





































  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.2, No. 3, July 2021 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

358 
 

THE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE TEACHER’S ORAL 
FEEDBACK AND THE STUDENTS’ WRITING MOTIVATION 

 
Edita Dininorani Seran1; Rifki Irawan2* 

1,2 Universitas PGRI Yogyakarta  
 

rifkizam@upy.ac.id 
 

ABSTRACT 

This study aims to determine the correlation between the teacher’s oral feedback and the 
students’ writing motivation. This study is quantitative research with a correlation method. 
The researcher conducted this study at SMPN 2 Kasihan.  The population of this study 
included all of the 8th graders and one teacher. The sample of this study consists of 93 
students.  To gain the data, the researcher distributed the questionnaires to the students and 
a teacher. The data analysis technique used in this research used Rank Spearman 
Correlation, with SPSS version 23 for the windows program. The result of the research 
showed that there is a correlation between the teacher’s oral feedback and the students’ 
writing motivation. It is evidenced by the Rank Spearman correlation test results with the 
significance value of 0.000, where it is <0.05. 

Keywords: Corrective Feedback, Writing Motivation, Teaching Writing Skills 

 

INTRODUCTION 

Teacher’s role in classroom teaching and learning activities is crucial in achieving the 
specified learning objectives. Mostly the teaching-learning process and the students learning 
outcomes are determined by the role of a teacher. The teacher’s task is not only to teach but 
also to motivate the students to be enthusiastic and active in learning, whether they are any 
subject matter, including English that in Indonesia is regarded as a foreign language. There 
are still many students who do not like English, especially English as Foreign Language (EFL) 
students because it has many skills that have to be mastered as listening, speaking, reading, 
and writing skills.  It can affect the learning process and learning outcomes. 

Writing is the pretty complex language skills, especially for EFL students. The teacher 
often finds mistakes in students writing assignments. Whether it misspelling, punctuation, 
lost or misuse articles, and others. It can affect the results of students writing. Teachers 
sometimes only give the students writing assignments and scribble the wrong parts of 
students’ work without telling them why it is wrong. If it is forwarded, it will certainly make 
the students dislike or have no motivation to write. One way to motivate students in writing 
is to provide feedback on student writing (Ellis, 2009). By giving feedback, the teachers can 
also correct the students’ work, whether true or false. In this case, the teacher should scribble 
the students’ answers and inform the students where it goes wrong and the correct answers 
to the question, so the students can find out their shortcomings and improve them. Providing 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.2, No. 3, July 2021 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

359 
 

feedback helps students to become conscious of the differences between their actual 
performance and learning objectives. Besides, feedback can also be a helpful tool to help 
recognize and correct errors (van Loon & van de Pol, 2019). By giving the students feedback, 
they can know their strengths and shortcomings to improve them for their learning progress.  

Oral feedback is one of the several types of feedback that the teacher can give to the 
students. It is a form of feedback that involves direct interaction between students and 
teachers. Oral feedback is the teacher’s feedback orally during the learning activities to the 
learners (NSW Education and Communities, 2015). For example, a student can answer a 
question or do it correctly, then the teacher says good, brilliant, or well done, then the 
student will feel happy and satisfied with his/her work and feels that the teacher appreciates 
his / her effort. It can make the students motivated to continue to learn. Whereas for the 
students who cannot answer the question or their answers are incorrect or  make errors and 
mistakes in writing, the teacher can say their answer is not entirely correct, the article they 
use is false, or the spelling is correct others. Thus, the students know their errors and 
mistakes and then improve them. Giving feedback to the students’ writing can be provided 
direct and indirectly, but the researcher focuses on the direct feedback.  Direct error 
correction resulted in more accurate revisions than indirect error feedback (Jamalinesari, 
Rahimi, Gowhary, & Azizifar, 2015). 

