ABSTRACT
Sekartaji, Claudia Yessie Dewi. 2013. Students’ Perception on the Implementation of Teacher Written Feedback in Critical Reading and Writing 1 Class. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.
Writing is one way of communication which conveys meanings. It also helps people in establishing new information over time throughout the world. In the educational field, writing is very important as one of the English productive skills. Second language writing students should have a good writing ability. They are also assigned to write their own writings. Teacher, as the facilitator, take a part in responding to students’ writing by giving useful feedback. Teacher written feedback is the most common feedback technique used in second language writing classrooms. Yet, it still has many weaknesses.
This study was conducted to see the English Language Education Study Program (ELESP) students’ perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback and its implication. The research problems were formulated as follows: 1) What is ELESP students’ of Sanata Dharma University perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback in Critical Reading and Writing (CRW) 1 class? 2) What is the implication of the findings?
This research was a qualitative research specifically on survey method. In gathering the data, the researcher distributed the questionnaire to 140 students of ELESP Sanata Dharma University in the academic year 2011 who had taken CRW 1 class. After having the questionnaire result, the researcher conducted several interviews to six students to clarify and strengthen the data of the questionnaire. The data analysis was in the form of percentage. The researcher analyzed the data by seeing the most frequent degree of agreement chosen.
The result shows that the students had positive perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback especially on the writing process. They preferred to have teacher written feedback because it was very helpful and useful for the students. It also led to the students’ improvements in their writing performance. It is implied that the teacher written feedback implementation in CRW 1 class had been good. However, the lecturers should be more careful in reading and responding to the students writing. Besides, using variations in the written feedback such as compliments and simple drawings might encourage the students to start writing. Therefore, the researcher addresses several recommendations to 1) lecturers to keep using teacher written feedback by providing clear and encouraging feedback, 2) students to reflect and evaluate their process of writing, and 3) future researchers to explore the implementation of teacher written feedback in other writing classrooms.
ABSTRAK
Sekartaji, Claudia Yessie Dewi. 2013. Students’ Perception on the Implementation of Teacher Written Feedback in Critical Reading and Writing 1 Class. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.
Menulis merupakan salah satu cara berkomunikasi dan menyampaikan informasi baru tanpa terbatas ruang dan waktu. Dalam bidang pendidikan, menulis merupakan salah satu keterampilan yang sangat penting. Para siswa diberi tugas untuk menciptakan sebuah karya tulis. Para guru berperan sebagai fasilitator dengan memberikan umpan balik yang bermanfaat. Teacher written feedback merupakan salah satu teknik yang sering digunakan di kelas menulis bahasa asing. Namun, teknik tersebut masih memiliki banyak kelemahan. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk melihat persepsi mahasiswa terhadap penerapan teacher written feedback dan implikasinya.
Beberapa rumusan masalah dalam penelitian ini adalah 1) bagaimana persepsi mahasiswa Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris di Universitas Sanata Dharma terhadap penerapan teacher written feedback di kelas Critical Reading and Writing 1? 2) Apakah implikasi dari hasil penelitian tersebut?
Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian kualitatif dengan metode survei. Peneliti menyebarkan kuesioner ke 140 mahasiswa Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Universitas Sanata Dharma angkatan tahun 2011 yang sudah mengambil mata kuliah CRW 1. Peneliti juga mewawancarai enam mahasiswa dengan tujuan untuk mengklarifikasi dan memperkuat data dari kuesioner. Hasil dari analisis data berupa persentase yang digunakan untuk melihat tingkat kesepakatan yang paling sering dipilih oleh responden.
Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa, mahasiswa memiliki persepsi positif terhadap penerapan teacher written feedback. Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa penerapan teacher written feedback di kelas CRW 1 sudah baik. Akan tetapi para dosen harus lebih berhati-hati dalam menanggapi tulisan mahasiswa. Selain itu, variasi dalam penulisan teacher written feedback seperti pemberian pujian dan gambar sederhana dapat mendorong mahasiswa untuk terus menulis. Peneliti mengusulkan beberapa rekomendasi kepada: 1) para dosen untuk tetap menggunakan teacher written feedback yang jelas dan dapat mendorong mahasiswa untuk menciptakan karya tulis yang lebih baik 2) para mahasiswa untuk merefleksikan dan mengevaluasi proses menulis mereka, dan 3) para calon peneliti untuk lebih menggali penerapan teacher written feedback di kelas menulis lainnya.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF TEACHER WRITTEN FEEDBACK IN CRITICAL
READING AND WRITING 1 CLASS
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree
in English Language Education
By
Claudia Yessie Dewi Sekartaji Student Number: 091214056
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA
A Sarjana Pendidikan Thesis on
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF TEACHER WRITTEN FEEDBACK IN CRITICAL
READING AND WRITING 1 CLASS
By
CLAUDIA YESSIE DEWI SEKARTAJI Student Number: 091214056
Defended before the Board of Examiners on November 7, 2013
and Declared Acceptable
Board of Examiners
Chairperson : C. Tutyandari, S.Pd., M.Pd. _______
Secretary : Drs. Barli Bram, M.Ed., Ph.D. _______
Member : V. Triprihatmini, S.Pd., M.Hum., M.A. _______
Member : Drs. F.X. Mukarto, M.S., Ph.D. _______
ABSTRACT
Sekartaji, Claudia Yessie Dewi. 2013. Students’ Perception on the Implementation of Teacher Written Feedback in Critical Reading and Writing 1 Class. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.
Writing is one of the ways of communication which conveys meanings. It also helps people in establishing new information over time throughout the world. In the educational field, writing is very important as one of the English productive skills. Second language writing students should have a good writing ability. They are also assigned to write their own writings. Teacher, as the facilitator, take a part in responding to students’ writing by giving useful feedback. Teacher written feedback is the most common feedback technique used in second language writing classrooms. Yet, it still has many weaknesses.
