WRITING ANXIETY DIFFERENCES IN WRITING QUALITY ON

THE APPLICATION OF FACEBOOK-MEDIATED FEEDBACK

A Thesis

Shirtha El Rusyda

MASTER IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING STUDY PROGRAM

LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY
LAMPUNG UNIVERSITY
BANDAR LAMPUNG
2017
WRITING ANXIETY DIFFERENCES IN WRITING QUALITY ON
THE APPLICATION OF FACEBOOK-MEDIATED FEEDBACK

By
Shirtha El Rusyda

A Thesis
Submitted in a Partial Fulfillment of
The Requirement for S-2 Degree

MASTER IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING STUDY PROGRAM

LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY
LAMPUNG UNIVERSITY
BANDAR LAMPUNG
2017
 ABSTRACT

WRITING ANXIETY DIFFERENCES IN WRITING QUALITY ON THE

APPLICATION OF FACEBOOK-MEDIATED FEEDBACK

By

Shirtha El Rusyda

The aims of this research are to investigate the students’ writing quality after
being given Facebook-mediated feedback, the differences in the students' writing
quality according to the predominant dimension of writing anxiety they suffer
from, and the students' feedback on their friends’ writings. This research was
carried out quantitatively and qualitatively and involved thirty-one students who
took Intermediate Writing as a compulsory subject at Lampung University.

It was found that there was a significant difference in the students’ writing quality
after the implementation of Facebook-mediated feedback. The results also
revealed that there were no significant differences in the students' writing quality
according to the predominant dimension of writing anxiety they suffer from.
Besides, the researcher discovered that the students provided positive, negative,
and constructive feedback, yet some of them still gave unclear, unspecific, and
incorrect feedback.

In essence, the implementation of Facebook-mediated feedback facilitates the

EFL students to make some positive development in their writing quality. The
researcher also concluded that the students' writing quality are not affected by the
dissimilar predominant dimension of writing anxiety that they suffer from.
Furthermore, it is concluded that the students express willingness to help their
friends improve the quality of their writings by providing beneficial feedback.
However, they lack awareness about the importance of giving clear and specific
feedback and their incorrect feedback might ruin their friends’ writings if they
accept it without questioning it.

i
 CURRICULUM VITAE

The writer’s name is Shirtha El Rusyda. She was born on April 9th, 1992 in

Bandar Lampung. She graduated from Al-Kautsar Kindergarten in 1998. In the

same year, she studied at Al-Kautsar Elementary School and then graduated in

2004. She was registered at Al-Kautsar Junior High School in 2004 as well and

finished her study in 2007. After graduating from junior high school, she

continued her study at SMAN 5 Bandar Lampung and graduated in 2010. She was

also registered as a freshman in English Language Teaching Study Program at

Teacher Training and Education Faculty, Lampung University in 2010. Then, in

2015, she enrolled in Master in English Language Teaching Study Program,

Lampung University.

ii
 DEDICATION

This thesis would proudly be dedicated to:

Writer’s father and mother

Drs. Riyanto & Ir. Suhartini

Writer’s older sister

Sabila Rusyda

Writer’s bestfriends

Kartodihardjo and Atmorejo Family

and

Writer’s almamater, Lampung University

iii
 MOTTO

“You may be disappointed if you fail, but you are doomed if you don’t try.”

(Beverly Sills, 1929 – 2007)

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Foremost, I would like to express my profound gratitude to Allah SWT for the

well-being that was needed to finish this thesis. He is the Guide, the Satisfier of

All Needs, and the One who always be around me through ups and downs.

Additionally, the writer would like to acknowledge her gratitude and respect to:

1. Prof. Dr. Patuan Raja, M.Pd., as the first advisor, for his patience, continuous

encouragement, and for allowing me to conduct research in his class. His

valuable guidance helped in all the time of research and writing of this thesis.

2. Hery Yufrizal, M.A., Ph.D., as the second advisor, for patiently guiding me

throughout the process of writing this thesis. His comments and suggestions

were beneficial for improving the quality of this thesis.

3. Dr. Ari Nurweni, M.A., as the first examiner, for her helpful advice, support,

and patience. I would also like to thank her for making it possible for me to

conduct research at English Language Teaching Study Program.

4. Dr. Tuntun Sinaga, M.Hum., as the second examiner, for his valuable

comment and suggestions on this thesis.

5. Dr. Flora, M.Pd., as the Chairperson of Master in English Language Teaching

Study Program, and all lecturers of Master in English Language Teaching

Study Program, for their immense knowledge and unconditional help.

v
6. B Class students of Intermediate Writing Class for their participation as the

samples of the research.

7. Mba Fefiyana, S.Pd. for her help, immense ideas, and for being the rater of

the research.

8. The 3rd batch of Master in English Language Teaching Study Program,

especially my beloved A class classmates and ‘Bu Hajjah’ Novita Sari.

Thanks for the memories.

9. My beloved father, mother, older sister, bestfriends, Kartodihardjo and

Atmorejo Family, for their endless encouragement, love, and understanding.

The Almighty God, Allah SWT, is the Only One who can repay their kindness

and assistance. May Allah SWT bless them with the very best always.

Bandar Lampung, November 29th, 2017

The writer,

Shirtha El Rusyda

vi
 LIST OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................... i
CURRICULUM VITAE....................................................................... ii
DEDICATION....................................................................................... iii
MOTTO ................................................................................................. iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................. v
LIST OF CONTENTS .......................................................................... vii

I. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background............................................................................... 1
1.2. Research Questions................................................................... 8
1.3. Objectives.................................................................................. 9
1.4. Uses........................................................................................... 9
1.5. Scope......................................................................................... 10
1.6. Definition of Terms................................................................... 10

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Writing...................................................................................... 12
2.2. Teaching Writing...................................................................... 16
2.3. Evaluating Writing.................................................................... 20
2.4. Editing and Feedback................................................................ 22
2.5. Peer Feedback........................................................................... 26
2.6. Facebook-mediated Feedback................................................... 28
2.7. Writing Anxiety........................................................................ 31
2.8. Teaching Writing Procedure Modified with Facebook-mediated
Feedback................................................................................... 34
2.9. Advantages and Disadvantages of Facebook-mediated
Feedback................................................................................... 40
2.10. Theoretical Assumption.......................................................... 41
2.11. Hypotheses.............................................................................. 41
2.12. Limitation of the Study........................................................... 42

vii
III. METHODS

3.1. Research Design........................................................................ 43

3.2. Variables................................................................................... 44
3.3. Population and Sample.............................................................. 45
3.4. Instruments................................................................................ 45
3.5. Validity and Reliability
3.5.1. Validity and Reliability of Writing Task....................... 47
3.5.2. Validity and Reliability of Second Language Writing
Anxiety Inventory......................................................... 49
3.6. Research Procedure................................................................... 51
3.7. Data Analysis............................................................................ 52
3.8. Hypotheses Testing................................................................... 54

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1. Results of the Research

4.1.1. The Implementation of Facebook-mediated Feedback.. 57
4.1.2. Facebook-mediated Feedback and Students’ Writing
Quality........................................................................... 64
4.1.3. Writing Anxiety and Writing Quality on the
Implementation of Facebook-mediated Feedback........ 67
4.1.4. Students’ Feedback on Their Friends’ Writings........... 73
4.2. Discussions
4.2.1. Facebook-mediated Feedback and Students’ Writing
Quality........................................................................... 76
4.2.2. Writing Anxiety and Writing Quality on the
Implementation of Facebook-mediated Feedback........ 78
4.2.3. Students’ Feedback on Their Friends’ Writings........... 80

V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1. Conclusions............................................................................... 84
5.2. Suggestions
5.2.1. Suggestions for English Teachers................................. 86
5.2.2. Suggestions for Other Researchers............................... 87

REFERENCES...................................................................................... 89

viii
 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

Appendix 1. Lesson Plan......................................................................... 96

Appendix 2. Students’ Handout.............................................................. 102
Appendix 3. Students’ Writing Tasks..................................................... 105
Appendix 4. Homogeneity and Normality Testing................................. 111
Appendix 5. Second Language Writing Anxiety Inventory.................... 112
Appendix 6. Second Language Writing Anxiety Inventory in
Indonesian.......................................................................... 114
Appendix 7. Tabulation of the Data Collection 1................................... 116
Appendix 8. Tabulation of the Data Collection 2................................... 118
Appendix 9. Tabulation of SLWAI......................................................... 120
Appendix 10. Tabulation of All Data...................................................... 122

ix
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

Table 2.1. Jacobs et al. Composition Profile ............................................ 20

Table 3.1. Specification for Aspects of Writing ....................................... 47
Table 3.2. Results of the Inter-reliability of First Drafts .......................... 48
Table 3.3. Results of the Inter-reliability of Final Drafts ......................... 48
Table 3.4. Specification for SLWAI ......................................................... 50
Table 3.5. Results of the Reliability of SLWAI ....................................... 50
Table 4.1. Results of the First Drafts Analysis ......................................... 65
Table 4.2. Results of the Final Drafts Analysis......................................... 65
Table 4.3. Differences in Aspects of Writing............................................ 66
Table 4.4. Results of Paired Samples Test ................................................ 67
Table 4.5. Mean of Somatic Anxiety.......................................... ............. 68
Table 4.6. Mean of Avoidance Behavior.................................................. 68
Table 4.7. Mean of Cognitive Anxiety..................................................... 69
Table 4.8. Predominant Dimension of Writing Anxiety ........................... 70
Table 4.9. Writing Score of Somatic-anxiety and Cognitive-
anxiety Students ........................................................................ 70
Table 4.10. Gain Score of Somatic-anxiety and Cognitive-anxiety
Students............... .................................................................. 71
Table 4.11. Results of ANOVA............... ................................................ 72

x
 LIST OF IMAGES

Image Page

Image 4.1. Groups Formed by the Students.............................................. 60

Image 4.2. First Information for Trial Session ......................................... 61
Image 4.3. Second Information for Trial Session ..................................... 61
Image 4.4. Third Information for Trial Session ........................................ 62
Image 4.5. Information for First Treatment .............................................. 63
Image 4.6. Feedback Given by the Student.............................................. 63
Image 4.7. Information for Second Treatment......................................... 64

xi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

Figure 2.1. Brown and Hood’s Writing Process......................................... 15

Figure 4.1. The Distribution of Feedback on Group Members’
Writings.................................................................................... 59
Figure 4.2. Means Plot................................................................................ 72

xii
 I. INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the basis which underlies the implementation of this

research. There are several sub-topics included in this chapter, namely the

background of research, research questions, the objectives of research, the uses of

research, the scope of research, and definition of terms.

1.1. Background

Aside from oral form, an activity of sharing idea is often done in written form.

