SELF-DIRECTED FEEDBACK : An Attempt Towards Learner Autonomy In Writing.

(1)

SELF-DIRECTED FEEDBACK: AN ATTEMPT TOWARDS

LEARNER AUTONOMY IN WRITING

A RESEARCH PAPER

Submitted to English Education Department of the Faculty of Language and Arts

Education of the Indonesia University of Education as Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

By

Tsara Desiana Akmilia

0902600

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

(2)

Self-Directed Feedback: An Attempt

towards Learner Autonomy in

Writing

Oleh

Tsara Desiana Akmilia

Sebuah skripsi yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Sarjana Pendidikan pada Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni

Januari 2014

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

(3)

TSARA DESIANA AKMILIA

SELF-DIRECTED FEEDBACK: AN ATTEMPT TOWARDS LEARNER

AUTONOMY IN WRITING

APPROVED BY:

Main Supervisor

Pupung Purnawarman, M.S.Ed., Ph.D.

NIP. 196810131998031001

Co-Supervisor

Rojab Siti Rodliyah, S.Pd., M.Ed.

NIP. 197308062002122001

Head of English Education Department

Faculty of Languages and Arts Education

Indonesia University of Education

Prof. Dr. Didi Suherdi, M.Ed.

(4)

Tsara Desiana Akmilia, 2014

Self-Directed Feedback: An Attempt Towards Learner Autonomy In Writing

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

ABSTRACT

This paper aimed to investigate the application of self-directed feedback in a writing classroom in terms of how it may affect their skills in writing and the students’ response to it. The study was conducted in one of public high schools in Bandung, taking nine students of a science class as the participants. It employs a case study which is using interview and document analysis as the data collection techniques. The findings show that after the inclusion of self-directed feedback in four drafts, the students managed to have a progress in terms of organization, vocabulary, mechanics, and grammar in the process of writing a report text. The awareness of their own progress also indicates a trait of an autonomous learner. Most of the students saw self-directed feedback as a worthy technique to be used again in the subsequent lessons. As a conclusion, self-directed feedback is proven applicable in the writing classrooms as it functions as a step in making students acquire strategies of learning autonomy. For further research, it is suggested that self-directed feedback is included in a set of a self-monitoring strategy rather than one exclusive technique.

Keywords: feedback, writing, learner autonomy

ABSTRAK

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menginvestigasi pengaplikasian self-directed feedback dalam kelas menulis dari segi sejauh mana hal ini dapat mempengaruhi keahlian siswa dalam menulis serta respon siswa terhadapnya. Penelitian ini dilaksanakan di salah satu SMA negeri di Bandung, dengan mengambil sembilan siswa dari kelas IPA sebagai partisipan. Penelitian ini menggunakan studi kasus yang melibatkan wawancara serta analisis dokumen sebagai teknik pengumpulan data. Temuan dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa setelah diaplikasikannya self-directed feedback pada empat rancangan teks, kualitas siswa mengalami peningkatan dalam segi organisasi tulisan, pembendaharaan kata, mekanika tulisan, dan tata bahasa. Kesadaran siswa akan adanya kemajuan ini juga mengindikasikan salah satu ciri pembelajar mandiri. Sebagian besar siswa melihat self-directed feedback sebagai teknik yang penting untuk diaplikasikan kembali di pembelajaran selanjutnya. Dapat disimpulkan bahwa self-directed feedback telah terbukti dapat diaplikasikan di kelas menulis karena ia berfungsi sebagai salah satu langkah dalam menghasilkan siswa yang memiliki strategi belajar mandiri. Untuk penelitian selanjutnya, disarankan agar self-directed feedback diikutsertakan di dalam satu rangkaian strategi monitoring mandiri, bukan sebagai satu teknik yang eksklusif.

(5)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION ... i

PREFACE ... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... iii

ABSTRACT ... iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... v

LIST OF TABLES ... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ... ix

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1 Background ... 1

1.2 Aims of Study ... 4

1.3 Statement of Problem ... 4

1.4 Significance of the Study ... 4

1.4.1 Theoretical Significance ... 4

1.4.2 Practical Significance ... 5

1.5 Clarification of Related Terms ... 5

1.6 Organization of Paper ... 6

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ... 7

2.1 Writing ... 7

2.1.1 Process Approach to Writing ... 7

2.1.2 Writing a Report Text ... 9

2.1.3 Some Common Problems in Writing ... 10

2.1.3.1 Mechanics ... 10

2.1.3.2 Organization ... 11

2.1.3.3 Grammar ... 11

2.1.3.4 Vocabulary ... 12

2.1.4 Errors in Writing ... 12

2.2 Feedback ... 14

2.2.1 Self-Directed Feedback ... 15

2.3 Self-Directed Feedback in Writing ... 16

(6)

