Kode/Nama Rumpun Ilmu : 520/Ilmu

Bahasa
Bidang Ilmu : Sosial Humaniora-Seni
Budaya-Pendidikan

LAPORAN AKHIR

PENELITIAN DOSEN PEMULA DIPA

TAHUN ANGGARAN 2016-2017

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION OF LEXICAL ERRORS AND

THE TEACHERS’ FEEDBACK LONG- TERM EFFECTS

TIM PENGUSUL

0706127601 SUHARTAWAN BUDIANTO, S.S., M.Pd (KETUA)

0722037201 KUSUMA WIJAYA, S.S., M.Pd (ANGGOTA)

UNIVERSITAS DR. SOETOMO

DESEMBER 2017

HALAMAN PENGESAHAN
 2

PENELITIAN DOSEN PEMULA DIPA UNITOMO

Judul Penelitian : Students Perception of Lexical Errors and the

Teachers Feedback Long-term Effects
Kode/Nama Rumpun Ilmu : 520 / Ilmu Bahasa
Peneliti
a. Nama lengkap : Suhartawan Budianto, S.S., M.Pd
b. NIDN : 0706127601
c. Jabatan Fungsional : Asisten Ahli
d. Program Studi : Sastra Inggris
e. Nomor HP : 081553340807
f. Alamat surel (e-mail) : suhartawan.budianto@unitomo.ac.id
Anggota Peneliti (1)
a. Nama lengkap : Kusuma Wijaya, S.S., M.Pd
b. NIDN : 0722037201
c. Perguruna Tinggi : Universitas Dr.Soetomo
Anggota Peneliti (2)
a. Nama Lengkap : Rusy Aswidaningrum, M.Si
b. NIDN :-
c. Perguruan Tinggi : Universitas Dr.Soetomo
Biaya Penelitian : Rp. 4.000.000

Surabaya, 12 Maret 2017

Mengetahui
Dekan Fakultas Sastra Ketua Peneliti

Dra.Cicilia Tantri Suryawati, M.Pd Dr.Suhartawan Budianto, S.S., M.Pd

NPP: 92.01.1.007 NPP: 06.01.1.353

Menyetujui
Ketua Lembaga Penelitian
Universitas Dr.Soetomo

Dr. Sri Utami Ady, SE., MM

NPP: 94.01.1.170

IDENTITAS DAN URAIAN UMUM

 3

1. Judul Penelitian : Students Perception of Lexical Errors and the

Teachers Feedback Long-term Effects
2. Tim Peneliti

NAMA JABATAN BIDANG INSTITUSI ALOKASI

NO ILMU ASAL WAKTU
(JAM/MINGGU)

1 Dr. Ketua Sastra Universitas 4

Suhartawan Budaya Dr.Soetomo
Budianto,
S.S., M.Pd

2 Kusuma Anggota Sastra Universitas 4

Wijaya, S.S., Budaya Dr.Soetomo
M.Pd

3. Objek Penelitian (jenis material yang akan diteliti dan segi penelitian)

Students Perception of Lexical Errors and the Teachers Feedback Long-term

Effects

4. Masa Pelaksanaan

Mulai : Januari 2017

Berakhir : Maret 2017

5. Usulan Biaya DRPM

- Tahun 1 : Rp. 4.000.000

6. Lokasi Penelitian

STIKES Surabaya

iii

7. Temuan yang ditargetkan (produk atau masukan untuk kebijakkan)

- Strategi Pemberian Feedback

8. Kontribusi mendasar pada suatu bidang ilmu
 4

- Mengukur Persepsi Mahasiswa tentang feedback Dosen

9. Jurnal Ilmiah yang menjadi sasaran

Jurnal Nasional Terakreditasi

9. Rencana Luaran HKI, buku,Purwarupa atau luaran lainya yang

ditargetkan, tahun rencana perolehan atau penyelesaian

- Publikasi Ilmiah Jurnal Nasional tahun I : submitted

iv

DAFTAR ISI
 5

Halaman Sampul.................................................................................................................... i
Halaman Pengesahan ........................................................................................................... ii
Identitas dan Uraian Umum................................................................................................. iii
Daftar isi ............................................................................................................................... v
Ringkasan………………………………………………………………………………….vi
BAB 1 : Pendahuluan................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Latar Belakangan ………………………………………………….....1
1.2 Rumusan Masalah…………………………………………………….4

BAB 2 : Kajian Pustaka............................................................................................ 6

2.1 Pemberian Feedback .......................................................................... 6
2.2 Metode Pemberian Feedback Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris ………… 7
BAB 3 : Metode Penelitian ..................................................................................... 8
3.1 Metode Penelitian…………………………………………………… 8
3.2 Tempat Penelitian…………………………………………………… 8
3.3 Sampel dan Populasi ……………………………………………….. 8
3.4 Instrumen Penelitian ……………………………………………….. 9
3.5 Teknik Pengumpulan Data………………………………………… 9
3.6 Teknik Analisa Data ………………………………………………. 9
BAB 4 :Temuan Penelitian dan Pembahasan ……………………………………10
4.1 Temuan Penelitian ………………………………………………… 10
4.2 Pembahasan …………………………………………………………10
BAB 5 : Kesimpulan dan saran.......... ……………………………………………10
4.1 Kesimpulan …..…………………………………………………… 10
4.2 Saran…………………………………………………………………10
DAFTAR PUSTAKA……………………………………………………………………. 11
Lampiran 1 : Justifikasi Anggaran Penelitian
Lampiran 2 : Susunan Organisasi Tim Penelitian dan pembagian Tugas
Lampiran 3 : Biodata Ketua dan Anggota Tim Penelitian
Lampiran 4 : Surat Pernyataan Originalitas Penelitian DIPA UNITOMO Thn.2016/2017
 6

Lampiran : Surat Pernyataan Kesanggupan Menyelesaikan Penelitian DIPA

UNITOMO Thn.2016-2017

RINGKASAN

The errors of L2 learners are much influenced by their L1. they (errors) were the result of
interference in the learning of a second language from the habits of the first language.
Corrective Feedback (CF) does not always provide the correct form but it also forces
learners to utilize their own resources in constructing a reformulation. Direct feedbacks do
not figure out the actual performance of students’ comprehension in correcting the errors
because teachers have provided the correct one. Teachers have to invite students to be
active finding the correct one from their errors they produce

Key Words: Perception, Lexical Errors, Feedback

CHAPTER I
 7

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study

Errors are flawed side of learner speech or writing (Dulay, Burt, and

Krashen 1982). This occurs because errors deviate from some selected norm of

mature language performance (Dulay, Burt, and Krashen 1982). Since spoken and

written are the productive knowledge made by second language learners, the

errors are frequently committed by L2 learners. The errors of L2 learners are

much influenced by their L1. It is in line with the statement stated by Corder

(1967) saying that they (errors) were the result of interference in the learning of a

second language from the habits of the first language. Large corpora of errors

consistently indicate that lexical errors are the most common among second

language learners (Gass & Selinker, 1994: 270).

There are two lexical errors; (1) formal errors, and (2) semantics errors

(Hemchua, and Schmitt. 2006). This article only focuses on formal errors which

are categorized into (1) formal misselection; involving similar lexical forms

(visual and sound similarity), (2) misformation: not existing in the L2, (3)

distortion: misapplication of the target language or misspelling. The three

categorizes of errors above will be discussed by providing some examples both in

speaking and writing. The examples of errors are taken without regarding the level

of L2 learners where they are beginners, intermediate and advanced. Frequently,

almost errors are made by the beginners because of some logical reasons such as

their linguistic knowledge and competence. Here are some examples of

1) Formal misselection: (a) They haven’t difficultness again (suffix

type), (b) The setting of their sit is male and female (vowel-based type), (c)

Teachers and students fell dissatiafaction with it (consonant-based type).

 8

2) Misformation: (a) The third reason is the fasilities (coinage) in this

school are very less (calque), (b) Then, absent the students one by one
3) Distortion: (a) Teachers and students fell dissatisfaction with it

(overinclusion), (b) It can help the teacher to maximal when lern the material

(misselection and omission), (c) The condition of classroom is quite too because

the classroom is far from the road (misordering)

It is not doubtful that second language learners acquire feedback from their

teachers to improve their second language competence. Teachers only give feedback on

students’ productive knowledge (spoken and written). As giving a corrective feedback has

been debatable for many years among the researchers, the most important of giving of

feedback should be taken into account. It is not dealing whether the errors must be

corrected or not, but what to correct and how to correct are more prominently regarded. It

is not wise to let students do the errors without correcting their errors. Some people who

encounter that errors must not be corrected should consider the better treatment to solve the

problem and not abandon it without any alternative solution.

As a foreign language which is not an official language of the country of

residence, English has invited many researchers to investigate EFL issues. One of the issue

is how to facilitate English learners to be good at EFL writing due to the fact that EFL

writing is difficult for most EFL learners. Writing is not only difficult for most people but

also for some successful writers (Taylor, 2009). In addition, Warburton (2006) argues that

writing is a strange activity. It is considered a strange activity because there is something

so-called writer’s block (a total inability to write anything at all). In short, writing is

difficult to most people, it does not matter what language is used. Moreover, using a

foreign language like English in writing leads EFL learners more challenging effort than

using L1 for most learners where English is not the official language.
 9

Although English is not the official language where the learners live and study,

the necessity of using English in high education, like university level, plays an important

role. It indicates that English has an important factor in all levels of education, particularly

university level. Anyone who wants to study in the university generally will be required to

be able to write particular essays using English (Shiach, 2009; Warburton, 2006; Weigle,

2009; McMillan & Weyers, 2010; Greetham, 2001). An essay is commonly defined as a

short piece of writing that discusses, describes or analyzes one topic. It can tell a subject

directly or indirectly, seriously or humorously. It can also describe personal idea, or report

information. Unfortunately, Guenette (2007) argues in writing life agendas; many students

don’t use English even at the college or university level.

