COLLABORATIVE LEARNING THROUGH FEEDBACK IN EFL WRITING CLASS AN ACTION RESEARCH.

(1)

Mira Nissa Murti, 2013

Collaborative Learning Through Feedback In EFL Writing Class: An Action Research Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu| perpustakaan.upi.edu

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING THROUGH FEEDBACK IN EFL

WRITING CLASS: AN ACTION RESEARCH

(Classroom Action Research of the Eleventh Graders of Senior High School)

A Research Paper

Submitted to the English Education Department of FPBS UPI in Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

Mira Nissa Murti

0907175

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

(2)

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING THROUGH

FEEDBACK IN EFL WRITING CLASS: AN

ACTION RESEARCH

(Penelitian Tindak Kelas terhadap Siswa

Kelas XI di Salah Satu SMA Negeri di Kota

Bandung)

Oleh Mira Nissa Murti

Sebuah skripsi yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Sarjana pada Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni

Oktober 2013

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

(3)

(4)

PEMBELAJARAN SECARA KOLABORASI MELALUI

UMPAN BALIK DI DALAM KELAS MENULIS: SEBUAH

PENELITIAN AKSI

ABSTRAK

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengidentifikasi penggunaan peer feedback (umpan balik dari teman) untuk meningkatkan kemampuan menulis siswa dalam menulis teks-teks naratif dan menginvestigasi respon yang diberikan siswa terhadap peer feedback di dalam menilai teks naratif di kalangan siswa kelas XI dengan menggunakan metode penelitian tindak kelas. Penelitian ini terdiri dari tiga siklus yang melibatkan 39 siswa dari salah satu sekolah menegah atas yang berada di kota Bandung. Data pada penelitian ini diperoleh melalui observasi, diari guru, angket, dan teks tertulis siswa. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa peer feedback dapat meningkatkan kemampuan siswa dalam menulis teks-teks naratif dimana nilai rata-rata mengalami kenaikan dari siklus satu ke siklus tiga yaitu 69 menjadi 89.5. Kenaikan nilai rata-rata tersebut menunjukkan bahwa 95% dari siswa telah mencapai nilai rata-rata KKM (78) di siklus ketiga. Terlebih lagi, 77% dari siswa menyukai penerapan peer feedback di dalam menulis teks naratif.

(5)

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING THROUGH FEEDBACK IN

EFL WRITING CLASS: AN ACTION RESEARCH

ABSTRACT

The research was aimed at identifying the use of peer feedback to improve students’ skills in writing narrative texts and investigating students’ responses toward peer feedback in assessing narrative texts in eleventh graders by using classroom action research method. The research consisted of three cycles which involved 39 students from one of the senior high schools in Bandung as the participants. The data were collected through observation, teacher’s diary, questionnaires and students’ written texts. The findings showed that peer feedback could improve students’ skills in writing narrative text in which the average score increased from cycle one to cycle three which was from 69 to 89.5. It showed that 95% of the students achieved above the targeted average score (78) in cycle three. Furthermore, 77% of the students liked the implementation of peer feedback in writing narrative texts.

(6)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPROVAL PAGE………..i

AUTORIZATION STATEMENTS……….ii

PREFACE………...iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………..iv

ABSTRACT………....vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS………...vii

LIST OF TABLES………..xi

LIST OF FIGURES………...xii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION: COLLABORATIVE LEARNING THROUGH FEEDBACK IN WRITING CLASS………....1

1.1 Background………1

1.2 Research Questions of the Research………..3

1.3 The Purposes of the Research………3

1.4 Scope of the Research………3

1.5 Significance of the Research………..3

1.6 Clarification of Terms………4

1.7 Organization of Paper………5

CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL FOUNDATION………...7

2.1 Writing………...7

(7)

2.1.2The Aspects of Writing……….9

2.2Teaching Writing……….11

2.2.1Teaching Writing Purposes………11

2.2.2Teaching Writing Approaches………....12

2.2.3Teaching Writing Processes………....14

2.3Collaborative Learning……….15

2.4 Feedback………..17

2.5Peer Feedback………..19

2.5.1 Definition of Peer Feedback………19

2.5.2 The Procedures of Peer Feedback………...22

2.5.3 Benefits of Peer Feedback………...23

2.5.4 Weaknesses of Peer Feedback………25

2.6 Narrative Text……….27

2.6.1Definition of Narrative Text………27

2.6.2Generic Structures of Narrative Text………..27

2.6.3Language Features of Narrative Text………..28

2.6.4Types of Narrative Text………..29

2.6.5An Example of Narrative Text………30

2.7 Related studies………32

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY……….35

3.1 Research Design………...35

3.2 Participants………...37

3.3 Data Collection……….37

3.3.1 Research Site and Respondents………...37

(8)

3.5 Research Procedures………41

3.5.1 Research Procedures in Cycle One……….41

3.5.2 Research Procedures in Cycle Two……….42

3.5.3 Research Procedures in Cycle Three………...43

3.6 Data Analysis………...44

CHAPTER IV: FINDING AND DISCUSSIONS……….48

4.1 The Implementation of Peer Feedback………48

4.1.1 Classroom Action Research in Cycle One………..49

4.1.2 Classroom Action Research in Cycle Two……….54

4.1.3 Classroom Action Research in Cycle Three………...59

4.2 Findings………64

4.2.1 Observation……….64 4.2.2 Teacher’s Diary………...66

4.2.3 Students’ Writing Tests………...67

4.2.4 Questionnaire………..79

4.3 Discussions………...88

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS………..92

5.1 Conclusions………..92

(9)