2.5 Writing and Leaner Autonomy ... 24

2.6 Self-Directed Feedback in Relation to Learner Autonomy ... 25

2.7 Concluding Remark ... 26

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 27

3.1 Research Questions ... 27

3.2 Research Design ... 27

3.3 Site and Participants ... 28

3.4 Data Collection ... 29

3.4.1 In-Depth Interview ... 30

3.4.2 Document Analysis ... 31

3.5 Data Analysis ... 32

3.5.1 In-Depth Interview ... 32

3.5.2 Document Analysis ... 33

CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ... 35

4.1 The Extent to Which Self Feedback Affects Students’ Writing Skills ... 35

4.1.1 Organization ... 36

4.1.2 Mechanics ... 42

4.1.2.1 Spelling ... 42

4.1.2.2 Punctuation ... 44

4.1.2.3 Capitalization ... 46

4.1.3 Grammar ... 49

4.1.3.1 Subject Verb Agreement ... 50

4.1.3.2 Plural/Singular Nouns ... 51

4.1.3.3 Modal Verbs ... 52

4.1.4 Vocabulary ... 55

4.2 Students’ Response to Self-Directed Feedback ... 60

4.2.1 Positive Response ... 60

4.2.1.1 Tracking Progress ... 60

4.2.1.2 An Important Activity ... 61

4.2.1.3 An Alternative Activity ... 61

(7)

4.2.1.5 Making the Writing Process Easier ... 64

4.2.2 Negative Response ... 65

4.2.2.1 Boredom ... 65

4.2.2.2 Trauma to Write More ... 66

4.2.2.3 Writing Gets Harder ... 68

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 70

5.1 Conclusions ... 70

5.2 Suggestions ... 71

REFERENCES ... 73

(8)

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides background of the study, aims of the study, statement of

the problem, significance of the study, clarification of the key terms, and

organization of the paper.

1.1 Background

Within the context of EFL classrooms, it is quite common to find classes with

a high number of students. Even though the size of an ideal classroom in many

countries ranged variably under 20 students and one teacher who manage the

lesson, sometimes the reality is still far from that. For teachers who need to face

about 40 students in one class—the condition that is happening widely in

Indonesia—the job could be overwhelming. The main reason why the government

opt for having such classroom is probably due to the economic constraints,

however the limits in budget may result in a quick and convenient cost-cutting

strategy—even though it risks the quality of learning (Cuseo, 2007). The quality

of learning can be influenced since large classes could affect the teachers‟

capability to pay attention to individual students and their specific needs, as well

as in managing the amount of materials that needs to be covered (Ehrenberg,

Brewer, Gamoran, & Willms, 2001). Ehrenberg, et al. (2001) then concluded that

class size can be a potential variable in determining how much students learn.

When we talk about writing classes in particular, to be able to facilitate

students to write better, one of the ways is to include feedback for revision before

writing assignment is collected. Unfortunately, when the feedback source relies

heavily on teachers, this is almost impractical in large classes. Wu (1993) in his

study looked for the possible significant problems encountered in large classes.

One of the findings is that teachers‟ burden to teach about three classes with

approximately 150 students in total makes it hard for them to have more time in

(9)

2

them be piled for direct scoring. The process of giving feedback for revision is

often overlooked. As a consequence, students‟ progress in writing may not be put

into priority for the reasons of practicality such other materials to teach in demand

or some administrative business that the teachers need to do. Rather than focusing

on students‟ progress, they may prioritize more on finishing the materials on time. The teachers, then, may only look at the competence of students based on the end

product instead of carefully measuring each and every student‟s progress in the

process of writing. Even though the research was conducted in China, the same

problem is also encountered by Indonesian English teachers. Added by the

curriculum demands of making students to have four-skills competence in

English, accompanied by the obligation to deliver high stack of materials in a

relatively short time, the condition is not helpful for teachers. However, regardless

of how hard it may seem to include feedback in the writing class, it still cannot be

disregarded. Even in a general perspective, MacGregor, Cooper, Smith, and

Robinson (as cited in Cuseo, 2007) mentioned that when it is necessary to endorse

active and interactive learning, personal validation and frequent feedback to

students‟ work should not be militated by the anonymity of large classes. Therefore, as an attempt to reach the ideal picture within limitations, the best

policy would be for teachers to create or adapt activities that still support students‟

learning without placing teachers in a higher burden they cannot cope up with.