Nevertheless, presenting ideas in written form is not easy. Unlike speaking whose

process happens spontaneously, writing mostly takes time as the writer needs to

pass through five stages, namely pre-writing, drafting, revising, editing, and

publishing (McKensie and Tomkins, 1984). Moreover, writers should also take

into consideration five aspects of writing such as content, organization,

vocabulary, language use, and mechanics (Jacobs et al., 1981 as cited in Weigle,

2002). Byrne (1988) even acknowledges the complexity of writing and mentions

that it happens due to several reasons: first, the writer must rely on himself or

herself; second, the writer must choose the right sentence structure and make the

sentences link together and sequenced to keep the channel of communication

open; and third, the writer must master written form of the language and knows

how to organize his or her ideas so that they can be understood by the readers.
 2

In writing course, the students usually have to pass hierarchical levels of writing,

namely basic writing, pre-intermediate writing, intermediate writing, and

advanced writing. For student writers, it might be difficult to pass these levels

well because they often make errors in using certain linguistic components,

sentence structures, and even in sequencing sentences on their work. Due to this

occurrence, feedback has emerged as a way to cease learners’ errors. Feedback

refers to information provided by an agent regarding aspects of one’s performance

or understanding (Hattie and Timperley, 2007). Over the years, the application of

feedback on writing process has been investigated by numerous scholars. There

are some scholars who oppose the use of feedback, for instance, Truscott (1996)

who claims that written error feedback is ineffective and potentially harmful. Yet,

there are scholars who promote the usefulness of feedback (Abadikhah and

Ashoori, 2012; Chandler, 2003; Tootkaboni and Khatib, 2014).

Feedback comes in many varieties and one of the well-known types is peer

feedback. Peer feedback can be defined as students’ engagement in the process of

providing and receiving as well as sharing of comments and suggestions for the

improvement of their peers’ work (Gedera, 2012). Many previous studies have

verified the value of the implementation of peer feedback in the writing process.

Miao et al. (2006), for instance, claim that peer feedback is beneficial in

encouraging learner autonomy. Additionally, Ion et al. (2016) argue that peer

feedback helps students to better learn, develop their competencies, get engaged

with the learning process and increase their self-regulation abilities. Moreover,

through peer feedback, the students can learn more about writing by reading their
 3

peers’ written drafts and raise their awareness of the weaknesses in their own

writings (Tsui and Ng, 2000).

However, peer feedback that is done in the class might not be well implemented

due to time constraints (Rollinson, 2005). Sadat et al. (2016) also mention that

even though conventional peer feedback can assist students in learning language

structures and expressions, there is possibility for their anxiety to be provoked.

Certain students might dislike the situation in which they have to provide or

receive feedback face-to-face. Additionally, Rollinson (2005) explains that the

teacher will not be able to oversee all students simultaneously through

conventional peer feedback. The limited opportunity for the teachers to monitor

the students’ feedback might bring up the teachers’ doubts and concerns in

shifting responsibility to the students. In short, it can be said that the

implementation of peer feedback needs to be carried out outside of the class and

done through a medium that enables the teacher to monitor the students’ feedback

and lets the students provide feedback anytime and anywhere; which is none other

than an internet.

Nowadays, it is possible to utilize the internet as a medium for supporting

educational activity. Providing and receiving feedback through internet is one of

the examples of the manifestation of technology on education, specifically on

writing field. In the present study, the researcher would like to modify the

teaching writing procedure, so that the activity of providing and receiving

feedback can be carried out by using the internet. Apparently, a number of studies
 4

have been conducted to examine the application of internet for the activity of

providing and receiving feedback. Hiền (2008) conducted a study in Vietnam to

compare the use of online peer feedback to teacher feedback. The findings

revealed that students who received online peer feedback improved their

motivation in learning to write in English and the quality of their written texts

significantly, whereas motivation in writing of students that received teacher

feedback remained unchanged and the quality of their written texts was slightly

improved.

Xing (2014) also investigated the comparison between online peer feedback and

teacher feedback in China. Likewise, the findings of Xing’s study (2014) showed

that implementing online peer feedback gave more improvement to students’

writing skills than teacher feedback. It was also revealed that with the help of

internet, the students could not feel nervous but relaxed in the process of feedback

which would give more confidence and inspiration to speak out freely.

Furthermore, the students regarded online feedback as the convenient and quick

way to communicate with peers and comment their writings without the

embarrassment made by facing to facing meeting. They also stated that online

feedback really benefited them in improving English writing, such as pointing out

the weakness in their compositions and getting more information to enrich their

minds.

Additionally, there are other scholars who conducted studies to investigate the

application of online sites like blog, wikis, email, WeChat, and Facebook for
 5

providing feedback, for instance Elola and Oskoz, 2010; Huang, 2016;

Motallebzadeh and Amirabadi, 2011; Putra, 2016; Shukor and Noordin, 2014;

Wichadee, 2013; Wu, 2006; Yoke et al., 2013; Yusof et al., 2012; and Zhang et

al., 2014. Amidst other kinds of online sites, Facebook has been confirmed as the

world’s largest social network with over 1.4 billion active users (Mehra, 2015).

This social networking service is undoubtedly popular in Indonesia, especially

among high school and college students as Pempek et al.’s study (2009) even

showed that students use Facebook approximately 30 minutes throughout the day

as part of their daily routine, regardless of how busy they were.

Other than being well-liked, Facebook also offers a tool called Facebook Group

that is useful for educational activity as it enables the teacher to create a

community whose members are the students. Within Facebook group, the

members can share updates, photos, documents and more under specific settings

of the theirs choosing (Petronzio, 2013) and they can engage in more in-depth

discussions (Sherman, 2010). In addition, the teacher is able to be the

administrator of the group and can monitor the discussions held by the students.

Since Facebook is extremely popular among students and offers useful tool for

educational activity like Facebook Group, the researcher is interested in

incorporating Facebook into the activity of providing and receiving feedback in

the present study.

Apparently, Putra (2016) have conducted a study concerning the application of

Facebook closed group on peer correction activities. For his study, he allowed the
 6

students to utilize a Facebook’s feature called Spell-Checker to help the students

identify vocabulary errors and autocorrect the diction or word for the feedback.

Additionally, the students were instructed to upload the image of their writings on

Facebook closed group. His study showed that some students needed to reupload

the image of their writings because the quality of the uploaded images were not

that good. Nevertheless, it was discovered that Facebook closed group can

improve students’ writing achievement in general.

Yusof et al. (2012) also did a study to investigate whether mixed-ability ESL

learners can be trained to provide good feedback to their peers via Facebook

Notes on the pre-writing stage. Secondly, it seeks to understand the students’

perception of peer-feedback exercise via Facebook Notes. It was discovered that

students from a mixed-ability class can be trained to provide feedback to their

peers. However, the students have to go through sufficient training before they are

able to provide constructive feedback. Additionally, the students perceived online

discussions as interesting and since they spent a lot of their personal time online,

the feedback giving exercise via an online tool was not considered as a burden.

Meanwhile, in the present study, the researcher is not going to demand the

students to employ Spell-Checker. Utilizing Spell-Checker in the process of

providing feedback is not an obligatory activity to be performed by the students.

Furthermore, unlike Yusof et al’s study (2012), the focus of the present study will

not only on the pre-writing stage and Facebook Notes will not be used since

Yusof et al. (2012) already made use of that Facebook tool. Moreover, the
 7

researcher will not command the students to upload the image of their writings

like what has been done in Putra’s study (2016) because they will be directed to

write an essay. The students might write long essays, therefore, it will be more

convenient for the students to simply upload their essays that are composed in the

form of Microsoft Office Word on the Facebook Group. Briefly, it can be stated

that the present research offers different teaching writing procedure from the

previous studies.

The previous studies cited beforehand have demonstrated the advisability of

Facebook for educational activity like online peer feedback. However, those

studies were conducted to examine the effect of online peer feedback on students’

writings in general. To researcher's knowledge, there is no study which examines

writing anxiety differences in writing quality on the implementation of Facebook-

mediated feedback. Typically, EFL students who attend writing course feel

anxious and under pressure since they have an obligation to produce a

composition in non-native language and they might experience three dimensions

of writing anxiety, namely somatic anxiety, avoidance behavior, and cognitive

anxiety (Cheng, 2004). Each student is likely to have a certain dimension of

writing anxiety which predominates the other dimensions and the researcher is

interested in investigating the differences in the students' writing quality based on

the predominant dimension of writing anxiety they suffer from.

The researcher believes that it is essential to conduct this study since Ellis (2010,

as cited in Zhang and Rahimi, 2014) states that the effectiveness of corrective
 8

feedback can be determined by taking into consideration individual attribute such

as anxiety. Moreover, thus far, studies regarding feedback and anxiety have only

been done in the context of teacher feedback and face-to-face peer feedback (Hua,

2016; Kurt and Atay, 2007; Yastibas and Yastibas, 2015) and none has been done

in the context of Facebook-mediated feedback. Therefore, a study related to

anxiety should be done in the context of Facebook-mediated feedback as well.

Furthermore, the researcher believes that it is necessary to investigate the

feedback that are provided by the students on their friends' writings. For the

implementation of Facebook-mediated feedback, the researcher will instruct the

students to contribute feedback which cover three things, namely positive

feedback (value), negative feedback (concerns), and constructive feedback

(suggestions). Since Cole (2006) mentions that most writers are dependent on

feedback providers, it is apparent that the student writers will be reliant on those

three feedback. With regard to this matter, the students' feedback should be

examined to discover whether the students present the positive, negative, and

constructive feedback on their friends' writings.

1.2. Research Questions

In line with the background discussed beforehand, the researcher would like to

seek answers to research questions presented as follows.

1. How do the students’ writing quality differ after being given Facebook-

mediated feedback?
 9

2. How different are the students' writing quality according to the predominant

dimension of writing anxiety they suffer from?

3. How do the students give feedback on their friends’ writings?

1.3. Objectives

This research will be conducted to fulfill the objectives which are presented as

follows.

1. To find out the students’ writing quality after being given Facebook-mediated

feedback.

2. To find out the differences in the students' writing quality according to the

predominant dimension of writing anxiety they suffer from.

3. To find out the feedback provided by the students on their friends’ writings.

1.4.Uses

The present research is expected to have the following uses:

1. Theoretically

1. To contribute information related to Facebook-mediated feedback and its

influence on the students’ writing quality in general.

2. To contribute information about the differences in the students' writing

quality according to the predominant dimension of writing anxiety they

suffer from.

3. To be a reference for other researchers who want to explore Facebook-

mediated feedback.
 10

2. Practically

This research may provide a contribution to the English teachers who are

interested in implementing Facebook-mediated feedback.

1.5. Scope

This research focuses on examining the students' writing quality after being given

Facebook-mediated feedback, the differences in the students' writing quality

according to the predominant dimension of writing anxiety they suffer from, and

the students' feedback on their friends’ writings. Writing task was employed to

examine students’ writing quality before and after the implementation of

Facebook-mediated feedback. For the writing task, each student was required to

compose an essay. In addition, the researcher distributed Second Language

Writing Anxiety Inventory (SLWAI) to find out the students’ writing anxiety.

Moreover, the researcher observed, studied, and identified students’ feedback that

were posted on ‘Write Art’ Facebook Group to figure out how they presented

feedback on their friends’ writings. The researcher gathered the data from English

majors who took Intermediate Writing as compulsory subject at English Language

Teaching Study Program in Lampung University. Eventually, thirty-one B class

students who took Intermediate Writing as a compulsory subject participated in

this research.

1.6. Definition of Terms

Some terms related to the topic of this present study can be defined as follows.
 11

1. Facebook-mediated feedback

Facebook-mediated feedback is an activity of providing comments and

suggestions on a writer’s work via Facebook.

2. Feedback

Feedback is a response (i.e. comments and suggestions) given to work or task

done by the learner so as to make her or his performance better.

