ATEACHER’S WRITTEN FEEDBACK ON STUDENTS’ WRITING : A Case Study at One Senior High School in Bandung.

(1)

ii

ATEACHER’S WRITTEN FEEDBACK ON STUDENTS’ WRITING (A Case Study at One Senior High School in Bandung)

A THESIS

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of Master in English Education

Written by: Yessi Widyasari

1201329

ENGLISH EDUCATION PROGRAM SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

(2)

A Teacher’s Written Feedback on

Students’ Writing

Oleh Yessi Widyasari S.Pd UNP Padang, 2012

Sebuah Tesis yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Magister Pendidikan (M.Pd.) pada Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan

Seni

Juli 2014

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

(3)

(4)

DECLARATION

I declare that this thesis entitled ”A TEACHER’S WRITTEN FEEDBACK ON

STUDENTS’ WRITING” is completely my own work and that all the sources that I have used or quoted have been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references.

Bandung, July 2014

(5)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Above all and everything, I would like to thank Allah the Almighty for all His blessings in my life. I am greatly indebted to a number of people for their support and tireless guidance throughout this work.

I would like to express my deepest appreciation to Prof. Emi Emilia, M. Ed. Ph. D. and Bachrudin Musthafa, M.A., Ph. D., as my supervisors, who energetically devoted their precious time to the supervision of this work. I found their suggestions valuable and criticisms constructive throughout the completion of my master program and all stages of my thesis.

My special thanks go to Prof. Dr. Didi Sukyadi, M. A. and Dr. Wachyu Sundayana, M. A., as my examiners, who have given valuable contribution, ideas, and feedback to improve this thesis.

I gratefully acknowledge all the assistance given to me in this study by Murnijati, S. Pd. as the teacher as well as the principal I worked with and the students of XII IPA1 who have been cooperative during this study. Without their participation, I would not have been able to collect the data.

(6)

ABSTRACT

This study aims to investigate a teacher’s focus and strategies when providing written feedback on students’ writing. This study also aims to identify the

students’ preferences for both the focus and strategies used by the teacher. This qualitative case study involved a teacher and nine students at one senior high school in Bandung. The students were categorized into high and low achievers. The data were obtained from three sources, including observations, document analysis, and interviews. The data were analyzed based on the theories of

teacher’s focus (Fathman & Whalley, 1990) and strategies (Hendrickson in Ferris, 2003) in providing written feedback. The findings of this study show that the teacher tended to focus on form, particularly grammar, when giving the feedback for both the high and low achievers while she also paid attention to the content of their writing. Moreover, the findings reveal that indirect feedback strategy, especially symbols and codes, was more frequently employed by the teacher for the two groups of the students. In addition, the findings indicate that both high and low achievers preferred form-focused feedback, especially grammar, to content-focused feedback. Furthermore, the findings suggest that the two groups of the students showed the preference for the indirect feedback strategy, particularly symbols, instead of the direct feedback. In conclusion, there was no difference in

the teacher’s written feedback focus and strategies between the high and low achievers. Moreover, the two groups of the students had the same preferences for the focus and strategy which matched to those employed by the teacher. In addition, two problems were encountered in this study, including the teacher’s

inconsistency in using the error codes and the students’ unfamiliarity with the

codes. Therefore, it is suggested that teachers of writing limit the error codes to specific error patterns, teach the students the meanings of the codes explicitly, and implement the codes consistently. In addition, it is suggested that teachers know

the students’ level of ability as well as the implementation and effects of the written feedback on the students’ writing; therefore, the focus and strategies can

(7)

ABSTRAK

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menginvestigasi fokus dan strategi guru ketika memberikan feedback tertulis terhadap tulisan siswa. Penelitian ini juga bertujuan untuk mengidentifikasi kecenderungan pilihan siswa terhadap fokus dan strategi yang digunakan oleh guru. Studi kasus kualitatif ini melibatkan satu orang guru dan sembilan siswa di satu sekolah menengah atas di Bandung. Siswa-siswa tersebut dikategorikan sebagai high achievers dan low achievers. Data diperoleh dari tiga sumber, yaitu observasi, analisis dokumen, dan wawancara. Data tersebut dianalisis berdasarkan teori dari fokus guru (Fathman & Whalley, 1990) dan strategi yang digunakan guru (Hendrickson in Ferris, 2003) dalam memberikan feedback tertulis. Temuan penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa guru cenderung fokus pada form, khususnya grammar, ketika memberikan feedback terhadap high achievers dan low achievers walaupun guru tersebut juga memperhatikan content dari tulisan siswa. Selain itu, temuan juga menunjukkan bahwa indirect feedback, khususnya simbol dan kode, adalah strategi yang paling sering digunakan guru dalam merespon tulisan kedua kelompok siswa tersebut. Kemudian, Temuan juga mengindikasikan bahwa high achievers dan low achievers cenderung kepada form-focused feedback, khususnya grammar, daripada content-focused feedback. Selanjutnya, temuan juga mengindikasikan bahwa dua kelompok siswa tersebut menunjukkan pilihan terhadap indirect feedback, khususnya simbol, daripada direct feedback. Kesimpulannya, tidak ada perbedaan dari segi fokus dan strategi yang digunakan guru dalam merespon tulisan high achievers dan low achievers. Berikutnya, kedua kelompok siswa tersebut mempunyai pilihan yang sama yang sesuai dengan fokus dan strategi yang telah diaplikasikan oleh guru tersebut. Kemudian, penelitian ini menunjukkan dua masalah, yaitu guru tidak konsisten dalam memberikan kode terhadap kesalahan tulisan siswa dan siswa tidak terbiasa dengan istilah-istilah yang ada pada kode tersebut. Oleh karena itu, guru disarankan untuk membatasi jumlah kode terhadap pola-pola kesalahan yang bersifat spesifik, mengajarkan arti dari kode-kode tersebut secara eksplisit kepada siswa, dan mengimplementasikan kode tersebut secara konsisten. Selanjutnya, guru diharapkan untuk memahami tingkat kemampuan siswa sekaligus implementasi dan efek yang ditimbulkan oleh feedback terulis terhadap tulisan siswa sehingga fokus dan strategi dari feedback guru bisa disesuaikan dengan tipe-tipe fokus dan strategi yang memberikan kontribusi terbesar terhadap perkembangan kemampuan menulis siswa.

