14
ABSTRACT
Maria Dyah Lintang Primadiani. 2007. A Study on the Contribution to the Improvement of Writing Quality and the Students’ Perception in SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta . Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University
Revision plays an important role in process of writing. In order to have effective revision, students certainly need feedback from their readers. Exposing the students to be independent learners, which is in the line with the Curriculum at the School Level, teachers may utilize peer feedback at this point.
This study deals with the use of peer feedback in the writing class of the eleventh grade students of SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta. There are two problems formulated in this study. The first problem is to what extent peer feedback contributes to the students’ improvement in their writing quality and the second problem is what the students’ perception of the use of peer feedback in their writing class is. This research is a descriptive research because the writer describes the information about the current status of phenomena. In undertaking the research, the writer conducted a writing class and then utilized peer feedback in the class. Gathering the data, the writer used the students’ pre and post peer writing as well as a set of questionnaire.
Based on the data analysis, it was found that peer feedback improves the students’ writing quality in all of the aspects: content, organization, language use, vocabulary and mechanics. Revising their writing based on the feedback from peers, the students have successfully demonstrated better content, organization, language use, vocabulary and mechanics. The content is more knowledgeable and accurate, the organization is more coherent and unified, the language is more accurate, the vocabulary is more effective and the mechanics is more commanded.
Dealing with the second problem, the writer finds out that the students gain positive peer feedback on the use of peer feedback. This answer is proved by the fact that the value of the degree of agreement that most frequently occurred was “agree”. This answer is also sustained the finding of the first problem formulation that was the fact that the students revised their writing based on the feedback from their peers.
ABSTRAK
Maria Dyah Lintang Primadiani. 2007. A Study on the Contribution to the Improvement of Writing Quality and the Students’ Perception in SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta: Universitas Sanata Dharma
Revisi merupakan hal yang penting dalam proses menulis. Dalam merevisi tulisan secara efektif, siswa tentu saja membutuhkan umpan balik dari pembacanya. Mendorong siswa untuk menjadi siswa yang lebih mandiri, sesuai dengan Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP), guru dapat menggunakan proses saling memberi dan menerima umpan balik antar teman.
Penelitian ini melingkupi penggunaan umpan balik antar teman dalam kelas menulis siswa SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta kelas sebelas. Terdapat dua masalah yang dirumuskan dalam penelitian ini. Masalah yang pertama yaitu sampai seberapakah umpan balik antar teman berkontribusi dalam meningkatkan nilai kualitas tulisan para siswa, sedangkan masalah yang kedua yaitu persepsi seperti apa yang dimiliki para siswa terhadap penggunaan umpan balik antar teman dalam kelas menulis mereka. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian deskriptif karena di dalam penelitian ini penulis menjelaskan fenomena yang ada tentang penggunaan umpan balik di SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta, lebih spesifik tentang kontribusi and persepsi siswa. Dalam melaksanakan penelitian ini, si penulis mengajar dalam kelas menulis dan memanfaatkan penggunaan umpan balik antar teman kepada para siswa. Di dalam mendapatkan data untuk penelitian ini, si penulis menggunakan tulisan siswa sebelum dan sesudah pelaksanaan umpan balik antar teman dan juga mengunakan satu set kuesioner.
Berdasarkan analisis data, umpan balik antar teman ternyata terbukti ampuh untuk dapat meningkatkan kualitas nilai tulisan siswa. Setelah merevisi tulisan mereka berdasarkan umpan balik dari teman mereka, isi, organisasi, bahasa, perbendaharaan kata, dan mekanika penulisan para siswa meningkat. Isi tulisan mereka dinilai lebih detil dan berwawasan, organisasi tulisan mereka dinilai lebih berkembang secara logis and teratur, bahasa mereka lebih akurat dan tepat, perbendaharaan kata dalam tulisan mereka lebih efektif dan akurat, dan mekanika penulisan mereka lebih terkontrol dan terjaga.
Menjawab masalah kedua, penulis menemukan bahwa persepsi siswa terhadap umpan balik antar teman positif. Ini dibuktikan dengan nilai pendapat yang paling sering dipilih siswa dalam merespon pernyataan di kuesioner adalah “setuju”. Bahwa para siswa mempunyai persepsi positif juga dikuatkan dengan bukti nyata bahwa para siswa merevisi tulisan mereka berdasarkan umpan balik yang mereka dapat dari teman mereka.
1
A STUDY ON THE CONTRIBUTION OF PEER FEEDBACK TO
THE IMPROVEMENT OF WRITING QUALITY AND
THE STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION IN SMU N. 3 YOGYAKARTA
A THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree
in English Language Education
By
Name: Maria Dyah Lintang Primadiani Student Number: 031214027
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM
DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION
FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
2007
A Thesis on
A STUDY ON THE CONTRIBUTION OF PEER FEEDBACK TO
THE IMPROVEMENT OF WRITING QUALITY AND
THE STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION IN SMU N. 3 YOGYAKARTA
By
Name: Maria Dyah Lintang Primadiani Student Number: 031214027
Approved by
Major Sponsor,
Drs. Pius Nurwidasa Prihatin, M. Ed. 13 September 2007
3
A Thesis on
A STUDY ON THE CONTRIBUTION OF PEER FEEDBACK TO
THE IMPROVEMENT OF WRITING QUALITY AND
THE STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION IN SMU N. 3 YOGYAKARTA
By
Name: Maria Dyah Lintang Primadiani Student Number: 031214027
Defended before the Board of Examiners on September 27, 2007
and Declared Acceptable
Board of Examiners
Chairperson : Ag. Hardi Prasetyo, S.Pd. __________________ Secretary : Drs. P. G. Purba, M.Pd. __________________ Member : Drs. Pius Nurwidasa Prihatin, M.Ed. __________________ Member : Drs. Concilianus Laos Mbato, M.A. __________________ Member : F. X. Ouda Teda Ena, S.Pd., M.Pd. __________________
Yogyakarta, 27 September 2007
Faculty of Teachers Training and Education Sanata Dharma University
Dean,
Drs. Tarsisius Sarkim, M.Ed.,Ph.
STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY
I honestly declare that this thesis, which I wrote, does not contain the works or part of the works of other people, except those cited in the quotations and the bibliography, as a scientific paper should.
Yogyakarta, 13 September 2007
The writer,
Maria Dyah Lintang Primadiani
5
“Our body is the garden…. our desire is the gardener”
(William Shakespeare)
“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven…. He hath made every thing beautiful in His time: also He hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.”
(Ecclesiastes 3: 1 & 11)
This thesis is dedicated to:
- Bapa, Putera dan Roh Kudus
- BundaMaria
- My beloved and Wonderful Parents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to express my greatest gratitude to God the Almighty and Mother Mary, the Holy Virgin, who have given Their blessings to me, so that this thesis could be finished.
