Main Article Content
Abstract
This study is intended to find out any difference in effectiveness between direct and indirect feedback on students’ writing ability. The design was Quasi-Experiment. The population consisted of the students of the X class of Senior
High School 4, Rejang Lebong, Curup, Indonesia. The samples comprised 32 students in group 1 and 32 Students in group 2. The instrument was a writing test. In the data analysis, the researcher used the normality, homogeneity,
and t-test.These were calculated and analyzed by using SPSS 20. The tests consisted of pre-test and post-test. In post-test, there was no significant difference between groups on all aspect. There were two results of this study.
Firstly, in the post test there was a difference of mean score between experiment group 1 and experiment group 2. In general ability, in group 1 increased by 15.59. Meanwhile, the group 2 increased by 2.60. This indicated that there was an effect of indirect feedback on students’ writing ability. From t-test calculation, t-count was 3.274 which t-table was 1.670. It showed that t obtained was bigger than t-table (3.274 > 1.670). H0 was rejected and H1 was accepted. In other words, the indirect feedback technique was effective on students’ wri ting ability. Based on the data analysis, the indirect feedback technique was positively effective in increasing on students’ writing ability, on general writing ability. There were also significant differences between both groups in the writing ability aspects such as organization, language use and vocabulary.
Article Details
Authors who publish in this journal agree with the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
- This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
- Adas, D & Ayda, B.(2013). Writing
- difficulties and new solution:blended learning as an approach to
- improve writing abilities. International Journal of Humanities and
- Social Science, 3(9), 255.
- Astuti, Puji A. (2013).The effectiveness of peer feedback to improve the writing ability of the tenth grade students of SMA
- Kanisius Harapan Tirtomoyo in the academic year of 2012/2013 (Skripsi).
- Pend. Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Yogyakarta. Indonesia.
- Ellis, R.(2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT
- Journal, 28(2), 97-107.
- Eslami, E.(2014). The effects of direct and indirect corrective feedback
- techniques on EFL students’ writing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98.445-452.
- Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How
- explicit does it need to be?. Journal of Second Language Writing. 10(3), 161184.
- Jamalinesari, A & friends.(2015). The effects teacher-written direct vs indirect feedback on students’ writing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192.116-123.
- Gay, L.R & Peter A. (2000). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application. (6thed).
- Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers
- ’written feedback practices in Hong
- Kong secondary classrooms. Journal
- of Second Language Writing, 17, 69-85.
- Sokolik, M. (2003). Writing. In D. Nunan
- (ed.), Practical English language
- teaching. New York, NY: McGraw
- Hill.
- Utami, U (2012).Improving students’ writing
- skill through teacher’s direct feedback in
- SMA n 1 Jogonalan.skripsi. Pend.
- Bahasa Inggris, Universitas
- Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
References
Adas, D & Ayda, B.(2013). Writing
difficulties and new solution:blended learning as an approach to
improve writing abilities. International Journal of Humanities and
Social Science, 3(9), 255.
Astuti, Puji A. (2013).The effectiveness of peer feedback to improve the writing ability of the tenth grade students of SMA
Kanisius Harapan Tirtomoyo in the academic year of 2012/2013 (Skripsi).
Pend. Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Yogyakarta. Indonesia.
Ellis, R.(2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT
Journal, 28(2), 97-107.
Eslami, E.(2014). The effects of direct and indirect corrective feedback
techniques on EFL students’ writing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98.445-452.
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How
explicit does it need to be?. Journal of Second Language Writing. 10(3), 161184.
Jamalinesari, A & friends.(2015). The effects teacher-written direct vs indirect feedback on students’ writing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192.116-123.
Gay, L.R & Peter A. (2000). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application. (6thed).
Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers
’written feedback practices in Hong
Kong secondary classrooms. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 17, 69-85.
Sokolik, M. (2003). Writing. In D. Nunan
(ed.), Practical English language
teaching. New York, NY: McGraw
Hill.
Utami, U (2012).Improving students’ writing
skill through teacher’s direct feedback in
SMA n 1 Jogonalan.skripsi. Pend.
Bahasa Inggris, Universitas
Yogyakarta, Indonesia.