This study was conducted to see the English Language Education Study Program (ELESP) students’ perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback and its implication. The research problems were formulated as follows: 1) What is ELESP students’ of Sanata Dharma University perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback in Critical Reading and Writing (CRW) 1 class? 2) What is the implication of the findings?
This research was a qualitative research specifically on survey method. In gathering the data, the researcher distributed the questionnaire to 140 students of ELESP Sanata Dharma University in the academic year 2011 who had taken CRW 1 class. After having the questionnaire result, the researcher conducted several interviews to six students to clarify and strengthen the data of the questionnaire. The data analysis was in the form of percentage. The researcher analyzed the data by seeing the most frequent degree of agreement chosen.
The result shows that the students had positive perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback especially on the writing process. They preferred to have teacher written feedback because it was very helpful and useful for the students. It also led to the students’ improvements in their writing performance. It is implied that the teacher written feedback implementation in CRW 1 class had been good. However, the lecturers should be more careful in reading and responding to the students writing. Besides, using variations in the written feedback such as compliments and simple drawings might encourage the students to start writing. Therefore, the researcher addresses several recommendations to 1) lecturers to keep using teacher written feedback by providing clear and encouraging feedback, 2) students to reflect and evaluate their process of writing, and 3) future researchers to explore the implementation of teacher written feedback in other writing classrooms.
ABSTRAK
Sekartaji, Claudia Yessie Dewi. 2013. Students’ Perception on the Implementation of Teacher Written Feedback in Critical Reading and Writing 1 Class. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.
Menulis merupakan salah satu cara berkomunikasi dan menyampaikan informasi baru tanpa terbatas ruang dan waktu. Dalam bidang pendidikan, menulis merupakan salah satu keterampilan yang sangat penting. Para siswa diberi tugas untuk menciptakan sebuah karya tulis. Para guru berperan sebagai fasilitator dengan memberikan umpan balik yang bermanfaat. Teacher written feedback merupakan salah satu teknik yang sering digunakan di kelas menulis bahasa asing. Namun, teknik tersebut masih memiliki banyak kelemahan. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk melihat persepsi mahasiswa terhadap penerapan teacher written feedback dan implikasinya.
Beberapa rumusan masalah dalam penelitian ini adalah 1) bagaimana persepsi mahasiswa Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris di Universitas Sanata Dharma terhadap penerapan teacher written feedback di kelas Critical Reading and Writing 1? 2) Apakah implikasi dari hasil penelitian tersebut?
Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian kualitatif dengan metode survei. Peneliti menyebarkan kuesioner ke 140 mahasiswa Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Universitas Sanata Dharma angkatan tahun 2011 yang sudah mengambil mata kuliah CRW 1. Peneliti juga mewawancarai enam mahasiswa dengan tujuan untuk mengklarifikasi dan memperkuat data dari kuesioner. Hasil dari analisis data berupa persentase yang digunakan untuk melihat tingkat kesepakatan yang paling sering dipilih oleh responden.
Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa, mahasiswa memiliki persepsi positif terhadap penerapan teacher written feedback. Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa penerapan teacher written feedback di kelas CRW 1 sudah baik. Akan tetapi para dosen harus lebih berhati-hati dalam menanggapi tulisan mahasiswa. Selain itu, variasi dalam penulisan teacher written feedback seperti pemberian pujian dan gambar sederhana dapat mendorong mahasiswa untuk terus menulis. Peneliti mengusulkan beberapa rekomendasi kepada: 1) para dosen untuk tetap menggunakan teacher written feedback yang jelas dan dapat mendorong mahasiswa untuk menciptakan karya tulis yang lebih baik 2) para mahasiswa untuk merefleksikan dan mengevaluasi proses menulis mereka, dan 3) para calon peneliti untuk lebih menggali penerapan teacher written feedback di kelas menulis lainnya.
Fall
seven
times,
stand up
eight.
--- Japanese Proverb
---
I dedicate this thesis to:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to thank my Lord, Jesus Christ, who is always
willing to raise me up when I am down, to guide me when I am stuck, and to
listen to all my prayers. I thank Him for creating a hardworking person like me.
For His blessings have assisted me to give my best and my very best in writing
this thesis. I believe that without His greatest love I would not have been able to
finish this thesis.
I dedicate my greatest gratitude to my major sponsor Veronica
Triprihatmini, S.Pd., M.Hum., M.A. who has patiently guided and encouraged
me during the process of completing this thesis. Her attention, suggestion,
correction, comments, advice, and criticism were so beneficial for me. I also
would like to thank Drs. Barli Bram M. Ed., Ph.D. for his useful and helpful
advice for my thesis, for his jokes which made me a little bit relieve. I would to
thank C. Sih Prabandari S.Pd., M.Hum. For being the best academic advisor for
ELESP of class B (2009). I thank all lecturers, staff, and students of ELESP
Sanata Dharma University for giving me valuable experiences which helped me
to bring out the best in me during my study. I also address my thanks to Sr.
Margaret O’Donohue FCJ and Adesti Komalasari S.Pd., M.A. for
proofreading my thesis and being the nicest thesis consultants.
I deeply thank my lovely grandfather and grandmother, the late WJ
Hendrowarsito and Sri Mahjarati, as my role models of life, for their living
inspiration which always makes me keep fighting to grasp my future. My father
physically and mentally support me. They are the heroes of my life whose love,
patience, and guidance are sincerely given in finishing my thesis. I also thank my
brother, Yohanes Rendy Saksono Putro, who becomes my best mood booster,
thanks for keeping the tabs on me for years.
My sincerest thanks also go to my beloved Gajah Gajah Semut Jerapah,
Elisabeth Rosalia, Rieska Dwi, Maria Wulandari, Ruth Septi and Yoga
Marutadewa,for the love, care, and support which go along this true friendship. I
also would like to thank Diana Wibawaningtyas, Asiska Bunga, and Jenny
Keita for the joy and sorrow shared being a thesis fighter. I wish us a good luck. I
thank all class B (2009) members as my second family, for sharing the tears and
laughter, for making my life colorful and meaningful. I also address my thanks to
Adria Cemara S.Pd., for kindly helped me being my proofreader. Sandy
Ferianda S.Pd., for being my motivator. For his words made a huge sense of
relief. The last but not least, I thank my friend of life, Gregorius Pambudi
Laksono, for enormously loving, motivating and caring me and for teaching me
not to sweat the small stuff in my life especially on completing this thesis.
