Journal of Linguistics, Literacy, and Pedagogy
Available online at https://jurnal.untirta.ac.id/index.php/JLLP
E-ISSN: 2964-6790
Journal of Linguistics, Literacy, and Pedagogy, 2(1), 100-110; 2023
100 Enhancing Students’ Ability in Writing an Effective Paragraph through
Process Approach
Rita Handayania*
a Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa, Banten, Indonesia
Article Info
Article history
Submission Date: 17 February 2023 Acceptance Date: 21 April 2023
Keywords:
EFL Writing, Paragraph, Process Approach.
*Corresponding author:
rita_h@untirta.ac.id
Abstract
The effectiveness of the process method or feedback on students' writing achievement has been the subject of numerous research. In earlier research, feedback was mostly utilized to increase students' writing and grammar accuracy.
However, studies that concentrate on giving students comments to enhance their writing's content are scarce. This investigation seeks to close that gap. In this study, the process approach was applied, with feedback concentrated on the structure and substance of students' writing. At Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa University, 35 second- semester English study participants were chosen using a purposeful sampling method. Through the use of surveys, observations, and writing tests, data was acquired. A thorough evaluation rubric criterion and a writing results assessment provided by two raters were employed to ascertain the validity and reliability of the data. The findings of this study demonstrate a considerable improvement in students' ability to write good English paragraphs when process techniques and feedback are combined. The aspects of subject development, topic sentence writing, and idea structure have seen the most substantial advances. This implies that using a procedural approach in conjunction with feedback can help students become more proficient paragraph writers.
© 2023 JLLP and the Authors - Published by JLLP.
INTRODUCTION
Writing is one of the English language abilities that college students need to develop. Both in one's personal and professional lives, it is crucial. But unlike spoken communication, writing in English is a difficult skill to master
because, in order to produce a good piece of writing, one must be able to balance various writing elements like content, organization, purpose, audience, vocabulary, punctuation, and other mechanical devices and present them in accordance with the
101 accepted pattern of organization.
Because of this, mastering this ability demands a lot of practice, and producing a piece of writing takes time.
Additionally, the complexity of writing, the lack of time, the ignorance of the subject, the lack of practice, and the inadequate support and criticism from writing professors all contribute to the difficulties in acquiring this ability (Fareed, Ashraf & Bilal, 2016; Ibnian, 2017). As a result, many students who are learning to write in an EFL or ESL environment face comparable difficulties. They frequently write sentences that aren't connected to one another or writings that lack coherence (Rass, 2015; Ali Muhammed, 2015; Arianti & Fitriana, 2017). Furthermore, many language writing instructors still stress on the accuracy and correctness of grammar and mechanics, using a product- oriented approach to instruction.
Students rarely get feedback on the content of their writing, preventing them from editing, amending, and improving their work. As a result, many EFL or ESL students struggle to improve the caliber of their writing.
These circumstances have led the researchers to the conclusion that the current instruction is incorrect. A more effective teaching method should be pursued after looking into factors influencing the lesson's success, such as the teacher's teaching style and technique. As a result, an efficient method is needed to address the problems and enhance the students' writing talents. Not everyone is naturally gifted with the ability to write.
Writing is a task that needs to be done carefully and thoughtfully in order to effectively communicate with a
reader. These claims imply that writing is a challenging skill that necessitates extensive practice.
In Indonesian schools, English is taught as a foreign language. The investigator found that many students struggle to convey their ideas, beliefs, and feelings in writing even though the skill is taught and practiced at the secondary and tertiary levels. Due to their inability to recognize the main idea of each paragraph, many teachers in Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa's English study program were disappointed with their students' research proposals. The majority of sentences in each paragraph offered a diversity of themes. The researcher discovered that the majority of students' assessments on writing paragraphs lacked coherence and continuity. We know that how pupils are taught affects whether they write well or poorly, so teachers should experiment with various teaching methods. The main goal of this study is to determine whether providing content feedback to students using a process approach can help them become better paragraph writers. The study's specific goals were to assist students in creating strong paragraphs and to raise the standard of their writing.
Process Approach in Teaching Writing The written output has historically been the focus of writing. This tactic encourages students to mimic a sample text and see writing as a finished good. Since teaching writing is similar to grammar exercises, where students are under pressure to produce a perfect end product, this upsets English teachers and researchers. This dissatisfaction led academics and English teachers to
102 hunt for strategies to improve students'
writing by assisting them as they create quality written work. As a result, the process technique was created.
