STUDENTS RESPONSES TO TEACHER W RITTEN A … RESPONSES TO TEACHER W RITTEN FEEDBACK ON THEIR COMPOSITION S ... provided written feedbackon language use, mechanics, organization , content,

STUDENTS’ RESPONSES TO TEACHER WRITTEN

FEEDBACK ON THEIR COMPOSITIONS

A THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By

MARIA AGUSTINA SRI WULANDARI

Student Number : 021214023

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

2007

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

i

STUDENTS’ RESPONSES TO TEACHER WRITTEN

FEEDBACK ON THEIR COMPOSITIONS

A THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By

MARIA AGUSTINA SRI WULANDARI

Student Number : 021214023

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

2007


ii


iii


iv

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY

I honestly declare that this thesis which I wrote does not contain the works or part

of the works of other people, except those cited in the quotations and bibliography,

as a scientific paper should.

Yogyakarta, 15 June 2007

Maria Agustina Sri Wulandari


v

kalau kau kejar mimpimu salut…

kalau kau ingin berhenti ingat ‘tuk mulai lagi

tetap semangat

dan teguhkan hati di setiap hari

sampai nanti…sampai mati

…Letto… sampai nanti, sampai mati

dedicated to: my beloved family and friends

who are always being there for me


vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I dedicate my greatest and deepest gratitude to Jesus Christ and Holy Mary

for Their blessings, love and strengths. Through Their grace, I could finish this

thesis and reach one of my dreams.

My sincere appreciation also goes to my major sponsor, Dr. F.X. Mukarto,

M.S., and my co-sponsor, A. Hardi Prasetyo, S.Pd., M.A. for their great patience in

guiding me and their invaluable ideas and suggestions during the completion of this

thesis. I really appreciate the knowledge, time and guidance they shared with me.

I would like to sincerely thank Olivia, Clara, Marlinda and Swesty, the

participants of my research. I thank them for their cooperation during the collecting

of the data.

My deepest gratitude goes to my beloved parents, B.P. Sutikno, BA and

F.X. Suyati for their endless love, prayer and encouragement all my life, especially

during the thesis writing. My deepest thanks also go to my dearest little brother,

Stephanus Susilo Nugroho for being the best brother I have ever had. I thank him

for his patience and willingness in helping me to cope with the confusing Corel

Draw and all the computer stuffs. It is such a great blessing to have a family like

them in my life.

I would like to dedicate my appreciation to my lovely cousins, Mbak Sisca

and Mbak Wiwin, and to my lost Cie-Cie, Cie Melly ‘Piglet Jr.’ for their never-

ending advice, patience, grumbling and love. I also thank them for treating me like

their own little sister and for sharing me their experiences and stories so that I can

see the world through their eyes.


vii

My best thanks are also delivered to all of my friends. I thank Mbak Sarie

and Mbak Adesti for their encouragements and friendships. I am deeply grateful to

Rizakti for his patience and willingness in giving critic ism, corrections and

suggestions to improve my thesis. To Ardi and Lintang who helped me to prepare

the thesis examination, thanks a lot. I thank Edi_Ahong for lending me his

sophisticated scanner. I also thank Yosi-Kalva for his support, it means a lot. To

Uni, Nissa, Haryana, Ardi, Rendy, Nita, Dianing, Sari, Hastri, Selly, Mas Adi, Mas

Prim, Sabum Maklon Hatti, all PBI’s 2002ers, seniors and juniors, I thank them for

their inputs and supports. My appreciation also goes to Garuda 9ers; Cie Olive, Bu

Tita, Dik Ira, Dik Lia, Mbak Mut and the late Pepsi for their encouragement. I

thank all of them for the time, experiences and stories full of laughter, lessons, love

and tears they have shared me.

I would also like to thank Swaragama, especially to Zaki ‘Dreamland’

Pradana for being my great companion when I had to stay up late at night to finish

the thesis. I thank him for his stories, advices and wise words that influenced me to

be a better person.

Finally, I would like to thank some other friends and relatives for all the

supports and prayers during the process of the writing of this thesis. My

wholehearted thanks to them will never be enough. May God bless them all!


viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE .................................................................................................. i

PAGE OF APPROVAL .................................................................................. ii

PAGE OF ACCEPTANCE ............................................................................ iii

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ............................................. iv

PAGE OF DEDICATION ............................................................................. v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................. vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................... viii

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................... xi

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................ xii

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................... xiii

ABSTRAK ........................................................................................................ xiv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1

1.1 Research Background ............................................................................. 1

1.2 Problem Formulation ............................................................................... 4

1.3 Problem Limitation .................................................................................. 4

1.4 Research Objectives ................................................................................ 4

1.5 Research Benefits ..................................................................................... 5

1.6 Definition of Terms .................................................................................. 5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................... 7

2.1 Theoretical Description ............................................................................ 7

2.1.1 Theory of Writing ........................................................................... 7

2.1.1.1 Writing ............................................................................. 7

2.1.1.2 Writing Product vs Writing Process Approaches ............. 9

2.1.2 Theory of Feedback ........................................................................ 12

2.1.2.1 Definition of Feedback in Writing .................................... 12

2.1.2.2 Purposes of Feedback ........................................................ 13

2.1.2.3 Roles of Feedback ............................................................. 14

2.1.2.4 Sources of Feedback ......................................................... 15


ix

2.1.2.5 Forms of Feedback ............................................................ 17

2.1.2.6 Focus of Feedback ........................................................... 17

2.1.2.7 Responses to Feedback .................................................... 18

2.2 Review of Existing Researches ................................................................ 20

2.3 Theoretical Framework ........................................................................... 21

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ................................................................. 23

3.1 Research Methodology ............................................................................ 23

3.2 Research Participants ............................................................................... 24

3.3 Research Setting ...................................................................................... 24

3.4 Research Instruments ............................................................................... 25

3.4.1 Checklists ...................................................................................... 25

3.4.2 Interview ........................................................................................ 26

3.5 Data Source ............................................................................................. 27

3.6 Data Collection ........................................................................................ 27

3.7 Data Analysis .......................................................................................... 28

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS RESULTS .......................................................... 31

4.1 Teacher Written Feedback ...................................................................... 31

4.1.1 Language Use ............................................................................... 32

4.1.1.1 Articles ......................................................................... 33

4.1.1.2 Tenses ......................................................................... 34

4.1.1.3 Plural Markers ............................................................. 35

4.1.1.4 Language Objectivity ................................................... 36

4.1.1.5 Pronouns ...................................................................... 36

4.1.1.6 Sentence Constructions ............................................... 37

4.1.2 Mechanics .................................................................................... 38

4.1.2.1 Punctuation .................................................................. 38

4.1.2.2 Italics ............................................................................ 39

4.1.2.3 Capitalization ............................................................... 40

4.1.3 Content .......................................................................................... 41

4.1.4 Organization .................................................................................. 43


x

4.1.5 Format ........................................................................................... 44

4.1.6 Reference to Source ...................................................................... 44

4.1.7 Vocabulary .................................................................................... 46

4.1.8 Clarity ............................................................................................ 47

4.2 Students’ Responses ................................................................................. 48

4.2.1 Correcting ...................................................................................... 48

4.2.2 Revising ........................................................................................ 50

4.2.2.1 Adding ........................................................................ 51

4.2.2.2 Deleting ........................................................................ 52

4.2.2.3 Substituting .................................................................. 53

4.2.2.4 Restructuring ................................................................ 53

4.2.3 Consulting ...................................................................................... 54

4.2.4 Ignoring ......................................................................................... 55

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ............................. 57

5.1 Conclusions .............................................................................................. 57

5.2 Suggestions .............................................................................................. 59

5.2.1 For The Teachers .......................................................................... 59

5.2.2 For The Students ........................................................................... 59

5.2.3 For The Further Researchers ........................................................ 60

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................... 61

APPENDICES ................................................................................................. 64

APPENDIX 1 Analysis on the Categories of Teacher Written Feedback ........ 64

APPENDIX 2 Analysis on the Students’ Responses of Teacher Written

Feedback ................................................................................... 75

APPENDIX 3 Profile of Feedback Categorization .......................................... 94

APPENDIX 4 Results of the Interview ............................................................ 98

APPENDIX 5 Sample of Students’ Compositions (first draft) ........................ 100

APPENDIX 6 Sample of Students’ Compositions (revised version) ............... 117


xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 The Table Checklist of Teacher Written Feedback ........................... 26

Table 4.1 The Table Checklist of Teacher Written Feedback Percentage ........ 31


xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 Flow Chart of Research Procedures ................................................. 30


xiii

ABSTRACT

Wulandari, Maria Agustina Sri. 2007. Students’ Responses to the Teacher Written Feedback on their Compositions. Yogyakarta: English Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University. Providing students with effective feedback on their writing is important as it helps students to ensure that what they write conveys their intended messages and to produce compositions with minimum errors and maximum clarity. However, students may not utilize feedback optimally because they may not know what to do with it and they may end up responding to the feedback by copying all corrections or deleting words/sentences which contain errors. This study aims at investigating the students’ responses toward the written feedback by formulating two research problems: 1) What are the categories of teacher written feedback? 2) What are the students’ responses to the teacher written feedback?

The research was conducted using the descriptive qualitative method. The participants of the study were four-semester eight-students of English Letters Study Program, Sanata Dharma University, academic year 2005/2006 who joined thesis writing course. The data were gathered from students’ undergraduate thesis compositions from chapter one to three. It consisted of eight pieces of compositions divided into four pieces of the undergraduate thesis drafts with teacher feedback on them and four pieces of the revised versions. There are two instruments used in this study, i.e. checklist and interview.

The results of the data analysis on the first problem reveal that the teachers provided written feedback on language use, mechanics, organization, content, format, reference of source, vocabulary, and clarity. The findings show that the teacher feedback was mostly on the form. The content, which was the main component to form a good composition, only got few attentions. Based on the second problem, it was figured out that the students’ responses toward teacher written feedback were correcting, revising, consulting and ignoring. In correcting, the students either simply copied teacher’s correction or did correction on their own based on the markings or symbols given. In revising, the students responded by adding some details/explanations, deleting words/phrases, restructur ing sentences and substituting words/phrases. Students also had consultations with teachers, peers and books whenever they did not understand the feedback given. The last response was no response or ignorance in which students ignored the written feedback and did not make changes to the problematic parts.

Related to the findings of this study, there are some suggestions for teachers, students and future researchers. The teachers should : (1) provide more feedback on content than on form, (2) give clearer written feedback with legible handwriting, and (3) promote discussions on response and encourage students to read and ask question about the feedback. The students should: (1) practice to write compositions to produce better quality of writing, (2) make use of teacher written feedback and implement various strategies to respond it, and (3) enhance the strategies in responding teacher written feedback. As this study had some weaknesses, future researchers are recommended to: (1) conduct similar research with an interview with the teacher for verification and (2) investigate the relationship of the students’ response with their writing improvement.


xiv

ABSTRAK

Wulandari, Maria Agustina Sri. 2007. Students’ Responses to the Teacher Written Feedback on their Compositions. Yogyakarta: English Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.

Pemberian umpan balik yang efektif terhadap karangan siswa sangatlah penting. Hal ini dapat membantu siswa untuk memastikan bahwa apa yang mereka tulis mengandung pesan yang sama seperti yang ingin disampaikan dan untuk menghasilkan karangan dengan sedikit kesalahan dan kejelasan yang maksimal. Akan tetapi, kadang para siswa tidak memanfaatkan umpan balik secara optimal dikarenakan mereka tidak mengerti apa yang harus dilakukan terhadap umpan balik tersebut sehingga pada akhirnya siswa menanggapi umpan balik dengan menyalin semua pembetulan atau menghapus kata/kalimat yang mengandung kesalahan. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui tanggapan siswa terhadap umpan balik tertulis guru melalui dua masalah penelitian yaitu: apa saja kategori-kategori dari umpan balik tertulis guru? dan apa tanggapan siswa terhadap umpan balik tertulis tersebut?

Penelitian ini dilaksanakan menggunakan metode deskriptif qualitatif. Partisipan penelitian meliputi empat siswa semester delapan Program Studi Sastra Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma, tahun ajaran 2005/2006 yang mengikuti kelas Thesis Writing. Data-data diperoleh dari skripsi siswa dari bab satu sampai bab tiga. Karangan tersebut terdiri dari delapan karangan yang terbagi menjadi empat draft skripsi yang telah mendapat umpan balik dari guru dan empat revisi. Ada dua instrumen yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini yaitu checklist dan wawancara.

Dari hasil analisa untuk permasalahan penelitian yang pertama ditemukan bahwa kategori umpan balik tertulis yang diberikan oleh guru yaitu pada penggunaan bahasa, mechanics, organisasi, isi, format, sumber referensi, kosa kata dan kejelasan. Hasil ini menunjukkan bahwa kebanyakan umpan balik dari guru diberikan di form, sementara bagian isi yang merupakan komponen utama dalam sebuah karangan yang baik hanya mendapatkan sedikit umpan balik. Pada permasalahan yang kedua ditemukan bahwa tanggapan yang diberikan siswa terhadap umpan balik dari guru adalah membetulkan, merubah, bertanya, dan mengabaikan. Dalam membetulkan, para siswa langsung menyalin pembetulan dari guru atau berusaha membetulkan sendiri kesalahan menurut tanda atau simbol yang diberikan guru. Sementara, dalam merubah, para siswa menambahkan perincian/penjelasan, menghilangkan kata/frase, menyusun ulang kalimat dan mengganti kata/frase. Siswa juga bertanya pada guru dan teman serta membaca buku yang relevan saat mereka tidak mengerti arti dari umpan balik yang telah diberikan. Tanggapan yang terakhir adalah tidak adanya tanggapan atau pengabaian dimana siswa mengabaikan umpan balik tertulis dan tidak membuat perubahan terhadap bagian bermasalah yang telah diberi umpan balik.

