Students
’ Views toward Kinds of F
eedback Given by Teachers
in Narrative and Descriptive Class
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Yusuf Firmanto
112009105
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
i
STUDENTS
’
VIEW TOWARD KINDS OF FEEDBACK GIVEN BY
TEACHERS IN NARRATIVE AND DESCRIPTIVE CLASS
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Yusuf Firmanto
112009105
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
iii
PUBLICATION AGREEMENT DECLARATION
As a member of the (SWCU) Satya Wacana Christian University academic community, I verify that:
Name : Yusuf Firmanto Student ID Number : 112009105
Study Program : English Language Teaching Department Faculty : Language and Literature
Kind of Work : Undergraduate Thesis
In developing my knowledge, I agree to provide SWCU with a non-exclusive royalty free right for my intellectual property and the contents therein entitled:
STUDENTS’ VIEW TOWARD KINDS OF FEEDBACK GIVEN BY TEACHERS IN NARRATIVE AND DESCRIPTIVE CLASS
along with any pertinent equipment.
With this non-exclusive royalty free right, SWCU maintains the right to copy, reproduce, print, publish, post, display, incorporate, store in or scan into a retrieval system or database, transmit, broadcast, barter or sell my intellectual property, in whole or in part without my express written permission, as long as my name is still included as the writer.
This declaration is made according to the best of my knowledge.
Made in : Salatiga Date : May 22, 2013
Verified by signee,
iv
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT
This thesis contains no such material as has been submitted for examination in any course or accepted for the fulfillment of any degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my knowledge and belief, this contains no material previously published or written by any other except where due reference is made in the text.
Copyright @2013 Yusuf Firmanto and Anita Kurniawati H, M. Hum
All right reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced by any means without the prior written permission of at least one of the copyright owners or the English Department of Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga.
1
S
tudents’ Views toward Kinds of F
eedback Given by Teachers
in Narrative and Descriptive Class
Abstract
This study is aimed to identify students’ view toward kinds of feedback given by teacher in Narrative and Descriptive class of Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Satya Wacana Christian University. Twenty students of 2011, who already took the class, were asked to collect their draft and fifteen of them were interviewed as the participants. The finding of the study found kinds of feedback students got from the teacher shown in table 1 and 2 and 4 heading. The result of this study shows the students prefer direct feedback rather than indirect feedback, explanation on codes is still needed and also students need positive feedback from the teacher. This study is hoped that teacher will be aware of the way they give feedback so that students can recognize and use it well.
Introduction
Every student definitely wants to make a good writing. To make a good writing, students need feedback and error correction from their teacher. Feedback sessions can be a beneficial experience for the student if the teacher shows strong points as well. Research findings indicate that students favor error feedback from teachers because they believe that they will benefit greatly from it (Leki, 1991; Radecki & Swales, 1988; Straub, 1997). For me myself as a student, when I write journal or free writing I also need feedback from my teacher, moreover clear feedback. I think teacher feedback is very beneficial when I get the point of the feedback which I can recognize and use it into my paper.
2
1999; Leki, 1991; Roberts, 1999) have consistently showed that L2 learners really expect and value teacher feedback on their writing. Basically, there are 2 kinds of corrective feedback; direct and indirect corrective feedback. Direct correction refers to the provision of correct forms or structures for students’ sentences, whereas indirect correction, as the term implies, simply underlines the errors (Hendrickson, 1980). Moreover, Komura (1999) and Leki (1991) have shown that students prefer indirect feedback. In addition, indirect feedback is provided when the teacher simply marks the error but does not correct it (non-coded). In providing indirect feedback, some teachers tend to code mistakes to indicate the precise location and type of error, while others provide un-coded feedback that simply locates the error without disclosing the error type. It becomes the student’s task to diagnose and correct the mistake with un-coded feedback. By using indirect feedback, notably un-code feedback, sometimes students do not get what the teacher’s mean because usually the students’ expectation is the teacher will provide the feedback
as complete as well.
