IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020, 201-215 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i1.17182 This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) Available online at IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education) Website: http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee THE IMPACT OF TEACHER'S INDIRECT WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON ELEVENTH GRADERS' ABILITY IN WRITING EXPLANATION TEXTS Septia Tri Gunawan, Ratna Sari Dewi, Zaharil An'asy Received: 31th Aug 2020; Revised: 15th Dec 2020; Accepted: 25th Dec 2020 ABSTRACT This study is intended to acquire empirical evidence regarding the impact of the teacher's Indirect Written Corrective Feedback on students' writing ability of explanation texts. Fifty six students enrolling at a high school in Jakarta were selected as the sample. They were separately distributed in the experimental class and the control class that respectively contained 28 students. Purposive sampling was utilized to recognize who the research subjects were and what level of their competence was for inclusion in this study. A quasi-experimental design, which is a subpart of a quantitative method, was employed. The data were assembled by running a writing test in the pre-test and post-test sections, whose results were followed by normality and homogeneity tests. The findings showed that the experimental class’ post-test outcome was 64.71, while the control class’ post-test was 58.25. Since the t-value surpasses the t-table (2.502>1.675), it indicates that the teacher's Indirect Written Corrective Feedback has a significant effect on improving students' writing explanation texts. Key Words: explanation text; indirect written corrective feedback; writing ability ABSTRAK Studi ini bertujuan untuk memperoleh bukti riil terkait pengaruh dari umpan balik tertulis tidak langsung oleh guru terhadap kemampuan siswa dalam menulis teks eksplanasi. 56 siswa yang bersekolah di sebuah sekolah menengah atas terpilih sebagai sampel. Siswa tersebut terbagi dalam kelas eksperimen dan kelas kontrol, yang masing-masing kelas berisikan 28 orang. Oleh karenanya, purposive sampling diterapkan karena peneliti sudah mengetahui siapa saja subjek penelitian dan kompetensi apa saja yang dimiliki. Desain kuasi-eksperimen yang merupakan sub-bagian dari metode kuantitatif digunakan oleh peneliti. Data diperoleh dengan mengadakan ujian tes tulis yang terdapat pada pra-tes dan pasca-tes yang diikuti dengna uji normalitas dan uji homogenitas. Hasil temuan menunjukkan bahwa rata-rata hasil pasca-tes yang diraih oleh siswa di kelas eksperimen sebesar 64.71, sedangkan 58.25 adalah hasil dari siswa kelas kontrol. Karena nilai t hitung melampaui nilai t tabel (2.502>1.675), maka hal tersebut menandakan umpan balik tertulis tidak langsung oleh guru memiliki dampak yang signifikan dalam meningkatkan kemampuan menulis siswa menulis teks eksplanasi. Kata Kunci: umpan balik tertulis tidak langsung oleh guru; kemampuan menulis; teks eksplanasi How to Cite: Gunawan Septia. Dewi R., An’asy Z. (2020). The Impact of Teacher's Indirect Written Corrective Feedback on Eleventh Graders' Ability in Writing Explanation Texts. IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7(2), 201-215. doi:10.17182/ijee.v7i2.17182 IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 202-215 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17182 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license INTRODUCTION Writing is one of the mandatory skills in English learning and teaching field. It is inevitable as every student necessarily confronts with writing skill in their English study. The students are demanded to deliver their ideas in a typewritten form. Accordingly, they need to pay attention to cohesion and coherence in their writing to reach the best possible outcome. Karadeniz (2017) believes cohesion associates with semantical features, such as synonymic, antonymic, and polysemic. Likewise, coherence refers to constructing an appropriate context in easing the meaning of messages. Thus, both cohesion and coherence specifically bridge the writers to breed a good writing result. Despite its fundamental needs, writing is believed to be the most challenging EFL students' ability (Richards & Renandya, 2002). It occurs as many complicated requirements involve the writing process, such as planning and organizing ideas; and determining spelling, grammar, punctuation, and diction. Learners are expected to develop some writing capacities, such as understanding writing steps, enriching vocabulary usage comprehension, and language grammatical features. The interpretation of ideas demands a lengthy series of actions to achieve the result (Dewi, 2014). Thus, writing ability is a fertile proficiency to deliver thoughts in a written arrangement. It is the performance of producing messages or revealing emotions in a manuscript and necessitates some actual activities to grow derived knowledge. Learners are allowed to manage it as a tool to express their beliefs. Students, who are interested in writing, need to be aware of writing purposes. According to Whitaker (2009), writing purposes consist of persuasive, analytical, and informative. Persuasive purposes imply an author persuades readers to embrace his/her thoughts. This intends to change their mind, laying a question with clear justification and evidence included in a topic. The statements and comprehensive report seem to be like purposeful composition. Second, analytical purposes scrutinize motives, discuss consequences, assess efficacy and ways of clarifying problems, discover connections between different concepts, or interpret others' thoughts. The aims are to clarify and compare alternative solutions to the writer's query after everything is put in and then pick the best answers that may return based on the writers' requirements. This style of writing can