LECTURER’S WRITTEN CORRECTION
IN WRITING CLASS
(A Case Study at Universitas Veteran Bangun Nusantara Sukoharjo in Academic
Year 2013/2014)
THESIS
By:
D A Y A T NIM. S891208011
ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GRADUATE SCHOOL
TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY SEBELAS MARET UNIVERSITY
LECTURER’S WRITTEN CORRECTION
IN WRITING CLASS
(A Case Study at Veteran Bangun Nusantara University Sukoharjo in Year
Academic 2013/2014)
THESIS
By: D A Y A T S891208011
Written to Fulfill One of the Requirements
for Obtaining the Graduate Degree in English Education
ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GRADUATE SCHOOL
TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY SEBELAS MARET UNIVERSITY
APPROVAL SHEET
Title:
LECTURER’S WRITTEN CORRECTION IN WRITING CLASS (A Case Study at Veteran Bangun Nusantara U niversity Sukoharjo in
Academic Year 2013/2014)
By:
D A Y A T NIM. S891208011
This thesis has been approved by Consultants:
Name Signature Date
1. Prof. Dr. H. Joko Nurkamto, M.Pd.
NIP. 19610124 198702 1 001 ………. ……….
2. Dr. Ngadiso, M.Pd.
NIP. 19621231 198803 1 009
………. ……….
The Head of English Education Department Graduate School of Sebelas Maret University
LEGITIMATION FROM THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS
Title:
LECTURER’S WRITTEN CORRECTION IN WRITING CLASS (A Case Study at Veteran Bangun Nusantara University Sukoharjo in
Academic Year 2013/2014)
By: D A Y A T NIM: S891208011
This thesis examined by the Board of Examiners of English Education
Department, Graduate School, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education,
Sebelas Maret University.
On May, 2014
Board of Thesis Examiners: Signature
Chairman : Dr. Abdul Asib, M.Pd. NIP. 19520307 198003 1 005
…………
Secretary : Dra. Dewi Rochsantiningsih, M.Ed., Ph.D. NIP. 19600918 198702 2 001
…………
Examiner 1 : Prof. Dr. H. Joko Nurkamto, M.Pd.
NIP. 19610124 198702 1 001 …………
Examiner 2 : Dr. Ngadiso, M.Pd.
NIP. 19621231 198803 1 009 …………
The Dean of Teacher Training and Education Faculty of Sebelas Maret University
Prof. Dr. M. Furqon Hidayatullah, M.Pd. NIP. 19600727 198702 1 001
The head of English Education of Graduate School of
Sebelas Maret University
PRONOU NCEMENT
This is to certify I myself write this thesis entitled Lectur er’s Written Correction in Writing Cla ss (A Ca se Study a t Vetera n Bangun Nusa nta ra University Sukoha rjo in Yea r Aca demic 2013/2014). It is not plagiarized or made by others. Anything related to other’s work is written in quotation, the source of
which is listed on the bibliography. If then this pronouncement proves incorrect, I
am ready to accept any academic punishment, including the withdrawal or
cancellation of my academic degree.
Surakarta, May 2014
ABSTRACT
D a y a t, S891208011. 2013. Lecturer’s Written Correction in Writing Cla ss (A Ca se Study a t Vetera n Ba ngun Nusa nta r a University Sukoha rjo in Yea r Aca demic 2013/2014).First Consultant: Prof. Dr. Joko Nurkamto, M.Pd.; Second Consultant: Dr. Ngadiso, M.Pd. Thesis. Surakarta. English Education Department Graduate School, Sebelas Maret University of Surakarta 2014.
The aims of this study are to explore: (1) how the lecturers gives written correction to student’s writing; (2) how the students respond the lecturers’ written correction; and (3) how far lecturer’s written correction affects the students’ improvement in writing accuracy. This thesis is qualitative study with a single case study design. The research was conducted at Veteran Bangun Nusantara University Sukoharjo.The participants included one lecturer and eight Educational English students in the third semester. The method of inquiry was an instrumental case study at a single site by using semi-structured and focus-group interviews, direct observation and documentary analysis. The data were analyzed by using interactive analysis model.
The findings show: (1) the implementation of written correction: Providing written correction was conducted after the students submitted their final draft to the lecturer. The lecturer mostly used indirect correction technique (39.0%); direct correction (10.0%); metalinguistics, on error code (5.0%); focused (5.5%); unfocused (34.5%); and reformulation (6.0%) in correcting students’ writing errors. In correcting the lecturer gave underline, cross, and strikethrough to the incorrect forms; (2) The students’ response on the lecturer’s written correction in terms of students’ preference towards different types of written correction, there was main discrepancy between the students’ preference and the lecturer’s perception. All students preferred direct correction to other techniques while the lecturer used dominantly indirect correction. To make use the correction, the students followed up the correction by learning and revising; and (3) all students and the lecturer agreed that LWC was important for them because by receiving correction from their lecturer, they could learn from the errors they had made. Finally, the written correction affected the students’ improvement on writing accuracy: grammatical structure, content, organization, vocabulary and mechanics.
The findings of this study indicate that written correction is helpful for students to enhance their writing accuracy. Therefore, it is recommended that the lecturer should provide written correction on the students’ writing. Furthermore, it is suggested that the lecturer should consider the students’ preference on types of written correction technique in providing correction in the students’ writing.
MOTTO
The best person is who benefits all human beings.
DEDICATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Praise is to Allah,
Lord of the Universe; for His great Blessing, Guidance, and spiritual Force, finally
I can accomplish writing this thesis. Sincere gratitude and thanks to my
consultants Prof. Dr. H. Joko Nurkamto, M.Pd., and Dr. Ngadiso, M.Pd.
Gentlemen, I appreciate your regular and forthright comments about the study and
encourage and support during my personal difficulty. I also thank the Dean of
FKIP Sebelas Maret University of Surakarta, for giving me permission to conduct
my research.
I would like to express my gratitude to the Head of English Education
Department of Graduate School, Drs. Agus Sudargono, M.Si., without his
permission this research will not be able to be carried out. My gratefulness goes to
the Head of English Education Department of Graduate School, Dr. Abdul Asib,
M.Pd., who provided me the opportunity of studying during these semesters. I
would like to recognize my mother’s blessings and patience during my difficulty
in my life. I must thank my wife, and son. Indeed, I am indebted to them for their
prayer and support during the course and, even more so, during the production of
this thesis.
Special thanks to writing Lecturer of Veteran Bangun Nusantara
University Sukoharjo for all data to complete this study. Thanks also to the
students of third semester of Veteran Bangun Nusantara University Sukoharjo for
joining the interview. Finally, I thank all my colleagues, friends, and
acquaintances who gave so willingly of their time to make this study a success.
May 2014
TABLE OF CONTENT
COVER ... i
APPROVAL ... ii
LEGITIMATION FROM THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS ... iii
PRONOUNCEMENT ... iv
ABSTRACT ... v
MOTTO ... vi
DEDICATION ... vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ... viii
TABLE OF CONTENT ... ix
LIST OF TABLES ... xi
LIST OF FIGURES ... xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ... xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES ... xiv
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1
A. Background of the Study ... 1
B. Problem Statement ... 12
C. Objectives of the Study ... 13
D. Significance of the Study ... 13
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ... 16
A. Theories and Descriptions ... 16
1. Writing ... 16
a. Definition ... 16
b. Components of Writing ... 17
c. Kinds of Writing Skills ... 18
d. Types of Writing Genres ... 19
e. Process of Writing ... 20
2. Written Correction ... 23
a. Definition of Error ... 23
b. Errors on Student’s Writing ... 24
c. Definition of Written Correction ... 26
d. The advantages and the disadvantages of written correction ... 27
e. The Types of Written Correction Techniques ... 29
3. Washback in Writing Class ... 38
a. Definition ... 39
b. The Aims of Washback ... 40
c. Washback Effect ... 41
d. Planning Writing Assessment ... 43
B. Review of Relevant Research ... 48
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 54
A. Setting of the Study ... 54
1. Place ... 54
2. Time ... 57
B. Research Design ... 58
C. Subject of the Study ... 60
D. Techniques of Collecting Data ... 61
E. Technique of Validating Data ... 65
F. Techniques of Analyzing the Data ... 68
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ... 70
A. Research Findings ... 70
B. Discussion ... 103
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, AND SUGGESTION ... 114
A. Conclusion ... 114
B. Implication and Suggestion ... 116
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 122
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Studies on Error Correction ... 8
Table 2.1 Types of Written Correction Techniques ... 38
Table 2.2 Distinction between Previous Studies and Recent Study ... 53
Table 3.1 The Sum of Students of Third Semester ... 56
Table 3.1 Research Schedule ... 58
Table 4.1 Writing Materials ... 77
Table 4.2 Teaching Sources ... 79
Table 4.3 The Record of Types of Correction Techniques ... 86
Table 4.4 Students’ Errors on Writing ... 95
Table 4.5 The Proportion of Error Elements ... 96
Table 4.6 Students’ Final Achievement ... 102
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Writing process in practice according to Brown and Hood ... 22
Figure 2.2 Direct Written Correction ... 31
Figure 2.3 Indirect Written Correction ... 32
Figure 2.4 Error Codes (1) ... 33
Figure 2.5 Error Codes (2) ... 33
Figure 2.6 Explanation ... 34
Figure 2.7 Reformulation ... 37
Figure 2.8 The Stages Progress Testing ... 44
Figure 3.1 Univet Bantara Sukoharjo ... 55
Figure 3.2 Classroom Condition ... 57
Figure 3.3 Interview Techniques ... 63
Figure 3.4 Interactive Model Analysis ... 68
Figure 4.1 Writing Syllabus ... 72
Figure 4.2 Phase of Correction ... 84
Figure 4.3 The Manner of Direct Correction Technique ... 87
Figure 4.4 The Manner of Indirect Correction Technique ... 88
Figure 4.5 The Metalinguistic Techniques ... 88
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CF : Corrective Feedback
EFL : English as Foreign Language
ESL : English as Second Language
FL : Foreign Language
IKIP : Institute of Teacher Training and Education
L2 : Second Language
LCD : Liquid Cristal Display
LWC : Lecturer’s Written Correction
NES : Native English Speaker
NS : Native Speaker
S2 : Graduate School
TLU : Target Language Use
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 : The Research Instrument ... 131
Appendix 2 : The Field Note ... 152
Appendix 3 : The Transcripts of Interview ... 166
Appendix 4 : The Teaching and Learning Document ... 198
Appendix 5 : The Results of Classroom Observation ... 214
Appendix 6 : The Result of Artifacts Analysis ... 219
Appendix 7 : The Students’ Achievement: Semester One and Two ... 228
Appendix 8 : The Photographs ... 240
Appendix 9 : The Research Schedule ... 267
Appendix 10 : The Lecturing Schedule of English Study Program ... 269
Appendix 11 : The Letter of Research Permission from UNS ... 275
