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



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.


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.


Indirect Written Corrective Feedback; Writing Ability; Explanation Text


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 throught dictogloss. IJEE, 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. Jakarta: Pusat Perbukuan.

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.

Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ferris, D. R. (2011). Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

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. Lampung: Universitas Lampung.

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.

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. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 3, 125-144.

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. London: 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.

Whitaker, A. (2009). Academic writing guide. A step-by-step-guide to writing academic papers. Seattle: City University of Seattle.

White, H., & Sabarwal, S. (2014). Quasi-experimental design and methods. Methodological Briefs: Impact Evaluation, 8, 1-16.

Full Text: PDF

DOI: 10.15408/ijee.v7i2.17182


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.