THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHER INDIRECT FEEDBACK TO IMPROVE STUDENTS’ ABILITY IN WRITING RECOUNT TEXT.

(1)

Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014

The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount

Text

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

The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve

Students’

Ability in Writing Recount Text

A Research Paper

(Submitted to the Department of English Education of FPBS UPI as a partial

requirement to achieve Sarjana Pendidikan Degree)

By

Lutfia Putrinurani

0902343

Department of English Education

Faculty of Language and Arts Education

Indonesia University of Education

(2)

Text

The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect

Feed a k to I prove Stude ts’ A ility

in Writing Recount Text

Oleh Lutfia Putrinurani

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

Januari 2014

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

(3)

Text

PAGE OF APPROVAL

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHER INDIRECT FEEDBACK TO IMPROVE STUDENTS’ ABILITY IN WRITING RECOUNT TEXT

By:

Lutfia Putrinurani

0902343

Approved by:

Main Supervisor Co-Supervisor

Pupung Purnawarman, M.S.Ed., Ph.D. Drs. Sudarsono, M.I, M.A.

NIP. 196810131998031001 NIP. 196607051994031004

Head of Department of English Education

Faculty of Language and Arts Education

Indonesia University of Education

(4)

Text

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu NIP. 196211011987121001

STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION

I hereby state that this research paper entitled The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text is completely my original work regarding the procedure of writing the paper, except

where due to references or acknowledgments are made in the texts. It contains no

material which has been submitted for the award of any other degree or diploma in

any university or institution.

Bandung, Desember 2013

(5)

Text

PREFACE

Alhamdulillahirabbilalamin, in the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the

Most Merciful, the writer finally accomplished the study with this research paper. This research entitled “The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text”. It is submitted to the English Education Department of Indonesia University of Education as a partial requirement to achieve

Sarjana Pendidikan Degree.

This paper investigated the use of teacher indirect feedback in teaching

recount text. Besides, it also views the students’ responses toward teacher indirect

feedback. Generally, the writer hopes that this paper could give some contributions to

all readers. Specifically, the result of this study is expected to give some contributions

to teacher in teaching writing and for those who may need a comparative resource in

conducting a similar study in the future.

However, the writer realizes that this paper is not perfect one as there are

many mistakes and flaws. The writer would be pleased to accept criticism and

suggestions from the readers for the improvement and for better further study.

Bandung, Desember 2013

(6)

Text

Acknowledgments

First of all, I would like to thanks Allah for all His blessing in my life.

Sometimes, I want to give up in finishing my final paper, but I believe that Allah

always besides me all the time so there is no reason to give up. I also believe that

Allah always listens my pray.

I would like to thanks to my beloved parents, Abdul Hasim and Euis Nuryatin

who always pray, give me valuable suggestions, motivations and support for my

success. Thanks to my grandmother, Anih Yuhaenih for endless prayers. Thanks to

my aunt, Emilia and my big cousin, Andi Sutisno for helping me in many ways.

Thanks to my brothers, Muhammad Haekal, Muhammad Ilman Alkausar, my little

cousins Elvira Sandika Zahro and Syakib for cheering me up. It is with all my big family’s never ending love, understanding, and encouragement that I could finally reach the finish line to earn a Sarjana degree.

Thanks to my love Imam Ma’ruf Khaerulloh and my best friends Dini Mustaqima, Fitria Lathufirdaush, Risma Rahmawati, Linta Hayatunisa, Raihani

Ferdila, Aini, Rainal Wempi Pasaka, Alfi Hayyi, Dimas Yulianto, Danis, Evi

Mardiani, and Hindun Mustika Nurulhayati for always being here for me all the time

when I need their help, through up and down during the whole process of completing

my degree. I love you, Guys.

Very special thanks to my advisors, Pupung Purnawarman, M.S.Ed., Ph.D.

and Drs. Sudarsono M.I., M.A. who had been very patient in advising me during the

supervising sessions. Their feedbacks are very useful. Special thanks to all of my

lectures at Indonesia University of Education for valuable knowledge that have been

(7)

Text

Special thanks to all of my students in SMPN 1 Cibatu, especially to VIII-H

and VIII-I for their participation on my research. Special thanks to all of teachers and

the headmaster in SMPN 1 Cibatu for supporting me to conduct this research. I also

would like to thanks to Pak Nanang who give me suggestions related to my research.

Thanks to all of my friends in English Education A, BRITNINE, Abdun

Wijaya and Is Pradausa for the unforgettable moments that we faced during study at

Indonesia University of Education. Thanks to my lovely friends, Yanti Purnamasari,

Anis Nugrahawati, Iis Nuryani, Nurwinda, Maya Marlina, and for those I cannot

mention one by one, thanks for giving me best time of my life. All the words in the

world would never be able to express my gratitude to all of you. May Alloh bless you

all of you. Amin.

