1

STUDENTS’ COGNITIVE PERCEPTION OF METALINGUISTIC

CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN WRITING CLASS

A Research Paper

Lili Darma
21513069

Submitted As a Partial Fulfillment of Requirement for the Degree of

Education Scholar at Department of English Faculty of Teaching Training
And Education at Muhammadiyah University of Kendari

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

FACULTY TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION

MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF

KENDARI

2019
2
3
 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Alhamdulillah, I would like to express my grateful thanks to Allah SWT, who has

endowed upon his blessing and guidance, so that I could finish this thesis well. I also

would like to say Alhamdulillah because Allah sent the great human, Muhammad

SAW who taught to us the petience. His Sunnah showed me the best way of life how

to do this project; spirit, patient, and believes. Then, Allah bestowed my life.

I dedicate my grateful thanks and loves for my beloved parents: my father Aluani

and my mother Wa Ida, thanks for the prayers, encouragement, support and

motivation and their guidance that how to be a good woman and as well as whenever

I go you are always in my deepest heart. Thank you very much for all the donation

and fund that always given at anytime and motivated when my spirit is down.

Without them, I am nothing. I could n ot say anything to express my gratitude to you

all because you are my everything in my life. I also give my special thanks to both of

my young brother, Jamma and Dani, for my sisters, Wida, Nurmala S.pd, for my old

brother Fiadin and also for all my family that helped, motivated and support me in my

study until I finished this research.

I also want to express my special appreciation and gratitude to my both

supervisors, Dr. Nurfaidah, S.Pd., M.Ed. and Titin Rahmiatin, S.Pd., M.Pd. who

always provide guidance, motivation, ideas and support during the completion of this

thesis. They also inspired me how to study well, don't give up, and always try to
 5

correct mistakes when completing this paper and how to be a good English teacher

too. A big appreciation and special thanks to my best lecturer, Citra Prasiska Puspita

Tohamba, S.Pd., M.Pd. who always helps, motivates and guides me in completing

this thesis.

The researcher also would like to thanks to the following lecturers:

1. Amir Mahmud, S.Pi.,M.Si., the rector of Muhammadiyah University of Kendari.

2. Halima, S.Ag.,M.Od., the Dean of Teacher Training and Education Faculty.

3. Tri Indah Rusli, S.Pd., M.Pd., as the Head of English Language Teaching

Department who always helps and guides her during the arrangements of this

paper

4. Fharanita Muhitaand Sahid, A.Md., and the staff in Department of English

Language Teaching who always helps and facilitate me

5. The writer‟s great lectures who shares their knowledge sincerely: Isna Humaera,

S.Ag., S.Pd., M.Pd, Abd. Halim, S.Pd., M.A., TESOL, Titin Rahmiatin, S.Pd.,

M.Pd.Ririn Syahriani, S.Pd., M.Pd, Andi Rachmawati, S.S.,M.Hum.,Sudirham,

S. Pd., M. Ed, Yusnita, S.Pd., M.Pd,Yulianah Sain, S.S.,M.Hum.,Sarjaniah Zur,

S.Pd, M.Pd.,Citra P. Tohamba, S.Pd.,M.Pd., Nur Rizky Alfiany, S.S.,M.Hum.,

Maulina S.Pd., M.Pd. Ramsi S.Pd., M.A. and Faridawati, S.Pd.

6. Faridawati, S.Pd.,as the researcher‟s proofreader and always help her to finish

this paper.

Then a bunch of thanks also addressed to my beloved friends Mariana, nurul amalia khaerunnisa, Susarli

ode halim, Nur indah sari, Linda noviyanti, Devianty

6
 7

COVER ....................................................................................................................i
APPROVAL AHEET ........................................................................................... ii
PRONOUNCEMENT .......................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ....................................................................................iv
LIST OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... v
ABSTRACT ...........................................................................................................vi
CHAPTER I ............................................................................................................ 1
INTORDUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
A. Background of The Study.......................................................................... 1
B. Research Question ...................................................................................... 5
C. Objective of the Study................................................................................ 5
D. Significance of the Study ........................................................................... 5
E. Scope of the Study ...................................................................................... 7
F. Definition of Key terms .............................................................................. 7
CHAPTER II .......................................................................................................... 9
LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................................... 9
A. Previews Study ........................................................................................... 9
B. Theoretical Framework ........................................................................... 11
1. Students‟ Cognitive Perception................................................................ ..11
2. Corrective Feedback ............................................................................. ….16
3. Written Corrective Feedback ................................................................. 17
4. Metalinguistic Corrective Feedback....................................................... 19
5. Definition of Writing…………………………………………………… .21
CHAPTER III ...................................................................................................... 22
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ....................................................................... 22
A. Design of the Study .................................................................................. 23
B. Research Setting ....................................................................................... 23
C. Subject of the Study ................................................................................. 23
D. Instrument of the Study ............................................................................ .24
1. Reflective Journal ...................................................................................... 24
2. Questionnaire ............................................................................................ 25
E. Technique of Data Collection................................................................... .27
F. Technique of Data Analysis ..................................................................... .28
1. Data reduction ............................................................................................ 29
2. Data display ............................................................................................... 30
3. Conclusion ................................................................................................. 31
CHAPTER IV ....................................................................................................... 32
 8

RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSION .................................................... 32

A. Findings ......................................................................................... ………32
Students‟ Cognitive Perception Toward Metalinguistic Corrective Feedback in
Writing Class .....................................................................................................
1. Students‟ Emotion...................................................................................... 33
2. Students‟ Motivation.................................................................................. 36
3. Students‟ Attitude ...................................................................................... 37
B. Discussion .................................................................................................. 38
CHAPTER V ........................................................................................................ 43
CONCLUSION, LIMITATION, AND RECOMMENDATION ..................... 43
A. Conclusion................................................................................................. 43
B. Limitation .................................................................................................. 44
C. Recommendation ...................................................................................... 44
REFERENCE ....................................................................................................... 48
APPENDIX ........................................................................................................... 50
 9

ABSTRACT

STUDENTS’ COGNITIVE PERCEPTION OF METALINGUISTIC

CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN WRITING

LILI DARMA

21513069

The purpose of this study was to investigate students‟ cognitive perceptions of

metalinguistic corrective feedback used by the lecturer in correcting students' writing
errors in writing class. This research employed descriptive qualitative to understand
the phenomenon experienced by the research subjects with case study.5 English
Department students at the fourth semester of University Muhammadiyah Kendari
participated in this study. The students‟ cognitive perceptions were studied based on
the theory of Yingxu Wang, et al., (2006) that categorized cognitive perception into
three aspects; emotions, motivation and attitudes. The instruments used in this study
including reflective journals and questionnaires. Based on the data from reflective
journals and questionnaire, this study found that the students had positive cognitive
perceptions of metalinguistic corrective feedback. It can be inferred that the students
need metalinguistic corrective feedback to correct their writing error.
Keywords: Written Corrective Feedback, Metalinguistic Corrective Feedback, and

Students’ Cognitive Perception.

 10

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter consists of background of the study, Research question, Benefits of the

study, Scope of the study, Definition of term. Each part will be discussed in different

section orderly.

A. Background of the Study

Metalinguistic corrective feedback is one type of written corrective feedback (WCF)

that becomes an interesting topic to discuss in second language writing. It has been

discussed over the past ten years (Elis, 2009). Interest in the contribution of

metalinguistic feedback was expanded in L2 literature after an increasing number of

studies investigating the relative effectiveness of metalinguistic feedback (Bitchener,

Young, & Cameron, 2005; Sheen, 2007; e.g., Bitchener & Knoch, 2008, 2010). In

globalization context, there is researcher that has focused about metalinguistic

corrective feedback (Gholaminia, Gholaminia & Marzban (2014); Azizi, Behjat &

Sorahi (2014), Hashemian & Farhang-Ju, 2018). These studies showed the effect of

metalinguistic corrective feedback in student writing. In Indonesia itself, national

context, there is a study about students‟ perception to WCF (Listiani, 2017, Rosdiana,

2016). Both of studies showed students‟ perception to WCF but one specific types of

WCF is far from research. Motivated to narrow this gap, this study is designed to see
 11

how students perception toward metalinguistic corrective feedback given by teacher

in writing class.

Metalinguistic corrective feedback explains the use of correct L2 linguistic

forms (Ellis, 2009). It provides L2 learners with some form of explicit comment

about the nature of the errors they have made. The explicit comment can take two

forms. One is the use of error codes that consist of abbreviated labels for different

kinds of errors. The labels can be placed over the location of the error in the text or in

the margin. L2 leaners should work out the correction needed from the clue provided.

