List of Contents
Page
TITLE PAGE i
APPROVAL SHEET ii
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
ABSTRACT v
PREFACE vi
LIST OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF FIGURES x
LIST OF TABLES xi
1.
Introduction
1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Statements of the Problem 8
1.3 Objectives of the Study 8
1.4 Significance of the Study 8
1.5 Organization of the Study 9
2.
Theoretical Framework
10
2.1 Writing 10
2.1.2 Writing as a Process 13
2.2 Peer Feedback 15
2.2.1 The Philosophy of Peer Feedback 18
2.2.2 The Types of Peer Feedback 22
2.2.3 The Drawbacks in Peer Feedback 25
2.3 Peer Feedback in Writing 27
3.
Methodology
30
3.1 Research Design 30
3.2 Population and Samples 32
3.3 Research Instruments 33
3.3.1 Respondents’ Compositions 33
3.3.2 Questionnaire 34
3.3.3 Structured Interview 35
3.4 Data Analysis 35
3.4.1Quantitative Analysis 35
3.4.2Qualitative Analysis 36
3.5 Research Procedure 37
3.6 Validity 39
4.
Findings and Discussions
40
4.1 Types of Peer Written Feedback 40
4.1.2 Discussion 47
4.2 Learners’ Perception on Peer Feedback 49
4.2.1 Findings and Analysis 50
4.2.2 Discussion 53
4.3 How Learners take their Peer’s Written Feedback 55
4.3.1 Findings and Analysis 55
4.3.2 Discussion 61
5.
Conclusions and Suggestions
64
5.1 Conclusions 64
5.2 Suggestions 67
Bibliography
70
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1.2.1 Writing Process Cycle 14
Figure 3.1.1 Concurrent Embedded Design 31
Figure 3.1.2 One-shot Case Study 31
Figure 3.4.1 Research Procedure 38
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1.1.1 Sample of Respondents’ Written Commentary 41 Feedback
Table 4.1.1.2 Types of Written Feedback 43
Table 4.1.1.3 Feedback Points 43
Table 4.1.1.4 Types of Revision 45
Table 4.2.1.1 Questionnaire Results on Learners’ Perception 50 of Peer Feedback
Table 4.2.1.2 Questionnaire Results on the benefits of 51 Peer Feedback
Table 4.2.1.3 Questionnaire Results on the Obstacles of 53 Peer Feedback
Table 4.3.1.1 Interview Results on the Effectiveness of 56 Peer Feedback
Table 4.3.1.2 Interview Results on Learners’ Preference 58 on the types of Peer Feedback
Chapter 1
Introduction
This chapter of the paper briefly describes the rationale and purpose of the undergoing research.
1.1 Background
There are various methods of language teaching. The conventional method, or best known as the traditional method, focuses on teacher-centered, whereas nowadays there are many alternative ways and techniques in teaching. These breakthroughs in teaching essentially practices learner-centered approaches where learners are more involved in the process and experience of learning, especially in ELT. The materials in delivering this knowledge have been enhanced to fit the appropriate method and techniques for the learners to acquire language, therefore exposure plays an important role in language acquisition. As suggested by Cohen (1996), language learners are expected to learn how to communicate the target language in classrooms rather than learn the language through isolated words and phrases. Cohen adds that the sociocultural context of the language should also put into consideration to fully achieve the communicative objectives.
De Bot, Lowie & Verspoor, 2005: 78) considers that learners possess an abstract framework in their minds to enhance a constructive language acquisition from the various inputs learners obtain. These ideas of language acquisition have much influenced the methods and approaches of language teaching nowadays.
Krashen as cited in Harmer (2007:47) suggests that students should be concentrated on the right kind of language exposure, meaning language which more or less they understand based on experience and exposure. Students should be exposed more to the intended language in a more subconscious and anxiety free situation, where language skills are more freely expressed. In this case, language is obtained to develop the oral language, which includes listening and speaking, and written language, consisting of reading and writing. This study will focus on the process of written language acquisition, namely through writing activities.
the process towards the product, writers go through the course of doing revision whether to restore mechanical, grammatical, organizational or substantial inaccuracy of the draft. In this case, writing lab reports which is intended to inform a descriptive written work on what has been done during an experimental process could also be accounted into the writing process.
