THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL.
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING
STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL
A Research Paper
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Sarjana Pendidikan Degree
By Listya Marianti
0902359
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
EDUCATION
INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION
2015
(2)
PAGE OF APPROVAL
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENTS’
DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL
By Listya Marianti
0902359
Bandung, August 2015 Approved by
Main Supervisor Co-Supervisor
Prof. Dr. Hj. Nenden Sri L., M. Pd. R. Della N. Kartika S.A., M.Ed. NIP. 195111241985032001 NIP. 197704142001122003
The Head of English Education Department Faculty of Language and Literature Education
Indonesia University of Education
Dr. Rd. Safrina Noorman, M. A. NIP. 196207291987032003
(3)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
ABSTRACT
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENTS’
DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL
Listya Marianti (0902359)
Main Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Hj. Nenden Sri Lengkanawati, M. Pd. Co-Supervisor: R. Della N. Kartika S. A., M. Ed.
This research aims to investigate whether or not peer feedback increases
students’ descriptive writing skill and to find out the responses of the students
toward the implementation of peer feedback technique. It employed a quasi experimental design, involving two classes consisting 70 second graders at one of Junior High Schools in Subang. The data were gathered from pre-test, post-test, and questionnaires. The obtained data were analyzed based on The Wechsler Objective Language Dimension (WOLD) proposed by Wechsler (2005). The result of statistical computation showed that peer feedback technique increases
students’ descriptive writing skill (tobt 2.554 > tcrit 2.000). Furthermore, most of the
students positively responded toward the implementation of peer feedback. In conlusion, peer feedback technique is able to increase students’ writing skill, especially in descriptive writing. However, to make an effective peer feedback process, it is important to pay attention on the intensive training which is given to the students before applying the peer feedback technique.
(4)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE OF APPROVAL... i
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION... ii
PREFACE... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT... iv
ABSTRACT... vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS... vii
LIST OF TABLE... x
LIST OF FIGURES... xi
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background... 1
1.2 Research Questions... 4
1.3 Aims of the Research... 4
1.4 Scope of the Research... 4
1.5 Significance of the Research... 5
1.6 Clarifification of Terms... 6
1.6.1 Feedback... 6
1.6.2 Peer Feedback... 6
1.7 Organization of the Paper... 6
CHAPTER II THEORITICAL FOUNDATION 2.1 Writing... 8
2.1.1 Definition of Writing... 8
2.1.2 The Process of Writing... 9
2.2 Feedback in Teaching Writing... 10
2.2.1 Definition of Feedback... 10
2.2.2 Purpose of Feedback... 11
(5)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
2.2.3.1 Definition of Peer Feedback... 12
2.2.3.2 The Procedure of Peer Feedback... 13
2,3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Peer Feedback... 16
2.4 Text Type... 18
2.4.1 Descriptive Text... 18
2.4.2 Generic Structures of Descriptive Text... 20
2.4.3 Characteristics of Descriptive Text... 20
2.5 Previous Research on Peer Feedback... 21
2.6 Concluding Remarks... 22
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research Design... 24
3.1.1 The Experimental Design... 24
3.1.2 The Variable... 25
3.2 Research Subject... 26
3.2.1 Population... 26
3.2.2 Sample... 27
3.3 Research Instrument... 27
3.4 Research Procedure... 29
3.4.1 Preparing the Lesson Plan... 29
3.4.2 Trying Out The Instruments by Conducting the Pilot Test... 29
3.4.3 Conducting the Pre-test... 29
3.4.4 Conducting the Training... 30
3.4.5 Conducting the Treatments... 30
3.4.6 Conducting the Post-test... 32
3.4.7 Administering the Questionnaires... 32
3.5 Data Analysis... 33
(6)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
3.5.2 Pilot Test Data Analysis... 34
3.5.3 Pre-test and Post-test Data Analysis... 34
3.5.3.1 Normality of Distribution Test... 35
3.5.3.1.1 Normality Distribution Test of Pre-test.... 36
3.5.3.1.2 Normality Distribution Test of Post-test.. 36
3.5.3.2 Homogeneity of Variance Test... 37
3.5.3.2.1 Homogeneity of Variance Test of Pre-test 37 3.5.3.2.2 Homogeneity of Variance Test of Post-test 38 3.5.3.3 T-test Calculation... 38
3.5.4 Data Analysis on Questionnaire... 39
CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Research Findings... 41
4.1.1 Pilot Test... 41
4.1.2 Pre-test Data Analysis... 42
4.1.2.1 The Independent T-test Computation... 42
4.1.3 Post-test Data Analysis... 44
4.1.3.1 The Independent T-test Computation... 44
4.1.4 The Result of Questionnaire... 46
4.2 Discussion... 52
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 5.1 Conclusions... 56
5.2 Suggestions... 57
5.3 Limitation of the Research……… 58
REFERENCES... 59 APPENDIXES
(7)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter is about the introduction of the research, including background of the research, research questions, aims of the research, scope of the research, significance of the research, clarification of terms, and organization of the paper.
1.1. Background
Writing has been proved as language activity that helps the students to create the logical competent, which is the ability to solve problems through complex linguistic and cognitive ability such as organizing, structuring, and revising (Alwasilah and Alwasilah, 2005: 134). In the Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1984: 666), it is stated that an educated person is a person who has the ability to read and write. However, many students think that writing is something difficult to learn. It is supported by Alwasilah (2005) who declares that teachers and students consider writing as the most difficult skill to teach and learn. Of the four language skills, writing skill, for a long time, has been ignored and treated with less respect than it deserves (Alwasilah, 2005).
In accordance to those statements, there must be an appropriate method used by the teacher in teaching writing in class to make the students easier to learn. According to Alwasilah (2005), many teachers did not apply the appropriate method in teaching writing for the students. Most of them gave a task for the students to write on a paper, collected them, gave a score with some feedbacks or without any feedback at all so that the students do not know their errors and could not revise it in the next paper.
Whereas, feedback in learning writing is something which is important for the students. It is supported by the Dheram (1995) who emphasizes that feedback is something which is central in the process of teaching and learning writing. However, feedback without any explanation and discussion seems useless and
(8)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
does not give an effective correction for the students. The students will probably be confused with the feedback that they get. According to (Brender, 1998; Fregeau, 1999; cited in William, 2003; cited in Lenggogeni, 2011), feedback without explanation or discussion will not bring positive effects for the students.
The large number of students with only one teacher in every class is probably one of the factors which make many teachers did not give the students any feedback in every student’s paper. It is also impossible for the teacher to give the explanation of each feedback to the students one by one since the time allocation which is provided for teaching and learning English is limited. According to Alwasilah and Alwasilah (2007), most of the teachers think that it is impossible to teach writing in the big classes. Many language teachers and lecturers, especially those who think that they know anything, complain of difficulty in teaching writing in the big classes. Traditionally, teachers are only one who has high knowledge to provide feedback to students' writing. They forget that knowledge is not only centered on the teachers or lecturers, but the environments, including friends, also could give knowledge to each other (Alwasilah, Alwasilah 2007: 211).