According to Susanti (2013), in Indonesia it is common to have feedback

given by teachers seeing that “teachers are the people who are educated to teach

and correct their students‟ assignments while students are people who have to

receive the corrections and obey every instruction from their teachers” (Susanti,

2013, p. 1-2). However, to rely on teacher feedback in the aforementioned

condition may result in no feedback at all at worst. This can be a loss for a class

since feedback is considered as one of the tools for evaluation. Costa and Kallick

(2004) suggested that we must constantly remind ourselves that the ultimate

purpose of evaluation is to have students learn to become self-evaluative. With

only relying on teacher feedback, together with assumption that students are

(10)

3

teachers” (Susanti, 2013, p. 1-2), the chance of students evaluating themselves is minimal since they are only obeying the instruction of teachers. Self-directed

feedback, which was chosen as an independent variable in the study, could be one

of the solutions. The technique is carrying the value of learner autonomy, as stated

by Cresswell (2000, p. 235) that “The student self-monitoring technique increases

autonomy in the learning of writing by giving learners control over the initiation

of feedback.” Not to mention, in large classrooms when it is hard for teachers to

pay attention to the students‟ individual needs, having autonomous learners can enable them to adjust to their own pace. As was stated by Singer, Togo,

Mochizuki, and Tanaka (2010), students progress differently according to their

speed and fluency in writing. Therefore, having students to learn autonomously

will enable them to work based on their individual pace, without having to wait

for others when they are considerably fast or struggling to chase their friends

when they are slower (Singer et al., 2010).

Unfortunately, the growing research under the topic of feedback on writing

has been focused more on peer response or peer evaluation (Lin, 2009; Cresswell,

2000) while actually self monitoring also involves „reader-based prose‟ which is also endorsed by peer evaluation (Chandrasegaran, 1989 as cited in Cresswell,

2000). Lin (2009) in his research combined three major reasons why self-directed

feedback has attracted less attention from researchers and practitioners, namely;

the difficulty to verify the effect of correction (C h a u d r o n , 1 9 8 8 ,

a s c i t e d i n M a k i n o , 1 9 9 3 ); students‟ lack of capability

in trying to effectively articulate their concerns with their developing

interlanguage when focusing on grammar items at the expense of content and

organization development (Cresswell, 2000); and students‟ assumption that

correcting the essays is under the responsibility of teacher only. However, these

challenges to apply self-directed feedback can be overcome by the addition of

careful planning in activity design, especially in pre-writing stage in which

teacher can introduce and model the skills of invention (Lin, 2009). Cresswell

(2000) also stated that self-monitoring acknowledges the need for feedback since it

(11)

4

either informed correction, or positive feedback, to support acquisition and establish the

item in the productive range. While the benefits of having self-monitoring technique

in the classroom are apparent, these challenges should not restrain the real attempt

for teachers to give better pedagogical practices inside their classrooms.

At last, considering the importance of having better practice in teaching

writing in large classrooms through autonomous learning, together with the fact

that self-directed feedback may create the opportunities to raise students‟

awareness on writing, the study sought to design a study connecting both of the

components to be put into practice in an EFL classroom.

1.2 Aims of Study

This study aimed to investigate the application of self-directed feedback in a

writing classroom and how it may affect their skills in writing. Furthermore, it

also wished to find out the students‟ response towards the application of

self-directed feedback in their writing activity.

1.3 Statement of Problem

In order to accomplish the aims of the study, the study was guided by several

questions;

1.3.1 To what extent does self-directed feedback affect the students‟ writing

skills?

1.3.2 What is the students‟ response to the inclusion of self-directed feedback in

their writing activity?

1.4 Significance of the Study

There are two points of significance which are expected to come from the

study as follows:

1.4.1 Theoretical significance

Until the present time, the majority of research done under the topic of

self-directed feedback only used undergraduate students as the research subjects. At

(12)

5

investigation on the use of self-directed feedback to learners studying in the

earlier stage. Therefore, the result of the study is expected to enrich the literature

on the issue, as well as to give a reference for further research under the same

topic.

1.4.2 Practical significance

Uplifting students‟ desire to write, increasing their awareness of the

importance of writing, as well as facilitating improvement in writing are the goals

of many EFL teachers for their writing classroom. In order to pursue them, the

teachers need to have an endless patience to carry out fruitful writing activities.

Self-directed feedback, as one of the activities recommended by several

researchers might be one of the solutions. Hence, the study is expected to be one

of the references to be adapted to the practical level for teachers surrounded in

similar contexts.