For the initial faith he showed and for his continued beneficial feedback and encouragement, I acknowledge with gratitude my thesis advisor respectively, Drs. Pius Nurwidasa Prihatin, M.Ed., who was willing to spend his precious time for the sake of guiding me in writing this thesis. My gratitude also goes to all of my lectures in PBI who have guided and taught me well, especially to Drs. Petrus Garahim Purba, M.Pd., my academic advisor, Drs. Concilianus Laos Mbato, M.A. and Fransiscus Xaverius Ouda Teda Ena, S.Pd., M.Pd.
I am truly indebted to Drs. Bambang Supriyono, M.M., the principle of SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta, who had permitted me to undertake this research. My special thanks go to Dra. Arti Umiyati and Dra. Sri Indah Asmorowati, the English teachers, who had accepted me and treated me well. I also thank all of the students of XI IPA 2 of SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta for being my research participants. Bhakti Vidya Kshatriya Tama, Tan Lalana Labet Tunggal Bangsa, Jaya-jaya Padmanaba!
I am immeasurably grateful and thankful to my great and beloved parents,
Antonius Pri Oetomo Soetopo and Maria Gorretti Murwani, who have supported me through their companion and affection. I also thank my brother, Stephanus Bismo Dharupurnomo.
My gratitude goes to Robertus Bellarminus Drajat Jati Purnama, S.Sn., who has, as always, given me his continued support and affection during finishing this thesis.
7
I owe great debts to the following people who have helped me during my finishing this thesis: Antonius Eko Haryanto, Intan Sukma Varamashinta, S.E., Monika Dini Kurniasari, Sri Ratnasari Sindu Lestari, Amelia Murtyoastuti, S.Psi., Dewie Angan, S.Pd., Dyah Ayu Margareta P., Binawati Agustin D., S.Pd.,
Ansgaria Oscarita Febriani, Deonisia Tyas Yuniwati, Angel Berta Desi
Suryanti, S.T., Yosepha Henny, S.Farm., Priyatno Ardi, S.Pd., Yohana Ika
Harnita S. and AgathaNila Sukma.
Finally, I must express my appreciation to the staffs of PBI secretariat,
mbak Dani and mbak Tari, for their beneficial information during my study.
Matur nuwun awit sadaya pambiyantunipun. Mugi Gusti ingkang Maha
Welas tansah paring berkah lan paring piwales panjenengan sami.
Maria Dyah Lintang Primadiani
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TITLE PAGE ... i
PAGE OF APPROVAL ... ii
PAGE OF ACCEPTANCE ... iii
PAGE OF DEDICATION ... iv
STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ... v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... vi
ABSTRACT ... xiv
ABSTRAK... xv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... viii
LIST OF TABLES ... xi
LIST OF FIGURES ... xii
LIST OF APPENDICES ... xiii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ... 1
A. Background of the Study ... 1
B. Problem Formulation ... 5
C. Problem Limitation ... 5
D. Objectives of the Study ... 5
9
F. Definition of the Terms ... 6
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE ... 8
A. Theoretical Description ... 8
1. Product-focused vs. Process Approach ... 8
a. Product-focused Approach ... 9
b. Process Approach ... 10
c. Writing as both a Process and Product ... 12
2. The Presence of Feedback in Writing ... 12
a. The Importance of Feedback in Writing ... 13
b. What is peer feedback? ... 14
c. The Benefits of Peer Feedback ... 15
d. Does peer feedback work? ... 15
e. Peer Feedback as the Implementation of Cooperative Learning .... 16
3. Teaching Writing for the Eleventh Grade Students of Senior High School ... 17
4. The Students’ Perception on the Use of Peer Feedback ... 18
B. Theoretical Framework ... 20
CHAPTER III: METODOLOGY ... 22
A. Research Method ... 22
B. Research Participants ... 22
C. Research Instruments ... 23
E. Data Analysis Technique ... 27
F. Research Procedures ... 30
CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS ... 31
A. Data Presentation and Interpretation ... 31
1. The Improvement of the Students’ Writing Quality ... 31
2. The Students’ Responses to the Questionnaire ... 37
B. Discussion ... 43
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 46
A. Conclusions ... 46
B. Suggestions ... 47
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 48
APPENDICES ... 50
11
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Questionnaire Blue Print ... 25 Table 3.2 The Scoring System of the Students’ Writing ... 27 Table 4.1 The Comparison of the Writing Quality of the Students’
Pre-peer and Post-peer Writing ... 32 Table 4.2 The Student’s Achievement on Each Aspect of Writing Quality ... 33 Table 4.3 The Frequency and Percentage of the Students’ responses on Each
Statement on the Questionnaire ... 37
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 The Perceptual Process ... 19
13
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Letters of Permission ... 51
Appendix 2. Students’ Pre-peer Writing ... 55
Appendix 3. Students’ Peer Feedback Checklist ... 63
Appendix 4. Students’ Post-peer Writing ... 71
Appendix 5. Questionnaire ... 79
ABSTRACT
Maria Dyah Lintang Primadiani. 2007. A Study on the Contribution to the Improvement of Writing Quality and the Students’ Perception in SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta . Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University
Revision plays an important role in process of writing. In order to have effective revision, students certainly need feedback from their readers. Exposing the students to be independent learners, which is in the line with the Curriculum at the School Level, teachers may utilize peer feedback at this point.
This study deals with the use of peer feedback in the writing class of the eleventh grade students of SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta. There are two problems formulated in this study. The first problem is to what extent peer feedback contributes to the students’ improvement in their writing quality and the second problem is what the students’ perception of the use of peer feedback in their writing class is. This research is a descriptive research because the writer describes the information about the current status of phenomena. In undertaking the research, the writer conducted a writing class and then utilized peer feedback in the class. Gathering the data, the writer used the students’ pre and post peer writing as well as a set of questionnaire.
Based on the data analysis, it was found that peer feedback improves the students’ writing quality in all of the aspects: content, organization, language use, vocabulary and mechanics. Revising their writing based on the feedback from peers, the students have successfully demonstrated better content, organization, language use, vocabulary and mechanics. The content is more knowledgeable and accurate, the organization is more coherent and unified, the language is more accurate, the vocabulary is more effective and the mechanics is more commanded.
Dealing with the second problem, the writer finds out that the students gain positive peer feedback on the use of peer feedback. This answer is proved by the fact that the value of the degree of agreement that most frequently occurred was “agree”. This answer is also sustained the finding of the first problem formulation that was the fact that the students revised their writing based on the feedback from their peers.
