Students perception toward peer feedback in writing class.

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION TOWARD PEER FEEDBACK IN WRITING CLASS

A THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment or the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By

Farida Noor Rohmah Student Number: 06 1214 111

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

i

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION TOWARD PEER FEEDBACK IN WRITING CLASS

A THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment or the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By

Farida Noor Rohmah Student Number: 06 1214 111

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

iv

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY

I honestly declare that this thesis, which I have written, does not contain the work or parts of the work of other people, except those cited in the quotation and the references, as a scientific paper should.

Yogyakarta, August 23rd, 2010 The Writer

Farida Noor Rohmah 06 1214 111

v

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN

PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIK

Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma:

Nama : Farida Noor Rohmah

Nomor Mahasiswa : 06 1214 111

Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION TOWARD PEER FEEDBACK IN WRITING CLASS

Beserta perangkat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan, mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data, mendistribusikannya di Internet atau media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin ataupun memberikan royalti kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis.

Demikian pernyataan ini saya buat dengan sebenarnya. Dibuat di Yogyakarta

Pada tanggal : 23 Agustus 2010

Yang menyatakan

vi

"Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom."

(George S. Patton)

I dedicate this thesis to:

♥

My beloved father and mother

♥

My little sister and brother

♥

My big family

vii

ABSTRACT

Rohmah, Farida Noor. 2010. Students’ Perception toward Peer Feedback in Writing Class. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.

In process of writing, revision plays an important role. In order to have an effective revision, students need feedback from their readers. In writing classes, commonly feedback is from the teacher. Meanwhile, depending feedback only from the teacher will lead the students to be dependent learners. In fact, feedback can be obtained from the students namely peer feedback which direct them to be more independent as learners. This research deals with the use of peer feedback in writing class. The researcher formulates two problem formulations in this research. The first problem is what the students’ perception toward peer feedback in writing class and the second problem is to what extent the students give peer feedback.

Thus, the researcher employed survey research which was conducted on the beginning of May 2010. The participants of this research were the students of the two Paragraph Writing classes academic year 2009/2010 at English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University. Gathering the data, the researcher used a set of questionnaire as well as peer feedback checklist. The questionnaire was used to gather students’ opinion of a list of questions about the use of peer feedback in writing class. Meanwhile, the peer feedback checklist was set to gather information about to what extent the students give peer feedback.

Based on the data analysis, it was found that the students gained positive perception toward peer feedback in writing class. This answer was proved by the value of the degree of agreements that frequently occurred were “strongly agree” and “agree” in the questionnaire. Only a small part of the students had negative perception toward peer feedback in writing class. Dealing with the second problem, the result showed that the students could provide useful feedback for their peers on organization area, content area, language use area, vocabulary area, and mechanic area. The students even provided some suggestions to their peers related to the composition to improve the quality of the composition. There were only a few students who did not provide clear explanation or suggestion about feedback they gave in their peers’ compositions

In summary, students gave positive perception toward peer feedback in writing class. Most of the students agreed that peer feedback is beneficial to be applied in writing class. Students also could provide feedback for their peers on organization area, content area, language use area, vocabulary area, and mechanic area. Some suggestions to improve the implementation of peer feedback in writing class were presented.

viii ABSTRAK

Rohmah, Farida Noor. 2010. Students’ Perception toward Peer Feedback in Writing Class. Yogyakarta: Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Dalam proses menulis, revisi mempunyai peranan penting. Untuk merevisi tulisan dengan efektif, mahasiswa membutuhkan umpan balik dari pembacanya. Dalam kelas Writing, pada umumnya umpan balik selalu diberikan oleh dosen. Padahal, ketergantungan pada umpan balik dari dosen dapat mengarahkan mahasiswa menjadi tidak mandiri. Pada kenyataannya, umpan balik bisa didapatkan dari sesame mahasiswa atau yang disebut dengan peer feedback. Penelitian ini melingkupi penggunaan umpan balik antar teman dalam kelas

Writing. Peneliti merumuskan dua permasalahan dalam penelitian ini. Masalah yang pertama yaitu persepsi apakah yang dimiliki mahasiswa terhadap penggunaan umpan balik abtar teman dalam kelas Writing. Masalah yang kedua adalah sampai seberapa jauhkah mahasiswa memberikan umpan balik kepada temannya dalam karangan mereka.

Maka dari itu, peneliti menggunakan metode survei yang dimulai pada awal Mei 2010. Responden penelitian ini adalah mahasiswa dua kelas Paragraph Writing tahun ajaran 2009/2010 di Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma. Untuk mendapatkan data penelitian ini, peneliti menggunakan dua instrumen penelitian yaitu kuisioner dan peer feedback checklist. Kuisoner digunakan untuk mengetahui pendapat mahasiswa tentang peer feedback. Sementara itu, peer feedback checklist didesain untuk mengetahui seberapa jauh mahasiswa memberikan peer feedback.

Berdasarkan analisa dari data yang didapatkan, peneliti menemukan bahwa mahasiswa memiliki persepsi yang positif terhadap penggunaan umpan balik antar teman did lam kelas Writing. Ini dibuktikan dengan banyaknya mahasiswa yang menjawab “sangat setuju” dan “setuju” dalam merespon pernyataan dalam kuisioner. Mayoritas mahasiswa sejutu bahwa umpan balik antar teman menguntungkan untuk diterapkan di dalam kelas Writing. menjawab permasalahan yang kedua, peneliti menemukan bahwa mahasiswa dapat memberikan umpan balik kepada teman dalam lingkup organisasi, isi, bahasa, perbendaharaan kata, dan mekanika penulisan. Kebanyakan mahasiswa bahkan memberikan saran kepada teman terkait dengan tulisan mereka agar tulisan mereka dapat lebih berkualitas. Hanya sebagian kecil dari mahasiswa yang tidak memberikan penjelasan yang jelas tentang umpan balik meraka.

Pada intinya, mahasiwa mempunyai persepsi yang positif terhadap penggunaan peer feedback dalam kelas Writing. Mahasiswa juga dapat memberikan umpan balik kepada teman dalam lingkup organisasi, isi, bahasa, perbendaharaan kata, dan mekanika penulisan. Akhirnya, beberapa usulan juga disampaikan dalam studi ini untuk meningkatkan kualitas penerapan peer feedback di kelas Writing.

ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, my greatest gratitude is addressed to Allah SWT for always blessing me. He guided and showed me the paths in finishing my thesis and my study. Without Him I would not be like what I am now.

For sure, I am truly indebted to my sponsor, the one and only, Caecilia Tutyandari, S.Pd., M.Pd. for her willingness to spend her busy time reading my thesis, her guidance and her advice from the beginning of this research until the accomplishment of this thesis. I would like to express my thankfulness to Nugraha Krisdiyanta, S.Pd., who gave me permission to conduct my research in his Paragraph Writing classes and valuable advices for my thesis. Further, I would like to deeply thank all lecturers of PBI for their guidance during my study.

I am very grateful to my beloved parents, Bapak and Ibu, for their endless care and support during my study and my sister, Nisa, and my brother, Ajib, for their attention for me. My deepest gratitude also belongs to Camiku “Mas Adit”,

who always gave me his continued affection and motivation.

