Scanned with CamScanner

PROCEEDING

Strengthening the Capacity of Research and Practices on English

Linguistics, Literature and Education

The 4th ELITE 2016

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

AUDITORIUM HARUN NASUTION, OCTOBER 18-19, 2016

Copyright © 2016 | The 4th ELITE International Conference Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education | Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta

The 4th ELITE 2016 International Conference

Faculty of Educational Sciences Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta

“Strengthening the Capacity of Research and Practices on English Linguistics, Literature and Education”

Copyright © 2016

ISBN: 978-602-6804-08-2

Editors:

Alek

Fahriany

Siti Nurul Azkiyah

Ratna Sari Dewi

Nida Husna

Zaharil An’asy

Desi Nahartini

Neneng Sunengsih

Yazid Hady

Azkia Muharom Albantani

Siti Fitriah

Cover Design:

Yazid Hady

Published by:

FITK PRESS

Faculty of Educational Science (FITK)

UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta

Jl. Ir. H. Juanda no.95 Ciputat Timur, Tangerang Selatan

Telepon/fax. (021) 7443328

Website: www.fitk-uinjkt.ac.id

@2015

All rights reserved. No part of this leader manual may be reproduced in any manner

whatsoever without prior written permission from the publisher, except where noted in

the text and in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

The 4th ELITE International Conference, October, 18-19th 2016

Copyright © 2016 | Faculty of Educational Sciences | Department of English Education Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta

iii

Assalamu’alaikum Warahmatullah Wabarakatuh

Dear participants,

It is with pleasure that we present the full papers and abstracts of the 4th Elite International

Conference. This fourth annual conference, entitled “Strengthening the Capacity of Research and

Practices on English Linguistics, Literature and Education" is hosted by Faculty of Education and

Teacher training, State Islamic University (UIN) Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta at Auditorium Harun

Nasution From 18-19 October 2016.

In order to make the information and ideas presented at the conference promptly and widely

available, participants in the conference were invited to submit written papers based on their

presentations for printed proceeding publication. Each paper submitted for consideration was peer-

reviewed by team of scholars who were asked to provide a scholarly judgement on the paper’s

suitability for publication. Owing to the fact that published conference papers should be a direct

reflection of the presentation and subsequent at the conference, papers were either accepted or

rejected in the form which they were submitted; there was no process of revision in response to

comments by the team. A total of approximately 100 papers were accepted for publication under

these procedures. Each paper represents a substantial contribution to the advancement of

education, ranging from philosophical and conceptual ideas to practical and pragmatical issues on

English education.

The committee of the conference would like to especially thank to the rector and vice rectors, and

the dean and vice deans for their support and also to acknowledge the contribution made by all the

participants. Without all the supports and contribution, this conference would have been far too

great to be successful.

Enjoy reading these proceedings and we hope that they the contributors contribute further to the

advancement of ideas around work of English linguistics, literature and education.

Wassalamu’alaikum Warahmatullah Wabarakatuh



iv


Dear participants,

I am pleased to welcome you all: invited speakers, presenters and participants of the 4th International ELITE

conference. Welcome to this wonderful campus, and welcome to Jakarta, precisely to Ciputat, for those

coming from other cities and also from abroad. I hope you enjoy your visit while presenting your papers at

the conference.

The special part of this conference lies on the theme and the organization of the conference. Concerning the

theme, we emphasize the importance of research and the share of best practices in English Linguistics,

Literature, and Education. We expect that this conference will enable us to improve not only our teaching

approaches but also our research capacity so that we can deliver research-based teaching and learning

processes. Moreover, the teaching of English linguistics, literature and education, especially in the context of

Islamic universities, both in majority and minority situations, has a lot of interesting issues to discuss, ranging

from philosophical and conceptual ideas to practical and technical issues.

Concerning the organization, this conference is special because not only the Faculty of Educational Sciences

and the Department of English Education but also ELITE Association is involved in organizing this great

conference. ELITE is the Association of English Linguistics, Literature and Education lecturers of all Islamic

Universities under the Ministry of Religious Affairs. ELITE is right now a four-year baby which needs

support from various parties to grow healthily.

As the Dean of the Faculty of Educational Sciences of Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University (or better

known as UIN Jakarta), I would like to thank our invited speakers: Prof. John Macalister, Prof. Adrian

Rodgers, Dr. Atiq Susilo, Prof. Jamaluddin Idris, Mr. Indra Charismiadji, Dr. Agus Indarjo, Dr. Didin

Wahidin, and Dr. Jillian S. Haeseler.

I would also like to thank to all presenters and participants, whom I am sure will share their invaluable

thoughts, research findings, and experience and make the discussion in this conference rich. My deepest

thanks also go the committee who has worked very hard to make this international conference possible.

Finally, I hope this conference will produce significant contribution to advancement of knowledge in the

field of English and strengthen our collaboration. I wish all of you enjoy the conference.




v


Dear participants,

On behalf of ELITE, the association of English Linguistics, Literature and Education lecturers, I

would like to devote a warm welcome to all of our distinguished guests, honourable government

officials, outstanding keynote speakers, ELITE delegates all over Indonesia, great presenters around

the world and noble participants to this fourth ELITE International Conference 2016.

Having this conference run smoothly, the most sincere gratitude should go to Prof. Kamarudin

Amin, the Director General of Islamic Education under the Ministry of Religion Affairs, for his

total support to our association, ELITE, which has achieved a tremendous success in collaborating

all of English lecturers from Islamic institutions in Indonesia. Since this academic program is also

closely related to the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education as our mutual

partner in boosting the national education quality, the incomparable gratitude will be devoted to

Dr. Didin Wahidin as the Director of the Department of Education and Student Affairs and Dr.

Agus Indarjo, the Secretary General of Directorate General of Higher Education, Science and

Technology for their brilliant academic guidance in supporting our academic programs.

Starting on a noble goal, that is to give contribution to developing the English Education in this

country and global world, I would like to express the highest level of gratitude to Mr. William S.

Little on behalf of Regional English Language Office (RELO) for his enthusiasm in showering us

with his tremendous help, in which one of them, to make a great English language specialist, Dr.

Jillian Haeseler, present in this conference. Besides, this conference becomes more eminent because

of the presence of many researchers of excellent worth such as Prof. John, Adrian Rogers, Dr. Atiq

Susilo, Prof. Jamalludin Idris, Dr. Indra Charismiadji and other undefeatable presenters who will

share their quality academic perspectives.

Since this conference is the accumulation of enormous efforts from many people, I would also like

to express my deepest gratitude to Prof. Dede Rosyada on behalf of Syarif Hidayatullah State

Islamic University, Jakarta, as the host for this year conference, for the endless endeavour to make

this conference run successfully.

Distinguished guests, I would like to end by expressing my sincere wishes the utmost rewarding

conference and looking forward to your suggestions since I believe that the discussions being

shared in this conference will greatly contribute to our global effort to develop a quality English

language teaching as a password to get an important role in this global world. Thank you for

making this dream come true.



