STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION TOWARD PEER FEEDBACK IN WRITING CLASS A THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment or the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION TOWARD PEER FEEDBACK
IN WRITING CLASS A THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment or the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
By Farida Noor Rohmah
Student Number: 06 1214 111
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION TOWARD PEER FEEDBACK
IN WRITING CLASS A THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment or the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
By Farida Noor Rohmah
Student Number: 06 1214 111
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY
I honestly declare that this thesis, which I have written, does not contain the work or parts of the work of other people, except those cited in the quotation and the references, as a scientific paper should.
rd
Yogyakarta, August 23 , 2010 The Writer
Farida Noor Rohmah 06 1214 111
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN
PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIK
Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma: Nama : Farida Noor Rohmah
Nomor Mahasiswa : 06 1214 111 Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION TOWARD PEER FEEDBACK
IN WRITING CLASS Beserta perangkat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan, mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data, mendistribusikannya di Internet atau media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin ataupun memberikan royalti kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis.
Demikian pernyataan ini saya buat dengan sebenarnya. Dibuat di Yogyakarta Pada tanggal : 23 Agustus 2010 Yang menyatakan Farida Noor Rohmah
"Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom."
(George S. Patton) I dedicate this thesis to: ♥ My beloved father and mother ♥ My little sister and brother ♥ My big family ♥ My dearest boyfriend
ABSTRACT
Rohmah, Farida Noor. 2010. Students’ Perception toward Peer Feedback in
Writing Class. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Sanata
Dharma University.In process of writing, revision plays an important role. In order to have an effective revision, students need feedback from their readers. In writing classes, commonly feedback is from the teacher. Meanwhile, depending feedback only from the teacher will lead the students to be dependent learners. In fact, feedback can be obtained from the students namely peer feedback which direct them to be more independent as learners. This research deals with the use of peer feedback in writing class. The researcher formulates two problem formulations in this research. The first problem is what the students’ perception toward peer feedback in writing class and the second problem is to what extent the students give peer feedback.
Thus, the researcher employed survey research which was conducted on the beginning of May 2010. The participants of this research were the students of the two Paragraph Writing classes academic year 2009/2010 at English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University. Gathering the data, the researcher used a set of questionnaire as well as peer feedback checklist. The questionnaire was used to gather students’ opinion of a list of questions about the use of peer feedback in writing class. Meanwhile, the peer feedback checklist was set to gather information about to what extent the students give peer feedback.
Based on the data analysis, it was found that the students gained positive perception toward peer feedback in writing class. This answer was proved by the value of the degree of agreements that frequently occurred were “strongly agree” and “agree” in the questionnaire. Only a small part of the students had negative perception toward peer feedback in writing class. Dealing with the second problem, the result showed that the students could provide useful feedback for their peers on organization area, content area, language use area, vocabulary area, and mechanic area. The students even provided some suggestions to their peers related to the composition to improve the quality of the composition. There were only a few students who did not provide clear explanation or suggestion about feedback they gave in their peers’ compositions
In summary, students gave positive perception toward peer feedback in writing class. Most of the students agreed that peer feedback is beneficial to be applied in writing class. Students also could provide feedback for their peers on organization area, content area, language use area, vocabulary area, and mechanic area. Some suggestions to improve the implementation of peer feedback in writing class were presented.
.
ABSTRAK
Rohmah, Farida Noor. 2010. Students’ Perception toward Peer Feedback in
Writing Class. Yogyakarta: Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris,
Universitas Sanata Dharma.Dalam proses menulis, revisi mempunyai peranan penting. Untuk merevisi tulisan dengan efektif, mahasiswa membutuhkan umpan balik dari pembacanya. Dalam kelas Writing, pada umumnya umpan balik selalu diberikan oleh dosen. Padahal, ketergantungan pada umpan balik dari dosen dapat mengarahkan mahasiswa menjadi tidak mandiri. Pada kenyataannya, umpan balik bisa didapatkan dari sesame mahasiswa atau yang disebut dengan peer feedback. Penelitian ini melingkupi penggunaan umpan balik antar teman dalam kelas
Writing . Peneliti merumuskan dua permasalahan dalam penelitian ini. Masalah
yang pertama yaitu persepsi apakah yang dimiliki mahasiswa terhadap penggunaan umpan balik abtar teman dalam kelas Writing. Masalah yang kedua adalah sampai seberapa jauhkah mahasiswa memberikan umpan balik kepada temannya dalam karangan mereka.
