Students` responses to teacher written feedback on their compositions.

STUDENTS’ RESPONSES TO TEACHER WRITTEN

FEEDBACK ON THEIR COMPOSITIONS

A THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By

MARIA AGUSTINA SRI WULANDARI Student Number : 021214023

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA

i

STUDENTS’ RESPONSES TO TEACHER WRITTEN

FEEDBACK ON THEIR COMPOSITIONS

A THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By

MARIA AGUSTINA SRI WULANDARI Student Number : 021214023

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA

iv

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY

I honestly declare that this thesis which I wrote does not contain the works or part of the works of other people, except those cited in the quotations and bibliography, as a scientific paper should.

Yogyakarta, 15 June 2007

v

kalau kau kejar mimpimu

salut…

kalau kau ingin berhenti

ingat ‘tuk mulai lagi

tetap semangat

dan teguhkan hati

di setiap hari

sampai nanti… sampai mati

… L etto…

sampai nanti, sampai mati

dedicated to:

my beloved family and friends

who are always being there for me

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I dedicate my greatest and deepest gratitude to Jesus Christ and Holy Mary for Their blessings, love and strengths. Through Their grace, I could finish this thesis and reach one of my dreams.

My sincere appreciation also goes to my major sponsor, Dr. F.X. Mukarto, M.S., and my co-sponsor, A. Hardi Prasetyo, S.Pd., M.A. for their great patience in guiding me and their invaluable ideas and suggestions during the completion of this thesis. I really appreciate the knowledge, time and guidance they shared with me.

I would like to sincerely thank Olivia, Clara, Marlinda and Swesty, the participant s of my research. I tha nk them for their cooperation during the collecting of the data.

My deepest gratitude goes to my beloved parents, B.P. Sutikno, BA and F.X. Suyati for their endless love, prayer and encouragement all my life, especially during the thesis writing. My deepest thanks also go to my dearest little brother, Stephanus Susilo Nugroho for being the best brother I have ever had. I thank him for his patience and willingness in helping me to cope with the confusing Corel Draw and all the computer stuffs. It is such a great blessing to have a family like them in my life.

I would like to dedicate my appreciation to my lovely cousins, Mbak Sisca and Mbak Wiwin, and to my lost Cie-Cie, Cie Melly ‘Piglet Jr.’ for their

never-ending advice, patience, grumbling and love. I also thank them for treating me like their own little sister and for sharing me their experiences and stories so that I can see the world through their eyes.

vii

My best thanks are also delivered to all of my friends. I thank Mbak Sarie

and Mbak Adesti for their encouragement s and friendships. I am deeply grateful to

Rizakti for his patience and willingness in giving critic ism, corrections and suggestions to improve my thesis. To Ardi and Lintang who helped me to prepare the thesis examination, thanks a lot. I thank Edi_Ahong for lend ing me his sophisticated scanner. I also thank Yosi-Kalva for his support, it means a lot. To Uni, Nissa, Haryana, Ardi, Rendy, Nita, Dianing, Sari, Hastri, Selly, Mas Adi, Mas Prim, Sabum Maklon Hatti, all PBI’s 2002ers, seniors and juniors, I thank them for

their inputs and supports. My appreciation also goes to Garuda 9ers; Cie Olive, Bu

Tita, Dik Ira, Dik Lia, Mbak Mut and the late Pepsi for their encouragement. I

thank all of them for the time, experiences and stories full of laughter, lessons, love and tears they have shared me.

I would also like to thank Swaragama, especially to Zaki ‘Dreamland’

Pradana for being my great companion when I had to stay up late at night to finish the thesis. I thank him for his stories, advices and wise words that influenced me to be a better person.

Finally, I would like to thank some other friends and relatives for all the supports and prayers during the process of the writing of this thesis. My wholehearted thanks to them will never be enough. May God bless them all!

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE ... i

PAGE OF APPROVAL ... ii

PAGE OF ACCEPTANCE ... iii

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ... iv

PAGE OF DEDICATION ... v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ... vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... viii

LIST OF TABLES ... xi

LIST OF FIGURES ... xii

ABSTRACT ... xiii

ABSTRAK ... xiv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1 Research Background ... 1

1.2 Problem Formulation ... 4

1.3 Problem Limitation ... 4

1.4 Research Objectives ... 4

1.5 Research Benefits ... 5

1.6 Definition of Terms ... 5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ... 7

2.1 Theoretical Description ... 7

2.1.1 Theory of Writing ... 7

2.1.1.1 Writing ... 7

2.1.1.2 Writing Product vs Writing Process Approaches ... 9

2.1.2 Theory of Feedback ... 12

2.1.2.1 Definition of Feedback in Writing ... 12

2.1.2.2 Purposes of Feedback ... 13

2.1.2.3 Roles of Feedback ... 14

ix

2.1.2.5 Forms of Feedback ... 17

2.1.2.6 Focus of Feedback ... 17

2.1.2.7 Responses to Feedback ... 18

2.2 Review of Existing Researches ... 20

2.3 Theoretical Framework ... 21

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ... 23

3.1 Research Methodology ... 23

3.2 Research Participants ... 24

3.3 Research Setting ... 24

3.4 Research Instruments ... 25

3.4.1 Checklists ... 25

3.4.2 Interview ... 26

3.5 Data Source ... 27

3.6 Data Collection ... 27

3.7 Data Analysis ... 28

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS RESULTS ... 31

4.1 Teacher Written Feedback ... 31

4.1.1 Language Use ... 32

4.1.1.1 Article s ... 33

4.1.1.2 Tenses ... 34

4.1.1.3 Plural Markers ... 35

4.1.1.4 Language Objectivity ... 36

4.1.1.5 Pronouns ... 36

4.1.1.6 Sentence Constructions ... 37

4.1.2 Mechanics ... 38

4.1.2.1 Punctuation ... 38

4.1.2.2 Italics ... 39

4.1.2.3 Capitalization ... 40

4.1.3 Content ... 41

x

4.1.5 Format ... 44

4.1.6 Reference to Source ... 44

4.1.7 Vocabulary ... 46

4.1.8 Clarity ... 47

4.2 Students’ Responses ... 48

4.2.1 Correcting ... 48

4.2.2 Revising ... 50

4.2.2.1 Adding ... 51

4.2.2.2 Deleting ... 52

4.2.2.3 Substituting ... 53

4.2.2.4 Restructuring ... 53

4.2.3 Consulting ... 54

4.2.4 Ignoring ... 55

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 57

5.1 Conclusions ... 57

5.2 Suggestions ... 59

5.2.1 For The Teachers ... 59

5.2.2 For The Students ... 59

5.2.3 For The Further Researchers ... 60

BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 61

APPENDICES ... 64

APPENDIX 1 Analysis on the Categories of Teacher Written Feedback ... 64

APPENDIX 2 Analysis on the Students’ Responses of Teacher Written Feedback ... 75

APPENDIX 3 Profile of Feedback Categorization ... 94

APPENDIX 4 Results of the Interview ... 98

APPENDIX 5 Sample of Students’ Compositions (first draft) ... 100

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 The Table Checklist of Teacher Written Feedback ... 26 Table 4.1 The Table Checklist of Teacher Written Feedback Percentage ... 31

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

xiii ABSTRACT

Wulandari, Maria Agustina Sri. 2007. Students’ Responses to the Teacher Written Feedback on their Compositions. Yogyakarta: English Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.

Providing students with effective feedback on their writing is important as it helps students to ensure that what they write conveys their intended messages and to produce compositions with minimum errors and maximum clarity. However, students may not utilize feedback optimally because they may not know what to do with it and they may end up responding to the feedback by copying all corrections or deleting words/sentences which contain errors. This study aims at investigating the students’ responses toward the written feedback by formulating two research problems: 1) What are the categories of teacher written feedback? 2) What are the students’ responses to the teacher written feedback?

The research was conducted using the descriptive qualitative method. The participants of the study were four-semester eight-students of English Letters Study Program, Sanata Dharma University, academic year 2005/2006 who joined thesis writing course. The data were gathered from students’ undergraduate thesis compositions from chapter one to three. It consisted of eight pieces of compositions divided into four pieces of the undergraduate thesis drafts with teacher feedback on them and four pieces of the revised versions. The re are two instruments used in this study, i.e. checklist and interview.