DAFTAR ISI

Ktsp And K13 As Perceived By English Teachers Teuku Zulfikar

392 – 399

Integrating Character Education Values In Language Teaching: Why And How? Azkia Muharom Albantani & Ahmad Madkur

400 – 414

Curriculum Evaluation: An Analyzing Of Teachers’ Perspective, Students’ Needs And Syllabus Development Milda Hanim

415 – 427

Teachers’ Problems, Implementation And Development Of Syllabus Curriculum 2013 In Smkn 52 Jakarta Timur Irma Yunita

428 – 444

Teachers` Perception On Curriculum 2013 Of English Lesson At First Grade Of Mts Negeri 32 Jakarta Mufti Hidayat

445 – 454

Curriculum Evaluation Nureesa Salaemae

455 – 464

An Evaluation Of The Syllabus Used In Smpn 93 Central Of Jakarta Nurlaillatul Barokah

465 – 479

Curriculum Evaluation at SMAN 53 Jakarta Timur Noera Safira

480 – 493

A Model Of Writing Materials Development For Students Of Stain Parepare Based On Experiential Learning Theory Magdahalena

494– 506

Spoken And Written Feedback Expressions Used By An English Teacher Of Information Technology Department Enik Rukiati & Nila Susanti

507 – 519

Teaching Narrative Text For Students Of Junior High School At 2nd Grade By Using Papuan Folktales

520 – 527



Anwar Materialism Effect On Major Character In Pursuing Their American Dream In Novel “The Great Gatsby” Fitri Arniati

528 – 537

Literature To Visual Novel Video Games Narrative Adaptation Challenge Lilik Untari

538 – 556

The Efforts To Civilize English Literacy Through Local Wisdom Of Batak In State Islamic University Of North Sumatra Tien Rafida

557 – 569

Teacher Indirect Feedback On Students’ Discussion Text Writing Agus Sufyan & Alek

570 – 605

Speech Act And Politness In Sundanese Language Aip Syaepul Uyun

606 – 618

An Analysis Of Presupposition Used In The Cartoon Movie “Rise Of The Guardian” Eka Dewi Fithrotunnisa

619 – 630

Refusal Speech Act In Female Of Bintang Boarding Siti Fahda Fadila

631– 639

The Phatic Communion In The Pillars Of The Community Drama Transcription Hamdin & Alek

640 – 654

Beyond Short Story: Discovering The Language Aspects Of A Story Abdul Halim

655 – 663

Awakening The Nation IN Pramoedya Ananta Toer’s Footsteps: THE ROLE OF THE NATIVE PRESS IN Nation Building Bahren

664 – 677

The Analysis Of Speech Act Used In “ シューカツ!! キミに内定 (Job Hunting!! Tentative Decision On You)”Comic Script Aftianti Muspitarini

678 – 689



Improving Teaching And Learning Quality Through Enhancingteacher Competence In Designing Teaching And Learning Program Huriyah

690 – 695

English Subject Need Analysis Of Grade 8 Students In Central Jakarta Siti Fitriah

696 – 702

Choosing And Developing Appropriate Learning Materials For Efl Students Uli Agustina Gultom

703 – 710

The Role Of Text Books In Efl Classroom Fahriany

711 – 716

The Effect Of English National Examination On The Level Of Students’ Anxiety At Sma Muhammadiyah 18 Jakarta Debi Ratna Wati

717 – 730

English Language Teacher Education (Elte) Programs And Graduate Attributes Wakhid Nashruddin

731 – 745

Investigating The Difficulty Level Of Teaching Skills Included In The Dynamic Model Of Educational Effectiveness Research Siti Nurul Azkiyah

746 – 754

The Development Of Teacher Professionalism Through The Improvement Of Competency In The Instructional Planning Zahruddin

755 – 762

Scientific Publication To Improve Teachers’ Professional Development Renny Kurnia Sari

763 – 766

The Teaching Of English As A Foreign Language For Students With Dyslexia Ainun Ni’mah & Alek

767 – 787

Need Analysis Of English Material Syllabus For Deaf Students (A Descriptive Study Conducted At Tenth Grade Deaf Students Of SMALB Negeri 01 Lebak Bulus)

788 – 798



Najmi Hilalliyati The Implementation Of Integrated Skills In Teaching English As Specific Purposes (Esp) At Program Study Keperawatan Curup Adesi Keme Suko

799 – 807

The Language Learning Strategies And Learning Style Of The Esp Students In Developing Oral Communication Proficiency Adriani Jihad

808 – 819

English For Specific Purpose Islamic Education Department Students’ (Developing Instructional English Curriculum And Syllabus Design Based On Dick And Carey’s Model) Naili Adilah Hamhij

820 – 847

Students’ Perception on Female Teachers Abdurrahman Hi. Usman

848 – 858

Standardizing English Consonants In Empowering Students’ Pronunciation Today Hamka

859

Improving Students’ Speaking Skill Through Quartet Cards Game (A Classroom Action Research At The First Grade Students Of Budi Mulia Junior High School Tangerang In The Academic Year Of 2015/2016) Fitri Imas Mufidah, Syauki & Atik Yuliyani

860

Foreign Language Teaching And Learning In Muslim Minority Of

Higher Education Of West Papua

Ismail Suardi Wekke

861

Improving Listening Skill Of Students Using Metacognitive Instruction Ida Nurhidayah & Nadiah Ma’mun

878

English Teaching Technique For Young Learner Sitti Hadijah And Dina Destari

892

The Effect Of Using Snowball On Students Writing Hortatory Exposition Text H.M. Syafii S, Jonri Kasdi, And Khairunnas Syafii

901



Critical Discourse Analysis Of Bunda Rita Widyasari’s Political Speech From Linguistics Perspective Sri Suciati And Ririn Ambarini

921

The Non Standard English Used By Women In The Help Movie Aal Inderajati And Ubaidillah

935

The Shift Of Theme-Rheme Structure In English Translation Of Indonesian Complex Sentences Anisa Intan Nurfadhilah And Arif Budiman

957

Humanistic Values In English Textbooks For Junior High School Sri Arfani And Alek

968

The Efforts To Civilize English Literacy Through Local Wisdom Of Batak In State Islamic University Of North Sumatra Tien Rafida

982

TEACHER INDIRECT FEEDBACK ON STUDENTS’ DISCUSSION TEXT WRITING Agus Sufyan

Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta E-mail: [email protected]

AlekE-mail: [email protected]

Abstract. As English has been taught for years, Indonesian students at the twelfth grade are expected to have adequate skills in four language areas, for instance, writing. In fact, some students still encountered difficulties in mastering English writing skills. This study, following Kurt Lewin’s action research design, aimed at improving twelfth grade students’ discussion text writing skills by implementing teacher indirect feedback (TIF) technique and at examining 31 students’ participation during the learning process as another criterion of success in this study. Moreover, by conducting pre-interview, doing observation, administering tests and distributing questionnaire sheets, findings of this study are presented quantitatively and qualitatively. Further, this study suggests that TIF helps students not only improve their writing skills but also their active participation during the process.

Keywords: teacher indirect feedback; writing

Background of the Study

Teaching writing has been an issue for some teachers since this skill is not fully gifted, meaning that students need to make continuous efforts through repetitions, trials and errors, and reinforcement so that they could master this skill (Meyers, 2003). Thus, the ability of teachers to engage their students in the processes of writing should be maintained well. However, it is also clear that teachers may also encounter several problems in teaching writing since, as compared to teaching speaking, Raymond (1980) states that information delivery process becomes one that differs between both language skills. For example, while, in speaking, teachers can use their body movements or different voice to help them deliver their thoughts, it needs even harder work in writing as we can only use some mechanisms, such as punctuation, word order, etc., to help us deliver what we would like to inform. Thus, it can be considered that our ability to use those mechanisms is important to avoid readers’ misinterpretation.

Unfortunately, having explained that writers need to be careful in their writing, the fact shows that some Indonesian students at the twelfth grade who have learnt English for years still found it difficult to produce better quality of writing. The following responses in the pre-interview held to one of English teachers at SMAN 8 Kota Tangerang Selatan also described how teaching writing skills becomes a burden for both the teacher and the students.




