the same time. The results of Hong's study indicated that teacher feedback was
3
the most significant factors influencing students' self correction, compared to proficiency level
and performance on the grammar test. There was a significant difference between the control
group that did not receive any feedback from teachers and the two experimental groups that were
given either coded or non-coded feedback. The results showed there was no significant
difference in performance on self-correction between the coded feedback group and the noncoded feedback group. In addition survey results showed that students preferred receiving coded
feedback over other feedback methods. The results showed also that error feedback helps ESL
learners self-correct grammatical errors and students preferred coded feedback.
More study regarding to students’ view toward kinds of feedback, Lee (2004) explored
the existing error correction practices in the Hong Kong secondary writing classroom from both
the teachers’ and the students’ perspectives. The analysis of the data collected through
questionnaires showed that most students (82%) expressed their desire for teacher feedback.
However, 67% of the students said that, in spite of receiving teacher feedback, they were making
the same errors again, and only 9% believed that they were making good progress. In other
words, the students asserted that they liked to receive feedback mainly to know what type of
errors they had made.
Research findings indicate that students favor error feedback from teachers because they
believe that they will benefit greatly from it (Leki, 1991; Radecki & Swales, 1988; Straub,
1997). In spite of this desire for detailed feedback on errors, there is an ongoing debate in current
literature whether error correction actually helps improve the accuracy of student writing.
Moreover, due to practical time constraints most teachers offer only perfunctory comments such
as “well-written”, “poorly organized”, or “awkward wording” on the majority of student papers.
4
Moreover there are several studies continue discussing kinds of feedback by students’
view. One type of feedback that the research does advocate is feedback on content and
organization. Such feedback is necessary and does result in improvement in students’ writing
(Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Huntley, 1992; Kepner, 1991; Sheppard, 1992). Huntley maintains
that feedback on content and organization should be provided to students while feedback on form
should be avoided, and she recommends that L2 teachers incorporate peer reviews and studentteacher conferences in their teaching as two valuable alternative feedback methods to traditional
error correction.
Another study done by Chandler (2003) aimed at examining how error correction should
be done. Findings showed that both direct correction and simple underlining of errors are
significantly superior to describing the type of error, even with underlining, for reducing longterm error. Direct correction is best for producing accurate revisions, and students prefer it
because it is the fastest and easiest way for them as well as the fastest way for teachers over
several drafts. However, students feel that they learn more from self-correction, and simple
underlining of errors takes less teacher time on the first draft.
Nevertheless, the relatively few studies that have investigated L2 students’ preferences
and reactions to teacher marking techniques and their beliefs about what constitutes effective
feedback to writing suggest that surface-level correction is often the kind of feedback these
students want and expect from their teachers. For instance, based on a survey of 59 English as
second language (ESL) students’ attitudes towards feedback on their written work, Radecki and
Swales (1988) conclude that ESL teachers might lose their credibility among their students if
they do not correct all surface errors, since findings revealed that students seem to need and
5
expect correction of all errors. In a similar survey of 100 ESL students’ preferences for error
correction, Leki (1991) found that students equate good writing in English with error-free writing
and that they expect and want all errors in their written work to be corrected.
Finally, based on several studies above, it can be identified that there are several kinds of
feedback teacher give to the students by their view. Students surely need teacher feedback.
Students expect they get the necessary corrective feedback from their teacher. Students prefer to
get revisions on the content and organization whether the teacher give a clear instruction
corrective feedback rather than just say “it was poor” or just underlining the error content but do
not give anything to improvement or revision. Nevertheless, it depends on how students’ view
toward these kinds of feedback and how they deal with them.
The Study
The setting of the study was in Satya Wacana Christian University (SWCU) which is
located in Salatiga, Central Java, Indonesia. Faculty of Language and Literature has adopted and
implemented teacher error feedback or teacher corrective feedback through students’ assignment;
free writings, journals, and summaries, in one of courses, Narrative and Descriptive Writing
course. The context of this study is the PBI students who have taken Narrative and Descriptive
Writing course, which they got teacher error feedback from the teacher through their writing
assignments. This teacher error feedback has provided in order to improve the students’ skill and
attitude especially on writing skill. The reason of choosing this department for my study is its
high standing in the region as an English language department with an excellent reputation.