The results of the data analysis on the first problem reveal that the teachers provided written feedback on language use, mechanics, organization, content, format, reference of source, vocabulary, and clarity. The findings show that the teacher feedback was mostly on the form. The content, which was the main component to form a good composition, only got few attentions. Based on the second problem, it was figured out that the students’ responses toward teacher written feedback were correcting, revising, consulting and ignoring. In correcting, the students either simply copied teacher’s correction or did correction on their own based on the markings or symbols given. In revising, the students responded by adding some details/explanations, deleting words/phrases, restructur ing sentences and substituting words/phrases. Students also had consultations with teachers, peers and books whenever they did not understand the feedback given. The last response was no response or ignorance in which students ignored the written feedback and did not make changes to the problematic parts.

Related to the findings of this study, there are some suggestions for teachers, students and future researchers. The teachers should : (1) provid e more feedback on content than on form, (2) give clearer written feedback with legible handwriting, and (3) promote discussions on response and encourage students to read and ask question about the feedback. The students should : (1) practice to write compositions to produce better quality of writing, (2) make use of teacher written feedback and implement various strategies to respond it, and (3) enhance the strategies in responding teacher written feedback. As this study had some weaknesses, future researchers are recommended to: (1) conduct similar research with an interview with the teacher for verification and (2) investigate the relationship of the students’ response with their writing improvement.

xiv

ABSTRAK

Wulandari, Maria Agustina Sri. 2007. Students’ Responses to the Teacher Written Feedback on their Compositions. Yogyakarta: English Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.

Pemberian umpan balik yang efektif terhadap karangan siswa sangatlah penting. Hal ini dapat membantu siswa untuk memastikan bahwa apa yang mereka tulis mengandung pesan yang sama seperti yang ingin disampaikan dan untuk menghasilkan karangan dengan sedikit kesalahan dan kejelasan yang maksimal. Akan tetapi, kadang para siswa tidak memanfaatkan umpan balik secara optimal dikarenakan mereka tidak mengerti apa yang harus dilakukan terhadap umpan balik tersebut sehingga pada akhirnya siswa menanggapi umpan balik dengan menyalin semua pembetulan atau menghapus kata/kalimat yang mengandung kesalahan. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui tanggapan siswa terhadap umpan balik tertulis guru melalui dua masalah penelitian yaitu: apa saja kategori-kategori dari umpan balik tertulis guru? dan apa tanggapan siswa terhadap umpan balik tertulis tersebut?

Penelitian ini dilaksanakan menggunakan metode deskriptif qualitatif. Partisipan penelitian meliputi empat siswa semester delapan Program Studi Sastra Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma, tahun ajaran 2005/2006 yang mengikuti kelas

Thesis Writing. Data-data diperoleh dari skripsi siswa dari bab satu sampai bab tiga. Karangan tersebut terdiri dari delapan karangan yang terbagi menjadi empat

draft skripsi yang telah mendapat umpan balik dari guru dan empat revisi. Ada dua instrumen yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini yaitu checklist dan wawancara.

Dari hasil analisa untuk permasalahan penelitian yang pertama ditemukan bahwa kategori umpan balik tertulis yang diberikan oleh guru yaitu pada penggunaan bahasa, mechanics, organisasi, isi, format, sumber referensi, kosa kata dan kejelasan. Hasil ini menunjukkan bahwa kebanyakan umpan balik dari guru diberikan di form, sementara bagian isi yang merupakan komponen utama dalam sebuah karangan yang baik hanya mendapatkan sedikit umpan balik. Pada permasalahan yang kedua ditemukan bahwa tanggapan yang diberikan siswa terhadap umpan balik dari guru adalah membetulkan, merubah, bertanya, dan mengabaikan. Dalam membetulkan, para siswa langsung menyalin pembetulan dari guru atau berusaha membetulkan sendiri kesalahan menurut tanda atau simbol yang diberikan guru. Sementara, dalam merubah, para siswa mena mbahkan perincian/penjelasan, menghilangkan kata/frase, menyusun ulang kalimat dan mengganti kata/frase. Siswa juga bertanya pada guru dan teman serta membaca buku yang relevan saat mereka tidak mengerti arti dari umpan balik yang telah diberikan. Tanggapan yang terakhir adalah tidak adanya tanggapan atau pengabaian dimana siswa mengabaikan umpan balik tertulis dan tidak membuat perubahan terhadap bagian bermasalah yang telah diberi umpan balik.

Berkaitan dengan hasil- hasil dalam penelitian ini, beberapa saran diberikan bagi guru, siswa dan peneliti berikutnya. Para guru diharapkan untuk (1) memberikan lebih banyak umpan balik di bagian isi daripada di form, (2) memberikan umpan balik tertulis yang lebih jelas denga n tulisan tanga n yang dapat terbaca, dan (3) mengadakan diskusi mengenai tanggapan serta mendorong siswa untuk membaca dan bertanya mengenai umpan balik. Para siswa diharapkan untuk: (1) berlatih menulis guna menghasilkan karangan yang lebih berkualitas, (2) menggunakan umpan balik dari guru dan menerapkan berbagai strategi guna menanggapi umpan balik, dan (3) meningkatkan strategi dalam menangggapi umpan balik dari guru. Karena penelitian ini memiliki kelemahan, peneliti-peneliti berikutnya disarankan untuk: (1) mengadakan penelitian serupa dengan mewawacarai guru agar hasil yang didapat lebih mendalam, dan (2) meneliti hubungan antara tanggapan siswa dengan peningkatan kualitas karangan siswa.

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

This study is about the students’ responses to the teacher written feedback on their composition. In brief, chapter one is divided into seven main parts, namely research background, problem identification, problem limitation, problem formulation, research objectives, research benefits, and definition of terms.

1.1Research Background

The use of English language in the writing activity is still a problem for most Indonesian students, as well as many other students who learn English as a foreign language. Students may find difficulties in writing in a good and right form of English. The difficulties do not only concern on finding the right words and using the correct grammar but also on finding and expressing ideas in English (Raimes, 1993: 13). As stated by Hughey, Wormuth, Hartfiel and Jacobs (1983: 5) that many ESL/EFL students are thinking in their first language and translating sentence by sentence when they write in English rather than translating ideas from first to second language, Indonesian students often think and organize their ideas according to the logic of their first language, that is Bahasa Indonesia, then

translate them into English. For this reason, students’ compositions may be far from English compositions since students do not think as English native speaker when they write so that it often occurs that in a composition made by an Indonesian student, the tenses are in English but the sense or logic is Indonesian.

Related to those difficulties, many students often feel frustrated as they learn to write a composition in English (Hughey et al., 1983: 5; Richards, 1992: 100). They are not confident enough to express their ideas in the written form. They are also lacking in knowledge on how to make a good composition, especially in terms of grammar accuracy, organization of ideas, and even probably, diction. Students feel afraid to make mistakes whether in organization or grammar while writing the composition and feel embarrassed if their mistakes may lead to the confusion of their readers.

Since students often do not feel confident enough to write, it is important for the teacher to give various writing task for students to be accustomed to writing practice and enjoy practicing to write a composition and finally to improve students’ ability in writing skill. Moreover, regarding to students’ lack of knowledge on how to make a good composition, it is necessary for the teacher to provide feedback when their students write a composition to ensure the students that what they write conveys their intended messages that it has achieved the characteristic of a good writing.

As stated by Muncie (2000: 52), feedback is vital to writing. It is important for the teachers to provide feedback in the process of writing to help the students improve their writing proficiency so that they are able to produce their composition with minimum errors and maximum clarity.

Feedback can be provided by peers, teachers or computers (Hyland, 2002: 230). Although peer feedback has been applied in some writing courses, many students still prefer to get feedback from their teacher. They consider feedback from peers cannot be optimal because basically their peers have more or less the

same English level with them (Rollinson, 2005: 23). On the contrary, feedback from teacher is considered to be more reliable since the teacher is more knowledgeable than the students about the linguistic and rhetorical features of English (Muncie, 2000: 50-51). Consequently, in many writing courses, teachers are in charge of correcting and improving students’ English writing competence by giving some notes or suggestions on the students’ writing.