1.5 Clarification of Related Terms

To the extent of the study, some terms are clarified as follows.

a. Self-directed feedback: is a kind of feedback which is provided by the student

to his/her own text of which the purpose is, according to Lin (2009), “to raise

awareness of the important elements and conventions in the process of

composing essays, and helps students to acquire them in order to become

independent and competent writers.” In this paper the term is interchangeable with self feedback.

b. Learner autonomy: according to Benson (2006), autonomy in learning refers

to a condition when people take more control over their learning inside and

outside the classroom.

c. Writing: in this study, the writing refers to the one that follows process

approach to writing. Process approach to writing includes different stages of

writing to be exposed to students, including the presence of feedback.

Therefore, the writing is focused on students‟ development while writing the

(13)

6

d. Report Text: According to Palmer (2010), a report text is a text that talks

about a single topic of which the purpose is to describe the characteristic of

an object, and the examples can be found in encyclopedia entry, information

leaflet, or a magazine article.

e. Error/mistake: in this study is used interchangeably. Both are defined in its

most general meaning, which is something that the students produced which

is not suitable to the correct from. The criteria of the correct form of each

aspect are different from one another. This will be explained later.

f. Progress: refers to when students correct the mistake he/she made in the

subsequent draft.

1.6 Organization of the Paper

The research paper is organized into five chapters, as follows.

Chapter one introduces a brief description of the study which includes

background of the study, aims of the study, statement of the problem, significance

of the study, clarification of the key terms, and organization of the paper.

Chapter two focuses on the theoretical foundations that are related to the

study. It discussed three major points important to the study, which are writing,

self-directed feedback, and learner autonomy.

Chapter three presents the methodology of the research, which includes the

research design, site and participants, data collection, and data analysis.

Chapter four discusses findings and discussion from the study.

Chapter five covers conclusion and suggestions derived from the result of the

(14)

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD

In order to answer the research questions presented in Chapter I, there are

several steps in the study that need to be elaborated. This chapter deals with the

research method, the site and participants, the data collection, and the data

analysis.

3.1Research Questions

There are two research questions formulated for the study. These questions

will be answered through the research method that will be explained in the

following subchapters:

1. To what extent does self-directed feedback affect the students‟ writing

skills?

2. What is the students‟ response to the inclusion of self-directed feedback in

their writing activity?

3.2 Research Design

The method used in this study is qualitative. Qualitative research, as Creswell

(2009, p. 1) stated, “… is a means for exploring and understanding the meaning

individuals or groups ascribe to social or human problem.” The justification of

using qualitative as a method is as follows.

Much research talking about self-directed feedback has been focusing on its

effectiveness and students‟ preference when it is being compared to other kinds of

feedbacks—peer and teacher feedback (see Berger, 1990, Zhang, 1995, and Ferris,

2003). Most of the research has used quantitative method which in turn still

invites many questions as to a deeper explanation on the specific traits that made

the students prefer or disfavor the activity. Morse (as cited in Creswell, 2009)

stated that when a researcher is still not sure about the important variables

necessary to be examined, qualitative research can be useful since it is also

(15)

28

qualitative approach may be needed when the topic has never been addressed with

a certain sample of group of people. As the self-directed feedback has never been

applied in high school, there is an importance to also seek the students‟ response

in an exploratory answer besides seeing how far the self-directed feedback may

affect their writing. Therefore, the use of qualitative method was preferred.

A case study was employed to carry out the research as well as answering the

research questions. According to Neuman (2007), in case-study research, there

will be a number of cases which is observed by a researcher over certain duration

of time in order for it to result in varied and extensive data. In the process of the

research, only a few cases are selected by the researcher as it is important to

capture an issue to be studied inside a specific context (Neuman, 2007). The data

taken were in a qualitative form, as what was stated by Lier (as cited in Hinkel,

2005, p. 195), “Case study research is primarily a form of qualitative and interpretive research, …” Even though the data were not presented in form of

numbers, according to Neuman (2007, p. 89), “Qualitative data are empirical.”

The process of research that records what people say and studies written

documents are included into the concrete aspects of the world (Neuman, 2007).

This is exactly how the study was carried out. Some students were selected to

portray how self-directed feedback happened in the context of high school level.

The data were taken in a qualitative form through interviews and document

analysis. Therefore, this research is categorized into a case study.

3.3 Site and Participants

This study was conducted in one of public senior high schools in Bandung.

The institution was chosen because the researcher was familiar with the context

and also the participants, as the school was the place where the researcher did a

teacher training before.

Nine students of eleven graders majoring in science were chosen due to

several considerations. The first concern was the knowledge of teacher about the

students. As the students stepped into their second year at school, the teachers are

(16)

29

ability in writing, including the aspects they are still lacking in. This would be

helpful in defining the students later on in the data analysis. The second concern is

related to the readiness of the students to write. Generally, the students have

learned English in their formal education for at least 4 years—three years in junior

high school, a year in senior high, or more if they started to learn English since

elementary school—in which they have been objected to learn five text types—

descriptive, procedure, report, narrative, and news item—in both reading and

writing (see Standar Isi SMP dan SMA). In this stage, the students should be

already familiar with diverse writing activities including feedback, even if the

self-directed feedback may or may not be experienced yet.

