Teacher’s and Students’ Attitudes toward Digital Corrective

Feedback on Students’ Writing Quality:

A Case Study at SMA Islam Al Azhar 8 Bekasi

Fitri Dwi Wahyuni

[email protected]
Master Program of English Language Education
Jakarta State University (UNJ)

Abstract
The research was aimed at investigating the teacher’s and students’
attitudes in the aspect of behavior, cognitive, and emotion toward digital
corrective feedback on students’ writing quality. It was also aimed at finding
out the process of corrective feedback provision through Google Docs as a
digital tool in writing Factual Report, and determining the progress of
students’ writing quality. The method used to conduct this study is a case
study. The data were obtained through questionnaire, interview,
observation, and students’ text of writing, which were processed
quantitatively and qualitatively. The findings of study indicate that both
teacher and students showed positive attitudes toward digital corrective
feedback. Furthermore, the feedback provision through Google Docs was
not only implemented in the end of writing, but also it occured during the
writing process. In addition, the corrective feedback itself was given both
explicitly and implicitly in both written and spoken interaction. Then, the
progress of students’ writing quality in terms of content, language use, text
organization, vocabulary, and mechanics of writing, was examined. From
the three texts of student’s writing it was found that the students’ average
score of writing was progressing. The average score of first writing was 85.
The average score of second writing was 88. While the average score of
third writing was 94. It could be concluded that when the students and
teacher showed positive attitudes toward the digital feedback, the progress
of writing quality would be reflected.

Keywords: Teachers’ and Students’ Attitudes, Digital Corrective

Feedback, and Students’ Writing Quality.
 Feedback provision towards students’ errors on written work is an
essential part of English language teaching as Coffin et al. (2003: 102)
stated that the provision of feedback on students' language skills is a central
pedagogic practice. It is defined as corrective feedback which is an essential
component in teaching and learning for further development when it is
appropriately implemented. In conducting corrective feedback, it may arise
questions among the teachers, such as the types of errors should be
corrected, the time for correcting the errors, and the ways of the teachers
correct the errors.
The effectiveness of feedback will depend on the teacher, student,
and the process of feedback provision, as Bloom (1976) in Al-Shehri’s
(2008) stated that feedback is conceptualized from three standpoints: the
teacher, the student, and the learning process. In correcting students’ work
teachers may choose the effective ways to create effective learning process
in order to achieve the teaching and learning objectives as cited from van
der hulst J, van Boxel, & Meeder (2014), review studies by Hattie and
Timperley (2007) and Shute (2008) have shown that feedback can greatly
help students to achieve their learning goals.
There have been many attempts to help students to improve their
quality in writing English. One important attempt is by providing feedback
on the students’ writing with effective strategies. There are many different
approaches to it as Hyland (2003) claims that the nature of feedback
response can vary widely and feedback practices differ according to the
teachers’ preferences as well as the kind of task they have set and the effect
they wish to create. While as stated from van der hulst J, van Boxel, &
Meeder (2014), Nicol (2009) as gives specific recommendations for good
teacher feedback: it needs to be understandable for students, selective,
specific, timely, contextualized, nonjudgmental, balanced, forward looking
and transferable.
The problem is when the students could not accomplish the stages
of writing and the teachers did not have sufficient time to give feedback
comprehensively. So, the provision of feedback in writing did not run
effectively. Based on the English teachers’ experience on English writing
class at SMA Islam Al Azhar 8, it was found that in writing genre-based text
students have not structurally written the ideas correctly. It means that they
have not understood well about the generic structure and generic features
of certain paragraphs.
Furthermore, the students sometimes did not want to read and revise
their writing based on the feedback given by the teacher. They were
reluctant to revise it because they were not challenged to do it because
mostly they just needed to change any words to become the words
suggested by the teacher and sometimes the ideas suggested by the
teacher did not match with the students’ own ideas. Another reason is
because sometimes the students found any difficulty to understand the
teachers’ correction. Moreover, the students got bored when they had to
rewrite the same writing for revision. The last problem is about the time. In
the limit of time and the big number of students applying an effective
feedback becomes time-consuming and it was an additional burden on the
teacher’s load.
Pertaining to the identification of problems, the research questions
are formulated as follows:
1. What are the teacher’s and students’ attitudes toward the use of Google
Docs as digital corrective feedback in writing Factual Report?
2. How is the process of corrective feedback provision through Google
Docs as a digital tool in writing Factual Report?
3. How is the students’ writing quality on Factual Report through digital
corrective feedback?
Teachers are thus encouraged to become aware of correction
strategies that benefit the learners most. This present study is trying to
collaborate giving feedback by making use a digital tool as the alternative
strategy to overcome the aforementioned problems. If the feedback is
commonly given in the form of written correction in this study the feedback
is given online by using Google Docs, one of digital platforms. A teacher
and students could make collaborative learning in writing activity. Besides
correcting the text students may make online chat with their teacher to ask
or consult their problems in writing.
In previous studies, McMorran shared his experience in ELT by using
Google Docs for several years. He felt the classroom activities encourage
peer-instruction, build a learning community, give students a sense of their
learning level, and allow efficient time management (Ragupathi, 2013).
While Barnes (2014) stated that digital tools make providing feedback easy
and engaging, because it’s far more time consuming to write feedback.
Using a variety of web tools, though, makes feedback more meaningful and
engaging for students and fun for teachers.
Thus, this study is aimed at investigating the teacher’s and students’
and attitudes on the use of digital feedback instrument in writing class,
investigating the process of corrective feedback provision through Google
Docs as a digital tool in writing Factual Report, and finding out whether it
would contribute to the quality and progress of students’ writing and whether
the shift to an online marking process would help teachers to develop a
more efficient workflow, and consequently save time.

Methodology

This research applied a case study. As Stake (1995) in Creswell

(2009) defined that Case studies are a strategy of inquiry in which the
researcher explores in depth a program, event, activity, process, or one or
more individuals. Cases are bounded by time and activity, and researchers
collect detailed information using a variety of data collection procedures
over a sustained period of time. this qualitative study focuses on
understanding the process of what is going on the setting by trying to
understand how the gains were made. The research also focuses on the
participants – how participants experience and interact with a phenomenon
at a given point in time and particular context (Crokeras cited in Heigham et
al., 2009).
The data of this study was the student and teacher questionnaires,
observational protocol, interview protocol, and students’ writings on Factual
Report. The data sources of this study were the thirty five students of XI
Science 1 and the English teacher who has been teaching them since they
were in Grade X.

The data was gathered by doing observation and field-note taking

during teaching and learning process in the writing class using Google Docs
as digital feedback. The writer recorded the teaching learning process with
camera and prepared the observation sheets that were used during the
class sessions. The procedures of collecting data are elaborated as follow:
the first one is observing the writing class by using Google Docs, then,
writing the field note while observing the class, recording the teaching and
learning process, distributing questionnaires to both teacher and students,
interviewing both the teacher and students, and the last analyzing the
students’ text of writing.
Since the data collecting instruments contain questionnaire,
interview, observation, and students’ texts of writing, the process of
analysing them follows two dissimilar approaches: qualitative and
quantitative. The questionnaires produce quantitative data whilst interview,
observation, and students’ texts of writing closed questions are used to
generate qualitative data.