My thankfulness also goes to my best friends Rusna, Ayum, Yeyen, Rika, Rina, Deinza and Danny for their companionship which full of happiness, sadness, laughter and tears. I would like express my appreciation to Mbak Danik

and Mbak Tari for their beneficial information during my study. Finally, my gratitude is addressed to all of the people who have helped me in completing this thesis.

x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE ... i

PAGES OF APPROVAL ... ii

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ... iv

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIK ... v

DEDICATION PAGE ... vi

ABSTRACT ... vii

ABSTRAK ... viii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ... ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... x

LIST OF FIGURES ... xiv

LIST OF TABLES ... xvi

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION A. Background of the Study ... 1

B. Problem Formulation ... 3

C. Problem Limitation ... 4

D. Objectives of the Study ... 4

E. Benefits of the Study ... 4

xi

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

A. Theoretical Description ... 7

1. Perception ... 7

a. Definition of Perception ... 7

b. Factors Influencing Perception ... 8

c. Students’ Perception toward Peer Feedback ... 9

2. Writing as a Process ... 10

3. Feedback ... 12

a. The Presence of Feedback in Writing Class ... 12

b. Sources of Feedback ... 13

c. Purposes of Feedback ... 17

4. The Roles of Peer Feedback in Writing Class ... 18

B. Theoretical Framework ... 20

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY A. Research Method ... 22

B. Research Participants ... 22

C. Research Instruments ... 23

xii

E. Data Analysis Technique ... 26

F. Research Procedure ... 27

CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A. Research Results ... 28

1. Students’ Responses to the Questionnaire ... 29

a. Students’ Perception on the Process of Peer Feedback ... 29

b. Students’ Perception on the Benefits of Peer Feedback ... 33

c. Students’ Perception on Feedback from Their Peer ... 38

d. Students’ Perception on the Implementation of Peer Feedback ... 40

e. The Results of Open-Ended Questions ... 41

2. Students’ Responses to the Peer Feedback Checklist ... 42

B. Discussion ... 44

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS A. Conclusions ... 51

B. Suggestions ... 52

REFERENCES ... 54

APPENDICES Appendix 1. Questionnaire... 57

xiii

Appendix 2. Peer Feedback Checklist ... 60

Appendix 3. Questionnaire Blueprint ... 61

Appendix 4. Result of Close-ended Questions ... 62

Appendix 5. Raw Data of Open-ended Questions ... 65

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

2.1 The Perceptual Process ... 9

4.1 The Necessity of Revision and Feedback in Writing ... 30

4.2 The Frequency of Giving Correction, Suggestion and Comments ... 30

4.3 Students’ Confidence in Doing Peer Feedback ... 31

4.4 Students’ Freeness in Doing Peer Feedback ... 32

4.5 Students’ Activeness in Asking Clarification ... 32

4.6 Students’ Difficulty in Giving Feedback to Their Peer ... 33

4.7 The Helpfulness of Peer Feedback Checklist ... 33

4.8 The Usefulness of Feedback Given by Peer ... 34

4.9 Students’ Ability to Solve Their Writing Problem Through Peer Feedback ... 34

4.10 Students’ Learning from Their Peer’s Mistakes ... 35

4.11 Students’ Motivation to Learn from their Peer ... 35

4.12 Students’ Encouragement to Work Cooperatively with Their Peer ... 36

4.13 Students’ Becoming More Independent ... 36

4.14 Students’ Becoming More Critical ... 37

4.15 Students’ Awareness of Making Mistakes through Peer Feedback ... 37

4.16 Students’ Consideration of Duration of Peer Feedback ... 38

xv

4.18 The Clearness of Feedback Given by Peer ... 39 4.19 Students’ Satisfaction with the Feedback

Given by Peer ... 39 4.20 Students’ Consideration to Include Peer’s Feedback

for Revision ... 40 4.21 The Influence of Feedback Given by Peer

on Writing Improvement ... 40 4.22 Students’ Need of Teacher Feedback ... 41 4.23 Students’ Preference on Implementation of

xvi

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

3.1 Table of Participants’ Rating Scale Responses ... 26 4.1 Table of Participants’ Responses on

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The study investigates the students’ perceptions on the use of peer feedback in writing class. This chapter presents background of the study, problem limitation, problem formulation, objectives of the study, benefits of the study, and definition of the terms.

A. Background of the Study

Writing is considered to be a complex skill and subject in English language learning. Written expression is considered the be the most complex stage of language development, more complex than oral language, and the last to be mastered (Evans, 1986). In addition, Richards (1990: 101) states that, “It is not merely the linguistic organization of written discourse that makes writing a difficult skill to acquire. The process moving from concepts, thoughts, and ideas to written text is complex.” Thus, students might face difficulties and make mistakes in writing. Writing requires students to experience trial and error process in achieving a qualified writing product.

Hence, writing is a process activity. According to Cohen (1990:105), writing refers to the process in which the final expected product comes after a series of drafts. The composition has gone through several steps of peer editing and self-assessment. Seow (2002) describes seven stages of the process of writing. The first step is called planning or prewriting in which the students should find the

topic and generate the idea. The second step is called drafting, in which the students make a draft of their writing. This step also lets the students generate further idea. The third step is called responding. The responses might come from teacher or peer. Responding is done after the students have produced the first draft and before they proceed to revise. The next stage is revising. In this step, the students make some necessary revision to improve their composition based on the feedback given in the responding stage. The fifth step is editing in which students are dealing with tidying up their texts as they prepare the final draft for evaluation by the teacher. The sixth step is called evaluating. The evaluation is usually done by the teacher. Yet, students may be encouraged to evaluate their own and each other’s writing once they have been taught how to do it. The last step is post-writing which includes publishing, sharing, reading aloud, and so on.

From the stages, it is clear that there should be a revision in writing. It is important for the students to make revision in order to have better composition in their final product of writing. In this revision process, the students certainly need feedback from their reader. Many sources are available for the students to receive feedback for their writing. Traditionally, feedback is given by the teacher. Unfortunately, based on Lewis (2002), teachers usually spend more time on giving feedback. At this point, teachers may utilize peer feedback. One advantage of peer feedback, proposed by Tiedt (1989: 86), is that students can learn more about writing as they see the kinds of ideas other students have and how they develop them. Peer feedback is good to maximize the students’ ability in exposing

the students to be independent learners. The researcher believes that peer feedback is very helpful in improving students’ writing quality.

As the researcher experienced when she was in Paragraph Writing class and Academic Writing class in English Education Study Program, her lecturer implemented peer feedback in class. The researcher, then, found that her writing quality was better after getting feedback from her peer. The researcher believes that peer feedback is very helpful to improve students’ writing quality of their writing performance. Moreover, a thesis by Rina (2007), entitled “Students’ Perceptions on Peer Feedback in Writing” reveals that most of the students had positive perception toward peer feedback. The students believed that peer feedback was advantageous. Yet, beginner students or the students in the lower level of semester may have different perception toward it.

Thus, the researcher intends to find the students’ perception on the use of peer feedback in writing class. Moreover, the researcher also intends to reveal to what extent the students give peer feedback. To answer those two problems, the researcher uses qualitative research.

B. Problem Formulation

This study would like to address two questions.

1. What is the students’ perception toward peer feedback in writing class? 2. To what extent do the students give peer feedback?

C. Problem Limitation

The problem is limited to the discussion on the students’ perception on the contribution of peer feedback in writing class. Writing class here is Paragraph Writing class in the academic year 2009/2010 in English Education Study Program Sanata Dharma University Yogyakarta.

D. Objectives of the Study

The present study is aimed at investigating the students’ perception toward the contribution of peer feedback in writing class. Moreover, the study is also aimed at exploring to what extent the students give peer feedback.

E. Benefits of the Study

In general, the researcher hopes that this study could give some valuable contribution to all educational communities, especially at the English Education Study Program. The researcher hopes that this study can give an understanding for the readers, especially English teachers, English teacher candidates and English learners about the contribution of peer feedback in writing class.

Hopefully, the writing lecturers can consider using not only teacher feedback but also peer feedback in their writing class since learning a language cannot be separated from interaction of one learner to another learner.

For the students, the researcher hopes that they should be able to be independent learners. They are expected to reduce their dependence of their lecturer in writing. Trough this study, the researcher expects that the students in

writing classes will be encouraged to utilize peer feedback considering the benefits they can obtain.

Finally for the future researchers, the researcher hopes that this study can give them inspiration to conduct further research on peer feedback of other topics related to feedback to enrich the existing study.

F. Definition of Terms

To avoid misleading to occur and to make common conception to the reader about some terms related to this study, the researcher defines as follows: 1. Perception

Huffman and Vernoys (2000) define perception as a process of selecting, organizing, and interpreting sensory data into usable mental representations of the world. Trough this definition, they state that experiences, cultural factors, perceptual expectations and personal motivations and frame of reference influence the process of forming the perception.

Moreover, Altman, Valenzi, and Hodgetts (1985) describe perception as a person’s view of reality. It is the way stimuli are selected and grouped by a person so that they can be meaningfully interpreted. In Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary (Hornby, 1995: 895), perception is defined as a way of seeing, understanding, or interpreting something. In this study, perception is what the students think about something that they have experienced, which in this case is peer feedback in writing class.

2. Peer Feedback

According to Lewis (2002), peer feedback means any constructive comments from peers to peers for the sake of improving the writing. Additionally, according to Richards (1999), in the process of peer feedback the students cooperatively work in groups, read, criticize, and the proofread their own writing. In this study, peer feedback is an activity to give suggestion, comments, and error correction between student and students in pairs by using peer feedback checklist.