A series of actions used to accomplish a specific objective is referred to as a process. The process approach, which aids learners of all levels in exploring and discovering their viewpoints, is given additional attention in the stages. Students engage in a variety of activities, including idea generation, story completion, description, narration, paragraph writing, editing, and proofreading. Priority is given to the message and content, then to the form. The planning, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing processes for this technique must allow students to write freely while yet producing high- quality products.
The process approach places a strong emphasis on writing assignments that take students step-by-step through every stage of the writing process, from concept formulation through information gathering to final publishing (Tribble, C. 1996). This approach is helpful for teaching writing because it emphasizes how students may strengthen their planning, problem-solving, and problem-identification skills (Hyland, 2003). Students learn writing through a variety of processes to improve and revise their work rather of relying on a single draft (Celce-Murcia, 2001).
Students are instead given adequate time to research a subject by writing, reading it again, thinking about it, and redrafting fresh ideas (Raimes, 1983).
Trying to approach meaning, writers uncover and reformulate their ideas through a non-linear, exploratory, and generative process (Kroll, 1990). This technique is used to teach students
how to write well-structured, appropriately formed paragraphs and essays.
Numerous studies have proven the effectiveness of the process approach.
Along with encouraging students to write more descriptive paragraphs (Nabhan, 2017), this approach also supports pre-service teachers in overcoming their writing phobias (Arici
& Kaldirim, 2015), positively influences EFL students' perceptions of their writing skills (Mehr, 2017), and significantly raises student writing performance in a crammed EFL writing class (Dokchandra, 2018). Additionally, a comparison study indicated that the process method was superior to both the conventional approach and the genre-based approach in terms of improving students' writing talents (Hashemnezhad & Hashemnezhad, 2012)
The Importance of Feedback in Writing Any information obtained about the learner's task performance with the intention of enhancing it is referred to as feedback (Ur, 1991). The finest feedback is provided at the process level since it instructs students on how to find and manage their strategy for putting up their best effort in a task or scenario, leading to more effort and confidence on their part (Hattie &
Timperley, 2007). To be more effective, teachers should incorporate discussions, questions, and answers to their written feedback. They should also include praise and encouragement in their written remarks because positive feedback can inspire students to develop their writing skills (Srichanyachon, 2012). The discussion session will also give the teacher and students in the audience the chance to agree on the meaning
103 for a successful revision in the next
draft (Conrad & Goldstein, 1999).
Both students and teachers agree that feedback is crucial to the learning process because it can help students revise and improve the quality of their work (Tom, Morni, Metom, & Joe, 2013). Students said that their teacher was the main source of criticism that helped them improve as writers (Singh, Bijami, and Pandian, 2016). In order to assist them improve their writing (Listiani, 2017), the majority of students wanted their teachers to take into account all parts of written texts while offering written criticism (Omer, Mahfoodh, & Pandian, 2011).
Feedback is therefore unquestionably a crucial element of every formal language learning situation that significantly affects students' learning outcomes.
There have been many breakthroughs in the substantial research on feedback efficacy. Ferris (2002) asserts that pupils at the initial level of proficiency who lack the language expertise to self-correct benefit from direct correction. Direct corrective criticism can help students become more aware of their linguistic faults and enhance their work because of its clarity (Adisca & Mardijono, 2013).
Additionally, giving kids specific, constructive criticism has a bigger influence on the grammatical accuracy of their writing. (Zareil &
Rahnama, 2013; Farjadnasab &
Khodashenas, 2017). Direct feedback appears to increase pupils' writing correctness, according to some research, but not according to others.
Indirect feedback strategies that concentrate on local errors (Jamalinesari, Rahimi, Gowhary, &
Azizifar, 2015), simple past tense errors correction (Eslami, 2014), and vocabulary and spelling errors (Goksoy& Nazli, 2016) have a significant impact on students' writing accuracy, according to Hosseiny's (2014) research.