(8)

vii Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014

The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT……… i

PREFACE………... ii

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS………...iii

ABSTRACT………... v

TABLE OF CONTENTS………..………... vii

LIST OF TABLES……….……... xiii

LIST OF FIGURES………... xiv

LIST OF APPENDIXES………...………… xv

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1Background……….………. 1

1.2Research Questions….……….………… 2

1.3Aims of the Study……… 3

1.4Scope of the Study………... 3

1.5Significance of the Study……….……… 3

1.6Clarification of Terms……….…………. 4

1.7Organization of the Paper………... 5

(9)

viii Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014

2.1.1 Definition of Feedback………... 7

2.1.2 Purposes of Feedback………. 8

2.1.3 Types of Feedback……….…... 9

2.1.4 Source of Feedback………. 11

2.1.5 Benefits of Teacher Written Feedback………... 12

2.1.6 Weaknesses of Teacher Written Feedback………. 12

2.1.7 Strategies in Providing Feedback: Indirect feedback ………..………. 13

2.1.8 Teacher Feedback and Writing Improvement………... 15

2.2 The Process Approach………... 18

2.3 Self Assessment in Writing……… 21

2.4 The Roles of Teacher in Teaching Writing………... ……... 22

2.5 Recount Text……….... ……... 23

2.5.1 Definition of Recount Text……… 23

2.5.2 Generic Structures of Recount Text………... 24

2.5.3 Language Features of Recount Text………... 24

2.6 Concluding Remark………... 25

(10)

ix Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014

3.1.1 Research Designs……….…...……… 26

3.1.2 Variables………...…………. 26

3.1.3 Hypothesis………...……….. 27

3.2 Population and Sample……….……….………. 27

3.3 Data Collection………...……….……… 28

3.3.1 Writing Practices………..………. 28

3.3.2 Questionnaires………..………. 29

3.4 Research Procedures……… 30

3.4.1 Administering the Pilot Test………. 30

3.4.2 Preparing the Lesson Plan………...……...….……... 30

3.4.3 Preparing the Materials………. 30

3.4.4 Teaching Procedures……….. 30

3.5 Data Analysis……….……… 40

3.5.1 Scoring Sheet for Writing Analysis………...…...……... 40

3.5.2 Data Analysis in the Pilot Test………... 41

3.5.3 Data Analysis in the First Draft and the Last Draft……….. ………... 41

3.5.3.1 Normality Distribution Test………..………... 41

(11)

x Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014

3.5.3.3 Homogeneity of Variance Test………..……… 43

3.5.3.4 Independent t-test……….………... 43

3.5.3.5 Non Parametric Statistic Test: Wilcoxon Test……….……... 44

3.5.3.6 Normalized Gain……… 45

3.5.3.7 Effect Size………... 45

3.5.4 Data Analysis on Questionnaires……….…... 46

4.3 Concluding Remark……….……… 46

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 4.1 Findings………...47

4.1.1 Findings from the Pilot Test……….…………. 47

4.1.2Findings from the First Draft Analysis in the Experimental Group and the Control Group……….…….………… 48

4.1.2.1 Normality Distribution Test……….. 49

4.1.2.2 Non Parametric Statistic Test: Mann Whitney U....…………..…... 50

4.1.3 Findings from the Last Draft Analysis in the Experimental Group and the Control Group……….…...………… 51

4.1.3.1 Normality Distribution Test………... 52

(12)

xi Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014

4.1.3.3 Independent t-test…..………....…..……….. 53

4.1.4 Findings from the First Draft and the Last Draft Analysis in the Control Group... 54

4.1.5 Findings from the First Draft and the Last Draft Analysis in the Experimental Group... 55

4.1.6 Normalized Gain... 56

4.1.7 Effect Size... 57

4.1.8 Findings of Questionnaires……….………. 58

4.2 Discussions………... 58

4.2.1 The Effectiveness of Teacher Feedback in Teaching Writing…………... 58

4.2.2 Students’ Responses toward Teacher Feedback………..………..………… 60

4.2.1 Writing Skill and the Implementation of Teacher Feedback……….. 60

4.2.2 The Advantages of the Implementation of Teacher Feedback……….……... 62

4.3 Concluding Remark……… 63

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1 Conclusions……… 64

(13)

xii Lutfia Putrinurani, 2014

REFERENCES……….. 66

APPENDICES

BIOGRAPHY

(14)

1

Text

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents background of the study, research questions, aims of the

study, scope of the study, significance of the study, clarification of terms, and

organization of the paper.

1.1Background

Writing is an important skill that is required to be mastered by students.

However, most language learners assume that writing is a difficult skill, especially for

students who learn English as a foreign language (Emilia, 2009).

There are some reasons why writing is assumed as a difficult skill. The first

reason is writing is regarded as a complex skill because there are some procedures

that should be conducted in writing, such as thinking, drafting, and revising (Brown,

2001, p. 335). This view is in line with Alwasilah and Alwasilah (2005) who state

that writing is a complex skill because it is not only an activity to transfer spoken

language into the written form, but also it is a mechanism to create, develop, combine

idea, concept, and knowledge into correct structures, coherent paragraphs, and

without mechanical errors. The second reason is students lack of confidence which

made them think that they cannot or do not want to write (Harmer, 2007, p. 113). The

third is there is no feedback from the teacher on students’ written text (Alwasilah and

Alwasilah, 2005).

In solving those difficulties, feedback from the teacher is needed. In teaching

writing, a teacher plays the role as a feedback provider who should encourage and

provide positive responses toward students’ writing (Harmer, 2007). In addition,

(15)

Text

feedback in order to have an effective teaching and learning of writing process

(Dheram, 1995).