Zemach and Rumisek (2003) mention the three main part of an essay: (1)

introduction which explains the topic with general ideas with a thesis statement that gives

the main idea; (2) the body which explains and supports the thesis statement; and (3) the

conclusion that summarizes or restates the thesis and the supporting ideas of the essay.

Lewis (2008) defines errors as anything that sounds wrong which occurs when

students communicate in more complicated language. Error types then can be classified

into: (1) errors of omission, (2) errors of overuse, (3) errors of fact, (4) errors of form, (5)

errors of clarity, (6) socio-cultural errors, (7) discourse level errors, (8) local and global

errors. Meanwhile, Heaton (1991) argues the test writers in elementary level will be treated

far more tolerant than intermediate and advanced levels in treating errors. As the

intermediate and advanced learners, the university students in English Department are

expected to produce a good quality in writing an essay by eliminating those errors based on

their needs and academic requirement.

 10

B. Statements of the Problem

Is the long-term effect is more important than the current (short-term effect) of

providing CF?

C. Significance of the Study

Teachers of L2 have to be alert that applying CF won’t be very beneficial to

students’ L2 improvement if it is prepared, planned and implement consistently. The

significance of this study is that EFL teachers have the appropriate type of corrective

feedback in EFL for university students. The output of this study gives fruitfully

information on how to improve students’ quality through direct and indirect corrective

feedback. Then, the results of this study also show the recommended types of WCF that are

more successful and teachable in EFL.

D. Definition of the Key Terms

To have the same concept of corrective feedback relating the research

investigation, it is prominent to provide the comprehension of key terms applied in this

study. There are three key terms used in study: (1) Perception, (2) Lexical error, (3) teacher

feedback,

CHAPTER II

Theoretical Background

Lewis (2008) defines errors as anything that sounds wrong which occurs when

students communicate in more complicated language. Error types then can be classified

into: (1) errors of omission, (2) errors of overuse, (3) errors of fact, (4) errors of form, (5)
 11

errors of clarity, (6) socio-cultural errors, (7) discourse level errors, (8) local and global

errors. Meanwhile, Heaton (1991) argues the test writers in elementary level will be treated

far more tolerant than intermediate and advanced levels in treating errors. There are two

lexical errors; (1) formal errors, and (2) semantics errors (Hemchua, and Schmitt. 2006).

This article only focuses on formal errors which are categorized into (1) formal

misselection; involving similar lexical forms (visual and sound similarity), (2)

misformation: not existing in the L2, (3) distortion: misapplication of the target language

or misspelling. It is strongly believed that the debate between two contradictory ideas “To

correct or not correct” arrives to the appropriate statement saying what to correct and how

to correct”. Yet, it is out of the question to correct all students’ errors. Teachers have to

focus on a certain aspect of language that must be corrected such as lexical, grammar,

semantic errors and etc. Giving corrective feedback should consider the actual students’

needs to improve their L2. In addition, different errors have different treatment based on

the learners’ proficiency. CF functions are not to give too much burden in correcting, and

every single error must not be corrected since there is no much time for teachers to correct

it. On the other hand, students would be very uncomfortable and unmotivated to face that

they have many errors in their writing and speaking. The other aspect which must be

regarded is a consistency. A consistency in giving CF never gets much attention in previous

research. The previous studies only emphasize on the effectiveness of CF and how it is

conducted by teachers. Teachers of L2 have to be alert that applying CF won’t be very

beneficial to students’ L2 improvement if it is prepared, planned and implement

consistently.

Based on the several types of corrective feedbacks, the recent studies have

performed direct corrective feedback in their study (Ahmadi, et al., 2012; Bitchener, et
 12

al.,2005; Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener & Knoch, 2008, 2009, 2010; Chandler, 2003; Eslami,

2014; Farid &Samad, 2012; Hosseiny, 2014; Jamalinesari et al, 2014; Khanlarzadeh &

Nemati, 2016; Maleki & Eslami, 2013; Mirzaii & Aliabadi, 2013; Santos, et al., 2010;

Shintani & Ellis, 2013; Storch & Wiggleswort, 2010; van Beuningen, 2012; Vyatkina,

2010). Some other recent studies have also frequently used indirect corrective feedback in

examining the value of written corrective feedback on ESL and EFL writing (Ahmadi, et

al., 2012; Alhumidi, 2016; Bitchener et al.,2005; Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener & Knoch,

2008, 2009, 2010; Eslami, 2014; Hosseiny, 2014; Jamalinesari et al, 2014; Maleki &

Eslami, 2013; Mirzaii & Aliabadi, 2013; Soori, et al., 2011; Storch & Wiggleswort, 2010;

Tootkaboni & Khatib, 2013: van Beuningen, 2012)

The next corrective feedback used in the previous research were meta-linguistic

corrective feedback (AbuSeileek & Abualsha’r, 2014; Bitchener & Knoch, 2010;

Bitchener, 2008; Ebadi, 2014; Farid & Samad, 2012; Kang & Han, 2015; Li, 2010;

Shintani & Ellis, 2013), focused and unfocused corrective feedback (Afraz & Ghaemi,

2012; Ellis, et al., 2008; Fazilatfar, et al., 2014; Frear & Chiu, 2015; Kao, 2013;),

conference (Tootkaboni & Khatib, 2013 ), oral meta-linguistic (Farid & Samad, 2012),

uncoded (Ahmadi et al, 2012; Vyatkina, 2010). The other types of corrective feedback were

also introduced; peer computer-mediated, recast, and deletions and mark insertion

(AbuSeileek & Abualsha’r, 2014), intensive and extensive focus on form (Rahimpoor et al,

2012), dynamic corrective feedback (Evan et al, 2011), CFT / collaborated Feedback Task

(Barnawi, 2010), and blogs and checklist (Grami, 2012).

Involving learners in the context of ESL and EFL, the recent studies assume that

written corrective feedback is worthwhile for both ESL (Bitchener, et al.,2005; Bitchener,

2008; Bitchener & Knoch, 2008, 2009, 2010; Chandler, 2003; Evan, et al., 2011; Fazilatfar,
 13

et al., 2014; Grami, 2012; Kao, 2013; Santos, et al., 2010; Storch & Wiggleswort, 2010;

Shintani & Ellis, 2013; van Beuningen, 2012; Vyatkina, 2010) and EFL (AbuSeileek &

Abualsha’r, 2014; Ahmadi, et al., 2012; Ebadi, 2014; Ellis, et al., 2008; Eslami, 2013,

2014; Mirzaii & Aliabadi, 2013; Frear & Chiu, 2015; Hosseiny, 2014; Jamalinesari et al,

2014; Maleki & Khanlardazeh & Nemati, 2016; Rahimpoor, et al., 2012; Sanavi & Nemati,

2014; Soori, et al., 2011;Tootkaboni & Khatib, 2013) writing. In the context of ESL / EFL,

the participant from the same L1 background generally make the same error categories e.g.

the use tense, article, countable and uncountable nouns, etc. So, a researcher could

determine what errors categories should be given. On the other hand, having learners from

the different L1 background needs some consideration because of the varied linguistic

system of each language. Let’s compare in ESL/EFL writing between learners from French

and Dutch as L1 background and learners from Chinese, Japanese, and Indonesian.

The current studies also indicate that the group with corrective feedback generally

outperformed the group without corrective feedback (Ellis, et al., 2008; Ebadi, 2014;

Maleki & Eslami, 2013; Khanlazardeh & Nemati, 2016; Jamalinesari, et al., 2015;

Hooseiny, 2014; Frear & Chiu, 2015; Evan, et al., 2011; Bitchener and Knoch, 2008, 2009;

Bitchener, 2008). On the other hand, some studies report certain type of corrective

feedback is more effective than other under certain condition. For example, Li (2010) find

that the implicit feedback is better than explicit. In addition, Mirzaii and Aliabadi (2013)

report direct corrective feedback was more effective than indirect one in the context of

genre-based instruction on letters of job application. The similar finding was discovered by

Tootkaboni, et al. (2014) showing a significance of superior of direct feedback than other

for short term effect, but indirect feedback is significant for long term effect. By using

comprehensive error correction, van Beuningen, et al. (2012) report only direct CF resulted
 14

in grammatical accuracy gains in new writing and the pupil’s nongrammatical accuracy

benefited most in indirect CF. In contrary, in their study Jamalinesari, et al. (2015) indicate

that the class with indirect feedback improved better compared to the class with direct one.

The similar results argue the indirect feedback group outperformed the direct feedback

group on both immediate post-test and delayed post test (Eslami, 2014).

Studies which didn’t compare two of corrective feedbacks show that all type of

DCF were effective but types of feedback can be ranked in term of their importance (Farid

and Samad, 2012). With different feedback, Shintani and Ellis (2013) find meta-linguistic

helped learner L2 explicit knowledge but the effect is not so long and perhaps there is not

any effect. Vyatkina (2010) finds that all groups improved accuracy in redrafting. DCF

results better when selected errors were applied, but there is not any significant for overall

errors. Similarly, Sanavi and Nemati (2014) find that reformulation is the most effective

CF. Moreover, Kao (2013) notes that direct and meta-linguistics are effective to accurately

use of English article for long term. Other finding reports that blogs and portfolios need to

be integrated into writing in order to secure better benefit from writing practice in EFL

context (Arslan, 2014). Both overt and covert problems can be recognized spontaneously

by learners and incorporated them in their revision (Hanaoka & Izuni, 2012)

Moreover, the recent research which only apply one type of corrective feedbacks

has informed the similar findings. Ahmadi, et al. (2012) declare that error feedbacks help

learner to the better writing. This finding is supported by Santos, et al. (2010) stating WCF

makes positive effect in writing. Specifically, Shintani and Ellis (2013) show that meta-

linguistic helped learner L2 explicit knowledge for the short effect. Additionally, Rassaei

and Moinzadeh (2010) note metalinguistic feedback was more effective than recast but

recast had more stable and enduring effect. Afras & Ghaemi (2012) argue that the positive
 15

effect of treatment given for the learners occurs after treatment. In addition, Fazilatfar, et

al. (2014) find the significant gain for both syntactical and lexical complexity in

experimental group. Learners thought that error correction was useful in language learning

process (Incecay & Dollar, 2011). Lastly, Alhumidi & Uba (2016) state that indirect is

effective in improving their writing and language skills.