571

In teaching writing, the teacher reported that, based on her observation, while students were asked to do writing, they preferred joking with their peers and playing with their own smartphone rather than making any efforts to finish their writing their assignment until the class ended. As a result, they left the assignment not completely finished. Moreover, the teacher also added that her students usually argued that finishing writing assignments in the class was frustrating for them as they did not have much time to finish the assignment at one time. Further, based on the interview result, teacher also seemed to neglect having some stages in the writing process, for instance, revision stage. This could be found when the teacher impliedly stated that she found it difficult to immediately assess students’ work after they had submitted their work without informing students about, for instance, what mistakes that they had made, what they needed to improve, etc.

Furthermore, the problem mentioned by the teacher went on when students could not finish the assignment at school and make it as homework. She stated that students had not yet shown their effort as could be seen from their writing. For example, she found that her students still had problems in some writing components, such as grammar, spelling, and so on. As a result, she also felt frustrating to assess her students’ work. Lastly, when students’ work had been scored and they asked about the reasoning of their scores, the teacher, then, could not give them clear responses on why her students got the scores.

Furthermore, in attempt to obtain earlier data based on the teacher’s responses on the interview, pre-test and pre-observation were held to capture students’ writing skills and also their activity during the writing process. In addition, students were assigned to write a discussion text on the chosen topic (Note: discussion text was chosen based on: teacher’s responses in the interview and time schedule made by the teacher on her lesson plan.)

Surprisingly, while the observation during the pre-test was being held (twelfth grade of science class, the class is chosen purposively), findings in the observation supported the teacher’s responses in the interview. Supervision should be done attentively since students doing the test carefully and seriously were less than half of them. Moreover, some students sitting at the corner preferred playing games on their smartphone while some others sitting in the third and fourth row near the door liked to chat during the test. Besides of that, some students prefer doing the test together with their group of friends than doing it individually. In addition, after conducting pre-test, more than half of the students are reported to fail to meet the minimum standard score (75), meaning that most students still needed to improve their writing skills.

For all those early findings, the responses mentioned by the teacher were technically supported by the findings found in the observation process during the pre-test. Moreover, it is also clear that the current teaching writing cycle that the teacher did in the class was as short as possible, meaning that (a) teacher gave a writing assignment; (b) students did the assignment and submitted their work, and; (c) teacher assessed their work.



572

At one point, it is agreeable that the teacher had not yet given her students opportunities to do revision as a matter of producing better quality of writing. Thus, students will end up having the score and not improving their writing skills. In this case, indeed, both the teacher and her students need some strategies to help them improve both students’ writing skills and students’ engagement in the writing process.

To respond to the case, numerous research have proved that feedback, in various ways, is helpful to improve students writing skills at the revision process (e.g. Ferris, 1995; Lalande, 1982; Chandler, 2003; Baleghizadeh and Dadashi, 2011). A study by Ferris (1995), for example, proved that almost all students participating in the study believed that teacher feedback is really helpful as it provides information related to their writing. Besides improving students writing skills, other advantages have also been noted, such as giving students opportunity to know whether they perform well or not, what are their strength and weaknesses, why they made mistake, and so on (Lewis, 2002; Littleton, 2011); letting them know that they are progressing in their learning process (Ur, 1996; Hino, 2006); and helping them revise their writing to better final product (Russell and Spada, 2006).

However, of many variations of feedback, in relation to students’ written work, the two most prominent types are usually referred to direct feedback and indirect feedback. In giving direct feedback, teachers write down the correct forms on students’ errors and students will just transcribe the correct forms onto their work in revision stage, while in indirect feedback, teachers only give the location of errors by underlining or circling the errors and students will recognise the error and do self-correction on the errors (Lee, 2004; Ferris, 2003). Thus, while, in direct feedback, teachers become the main actors in correcting correct students’ errors, in indirect feedback, students are also involved and engaged in the revising process. Moreover, Lee (2004) adds that upon giving indirect feedback, teachers only need to put symbols or marks, such as T= verb tenses, Sp= spelling, and so on, to indicate the errors.

The teacher actually can minimise students’ further errors after they have revised their writing based on teacher’s direct feedback, however, it is also undeniable that the teacher may consume lots of time to put correct forms on every students’ work since she teaches more than two classes consisting of more than 30 students per each. Those statements have been supported in Chandler’s (2003) study. This study, using terms ―Correcting‖ as direct correction and ―Underlining‖ as indirect correction, finds that while direct feedback will benefit students as they could do the revision fast and easily, indirect feedback will benefit the teacher as it takes lesser time for the teacher to give feedback on students’ writing draft. Though this study suggests that both methods are useful depending on the what goals that teachers want to achieve, the students involving in this study feel that they could learn more from doing self-correction based on what their teacher has underlined.



573

The response of students involved in the Chandler’s (2003) study, regarding to students feeling of improvement, is also supported by others’ findings (e.g. Lalande, 1982). For example, students involving in Lalande’s (1982) study preferred indirect feedback than direct feedback as the students are at advantage of doing self-reflection and problem-solving that can help them to have long-term development on their writing skills.

Research Question

Given the advantages of applying teacher indirect on students’ writing, this study is intended to find out

a) Does teacher indirect feedback improve writing skills of students of XII-IPA-4? b) How is students’ participation during the writing process?

The Objective of the Study

The objective of the study was to find out whether teacher indirect feedback improves writing skills of students of XII-IPA-4 and to find out how is students’ participation during the writing process.

Significance of the Study

Some significance of this study, not only theoretically but also practically, go to:

a. The teacher, this study further may help English teachers not only solve some problems but also improve their quality in teaching writing

b. Students, this study is expected to help them improve their writing skills, achieve the minimum standard score (at least), increase their long-term memory regarding to writing in English.

c. Future researchers, this study is hoped to enrich the literature in the discussion of written corrective feedback, especially those who will focus on teacher indirect feedback.

Literature Review

Discussion Text Writing

Discussion text can be defined as ―a text which presents a problematic discourse discussed from different viewpoints‖ (Astuti, 2010), meaning that this text provides two



574

or more perspectives about particular unsolved issue to help readers enrich their understanding about the issue. However, writers need to be careful in avoiding audiences’ imbalance in viewing an issue as can be seen in a persuasive text, which is designed to drive audiences' thoughts based the reasons mentioned (Dietsch, 2006). In writing discussion text, writers are required to be fair in presenting arguments or, in other words, to give readers broader insights that may help them take their stances or make their own decision (Anderson and Anderson, 1998; Crusius and Channell, 2006; Sudarwati and Grace, 2007). Thus, the contents of writing should contain both perspectives such as strengths and weaknesses, positive and the negative, etc.

Moreover, related to the structure of the text, discussion text has three main parts. Warner (2009) divides the parts into: (a) statement, outlining the subject to give readers boundaries about what is going to be discussed; arguments, while providing or listing the balanced arguments on both sides; and (c) conclusion, summing up all the arguments choosing his/her preference. In addition, though Anderson and Anderson’s (1998) generic structure is similar to the above mentioned parts, they have different view in the description of conclusion part. They argue that conclusion should actually allow writer to decide his/her position in the subject. Moreover, Astuti (2010) also share different view by stating that writers are allowed to give readers suggestion based on the writers’ view, meaning that it does not really matter to give suggestion if different and contrastive viewpoints have been discussed proportionally.

Teacher Indirect Feedback

Numerous research have proven that written corrective feedback, which is done by teachers on students’ errors on their writing, help students improve their writing skills (Ferris and Roberts, 2001; Chandler, 2003; Lalande, 1982). Further, the most prominent ways in giving written corrective feedback have been pointed to two contrastive ways, namely teacher direct feedback (TDF) and teacher indirect feedback (TIF). Lee (2004) supports that to do written error correction, teachers can operate two ways, either direct correction or indirect correction. Many (e.g. Lee, 2004; Ferris, 2003) have agreed that while teachers can simply put the correct form on students’ error in direct correction, on the other hand, teachers can minimize their time by underlining or leaving symbols, that indicate the error, in indirect correction.

