TABLE OF CONTENT
Title ... i
Approval ... ii
Declaration ... iii
Dedication ... iv
Acknowledgement... v
Abstract ... vi
Table of Content ... vii
Chapter I: Introduction ... 1
1.1. Background ... 1
1.2. Purpose of the Study ... 3
1.3. Research Question ... 4
1.4. Scope of the Study ... 4
1.5. Significance of the Study ... 4
1.6. Definition of Terms ... 5
1.7. Organization of Thesis ... 5
Chapter II: Review of the Literature ... 7
2.1. Theories of Peer Feedback ... 7
2.1.1. Definition of Peer Feedback... 7
2.1.2. Types of Feedback ... 9
2.1.3. Peer Feedback and Social Constructionist’s Views of Learning ... 12
2.1.4. Advantages and Drawbacks of Peer Feedback in ESL Writing Instruction ... 14
2.1.4.1. Advantages ... 14
2.1.4.2. Drawbacks ... 15
2.1.5. Stages in the Peer Feedback Activity ... 17
Pre Peer Feedback ... 18
While Peer Feedback... 19
Post Peer Feedback ... 20
2.1.6. Students’ Responses toward Peer Feedback Activity ... 21
2.1.6.1. Positive Response ... 21
2.1.6.2. Negative Response ... 22
2.2. Peer Feedback in the Process Writing Approach ... 23
2.2.1. Position of Peer Feedback in the Process Writing Approach ... 23
2.2.2. Development in Students’ Revision through Peer Feedback in the Process Writing Approach ... 26
2.3. Concept of Narrative Genre ... 27
2.4. Previous Research ... 33
2.5. Summary ... 35
Chapter III: Methodology of the Research ... 36
3.1. Research Design ... 37
3.2. Research Site and Participant ... 38
3.3. Techniques of Data Collection ... 38
Documentation ... 39
Interview ... 40
3.4. Techniques of Data Analysis ... 42
3.4.1. Analysis of the Students’ Drafts ... 42
3.4.2. Analysis of the Data from Interview ... 44
Chapter IV: Finding and Discussion ... 46
4.1. Students’ Narrative Writing Development (Evidence from Text) ... 47
4.1.1. Organizational Development ... 47
4.1.1.1. Asri’s Narrative Text ... 47
4.1.1.2. Sophia’s Narrative text ... 55
4.1.2. Grammatical Development ... 63
4.1.2.1. Asri’s Narrative Text ... 63
4.1.2.2. Sophia’s Narrative text ... 79
4.2. Students’ Responses toward Peer Feedback (Evidence from Interviews ... 90
4.2.1. Students’ Responses on being Involved into Peer Feedback Activity ... 90
4.2.2. Students’ Responses on Giving Comments to Their Peer ... 92
4.2.3. Students’ Responses on Reading (Receiving) Comments from Peers ... 96
4.2.4. Students’ Responses on Peer Feedback Effectiveness ... 100
4.2.5. Students’ Responses on Peer Feedback Difficulties ... 104
Chapter V: Conclusion and Recommendation ... 108
5.1. Conclusion ... 108
5.2. Recommendation... 109
Bibliography ... 111
[image:2.595.113.548.149.646.2]Appendices List of Figure Figure 1 ... 24
Figure 2 ... 29
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1.Background
This research was performed to investigate the impact of peer feedback
toward the students’ narrative writing, and the students’ responses toward peer
feedback activities in the ESL writing classroom. Although many researchers
noted that peer feedback positively influences students’ writing skills, peer
feedback was originally used in first language writing classroom during 1970s
(Hyland and Hyland, 2006:1). This means that peer feedback was an approach
formulated to apply in L1 context and its effectiveness in L2, especially ESL, is
still questioned and debated.
During 2000s, researchers (e.g., Zeng, 2006; Kamimura, 2006; Jiao, 2007;
and Hirose, 2009) had been interested in peer feedback effectiveness; therefore
they investigated the impact of peer feedback on the students’ writing in ESL
classroom. In conclusion, they revealed that peer feedback offers many ways to
improve students’ writing.