The effectiveness of written corrective feedback is also discovered by using errors

categories. Some studies use focused corrective feedback; simple past tense and the

definite article (Bitchener et al.2005; Bitchener and Knoch, 2008a, 2008b; Bitchener and

Knoch, 2010). It is called focused WCF because there are only one or two linguistic

features investigated. Unfocused WCF is applied by Chandler (2003) in which there is

twenty-three types of error category in examining ESL writing. L2 writing teachers should

be alert what linguistic features are more treatable but less teachable since it will be more

effective to give the corrective feedback which relate to L2 learners’ prior knowledge. For

example, giving corrective feedback on the use of articles in writing for elementary

students is less teachable. This is done to ensure the effectiveness of WCF which

contribute the language gains for L2 learners.

Current studies also concern on the language features targeted which serve

learners to acquire corrective feedback like preposition (Ajmi, 2015; Bitchener et al, 2005),

grammatical errors (Chandler, 2003; Khanlardazeh & Nemati, 2016) and nongrammatical

errors (Chandler, 2003; ), spelling errors (Alhumidi &Uba, 2016), the English article

system (Bitchener & Knoch, 2008, 2009, 2010; Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener et al, 2005;

Ellis et al, 2008; Hosseiny, 2014; Shintani & Ellis, 2013; Soori, et al., 2011; van

Beuningen, et al., 2012;), the past simple tense (Bitchener, et al., 2005; Eslami, 2014;
 16

Maleki & Eslami, 2013), syntactic and lexical complexity (Fazilatfar, et al., 2014; Storch &

Wigglesworth, 2010), verbs (Frear & Chiu, 2015; Afraz & Ghaemi, 2012).

To make sure the positive outcome of written corrective feedback, teachers must

select certain language features targeted (the use of articles, verb tense, spelling etc) that

will be corrected. Otherwise, it will be very hard for the them to correct every error in

writing. Moreover, learners will be very frustrated because there are many errors shown by

their teachers. Therefore, teachers should not correct all students’ errors, but should only

correct those errors which are deemed necessary to correct (Alhumidi & Uba, 2016).

Suggested by Li and Hegelheimer (2013), students’ uptake on “Grammar Clinic” helps

students progress in self-editing. In fact, teachers commonly spend much time only for

correcting errors relating to local aspects (vocabulary, language use, and mechanics) where

they do not consider the improvement of other aspects of writing such as content and

organization. Consequently, selecting error that will be corrected is finely needed by the

learners where every learner has the various inappropriate use of language based on the

level of proficiency. According to Kennedy (2010), the errors made by each proficiency

group and type of feedback teacher given indicate provision of finely tuned corrective

feedback based on learners’ individual differences.

Most previous studies show that giving different type of corrective feedback for

certain level of learner’s proficiency is worthy to note. The studies using learners with low

proficiency have reported different findings. By involving the low level (Dutch Secondary

school students with limited language proficiency). Van Beuningen, et al. (2013) obtain

that direct corrective feedback is more effective than indirect corrective feedback for

grammatical accuracy while indirect corrective feedback is more powerful than direct

corrective feedback for nongrammatical accuracy. In addition, Eslami (2014) finds that
 17

indirect corrective feedback group outperformed direct corrective feedback group in using

simple past tense. Both direct and indirect corrective feedback belonged to the low

intermediate EFL students in Iran. Similarly, Shintani and Ellis (2013) claim that

metalinguistic explanation feedback is better than direct corrective feedback for low-

intermediate ESL students. The students gain accuracy and develop L2 explicit knowledge

but the effect is not durable. However, direct corrective feedback combined with other

types of feedback contribute positive effect in using English articles for low-intermediate

international students in New Zealand (Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener, 2009, 2010). It is

interesting to note that low proficiency students were encouraged in learning independently

after class and they got much improvement (Li & Li, 2012). Those claims above might be

the gap for other research to examine the most appropriate type of feedback that can be

applied for the low proficiency learners.

As stated above, previous research argue the certain feedback is more effective

than others for low proficiency learner, but how if the studies involve intermediate

proficiency learners? The study run by Alhumidi and Uba (2013) emerge that students

provided by indirect corrective feedback is better than those with direct corrective

feedback in spelling errors. Here, Alhumidi and Uba (2013) utilize Arabic course at

intermediate level students as the sample of their study. The findings are in line with study

performed by Jamalinesari (2015) reporting that indirect corrective feedback leads

significant effect on writing a composition for intermediate level. The similar argument

claimed by Li and Hegelheimer (2013) indicates that learners may conduct self-editing

when mobile-assisted grammar functions as corrective feedback for learners with

intermediate level. By using focused meta-linguistic corrective feedback, Ebadi (2014)

finds that students who got treatment with focused meta-linguistic corrective feedback
 18

outperform than those without treatment of feedback. In addition, AbuSeilleek and

Abualsha’r (2014) point out that recast feedback group result better writing than

metalinguistic feedback one, but both treatment outperform the control group. The similar

finding reveals that intermediate level students gains more language accuracy when peer

computer-mediated corrective feedback is served.

In contrast, Santos, et al. (2010) show error correction feedback is more effective

than reformulation feedback. Interestingly, Hosseiny (2014) claims that direct corrective

feedback has the same significant effect with indirect corrective feedback for intermediate

level students. This finding corresponds with Ellis, et al. (2008) which show that focused

and unfocused CF have similar effect for the learners with intermediate level of

proficiency.

Through the current issues above, it can be stated that indirect corrective feedback

is more effective than direct corrective feedback for intermediate level. Some types of

corrective feedback, such as focused meta-linguistic CF, recast, and negotiated feedback

lead a positive effect on ESL writing.

Both learners from low and medium proficiency level believe that written

corrective feedbacks provided by teacher are very valuable in improving students’ quality

in EFL/ ESL writing. However, previous studies also examine the effect of written

corrective feedback for high proficiency level (advanced level). Providing corrective

feedback for learners with high proficiency level, Farid and Samad (2012) declare that

direct corrective feedback is appropriate to show the learners’ use verbs. This finding is

supported by Mirzaii and Aliabadi (2013) who say that direct corrective feedback is better

than indirect corrective feedback in the context of genre-based instruction. Chandler (2003)
 19

also finds that undergraduates with different L1 produce better using direct corrective

feedback than indirect corrective feedback relating to grammatical accuracy, but indirect

corrective feedback is better than direct corrective feedback relating to nongrammatical

accuracy. The other study also finds that direct corrective feedback combined with written

and conference contributes significantly in using simple past tense and English articles on

ESL writing (Bitchener, et al., 2005). Evan, et al. (2010) argue that written corrective

feedback is very helpful for experienced and well-educated L2 practitioners. Later, Li, et

al. (2015) also claim automated writing evaluation as corrective feedback is helpful to

improve the accuracy in EFL writing.

Moreover, Johnson (2012) addresses that high level leaners believe that strategies

and lack of understanding of academic discourse influence students’ use of teachers’

feedback. Additionally, Li (2010) finds that using meta-analysis shows the following

results; (1) implicit feedback outperforms explicit feedback, (2) there is sustained effect,

(3) treatment conducted in laboratory is better than conducted in class, (4) the short effect

is gained than longer one, (5) It is better for EFL writing than ESL writing. In sum, direct

corrective feedback is also preferred by high proficiency learners since it guides them in

improving grammatical accuracy.

Eventually, recent studies also investigate the effect of types of corrective

feedback for different proficiency levels. Tootkaboni (2014) pinpoints out; (1) indirect

corrective feedback is more powerful than direct corrective feedback for long term-effect,

(2) direct corrective feedback is more superior than indirect corrective feedback when the

long term-effect is targeted, (3) the effect significantly occurs for three linguistic targeted

(simple present, articles, and prepositions). By using Blogs and Portfolios, Arslan (2014)

finds the effectiveness of giving feedback for students in all levels.

 20

The previous studies indicate that corrective feedback is worthwhile, not only for

the high proficiency L2 learners but also low one in their writing (Bruton, 2007; Bitchener

et al, 2005; Bitchener and Knoch, 2008; Bitchener and Knoch, 2010; Chandler, 2003;

Ferris, et al., 2003; van Beuningen, et al., 2012). Different level of proficiency causes the

various errors produced by the EFL learners. It needs to remember that EFL writer acquires

the mastery of not only of grammatical and rhetorical devices but also conceptual and

judgmental elements (Heaton, 1990).

Through the aspects of conducting corrective feedback mentioned above (type of

written corrective feedback, language features targeted, and learner’s proficiency level), it

can be seen that written corrective feedback leads two big groups. First, the groups agree

with corrective feedback and the other does not. Many studies on corrective feedback have

been conducted since it emerged in 1980s and it has been a controversial issue up to now

whether it contributes positive or negative effects for EFL and ESL learners. It leads to a

positive effect because corrective feedback can improve the language gains (Bitchener et

al.,2005; Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener & Knoch, 2008, 2009, 2010; Chandler, 2003; Evan et

al, 2011; Fazilatfar et al, 2014; Kao, 2013; Grami, 2012; Shintani & Ellis, 2013; Santos et

al, 2010; Storch & Wiggleswort, 2010; van Beuningen, et al., 2012; Vyatkina, 2010) and

EFL (AbuSeileek & Abualsha’r, 2014; Ahmadi et al, 2012; Ajmi, 2015; Ebadi, 2014; Ellis,

et al., 2008; Eslami, 2014; Evans, et al., 2010; Frear & Chiu, 2015; Hosseiny, 2014;

Jamalinesari, et al., 2014; Khanlardazeh & Nemati, 2016; Lee, 2007, 2008, 2009;

Lundstrom & Baker, 2009; Maleki & Eslami, 2013; Mirzaii & Aliabadi, 2013;

Montgomery & Baker, 2007; Rahimpoor, et al., 2012; Soori et al, 2011; Sanavi & Nemati,

2014; Tootkaboni & Khatib, 2013; Vasquez & Harvey, 2010). To test their arguments,
 21

those studies have examined the effect of written corrective feedback on EFL/ESL writing

to measure, such as the fluency, accuracy, students’ respond, teacher’s belief.

