STUDENTS’ RESPONSES TO TEACHER WRITTEN
FEEDBACK ON THEIR COMPOSITIONS
A THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree
in English Language Education
By
MARIA AGUSTINA SRI WULANDARI Student Number : 021214023
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM
DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION
FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
YOGYAKARTA
i
STUDENTS’ RESPONSES TO TEACHER WRITTEN
FEEDBACK ON THEIR COMPOSITIONS
A THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree
in English Language Education
By
MARIA AGUSTINA SRI WULANDARI Student Number : 021214023
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM
DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION
FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
YOGYAKARTA
iv
STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY
I honestly declare that this thesis which I wrote does not contain the works or part
of the works of other people, except those cited in the quotations and bibliography, as a scientific paper should.
Yogyakarta, 15 June 2007
v
kalau kau kejar mimpimu
salut…
kalau kau ingin berhenti
ingat ‘tuk mulai lagi
tetap semangat
dan teguhkan hati
di setiap hari
sampai nanti… sampai mati
… L etto…
sampai nanti, sampai mati
dedicated to:
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I dedicate my greatest and deepest gratitude to Jesus Christ and Holy Mary for Their blessings, love and strengths. Through Their grace, I could finish this
thesis and reach one of my dreams.
My sincere appreciation also goes to my major sponsor, Dr. F.X. Mukarto, M.S., and my co-sponsor, A. Hardi Prasetyo, S.Pd., M.A. for their great patience in
guiding me and their invaluable ideas and suggestions during the completion of this thesis. I really appreciate the knowledge, time and guidance they shared with me.
I would like to sincerely thank Olivia, Clara, Marlinda and Swesty, the participant s of my research. I tha nk them for their cooperation during the collecting
of the data.
My deepest gratitude goes to my beloved parents, B.P. Sutikno, BA and F.X. Suyati for their endless love, prayer and encouragement all my life, especially
during the thesis writing. My deepest thanks also go to my dearest little brother, Stephanus Susilo Nugroho for being the best brother I have ever had. I thank him
for his patience and willingness in helping me to cope with the confusing Corel
Draw and all the computer stuffs. It is such a great blessing to have a family like them in my life.
I would like to dedicate my appreciation to my lovely cousins, Mbak Sisca and Mbak Wiwin, and to my lost Cie-Cie, Cie Melly ‘Piglet Jr.’ for their
never-ending advice, patience, grumbling and love. I also thank them for treating me like
vii
My best thanks are also delivered to all of my friends. I thank Mbak Sarie and Mbak Adesti for their encouragement s and friendships. I am deeply grateful to
Rizakti for his patience and willingness in giving critic ism, corrections and
suggestions to improve my thesis. To Ardi and Lintang who helped me to prepare the thesis examination, thanks a lot. I thank Edi_Ahong for lend ing me his
sophisticated scanner. I also thank Yosi-Kalva for his support, it means a lot. To Uni, Nissa, Haryana, Ardi, Rendy, Nita, Dianing, Sari, Hastri, Selly, Mas Adi, Mas
Prim, Sabum Maklon Hatti, all PBI’s 2002ers, seniors and juniors, I thank them for
their inputs and supports. My appreciation also goes to Garuda 9ers; Cie Olive, Bu Tita, Dik Ira, Dik Lia, Mbak Mut and the late Pepsi for their encouragement. I
thank all of them for the time, experiences and stories full of laughter, lessons, love and tears they have shared me.
I would also like to thank Swaragama, especially to Zaki ‘Dreamland’
Pradana for being my great companion when I had to stay up late at night to finish the thesis. I thank him for his stories, advices and wise words that influenced me to
be a better person.
Finally, I would like to thank some other friends and relatives for all the
supports and prayers during the process of the writing of this thesis. My
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE ... i
PAGE OF APPROVAL ... ii
PAGE OF ACCEPTANCE ... iii
STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ... iv
PAGE OF DEDICATION ... v
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ... 7
2.1 Theoretical Description ... 7
2.1.1 Theory of Writing ... 7
2.1.1.1 Writing ... 7
2.1.1.2 Writing Product vs Writing Process Approaches ... 9
2.1.2 Theory of Feedback ... 12
2.1.2.1 Definition of Feedback in Writing ... 12
2.1.2.2 Purposes of Feedback ... 13
2.1.2.3 Roles of Feedback ... 14
ix
CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS RESULTS ... 31
x
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 57
5.1 Conclusions ... 57
APPENDIX 1 Analysis on the Categories of Teacher Written Feedback ... 64
APPENDIX 2 Analysis on the Students’ Responses of Teacher Written Feedback ... 75
APPENDIX 3 Profile of Feedback Categorization ... 94
APPENDIX 4 Results of the Interview ... 98
APPENDIX 5 Sample of Students’ Compositions (first draft) ... 100
xi
LIST OF TABLES
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
xiii ABSTRACT
Wulandari, Maria Agustina Sri. 2007. Students’ Responses to the Teacher Written Feedback on their Compositions. Yogyakarta: English Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.
Providing students with effective feedback on their writing is important as it helps students to ensure that what they write conveys their intended messages and to produce compositions with minimum errors and maximum clarity. However, students may not utilize feedback optimally because they may not know what to do with it and they may end up responding to the feedback by copying all corrections or deleting words/sentences which contain errors. This study aims at investigating the students’ responses toward the written feedback by formulating two research problems: 1) What are the categories of teacher written feedback? 2) What are the students’ responses to the teacher written feedback?
The research was conducted using the descriptive qualitative method. The participants of the study were four-semester eight-students of English Letters Study Program, Sanata Dharma University, academic year 2005/2006 who joined thesis writing course. The data were gathered from students’ undergraduate thesis compositions from chapter one to three. It consisted of eight pieces of compositions divided into four pieces of the undergraduate thesis drafts with teacher feedback on them and four pieces of the revised versions. The re are two instruments used in this study, i.e. checklist and interview.
