Web-based Writing Assessment or Reward-based Writing

Assessment: Which Gives Better Impact on Student Writing

Motivation

Erikson Togatorop

School of Education University of Newcastle Newcastle, Australia

Politeknik Negeri Batam, Indonesia

Keywords: Writing, English Writing, Writing Assessment, Writing Motivation.

Abstract: In the teaching and learning of English writing, learning motivation to write is a central and challenging issue

as the writing complexities often discourage students. Slow and unclear teacher assessment feedbacks also

frequently made them disappointed. This study tried to provide a web-based and a reward-based writing

assessment in the State Polytechnic of Batam Indonesia to see their impact on student writing motivation.

Data collection included surveys and students interview. The study found that both treatments have a positive

and significant impact on students writing motivation. It also revealed how they might increase motivation to

write and which of them is more effective in increasing writing learning motivation. Implication and

suggestion due to the study findings are also presented.

1 INTRODUCTION

English writing is an important skill, but its teaching

and learning are very challenging as it is considered

difficult to master, even for first language (L1)

learners (Nacira, 2010). Second language (L2) writing

learners have more difficulties since they may find

that words are different when spoken and written, and

languages differ in grammar. Some international

students in Australia were found to have serious

difficulties in their study due to their limited writing

proficiency (Bayley, Fearnside, Arnol, Misiano, &

Rottura, 2002; Bretag, Horrocks, & Smith, 2002;

Sawir, 2005). When students finish their study and

move to the workforce, writing skills remain one of

the determining factors of a successful career.

Inadequate writing proficiency has provided serious

difficulties for some university graduates, produced

strain in doing work related to writing skills, and often

caused misunderstanding, and the company’s clients

had developed negative perceptions of its competence

(Blake & Bly, 1991; Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Fraigley

& Miller, 1982; Garner, 2012; Greavu, 2019).

Writing is not only difficult for students to learn

but also complex for teachers or lecturers to aseess.

This problem is many times aggravated by the

education institution environment. The big size of the

class both which is still common in many developing

countries in Asia (Awan & Kamran, 2018; Cotner,

Fall, Wick, Walker, & Baepler, 2008; Exley &

Dennick, 2004), includes in Indonesia and in the

research site, the State Polytechnic of Batam

(Polibatam). Teachers or lecturers then have to assess

so many pieces of students’ writings that potentially

leads to late and low quality of assessment feedback.

This could worsen students motivation to learn

writing. There is probably an essential need to

improve the writing assessment system to maintain or

even increase students’ writing motivation.

This study provided a web-based and a reward-

based writing assessment and sought whether they

could, and if they could, how they increase students

writing motivation. The use of the web-based was

expected to cut the turnaround time of students’

writings assessments that would probably make them

keener to learn writing. While the use of the reward

system was expected to increase students’ enthusiasm

to write.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Learning motition is a central issue in education. In

learning complex subjects such as English writing,

Togatorop, E.

Web-based Writing Assessment or Reward-based Writing Assessment: Which Gives Better Impact on Student Writing Motivation.

DOI: 10.5220/0010862700003255

In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Applied Economics and Social Science (ICAESS 2021), pages 197-206

ISBN: 978-989-758-605-7

197

the students may potentially lose their motivation.

These issues have long become the concern of

English educators and researchers. A long series of

research has been done in the endeavors to find better

ways to increase students’ writing motivation

includes the effort to improve the writing assessment.

It comprises the areas of learning motivation and

writing motivation, writing assessment complexities,

information technology utilization in writing

assessment, and reward use in teaching instruction

and in writing instruction.

2.1 Learning Motivation and Writing

Motivation

Motivation to learn is a central feature and one of the

most challenging issues in education (Filgona,

Sakiyo, Gwany, & Okoronka, 2020; Hadfield &

Dörnyei, 2013; Hardré, Crowson, Debacker, &

White, 2007; Reeve, 1996; Ryan & Connell, 1989).

Most of the literature shows that learning motivation

correlates positively to learning performance. Some

studies conclude that the level of motivation to learn

is proportional to the level of academic achievement

(Amrai, Motlagh, Zalani, & Parhon, 2011; Tella,

2007; Tokan & Imakulata, 2019). The studies in

language learning and teaching area also show the

same result. It was found, for example, that in foreign

language learning, students who have a stronger

desire to learn tend to get a higher language

competencies increase (Al-Hazemi, 2000; Bećirović,

2017; Li & Pan, 2009; Solak, 2012). Similarly, Al-

Otaibi (2004) observed that students with higher

learning motivation tend to learn more effectively and

spend more time in the effort to achieve learning

goals. These clearly show that motivation is very

central in improving students' language competencies

(Alizadeh, 2016; Gilakjani & Sabouri, 2016; Khansir

& Dehkordi, 2017).