As for the other type of metalinguistic feedback, L2 learners need to, first, locate the

error and, then, work out the correction. Some studies on the effectiveness of using

error code compared with other types of written corrective feedback gave a different

result (e.g. Lalande, 1982; Robb et al., 2001; Ferris & Roberts, 2001). Lalande found

that the group of learner of L2 German receiving correction error code outperformed

in subsequent writing than that of student‟s writing with directive feedback, though

the different was not statistically significant. While Ferris and Roberts (2001) provide

evidence that error code did assist the student to self-edit their writing and the later

form of providing explicit comment is the use of metalinguistic explanation.

In the previous study conducted by Sheen (2007) who studied on comparing

the effectiveness of direct corrective feedback and metalinguistic CF found that both

are effective in increasing students accuracy of using English articles, and provide the

evidence that metalinguistic feedback was more effective than direct feedback. Khah
 12

& Farahian (2016) who studied on comparing the impact of metalinguistic feedback

and explicit correction also found that the group with metalinguistic feedback had

greater improvement than the group which received the explicit correction feedback.

Moreover, Chung (2015), researched about the perception of Korean EFL learners

toward feedback types on students‟ written errors. The result was students prefer to

direct feedback for their writing. In addition, in Indonesian university was from

Rosdiana (2016), her study was about students‟ perception toward WCF in writing

classroom. The study showed that the students‟ preferences for feedback and error

correction on their writing. Most students wished their teacher to mark and correct

errors for them and believe that Written Corrective Feedback was primarily the

teacher‟s responsibility. Jabu et al. (2017) also showed in their finding study that

regarding the effect of lecturers‟ corrective feedback to the students‟ uptake, there

are no reliable data showing how lecturers‟ corrective feedback directly affects the

students‟ uptake. However, it is understood that in this case study, peer-repair request

and metalinguistic feedback successfully lead repair uptake although its occurrence

shows rarity.

From the explanation above, we can see that metalinguistic corrective

feedback has been examined both at global and national levels and shows that this

type of corrective feedback has an effect that can help students in writing. However,

the study about students‟ perception to WCF in Indonesia was still general. The study

still not focused on one type of WCF specifically metalinguistic corrective feedback
 13

and how students respond to it. Meanwhile, the advantages of the feedback are not

the only reason to implement the feedback in writing class. Knowing students‟

thought and feel toward the feedback can be another reason. What they think

and feel toward the feedback help teachers to adjust and improve the feedback

which suits their students‟ comfort and the goal of writing teaching and learning

(Listiani, 2017).

According to Kreitner and Kinicki (1992: 126) who define perception as a

mental and cognitive process that enables people to interpret and understand the

surroundings. Pike and Ryan (2004) stated that cognitive perception is the process of

encoding, storing, processing, and retrieving information. It is generally associated

with the question of “what” (what is happening, what is going on, what is the

meaning of that information) (Baumeister et al., 1998). It explain that the relationship

between perception and cognitive cannot be separated because students' perceptions

depend on the cognitive process they get from what they see, feel and think in

processing information. In this study, the researcher examined the cognitive aspect

based on theory Yingxu Wang et al., (2006) that categorized the main cognitive

perception into three components; emotional, motivation and attitude.

Based on preliminary study in Muhammadiyah University of Kendari, on

Friday, 1 March, 2019, WCF is already used by the lecture in their writing class. This

is based on what the lecture of writing class in fourth semester said through

interview. Since the WCF can help students to improve the accuracy of their texts in
 14

writing (Ferris, 2011 p.12). In addition, this issue has not been properly examined yet,

especially in Muhammadiyah University of Kendari. Therefore an investigation about

students‟ cognitive perception toward an object especially metalinguistic corrective

feedback seems to be an important one to be researched. The writer will conduct this

research under the title “Students’ cognitive Perceptions of Metalingistic Corrective

Feedback in writing class at the fourth Semester of English Department Students at

Muhammadiyah University of Kendari”

B. Research Question

Based on the background stated about, the research problem is arranged as

follows:

How do students' cognitive perceptions toward metalinguistic corrective

feedback given by the lecture in writing class at the fourth semester English

Department students of Muhammadiyah University of Kendari?

C. Objective of the Study

The aim of the study is to describe students‟ cognitive perceptions towards

metalinguistic corrective feedback in writing class especially in class B at the fourth

semester of English Department student in Muhammadiyah University of Kendari.

D. Significant of the study

There are two kinds‟ benefits in this research, theoretical and practical. It is as

follow:
 15

1. Theoretical Benefits

The purposes of the study is to know how the implementation of

metalinguistic written corrective feedback used by teacher in writing skills and

how the students response about it and determine the theory about written

corrective feedback.

2. Practical Benefits

a. For the teacher

The finding of the study hopefully contribute to improve

teachers‟ insight about how they make the best use of the students‟

response and interpretations towards feedback. Teachers can design

classroom activity which is based on the knowledge of the students‟

response and their needs towards corrective feedback in teaching English

process in writing skills.

b. For the Students

For students, this study can help the students to reveal what they

need towards the feedback. The knowledge in revealing their response can

be used as their reflections to learn. Regarding with this, they may develop

an ideas how to learn effectively so that it can affect their achievement in

writing and change their response to be more favorable.

c. For the Researcher

This result will add the knowledge about the theory of feedback,

especially written corrective feedback and its implication in the classroom.

 16

d. For the next researcher

It can be used as the references for the next researchers who are

interested in researching about Written Corrective feedback.

E. Scope of the study

The scope of the study is only focus on students‟ cognitive perceptions toward

metalinguistic corrective feedback used by the lecture in writing class at fourth

semester of English Department students of Muhammadiyah University of Kendari

based on theory Yingxu Wang et al., (2006). Written corrective feedback is a

standard method used by most teachers to provide guidance in revising student

writing. That was based on their feedback in writing classroom at fourth semester of

Muhammadiyah University of Kendari.

F. Definition of Keyterm

In order to avoiding misunderstanding in define the meaning of some key

theory dealing with this research; there are some key terms such as:

1. Written Corrective Feedback

Written corrective feedback is defined as teacher‟s input to a writer‟s

composition in the form of information to be used for revision (Keh, 1990). In

written feedback, comments, correction and/or marks are given to students‟ written

work draft. The marks may be on words or quick symbols such as underling,

circles, and other signs. According to Elis 2009, there are six types of written
 17

corrective feedback such us Direct CF, Indirect CF, Metalinguistic CF, the focus

of the feedback, Electronik feedback and Reformulation.

2. Metalinguistic Corrective Feedback

Metalinguistic feedback explains the use of correct L2 linguistic forms (Ellis,

2009). Metalinguistic feedback provides L2 learners with some form of explicit

comment about the nature of the errors they have made. The teacher provides some

kind of metalingistic clues as to the nature of the error that can take in two forms

namely error codes and brief grammatical.

3. Students‟ cognitive Perception

Pike and Ryan (2004) stated that cognitive perception is the process of

encoding, storing, processing, and retrieving information. It is generally associated

with the question of “what” (what is happening, what is going on, what is the

meaning of that information) (Baumeister et al., 1998).

 18

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter discusses about literature review. This chapter describes about the theory

and definitions that is relevant to the research concept. The researcher would explain

about previously study, theoretical framework; student‟s perception, corrective

feedback, written corrective feedback, metalinguistic written corrective feedback,

definition of writing and process in writing skill.

A. Previous Study

In this part, the researcher reveals two previous studies that support this

research which also has the similar focus with the current research that is related to

written corrective feedback in English language teaching in particularly writing.

A study was done by Khah & Farahian (2016) entitled “A Comparative

Study of the Impact of Metalinguistic Feedback and Explicit Correction on the

Writing Performance of Iranian EFL Learners”. The study was a quasi-experimental

study and using A Nelson English Proficiency Test to gathering the data. The subject

of this study was 60 EFL learners (36 females, 24 males) studying English at four

English language teaching institutes in Kermanshah, a city in west of Iran. This study

was to investigating the impact of metalinguistic feedback and explicit correction of

providing written corrective feedback on English as foreign language (EFL) learners‟

writing performance. The result showed that the group with metalinguistic feedback
 19

had greater improvement than the group which received the explicit correction

feedback. The findings suggest that providing teacher corrective feedback is effective

in reducing EFL learners‟ grammatical errors and improves their writing

achievement.