Peer feedback is one of the crucial components of process oriented writing (See also Harmer, 2007 and Bartels, 2003). As a main component, applying peer
feedback activities in the ESL writing classroom means employing process
oriented writing approach in the classroom. Implementing process oriented writing approach is relatively important because the approach is based on how
understand) that even professional writers do not just write a one-shot draft to
make their message clear (Emilia, 2010:163). Therefore, when a teacher considers
using process oriented in writing instruction, the students may have more opportunities to learn how to write in a real situation.
Peer feedback is an approach where social dimension is created in the
writing classroom, based on assumption that writing is a social process (Hyland,
2005:198). Even, language learning is said as a social process and knowledge is
transmitted in social contexts, through relationships, like those of parent and child,
or teacher and pupil, or classmates (Halliday, in Emilia, 2010:36). Furthermore,
learning as social process acquired through social interaction shapes the learner’s
acquisition of skills (Olivera and Strauss 2004, as cited in al-Qurashi, 2009:57).
Since writing is a social process, the students should be placed as members
of classroom society. Placing students in the social situation like this gives them
opportunities to give and to receive meaningful inputs from one to another. This
suggests that narrowing the social dimension into ESL writing classroom emerges
opportunities to negotiate their strength to improve other and their weakness to be
strengthened. In other words, it is reasonable to consider peer feedback as an
alternative in ESL writing classroom
Peer feedback is strongly recommended by some researchers who support
to this approach (e.g., Zeng, 2006; Kamimura, 2006; Jiao, 2007; Hirose, 2009;
and Rollinson, 2005); because peer feedback allows students negotiating their
although according to Clark (2003) the development achieved by the students is
seemed superficial. Nevertheless, peer feedback is shown as an alternative
applicable to improve students’ writing (skill and text) under certain condition
(Hyland and Hyland, 2006).
As already mentioned, this research also aims to investigate students’
responses toward peer feedback. Related to this issue, Rollinson (2005) mentions
that the students responded peer feedback activities as beneficial. In line with this,
Jacobs et al. (1998) stated that they believe that students usually welcome peer feedback as one type of feedback in writing classroom. However, students’
responses toward peer feedback activities are also still questioned. Hong (2006),
for example, revealed a contradictive result with Rollinson (2005) and Jacobs et al. (1998), that is, students devalued peer feedback in ESL writing classroom with various reasons.
Researches indicated that peer feedback has certain impact on students’
writing, and based on the background above, this research was performed to
investigate the impact of peer feedback on the students’ narrative writing and
students’ responses toward peer feedback activity in ESL writing classroom.
1.2.Purpose of the Study
This study was conducted to investigate the impact of peer feedback on the
students’ narrative writing development and to investigate the students’ responses
1.3.Research Question
In line with the purpose of the study, this study attempted to address the
following questions:
1.3.1. To what extent does the students’ narrative writing develops through peer feedback?
1.3.2. What are the students’ responses toward peer feedback activities in ESL writing classroom?
1.4.Scope of the Study
This research was conducted in a limited numbers of students in an
undergraduate ESL classroom, which was taught writing and developing narrative
writing through peer feedback. And as this research is intentionally designed as
qualitative case study, this research result is not generalized to broader context.
1.5.Significance of the Study
This study is expected to give more meaning to peer feedback as more
than an activity but also an applicable approach to teaching writing in the ESL
classroom. Theoretically, peer feedback was found as to have its elements, stages,
and system that distinguish it from collaborative writing and cooperative integrated reading and composition (CIRC). Practically, the results of this study can give information to the writing teachers and lecturers on how to organize or to
implement peer feedback in the ESL writing classroom. Information emerged by
this study is also useful for the other researchers who may be interested to other
1.6.Definition of Terms
Peer Feedback: Peer feedback is simply defined as feedback given by peer
(Zeng, 2006). Peer feedback is a range of activities where social environment is
created in the classroom to encourage students to share, to comment, to respond,
to correct, and to negotiate ideas (Spear, 1988; Williams, 2005; Hyland, 2005).
Narrative: Narrative is a text type in English which functions to tell stories
(Alwasilah and Alwasilah, 2005:119; Suhendar and Supinah, 1997). Narrative is
used by the writer to report past events (Labov, 1997).
Response: Response is certain attitude as answer on something, as the
pattern of attitude (McDonalds, 1959:220). Response is the base of attitude, which
is, in this research, understood as students’ answers toward interview questions.