be seen in critical reviews http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 203-215 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17182 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license and scientific papers. On the contrary, informative purposes differ from the critical one. A writer focuses more on broadening the readers' viewpoints than pushing the writer's opinions against the readers. In the contextual matter, the writer discusses the potential answers to the inquest in the informational ambience, granting the readers new knowledge of issues. Speaking about Indonesia, the Ministry of Education and Culture regulates inquiries in Curriculum 2013 that students must arrange educational texts; one of them is an explanation text. The text prevails in the second semester for eleventh graders, in which they are entailed to portray an occurrence that happens in the universe. Doddy, Sugeng, and Effendi (2008) believe a social-cultural admixture takes part to draw illustrations of how the human realm runs in the text. This condition, subsequently, contributes to creating both technical and scientific writing nuances. Moreover, several factors, such as internally and externally, may also affect students' ability to write explanation texts. The internal consideration consists of individuals' motivation, interest, target language components, and other factors relating to the mind. Sulisworo, Rahayu, and Akhsan’s (2016) study found that Indonesian people are dominantly inclined toward oral instead of written forms. This causality leads students to have difficulties transmitting ideas from their native language to the legible target-language (Ariyanti, 2016). For that reason, the students have to be competent enough in transfiguring the essence of the context from one language to a specific language to be universally understandable by other people. On the contrary, the external aspects are learning media, school equipment, and teachers' capability. One of the factors caused by teacher competence is providing feedback. Feedback is yet missing sometimes from a teacher when assessing in a class. As a result, the students have erudition droughts from their learning. Feedback has long been recognized as one of the main facets of developing writing ability, both in terms of its learning ability and student encouragement. In process-based, learner-centred classrooms, for instance, it is regarded as a fundamentally developmental means that stimulates learners within multiple proposals for the ability to express themselves powerfully. Hyland and Hyland (2006) viewed feedback as an effective means of ascertaining the reader's importance on forming http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 204-215 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17182 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license interpretation. Feedback then focuses on the work contents by compiling, stipulating, and depicting their features. The feedback suppliers may use language concerning feelings and intuition or expression, which does not involve words, for instance, facial motions, and body language, to grant students either credits or criticism (Bijami, Kashef, & Nejad, 2013). It is thus furnished to students as all post- response information to notify them of their substantial study or success (Narciss, 2008). Understanding the necessity of feedback, L2 teachers have arranged in a particular great effort into determining how to manipulate it and how to heighten its efficiency by providing Written Corrective Feedback (WCF). The two most generally known approaches applied by many L2 teachers are direct written correction and indirect written correction. The foremost factor characterizing these two types of WCF is the learner's participation in the revision process. Albeit Direct WCF consists of an error clue and the identical correct linguistic form, Indirect WCF only symbolizes that an error has been made. Indirect WCF obliges teachers only to signal a particular erroneousness outwardly presenting the correct form. Bitchener and Knoch (2008) claim that Indirect WCF is the teacher's implication by carrying the mistakes or presenting the symbols for the errors. On this occasion, the teachers establish hints addressing learners to warn their mistakes by giving a signal, such as crosses, marks, or some preferable codes to grant clues in the essay. It remains more to the learner to correct his errors than the teacher providing the target form. Indirect correction methods can play diverse forms that vary in their explicitness by marking errors (Bitchener & Knoch, 2008). The effectiveness of teacher's WCF has been a long debate. Chandler (2003) believes the indirect technique might be unsuccessful since Indirect WCF helps learners lack information to find an answer for through reasoning of syntactic errors. He adds that Direct WCF facilitates students to find the correction as granted by their teacher spontaneously. The students, whose errors are adjusted indirectly, cannot know if their indicative corrections are right. The pause in the destination organization's entrance might surface out the potential advantage of the additional cognitive effort incorporated with Indirect WCF. Bitchener and Knoch (2010) claim that Direct WCF alone poses students the sort of specific erudition needed for examining assumptions regarding the destination language. http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 205-215 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17182 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license However, there is research evidence to convey that Indirect WCF yields more benefits to students' lengthy writing development than direct feedback (Ferris, 2003). Ferris (2011) suggests that implicit feedback is generally more appropriate and fruitful than direct feedback. Direct feedback may cause a teacher to misdescribe