Written corrective feedback examining the effectiveness, fluency, and accuracy on

L2 learners’ writing have been carried out (Bitchener, et al., 2005; Bitchener, 2008;

Bitchener & Knoch, 2008, 2009, 2010; Bruton, 2007, 2009; Chandler, 2003; Evans, et al.,

2010; Lundstrom & Baker, 2009; Montgomery & Baker, 2007; van Beuningen, et al.,

2013; Vasquez & Harvey, 2010;). The other studies also indicate that by having WCF, L2

learners not only gain the accuracy on one writing occasion but also they can keep the

accuracy on the other similar occasion (Bitchener, et al., 2005; Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener

& Knoch, 2008, 2009, 2010; van Beuningen, et al., 2013). For example, Maleki and Eslami

(2013) show students with written corrective feedback outperformed than those without

corrective feedback. With the same results, Fazilatfar, et al. (2014) report learners get a

fruitful contribution in syntactic and lexical complexity. The students notice mainly lexical

problems at the writing stage but could not only find a new solution to this problem in the

model provided (Esteban & Larios, 2010). Spelling errors is not significant because the

existence of Microsoft word 2007 spell checker (Bestgen & Granger, 2011). Furthermore,

L2 learners and their acquisition are reached by effective written corrective feedback

(Bitchener, 2012).

Moreover, examining grammatical and lexical errors, Chandler (2003) found that

the direct corrective feedback on direct correction and simple underlining of errors are

significantly superior to describe the type of error. Then, Chandler (2003) concludes that

students feel that they learn more from self-correction, and simple underlining of errors

takes less teacher time on the first draft.

 22

From the recent studies, it can be considerably inferred that most researchers

judge the ESL/EFL writing quality from the aspect of linguistic features while

nongrammatical aspects are frequently ignored. To bridge the gap between teacher

feedback and actual student needs, several studies have criticized that partial claim about

writing quality. Jonsson (2012) shows utility is not only key feature for students using

feedback, but it is important to see lack of strategies and understanding. Teachers think that

corrective feedback is very important to improve L2 learners’ competence and students

suggest that they need not only corrective feedback but also more comments from the

teachers about their writing (see Lee, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c; Montgomery & Baker, 2007;

Lundstrom & Baker, 2009; Vasquez & Harvey, 2010; Evans, et al., 2010). Frequent errors

normally found in Thai students writing because of interlingual interference; lexical

syntactic, discourse interference, and intralingual interference; false analogy, misanalysis,

incomplete role application, exploiting redundancy, overlooking cooccurance restrictions,

hypercorrection, and overgeneralization (Kaweera, 2013). WCF is commonly practiced in

L2 pedagogy by experienced and well-educated L2 practitioners for sound pedagogical

reasons (Evans, et al., 2010). So, we need more longitudinal naturalistic studies, adopting

both cognitive and socio-cultural SLA frameworks to investigate the role of feedback and

its impact on individual learners in more depth (Hyland, 2010)

The other studies attempt to explore the other aspects of writing. They examine

students’ response and teacher’s belief of WCF. Frequently, feedback learner’s desire is

markedly different from what learners receive (Mustafa, 2012). Therefore, investigating

other components of WCF shows that teachers’ beliefs are very prominent in conducting

WCF (Lee, 2008; 2009). However, there are still some gaps between teachers’ beliefs and

written feedback practice. For example, teachers mark errors comprehensively although
 23

selective marking is preferred (see Lee, 2008). Han and Hyland (2015) add teachers are

expected to recognize students’ background and belief, so written corrective feedback

provided to students enhance their motivation with written corrective feedback.

Furthermore, Rummel and Bitchener (2015) indicate that beliefs might have

impacted on the extent to which Lao students improve their accuracy since the student

receiving their preference type of feedback were more successful at eliminating the target

errors than the one who did not. The use of WCF is useful but formal knowledge of

language rules played a limited and sometimes even counterproductive role in their self-

editing and composing. Lundstrom and Baker (2009) find out that in low proficiency who

give feedback made more gains than those in high proficiency levels. This is supported by

Yang and Meng (2013) saying that the less-proficient students gain improvement more

during text revision than the more-proficient students did after online training on error

correction. Different opinion argues that recent research only focuses to use “one off”

treatment, and only provided certain limited errors, but avoid the goal and attitudes to the

feedback belonged to the learners (Storch, 2010). William (2012) argues corrective

feedback should encourage cognitive processes and interactive moves to promote language

acquisition.

Moreover, teachers’ self-assessment and students’ perception about WCF can’t be

separated. The relationship between teachers’ self assessment and student perceptions of

teacher-written feedback is very strong (Montgomery & Baker, 2007). Miao, et al. (2006)

add students applied feedback given by their teacher and peer feedback to better their

writing, but feedback given by the teacher was preferred by the students which caused the

greater improvement in writing. The other opinion says that the tutor offered suggestions

for overcoming time constraint, motivation, and fear of making mistakes (Guenette, 2012).
 24

More support was given, the tutor had more learning opportunities, but then there were

fewer opportunities for the tutee, and vise versa (Topping, et al., 2013). The problem is that

most teachers are not totally aware of local and global issues (Montgomery & Baker, 2007;

Lee, 2007). Their arguments are in line with Mahmud’s (2016) which says that the teachers

were unaware of the available WCF types to provide in the teaching of ESL writing.

Additionally, many teachers focus to give corrective feedback on local aspects (language

use, vocabulary, and mechanic) while global aspects (content and organization) do not get

much attention.

In contrary, an extreme proposition of running corrective feedback in ESL/EFL

writing has been made by Truscott (2001) saying error correcting is not good if it only

emphasizes on grammar errors, even though it can be given by selecting some certain types

of grammar targets. It is easy to claim that learners’ writing ability improves because

learners merely can revise their subsequent writing after having teacher’s written corrective

feedback. Truscott & Hsu (2008) conclude that “improvements made during revision are not

evidence on the effectiveness of correction for improving learners’ writing ability”.

Different statement reveals that grammar instruction has enabled the transfer of learned

knowledge in their writing task (Mekala, & Shabitha, 2016)

Other similar studies argue that corrective feedback do not improve L2 learners’

competence. For example, frequency of writing assignment seems to have little or no

impact on students’ self-evaluation of writing skills (Horbacauskiene & Kasperaviciene,

2015). Similarly, the improvement during revision in the first draft does not guarantee that

L2 learner will do better on the subsequent writing. It is not very fair to focus on error to

see the quality of L2 learners’ writing (Truscott & Hsu, 2008; Bruton, 2007).
 25

In addition, Bruton (2007) warns us that “a focus purely on errors is misleading as

it does not reveal language gains”. Bruton (2007) reports there are no relations between the

second errors and the errors corrected in the first writing made by the learner. It is

concluded that the effect of correction on subsequent writing is not proved since the errors

in the second draft are not related to the errors corrected in the first draft.

The role of corrective feedback is not only prominent in determining whether

someone passes the writing course or not, but also in contributing to the learner’s language

gains. Without a concern to the role of corrective feedback given by the teachers or

lecturers, the function of corrective feedback is only used to pass writing examination. In

investigating the role of corrective feedback in writing thesis, Kumar and Stracke (2011)

remind the crucial role of feedback in postgraduate thesis examination practice. Kumar and

Stracke (2011) state that “without feedback, there is no little impetus for the candidate to

progress, to close the gap between current and desired performance, and to attain the level

needed to become a member of the scholarly community”.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHOD

The three categorizes of errors above will be discussed by providing some

examples both in speaking and writing. The examples of errors are taken without regarding

the level of L2 learners where they are beginners, intermediate and advanced. Frequently,

almost errors are made by the beginners because of some logical reasons such as their

linguistic knowledge and competence. Here are some examples of 1) Formal misselection:

(a) They haven’t difficultness again (suffix type), (b) The setting of their sit is male and
 26

female (vowel-based type), (c) Teachers and students fell dissatiafaction with it

(consonant-based type). 2) Misformation: (a) The third reason is the fasilities (coinage) in

this school are very less (calque), (b) Then, absent the students one by one 3) Distortion:

(a) Teachers and students fell dissatisfaction with it (overinclusion), (b) It can help the

teacher to maximal when lern the material (misselection and omission), (c) The condition

of classroom is quite too because the classroom is far from the road (misordering)

It is not doubtful that second language learners acquire feedback from their

teachers to improve their second language competence. Teachers only give feedback on

students’ productive knowledge (spoken and written). As giving a corrective feedback has

been debatable for many years among the researchers, the most important of giving of

feedback should be taken into account. It is not dealing whether the errors must be

corrected or not, but what to correct and how to correct are more prominently regarded. It

is not wise to let students do the errors without correcting their errors.

A. Research Design

The three categorizes of errors above will be discussed by providing some

examples both in speaking and writing. The examples of errors are taken without regarding

the level of L2 learners where they are beginners, intermediate and advanced. Frequently,

almost errors are made by the beginners because of some logical reasons such as their

linguistic knowledge and competence. Here are some examples of 1) Formal misselection:

(a) They haven’t difficultness again (suffix type), (b) The setting of their sit is male and

female (vowel-based type), (c) Teachers and students fell dissatiafaction with it
 27

(consonant-based type). 2) Misformation: (a) The third reason is the fasilities (coinage) in

this school are very less (calque), (b) Then, absent the students one by one 3) Distortion:

(a) Teachers and students fell dissatisfaction with it (overinclusion), (b) It can help the

teacher to maximal when lern the material (misselection and omission), (c) The condition

of classroom is quite too because the classroom is far from the road (misordering) It is not

doubtful that second language learners acquire feedback from their teachers to improve

their second language competence. Teachers only give feedback on students’ productive

knowledge (spoken and written). As giving a corrective feedback has been debatable for

many years among the researchers, the most important of giving of feedback should be

taken into account. It is not dealing whether the errors must be corrected or not, but what to

correct and how to correct are more prominently regarded.