Firstly, the data that was gained from observation, interview,

questionnaires, and students’ texts of writing were categorized based on
their relevance to the research questions of the study. Therefore, the
collected data was analyzed whether or not they have answered.
The overall analysis of observation-based data, interview-based data
and questionnaires-based data followed two steps: coding the obtained data
and interpreting the findings. In the first step, the researcher began to scan
the recorded data of observations, interviews, and questionnaires then
developed them into categories phenomena. Meanwhile, in the second
step, interpretation involves making sense of the data.
The findings from the questionnaires were presented in tabular form
and they were divided into three main areas of attitudes; behavior, cognitive,
and emotion. Before that, the questionnaires were examined for its validity
and realibility. Then, they were analyzed descriptively. The data collected
from the questionnaire provided information about the respondents’
attitudes toward the digital feedback in writing class. The information that
was gathered from the questionnaires was used to conduct the semi
structured interview with the selected participants. The interviews were
written down almost verbatim and the respondents were asked to repeat
where necessary to make it easier to note down what they said as well as
to clarify their answers.
The results of observation were descriptively analyzed to vividly
investigate the process on feedback provision taken place both in the
classroom and outside classroom. By referring to the literature review the
results were analyzed to examine whether the feedback was delivered
effectively and efficiently.
Furthermore, the students’ texts of writing were analyzed based on
five components of writing namely, content, organization, language use,
vocabulary, and mechanics by using Writing assessment Rubric of ESL
Composition Profile (Jacobs et al, 1981, in Weigle, 2002; Boardman &
Frydenberg, 2002), to investigate the improvement of writing quality.

Findings and Discussion

1. What Are the Teacher’s and Students’ Attitudes toward the Use of
Google Docs as Digital Corrective Feedback in Writing Factual
Report?
A. Students’ Attitudes toward the Use of Google Docs as Digital
Corrective Feedback in Writing Factual Report
Concerning the first research question, the result of descriptive
statistics shows that the overall mean score of attitude scale among
participants is 3.94 with Standard Deviation (SD) 0.821. This result reveals
that the participants have a positive attitude towards digital corrective
feedback. In addition, the mean scores of the three aspects of attitudes
toward digital corrective feedback among the respondents, are not slightly
different. As seen in Table 4, the mean score of behavioral aspect of attitude
is 3.95 (SD= 0.884). The mean of cognitive aspect of attitude is 3.94 (SD=
0.711). Yet, the mean score of emotional aspect of attitude is 3.91 (SD=
0.884), as seen in Table 1 (Appendix).

a. The Behavioral Aspect of Students’ Attitude towards Digital

Corrective Feedback
The behavioral aspect of attitude towards digital corrective feedback
represents the highest mean score (3.95 with SD 0.884). That is, the student
participants have positive behavioral attitude. Statistically it was described
that the item 1 “I wrote Factual Report in Google Docs based on teacher’s
instructions” obtained the second rank (M= 4.34, SD= 0.639) meaning that
most of the students comply with their teacher by following the teacher’s
instructions well in writing Factual Report by using Google Docs. 32
students (91%) of 35 students agree about the statement, and 3 students
(9%) were neutral or not sure that they followed the teacher’s instructions in
writing Factual Report. Furthermore, the item 2 “I directly share my writing
to teacher through Google Docs” got the first rank (M= 4.46, SD= 0.657)
meaning that most students (91%) were on time in submitting their writing
to teacher through Google Docs. It’s showing positive because they did not
put off their work as they did in the class without Google Docs. While the
item 3 “I share my writing to other students to be corrected before I give it
to teacher” obtained the least rank (M= 3.03, SD= 1.071). There are only 11
students (31%) who shared their writing to other students to be corrected. It
means that they tend to share their writing directly to their teacher.
Furthermore, the students tend to use the features in Google Docs
to help them in writing Factual Report. It is shown from the descriptive
statistics of item 4 (M= 3.71, SD= 1.178) meaning that most of them (69%)
used ‘chat’ or ‘comment’ feature in Google Docs to ask further explanation
about the feedback they got. In addition item 5 (M= 4.31, SD= 0.900) shows
that most students (86%) used ‘translate’ feature to consult vocabulary
meanings to assist them in writing Factual Report. While item 6 (M= 3.29,
SD= 1.152) showing neutral means only less than a half of class (49%) that
made use the ‘spelling’ feature to check the spelling of words they used in
writing.
The data also showed that most students behaviorally followed
teacher’s feedback through Google Docs. The analysis of item 7 (M= 4.14,
SD= 0.845) shows that students (77%) responded every correction based
on the highlights given by the teacher. Then, item 8 (M=4.26, SD= 0.657)
represents that students (89%) revised their writing based on teacher’s
feedback through Google Docs. The descriptive statistics of item 9 (M=
3.97, SD= 0,857) also shows positive manner, that is the students (74%)
revised their writing on time, although there were some students did not do
it on time.

b. The Cognitive Aspect of Students’ Attitude towards Digital

Corrective Feedback
The mean score of cognitive aspect of attitude towards digital
corrective feedback (M= 3.94, SD= 0.711) which is slightly not different with
the behavioral aspect of attitude. The findings indicate that the majority of
the respondents showed positive cognitive attitudes.
 As shown in the Table 4.3, the item 1 obtained the first rank (M= 4.11,
SD= 0.758) meaning that majority of students agree that they could follow
the stages of writing, namely drafting, writing, and revising in Google Docs.
Furthermore, the item 2 (M= 4.03, SD= 0.707) shows that most students
agree that with Google Docs they are able to write Factual Report based on
its generic structure and generic features. While the tabulation analysis of
item 3 (M= 3.71, SD= 0.825) presents that more than a half of class, namely
19 students (54%) agree and strongly agree that they could easily get the
ideas for writing Factual Report through Google Docs, while the rest, about
15 students (43%) were neutral. They probably were not sure that the ideas
could be obtained easily or not, and 1 student disagree that she/he got the
ideas easily.
Furthermore, overall students show positive cognitive attitudes on
the teacher’s feedback given through Google Docs. It is proved from the
decriptive analysis of item 4 to 8 discusing that the students were able to
understand the teacher’s feedback in terms of content (item 4), structure/
organization of text (item 5), language use/ grammar (item6), vocabulary
(item 7), and spelling, punctuation, and capitalization (item8). From the
tabulation data it can be seen that only 9 students (26%) of 35 students
indicated that they were neutral or doubt that they could understand the
teacher’s feedback in term of content while the rest of students were
indicated that they agree that they were able to understand the teacher’s
feedback in term of content . Then, only 8 students (23%) who were neutral
or not sure that they could understand the teacher’s feedback in term of text
organization or structure of Factual Report text. In addition, in termof
grammar there are 12 students (34%) were neutral or not sure that they
were able to undertand the teacher’s feedback. In term of vocabulary there
are only 7 students (20%) were not sure or neutral about their understanding
on the teacher’s feedback. Moreover, in term of mechanics of writing
(punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) there are only 5 students (14%)
who were neutral or not sure that they understood about the teacher’s
feedback, and there is only 1 student (3%) who disagree that she/he could
understand the teacher’s feedback.
Next, from the descriptive statistics of item 9 and 10 it can be seen
that most students were able to revise their writing based on the feedback
given by teacher. The mean score of item 9 (4.06) shows that most of them
agreed the statement “I am able to revise my writing based on the feedback
given by the teacher. There are only seven students (20%) who were not
sure that they could revise their writing based on the teacher’s feedback. In
addition, the mean score of item 10 (M= 4.03, SD= 0.725) does not show
differently with item 9 meaning that majority of students agree that with
digital feedback they could improve their writing quality, but there are 10
students (29%) who were neutral or not sure that they could improve their
writing quality.

