1
An Analysis of Teacher’s Direct Corrective Feedback on Students’ Writing in Descriptive Text at Senior High School 13 Padang
Oleh :
Putri Wulan Nuari *)
**) Mayuasti, M.Pd dan **) Hevriani Sevrika, M.Pd .
Staff pengajar Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris STKIP PGRI Sumatera BaratABSTRAK
Koreksi yang diberikan guru pada tulisan siswa akan membantu siswa dalam memperbaiki kesalahan dan mengurangi kesulitan yang dihadapi oleh siswa. Dalam penelitian ini ditujukan untuk mengetahui tipe apa yang digunakan oleh guru Bahasa Inggris di SMAN 13 Padang dalam mengaplikasikan strategi Direct Corrective Feedback dan bagaimana guru tersebut mengoreksi tulisan siswa berdasarkan dari bentuk-bentuk koreksi yang dijelaskan dalam teori.
Jenis penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah Descriptive Research. Penelitian ini menggunakan dokumen sebagai sumber data penelitian, dokumen tersebut adalah hasil dari tulisan siswa dalam bentuk teks deskriptif. Data dalam penelitian ini adalah koreksi guru yang mengaplikasikan Direct Corrective Feedback dalam mengoreksi tulisan siswa. Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa guru Bahasa Inggris di SMAN 13 Padang menggunakan tipe Unfocused Direct Corrective Feedback dalam mengoreksi hasil tulisan siswa. Dimana yang dimaksud dengan Unfocused Direct Corrective Feedback adalah koreksi guru tanpa memfokuskan pada satu atau dua unsur, melainkan mengoreksi semua kesalahan yang ditulis siswa, baik itu dari segi penulisan, ide, dan juga isi dari apa yang ditulis siswa. Namun, guru Bahasa Inggris tidak memperhatikan ide dan isi yang ditulis siswa, guru hanya fokus mengoreksi tulisan siswa. Semua kesalahan yang ditulis siswa dikoreksi guru dengan cara mencoret kata yang salah serta melampirkan jawaban yang benar di dekat jawaban yang salah, dan guru Bahasa inggris menambahkan kata-kata atau huruf-huruf yang kurang dalam tulisan siswa.
Keywords : Direct corrective feedback, focused and unfocused corrective feedback
*) Penulis
**) Pembimbing
2
INTRODUCTION
Feedback is very important in learning process. Giving feedback on students’
writing tasks demands special care. Teachers should respon positively to the content of what the students have written. According to John and Helen (2007:91), feedback includes about how well a task is being accomplished or performed, such as distinguishing correct from incorrect answers, acquiring more or different information, and building more surface knowledge. This types of feedback is most common and is often called corrective feedback or knowledge of result, and it can relate to correctness, neatness, behavior, or some other criterion related to task accomplishment. Thus, feedback on students’ task can help students to distinguish between correct and incorrect answer, so the students can easier to understand about the lesson and be able to get the target language.
In addition, Bitchener (2008: 105) categorizes feedback into either direct (explicit) and indirect (implicit). Direct corrective feedback may be defined as the provision of the correct linguistic form or structure by the teacher to the students above the linguistic error. It may include the crossing out of an unnecessary word/phrase/morpheme, the insertion of a missing word/phrase/morpheme, or the provision of the correct form or structure.
On the other hand, indirect corrective feedback is that which indicates that in some way an error has been made without direct attention drawn. This may be provided in one of four ways: underlining or circling the error; recording in the margin the number of errors in a given line; or using a code to show where the error has occurred and what type of error it is.
Based on the fact in the field, the students need feedback from the teacher to understand about the materials. One of feedback that given by English teacher at Senior High School 13 Padang is direct corrective feedback. Direct corrective feedback consists of two types, focused and unfocused direct corrective feedback.
Sometimes, teacher cross out the error word on students’ writing, and also gives question mark on students’ writing, but teacher did not provide the correct form in there. If the
teacher did not provide the correct form, it will make students confused and not understand about the students’ mistakes.
Freedman in Farrokhi (2012: 50) believes that if students fail in well performance in writing, further feedback is necessary to help them take correct actions about their writing in order to improve it and reach an acceptable level of performance. Thus, the researcher do this research to know about the type that used by English teacher in correction and how the teacher applying direct corrective feedback at Senior High School 13 Padang.
Direct Corrective Feedback
Direct correction feedback is written responses which given by teacher with provide the correct answer in the near of students’ mistake on students’ writing.
Bitchener (2008: 105) explains direct corrective feedback may be defined as the provision of the correct linguistic form or structure by the teacher to the students above the linguistic error. It may include the crossing out of an unnecessary word/phrase/morpheme, the insertion of a missing word/phrase/morpheme, or the provision of the correct form or structure.
Furthermore, Ellis (2008: 98) also presents that direct corrective feedback where the teacher provides the student with the correct form. Thus, when teacher provide the correct form in the near or above the students’ error, it can help students to understand again about the mistake that have written by the students.