Through the process of learner‟s development in class, many (if not most) rely
on teachers as the sole source of knowledge (Leki, 1991; Saito, 1994; Zhang, 1995 as cited in Hyland & Hyland, 2006:3). In the era of learner-centered approach, teachers have been introduced to various practice of formative assessment where collaborative learning is set up to encourage learners‟ autonomy, such as „peer correction‟ (Lin & Chien, 2009; Sultana, 2009). To support the cooperative learning atmosphere, some, if not many, have practiced peer-feedback as a method to enhance student‟s autonomy in the learning process. As a replacement for teacher‟s authority in the formal accuracy and product of writing, peer review encourages the writing process approach that inspires “greater respect for individual writing and for writing itself”
(Hyland, 2003: 17 as cited inTing & Qian, 2010: 87).
knowledge development, and also helps develop metacognitive learning skills in the learning community. It shows that learning as a community possesses a variety of advantages towards the development of knowledge.
According to Sanjaya (2005: 118) constructivists believe that learning, or in this case language acquisition, can be achieved as of the process in constructing new knowledge (or behavior) through learner‟s cognitive mental state that is derived from experience. This also appeals to the fact that learner‟s could input (if ever becomes intake) a diversity of learning sources throughout school hours, or extensively outside of the formal education site, where life experience can be detained.
Moreover, constructivism is thought to be in line with the idea of learner – centered, since meaningful learning and learner autonomy is greatly encouraged thus the variety of learning outcomes becomes comprehensible. In addition, Piaget (1970) as cited in Sanjaya (2005: 118) suggests that knowledge is not only fabricated from the object, but rather from the individual‟s ability to grapple every observed object. In
other words, constructivists consider knowledge as everything that comes from the outside but is also constructed within the individual. Therefore, Sanjaya puts forward two essential factors within this school of thought, namely the object that is being observed and the subject claiming the facility to interpret the object. This indicates that knowledge is a dynamic theory, which is dependable on the individual‟s capacity
a. Knowledge is not only the objects represented through the world, but also the reconstruction process done by the subject.
b. The Subject forms cognitive, category, concept, and structure schema that are necessary to attain knowledge.
c. Knowledge is shaped in the conceptual structure of an individual. The conceptual structure forms knowledge if the concept is taken account with one‟s experience.
The cognitive aspect endured through experience would claim an essential factor in reshaping knowledge of this school of thought. Exposure that is received within the experience would play a major role towards the knowledge formation, especially in the context of language acquisition where it instills the idea of the right kind of exposure. Nevertheless, the instilled cognitive device individual‟s possess has much to do with the creation and conceptualization of knowledge. Thus, there is a strong dependent on both factors.
In line with the study, this belief would suggest the learner – centered approach of teaching and encourage the development of learner‟s autonomy in constructing knowledge, where knowledge is formed through the process of exposure or input from the outside world which is then processed within the individual‟s
cognitive state. This may take place in the process-oriented writing activity, where it undergoes pre-writing, supports peer review and involves multiple drafts (Emig, 1983 as cited in Ting & Qian, 2010: 87).
the process of the writing development. A study by Thaksanan (2007) revealed that subjects‟ written drafts changed to some extent and raised their awareness of a good piece of writing and language use. Furthermore, as Rollinson (2005) mentions the involvement of peers in a more supportive atmosphere is considered to be less threatening. However there are disadvantages, as Sultana (2009) shouts, where learner‟s self esteem and confidence might be dented and experience an embarrassing learning practice, but when students are provided with the collaborative skills to work with each other, the peer feedback session can be more effective (Murphy & Jacobs, 200).
Recently studies on feedback have shifted from the focus on learner‟s surface level of writing, namely accuracy, fluency of writing, and quality of texts, to an insight of feedback perception on writing such as learner‟s belief or behavior towards
feedback (Fujieda, 2007:140). However, in the EFL context, especially in Indonesia, there has not been much studies in this area.
Based on what has been brought above, the present study would like to explore the types of written feedback, and how learners perceive and take their peer‟s written feedback for future writing.
In line with the argument above, the present study emphasizes on the research questions below.