Numerous research have
demonstrated that the process approach or comments help pupils write better. To increase students' writing and grammatical accuracy, several earlier research used these strategies individually and mostly relied on feedback. Furthermore, there hasn't been much research done on how the process method and feedback might be used together to help kids who have trouble writing. As a result, this research integrated feedback with a process approach to writing teaching, placing a focus on the structure and content of students' writing. It is suggested that employing a procedural approach and giving pupils teacher comments on their written work will help kids with their writing issues (Gashout, 2014). This study's objective was to determine how a process approach and feedback impacted students' paragraph writing abilities. The study's specific objectives were to help students write better, more effective paragraphs and to raise the standard of their writing.
METHOD
The study was carried out at Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa University in Serang Banten. In this instance, English is studied in an EFL environment. 35 students from the second semester who were enrolled in the "Paragraph
104 Based Writing" subject—30 females
and 5 males—were included in this study. Purposive sampling, a method, was used to choose them. The study's methodology was action research (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007).
Data Collection Tools
To evaluate the effectiveness of the process method and feedback in assisting the teaching of writing, the researcher created a pre-test to gauge students' proficiency at the start of the course and a post-test to show any appreciable improvement following the treatment, at the end of each cycle. The students' assessments for writing paragraphs were graded using an analytical writing rubric that was created from Jacobs et al. (1981) as cited in (Weigle, 1997). The following fields of evaluation were combined to produce this rubric: subject sentence writing, topic development/supports, ideas organization, language use, and mechanics (Brown, 2003). Two inter- raters assessed the writing test outcomes of the students in terms of data validity. Students were required to write a complete paragraph on a particular topic after each theatment cycle. The post-nature test's was then compared to that of the pre-test.
Procedure of the Study
Purposive sampling was used to choose study participants for this investigation. Data about the pupils was acquired through testing, observation, and interviews. Students participated in a preliminary study that comprised observation, small-group interviews, and a test on paragraph writing in order to gather baseline data. Following the gathering of
baseline data, four sessions per cycle of treatments were carried out utilizing a process approach and feedback. A post-test was then given to see if the intervention had improved the students' performance compared to their classmates.
RESULT
The researchers calculated the variations in students' accomplishment scores between the pre-test and post- test in order to examine the efficacy of applying a process approach and feedback in teaching paragraph writing in English as a foreign language in higher education. The data acquired during the action research's preliminary phase shows that the issue requires rapid response. The observational and interview data show that students were ignorant of the low quality of their writing because of the traditional approach used and feedback that was restricted to the accuracy of the students' work and erroneous grammatical usage.
Table 1. The students’ paragraph average score of the pre-test
The aforementioned data show that students performed on average at a 56.79 level. It suggests that the students' proficiency with paragraph composition was lacking. Therefore, a plan of action must be developed to make the situation better.
105 Proposed Action
By concentrating primarily on the substance and caliber of their paragraphs, the following recommendations have been made to help pupils write paragraphs more effectively.
1. Enhance pupils' comprehension of the idea of a paragraph and its elements.
2. Encourage pupils to finish the process writing at each stage.
3. Promote group projects and conversation while the writing is being done.
4. Encourage your students to read their classmates' paragraphs critically.
5. Encourage pupils to review and revise their work thoroughly.
6. Give pupils feedback so they can better comprehend their own writing.
Action Implementation
Two raters carefully evaluated each student's performance on the preliminary test. The following steps were taken to enhance the content and quality of the students' paragraph writing as a result of realizing how difficult it was for them to write an effective paragraph. As a result, the teacher gave three months of instruction to the class on how to carry out the suggested tasks. The students were divided into solitary, small group, and pair groups for the teaching and learning activities. Additionally, the students were fully informed of the objectives of each stage of the writing process. Before starting the writing process, students were taught the idea and components of a strong
paragraph. They were also exposed to and asked to examine example paragraphs with strong and weak construction. Before choosing a theme and creating an outline or planning their own paragraph independently, they were encouraged to collaborate in small groups to discuss a variety of ideas relating to one of the provided topics. The areas that students should pay particular attention to, especially those that relate to topic support or idea growth, were made clear to them. After finishing the planning and drafting procedures (1st draft) using the guidelines provided by the teacher, students' work was evaluated by their peers in small groups or pairs.