2.2 Writing and Writing Assessment

Complexities

Literature shows that the practice of writing

assessment was accomplished either directly or

indirectly, meaning that a student’s writing skills can

be measured from either his ability to write an

authentic writing or from his capability to perform

different language competence separately, such as

grammar or vocabulary without having to write an

authentic writing (Weigle, 2002). In writing teaching-

learning practice, writing performance is assessed in

summative and formative ways (Gardner, 2012).

Summative assessment is usually done at the end of a

learning period to measure to what extent students

able to write. In contrast, formative assessment is

done within a learning period to develop students

writing. In the formative assessment practice, Hattie

and Timperley (2007) highlighted the importance of

providing feedback as the heart of the writing

process-oriented assessment.

Providing feedback to student writing is also

another particular challenge for teachers in the

teaching of writing. The complexities of writing

assessment can lead to delays in the return of student

work. This problem is also aggravated by the

challenge of big class sizes, which is still prevalent in

many developing countries in Asia (Awan & Kamran,

2018; Cotner et al., 2008; Exley & Dennick, 2004)

includes Indonesia. Teachers then should face

complex assessments of abundant pieces of students’

writing tasks regularly. This problem leads to low-

quality feedback, slow feedback, or even no feedback

(Chang, 2007). It enhances dissatisfaction, brings

discouragement to some students, heads to low

writing motivation, and finally leads to low writing

performance (Nemati, Alavi, Mohebbi, & Masjedlou,

2017). One of the most current solutions that also

attracts researchers is the use of technology in writing

assessments.

2.3 Information Technology Utilisation

in Writing Assessment

Technology has been used in almost all learning

activities, including assessment. In the context of

writing assessment, one of the well-known uses of

technology is automatic writing assessment. The

automatic writing assessment is commonly known to

be able to give immediate prompt assessments (Chen

& Cheng, 2008; Dikli, 2006; Zhang & Hyland, 2018).

When students get immediate feedback on what they

have written, they are more willing to revise as it is

still fresh in their minds, and it supports their

motivation to write (Warschauer & Ware, 2006). To

some extent, this could be a solution to the problem

of the tendency of giving late feedback to students’

writings, especially in big-size classes that often

discourage students and leads to low writing

performance (Nemati et al., 2017). However,

automatic writing assessment was also constantly

criticized as being very limited in assessing writing

context and content (Ferris & Hedgcock, 2005; Huot,

1996; Warschauer & Grimes, 2008). Considering this

deficiency and realizing that writing is never free

from context, the current study then tests the

utilization of the web-based technology system to

ICAESS 2021 - The International Conference on Applied Economics and Social Science

198

facilitate the lecturer to do not only a more timely but

also a more comprehensive writing assessment.

2.4 Reward Use in Teaching

Instruction and Writing Instruction

The use of reward in teaching instruction remains

controversial, as it may potentially damage students’

intrinsic motivation if it is perceived as a control tool

(Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Deci, Ryan, &

Koestner, 2001). Neuroscience, on the other hand,

suggested that the reward would make people repeat

the activities beneficial to them and hence it has the

potency to promote learning and approach behavior

for the pleasures they result in (Martin-Soelch et al.,

2001; Rowe, Eckstein, Braver, & Owen, 2008). The

positive impact of reward use in teaching instruction

on students learning motivation was also shown in

many studies. Some research found that the reward

given for each novel performance student made can

increase creativity, motivation, and learning

performance (Cameron, Pierce, Banko, & Gear,

2005; Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997; Eisenberger &

Shanock, 2003). In the Indonesian learning context,

credit point system reward was found to increase

students’ motivation to speak in English and to

participate in English speaking classes (Widyatmika,

2009). These support the previous study findings that

the use of reward is potential to enhance interest,

especially of initially less motivated students in

initially boring lessons (Cameron, Banko, & Pierce,

2001; Lepper, 1998).

The reward giving practice in writing instruction

was also found to have a positive impact on student

writing motivation in both L1 (Burieva, 2020; Hansen

& Wills, 2014) and L2 (Bouguerne, 2011; Loi &

Uyen, 2016). A study result done in the Indonesian

context shows that the use of reward and punishment

found to increase students’ motivation to learn

English as a foreign language (Irawati & Syafei,

2016).

3 METHODOLOGY

This research applied a quantitative method

(Creswell, 2012) in a quasi-experiment design since

it was done in three intact class groups without full

randomization to avoid the learning system disruption

in the research site (Creswell, 2012; Vogt, 2005).