In a process approach of writing, feedback is considered as a basic element

(Keh, 1990). In the process approach, a teacher helps students in building repertoires

of strategies for pre-writing, drafting, and rewriting (Brown, 2001). Brown adds that

the process approach gives students time to write and re-write. According to Krashen

(1984) reveals that feedback is useful when it is given to students during the writing

process because students can learn their errors in writing and revise their text based

on feedback from the teacher. It means that teacher feedback can be used as an

alternative strategy to improve students’ writing.

Many researchers have conducted some studies related to teacher feedback.

Although a lot of studies show the effectiveness of teacher feedback, the study on the

implementation of teacher written feedback by using indirect feedback in the Junior

High School is rare especially in the teaching of recount text. In order to fill the gap

in the study about teacher feedback, this study aims to investigate whether teacher

indirect feedback is effective to improve students’ ability in writing recount text or not and to find out students’ responses of the implementation of teacher feedback by

using indirect feedback strategy in improving their writing of recount text.

1.2Research Questions

The study is aimed to investigate the use of teacher indirect feedback to

improve students’ writing of recount text. Research questions are as follows:

1. How effective is teacher indirect feedback to improve students’ writing of

recount text?

2. What are students’ responses toward the implementation of teacher

(16)

3

Text

1.3Aims of the Study

Based on the description in the background, the study is aimed to:

1. Investigate whether teacher indirect feedback is effective to improve

students’ ability in writing recount text or not.

2. Find out students’ responses toward the implementation of teacher indirect

feedback in improving their ability in writing recount text.

1.4Scope of the Study

This study focuses on investigating the implementation of teacher written

feedback by using indirect feedback strategy about content, organization, and

language in students’ writing of recount text. This study also explains students’

responses of teacher feedback in improving their writing of recount text.

This study is conducted at a junior high school in Garut. The population of

this study is the whole students of eighth grade in a junior high school. Specifically,

there are two classes taken as the sample for the study. Teacher indirect feedback is

used as a treatment which is given to the experimental group. Moreover, the context

of the study is limited on teaching of writing recount text by using feedback from the

teacher in a junior high school.

1.5Significance of the Study

This study is expected to improve students’ understanding about their errors

(17)

Text

from the teacher can make students aware about their errors in writing and make their

writing better.

This study can be useful and a helpful source for teachers in teaching English

by using teacher indirect feedback. This study will inspire other researchers to

conduct a research about issues which are related to the application and development

of teacher indirect feedback.

1.6Clarification of Terms

This part explains terms that are used in this study in order to avoid

misunderstanding. Three terms are clarified as follows:

1. Effectiveness can be defined as a measurement of achievement. In this study

effectiveness refers to a measurement of students’ ability in writing recount text.

In addition, the effectiveness of this study can be seen by the increase of

students’ score in writing recount text.

2. Teacher Indirect Feedback can be defined as an input from the teacher to

students which provides the clues about their errors for students’ revision without

providing the correct form (Purnawarman, 2011). In this study, indirect feedback

strategy of this study use a color circle mark, an arrow mark, a cross mark, and

commentary to indicate students’ errors in writing. In addition, the type of feedback of this study is teacher written feedback.

3. Recount Text is a text which consists of an event and an experience that has

already happened in the past (Martin, 2006; Emilia, 2011). The type of recount

text in this study is personal type which tells about events that happen to the

writer in the past. Students have to write a recount text based on the theme that

given by the teacher. Recount texts that are used as learning materials of this

(18)

5

Text

1.7Organization of the Paper

This paper is presented in five chapters. Each chapter consists of several sub

chapters as follows:

Chapter I

This chapter elaborates background of the study. It discusses writing which

becomes the focus of the study. The chapter also explains about research questions,

aims of the study, scope of the study, significances of the study, clarification of terms,

and organization of the paper.

Chapter II

This chapter discusses some theories related to the study. It consists of

theoretical background referring to the theory of feedback, process approach, self

assessment in writing, the roles of teacher in teaching writing and recount text.

Chapter III

This chapter gives clear explanation about how the study is conducted and

analyzed. The data analysis is also explained briefly. This chapter involves research

design, research hypothesis, population and sample, research procedures, research

instruments, and data analysis.

Chapter IV

This chapter analyzes findings and discussions of the study. It explores

findings and discussions of data gained from the first draft, the last draft, and

(19)

Text

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

This chapter presents conclusions and several suggestions of the study based

on the findings and discussions in chapter four. Conclusions show the answer to the

research questions about the use of teacher indirect feedback to improve students’

writing of recount text. There are also several suggestions for further researchers

(20)

26

The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the methodology of the study. It consists of research

design, data collection technique, research procedures, and data analysis technique.

3.1 Research Methods

3.1.1 Research Design

This study used a quasi- experimental design by assigning one class as the

experimental group and the other class as the control group. Hatch and Farhady

(1982) reveal that:

By using a quasi-experimental design, we control as many variables as we can and also limit the kinds of interpretations we make about cause-effect relationship and hedge the power of our generalization statements.

A quasi experimental design was used in this study, due the limited time and

cost. A true experimental design would not be feasible because of long time period.

In addition, Hatch and Farhady (1982) affirm that this design is a comparison group

design. The experimental group was treated by providing teacher written feedback by

using indirect feedback strategy. In addition, students were asked to write a recount

text and revise their text based on indirect feedback from the teacher. Meanwhile, in

the control group which is students were asked to write a recount text and revise their

text based on their understanding.