1. What types of feedback are given by learners towards their peer‟s writing drafts? 2. What are learner‟s perspectives towards peer feedback?
3. How do learners take their peer‟s written feedbacks for future writing?
1.3 Objectives of the Study
Based on the formulated questions above, the aim of the study are as follows: 1. To discover different types of written feedback by learner‟s towards their peer‟s
writing drafts.
2. To explore learner‟s perspectives towards the benefits and difficulties of peer feedback activity as a tool to improve their lab report.
3. To investigate how learners incorporate and respond towards their peer‟s written feedbacks for future writing.
1.4 Significance of the Study
their revision or future writing. Moreover, knowing learner‟s perspectives and obstacles can in advance influence the process of teaching and learning to apt optimal outcomes.
As a result, teachers would have an insight to an alternative way towards the writing and thinking process of their learners. Through an overview of what students find difficult and accessible to them in the process (such as the type of written feedback and how learners incorporate and respond to them for future writing), therefore finding the best or alternative method that suits their learners would be comprehensible for teachers to consider towards this model.
1.5 Organization of the Thesis
Chapter 1 - Introduction
This chapter briefly introduces the undergoing study in general.
Chapter 2- Theoretical Framework
This chapter reviews previous theories underpinning the issue of the study.
Chapter 3 – Methodology
This chapter illustrates the process of data collection and procedures in carrying out the study.
This chapter reveals the results of the study and the data analysis through discussions and interpretation based on the findings and established theories.
Chapter 5 – Conclusion
Chapter 3
Methodology
In this chapter of the study, a framework of the research method is presented to provide a description of how the study is conducted.
3.1 Research Design
Period of time
Group A X --- O
Treatment Outcomes
Analysis of Findings
Figure 3.1.1 Concurrent Embedded Design Figure 3.1.2 One-Shot Case Study
The one-shot case study is illustrated in figure 3.1.2, it shows the process of the study where the subjects (group A) receive treatment (X) for a period of time (---) and reach the expected outcomes (O). In a usual science class atmosphere, like any other day in campus, the respondents will be undergoing lab work, which follows the task of making reports on what they have examined through lab experiment. The respondents are put into groups of three, and they hand in their writing product (or first draft) to the other member of the group. For example, in a group there is A – B – C, the pattern of distribution would be A → B, B → C and C → A. This is where the
treatment starts when participants give/receive feedback on their writing towards/from peers, and then re-evaluates or rewrites their original written work – in this case a lab report. Based on this cycle, participants will be able to create and justify their original piece of writing thus endures a stronger foundation of their writing ability and knowledge.
The study took place in the Science Department of a State University located in Bandung, West Java which is a government owned institution where there is a
program that gathers a group of selected students, which utilizes English as a means of instruction in class.
3.2 Population and Sample
The population of the study is students who are in the sixth semester. The samples were taken from a class with the number of 15 students. Most of the students would be around the age of 20 to 22 years.
The sampling of the study applied purposive sampling since the research would like to gain data from related respondents of the issue in hand. There are four objectives in purposive sampling that Maxwell (1996) c.f Alwasilah (2009:147) stated as follows:
1. The uniqueness and representation of the setting, individuals, or event 2. Heterogeneity of the population
3. Study critical cases of established theories
4. Finding comparisons to differentiate the rationale of the setting, individuals, or event
3.3 Research Instruments
In acquiring the data and informational knowledge, text analysis on learners’ written composition, questionnaire and structured interview were applied.
3.3.1 Respondents’ Compositions
types of revision that were put into the learners’ writing after the peer feedback session.
3.3.2 Questionnaire
3.3.3 Structured Interview
A structured interview is carried out to investigate and to intensify the interpretation gained through respondent’s writing product and questionnaire result.
According to Kumar (1996: 109) defined a structured interview as a set of pre-determined questions which was specifically applied in the same order towards the respondents. This will provide unified information to assure the comparability of data (Kumar, 1996). There were three specific open-ended questions (enclosed in appendix 3) that was conducted to 7 randomly chosen respondents. The interview took around 5 – 10 minutes of the respondents’ time (which was done after class hours) and recorded using an audio recorder. The collected information are transcribed and analyzed to enrich the findings and attempt to perceive respondent’s standing point of behavior and beliefs undergoing the practice.