Maka dari itu, peneliti menggunakan metode survei yang dimulai pada awal Mei 2010. Responden penelitian ini adalah mahasiswa dua kelas Paragraph
Writing tahun ajaran 2009/2010 di Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris,
Universitas Sanata Dharma. Untuk mendapatkan data penelitian ini, peneliti menggunakan dua instrumen penelitian yaitu kuisioner dan peer feedback
checklist . Kuisoner digunakan untuk mengetahui pendapat mahasiswa tentang
peer feedback. Sementara itu, peer feedback checklist didesain untuk mengetahui seberapa jauh mahasiswa memberikan peer feedback.
Berdasarkan analisa dari data yang didapatkan, peneliti menemukan bahwa mahasiswa memiliki persepsi yang positif terhadap penggunaan umpan balik antar teman did lam kelas Writing. Ini dibuktikan dengan banyaknya mahasiswa yang menjawab “sangat setuju” dan “setuju” dalam merespon pernyataan dalam kuisioner. Mayoritas mahasiswa sejutu bahwa umpan balik antar teman menguntungkan untuk diterapkan di dalam kelas Writing. menjawab permasalahan yang kedua, peneliti menemukan bahwa mahasiswa dapat memberikan umpan balik kepada teman dalam lingkup organisasi, isi, bahasa, perbendaharaan kata, dan mekanika penulisan. Kebanyakan mahasiswa bahkan memberikan saran kepada teman terkait dengan tulisan mereka agar tulisan mereka dapat lebih berkualitas. Hanya sebagian kecil dari mahasiswa yang tidak memberikan penjelasan yang jelas tentang umpan balik meraka.
Pada intinya, mahasiwa mempunyai persepsi yang positif terhadap penggunaan peer feedback dalam kelas Writing. Mahasiswa juga dapat memberikan umpan balik kepada teman dalam lingkup organisasi, isi, bahasa, perbendaharaan kata, dan mekanika penulisan. Akhirnya, beberapa usulan juga disampaikan dalam studi ini untuk meningkatkan kualitas penerapan peer feedback di kelas Writing.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, my greatest gratitude is addressed to Allah SWT for always blessing me. He guided and showed me the paths in finishing my thesis and my study. Without Him I would not be like what I am now.
For sure, I am truly indebted to my sponsor, the one and only, Caecilia Tutyandari, S.Pd., M.Pd. for her willingness to spend her busy time reading my thesis, her guidance and her advice from the beginning of this research until the accomplishment of this thesis. I would like to express my thankfulness to Nugraha Krisdiyanta, S.Pd., who gave me permission to conduct my research in his Paragraph Writing classes and valuable advices for my thesis. Further, I would like to deeply thank all lecturers of PBI for their guidance during my study.
I am very grateful to my beloved parents, Bapak and Ibu, for their endless care and support during my study and my sister, Nisa, and my brother, Ajib, for their attention for me. My deepest gratitude also belongs to Camiku “Mas Adit”, who always gave me his continued affection and motivation.
My thankfulness also goes to my best friends Rusna, Ayum, Yeyen, Rika,
Rina, Deinza and Danny for their companionship which full of happiness,
sadness, laughter and tears. I would like express my appreciation to Mbak Danik and Mbak Tari for their beneficial information during my study. Finally, my gratitude is addressed to all of the people who have helped me in completing this thesis.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE ..................................................................................................... i PAGES OF APPROVAL .................................................................................. ii STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY .................................................. iv
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI
KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIK ................................. v
DEDICATION PAGE ........................................................................................ vi ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................... vii
ABSTRAK ........................................................................................................... viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................. ix TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................... x LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................... xiv LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................. xvi
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION A. Background of the Study ........................................................................
1 B. Problem Formulation .............................................................................
3 C. Problem Limitation ................................................................................
4 D. Objectives of the Study ..........................................................................
4 E. Benefits of the Study ..............................................................................
4
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE A. Theoretical Description ..........................................................................
7 1. Perception .........................................................................................
7 a. Definition of Perception ...................................................................
7 b. Factors Influencing Perception ........................................................
8 c. Students’ Perception toward Peer Feedback ....................................