6
Participants
Twenty participants were selected to be analyzed their writing draft and fifteen students
to be interviewed. The participants are the students who have taken Narrative and Descriptive
Writing course on the third semester in PBI. There are four classes of Narrative and Descriptive
Writing provided on third semester hopefully can complete the data from the students of each
class which opened on that semester. I used sample of convenience technique for choosing the
participants because it may be easier to meet and contact them and gain the data and interviewing
them.
Instruments
Considering about the purpose of this study, that is to identify students’ view toward kind
of feedback given by teacher, I selected twenty participants who have taken Narrative and
Descriptive Writing. To gain the deeper data, I used 2 instruments:
1. Writing draft
This session, I selected twenty participants to be analyzed their writing draft on what
kinds of feedback they get from the teacher. The purpose of analyzing writing draft is
to identify what kinds of feedback that students get from the teacher. Does it show
feedback on content, grammatical error, word choice or the whole paragraph?
2. Semi structured interview
This session was the next step after I did analyze the students’ writing draft. The
purpose of this semi structured interview is to gain the deeper data about students’
view toward kind of feedback given by teacher. This session took fifteen selected
7
students to participate. I combined the language I used between English and Bahasa
Indonesia. It took ten minutes long and four basic questions. The questions are below:
a. What do you think about the feedback? Is it clear and beneficial enough?
b. In your opinion, can you gain the main point of those kinds of feedback?
c. Is that kinds of feedback that you need for your writing?
d. Can it improve your writing draft to be better and how it works?
Data Collection Procedures
The first procedure was analyzing the students’ writing draft. There were twenty selected
students from four classes of Narrative and Descriptive Writing course. I borrowed their writing
draft then copied it into my sheet. Then I started to analyze them one by one using checklist
table. There were six points kinds of feedback that students got from the teacher such as
feedback on the content, grammatical, lexical, semantic, perfunctory comment, and direct code.
Considering about students’ view toward kind of feedback teachers given, I also used
semi structured interview. The interview session needed fifteen selected participants and took ten
minutes long. The participants asked to answer 4 basic questions and several additional questions
while I recorded it. Then I transcribed it in order of using for data report and finding.
Data Analysis Procedure
On the first step I used checklist table. The table showed what kinds of feedback that
students got from the teacher in Narrative and Descriptive class. There were 2 tables that were
discussed. The first table discussed about kind of feedback that students get on language, and
8
second table discussed kind of feedback that students get in general. Every point that included in
students’ draft represented one check in the table.
The second step I made 4 headings. Each heading contained finding that found through
interview section then how it related to previous study finding. The heading might represent both
what the table says and data from interview section.
Finding and Discussion
Students’ errors are categorized into three error types (grammatical, lexical, and
semantic). Grammatical errors include sentence fragments, incorrect punctuation, verb tenses,
nouns, adjectives, clauses, participles, and improper use of subjunctive mood. Lexical errors
result from incorrect application of vocabulary. Semantic errors refer to sentences incoherent in
meaning or unnatural in wording. (Ferris, 2003)
Whereas, Hendrickson (1980) stated basically there are 2 kinds of feedback; direct and
indirect feedback. Direct feedback refers to the provision of correct forms or structures for
students’ sentences, whereas indirect feedback, as the term implies, simply underlines the errors.
In this case, indirect feedback is identified by feedback on content and perfunctory comments, as
table 2 showed.
Considering about kinds of feedback that student got from the teacher without any
regardless for students’ view, this study found several kinds of feedback students of Narrative
and Descriptive Writing got from the teacher on semester 3.
