27
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 CONTENT 30-27
26-22
21-14 13-8
7-1
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
paragraphsections; 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
Fair to Poor: scant introduction andor conclusion; ideas confused or disconnected; logical sequence
difficult to follow; connectives largely absent
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
VOCABULARY 20-18 17-14
13-10 9-5
4-1
Excellent to Very Good: wide range; effective wordidiom, choice and usage; appropriate register
Good to Average: adequate range; occasional errors of wordidiom, form, choice, usage; meaning not
obscured Fair to Poor: limited range; a noticeable number of
errors in wordidiom, choice, usage; meaning a bit obscured
Very Poor: no range of vocabulary; frequent errors in wordidiom, choice, usage; inappropriate use of
vocabulary, meaning obscured or confused Inadequate: fails to address the task with any
effectiveness
LANGUAGE USE
25-22
21-17
16-12
11-6 5-1
Excellent to Very Good: effective complex instruction; hardly any errors of agreement, tense,
number, word orderfunction, 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
orderfunction, 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
MECHANICS 5 4
3 2
1
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 Inadequate: fails to address the task with any
effectiveness
29
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.
The Likert scaling technique assigns a scale value to each of the five responses. Thus, the instrument yields a total score for each respondent
and a discussion of each individual item, while possible, is not
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
