### The Effect of Teacher’s Written Feedback and Conferencing on Students’ Writing Ability

*Ahmad Faiz*

#### Abstrak

**ABSTRAK**

Faiz, Ahmad. 2016. The Effect of Teacher’s Written Feedback and Conferencing on Students’ Writing Ability. Thesis. English Language Teaching, Graduate Program of State University of Malang. Advisors: (I) Prof. Dr. Hj. Nur Mukminatien, M.Pd. (II) Dr. Mirjam Anugerahwati, M.A.

Keywords: teacher’s written feedback, conferencing, writing ability

This study was conducted to investigate the effectiveness of teacher’s written feedback and conferencing between the teacher and the students on students’ writing ability. In order to know the effect of teacher’s written feedback along with the conferencing, whether it is significant or not, the researcher formed two groups. The first group was taught by giving teacher’s written feedback and conferencing and the other group was taught by giving teacher’s written feedback only.

The study employed a quasi-experimental design with non-randomized pre- and post-test groups. The samples of this study were class X MIPA 4, consisting of 34 students, as the experimental group 1, and X MIPA 3, consisting of 34 students, as the experimental group 2. Both of these groups are from SMA Negeri 4 Jember in the second semester of 2014/2015 academic year. The students’ writing scores were collected through two writing tests, i.e. pretest and posttest. In addition, a parametric statistical test, i.e. the independent-samples t-test was utilized to analyze the data.

The study has resulted the following findings. Based on the overall score of the students’ writing, the students who were taught by giving teacher’s written feedback and conferencing had no statistical significant differences from the students who were taught by giving teacher’s written feedback only (p = .146). Furthermore, based on the score of each aspect of the students’ writing, no statistical significant differences were also found between the students who were taught by giving teacher’s written feedback along with the conferencing and the students who were taught by giving teacher’s written feedback only. The p values are (p = .372) for the content, (p = .082) for the organization, (p = .285) for the vocabulary, (p = .363) for the language use, and (p = .055) for the mechanics of the students’ writings.

Some suggestions can be derived from the results of the study. It is suggested for another researcher to conduct another study which implement more meetings for the treatments. Since this present study conducted in one and a half month, the tests could not find the differences. Also, this topic is worth investigating since numerous study yielded confounding results. In addition, the call for longitudinal evidence on the efficacy of teacher’s written feedback is needed since, to date, the study on this is scarce.