9
Participants
A
Kinds
of feedback
Grammatical V
V V V V V V V V V V
V V
V V V V V V
Semantic
V V V
V V
V V V V V V
V
V V V V V V
V
Lexical
B C D E
V
F
G H
I
J
K L M N
V V V V V V
V V V V V V V V V
O
P
Q R
S
T
Table 1. Kinds of Feedback Students Got on Language
Participants
Kinds
of feedback
Content
A
B C D E
V
V V V V V V V V V V V
Perfunctory
Comments
Direct Code
F
G H
I
J
K L M N
O O Q R
S
T
V
V V V
V V
V
V V V V V V
V V V V V V V
V
V V V V V V V V V V V V
Table 2. Kinds of Feedback Students Got Based on Direct and Indirect Feedback
From the finding on table 1 above, students were divided into 4 classes. A-F was class 1,
J-K was class B, K-L was class C, and O-T was class D. Almost each student got grammatical
feedback but only student L did not get grammatical feedback. It shows that almost all teachers
correct students’ grammatical error. Students also deal with their feedback on grammar. As
students B said “The feedback is more on grammatical error so when the grammatical is
incorrect, we can revise it as soon as the teacher says what I should do.”
Semantic feedback is almost the same as grammatical feedback, only student E and L did
not get semantic feedback. But, overall every student got feedback on lexical item by their
teacher. Student E and L were in the different classes, so that the teacher might not give feedback
10
on semantic, but another feedback on grammar and lexical. On the lexical feedback, there were 3
students, student A, C, M did not get lexical feedback. Student A, C and M were in the different
classes. The more students did not get lexical feedback, it may show that the more student have
been mastering lexical term. But students also still deal with lexical feedback. As Student G said
“If the feedback is only on grammar and lexical, it is OK.”
From table 2, the students also were divided into 4 classes. A-F was class A, J-K was
class B, K-L was class C, and O-T was class D. Almost all students except student M and R got
feedback on content. The teacher gave feedback on content to almost all students in each class
that showed generally students got everything about the content in their draft. Both teacher and
students deal with feedback on content. Students thought feedback in content were still needed in
their draft. But there was student G that gave comment in feedback on content, “If the revision is
on the content, it is more difficult and takes longer time to revise.”
Only 7 students got perfunctory comments such as “well written, “poorly organized”,
“awkward wording” etc. Regarding to Leki (1991), many teachers still believe in using
perfunctory comments to help the students instead of only corrective feedback. Students also
deal with perfunctory comments from the teacher. Student F argues that “Perfunctory comments
are kinds of positive feedback that can make the students become clearer moreover motivated.”
Regarding to students’ view toward kinds of feedback teacher given, there are 4 main
heading found in the interview section to 15 students that took Narrative and Descriptive Writing
class.
11
Students prefer direct feedback rather than indirect feedback.
Direct feedback refers to the provision of correct forms or structures for students’
sentences (Hendrickson, 1980). Direct code is the most popular feedback that students get from
the teacher, like table 2 shows. It shows that direct feedback is still needed for students and the
students also deal with direct code from the teacher. This idea is also supported by Ferris (2003)
that stated direct feedback may be appropriate for students and cases when students are unable to
correct structural or lexical mistakes themselves. As student M in Narrative and Descriptive
Writing argues some point that show student deal with using direct code in indirect feedback.
“Maybe if I get direct feedback for example the wrong verb is crossed I will understand the
point. But if only circling or underlining I can’t get the point.”
As Leki (1991) found that students may prefer direct correction on language in order to
avoid making the same error, but not in content and organization. Student Q also said “The
teacher corrects the wrong grammar directly so I can easily understand the teacher’s purposes.”
According to Johnson (1995), learning a language must follow three stages:
verbalization, automatization, and autonomy. In the first stage of verbalization, students are
described and demonstrated the language to be learned by the teacher, and then students perceive
it and attempt to understand it. After that, learning moves on to the second stage, automatization,
in which the students are given exercises and then students practice the language in order to
internalize it. Finally, in the autonomy stage, students continue to use the language on their own,
becoming more proficient and creative. This idea is also supported by Richards’ (2002) who
argues that model of the three-stage learning process might be an alternative to facilitate
12
students’ ability to efficiently absorb and accurately use direct feedback in language points
(grammar, lexical, semantic).
Explanation on code is still needed, included oral consultation
Several studies discuss how indirect feedback should be given to students. A lot of
teachers favor indirect feedback for pedagogical reasons as it gives the students the chance to
correct themselves (Ferris (2002); Hendrickson (1984); Robb, Ross & Shortreed(1986)). But
students sometime do not get the point and they will have no revision at all. Students want more
explanation and detail rather than unclear feedback on the content. This study analyzed how
students perceive unclear feedback.