The results of the data analysis on the first problem reveal that the teachers provided written feedback on language use, mechanics, organization, content, format, reference of source, vocabulary, and clarity. The findings show that the teacher feedback was mostly on the form. The content, which was the main component to form a good composition, only got few attentions. Based on the second problem, it was figured out that the students’ responses toward teacher written feedback were correcting, revising, consulting and ignoring. In correcting, the students either simply copied teacher’s correction or did correction on their own based on the markings or symbols given. In revising, the students responded by adding some details/explanations, deleting words/phrases, restructur ing sentences and substituting words/phrases. Students also had consultations with teachers, peers and books whenever they did not understand the feedback given. The last response was no response or ignorance in which students ignored the written feedback and did not make changes to the problematic parts.
xiv
ABSTRAK
Wulandari, Maria Agustina Sri. 2007. Students’ Responses to the Teacher Written Feedback on their Compositions. Yogyakarta: English Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.
Pemberian umpan balik yang efektif terhadap karangan siswa sangatlah penting. Hal ini dapat membantu siswa untuk memastikan bahwa apa yang mereka tulis mengandung pesan yang sama seperti yang ingin disampaikan dan untuk menghasilkan karangan dengan sedikit kesalahan dan kejelasan yang maksimal. Akan tetapi, kadang para siswa tidak memanfaatkan umpan balik secara optimal dikarenakan mereka tidak mengerti apa yang harus dilakukan terhadap umpan balik tersebut sehingga pada akhirnya siswa menanggapi umpan balik dengan menyalin semua pembetulan atau menghapus kata/kalimat yang mengandung kesalahan. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui tanggapan siswa terhadap umpan balik tertulis guru melalui dua masalah penelitian yaitu: apa saja kategori-kategori dari umpan balik tertulis guru? dan apa tanggapan siswa terhadap umpan balik tertulis tersebut?
Penelitian ini dilaksanakan menggunakan metode deskriptif qualitatif. Partisipan penelitian meliputi empat siswa semester delapan Program Studi Sastra Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma, tahun ajaran 2005/2006 yang mengikuti kelas Thesis Writing. Data-data diperoleh dari skripsi siswa dari bab satu sampai bab tiga. Karangan tersebut terdiri dari delapan karangan yang terbagi menjadi empat draft skripsi yang telah mendapat umpan balik dari guru dan empat revisi. Ada dua instrumen yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini yaitu checklist dan wawancara.
Dari hasil analisa untuk permasalahan penelitian yang pertama ditemukan bahwa kategori umpan balik tertulis yang diberikan oleh guru yaitu pada penggunaan bahasa, mechanics, organisasi, isi, format, sumber referensi, kosa kata dan kejelasan. Hasil ini menunjukkan bahwa kebanyakan umpan balik dari guru diberikan di form, sementara bagian isi yang merupakan komponen utama dalam sebuah karangan yang baik hanya mendapatkan sedikit umpan balik. Pada permasalahan yang kedua ditemukan bahwa tanggapan yang diberikan siswa terhadap umpan balik dari guru adalah membetulkan, merubah, bertanya, dan mengabaikan. Dalam membetulkan, para siswa langsung menyalin pembetulan dari guru atau berusaha membetulkan sendiri kesalahan menurut tanda atau simbol yang diberikan guru. Sementara, dalam merubah, para siswa mena mbahkan perincian/penjelasan, menghilangkan kata/frase, menyusun ulang kalimat dan mengganti kata/frase. Siswa juga bertanya pada guru dan teman serta membaca buku yang relevan saat mereka tidak mengerti arti dari umpan balik yang telah diberikan. Tanggapan yang terakhir adalah tidak adanya tanggapan atau pengabaian dimana siswa mengabaikan umpan balik tertulis dan tidak membuat perubahan terhadap bagian bermasalah yang telah diberi umpan balik.
1 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This study is about the students’ responses to the teacher written feedback
on their composition. In brief, chapter one is divided into seven main parts, namely
research background, problem identification, problem limitation, problem
formulation, research objectives, research benefits, and definition of terms.
1.1Research Background
The use of English language in the writing activity is still a problem for
most Indonesian students, as well as many other students who learn English as a
foreign language. Students may find difficulties in writing in a good and right form
of English. The difficulties do not only concern on finding the right words and
using the correct grammar but also on finding and expressing ideas in English
(Raimes, 1993: 13). As stated by Hughey, Wormuth, Hartfiel and Jacobs (1983: 5)
that many ESL/EFL students are thinking in their first language and translating
sentence by sentence when they write in English rather than translating ideas from
first to second language, Indonesian students often think and organize their ideas
according to the logic of their first language, that is Bahasa Indonesia, then
translate them into English. For this reason, students’ compositions may be far
from English compositions since students do not think as English native speaker
when they write so that it often occurs that in a composition made by an Indonesian
Related to those difficulties, many students often feel frustrated as they learn to write a composition in English (Hughey et al., 1983: 5; Richards, 1992:
100). They are not confident enough to express their ideas in the written form.
They are also lacking in knowledge on how to make a good composition, especially in terms of grammar accuracy, organization of ideas, and even probably, diction.
Students feel afraid to make mistakes whether in organization or grammar while writing the composition and feel embarrassed if their mistakes may lead to the
confusion of their readers.
Since students often do not feel confident enough to write, it is important for the teacher to give various writing task for students to be accustomed to writing
practice and enjoy practicing to write a composition and finally to improve students’ ability in writing skill. Moreover, regarding to students’ lack of
knowledge on how to make a good composition, it is necessary for the teacher to
provide feedback when their students write a composition to ensure the students that what they write conveys their intended messages that it has achieved the
characteristic of a good writing.
As stated by Muncie (2000: 52), feedback is vital to writing. It is important
for the teachers to provide feedback in the process of writing to help the students
improve their writing proficiency so that they are able to produce their composition with minimum errors and maximum clarity.
Feedback can be provided by peers, teachers or computers (Hyland, 2002:
230). Although peer feedback has been applied in some writing courses, many
students still prefer to get feedback from their teacher. They consider feedback
same English level with them (Rollinson, 2005: 23). On the contrary, feedback
from teacher is considered to be more reliable since the teacher is more
knowledgeable than the students about the linguistic and rhetorical features of
English (Muncie, 2000: 50-51). Consequently, in many writing courses, teachers
are in charge of correcting and improving students’ English writing competence by
giving some notes or suggestions on the students’ writing.
Though teachers have provided feedback on students’ writing, students may
not utilize it optimally because sometimes they do not know what to do with the
feedback (Leki, 1990 in Williams, 2003). It can happen because students may not
understand the grammatical rules and terms that the teacher used as cues.