1.7.Organization of the Thesis
This thesis contains five chapters those are summarized and organized as
follows:
Chapter I: This chapter consists of background of the study, the purpose of
the study, the problems investigated, the scope, and the significance of the study.
This chapter is ended with the definition of terms which are frequently used in this
study.
Chapter II: This chapter consists of theories underpin this study. The
theories reviewed in this chapter are the theories of peer feedback, theories of
[image:8.595.114.513.256.628.2]writing process, and theories of narrative genre. Those theories are synthesized to
Chapter III: This chapter consists of the methodology of the research
which covers research design, techniques of data collection, and techniques of
data analysis.
Chapter IV: In this chapter, the findings of the research are discussed. The
discussion is divided into two big parts: students’ narrative writing development
and students’ responses toward peer feedback. Each category is discussed in
subsequent order according to the type of development achieved by the students.
Chapter V: This is the final chapter that consists of conclusion and the
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY OF THE RESEARCH
In this chapter, the methodology of the research used in conducting this
study is presented. Unlike previous research (e.g., Kamimura, 2006; Zeng, 2006;
Kurt and Atay, 2007), which conducted to investigate peer feedback impact on the
students’ writing, this research intended to look the gradual development achieved
by the students. Previous researches, as mentioned above, preferred to use certain
“calculation” to look the decrease of the error and the increase of the correction
students made during writing with peer feedback.
Since it is suggested that (peer) feedback is a main component in process
oriented writing (Harmer, 2007; Hyland, 2005; Bartels, 2003), gradual
development is seen by comparing students’ texts, as whole (Emilia, 2010) and
not fragmented part, therefore following methodology is assumed as appropriate.
Hyland (2007:197), in exploring text genre analysis, mentions that
different types of research methods lead to different types of understanding. The
other side of the coin, it can be said that to gain different types of understanding,
different types of method is used.
Following discussion attempts to address respects in connection with the
research design, techniques of data collection and data analysis, and research site
and participant. Each component of the methodology, as mentioned in sequence,
is in accordance with the purpose of the study. The following used research
students’ narrative writing development and students’ responses toward peer feedback.
3.1.Research Design
This part discusses the design of the research in the frame of its
importance and function as helping the researcher to obtain responsible
conclusion to the investigated problems (Oppenheim, 1982:7). This study is
designed as a qualitative case study. Case study is appropriate to be employed since this research treated peer feedback as the single case that is investigated (Cresswell, 1997:61, Silverman, 2005:126). In relationship with the reason, case
study also characterizes this study due to the fact that this research was carried out
in a “single case,” that is what development the students achieve in writing
narrative through peer feedback. Another reason is that this research employed
more than one data collection techniques: document and interview; which is one of the characteristics of the qualitative case study (Cresswell, 1997).
This current study also attempted to investigate peer feedback as the case
in a system bounded by time and place. Time here refers to the process of writing whereas place here refers to the level of the participant (university students). Therefore, the result of the study is not generalizable. Simply, this study was
conducted to investigate the impact of peer feedback in a limited number of
3.2.Research Site and Participant
The site of the research was in a university in Bandung, Indonesia,
involving 15 English department undergraduate students. The recruitment of the
participant was performed by employing purposive sampling that is available for a case study (Cresswell, 1997:62; Moleong, 2008). These undergraduate students
were purposively chosen by respecting considerations as follow:
a. They are learning English as a second language
b. They have been taught English writing
c. They have been introduced to narrative genre
d. They are ready to spend time and energy during the study
e. They will work cooperatively during the process of the study
Those considerations were taken into account in hoping that peer
feedback, as the studied case, can be implemented in writing narrative in English.
Although peer feedback was originally formulated to be used in English as L1
(Hyland and Hyland, 2006), teachers and researchers (e.g., Williams, 2005;
Hyland, 2005; Spear, 1988; Kamimura, 2007, and Zeng, 2006) were optimist that
peer feedback might be valuable in ESL writing classroom if the students are well
trained (Williams, 2005; Lim, 2007) and have sufficient knowledge of what and
how to do it (Clark, 2003). In line with those assumptions, the above criterions
were taken into consideration to perform the participant recruitment.
3.3.Techniques of Data Collection
This research attempted to find out evidence that peer feedback has a
toward peer feedback activity in ESL writing classroom. To collect the data, this
research needed students’ texts and their perceptions. Therefore, documentation
and interview were used to obtain the data. Each technique and its steps
performed are elaborated below.
