ABSTRACT
TEACHER ERROR FEEDBACK EFFECT ON THE ACCURACY OF STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTIVE WRITING AT THE FIRST-GRADE OF
SMAN 1 PRINGSEWU
Ferry Yun Kurniawan
This research is done in order to see whether or not there is a significant difference of the accuracy of students’ descriptive writing between those who have been given teacher error feedback and those who have not. In other words, this research is intended to find out whether or not teacher error feedback has positive effect on students’ descriptive writing accuracy which focuses on grammatical errors in writing task at the first-grade of SMAN 1 Pringsewu.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Praise Lord Jesus Christ the Almighty and Merciful God, for continuously blessing the researcher with health, and faith so that the researcher is finally able to finish this script as one of the requirements for graduating from Language and Arts Department of the Teacher Training and Education Faculty in The University of Lampung. The script is entitled “Teacher Error Feedback Effect on The Accuracy of Students’ Descriptive Writing at The First-Grade of SMAN 1 Pringsewu”.
The researcher would like to humbly convey his thousands gratitude to many people who have given suggestions, constructing advices and facilitate the researcher in finishing the script. First, he presents his esteem to Prof. Dr. Patuan Raja, M.Pd., his first advisor, and Dra. Rosita SP, M.A., his second advisor, who have furnished their best constructing reviews, suggestions, and corrections during the attainment of the script. Then, he wants to devote his gratefulness to his examiner, Drs. Sudirman, M.Pd., for his kind contribution and revision.
His thankfulness is also due to the Headmaster of SMAN 1 Pringsewu, in which the researcher conducted his research, and all beloved students of class X.1 and X.2 for their participation in the research.
viii
The researcher’s grateful love and unspeakable respect go to his benevolent mother, Suminem, and father, Tumaryono, thank you for your prayers, reinforcement, and willingness to wait for the researcher’s graduation. His thankfulness is also due to his brother, Feb Setianto, for the cheering and encouragement.
Hopefully, this script would give a positive contribution to the educational development and to those who want to carry out further research.
Bandar Lampung, July 2012
I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Problem
One indicator of an educational institution success in producing high-quality output is reflected in the achievement of the students or the score obtained on every subject including English.
English is learnt since elementary school up to university. However, the problem arises: though the students have been learning English ever since they were in the elementary school, the result or the achievement of the students found in many cases are still considerably low, especially when it comes to writing skill. As we know, writing is the last language skill from the order of skills that should be mastered by pupils. Perhaps the reason why writing is difficult for most of the students is because this skill is the combination of other aspects of language and language skills themselves.
2
Writing deals mainly with the accuracy of the used words, grammar and other linguistics aspects so that its meaning can easily be understood by readers. The problem that often occurs is that the students use the grammar of their native language and then mold it to their English writing.
Feedback plays a central role in developing writing proficiency among second language learners. Based on the researcher’s experience during his field practice (PPL) at SMAN 9 Bandar Lampung in 2011, this was especially true for academic writing since the goal of writing instruction in this course is to teach both the conventions of writing in a particular academic context as well as the grammatical forms needed to perform writing tasks. In this regard, students strive hard to meet the writing demands of the course and the preferences of their writing teachers. As mandated by the curriculum after completing the courses, in this particular case, writing courses the students have to be able to write certain types of texts accurately and acceptably. Based on observations and interview with the English teacher and also the students of SMAN 1 Pringsewu, this problem also happens there.
be in questions, statements, imperatives, or exclamations, and comments. In introducing claims, criticism, and suggestions teachers should rely on evidence
from facts proved by seeing the students’ writing and errors that occur. In relation
to giving the feedback, hedging plays role as to soften teachers’ criticism and
suggestion so that the comments (feedbacks) do not discourage the students. Hedging may come up with many labels such as compromisers, downtoners, weakeners, and softeners. For example, instead of saying that the students’ writings are wrong, it can be hedged by saying: Your writing seems to be unique. Perhaps you should read more on the adjective uses in descriptive text. Such labels include lexical verbs (e.g.: seem, tend, appear), modals (e.g.: may, might) and some adverbs (probably, perhaps), although condition clauses, passive voices, and impersonal phrases have also been included.
From the researcher’s experience during his field-practice (PPL) in 2011 at SMAN 9 Bandar Lampung, the feedback that would likely to occur is in the form of suggestions and comments. The feedback is likely considered as to help students in developing their skill in writing. This probably due to the condition that the students in SMAN 9 Bandar Lampung should be more active in learning lessons as instructed in most RSBI schools. The researcher observed that when teachers acted as motivator in teaching –learning process the students would be more actively involved. During the PPL, the researcher improved the way feedback used to be given by the teacher. The teacher mostly used to employ indirect feedback yet without hedging and students considered it to be a little too
4
especially in the class which the researcher taught, students had already been given the feedback particularly in writing sections. The feedback given, again, was considered a little too ‘harsh’ by the students for it was given inside the class. The form of feedback that occurred during the researcher’s PPL is probably due to the lesser role of the teacher in RSBI curriculum, hence the suggestive comments form of feedback would arise.
Why teacher error feedback is chosen? Some research findings indicate that students prefer error feedback from teachers since they believe that they will benefit greatly from it (Leki, 1991; Radecki and Swales, 1988; Straub, 1997). Furthermore, from the researcher’s experience during field-practice (PPL), it was found that the peer-to-peer error feedback did not make them comfortable since they had to judge their own friends’ writings and they were not confident with their English skill for giving such error feedback.
After taking a closer look on previous experts’ researches, then the researcher see that teachers’ error feedback on students’ L2 writing has always been considered an essential element in writing courses, especially when learners go through a multiple-draft process.
in 2011. Furthermore, the researcher expected that findings of the research would be used in order to develop the English teaching in school from which the researcher started to love and learn English.
