TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION
A Skripsi
Submitted to the Faculty of Language Education As a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain
the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
Khoerunisa Ul Khakiki 20120540032
English Education Department Faculty of Language Education Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta
i
A STUDY ON TEACHERS’ FEEDBACK IN STUDENTS’ WRITING AT ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF
UNIVERSITAS MUHAMMADIYAH YOGYAKARTA: TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION
A Skripsi
Submitted to the Faculty of Language Education As a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain
the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
Khoerunisa Ul Khakiki 20120540032
English Education Department Faculty of Language Education Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
My deepest gratitude goes to Allah the Almighty for all the blessing and mercy. By His blessing, I finally could finish writing this Skripsi.
My great sincere appreciation goes to my skripsi supervisor Sri Rejeki Murtiningsih, Ph.D. for being so persistent during the supervising process in guiding me to keep in track in writing this Skripsi. Thank you for a lot of knowledge, motivation, information and everything you provide me during this almost one year supervising.
My grateful also belong to the first and second examiner of my skripsi, Maryam Sorhiti, S.S., M.H.Sc., and Andi Wirantaka, S.Pd., M.A. Thank you for your valued feedback and suggestion during the examination. I also would like to express my thankful to the Language Education Faculty of Universitas
Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta family, especially for English Education Department, for all the lectures and staffs who had been so kind and helpful providing me a nice atmosphere to learn during this past four years.
My grateful is also for my folks, the EED of UMY’s students of batch
2012 especially class A members for the friendship during our 8 semester of togetherness, thank you for becoming very nice pals during my study in this department.
v
and tears. Thank you for the supports, for all the positive vibes you spread to me, and for the togetherness we share. I do hope it is going to be the long lasting friendship though time and distance will definitely separate us.
Finally, I dedicate this Skripsi to my family, my parents, Surwadi and Khijah Komariyah for your never-ending support, courage and inspiration to me. I am nothing without your present. You are my every thing. The siblings, Syafik, Ilham and Mami, Thank you for all the sincere love you full fill to me. The very last I thank to all the people around me who I could not mention but give huge contributions to me in finishing my study. I am blessed to be surrounded by all caring people such you.
viii
Table of contents
Cover ... i
Approval Page ... ii
Statement of Work’s Originality ... iii
Acknowledgement... iv
Abstract ... vi
Table of Contents ... viii
List of Appendices ... xi
List of figure ... xii
Chapter One Introduction ... 1
Research Background... 1
Problem Statement ... 5
Problem Limitation ... 6
Research Questions ... 7
Research Objectives ... 7
Research Significances... 7
Research Outlines... 8
Chapter Two Literature Review... 10
Teachers’ feedback ... 10
Teachers’ written feedback on students’ writing ... 11
ix
Teachers’ difficulties in delivering feedback ... 15
Writing ... 17
Definition of writing... 17
English foreign language students’ writing ... 18
Students’ difficulties in writing ... 19
Teaching writing ... 20
Conceptual Framework ... 21
Chapter Three Methodology ... 24
Research Design ... 24
Research Setting and Participants ... 25
Data Collection Method ... 26
Data Analysis ... 27
Chapter Four Findings and Discussion ... 29
Research Question 1: Teachers’ Attitude toward Their Own Feedback in Students’ Writing ... 29
The roles of teachers’ written feedback in students’ writing ... 30
The components in which the teachers paid attention to in providing written feedback... 34
The types of teachers’ written feedback ... 37
x
The obstacles in providing written feedback... 45
The Strategies to Encounter the Obstacles ... 48
Chapter Five Conclusion and Recommendations ... 51
Conclusion ... 51
Recommendations ... 53
xi
List of Appendices
xii List of Figure
vi Abstract
Teachers’ written feedback is an essential determiner on students’ writing
enhancement. This study had two aims. First is aimed at finding the teachers’ attitude on their own written feedback given to students writing. It dug up the teachers’ feeling toward their feedback and their preferences on the types of
written feedback. Second is aimed at finding the teachers’ obstacles and strategies to solve the obstacles in providing written feedback. To answer the two research questions, the researcher designed this research as qualitative research by case study as the approach of this research. Semi-structured interview were done to gather the data. The participants were three teachers of EED of UMY. The participants were chosen by using purposive sampling.
First, the result of the data gathered got the findings that the EED of UMY’s teachers had positive attitude toward their own feedback in students’
writing in terms of giving input to students’ writing, motivating students in performing better in writing and reducing students’ errors in writing. Moreover,
related to the components affected by teachers’ written feedback, all participants reflected positive indications in which teachers’ written feedback made the components they focused on become more systematic and understandable. Besides, the types of written feedback that were mostly provided by EED of UMY’s teachers were indirect feedback that consists of coded, uncoded, and
vii
Second, the result presented that teachers’ obstacles in providing feedback were choosing the meaningful feedback to students’ writing and the written
feedback which was time consuming. Additionally, to encounter the obstacle about how to provide the meaningful written feedback, EED of UMY teachers focused on the certain components to be corrected, made assessment rubric, and focused not only in correcting students’ error but also in appreciating students’ good side.. Furthermore, teachers’ strategies to encounter the written feedback
that was time consuming were by focusing on the certain components to be corrected and making assessment rubric.
Chapter One Introduction
This chapter presents the reason of conducting this research and the problems happen regarding this study. This chapter consists of the research background, the problem identification, the problem limitation, the research questions, the research purposes, and the research significances.
Research Background
Surveys about teachers’ feedback have been conducted by many teachers
and researchers for the reason that teachers’ written feedback is a fruitful discussion in language learning. Many researchers have pointed out that teacher feedback of any type is more likely to benefit in English class (Nakanishi, 2007). That is because teachers’ written feedbackis related to the students’ performance in which one of the teachers’ roles here in learning process is as the feedback
provider. Zeiger (2000) talks about the role of teacher that one of the important roles of teachers to their students is as the feedback provider in which they act as facilitator of learning to provide information then give evaluation and assessment to students’ performance.
In addition to the fact that teachers’ written feedback is believed to be beneficial for students’ progress of performance, the use of feedback in learning
shows them their quality of performance. Indirectly or directly, it will motivate them to perform well and achieve good achievements.