Berkaitan dengan hasil-hasil dalam penelitian ini, beberapa saran diberikan bagi guru, siswa dan peneliti berikutnya. Para guru diharapkan untuk (1) memberikan lebih banyak umpan balik di bagian isi daripada di form, (2) memberikan umpan balik tertulis yang lebih jelas dengan tulisan tangan yang dapat terbaca, dan (3) mengadakan diskusi mengenai tanggapan serta mendorong siswa untuk membaca dan bertanya mengenai umpan balik. Para siswa diharapkan untuk: (1) berlatih menulis guna menghasilkan karangan yang lebih berkualitas, (2) menggunakan umpan balik dari guru dan menerapkan berbagai strategi guna menanggapi umpan balik, dan (3) meningkatkan strategi dalam menangggapi umpan balik dari guru. Karena penelitian ini memiliki kelemahan, peneliti-peneliti berikutnya disarankan untuk: (1) mengadakan penelitian serupa dengan mewawacarai guru agar hasil yang didapat lebih mendalam, dan (2) meneliti hubungan antara tanggapan siswa dengan peningkatan kualitas karangan siswa.


1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

This study is about the students’ responses to the teacher written feedback

on their composition. In brief, chapter one is divided into seven main parts, namely

research background, problem identification, problem limitation, problem

formulation, research objectives, research benefits, and definition of terms.

1.1 Research Background

The use of English language in the writing activity is still a problem for

most Indonesian students, as well as many other students who learn English as a

foreign language. Students may find difficulties in writing in a good and right form

of English. The difficulties do not only concern on finding the right words and

using the correct grammar but also on finding and expressing ideas in English

(Raimes, 1993: 13). As stated by Hughey, Wormuth, Hartfiel and Jacobs (1983: 5)

that many ESL/EFL students are thinking in their first language and translating

sentence by sentence when they write in English rather than translating ideas from

first to second language, Indonesian students often think and organize their ideas

according to the logic of their first language, that is Bahasa Indonesia, then

translate them into English. For this reason, students’ compositions may be far

from English compositions since students do not think as English native speaker

when they write so that it often occurs that in a composition made by an Indonesian

student, the tenses are in English but the sense or logic is Indonesian.


2

Related to those difficulties, many students often feel frustrated as they

learn to write a composition in English (Hughey et al., 1983: 5; Richards, 1992:

100). They are not confident enough to express their ideas in the written form.

They are also lacking in knowledge on how to make a good composition, especially

in terms of grammar accuracy, organization of ideas, and even probably, diction.

Students feel afraid to make mistakes whether in organization or grammar while

writing the composition and feel embarrassed if their mistakes may lead to the

confusion of their readers.

Since students often do not feel confident enough to write, it is important

for the teacher to give various writing task for students to be accustomed to writing

practice and enjoy practicing to write a composition and finally to improve

students’ ability in writing skill. Moreover, regarding to students’ lack of

knowledge on how to make a good composition, it is necessary for the teacher to

provide feedback when their students write a composition to ensure the students

that what they write conveys their intended messages that it has achieved the

characteristic of a good writing.

As stated by Muncie (2000: 52), feedback is vital to writing. It is important

for the teachers to provide feedback in the process of writing to help the students

improve their writing proficiency so that they are able to produce their composition

with minimum errors and maximum clarity.

Feedback can be provided by peers, teachers or computers (Hyland, 2002:

230). Although peer feedback has been applied in some writing courses, many

students still prefer to get feedback from their teacher. They consider feedback

from peers cannot be optimal because basically their peers have more or less the


3

same English level with them (Rollinson, 2005: 23). On the contrary, feedback

from teacher is considered to be more reliable since the teacher is more

knowledgeable than the students about the linguistic and rhetorical features of

English (Muncie, 2000: 50-51). Consequently, in many writing courses, teachers

are in charge of correcting and improving students’ English writing competence by

giving some notes or suggestions on the students’ writing.

Though teachers have provided feedback on students’ writing, students may

not utilize it optimally because sometimes they do not know what to do with the

feedback (Leki, 1990 in Williams, 2003). It can happen because students may not

understand the grammatical rules and terms that the teacher used as cues.

Moreover, they may not have adequate knowledge for error correction and they

may be confused with the large number of correction codes on their writings

(Chiang, 2004: 107). As the consequence, students often respond to feedback in

simply copying all the teachers’ corrections and suggestions or deleting some

sentences which contain errors in their revision.

This situation also occurs in writing a thesis. A final report or a thesis is

important as a partial fulfillment to graduate from the university. A good formal

writing should be produced in order to obtain a qualified thesis. Though, students

who write a thesis are those whose in the last semester who are considered to have

high competence in writing skills, they still need guidance from their teacher as the

thesis advisor in conducting the research. Students need feedback to ensure that

their thesis are reliable and understandable as, later on, they will defend it orally.

However, sometimes students may not know what they should do with the


4

feedback provided by their thesis advisor so that they only copy the corrections or

delete the error words. In regard to this situation, it is interesting to observe the

responses of students related to the written feedback given by their teacher. The

research entitled Students’ Responses to Teacher Written Feedback on their

Compositions was intended to observe the responses of the students after they get

written feedback from their teacher.

1.2 Problem Formulation

Based on the brief explanation in the previous parts, the problems are

formulated as the followings:

1. What are the categories of written feedback that is given by the teacher

to the students’ compositions?

2. What are the students’ responses to the teacher written feedback?

1.3 Problem Limitation

The research on the students’ responses to the teacher written feedback is

limited in scope. First, the research focuses on the written feedback that is given by

teacher on students’ compositions. Second, it only concerns with the responses that

students give to the written feedback from their teacher.

1.4 Research Objectives

Related to the research questions stated above, there are two objectives in

this research.


5

1. To find out the categories of written feedback that is given by the

teacher to the students’ compositions.

2. To find out the responses given by students toward teacher written

feedback.

1.5 Research Benefits

Hopefully, the findings of this research can help to give positive

contribution in improving teaching method and strategy of writing teachers,

especially in providing effective written feedback on students’ writings so that they

are encouraged to develop the ir writing skills.

For the students, it is hoped that by knowing the results of this study, they

will be able to improve their writings and writing skills by implementing various

strategies in responding the teacher written feedback. Finally, the results of this

study can stimulate the other researchers who are interested in the topic and give

contribution as references in the in-depth study of feedback for further researchers.

1.6 Definition of Terms

In this research, some terms are important to be defined in order to avoid

misinterpretation. Those terms are as follows:

1. Student’s Response

Response, according to Power (in Dunkin, 1987: 413), is any verbal or

non-verbal act designed to fulfill the expectations implicit in the

questions, commands or requests of others. In this study, student’s


6

response refers to any verbal or non-verbal act done by a student to

fulfill the expectations implicit in the teacher written feedback.

2. Teacher Written Feedback

Sherman (1995: 58) defines feedback as the comments and reactions of

the reader(s) and teacher on the student’s composition. Moreover,

according to Hyland (2002: 230), feedback is the response given to

students writing which can be provided by peers, teachers or computers

on either an oral or written form. In this research, teacher written

feedback is any comments, responses or reactions provided by the

teacher to the students’ compositions in written form. The teacher that is

meant here is thesis advisor who guided students in conducting a thesis

study.

3. Composition

Composition is defined as a short piece of written work (Oxford

Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 1995: 234). It is an outstanding way of

communicating personal thoughts, perceptions, experiences, knowledge,

feelings and ideas which the writer wants to say (Sherman, 1995: 12).

The composition being analyzed in this study was an undergraduate

thesis written by eight semester students of English Letters Department

of Sanata Dharma University.


7

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter consists of three parts, namely the theoretical description, the

review of existing research and the theoretical framework. The theoretical

description concerns with the theories that underline the topic of the research,

namely theory of writing and theory of feedback. The review of existing research

reviews some researches related to feedback which were conducted previously.

Then, the implementation of the theories in this study is discussed in the theoretical

framework.

2.1 Theoretical Description

This part consists of an explanation about two theories, which underlie this

study. The first theory is theory of writing and the second one is theory of

feedback.

2.1.1 Theory of Writing

This study deals with writing, therefore, it is necessary to reveal some

relevant theories of writing. The theories elaborated in this part are writing and

writing product versus writing process approach.

2.1.1.1 Writing

Writing is known as a means of communication. Through writing, people

can communicate their ideas and messages to other people in the real world. They

can also exchange information and transfer knowledge one to another. In other


8

words, writing is a way of thinking, learning and sharing ideas with others

(Zimmerman and Rodrigues, 1992: 4). Moreover, people can explore and express

themselves (Sherman, 1995: 12). People can explore their individual potentials and

express their ideas and/or ways of thinking in their writings.

In ESL/EFL context, writing becomes one of the skills which has to be

mastered besides speaking, listening and reading. A good writing skill is important

in this academic context as it helps students to achieve academic success in which

their writings are used as evidence of learning such as in essays and assignments or

as a means of learning like in notes and summaries (Richards, 1992: 100). In

addition, the students’ competence of English proficiency may also be activated

through the process of writing since this skill needs other basic skills like good

grammatical accuracy, extended vocabulary acquisition, logical way of thinking or

paragraph organization and critical point of view on certain topics (Kuswandono,

2003).

In relation with its significance, the ESL/EFL students are expected to have

a good writing skill. They are expected to be able to compose a good written work

which has appropriate content, organization, sentence structures and word choice

for its audience and purpose (Zimmerman and Rodrigues, 1992: 9). In order to help

students to develop their writing ability, it is necessary for the teacher to engage

students in the process of writing which emphasizes in the production of series of

draft involving the process of pre-writing, writing, revising and rewriting (Dixon

and Nessel, 1983: 84) and of making use of various feedback sources as they write

(Hyland, 2002: 89).


9

2.1.1.2 Writing Product versus Writing Process Approaches

One of the most controversial aspects of writing pedagogy has been the

tension between product and process approaches to the teaching of writing (Nunan,

1999: 273). The discussion of the writing product approach has always interrelated

to the discussion of the writing process approach which emerges as the criticism to

the first approach.

Nunan (1999: 273) states that the writing product approach focuses on the

final product, the coherent and error- free text. Similarly, Richards (1992: 106)

defines the writing product approach as a writing approach which puts emphasis on

the ability to produce correct texts. Supporting these two statements, Cohen (1990:

103) argues that product approach focuses on the finished product, which is

sometimes not finished, and on the grade. In other words, this approach puts

emphasis on the quality of the writing task without noticing the steps taken by

students in achieving the expected final draft.

The writing product approach often begins with a controlled writing

exercise in which the learners imitate or adapt, copy and transform various models

of written texts provided by the teacher and/or the textbook (Nunan, 1999: 272).

The writing product approach expects the students to make a coherent and error-

free text by following the model provided. The goal is to teach the students to

master different kinds of written texts that they will have in educational,

institutional and personal context. This approach also lets the teachers evaluate how

the students’ compose their writing based on the models given. In evaluating, the

teacher usually has a set of criteria including content, organization of idea,


10

vocabulary and grammatical use, also mechanical considerations like spelling and

punctuation (Brown, 2001: 335).

The drawback of the writing product approach in the learning process is that

this approach will discourage the students to do their writing assignments seriously

since the focus of the writing product approach on the instant product and the grade

(Cohen, 1990: 105). The students will only consider the grade that they received

and ignore the composing processes they go through.

In contrast to the writing product approach, the writing process approach is

seen as more effective than the writing product approach since it allows the

students to explore and develop a personal approach to writing (Richards, 1992:

114). The writing process approach puts emphasis on a process in which the

finished products came after a series of drafts (Cohen, 1990: 105). This statement is

supported by Nunan (1999: 272) who states that the focus of process approach is on

the steps involved in drafting and redrafting the piece of written work. In other

words, the writing process approach is an approach which emphasizes on giving

the students opportunities to shape their writing skills through a set of steps. This

approach does not focus on the final product that the students performed, but it

considers how the students reach their final output as the most important aspect.

The students are encouraged to put their ideas onto paper without worrying

too much about formal correctness (e.g. grammar or mechanics) in the initial

stages. Then, they share their work with others, getting feedback on their ideas and

how they are expressed, before revising (Nunan, 1999: 272). Thus, it can be said

that writing process is a process that can lead the students to make a good written

final product which needs a good cooperation between teacher and students in


11

which teacher provide feedback needed by students. This statement is also

supported by Shih in Brown (2001: 335) that teachers should give students

feedback throughout the composing process as they try to make the closest

intended writing. The kinds of feedback that the students can receive concerning

their written work and what to do about this feedback and how to utilize it most

effectively are the concern of this approach. Feedback is important in writing class

because it can help the students investigate if their message can be conveyed as it is

expected.

By following the steps of the writing process previously, the writing

process is believed to bring great advantages to the students in learning writing.

The first benefit is that by having the writing process the students will have more

opportunity for meaningful writing and become independent learners (Richards,

1992: 110). The second benefit is proposed by Brown (2001: 335-336) who stated

that writing process gives chances for the students to be more creative in using

language but they still focus on content and message. In this process the students

have more opportunity to think when they write.

However, every writing process activity should lead to the final product

(Shih as cited in Brown 2001: 335). As stated by Brown (2001: 337) that the

product is the ultimate goal which becomes the reason that students go through the

process of pre-writing, drafting, revising and editing. If the aim of the writing class

is to develop fluent writers; it is necessary to examine how fluent the student-

writers compose and to re-examine the writing methodology. To sum up, both the

teacher and students should realize that the process they go through will end up at

the final product. Process is not the end; it is the means toward the end.


12

2.1.2 Theory of Feedback

Since this study focuses on feedback in writing, this part explained some

relevant theories of feedback which became references in conducting this study.

The theories elaborated in this part are the definition of feedback in writing, the

purposes of feedback, the roles of feedback, the sources of feedback, the forms of

feedback, the focus of feedback and responses to feedback.

2.1.2.1 Definition of Feedback in Writing

There are many definitions of feedback introduced by many proponents and

some ideas of those definitions will be quoted here.

Feedback can be defined as any input from reader to writer that provides

information for revis ion (Keh, 1990, cited in Reid, 1993: 218). In addition, Hyland

(2002: 230) defines feedback as the response that is given to students writing. It

can refer to either oral or written forms provided by peers, teachers or computers.

Furthermore, according to Penaflorida (2002: 346) feedback or response is an

integral part of students writing. By providing feedback, students are given an

opportunity to be able to identify their own strengths and weaknesses. This may

encourage them to improve their writing skill and become more effective writers.

Supporting this statement, Williams (2003) states that the purpose of feedback is to

teach skills that help students improve their writing proficiency so that they will be

able to produce a composition which is minimal in errors and maximum in clarity.