c. The Emotional Aspect of Students’ Attitude towards Digital

Corrective Feedback
The responses regarding the emotional the emotional aspect of
attitude towards digital corrective feedback are quite different with those of
behavioral and cognitive aspect. It can be seen from the Table 4 showing
the mean score of emotional aspect of attitude, 3.91 (SD= 0.884).
As the data shown in Table 4 (Appendix), item 1 examining the
students’ feeling about the importance of getting feedback to improve their
writing obtained the highest mean score, 4.43 (SD= 0.608). It means that
majority of students (94%) agree and strongly agree that it is important to
get feedback on their writing to improve their writing quality. There are only
two students (6%) who were unsure about the statement of item 1.
The descriptive statistic on item 2 shows that the mean score of
attitude is 3.74 (SD= 0.919). There are 24 students (69%) of 35 students
who were enthusiastic to get the feedback from teacher through Google
Docs. While 8 students (23%) were neutral or not sure about it. Then, 2
students (6%) disagree and 1 student (3%) were not enthusiastic to get the
feedback from their teacher.
The statistic result on item 3 presents the mean score of emotional
attitude 4.03 (SD= 0.985) meaning that most students prefer getting
feedback on their writing through Google Docs than through paper and pen.
There are 26 students (74%) of 35 students who agree and strongly agree
about “I prefer getting feedback on my writing from my teacher through
Google Docs rather than on the paper”. Meanwhile there are 7 students
(20%) of them who were neutral or not sure that they prefer getting teacher’s
feedback through Google Docs than on the paper. Then, there is 1 student
(3%) who disagree and 1 student (3%) who strongly disagree about it.
The statistic analysis of item 4 shows that the mean score of
emotional attitude is 3.74 (SD= 1.120). There are 21 students (60%) who
felt more comfortable when asking to teacher about the further explanation
of feedback they got through ‘chat/comment’ feature in Google Docs. While
there are 9 students (26%) were not sure about the statement. In addition,
there are 4 students (11%) disagree and 1 student (3%) strongly disagree
about the statement, meaning that they did not feel comfortable on asking
teacher about the feedback they got through Google Docs as digital tool.
The data shown on the analysis of item 5 presents the mean score
of emotional attitude is 3.69 (SD= 0.796). There are 21 students (60%) of
35 students that were challenged to revise their writing based on the
feedback given by the teacher. While 12 students (34%) of them were
neutral meaning that they were not sure that they were challenged or not to
revise their writing. In addition there are 2 students (6%) who were not
challenged to revise their writing based on the teacher’s feedback.
The statistic result on item 6 presents that the mean score of
emotional attitude is 4.11 (SD= 0.796) showing that majority of students
were feeling satisfied about their writing result. In details there are 26
students (74%) of 35 students agree to the statement of item 6 and only 9
students (26%) were not sure that they were satisfied or not on the result of
their writing. Besides satisfied about their writing, they also felt more
confident in writing. It is proven in the analysis of item 7 mentioning that 23
students (66%) agree and strongly agree that they were more confident in
writing text by using Google Docs, 11 students (31%) were not sure about
it, and only 1 student (3%) who felt that she/he was not confident to write a
text through Google Docs.
The statistic analysis of the last item presents that the mean score is
3.89 (SD= 0.932). It means that more than a half students in the class felt
more discipline in doing writing task by using Google Docs. In details, there
are 19 students (54%) agree with the statement in item 8, 13 students (37%)
were not sure whether they were more discipline in doing writing task or not,
and 3 students (9%) were disagree that they were more discipline in doing
writing task by using Google Docs.
Besides questionnaire, interview was also conducted in order to get
more detail information. Eight questions were delivered to eleven students
to obtain more information on the students’ attitudes toward digital
corrective feedback. The interview-based data also showed positive
students’ attitudes on digital corrective feedback. Most students positively
responded every questions on the feedback provision by using Google
Docs.
All students (100%) revealed that they like writing English by using
digital tool like Google Docs. They enjoyed it because of some reasons
which have been summarized from students’ response, as follows:
a. It is more practical that classical class;
b. It is easy to be accessed because the students can use mobile phone in
writing anytime and anywhere;
c. Teacher can correct it directly;
d. Students can edit and revise their writing easily without reprinting paper
or feeling tired as the effect of handwriting;
e. The use of electronic devices makes the students busy, so the class was
not noisy;
f. It is comfortable having a class by using electonic devices;
g. For introvert students, it is comfortable to have a class without any direct
interaction;
h. Digital learning makes the students updated;
All responses show positive attitudes, but there was a student told that he
like it as long as the internet connection was good and easy to be accessed.
Then when they were asked about their thought on writing Factual
Report by using Google Docs, following ideas are the students’ responses:
a. Group work is the effective way to write a Factual Report text;
b. It makes students easier to find out the facts and information related to
certain topic from various resources through internet;
c. It makes students more confident in writing formal text;
d. It encourages students to read more by finding out resources about
natural and social phenomena;
Most students conveyed positive opinions, but there was a student thought
that using Google Docs is relatively similar with writing a text with
handwriting.
Next question is about their feeling on getting corrective feedback
from teacher in Google Docs. Four students (36%) felt happy when they got
the feedback because they could identify their mistakes and correct their
mistakes on writing, so they could improve their writing. Three of them (27%)
were shocked at the first time when they found many correction on their text
of writing. Two of them (18%) were confused about the feedback, then they
asked the teacher for clarification through ‘chat’ feature in Google Docs and
some of them used other apps to ask the teacher for further explanation.
One student (9%) expressed that he felt lazy to revise many words crossed
out by the teacher. One student (9%) said that his feeling would depend on
the feedback he got.
Furhermore, when the participants were asked about the
effectiveness of corrective highlights given by teacher on the mistakes of
writing, the eleven students gave some opinions, as follows:
a. Highlights are more helpful because psychologically people are more
attached than black and white;
b. With highlights student can learn more from the mistakes because they
have to find out the correct one;
c. It is understandable because before the writing activity teacher had
explained the guidelines of each color of highlights;
d. Students can become independent learners by searching the correct
one;
9 (82%) of 11 students said that corrective highlights were effective for
improvement of writing, while two students prefered getting feedback
explicitly and specifically, so the would know directly the mistakes on their
writing.
Nine students (82%) revealed that in revising their text of writing they
check the corrective highlight and suggestion given by the teacher, directly
revise it based on the feedback given by teacher, and asking the teacher
directly for the unclear feedback. While another student (9%) was confused
about the feedback given by the teacher and another student (9%) felt
confident about his writing, so he would see the mistakes first and if the
teacher’s feedback was appropriate he would revise it.
When the students were asked about how Google Docs helped them
in revising their writing, they stated the following ideas:
a. Using Google Docs makes revising more practical because they just
delete and retype, no need to reprint out. It encourages paper less
campaign to avoid global warming ;
b. It helps to put references through ‘hyperlink’;
c. It is safe and easy because the students do not need to save the file
manually by clicking ‘save’ button because Google has saved it
automatically;
d. While doing writing task other apps can be used;
e. Utilizing ‘suggestion’, ‘comment’, ‘highlight’, ‘translation’, and ‘spelling’
check features to make revision;
Almost all of the students (100%) utilized some features in Google Docs to
help them in revising their writing text, even though they did not utilize all
features available in Google Docs. For example, there were only less
students who used ‘spelling’ check to help them writing words.
In case of improvement, most students thought that their writing skills
have improved. Most students (73%) said similar tones aboout the
improvement of writing in the area of content. By building a Factual Report
through Google Docs he could expand his knowledge because they could
read many resources from internet. While other areas of writing improved
are vocabulary and grammar.
In the last question of interview, the students were asked to conclude
whether they think that the use of Google Docs as a digital tool is effective
in getting feedback on writing text. Most students (73%) responded yes, it
is effective, efficient, and practical as long as the internet connection is good
and the teacher’s feedback is clear and understandable. While other
students (27%) thought that oral feedback is clearer that written feedback.
Eventhough there are some features allowing them to chat and ask more
explanation on the feedback, sometimes when offline they could not
communicate through Google Docs, instead of using other apps like social
media.
The interview results provide detail explanation that support the
results of questionnaire. Both data has shown that overall students have
positive attitudes in term of behavioral, cognitive, and emotional aspect
toward digital corrective feedback on writing.