3.1.2 Variables

There were two variables in this study, namely an independent variable and a

dependent variable. According to Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2007), independent

(21)

is the effect that changes on another variable. In this study, the independent variable

was teacher written feedback by using indirect feedback strategy. Indirect feedback

from the teacher was applied to change and improve students‟ score in writing

recount text. Meanwhile, students‟ score in writing recount text was the dependent

variable that was observed and measured so as to determine the effect of teacher

indirect feedback towards students‟ score, especially in writing a recount text.

3.1.3 Hypothesis

Hatch and Farhady (1982) assert that “The null hypothesis is the most common hypothesis”. The null hypothesis of this study is that there is no significant

difference between students‟ writing score in the first draft and the last draft score. It

means that teacher indirect feedback is not effective in improving students‟ writing of

recount text. Meanwhile, the alternative hypothesis of this study is there is

significant difference between students‟ writing score in the first draft and the last draft that means that teacher indirect feedback is effective in improving students‟

ability in writing recount text.

3.2 Population and Sample

This study was conducted in a Junior High School in Garut. The population of

this study was eighth graders in a Junior High School in Garut. They were in the

2013/2014 academic year. The study used two classes as samples. One class as the

experimental group that received teacher indirect feedback treatments and consisting

of 38 students. The other class acted as the control group that did not receive

experimental treatments, they only were asked to revise their text based on their

understanding. This group also had 38 students. The samples were chosen because

(22)

28

3.3 Data Collection

To gain the data, this study used two instruments. The first instrument was

writing practices in which students were asked to write recount text based on the

theme that was determined by the teacher. The second instrument was questionnaires

which were distributed to all students in the experimental group.

3.3.1 Writing Practices

In this study, writing practices were used to measure students‟ writing of

recount text. Writing practices were employed to the experimental group and the

control group. At the beginning, students were given a diagnostic writing to collect

the data about their writing ability in recount text before teacher indirect feedback

was applied. In the diagnostic writing (first draft), students were asked to write a

recount text based on their holiday experience in the previous semester as long as one

hundred words in forty minutes. Then, in every meeting students in both groups were

asked to make a recount text based on the theme that was determined by the teacher.

They were also asked to make revision. For the experimental group, their text got

indirect feedback from the teacher and they were asked to revise their text based on

indirect feedback that they received from the teacher. Meanwhile, the control group

did not receive feedback from the teacher so they were asked to revise their text based

on their understanding. In the last meeting, students in both groups were submitted

their last draft to measure students‟ writing of recount text after teacher indirect

feedback treatment was applied.

Feedback that was used in this study was indirect feedback in form of

(23)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu a. Minimal Marking

There were three kinds of mark that were used in indicating students‟ errors in

writing. First, the teacher used a color circle mark. There were a pink color circle

mark, a green color circle mark, a red color circle mark, and a blue color circle mark.

A pink color circle mark indicated inappropriate vocabularies. A green color circle

mark indicated errors in using preposition or article. A red color circle mark indicated

tenses errors. A blue color circle mark indicated there are sentences that cannot be

understood.

Second, the teacher used an arrow mark. An arrow mark indicated errors in

sentence structures. Third, the teacher used a cross mark. A cross mark indicated

there are words or sentences that should be omitted.

b. Commentary

The teacher gave written comment related to the content, generic structures,

language features, the good point and the bad point that exist on students‟ writing and

what should be done next by students. For example: 1. your story is good, but there

are still errors in using tenses, 2. there are some sentences that cannot be understood

by the teacher as the reader, 3. orientation: yes, sequence of events: incomplete,

re-orientation: no, 4. Please revise and complete your text. In addition, the teacher gives

a motivation comment, for instance: I believe that you can write better than this.

3.3.2 Questionnaires

Questionnaires were administered to get the information about students‟

responses toward the use of teacher indirect feedback. Questionnaires were

distributed merely to the experimental group after the final writing was submitted.

(24)

30

writing skill and the implementation of teacher indirect feedback in writing,

especially in writing a recount text (see Appendix C).

3.4 Research Procedures

3.4.1 Administering the Pilot Test

The pilot test was given to six students in the similar level which were not

included in the experimental group and the control group but has already learned

recount text. In the pilot test students were asked to write a recount text based on the

theme that given by the teacher. The result of pilot test can be seen in Appendix E.

3.4.2 Preparing the Lesson Plan

The lesson plan (see Appendix A) was designed to be implemented during

treatment sections. The lesson plan related to recount text. The teacher designed the

lesson plan for six meetings.

3.4.3 Preparing the Materials

The materials given were about recount texts taken from some resources such

as some books and internet. Recount texts that were used in this study can be found in

Appendix A.

3.4.4 Teaching Procedures

The teacher used indirect feedback strategy from the teacher in teaching

recount texts to the experimental group. Meanwhile, students of the control group

were asked to self assess. The lesson plan can be seen in Appendix A. The steps were

(25)

 Step 1: Class Presentation

In the class presentation step, the teacher delivered the material through

lecturing (Aljanian, 2012, p.1). The class presentation was conducted to build

students‟ knowledge to write a recount text. The material given in this study was

about recount text. Recount text was chosen as the material of this study because it

was appropriate with the SKKD. The class presentation was conducted in the second

until seventh meeting in 40 minutes. The success of the class presentation steps can

be seen from the students‟ in Chapter IV.