3.1 Data Sources

The research site was the State Polytechnic of Batam

(Polibatam), Indonesia, with 3319 students as the

study population. Three classes with the most similar

characteristics with eigthty six students taking

English Writing Course in the semester I of the

Business Management Department were purposively

choosen to become the samples of the study. The

demography ot the samples can be seen in the

following table.

Table 1 Demography of the Research Samples

Class

(Marking

Treatment)

Gender Age

male

fe-

male

Traditional 30 6 24 0 24 5 1

Web-

ased

27 11 16 5 15 7 0

Reward-

ased

29 2 27 4 18 7 0

Total 86 19 67 9 57 19 1

The table above shows that most of the

participants were females. Two-thirds of them were

twenty years old, others were nineteen years (22%),

and the rest were seventeen and twenty years old.

Before entering the Polibatam, they have got English

lessons for a couple of years in their Primary and High

School.

3.2 Research Scheme and Design

The research provided and analyzed the impact

of three different writing marking treatments on

student writing motivation, as can be seen in the

research scheme diagram 2 below.

Figure 1> Diagram of The Research Scheme.

Writing

Motivation

Writing

Motivation

Writing

Motivation

Web-based Writing Assessment or Reward-based Writing Assessment: Which Gives Better Impact on Student Writing Motivation

199

The three writing assessment methods above

assess students’ writing tasks diffferently. In the

Traditional Writing Assessment treatment, student

writing is traditionally submitted on paper to lecturers,

who read it, write comments on it, assign a grade and

then give it back to students. The assessment is

accomplished based on the Polibatam writing

assessment rubric consisting of five elements; content,

organization, vocabulary, language use, and

mechanics. Then, the second treatment, the Web-

based Writing Assessment uses the Polibatam e-

learning platform, https://learning.polibatam.ac.id.

Students type their writing tasks in the platform and

send them to a lecturer’s screen by clicking the upload

button. The Lecturer also assesses that tasks on that

platform using the same rubric firstly inputted to the

platform at the beginning of the Writing Course. In

order to grade a student’s writing, the lecture simply

needs to click a suitable level column of comment and

point from the rubric with the student’s submitted

writing task appearing above the rubric. The lecturer

has to do this for each of the five writing elements. By

finishing clicking suitable level of each of the five

elements, the web system automatically calculates the

score of the student’s writing, records the chosen

comment for each of the five writing elements and

sends it to student’s screen on the web. Any particular

comment the lecturer wants to make that is not yet

covered in the four levels of provided comments, can

be typed in the blank box on the very left of the rubric

that will be also sent to students screen. The last

treatment, the Reward-based Writing Assessment

combines the traditional writing marking with a

reward system in the form of rank stickers adopted and

modified from the Indonesian army ranks order. Each

of the weekly writing assignment scores achieved by

each student during the English Writing Course was

accumulated, and when achieving a certain score total

was rewarded with a particular military rank sticker

hierarchically from Second Sergeant to General.

The study employed a pretest-posttest design

(Creswell, 2012), as can be seen in the table below.

Table 2. Research Design

Pre-test

(Before

Treatment)

Treatment

Groups

Posttest

(After

Treatment)

Interview

Motivation

Survey

Traditional

Writing Marking

Motivation

Survey

with

student

representati

ves from

each

treatment

rou

Web-based

Writing Marking

Reward-based

Writing Marking

Student participants taking English Writing

Course in each of the three classes were firstly given

a motivation survey to map their initial writing

motivation level at the beginning of the course before

having the treatments. Since the study had to

accommodate the real-world design i.e., the class

setting in the research site, it purposely chose three

classes having the most similar characteristics. The

three selected classes then received the three

treatments. One class got one treatment, chosen

randomly. And by the end of the treatment, the

writing motivation of the students was reassessed

with a post-test to see their writing motivation scale

after following the treatment. The pre-test and the

post-test were then analyzed, and the writing

motivation increase of each group was calculated and

compared, to see how each assessment system

impacts the samples’ writing motivation. To get

measurable deeper more comprehensive data, the pre-

and post-test data analysis findings were used to

prepare a questions coverage outline of a following

one-on-one interview with the student representatives

from each of three groups and with the the two

lecturers teaching in the two classes. One of teachers

taught writing in the Traditional and in the Web-

based Writing Assessment classes, and the other one

in the Web-based Writing Assessment class.