Finally, I thank all of the people whose names I cannot mention one by
one for their supports and prayers.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TITLE PAGE ……….. i
APPROVAL PAGES ……….. ii
STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ………... iv
PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ……….. v
ABSTRACT ……….... vi
ABSTRAK ………. vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……….... ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS ……… xi
LIST OF TABLES ……….. xiv
LIST OF FIGURES ………. xv
LIST OF APPENDICES ………. xvi
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION A. Research Background ……… 1
B. Problem Formulation ………... 4
C. Problem Limitation ………... 4
D. Research Objectives ……….. 5
E. Research Benefits ……….. 5
F. Definition of Terms ………... 7
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE A. Theoretical Description ………. 10
1. Perception ………... 10
a. Definition of Perception ………... 10
b. Perception, Learning & Thinking ………... 11
2. Feedback ………. 13
1) Teacher Written Feedback ……….. 16
a) Forms of Teacher Written Feedback ……… 17
b) Types of Teacher Written Feedback ……… 18
c) Focus of Teacher Written Feedback ……… 18
d) Review of Existing Studies of Teacher Written Feedback ……… 20
3. Critical Reading and Writing ……… 22
a. Nature of Reading ……… 22
b. Nature of Writing ……… 25
c. Critical Reading and Writing 1 in ELESP Sanata Dharma University ……….………. 28
B. Theoretical Framework ………... 31
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A. Research Method ………. 33
B. Research Setting ……….. 34
C. Research Participants ……….. 35
D. Instruments and Data Gathering Technique………. 35
1. Questionnaire ……….... 35
2. Interview Framework ………..…………... 37
E. Data Analysis Technique ………... 41
F. Research Procedure ……… 43
CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS A. ELESP Students’ Perception on the Implementation of Teacher Written Feedback in CRW 1 ……….. 46
2. Students’ Perception on the Process of Teacher Written
Feedback Implementation in CRW 1 ……….. 52
3. Students’ Perception on the Implementation of Teacher Written Feedback in CRW 1 ………... 62
B. The Implications of ELESP Students’ Perception on the Implementation of Teacher Written Feedback in CRW 1…………. 76
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Conclusions ……….... 86
B. Recommendations ……….. 90
1. Recommendations for Lecturers of CRW 1 ……… 91
2. Recommendations for Students of CRW 1 ………. 91
3. Recommendations for Future Researchers ………. 92
REFERENCES ………..…... 93
LIST OF TABLES
Page Table 3.1 Questionnaire Blueprint of Students’ Perception ………. 36 Table 3.2 Interview Framework Blueprint of Students’ Perception ………. 38 Table 3.3 Data Analysis of Questionnaire ……… 42 Table 4.1 The Result of Students’ Perception on the Process of Teaching
and Learning Activities ...………... 48 Table 4.2 The Result of Students’ Perception on the Forms, Types,
and Media ………...………. 53 Table 4.3 The Result of Students’ Perception on the Content Focus .…... 59 Table 4.4 The Result of Students’ Perception on the Clarity ……….. 63 Table 4.5 The Result of Students’ Perception on the Use
of Teacher Written Feedback ……….. 69 Table 4.6 The Result of Students’ Perception on the Possible
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1 Relationship between Perception and Learning & Thinking …. 12
Figure 2.2 The Graphic of Interactive Models ………. 24
Figure 2.3 White and Arndt’s Process Writing Model ………. 26
Appendix
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
A. Sample of Surat Permohonan Ijin Penelitian……… 98
B. Blueprint of Questionnaire ……… 100
C. Questionnaire ……… 105
D. Sample of Students’ Questionnaire ………... 108
E. Percentage Result of Questionnaire ………. 121
F. Blueprint of Interview Framework ……….. 124
G. Interview Question List ……… 128
H. Transcripts of Interview ……….. 130
I. Syllabus of Critical Reading and Writing 1 ……… 138
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This study discusses the English Language Education Study Program
(ELESP) students’ perception of Sanata Dharma University on the
implementation of teacher written feedback in Critical Reading and Writing
(CRW) 1 class. Chapter one is divided into six main parts, namely research
background, problem formulation, problem limitation, research objectives,
research benefits and definition of terms.
A. Research Background
Focusing on the educational field in this modern era, writing is one
productive skill that is no less important than the others. Writing helps people in
carrying new information over time throughout the world. “One of the best ways
to try out people’s writing ability is to make them write and create their own
writing” (Hughes, 1989:75, in Weigle, 2002, p. 1). In writing classrooms, the
students are trained to write their own writings in order to practice their writing
skills. At the same time, it indicates that the student also practice and try out their
writing ability.
In writing classrooms, the students are assigned to create their own
writings. Teachers, as the facilitators in writing activities, really take a main role
to respond to the students’ writings by giving useful feedback. “Feedback is
learning and this significance has also been recognized by those working in the
field of second language writing” (Anderson, 1982; Brophy, 1981; Vygotsky,
1978, as cited in Hyland, 2002). Feedback nowadays is popularly used in
language classrooms in both first language (L1) and second language (L2)
classrooms in assisting the students in the process of writing.
Concerning about the L2 writing classrooms, feedback is one useful tool
to measure and improve students’ writing. Hyland (2003) addresses several kinds
of feedback such as teacher written feedback, peer feedback and teacher-student
conferencing. Each feedback has its own strengths and weaknesses. Focusing on
teacher written feedback, this technique of feedback has several weaknesses as it
has described:
“Much written feedback has poor quality and frequently misunderstood by the students. The teachers are sometimes overwhelmed, they tend to misread students’ text and they are inconsistent in their reactions by giving arbitrary corrections, contradictory comments, provide vague
prescriptions, impose abstract rules, respond to texts as fixed of final products and rarely make content-specific comments for revising the texts (Sommers, 1982, as cited in Hyland, 2003, p. 178).