B. Teacher’s Attitudes toward the Use of Google Docs as Digital

Corrective Feedback in Writing Factual Report

The data shown in Table 5 (Appendix) means that the teacher shows
positive attitude. Mostly her answered strongly agree on 18 items (60%) and
agree on 12 items (40%). In details, the descriptive statistics on the
behavioral, cognitive, and emotional aspect of attitude will be elaborated in
the following discussion.

a. The Behavioral Aspect of Teacher’s Attitude towards Digital

Corrective Feedback
The behavioral aspect of teacher’s attitude towards digital corrective
feedback represents the mean score of 4.30. Although it is the least mean
score compared with the cognitive and emotional aspect of attitude, the
teacher participant has shown positive behavioral attitudes.
As the data shown in Table 6 (Appendix), item 1 examining the
teacher’s behavior on operating the features available in Google Docs to
give feedback on the students’ writing. The teacher responded the item 1
positively. Furthermore, she responded the next items about the utilizing of
Google Docs features positively. She agreed that she suggested the
students to use ‘chat’ or ‘comment’ to facilitate them in asking questions to
her (item 4) and also she confessed that she responded the students’
question by using the’chat’or ‘comment’ feature (item 5). In addition, the
teacher also suggested the students to make use ‘spelling’ to check the
spelling errors they made on writing (item 6). She gave feedback on the
students’ writing by using ‘suggesting’ or ‘comment’ feature on every
mistake related to content and text organization (item 7). While on the
mistakes related to language/ grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics she
used ‘highlights’ feature (item 8).
Next, the teacher strongly agreed to the item 2 in which she directed
the students to write Factual Report in Google Docs based on its generic
structure and generic features. She also directed the students to follow the
stages of writing (drafting, writing, & revising) easily by using Google Docs.
It is reflected in the response of item 3. Then she directly gave feedback
shared by the students through Google Docs (item 9). So, she could turn
the students’ writing back on time (item 10).
b. The Cognitive Aspect of Teacher’s Attitude towards Digital
Corrective Feedback
The cognitive aspect of teacher’s attitude towards digital corrective
feedback represents the highest mean score (4.90) compared with the
behavioral and emotional aspect of attitude. The mean score revealed that
the teacher participant has shown positive cognitive attitudes.
As the data shown in the Questionnaire (Appendix), item 1 examines
whether the teacher masters the steps on using Google Docs to conduct
writing class. The teachers responded positively. She could follow the steps
on using Google Docs in teaching writing. Item 2 determines that the
teacher was able to make the students paying attention to the materials
discussed in the writing class. The teacher’s response in item 3 shows that
teacher strongly agreed that she becomes more creative in giving feedback
by using Google Docs.
In the item 4 the teacher revealed that she was able to conduct the
stages of writing namely, drafting, writing, & revising by utilizing Google
Docs. Furthermore, in the item 5 she stated that she was able to give
feedback in relation to the content of Factual Report. She was also able to
give feedback in the area of text organization (generic structure) of factual
report (item 6), grammar (item 7), vocabulary (item 8), mechanics of writing
(item 9), and in the last item (item 10) it is revealed that she was able to
improve the feedback given to the students.

c. The Emotional Aspect of Teacher’s Attitude towards Digital

Corrective Feedback
The emotional aspect of teacher’s attitude towards digital corrective
feedback represents the mean score of 4.60. The mean score revealed that
the teacher participant has shown positive emotional attitudes.
As the data shown in Table 8 (Appendix), item 1 examines the
teacher’s interest toward Google Docs in teaching writing Factual Report.
The teacher strongly agreed to the statement meaning that she was
interested to use Google Docs in teaching Factual Report. The teacher’s
response in the item 2 and 3 also shows that she was enthusiastic in giving
feedback on the students’ writing and she felt comfortable working out to
correct students’ mistakes through Google Docs.
Next, in the item 4 she revealed that she felt easier to correct
students’ text of writing by highlighting every mistake related to
language/grammar, vocabulary, dan mechanics. She also felt easy to
manage her time in the work of correction (item 5). Then, she was proud of
the result of students’ writing (item 6) and satisfied on the result of writing
(item 7). Furthermore, she thought that giving feedback through Google
Docs was more efficient than not using digital tool (item 8). She also felt that
giving feedback through Google Docs plays important role in improving the
students’ writing quality (item 9). The last item determines the teacher’s
feeling about the improvement of students’ writing. She strongly agreed that
from the digital feedback provision the students’ writing quality has
improved.
From the interview more information is obtained. Teacher was asked
in eight questions. She prefered to use Bahasa Indonesia because she
wanted to intensively deliver her intention without any misunderstanding.
Firstly the teacher was asked about her preference on teaching writing by
using digital tools like Google Docs. She likes teaching with Google Docs
because it is innovative, practical, and efficient.
Secondly, when she was asked about her opinion on teaching
Factual Report by using Google Docs, she responded positively. She likes
teaching writing by using Google Docs because students can broaden their
knowledge by searching more references which are strongly needed in
building a Factual Report. In addition, she can direct students to have the
stages of writing like drafting, writing, and revising. The last reason but not
the least she stated that she can give feedback on the students’ writing
easily, eventhough their writing have not finished yet.
 Thirdly, the teacher was asked about her feeling when she gave
feedback to students, she felt happy because she could let them know about
the mistakes they made on their text of writing. She further explained that
the common mistakes appeared were vocabulary, gramma, and
paragraphing or mechanics. While in the content area most students have
made it well.
Fourthly, the teacher was asked about the effectiveness of using
highlights to give feedback. She regarded it was very effective because it is
colorful, sothe students could easily find out the mistakes and directly
correct them. It was also understandable because in the beginnning of class
she had given the guidelines about the corrective highlights.
In the fifth question the teacher explained how she gave feedback in
Google Docs. Firstly she saw the content. She edited the structure of
Factual Report and tried to avoid plagiarism by checking the hyperlink
included by students in almost every paragraph. When the ideas were clear,
she continued to check the grammar. She highlighted every error word or
phrase, even senetence based on the color guidelines that she has made.
Then, by using ‘comment’ feature she explained more about the mistakes
to the students. If necessary she used ‘chat’ feature to ask for clarification
or give responses on students’ question.
The sixth question is in what way Google Docs can assist teacher’s
work in giving feedback? The teacher elaborated that Google Docs is an
innovation in her class of writing. the features available in the Google Docs,
such as ‘comment’, ‘highlight’, ‘suggesting/editing/viewing’, ‘chat’, etc. have
helped her in giving feedback on students’ text of writing. Previously the
writing class without digital tool like Google Docs was so boring for students.
They were not interested and felt lazy to build paragraphs.
In the seventh question the teacher responded that the
students’writing quality seems improved in terms of vocabulary and content.
It is because they could search more information as references to gain
ideas, definition, and description related to certain topic of Factual Report.
The paraphrasing skill was also improved because they were forced to
avoid plagiarism. While in terms of language use like grammar it seems
there was no any significant improvement.
The last question determined the effectiveness of Google Docs in
giving feedback to students. The teacher revealed that it was so effective
because the teacher could easily determine the originality of students’ text
of writing rather than in the common way, teaching writing without digital
tool. In addition, she could correct the students’ writing based on the
elements of writing, such as the vocabulary, language use, mechanics,
ideas, etc effectively and efficiently.
From the responses delivered by the teacher, it can be concluded
that teacher shows positive perceptions and attitudes toward the use of
digital tool like Google Docs in teaching writing Factual Report. She uses
the tool as an innovation in her class of writing. Positive atmosphere can be
built in her writing class.