7

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Review of the literature chapter is aimed at discussing the theories that underlie this study. It involves theoretical descriptions. Since this study discusses the use of peer feedback in writing class, the theoretical descriptions contains the concept of peer feedback and issues of the use of peer feedback in writing class. In the theoretical framework, the researcher relates the theories to the study.

A. Theoretical Description

This section deals with the explanation of perception, writing as process, feedback and the role of peer feedback in writing class.

1. Perception

a. Definition of Perception

Huffman and Vernoys (2000) define perception as a process of selecting, organizing, and interpreting sensory data into usable mental representations of the world. Through this definition, they state that experiences, cultural factors, perceptual expectations and personal motivations and frame of reference influence the process of forming the perception.

Moreover, Altman, Valenzi, and Hodgetts (1985) describe perception as a person’s view of reality. It is the way stimuli are selected and grouped by a person so that they can be meaningfully interpreted. The perceptual process starts from stimuli that a person has chosen. Then, our individual sensors select data from the

stimuli and allow us to interpret, or give meaning to, the sensory message. This message is, then, sent to the brain. Thus, the brain will process the message into feeling. Finally, the brain continues to interpret the feeling into perceptions.

b. Factors Influencing Perception

There are a number of factors influencing a person’s perception. Altman et al. (1985) describe four of the most important factors influence a person’s perceptions. They are as followed.

1) Selection of Stimuli

A person focuses on only a small number of stimuli from all stimuli with which he or she is surrounded. This process is called selection. That is why people perceive things differently. It means that each person selects specific cues and filters, or screen, out the others.

2) Organization of Stimuli

After information has been selected, it must be arranged to become meaningful. The mind tries to bring order out the unarranged data by selecting certain items and putting them together in a meaningful way based on experience.

3) The Situation

A familiarity and expectation about a situation affect what a person perceives. Perceiving a situation deals with how well a person adjusts his or her behavior to situation.

4) Self-Concept

Self-concept or the way a person feels about and perceives him or herself. This self-concept is important since the mental picture of a person determines much of what he or she perceives and does.

c. Students’ Perception Toward Peer Feedback

Based on the definitions of perception suggested by psychologists above, it can be concluded that perception involves organizing and interpreting information and data coming from the environment so that the information and the data can be meaningfully interpreted. The students’ perception will lead them to different behavioral responses. Thus, when the students perceive peer feedback positively, they will think that peer feedback is beneficial for them in revising their writing. Then, they will be likely to revise their writing based on the peer feedback. On the contrary, when they perceive peer feedback negatively, they will not consider peer feedback is beneficial source to revise their writing. Consequently, they will not revise their writing based on peer feedback. This notion is supported by Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1. The Perceptual Process

(Source: Altman, Valenzi, and Hodgetts 1985: 86)

Stimuli

Sensors’ selection of stimuli

Perception, organization,

and interpretation of

stimuli

Behavioral response

2. Writing as a Process

The traditional approach to the teaching of writing has been called product approach. The basic assumption of this approach is that the students are capable of turning out final product the first time around (Cohen, 1990). Yet, it can be concluded that the writing product approach only emphasizes on the final product without paying attention on stages that the students should reach the final product of writing.

In recent years, process approach to writing has been used. Cohen (1990: 105) states that writing refers to the process in which the final product comes from after a series of time. Furthermore, Cohen adds that writer’s awareness of writing process is highly valued and the student’s writing has gone through some series of peer feedback and self-assessment before the teacher assesses it. From this process, the students can explore their ability to write and develop their skill in writing.

Stages in writing clearly show that writing is a process. Some authors describe different stages in writing. However, the researcher finds that the stages are almost the same. Based on Seow (2002), there are seven stages in the process of writing. They are as follows:

a. Planning (Pre-writing)

It is the activity that encourages students to write. It stimulated thoughts for getting started. The students should find the topic and generate the idea.

b. Drafting

After finding the topics, the students may generalize it into subtopics and paragraph. Students should also have in mind a central idea they want to communicate to the audience in order to give direction to their writing. At this drafting stage, the students are focused on the fluency of writing and are not preoccupied with grammatical accuracy.

c. Responding

This stage has a central role in the successful implementation of process approach. The responses and the feedback that the students get can be come from the teacher or their peer. Response can be oral or written. It can be after the students have produced the first draft or just before they proceed to revise.

d. Revising

The students revise their writing based on the feedback given in the responding stage. Revising is not only checking for language errors, but also improving global content and the organization of ideas.

e. Editing

At this stage, students are dealing with tidying up their texts as they prepare the final draft for evaluation by the teacher. The students edit their writing for grammar, spelling, punctuation, diction, sentence structure, and accuracy. f. Evaluating

The evaluation is usually done by the teacher. Yet, students may be encouraged to evaluate their own and each other’s writing once they have been

taught how to do it. In this way, they can be more responsible for their own writing.

g. Post-writing

The post-writing activity includes publishing, sharing, reading aloud, and so on. It can be used as motivation for students to write. Students should be made to feel that they write for a very real purpose.

3. Feedback

a. The Presence of Feedback in Writing Class

The presence of feedback is essential to learning to write in foreign language (Hyland, 2003). It is because of the fact that in order to have effective revision, the students need feedback from their audience. Before making a revision, students should receive feeedback so that the students may make the revison based on the feedback or even suggestions that they receive from their audience. According to Kauchack and Eggen (1989), feedback tells the students information concerning their current behavior for the sake of improvement. Students can recognize their mistakes so that they will not repeat the same mistakes and correct them. Thus, feedback is a useful means for the students in improving their writing. It could be concluded that feedback is crucial since feedback provides the writer with a sense of readers and lead them to the awareness of the needs of the readers (Hyland, 2003).

b. Sources of Feedback

There are some sources are available for the students to receive feedback for their writing. The students may receive feedback from their teacher, their peers, and even from themselves.

1). Teacher Feedback

Traditionally, the feedback comes from the teacher. The process of giving feedback from teacher is usually done by correcting one by one student’s writing then discussing face to face with each student. This technique is called conferencing feedback. Moreover, teacher might use other variation of giving feedback for instance collective feedback. Teachers summarize the comments of students’ writing in front of the class.

However, Cohen (1990) states that the teacher commonly gives comments on grammar or mechanics rather than on content and organization. This argument is presented by Cohen (1990) as followed.

It has been observed that a learner’s motivation to write can be negatively affected by a teacher’s untimely or exclusive focus on surface issues of form (e.g. grammatical concern, spelling and punctuation).

2). Peer Feedback

It might be monotonous if feedback only comes from the teacher in every meeting of writing class. It will lead the students’ boredom in writing class. The students need another variety of suggestion for their writing. Hyland (2003) states that the idea of students receiving feedback from their peers become an important alternative in writing class. Students learn how to write by writing, and they also

learn how to write by reading. Students learn how to write by reading the writing of their peers (Tiedt, 1989: 188). It means that peer feedback can be used to help students to learn how to write. The students can improve their own writing after reading and correcting their peers’ draft. One writer can find what he does not have in his paper in his peer’s composition and vice versa. In addition, proofreading other people’s work prepares the students for proofreading their own work. Lewis (2002) adds that the process of peer feedback can be fun and useful. This becomes one of the many ways students can learn to improve their writing. According to Richards (1999), in the process of peer feedback the students cooperatively work in groups, read, criticize, and the proofread their own writing. Based on that definition, it can be concluded that peer feedback in writing class refers to the process of reading and responding of friend’s composition. The students read their peers’ work. The compositions are, then, given comments by the students. Peer feedback might take a number of different forms. Hyland (2003) describes that typically, peer feedback consists of assigning students to groups of two or three who exchange the first draft and then give comments on each other’s writing before they revise them. It commonly occurs during class time. In order to make peer feedback effective for the students, teacher should follow certain guideline. Sokolik (2003) confirms that teacher should provide some kind of structured feedback form. Teachers may employ a kind of peer feedback guideline to help the students focus on particular aspects of the writing or even the conventions of the genre. It might avoid the students’ confusion on what to give comments.