Despite these weaknesses, it is found that students highly value the
implementation of teacher written feedback rather than other alternative forms
such as peer feedback and oral feedback. In addition, it is stated that feedback on
early drafts of a paper can lead to students’ improvements in following drafts
(Knoblauch and Brannon, 1981, as cited in Hyland, 2003). However, Ferris (1997,
as cited in Hyland, 2003) finds out that although three quarters of substantives
teachers’ comments on drafts were used by the students, only half of the revisions
Since this issue related to teacher written feedback has been discussed in
L2 writing classrooms, it is interesting to discuss by directly involving L2 writing
students who have experienced teacher written feedback to come up with their
perception. Recently, based on some students’ experiences, some L2 writing
lecturers had not given complete or useful feedback as detailed as what students
expected. However, feedback is very important in order to improve students’
writing skills and increase their quality of writing. Besides, it can be a way to
monitor the writing progress of the students.
This research mainly discusses three variables; perception, teacher written
feedback and CRW 1 class. In order to find out the truth of teacher written
feedback implementation in certain L2 writing classroom, this research employs
perception which was gained through the students. This research chooses teacher
written feedback because this kind of feedback is considered as an effective way
of giving feedback yet it still has many weaknesses. Later, it will be proven in this
research by directly involving L2 writing students. One of the L2 writing
classrooms chosen is CRW 1 class. Focusing on the writing skill, CRW 1 no
longer discusses the technical terms such as minimum requirements, etc. but also
the development of ideas and its organization in students’ writing. That is why it
needs more concern from L2 writing lecturers to pay attention to its process.
Thus, this research is very significant to conduct in order to see how
teacher written feedback can help the students in the process of writing. Besides,
it is to give meaningful information to the L2 writing lecturers by finding out
particular L2 classroom. Yet, the result of the data found later can be used for the
L2 writing lecturers to see how far their teaching practice especially in providing
feedback works well. Thus, there will be some suggestions provided for L2
writing lecturers as the implication of this study.
B. Problem Formulation
This research tries to answer two research problems which are formulated
as follows:
1. What is ELESP students’ perception on the implementation of teacher written
feedback in Critical Reading and Writing (CRW) 1 class of Sanata Dharma
University?
2. What are the implications of the findings?
C. Problem Limitation
This research about ELESP students’ perception on the implementation of
teacher written feedback of Sanata Dharma University in Critical Reading and
Writing (CRW) 1 class has some limitations. First, it focuses only on CRW 1
students’ perception and its implications in the teacher written feedback given by
CRW 1 lecturers. Besides it only focuses on the teacher written feedback of the
writing skill since this class is divided into two different skills, reading and
University as the research population, who have taken CRW 1 course and
obtained teacher written feedback as one of the feedback techniques.
D. Research Objectives
Based on the problem formulation above this research has several
objectives, they are:
1. To figure out the students’ perception on the implementation of teacher
written feedback
2. To find out why students have a positive or negative perception
3. To present the implications of the students’ perception
E. Research Benefits
The research findings are expected to make some positive contributions to:
1. Lecturers of Critical Reading and Writing 1
This study does not only provide descriptions of students’ perception on
the teacher written feedback given, what and how the students perceive and
understand the feedback given but also presenting its implications. The study also
finds out the implication on the students’ perception on the implementation of
teacher written feedback. It provides the deeper meaning of what students
implied findings are expected to give some useful suggestions and
recommendations for the lecturers of CRW 1 class in providing teacher written
feedback to accommodate the students’ needs in writing activities. The benefits
are not only limited to lecturers of CRW 1 class but also for other English writing
teachers who may try to implement or even have implemented teacher written
feedback so that they can provide this technique of feedback effectively.
2. Students of Critical Reading and Writing 1
Through this study, the students may reflect and evaluate the teaching and
learning activities in CRW 1 class especially in the implementation of teacher
written feedback. This research investigates the students’ perception on the
implementation of teacher written feedback. Its purpose is to find out whether the
students have positive perception toward the implementation of teacher written
feedback. After having the results of research findings, it is expected for the
students to be really aware of how the implementation of teacher written
feedback helps them in the process of writing. Besides it is also expected that
teacher written feedback technique can really meet students’ needs in writing
activities so that the students may optimize their writing skill. The benefits are
not only limited to the students of CRW 1 but also other second language writing
students, which also experience this technique of feedback in their writing
3. Future Researchers
The researcher hopes that this study can inspire other researchers, who
have a concern in this field and interested in this topic, to explore more about the
use of teacher written feedback not only in CRW 1 class but also in other second
language writing classrooms. The researcher expects that this study can stimulate
other researchers to conduct a further research and find other essential findings of
teacher written feedback through the result of the students’ perception and also
its implication through the implementation of teacher written feedback itself.
F. Definition of Terms
This research contains several terms in the scope of writing that are going
to be discussed, they are:
1. Perception
According to Altman, Valenzi & Hodgetts (1985) perception is defined as
“The way stimuli are selected and grouped by a person so that they can be
meaningfully interpreted. The process of perception enables us to understand and
cope with the environment in which we live.” In this research, this term will
discuss generally on the way the students think about or interpret the
2. Teacher Written Feedback
According to Sherman (2004), feedback is a response from someone to a
person does in order to assess and improve his or her performance. Focusing on
the written form, Kaweera (2008) notes that teacher written feedback refers to
written responses provided by the teacher to the students writing. The teacher written feedback means feedback in form of written that consists of any markings,
comments, revision, suggestions, responses or reactions provided by a teacher to
students’ writing.
