














































44 
 

JOURNAL OF ENGLISH EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY 

Vol. 03 No. 01, March 2022, pp. 44-54 

Available online at:  

http://jeet.fkdp.or.id/index.php/jeet/issue/current 

ISSN: 2721-3811 (media online) 

 

The Effect of Indirect Corrective Feedback Strategy on Students’ Writing 

Skills of Recounting Text 

Himmatul Arifah1, Muhammad Edy Thoyib2 

Institut Keislaman Abdullah Faqih Gresik 1 

Universitas Islam Negeri Malang2 

himmatularifah@gmail.com1,  edythoyib@bsi.uin-malang.ac.id2  

ABSTRACT 

This research focuses on the effectiveness of using an indirect corrective feedback strategy on students’ writing 

skills of recount text to provide an alternative and effective way to complete their work in writing, especially 

in writing recount text. The researcher uses a quasi-experimental design by Collecting data using a test, and 

each class is given a pre-test before treatment and a post-test after treatment. It indicates that the treatment 

was successful. Independent T-test calculation researcher. T-test was calculated to compare the two means 

between the experimental and control groups. The table above shows that the value of sig (2-tailed) is 0.000 

at the critical value for the 5% level. The significance value is less than 5% or (0.000 <0.05). So, the null 

hypothesis can be rejected. It can be concluded that the study’s indirect corrective feedback strategy is effective. 

Keywords: Indirect Corrective Feedback Strategy, Recount Text, Writing Skill 

 

I. INTRODUCTION 
In education, the English language is 

widely known by all groups, from low to high 

levels of education. Seeing from the current 

development, English has become an 

essential communication tool in any case. 

Therefore in English language education, 

learning can improve student 

communication skills. According to Walberg 

2004 in (Irons & Elkington, 2021), 

Communication skills are crucial to learning 

every curriculum. One of the four essential 

aspects of learning English is learning 

writing. Writing is a tool used to express 

feelings, thoughts, and ideas (Maulidah & 

Aziz, 2020; Muhsin & Aziz, 2020). 

http://jeet.fkdp.or.id/index.php/jeet/issue/current
http://u.lipi.go.id/1580741566


45 
 

Writing skills must be mastered by 

students to express and share them with 

others (Sharples, 2002). On the other hand, 

Huges (2003) argues that writing is getting 

sources influenced by vocabulary, grammar, 

mechanics, and organization. Writing is a 

process, not a product. In writing, it needs to 

be reviewed and revised so that writing 

activities will not be complete. Therefore, 

being a writer or a student must know the 

writing process to do good writing. Writing 

is considered a complex skill (Chitravelu et 

al., 2005). Because writing not only takes on 

the material of interest, learning, and 

understanding but so requires mastery of 

language, organization, conventions, 

mechanical, and the writing process (Latifah 

et al., 2018). 

In writing, there must be a strategy that 

can support the improvement of students in 

writing so that students do not find 

problems in writing. The writing process is 

not short because writing is not a natural 

process but a discovery process after 

continuous practice. The essence of writing 

is a process of thinking, compiling, and 

revising, which requires special skills in 

using discourse markers and rhetorical 

covens by placing them cohesive, which 

means that the writing is more precise and 

produces the final product. Many 

researchers have found problems in writing, 

and many researchers have also investigated 

cases of difficulty in writing. Therefore, a 

strategy is needed to improve a student’s 

writing skills in this writing learning.  

The teaching and learning process 

cannot be separated from the strategy. 

Strategies are needed to make the teaching 

and learning process effective and efficient. 

Because teaching is a reciprocal relationship 

between teachers and students who are 

active in carrying out activities, thus learning 

can be interpreted as a plan designed by 

educators in learning activities to achieve the 

goals set in the curriculum. Researcher has 

found problems in learning to write, and 

many have investigated cases of difficulty in 

writing (Muhsin & Aziz, 2020). The test in 

writing is due to boundary correction, 

grammar errors, and organizational errors. 

There is a limitation of modification in 

students’ writing, so students may make 

mistakes again if they are not corrected 

(Huy, 2015). 