 Step 2: Write a recount text based on the theme from the teacher

Writing practice was useful to improve students‟ ability in writing (Alwasilah

and Alwasilah (2005). In this step, the teacher used the process approach. As

confirmed by Brown (2001) that focus on the process of writing can lead students to a

better final paper. In line with this, Harmer (2007) asserts through a process of

writing, students can have a good piece of work. By focusing on the writing process,

students can evaluate their writing, According to Keh (1990), the process approach in

writing consists of generating ideas (pre-writing); writing a first draft with an

emphasis on content (to „discover‟ meaning/author‟s ideas); second and third (and

(26)

32

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu Table 2. Research Schedule

No. Experimental Group Control Group

Material Material

1. The Diagnostic Writing The Diagnostic Writing (First

(First Draft) Draft)

2. Draft 2 Draft 2

3. Revision based on feedback Revision based on students‟ from the teacher understanding (self assessment)

4. Draft 3 Draft 3

5. Revision based on feedback Revision based on students‟ from the teacher understanding (self assessment)

6. Draft 4 Draft 4

7. Revision 3 based on feedback Revision 3 based on students‟

from the teacher understanding (self assessment)

8. Last Draft Last Draft

In the first meeting the teacher conducted the diagnostic writing to find out

students‟ writing ability in writing recount text before the treatment applied. In the

diagnostic writing, students were asked to write a recount text about their holiday

experience in the previous semester (first draft). The result of the diagnostic writing

(first draft) can be seen in Appendix E. After conducting the diagnostic writing,

students of the experimental group were given treatment which was teacher feedback

by using indirect feedback strategies that is believed can help students in developing

their writing (Keh, 1990; Purnawarman, 2011; Hashemnezhad and Mohammadnejad ,

(27)

Meanwhile students of the control group were asked to self assess because self

assessment in writing can improve students‟ writing ability (Javaherbakhsh, 2010;

Lam, 2010).

In addition, for the experimental group, their text received indirect feedback

from the teacher and they were asked to revise their text based on feedback that they

got from the teacher. Meanwhile, the control group did not receive feedback from the

teacher so they were asked to revise their text based on their understanding. In the last

meeting, students were asked to write the final writing to find out students‟ writing ability in writing recount text after treatments were applied. Students‟ writing can be

seen in Appendix B. Furthermore, the explanation below describes generally about

the improvement of students‟ writing in both groups in every meeting.

 Diagnostic Writing (First Draft)

In the first meeting, teacher conducted the diagnostic writing to find out

students‟ writing ability in writing recount text. In the diagnostic writing students were asked to write their holiday experience (first draft). Students‟ writing were

analyzed by using numeric and rubric scoring guide adopted from Coffin (2003) and

Hyland (2004) in Emilia (2011) as follows:

Table 3. Numeric and Rubric Scoring Guide

(Adopted from Coffin, 2003 and Hyland, 2004, in Emilia, 2011)

Scores Content Organization of Structure Language

31-14 - Events are stated - The orientation provides - The language

explicitly. all the important used is very

- Events are recorded information. well controlled.

(28)

34

(29)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu identified. - There is no any low.

There are three parts of generic structure of recount text, namely orientation,

series of events, and re-orientation (Emilia, 2011). The first part is orientation. It is an

introduction of events which provide main information, such as participants, what

happened, where the place is, when the events happen (Emilia, 2011). In the first

draft, students‟ writing in the experimental and control groups were not enough good.

Most of them was not be explained the orientation clearly.

The second part is series of events which can be called body of text. This part

includes how character within the text feels about events; events are told specifically

(Emilia, 2011). Almost all of the students in both groups did not explain the events

that faced by them clearly. They only mention some events without explain it in

detail.

The third part is re-orientation that explains about personal comments and

opinions of the writer related to events that the writer faces (Emilia, 2011). In this

part, the writer also can tell how the experience ends. There were some students in

both groups who did not write comment or their feeling related to the events that was

faced by them.

As asserted by Derewianka (2004), Martin (2006), and Emilia (2011) that

there are some language features of recount text. First, personal participant is

(30)

36

paragraphs. Third, it includes linking verb. Fourth, it uses action verb. Fifth, simple

past tense is written by using the first or the third person. All of the students in both

groups did not use past tense in retelling events; they used present tense in their

recount text. They also did not use first, then, after that in explaining events that they

faced. Their writing was not still understandable by the teacher. There were some

vocabularies that were inappropriate to be used in their text. In addition, there was

some unimportant information that should be omitted in their text.

 Second Draft

In the second draft, students in both groups were asked to write their

experience in celebrating their birthday. Almost all of students still did not write well.

As affirmed by Emilia (2011) that there are three parts of generic structures of

recount text, such as: orientation, series of events, and re-orientation. In the

orientation, almost all of the students in both groups still did not write this part

clearly. In telling the events, almost all of the students write the events briefly. They

did not write it in detail. Some parts of the story were not written coherent. In the

re-orientation part, most of them did not tell what they feel after events happened

explicitly.