BIBLIOGRAPHY……….xvi

APPENDIX

BIOGRAPHY

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Lesson Plan and Narrative Texts

Appendix B - Observation Sheets

- Teacher’s Diary

- Students’ Writing Assignments

- Peer Feedback Form

- Questionnaires

Appendix C - Students’ Writing Scores

-Results of the Questionnaires

(10)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 The Example of Narrative Text……….31

Table 3.1 Schedule of the Research………...38

Table 3.2 Jacobs’s et al.’s (1981) ESL Composition Profile……….46

Table 3.3 The Indicators of Improvement Score………...47

(11)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 The Process Wheel………9

Figure 3.1 Cyclical AR model based on Kemmis and McTaggart (1988)……….36

Figure 4.1.a Students’ Pre-test Scores………....68

Figure 4.1.b Students Pre-test Scores……….69

Figure 4.2.a Students’ Writing Scores in Cycle One……….70

Figure 4.2.b Students’ Writing Scores in Cycle One……….70

Figure 4.3.a Comparison of Students’ Writing Scores in Pretest and Cycle One……….71

Figure 4.3.b Comparison of Students’ Writing Scores in Pretest and Cycle One………71

Figure 4.4.a Students’ Writing Scores in Cycle Two……….72

Figure 4.4.b Students’ Writing Scores in Cycle Two………72

Figure 4.5.a Comparison of Students’ Writing Scores in Cycle One and Cycle Two………...73

Figure 4.5.b Comparison of Students’ Writing Scores in Cycle One and Cycle Two………...73

Figure 4.6.a Students’ Writing Scores in Cycle Three………...74

Figure 4.6.b Students’ Writing Scores in Cycle Three………..74

Figure 4.7.a The Comparison of Students’ Writing Scores in Cycle Two and Cycle Three……….75

Figure 4.7.b The Comparison of Students’ Writing Scores in Cycle Two and Cycle Three……….76

(12)

Figure 4.8.b Post-test Scores………..77

Figure 4.9.a The Comparison of Students’ Pre-test and Post-test Scores in

Writing Assignment………...78

Figure 4.9.b The Comparison of Students’ Pre-test and Post-test Scores in

Writing Assignment………...78

Figure 4.10 Students’ Average Scores in Writing Narrative Texts ……..79

Figure 4.11 Students’ Responses toward the First Statement in the

Questionnaire……….80

Figure 4.12 Students’ Responses toward the Second Statement in the

Figure 4.13 Students’ Responses toward the Third statement in the

Figure 4.14 Students’ Responses toward the Fourth Statement in the

Figure 4.15 Students’ Responses toward the Fifth Statement in the

Figure 4.16 Students’ Responses toward the Sixth Statement in the

Figure 4.17 Students’ Responses toward the Seventh Statement in the

Figure 4.18 Students’ Responses toward the Eight Statement in the

Figure 4.19 Students’ Responses toward the Ninth Statement in the

Figure 4.20 Students’ Responses toward the Tenth Statement in the

(13)

Figure 4.21.a Students’ Writing Scores……….89

(14)

1

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the introduction of this paper. It covers background

of the research, research questions, purposes of the research, scope of the

research, significance of the research, clarification of terms, and organization of

the research.

1.1Background of the Research

The most obvious reason that students do not write well is that they do not

receive a great deal of instruction, practice, and feedback in writing (Smith, 1991).

The students also consider writing as a boring activity that they find it as a solitary

activity (Byrne, 1995).

Due to one of the basic competences in the writing skills for the eleventh

grade of senior high school, students are expected to be able to produce a simple

essay in reports, narrative and analytical exposition text. The curriculum gives

emphasis in writing various text types, unexceptionally narrative text.

In reality, teachers and students realize how difficult writing is going to be

taught and to be learned. One of the reasons stated by Liang (2002, as cited in

Hamm &Adams, 1992) is that because the teacher usually uses lecturing method

in the teaching process, where the students merely sit in the classroom and listen

passively to what is being taught by the teacher. Meanwhile, students tend to like

to interact with peers and can perform better when they learn with their groups.

Other possible cause is that in writing certain genre including narrative text, the

students need to consider a number of different factors such as the knowledge of

the topic, the conventions and style of the genre and also the context in which

their writing will be read, as well as by whom (Harmer, 2001, p. 327).

Collaborative learning is aimed at getting students’ responsibility for

(15)

2

(Dooly, 2008). It seems that the knowledge being constructed is got and

transformed from students to other students. As Dooly believed that in this type of

learning, the learning process has to be understood by activating already cognitive

structures or by constructing new cognitive structures that will accommodate the

new input. It is something that a learner does when he/she gets involved in the

collaboration. In this case, it clearly concludes that the students will not passively

receive the knowledge from the teacher. The teacher will play his/her role as

someone who can facilitate the students to do the transaction of learning. Hence,

the teacher should know their students’ style in learning as it can help him/her to set up the instruction strategy in the classroom including giving feedback to

learners’ writing assignments. One strategy for the implementation of

collaborative learning is the use of peer feedback in students writing.

Getting feedback on writing assignments gives beginners a sense of

audience. Here they are able to see how the writing plays inside the head of a

reader. Also other people are often able to help generate idea that might not have

been considered. (Johnson, 2003, as cited in Emilia, 2009, p. 87). In line with this,

Hyland (2000) and Xiang (2004) also support that in order to improve writing

ability, the learner should be able to assess and edit their own and peer's work. On

the other hand, Falchikov (2005 as cited in Nicol 2010, p. 509) concludes from his

investigation that, ‘both the volume and helpfulness of the feedback were greater when peers were involved than when only the teacher provided feedback’. It

seems obvious here that the activity of getting feedback gives positive effect to the

students to improve their writing ability. In this research, the writer aims at trying

out peer feedback on writing narrative text.