Student L said, “I think it depends. The meaning is sometimes clear, but also sometimes
is not clear. Sometimes the teacher just gives underlining or some comments, but I don’t know
the meaning. So far I always ask the teacher if I don’t understand.” Student M also added some
points toward this problem. “I think indirect feedback is sometime not beneficial enough if it is
only circling or underlining. The teacher should give more explanation about those codes rather
than only giving those codes.”
Some students will ask the teacher if they do not get the point. They prefer oral feedback
through his/her consultation time. They believe oral feedback will help them much in revising
their draft. Nevertheless, there are several students who interpret the unclear feedback by
themselves. Student J is one of the students who sometimes do not consult with the teacher.
“Sometimes I do consultation but sometimes I do assuming it by myself.”
13
This finding is also similar to Ferris (2002) who stated that many writing teachers
consider one-on one teacher-student conferences to be more effective than written corrective
feedback alone because they provide opportunities for students to ask questions and for teachers
to explain and instruct once corrections are made clear.
Students need any clues toward indirect feedback they got
Another positive finding is that most of these students would rather receive a clue about
correcting errors on their first drafts rather than the correction itself, even though the latter would
presumably make it “easier” to revise the draft. Such a preference for “clues” in teacher feedback
was also found among the ESL students surveyed in Leki’s (1991) study. Regarding students’
preferences for the amount of feedback/marks on their papers, most students stated that they
would prefer their teacher to correct all errors, especially when responding to a final draft.
Considering that in most cases a final draft includes a final grade for the paper, this finding is
encouraging; these students seem to care about having their written errors corrected, for reasons
beyond that of obtaining a good grade on the paper.
Several students explain they have got clues considering to any code in their paper. As
Student E said.
“Bisa dong, kan sebelumnya juga udah dijelasin sama dosennya. Misal kalo digaris
bawahi itu salah kata, kalo dilingkari itu salah idiomatic terus kalo RO itu kalimate
kepanjangen.”
Yes I can, because we have given the clues before we receive the feedback. For example
underlining is wording error, circling is idiomatic error, RO is sentence error or too long
sentence. (My translation, 1.5.13)
14
As Kavaliauskienė (2003) stated, EFL practitioners agree that error correction is an
essential condition for successful acquisition of any language, although they are at variance on
ways of conducting it. Reconciliation of viewpoints might be secured by turning to selfcorrection. The prevailing opinion among some practitioners is that the primary teachers’ task in
initiating self-correction in written work is to indicate the mistakes, but not correct them. The
indication can be performed either by underlining errors or coding them ( T for a wrong tense, SP
for a wrong spelling, WO for a wrong word order).
Students also need positive feedback.
Several studies found that error feedback from the teacher was not significantly more
effective for developing accuracy in L2 student writing than content-related comments or no
feedback (e.g. Kepner, 1991; Polio, Fleck, & Leder, 1998; Sheppard, 1992). Students do not
need only on corrective feedback abut also positive feedback. Study by Truscott (2007) finds that
students also desire positive feedback that make the students’ interaction and emotional to
teacher more intense. Student will also be more motivated rather than just receiving corrective
feedback at all. Student K argues that positive feedback is important for students needed in
revising students’ draft.
“Berguna sekali. Soalnya kan ini biarpun cuman dra ft tapi kita juga udah berusaha
semaksimal mungkin, jadi kalo dapat positive feedback itu akan membuat siswanya lebih
termotivasi lagi.”
It’s very helpful. Even though it is just draft writing, but we have worked hard to do the
best. If we also get positive feedback, it is very good that will make the students be more
motivated. (My translation, 3.5.13)
Student D also added some point about this positive feedback.
15
“Iya penting juga sih, soalnya kalo disalah-salahin semua kan bisa membuat kita down.
Nah kalo ada positive feedbacknya kan bisa untuk memicu kita untuk lebih termotivasi
lagi.”
Yes, it’s very important because if the teacher gives many correcting errors, it will
disappoint us. If there is positive feedback, it will motivate us to be better. (My
translation, 3.5.13)
Regarding to Edge (1989:20), when teachers decide to correct the students, stated "We
have to be sure that we are using correction positively to support learning." It is almost the same
as students needs on this Narrative and Descriptive Writing.