There are some language features of recount text (Derewianka, 2004; Martin,

2006, and Emilia, 2011). First, personal participant is introduced. Second, it uses

chronological connection to connect sentences or paragraphs. Third, it includes

linking verb. Fourth, it uses action verb. Fifth, simple past tense is written by using

the first or the third person. Almost all of the students in both groups use present

(31)

 Revision

Students in both groups were asked to revise their second draft. Students in

the experimental group were asked to revise their text based on indirect feedback

from the teacher. Teacher feedback by using indirect feedback strategies is believed

can help students in developing their writing (Keh, 1990; Purnawarman, 2011;

Hashemnezhad and Mohammadnejad , 2012; Zaman and Azad, 2012; Tabasi,

Khodabandehlou and Jahandar, 2013). Meanwhile students of the control group were

asked to self assess because self assessment in writing can improve students‟ writing

ability (Javaherbakhsh, 2010; Lam, 2010).

There are three parts of generic structure of recount text, namely orientation,

series of events, and re-orientation (Emilia, 2011). The first part is orientation. It is an

introduction of events which provide main information, such as participants, what

happened, where the place is, when the events happen (Emilia, 2011). In the

orientation, most students in the experimental group could revise this part well. They

added some information and also omitted unimportant information. Meanwhile, most

students in the control group did not revise well. They seemed confused about what

they should revise in their text but they tried hardly to write better. In telling events,

some students in the experimental group elaborated the events that they faced. Their

writing was coherent. They tried to write what they felt after facing the events. In

addition, students in the control group added some information related to the events

that they faced. They also tried to explain the events clearly. In the re-orientation,

they added some personal comments related to the events that they faced.

(32)

38

chronological connection to connect sentences or paragraphs, some of them were not.

In addition, students‟ writing of the experimental group more coherent and understandable rather than the control group.

 Third Draft

In the third draft, students in both groups were asked to write a recount text

about their experience in celebrating Eid Al-Fitri. There were some improvements of

students‟ writing in both groups. In the orientation, most students in the experimental

group mentioned some important information, such as mention participants, what

happened, where the place is, when the events happen. Meanwhile, some students in

the control group still did not write this part clearly, they only mentioned what

happened. In telling the events, most students in the experimental group explained the

events in detail and understandable while some students in the control group did not

write this part clearly. In the re-orientation, most students in both groups mention

their personal comments related to the events that they faced. Most students in both

group were understand about generic structure of recount text that was evidenced in

their writing they wrote three parts of generic structure of recount text completely. It

is in line with Emilia (2011) who reveals that there are three parts of generic structure

of recount text, namely orientation, series of events, and re-orientation.

the first or the third person. Almost all of the students in the experimental group used

past tense, action verb, linking verb, and chronological connection to connect

sentences or paragraphs. Meanwhile, there were some students in both groups who

(33)

 Revision

Students in both groups were asked to revise their third draft. Almost all of

the students in the experimental group were able to revise their text and make their

text better than before. They revised the text based on indirect feedback from the

teacher. Indirect feedback from the teacher was understandable by them that were

proved by their improvement in writing in every meeting. Meanwhile, some students

in the control group revised their text well, some of them did not. It means that some

students in the control group can assess their writing successfully, while some of

them got confused in assessing their writing that was conducted by themselves (Lam,

2010).

 Fourth Draft

In the fourth draft, students in both groups were asked to write a recount text

about their experience in celebrating Indonesia‟s Independence Day. In the fourth

draft, most students in both groups wrote the text well, especially students in the

experimental group. Almost all of the students were able to minimize their errors in

writing a recount text. It means that indirect feedback from the teacher was

understandable by them although there were still inconsistency in using tenses that

was conducted by some students. Meanwhile, some students of control group were

able to write a good text which means that they could assess their text successfully by

themselves. So, they were able to write better. On the other hand, there were some

students in the control group who still could not assess their text, so they were not

able to write better (Lam, 2010).

 Revision

Students in both groups were asked to revise their fourth draft. All students in

(34)

40

from the teacher. They understood about their errors in writing and they knew the

correct form (Lalande, 1982; Purnawarman, 2011). In addition, some students in the

control group were able to decrease their errors in writing but there were some texts

that were categorized into a bad text. It happens because some students in the control

group were not able to assess their text well, so they did not know what they should

be improved by them in writing (Lam, 2010).

 Last Draft

In the last meeting, students in both groups were asked to write last draft

about their holiday experience. In the last draft almost all of the students in the

experimental group were able to write very well. Meanwhile, there were some

students in the control group who still did many errors in their writing.

From the general explanation above related to the students‟ writing in both

groups, it can be concluded that almost all of the students in the experimental group

were able to improve their writing in every meeting. Meanwhile, there were some

students in the control group that could not improve their writing successfully, their

text was not better than before. Furthermore, students‟ writing can be seen in

Appendix B, while students‟ score in every meeting can be seen in Appendix E. In

addition, students‟ score was analyzed by using the statistical computation in SPSS

16 for Windows. The description of research findings from the statistical computation

in SPSS 16 for Windows and from questionnaires were discussed in the chapter IV.

3.5. Data Analysis

3.5.1. Scoring Sheet for Writing Analysis

Students‟ writing were analyzed by using numeric and rubric scoring guide

(35)

was examined was the content. The second aspect was structure organization. The

last aspect was language. In detail, it can be seen in Appendix D.

The guiding score describes that those who got the range of score 31-40 as

having achieved the excellent score, those who got the range of score 21-30 as having

achieved the good score, those who got the range of score 11-20 as having average

score (this range of scores is minimum score that should be acquired by students in

order to the instrument is valid to be used), and those who got the range of 1-10 did

not fulfill the requirement of the standard score.