However, discussion of looking for the better way between the TIF and TDF have not yet met the conclusion. While some scholars (e.g. Mirzaii and Aliabadi, 2013) preferred TDF rather than TIF, other scholars (e.g. Baleghizadeh and Dadashi, 2011) preferred TIF rather than TDF. Besides of that, other studies (e.g. Chandler, 2003) also find that both are useful. Previous studies below may describe those preferences.

576


Method

Setting and participants

The research took place at SMAN 8 Kota Tangerang Selatan, located at Jl. Cirendeu Raya No. 5, Kota Tangerang Selatan, Banten, 15419. Moreover, the research was conducted only on Tuesday and Wednesday for approximately a month, which was started from January 6th until February 10th, 2015. Moreover, the subject of the research was the students at XII IPA 4 class of SMA Negeri 8 Kota Tangerang Selatan, academic year 2014/2015. They consisted of male (N= 14) and female students (N= 17).

Research method and procedure

The method used in this research was Classroom Action Research (CAR). The rationale behind the application of this method is that, firstly, it attempted to solve the problems in the classroom. Secondly, students’ improvement was also needed to succeed the learning process. Lastly, the teacher’s ability in teaching this subject needed improving.

The Classroom Action Research (CAR) procedures used in this research was Kurt Lewin's design. Among several designs that could be used in classroom action research, Lewin’s design was more comprehensible and understandable for the researcher. Moreover, generally, Kurt Lewin's design consists of cycles having four phases per each. The phases




577

are planning, acting, observing, and reflecting. The figure below represents the cycles of Kurt Lewin's design:

Figure 1: A Modified Kurt Lewin’s CAR Design (Ghony, 2008)

Data collection technique and instrumentation

The data were collected both quantitatively and qualitatively. To obtain quantitative data, tests and questionnaire were administered. While doing writing tests, the tests themselves were divided into two kinds namely pre- and post-test. Moreover, while questionnaire was administered, the questionnaire sheets were spread to the students after the whole process of writing at the last cycle. In addition, questionnaire sheets were made by following the indicator in the following table:

Table 1: Specification of Questionnaire

No. Indicators Total

Items Number

Positive Negative

1 Guidance 3 2 1, 4, 5, 6, 7

2 Help 5 8, 9, 10, 14, 15

3 Information 2 2, 3

4 Knowledge 3 11, 12, 13

Observing

Planning

Reflecting

Cycle

Acting



578

Total 13 2

Moreover, to obtain qualitative data, interview to the teacher and class observation were also administered to support quantitative data. To do the interview, the unstructured interview guide was used to reveal the problems faced by the teacher. Moreover, in doing observation, observation sheets consisting of the aspects of students’ participation was conducted to describe students’ activity during teaching and learning process of writing. The observation sheets, then, followed the rubric of observation sheets in the following table:

Table 2: Rubric of Observation Sheets

No Aspects Sub-Aspects Score Assessment Criteria

1 Diligence

3 Seriously doing the task

2 Seriously doing the task if supervised

1 Not seriously doing the task

2 Involvement in learning process

Response to teacher’s explanation

3 Actively paying attention to teacher’s explanation

2 Not really actively paying attention teacher’s explanation, sometimes

1 Not paying attention to teacher’s explanation

Involvement in group

3 Actively involved in group discussion

2 Not really actively involved in group discussion, sometimes

1 Not actively involved in group discussion

Interaction with the teacher

3 Often or Actively interact

2 Sometimes



579

1 Never

3 Preparation

3

Bring the framework and has met the criteria

2 Bring the framework but has not met the criteria

1 Do not bring the framework

4 Submission Punctuality

3 On time/On the day

2 On the next day

1 On the next two days or more

Lastly, besides the observation sheets, observation journals were also administered to capture more findings which were not included in the rubric of observation sheets above. Further, the observation journal would also be used in the reflection process. Below is the blueprint of observation journals.

Table 3: Blueprint of Observation Journal

Cycle Meeting Date Activities Findings

I I

II

III

Data analysis technique

Data from Questionnaire Sheets

Data gained from questionnaire sheets was analyzed by tabulating the frequency of students’ responses, transforming into percentage, and reading the percentage. Further, Likert scale was used in tabulation process as can be seen in the following table:

Table 4: Likert Rating Score, Adapted from Sugiono (2010)



580

Positive responses Negative Responses

Agree 3 1

Not Sure 2 2

Disagree 1 3

Separately, data gained from observation and questionnaire were tabulated, formed into percentage, and then analysed. Below is the formula to form the data into percentage (Riduwan and Sunarto, 2013):

After the data had been formed into percentage, they were, then, analysed and interpreted according to the following table adapted from Riduwan and Sunarto (2013):

Table 5: Score Interpretation Criteria

Percentage Interval Description

81% - 100% Very Good

61% - 80% Good

41% - 60% Enough

21% - 40% Bad

0% - 20% Very Bad

Moreover, students' tests writing ability, analytical scoring rubric adapted from Heaton (1988) was used. There are five aspects in the analytical scoring rubric, i.e., content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics. The table below is the analytical scoring rubric:

Table 6: Analytical Scoring Rubric from Heaton (1988)

Aspects Score Judgement



581

Content

30–27 knowledgeable, substantive

26–22 some knowledge of subject, adequate range

21–17 limited knowledge of subject, little substance

16–13 does not show knowledge of subject, non-substantive

Organization

20–18 fluent expression, ideas clearly stated

17–14 somewhat choppy, but main ideas stand out

13–10 non-fluent, ideas confused or disconnected

9–7 does not communicate, no organization

Vocabulary

20–18 sophisticated range, effective word choice and usage

17–14 adequate range, occasional errors, but meaning not obscured

13–10 limited range, frequent errors

9–7 little knowledge of English vocabulary

Language Use

25–22 effective complex construction

21–19 effective but simple construction

17–11 major problems in simple/complex construction

10–5 virtually no mastery of sentence construction rules

Mechanics

5 demonstrates mastery of conventions

4 occasional errors of spelling, punctuation

3 frequent errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization



582

2 dominated by errors of spelling, punctuation, etc.

Criteria of Success

To determine the criteria of success in each cycle, the English teacher and also the researcher decided to make requirements that the cycle would be concluded as success only if both the result of observation was categorised as very good (81%—100%) and the Minimum Mastery Criterion could be passed by, at least, 75% of the students. In conclusion, if one of both aspects had not yet met the requirements, then the next cycle should be conducted to solve the problems having not yet been solved in the previous cycle.

Research Findings

Findings before the Implementation of CAR

Before implementing the research, any kinds of information were gathered through teacher pre-interview, pre-questionnaire, pre-observation, and also pre-action test.

Result of Interview

The English teacher was interviewed on Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at 10 am. It was done to know generally the class situation, students’ achievement, and also students’ and teachers’ attitude toward the teaching and learning process of writing.

Three problems were pointed out based on teacher’s interview. Firstly, problem mentioned was that the students sometimes had not yet been interested to prepare what they were going to write; they preferred talking and joking with their friends until the class ended. They argued that they were depressed while working under pressure, and needed a lot of time to get the inspiration and the data needed. Thus, it was hard for them to collect their work in the end of the meeting and for the teacher to directly correct their work. Secondly, after the writing tasks became a homework, the teacher found that the students had not yet put their best performance in their writing. They just wrote what they wanted to write, neglected the text structure, and put little attention about what they wrote which led to some problems, for example, grammatical errors. It is true that they had not yet interested in writing because of its complexity. Thus, there were so many students that were hard to achieve minimum mastery criterion (KKM) made by the teacher. Lastly, the teacher said that it had been so hard when her students asked her to give them reasons for their score since she just gave them the score without any comments or feedback. Moreover, she argued that it took a lot of time to give them comments to each work since



583

she taught more than three class per week. As a result, students became unmotivated since some of them felt like they were hard to have clear direction about how to write well, and some others felt like their teacher had not yet found appropriate techniques to improve their skills.