Documentation
There were some steps done in collecting students’ texts. The procedure
used in this technique is by following Liz (in Hyland and Hyland, 2006:145) that
was the students’ texts are collected through peer feedback cycle. Those steps are mentioned as follow:
1. Students were taught narrative and peer feedback.
2. Students were asked to write a narrative (1st draft).
3. Students’ shared their narrative to their peer, with peer feedback sheet.
4. Each student read and gave feedback on the draft they had been given.
5. Each commented draft was returned to the owner for being revised.
6. Students revised their narrative after read their peer’s draft, and after their
draft was read by their peer (2nd draft).
7. Each student returned to do draft sharing, with peer feedback sheet.
8. Each student read and gave feedback on the draft they had been given (similar
draft).
9. Each commented draft was returned to the owner for being revised.
10.Students revised their narrative after 2nd draft sharing (3rd draft).
By doing thos
portfolio. There wer
compared as discussed
The steps done
Those steps ar
intends to collect mo
research because this
This diagram is adopt
adjustments.
Interview
Interview was
The use of interview w
or perceptions toward
interview was condu
hose steps above, students’ narrative drafts w
ere three drafts each student wrote and th
sed in the next chapter.
[image:14.595.113.513.240.635.2]one above can be illustrated in the diagram belo
Figure 3. Cycle of Students’ drafts collection are addable or can be repeated again if teacher
more drafts. Two peer feedback sessions we
his research intended to employ three drafts fo
opted from Liz (in Hyland and Hyland, 2006:1
as the second data collection technique used i
w was to capture students’ responses or opinion
ard peer feedback activity in their ESL writing
ducted at the end of the research process, a
were collected in
those drafts are
elow:
tion
her (or researcher)
were used in this
for each student.
:145) with certain
d in this research.
ions, or comments,
ng classroom. The
interview was used by respecting their privacies in answering questions as
suggested by Cresswell (1977:124).
All the students (15) were interviewed in one day, and each student was
interviewed in + 8-10 minutes. 15 questions were asked, but actually only 5 were
found relevant and therefore are discussed in the next chapter. The questions of
the interview are adopted from Hirose (2009), for complete detail see interview
transcription in appendix.
Interviews were performed to obtain their response toward peer feedback
activity they have been engaged earlier. Those questions are broken down into
five themes:
1. Students’ responses on being involved into peer feedback activity.
2. Students’ responses on giving comments to their peer.
3. Students’ responses on receiving comments from their peer.
4. Students’ responses on the peer feedback effectiveness.
5. Students’ responses on the peer feedback difficulties.
The researcher used recording device like a portable sensitive microphone
which was connected to a notebook. The students’ answers were recorded by
using recording software installed in the notebook. Students’ answers were
“saved” in MP3 (MP3 is a format of audio files available to be listened
electronically) and this was to make the transcription process more easily.
manually. This way was found easier than using another recorder, because by
using this way, students’ answers could be heard and repeated for many times,
and more secured from being broken.
3.4.Techniques of Data Analysis
The data analysis was performed through certain techniques in accordance
with the types and purpose of the data. The discussion of the techniques used in
analyzing data was divided into two parts: analysis of the students’ drafts and
analysis of the data from interview. Each part of data analysis was based on its
purpose of being collected, as described in turn.
3.4.1. Analysis of the students’ drafts
The analysis of the students’ drafts is theoretically categorized as content
analysis, which is Busha and Carter (1980) mention as a research tool focused on
actual content and internal features of media. Content analysis is said to determine
the presence (or absence) of certain words, concepts, themes, phrases, characters,
or sentences within the text (or sets of texts).
The internal features, in this research, are mistakes and revisions made in
the students’ texts. Identified, commented, and corrected mistakes are discussed
thoroughly and then discussing the revisions that could be made based on both
feedback from peer and self-awareness. Simply, this research, in analyzing
students’ texts, investigates the changes occur in the students’ texts (narrative
Students’ texts were analyzed to see the development of the students’
drafts in two aspects: organization and grammaticality. As displayed in the next chapter, organizational development is firstly discussed and then the grammatical
development.