Considering about students’ view toward kinds of feedback, the purpose of study is to identify students’ view toward kinds of feedback given by the teacher in Narrative and
3
Literature Review
Several studies found that error feedback from the teacher was not significantly more effective for developing accuracy in L2 student writing (Kepner, 1991; Polio, Fleck, & Leder, 1998; Sheppard, 1992). In addition, studies conducted by Truscott (1996, 2007) reveal that error correction may be harmful because it distracts attention from much more important issues, such as the development of ideas. A number of research studies in various L2 contexts investigating the effects of different types of feedback on students’ writing skills have suggested that explicit
error correction seems to be generally ineffective (Ihde, 1993; Kepner, 1991; Robb, Ross, & Shortreed, 1986; Semke, 1984; Sheppard, 1992). However, research on this topic is far from conclusive. For example, studies by Ashwell (2000), Cardelle and Corno (1981), and Ferris (2003) demonstrate a positive correlation between students writing accuracy and teacher error feedback. Furthermore, Ellis (1998) and Lightbrown (1998) maintain that explicit error correction prevents adult learners from fossilization and ensures the continued development of their L2 proficiency.
4
the most significant factors influencing students' self correction, compared to proficiency level and performance on the grammar test. There was a significant difference between the control group that did not receive any feedback from teachers and the two experimental groups that were given either coded or non-coded feedback. The results showed there was no significant difference in performance on self-correction between the coded feedback group and the non-coded feedback group. In addition survey results showed that students preferred receiving non-coded feedback over other feedback methods. The results showed also that error feedback helps ESL learners self-correct grammatical errors and students preferred coded feedback.
More study regarding to students’ view toward kinds of feedback, Lee (2004) explored the existing error correction practices in the Hong Kong secondary writing classroom from both the teachers’ and the students’ perspectives. The analysis of the data collected through
questionnaires showed that most students (82%) expressed their desire for teacher feedback. However, 67% of the students said that, in spite of receiving teacher feedback, they were making the same errors again, and only 9% believed that they were making good progress. In other words, the students asserted that they liked to receive feedback mainly to know what type of errors they had made.
5
Moreover there are several studies continue discussing kinds of feedback by students’ view. One type of feedback that the research does advocate is feedback on content and organization. Such feedback is necessary and does result in improvement in students’ writing
(Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Huntley, 1992; Kepner, 1991; Sheppard, 1992). Huntley maintains that feedback on content and organization should be provided to students while feedback on form should be avoided, and she recommends that L2 teachers incorporate peer reviews and student-teacher conferences in their teaching as two valuable alternative feedback methods to traditional error correction.
Another study done by Chandler (2003) aimed at examining how error correction should be done. Findings showed that both direct correction and simple underlining of errors are significantly superior to describing the type of error, even with underlining, for reducing long-term error. Direct correction is best for producing accurate revisions, and students prefer it because it is the fastest and easiest way for them as well as the fastest way for teachers over several drafts. However, students feel that they learn more from self-correction, and simple underlining of errors takes less teacher time on the first draft.
Nevertheless, the relatively few studies that have investigated L2 students’ preferences and reactions to teacher marking techniques and their beliefs about what constitutes effective feedback to writing suggest that surface-level correction is often the kind of feedback these students want and expect from their teachers. For instance, based on a survey of 59 English as second language (ESL) students’ attitudes towards feedback on their written work, Radecki and
6
expect correction of all errors. In a similar survey of 100 ESL students’ preferences for error correction, Leki (1991) found that students equate good writing in English with error-free writing and that they expect and want all errors in their written work to be corrected.
Finally, based on several studies above, it can be identified that there are several kinds of feedback teacher give to the students by their view. Students surely need teacher feedback. Students expect they get the necessary corrective feedback from their teacher. Students prefer to get revisions on the content and organization whether the teacher give a clear instruction corrective feedback rather than just say “it was poor” or just underlining the error content but do not give anything to improvement or revision. Nevertheless, it depends on how students’ view toward these kinds of feedback and how they deal with them.