It could be concluded that four aspects need considering; they are students’ preparation to write, diligence in doing writing tasks, involvement while learning writing skills, submission punctuality.

Result of Pre-Observation

Pre-observation was conducted to observe the process of pre-action writing test before implementing the action. It was held on Tuesday, January 6th, 2015, and started from 07.00—08.30 a.m. The class consisted of 31 students; 17 male students and 14 female students. Below is the result of pre-observation.

Table 7: Results of Pre-Observation Sheets

Students’ Number Diligence Submission Punctuality

S1 2 3

S2 2 3

S3 3 3

S4 2 3

S5 2 3

S6 2 3

S7 2 3

S8 2 3

S9 1 3

S10 2 3

S11 2 3

S12 2 3

S13 2 3

S14 1 3

S15 1 3



584

S16 3 3

S17 2 3

S18 2 3

S19 2 3

S20 2 3

S21 2 3

S22 2 3

S23 2 3

S24 1 3

S25 3 3

S26 1 3

S27 1 3

S28 2 3

S29 3 3

S30 2 3

S31 2 3

Each Aspect’s Score

Total 60 93

Percentage 64.52% 100%

Overall Aspects’ Score

Total 153

Percentage 82.26%

Based on the result of pre-observation above, generally, it could be concluded that the teaching and learning process was Very Good. However, the description could be seen in one aspect, submission punctuality. Another aspect, students’ diligence, could actually be concluded that they are diligent enough. Most students seriously did the test though teacher should always supervise what they were doing.

Moreover, based on teacher’s observation journal, some students sitting in the first two front rows seriously did the test. However, those sitting in the next rows should always be supervised. Then if the teacher did not pay attention or supervise them, some students preferred to play games on their smartphone than to do the test. For example, four



585

students in the right corner preferred to play games on their smartphone than to do the test. Besides of that, they also liked to chat with their friends during the test. For example, five female students sitting in the third and fourth row near the door liked to chat during the test. Lastly, some students tended to do the test with their friends in group rather than work individually. In conclusion, generally, they are diligent enough in doing the test though some of them really needed supervising.

Pre-Action Test

Lastly, pre-action test was done in January 6, 2015 at 07.00—8.30 a.m. This test was actually conducted in order to mainly prove what the teacher had said about the class situation when writing test being conducted and about students’ achievement which were found below the standard. Findings showed that almost half of the class could not reach the Minimum Mastery Criterion (75). Below is the students’ pre-action writing test scores:

Table 8: Students’ Pre-Action Writing Test Scores

Students’ Number Scores Number of Words

S1 73 231

S2 76* 247

S3 86* 297

S4 61 253

S5 79* 289

S6 78* 247

S7 77* 260

S8 75* 257

S9 57 225

S10 72 290

S11 73 220

S12 71 283

S13 73 281

S14 53 254

S15 68 280

S16 86* 226



586

S17 74 292

S18 72 267

S19 72 239

S20 77* 245

S21 74 241

S22 72 251

S23 78* 289

S24 63 262

S25 82* 243

S26 59 288

S27 57 294

S28 69 242

S29 81* 296

S30 73 235

S31 74 287

Mean: 72.1 261.65

*Students who could pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion (75)

Based the result of pre-action test, it could be concluded that there were still 20 students having not yet met the Minimum Mastery Criterion (75). The minimum score gained was 53, while the highest was 86. From the data above, it could be concluded that students of XII IPA 4 needed to improve their writing skills. Besides of that, the range number of words students could write was between 220—297 words, with the average number of words students could produce was 262 (261.65). Then, as the test was also designed to standardise the range number of words for the next cycles, the researcher decided the range number of words between 200—300 words.

Findings during the Implementation of CAR

Cycle 1: Planning

In this phase, a lesson plan was designed to try solving problems in the teaching and learning process of writing skills. The problems needed solving were not only about the students’ achievement but also students’ attitude in the classroom. It was started from



587

making a lesson plan consisted of standard competence, basic competence, and indicators that will be reached by the students. In addition, the selected material and exercises were also determined into a lesson plan. Besides of that, based on the findings in the pre-observation, as students liked to chat with their friends during the test and tended to do the test with their friends in group rather than work individually, then they would be divided into some groups in order to make the learning process be more active. Lastly, the teacher decided to take three meetings in this cycle. The first one is for teaching and learning about discussion text, the second one was for conducting the test, and the last day was used for students to revise their writing the teacher had given feedback on.

Cycle 1: Acting

The action in the first cycle was completely done in three meetings; January 7 th, 13th, and 20th, 2015. The teaching and learning process was done based on the lesson plan having been made. The first one was the introduction to the materials. Students were introduced with the schematic structure which they should also made. Moreover, based on the findings in the pre-observation, as students liked to chat with their friends during the test and tended to do the test with their friends in group rather than work individually, then they were divided into some groups in order to make the learning process be more active. The groups consisted of five students per each and were freely chosen by students. Then, three topics to discuss were also distributed. After that, they were asked to make a framework of the text and then presented it by choosing one representative person. After all, the teacher provided five topics for students to choose. Then, as a homework, they were asked to make a framework based on the topics students chose. In this meeting, three aspects were observed, they were students’ response to teacher’s explanation, active discussion in group, and active interaction with the teacher.

In the second meeting, firstly students were asked to submit their own framework they would use for their own writing. While teacher was examining the frameworks, students were preparing for everything they needed for the writing test. After that, the frameworks were given back to students and then they were asked to exemplify the framework they had made into a four-paragraph discussion text. After this meeting, students’ writing was corrected and feedback was given by the teacher outside the classroom. In this meeting, three aspects were observed, they were students’ preparation, diligence in doing the test, and submission punctuality.

In the third meeting, students’ writing was distributed. Then, teacher explained the codes given on their paper in order to make students understand the meaning of all codes. Then, they were asked to directly revise their own writing. In this meeting, three aspects were observed, they were students’ response to teacher’s explanation, diligence, and submission punctuality.



588

Cycle 1: Observing

In this phase, the teacher observed the four aspects that should be improved in the teaching and learning process. In the first meeting, findings showed that most students paid little attention to teacher’s explanation. Though they listened to teacher’s explanation, sometimes they preferred talking to their friends, playing games on their gadgets. Even, some students paid no attention at all on teacher’s explanation. Two students were sleeping. Others went outside for the number one, but went back to class very late. Besides of that, students’ interaction with the teacher was also still low. Though some of them had tried to ask the teacher, the frequency was still rare. After that, when they were grouped, some students liked to be in group with those who have sufficient knowledge about English, for example, Students 3, 5, and 16. However, when they had been in group, they did not want to be involved in the group and spent more time joking and chatting with their friends. Besides, after observing some students, students 17 and 21 could be classified as silent students. The positive thing was that they still did what teacher asked. In addition, while they presented the results of their discussion, the situation were conducive and students paid full attention.

In the second meeting, generally overall activities could be categorised as Very Good. All students could submit their work on time. When the bell rang as a sign that the subject was over, the submitted their work. However, while checking students’ homework, teacher found that most students had a trouble making framework of the text. It could be seen as some of them actually brought their framework but did not meet the criteria and some others, even, did not bring and make the framework. However, there were still some students bringing and making a good framework. After that, generally, students did the test seriously though some of them should be supervised by the teacher. An important thing that should be noted was that some students who did not bring or make the framework found difficulties in doing the test as they were confused about what they had to write. This problem should be solved in the next cycle.