Moreover, they may not have adequate knowledge for error correction and they
may be confused with the large number of correction codes on their writings
(Chiang, 2004: 107). As the consequence, students often respond to feedback in
simply copying all the teachers’ corrections and suggestions or deleting some
sentences which contain errors in their revision.
This situation also occurs in writing a thesis. A final report or a thesis is
important as a partial fulfillment to graduate from the university. A good formal
writing should be produced in order to obtain a qualified thesis. Though, students
who write a thesis are those whose in the last semester who are considered to have
high competence in writing skills, they still need guidance from their teacher as the
thesis advisor in conducting the research. Students need feedback to ensure that
their thesis are reliable and understandable as, later on, they will defend it orally.
feedback provided by their thesis advisor so that they only copy the corrections or
delete the error words. In regard to this situation, it is interesting to observe the
responses of students related to the written feedback given by their teacher. The
research entitled Students’ Responses t o Teacher Written Feedback on their
Compositions was intended to observe the responses of the students after they get
written feedback from their teacher.
1.2Problem Formulation
Based on the brief explanation in the previous parts, the problems are
formulated as the followings:
1. What are the categories of written feedback that is given by the teacher
to the students’ compositions?
2. What are the students’ responses to the teacher written feedback?
1.3Problem Limitation
The research on the students’ responses to the teacher written feedback is
limited in scope. First, the research focuses on the written feedback that is given by
teacher on students’ compositions. Second, it only concerns with the responses that
students give to the written feedback from their teacher.
1.4Research Objectives
Related to the research questions stated above, there are two objectives in
1. To find out the categories of written feedback that is given by the
teacher to the students’ compositions.
2. To find out the responses given by students toward teacher written
feedback.
1.5Research Benefits
Hopefully, the findings of this research can help to give positive
contribution in improving teaching method and strategy of writing teachers,
especially in providing effective written feedback on students’ writings so that they
are encouraged to develop the ir writing skills.
For the students, it is hoped that by knowing the results of this study, they
will be able to improve their writings and writing skills by implementing various
strategies in responding the teacher written feedback. Finally, the results of this
study can stimulate the other researchers who are interested in the topic and give
contribution as references in the in-depth study of feedback for further researchers.
1.6Definition of Terms
In this research, some terms are important to be defined in order to avoid
misinterpretation. Those terms are as follows:
1. Student’s Response
Response, according to Power (in Dunkin, 1987: 413), is any verbal or
non-verbal act designed to fulfill the expectations implicit in the
response refers to any verbal or non-verbal act done by a student to
fulfill the expectations implicit in the teacher written feedback.
2. Teacher Written Feedback
Sherman (1995: 58) defines feedback as the comments and reactions of
the reader(s) and teacher on the student’s composition. Moreover,
according to Hyland (2002: 230), feedback is the response given to
students writing which can be provided by peers, teachers or computers
on either an oral or written form. In this research, teacher written
feedback is any comments, responses or reactions provided by the
teacher to the students’ compositions in written form. The teacher that is
meant here is thesis advisor who guided students in conducting a thesis
study.
3. Composition
Composition is defined as a short piece of written work (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 1995: 234). It is an outstanding way of
communicating personal thoughts, perceptions, experiences, knowledge, feelings and ideas which the writer wants to say (Sherman, 1995: 12).
7 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter consists of three parts, namely the theoretical description, the review of existing research and the theoretical framework. The theoretical
description concerns with the theories that underline the topic of the research, namely theory of writing and theory of feedback. The review of existing research
reviews some researches related to feedback which were conducted previously.
Then, the implementation of the theories in this study is discussed in the theoretical framework.
2.1 Theoretical Description
This part consists of an explanation about two theories, which underlie this
study. The first theory is theory of writing and the second one is theory of feedback.
2.1.1 Theory of Writing
This study deals with writing, therefore, it is necessary to reveal some
relevant theories of writing. The theories elaborated in this part are writing and writing product versus writing process approach.
2.1.1.1 Writing
Writing is known as a means of communication. Through writing, people
can communicate their ideas and messages to other people in the real world. They
words, writing is a way of thinking, learning and sharing ideas with others
(Zimmerman and Rodrigues, 1992: 4). Moreover, people can explore and express
themselves (Sherman, 1995: 12). People can explore their individual potentials and
express their ideas and/or ways of thinking in their writings.
In ESL/EFL context, writing becomes one of the skills which has to be
mastered besides speaking, listening and reading. A good writing skill is important
in this academic context as it helps students to achieve academic success in which
their writings are used as evidence of learning such as in essays and assignments or
as a means of learning like in notes and summaries (Richards, 1992: 100). In
addition, the students’ competence of English proficiency may also be activated
through the process of writing since this skill needs other basic skills like good
grammatical accuracy, extended vocabulary acquisition, logical way of thinking or
paragraph organization and critical point of view on certain topics (Kuswandono,
2003).
In relation with its significance, the ESL/EFL students are expected to have
a good writing skill. They are expected to be able to compose a good written work
which has appropriate content, organization, sentence structures and word choice
for its audience and purpose (Zimmerman and Rodrigues, 1992: 9). In order to help
students to develop their writing ability, it is necessary for the teacher to engage
students in the process of writing which emphasizes in the production of series of
draft involving the process of pre-writing, writing, revising and rewriting (Dixon
and Nessel, 1983: 84) and of making use of various feedback sources as they write
2.1.1.2 Writing Product ve rsus Writing Process Approaches
One of the most controversial aspects of writing pedagogy has been the
tension between product and process approaches to the teaching of writing (Nunan,
1999: 273). The discussion of the writing product approach has always interrelated
to the discussion of the writing process approach which emerges as the criticism to
the first approach.
Nunan (1999: 273) states that the writing product approach focuses on the
final product, the coherent and error- free text. Similarly, Richards (1992: 106)
defines the writing product approach as a writing approach which puts emphasis on
the ability to produce correct texts. Supporting these two statements, Cohen (1990:
103) argues that product approach focuses on the finished product, which is
sometimes not finished, and on the grade. In other words, this approach puts
emphasis on the quality of the writing task without noticing the steps taken by
students in achieving the expected final draft.
The writing product approach often begins with a controlled writing
exercise in which the learners imitate or adapt, copy and transform various models
of written texts provided by the teacher and/or the textbook (Nunan, 1999: 272).
The writing product approach expects the students to make a coherent and
error-free text by following the model provided. The goal is to teach the students to
master different kinds of written texts that they will have in educational,
institutional and personal context. This approach also lets the teachers evaluate how
the students’ compose their writing based on the models given. In evaluating, the
vocabulary and grammatical use, also mechanical considerations like spelling and
punctuation (Brown, 2001: 335).
The drawback of the writing product approach in the learning process is that
this approach will discourage the students to do their writing assignments seriously
since the focus of the writing product approach on the instant product and the grade (Cohen, 1990: 105). The students will only consider the grade that they received
and ignore the composing processes they go through.
In contrast to the writing product approach, the writing process approach is
seen as more effective than the writing product approach since it allows the
students to explore and develop a personal approach to writing (Richards, 1992: 114). The writing process approach puts emphasis on a process in which the
finished products came after a series of drafts (Cohen, 1990: 105). This statement is supported by Nunan (1999: 272) who states that the focus of process approach is on
the steps involved in drafting and redrafting the piece of written work. In other
words, the writing process approach is an approach which emphasizes on giving the students opportunities to shape their writing skills through a set of steps. This
approach does not focus on the final product that the students performed, but it considers how the students reach their final output as the most important aspect.
The students are encouraged to put their ideas onto paper without worrying
too much about formal correctness (e.g. grammar or mechanics) in the initial stages. Then, they share their work with others, getting feedback on their ideas and
how they are expressed, before revising (Nunan, 1999: 272). Thus, it can be said that writing process is a process that can lead the students to make a good written
which teacher provide feedback needed by students. This statement is also supported by Shih in Brown (2001: 335) that teachers should give students
feedback throughout the composing process as they try to make the closest
intended writing. The kinds of feedback that the students can receive concerning their written work and what to do about this feedback and how to utilize it most
effectively are the concern of this approach. Feedback is important in writing class because it can help the students investigate if their message can be conveyed as it is
expected.
By following the steps of the writing process previously, the writing process is believed to bring great advantages to the students in learning writing.
The first benefit is that by having the writing process the students will have more opportunity for meaningful writing and become independent learners (Richards,
1992: 110). The second benefit is proposed by Brown (2001: 335-336) who stated
that writing process gives chances for the students to be more creative in using language but they still focus on content and message. In this process the students
have more opportunity to think when they write.
However, every writing process activity should lead to the final product
(Shih as cited in Brown 2001: 335). As stated by Brown (2001: 337) that the
product is the ultimate goal which becomes the reason that students go through the
process of pre-writing, drafting, revising and editing. If the aim of the writing class
is to develop fluent writers; it is necessary to examine how fluent the
student-writers compose and to re-examine the writing methodology. To sum up, both the
teacher and students should realize that the process they go through will end up at
2.1.2 Theory of Feedback
Since this study focuses on feedback in writing, this part explained some
relevant theories of feedback which became references in conducting this study.
The theories elaborated in this part are the definition of feedback in writing, the
purposes of feedback, the roles of feedback, the sources of feedback, the forms of
feedback, the focus of feedback and responses to feedback.
2.1.2.1 Definition of Feedback in Writing
There are many definitions of feedback introduced by many proponents and
some ideas of those definitions will be quoted here.
Feedback can be defined as any input from reader to writer that provides
information for revis ion (Keh, 1990, cited in Reid, 1993: 218). In addition, Hyland
(2002: 230) defines feedback as the response that is given to students writing. It
can refer to either oral or written forms provided by peers, teachers or computers.
Furthermore, according to Penaflorida (2002: 346) feedback or response is an
integral part of students writing. By providing feedback, students are given an
opportunity to be able to identify their own strengths and weaknesses. This may
encourage them to improve their writing skill and become more effective writers.
Supporting this statement, Williams (2003) states that the purpose of feedback is to
teach skills that help students improve their writing proficiency so that they will be
able to produce a composition which is minimal in errors and maximum in clarity.
From those definitions mentioned above, it can be concluded that feedback
is an essential aspect of students writing in which students getting response from
strengths and weaknesses in writing and at the end it can encourage them to
improve their writing ability.
2.1.2.2 Purposes of Feedback
According to Lewis (2002: 3-4), feedback has several purposes when given
in the language classes. First, feedback provides information both for teachers and
students. Through feedback, teachers can get information about individual as well
as collective class progress. It can also be used as a form of evaluation on the way
of their teaching. While for the students, feedback is considered as a continuing
type of assessment which is more focused than grades because it gives information
about individual progress by highlighting students’ strengths and weaknesses,
unlike grades which tend to compare one student with another.
The second is to give students advice in learning. Teacher can give students
more than simply descriptions of language use through feedback. The feedback
may also provide direct information about language by stating a rule or giving an
example.
Providing students with language input is the third purpose of feedback.
The teacher’s words, both in their form and purpose, describe how language is used
in personal communication so that it is important for the teachers to write
comments in a slightly higher level of language than the students have to extend
students’ language use since students can learn new vocabulary and structures in
Fourth, feedback can be a form of motivation. It can encourage students to
learn and use language as best as they can by considering whatever the teachers
know about their attitude. As the teachers find out more about their students, the
encouragement may take the student’s personal circumstances into considerations.
The last purpose is to lead students toward autonomy. Feedback can help
students to learn to find their own mistakes. By learning to find their own mistakes,
students are encouraged to be independent students.
2.1.2.3 Roles of Feedback
Feedback is central in learning to write in a second language (Hyland, 2003:
201) and its role cannot be underestimated. It offers an additional framework to
improve writing skills, promote accuracy and clear ideas and develop an
understanding of written genres. Through feedback, students are able to identify the
strengths and weaknesses of their compositions, understand the reason of those
weaknesses and discuss possible improvement relating to the weaknesses. It also
provides students with a sense of being readers which give them an outside view of
the text so that they are cognizant of the readers’ needs.
However, feedback can only be effective if the students are encouraged and
able to utilize it to improve their writing. In order to written feedback results in a
positive effect, Cohen (1990: 111) presents four conditions which are needed.
Written feedback works when:
The feedback would be useful if the students have knowledge needed to
understand a correction or receive an explanation that provides the missing
knowledge.
2. The feedback is in an area that the students consider important for their
immediate or long-term knowledge.
The students would take more benefit of feedback that concerned about the
elements, in examples specific vocabulary, style or complex syntactic
structures which they tend to be used frequently.
3. The feedback is clear.
The feedback would be more understandable if the students can decipher
the handwriting of the teacher or understand the comments and/or symbols
that the teacher likely to use.
4. The students have strategies in dealing with the feedback
The feedback would be work well if students provide themselves with
systematic strategies for handling feedback. For example, if feedback is not
clear, good learners may determine what is not clear and check with the
teacher or a classmate to get clarification.
2.1.2.4 Sources of Feedback
Providing feedback to students writing, if administered properly, may make
writing attracting and challenging for students. These are 3 sources of feedback that
1. Self Feedback
In self feedback, the students can correct and evaluate their own
work. It is a step toward learner autonomy because by giving students
chance to analyze their own work and practice self feedback may encourage them to be self-sufficient and independent students (Penaflorida, 2002:
351).
2. Peer Feedback
Liu and Hansen (2005: 31) define peer feedback as the use of
learners or peers as sources of information and interactants for each others in such a way that learners themselves take roles or responsibilities which
are normally taken and done by teachers or trained tutors in commenting or criticizing their own writings or drafts in the process of writing. It shows
that readership of students writing does not belong to the teachers
exclusively since students are allowed to share their written works with each other (Penaflorida, 2002: 351).
3. Teacher Feedback
Teacher has been the main source of feedback both on oral and
written language in many classes (Lewis, 2002: 15). This situation also
occurs in writing class in which teachers reading and marking students’ papers, offering revision, suggestions and feedback on language errors
(Gebhard, 1996: 238).
According to Berzsenyi (2001), teachers can give feedback in form
of questions to ask for clarification or suggest expansion. Besides, teachers
composition, identify mechanical problem in a specific sentence and/or give praise when the students working well in their writing. These can be
done to ensure the students that their written works are in line with the
message they want to convey.
2.1.2.5 Forms of Feedback
In the book Language Learning: Insight for Learners, Teachers and
Researchers, Cohen (1990: 109) divided feedback from the teacher into two types,
namely:
1. Oral Feedback
Oral feedback, also known as oral conferences, refers to personal consultation between teacher and student during the evaluation of a
composition. This interactive session is expected to help in solving
problems that cannot be handled by written feedback alone. The major problem that occurs in conducting this type of feedback is that teachers
need to have sufficient time. 2. Written Feedback
In written feedback, comments, corrections and/or marks are given
on students’ written work draft. The marks may be on words or quick symbols such as underlining or other signs.
2.1.2.6 Focus of Feedback
The focus of feedback falls into two categories: form and content, and
Fathman and Whalley (1990 in Chiang, 2004: 99), concerns with grammar and mechanics errors. There are several common strategies used by teacher in
providing this kind of feedback. They are teacher’s correction of surface errors in
which students required to copy all the corrections, teacher’s marking that indicate the place and type of error but without correction, teacher’s underlining to indicate
only the presence of errors. The two latter methods require students to correct the errors on their own (Williams, 2003).
In contrast, feedback which involves comments on organization, ideas and
amount of detail is called content feedback. In feedback on content, teacher usually points out problems and offers suggestions for improvements on future revision.
Using this feedback, the students are expected to incorporate information from the comments into other versions of the ir writings (Williams, 2003).
2.1.2.7 Response to Feedback
According to Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (1995: 1000),
response is an action or feeling produced in answer to something. Another definition is given by Power who defines response as any verbal or non-verbal act
designed to fulfill the expectations implicit in the questions, commands or requests
of others (Dunkin, 1987: 413). From the definition above, it can be deduced that response to written feedback can be defined as any verbal or non verbal act
produced in answer to the written feedback.
Some researchers like Cohen (1987) and Hyland (1998) had conducted
researches on students’ responses on feedback. The findings of the researches
to their compositions. In Hyland’s study The Impact of Teacher Written Feedback on Individual Writers students tried to combine most of the usable teacher
feedback in their revision when they were provided written feedback in their
writing. In revising the draft, usually, students followed the suggestions offered by teacher or deleted words with errors. Students’ revisions can also be an initial
stimulus that encouraged changes in their writing beyond the point addressed by teacher.
Chiang (2004) also states that most students have different strategies in
responding their teachers’ feedback. The most common strategies included making corrections and remembering the mistakes. They also asked their classmates and
teacher when they did not understand teacher feedback, checked dictionaries and checked grammar books. Furthermore, in his study Student Processing of
Feedback on their Composition, Cohen (1987) found that learners have limited
strategies of processing teacher feedback. In this study, the learners made a mental note of the teacher’s comments as opposed to writing down points for future
revision, referring to other papers, and especially, revising their paper with the incorporation of teacher comments.
In addition, Berzsenyi (2001) reports several types of students’ responses
when given feedback. They were revising words or sentences which were presented with an explanation or the student’s agreement toward the teacher’s suggestion or
interpretation of the text, discussing writing strategies which responds to teacher’s praise and making revision that were not initiated by the teacher. From the
explanation above, it can be concluded that students have various strategies in
are making correction and revision, adding missing details and explanations, deleting irrelevant words/phrases, discussing or conferencing with teacher and
classmates also checking the books or dictionaries.
2.2 Review of Existing Researches
There must have been many researches about teacher written feedback. In this part, there are two studies will be reviewed.
The first research was Students’ Perceptions toward Teacher Written
Feedback on their Compositions: A Case Study by Christina Dyah Kurniyati (2006). This research was a case study. It was investigated the types of and the
students’ perceptions toward teacher written feedback. Two instruments, questionnaire and interview, were used in this study.
The findings showed that teacher gave more feedback on surface le vel,
especially grammar. It was also found that students have good perceptions toward their teacher written feedback in which they assumed that teacher written feedback
was clear, objective, helpful, encouraging and proportional. Based on the result, Kurniyati gave suggestions for teachers to give clearer written feedback which
focus more on content level than on surface level. While for the students, Kurniyati
suggested them to make use the teacher written feedback and incorporate other sources.
The second research was conducted by Fiona Hyland (1998), cited in Hyland (2002: 195-199) entitled The Impact of Teacher Written Feedback on
Individual Writers. In this research, six ESL writer’s reaction to and uses of
investigated. Hyland catalogued and analyzed all teacher written feedback and students’ revisions to figure out the relationship between feedback and revision. To
validate the analysis, interviews, questionnaires and observations were used.
The research found out that students incorporated most of the usable teacher feedback in their revision based on their needs, past learning experiences and
writing approach. Students’ revisions usually followed teachers’ suggestions, acted as an initial stimulus of a number of revisions or prompted deletions. This study
also showed communication breakdowns because of basic differences in the value
that teachers and students placed on written feedback. Thus, Hyland suggested for an open dialogue concerning the kinds of feedback that students want and what
teachers will give.
This current research has a similar topic to the two researches composed by
Kurniyati and Hyland which concerns about the teacher written feedback.
However, this current research also has difference with the former studies. While, Kurniyati and Hyland’s studies discuss on the students’ perceptions toward teacher
written feedback and the impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers, this study will discuss on the responses of students toward the teacher written
feedback.
2.3 Theoretical Framework
The process of writing puts emphasis on pre-writing work to generate ideas and the writing of series of drafts to revise and extend those ideas. Feedback is
essential in the writing process as it helps students to improve their drafts in order
students often do not know how to use feedback productively to improve their skills as writers. This research, therefore, concerns on the response given by
students toward teacher written feedback.
Some experts’ points of view are used as the references to answer the research problems. Those points of views play some significant roles in exploring,
identifying and analyzing the teacher written feedback and students’ responses. Theory of feedback, especially focus of feedback proposed by Fathman and
Whalley (1990) and Williams (2003) helps to identify the category of written
feedback given by teacher. The written feedback may fall into two categories; form and content. Feedback on form concerns with grammar and mechanics errors while
feedback on content concerns with organization, ideas and amount of detail. Furthermore, theory of student’s response proposed by Cohen (1987), Hyland
(1998), Chiang (2004) and Berzsenyi (2001) helps to reveal the responses of
students toward teacher written feedback. Students may have various strategies in responding teacher written feedback such as making correction and revision,
adding missing details and explanations, deleting irrelevant words/phrases, discussing or conferencing with teacher and classmates also checking the books or
dictionaries.
To obtain the detailed information of the written feedback provided by teacher, a checklist which contains feedback categorization is used as the main
instrument. Yet, in order to obtain the detail information of students’ responses, first draft and revised composition are compared then students’ responses are listed.
An interview with students is conducted to verify the analysis on the students’
23 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the methodology employed in this study in order to answer the research problems. It covers the description of the kinds of methods
used in the research, the research subjects, the research setting, the research instruments, the data source, the data collection, the data analysis, and the research
procedures.
3.1 Research Methodology
The method employed in this study was descriptive research. Ary, Jacobs and Razavieh (1990: 381) state that descriptive research studies are designed to
obtain information concerning the current status of phenomena. The phenomenon
investigated in this research was the responses of students toward written feedback given by their teacher.
This research was typically qualitative research since its primary purpose was description (Sprinthall, Schmutte and Sirois, 1991: 98). Fraenkel and Wallen
(1993: 386) state that qualitative research produces descriptive data from the actual
words or actions of people. As a result, the data in this research would be in the form of verbal statements, not numerical/statistical one.
This research also employed document analysis method in order to obtain the data. According to Fraenkel and Wallen (1993: 386), document analysis
involves an analysis of the written or visual contents of a document. A document is
document being analyzed in this study was the first to third chapter of students’ undergraduate thesis.
3.2 Research Participants
The subjects of this study were four students of semester eight of the
English Letters Study Program, Sanata Dharma University in the academic year 2005/2006 who were taking thesis writing course. Those four participants came
from two different classes in which their thesis has the same field that is linguistics.
The eight semester students were chosen as the participants because they were considered to have higher competence in writing skills compared to the lower
semester students. Moreover, they were in the process of finishing their thesis which means that feedback is crucial for them to ensure that their thesis were
reliable and understandable since, later on, they would defend it orally in order to
graduate from their department.
3.3 Research Setting
This research was conducted at the English Letters Study Program of
Sanata Dharma University which is located at Mrican, Yogyakarta.
The research was conducted at the English Letters Study Program of Sanata Dharma University because it has good reputation in teaching English. In 2006, it
obtained “A” accreditation from National Accreditation Board (Badan Akreditasi
Nasional). Moreover, students of English Letters conducted their undergraduate thesis under the advice of one lecturer. Guided by one lecturer only, the students
one lecturer only. This also might prevent students from confusion which might occur if they have two lecturers as their advisor.
3.4 Research Instruments
In order to gather data for this research, two instruments, checklist and
interview were used. The checklist was used to gather the data in document analysis to answer the first problem, whereas the interview was used to validate the
results of the second problem.
3.4.1 Checklist
In this research, a checklist was used as the instrument to answer the first
problem which is what the categories of written feedback provided by teacher are. According to Hopkins (1976: 271), checklist is an aid to direct observation which
lists items to be given attention. Check marks indicate presence, absence or
frequency of occurrence for each item. In this study, the checklist contains some categories aimed to analyze the teacher written feedback.
The categories of the checklist were adapted from the ESL composition profile proposed by Hughey et al. (1983: 141-145). The profile form contained five
important elements to compose a connected, coherent, and effective piece of
writing. Five important elements meant here were content, organization, vocabulary, language use and mechanic s. Then, one category which was reference
to source was added to complete the checklist. These six elements became the basis to analyze the written feedback given by teacher. If it might be found some
categories of feedback that could not be included into six categories mentioned
Thus, the checklist would be:
3.1 The Table Checklist of Teacher Written Feedback
No Categories Total Percentage
1
This research also employed interview as the instrument to gather data from
the students. Interview or careful asking of relevant questions is an important way
for a researcher to check the accuracy of or to verify the impressions of the
researcher has gained through observation (Fraenkel and Wallen, 1993: 385).
In this study, an interview with the students was conducted in order to
gather further information to validate the analysis on the second problem which is
the response of students toward teacher feedback. There was no interview
conducted with the teacher which was used to verify the analysis on teacher
feedback. The interview was only used to provide a detailed description about
students’ reactions to teacher written feedback.
There were six points of the questions delivered to the interviewees, i.e. (1)
understanding toward feedback, (2) students’ feeling, (3) problem appearing in
responding the feedback, (4) function of feedback, (5) students’ responses and (6)
reason why they respond in such a way. The questions were flexible, meaning that
were delivered spontaneously as far as they could help the researcher to validate
the information about the students’ responses to teacher’s feedback.
3.5 Data Sources
This research used the students and their compositions as the main sources
of data. The compositions were taken from the undergraduate thesis compositions
of the students of English Letter Study Program, Sanata Dharma University. There
were two kinds of compositions used, which were the first draft of compositions on
which teacher had given written feedback and the revision of the first draft. The
compositions were used to answer the research questions. They were analyzed to
figure out the categories of the teacher written feedback and the students’ responses
to the feedback. Meanwhile, the students were interviewed to validate the analysis
on the students’ responses.
3.6 Data Collection
The data used in this research were collected from the undergraduate thesis
composition of the eight semester students of English Letter Study Program, Sanata
Dharma University academic year 2005/2006. In total, there were eight pieces of
writing collected from the students. They were four compositions with teacher
written feedback on it and four compositions of the revision.
First of all, the first draft compositions were collected from the partipants.
These compositions had teacher written feedback on it. The categories of teacher
Afterwards, the second compositions which are the revision of the first composition were collected. By comparing the changes on first composition and
the revised composition, the responses of students to teacher written feedback
could be found out. Their efforts to revise the composition, which is based on the feedback given, were analyzed.
Next, an interview was conducted to verify the analysis on students’
responses. Some questions related to the responses of participants after they got
feedback were asked. The interview was conducted at different time and places
adjusted to the interviewee’s situation and condition. The interview was recorded in
order to make the result easier to be transcribed.
The data gathered from document analysis and the interview, then, were
transcribed as accurately as possible to answer the research problems.
3.7 Data Analysis
In addressing the analysis of the gathered data, some stages of data analysis
were used. Firstly, related to the first problem which was what the categories of
written feedback that is given by teacher on students’ compositions are, the draft
composition would be read carefully. The teacher feedback was categorized using a
checklist. To provide scientific reference on the frequency of the categories
presence in the students’ writing, the results of checklist were counted and
transformed in the percentage data.
Secondly, this research intended to find out the students’ responses toward
then, the responses were analyzed by comparing the changes between the draft
composition and the revision. Next, the students’ responses, which were what they
had done to revise their compositions, were listed.
The last stage, to validate the analysis on student reaction, interviews with
participants were conducted and recorded. What has been said by interviewees
were jotted down and analyzed. Then, the interview results were analyzed by
repeatedly reading the interview transcripts.
Afterwards, the interview transcript and the results of document analysis were tried to compare so that deep understanding of the responses of students could
Feedback Feedback and Students’ COMPOSITIONS List of the students’
responses
feedback on it Student’s composition with teacher written feedback on it
Revised composition
CONCLUSIONS Figure 3.1 Flow Chart of Research Procedures
Checking using checklist
31 CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS RESULTS
This chapter presents the results which answer the question previously formulated in the problem formulation. The first question concerns with written feedback provided by teacher on students’ composition. The second question concerns with students’ responses toward teacher written feedback. The results are presented in the following order: (1) teacher written feedback, and (2) students’ responses.
4.1 Teacher Written Feedback
The data were gathered from the first composition which was the students’ undergraduate thesis draft with teacher feedback on it. The composition consisted of four pieces of writing. The data presented here were teacher written feedback that was given to eight semester students of English Letters Departme nt of Sanata Dharma University.
After all teacher written feedbacks on students’ compositions were gathered and classified into seven categories in the feedback checklist, the percentages of each category of feedback were calculated. Thus, the results were presented in the table 4.1 below:
Table 4.1 The Table Checklist of Teacher Written Feedback Percentage No Feedback Categories Total Percentage
Considering the results above, it could be seen that the feedback on
language use was 38.51% and the feedback on mechanics was 23.60%. It meant
that the feedback given by teacher on students’ compositions was mostly on the
form area. It is also revealed that the feedback on organization was 10.56% and the
feedback on content was 9.32%. These results implied that the teacher had few
attentions in the content area of the compositions whereas it was the main aspect
that needs to be considered in writing since the content and flow of ideas become
necessary components to form a good composition.
Lastly, the results showed that the feedback on format was 6.21%, the
feedback on reference of source was 4.97%, the feedback on vocabulary was
4.35% and the feedback on clarity was 2.48%. In order to give specific information
concerning the teacher written feedback provided to the students’ composition,
each feedback was discussed in each following section. It included discussions
from the feedback on language use to the feedback on clarity.
4.1.1 Language Use
Language use concerns with the linguistic components used for effective
delivery of discourse in writing, like grammar and effective complex constructions
of sentences (Hughey et al., 1983: 141). This research figured out that teacher gave
written feedback most on language use including the use of articles, tenses, plural
4.1.1.1 Articles
Articles “a”, “an” and “the” are used to indicate singular noun. In this study,
it was figured that students paid little attention to the use of articles. The students
did not put any articles to indicate a singular noun and teacher gave feedback on it.
Consider these examples:
Example 1
The sentence in the example above was incomplete. The word “noun”,
“verb”, ”adjective” and “certain prefix” in that sentence were a singular noun,
therefore, articles “a” or “an” should be put before those words. Teacher gave
corrections by putting articles in front of those words to make the sentence
complete.
Example 2
The article “the” was used to refer to a particular thing. In the sentence
studies”, “review of related theories” and “theoretical framework”. Therefore,
teacher gave corrections by putting article “the” before those words.
4.1.1.2 Tenses
Fountain (Bram, 1999: 55) states that the students should not change the
tense from present to past or vice versa unless they have a good reason. Teacher
provided feedback on tense to ensure that students used the appropriate tense and
they were consistent in using the tense. Consider these examples:
Example 1
In writing, a writer needs to be consistent in using tenses to say what he/she
wants to say. In the example above, the author was not consistent in using a tense.
She used both simple present tense and simple past tense within a paragraph. For
that reason, teacher gave comment about her consistency in using the tense whether
Example 2
An undergraduate thesis is a research report. It means that writing an undergraduate thesis is writing a report of a research that had investigated. Since it is a report, the writer has to write it using simple past tense. In the example, the author used simple present tense in writing the composition. Consequently, teacher suggested the author to revise her composition into past tense.