To do this analysis, some steps were performed systematically as simply
called students’ texts comparison (Liz, in Hyland and Hyland, 2006:146-151; Clark, 2003). Those steps are:
1. Students’ portfolio was separated according to the owner’s name, and was
set in sequent (1st draft, 2nd draft, and 3rd draft).
2. Reading the 1st draft and discussing mistakes found (identified by the
responder, and unobserved mistakes), and then discussing the feedback
given by the responder for each mistake.
3. Discussing changes or revisions (in the 2nd draft) made by the writer;
looking for the connection between the revisions and the feedback in
earlier draft (1st draft).
4. Discussing the mistakes found (identified by the responder, and
unobserved mistakes) in the revised version (2nd draft) and further
feedback from the responder.
5. Discussing further changes or revisions (3rd draft) made by the writer;
looking for the connection between the further revisions and feedback in
earlier draft (2nd draft).
6. Summarizing.
Comparing students’ narrative drafts written in peer feedback sessions is
developments achieved by the students, reflected through the “betterment”
occurred in draft to drafts.
As mentioned in the earlier section, that students were asked to write their
narrative, draft comparison is likely to occur if, and only if, the compared drafts
are the revised versions and not a new draft or new narrative. Each long discussion category is summarized at the end to keep the crucial point found in the
data analysis. This type of analysis was performed to answer the first research
question, that is to see to what extent do the students’ narrative writing develop
through peer feedback.
3.4.2. Analysis of the data from interview
The analysis of the data from interview was done to understand the
students’ responses toward peer feedback activities in ESL writing classroom
where the students were engaged. Furthermore, the purpose of the interview in
this research was to understand how the students value or give meaning toward
peer feedback after experiencing it (Seidman, 2005:9). Some steps were done to
reach this purpose as mentioned below:
1. Students’ responses on interview questions were listened carefully and
then described into text.
2. Students’ responses were then divided into themes: involvement, giving
comment, receiving comment, effectiveness, and difficulties.
3. Students’ responses in each theme were translated and then interpreted in
relationship with theories regarding the students’ responses toward peer
feedback as covered by previous researchers.
The analysis of the interview data, through those steps, was performed to
answer the second research question. In interpretation, data was reduced as many
as needed through abstraction (Seidman, 2009; Moleong, 2008:247) to make the analysis more relevant and significant. The data, after being categorized, was then
interpreted with content analysis, focusing at linguistic form used by the
participants in responding interview questions (Busha and Carter, 1980) and this
is one of the semiotic analysis branches (Moleong, 2008).
The results of the previous researches in this regard are the base of the
significance of the conclusion. Therefore, the findings from the data from
interview are then compared with previous researches finding in this regard.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1.Conclusion
Theories, previous researches finding regard to peer feedback in ESL
writing classroom, and the analysis of the data are already reviewed and discussed
in perspectives. It must be acknowledged that peer feedback is advantageous and
beneficial under certain condition, and students’ background knowledge is
important to be taken into consideration.
Students’ drafts comparisons have shown that feedback from peer
encourages students’ revisions and therefore organizational and grammatical
development is found occur in their drafts. In more specific, students’ narrative
writing is found developed through peer feedback. However, from students’
drafts, unobserved mistakes and miscorrection are found that reflect their level of
language proficiency that is one of the main issues in peer feedback.
Overall, students’ revised version drafts are more developed and this is in
line with previous researches result that peer feedback is beneficial and
advantageous. Unobserved mistakes, as already mentioned, and miscorrection
from peer, are other sides of peer feedback that can be said as disadvantageous
implemented thoroughly, carefully, and well-planned and this has been examined
in this research; a not well-planned peer feedback might lead to a failure.
The discussed findings of the data from interview suggest that the students
positively respond peer feedback in ESL writing classroom. They found peer
feedback as an interesting alternative besides teacher feedback. Under certain
condition, peer feedback is said more intensive than other approach and this gives
them chances to be aware on their mistakes in writing. However, students
comment that they encounter difficulties in giving feedback to their peer. The
difficulties are around their lack of grammar knowledge that discourages them to
think that they have valuable potential to contribute. This raises an issue that
students’ background knowledge is important to be considered in implementing
peer feedback, especially in ESL writing classroom.
5.2.Recommendation
First of all, more research should be done to examine the impact of peer
feedback in relation to the students’ long-term development. Most of the studies,
including the current research, only discuss the relationship between peer
feedback and students’ subsequent drafts. However, the peer feedback
effectiveness should be evaluated from a long-term perspectives since the
immediate success of revisions do not guarantee improvement in the long run.