(8)

Yessi Widyasari, 2014

Ateacher’s Written Feedback On Students’ Writing

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu TABLE OF CONTENTS

(9)

vii

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

2.2.3.3 Preferences for Teachers’ Written Feedback Focus .... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.2.4 Written Feedback Strategies ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.4.1 Direct Feedback... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.4.2 Indirect Feedback ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.4.2.1 Coded Feedback ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.4.2.2 Uncoded Feedback... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.4.2.3 Commentary ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.4.2.4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Indirect Feedback ... Error!

Bookmark not defined.

2.2.4.3 Preferences for Teachers’ Strategies in Giving Written Feedback Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.2.5 Guidelines on Giving Feedback ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.3 Common Writing Errors ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.4 Stages of Writing ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.5 Discussion Texts ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.6 Relevant Studies ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.7 Concluding Remarks ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.1 Introduction ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2 Methodology ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2.1 The Purposes of the Study and Research Questions ... Error! Bookmark

not defined.

(10)

viii

3.2.5 Data Collection Techniques ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2.5.1 Classroom Observations ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2.5.2 Document Analysis... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2.5.3 Interviews ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2.6 Data Analysis ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2.6.1 Data from Classroom Observations ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2.6.2 Data from Students’ Texts ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2.6.3 Data from Interviews ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2.7 Validity ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.3 Concluding Remarks ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1 Introduction ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2 Data from Classroom Observations ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.1. Teacher’s Written Feedback Focus on Students’ Writing ... Error!

4.2.2. Teacher’s Written Feedback Strategies in Giving Written Feedback Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.2.3. Students’ Preferences for Teacher’s Focus when Giving Written

Feedback ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.4. Students’ Preferences for Teacher’s Strategies when Giving Written

Feedback ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.3 Data from Students’ Texts ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.3.1. Teacher’s Written Feedback Focus on Students’ Writing ... Error!

4.3.1.1. Form-focused Feedback ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.3.1.2. Content-focused Feedback ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.3.2. Teacher’s Strategies in Giving Written FeedbackError! Bookmark not

(11)

ix

4.3.2.1. Indirect Feedback ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.3.2.1.1 Uncoded Feedback ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.3.2.1.2 Coded Feedback... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.3.2.1.3 Commentary ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.3.2.2. Direct Feedback ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.4 Data from Teacher and Student Interviews ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.4.1. Data from Teacher Interview ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.4.1.1. Teacher’s Written Feedback Focus on Students’ Writing ... Error!

4.4.1.1.1. Form-focused Feedback ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.4.1.1.2. Content-focused Feedback .... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.4.1.2. Teacher’s Strategies in Giving Written Feedback ... Error!

4.4.1.2.1. Indirect Feedback ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.4.1.2.2. Direct Feedback ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.4.2. Data from Student Interviews ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.4.2.1. Teacher’s Written Feedback Focus on Students’ Writing ... Error!

4.4.2.2. Teacher’s Strategies in Giving Written Feedback ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.4.2.2.1 Indirect Feedback ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.4.2.2.2 Direct Feedback ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.4.2.3. Students’ Preferences for Teacher’s Focus when Giving Written

Feedback ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.4.2.4. Student’s Preferences for Teacher’s Strategy in Giving Written

(12)

x

(13)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Error Correction Codes ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3.1 Types of Teacher’s Written Feedback Focus and Error Types ... Error!

Table 4.1 Examples of Students’ Revisions after Receiving Form-focused Feedback ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 4.2 Examples of Students’ Revisions after Receiving Direct Feedback .. Error!

Table 4.3 Examples of Students’ Revisions after Receiving Indirect FeedbackError! Bookmark not defined.

Table 4.4 Teacher’s Feedback Focus and Error TypesError! Bookmark not defined.

Table 4.5 Examples of Strudents’ Texts before and after Receiving Form-focused Feedback ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 4.6 Examples of Students’ Texts before and after Receiving Content-focused

Feedback ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 4.7 Teacher’s Strategies in Giving Written FeedbackError! Bookmark not

defined.

Table 4.8 Examples of Students’ Texts before and after Receiving Indirect Feedback ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 4.9 Examples of Students’ Texts before and after Receiving Direct Feedback

(14)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: A SAMPLE OF THE STUDENTS’ TEXTS WITH THE

TEACHER’S WRITTEN FEEDBACK AND ITS REVISION .. Error! Bookmark not defined.

APPENDIX 2: AN ANALYSIS OF THE TECHER’S FOCUS ON GIVING

WRITTEN FEEDBACK ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix 2.1: A framework for the Analysis of the teacher’s Focus on Giving

Written Feedback ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix 2.2: An Analysis of the Teacher’s Focus on Giving Written Feedback on the Students’ Texts ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

APPENDIX 3: AN ANALYSIS OF THE TEACHER’S STRATEGIES IN GIVING WRITTEN FEEDBACK ON THE STUDENTS’ TEXTS .. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix 3.1: A framework for the Analysis of the Teacher’s Strategies on Giving

Written Feedback ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix 3.2: An Analysis of the Teacher’s Strategies on Giving Written Feedback on the Students’ Texts ... Error! Bookmark not defined. APPENDIX 4: INTERVIEW DATA ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix 4.1: Questions for Teacher Interview ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix 4.2: A Sample of Condensed Version of Data from Teacher Interview

... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix 4.3: Questions for Student Interviews .... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix 4.4: A Sample of Condensed Version of Data from Student Interviews

(15)

xiii

Appendix 4.5: A Sample of Condensed Version of Data from Student Interviews ... Error! Bookmark not defined. APPENDIX 5: OBSERVATION DATA ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix 5.1: A Sample of Observation Notes by the Researcher ... Error!