Conclusion
The purpose of study is to identify students’ view toward kinds of feedback given by the
teacher in Narrative and Descriptive Writing class. This study analyzed students’ view and
perception toward kinds of feedback that they get from the teacher. Answering these questions,
this study used writing draft analyzing and 4 heading from the interview section.
As shown in table 1, almost each student got grammatical feedback but only student L
did not get grammatical feedback. It shows that almost all teachers correct students’
grammatical. Students also deal with their feedback on grammar. It is also almost the same as
semantic feedback, only student E and L did not get semantic feedback. But, overall every
student got feedback on lexical item by their teacher. Student E and L were in the different
classes, so that the teacher may not give feedback on semantic, but another feedback on grammar
and lexical. On the lexical feedback, there were 3 students, student A, C, M did not get lexical
feedback. The more students do not get lexical feedback, it may show that the more students
have been mastering lexical term.
16
From table 2, almost all students except student M and R got feedback on content.
Teacher gave feedback on content to almost all students in each class that shows generally
students got everything about the content in their draft. Both teacher and students deal with
feedback on content. But, only 7 students got perfunctory comments such as “well written,
“poorly organized”, “awkward wording” etc. Leki (1991) stated that many teachers still believe
in using perfunctory comments to help the students, instead of only giving corrective feedback.
Students also deal with perfunctory comments from the teacher. Overall, all students in each
class get and deal with direct feedback from the teacher. Students said that direct feedback is
easy to understand and revise all the error term in their draft.
The result of this study shows that the students in this study prefer direct feedback rather
than indirect feedback from the teacher. It is shown in table 2 that all students in each class get
direct feedback. This idea also supported by Ferris (2003) direct feedback may be appropriate for
students and cases when students are unable to correct structural or lexical mistakes by
themselves. Another result is students needs explanation on codes included oral consultation.
Almost all of the students argued they got unclear codes or another indirect feedback from the
teacher and the need more explanation toward the unclear codes so that they can gain the points
of those codes. Students also deal with oral consultation to ask furthermore about the unclear
feedback in their draft. The last result from this study is students also need positive feedback.
They argued that positive feedback can rise their motivation to revise their draft.
Therefore, it is hoped that EFL teachers will be aware on the way they give feedback so
that students can recognize and apply it well. Teacher and students sometimes have different
perception about how feedback is given to the student but through this study is hoped that
17
teacher knows students’ needed about their feedback. In conclusion, the present research implies
that students should get both positive feedback and clues for indirect feedback from the teacher
in order to they can apply it well in their draft.
This study is limited in certain aspects. This study cannot be generalized to all cases
because there are several aspects that will make difference. For example this study identified the
students’ view toward feedback in writing class, so that it cannot be used in listening class.
Because some aspects such as kinds of feedback that teacher give is different. Nevertheless, this
research may be the same as reading and grammar class feedback research. The aspect of
students’ view toward kinds of feedback is almost the same with writing aspect.
18
Acknowledgement
This journal would not have been possible without the support of many people. Firstly I
would like to thank Jesus Christ for His bless to me every day since I was born, more
importantly those few months when I worked on this journal. I wish to express my gratitude to
my supervisor, Anita Kurniawati H, M. Hum, for his availability to give his best assistance in
any time needed. And also for my examiner, Christian Rudianto M. Appling., for his guidance on
examining and making this journal more appropriate. Big thanks to the participants, 2011ers,
who willingly be interviewed; thanks a bunch. Special thanks to ED’s friends and teachers, also
to all my dearest best friends, Niners Touring Club and the big family of “Niners”; Shikaka! And
also friends from F Lobby, keep singing together! My deepest gratitude goes to my beloved
family, Mom, Dad, Naomi, and Monika thank you for the continuous support through the
duration of my study; for being the best family ever.
19
References
Ancker, W. Errors and Corrective Feedback: Updated Theory and Classroom Practice . English
Teaching Forum, vol. 38, No 4, October 2000, pp. 20 – 24.