3.3 Research Instruments

The instrument for measuring the students’ writing

motivation in this study is the modified Academic

Writing Motivation Questionnaire (AWMQ)

developed by Payne (2012). It consists of 37

statements with five subscales i.e., enjoyment, self-

efficacy, instrumentality, recognition, and effort. This

instrument of Payne suits this study as it was

specifically designed for measuring writing

motivation in Academic Writing Course and for

university students (which this research is about). As

motivation is not a skill – but rather an attitude, which

is not going to progressively improve because of a

rehearsal process, the same instrument was used to

assess the participants’ initial and final motivation

level (for pre-test and post-test).

For the interview, a questions coverage outline

was prepared based on the pre- and post-test data

analysis findings. However, it was varied and

extended during the interview to get a further and

more detailed information from the interview

(Creswell, 2012).

The researcher is a member of staff at Polibatam

but when the project was underway, he was on full

academic leave to complete his PhD that he was

neither teaching any of the two classes involved, nor

ICAESS 2021 - The International Conference on Applied Economics and Social Science

200

was familiar with any students participating in the

research. However, he was indeed involved in the

recruitment process of the participants and did take

part in the interview as the interviewer.

3.4 Data Analysis

The student motivation level was scored by totaling

the score of each respondent’s answer to each of the

survey statements divided by the total number of the

survey statements. There are four response choices to

each statement and are scored as follow: Strongly

Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Agree = 3, and Strongly

Agree = 4. The score data were then analyzed using

SPSS to conduct descriptive and inferential statistic

tests.

The obtained qualitative data, on the other hand,

was analyzed by doing theory data coding. It

generated some codes such as assessment time,

feedback clarity, and the reward treatment. Some

other codes were engendered from the five elements

of AWMQ used in this research. Those are

enjoyment, recognition, instrumentality, self-

efficacy, and effort.

4 DATA FINDINGS AND

DISCUSSION

The study found that each of the three writing

marking treatments increases the students writing

motivation, as can be seen from the Table 4.3 below.

Table 3 Writing Motivation Increase and Paired Sample

Test of Each Group

Group N

Pre-

test

Mean

Post-

test

Mean

Inc-

rease

Paired Samples

Test

t df

Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Traditional 30 101.50 103.00 1.50 .969 29 .341

Web-based 27 100.33 106.70 6.37 7.156 26 .000

Reward-

ased

29 100.07 109.52 9.45 9.164 28 .000

The table 3 above clearly shows the mean of pre-

and post-writing motivation in the Traditional writing

assessment treatment group are very close to each

other. The students writing motivation average

increase is only 1.50 points from a possible maximum

of 148. It is a 1.01% increase before and after the

treatment in the group. The t Sig. value of the

Traditional writing marking treatment is 0.341, which

is bigger than 0.05. It shows that the difference is not

statistically significant. This indicates that the effect

of the Traditional writing marking treatment on

students writing motivation is not significant.

The Web-based marking treatment makes a

positive significant impact on student writing

motivation. There is a clear difference between the

mean of the writing motivation pre-test and post-test

in the Web-based treatment group, as can be seen in

the Table 3 above. The students writing motivation

has an average increase of 6.37 points from a possible

maximum of 148 (4.30%) before and after the

treatment in the group. The Sig. value, as can be seen

in the Table 3, is 0.000, which is smaller than 0.05,

showing that the difference is statistically significant.

This indicates that there is a significant effect of the

Web-based writing marking treatment on students

writing motivation.

The reward-based marking treatment also results

in a positive significant impact on student writing

motivation. As can be seen in Table 4.3 above, there

is a clear difference between the mean of the pre- and

the post-writing motivation in the group. The students

writing motivation gets an average increase of 9.45

points from a possible maximum of 148 (6.39%)

before and after the treatment in the group. The Sig.

value, as can be seen in the table is 0.000, which

smaller than 0.05, showing that the difference is

statistically significant. This indicates that there is a

significant effect of the Reward-based writing

marking treatment on students writing motivation.

The study found that the Traditional writing

assessment has a positive but not significant impact

on student writing motivation. The Web-based and

the Reward-based, on the other hand, gives a positive

and significant impact on student writing motivation.

The comparison of the writing motivation increase in

the three writing assessment treatment groups can be

more clearly seen in the graph below.

Figure 2: Graph of Student Writing Performance Increase

in each of the Writing Assessment Treatment Group.

1,5

(1.01%)

6,37

(4.30%)

9,45

(6.39%)

Traditional

Assessment

Web-based

Assessment

Reward-based

Assessment

Writing Motivation Increase

Web-based Writing Assessment or Reward-based Writing Assessment: Which Gives Better Impact on Student Writing Motivation

201

The graph above clearly shows that the Web-

based and the Reward-based writing marking

treatment result in a much higher writing motivation

increase than the Traditional marking treatment. The

Reward-based writing marking treatment, though

engenders the highest writing motivation raise of all

the three marking treatments.