Considering the background above, the present research is focused on

identifying the use of peer feedback to improve students’ skills in writing

narrative text and investigating students’ response toward peer feedback in

assessing narrative text in eleventh grade of senior high school by using classroom

(16)

3

Collaborative Learning Through Feedback In EFL Writing Class: An Action Research Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu| perpustakaan.upi.edu 1.2Research Questions

The research is aimed at answering these following questions:

1. To what extent can the use of peer feedback improve students’ skills in writing narrative texts in eleventh grade of senior high school?

2. How are students’ responses toward the use of peer feedback in assessing narrative texts in eleventh grade of senior high school?

1.3Purposes of the Research

Based on the background and the problems stated in this chapter, the

purposes of research are:

1. Finding out the extent to which the use of peer feedback can improve students’ skills in writing narrative texts in eleventh grade of senior high school.

2. Finding out students’ responses toward the use of peer feedback in assessing narrative texts in eleventh grade of senior high school.

1.4Scope of the Research

Generally, the research is focused on the use of peer feedback to improve

students’ skills in writing narrative text and students’ responses toward the use of

peer feedback to assess their writing in narrative text in eleventh grade of senior

high school.

1.5Significance of the Research

The research is expected to provide benefits for the theory, the teacher, the

students, and the classroom activities.

(17)

4

The research finding can be used to improve the way of assessing narrative

text using peer feedback particularly to students of eleventh grade of senior high

school.

2. Benefits for the Teacher

The research practically is useful for the teacher to do self-reflection in

planning and doing the action. The teacher also can analyze her teaching practices

in the classroom so that she will think of the alternatives in the next meeting. For

those interested in teaching English, this research is expected to give another

innovation in teaching writing and assessing the writing collaboratively.

3. Benefits for the Students

For students, this research is expected to give new alternative in learning

writing. Besides that, they can collect ideas attractively, concern with their

mistakes in writing until trigger them to improve their writing ability better.

4. Benefits for Classroom Activities

The research findings are expected to give benefits in the classroom

activity, especially the activity of teaching and learning. In the teaching activity,

the method can give new alternative in teaching writing with cooperative,

interactive, and collaborative instruction. In the learning activity, it is expected to

give alternative learning model as a way of fostering instructional quality in

school and as curriculum development in using the learning method especially for

course of narrative texts in writing skills.

1.6Clarification of Related Terms

In order to avoid unnecessary misunderstanding, some related terms used

in this research are clarified as follows:

1. Collaborative learning is a type of learning which aims at getting students’ responsibility for working together, building knowledge together, changing

and developing together (Dooly, 2008).

2. Peer feedback is a kind of feedback in which the learner should be able to

(18)

5

3. Writing is a dynamic process of communicating one’s thought and feelings to readers and to one self (Amaliah, 2007).

4. Genre-based approach considers writing as a social and cultural practice and

involves the context where the writing occurs, and the principles of the target

discourse community (Kim, 2007).

5. Narrative is a text which is typically composed of three broad stages: an

orientation, a complication and a resolution aimed at entertaining the reader

through the story of someone (Wajnryb, 2009).

1.7Organization of the Paper

This research paper is divided into five chapters. Chapter I is about

introduction. Chapter II is theoretical foundations. Chapter III is the research

methodology. Chapter IV is the findings and discussion of the research. Last,

chapter V is the conclusion and suggestion.

Chapter I Introduction

This chapter provides the background of the research, research questions,

purposes of the research, scope of the research, significance of the research and

organization of the paper.

Chapter II Theoretical Foundation

This chapter contains some theoretical foundations. It consists of the

explanation about the nature of writing, the aspects of writing, teaching writing,

the purpose of teaching writing, teaching writing approaches, teaching writing

process, collaborative learning, feedback, peer feedback, and narrative text.

Chapter III Methodology

This chapter presents the methodology conducted in conducting the

research. It includes the formulation of the problem, research design,

clarification of terms, procedures of data collection, and procedures of data

(19)

6

Chapter IV Findings and Discussion

This chapter consists of findings and their relevance to the research,

analysis of the data collected, and discussion or interpretation on the data

collected.

Chapter V Conclusions and Suggestions

This chapter concludes research result and recommendations for teaching

(20)

35

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents methodological aspects of the present research to

answer the two questions previously stated in Chapter 1. It includes a collective

term for the structured process of conducting research which deals with how to

design, collect, and analyze data to answer the problems of research. Therefore,

research design, research site, participant, data collection techniques, and data

analysis will be discussed below.

3.1 Research Design

This research employed Classroom Action Research as it involved the

writer who acted as the teacher to evaluate and reflect on her teaching

performance in order to improve her practice in the classroom. Moreover, it also

involved intentional action among participants as collaborative work to help

teachers to explore, evaluate and change their teaching ways in classroom

(Arikunto, 2010). Besides that, this research was also characterized by a practical

focus, the researcher’s own practices, collaboration, a dynamic process, a plan of

action, and a sharing research (Creswell, 2008). Therefore, Classroom Action

Research (CAR) was suitable to answer the research questions previously stated in

Chapter 1.