Pursuant to the background, this research is entitled: Teacher Error Feedback Effect on the Accuracy of Students’ Descriptive Writing at the First – Grade of SMAN 1 Pringsewu
1.2 Formulation of Problem
Based on the background above, the researcher formulates the problem as follow: Is there any effect of teacher error feedback on the accuracy of students’ descriptive writing of class X SMAN 1 Pringsewu?
1.3 Objective
The objective of this research is to find out whether Teacher Error Feedback has effect on the accuracy of students’ descriptive writing of class X SMAN 1 Pringsewu.
1.4 Uses
1. Theoretically, to enrich the relevant science related to the improvement of
6
2. Practically, to give a consideration and information to teacher or related parties in education that Teacher Error Feedback can or cannot be used to
improve students’ writing accuracy.
1.5 Scope of the Research
This is an associative study that attempts to identify the relationship and effect of
Teacher Error Feedback on students’ descriptive writing accuracy. Because of the
researcher limitation, then the study mainly focuses on the effect that teacher error feedback has towards students’ descriptive writing accuracy and therefore any
errors that occurs on the students’ writing are considered as error in general and
not to be classified into more detailed description. Students of class X.1 and X.2 in SMAN 1 Pringsewu are taken as participants of this study. The research is conducted with two groups: experimental group and control group. The researcher uses writing task as instrument for collecting data, then students would have to
revise their writing. In experimental group, the students’ writing was given error
feedback from the teacher while in control group teacher error feedback was not given. This was done as to distinguish and to see whether or not the treatment, i.e.
teacher error feedback, has significant effect on students’ descriptive writing
1.6 Definition of Terms 1.6.1 Feedback
Feedback is a response either to the content of what a student has produced or to the form of the written utterances. Krashen ( 1987) states that when the focus is on forms, it is supposed to help learners to reflect on the wrong forms and finally produce right forms. Teacher error feedback and peer feedback are two forms of feedback widely used in assessing writing, especially when multiple drafts are involved.
1.6.2 Accuracy
Accuracy is the ability to be free from any errors while using language to communicate. Accuracy refers to how correct students' use of the language system is, including their use of grammar, punctuation and vocabulary. Accuracy is often compared to fluency when we talk about a student's level of speaking or writing. Accuracy in writing may mean facilitating students with activities of writing using the following features:
1. Adverbs; 2. Articles; 3. Conjunctions; 4. Formality in verbs; 5. Modal verbs;
6. Nouns and adjectives;
8
8. Passives;
9. Prefixes and suffixes; 10. Prepositions;
11. Punctuation;
12. Relative pronouns; that / which 13. Singular / plural;
14. Tenses;
1.6.3 Error in Grammar
Error is a part of conversation or a composition that deviates from some norm of language performances. It can also be seen as a systematic deviation that happens when a learner has not learnt something and consistently gets it wrong. In a simpler way to say, error is different from mistake in that mistake is a slip which students can self-correct whilst error is what learners can not self-correct.
1.6.4 Descriptive Writing
There are two broad kinds of descriptive writing: objective and subjective. In objective description, the writer sets aside those aspects of the perception unique
to himself and concentrates on describing the percept (that is, what is perceived) in itself. In subjective (also called impressionistic) the description is a writer projection of his or her feelings into the percept. Objective description says, ‘This
is how the thing is’; subjective states, ‘This is how the thing seems to one
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter would deal with review of previous research related to writing, particularly descriptive writing; theoretical assumption and hypotheses; and mainly with teacher error feedback.
2.1 Writing Skill
Besides rational, writing is also a valuable activity, and thus, worth learning (Kane, 2000). It is of immediate practical benefit in almost any job or professional career. Certainly there are many jobs in which we can get along without being able to write clearly. However, if we know how to write, we will get along faster and further. There are also a growing number of institutions that require their employee to be able to write in English. Some universities and colleges, for instance, demand their lecturers and / or staffs to be able to publish their writing in journal of science. Moreover, if we have published many of our writings in such journal, the scholarship for higher degree of education awaits us. We can also see the benefit of writing skill is to earn money. Many great writers make their fortune from writing though they never expected to be as fortunate as he/she is.
Moreover, Kane (2000) proposes a more profound value of writing. He claims that we create ourselves by words. Before we are business people or lawyers or engineers or teachers, we are human beings. Our growth as human beings depends on our capacity to understand and to use language. Writing is a way of growing.
More specific definition of writings are offered by authors such as Raimes (1987), who defines writing as a form of expression of feelings, ideas, propositions, or the conveyance of specific message for specific effect(s), using a graphic system arranged into words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, and so on.
12
prose that informs, which, depending on what it is about, is called exposition, description, or narration. This study will specifically deal with description or
descriptive writing.
2.2 Descriptive Writing
Description, or descriptive writing, is about sensory experience—how something looks, sounds, tastes (Kane, 2000). Mostly it is about visual experience, but description also deals with other kinds of perception, as when we’re describing a condition of a break-hearted young man or when we are trying to invite the readers to feel the weather when a storm strikes.
Kane (2000) divides descriptive writing into two broad kinds: objective and subjective. In objective description, the writer sets aside those aspects of the
perception unique to himself and concentrates on describing the percept (that is, what is perceived) in itself. In subjective (also called impressionistic) description a writer projects his or her feelings into the percept. Objective description says,
‘This is how the thing is’; subjective, ‘This is how the thing seems to one
particular consciousness’.
