59 and discussed the topics or materials. It was the lecturers
’ strategy for the students to learn. In fact, the lecturers would be responsible to control the students.
Consequently, the lecturers would take part to help the students if the students wanted to consult something. It was part of lecturers
’ responsibility as well as facility.
The lecturers were also expected to let the students have peer feedback after doing group presentation project. Peer tutoring had basis of socio-psychological
which offered close personal contact in environment, pedagogical as students were active as learners and increased their cooperation, motivation and self-esteem
Jaques, 1984, p. 95. Peer feedback activity would help the students become more active, responsible and motivated learners. As a result, the implementation of peer
feedback was possible to be used after doing group presentation project. It was hoped to help the students become more motivated, cooperative and independent.
3. Suggestions for the Criteria of Group Members
Based on the data in the questionnaire, the students suggested that it would be better if the members of the groups were chosen by themselves. The students believed
that they enjoyed working with their friends in a group. Heshe wrote, “It will be better if group presentation group work can choose their own
members because by having friends to work with, make me enjoy discussing, work, and learn. I have to have brain storming about the material first then I
can discuss it with my friends. That is how I feel that I improve my independent learning.
” Respondent 56
60 Working with friends that they chose on their own makes them enjoy doing the group
work like discussing, learning, and presenting better. Furthermore, some students said it would be more effective if there were not
too many members in a group presentation project. Some students said in group there might be two or three students, or not more than four students, and should not be
more than six students. Some students explained their reasons. One of them was, “The member of the group should be no more than six members because too much
member will make things difficult when discussion and each member have different opinion of the topic
” Respondent 55. According to the finding, not too many members in group presentation project would make the students work and learn more
effectively. It was expected that they could learn together in a group as well as independently to understand the materials discussed and presented.
In addition, the findings about group members were supported by some experts. According to Pozzi and Persico 2010, a viable group size consists of four
up to five students. He added that the few members in a group could be a better choice if the members were active p. 117. In order to maintain active contribution of
group members, working with friends who were close to the students could be the option. It was also suggested by the students in the questionnaire that they would
much more enjoy working with friends they chose on their own. Once the students worked with their friends they had met face-to-face in a small group, the students
would incline to participate Pozzi Perciso, 2010. However, the group size
61 recommendation was determined by the number of the students in class Pozzi
Perciso, 2010, p. 68. It was meant that the criteria about students’ choosing their own
group members could be considered by the lecturers depended on the condition of the class.
On the other hand, Jaques 1984 stated that there were no exact criteria which defined a group of learning. He explained that small group could be better due to the
consideration that everyone would give their participation. Wenger 1998 said that small group work activity influenced the students to be active learners and fostered
their individual responsibility to achieve their goals of learning and joint enterprise as cited in Pozzi and Perciso, 2010. It was shown that the students might become
more active when they work in a small group in group presentation project which would foster their independent learning.
To conclude, there were three classifications of suggestions for group presentation project. They were related to the participation, lecturers
’ monitor, and group m
embers’ criteria. First, the contribution of each student while doing group work would determine his or her autonomy as well as interaction with others. Second,
the students needed more monitoring from their lecturers in terms of giving time for consultation and providing
students’ peer feedback activity too. Third, the students suggested working on a small group for doing group presentation project. If it was
possible they wanted to work with the friends that they might choose on their own. As Knowles 1975 said, independent learning was a process in which related to an