3. Critical Reading and Writing (CRW) 1 Class
According to CRW 1 syllabus, CRW 1 class is offered for ELESP students
who are in the third semester. It is designed to give students practice to write
responses critically based on the given texts or passages, or even write passages to
develop new ideas within the same topic. The texts are related to argumentative,
persuasive and expository genres. The students are trained to apply logical
principles, careful standard of evidence and reasoning to the analysis and
discussion of claims, beliefs and issues. So, on completing this course, the
students are able to comprehend the texts given and write their responses
4. English Language Education Study Program (ELESP) Students
ELESP students are the university students who are taking English
Education as the major. They learn four English skills; speaking, reading,
listening, and writing. They are prepared and trained to be a certified English
teacher. They do not only take English course works related to the four skills but
also other courses which support them to be a good English teacher. In order to
practice the students’ teaching skills, the students also get micro teaching class.
Besides they get opportunities to teach English in public or private school for
some months.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter is divided into two main parts namely theoretical description and theoretical framework. Theoretical description focuses on reviews of related literature underlying this study, while theoretical framework discusses the implementation of the theories which are used to answer the research problems.
A. Theoretical Description
This part consists of the review of related literature namely perception, feedback and critical reading and writing.
1. Perception
a. Definition of Perception
Altman, Valenzi and Hodgetts (1985) defines perception as a person’s view of reality which comes from stimuli in our environment:
Perception is the way stimuli are selected and grouped by a person so that they can be meaningfully interpreted. It is a person’s view of reality. The process of perception enables us to understand and cope with the
environment in which we live (p. 85).
Deriving from these two definitions, there are several things that should be highlighted: stimuli, stimuli selection, stimuli organization and then interpretation. However, Leontiev (1981) proposes “Perception is the process whereby the external tokens of objects and phenomena are reflected in man’s consciousness” (p. 31). In other words, the intended external tokens of objects and phenomena also occur in the environments that are reflected in man’s consciousness which also deals with human sensory organs.
From several definitions preceded, it can be concluded that the perceptual process is aroused by stimuli in environment. It can be in form of objects or phenomena as it is proposed by Leontiev, which is then selected by the sensory organs to be organized and arranged in order to make meaningful interpretation or it can be considered as perception itself which resulted in the people’s behavioral response.
b. Perception, Learning and Thinking
cognitive process where organisms are engaged in solving problems, which also involves the use of models or the stored facts in the preceding learning process.
Having referred to perception, learning and thinking as cognitive processes, the relationship of perception, learning and thinking can be drawn as followed:
Modifies perception Modifies organism of stimulus
Stimulus Organism Learning Thinking
Modifies perception Modifies organism of stimulus through learning
Figure 2.1 Relationship between Perception, and Learning & Thinking (Source: Forgus; 1966:4)
The figure above indicates that stimulus possesses information, which is extracted by the organism as learning. Next, the more complex process comes to the process of thinking in which it also modifies new learning process that involves organism in modifying the perception of stimuli. In other words, the result of thinking modifies future learning and that learning in turn can influence the way people perceive our stimuli in the environment.
Besides it helps to see the process of the students when they come up with different or even negative opinions which is caused by human’s way of thinking and it has its own interpretation in the same stimuli within an environment.
2. Feedback
Feedback, which has two different forms; written and spoken, also has several different definitions which come from several experts. Generally, according to Sherman (1994) feedback is a response or reaction from a person to something that another person does, that can be used to assess and improve a person’s performance in the future. In the educational field, F. Hyland & K. Hyland (2006) note that feedback is important in providing students with the rhetorical choices central to new academic or professional literacy skills and as a way of assisting students in negotiating access to new knowledge and practices. Limited to L2 writing classrooms, Hyland (2003) addresses. “Feedback emphasizes a process of writing and rewriting where the text is not seen as self-contained but points forward to other texts the students will write” (p.177).
well as in the application of feedback in writing, it is concerned about the process of learning in creating proper writings, which becomes the starting point to create other texts. These synthesized definitions will be the base where feedback is used in this study.
Deriving from its definition, feedback aims to assist the students to develop their skills and knowledge into broader context of writing. As Lewis (2002) has described, it provides information both for the teacher and student, in which it is rather like an ongoing form of assessment than grades and marks. In addition, it also provides advice and language input in learning where it illustrates how language is used in one-to-one communication. Being a language input, it is a form of motivation. It means that the more the teachers know about the students through their writings, the more encouragement takes place in personal circumstances. One long-term purpose of feedback is to lead the students towards autonomy which means students are led into the point where they make mistakes.
students themselves. The last source of feedback comes from the student himself. The student who has his own writing may give his own feedback to his writing in order to evaluate it.
a. Kinds of Feedback
1) Teacher Written Feedback
Limited to its term, this kind of feedback involves teachers as the source of feedback to provide written feedback to students’ text. Written comments here mean the teacher writes comments on different aspects of the written tasks in the margins, spaces between paragraphs or at the end (Rairnes 1988; Fathmen and Whalley, 1990; Leki 1990 as cited in Karim & Ivy, 2011). Another definition comes from Kaweera (2008), she notes that teacher written feedback refers to written responses provided by the teacher to the students writing. The responses
are limited to comments on grammatical errors and content of the students’
writing. In order to know further about teacher written feedback, this study
elaborates its forms, types and focus.