Another previous studied by Rosdiana (2016) who researched about

“Students’ Perception toward Written Corrective Feedback in Writing Classroom”.

This is a qualitative research. The research was aimed to explore English Department

Students‟ perception, beliefs, and attitude toward Written Corrective Feedback in

writing classroom and collected the data by questionnaire and interview. The subject

of this study is English Department Student of UIN Ar-Raniry. It found that students

prefer to be given feedback from the teacher rather than no feedback. Students need

the correction in order to make them easily to improve their process of writing.

Based on the two previously studies above, the researcher examined about

written corrective feedback. The first researcher examined how the impact of

metalinguistic feedback and explicit correction of providing written corrective

feedback on English as foreign language (EFL) learners‟ writing performance and the

second researcher examined about Students‟ perception, beliefs, and attitude toward

Written Corrective Feedback in writing classroom. However the different two

researchers are: the firs researcher used quasi-experimental study and the second

researcher used qualitative study. Besides that, the first researcher focused on how

metalinguistic and explicit written corrective feedback impacts to see which ones are
 20

more influential to be used in correcting student writing and the second researcher

focused on how students' perceptions toward written corrective feedback in writing

classes. The first researcher has found that giving metalinguistic correction is more

influential than explicit and the second researcher has found how students perception

toward written corrective feedback but have not focused on any type of written

corrective feedback. Therefore, what makes this study different from the previous

study is the researchers tries to identify how students‟ cognitive perception to one

type of written corrective feedback, namely metalinguistic corrective feedback given

by the lecture in correcting the students writing error in writing class at the fourth

semester students of Muhammadiyah University of Kendari .

B. Theoretical Framework

1. Students’ Cognitive Perception

In explaining perceptions, there are many experts who have given their

opinions about the aspect of perception; one of them is Pike and Ryan (2004) who

stated that there are three components of perception.

The first aspect is cognitive. It refers to the process of encoding, storing,

processing, and retrieving information. It is generally associated with the question of

“what” (what is happening, what is going on, what is the meaning of that

information) (Baumeister et al., 1998). For example, relating to this study with

cognitive components can be seen from students' reactions toward metalinguistic

feedback in increasing their writing skills.

 21

The second component is affective. It refers to the emotional interpretation of

perceptions, information, or knowledge. It is generally associated with one‟s

attachment (positive or negative) to people, object, ideas, etc., and ask the question

“How do I feel about this knowledge or information? (Baumeister et al., 1998).

Morgan (1992) stated that affective component is related to the pleasure and

displeasure of someone. For example of this aspect is students perceive that they like

studying or writing by receiving feedback especially Metalinguistic Corrective

Feedback from the lecturer on their work or writing.

The last component of perception is conative. It refers to the connection of

knowledge and affect to behavior and is associated with the issue of “why”. It is the

personal intentional, painful, deliberate, goal-oriented, or striving component of

motivation, the proactive (as opposed the reactive or habitual) aspect of behavior

(Baumeister et al., 1998). Moreover, Morgan (1992) stated that conative is concerned

with the behavior or action of someone which related to an object. For example is the

students thinking their enthusiasms to write or study is increasing because of the

feedback given by the lecturer.

From those components above, the researcher only focused on one component

of perception, namely cognitive perception. In cognitive aspect, the researcher would

examine three aspects based on theory Yingxu Wang et al., (2006) who categorized

the main cognitive perception into three components such us:

1. An emotional component, related to a personal feeling toward an object

 22

2. A motivation component, consisting of a personal behavior or act toward an

object

3. An attitude component composed of reaction or response toward the object.

Based on the three characteristics above; emotional, motivation and attitude

have represented the three aspects of perception that will be used as the indicators to

measure the students‟ cognitive perception.

According to Izard (1991) emotion can be divides into positive emotions like

joy, happiness, and love, and negative emotions like fear, anger, and sadness.

Emotions are a set of states or results of perception that interprets the feelings of

human beings on external stimuli or events in the binary categories of pleasant or

unpleasant.

According to Harmer (2001) states that motivation is a cognitive arousal

which provokes a decision to act as a result on which there is sustained intellectual

or physical effort so that the person can achieve some previously set goal. Botzin

(1983) states that motivation can be observed by inferring from behavior since it

cannot be observed directly. However, motivation is a cognitive stimulation

which stimulate a decision to act and can be seen from behavior. Wittig (2001) also

classified motivation into two categories known as learned and unlearned. It means

that if the students learned their mistakes, they have motivation in their self. But if

they unlearned they mistakes, it means that they have not motivation in their self.

Fazio (1986) describes an attitude as an association between an act or object

and an evaluation. Eagly and Chaiken (1992) define that an attitude is a tendency
 23

of a human to evaluate a person, concept, or group positively or negatively in a

given context. Wittig (2001) describes attitude as a learned evaluative reaction to

people, objects, events, and other stimuli. motivation and attitude have considerable

impact on behavior and influence the ways a person thinks and feels (Westen,

1999).

Yingxu Wang et al., 2006 categorize the main cognitive perception into three

components; emotional, motivation and attitude. Here is the summary of the research

questions presented in the chapter below.

Table: Summary of the Students’ cognitive perception

Aspects Indicators Representation

Emotion a. The students‟ feeling Like or dislike

Motivation b. Students‟ behavior or act Learned or Unlearned

Attitude c. Students‟ reaction Positive or negative

From those theories, it can be concluded that:

1. The indicators of emotion are satisfaction and feeling toward the feedback

that can be like or dislike

 24

2. The indicators of motivation are behavior or act toward the feedback that can

be learned or unlearned

3. The indicators of attitude are the student‟s reaction toward the

feedback that can be positive or negative.

In the explanation above, the author believes that student perceptions are

student responses to an object. In this study the authors chose metalinguistic

corrective feedback as the object of students' cognitive perception to find out what

students like or dislike toward metalinguistic corrective feedback as objects. In

addition, it was explained that the cognitive aspects of perception are emotions;

motivation and attitude, there are several indicators of each aspect based on several

theories. In this study, the authors focused on the three aspects of cognitive

perception for further investigation.

Based on the definition above, it can be concluded that students' cognitive

perceptions can be positive or negative toward objects, situations, or people that can

be seen from the emotions, motivations and attitudes of the students. So, if the

students have positive cognitive reaction, the students will accept and learn the

teacher's feedback and will never make mistakes again. If students learn teacher

feedback, it will improve their writing skills and develop their critical thinking. But

sometimes student cognitive perception can be negative so they will ignore the

teacher and make mistakes again. In this study the authors focus on: identifying
 25

students' positive and negative cognitive perception that can be seen through

emotion, motivation and attitude toward teacher's metalinguistic corrective feedback.

2. Corrective Feedback

Feedback is the way of the teacher to help the students that have

problems in learning with gives comments or correction. Hence, the students can

avoid the mistakes and more understanding about the learning activity. In teaching

learning especially in writing activity, feedback is the way to make the student avoid

the mistake (Ellis, 2009).

According to Ferris (1999) feedback is beneficial for students to improve the

quality of their writing. It is true because it can improve the quality of student‟s

writing, focusing on grammar, lexis, and content. So, it can improve the students‟

writing production and accuracy. Chaudron (1988) states that corrective feedback as

“the true” correction which succeeds in modifying the learner‟s inter-language rules

that the error is eliminated from further production.

Some researchers and experts have classified the various types of corrective

feedback based on its forms. It can be written and oral feedback. Ellis (2009)

reported a typology of written corrective feedback into six types: direct corrective

feedback, indirect corrective feedback, meta-linguistic corrective feedback, the focus

of the feedback, electronic feedback; and reformulation. On the other hand, oral

feedback has many forms. Lyster & ranta (1997) divided the corrective feedback into
 26

six types namely; explicit correction, recasts, classification requests, meta-linguistic

feedback, elicitation; and repetition.

From those definitions of some experts, it can be concluded that feedback is

the information which has a relationship with the students‟ and teachers‟ skill to

increase their skill in teaching learning. The corrective feedback is an action given

by the teacher to eliminate the mistakes made by the students in learning language.