Second, it is clear for us to see the participants those are in the center of
Third, as found that handwritten draft might raise certain obstacles in peer
feedback, it is seemed important to investigate computer mediated peer feedback
effectiveness. Although researchers had investigated online peer feedback
effectiveness, consideration like automatic correction in the word processor software must be carefully taken into account.
Last of all, in doing peer feedback, there are two most important aspects
should be thought. The first is the students’ language proficiency, and the second
is the preparation that covers the careful planning and consistent procedures in
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Afful, J. B. 2008. Narrative of a Recently Graduated Researcher in Applied Linguistics. Nebula, 5.4.
Al-Qurashi, F. M. 2009. Saudi Students’ Reactions to Peer Response Groups in EFL Composition Classroom. J. King Saudi Univ., Vol. 21, Lang., & Transl., pp. 57-67, Riyadh (2009/1430 H).
Alwasilah, A. C., & Alwasilah, S. S. 2005. Pokoknya Menulis: Cara Baru Menulis Dengan Metode Kolaborasi. Bandung: Kiblat
Anderson, M., & Anderson, K. 1997. Text Types in English 2. MacMillan Education Australia PTY LTD.
Aridah. 2003. The Role of Feedback in Teaching and Learning of Writing. Celt, Volume 3, Number 2, December 2003:105-114.
Bailey, J., & Vardi, I. 1999. Iterative Feedback: Impacts of Students’ Writing.
HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, 12-15 July 1999.
Bal, M. 1999. Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative: Second Edition. London: University of Toronto Press.
Bartels, N. 2003. Written Peer Response in L2 Writing. English Teaching Forum.
Britton, B. K., & Pellegrini, A. D. 1990. Canonicality and Consciousness in Child Narrative. Narrative Thought and Narrative Language, pp. 131-133
Busha & Harter. 1980. Research Methods in Librarianship: Techniques of Interpretation. New York: Academic Press.
Caudery, T. 1995. What the “Process Approach” Means to Practicing Teachers of Second Language Writing Skills. TESL-EJ. Volume 1. No.4
Clark, I. L. 2003. Concepts in Composition: Theory and Practice in the Teaching of Writing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Creswell, J. W. 1997. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Sage Publications. International Educational and Professional Publisher. Thousand Oaks London New Delhi.
Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (eds). 2000. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2ndedn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Derewianka, B. 2004. Exploring How Texts Work. Primary English Teaching Association.
Emilia, E. 2010. Teaching Writing: Developing Critical Learners. Bandung: Rizqi Press.
Evans, V. 2000. Successful Writing Proficiency. Express Publishing.
Feez, S & Joyce, H. 2000. Writing Skills: Narrative and Non-Fiction Text Types. Phoenix Education.
Ferris, D. R. 2005. Treatment of Error in Second Language Writing. USA: The University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock. S. 2005. Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice. Second Edition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher.
Gardner & Johnson. 1997. Stages of Writing Process. In North Central Regional Educational Laboratory Journal.
Greenbaum, S., & Nelson, G. 2002. An Introduction to English Grammar: Second Edition. Longman.
Hammond, J. 2001. The Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning Available at: Http://gse.gmu.edu/assets/docs/lmtip/vol3/j.hammond.pdf
Harmer, J. 2007. How to Teach Writing. Longman
Hong, F. 2006. Students Perception of Peer Response Activity in English Writing Instruction. CELEA (Bimonthly) Aug. 2006. Vol. 29 No. 4
Hyland, K. 2005. Second Language Writing. Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. 2007.Genre and Second Language Writing. The University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. 2006. Feedback in Second Language Writing: Context and Issues. Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. 2001. Sugaring the Pill: Praise and Criticism in Written Feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing. 10 (2001), 185-212.
Jacobs, G. M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S. Y. 1998. Feedback on Students Writing: Taking the middle Path. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 307-317.
Jiao, L. Y. 2007. Application of Cooperative Learning in Teaching College English Writing. US-China Foreign Language. ISSN 1539-8080, USA. May 2007, Volume 5, No.5 (Serial No.44).