The study found that the Web-based writing

assessment results in a faster assessment turnaround

time than the Traditional writing assessment. From

the questionnaire and the interview with the student

representatives, the assessment turnaround time in the

Web-based group averagely took three to four days,

while in the Traditional group averagely took a week.

This more timely assessment gives a positive impact

on students writing motivation as they get satisfied

with the assessment promptness and clarity, as can be

from a comment uttered by one of the Web-based

group interviewees, KUR28, as follows.

In my opinion, my lecture was fast, Sir…

Fast, he was fast. For example, I'd ever

inputted a wrong one into the web, he then

directly made a chat with me personally to

remind me and at the same time told me,

“this is still wrong, this one, this and this.”

I was often reminded. I think he was good

and always gave a fast respond.

KUR28 clearly expressed her satisfaction with the

prompt and clear feedback she got on her writing

from her lecturer. As previously explained, the Web-

based system is utilized to facilitate the lecturer to do

a more efforless and faster assessment. This student

contentment with the rapid assessment turnaround

time is a typical view among the Web-based class

interviewees. Some other said that the feedback they

got is clear and sufficient enough to revise their

writings. This finding is in line with the results of the

previous study, which showed that the use of

technology in writing assessment indeed outperform

traditional assessment in terms of the speed of

providing feedback which can give students pleasure

and convenience in managing the sufficient available

time to revise their writings (Chen & Cheng, 2008;

Dikli, 2006; Zhang & Hyland, 2018). It also supports

the previous work of Warschauer and Ware (2006),

who observed that students tend to be more

enthusiastic with their writing lesson when they get

immediate feedback on what they have written. What

the students experience in the Traditional class, on the

other hand, was different.

The qualitative data finding indicates that the

students in the Traditional class are commonly

displeased by the lateness and the inadequacy of the

feedback given by their lecturer. It can be seen, for

example, from a comment expressed by BAL25, one

of the interviewees from the Traditional group, as

follows.

In my opinion, firstly, because of this late

assessment, not to mention the unclearness

of the assessment, the meaning of such a

given score why it was far less from

expectation, we became lazy. It made us

less motivated to write. The following

assignments were just written

perfunctorily with no more enthusiasm.

It can be seen how the long turnaround time and

inadequacy of the assessment demotivates BAL25.

This dissatisfaction, with the students losing their

writing motivation, is a common view among the

Traditional group interviewees. This aligns with the

previous study finding that the failure to give prompt

feedback to help students with their writing

difficulties leads to low writing motivation (Nemati

et al., 2017).

The qualitative data findings expose that the

reward treatment generates pleasure and enthusiasm

to learn writing also gives the students pride and

prestige. The provided chance to get double ranks at

once by making extra high scores at two or more

writing assignments consecutively gives the students

greater satisfaction and proudness as expressed by

NET09, one of the interviewees from the Reward

treatment group below.

Those stickers reward such as the General,

Sir… Yes, but in my opinion, it is

motivating enough to write the essay

assignments, to have better scores, that

kind of stuff, Sir… Because…waohh, if,

for example, when we got high scores, we

could directly jump to get two ranks at

once. It’s cool when you could jump

straight away, right? You could then reach

the General faster than the others. Like

that, Sir.

It can be seen how enthusiastic and delighted

NET09 is with the reward she got, especially when

she is successful in getting double ranks after

probably striving to continuously write two or more

excellent high scored essays. Receiving double ranks,

which she calls as “jump rank,” seems to generate

double satisfaction and pride. Some other

interviewees also had the same experience and gave

similar responses. This finding is in line with the

result of L2 previous studies that found the reward

treatment has a positive impact on student motivation

to learn English (Irawati & Syafei, 2016; Loi & Uyen,

2016) includes English writing (Bouguerne, 2011). It

also aligns with the previous inquiry finding by

ICAESS 2021 - The International Conference on Applied Economics and Social Science

202

Lepper (1983) that when the participants may see the

learning benefits and their competence increase, the

external reward may generate subsequent motivation

increase. The pride of the students is much greater

when they can get double ranks provided in the

reward treatment scheme. This finding is in line with

previous studies finding that when reward is given for

novel performance, it has a positive impact on the

intrinsic motivation and creativity (Eisenberger &

Armeli, 1997; Eisenberger & Shanock, 2003). This

does not happen in the non-reward classes, as being

explained in the following part. This seems not to

occur in the Traditional writing assessment.

In the Traditional writing assessment group, the

students were commonly felt less motivated to write

and gave little or less effort in their writing learning

process. They seemed to get much trouble and

demotivated with the high difficulty of the English

writing. When asked about the number and the

difficulty level of their writing assignments, HAF15,

one of the interviewees from the group, for example,

said as follows.