In addition, Harmer (2001) states that the way the teachers give feedback
depends on the kind of writing task. When we give feedback more on the longer
texts and not on the workbook exercises, we have to demonstrate our interest on
the content of students’ work. Harmer proposed that there are two techniques of
feedback, responding and coding. Responding here means one way of considering
feedback as ‘responding’ rather than assessing or evaluating. It means we respond
to how text appears to us, how successful the texts are and what needs to be
improved. While coding is where the teachers put codes in the body of writing or
in a corresponding margin. Of course, the codes or symbols are decided both by
teachers to avoid over-correction scripts and helps the students to concentrate on
particular features of written English.
a) Forms of Teacher Written Feedback
According to Hyland (2003), the most common forms of teacher written feedback are “commentary, rubrics, minimal marking, taped commentary and electronic feedback” (pp. 180-183). Commentary refers to the handwritten commentary on the students’ paper, which directly discusses the exact point where the students make mistakes. It states how the text appears to us as readers, how successful it is and how the text can be improved. Raimes (1983) notes, “Comments on students’ paper which is in form of paraphrase of the ideas expressed, praise, questions, and suggestions are more productive yet encouraging and motivating” (p. 143)
One of the variations of commentary is rubrics. It is the use of cover sheets which consists of the criteria that will be used to assess students’ assignment and performances related to the criteria. Another form of teacher written feedback is minimal marking, which indicates the location and perhaps type of error, rather than direct correction. Since it only provides ‘code correction’ in every part of students’ texts in students’ paper, it leads to a neater correction and less threatening for the students, which help the students to find and identify their mistakes.
their own voice talking about the correction based on the students’ texts then they will put numbers where the comments refer to. The numbers will help the students to follow the feedback into the text orderly. The last form of teacher written feedback is electronic feedback. It allows the students to submit their texts via email or any other online writing facilities that makes the teachers flexible in providing feedback.
b) Types of Teacher Written Feedback
Biber, Nekrasova and Horn (2011, p.7) conclude that there are two types of teacher written feedback: direct and indirect feedback. The term direct feedback is used to denote instances where the writing instructor makes an explicit correction to the student’s text (e.g.: providing the correct grammatical form in the ungrammatical sentences). While indirect feedback is where the instructor indicates that something about the student’s writing is problematic (e.g.: by underlining ungrammatical sentences)
c) Focus of Teacher Written Feedback
scholars since it is rather speculative and grammar-grounded, which does not show the nature process of learning. In addition, it is considered beneficial for students in some cases but it is not an effective way to all L2 writing classrooms. Next, is content-based feedback which is known as meaning-based feedback. Different from form-focused feedback, it concerns more on content quality and organizational features of the overall text. For instance, teachers provide the overall feedback in which the text is relevant and make sense within the content selected and how the text is organized well in logical ways without pointing any grammatical errors and mistakes that students made. As the improvements of the needs of L2 writing classrooms nowadays, there is a new focus which concern on both form-focused and content-based feedback which is called integrative feedback. It leads to students’ writing accuracy improvements and motivates the students to create better writings with qualified contents.
that every item of the questionnaire and interview is precise to the research objectives in order to get maximum result.
d)Review of Existing Studies of Teacher Written Feedback
There are several researches discussing teacher written feedback. In this section, two studies will be reviewed. The first research entitled Students’ Perception toward Teacher Written Feedback on their Composition: A Case
Study written by Christina Dyah Kurniyati (2006). The second research entitled Improving SMAN 1 Depok Students’ Accuracy of Simple Past Tense in
Narrative through Teacher’s Feedback written by Bernadeta Diah Ratih
Angguratami (2012).
addition, teacher written feedback given is also encouraging in the sense of motivating the students to revise their compositions.
Angguratami (2012) conducted CAR (Classroom Action Research) using teacher’s feedback as one best strategy to improve tenth grade students’ grammar accuracy of simple past tense in narrative writing. In conducting the research, Angguratami used two cycles of CAR. Besides, it used students’ drafts, observation sheets, field notes, questionnaires, and interviews as the data sources. The findings show that the students’ error percentage of simple past tense decreased from 56% to 27% in the first cycle and 21% in the second cycle. The findings show that teacher’s feedback helped the students to understand their mistakes and to get new knowledge about grammar, vocabulary and simple past tense forms. In addition, the students also felt motivated after receiving teacher’s feedback.
3. Critical Reading and Writing
In order to see deeper about critical reading and writing, it is better to elaborate first the nature of reading and writing. The relation between these two skills is included in the Critical Reading and Writing 1 course, as it is intended in the scope of the English Language Education Study Program.
a. Nature of Reading
According to Nunan (2003), reading is a fluent process of readers combining information from a text and their own background knowledge to build meaning. The goal of reading is comprehension. It can be described as an active process — a dynamic, meaning-making interaction between the page and your brain. Understanding the reading processhelps people become critical thinkers. In addition, Nunan also proposes that there are three models of the reading processes; bottom-up, top-down, and interactive models. The most typical classroom which focuses on bottom-up approach is intensive reading classroom, while top-down approach is usually used in extensive reading classroom.
Focusing on the first model which is bottom-up models, Nunan (2003) describes the process of bottom up models:
In addition, he also describes the process of the second model which is top-down models:
Top-down models, on the other hand, begin with the idea that
comprehension resides in the reader. The readers use the background knowledge, makes prediction, and searches the text to confirm or reject the predictions that are made. A passage can thus be understood even if all of the individual words are not understood. Within a top-down approach to reading the teacher should focus on meaning generating activities rather than on mastery of word recognition. (p. 71)
In other words, bottom-up model is started from the small part of language that is letter. Bottom-up here also means decoding. It is where the readers build meaning from the smallest units of meaning to achieve comprehension. However, top-model is the direct opposition of bottom-up top-model. In top-down top-model, the readers employ their background knowledge to build meaning in order to achieve the comprehension. However, these two models are still inadequate in the process of reading in achieving comprehension.
Reader background knowledge
Individual letters and sound
Figure 2.2 The Graphic of Interactive Models
Alderson (2000) notes that the process of reading and the product of that process (as a result) are different. The process is what is meant by ‘reading’ proper between the text and the reader where the reader also thinks about what he is reading, what it means, how he relates to things he know, etc. While product of the process itself is the result of the reading process, for example reader’s understanding of particular texts.