15
ABSTRAK
Maria Dyah Lintang Primadiani. 2007. A Study on the Contribution to the Improvement of Writing Quality and the Students’ Perception in SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta: Universitas Sanata Dharma
Revisi merupakan hal yang penting dalam proses menulis. Dalam merevisi tulisan secara efektif, siswa tentu saja membutuhkan umpan balik dari pembacanya. Mendorong siswa untuk menjadi siswa yang lebih mandiri, sesuai dengan Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP), guru dapat menggunakan proses saling memberi dan menerima umpan balik antar teman.
Penelitian ini melingkupi penggunaan umpan balik antar teman dalam kelas menulis siswa SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta kelas sebelas. Terdapat dua masalah yang dirumuskan dalam penelitian ini. Masalah yang pertama yaitu sampai seberapakah umpan balik antar teman berkontribusi dalam meningkatkan nilai kualitas tulisan para siswa, sedangkan masalah yang kedua yaitu persepsi seperti apa yang dimiliki para siswa terhadap penggunaan umpan balik antar teman dalam kelas menulis mereka. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian deskriptif karena di dalam penelitian ini penulis menjelaskan fenomena yang ada tentang penggunaan umpan balik di SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta, lebih spesifik tentang kontribusi and persepsi siswa. Dalam melaksanakan penelitian ini, si penulis mengajar dalam kelas menulis dan memanfaatkan penggunaan umpan balik antar teman kepada para siswa. Di dalam mendapatkan data untuk penelitian ini, si penulis menggunakan tulisan siswa sebelum dan sesudah pelaksanaan umpan balik antar teman dan juga mengunakan satu set kuesioner.
Berdasarkan analisis data, umpan balik antar teman ternyata terbukti ampuh untuk dapat meningkatkan kualitas nilai tulisan siswa. Setelah merevisi tulisan mereka berdasarkan umpan balik dari teman mereka, isi, organisasi, bahasa, perbendaharaan kata, dan mekanika penulisan para siswa meningkat. Isi tulisan mereka dinilai lebih detil dan berwawasan, organisasi tulisan mereka dinilai lebih berkembang secara logis and teratur, bahasa mereka lebih akurat dan tepat, perbendaharaan kata dalam tulisan mereka lebih efektif dan akurat, dan mekanika penulisan mereka lebih terkontrol dan terjaga.
Menjawab masalah kedua, penulis menemukan bahwa persepsi siswa terhadap umpan balik antar teman positif. Ini dibuktikan dengan nilai pendapat yang paling sering dipilih siswa dalam merespon pernyataan di kuesioner adalah “setuju”. Bahwa para siswa mempunyai persepsi positif juga dikuatkan dengan bukti nyata bahwa para siswa merevisi tulisan mereka berdasarkan umpan balik yang mereka dapat dari teman mereka.
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This chapter includes background of the study, problem formulation, problem limitation, objectives of the study, benefits of the study, and definition of terms that are going to be discussed as follows.
A. Background of the Study
2
Both in Competencies-based Curriculum (KBK) and Curriculum at the School Level (KTSP), writing is considered as both a product as well as process. Based on the teaching learning presented in the syllabus development, the students who deal with writing are assigned to follow the stages of writing process (Model Pengembangan Silabus dan RPP SMA, 2006: 18-19). The whole stages of writing process include brainstorming, drafting, writing, feedback and revising. It is apparent, then, that the students must do some revision before coming to the final product. Accordingly, revision, in which ideas are emerged and clarified, has become the heart of writing process (Lehr as cited in Pujikurniawati, 2004: 7).
situation in which the students take part as independent learners. It is in line with the principle of Curriculum at the School Level. So, exposing the students to be independent learners in writing class, the teacher should employ peer feedback.
As the writer experienced when she was in the first semester of English Language Education Study Program, her lecturer always provided feedback on her writing. It helped a lot to improve her writing. In semester three, the lecturer tried to implement the use of peer feedback in the writer’s writing class. The writer did what the lecturer instructed. She gave feedback on her peer’s writing as well as revised her writing based on the feedback from her peer. The writer, then, found out that her post-peer writing’s quality was better than her pre-peer writing’s. She had obtained good perception toward the use of peer feedback in improving her writing. She perceived that peer feedback was a beneficial strategy to improve her writing.
A thesis entitled “Students’ Perception on Peer Feedback” and written by Rina (2007), a student of English Education Study Program reveals that on average the students of English Education Study Program obtained good perception toward peer feedback. The students believed that peer feedback were at advantages. The students of Senior High School may have different perception toward the use of peer feedback. The difference may be due to different expectation and needs as well as past experiences. Frequently, different needs, expectation and past experiences lead to different perception. This notion is presented by Bootzin et al (1983: 119) as quoted below:
4
Experiencing that the mastery of English skills was not necessary enough for the success of her study, the writer, when she was in the Senior High School, did not consider the four language skills so essential to master. Yet, when she studies at English Education Study Program, becoming a candidate of English teacher, the mastery of all language skills appears to be of the essence. It is not wondered that the use of peer feedback in writing, then, is perceived to be at advantages since writing skill is as essential as other language skills. Further, interviewing the English teachers of SMU N.3 Yogyakarta, the writer comes to a conclusion that peer feedback has not been implemented in the students’ writing activity yet. Teacher written feedback has become the most frequently used strategy of revisions. Even sometimes, the teachers do not provide any feedback for the students. Owing the fact that the students of SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta have different expectation and needs and that they have not been well-involved in the process of peer feedback before, they may perceive peer feedback differently from the way the students of English Education Study Program do.
B. Problem Formulation
Considering the previous explanation, the problems will be formulated as follows:
1. To what extent does peer feedback contribute to the students’ improvement in their writing quality?
2. What is the students’ perception of the implementation of peer feedback in their writing activity?
C. Problem Limitation
The scope of this study is the use of peer feedback in the writing class of the eleventh grade students of SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta. As noticeably stated above, the focus of this study is to figure out to what extent peer feedback contributes to the students’ writing quality and investigate the students’ perception toward the use of peer feedback. The criteria of writing quality cover content, organization, language use, vocabulary, and mechanics. So, in this study, the writer is determined to see in what aspects peer feedback will give its contribution. The students’ perception is highly valued in this study, as the students’ perception will lead them to different behavioral attitude or response.
D. Objectives of the Study
Two objectives will be obtained in this study. They are sated as follows: 1. To describe the contribution of peer feedback in the students’ writing quality. 2. To examine the students’ perception of the use of peer feedback in their
6
E. Benefits of the Study
This study is expected to give contribution to: 1. The English teachers
The result of the study helps the English teachers of senior high school in general and the English teachers of SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta in particular to be accurately aware and realize that peer feedback improves the students’ writing quality. Having been accurately aware and realized this fact, the teachers are expected to utilize peer feedback as an appropriate strategy in providing a way for the students to gain feedback for their writing.