It is not wise to let students do the errors without correcting their errors. Some

people who encounter that errors must not be corrected should consider the better

treatment to solve the problem and not abandon it without any alternative solution.

B. Participant

This study was conducted in STIKES Surabaya students who were from first

semester which consisted of two classes (class A to B). There were 40 students from A

class, 40 students from B class. Therefore, the participant totally were 80 students.

C. Instruments
 28

To investigate the effect of types of corrective feedback, the researcher observed

video and whap up messages. Video was the final task given by the lecturer and their

communication using WA.

D. Data Collection

To ensure the feasibility of direct and indirect corrective feedback, those methods

were given to the students’ essays in the preliminary study. The researcher provided DCF

and ICF to 17 students. The researcher made two groups of writing class; DCF class and

ICF class. DCF class consisted of 8 students and they were awarded DCF and ICF class

consisted of 9 students and they were given ICF. These students wrote two topics: (1) A

horrible experience which I have experienced, and (2) A place that is special to me. The

students were given 60 minutes to finish writing. The results indicated that most students

could comprehend how to revise based on both direct and indirect corrective feedback.

E. Data Analysis

1. Examples of Lexical errors in speaking

2. Examples of Lexical errors in writing

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

1. Students’ Perception of Lexical Errors

Perhaps, many learners are aware that their production in writing and speaking are

not always accepted by the native speakers’ understanding or advanced English users. The
 29

lack of vocabulary knowledge is the reason why it happens. Many of learners formulate

their production of second language which is dominantly affected by their first language.

The affection is unavoidable since it is easier to adopt the L1 patterns into L2.

Therefore, the mental linguistics of L1 learners reflects to their

623 L2. For beginner level, errors are conducted without consideration that they have made

errors, but for intermediate and advanced level, the errors occur because of the careless of

using L2. It means that intermediate and advanced level students should think whether

their sentences or utterances are correct or not. It seems very hard to do this on speaking

because there is no revision. Usually, it can be done on writing during revising.

2. Teachers’ Feedback for Long Term Effect

Direct feedback is the most preferable type of feedback that both students and

teachers like. Yet, it does not contribute significantly in the future. It indicates that the

effect of direct feedback merely emerges in short-term quality. Teachers have to check

whether their feedback improve the students’ quality in acquiring L2 in the future meaning

the long-term effect. Later, the teachers’ belief has also important rule. Feedback strategies

cannot work without teachers’ beliefs that the strategies can work or their readiness to

innovate in their own classroom (Lee, 2011) This article suggests that in giving corrective

feedback a teacher has to considered three important things; (1) consistency, (2) long-term

effect, (3) individual student record of errors, (4) possible solution. To gain long-term

effect of corrective feedback, a teacher must be consistent in what area the feedback should

be given. Simple meta-linguistic explanation, namely, explanation of rule(s) with

example(s), is the best type of written CF for long-term accuracy (Bitchener and Ute.

2010). Finally, the long term effect can be evaluated if a teacher is able to identify,

categorize, find the best solution, and check whether the same errors which have been
 30

corrected still occur in the future (Does he/she still make the same errors in the future or

not).

3. Examples and (in-depth) analysis

Table 1. Examples of Speaking and Writing Errors

a. Examples of Lexical errors in speaking

1. A: Do you mind if I open the door? It’s very hot here B: Oh, yes. Sure. The

correct reply is “No, I don’t / No problem” Frequently the request should be replied by the

positive form of phrase or sentence. B assumes that A wants to open the door and needs B’s

permission, so B simply responses with showing an agreement. I have tested many times

this request on my speaking class, and I found most students replied my request with the

positive one meaning to show the agreement what I wanted to do.

It occurs in Indonesian context because almost request in Indonesian use the

positive one for examples, Bolehkah saya…, Apakah boleh saya…, and these two sentences

won’t be said Tidak bolehkah…, Apakah tidak

boleh….

The best correction to this error probably can be given by showing some other

exceptions of English request using “mind”, for examples would you mind shutting the

door please!

It is a misselection error where the expected response is not what the request

wants. The possible solution for this error above is by showing some exceptions of

replying request in English which explain that some requests should be replied with

expression ‘No’ to show the acceptations. A teacher has to use the request using ‘Do you

mind… or Would you mind if...’ which make students accustomed with this expression.
 31

2. Where do you from? / Where are you from? The correct question is (Where

have you been) Tense in English has a very crucial in determine the meaning of an

utterance. In some occasion, Indonesian L2 learners only use their Indonesian form into No

Utterance Formal Errors Sentence Misselection Misformation Distortion 1 A: Do you mind

if I Open the door? B: Yes, of course √ 2 Where are you from? √ 3 I breakfast at 6 in the

morning √ 4 I am difficult to do that √ 5 Welcome to democration era √ 6 The birocration

is always difficult √ 7 Congratulation on new job. √ 8 I go to school with my father? √

625 English without regarding the sense of sentence in the target language (English). Their

inadequate knowledge of English grammar causes L2 produce their utterances.

These question is merely derived from L1 (1)“Dari mana kamu? Kok lama tidak

kelihatan?, (2) Anda dari mana? Saya tunggu ga datang-datang. This error is categorized

as misselection error. The question maker selects an inappropriate way to get the

information. The appropriate way to solve this error is by showing the function of every

tense in English. When students study present perfect, they have to be told the different

between ‘Where have you been?’ and ‘Where are from?’. 3. I breakfast at 6 in the morning

 the correct one ( I have breakfast at 6 in the morning) The word “breakfast” probably is

assumed as a predicate. What happens next is that the sentence looks like correct because it

consists of subject (I), predicate (breakfast) and adverb of time and place (at 6 in the

morning). Another example is “They absent today”. Perhaps, L2 learners have to know that

an English sentence is always needed a predicate. The predicate can be verb (go, study, eat,

and etc) or be / linking verb (am, is, are, were, was, etc). It proves that the error made by

the speaker is a misformation error because the speaker uses the wrong L2 linguistic form.

4. I am difficult to do that  It is difficult for me to do that. The speaker assumes

that this pattern of the sentence is the same with I am absent or I am busy. This error
 32

should not happen in intermediate and advanced learners if they have learner the form of

adjective + to infinitive. It probably occurs because the speaker adopt Indonesian “ Saya

sulit untuk melakukan itu”. It is called as misformation error because the speaker gets the

interference of L1 linguistic form.

b. Examples of Lexical errors in writing

5. Welcome to democration era!  Welcome to democracy era! This example

shows that overgeneralization is frequently conducted by the students (beginner) meaning a

certain linguistic pattern can be applied into the other linguistic pattern. Probably, students

assume democration has the similar pattern in the words such as solution, revolution,

transportation. The other example is “The birocration is difficult (The bureaucracy is

always difficult). Here, the writer of that expression cannot find the appropriate form of

L2, so it is a misselection error.

6. Congratulation on your new job  Congratulations on your new job What

students hear or listen the word (s) of L2 have influence to what students think. The

suffix‘s’ in congratulations is not clearly pronounced whether it is pronounced with‘s’ or

without‘s’. Then, this trivial matter reveals on students’ writing. The suffix‘s’ probably can

be easily neglected since the word ‘congratulation’ cannot be changed into the plural one.

Therefore, it is a misselection error.

7. I go to school with my father?  For Indonesian context, that example has three

propositions; (1) I go to school, (2) My father goes to work, and (3) We go together. This

sentence is very confusing in native speakers’ interpretation because it has a meaning that

(1) I am a student, (2) my father works in school where I study, and (3) we go to same

place (school) together. The writer uses L1 linguistic form into L2, but the meaning can be
 33

interpreted in some ways. It does not matter if the hearer knows Indonesian context well.

Otherwise, the message is not going to be understood or gained. From the explanation

above, it can be concluded that the error is a distortion error.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

Have EFL teachers thought that their feedbacks to their students’ writing and

speaking are effective or not? Is there any students’ progress or improvement of their

writing and speaking in the future? Have teachers’ feedbacks fitted students’ perception?

There are few questions rising of students’ perception and teachers’ feedback in the context

of EFL classroom. EFL teachers have to evaluate the effectiveness of feedback they have

been giving to the students. It can be conducted by looking how the students response

toward the feedback. Direct feedbacks do not figure out the actual performance of students’
 34

comprehension in correcting the errors because teachers have provided the correct one.

Teachers have to invite students to be active finding the correct one from their errors they

produce. This is necessary to utilize the students’ metalinguistic. It means students are also

active to empower their prior knowledge to correct their own errors. The other possible

solution is that teachers should be consistent in providing corrective feedback. It is very

necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of corrective feedback and the long term quality of

corrective feedback.

REFERENCES

Bitchener, John & Knoch, Ute. 2010. Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2
writer with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 19,
207-217

Corder, S P. 1967. The Significance of Learners’ Errors. IRAL, Vol V/4, 1967.

Julius Gross Verlag. Heidelberg Dulay, Heidi. Burt, Marina & Krashen, Stephen. 1982.
Language Two. Oxford University Press Gass,

Susan M. and Selinker, Larry. 1994. Second Language Acquisition. An introductory course.
New Jersey. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hemchua, Saengchan & Schmitt, Norbetr. 2006. An analysis of lexical errors in the
English composition of Thai Learners. Prospect Vol 21 No. 3 December 2006 Lee,
Icy. 2011. Feedback revolution: what gets in the way? ELT Journal Volume 65/1
Lewis,

Marilyn. 2008. Giving feedback in Language Classes. SEAMEO Regional anguage Centre.