Furthermore, in language learning, there are four language skills that are needed to be mastered by all language students namely listening and reading which belong to receptive skills and speaking and writing which belong to productive skills. Writing as one of the productive skills is important in language learning. Not only by speaking, someone also can communicate with other people through the writing product. By writing, people can also propose their knowledge and idea or share their feeling. The most important goal of teaching foreign language is to make the learners able to communicate, and writing enables the students to communicate through their writing product (Mekki, 2012). Hosseini, Taghizadeh, Abedin, and Naseri (2013) propose that a good writing can enhance students’ chance to be successful. It is arguable because a good writing is
produced through a long process of learning and understanding. Therefore, the students may gain a lot of knowledge during this process that can bring them to the success. Suleiman (2000) adds that writing gives effect to other language competences because the process of writing is able to develop other skills.
Although writing is one of the important competences in language
students should pass through some important processes such as brainstorming, planning, outlining, organizing, drafting, and revising, whereas not all students have idea to do those steps (Negari, 2011). Moreover, beside the content, in writing the students also need to concern on communicating their idea properly. While communicating ideas through writing, students should deal with not only the content of their writing but also other lexical items such as vocabulary and grammar (Hong, 2004).
Teachers’ written feedback can be one of the solutions to solve the
students’ difficulties in writing. Elshirbini and Elashri (2013) categorize the advantages of teachers’ written feedback in writing into three. First, by teachers’
written feedback, the students will know whether their writing is good or bad. Second, after knowing their quality of writing, student will do some corrections to their writing product based on the feedback they have already received. Last, feedback does not only give them information about the correct knowledge but also sense of motivation in performing well. Moreover, teachers’ written feedback
can be used by the learners as the literacy resources as it can improve the content accuracy for students’ writing (Hyland & Hyland, 2006). Khatri (2013) supports
that teachers’ written feedback provides a clear and focus correction in students’
writing so that through the drafting process, it will help the students on their content and language accuracy.
Although teacher’s written feedback has significant importance in students’ writing, there are some problems regarding teachers’ written feedback
choose the appropriate way in providing written feedback to students’ writing. Those types of teachers’ written feedback can be so many. According to Tedick and Gortari (1998), there are 8 types of teachers’ written feedback; they are
explicit, recast, clarification request, metalinguistic clues, elicitation, and
repetition. Zaman and Azad (2012) and Razali and Jupri (2014) divide teachers’
written feedback into form-focused feedback, content-based feedback and integrated feedback. Others types of teachers’ written feedback are defined by Zaman and Azad (2012), Ellis (2009), Lindqvist (2011), and Park (2006) as direct feedback and indirect feedback. There are also criticism, praise, and advice as other types of teachers’ written feedback (Silver, & Lee, 2007; Kafri, 2010).
Moreover, not all teachers who teach writing consider teachers’ written feedback is important for students’ writing. Based on those problems, the researcher conducts this study in order to know teachers’ attitude toward their own written
feedback and teachers’ obstacles in providing written feedback all at once with the
teachers’ strategies to solve those problems.
Based on the details above, in order to specify the discussion in this research, the researcher focused on five types of teachers’ written feedback which were categorized into two categories. The first category was based on the
those were the feedback that mostly existed at EED of UMY based on the researcher experience.
Problem Statement
Although teachers’ written feedback is considered to be beneficial for students’ writing, there are still many problems encounter in the teachers’ written
feedback delivery on students’ writing. In spite of the importance of teachers’ written feedback, not all teachers apply teachers’ written feedback in teaching
writing. It is because most of the teachers think that teachers’ feedback is time consuming. Zaman and Azad (2012) state that providing teachers’ written
feedback is time consuming because teachers should concentrate on students’
writing one by one.
Beside that, in students’ writing, there are so many ways in delivering feedback. The wrong delivery of teachers’ written feedback will give negative impact to students’ performance in writing. Some numbers of researchers place
teachers’ written feedback as a harmful, time consuming, and ineffective
strategies in teaching writing if it is given inappropriately (Rahimi, 2010;
Truscott, 2007; Sheppared, 1992; Kepner, 1991). To avoid the the negative impact of the wrong feedback delivery, teachers need to choose the best way in delivering teachers’ writtenfeedback adequately based on students’ conditions and students’
each student on a large class size. Therefore, some teachers choose to provide general feedback to the whole class.
Problem Limitation
There are some ways that can be used to deliver teachers’ feedback such as
orally or in written. Hence, to limit the discussion, the researcher focused just on the teachers’ feedback that are delivered through writing comment or named as
teachers’ written feedback. Moreover, to specify the discussion, because there are
so many types of teachers’ written feedback, the researcher focused on five types of teachers’ written feedback. Those five typesof teachers’ written feedback were
form-focused, content-based, integrated, direct and indirect feedback. The researchers choosed those types of teachers’ written feedback because based on the researchers’ experience, the teachers’ written feedback which is mostly used
by the teachers in EED of UMY in students’ writing is those five types.
In this study, the researcher focused on discussing the teachers’ feedback
at English Education Department of Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta (EED of UMY) in which the teachers’ written feedback in students writing also existed in this department. Moreover, while there were some importances of teachers’ written feedback, not all writing teachers applied teachers’ written
Research Questions
This study is aimed at finding out some information about teachers’
written feedback at EED UMY. This aim is figured out in two research questions as mentioned below:
a. What are EED of UMY teachers’ attitudes toward their own feedback in students’ writing?
b. What are EED of UMY teachers’ obstacles and strategies to encounter the obstacles in providing feedback to students’ writing?
Research Objectives
The main purpose of this research is to discover teachers’ written feedback given in students’ writing at EED of UMY. Moreover, this research is
also conducted to discover two purposes as set follow:
a. To reveal EED of UMY teachers’ attitudes toward their own feedback in students’ writing.
b. To identify EED of UMY teachers’ obstacles and strategies to encounter the obstacles in providing feedback to students’ writing. Research Significances
The findings of this research have significances for the researcher, teachers, students, and the future researchers. The significances are listed below:
The researcher. This research has some importances to the researcher. The result of this study can broaden the researcher’s knowledge about teachers’
motivation to the researcher to apply appropriate teachers’ feedback. Lastly,
this study also becomes an idea for the researcher to deal with teachers’ obstacles in teachers’ feedback if someday the researcher becomes a teacher
because this research will also reveal the teachers’ strategies to solve the obstacles.