Lewis (2002) suggests ten ways the teachers can try implementing peer feedback in writing class. They are as followed.

a) Exchange Papers

The students exchange their composition and report to each other on the aspect that could be improved. This way of peer feedback is often applied by the teacher. b) Role-Play

The students can work in groups of three. Each student takes role as a ‘student’, ‘teacher’, and ‘judge’. Here, the teacher comments on the student’s work then the judge gives comment on the quality of teacher’s feedback.

c) Pair work in moving circle

A half part of the class stay seated in a U-shape while the other half move around inside the U-shape. For example, every five minutes they have different partner. Students give feedback on the writing orally.

d) Pass papers round

The students pass their compositions round three places. Then, they have to write comments on the compositions in front of them. It is continued with another three places for different students to write comments.

e) Feedback Questions

The questions could be clarification questions based on pre-writing task of brainstorming, for example, ‘What does this term mean?’ of ‘How’ and ‘Why’ questions leading to new ideas.

The draft of the students is rounded so that each student reads several examples. They note suggestions and or commendations on the compositions. Then, every student reports orally in front of the class on one good feature and what could be improved without mentioning the writer’s name.

g) Read/listen/respond

One student reads aloud their composition and other students comment on it. This way really works for short pieces of writing.

h) Compare writing

The teacher should give question to start and help the discussion for the students to work in pairs to compare their compositions, for instance, what is the main idea of the paragraph?

i) Summarise and photocopy advice

At first, the students exchange their compositions and evaluate other’s work. Then on a piece of paper they write down one suggestion or one commendation. These slips are then compiled and photocopied so that each student has a record of all the comments.

j) Sentence on board

Every student generates a given topic sentence then moves to the board to write their works. Finally, other students give feedback on the works.

From the description, it means that peer feedback can be implemented in many varieties of activities. It can minimize students’ boredom in writing class. The teachers should choose the best way in implemented peer feedback so that peer feedback can be optimally done.

3). Self-Correction

Self correction here means the students correct and evaluate their own compositions. Lewis (2002) states that self-correction increases students’ independence from the teacher. By discovering their own mistakes, the students can remember better what mistakes they have done. In addition, it saves time in large classes. Yet, it is difficult to find and seek mistakes in their own compositions without other’s helps. Students who have written compositions will claim that there are no mistakes in it because they have their own subjective point of view. By contrast, other students might provide information that cannot be possibly got by the authors themselves in their compositions.

c. Purposes of Feedback

Lewis (2002) describes some purposes of feedback for teacher and students. Feedback is aimed at providing information both for teacher and students. For teacher, feedback provides a description on the students’ progress. For students, feedback gives them information which tends to be ongoing assessment for them. It means that it is more focused that grades and marks. Teachers also can provide students with more than simply descriptions of their language use but on their students’ learning. Moreover, the teacher’s feedback provides students with meaningful and individual language input. Lewis (2002:4) states that “the teacher words, both in their form and their purposes, illustrate how language is used in one-to-one communication.

Another purpose of feedback is that the students can get motivation. In learning process, feedback can be more motivating then marks or grades. It encourages students in using language to the best of their ability. Finally, one long-term purpose of feedback is to lead the students become autonomous. Feedback leads students to the point where they can find their own mistakes.

4. The Role of Peer Feedback in Writing Class

Peer feedback provides several advantages. Hyland ( 2003) states that peer feedback enables the students to develop their critical reading skill. By reading and responding their peers’ work, the students may gain the skill necessary to critically analyze and revise their own writing. Not only developing students’ critical reading skill, peer feedback also creates an authentic social context for interaction and learning (Mittan, 1989, as cited in Hyland, 2003). It can be seen that the students could learn from each other and practice how to make useful interaction with others. Peer feedback, then, can enhance active learner participation (Hyland, 2003).

In addition, peer feedback can encourage a collaborative dialogue in which two-way feedback is established (Rollinson, 2005). In accordance with Cohen (1990), the teacher can make use of cooperative learning in the revision stage as a special means of getting feedback. It implies that peer feedback could be considered as cooperative learning. It assigns the students to cooperate with their peers in responding and revising their writing. He describes his idea as quoted below.

Another way to ensure ample feedback is to elicit the support of non-native peers in the classroom, usually within a structured framework. For example, learners may be requested to form working groups and to take turns reading each other’s papers.

According to Rollinson (2005), peer readers can provide useful feedback in writing class. This notion is revealed by a research conducted by Rollinson in 1998 that 80% of feedback or comments from peers were considered valid. Moreover, it was found that only 7% feedback or comments were considered damaging. It entails the fact that the students can revise their writing effectively based on the feedback from their peers.

As Mcgroarty (1989) says in Kessler ( 1992:3), peer feedback in writing class can give opportunities to act as sources for each other, hence assuming a more active role in their learning. It is clearly seen that this statement clarifies that cooperative learning, indeed, gives opportunity for the learners to be more responsible for their own learning and the learning of others. In peer feedback, they search the knowledge from their peers as well as share their knowledge and experience about writing to their peers. For instance, making mistakes in the past is an experience. As a result, based on this experience students do not repeat the same mistakes in writing as what they did previously.

Lewis (2002) states that by doing peer feedback the students can have a greater variety of suggestions. In other words, learning in group by doing peer feedback tends to generate more ideas and exposes different point of view. The researcher concludes that it is very beneficial for the students since they can optimally improve and revise their writing.

B.Theoretical Framework

Writing does not merely focus on the product. It more focuses on the process. There are several stages the students engage in the process of writing. Revision is an important stage in writing. In making a revision, the students certainly need feedback from their reader. Traditionally, the students should make a revision based on the teacher’s feedback only. Yet, it can be monotonous if the feedback only comes from the teacher. Hence, peer feedback is one alternative that can be done by the students before making the revision of their writing. Peer feedback encourages students to work cooperatively with their peers in giving comments on each other’s draft of writing instead only depending on teacher’s feedback. Hence, the students might have a greater variety of suggestions in improving their writing quality. The work of Rollinson in 1998 reveals that 80% of feedback or comments from peers were considered valid. Moreover, it was found that only 7% feedback or comments were considered damaging. It entails the fact that the students can revise their writing effectively based on the feedback from their peers.

To find out students’ perception toward peer feedback in writing class, some theories are taken into account. The researcher uses the theories of the implementation of peer feedback which are suggested by Hyland, theories on the process of peer feedback suggested by Hyland, Lewis, and Richards, and the theories on the benefits of peer feedback by Hyland, Rollinson, and Lewis as main references to investigate the students’ perception toward peer feedback. To investigate to what extent the students give peer feedback, the researcher uses peer

feedback checklist. It is adapted from feedback checklist suggested by Hyland and Sokolik. Meanwhile, to investigate students’ perception toward peer feedback in writing class, the researcher employs perception measuring instrument adopted by Brown and Rogers.

Based on the brief discussion in theoretical description above, it can be concluded that peer feedback is beneficial to be implemented in writing class. It can improve the students’ writing quality. Because peer feedback is beneficial in improving the students’ writing quality, they will build good perception on the uses of peer feedback.

22

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter deals with the methodology that the writer used in this study. It covers research method, research participants, research instruments, data gathering technique, data analysis technique, and research procedure.

A. Research Method

The researcher used survey research. According to Wiersma (1995), surveys are used to measure attitudes, opinions, or achievement or any number of variables in natural setting. It can be done by means of observation, questionnaire, and interview. This idea is supported by Ary, Jacobs and Razavieh (2002) who state that survey is used for gathering data ranging from physical counts and frequencies to attitudes and opinions. The data gathered from survey is responses of questions that are asked to participants.

Thus, this research used survey research as research method since it dealt with investigating students’ opinion of peer feedback in writing class. The researcher interpreted the students’ perception about the use of peer feedback based on the questionnaire.

B. Research Participants

The participants of the study were the students of the English Education Study Program who were taking Paragraph Writing class in the academic year

2009/2010. The participants should have experience about peer feedback. The researcher used two classes of Paragraph Writing namely class D and class F. Class D consisted of 26 students and class F consisted of 25 students. The researcher used these classes because the lecturer of these classes applied peer feedback in class.

C. Research Instruments

To collect the data, the researcher used two research instruments namely questionnaire and feedback checklist.