Neither kind of description is more ‘honest.’ Both are (or can be) true, but they are
true in different ways. The truth of objective description lies in its relationship to fact; that of subjective in relationship to feeling or evaluation. Subjective
an accurate report. If we do not agree with how a writer feels about something, we cannot say that the description is false. We can say only that it is not true for us— that is, that we do not share his or her feelings.
Nor are these two approaches hard-and-fast categories into which any piece of descriptive writing must fall. Most descriptions involve both, in varying degrees. Generally, however, one mode will dominate and fix the focus. In scientific and legal writing, for instance, objectivity is desirable. In personal writing subjectivity is more likely. But in both kinds, success hinges on three things: (1) details that are sharply defined images, appealing to one or another of the senses; (2) details that are selected according to a guiding principle; and (3) details that are clearly organized.
2.3 Teaching of Writing in English as a Foreign Language
14
process consisting of a sequence of stages occurring recursively throughout the process and supporting on one another.
The development of the process writing approach may be attributed to two reasons. First, the process writing approach has appeared as a correction of the previous approach to writing (Johnston, 1996). In the previous product-oriented approach, students were invited to imitate a model text in order to reinforce a certain structure. The old model did not reveal how learners could achieve the product. Second, the process writing approach reflects what skilled writers do when they write. Sommers (1980) suggests that skilled writers tend to use early drafts experimentally and are willing to make substantial changes to them, while unskilled writers are much more concerned about details from the outset. Furthermore, unskilled writers are determined not to commit errors and therefore attend to them prematurely, while the more skilled writers devise strategies that allowed them to pursue the development of their ideas without being sidetracked (Raimes, 1987).
aims at developing critical capacities and enriching the repertoire of linguistic resources for writing.
While we can divide the writing process in various ways, it is perhaps simplest to see writing as a three-step process: pre-writing, writing, and re-writing.
Prewriting
Prewriting includes everything that a student does before beginning to draft a paper. Prewriting can be classified further into five activities: reading as a writer, generating ideas, organizing ideas, contextualizing ideas, and coming up with a working thesis.
Reading as a Writer. With most academic papers, prewriting begins with reading a text (here "text" broadly includes everything from books, to works of art, to results of scientific experiments, to cultural, social, and economic systems). Students often read these texts passively, satisfying themselves with absorbing the information in front of them. They rarely read actively, raising questions or challenging the writer as they read. Students should be encouraged to look for patterns, or to underline allusions that they don't understand.
16
dialogue. Asking questions—both in conference and in writing workshops— models for students a way of interrogating their ideas that will yield better papers. With practice, students will internalize these methods of inquiry and will apply them to all of their academic tasks.
Organizing Ideas. Students have several strategies to choose from when organizing their ideas. Some students draft formal outlines and follow them faithfully as they write. Others make informal outlines that they revise as they draft. Some students look for umbrella ideas and try to cluster related ideas beneath them. Still others write short paragraphs to try to summarize their thinking. While students should be permitted to use the organizing strategies that work for them, sometimes young writers rely overmuch on one organizational strategy.
Contextualizing Ideas. Sometimes students do not have a good sense of where their argument fits in the ongoing academic conversation, and so they cannot see the point (or the structure) of their paper.
Writing / Drafting
To begin to write is a difficult task. Most young writers suffer from one of three tendencies: 1) they are perfectionists and so keep writing the same first sentence again and again, trying to get it right; 2) they are terrified of making a decision and so continue to stare at the page as the clock ticks on; or 3) they see writing simply as the process of getting what's in their head onto the page. Once they've done a "brain dump" they think that the paper is finished. None of these writing strategies will yield a good paper in a timely fashion.
Students need to understand that writing tends to happen in two stages: first they write to express themselves, then they write to make sense for their readers. More experienced writers have learned how to conflate the two stages into one, crafting their sentences and paragraphs as they write so that they express their ideas in ways that will engage their readers. Students, however, will need to understand that, for young writers, there are many drafts between the first and the last. In this way, writing is always rewriting.
18
Feedback is given on this stage of writing process. It can take on different forms
according to teachers’ preferences, students’ proficiency level, types of writing
tasks, and the stages of writing process (Hyland, 2003). Two major forms of feedback that are known to take place in recent teaching of writing are feedback on grammatical errors and feedback on contents.
Rewriting / Revising
After the students are being given the feedback then the next stage is rewriting / revising. Rewriting a paper is, for some students, even more difficult than writing it. Substantive revision requires that students re-envision their papers, trying to understand how readers understand (or misunderstand) them.
Most first-year students could benefit from a discussion of general reader expectations. The students need to be asked to consider: Why do paragraphs require topic sentences? Because readers expect them. Where do they expect to
find them? Generally at or near the beginning of a paragraph. When would you
make an exception? When you're using a paragraph not to support a claim but to
lead a reader to it; in this case, the topic sentence might end up at the end of the paragraph. But regardless of where you put it, a topic sentence is needed to state, implicitly or explicitly, the paragraph's main idea. Why? Again, because readers expect it. Can this expectation be violated? Sure. But you need to craft the paragraph exceptionally well if you're going to violate your reader's expectations.
to say. Indeed, many of the problems in a paper can be worked out if students spend more time considering readers' expectations regarding style.
2.4 Feedback Provision
As stated before, feedback in recent teaching of writing may occur in form of grammatical error feedback and content feedback. While the types of feedback that are likely to occur in recent teaching of writing are teacher-student conferencing, peer feedback, and teacher written error feedback.
Feedback on Grammatical Errors
20
the contrary, error correction that is selective, prioritized and clear will be helpful for student writers.