(16)

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

This study aims to investigate a teacher’s focus and strategies when providing written feedback on students’ writing. This study also aims to identify the students’ preferences for both the focus

and strategies used by the teacher. This qualitative case study involved a teacher and nine students at one senior high school in Bandung. The students were categorized into high and low achievers. The data were obtained from three sources, including observations, document analysis, and interviews. The data were analyzed based on the theories of teacher’s focus (Fathman & Whalley, 1990) and strategies (Hendrickson in Ferris, 2003) in providing written feedback. The findings of this study show that the teacher tended to focus on form, particularly grammar, when giving the feedback for both the high and low achievers while she also paid attention to the content of their writing. Moreover, the findings reveal that indirect feedback strategy, especially symbols and codes, was more frequently employed by the teacher for the two groups of the students. In addition, the findings indicate that both high and low achievers preferred form-focused feedback, especially grammar, to content-focused feedback. Furthermore, the findings suggest that the two groups of the students showed the preference for the indirect feedback strategy, particularly symbols, instead of the direct feedback. In conclusion,

there was no difference in the teacher’s written feedback focus and strategies between the high

and low achievers. Moreover, the two groups of the students had the same preferences for the focus and strategy which matched to those employed by the teacher. In addition, two problems

were encountered in this study, including the teacher’s inconsistency in using the error codes and

the students’ unfamiliarity with the codes. Therefore, it is suggested that teachers of writing limit the error codes to specific error patterns, teach the students the meanings of the codes explicitly, and implement the codes consistently. In addition, it is suggested that teachers know the

students’ level of ability as well as the implementation and effects of the written feedback on the students’ writing; therefore, the focus and strategies can be adjusted on what mostly contributes

to the development of their writing skills.

(17)

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

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menginvestigasi fokus dan strategi guru ketika memberikan feedback tertulis terhadap tulisan siswa. Penelitian ini juga bertujuan untuk mengidentifikasi kecenderungan pilihan siswa terhadap fokus dan strategi yang digunakan oleh guru. Studi kasus kualitatif ini melibatkan satu orang guru dan sembilan siswa di satu sekolah menengah atas di Bandung. Siswa-siswa tersebut dikategorikan sebagai high achievers dan low achievers. Data diperoleh dari tiga sumber, yaitu observasi, analisis dokumen, dan wawancara. Data tersebut dianalisis berdasarkan teori dari fokus guru (Fathman & Whalley, 1990) dan strategi yang digunakan guru (Hendrickson in Ferris, 2003) dalam memberikan feedback tertulis. Temuan penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa guru cenderung fokus pada form, khususnya grammar, ketika memberikan feedback terhadap high achievers dan low achievers walaupun guru tersebut juga memperhatikan content dari tulisan siswa. Selain itu, temuan juga menunjukkan bahwa indirect feedback, khususnya simbol dan kode, adalah strategi yang paling sering digunakan guru dalam merespon tulisan kedua kelompok siswa tersebut. Kemudian, Temuan juga mengindikasikan bahwa high achievers dan low achievers cenderung kepada form-focused feedback, khususnya grammar, daripada content-focused feedback. Selanjutnya, temuan juga mengindikasikan bahwa dua kelompok siswa tersebut menunjukkan pilihan terhadap indirect feedback, khususnya simbol, daripada direct feedback. Kesimpulannya, tidak ada perbedaan dari segi fokus dan strategi yang digunakan guru dalam merespon tulisan high achievers dan low achievers. Berikutnya, kedua kelompok siswa tersebut mempunyai pilihan yang sama yang sesuai dengan fokus dan strategi yang telah diaplikasikan oleh guru tersebut. Kemudian, penelitian ini menunjukkan dua masalah, yaitu guru tidak konsisten dalam memberikan kode terhadap kesalahan tulisan siswa dan siswa tidak terbiasa dengan istilah-istilah yang ada pada kode tersebut. Oleh karena itu, guru disarankan untuk membatasi jumlah kode terhadap pola-pola kesalahan yang bersifat spesifik, mengajarkan arti dari kode-kode tersebut secara eksplisit kepada siswa, dan mengimplementasikan kode tersebut secara konsisten. Selanjutnya, guru diharapkan untuk memahami tingkat kemampuan siswa sekaligus implementasi dan efek yang ditimbulkan oleh feedback terulis terhadap tulisan siswa sehingga fokus dan strategi dari feedback guru bisa disesuaikan dengan tipe-tipe fokus dan strategi yang memberikan kontribusi terbesar terhadap perkembangan kemampuan menulis siswa.

(18)

(19)

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

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the background of the study, the research questions, the purposes of the study, the significance of the study, the definitions of the key terms, and the organization of the thesis.

1.2 Background of the Study

Writing plays a significant role in the process of language learning. Writing is the provision for continuing study in college or university settings (Lee, 2008), especially for senior high school students. By the time students enter the college or universities, they will have been exposed to writing because numerous kinds of learning activities require them to write. Based on 2013 National Curriculum of Indonesia, moreover, writing is one of the language skills that should be taught to students aiming to enable them to write different types of texts.

In spite of the importance of writing, some students still lack of academic writing ability which has become a national issue in Indonesia (Meilani, 2013, p. 379). This might happen because writing is “a complex process” (Wong, Chen, Chai, Chin & Gao, 2011, p. 1208) requiring students to struggle with a variety of writing issues, including delivering the content, using the language, using the mechanics, organizing the report, and choosing the appropriate vocabulary (Ferris, 2003).