If there’re many, that's not a problem, Sir,

but when they’re difficult if it's tough…

Yes, I become lazy to do it.

HAF15 did not object to having many writing

assignments but cannot stand facing difficult ones.

Instead of continuing to give more effort, he ended up

in being lazy and worked on them perfunctorily. This

is a typical comment among the interviewees from the

Traditional writing assessment group. They talked

about some varieties of difficulties in following the

writing tasks, such as grammar, vocabulary, finding

and organizing the ideas, and so forth. While the late

and less clear feedback they got from their lecture, as

previously mentioned, was not sufficient and helpful

enough for them to deal with those difficulties. It

made them more discouraged with their writing

learning. Some of the students from the Web-based

assessment group indeed also talked about the same

kinds of difficulties. However, as previously

mentioned, clear, and immediate feedback they got,

helped them to deal with those difficulties with which

they were satisfied. This seems to make the Web-

based writing assessment increase students writing

motivation higher than the Traditional writing

assessment. This finding supports the previous

finding that providing more timely writing feedback

will make students more motivated and more willing

revise when the assessed writing is still fresh in their

mind (Warschauer & Ware, 2006).

While in the Reward-based group, the students did

not have prompt and clear feedback as those in the

Web-based group. However, as they got enthusiastic

with the reward, they kept doing the writing

assignments and learning its difficulties by asking

friends or leaning from any other sources. The

eagerness to get higher rewards seems to play a role

in giving them the endurance to keep making their

better effort to be able to write better essays to get a

higher scores for higher ranks rewards. The

Traditional and the Web-based writing assessment,

on the other hand, do not generate this kind of

enthusiasm and endurance that some students in the

groups could end up in laziness and apathy to the

writing learning. This seems to make the Reward-

based marking treatment increase students’ writing

motivation higher than the Web-based and the

Traditional writing marking treatment. This finding is

in line with the previous studies results, seeing the

reward potencial to enhance learning motivation on

initially low-interest students (Cameron et al., 2001;

Lepper, 1998).

5 CONCLUSIONS,

IMPLICATIONS, AND

SUGGESTIONS

The study finding shows the importance of giving

prompt and clear feedback to students’ writings to

maintain dan increase their writing motivation. It is

probably neccessary to enforce a policy that obliges

lecturers to give prompt and clear feedback to

students writing, for example, at least three days after

the writing is submitted. Currently, in most of the

teaching writing in Indonesia, it seems there is almost

no such policy that regulates the turnaround time limit

for student writing assessments. It can be done by

applying web-based writing assessment as being

demonstrated in this study. For those educational

institutions that have limitations, such as in financial

or in supporting facilities, to use a web-based writing

assessment, more senior students can be involved to

help the lecturer to assess student writing.

This inquiry finding that reward generates student

learning pride, prestige, enthusiasm, and endurance

may show that providing reward is essential in

improving student learning motivation. It is then

probably important to continue using this reward

system in the research site, in Polibatam, and in other

education institutions having similar contexts.

However, some education institutions may have

limited financial capacity to provide such external

rewards. Therefore, the kind of extremal rewards

should be adjusted to the institution’s financial

capacity, such as giving money, chocolates, candies,

Web-based Writing Assessment or Reward-based Writing Assessment: Which Gives Better Impact on Student Writing Motivation

203

stickers, or even symbolic rewards. The reward may

also work to increase student motivation and

performance in teaching other subjects or in different

levels of education.

As the research found that the Web-based writing

marking system may increase student writing

motivation by providing more timely clearer

feedback, and the Reward-based marking treatment

by generating enthusiasm and endurance to learn

writing, it is probably essential to do a further reseach

by combining both treatments. It will be interesting

whether such combination could consolidate the

strengths of each marking treatment and hence results

in higher writing motivaiton increase.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge supports that the

Indonesian Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP)

and the Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture

in making this research and presentation possible

under the Dikti Scholarship.

REFERENCES

Al-Hazemi, H. (2000). Lexical attrition of some Arabic

speakers of English as a foreign language. The Internet

TESL Journal, 6(12). Retrieved from

http://iteslj.org/Articles/Al-Hazemi-Attrition/

Al-Otaibi, G. N. (2004). Language learning strategy use

among Saudi EFL students and its relationship to

language proficiency level, gender, and motivation.

(Doctoral dissertation). Indiana University of

Pennsylvania, Indiana. Retrieved from

https://www.proquest.com/openview/62448815d4058

2ef3eec3dd99b6640a6/1?pq-

origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

Alizadeh, M. (2016). The impact of motivation on English

language learning. International Journal of Research in

English Education, 1(1), 11-15.