One of the studies that Truscott refers to supports his thesis about the ineffectiveness of error correction, is the study by Kepner (1991). Kepner found that message-related comments on the students' journal writing is more effective than the feedback on surface grammatical errors. However, in Kepner's study, there was no rewriting, so Kepner could not compare the performance of the students before and after they were given feedback. Error correction and explicit rule presentations on the students' paper do play a role in promoting the accuracy of the student's writing, but the students have to rewrite their paper after receiving feedback to show their awareness and understanding of the mistakes they have made.
Feedback on Contents
Another type of feedback that has a great influence on the improvement of the student's writing is that of feedback on content.
Kepner (1991) has compared a group receiving surface error-correction and another group receiving message-related comments. Although this study shows that feedback on content is more superior than that on error correction, this study has indicated that in order to make students improve their writing, they need feedback.
Another study which shows that feedback on content can lead learners to improve their writing is that of Semke (1984). Semke found that L2 student writers who received content-focused feedback on their writing spent more time writing and became more fluent than those whose writing received error corrections. This finding suggests that feedback on content in the students' writing enhances the progress of the students' writing.
22
Then come to the types of feedback in teaching of writing. The types of feedback that will be discussed here are peer feedback, teacher-student conferencing, and teacher-written error feedback, or commonly known as teacher error feedback, as these three types are the most relevant to recent study, with teacher error feedback given special attention.
Peer Feedback
Peer response is difficult to apply at lower language levels as it demands certain linguistic knowledge. Furthermore, the students need to trust each other for the peer response to be productive and sometimes cultural differences can be an obstacle. Peer feedback has been successful where the students have given each other support and advice during the writing process instead of focusing on the final product.
Teacher – student Conferencing
Teacher Error Feedback
Hyland (2003) further stressed the importance of feedback when he pointed out: A response is potentially one of the most influential texts in a process writing
class, and the point at which the teacher’s intervention is most obvious and
perhaps most crucial. Not only does this individual attention play an important part in motivating learners, it is also the point at which explicit correction and explicit language teaching are most likely to occur.
The researcher has distinguished between direct and indirect feedback strategies. Direct or explicit feedback occurs when the teacher identifies an error and provides the correct form, while indirect refers to situations when the teacher indicates that an error has been made but does not grant a correction, thereby leaving the student to detect and correct it.
A variety of techniques have been applied when providing written feedback to students. Here, three types will be addressed; written comments, rubrics, and correction codes. In this research, only written commentary was used.
Written commentary. In second language writing written commentary is
considered the most common form of written feedback (Hyland, 2003). Written response has been emphasized as being more preferable to the students. The students find written response easier to work with than peer or teacher talk as the written texts are reviewable while teacher and peer talk are not.
Rubrics. Referring to Hyland (2003), rubrics are a form of commentary usually
24
assessed. Providing the students the rubrics in advance can make the students better aware of what the criteria are on which their writing will be judged. In addition, rubrics may help teachers to be more concise when assessing papers and save time for them as it simplifies the grading process.
Correction codes are a kind of written feedback which is in-text and form-based, a
type of response that has been called “minimal marking” (Hyland, 2003). Correction codes utilize symbols intended to locate and give the type of error without providing the correct answer, hence intended to stimulate the student to find and spot the mistakes. One setback is that younger learners might find the codes confusing.
2.5 Teacher Error Feedback
2.5.1Arguments Against Teacher Error Feedback
Truscott (1999, 2007) argues strongly against the efficacy of grammatical feedback in L2 writing, pointing out some practical problems associated with this
practice such as the teachers’ lack of grammar knowledge, their abilities to
respond to errors, and the students’ different behaviors after receiving teacher
In an earlier study, Zamel (1985) had already doubted the quality of teacher feedback, finding that teachers have been neither consistent nor systematic in responding to student errors. The inconsistency itself may have resulted in confusion to the students regarding their writing and the grammatical errors. Furthermore, Cohen and Cavalcanti (1990) also found the same inconsistencies. They even discovered teacher biases, where teachers provided grammar
corrections according to the beliefs they held about a particular student’s language
abilities.
In addition, students’ responses to teachers’ feedback may also be problematic.
For example, Cohen’s study (1987) found that many students had difficulties
understanding teachers’ feedback, and did not know what to do with the feedback
even if they understood it. As the researcher’s also found during his field-practice (PPL) in 2011, the students did not understand the feedback if stated in indirect feedback, i.e. the feedback that stated only as to note that there are errors on the writing without telling what the errors are. In providing indirect feedback, some teachers tend to code mistakes to indicate the precise location and type of error, while others provide uncoded feedback that simply locates the error without
disclosing the error type. Usually with uncoded feedback, it becomes the student’s
task to diagnose and correct the mistake. Nevertheless, they seem to be unaware of the errors they made and not knowing how to deal with it.
In a more recent study, Fazio (2001) has found that because of “the limited
26
actually impede students’ ability to write accurately. Hence, researcher may think that the core problem is the lack of the attention of the students to pay attention to the error corrections feedback from the teachers.
Cohen and Cavalcanti (1990) pose that teachers and students need to work more on establishing agreement between their separate agenda for feedback and on expanding the repertoire of strategies learners need to employ for maximum benefit from the feedback provided.
In Kepner’s (1991) experiment, students were provided with two types of written
feedback: message-related comments and surface error-corrections. The experiment found that the consistent use of L2 teachers’ written error-corrections as a primary medium of written feedback was ineffective in L2 writing, whether for higher-proficiency or for lower-proficiency learners.
