This research was quantitative and it employed quasi-experimental method employs quasi-experimental method with two groups of students which received different treatment, namely experimental and control group. In the form of treatment, the experimental group treated through Peer Review Technique besides the control group was treated through teacher feedback. The research design is presented as follows:
Table 1. The Research Table
Class Pre-test Treatment Post-test
E C
O1 O1
X1 X2
O1 O2 Where: E : Experimental group
C : Control group
X1 : Treatment for experimental group (Peer review technique)
X2 : Treatment for control group (Traditional teachers’
feedback) O1 : Pre-test O2 : Post-test [20]
The information were gathered from both pretest and posttest. At the outset, the experimental and control groups are given pre-test. Its goal is to quantify and characterize the students' earlier capacity in writing. They were given familiar issues and afterward they investigated their thoughts in composed structure. Afterward, the posttest was given after the students of experimental and control group subsequent to follow the treatment. It was expected to discover the critical effects of the students writing ability after
treating by utilizing Peer Review Technique. Subsequent to following Peer Review Technique procedures, the students' score of the 10th year students of SMP Negeri 3 Parepare in academic year 2019/2020 were got through the given writing test. Both of pretest and posttest information were investigated to get their score for both of the classes. It plans to discover the huge diverse of the students from experimental and control group. The researcher gathered information from the test which has been given to the students. Subsequent to examining the information, the researcher tracked down the mean scores and the standard deviation of the two groups in the wake of ascertaining the consequence of the students’ score for both pretest and posttest are introduced as illustrated below:
Table 2: The Students’ Mean Score and Standard Deviation in pretest and posttest
No. Group Mean Score Standard Deviation
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
1 Experiment 56.03 77.50 6.52 11.54
2 Control 61.80 67,86 11.35 11.32
Table 2 indicates that the students’ mean score for posttest in experimental group (56.03) is slightly different than control group (61.80) and those are classified as fair. After treatment, the students’ mean score of the experimental group is 77.50, and the standard deviation value is 11.54, while in control group, students’ mean score is 67.86 and the standard deviation value is 11.32. The result proves that the students’ prior ability in experimental group is lower than the students in control group, but after giving treatment the result showed the significant improvement of the student ability in experimental group compared to the control group. Furthermore, the researcher used t-test to measure the significance difference between group of the experimental and control in the terms of the mean score in pretest and posttest. The result of the test was determined by using SPSS version 24 as demonstrated as follows:
Table 3: The Probability Value of T-Test of the Students’ Writing Skill in the Experimental and Control Group.
Group Statistics
Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Posttest Experimental Group 30 77,50 11,545 2,108
Control Group 30 67,87 11,325 2,068
Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. T Df
Sig. (2- tailed) Mean
Differ-ence
Std.
Error Differ-ence
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Posttest
Score Equal variances assumed
,292 ,591 3,263 58 ,002 9,633 2,953 3,723 15,544
Equal varianc-es not assumed
3,263 57,979 ,002 9,633 2,953 3,723 15,544
The t-test result in the table 3 indicates that the significant value (0.002) was lower than the probability value (0.05). It shows that there were significant differences between the students’ writing skill on posttest before and after giving treatment by using Peer Review Technique.
Meanwhile, the table showed the t-test value for both groups was 3.26, which was higher than the t-table value (2.00). Consequently, based on the data, the hypothesis (H0) was rejected and (H1) was accepted. In this case, the students who are taught writing by using Peer Review Technique have better writing skill. The result was in line with the research conducted by Kustati M and Yuhardi (2014), where they found that teaching writing skill by utilizing the Peer-Review Technique to English students was effective than utilizing the technique of the teacher’s traditional feedback.
The aftereffect of t-test contains in the table 3 indicates that the significant value (0.002) was lower than the probability value (0.05). It implies that there were huge contrasts between the students’ writing ability on posttest when treated by utilizing Peer Review Technique. Then, the table demonstrated the t-test an incentive for the two groups was 3.26, which was higher than the t-table value (2.00). Thus, in view of the information, the hypothesis (H0) was rejected and (H1) was accepted. It implies that the students who are trained writing by utilizing the technique of Peer-Review have better writing skill. This information was upheld by the examination led by Kustati M and Yuhardi (2014), where they explained that teaching writing utilizing the Peer-Review Technique to English students was compelling than utilizing the technique of educators’
traditional feedback.
Discussion
The result of this research clearly showed significant impact of the use of Peer Review Technique in teaching writing especially report text to the students of SMP Neg. 3 Parepare. The control group clearly expressed that they have found the peer review session successful. The researcher found that the students were able to help each other with both content and form, and they were able to reflect on what they had done. A positive learning aspect brought up by the students was that the peer review gave them practice in close reading in a more obvious way than when they practice reading finished texts.
The peer review in writing text can contribute to several aspects. The students were very motivated and aware of how they could benefit from working with texts. When reflecting on the task they were able to formulate issues of the exercise and strategies to deal with them. They also showed positive experience that they were aware of the goals of the assignment and all criteria recommended for a successful peer review [22]. In addition, peer review inside writing classroom has shown worth to improve students’ writing in the space of composing components. Substance and association came about because of the peer review action showed preferable improvement over language and mechanics. This examination likewise affirmed that substance and association were difficulties to write in a subsequent language, while simultaneously, peer review input drove students to improve organization [21]. During the research, the students felt that peer review was useful generally besides in syntax enhancements.
Conclusion
This study briefly presents a four meeting of writing class that involves the impact of Peer Review Technique in contrast to teachers’ feedback in writing context. The research findings prove that the students in experimental class who were taught writing report text by using technique of Peer Review had better improvement on writing skill than the students in control group who were taught through traditional teachers’ feedback. It was proved by the rate percentage and score classification of posttest score in which the students’ score in experimental group increase significantly if compared to the students’ score in the control group. Moreover, referring to the result of t-test value for both experimental group and control group showing that the value 3.26 was higher than t-table value 2.00 indicated that Ho was rejected and Hi was accepted. It means that the students who are taught writing by using Peer Review Technique have better writing
skill. In the other words, teaching writing by utilizing technique of Peer-Review to English students was effective rather than using the technique of teacher’s traditional feedback.
References
[1] Latifa, A,“Engaging the Students in Writing Activity through Task Based Learning Approach”,International J. of Advanced Research and Publications, 4(6), 2020.
[2] Hornby A.S,Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Fifth Edition, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 1995.
[3] Byrnes, H., H. T, I., & Buck, K., “The ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview”,Tester Training Manual”, Yonkers, NY: ACTFL, 1984.
[4] Latifa, A., Nur, R., & Rizal, A, “ICARE Learning Model in Improving the Students Writing Ability”,Eralingua: J. Pendidikan Bahasa Asing dan Sastra, 2020.
[5] Harmer, J, How to Teach English: an Introduction to the Practice of English Language Teaching, Essex: Longman, 2001.
[6] Brown, H. D, Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practice, White Plains, NY: Pearson Education, 2004.
[7] Weigle, C. S, Assessing Writing, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
[8] Gielen, S. T, “A Comparative Study of Peer and Teacher Feedback and of Various Peer Feedback Forms in a Secondary School Writing Curriculum”,British Educational Research J., 36(1), 143-162, 2010.
[9] Hansen, J. and Liu, J, “Guiding Principles For Effective Peer Response”, ELT J., 59, 31-38, 2005.
[10] Hu, G, “Using Peer Review with Chinese ESL Student Autors”,Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 321-342, 2005.
[11] Zamel, V, “Responding to Student Writing”, TESOL Quarterly, 79-101, 1985.
[12] Rollinson, P,“Using Peer Feedback in the ESL Writing Class”, ELT J., 23-30, 2005.
[13] Suprajitno, S, “Electronic Peer Review”,SEAMEO Regional language Center, Singapore,1998.
[14] Ferris, D, Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998.
[15] Richardson, J. C., Ertmer, P. A., Lehman, J. D., & Newby, T.
J,“Using Peer Feedback in Online Discussions to Improve Critical Thinking”,Proceedings of The Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, CA, 2007.
[16] Schultz, J. M, “Computers and Collaborative Writing in the Foreign Language Classroom”, In M. Warschauer, & R. Kern, Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice, New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2000.
[17] Harris, M, “Collaboration is not collaboration: Writing center tutorials vs. Peer response groups”,College Composition and Communication, 43, 369-383, 1992.
[18] Wooley, R. S,The Effects of Web-Based Peer Review on Student Writing, Kent State University, 2007.
[19] Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W,“To Give is better than to Receive: The Benefits of Peer Review to the Reviewer’s own Writing”,J. of Second Language Writing, 2009.
[20] Gay, L.R., Millis, E., & Airasian, P,Educational Research:
Competencies for Analysis and Application, New Jersey. Prentice Hall, 2006.
[21] Kietlinska, K,Revision and ESL Students. In A. Horning & A. Becker (Eds.), Revision: History, Theory, and Practice, Indiana: Parlor Press, 2006.