3. Writing

Writing is an act of explaining the facts of particular thing in a readable and

understandable form.

4. Writing Anxiety

Writing anxiety is a disturbing emotion that is caused by writing.

The researcher has elaborated the reasons that provoke her to conduct the present

study and the issues which she wants to investigate in this chapter. In the

following chapter, the researcher will review works of literature that are

associated to the topic of the present study.

 II. LITERATURE REVIEW

The researcher will review works of literature related to the topic of the present

study. This chapter comprises the concept of writing, teaching writing, evaluating

writing, editing and feedback, peer feedback, Facebook-mediated feedback,

writing anxiety, teaching writing procedure modified with Facebook-mediated

feedback, advantages and disadvantages of Facebook-mediated feedback,

theoretical assumption, hypotheses, and limitation of the study.

2.1. Writing

Writing is a part of productive skill, just like speaking. However, writing does not

work as spontaneous as speaking does. In speaking, it is acceptable if an

individual wants to say something by shortening the sentences or omit

unnecessary linguistic components, as the listener is able to ask for a clarification

to the speaker directly. Meanwhile, if a writer wants to express ideas in written

form, he or she needs to pay attention to the sentence sequence, structure, and

other linguistic components as the reader is not present and cannot ask for a

clarification right away. Consequently, some individuals may consider writing as

a hard and time-consuming activity.

 13

The term writing has been variously defined by some experts. According to

Pincas (1986 as cited in Asrifan, 2015), writing is an instrument of both

communication and self-expression. Furthermore, Sapkota (2012) takes writing as

the act of putting down the graphic symbols that present a language in order to

convey some meaning so that the reader can grasp the information that the writer

has tried to impart. Additionally, Jordan (1999) defines writing as a method of

human intercommunication by means of conventional visible marks. From these

terms, writing can be perceived as a medium of communication in which an

individual brings out ideas in a form that is readable and understandable.

Although people can express ideas through writing, the process of writing is

complicated. Hamp-Lyons and Heasley (1987 as cited in Nunan, 1991) even point

up that writing is undoubtedly a complex process and it is accepted as being the

last language skill to be acquired. This claim is reasonable since writers,

according to McKensie and Tomkins (1984), must at least pass five stages of

writing process, namely:

1. Pre-writing

At this stage, the writers should firstly think why and for whom they are

writing. Then, they can determine their writing topics and develop ideas

about them. The writers may develop their ideas through several ways, such

as brainstorming, reading, drawing, note-taking, thinking, et cetera.

 14

2. Drafting

The students will start writing their first draft at this stage. The writers should

use the first, rough draft to pour out and share their ideas, with little concern

about spelling, punctuation, and other mechanical errors.

3. Revising

At this stage, the writers or their colleagues check the coherence of the draft.

It should be decided which ideas already clear or still unclear, which points

need to be expanded, which points need to be added or removed, and whether

or not the ideas are misplaced.

4. Editing

After checking the coherence of the draft, the writers or their colleagues will

have to polish the writing by correcting spelling, usage, punctuation, and

other mechanical errors.

5. Publishing

At this stage, the writers publish and share the final product of their work

with an appropriate audience. Publication may take many forms, such as oral

(e.g. reading the composition aloud, tape-recording it, and readers’ theater),

visual (e.g. creative dramatics, puppet shows, and filmstrips), and written

(e.g. booklets, letters, newspapers, and anthologies).

On the contrary, Brown and Hood (1989) argue that writing process is simply

divided into three main stages, such as preparing to write, drafting, and revising.

Yet, they clarify that writing process in practice is often more like the graphic

presented below.
 15

Figure 2.1. Brown and Hood’s Writing Process

Preparing

Revising Drafting

Drafting Revising

Preparing

Source: From Writing Matters: Writing Skills and Strategies for Students of English (p. 6), by

Brown and Hood, 1989.

Meanwhile, Emig (1971) and Hayes and Flower (1980) as cited in Urquhart and

Mclver (2005) have identified other stages of writing process, namely prewriting,

drafting, revising, and editing which then describe as follows:

1. Prewriting: the period where writers get ready to write—gathering

information, organizing ideas, identifying audience and purpose, and

selecting a genre.

2. Drafting: the production stage of getting ideas down using complete

sentences and reflecting the general conventions of writing.

3. Revising: the time when writers review their work, checking for clarity of

message, word choice, and organization.

 16

4. Editing: the process of checking written work for the conventions of writing

and any lingering concerns with voice, tone, and style.

Based on the explanation above, it can be noted that writing process comes in

various ways. Nevertheless, among a variety of writing processes proposed by

these scholars, McKensie and Tomkins’s theory (1984) is the complete one.

Therefore, the researcher employed their theory as a guideline for creating the

teaching writing procedure.

2.2. Teaching Writing

According to Harmer (1998), there are some reasons for teaching writing to the

students. The first reason is the students often find it useful to write sentences

using new language shortly after they have studied it. The second reason is the

actual process of writing helps the students learn as they go along. The mental

activity the students have to go through in order to construct proper written texts

is all part of the ongoing learning experience. The third reason is it helps the

students who cannot exceedingly quick at picking up the language just by looking

and listening. The fourth reason is the most important reason for teaching writing;

it is because writing is just as important as speaking, listening, and reading. In

short, it can be said that teaching writing should be done by the language teacher

as the students can earn some benefits from learning how to write.

Rivers and Temperley (1978) apparently suggest language teacher to involve the

following activities in teaching writing:

1. Writing down
 17

This activity contributes to student writers’ awareness. Students either copy

or reproduce without the copy in front of them. To do this accurately, they

must focus their attention on the conventions of writing, such as spelling;

capitalization; punctuation; paragraphing; ambiguous forms (for example: ‘s

can represent the possessive ending; is, has, or even does as in What’s he

do?); number conventions; abbreviations (etc., i.e., e.g., p.m.), and so on.

2. Writing in the language

This activity contributes to student writers’ understanding of English

grammar. The teacher should introduce and demonstrate the concepts of

English grammar to prevent the students from writing down words from an

English dictionary inserted into native-language patterns in native-language

word order.

3. Production

This activity triggers student writers to try writing sentences in target

language. They are given an opportunity to construct their own sentences to

express their personal meaning and to develop their ideas in logical and

coherent paragraphs within a larger discourse.

4. Expressive writing

This activity triggers student writers to make a composition for purposeful

communication. Writing is expressive if it says what the students want it to

say in the situation. The teacher should enlighten normal purposes of writing

to the students so as to let them compose expressive writing. Normal

purposes of writing to be informed are categorized into two main headings:

 18

Practical (everyday living, social contact, getting and giving information,

study purposes) and Creative (entertainment, self-expression).

Based on this citation, it can be implied that teaching writing is an activity which

consists of a gradual process. The process begins from learning the conventions of

writing until the student writers are eventually free to express ideas in readable

and comprehensible writing with the intention of communication.

Furthermore, in teaching writing, the teacher should take some considerations in

determining the type of writing that should be studied and written by the students.

According to Harmer (1998), the teacher should consider students’ age and level

in choosing the type of writing for the students to do. For instance, when the

students are still beginners, the teacher can ask them to write a simple description

of their family. In addition, the teacher can provide writing task that is suitable to

students’ interest. For instance, if the student wants to work as a secretary, the

teacher can choose to get them writing formal letters.

Additionally, Harmer (1998) explains that the teacher should try to get the

students writing in a number of common everyday styles, such as writing

postcards, letters of various kinds, writing reports, magazine articles, et cetera.

The teacher can also ask the students to write text types, such as dialogues, play

scripts, advertisements, or poems. In sum, it is possible for the teacher to teach

any kind of writing to the students as long as it is adjusted to their age, level, or

interest. In accordance with these theories, the type of writing selected as writing
 19

task for this present study was adjusted to the students’ level at the university;

therefore, an essay was administered as the writing task.

According to Huxley (1959), an essay can be defined as a literary device for

saying almost everything about almost anything. By tradition, an essay is also

known as a short piece (Huxley, 1959). Correspondingly, Nordquist (2017)

defines an essay as any short piece of nonfiction. Thus, it can be implied that an

essay is a writing that is composed to explain particular thing and is written based

on facts. Typically, an essay is formatted in five paragraphs as follows:

1. An introductory paragraph

A paragraph that is composed to pique the interest of the reader and identify

the topic and purpose of the essay and often ends with a thesis statement

(Nordquist, 2017).

2. Three body paragraphs

The part of an essay that explains and develops the main idea (or thesis)

(Nordquist, 2017). According to Moore and Cassel (2010), body paragraphs

open with a topic sentence and include evidence, a discussion of the evidence,

and a clear link between the paragraph's subject matter and the thesis claim.

3. A concluding paragraph

A paragraph that brings an essay to a satisfying and logical end (Nordquist,

2017). Kennedy, et al. (2014) explain that a writer can conclude an essay by

following these several options:

• Restate the thesis of the essay

• Mention the broader implications or significance of the topic.

 20

• Give a final example

• Offer a prediction for the future.

• End with the most important point

• Suggest how the reader can apply the information that have been provided.

• End with a bit of drama or flourish.

In the present study, the writing teacher taught the students how to write an essay

and asked them to create an essay. Moreover, instead of demanding the students

to write an essay with similar topic, the teacher allowed them to decide the topic

of their own essays.

2.3. Evaluating Writing

Commonly, the teacher gives an evaluation to students’ writings after they finish

composing their writings. It is done to make sure whether students' writings are

already good or not. The evaluation of the students’ writing quality should be

taken into account by all language teachers and always be done at the end of

writing activity.

The teacher can evaluate the students’ essays by looking at five writing

components, namely content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and

mechanics. Each of these components is weighted differently: content (30 points),

organization (20 points), vocabulary (20 points), language use (25 points), and

mechanics (5 points). The points awarded for each of writing components is based

on the criteria featured in the scale below.

 21

Table 2.1. Jacobs et al. Composition Profile

Student: Date: Topic:

Score Level Criteria Comment

Content 30-27 EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: knowledgeable •
substantive • thorough development of thesis • relevant
to assigned topic

26-22 GOOD TO AVERAGE: some knowledge of subject •

adequate range • limited development of thesis • mostly
relevant to topic, but lacks detail

21-17 FAIR TO POOR: limited knowledge of subject • little

substance • inadequate development of topic

16-13 VERY POOR: does not show knowledge of the subject

• non-substantive • not pertinent • OR not enough to
evaluate

Organization 20-18 EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: fluent expression •

ideas clearly stated/supported • succinct • well-
organized • logical sequencing • cohesive

GOOD TO AVERAGE: somewhat choppy • loosely

17-14 organized, but main ideas stand out • limited support •
logical, but incomplete sequencing

FAIR TO POOR: non-fluent • ideas confused or

13-10 disconnected • lacks logical sequencing and developing

9-7 VERY POOR: does not communicate • no organization

• OR not enough to evaluate

Vocabulary 20-18 EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: sophisticated range •

effective word/idiom choice and usage • word form
mastery • appropriate register

17-14 GOOD TO AVERAGE: adequate range • occasional

errors of word/idiom form, choice, usage but meaning
not obscured

FAIR TO POOR: limited range • frequent errors of

13-10 word/idiom form, choice, usage • meaning confused or
obscured

VERY POOR: essentially translation • little knowledge

9-7 of English vocabulary, idioms, word form • OR not
enough to evaluate

Language 25-22 EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: effective complex

Use constructions • few errors of agreement, tense, number,
word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions

GOOD TO AVERAGE: effective but simple

constructions • minor problems in complex
 22

21-18 constructions • several errors of agreement, tense,

number, word order/function, articles, pronouns,
prepositions but meaning seldom obscured

FAIR TO POOR: major problems in simple

constructions • frequent errors of negation, agreement,
17-11 tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns,
prepositions and/or fragments, run-ons, deletions
meaning confused or obscured

VERY POOR: virtually no mastery of sentence

10-5 construction rules • dominated by errors • does not
communicate • OR not enough to evaluate

Mechanics 5 EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: demonstrates

mastery of conventions • few errors of spelling,
punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing

4 GOOD TO AVERAGE: occasional errors of spelling,

punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing but meaning
not obscured

FAIR TO POOR: frequent errors of spelling,

3 punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing • poor
handwriting • meaning confused or obscured

VERY POOR: no mastery of conventions • dominated

2 by errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization,
paragraphing • handwriting illegible • OR not enough to
evaluate
Total Score Reader Comment

Source: From Assessing Writing (p. 116), by Weigle, 2002.