Ashwell, T. 2000. Patterns of Teacher Response to Student Writing in a
Multiple-Draft Composition Classrooms: Is Content Feedback Followed
by Form Feedback the Best Method? Journal of Second Language
Writing, 9(3): 227-257.
Cardelle, M., & Corno, L. 1981. Effects on Second Language Learning of
Variations in Written Feedback on Homework Assignments. TESOL
Quarterly, 15: 251-261.
Chandler, J. 2003. The Efficacy of Various Kinds of Error Feedback for Improvement in the
Accuracy and Fluency of Student Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12 (3),
267-296.
Edge, J. 1989. Mistakes and correction. London: Longman.
Ellis, R. 1998. Teaching and Research: Options in Grammar Teaching. TESOL
Quarterly, 32: 39-60.
Fathman, A. K. & Whalley, E. 1990. Teacher response to student writing: Focus on
form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research
Insights For the Classroom (pp. 178-190). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R. 2001. "Teaching writing for Academic Purposes". In .J. Flowerdew & M.Peacock
(Ed.). Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. Pp.298-314.
Ferris, D. R. 2003. Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second
Language Students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Harmer, J. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching . Pearson Education Ltd. p.99.
20
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. 1994. Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner
receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 3, 141-63.
Hendricson, J. M.1978. Error correction in foreign language teaching:
Recent theory, research, and practice. Modern Language Journal,
62, 387–398
Hendrickson, J.M.1984. The treatment of error in written work. In .S.Mckay. (Ed).).
Composing I a second language (pp.145-159). Cambridge, Mass: Newbury House.
Hong, Youngju. 2004. The Effect of Teachers' Error Feedback on Internationa Students' Self
Correction Ability. MA thesis, Department of Linguistics and English Language.
Brigham Young University.
Kavaliauskienė, G. English for Specific Purposes: Learners’ Preferences and Attitudes. Journal
of Language and Learning, Vol. 1, No 1, 2003. pp. 14 – 23.
Kepner, C. G. 1991. An Experiment in the Relationship of Types of Written
Feedback to the Development of Second-Language Writing Skills.
The Modern Language Journal, 75: 305-313.
Komura, K. 1999. Student response to error correction in ESL classrooms . Unpublished
Master’s thesis, California State University, Sacramento.
Lee, I. 2004. Error correction in L2 secondary writing classroom.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 13 , 285-312.
Leki, I. 1991. The preferences of ESL students for error-correction in college-level
writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203-218.
Leki, I. 1994. Coaching from the Margins: Issues in Written Response. Second Language
Writing. Edited by B. Kroll. Cambridge University Press.
Lightbrown, P. 1998. The Importance of Timing in Focus on Form. In C.
Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom SLA (pp.
21
177-196). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Liu, J. and Hansen, J. (2005). Peer response in second language writing
classrooms. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. 1988. “If Only I Had More Time”: ESL
Learners’ Changes in Linguistic Accuracy on Essay Revisions. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 7: 43-68.
Radecki, P. M., & Swales, J. M. 1988. ESL student reaction to written comments
on their written work. System, 16, 355-365.
Roberts, B. 1999. Can error logs raise more than consciousness? The
effects of error logs and grammar feedback on esl students’ final
drafts. Unpublished M. A. thesis, Sacramento, California State University.
Sheppard, K. 1992. Two Feedback Types: Do They Make a Difference?
RELC Journal, 23: 103-110.
Straub, R. 1997. Students’ Reactions to Teacher Comments: An Exploratory
Study. Research in the Teaching of English , 31: 91-119.
Truscott, J. 1996. The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing
Classes. Language Learning, 46: 327-369.
Truscott, J. 2007. The Effect of Error Correction on Learners’ Ability to
Write Accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing , 16: 255-272.
22
Appendix
Interview 1
Me: good afternoon
Student L: afternoon
Me: hat’s your a e?
Student L: Tirza Agatha.
Me: last semester I borrowed your writing draft and analyzed your feedback and here is the result. You
can see how and what kind of feedback that you get. So, what do you think about the feedback?
Student L: I think it helpful. The feedback is to revise from the first draft to final draft. So I think it is very
helpful for me.
Me: is the feedback clear enough?