2. The eleventh grade students of senior high school
Knowing that peer feedback improves their writing, the students are expected to employ peer feedback in their writing independently. Next time, in their writing class, the students are expected to be no longer dependent on their teachers in receicing feedback. They could ask their peers to provide feedback for their writing.
F. Definition of Terms
For the sake of avoiding misunderstanding, the writer provides some definition of the terms used in this study. They are stated as follows.
1. Peer feedback
of improvement (Lewis, 2002: ii). According to Lewis, there are three kinds of feedback. They are teacher feedback, peer feedback and self-correction.
In this study, peer feedback in writing refers to any constructive comments/criticism from peers to peers for the sake of improving the writing. Implementing peer feedback, the students are to exchange their writing to their friends. After that, they should revise their writing based on the comments from their peers.
2. Writing Quality
8
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE
Chapter II is aimed at discussing the theories underlying this study. This chapter covers theoretical description and theoretical review. The theoretical description presents a detail discussion of four key concepts in this study. Since this study deals with the use of peer feedback in writing class of eleventh grade students of high school, the theories that will be presented cover the issue of product-focused vs. process approach in writing, the presence of feedback in writing, teaching writing for the second year students of senior high school in Indonesia and the students’ perception on the use peer feedback.
By discussing those concepts, the problem formulation will be theoretically answered through the discussion in theoretical description and afterwards the tentative answer of the problem formulation will be stated in the theoretical framework.
A. Theoretical Description
This section deals with product-focused vs. process approach, the presence of feedback in writing, teaching writing for the second year students of senior high school and the students’ perception on the use peer feedback.
1. Product-focused vs. Process Approach
2001: 334). These two approaches are related, as the process approach has emerged as the critic for the product-focused approach. The theory of these two approaches is present in this study since the theory is closely related to the use of peer feedback in writing activity. The brief discussion of product-focused and process approach is presented below.
a. Product-focused Approach
The theory of product-focused approach is considered traditional. For many years, the teaching writing in ESL/EFL classroom had been synonymous with the teaching of grammar or sentence structure (Richards, 1992: 106). In accordance with Nunan (1999: 272), the product-focused approach is regarded as the writing approach which puts emphasis on the final product that is coherent, free-error text. In line with this argument, Harmer, as cited in Pujikurniawati (2004: 11), states that this approach possesses an interest in the aim of a task and in the end of product. The similar statement is presented by Cohen (1990: 105), who states that the product-focused approach is mostly concerned with the final/finished product of the writing.
10
The second requirement is that the writing should present accurate grammar. The student, then, are not allowed to make any mistakes in their writing. The last requirement is that the student’s writing must be organized. These requirements bring a consequence for the teacher to evaluate the student’s writing based on the model given. The evaluation is based on a set of criteria including content, organization, diction, grammar, and mechanical considerations like spelling and punctuation (Brown, 2001: 335).
Apparently, the writing product-focused approach emphasizes on the quality of the final product without noticing the stages that the students have to reach the final writing product. As a result, the students are discouraged to take their writing assignment seriously as the focus of the writing product-focused approach is instant product and grade (Cohen, 1992: 105). Instead of noticing the process of taking the writing assignments, the students will just consider the grade that they will achieve.
b. Process Approach
process is a series of skills leading to that product. Based on the definitions above, the writing process approach can refer to the approach having the student reach the final product through a considerable period of time. In other words, this approach provides more opportunities for the students to sharpen their writing skill.
In accordance with Murray, as cited in Richards (1999: 108), there are three stages in writing, namely pre-writing, drafting, and revising. Re-writing involves finding, thinking, develop and organize a topic and ideas. Drafting includes getting the ideas onto paper in rough form. Revising involves evaluating what has been written. In this stage, the students may make changes as necessary. However, these steps should not be linear to follow. The process of writing is supposed to be recursive (Nunan, 1999: 273). In line with this argument, Flower and Hayes, as cited in Cohen (1990: 106), claims that writing is seen as one continuous process which is recursive in nature. It implies that the students can combine the stages instead of following them in strict sequence. Another opinion is given by Kroll as cited in Sokolik (2003: 96).
The “process approach” serves us today as an umbrella term for many types of writing process… What the term captures is the fact that student writers engage in their writing tasks through a cyclical approach rather than through a single-shot approach.
12
chance for the students to write and revise their drafts is crucial, as the students might be anxious when they have no chance to have revision on their writing.
c. Writing as both a Process and Product
Instead of putting the writing process into certain notion that writing is a process or writing is a product, it is best to say that writing is both a process and a product. This idea is supported by Brown (2001: 337).
The current emphasis on process writing must of course be seen in the perspective of a balance between process and product. As in most language teaching approaches, it is quite possible for you to go to an extreme in emphasizing process to the extent that the final product diminishes in importance… This product is, after all, the ultimate goal; it is the reason that we go through the process of pre-writing, drafting, revising and editing… Process is not the end; it is the means to the end.
Furthermore, Sokolik (2003: 88) proposes the same argument saying that writing is defined as both a process and product. She puts emphasis on the idea that the process of writing is often cyclical and sometimes disorderly and what the readers see is a product.
This idea implies that the process and the product of writing must be equally valued. In other words, the process of writing is as important as the product of writing. The students must experience the process of writing (pre-writing, drafting and revising) as well as do their best to gain the best quality of the final writing product.
2. The Presence of Feedback in Writing
They are focusing on the process of writing that leads to the final product, providing enough time for the students to write and rewrite, providing central importance on the process, and encouraging feedback from both the instructors and peers.
a. The Importance of Feedback in Writing
The presence of feedback is essential to learning to write in foreign language (Hyland, 2003: 207). It is due to the fact that in order to have effective revision, the students certainly need feedback form their audience. Feedback tells the students information concerning their current behavior for the sake of improvement (Kauchack, as cited in Berewot, 2001: 7). So, feedback is a useful means for the students to improve their writing and, at last, sharpen their writing ability. It could be concluded that the presence of feedback in writing is considered crucial, as feedback provide the writers with a sense of readers and lead them to the awareness of the needs of the readers (Hyland, 2003: 207).
Many sources are available for the students to receive feedback for their writing. The students may receive feedback from their teachers or friends. The feedback that the students receive mainly comes from their teacher. However, following Lewis’s argument, teacher usually spends more time on giving feedback (2002: 18). Further, Cohen (1990: 71), states that the teachers commonly give comments on grammar or mechanics rather than on content and organization. In fact, the students often expect their teacher to give comment more on their content and organization. This argument is presented by Cohen (1990: 71) as quoted below:
14
b. What is peer feedback?
It appears that another theory supporting this study is the theory of peer feedback. The work of Richards (1999: 113) points out that in the process of peer feedback, the students cooperatively work in groups, read, criticize, and then proofread their own writing. From the definition above, it can be concluded that peer feedback in writing class refers to the process where the students exchange constructive criticism to their peers in order to improve their writing.