Amrai, K., Motlagh, S. E., Zalani, H. A., & Parhon, H.

(2011). The relationship between academic motivation

and academic achievement students. Procedia - Social

and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 399-402.

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.111

Awan, A. G., & Kamran, A. (2018). Testing and assessment

of large classes in English Language. Global Journal of

Management, Social Sciences and Humanities, 4(3),

622-650.

Bayley, S., Fearnside, R., Arnol, J., Misiano, J., & Rottura,

R. (2002). International students in Victoria. People and

Place, 10(2), 45-54.

Bećirović, S. (2017). The relationship between gender,

motivation and achievement in learning English as a

foreign language. European Journal of Contemporary

Education, 6(2), 210-220.

doi:10.13187/ejced.2017.2.210

Blake, G., & Bly, R. W. (1991). The Elements of business

writing. New York: Longman.

Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. (1991). Higher education report.

Retrieved from http://www.active-learning-site.com/

Bouguerne, S. (2011). The use of reward and cooperative

learning for motivating learners in writing: A case study

of first-year middle school pupils at Okba Ibn Nafaa

Middle School in Mila. (Master thesis). Institute of

Foreign Languages, Mila. Retrieved from

https://bu.umc.edu.dz/theses/anglais/BOU1289.pdf

Bretag, T., Horrocks, S., & Smith, J. (2002). Developing

classroom practices to support NESB students in

Information Systems courses: Some preliminary

findings. International Education Journal, 3(4).

Burieva, R. (2020). The effectiveness of teaching writing to

the students with the technique "rewards and positive

reinforcement". Academic Research in Educational

Sciences, 1(1), 229-232.

Cameron, J., Banko, K. M., & Pierce, W. D. (2001).

Pervasive negative effect of rewards on instrinsic

motivation: The myth continues. The Behavior Analyst,

24, 1–44.

Cameron, J., Pierce, W. D., Banko, K. M., & Gear, A.

(2005). Achievement-based rewards and intrinsic

motivation: A test of cognitive mediators. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 97(4), 641-655.

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.641

Chang, G. C. (2007). Writing feedback as an exclusionary

practice in higher education. International Journal of

Pedagogies and Learning, 3(2), 18-30.

Chen, C.-F. E., & Cheng, W.-Y. E. (2008). Beyond the

design of automated writing evaluation: Pedagogical

practices and perceived learning effectiveness in EFL

writing classes. Language Learning & Technology,

12(2), 94–112.

Cotner, S. H., Fall, B. A., Wick, S. M., Walker, J. D., &

Baepler, P. M. (2008). Rapid feedback assessment

methods: Can we improve engagement and preparation

for exams in large-enrollment courses? Journal of

Science Education and Technology, 17(5), 437-443.

doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9112-8

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning,

conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative

research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-

analytic review of experiment examining the effect of

extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological

Bulletin, 125, 627-668.

Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., & Koestner, R. (2001). The

pervasive negative effect of rewards on intrinsic

motivations: Response to Cameron. Review of

Educational Research, 71, 43-51.

Dikli, S. (2006). An overview of automated scoring of

essays. Journal of Technology, Learning and

Assessment, 5(1), 1-35.

Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (1997). Can salient reward

increase creative performance without reducing

ICAESS 2021 - The International Conference on Applied Economics and Social Science

204

intrinsic creative interest? Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 72(3), 652-663.

Eisenberger, R., & Shanock, L. (2003). Rewards, intrinsic

motivation, and creativity: A case study of conceptual

and methodological isolation. Creativity Research

Journal, 15(2&3), 121-130.

Exley, K., & Dennick, R. (2004). Giving a lecture - From

presenting to teaching. London: Routledge Falmer.

Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teaching ESL

composition: Purpose, process, and practice (2 ed.).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Filgona, J., Sakiyo, J., Gwany, D. M., & Okoronka, A. U.

(2020). Motivation in learning. Asian Journal of

Education and Social Studies, 10, 16-37.

doi:10.9734/ajess/2020/v10i430273

Fraigley, L., & Miller, T. P. (1982). What we learn from

writing on the job. College English, 44(6), 557-569.

Gardner, J. (2012). Assessment and learning (2 ed.).

London: SAGE.

Garner, B. A. (2012). HBR guide to better business writing.

Boston: Harvard Business Review.

Gilakjani, A. P., & Sabouri, N. B. (2016). A study of factors

affecting EFL learners’ reading comprehension skill

and the strategies for improvement. International

Journal of English Linguistics, 6(5), 180-187.