The teachers. This research provides some information about EED UMY teachers’ attitude toward their written feedback and teachers’ obstacles in delivering feedback. This information can be the evaluation to the EED UMY teachers and other teachers. By evaluating teachers’ way of delivering feedback and their obstacles, the teachers can make some method in delivering feedback and think the proper strategies to solve their difficulties.
The students. This research gives information about the importance of teachers’ feedback in writing. This information is useful for the students to deal
with teachers’ feedback and make them realize that teachers’ feedback can help them enhance their writing skill as long as they come along the teachers’
feedback and make some correction based on teachers’ feedback.
Future researchers. Hopefully this research can be a reference and theoretical study to the next researchers who are going to conduct the same or related discussion.
Research Outline
Chapter One is Introduction. This chapter provides some introduction about the research. The sub-chapters of this chapter are Background, Statement of The Problem, Limitation of The Problem, Research Question, Purpose of The Study, Significance of The Study and Outline of The Research.
Chapter Two discusses review of related literature. This chapter consists of some definitions of the key words used in this research and conceptual framework used in this paper.
Chapter Three discusses research methodology. This chapter consists of research design, research setting and participant, data collection method and data analysis.
Chapter Four consists of the finding and discussion. This chapter will discuss the findings of the research question in detailed explanation together with the discussion related to the theory.
Chapter Two Literature Review
This research is about a study on teacher’s feedback in students’ writing
at English Education Department of Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta (EED UMY). In order to find out some context related to this study; this chapter is presented to discuss some major things. The first sub-discussion is definition of the keyword on this study. Then, the next discusses some components that are related to this study. The last, this chapter presents the theoretical framework of all components in this study.
Teachers’ Feedback
Feedback in general is defined as the information that is given by someone to someone else with the expectation that thus information can enhance certain aspect (Hyland & Hyland, 2006). In addition, “Feedback is there taken to
designate the processes by which a control unit of any kind gains information about the effects of its own actions, thus, enabling the unit to evaluate and control its own further activity” (Allwood, 1992, p. 1). Teachers’ feedback is one of the
teaching strategies that can be provided by the teachers’ to their students. Kepner
(1991) as cited in Grami (2005) “defines feedback in general as any procedures used to inform a learner whether an instructional response is right or wrong”( p.
141). The information given about students’ performance will encourage the
work. Dinham (n.d) supports that “Feedback can be defined as any form of
response by a teacher to a student’s performance, attitude or behavior, at least
where attitude or behavior impinges upon performance” (Dinham, n.d, p.35).
From the explanations above, it could be summarize that feedback in general is defined as the information provided by the teachers to the students performance to facilitate some correction and improvement on the students’ performance.
Teachers’ written feedback on students’ writing. Teachers’ written feedback is a crucial part of writing progress. Feedback is “information that is
given to the learner about his or her performance of a writing task, usually with the objective of improving this performance” (Ur, 1996, p.242) as cited in
(Zaman & Azad, 2012, p.140). The information given consists of some
corrections and comments that are written in order to help the learners make some improvements on their writing. “Teacher written feedback refers to written
responses provided by the teacher to the students’ writing. The responses are
limited to comments on grammatical errors and content of the students writing”
(Kaweera & Usaha, 2008, p.4). Moreover, because writing is an on-going process (process writing) the feedback given also need to be continuously. “Written
feedback is an on-going process. This means it should happen continuously throughout the process of teaching and writing in achieving the final product” (Razali & Jupri, 2014, p.64).
The teachers’ feedback should comprise both the students and teachers’
the teachers’ comment. Razali and Jupri (2014) affirm that teachers’ highlight on students’ written work help the students to be better motivated in doing some
adjustments and corrections on their writing if the teacher provide their feedback suitably and pleasantly. Nevertheless, in the effective teacher feedback delivery, the teacher also should be aware to bring their feedback communicatively by mean that teachers not only provide feedback on students’ written work but also
ask the students to read the teachers’ information, implement the comment, and
finally make correction on their work properly (Lindqvist, 2011).
Types of teachers’ written feedback in writing. There are some types of teachers’ written feedback and every teacher has their preferences about which
types of feedback that they will deliver to their students. Based on the components that the teachers’ focus on in delivering written feedback, according to Park (2006), there are three types of teachers’ written feedback:
Form-focused feedback. Form-focus feedback is the feedback that focuses on correcting the students’ utterances and grammar on their writing.
Razali and Jupri (2014) support in providing form-focus feedback students’ grammatical errors should be corrected. Additionally, because teachers are just focusing on the students’ grammatical accuracy, the content accuracy of the
students’ writing is laid away (Park, 2006). It means that in form-focused
feedback, teachers’ just focus on correcting students’ grammar accuracy without
worrying the content quality of students’ writing. Furthermore, “feedback on form includes grammar and mechanics, i.e. spelling, punctuation, vocabulary” (Zaman
Although, the use of form-focus feedback on providing students written feedback already exists, there are still so many debatable things about the
effectiveness of form-focus feedback. Hendrickson (1978) and Tmscotts (1996) in Park (2006) and Razali and Jupri (2014) argue that the use of grammar correction in affording feedback to the students are ineffective and harmful for students. On the other hand, Ferris (2004) and Chandler (2003) point out that form-focus feedback is effective in helping students enhance their vocabulary and grammar accuracy in the next draft of students’ process writing. Moreover, Ferris and
Chandler (2003) also assert that form-focus feedback improve students’ writing grade. Moreover, Hyland (2003) supports that form-focused feedback from teachers would be helpful in highlighting their errors so that improvements can be made.
Content- based feedback. Different from form-focus feedback, the correction of content- based feedback is focused on the content quality of students’ writing.
Unlike form-focused feedback, content-based feedback focuses more on content quality and organizational features in students' composition and teachers provide overall comments on where it doesn't make sense in terms of content or give some comments on logical fallacies in writing without pointing out specific grammatical errors (Park, 2006, p.6). Razali and Jupri (2014) support that content-based feedback is also defined as meaning based feedback which deals with the quality of the content and
that teacher will comment some components which do not make sense in logic without considering the grammatical aspects on those components.
Such in the form-focused feedback, there are also some pros and contras in content- based feedback implementation. Silver and Lee (2007) argue that too much highlight and note on students’ writing do not help students to revise their
writing, on the contrary, make the students frustrated and feel stressed. Supporting Silver and Lee’s statement, Hyland and Hyland (2001) affirm that the wrong way of teachers’ feedback delivery may lead to its’ ineffectiveness on students’
writing.