From Zamel, Cohen and Cavalcanti, Fazio, and also Kepner we can examine that teacher error feedback does not have bad effect as long as some points elaborated above are closely put into consideration. Zamel suggests that the problems are the inconsistency and that the responses are not systematically prepared and done by the teachers. Cohen and Cavalcanti further add that the lack of students’ understanding of what need to do after getting the error feedback, the lack of agreement on the separate agenda of teachers and students, and the lack of understanding towards the expansion of repertoire of strategies learners need to employ as the problems that mostly occur. Furthermore, Fazio declares that the limited attention students paid to the corrections has made teacher error feedback ineffective to do. No matter how often and how good the feedbacks are, as long as
there is a barrier that caused the students’ attention paid to the corrections is
limited, then it would be ineffective.
Kepner strongly recommends that the consistent use of L2 teachers’ written error -corrections as primary medium for written feedback in L2 writing being ineffective and that it caused the problem arose.
2.5.2 Arguments for Teacher Error Feedback
Ferris (1999, 2006) strongly rejected Truscott’s views, and argued for error correction to be continued because most students value teachers’ feedback. This
belief was confirmed in Zacharias’ study (2007), where students were found to
28
Apparently, as the researcher also saw and experienced during the field-practice (PPL) in 2011, students believed more in the competency of the teachers rather than their classmates as they were given constructive comments regarding to the grammatical errors of their writing. This is probably because they are also lack of mastery in English grammar.
In addition, Ferris points out the adverse effects that errors can have on the quality
of students’ writing, especially for students who are writing for academic
purposes. As noted by Ferris (1999), grammar errors can jeopardize the overall evaluation of the composition for most academic contexts, as teachers at the
university level are “less tolerant of typical ESL errors than of typical native
speaker errors”.
Furthermore, Ferris stresses the importance for learners to develop the habit of revising their own writing. She mentioned that if teachers do not provide an adequate amount of feedback, it will be extremely difficult for students to revise on their own, even when they perceive the importance of editing.
Ferris, Pezone, Tade, and Tinti (1997) have found significant variation in the
teachers’ commentary across different essay assignments given to students with
different proficiency levels. They conclude that teachers’ feedback goes beyond
whether a teacher responds to “content” or “form,” instead the substance and form
of teacher responses vary significantly depending upon the genre of writing being considered and the abilities and personality of individual students.
Treglia’s study (2009) shows that students understand and are able to address
corrections whether feedback is indirect/hedged or direct, assuring writing teachers that mitigating their comments will not affect the clarity of its intent. In a similar study, Treglia claims that mitigation serves as a “face-saving” technique and a tool to motivate and engage students actively in the revision process.
Bitchener, Young, and Cameron’s (2005: 313) investigation reveals that direct oral feedback in combination with direct written feedback did not only have a greater effect than direct written feedback alone on improved accuracy over time, but it also found that the combined feedback option facilitated improvement in the
more “treatable” rule-governed features (past simple tense and definite article)
30
Bitchener and Knoch’s (2008) query on the extent to which different written
corrective feedback options (direct corrective feedback, written and oral meta-linguistic explanation; direct corrective feedback and written meta-meta-linguistic explanation; direct corrective feedback only; no corrective feedback) improve
students’ accuracy in the use of two functional uses of the English article system.
The study shows that (1) students who received all three written corrective feedback options outperformed those who did not receive written feedback, (2)
students’ level of accuracy was retained over seven weeks, and (3) there was no
difference in the extent to which migrant and international students improved the accuracy of their writing as a result of written corrective feedback.
A number of studies on error correction in L2 writing classes have shown that students receiving error feedback from teachers improve in accuracy over time (Hyland, 2003; Chandler, 2003). Hyland (2003) observed six ESL writers on a full-time 14-week English proficiency program course at a university. It was found that feedback focusing on form was used by most of the students in their immediate revisions to their drafts and was highly valued by them. The case
studies suggest that some language errors may be “treatable” through feedback.
over the same semester. This finding disproves Truscott’s (1999) claim on the
negative effect of error correction on fluency.
Lee (2009) reveals a number of mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and practice
in written feedback, namely, (1) teachers pay most attention to language form but
they believe there’s more to good writing than accuracy, (2) teachers mark errors
comprehensively although selective marking is preferred, (3) teachers tend to correct and locate errors for students but believe that through teacher feedback students learn to correct and locate their own errors, (4) teachers use error codes although they think students have a limited ability to decipher the codes, (5) teachers award scores/grades to student writing although they are almost certain that marks/grades draw student attention away from teacher feedback, (6) teachers respond mainly to weakness in student writing although they know that feedback
should cover both strengths and weaknesses, (7) teachers’ written feedback
32
2.6 Theoretical Assumption and Hypotheses
To write an accurate text is not a skill that learners easily master. In order to be able to write a text accurately students need to avoid errors in their writing. If, somehow, the errors occur then the students prefer to have suggestions on how to revise their writing. The researcher’s experience during his PPL confirms this as well as other experts’ researches.
Teacher error feedback as a technique used to encourage and give the students a
‘hint’ of what they need to do to revise their writing has been in a disputation for
years. For those who argue for it to be implemented, like Truscott (1999, 2007) see that it would weaken the creativity and bravery of the students to utilize their knowledge onto their writing. While for those who support teacher error feedback, like Ferris (1999, 2006) notice that most students value teachers’ feedback and they benefit from it.
Pursuant to the background from the previous chapter, the literature review, and also the previous statements then the researcher assumed that students would profit from teacher error feedback regarding to the accuracy of their writing. The researcher, hence, took position as to prove that teacher error feedback has effect
on the accuracy of students’ writing, in this particular case, descriptive writing.
III. RESEARCH METHOD
3.1 Research Design
The aim of this research is to find out the effect of teacher error feedback on the
accuracy of the students’ descriptive writing of class X SMA Negeri 1 Pringsewu.