However, not all teachers realize that providing feedback can motivate students to 
write. The teacher focused only on correcting the right or wrong answer or the results of 
students’ work in doing assignments and giving scores without telling them why it is wrong. 
Besides, the teacher also rarely gives recommendations or praising to the students who 
answer or do their assignments correctly. Finally, the students do not know their writing 
result progress and do not know or confuse why he/she gets the bad scores in the writing 
learning. As a result, they make the same mistake repeatedly because the teacher does not 
provide feedback to the students’ writing. Therefore, the researcher is interested in 
researching the correlation between the teacher’s oral feedbacks with the students’ writing 
motivation. The research title is “The Correlation between the Teacher’s Oral Feedback and 
the Students’ Writing Motivation”. 

Feedback is an information on aspects of one's performance or knowledge offered by 
an agent (e.g., teacher, peer, books, parents, self, experience) as a result of performance 
(Hattie JA, 2007). Feedback is about presenting knowledge in a way that allows the receiver 
to consider it, focus on it, learn from it, and hopefully make improvements (Deanery, 2019). 
When teachers share their feedback verbally, students have a positive opinion of it (Agricola, 
Prins, & Sluijsmans, 2020).  Moreover, Feedback affects students' emotions and learning in a 
positive and productive way (Bajaj, Kaur, Arora, & Singh, 2018). 

From the above statements, the writer can conclude that feedback refers to the 
information given to someone related to his/her performance or behavior, whether it is good 
or not, so he/she can improve that is not good to be better than before. It also helps the 
students in learning activities, for they are more motivated to study. 

Some recommendations for making feedback more effective and meaningful in terms 
of student learning have been made. First, make the students comprehend what constitutes 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.2, No. 3, July 2021 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

360 
 

a good performance or achievement. Then, simplify the process of learning improvement 
through self-assessment or reflections. Thirdly students should be provided with accurate 
information about their studies. Moreover, peer dialogue should be allowed in order to 
better grasp the feedback. The next is providing opportunities to reduce the gap between 
current and desired performance, and instilling positive motivating attitudes. Effective 
feedback can give teachers with information that can be used to assist shape their 
instruction. The teacher should provide positive feedback. Finally, choose the appropriate 
time and place and a variety of E-Feedback approaches(Mamoon-Al-Bashir, Kabir, & 
Rahman, 2016).  

To give learners feedback, it is essential to pay attention to provide feedback strategies 
and feedback content to the students to be helpful and valuable for them. There are several 
dimensions of feedback strategies. They are timing, amount, mode, and audience. On 
feedback content, choosing feedback requires choices about focus, comparison, function, and 
valence (Arapakis, 2008). 

The purpose of focus is to describe specific qualities of the work about learning 
objectives, analyze the learning processes and techniques of the students to help them to find 
out how to develop and promote the student self-efficacy by creating links between the work 
of the students and their active, deliberate actions, and avoid personal comments. There are 
three comparisons in giving feedback to the students: norm-referencing (comparing the 
performance of the student with the other students); criterion-referencing   (comparison of 
the students’ results to standard) with the test score; and self-referencing (comparing the 
students’ performance with his or her previous outcomes). The purpose of functions is to 
describe students’ work and avoid measuring or judging the students’ work to deter the 
students from attempting to improve. The purpose of valence is to use constructive words 
to explain what does right and give recommendations about what to develop. 

Clarity is important. The students need to understand the details about feedback as the 
teacher expects to. The students have different languages, diverse cultures, and diverse 
experiences. The clarity criterion is whether the writing or expression is transparent to the 
individual students Specificity means to give the students direction but not to do the job. It 
also means to offer suggestions that are sufficiently clear to encourage the students to take 
concrete next steps.  

In this study, the researcher conducted one type of feedback, named oral feedback. Oral 
feedback is given orally as one form and followed by an interaction between feedback giver 
and recipient. This form of feedback can be provided before, during, and after writing 
activities  to one learner, several learners, and all learners as a whole    

 
METHODS 

In this study, the researcher uses a quantitative approach. The method used in this 
research is the correlation method. A correlation study aims to assess if two or more 
variables are related (Marvasti, 2018). The population is all members of the human 
community, organisms, activities, or objects that exist together in one location and intended 
to become the final results of a research target conclusion. The population of this research is 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.2, No. 3, July 2021 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

361 
 

123 of 8th graders at SMPN 2 Kasihan. To determine the sample size, the researcher uses 
Slovin’s Formula.  