Basically, the students may tend to feel more comfortable in having the feedback provided by their teacher rather than their peers. Despite it, implementing peer feedback is not considered less valuable (Chaudron as cited in Cohen, 1990 pg. 112). Even, researchers have suggested teachers to make use of peer feedback more (Cohen, 1990: 112).
c. The Benefits of Peer Feedback
Peer feedback is believed to provide several advantages. The work of Hyland (2003: 199) claims that peer feedback enables the students to develop their critical reading skills. Not only developing the students’ critical reading skill, peer feedback also gains the students’ skill necessary to critically revise their own writing (Zhang, 1995, as cited in Hyland 2003: 198). Peer feedback, then, can enhance active learner participation (Hyland, 2003: 199). According to Lewis (2002: 18), the students can save their time in revising their writing based on the feedback from their peers, as teacher usually spends more time in giving feed back. Further, peer feedback creates an authentic social context for interaction and learning (Mittan, 1989, as cited in Hyland, 2003: 198). It implies that the students could learn form each other and practice in how to get along with others. Cooperating together in giving feedback also results in the students’ esteem. Working together, the students are supposed to feel responsible for participating, therefore, in this activity, leadership is distributed (Larsen-Freeman, 2000: 168). As a result, the students are more confident.
d. Does peer feedback work?
16
individual, but a joint endeavor between writers and readers. Writing, then, is fundamentally dialogic. Writing, then, is a conversation between writers and readers in an ongoing activity.
Sokolik (2003: 93) suggests that feedback should be helpful and meaningful to be effective to create successful language use. Therefore, peer feedback should be helpful and meaningful to build successful language use. Despite many cons toward the implementation of peer feedback in writing class, according to Rollinson (2005), peer readers can provide useful feedback in writing classroom. This notion is verified by the research conducted by Rollinson in 1998 that revealed that 80% of feedback/comments from peers were considered valid. In addition, it was found that only 7% of the comments were considered damaging. Further, the work of Mendonca and Johnson (1994), as cited in Hyland, states that writers make use of peer feedback in their revisions despite their second language proficiency, group dynamics and prior knowledge. It entails the fact that the students can revise their writing effectively on the basis of feedback form their peer readers.
e. Peer Feedback as the Implementation of Cooperative Learning
In accordance with Cohen (1990: 112), the teacher can make use of cooperative learning in revision step as a special means of getting feedback. He proposed his idea as quoted below:
This idea implies that peer feedback could be considered as the implementation of cooperative learning. The emphasis of the using of peer feedback is that it assigns the students to cooperate with their peers in revising their writing. The steps in conducting the peer feedback would be grouping several students in the same group and then having them read their peers’ writing and give constructive criticism. Having finished giving feedback, all of them discuss together about feedback/comment they have given. Apparently, the successful implementation of peer feedback is determined by the successful cooperation among the group members.
3. Teaching Writing for the Eleventh Grade Students of Senior High School
According to Curriculum at the School Level or KTSP, the basic competence in writing skill for the eleventh grade students of senior high school requires the students to express meanings and rhetoric development in essays by making use of written language fluently and accurately on the context of daily life in form of report, narration, and analytical exposition (mengungkapkan makna dan langkah retorika dalam essei dengan menggunakan ragam bahasa tulis secara akurat, lancar, dan
berterima dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari dalam teks berbentuk: laporan,
18
Both in Competencies-based Curriculum (KBK) and Curriculum at the School Level (KTSP), writing is considered as both a product and process. Based on the teaching learning presented in the syllabus development, the students are to do some revision before coming to the final product. It means that the students are assigned to follow the stages of writing process. Following the stages of writing process, the students are supposed to produce good writing. It implies that the students must also notice the quality of their writing.
4. The Students’ Perception on the Use of Peer Feeback
Before theoretically discussing the students’ perception on the use of peer feedback, the definition of perception should be presented first. Perception is defined as a process of organizing the information that an individual gains from his environment to make it logical and sensible (Gibson, 1997: 97). Supporting this definition, Robbins defines perception as one’s process to organize and interpret impressions from environment to make them meaningful for the environment (Robbins, 1997: 39). Another definition is presented by Altman and Hodgetts (1985: 85), who define perception as an individual’s view of reality. Further, they state that the process of perception makes people possible to understand the environment where they live. Based on the definitions above, it can be concluded that perception involves organizing and interpreting information coming from the environment so that the information can be meaningfully interpreted.
likely to revise their writing based on the peer feedback. On the other hand, when they perceive peer feedback negatively, they will not consider peer feedback is beneficial for the improvement of their writing and therefore they will not revise their writing based on the peer feedback. This notion is supported by this following figure.
Figure 2.1. The perceptual process
(Source: Gibson, 1997: 61)
In spite of the fact that people see the same thing, they may perceive them in different ways. In other words, the way people see things depends on how the available information is processed (Altman and Hodgetts, 1985: 85). There are several factors that can influence an individual’s perception. According to Robbins (1997: 39), perception is commonly influenced by the perceiver and the characteristics of the target being observed.
Basically, when an individual tries to interpret his environment, the interpretation is influenced by personal characteristics of the individual perceiver (Robbins, 1997: 39). These characteristics involve attitude, interest, expectation, past experience and needs as well as emotion (Robbins, 1997: 40).
The characteristics of target being observed can also influence interpretation, as the relationship between the target and its background heavily influences the forming of perception. For example, the students who utilize the use of peer feedback
20
in revising their writing are well aware that the objective of peer feedback is to improve their writing and to practice cooperating with others. The students, then, build a positive perception toward the use of peer feedback. In contrast, when the students do not know that peer feedback is beneficial for them, they will automatically build negative perception.
As additional information, an individual’s motivation is highly determined by his perception. This statement is supported by Herbert as quoted below:
Motivation is also strongly affected by perception, as we noted in examining expectancy theory. The force of motivation is directly related to the perceived probability that effort and success are related, as well as the linkage between success and rewards (Herbert, 1976: 262)
When the students perceive peer feedback negatively, they will not be motivated to use peer feedback to revise their writing. On the opposite, when they perceive peer feedback positively, they will be motivated to revise their writing based on the feedback from their peers.
B. Theoretical Framework
Considering the ideas above, the writer is interested in finding out whether the feedback from peers makes significant difference of the students’ writing quality and also the students’ perceptions toward the implementation of peer feedback. The expectation is that the students have a positive perception toward the implementation of peer feedback so that they revise their writing based on the feedback for their peers.
22
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter deals with the methodology the writer used in this study. Thus, this chapter presents the method, research participants, setting, research instrument, data gathering technique, and data analysis as well as research procedure.