3.5.2. Data Analysis in the Pilot Test

The aim of the pilot test is to check the validity and reliability of the

instrument. The pilot test was carried out to six students at the same grade who were

not included in both groups.

3.5.3. Data Analysis in the First Draft and the Last Draft

According to Coolidge (2000), there are three criteria before presenting the

independent t-test. First, the participant must be different in each group. Second, the

data should have a normal distribution. Third, the variance of two groups must be

homogenous. Therefore, it is important to check whether the data are normally

distributed and the variance in two groups is homogenous or not before calculating

the independent t-test. If it is not, non parametric statistic is used.

3.5.3.1. Normality Distribution Test

Normality distribution test is aimed to check whether the distribution in the

first draft and the last draft of the experimental group and the control group were

normally distributed or not (Coolidge, 2000). The statistical calculation of normality

(36)

42

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 1. Setting the hypothesis:

- H0: the scores of the experimental group and the control group are

normally distributed.

- Ha: the scores of the experimental group and the control group are not

normally distributed.

2. Setting  = 0.05.

3. Analyzing the normality distribution by using Kolmogorov Smirnov test in

SPSS 16 for Windows.

- The null hypothesis is acceppted if Asymp. Sig > 0.05 which means that

the scores of the experimental and the control groups are normally

distributed.

- The null hypothesis is rejected if Asymp. Sig < 0.05 which means that the

scores of the experimental and the control groups are normally distributed.

3.5.3.2. Non Parametric Statistic Test: Mann Whitney U test

Since the first draft scores of the experimental and the control groups were

not normally distributed so the next step was conducting non parametric statistic test

(Coolidge, 2000). Mann-Whitney U test in SPSS 16 for Windows was used. The

steps are as follows:

1. Setting the hypothesis:

- H0: there is no difference in the first draft scores in the experimental group

and the control group.

- Ha: there is a difference in the first draft scores in the experimental group

and the control group.

(37)

3. Analyzing data by using Mann-Whitney U test in SPSS 16 for Windows.

- The null hypothesis is not rejected if the test result is higher than 0.05.

- The null hypothesis is rejected if the test result is lower than 0.05.

3.5.3.3. Homogeneity of Variance Test

Homogeneity of Variance Test was conducted by using Levene test in SPSS

16 for Windows because the last draft scores of the experimental and the control

group were normally distributed. It was aimed to check whether the last draft scores

were homogenous or not (Coolidge, 2000). The steps are as below:

- H0: The variance of the experimental group and the control group is

homogenous.

- Ha:The variance of the experimental group and control group is not

homogenous.

2. Setting  = 0.05.

3. Analyzing the homogeneity variance by using Levene test.

- The null hypothesis is acceppted if Asymp. Sig > 0.05

- The null hypothesis is rejected if Asymp. Sig < 0.05

3.5.3.4. Independent T-test

Independent T-test was only conducted in analyzing the last draft scores

because the last draft scores were normally distributed and homogenous (Coolidge,

2000). It was calculated by using computation of SPSS 16 for Windows. The steps

(38)

44

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 1. Setting the hypothesis.

- H0: there is no significant difference between students‟ last draft scores in

the experimental group and the control group.

- Ha: there is a significant difference between students‟ last draft scores in

the experimental group and the control group.

2. Setting  = 0.05.

3. Analyzing data by using t-test in SPSS 16 for Windows.

4. Comparing tobtained and tcritical. If tobtained is higher than tcritical, the null hypothesis

is rejected which means that there is a significant difference between the

students‟ last draft scores of the experimental group and the control group. Meanwhile, if tobtained is lower than tcritical, the null hypothesis is accepted which

means that there is no significant difference between the students‟ last draft

scores of the experimental and the control groups.

3.5.3.5. Non Parametric Statistic Test: Wilcoxon Test

The first draft scores were not normally distributed and not homogenous so

non parametric statistic test for dependent (matched) samples was used (Coolidege,

2000). It was aimed to see whether or not there was a significant difference in the

mean of the first draft and the last draft scores of each group (Coolidge, 2000). The

steps are below:

- H0= there is no significant difference between the first draft score and the

last draft score.

- Ha= there is a significant difference between the first draft score and the

last draft score.

2. Setting  = 0.05.

(39)

- The null hypothesis is acceppted if Asymp. Sig (2-tailed) > 0.05 or Zobtained

> -Zcritical

- The null hypothesis is rejected if Asymp. Sig (2-tailed) < 0.05 or Zobtained <

-Zcritical

3.5.3.6. Normalized Gain

Normalized gain is aimed to measure the level of improvement in the means

from the first draft score and the last draft score of each group after (Meltzer, 2002).

According to Meltzer (2002), normalized gain (g) is categorized into three categories,

namely low, medium, and high. If value of g is smaller than 0.3, it is categorized as

low gain. If value of g is smaller than 0.7, it is categorized as medium gain.

Furthermore, if value of g is equal or bigger than 0.7 so it is categorized as high gain.

The formula of normalized gain can be seen in Appendix F.

3.5.3.7. Effect Size

The calculation of the effect size was conducted by using tobtained from the

sample independent t-test of last draft. The effect size formula by Coolidge (2000)

that can be found in Appendix F was used to determine the effect significance of the

treatments to the experimental group.

