1
A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN DIRECT AND INDIRECT OF TEACHER’S WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON STUDENT’S WRITING PROGRESS (A study at the eight grade students of SMP N 9 Pariaman in the academic year 2014/2015)
Oleh:
Maya Anjelina *)
**) Mayuasti dan **) Handayani Staff Pengajar Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris STKIP PGRI Sumatera Barat
ABSTRAK
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk melihat perkembangan menulis siswa dengan membandingkan penerapan koreksi tertulis guru yang secara langsung maupun tidak langsung. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode causal comparative yang terdiri dari dua kelompok, yaitu kelompok eksperimen dan kelompok kontrol. Pada kelas eksperimen diberikan treatment oleh peneliti dengan menerapkan Direct Written Corrective Feedback dan untuk kelas kontrol, guru bahasa Inggris kelas delapan menerapkan Indirect Written Corrective Feedback. Populasi dari penelitian ini adalah siswa kelas VIII SMP N 9 Pariaman tahun ajaran 2014/2015 khususnya kelas VIII.1 yang sudah ditentukan nilai normalitasnya. Sample dari kelas ini berjumlah 30 orang yang mana dibagi menjadi dua kelompok yaitu 15 orang pada kelompok eksperimen dan 15 orang lagi pada kelompok kontrol. Instrument pada penelitian ini adalah kumpulan dari latihan menulis siswa yang didokumentasikan. Instrument ini didapatkan dari hasil menulis siswa yang dilakukan selama 3 kali treatment dengan materi yang berbeda (announcement, inivitation,dan short message) tetapi memiliki genre teks yang sama yaitu Functional Text. Setelah dilakukan 3 kali treatment, maka terlihat hasilnya bahwa dalam menerapkan Written Corrective Feedback baik Direct maupun Indirect didapatkan hasil bahwa kedua dari strategi tersebut sama-sama memberikan efek positif terhadap perkembangan menulis siswa. Dengan kata lain bahwa tidak ada perbedaan yang signifikan antara kedua strategi tersebut. Hal ini dibuktikan dengan hasil akhir dari Fhitung (1.54) yang mana lebih rendah dari Ftabel (2.46).
Keywords: Written corrective Feedback, Direct and Indirect written corrective feedback, writing progress
*) Penulis
**) Pembimbing
2 INTRODUCTION
A corrective feedback is an important thing that is needed by students in English class, especially in writing subject. By giving a corrective feedback, the students not only know about their ability but also can repair their errors by feedback that given by the teachers. Basically, the corrective feedback is divided into two types; they are written and oral corrective feedback. It is explained by Hinkel (2011:593), a corrective feedback is the feedback that learners receive on the linguistic errors that they make in their oral or written production in a second language. It clearly proves that the students need a corrective feedback from the teacher in order to make them understand easily what and where their errors are.
Based on the information that researcher gotten after doing the informal interview at SMP N 9 Pariaman, the researcher found some problems in writing class related with the teachers’ written corrective feedback. The information is gotten by some students and teachers there. The problems are;
first, for English teachers who checked the students’
writing exercise that only gave a code on the students’ errors without giving the correct answer, it made the students become confused because they could not repair their errors by their own selves.
Second, for English teachers who more interested to give the correct answer when they checked the students’ error on their writing exercises, it could appear the laziness for the students because they have got the answer about their errors, so that they would not to study their mistakes anymore. Thus, based on these phenomenon, the teachers should know how to give the appropriate feedback for the students in order to make the students become more interested to do their writing exercises and they can improve their ability in writing through the feedback that given by teacher.
Definition of Written Corrective Feedback
Andrade and Norman (2013:5) define that written corrective feedback is where a teacher, tutor, or peer makes suggestion on the learner’s manuscript has been the most common form of feedback. It indirectly explains that, the correctors should give feedback on students writing depend on where is the students make their errors. The errors that they produce in writing are variety like grammar,
vocabulary, punctuation and etc. On the other hand, the teacher should able to solve it.
In addition, Mirzaii and Aliabadi (2013:193) state that written corrective feedback aims at providing information as to the correctness or incorrectness of what is written versus well- established language conventions. It describes that in doing written corrective feedback, the teacher gives information on student’s error include correct or incorrect form which is produced by student’s in their writing performance appropriate by language conventions.
Thus, the researcher concludes that written corrective feedback is an activity which is done by the teacher in checking students’ errors on their writing performance. It is very useful for the students to make them understand about their mistakes in writing. It indirectly can also increase students’
progress in writing because in doing written corrective feedback, many aspects that can be repaired by the teacher, such as correct the student’s errors on their grammar, vocabulary, punctuation, tenses and many others that is made by student’s in their writing production.