Related to reader’s understanding above, there are two levels of understanding. First, literal understanding of a text, which means the readers understand every detail in the text. Second, the main implication understanding where the readers understand the meaning of a text which is indirectly stated in the text. Being able to read here simply means understand the words, meanings, sentences and the organization of the text which is related to the former to ‘micro
processes’ which deals with the local phrase-by-phrase understanding and ‘macro processes’ which deals with global understanding (Kintsch and van Dijk, 1978, as cited in Alderson, 2000.)
b. Nature of Writing
Nunan (2003) states that writing can be defined by series of contrast. It is both a physical and mental act which means writing is the physical act of committing words or ideas into passage, on the other hand, it is also the mental work of inventing ideas, thinking about expressing them and organizing them into passage. Besides its purpose is both to express and impress in which writers are trying both to express their ideas and feelings also impress the readers as the audience. It is also both a process and product since the writers experience cyclical process of writing, which is by imagining, organizing, drafting, editing, reading and rereading.
the product of an individual, but as a social and cultural act that takes place within a context, that accomplishes a particular purpose, and that is appropriately shaped for its intended audience. While writing as a cognitive activity deals with novice and expert writers where they acquire new knowledge through writing. Expert writers tend to spend more time in planning their writings than novice and revise them not only in surface but also the content and the organization which also consider their audience in reading their works.
In relation to the process of writing, (White and Arndt, 1991:5, as cited in Harmer, 2001) process of writing is an interrelated set of stages which include drafting, structuring, reviewing, focusing, evaluating and generating ideas. The adopted White and Arndt’s model of the process of writing is presented as follows.
Figure 2.3 White and Arndts’ Process Writing Model
It is shown by the figure above that the writing process composed by White and Arndts is a cycle process. From the arrows, it is seen that it is not a linear process; it does not go like a straight line which start and finish in certain
Evaluating Generating
Ideas
Reviewing Focusing
Structuring
stage. For instance, starting from the generating ideas, the writers draw information from the long-term memory, experiences, and beliefs. Next stage is focusing on where the writers decide the main ideas consisting of message that the writers intend to deliver to the readers. Then, the writers begin structuring by ordering information, combining ideas, and experimenting with arrangements. Start drafting, and begin evaluating. After that, the writers start reviewing, which means that they go back to the writing then editing and see it with the new set of eyes. However, after reviewing, the writers may go back to the structuring if the writers feel that the logical development of ideas is not developed yet or even any other stages to complete their writings.
c. Critical Reading and Writing 1 in ELESP Sanata Dharma University
Based on Buku Panduan Akademik Universitas Sanata Dharma Yogyakarta, Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris; Critical Reading and
Writing 1 – KPE 220 (4 CR / 4 CH), Critical Reading and Writing 1 class is one
of the courses given which is offered for the third semester students. Since it is the collaboration of two skills, reading and writing; the students who are eligible to take this course need to pass Basic Reading 1 & 2, Basic Writing and Paragraph Writing. CRW 1 is designed for the students to write critical responses based on the given texts. The texts discussed are argumentative, persuasive and expository. Its aim is to train the student to apply the logical principles, give strong and meaningful evidence and reasoning to certain discussion of claims, beliefs and issues. In this course, the students are expected to be able to comprehend the passage given and write their own response critically.
Being critical means becoming fully aware of an idea or an action, reflect on it, and ultimately react to it.Having defined the nature of reading and writing in the previous review, it can be concluded that critical reading and writing is the way that people read, understand and comprehend written texts and respond to the particular texts through writing critically by comparing and adding existing knowledge or experiences that the people have in mind.In this relation to CRW 1, this course also applies what the nature of reading and writing hold. The utmost goal of reading is reading comprehension, where at the same time in CRW 1 students are expected to be able to comprehend the passage given. Besides, Nunan (2003) states that writing is physical and mental act. It requires students’ physical act to commit words, paragraphs into a passage. On the other hand, students are also working with mental act where they have to think and invent ideas then organize them into a passage. One of the students’ writing activities in CRW 1 course is to write response critically based on their comprehension on the passage given.
Wallace and Wray (2011) describe that our critical reading to the others’ work can be the beginning in producing our written text:
In addition, the relation between critical reading and self-critical writing is very close. Wallace and Wray (2011) said, “A secret of successful writing is to anticipate the expectations and potential objections of the audience of critical readers for whom you are writing.” It shows that the combination of critical reading and writing is recommended to apply in academic context especially in academic writing. This is what Critical Reading and Writing 1 class try to apply. In addition, Celce-Murcia (2001) also states that the use of readings in writing class can give practical purposes. It gives models of English writings which help the students to develop their awareness of English language prose style. Besides the students can practice English reading skills such as summarizing, paraphrasing, interpreting, and synthesizing concepts.
B. Theoretical Framework
Begin with several weaknesses of teacher written feedback, the implementation of teacher written feedback itself has been discussed within the use of feedback in L2 writing classrooms. However, feedback takes essential part for L2 writers in the process of writing. It emphasizes on the writing and rewriting process that leads to other further texts. It also improves students’ writing skills that motivate students to create better pieces of writing even if students themselves know how to use the feedback well. Therefore, this research focuses on the students’ perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback and its implication. Besides having a research and survey to answer the research problems of this study, the elaboration of several theories about perception, teacher written feedback and critical reading and writing will also help this study to find the answers.
feedback refers to limited responses about comments on grammatical errors and content to students’ writing in form of written. As one kind of feedback and the independent variable in this study, it explains what really this kind of feedback means. So, the researcher, participants and the readers have the same understanding about teacher written feedback. The last is the knowledge of critical reading and writing, which is derived from the nature of each skill coming from Nunan (2003). The theories from Wallace and Wray (2001) are also needed to see what is meant by critical reading and writing nowadays and how it differs to reading and writing.
The second research problem figures out the implications of the findings. Similar to the first research problem, it will be discussed and answered by using these three theories about perception, teacher written feedback and critical reading and writing. Having defined each variable of this study also helps to avoid misleading and misunderstanding. In addition, to obtain maximum result, these theories will be used in designing every single question in the instruments so that it will get the intended answers from the participants. The clearer the questions composed based on the theories, the clearer the answers and the more precise the data gathered. It means that it facilitates this study to get the precise and clearer implication beyond this study.
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the methodology employed in this study in order to
conduct the research. It describes six main parts of the research methodology,
namely research method, research setting, research participants, instruments and
data gathering technique, data analysis technique and research procedure.