3. Written Corrective Feedback

Teacher can provide correction, comments and marks on the student‟s written

work draft. The marks may be on words or quick symbols such as underlining,

circles, and other signs. The teacher should provide the specific comments on

student‟s errors with suggestion about how to improve as well as with the comments

of the positive aspect of the work. On the written feedback teacher can give direct or

indirect corrective feedback. According to Ellis (2009) teachers can provide direct or

indirect corrective feedback. The first involves the teacher identifying linguistic

errors and providing students with the correct form. Besides that, while the correction

of grammatical inaccuracies has received significant attention, teacher feedback is not

only concerned with correcting linguistic errors. Teacher response can also include

more lengthy commentary and this can address structure, organization, style, content

and presentation, as well as grammatical or mechanical issues (Hyland, 2006). Ferris

et al. (1997) identifying teacher commentary and find that teachers frequently asked

for further information, make suggestions or requests and give information. The study
 27

also highlighted the fact that teacher commentary can also include elements of both

praise and criticism. Ellis (2009) state that:

1. Direct corrective feedback. The teacher provides the student with the

correct form.

2. Indirect Corrective Feedback. The teacher indicates that an error exists but

does not provide the correction.

a) Indicating + locating the error. This takes the form of underlining and

use of cursors to show omissions in the student‟s text.

b) Indication only. This takes the form of an indication in the margin that

an error or errors have taken place in a line of text.

3. Metalinguistic corrective feedback. The teacher provides some kind of

meta-linguistic clue as to the na ture of the error.

a) Use of error code. Teacher writes codes in the margin (e.g. W-w: wrong-

word; art: article).

b) Brief grammatical descriptions. Teacher numbers errors in text and

writes a grammatical description for each numbered error at the bottom of

the text.

4. The focus of the feedback

This concerns whether the teacher attempts to correct all (or most) of

the students‟ errors or selects one or two specific types of errors to correct.

This distinction can be applied to each of the above options.

a) Unfocused corrective feedback.

 28

Unfocused corrective feedback is extensive.

b) Focused Corrective Feedback.

Focused corrective feedback is intensive.

5. Electronic feedback. The teacher indicates an error and provides a

hyperlink to a concordance that provides examples of correct usage.

6. Reformulation. This consists of a native speaker‟s reworking of the

students‟ entire text to make the language seem as native-like as possible

while keeping the content of the original intact.

4. Metalinguistic Corrective Feedback

Metalinguistic feedback explains the use of correct L2 linguistic forms (Ellis,

2009). Metalinguistic feedback provides L2 learners with some form of explicit

comment about the nature of the errors they have made. The teacher provides some

kind of metalingistic clues as to the nature of the error that can take in two forms.

1) Use of error code. Teacher writes codes in the margin (e.g. W-w: wrong-

word; art: article). (See example 1)

2) Brief grammatical descriptions. Teacher numbers errors in text and writes a

grammatical description for each numbered error at the bottom of the text.

(See example 2)

 Example # 1

Art art WW art

 A dog stole bone from butcher. He escaped with having bone.

 29

*art = indefinite article

*WW art = definite article

 Example # 2

(1) (2) (3)

 A dog stole bone from butcher. He escaped with having bone.

 (1), (2) You need a before the noun when a person or thing is

mentioned for the first time.

 (3) You need the before the noun when the person or thing has

been mentioned previously. (Ellis, 2009, p. 101)

Metalinguistic feedback falls at the explicit end of the corrective feedback

spectrum and is an explicit type of corrective feedback. Metalinguistic feedback has

an effect on L2 learners‟ explicit knowledge (Bitchener, 2012). SLA scholars have

provided solid evidence that lends support to Bitchener‟s (2012) claim that

metalinguistic explanation promotes the development of explicit knowledge

(e.g.,Rassaei, Moeinzadeh, & Youhannaee, 2012; Shintani & Ellis, 2013). In this

sense, metalinguistic feedback can be seen as salient and noticeable to L2 learners

because it explicitly provides them with the opportunity to diagnose their

ungrammatical utterances. It is suggested that the role of saliency enhances the

strength of the corrective function of metalinguistic feedback for L2 learners

(Bitchener, 2012). In fact, metalinguistic feedback can scaffold L2 learners to notice

the gap between their knowledge and the received metalinguistic feedback.
 30

5. Definition of writing

Writing is most likely to encourage thinking and learning when students view

writing as a process. Writing is a complex process that allows writers to explore

thoughts and ideas, and make them visible and concrete, writing encourages

thinking and learning for it motivates communication and makes thought available

for reflection (Gaith, 2002). In order to have a good writing that represents the

writer‟s thought, it is necessary to do some series of steps that usually called as the

writing process. In the case of learning, the writer is the student. When the students

start to write, they might have difficulties in putting the ideas and organizing them. It

is better to give them an understanding that writing is not a matter of writing the

letters, instead it is a process.

 31

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter consists of design of the study, subject of the study, instrument of the

study, technique of the data collection, technique of data analysis, and triangulation of

the data.

A. Design of the Study

Qualitative approach is applied in this study in. According to Sprinthall and

Schemutte (1991:100), a qualitative method is described as an approach used to

collect the data systematically. This type of research "refers to the meanings, concepts

definitions, characteristics, metaphors, symbols, and description of things" and not to

their "counts or measures. Besides that, this research answers how and when a certain

phenomenon occurs. Confidently, the aims of this study are to know how the

students perception toward metalinguistic corrective feedback in writing

class. This design used because it can be best obtained from reflective journal and

questioner.

In fact, students‟ perception towards metalinguistic corrective feedback is the

way students receive the teacher any feedback in their writing form that must be

studied in detail based on the way of students‟ perception in natural way. However,

the writer wants to find out and try to analyze the extent to which the positive and

negative cognitive perception can be seen through students‟ reflective journal and
 32

questionnaire towards teachers‟ metalinguistic corrective feedback. It means

that the design of this study have done through descriptive qualitative research.

B. Research Setting

As Creswell (2007) stated that the natural setting in collecting data is one of

the characteristic of qualitative approach. Beside human as data collector and

analyzing the data inductively is natural environment as direct source of data.

Selecting the precise place is important because it will influence the result of the

research. So, the researcher selects University Muhammadiyah of Kendari as a setting

of the research. In this research the researcher focused on the fourth semester students

of the English department in the 2018/2019 academic year class B. They were taking

advance writing subjects. This class consisted of 35 students. There are 30 female and

5 male but the researcher only choose 5 students as the subject of this research

because they had received metalinguistic corrective feedback from their lecture.

C. Subject of the Study

In this study, there were 5 students who were fourth semester students of the

English department in the 2018/2019 academic year class B as the subject of this

research. They were taking advance writing subjects. There are 35 students is this

class. But the writer only chose 5 students because:

 The students have received metalinguistic corrective feedback from

their lecture in correcting their writing.

 33

 There are some students among them who understand and are not

with metalinguistic correction feedback.

 There are students who‟s the writing gets better after receiving

corrections from the teacher and some who don't.

 There are students who are in a position between understanding and

not.

 There are also students who do not understand at all even though their

writing have been clearly corrected and explained by the teacher

using metalinguistic corrective feedback

So, students‟ cognitive perceptions regarding the correction need to be known

so that the teacher can make it as a reflection on their teaching.

D. Instrument of the Study

In conducting the study, the researcher used the following instruments:

1. Reflective Journal

The Reflective journal used to identify how the students cognitive

perception that will be know from students emotion, motivation and attitude

toward metalinguistic corrective feedback used by English foreign Language

teachers. The reason to use reflective journal is adopted by (Dewey, 1997;

Gustafson and Bennett, 2002) simply define reflection as thinking for an

extended period of time about recent experiences, „looking for commonalities,

 34

differences, and Interrelations beyond their superficial elements‟. In addition,

Dewey states that reflection involves a conscious and voluntary effort to

establish belief upon a „firm basis of reasons‟. What should noted from

Dewey‟s definition is the idea of reflection as active, for instance, engaging

learners with educational practices that cause them to establish their own set of

beliefs by way of reason and proof. In addition Teaching journal is commonly

assigned as a reflective tool during practicum (Borg, 2006) as well as a tool to

develop competence and self-efficacy (Nye, Clark, Bidwell, Deschamps,

Frickman, & Green, 2016).

In this research, collected the reflective journal reflect on students

experience on the lecturer feedback process after reduce written material. Upon

having feedback by the lecturer, the participants was writing their experience on

reflection form then write their reflections in Indonesian, not in English,

because reflective journal writing demands linguistic, cognitive, and socio-

cultural comprehension (Borg, 2006). Finally, the reflective journal was taking

in this research as tool instrument to be investigating further.