1. Questionnaire

The questionnaire was used to gather students’ opinion of a list of questions about the use of peer feedback in writing class. The questionnaire was in form of open-ended and close-ended questions. Close-ended questions are questions that have fixed option to be chosen. It consists of degree of agreement which is set to obtain the expressions of opinion, interest, or valuing, problems to react to, or statements to agree or disagree with. The researcher used Likert scale which provides a range of responses to a given question or statement ( Cohen, Marion, Marrison: 2000:253). According to Brown and Rogers (2002: 120), Likert scales can be on a 1 to 4 scale, 1 to 5 scale or 1 to 7 scale. It depends on the answers the researcher wants to gain.

Hence, in this research, the researcher used Likert scale on 1 to 4 scale. The degree of agreement are 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (agree), and 4 (strongly agree). The researcher used the scale that did not have undecided option.

Thus, the respondents should choose whether they agreed or disagreed. Galls and Borg (2007: 235) stated that “One method of dealing with the issue of respondents who lack familiarity with a topic is to include “no opinion” option as a response alternative for each attitude item”. In this research, the respondents have already known about peer feedback since they experienced it in the writing class. Thus, the researcher used 1 to 4 scale to avoid the respondents’ ignorance about the topic.

The statements in the questionnaire covered four parts. The first part of the questionnaire was concerned with the students’ perception on the process of peer feedback. The second part was concerned with students’ perception on the benefits of peer feedback. The third part was related to students’ perception on feedback from their peer. The last part was related to the students’ perception on the implementation of peer feedback. To make it clearer, the questionnaire and questionnaire blueprint is provided in Appendix 1 and 3.

Open-ended questions are questions needed to be answered more freely based on the participant’s perception. It is used to gain further information about the use of peer feedback in writing class. However, the answer must be related to peer feedback in writing class. The questionnaire was distributed after the implementation of peer feedback by the lecturer. The questionnaires were distributed to all the students of Paragraph Writing Class.

2. Peer Feedback Checklist

Feedback checklists as students evaluate their peer’s work. Hyland (2003) states that it helps structure peer review activities by providing guidance on what participants should look for as they read. He adds that peer feedback checklist can provide a valuable form of indirect instruction about good writing and genre format. In this study, peer feedback checklist was used by the respondents to classify the area the students observe in giving peer feedback in their peer’s writing. The researcher adapted the peer feedback checklist from the work of Sokolik (2003). It consisted of 7 guiding questions to help the students to give feedback to their peers. The peer feedback checklist was presented in the Appendix 2.

D. Data Gathering Technique

This research began on 26 March 2010 and ended on 19 August 2010. In collecting the data in this study, the researcher gave a set of questionnaire to the participants and peer feedback checklist. Firstly, the researcher gathered the data through peer feedback checklist. The students were given peer feedback checklists while they were doing peer feedback in class. Having finished with the peer feedback checklist, the researcher gathered data by using questionnaire as the research instrument.

The reseracher distributed the questionnaire and the peer feedback checklist on 11 and 12 May 2010. The researcher distributed 26 questionnaires in class D but only 25 sheets were returned. In class C, the number of questionnaire

distributed was 25 sheets, but only 24 sheets were returned as well as the peer feedback checklist. As the result, the total instruments to be analyzed were 49 sheets of peer feedback checklist and 49 sheets of questionnaires.

E. Data Analysis Technique

The data analysis dealt with analyzing the questionnaire result. First, the researcher counted the number of ticks on every degree of agreement of each item in close-ended questions namely strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree. Then, the researcher counted the raw data into percentage and interpreted them. The data was presented in form of table (see Table 3.1). For the open-ended questions, the researchers classified and clustered the same answer and then interpreted them.

Table 3. 2. Table 3.1 Participants’ Rating Scale Responses

No Statement

Degree of agreement Strongly

agree % of SA

Agree % of A

disagree % of D

Strongly disagree

% of SD

1 Statement 1

2 Statement 2

3 Statement 3

4 etc

Finally, the researcher analyzed the students’ feedback in their peer’s composition in feedback checklist. By analyzing the feedback checklist given to the students, the researcher could answer the second problem formulation and could draw conclusion about the contribution on peer feedback in writing class.

F. Research Procedure

In conducting this study, the researcher followed some steps of procedure. First of all, the topic was selected and the research problems were formulated. After analyzing the research problems, the researcher selected the appropriate method which can be applied in this research. The appropriate research instruments were selected as well so that the instruments could help the researcher to gather the data in order to answer the research problems. Because this research used students of Paragraph Writing class as the participants, the researcher asked for a permission to conduct the research before the researcher began to gather data using questionnaires. The collected data, then, was presented and analyzed descriptively and answered the research problems based on the data. Finally, the researcher drew conclusion of the research.

28

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter, the researcher intends to discuss the research results and the data analysis of the results. The analyzed data are discussed comprehensively to answer the problems of the research. This chapter is divided into two parts, namely Research Results and Discussion.

A.Research Results

The participants of the research were the students of the English Education Study Program who were taking Paragraph Writing class in the academic year 2009/2010. The researcher used two classes of Paragraph Writing namely class D and class F with the same lecturer. Class D consisted of 26 students and class F consisted of 25 students. The researchers used these classes because the lecturer of these classes applied peer feedback in class. To collect the data, the researcher employed two research instruments, namely peer feedback checklist and questionnaire. The researcher distributed 26 questionnaires in class D but only 25 sheets were returned. In class C, the number of questionnaire distributed was 25 sheets, but only 24 sheets were returned as well as the peer feedback checklist. As the result, the total instruments to be analyzed were 49 sheets of peer feedback checklist and 49 sheets of questionnaires.

Firstly, the researcher gathered the data through peer feedback checklist. The students were given peer feedback checklists while they were doing peer

feedback in class. Having finished with the peer feedback checklist, the researcher gathered data by using questionnaire as the research instrument. The analysis of and the students’ responses of questionnaire statements and the students’ responses to the peer feedback checklist are presented as followed.

1. Students’ Responses to the Questionnaire

This section deals with the students’ responses to the statements of questionnaire. The data can be seen in Appendix 4. The results of the questionnaire are divided into three parts, namely students’ perception on the process of peer feedback, and students’ perception on the benefits of peer feedback, students’ perception on feedback from their peer, and students’ perception on the implementation of peer feedback

a. Students’ Perception on the Process of Peer Feedback

Figure 4.1 shows the necessity of revision and feedback in writing process. It can be seen that 83.7% of students strongly agreed that revision is needed in writing process, 16,3% of students agreed, and no one disagreed or strongly disagreed. Meanwhile, 79.6% of the students strongly agreed that feedback is also needed in writing process, 20.4% of students agreed, and no one disagreed or strongly disagreed.

s s d s r a o Figur Base suggestions, strongly agr disagree or suggestions, Figur results show agree. They of the stude

2 4 6 8 10 0 20 40 60 80

re 4.1 The ne

ed on Figur , and comme ree and 71. r strongly , and comme

Figure 4. 2

re 4.3 prese wed that 16.3

were confid ents (20.4%) 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 00.0% Revi need wr pro 83.7% 16. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 28.6% 71.4

ecessity of re

re 4.2, 100 ents in doin .4% of the

disagree. A ents while th

2 The frequen

ents the stud 3 % of the st dent when th

) chose disa

ision is ded in riting ocess Feedb need wr pro % _79.6% .3% 20. 0.0%0.0% 4% 0.0%0.0%

evision and fe

0% of the s g peer feedb students ch All the stu hey were doin

ncy of giving com

dents’ confid tudents chos hey were givi agree. They back is ded in iting ocess % 4% 0.0%0.0% Strongl Agree Agree Disagre Strongl Disagre

eedback in w

students alw back (28.6% hose agree). udents alw ng peer feed

g corrections, mments

dence in doin se strongly a

ing feedback did not fee

Strongly A Agree Disagree Strongly D ly ee ly ee writing proce ways gave % of the stud . Here, no ways gave

dback.