AbuSeileek, Ali. & Abualsha’r, Awatif. 2014. Using Peer Computer-Mediated Corrective
Feedback to Support Efl Learners’ Writing. Language Learning & Technology, ISSN
1094-3501.
 35

Afraz, Shahram. & Ghaemi, Hamed. 2012. The Effect of Focused Written Corrective
Feedback of Contrastive Analysis on EFL Learners’ Acquisition of Verb Tenses.
Journal Of Educational And Instructional Studies In The World, ISSN: 2146-7463
Vol. 2 No. 6

Ahmadi, Darush., Maftoon, Parviz. & Gholami, Mehrdad Ali. 2012. Investigating the
Effects of Two Types of Feedback on EFL Students Writing. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 46 : 2590 – 2595.

Ajmi, Ahmed Ali Saleh. 2014. The Effect of Written Corrective Feedback on Omani
Students’ Accuracy in the Use of English Prepositions. Advances in Language and
Literary Studies, ISSN: 2203-4714 Vol. 6 No. 1.

Alhumidi, Hamed A. & Uba, Sani Yantandu. 2016. The Effect of Indirect Written
Corrective Feedback to Arabic Language Intermediate Students’ in Kuwait.
European Scientific Journal Vol.12 No.28.

Arslan, Recep Şahid. 2014. Integrating Feedback into Prospective English Language
Teachers’ Writing Process via Blogs and Portfolios. TOJET: The Turkish Online
Journal of Educational Technology, volume 13.

Barnawi, Osman. 2010. Promoting Noticing Through Collaborative Feedback Tasks in

EFL College Writing Classrooms. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education, Volume 22, Number 2, 209-217 ISSN 1812-9129.

Behzadi, Anis. & Golshan, Mohammad. 2016. Corrective Feedback and Iranian EFL
University Students’ Perceptions. International Journal of Education Investigation,
Vol. 3, No.5: 10-18 ISSN: 2410-3446

Bestgen, Yves. & Granger, Sylviane. 2011. Categorizing spelling errors to assess L2
writing. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life Long
Learning, 21: 2-3, 235 - 252.

Bitchener, John & Young, Stuart & Cameron, Denise. 2005. The effect of different types of
corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14
: 191-205.

Bitchener, John. 2008. Evidence in Support of Written Corrective Feedback. Journal of

Second Language Writing, 17 : 102 – 118.

Bitchener, John. & Knoch, Ute. 2008. The value of written corrective feedback for
immigrant and international students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19 : 207-
217.

Bitchener, John & Knoch, Ute. 2009. The Contribution of written Feedback to Language
Development: A Ten months Investigation. Applied Linguistic, 31/2: 193-214
 36

Bitchener, John & Knoch, Ute. 2010. Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2
writer with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19 :
207-217.

Bitchener, John. 2012. A reflection on the Language Learning Potential of Written CF.
Journal of Second Language Writing Exploring L2 Writing–SLA International.

Bruton, Anthony. 2007. Vocabulary learning from dictionary referencing and language
feedback in EFL translational writing. Language Teaching Research, 11 (4) : 413-
431.

Bruton, Anthony. 2009. Designing research into the effect of grammar correction in L2
writing; Not so straightforward. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18 : 136-140.

Chandler, Jane. 2003. The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in
accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing,
12 : 267-296.

Chen, Sibo., Nassaji, Hossein. & Liu, Qian. 2016. EFL learners’ perceptions and
preference of written Corrective Feedback: a case study of university students from
Mainland China. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and foreign Language Education.
1:5

Cook, Sara. 2013. Providing Feedback on Student Writing. U.S. development of Education
AANAPISI Grant.

Ebadi, Elahe. 2014. The Effect of Focused Meta-linguistic Written Corrective Feedback on
Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners‟ Essay Writing Ability. Journal of Language
Teaching and Research, Vol. 5, No. 4 : 878-883.

Ellis, Rod., Sheen, Younghee., Murakami, Mihoko., & Takashima, Hide. 2008, The effects
of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign
language context. Science Direct, DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001.

Ellis, Rod. 2009. A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal Volume,
63/2.

Ene, Estela & Kosobuki, Virginia. 2016. Rubric and Corrective Feedabck in ESL Writing:
A Longitudinal Case Study of an L2 Writer. Assessing Writing, Innovation in rubric
use: Exploring different dimensions, 30 : 3-20.

Eslami, Elham. 2014. The Effects of Direct and Indirect Corrective Feedaback Techniques
on EFL Students’ Writing. Sciencedirect Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,
98 : 445 -452.
 37

Esteban, Noelia Martinez., & De Larios, Julia Roca. 2010. The Use of Models as a Form of
Written Feedback to Secondary School Pupils of English. International Journal of
English Studies, vol.10 (2) : 143-170.

Evans, Norman W., Hartshorn, K James., & Allen, Tuioti Emily. 2010. Written Corrective
Feedback: Practitioners’ Perspectives. International Journal of English Studies, 10
(2) : 47-77.

Evans, Norman W., Hartshorn, K James., & Strong-Krause, Diane. 2011. The Efficacy of
Dynamic corrective feedback for University Matriculated ESL Learners.
DOI:10.1016/j.system.

Farid, Saeid. & Samad, Adlina Abdul. 2012. Effects of Different Kind of Direct Feedback
on Students' writing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 66 : 232 – 239.

Fazilatfar, Ali Mohammad., Fallah, Nader., Hamavandi, Mahnoosh. & Rostamian,

Morteza. 2014. The Effect of Unfocused Written Corrective Feedback on Syntactic
and Lexical Complexity of L2 Writing. Sciencedirect Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 98 : 482-488.

Ferris, Dana R., Liu, Hsiang., Sinha, Aparna & Senna, Manuel. 2013. Written corrective
feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22: 307-
329.

Frear, David. & Chiu, Yi-hui. 2015. The Effect of Focused and Unfocused Indirect Written
Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners’ Accuracy in New pieces of
Writing.DOI:101016/j.system.2015.06.006

Grami, Mohammad A. 2012. Online Collaborative Writing for ESL Learners Using Blogs
and Feedback Checklists. English Language Teaching, Vol. 5: 10.

Greetham, Bryan. 2001. How to Write Better Essay. Palgrave Macmillan. New York.

Guenette, Danielle. 2007. Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in

studies of feedback in writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16: 40-53.

Guénette, Danielle. 2012. The Pedagogy of Error Correction: Surviving the Written
Corrective Feedback Challenge. Tesl Canada Journal/Revue Tesl Du Canada, 30 :1.

Guirao, Josefa., de Larios , Julia Roca., & Coyle, Yvette. 2015. The Use of Models as a
Written Feedback Technique with Young EFL Learners. Journal of Second Language
Writing. 63-77.

Hanaoka, Osamu. & Izumi, Shinichi. 2012. Noticing and uptake: Addressing pre-
articulated Covert Problems in L2 Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21:
332-347.
 38

Han, Ye., & Hyland, Fiona. 2015. Exploring Learner Engagement with Written Corrective
Feedback in a Chinese Tertiary EFL Classroom. Journal of Second Language
Writing, DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.

Heaton, John Brian. 1990. Writing English Language Tests. Longman. New York

Horbacauskiene, Jolita. & Kasperaviciene, Ramune. 2015. Learners’ preference towards

Corrective Feedback in Writing Assignments in Tertiary Education. Explorations in
English Language and Linguistics, 3 (2): 70-83.

Hosseiny, Manijeh. 2014. The Role of Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback in
Improving Iranian EFL Students’ Writing Skill. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 98: 668-674.

Hyland, Fiona. 2010. Future Directions in Feedback on Second Language Writing:

Overview and Research Agenda. International Journal of English Studies IJES, 10
(2): 171-182.

Incecay, Volkan., & Dollar, Yesim Kesli. 2011. Foreign language learners’ beliefs about
grammar instruction and error correction. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences,
15: 3394–3398.

Jamalinesari, Ali & Rahimi, Farahnaz & Gohhary Hsbib & Azizifar Akbar. 2015. The
Effects of Teacher-Written Direct vs. Indirect Feedabcak on Students’ Writing.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192: 116-123.

Jonsson. Anders. 2012. Facilitating Productive Use of Feedback in Higher Education.

Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(1): 63–76.

Kang, Eunyoung. & Han, Zhaohong. 2015. Feedback in Improving L2 Written Accuracy:
A Meta-Analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99 (1): 1–18.

Kao, Chian-When. 2013. Effects of Focused Feedback on the Acquisition of two English
Articles. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language-Electronic Journal,
17 : 1.

Karbalaei, Alireza. & Karimian, Abdolkarim. 2014. On the Effect of Teacher Corrective
Feedaback on Iranian EFL Learners’ Writing Performance. Indian J.Sci.Res

Kaweera, Chittima. 2013.Writing Error: A Review of Interlingual and Intralingual

Interference in EFL Context. English Language Teaching, 6 : 7.

Kennedy, Sara. 2010. Corrective Feedback for Learners of Varied Proficiency Levels: A
Teacher’s Choices. Tesl Canada Journal/Revue Tesl Du Canada Volume 27, No 2,
Winter 2010
 39

Khanlarzadeh, Mobin. & Nemati, Majid. 2016. The Effect of Written Corrective Feedback
on Grammatical Accuracy of EFL students: An Improvement over Previous
Unfocused Design. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 4 (2): 55-68.

Kumar, Vijay. & Stracke, Elke. 2011. Examiners’ reports on theses: Feedback or
assessment? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10 : 211-222.

Lee, Icy. 2007. Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary
classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17 : 69-85.

Lee, Icy. 2008. Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong
secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17 : 144-164.

Lee, Icy. 2009. Ten mismatches between teachers’ belief and written feedback practice.
ELT Journal, 63 :1.

Lewis, Marilyn. 2008. Giving feedback in Language Classes. SEAMEO Regional

Language Centre.

Li, Shaofeng. 2010. The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback in SLA: A Meta-Analysis.

Language Learning, 60 (2) : 309–365.