A. Research Method
In this study, the writer employed descriptive research. The work of Ary et al (1990: 381) reveals that this sort of research is designed to obtain information about the current status of phenomena. It means that descriptive research is designed to describe a certain phenomenon. On the face of it, in analyzing the data the writer experienced the use qualitative research method. The work of Ary et al (2002: 22) points out that qualitative research method deals with understanding social phenomena from the perspective of the human participants in the study. One major characteristic of this research method is the use of narrative description and interpretation. This characteristic differentiates this research method from the quantitative one in terms of data analysis (Ary et al, 2002: 23).
B. Research Participants
sampling in this study. Cluster sampling, in accordance with Cohen, Marion and Morrison (2000: 100), involves randomly selecting the samples from a list of population. Further, the work of Ary, Jacobs and Razavieh (2002: 168) states that cluster sampling is the probability sampling in which the unit chosen is not an individual but a group of individual that are naturally together. The probability sampling itself provides a nonzero chance for the entire population to be selected as the samples.
Employing the cluster sampling method, the writer randomly selected the cluster or the class of the students and the choice went to the students of IPA 2 class. There were 35 students of IPA 2 class. However, since three students were absent in the peer feedback session and one student did not submit his revision; the number of the samples became 31.
Having decided the samples, the writer then started to collect the data. The research was conducted at the end of the even semester of academic year 2006/2007 in SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta on May 18, 2007 until June 5, 2007.
C. Research Instruments
To collect the data, there were two research instruments assigned in this study. They were a set questionnaires and students’ writing.
2. Students’ writing
24
graded based on a weighted rubric. Then, the writer searched for the improvement on each aspect of the writing quality. The student’s post–peer second writing were considered to show improvement when the score of the student’s post–peer second writing was better than the pre–peer first draft. Searching for the students’ improvement on each aspect, the writer investigated to what extent peer feedback contributed to the students’ improvement in their writing quality.
3. Questionnaire
The data used to answer the second problem formulation was recorded using this instrument as well. Ary et al (1990: 421) define a questionnaire as an instrument to gather information by having the respondents respond to a list of questions. They then propose the advantage of using questionnaire. They claim that the data gained from the questionnaires is believed to be more truthful and reliable rather than the data gained from personal interview, as there is possibility for the respondents to avoid telling the right information to the interviewer.
The items of the questionnaire are made up of selected-response items. The type of the questionnaire used in this study referred to as a likert scale. The consideration why the writer applied this type is because this type generally works for getting at respondents’ views, judgments, or opinions (Brown and Rodgers, 2002: 120). In other words, this type of questionnaire is appropriate to investigate the respondents’ perceptions.
for “disagree”; and 1 for “totally disagree”. The students were to value each statement to the degree of agreement of their own.
Integrated in the 15 statements, the three elements concerning the components of the students’ perception on the use of peer feedback covered up the perception on the characteristics of peer feedback, on the benefits of peer feedback and on the responses to peer feedback. Statement number 1, 6, 7, and 8 were to find out the students’ point of view of the peer feedback’s characteristics. The students’ agreement on the benefits of peer feedback was investigated through the statements number 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Statement number 2, 3, 4, 5, and 15 were dealing with the students’ responses to peer feedback. To make it understandable, questionnaire blue print is provided below.
Table 3.1 Questionnaire Blue Print
Features Item Number
The characteristics of peer feedback 1, 6, 7, 8 The benefits of peer feedback 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 The response to peer feedback 2, 3, 4, 5, 15
D. Data Gathering Technique
26
done due to the fact that the English teachers of SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta had not implemented the use of peer feedback before.
The second meeting, which was on the 26th of May, 2007, was spent to expose the students to argumentative writing. The writer facilitated the students in writing argumentative writings. At first, the writer opened the meeting by having the students give their arguments on a certain topic and involved in a discussion related to the topic. Then, the writer carefully explained the generic structure of an argumentative writing. Having done some exercises, the students chose one controversial statement among three and develop their arguments at home. The three statements provided were “The members of House of Representatives deserve the supply of laptops”, “Abortion should be legalized”, and “Students must not wear uniform at school”. The students were to bring their argumentative writing in the following meeting for the sake of the implementation of peer feedback.
In the last meeting, which was on the 2nd of June 2007, the students were to give feedback to each other’s argumentative writing. Prior to that, the writer explained the procedure of the peer feedback session so carefully that the students did not get confused. They were also given a peer feedback sheet to guide them in the peer feedback session. In this meeting, the writer also distributed the questionnaire. The students were to revise their pre-peer first writing at home and bring their post-peer second writing along with the peer feedback sheet and the questionnaire on the 5th of June, 2007 through their English teacher. So, the writer was in touch with the teacher to get the data.
rubric. The student’s writing were considered to show improvement when the score of the student’s post–peer second writing was better than the pre–peer first writing. Having completed the steps in gathering the data, the writer started to analyze the data.
E. Data Analysis Technique
The writer used two stages of analyzing the data. First of all, the writer examined and scored the students’ pre–peer first writing as well as their post–peer second writing based on a certain scoring system. The scoring system of the students’ writing is presented below:
Table 3.2 The scoring system of the students’ writing
AREA LEVEL CRITERIA
Excellent to Very Good:
knowledgeable; relevant to assigned topic; accurate detail; thoroughly developed ideas
Good to Average: some knowledge of the subject; most content relevant to the topic; reasonably accurate detail; could be more fully developed
Fair to Poor: limited knowledge of subject; little varieties of ideas; some irrelevant content lacking details
Very Poor: does not show knowledge of subject; irrelevant or very restricted content
Inadequate: fails to address the task with any effectiveness
ORGANIZATION 20-18
17-14
13-10
Excellent to Very Good: appropriate title; ideas clearly stated and supported, well-organized paragraph/sections; logical sequencing; connectives appropriately used; complete and logical conclusion
Good to Average: adequate title, introduction and conclusion; loosely organized but ideas stand out; limited support; logical but incomplete sequencing; some connectives used
28
9-5 4-1
Very Poor: ideas very difficult to follow; no sense of logical sequence; no use of connectives
Inadequate: fails to address the task with any effectiveness
Excellent to Very Good: wide range; effective word/idiom, choice and usage; appropriate register
Good to Average: adequate range; occasional errors of word/idiom, form, choice, usage; meaning not obscured
Fair to Poor: limited range; a noticeable number of errors in word/idiom, choice, usage; meaning a bit obscured
Very Poor: no range of vocabulary; frequent errors in word/idiom, choice, usage; inappropriate use of vocabulary, meaning obscured or confused
Inadequate: fails to address the task with any effectiveness
Excellent to Very Good: effective complex
instruction; hardly any errors of agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions; meaning never obscured
Good to Average: few problems in more complex instruction; several errors in agreement, tense, number, word order/ function, articles, pronouns, prepositions; meaning seldom obscured
Fair to Poor: problems in simple construction; frequent errors in agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions, negation, deletions; meaning sometimes obscured
Very Poor: major problems in simple and complex structure; dominated by errors
Inadequate: fails to address the task with any effectiveness
Excellent to Very Good: demonstrate full command of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing
Good to Average: occasional errors in spelling punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing; meaning not obscured
Fair to Poor: frequent errors in spelling,
punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing; meaning a bit confused
Very Poor: dominated by errors in spelling,
punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing, meaning confused
The scoring system above is adapted from three rubrics developed and created by Hyland (2002), Hughey (1983) and Brown and Bailey (1984, as cited in Brown, 2001). Constructing the rubric, the writer developed it by considering charily those three rubrics. Yet, the writer also put her own judgment to the criteria of the assessment on each aspect.