3.4 Data Analysis
The obtained data collected through the instruments as previously presented were subjected to quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis.
3.4.1 Quantitative Analysis
of feedback are given by learners towards their peer’s writing drafts?), where the commentary feedbacks were categorized based on the types of feedback (praise, criticism & suggestions), feedback points (possible, usable & used feedbacks), and revision types (surface & meaning changes). The results were quantified into percentages of frequency based on the classifications. This is enclosed in appendix 1. A questionnaire was also quantified based upon respondents’ responses towards 13 closed questions, displayed into percentages of frequency. This was to address the second research question (What are learner’s perspectives towards peer feedback?), which is enclosed in appendix 2.
3.4.2 Qualitative Analysis
In answering the third research question (How do learners take their peer’s written feedbacks for future writing?) a structured interview was assembled as quantitative analysis would not be able to capture the nature of the issue. The transcribed interview results were classified into three categories based on the structured questions given to 7 randomly chosen respondents (enclosed in appendix 3), aiming to explore the responses and beliefs towards their peer’s commentary
feedbacks.
In undergoing the research, the process of the study was conducted is illustrated as follow (also shown on Figure 3.4.1):
1. Preparing the research by exploring information and theories on websites and books related to the study.
2. Designing the research method and generating the research question(s). 3. Collecting data and information on the related issue.
a. Distributing questionnaires to the respondents to comprehend a better overview of the issue from their understanding and experience.
b. Analyzing respondents writing composition to discover the types of peer feedback, feedback points and revision types.
c. Carrying out an interview towards respondents to venture their minds and to capture a better interpretation of their outlook.
4. Analyzing and Interpreting the collected information/theories and data to obtain a grounded theory/s on the issue, namely categorization and tabulation of text analysis (types of feedback: praise, criticism & suggestion; feedback points: possible, usable & used feedbacks; and types of revision: surface & meaning changes), and interpretations of the findings through questionnaire and interview. 5. Drawing the conclusion of the study from the results based on the research
Through this process the study would like to obtain data that could correlate to underpinning issue (namely, writing & peer
feedback)
The conclusion is made of the study based on interpretations of the outcome(s) and data to
Figure 3.4.1 Research Procedure
3.6 Validity
Since the data is collected through documentary studies, respondent’s written
composition and questionnaires, the data validity is checked through thick description of the issue. As Alwasilah (2009:171) stated that to avoid the inaccuracy and in completeness of the data, the interview is then made into transcripts which are presented in the appendices of this study as authentic and natural as possible.
Chapter 5
Conclusions and Suggestions
This chapter presents the conclusion of the current study and provides suggestions for teaching implication and future research.
5.1 Conclusions
The present study investigated peer feedback in an EFL classroom, specifically towards science students who were assigned to do lab reports. Text
analysis on the subjects’ lab report drafts were exhibited to portray the types of peer feedbacks produced. Respectively, learners’ perceptions were also taken account to explore how they experienced the peer feedback activity and their response towards the different types of feedback for future revision/writing. The findings of the study can be summarized based on the three research questions (as mentioned in chapter 1) in the proceeding discussion, where the conclusions were assimilated from one to the other as it was seen as a justification.
ability and knowledge. This was contradictive to previous studies (Nelson & Murphy, 1993; Carson & Nelson, 1996; Connor and Asenavange, 1994; Fei, 2006, Sultana, 2009) confirming that Asian learners had negative attitudes towards peer feedback, as it was seen ineffective to various reasons.
Learners’ did not really take particular preference on the types of feedback they received, as long as it was useful for them to enhance their writing. Accordingly, the different types of feedback were acknowledged to have diverse roles towards the development of writing, either it was supportive for better writing or it was
accommodating learner’s self confidence. How comments were put into text also affected the way respondents perceived the feedbacks. For instance, short comments might give an unclear cut of what has to be done as it would be affectively different to a complete comprehensive comment.
Nevertheless, the study found that most of the written feedbacks were categorized as suggestions, where criticism took second place, and praise was the least favorite category. It shows that learners are trying to aid one another in the way of improving the writing quality, since more of the feedbacks were accounted into constructive comments.
The study also shows that learners found difficulties in providing feedbacks by reason of lacking confidence in producing feedbacks, arguably because of their insufficient knowledge of the content and language.
However, learners humbly found their peers’ comments to be clear and leaning towards the correct direction, nonetheless, it was confirmed that most of their mistakes were due to their own carelessness.
Surprisingly, only 39.39% of the 132 usable feedbacks were found to be incorporated into revision, where most were considered as surface changes. This shows that more or less only some of the comments were viewed to be worth using into their writing, and that learners seem to focus more on surface level of writing, in the context of the study. Regardless, respondents acknowledged the commentary feedbacks as useful to improve their lab report, specifically when they were productive comments.
different group or class settings would have dissimilar approach to benefit from peer feedback. As for the present study, science students can benefit from peer feedback, especially in developing and improving their lab report where scientific writing is highlighted.
5.2 Suggestions
Based on what has been presented above, there are some suggestions for future teaching implications which could be taken into account when applying peer feedback into EFL writing activities.
First, teachers should carefully acknowledge the objective of the activity to the students and guidelines that follow before starting any peer feedback. This is to demonstrate how the activity is carried out and illustrate the purpose namely through explaining the benefits and advantages students could gain, and give examples of the different types of feedbacks. Its best when students are informed of being graded, either as writers or reviewers, thus both would give an effort to achieve optimally in the positive sense of collaboration.
can encourage students to be more confident on the surface level of writing before coming to a more substantial issue. After the previous stage, the second draft is than given feedbacks, but the focus is more on the content of writing (e.g. whether the paragraphs have been coherent or cohesive with the ideas, has the text fulfilled the objectives, etc). This can motivate the students to write a better piece of writing, where the audiences are the purpose of text. The third stage is a general feedback of all the aspects, where students have quite enough practice after the two previous ones. The peer feedback is best done by a new partnership to exploit writing from a new perspective. Throughout the peer feedback session, teachers should monitor the process and supervise students if any problems occur.
The final suggestion is that teachers should consider the class characteristics (e.g. cultural values, level of proficiency, age, etc) and setting (such as class size, gender ratio, and so on) to discover appropriate ways to suit peer feedback into activities that would benefit the students and achieve the learning objectives. Pairing the students with suitable partners should also be taken into consideration, when applying this technique in classrooms. Additionally, the better you know your students, the better success level you may achieve.
Bibliography
Alwasilah, A. C. (2009). Pokoknya Kualitatif: Dasar-dasar Merancang dan Melakukan Penelitian Kulaitatif. Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya.
Boud, D. (1991). Implementing Student Self Assessment. HERDSA Green Guide. No.5. Second Edition. Sydney, Australia.
Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable Assessment: Rethinking Assessment for the Learning Society, Studies in Continuing Education, 22 (2), 151 - 167
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles. An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Brown, H. D. (2004). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. Pearson Education, Inc., New York, USA.
Chinnawongs, S. (2001). In Search of an Optimal Writing Feedback Strategy. PASSA, 31 (July), 27 – 43.
Cohen, A. D. (1996). Speech Acts. In Mckay, S. L., & Hornberger, H. N. (eds). (1996). Sociolinguistics and language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Corder, P. (1967). The Significance of Learners’ Errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5: 161 – 170.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research Design. California: Sage Publications.
De Bot, K., Lowie, W. & Verspoor, M. (2005). Second Language Acquisition: An Advance Resource Book. Routlage Applied Linguistics. New York, USA. Enginarlar, H. (1993). Student Response to Teacher Feedback in EFL Writing.
System, 21 (2): 193 – 204.
Fujieda, Y. (2007). Perceptional Changes Toward Peer Response: How Writers Incorporated Feedback Into Revision. Retrieved March 28, 2012, from http://www.kyoai.ac.jp/college/ronshuu/no-09/fujieda.pdf
Gebhard, J. G. (2000). Teaching English as a Foreign or Second Language. USA: The University of Michigan Press.
Harmer, J. (2007). How to Teach English. China: Pearson Education Limited.
Hamer, J., Kell, C. & Spence, F. (2007). Peer Assessment Using Aropa; Australian Computing Society. Retrieved January 20, 2013, from www.cs. Aukland.ac.nz/~j-hamer/peer-assessment-using-Aropa.pdf
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on Feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3 (2): 141 – 163.
Huntley, H. S. (1992). Feedback strategies in intermediate and advance second language composition. A discussion of the effects of error correction, peer review, and student-teacher conferences on students writing and performance. Washington, DC. Education Resources Information Center. ERIC Database ED355809.
Hyland, K., (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in Second Language Writing. USA: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, N. S. Written Peer Feedback by EFL Students: Praise, Criticism and Suggestion. Retrieved March 28, 2012, from http://park.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/eigo/KJEE/001/129-139.pdf
Leki, I. (1991). The Preferences of ESL Students for Error Correction in College-Level Writing Classes. Foreign Language Annuals, 24: 203 – 218.
Lin, G. H. C., & Chien, P. S. C. (2009). An investigation into the effectiveness of peer feedback. Journal of Applied Foreign Languages Fortune Institute of Technology, 3, 79 – 87.
Liu, E. Z., Lin, S. S.,Chiu, C., & Yuan, S. (2001) Web-based peer review: The learner as both adapter and reviewer. IEEE Transactions on Education. 44, 246-251.
Liu, J., & Hansen, J. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Lynch, R., Seery, N. & Gordon, S. (2010). The Formative Value of Peer Feedback in Project Based Assessment. 3rd International Symposium for Engineering Education, 2010, University College Cork, Ireland.
Murphy, T., & Jacons, G. M. (2000). Encouraging Critical Collaborative Autonomy. JALT Journal, 22, 228 – 244.
Nicol, D. (2010a). From Monologue to Dialogue: Improving Written Feedback in Mass Higher Education. Assessment and evaluation in Higher Education, 35:5, 501 – 517
Nicol, D. (2010b). The Foundation of Graduate Attributes: Developing Self-regulation Through Self and Peer Assessment. QAA Scotland, Enhancement
Themes. Retrieved January 20, 2013, from
www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/documents/G21C/Assessment 150910.pdf
Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Poehner, M., & Lantolf, J. (2005). Dynamic Assessment and the Transcendence of Mediated Learning. The Modern Language Journal, 91(3), 323 – 340.
Radecki, P. M., & Swales, J. M. (1988). ESL Student Reaction to Written Comments on Their Written Work. System, 16 (3): 355 – 365.
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using Peer Feedback in the ESL writing class, ELT Journal, 59 (1), 23 – 30.
Sadler, D. R. (2010) Beyond Feedback: Developing student Capability in Complex Appraisal, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher education, 35:5, 535 – 550 Saito, H. (1994). Teachers’ Practices and Students’ Preferences for Feedback on
Second Language Writing: A Case Study of Adult ESL Learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11: 46 – 70.
Saito, H., & Fujita, T. (2004). Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writing classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 8 (1), 31 – 54.
Sanjaya, W. (2005). Pembelajaran dalam Implementasi Kurikulum Berbasis Kompetensi. Jakarta: Prenada Media Group.
Somervell, H. (1993). “Issues in Assessment, Enterprise and Higher Education: The Case for Self-, Peer and Collaborative Assessment.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 18 (3): 221 – 233.
Sultana, A. (2009). Peer Correction in ESL Classrooms. BRAC University Journal, Volume VI, no. 1, 2009, pp. 11 – 19. Bangladesh.
Taylor, B. (1981). Content and written form: A two-way street. TESOL, Quarterly, 15 (1), 5 – 13.
Ting, M. & Qian, Y. (2010). A Case Study of Peer Feedback in a Chinese EFL Writing Classroom. Chinese Journal of applied Linguistics, Volume 33, no. 4, Aug, 2010, pp. 87 – 98. China.
Truscott, J. (1996). The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes. Language Learning 46 (2): 327 – 369.
Villamil, O., & Guerrero, M. (1998). Assessing the Impact of Peer Revision on L2
Writing. Retrieved January 20, 2013, from
www.applij.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/19/4/491.pdf
Walz, J., (1982). Error Correction Techniques for the Foreign Language Classroom. Washington DC. : Prentice Hall Inc.
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the Affective Advantage of Peer Feedback in the ESL Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4: 209 – 222.