In this study, the researcher uses questionnaires as the data collection technique. The 
definition of a questionnaire is simply a list of printed questions completed by a respondent 
to give his/her opinion (Roopa & Rani, 2012). The researcher uses the questionnaires to 
measure the teacher’s oral feedback and students’ writing motivation. 

Table 1. The questionnaire grille of the teacher’s oral feedback 

Dimension of 
giving 
feedback 

Indicators Description Number of 
item 

Sum 

Feedback 
Strategies 

Timing Timing refers to when the right 
time to provide feedback. 

11, 12, 13 3 

Amount To decide how much feedback to 
give — how many, on how many 
points. 

7, 8 2 

Audience It refers to whether the feedback is 
providing individual or 
groups/classes. 

14, 15 2 

Feedback 
Content 

Focus Focus on students’ tasks, 
processes, and techniques, which 
part   of   students’ work
 should give feedback. 

1, 2, 9 3 

 Comparison It refers to compare 
students’ performance to others
 and to the past 
performance of the student itself, 
compare   students’ results to 
standards for successful work. 

3,4,5 3 

 Function It refers to whether the feedback
 given is a description or 
evaluation/judgment. 

6, 10 2 

 Valence It means using a positive or 
negative comment to describe 
what on students’ work. 

20 1 

 Clarity Use vocabularies and concepts that 
students will understand. In 
providing feedback, it is better to 
consider the amount and content of 
comments by the developmental 
stage of the students. 

16, 18, 19 3 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.2, No. 3, July 2021 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

362 
 

 Specificity Provide feedback clear enough that 
students know what to do and 
notice mistakes or types of error, 
but avoid correcting them. 

17 1 

Total 20 items 

 

Table 2. The questionnaire grille of the students’ writing motivation 

 
 

 
 

Research Instrument Testing 
Validity 

Dimension of 
Students’ Writing 

Motivation 

Indicators Number of 
Item 

Sum 

Integrative 
Motivation 

A learner is motivated by integration as 
he/she wants to know more about the 
culture and values of the foreign language 
community, to communicate with the 
language speakers, or to live in the country 
concerned. 

11 1 

Instrumental 
motivation 

The learner's aim to learn a language to 
achieve a particular practical objective, 
such as a better job or a higher salary, or to 
pass an exam at school. 

14, 15, 18 3 

Intrinsic motivation The eagerness and interest in doing and 
participating in any other things because 
an individual think that those things are 
attractive and fun. 

1,2,3,4,5,6, 9 13 8 

Extrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation is the propensity to 
participate in the actions for reasons not 
linked to the purpose of hoping for reward 
or punishment, such as success at a test or 
having a high score. 

7, 8, 10,12, 
16, 17 19, 
20 

8 

Total 20 Items 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.2, No. 3, July 2021 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

363 
 

Validity refers to the degree to which, in quantitative analysis, a definition is accurately 
measured (Heale & Twycross, 2015). Here the researcher will use Pearson Product Moment 
for the validity test. 

 

𝑟𝑥𝑦 =
𝑵∑𝑿𝒀 − (∑𝑿)(∑𝒀)

√[𝑵∑𝑿𝟐__ (∑𝑿)𝟐]. [∑𝒀𝟐 −  (∑𝒀)𝟐]
 

 
If the significance <0.05, it means that the instrument or the items of the question 

correlate significantly towards the score total (totally valid), whereas if the significance value 
>0.05, it means that the question items are invalid (Raharjo, 2014). Whereas, reliability 
refers to an instrument score consistent and stable (Creswell, 2012). To measure the 
reliability of the research instrument, the researcher will use Cronbach Alpha.  

Reliability measurement can determine by Cronbach’s Alpha (Mohamad, Sulaiman, 
Sern, & Salleh, 2015). If Cronbach’s Alpha score is >0.6, then an instrument is reliable. If 
Cronbach’s Alpha score is <0.6, then an instrument is not reliable. To test the validity and 
reliability of the questionnaires, the researcher distributed the questionnaires to 15 
respondents. Then the researcher used the Pearson Correlation formula to process the data 
with the SPSS 23 program. The validity and reliability tests showed that the questionnaires 
are proper to use to collect the research data. 