9
2. Writing as a Process ......................................................................... 10
3. Feedback .......................................................................................... 12
a. The Presence of Feedback in Writing Class .................................... 12
b. Sources of Feedback ........................................................................ 13
c. Purposes of Feedback ....................................................................... 17
4. The Roles of Peer Feedback in Writing Class ................................. 18
B. Theoretical Framework .......................................................................... 20
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY A. Research Method .................................................................................... 22 B. Research Participants ............................................................................. 22 C. Research Instruments ............................................................................. 23
E. Data Analysis Technique ....................................................................... 26
F. Research Procedure ................................................................................ 27
CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A. Research Results .................................................................................... 28
1. Students’ Responses to the Questionnaire ............................................. 29
a. Students’ Perception on the Process of Peer Feedback .......................... 29
b. Students’ Perception on the Benefits of Peer Feedback ........................ 33
c. Students’ Perception on Feedback from Their Peer ............................... 38
d. Students’ Perception on the Implementation of Peer Feedback .................................................................................... 40 e. The Results of Open-Ended Questions .................................................. 41
2. Students’ Responses to the Peer Feedback Checklist ............................ 42
B. Discussion .............................................................................................. 44
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS A. Conclusions ............................................................................................ 51 B. Suggestions ............................................................................................ 52 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 54 APPENDICES Appendix 1. Questionnaire................................................................................. 57
Appendix 2. Peer Feedback Checklist ............................................................... 60 Appendix 3. Questionnaire Blueprint ................................................................ 61 Appendix 4. Result of Close-ended Questions .................................................. 62 Appendix 5. Raw Data of Open-ended Questions ............................................. 65 Appendix 6. Raw Data of Peer Feedback Checklist .......................................... 70
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page 2.1 The Perceptual Process .............................................................................
9
4.1 The Necessity of Revision and Feedback in Writing ............................... 30
4.2 The Frequency of Giving Correction, Suggestion and Comments ..........................................................................................
30
4.3 Students’ Confidence in Doing Peer Feedback ........................................ 31
4.4 Students’ Freeness in Doing Peer Feedback ............................................. 32
4.5 Students’ Activeness in Asking Clarification ........................................... 32
4.6 Students’ Difficulty in Giving Feedback to Their Peer ............................ 33
4.7 The Helpfulness of Peer Feedback Checklist ........................................... 33
4.8 The Usefulness of Feedback Given by Peer ............................................. 34
4.9 Students’ Ability to Solve Their Writing Problem Through Peer Feedback ............................................................................ 34
4.10 Students’ Learning from Their Peer’s Mistakes ....................................... 35
4.11 Students’ Motivation to Learn from their Peer ......................................... 35
4.12 Students’ Encouragement to Work Cooperatively with Their Peer ........................................................................................ 36
4.13 Students’ Becoming More Independent ..................................................... 36
4.14 Students’ Becoming More Critical ........................................................... 37
4.15 Students’ Awareness of Making Mistakes through Peer Feedback ............................................................................. 37
4.16 Students’ Consideration of Duration of Peer Feedback ........................... 38
4.18 The Clearness of Feedback Given by Peer ............................................... 39
4.19 Students’ Satisfaction with the Feedback Given by Peer ........................................................................................... 39
4.20 Students’ Consideration to Include Peer’s Feedback for Revision ..............................................................................................
40
4.21 The Influence of Feedback Given by Peer on Writing Improvement .......................................................................... 40
4.22 Students’ Need of Teacher Feedback ....................................................... 41
4.23 Students’ Preference on Implementation of Peer Feedback in Writing Class ................................................................ 41
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3.1 Table of Participants’ Rating Scale Responses ........................................ 26
4.1 Table of Participants’ Responses on Open-Ended Questions ............................................................................. 42
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The study investigates the students’ perceptions on the use of peer
feedback in writing class. This chapter presents background of the study, problem limitation, problem formulation, objectives of the study, benefits of the study, and definition of the terms.
A. Background of the Study
Writing is considered to be a complex skill and subject in English language learning. Written expression is considered the be the most complex stage of language development, more complex than oral language, and the last to be mastered (Evans, 1986). In addition, Richards (1990: 101) states that, “It is not merely the linguistic organization of written discourse that makes writing a difficult skill to acquire. The process moving from concepts, thoughts, and ideas to written text is complex.” Thus, students might face difficulties and make mistakes in writing. Writing requires students to experience trial and error process in achieving a qualified writing product.