Eventually, the researcher referred to the scale above to evaluate the students’

essays. This scale was chosen because it provides detailed information about the

students’ performance in different aspects of writing and it has been adopted by

numerous college-level writing programs (Weigle, 2002).

2.4. Editing and Feedback

Editing is one of the stages included in writing process. Hale (2013) states that

editing involves the close-up view of individual sentences and words and it needs
 23

to be done after the writers have made revisions on a big scale. Based on this

definition, it can be noted that editing is different from revising. Revising allows

us to check the whole arrangement of our text, whereas editing lets us make sure

the small part of the text such as sentence, word, or punctuation is in the right

form and position.

Editing usually couples with feedback given by an editor or writers’ colleagues.

Ur (1991) defines feedback as information that is given to the learner about his or

her performance of a learning task, usually with the objective of improving this

performance. Correspondingly, Hattie and Timperley (2007) describe feedback as

information provided by an agent regarding aspects of one’s performance or

understanding. Therefore, it can be inferred that feedback is a response (i.e.

comments and suggestions) given to work or task done by the learner so as to

make her or his performance better.

There are three things which can be given by feedback providers to writers, they

are positive, negative, and constructive feedback. Positive feedback refers to

feedback which motivates the writer to keep writing (Cole, 2006), while negative

feedback is defined as feedback which is designed to 'fix' your 'mistakes' as a

writer (Edel, 2010), and constructive feedback is feedback which highlights how a

writer could do better next time (Landsberg, 2003). Based on these definitions, it

can be implied that positive, negative, and constructive feedback serve different

purposes. It appears that positive feedback might boost up writers' self-confidence

and encourage them to continue writing. Negative feedback, on the other hand, is
 24

given to make writers aware of writing mistakes. Meanwhile, constructive

feedback is provided to help writers correct their writing mistakes so that they are

able to improve the quality of their writings.

According to Lanley (2010), there are some models of positive feedback which

can be used by feedback providers. The models are presented as follows.

 This thesis statement is very clear. When I read it, I know exactly what your
essay will be about.
 This paragraph is full of details. This one even made me laugh. This one gave
me a clear image in my mind.
 Your introduction really grabbed my attention. I wanted to keep reading.
 This transition word is perfect for shifting to the next main idea.
 I love how you wrapped up all the main points at the end. Your clincher was
very strong.
 Great use of comma and a conjunction to join to independent clauses!
 This is a superb word choice.
 Wow, there are no run-on sentences in this entire essay.
 You didn’t get tricked by the its/it’s thing. Good job!

Furthermore, Brookhart (2008) provides some examples of negative feedback

which can be used by feedback providers as follows.

 This report probably wouldn’t convince a reader who didn’t already agree
we should recycle. What else could you do to make a more convincing
argument?
 You didn’t answer the second part of the question. How would you know if
you had all possible combinations?
 Did you check your spelling? See if you can find two misspelled words.

Moreover, the following are examples of constructive feedback suggested by

Eaglescliffe (2017).

 I found the first chapter very difficult to follow as there were so many new
characters being introduced every few lines.
 The action in the opening chapter needs to be made more focused and easier
to follow.
 Perhaps you could concentrate on the action of a few key characters and
introduce others in the next chapter?
 25

 This would result in a much clearer narrative and I would be more engaged
in the story.

In relation to these examples, it can be stated that positive, negative, and

constructive feedback given by feedback providers should be specific. Specific

feedback will help writers improve by addressing their strengths and weaknesses

directly (Hockett, 2017). The examples also illustrate that feedback should be

clear and concise (Chando, 2015). Additionally, feedback providers should deliver

feedback carefully through language which is not offensive and upsetting so that

writers will not get annoyed or distress.

Evidently, feedback provision on writing process is still being a debatable issue

among researchers. There are several scholars who make claims about the

ineffectiveness of feedback, for example Semke (1984 as cited in Beuningen et

al., 2008) who conducted a study to compare the effects of error correction to the

effects of content-focused comments and discovered that error correction had no

effect on students’ accuracy and a negative effect on their written fluency.

Another example is Truscott (1996) who declares that written corrective feedback

is ineffective and potentially harmful.

In contrast, some scholars argue that feedback provision on writing process does

not cause unfavourable circumstance to language learners. Abadikhah and

Ashoori (2012), for example, found that the students who received written

feedback on their productions outperformed those who did not receive feedback.

In addition, Chandler’s study (2003) revealed that having the teacher either
 26

correct or underline for student self-correction all the grammatical and lexical

errors in the autobiographical writing, followed by revision, resulted in a

significant improvement in both accuracy and fluency. Furthermore, Tootkaboni

and Khatib (2014) discovered that direct feedback strategies could have a positive

role on improving writing accuracy short term and indirect feedback strategies

were effective in long run.

Based on these explanations, it can be inferred that various scholars have

dissimilar opinions about feedback provision on writing process. These varieties

of judgement show that the effectiveness of feedback provision is regarded as a

contentious matter and this offers a chance for further study. Therefore, the

researcher believes that a study regarding the effectiveness of feedback provision

on writing process is still necessary to be conducted.

2.5. Peer Feedback

Feedback can be classified into two common types, namely teacher and peer

feedback. The former is defined as feedback from a source (the teacher) to a

recipient in the form of information about the correctness, accuracy, or

appropriateness of the recipient's past performance (Mottet, 2008 as cited in

Maarof et al., 2011). The latter, in contrast, refers to students’ engagement in the

process of providing and receiving as well as sharing of comments and

suggestions for the improvement of their peers’ work (Gedera, 2012).

 27

These days, peer feedback is far preferable to be implemented in writing course

since its benefits have been demonstrated by a number of scholars. Falchikov

(1995 as cited in Lee and Liu, 2013) argues that it is highly beneficial for students

to receive the feedback of others, and it enhances their reflective and analytical

abilities. Likewise, Tsui and Ng (2000) claim peer feedback allows the students

learn more about writing by reading their peers’ written drafts and raise their

awareness of the weaknesses in their own writings.

Furthermore, Miao et al.’s study (2006) revealed that peer feedback is beneficial

in encouraging learner autonomy. Hirose (2008 as cited in Kunwongse, 2013) also

states that the results of dynamic interactions between peers during peer feedback

sessions can cover multiple functions such as asking questions, giving additional

related information, making suggestions, enhances students to work

cooperatively, benefit from each other, improve their writing, and communication

skills in English. In addition, Ion et al. (2016) point out that peer feedback helps

students to better learn, develop their competencies, get engaged with the learning

process, and increase their self-regulation abilities.

However, in spite of these benefits, peer feedback that is conducted face-to-face

still has several drawbacks. Sadat et al. (2016) mention that even though

conventional peer feedback can assist students in learning language structures and

expressions, there is possibility for their anxiety to be provoked. Likewise,

Rollinson (2005) states that some students may not feel comfortable with certain

aspects of the social interaction demanded by peer feedback. It is potential for

 28

certain students to feel uneasy when they are told to provide peer feedback face-

to-face. Furthermore, Rollinson (2005) explains that the teacher will not be able to

oversee all students simultaneously through conventional peer feedback. The

limited opportunity for teachers to monitor the feedback provided by the students

might bring up teachers’ doubts and concerns in shifting responsibility to the

students. Among these drawbacks, the main weakness of conventional peer

feedback is possibly time constraints. According to Rollinson (2005), the

implementation of face-to-face peer feedback might be interrupted due to time

constraints. Consequently, this condition might affect the quality of feedback

given by the students.

Based on these citations, it can be inferred that the implementation of peer

feedback should be carried out outside of the class and done through a medium

that allows the students to provide their feedback anytime and anywhere and lets

the teacher to monitor the students’ feedback; that is an internet.

2.6. Facebook-mediated Feedback

Facebook-mediated feedback can be regarded as a form of advancement in the

study of feedback. Nowadays, it is possible to implement Facebook-mediated

feedback due to the existence of Facebook and internet. Researches have shown

that providing and receiving feedback online is beneficial for the students. It can

improve students’ motivation in learning to write in English and the quality of

their written texts (Hiền, 2008). Specifically, it also helps the students gain some

improvement in their sentence structure, grammar, and vocabulary and encourages

 29

them to make the corrections to the errors committed (Yoke et al., 2013).

Moreover, online peer feedback helps the students in developing their writing

skills and benefits them in improving English writing, such as pointing out the

weakness in their compositions and getting more information to enrich their

minds (Xing, 2014).

Apparently, there is a chance for Facebook-mediated feedback to be employed in

two different kinds of learning environment: synchronous and asynchronous.

Higley (2013) explains that synchronous learning offers students and teachers

with multiple ways of interacting, sharing, and the ability to collaborate and ask

questions in real-time through synchronous learning technologies. The examples

of synchronous media include video conferencing, webcasts, interactive learning

models, and telephone conferences (Er et al., 2009 and eLearners.com, 2012 as

cited in Higley, 2013). Meanwhile, Hrastinski (2008) notes that asynchronous

learning supports work relations among learners and with teachers even when

participants cannot be online at the same time. The media that can facilitate

asynchronous learning include email and discussion board. In short, it can be said

that asynchronous learning offers more flexibility than synchronous learning.

When the students are required to provide feedback, time flexibility might be

something that is badly needed by them. Therefore, the teacher can put into

practice asynchronous learning over synchronous learning.

Other than email and discussion board, Facebook can facilitate asynchronous

learning as well. Facebook is a well-known social networking service and has

been confirmed as the world’s largest social network with over 1.4 billion active
 30

users (Mehra, 2015). Anyone can register themselves to the site and communicate

with people from different country since it is accessible worldwide, including in

Indonesia. Facebook is incredibly popular among students. A research conducted

by Pempek et al. (2009) even showed that students use Facebook approximately

30 minutes throughout the day as part of their daily routine, regardless of how

busy they were. Facebook is useful for educational activity as well since it enables

the teacher to create a group whose members are the students. The teacher may

utilize Facebook Group as an online classroom. Within Facebook Group, the

members can share updates, photos, documents and more under specific settings

of the theirs choosing (Petronzio, 2013) and they can engage in more in-depth

discussions (Sherman, 2010). Moreover, the teacher is able to be the administrator

of a group and can monitor the discussions held by the students. Thus, the

researcher assumes that Facebook might be a great site for the application of

online peer feedback since it is well-liked and allows the teacher to build an

online community as a place for discussions for the students.