The appropriate research method corresponded to the objectives of the research is associative research with pre-post non-equivalent groups design. It is structured like a pretest-posttest randomized experiment, but it lacks the key feature of the randomized designs -- random assignment. Here, by non-equivalent, means that assignment to group was not random. In other words, the researcher did not control the assignment to groups through the mechanism of random assignment. The design can be visualized as follow:
NE G1 X T1 NE G2 0 T1 Where:
NE : Symbol stating the design is with non-equivalent groups G1 : Experimental group
G2 : Control group X : Treatment
34
3.2 Population and Sample
The population of the research was all of class X students in SMA Negeri 1 Pringsewu in 2011/2012 academic year. The researcher chose class X because it is assumed that they had just graduated from junior high school so that they had not been given many writing exposures just yet. There were four classes of class X with 28-30 students in each class. Two groups of senior high-school students in class X.1 and X.2 each of which consisting of thirty students were taken as the sample out of the student population in school.
The sampling technique used in this research was purposive sampling. The researcher considers this technique as the technique of sampling that gives similar opportunity for every members of the population to be selected to become the samples. Ideally, random sampling should be used yet since it was almost impossible to do in the research at this particular condition because it was so hard to pick certain students and mix them with other samples, so the random sampling was not used.
3.3 Research Procedure
1. Determining the Population and Selecting the Samples
2. Administering Writing Task
The next step taken was conducting the writing assessment to the students to see their accuracy score or error-free T-units ratio. The students in both classes then made revision of their first draft then revise again up to the third draft. The difference of the accuracy from first draft to the third draft was seen as the effect of the treatment, i.e., the teacher error feedback.
3. Analyzing, Interpreting, and Concluding the Data
After collecting the data of the accuracy of the students’ writing, then analyzing,
interpreting, and concluding the data was performed.
First, the data obtained from the task were tabulated and calculated. Independent t-test was then used to see if the hypothesis are accepted or rejected.
3.4 Instrument
The instrument used in this research was writing task. The task consisted of a picture that students should describe into relatively short descriptive writing (200
– 400 words). Students’ writings then were checked in terms of grammatical
36
3.5 Measuring Writing Accuracy
Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998) define accuracy simply as “the ability to be free from
errors while using language to communicate”. Since the primary question in this
study deals with the effect of the treatment on linguistic accuracy, the measure favored most by Wolfe-Quintero et al. was used with the hope that it would
present a complementary picture of students’ writing performance. The measure
of accuracy they favor most and recommend is the error-free T-unit ratio (EFT/T), or the total number of error-free T-units per total number of T-units in a given piece of writing. For convenience and uniformity in this study, this measure is converted to a 100-point scale. Thus, this measure of overall accuracy is calculated as (EFT/T) multiplied by 100. Since this measure utilizes the T-unit, a brief discussion of the T-unit may be useful.
The T-unit ratio was originally developed by Hunt (1965) as a way of measuring writing maturity to overcome problems associated with using sentences as units of production. Hunt defines a T-unit as “one main clause plus the subordinate clauses
attached to or embedded within it”. For example, the two-word sentence Bill went
contains one main or independent clause and would be considered one T-unit. On the other hand, consider an expanded version of this sentence: Before coming home, Bill went to the library. Though this sentence also contains a subordinate or
dependent clause, it would still be counted as only one T-unit.
and he went to his apartment and he studied most of the night. Though punctuated
as one sentence by the writer, it actually contains four T-units as identified in the following breakdown: (a) Before coming home, Bill went to the library, (b) he checked out several books, (c) he went to his apartment, and (d) he studied most
of the night. Thus, analyzing T-units rather than sentences provides the researcher
with a more stable measure of writing development.
For the purposes of this study, run-on sentences were analyzed according to the number of T-units they contained. However, each T-unit needed to have an appropriate form of punctuation preceding and following it before it could be considered error free. For example, if a run-on sentence contained three T-units but lacked appropriate punctuation that would have correctly separated the units, then the run-on would be counted as three units with no error-free T-units. Of course, it should be remembered that the presence of any type of error would make a particular T-unit ineligible to be counted as an EFT. Where multiple T-units were stung together with coordinating conjunctions (i.e. and, or, but), the conjunctions were counted in the T-unit that followed it. Using the EFT/T in this way provided one consistent, objective measure of overall accuracy of student writing.
38
errors, namely, run on sentences (sentences which too long and may need to be fragmented), incomplete sentences, and sentence-level punctuation (comma, period, etc). Determiner errors are related to the misuses of articles (a, an, the), possessive pronouns (my, your, his, her, their, our), numbers, indefinite pronouns, and demonstrative pronouns. Verb errors are concurrent with subject-verb agreement, and verb tense. Semantic errors are in accordance to unclear meaning, awkwardness, word order, and insertion/omission.
3.6 Statistical and Hypothesis Testing
Associative research was performed to obtain necessary data, including the coefficient correlation. The writing instruction was given as to obtain the students’ writing accuracy level and to notice the improvement of the accuracy level after being given the feedback (in experimental class).
As stated previously, the researcher used Hunt’s T-Units to measure students’ overall accuracy in their writings, as suggested by Quintero et al. The measure was used with the hope that it would give a picture of students’ overall accuracy.
The research employed two groups: control and experimental class. Thus, independent groups T-Test will be used to compare mean from these two different
groups both of which taken in different situation. In control class there will be no feedback given, while in experimental class teacher error feedback will be given. In T-Test, there are some basic assumptions need to be fulfilled, they are:
1. The data must be interval or ratio data ( or changing ordinal data to interval data)
V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
This final chapter proposes the conclusion of the study and some suggestions for further research.