With regard to the complexity of writing, errors are also unavoidable (Katayama, 2007; Hamouda, 2011; Kavaliauskiene & Anusiene, 2012) since

students “are still in the process of acquiring the L2 lexicon and morphological and syntactic systems” (Ferris, 2011, p. 9). Meanwhile, valuable writing cannot be accomplished in one draft (Friedlander, 1990, p. 110; Kim & Kim, 2005, p. 3; Hyland, 2009, p. 21).

(20)

2

Vygotsky in Okamura (2004, p. 69), students will be able to achieve their maximum potential by the help of more knowledgeable people.

In this regard, one way to help students produce meaningful pieces of writing is providing supportive written feedback from teachers (Gascoigne, 2004, p. 71). The role of written feedback in the development of writing skills has been viewed as a central part indicating the quality of language learning and teaching process (Coffin, et al., 2003, p. 102; Hyland, 2003, p. 177; Hyland & Hyland, 2006, p. 83; Carless, 2006, p. 219; Emilia, 2012, p. 63).

Written feedback, to be discussed in detail in Chapter II, is beneficial to take place for two main reasons. First, it is critical to assess students’ writing process (Aridah, 2003, p. 106; Coffin, et al., 2003, p. 102; Hyland, 2003, p. 177; Hyland & Hyland, 2006, p. 83; Carless, 2006, p. 219; Emilia, 2012, p. 63) including its strengths, weaknesses, and to give suggestions as an attempt to develop their writing skills (Coffin et al., 2003, p. 104; Carless, 2006, p. 220 & Mahfoodh,

2011, p. 7). Second, it is also crucial to encourage students to be “more autonomous writers” (Kim & Kim, 2005, p. 2).

A number of studies have examined the effectiveness of teachers’ written feedback (e.g., Cohen & Calvacanti, 1990; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994; Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Ferris, 2003; Lee, 2004 & 2008; Ngai, 2009; Telceker & Akcan, 2010; Hamouda, 2011). However, to the researcher’s knowledge, research on written feedback in Indonesian context has been conducted by a few researchers (e.g., Mardijono, 2003; Purnawarman, 2011; Maharsi, n.d; Irawati & Maharani, 2012). None of these studies has been conducted in senior high school level. They were undertaken in either university or junior high school context.

This study, hence, aims to fill this gap by examining a teacher’s written

feedback on students’ writing at one senior high school in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia. Specifically, this study attempts to identify the teacher’s focus and

(21)

3

study aims to identify the students’ preferences for the focus and strategies of the teacher’s written feedback.

The results of this study are expected to be significant both theoretically and practically. Theoretically, the results will contribute to the enrichment of the literature on the written feedback. Practically, the results will give insights into the practice of teaching writing, especially in EFL context, related to kinds of written feedback focus and strategies contributing to the development of students’ writing skills.

1.3 Research Questions

This study attempts to address the following questions: a. What is the focus of the teacher’s written feedback?

b. What are the strategies employed by the teacher in giving the written feedback? c. What are the students’ preferences for the focus of the teacher’s written

feedback?

d. What are the students’ preferences for the strategies of the teacher’s written feedback?

1.4 Purposes of the Study

Departing from the background of the study above, this study aims to figure out:

a. The teacher’s focus when giving the written feedback

b. The strategies employed by the teacher in giving the written feedback c. The students’ preferences for the focus of the teacher’s written feedback d. The students’ preferences for the strategies of the teacher’s written feedback 1.5 Significance of the Study

(22)

4

For the teacher, the results of this study will be significant in two aspects. First, the results will gain the teacher’s understanding of the students’ expectations on what types of feedback which are suitable to be given and how to deliver them. Therefore, the teacher can adapt appropriate methods of giving

written feedback that cater the students’ expectations which lead to long term benefits. Second, the results will give insights for the practice of teaching writing, especially in EFL context, related to kinds of written feedback focus and strategies contributing to the development of the students’ writing skills. For the students, the results will contribute to the development of their writing ability since they will avoid the same mistakes in the future writing based on the written feedback given by the teacher.

1.6 Definitions of Key Terms

1. Form-focused feedback in this study is a type of feedback which concerns with the surface-level of writing, encompassing grammar, mechanics, and vocabulary (Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994).

2. Content-focused feedback in this study is a type of feedback which is related to the global meaning of the writing, including content and organization of ideas (Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994).

3. Direct feedback in this study is the direct correction of the students’ linguistic errors allowing them to only copy the correction into the final draft (Ferris and Roberts, 2001).

4. Indirect feedback in this study deals with indicating the students’ errors by underlining, circling, coding, or giving other marks without giving the correct form of the errors (Ferris, 2006).

1.7 Organization of the Thesis

(23)

5

(24)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu CHAPTER III study and a restatement of the research purposes as well as the research questions from Chapter I. The second area, discussed in Section 3.2.2, explains the specific research design which is a qualitative case study. The third area, discussed in Section 3.2.3, outlines the setting of the research which was in a senior high school context. The fourth area, discussed in Section 3.2.4, informs the participants involved in this study. The fifth area, discussed in Section 3.2.5, presents data collection techniques, including classroom observations, document analysis, and interviews. The sixth area, discussed in Section 3.2.6, reports data analysis from the classroom observations, the students’ texts, and the interviews. The seventh area, discussed in Section 3.2.7, focuses on validity issues. Finally, a summary of the main points of this chapter is provided in Section 3.3. Justifications for the methodology will also be given.

3.2 Methodology

As indicated previously, several aspects will be discussed in this section, encompassing the purposes research questions of the study, the research design, the setting, the participants, the data collection techniques, the data analysis, the validity issues, and the concluding remarks.