Direct Written Corrective Feedback
Bitchener (2012:65) defines that direct written corrective feedback provides some form of explicit correction of linguistic form or structure above or near the linguistic error and usually involves the crossing out of an unnecessary word, phrase, morpheme, the insertion of amassing word, phrase, morpheme, and the provision of the correct form or structure. It shows that, there are many aspects that can be corrected when doing direct corrective feedback. It starts from the simple form, like word or phrase until the specific form, like a linguistic error.
In addition, Birch (2014:70) adds that written corrective feedback is the instructor identifies the error and supplies the correction. It describe that, firstly the teacher identify the student’s error on their writing production. Next, the teacher supplies the correct form where is the student made the error. It purposes to help students can easily in repairing their mistakes.
In short, the researcher concludes that direct written corrective feedback is the implementation of teacher’s correction on student’s writing production by giving the correct form when students made the
3 error. The error that they produced included in grammatical mistakes and linguistic forms; such as the mistakes in choosing of words, using the tenses, arrange the structure of sentence, unnecessary morphemes, and etc. The correction that given by the teacher depend on the errors that produced by students in their writing performance.
Indirect Written Corrective Feedback
Lietz (2009:84) defines that indirect written corrective feedback is the teacher gives a clue (e.g.
using marking codes or underlining the mistake) to the students to show the whereabouts of grammatical, mechanical mistake or the type of grammatical or mechanical mistake by underlining, circling, crossing or using marking codes. It means that, there are many clues that can be used by the teacher in doing indirect written corrective feedback. Although the teacher does not give the correct answer, but the clues that used by the teacher is enough to make student’s understand that they have produced some mistakes on their writing.
Next, Ferris (2013:32) explains that the indirect written corrective feedback happens when the teacher indicates that an error has been made but leaves it to the student writer to solve the problem and correct the error. In addition, Birch (2014:70) says that indirect written corrective feedback is the instructor identifies that an error has occurred but does not supply the correct form. It is a simple explanation but clearly describe that in doing indirect corrective feedback, the teacher only identify the student’s error without giving the correct answer.
Thus, the researcher concludes that indirect written corrective feedback is one of the teacher’s activity in doing correction on student’s writing production which describes that the teacher only gives some codes on student’s error, such as using crossing, underlining, circling and etc. It is done by the teacher without gives the correct form. Indirectly, the students asked to solve their error by their own selves, and it also asks the students to be critical thinking in repairing their errors.
RESEARCH METHOD
The research used causal comparative research that compared independent variable and dependent variable. Salkind (2010:124) states that a causal comparative research design is a research
design that seeks to find relationships between independent and dependent variables after an action or event has already occurred.
In this research, the researcher had been chosen the eighth grade students of junior high school 9 Pariaman in the academic year 2014/2015 as the population. Gay and Airasian (2000:122) define that population as the group of interest to the researcher, the group to which researcher would like the results of the study to be generalizable. There were four classes of the eighth grade at junior high school 9 Pariaman in the academic year 2014/2015.
They were VIII.1, VIII.2, VIII.3, and VIII4.
For sample, The researcher chosen cluster sampling because it was efficient and also clusters were most likely to be used in school research.
According to Gay and Airasian (2000:141), cluster sampling is sampling in which groups, not individuals, are randomly selected. In this research, there were some steps for taking the sample. Firstly, the researcher take the scores The researcher find the normality by using Liliefors test. As the result, the researcher finds two of the classes were normal which were VIII1 (Lo= 0,088 < Lt= 0,150) and VIII3 ( Lo= 0,0294 < Lt= 0,150). Then, the researcher take one of the classes to be experimental and control group. The researcher choosen the VIII1. The total of the VIII1 were 30 students. Thus, the researcher divided them became 15 of students was experimental group and 15 of students was control group.
The instrument of this research is the collecting of student’s writing exercise that collected into a document form. It was gotten by student’s writing production every writing class until three meetings. After collecting the student’s writing exercise, the researcher divided them into two groups based on the experimental and control group. The student’s writing exercise will be corrected by using scoring rubric by Kern (2005). For experimental group, researcher as a corrector corrected student’s writing exercise by using direct written corrective feedback, meanwhile for control group, teacher as a corrector corrected student’s writing exercise by using indirect written corrective feedback. Finally, the researcher collected all of the scores both of the experimental and control group into student’s writing document form.
4 The researcher analyzed the data of this research from student’s score. After getting the score of student’s writing, the researcher compared the score both of experimental and control group to determine the effectiveness of the treatment. To determine the means score of experimental and control class the researcher used the formula by Gay and Airasian (2000:485) as follow:
1= and 2=
Furthermore, to know the effect of the treatment, the researcher compared both mean scores of experimental and control group by using the variant and F-distribution formula that is described by Supranto (2009:167) as follow:
Ʃ (
Ʃ (
Fo=
Fɑ(v1,v2)=Fɑ (n1-1) (n2-1)
In this case, there were three hypotheses related with the research which is described as follow:
H0: Direct Written Corrective Feedback was as similar as Indirect Written Corrective Feedback on student’s writing progress, if the value of Fcalculaed (Fo) of the test which used both of Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback was lower than the value of Ftable (Fɑ).