Greavu, A. (2019). An overview of business writing:

Challenges and solutions. Studies in Business and

Economics, 14(1), 60-71. doi:10.2478/sbe-2019-0005

Hadfield, J., & Dörnyei, Z. (2013). Motivation learning (1st

ed.). Harlow: Longman.

Hansen, B. D., & Wills, H. P. (2014). The effect of goal

setting, contingent reward, and instruction on writing

skill. Journal of Applied Behavior and Analysis, 47,

171-175.

Hardré, P. L., Crowson, H. M., Debacker, T. K., & White,

D. (2007). Predicting the academic motivation of rural

high school students. The Journal of Experimental

Education, 75(4), 247-269. doi:10.3200/jexe.75.4.247-

269

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback.

Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.

doi:10.3102/003465430298487

Huot, B. (1996). Computers and assessment:

Understanding two technologies. Computers and

Composition, 13(2), 231–243.

Irawati, & Syafei, A. F. R. (2016). The use of reward and

punishment to increase young lerners motivation in

learning English as a foreign language and adapted to

Indonesian context. Journal of English Language

Teaching, 5(1d), 265-271.

Khansir, A. A., & Dehkordi, F. G. (2017). The role of

motivation in teaching and learning English language

Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 7(9),

072–085.

Lepper, M. R. (1983). Extrinsic reward and intrinsic

motivation: Implications for the classroom. In J. M.

Levine & M. C. Wang (Eds.), Teacher and student

perceptions: Implications for learning (pp. 281–317):

Hillsdale, N.J. : L. Erlbaum Associates.

Lepper, M. R. (1998). A whole much less than the sum of

its parts. Amerrican Psychologist, 53, 675-676.

Li, P., & Pan, G. (2009). The relationship between

motivation and achievement - A survey of the study

motivation of English majors in Qingdao Agricultural

University English Language Teaching, 2(1).

Loi, D. P., & Uyen, N. T. L. (2016). Motivating EFL

classroom participation by rewarding at a language

center in Ho Chi Minh city, Vietnam. Journal of

Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(5), 177-

189.

Martin-Soelch, C., Leenders, K. L., Chevalley, A. F.,

Missimer, J., Kunig, G., Magyar, S., . . . Schultz, W.

(2001). Reward mechanisms in the brain and their role

in dependence: Evidence from neurophysiological and

neuroimaging studies. Brain Research Reviews, 36,

139-149.

Nacira, G. (2010). Poor writing production: The case study

of 3rd year students at the English Department - Batna

University. (Master). University of Setif, Algeria.

Nemati, M., Alavi, S. M., Mohebbi, H., & Masjedlou, A. P.

(2017). Speaking out on behalf of the voiceless learners

- Written corrective feedback for English language

learners in Iran. Issues in Educational Research, 27(4),

822-841.

Reeve, J. (1996). Motivating others: Nurturing inner

motivational resources. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Rowe, J. B., Eckstein, D., Braver, T., & Owen, A. M.

(2008). How does reward expectation influence

cognition in the human brain? Journal of Cognitive

Neuroscience, 20, 1054-1069.

Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of

causality and internalization: Examining reasons for

acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 57(5), 749-761.

Sawir, E. (2005). Language difficulties of international

students in Australia: The effects of prior learning

experience. International Education Journal, 6(5), 567-

580.

Solak, E. (2012). Exploring the role of motivational factors

in the academic achievement of EFL learners. ELT

Research Journal, 1(4), 240-254.

Tella, A. (2007). The impact of motivation onstudents

academic achievementand learning outcomes in

mathematics among secondary school students in

Nigeria. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science &

Technology Education, 3(2), 149-156

Tokan, M. K., & Imakulata, M. M. (2019). The effect of

motivation and learning behaviour on student

achievement. South African Journal of Education,

39(1), 1-8. doi:10.15700/saje.v39n1a1510

Vogt, W. P. (2005). Dictionary of statistics and

methodology: A nontechnical guide for the social

sciences (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2008). Automated writing

assessment in the classroom. Pedagogies: An

International Journal, 3, 32-36.

Warschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2006). Automated writing

evaluation: Defining the classroom research agenda.

Language Teaching Research, 10(2), 157–180.

Web-based Writing Assessment or Reward-based Writing Assessment: Which Gives Better Impact on Student Writing Motivation

205

Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Widyatmika, R. (2009). Using credit point system to

promote students' motivation in oral participation in

English classes at SMPN 1 Malang. (Bachelor thesis).

University of Malang, Indonesia,

Zhang, Z. V., & Hyland, K. (2018). Student engagement

with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing.

Assessing Writing, 36, 90-102.

ICAESS 2021 - The International Conference on Applied Economics and Social Science

206