3.2.1 The Purposes of the Study and Research Questions

(25)

34

2009) in order to measure the effectiveness of the feedback practices in developing the students’ writing skills.

Second, the study aims to find out the students’ preferences for the teacher’s focus and strategies in giving the written feedback. Investigating the students’ preferences will give an insight into whether the feedback practices match the students’ expectations (Ngai, 2009) because they will learn best on what they prefer to (Hamouda, 2011, p.128). Ignoring the students’ expectations may cause demotivation that affects the learning outcome (Katayama, 2006, p. 292). The investigation of the students’ preferences is also important to make some adjustment to the practice of the written feedback; therefore, the students will be aware of the benefits of the feedback (Hamouda, 2011, p. 129).

To achieve these purposes, theories of written feedback, encompassing the teacher’s written feedback focus and strategies, were incorporated (see Chapter II, Section 2.2.3 & Section 2.2.3). With reference to the purposes of the study mentioned above, this study addresses the following research questions:

a. What is the focus of the teacher’s written feedback?

b. What are the strategies employed by the teacher in giving the written feedback?

c. What are the students’ preferences for the focus of the teacher’s written feedback?

d. What are the students’ preferences for the strategies of the teacher’s written feedback?

3.2.2 Research Design

(26)

35

Second, this study was not going to make a generalization beyond the case (Hood, 2009, p. 69). An intrinsic case study, as stated by Cowie (2009, p. 70), takes emphasis on gaining understanding of a particular case without attempting to make generalization from the case being studied.

Third, this study employed multiple data sources (Croker, 2009, p. 16 & Liamputtong, 2009, p. 199), including data from classroom observations, students’ texts, and interviews. In this regard, the use of multiple data gatherings was intended to clarify the inferences since the case was viewed from different ways (Stake in Liamputtong, 2009, p. 199).

3.2.3 Setting

The study took place at one senior high school in Bandung, West java, Indonesia. The research site was chosen for two reasons. First, it was a senior high school which was relevant to the context in which this study was conducted, that was senior high school context, as explained in Chapter I. Second, there was an easy access to the site (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001, p. 432) since both the teacher and the students were cooperative with the researcher; therefore, there was no difficulty in clarifying the obscure information from the participants.

Furthermore, the text analyzed in this study was a Discussion text. It was used because the teacher taught the students the Discussion text when this study was conducted.

3.2.4 Participants

(27)

36

West Java. She is also the principal of the school who is taking her master degree in English education at one state university in Bandung.

Nine students involved in this study, whose names were pseudonyms, were chosen for four reasons. First, they were involved because the teacher provided them with the written feedback which was relevant to the focus of this study. Second, nine students were considered enough to provide information needed for this study. Third, since this study was about writing while the syllabus also required the students to write, this study of the teacher’s written feedback was appropriate to be conducted. Fourth, these students were recommended by the teacher as they were able to provide the important information needed in this study.

The students were categorized into high and low achievers based on their grammar scores in TOEFL test. Five students who scored from 53 to 56, were categorized as high achievers. Meanwhile, four students, who scored from 44 to 50, were categorized as low achievers. All of students were Christians between 17-19 years of age while English is a foreign language for them, meaning that this study was undertaken in an EFL context.

3.2.5 Data Collection Techniques

As mentioned in Section 3.2.2, this study employed multiple data gatherings over a nine-meeting period. The teacher met her class three times a week and taught them for a total of five hours per week. The study was carried out from February 10th to March 4th, 2014.

The methods used in this study include classroom observations, document analysis, and interviews. The interviews were divided into teacher interview and student interviews.

3.2.5.1Classroom Observations

(28)

37

the teacher’s focus and strategies. Classroom observations were conducted as they allowed for collecting data that could not be covered by the other data collection methods (Maxwell, 1996, p. 76). The researcher took a role as non-participant observer since she was not involved physically and psychologically in the interaction in the classroom (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001, p. 435). Observations were undertaken three times in a week to record the detailed classroom activities. The teacher’s talks during each lesson were videotaped and subsequently transcribed.

3.2.5.2Document Analysis

Document analysis was used in order to answer the first two research questions, as stated in Chapter I, including the teacher’s main focus and strategies in giving the written feedback on the students’ writing. In this study, the students’ texts were collected to analyze the two aspects. The students were required to produce Discussion textS. They were informed by the teacher that their writing tasks would be used for the assessment for School Exam (Ujian Sekolah) of speaking. They were also informed that they were free to select the topic of their writing.

The selection of the topic was under the teacher’s guideline covering three points. First, the topic should contain a controversial issue. In this regard, they should find a topic which invited pros and cons. Second, the topic should be familiar and interesting to them. As the teacher stated, by choosing an interesting topic, the students would be motivated to find the sources. Third, the topic should be understandable for them. The selection of the topic was then approved by the teacher in order to ensure that the students had fulfilled the guidelines stated above. When the teacher found a particular topic was not appropriate for the students to write regarding the difficulty to find the terms, the teacher asked them to find out another topic and submit it to her.

(29)

38

had. There were five procedures in the writing class. First, the students should have in-class writing. Second, in the next meeting, the students handed in their compositions. Third, the teacher gave out-class written feedback. The written feedback covered content-focused feedback (e.g., organization and content) and form-focused feedback (e.g., grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics) which appeared on the students’ compositions (see Appendix 1.1). Fourth, in the next meeting, the teacher handed the papers back to the students along with her written feedback. Fifth, the students were asked to revise their compositions in the classroom. If they did not finish the revision yet, they were allowed to continue it at home.

