25
for “disagree”; and 1 for “totally disagree”. The students were to value each statement to the degree of agreement of their own.
Integrated in the 15 statements, the three elements concerning the components of the students’ perception on the use of peer feedback covered up the
perception on the characteristics of peer feedback, on the benefits of peer feedback and on the responses to peer feedback. Statement number 1, 6, 7, and 8 were to find
out the students’ point of view of the peer feedback’s characteristics. The students’ agreement on the benefits of peer feedback was investigated through the statements
number 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Statement number 2, 3, 4, 5, and 15 were dealing with the students’ responses to peer feedback. To make it understandable,
questionnaire blue print is provided below.
Table 3.1 Questionnaire Blue Print Features Item
Number
The characteristics of peer feedback 1, 6, 7, 8
The benefits of peer feedback 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
The response to peer feedback 2, 3, 4, 5, 15
D. Data Gathering Technique
Collecting the data for this study, the writer conducted a writing class on the 19
th
, the 26
th
of May, 2007, and the 2
nd
of June, 2007. In the first meeting, which was on the 19
th
of May, 2007, the writer had the students read and revise their writing that had been made at home before. The students were given a list of questions to guide
them in revising their writing and then they worked on their writing with the reflective questions. This self correction was for exposing the students to peer
feedback practice as well as developing their critical reading skill. This practice was
26
done due to the fact that the English teachers of SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta had not implemented the use of peer feedback before.
The second meeting, which was on the 26
th
of May, 2007, was spent to expose the students to argumentative writing. The writer facilitated the students in
writing argumentative writings. At first, the writer opened the meeting by having the students give their arguments on a certain topic and involved in a discussion related
to the topic. Then, the writer carefully explained the generic structure of an argumentative writing. Having done some exercises, the students chose one
controversial statement among three and develop their arguments at home. The three statements provided were “The members of House of Representatives deserve the
supply of laptops”, “Abortion should be legalized”, and “Students must not wear uniform at school”. The students were to bring their argumentative writing in the
following meeting for the sake of the implementation of peer feedback. In the last meeting, which was on the 2
nd
of June 2007, the students were to give feedback to each other’s argumentative writing. Prior to that, the writer
explained the procedure of the peer feedback session so carefully that the students did not get confused. They were also given a peer feedback sheet to guide them in
the peer feedback session. In this meeting, the writer also distributed the questionnaire. The students were to revise their pre-peer first writing at home and
bring their post-peer second writing along with the peer feedback sheet and the questionnaire on the 5
th
of June, 2007 through their English teacher. So, the writer was in touch with the teacher to get the data.
To determine the quality of the first and second writing, each student’s first and second writing were placed side by side and then graded based on a weighted
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
