Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.408
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal KEMBARA
Rojab Siti Rodliyah
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia
Languange, Linguistic, Communication & Media

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
A process-genre approach with genAI Feedback: Interpersonal lexicogrammar development Zainurrahman Zainurrahman; Emi Emilia; Rojab Siti Rodliyah
KEMBARA: Jurnal Keilmuan Bahasa, Sastra, dan Pengajarannya Vol. 12 No. 1 (2026): April
Publisher : Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.22219/kembara.v12i1.42479

Abstract

A genre-based approach is argued to be effective in developing students’ academic writing ability, but feedback provision remains a challenge. Studies on GenAI feedback have shown that GenAI tools can provide students with immediate, personalized feedback. However, a few studies have investigated the impact of integrating GenAI feedback into a genre-based approach. To fill this gap, this study integrated GenAI feedback into a process-genre approach (PGA) to teaching exposition, which is an academic genre. Focusing on students’ interpersonal lexicogrammatical developmental trajectory, this study employed a single-case study design. Data were collected from 15 EFL (English as a foreign language) undergraduate students' drafts (diagnostic writing test, four successive drafts, and final writing test). Students’ texts were scored using an SFL-informed rubric. The developmental trajectory was analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA, along with the SFL mood, modality, and appraisal systems. The results indicated a statistically significant increment in students’ interpersonal grammar, F(2.85, 39.92) = 33.56, p < .001, ηp2 = .706, though a slight drop in the final writing test was observed. This study concludes that PGA with GenAI feedback could facilitate students’ interpersonal lexicogrammar, but students still needed learning and writing support from the teacher. The findings of this study contribute to our understanding of the PGA with GenAI feedback in teaching exposition.
When better revisions do not mean better writers: Learning transfer and student engagement with automated feedback Asep Suparman; Eri Kurniawan; Rojab Siti Rodliyah
KEMBARA: Jurnal Keilmuan Bahasa, Sastra, dan Pengajarannya Vol. 12 No. 2 (2026): October (On Progress)
Publisher : Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.22219/kembara.v12i2.45400

Abstract

Automated feedback can improve revised texts, but evidence that these gains transfer to later writing remains limited. This 16-week sequential explanatory mixed-methods study followed 28 Indonesian undergraduate EFL students across six writing tasks. Initial and Grammarly-assisted revised drafts were rated with the ESL Composition Profile and analyzed using linear mixed models. Qualitative evidence came from 54 critical screen-recording episodes (approximately 80 minutes) and video-stimulated recall interviews. Revised drafts obtained higher domain-level scores than initial drafts, F (1,1643) = 469.413, p < .001, approximate partial η² = .222. After scores were expressed as percentages of each domain maximum, the largest descriptive gains occurred in mechanics (30.72 percentage points), language use (17.86), and vocabulary (13.28), whereas content and organization changed minimally. The previous revised-draft score did not significantly predict the next initial-draft score after controlling for topic differences, F(1, 130.803) = 1.273, p = .261. The qualitative analysis showed that many successful revisions were produced through rapid acceptance, shallow processing, self-doubt, and reliance on Grammarly; reflective evaluation and authorial ownership appeared in fewer episodes. The findings distinguish within-task text improvement from near cross-task transfer and show why feedback uptake alone is insufficient evidence of writing development.
Co-Authors Asep Suparman Emi Emilia Eri Kurniawan Zainurrahman Zainurrahman