To analyze the data, the researcher uses the rank Spearman correlation. Spearman 
correlation coefficient is a statistical measure of the intensity of a monotonic relationship 
paired data. Monotonic relationships are when one variable increases, one another 
increases, or one variable decreases one other decreases. The researcher used the rank 
Spearman coefficient of correlation was due to the data from the instrument using the Likert 
scale resulted in ordinal or tiered data. Spearman’s formulation (Kalra, 2017) 

 

𝑟𝑠 = 1 −
6∑𝑑𝑖²

𝑁(𝑁2 − 1)
 

Where: 
rs=rank spearman correlation 
di² = total squared differences between the ranks 
N = number of the research sample  
The followings are the guidelines to describe the strength of the correlation for the 

absolute value of  rs . 

Table 3. The guidelines to describe the strength of the correlation between the variable 

Size of Correlation Interpretation 

.00-.19 Very weak 

.20-.39 Weak 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.2, No. 3, July 2021 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

364 
 

 

RESULTS & DISCUSSION 

The Results of Validity and Reliability Test 
The Results of Validity Test 

To test the validity of the questionnaires, the researcher distributed the 
questionnaires to 15 respondents. Then the researcher used the Pearson Correlation 
formula to process the data with the help of the SPSS 23 program. Table 2 is the results of 
the questionnaire trials for the teacher’s oral feedback and the students’ writing motivation 
variables. 

Table 4. The validity test of the teacher’s oral feedback 

 
 

.40-.59 Moderate 

.60-.79 Strong 

.80-1.0 Very Strong 

Number of        items Significance  value Criteria Explanation 

Item 1 0.000 0.000<0.05 Valid 

Item 2 0.005 0.005<0.05 Valid 

Item 3 0.010 0.010<0.05 Valid 

Item 4 0.053 0.053>0.05 Invalid 

Item 5 0.000 0.00<0.05 Valid 

Item 6 1.000 1.000>0.05 Invalid 

Item 7 0.030 0.030<0.05 Valid 

Item 8 0.000 0.000<0.05 Valid 

Item 9 0.000 0.000<0.05 Valid 

Item 10 0.076 0.076>0.05 Invalid 

Item 11 0.003 0.003<0.05 Valid 

Item 12 0.105 0.105>0.05 Invalid 

Item 13 0.053 0.053>0.05 Invalid 

Item 14 0.010 0.010<0.05 Valid 

Item 15 0.008 0.008<0.05 Valid 

Item 16 0.024 0.024<0.05 Valid 

Item 17 0.000 0.000<0.05 Valid 

Item 18 0.029 0.029<0.05 Valid 

Item 19 0.001 0.001<0.05 Valid 

Item 20 0.065 0.065<0.05 Invalid 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.2, No. 3, July 2021 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

365 
 

Based on table 2, we can see that there are six invalid items. It is because the 
significance value of these items is>0.05. So the researcher repaired the invalid items and 
redistributed them. Then the researcher conducted a validity test on the items. The results 
are in table 3. 

Table 5. validity test results of redistributed items for the teacher’s oral feedback 

 

 

 
From the table above, we can see that the significance value of the six items where 

four items are valid with the significance < 0.05. Meanwhile, there are two invalid items 
because the significance value of the items is >0.05. 

  
Table 6. The validity test for the students’ writing motivation 

Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items 

Item 1 0.076 0.076>0.05 Invalid 

Item 2 0.018 0.018<0.05 Valid 
Item 3 0.001 0.001<0.05 Valid 

Item 4 0.003 0.003<0.05 Valid 
Item 5 0.002 0.002<0.05 Valid 

Item 6 0.002 0.002<0.05 Valid 

Item 7 0.007 0.007<0.05 Valid 

Item 8 0.096 0.096>0.05 Invalid 

Item 9 0.014 0.014<0.05 Valid 
Item 10 0.293 0.293>0.05 Invalid 

Item 11 0.011 0.011<0.05 Valid 

Item 12 0.003 0.003<0.05 Valid 
Item 13 0.002 0.002<0.05 Valid 

Item 14 0.001 0.001<0.05 Valid 

Item 15 0.066 0.066>0.05 Invalid 

Item 16 0.057 0.057>0.05 Invalid 

Item 17 0.002 0.002<0.05 Valid 

Number of items Significance value Criteria Explanation 

Item 4 0.04 0.04<0.05 Valid 

Item 6 0.115 0.115>0.05 Invalid 

Item 10 0.000 0.000<0.05 Valid 

Item 12 0.000 0.000<0.05 Valid 

Item 13 0.051 0.051>0.05 Invalid 

Item 20 0.006 0.006<0.05 Valid 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.2, No. 3, July 2021 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

366 
 

Item 18 0.003 0.003<0.05 Valid 

Item 19 0.012 0.012<0.05 Valid 

Item 20 0.259 0.259>0.05 Invalid 

Based on table 4, we can see that there are six invalid items. It is because the 
significance value of these items is greater than 0.05. From the six invalid items, the 
researcher excluded two items. For the four invalid items were repaired and redistributed. 
Then the researcher conducted a validity test of the four redistributed items. From the table 
5, we can see that the significance of 4 items is <0.05, which means the items are valid. Below 
are the results: 

Table 7. validity test results of redistributed items for the students’ writing motivation 

Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items 

Item 8 0.001 0.001<0.05 Valid 

Item 10 0.000 0.000<0.05 Valid 

Item 15 0.004 0.004<0.05 Valid 

Item 16 0.007 0.007<0.05 Valid 

The Result of Reliability Test 

Table 8. reliability test results for the teacher’s oral feedback variable. 

Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items 

.907 18 

Table 9. The reliability test results of students’ writing motivation variable. 

Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items 

.900 18 

In table 6 and 7, the results or the reliability test analysis on the teacher’s oral 
feedback variable was 0.907 and on the students’ writing motivation variable was also 
0.900. Based on the results of the reliability test of the two variables, when compared with 
the Cronbach Alpha value of 0.6, the scores of the two variables >0.6. It means that the two 
variables are reliable. From the results of validity and reliability tests, we can conclude that 
the questionnaires are proper to use to collect the research data. 

The Analysis of Each Research Variable 
Data from the Teacher’ Oral Feedback for Feedback Content Indicator 

The researcher made a description of the data to find out the description of the oral 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.2, No. 3, July 2021 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

367 
 

feedback from the teacher for indicator of feedback content of the VIII grade students at 
SMPN 2 Kasihan. The   data was presented in the form of a frequency distribution table and 
score categorization. In obtaining the oral feedback content data, the researcher used a 
questionnaire instrument consisting of twelve statement items. The questionnaires have 
been tested for validity and reliability. Then, the researcher distributed the questionnaire 
to 93 of class VIII students of SMPN 2 Kasihan. The highest score of the data is 57, the lowest 
score is 29 and the range is 28. Moreover, based on the calculation of the central tendency 
and variability of the data, it is known that the mean is 41,505 (round up 42), the median is 
42.00, the mode is 38, and the standard deviation is 5,633 (roundup 6).   The total of the 
class is 7,539 (roundup 8) and the length of the class is 3,713 (roundup 4). Furthermore, 
the feedback strategies data from the teacher is presented in a frequency distribution table 
in the following table. Then, the data is presented in a categorization table the score of 
feedback content in table 9.  
 

Table 10.  frequency distribution of the scores of the teacher's oral feedback (indicator of feedback 
content) 

Table 11. Categorization of the teacher's oral feedback (indicator of    feedback content) 

Indicator Score Frequency 
Relative Frequency 

(%) 
Category 

Feedback 
Content 

X≥48 13 14% High 
36≤X˂48 66 71% Moderate 

X˂36 14 15% Low 

Total 93 100%  

 
Based on the table of the score categorization of the indicator of feedback content, it 

is shown that the students’ responses towards the feedback content given by the teachers 
at SMPN 2 Kasihan, the majority are included in the moderate category, namely at the 
percentage of 71%. 