3.2.5.3Interviews

Interviews, particularly semi-structured interviews, were employed because they allowed for the possibility to compare the participants’ answers and at the same time they were flexible for going more in-depth based on the direction of the interviews (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000; Saedi, 2002, p. 48; Cowie, 2009, p. 183; Richards in Heigham & Croker, 2009, p. 185-186). Individual interviews conducted on March 4th, 2014 which aimed to answer the four research questions posed in Chapter I (see Section 1.3). Specifically, for the first two research questions, the interviews were aimed at triangulating the inferences obtained from document analysis. Meanwhile, for the last two research questions, the interviews were aimed at answering the research questions regarding the students’ preferences for the focus and strategies of the teacher’s written feedback.

(30)

39

focus, written feedback strategies, and her expectations for the students in relation to the written feedback practices.

For the students, 12 questions were addressed to clarify and deeply explore their preferences for the focus and strategies of the teacher’s written feedback (see the details in Appendix 4.3). The interviews started from three leading questions eliciting the students’ general views of learning English, followed by two questions eliciting their general views of the importance of the teacher’s written feedback. Furthermore, 8 other questions were addressed to uncover the focus and strategies of the teacher’s written feedback from the students’ points of views, including their preferences for the focus and the strategies employed by the teacher; and their expectations for the teacher’s written feedback practices.

Each interview lasted at least 15 minutes. Moreover, interviews were conducted in Bahasa Indonesia to allow participants to elaborate their explanations as it is their native language. The interview data were also presented verbatim. All interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, condensed, and translated into English (see Appendix 4.2, 4.4, and 4.5) to answer the research questions posed previously.

3.2.6 Data Analysis

Data analysis was conducted simultaneously during the study as this was a qualitative study (Maxwell, 1996, p. 130). In this study, inductive analysis was used as this study involved a discovery of categories and patterns which emerged from the data rather than being imposed on the data prior to data collection. The data analysis will be discussed below.

3.2.6.1 Data from Classroom Observations

(31)

40

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 3.2.6.2 Data from Students’ Texts

The data from the students’ drafts were analyzed in two steps. The first step was collecting the students’ texts. The second step was analyzing the data based on two aspects: the teacher’s main focus and strategies in giving written feedback. Firstly, the focus of the teacher’s written feedback in this study was analyzed by using the division of feedback focus as proposed by Fathman & Whalley (1990), including form-focused feedback and content-focused feedback. Form-focused feedback encompassed grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics (Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994). Meanwhile, content-focused feedback included organization and content (Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994).

The error types of each focus in this study were adapted from those proposed by Hedgcock and Lefkowitz (1994, p. 154), which were further adjusted based on the data emerged. The feedback focuses and the specific error types are shown in Table 3.1 below.

Table 3.1

Types of Teachers’ Written Feedback Focus and Error Types No. Feedback focuses and error types

(32)

41

c. spelling

Secondly, the teacher’s written feedback strategies in this study were analyzed by the division of written feedback strategies proposed by Hendrickson in Ferris (2003, p. 51) covering direct and indirect feedback. The direct feedback in this study was categorized into four, as suggested by Ferris (2003 & 2006), encompassing deletion, insertion, substitution, and reformulation. Meanwhile, the concept of indirect feedback in this study was divided into three as categorized by Ferris (2003), including coded feedback, uncoded feedback, and commentary. Besides, the students’ preferences for the focus and strategies of the teacher’s written feedback were also analyzed by using the frameworks of teachers’ focus and strategies in giving the written feedback proposed by experts above.

3.2.6.3 Data from Interviews

The analysis of the data from interviews was done through four steps as proposed by Maxwell (1996, p. 78-79). First, the interviews were transcribed immediately after gathering and initially reading the data. In this step, memos were taken based on the features seen. Second, the data were coded in order to make comparison within and between the categories of the data to develop theoretical concepts. In this respect, the coding was made by matching the data obtained from different participants and it was associated to the research questions.

Third, similar codes were grouped and sorted into several themes. Fourth, contextual analysis was employed to understand the data to get findings in order to answer the research questions stated in Chapter I. The findings were validated by crosschecking information through triangulation, including methodological triangulation and data triangulation that will be discussed in Section 3.2.7 below. 3.2.7 Validity

(33)

42

Liamputtong, 2009, p. 26). Methodological triangulation was obtained from classroom observations, document analysis, and interviews, including teacher and student interviews. Meanwhile, data triangulation was obtained from the students’ written drafts which had been given the written feedback and the teacher’s as well as students’ answers on the semi-structured interviews.

Through the triangulation, the teacher’s written feedback practices on the students’ drafts were triangulated with the results of the teacher interview, the student interviews, and the classroom observations in order to assure the consistency of the inferences. The consistent findings from these kinds of triangulation lead to the internal validity of the research (Liamputtong, 2009, p. 27).

3.3 Concluding Remarks

(34)

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

CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction

This final chapter outlines the conclusions, limitations, and recommendations of the study. In the conclusion section, the major findings of the research are presented in terms of each research question. In the limitation section, the weaknesses of the study are presented. In the recommendation section, the suggestions are given for classroom practice and future studies on multiple interaction activities.

5.2 Conclusions

This study investigates the teacher’s written feedback on both high and low

achievers’ writing, encompassing the teacher’s focus and strategies in giving the

written feedback and the students’ preferences for these aspects. From the findings, as presented in Chapter IV, four conclusions can be drawn.

The first conclusion is that the teacher put high emphasis on form-focused feedback, particularly grammar, when providing the written feedback for the two groups of the students while she also paid attention to the content of their writing. For the high achievers, the teacher mainly focused on verb tense. Meanwhile, for the low achievers, the teacher focus was distributed evenly to verb tense, verb form, and subject-verb agreement. However, the focus on the form is problematic since the significance of the writing is how to express ideas and develop the content of the paragraph, not to assure the formal features of the writing.