Based on the previous explanations, there is a way that is able to be implemented to anticipate this problem, which is peer feedback. Peer feedback could be defined as students’ discussion in order to give corrections of the errors of the students’ work that could be written or spoken. It aims to make the students realize their errors so that they could revise it and make it better in the next paper. Based on Pennstate (2007), feedback is a strategy used in improving the quality of written assignments and foster discussions. It is an effort to help the students increase their writing skills by reducing the amount of errors they make in their written assignments. The students get an opportunity to revise their written assignments when they get the corrections from other students. In addition, Bartels (2003) states that peer response, that is also known as peer review, peer feedback, peer editing, and peer evaluation, is the popular key that is implemented
(9)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
by the teachers in teaching the students. It is also supported by Richard and Renandya (2002; cited in Siswana, 2008) who state that responding intervenes between drafting and revising after the students have produced the first draft and just before they proceed to revise is the central role in successful implementation of writing process.
Wood, et. al. (2008) state that by implementing peer feedback technique, the teacher also could implement students-centered in teaching-learning process. When the students discuss the feedback to their friends, they could develop the interaction between students, so that they do not depend on teacher all the time. Jones (2007) states that when the teacher implements student-centered in the classroom, the students will find their problems, discuss it with their friends, and solve it by themselves. While their teacher, acts as a facilitator in the teaching-learning activity. The teacher helps to guide the students, manage their activities, and direct their learning (Jones, 2007).
Some previous researches state that peer feedback gave positive effect for the students in learning writing. Bijami et. al. (2013) in her research state that peer feedback on writing develops students to improve their knowledge through providing opportunities to think critically.
Chiramanee and Kulprasit (2014) revealed that peer feedback do increase students’ writing skill. Besides, they also state that students showed positive attitudes towards the implementation of peer feedback in learning writing.
The above facts are also supported by the research result which was found by Shokrpour, Keshavarz, and Jafari (2011). The research found that the students not only enjoyed the process and the product of the implementation of peer feedback in class, but also a significant development and change was observed in their writing skill. Peer review or peer feedback process did engange the students in frequent reading and writing, fostered their critical reading and reflection, sharpened their writing knowledge skill, helped them to manage their learning schedule, and increased their motivation and joy in writing.
(10)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
The implementation of peer feedback not only could increase students’ performances in learning writing, but also develop students’ perception towards writing activity. Grami (2010) in his research concludes that the effect of peer feedback on students’ perception was profound. Students were hugely impressed by the potential of peer session on their writing routines which has been reflected on their eagerness to have more similar sessions in the future. In addition, Siswana (2008) in his research states that peer feedback gives benefits to the students, two of them are peer feedback could develop the students’ writing, and the students’ work were getting better by using peer feedback.
Based on the above consideration, this research will investigate whether or not peer feedback technique increases students’ descriptive writing skill and find out the students’ responses toward the use of peer feedback in teaching descriptive text.
1.2. Research Questions
The inquiry will be guided by the following general questions: a. Does peer feedback increase students’ descriptive writing skill?
b. What are the responses of the students toward the use of peer feedback in learning a descriptive text?
1.3. Aims of The Research
The research primary aims to explore and find the answer of the questions above. The other aims are stated as follows:
a. To investigate whether or not peer feedback does increase students’ descriptive writing skill.
b. To find out the responses of the students toward the use of peer feedback in learning a descriptive text.
(11)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
The limitation of the research is taken to specify the problem that will be analyzed and make it clear. This research is conducted in one of Junior High Schools in Subang and limited to second semester of second grade students. The 70 students from two classes were involved in this research, but the researcher only took 30 students for each class as the participants to anticipate the students who were absent at that time. One of two classes taken as the participants were implied the peer feedback technique to measure the use of peer feedback in increasing students’ descriptive writing skill and to find out the responses of the students toward the implementation of it in learning English.
Although there are so many researches who found that peer feedback is effective to be implemented in writing activity in class, there are several limitations that might be happened during the research. The first is the mid-trust of the high-achiever students to the lower-achiever students in giving feedback process. This situation might be happened since writing is the process although the assessment is taken from the product of the process itself. The high-achiever students may not trust on the feedback given by their friends whose knowledge and skill is lower than them. So that, they have to be selective in using the feedback given. Zhang (1995) states that less profitable interactions have been found within peer groups, sometimes because of the participants’ lack of trust on the accuracy of the comments given by their peers. The second is the role of the teacher. In implementing peer feedback in class, the role of teacher is very limited. The teacher only acts as a facilitator, while the important role in this research is the students themselves. In fact, most of the students still need their teacher’s comments. Kitchakarn (2012) on his research states that teacher’s feedback is still needed in peer feedback technique to make it more effective and beneficial for the students. The comments of the teachers are better given on the right time of the writing process.
(12)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
The result of the research is expected to give some contributions to teachers, students, and the next researchers.
a. To the teachers, it hopefully can give the inspirations to implement the peer feedback technique in the teaching-learning activity in class in order to improve students’ writing skill.
b. To the students, it hopefully can give them motivation to learn and awareness to their own and friends’ works. They can be a good reader, a great commentator, and good writer.
c. To the next researchers, it hopefully can be good references for the next research that they make.
1.6 Clarification of Terms
There are some terms that will be used in this research. In order to make the readers understand about those terms, the researcher will make it clear in the explanation below.
1.6.1 Feedback
Feedback in this research refers to the comments and corrections given to another’s work. It aims to give a useful correction in order to let another knows his/her errors, so that he/she could make it better in the next revision.
1.6.2 Peer Feedback
Peer feedback in this research refers to a feedback that is given by friends. In this context, the feedback will be given by the students to students. Every student will give feedback to another student’s work, and give the corrections as much as possible based on their knowledge in order to let his/her friend know and understand their errors and could make it better in the revision later.
(13)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
This paper consists of five chapters, they are:
Chapter 1 : Intoduction. This chapter provides background of the research, research questions, aims of the research, scope of the research, significance of the research, clarification of terms, and organization of the paper.
Chapter 2 : Theoritical Foundation. This chapter will provide the material and theories about writing skill and peer feedback, the previous researches relate to the current research, and concluding remarks.
Chapter 3 : Research Methodology. This chapter will explain clearly the method that was used in this research which is actually the method that has been introduced in the chapter 1.
Chapter 4 : Finding and Discussion. This chapter will explain the result of the research and show the progress of the participants’ work from each test. Besides, this chapter will also provide the interpretation to the result.
Chapter 5 : Conclusion and Suggestions. This chapter will conclude the result of the research and give some suggestions for the next researcher in order to make a better research.
(14)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter discusses methodology of the research, including research design, research subject, research instruments, research procedure, and data analysis.
3.1 Research Design
3.1.1 The Experimental Design
In conducting this research the quantitative research design was used as a basic framework since it was aimed to test a hypothesis through collecting and analyzing the numerical data. Sugiyono (2008) states that quantitative method is used when the study aims to test a hypothesis. It is also supported by Brannen (2005) who states that quantitative research shows the implementation of numeric approach towards data collection and analysis.
Quasi-experimental non-equivalent pre-test post-test design was applied in conducting this research since it aimed to investigate whether the peer feedback increases the students’ descriptive writing skill or not. Creswell (2012, p. 310) states that essentially, the researcher takes two groups, they are experimental group and control group, then administers a pre-test to both groups, conducts the experimental treatment activities to the experimental group only in which using peer feedback as the treatment activities, then gives the post-test to both groups to find out the difference between two groups.
There were two classes involved in this research, one class as an experimental group, and another as a control group. The research was started with conducting a pilot test. This test aimed to test the instruments that would be used in the research. The pilot test was conducted to 30 students who came from the same grade as the paricipants. In this test, the 30 students were asked to make a descriptive text based on a picture given. They were given 30 minutes to write the
(15)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
descriptive text for at least 150 to 250 words. It aimed to check whether or not they have learned the descriptive text before.