In order to achieve the objectives of the research, Classroom Action

Research (CAR) which consisted of three cycles was used as the method. Each

cycle consisted of three meetings. Kemmis and McTaggart (1998) stated that there

were four basic stages in the action research: planning, acting, observing, and

reflecting. The planning stage consisted of problem identification, while in acting

and observing stage. In the observation, the writer (as the teacher) gathered data,

interpreted data, and acted on evidence of the research. Then, the result of the

(21)

36

Kemmis and McTaggart show several stages of how action research worked as

shown in figure 3.1 below.

Figure 3.1 Cyclical AR model based on Kemmis and McTaggart (1988).

On the other hand, Burns (2010) explained four essential features of action

research. First, it involved the teachers in evaluating and reflecting on their

teaching with the aim at bringing about continuing changes and improvements in

practice. It meant that the teacher played an important role in the class to evaluate

and reflect on his/her teaching whether there would be any changes or not.

Second, it was small-scale, contextualized, and local in character, as the

participants identified and investigated teaching-learning issues within a specific

social situation, the school or classroom. It meant that the teacher focused on her

class to identify specific problems that occurred in her class.

Third, it was participatory and inclusive as it gave communities of

participants the opportunity to investigate issues of immediate concern

collaboratively within their own social situation. It showed that there would be a

(22)

37

Fourth, it was different from the ‘intuitive thinking’ that occurred as a

normal part of teaching, as changes in practice would be based on collecting and

analyzing data systematically. It means that every action which is implemented in

the class is revised and developed due to the findings in each in order to get better

learning.

Finally, it can be concluded that action research deals with democratic

principles which empowered the teachers to do the changes in their classes so that

the learning would reach its goals. Thus, it became the reason why action research

was suitable to achieve the writer’s objectives in this study.

3.2Participant

The participants involved in this research were 39 students (15 boys and

24 girls) taken from one class (eleventh grade of science class) at one of the senior

high schools in Bandung as the sample. The eleventh grade had been chosen

because at this grade, narrative text was being taught.

3.3Data Collection

investigation as well as reflection on the treatment that had been conducted.

Moreover, the writer was familiar with the classroom environment and

given an authority to run the class so that it was possible for the writer to conduct

this research. As stated by Burns (2010), in action research the teacher became an

‘investigator’ or ‘explorer’ of his or her personal teaching context, while at the

same time being one of the participants in it. Therefore, it became easier for the

(23)

38

Second, the characteristics of the students who were quite knowledgeable

and critical as well as students’ high motivation to improve their skills in writing

supported the research well. It was also supported by Ellis’s finding (1994) who

maintained that learners’ attitudes have direct effect on learners’ L2 learning

process and achievement. Thus, these facts could enhance the feasibility of this

research.

This research was carried out during the first semester of the 2013/2014

academic year. It was conducted on 20th of August to 8th of October 2013. The

table below is the schedule of the research. It would show what activity that had

been conducted and when the research started and finished.

Table 3.1 Schedule of the Research

(24)

39

Collaborative Learning Through Feedback In EFL Writing Class: An Action Research Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu| perpustakaan.upi.edu 3.4 Research Instruments

The research utilized some instruments to gather the data. In collecting

data, observational and non-observational techniques were used to find out the

extent to which the use of peer feedback can improve students’ skills in writing

narrative text and to figure out students’ responses toward the use of peer

feedback in assessing narrative text. In the observational techniques, the writer

used observation and teacher’s diary to collect the data. Meanwhile, questionnaire

and students’ written texts would be conducted as the non-observational technique

to collect the data. Each technique of the data collection techniques was described

thoroughly below.

1. Observation

It enabled the writer to document and reflect systematically to the classroom

activities and the events. This would investigate the classroom activity. In this

activity, the writer asked one of the English teachers to observe the writer in

teaching the lesson by using observation sheet adapted from Brown (2001).

2. Teacher’s Diary

It enabled the writer to record the classroom activities and several

obstacles that occurred in the learning process. As stated by Hitchcock and

Hughes in 1995, teacher’s diary provided a space for the teacher to complain or to

moan as well as to reflect on the research. This would help the teacher to know

(25)

40

Collaborative Learning Through Feedback In EFL Writing Class: An Action Research Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu| perpustakaan.upi.edu 3. Questionnaire

It is used to find out the students’ responses with peer feedback so it would

describe the factors that motivate the student to write their ideas. The responses

were gathered in a standardized way, so questionnaires were more objective than

interviews. As supported by Arikunto (2010) questionnaire was used to gather the

opinion or fact, not to assess the skill. He also added that questionnaire indeed

was good if it followed these steps: determine the purpose of the questionnaire,

identify the variables, specify the variables into sub-variables, and finally

determine the type of data collection

Therefore, in this research, the questionnaire would be a paper-and-pencil

questionnaire administration, where the items were presented on paper. To

complete and straightforward to code the responses of the respondents without

being discriminative, closed questions were used in this research (Wilson &

Mclean, 1994, p. 21). Rating scales were used as useful device for the researcher

because they were built in a degree of sensitivity and differentiation of response

(Cohen et al., 2007) yet only measured one thing at a time (Oppenheim, 1992, p.

187-188). Thus, several closed questions would be asked to 39 respondents.

4. Students’ Written Texts

Students’ written texts would be collected as the source of the data in this

research. According to Burns in 1999, collecting the samples of the students’

(26)

41

it would be important for the writer to provide the evidence of students’ progress

in writing.