H1: Direct Written Corrective Feedback was better than Indirect Written Corrective Feedback on student’s writing progress, if the value of Fcalculated
(Fo) of the test which used Direct Written Corrective Feedback was higher than value of Ftable (Fɑ) while the value of Fcalculated (Fo) of the test which used Indirect Written Corrective Feedback was lower than the value of Ftable (Fɑ).
H2: Indirect Written Corrective Feedback was better than Direct Written Corrective Feedback on student’s writing progress, if the value of Fcalculated
(Fo) of the test which used Indirect Written Corrective Feedback was higher than the value of Ftable (Fɑ) while the value of Fcalculated (Fo) of the test which used Direct Written Corrective Feedback was lower than value of Ftable (Fɑ).
RESEARCH FINDINGS
In this research, the researcher found out the value of Fcalculated (F0) was 1.54 than the value of Ftable (Fα) was 2.46. It means that, the value of Ftable (Fα) was higher than Fcalculated (F0). Because of Fcalculated (F0) which used both of direct and indirect written corrective feedback is lower than the value of Ftable (Fα), automatically H0 in this research was accepted.
From the analyzed data and hypothesis testing above, the researcher found some findings, they were:
1. There was the positive effect in implementing direct written corrective feedback on student’s writing progress. It was proven by the student’s score in writing that generally increased from the first until third meeting.
2. There was the positive effect in implementing indirect written corrective feedback on student’s writing progres. It was also proven by student’s score in writing that generally increased from the first until third meeting.
3. There was no the diference siginificance both of direct and indirect written corrective feedback because both of them were as similar as gave the positive effect on student’s writing progress at eight grade students SMP N 9 Pariaman Academic Year 2014/2015. It was proven by the value of Fcalculated (F0) (1.54 )was lower than the value of Ftable (Fα) (2.46). It means that H0 was accpeted meanwhile H1 and H2 is rejected.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
Conclusion
In this part, the researcher would discuss the conclusion of this research. The researcher did research toward VIII grade students of junior high school 9 Pariaman, especially VIII1 class. In this research, the researcher compared both of direct and indirect written corrective feedback to find out which both of them was better on student’s writing progress at the VIII grade students of junior high school 9 Pariaman in the academic year 2014/2015. After applying both of them, the researcher found that Direct Written Corrective Feedback was as similar as Indirect Written Corrective Feedback on student’s writing progress at VIII grade students of Junior High School 9 Pariaman Academis Year 2014/2015. It was proven by the result of Fcalculated (F0) both of Direct
5 written corrective feedback and Indirect written corrective feedback (1.54) was lower than the result of Ftable (Fα) (2.46). It means that H0 was accepted meanwhile H1 dan H2 were rejected.
Suggestion
The researcher gave suggestions for the readers especially for English teachers who want to practice Direct and Indirect written corrective feedback on student’s writing production that both of direct and indirect written corrective as similar as give effect on student’s writing progress. On the other hand, at this condition the English teacher should be able to apply both of them effectively in order to make student’s more understand about their mistakes and they can solve their problem in writing easily. Also, the student’s can improve their progres in writing by written corrective feedback that given by the teacher. All of those are expected to give the good contribution for English subject especially to writing skill.
REFERENCES
Andrade, Maureen Snow and Norman, Evans W.
2013. Principles and Practices for Response in Second Language Writing. New York:
Routledge.
Birch, Barbara M. 2014. English Grammar Pedagogy: A Global Perspective. New York: Routledge.
Bithchener, John and Ferris, Dana. 2012. Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition and Writing. New York:
Routledge.
Ferris, Dana R. 2011. Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing. United States of America: The University of Michigan.
Gay, L. R and Airasian Peter. 2000. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application Six Edition. New Jersey:
Prentice- Hall, Inc.
Hinkel, Eli. 2011. Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning: Volume 11. New York:Routledge.
Lietz, Irene Murphy. 2009. Global Practice or Language Teaching. Eisenhower Parkway:
ProQuest LLC.
Mirzaii, Moestafa and Aliabadi, Reza B. 2013. Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback in The context of Genre-Based instruction on Job Application Letter Writing. Journal of Writing Research, 5 (2), 191-213.
Salkind, Neil J. 2010. Encyclopedia of Research Design: Volume 3. California: SAGE Publications, Inc
Supranto, J. 2009. Statistik: Teori dan Aplikasi.
Jakarta: Erlangga.