Integrated feedback. Integrated feedback is combination between form- focused and content-based feedback (Park, 2006). This type of teachers’ written feedback encourages teachers’ to focus not only in the content quality but also in the grammar accuracy in students’ writing through teachers’ feedback (Razali &
Jupri, 2014). Moreover, Zaman and Azad (2012) state that both teachers’
feedbacks are important in enhancing students’ writing. That is why it is necessary to apply integrated feedback for the better enhancement of students’ writing.
There are also two other different types of feedback that are mostly
provided by teachers based on the technique or method of delivery; they are direct and indirect feedback (Zaman & Azad, 2012; Ellis, 2009; Lindqvist, 2011; Park, 2006; Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005).
feedback the teacher marks the errors and provides the correct form” (p.142). Park (2006) argues that direct feedback does not give significant role in students’ writing because it does not encourage students to the deep thinking process. In contrast, using direct feedback provides explicit guidance to the students about their inaccuracies and it is principally helpful to those students who do not adept in self-correcting (Ellis, 2009).
Indirect feedback. In Indirect feedback, “the teacher indicates the errors
by underlining, circling or by using codes but does not provide the correct form. Diagnosis and correction in indirect feedback is therefore left to the students” (Zaman & Azad, 2012, p.142). Furthermore, according to Ellis (2006), in indirect feedback, the teacher indicates that an error exists and locates the error but does not provide the correction or the correct answer. Additionally, Zaman and Azad (2012) add that the error indication can be done by underlining, circling and marking by red pen or by using codes but do not provide the correct form. Park (2006) argues that indirect feedback is better than direct feedback because it provides the students to think and do more analysis regarding their error to find the correct answer. “Teachers should offer self–correction opportunity for their students by providing indirect feedback on student’s grammatical errors”
Teachers’ difficulties in delivering feedback. Although providing
feedback is a part of teaching learning process that is usually done by the teacher, teachers still faces some difficulties in providing feedback to their students. Zaman and Azad (2012) on their study revealed that the large size of the class or the large amount of students in their courses become the major obstacles for the teacher in providing feedback. Zaman and Azad also list down any other obstacles such as teachers’ heavy of workload and the long way of correcting students’
writing and students’ motivation in learning which become challenging for the
teachers in providing effective feedback to student writers. Teachers’ written feedback is time consuming because teachers need to give their comment in each student’s writing and it engages the teachers’ personal communication with each student directly through teachers’ comments on students’ writing. Each paper has
its own problem that pushes teachers to communicate personally to each student based on their writing problem and it takes a long time to do it one by one (Shammari, 2011).
Additionally, according to Srichanyachon (2012), students are lack of understanding in interpreting the teachers’ feedback on their writing also becomes the problem to the teacher. Consequently, teachers need to consider students’
English background knowledge and indicate their needs for error correction. Kafri (2010) asserts that once the students’ finish their writing they just stop it, but
students' writing such as the structure, organization, style, content, and presentation (Kafri, 2010).
Writing
There are four language skills in learning language, and writing skill is one of those skills. Compare with others language skills, writing skill is believed to be the hardest skill to be mastered. According to Mourssi (2013), “the common concept between linguists and pedagogical specialists is that it is easier for second/ foreign language learners to speak, listen and read second language than writing it, since writing requires much more effort from language learners to be acquired” (p. 731). Adas and Bakir (2013) support that in
language learning, writing as one of the compulsory competences is the most challenging competence to be learned. In this sub-chapter there are some literatures related to writing skill based on other researchers and sources.
Definition of writing. Writing is a communication tool. Through writing, people can share their opinion and knowledge, state their preference, tell their story, and even make an argumentation based on their idea to their readers.
parts of communication, to connect and improve information, ideas, or arguments for a certain reader or a group of readers.
Furthermore, writing also can be used to convey someone’s thought to someone else by using the writers’ own way through their writing product.
Hadley (1993) in Negari (2011) defines writing as an activity that requires students to tell or retell information in the form of narratives or description, or to transform information into new texts, as in expository or argumentative writing. Additionally, writing is a complex metacognitive activity that interprets an individual’s knowledge, basic skill, strategies, and ability to harmonize multiple processes (Huy, 2015). By the detailed experts’ opinion about writing, it can be
concluded that writing is a way of conveying information, communicating idea, and sharing feelings that are delivered through written sentences and phrases to be understood by the reader.
English foreign language students’ writing. In writing, students should fulfill some stages that encourage them in changing the blank sheet of paper to become their final writing product; while the progression of the blank paper become the writing product is called as writing Process (Mekki, 2012). Writing is a process which involves the students to organize their thinking through some activities such brainstorming, planning, outlining, organizing, drafting, and revising (Negari, 2011). Supporting Negari’s statement, Kafri (2003) defines
writing process as “various processes involved in the act of composing, in order to
stages in process writing: planning, drafting (writing), revising (redrafting), and editing. Not all EFL students are able to deal with those processes because writing in their mother tongue language is different from writing in English. It is because the students do not only have to aware with the process writing itself but also need to focus on the grammar and wording choice which are totally different from their mother tongue.
Students’ difficulties in writing. In the process of writing, the foreign language students’ should pass some stages in order to produce a coherent and
accurate writing product. However, not all students are able to follow and
understand the stages as stated below adequately because it is not easy to be done. Some studies about students’ writing skill are conducted mostly based on the difficulties of writing for the learners (Jimenez et al., 2013; Negari, 2011; Adas & Bakir, 2013; Kellog & Raulerson, 2007; Lee, 2003; Mekki, 2012). Kellog and Raulerson (2007) convey that the difficulties come because the students lack of vocabularies and creativity in writing. “Many students are able to understand the
language, but most of the students face the problem of communicating their ideas effectively, the problem is the lack of both adequate stock of English vocabulary and creativity in writing” (Adas & Bakir, 2013, p. 254). Besides, According to Lee (2003) the difficulty of writing is affected by the teaching strategies applied by their writing teachers. Huy (2015) asserts the common problems faced by the students in learning writing are: Lack of vocabularies, difficulties in grammar, obstacles in the topics given, limitation of teachers’ feedbackon students’ written
Students face some difficulties in writing, namely: (1) how to start writing, (2) how to generate ideas, (3) how to produce unified paragraphs, (4) how to organize ideas logically, (5) how to make grammatical sentences, and (6) how to beef up students’ low motivation in learning English. Then, she
argued that students can learn writing easier if they can organize their notions, mastery the vocabulary and the writing process in particularly (Fitriani, 2010 as cited in Karlinawati, 2015, p. 11).