Having scored the students’ pre–peer first writing and post–peer second writing, the writer started to analyze them. The writer was to investigate to what extent peer feedback contributes to the students’ improvement in their writing quality. The writer investigated and presented an explanation of the students’ improvement on each aspect of the students’ writing quality.
The next stage of the data analysis dealt with analyzing the questionnaires. The writer analyzed the students’ responses to each statement in the questionnaire and searched for the frequency. By figuring out the frequency, the students’ tendency in perceiving peer feedback could be characterized. In other words, the frequency of the students’ responses on each statement in the questionnaire identified their degree of the perception.
As stated above, there were fifteen statements and the value of each statement was from one up to four, concerning the degree of agreement. Four points would be for those who chose “totally agree”; three points would be for those who chose “agree”; two points would be for those who chose “disagree”; and one point would be for those who chose “totally disagree”. This notion is supported by the work of Best (1970: 175) as stated below.
30
necessary. Starting with a particular point of view, all statements favoring this position would be scored:
a. strongly agree 5 b. agree 4 c. undecided 3 d. disagree 2 e. strongly disagree 1
F. Research Procedure
Conducting this study, the writer followed some steps that are presented below:
1. Identifying problem
2. Identifying research participants 3. Preparing research instruments
4. Asking permission to conduct the study
5. Employing peer feedback in the students’ writing class 6. Distributing the questionnaire
31
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS RESULTS
Having been theoretically presented and discussed in Chapter II, the tentative answer of the problem formulation is empirically presented and discussed in Chapter IV. In other words, Chapter IV is specifically intended to discuss the findings and the data analysis resulted from the research. This chapter is divided into two parts, namely Data Presentation and Interpretation and Discussion.
A. Data Presentation and Interpretation
The data were gathered from the students’ pre-peer first writing and post-peer second writing as well as the questionnaires which were distributed to the eleventh grade students of SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta. There were 31 samples for this study. The analysis on the improvement of the students’ writing quality and the students’ responses on each statement is presented in the following.
1. The Improvement of the Students’ Writing Quality
32
first as well as the second writing and then observed their improvement on every aspect of the writing based on the scoring system. The comparison of the quality of the students’ first and second writing could be seen as follows.
Table. 4.1 The Comparison of the Writing Quality of the Students’ Pre-peer and Post-peer Writing
Table 4.2 The Student’s Achievement on Each Aspect of Writing Quality
The following would fatherly discuss to what extent peer feedback improved the students’ writing in each aspect.
a. Students’ Improvement on Content
34
the topic, the students still revised their content based on the feedback from peers. Apparently, the content of the students’ writing improved more than other aspects. It is proved by the fact that there were 23 out of 31 students (see table 4.2) who did the revision on the content and that this area improved.
There were three approaches how the students dealt with in revising their content. The first one was adding or supporting their arguments with logical facts, the second one was by providing deeper explanation on each argument and the last one was providing additional factual information to support their ideas or arguments. Clearly, among those three approaches, the students dealt with providing additional information to support their ideas more often. Yet, they also added clearer logical facts in supporting their arguments as well as providing deeper explanation on each argument.
The verity that they revised and improved their content was probably due to the writer’s guidance to have them pay attention on content and organization rather that correcting others’ grammatical mistakes.
b. Students’ Improvement on Organization
of 31 students (74.2%) who did the improvement on the organization and that this area improved.
There were four strategies that the students employed in giving feedback and revising their organization. They are providing logical conclusion, stating their reasons on each argument more clearly, connecting their reasons and their arguments in more reasonable ways and providing clearer ideas of their arguments. Mostly, the students improved their organization by connecting their reasons and their arguments in more reasonable ways or in other words they had their writing more coherent. Peer feedback then has helped them in developing better organized writing.
c. Students’ Improvement on Language Use
It must be admitted that the students still had the difficulties in creating English sentences that were grammatically correct. It led to the students’ improvement on language use. Yet, there were only 15 students (48.5%) that revised their writing on the language use. The fact that the number of the students revising their language was not as high as those revising their content and organization was perhaps due to the fact that they felt they did not have that capability in giving feedback and correcting others’ grammar and that the writer asked them to pay more attention on content and organization. However, it did not imply that the writer forbade them to give feedback on grammar.
36
After revision, there were 17 cases of errors on agreement, 9 cases of errors on tenses, and 17 errors on the forms of verb and be. The fact that the students commonly made errors in agreement is probably because there is no rule of agreement (concord) in the students’ native language, bahasa Indonesia.
d. Students’ Improvement on Vocabulary
Some students appeared to reveal occasional errors of word, choice and usage. Dealing with it, seven students (22.6%) did the revision on this aspect (table 4.2). It is obvious that the number of the students revising their language use was higher that that of the students revising their vocabulary. Before revision, there were 10 cases of errors on diction, however, after the revision, the cases of making errors went into decline that there were only 2 cases.
The errors of their vocabulary commonly dealt with diction (choice of words). Some of them failed to demonstrate appropriate choice of words as well as the usage, for example the choice of “governor” instead of “government”, the choice of “guitless” instead of “innocent”, the choice of “dark relationship” instead of “sexual affair”. The students’ strategy to revise their vocabulary was, then, by changing the words that were ineffective into the effective ones.
e. Students’ Improvement on Mechanics
It was apparent that the students rarely gave comments on mechanics. It was perhaps due to the fact that they did not possess sufficient knowledge on good mechanics in writing. It was considered less important as the main focus of writing is not the mechanics. Yet, it would be better for the students to be exposed to have better knowledge on mechanics.
2. Students’ Responses to the Questionnaire
This part deals with the students’ responses on each statement of the questionnaire. The data presentation is presented as follows.
Table 4.3 The Frequency and Percentage of the Students’ Responses on Each Statement on the Questionnaire
Degree of Agreement No Statement
4 3 2 1
1 Koreksi dibutuhkan dalam membuat suatu tulisan. 15
48.4% 14 45.2%
2 6.4% - 2 Anda menyukai tugas memberi koreksi pada tulisan teman anda. 1
3.2% 24
77.4% 6 19.4% - 3 Anda senang ketika teman anda memberi koreksi untuk tulisan
anda.