, suggestions

ng peer feed agree and 63 k to their pee l confident Agree isagree ss correction, dents chose one chose correction, , and dback. The 3.3% chose er. The rest when they

w a y c c s y s w n t o d were giving agreed and 6 your peer re composition

Figur chart shows students cho

your peer”. strongly disa were about not understa the students only 12.2% disagreed wi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

g feedback t 69.4% of the ead your com n. The rest of

Figure

re 4.4 indic that 18.45% ose agree wi

Yet, there w agree. On th 85.7% of th and the comm

strongly agr % of the stu ith the statem

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% You conf when y giv feedb your 16.3% 63.3 2

o their peer e students ag mposition”. T

f the student

e 4. 3 Studen

cates the stu % of the stu ith the statem were 8.2% he other han he students w

ments or sug reed and 67. udents who ment. u feel fident you are ving back to r peer You con when peer y comp 14.3% 3% 69. 20.4% 0.0% r. Meanwhil greed with st They were co ts (16.3%) w

ts’ confidenc

udents’ freen udents chose

ment “You f

of the stude nd, it was cl who always ggestions giv .3% agreed w

disagreed a

u feel fident n your r read our position % .4% 16.3% 0.0%

le, 14.3% of tatement “Yo

onfident wh were not conf

ce in doing p

ness in doin e strongly ag

feel free to

ents chose d learly seen i asked clarif ven by peers with the stat and 2% of

Strongly A Agree Disagree Strongly D

f the studen ou feel conf hen their peer

fident.

eer feedback

ng peer feed gree and 71

do peer feed

disagree and in figure 4.5 fication whe s. There wer tement. Yet, the student Agree Disagree nts strongly fident when

r read their

k

dback. The .4% of the

dback with

d 2% chose 5 that there en they did e 18.4% of there were ts strongly

I p w t s f c s w Figur It can be se peers (6.1% were 36.7% their peers ( strongly dis feedback to correcting p students (98 when doing

Figure 4.4

Figure 4.

re 4.6 show en that 63.2 of the stud of the stude (30.6% of th sagree. Obvi o their peer peer’s draft.

8%) were co correction. T 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 0 20 40 60 80 The student

5 Students’ a

s the studen 2% of the stu dents chose s

ents who did he students c iously, the s can be s

It can be s ompletely h There were o

% % % % % 18.4% 71.4% 8 .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 18.4% 67

s’ freeness in

activeness in

ts’ difficulty udent felt di strongly agre d not have a chose disagr problem ab olved by g een in the f helped by th only 2% of t

% 8.2% 2.0% .3% 12.2% 2.0%

n doing peer

n asking clari

y in giving f ifficult in gi ee and 57.1% any difficulty

ee and 6.1% bout students giving peer

figure 4.7 th he use of pe the students Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree feedback ification

feedback to t iving feedba % chose agr y in giving f % of the stud s’ difficulty feedback ch hat shows m eer feedback who chose d

y e y

e

their peers. ack to their ree). There feedback to dents chose y in giving

hecklist in most of the

k checklist disagree.

b R c s g s F b. Students Thes Responding composition

stated that th given by the seen is the fi

igure 4.6 Stu

Figure 4.

s’ Perception

se eight fol to the sta ”, 26.5% of hey agreed. eir peer wer igure 4.8 bel

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% udents’ diffic

.7 The helpfu

n on the Be

llowing figu atement, “Yo

f the student It is clearly re useful to

low. % % % % 6.1% 57.1% 30.6 % % % % % 32.7% 65.3% 2

culty in givin

ulness of peer

nefits of Pee

ures present

Your peer p

ts stated tha seen that al their writing

6% 6.1%

%

2.0%_0.0%

g feedback t

r feedback ch

er Feedback

t the benef

rovides usef

at they stron ll of the stud g. This expl

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

o their peers

hecklist

k

fits of peer

eful feedbac

ngly agreed dents felt tha

lanation can y e y e s feedback.

ck in your

and 73.5% at feedback n be clearly

7 w s a d t “ Figur 71.4% chose

with your pe

students cou almost all o doing peer f the students “disagree”. (

Figure 4.9

Figure 4.8

re 4.9 show e “agree” w

eer”. The res uld not solve f the studen feedback (34 s chose “ag

(See figure 4

Students’ ab 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0%

8 The usefuln

ws that 16.3 with the state

st of the stud e their writin nts could lea

4.7% of the gree”). There

4.10)

bility to solve

26.5% 73.5% 0.0% % % % % % 16.3% 71.4% 12

ness of feedba

% of the stu ement: “You

dents (12.2% ng problems rn from thei students cho e were only

e their writin

%0.0%

%

2.2% 0.0%

ack given by

udents chose

u can solve y

%) chose “dis through pee ir peers’ mis ose “strongly y 2% of the

ng problem t

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree y peer e “strongly your writing sagree”. The er feedback. stakes when y agree” and e students w

hrough peer y e y e agree” and g problems

e rest of the Moreover, n they were d 63.3% of who chose

R p t t t s p o Figur Responding

peer”, 34.7% they agreed. their peer ab the statemen statement: “D peers in givi on teacher’s

Figure 4.10

re 4.11 indi to the state % of the stud . It is clearly bout writing nt. This resu

Doing peer f ing commen s feedback”.

Figure 4 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80

0 Students’ le

icates the st ement, “You

dents stated t y seen that a . Yet, 4.1% ult of the pe

feedback en nts on each o

It can be see

4.11 Student 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 34.7% 63 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 34.7% 6 earning from tudents’ mot are motiva

that they stro all of the stu of the stude ercentage wa

ncourages yo other’s draft

en in figure 4

ts’ motivation % 3.3% 2.0%_0.0% % 1.2% 4.1%_0.0%

m their peer’s

tivation to l

ated to learn

ongly agreed udents are m ents stated th as the same

ou to work c t of writing i

4.12.

n to learn fro

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Str Ag Ag Dis Str Dis s mistakes

learn from t

n something

d and 61.2% motivated to hat they disa e as the perc

cooperatively instead only

om their peer

y e y e rongly gree gree sagree rongly sagree their peers. from your

% stated that learn from agreed with centage for

y with your depending

o ( o a w f r a ( Figure 4 Figur of the studen (14.3% of th other hand, t and 2% of t were other b feedback in reading skill agreed with (See figure 4

4.12 Students

re 4.13 show nts considere he students c there were o the students

benefits tha their writin l by doing p

the stateme 4.14). Figure 4 0. 20. 40. 60. 80. 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% s’ encourage

ws the studen ed peer feed chose “stron only 4.1% of strongly di at the studen ng classes. A peer feedbac ents and 79.6

4.13 Student .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 28.6% 67 % % % % % 14.3% 79.6% 4

ement to wor

nts’ becomin dback made t

ngly agree” a f the students

sagreed with nts obtained All of the stu

ck. There we 6% of the stu

ts’ becoming .3% 4.1%0.0% % 4.1%_2.0% rk cooperativ ng independ them more i and 79,6% c s who disagr h the statem after the im udents could ere 20.4% o

udents agree more indepe Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly A Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

vely with thei

dent. There w ndependent chose “agree reed with the ment. In addi mplementati d improve th of the studen

ed with the s

endent

Agree

ir peer

were 93.9% as learners e”). On the e statement ition, there on of peer heir critical nts strongly statements.

p 6 d m F t s w s Figur peer feedbac 61.2% of st disagreed w mistakes by Figure 4.16.

teacher feed

strongly disa was quite h students agre

Figu

Figur

re 4.15 show ck. It can be tudents agre ith the statem

doing peer . Respondin

dback”, 38. agreed with high. Yet, 6 eed with the

ure 4.15 Stud

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 2 4 6 8

re 4.14 Stude

ws the stud e seen in the eed, 8.2% of ment. The m feedback. In ng to the sta 8% of the the statemen 6.1% of the e statements. dents’ aware % % % % % 20.4% 79.6% 0 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 30.6% 6 ents’ becomi dents’ aware e chart that 3

f the studen majority of t n contrast, th atement, “Pe

students di nts. This per students st

ness of maki

% 0.0%0.0% % 1.2% 8.2% 0.0%

ng more crit

eness of mak 30.6% of stu nts disagreed he students he various re

eer feedback

isagreed and rcentage of t trongly agre ing mistakes Strongly Ag Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Str Ag Ag Dis Str Dis tical king mistak udents strong

d and no on were aware esponses can

k needs less

d 2% of th the negative eed and 53.

through pee gree rongly gree gree sagree rongly sagree kes through gly agreed, ne strongly of making n be seen in

s time than

he students perception 1% of the

c f o M a y n Fig c. Students Figur feedback. Th of the studen Morover, it agree” and 6

your peer is

no one stron

Figur

gure 4.16 Stu

s’ Perception

re 4.17 prov here were 6 nts who cho was stated 67.3% of the

clear to you

ngly disagree

re 4.17 The

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% udents’ consi

n on Feedba

ves that mo .1% of the s ose agree. Th in figure 1 e students ch

u”. On the ot ed with the s

trustworthin % % % % 6.1% 53.1% 38 % % % % % % 6.1% 83.7% 1

ideration of d

ack from Th

ost of the st students wh he rest of the 18 that 6.1% hose “agree”

ther hand, 26 statement.