No. Interval Class Frequency Frequency (%) 
Cumulative 
Frequency 

1 29–32 4 0,043 0,043 

2 33–36 12 0,129 0,172 

3 37–40 25 0,269 0,441 

4 41–44 19 0,204 0,645 

5 45–48 23 0,247 0,892 

6 49–52 8 0,086 0,978 

7 53–56 1 0,011 0,989 

8 57–60 1 0,011 1,000 

TOTAL 93 1,000  

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.2, No. 3, July 2021 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

368 
 

Data from the Students’ Writing Motivation 
In obtaining the students’ writing motivation data, the researcher used a 

questionnaire instrument consisting of 18 statement items. The questionnaire has been 
tested for validity and reliability. Then, the researcher distributed the questionnaire to 93 
class VIII students of SMPN 2 Kasihan. The highest score of the data is 90, the lowest score 
is 30 and the range is 58. Moreover, based on the calculation of the central tendency and 
variability of the data, it is known that the mean is 59.82 (roundup 60), the median is 
59.00, the mode is 54, and the standard deviation is 10.67 (roundup 11). Furthermore, 
the students’ writing motivation data is presented in a frequency distribution table in the 
following table.  

 
Table 12. frequency distribution of the scores of the students' writing    motivation 

No. Interval Class Frequency Frequency (%) 
Cumulative 
Frequency 

1 32–39 1 0,011 0,011 
2 40–47 10 0,108 0,119 
3 48–55 23 0,247 0,366 
4 56–63 29 0,312 0,678 
5 64–71 16 0,172 0,850 
6 72–79 10 0,108 0,957 
7 80–87 3 0,032 0,989 
8 88–95 1 0,011 1,000 

TOTAL 93 1,000  

 
Table 13.  categorization of the students’ writing motivation 

Variable Score Frequency 
Relative Frequency 

(%) 
Category 

The students’ 
writing 
motivation 

X≥60 43 46% High 
49≤X˂60 36 39% Moderate 

X˂49 14 15% Low 

Total 93 100%  

Based on the score categorization of the students’ writing motivation, it is shown 
that the students’ writing motivation at SMPN 2 Kasihan, the majority are included in the 
high category, namely at the percentage of 46%. 

The Correlation Analysis between the Research Variables 

The researcher formulated the hypothesis to analyze the correlation between the 

teacher’s oral feedback and the students’ writing motivation variable, the hypotheses are: 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.2, No. 3, July 2021 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

369 
 

Null Hypothesis (Ho): The teacher’s oral feedback does not relate to the students’ 

writing motivation. 

Alternative Hypothesis (Ha): The teacher’s oral feedback relates to the students’ writing 

motivation. 

The hypothetical test criteria are as follows: 

Null Hypothesis (Ho) is accepted if the significance ˃ 0.05 means the Alternative 

Hypothesis (Ha) is rejected. 

Alternative Hypothesis (Ha) is accepted if the significance ˂ 0.05, which means the Null 

Hypothesis (Ho) is rejected. 

 

In analyzing the correlation between the teacher’s oral feedbacks with the students’ 

writing motivation data, the researcher used the Spearman rank correlation test with the 

help of the SPSS 23 for the windows program. Below are the results of t Rank Spearman 

Correlation analysis.   

Table 14. the results of rank spearman correlation test 

 The 
Teacher’s 

Oral 
Feedback 

The Students’ 
Writing 

Motivation 

Spearman’s rho The Teacher’s 
Oral Feedback 

Correlation Coefficient  
Sig. (2-tailed) 
N 

1.000 
. 

93 

.426 

.000 
93 

 The Students’ 
Writing 

Motivation 

Correlation Coefficient  
Sig. (2-tailed) 
N 

.426 

.000 
93 

1.000 
. 

93 
 

Based on the Spearman rank correlation analysis test, the significance value of the 

two variables is .000. From the result, the significance value of the correlation test results of 

the two variables is .000. When the result is compared with a significance value of 0.05, both 

variables’ significance value is <0.05. It means that there is a correlation between the 

teacher’s oral feedback and students' writing motivation. So the conclusion is the Null 

Hypothesis (H0) is rejected, whereas the Alternative Hypothesis (Ha) is accepted. It means 

that there is a relationship between the teacher’s oral feedback and student writing 

motivation. 