Several studies have been managed to explore the effectiveness of Facebook for

online peer feedback. Shukor and Noordin’s study (2014) revealed that students

participated in Facebook collaborative writing groups displayed slightly higher

scores compared to face-to-face collaborative writing groups. Similarly, Wichadee

(2013) found that feedback that is given on Facebook had an effect on improving

students’ revised drafts and the students gave positive attitude on the use of

Facebook for peer feedback in the English class. Ratna Nurlia (personal

communication, August 27th, 2016) also discovered that online peer feedback
 31

through Closed Group Facebook could contribute to the improvement of students’

writing skills. Moreover, Yusof et al.’s study (2012) showed that online

discussions and peer feedback via Facebook Notes were considered as interesting

and not a burden by the students. Based on these previous studies, it can be

implied that providing and receiving feedback through Facebook might be

beneficial for developing the quality of the students’ writings and making them

feel at ease in providing feedback.

2.7. Writing Anxiety

Over the years, many scholars have proposed various definitions of anxiety.

According to Zeidner and Matthews (2011), anxiety is a psychological state in

which the person’s sense of uneasy suspense and worry is triggered by ambiguous

circumstances. Furthermore, it refers to general feelings of uneasiness and distress

about an unspecified, diffuse, uncertain, and often formless form of threat or

danger (Zeidner and Matthews, 2011). Meanwhile, Krech and Crutchfield (1965

cited in Kouidou-Giles and McKee, 1971) perceive anxiety as "a state of

apprehension by the person in which the source is usually not as specifically

perceived as in fear: it often pertains to anticipations of future danger, such as

punishment, or threats to self esteem. Anxiety typically leads to defensive

reactions intended to allay or avoid the anxiety". Correspondingly, Zeidner and

Matthews (2011) state that anxiety is often future-oriented; often, it accompanies

concerns over possible disasters that the person anticipates. Based on these

citations, it can be inferred that anxiety is a disturbing emotion suffered by an

individual due to bad thought over particular event.

 32

Anxiety can interfere in anyone’s life, including college students. Hoffman (2015)

notes that anxiety has always played a role in the developmental drama of a

student’s life, however nowadays it has surpassed depression as the most common

mental health diagnosis among college students. With regard to education, anxiety

can play significant role in students’ learning and academic performance (Tobias,

1979 as cited in Fatma, 2015). Fatma (2015), in her study, found that anxiety had

an impact on students’ academic achievement in which it decreased learning

capabilities and hindered excellent academic performance. Furthermore, Lyneham

(2009) mentions other academic consequences of anxiety, such as 1) anxiety leads

to poor academic performance and under achievement, 2) anxiety leads to poor

engagement in class, 3) anxiety leads to school refusal, 4) anxiety leads to drop

out, and 5) academic consequences lead to long term economic losses for

individual and society. Moreover, it appears that anxiety can be categorized into

three types:

1. Trait anxiety

It is recognized as a more permanent predisposition to be anxious (Scovel,

1978 as cited in Ellis, 1994). It is viewed as an aspect of personality (Ellis,

1994).

2. State anxiety

It is a kind of appehension that is experienced at a particular moment as a

response to a definite situation (Spielberger, 1983 as cited in Ellis, 1994).

This kind of anxiety is a combination of trait and situation-specific anxiety

(Ellis, 1994).
 33

3. Situation-specific anxiety

It is defined as anxiety which is aroused by a specific type of situation or

event such as public speaking, exams, or class participation (Ellis, 1994).

In the case of language learning, anxiety suffered by ESL or EFL students is

labeled as situation-specific anxiety, since it is occured in well-defined situation

(MacIntyre and Gardner, 1991). Obviously, one of the language learning activities

which could potentially brings up ESL or EFL students' anxiety is writing.

Foreign language students who attend a writing course often experience writing

anxiety; which can be defined as the negative feelings that writers have when they

attempt to produce ideas and words (Wynne, 2010). Furthermore, Wynne (2010)

adds that writing anxiety can prevent writers from being successful in their

writing. In other words, the presence of writing anxiety might hinder the process

of writing a text. Essentially, there are three-dimensional conceptualizations of

writing anxiety:

1. Somatic Anxiety

Somatic anxiety refers to one’s perception of the physiological effects of the

anxiety experience, as reflected in increased autonomic arousal of unpleasant

feelings, such as nervousness and tension (Morris, Davis, and Hutchings,

1981 as cited in Cheng, 2004).

2. Avoidance Behavior

Avoidance behavior refers to the behavioural aspect in the avoidance of

writing (McKain, 1991 as cited in Cheng, 2004).

3. Cognitive Anxiety
 34

Cognitive anxiety refers to the mental aspect of anxiety experience, including

negative expectations, preoccupation with performance and concern about

others’ perception (Morris, Davis, and Hutchings, 1981 as cited in Cheng,

2004).

Based on these dimensions, Cheng (2004) has developed a scale called Second

Language Writing Anxiety Inventory (SLWAI) to identify students’ writing

anxiety which contains items relating to increased physiological arousal (somatic

anxiety); indicative of avoidance behavior (avoidance behavior); and items that

deal with perception of arousal and, in particular, worry or fear of negative

evaluation (Cheng 2004). This scale has been used widely by a lot of researchers

to examine writing anxiety, both in the ESL (Foroutan and Noordin, 2012; Golda,

2015) and EFL context (Jafari et al, 2014; Kurt and Atay, 2007; Yastibas and

Yastibas, 2015).

Based on the citations above, it can be stated that anxiety plays a role in

educational process. It was reported that anxiety might influence students’

behaviour in the class, students’ academic performance, and even hinder the

process of writing a text.

2.8. Teaching Writing Procedure Modified with Facebook-mediated

Feedback

For the present study, the researcher constructed a teaching writing procedure that

was modified with Facebook-mediated feedback. The procedure was constructed

 35

based on McKensie and Tomkins’s theory (1984) and the procedure of face-to-

face peer review proposed by Bhatnagar (2016) as follows.

1. The teacher divides students into groups of 4, if the project is an individual

project. For group projects, the teacher combines 3 groups to make one big

group. In each big group there will be a presenter group and the rest of the

students form the audience.

2. The presenter(s) present the project to the audience.

3. Clarify - The audience asks clarifying questions to help fully understand and

the presenter(s) responds.

4. Value – Audience members discuss what they liked and say something nice

about what they saw/heard. Presenters take notes.

5. Concerns – Audience members discuss their concerns with each other.

Presenters take notes.

6. Reflect – Presenters reflect on the feedback. Audience listens.

7. Suggest – Audience shares ideas and suggestions. Presenters may respond

and take notes.

8. Repeat steps 2 – 7 for each presenter group.

9. Students return to their projects and incorporate at least two of the

suggestions they received.

The teaching writing procedure that was modified with Facebook-mediated

feedback is illustrated as follows.

 Pre-Writing

1. The teacher tells the students to create an essay.

 36

2. The teacher asks the students to form groups of three to four students

and informs them that they will provide feedback on each other’s

essay on Facebook group.

3. The teacher lists students’ Facebook account and sends a friend

request to their account. The students must accept teacher’s friend

request by following the steps below:

1) Login to your Facebook account

2) Click ‘Friend Requests’ icon in the big blue bar on top of your

Facebook page.

3) Click ‘Confirm’ button to accept the friend request.

4. After being mutual friend with the students on Facebook, the teacher
adds their Facebook accounts into ‘Write Art’ Facebook Group by
following these steps:
1) The teacher logs in to her Facebook account.
2) The teacher goes to ‘Write Art’ Facebook Group, then click
‘Members’ below the group photo and click ‘Add’ to add them to
the group.
5. The students start organizing ideas and make the outline of the essay.

 Drafting
 37

1. The teacher asks the students to compose their essays in the form of
Microsoft Office Word and name their files in this format: student’s
name_group number_draft number (for example: Shirtha El
Rusyda_3_1).
2. The students compose their essays.

 Revising
1. The students submit their essays in Facebook Group on the
scheduled day by following the instruction below.
How to submit your essay in ‘Write Art’ Facebook Group
1) Login to your Facebook account

2) Search and click ‘Write Art’ group

3) At ‘Write Art’ group, click ‘More’ => ‘Add File’ at the top.

4) Click ‘Choose File’ to select an essay from your computer and

then click ‘Post’
 38

2. The students shall provide feedback by following the instruction

below.
How to provide feedback on your group member’s essay
1) Search your group member’s essay (for example: Shirtha El
Rusyda_3_1) and click ‘Download’.

2) Save the file into your computer and open it.

3) Read the essay thoroughly and provide your feedback in English

on the comment box below the essay that you have downloaded.

4) The feedback must be specific and related to five aspects of

writing, namely:
a. Content
 Does the introduction include a thesis statement?
 39

 Are the examples provided by the writer relevant to the

thesis statement?
 Does the conclusion link back to the thesis statement?
 ...
b. Organization
 Does the essay has an inviting title?
 Does the essay contain an introduction, developmental
paragraphs, and a conclusion?
 Are the paragraphs well-organized and logically
sequenced?
 Has the writer provided any transitional words and
phrases?
 ...
c. Vocabulary
 Do you find any incorrect word usage in the essay?

 Are there any words that could be replaced so that ideas

become clearer?
 ...
d. Language Use
 Are there any grammatical inaccuracies?
 Do you find any sentences with unclear meaning?
 ...
e. Mechanics
 Do you find any incorrect spellings in the essay?
 Do you see any incorrect punctuation marks and
capitalizations in the essay?
 ...
5) Feedback provided shall cover three things: you point out what
you like from the essay (Value), you tell your concerns about
the essay (Concerns), and share your ideas and suggestions for
the improvement of the essay (Suggestions).
 40

6) You are allowed to ask clarifying questions to the owner of the

essay on the comment box to help fully understand its content.

 Editing
1. The students reflect on the feedback.
2. The students edit their essay by following the instruction below.
1) You shall return to your essay after receiving the feedback.
2) You are required to edit your essay and incorporate at least two
of the suggestions you received.
3) The edited essay must be submitted to the teacher on the
scheduled day in form of hard and soft copy.

 Publishing
After the students edit their essays, they might display their writings on the
wall magazine.

The reseacher made an attempt to implement the teaching writing procedure that

was modified with Facebook-mediated feedback and has been illustrated above in

the present study.

2.9. Advantages and Disadvantages of Facebook-mediated Feedback

Implementing Facebook-mediated feedback might offer some advantages and

disadvantages. Since Facebook-mediated feedback utilizes technology (such as

computer and the internet) on its implementation, the advantages which can be

attained are:

1. The ability to give feedback anytime and anywhere.

2. The students can feel more comfortable in providing feedback.

 41

3. The students can have the ability to multitask; they can do another thing

while giving feedback.

On the other hand, the use of technology may present some disadvantages, such

as:

1. Unpredictably, the students might encounter a blackout while providing

feedback through internet.