Li, Su., & Li, Pengjing. 2012. Individual Differences in Written Corrective Feedback: A
Multi-Case Study. English Language Teaching; Vol. 5, No. 11; 2012. ISSN 1916-
4742 E-ISSN 1916-4750

Li, Zhi. & Hegelheimer, Volker. 2013. Mobile-Assisted Grammar Exercises: Effect on
Self-Editing in L2 Writing. Language Learning and Technology, 17 (3): 135-156.

Lundstrom, Kristi. & Baker, Wendy. 2009. To give is better than receive. The benefits of
peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18 :
30-43.

Mahmud, Norasyikin. 2016. Investigating the Practice of Providing Writeen Corrective

Feedback Types by ESL Teachers at the Upper Secondary Level in High
Performance Schools. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4 : 4.

Maleki, Ataollah. & Eslami, Elham. 2013. The Effects of Written Corrective Feedback
Techniques on EFL Students’ Control over Grammatical Construction of their
Written English. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3 (7): 1250 -1257

McMillan, Kathleen. & Weyers, Jonathan. 2010. How to Write Essays & Assignments.
Prentice Hall. Pearson: Essex England.

Mekala, S., Ponnami, M., & Shabitha, MP. 2016. Tranfer of Grammatical Knowledge into
ESL Writing. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2 (2) : 47-64.
 40

Miao, Yang., Badger, Richard., & Zhen, Yu. 2006. A comparative study of peer and teacher
feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing 15
(2006) 179-200

Mirzaii, Mostafa. & Bozorg Aliabadi, Reza. 2013. Direct and indirect written corrective
feedback in the context of genre-based instruction on job application letter writing.
Journal of Writing Research, 5 (2): 191- 213.

Montgomery, Julie L. & Baker, Wendy. 2007. Teacher-written feedback: Student

perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 16: 82-99.

Mustafa, Rami F. 2012. Feedback on the Feedback: Sociocultural Interpretation of Saudi

ESL Learners’ Opinions about Writing Feedback. English Language Teaching, 5 : 3.

Petchprasert, Anongnad. 2012. Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning. US-
China Foreign Language, 10 : 4.

Rahimpour, Massoud., Salimi, Massoud. & Farrokhi, Farahman. 2012. The Effect of
Intensive and Extensive Focus on Form on EFL Learners‟ Written Accuracy.
ACADEMY PUBLISHER, 2 (11): 2277-2283.

Rassaei, Ehsan., & Moinzadeh, Ahmad. 2011. Investigating the Effect of Three Types of
Corrective Feedback on the Acquisition of English Wh-question Forms by Iranian
EFL Learners. English Language Teaching. Vol.4., No.2; June 2011

Rummel, Stephanie & Bitchener, John. 2015. The Effectiveness of Written Corrective
Feedback and the Impact LAO Learners’ Beliefs have on Uptake. Australian Review
of Applied Linguistic, 66-84.

Sanavi, Reza Vahdani & Nemati, Majid. 2014. The Effect of Six Different Corrective
Feedback Strategies on Iranian English Language Learners’ IELTS Writing Task 2.
SAGE Open, 4: DOI: 10.1177/2158244014538271.

Santos, María., López-Serrano, Sonia., & M. Manchón. Rosa. 2010. The Differential Effect
of Two Types of Direct Written Corrective Feedback on Noticing and Uptake:
Reformulation vs. Error Correction. International Journal of English Studies, 10 (1) :
131-154.

Shao, Xu. 2015. On Written Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing. English Language

Teaching, 8 : 3.

Shiach, Don. 2009. How To Write Essays. Oxford. United Kingdom.

 41

Shintani, Natsuko. & Ellis, Rod. 2013. The comparative effect of direct written corrective
feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge
of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22 : 286–306.

Shoaei, Hajar. & Kafipour, Reza. 2016. The Effect of Gender, Experience, Context and
Proficiency on Teachers’’ and Learners’ Perception of Corrective Feedback.
International Journal of English and Education, ISSN: 2278-4012 Vol. 5.

Soori, Afshin., Kafipou., Reza & Soury, Mohammad. 2011. The Effectiveness of Different
Types of Direct Corrective Feedback on Correct use of English Articles among the
Iranian EFL Students. European Journal of Social Sciences, 26 (4) : 494-501.

Storch, Neomy. & Wigglesworth, Gillian 2010. Learners’ Processing, Uptake, and
Retention of Corrective Feedback on Writing. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, DOI:10 1017 / S0272263109990532.

Storch, Neomy. 2010. Critical Feedback on Written Corrective Feedback Research.

International Journal of English Studies, 10 (2) : 29-46.

Taylor, Gordon. 2009. A Student’s Writing Guide. How to Plan and write Successful
Essays. Cambridge University Press. UK

Tootkaboni, Arezoo Ashoori & Khatib, Mohammad. 2014. The Efficacy of Various Kinds
of Error Feedback on Improving Writing Accuracy of EFL Learners. Bellaterra
Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 7 (3) : 30-46.

Topping, Keith .J., Dehkinet, Rayenne., Blanch, Silvia., M. Corcelles., Duran, David,.
2012. Paradoxical effects of feedback in international online reciprocal peer tutoring.
Computers & Education, 61 : 225–231.

Truscott, John & Hsu, Angela Yi-ping. 2008. Error correction, revision, and learning.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 17 : 292-305.

Truscott, John. 2001. Selecting Errors for Selective Error Correction. Studies in English
Literature and Linguistics. 93 -108.

Van Beuningen, Catherin G, De Jong, Nivja H & Kuiken, Folkert. 2012. Evidence on the
Effectiveness of Comprehensive Error Correction in Second Language Writing. A
Journal of Research in Language Studies, 62 : 1-14.

Van Gelderen, Amos., Oostdam Ron & Schooten, Erik van. 2011. Does Foreign Language
Writing Benefit from Increased Lexical Fluency? Evidence from a classroom
Experiment. A Journal of research in Language Studies. 281 -321.
 42

Vasquez, Camila and Harvey, Jane. 2010. Raising teachers’ awareness About corrective
feedback through research replication. Language Teaching Research. 14(4) : 421-
443.

Vyatkina, Nina. 2010. The Effectiveness of Written Corrective Feedback in Teaching

Beginning German. Foreign Language Annals, 43(4): 671-689.

Waller, Laurel. 2015. Interview with Dr. Dana Ferris. MSU Working Paper in SLS.Vol 6.

Warburton, Nigel. 2006. The Basic of Essay Writing. Routledge: London and New York.

Weigle, Sara Cushing. 2009. Assessing Writing. Cambridge University Press:UK

Wu, Wen-chi Vivian., Yen, Ling Ling and Marek, Michael. 2011. Using Online EFL
Interaction to Increase Confidence, Motivation, and Ability. Educational Technology
& Society, 14 (3): 118–129.

Williams, Jessica. 2012. The Potential Role(s) of Writing in Second Language

Development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21: 321–331.

Yang, Yu-Fen., & Meng, Wen-Ting. 2013. The Effects of Online Feedback Training on
Students’ Text Revision. Language Learning & Technology, 17 (2): 220-238

Zemach, Dorothy E & Rumisek, Lisa A. 2003. College Writing. Macmillan Education:
Oxford.
 43

Lampiran – Lampiran

Lampiran 1 Justifikasi Anggara Penelitian

4.1 Anggaran Biaya

1. Honorarium
Honor / jam/ Honor per Tahun (Rp)
Honor waktu minggu
Rp Tahun ke-1/Rp Tahun ke-2 Tahun ke-3
Pelaksana 1 10.000 5 4 800.000
Pelaksana 2 10.000 5 2 400.000
Pelaksana 3 10.000 5 2 400.000
Sub Total (Rp) 1.600.000

2. Pembelian Bahan
Habis Pakai
Harga Satuan Harga Peralatan Penunjang
Justifikasi
Material Kuantitas (Rp) Tahun
Pembelian
ke-1 Tahun ke-2 Tahun ke-3
Bahan habis pakai 1 Kertas HVS 4 50.000 200.000
Bahan habis pakai 2 Catridge 3 100.000 300.000
Bahan habis pakai 3 Flash Disk 2 100.000 200.000
Bahan habis pakai 4 Refil Tinta 2 200.000 400.000
Bahan habis pakai 5 Memory 2 50.000 100.000
Bahan habis pakai 6 Copy bahan 8 20.000 160.000
Bahan habis pakai 7 Media Gambar 10 50.000 500.000
Sub Total (Rp) 1.860.000

3. Perjalanan
Harga Biaya Per tahun (Rp)
Justifikasi
Material Kuantitas Satuan Tahun
Perjalanan
(Rp) ke-1 Tahun ke-2 Tahun ke-3
Perjalanan 1 Dalam kota 5 85.000 425.000
Perjalanan 2 Luar kota 1 115.000 115.000
Perjalanan
Sub Total (Rp) 540.000
 44

4. Sewa
Harga Biaya Per tahun (Rp)
Justifikasi
Material Kuantitas Satuan Tahun
Sewa
(Rp) ke-1 Tahun ke-2 Tahun ke-3
Sewa 1
Sewa 2
Sewa 4
Sub Total (Rp)
TOTAL ANGGARAN YANG DIPERLUKAN SETIAP TAHUN
(Rp) 4.000.000

