Sri Nurhayati


The purpose of this research is to know whether indirect coded feedback gives a better effect on students’ writing ability rather than direct feedback. the design used in this experimental research was randomized group post test only design. The researcher did lottery to every student to divide them into A and B class. Then the experimental group and the control group were randomly chosen by a flip coin. A class or the experimental group was given correction by using codes on the errors they made in their first draft or indirect coded feedback, while B class or control group was given the correct form of the errors or direct feedback on their first draft. The treatments were done three times and the result of post-test then was analyzed. The result of the data analysis that gotten from the statistical computation of the post test result showed that the t-value was higher than that of t-table. This indicated that students who got indirect coded feedback have better writing ability than the students who got direct feedback on their writing.


The Effect; Indirect Coded Feedback; Writing Ability

Full Text:



Ary, D. Introduction to Research in Education. Canada: Nelson Thomson Learning, 2002.

Ashwell, T. Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 2000. 227-258.

Brown, H. D. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. New York: Longman, 2004.

Brown, H.D. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York: Prentice Hall, 2007.

Byrne, D. Teaching Oral English. London: Longman, 1986.

Erel, S, Bulut, D. “Error treatment in l2 writing: a comparative study of direct and indirect coded feedback in Turkish EFL context”. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi Sayı : 22, (2007), 397-415 s.

Ferris, Dana, and Barrie Roberts. “Error Feedback in L2 Writing Classes: How Explicit Does It Need to Be?” Journal of Second Language Writing 10, no. 3 (2001): 161–184.

Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S., Tade, C. R., & Tinti, S. "Teacher commentary on student writing: Descriptions and implications", Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), (1997) 155-182.

Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. "Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?" Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), (2001), 161-184.

Johnson, Keith. An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Pearson Longman, 2008.

Lee, Icy. “Error Correction in L2 Secondary Writing Classrooms: The Case of Hong Kong.” Journal of Second Language Writing 13, no. 4 (December 2004): 285–312. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.08.001.

Leki, I. "The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes". Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), (1991), 203-218.

Lenneberg, E. Biological Foundation of Language. NewYork: Wiley, 1967.

McMillan, J.H. Educational Research. Buckingham: Open University Press, 1992.

Mistar, J. Handout Statistics for Language Teaching. Universitas Islam Malang, 2011.

Reid, Joy. Teaching English Writing. Englewood cliffs, New York: Prentice Hall Regents, 1993.

Robb, Thomas, Steven Ross, and Ian Shortreed. “Salience of Feedback on Error and Its Effect on EFL Writing Quality.” TESOL Quarterly 20, no. 1 (March 1986): 83. doi:10.2307/3586390.

Spratt, Mary, Alan Pulverness, and Melanie Williams. The TKT Course. Cambridge University Press, 2005.

White, R. and Arndt, V. Process Writing.New York: Longman, 1991.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2017 Sri Nurhayati

View My Stats

Flag Counter

Creative Commons License

OKARA journal of languages and literature by
Center of Language Development of STAIN Pamekasan, is an Islamic College in Pamekasan East of Java Indonesia which homebase at Panglegur St, Km. 04 Pamekasan regency is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Based on a work at

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at