The second conclusion is that the indirect feedback strategy, especially symbols and codes, was more frequently employed by the teacher when providing the feedback for the two groups of the students. However, the findings also show that the teacher was not consistent in the use of the codes due to her lack of experience in implementing the codes.

The third conclusion is that the high and low achievers preferred form-focused feedback to content-form-focused feedback, especially grammar, which

(35)

100

preference was influenced by the students’ confusion to differentiate between the

different verb tenses which were not found in Bahasa Indonesia.

The fourth conclusion is that both high and low achievers preferred the indirect feedback strategy to the direct one, particularly symbols, which matched to the most frequently used strategy by the teacher in giving the written feedback. This preference was urged by their arguments that the indirect feedback encouraged them to be problem solvers contributing to long-term benefit of learning. However, the findings reveal that the students were dissatisfied with the use of the codes because they were confusing and easy to forget due to a large number of the codes.

Based on the conclusions above, it is clear that there was no difference in

the teacher’s main focus and strategy in giving the written feedback between high

and low achievers. Moreover, the two groups of the students showed the same preferences for the focus and strategy that should be employed by the teacher. 4.1 Limitations of the Study

This study is limited to two aspects. One limitation of the study has been the small number of the participants in this research due to the complexity of the analyses. In this study, the participants were only nine students which were categorized into high and low achievers which affected the validity of the inferences. The inferences will be more valid, and the results will be able to be generalized if the number of the participant increases.

Another limitation has been the absence of crosscheck of data analyses to peers. The data analyses were done by the researcher herself which allowed for the possibility of wrong analyses. The credibility of the analyses will be more acceptable if they were done by more than one person.

5.3 Recommendations

(36)

101

recommendations are given. First, although the teacher has been over-emphasizing form-focused feedback, it is important for the teacher to focus on what mostly contributes to the development of the students’ writing skills. In this case, the teacher should focus on the content in preliminary drafts before switching to the form on the later drafts. This is because the main aim of writing is to state the ideas clearly. Moreover, the early attention to the form obstructs the

students’ capability to develop the content of their compositions as they only

focus on correcting their errors. Furthermore, there is a possibility to change the content of the essays which makes the grammatical correction useless.

Second, due to the teacher’s inconsistency in applying the codes and the

students’ difficulty in understanding the codes, the teacher is suggested to reduce

the number of codes and concern with the specific error patterns, explicitly teach the abbreviations and their meanings to the students, and consistently implement the codes from the very beginning of the writing class. Therefore, it will facilitate long-term benefit of learning.

Third, the teacher needs to tell the students the rationales of the focus and strategy of her written feedback in order that they will not feel that one focus or strategy is better than the other. Hence, they will prefer for the focus and strategy which contribute to the development of their writing skills.

Fourth, the teacher needs to know the students’ levels of ability, the

implementation of the written feedback, and the effects of the feedback on the

students’ writing. Thus, the focus and strategies should be adjusted based on these

aspects.

For the future studies, four recommendations are given. First, it is important for the future research to have a larger number of participants in order the research to be able to be generalized. Second, it is suggested for the next researchers to have peer crosscheck in order to increase the credibility of the research. Third, future longitudinal studies are needed to find out how the students incorporate the

(37)

102

Fourth, the future studies are necessary to examine the relationship between the

students’ preferences for the teacher’s written feedback practices and what kinds

(38)

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

Abedi, R., Latifi, M., & Moinzadeh, A. (2010). The effect of error correction vs. error detection on Iranian pre-intermediate EFL learners’ writing achievement. English Language Teaching, 3 (4), 168- 174.

Alroe, M. J. (2011). Error correction of L2 students’ texts: Theory, evidence, and pedagogy. Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles, 50, 35-71. Anderson, M. & Anderson, K. (1998). Text types in English. Melbourne:

Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9 (3), 227- 257.

Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191- 205.

Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., & Yallop, C. (2000). Using functional grammar: An explorer guide. (2nd ed.). Sydney. National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. (2nd ed.). New York: Pearson Education.

Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31 (2), 219- 233.

Chandler, J. (2003).The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267-296.

Chiang Kwun-man, K. (2004). An investigation into students’ preferences for and responses to teacher feedback and its implications for writing teachers.

(39)

103

Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Charney, D. (2006). Commenting on writing - typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. Written Communication, 23 (3), 260-294.

Coffin, C., Curry, M. J., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lilis, T. M., & Swann, J. (2003). Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education. London: Routledge.

Cohen, A. D. & Cavalcanti, M. C. (1990). Feedback on composition: Teacher and student verbal reports. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 157- 177). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. (5th ed.). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Corpuz, V. A. L. S. (2011). Error correction in second language writing:

Teacher’s beliefs, practices, and students’ preferences. (Master Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, 2011). Retrieved from eprints.qut.edu.au/.../1/Victor_Corpuz_Thesis.pdf.

Cowie, N. (2009). Observation. In J. Heigham & R. A. Croker (Eds.), Qualitative research in applied linguistics (pp.165-181). United States: Palgrave Macmillan.

Croker, R. A. (2009). Observation. In J. Heigham & R. A. Croker (Eds.), Qualitative research in applied linguistics (pp. 3-24). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Darus, S. & Subramaniam, K. (2009). Error Analysis of the Written English Essays of Secondary School Students in Malaysia: A Case Study. European Journal of Social Sciences, 3 (8), 483- 495.

Delgado, R. (2007). Effects of different error feedback: Approaches in students’ ability to self-edit their writing. Magazine of Literary and linguistic Studies, 5 (2), 3-16.

Delgrego, N. (2009). Using English for specific purposes skills in an English for general purposes classroom: Email as a genre. Nagoya University of Foreign Studies, 5, 351-364.

(40)

104

Diab, R. L. (2005). EFL University students’ preferences for error correction and teacher feedback on writing. TESL Reporter, 38 (1), 27-51.