In the third meeting, generally, students were very diligent in revising their work though some of them still needed supervising. While teacher was explaining the codes or feedback codes on students’ paper, most students were seriously listening to teacher’s explanation. However, teacher also noticed that some students felt confused about the codes given by the teacher, then they prefer asking their peer than asking the teacher though sometimes they had to ask the teacher too. Lastly, students’ submission punctuality still needed to be considered. There were still some students who could not submit their revised writing on time; they took two or more than two days to revise their writing. To observe this aspect, observation was not only done in the classroom, but also outside classroom. To make it clear, below is the results of observation sheets of the first cycle:

Table 9: Results of Observation Sheets of Cycle I



589

Students’ Number

Meeting I Meeting II Meeting III

A B C A B C A B C

S1 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3

S2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2

S3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2

S4 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2

S5 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 2 3

S6 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 3

S7 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 3

S8 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 2

S9 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 1

S10 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 3 1

S11 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2

S12 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3

S13 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 1

S14 1 2 1 1 2 3 2 2 3

S15 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 3

S16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

S17 3 2 3 1 3 3 2 2 1

S18 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3

S19 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 3

S20 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 1

S21 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3

S22 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1

S23 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 2 3

S24 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 1

S25 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 3



590

S26 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1

S27 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 3

S28 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3

S29 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3

S30 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

S31 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3

Each Aspect’s Score in Each Meeting

Total 64 66 54 64 73 93 79 72 72

Percent.

(%) 68.82 70.97 58.06 68.82 78.49 100 84.95 77.42 77.42

Overall Aspects’ Score in Each Meeting

Total 184 230 223

Percent. (%)

65.95% 82.44% 79.93%

Overall Aspects’ Score for Overall Meetings

Percent. (%)

76.12%

Notes:

Table 10: Description of the Codes in Table 4.3

Codes Meeting I Meeting II Meeting III

A Students’ response to teacher’s explanation

Students’ preparation

Students’ response to teacher’s explanation

B Discuss actively in group Students’ diligence Students’ diligence

C Active interaction with

the teacher Students’ submission

punctuality Students’ submission

punctuality

Based on the data analysis of table 4.3 above, it could be concluded that students’ overall activities in the first cycle was 76.12% which could be categorised as Good. In the first meeting, students’ overall activities was 65.95 which could be categorised as Enough. The first aspect, students’ response to teacher’s explanation was 68.82% could be categorised as Enough, the second aspect was 70.97% which could be categorised as Good, however, the third aspects was only 58.06% which could be categorised as Bad.



591

Moreover, in the second meeting, students’ overall activities was 82.44 which could be categorised as Very Good. The first aspect, students’ response to teacher’s explanation was 68.82% which could be categorised as Enough, the second aspect was 78.49% which could be categorised as Good, and the third aspects was only 100% which could be categorised as Very Good. Lastly, in the third meeting, students’ overall activities was 79.93% which could be categorised as Good. The first aspect, students’ response to teacher’s explanation was 84.95% which could be categorised as Very Good, the second aspect was 77.42% which could be categorised as Good, and the third aspects was only 77.42% which could be categorised as Good.

Besides data from observation sheets, students’ post-action writing test I scores were also used to observe students’ writing improvement. Below is the students’ post-action writing test I scores:

Table 11: Students’ Post-Action I Writing Test Scores

Students’ Number Post-Action I Scores Students’ Number Post-Action I Scores

S1 87* S17 76*

S2 78* S18 89*

S3 93* S19 82*

S4 92* S20 92*

S5 89* S21 84*

S6 79* S22 76*

S7 85* S23 86*

S8 77* S24 93*

S9 94* S25 91*

S10 82* S26 79*

S11 89* S27 90*

S12 76* S28 85*

S13 86* S29 81*

S14 81* S30 78*

S15 78* S31 86*

S16 93*



592

Total 2627

Mean: 84.74


Based on the result of Students’ Post-Action I Writing Test Scores above, it could be concluded that after revising their writing, all students could pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion (75). Besides of that, the average score was also increased to 84.74 while in pre-action test, the average was only 72.1 which meant that it was still under the Minimum Mastery Criterion.

Cycle 1: Reflecting

After the first cycle had been conducted, the conclusion of this cycle was drawn. It could be seen that students’ writing score in this cycle actually could be improved. However, there were still many things that should be improved. In the first meeting, all of the aspects observed needed to be observed as they had not yet meet the criteria of success. Moreover, in the second meeting, students’ preparation should be improved in the next cycle. Lastly, in the last meeting, students’ submission punctuality should be noted to get improved. After reflecting the teaching and learning process in the first cycle, it could be concluded that next cycle needed to be conducted to solve the problems having not yet been solved in the first cycle.

Cycle 2: Planning

In this phase, a lesson plan was designed to try solving problems having not been solved in the first cycle. Though students’ achievement had met the requirement for criteria of success, there were still students’ response to teacher’s explanation, students’ participation in group, students’ interaction with the teacher, students’ preparation, and students’ submission punctuality after revising their work that still needed to be improved. Thus, the next cycle should be done to solve those problems.

Generally, the second cycle was almost the same as the previous one. However, some changes were planned and had been inserted in the lesson plan of the second cycle in order to enhance students’ activities. Firstly, as students did not prepare well for the test, then in the second cycle the teaching process was focussed on making the framework of what they wanted to elaborate. It was hoped that it might solve the problems of students’ preparation and submission punctuality as they might be more prepared. Secondly, as students were tended to be more passive and to spend their time talking, joking, and chatting with their close friends in group, the teacher himself divided the students to prevent students being with their close friend. It was hoped that it might solve the problems of students’ participation in their group and also interaction with the teacher. Lastly, the teacher



593

decided to take three meetings in this cycle. The first one is for teaching and learning about making a good framework, the second one was for conducting the test, and the last day was used for students to revise their writing the teacher had given feedback on.

Cycle 2: Acting

The action in the second cycle was completely done in three meetings; January 27 th, January 28th, and February 10th, 2015. The teaching and learning process was done based on the lesson plan having been made. The first meeting was about making a good framework. Students were taught about how to make a good framework step by step. Moreover, based on the findings in the first cycle, as students liked to chat with their friends in group they chose, then teacher himself divided the students into five group consisted of six students per each and each group was given a chosen topic which they had to make the framework of. To make it clear, each students should make their own framework though they might discuss their ideas with their peers.

After they had done making the framework, students were asked to collect their framework collectively per group. Then, they were asked to exchange their work to another group in order to get feedback or suggestion from their friends from another group. While doing that activity, students were free to give their suggestion. After all, the teacher asked students to give their peers’ work back. Then, as a homework, they were asked to revise their framework and reminded that they had to bring the framework on the next day. In this meeting, three aspects were observed, they were students’ response to teacher’s explanation, active discussion in group, and active interaction with the teacher.

In the second meeting, firstly students were asked to submit their own framework they would use for their own writing. While teacher was examining the frameworks, students were preparing for everything they needed for the writing test. After that, the frameworks were given back to students and then they were asked to elaborate the framework they had made into a four-paragraph discussion text. After this meeting, students’ writing was corrected and feedback was given by the teacher outside the classroom. In this meeting, three aspects were observed, they were students’ preparation, diligence in doing the test, and submission punctuality.