ness of the fe

% 8.8% 2.0% % 10.2% 0.0%

duration of p

heir Peer

tudents (89. o chose stro e students (1 % of the stu

” to the state 6.5% of the

edback given Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Strong Agree Agree Disagr Strong Disagr peer feedbac

.8%) trust th ongly agree

10.2%) chos udents chose ement: “Feed

students dis

n by peer

y e y e gly ree gly ree k heir peers’ and 83.7% se disagree. e “strongly dback from agreed and

s s s t s f t Neve statement (Y

students wh students cho there were 2 strongly disa

Fig

Figur for revision. the rest of th

Figure 4

ertheless, in

You are satis

ho are satisf ose “strongl 26.5%% of t

agreed with

ure 4.19 Stu

re 4.20 show It can be se he students (

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0%

4.18 The clea

Figure 4.19

sfied with yo

fied with th y agree” an the students

the statemen

udents’ satisf

ws the stude een in the ch

69.4%) agre % % % % % 6.1% 67.3% 26 % % % % % 2.0% 71.4% 26

arness of feed

9, the studen

ou peer's fee

he feedback nd 71.4% ch who disagre nt.

faction with t

ents’ consid hart that 30.6

eed with the

% 6.5% 0.0% % 6.5% 0.0%

dback given b

nts stated tha

edback). Th given by th hose “agree”

eed with the

the feedback

deration to in 6% of studen statement. A Strongly Agree Agree Disagre Strongly Disagre Strongly Agree Agree Disagre Strongly Disagre by peer

at they agree ere were 73 heir peers ( ”). On the o e statement a

k given by pe

nclude peers nts strongly All of the stu

y e y e y e y e

ed with the .4% of the (2% of the other hand, and no one

er

s' feedback agreed and udents used

t c g 8 d a a o their peers’ composition given by pe 81.6% of the

Figu

d. Students

Base after the imp agree” and 2 or “strongly

’ feedback ns. Moreover er on the wr e students ag

ure 4.20 Stu

The influen

s’ Perception

ed on Figure plementation 20.4% of th

disagree. A 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 100

as their c r, Figure 4.2 riting. There gree, and 2%

dents’ consid

nce of feedba

n on the Im

e 4.22, 100% n of peer fee e students c ll the studen

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.6% 69 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.3% 81 consideration 21 reveals h e were 16.3% % of the stude

deration to in

Figure 4 ack given by

mplementatio

% of the stud edback (79.6 chose “agree nts still expec

% 9.4% 0.0%0.0% % 1.6% 2.0%0.0%

n to revise how far the

% of the stu ents disagree

nclude peers

.21

peer on writ

on of Peer F

dents still ne 6% of the stu e”). Here, no

cted to have

Stro Agr Agr Dis Stro Dis

e their draf influence o udents strong

ed with the s

' feedback fo

ting improve

Feedback

eeded teache udents chose o one chose

teacher feed ongly ree ree sagree ongly sagree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

ft of their of feedback gly agreed, statement. or revision ment er feedback e “strongly “disagree” dback.

p c 4 t e q c Figur peer feedbac chose “stron 4.1% of the that peer fee

Figure 4.23

e. The resu

First question (Se counted int

Figure

re 4.23 pres ck in writing ngly agree” a students dis edback shoul

Students’ pr

ults of

open-ly, the resea ee Appendi to the perc

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0%

e 4.22 Stude

sents the stu g class. The and 57.1% o sagreed with ld be implem

reference on

-ended ques

archer made x 5). For n entage after % % % % % 79.6% 20.4 % % % % 38.8% 57.1% 4

ents’ need of

udents’ pref e results show

of the studen h the stateme mented n wri

the impleme class.

stions

e the raw dat number 26, r it was c

4%

0.0%0.0%

%

4.1%_0.0%

teacher feed

ference on t wed that 38 nts chose “ag ent. Most of

iting class.

entation of p

ta of each q the raw da lustered as Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Disagre Strongly Disagre back the impleme 8.8% % of th gree”. There

the students

eer feedback

question in o ata of the r

positive o

e e y ee y ee entation of he students e were only s suggested

k in writing

open-ended results was or negative

comments. The students’ responses of the open-ended questions are presented as follows:

Table 4.1. The result of open-ended question of the questionnaire

Question Positive comments Negative comments

Please give comments on your experience in going peer feedback in writing!

34 (69.39%)

15 (30.61%)

Meanwhile, question number 27 (How should peer feedback be implemented in writing class?) deals with the suggestions from the students about the implementation of peer feedback. Hence, the responses cannot be counted into percentage since the answers are different each other. Analyzing the raw data, the researcher clusters some suggestions the students gave. The students suggested that peer feedback should be done before the composition would be submitted to the teacher. It should be done before teacher feedback. Therefore, the teacher should be involved in the process of peer feedback. They also suggested that in the process of peer feedback, the teacher should provide a kind of checklist to help them in correcting the composition. Additionally, they suggested that peer feedback should not be done in every assignment or every meeting.

2. Students’ Responses to the Peer Feedback Checklist

Measuring to what extent the students give peer feedback, the researcher used peer feedback checklist. The checklist consists of 7 questions. It is adapted from the work of Sokolik (2003). The entire questions are made to guide the students to give feedback to their peers. The result can be seen from the raw data of peer feedback checklist: (see Appendix 6).

a. Feedback on organization

The feedback on organization can be seen in students’ answers of question number 1 (Is the introduction effective? Explain your answer!) and number 6 ( Is the conclusion effective? Explain your answer!). There were two strategies that the students employed in giving feedback on organization. They provided comments on their peers’ introduction and conclusion. Most of the students even provided some suggestions on how to make effective introductions and logical conclusion in their compositions. Moreover, it was also found that in the first question, the percentage of the students who gave clear explanation whether the introduction is effective was quite high namely 83.7% and 93.9% for the conclusion.

b. Feedback on content

The students’ answer of question number 2 (What is the writer’s main idea?), number 3 (Does the writer support that idea with evidence? What is that evidence?), number 4 (What evidence is missing, or incomplete?), number 5 (What questions do you have about this composition?) revealed that students could give peer feedback on content area of the composition. The students were able to provide some comments and suggestions on how to support the argument based on logical facts and evidences. They also provided additional factual information to support their peer’s idea or arguments. It could be seen in the high percentage of the students who gave clear information and explanation on their feedback. in addition, it could be seen that there were 100% of the students who gave clear feedback on question number 2, 61.2% of the students who gave clear

Respondents Feedback 17 - National exam should be abolish: it should be national

exam should be abolished

- Government. It should be government - Incrase. It should be increase

- Achieve. It should be echieve

- Nearly 65% of students in Indonesia failed the national exam. It should be nearly 65% of students in Indonesia fail the national exam

18 National exam become Æ becomes Some of the material Æ materials Goverment Æ government 19 Grammar:

didn’t Æ don’t is not Æ are not

just given Æ are just given got failed Æ get fail failed Æ fail

we can’t use “and” at the beginning of the sentence 20 People surrounding them Æ people around them

21 Yes. example:

- Smoking can make their age to be shorter - It causes to have miscarriage

22 Theirself Æ themselves Nicotine can makes Æ make If it touch us Æ touches We spent Æ spend 23 Yes, I do.

- …senior high school also Æ also senior high school - Many students in Indonesia got stress Æ many

students in Indonesia get stress

- …the syllabus that teacher has been given (without full stop) Æ the syllabus that teacher has been given. - Developt Æ develop

24 Like this Æ like that thing Smoke of cigarette Æ from Have Æ get

Just for relax Æ just for relaxing Who smoking Æ smoking 25 Yes, I do.

