Monalisa Monalisa



In writing class, producing a well-polished text passes two main stages: pre writing and drafting. During these stages, interactions take place which can be in form of learners-learners and learners-lecturers interactions. Dealing with this, two main questions should be directed towhat practices of interaction conducted  during writing class and how lecturers reflect them. The data were collected from four writing lecturers of English Education Program of State Islamic University Sulthan Thaha Saifudin Jambiwho have at least two years teaching experience. An interview conducted to each of them to explore what interactions were facilitating and less facilitating learners.The result showed that oral and written interaction were found from both learners-learners and learners-lecturers interactions.As reflected by the lecturers, both oral and written interactions made sense for the learners with particular assistances. Specifically, a long written comments on the learners’ drafts contributed better revision.


Untuk memproduksi sebuah teks yang terpoles dengan baik, ada dua tahapan utama yang dilalui di kelas Writing yakni tahapan pramenulis dan tahapan membuat draft. Selama tahapan tersebut,  interaksi berlangsung antara mahasiswa dengan mahasiswa dan antara dosen dengan mahasiswa. Terkait dengan hal ini, ada dua pertanyaan yang diajukan yakni apa saja praktek interaksi yang terjadi di kelas Writing dan bagaimana dosen merefleksikannya. Data penelitian ini dikumpulkan dari empat orang dosen Writing di program studi pendidikan Bahasa Inggris UIN Sulthan Thaha Saifudddin Jambi yang memiliki pengalaman mengajar paling sedikit dua tahun. Interview dilakukan dengan mereka untuk mengetahui interaksi apa saja yang dapat memfasilitasi mahasiswa dalam menulis. Temuan menunjukkan bahwa terdapat interaksi secara oral dan tertulis dari mahasiswa dengan mahasiswa dan mahasiswa dengan dosen. Seperti yang direfleksikan oleh para dosen, kedua tipe interaksi tersebut bermakna bagi mahasiswa dengan asistensi khusus. Temuan spesifiknya adalah bahwa komentar panjang tertulis pada draft mahasiswa mampu membuat revisi draft mereka menjadi lebih baik.

How to Cite: Monalisa. (2017). Interaction in EFL Writing Class: Lecturers’ Reflection. IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 4(2), 144-155. doi:10.15408/ijee.v4i2.8323



Interaction; EFL writing; Reflection; interaksi; EFL writing; Refleksi

Full Text:



Alzahrani, H.F. (2016). Teachers’ stated beliefs on coded unfocused corrective feedback in EFL writing at Saudi University. TESOL International Journal, 11(1), 52-63.

Chen, S. Nassaji, H. Liu, Q. (2016). EFL learners’ perceptioon and preferences of written corrective feedback: a case study of university students from Mainland China. Asian Pasific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1(5),1-17.

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

Ellis, R. (2005).Instructed Second Language Acquisition A Literature Review Report To The Ministry Of Education. Auckland : UniServices Limited.

Ellis, R. (1997).Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ferris, D.R. (2011). Treatment of error in second language writing (2nd ed). Ann Arbor: Michigan.

Hajian, L., Farahani, A.A.K,. & Shirazi, M.A. (2014). A study of students and teachers prefereces and attitudes toward correction of classsroom written error in Iranian EFL context. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3(5), 287-297.

Harmer, J. (2004).How to teach writing. England: Pearson Education Ltd.

Harmer, J.(2007).The practice of English language teaching(4th ed). England: Pearson Education Ltd.

Karimi, S.H. (2016). Effect of different types of teacher written corective feedback on the Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(2):216-229.

Krashen, S.,& Terrel, T.D. (1983). The natural approach. NY: Pergamon.

Kim, B. G. (2010). Collaborative discussion and peer review activity incomputer-mediated EFL writing. Multimedia Assisted Language Learning, 13(2), 105-128.

Lestari, L.A. (2008). The interactionalapproach to the teaching of writing and itsimplication for secondlanguage acquisition.Teflin Journal, 19 (1): 42-56.

Monalisa. 2013. Feedback to students’ writing at planning stage for better final drafts.Reflective. Journal of English Education Program, (4): 8-15.

Nunan, D.(1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Oshima, A &Hogue, A. (2007). Introduction to academic writing(3rd ed). White Plains: Pearson Education Inc.

Perez-Amurao, A.L. (2014).The Value of feedback and conferencing in the process approach to writing for Filipino and Thai students in Higher Education: acomparative analysis.TESOL International Journal, 9(2):18-35.

Saville-Troike. Muriel. 2006. Introducing Second Language Acquisition.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Slavin, R.E. (1982). Cooperative learning: students teams. What research says to the teacher?Washington, DC: National Education Asosiation.

Simpson, J. (2003). Responding to our students’ writing: what is good for us and for them?HOW Journal.

Villamil, O.S.,& de Guerrero, M.C.M. (2006). Sociocultural theory: A framework for understanding socio-cognitive dimension of peer feedback. In K.Hyland and F. Hyland (Eds), Feedback in second language writing: Context and issues (21-41). New York: Cambridge University Press.

William, J. (2005). Teaching writing in second and foreign language classrooms. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. 10 (1).



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under aCC-BY-SA

Indexed By:

IPI Portal Garuda Open Archives Initiative MoraRef OAJI Scholar Steer IPI Portal Garuda IPI Portal Garuda IPI Portal Garuda berita terkini edukasi IPI Portal Garuda berita terkini regional

Web Analytics View My Stats