4 Anda percaya diri ketika teman anda membaca tulisan anda. - 12
38.7% 19 61.3% -
5 Anda percaya pada koreksi yang diberikan teman anda. 4
12.9% 6 Koreksi yang diberikan teman anda dapat membantu anda
dalam memperbaiki tulisan anda. 7 Koreksi yang diberikan teman anda jelas dan mudah
dimengerti. -
Koreksi yang diberikan teman anda lebih menghemat waktu dalam memperbaiki tulisan anda daripada koreksi yang diberikan oleh guru.
9 Dengan saling memberi koreksi, anda menjadi lebih kritis
dalam menganalisa karangan anda sendiri.
8 10 Dengan saling memberi koreksi, anda menjadi lebih kritis
dalam membaca karangan orang lain.
9 11 Dengan saling memberi koreksi, anda menjadi lebih percaya
diri pada kemampuan anda. 12 Dengan saling memberi koreksi, anda dapat belajar dari teman
anda. 13 Dengan saling memberi koreksi, anda menjadi lebih akrab
dengan teman anda. -
Dengan saling memberi koreksi, anda melatih kemampuan
membaca anda dalam bahasa Inggris menjadi lebih baik. 9
29%
19 61.3%
3 9.7% -
15 Anda memperbaiki tulisan anda berdasarkan koreksi yang
38
Responding to the first statement, “Correction is crucially needed in producing a piece of writing (translation: koreksi dibutuhkan dalam membuat suatu tulisan)”, 15 students (48.4%) stated that they totally agreed, other 14 students (45.2%) stated that they agreed and the rest two students (6.4%) stated that they disagreed. It shows that almost all of the students recognize the importance of feedback or correction in composing a good writing, while the other two students who disagreed with the idea might not be aware of the importance of feedback in writing. In other words, they might only put emphasis on the quality of final writing without noticing the stages to reach the final writing.
There are 24 students (77.4%) who selected “agree”, one student (3.2%) who selected “totally agree” and 6 students (19.4%) who selected “disagree” in responding to the second statement, “You enjoy the task of giving feedback/correction on your peer’s writing (translation: anda menyukai tugas memberi koreksi pada tulisan teman anda)”. Obviously, most of the students (20 students) enjoyed the task of giving feedback to their peers. They might think that they would be exposed to be independent learners by giving feedback to each other. Unfortunately, there are 11 students who admitted that they did not like the task. It was possibly due to their preference on teacher’s feedback. The feedback from the teacher was probably considered more reliable and valid.
one student totally disagreed) proved that they were unexcited when they were given the peer feedback. Obviously, most of the students were excited with their friends’ giving them feedback.
From the students’ responses on the fourth statement, “You are confident when your peer read your writing (translation: anda percaya diri ketika teman anda membaca tulisan anda)”, it is known that more than half of the samples possessed low confidence in their own writing. 19 students (61.3%) stated that they disagreed with the fourth statement. There are 12 students (38.7%) who stated that they agreed. The students’ being unconfident might have been the result of their doubt when they dealt with English grammar. They considered that they did not compose their writing in good structure. The assumption that they did not deal with English grammar very well is also proved by the fact that the number of the students doing revision on language use was more that those doing revision on content and organization (see page 36).
40
There are six students (19.4%) who totally agreed, 21 students (67.7%) who agreed and four students (12.9%) who disagreed with the statement number six, “The feedback from your peer is helpful in improving your writing (translation: koreksi yang diberikan teman anda dapat membantu anda dalam memperbaiki tulisan
anda)”. Clearly, almost all of the samples (27 students) admitted that peer feedback could improve their writing. Compared to the students’ responses on the fifth statement in which seven students were said to be doubtful about the use of peer feedback, the students who considered peer feedback unreliable and invalid were only five of them. It implies that there is one student who was doubtful about peer feedback.
From the students’ responses on the seventh statement, “The feedback from your peer is clear as well as understandable (translation: koreksi yang diberikan teman anda jelas dan mudah dimengerti)”, it is found that 19 students (61.3%) stated they agreed, eleven students (35.5%) stated they disagreed and one student (3.2%) stated that he/she totally disagreed with the statement. It means that there are 19 students who considered their peers’ feedback was clear and understandable, while there are 12 students who considered the opposite. Those 12 students considered the opposite probably due to their felling doubt with their peers’ competence. Besides, their peers’ unclear handwriting might also influence their opinion.
Statement number eight, “The feedback from your peer helps you to save time in revising your writing compared to that given by your teacher (translation:
koreksi yang diberikan teman anda lebih menghemat waktu dalam memperbaiki
students) selected “agree” and 25.8% (8 students) selected “disagree”. It implies that more than half of the total samples agreed that peer feedback could save time compared to teacher feedback. In other words, they believe that teacher feedback spends more time rather that peer feedback.
42
agreed and seven students (22.6%) disagreed; and statement number fourteen, “Providing feedback to your peer’s writing, you have developed your English critical reading skill (translation: dengan saling memberi koreksi, anda melatih kemampuan membaca dalam bahasa Inggris anda menjadi lebih baik)”, with nine students (29%) totally agreed, nineteen students (61.3%) agreed and three students (9.7%) disagreed. The previous point shows that on average the students recognized the benefits of peer feedback. The benefits mentioned are that peer feedback teaches students to critically analyze their own writing as well as the writing of others; that peer feedback enables the students to develop their critical reading skills; that peer feedback helps to improve the students’ self esteem; and that peer feedback creates an authentic social context for interaction and learning.
Responding to the last statement, “You revise your writing based on the feedback from your peer (translation: anda memperbaiki tulisan anda berdasarkan koreksi yang diberikan oleh teman anda)”, 22.6% of the total samples (seven students) selected “totally agree”, 74.2% (23 students) selected “agree” and 3.2% (one student) selected “disagree”. It implies that almost all of the students (30 students) revised their writing based their peers’ feedback, while there is only one student who did not revise his/her writing based on their peers’ feedback. Compared to the students’ responses on the fifth statement, “The feedback from your peer is well-trusted (translation: anda percaya pada koreksi yang diberikan teman anda)”, in which there are 25 students who believed in their peers’ feedback; the students who revised their writing were 30 of them. It entails that there were several students who did not put their trust on the feedback from their peers but they still revised their writing based o the peer feedback.
By knowing the frequency, the students’ tendency in perceiving peer feedback could be characterized. Seemingly, the students gained positive perception on the use of peer feedback in their writing class. This tentative hypothesis of the students’ perception was subsequently sustained by the research finding of the first problem formulation.
B. Discussion