The sampling in qualitative research, according to Neuman (2007) usually

focuses on how the small collection of cases elaborates the key features of social

life. Therefore, the cases collected are supposed to be taken to clarify and deepen

understanding (Neuman, 2007).

3.4 Data collection

One of the data collection techniques in qualitative study is field research

which is most often used in exploratory and descriptive studies (Neuman, 2007).

In field research, a researcher may conduct interview and opt for document

analysis. These two data collection techniques were also mentioned in Mackey

and Gass (2005) who stated that:

In data collection, ethnographic research (as the most typical and concrete

example of qualitative research) does not usually use "instruments," rather

"processes" that are supposedly free of bias and prior assumptions: free,

prolonged observation, at times "participant observation," open-ended

interviews, "triangulation" of information and interpretation, "informant

checking," access to existing documents. (p. 165)

Out of all instruments mentioned above, this study used two kinds of data

collection: in-depth interview and access to existing documents. These two tools

are considered the most suitable to assist in answering the research questions. The

(17)

30

process of self-feedback. The justification for this is that the reason why some

students may have negative or positive response towards self-feedback had not

been discovered yet in the previous research, therefore it is hoped to be able to

answer the question. As for the document analysis, this is seen as the most

suitable way to look at the students‟ progress in writing. Their writing can

represent progress as well as their level of proficiency in writing, and both are

important for the discussion in the next chapter. The analysis also involves a

triangulation in interpretation.

3.4.1 In-depth interview

An interview, as was stated by Mackey and Gass (2005) makes phenomena

which are not directly observable (such as perceptions and attitude) possible to be

examined. An in-depth interview, from the perspective of Hatch (2002), was

designed with a purpose of going deeper to the understanding of informants. Most

of qualitative researchers use an in-depth interview to result in enlightenment

from the respondents‟ experiences and perspectives through their words (Hesse -Biber and Leavy, 2010). As the questions were made in order to dig for the

students‟ responses, it is hoped that the interviews enable them to talk further about their perceptions and also experience during the self-directed feedback was

applied in the classroom. In order to get further information from the participants,

an interview was given to nine students who represent top, middle, and bottom

tiers in their classroom. Based on the level of control of the interviewer, the

interview is structured. According to Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2010),

semi-structured interview are indicated by a more loose conversation even though a

certain set of questions are still used as guidelines. This may result in unexpected

directions as the conversations flow more naturally (Hesse-Biber and Leavy,

2010). This unexpected direction, however, is hoped to produce better findings, as

the previous research did not talk much about students‟ response to self-directed feedback. The guideline questions are presented as follows:

1. What do you think about the previous English lessons?

(18)

31

3. Did the activity make the writing process easier? Or even harder? Why?

4. If the activity was helpful, in what ways did the activities help you in writing?

5. What are the steps that you do in making your own self-directed feedback?

The above questions were not only intended to help giving an insight on what

the students‟ response towards the activity is. Question number five works as a confirmation on the findings derived from the document analysis.

The interviews were conducted individually in which the students are called

one by one to have an informal talk with the researcher. An informal setting is

considered necessary in order to provide an ease for the interviewee, so that real

and authentic answers can be derived. It was also carried out in bahasa Indonesia

to provide comfort for the interviewee during the conversation.

3.4.2 Document Analysis

In the study, the students were asked to write a report text under six topics:

chocolate, animation, greenhouse effect, bee, cactus, and microscope. The first

meeting was used to have a recap about report text only to remind them about the

generic structure, as well as the nature of report text. The researcher, who acted as

a teacher in this meeting, did this by purpose since the topic of report text had

been discussed in the class with their teacher. That is why the time was not spent

too much on explaining the basics of report text. After that, still in that meeting,

they chose one topic out of six, and they were expected to make their first draft

before the next meeting. At the second meeting, as the students brought their first

drafts to the class, the researcher asked them to formulate a self-directed feedback

for their own texts. The researcher informed them about several aspects that they

could work on: generic structure, punctuation, spelling, vocabulary, and grammar.

In the next two meetings, they continued to work on their feedback and revise the

text. They had the chance to revise their writing until the fourth draft. The

students were asked to work on their texts from September 9, 2013 to September

23, 2013 or two weeks in total to finish until the final draft. After that, they were

(19)

32

In making the initial text and the revisions, the students were allowed to do

it at home. The only procedure that was expected to happen directly in the

classroom was the formulation of self-directed feedback, so that the teacher can be

present during the activity.