After conducting the pilot test, the research was continued by conducting pre-test for both groups. Then, a training of peer feedback process was conducted and only given to the experimental group, while the control group was not. It contained of two meetings training about the peer feedback process and the simulation of it. After that, giving the treatments activity were conducted, which was peer feedback activity. These treatments were only given to the experimental group, while the control group was not. The similar activities in the control group were conducted without any peer feedback activity at all. However, the researcher, as the teacher, still gave the two groups guidelines through the instructions to guide them in doing the exercise. Then, at the end of the research, post-test and questionnaires were applied to find out students’ final score and responses toward the implementation of peer feedback in learning writing. The post-test were given to both groups, while questionnaires were only given to the experimental group.
The description of the quasi-experimental design which was applied in this research was like what has been described by Fraenkle J. R. et al (2012) as follows:
Treatment Group M O1 X O2
Control Group M O1 C O2
Notes : M = Matched subject
O1 = Students’ writing score in pre-test
O2 = Students’ writing score in post-test
X = Treatments using peer feedback technique
(16)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
3.1.2 The Variable
According to Cresswell (2012, p. 112), variable is a characteristic of an individual or organization that can be measured by the researcher and also varies which has different value among different individuals or organization. The variables used in this research are classified into dependent and independent variables. Fraenkle J. R. et al (2012, p. 92) states that independent variables are those that researcher chooses to study in order to asses their possible effect(s) on one or more other variables. In the other hand, dependent variables are those which are persumed to affect other variables. In other words, dependent variables are those who can not stand alone, depend on or influenced by the independent variables.
1. Independent variable chosen in this research was peer feedback technique. Peer feedback technique became the treatment or prominent method which was manipulated.
2. Dependent variable in this research was students’ descriptive score which is
observed and measured by the researcher. It became the outcome from the independent variable.
3.2 Research Subject 3.2.1 Population
Population is the group which becomes the destination of the researcher in gaining the result of the research. It is supported by Fraenkle, J. R. et al (2012) that state that population is the group of interest as the destination that the researcher would like to generelize the result of the study. They further explain that in educational research, the population is usually group of persons (students, teachers, or other individuals) who process certain characteristics and in some cases it can be defined as a group of classroom, schools, or even facilities (2012, p. 92). Based on that reason, the population of this research was the whole
(17)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
students of second grade in one Junior High School in Subang. They are enrolled in academic year 2013/2014.
The second grade of Junior High School in Subang were taken as population of this research since it is done to the fact that in curriculum 2006 descriptive text is taught and learned in the first grade of Junior High School. So, the researcher could make sure that those students have learned the descriptive text before.
3.2.2 Sample
Sample are smaller group of population or the group on which the information is obtained in the research (Fraenkle, J.R. et al, 2012, p. 91). It is a subgroup of the target population and selected from individual who represents the whole population that was planned to conduct the research for generalizing about the target population (Creswell, 2012, p. 142).
This research used cluster random sampling technique in deciding the samples of the research. It is because there was difficulty in selecting the random sample of individuals due to the administrative of the school. The cluster random sampling can be applied when the researcher finds the difficulties in selecting a random sample of individuals (Fraenkle, J. R. et al, 2012, p. 96).
Regarding to those explanation, the samples of this research were two classes of the second grade of Junior High School which were randomly chosen since based on the curriculum 2006, descriptive text is taught in the first grade of Junior High School. Each class consists of 35 students, but the researcher only took 30 students as the samples for avoiding the absence of the students. The first class became the experimental group and the second class became the control group. As a result, the total numbers of the sample was 60 students.
3.3 Research Instruments
Some instruments were used to collect the data. Fraenkle, J. R et al (2012, p. 111) state that the device (such as pencil, paper test, questionnaire, or rating scale)
(18)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
which is used by the researcher to collect the data can be categorized as an instrument. The following instruments were based on the research questions as follow:
1. Does peer feedback increase students’ descriptive writing skill?
2. What are the responses of the students toward the use of peer feedback in teaching a descriptive text?
Therefore, the following were the instruments used in the research: a. Writing Tasks
Writing tasks were used to measure students’ skill in writing descriptive
text. It was used to answer the research question number 1, which is to find out the use of peer feedback in increasing students’ descriptive writing skill. There were two pictures as the media used by the students to write descriptive text which include the media used for both pre and post-test. The topic raised in the pictures given to the students was about “House”. At the beginning, all students were given the pre-test to measure their initial abilities in descriptive writing before given the treatments, which is the implementation of the peer feedback. The pre-test was about to write the descriptive text consists of 150-250 words based on the given picture. The picture used in the pre-test was similar with the picture used during the treatments process since the students made the revision based on their writings in the pre-test. In the end, after implementing the treatments, the students were given the different picture, however the topic raised in the picture was similar with the previous one. They were asked to follow the similar instruction in the post-test, which is to write the descriptive text consists of 150-250 words based on the given picture. It aims to see the final progress of the students after given the treatments.
(19)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
The questionnaires were distributed in order to answer the research question number 2, which is to find out the reesponses of the students towards the implementation of peer feedback in writing descriptive text.
Close ended type of questionnaire was used since the answers of the questions included in the questionnaires are limited to the stated alternatives. Based on Flatworld Solutions Pvt. Ltd (2002), it is stated that close format or close-ended questions contain of multiple choice questions, in which the respondents are required to choose among any of the given multiple choice answers. Furthermore, likert questions were contained in the questionnaires since it aims to elaborate how strongly the respondents agree to the statement written in the questionnaires. According to Trochim (2006), Likert Scaling or likert question attempts to measure on an interval level. The questionnaires section in this research were conducted after the post-test. It is given to the experimental group only since the questions consist of the questionas related to the implementation of peer feedback.
3.4 Research Procedure
This research was guided by some steps of research procedure that can be described as follow:
3.4.1 Preparing The Lesson Plan
The lesson plan was designed as a guidance in conducting the treatments to the students. The material included in desgining the lesson plan was descriptive text in which it was organized by five meetings. The first and the last meeting were prepared to conduct the pre-test and post-test, while the other three meetings were allocated to implement the treatments by using peer feedback technique.
(20)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Before starting the pre-test, the pilot test was conducted. It was aimed to examine the validation of the writing test as the instrument. The pilot test was conducted to 30 students in similar grade, who were not included in both experimental and control group. The students who got this test were assumed that they have already learned descriptive text.
3.4.3 Conducting The Pre-test
At the beginning, pre-test for both groups, experimental group and control group, was conducted. This test aimed to measure the ability of the students in descriptive writing before given the treatments from the researcher.
As the pre-test of this research, the students were asked to make a descriptive text for at least 250 to 350 words based on the picture given to the students. They were given 30 minutes to write the text.
3.4.4 Conducting the Training
Before continued by some treatments, the training was conducted. It was only given to the experimental group. The experimental group was given two meetings training about the process of peer feedback, while the control group was not. The training was aimed to give understanding to the students toward the implementation of peer feedback. The students were given the simulation and role play about the process of peer feedback. Besides, they were also given the information about how to make a good feedback to their friends.
3.4.5 Conducting the Treatments
The treatments were conducted after the students got the pre-test and training from the researcher. It was only given to the experimental group. “In an experiment, the researcher physically manipulates with interventions in one or more condition so that individuals experience something different in the
(21)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
experimental condition than in control conditions.” (Creswell, 2012, p. 301). This research conducted three treatments. These treatments were implementing peer feedback technique. Each treatment is given in one meeting. Time allocation for each meeting consisted of two learning hours in which one learning hour is 45 minutes. Time schedule of this research can be described in the following table.
Table 3.1
Time Schedule of The Research
DATE EXPERIMENTAL
GROUP
CONTROL GROUP
May 12nd, 2014 Pre-test (Describing Place)
Pre-test (Describing Place)
May 19th, 2014 Peer feedback training, peer feedback 1 and revised draft 1
Revised draft 1
May 22nd, 2014 Peer feedback 2 and revised draft 2
Revised draft 2
June 2nd, 2014 Peer feedback 3 and final draft
Final draft
June 5th, 2014 Post-test and Questionnaires
Post-test
In the first meeting, the pre-test was conducted to both control and experimental group. It was aimed to measure students’ desriptive writing skill before given the treatments. As the pre-test, the students were asked to make a descriptive text for at least 150-250 words based on the given pictures. The students were given 30 minutes for doing the pre-test. When the students finished the test, the students’ works were collected to be checked.
(22)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
After doing the pre-test in the first meeting, it was continued by conducting a training of peer feedback process. This training was only given to the experimental group, while the control group was not. It contained of two meetings training and was aimed to make the students fully understand about the process of giving peer feedback to their peers and how to give a good feedback on the
other’s writings.
Then, the research was continues by giving the treatments. These treatments were conducted in three meetings and only given to the experimental group, while the students of the control group were only asked to revise their writings without any treatment. However, the researcher, as the teacher, still gave the two groups some instructions in order to guide them in doing the exercise.
The treatments that were conducted in this research were the activities which implemented peer feedback technique. The students were asked to read
their friend’s task, give some comment and feedback about the errors made, then
give it back to the owner. In the other side, the students as the participants also got the feedback on their tasks from their friends. When they got their tasks back, they could revise their writing based on the feedback given.
The last meeting was completed by conducting the post-test for both
experimental and control group. It was aimed to measure the students’ skill in
writing descriptive text after given the treatments and see the differences of the
students’ score between the experimental and control group. In this test, the
students were given the new picture and had to make a descriptive text for at least 150-250 words based on that picture. They were given 30 minutes to do it. When the students finished the test, their tasks were collected to be check and measured. After conducting the post-test, in the last meeting, it was continued with spreading the questionnaires to the experimental group. The questionnaires were only given to the experimental group since it was aimed to see the responses of the students to the implementation of peer feedback in learning writing descriptive text. The questionnaires were then collected and measured.
(23)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
3.4.6 Conducting The Post-test
After conducting the three treatments, at the end of the research, the post-test for both groups was conducted, experimental group and control group. It
aimed to measure the students’ skill in writing descriptive text after given the
treatments. Besides, it also aimed to see the differences of the students’ score between the experimental and control group. According to Creswell (2012), the researcher could take another reading on attribute or characteristic after the treatment and a post-test is a measure on some atribute or characteristics that is assessed for participants in an experiment after a treatment.
The post-test of this research was quite similar with the pre-test that has been conducted before. The difference was the students were given the new picture to be described. After getting the new picture, they have to decribe it in a descriptive text for at least 250 to 350 words in 30 minutes.
3.4.7 Administering Questionnaires
Fraenkel et al (2012) state that in questionnaires, the subjects respond to the questions by writing or marking and answer sheet. In addition, questionnaires can be distributed to the large number of people at the same time. In this research, questionnaires were distributed to the experimental group only, in which the peer feedback technique was implemented. It was aimed to find the responses of the students toward the implementation of the peer feedback in learning descriptive writing.
3.5 Data Analysis
In this research, the data were collected from the pre-test, three treatments, and post-test. Besides analyzing the data from those tests and treatments, the data gathered was also analyzed from the questionnaires. The procedure of analyzing the data comprised some steps.
(24)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
First, the data collected from students’ writing performance in the pre-test,
post-test and the treatments were analyzed by using analytic scoring in writing based on Wechsler Objective Language Dimension (2005), known as WOLD. It is a UK standardisation of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT-R) deveoped in United States (US). This assessment is an individually administered test of expressive language skill in children age 8-16 years (Dunsmuir, et. al., 2015).
The scoring guide chosen as the criteria of scoring represents the basic aspects of writing, they are spelling, punctuation, sentence and grammar structure, vocabulary, organization and overall structure, and ideas aspects. In addition, handwriting was added to the scoring criteria. It is because the surveys estimate that 13,9% of pupils to have difficulties with handwriting (Barnett, Stainhorp, Henderson, & Scheib, 2006). Besides, a large literature, which includes both correlational and experimental methods, supports that difficulties with handwriting are associated with higher level aspects of writing such as the quality and fluency of written expression (Dunsmur, et. al., 2015). It means that an individual who is fluent at handwriting has greater attentional capacity to devote to planning and composing when compared to an individual who has poor hand writting skills and must devote attentional resourches to this aspect of writing. Based on these reasons, handwriting aspect needs to be considered.
In this research, the scoring is not only focused on the process of the writing, but the product itself based on the aspects mentioned before. After analyzing the data using WOLD (2005), second, the scores gained were calculated by applying the statistical analysis of T-test to determine how mean of the pre-test is different from the post-test score. Then, the siginificance of the test was calculated by using computer programme of Statistical Product and Service Solution (SPSS). The final step after calculating the data from pre-test, post-test and three treatments, was analyzing the questionnaires. The questionnaires were
(25)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
analyzed based on the frequency of the students’ answer, then the result was calculated and interpreted into percentage.
3.5.1 Scoring Sheet for Writing test
Students’ writing text was analyzed using the scoring standard which was
adapted from analytic scoring in writing based on Wechsler Objective Language Dimension (2005), which contains of some aspects that have to be measured. Those aspects handwriting, spelling, punctuation, sentence and grammar structure, vocabulary, organization and overall structure, and ideas. The score for each aspect ranges similarly each other, the score 4 for the best and 1 for the worst. For more details, the analytic scoring in writing based on Wechsler Objective Language Dimension (2005) was put on the appendix
.
3.5.2 Pilot Test Data Analysis
The pilot test was the test that is conducted before doing the pre-test to the students. It aimed to measure the validity and reability of the instrument used in this research. This pilot test was conducted to 30 students in similar level who were not included to both experimental and control group. If the students were able to complete the test based on the instructios given with good scores, then it could be concluded that the instrument could be used as the pre-test and post-test.
3.5.3 Pre-test and Post-test Data Analysis
The pre-test and post-test were given to both experimental group and control group in the same procedures. It aimed to know the use of peer feedback in
increasing students’ descriptive writing skill. Alpha level at 0.05 started a
hypothesis, and the data collected in this research were computed using IBM SPSS Statistics 15.0 for Windows. Since the result of both experimental group and control group were used to know the use of peer feedback in increasing
(26)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
causative relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable.
There were three steps that have been fulfilled in this research, they are normality test, homogeneity variance, and independent t-test.