2. How is the Process of Corrective Feedback Provision through

Google Docs as A Digital Tool in Writing Factual Report?

An observation was conducted to investigate the second Research

Question. It was conducted in three times since May 2 to May 10, 2017 in
the class XI Science 1. The researcher took the role as a non-participant
observer who observed how digital corrective feedback take place. It
focused on the process in which the teacher gave the feedback and the
students received the feedback and investigate how the students’ attitudes
cope with digital feedback in writing class. This technique was used to
answer the research question number 2, namely “How is the process of
corrective feedback provision through Google Docs as a digital tool in
writing Factual Report?” based on the observational protocol or field notes.
In the first meeting, on Wednesday, May 3, 2017 the English teacher
started the lesson with du’a and checked the students’ attendance. Thirty
students attended the class and five other students were absent. Then she
continued to explain the objective of study on the day. They were going to
learn about Factual Report.
Next the teacher recalled the students’ understanding about
descriptive and explanation texts that they have learned in the previous
class. There were some students asked about the differentiation of
descriptive, explanation, and factual report texts. The teacher then
explained about it. Obviously students were active in asking questions and
the teacher tried to answer all the questions.
Then teacher presented the materials on Factual Report. She
explained about the purpose, generic structure, generic features, as well as
the examples of Factual Report through power point slides. After that she
made the class into twelve groups. Each grous consisted of two till three
students. Each group had to analyze all the components of factual report,
such as the title, purpose, structure, and features of factual report text.
During this activity many questions posted by students to the teacher. Next
each group presented the analysis result in front the class. The teacher
gave feedback and appreciation to the group of students who had presented
the text analysis. In the end of lesson, all groups of students were asked to
bring their laptop or mobile phone to have an online class in the following
meeting. They looked enthusiastic to hear that.
In the second meeting, on Thursday, May 4, 2017. There were twenty
nine students attending the class and other six students were absent. In the
meeting the teacher gave instructions on using Google Docs by using
Google Slides on LCD proyektor. The teacher let all students sat in groups
that had been made in the previous meeting. There were two groups had
trouble with their laptop. They could not connect their laptop with wifi
connection. The teacher assisted them to handle the trouble and log in to
Google Docs.
Next students in group started to write a draft based on the topic they
got from the teacher. There were some groups found difficulties in drafting.
They did not know what should be written in the part of identification
consisting descriptions. It seemed they asked the teacher about it. After the
draft of writing was done every group shared it to the teacher by inputting
the teacher’s email. The teacher gave feedback on the students’ draft of
writing. She adjusted the draft with the structure of factual report and
screened the content would be. The groups that had received the feedback
and approval could continue writing a short factual report text. Because the
time was up, only some groups could shared their writing to teachers. So,
the teacher asked other groups to share their writing outside the class. In
the end of class the teacher informed that in the following meeting they
would have individual writing test, so every student sould bring their own
laptop or mobile phone.
In the third meeting, on Wednesday, May 10, 2017. Thirty three
students attended the class and other two students were absent. Teacher
checked the wifi connection and ensured that all students’ laptop or mobile
phone were connected to wifi. Then teacher gave instructions on having
writing test. Every student may choose one of topics provided by the
students. Then they logged in to Google Docs, made a new document, and
renamed it based on the isntruction. After everything was clear they could
start to write a factual report text.
In writing individually the class seemed more quiet and every student
looked focus on their own writing. Sometimes it was observed that some
students asked the teacher about paragraphs and Google Docs. The
teacher supervised them by visiting their table one by one. While writing the
draft and paragraphs there were some students whoc asked the teacher
through ‘chat’ room in Google Docs, but there were some students also
asked the teacher orally not through Google Docs.
The teacher let the students to make use every feature available in
Google Docs to facilitate them in writing factual report. They could use
‘translate’, ‘spelling check’, ‘highlights’, or download pictures and some
resources for their writing text. To avoid plagiarism the teacher asked the
students to include or insert the references they used through ‘hyperlink’. In
addition the students might use ‘chat’ and ‘comment’ for collaborating with
their friend and teacher.
In giving feedback firstly teacher corrected the students’ draft
whether it was accordance with the generic structure of factual report. Then
she examined whether the contents were logically ordered. When the draft
was okay she gave approval to the students and they could continue writing
it into paragraphs. In correcting students’s paragraphs, the teacher used
corrective highlight with color codes, so the teacher did not need to explain
every feedback that she gave and it would let the stduents become
independent learners. In the beginning of class she conveyed the guidelines
on corrective feedback. To make it clearer teacher gave comment on the
right side of document in Google Docs and students could repond on it.
At the time students looked working with their writing and teacher
looked working with her corrections. Both teacher and students were busy
with their laptop. Every student looked working seriously and calmly
because they had to catch the time. After two hour of lesson time most
students could finish their work, but there were some students could not
finish it. So, the teacher gave additional time to them for doing the writing
outside classroom.

3. How is the Students’ Writing Quality on Factual Report through

Digital Corrective Feedback?

The students’ writing of factual report paragraphs were collected for

the purpose of assessing the quality of writing to answer the research
question number 3, namely “How does students’ attitudes in receiving digital
feedback influence the development of their writing quality?” The method
used was an analysis of a small sample of student texts. The focus was to
analyse what kind of feedback the teachers gave to these texts, how the
students responded to it and if the feedback resulted in a development in
the students’ writing, namely whether the texts quality developed during the
process of writing.
The students’ writing quality was assessed based on five elements
of writing, among other things, content, organization, language use,
vocabulary, and mechanics by using Writing assessment Rubric of ESL
Composition Profile (Jacobs et al, 1981, in Weigle, 2002; Boardman &
Frydenberg, 2002) (Appendix K). The assessment of writing was conducted
in three times, the first writing was held in the classrom while the second
and third writing were held outside the classrom.
Some sections in student texts were analysed through the stages of
writing, namely pre-writing, writing, and revision. The complete texts that
have been completely revised can be found in Appendix H. The texts were
randomly chosen and they happen to be texts of both a high achieving and
a low achieving student.

A. Writing Class Procedure

Initially teacher presented the materials on Factual Report, among
other things, the purpose, the generic structure and generic features, as well
as the examples of Factual Report text. Then, she conducted writing class
by using Google Docs. She gave instructions on writing Factual Report in
three stages, namely pre-writing, writing, and revising.
Furthermore, she gave instructions on writing the Factual Report text,
as follows:
1. Log in to www.docs.google.com with your account;
2. Create a new document
3. Choose one of the following topics:
Social phenomena: smartphone, vape, Instagram
Natural phenomena: thunder, landslide, eclipse.
4. Rename your document with (class_full name_topic)
5. Make a draft of writing based on the generic structure of Factual Report
6. Make a full paragraph + picture + hyperlink (min. 3 paragraphs)
7. Revise your writing text based on the teacher’s feedback and following
corrective highlights:
Purple: Punctuation Orange: Subject-verb agreement
Blue: Capitalization Yellow: Misspelling/ Vocabulary error
Green: Verb tenses

B. Students’ Text of Writing

1. First Writing
In the first writing students worked individually in the classroom to
write a Factual Report by choosing one of the following topics:
1. Social Phenomena (Smartphone, Vape, or Instagram ), or
2. Natural Pehomena (Thunder, Landslide, or Eclipse).