- The first reasons, etc Æ the first reason - Planting tress is Æ planting trees are

26 No errors

27 No grammar is error according to me.

28 I think there is no mistakes in the grammar, spelling. 29 No. The grammar is very perfect.

86

 

Respondents Feedback 30 - FB is very useful if we right to use and FB is very

unuseful if we wrong ti use Æ FB is very useful if we use it right way and useless if we use it wrong way..? 31 - We can start movement to save our world with small

thing that is tree planting. Æ by tree planting

- The oxygen can make our air become fresh Æ the oxygen can make our air fresh

32 Paragraph 3.

- Trees needs carbondioxyde for photosynthesis Æ trees need or tree needs…

- Carbondioxyde Æ carbondioxide

33 - With our old friend, relatives Æ with our old friend and relatives

- What do you choose citizenry or citizen? Pelase be consistent

34 - Two different persons - but Æ however

- is no problem Æ isn’t a problem - happens Æ happened

- get Æ gets - married Æ marry

- the relationship… Æ a bad relationship of the couple and their society

35 In paragraph 2

- the husbands usually don’t divide it unjustly Æ the husbands usually divide it unjustly

- he will hive his wife to manage Æ he will give the trust to his wife to manage

- in their marriage such as… Æ in their marriage, such as..

In paragraph 3

- it makes most of the wives become feeling uncomfortable Æ it make most of the wives become uncomfortable

- with justness Æ justly In paragraph 4

- Many wives who this polygamy will have Æ many wives who in this polygamy will have

In paragraph 5

- ..and for accompanying him for life Æ to accompany him for life

- That Æ if 36 -

Respondents Feedback 38 a. Several function Æ several functions

b. Tree absorb it Æ tree absorbs it c. Change…become Æ change…into d. Will decreases Æ will decrease

e. Prevent it become flood Æ prevent the flood f. There is a flood Æ the flood happened

g. The water has to pass tree Æ the water pass the tree 39 I think you have good.

40 …unofficial marriage should be ban because… Æ ……unofficial marriage should be banned…

41 1. Why we should be plant tree Æ why we should plant tree?

2. Many trees in the earth have been taken more for their need Æ have been taken more than they need

3. So, in the earth has not had protection Æ so, in the earth doesn’t have protection

4. Sun is direct to penerat Æ sun is directed to penerat 5. …to penerat some reasons Æ …to penerat. There are

some reasons…

6. The first reason is tree… Æ The first reason is that tree…

7. The second reason is the tree… Æ The second reason is that tree…

8. To happen Æ to happened

9. The third reason is most important Æ The third reason is the most important…

10. So, we must be care with our environment Æ so, we must care our environment

42 - 43 Yes, I do.

Par 1.

- Dificult Æ difficult

- Par 2, 3, 4. The reason is that the Æ the reason is the..

44 Par 1.

Trees is… Æ tree are/ tree is …is decreasing Æ are decreasing Par 2

Will be lost Æ will lose

45 - Unofficial marriage is increase Æ is increasing - …marriage for may reason, Æ for many reasons - There are many reason Æ many reasons

88

 

Respondents Feedback 46 Par 1. Nastional Æ National

Par 2. If Par 3. On Æ in

Par 4. Depends Æ depend Par 4. Depend Æ depends

47 - It make students Æ it makes - Chunning Æ cunning - It damage Æ it damages - They thinks Æ they think

- They will cheat in each other Æ They will cheat each other

- Students feels Æ students feel

- Goverment should be abolished UAN Æ government should abolish

48 - Environmen Æ Environment

- Which isn’t has Æ which doesn’t have - The global warming can be reduce Æ reduced

49 In that story, the writer always writes a little word (huruf kecil) as a beginning of sentence. I think it is false.

vii ABSTRACT

Rohmah, Farida Noor. 2010. Students’ Perception toward Peer Feedback in

Writing Class. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Sanata

Dharma University.

In process of writing, revision plays an important role. In order to have an effective revision, students need feedback from their readers. In writing classes, commonly feedback is from the teacher. Meanwhile, depending feedback only from the teacher will lead the students to be dependent learners. In fact, feedback can be obtained from the students namely peer feedback which direct them to be more independent as learners. This research deals with the use of peer feedback in writing class. The researcher formulates two problem formulations in this research. The first problem is what the students’ perception toward peer feedback in writing class and the second problem is to what extent the students give peer feedback.

Thus, the researcher employed survey research which was conducted on the beginning of May 2010. The participants of this research were the students of the two Paragraph Writing classes academic year 2009/2010 at English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University. Gathering the data, the researcher used a set of questionnaire as well as peer feedback checklist. The questionnaire was used to gather students’ opinion of a list of questions about the use of peer feedback in writing class. Meanwhile, the peer feedback checklist was set to gather information about to what extent the students give peer feedback.

Based on the data analysis, it was found that the students gained positive perception toward peer feedback in writing class. This answer was proved by the value of the degree of agreements that frequently occurred were “strongly agree” and “agree” in the questionnaire. Only a small part of the students had negative perception toward peer feedback in writing class. Dealing with the second problem, the result showed that the students could provide useful feedback for their peers on organization area, content area, language use area, vocabulary area, and mechanic area. The students even provided some suggestions to their peers related to the composition to improve the quality of the composition. There were only a few students who did not provide clear explanation or suggestion about feedback they gave in their peers’ compositions

In summary, students gave positive perception toward peer feedback in writing class. Most of the students agreed that peer feedback is beneficial to be applied in writing class. Students also could provide feedback for their peers on organization area, content area, language use area, vocabulary area, and mechanic area. Some suggestions to improve the implementation of peer feedback in writing class were presented.

viii ABSTRAK

Rohmah, Farida Noor. 2010. Students’ Perception toward Peer Feedback in

Writing Class. Yogyakarta: Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris,

Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Dalam proses menulis, revisi mempunyai peranan penting. Untuk merevisi tulisan dengan efektif, mahasiswa membutuhkan umpan balik dari pembacanya. Dalam kelas Writing, pada umumnya umpan balik selalu diberikan oleh dosen. Padahal, ketergantungan pada umpan balik dari dosen dapat mengarahkan mahasiswa menjadi tidak mandiri. Pada kenyataannya, umpan balik bisa didapatkan dari sesame mahasiswa atau yang disebut dengan peer feedback. Penelitian ini melingkupi penggunaan umpan balik antar teman dalam kelas Writing. Peneliti merumuskan dua permasalahan dalam penelitian ini. Masalah yang pertama yaitu persepsi apakah yang dimiliki mahasiswa terhadap penggunaan umpan balik abtar teman dalam kelas Writing. Masalah yang kedua adalah sampai seberapa jauhkah mahasiswa memberikan umpan balik kepada temannya dalam karangan mereka.

Maka dari itu, peneliti menggunakan metode survei yang dimulai pada awal Mei 2010. Responden penelitian ini adalah mahasiswa dua kelas Paragraph Writing tahun ajaran 2009/2010 di Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma. Untuk mendapatkan data penelitian ini, peneliti menggunakan dua instrumen penelitian yaitu kuisioner dan peer feedback checklist. Kuisoner digunakan untuk mengetahui pendapat mahasiswa tentang peer feedback. Sementara itu, peer feedback checklist didesain untuk mengetahui seberapa jauh mahasiswa memberikan peer feedback.

Berdasarkan analisa dari data yang didapatkan, peneliti menemukan bahwa mahasiswa memiliki persepsi yang positif terhadap penggunaan umpan balik antar teman did lam kelas Writing. Ini dibuktikan dengan banyaknya mahasiswa yang menjawab “sangat setuju” dan “setuju” dalam merespon pernyataan dalam kuisioner. Mayoritas mahasiswa sejutu bahwa umpan balik antar teman menguntungkan untuk diterapkan di dalam kelas Writing. menjawab permasalahan yang kedua, peneliti menemukan bahwa mahasiswa dapat memberikan umpan balik kepada teman dalam lingkup organisasi, isi, bahasa, perbendaharaan kata, dan mekanika penulisan. Kebanyakan mahasiswa bahkan memberikan saran kepada teman terkait dengan tulisan mereka agar tulisan mereka dapat lebih berkualitas. Hanya sebagian kecil dari mahasiswa yang tidak memberikan penjelasan yang jelas tentang umpan balik meraka.

Pada intinya, mahasiwa mempunyai persepsi yang positif terhadap penggunaan peer feedback dalam kelas Writing. Mahasiswa juga dapat memberikan umpan balik kepada teman dalam lingkup organisasi, isi, bahasa, perbendaharaan kata, dan mekanika penulisan. Akhirnya, beberapa usulan juga disampaikan dalam studi ini untuk meningkatkan kualitas penerapan peer feedback di kelas Writing.