1 EEJ 5 (1) (2015) English Education Journal http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/eej THE USE OF WRITTEN FEEDBACK TECHNIQUE TO IMPROVE THE PRACTICE OF GRAMMAR FOR SENTENCE WRITING COMPETENCE Puspa Wijayanti Dwi Anggani Linggar Bharati, Januarius Mujiyanto Prodi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Program Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia Info Artikel ________________ Sejarah Artikel: Diterima Juni 2015 Disetujui Juli 2015 Dipublikasikan Agustus 2015 ________________ Keywords: Grammar; Written Feedback; Writing Skill ____________________ Abstract ___________________________________________________________________ This thesis was purposed to (1) find out the problems that faced by grade 3 students of Mondial School in mastering grammar (2) explain the implementation of written feedback in practicing grade 3 students’ grammatical correct writing (3) explain the extent to which the practice of the written feedback improves the grade 3 students’ grammatical correct writing. I used two cycles. Cycle 1 consisted of some activities, such as pre-observation study, planning, giving out the pre- questionnaire and pre-cycle 1 test, observation and correction through written feedback and making analysis and reflection of the students’ pre cycle 1 test. Cycle 2 had the same activities like cycle 2. I got the data from interview, pre questionnaire, and observation in the class, pre cycle 1 test result, post questionnaire and post cycle 1 test results. Then, all the data were analyzed in qualitative and supported by quantitative research. The cycle 1 showed that the students do need more extra grammar practice. Because of the result, I re- planned and changed little the method of the practice in cycle 2. It worked and showed that the written feedback that improved students’ writing skill in correct grammar through the regular practices. © 2015 Universitas Negeri Semarang  Alamat korespondensi: Kampus Unnes Bendan Ngisor, Semarang, 50233 E-mail: pps@unnes.ac.id ISSN 2087-0108 Puspa Wijayanti / English Education Journal 5 (1) (2015) 2 INTRODUCTION Language is a means of communication. People use it for expressing their ideas, thought, feeling, and mind. It is no matter for people having communication using the same language, as they understand the language. The problem arises when some different groups of people talk in different languages. Knowing that understanding others is very important then people try to learn language. However, while students may be effective speakers of English, they need guidance to become effective writers. They need to learn how to transfer their knowledge of grammatical concepts from oral language to written language. It happened to the students at Mondial School. English is the main language at Mondial School. They use it every day in every subject. They are active speakers. They are very confident to speak English in their conversation with everyone at school but when they are writing or doing the written assignment that they need to transfer their English skill into written task, they get difficulties to arrange the word by word into sentence grammatically. Whereas they do writing everyday in every single subject that they have during class. When they do their quiz or worksheet, they need to write something to answer some questions from their quiz or worksheet. Therefore, quizzes and worksheets become their extra writing practice not only when they have to write a short story during library class. In addition to make them be more serious in improving their writing grammatically, the way they arrange the words grammatically will influence their score in their quiz or worksheet. It will help them to be more careful and aware in their writing since they likely think that they can answer the questions correctly no matter with their grammar, but in library class they will be more aware about their grammar and try to arrange every sentence be good sentences grammatically so that the readers can understand about what they write. Although in this case, I still find some grammatical errors and they do not look confident enough to write every words grammatically. It is proved that they still keep asking from the tense that they should use, the change of verb 1 becomes verb 2, spelling, punctuation, etc. Based on the case, I give them extra writing practice by answering their quiz and worksheet in complete sentences grammatically. Then, I give them feedback for their grammatical errors by writing on piece of paper and ask them to rewrite the sentences that I have corrected while they are learning the correct one. METHODOLOGY In this research, I applied qualitative approach that is classroom Action Research to identify the process of practice in writing through written feedback to improve the students’ ability in writing especially mastering grammar. The research design that I used based on Kemmis and McTaggart (1988). There are two cycles. In each cycle, there are some steps, namely planning, action, observation and reflection. The first cycle, it is a pre observation and the second cycle; it is a post observation. So, I see the comparison of the progress of the technique from those two cycles. The design of classroom action research adapted from Kemis and McTaggart (1988) was as follow: Puspa Wijayanti / English Education Journal 5 (1) (2015) 3 In pre observation, I identified a problem or issue and develop a plan of action, namely giving the kids pre questionnaire and pre cycle 1 test followed by written feedback in order to bring about improvements in a specific area of the research context. So, here I observed the students’ difficulties in writing by identifying and looking up the data from the score list. In action, I used a new technique to solve their problem, which is through written feedback as the students’ grammar practice. In this practice, the students wrote and rewrote their grammar error that was corrected by teacher. They would learn grammar from their mistake and tried to be more careful. In observation, I observed systematically the effects of the action and