Teaching writing. The focus of teaching writing is to improve students’
skill in writing itself. While students face many difficulties in writing such what it has explained in previous discussion, teachers’ should have some strategies in
teaching writing. The biggest deal in teaching writing is involving students on the teaching writing process to make the students’ learning experience become more
valuable (Adas & Bakir, 2013). Adas and Bakir add that involving students’
participation can be done by motivating students and refining and increasing students’ writing competences through some pragmatic approach.
Additionally, teachers’ written feedback is an activity that is mostly done by the teachers as one of the teaching writing strategy. According to Kafri (2010) there are two approaches of teaching writing namely process-based approach and product-based approach. Teachers have different roles in each of those
approaches. In process-based approach, teacher will guide and give feedback to the students’ from the very beginning, through some process of revising, and
finally done with students’ final writing. In contrast, in product-based approach,
that in process based approach teacher should concern on the students’ process
writing, because process writing is a continuum activity that provide the learner to need the teachers’ supervising and guiding. In conclusion, in the process of
teaching writing, teachers mostly provide written feedback on students’ writing
both during the process of students’ writing and after the students’ final writing
finish.
Conceptual Framework
The previous discussion has been figured out some components about teachers’ feedback based on some studies related the teachers’ feedback in
students’ writing. There are the concept and definition of feedback and
teachers’ feedback, teachers’ feedback on students writing, types of teachers’
feedback, teachers’ difficulties in providing feedback, the concept and
definition of writing, EFL students’ writing, and the last is students’ difficulties
in writing, teaching writing. For whole, it can be summed up that teachers’
feedback play a significance role on the students’ writing.
Moreover, in the practice of the teachers’ feedback in students’ writing,
both students and teachers have important role. Teachers should provide the teachers’ feedback appropriately in order to make the students able to accept the feedback properly too. That is why, it is important to know the teachers’
attitude toward the teachers’ feedback in students’ writing. While teachers’
good attitude toward the teachers’ feedback can be seen on the way they
At last, providing feedback was still challenging for the teachers. There are still many obstacles faced by teachers in providing feedback in students writing. Some of the obstacles are the amount of the students or the size of the class, teachers’ heavy workload, the long way of correction process, students’
motivation, and students’ lack of understanding in the feedback given. For
those, this research will be done to reveal teachers’ written feedback delivery problems happen in EED of UMY regarding the teachers’ feedback in
students’ writing and also the strategies to encounter those obstacles. The
Chapter Three Methodology
This chapter discusses the methodology that is used in this study. There are four discussions in this chapter. They are research design, research setting and participant, data collection method and data analysis. Research design discusses the approach used in this study. Setting and participants explain the participant involved in the research as the participant and time and place in conducting the data collection. Data collection method discusses the method that is applied in collecting the data. Last, data analysis explains the process of analyzing and interpreting the result of the data collection.
Research Design
The approach of this research was a case study, and the research was designed as qualitative research. Qualitative design was appropriate with this study which discussed teachers’ written feedback in students’ writing based on the teachers’ perception at EED of UMY. According to Creswell (2012),
Research Setting and Participants
Setting. The researcher has conducted the study in English Education Department of Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta (EED UMY)
environment. The study was conducted from September of 2015 until May of 2016. The reason to choose EED of UMY as the setting was because the teachers’ written feedback existed in this department. Another reason was the
accessibility of the interview location. Because the researcher was still being a student in EED of UMY, it was much easier to gather the data. Last reason, because both the researcher and participants were in the same department and had been familiar each other, it abridged the researcher in term of the
availability of the research participants.
Participants. The participants of this research were the teachers of English Education Department of Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta (EED of UMY). There are 15 teachers at EED of UMY and the researcher took three teachers to be the representative of all teachers of EED of UMY. The researcher took three participants to be interviewed. According to Creswell (2012) in the qualitative research, the number of the participants is
undetermined, as long as the data gathered has answered the research question, the least number of participants is sufficient.
written feedback, teachers with three years or more experience in teaching also had more experiences in providing feedback. The last criterion was the
teachers who applied teachers’ written feedback on students’ writing.
There were three participants interviewed to gain the data about the teachers’ written feedback. The three participants were female and they were
chosen based on the criteria above. The first participant had been teaching for 14 years in general and 4 years at EED of UMY. The first participant delivered written feedback in teaching all courses that provide the students to write such as writing Annotated Bibliography and Material Design. Besides, she also gave feedback on her supervising students’ skripsi. The second participant had
teaching experience for 3 years in general. She gave written feedback on students’ writing in quiz, project paper and skripsi. The last participant had been teaching for 15 years. She gave written feedback in students’ writing in Reading and Writing for Career Development class and students’ skripsi.
Data Collection Method
This study was conducted to know the teachers’ attitude, obstacles and strategies to encounter the obstacles in their written feedback in students’ writing at EED UMY based on the teachers’ perception. Interview was used as the instrument to gather the data. A semi structured interview was designed in order to make the interview discussion become focus and well-guided. One-on-one interview was applied on this data collection method. According to
teachers’ written feedback in students’ writing at EED of UMY. Beside that,
the data gathered became more accurate because the participant could communicate naturally, comfortably, and clearly so that the researcher could ask if there was any misunderstanding on the questions asked.
In doing the interview, the researcher contacted the participants first to ask their permission to be the interviewee. After having the participants’ permission, the researcher made an appointment to do the interview. During the interview process, the researcher asked some questions related to the study to answer the research questions and used interview guideline as the direction. Because both the researcher and the participants’ mother tongue was Bahasa
Indonesia, the interview was conducted in Bahasa Indonesia in order to make the communication become more natural and understandable. As the
instrument in conducting the interview, the researcher used mobile phone to record the conversations and used note and pen to write down some important points regarding the participants’ answer.
Data Analysis
member checking. Doing member checking was essential in order to make sure the validity of the data gathered. Member checking was done by showing the script result to the participants and asked them to check whether the scripts result were really same with the interview that they had done or not.