2. Second Writing

The second writing was conducted in the same procedure with the
first writing but it was accomplished by students outside the classroom as a
writing task. The stages of writing were also implemented. The topics of
writing they could choose were one of each number below:

1. Social phenomena: Hoax, Meme, or K-Pop, or

2. Natural phenomena: Supernova, Black Hole, or Lightning

3. Third Writing
The third writing was conducted in the same procedure with the first
and second writing but it was accomplished by students outside the
classroom as a writing task. The stages of writing were also implemented.
The topics of writing they could choose were one of each number below:

1. Social phenomena: Hoax, Meme, or K-Pop, or

2. Natural phenomena: Supernova, Black Hole, or Lightning
Student A
1st Writing
a. Pre-writing
In pre-writing activity all students individually were asked to make a
draft of writing. Here is sample of students’ draft of Factual Report.

The draft of writing entitled ‘Smartphone’ shows that the student

received feedback from his teacher on the use of article. The teacher used
‘comment’ feature to type “the”. The corrcetion is also about plural form
“effects” rather than “effect”. There is no any mistake in content issue. Then,
the teacher allowed him to continue his writing on ‘Smartphone’.

b. Writing
 In writing Factual Report Student A has followed the ideas based on
the draft of writing. However, there were some corrections from his teacher.
Firstly, the teacher edited the sentence that should have adjective clause,
A Smartphone [1] is a mobile phone (also known as cell phone) with an
advanced mobile operating system[2] that combines features of a
personal computer operating system with other features which are
useful for mobile or handheld use.

Secondly, the teacher marked the ‘calls’ and ‘makes’ in sentence with
orange highlight meaning that it is the mistake related to language use
(subject-verb agreement), as follows
For instance, old phones can only do text and calls with credits which
makes it expensive.

Fourthly, on the punctuation issue, The teacher marked the comma with
purple highlight menaing to punctuation error.
Smartphones have struck a big impact on our society, the impact itself
may vary depending on the perspective”.

c. Revising
After Student A revised all the things suggested by the teacher, here
is the final writing text. He revised all mistakes based on teacher’s
suggestions. Finally he got 83 as the score of first writing.
2nd Writing

a. Pre-Writing

Student A has chosen ‘Supernova’ as the topic discussion in the

second writing. On the draft of writing student A received feedback on the
phrasing of general classification and indentification part. The teacher
suggested it becomes “Definition of Supernova” and “Description of
Supernova”.

b. Writing
 In second writing of Factual Report student A has made progress in
paragraphing. Eventhough, he did not include hyperlink he could include
the references into the paragraphs. However, he still received feedback
on the use of conjunctions, plural form, and capitalization.

c. Revising
 Student A has revised all mistakes in terms of punctuation and
conjunctions based on the teacher’s feedback. Then he got 85 as the score
of second writing.

3rd Writing

a. Pre-Writing
 As the third writing student A chose ‘Hoax’ as the topic discussion of
his writing. In the draft of writing he did not receive any feedback from the
teacher in all areas of writing. It means all components of Factual Report
have been reflected in the draft of writing.

b. Writing
 From the text produced by Student A it can be seen that the teacher
focused on giving feedback of writing the language use (grammar), like the
subject-verb agreement, the use of adverb, pronouns, etc., as follows:
People tends to think that hoax only happens and shared because
people already read the whole article, but no.
... nowadays people need everything instantly from instant noodles
to instant news, but not only that but clicks in internet creates money
for the news outlet...
...for example like where does it come from, where did the person
who share this gets its source...

C. Revising
 Student A has made all changes on the correction based on
teacher’s feedback. It seems that student A has made progress in term of
ideas or content, because there is no any feedback on content. The
feedback only focuses on the language use. Finally he got 95 as the score
on the third writing text.
In addition to the qualitative analysis above the assessment scoring analysis
was also conducted. It was found that the students’ writing quality showing
progress on the five elements of writing, namely content, text organization,
language use, vocabulary, and mechanics of writing. It is shown in the
following table:
Table 9. Students’ Progress of Writing Quality

Average Score on Writing

Elements of Text
Writing
1st 2nd 3rd
Content 23 23 24
Organization 24 24 25
Language Use 18 19 21
Vocabulary 12 14 15
Mechanics 8 8 9
TOTAL 85 88 94
It is also found that not all students did the writing task when it was
assigned outside the classroom. Only about less than a half of class (43%)
did it well by completing three stages of writing . It is different with the
number of students (97%) who did the writing task well in the classroom. It
was predicted that they had some obstacles to do it. It was indicated that
some of them did not have any internet connection to do it instead they
could do it offline. Students’ overloaded work was also becoming the reason
of avoiding the task. It could be concluded that they could not work
independently without teacher’s supervision like they did in the classroom.

Conclusion and Suggestion

The questionnaire and interview results revealed that both teacher

and students showed positive attitudes toward the corrective feedback
given by teacher through Google Docs as a digital tool. Both teacher and
students regard it as an innovative way for feedback provision in writing
class. For teachers it makes them easy and efficient to give feedback on
students’ writing. While for students it makes them to become independent
learners and get efficient learning time management with lower costs in
practical way.
Furthermore, the observation results revealed that the process of
digital feedback provision was initially conducted with a clear teaching
procedure. Interestingly the process of giving and receiving feedback on
students’ writing was not implemented in the end of class. It may occur
during the class. It may generate more students’ attention rather than
getting feedback in the end of class. In addition, the corrective feedback
itself was given both explicitly and implicitly in both written and spoken
interaction.
In addition, based on the results of the analysis on students’ text of
writing it is found that the elements of writing quality, such as content, text
organization, language use, vocabulary, and mechanics of writing were
showing progress. Mostly the corrective feedback appeared on the
students’ draft was about the content which was based on the generic
structure of factual report. While in the writing process teacher mostly
focused on the correction of language use, text organization, vocabulary,
and mechanics of writing.
Thus, it could be concluded that the teacher, students in term of
attitudes, and the process of feedback provision have influenced the
effectiveness of feedback and quality of writing. When the students and
teacher showed positive attitudes in writing, the progress of writing quality
would be reflected. As Gardner (1985) stated that the learners’ attitudes
towards learning another language play a key role in enhancing and
motivating them to learn that language. This, in turn, affects on their
performance, too.
Based on the results of this research, it is suggested that English
teachers should enrich the strategies used for the provision of feedback on
students’ writing text. At this point giving corrective feedback through digital
tool is an innovative teaching strategy to establish effective and efficient
feedback because it not only facilitates students correcting the mistakes in
terms of grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, etc., but also provides
students additional information such as ideas and knowledge, as well as
motivation to enhance students’ performance.
As ICT should be integrated into every subject of lesson, schools and
government are expected to provide supporting facilities to establish e-
Learning. Also they had to make the teachers competent in the field by
conducting teachers training on ICT-based learning.
For further study, it is recommended that the scope of the research
should be expanded to other aspects, such as utilizing other digital tools for
other aspects of language to enhance students’ English language skills.