A. Research Method
This research was qualitative research. According to Ary, Jacobs, and
Sorensen (2010), qualitative research is research studies that investigate the
quality of relationships, activities, situations, or materials. It is more on describing
in detail all of what goes on in a particular activity or situation rather than
comparing the effects of particular treatments, In addition, Fraenkel and Wallen
(2009) note that qualitative researchers assume that the world is made up of
multiple realities, socially constructed by different individual views of the same
situation. In this study, the researcher figured out the students’ perception on the
implementation of teacher written feedback in CRW 1 class. Within the
implementation of teacher written feedback in CRW 1 class, the students in the
same class might have different perception.
Besides, this study employed survey method in which the data of students’
perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback in CRW 1 class
Razavieh (2002) define that survey is a research technique in which data are
gathered by asking questions of a group of individuals called respondents.
Moreover, Wiersma (1995) states that surveys are used to measures attitudes,
opinions, or achievements – any number of variables in natural settings. In
collecting the data, this study also distributed questionnaire to all the respondents
and interviewed several respondents. In addition, the objectives of this study were
to figure out the students’ perception on the implementation of teacher written
feedback and why the students have a good or bad perception. Therefore, survey
research could accommodate this research in surveying students’ perception on
the implementation of teacher written feedback and its implication.
B. Research Setting
In order to answer the first problem which is ELESP students’ perception
on teacher written feedback in CRW 1 class, the researcher distributed
questionnaires and conducted interviews. All respondents were the ones who had
taken CRW 1 as the compulsory subject before taking CRW 2. The questionnaire
distribution of this research took place in all six different classes of Critical
Reading and Writing 2 (CRW 2) in Sanata Dharma University. The interview
was conducted around Sanata Dharma University. This research started in May
C. Research Participants
In order to gain the reliable and valid data of the students’ perception on
the implementation of teacher written feedback in CRW 1 class, this study
selected the entire population. The population selected was 149 students of
ELESP Sanata Dharma University in the academic year of 2011 who had taken
CRW 1 course. The respondents only consist of 140 students because 9 of them
skipped some statements in the questionnaire, which is considered invalid. There
were 25 students from class A, 27 students from class B, 24 students from class C,
26 students from class D, 19 students from class E and 19 students from class F.
By having the entire population as the research participants, the research got
relevant and sufficient data to provide maximum insight and understanding of
what they had been studying.
D. Instruments and Data Gathering Technique
In order to answer the two formulated problems, this research employed
two research instruments: questionnaire and interview framework.
1. Questionnaire
Questionnaire was used both to get the data about students’ perception on
the implementation of teacher written feedback and its implication. The
description result was used as the main data which is supported by the result of
printed forms that ask the same questions of all individuals in the sample and for
which the respondents record their answers in verbal form. This is how
questionnaires were used in this research. The questionnaires were distributed to
140 students who had taken CRW 1 course.
In order to enhance the consistency of the responses throughout the
respondents, and make the tabulation easier and faster, a close-ended
questionnaire was used. There were thirty close-ended items provided which
cover all the information needed to answer the research problem formulation.
Each statement came up from several theories that were used to support this
research. The questionnaire used English Language because the participants were
all ELESP students and they were all capable enough in understanding and
responding to the statements provided. The brief category questionnaire
statements can be seen as follows.
Table 3.1 Questionnaire Blueprint of Students’ Perception
The table above is the blueprint of the questionnaire items that has been
distributed to CRW 1 students. This blueprint came up from the combination of
the theories used to gain the intended data in answering the research problem
formulations. Since this research has three variables: perception, teacher written
feedback and CRW 1, and the problem formulations are finding out students’
perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback and its implication.
Therefore, the blueprint is divided into three categories: the students’ perception
on the process of CRW 1 teaching and learning activities, students’ perception on
the process of teacher written feedback implementation and students’ perception
on the teacher written feedback implementation and its implication.
2. Interview Framework
In order to get students’ perception on the implementation of
teacher-written feedback, the second instrument used in this research was interview.
According to Ary, Jacobs, and Sorensen (2010), interview was one of the most
widely used and basic methods for obtaining the data in qualitative research.
Besides, it is used to gather data from people about their opinions, beliefs and
feelings about situations in their own words. In this research, it was used to gain
deeper comprehensive understanding, as it is used to support the main data which
is questionnaire’s result. In addition, it was also used to strengthen, clarify and to
confirm all the answers gathered from the questionnaire. Personal interviews were
allows the researcher to have follow-up questions to the unclear answers as it is
noted by Fraenkel and Wallen (2009).
In conducting the interview, the researcher had prepared a question list
consisting of sixteen open-ended questions. In line with what is defined by
DeMarrais (2004, as cited in Merriam, 2009) that interview is a process where a
researcher and participant engage in a conversation focused on questions related
to a research study. In addition, Fraenkel and Wallen (2009) note that open-ended
questions allow more freedom of response and permit follow-up by interviewer
which give the opportunity to the researcher to ask expanded questions regarding
to the responses. The sixteen questions became the guideline to get the specific
data from the interviewees. Since in the interview the research used a question list
as the guideline and used the questions flexibly, this type of interview is included
as semistructured as it is proposed by Merriam (2009). The following table
provides brief category, theories used and some question examples of the
interview items.
Table 3.2 Interview Framework Blueprint of Students’ Perception
Realizing the aims of the use of interview framework, it has the same
categories with the questionnaire blueprint because it is intended to clarify the
result of questionnaire. The statements of the questionnaire and the questions of
interview framework are similar which aim to get the strong and valid answers to
both problem formulations. The interview questions proposed were gained from
several points of questionnaire items in which the researcher found a slight
different data between the questionnaire result and the teacher written feedback
implemented in certain cases. In order to avoid misunderstanding and gain the
deeper answers, the interview was conducted bilingually, in Bahasa Indonesia and
English. The interview result was used as the clarification and confirmation of the
different questionnaire’s result showed. Despite several listed questions, in order