In addition, Coolidge (2000) interprets the magnitude of the effect size into

three categories, namely, small, medium, and large. The effect size is small if value of

effect size is equal or smaller than 0.100. The effect size is medium if value of effect

size is equal or smaller than 0.243. In addition, the effect size can be called large if

(40)

46

3.5.4. Data Analysis on Questionnaires

Data analysis on questionnaires was aimed to discover students‟ responses

toward the use of teacher indirect feedback in improving students‟ recount writing.

The data from questionnaires were analyzed based on the frequency of students‟

answer. The result would be calculated and interpreted into percentage by using

formula from Sudijono (2008) as in Appendix F.

3.6 Concluding Remark

This chapter has presented a brief discussion of methodology related aspects

of the study, including samples of the study, research method, data collection, data

analysis, and research procedure. The next chapter focuses on description of the

research findings from the statistical computation in SPSS 16 for Windows and from

(41)

Text

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter presents conclusions and suggestions in detail. This chapter

consists of two sections, the first is conclusions section and the second is suggestions

section.

5.1. Conclusions

There are two main conclusions about the use of teacher indirect feedback in

teaching writing. First, teacher feedback by using indirect feedback strategy could improve students’ ability in writing recount text. This was evidenced by the statistical computation of t-test by using SPSS 16 for Windows. Based on the independent t-test

of last draft scores that was tobtained was higher than tcritical value (6.545 > 0.93). It

means that the null hypothesis was rejected. In other words, there was a significant difference between students’ last draft scores in the experimental group and the control group. In addition, the result of normalized gain proved that the improvement

scores in the experimental group was higher than the control group. Furthermore, the

calculation of effect size shows that there was a large effect in the experimental

group. It means that teacher feedback brought a significant effect in improving students’ability in writing recount text.

Second, the data from questionnaires analysis showed that students gave

positive response toward the use of teacher indirect feedback. Almost all of students

assumed that teacher indirect feedback was interesting and understandable to them. In

addition, they affirmed that they needed teacher feedback because there were a lot of

advantages that they received from the teacher indirect feedback. First, teacher

indirect feedback made students aware towards their errors in writing. Second,

(42)

65

Text

indirect feedback could improve their self confidence in writing. Fourth, teacher

indirect feedback made students feel that their writing got attention from the teacher.

The last advantage was teacher indirect feedback could improve their writing ability.

5.2. Suggestions

Some suggestions from the findings are addressed to English teachers and

future researchers. There are several recommendations for English teachers who are

interested in using teacher feedback. First, teachers are recommended to manage the

time effectively. Second, it is better if the teachers use different strategies in

providing feedback so that students do not get bored.

There are also some suggestions for further researchers who are interested to

investigate the use of teacher indirect feedback. For further researchers who want to

use teacher indirect feedback, it would be better to manage the time allocation

effectively in order to optimize learning process. Further researchers are

recommended to use teacher indirect feedback not only in recount text but also in

(43)

1

The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text

REFERENCES

Alwasilah, A.C, and Alwasilah, S.S. (2005). Pokoknya Menulis: Cara Menulis

dengan Metode Kolaborasi. Bandung: PT Kiblat Buku Utama.

Anh, P.L. (2011). The Impact of Indirect Feedback on Learners’ Grammatical Error

in EFL Writing Classes. Thesis to the faculty of the Vietnam University.

Asyifa, N. (2012). The Use of Journal in Teaching Recount Texts. A Research Paper:

Indonesia University of Education.

Badger, R. & G. White. 2000. A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT

Journal, 54(2): 153-160.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principle: An Interactive Approach to Language

Pedagogy Second Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents Prentice -

all, Inc.

Byrne, D. 1995. Teaching Writing Skills. Longman In: London and New York.

Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th

Edition). London: Routledge Falmer.

Coolidge, F.L. (2000). Statistics: A Gentle Introduction. London: SAGE Publication

Ltd.

(44)

67

The Effectiveness of Teacher Indirect Feedback to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text

Dheram, P.K. (1995). Feedback as A two –Bullockcart: A Case Study of Teaching

Writing. Retrieved on September 26, 2013, from

http://203.72.145.166/elt/files/49-2-6.pdf.

Emilia, E. (2009). Menulis Tesis dan Disertasi. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Emilia, E. (2011). Pendekatan Genre Based dalam Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris.

Bandung:Rizqi Press.

Ferris, D.R. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Implications for second language

students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

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.

Grami, G. (2010). The Effects of Integrating Peer Feedback into University-Level

ESL Writing Curriculum: A Comparative Study in A Saudi Context.

Retrieved on September 20, 2013, from

http://theses.ncl.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/10443/933/1/grami_phd.pdf.

Hashemnezhad, H. and Mohammadnejad, S. (2012). A Case for Direct and Indirect

Feedback: The Other Side of Coin. ELT Journal, 3(5), 230-239.

Hasan, M.K., and Akhand, M.M. (2010). Approaches Writing in EFL/ESL Context:

Balancing Product and Process in Writing Class at Tertiary Level.

Retrieved on September 18, 2013, from

www.nepjol.info/index.php/NELTA/article/download/4612/3823.

Hasim, A. (2007). Model Pembelajaran Menulis Artikel Melalui Workshop dan

Kolaborasi. Dissertation to the FPS of Indonesia University of Education: