STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS ON PEER FEEDBACK IN WRITING A Thesis

  STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS ON PEER FEEDBACK

  IN WRITING A Thesis

  Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education

  By RINA

  Student Number: 021214073

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

  A Sarjana Pendidikan Thesis on

  

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS ON PEER FEEDBACK IN WRITING

  Prepared and Presented by RINA

  Student Number: 02 121 4073 Approved by:

  Date

  th F. X. Ouda Teda Ena, S.Pd., M.Pd.

  10 February 2007 Major Sponsor

  th Made Yulia, S.Pd., M.Pd.

  10 February 2007 A Sarjana Pendidikan Thesis on

  

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS ON PEER FEEDBACK IN WRITING

  By RINA

  Student Number: 021214073 Defended before the Board of Examiners on 21

  st

  March 2007 and Declared Acceptable

  

Board of Examiners

Chairman : A. Hardi Prasetyo, S.Pd., M.A.

  Secretary : Drs. P. G. Purba, M.Pd. Member : F. X. Ouda Teda Ena, S.Pd., M.Pd. Member : Made Frida Yulia, S.Pd., M.Pd. Member : C. Tutyandari, S.Pd., M.Pd.

  Yogyakarta, 21

  st

  March 2007 Faculty of Teachers Training and Education Sanata Dharma University Dean,

  

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY

  I honestly declare that the thesis I wrote does not contain the works or part of the works of other people, except those cited in the quotations and the references, as a scientific paper should.

  

st

  Yogyakarta, 21 March 2007 The writer

  RINA 021214073 I dedicate this piece of work to

My late father, mother, my sister Rini,

and Dedik

  Nothing is more blessed than having a little family on earth, it doesn’t have to be rich to buy a real estate but warm enough to be the shelter of days and nights.

  There is no greater motivation but you.

  

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

  After the completion of this little piece of hard work, I would like to thank to God for His blessing, for His love and guidance and for the strength He has given me. My deepest gratitude goes to my major sponsor F. X. Ouda Teda Ena,

  

S.Pd., M.Pd. for his guidance, suggestions and help and to my co-sponsor Made

Frida Yulia, S.Pd., M.Pd. for her willingness to spend her time reading my

  thesis patiently, her carefulness in correcting my drafts in details, and her advice as well as her encouragement from the beginning of the research until the accomplishment of this thesis.

  I would like to express my thankfulness to C. Tutyandari, S.Pd., M.Pd. who gave some beneficial criticism when I was having my thesis defense, Dr.

  

Retno Muljani, M.Pd. who was willing to assist and keep motivating me when I

  failed in conducting my research for the first time and to Theresia Astanti

  

Rorik, S.Pd., M.Ed., who gave me permission to conduct my research in her

Writing classes and her valuable inputs for my thesis.

  I am very grateful to my beloved parents, Bapak and Mamah, for their endless care, support, and encouragement during my study and my dearly loved sister, Rini, who lent a hand when I had to deal with the data calculation and kept motivating me with her ceaseless inspiring words. I also give my sincere thanks to Dedik for his loyal company when I was downhearted with the thesis completion, his unending encouraging words, and his help to make anything possible to be available whenever and wherever I needed.

  My thankfulness also goes to my best friends, Ajeng, Ciplux who helped to keep struggling for my thesis and Ayu who spare her time earnestly in spite of her busy time to do editing. I thank to Eko “bebex” for converting the thesis file into PDF. I thank to my PBI friends Gede ‘genjix’, Dani, Linda, Adesti, Tyas

  

‘pow-pow’, Lisa, Rumi ‘tumi’, Santi, Woro, Haryana, Vivin, for their

  companionship full of sadness, happiness, tear and laughter. For EME’s occupants Mas Aga, Bita, Grace, Nathan, Melly, Mba Iik, and Mba Nita and other beloved EME’s friends I finally give the last thanks but not least. You were “the entertainers” of my heart. Never have I been as comfortable as when I am at home.

  RINA

  

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  8 1. Feedback ………………………………………………….

  f. Forms of Feedback …………………………………………

  16

  e. Types of Feedback …………………………………………

  14

  d. Purposes of Feedback ………………………………………

  13

  9 c. Functions of Feedback ……………………………………..

  8 b. Sources of Feedback ……………………………………….

  8 a. Definition of Feedback ……………………………………..

  8 A. Theoretical Description …………………………………...

  TITLE PAGE …………………………………………………..................... i PAGES OF APPROVAL …………………………………………………... ii STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY …………………………….. iv DEDICATION PAGE ……………………………………………………… v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………………………………………………... vi TABLE OF CONTENTS …………………………………………………... vii LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………………... xi LIST OF TABLES …………………………………………………………. xiii ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………….. xiv

  6 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………………………

  5 F. Definition of Terms ……………………………………….

  4 E. Benefits of the Study ……………………………………...

  4 D. Objectives of the Study …………………………………..

  3 C. Problem Formulation ……………………………………..

  3 B. Problem Limitation ……………………………………….

  1 A. Background ……………………………………………….

  CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………

  

ABSTRAK …………………………………………………………………... xv

  17

  3. Perceptions ……………………………………………….

  b. Data Analysis ………………………………………………

  A. Conclusions ………………………………………………

  71 CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS …………………..

  70 B. Other Findings …………………………………………….

  b. Data Analysis ………………………………………………

  68

  a. Findings ……………………………………………………

  68

  66 3. The Implications of the Implementation of Peer Feedback ..

  63 2) Students’ Perceptions on Feedback from Peers …………..

  63 1) Students’ Perceptions on the Implementation ……………. of Peer Feedback

  b. Data Analysis ………………………………………………

  53

  52 a. Findings …………………………………………………...

  49 2. Students’ Perceptions on the Implementation of Peer …….. Feedback and the Feedback from Peers

  42

  24

  a. Findings ……………………………………………………

  42

  40 1. The Process of the Implementation of Peer Feedback ……..

  40 A. Research Findings and Data Analysis …………………….

  36 CHAPTER IV RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION …………….

  35 E. Data Analysis Techniques ………………………………..

  33 D. Data Gathering Techniques ……………………………….

  32 C. Research Instruments ……………………………………..

  31 B. Research Participants ……………………………………..

  31 A. Methods …………………………………………………..

  29 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY …………………………………………

  28 B. Theoretical Framework …………………………………...

  25 b. Relationship between Perceptions, Learning and Thinking ..

  a. Factors Influencing Perceptions ……………………………

  73 REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………...

  78 APPENDICES ……………………………………………………………...

  81 APPENDIX 1 OBSERVATION SHEET …………………………………..

  82 APPENDIX 2 QUESTIONNAIRE ………………………………………...

  84 APPENDIX 3 QUESTIONNAIRE BLUEPRINT …………………………

  89 APPENDIX 4 INTERVIEW BLUEPRINT ………………………………..

  91 APPENDIX 5 RAW DATA FROM THE OBSERVATION ………………

  93 APPENDIX 6 RAW DATA FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRE ……………

  98 APPENDIX 7 RAW DATA FROM THE INTERVIEW ………………….. 103 APPENDIX 8 CHECKLISTS ……………………………………………… 117 APPENDIX 9 THE LIST OF STUDENTS’ MARKS …………………….. 130 APPENDIX 10 RESEARCH CALENDAR ……………………………….. 142

  LIST OF FIGURES

  Figures Page

  1 The Relationship of Learning and Thinking in the Complex Process of Perceptions …………………………………………..

  28 2 The Frequency of Giving Corrections …………………………..

  44

  3 The Frequency of Giving Comments and Suggestions …………

  44

  4 The Students’ Confidence in Giving Feedback …………………

  45 5 The Students’ Activeness in Asking Clarification ……………...

  45 6 The Students’ Feeling Free in Having Peer Feedback ………….

  46

  7 The Students’ Ability to Solve the Writing Problems with Their Peers …………………………………………………………….

  46

  8 The Students’ Feeling Difficulty in Doing Correction …………

  47

  9 The Students’ Convenience on the System of the Implementation of Peer Feedback ………………………………

  47

  10 The Time Sufficiency of the Implementation of Peer Feedback in Class ………………………………………………………….

  47 11 The Helpfulness of Checklist …………………………………...

  48 12 Students’ Learning from Their Peers’ Mistakes ………………..

  54 13 How Challenging Peer Feedback for the Students ……………...

  54

  14 Students’ Being Able to Gain More Knowledge from Their Peers …………………………………………………………….

  55

  15 The Students’ Ability to Clarify Their Writing …………………

  55 16 Students’ Becoming Independence ……………………………..

  55 17 Students’ Becoming More Critical ……………………………...

  56 18 The Students’ Motivation to Learn from Their Peers …………..

  56

  19 Students’ Awareness of Making Mistakes ……………………...

  57 20 Students’ Learning How to Appreciate Others’ Work ………….

  58 21 Students’ Enthusiasm of Doing Peer Feedback ………………...

  58

  22 General Perceptions of the Students in Each Level on the Implementation of Peer Feedback ………………………………

  59 23 The Benefit of Feedback Given by Peers ……………………….

  60 24 The Clearness of Feedback Given by Peers …………………….

  60

  25 The Satisfaction of the Students with the Feedback Given by Peers …………………………………………………………….

  61

  26 Students’ Attention to Feedback Given by Peers ………………

  61

  27 Students’ Consideration to Include Feedback Given by Peers for Revision …………………………………………………………

  62

  28 The Influence of Feedback Given by Peers on Writing Improvement ……………………………………………………

  62

  29 The Students’ Preference on the Implementation of Peer Feedback ………………………………………………………..

  68

  30 The Students’ Preference on the Implementation of Peer Feedback to Every Assignment …………………………………

  69 31 The Students’ need for Teacher Feedback ……………………...

  69

  LIST OF TABLES

  Tables Page

  1 The Results of the Questionnaire of the Process of the Implementation of Peer Feedback ………………………………..

  37

  2 The Results of the Questionnaire of the Students’ Perceptions on the Implementation of Peer Feedback and Feedback Derived from Peers ………………………………………………………………

  38

  3 The Results of the Questionnaire of the Implications of Implementation of Peer Feedback ………………………………..

  39 4 The Results of the Interview ……………………………………...

  39

  5 The Results of the Observation of the Implementation of Peer Feedback ………………………………………………………….

  42

  

ABSTRACT

  Rina. 2007. Students’ Perceptions on Peer Feedback in Writing. Yogyakarta: English Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.

  In writing classes, commonly feedback is from the teachers. Meanwhile, obtaining feedback only from teachers will lead the students to be spoon-fed learners. In fact, feedback can also be from students so called peer feedback, which might direct them to be independent learners. Hence, the researcher focused on discovering how peer feedback was implemented, the students’ perceptions on peer feedback after its implementation and the students’ perceptions on the feedback given by peers, and the implications of the implementation of peer feedback.

  The respondents of this descriptive study were the fourth semester students in the academic year of 2005/2006. They were taken from two Writing

  IV classes at the English Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta. The instruments used were observation, questionnaire and interview. The questionnaire items dealing with students’ perceptions were discussed separately according to the students’ rank of mark which was above average, average, and below average. The interview was also done based on the stratified sampling. The researcher chose three respondents of each class who constantly obtained above average marks, average ones, and below average ones in their assignments and tests. It was aimed to know the perceptions of the students who had different rank of marks.

  The first data were gathered through observation for one semester. Afterward, the researcher collected the second data by distributing questionnaire sheets to all students. Having collected the questionnaire sheets, the researcher analyzed them. Finally, the researcher took some respondents to be interviewed based on the sampling.

  There were two different procedures of how peer feedback was carried out. Peer feedback was done in class and at home. There were 86%, 88%, and 82% of the students from above average, average, and below average levels having good perceptions on the implementation of peer feedback. For those who were in the above average level, peer feedback was a challenge to teach their friends who had weaknesses in grammar. Meanwhile, those who were in the average and below average levels regarded peer feedback as a means of sharing to make work better. Yet, the above-averaged students considered the discussion within peer feedback a one way discussion since if they found difficulty in grammar they did not seem to have any courage to ask other students who were below their level. Besides, most students said that the procedures were not various and the checklist kept persisting in the same format. Moreover, the students in all level considered feedback given by peers beneficial. Yet, the above-averaged students tended to select the feedback given by other students. In contrast, the students who were in the average and below average levels tended to use the feedback more often to revise their assignments. In summary, there were 89% of the students agreed that peer feedback should be applied in writing class since it gave them some benefits. However, it should not be carried out in every

  

ABSTRAK

  Rina. 2007. Students’ Perceptions on Peer Feedback in Writing. Yogyakarta: Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

  Pada umumnya, di kelas Writing, koreksi selalu diberikan oleh dosen. Padahal pemberian koreksi secara terus-menerus oleh dosen dapat mengarahkan mahasiswa menjadi tidak mandiri. Pada kenyataannya, koreksi pun bisa diberikan oleh teman yang disebut peer feedback, dimana mahasiswa bisa dilatih untuk menjadi mahasiswa yang mandiri. Oleh karena itu, peneliti bermaksud untuk mencari tahu bagaimana peer feedback dilaksanakan, persepsi mahasiswa tentang pelaksanaan peer feedback dan hasil koreksi itu sendiri dan akibat adanya pelaksanaan peer feedback tersebut.

  Responden penelitian deskriptif ini adalah mahasiswa semester empat yang di ambil dari dua kelas mata kuliah Writing IV di jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Universitas Sanata Dharma Yogyakarta tahun akademik 2005/2006. Instrumen yang digunakan adalah observasi, kuesioner, dan wawancara. Pertanyaan dalam kuesioner yang berhubungan dengan persepsi akan dibahas menurut tingkat nilai, yaitu diatas rata-rata, rata-rata, dan dibawah rata-rata. Wawancara juga dilakukan sesuai dengan sampling bertingkat. Peneliti mengambil tiga orang dari setiap kelas yang konsisten mendapat nilai diatas rata- rata, rata-rata, dan dibawah rata-rata pada tugas harian dan tes mereka. Hal ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui persepsi mahasiswa di tingkat nilai yang berbeda.

  Data pertama diambil melalui pengamatan selama satu semester. Kemudian, data kedua diambil melaui kuesioner. Setelah kuesioner di kumpulkan, peneliti menganalisanya. Akhirnya, peneliti mengambil beberapa responden berdasarkan sampling bertingkat untuk diwawancara.

  Ada dua cara yang berbeda tentang bagaimana Peer feedback dilakukan.

  

Peer feedback dilakukan di kelas dan dirumah. Ada 86%, 88%, dan 82%

  mahasiswa dari tingkat nilai diatas rata-rata, rata-rata, dan dibawah rata-rata yang mempunyai persepsi bagus terhadap pelaksanaan peer feedback. Mereka yang nilainya diatas rata-rata menganggap bahwa peer feedback adalah suatu tantangan untuk membantu mereka yang mempunyai kelemahan di dalam tata bahasa. Sedangkan mereka yang nilainya rata-rata dan dibawah rata-rata menganggap bahwa peer feedback adalah media diskusi agar hasil tugas menjadi lebih baik. Tetapi, mahasiswa yang berada diatas rata-rata, peer feedback hanya bersifat searah karena jika mereka menemui kesulitan dalam tata bahasa, mereka tidak berani untuk bertanya pada mahasiwa yang berada di tingkat rata-rata dan dibawah rata-rata. Selain itu, prosedur peer feedback dan checklistnya terkesan monoton. Semua mahasiswa menganggap bahwa koreksi dari teman bermanfaat. Tetapi, mahasiswa diatas rata-rata cenderung memilih koreksi yang diberikan teman untuk merevisi. Sedangkan mereka yang rata-rata dan dibawah rata-rata cenderung untuk menggunakan semua koreksi dari teman mereka untuk merevisi. Kesimpulannya, 89% mahasiwa setuju jika peer feedback dilaksanakan di kelas

  

Writing karena bermanfaat. Namun, peer feedback tidak harus dilakukan setiap

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This chapter is to provide background information related to the subject

  matter being explored and analyzed, present the motivation why the researcher intends to conduct the research on the subject matter, and the general aims of conducting the research.

A. Background

  Ayken (2004) states that making errors is a natural and unavoidable feature of learning a language. The approach that the teacher adopts towards errors is very important in terms of turning this natural process into a beneficial feature for learners. Learners need to receive feedback as a reflection in order that they will not make those errors for the second time. Writing, one of the English skills, requires students to experience trial and error process in obtaining a qualified writing product. Accordingly, the use of feedback in writing is essential to improve the learners’ skills in writing.

  Feedback can be obtained in many ways by teacher feedback, peer feedback and self evaluation. In writing class, commonly, the feedback is from the teacher’s corrections. In fact, the teachers may use another source of feedback. Kessler, Quinn, and Fathman (1992: 68) find the following:

  “Learning often takes place best when students can express idea and get feedback from their peers. Feedback, to be most useful, needs to be more than just correct answer. Rather, it needs to be analytical or suggestive of other ways of thinking. … Current second language learning research emphasizes the value of peer correction and interaction. … Peer feedback in When the students are involved in giving feedback to their friends, it gives them more responsibility for their learning. It allows them to think for themselves as learning from mistakes is a valuable part of the language learning process.

  However, based on the researcher’s experience, the lecturers teaching Writing at the English Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University did not adopt peer feedback as an alternative of giving feedback to their students.

  Instead, they tended to use only teacher feedback which might lead the students to be spoon-fed students. In addition, the students even did not know where to start to revise the composition since they were confused with the comments given by the teachers. Sometimes, the students were dissatisfied when they were not able to defend their own opinions so that they were forced to follow what the teachers suggested, whereas their opinions might be better than the teachers’.

  Keh (1990), as quoted by Wang Xiang (2004: 238), says that a large quantity of researches have been carried out to investigate the effects of feedback, especially teacher feedback on revision and writing quality (e.g. Ferris 1995 & 1997). It has been established through these studies that teacher feedback is helpful for students to improve their compositions. Nevertheless, some studies (e.g. Hyland (2000), Muncie (2000), Leki (1990)) show that the traditional way in which teachers make comments on the students’ drafts is not effective in improving students’ writing.

  More studies come from Marzano and Arthur (1997 in Cohen (1990: 110)) who found that students did not read the teachers’ written comments and did not Cohen (1990: 110)) who found that 20% of the students paid little or no attention to the written feedback that they received from their teachers on the last compositions that they had written.

  Teacher feedback, indeed, can provide students with greater meaningful language inputs. Hence, students are facilitated to learn new terms and words (Lewis, 2004: 4). In spite of it, Rollinson (2005: 25) remarks that the students lack enthusiasm in revising their papers because perhaps there are many deficiencies in the written comments of teachers. The comments might have been critized as being unspecific, incomprehensible, contradictory, inconsistent, inaccurate, meaningless to the students, vague, not detailed, and abstract.

  Thus, considering the problems, peer feedback through peer correction might be an alternative for teachers. Peer feedback reflects cooperative learning which requires the students to listen to each other, to ask questions, and to consider the partners’ feeling in developing a product together. Through peer feedback, the students who correct their friends’ drafts can spend much more time to check the drafts than the teachers who are often busy to check all the drafts.

  Besides, the writers can receive immediate feedback from their peers. This situation may create a relaxed atmosphere to the students since they and their peers are equal. Hence, if a student does not agree with the comments of his peer, he could reject it without feeling afraid and he is able to maintain his opinions within his writing. In contrast, the teachers sometimes give authoritative comments which make the students unable to defend their own text.

  A. Problem Limitation

  As feedback can be a means to turn a natural process of making errors into a beneficial feature for learners to gain knowledge, it is, indeed, essential to the writing process. Thus, this study focused on the students’ perceptions on the implementation of peer feedback in Writing IV classes at English education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta and the feedback which was given by peers, and the implications of the implementation of peer feedback.

  B. Problem Formulation

  Based on the problem limitation, this study would attempt to answer:

  1. How was the implementation of peer feedback in Writing IV classes?

  2. What were the students’ perceptions on the implementation of peer feedback and the feedback given by peers in Writing IV classes?

  3. What were the implications of the implementation of peer feedback? C.

   Objectives of the Study

  The purpose of this study was to figure out the answers to the questions presented in the problem formulation. In this study, first, the researcher explained the procedures of the implementation of peer feedback in Writing IV classes. Second, the researcher was eager to know the students’ perceptions on peer feedback after its implementation and the feedback given by peer in Writing IV classes. Third, the researcher tried to figure out the implications of the implementation of peer feedback.

D. Benefits of the Study

  In general, the researcher hopes that the results of this study could give some valuable contributions to all the educational communities, especially at the English Education Study Program.

  Hopefully, writing lecturers may consider using not only teacher feedback but also peer feedback in their writing class as they would be able to see the students work cooperatively with their partners which will possibly lead to improve their learning in writing. The teachers should realize that learning a language cannot be apart from interaction of one learner to another learner since a truly learning is learning by doing.

  For the students, they should be able to be independent learners. They are supposed to reduce their dependence on their lecturers since if they depend much on them, they will not be able to improve their skills in writing. They are hoped to apply the knowledge of how to write well from their teachers. One of the ways to know whether they can apply their skills in writing is to involve them in a truly circle of learning, not only as listeners and receivers but also as “teachers” for themselves and helpers for their friends. Thus, through this study, the researcher expects that the students in writing classes will be encouraged and enthusiastic to utilize peer feedback considering the benefits that they can obtain.

  Finally, for the future researchers, the researcher hopes that this study could give them inspiration to conduct further research on peer feedback or other topics

E. Definition of Terms 1. Perception

  In Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary (Hornby, 1995: 859), perception is defined as a way of seeing, understanding or interpreting something. In Collins

  

Co-build English Dictionary for Advances Learners (Sinclair, 2001: 1142),

  perception is the way you think about it or the impression you have of it. More to the point, Altman, Valenzi, and Hodgetts (1985: 85) state that perception is the way stimuli are selected and grouped by a person so that they can be meaningfully interpreted. In other words, perception is a person’s view of reality.

  Based on both definitions, the researcher might come to a conclusion that each person has different point of view when he / she is experiencing an occasion or observing an object. These points of view might direct further influence on their thought and feeling about what they have seen and experienced and lead to an occurrence of any dissimilar responses and changes in behaviors or attitudes.

  Related to this study, perception is what the students are thinking and feeling about something that they have experienced, which in this case is peer feedback in writing class.

2. Peer Feedback

  Peer feedback is the process by which students exchange constructive criticism on their work to help each other, edit and hone their critical reading, feedback is a technique to give information of suggestions, comments, and error corrections derived from one-to-one consultation between student and student in pairs by using checklists which contain some guiding questions.

  Tiedt (1989: 188) says that in writing, the students learn how to write by writing and they also learn how to write by reading. They learn how to write by reading the writing of their peers. From the statement, the researcher concludes that this technique will create interaction between students who are checking the draft and the students whose drafts are being checked. The interaction provides feedback which is expected to be beneficial for both sides. The learners can learn more about writing from the interaction since they see the ideas from other students and how the ideas are developed. Moreover, the students may gain benefits from the questions and suggestions from their peers.

3. Writing IV

  Based on Buku Panduan Akademik (2002: 82) of the English Education Study Program, Writing IV is a course which requires the students to have basic understanding of the nature, function and types of business correspondence, understand and produce various types of business correspondence. As the goals stated formerly, Writing IV focuses on developing writing skills by applying a number of writing techniques / styles in writing formal letters, such as business correspondence, memos and reports, employment and job-related letters.

  Before taking Writing IV, students are required to fulfill the prerequisite. They have to pass Writing I, II, and III courses which put emphasis on

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW There are two parts discussed in this chapter. They are theoretical

  description and theoretical framework. In the theoretical description, the researcher discusses some theories and research studies which are relevant to the topic. In the theoretical framework, the researcher relates the theories to the study.

A. Theoretical Description

1. Feedback

a. Definition of Feedback There are many definitions of feedback introduced by many psychologists.

  As quoted by Berewot (2001: 17), Gagne (1961) presents that feedback is the closing of a ‘loop’ in the learning process which serves to fix the learning result and make it permanently available. It means that as the students have already accomplished their learning, they need corrections, criticisms, or even appreciation from any other sources to assess their learning result. More to the point, Kauchack and Eggen (1989: 85) define that feedback is any information about current behavior that can be used to improve the future performance of the students. From those two definitions, it is clear enough to conclude that feedback is beneficial backwash provided for learners to improve their performance on

b. Sources of Feedback

  Lewis (2002: 15-23) writes that there are three sources of feedback, namely teacher feedback, peer feedback and self evaluation, which is equivalent to self- directed feedback.

1) Teacher Feedback

  In many classes teachers are the main source for the students to obtain feedback. Indeed, teachers are very helpful when students are facing some difficulties as they are writing a composition. Teachers help them by giving an outline of how to write well and check the content and the written mistakes.

  After receiving feedback, the students could directly re-check and correct what mistakes they have done based on the teachers’ red-pen correction.

  Commonly, teachers correct one by one student’s composition then discuss face to face with each student. It is called conferencing feedback. In addition, they might use another variation to give feedback to their students, for instance, collective feedback by commenting orally one by one and summarizing feedback on the board.

  Conferencing and collective feedback have their own strengths and weaknesses. In conferencing feedback, students will focus thoroughly on the teacher and they will not be shy since conferencing feedback is done only between one teacher and one student. However, teachers will face difficulties if the class is in a big number. The teachers should organize the time well so that each student may have a turn to have the consultation. Instead, to overcome this feedback. By conducting collective feedback, the teachers only provide some comments and errors commonly done by the students in general in front of the class and can save time as well. Yet, it still faces some further difficulties.

  By giving collective feedback, the teachers will not be able to identify the students who have made some errors so that the students will not acquire thorough explanation of their mistakes. Therefore, the students need to be active in looking at their own works to find the reasons for their marks. In fact, the students are usually reluctant to ask the teachers. The students are satisfied enough to know that their works are returned and not covered with depressing comments.

2) Peer Feedback

  It might be monotonous if the feedback only comes from the teachers in every writing class. The students should need another greater variety of suggestions. Proofreading other people’s work prepares the students for proofreading their own work. The students may also practice to be teachers for their friends. Therefore, they will probably feel secure since they are in their own friend circle and they will promote their own active learning.

  Peer feedback can reflect cooperative learning as it requires interaction between one student with another student. It fits with the concept of cooperative learning which emphasizes work collaboratively between or among students. Cooperative learning is part of a more general instructional approach also known as collaborative learning. Cooperative learning is an approach to teaching that learners in the classrooms. As cited by Richards and Rodgers (2003: 192), Olsen and Kagan (1992) define cooperative leaning as group learning activity that is organized so that learning is dependent on the social structure exchange information between learners in groups and in which each learner is held accountable for his or her own learning and is motivated to increase the learning of others. Additionally, cooperative learning offers a wide variety of techniques, strategies and considerations for teachers (Kessler, 1992: 3). In conclusion, peer feedback represents one of a wide variety of techniques offered by cooperative learning.

  Peer feedback with its potentially high level of response and interaction between reader and writer can encourage a collaborative dialogue in which two - way feedback is established and meaning is negotiated between two parties (Rollinson, 2005: 26). From the statement, the researcher sees the relationship between peer feedback and cooperative learning. In a classroom using peer feedback as the technique, the learners are the centre of the learning. By working cooperatively, the student will not only see his work from his perspective but also sees from another perspective through his peer. In this situation, they exchange information about their ideas, feeling, and needs.

  As a consequence, learning in groups tends to generate more ideas and expose different points of view. It benefits the learners to enrich their knowledge.

  One who does not know may ask someone who knows. They are taught how to work together in the classroom and learn how to be independent learners as the teaches the students to critically analyze their own writing and the writing of others.

  As Mcgroarty (1989) says in Kessler (1992: 3), peer feedback in writing gives opportunities to the students to act as resources for each other, thus assuming a more active role in their learning. It is clear that this statement clarifies that cooperative learning, indeed, gives opportunity to the learners to be more responsible for their own learning and the learning of others. The students may act as if they were teachers for their friends and for themselves. They are the centre so they are forced to be active. Therefore, the researcher concludes that in cooperative learning, the learners take roles as the sources and the information seekers.

  In peer feedback, they search the knowledge from their partners as well as share their knowledge and experiences to their partners. For instance, making mistakes in the past is one example of experience. As a result, from this experience students hopefully do not repeat the same mistakes as what they did previously. It is called experience as the basis for learning. Furthermore, cooperative learning is not only enriching knowledge by doing interactive activity, but also it is expected that from this knowledge the students can gain confidence. When they can hold their own confidence, they will possibly attain better academic achievement. If the learners, in fact, succeed to obtain a better achievement, they must realize that what they have done with their friends in the classroom is truly valuable. As a result, the students will not only value their thinking but also their friends’ thinking as well as the experiences during the