2. Questionnaire

According to Ary et.al (2002: 56), a questionnaire is an instrument in

which respondents provide written response to questions or mark items

that indicate their response. The questionnaire implemented in this research is

 35

open-ended items. The questionnaire adapted from Wahyu Dwi Pratiwi (2013)

that also examined about “Students‟ perception toward teacher written

feedback”. It was aimed to gain the students‟ perception towards teacher‟s

written feedback. Open-ended question are questions needed to be answered

more freely as there are no fixed options. However, the answers have to be

still related to the topic of the questions. The researcher chose this type

of questions because the researcher wanted to know the process of

underlining the respondents‟ view. There are eighteen open questions in the

questionnaire in this current research.

Questionnaire blueprint is also made because the content validity of

the test could also be determined by a blueprint (Hughes, 1989: 22). The

blueprint can also show that questionnaire is divided into some parts. The first

part is aimed to investigate the student‟s emotion toward the teachers‟

metalinguistic corrective feedback (questionnaire number 1-6). The second part

is to investigate the students‟ motivation toward the teacher‟s metalinguistic

corrective feedback (questionnaire number 7-11). The third part is to investigate

the student‟s attitude toward teacher‟s metalinguistic corrective feedback

(questionnaire number 12-17). Those third parts are mainly to investigate

whether the students have positive or negative cognitive perceptions towards

teacher‟s metalinguistic corrective feedback. The researcher will make the

question in Indonesian to make clearer and comfortable.

 36

E. Technique of Data Collection

In the interest of collecting the data, the writer organizes some of steps which

are categorized as follows:

1. Students‟ reflective journal

The writer would take the reflective journal students from the lecturer who

teach in the class, in order to look how students perception toward metalinguistic

corrective feedback given by the teacher when teaching writing. When having the

reflection account, the writer does some of the following steps:

a. Request permission from the lecture to take the reflection account.

b. Requesting students‟ to take their reflection account.

c. Listing some of students‟ perception.

d. Concluding the reflection account through writing the important aspect when

students perception toward metalinguistic corrective feedback.

2. Open-ended questionnaire

The questionnaire would be conducted to clarify students' perception towards

metalinguistic corrective feedback. When conducting questionnaire, the writer take

the following steps:

 37

a. Determine the questionnaire which will be asked to students through Google

Form that will be answer by the students in internet

b. Asking permission from the teacher to distribute questionnaires to students by

shearing the link

c. Asking the students to click the link and fill out questionnaires in accordance

with the direction of the writer

d. Students fill out questionnaires and send it

e. Check the questionnaire that have been answered by students

f. Analyze the results of questioner which have been filled by students

F. Technique of Data Analysis

Technique for analyzing data is important in this research. According to

Moelong (2001: 103), analyzing the data is called as process of organizing and

arranging the data into pattern, category and a set of basic classification to find

the theme and to formulate the research hypothesis as what the data advised. In

terms of analyzing the data, the researcher utilized steps adopted from Miles and

Huberman. As stated by Miles and Huberman (1994) who define data analysis as

“comprising three concurrent flows of activity they are data reduction, data display,

and conclusion drawing/verification”.

 38

a. Data reduction

Reduction the data is the first step in analyzing qualitative research. It means

summarizing, choosing the main things, focusing on important things, and

looking for themes and patterns. Thus the data that has been reduced will provide

a clearer picture, and make it easier for researchers to carry out further data

collection, and look for it if necessary. In this research, the data reduction will be

done during the research take place and it is done in line with the two key steps in

collecting the data. Therefore, the data reduction would be reduced by using the

following steps:

1. Reflective journal

a. Ensure the suitability of data through information in a reflective journal.

b. Mark some relevant data from reflective journals.

c. Using blue color codes for positive student perceptions then yellow for

negative student perceptions in student reflective journals.

d. Store relevant data from aspects of this research in the form of concise,

concise descriptions.

2. Questionnaire

a. Questionnaire sheet and bold data relevant.

 39

b. Separate in another paper file.

b. Data display

Data display is the second main stage later in data reduction. It is done in the

form of short descriptions, graphs, relationships between categories, and the like.

The data most often used to be presented in qualitative research is narrative text.

In developing data display, the data is documented in the form of a short

description by the researcher. As a result, relevant and important data that has

been arranged in the data reduction process is displayed in the form of a short

description. Therefore, the process allows the author to understand the situation

and develop the concept of further research. Display of the data will be carried out

through the following steps:

1. Reflective journal

a. Select items from reflective journals that are in accordance with the research.

b. Display relevant data by listing it on another paper.

2. Questionnaire

a. Take notes the student answers

b. write the answer in the form of description

 40

c. Conclusion

Conclusion is the last stage in analysis techniques after data reduction and

display. The writer must arrive at conclusions and carry out verification, both in

terms of meaning or in terms of the truth of conclusions agreed upon by the

subject in whom the study was conducted. The meaning formulated from the data

must be tested first about the truth, compatibility, and resilience. The author must

realize that in searching for meaning must use the views of key informants and

not from the results of interpretations of meaning in the viewpoint of the

researcher. Therefore, data would be concluding by using the following steps:

1. Reflective journal

a. Compare each note and list from the previous data analysis.

b. Verify the most relevant data.

c. Write general conclusions on the research data.

2. Questionnaire

a. List of answers from the previous analysis step.

b. Compare data from reflective journals and questionnaires

c. Combine them together in short narratives and conclude information.

 41

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSION

This chapter consists of two sections, the first section was finding which presents the

students‟ cognitive perception towards metalinguistic corrective feedback given by

lecture and the second section is discussion.

A. Findings

Students’ cognitive Perception toward Metalinguistic Corrective Feedback in

Writing Class

Based on the research question, the findings of this study is to find out how

students' cognitive perceptions toward metalinguistic corrective feedback in writing

class purposed by theory Yingxu Wang et al., (2006) who categorized cognitive

perception into three aspects; emotions, motivation and attitudes. The data obtained

from the reflective journal and questionnaire of 5 students as the subject of this

study. The researcher combined the results between reflective journal and

questionnaire to find out students emotion, motivation and attitudes towards

metalinguistic corrective feedback in writing class. The researcher used blue color

codes for positive student perceptions then red for negative student perceptions in

student reflective journals and questionnaire that will be explained below.

 42

1. Students emotion

In this paragraph, the researcher presented findings on emotional aspects

obtained in a reflective journal and questionnaire written by students (see Appendix I

& II). Based on reflective journal and questionnaires, the researchers found that

students liked and happy toward the use of metalinguistic corrective feedback in

correcting their writing error because it helped them to correct their grammar errors.

But students also gave their negative emotion because the lecture used pencils in code

the error, so there are some unclear codes and the students prefer oral and written

feedback.

Based on the results of reflective journal, the Student 1 (S1) likes

metalinguistic corrective feedback but also gives a negative response toward the code

used because the lecturer corrects using a pencil on her writing. As quoted in her

writing journal:

“In my opinion metalingustic corrective feedback made me understand even

more in composing sentences like grammar rules because I could find out
my mistakes in writing sentences. However, I recommend that the writing
code should be clarified so that it is easy to understand. "

The response of students is reinforced in the questionnaire. On questions that

refer to students' emotional aspects see (appendix II.1-6), students respond positively

toward metalinguistic corrective feedback such us it is easy to understand, very

helpful and undisturbed.

 43

Then, the Student 2 (S2) also gave positive and negative emotion toward

metalinguistic corrective feedback.

“My feeling when I got metalinguistic corrective feedback, I understand and

know how to compose sentences and use good grammar. However, the
correction given by the lecturer will be clearer and more regular if the
lecturer uses colored pencils”.

Supported by the results of questionnaire answer from S2 who more referring

to students‟ positives emotion. The students response that metalinguistic corrective

feedback is objective, comprehensible, assisted knowledge and undisturbed (see

appendix 2).

Student 3 (S3) revealed in his reflective writing that she liked toward the use

of errors code in correcting her writing error because it was easy to understand.

“I am very happy with the type’s correction of the teacher by used error
codes in correcting student errors so it was easy to understand” Which I
don't really like toward the feedback is the teacher used a pencil to correct
our writing and it's not too clear. The correction is clearer if the lecturer
uses a marker or pen".

Her expression also supported by the answers in questionnaire which refer to

positive responses (see appendix II). However, she also gave negative responses same

with Student 1 and 2. She complains about the use of pencil by the lecture.