2. Sometimes, the data sent through the internet cannot be delivered due to

system error or the servers go down.

2.10. Theoretical Assumption

Since some previous studies, for instance Wichadee’s (2013) and Hiền’s study

(2008), have demonstrated the benefit of utilizing online peer feedback, the

researcher assumes that the implementation of Facebook-mediated feedback will

facilitate the students in improving the quality of their writings. Furthermore, it is

assumed that there will be differences in the students' writing quality according to

the predominant dimension of writing anxiety they suffer from since Cheng

(2004) explains that each dimension of writing anxiety comes with dissimilar

symptoms. The researcher presumes that the dissimilar symptoms of writing

anxiety will affect the quality of students' writings differently. Additionally, it is

presumed that the students will provide positive, negative, and constructive

feedback clearly and specifically like what have been illustrated by Lanley (2010),

Brookhart (2008), and Eaglescliffe (2017).

 42

2.11. Hypotheses

The researcher would like to formulate hypotheses which are presented as

follows:

1. The students' writing quality will be different after being given Facebook-

mediated feedback.

2. There will be differences in the students' writing quality according to the

predominant dimension of writing anxiety they suffer from.

3. The students will provide positive, negative, and constructive feedback on

their friends’ writings.

2.12. Limitation of the Study

The researcher modified the teaching writing procedure with Facebook-mediated

feedback in the present study. Moreover, the modification was adjusted and

applied to English Language Teaching (ELT) students. Hence, during the

implementation of Facebook-mediated feedback, the ELT students must provide

their feedback in English and the feedback should be related to five aspects of

writing (namely content, organization, vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics) and

should cover positive, negative, and constructive feedback.

In sum, this chapter has presented works of literature which might support the

results of this study. In the next chapter, the researcher will explain the methods

that were used to discover answers for the research questions presented in Chapter

1.
 III. METHODS

This chapter discusses matters concerning about research design, variables of the

research, population and sample of the research, instruments of the research,

validity and reliability of the instruments, research procedure, data analysis, and

hypotheses testing. Further explanation of the contents can be seen below.

3.1. Research Design

This research was carried out quantitatively and qualitatively. The research design

employed to find out the students’ writing quality after being given Facebook-

mediated feedback and writing anxiety differences in writing quality on the

implementation of Facebook-mediated feedback was presented as follows:

L1
T1 X T2 L2
L3

Note:
T1 = Time 1
T2 = Time 2
X = Facebook-mediated Feedback
L1, L2, L3 = Dimensions of writing anxiety

(Setiyadi, 2006)
 44

In Time 1, the researcher collected students’ first drafts to know their prior writing

quality before the treatment began. After that, the researcher conducted Facebook-

mediated feedback as the treatment. In time 2, students’ final drafts were collected

to examine their writing quality after the treatment was carried out. Then,

students' writing quality were distinguished according to the predominant

dimension of writing anxiety they suffer from. In addition, the researcher

observed, studied, and identified the students’ feedback that were posted on

‘Write Art’ Facebook Group to discover how they provided feedback on their

friends’ writings.

3.2. Variables

There are three kinds of variable presented in this research: independent,

dependent, and intervening variable. Independent variable is defined as a variable

the experimenter manipulates (i.e. changes) assumed to have a direct effect on the

dependent variable (McLeod, 2008). The independent variable of this research

was Facebook-mediated feedback. Meanwhile, dependent variable is a variable

the experimenter measures, after making changes to the independent variable that

are assumed to affect the dependent variable (McLeod, 2008). Students’ writing

quality was the dependent variable of this research. Setiyadi (2006) states that

intervening variable is a variabel which affects the relation between the dependant

variable and independent variable. The intervening variable of this research was

students’ writing anxiety.

 45

3.3. Population and Sample

This research was carried out at English Language Teaching Study Program in

Lampung University. Particularly, the researcher gathered the data from English

majors who took Intermediate Writing as compulsory subject. Therefore, the

population of this research was all intermediate students of English Language

Teaching Study Program of Lampung University. The researcher chose one

intermediate class as the sample of this research. Eventually, thirty-one B class

students who took Intermediate Writing as a compulsory subject participated in

this research.

3.4. Instruments

There are two kinds of instrument used by the researcher in the present study. The

instruments are presented as follows:

1. Writing Task

The researcher employed writing task to investigate the difference in the

students’ writing quality after the implementation of Facebook-mediated

feedback. For this task, each student was required to compose an essay. The

students’ essays submitted before the treatment began were considered as

their first drafts. Meanwhile, the essays that had been revised and edited after

the treatment were considered as the students’ final drafts. The task was given

by the Intermediate Writing lecturer.

2. Second Language Writing Anxiety Inventory

Second Language Writing Anxiety Inventory (SLWAI) developed by Cheng

(2004) was distributed by the researcher to find out the dimension of writing
 46

anxiety. SLWAI is a 22-items questionnaire that has been used widely by

scholars to identify both ESL and EFL students’ writing anxiety. It is

formatted in five-point Likert Scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree), 2

(disagree), 3 (uncertain), 4 (agree), 5 (strongly agree). There are seven items

(1, 4, 7, 17, 18, 21, and 22) negatively worded in this questionnaire, thus

reversed score was used in analyzing these items. After scoring the responses

of each item of the questionnaire, the researcher calculated the mean of each

dimension of writing anxiety. Afterwards, the researcher examined the

predominant dimension of writing anxiety that was experienced by each

student through comparing the mean of each dimension of writing anxiety

and identifying the highest mean among the dimensions.

3.5. Validity and Reliability

According to Fraenkel and Wallen (2009) validity refers to the appropriateness,

meaningfulness, correctness, and usefulness of the inferences a researcher makes.

Validity comes in various types, such as face validity, content validity, construct

validity and empirical validity (Heaton, 1988). In measuring the validity of

instruments, the reseacher employed content and construct validity. Content

validity can be defined as a consistency of the content and format of the

instrument with the definition of the variable and the sample of subjects to be

measured, whereas construct validity is “the nature of the psychological construct

or characteristic being measured by the instrument” (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2009).

Meanwhile, reliability refers to the consistency of scores or answers from one

administration of an instrument to another, and from one set of items to another

 47

(Fraenkel and Wallen, 2009). It is necessary to ensure the instruments used for

collecting the data are valid and reliable. Thus, the validity and reliability of

instruments formerly mentioned will be presented as follows.

3.5.1. Validity and Reliability of Writing Task

The type of writing chosen for the task was adjusted to the students’ learning

contract and their level, that was Intermediate level, to obtain the content validity.

At the time of the research, the students learned how to write an essay from the

Intermediate Writing lecturer. Therefore, after studying the theory of essay

production, the lecturer instructed the students to compose an essay as their

writing task. Meanwhile, the construct validity were obtained by employing

Jacobs et al’s theory (1981 as cited in Weigle, 2002) about aspects of writing to

evaluate the students’ essays. Aspects of writing that were evaluated can be seen

in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1. Specification for Aspects of Writing

No Aspect Percentage
1. Content 30%
2. Organization 20%
3. Vocabulary 20%
4. Language Use 25%
5. Mechanics 5%
Total 100%

Furthermore, inter-rater reliability was used to identify the reliability of the essay.

The researcher and her colleague, Fefiyana, S.Pd., acted as the raters and

evaluated each of essay made by the students. The researcher checked the

reliability of the essay through Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 23.0
 48

for Windows and used the following standard of reliability to perceive its

reliability.

 A very low reliability ranges from 0.00 to 0.19

 A low reliability ranges from 0.20 to 0.39

 An average reliability ranges from 0.40 to 0.59

 A high reliability ranges from 0.60 to 0.79

 A very high reliability ranges from 0.80 to 0.100

Table 3.2. Results of the Inter-reliability of First Drafts

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.972 2

The results of SPSS calculation above showed that the reliability of the students’

first drafts was 0.97. Therefore, it can be believed that the reliability of their first

drafts was very high as the standard of very high reliability ranges from 0.80 to

0.100.

Table 3.3. Results of the Inter-reliability of Final Drafts

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.964 2

The results of SPSS calculation above showed that the reliability of the students’

final drafts was 0.96. Based on the results, it can be believed that the reliability of

their final drafts was very high as the standard of very high reliability ranges from

0.80 to 0.100.
 49

3.5.2. Validity and Reliability of Second Language Writing Anxiety Inventory

Content validity was attained from this inventory since it was specifically

developed by Cheng (2004) to measure and identify the students’ writing anxiety.

In addition, the researcher used experts’ judgement to verify the content of the

inventory. The researcher asked the help of her advisors to examine the items of

SLWAI which have been translated into Indonesian. The reasons the researcher

chose the first advisor to judge the content of the inventory are that he has long

experience of teaching writing and has contributed an international article as well

as a book that deals with writing. Furthermore, the researcher chose the second

advisor to examine the content of SLWAI because he has had lots of experience

in teaching English and is very knowledgeable about anxiety and has published a

book whose content discusses about anxiety.

Based on the experts’ judgement, the researcher was allowed to administer the

inventory, yet she was suggested by one of the advisors to change the translation

of item number 12. Therefore, the researcher asked the aid of her colleagues to

evaluate the translation of item number 12, then she altered the translation before

conducting the research. Moreover, Cheng (2004) states that there are three-

dimensional conceptualization of writing anxiety, namely somatic anxiety,

avoidance behavior, and cognitive anxiety. These three dimensions were

measured by the inventory to fulfill the construct validity and their specifications

can be seen in Table 3.4.

 50

Table 3.4. Specification for SLWAI

No Dimension Number of items Percentage

1. Somatic Anxiety 2, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 19 32%
2. Avoidance Behavior 4, 5, 10, 12, 16, 18, 22 32%
3. Cognitive Anxiety 1, 3, 7, 9, 14, 17, 20, 21 36%
Total 22 items 100%

For its reliability, Cheng’s study (2004) revealed that the Cronbach alpha

coefficient of SLWAI was .91 when it was tested to Taiwanese EFL learners.

Nevertheless, the researcher decided to calculate the reliability of SLWAI over

again through Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 23.0 for Windows

and used the following standard of reliability to identify its reliability.

 A very low reliability ranges from 0.00 to 0.19

 A low reliability ranges from 0.20 to 0.39

 An average reliability ranges from 0.40 to 0.59

 A high reliability ranges from 0.60 to 0.79

 A very high reliability ranges from 0.80 to 0.100

Table 3.5. Results of the Reliability of SLWAI

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.798 22

The results of SPSS calculation above showed that the reliability of SLWAI was

0.79. Therefore, it can believed that the reliability of SLWAI was high as the

standard of high reliability ranges from 0.60 to 0.79.

 51

3.6. Research Procedure

The researcher followed several procedures in collecting the data. The procedures

are mentioned as follows:

1. Determining research questions

There are several research questions proposed by the researcher: 1) How do

the students’ writing quality differ after being given Facebook-mediated

feedback? 2) How different are the students' writing quality according to the

predominant dimension of writing anxiety they suffer from? 3) How do the

students give feedback on their friends’ writings?

2. Preparing the instruments

Writing task and Second Language Writing Anxiety Inventory (SLWAI)

were prepared as the instruments of this research.

3. Handing out Second Language Writing Anxiety Inventory (SLWAI)

The researcher distributed Second Language Writing Anxiety Inventory

(SLWAI) to find out the students’ type of anxiety.