3.5 Data Analysis

After the data were acquired, the researcher needed to analyze them in order

to draw conclusion. As the study used qualitative approach, all of the data would

be presented in a descriptive manner. According to Neuman (2007), qualitative

researchers, rather than relying on displays of numbers, put a better attention to

interpreting the data. Mackey and Gass (2002) also mentioned that in qualitative

research, the data taken are seen holistically which means that they are not

chunked into different components, and would rather trail the objects‟

interpretation.

Furthermore, Neuman (2007) mentioned that a qualitative interpretation goes

through three stages. The first step is when a researcher starts with seeing through

things from the perspective of people he or she is studying in order to see what

things mean to them (Neuman, 2007). The second step involves a second-order

interpretation, in which he or she moves from staying in the people‟s perspective

to acknowledging that no matter how much involvement he or she may have in

the research, he or she should stay outside the circle (Neuman, 2007). It was also

stated that this step usually includes a process when the researcher tries to place

the data into a larger context (Neuman, 2007). At the last step, a qualitative

researcher moves further to linking the understanding he or she has achieved with

a larger concepts‟ generalization or theories (Neuman, 2007). In this stage, the researcher finally „communicates‟ with people who are more distant to the data

they are seeing (Neuman, 2007).

3.5.1 In-depth interview

The data taken from the individual interviews were recorded using a voice

(20)

33

be interpreted in a way that points out the main issues in the research questions.

The analysis of the transcription was focused mainly to answer the first research

question as well as supporting a better answer for the second question regarding

students‟ treatment to their own writing and feedback. The result will be linked

with the proper literature which will be presented in the next chapter.

3.5.2 Document Analysis

In order to look at the extent to which self-directed feedback affects

students‟ writing skills, the researcher read and comprehended each and every

drafts of the students. As a limitation of this study, what was analyzed from the

students‟ texts is their progress which is categorized by the types of error. Errors,

according to Thornbury (as cited in Hernàndez, 2011) can be categorized into

three different types, which are lexical errors, grammar errors, and discourse

errors. Lexical errors refer to mistakes at the word level, which also include word

choice for meaning that the writer wants to convey. Grammar errors refer to

mistakes in structures, and it may involve wrong verbal tenses, incorrect verbal

forms, and syntax problems. Discourse errors, then, deal with sentences

organization and how they are connected to make a whole text. As a limitation,

this study only looked at the error in terms of following aspects (adapted from

Hernàndez, 2011). It will also include mechanics, even though it is not included to

the types mentioned by Thornbury (as cited in Hernàndez, 2011) because it also

matters in reaching understanding of students‟ text. The types of error is

summarized in a table below.

Table 1. Types of Error

Type of error Description Lexical error Vocabulary

Grammar error Subject verb agreement, plural/singular nouns, modal verbs

Discourse error Organization

(21)

34

After that, the data were seen in detail as to what signifies each aspect

before they were linked with the related literature. The elaboration is going to

mainly answer the first research question given in the first chapter.

Their texts were analyzed only in terms of the organization, mechanics,

grammar, and vocabulary. The researcher looked at their errors on those parts and

their attempt to fix them. If, for example, the students had mistakes in grammar in

their first draft, then the researcher would look at the subsequent drafts (second,

third, and fourth) to see whether changes were made in the place where the

mistakes were seen before. If they made correct changes, then it would be

regarded as a progress in grammar. Another scenario would be the students made

changes but they happened to be incorrect. In that case, the progress was not

present. This also means that even if the students happened to be marking their

mistakes by circling or underlining it, as long as the correct changes were not seen

in the next drafts, then they would not be counted as a progress. The analogy

applied to the other three aspects mentioned before, and the details as to what is

seen as “mistakes” or “error” would be elaborated further in the next chapter.

3.6 Concluding Remark

This chapter has presented research method of the study which consists of

research questions, research design, site and participants, data collection, and data

analysis. From this application of this method, a set of data was acquired, and the

(22)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter presents the conclusion of the study, as well as suggestions

for future research and language teachers.

5.1 Conclusions

Throughout the research, several conclusions can be derived. First is the fact

that self-directed feedback is proven applicable as it is capable of supporting

students’ progress, second is on how self-directed feedback functions as a step in

making students acquire strategies of learning autonomy, and third is that

self-directed feedback can spare teacher’s responsibility to students as the major actors

in their own learning progress.