After doing member checking, the researcher analyzed the data using thematic analysis. Thematic analysis was a process of data coding. In coding the data, the researcher firstly analyzed the script of the recording. It means that the researcher inferred what the participants meant by their answer in each question. This activity was done in open coding. Then, after doing open coding, the
researcher did axial coding. In axial coding, the researcher classified each item of statement that had the same category into one interpretation. The last was
Chapter Four Finding and Discussion
This chapter presents the interview result about the teachers’ perception on the study of teachers’ feedback on students’ writing at EED of UMY. All
interview results were divided into five categories, those categories are: 1) the roles of teachers’ written feedback in students’ writing, 2) the components
affected by teachers’ written feedback, 3) the types of teachers’ written feedback applied, 4) the obstacles in providing written feedback, and 5) the strategies to encounter the obstacles. Each category was discussed on the following discussion together with the quotes of the interview and the interpretation of the quotes. Those categories were presented to answer the two research questions in this research. The categories number 1, 2 and 3 were digging up to answer the research question number one which is about the teachers’ attitude in delivering
teachers’ feedback. Meanwhile the categories number 4 and 5 were presented to
answer research question number two which was about the teachers’ obstacles and
strategies to solve the obstacles in providing written feedback to their students.
Research Question 1: Teachers’ Attitude toward Their Own Feedback in
Students’ Writing
The researcher had gathered the data from the participants of this research. There are three categories explained to answer the first research question. Those three categories were served to know about the EED of UMY teachers’ attitude
toward their own feedback in students’ writing. Those three categories are
category 2 which related to the components the teachers paid attention to and the last category 3 which discussed about the types of teachers’ written feedback that are mostly provided by the EED of UMY’s teachers.
The roles of teachers’ written feedback in students’ writing. In the beginning of the interview, the researcher asked the participants about the roles of
teachers’ written feedback in students’ writing. The data gathered about the roles
of teachers’ written feedback was used to answer the first research question about
teachers’ attitude on their written feedback. All participants agreed that teachers’
written feedback gave positive roles to students’ writing. It shows that teachers of
EED of UMY had positive attitude toward teachers’ written feedback in term of
the positive roles of their written feedback to students’ writing.
Finding 1. Teachers’ written feedback provided input in students’
writing. All the participants stated that teachers’ written feedback gave input to the students’ writing.
There are various roles of teachers’ written feedback, first of all teachers’ feedback gave input to their writing. Thus input could be in a form of grammar or flow of idea. … The role was also to build students’ skill in
writing” (Participant 1, 2016).
It was supported by the second participant who stated “Written feedback
Last, the third participant also conveyed the same idea about the role of the teachers’ written feedback as an input to students’ writing “In my point of
view, by teachers’ written feedback, students’ will receive some input for
their writing quality enhancement” (Participant 3, 2016).
Accordingly, Maroof, Yamat and Li (2011) briefly state that teachers’ feedback is the major input and resources that can be used by the students in conducting some improvements on their writing by doing revision on the errors made. Rahimi and Sobhani (2015) supported that teachers’ written feedback consist some input both positive and negative and those input were beneficial to the students’ enhancement in writing. Based on those statements, it could be
indicated that teachers’ written feedback gave students’ input that led them to do
some corrections and brought them to the improvement on their writing.
Finding 2. Teachers’ written feedback motivated students to perform better in writing. The two of three participants agreed that teachers’ written feedback gave their students motivation to write better than previously. It could be seen on the interview result by the statement of the first and second participant:
The first participant argued that the feedback especially positive feedback gave students motivation through the positive comment given by the teachers.
I gave not only negative feedback but also positive feedback in order to encourage and motivate them. For example, they have made a good
paragraph”, something like that. So it gave not only input but also
motivation to the students to write (Participant 1, 2016).
The second participant stated that teachers’ written feedback made
students’ feel valued. Because the students felt valued, their motivation in writing
was increase. The casual language used in teachers’ written feedback encourage the students’ became more open to ask what need to be improved on their writing.
Students feel valued. Imagine that the students are asked to write the whole piece of paper but teacher does not give feedback on their writing. It will make them doubt whether teacher reads their work or not. Different
from while the teacher put feedback on students’ writing, it will make the
students feel valued. If we do not put any feedback on their writing it will discourage them while we ask them write again later. … It encourages
them to come and ask me. They are more enthusiastic by reading feedback with casual language rather than by giving mark on it (Participant 2, 2016).
Hence, based on the participants’ answered, it could be concluded that the
teachers’ written feedback gave students motivation to perform better in writing.
It was showed by the students who felt motivated and valued after their teachers gave them written feedback. The three participants’ statement was sustained by Silver and Lee (2007) who state that some types of teachers’ written feedback encourage the students to motivate them to perform better on their next writing. Additionally, teachers’ written feedback not only provided valuable information
presented a better performance on writing rather than the previous one (Elshirbini & Elashri, 2013).
Finding 3. Teachers’ written feedback helped students’ to revise and reduce their errors in writing. The three participants agreed that some input given
were able to correct and reduce students’ error in writing and finally improved
students writing. The improvement could be in a form of grammar, spelling and content of students’ writing
…. In grammar, they become more aware while writing next time, so
teachers’ written feedback is used to make correction (Participant 1, 2016)
Sometimes, students did not realize that they make some error on their grammar, spelling and organization. By written feedback, they will know their errors. For example, in writing essay or quiz, sometimes it needed some correction so I gave written feedback, “your writing is …” (Participant 2, 2016).
Teachers’ written feedback is able to reduce the students’ error. While the
students’ read my feedback, I hope they can understand in what side they
make error and then they can make some corrections on it (Participant 3, 2016).
students to improve their accuracy and fluency in writing. Hence, the teachers’
written comment, correction and notes on students’ writing as a form of feedback
were considered to be valuable in helping students to reduce their errors in writing.
The components in which the teachers paid attention to in providing written feedback. During the flow of the interview process, the participants of this research answered some important points regarding some components they
focused on while providing written feedback to students’ writing. Based on the
data result, in providing written feedback, the EED of UMY’s teachers paid attention to some components which were grammar, content and organization of idea, spelling, vocabularies, mechanics and punctuation.
The input could be in a form of grammar or flow of idea (Participant 1, 2016).
Sometimes, students do not realize that they do some error on their grammar, spelling and organization. By written feedback, they will know their errors (Participant 2, 2016).
Moreover, while the researcher asked about the effect of teachers’ written
feedback to the students’ writing, all participants answered positive indications.