students' understanding and put words into their mouths. He thus claims Direct WCF is suitable (1) for beginner students; (2) when errors are untreatable; errors that are unable to handle by self-correction such as sentence construction and word selection; and (3) when teachers want to render students' awareness to other error patterns which involve student correction. Similarly, in the study, Jati (2018) found that Indirect WCF was beneficial for students to boost their writing ability. The students felt confident and had less face-threaten from the teacher. In other words, the WCF value is vital, although it is debatable. It still has a noteworthy contribution to the development of students' writing performance. On the other hand, there is a particular occasion when a teacher appears frustrated to notice that students still have quandaries in writing even though they have received feedback. This study's problems may lie in whether the teacher has provided appropriate feedback on their writing, whether the teacher has supplied feedback based on the students' preference, and has also implemented feedback on the aspects of writing that require solemn consideration. Therefore, the current study attempted to present a different approach related to writing ability. As a result, it narrowed the research concerns about the impact of teachers' Indirect WCF technique on senior high school EFL students' writing ability. Before the problem above, this study undertakes by formulating two research questions: (1) Is there any significant difference between students who receive the treatment and those who are not? (2) Does the researchers' Indirect WCF technique have any impact on students' writing ability of explanation text?. METHOD Research design The present research arranged to have a quantitative method to conduct the high school study in Jakarta. The method proposes obtaining information that can be examined statistically, preliminary test hypotheses, and generate comprehensive results (Daniel, 2016). The study also was organized by a quasi-experimental method. White and Sabarwal (2014) argue that quasi- experimental designs are purposed to http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 206-215 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17182 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license compare groups with typical features to the treatment groups. A total of 56 eleventh graders were included as the participants. The research’s motive to participate the second-year students in a senior high school was as they were considered to have adequate knowledge and capability in composing readable paragraphs in explanation texts. Thus, purposive sampling was employed to gain information from people who are supposed to be capable of certain competence (Etikan, Musa, & Alkassim, 2016). Several series of actions for gathering data were shown in Table 1. Table 1. Research Design Groups Pre- test Treatment Post- test Experimental Group (XI MIPA 3) Controlled Group (XI MIPA 1) × Data collection and analysis The primary instrument of this study was a test. This implement ran in the pre-test and post-test for both XI MIPA 3 labelled as the experimental group and XI MIPI 1 as the controlled group. The pre-test was provided in the two classes that each class had 28 members to perceive the students' writing outcomes. After being given such a test, the experimental class members earned the Indirect WCF treatment for every five meetings from the researchers who took a role as a teacher by rectifying their responsibility task with granting zero clear answers. The students in the controlled class somehow undergo no similar treatment. A couple of classes were required to redraft and produce a few new writing texts before encountering the post-test. The post-test was conducted to infer whether the teacher's Indirect WCF impacted students' writing of explanation text. Students were told to compose an explanation essay containing 150-200 words from given themes throughout the study section and were handed 60 minutes to finish the task. Different topics were presented for both pre-test and post- test. In scrutinizing data, it assigned the t-test, normality test, and homogeneity test. The T-test was used to measure the disparity in pre-test and post-test outcomes in experimental and controlled classes. Overall, both classes' scores for the pre-test and post-test were comparable. The normality test was thus calculated to identify if the results were no abnormally distributed, while the homogeneity test was for the sample's uniformity. The last was to ascertain the independent variable http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 207-215 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17182 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license significance to the dependent variable by computing the independent sample of the t-test. Both measurements have been calculated utilizing SPSS (Special Program for Social Sciences) tools. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Findings Score Dispersion of Experimental and Control Classes The students' results in both classes were recorded in a range of 0-100. They were assessed based on a writing scoring rubric that scrutinized content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics. The following data showed in Graphic 1 and 2 related to pre-test and post-test results in two classes. Graphic 1. Pre-test and Post-test Scores of Experimental Class Regarding Graphic 1, the pre-test's highest score was 73, and 39 as the lowest one. Otherwise, the post-test mean score from the exact number of members was 64.71, adhered to 86 as the best tally and 45 as the poor one. Almost all students consequently had improvement, and few got a downturn with the average score growth combined for 9.67 points. Thereupon, it can be assumed that Indirect WCF given by a teacher had a forward- looking effect on