The Study
The setting of the study was in Satya Wacana Christian University (SWCU) which is located in Salatiga, Central Java, Indonesia. Faculty of Language and Literature has adopted and implemented teacher error feedback or teacher corrective feedback through students’ assignment;
free writings, journals, and summaries, in one of courses, Narrative and Descriptive Writing course. The context of this study is the PBI students who have taken Narrative and Descriptive Writing course, which they got teacher error feedback from the teacher through their writing assignments. This teacher error feedback has provided in order to improve the students’ skill and
7 Participants
Twenty participants were selected to be analyzed their writing draft and fifteen students to be interviewed. The participants are the students who have taken Narrative and Descriptive Writing course on the third semester in PBI. There are four classes of Narrative and Descriptive Writing provided on third semester hopefully can complete the data from the students of each class which opened on that semester. I used sample of convenience technique for choosing the participants because it may be easier to meet and contact them and gain the data and interviewing them.
Instruments
Considering about the purpose of this study, that is to identify students’ view toward kind of feedback given by teacher, I selected twenty participants who have taken Narrative and Descriptive Writing. To gain the deeper data, I used 2 instruments:
1. Writing draft
This session, I selected twenty participants to be analyzed their writing draft on what kinds of feedback they get from the teacher. The purpose of analyzing writing draft is to identify what kinds of feedback that students get from the teacher. Does it show feedback on content, grammatical error, word choice or the whole paragraph?
2. Semi structured interview
8
students to participate. I combined the language I used between English and Bahasa Indonesia. It took ten minutes long and four basic questions. The questions are below:
a. What do you think about the feedback? Is it clear and beneficial enough? b. In your opinion, can you gain the main point of those kinds of feedback? c. Is that kinds of feedback that you need for your writing?
d. Can it improve your writing draft to be better and how it works?
Data Collection Procedures
The first procedure was analyzing the students’ writing draft. There were twenty selected students from four classes of Narrative and Descriptive Writing course. I borrowed their writing draft then copied it into my sheet. Then I started to analyze them one by one using checklist table. There were six points kinds of feedback that students got from the teacher such as feedback on the content, grammatical, lexical, semantic, perfunctory comment, and direct code.
Considering about students’ view toward kind of feedback teachers given, I also used semi structured interview. The interview session needed fifteen selected participants and took ten minutes long. The participants asked to answer 4 basic questions and several additional questions while I recorded it. Then I transcribed it in order of using for data report and finding.
Data Analysis Procedure
9
second table discussed kind of feedback that students get in general. Every point that included in students’ draft represented one check in the table.
The second step I made 4 headings. Each heading contained finding that found through interview section then how it related to previous study finding. The heading might represent both what the table says and data from interview section.
Finding and Discussion
Students’ errors are categorized into three error types (grammatical, lexical, and
semantic). Grammatical errors include sentence fragments, incorrect punctuation, verb tenses, nouns, adjectives, clauses, participles, and improper use of subjunctive mood. Lexical errors result from incorrect application of vocabulary. Semantic errors refer to sentences incoherent in meaning or unnatural in wording. (Ferris, 2003)
Whereas, Hendrickson (1980) stated basically there are 2 kinds of feedback; direct and indirect feedback. Direct feedback refers to the provision of correct forms or structures for students’ sentences, whereas indirect feedback, as the term implies, simply underlines the errors.
In this case, indirect feedback is identified by feedback on content and perfunctory comments, as table 2 showed.
Considering about kinds of feedback that student got from the teacher without any regardless for students’ view, this study found several kinds of feedback students of Narrative
10
Table 1. Kinds of Feedback Students Got on Language Participants
Table 2. Kinds of Feedback Students Got Based on Direct and Indirect Feedback
From the finding on table 1 above, students were divided into 4 classes. A-F was class 1, J-K was class B, K-L was class C, and O-T was class D. Almost each student got grammatical feedback but only student L did not get grammatical feedback. It shows that almost all teachers correct students’ grammatical error. Students also deal with their feedback on grammar. As students B said “The feedback is more on grammatical error so when the grammatical is
incorrect, we can revise it as soon as the teacher says what I should do.”