3.5.3.1 Normality of Distribution Test
Normal distribution was calculated before t-test was conducted. It was in purposed to investigate whether or not the distribution of pre-test and post-test scores in groups were normally distributed. Shapiro-Wilk test formula in SPSS 15.0 was used for Windows to analyze the normality of distribution. The steps were as follows:
1. Setting the hypothesis and the alpha level at 0.05 (two tailed t-test)
2. Analyzing the normality distribution using Shapiro-Wilk test formula in SPSS for Windows.
H0 = the scores of the experimental group and control group are normally distributed.
H1 = the scores of the experimental group and control group are not normally distributed.
3. Comparing score between the result and the level of significant value. If the Asymp Sig. (probability) is more than the level significance (0.05), then the null hypothesis is not rejected, which means the sample score is normally ditributed. In contrast, if Asymp Sig. is less than the level significance (0.05), the hypothesis is rejected, which means the score is not normally distributed.
(27)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
The normality distribution test was used to find out whether or not the scores of the students are normally distributed. As the first step, the researcher tested the normality of the pre-test score which is stated the hypothesis as follows:
Ho : the scores of control and experimental group are normally distributed.
The next step was computing the normality test. The normality test was conducted by using Wilk test at level of significance (0.05). The Shapiro-Wilk Test was used since it is appropriate for small sample sized (<50 samples), but can also used for the large sample as large as 2000. Hence, this reasearch uses the Shapiro-Wilk test as the numerical means of assessing the normality.
Based on the result of the computation based on Shapiro-Wilk, it shows that the Asymp.sig of experimental group is 0.315 and the control group is 0.281 which are higher than the level of siginficance (0.05). In the other words, the pre-test score in the control and experimental group was normally distributed. For this reason, the null hypothesis was accepted.
3.5.3.1.2 Normality Distribution Test of Post-test
The normality distribution test was taken as the first step. It was conducted by using Shapiro-Wilk test. In addition, there is a hypothesis stated before doing the calculation. The hypothesis proposed was null hypothesis.
Ho : the scores of experimental and control group are normally distributed.
Based on the computation of the Shapiro-Wilk test computation, it shows the Asymp sig of the experimental group is 0,176 and the control group is 0,191 which are higher than the significance level (0.05). In the other words, the data from post-test was normally distributed and the null hypothesis was accepted.
(28)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
3.5.3.2 Homogeneity of Variance Test
The variance homogeneity test was conducted to examine whether or not the score of the research was homogeneous. In this research, the stastitical calculation of variance homogeneity test used ANOVA Lavene test formula in SPSS for Windows by following these steps:
1. Setting the hypothesis and the alpha level at 0.05 (two tailed t-test).
H0 = the scores of the experimental group and control group are homogenous.
H1 = the scores of the experimental group and control group are not homogenous.
2. Analyzing the normality distribution using Lavine formula in SPSS for Windows.
3. Comparing the result of Lavine test and alfa level of significance. If the Asymp Sig. (probability) is more than the level significance (0.05), then the null hypothesis is not rejected, which means the variance of the experimental and control group are homogeneous. In contrast, if Asymp Sig. is less than the level significance (0.05), the hypothesis is rejected, which means the variance of the experimental and control group are not homogeneous.
3.5.3.2.1 Homogeneity of Variance Test of Pre-test
The homogeneity of pre-test score in both control and experimental groups
was tested using Levene’s test computation. In testing the homogeneity score, the
hypothesis was stated as follows:
(29)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
After the hypothesis stated in the first step, then the homogeneity of variance of the score was computed. Later, the result of homogeneity test was compared with the significance level at 0.05.
From the result of statistics calculation of Levene’s test computation, it
shows the significance value of the test is 0.374. It can be concluded that the pre-test score in both control and experimental groups are homogeneous since the value of significance is higher than the level of significance (0.05). In addition, the null hypothesis of the pre-test score which has been stated before can be accepted in which the variance of the score in both groups were equal.
3.5.3.2.2 Homogeneity of Variance Test of Post-test
Homogeneity of Variance test was used in order to know whether or not the score of the experimental and control group are homogeneous. Homogeneity of variance test on the post-test score were analyzed by using Levene’s test computation. The hypothesis was stated as follows:
Ho = the variance of the control and experimental groups are homogeneous.
H1 = the variance of the control and experimental groups are not homogeneous.
At first, the alpha level was set at 0.05. If the probability > 0.05, it means that Ho is accepted. In contrast, if the probability < 0.05, H1 is accepted.
The result of the Shapiro-Wilk calculation shows that the significance value is 0.76 and it is higher than the level of significance (0.05). In short, the null hypothesis is accepted. The data of the post-test from both control and experimental groups was homogeneous.
(30)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
In this research, the independent t-test in SPSS for windows was used to analyze the difference between means of experimental group and control group. The steps were as follows:
1. Setting the hypothesis and the alpha level at 0.05 (two tailed t-test).
H0 = there is no significant difference between pre-test mean for experimental group and control group.
H1 = there is significant difference between pre-test mean for experimental group and control group
2. Calculating t-test score using SPSS statistics.
3. Comparing t-obtained and t-critical. If t-obtained is more than t-critical (t-obtained > t-critical), it means that the hypothesis is rejected; there is significant difference between two groups. In contrast, if t-obtained is less than t-critical (t-obtained < t-critical), it means that the hypothesis is not rejected; there is no significant difference between two groups.
3.5.4 Data Analysis on Questionnaire
At the end of the research, the questionnaires were distributed to the experimental group. It aimed to clarify the information and elaborate the data
concerning the research question about the students’ responses toward the implementation of peer feedback in increasing students’ descriptive writing skill.
The data collected from the questionnaires were classified into two major
aspects, they are students’ responses toward writing subject and students’
responses toward the use of peer feedback technique in writing descriptive text. The data gained from the questionnaires were analyzed based on the frequency of
students’ answer. The result will be calculated and interpreted into percentage.
The formula of percentage used is as follow: P = F x 100
n
(31)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
F = frequency
n = the sum of the sample 100 = constant
(Sudjana & Ibrahim, 2010:129)
This chapter has presented the methodology of the research including research design, research subject, research instrument, research procedures, and data analysis. Then, the finding and discussions of the data collected will be explained in more detail in the next chapter.
(32)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
This chapter presents the conclusion and of the research, suggestions, and limitation of the research.
5.1 Conclusions
In line with the research questions, there are two conclusions taken in this research. The first one is peer feedback technique increases students’ descriptive writing skill. The second one is the implementation of peer feedback in writing descriptive learning was positively responded by the students. The clear explanation of each point is given below.
First, peer feedback technique has been proven to be able in increasing
students’ descriptive writing skill. This result was supported by the finding of the
t-test computation in the post test. Based on the t-test finding, it can be clearly seen that the scores of the students in the experimental group significantly increased.
Second, the responses of the students toward the implementation of peer feedback in writing descriptive learning. This result can be seen from the questionnaires administered by the researcher. Based on the questionnaires, it was found that students gave positive responses toward the implementation of peer feedback in writing descriptive text. The result found that most of the students agreed that peer feedback technique helped them in increasing their descriptive writing skills and improving their awareness toward the errors they made on both
their friends’ and their writing. Besides, the correction given by their friends also
helped them in revising their writings, and peer feedback technique improved their writing ability, especially in descriptive writing. Moreover, most of the students also need some guidelines and training before giving the feedback to help
(33)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
role of the teacher is also important to guide them giving good corrections for their friends’ writings.
5.2 Suggestions
There are some suggestions which can be recommendations for other researches in the presents. These suggestions will be concerned on two parts. The first part is suggestion for English teacher, and the second part is suggestion for further researchers who are interested in conducting the research about peer feedback technique.