5.1 Conclusion
In reference to the discussion of the research in the previous chapter, the researcher comes to the following conclusion:
There is a positive effect of teacher error feedback towards the students’
descriptive writing accuracy. We can see that from the improvement difference of mean (7.9 enhancement point and 2.9 enhancement point for experimental and control class respectively) between these two classes. There is also a difference in accuracy between students who have been given teacher error feedback and those who have not. It can be noticed from a significant difference of results between
students’ descriptive writing accuracy of those who have been given teacher error
feedback and those who have not. It also can be seen from the result that the mean score for Draft 3 of experimental class’ students (72.26) is higher than the mean of
control class’ students (65.43). The difference can also be observed in the
in the experimental class from Draft 1 (pre-feedback) to Draft 3, from 64.36 to 72.26 (7.9 point of enhancement). There is also an increase of mean in the control class from Draft 1 to Draft 3, from 62.53 to be 65.43 (2.9 point of enhancement).
The result of this research confirms previous experts’ researches that teacher error feedback is indeed has positive effect and very useful in improving students’ descriptive writing accuracy.
5.2 Suggestions
In accordance to the conclusions above, the researcher would like to give some suggestions as follow:
1. Suggestion for the Teacher
Since the study shows that teacher error feedback, and to be more specific,
written feedback has effect towards students’ writing accuracy then it may
be put into consideration to be used if the teacher wants to improve the
students’ accuracy on descriptive writing. This can be done by giving the
61
2. Suggestions for Further Research
a. In this research, the researcher has only utilized Descriptive writing task as the tool to measure students’ writing accuracy. Further researcher can employ wider types of text to get more reliable data
about the students’ accuracy in other types of text.
b. The statistical test reveals significant effects of the treatment on overall accuracy. Since the research has limitation, it may be beneficial to focus on more specific individual aspect of accuracy, such as on the lexical accuracy, semantic accuracy, etc.
STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTIVE WRITING AT THE FIRST- GRADE OF SMAN 1 PRINGSEWU
(A Script)
By
Ferry Yun Kurniawan 0713042006
Advisor I : Prof. Dr. Patuan Raja, M.Pd. Advisor II : Dra. Rosita SP, M.A.
ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM
LANGUAGE AND ARTS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION
THE UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG
CURRICULUM VITAE
The researcher’s name is Ferry Yun Kurniawan. He was born in Pujodadi, June 18th 1989. He is the second child of two children of a remarkable couple, Tumaryono and Suminem.
He began his study at SD Negeri 4 Pujodadi in 1995. Having graduated from the Elementary School in 2001, he went to SLTP Negeri 1 Pringsewu and graduated in 2004. He finished his High School at SMU Negeri 1 Pringsewu in 2007. In the same year, he was registered as a college student of Lampung University at English Education Study Program, the Language and Arts Department of Teacher Training and Education Faculty. He participated in PPL program in 2011 taken place at SMAN 9 Bandar Lampung, he also was a teacher at Standard Gandhi English Course during the period of 2010-2011.
Beside studying and teaching, he also participated as Expert Staff in Education
DEDICATION
This script is proudly devoted to: My beloved parents, Tumaryono and Suminem
My elder brother Feb Setianto
Yudi “Shaun the Sheep”, my beloved comrades English ’07 of Lampung University; Dian, Deri, Dani, Lilis, Cia, Sisil, all NERD ’07, and the late Akhirman.
My special one, Suryati
My fellow citizen in Pekon Pujodadi My Almamater, UNILA
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 Statistic of Control Class Draft 1 ... 41
Table 4.2 Distribution Frequencies of Control Class Draft 1 ... 41
Table 4.3 Statistic of Control Class Draft 3 ... 42
Table 4.4 Distribution Frequencies of Control Class Draft 3 ... 42
Table 4.5 Statistic of Experimental Class Draft 1 ... 43
Table 4.6 Distribution Frequencies of Experimental Class Draft 1 ... 43
Table 4.7 Statistic of Experimental Class Draft 3 ... 44
Table 4.8 Distribution Frequencies of Experimental Class Draft 3 ... 44
Table 4.9 Tests of Normality in Experimental Class ... 45
Table 4.10 Tests of Normality in Control Class ... 46
Table 4.11 Homogeneity Test ... 47
Table 4.12 Hypothesis Testing using Independent T-test ... 48
“A man will not be judged of who he is, yet of what he has done.”
REFERENCES
Bitchener. J., Young, S., and Cameron, J. 2005 . The Effect of Different Types of Corrective Feedback on ESL Student Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191-319.
Bitchener, J. 2008. Evidence in Support of Written Corrective Feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004.
Bitchener, J., and Knoch, U. 2008. The Value of Written Corrective feedback for Migrant and International students, Language Teaching Research, 12, 409-431.
Cahyono, B. Y. 1999. Converging Lines: Towards the Integration of
Second Language Research and Teaching. Jurnal Jurusan Sastra Inggris Fakultas Sastra Universitas Kristen Petra Vol.1 No.1 32-43.
Chandler, J. 2003. The Efficacy of Various Kinds of Error Feedback for
Improvement in the Accuracy and Fluency of Student Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296.
Cohen, A. 1987. Student Processing of Feedback on Their Compositions. In A. I. Wenden and J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 57-69). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Cohen, A., and Cavalcanti, M. 1990. Feedback on Compositions: Teacher and Student Verbal Reports. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing Research: Insights for The Classroom (pp. 155-177). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fathman, A., and Whalley, E. 1990. Teacher Response to Student Writing: Focus on Form versus Content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for The Classroom (pp. 178-190). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fazio, L. L. 2001. The Effect of Corrections and Commentaries on The
Ferris, D. 1999. The Case for Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes: A Response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11.