The guideline for the strength of the relationship between the two variables when 
viewed from the 𝑟𝑠 value is .426.  The 0.426 in the relationship strength guideline table is at 

moderate strength (.40-.59). The relationship direction shows that it is unidirectional and 

positive, which means that the higher/often the teacher provides oral feedback on students’ 

writing, the higher the students' writing motivation. 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.2, No. 3, July 2021 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

370 
 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the results of the rank Spearman correlation analysis, the statement of 
hypothesis alternative (Ha) of this study is that says there is a relationship between the 
teacher's oral feedback and the students' writing motivation is accepted; whereas the 
statements of the Null hypothesis (H0) that says the teacher's oral feedback does not relate 
to the students' writing motivation is rejected. It is evidenced by the significance value of the 
rank Spearman correlation test of 0.000 is <0.05. So the conclusion is there is a correlation 
between the teacher's oral feedback and student motivation in writing. 

REFERENCE 

Agricola, B. T., Prins, F. J., & Sluijsmans, D. M. A. (2020). Impact of feedback request forms and 

verbal feedback on higher education students’ feedback perception, self-efficacy, and 

motivation. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 27(1), 6–25. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1688764 

Arapakis, I. (2008). Affective feedback. In Proceedings of the 31st annual international ACM 

SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval - SIGIR ’08 (p. 891). 

New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/1390334.1390566 

Bajaj, J. K., Kaur, K., Arora, R., & Singh, S. J. (2018). Introduction of Feedback for Better 

Learning. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH. 

https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2018/36744.12402 

Creswell, J. (2012). Educational research: planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and 

qualitative research (fourth edi). Boston: Pearson Education. Retrieved from 

http://www.ghbook.ir/index.php?name= های ف رسانه  و  رهنگ 

option=com_dbook&task=readonline&book_id=13650&page=73&chkhashk=ED9C9&نوین 

491B4&Itemid=218&lang=fa&tmpl=component 

Deanery. (2019). What is feedback and why is it so important ? Retrieved from 

http://www.bradfordvts.co.uk/educational-supervision/feedback/ 

Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development. L2 Journal, 1(1). 

https://doi.org/10.5070/L2.V1I1.9054 

Hattie JA, T. H. (2007). The power of feedback. [5];77:81-112. Review of Educational Research., 

5, 81–112. 

Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2015). Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evidence Based 

Nursing, 18(3), 66–67. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102129 

Jamalinesari, A., Rahimi, F., Gowhary, H., & Azizifar, A. (2015). The Effects of Teacher-Written 

Direct vs. Indirect Feedback on Students’ Writing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral 

Sciences, 192, 116–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.018 

Kalra, A. (2017). Decoding the Bland–Altman plot: Basic review. Journal of the Practice of 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.2, No. 3, July 2021 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

371 
 

Cardiovascular Sciences, 3(1), 36. https://doi.org/10.4103/jpcs.jpcs_11_17 

Mamoon-Al-Bashir, M., Kabir, M. R., & Rahman, I. (2016). The Value and Effectiveness of 

Feedback in Improving Students’ Learning and Professionalizing Teaching in Higher 

Education. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(16), 38–41. 

Marvasti, A. (2018). Research Methods. In The Cambridge Handbook of Social Problems (pp. 23–

38). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108656184.003 

Mohamad, M. M., Sulaiman, N. L., Sern, L. C., & Salleh, K. M. (2015). Measuring the Validity 

and Reliability of Research Instruments. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 204, 

164–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.129 

NSW Education and Communities. (2015). Types of feedback Oral and written feedback Oral 

feedback. Retrieved from http://www.ssgt.nsw.edu.au/documents/1types_feedback.pdf 

Raharjo, S. (2014). Cara melakukan Uji Validitas Product Moment dengan SPSS. 

Roopa, S., & Rani, M. (2012). Questionnaire Designing for a Survey. Journal of Indian 
Orthodontic Society, 46(4_suppl1), 273–277. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0974909820120509S 

van Loon, M., & van de Pol, J. (2019). Judging own and peer performance when using 
feedback in elementary school. Learning and Individual Differences, 74, 101754. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.101754 

 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689