Student L: h
…I thi k it depe ds. “o eti es lear a d so eti e it’s ot lear hat the
Sometime the teacher just gives underlining or some comments but I do ’t k o the
ea i g is.
ea i g. But
so far I al ays ask the tea her if I do ’t u dersta d.
Me: so you always ask the teacher when the feedback is not clear?
Student L: yeah I always ask it.
Me: the in your opinion is it beneficial enough?
Student L: so far is so good even in my last semester I the grade is great. I think it means the feedback is
very beneficial and helpful for the first until the final draft.
Me: so even though there are some unclear comments, but when you ask it, then it becomes very
beneficial?
Student L: yeah very beneficial. More over the teacher always explain till I understand the purpose.
Me: well, the second question, in your opinion, can you gain the main point of those kinds of feedback?
Student L: overall is good enough, I can gain some of the feedback. But there is a little feedback that I
a ’t gai the poi t, ut o erall I get the idea.
Me: so, even it just underlining or circling feedback, but you still gain the main point of the feedback.
Student L: yeah, because we usually we are explained before to follow the comments. For example:
movement, so we have to smooth the coherence in order the movement is smoother.
Me: well, the next question, is that kind of feedback that you need for your writing?
Student L: yeah I think it appropriate with my needed of feedback. I can help me to do the revision.
23
Me: so that kind of feedback, for example the underlining or circling, that is the feedback that really
beneficial for your writing?
Student L: actually, my expectation is there are more feedback even comments from the teacher, I mean
from this feedback the teacher just gives comment for the page one that actually there are more
than two pages that need feedback. Even though it can help me but my expectation is more
feedback.
Me: well. So can it improve your writing draft to be better?
Student L: I think it can improve my writing because when I look into my first to final draft, it shows that
I get good grade so I think I helps me to improve my writing.
Me: ok, so the feedback can improve your writing right? How it works then?
Student L: yeah like I said before. My grade is become well when I learn to revise my writing from those
feedbacks.
Me: ok. Well I think that is it for the question. Anyway thanks for your time tirza.
Student L: ok you’re el o e.
24
Interview B
Me: good afternoon.
Student G: afternoon.
Me: hat’s your a e?
Student G: cristin.
Me: well, I borrowed your draft last semester and analyzed on your draft about the feedback that you
get from your teacher and here is the result. What do you think about the feedback?
Student G: the feedback is very detail and clear that makes me understand it. The teacher also put the
code that she/he explains before when she/he will give us the feedback so we can understand the
code.
Me: is it beneficial enough for you?
Student G: yes it is because it is not only very simple feedback but very detail for example she/he give
comments on the content in every paragraph.
Me: well. Next, in your opinion, can you gain the main point of those kinds of feedback?
Student G: ge erally it is lear e ough. But there is so e parts that I do ’t u dersta d hat the purpose
of the code is.
Me: have you ever met the teacher and asked him/her to consult your feedback?
Student G: sometime I do consultation, sometime I do assuming the feedback by myself.
Me: so, do you prefer to written or orally feedback?
Student G: both are better, but I prefer to orally because I can directly asking what I need to do.
Me: ok. So you prefer to orally feedback because you can directly asking what you need.
Student G: yes.
Me: then, is that kinds of feedback that you need for your writing?
Student G: so far is so good. I get what I needed. It is very detail.
Me: well. So do you also read the other part which has a little revision? Yeah because I see in your draft
there are many revisions.
Student G: if there is a little revision I just pass it.
Me: well, so the feedback that you get, can it improve your writing draft to be better?
Student G: well, since I joined this class with this teacher, I think I do several progresses. It is difficult to
ake people’s i terpretatio a out our riti g is sa e ith us. “o ki d of this feed a k is really
beneficial for me to help people has the same idea as ours.
25
Me: well, how about the result of your first, second, and so on draft? Do you get other difficulties when
you do the second draft based on the first draft feedback?
Student G: if only the grammatical or lexical it is ok. But if the revision is the content, it is more
difficulties and takes longer time.
Me: oh. So the difficulties it is also based on the kind of feedback that you get itself?
Student G: yes
Me: ok risti that’s all, tha ks for your parti ipatio .
Student G: yes you’re el o e.
26
Interview C
Me: selamat pagi.
Student K: selamat pagi
Me: siapa namanya?