Ferris, D. 2006. Does Error Feedback Help Student Writers? New Evidence on The Short and Long-term Effects of Written Error Correction. In K. Hyland and F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues (pp. 81-104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D., Pezone, S., Tade, C. R., and Tinti, S. (1997). Teacher Commentary on Student Writing: Descriptions and Implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 155-182.
Flower, L. and Hayes, J. R. 1980. The Cognition of Discovery: Defining
Rhetorical Problem. College Composition and Communication, 31, 76-88. Furnborough, C., and Truman, M. 2009. Adult Beginner Distance Language
Learner Perceptions and Use of Assignment Feedback, Distance Education, 30, 399- 418
Hamid, M. O. 2007. Identifying Second Language Errors: How Plausible Are Plausible Reconstructions. ELT Journal, 61(2), 107-116.
Hedgcock, J., and Leftkowiz, N. 1994. Feedback on Feedback: Assessing Learner Receptivity to Teacher Response in Second Language Composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 141-163.
Hendrickson, J. 1978. Error Correction in Foreign Language Teaching: Recent Theory, Research, and Practice. The Modern Language Journal, 62, 387-398.
Hunt, K. W. 1965. Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels. Urbana, IL: The National Council of Teachers of English.
Hyland, F. 2003. Focusing on Form: Student Engagement with Teacher Feedback. System, 31(2), 217-230.
Johnston, H. 1996. Survey review: Process Writing in Course-books. ELT Journal, 50, 347-355.
Kepner, C. G. 1991. An Experiment in The Relationship of Types of Written Feedback to the Development of Second-Language Writing Skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75: 305-313.
Lee, I. 1997. ESL Learners’ Performance in Error Correction in Writing: Some Implications for Teaching. System, 25(4), 465-477.
Lee, I. 2004. Error Correction in L2 Secondary Writing Classrooms: The Case of Hongkong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285-312.
Lee, I. 2009. Ten Mismatches between Teachers’ Beliefs and Written Feedback Practices. ELT Journal, 63(1), 13-22.
Leki, I. 1991. The Preference of ESL Students for Error Correction in College- Level Writing Classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24: 203-218.
McGarrel, H., and Verbeem, J. 2007. Motivating Revision of Drafts Through Formative Feedback. ELT Journal, 61(3), 228-236.
Polio, C. 1997. Measures of Linguistic Accuracy in Second Language Writing Research. Language Learning, 47, 101-143.
Radecki, P., and Swales, J. 1988. ESL Student Reaction to Written Comments on Their Written Work. System, 16: 355-365.
Raimes, A. 1987. Language Proficiency, Writing Ability, and Composing Strategies: A Study of ESL College Student Writers. Language Learning, 37, 439-468.
Semke, H. 1984. The Effect of the Red Pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195-202
Sommers, N. 1980. Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers. College Composition and Communication, 31, 378-388.
Straub, R. 1997. Students’ Reactions to Teacher Comments: An Exploratory
Study. Research in the Teaching of English, 31: 91-119.
Treglia, M. 2009. Teacher-written Commentary in College Writing Composition: How Does It Impact Student Revisions? Composition Studies, 37, 67-86. Truscott, J. 1996. The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing
Classes. Language Learning, 46: 327-369.
Universitas Lampung. 2006. Pedoman Penulisan Karya Ilmiah. Bandar Lampung: Universitas Lampung.
Zacharias, N. T. 2007. Teacher and Student Attitudes Toward Teacher Feedback. Regional Language Center Journal, 38(1), 38-52. Zamel, V. 1985. Responding to Student Writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.3 Teaching of Writing in English as a Foreign Language ... 13
2.4 Feedback Provision ... 19
2.5 Teacher Error Feedback ... 24
2.5.1 Arguments against Teacher Error Feedback ... 24
2.5.2 Arguments for Teacher Error Feedback ... 27
2.6 Theoretical Assumption and Hypothesis ... 32
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Result of the Research ... 40
4.1.1 Control Class Draft 1 Result ... 41
4.1.2 Control Class Draft 3 Result ... 42
4.1.3 Experimental Class Draft 1 Result ... 43
4.1.4 Experimental Class Draft 3 Result ... 43
4.1.5 Result of Normality Test ... 44
4.1.5.1 Result of Normality Test in Experimental Class ... 45
4.1.5.2 Result of Normality Test in Control Class ... 46
4.1.6 Result of Homogeneity Test ... 46
4.1.7 Hypothesis Testing... 47
4.1.8 Students’ Inaccuracy in their Writings ... 48
4.2 Discussion of The Finding ... 52
V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1 Conclusion ... 59
5.2 Suggestions ... 60
REFERENCES ... 62
ADMITTED BY
1. Examination Committee
Chairperson : Prof. Dr. Patuan Raja, M.Pd. ………
Examiner : Drs. Sudirman, M.Pd. ...
Secretary : Dra. Rosita SP, M.A. ...
2. The Dean of Teacher Training and Education Faculty
Dr. H. Bujang Rahman, M.Si.
NIP 19600315 198503 1 003
Research Title : Teacher Error Feedback Effect on The Accuracy of Students’ Descriptive Writing at The First – Grade of SMAN 1
Pringsewu
Student’s Name : Ferry Yun Kurniawan
Student’s Number : 0713042006
Depatment : Language and Arts
Study Program : English Education
Faculty : Teacher Training and Education
APPROVED BY
Advisory Committee
Advisor I, Advisor II,
Prof. Dr. Patuan Raja, M.Pd. Dra. Rosita SP, M.A.
NIP 19620804 198905 1 001 NIP 19480920 197503 2 001
The Chairperson of
Language and Arts Education Department
Drs. Imam Rejana, M.Si.