There were more than one cycle employed in this classroom action

research. As stated by Arikunto (2010), at least there are two cycles in conducting

cycles in action research to get better results of the research. Therefore, the cycles

conducted in this research would be ceased if the data observed were not show

any significance changes.

Each cycle of the research compromised with planning, action,

observation, and reflection. There were several activities in each cycle, and in the

end of each cycle, an evaluation for a better one was conducted. This research also

helped by the observer who observed the writer in the classroom. This cycle

would be end if 70% of students had reached the targeted score (78).

3.5Research Procedures

3.5.1Research Procedures in Cycle One 3.5.1.1 Preparation

Preparation became the first step in doing this research. The sample of the

research was the eleventh graders of science program at SMAN 14 Bandung. In

this step, the administration letter and the concept of the cycle were prepared and

(27)

42

Collaborative Learning Through Feedback In EFL Writing Class: An Action Research Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu| perpustakaan.upi.edu 3.5.1.2 Planning

In this step, the concept of the cycle was prepared. After finding out the

detailed information of the sample, the action for the next meeting was arranged

well. A lesson plan was made to aid the teacher in the teaching process in the

classroom.

3.5.1.3 Acting and Observing

In this step, the planning of the research was implemented. A partner

teacher (an English teacher) was necessary to observe the teacher’s performance,

the class and the teaching and learning process.

3.5.1.4 Reflecting

In this step, the teacher and the partner teacher discussed together to find

out the weaknesses and the strength of the learning process, then dealt with

problem solving to get better one in the next cycle.

3.5.2Research Procedures in Cycle Two 3.5.2.1 Planning

In this stage, the action plan in the second cycle was arranged after finding

out the problem faced by the students in the first cycle. The learning materials

which would help the students to deal with their problem in writing narrative for

(28)

43

Collaborative Learning Through Feedback In EFL Writing Class: An Action Research Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu| perpustakaan.upi.edu 3.5.2.2 Action and Observation

In this stage, the action as planned in the lesson plan was conducted while

the teacher was being observed by the observer. The observer observed the series

of events that the teacher conducted in the classroom by filling the observation

sheet. The lesson plan was given to the observer to make her easier in observing

the teacher.

3.5.2.3 Reflecting

In this step, the teacher and the partner discussed together to find out the

weaknesses and the strength of the learning process, then dealt with problem

solving to get better one in the next cycle.

3.5.3Research Procedures in Cycle Three 3.5.3.1 Planning

In this stage, the reinforcement for the next meeting was conducted by

analyzing the weaknesses and the strength of the two cycles before. It made the

teacher easier to revise her lesson plan in order to strengthen the strength one of

(29)

44

Collaborative Learning Through Feedback In EFL Writing Class: An Action Research Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu| perpustakaan.upi.edu 3.5.3.2 Acting and Observing

In this stage, the action as planned in the lesson plan was conducted while

the teacher was being observed by the observer. Observation sheet and lesson plan

were provided to help the observer in giving her comments on the teacher’s and

students’ performance in the class.

3.5.3.2 Reflecting

In this stage, the teacher reflected her performance in the class as well as

students’. The results of the cycle were reported in the discussion of the research

and going to be interpreted in data analysis.

3.6 Data Analysis

The procedures of analyzing the data involved organizing, accounting for

and explaining the data. In action research, the data analysis involved moving

away from the action components of the cycle (Burns, 1999). Besides that, Burns

also states that data analysis involves describing the ‘what’ of the research and

explaining the ‘why’ of the research.

The process of data analysis would begin from preparation step to the last

cycle. The cycle itself would be described in this process which consists of

planning, action, observation, and reflecting. The descriptive technique was used

in this process for the following instruments:

(30)

45

In this case, the teacher was fully participated in the activities of teaching

and learning (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984, as cited in Lenggogeni, 2011). The

observation sheet from the observer (an English teacher) in each meeting was

collected and analyzed to see whether there was a problem in certain steps of

teaching or not.

b. Analysis of Questionnaire;

In this case, the students’ knowledge of narrative text and responses

toward peer feedback were analyzed. There were ten statements to be agreed by

the students by putting the checklist on their own opinion toward the statements.

In this case, the answers which were strongly agree, agree, hesitant, disagree, or

strongly disagree were counted. Meanwhile, the results of students’ responses

were discussed in the next chapter.

c. Analysis of Teacher’s Diary;

In this case, the teacher kept a diary which would be used to record every

problem faced from each meeting during the cycles. In this activity, several notes

about teacher’s goals in teaching narrative texts in the classroom were written in

the diary. Some progress of the students and the teacher would also be added to

make the information clearer.

d. Analysis of Students’ Written Text;

In this case, the students’ writing assignments from the pre-test, cycles and

(31)

46

conducted in the research. Several development in students’ writing skill was also

listed in this stage.

In the scoring technique, there were some criteria in assessing students’

composition works which were the content, organization, vocabulary, grammar,

and mechanics. The analytical scoring (taken from Jacobs et al., 1981) was used

for comparing students’ score in every cycle. Here is the ESL composition profile

in table 3.2 below.