All participants agreed that after the students were given written feedback throughout the writing process, students’ writing become more systematic. Nevertheless, the first participant was doubt about the effect of her written feedback on students’ grammar.
I thought their writing become more systematic, so students also learnt from thus feedback. For example, before the feedback was given, one paragraph had more than one main idea. However, after the feedback was given, the idea delivered on their writing was more systematic.
Nevertheless, actually the correction in grammar was still difficult. It was still needed more time to fix the grammar error by written feedback. I could not say the grammar was improving but it can be seen that their writing was better than the first draft. What are going to be delivered became clearer, the paragraph became more systematic and every paragraph had main idea and did not over context (Participant 1, 2016).
sentences and more organize. So from the very beginning of the class, their writing development became better (Participant 2, 2016).
At least, they made it better. For me, reading students’ writing for the second time was more comprehensible, although the students did not make change on their writing based on my feedback 100% in their first or
second drafts (Participant 3, 2016).
Based on those statements, it could be seen that according to the teachers’ perception, teachers’ written feedback gave positive effect to the students’ writing
in terms of making the students’ writing become better and more systematic. According to Sträub (1997) as cited in Srichanyachon (2012) affirm that students felt feedback on both global issues (i.e., content, organization, and purpose) and local ones (i.e., sentence structure, word choice, and grammar) were helpful for their writing”. Furthermore, in the process writing, teachers’ written feedback was
able to encourage the students to enhance their writing become more systematic in every draft they did both in grammar and organization of idea (Kafri, 2003).
However, the researcher of this research did not make further examination about the real effect of teachers’ feedback on students’ writing which might be
seen through comparing students’ writing. In fact, the researcher just dug up the
effect of written feedback based on the teachers’ perception only. Here, it was
The types of teachers’ written feedback. In the next step of interview, the participants were asked about the types of teachers’ written feedback that were mostly delivered to their students. There were five types of written feedback that the researcher focused on in this research. Those five types of written feedback were categorized into two categories based on the technique or method of
delivering feedback and the components the teachers’ focused on in delivering
feedback. The types of written feedback which included the components that the teachers focused on in delivering written feedback were form-focused feedback, content- based feedback, and integrated feedback. The types of written feedback which included the techniques of delivering feedback were direct feedback and indirect feedback.
Based on the data gathered, the types of written feedback existed among form-focused feedback, content- based feedback and integrated feedback was integrated feedback. Besides, between direct and indirect feedback, the feedback that was mostly applied was indirect feedback. Moreover, the answer of the participants of this research indicated that there were emerging types of teachers’ written feedback applied by EED of UMYs’ teachers.
components (grammar and content) were corrected. So, the feedback given was in all components both grammar and content but the focus depended on the
appropriateness of each courses studied. The statements of the participants were written below:
For me, there were several drafts while the students wrote, for the first draft I thought the flow of idea was important to be given feedback such as the main idea, coherent and cohesion, so they became my first priority. After it seemed to be better, then I focused on correcting the grammatical error made by the students. The most important thing was what they were going to deliver had already been on their writing. Grammar is the last except I really could not understand what they were going to explain on their writing (Participant 1, 2016).
For writing, all are important, but because they were still in the 2nd semester and I taught the Reading and Writing for Career Development class, mechanic was important for them. Second, how to express their thinking into written expression or the idea was also important and the
right word choice or vocabulary was also included. …. Because skripsi
was related to their academic research, my focus was not merely on the mechanics because students have been already in the 7th and 8th semester, otherwise, on the sensible idea. Their idea was related to their logical arguments and also the sentences structure and the grammar. It was because good idea without good delivery and understandable language used was failed (Participant 3, 2016).
The participants’ statements are in line with Park (2006) who stated that
Finding 2. In the types of the technique of delivering written feedback, indirect feedback was mostly provided by the teachers of EED of UMY rather than direct feedback. When the participants were asked about how to indicate the error, two of three participants explained that they just indicated the error without providing the correct form of those errors. Those two participants believed that by only indicating the error without providing the correct form, the indirect feedback encourage students to do self-correction and make students became active to learn independently.
… For example, “They should write “The writer explains …” but they just
write “The writer explain …”, then I did not provide the correct answer on
my feedback directly but I wrote “Please check this grammar.” I just indicated the error happened. It is aimed at letting them learn again. Then, for the flow of idea, I usually write “what do you mean is this?” or I write
“what are the main idea of this paragraph?” It was done to make the
students not only revise their writing but also relearn, not only relearn about the grammar but also relearn about how did actually make a good writing and a good paragraph (Participant 1, 2016).
Because feedback on the paper was not given once and then finish, in the
first draft I gave clear explanation. For example “This sentence does not
have any verb.”, but I did not give the verb needed on that sentence
The researcher also found that the types of indirect feedback applied by the
EED of UMY’s teachers were coded feedback, un-coded feedback and elicitation
feedback
Coded feedback. Other result of the interview process also showed that in delivering indirect feedback, the teachers used coded and un-coded feedback to the students’ writing. It was seen by the participant 2 and 3 who stated:
If the errors is in the passive or active sentences then I just give mark “p” for passive and “a” for active, but I do not give the formula of active and
passive sentence (Participant 3, 2016).
The statement was in line with the Kaweera and Usaha (2008)’s statement about code feedback that code feedback was an error identification in which the correctin was in a form of codes of error types. The definitions and examples of errors were also provided while a teacher gave coded feedback to the students. The example of coded feedback was:
Siti eat banana every morning. V
The word “eat” was underlined and be given a code V for verb in order to indicate
an error occurred on thus utterance.
For example, in the use of verb past tense, in the text narrative they are asked to retell and sometimes they forget about “bring” that should be
“brought” or “think” that should be “thought”. Then I just circling the verb
(Participant 2, 2016)
Un-coded feedback referred to the error location. In un-coded feedback, the teacher was just locating an error by circling it, underlining it, highlighting it, or putting a checkmark in the margin (Kaweera & usaha, 2008).
Elicitation. Last, the elicitation feedback was also used by the teachers of EED of UMY while delivering feedback. It was based on the interview result of the first and the second participants of this research.
For example, “They should write “The writer explains …” but they just
write “The writer explain …”, then I do not provide the correct answer on
my feedback directly but I will write “Please check this grammar.”. Then,
for the flow of idea, I usually write “what do you mean is this?” or I write “what are the main idea of this paragraph?”. (Participant 1, 2016).