Hence, writing is a process activity. According to Cohen (1990:105), writing refers to the process in which the final expected product comes after a series of drafts. The composition has gone through several steps of peer editing and self-assessment. Seow (2002) describes seven stages of the process of writing. topic and generate the idea. The second step is called drafting, in which the students make a draft of their writing. This step also lets the students generate further idea. The third step is called responding. The responses might come from teacher or peer. Responding is done after the students have produced the first draft and before they proceed to revise. The next stage is revising. In this step, the students make some necessary revision to improve their composition based on the feedback given in the responding stage. The fifth step is editing in which students are dealing with tidying up their texts as they prepare the final draft for evaluation by the teacher. The sixth step is called evaluating. The evaluation is usually done by the teacher. Yet, students may be encouraged to evaluate their own and each other’s writing once they have been taught how to do it. The last step is post- writing which includes publishing, sharing, reading aloud, and so on.
From the stages, it is clear that there should be a revision in writing. It is important for the students to make revision in order to have better composition in their final product of writing. In this revision process, the students certainly need feedback from their reader. Many sources are available for the students to receive feedback for their writing. Traditionally, feedback is given by the teacher. Unfortunately, based on Lewis (2002), teachers usually spend more time on giving feedback. At this point, teachers may utilize peer feedback. One advantage of peer feedback, proposed by Tiedt (1989: 86), is that students can learn more about writing as they see the kinds of ideas other students have and how they develop them. Peer feedback is good to maximize the students’ ability in exposing the students to be independent learners. The researcher believes that peer feedback is very helpful in improving students’ writing quality.
As the researcher experienced when she was in Paragraph Writing class and Academic Writing class in English Education Study Program, her lecturer implemented peer feedback in class. The researcher, then, found that her writing quality was better after getting feedback from her peer. The researcher believes that peer feedback is very helpful to improve students’ writing quality of their writing performance. Moreover, a thesis by Rina (2007), entitled “Students’ Perceptions on Peer Feedback in Writing” reveals that most of the students had positive perception toward peer feedback. The students believed that peer feedback was advantageous. Yet, beginner students or the students in the lower level of semester may have different perception toward it.
Thus, the researcher intends to find the students’ perception on the use of peer feedback in writing class. Moreover, the researcher also intends to reveal to what extent the students give peer feedback. To answer those two problems, the researcher uses qualitative research.
B. Problem Formulation This study would like to address two questions.
1. What is the students’ perception toward peer feedback in writing class?
2. To what extent do the students give peer feedback?
C. Problem Limitation
The problem is limited to the discussion on the students’ perception on the contribution of peer feedback in writing class. Writing class here is Paragraph Writing class in the academic year 2009/2010 in English Education Study Program Sanata Dharma University Yogyakarta.
D. Objectives of the Study
The present study is aimed at investigating the students’ perception toward the contribution of peer feedback in writing class. Moreover, the study is also aimed at exploring to what extent the students give peer feedback.
E. Benefits of the Study
In general, the researcher hopes that this study could give some valuable contribution to all educational communities, especially at the English Education Study Program. The researcher hopes that this study can give an understanding for the readers, especially English teachers, English teacher candidates and English learners about the contribution of peer feedback in writing class.
Hopefully, the writing lecturers can consider using not only teacher feedback but also peer feedback in their writing class since learning a language cannot be separated from interaction of one learner to another learner.
For the students, the researcher hopes that they should be able to be independent learners. They are expected to reduce their dependence of their lecturer in writing. Trough this study, the researcher expects that the students in writing classes will be encouraged to utilize peer feedback considering the benefits they can obtain.
Finally for the future researchers, the researcher hopes that this study can give them inspiration to conduct further research on peer feedback of other topics related to feedback to enrich the existing study.
F. Definition of Terms
To avoid misleading to occur and to make common conception to the reader about some terms related to this study, the researcher defines as follows:
1. Perception Huffman and Vernoys (2000) define perception as a process of selecting, organizing, and interpreting sensory data into usable mental representations of the world. Trough this definition, they state that experiences, cultural factors, perceptual expectations and personal motivations and frame of reference influence the process of forming the perception.
Moreover, Altman, Valenzi, and Hodgetts (1985) describe perception as a person’s view of reality. It is the way stimuli are selected and grouped by a person so that they can be meaningfully interpreted. In Oxford Advanced Learners’
Dictionary (Hornby, 1995: 895), perception is defined as a way of seeing,
understanding, or interpreting something. In this study, perception is what the students think about something that they have experienced, which in this case is peer feedback in writing class.