Dinham, S. (2008). Powerful teacher feedback. Synergy, 6 (2), 35- 38).

Dornyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaire in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Elkilic, G., Han, T., & Aydin, S. (2009). Punctuation and Capitalisation Errors of Turkish EFL Students in Composition Classes: An Evidence of L1

Emilia, E. (2010). Teaching writing: Developing critical learners. Bandung: Rizqi Press.

Emilia, E. (2011). Pendekatan genre-based dalam pengajaran bahasa inggris: Petunjuk untuk guru. Bandung: Rizqi Press.

Emilia, E. (2012). Menulis tesis dan disertasi. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Faigley, L. & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing Revision. College Composition and Communication, 32 (4), 400-414.

Fathman, A. & 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). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. R. (1995b). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29 (1), 33-53.

Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teaching commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315-339.

(41)

105

Ferris, D. & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, (10), 161- 184.

Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: university of Michigan Press.

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

Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81- 104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in second language acquisition, 32, 181- 201. Ferris, D. R. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann

Arbor: The University of Michigan.

Francis, M. (2011). But will it improve their writing? The use of verbal, peer and written feedback as formative assessments. Journal of Classroom Research in Literacy, 4, 15-23.

Ferris, D. R. & Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Friedlander, A. (1990).Composing in English: Effects of a first language on writing in English as a second language. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 109-125). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gascoigne, C. (2004). Examining the effect of feedback in beginning L2 composition. Foreign Language Annals, 37 (1), 71- 76.

Gay, L. R. (2009). Educational research. (9th ed.). New Jersey: Merrill is an imprint of Pearson.

Gerot, L. & Wignell, P. (1994). Making sense of functional grammar: An introductory workbook. Sydney: Gerd Stabler.

(42)

106

Harmer, J. (2004). The practice of English language teaching. England: Pearson Education Limited.

Harris, M. & Rowan, K. E. (1989). Explaining grammatical concept. Journal of Basic Writing, 8 (2), 21-41.

Hawe, E., Dixon, H., & Watson, E. (2008). Oral feedback in the context of written language. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31 (1), 43-58. Hedgock, J. & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner

receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3 (2), 141-163.

Heigham, J. & Croker, R. A. (2009). Qualitative research in applied linguistics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 62 (8), 387-398.

Hood, M. (2009). Case study. In J. Heigham & R. A. Croker (Eds.), Qualitative research in applied linguistics (pp. 66-90). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Holliday, A. (2005). Doing and writing qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications.

Hyland, K. & Hyland. F. (2006). Feedback in second language writing. Context and issues. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K. (2009). Teaching and researching writing. London: Pearson Education Limited.

Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing,7 (3), 255-286.

Irawati, L & Maharani, L. (2012). Teaching and learning writing using teacher’s written feedback and conference on 8th Grade of SMPN 1 Prambanan Sleman. Register, 5 (1), 121-145.

(43)

107

for general and specific/academic purposes. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10 (4), 271–280.

Katayama, A. (2007). Japanese EFL students’ preferences toward correction of classroom oral errors, 9 (4), from http://jalt-publications.org/archive/proceedings/2006/E117.pdf.

Kavaliauskiene, G. & Anusiene, L. (2012). Case study: Learner attitudes towards the correction of mistakes. Social Technologies, 2 (1), 88-101.

Kemendikbud. (2013). Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia Nomor 69 tahun 2013 tentang Kerangka Dasar dan Struktur Kurikulum Sekolah Menengah Atas/Madrasah Aliyah.

Retrieved from

http://biologi.fkip.uns.ac.id/wp- content/uploads/2013/08/PDK-2013-69-Kerangka-Dasar-Kurikulum-Kompetensi-SMA.pdf.

Kim, Y. & Kim. J. (2005). Teaching Korean university class: Balancing the process and the genre approach. Asian EFL Journal, 7 (2), 1- 15.

Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140- 149.

Liamputtong, P. (2009). Qualitative research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classroom: The case of Hong kong. Journal of second Language Writing, 13, 285- 312.

Lee, I. (2008a). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of second Language Writing, 17, 69-85. Lee, I. (2008b). Students’ reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong

secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 144- 164. Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in

college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24 (3), 203-218.

(44)

108

Liu, et al. (2011). Is what I need what I want? Reconceptualising college students’ needs in English courses for general and specific/ academic purposes. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 271-280.

Lo, J. & Hyland, F. (2007). Enhancing students’ engagement and motivation in writing: The case of primary students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 219–237.

Mahfoodh, O. H. A. (2011). A qualitative case study of EFL students’ affective reactions to and perceptions of their teacher’s written feedback. English Language Teaching, 4 (3), 14-25.

Maharsi, I. (n. d). The academic writing experience of undergraduate industrial technology students in Indonesia. Retrieved from

http://www.nus.edu.sg/celc/research/books/3rdsymposium/145to158-maharsi.pdf.

Mardijono, J. J. (2003). Indonesian EFL advanced learner’s grammatical errors. Retrieved from http://puslit.petra.ac.id/journals/letter.

Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design. California: Sage Publications, Inc.

McGrath, A. L., Taylor, A., & Pychyl, T. A. (2011). Writing helpful feedback: The influence of feedback type on students’ perceptions and writing performance. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2 (2), 1- 14.

McMillan, J. H. & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education: A conceptual Introduction. (5th ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Mehr, S. H. (2013). The effects of statements, imperatives, and questions as teacher’s comments on the revision of composition of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (DLLALW), 4 (3), 1- 12.

Meilani, R. I. (2013). Students’ knowledge and use of punctuation marks in written discourse. International Conference of Applied Linguistics, 379-385. Mungungu, S. S. (2010). Error Analysis: Investigating the Writing of ESL Namibian Learners. (Dissertation, University of South Africa, 2010).

Retrieved from