The students revised their work (2nd draft) in response to the review's findings and handed it in to the teacher. After the teacher gave written input and held a one-on-one written conference with the students (3rd draft), the text was updated one more for the final product. Four 100- minute meetings were held to cover each cycle, with each meeting concentrating on a distinct set of themes. The pupils took a post-test to gauge their improvement after the treatment was over. The tables below show the outcomes of the intervention test:
14.09 20.09
13.9 16.96
3.8 14.48 22.87 15.93 19.57
4.13 17.3 25.06 17.54 20.71
4.47
Nilai
Gambar 4.27 Nilai Rerata Aspek-Aspek Penilaian Paragraf
Siklus 1 Siklus 2 Siklus 3
106 According to the above tables,
the average performance of the students is 56.79. It implies that the students' ability to write an effective paragraph was deficient.
As a result, a course of action must be devised to improve the situation.
DISCUSSION
Evaluation of Action/Outcome
The mean performance of the students' test after the intervention somewhat improved when compared to the mean score on the pre-test. In cycles 1, 2, and 3, respectively, the average pre-cycle test score was 56.80, 68.84, and 85.65 points. Each weak area of the paragraph under review underwent treatment and gradually became stronger. Most students who had trouble composing their topic sentence and developing or supporting the primary concept with pertinent information or supports, resulting in paragraphs lacking unity, cohesion, and coherence, steadily improved their writing quality after receiving the treatment. Their understanding of the idea and the format of a strong paragraph expands.
The pupils' challenges were overcome at each stage of the writing process.
During the planning stage, small-group brainstorming and mapping exercises were used to help students who were having trouble coming up with ideas for the selected topic. During the reviewing process, students learned how to be critical readers by examining and spotting errors in their classmates' work as well as by debating and exchanging their suggestions on how to make it better.
These exercises promoted a sense of
classroom community while also boosting students' perspectives, confidence, and critical thinking (Ferris, 2003). However, occasionally students' knowledge gaps prohibit them from offering useful criticism, thus instructor feedback is necessary to explain this omission. This process is essential because it enables students to discover the advantages and disadvantages of their paragraphs and how to fix them (Silver & Lee, 2007). Studies on ESL writing have also shown that teachers' criticism is valued as a tool for helping students revise and foster the process of learning to write. (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, Hyland, 2003, Hyland & Hyland, 2006).
When they received feedback from the teacher, several students had trouble deciphering the intended meaning of the comments that were put on their papers. Similar to the kids, the teacher occasionally found it difficult to understand the relevance of their writing. They might both become perplexed by this. To resolve this, the teacher mediates between the pupils in a one-on-one meeting. Therefore, the teacher shared the most frequent criticism noted on the students' drafts with the entire class before discussing specific criticism with each student individually. This was done before writing the rewrite. Through these exercises, students can negotiate the teacher's criticism while also arguing for their own points of view, which will help them better grasp how to put the criticism into practice when they write the rewrite (L. M. Goldstein, 2004). The students produced the modification and turned in the draft as their finished output after reading and comprehending all of the written criticism.
Students can overcome their challenges in learning to write by using
107 an effective teaching method that
combines a process approach with feedback. According to the observations, students' understanding of how to write and arrange their ideas is advancing. Due to the extensive learning activities carried out throughout the prewriting stage/planning process, students' challenges in developing the topic sentence and developing the focus of their paragraph are diminished.
Additionally, the small group activity used at this point can assist students in finding additional ideas related to the subject at hand as well as finding the right evidence and details to support the focus they have chosen for their paragraph.
During the reviewing phase, students were led through a peer review session where they may assist one another by giving feedback and exchanging ideas on how to enhance the paragraph. According to Keh (2015), peer review can assist students in improving their writing skills by encouraging them to read other people's work critically. The ability developed via this exercise is transmitted while writing and revising the student's own work, in addition to enhancing their awareness of audience at their current stage of development (Lundstrom & Baker, 2009). As a result of this activity, kids' writing abilities improve over time (Rollinson, 2005, Min, 2005).
Furthermore, the written conference, which was conducted in-person after the students received written feedback from the teacher, gives them the chance to elaborate on and defend their points of view (Gilliland, 2014). Additionally, during this session, the teacher and the student negotiate the intended meaning of the writing,
which gives the student a clearer direction for revision. Successful negation during this activity results in effective revision in the students' subsequent draft (L. Goldstein, 2017).
Also, while adhering to their instructional objectives, the interactional activities during the feedback session promote a positive relationship between the teacher and the students (Shvidko, 2018). Students also gain more knowledge and understanding of how to enhance their writing abilities thanks to this practice.