Student 4 (S4) also revealed that she liked the use of metalinguistic corrective

fedback in correcting his writing. It will be seeing from students‟ reflective journal

and questionnaire (see appendix I&II). However, students also advise lecturers to use

colored pens to make the correction clearer. Negative comments between S1, S2, S3
 44

and S2 same are giving suggestion for the lecturers to use colored ink so that the code

given is clearer and in the questioner answered in number1. The students more prefer

oral feedback.

"My feeling when I got metalinguistic correction from the lecturer I am very
happy. As for my input, it was better for the lecturer to use colored pens in
correcting the students to understand again when improving their writing.”

The last student or Student 5 (S5) also has positive and negative emotion

toward metalinguistic corrective feedback but have different negative perception from

other students.

“metalinguistik corrective feedback allows me to know the mistakes that I

need to correct. However, sometimes I do not understand the code used by
lecturers. So, I prefer the type of direct correction because I can know my
mistakes directly”.

The student likes toward metalinguitik corrective feedback but she prefers

direct corrective feedback. however, it is reinforced in the results of the questionnaire

answer, where she is more inclined to positive emotion such as metalinguistic are

objective, easy to understand, and very helpful in writing.

But based on the questionnaires results of S1, S2, S3 and S5, in number one

(see appendix 2) the students prefer the oral and written feedback. It means that

students prefer if the teacher does not only give the code but also explains it orally to

make students more aware toward their mistakes so it is easy to correct those

mistakes. Different with S4 who preferred to oral feedback.

 45

b. Students Motivation

In this session, the second aspects of the cognitive component will be

revealed, namely student motivation. This aspect only obtained from the students‟

questionnaire (see appendix II, 7-11) and only one student that the researcher found

the aspect of motivation in students‟ writing journal. So, the researcher used

questionnaire to know motivation of the students after got metalinguistic corrective

feedback from their lecture that can be learned or unlearned. Based on the result of

questionnaires, all students have cognitive positive perceptions because their learned

the mistakes after got metalinguistic corrective feedback from the lecture and correct

their writing. The students stated that they got motivation to improve their writing

after getting metalinguistic corrective feedback from the lecturer.

As quoted by students 4 (S4):

“Metalinguistic correction used by lecturers made me very motivated to be

more active in writing”

The student statement was supported by the questionnaire that she had

responded. She stated that after getting metalinguistic corrective from the lecture, she

was motivated to always correct her mistakes such as rearranging the sentence

marked by the lecturer, rewriting the corrected part of the lecturer, always trying to

improve her mistakes so that she got a good score from the lecturer (See appendix II).

All students (S1, S2, S3, S4 and S5) stated that they were motivated after

getting metalinguistic corrective feedback from the lecturers which can be seen from
 46

students' responses in appendix II (see number 7-11). All students stated that

metalinguistic corrective feedback motivated them in trying to correct their writing

error, so that their writing is good.

c. Students’ attitude

The third aspect of cognitive perception shows that students have positive

reaction toward metalinguistic corrective feedback used by the lecturer.

As stated by student 1 (S1):

“with the used of metalinguistic correction feedback by the lecture, I know

the rules and procedures of the sentence order better to write."

The Student statements are supported by answers from the questionnaire (see

appendix 2.11). She agreed with the response stating that her writing was better after

getting metalinguistic corrective feedback in her writing error ".

Students 3 (S3) also have positive reaction toward metalinguistic corrective

feedback is used by the teacher in correcting the writing error.

As quoted from the student 3:

"In my opinion, the used of metalinguistic corrective feedback can help me

in writing, especially in improving my grammar so I can correct the errors in
my previous writing”.

The student responses are supported by students' questionnaire answer (see

appendix 2). She stated that metalinguistic corrective feedback is very optimal, very

important in writing process and quite easy to understand in correcting errors.

 47

Students 4 (S4) also said that metalinguistic feedback helped her to know the

organizational structure of the correct sentence.

As expressed by students in reflective journal:

"After being corrected, I understand better how to use good and right
grammar"

It supported by students' responses in the questionnaire (see appendix 2.14)

that metalinguistic is very helpful to know the organizational structure of the correct

sentence.

The other students (S2 and S5) also have positive reaction toward

metalinguistic corrective feedback. All of students agree that the feedback is very

helpful to know the correct sentence. (Appendix II, 12-17).

But, in questionnaire number 16, all students preferred to consult with smart

friends after their writing has been corrected by the teacher.

B. Discussion

In this section, the researcher will explain and explore the results of the research

that will be linked to the theory that is consistent with what the researcher explained

in chapter 2.

 Students’ cognitive perception toward metalinguistic corrective

feedback in writing class

 48

Feedback is the way of the teacher to help the students that have

problems in learning with gives comments or correction. Hence, the students can

avoid the mistakes and more understanding about t he learning activity. In teaching

learning especially in writing activity, feedback is the way to make the student avoid

the mistake (Ellis, 2009). Through feedback from lecturers, students can improve

their quality writing, focusing on grammar, lexis, and content. It supported by Ferris

(1999) who stated that feedback is beneficial for students to improve the quality of

their writing. This theory is relevant with the results of this study that showed almost

subjects in this study said that they realized the mistakes in their writing after

receiving feedback from lecturers so that the quality of students' writing became

better especially about grammar error.

However, telling about written corrective feadback, Ellis (2009) classifies it

into six types namely direct, indirect, focus, unfocused, metalinguistic, electronic and

reformulation feedback. In this study, researchers only focused on metalinguistic

corrective feedback as an object in this study. According to Ellis (2009),

Metalinguistic feedback explains the use of correct L2 linguistic forms. In providing

metalinguistic corrective feedback, the lecturer can use two forms of correction

namely error code and grammatical description. from the results of the student's

writing which has been corrected by the lecturer, the researcher sees that the lecturer

only uses error codes in correcting student errors such as Art (article), pro (pronoun),

V (verb), WW (wrong word), prep (preposition) and other codes. In the results of this
 49

study, students have positive cognitive perception toward metalinguistic corrective

feedback. It means that the use of metalinguistic feedback is very effective in helping

students improve their writing. It was supported by previous study that has find out

the effectiveness of this feedback.

A previous study done by Khah & Farahian (2016) entitled “A Comparative

Study of the Impact of Metalinguistic Feedback and Explicit Correction on the

Writing Performance of Iranian EFL Learners”.. This study was to investigating the

impact of metalinguistic feedback and explicit correction of providing written

corrective feedback on English as foreign language (EFL) learners‟ writing

performance. The result showed that the group with metalinguistic feedback had

greater improvement than the group which received the explicit correction feedback.

The findings suggest that providing teacher corrective feedback is effective in

reducing EFL learners‟ grammatical errors and improves their writing achievement.

Another previous by Sheen (2007) who studied on comparing the

effectiveness of direct corrective feedback and metalinguistic CF found that both are

effective in increasing students accuracy of using English articles, and provide the

evidence that metalinguistic feedback was more effective than direct feedback.

However, the effectiveness of the feedback is not the only reason to implement the

feedback in writing class. Knowing students‟ thought and feel toward the

feedback can be another reason. What they think and feel toward the feedback
 50

help teachers to adjust and improve the feedback which suits their students‟

comfort and the goal of writing teaching and learning (Listiani, 2017).

In previous studied by Rosdiana (2016) who researched about “Students’

Perception toward Written Corrective Feedback in Writing Classroom”. This is a

qualitative research same with this research. The research was aimed to explore

English Department Students‟ perception, beliefs, and attitude toward Written

Corrective Feedback in writing classroom. Researchers have not focused on what

type of written corrective feedback and what perceptions the researcher will see as

said by Pike and Ryan (2004) that there are three components of perception namely

cognitive, affective and conative.

In this study, the researcher only focused on one component of perception,

namely cognitive perception. According to Pike and Ryan (2004), cognitive

perception is the process of e 5ncoding, storing, processing, and retrieving

information. It is generally associated with the question of “what” (what is

happening, what is going on, what is the meaning of that information) (Baumeister et

al., 1998). The cognitive perception of students can be seen from students' emotion,

motivation and attitude toward metalinguistic feedback in increasing their writing

skills.

In this research, the researcher used theory Wang et al., 2006 which

categorizes cognitive perceptions into three aspects namely emotions, motivation and
 51

attitudes. Through these aspects, the researchers want to know whether students have

positive or negative cognitive perception toward metalinguistic corrective feedback.

According to Izard (1991) emotion can be divides into positive emotions like

joy, happiness, and love, and negative emotions like fear, anger, and sadness. Wittig

(2001) also classified motivation into two categories known as learned and unlearned.