documenting the context and actions. I used a grammar checklist to measure how effective the action conducted. The students’ grammar error influenced their score for every grammar scope, such as in punctuation, capitalization, tense, pronoun, and preposition. So, from the checklist I would see whether there is improvement or not for their writing skill in correct grammar. Furthermore, I observed the process of the grammar practice also. I did the grammar practice observation when the students were done with their pre cycle test and post cycle test. From pre cycle 1 test result, directly I gave the grammar practice through written feedback and in cycle 2, I improved the technique of the grammar practice by giving more detail instruction and demand the students to be more careful. In reflection, I reflected on, evaluate and describe the effects of the action in order to make sense of what was happened and to understand the issue I have explored more clearly. In this study I collaborated with the third grader class teacher at school in doing the activities from the beginning up to making the reflection. In pre observation, she gave me some significant information related to the real condition in the process. She observed the Pre observation Study on Students’ difficulties in writing. Planning Giving out the students pre questionnaire about how they think about grammar and pre cycle 1 test about SOSE material. Observing on the action of students pre cycle test and correction through grammar practice in written feedback. Making analysis and reflection of the students’ pre cyle 1 test Re - planning Giving out the students post questionnaire and post cycle 1 test. Observing of the action of students post cycle test and correction through grammar practice in written feedback. Making analysis and reflection of the students’ post cyle 1 test about SOSE material. Reporting the result of the students work in writing. Puspa Wijayanti / English Education Journal 5 (1) (2015) 4 implementation of the grammar practice through written feedback to see together the proposed strategy could be effectively implemented in teaching learning process. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION As the first, pre cycle 1 test was aimed to measure the students’ writing ability through answering the questions related to SOSE unit in complete sentences. Through the activity, I knew most grammar errors that the students made. (see appendix) For the pre cycle 1 test result, it was little bit disappointed since I found there were three students from 13 students got the scores below the standard minimum score (KKM) and the average. Meanwhile, the highest score is 89. It seems that there must be extra practices to foster their grammatical skill. Table 1.Score List of Pre Cycle 1 and Post Cycle 1 Tests Pre Cycle 1 Test Post Cycle 1 Test No Students’ Name Score Score 1. Patrick 75 83 2. Lisa 81 86 3. Michael 75 94 4. Vania 89 86 5. Lorna 83 97 6. Melvern 67 83 7. Janess 83 89 8. Inka 83 89 9. Rajwa 67 86 10. Fafa 58 97 11. Elaine 81 94 12. Fito 75 94 13. Rachelle 86 92 Average 77 90 From the result of the pre cycle 1 test and written feedback in the first cycle, I can say that it has not worked maximum yet. The students still made some mistakes in correcting their answers although they just need to copy from the correct one. So there must be better for the second cycle to improve students’ writing skill in mastering grammar through written feedback. Their average for the posttest was much better and no one got the score under minimum passing grade fulfillment (75). Well, it was said success because the students’ writing skill is improving and all the students were above minimum passing grade fulfillment. The table showed that in the second cycle of the first meeting all students got the score above minimum passing grade fulfillment. Comparing to the first cycle, there were three students got the score below the minimum passing grade. Table 2. Recapitulation of Writing Skill No Cycle Average Score 1. Cycle 1 70 2. Cycle 2 90 Puspa Wijayanti / English Education Journal 5 (1) (2015) 5 The discussion of the findings started from the recapitulation students’ writing skill in correct grammar. Students who got score below 75 (not passed the passing grade fulfillment for SOSE subject of the third graders at Mondial Primary School) in first cycle were 23% or three students from thirteen students, and students who got score more or the same with 75 or passed were 76% or ten students from thirteen students. For the second cycle, 100% got the score above 75. Table 3. Recapitulation of Students’ Passing Grade Fulfillment Cycle Score < 75 (not passed) Score >75(passed) 1 3 students (23%) 10 students (76%) 2. No one 13 students (100%) Implementation of the written feedback to improve the learning competence in grammar practice in writing was working well. It could improve the students’ writing skill in grammar practice. It could also improve the students’ interest in learning grammar and they will be more careful in writing especially in punctuation and spelling. CONCLUSION The problem was solved by giving extra writing practice and evaluation through written feedback. Managing time and giving consequences also give influence to change the students’ habit to be more careful. The way when they are writing sentences in complete sentence in hurry made me give more extra practice for them. So, the students would write more correct sentences grammatically if they still make mistake or totally their answers are wrong. The written feedback was given after the day they are done with the worksheet. Therefore, they would learn from their mistake and by copying the correct one they learn to put word by word in correct grammar. In continuously, the written feedback as their means of the grammar practice worked well. It helped them to improve their grammar skill and they could be more careful in writing an essay grammatically. Regarding the result of the study there are some suggestions proposed. Although the written feedback improved the students’ writing skill in correct grammar but there