Types of Direct Corrective Feedback The students’ writing may be evaluated in academic setting where accuracy is an important matter, so students require and value feedback to their work. Direct corrective feedback can involve to focused direct feedback and unfocused direct feedback. It is supported by Farrokhi (2012:49), providing the two different types of direct corrective feedback (focused and unfocused) on the accurate use of grammatical forms. It means that focused and unfocused direct feedback will be needed to correct about the accurate use of grammatical forms, because some problems happened between students’ and teachers’
understanding in grammatical. In unfocused
3
direct corrective feedback providing the correct form for all linguistic errors by crossing out the errors and writing the correct forms above the errors. While focused direct corrective feedback involved crossing out only the target form and providing the correct form just for these errors.
According to Ferris (2012: 856), direct corrective feedback finding out focused feedback (that which targets only one or two linguistic forms or structures) and unfocused feedback (that which provides feedback on a comprehensive range or forms and structures). This theory explain that direct corrective feedback can involve to focused direct feedback and unfocused direct feedback. If students fail in well performance in writing, further feedback is necessary to help them take correct action about their writing in order to improve it and reach an acceptable level of performance.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The design of this research was descriptive research. The researcher used this research design because the researcher wanted to describe how English teacher’s applied direct corrective feedback on students’ writing. According to Gay and Airasian ( 2000: 275 ), descriptive research determines and describes the way things are.
It showed that a descriptive research investigated the things or issues by using some explanations or opinions or descriptions directly to the issues or problems that were studied. To do this research, the researcher needs the data to be analyzed. The researcher used document as source of data. Document that used by researcher in this research was students’
writing. The researcher collected the students’ writing at Senior High School 13 Padang. Students’ writings collected by researcher was students’ writing in descriptive text. To collect the data, the researcher as an instrument to be a tool to get the data. Thus, the researcher selected students’ writing which were suitable with the criteria to be analyzed, the criteria selected that students’ writing which were suitable with the generic structure of descriptive text. After that, the researcher analyzed the data with used data analysis from Gay and Airasian Airasian (2000: 239),
who claimed that the analysis of descriptive research data required into four steps. There were reading/ memoing, description, classifying, and interpreting.
RESEARCH FINDINGS
To get the answer of research question number one, the researcher read all of the data. The researcher got 32 students’ writing in descriptive text, five of all students’
writing were English teacher’s indirect corrective feedback, the researcher did not use the data. Then, the researcher classified the data based on the criteria to be selected, it was suitable with the generic structures of descriptive text, but six of students’ writing were not suitable with the generic structures of descriptive text. Thus, the researcher has 21 students’ writing that would be analyzed to know about types of direct corrective feedback that is used by English teacher to correct students’ writing. The researcher explained the result of the research with one of the data as following :
1. Based on data found that English teacher only used unfocused direct corrective feedback to correct students’
writing, because English teacher corrected all of the students’ mistakes in writing descriptive text with provided the correct answer in near or above students’ mistakes.
2. English teacher applied direct corrective feedback to correct students’
writing related to the theory. After researcher read all of the data on students’ writing, the researcher found that English teacher included crossing out the error word, insertion the missing word, provision the correct
My school is the best
My school is SMAN 13 Padang. My headmaster is Dra. Hj Rahmaniar, M.Kom. My School location I is was in tanjung aur, balai gadang, kecamatan koto tangah district, kota padang city.
My school has a teacher office, a toilet, canteens, a mosque, a library, laboratoriums. My school is green and it has many trees. My school hads a cool air and it is far away from the noisy. My school isconsist of 24 classes, class one 6 classes, clas two 9 classes, and class three 9 classes. My school is beautiful.
4
answer, and giving a checklist on students’ writing.
CONCLUSSION
The researcher concludes that English teacher at Senior High School 13 Padang used unfocused direct corrective feedback to correct students’ writing. Then, English teacher included crossing out the students’
mistake, provision the correct form, insertion the missing word, and giving checklist on students’ writing. The researcher suggests to the teacher to maintain this correction to help students in learning process, because direct corrective feedback can help students to understand about the students’ mistake in writing.
REFERENCES
Bitchener, John. (2008). Evidence in Support of Written Corrective Feedback.
Journal of Second Language Writing. Vol 17. Hal. 102-118.
Ellis, Rod. (2008). A Typology of Written Corrective Feedback Types. ELT Journal. Vol 63. Hal. 97-107
.
Farrokhi, Farahman. (2012). The Effect of Direct Written Corrective Feedback on Improvement of Grammatical Accuracy of High-proficient L2 Learners.World Journal of Education.2(II). Hal. 49-57.
Ferris, Dana. (2012). Written corrective Feedback for L2 development:
Current knowledgeand Future Research. Tesol Quarterly. Vol 46.
No 4. Hal. 855-860.
Gay, L.R & Airasian, Peter. (2000).
Educational Research : Competencies for Analysis and Application. New Jersey : Prentice- Hall, Inc.
John Hattie and Helen Timperley. (2007).
The power Of Feedback: Review of Educational Research. 77(I). Hal.
81-112.