2. Peer Feedback According to Lewis (2002), peer feedback means any constructive comments from peers to peers for the sake of improving the writing. Additionally, according to Richards (1999), in the process of peer feedback the students cooperatively work in groups, read, criticize, and the proofread their own writing.
In this study, peer feedback is an activity to give suggestion, comments, and error correction between student and students in pairs by using peer feedback checklist.
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Review of the literature chapter is aimed at discussing the theories that
underlie this study. It involves theoretical descriptions. Since this study discusses the use of peer feedback in writing class, the theoretical descriptions contains the concept of peer feedback and issues of the use of peer feedback in writing class. In the theoretical framework, the researcher relates the theories to the study.
A. Theoretical Description
This section deals with the explanation of perception, writing as process, feedback and the role of peer feedback in writing class.
1. Perception a. Definition of Perception
Huffman and Vernoys (2000) define perception as a process of selecting, organizing, and interpreting sensory data into usable mental representations of the world. Through this definition, they state that experiences, cultural factors, perceptual expectations and personal motivations and frame of reference influence the process of forming the perception.
Moreover, Altman, Valenzi, and Hodgetts (1985) describe perception as a person’s view of reality. It is the way stimuli are selected and grouped by a person so that they can be meaningfully interpreted. The perceptual process starts from stimuli and allow us to interpret, or give meaning to, the sensory message. This message is, then, sent to the brain. Thus, the brain will process the message into feeling. Finally, the brain continues to interpret the feeling into perceptions.
b. Factors Influencing Perception
There are a number of factors influencing a person’s perception. Altman et al. (1985) describe four of the most important factors influence a person’s perceptions. They are as followed.
1) Selection of Stimuli
A person focuses on only a small number of stimuli from all stimuli with which he or she is surrounded. This process is called selection. That is why people perceive things differently. It means that each person selects specific cues and filters, or screen, out the others.
2) Organization of Stimuli
After information has been selected, it must be arranged to become meaningful. The mind tries to bring order out the unarranged data by selecting certain items and putting them together in a meaningful way based on experience.
3) The Situation
A familiarity and expectation about a situation affect what a person perceives. Perceiving a situation deals with how well a person adjusts his or her behavior to situation.
4) Self-Concept Self-concept or the way a person feels about and perceives him or herself.
This self-concept is important since the mental picture of a person determines much of what he or she perceives and does.
c. Students’ Perception Toward Peer Feedback
Based on the definitions of perception suggested by psychologists above, it can be concluded that perception involves organizing and interpreting information and data coming from the environment so that the information and the data can be meaningfully interpreted. The students’ perception will lead them to different behavioral responses. Thus, when the students perceive peer feedback positively, they will think that peer feedback is beneficial for them in revising their writing.
Then, they will be likely to revise their writing based on the peer feedback. On the contrary, when they perceive peer feedback negatively, they will not consider peer feedback is beneficial source to revise their writing. Consequently, they will not revise their writing based on peer feedback. This notion is supported by Figure
2.1. Perception, Sensors’ organization,
Behavioral selection and Stimuli response of stimuli interpretation of stimuli
Figure 2.1. The Perceptual Process (Source: Altman, Valenzi, and Hodgetts 1985: 86)2. Writing as a Process
The traditional approach to the teaching of writing has been called product approach. The basic assumption of this approach is that the students are capable of turning out final product the first time around (Cohen, 1990). Yet, it can be concluded that the writing product approach only emphasizes on the final product without paying attention on stages that the students should reach the final product of writing.
In recent years, process approach to writing has been used. Cohen (1990: 105) states that writing refers to the process in which the final product comes from after a series of time. Furthermore, Cohen adds that writer’s awareness of writing process is highly valued and the student’s writing has gone through some series of peer feedback and self-assessment before the teacher assesses it. From this process, the students can explore their ability to write and develop their skill in writing.
Stages in writing clearly show that writing is a process. Some authors describe different stages in writing. However, the researcher finds that the stages are almost the same. Based on Seow (2002), there are seven stages in the process of writing. They are as follows: a. Planning (Pre-writing)
It is the activity that encourages students to write. It stimulated thoughts for getting started. The students should find the topic and generate the idea. b. Drafting After finding the topics, the students may generalize it into subtopics and paragraph. Students should also have in mind a central idea they want to communicate to the audience in order to give direction to their writing. At this drafting stage, the students are focused on the fluency of writing and are not preoccupied with grammatical accuracy.
c. Responding This stage has a central role in the successful implementation of process approach. The responses and the feedback that the students get can be come from the teacher or their peer. Response can be oral or written. It can be after the students have produced the first draft or just before they proceed to revise.
d. Revising The students revise their writing based on the feedback given in the responding stage. Revising is not only checking for language errors, but also improving global content and the organization of ideas.
e. Editing At this stage, students are dealing with tidying up their texts as they prepare the final draft for evaluation by the teacher. The students edit their writing for grammar, spelling, punctuation, diction, sentence structure, and accuracy.
f. Evaluating The evaluation is usually done by the teacher. Yet, students may be encouraged to evaluate their own and each other’s writing once they have been taught how to do it. In this way, they can be more responsible for their own writing.
g. Post-writing The post-writing activity includes publishing, sharing, reading aloud, and so on. It can be used as motivation for students to write. Students should be made to feel that they write for a very real purpose.
3. Feedback a. The Presence of Feedback in Writing Class
The presence of feedback is essential to learning to write in foreign language (Hyland, 2003). It is because of the fact that in order to have effective revision, the students need feedback from their audience. Before making a revision, students should receive feeedback so that the students may make the revison based on the feedback or even suggestions that they receive from their audience. According to Kauchack and Eggen (1989), feedback tells the students information concerning their current behavior for the sake of improvement. Students can recognize their mistakes so that they will not repeat the same mistakes and correct them. Thus, feedback is a useful means for the students in improving their writing. It could be concluded that feedback is crucial since feedback provides the writer with a sense of readers and lead them to the awareness of the needs of the readers (Hyland, 2003).
b. Sources of Feedback
There are some sources are available for the students to receive feedback for their writing. The students may receive feedback from their teacher, their peers, and even from themselves.
1). Teacher Feedback
Traditionally, the feedback comes from the teacher. The process of giving feedback from teacher is usually done by correcting one by one student’s writing then discussing face to face with each student. This technique is called conferencing feedback. Moreover, teacher might use other variation of giving feedback for instance collective feedback. Teachers summarize the comments of students’ writing in front of the class.
However, Cohen (1990) states that the teacher commonly gives comments on grammar or mechanics rather than on content and organization. This argument is presented by Cohen (1990) as followed.
It has been observed that a learner’s motivation to write can be negatively affected by a teacher’s untimely or exclusive focus on surface issues of form (e.g. grammatical concern, spelling and punctuation).
2). Peer Feedback
It might be monotonous if feedback only comes from the teacher in every meeting of writing class. It will lead the students’ boredom in writing class. The students need another variety of suggestion for their writing. Hyland (2003) states that the idea of students receiving feedback from their peers become an important learn how to write by reading. Students learn how to write by reading the writing of their peers (Tiedt, 1989: 188). It means that peer feedback can be used to help students to learn how to write. The students can improve their own writing after reading and correcting their peers’ draft. One writer can find what he does not have in his paper in his peer’s composition and vice versa. In addition, proofreading other people’s work prepares the students for proofreading their own work. Lewis (2002) adds that the process of peer feedback can be fun and useful. This becomes one of the many ways students can learn to improve their writing.
According to Richards (1999), in the process of peer feedback the students cooperatively work in groups, read, criticize, and the proofread their own writing.
Based on that definition, it can be concluded that peer feedback in writing class refers to the process of reading and responding of friend’s composition. The students read their peers’ work. The compositions are, then, given comments by the students. Peer feedback might take a number of different forms. Hyland (2003) describes that typically, peer feedback consists of assigning students to groups of two or three who exchange the first draft and then give comments on each other’s writing before they revise them. It commonly occurs during class time. In order to make peer feedback effective for the students, teacher should follow certain guideline. Sokolik (2003) confirms that teacher should provide some kind of structured feedback form. Teachers may employ a kind of peer feedback guideline to help the students focus on particular aspects of the writing or even the conventions of the genre. It might avoid the students’ confusion on
Lewis (2002) suggests ten ways the teachers can try implementing peer feedback in writing class. They are as followed.
a) Exchange Papers The students exchange their composition and report to each other on the aspect that could be improved. This way of peer feedback is often applied by the teacher.
b) Role-Play The students can work in groups of three. Each student takes role as a ‘student’, ‘teacher’, and ‘judge’. Here, the teacher comments on the student’s work then the judge gives comment on the quality of teacher’s feedback.
c) Pair work in moving circle A half part of the class stay seated in a U-shape while the other half move around inside the U-shape. For example, every five minutes they have different partner.