4.1.1.3 Plural Marker
4.1.1.4 Language Objectivity
An undergraduate thesis is included as an academic writing and one of the characterizations of an academic writing is the objective structures. The author has
to write the thesis in a neutral way using objective structures, such as impersonal
forms and passive voice. To keep the objectivity in writing the thesis, the teacher provided feedback on it as the example:
The use of word “the writer”, in the example above, made the writing sound subjective. Therefore, the teacher suggested the author to write it in a neutral way
in order to the writing be objective.
4.1.1.5 Pronouns
A pronoun is a word that substitutes for a noun, a noun phrase, or another noun (Raimes, 2002: 453). Teacher also provided feedback on the use of prono un.
In the sentence above, the subject personal pronoun “she” should not be used because the author has not mentioned to whom “she” refers to yet. Teacher,
then, corrected it by changing “she” into “Antasari” which was the name of the
person.
4.1.1.6 Sentence Constructions
The construction of sentences must follow certain well-defined rules
(Warren, 1985: 335). In this study, it was found that students did not follow the
rules in constructing the sentences correctly. For that reason, the teacher gave feedback on sentence constructions so that the readers are able to comprehend the information presented by the students. Consider these examples:
Example 1
In the example above, the second sentence was a subordinate clause and
Example 2
In constructing a sentence, there must be basic agreement between the
sentence elements. In the example above, the author missed to put a noun to follow
the adjective word “systematic”. Therefore, the teacher asked clarification of what
is systematic.
4.1.2 Mechanics
Mechanics is the technical aspects of writing including punctuation or
capitalization (Sorenson, 1996: 571). In this research, it was found that teacher
gave written feedback on mechanics (23.60%). Most of the feedback provided on
the use of punctuation, italics and capitalization. The discussions were below:
4.1.2.1 Punctuation
Sorenson (1996: 576) defines punctuation as the use of standardized marks
in writing and printing to separate sentences or parts of a sentence or to make
meaning clearer. Punctuation marks are easy to use correctly if their functions are
understood; however, there is an exception that is the comma. Comma is the most
common mark of punctuation and the most complex uses also (McCrimmon, 1984:
656). This statement is in line with the result of this study in which all feedback
given on punctuation concerned on the uses of comma. Its complex uses made
Example 1
The most important use of comma is to prevent a confusing, ambiguous or
awkward reading. As the four examples above, without a comma those sentences
became confusing and awkward. The teacher, then, added the comma to make those sentences clear enough for the readers.
Example 2
In the example above, semicolons were used to separate elements in series.
However, semicolons were not appropriate to be used because semicolons were
used to separate elements which contained comma in a series. For this reason, the teacher suggested the author to use comma instead of semicolons since comma was
4.1.2.2 Italics
The use of italics is to indicate that a word or a word group has a special
meaning or significance. Since the compositions which were analyzed dealt with
linguistics topic which used words as the source of data, italics were needed to call the attention to the words being named.
In the following example, the students did not italicize some words that they used as data. This could confuse the readers in reading the compositions
because they might not know which words that were needed to be given special
attentions. Therefore, teacher suggested students to italicize the words that they wanted to be given special attentions. Teacher underlined and gave comment
“miring” (italics) to those words. Consider this following example:
4.1.2.3 Capitalization
The teacher also gave feedback on the use of capitalization because students
In the sentence above, the author misused the capital letter. A capital letter
should be used after a period instead of a comma, therefore, the word “compound”
should not be written in capital letter. The teacher circled that word to make the
author be aware of her mistake so that she could correct it in her revision.
Example 2
A capital letter is used to write a proper noun. In the example above, the
author did not use capital letter in writing someone’s name so that the teacher gave a correction on it.
4.1.3 Content
Warren (1985: 34) states that the content of a composition should be
accurate, current and complete. It is ineffective for a composition to contain errors
or omission in content (Zimmerman and Rodrigues, 1992: 171). In other words, an
effective composition needs to be accurate, complete and do not have errors in the content.
Providing feedback on content to students in the process of writing is
important to figure out whether the ideas conveyed in students’ compositions are in
line with the topic they want to discuss. It may ensure the students that their ideas
are developed and organized well and that they have included information that is
In this study, it was figured out that teacher provided feedback on content to students’ compositions. This feedback was in forms of imperatives or questions and
it often functioned as general comment of a sub heading. Consider the following
examples: Example 1
The author stated that her aim in conducting the research was to find something different related to the English prefixes. The teacher might consider the
reason for the author to conduct the study was not strong enough. Therefore, the teacher underlined the word “something different” and gave comment that it was
not a good reason for conducting a research. The author needed to put good, strong and scientific reasons that supported her in conducting the study.
Example 2
In the example above, the author did not put the publishing date of the
newspapers she used as source of data. Therefore, the teacher asked the date when
Other examples of feedback on content were:
• Is there any segmental process in the words you analyze?
• Discuss more about mega, etc. they are problematic!
• What do you mean by word class? Write something else!
• Do you understand all the above? If no, drop them!
These comments, questions and imperatives were given as general
comments on students’ compositions. This feedback sought for students’
understanding toward what they had previously discussed and asked for further
discussion about it on their next revision.
4.1.4 Organization
Campbell (1998: 87) defines organization as the structure of paragraphs,
essays and longer stretches of discourse. Good organization in writing can help the
readers to follow the movement and the flow of the ideas in the composition. It was
found that the teacher also provided student s with written feedback on
In the example above, the sentences were not well-organized. The author used many unnecessary words in the sentences which made her explanation
become not succinct and not to the point. For that reason, teacher reorganized the
paragraph so that it could be succinct and straight to the point in order to make the readers follow the author’s ideas easier.
4.1.5 Format
Formatting refers to the physical presentation on the page (Zimmerman and
Rodrigues, 1985: 85). In writing an undergradua te thesis, feedback on format is needed to ensure that students have followed the appropriate style guidelines
because there are certain rules that must be followed. In this study, there were ten feedbacks on format provided to students. The examples were:
4.1.6 Reference to Source
According to Bazerman (1985: 474), reference is the art of mentioning