11
on semantic, but another feedback on grammar and lexical. On the lexical feedback, there were 3 students, student A, C, M did not get lexical feedback. Student A, C and M were in the different classes. The more students did not get lexical feedback, it may show that the more student have been mastering lexical term. But students also still deal with lexical feedback. As Student G said “If the feedback is only on grammar and lexical, it is OK.”
From table 2, the students also were divided into 4 classes. A-F was class A, J-K was class B, K-L was class C, and O-T was class D. Almost all students except student M and R got feedback on content. The teacher gave feedback on content to almost all students in each class that showed generally students got everything about the content in their draft. Both teacher and students deal with feedback on content. Students thought feedback in content were still needed in their draft. But there was student G that gave comment in feedback on content, “If the revision is on the content, it is more difficult and takes longer time to revise.”
Only 7 students got perfunctory comments such as “well written, “poorly organized”, “awkward wording” etc. Regarding to Leki (1991), many teachers still believe in using
perfunctory comments to help the students instead of only corrective feedback. Students also deal with perfunctory comments from the teacher. Student F argues that “Perfunctory comments are kinds of positive feedback that can make the students become clearer moreover motivated.”
12
Students prefer direct feedback rather than indirect feedback.
Direct feedback refers to the provision of correct forms or structures for students’ sentences (Hendrickson, 1980). Direct code is the most popular feedback that students get from the teacher, like table 2 shows. It shows that direct feedback is still needed for students and the students also deal with direct code from the teacher. This idea is also supported by Ferris (2003) that stated direct feedback may be appropriate for students and cases when students are unable to correct structural or lexical mistakes themselves. As student M in Narrative and Descriptive Writing argues some point that show student deal with using direct code in indirect feedback. “Maybe if I get direct feedback for example the wrong verb is crossed I will understand the point. But if only circling or underlining I can’t get the point.”
As Leki (1991) found that students may prefer direct correction on language in order to avoid making the same error, but not in content and organization. Student Q also said “The teacher corrects the wrong grammar directly so I can easily understand the teacher’s purposes.”
13
students’ ability to efficiently absorb and accurately use direct feedback in language points
(grammar, lexical, semantic).
Explanation on code is still needed, included oral consultation
Several studies discuss how indirect feedback should be given to students. A lot of teachers favor indirect feedback for pedagogical reasons as it gives the students the chance to correct themselves (Ferris (2002); Hendrickson (1984); Robb, Ross & Shortreed(1986)). But students sometime do not get the point and they will have no revision at all. Students want more explanation and detail rather than unclear feedback on the content. This study analyzed how students perceive unclear feedback.
Student L said, “I think it depends. The meaning is sometimes clear, but also sometimes is not clear. Sometimes the teacher just gives underlining or some comments, but I don’t know the meaning. So far I always ask the teacher if I don’t understand.” Student M also added some points toward this problem. “I think indirect feedback is sometime not beneficial enough if it is only circling or underlining. The teacher should give more explanation about those codes rather than only giving those codes.”
14
This finding is also similar to Ferris (2002) who stated that many writing teachers consider one-on one teacher-student conferences to be more effective than written corrective feedback alone because they provide opportunities for students to ask questions and for teachers to explain and instruct once corrections are made clear.
Students need any clues toward indirect feedback they got
Another positive finding is that most of these students would rather receive a clue about correcting errors on their first drafts rather than the correction itself, even though the latter would presumably make it “easier” to revise the draft. Such a preference for “clues” in teacher feedback
was also found among the ESL students surveyed in Leki’s (1991) study. Regarding students’ preferences for the amount of feedback/marks on their papers, most students stated that they would prefer their teacher to correct all errors, especially when responding to a final draft. Considering that in most cases a final draft includes a final grade for the paper, this finding is encouraging; these students seem to care about having their written errors corrected, for reasons beyond that of obtaining a good grade on the paper.
Several students explain they have got clues considering to any code in their paper. As Student E said.
“Bisa dong, kan sebelumnya juga udah dijelasin sama dosennya. Misal kalo digaris bawahi itu salah kata, kalo dilingkari itu salah idiomatic terus kalo RO itu kalimate
kepanjangen.”
15
As Kavaliauskienė (2003) stated, EFL practitioners agree that error correction is an essential condition for successful acquisition of any language, although they are at variance on ways of conducting it. Reconciliation of viewpoints might be secured by turning to self-correction. The prevailing opinion among some practitioners is that the primary teachers’ task in initiating self-correction in written work is to indicate the mistakes, but not correct them. The indication can be performed either by underlining errors or coding them (T for a wrong tense, SP
for a wrong spelling, WO for a wrong word order).
Students also need positive feedback.
Several studies found that error feedback from the teacher was not significantly more effective for developing accuracy in L2 student writing than content-related comments or no feedback (e.g. Kepner, 1991; Polio, Fleck, & Leder, 1998; Sheppard, 1992). Students do not need only on corrective feedback abut also positive feedback. Study by Truscott (2007) finds that students also desire positive feedback that make the students’ interaction and emotional to
teacher more intense. Student will also be more motivated rather than just receiving corrective feedback at all. Student K argues that positive feedback is important for students needed in revising students’ draft.
“Berguna sekali. Soalnya kan ini biarpun cuman draft tapi kita juga udah berusaha
semaksimal mungkin, jadi kalo dapat positive feedback itu akan membuat siswanya lebih
termotivasi lagi.”
It’s very helpful. Even though it is just draft writing, but we have worked hard to do the best. If we also get positive feedback, it is very good that will make the students be more motivated. (My translation, 3.5.13)
16
“Iya penting juga sih, soalnya kalo disalah-salahin semua kan bisa membuat kita down. Nah kalo ada positive feedbacknya kan bisa untuk memicu kita untuk lebih termotivasi
lagi.”
Yes, it’s very important because if the teacher gives many correcting errors, it will disappoint us. If there is positive feedback, it will motivate us to be better. (My translation, 3.5.13)
Regarding to Edge (1989:20), when teachers decide to correct the students, stated "We have to be sure that we are using correction positively to support learning." It is almost the same as students needs on this Narrative and Descriptive Writing.
Conclusion
The purpose of study is to identify students’ view toward kinds of feedback given by the
teacher in Narrative and Descriptive Writing class. This study analyzed students’ view and
perception toward kinds of feedback that they get from the teacher. Answering these questions, this study used writing draft analyzing and 4 heading from the interview section.
17
From table 2, almost all students except student M and R got feedback on content. Teacher gave feedback on content to almost all students in each class that shows generally students got everything about the content in their draft. Both teacher and students deal with feedback on content. But, only 7 students got perfunctory comments such as “well written, “poorly organized”, “awkward wording” etc. Leki (1991) stated that many teachers still believe
in using perfunctory comments to help the students, instead of only giving corrective feedback. Students also deal with perfunctory comments from the teacher. Overall, all students in each class get and deal with direct feedback from the teacher. Students said that direct feedback is easy to understand and revise all the error term in their draft.
The result of this study shows that the students in this study prefer direct feedback rather than indirect feedback from the teacher. It is shown in table 2 that all students in each class get direct feedback. This idea also supported by Ferris (2003) direct feedback may be appropriate for students and cases when students are unable to correct structural or lexical mistakes by themselves. Another result is students needs explanation on codes included oral consultation. Almost all of the students argued they got unclear codes or another indirect feedback from the teacher and the need more explanation toward the unclear codes so that they can gain the points of those codes. Students also deal with oral consultation to ask furthermore about the unclear feedback in their draft. The last result from this study is students also need positive feedback. They argued that positive feedback can rise their motivation to revise their draft.
18
teacher knows students’ needed about their feedback. In conclusion, the present research implies
that students should get both positive feedback and clues for indirect feedback from the teacher in order to they can apply it well in their draft.
This study is limited in certain aspects. This study cannot be generalized to all cases because there are several aspects that will make difference. For example this study identified the students’ view toward feedback in writing class, so that it cannot be used in listening class.
19
Acknowledgement
This journal would not have been possible without the support of many people. Firstly I would like to thank Jesus Christ for His bless to me every day since I was born, more importantly those few months when I worked on this journal. I wish to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Anita Kurniawati H, M. Hum, for his availability to give his best assistance in any time needed. And also for my examiner, Christian Rudianto M. Appling., for his guidance on examining and making this journal more appropriate. Big thanks to the participants, 2011ers, who willingly be interviewed; thanks a bunch. Special thanks to ED’s friends and teachers, also to all my dearest best friends, Niners Touring Club and the big family of “Niners”; Shikaka! And
20
References
Ancker, W. Errors and Corrective Feedback: Updated Theory and Classroom Practice. English Teaching Forum, vol. 38, No 4, October 2000, pp. 20 – 24.
Ashwell, T. 2000. Patterns of Teacher Response to Student Writing in a
Multiple-Draft Composition Classrooms: Is Content Feedback Followed by Form Feedback the Best Method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3): 227-257.
Cardelle, M., & Corno, L. 1981. Effects on Second Language Learning of Variations in Written Feedback on Homework Assignments. TESOL Quarterly, 15: 251-261.
Chandler, J. 2003. The Efficacy of Various Kinds of Error Feedback for Improvement in the Accuracy and Fluency of Student Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296.
Edge, J. 1989. Mistakes and correction. London: Longman.
Ellis, R. 1998. Teaching and Research: Options in Grammar Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32: 39-60.
Fathman, A. K. & Whalley, E. 1990. Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research
Insights For the Classroom (pp. 178-190). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R. 2001. "Teaching writing for Academic Purposes". In .J. Flowerdew & M.Peacock (Ed.). Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp.298-314.
Ferris, D. R. 2003. Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second
Language Students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. 1994. Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 141-63.
Hendricson, J. M.1978. Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387–398
Hendrickson, J.M.1984. The treatment of error in written work. In .S.Mckay. (Ed).). Composing I a second language (pp.145-159). Cambridge, Mass: Newbury House.
Hong, Youngju. 2004. The Effect of Teachers' Error Feedback on Internationa Students' Self Correction Ability. MA thesis, Department of Linguistics and English Language. Brigham Young University.
Kavaliauskienė, G. English for Specific Purposes: Learners’ Preferences and Attitudes. Journal of Language and Learning, Vol. 1, No 1, 2003. pp. 14 – 23.
Kepner, C. G. 1991. An Experiment in the Relationship of Types of Written Feedback to the Development of Second-Language Writing Skills.
The Modern Language Journal, 75: 305-313.
Komura, K. 1999. Student response to error correction in ESL classrooms. Unpublished Master’s thesis, California State University, Sacramento.
Lee, I. 2004. Error correction in L2 secondary writing classroom.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285-312.
Leki, I. 1991. The preferences of ESL students for error-correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203-218.
Leki, I. 1994. Coaching from the Margins: Issues in Written Response. Second Language Writing. Edited by B. Kroll. Cambridge University Press.
22
177-196). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Liu, J. and Hansen, J. (2005). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. 1988. “If Only I Had More Time”: ESL Learners’ Changes in Linguistic Accuracy on Essay Revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7: 43-68.
Radecki, P. M., & Swales, J. M. 1988. ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work. System, 16, 355-365.
Roberts, B. 1999. Can error logs raise more than consciousness? The
effects of error logs and grammar feedback on esl students’ final
drafts. Unpublished M. A. thesis, Sacramento, California State University.
Sheppard, K. 1992. Two Feedback Types: Do They Make a Difference?
RELC Journal, 23: 103-110.
Straub, R. 1997. Students’ Reactions to Teacher Comments: An Exploratory Study. Research in the Teaching of English, 31: 91-119.
Truscott, J. 1996. The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes. Language Learning, 46: 327-369.
23
Me: last semester I borrowed your writing draft and analyzed your feedback and here is the result. You can see how and what kind of feedback that you get. So, what do you think about the feedback? Student L: I think it helpful. The feedback is to revise from the first draft to final draft. So I think it is very
helpful for me.
Me: is the feedback clear enough?
Student L: h …I thi k it depe ds. “o eti es lear a d so eti e it’s ot lear hat the ea i g is. Sometime the teacher just gives underlining or some comments but I do ’t k o the ea i g. But so far I al ays ask the tea her if I do ’t u dersta d.
Me: so you always ask the teacher when the feedback is not clear? Student L: yeah I always ask it.
Me: the in your opinion is it beneficial enough?
Student L: so far is so good even in my last semester I the grade is great. I think it means the feedback is very beneficial and helpful for the first until the final draft.
Me: so even though there are some unclear comments, but when you ask it, then it becomes very beneficial?
Student L: yeah very beneficial. More over the teacher always explain till I understand the purpose. Me: well, the second question, in your opinion, can you gain the main point of those kinds of feedback? Student L: overall is good enough, I can gain some of the feedback. But there is a little feedback that I
a ’t gai the poi t, ut o erall I get the idea.
Me: so, even it just underlining or circling feedback, but you still gain the main point of the feedback. Student L: yeah, because we usually we are explained before to follow the comments. For example:
movement, so we have to smooth the coherence in order the movement is smoother. Me: well, the next question, is that kind of feedback that you need for your writing?
24
Me: so that kind of feedback, for example the underlining or circling, that is the feedback that really beneficial for your writing?
Student L: actually, my expectation is there are more feedback even comments from the teacher, I mean from this feedback the teacher just gives comment for the page one that actually there are more than two pages that need feedback. Even though it can help me but my expectation is more feedback.
Me: well. So can it improve your writing draft to be better?
Student L: I think it can improve my writing because when I look into my first to final draft, it shows that I get good grade so I think I helps me to improve my writing.
Me: ok, so the feedback can improve your writing right? How it works then?
Student L: yeah like I said before. My grade is become well when I learn to revise my writing from those feedbacks.
25
Me: well, I borrowed your draft last semester and analyzed on your draft about the feedback that you get from your teacher and here is the result. What do you think about the feedback?
Student G: the feedback is very detail and clear that makes me understand it. The teacher also put the code that she/he explains before when she/he will give us the feedback so we can understand the code.
Me: is it beneficial enough for you?
Student G: yes it is because it is not only very simple feedback but very detail for example she/he give comments on the content in every paragraph.
Me: well. Next, in your opinion, can you gain the main point of those kinds of feedback?
Student G: ge erally it is lear e ough. But there is so e parts that I do ’t u dersta d hat the purpose of the code is.
Me: have you ever met the teacher and asked him/her to consult your feedback? Student G: sometime I do consultation, sometime I do assuming the feedback by myself. Me: so, do you prefer to written or orally feedback?
Student G: both are better, but I prefer to orally because I can directly asking what I need to do. Me: ok. So you prefer to orally feedback because you can directly asking what you need. Student G: yes.
Me: then, is that kinds of feedback that you need for your writing? Student G: so far is so good. I get what I needed. It is very detail.
Me: well. So do you also read the other part which has a little revision? Yeah because I see in your draft there are many revisions.
Student G: if there is a little revision I just pass it.
Me: well, so the feedback that you get, can it improve your writing draft to be better?
26
Me: well, how about the result of your first, second, and so on draft? Do you get other difficulties when you do the second draft based on the first draft feedback?
Student G: if only the grammatical or lexical it is ok. But if the revision is the content, it is more difficulties and takes longer time.