References

Abaya, R. (2014). Corrective Feedback in English Language Teaching and

Learning: Which Way to Go? International Journal on Studies in English
Language and Literature (IJSELL), 2 (10), 5-12.
Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (2001). Literacy Attitudes Viewed as A
Milestone Behavior. MLPP 2nd Edition, 10-22.
Alhmali, J. (2007). Student Attitudes in the Context of the Curriculum in Libyan
Education in Middle and HIgh Schools. PhD Thesis. University of
Glasgow.
Al-Shehri, K. D. (2008, August Sunday). Teachers’ and students’ attitudes
toward formative assessment and feedback in teaching English for specific
purposes ESP. Retrieved from http://asian-efl-journal.com: http://asian-
efl-journal.com/wp-content/uploads/mgm/downloads/thesis/thesis-
khaloufah-dhafer-al-shehri.pdf
Barnes, M. (2014, April 14). TeachTought: We Grow Teachers. Retrieved from
teachtought.com: http://teachthought.com/the-future-of-
learning/technology/5-web-tools-giving-students-narrative-feedback/
Bitchener, J. Y. (2005). The effects of different types of corrective feedback on
ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191-205.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy. Longman.
Brown, H. D. (2002). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. USA:
Pearson Education, Inc.All.
Campbell, K. (2004). E-ffective Writing for E-learning Environments. Idea Group
Inc (IGI).
Chen, F.-M., & Shang, H.-F. (2009). Students’Attitudes toward Teacher’s
Feedback on EFL Journal. The Seventh OCU Conference on Applied
English Teaching (pp. 13-24). China: Academia Edu.
Chong, C. S. (2016, June). Ten Innovations that Have Changed English Language
Teaching. Retrieved from British Council:
https://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/ten-innovations-have-
changed-english-language-teaching
Coffey, M. P. (1987). Communication through Writing. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall, Inc.
Coffin, C., Curray, M., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lilis, T., & Swan, a. J. (2003).
Teaching Academic Writing: A Toolkit for Higher Education. New York:
Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed
method approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Daccord, T. (2016, May). 3 Simple and Powerful Feedback Tools in Google Docs.
Retrieved from Dailygenius: http://dailygenius.com/three-simple-
powerful-ways-provide-feedback-google-docs/
Donovan, M. (2013, November). Eight Characteristics of Good Writing.
Retrieved from Writing Forward: Write on, Shine on!:
https://www.writingforward.com/better-writing/characteristics-of-good-
writing
Eagly, A. C. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Florida: University of North
Florida.
Ellis, R. L. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of
L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28 (2), 339-368.
Ellis, R. (L2 Journal, 1(1)). Corrective feedback and teacher development. 2009,
3-18.
ETS. (n.d.). Automated Scoring of Writing Quality. Retrieved from ETS Research:
https://www.ets.org/research/topics/as_nlp/writing_quality/
Fakeye, D. (2016). Secondary School Teachers’ and Students’ Attitudes Towards
Formative Assessment and Corrective Feedback in English Language in
Ibadan Metropolis. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 6 (2),
141-148.
Gardner, R. (1987). Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role
of Attitude and Motivation. Great Britain: Edward Arnold.
Gerot, L. &. (1994). Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Sydney: GerdStabler.
Google.Inc. (2010). Google Apps Education Edition: Improving the writing
process with Google Docs. Retrieved from google.com/a/edu:
https://sjrlearners.wikispaces.com/file/view/Google+Apps+Topic+Review
+-+Improving+the+writing+process+with+Google+Docs.pdf
Grover, V. K. (2012). Analysis of Learners’ Attitude towards Teacher’s Feedback
on Errors in Written Work. International Journal of Science and Research
(IJSR), 1445-1448.
Harmer, J. (2000). The Practice of English Language Teaching. England:
Longman.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of
Educational Research, 77 (1), 81-112.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
J, v. d., van Boxel, P., & Meeder, S. (2014). Digitalizing Feedback: Reducing
Teachers’ Time Investment While Maintaining Feedback Quality. the 13th
European Conference on e-Learning (pp. 243-250). Copenhagen: ECEL-
2014.
J. Z. Abidin, M. (2012). EFL Students’ Attitudes towards Learning English
Language: The Case of Libyan Secondary School Students. Asian Social
Science, 8 (2), 119-134.
Jacobs, H. (1981). Testing ESL Composition: A Practical Approach. Boston, MA:
Newbury House.
JISC. (2010). Effective Assessment in a Digital Age: A guide to technology-
enhanced assessment and feedback. Retrieved from JISC Innovation
Group: www.jisc.ac.uk/elearningprogramme
Langan, J. (2003). College Writing Skills, Media Edition (5th ed.). USA: McGraw
Hill.
Neghavati, A. (2016, August). Digital Tools for Giving Feedback. Retrieved from
British Council: https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/blogs/amin-
neghavati/digital-tools-giving-feedback
Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching and Learning. USA: Heinle-
Heinle.
Nyvoll Bo, E. (2014). A case study of feedback to written English in a Norwegian
upper secondary. Norwey: University of Stavanger.
Petchprasert, A. (2012). Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning.
US-China Foreign Language, 10 (4), pp. 1112-1120.
Peterson, S. S. (2010, October). Improving Student Writing: Using Feedback as A
Teaching Tool . What Works? Research into Practice, pp. 1-4.
Piatkowska, K., & Koscialkowska-Okonska, E. (2013). Correspondences and
Contrasts in Foreign Language Pedagogy and Translation Studies.
Switzerland: Springer.
Ragupathi, K. (2013). Collaborative Learning Using Google Docs & Maps: By
Chris McMorran. Technology in Pedagogy No. 15, 1-8.
Singh, S., & Kaur, H. (2014). Attitudes towards English language learning and
language use among secondary school students. Malaysia: Masters thesis,
University of Malaya retrieved from http://studentsrepo.um.edu.my/5686/
at 8 a.m on July 9,2017.
Ul-Amin, S.-N. (n.d.). An Effective use of ICT for Education and Learning by
Drawing on Worldwide Knowledge, Research, and Experience.
Department Of Education, University of Kashmir. derived from
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/waoe/amins.pdf on July 10, 2017.
Ur, P. (1996). A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Wengrzyn, R. (n.d.). Types of Attitudes in the Workplace: Cognitive, Affective &
Behavioral Components. Retrieved from www.study.com:
 http://study.com/academy/lesson/types-of-attitudes-in-the-workplace-
cognitive-affective-behavioral-components.html on July 20, 2017
Zacharias, N. (2007). Teacher and Student Attitudes towards Teacher Feedback.
RELC Journal, 28-52.

Appendix
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Students' Attitudes toward Digital
Corrective Feedback

Std.
Students' Attitudes N Min Max Mean Deviation
Attitudes on Digital Corrective
Feedback 35 2 5 3.94 0.821
Behavior Aspect of Attitude 35 2 5 3.95 0.884
Cognitive Aspect of Attitude 35 3 5 3.94 0.711
Emotion Aspect of Attitude 35 2 5 3.91 0.884
Valid N 35

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of Behavioral Aspect of Students’

Attitudes toward Digital Corrective Feedback

Item Behavioral Aspect of Attitude Min Max Mean Std.

No. (Item) Deviation
1 Saya menulis teks Factual 3 5 4.34 0.639
Report pada Google Docs
sesuai instruksi guru.
2 Saya langsung memberikan 3 5 4.46 0.657
(share) hasil tulisan saya kepada
guru melalui Google Docs.
3 Saya memberikan (share) 1 5 3.03 1.071
tulisan saya kepada teman untuk
dikoreksi sebelum diberikan
kepada guru.
4 Saya menggunakan fitur chat/ 1 5 3.71 1.178
comment untuk menanyakan
penjelasan feedback pada
Google Docs.
5 Saya menggunakan fitur 1 5 4.31 0.900
translate untuk membantu saya
dalam menerjemahkan kata
dalam bahasa Inggris.
 6 Saya menggunakan fitur spelling 1 5 3.29 1.152
untuk mengoreksi pengejaan
yang salah.
7 Saya merespon setiap koreksi 2 5 4.14 0.845
yang diberikan berdasarkan
warna (highlights) sesuai
kesalahan yang dilakukan.
8 Saya memperbaiki tulisan saya 3 5 4.26 0.657
sesuai dengan feedback yang
diberikan oleh guru melalui
Google Docs.
9 Saya memperbaiki (revisi) 2 5 3.97 0.857
tulisan saya sesuai dengan
waktu yang diberikan oleh guru.

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of Cognitive Aspect of Students’

Attitudes toward Digital Corrective Feedback

Item Cognitive Aspect of Attitude Min Max Mean Std.