Related on positive results of the research, the researcher advices teachers to use peer feedback teachnique in their writing classrooms because the advantages of using peer feedback for junior high school are considerable. However, the teachers who will implement peer feedback in their writing classes have to be aware of the limitation of knowledge of their students, so that they have to guide them and give them intensive training more than two meetings before conducting peer feedback in class in order to make them enable to participate fully in the process. Besides, the teachers have also to guide the students during the process of peer feedback implementation. Teachers have to remind the students about how to make a good correction based on the aspects of writing and how to revise their writings based on the corrections given by their friends.
Furthermore, the teachers could explicitly present all the benefits of the implementation of peer feedback in class to the students to ensure sucess. When conducting the peer feedback in class, it is advisable for the teachers to vary some of the components of the session, for example by changing the composition of the
students’ groups and place the high-achiever students in the different group in
order to make the composition of the students’ group equal.
There are also several suggestions for further researchers who will conduct a research and be interested in the peer feedback technique in class. First, for the next researchers who want to use this kind of technique, it is important to prepare
(34)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
a training for the students more than two meetings before applying the peer feedback technique. It aims to make them well undertand about the process of peer feedback. Second, it is also important to the researcher to prepare the time allocation and manage it well during the implementation of peer feedback in class to optimize the process of learning. Third, the researchers have to be selected in choosing the participants of the research and careful to decide them based on the limitation of knowledge they have. If the researchers take a junior high school students, it is important for them to make a good and clear guidance in order to make them understand what will they do in the process of implementation of peer feedback technique. Lastly, further researchers are recommended to use peer feedback technique not only in learning descriptive text but also in learning other genres of text.
5.3 Limitations of the Research
The research questions of this research have been answered. The result of
the research states that peer feedback increases students’ descriptive writing skill
and the students positively responded toward the implementation of peer feedback in class. However, there are some limitations happened during the research. First, the limitation of knowledge of the students made them quite hard to give a good feedback to their peers. Although the students have been given the training in how to give a good feedback, it did not make them understand in a short time. They may need a longer time to train. Second, it is the mid-trust of the high-achiever students to the lower-achiever students. This situation happened when the high-achiever students got the feedback from their peers whose knowledge is lower than them. The high-achiever students could not trust on the comments given by their peers as the feedback. Furthermore, they had to be more selective in selecting which feedback that was useful for their next revisions. Last but not least, it is about the consideration in selecting the participants. Because this research employed the Junior High School students as the participants of the
(35)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
research, it would be better to prepare the clearer instructions in the procedure of peer feedback and feedback form in order to make them fully understand what they have to do during the process of implementing peer feedback in class.
(36)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
REFERENCES
Alwasilah, A. C. And Alwasilah, S. S. (2005). Pokoknya Menulis: Cara Baru Menulis dengan Metode Kolaborasi. Bandung: PT. Kiblat Buku Utama. Alwasilah, A. C., & Alwasilah, S. S. (2007). Pokoknya menulis: Cara baru
menulis dengan metode kolaborasi. Bandung: Andira.
Aridah. (2003). “The Role of Feedback in Teaching and Learning of Writing”.
Celt. 3, 105-114.
Barnett, A. et. al. (2006). Handwriting Policy and Practice in English Primary Schools. An Exploratory Study. London: Institute of Education.
Bartels, N. (2003). Writing Peer Response in L2 Writing. English Teaching Forum, 41.
Beaven, M.H. (1977). Individualised Goal-Setting, Self-Evaluation, and Peer Evaluation. (pp. 135- 156). In C.R. Cooper and L. Odell (eds.). Evaluating Writing: Describing, Measuring, Judging. Urbana: National Council of Teacher of English.
Bijami, M., Seyyed, Hosein K., & Maryam, S. N. (2013). “Peer Feedback in
Learning English Writing: Advantages
and Disadvantages”. Journal of Studies in Education. 3, (4), 91-97. Bima & Bachtiar, M. (2005). Let’s Talk. Bandung: Pakar Raya
Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (Third Edition).
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy, Second Edition. San Francisco: Longman.
Brannen, J. (2005). Memadu Metode Penelitian Kualitatif & Kuantitatif. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Cardelle, M, & Corno, L. (1981). Effects of Second Language Learning of Variations in Written Feedback on Homework Assignments. TESOL Quarterly, 15(3), 251-261.
Chiramanee, T. & Watcharee, K. (2014). “Journal Writing with Peer Feedback: A
Friend or A Foe for EFL Learners”. International Journal of English
(37)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Coolidge, F. L. (2000). Statistic: A Gentle Introduction. London: SAGE Publishing.
Corbett, W. (1983). The Little Rhetoric and Handbook with Reading. Bloomington, Illinois: Scott, Freshman.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (fourth ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
D‟Angelo, F.J. (1980). Process and Thought in Composition. Second Edition.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Winthrop Publishers.
Dheram, P. K. (1995). Feedback as A Two-Bullockcart: A Case Study of Teaching Writing. [online]. Available at: http://203.72.145.166/elt/files/49-2-6.pdf. [May 24, 2014].
Dornyei, Z. (2001). Motivational Strategies in The Language Classroom: Cambridge University Press.
Dunsmuir, S. et. al. (2015). An Evaluation of the Writing Assessment Measure
(WAM) for Chirdren’s Narrative Writing. [online]. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1075293514000385# bib0045. [August 09, 2015].
Flatworld Solutions. (2002). Different Types of Questions in Questionnaire
Design. [online]. Available at:
http://www.outsource2india.com/kpo/articles/questionnaire-types-of-questions.asp. [July 09, 2015]
Fraenkle, J.R.W., Norman E. & Hyun, H.H. (2012). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (eight ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Freedman, S. (1987). Response to Student Writing (Report No. 23). USA: The National Council of Teacher of English.
Grami, G.M.A. (2010). The Effect of Integrating Peer Feedback into University-Level ESL Writing Curriculum: A Comparative Study in Saudi Context. Newcastle: Newcastle University.
Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching, Fourth Edition. England: Ashford Colour Press Ltd.
(38)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Hyland, K & Hylan, K. (2006). “Feedback on Second Language Students’
Writing”. Lang. Teach. 39, 77-95.
Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on Second Language Writing. Language Teaching. 39, 37-95. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, P. (2000). Learning from Feedback on Assessment, in: A. Booth and P. Hyland (eds) The Practice of University History Teaching. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Ho, B. (2006). “Effectiveness of Using Process Approach to Teach Writing in Six
Hong Kong Primary Classrooms”. Perspectives: Working Papers in
English and Communication. 17, (1).
Hong, F. (2006). Students‟ Perception of Peer Response Activity in English
Writing Instruction. CELEA Journal (Bimonthly), 29. [online]. Available at: http.//www.elt-china.org/teic/68/68-48.pdf. [June 28, 2015].
Jacobs, G.M., Curtis, A., Braine, G. & Huang, S.Y. (1998). Feedback on Student Writing:
Johnston, K. & Morrow, K. (1981). Communication in the Classroom. London: Longman
Jones, L. (2007). The Student-Centered Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kane, T.S. (2000). The Oxford Essential Guide to Writing.New York: Barkley Books.
Keh, C.L. (1990). “Feedback in The Writing Process: A Model and Method for Implementation”. ELT Journal. 4, 294-304.
Kitchakarn, O. (2012). “Incorporating Peer Response to Writing Process”.