The analysis of the pupils' final draft paragraphs showed that they were well-developed. All children can effectively organize their thoughts, construct various types of sentences, utilize appropriate connectors and punctuation, and increase the focus of their paragraphs with appropriate facts and supports. As a result, it is reasonable to conclude that using a process approach and giving students feedback effectively boosted their learning and improved their comprehension and performance in writing a strong paragraph.
RECOMMENDATION
According to the findings of this study, combining a process approach with feedback is a successful way for improving EFL writing abilities. Students can improve their knowledge and writing skills with proper coaching and an effective method. Writing is a difficult skill to teach and master, thus EFL teachers should seek feedback from their students before implementing a new teaching technique. Writing teachers are encouraged to develop rules for the components of writing that students
108 must fulfill in order to check their writing
and produce a good piece of writing.
It is also suggested that the instructor arrange a personal discussion to clear up any residual misunderstandings.
Finally, more research should be done to go deeper into the elements of provided comments that motivate students to make the necessary adjustments.
REFERENCES
Adisca, F. A., & Mardijono. (2013).
Written Corrective Feedback and Its Effects on English Department Students’ Writing Drafts.
Arici, A. F., & Kaldirim, A. (2015). The effect of the process-based writing approach on writing success and anxiety of pre- service teachers. Anthropologist.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.
2015.11891883
Bijami, M., Pandian, A., & Singh, M.
(2016). The Relationship between Teacher’s Written Feedback and Student’s’ Writing Performance:
Sociocultural Perspective.
International Journal of Education
& Literacy Studies, 4(1).
https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v .4n.1p.59
Brown, H. D. (2003). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. In -.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781 107415324.004
Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Retrieved from
https://openlibrary.org/publishers /Heinle_&_Heinle_Publishers
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K.
(2007). Research methods in education. In Professional Development in Education (Vol.
38).
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.
2011.643130
Conrad, S. M., & Goldstein, L. M.
(1999). ESL student revision after teacher-written comments: Text, contexts, and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 147–179.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060- 3743(99)80126-X
Dokchandra, D. (2018). The Effects of Process Writing Approach on Performance of an Overcrowded EFL Writing Class at a University in Thailand. 2018, 191–206.
https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v3i4.1 931
Eslami, E. (2014). The Effects of Direct and Indirect Corrective
Feedback Techniques on EFL Students’ Writing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.20 14.03.438
Farjadnasab, A., & Khodashenas, M.
(2017). The Effect of Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Students’ Writing Accuracy.
https://doi.org/10.18869/acadpu b.ijree.2.2.30
Ferris, D. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Implication for
SecondlLanguage Students. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Gashout, M. A. S. (2014). Incorporating the facilitative feedback
strategies together with the process approach to improve
109 students’ writing. International
Journal of Education and Research, 2(10). Retrieved from www.ijern.com
Gilliland, B. (2014). Academic
Language Socialization in High School Writing Conferences. 303–
330.
https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.1753 Goksoy& Nazli. (2016). The Effect Of
Direct And Indirect Written Corrective Feedback On Students’ Writing.
Goldstein, L. (2017). Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing: Contextual, teacher, and student variables.
Goldstein, L. M. (2004). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: Teachers and students working together. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 63–80.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.
04.006
Adisca, F. A., & Mardijono. (2013).
Written Corrective Feedback and Its Effects on English Department Students’ Writing Drafts.
Arici, A. F., & Kaldirim, A. (2015). The effect of the process-based writing approach on writing success and anxiety of pre- service teachers. Anthropologist.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.
2015.11891883
Bijami, M., Pandian, A., & Singh, M.
(2016). The Relationship between Teacher’s Written Feedback and Student’s’ Writing Performance:
Sociocultural Perspective.
International Journal of Education
& Literacy Studies, 4(1).
https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v .4n.1p.59
Brown, H. D. (2003). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. In -.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781 107415324.004
Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Retrieved from
https://openlibrary.org/publishers /Heinle_&_Heinle_Publishers Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K.
(2007). Research methods in education. In Professional Development in Education (Vol.
38).
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.
2011.643130
Conrad, S. M., & Goldstein, L. M.