Kamimura, T. 2006. Effects of Peer Feedback on EFL Student Writers at Different Levels of English Proficiency: A Japanese Context. TESL Canada Journal. Vol. 23, no. 2, Spring 2006
Kurt & Atay, 2007. The Effects of Peer Feedback on the Writing Anxiety of Prospective Turkish Teachers of EFL. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education.
Labov, W. 1997. Some Further Steps in Narrative Analysis. The Journal of Narrative and Life History.
Lee, N. S. C., 2009. Written Peer Feedback by EFL Students: Praise, Criticism, and Suggestion. Komaba Journal of English Education.
Lim, J. W. 2007. Responding to Students’ Writing: Peer and Teacher Feedback.
Liu, Y. 2008. The Effects of Error Feedback in Second Language Writing. Arizona Working Paper in SLA & Teaching, Volume. 15, 65-79 (2008).
Mangelsdorf, K. 1992. Peer Review in the ESL Composition Classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal, 46 (3): 274-284.
McDonalds, F., J. 1959. Educational Psychology. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.
Mittan, R. 1989. The Peer Review Process: Harnessing students’ communicative power. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.) Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students. White Plains, NY: Longman. In Murau, A. M.______. Shared Writing: Students’ Perception and Attitudes of Peer Review. WPEL, Vol. 9, No. 2
Moleong, L., J. 2008. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif: Edisi Revisi. Penerbit Rosda Karya.
Montague, N. 1995. The Process Oriented Approach to Teaching Writing to Second Language Learners. New York State Association for Bilingual Education Journal. Vol. X. p13-24.
Mooney, C. G. 2000. Theories of Childhood: An Introduction to Dewey, Montessori, Erikson, Piaget, and Vygotsky. Redleaf Press.
Morris, C. 2009. Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development. Available at: http://www.igs.net/~cmorris/zpd.html
Nilson, L. B. 2003. Improving Students Peer Feedback. College Teaching, Volume. 51, Number. 1.
Olivera, F., & Strauss, S. G. 2004. Group to Individual Transfer of Learning: Cognitive and Social Factors. Small Group Research, Vol. 35. Pp. 440-465.
Opdycke, J. B. 1944. Say What You Mean: Everyman’s Guide to Diction and Grammar. Funk & Wagnalls Company.
Oppenheim, A. N. 1982. Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement.
Pei, T. S. 2006. A Case Study: The Use of Higher Proficiency Peer Feedback to Improve the Writing Performance of Lower Proficiency Learners. Unpublished Thesis Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Rollinson, P. 2005. Using Peer Feedback in the ESL Writing Class. ELT Journal: Jan 2005; 59, 1; ProQuest Education Journals pg. 23.
Seidman, I. 2005. Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences. Third Edition. Teachers College Press.
Silverman, D. 2005. Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. Sage Publications. London. Thousand Oaks. New Delhi.
Spear, K. I. 1988. Sharing Writing: Peer Response Groups in English Classes. Boynton/Cook Publisher.
Suhendar, M. E. & Supinah, Pien. 1997. MKDU Bahasa Indonesia: Pengajaran dan Ujian Keterampilan Membaca & Keterampilan Menulis. Pionir Jaya. Bandung
Sun, C & Feng, G. 2009. Process Approach to Teaching Writing Applied in Different Teaching Models. English Language Teaching Journal. Vol. 2, No.1
Tompkins, G. E. 2008. Teaching Writing: Balancing Process and Product. Fifth Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Merril Prentice Hall.
Traci. 1999. Ten Narrative Writing Prompts. Available at:
http://tengrrl.com/tens/019/shtml
Vardi, I. 2003. Tertiary Students’ Writing, Change and Feedback: A Negotiation of Form, Context, and Contextual Demands. Unpublished Thesis in The University of Western Australia.
Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. 1996. Peer Revision in the L2 Classroom: Social-cogitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 5 (1), 51-75.
Wijaya, J. 2000. Collaborative Work in the Prewriting Stage. Universitas Kristen Petra. Jurnal: Volume 2, Number 1. Page 40-43.
Williams, J. 2005. Teaching Writing in Second and Foreign Language Classroom. McGraw Hill.
Xian, Z. C. 2007. A study of Peer Error Feedback. US-China Foreign Language. ISSN1539-8080, USA
Zemach, D. E. & Rumisek, L. A. 2005. Academic Writing: From Paragraph to Essay. McMillan.