From those definitions mentioned above, it can be concluded that feedback

is an essential aspect of students writing in which students getting response from

classmates and/or teachers on their written work so that they become aware of their


13

strengths and weaknesses in writing and at the end it can encourage them to

improve their writing ability.

2.1.2.2 Purposes of Feedback

According to Lewis (2002: 3-4), feedback has several purposes when given

in the language classes. First, feedback provides information both for teachers and

students. Through feedback, teachers can get information about individual as well

as collective class progress. It can also be used as a form of evaluation on the way

of their teaching. While for the students, feedback is considered as a continuing

type of assessment which is more focused than grades because it gives information

about individual progress by highlighting students’ strengths and weaknesses,

unlike grades which tend to compare one student with another.

The second is to give students advice in learning. Teacher can give students

more than simply descriptions of language use through feedback. The feedback

may also provide direct information about language by stating a rule or giving an

example.

Providing students with language input is the third purpose of feedback.

The teacher’s words, both in their form and purpose, describe how language is used

in personal communication so that it is important for the teachers to write

comments in a slightly higher level of language than the students have to extend

students’ language use since students can learn new vocabulary and structures in

context.


14

Fourth, feedback can be a form of motivation. It can encourage students to

learn and use language as best as they can by considering whatever the teachers

know about their attitude. As the teachers find out more about their students, the

encouragement may take the student’s personal circumstances into considerations.

The last purpose is to lead students toward autonomy. Feedback can help

students to learn to find their own mistakes. By learning to find their own mistakes,

students are encouraged to be independent students.

2.1.2.3 Roles of Feedback

Feedback is central in learning to write in a second language (Hyland, 2003:

201) and its role cannot be underestimated. It offers an additional framework to

improve writing skills, promote accuracy and clear ideas and develop an

understanding of written genres. Through feedback, students are able to identify the

strengths and weaknesses of their compositions, understand the reason of those

weaknesses and discuss possible improvement relating to the weaknesses. It also

provides students with a sense of being readers which give them an outside view of

the text so that they are cognizant of the readers’ needs.

However, feedback can only be effective if the students are encouraged and

able to utilize it to improve their writing. In order to written feedback results in a

positive effect, Cohen (1990: 111) presents four conditions which are needed.

Written feedback works when:

1. Students have sufficient knowledge about the area of

comments/corrections.


15

The feedback would be useful if the students have knowledge needed to

understand a correction or receive an explanation that provides the missing

knowledge.

2. The feedback is in an area that the students consider important for their

immediate or long-term knowledge.

The students would take more benefit of feedback that concerned about the

elements, in examples specific vocabulary, style or complex syntactic

structures which they tend to be used frequently.

3. The feedback is clear.

The feedback would be more understandable if the students can decipher

the handwriting of the teacher or understand the comments and/or symbols

that the teacher likely to use.

4. The students have strategies in dealing with the feedback

The feedback would be work well if students provide themselves with

systematic strategies for handling feedback. For example, if feedback is not

clear, good learners may determine what is not clear and check with the

teacher or a classmate to get clarification.

2.1.2.4 Sources of Feedback

Providing feedback to students writing, if administered properly, may make

writing attracting and challenging for students. These are 3 sources of feedback that

can be utilized in the classroom:


16

1. Self Feedback

In self feedback, the students can correct and evaluate their own

work. It is a step toward learner autonomy because by giving students

chance to analyze their own work and practice self feedback may encourage

them to be self-sufficient and independent students (Penaflorida, 2002:

351).

2. Peer Feedback

Liu and Hansen (2005: 31) define peer feedback as the use of

learners or peers as sources of information and interactants for each others

in such a way that learners themselves take roles or responsibilities which

are normally taken and done by teachers or trained tutors in commenting or

criticizing their own writings or drafts in the process of writing. It shows

that readership of students writing does not belong to the teachers

exclusively since students are allowed to share their written works with

each other (Penaflorida, 2002: 351).

3. Teacher Feedback

Teacher has been the main source of feedback both on oral and

written language in many classes (Lewis, 2002: 15). This situation also

occurs in writing class in which teachers reading and marking students’

papers, offering revision, suggestions and feedback on language errors

(Gebhard, 1996: 238).

According to Berzsenyi (2001), teachers can give feedback in form

of questions to ask for clarification or suggest expansion. Besides, teachers

may give remarks which reveal their understanding toward students’


17

composition, identify mechanical problem in a specific sentence and/or

give praise when the students working well in their writing. These can be

done to ensure the students that their written works are in line with the

message they want to convey.

2.1.2.5 Forms of Feedback

In the book Language Learning: Insight for Learners, Teachers and

Researchers, Cohen (1990: 109) divided feedback from the teacher into two types,

namely:

1. Oral Feedback

Oral feedback, also known as oral conferences, refers to personal

consultation between teacher and student during the evaluation of a

composition. This interactive session is expected to help in solving

problems that cannot be handled by written feedback alone. The major

problem that occurs in conducting this type of feedback is that teachers

need to have sufficient time.

2. Written Feedback

In written feedback, comments, corrections and/or marks are given

on students’ written work draft. The marks may be on words or quick

symbols such as underlining or other signs.

2.1.2.6 Focus of Feedback

The focus of feedback falls into two categories: form and content, and

teacher written feedback can include both of them. Feedback on form, according to


18

Fathman and Whalley (1990 in Chiang, 2004: 99), concerns with grammar and

mechanics errors. There are several common strategies used by teacher in

providing this kind of feedback. They are teacher’s correction of surface errors in

which students required to copy all the corrections, teacher’s marking that indicate

the place and type of error but without correction, teacher’s underlining to indicate

only the presence of errors. The two latter methods require students to correct the

errors on their own (Williams, 2003).

In contrast, feedback which involves comments on organization, ideas and

amount of detail is called content feedback. In feedback on content, teacher usually

points out problems and offers suggestions for improvements on future revision.

Using this feedback, the students are expected to incorporate information from the

comments into other versions of the ir writings (Williams, 2003).

2.1.2.7 Response to Feedback

According to Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (1995: 1000),

response is an action or feeling produced in answer to something. Another

definition is given by Power who defines response as any verbal or non-verbal act

designed to fulfill the expectations implicit in the questions, commands or requests

of others (Dunkin, 1987: 413). From the definition above, it can be deduced that

response to written feedback can be defined as any verbal or non verbal act

produced in answer to the written feedback.

Some researchers like Cohen (1987) and Hyland (1998) had conducted

researches on students’ responses on feedback. The findings of the researches

showed that students have some strategies when teacher provided written feedback


19

to their compositions. In Hyland’s study The Impact of Teacher Written Feedback

on Individual Writers students tried to combine most of the usable teacher

feedback in their revision when they were provided written feedback in their

writing. In revising the draft, usually, students followed the suggestions offered by

teacher or deleted words with errors. Students’ revisions can also be an initial

stimulus that encouraged changes in their writing beyond the point addressed by

teacher.

Chiang (2004) also states that most students have different strategies in

responding their teachers’ feedback. The most common strategies included making

corrections and remembering the mistakes. They also asked their classmates and

teacher when they did not understand teacher feedback, checked dictionaries and

checked grammar books. Furthermore, in his study Student Processing of

Feedback on their Composition, Cohen (1987) found that learners have limited

strategies of processing teacher feedback. In this study, the learners made a mental

note of the teacher’s comments as opposed to writing down points for future

revision, referring to other papers, and especially, revising their paper with the

incorporation of teacher comments.

In addition, Berzsenyi (2001) reports several types of students’ responses

when given feedback. They were revising words or sentences which were presented

with an explanation or the student’s agreement toward the teacher’s suggestion or

interpretation of the text, discussing writing strategies which responds to teacher’s

praise and making revision that were not initiated by the teacher. From the

explanation above, it can be concluded that students have various strategies in

responding written feedback provided by their teacher. The most common practices


20

are making correction and revision, adding missing details and explanations,

deleting irrelevant words/phrases, discussing or conferencing with teacher and

classmates also checking the books or dictionaries.

2.2 Review of Existing Researches

There must have been many researches about teacher written feedback. In

this part, there are two studies will be reviewed.

The first research was Students’ Perceptions toward Teacher Written

Feedback on their Compositions: A Case Study by Christina Dyah Kurniyati

(2006). This research was a case study. It was investigated the types of and the

students’ perceptions toward teacher written feedback. Two instruments,

questionnaire and interview, were used in this study.

The findings showed that teacher gave more feedback on surface level,

especially grammar. It was also found that students have good perceptions toward

their teacher written feedback in which they assumed that teacher written feedback

was clear, objective, helpful, encouraging and proportional. Based on the result,

Kurniyati gave suggestions for teachers to give clearer written feedback which

focus more on content level than on surface level. While for the students, Kurniyati

suggested them to make use the teacher written feedback and incorporate other

sources.

The second research was conducted by Fiona Hyland (1998), cited in

Hyland (2002: 195-199) entitled The Impact of Teacher Written Feedback on

Individual Writers. In this research, six ESL writer’s reaction to and uses of

Teacher Written Feedback in two courses at a New Zealand University was


21

investigated. Hyland catalogued and analyzed all teacher written feedback and

students’ revisions to figure out the relationship between feedback and revision. To

validate the analysis, interviews, questionnaires and observations were used.

The research found out that students incorporated most of the usable teacher

feedback in their revision based on their needs, past learning experiences and

writing approach. Students’ revisions usually followed teachers’ suggestions, acted

as an initial stimulus of a number of revisions or prompted deletions. This study

also showed communication breakdowns because of basic differences in the value

that teachers and students placed on written feedback. Thus, Hyland suggested for

an open dialogue concerning the kinds of feedback that students want and what

teachers will give.

This current research has a similar topic to the two researches composed by

Kurniyati and Hyland which concerns about the teacher written feedback.

However, this current research also has difference with the former studies. While,

Kurniyati and Hyland’s studies discuss on the students’ perceptions toward teacher

written feedback and the impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers,

this study will discuss on the responses of students toward the teacher written

feedback.

2.3 Theoretical Framework

The process of writing puts emphasis on pre-writing work to generate ideas

and the writing of series of drafts to revise and extend those ideas. Feedback is

essential in the writing process as it helps students to improve their drafts in order

to end up with a final draft which is better than those previous drafts. However,


22

students often do not know how to use feedback productively to improve their

skills as writers. This research, therefore, concerns on the response given by

students toward teacher written feedback.

Some experts’ points of view are used as the references to answer the

research problems. Those points of views play some significant roles in exploring,

identifying and analyzing the teacher written feedback and students’ responses.

Theory of feedback, especially focus of feedback proposed by Fathman and

Whalley (1990) and Williams (2003) helps to identify the category of written

feedback given by teacher. The written feedback may fall into two categories; form

and content. Feedback on form concerns with grammar and mechanics errors while

feedback on content concerns with organization, ideas and amount of detail.

Furthermore, theory of student’s response proposed by Cohen (1987), Hyland

(1998), Chiang (2004) and Berzsenyi (2001) helps to reveal the responses of

students toward teacher written feedback. Students may have various strategies in

responding teacher written feedback such as making correction and revision,

adding missing details and explanations, deleting irrelevant words/phrases,

discussing or conferencing with teacher and classmates also checking the books or

dictionaries.

To obtain the detailed information of the written feedback provided by

teacher, a checklist which contains feedback categorization is used as the main

instrument. Yet, in order to obtain the detail information of students’ responses,

first draft and revised composition are compared then students’ responses are listed.

An interview with students is conducted to verify the analysis on the students’

responses toward teacher written feedback.


23

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the methodology employed in this study in order to

answer the research problems. It covers the description of the kinds of methods

used in the research, the research subjects, the research setting, the research

instruments, the data source, the data collection, the data analysis, and the research

procedures.

3.1 Research Methodology

The method employed in this study was descriptive research. Ary, Jacobs

and Razavieh (1990: 381) state that descriptive research studies are designed to

obtain information concerning the current status of phenomena. The phenomenon

investigated in this research was the responses of students toward written feedback

given by their teacher.

This research was typically qualitative research since its primary purpose

was description (Sprinthall, Schmutte and Sirois, 1991: 98). Fraenkel and Wallen

(1993: 386) state that qualitative research produces descriptive data from the actual

words or actions of people. As a result, the data in this research would be in the

form of verbal statements, not numerical/statistical one.

This research also employed document analysis method in order to obtain

the data. According to Fraenkel and Wallen (1993: 386), document analysis

involves an analysis of the written or visual contents of a document. A document is

a piece of writing belonging or pertaining to the setting (Holliday, 2002: 72). The


24

document being analyzed in this study was the first to third chapter of students’

undergraduate thesis.

3.2 Research Participants

The subjects of this study were four students of semester eight of the

English Letters Study Program, Sanata Dharma University in the academic year

2005/2006 who were taking thesis writing course. Those four participants came

from two different classes in which their thesis has the same field that is linguistics.

The eight semester students were chosen as the participants because they

were considered to have higher competence in writing skills compared to the lower

semester students. Moreover, they were in the process of finishing their thesis

which means that feedback is crucial for them to ensure that their thesis were

reliable and understandable since, later on, they would defend it orally in order to

graduate from their department.

3.3 Research Setting

This research was conducted at the English Letters Study Program of

Sanata Dharma University which is located at Mrican, Yogyakarta.

The research was conducted at the English Letters Study Program of Sanata

Dharma University because it has good reputation in teaching English. In 2006, it

obtained “A” accreditation from National Accreditation Board (Badan Akreditasi

Nasional). Moreover, students of English Letters conducted their undergraduate

thesis under the advice of one lecturer. Guided by one lecturer only, the students

could fully concentrate on writing their thesis since they would get feedback from


25

one lecturer only. This also might prevent students from confusion which might

occur if they have two lecturers as their advisor.

3.4 Research Instruments

In order to gather data for this research, two instruments, checklist and

interview were used. The checklist was used to gather the data in document

analysis to answer the first problem, whereas the interview was used to validate the

results of the second problem.

3.4.1 Checklist

In this research, a checklist was used as the instrument to answer the first

problem which is what the categories of written feedback provided by teacher are.

According to Hopkins (1976: 271), checklist is an aid to direct observation which

lists items to be given attention. Check marks indicate presence, absence or

frequency of occurrence for each item. In this study, the checklist contains some

categories aimed to analyze the teacher written feedback.

The categories of the checklist were adapted from the ESL composition

profile proposed by Hughey et al. (1983: 141-145). The profile form contained five

important elements to compose a connected, coherent, and effective piece of

writing. Five important elements meant here were content, organization,

vocabulary, language use and mechanics. Then, one category which was reference

to source was added to complete the checklist. These six elements became the basis

to analyze the written feedback given by teacher. If it might be found some

categories of feedback that could not be included into six categories mentioned

previously, they could be put on others category which, later on, was also analyzed.


26

Thus, the checklist would be:

3.1 The Table Checklist of Teacher Written Feedback No Categories Total Percentage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Content Organization Vocabulary Language Use Mechanics Reference to Source Others

3.4.2 Interview

This research also employed interview as the instrument to gather data from

the students. Interview or careful asking of relevant questions is an important way

for a researcher to check the accuracy of or to verify the impressions of the

researcher has gained through observation (Fraenkel and Wallen, 1993: 385).

In this study, an interview with the students was conducted in order to

gather further information to validate the analysis on the second problem which is

the response of students toward teacher feedback. There was no interview

conducted with the teacher which was used to verify the analysis on teacher

feedback. The interview was only used to provide a detailed description about

students’ reactions to teacher written feedback.

There were six points of the questions delivered to the interviewees, i.e. (1)

understanding toward feedback, (2) students’ feeling, (3) problem appearing in

responding the feedback, (4) function of feedback, (5) students’ responses and (6)

reason why they respond in such a way. The questions were flexible, meaning that

if necessary the interviewer might elaborate or omit the questions. The questions


27

were delivered spontaneously as far as they could help the researcher to validate

the information about the students’ responses to teacher’s feedback.

3.5 Data Sources

This research used the students and their compositions as the main sources

of data. The compositions were taken from the undergraduate thesis compositions

of the students of English Letter Study Program, Sanata Dharma University. There

were two kinds of compositions used, which were the first draft of compositions on

which teacher had given written feedback and the revision of the first draft. The

compositions were used to answer the research questions. They were analyzed to

figure out the categories of the teacher written feedback and the students’ responses

to the feedback. Meanwhile, the students were interviewed to validate the analysis

on the students’ responses.

3.6 Data Collection

The data used in this research were collected from the undergraduate thesis

composition of the eight semester students of English Letter Study Program, Sanata

Dharma University academic year 2005/2006. In total, there were eight pieces of

writing collected from the students. They were four compositions with teacher

written feedback on it and four compositions of the revision.

First of all, the first draft compositions were collected from the partipants.

These compositions had teacher written feedback on it. The categories of teacher

written feedback were analyzed from these compositions using a checklist.


28

Afterwards, the second compositions which are the revision of the first

composition were collected. By comparing the changes on first composition and

the revised composition, the responses of students to teacher written feedback

could be found out. Their efforts to revise the composition, which is based on the

feedback given, were analyzed.

Next, an interview was conducted to verify the analysis on students’

responses. Some questions related to the responses of participants after they got

feedback were asked. The interview was conducted at different time and places

adjusted to the interviewee’s situation and condition. The interview was recorded in

order to make the result easier to be transcribed.

The data gathered from document analysis and the interview, then, were

transcribed as accurately as possible to answer the research problems.

3.7 Data Analysis

In addressing the analysis of the gathered data, some stages of data analysis

were used. Firstly, related to the first problem which was what the categories of

written feedback that is given by teacher on students’ compositions are, the draft

composition would be read carefully. The teacher feedback was categorized using a

checklist. To provide scientific reference on the frequency of the categories

presence in the students’ writing, the results of checklist were counted and

transformed in the percentage data.

Secondly, this research intended to find out the students’ responses toward

teacher feedback. The draft and revised compositions would be carefully reread,


29

then, the responses were analyzed by comparing the changes between the draft

composition and the revision. Next, the students’ responses, which were what they

had done to revise their compositions, were listed.

The last stage, to validate the analysis on student reaction, interviews with

participants were conducted and recorded. What has been said by interviewees

were jotted down and analyzed. Then, the interview results were analyzed by

repeatedly reading the interview transcripts.

Afterwards, the interview transcript and the results of document analysis

were tried to compare so that deep understanding of the responses of students could

be obtained. Finally, some conclusions were drawn and the students’ responses to

the teacher written feedback were categorized.


Feedback COMPOSITIONS Teacher Written

Feedback and Students’ Responses

The categories of teacher written

feedback

Classification of the teacher written

feedback

Identification of the teacher written

feedback

The responses of students toward teacher

written feedback

List of the students’ responses

Interview on the students’ responses

Identification of the students’ responses

Student’s composition with teacher written

feedback on it Student’s composition with teacher written

feedback on it

Revised composition

CONCLUSIONS Figure 3.1 Flow Chart of Research Procedures

Checking using checklist

Co m-paring


31

CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS RESULTS

This chapter presents the results which answer the question previously

formulated in the problem formulation. The first question concerns with written

feedback provided by teacher on students’ composition. The second question

concerns with students’ responses toward teacher written feedback. The results are

presented in the following order: (1) teacher written feedback, and (2) students’

responses.

4.1 Teacher Written Feedback

The data were gathered from the first composition which was the students’

undergraduate thesis draft with teacher feedback on it. The composition consisted

of four pieces of writing. The data presented here were teacher written feedback

that was given to eight semester students of English Letters Department of Sanata

Dharma University.

After all teacher written feedbacks on students’ compositions were gathered

and classified into seven categories in the feedback checklist, the percentages of

each category of feedback were calculated. Thus, the results were presented in the

table 4.1 below:

Table 4.1 The Table Checklist of Teacher Written Feedback Percentage No Feedback Categories Total Percentage 1 Language Use 62 38.51% 2 Mechanics 38 23.60% 3 Organization 17 10.56% 4 Content 15 9.32% 5 Format 10 6.21% 6 Reference to Source 8 4.97% 7 Vocabulary 7 4.35% 8 Clarity 4 2.48% Total 161 100%


32

Considering the results above, it could be seen that the feedback on

language use was 38.51% and the feedback on mechanics was 23.60%. It meant

that the feedback given by teacher on students’ compositions was mostly on the

form area. It is also revealed that the feedback on organization was 10.56% and the

feedback on content was 9.32%. These results implied that the teacher had few

attentions in the content area of the compositions whereas it was the main aspect

that needs to be considered in writing since the content and flow of ideas become

necessary components to form a good composition.

Lastly, the results showed that the feedback on format was 6.21%, the

feedback on reference of source was 4.97%, the feedback on vocabulary was

4.35% and the feedback on clarity was 2.48%. In order to give specific information

concerning the teacher written feedback provided to the students’ composition,

each feedback was discussed in each following section. It included discussions

from the feedback on language use to the feedback on clarity.

4.1.1 Language Use

Language use concerns with the linguistic components used for effective

delivery of discourse in writing, like grammar and effective complex constructions

of sentences (Hughey et al., 1983: 141). This research figured out that teacher gave

written feedback most on language use including the use of articles, tenses, plural

marker, language objectivity, pronouns and sentence construction.


33

4.1.1.1 Articles

Articles “a”, “an” and “the” are used to indicate singular noun. In this study,

it was figured that students paid little attention to the use of articles. The students

did not put any articles to indicate a singular noun and teacher gave feedback on it.

Consider these examples:

Example 1

The sentence in the example above was incomplete. The word “noun”,

“verb”, ”adjective” and “certain prefix” in that sentence were a singular noun,

therefore, articles “a” or “an” should be put before those words. Teacher gave

corrections by putting articles in front of those words to make the sentence

complete.

Example 2

The article “the” was used to refer to a particular thing. In the sentence

above, the students did not put article “the” in front of the words “review of related


34

studies”, “review of related theories” and “theoretical framework”. Therefore,

teacher gave corrections by putting article “the” before those words.

4.1.1.2 Tenses

Fountain (Bram, 1999: 55) states that the students should not change the

tense from present to past or vice versa unless they have a good reason. Teacher

provided feedback on tense to ensure that students used the appropriate tense and

they were consistent in using the tense. Consider these examples:

Example 1

In writing, a writer needs to be consistent in using tenses to say what he/she

wants to say. In the example above, the author was not consistent in using a tense.

She used both simple present tense and simple past tense within a paragraph. For

that reason, teacher gave comment about her consistency in using the tense whether

she wanted to use simple present tense or simple past tense.


35

Example 2

An undergraduate thesis is a research report. It means that writing an

undergraduate thesis is writing a report of a research that had investigated. Since it

is a report, the writer has to write it using simple past tense. In the example, the

author used simple present tense in writing the composition. Consequently, teacher

suggested the author to revise her composition into past tense.

4.1.1.3 Plural Marker

In this research, it was found that students omitted plural marker of nouns.

Therefore, the teacher gave correction on the nouns by adding –s or –es in the end

of the word. The examples were:


36

4.1.1.4 Language Objectivity

An undergraduate thesis is included as an academic writing and one of the

characterizations of an academic writing is the objective structures. The author has

to write the thesis in a neutral way using objective structures, such as impersonal

forms and passive voice. To keep the objectivity in writing the thesis, the teacher

provided feedback on it as the example:

The use of word “the writer”, in the example above, made the writing sound

subjective. Therefore, the teacher suggested the author to write it in a neutral way

in order to the writing be objective.

4.1.1.5 Pronouns

A pronoun is a word that substitutes for a noun, a noun phrase, or another

noun (Raimes, 2002: 453). Teacher also provided feedback on the use of pronoun.

Consider the example:


37

In the sentence above, the subject personal pronoun “she” should not be

used because the author has not mentioned to whom “she” refers to yet. Teacher,

then, corrected it by changing “she” into “Antasari” which was the name of the

person.

4.1.1.6 Sentence Constructions

The construction of sentences must follow certain well-defined rules

(Warren, 1985: 335). In this study, it was found that students did not follow the

rules in constructing the sentences correctly. For that reason, the teacher gave

feedback on sentence constructions so that the readers are able to comprehend the

information presented by the students. Consider these examples:

Example 1

In the example above, the second sentence was a subordinate clause and

therefore only part of a sentence. It must be included in the full sentence. The

teacher, then, corrected the sentence by changing the period into comma and

changing capital letter into lowercase.


38

Example 2

In constructing a sentence, there must be basic agreement between the

sentence elements. In the example above, the author missed to put a noun to follow

the adjective word “systematic”. Therefore, the teacher asked clarification of what

is systematic.

4.1.2 Mechanics

Mechanics is the technical aspects of writing including punctuation or

capitalization (Sorenson, 1996: 571). In this research, it was found that teacher

gave written feedback on mechanics (23.60%). Most of the feedback provided on

the use of punctuation, italics and capitalization. The discussions were below:

4.1.2.1 Punctuation

Sorenson (1996: 576) defines punctuation as the use of standardized marks

in writing and printing to separate sentences or parts of a sentence or to make

meaning clearer. Punctuation marks are easy to use correctly if their functions are

understood; however, there is an exception that is the comma. Comma is the most

common mark of punctuation and the most complex uses also (McCrimmon, 1984:

656). This statement is in line with the result of this study in which all feedback

given on punctuation concerned on the uses of comma. Its complex uses made

students misuse it when writing their compositions. Here are the examples:


39

Example 1

The most important use of comma is to prevent a confusing, ambiguous or

awkward reading. As the four examples above, without a comma those sentences

became confusing and awkward. The teacher, then, added the comma to make

those sentences clear enough for the readers.

Example 2

In the example above, semicolons were used to separate elements in series.

However, semicolons were not appropriate to be used because semicolons were

used to separate elements which contained comma in a series. For this reason, the

teacher suggested the author to use comma instead of semicolons since comma was

the appropriate punctuation to separate those elements in series in that sentence.


40

4.1.2.2 Italics

The use of italics is to indicate that a word or a word group has a special

meaning or significance. Since the compositions which were analyzed dealt with

linguistics topic which used words as the source of data, italics were needed to call

the attention to the words being named.

In the following example, the students did not italicize some words that

they used as data. This could confuse the readers in reading the compositions

because they might not know which words that were needed to be given special

attentions. Therefore, teacher suggested students to italicize the words that they

wanted to be given special attentions. Teacher underlined and gave comment

“miring” (italics) to those words. Consider this following example:

4.1.2.3 Capitalization

The teacher also gave feedback on the use of capitalization because students

misused it on their writing. Consider these examples:

Example 1


41

In the sentence above, the author misused the capital letter. A capital letter

should be used after a period instead of a comma, therefore, the word “compound”

should not be written in capital letter. The teacher circled that word to make the

author be aware of her mistake so that she could correct it in her revision.

Example 2

A capital letter is used to write a proper noun. In the example above, the

author did not use capital letter in writing someone’s name so that the teacher gave

a correction on it.

4.1.3 Content

Warren (1985: 34) states that the content of a composition should be

accurate, current and complete. It is ineffective for a composition to contain errors

or omission in content (Zimmerman and Rodrigues, 1992: 171). In other words, an

effective composition needs to be accurate, complete and do not have errors in the

content.

Providing feedback on content to students in the process of writing is

important to figure out whether the ideas conveyed in students’ compositions are in

line with the topic they want to discuss. It may ensure the students that their ideas

are developed and organized well and that they have included information that is

not only interesting but also relevant to support their ideas.


42

In this study, it was figured out that teacher provided feedback on content to

students’ compositions. This feedback was in forms of imperatives or questions and

it often functioned as general comment of a sub heading. Consider the following

examples:

Example 1

The author stated that her aim in conducting the research was to find

something different related to the English prefixes. The teacher might consider the

reason for the author to conduct the study was not strong enough. Therefore, the

teacher underlined the word “something different” and gave comment that it was

not a good reason for conducting a research. The author needed to put good, strong

and scientific reasons that supported her in conducting the study.

Example 2

In the example above, the author did not put the publishing date of the

newspapers she used as source of data. Therefore, the teacher asked the date when

the newspapers were published. The author needed to put the dates of publishing

for the accuracy of the data. It could prove that the data used in the research were

exist and valid.


43

Other examples of feedback on content were:

• Is there any segmental process in the words you analyze? • Discuss more about mega, etc. they are problematic! • What do you mean by word class? Write something else! • Do you understand all the above? If no, drop them!