Student K: meirista
Me: nah kemarin kan saya udah pernah pinjam draftmu nih buat dianalisis tentang feedbacknya. Terus
sekarang menurut pendapatmu feedbacknya bagaimana?
Student K: menurutku feedback itu sangat bermanfaat buat writing untuk memperbaiki segala bidang
yang salah dari grammar, penyusunan tiap kalimat/arrangement. Dan menurutku feedback itu
sangat bagus untuk membantu untuk membuat final draftnya lebih bagus dan lebih layak untuk
diberi nilai gitu.
Me: oh, oke. Terus menurutmu is it clear enough?
Student K: kadang jelas tapi kadang ada juga yang belum jelas.
Me: yang belum jelas itu contohnya gimana?
Student K: contohnya kalo cumin dilingkarin gitu ga ada keterangan suruh ngapain, terus kalo cuman
digaris gitu juga. Tapi biasanya kalo yang jelas gitu udah ada kaya komennya dikit disampingnya
la gsu g gitu harus diapai gitu,
isal ya paraphrase gitu, kalo gga ya
u gki kura g tepat
pemilihan katanya gitu.
Me: terus, kalo yang kurang jelas kamu tanyain ke dosennya ga?
Student K: iya ditanyain.
Me: bearti ada orally feedback juga gitu?
Student K: iya ada.
Me: terus ketika kamu tanya itu kira-kira dari dosennya langsung dibenerin atau cuman dikasih komen
contoh tentang gramarnya suruh dicek lagi gitu?
Student K: kalo biasanya sih cuma bilang suruh cari kata yang lebih tepat gitu tapi kalo memang beneran
bingung langsung tanya ke dosennya dan langsung dikasih tau.
Me: oke. Menurut kamu feedback kaya gitu sudah cukup beneficial ga?
Student K: hmm, ya masih ada yang kurang juga sih. Karena dari dosen yang mengampu kita itu ada
yang menganggap benar dan salah. Itu kan beda kalo sama pandangan orang lain.
Me: jadi udah cukup jelas feedbacknya?
Student K: cukup jelas kok.
27
Me: oke. Next, in your opinion can you gain the main point of those kinds of feedback?
Student K: kalo main pointnya ya sudah cukup mudeng sih soalnya ya emang sudah cukup jelas
ngasihnya. Misalnya kalo suruh ganti paragraph gitu juga sudah dikasih tanda gitu.
Me: kalo feedback on content yang biasanya paling banyak komennya gitu juga mudeng maksudnya?
Student K: iya soalnya point per pointnya dijelasin cukup detail kok.
Me: oke. terus is that kind of feedback that you need for your writing?
Student K: ya kalo nurutin kurang pasti ya kurang terus sih, tapi ya sudah cukup membantu daripada
dapat feedback cuma dari temen. Aku lebih suka dapat feedback dari dosen, karena ada juga dosen
yang ga kasih feedback.
Me: nah kalopun itu masih kurang, kurangnya itu bagaimana?
Student K: ya seperti yang ku bilang tadi, kalo cuman ada yang digarisin ato dilingkarin ya seharusnya
lebih dijelasin lagi.
Me: oke. can it improve your writing draft to be better?
Student K: ya
Me: how it works?
Student K: ya, kalo dijelasin lagi kaya ada waktu buat konsultasi gitu ya lebih bagus. Karena kan kita bisa
dijelasin satu-satu gitu. Jadi hasilnya ya lebih baik gitu.
Me: terus kalo suruh milih written feedback atau orally gitu kamu pilih yang mana?
Student K: ya dua-duanya bagus, tapi lebih ke written deh soalnya bisa lebih fokus ke kesalahan yang
harus dibenerin gitu.
Me: nah kalo kamu dapat positive feedback, menurutmu itu penting ga?
Student K: iya penting juga, soalnya kalo disalah-salahin semua kan bisa membuat down kita. Nah kalo
ada positif feedbacknya kan bisa untuk memicu kita untuk lebih termotivasi lagi. Jadi itu memang
penting banget sih.
Me: oke. that’s all for the i ter ie . Tha ks for the ti e ya Mei.
Student K: iya sama-sama.
28