It means that if the students learned their mistakes, they have motivation in their self.

But if they unlearned they mistakes, it means that they have not motivation in their

self. Eagly and Chaiken (1992) define that an attitude is a tendency of a human

to evaluate a person, concept, or group positively or negatively in a given context.

Wittig (2001) describes attitude as a learned evaluative reaction to people, objects,

events, and other stimuli

So, from these three aspects, through reflective journal and questionnaires

answered by students, the researchers found that students had positive cognitive

perception toward metalinguistic corrective feedback used by lecturers in correcting

their writing error. For students cognitive perception negatively, students only

suggest to the lecturer to use colored pencils or ink in giving the code to be clearer

and easier to understand.

 52

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION, LIMITATION AND RECOMMENDATION

The last chapter of this study consists of conclusions, limitations and

recommendations for this research. The first part of this study describes the final

conclusions about how student‟ cognitive perceptions toward metalinguistic

corrective feedback is used by the lecturer in correcting students‟ writing errors. The

second part of this chapter presents the limitations of the study and the last section

presents recommendations for further studies and pedagogical implications of this

study.

A. Conclusion

This research was conducted to find out how students' cognitive perception

toward metalinguistic corrective feedback provided by the lecturer. It was conducted

at Muhammadiyah University of Kendari, especially at the fourth semester of English

Department student in writing class (class B).

Based on the findings of this study discussed in the previous chapter,

researchers found that students' cognitive perceptions toward metalinguistic

corrective feedback were positive which could be seen from the emotional aspects,

motivation and attitudes of students. From the emotional aspect, students feel happy

when their writing is corrected by using metalinguistic feedback. While from the

aspect of motivation, students' enthusiasm in correcting their mistakes after getting

 53

metalinguuistic correction from the teacher and from the attitude aspect, it was

revealed that students had positive reactions because they said that metalinguistic

corrective feedback was very important to use in correcting their writing error.

B. Limitation

In conducting this research, researchers have many limitations as described

below:

1. The researcher only focuses on cognitive perception among the three aspects of

perception proposed by Pike and Ryan (2004); cognitive, affective and conative.

2. Researchers discuss cognitive perceptions based on theory Wang et al. (2006)

which categorizes cognitive perceptions in three aspects namely emotions,

motivation and attitudes

3. The theory is used by the researchers in explaining metalinguistic corrective

feedback based on Ellis (2009).

4. There were only 5 students as subjects in this study

5. The researcher only used reflective journal and questionnaire to get the data.

C. Recommendation

In giving corrections in students' writing error, the teacher must use clear and

brief corrections to be easily understood by students because the clarity of the

 54

feedback given by the lecturer is very influential on the results of student writing. So

based on the results of this study, the researcher considered a number of suggestions

for lecturers, students and next researchers. The writers' suggestions are as follows:

1. For the lecturers

Lecturers are expected to be able to use metalinguistic corrective feedback in

correcting student writing by paying attention to the following:

a. The lecture should use colored pencils or pens to give the student error codes to

be clearer

b. The lecture should combine between written and oral feedback. The point is that

the teacher does not only code the student's writing error but also explains it to

make it easier to understand.

2. for the students

Students are expected to be able to use the results of this study as a reference

or discourse in providing perceptions of the feedback given by the lecture so the

teacher can facilitate what students want.

3. For the further researchers

Suggestions for further researchers are as follows:

 55

a. Researchers suggest that the next researcher can examine the three aspects of

perception, namely cognitive, affective and conative. It will be more interesting

because in this study, the researchers only focused on cognitive aspects.

b. The next researcher can examine more deeply about the three aspects of

cognitive perception, namely the emotional aspects, motivation and attitude.

c. The next researcher can also examine the two forms of metalinguistic corrective

feedback because in this research, the researcher only finds the error code used

by the lecturer in correcting the student's writing error.

d. The next researcher can use documentation and also interview to explain clearly

about students‟ emotion, motivation and attitude.

4. Pedagogical implication

Regarding the findings of this study, the pedagogical implications of this

study are as follows:

a. Students' cognitive perceptions toward metalinguistic corrective feedback seem

to be an important point to note for teachers who teach writing skills because

students' perceptions of learning and teaching are important for teachers to

provide appropriate care or techniques in the teaching process. Therefore,

before the teaching and learning process begins, lecture must understand the

level of students' abilities so that the teacher can use his/her teaching strategies
 56

when teaching and learning in the classroom. As a result students are easier to

understand the subject of learning.

b. This research is expected to be a source of information for lecture to understand

that they must be aware of their responsibility to guide students in the learning

process, especially in terms of giving feedback in writing classes. The feedback

given by the lecturer should be in accordance with what is needed by students in

order to improve students' ability in writing.

 57

REFERENCES

Azizi, M., Behjat, F., Sorahi, M.A. (2014). Effect of metalinguistic teacher corrective
feedback on writing performance of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal
of Language and Linguistics. 2(6-1), 54-63.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion:
Is the active self a limited resource?. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74(5), 1252-265.
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005a). The effect of different types of
feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing. 14(3),
191-205.
Bitchener, J. (2008b). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118.
Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2008c). The value of written corrective feedback for
migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–
431.
Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2010d). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced
L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language
Writing,19 (4), 207–217.
Chung, B. (2015). Written corrective feedback: the perception of korean EFL
learners. Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 75-88.
Dewi, W.P. (2013). Students‟ Perception towards Teacher‟s Written Feedback.
Thesis. Yogyakarta: Department of Language and Arts Education, Faculty
of Teacher‟s Training and Education, State University of Yogyakarta.
Dewey, J. (1997). How we think. New York: Dover.
Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1993) The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, Fort Worth, TX.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63
(2), 97-107.
Feris D.R. (2013).Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 22( 3), 307-329.
 58

Gholaminia, I., Gholaminia, A. & Marzban, A. (2014). An investigation of meta-

linguistic corrective feedback in writing performance. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 116(2014), 316-320.
Hashemian, M., & Farhang-Ju, M. (2018). Effects of metalinguistic feedback on
grammatical accuracy of Iranian field (in) dependent L2 learners‟ writing ability.
Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 141-161.
Izard, C. E. (1991). The Psychology of Emotions. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Jabu B.,Noni, N., Talib, A., & Syam, A. ( 2017). Lecturers‟ use of corrective
feedback and students‟ uptake in an Indonesian EFL contex. Global Journal of
Engineering Educatio, 19(1), 82-87.
Khah, Y.A. & Farahian, M. (2016). A comparative study of the impact of
metalinguistic feedback and explicit correction on the writing performance of
iranian EFL learners. Journal of Studies in Education, 6(2), 132-143.
Kahyalar, E., & Yılmaz, F. (2016). Teachers‟ corrective feedback in writing classes:
the impact of collaborating with a peer during the editing process on students‟
uptake and retention. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal ,
16(1), 148-160.
Li, S., & Li, P. (2012). Individual differences in written corrective feedback: a multi-
case study. English Language Teaching, 5(11), 38-44.
Listiani, 2017. Students‟ perception toward teacher‟s written corrective feedback in
writing 3 class. Advances in social science, Education and Humanities Research
(ASSEHR), 109, 164-167
Lalande, J. (1982). Reducing composition errors: an experiment. The Modern
Language Journal, 66(2), 140-149.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded
Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Nurfaidah, S. (2016). EFL pre-service teachers‟ reflection: A case study in an
Indonesian instructional context. Unpublished dissertation. Bandung: Universitas
Pendidikan Indonesia.
Pike, S., & Ryan, C. (2004). Destination positioning analysis through a comparison of
cognitive, affective and conative perceptions. Journal of Travel Research,
42(4), 333-342.
Rosdiana, (2016). S tudents' Perception toward written corrective feedback in writing
classroom. Getsempena Engglish Education Journal, 3 (1), 16-23.
 59

Roberts, B. & Ferris, D. (2001). Error feedback in l2 writing classes: how explicit
does it need to be?. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184.
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect
on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83–93.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language
aptitude on ESL learners' acquisition of articles. TESOL International
Association, 41(2), 255-283.
Wang, Y. (2007). On the cognitive processes of human perception with emotions,
motivations, and attitudes, Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural
Intelligence, 1(4), 1-13.
Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Patel, S., & Patel, D. (2006). A layered reference model of the
brain (LRMB). IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 36(2),
124-133.
Wittig, A. F. (2001). Schaum‟s outlines of theory and problems of introduction to
psychology (2nded.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
 60

APPENDIX I
Summary of students’ reflective journal
Blue: Positive cognitive perception
Red: Negative cognitive perception

Students Emotion Motivation Attitude

Students 1 Menurut saya adanya Dengan adanya

metalinguistik corrective metalinguistic
feedback, saya lebih corrective feedback,
paham lagi dalam saat saya menulis
menyusun kalimat seperti saya lebih
aturan tata grammar dan mengetahui aturan
saya lebih mudah lagi dan tata cara
dalam menulis. Serta saya susunan kalimat
bisa mengetahui agar menjadi lebih
kesalahan saya dalam baik dalam menulis.
menulis kalimat. Dan saat
pemberian feedback agar
labih jelas lagi kode
penulisannya agar saya
lebih mudah untuk
memahami.