Many students experience grammatical 

errors such as spelling, fragments, run-ones, 

concords, punctuation, and organizing 

(Astuti, 2013). Many students are still 

confused about writing, so they have 

difficulty writing. So, the problem is due to 

errors in the learning process. In this case, 



46 
 

there is a problem-solving strategy. Because 

using the technique is capable of good 

stimulation in student learning. In this case, 

the role of design is considered very 

important in the learning process. Because of 

their strategy, the teaching and learning 

process can be effective and efficient.  

Then, the various strategy that can be 

used in learning is the indirect corrective 

feedback strategy. This corrective feedback 

strategy is the feedback that is given by the 

teacher to students when students complete 

the writing process to provide proof of 

students’ writing results (Bitchener & 

Ferris, 2012). The form of feedback that is 

often used in class is feedback given by the 

teacher. With this indirect corrective 

feedback, students can identify their 

mistakes and learn from them with this 

feedback. Indirect corrective feedback is 

easier to understand aspects of writing from 

the feedback given by the teacher. So that 

students learn from their mistakes and will 

not repeat writing mistakes as before. The 

purpose of indirect corrective feedback is to 

provide information to the author for the 

revision, with a view of others’ comments, 

questions, and suggestions addressed to the 

author’s prose gat-based readers instead of 

prose-based writing (Keh, 1990). 

Basically, in guiding students to write, 

the teacher should provide advice or 

suggestions called feedback. Feedback is one 

of the specific and practical ways teachers 

give students about their learners. Students 

who receive feedback during the writing 

process have a better knowledge of how well 

they are writing and what areas they need to 

be effective. The indirect Corrective 

feedback strategy is fundamental to 

students’ learning process. It can be seen 

from students who receive feedback from the 

teacher, who are usually more motivated to 

improve and revise their writing to make it 

better. The teacher feels that the feedback is 

very effective in the student’s writing 

process.  

In this study, the researcher used the 

indirect corrective feedback strategy during 

the writing chase at MTs Al Ibrohimi class 

VIII to correct students’ writing errors to 

determine the effectiveness of the quality of 

writing in recount text. The type of text is 

recount text because, according to the 

National Curriculum from Indonesia, 

recount text is included in Class 8 learning 

materials. A recount text is a text that 

recounts safe experiences or events in the 

past. For this reason, this study aims to see 

the effectiveness of the indirect corrective 

feedback strategy on students writing skills 



47 
 

of recount text at the 2nd of MTs Al 

Ibrahimi.  

II. LITERATURE REVIEW 

A. Teaching Writing 

Teaching writing, especially in Junior 

High School, is not easy as teaching other 

language skills that must be learnt as other 

language skills that are mastered. It demands 

very much of learners, either the primary 

language proficiency, to control their 

language performance. While writing, 

students also need much time to think. The 

teacher asks students to focus on proper 

language use and ideas about what they will 

write. A specific technique is required in 

teaching writing English for junior high 

school.   

Teaching writing teaches the students 

how to express their idea or imagination in 

writing form. Writing is more than a 

productive skill in the written mode (Brown, 

2000). It is more complicated than the other 

three skills, even for native speakers of a 

language, since it involves a graphic 

representation of speech and the 

development and presentation of thoughts in 

a structured way. Thus, the teachers can 

select suitable material in writing class so 

that materials and techniques could be 

understandable for the students and express 

their idea and thinking in good writing.  

Based on those statements, the writer 

can conclude that the teacher’s role is needed 

to motivate students in the teaching-learning 

process. In contrast, students in transition 

and teachers must be creative in preparing 

materials that feature real-life situations and 

authentic language in teaching because they 

have different characteristics.   

In practising their writing, they have to 

follow the steps of process writing to make 

their writing more effective and help the 

students to write a text become easier. All of 

what the students do before writing is 

critical because the student can be guided to 

think about a topic related to a perceived 

audience. This activity of writing involved 

the process of writing.  

B. Indirect corrective feedback 

Indirect corrective feedback 

demonstrates the correction of grammar 

errors to improve students’ writing ability 

(Truscott, 1996). Written indirect corrective 

feedback is a means of helping students 

acquire and demonstrate mastery in the use 

of targeted linguistic forms and structures 

(Bitchener & Knoch, 2008). Written 

indirect corrective feedback is one of the 

instructional strategies designed to facilitate 

the effectiveness of L2 writing (Ferris, 2010). 

From several definitions, it can be concluded 

that written corrective feedback is a way 



48 
 

that aims to correct student errors in writing. 

Students need to write corrective feedback 

that may come from various sources, such as 

teachers, peers, and computer programs 

(Nakamura, 2016). There are six types of 

written corrective feedback, direct (Ellis, 

2009). However, in this study, researchers 

used indirect written corrective feedback. 

Indirect feedback is a strategy that teachers 

use to help students correct their mistakes 

by pointing out mistakes without providing 

the correct form.  

In this type, Elashri (2013) mentions two 

subtypes: Indirect coded and non-coded 

feedback. Coded indirect feedback is when 

the teacher underlines the error and writes a 

symbol on top of that error. Then he gives a 

composition to students to correct the 

mistake because this symbol encourages 

students to think and then provides indirect 

feedback. The teacher underlines or circles 

the error without writing the character 

whatever. Students must think about the 

error and correct it (Seiffedin & El-Sakka, 

2017). This study uses indirect feedback 

using indications and locating with the 

coded indirect feedback sub-type; (1) The 

teacher gives orders to students with a theme 

for writing recount text, and the first result 

is used as a pre-test, (2) The teacher gives 

lessons about recount text and offers 

students a theme for writing recount text, 

(3) The teacher corrects and applies the 

corrective feedback method by only 

providing code to students. Without 

justifying, It works until students get an 

increase in writing skills. 

III. METHOD 
the researcher involved two classes, one 

class as an experimental class and one class 

as a control class. The pre-tests and post-test 

were given to the students in the practical 

and control classes. The treatment was 

applied in the experimental type of writing 

recount text using an indirect corrective 

feedback strategy. Meanwhile, the 

controlled class was only treated with 

explanations about the characteristic of 

recount writing. The results of the pre-test 

and post-test will be compared and 

observed. 

A. Research Instrument 
A test is a set of stimuli presented to 

individuals to obtain responses based on 

numerical scores. Tests are given to measure 

student competence, intelligence, 

knowledge, and abilities possessed by 

individuals or groups. The study passed an 

essay writing test to know students’ skills.  

There are two tests in this study, namely 

the Pretest and Post-test. This was given to 

both groups to see how skilled they were in 



49 
 

writing before providing treatment. The 

researcher developed a test based on a 

syllabus that emphasized writing skills and 

the material on recount text: Pretest. In this 

study, data collection was carried out 

through a pre-test in the experimental and 

control class to determine students before 

being given treatment to the practical class 

children. The test is in the form of a written 

test because it focuses on writing skills. Post-

test is carried out after treatment, and post-

test to determine whether students have 

progressed in writing skills. The post-test 

scores will be compared to whether the 

treated class students’ scores are better than 

untreated students.  

To assess the quality of students’ 

writing, the researcher used an assessment 

rubric. Aspects of assessment are content, 

organization, vocabulary, grammar, and 

mechanics. 

B. Sample of Research 
The sample of this study was 25 

students of class VIII F as the control class 

who were taught without giving a strategy 

and class VIII G 25 as the experimental class 

who were conducted using the indirect 

corrective feedback strategy.  

C. Data Analysis Method 
Researchers analyzed the data using a 

comparative technique between the control 

and experimental classes. The scores of the 

practical course and the control class in the 

post-test will be compared to determine the 

difference in the experimental and control 

classes’ learning outcomes. It will be 

processed by using Adnan’s statistical 

hypothesis test. The scores collected during 

the post-test by the control class and the 

experimental class will be calculated using 

the IBM SPSS version 20 program. And the 

researcher uses an independent sample t-test 

as the formula to see the significant mean 

difference between students and post-test 

scores between those experimental groups 

IV. FINDING  

1) THE DESCRIPTIVE OF PRE-TEST SCORE  

This part explains the students’ writing 

skills in recounting text in the pre-test. The 

results showed the descriptive statistic of the 

per-test in table 1 below.  

Table 1; The Descriptive Statistic Pretest 

 N Range  Minimum  Maximum  Sum  Mean  Std. 
Deviation  

Experimental  

Class  

Control Class  

Valid N  

(listwise)  

25 22.00  51.00  73.00  1445.00  57.8000  5.49242  

25 20.00  50.00  70.00  1471.00  
  

58.8400  
  

5.89265  

  
25       

    

Based on table 4.1 above, it is known 

from 25 students in the experimental class. 

The lowest score in the pre-test was 51, and 



50 
 

the highest was 73. And that from 25 

students in the control class. The lowest 

score in the pre-test was 50, and the highest 

score was 70. On the other side, the mean 

score of each group was different. The mean 

score of the experimental pre-test class was 

57,80, and the mean score of the pre-test 

control class was 58,84. 

Table 2; The Descriptive Statistic Post-test 

 N  Range  Minimum  Maximum  Sum  Mean  Std. 
Deviation  

Variance  

Experimen 

tal class  

25 19.00  75.00  94.00  2088.00  83.5200  5.30817  28.177  

Control 
class  

25 

25  

17.00  57.00  74.00  1618.00  

  

64.7200  

  

4.27707  

  

18.293  

  

Valid N        

(listwise)     

Based on table 2 above, it is known from 

25 students in the experimental class. The 

lowest score in the post-test was 75, and the 

highest score was 94. And that from 25 

students in the control class. The lowest 

score in the pre-test was 57, and the highest 

was 74. On the other side, the mean score of 

each group was different. The mean score of 

the experimental pre-test class was 83,52, 

and the mean score of the pre-test control 

class was 64,72.  

2) THE DESCRIPTIVE OF PRE-TEST AND 
POST-TEST SCORE 

The experimental class was VIII-G 

students of MTs Al Ibrohimi, consisting of 25 

students taught using an indirect corrective 

feedback strategy. The data were collected 

from students’ pre-test scores, which were 

conducted before the researcher 

implemented the teacher’s indirect 

corrective feedback, and students’ post-test 

score, which was conducted after the 

researcher implemented the teacher’s 

indirect corrective feedback.  

Based on the result is known from 25 

students in the experimental class. The 

lowest score in the pre-test was 51, and the 

highest was 73. After the researcher treated 

the students using an indirect corrective 

feedback strategy, the researcher held a post-

test. The data shown in the post-test is the 

lowest value of 75 and the highest value of 94.  

In the controlled class of students’ pre-

test scores and post-test scores, the lowest 

score in the pre-test was 50, and the highest 

score was 70. After the researcher gave 

teaching without using an indirect corrective 

feedback strategy, the researcher gave a post-

test. In the data shown in the post-test, the 

lowest value is 60, and the highest value is 74. 

3) NORMALITY TEST  

A normality test was conducted before 

calculating the t-test. This aims to determine 

whether the data from the two classes have a 

normal distribution or not. Researchers used 

Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk to 



51 
 

test for normality. SPSS 20 was used to 

analyze the data. 

Table 3; Table of Normality 

  Tests of Normality   

 

Kelas  

Kolmogorov-
Smirnova  

Shapiro-Wilk  

Statistic Df Sig. Statistic df Sig. 

Hasil 
belajar  

Experimental 
Group  

.099 25  .200*  .963  25  .473  

Control 
Group  

.105  25  .200*  .965  25  .521  

The data above shows that pre-test 

scores from the experimental and control 

groups were in a normal distribution. The 

result of the pre-test score from the 

experimental group was sig 0,200 were, 

higher than the level of significance 0,005 

(0,200>0,05), and the result from the pre-test 

score of the control group was sig 0,200 were 

higher than the level of significance 0,005 

(0,200>0,05). It showed that both groups’ 

pre-test scores were in a normal distribution. 

4) HOMOGENITY TEST  

After doing the normality test, the 

researcher did the homogeneity test to test 

the similarity of the sample in both classes. 

The researcher used the Levene statistic test 

to calculate the homogeneity test. 

 

 

 

Table 4; Table of Homogeneity 

  Levene  

Statistic  

df1  df2  Sig.  

Writing  

Based on Mean  1.125 1 48 .294 

Based on Median  .975 1 48 .328 

Based on Median and 
with adjusted df  

.975 1 45.620 .329 

Based on trimmed 
mean  

1.073 1 48 .305 

Based on the output above, it is known 

the value of sig. The mean for the problem-

solving ability variable is 0.294 because of 

the importance of sig. 0.294 > 0.05, it can be 

concluded that the variance of the problem-

solving ability data on the control and 

experiment was homogeneous. 

5) TESTING HYPOTHESIS 

After getting the data, the researcher 

input the data using the SPSS Program 

between the experimental group, which 

brought the treatment using an indirect 

corrective feedback strategy in recount text. 

The control group got the treatment by only 

being treated with explanations about 

recounting writing characteristics. The 

researcher analyzed, compared the mean of 

two groups, and then chose Independent 

Sample T-test. 

 

 



52 
 

Table 5;   Group Statistics 

 Group Statistics   

Kelas  N Mean  Std. 
Deviation  

Std. Error 
Mean  

Score  Experimental 
Group  

25 83.5200  5.30817  1.06163  

Control 
Group  

25  64.7200  4.27707  .85541  

Table 6; Independent sample T-test 

  Levene’s 

Test for 

Equality of 

Variances 

  t-test for Equality of Means  

F  Sig. t  Df  Sig. 
2taile

d) 

Mean 
Differ
ence 

Std. 
Error 

Differe
nce  

95% 
Confidence  

Interval of 
the 
Difference  

Lowe
r 

Uppe
r  

Writing  

Equal 

variances 

assumed 

Equal 

variances  

not 
assumed  

1.125 .294  13.78 
9  

48  .000  18.80
0,00  

1.3633 8  16.058
7 4  

21.54 

126  

    13.78 
9  

45.9
2 3  

.000  18.80
0,00  

1.3633 8  16.055
5 4  

21.54 

446  

From the table above, it can be seen that 

the result of the mean experimental group 

was 83.5200 and the control group 64.7200. 

it showed that the practical class gained a 

higher mean than the control class. It was 

indicated that the treatment was working. 

However, independent T-test computation 

was conducted to see the significance of the 

mean difference. The T-test was calculated to 

find out the comparison from two means 

between the experimental group and the 

control group. From the table above, the 

value of sig (2-tailed) was 0,000in critical 

value for 5% level = 0,05. The significance 

value was less than 5% or (0,000<0,05). So, 

the null hypothesis is rejected, and the 

alternative hypothesis is accepted. It can be 

concluded that there is enough evidence to 

conclude that the use of indirect corrective 

feedback in recount text is better than only 

treating with explanations about the 

characteristic of recount writing in student’s 

writing skills in the eighth grade of MTs Al 

Ibrohimi Manyar Gresik. 

V. DISCUSSION 

This research was carried out to look at 

the effectiveness of the indirect corrective 

feedback strategy on students’ written tests 

in recount text in class VIII MTs Al Ibrohimi 

Mnayar Gresik. In this case, the researcher 

uses a quasi-experimental research design 

which consists of 2 groups, namely the 

experimental group and the control group, 

by giving pre-test and post-test to the two 

classes.  

Further research by Mei Rahmawati S 

(2019) entitled Direct and Indirect 

Corrective Feedback on EFL Students 

Writing Skill: A Case Study in a Junior High 

School Bandung. This study investigates the 

impact of direct corrective feedback and 



53 
 

indirect corrective feedback and which 

feedback is better to improve EFL students 

writing skills. Statistical analysis revealed 

that indirect corrective feedback was more 

effective than direct corrective feedback in 

improving students writing skills researcher 

gave a pre-test to measure how well the 

students were before being given treatment 

in the experimental class.   

After being given treatment using an 

indirect corrective feedback strategy, the 

researcher, in the final stage, gave a post-test 

to see the students’ results after being given 

treatment. The student’s learning outcomes 

in this class are in the pre-test having an 

average of 57,8 and in the post-test having an 

average of 83,52 

In the control class, the researcher gave 

a pre-test and a post-test. The difference was 

when the treatment was given. In the 

treatment, the control class was not given an 

indirect corrective feedback strategy 

Learning in this class is when the pre-test 

gets an average of  58,84, and the post-test 

receives 64,72.  

In giving pre-test and post-test for both 

classes, the researcher gave the same test and 

the same theme. As previously stated, the 

researcher used an independent sample t-

test. The t-test was used to examine the 

significant difference in the scores achieved 

by the two groups. Data analysis shows that 

the sign. value (2-tailed) is 0.000 < 0.05. So, 

Ho (Null Hypothesis) is rejected, and Ha  ( 

Alternative Hypothesis) is accepted. It can 

be concluded that the indirect corrective 

feedback strategy is effective in writing 

students in recount text. 

VI. CONCLUSION 

Based on the findings, it was concluded 

that using the indirect corrective feedback 

strategy for the study in class VIII MTs Al 

Ibrohimi in the Experimental class and the 

Control class, there was a significant 

difference between the two. Class VIII G 

(Experimental Class), who was given 

indirect corrective feedback strategy 

teaching, got a higher average score than 

class VIII F (Control Class). This can be seen 

from the data with statistical hypothetical 

significance levels calculated using SPSS 

version 20 shows that the average value of 

the experimental class after being taught 

using the indirect corrective feedback 

strategy was higher than the control class, 

which was not given the confident 

treatment. Therefore, the teacher’s indirect 

corrective feedback significantly improved 

students’ recount text writing Skills. 

 



54 
 

VII. REFERENCES 

Astuti, A. P. (2013). The effectiveness of peer 
feedback to improve the writing ability 
of the tenth grade students of SMA 
Kanisius Harapan Tirtomoyo in the 
academic year of 2012/2013 (Skripsi). 
Yogyakarta: Yogyakarta State University. 

Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written 
corrective feedback in second language 
acquisition and writing. Routledge. 

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value 
of written corrective feedback for 
migrant and international students. 
Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–
431. 

Brown, H. D. (2000). Teaching By Principles  : 
An Interactive Approach to Language 
Pedagogy (2nd ed.). longman. 

Chitravelu, N., Sithamparam, S., & Teh, S. 
C. (2005). ELT methodology: Principles and 
practice. Oxford Fajar. 

Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written 
corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 
63(2), 97–107. 

Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language 
writing research and written corrective 
feedback in SLA: Intersections and 
practical applications. Studies in Second 
Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201. 

Huy, N. T. (2015). Problems affecting 
learning writing skill of grade 11 at 
Thong Linh high school. Asian Journal of 
Educational Research, 3(2). 

Irons, A., & Elkington, S. (2021). Enhancing 
learning through formative assessment and 
feedback. Routledge. 

Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing 
process: A model and methods for 
implementation. 

Latifah, Y., Suwarno, B., & Diani, I. (2018). 
THE EFFECT OF 
TEACHERS’DIRECT AND INDIRECT 
FEEDBACK ON STUDENT’S 
WRITING ABILITY. JOALL (Journal of 
Applied Linguistics and Literature), 3(2), 
47–58. 

Maulidah, U. N., & Aziz, I. N. (2020). The 
Effectiveness of Online Collaborative 
Learning on Students Writing Skills. 
EDUCATIO: Journal of Education, 5(2), 
141–149. 

Muhsin, R. H. B., & Aziz, I. N. (2020). The 
Effect of Online Gamification Learning 
on Students’ Motivation and Students’ 
Writing Descriptive Text. JEET, Journal 
of English Education and Technology, 1(04), 
256–266. 

Nakamura, S. (2016). Insights from studies 
on written corrective feedback: 
Implications for language pedagogy. 
REFLections, 22, 89–102. 

Seiffedin, A. H., & El-Sakka, S. M. F. (2017). 
The impact of direct-indirect corrective 
e-feedback on EFL students’ writing 
accuracy. Theory and Practice in Language 
Studies, 7(3), 166. 

Sharples, M. (2002). How we write: Writing as 
creative design. Routledge. 

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against 
grammar correction in L2 writing 
classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–
369. 

 

 