These comments, questions and imperatives were given as general

comments on students’ compositions. This feedback sought for students’

understanding toward what they had previously discussed and asked for further

discussion about it on their next revision.

4.1.4 Organization

Campbell (1998: 87) defines organization as the structure of paragraphs,

essays and longer stretches of discourse. Good organization in writing can help the

readers to follow the movement and the flow of the ideas in the composition. It was

found that the teacher also provided student s with written feedback on

organization. Consider this example:


44

In the example above, the sentences were not well-organized. The author

used many unnecessary words in the sentences which made her explanation

become not succinct and not to the point. For that reason, teacher reorganized the

paragraph so that it could be succinct and straight to the point in order to make the

readers follow the author’s ideas easier.

4.1.5 Format

Formatting refers to the physical presentation on the page (Zimmerman and

Rodrigues, 1985: 85). In writing an undergradua te thesis, feedback on format is

needed to ensure that students have followed the appropriate style guidelines

because there are certain rules that must be followed. In this study, there were ten

feedbacks on format provided to students. The examples were:

4.1.6 Reference to Source

According to Bazerman (1985: 474), reference is the art of mentioning

other writers’ words, ideas or information using your own words. It is important to


45

show that the composition is built on the solid foundation of respected earlier work

so that readers can be convinced about the validity of the ideas (ibid: 475). In this

study, there were eight feedbacks on reference of source given by teacher. The

examples are:

Example 1

When writers use statements or ideas from another writer, they have to

make this clear because if they use another person’s words or ideas as if it is their

own, it can be assumed as plagiarism and it is regarded as a very serious offense. In

the example above, the author did not put any bibliographical details whereas the

information above was not her own statement. For that reason, the teacher asked

her to put the source where she got the information because if there were no

reference of source attached then it could be considered as plagiarism.

Example 2


46

In writing the references of citation, the bibliographical details need to be

attached are the surname of the person whom the ideas are cited, followed by the

year when the work published and the page on which the ideas are stated. Those

three examples above had a common mistake that was incomplete bibliographical

details. The authors had to put clear bibliographical detail whenever they quoted

others’ ideas or statements. The teacher gave feedback to make them aware that

they had not given clear bibliographical details in writing the reference of source.

4.1.7 Vocabulary

Vocabulary is a sum or stock of words employed by a language (Merriam-

Webster Dictionary, 1993: 1322). In writing, it deals with the sophisticated range

of word choice and the appropriateness and effectiveness of the word choice and

usage. In this study, the teacher provided written feedback on vocabulary like the

examples.

Example 1


47

The word “problematic matter”, in the example above, made the sentence

sound awkward to read. Therefore, the teacher crossed out the word “problematic

matter” and changed it into “problem” to make the sentence sound better.

Example 2

An undergraduate thesis is an academic writing which needs to be written in

a scientific language. In the sentence above, the teacher crossed the word “is” and

changed it into sophisticated word “covers” to make the sentence be scientific

enough.

4.1.8 Clarity

A writer should present their ideas clearly and integratively. Therefore,

he/she needs to write with clarity so that readers will not have difficulties in

understanding his/her ideas. The teacher provided feedback on clarity as follows:

In the examples above, the words “just like the example” and “so on” told

nothing to the readers. Teacher asked author to replace that words with specific and

concrete terms to make the sentences clearer for the readers.


48

4.2 Students’ Responses

The data were gathered from the students’ compositions that consisted of 8

pieces of writing that were four pieces of the first draft composition and four pieces

of the revision. The first draft and the revision were compared to find the responses

of students toward teacher written feedback. Having compared the compositions,

the types of responses were listed. Interviews with the participants were also

conducted to verify the results.

In responding the teacher written feedback, students had several responses.

They were correcting, revising, consulting and ignoring or making no change in the

revision. The discussions of each response that was done by students toward

teacher written feedback were presented below. The highlighted part in the

examples indicated the revision that was made based on the teacher feedback.

4.2.1 Correcting

In providing written feedback, the teacher may give feedback in terms of

corrections. The teacher may cross out inappropriate words and/or underlines or

circles words which are problematic or contain errors and gives correction on them

(Williams, 2003). In correcting, students make corrections and improvements to

words, grammar or mechanics in their writings.

In this research, it was found that when the teacher gave corrections,

students’ responded in two ways. Firstly, students simply copied the teacher’s

corrections. When students were provided with corrections on parts which

contained errors, they tend to simply copy those corrections in their revision. It was

because they were aware that the parts which were given feedback were incorrect


49

and they agreed with the correction suggested by the teacher. Thus, they directly

copied the corrections and did not change any other parts.

Example 1

was corrected into

According to Wardaugh (1977), language is a system of arbitrary vocal symbols used for communication.

Example 2

was corrected into

It does not change either the spelling or the phonetic transcription of the derived word because the morphophonemic process that occurs with the prefix over is only a stress shift.

Secondly, the students corrected their compositions on their own based on

the written feedback given. Besides directly giving corrections, the teacher also

provides students with written feedback in symbols or markings, such as

underlining or circling parts which are problematic. The teacher does not directly

give correction toward those parts to make the students aware of the errors they

made. Therefore, the students should find out the errors they made and corrected

them on their own based on the symbols or markings given by the teacher. In this


50

study, when students provided written feedback in symbols, they were able to

correct their mistakes on their own.

Example 1

was corrected into

And the prefix pre- occurs with noun as in prewar, verb as in prework, and an adjective as in prerehearsal (Artasari, 2003: 29-38)

Example 2

was corrected into

The sound level concerns with the study of human speech.

Example 3

was corrected into

In addition, many can also act as substitute forms such as I asked for a dozen tickets, but they couldn’t spare many (Quirk et al., 1985: 385)

4.2.2 Revising

Revising is making changes that affect meaning or organization to a draft in

a progress. The changes may include adding sentences or paragraphs, moving


51

sentences around, deleting phrases or alternating repeated words with synonyms

(Campbell, 1998: 88).

In this research, it was found that when teacher gave comments on students’

compositions, students did some revisions on their compositions. Students mostly

revised their compositions when they got feedback on their content, clarity and

organization of ideas. There were four strategies they used in revising their writing,

which were adding details/explanations, deleting words/phrases, substituting

words/phrases and restructur ing sentences.

4.2.2.1 Adding details/explanations

One of the responses that the students did in revising was adding some

details or explanations in their revision. Sometimes, in giving an explanation

students missed some important details. This could make the sentences unclear and

it might lead to readers’ confusion. Therefore, when the teacher gave comments

asking for the meaning or clarity of students’ sentences, students responded giving

additional details or explanations to make the sentences clear. Those details and

explanations were needed to give a better understanding for the readers.

Example 1

was revised into

The Jakarta Post was also limited only on 14, 17, 20 and 23 September, 15, 18, 21 and 24 October and 15, 18, 21 and 24 November.


52

Example 2

was revised into

Furthermore, the prefix can also make changes on the place of the stress in the stem.

4.2.2.2 Deleting Words/Sentences

Another strategy that the students did was deleting words or sentences

which were problematic or contained errors. In this study, it was found that when

teacher gave comments to problematic words or sentences and the students did not

know how to revise it, they simply deleted those words. They avoided the issues

raised by feedback by deleting the problematic words or sentences. The students

also deleted some unnecessary words which made their explanation not succinct.

The teacher crossed out those unnecessary words and the students would delete

them in their revision.

Example 1

was revised into

… The prefixes of time Artasari (2000) composed are also English prefixes derived from Latin which is related to the research of English prefixes mega-,macro-, poly-, multi- that prefixes coming fom Latin and Greek.


53

Example 2

was revised into

Compound noun are the most productive compounds.

4.2.2.3 Substituting Words/Phrases

The students also substitute some words which were problematic and

change it into another word. The reason for substituting the problematic words

might be because the students did not know how to make improvement to the text.

When students obtained feedback which asked them to explain more about

something they had written previously and they were lack of information to give

further explanation, they preferred to substitute the words so that they did not need

to explain further about the problematic words.

Example

was revised into

Secondly, it means ‘anterior’ (‘forward’) as in antechamber which means forward chamber, and ‘in front of’ as in antechoir, which means in front choir.

4.2.2.4 Restructuring Sentences

In this study, it also figured out that the students restructured sentences in

their composition when revising. It was found that when the teacher gave


54

comments on vague or confusing sentences, the students restructured the sentences.

They also restructured the sentences which contain too many errors. It was done in

order to make the sentences succinct and attain better order of ideas so that their

readers would be easier in understanding their composition.

Example

was revised into

Many English derived words, as in other languages, are formed with affix, through affixation process. According to the position, English affixes are distinguished into three, prefix, infix and suffix. A prefix is an affix attached before the stem; an infix is an affix placed between or inside the stem; and a suffix is an affix attached after stem. Different English affixes (prefix, infix and suffix) form many different English Categories such as noun, verb, adjective and adverb.

4.2.3 Consulting

Another response that was found in revising was consulting. It was figured

out that students had consultations with teacher, peers and books related to the

written feedback they received on their compositions. They asked their teacher or


55

peers when they did not understand the meaning of written feedback provided. The

problem occurred in understanding the feedback mostly concerned with teacher’s

handwriting. The students did not want to misinterpret the feedback because of

teacher illegible handwriting so that they asked their teacher or friends to clarify

teacher’s comments. One of the participants said that if she could not read teacher

feedback, she would ask her friends first whether they could read it or not. If her

friends could not help in interpreting the feedback and she still did not understand

about what the teacher wrote or what she should do, she would come to ask again

and have a discussion with the teacher.

In addition, students asked their peers if they did not know how to make the

changes or how to improve the composition related to the written feedback

provided. They asked suggestions from their peers on how to revise their

compositions. The students also checked the books related to their topic especially

about theories needed as the basic foundation of their research. They read many

books as references especially when the feedback given was about something

which they did not know or never heard before. The students tried to find some

books used as references on their own but when they found difficulties in finding

the appropriate books for references; they asked teacher’s help to suggest the most

appropriate books as sources.

4.2.4 Ignoring

The last response that the students gave toward feedback was ignoring it.

Students left some parts which were problematic or contained errors without any

changes in the revised composition although they obtained written feedback on

them. This ignorance might occur because students did not know how to revise the


56

composition. They might also be careless in reading teacher feedback on the draft

composition. They missed to read the feedback especially if the feedback was

about minor syntactic components of a sentence, for example punctuation or

capitalization. Therefore, the students did not make any changes in their revised

composition.


57

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter covers two main parts, namely conclusions and suggestions.

The first part presents the conclusions derived from the research. The second part

presents the suggestions intended for the teacher, the students and future

researchers.

5.1 Conclusions

This research was intended to find out the students’ responses to teacher

written feedback on their compositions. There are two main research problems to

answer. The first research problem was about the categories of teacher written

feedback. The second research problem was about the students’ responses to

teacher written feedback on their compositions.

Based on the data results and discussions in the previous chapter, two major

conclusions were made.

1. To answer the first problem, it was found that teacher written feedback

dealt with language use, mechanics, organization, content, reference to

source, and vocabulary. In addition, it was also found written feedback on

format and clarity. From the results, it was shown that teacher written

feedback focused more on form area which was concerned about language

use and mechanics, while the content area which was concerned about

content and organization of the composition only got few attentions. The

finding was consistent with Kurniyati’s (2006) finding on her research that


58

teacher tend to gave more feedback on surface or form level than on

content.

2. To answer the second research question, it was found that there were

several responses done by students such as correcting, revising, consulting

and ignoring.

a. In correcting, the students responded in two ways. Firstly, they

simply copied teacher correction because they agreed with the

correction suggested by teacher. Secondly, they corrected their

compositions on their own based on the symbols or markings

feedback from teacher. The teacher did not give correction directly

to make the students aware of mistakes on their own.

b. In revising, it was found that the students had four strategies to

revise their compositions. They were adding details/explanations,

deleting words/phrases, substituting words/phrases, and

restructur ing sentences.

c. Students also had consultations with teacher, peers and books

whenever they did not understand teacher feedback. They did it to

get the correct interpretation of the feedback.

d. The last response was ignoring in which the students ignored the

written feedback given by their teacher. They did nothing to the

parts which were given corrections or markings. Those parts were

just the same in the first draft as in the revision.


59

5.2 Suggestions

Considering the importance of this study, there are three suggestions which

are expected to be meaningful for teachers, students and other researchers.

5.2.1 For The Teachers

1. Since teacher tends to give more written feedback on form area than on

content area, teacher needs to pay more attention to the content area

which covers the content and the organization of ideas on the students’

compositions. Teacher, then, should try to balance the feedback given

both on form and content areas.

2. Teacher should provide clear feedback with legible handwriting, and

using simpler and more straightforward language to students so that they

know what the feedback means and what they are to do with it.

3. Teacher should promote class discussions on response and encourage

students to read and ask questions about the feedback given by them. The

discussion is needed in order to avoid miscommunication between

teachers and students.

5.2.2 For The Students

1. One of the best ways to produce better quality writing is through

practices. The students can practice to write a composition so that they

get accustomed to writing English compositions.

2. Students should also be proactive in revising their compositions by

making use of the teacher written feedback and implementing various

strategies to respond to the teacher written feedback.


60

3. Students should enhance the strategies in responding to teacher written

feedback so that they would be able to use the feedback effectively to

improve their writing.

5.2.3 For Future Researchers

Since the study was limited to time and scope, the findings and analysis of

the study were not completely done. Therefore, further studies on feedback in

writing are highly recommended.

As previously stated that in this study there were no interviews conducted

with the teacher to verify the focus and types of written feedback provided by

teacher on students’ compositions. Thus, it is recommended that other researchers

conduct a similar study by interviewing the teacher to enhance more precise data.

Other researcher may also investigate the relationship of the students’ strategies in

responding to feedback with their writing improvement.


61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ary, Donald, Jacobs, Lucy Cheser, and Razavieh, Asghar. 1990. Introduction to Research in Education. 4th ed. Florida: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Bazerman, Charles.1985. The Informed Writer: Using Source in the Disciplines. 2th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Berzsenyi, Christine A. 2001. Comments to Comments: Teachers and Students in Written Dialogue about Critical Revision. Retrieved from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3986/15_200110/ai_n 896744, accessed on February 11, 2006

Bram, Barli. 1995. Write Well: Improving Writing Skills. Yogyakarta: Kanisius.