Student 2 Perasaan saya ketika

mendapatkan koreksi
metalinguistik dalam
tulisan saya yaitu saya
dapat mengetahui cara
penyususnan kata dalam
sebuah kalimat dan saya
lebih mengerti bagaimana
cara penggunaan to be
secara teratur pada
kalimat tertentu. Namun,
pada saat dosen
memberikan koreksi pada
tulisan saya, dia tidak
memakai pensil berwarna
sehingga saya kurang tahu
 61

jelas dimana letak

kesalahan saya.

Student 3 Saya sangat senang Menurut saya

dengan cara dengan adanya
mengoreksinya yaitu metalinguistik
dengan cara menggunakan korektif feedback
kode metalinguistik dapat membantu
corrective feedback saya dalam hal
sehingga siswa juga menulis, terutama
mudah dalam memahami dalam memperbaiki
kesalahan terhadap tulisan grammar saya
yang dibuat dan sehingga saya dapat
memudahkan saya dalam memperbaikinya
menyusun grammar dalam kembalidari
menulis. Dan yang saya kesalahan terhadap
tidak terlalu sukai yaitu tulisan saya
ketika memberikan kode sebelumnya.
terhadap tulisan kami
menggunakan pensil yang
tidak terlalu jelas. Lebih
baik dengan
menggunakan spidol atau
pulpen yang lebih jelas.

Student 4 Perasaan saya setelah Saya sangat Setelah dikoreksi

mendapat koreksi termotivasi untuk saya lebih paham
metalinguistik dari guru di lebih giat lagi lagi bagaimana
tulisan saya, saya merasa dalam hal menulis. penggunaan
sangat senang. Karena grammar yang baik
disini saya mulai sadar dan benar.
bahwa ternyata didalam
tulisan itu harus
diperhatikan grammarnya.
Saya semakin sadar
bahwa penempatan
grammar sangatlah harus
diteliti, karena hal tersebut
sangat bisa berpengaruh
terhadap tulisan, adapun
hal atau masukan dari
saya pribadi kalau bisa
dalam hal pengoreksian
 62

bisa digunakan pulpen

yang berwarna supaya
yang dikoreksi juga lebih
paham dan bisa
membedakan dimana kata
yang salah dan harus
diperbaiki.

Student 5 Perasaan saya setelah

mendapat koreksi
metalinguistik dari dosen
saya merasa koreksi
tersebut membuat saya
lebih mengetahui apa saja
kesalahan saya yang perlu
diperbaiki dan apa yang
kurang dari tulisan saya.
Tetapi model koreksi
tersebut saya kadang tidak
paham, karena kadang
dosen hanya memberikan
symbol. Saya lebih suka
model koreksi direct
karena saya dapat
memahami dan
mengetahui kesalahan
saya secara langsung.
 63

APPENDIX II
Summary of Students’ Questionnaire answer

Blue: Positive cognitive perception

Red: Negative cognitive perception

Students Emotion aspect Motivation aspect Attitude aspect

(questionnaire No.1- (questionnaire No.7-11) (questionnaire No.12-17)

6)

1. Bagaimana cara 7. Setelah mendapat 12. Apakah

pemberian metalinguistic metalinguistic
feedback yang corrective feedback corrective feedback
terbaik menurut dari dosen apa yang yang diberikan oleh
anda? anda lebih suka dosen lebih optimal
lakukan? daripada feedback
yang diberikan oleh
teman?

Student 1  Menyusun kembali  Sangat optimal

 Lisan dan kalimat yang
Tulisan ditandai dosen

Student 2  Lisan dan  Mengganti kalimat  Cukup optimal

Tulisan yang ditandai dosen

Student 3  Lisan dan tertulis  Mengganti kalimat  Sangat optimal

yang ditandai dosen

Student 4  Lisan  Menyusun kembali  Sangat optimal

kalimat yang
ditandai dosen

Student 5  Lisan dan  .Mengganti kalimat  Cukup optimal

Tulisan yang ditandai dosen
 64

2. Apakah 8. Setelah mendapatkan 13. Pentingkah

metalinguistic metalinguistic metalinguistic
corrective corrective feedback corrective feedback
feedback yang dari dosen apakah dari dosen dalam
digunakan dosen anda termotivasi proses penulisan
anda obyektif? untuk memperbaiki karangan anda?
tulisan anda?

Student 1  Obyektif  Selalu memperbaiki  Sangat penting

Student 2  Cukup obyektif  Memperbaiki  Sangat penting

Student 3  Obyektif  Memperbaiki  Sangat penting

Student 4  Sangat obyektif  Selalu memperbaiki  Sangat penting

Student 5  Sangat obyektif  Memperbaiki  Sangat penting

3. Apakah nilai 9. Setelah mendapat 14.Apakah

yang diberikan metalinguistic metalinguistic
dosen anda sesuai corrective feedback corrective feedback
dengan dari dosen, membantu anda
kemampuan bagaimana cara anda untuk mengetahui
anda? memperbaiki struktur organisasi
karangan anda? kalimat yanng
benar?
 Ditulis kembali pada
Student 1  Sesuai bagian yang  Sangat membantu
dikoreksi saja
 65

Student 2  Sesuai  Ditulis kambali  Sangat membantu

semua

Student 3  Sesuai  Ditulis kambali  Cukup membantu

pada bagian yang
dikoreksi saja

Student 4  Sesuai  Ditulis kambali  Sangat membantu

pada bagian yang
dikoreksi saja

Student 5  Sangat sesuai  Ditulis kambali  Sangat membantu

semua

4. Apakah 10. Setelah mendapat 15. Apakah anda selalu

metalinguistic metalinguistic membaca
corrective corrective feedback metalinguistic
feedback yang dari dosen, anda akan corrective feedback
diberikan dosen mengabaikan atau yang diberikan
dapat anda mencoba untuk dosen anda?
pahami dengan memperbaikinya?
mudah?

Student 1  Mudah  Mencoba  Kadang-kadang

memperbaiki membaca

Student 2  Cukup mudah  Mencoba  Selalu membaca

memperbaiki

Student 3  mudah  Mencoba  Kadang-kadang

memperbaiki membaca membaca

Student 4  mudah  Mencoba  Sering membaca

memperbaiki
 66

Student 5  Cukup mudah  Mencoba  Kadang-kadang

memperbaiki membaca

5. Menurut anda, 11. Apakah tulisan 16. Setelah mendapat

apakah anda menjadi lebih metalinguistic
metalinguistic baik setelah corrective feedback
corrective feedback mendapat dari dosen, dengan
yang diberikan oleh metalinguistic siapakah anda
dosen membantu corrective feedback melakukan
menambah dari dosen? konsultasi?
pengetahuan anda
dalam menulis?

Student 1  Sangat  Baik  Teman yang pandai

membantu

Student 2  Sangat  Cukup baik  Teman yang pandai

membantu

Student 3  Sangat  Baik  Teman yang pandai

membantu

Student 4  Sangat  Baik  Teman yang pandai

membantu

Student 5  Membantu  Cukup baik  Teman yang pandai

6. Ketika menulis 17. Pernahkan muncul

karangan perasaan bersalah
pernahkah anda pada diri anda ketika
merasa terganggu karangan anda
dengan mendapat koreksi
Metalinguistic dari dosen?
corrective
feedback yang
diberikan oleh
dosen?
 67

Student 1  Tidak terganggu  Pernah

Student 2  Tidak terganggu  Selalu

Student 3  Tidak terganggu  Pernah

Student 4  Sangat tidak  .Pernah

terganggu

Student 5  Kadang-kadang  Pernah

terganggu
68
69