Though teachers have provided feedback on students’ writing, students may not utilize it optimally because sometimes they do not know what to do with the feedback (Leki, 1990 in Williams, 2003). It can happen because students may not understand the grammatical rules and terms that the teacher used as cues. Moreover, they may not have adequate knowledge for error correction and they may be confused with the large number of correction codes on their writings (Chiang, 2004: 107). As the consequence, students often respond to feedback in simply copying all the teachers’ corrections and suggestions or deleting some sentences which contain errors in their revision.

This situation also occurs in writing a thesis. A final report or a thesis is important as a partial fulfillment to graduate from the university. A good formal writing should be produced in order to obtain a qualified thesis. Though, students who write a thesis are those whose in the last semester who are considered to have high competence in writing skills, they still need guidance from their teacher as the thesis advisor in conducting the research. Students need feedback to ensure that their thesis are reliable and understandable as, later on, they will defend it orally. However, sometimes students may not know what they should do with the

feedback provided by their thesis advisor so that they only copy the corrections or delete the error words. In regard to this situation, it is interesting to observe the responses of students related to the written feedback given by their teacher. The research entitled Students’ Responses t o Teacher Written Feedback on their Compositions was intended to observe the responses of the students after they get written feedback from their teacher.

1.2Problem Formulation

Based on the brief explanation in the previous parts, the problems are formulated as the followings:

1. What are the categories of written feedback that is given by the teacher to the students’ compositions?

2. What are the students’ responses to the teacher written feedback?

1.3Problem Limitation

The research on the students’ responses to the teacher written feedback is limited in scope. First, the research focuses on the written feedback that is given by teacher on students’ compositions. Second, it only concerns with the responses that students give to the written feedback from their teacher.

1.4Research Objectives

Related to the research questions stated above, there are two objectives in this research.

1. To find out the categories of written feedback that is given by the teacher to the students’ compositions.

2. To find out the responses given by students toward teacher written feedback.

1.5Research Benefits

Hopefully, the findings of this research can help to give positive contribution in improving teaching method and strategy of writing teachers, especially in providing effective written feedback on students’ writings so that they are encouraged to develop the ir writing skills.

For the students, it is hoped that by knowing the results of this study, they will be able to improve their writings and writing skills by implementing various strategies in responding the teacher written feedback. Finally, the results of this study can stimulate the other researchers who are interested in the topic and give contribution as references in the in-depth study of feedback for further researchers.

1.6Definition of Terms

In this research, some terms are important to be defined in order to avoid misinterpretation. Those terms are as follows:

1. Student’s Response

Response, according to Power (in Dunkin, 1987: 413), is any verbal or non-verbal act designed to fulfill the expectations implicit in the questions, commands or requests of others. In this study, student’s

response refers to any verbal or non-verbal act done by a student to fulfill the expectations implicit in the teacher written feedback.

2. Teacher Written Feedback

Sherman (1995: 58) defines feedback as the comments and reactions of the reader(s) and teacher on the student’s composition. Moreover, according to Hyland (2002: 230), feedback is the response given to students writing which can be provided by peers, teachers or computers on either an oral or written form. In this research, teacher written feedback is any comments, responses or reactions provided by the teacher to the students’ compositions in written form. The teacher that is meant here is thesis advisor who guided students in conducting a thesis study.

3. Composition

Composition is defined as a short piece of written work (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 1995: 234). It is an outstanding way of communicating personal thoughts, perceptions, experiences, knowledge, feelings and ideas which the writer wants to say (Sherman, 1995: 12). The composition being analyzed in this study was an undergraduate thesis written by eight semester students of English Letters Department of Sanata Dharma University.

7 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter consists of three parts, namely the theoretical description, the review of existing research and the theoretical framework. The theoretical description concerns with the theories that underline the topic of the research, namely theory of writing and theory of feedback. The review of existing research reviews some researches related to feedback which were conducted previously. Then, the implementation of the theories in this study is discussed in the theoretical framework.

2.1 Theoretical Description

This part consists of an explanation about two theories, which underlie this study. The first theory is theory of writing and the second one is theory of feedback.

2.1.1 Theory of Writing

This study deals with writing, therefore, it is necessary to reveal some relevant theories of writing. The theories elaborated in this part are writing and writing product versus writing process approach.

2.1.1.1 Writing

Writing is known as a means of communication. Through writing, people can communicate their ideas and messages to other people in the real world. They can also exchange information and transfer knowledge one to another. In other

words, writing is a way of thinking, learning and sharing ideas with others (Zimmerman and Rodrigues, 1992: 4). Moreover, people can explore and express themselves (Sherman, 1995: 12). People can explore their individual potentials and express their ideas and/or ways of thinking in their writings.

In ESL/EFL context, writing becomes one of the skills which has to be mastered besides speaking, listening and reading. A good writing skill is important in this academic context as it helps students to achieve academic success in which their writings are used as evidence of learning such as in essays and assignments or as a means of learning like in notes and summaries (Richards, 1992: 100). In addition, the students’ competence of English proficiency may also be activated through the process of writing since this skill needs other basic skills like good grammatical accuracy, extended vocabulary acquisition, logical way of thinking or paragraph organization and critical point of view on certain topics (Kuswandono, 2003).

In relation with its significance, the ESL/EFL students are expected to have a good writing skill. They are expected to be able to compose a good written work which has appropriate content, organization, sentence structures and word choice for its audience and purpose (Zimmerman and Rodrigues, 1992: 9). In order to help students to develop their writing ability, it is necessary for the teacher to engage students in the process of writing which emphasizes in the production of series of draft involving the process of pre-writing, writing, revising and rewriting (Dixon and Nessel, 1983: 84) and of making use of various feedback sources as they write (Hyland, 2002: 89).

2.1.1.2 Writing Product ve rsus Writing Process Approaches

One of the most controversial aspects of writing pedagogy has been the tension between product and process approaches to the teaching of writing (Nunan, 1999: 273). The discussion of the writing product approach has always interrelated to the discussion of the writing process approach which emerges as the criticism to the first approach.

Nunan (1999: 273) states that the writing product approach focuses on the final product, the coherent and error- free text. Similarly, Richards (1992: 106) defines the writing product approach as a writing approach which puts emphasis on the ability to produce correct texts. Supporting these two statements, Cohen (1990: 103) argues that product approach focuses on the finished product, which is sometimes not finished, and on the grade. In other words, this approach puts emphasis on the quality of the writing task without noticing the steps taken by students in achieving the expected final draft.

The writing product approach often begins with a controlled writing exercise in which the learners imitate or adapt, copy and transform various models of written texts provided by the teacher and/or the textbook (Nunan, 1999: 272). The writing product approach expects the students to make a coherent and error-free text by following the model provided. The goal is to teach the students to master different kinds of written texts that they will have in educational, institutional and personal context. This approach also lets the teachers evaluate how the students’ compose their writing based on the models given. In evaluating, the teacher usually has a set of criteria including content, organization of idea,

vocabulary and grammatical use, also mechanical considerations like spelling and punctuation (Brown, 2001: 335).

The drawback of the writing product approach in the learning process is that this approach will discourage the students to do their writing assignments seriously since the focus of the writing product approach on the instant product and the grade (Cohen, 1990: 105). The students will only consider the grade that they received and ignore the composing processes they go through.

In contrast to the writing product approach, the writing process approach is seen as more effective than the writing product approach since it allows the students to explore and develop a personal approach to writing (Richards, 1992: 114). The writing process approach puts emphasis on a process in which the finished products came after a series of drafts (Cohen, 1990: 105). This statement is supported by Nunan (1999: 272) who states that the focus of process approach is on the steps involved in drafting and redrafting the piece of written work. In other words, the writing process approach is an approach which emphasizes on giving the students opportunities to shape their writing skills through a set of steps. This approach does not focus on the final product that the students performed, but it considers how the students reach their final output as the most important aspect.