stimulating students' ability to write explanation texts. Graphic 2. Pre-test and Post-test Scores of Control Class In Graphic 2, the pre-test result of the maximum score a student had achieved was 71, and 35 was the minimum. Otherwise, in the post-test section, 74 was the uppermost score a student can afford, and 40 was the bottommost. The average score in this test segment was 58.25. To conclude, all students nearly had increments, and some got decrements with the mean surplus combined with the two tests by 2.21 points. It indicated that the conventional learning approach offered a slight improvement to the students' writing ability of explanation text. 0 50 100 150 200 1 3 5 7 9 111315171921232527 Number of Students Pre-test 0 50 100 150 200 1 3 5 7 9 111315171921232527 Number of Students Pre-test Post-test http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 208-215 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17182 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license Normality and Homogeneity Data Calculation A normality test is one of the sundry procedures to be exerted in administering the t-test. It is intended to discern whether the data in the experimental and controlled groups were normally allocated. The analysis referred to the Shapiro-Wilk as each class had n <50 (Mishra, Pandey, Singh, Gupta, Sahu, & Keshri, 2019). For that, Table 2 and 3 unveiled the normality test of the pre-test and post-test. Table 2. The Normality Test of Pre-test Tests of Normality Class Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig. Score Experimental Class .117 28 .200* .970 28 .584 Control Class .107 28 .200* .970 28 .586 Table 3. The Normality Test of Post-test Tests of Normality Class Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig. Score Experimental Class .095 28 .200* .966 28 .490 Control Class .120 28 .200* .981 28 .869 Table 2 showed that the pre-test exhibited the experimental test significance was 0.584 and the controlled was 0.586. If the significance- result is above α = 0.05, the data thus is normally distributed. Besides, the post- test significance result in Table 3 was markedly 0.490 and 0.869. Since both classes' significances in the two tests were over 0.05, the data distribution was considered normal. Table 4. The Homogeneity Test of Pre-test Test of Homogeneity of Variances Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. .010 1 54 .920 Table 5. The Homogeneity Test of Post-test Test of Homogeneity of Variances Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 5.630 1 54 .021 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 209-215 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17182 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license Moreover, the homogeneity test is the following measurement to be made after determining the normality test. This set of tests is set sights on examining whether the samples amid the experimental class and the controlled class are alike. Notably, the data is considerably homogenous if the significance value is above 0.05. Accordingly, based on the obtained result in Table 4, the pre-test's significance between the two classes was 0.920. Meanwhile, the significance of the post-test, referring to the data in Table 5, was 0.021. Based on the test criteria, it can be presumed that the whole significance value merged with two groups in both pre-test and post- test was homogenous. T-test and Independent Sample Test Computation T-test and Independent Sample Test are regarded as some of the measurements to examine the hypothesis. The hypothesis examination is required to verify whether the treatments addressed to the experimental class participants produce a meaningful impact on the post-test. It proposes to compare with the students who had not accepted any treatment, particularly in the controlled class. What is more, examining in contrast to the means of post-test from the two groups using independent- samples t-test was employed to measure the test. The alpha or the significance value (0.05) was verified as a prerequisite. Thus, the T-test result is shown table 6. Table 6. T-test Result of Post-test Group Statistics Class N Mea n Std. Deviati on Std. Error Mean Scor e Experime ntal Class 2 8 64.7 1 11.45 2.163 83 Control Class 2 8 58.2 5 7.47 1.411 99 In Table 6 above, it can be found a code N meaning each class incorporating 28 people. The experimental class's mean was 64.71, which had excelled the controlled class's score, resulting in 58.25 points. The statistical hypothesis is presented in table 7. It can be viewed as the data in Table 7 that the two-way significance of the t-test resulted in 0.015 points. The result was considered smaller than the firmed significance (0.05). The degree of freedom (df) was then spotted in 54 or 1.675 if it was turned into t-table in the exact before-mentioned significance. The data also yielded the t-value of 2.502 points. Accordingly, the alternative hypothesis is approved while the null hypothesis is denied as the t-value is preponderant to the t- table (2.502>1.675). This means Indirect http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 210-215 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17182 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license WCF addressed by the researchers significantly affected eleventh graders' ability in writing explanation text. Table 7. Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances T-test for Equality of Means F Sig. t Df Sig. (2- tailed ) Mean Differenc e Std. Error Differenc e 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Scor e Equal variance s assumed 5.63 0 .02 1 2.50 2 54 .015 6.46429 2.58377 1.2841 3 11.6444 4 Equal variance s not assumed 2.50 2 46.46 5 .016 6.46429 2.58377 1.2648 2 11.6637 5 Discussion Some considerations come to an extent, based on the findings above. There was a sight of improvement in students in the controlled group and experimental group. The control group members had a small additional post- test score tally─if we see it from the pre-test result─for 2.21. This group received no particular treatment as the researchers managed the class by lecturing. On the other hand, the post- test result in the experimental class had grown by 9.67 points before the pre-test one. This situation occurred since the experimental members received Indirect WCF from the teacher. Therefore, the experimental group overtook the controlled group as the best classes in this study. Furthermore, this present study aimed to examine whether Indirect WCF could increase students’ writing explanation text ability. The result proved that the students who received Indirect WCF and did a revision on their task during the evaluation had better outcomes than those who did not. Several findings supported the evidence. Suzuki, Nassaji, and Sato (2019) conducted a study participating 88 Japanese university students. The researchers found that the writing accuracy of the students had significantly escalated. The students were able to put indefinite articles and use past perfect accurately. In addition to that, Imaniar (2020) claimed that Indirect WCF could boost students' interest in grammatical aspects. The http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 211-215 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17182 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license technique leads the students to a new experience in apprehending English- writing form. Besides, this type of feedback could help students diminish writing errors (Rahma, Fitriani, & Syafitri, 2020). It can be clarified that L2 students could make development in cautiousness by acknowledging implicit errors indication made by the teacher, as they can indulge in a deeper treatment in order to recognize the correct forms. Some reports confirmed this assumption: (Karim & Nassaji, 2018; Ji, 2015; Ellis, 2008; Liu, 2008; Ferris & Roberts, 2001). For instance, Ji's research on Chinese learners, aiming at seven treatable errors, showed that the participants with Indirect WCF exceeded their score of post-test self- correcting and current post-test writing by a decrease in morphological errors. The result may mean that it resulted in the longer-term usefulness and precision of indirect error correction as teachers indicated the errors and included error codes. This, hence, contradicted a claim proposed by some scholars (Fazio, 2001; Truscott & Hsu, 2008; Hashemnezhad & Mohammadnejad, 2012; Niu & You, 2020) that Indirect WCF resulted in no effect on long-term writing accuracy of L2 learners. Based on the explanation above, it can be reasonable to assume that Indirect WCF was beneficial for students in learning and comprehending writing essays, especially the explanation. Indirect WCF obliged students to critically deal with their errors by identifying the meaning behind the teachers' correction signals or marks. The students were also encouraged to write some paragraphs correctly, making a satisfying result in the assessment. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION Writing is a means of providing language rather than sustaining it. Individuals can seemingly assume that writing requires exchanging a message to utter by addressing up on-page. Someone needs preparation to reach it. However, since English as an L2 may confront various quandaries resulting from the differences between L2 and L1 linguistics rules, it is common for EFL learners to present errors during the learning process. Students' obstacles may not be on the cogitation that wants to state on their writing, but specifically in the usual manner in delivering it. They struggle with some puzzles on composing letters and words and align certain aspects collectively to produce messages, sentences, or a group of http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 212-215 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17182 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license sentences that connect to convey the dispatch. To solve this, teachers can elevate students' morale by giving feedback indirectly. As such, the teachers may give attractive signals or clear answers to their mistakes. A writing test and a quasi- experimental design that is part of a quantitative method were handled in the data assignment. The findings led to substantiation that the students' average score of the pre-test in the experimental group before being engaged by the teacher's Indirect WCF was 55.04. After achieving the five-time treatment, the same class's post-test mean score grew 9.67 points, implying the cumulative score was 64.71. Besides, the result of t-value was bigger than t- table, pinpointing its impact was significant. It is reasonable to assume that Indirect WCF was a proper approach to guide eleventh graders at SMA Negeri 85 Jakarta in writing explanation essays. Moreover, the researcher seemed to suggest some thoughts that the teachers are expected to manage this approach properly as a part of the teaching and learning process to enhance students' writing ability. It is fundamental for educators to understand its application. This situation contributes to boosting students' motivation. If teachers successfully employ this technique, the students will be informed of errors they have made in their task, and assuredly will not redo them in forthcoming. Teachers also need to be aware of each student's limitations in the class. Some of them are probably promising in English, and others are not. A skill distinction among students is necessarily inevitable. The teachers hopefully look more for formulating other application forms of this technique for the low-proficiency learners. The students are advised to heighten the grammatical features, notably when writing essays outside the class. It will be more manageable for pupils to yield ideas by forming them in word