In the third meeting, students’ writing was distributed. Then, teacher explained the codes given on their paper in order to do some review and to make students deeply understand the meaning of all codes. Then, they were asked to directly revise their own



594

writing. In this meeting, three aspects were observed, they were students’ response to teacher’s explanation, diligence, and submission punctuality.

Cycle 2: Observing

In this phase, the teacher observed the four aspects that should be improved in the teaching and learning process. In the first meeting, findings showed that almost all students paid full attention to teacher’s explanation because they were required to make a good framework that they would use in elaborating their writing. Though some of them still did not show their full attention, they clearly listened to teacher’s explanation. Besides of that, while explaining the materials, it could be found that all students had stopped playing their gadgets. Changes could also be seen on another aspect to observe, students’ participation in the group. As the group and theme for each group had been chosen by the teacher, students seemed to be more active in their group. They shared their own ideas, thoughts, and opinion about the theme. Even, the teacher found that one of the groups tried to debate whether some materials or ideas they had were relevant, good, or acceptable. Interaction with the teacher was also improved. It could also be seen that, in this activity, students mostly preferred to focus on the contents than the form. Lastly, when students gave feedback to their friends’ work, some students were confused with their friends’ idea. However, they also gave any suggestion to their friends about what their friends should enhance and what to improve.

In the second meeting, good changes could also be found on students’ preparation. While checking students’ homework, teacher were surprised that all students brought all their framework and they showed a good effort to make a good one. Besides of that, while doing the writing test, they seemed to be more focus. The condition of the class was also so quiet that almost all students focussed on their own paper. Though some students tried to use their gadgets, teacher found that they used it to look up some words in English they did not know rather than used it for unimportant thing. Lastly, all students could submit their work on time. When the bell rang as a sign that the subject was over, the submitted their work.

In the third meeting, some positive changes could also be found. Firstly, while the teacher reviewed and gave deeper explanation about the feedback codes, students were paying full attention. Most students were seriously listening to teacher’s explanation. Though some of them did not really pay attention, they still caught what teacher said. Besides of that, while they were given chance to ask, some students seemed like they wanted to confirm their own opinion rather than asked about the meaning of the symbols or codes. Moreover, while doing the revision, almost all students were very diligent and serious as they wanted to finish their work on time. Lastly, students’ submission punctuality was increased. Many students could finish their work on that day. Though



595

some students could not submit their revised writing on time, but they directly submitted their writing on the next day. Below is the results of observation sheets of the second cycle:

Table 12: Results of Observation Sheets of Cycle II

Students’ Number

Meeting I Meeting II Meeting III

A B C A B C A B C

S1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

S2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3

S3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

S4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

S5 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3

S6 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3

S7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2

S8 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2

S9 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3

S10 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2

S11 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

S12 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3

S13 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

S14 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2

S15 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 3

S16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

S17 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2

S18 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2

S19 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 3

S20 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2

S21 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

S22 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3

S23 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 3



596

S24 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3

S25 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2

S26 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3

S27 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3

S28 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

S29 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3

S30 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2

S31 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Each Aspect’s Score in Each Meeting

Total 86 85 79 93 89 93 85 85 84

Max. 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93

Percent.

(%) 92.47 91.40 84.95 100 95.70 100 91.40 91.40 90.32

Overall Aspects’ Score in Each Meeting

Total 250 275 254

Percent. (%)

89.61% 98.57% 91.01%

Overall Aspects’ Score for Overall Meetings

Percent. (%)

93.07%

Notes:

Table 13: Description of the Codes in Table 4.6

Codes Meeting I Meeting II Meeting III

A Students’ response to teacher’s explanation

Students’ preparation Students’ response to teacher’s explanation

B Discuss actively in group Students’ diligence Students’ diligence

C Active interaction with the

teacher Students’ submission

punctuality Students’ submission

punctuality



597

Based on the data analysis of table 4.6 above, it could be concluded that students’ overall activities in the second cycle was 93.07% which could be categorised as Very Good. In the first meeting, students’ overall activities was 89.61% which could be categorised as Very Good. The first aspect, students’ response to teacher’s explanation was 92.47% which could be categorised as Very Good, the second aspect was 91.40% which could be categorised as Very Good, and the third aspects was 84.95% which could be categorised as Very Good.

Moreover, in the second meeting, students’ overall activities was 98.57% which could be categorised as Very Good. The first aspect, students’ response to teacher’s explanation was 100% which could be categorised as Very Good, the second aspect was 95.70% which could be categorised as Very Good, and the third aspects was 100% which could be categorised as Very Good. Lastly, in the third meeting, students’ overall activities was 91.01% which could be categorised as Very Good. The first aspect, students’ response to teacher’s explanation was 91.40% could be categorised as Very Good, the second aspect was 91.40% which could be categorised as Very Good, and the third aspects was 90.32% which could be categorised as Very Good.

Besides data from observation sheets, students’ post-action writing test II scores were also used to observe students’ writing improvement. Below is the students’ post-action writing test II scores:

Table 14: Students’ Post-Action II Writing Test Scores

Students’ Number

Post-Action II Scores

Students’ Number

Post-Action II Scores

S1 83* S17 78*

S2 87* S18 87*

S3 95* S19 84*

S4 92* S20 87*

S5 96* S21 90*

S6 83* S22 76*

S7 87* S23 90*

S8 85* S24 92*

S9 95* S25 93*

S10 82* S26 84*



598

S11 79* S27 86*

S12 84* S28 88*

S13 93* S29 88*

S14 86* S30 86*

S15 84* S31 90*

S16 93*

Total 2703

Mean: 87.19


Based on the result of Students’ Post-Action II Writing Test Scores above, it could be concluded that after revising their writing, all students could pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion (75). Besides of that, the average score was also increased to 87.19.

Cycle 2: Reflecting

After the second cycle had been conducted, the conclusion of this cycle was drawn. It could be seen that students’ activities and achievement had met the requirements that the result of observation was categorised as very good (93.07%) and the Minimum Mastery Criterion could be passed by all of the students (100%). Besides of that, the problems having not yet been solved in the previous cycle could be solved in this cycle. Thus, after reflecting the teaching and learning process in the second cycle and based on the data gained from this cycle, it could be concluded that the next cycle did not need to be conducted.

Findings after the Implementation of CAR

After implementing the research, there are two data that needed discussing. Those were the result of teacher interview, the comparison of observation sheet results, and the comparison of the students’ scores of pre-action test, post-action I test, and post-action II test.

Result of Questionnaire Sheets

The post-questionnaire sheets was distributed on Tuesday, February 10th, 2015 after the implementation of the research. Each sheet consisted of fifteen questions which were used to know students’ responses about the implementation of teacher indirect feedback. The following table was the results of post-questionnaire sheets:



599

Table 15: Students’ Responses about Implementation of TIF

No. Indicators Items

Number Percentage per Item

Percentage per Indicator

Criteria

1. Guidance

1 90.3%

91.61% Very Good

4 86%

5 92.5%

6 100%

7 89.2%

2. Help

8 100%

88.60% Very Good

9 79.6%

10 86%

14 77.4%

15 100%

3. Information 2 96.8%

92.47% Very Good

3 88.2%

4. Knowledge

11 83.9%

88.17% Very Good 12 100%

13 80.6%

Overall Percentage 90.22% Very Good



600

Based on table 4.9, it could be concluded that students’ response towards the implementation of teacher indirect feedback was Very Good (90.22%). Firstly, students’ response toward the use of teacher indirect feedback as guidance gained 91.61%. It could be concluded that by getting teacher indirect feedback, most students agreed that they were well-guided in revising their writing. Moreover, the use of teacher indirect feedback as help in their learning process gained 88.60%. It could be concluded that most students felt that teacher indirect feedback was helpful in enhancing their skills and participation in learning process. In addition, the function of teacher indirect feedback which could be used as a tool of information for students gained 92.47%. Most students felt that feedback provided by the teacher could inform their strengths and weaknesses. Lastly, the use of teacher indirect feedback as a tool to increase students’ knowledge in writing skills gained 88.17%. It could be concluded that this kind of feedback could increase students’ knowledge related to their own writing skills and help them understand what errors they made so that they would not do the same errors later.

Result of Writing Tests Score

Besides distributing the questionnaire sheets, it could also be important to show students’ overall score started from pre-action writing test scores until post-action II writing test scores. The table below presented the comparison of the scores:

Table 16: The Comparison of Students’ Writing Scores

Students’ Number

Pre-Action Test Scores

Post-Action I Test Scores

Post-Action II Test Scores

S1 73 87* 83*

S2 76* 78* 87*

S3 86* 93* 95*

S4 61 92* 92*

S5 79* 89* 96*

S6 78* 79* 83*

S7 77* 85* 87*

S8 75* 77* 85*

S9 57 94* 95*

S10 72 82* 82*

S11 73 89* 79*



601

S12 71 76* 84*

S13 73 86* 93*

S14 53 81* 86*

S15 68 78* 84*

S16 86* 93* 93*

S17 74 76* 78*

S18 72 89* 87*

S19 72 82* 84*

S20 77* 92* 87*

S21 74 84* 90*

S22 72 76* 76*

S23 78* 86* 90*

S24 63 93* 92*

S25 82* 91* 93*

S26 59 79* 84*

S27 57 90* 86*

S28 69 85* 88*

S29 81* 81* 88*

S30 73 78* 86*

S31 74 86* 90*

Mean: 72.1 84.74 87.19


In analysing data gained from students’ writing score, the researcher firstly tried to find the mean score of each test by calculating the score. Then, based on the table above, it could be seen that the mean score of pre-action was 72.1, of post-action I was 84.74, and of post-action II was 87.19. It could be concluded that students’ mean score of pre-action to post-action I was improved 12.64 points and students’ mean score of post-action I to post-action II was also improved 2.45 points.

In addition, after getting the mean score of each test, the number of students who could pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion was also calculated. Then, based on the table



602

above, it could be seen that 11 students (35%) could meet the Minimum Mastery Criterion but 20 students (65%) could not in the pre-action test. However, in the first and second cycle, it could be seen that all students (100%) could pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion.

Interpretation of the Results

After calculating the data above, the result was interpreted. In the pre-action, the mean score of pre-action writing test before implementing Classroom Action Research (CAR) was 72.1 which meant that there were still some students who could not pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion. It was proved that 20 students (65%) could not meet the Minimum Mastery Criterion in the test.

However, the mean score of post-action I writing test scores were increased up to 84.74 (17.53%). It meant that, by applying teacher indirect feedback, students got improvement on their writing skills. Moreover, the percentage of students who could pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion was also increased. While in the pre-action test, there were only eleven students who could pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion, in the post-action test I, all students could pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion. Therefore, it could be concluded that after applying teacher indirect feedback in the learning of writing discussion text, the mean score and the percentage of the students who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion was improved. However, the overall improvement had not achieved the target yet as the results of observation showed that students’ attitudes in the classroom still needed to be improved. It could be seen as the overall students’ activities was categorised as ―Good‖ which meant that there were still some aspects that needed to be improved. To sum up, the next cycle should be conducted to cover the problems having not yet been solved.

After the second cycle had been conducted, based on table 4.6 and 4.8, it could be concluded that there were a huge improvement on students’ overall activities and achievement. Firstly, the result of observation showed that students’ attitudes in the classroom improved as it could be categorised as ―Very Good‖ (93.07%). Some aspects that needed to be improved could be improved in this cycle. Moreover, the mean score of the students’ post-action test II also gained improvement about 2.13%. While the mean score of post-action test I was 94, that of the post action test II was 96. Lastly, again, all students could also pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion. Thus, based on the results of the second cycle that had met all the criteria of success requirements, it could be concluded that the next cycle did not need to be conducted.

Lastly, to get more information about students’ responses after implementing the teacher indirect feedback, questionnaire sheets were distributed. Then, the result of which could be concluded that students’ response was ―Very Good‖. They agreed that teacher



603

indirect feedback could guide them in revising their writing, broaden their knowledge, be used to monitor their improvement during the writing process, and help them evaluate their writing skill.

Conclusion and Suggestion

Results of this study showed that the use of TIF improved both students’ skills in writing discussion text and students’ participation during the writing process. Based on this completely-done research, there are some suggestion for other English teachers and researchers. Firstly, teachers might apply teacher indirect feedback to help students increase students’ writing achievement, besides their long-term memory, and self-learning. Moreover, as this research only focused on one writing material, one class and one level of study, it is hoped that other teachers or researchers might conduct teacher indirect feedback for other kinds of writing, classes, and any education levels to enhance their students’ writing achievement. In addition, based on the findings of the research, students’ attention, involvement, and engagement in learning process should always be supervised as they are other essential aspects supporting the success of the teaching and learning of writing.

References

Anderson, Mark., and Anderson, Kathy. (1998). Text Types in English. Third Edition. Melbourne: MacMillan Education Australia PTY LTD.

Astuti, Eka Mulya. (2010). English Zone for Senior High School Students Year XII. Jakarta: Penerbit Erlangga.

Baleghizadeh, S., & Dadashi, Mehdi. (2011). The Effect of Direct and Indirect Corrective Feedback on Students’ Spelling Errors. Profile. 13(1).

Brookhart, Susan M. How to Give Effective Feedback to Your Students. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), 2008.

Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12

Crusius, Timothy W., and Channel, Carolyn E. (2006). The Aims of Argument: A Text and Reader. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dietsch, Betty Mattix. Reasoning & Writing Well: A Rhetoric, Research Guide, Reader, and Handbook. Fourth Edition. Ohio: Marion Technical College, 2006.

Doddy, Achmad., et al. Developing English Competencies for Senior High School (SMA/MA). Jakarta: Pusat Perbukuan, Departemen Pendidikan Nasional, 2008.



604

Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10.

Ferris, Dana R. (1995). Student Reactions to Teacher Response in Multiple-Draft Composition Classrooms. TESOL QUARTERLY. 29(1).

Ferris, Dana R. Student Reactions to Teacher Response in Multiple-Draft Composition Classrooms. TESOL QUARTERLY. 29(1), 1995.

Ghony, M. Djunaidi. (2008). Penelitian Tindakan Kelas. Malang: UIN-Malang Press.

Heaton, J. B. (1988). Writing English Language Tests. UK: Longman.

Hino, J. (2006). Linguistic information supplied by negative feedback: A study of its contribution to the process of second language acquisition (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International, A 67/03, 872.

Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal. 66(2).

Lee, Icy. (2004). Error Correction in L2 Secondary Writing Classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing.

Lewis, Marilyn. (2002) Giving Feedback in Language Classes. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Littleton, Ch et al. (2011).The Role of feedback in Two Fan fiction writing Groups. Unpublished, PhD, Dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 346537.

Matsuda, Paul Kei., et al., Second-Language Writing in the Composition Classroom. Boston: Bredford/St. Martin’s, 2006.

Meyers, Alan. (2003). Gateways to Academic Writing. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Meyers, Alan. Gateways to Academic Writing. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 2003.

Mills, Geoffrey E. Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher. Fourth Edition. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2011.

Mirzaii, M., & Aliabadi, R. 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).

Oshima, Alice., and Hogue, Ann. Introduction to Academic Writing. Second Edition. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 1997.

Scanned with CamScanner

Documents

Transcript of Scanned with CamScanner