Firstly, regarding presence of self-directed feedback, even though it is not

quite common in the teaching practice—according to students’ experiences, that

is—the demand of it to be applied was there. In the previous chapter of this study,

it was proven that it gives benefits for students’ writing skills and the students felt

it as well. The doubts that some teachers may have about students’ ability in se

lf-correcting their own text may be unreasonable, as the students have also acquired

some important knowledge that they can apply in the process of self-directed

feedback. Just like what was found in Makino’s (1992) study, students can

activate their linguistic competence even without detailed cues. The freedom that

is given to students will raise their awareness, and “as a consequence, error avoidance is maximized” (Hernandez, 2011, p. 269). Therefore, students’ ability,

regardless of their level of competency in English, should not be underestimated

but rather utilized for their own learning progress.

Secondly, in relation to the ability of self-directed feedback in promoting the

value of learner autonomy, from the findings it can be seen that the students are

able to witness their own progress. To be able to see it brings the sense of

responsibility, as well as an encouragement to direct their goals in learning.

(23)

71

compensation for a limited classroom time, so that they can advance their

language acquisition. Even though it is still limited in only learning English,

particularly in finishing the report text, this good habit is something worthy to

continue. The atmosphere of having students who know in what level they are,

what they want, and where they are going with what they have will result in a

more effective learning. The students will realize that there is a certain proportion

to rely on others and themselves in the process of learning, and this is what makes

an effective lesson.

The last conclusion to be derived from this study is that self-directed

feedback can spare teacher’s responsibility in their students’ progress. The end

objective of having proficient learners is not only of the importance of teachers,

but also for the learners. In the Indonesian context when classes generally consist

of 30 to 45 students, and teachers’ workload to teach more than three classes in a

week, feedback in writing sounds impractical. By having self-directed feedback,

the teachers can focus on the things that the students do not acquire yet, and the

students will still have a progress in learning even without much help from the

teacher. As was stated by Reid (as cited in Hernandez, 2011, p. 264), “the most

successful ESL writing classroom occurs in an atmosphere of mutual respect and

trust in which teacher responsibility is balanced by students’ responsibility”.

5.2 Suggestions

As the research has its own limitations, several suggestions are proposed for

future research, and for teachers who intend to apply self-directed feedback in

their writing lessons.

For the future research, better findings and discussions are expected when

self-directed feedback is not treated as the only means in promoting learner

autonomy. Self-directed feedback can be put as one of the activities in a set of

self-monitoring strategies to ensure a bigger impact. As what was stated by

Zimmerman (1990), in order to sustain the development, the learners can be given

praise to what they have done in accordance to self-monitoring to represent a

(24)

72

this research is very limited to some aspects, the teachers can train the students to

correct their own errors in sides they may not be developmentally ready to

self-correct. Research in a longer term would also assess students’ progress in both

writing and efficacy better.

For the teachers who intend to apply self-directed feedback in their writing

lessons, it is important to still be open for assistance whenever the students need

help in the process. The self-directed feedback is not meant to be applied as an

isolated activity from peer or teacher feedback, it is there to complement them.

This is also suggested by Jacobs, Curtis, Braine and Huang (1998), to take a

middle path in practicing feedback for students when teacher, peer and

(25)

References

AbuJaber, H., Yagi, S. M., & Al-Ghalith, A. (2013). Spelling issues in EFL graffiti: Analysis and implications. European Scientific Journal, 8(21), 56-75.

Al-Saudi, J. (2013). Error analysis and spelling mistakes of EFL learners at Tafila Technical University: A case study. Frontiers of Language and Teaching, 4, 99-107.

Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40(1), 21-40.

Berger, V. (1990). The effects of peer and self-feedback. CATESOL Journal, 3, 21-35.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy, second edition. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2004). Launching self-directed learners. Educational leadership, 62, 51-57.

Cresswell, A. (2000). Self-monitoring in student writing: Developing learner responsibility. ELT Journal, 54(3), 235-244.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Cuseo, J. (2007). The empirical case against large class size: Adverse effects on the teaching, learning, and retention of first-year students. Journal of Faculty Development, 5-21.

Ehrenberg, R.G., Brewer,D. J., Gamoran,A., & Willms, J.D. (2001). Class size and student achievement. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2(1), 1-30.

Erdoğan, V. (2005). Contribution of error analysis to foreign language teaching. Mersin

University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 1(2). 261-270.

Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implication for second language students. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ferris, D. R. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing, second edition. University of Michigan Press.

Fry, Ron. (2003). Last minute term papers. Frankin Lakes: The Career Press, Inc.

Gentry, R., McNeal, J. & Wallace-Nesler, V. (2012). Getting to the core of writing: Essential lessons for every second grade student. Huntington Beach: Shell Education.

(26)

74

Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of english language teaching. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. New York: SUNY Press.