4. Administering writing task

This was done to figure out the students’ writing quality before the treatment

and the tasks were used as the students’ first drafts.

5. Conducting the treatment

The researcher conducted Facebook-mediated feedback as a treatment. The

researcher conducted this treatment outside the class since the students were

expected to have internet access and use Facebook.

 52

6. Collecting writing task

The students’ writing tasks that had been revised and edited were collected as

final drafts to know their writing quality after the treatment.

7. Analyzing the data

After collecting the data, the researcher analyzed them separately to answer

each research question. The first and the second research question were

analyzed quantitatively, while the third research question was examined

qualitatively by studying the students' feedback that were presented on 'Write

Art' Facebook Group.

3.7. Data Analysis

To figure out the results of the first and the second research question, the

researcher gathered the data and analyzed them through Statistical Package for

Social Sciences (SPSS) 23.0. The answer of each research question was

discovered through different statistical computations. On the other hand, the

findings of the third research question were not discovered through statistical

analysis. The steps of the data analysis are described as follows.

a. First Research Question

To answer the first research question, the researcher analyzed the data by

following these steps:

1. The researcher and the rater graded the students’ first and final drafts

based on five aspects of writing: content, organization, vocabulary,

language use, and mechanics.

 53

2. The researcher tabulated the mean score of the students’ first and final

drafts into SPSS 23.0 and analyzed them using Paired Samples T-Test.

3. Based on the results of the analysis, the researcher drew a conclusion

whether the difference in the students’ writing quality before and after the

treatment is significant.

b. Second Research Question

The researcher analyzed the data by following the steps below to answer the

second research question:

1. The researcher scored responses of each item of the Second Language

Writing Anxiety Inventory (SLWAI).

2. The researcher calculated the mean of each dimension of writing anxiety,

which are somatic anxiety, avoidance behavior, and cognitive anxiety.

3. The researcher compared the mean of each dimension of writing anxiety

and identified the highest mean among the dimensions.

4. The researcher coded the students into '1' for somatic anxiety-student, '2'

for avoidance behavior-student, and '3' for cognitive anxiety-student.

5. The coded data, along with the the mean score of the students’ first and

final drafts, were tabulated into SPSS 23.0 and analyzed using ANOVA.

6. The researcher drew a conclusion whether the differences in the students'

writing quality according to the predominant dimension of writing anxiety

they suffer from are significant.

 54

c. Third Research Question

The following steps were taken in order to answer the third research question:

1. The researcher observed the feedback provided by the students on ‘Write

Art’ Facebook Group.

2. The researcher examined whether the students’ feedback cover positive,

negative, and constructive feedback.

3. The researcher identified whether the students provided feedback clearly

and specifically.

4. The researcher drew a conclusion based on the analysis.

3.8. Hypotheses Testing

The researcher tested the hypothesis of first research question through Paired

Samples T-Test and the hypothesis of second research question through ANOVA

via SPSS 23.0. The hypotheses are:

First Research Question

H0 : There was no significant difference in the students’ writing quality after

being given Facebook-mediated feedback.

H1 : There was a significant difference in the students’ writing quality after

being given Facebook-mediated feedback.

The following criteria was used to find out whether the first hypotheses are

acceptable or not.

H0 = t value < t table

H1 = t value > t table
 55

The researcher will accept H0 if t value is lower than t table, while H1 will be

accepted if t value is higher than t table. and if the two-tailed significance is lower

than the p-value, which is .05.

Second Research Question

H0 : There were no significant differences in the students' writing quality

according to the predominant dimension of writing anxiety they suffer

from.

H1 : There were significant differences in the students' writing quality

according to the predominant dimension of writing anxiety they suffer

from.

The researcher applied the following criteria to test the hypotheses of the second

research question.

H0 = F value < F table

H1 = F value > F table

The researcher will accept H0 if F value is lower than F table, while H1 will be

accepted if F value is higher than F table. and if the two-tailed significance is lower

than .05 (p-value).

Third Research Question

H0 : The students did not provide positive, negative, and constructive

feedback on their friends' writings.

 56

H1 : The students provided positive, negative, and constructive feedback on

their friends' writings.

The researcher will accept H0 if positive, negative, and constructive feedback

cannot be discovered, however the researcher will accept H1 if positive, negative,

and constructive feedback can be discovered.

This chapter has elaborated the methods that were employed by the researcher to

investigate the problems of the present study. Lastly, the results of this research

will be presented in the next chapter.

 V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter presents the conclusions of this research and the suggestions for

English teachers and other researchers who want to conduct any relevant

researches.

5.1. Conclusions

This research investigated three points, namely the difference in the students’

writing quality after the implementation of Facebook-mediated feedback, the

differences in the students' writing quality according to the predominant type of

writing anxiety they suffer from, and students’ feedback on their friends’ writings.

The conclusion of each point will be elaborated as follows.

The researcher modified the face-to-face peer feedback into Facebook-mediated

feedback and was interested in examining whether there is any difference in the

students’ writing quality after the implementation of Facebook-mediated

feedback. The results of the research revealed that there was a significant

difference in the students’ writing quality after the implementation of Facebook-

mediated feedback. In relation to the results, it can be concluded that the

implementation of Facebook-mediated feedback can facilitate foreign language

students to make some positive development in their writing quality. In other

 85

words, the students can refine the quality of their writings and become better

writers than before.

Moreover, writing in foreign language makes the students experience different

dimensions of writing anxiety, such as somatic anxiety, avoidance behavior, and

cognitive anxiety. Hence, the researcher desired to find out the differences in the

students' writing quality according to the predominant dimension of writing

anxiety they suffer from. It was discovered that there were no significant

differences in the students' writing quality according to the predominant

dimension of writing anxiety they suffer from. It can be concluded that the

students' writing quality are not affected by the dissimilar predominant dimension

of writing anxiety that they suffer from. Their writing quality are somewhat the

same, even though they experience different predominant dimension of writing

anxiety.

Since the student writers rely a lot on feedback providers, the researcher

investigated the students' feedback on their friends' writings. It was revealed that

the students provided positive, negative, and constructive feedback on their

friends' writings. It can be concluded that the students express willingness to help

their friends improve the quality of their writings by providing beneficial

feedback. Nevertheless, the students lack awareness about the importance of

giving clear and specific feedback as they still presented unclear and unspecific

feedback on their friends’ writings and their incorrect feedback might ruin their

friends’ writings if they are accepted without question.

 86

5.2. Suggestions

This sub-topic presents the suggestions given for English teacher and the other

researchers who would like to conduct any relevant researches.

5.2.1. Suggestions for English Teachers

With regard to the results of the research, the researcher provides several

suggestions for English teachers. Firstly, the implementation of Facebook-

mediated feedback influences students' writing quality positively. Moreover, its

implementation allows the teacher to monitor all students and find out whether all

of them provide feedback on their friends' writings. For these reasons, the

researcher suggests the English teachers to implement Facebook-mediated

feedback in teaching writing. Nevertheless, it is recommended to perform trial

sessions with the intention that the students are well prepared to carry out

Facebook-mediated feedback.

Secondly, this research was conducted on college students. Therefore, it is

suggested that educators who teach English in junior or senior high school make

an attempt to implement Facebook-mediated feedback as its procedure is not

complicated to follow. However, the high school English teachers should firstly

adjust the procedure of Facebook-mediated feedback to the ability and the

knowledge of high school students before applying it.

Thirdly, it was discovered that some feedback given by the students were still

unclear and unspecific. For that reason, the researcher recommends the English
 87

teachers to inform the students regularly that providing clear and specific

feedback to each other’s writing is more helpful than providing unclear and

unspecific feedback. Furthermore, in the post-activity, the teachers are suggested

to explain about clear and specific feedback based on the actual feedback given by

the students. Another shortcoming that was found in this research is some students

still provided incorrect feedback due to inadequate knowledge of the English

language. Hence, the researcher suggests that the English teacher and the students

review the incorrect feedback and put them right together in the post-activity.

5.2.2. Suggestions for Other Researchers

The following are some suggestions provided for other researchers who are

interested in conducting relevant research. First of all, the limitation of the present

research is the number of the sample. The minimum sample size of a research is

thirty. Apparently, there were thirty-one college students who participated in this

research and it can be said that a sample size of thirty-one is not large. For that

reason, it is suggested that further research involve more participants than the

present research.

Furthermore, it is recommended that further research investigate the effect of

Facebook-mediated feedback on students' level of anxiety. It appears that the

Second Language Writing Anxiety Inventory (SLWAI), a questionnaire which

was employed to determine the dimension of writing anxiety in the present study,

can be used to figure out students' level of writing anxiety as well. Therefore, the
 88

researcher suggests that further research explore students' level of anxiety before

and after being given Facebook-mediated feedback.

Additionally, it was found that some students contribute unclear, unspecific, and

incorrect feedback on their friends' writings. Unfortunately, the factors which

cause the students to provide unclear, unspecific, and incorrect feedback was not

investigated in the present research. Hence, the researcher recommends that

further research explore and discover the factors that trigger the students to give

unclear, unspecific, and incorrect feedback.

In brief, the conclusions of this research and the suggestions for other researchers

who want to conduct any relevant researches and English teachers who are

interested to implement Facebook-mediated feedback have been explained in this

chapter.
 REFERENCES

Abadikhah, S. and Ashoori, A. 2012. The Effect of Written Corrective Feedback

on EFL Learners’ Performance after Collaborative Output. Journal of
Language Teaching and Research, 3(1), 118-125.

Asrifan, A. 2015. The Use of Pictures Story in Improving Students’ Ability to

Write Narrative Composition. International Journal of Language and
Linguistics, 3(4), 244-251.

Beuningen et al. 2008. The Effect of Direct and Indirect Corrective Feedback on
L2 Learners’ Written Accuracy. ITL-Review of Applied Linguistics, 156,
279-296.

Bhatnagar, S. 2016. How to Get Students to do Meaningful Peer Review?

Retrieved from https://cs10kcommunity.org/blog/how-to-get-students-to-do-
meaningful-peer-review.

Brookhart, S. M. 2008. How to Give Effective Feedback to Your Students.

Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Brown, K. and Hood, S. 1989. Writing Matters: Writing Skills and Strategies for
Students of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Byrne, D. 1988. Teaching Writing Skills. Harlow: Longman Group UK Ltd.

Chandler, J. 2003. The Efficacy of Various Kinds of Error Feedback for

Improvement in the Accuracy and Fluency of L2 Student Writing. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 12, 267-296.

Chando, J. 2015. How To Give Students Specific Feedback That Actually Helps
Them Learn. Retrieved from https://www.teachthought.com/pedagogy/how-
to-give-students-specific-feedback-that-actually-helps-them-learn/.

Cheng, Y. –S. 2004. A Measure of Second Language Writing Anxiety: Scale

Development and Preliminary Validation. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 13, 313-335.

Cole, J. B. 2006. Toxic Feedback: Helping Writers Survive and Thrive. Lebanon:
University Press of New England.
 90

Daly, J. A. and Miller, M. D. 1975. The Empirical Development of an Instrument

to Measure Writing Apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English,
9(3), 242-249.

Eaglescliffe, B. 2017. Giving and Receiving Feedback in Writing Groups.