(1999). ESL student revision after teacher-written comments: Text, contexts, and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 147–179.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060- 3743(99)80126-X
Dokchandra, D. (2018). The Effects of Process Writing Approach on Performance of an Overcrowded EFL Writing Class at a University in Thailand. 2018, 191–206.
https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v3i4.1 931
Eslami, E. (2014). The Effects of Direct and Indirect Corrective
Feedback Techniques on EFL Students’ Writing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.20 14.03.438
110 Farjadnasab, A., & Khodashenas, M.
(2017). The Effect of Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Students’ Writing Accuracy.
https://doi.org/10.18869/acadpu b.ijree.2.2.30
Ferris, D. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Implication for
SecondlLanguage Students. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Gashout, M. A. S. (2014). Incorporating the facilitative feedback
strategies together with the process approach to improve students’ writing. International Journal of Education and Research, 2(10). Retrieved from www.ijern.com
Gilliland, B. (2014). Academic
Language Socialization in High School Writing Conferences. 303–
330.
https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.1753 Goksoy& Nazli. (2016). The Effect Of
Direct And Indirect Written Corrective Feedback On Students’ Writing.
Goldstein, L. (2017). Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing: Contextual, teacher, and student variables.
Goldstein, L. M. (2004). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: Teachers and students working together. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 63–80.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.
04.006
Hashemnezhad, H., & Hashemnezhad, N. (2012). A Comparative Study
of Product, Process, and Post- process Approaches in Iranian EFL Students’ Writing Skill. Journal of Language Teaching and Research.
https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.3.4.722- 729
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. 33.
https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430 298487
Hosseiny, M. (2014). The Role of Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback in Improving Iranian EFL Students’ Writing Skill.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.20 14.03.466
Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. In Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781 107415324.004
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006).
Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S02614448 06003399
Jamalinesari, A., Rahimi, F., Gowhary, H., & Azizifar, A. (2015). The Effects of Teacher-Written Direct vs . Indirect Feedback on Students ’ Writing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 116–
123.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.20 15.06.018
Keh, C. L. (2015). Feedback in the Writing Process: a model and method for implementation.
(April).
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/44.4.294
111 Kroll, B. (1990). Second Language
Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom (p. 246). p. 246.
Cambridge University Press.
Listiani. (2017). Students’ Perception toward Teacher’s Written
Corrective Feedback in Writing 3 class. Advanced in Social
Science, Education, and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), 109, 164–167.
Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive : The benefits of peer review to the reviewer ’ s own writing. 18, 30–
43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.
06.002
Mehr, H. S. (2017). The Impact of Product and Process Approach on Iranian EFL Learners ’ Writing Ability and Their Attitudes toward Writing Skill. 7(2), 158–166.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v7n2p 158
Min, H. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. 33, 293–308.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2 004.11.003
Nabhan, S. (2017). The Process
Approach To Improve Students’
Writing Ability In The Process Approach To Improve Students’
Writing Ability In English Education Department University Of PGRI ADI BUANA SURABAYA. (June 2016), 0–15.
Omer, M., Mahfoodh, H. A., & Pandian, A. (2011). A Qualitative Case Study of EFL Students’ Affective Reactions to and Perceptions of Their Teachers’ Written Feedback.
4(3).
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n3p1 4
Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in Teaching Writing. Oxford University Press.
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer
feedback in the ESL writing class.
59(January), 23–30.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci003 Shvidko, E. (2018). Writing conference
feedback as moment-to-moment af fi liative relationship building.
Journal of Pragmatics, 127, 20–35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.
2018.01.004
Silver, R., & Lee, S. (2007). What does it take to make a change? Teacher feedback and student revisions RITA SILVER. 6(1), 25–49.
Srichanyachon, N. (2012). Teacher written feedback for L2 learners’
writing development. Silpakorn University Journal of Social Sciences, Humanities, and Arts, 12(1), 7–17. Retrieved from www.journal.su.ac.th
Tom, A. A., Morni, A., Metom, L., & Joe, S. (2013). Students’ Perception and Preferences of Written Feedback in Academic Writing.
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences.
https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2013.
v4n11p72
Ur, P. (1991). A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Weigle, S. C. (1997). Assessing writing (Vol. 4).
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1075- 2935(97)80014-1
112 Zareil, A. A., & Rahnama, M. (2013). The
Effect of Written Corrective Feedback Modes on EFL Learners’ Grammatical and Lexical Writing Accuracy: from
Perceptions to Facts.
International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL), 1(3), 1–14. Retrieved from www.arcjournals.org