Table 3.2 Jacobs’s et al.’s (1981) ESL Composition Profile

SCORE LEVEL CRITERIA

CONTENT 30-27 EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD:

knowledgeable*substantive*thorough development of thesis*relevant to assigned topic

26-22 GOOD TO AVERAGE: some knowledge of subject*adequate range*limited development of thesis*mostly relevant to topic, but lacks detail

21-17 FAIR TO POOR: limited knowledge of subject*little substance*inadequate development of topic

16-13 VERY POOR: does not show knowledge of subject*non-substantive*not pertinent*OR not enough to evaluate

ORGANIZATION 20-18 EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: fluent expression*ideas clearly stated/supported*succinct*well-organized*logical

sequencing*cohesive

17-14 GOOD TO AVERAGE: somewhat choppy*loosely organized but main ideas stand out*limited support*logical but incomplete sequencing

13-10 FAIR TO POOR: non-fluent*ideas confused or disconnected*lacks logical sequencing and development

9-7 VERY POOR: does not communicate*no organization*OR not enough to evaluate

VOCABULARY 20-18 EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: sophisticated range*effective word/idiom choice and usage*word form mastery*appropriate register 17-14 GOOD TO AVERAGE: adequate range*occasional errors of

word/idiom form, choice, usage but meaning to obscured

13-10 FAIR TO POOR: limited range*frequent errors of word/idiom form, choice, usage*meaning confused or obscured

9-7 VERY POOR: essentially translation*little knowledge of English vocabulary, idioms, word form*OR not enough to evaluate

LANGUAGE USE 25-22 EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: effective complex

constructions*few errors of agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions

(32)

47

number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions but meaning seldom obscured

17-11 FAIR TO POOR: major problems in simple/complex

constructions*frequent errors of negation, agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions and/or fragments, run-ons, deletions*meaning confused or obscured 10-5 VERY POOR: virtually no mastery of sentence construction

rules*dominated by errors*does not communicate*OR not enough to evaluate

MECHANICS 5 EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: demonstrates mastery of

conventions*few errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing

4 GOOD TO AVERAGE: occasional errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing but meaning not obscured

3 FAIR TO POOR: frequent errors of spelling, punctuation,

capitalization, paragraphing, poor handwriting, meaning confused or obscured

2 VERY POOR: no mastery of conventions*dominated by errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing*handwriting illegible*OR not enough to evaluate

Total Score

The scoring system above was used to give very specific range and criteria

in each aspect of the writing so that it made the teacher easier to give the scores.

Moreover the students had to reach the targeted score (78). In additional, the

following indicators were made to measure students’ scores improvement.

Table 3.3 The Indicators of Improvement Score

(33)

92

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter presents the conclusions and suggestions based on the data

presentation and discussion from the previous chapter. Therefore, this chapter is

divided into two parts. The first part is conclusions and the second part is

suggestions.

5.1 Conclusions

The research presents the result on the implementation of collaborative

learning through feedback in EFL writing class. The purposes of the research are

finding out the extent to which the use of peer feedback can improve students’

skills in writing narrative text in eleventh grade of senior high school and finding out students’ responses toward the use of peer feedback in assessing narrative text in eleventh grade of senior high school. The findings of the research are related to

the research of Atay and Kurt (2007) and Lenggogeni (2011) showing that peer

feedback technique could be applied in teaching writing as it gives an effective

and interesting learning atmosphere in the classroom even they become aware of

their mistakes in writing.

The findings of the research show that collaborative learning through feedback, in this case peer feedback, can improve students’ skills in writing narrative text. The improvement can be seen from the data obtained in this

research indicating that more than 95 % of the students get scores above KKM

(78). Besides, students’ skills in writing have improved in several aspects such as

content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics. Mechanics and

language use are two aspects that give high contribution in their advancement in

writing narrative text from cycle one to cycle three. It could be seen from their

writing in which there are fewer mistakes in punctuations, capitals, and

grammatical structures as well as the use of effective language in the text.

(34)

93

actively engaged in producing the target language. They seem to be very enthusiastic in answering teacher’s questions. It could be seen when in the process of teaching and learning, students are very competitive in raising their hands in

order to be pointed by the teacher to answer the questions related to the topic in

each cycle.

On the other hand, based on the diary written by the teacher in every

meeting, it shows the teacher’s feeling towards the teaching and learning process,

her problems in every meeting, and her excitement in teaching writing using peer

feedback. In her diary, she said that at first time she felt a little bit nervous when

she was opening the class in the first meeting, but then she felt more confidence in

the next meetings because she had got chemistry with the students. Being able to see students’ name from their name tag also added her strength in remembering students’ name. She could add plus points and noted some opinion from students who were brave to do so. Besides, she also felt more engaged in the class since the

students showed positive response in every meeting and it made her feel very

happy and more confidence to teach them narrative text.

Furthermore, students gave positive responses toward the implementation

of peer feedback in the class. The data gained from questionnaires showed that

most of students agreed that they liked peer feedback as the implementation of

collaborative learning in helping them write the narrative text. Moreover, they

agreed that after conducting peer feedback, they knew and realized their mistakes

in their writing.

Thus, based on the findings on students’ writing scores, observation, teacher’s diary, and questionnaires, the result of the research shows

some positive responses toward the use of peer feedback as collaborative learning

in writing narrative text. Therefore, it also reveals that most of the students are

interested, motivated, and happy in the teaching and learning process.

Furthermore, based on the responses in the questionnaire, 77% of the students like

(35)

94

Collaborative Learning Through Feedback In EFL Writing Class: An Action Research Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu| perpustakaan.upi.edu 5.2 Suggestions

There are several suggestions that might be useful for the teacher and

further researcher related to the result of the research. For teacher, it is suggested

that the teacher should be well prepared in the lesson plan, teaching materials, and

teaching media before conducting the lesson. The teacher also should be able to

handle unpredictable obstacles occurred in the middle of the teaching and learning

process such as power cut, the changes of the schedule because of certain

occasion, and so on by preparing another plan. The teacher also should be able to organize and select the tasks which are appropriate for students’ needs based on their ability in receiving the lesson given. Therefore, doing need analysis and

learning contract before conducting the research might be useful to identify students’ skills and to be more familiar with the students. Then, the teacher can use various media in teaching because sometimes using the same media will be

too boring for the students, using both traditional and modern media would be a

good combination in the teaching and learning process. Last, the teacher has to

pay attention in determining the time allotment to make conducive teaching

learning process.