Executive Journal. 70-76.
Lenggogeni, P. (2011). The Use of Peer Feedback Technique in Improving
Students’ Narrative Writing. Unpublished.
Liu, J., and J. H. (2002). Peer Response in Second Language Writing Classrooms. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
(39)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Liu, J., and J. H. (2005). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
Lundstorm, K., & Baker, W. (2009). to Give is Better than to Receive: The
Benefits of Peer Review to the Reviewer‟s Own Writing. Journal of
Second Language Writing. 18 (1), 30-43.
McQuinn, C. & Roach, M. (2002). The Writing Process: Web Tutorial. [on-line].
Available at:
http://www.psesd.wednet.edu/write_process/Write_PC/writepr.htm. [December 29, 2014]
Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293–308.
Mish, F.C. (1984). Webster‟s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. [online].
Available at: http://www.worldcat.org/title/websters-ninth-new-collegiate-dictionary/oclc/249627361. [December 29, 2014]
Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English Language Teaching. Singapore: Mc Graw Hill.
Oshima, A and A, Hogue. (1997). Introduction to Academic Writing. Addison Wesley: Longman.
Oshima, A. and Hogue, A. (1999). Writing Academic English. (3rd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The Effect of Peer and Teacher Feedback on Student Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (3), 265-289.
Penn State. (2007). Peer Feedback. [online]. Available at: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd =7&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CGwQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.s chreyerinstitute.psu.edu%2Fpdf%2Falex%2Falex%2Fpeer_feed.pdf&ei
=Wn2HUZPX18_jrAer5oHIDQ&usg=AFQjCNGz-iEo_SelRfsvi4uCzFFqz9tiBw&sig2=81OsqtFyyr_rzRSPWLOkag&bv m=bv.45960087,d.bmk. [May 06, 2013].
Plutsky, S., & Wilson, B.A. (2004). Comparison of The Three Methods of Teaching and Evaluating Writing: A Quasi-Experimental Study. The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 46(1), 50-61. ISSN-0011-8052.
(40)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Pradiyono. (2007). Pasti Bisa! Teaching Genre-Based Writing. Yogyakarta: CV. Andi Offset.
Purnawarman, P. (2011). Impacts of Different Types of Teacher Corrective Feedback in Reducing Grammatical Errors on ESL/EFL Students’ Writing. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Rollinson, P. (2005). “Using Peer Feedback in The ESL Writing Class”. ELT
Journal. 59, (1).
Wechsler, D. (1996). Wechsler Objective Language Dimensions (WOLD). London: Harcourt Brace & Company.
Saito, H. And Fujita, T. (2004). “Characteristics and User Acceptance of Peer
Rating in EFL Writing Classrooms”. Language Teaching Research. 8,
1, 42-54.
Seyler, D.U. (2004) The Reading Context Developing College Reading Skill. New York: Longman
Shokrpour, N., Nikta, K., and Seyed, M.J. (2011). “The Effect of Peer Review on
Writing Skill of EFL Students”. Khazar Journal of Humanities and
Social Sciences. 24-25.
Siswana. (2008). Peer Feedback on Students’ Writing: A case Study at an-English Department in a University in Jakarta. Master Degree‟s Thesis of School of Postgraduate Studies of Indonesia University of Education: Unpublished.
Smalley, R.L., Ruetten, M.K., & Kozyrev, J.R. (2001). Refining Composition Skills: Rhetoric and Grammar. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle
Srichanyachon, N. (2012). An Investigation of University EFL Students‟ Attitudes
toward Teacher and Peer Feedback. Educational Research & Review, 7(26), 558-562.
Stanley, L. (1988). Ways to Writing. New York: Macmillan.
Strijbos, J.W., Ochoa, T.A., Sluijsmans, D.M.A., Segers, M.S.R., & Tillema, H.H. (2009). “Fostering Interactivity through Formative Peer Assessment in (Web-Based) Collaborative Learning Environments”. In C. Mourlas, N. Tsianos, & P. Germanakos (Eds.), Cognitive and Emotional Processes in Web-Based Education: Integrating Human Factors and Personalization (pp. 375–395). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
(41)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Strijbos, J. W., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K. (2010). “Peer Feedback Content and Sender’s Competence Level in Academic Writing
Revision Tasks: Are They Critical for Feedback Perceptions and Efficiency?. Learning and Instruction. 20, 291-303.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative Writing: Product, Process, and Students’
Reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153-173.
Sugiyono, J. (2008). Statistics for Research. Bandung: Alfabeta Press.
Tompkins, G.E. (1994). Teaching Writing: Balancing Process and Product. New York: Macmillan College Company, Inc.
Topping, K., Smith, F.F., Swason, I. & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative Peer Assessment of Academic Writing Between Postgraduate Students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 149-169. Trochim, W.M.K. (2006). The Nonequivalent Groups Design. [online]. Available
at: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/quasnegd.php. [January 31, 2015].
Trochim, W.M.K. (2006). Types of Questions. [online]. Available at: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/questype.php. [July 09, 2015]
Tsui, A.B., & Ng., M. (2000). Do Secondary L2 Writers Benefit from Peer Comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170.
Wood, J., L., Waugh and J., L. (2008). Designing & Implementing Student-Centered Assessment. [online]. Avalailable at: https://assessment.tamu.edu/. [August 08, 2014]
Yang, M. Badger, R. & Yu, Z. (2006). A Comparative Study of Peer and Teacher Feedback in Chinese EFL Writing Class. Journal of Second Language Learning, 15 (3), 179-200.
Yarrow, F. and Topping, K.J. (2001). Collaborative Learning: The Effects of Metacognitive Prompting and Structured Peer Interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 261-282.
Zhang, S. (1995). „Re-examining The Affective Advantage of Peer Feedback in The ESL Writing Class‟. Journal of Second Language Writing. 4/3,
(42)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Zumakhsin and Yulia, M. (2005). Progress: A Contextual Approach to Learning English. Jakarta: Ganeca Exact.
(1)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Coolidge, F. L. (2000). Statistic: A Gentle Introduction. London: SAGE Publishing.
Corbett, W. (1983). The Little Rhetoric and Handbook with Reading. Bloomington, Illinois: Scott, Freshman.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (fourth ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
D‟Angelo, F.J. (1980). Process and Thought in Composition. Second Edition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Winthrop Publishers.
Dheram, P. K. (1995). Feedback as A Two-Bullockcart: A Case Study of Teaching Writing. [online]. Available at: http://203.72.145.166/elt/files/49-2-6.pdf. [May 24, 2014].
Dornyei, Z. (2001). Motivational Strategies in The Language Classroom: Cambridge University Press.
Dunsmuir, S. et. al. (2015). An Evaluation of the Writing Assessment Measure (WAM) for Chirdren’s Narrative Writing. [online]. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1075293514000385# bib0045. [August 09, 2015].
Flatworld Solutions. (2002). Different Types of Questions in Questionnaire
Design. [online]. Available at:
http://www.outsource2india.com/kpo/articles/questionnaire-types-of-questions.asp. [July 09, 2015]
Fraenkle, J.R.W., Norman E. & Hyun, H.H. (2012). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (eight ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Freedman, S. (1987). Response to Student Writing (Report No. 23). USA: The National Council of Teacher of English.
Grami, G.M.A. (2010). The Effect of Integrating Peer Feedback into University-Level ESL Writing Curriculum: A Comparative Study in Saudi Context. Newcastle: Newcastle University.
Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching, Fourth Edition. England: Ashford Colour Press Ltd.
(2)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Hyland, K & Hylan, K. (2006). “Feedback on Second Language Students’ Writing”. Lang. Teach. 39, 77-95.
Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on Second Language Writing. Language Teaching. 39, 37-95. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, P. (2000). Learning from Feedback on Assessment, in: A. Booth and P. Hyland (eds) The Practice of University History Teaching. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Ho, B. (2006). “Effectiveness of Using Process Approach to Teach Writing in Six Hong Kong Primary Classrooms”. Perspectives: Working Papers in English and Communication. 17, (1).
Hong, F. (2006). Students‟ Perception of Peer Response Activity in English Writing Instruction. CELEA Journal (Bimonthly), 29. [online]. Available at: http.//www.elt-china.org/teic/68/68-48.pdf. [June 28, 2015].
Jacobs, G.M., Curtis, A., Braine, G. & Huang, S.Y. (1998). Feedback on Student Writing:
Johnston, K. & Morrow, K. (1981). Communication in the Classroom. London: Longman
Jones, L. (2007). The Student-Centered Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kane, T.S. (2000). The Oxford Essential Guide to Writing.New York: Barkley Books.
Keh, C.L. (1990). “Feedback in The Writing Process: A Model and Method for Implementation”. ELT Journal. 4, 294-304.
Kitchakarn, O. (2012). “Incorporating Peer Response to Writing Process”. Executive Journal. 70-76.
Lenggogeni, P. (2011). The Use of Peer Feedback Technique in Improving Students’ Narrative Writing. Unpublished.
Liu, J., and J. H. (2002). Peer Response in Second Language Writing Classrooms. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
(3)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Liu, J., and J. H. (2005). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
Lundstorm, K., & Baker, W. (2009). to Give is Better than to Receive: The Benefits of Peer Review to the Reviewer‟s Own Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing. 18 (1), 30-43.
McQuinn, C. & Roach, M. (2002). The Writing Process: Web Tutorial. [on-line].
Available at:
http://www.psesd.wednet.edu/write_process/Write_PC/writepr.htm. [December 29, 2014]
Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293–308.
Mish, F.C. (1984). Webster‟s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. [online]. Available at: http://www.worldcat.org/title/websters-ninth-new-collegiate-dictionary/oclc/249627361. [December 29, 2014]
Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English Language Teaching. Singapore: Mc Graw Hill.
Oshima, A and A, Hogue. (1997). Introduction to Academic Writing. Addison Wesley: Longman.
Oshima, A. and Hogue, A. (1999). Writing Academic English. (3rd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The Effect of Peer and Teacher Feedback on Student Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (3), 265-289.
Penn State. (2007). Peer Feedback. [online]. Available at: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd =7&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CGwQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.s chreyerinstitute.psu.edu%2Fpdf%2Falex%2Falex%2Fpeer_feed.pdf&ei
=Wn2HUZPX18_jrAer5oHIDQ&usg=AFQjCNGz-iEo_SelRfsvi4uCzFFqz9tiBw&sig2=81OsqtFyyr_rzRSPWLOkag&bv m=bv.45960087,d.bmk. [May 06, 2013].
Plutsky, S., & Wilson, B.A. (2004). Comparison of The Three Methods of Teaching and Evaluating Writing: A Quasi-Experimental Study. The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 46(1), 50-61. ISSN-0011-8052.
(4)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Pradiyono. (2007). Pasti Bisa! Teaching Genre-Based Writing. Yogyakarta: CV. Andi Offset.
Purnawarman, P. (2011). Impacts of Different Types of Teacher Corrective Feedback in Reducing Grammatical Errors on ESL/EFL Students’ Writing. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Rollinson, P. (2005). “Using Peer Feedback in The ESL Writing Class”. ELT Journal. 59, (1).
Wechsler, D. (1996). Wechsler Objective Language Dimensions (WOLD). London: Harcourt Brace & Company.
Saito, H. And Fujita, T. (2004). “Characteristics and User Acceptance of Peer Rating in EFL Writing Classrooms”. Language Teaching Research. 8, 1, 42-54.
Seyler, D.U. (2004) The Reading Context Developing College Reading Skill. New York: Longman
Shokrpour, N., Nikta, K., and Seyed, M.J. (2011). “The Effect of Peer Review on Writing Skill of EFL Students”. Khazar Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. 24-25.
Siswana. (2008). Peer Feedback on Students’ Writing: A case Study at an-English Department in a University in Jakarta. Master Degree‟s Thesis of School of Postgraduate Studies of Indonesia University of Education: Unpublished.
Smalley, R.L., Ruetten, M.K., & Kozyrev, J.R. (2001). Refining Composition Skills: Rhetoric and Grammar. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle
Srichanyachon, N. (2012). An Investigation of University EFL Students‟ Attitudes toward Teacher and Peer Feedback. Educational Research & Review, 7(26), 558-562.
Stanley, L. (1988). Ways to Writing. New York: Macmillan.
Strijbos, J.W., Ochoa, T.A., Sluijsmans, D.M.A., Segers, M.S.R., & Tillema, H.H. (2009). “Fostering Interactivity through Formative Peer Assessment in (Web-Based) Collaborative Learning Environments”. In C. Mourlas, N. Tsianos, & P. Germanakos (Eds.), Cognitive and Emotional Processes in Web-Based Education: Integrating Human Factors and Personalization (pp. 375–395). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
(5)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Strijbos, J. W., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K. (2010). “Peer Feedback
Content and Sender’s Competence Level in Academic Writing
Revision Tasks: Are They Critical for Feedback Perceptions and
Efficiency?. Learning and Instruction. 20, 291-303.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative Writing: Product, Process, and Students’
Reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153-173.
Sugiyono, J. (2008). Statistics for Research. Bandung: Alfabeta Press.
Tompkins, G.E. (1994). Teaching Writing: Balancing Process and Product. New York: Macmillan College Company, Inc.
Topping, K., Smith, F.F., Swason, I. & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative Peer Assessment of Academic Writing Between Postgraduate Students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 149-169. Trochim, W.M.K. (2006). The Nonequivalent Groups Design. [online]. Available
at: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/quasnegd.php. [January 31, 2015].
Trochim, W.M.K. (2006). Types of Questions. [online]. Available at: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/questype.php. [July 09, 2015] Tsui, A.B., & Ng., M. (2000). Do Secondary L2 Writers Benefit from Peer
Comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170. Wood, J., L., Waugh and J., L. (2008). Designing & Implementing
Student-Centered Assessment. [online]. Avalailable at: https://assessment.tamu.edu/. [August 08, 2014]
Yang, M. Badger, R. & Yu, Z. (2006). A Comparative Study of Peer and Teacher Feedback in Chinese EFL Writing Class. Journal of Second Language Learning, 15 (3), 179-200.
Yarrow, F. and Topping, K.J. (2001). Collaborative Learning: The Effects of Metacognitive Prompting and Structured Peer Interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 261-282.
Zhang, S. (1995). „Re-examining The Affective Advantage of Peer Feedback in The ESL Writing Class‟. Journal of Second Language Writing. 4/3,
(6)
Listya Marianti , 2015
THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK IN INCREASING STUDENT’S DESCRIPTIVE WRITING SKILL
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Zumakhsin and Yulia, M. (2005). Progress: A Contextual Approach to Learning English. Jakarta: Ganeca Exact.