TOTAL ANGGARAN YANG DIPERLUKAN SELURUHNYA (Rp) 4.000.000

vi
 45

Lampiran 2: Susunan Organisasi Tim Peneliti dan Pembagian Tugas

NO NAMA/NIDN Instansi Asal Bidang Ilmu Alokasi Uraian Tugas

Waktu

1 Suhartawan Budianto, S.S., M.Pd Universitas Bahasa 4 Mengerjakan

0716036601 Dr.Soetomo
dan Sastra penelitian sampai

analisa

2 Dra. Anicleta Yuliastuti,M.Hum Univeritas Dr.Soetomo

Bahasa 2 Membantu mengerjakan

dan Sastra penelitian sampai

analisa

Lampiran 3 Biodata Ketua dan Anggota Tim Pengusul

A. Identitas Diri

1 Nama Lengkap (dengan gelar) Suhartawan Budianto, S.S., M.Pd.

2 JenisKelamin Laki-laki

3 JabatanFungsional Assiten ahli

4 NIP/NIK 06.01.1.353 / 3515080612760005

5 NIDN 0706127601

6 Tempat danTanggal Lahir Sidoarjo, 06 Desember 1976

7 E-mail suhartawan.budianto@unitomo.ac.id

8 Nomor Telepon/HP 081553340807

9 Alamat Kantor Jalan Semolowaru No.84 Surabaya

10 NomorTelepon/Faks 031-5944922

11 Lulusan yg telah dihasilkan S-1 = 20 orang

B. Riwayat Pendidikan

S-1 S-2 S-3

 46

Nama Perguruan Universitas dr. Soetomo Universitas Negeri Surabaya

Tinggi

Bidang Ilmu Sastra Inggris Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra

Judul Skripsi/Tesis The Mastery of Students’ Speaking through The

the Structure of Argument Carried out by
Story at Esay English Course Surabaya Barack Obama and John McCain in 2008
Presidential Debate

Nama Pembimbing Drs. Syamsuri Ariwibowo, M.Pd Prof. Dr.Abbas, A Badib, M.A., M.A

C. Pengalaman Penelitian dalam 5 Tahun Terakhir

(Bukan Skripsi, Tesis, dan Disertasi)

No Tahun Judul Penelitian Pendanaan

Sumber Jumlah

2012 The Use of Worksheet Entry Form (WEF) of Mandiri Rp. 1.000.000
Corrective Feedback to Improve Speaking Ability.

2016 Local and Global Aspect of DCF and ICF on EFL Mandiri Rp. 1.500.000
Writing Performance

D. Pengalaman Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat dalam 5 Tahun Terakhir

No Tahun Judul Pengabdian Pada Masyarakat Pendanaan

Sumber* Jumlah

2016 Pengajaran Persiapan TOEIC Kepada calon

taruna penerima beasiswa pemerintah kota

Surabaya

E. Publikasi Artikel Ilmiah Dalam Jurnal dalam 5 Tahun Terakhir

NO JUDUL ARTIKEL ILMIAH NAMA JURNAL VOLUME

1 The Use of Worksheet Entry Form (WEF) ITS Press 1

of Corrective Feedback to Improve

 47

Speaking Ability.

2 Local and Global Aspect of DCF and ICF The University of Queensland 1

on EFL Writing Performance

F. Pemakalah Seminar llmiah (Oral Presentation) dalam 5 Tahun Terakhir

No Nama Temu Ilmiah/ Seminar Judul ArtikeI Ilmiah Waktu danTempat

1 Seminar Internasional The Use of Worksheet Entry FormUniversitas dr.Soetomo

Enrichment of Career By Knowledge of Language
(WEF) of Corrective Feedback to2012
And Literature I (ECKLL III) Improve Speaking Ability.

4 One day- conference Strategies in teaching EFL writingUniversitas Negeri Malang, 2015

G. Karya Buku dalam 5 Tahun Terakhir

No Judul Penerbit No. ISBN

H. Perolehan HKI dalam 10 Tahun Terakhir

NO Judul/ Tema HKI Tahun Jenis Nomor P/ID

 48

I. Pengalaman Merumuskan Kebijakan Publik/Rekayasa Sosial Lainnya dalam 10

Tahun Terakhir

No. Judul/Tema/jenis Rekayasa Sosial Lainnya

Tahun Tempat Respon

J. Penghargaan dalam 10 tahun Terakhir (dari pemerintah, asosiasi atau institusi

lainnya)

No. Jenis Penghargaan Institusi Pemberi Tahun

Penghargaan

Semua data yang saya isikan dan tercantum dalam biodata ini adalah benar dan dapat
dipertanggungjawabkan secara hukum. Apabila di kemudian hari ternyata dijumpai
ketidaksesuaian dengan kenyataan, saya sanggup menerima sanksi. Demikian biodata ini
saya buat dengan sebenarnya untuk memenuhi salah satu persyaratan dalam pengajuan
Penugasan Penelitian dosen pemula DIPA Universitas Dr. Soetomo.

Surabaya, 13 Desember 2016

Ketua Pengusul

Suhartawan Budianto, S.S.,M.Pd

 49

SURAT PERNYATAAN ORIGINALITAS

PENELITIAN DIPA UNITOMO TAHUN 2016-2017

Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini:

Nama : Suhartawan Budianto, S.S., M.Pd.

NIDN : 0706127601

Pangkat/Golongan : Penata Muda/ III a

Jabatan Fungsional : Asisten Ahli

Dengan ini menyatakan bahwa proposal saya dengan judul: Students Perception
of Lexical Errors and the Teachers Feedback Long-term Effects yang diusulkan
dalam Penelitian dosen pemula DIPA Universitas Dr. Soetomo untuk tahun
anggaran 2016/2017 bersifat original dan belum pernah dibiayai oleh
lembaga/sumber dana lain.

Bilamana di kemudian hari ditemukan ketidaksesuain dengan penyataan ini,

maka saya bersedia dituntut dan diproses sesuai dengan ketentuan yang berlaku
dan mengembalikan seluruh biaya penugasan yang sudah diterima ke Kas
Universitas.

Demikian pernyataan ini dibuat dengan sesungguhnya dan sebenar-benarnya.

Surabaya, 13 Desember 2016

 50

Mengetahui, Yang menyatakan,

Ketua Lembaga Penelitian,

Dr. Sri Utami Ady, SE., MM Suhartawan Budianto, S.S., M.Pd

NPP.94.01.1.170 NPP.06.01.1.353

Lampiran 4 Biodata Anggota Tim Pengusul

A. Identitas Diri

1 Nama Lengkap (dengan gelar) Kusuma Wijaya, S.S., M.Pd

2 Jenis Kelamin Laki-laki

3 Jabatan Fungsional Asisten Ahli

4 NIP/NIK 96.01.1.215/

5 NIDN 0722037201

6 Tempat dan Tanggal Lahir Surabaya, 22 Maret 1972

7 E-mail wjyksm22@gmail.com
 51

8 Nomor Telepon/ HP 085932437669

9 Alamat Kantor Jalan Semolowaru No. 84 Surabaya

10 Nomor Telepon/Faks 031-5944922

11 Lulusan yang telah dihasilkan 50

B. Riwayat Pendidikan

S-1 S-2 S-3

Nama Perguruan Tinggi

Universitas Dr. Soetomo Universitas Gadjah Mada -

Bidang Ilmu Sastra Inggris Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra

-

The Study of Internal Conflict

Edward Said’s Orientalism in-
in Hawthorne’s The Scarlet
Forster’s A Passage to India
Letter

Nama Pembimbing Drs. Abdul Manan Prof. Dr. Budi Darma, MA -

C.Pemakalah Seminar Ilmiah (Oral Presentation) dalam 5 tahun terakhir

No Nama Temu Ilmiah/ Seminar Judul Artikel Ilmiah Waktu dan Tempat
 52

SURAT PERNYATAAN ORIGINALITAS

PENELITIAN DIPA UNITOMO TAHUN 2016-2017

Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini:

Nama : Dra. Anicleta Yuliastuti, M.Hum

NIDN : 0717075701

Pangkat/Golongan : Penata Muda/ IV- a

Jabatan Fungsional : Lektor

Dengan ini menyatakan bahwa proposal saya dengan judul: Students Perception
of Lexical Errors and the Teachers Feedback Long-term Effects yang diusulkan
dalam Penelitian dosen pemula DIPA Universitas Dr. Soetomo untuk tahun
 53

anggaran 2016/2017 bersifat original dan belum pernah dibiayai oleh

lembaga/sumber dana lain.

Bilamana di kemudian hari ditemukan ketidaksesuain dengan penyataan ini,

maka saya bersedia dituntut dan diproses sesuai dengan ketentuan yang berlaku
dan mengembalikan seluruh biaya penugasan yang sudah diterima ke Kas
Universitas.

Demikian pernyataan ini dibuat dengan sesungguhnya dan sebenar-benarnya.

Surabaya, 13 Desember 2016

Mengetahui, Yang menyatakan,

Ketua Lembaga Penelitian,

Dr. Sri Utami Ady, SE.,MM Dra. Anicleta Yuliastuti, M.Hum

NPP.94.01.1.170 NPP.89.01.1.054

SURAT PERNYATAAN KESANGGUPAN

MENYELESAIKAN PENELITIAN DIPA UNITOMO TAHUN 2016-2017

Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini:

Nama : Suhartawan Budianto, S.S., M.Pd.

NIDN : 0706127601

Pangkat/Golongan : Penata Muda/ III a

Jabatan Fungsional : Asisten Ahli

Dengan ini menyatakan bahwa saya sanggup dan bertanggung jawab untuk
melaksanakan dan menyelesaikan penelitian DIPA UNITOMO Tahun 2016-2017
dengan judul: Students Perception of Lexical Errors and the Teachers Feedback Long-
 54

term Effects yang diusulkan dalam Penelitian dosen pemula DIPA Universitas Dr.
Soetomo untuk tahun anggaran 2016/2017.

Bilamana pengusulan proposal saya disetujui namun hingga akhir masa penelitian saya
belum bisa menyelesaikan dan memenuhi tuntutan dalam kontrak penelitian, maka saya
bersedia menerima sanksi yang berlaku serta mengembalikan seluruh biaya penugasan
yang sudah diterim ke Kas Universitas.

Demikian pernyataan ini dibuat dengan sesungguhnya dan sebenar-benarnya.

Surabaya, 13 Desember 2016

Menyetujui, Yang menyatakan,

Dekan,

Dra. Cicilia Tantri Suryawati, M.Pd. Suhartawan Budianto, S.S., M.Pd

NPP: 92.01.1.101 NPP :06.01.1.353

Mengetahui,
Ketua Lembaga Penelitian,

Dr. Sri Utami Ady, SE., MM

NPP.94.01.1.170