composition if they are proficient in English principles. After obtaining the treatment, the students bear it in mind by taking notes of provided answers from the presented feedback. This intent is to keep students away from such repeatable mistakes in the future. As Indirect WCF includes a two- way conversation, the students and teachers are supposed to create proper circumstances to maintain or drive the relationship to get better. If both parties successfully build this situation, the students' opportunities to consult materials they do not know about with less class intimidation or to subtly http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 213-215 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17182 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license exchange information of materials by the teachers are widely accessible. The researcher realizes that this study somehow possessed multiple limitations. The present study only utilized a single approach and instrument, making it inadequate to cover up the fundamental factors that can cause bias. Therefore, advanced investigations related to feedback must get a comprehensive understanding of certain abilities, especially writing. Further research might take into account this issue from different perspectives or additional research instruments. REFERENCES Ariyanti. (2016). The teaching of EFL writing in Indonesia. Dinamika Ilmu, 16(2), 263-277. Bijami, M., Kashef, S. H., & Nejad, M. S. (2013). Peer feedback in learning English writing: Advantages and disadvantages. Journal of Studies in Education, 3(4), 91-97. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409- 431. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207-217. Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of second language writing, 12(3), 267- 296. Daniel, E. (2016). The usefulness of qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods in researching problem-solving ability in science education curriculum. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(15), 91-100. Dewi, R. S. (2014). Teaching writing through Dictogloss. IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 1(1), 65- 76. Doddy, A., Sugeng, A., & Effendi. (2008). Developing English competencies 3: For Senior High School (SMA/MA) Grade XII of Natural and Social Science Programmes. Pusat Perbukuan. Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107. Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1-4. Fazio, L. L. (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority-and majority-language students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 235- 249. Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 214-215 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17182 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license Ferris, D. R. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing. The University of Michigan Press. Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161- 184. Hashemnezhad, H., & Mohammadnejad, S. (2012). A case for direct and indirect feedback: The other side of coin. English Language Teaching, 5(3), 230- 239. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83- 101. Imaniar, F. (2020). Implementing indirect corrective feedback to improve ninth graders' writing skills. Jurnal Pendidikan, 3(1), 45-56. Jati, S. O. (2018). The effect of teacher's indirect feedback on descriptive writing at SMA Al-Azhar 3 Bandar Lampung. Universitas Lampung. Ji, X. (2015). Error correction in college EFL writing instruction: Students’ expectations and correction effects. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 12(1), 117- 140. Karadeniz, A. (2017). Cohesion and coherence in written texts of students of faculty of education. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(2), 93-99. Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2018). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 1-21. Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of error feedback in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Acquisition and Teaching, 15, 65-79. Mishra, P., Pandey, C. M., Singh, U., Gupta, A., Sahu, C., & Keshri, A. (2019). Descriptive statistics and normality tests for statistical data. Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia, 22(1), 67-72. Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, M. P. Driscoll. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, (pp. 125-144). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Niu, R., & You, X. (2020). Effects of indirect corrective feedback with and without written languaging on l2 written accuracy: A multitask intervention study. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 343-351. Rahma, E. A., Fitriani, S.S., & Syafitri, R. (2020). Students' perception to the use of indirect corrective feedback in writing recount text. IJELR: International Journal of Education, Language, and Religion, 2(1), 25-30. Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge University Press. Sulisworo, D., Rahayu, T., & Akhsan, R. N. (2016). The students' academic writing skill after implementing blended learning using Facebook. Information Technologies and Learning Tools, 56(6), 176-191. Suzuki, W., Nassaji, H., & Sato, K. (2019). The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 7 (2), 2020 215-215 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17182 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System, 81, 135-145. Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. P. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292-305. Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156(1), 279-296. Whitaker, A. (2009). Academic writing guide: A step-by-step-guide to writing academic papers. University of Seattle. White, H., & Sabarwal, S. (2014). Quasi- experimental design and methods. Methodological Briefs: Impact Evaluation, 8, 1-16. http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee