THE IMPACT OF TEACHER'S INDIRECT WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON ELEVENTH GRADERS' ABILITY IN WRITING EXPLANATION TEXTS

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.


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

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)  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 postresponse 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. 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?.

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)  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.

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 posttest.

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 forwardlooking 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.

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 showed that the pre-test exhibited the experimental test significance was 0.584 and the controlled was 0.586. If the significanceresult is above α = 0.05, the data thus is normally distributed. Besides, the posttest 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. 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 posttest 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. 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-

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 posttest 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 posttest 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) (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 selfcorrecting 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 A writing test and a quasiexperimental 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 ttable, 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 twoway 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 213-215 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.