The students are encouraged to put their ideas onto paper without worrying too much about formal correctness (e.g. grammar or mechanics) in the initial stages. Then, they share their work with others, getting feedback on their ideas and how they are expressed, before revising (Nunan, 1999: 272). Thus, it can be said that writing process is a process that can lead the students to make a good written final product which needs a good cooperation between teacher and students in

which teacher provide feedback needed by students. This statement is also supported by Shih in Brown (2001: 335) that teachers should give students feedback throughout the composing process as they try to make the closest intended writing. The kinds of feedback that the students can receive concerning their written work and what to do about this feedback and how to utilize it most effectively are the concern of this approach. Feedback is important in writing class because it can help the students investigate if their message can be conveyed as it is expected.

By following the steps of the writing process previously, the writing process is believed to bring great advantages to the students in learning writing. The first benefit is that by having the writing process the students will have more opportunity for meaningful writing and become independent learners (Richards, 1992: 110). The second benefit is proposed by Brown (2001: 335-336) who stated that writing process gives chances for the students to be more creative in using language but they still focus on content and message. In this process the students have more opportunity to think when they write.

However, every writing process activity should lead to the final product (Shih as cited in Brown 2001: 335). As stated by Brown (2001: 337) that the product is the ultimate goal which becomes the reason that students go through the process of pre-writing, drafting, revising and editing. If the aim of the writing class is to develop fluent writers; it is necessary to examine how fluent the student-writers compose and to re-examine the writing methodology. To sum up, both the teacher and students should realize that the process they go through will end up at the final product. Process is not the end; it is the means toward the end.

2.1.2 Theory of Feedback

Since this study focuses on feedback in writing, this part explained some relevant theories of feedback which became references in conducting this study. The theories elaborated in this part are the definition of feedback in writing, the purposes of feedback, the roles of feedback, the sources of feedback, the forms of feedback, the focus of feedback and responses to feedback.

2.1.2.1Definition of Feedback in Writing

There are many definitions of feedback introduced by many proponents and some ideas of those definitions will be quoted here.

Feedback can be defined as any input from reader to writer that provides information for revis ion (Keh, 1990, cited in Reid, 1993: 218). In addition, Hyland (2002: 230) defines feedback as the response that is given to students writing. It can refer to either oral or written forms provided by peers, teachers or computers. Furthermore, according to Penaflorida (2002: 346) feedback or response is an integral part of students writing. By providing feedback, students are given an opportunity to be able to identify their own strengths and weaknesses. This may encourage them to improve their writing skill and become more effective writers. Supporting this statement, Williams (2003) states that the purpose of feedback is to teach skills that help students improve their writing proficiency so that they will be able to produce a composition which is minimal in errors and maximum in clarity.

From those definitions mentioned above, it can be concluded that feedback is an essential aspect of students writing in which students getting response from classmates and/or teachers on their written work so that they become aware of their

strengths and weaknesses in writing and at the end it can encourage them to improve their writing ability.

2.1.2.2 Purposes of Feedback

According to Lewis (2002: 3-4), feedback has several purposes when given in the language classes. First, feedback provides information both for teachers and students. Through feedback, teachers can get information about individual as well as collective class progress. It can also be used as a form of evaluation on the way of their teaching. While for the students, feedback is considered as a continuing type of assessment which is more focused than grades because it gives information about individual progress by highlighting students’ strengths and weaknesses, unlike grades which tend to compare one student with another.

The second is to give students advice in learning. Teacher can give students more than simply descriptions of language use through feedback. The feedback may also provide direct information about language by stating a rule or giving an example.

Providing students with language input is the third purpose of feedback. The teacher’s words, both in their form and purpose, describe how language is used in personal communication so that it is important for the teachers to write comments in a slightly higher level of language than the students have to extend students’ language use since students can learn new vocabulary and structures in context.

Fourth, feedback can be a form of motivation. It can encourage students to learn and use language as best as they can by considering whatever the teachers know about their attitude. As the teachers find out more about their students, the encouragement may take the student’s personal circumstances into considerations.

The last purpose is to lead students toward autonomy. Feedback can help students to learn to find their own mistakes. By learning to find their own mistakes, students are encouraged to be independent students.

2.1.2.3 Roles of Feedback

Feedback is central in learning to write in a second language (Hyland, 2003: 201) and its role cannot be underestimated. It offers an additional framework to improve writing skills, promote accuracy and clear ideas and develop an understanding of written genres. Through feedback, students are able to identify the strengths and weaknesses of their compositions, understand the reason of those weaknesses and discuss possible improvement relating to the weaknesses. It also provides students with a sense of being readers which give them an outside view of the text so that they are cognizant of the readers’ needs.

However, feedback can only be effective if the students are encouraged and able to utilize it to improve their writing. In order to written feedback results in a positive effect, Cohen (1990: 111) presents four conditions which are needed. Written feedback works when:

1. Students have sufficient knowledge about the area of comments/corrections.

The feedback would be useful if the students have knowledge needed to understand a correction or receive an explanation that provides the missing knowledge.

2. The feedback is in an area that the students consider important for their immediate or long-term knowledge.

The students would take more benefit of feedback that concerned about the elements, in examples specific vocabulary, style or complex syntactic structures which they tend to be used frequently.

3. The feedback is clear.

The feedback would be more understandable if the students can decipher the handwriting of the teacher or understand the comments and/or symbols that the teacher likely to use.

4. The students have strategies in dealing with the feedback

The feedback would be work well if students provide themselves with systematic strategies for handling feedback. For example, if feedback is not clear, good learners may determine what is not clear and check with the teacher or a classmate to get clarification.

2.1.2.4 Sources of Feedback

Providing feedback to students writing, if administered properly, may make writing attracting and challenging for students. These are 3 sources of feedback that can be utilized in the classroom:

1. Self Feedback

In self feedback, the students can correct and evaluate their own work. It is a step toward learner autonomy because by giving students chance to analyze their own work and practice self feedback may encourage them to be self-sufficient and independent students (Penaflorida, 2002: 351).

2. Peer Feedback

Liu and Hansen (2005: 31) define peer feedback as the use of learners or peers as sources of information and interactants for each others in such a way that learners themselves take roles or responsibilities which are normally taken and done by teachers or trained tutors in commenting or criticizing their own writings or drafts in the process of writing. It shows that readership of students writing does not belong to the teachers exclusively since students are allowed to share their written works with each other (Penaflorida, 2002: 351).

3. Teacher Feedback

Teacher has been the main source of feedback both on oral and written language in many classes (Lewis, 2002: 15). This situation also occurs in writing class in which teachers reading and marking students’ papers, offering revision, suggestions and feedback on language errors (Gebhard, 1996: 238).

According to Berzsenyi (2001), teachers can give feedback in form of questions to ask for clarification or suggest expansion. Besides, teachers may give remarks which reveal their understanding toward students’

composition, identify mechanical problem in a specific sentence and/or give praise when the students working well in their writing. These can be done to ensure the students that their written works are in line with the message they want to convey.

2.1.2.5 Forms of Feedback

In the book Language Learning: Insight for Learners, Teachers and

Researchers, Cohen (1990: 109) divided feedback from the teacher into two types,

namely:

1. Oral Feedback

Oral feedback, also known as oral conferences, refers to personal consultation between teacher and student during the evaluation of a composition. This interactive session is expected to help in solving problems that cannot be handled by written feedback alone. The major problem that occurs in conducting this type of feedback is that teachers need to have sufficient time.

2. Written Feedback

In written feedback, comments, corrections and/or marks are given on students’ written work draft. The marks may be on words or quick symbols such as underlining or other signs.

2.1.2.6 Focus of Feedback

The focus of feedback falls into two categories: form and content, and teacher written feedback can include both of them. Feedback on form, according to

Fathman and Whalley (1990 in Chiang, 2004: 99), concerns with grammar and mechanics errors. There are several common strategies used by teacher in providing this kind of feedback. They are teacher’s correction of surface errors in which students required to copy all the corrections, teacher’s marking that indicate the place and type of error but without correction, teacher’s underlining to indicate only the presence of errors. The two latter methods require students to correct the errors on their own (Williams, 2003).

In contrast, feedback which involves comments on organization, ideas and amount of detail is called content feedback. In feedback on content, teacher usually points out problems and offers suggestions for improvements on future revision. Using this feedback, the students are expected to incorporate information from the comments into other versions of the ir writings (Williams, 2003).

2.1.2.7 Response to Feedback

According to Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (1995: 1000),

response is an action or feeling produced in answer to something. Another definition is given by Power who defines response as any verbal or non-verbal act designed to fulfill the expectations implicit in the questions, commands or requests of others (Dunkin, 1987: 413). From the definition above, it can be deduced that response to written feedback can be defined as any verbal or non verbal act produced in answer to the written feedback.

Some researchers like Cohen (1987) and Hyland (1998) had conducted researches on students’ responses on feedback. The findings of the researches showed that students have some strategies when teacher provided written feedback

to their compositions. In Hyland’s study The Impact of Teacher Written Feedback on Individual Writers students tried to combine most of the usable teacher feedback in their revision when they were provided written feedback in their writing. In revising the draft, usually, students followed the suggestions offered by teacher or deleted words with errors. Students’ revisions can also be an initial stimulus that encouraged changes in their writing beyond the point addressed by teacher.

Chiang (2004) also states that most students have different strategies in responding their teachers’ feedback. The most common strategies included making corrections and remembering the mistakes. They also asked their classmates and teacher when they did not understand teacher feedback, checked dictionaries and checked grammar books. Furthermore, in his study Student Processing of Feedback on their Composition, Cohen (1987) found that learners have limited strategies of processing teacher feedback. In this study, the learners made a mental note of the teacher’s comments as opposed to writing down points for future revision, referring to other papers, and especially, revising their paper with the incorporation of teacher comments.

In addition, Berzsenyi (2001) reports several types of students’ responses when given feedback. They were revising words or sentences which were presented with an explanation or the student’s agreement toward the teacher’s suggestion or interpretation of the text, discussing writing strategies which responds to teacher’s praise and making revision that were not initiated by the teacher. From the explanation above, it can be concluded that students have various strategies in responding written feedback provided by their teacher. The most common practices

are making correction and revision, adding missing details and explanations, deleting irrelevant words/phrases, discussing or conferencing with teacher and classmates also checking the books or dictionaries.

2.2 Review of Existing Researches

There must have been many researches about teacher written feedback. In this part, there are two studies will be reviewed.

The first research was Students’ Perceptions toward Teacher Written Feedback on their Compositions: A Case Study by Christina Dyah Kurniyati (2006). This research was a case study. It was investigated the types of and the students’ perceptions toward teacher written feedback. Two instruments, questionnaire and interview, were used in this study.

The findings showed that teacher gave more feedback on surface le vel, especially grammar. It was also found that students have good perceptions toward their teacher written feedback in which they assumed that teacher written feedback was clear, objective, helpful, encouraging and proportional. Based on the result, Kurniyati gave suggestions for teachers to give clearer written feedback which focus more on content level than on surface level. While for the students, Kurniyati suggested them to make use the teacher written feedback and incorporate other sources.

The second research was conducted by Fiona Hyland (1998), cited in Hyland (2002: 195-199) entitled The Impact of Teacher Written Feedback on Individual Writers. In this research, six ESL writer’s reaction to and uses of Teacher Written Feedback in two courses at a New Zealand University was

investigated. Hyland catalogued and analyzed all teacher written feedback and students’ revisions to figure out the relationship between feedback and revision. To validate the analysis, interviews, questionnaires and observations were used.

The research found out that students incorporated most of the usable teacher feedback in their revision based on their needs, past learning experiences and writing approach. Students’ revisions usually followed teachers’ suggestions, acted as an initial stimulus of a number of revisions or prompted deletions. This study also showed communication breakdowns because of basic differences in the value that teachers and students placed on written feedback. Thus, Hyland suggested for an open dialogue concerning the kinds of feedback that students want and what teachers will give.

This current research has a similar topic to the two researches composed by Kurniyati and Hyland which concerns about the teacher written feedback. However, this current research also has difference with the former studies. While, Kurniyati and Hyland’s studies discuss on the students’ perceptions toward teacher written feedback and the impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers, this study will discuss on the responses of students toward the teacher written feedback.

2.3 Theoretical Framework

The process of writing puts emphasis on pre-writing work to generate ideas and the writing of series of drafts to revise and extend those ideas. Feedback is essential in the writing process as it helps students to improve their drafts in order to end up with a final draft which is better than those previous drafts. However,

students often do not know how to use feedback productively to improve their skills as writers. This research, therefore, concerns on the response given by students toward teacher written feedback.

Some experts’ points of view are used as the references to answer the research problems. Those points of views play some significant roles in exploring, identifying and analyzing the teacher written feedback and students’ responses.

Theory of feedback, especially focus of feedback proposed by Fathman and Whalley (1990) and Williams (2003) helps to identify the category of written feedback given by teacher. The written feedback may fall into two categories; form and content. Feedback on form concerns with grammar and mechanics errors while feedback on content concerns with organization, ideas and amount of detail. Furthermore, theory of student’s response proposed by Cohen (1987), Hyland (1998), Chiang (2004) and Berzsenyi (2001) helps to reveal the responses of students toward teacher written feedback. Students may have various strategies in responding teacher written feedback such as making correction and revision, adding missing details and explanations, deleting irrelevant words/phrases, discussing or conferencing with teacher and classmates also checking the books or dictionaries.

To obtain the detailed information of the written feedback provided by teacher, a checklist which contains feedback categorization is used as the main instrument. Yet, in order to obtain the detail information of students’ responses, first draft and revised composition are compared then students’ responses are listed. An interview with students is conducted to verify the analysis on the students’ responses toward teacher written feedback.

23 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the methodology employed in this study in order to answer the research problems. It covers the description of the kinds of methods used in the research, the research subjects, the research setting, the research instruments, the data source, the data collection, the data analysis, and the research procedures.

3.1 Research Methodology

The method employed in this study was descriptive research. Ary, Jacobs and Razavieh (1990: 381) state that descriptive research studies are designed to obtain information concerning the current status of phenomena. The phenomenon investigated in this research was the responses of students toward written feedback given by their teacher.

This research was typically qualitative research since its primary purpose was description (Sprinthall, Schmutte and Sirois, 1991: 98). Fraenkel and Wallen (1993: 386) state that qualitative research produces descriptive data from the actual words or actions of people. As a result, the data in this research would be in the form of verbal statements, not numerical/statistical one.

This research also employed document analysis method in order to obtain the data. According to Fraenkel and Wallen (1993: 386), document analysis involves an analysis of the written or visual contents of a document. A document is a piece of writing belonging or pertaining to the setting (Holliday, 2002: 72). The

document being analyzed in this study was the first to third chapter of students’ undergraduate thesis.

3.2 Research Participants

The subjects of this study were four students of semester eight of the English Letters Study Program, Sanata Dharma University in the academic year 2005/2006 who were taking thesis writing course. Those four participants came from two different classes in which their thesis has the same field that is linguistics.

The eight semester students were chosen as the participants because they were considered to have higher competence in writing skills compared to the lower semester students. Moreover, they were in the process of finishing their thesis which means that feedback is crucial for them to ensure that their thesis were reliable and understandable since, later on, they would defend it orally in order to graduate from their department.

3.3 Research Setting

This research was conducted at the English Letters Study Program of Sanata Dharma University which is located at Mrican, Yogyakarta.

The research was conducted at the English Letters Study Program of Sanata Dharma University because it has good reputation in teaching English. In 2006, it obtained “A” accreditation from National Accreditation Board (Badan Akreditasi

Nasional). Moreover, students of English Letters conducted their undergraduate

thesis under the advice of one lecturer. Guided by one lecturer only, the students could fully concentrate on writing their thesis since they would get feedback from

one lecturer only. This also might prevent students from confusion which might occur if they have two lecturers as their advisor.

3.4 Research Instruments

In order to gather data for this research, two instruments, checklist and interview were used. The checklist was used to gather the data in document analysis to answer the first problem, whereas the interview was used to validate the results of the second problem.

3.4.1 Checklist

In this research, a checklist was used as the instrument to answer the first problem which is what the categories of written feedback provided by teacher are. According to Hopkins (1976: 271), checklist is an aid to direct observation which lists items to be given attention. Check marks indicate presence, absence or frequency of occurrence for each item. In this study, the checklist contains some categories aimed to analyze the teacher written feedback.

The categories of the checklist were adapted from the ESL composition profile proposed by Hughey et al. (1983: 141-145). The profile form contained five important elements to compose a connected, coherent, and effective piece of writing. Five important elements meant here were content, organization, vocabulary, language use and mechanic s. Then, one category which was reference to source was added to complete the checklist. These six elements became the basis to analyze the written feedback given by teacher. If it might be found some categories of feedback that could not be included into six categories mentioned previously, they could be put on others category which, later on, was also analyzed.

Thus, the checklist would be:

3.1 The Table Checklist of Teacher Written Feedback

No Categories Total Percentage

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Content Organization Vocabulary Language Use Mechanics

Reference to Source Others

3.4.2 Interview

This research also employed interview as the instrument to gather data from the students. Interview or careful asking of relevant questions is an important way for a researcher to check the accuracy of or to verify the impressions of the researcher has gained through observation (Fraenkel and Wallen, 1993: 385).

In this study, an interview with the students was conducted in order to gather further information to validate the analysis on the second problem which is the response of students toward teacher feedback. There was no interview conducted with the teacher which was used to verify the analysis on teacher feedback. The interview was only used to provide a detailed description about students’ reactions to teacher written feedback.

There were six points of the questions delivered to the interviewees, i.e. (1) understanding toward feedback, (2) students’ feeling, (3) problem appearing in responding the feedback, (4) function of feedback, (5) students’ responses and (6) reason why they respond in such a way. The questions were flexible, meaning that if necessary the interviewer might elaborate or omit the questions. The questions

were delivered spontaneously as far as they could help the researcher to validate the information about the students’ responses to teacher’s feedback.

3.5 Data Sources

This research used the students and their compositions as the main sources of data. The compositions were taken from the undergraduate thesis compositions of the students of English Letter Study Program, Sanata Dharma University. There were two kinds of compositions used, which were the first draft of compositions on which teacher had given written feedback and the revision of the first draft. The compositions were used to answer the research questions. They were analyzed to figure out the categories of the teacher written feedback and the students’ responses to the feedback. Meanwhile, the students were interviewed to validate the analysis on the students’ responses.

3.6 Data Collection

The data used in this research were collected from the undergraduate thesis composition of the eight semester students of English Letter Study Program, Sanata Dharma University academic year 2005/2006. In total, there were eight pieces of writing collected from the students. They were four compositions with teacher written feedback on it and four compositions of the revision.

First of all, the first draft compositions were collected from the partipants. These compositions had teacher written feedback on it. The categories of teacher written feedback were analyzed from these compositions using a checklist.

Afterwards, the second compositions which are the revision of the first composition were collected. By comparing the changes on first composition and the revised composition, the responses of students to teacher written feedback could be found out. Their efforts to revise the composition, which is based on the feedback given, were analyzed.

Next, an interview was conducted to verify the analysis on students’ responses. Some questions related to the responses of participants after they got feedback were asked. The interview was conducted at different time and places adjusted to the interviewee’s situation and condition. The interview was recorded in order to make the result easier to be transcribed.

The data gathered from document analysis and the interview, then, were transcribed as accurately as possible to answer the research problems.

3.7 Data Analysis

In addressing the analysis of the gathered data, some stages of data analysis were used. Firstly, related to the first problem which was what the categories of written feedback that is given by teacher on students’ compositions are, the draft composition would be read carefully. The teacher feedback was categorized using a checklist. To provide scientific reference on the frequency of the categories presence in the students’ writing, the results of checklist were counted and transformed in the percentage data.

Secondly, this research intended to find out the students’ responses toward teacher feedback. The draft and revised compositions would be carefully reread,

then, the responses were analyzed by comparing the changes between the draft composition and the revision. Next, the students’ responses, which were what they had done to revise their compositions, were listed.

The last stage, to validate the analysis on student reaction, interviews with participants were conducted and recorded. What has been said by interviewees were jotted down and analyzed. Then, the interview results were analyzed by repeatedly reading the interview transcripts.

Afterwards, the interview transcript and the results of document analysis were tried to compare so that deep understanding of the responses of students could be obtained. Finally, some conclusions were drawn and the students’ responses to the teacher written feedback were categorized.

Feedback _{Feedback and Students’} COMPOSITIONS Responses

The categories of teacher written

feedback Classification of the

teacher written feedback Identification of the

teacher written feedback

The responses of students toward teacher

written feedback List of the students’

responses

Interview on the students’ responses Identification of the

students’ responses Student’s composition

with teacher written

feedback on it Student’s composition _{with teacher written} feedback on it

Revised composition

CONCLUSIONS Figure 3.1 Flow Chart of Research Procedures

Checking using checklist

Co m-paring

31 CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS RESULTS

This chapter presents the results which answer the question previously formulated in the problem formulation. The first question concerns with written feedback provided by teacher on students’ composition. The second question concerns with students’ responses toward teacher written feedback. The results are presented in the following order: (1) teacher written feedback, and (2) students’ responses.

4.1 Teacher Written Feedback

The data were gathered from the first composition which was the students’ undergraduate thesis draft with teacher feedback on it. The composition consisted of four pieces of writing. The data presented here were teacher written feedback that was given to eight semester students of English Letters Departme nt of Sanata Dharma University.

After all teacher written feedbacks on students’ compositions were gathered and classified into seven categories in the feedback checklist, the percentages of each category of feedback were calculated. Thus, the results were presented in the table 4.1 below:

Table 4.1 The Table Checklist of Teacher Written Feedback Percentage

No Feedback Categories Total Percentage

1 Language Use 62 38.51%

2 Mechanics 38 23.60%

3 Organization 17 10.56%

4 Content 15 9.32%

5 Format 10 6.21%

6 Reference to Source 8 4.97%

7 Vocabulary 7 4.35%

8 Clarity 4 2.48%

Considering the results above, it could be seen that the feedback on language use was 38.51% and the feedback on mechanics was 23.60%. It meant that the feedback given by teacher on students’ compositions was mostly on the form area. It is also revealed that the feedback on organization was 10.56% and the feedback on content was 9.32%. These results implied that the teacher had few attentions in the content area of the compositions whereas it was the main aspect that needs to be considered in writing since the content and flow of ideas become necessary components to form a good composition.

Lastly, the results showed that the feedback on format was 6.21%, the feedback on reference of source was 4.97%, the feedback on vocabulary was 4.35% and the feedback on clarity was 2.48%. In order to give specific information concerning the teacher written feedback provided to the students’ composition, each feedback was discussed in each following section. It included discussions from the feedback on language use to the feedback on clarity.

4.1.1 Language Use

Language use concerns with the linguistic components used for effective delivery of discourse in writing, like grammar and effective complex constructions of sentences (Hughey et al., 1983: 141). This research figured out that teacher gave written feedback most on language use including the use of articles, tenses, plural marker, language objectivity, pronouns and sentence construction.

4.1.1.1 Articles

Articles “a”, “an” and “the” are used to indicate singular noun. In this study, it was figured that students paid little attention to the use of articles. The students did not put any articles to indicate a singular noun and teacher gave feedback on it. Consider these examples:

Example 1

The sentence in the example above was incomplete. The word “noun”, “verb”, ”adjective” and “certain prefix” in that sentence were a singular noun, therefore, articles “a” or “an” should be put before those words. Teacher gave corrections by putting articles in front of those words to make the sentence complete.

Example 2

The article “the” was used to refer to a particular thing. In the sentence above, the students did not put article “the” in front of the words “review of related

studies”, “review of related theories” and “theoretical framework”. Therefore, teacher gave corrections by putting article “the” before those words.

4.1.1.2 Tenses

Fountain (Bram, 1999: 55) states that the students should not change the tense from present to past or vice versa unless they have a good reason. Teacher

provided feedback on tense to ensure that students used the appropriate tense and they were consistent in using the tense. Consider these examples:

Example 1

In writing, a writer needs to be consistent in using tenses to say what he/she wants to say. In the example above, the author was not consistent in using a tense. She used both simple present tense and simple past tense within a paragraph. For that reason, teacher gave comment about her consistency in using the tense whether she wanted to use simple present tense or simple past tense.

Example 2

An undergraduate thesis is a research report. It means that writing an undergraduate thesis is writing a report of a research that had investigated. Since it is a report, the writer has to write it using simple past tense. In the example, the author used simple present tense in writing the composition. Consequently, teacher suggested the author to revise her composition into past tense.

4.1.1.3 Plural Marker

In this research, it was found that students omitted plural marker of nouns. Therefore, the teacher gave correction on the nouns by adding –s or –es in the end of the word. The examples were:

4.1.1.4 Language Objectivity

An undergraduate thesis is included as an academic writing and one of the characterizations of an academic writing is the objective structures. The author has to write the thesis in a neutral way using objective structures, such as impersonal forms and passive voice. To keep the objectivity in writing the thesis, the teacher provided feedback on it as the example:

The use of word “the writer”, in the example above, made the writing sound subjective. Therefore, the teacher suggested the author to write it in a neutral way in order to the writing be objective.

4.1.1.5 Pronouns

A pronoun is a word that substitutes for a noun, a noun phrase, or another noun (Raimes, 2002: 453). Teacher also provided feedback on the use of prono un. Consider the example:

In the sentence above, the subject personal pronoun “she” should not be used because the author has not mentioned to whom “she” refers to yet. Teacher, then, corrected it by changing “she” into “Antasari” which was the name of the person.

4.1.1.6 Sentence Constructions

The construction of sentences must follow certain well-defined rules (Warren, 1985: 335). In this study, it was found that students did not follow the rules in constructing the sentences correctly. For that reason, the teacher gave feedback on sentence constructions so that the readers are able to comprehend the information presented by the students. Consider these examples:

Example 1

In the example above, the second sentence was a subordinate clause and therefore only part of a sentence. It must be included in the full sentence. The teacher, then, corrected the sentence by changing the period into comma and changing capital letter into lowercase.

Example 2

In constructing a sentence, there must be basic agreement between the sentence elements. In the example above, the author missed to put a noun to follow the adjective word “systematic”. Therefore, the teacher asked clarification of what is systematic.

4.1.2 Mechanics

Mechanics is the technical aspects of writing including punctuation or capitalization (Sorenson, 1996: 571). In this research, it was found that teacher gave written feedback on mechanics (23.60%). Most of the feedback provided on the use of punctuation, italics and capitalization. The discussions were below:

4.1.2.1 Punctuation

Sorenson (1996: 576) defines punctuation as the use of standardized marks in writing and printing to separate sentences or parts of a sentence or to make meaning clearer. Punctuation marks are easy to use correctly if their functions are understood; however, there is an exception that is the comma. Comma is the most common mark of punctuation and the most complex uses also (McCrimmon, 1984: 656). This statement is in line with the result of this study in which all feedback given on punctuation concerned on the uses of comma. Its complex uses made students misuse it when writing their compositions. Here are the examples:

Example 1

The most important use of comma is to prevent a confusing, ambiguous or awkward reading. As the four examples above, without a comma those sentences became confusing and awkward. The teacher, then, added the comma to make those sentences clear enough for the readers.

Example 2

In the example above, semicolons were used to separate elements in series. However, semicolons were not appropriate to be used because semicolons were used to separate elements which contained comma in a series. For this reason, the teacher suggested the author to use comma instead of semicolons since comma was the appropriate punctuation to separate those elements in series in that sentence.

4.1.2.2 Italics

The use of italics is to indicate that a word or a word group has a special meaning or significance. Since the compositions which were analyzed dealt with linguistics topic which used words as the source of data, italics were needed to call the attention to the words being named.

In the following example, the students did not italicize some words that they used as data. This could confuse the readers in reading the compositions because they might not know which words that were needed to be given special attentions. Therefore, teacher suggested students to italicize the words that they wanted to be given special attentions. Teacher underlined and gave comment “miring” (italics) to those words. Consider this following example:

4.1.2.3 Capitalization

The teacher also gave feedback on the use of capitalization because students misused it on their writing. Consider these examples:

In the sentence above, the author misused the capital letter. A capital letter should be used after a period instead of a comma, therefore, the word “compound” should not be written in capital letter. The teacher circled that word to make the author be aware of her mistake so that she could correct it in her revision.

Example 2

A capital letter is used to write a proper noun. In the example above, the author did not use capital letter in writing someone’s name so that the teacher gave a correction on it.

4.1.3 Content

Warren (1985: 34) states that the content of a composition should be accurate, current and complete. It is ineffective for a composition to contain errors or omission in content (Zimmerman and Rodrigues, 1992: 171). In other words, an effective composition needs to be accurate, complete and do not have errors in the content.

Providing feedback on content to students in the process of writing is important to figure out whether the ideas conveyed in students’ compositions are in line with the topic they want to discuss. It may ensure the students that their ideas are developed and organized well and that they have included information that is not only interesting but also relevant to support their ideas.

In this study, it was figured out that teacher provided feedback on content to students’ compositions. This feedback was in forms of imperatives or questions and it often functioned as general comment of a sub heading. Consider the following examples:

Example 1

The author stated that her aim in conducting the research was to find something different related to the English prefixes. The teacher might consider the reason for the author to conduct the study was not strong enough. Therefore, the teacher underlined the word “something different” and gave comment that it was not a good reason for conducting a research. The author needed to put good, strong and scientific reasons that supported her in conducting the study.

Example 2

In the example above, the author did not put the publishing date of the newspapers she used as source of data. Therefore, the teacher asked the date when the newspapers were published. The author needed to put the dates of publishing for the accuracy of the data. It could prove that the data used in the research were exist and valid.

Other examples of feedback on content were:

• Is there any segmental process in the words you analyze? • Discuss more about mega, etc. they are problematic! • What do you mean by word class? Write something else! • Do you understand all the above? If no, drop them!

These comments, questions and imperatives were given as general comments on students’ compositions. This feedback sought for students’ understanding toward what they had previously discussed and asked for further discussion about it on their next revision.

4.1.4 Organization

Campbell (1998: 87) defines organization as the structure of paragraphs, essays and longer stretches of discourse. Good organization in writing can help the readers to follow the movement and the flow of the ideas in the composition. It was found that the teacher also provided student s with written feedback on organization. Consider this example:

In the example above, the sentences were not well-organized. The author used many unnecessary words in the sentences which made her explanation become not succinct and not to the point. For that reason, teacher reorganized the paragraph so that it could be succinct and straight to the point in order to make the readers follow the author’s ideas easier.

4.1.5 Format

Formatting refers to the physical presentation on the page (Zimmerman and Rodrigues, 1985: 85). In writing an undergradua te thesis, feedback on format is needed to ensure that students have followed the appropriate style guidelines because there are certain rules that must be followed. In this study, there were ten feedbacks on format provided to students. The examples were:

4.1.6 Reference to Source

According to Bazerman (1985: 474), reference is the art of mentioning other writers’ words, ideas or information using your own words. It is important to

show that the composition is built on the solid foundation of respected earlier work so that readers can be convinced about the validity of the ideas (ibid: 475). In this

study, there were eight feedbacks on reference of source given by teacher. The examples are:

Example 1

When writers use statements or ideas from another writer, they have to make this clear because if they use another person’s words or ideas as if it is their own, it can be assumed as plagiarism and it is regarded as a very serious offense. In the example above, the author did not put any bibliographical details whereas the information above was not her own statement. For that reason, the teacher asked her to put the source where she got the information because if there were no reference of source attached then it could be considered as plagiarism.

In writing the references of citation, the bibliographical details need to be attached are the sur name of the person who m the ideas are cited, followed by the year when the work published and the page on which the ideas are stated. Those three examples above had a common mistake that was incomplete bibliographical details. The authors had to put clear bibliographical detail whenever they quoted others’ ideas or statements. The teacher gave feedback to make them aware that they had not given clear bibliographical details in writing the reference of source.

4.1.7 Vocabulary

Vocabulary is a sum or stock of words employed by a language (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 1993: 1322). In writing, it deals with the sophisticated range of word choice and the appropriateness and effectiveness of the word choice and usage. In this study, the teacher provided written feedback on vocabulary like the examples.

The word “problematic matter”, in the example above, made the sentence sound awkward to read. Therefore, the teacher crossed out the word “problematic matter” and changed it into “problem” to make the sentence sound better.

Example 2

An undergraduate thesis is an academic writing which needs to be written in a scientific language. In the sentence above, the teacher crossed the word “is” and changed it into sophisticated word “covers” to make the sentence be scientific enough.

4.1.8 Clarity

A writer should present their ideas clearly and integratively. Therefore, he/she needs to write with clarity so that readers will not have difficulties in understanding his/her ideas. The teacher provided feedback on clarity as follows:

In the examples above, the words “just like the example” and “so on” told nothing to the readers. Teacher asked author to replace that words with specific and concrete terms to make the sentences clearer for the readers.

which a property characterizes an individual or event (Radford, Atkinson, Britain & Clahen, 1999:148). The most common characteristic of the adverb is morphological since the majority of adverbs have the derivational suffix –ly. There are two types syntactic function that give characteristics to the adverbs, which are adverbial and modifier of adjective and adverb. As an adverbial, adverbs function as an element other than subject, verb, object and complement in a sentence. While as a modifier, adverbs can only modify adjective, adverb, prepositional phrase, noun phrase (Quirk & Greenbaum, 1973: 125-128).

3. Meaning

The meaning in linguistic is primarily concerned with two meanings. First, it refers to meanings attached to linguistic units and second, meanings attached to patterns or arrangements of units. The division of meanings is due to the difference between lexical and grammatical meaning. Lexical meanings are usually considered to be the meanings of word, while grammatical meanings are usually concerned with the relation between words and the things the words denote. Different arrangement of same words can convey different meaning. The meaning of dog hates cat will be different from cat hates do (Dineen, 1967: 15)

2.3 Theoretical Framework

As the research will discuss about the English prefixes derived from other languages, in this case Latin and Greek, it is necessary to include other research

related to the topic. As mentioned above, the research presents the thesis written by Novita Artasari entitled ‘The Morphological Study of the Prefixes of Time Ante-, Fore-, Post-, Pre- in English’, that made an analysis on the stems, the meanings as well as the morphophonemic process. The prefixes of time Artasari (2000) composed are also English prefixes derived from Latin which is related to the research of English prefixes mega-, macro-, poly-, multi- that prefixes coming from Latin and Greek.

To answer the problems and to make the analysis accurate and well-composed, the research applied some theories related to the topic. Since the research is about prefix, the theory of affixation is necessarily needed in order to identify the word formation with the prefixes mega-, macro, poly- and multi-. The theory on word classes is to identify the category of the stems occur with the prefixes mega-, macro -, poly- and multi-; as well as the category of the derived words with those prefixes. Meanwhile, the theory on meaning is to know the meaning of the prefixes, the stems and the derived words. This theory is to find out whether they have either implied meaning or literal meaning; or both.

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

3.1 Object of the Study

As the research is a descriptive research, the object of the study is to describe the attachment of the English prefixes that denote measurement, namely mega-, macro-, poly- and multi- to words.

Based on the three problems stated in the first chapter, the research will focus on the word classes both the prefixes are attached to and the prefixes are produced. Moreover, this research will also focus on the meanings, either the core meanings or the specific meanings brought by the prefixes of measurement.

3.2 Research Data

In this research, the data covered words with any of the prefixes of measurement. The data were taken from three different dictionaries as the source of the data. The dictionaries used are Webster’s New Twentieth Dictionary of the English Language, Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary and Encarta World English Dictionary. The three dictionaries were used so that the data gathered would be more complete.

From the dictionaries mentioned, the derived words with the prefix mega- are 46 words, with the prefix macro- are 51 words, with the prefix poly- are 118 words and derived words with the prefix multi- are 119 words. The examples used in the

analysis will be taken about twenty percent of each number of all words, while the remainder of the words will be provided in the appendix.

3.3 Data Collection and Data Processing

In collecting the data from the dictionaries, some steps were taken. First, the research found out all of the derived attaching to the four prefixes of measurement. By referring to the meaning of each word, it is known that not all words with the four prefixes are derived words so that the second step is identifying all of the words. It was done by separating the words into which ones belong to the derived words and which ones are not. Only the derived words would be used for the data of the research, whereas the words that do not belong to the derived words would be excluded. Third, make a list of each of the prefixes of measurement. The list would be started with the prefix mega-, macro- and then was followed by the prefixes poly-and multi-, and by the order of alphabets.

3.4 Data Analysis

To answer the first, the second and the third problem, the research analyzed the data taken from the dictionaries. From the data gathered, the word classes of stems and the word classes of the derived words were identified. Still from the data, the meanings of each derived words of the prefixes were also identified.

In analyzing the data, steps were taken so that the three problems would be answered. The first step is by referring to the meaning, identified all of the derived

words. The derived words are identified by separating the stems from the words. The result is not all of stems can be separated from the derived words. The stems that can be separated are said to be analyzable stems so that they can be further categorized based on the word classes, either nouns or adjectives. Meanwhile, the stems that cannot be separated from the derived words are considered as not- analyzable stems, that is why they cannot be classified according to the word classes. By doing this, the first and the second problem, concerning the word classes of stems and the derived words with the prefixes of measurement can be answered due to the word classes of the derived words are similar to those of the stems.

The second step is identifying the meaning of each of derived words with the four prefixes. The derived words are then classified based on the specific meaning they carry. By doing this, the third problem can be answered.

xiii

Wulandari, Maria Agustina Sri. 2007. Students’ Responses to the Teacher Written Feedback on their Compositions. Yogyakarta: English Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.

Providing students with effective feedback on their writing is important as it helps students to ensure that what they write conveys their intended messages and to produce compositions with minimum errors and maximum clarity. However, students may not utilize feedback optimally because they may not know what to do with it and they may end up responding to the feedback by copying all corrections or deleting words/sentences which contain errors. This study aims at investigating the students’ responses toward the written feedback by formulating two research problems: 1) What are the categories of teacher written feedback? 2) What are the students’ responses to the teacher written feedback?

The research was conducted using the descriptive qualitative method. The participants of the study were four-semester eight-students of English Letters Study Program, Sanata Dharma University, academic year 2005/2006 who joined thesis writing course. The data were gathered from students’ undergraduate thesis compositions from chapter one to three. It consisted of eight pieces of compositions divided into four pieces of the undergraduate thesis drafts with teacher feedback on them and four pieces of the revised versions. The re are two instruments used in this study, i.e. checklist and interview.

The results of the data analysis on the first problem reveal that the teachers provided written feedback on language use, mechanics, organization, content, format, reference of source, vocabulary, and clarity. The findings show that the teacher feedback was mostly on the form. The content, which was the main component to form a good composition, only got few attentions. Based on the second problem, it was figured out that the students’ responses toward teacher written feedback were correcting, revising, consulting and ignoring. In correcting, the students either simply copied teacher’s correction or did correction on their own based on the markings or symbols given. In revising, the students responded by adding some details/explanations, deleting words/phrases, restructur ing sentences and substituting words/phrases. Students also had consultations with teachers, peers and books whenever they did not understand the feedback given. The last response was no response or ignorance in which students ignored the written feedback and did not make changes to the problematic parts.

Related to the findings of this study, there are some suggestions for teachers, students and future researchers. The teachers should : (1) provid e more feedback on content than on form, (2) give clearer written feedback with legible handwriting, and (3) promote discussions on response and encourage students to read and ask question about the feedback. The students should : (1) practice to write compositions to produce better quality of writing, (2) make use of teacher written feedback and implement various strategies to respond it, and (3) enhance the strategies in responding teacher written feedback. As this study had some weaknesses, future researchers are recommended to: (1) conduct similar research with an interview with the teacher for verification and (2) investigate the relationship of the students’ response with their writing improvement.