Brown, Douglas H. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. 2nd ed. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Campbell, Cherry. 1998. Teaching Second-Language Writing: Interacting with Text. Canada: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.

Chiang Kwun Man, Ken. 2004. An Investigation into Students’ Preferences for and Responses to Teacher Feedback and Its Implications for Writing Teachers. Hong Kong Teachers’ Centre Journal, vol. 3, p. 98-113.

Cohen, Andrew D. 1987. Student Processing of Feedback on their Compositions. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds). Learner Strategies in Language Learning. London: Prentice Hall International UK, Ltd.

Cohen, Andrew D. 1990. Language Learning: Insight for Learners, Teachers and Researchers. New York: Newbury House Publishers.

Dixon, Carol N. and Nessel, Denise. 1983. Language Experience Approach to Reading (and Writing). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Regents.

Fraenkel, Jack R. and Wallen, Norman E. 1993. How to Design and Evaluate Reseach in Education. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill.

Gebhard, Jerry G. 1996. Teaching English as a Foreign or Second Language.

Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.

Holliday, Adrian. 2002. Doing and Researching Writing. London: SAGE Publications.


62

Hopkins, Charles D. 1976. Educational: A Structure for Inquiry. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.

Hornby A. S. 1995. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hughey, Jane B., Wormuth, Deanna R., Hartfiel, V. Faye, and Jacobs, Holly L. 1983. Teaching ESL Composition: Principles and Techniques. Cambridge: Newbury House Publishers.

Hyland, Ken. 2002. Teaching and Researching Writing. London: Pearson Education Limited.

Hyland, Ken. 2003. Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kurniyati, Christina Dyah. 2006. Students’ Perceptions toward Teacher Written Feedback on their Compositions: A Case Study. A Thesis. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.

Kuswandono, Paulus. 2003. Feedback as a Process in Writing. In Seminar Proceedings (the Second International Seminar on English Language Studies: Language, Literature and World Peace) Sanata Dharma University-Ateneo de Manila University. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.

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

Liu, Jun and Hansen, Jette G. 2005. Guiding Principles for Effective Peer Feedback. ELT Journal, 59. p. 31-38.

Longman Language Activator: The World’s First Production Dictionary. 1994. England: Longman Group UK Limited.

McCrimmon, James M. 1984. Writing With a Purpose. 8th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. 10th ed. 1993. Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.

Muncie, James. 2000. Using Written Teacher Feedback in EFL Composition Classes. ELT Journal, 54. p. 47-53.


63

Nunan, David. 1999. The Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.

Power, C. N. 1987. Responding. In M. J. Dunkin (Ed). The International

Encyclopedia of Teaching and Teacher Education. Oxford: Pergamon Book Ltd.

Penaflorida, Andrea H. 2002. Nontraditional Forms of Assessment and Response to

Student writing: A Step toward Learner Autonomy. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds). Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Raimes, Ann. 1983. Techniques in Teaching Writing. New York: Oxford

University Press. Raimes, Ann. 2002. Keys for Writers: A Brief Handbook. 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin Company. Reid, Joy M. 1993. Teaching ESL Writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Richards, Jack C. 1992. The Language Teaching Matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. Rollinson, Paul. 2005. Using Peer Feedback in the ESL Writing Class. ELT

Journal, 59. p. 23-30. Sherman, Jane. 1995. Feedback: Essential Writing Skills for Intermediate Students.

Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sorenson, Sharon. 1996. Webster’s New WorldTM Student Writing Book. 2nd ed.

New York: Prentice Hall, Inc. Sprinthall, Richards C., Schmutte, Gregory T., and Sirois, Lee. 1991.

Understanding Educational Research. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Warren, Thomas L. 1985. Technical Writing: Purpose, Process and Form.

Belmont: Wadsworths Publishing Company. Williams, Jason Gordon. 2003. Providing Feedback on ESL Students’ Written

Assignments. TESL Journal. Vol. IX. No. 10. Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Williams-Feedback.html, accessed on September 9, 2005

Zimmerman, Donald and Rodrigues, Dawn. 1992. Research and Writing in the Discipline. Philadelphia: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.


APPENDICES


Appendix 1: Analysis on the Categories of Teacher Written Feedback No Sentences Categories

of Feedback 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

Language use (art) Language use (art) Language use (art) Language use (art) Mechanics (neatness) Vocabulary Format Format Organization, Language use (tense) Language use (sent. constr.) Mechanics


11 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

(neatness) Format Mechanics (capitalization) Organization Language use (plu. marker) Format Language use (art) Language use (art) Languge use (sent. constr.) Language use (art) Language use (art) Organization Content Mechanics (punctuation) Ref. to source Ref. to source Language use (tense) Vocabulary Vocabulary


30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

A. Review of Related Studies (Do you understand all the above? If no, drop them!)

CHAPTER II (Never have a subtopic only with one paragraph!)

Vocabulary Language use (sent. const.) Language use (plu. marker) Content Ref. to source Language use (art) Language use (sent. const.) Ref. to source Ref. to source Mechanics (capitalization) Ref. to source Ref. to source Mechanics (paragraphing) Vocabulary Content Organization


46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

CHAPTER I (Are these all?)

Language use (agreement) Language use (plu. marker, article, tense ), Mechanics (punctuation) Language use (sent. constr.) Language use (sent. constr.) Vocabulary Content Language use (article) Mechanics (space) Content Format


54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

a. Review of Related Studies Discuss the research results!

Mechanics (italics) Mechanics (italics) Mechanics (italics) Mechanics (italics) Mechanics (italics) Mechanics (italics) Language use (sent. constr.) Language use (language objectivity) Content Format


64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

Format, organization Organization Language use (art.) Clarity Organization Organization Clarity Clarity, content Format Organization Organization Organization Format, content Organization Organization Organization Lang. use (tense)


81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

Lang. use (tense) Content Language use (tense) Language use (art.) Language use (tense) Format Vocabulary, clarity Language use (tense) Language use (tense) Language use (art.) Language use (art.) Language use (art.) Mechanics (italics) Language use (plu. marker,article); mechanics (italics)


95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103 104

105

106

107 108

109

110

111

Language use (article); Mechanics (italics) Mechanics (italics) Lang. use (sent. constr.); mechanics (punctuation) Mechanics (italics, punctuaction) Mechanics (italics, punctuation); content; language use (sent. constr.) Mechanics (punct.) Mechanics (italics, punctuation) Mechanics (italics, punctuation) Mechanics (italics, punctuation) Mechanics (italics) Language use (art); mechanics (italics, punctuation) Language use (art); mechanics (italics, punctuation) Mechanics (italics, punctuation) Lang. use (article) Mechanics (punctuation) Mech (italics, punct) L. use (sent. constr.); Mech (italics, punct)


112

113

114

115

116

117 118 119

120 121

122

123

124

125

126

L. use (pronoun) Mechanics (italics) Mechanics (punct) Language use (tense) Language use (art) Language use (art) Language use (art), content Mechanics (punct) L. use (pl. marker) Language use (art) Language use (art) Language use (art) Language use (sent. constr.), organization, source Language use (art) Language use (art); mechanics (italics)


127

128

129

130

131

132

133

2.1 Segmental Process (Is there any segmental process in the words you analyze?)

Language use (art), mechanics (italics, punctuation) Language use (art, sent. constr.) Language use (sent. constr.) Content Language use (art, plu. marker) Language use (art) Organization


134

135

136

137

138

CHAPTER III (Are you only interested in the suprasegmental features?)

Content, mechanics (punctuation), organization content Language use (tense) Language use (tense) Content


Analysis on the Students’ Responses to Teacher Written Feedback No Sentences Response Revision

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Copying Correcting Correcting Correcting Correcting Copying Ignoring Copying

They are the sound level, the morphological level. The sound level concerns with the study of human speech. The morphological level concerns with meaningful unit… The compound is a word made up of at least two bases… B. Problem Formulation Based on above, two problems are presented as follow: 1. What are the elements of English Compound Nouns? 2. What syntactic relations do the elements have? …verb-noun, noun-verb or other combinations; to identify A. Review of Related Studies


9

10

11

12

13

14

Deleting, copying Copying, deleting Correcting Copying Ignoring Copying, deleting

According to Aryanto (1997), the rules of compound words in orthography, stress pattern, and meaning are not fixed. B. Review of Related Theories

Compound nouns are the most productive compounds.


15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 24

25

26

27

Copying Correcting Copying Copying Copying Ignoring Ignoring Ignoring Substituting Copying Restructuring, adding Adding Correcting

…the combination of the elements forms noun. 1.2 The Meaning of Compound Words Noun phrase is a group of words which …. A noun phrase is one of the phrase… …as controlling modifiers, and modifiers are said to depend on… Were rounded up when their fractions were above 50 …were identified, whether the meanings… In a Grammar of Contemporary English it is stated that cardinal numbers and quantifiers are mutually exclusive (Randolph Quirk et al., 1973: 119). Howard Jackson (1992: 119) defies that quantifiers… The writer was curious how each quantifiers…


28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

A. Review of Related Studies (Do you understand all the above? If no, drop them!)

Copying Copying Copying Deleting Copying Deleting Copying Copying Copying Adding Adding Substituting

…taken from The Jakarta Post’s headlines news as the basis… …quantifiers taken from The Jakarta Post headlines news. ...and little in The Jakarta Post headlines news and also trying… In addition, statistical distribution refers… …determiner used to modify nouns which indicate the quantity of the noun… …(Randolph Quirk et. al., 1985: 383) Lastly, as a postdeterminer and substitute pronoun, … Like as some, any is also used when… According to Quirk et al., a few indicates… …(Randolph Quirk et al., 1985: 392). He also adds that with a number…


40

41

42

43

44

45

CHAPTER II (Never have a subtopic only with one paragraph!)

Copying Deleting, adding Adding Copying Adding Copying

…(Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik, 1994: 187, 360) …(Quirk et al., 1985: 385). …to be analyzed that is The Jakarta Post headlines news. The Jakarta Post was also limited only on 14, 17, 20 and 23 September, 15, 18, 21 and 24 October, and 15, 18, 21 and 24 November. According to Wardaugh (1977), language is a system of arbitrary vocal symbols used for communication.


46

47

48

Restructuring Restructuring Deleting, adding

The system which was meant by Wardaugh is that language must be a system with several levels. Many English derived words, as in other languages, are formed with affix, through affixation process. According to the position, English affixes aredistinguished into three, prefix, infix and suffix. A prefix is an affix attached before the stem; an infix is an affix placed between or inside the stem; and a suffix is an affix attached after stem. Different English affixes (prefix, infix and suffix) form many different English categories such as noun, verb, adjective and adverb. The number of English prefixes and suffixes which were adopted from many languages is numerous.


49

50

51

52

53

CHAPTER I (Are these all?)

Deleting, substituting Copying Correcting Substituting

Prefixes coming from Latin and Greek enrich the English inventory of words. And, it is an interesting matter to comprehend the prefix Latin and Greek origins both towards the English words with Latin and Greek descendant and the new words in forming derived words. Based on the situation, the research entitled A Morphological Study of English Prefixes Denoting Measurement will try to discuss about the English prefixes mega-, macro-, poly-, and multi- in terms of stems and meanings as well as the relevance toward English words used nowadays. An affixation process is the process of word formation… . Prefixes are affixes which precede the root… 2. 1 Review of Related Studies


54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Deleting Deleting Deleting Deleting Deleting Deleting Copying, restructuring

The category of the derived words with the prefixes do not undergo changes, meaning that the word classes of the stems are still in the same categories in which after the prefixes are attached to them.


61

62

63

64

65

66

a. Review of Related Studies Discuss the research results!

Restructuring Substituting Copying Deleting, restructuring Deleting, restructuring Copying

The current research is similar to the thesis composed by Artasari. First, the research is about morphological analysis. Second, the discussion is about the English prefixes derived from Latin. However, the current research developed another English prefixes that show measurement, namely prefixes of mega-, macro-, poly- and multi- which are still widely used and still possible to be formed new words. 2.2 Review of Related Theories 1. Affixation

…or a third personal singular in he walks.


67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

Restructuring, adding Restructuring Restructuring, copying Deleting Deleting, adding, substituting Deleting Deleting Deleting Deleting Copying, adding

…while the second way means that the general meaning of the word is the same but the word class of the stem is no longer similar to those of the derived words. The derived words can be nouns, verbs, adjectives and also adverbs. Nominalization is a process… …or prefixes in- in inaccurate, un- in undo. For instance expressively, consciously, adequately (Dwijatmoko, 2004: 13) 2. Word Class


77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

Deleting Deleting, copying Copying Deleting Correcting Deleting Copying, correcting Deleting

… Britain & Clahen, 1999: 148). Mostly, adjectives can be modified… The last category, an adverb, typically modifies… …in this case Latin and Greek,…. That made an analysis on the stem … The prefixes of time Artasari (2000) composed are also English prefixes derived from Latin which is related to the research of English prefixes mega-,macro-, poly-, multi- that prefixes coming fom Latin and Greek. …the research applied some theories related to the topic. …that denote measurement,…


85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

Adding Copying Copying, correcting Restructuring Restructuring Copying Copying Ignoring Correcting Copying, correcting

…in which both the prefixes are attached and the prefixes are produced. 3. 2 Research Data In this research, the data covered words with… …some steps were taken. First, the research found out all of the derived… …the data, steps were taken so that the three problems would be answered. …which are the review of related studies, the review of related theories and… …and the study in analyzing the topic of this paper. …with noun as in anteroom, verb as in antedate, and adjective as in antemortem. …occurs with nouns as in forename , and a verb as in forefeel.


95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

Copying, correcting Correcting Copying Copying, ignoring Copying, correcting, substituting Copying Copying, correcting Copying, correcting Copying, correcting

The prefix post- occurs with a noun as in postconcert, verb as in postexist, and adjective as in postromantic. And the prefix pre- occurs with noun as in prewar, verb as in prework , and an adjective as in prerehearsal… …have a general meaning, namely showing time. …as in antedate, which means earlier date, and ‘prior to’ (‘earlier than’) as in antepaschal, which means pertaining to the time before Easter. Secondly it means ‘anterior’ (‘forward’) as in antechamber which means forward chamber, and ‘in front of’ as in antechoir, which means in front of choir. The second prefix, that is the prefix fore-, has three meanings. …as in foredoom which means to doom beforehand. …as in forenoon which means a time that occur earlier than noon. …as in foreground which means a ground that is in front of a spectator.


104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

Correcting Copying, correcting, ignoring Copying, correcting Copying, correcting Copying Copying Copying, correcting Copying, correcting Copying Correcting Ignoring

The prefix post- has three meanings. The first meaning is that ‘after’ or ‘subsequent’ or ‘later’ as in postgraduate which means after graduate. The second meaning is ‘behind’ or ‘posterior’ or ‘following after’ as in postconsonantal , which means immediately following a consonant. …as in postoperative, which means subsequent to operative. The last prefix is the prefix pre- which also has three meanings. …as in precensor, which means to censor before its release… …as in precancel, which means to cancel in advance of use. …as in prefrontal, which means situated in the anterior… …the morphophonemic process, Artasari found that there is… For example the word antedate The changes are unpredictable or in other words, there is no particular environment of the changes.


115

116

117

118

119

120 121

122 123

Copying Copying Copying Copying, adding Copying Ignoring Deleting Deleting Deleting

She does not explain further about the stress shift of the prefixes because she only focuses on the segmental part. In the conclusion of the morphophonemic process, she concludes that the affixation process happens …prefixes can be attached to a noun, a verb and an adjective, but a certain prefix can only attach with a certain part of speech. Therefore, the prefix can create a new word. Furthermore, the prefix can also make changes on the place of the stress in the stem. For instance, the prefix of time cause stress shift…


124

125

126

127

Deleting Copying Deleting Copying, Restructuring

The prefix over- is one of the prefixe s in English. There are four parts of speeches which become the stems of the prefix over-, namely a noun as in balance which becomes overbalance; a verb as in capitalize which becomes overcapitalize; an adjective as in confident which becomes overconfident; and an adverb as in night which becomes overnight.


128

129

130

131

132

133

2.1 Segmental Process (Is there any segmental process in the words you analyze?)

Copying Deleting Copying Copying Restructuring

It does not change either the spelling or the phonetic transcription of the derived word because the morphophonemic process that occurs with the prefix over- is only a stress shift. …opposite of assimilation or what is called dissimilation. …the suprasegmental process is the process that happens in the larger units than sounds which are syllables, words and phrases. The last feature of suprasegmental process is a stress.


134

135

136

Deleting, substituting Copying, deleting, adding Correcting

The population is all words which are attached by the prefix over-. From the two dictionaries, the writer finds that there are 253 words which using the prefix over-. In this study, the writer will analyze them all. In collecting the data, the writer did some steps. Firstly, the writer collected the data of the prefix over-. Since not all the words with the prefix over- in the dictionary were derived words, the next step was separating which words belonged to the derived words and which ones were not. Thirdly, the writer identified the data to differentiate the free morphemes which were attached to the prefix over-, whether the morphemes were nouns, verbs, adjectives or adverbs.


137

138

CHAPTER III (Are you only interested in the suprasegmental features?)

Correcting

…the writer used the data of the free morpheme that attached to the prefix over- and categorized them based on their category of the part of speech. The category is divided into four, namely noun, adjective, verb, and adverb…


Profile of Feedback Categorization (Adapted from Teaching ESL Composition: Principles and Techniques)

No CATEGORIZATION DESCRIPTOR CRITERIA

Knowledgeable • Is there understanding of the subject? • Are facts or other pertinent information used? • Is there recognition of several aspects of the subject? • Are the interrelationships of these aspects shown?

Substantive • Are several points discussed? • Is there sufficient detail? • Is there originality with concrete details to illustrate, define,

compare, or contrast factual information supporting the thesis? Thorough development of thesis

• Is the thesis expanded enough to convey a sense of completeness? • Is there a specific method of development (such as

comparison/contrast, illustration, definition, example, description, fact, or personal experience)?

• Is there an awareness of different points of view?

1 Content

Relevant to assigned topic • Is all information clearly pertinent to the topic? • Is extraneous material excluded?

Fluent expression • Do the ideas flow, building on one another? • Are there introductory and concluding paragraphs? • Are there effective transition elements -words phrases, or sentences-

which link and move ideas both within and between paragraphs?

2 Organization

Ideas clearly stated/supported

• Is there a clearly stated controlling idea or central focus to the paper (a thesis)?

• Do topic sentences in each paragraph support, limit, and direct the thesis?


Succinct • Are all ideas directed concisely to the central focus of the paper, without digressions?

Well-organized • Is the overall relationship of ideas within and between paragraphs clearly indicated?

• Is there a beginning, a middle, and an end to the paper? Logical sequencing • Are the points logically developed, using a particular sequence such

as time order, space order, or importance? • Is this development indicated by appropriate transitional markers?

Cohesive • Does each paragraph reflect a single purpose? • Do the paragraphs form a unified paper?

Sophisticated range • Is there facility with words and idioms: to convey intended information, attitudes, feelings? to distinguish subtleties among ideas and intentions? to convey shades and differences of meaning? to express the logic of ideas?

• Is the arrangement and interrelationship o f words sufficiently varied?

3 Vocabulary

Effective word/idiom choice and usage

• In the context in which it is used, is the choice of vocabulary accurate? idiomatic? effective? concise?

• Are strong, active verbs and verbals used where possible? • Are phrasal and prepositional idioms correct? Do they convey the

intended meaning? • Does word placement give the intended message? emphasis? • Is there an understanding of synonyms? antonyms? homonyms? • Are denotative and connotative meanings distinguished? • Is there effective repe tition of key words and phrases? • Do transition elements mark shifts in thought? pace? emphasis?

tone?


Word form mastery • Are prefixes, suffixes, roots, and compounds used accurately and effectively?

• Are words correctly distinguished as to their function (noun, verb, adjective, adverb)?

Appropriate register • Is the vocabulary appropriate to the topic? to the audience? to the tone of the paper? to the method of development?

• Is the vocabulary familiar to the audience? • Does the vocabulary make the intended impression?

Effective complex construction

• Are sentences well- formed and complete, with appropriate complements?

• Are single-word modifiers appropriate to function? Are they proper ly formed, placed and sequenced?

• Are phrases and clauses appropriate to function? Complete? Properly placed?

• Are introductory It and There used correctly to begin sentences and clauses?

• Are main and subordinate ideas carefully distinguished? • Are coordinate and subordinate elements linked to other elements

with appropriate conjunctions, adverbials, relative pronouns, or punctuation?

• Are sentence types and length varied? • Are elements parallel? • Are techniques of substitution, repetition, and deletion used

effectively?

4

Language use

Agreement • Is there basic agreement between sentence elements: auxiliary and verb? subject and verb? pronoun and antecedent? adjective and noun? nouns and quantifiers?


Tense • Are verbs tenses correct? properly sequenced? • Do modals convey intended meaning? time?

Number • Do nouns, pronouns, and verbs convey intended quality? Word order/function • Is normal word order followed except for special emphasis?

• Is each word, phrase, and clause suited to its intended function? Articles • Are a, an, and the used correctly? Pronouns • Do pronouns reflect appropriate person? gender? number? function?

referent?

Prepositions • Are prepositions chosen carefully to introduce modifying elements? • Is the intended meaning conveyed?

Spelling • Are words spelled correctly? Punctuation • Are periods, commas, semicolons, dashes, and question marks used

correctly? • Are words divided correctly at the end of lines?

Capitalization • Are capital letters used where necessary and appropriate?

5 Mechanics

Paragraphing • Are paragraphs intended to indicate when one sequence of thought ends and another begins?

6 Reference to source Bibliographical details • Have all sources acknowledged and given clear bibliographical details?


Appendix 4: Results of the Interview

R : interviewer I : interviewee R : Gimana perasaannya waktu diberi feedback? I : Pas baru nyerahin draft sih nervous soalnya takut kalo ada banyak salah tapi

pas udah dikasih feedback ya biasa aja, paling nervous dikit. Aku penginnya dikasih feedback sama bapaknya soalnya khan ga mungkin aku ga bikin salah, aku malah ngeri sendiri kalo ga ada salahnya. Kalo ga dikasi feedback ya aku nanya-nanya gitu tapi biasanya bapaknya bilang “ya udah, gitu udah bagus, dilanjutkan saja”.

R : Kalo diberi feedback kamu paham? I : Kadang ngerti, kadang ga. Kebanyakan sih ngerti tapi kalau ga ngerti aku

nanya-nanya lagi terus dirumah tak kerjain sambil aku baca-baca buku lagi soalnya kadang bapaknya suka ngasih tau hal-hal yang aku ga ngerti atau belum pernah denger sebelumnya misalnya tentang teorinya siapa gitu.

R : Biasanya kalau kamu ga ngerti feedbacknya itu gara-gara apa? I : Tulisannya, kadang suka ga jelas bapaknya nulis apa soalnya tulisannya

kayak dokter, nyambung semua. R : Jadi kalau tulisannya ga jelas langsung kamu tanyain ya? I : Pertama nanya temen dulu mereka bisa baca ga. Untung bapaknya nulis

poin-poin aja terus biasanya pas konsultasi dia kasih tau apa yang udah ditulis jadi aku inget- inget dia bilang apa tadi terus aku nyoba cari tau. Tapi kalo ga inget dan ga ngerti musti ngapain ya aku nanya bapaknya lagi terus diskusi gitu.

R : Apa fungsi feedback buat kamu? I : Feedback itu membantu aku buat nyelesaiin thesis, biar aku lebih ngerti

topikku juga. R : Jadi feedback itu membantu kamu ya? I : Iya, feedback yang aku tanyain atau yang dijelasin bapaknya bikin aku mikir

tentang topikku lagi. R : Apa yang kamu lakukan kalau udah dapat feedback? I : Ya tak revisi, aku baca-baca lagi thesis sama feedbacknya trus aku tulis apa

yang ditulis sama bapaknya yang ga kebaca tapi aku masih inget waktu didiskusiin. Aku revisi apa aja yang salah biar sesuai sama yang dibilang bapaknya atau kayak yang ada di buku-buku. Biasanya selesai konsultasi langsung tak kerjain soalnya kalau lama-lama aku keburu lupa.


R : interviewer I : interviewee R : Gimana perasaannya waktu diberi feedback? I : Biasa aja, aku anggap feedback sebagai sesuatu yang mesti aku pikirin lagi

aja. R : Maksudnya? I : Kalau ada bagian yang dikasi feedback berarti ada sesuatu disitu, entah itu

bagus atau jelek. Kalau commentnya bagus berarti harus dipertahankan tapi kalau commentnya jelek berarti aku harus nyari tau apa yang ga beres dan memperbaiki itu.

R : Kalau dikasi feedback kamu ngerti ga? I : Kebanyakan sih ngerti, kalau ga ngerti juga paling-paling karena tulisan

bapaknya yang ga kebaca. R : Terus kalau ga ngerti kamu ngapain? I : Ya nanya-nanya sama bapaknya, kalau ga ya nebak aja. Guess it based on

the context gitu? R : Fungsinya feedback buat kamu itu apa/ I : Buat kasi koreksi, suggestion trus biar idenya improve atau develop gitu. R : Kamu ngerasa feedback dari dosen itu ngebantu kamu ga? I : Membantu banget, terutama feedback yang ngoreksi grammar sama develop

ideas. R : Apa yang kamu lakukan kalau thesisnya udah dikasih feedback? I : Bikin revisi, aku revisi sesuai sama yang disuggest sama bapaknya plus liat-

liat yang ada di buku juga.


117

Appendix 6: Sample of Students’ Compositions (Revised Version)

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study

The number of languages spoken in the world today is estimated at more than

four thousand. Every human group known, from the tiny tribelets of the California to

the great nations of modern Europe, the Americas, and Asia, possesses a language.

Comparative studies of these languages reveal that they may be classified into several

hundred language families, each of which contains from 2 to 100 separate but related

languages (Hill. 1968: 58).

Based on the fact, it might be considered that a language is precious treasure

for many people. For linguists, a language is a field to be researched on; while for

historians, a language is regarded as the reflection of human civilization.

For centuries, language has been as inseparable part of human beings. Baugh

states that as everybody might know there are many usages of language, and the

simplest one is for communicating to each other. Language lives only so long as there

are people who speak it and use it as their na tive tongue and its greatness is only that

given by these people (Baugh, 1978).

According to Wardaugh (1977), language is a system of arbitrary vocal

symbols used for communication. The system which was meant by Wardaugh is that

language must be a system with several levels. The first level is a system of sound

that is studied in phonology. The second level is morphology, a system which deals


118

with the morpheme or word structure. Syntax is in the third level, concerning with the

sentence structure. And the last is semantics, which has to do with the system of

meaning.

As classical languages, Latin and Greek contributed the greatest influence to

many languages, including English. The Modern English Period in 1700s was called

as Classical period of English, in which there was fashion for borrowing Latin and

Greek words, and coining new words with Latin and Greek morphemes (…). An area

which uses a high proportion of Latin and Greek words is discipline like medicine

and mathematics (Blake, 229, …)

Many English derived words, as in other languages, are formed with affix,

through affixation process. According to the position, English affixes are

distinguished into three, prefix, infix and suffix. A prefix is an affix attached before

the stem; an infix is an affix placed between or inside the stem; and a suffix is an

affix attached after stem. Different English affixes (prefix, infix and suffix) form

many different English categories such as noun, verb, adjective and adverb.

The number of English prefixes and suffixes which were adopted from many

languages is numerous. The different prefixes, for example, can form the different

word-class of the base. For instance, negative prefixes, reversative or privative,

pejorative prefixes, locative prefixes, prefixes of degree or size, prefixes of attitude,

and so on (Quirk & Greenbaum, 1973:431-436).


119

Prefixes coming from Latin and Greek enrich the English inventory of words.

And, it is an interesting matter to comprehend the prefix Latin and Greek origins both

towards the English words with Latin and Greek descendant and the new words in

forming derived words.

Based on the situation, the research entitled A Morphological Study of English

Prefixes Denoting Measurement will try to discuss about the English prefixes mega-,

macro-, poly-, and multi-, in terms of stems and meanings as well as the relevance

toward English words used nowadays.


120

B. Problem Formulation

To reach one point of discussion on the prefixes of measurement mega-,

macro-, poly- and multi- as well as to make the explanation more focus, the problems

are formulated as the followings:

1. What types of words do the prefixes mega-, macro-, poly-, multi- take?

2. What class(es) of words do the prefixes mega-, macro-, poly-, multi-

produce?

3. What meanings do the prefixes mega-, macro-, poly-, multi- carry?

C. Objectives of the Study

Related to the problem formulations stated above, there are three objectives in

this research. First, this research aims to identify the types of words the prefixes of

measurement mega-, macro-, poly- and multi- take. Second, it is to find out the

class(es) of words the prefixes mega-, macro-, poly-, multi- produce. And, third, the

research is to understand the meanings of the prefixes mega-, macro-, poly- and

multi- carry.

D. Definition of Terms

In analyzing the English prefixes of measurement, some terms related to

morphology and phonology will be used. In order to avoid the misunderstanding of

the meaning of each term, this section will present the definition of the terms. A

morpheme is the smallest meaningful unit in the structure of the language. (Gleason,


121

1958:53). A morpheme is the smallest meaningful unit of language (any part of word

that cannot be broken down further into smaller meaningful part, including the whole

word itself) (http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba/morph/morph.over.htm#top). An

affixation process is the process of word formation by way of adding prefix, infix,

circumfix and suffix (Gleason, 1958: 59). Prefixes are affixes which precede the root

with which they are most closely related (Gleason, 1958: 59). Borrowing is the

adopting of words (or parts of words) from foreign source. Stem is any morpheme or

combination of morphemes (Gleason, 1958: 59).


122

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL REVIEW

This chapter consists of three parts namely review of related studies, review of

related theories and theoretical framework. The review of related studies talked about

the other study concerning the English prefixes done by other researcher. In the

review of related theories, it would be presented the theories related to the studies,

while theoretical review framework would explain the significance of the related

studies and related studies toward the discussion of the research.

2.1 Review of Related Studies

A similar thesis has been conducted by Novita Artasari. In her thesis, Artasari

(2000) has answered three problems namely, the word class of the stems that can

occur with the prefixes, the meaning of the prefixes and the morphophonemic process

occurs in the prefixes. Based on the discussion, the research came up with three

points. First, the prefix fore- can only occur with nouns and verbs, while the prefixes

ante-, post- and pre- can occur with nouns, verbs and adjectives. The category of the

derived words with the prefixes do not undergo changes, meaning that the word

classes of the stems are still in the same categories in which after the prefixes are

attached to them. Since the word classes of the stems do not change, it can be

concluded that the prefixes do not follow the characteristic of derivational morpheme.

As it is said that derivation creates a new word by changing the category and/ or the


123

meaning of the base to which it applies (O’Grady & Dobrovolsky, 1989:99). In this,

the prefixes ante-, fore-, post-, pre- create new words without changing the category

of the stems. Second, from the thesis’s discussion about the meanings of the prefixes,

especially by referring to the additional meanings this research found out that those

prefixes does not merely show the time. The meanings are in some extent showing

the sequence of place, instead of the sequence of time. Third, concerning the

morphophonemic process, the prefixes ante-, fore-, post-, pre- only undergo the stress

shifts. Yet the stress shifting is with no definite rules to each of the derived words

with those prefixes.

The current research is similar to the thesis composed by Artasari. First, the

research is about morphological analysis. Second, the discussion is about the English

prefixes derived from Latin. However, the current research developed another

English prefixes that show measurement, namely prefixes of mega-, macro- , poly-

and multi- which are still widely used and still possible to be formed new words.

2.2 Review of Related Theories

This section presents the theories concerning the affixation, word classes and

meaning. The theories are as the followings:

1. Affixation

A morpheme is the minimal linguistic sign, a grammatical unit in which there

is an arbitrary union of a sound and a meaning that cannot be further analyzed

(Fromkin, Blair, & Collins, 1991: 67). As the smallest meaningful unit, a morpheme


124

cannot be furtherly divided without destroying the meaning (Gleason, 1958: 53). For

instance, the words table cannot be separated into ta and ble or beautiful into beau

and ti and ful. Those fragments are meaningless as it talks about the morpheme and

not syllable instead.

In general, English morphemes are divided into bound and free morphemes.

Bound morphemes consist of prefixes and suffixes. Prefixes attaching to the

beginning of stems, while suffixes are added at the end of stems (http://

cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba/morph/morph.over.htm#top). In short, bound morpheme is a

morpheme that cannot stand alone as an independent word. A bound morpheme must

be attached to another morpheme or words. Free morpheme, on the other hand, is a

morpheme that is able to stand alone as an independent without attaching to another

morpheme or words.

Affixes belong to bound morphemes. Based on their function, affixes can be

further distinguished into two classifications, namely inflectional and derivational

morphemes. Both the inflectional and derivational morphemes form words in

different ways. Inflectional morpheme do not change the meaning of the stems,

instead it can only modify the form of a word so that it can fit syntactically (Katamba,

1993: 51). For example, the suffix –s means plural, in books; present tense in sleeps;

or a third person singular in he walks.

Unlike the inflectional morphemes, the derivational morphemes form words

either first by changing the meaning of the base to which the morphemes are attached

for example the adjectives kind and unkind, which has the opposite meaning; or the


125

verbs obey and disobey, which also has the opposite meaning. Or second by changing

the word-class that a base belongs to, for instance the adjectives kind and simple

added by the suffix –ly will be producing the adverbs kindly and simply (Katamba,

1993: 47-51). The first way means that the word classes of the stem is similar to those

of the derived words, while the second way means that the general meaning of the

word is the same but the word class of the stem is no longer similar to those of the

derived words.

The elements of an affixation is the affixation process namely the process of

word formation by way of adding prefix, infix, circumfix, and suffix (Gleason, 1958:

59). Most of English words are formed through an affixation process. The derived

words can be nouns, verbs, adjectives and also adverbs. Nominalization is a process

of the formation of a noun from a verb or an adjective. Some of English

nominalization are suffixes –al in approval, -ment in department, -ity in ability, -ship

in friendship, -ism in dualism, -ion in ration. Verbalization is a process of the

formation of a verb from a noun or an adjective). The examples of derivational

morphemes that form verbs are the suffixes –ify in modify, -en in deepen, -ize in

verbalize or prefixes dis- in disable and en- in enable. Adjectivization is a process of

the formation of an adjective from a noun or a verb Several English suffixes function

to form adjectives are -able in comfortable, -ful in helpful, -ish in boyish; or prefixes

in- in inaccurate, un- in undo. Adverbialization is a process of the formation of an

adverb from an adjective. Most of English adverbs are derived words that are formed


126

from an adjective by adding the suffix –ly for instance expressive ly, consciously,

adequately. (Dwijatmoko, 2004: 13).

2. Word Classes

Word classes (or lexical categories) are the specifications of the word’s lexical

entry. There are four major lexical categories in English namely, nouns, verbs,

adjectives and adverbs. Those lexical categories can be differentiated based on their

specific characteristics, like the followings:

The first category, a noun is a word that can be used at certain points in the

structure of a sentence. The word work is a noun since it can fill the gap in He always

did the his_____ perfectly. A noun may be a proper noun like George, George Lamb,

New York or common noun like friends, desk, birds or inanimate as New York, desk,

wing. A noun can be combined with a demonstrative such as this, that, these, those

like in this chair, that man, these books, those people (Close, 1975: 3). Most nouns

have a special form for the plural (engine- engines), and can be preceded by definite

article the or indefinite article a or an (Radford, Atkinson, Britain & Clahen, 1999:

147-148).

A verb, the second category, is a word that can fill the gap in the sentence His

brothers _____ in a factory (Close, 1975: 3). A verb usually refers to activities and

have many forms based on the tenses of the sentences. The word work for example,

has forms works-worked-working. A verb cannot be preceded by either definite or

indefinite article (Radford, Atkinson, Britain & Clahen, 1999: 147-148). There are


127

various ways in classifying the verbs. Relating to the different types of object and

complement, there are intensive, extensive, transitive, ditransitive, complex transitive

as well as monotransitive verbs.

Third category, an adjective typically refers to properties or things posses and

is used to modify nouns, for example happy man; noisy engine (Radford, Atkinson,

Britain & Clahen, 1999:148). Mostly, adjectives can be modified by the intensifier

very, like The children are very happy. Also, most can take comparative and

superlative forms. The comparison may be used inflections, for example The children

are happier now, They are the happiest people I know or by using the intensifier more

or most as in These students are more diligent or They are the most beautiful

paintings I have ever seen (Quirk & Greenbaum, 1973: 114). Relating to the

meaning, adjectives contain several meanings. Some adjectives express a condition or

quality of which there are degrees; in which case is called gradable, e.g., good (there

are degrees goodness). Then, a high degree (very good), an excessive good (too

good), a sufficient degree (good enough), or insufficient good (not good enough).

Also, a comparison of good, namely a positive good (good), a comparative good

(better), and a superlative good (best). Certain adjectives referring to shape (round,

tall) or size (big, narrow) that can only modify nouns. Like verbs, adjectives can refer

to action, although they are more often stative, like foolish in George was being

rather foolish (Close, 1975: 20).

The last category, an adverb, typically modifies a verb, adjective or another

adverb. An adverb indicates how, when or why something happened or the degree to


128

which a property characterizes an individual or event (Radford, Atkinson, Britain &

Clahen, 1999:148). The most common characteristic of the adverb is morphological

since the majority of adverbs have the derivational suffix –ly. There are two types

syntactic function that give characteristics to the adverbs, which are adverbial and

modifier of adjective and adverb. As an adverbial, adverbs function as an element

other than subject, verb, object and complement in a sentence. While as a modifier,

adverbs can only modify adjective, adverb, prepositional phrase, noun phrase (Quirk

& Greenbaum, 1973: 125-128).

3. Meaning

The meaning in linguistic is primarily concerned with two meanings. First, it

refers to meanings attached to linguistic units and second, meanings attached to

patterns or arrangements of units. The division of meanings is due to the difference

between lexical and grammatical meaning. Lexical meanings are usually considered

to be the meanings of word, while grammatical meanings are usually concerned with

the relation between words and the things the words denote. Different arrangement of

same words can convey different meaning. The meaning of dog hates cat will be

different from cat hates do (Dineen, 1967: 15)

2.3 Theoretical Framework

As the research will discuss about the English prefixes derived from other

languages, in this case Latin and Greek, it is necessary to include other research


129

related to the topic. As mentioned above, the research presents the thesis written by

Novita Artasari entitled ‘The Morphological Study of the Prefixes of Time Ante-,

Fore-, Post-, Pre- in English’, that made an analysis on the stems, the meanings as

well as the morphophonemic process. The prefixes of time Artasari (2000) composed

are also English prefixes derived from Latin which is related to the research of

English prefixes mega-, macro-, poly-, multi- that prefixes coming from Latin and

Greek.

To answer the problems and to make the analysis accurate and well-

composed, the research applied some theories related to the topic. Since the research

is about prefix, the theory of affixation is necessarily needed in order to identify the

word formation with the prefixes mega-, macro, poly- and multi-. The theory on word

classes is to identify the category of the stems occur with the prefixes mega-, macro -,

poly- and multi-; as well as the category of the derived words with those prefixes.

Meanwhile, the theory on meaning is to know the meaning of the prefixes, the stems

and the derived words. This theory is to find out whether they have either implied

meaning or literal meaning; or both.


130

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Object of the Study

As the research is a descriptive research, the object of the study is to describe

the attachment of the English prefixes that denote measurement, namely mega-,

macro-, poly- and multi- to words.

Based on the three problems stated in the first chapter, the research will focus

on the word classes both the prefixes are attached to and the prefixes are produced.

Moreover, this research will also focus on the meanings, either the core meanings or

the specific meanings brought by the prefixes of measurement.

3.2 Research Data

In this research, the data covered words with any of the prefixes of

measurement. The data were taken from three different dictionaries as the source of

the data. The dictionaries used are Webster’s New Twentieth Dictionary of the

English Language, Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary and Encarta World

English Dictionary. The three dictionaries were used so that the data gathered would

be more complete.

From the dictionaries mentioned, the derived words with the prefix mega- are

46 words, with the prefix macro- are 51 words, with the prefix poly- are 118 words

and derived words with the prefix multi- are 119 words. The examples used in the


131

analysis will be taken about twenty percent of each number of all words, while the

remainder of the words will be provided in the appendix.

3.3 Data Collection and Data Processing

In collecting the data from the dictionaries, some steps were taken. First, the

research found out all of the derived attaching to the four prefixes of measurement.

By referring to the meaning of each word, it is known that not all words with the four

prefixes are derived words so that the second step is identifying all of the words. It

was done by separating the words into which ones belong to the derived words and

which ones are not. Only the derived words would be used for the data of the

research, whereas the words that do not belong to the derived words would be

excluded. Third, make a list of each of the prefixes of measurement. The list would

be started with the prefix mega-, macro- and then was followed by the prefixes poly-

and multi-, and by the order of alphabets.

3.4 Data Analysis

To answer the first, the second and the third problem, the research analyzed

the data taken from the dictionaries. From the data gathered, the word classes of

stems and the word classes of the derived words were identified. Still from the data,

the meanings of each derived words of the prefixes were also identified.

In analyzing the data, steps were taken so that the three problems would be

answered. The first step is by referring to the meaning, identified all of the derived


132

words. The derived words are identified by separating the stems from the words. The

result is not all of stems can be separated from the derived words. The stems that can

be separated are said to be analyzable stems so that they can be further categorized

based on the word classes, either nouns or adjectives. Meanwhile, the stems that

cannot be separated from the derived words are considered as not- analyzable stems,

that is why they cannot be classified according to the word classes. By doing this, the

first and the second problem, concerning the word classes of stems and the derived

words with the prefixes of measurement can be answered due to the word classes of

the derived words are similar to those of the stems.

The second step is identifying the meaning of each of derived words with the

four prefixes. The derived words are then classified based on the specific meaning

they carry. By doing this, the third problem can be answered.


Documents

STUDENTS RESPONSES TO TEACHER W RITTEN A … RESPONSES TO TEACHER W RITTEN FEEDBACK ON THEIR COMPOSITION S ... provided written feedbackon language use, mechanics, organization , content,