For example, in writing essay or quiz, sometimes it needs some correction so I give written feedback, “your writing is (…)”. If there is two sentences
with the same subject, I will circle the subject and then I will write “the student who (…)” (Participant 2, 2016).
down the uncomplete utterence to be completed such as "It's a....". (Saniei, A, 2013).
It showed that the participant had a positive perception on indirect
feedback. It could be seen by their answer that they preferred to just indicating the error without providing the right answer in order to let the students learn again from the feedback given and to make them learn about their error made. The two
of participants’ statements were in line with Srichanyachon (2012) statement who
affirmed that indirect feedback encouraged students to do self- correction and to be independent learner who actively learn by themselves through the feedback given. In contrast, the second participant was not only indicating the error but also providing the correct answer.
I also provide the correct answer, but actually it depends. In the first correction, I provide the correct answer. For example, in the use of verb past tense, in the text narrative they are asked to retell and sometimes they forget about “bring” that should be “brought” or “think” that should be
“thought”. Then I just circle the verb, I put the correct answer and I give some notes there “Come on, improve the use of verb past tense, how to use
verb 1 and verb 2.” (Participant 2, 2016).
It was done to make students realize their error then could make the revision on the other same error.
… The students can learn, so when they make correction, they not only
change the wrong into right one but also learn from the error (Participant 2, 2016).
The second participant’s statement was supported by Ellis (2009) who
affirmed that direct feedback was principally helpful for the students who were difficult to do self- correction because it provided the information about their inaccuracies.
Finding 3. The emerging types of written feedback which existed at EED of UMY. In addition the integrated and indirect feedbacks which were mostly used
by the teachers of EED of UMY in providing feedback on students’ writing, there
were also emerging types of written feedback applied by EED of UMY’s teachers.
There were negative and positive feedback which were mostly mentioned by the three participants of this research while the interview was conducted.`
Positive and negative feedback. The answer of two participants on this research pointed out that they applied positive and negative feedback in this research.
I gave not only negative feedback but also positive feedback in order to encourage and motivate them. For example, they have made a good paragraph, then I gave feedback “Well done, “Good job” or “I like this
I just getting used to not only give negative feedback but also the positive one. When the students have made a good writing, I also should appreciate and say “Your work is excellent.” (Participant 2, 2016).
According to Silver and Lee (2007) positive feedback is the feedback that was not only focus on students’ negative aspect but also focus on appreciating students’ positive aspect in writing. While positive feedback signposted that
students’ utterance on their writing was correct (Zaman & Azad, 2012). In
comparison, negative feedback is “signals, in one way or another, that the
learners’ utterance [or writing] lacks veracity or is linguistically deviant. In other
words, it is corrective in intent” (Ellis, 2009, p.3).
Research Question 2: The Teachers’ Obstacles and Strategies to Encounter
the Obstacles.
The result of the data gathered was also used to answer the second research question about the obstacles and strategies to solve the obstacles. There were two categories that the researcher made in order to answer this research question. They were category 4 and category 5. Category 4 was about the
obstacles faced by EED of UMY’s teachers. Category 5 was about the strategies
to encounter the obstacles. The detailed explanations were presented below:
The obstacles in providing written feedback. In the last session of the interview, the researcher asked the participants about their obstacle while
result, it could be known that there were two major obstacles faced by the EED of UMY’s teachers in providing feedback to students’ writing.
Providing meaningful feedback. The first obstacle was how to provide the meaningful feedback to their students. Meaningful here meant providing written feedback that were not too much, understandable and did not discourage students while reading the feedback given so the feedback could be meaningful and helpful for students writing quality enhancement.
… Nevertheless, it is difficult to refrain from giving feedback to the whole
errors made by students while seeing the unclear organization of idea and the unsystematic grammar. The point is how to deliver feedback that do not make the students feel discouraged and demotivated to write again later (Participant 1, 2016).
The students’ with the very basic knowledge, on their writing will be a lot
of correction. Sometimes I worry about making them demotivated with my correction and feedback on their writing (Participant 2, 2016).
I have to formulate the necessary feedback to make students understand what I mean on my feedback and how to not make them confused while reading my comment (Participant 3, 2016).
the written feedback to students’ writing were delivered inconsistently, unclearly
and overemphasizes the negative side of students’ writing. Gordon argued that that kinds of condition might make the students became in a condition of confusion, frustration and neglect of the comments. Leki (1990) as cited in Williams (2003) there were three possible reactions of students while they
received inappropriate teachers’ written feedback. “The students may not read the
annotations at all, may read them but not understand them, or may understand them but not know how to respond to them” (p.1).
Time consuming. The two participants of the research agreed that providing written feedback was time consuming.
Sometimes I needed to spend more time to give written feedback because there are so many to be read and to be written (Participant 1, 2016).
… , because the limitation of the time, so I just focus on the things that
need to be corrected (Participant 2, 2016).
The participants’ statement about the time obstacle was supported by
Shammari (2011) who state that it took a long time because written feedback should be delivered to each student on their each work. Each student’s writing had each own problem, so the teachers should communicate personally with each
students’ writing. In a class there were many students and the teachers should
The strategies to encounter the obstacles. Together with the obstacles the participants said during the interview, they also conveyed their own strategies to solve those problems. There were three major strategies in encounter the two obstacles faced by the EED of UMY’s teachers. There were focused on the certain
correction to be corrected, made assessment rubric and focused not only in correcting students’ error but also appreciating students’ good side of writing.
Focusing on the certain error to be corrected. The first strategy applied was focus on the certain error to be corrected. This strategy was done to make the feedback given was not overwhelming both for the teachers and the students. If the feedback given was not overwhelming and did not discourage students in receiving the feedback given, then the feedback could be beneficial and meaningful to the students in doing some enhancement in their writing.
Additionaly, focusing on the certain error to be corrected was also applied in order to shorten the time.
Making assessment rubric. The same with the first strategy mentioned,
the EED of UMY’s teachers also made assessment rubric with the purpose of
keeping the feedback delivered was not overwhelming, because the overwhelming feedback delivered could make the students discourage. Moreover, making
assessment rubric was also applied in order to shorten the time.
Beside that I also make the assessment rubric to accelerate the correction, so not all part is commented although I am willing to comment all part but I