For further researchers who are pleased to develop or compare this similar

research, there are also some suggestions. First, they have to determine the time

allotment in teaching learning process. Providing thirty minutes before class starts

to stand by in the school is useful to help the researchers in preparing the

materials, media, and also theirs mental. Second, they have to save some money to

pay for the copies of peer feedback form if they want to use peer feedback form in

feedback session. Moreover if the numbers of students in the class are quite big,

(36)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alwasilah, C. A. (2001). Language, culture, and education. Bandung: Adira.

Alwasilah, C. A. (2003). Language, culture, and education: A portrait of contemporary Indonesia. Andira: Bandung.

Alwasilah, C. A., & Alwasilah, S. (2005). Pokoknya menulis: Cara baru menulis dengan metode kolaborasi. Bandung: PT. Kiblat Buku Utama.

Amaliah, R. (2007). The effectiveness of peer feedback in improving writing skill of first grade students in junior high school in writing descriptive texts. Bandung: UPI: unpublished.

Aridah. (2003). The role of feedback in the teaching and learning of writing.

Retrieved March 12, 2013 from

http://isjd.pdii.lipi.go.id/admin/jurnal/3203105114.pdf

Arikunto, S. (2010). Prosedur penelitian: Suatu pendekatan praktik. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Atay, D., & Kurt, G. (2007). The effects of peer feedback on the writing anxiety of prospective Turkish teachers of EFL. Retrieved March 10, 2013 from http://wku.comu.edu.tr/index/3/1/9kurt_datay.pdf

Boud, D. (1995). Assessment and learning: Contradictory or complementary? Sydney: University of Technology.

Brill, J., & Hodges, C. (2011). Investigating peer review as an intentional learning strategy to foster collaborative knowledge-building in students of instructional design. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(1), 114-118.

Brown, H. (2000). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. California: San Francisco State University.

Brown, H. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. (2nd ed.). New York: Pearson Education Company.

Brown, J. D., & Hudson, T. (2002). Criterion-referenced language testing. New York: Cambridge University Press.

(37)

Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for practitioners. New York: Routledge.

Byrne, D. (1995). Teaching writing skills. England: Longman Group UK Ltd.

Cavanagh, J. (1998). Text type. Country Areas Program. Sidney. Retrieved March 13, 2013 from http://goldfieldsliteracy.wikispaces.com/file/view/Yvonne+-+Text+Types+_A_+-+PDF.pdf

Cohen, L. et al. (2007). Research methods in education. (6th Ed). USA: Routledge. Retrieved March 11, 2013 from http://books.google.co.id/books?id=i-YKKgtngiMC&pg=PA321&lpg=PA321&dq=semi+open+and+close+ended+ questionnaire&source=bl&ots=zW4yG5HFgN&sig=6bEYIHeQUnogUkVSM

wuG9u0r-eg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_DY9UbGND8LrrQe_3oGYDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onep age&q=semi%20open%20and%20close%20ended%20questionnaire&f=false

Cotrell, A. (2013). Collaboration and peer review using google docs and traditional peer review method. Sacramento: California State University.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. (3rd ed.). USA: Pearson Prentice Hall. Crown. (2011). The national strategies: Primary support for writing, fiction.

Retrieved March 11, 2013 from

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110809091832/http://teachingan dlearningresources.org.uk/collection/40092/node/40094.

Dewerianka, B. (1990). Exploring how texts work. Newton: PETA.

Dewerianka, B. (2004). Exploring how texts work. Australia: Primary English Teaching Association.

Diab, N. M. (2010). Peer editing versus self-editing in the ESL classroom. Retrieved

on April 4, 2013 from

http://www.iiis.org/cds2010/cd2010sc/ispr_2010/paperspdf/va909up.pdf

Dooly, M. (2008). Telecollaborative language learning: constructing knowledge together (pp. 21-45). Retrieved April 4, 2013 from http://www.peterlang.com/PDF/Buecher/Intro/11523_Intro.pdf

(38)

Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Emilia, E. (2008). Penelitian tindakan kelas (Classroom Action Research) handout

pelatihan tindakan kelas dengan guru PLP. UPI: Unpublished.

Emilia, E. (2009). Menulis tesis dan disertasi. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Emilia, E. (2012). Pendekatan genre-based dalam pengajaran bahasa Inggris:

petunjuk umum untuk guru. Bandung: RIZQI Press.

Ertmer, P., et al. (2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student: An exploratory study. Retrieved on March 10, 2013 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue2/ertmer.html

Falchikov, N. (2005). Improving assessment through student involvement. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language writing classes. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NS: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fetzer, N. (2006). Narrative text organization. Retrieved on March 9, 2013 from http://www.nancyfetzer.com/pdf/reading/narr_text_org.pdf

Ghanbari, B., et al. (2012). Rating scales revisited: EFL writing assessment context of Iran under scrutiny (pp. 94). Iran: University of Isfahan.

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language and scaffolding learning. Teaching Second Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

(39)

Gielen, S., et al. (2010). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback and of various peer feedback forms in a secondary school writing curriculum. Retrieved on March 11, 2013 from http://www.ebscohost.com/academic.