Hattie, J. & Timperley H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. doi: 10.3102/003465430298487

Hesse-Biber, N. M & Leavy, P. (2010). The practice of qualitative research, 2nd Edition. London: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Hernàndez, M. S. (2011). Raising student awareness about grammatical and lexical errors via email. Revista de Lenguas Modernas No 14, 263-281.

Hinkel, E. (2005). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erbaum Associates.

Ibarrola, A. L. (2013). Reformulation and self-correction: Insights into correction strategies for EFL writing in a school context. Vigo International Journal of Applied

Linguistics, 10, 29-49.

Jacobs, G. M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S.-Y. (1998). Feedback on student writing: Taking the middle path. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 307-317.

Kemper, D., Meyer, V., Van Rys, J., & Sebranek, P. (2011). Fusion: Integrated reading and writing, Book 1, 1st ed. Boston: Wadsworth.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Lamb, T. (2008). Learner autonomy and teacher autonomy: Synthesizing an agenda. In Lamb, T. & Reinders, H. (Eds.), Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities, and responses (pp. 269-284). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Lamberg, W. 1980. Self-provided and peer-provided feedback. College Composition and Communication, 31(1), 63-69.

Langosch, S. L. (1999). Writing american style: An ESL/EFL handbook. Hauppauge: Barron's Educational Series, Inc.

Lauchman, R. (2010). Punctuation at work: Simple principles for achieving clarity and good style. Broadway: AMACOM.

(27)

75

Lin, G. H. C., & Chien, P. S. C. (2009). An investigation into effectiveness of peer feedback. Online Submission, 3.

Llach, M. P. A. (2011). Lexical errors and accuracy in foreign language writing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Macken-Horarik, M . (2002). 'Something to shoot for': A systemic functional approach to teaching genre in secondary school science. In A M Johns (Ed.), Genres in the classroom: Applying theory and research to practice (pp. 17-42). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Elbaum Associates, Inc.

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Makino, T. Y. (1993). Learner self-correction in EFL written compositions. ELT journal, 47(4), 337-341.

Moore, M. G. (1972). Learner autonomy: The second dimension of independent learning. Convergence, 5(2), 76-88.

Nakamaru, S. (2008). A Lot of Talk about Writing: Oral Feedback on International and US-educated Multilingual Writers' Texts (Doctoral Thesis). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (UMI 3332518)

Narayanan, R., Nair, N. J., & Iyyappan, S. (2008). Some factors affecting English learning at tertiary level. Iranian Journal of Language Studies (ILJS), 2(4), 485-512.

Neuman, W. L. (2007). Basics of social research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches, second edition. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Palmer, S. (2010). How to teach writing across curriculum: Ages 8-14. Taylor & Francis e-Library.

Peck, J. & Coyle, M. (2005). The student's guide to writing: Spelling, punctuation and grammar (Palgrave Study Guides). New York: Palgrave McMillan.

Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London: Longman.

Rijlaarsdam, G., & Van den Bergh, H. (2004). Effective learning and teaching of writing. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.), G. Rijlaarsdam, H. Van den Berg, & M. Coizjan (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing. Vol. 14‚ Effective learning and teaching of writing‚ 2nd Edition (pp. 1-16). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Saito, H. (1994). Teachers' practices and students' preferences for feedback on second language writing: A case study of adult ESL learners. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL Du Canada, 11(2), 64-68.

(28)

76

Starkey, L. (2004). How to Write Great Essays. New York: LearningExpress.

Singer, J., Togo, T., Mochizuki, S., & Tanaka, M. (2010). Applying an autonomous learning approach to an English academic writing course. Ritsumeikan Studies in Language and Culture, 21(4), 209-219.

Susanti, R. (2013). Students’perceptions Towards The Effective Feedback Practices in The Large EFL Writing Class Based On Participants, Gender, And English Proficiency Level (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania). Retrieved from https://dspace.iup.edu/bitstream/handle/2069/2002/Rini%20Susanti%20(Thesis).pdf?s equence=1

Tsai, Y. & Lin Q. (2012). Investigating the effects of applying monitoring strategy in EFL writing instruction. International Journal of Business and Social Science 3(13), 205-216.

Widodo, H. P. (2008). Process-based academic essay writing instruction in an EFL context. Bahasa dan Seni, 36(1), 101-111.

Wu, H. L. (1993). Is teaching in large classes really an insoluble problem? CEPS, 87-114.

Wyrick, J. (2011). Steps to writing well with additional readings, eighth edition. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Young, D. J. (2009). The mechanics of writing. Indianapolis: Writer's Toolkit Publishing LLC.

Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209-222.