are still some improvement to make the result maximum. First, the extra practice should be held continuously including the written feedback also. Second, the consequences for the students those are not careful in writing should be done consistently. The third, the grammar teaching and learning activity should be more fun and be applied more not only theory all the time. As can be seen from the analysis, the students‟ performance errors are systematic and classifiable. This, in turn, implies that both teachers and learners must see errors as the key to understanding and solving accuracy problems in English writing courses. Then, it is the teachers‟ responsibility to adopt, modify or even develop remedial procedures that can elevate the students‟ level and minimize their errors. Teachers should try to find the best method to deliver the lesson to their students. This is, however, hard since there is No such method that is holistic enough to be The Best Method. Therefore, teachers regularly apply different methods that are suitable for the students‟ needs, interests and abilities. Brief grammar rules may be essential to help learners realize their errors resulting from overgeneralization and wrong analogy. Learners should be always encouraged to do remedial exercises. In fact, ability to communicate cannot be fulfilled unless “the grammar” is there, in the competence of the writer. According to Chomsky (1986), grammar consists of various levels, which are ordered and interrelated. Teachers have to be realistic in their expectations. Writing is hard work in one’s own language let alone in a second language. Developing the necessary skills to improve learners‟ writing is even harder work. Teachers Puspa Wijayanti / English Education Journal 5 (1) (2015) 6 should be happy with whatever progress learners make. It is always true that some is better than none. REFERENCES Afia, Jawida Ben. 2006.” English Club: Introducing English to Young Learners”. English Teaching Forum, Vol. 44 No. 2 Bedjou, Atamane.2006 Classroom Techniques.English Teaching Forum, Vol. 44 No. 1 Berkenkotter, C. &Huckin, T. (1995).Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communities.Hillsdale. NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum. Brown, S. (1999). Institutional Strategies for Assessment.In Brown.S. and Glasner. A. (Ed.) (1999). Assessment Matters in Higher Education. Choosing and Using Diverse Approaches. Buckingham. Open University Press. Pp. 3-13 Burns, Anne. 2010. Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching. New York: Routledge. Chenowith, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. 2001. Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18(1), 80–98. Ching, C. L. P. (1991). Giving Feedback on Written Work.Guidelines 13(2).68-80. Conrad, S.M. and Goldstein, L.M. 1999.ESL Student Revision after Teacher-WrittenComments: Text, Contexts, and Individuals, Journal of Second Language Writing, 8:2, 147-179. Dunn, P. A., &Lindblom, K. 2003. Why revitalize grammar? [Electronic version].English Journal, 92(3), 43-50. Ehrenworth, M. 2003. Grammar-Comma-A new beginning [Electronic version].English Journal, 92(3), 90-95. Ellis, R. 2004. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford. Oxford University Press. Ferris, D. R. 1999. The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott(1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11. Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. 2001.Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How explicit does it need tobe? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161–184. Freeman, Kuehn and Haccius. 2002. Helping Students Make Appropriate English Verb Tense – Aspect Choices. Tesol Journal Volume 11 No. 4.Available online on http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/han dle/2027.42/89570/j.1949- 3533.2002.tb00102.x.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed on August 15, 2013 Holdich CE, Chung PWH, and Holdich,RG.2004.Improving children's written grammar and style: revising and editing with HARRY.Computers and Education 42: 1-23 Kaweera, Ch. (2007). “The Effects of Different Types of Teacher Written Feedback on Thai College Student Writing”.PhD Thesis.Suranaree University of Technology. (Retrieved June 19th. 2011) http.//sutir. sut. ac. th.8080/sutir/bitstream/123456789/2508/1/ Chittima+Kaweera_abst.pdf. Keh, C. L. 1990. “Feedback in the writing process.a model and methods for implementation”.ELT Journal.vol. 44 (4). 294-305. (Retrieved June 19th. 2011). http.//eltj.oxfordjournals. org/cgi/reprint/44/4/294. Nazari, A and Allahyar, N. 2012. Grammar Teaching Revisited: EFL Teachers between Grammar Abstinence and Formal Grammar Teaching. Australian Journal of Teacher Education Vol 37/II/V. Available online on http://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti cle=1691&context=ajte. Accessed on July, 17 2013 Neale, Thapa and Boyce. 2006. Preparing A Case Study : A Guide for Designing and Conducting a Case Study for Evaluation Input. Massachusetts. Pathfinder International. Richards, J and Renandya W. 2002.Methodology in Language Teaching:An Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Wang, W. 2003. How is Pedagogical Grammar Defined in Current TESOL Training Practice.TESL Canada Journal Vol. 21 No. 1.Available online on http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ852426.pdf. Accessed on Sept 6, 2013 Yang, Y. (2006).“Feedback on College EFL Students’ Compositions”.US-China Foreign Language.ISSN1539-8080. USA. Volume 4.No. 11 (Serial No. 38). (retrieved 24th June 2011). http.//www. linguist. org. cn/doc/uc200611/uc20061120.pdf http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/89570/j.1949-3533.2002.tb00102.x.pdf?sequence=1 http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/89570/j.1949-3533.2002.tb00102.x.pdf?sequence=1 http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/89570/j.1949-3533.2002.tb00102.x.pdf?sequence=1 http://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1691&context=ajte http://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1691&context=ajte