No. (Item) Deviation
1 Saya mampu mengikuti tahapan 3 5 4.11 0.758
menulis (drafting, writing,
revising) Factual Report pada
Google Docs.
2 Dengan Google Docs saya 3 5 4.03 0.707
mampu menulis Factual Report
sesuai dengan struktur dan ciri-
ciri kebahasaannya.
3 Saya mendapatkan ide menulis 2 5 3.71 0.825
dengan mudah pada Google
Docs.
4 Saya dapat memahami setiap 3 5 3.94 0.684
feedback yang diberikan guru
terkait isi (content).
5 Saya dapat memahami setiap 2 5 3.89 0.718
feedback yang diberikan guru
terkait struktur teks (text
organization).
6 Saya dapat memahami setiap 3 5 3.80 0.677
feedback yang diberikan guru
terkait Grammar.
7 Saya dapat memahami setiap 3 5 3.94 0.591
feedback yang diberikan guru
terkait kosakata (Vocabulary).
8 Saya dapat memahami setiap 2 5 4.06 0.725
feedback yang diberikan guru
 terkait tanda baca, paragraf,
ejaan (spelling), dan penggunaan
huruf besar (capitalization).
9 Saya mampu memperbaiki 3 5 4.06 0.684
tulisan saya berdasarkan
feedback yang diberikan guru.
10 Dengan digital feedback saya 3 5 4.03 0.785
mampu meningkatkan kualitas
tulisan saya.

Table 4. Descriptive Statistics of Emotional Aspect of Students’

Attitudes toward Digital Corrective Feedback

Item Cognitive Aspect of Attitude Min Max Mean Std.

No. (Item) Deviation
1 Saya merasa mendapatkan 3 5 4.43 0.608
koreksi (feedback) pada tulisan
saya adalah penting untuk
memperbaiki tulisan saya.
2 Saya antusias mendapatkan 1 5 3.74 0.919
feedback dari guru melalui
Google Docs.
3 Saya lebih suka mendapatkan 1 5 4.03 0.985
feedback dari guru atas tulisan
saya melalui Google Docs
daripada melalui kertas.
4 Saya lebih nyaman bertanya 1 5 3.74 1.120
pada guru tentang penjelasan
feedback melalui fitur
chat/comment pada Google
Docs.
5 Saya merasa tertantang untuk 2 5 3.69 0.796
memperbaiki tulisan saya sesuai
dengan feedback yang diberikan
oleh guru.
6 Saya puas dengan hasil tulisan 3 5 4.11 0.796
saya dengan menggunakan
Google Docs.
7 Saya merasa lebih percaya diri 1 5 3.86 0.912
menulis dengan Google Docs.
8 Saya merasa lebih disiplin dalam 2 5 3.89 0.932
mengerjakan tugas menulis pada
Google Docs.
 Table 5. Descriptive Statistics of Teacher’s Attitudes toward Digital
Corrective Feedback

Teacher's Attitudes N Min Max Mean

Attitudes on Digital Corrective
Feedback 1 4 5 4.60
Behavior Aspect of Attitude 1 4 5 4.30
Cognitive Aspect of Attitude 1 4 5 4.90
Emotion Aspect of Attitude 1 4 5 4.60
Valid N 1

Table 6. Descriptive Statistics of Behavioral Aspect of Teacher’s

Attitudes toward Digital Corrective Feedback

Item Behavioral Aspect of Attitude Min Max Mean

No. (Item)
1 Saya mengoperasikan fitur-fitur 4 4 4
pada Google Docs dengan baik
dalam memberikan feedback
kepada siswa.
2 Saya mengarahkan siswa untuk 5 5 5
menulis Factual Report pada
Google Docs sesuai dengan
struktur dan ciri-ciri
kebahasaannya.
3 Saya mengarahkan siswa untuk 4 4 4
mengikuti tahapan menulis
(drafting, writing, & revising)
dengan lebih mudah
menggunakan Google Docs.
4 Saya menyarankan siswa untuk 4 4 4
memanfaatkan fitur chat dan
comment untuk bertanya pada
guru atau teman.
5 Saya merespon pertanyaan 4 4 4
siswa melalui fitur chat/comment
dalam Google Docs.
6 Saya menyarankan siswa untuk 4 4 4
memanfaatkan fitur spelling untuk
mengoreksi pengejaan yang
salah.
7 Saya memberikan koreksi pada 5 5 5
tulisan siswa dengan
menggunakan fitur
 suggesting/comment pada setiap
kesalahan terkait content dan text
organization.
8 Saya memberikan koreksi pada 5 5 5
tulisan siswa dengan tanda
warna (highlights) pada setiap
kesalahan terkait language/
grammar, vocabulary, dan
mechanics.
9 Saya langsung memberikan 4 4 4
feedback pada tulisan siswa yang
diberikan (share) melalui Google
Docs.
10 Saya mengembalikan tugas 4 4 4
menulis siswa yang sudah
dikoreksi dengan tepat waktu.

Table 7. Descriptive Statistics of Cognitive Aspect of Teacher’s

Attitudes toward Digital Corrective Feedback

Item Cognitive Aspect of Attitude Min Max Mean

No. (Item)
1 Saya memahami langkah- 4 4 4
langkah pemberian feedback
melalui Google Docs.
2 Saya mampu memusatkan 5 5 5
perhatian siswa dalam kelas
menulis dengan Google Docs.
3 Saya menjadi lebih kreatif dalam 5 5 5
pemberian feedback dengan
memanfaatkan Google Docs.
4 Saya mampu menerapkan 5 5 5
tahapan menulis (drafting,
writing, & revising) dengan
menggunakan Google Docs.
5 Saya mampu memberikan 5 5 5
feedback terkait isi (content).
6 Saya mampu memberikan 5 5 5
feedback terkait struktur teks (text
organization).
7 Saya mampu memberikan 5 5 5
feedback terkait Grammar.
8 Saya mampu memberikan 5 5 5
feedback terkait kosakata
(Vocabulary).
 9 Saya mampu memberikan 5 5 5
feedback terkait mechanics
(punctuation, paragraphing,
spelling, dan capitalization).
10 Dengan Google Docs saya 5 5 5
mampu meningkatkan kualitas
feedback yang saya berikan.

Table 8. Descriptive Statistics of Emotional Aspect of Teacher’s

Attitudes toward Digital Corrective Feedback

Item Emotional Aspect of Attitude Min Max Mean

No. (Item)
1 Saya tertarik menggunakan 5 5 5
Google Docs dalam kelas
menulis Factual Report.
2 Saya antusias memberikan 5 5 5
feedback pada tulisan siswa
melalui Google Docs.
3 Saya lebih nyaman memberikan 5 5 5
feedback pada tulisan siswa
melalui Google Docs.
4 Saya merasa lebih mudah 5 5 5
mengoreksi tulisan siswa dengan
memberi tanda warna (highlights)
pada setiap kesalahan terkait
language/grammar, vocabulary,
dan mechanics.
5 Saya menjadi lebih mudah 4 4 4
mengatur waktu dalam
mengoreksi tugas-tugas menulis
siswa dengan Google Docs.
6 Saya merasa bangga atas hasil 4 4 4
revisi tulisan siswa dengan
Google Docs.
7 Saya puas dengan hasil revisi 4 4 4
tulisan siswa dengan
menggunakan Google Docs.
8 Saya merasa pemberian 4 4 4
feedback pada tulisan siswa lebih
efisien dengan menggunakan
Google Docs.
9 Saya merasa pemberian 5 5 5
feedback melalui Google Docs
berperan penting dalam
 meningkatkan kualitas tulisan
siswa.
10 Saya merasa kualitas tulisan 5 5 5
siswa meningkat dengan
pemberian digital feedback.