Retrieved from https://letterpile.com/writing/Giving-and-Receiving-
Feedback-in-Writers-Groups.

Edel, R. 2010. Writing Workshop Feedback - Positive, Negative, and Progressive.

Retrieved from http://www.12writing.com/2010/03/writing-workshop-
feedback-positive.html.

Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Elola, I. and Oskoz, A. 2010. Collaborative Writing: Fostering Foreign Language

and Writing Conventions Development. Language Learning & Technology,
14(3), 51-71.

Fatma, F. 2015. A Study of Anxiety of Adolescents in Relation to Their Gender,

Locality and Academic Achievement. International Journal of Applied
Research, 1(12), 407-411.

Foroutan, M. and Noordin, N. 2012. Effect of Dialogue Journal Writing through

the Use of Conventional Tools and E-mail on Writing Anxiety in the ESL
Context. English Language Teaching, 5(1), 10-19.

Fraenkel, J. R. and Wallen, N. E. 2009. How to Design and Evaluate Research in

Education. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gedera, D. S. P. 2012. The Dynamics of Blog Peer Feedback in ESL Classroom.

Teaching English with Technology, 12(4), 16-30.

Golda, T. L. 2015. Exploring Reasons for Writing Anxiety: A Survey. The

Journal for English Language and Literary Studies, 5(2), 40-44.

Hale, A. 2013. The Writing Process. Retrieved from https://jmd1234.wordpress.

com/2013/09/05/the-writing-process-by-ali-hale/.

Harmer, J. 1998. How to Teach English. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.

Hassan, B. A. 2001. The Relationship of Writing Apprehension and Self-Esteem

to the Writing Quality and Quantity of EFL University Students. ERIC.

Hattie, J. and Timperley, H. 2007. The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational

Research, 77(1), 81-112.
 91

Heaton, J. B. 1988. Writing English Language Tests. Harlow: Longman Geroup

UK Ltd.

Hiền, H. M. 2008. The Impact of Online Peer Feedback on EFL Learners’

Motivation in Writing and Writing Performance: A Case Study at Can Tho
University. Published M.A. Thesis. Can Tho: Can Tho University.

Higley, M. 2013. Benefits of Synchronous and Asynchronous e-Learning.

Retrieved from https://elearningindustry.com/benefits-of-synchronous-and-
asynchronous-e-learning.

Hockett, C. 2017. Why Specific Feedback is so Important. Retrieved from https://

www.youseeu.com/2017/09/why-specific-feedback-is-so-important/.

Hoffman, J. 2015. Anxious Students Strain College Mental Health Centers. The
New York Times. Retrieved from https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015
/05/27/anxious-students-strain-college-mental-health-centers/.

Hrastinski, S. 2008. Asynchronous and Synchronous e-Learning. Educause

Quarterly, 31(4), 51-55.

Hua, M. 2016. An Investigation on the Influence of Teachers’ Feedback on

Learners’ Anxiety in English Classroom. Atlantis Press, 1169-1172.

Huang, J. 2016. Contribution of Online Peer Review to Effectiveness of EFL

Writing. American Journal of Educational Research, 4(11), 811-816.

Huxley, A. 1959. Collected Essays. New York: Harper & Row.

Ion et al. 2016. Written Peer-Feedback to Enhance Students’ Current and Future
Learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher
Education, 13(15), 1-11.

Iroegbu, M. N. 2013. Effect of Test Anxiety, Gender and Perceived Self-Concept

on Academic Performance of Nigerian Students. International Journal of
Psychology and Counselling, 5(7), 143-146.

Jafari et al. 2014. Iranian EFL Students’ Writing Anxiety: Levels, Causes and
Implications. English for Specific Purposes World, 42(15).

Jordan, R. R. 1999. Academic Writing Course (3rd ed.). Harlow: Pearson

Education Limited.

Kennedy, et al. 2014. The Bedford Reader. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Kouidou-Giles, S. and McKee, G. A. 1971. Anxiety Level of Graduate Students in

Social Work. Dissertations and Theses. Paper 1417.
 92

Kunwongse, S. 2013. Peer Feedback, Benefits and Drawbacks. Thammasat

Review, 16(3), 277-288.

Kurt, G. and Atay, D. 2007. The Effect of Peer Feedback on the Writing Anxiety
of Prospective Turkish Teachers on EFL. Journal of Theory and Practice in
Education, 3(1),12-23.

Landsberg, M. 2003. The Tao of Coaching: Boost Your Effectiveness at Work by

Inspiring and Developing Those Around You. London: Profile Books.

Lanley, J. 2010. Giving Positive Feedback in Writing. Retrieved from https://jimm

iescollage.com/positive-feedback-writing/.

Lee, C. Y. and Liu, E. Z. F. 2013. Using Peer Feedback to Improve Learning via
Onine Peer Assessment. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 12(1), 187-199.

Lyneham, H. 2009. The Impact of Anxiety on Student Performance? Sydney:

Macquarie University.

Maarof, et al. 2011. Role of Teacher, Peer and Teacher-Peer Feedback in

Enhancing ESL Students’ Writing. World Applied Sciences Journal, 15, 29-
35.

MacIntyre, P. D. and Gardner, R. C. 1991. Methods and Results in the Study of

Anxiety and Language Learning: A Review of the Literature. Language
Learning, 41(1), 85-117.

Mazzone et al. 2007. The Role of Anxiety Symptoms in School Performance in a

Community Sample of Children and Adolescents. BMC Public Health, 7,
347.

McKensie, L. and Tomkins, G. E. 1984. Evaluating Students’ Writing: A Process

Approach. Journal of Teaching Writing, 3(2), 201-212.

McLeod, S. A. 2008. Independent, Dependent and Extraneous Variables.

Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/variables.html.

Mehra, G. 2015. 91 Leading Social Networks Worldwide. Retrieved from

http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/86264-91-Leading-Social-
Networks-Worldwide

Miao et al. 2006. A Comparative Study of Peer and Teacher Feedback in a

Chinese EFL Writing Class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179-
200.

Moore, K. and Cassel, S. L. 2010. Techniques for College Writing: The Thesis
Statement and Beyond. Boston: Cengage Learning.
 93

Motallebzadeh, K. and Amirabadi, S. 2011. Online Interactional Feedback in

Second Language Writing: Through Peer or Tutor? Theory and Practice in
Language Studies, 1(5), 534-540.

Nordquist, R. 2016. Five-paragraph Essay. Retrieved from thoughtco.com/five-

paragraph-essay-1690797.

Nordquist, R. 2017. The Essay: History and Definition. Retrieved from

thoughtco.com/what-is-an-essay-p3-1691774.

Nordquist, R. 2017. Examples of Great Introductory Paragraphs. Retrieved from

thoughtco.com/introductory-paragraph-essays-and-reports-1691081.

Nordquist, R. 2017. Body Paragraphs (Composition). Retrieved from thoughtco

.com/body-paragraphs-composition-1689032.

Nordquist, R. 2017. Conclusion in Compositions. Retrieved from thoughtco.com/

what-is-conclusion-composition-1689903.

Nunan, D. 1991. Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers.

London: Prentice Hall International.

Pempek et al. 2009. College Students' Social Networking Experiences on

Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 227–238.

Petronzio, M. 2013. Everything You Wanted to Know About Facebook Groups.

Retrieved from http://mashable.com/2013/01/28/facebook-groups-101/
#0nUTtogSukqz.

Putra, W. H. 2016. The Utilization of Facebook Closed Group Peer Correction in

Teaching Writing. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Bandar Lampung:
University of Lampung.

Rezaei, M. and Jafari, M. 2014. Investigating the Levels, Types, and Causes of
Writing Anxiety among Iranian EFL Students: A Mixed Method Design.
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1545 – 1554.

Rivers, W. M. and Temperley, M. S. 1978. A Practical Guide to the Teaching of

English as a Second or Foreign Language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Rollinson, P. 2005. Using Peer Feedback in the ESL Writing Class. ELT Journal,
59, 23-30.

Sadat et al. 2016. Internet-Mediated Corrective Feedback for Digital Natives.

TESOL Journal, 7(1), 233-245.
 94

Sapkota, A. 2012. Developing Students’ Writing Skill through Peer and Teacher
Correction: An Action Research. Journal of NELTA, 17(1-2), 70-82.

Setiyadi, Ag. B. 2006. Metode Penelitian untuk Pengajaran Bahasa Asing:

Pendekatan Kuantitatif dan Kualitatif. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.

Sherman, A. 2010. Facebook Pages, Groups and Profiles Explained. Retrieved

from https://gigaom.com/2010/01/19/facebook-pages-groups-and-profiles-
explained/.

Shukor, S. S. and Noordin, N. 2014. Effects of Facebook Collaborative Writing

Groups on ESL Undergraduates’ Writing Performance. International
Journal of English Language Education, 2(2), 89-99.

Tootkaboni, A. A. and Khatib, M. 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.

Truscott, J. 1996. The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes.

Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.

Tsui, A. B. M. and Ng, M. 2000. Do Secondary L2 Writers Benefit from Peer

Comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170.

Ur, P. 1991. A Course in Language Teaching. In Williams, M., Wright, T. (Eds.),

Cambridge Teacher Training and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Urquhart, V. and Mclver, M. 2005. Teaching Writing in the Content Areas.

Aurora: McREL.

Vitasari et al. 2010. The Relationship between Study Anxiety and Academic
Performance among Engineering Students. Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 8, 490–497.

Weigle, S. C. 2002. Assessing Writing. In Alderson, J. C., Bachman, L. F. (Eds.),

The Cambridge Language Assessment Series. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Wichadee, S. 2013. Peer Feedback on Facebook: The Use of Social Networking

Websites to Develop Writing Ability of Undergraduate Students. Turkish
Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(4), 260-270.

Wu, W. S. 2006. The Effect of Blog Peer Review and Teacher Feedback on the
Revisions of EFL Writers. Journal of Education and Foreign Languages
and Literature, 3, 125-139.
 95

Wynne, C. 2010. Writing Anxiety. Retrieved from https://academics.utep.edu/

Default.aspx?tabid=65899.

Xing, S. 2014. Application of Online Peer Feedback in the Teaching of College

English Writing. International Conference on Education, Language, Art and
Intercultural Communication, 373-376.

Yastibas, G. C. and Yastibas, A. E. 2015. The Effect of Peer Feedback on

Writing Anxiety in Turkish EFL (English as a Foreign Language) Students.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 530 – 538.

Yoke, et al. 2013. The Use of Online Corrective Feedback in Academic Writing
by L1 Malay Learners. English Language Teaching, 6(12), 175-180.

Yusof, et al. 2012. Guided Peer Feedback via Facebook Notes for Mixed-Ability
ESL Learners in the Process Writing Classroom: An Exploratory Study.
Voice of Academia, 7(1), 14-33.

Zeidner, M. and Matthews, G. 2011. Anxiety 101. New York: Springer Publishing
Company.

Zhang, et al. 2014. The Effects of Blog-Mediated Peer Feedback on Learners’

Motivation, Collaboraion, and Course Satisfaction in A Second Language
Writing Course. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(6),
670-685.

Zhang, L. J. and Rahimi, M. 2014. EFL Learners’ Anxiety Level and Their
Beliefs About Corrective Feedback in Oral Communication Classes. System,
42, 429-439.