Me: oh. So the difficulties it is also based on the kind of feedback that you get itself? Student G: yes
27
Me: nah kemarin kan saya udah pernah pinjam draftmu nih buat dianalisis tentang feedbacknya. Terus sekarang menurut pendapatmu feedbacknya bagaimana?
Student K: menurutku feedback itu sangat bermanfaat buat writing untuk memperbaiki segala bidang yang salah dari grammar, penyusunan tiap kalimat/arrangement. Dan menurutku feedback itu sangat bagus untuk membantu untuk membuat final draftnya lebih bagus dan lebih layak untuk diberi nilai gitu.
Me: oh, oke. Terus menurutmu is it clear enough?
Student K: kadang jelas tapi kadang ada juga yang belum jelas. Me: yang belum jelas itu contohnya gimana?
Student K: contohnya kalo cumin dilingkarin gitu ga ada keterangan suruh ngapain, terus kalo cuman digaris gitu juga. Tapi biasanya kalo yang jelas gitu udah ada kaya komennya dikit disampingnya la gsu g gitu harus diapai gitu, isal ya paraphrase gitu, kalo gga ya u gki kura g tepat pemilihan katanya gitu.
Me: terus, kalo yang kurang jelas kamu tanyain ke dosennya ga? Student K: iya ditanyain.
Me: bearti ada orally feedback juga gitu? Student K: iya ada.
Me: terus ketika kamu tanya itu kira-kira dari dosennya langsung dibenerin atau cuman dikasih komen contoh tentang gramarnya suruh dicek lagi gitu?
Student K: kalo biasanya sih cuma bilang suruh cari kata yang lebih tepat gitu tapi kalo memang beneran bingung langsung tanya ke dosennya dan langsung dikasih tau.
Me: oke. Menurut kamu feedback kaya gitu sudah cukup beneficial ga?
Student K: hmm, ya masih ada yang kurang juga sih. Karena dari dosen yang mengampu kita itu ada yang menganggap benar dan salah. Itu kan beda kalo sama pandangan orang lain.
28
Me: oke. Next, in your opinion can you gain the main point of those kinds of feedback? Student K: kalo main pointnya ya sudah cukup mudeng sih soalnya ya emang sudah cukup jelas
ngasihnya. Misalnya kalo suruh ganti paragraph gitu juga sudah dikasih tanda gitu.
Me: kalo feedback on content yang biasanya paling banyak komennya gitu juga mudeng maksudnya? Student K: iya soalnya point per pointnya dijelasin cukup detail kok.
Me: oke. terus is that kind of feedback that you need for your writing?
Student K: ya kalo nurutin kurang pasti ya kurang terus sih, tapi ya sudah cukup membantu daripada dapat feedback cuma dari temen. Aku lebih suka dapat feedback dari dosen, karena ada juga dosen yang ga kasih feedback.
Me: nah kalopun itu masih kurang, kurangnya itu bagaimana?
Student K: ya seperti yang ku bilang tadi, kalo cuman ada yang digarisin ato dilingkarin ya seharusnya lebih dijelasin lagi.
Me: oke. can it improve your writing draft to be better? Student K: ya
Me: how it works?
Student K: ya, kalo dijelasin lagi kaya ada waktu buat konsultasi gitu ya lebih bagus. Karena kan kita bisa dijelasin satu-satu gitu. Jadi hasilnya ya lebih baik gitu.
Me: terus kalo suruh milih written feedback atau orally gitu kamu pilih yang mana?
Student K: ya dua-duanya bagus, tapi lebih ke written deh soalnya bisa lebih fokus ke kesalahan yang harus dibenerin gitu.
Me: nah kalo kamu dapat positive feedback, menurutmu itu penting ga?
Student K: iya penting juga, soalnya kalo disalah-salahin semua kan bisa membuat down kita. Nah kalo ada positif feedbacknya kan bisa untuk memicu kita untuk lebih termotivasi lagi. Jadi itu memang penting banget sih.
Me: oke. that’s all for the i ter ie . Tha ks for the ti e ya Mei. Student K: iya sama-sama.