Graham, S., et al. (2007). Best practices in writing instruction. New York: The Guilford Press.

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle high schools. New York: Carnegie Corporation of Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited.

Hermawaty, T. (2011). The effectiveness of peer reviewing in improving students’ narrative writing ability. Bandung: UPI: unpublished.

Hirvela, A. (1999). Collaborative writing instruction and communities of readers and writers. TESOL Quarterly, 8 (2), 7-12.

Hyland, F. (2000a). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students language teaching research, 4 (1), 33-54.

(40)

Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on forms student engagement with teacher feedback system, 31, 217-230.

Hyland, F. (2004). Learning autonomously: Contextualizing out-of-class English language learning/language awareness 13 (3), 180-202.

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7 (2), 173-191.

Jacobs, G. (1987). First experiences with peer feedback on compositions: Student and teacher reaction. System, 15 (3), 325-333.

Kauchak, D., & Eggen, P.D. (1998). Learning and teaching: Research-based methods. (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1998). The action research planner. (3rd ed.).

Khaerunnisa. (2010). Teaching writing news item text through Facebook. Bogor: IBN Khaldun University. Retrieved March 10, 2013 from http://universityofibnkhaldunbogor-indonesia.blogspot.com/2011/02/teaching-writing-news-item-text-through.html

Khaerunisa, W. (2011). The use of cooperative learning method in improving

students’ writing ability.Bandung: UPI: unpublished.

Kim, M. (2007). Genre-based approach to teaching writing. Retrieved March 15, 2013 from http://web.1.hpu.edu/images/graduates studies/TESL_WPS/07.Kim-Genre-a17238.pdf.

(41)

Lee, C., & Schz, N. (2010). Written peer feedback by EFL students: Praise, criticism, and suggestion. Retrieved August 10, 2013 from http://park.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/eigo/KJEE/001/129-139.pdf

Lenggogeni, P. (2011). The use of peer feedback technique in improving students’ narrative writing. Bandung: UPI: Unpublished.

Liang, J. (2002). Exploring scientific creativity of eleventh grade students in Taiwan. Austin: University of Texas.

Liu, J., & Hansen, J. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Lodico, M. et al. (2006). Methods in educational research: From theory to practice. USA: Jossey-Bass.

Long, M., & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19 (2), 305-325.

Mills, J., & Glover, C. (2006). Who provides feedback- self and peer assessment? Sheffield Hallam University.

Mulyahati, A. (2012). Exploring teacher’s feedback used in teaching speaking. Bandung: UPI: unpublished.

Murphy, S. (2000). A sociocultural perspective on teacher response: Is there a student in the room? Assessing Writing, 7 (1), 79-90.

Nelson, G., & Murphy. (1993). Peer response groups: do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27 (1), 135-141.

Neubert, G., & McNelis, S. (1990). Peer response: Teaching specific revision suggestions. English Journal, 79 (5), 52-56.

Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback in mass higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 35, 501-517.

Nottingham: Nottingham Trent University. Retrieved March 9, 2013 (http://www.ntu.ac.uk/cadq/quality/res_learn_teach/en-us-105826gp.html

Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. London: Pinter.

Puegphrom, P., & Chiramanee, T. (2011). The effectiveness of implementing peer

(42)

University. Retrieved January 7, 2013 from

Puguh. (2011). Genre of the Text. Retrieved February 28, 2013 from http://pakpuguh.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/news-item-text/.

Richards, J., & Renandya, W. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. New York: Cambridge University Press. Rivers, W. M. (1981). Teaching foreign language skills. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, vol. 59. Oxford University.

Saito, H., & Fujita, T. (2004). Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writing classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 8 (1), 31-54.

Satriani, I. (2012). Contextual teaching and learning approach to teaching writing. Bandung: UPI: unpublished.

Senior, R. (2006). The experience of language teaching. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language

aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. United States: American University.

Smith, G. (1991), Statistical reasoning (3rd ed.), Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Sokolik, M. (2003). Exploring skills: Writing, 92/94 in Nunan, (1). (2003) Practical English Teaching. New York: McGraw Hill.

(43)

Syafii, M. (2001). Aspect of writing: a case study of intricacies in writing encountered by the second year student at the English Education Department. Master Thesis at UPI Bandung: unpublished.

Topping, K. J. (2000). Peer assisted learning: A practical guide for teachers. Cambridge: Brookline Books.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes in language learning, 46 (2), 327-369.

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia. (2012). Pedoman penulisan karya ilmiah. Bandung: UPI Press.

Wajnryb, R. (2003). Stories: Narrative activities in the language classroom. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Ware, P. et al. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. 12, (1),

43-63. Retrieved March 8, 2013 from

http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num1/wareodowd/default.html

Weigle, S. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

William, J. (2003). Providing feedback in ESL students’ written assignments. Retrieved on March 8, 2013 from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Williams-Feedback.html improve writing. Computer and Education, 55 (3), 1202-1210.

Zainurrahman. (2010). Peer feedback: Students’ narrative writing development and

students’ responses. Bandung: UPI: Unpublished.

Zhang, S. (1995). Re-examining the affective advantages of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 209-222.

Zeng, Y. (2006). Peer feedback in college SLW classroom. Retrieved Mei 5, 2013 from https://www.zotero.org/ept1961/items/itemKey/PAFT7FR9

(44)

http://cft.uiowa.edu/files/cft.uiowa.edu/files/Pedagogical%20benefits.pdf