Students give feedback on the writing orally.
d) Pass papers round The students pass their compositions round three places. Then, they have to write comments on the compositions in front of them. It is continued with another three places for different students to write comments.
e) Feedback Questions The questions could be clarification questions based on pre-writing task of brainstorming, for example, ‘What does this term mean?’ of ‘How’ and ‘Why’ questions leading to new ideas.
f) Multiple feedback
The draft of the students is rounded so that each student reads several examples. They note suggestions and or commendations on the compositions. Then, every student reports orally in front of the class on one good feature and what could be improved without mentioning the writer’s name.
g) Read/listen/respond One student reads aloud their composition and other students comment on it. This way really works for short pieces of writing.
h) Compare writing The teacher should give question to start and help the discussion for the students to work in pairs to compare their compositions, for instance, what is the main idea of the paragraph? i) Summarise and photocopy advice At first, the students exchange their compositions and evaluate other’s work. Then on a piece of paper they write down one suggestion or one commendation. These slips are then compiled and photocopied so that each student has a record of all the comments. j) Sentence on board Every student generates a given topic sentence then moves to the board to write their works. Finally, other students give feedback on the works.
From the description, it means that peer feedback can be implemented in many varieties of activities. It can minimize students’ boredom in writing class.
The teachers should choose the best way in implemented peer feedback so that
3). Self-Correction
Self correction here means the students correct and evaluate their own compositions. Lewis (2002) states that self-correction increases students’ independence from the teacher. By discovering their own mistakes, the students can remember better what mistakes they have done. In addition, it saves time in large classes. Yet, it is difficult to find and seek mistakes in their own compositions without other’s helps. Students who have written compositions will claim that there are no mistakes in it because they have their own subjective point of view. By contrast, other students might provide information that cannot be possibly got by the authors themselves in their compositions.
c. Purposes of Feedback
Lewis (2002) describes some purposes of feedback for teacher and students. Feedback is aimed at providing information both for teacher and students. For teacher, feedback provides a description on the students’ progress. For students, feedback gives them information which tends to be ongoing assessment for them. It means that it is more focused that grades and marks.
Teachers also can provide students with more than simply descriptions of their language use but on their students’ learning. Moreover, the teacher’s feedback provides students with meaningful and individual language input. Lewis (2002:4) states that “the teacher words, both in their form and their purposes, illustrate how language is used in one-to-one communication.
Another purpose of feedback is that the students can get motivation. In learning process, feedback can be more motivating then marks or grades. It encourages students in using language to the best of their ability. Finally, one long-term purpose of feedback is to lead the students become autonomous.
Feedback leads students to the point where they can find their own mistakes.
4. The Role of Peer Feedback in Writing Class
Peer feedback provides several advantages. Hyland ( 2003) states that peer feedback enables the students to develop their critical reading skill. By reading and responding their peers’ work, the students may gain the skill necessary to critically analyze and revise their own writing. Not only developing students’ critical reading skill, peer feedback also creates an authentic social context for interaction and learning (Mittan, 1989, as cited in Hyland, 2003). It can be seen that the students could learn from each other and practice how to make useful interaction with others. Peer feedback, then, can enhance active learner participation (Hyland, 2003).
In addition, peer feedback can encourage a collaborative dialogue in which two-way feedback is established (Rollinson, 2005). In accordance with Cohen (1990), the teacher can make use of cooperative learning in the revision stage as a special means of getting feedback. It implies that peer feedback could be considered as cooperative learning. It assigns the students to cooperate with their peers in responding and revising their writing. He describes his idea as quoted Another way to ensure ample feedback is to elicit the support of non- native peers in the classroom, usually within a structured framework. For example, learners may be requested to form working groups and to take turns reading each other’s papers.
According to Rollinson (2005), peer readers can provide useful feedback in writing class. This notion is revealed by a research conducted by Rollinson in 1998 that 80% of feedback or comments from peers were considered valid. Moreover, it was found that only 7% feedback or comments were considered damaging. It entails the fact that the students can revise their writing effectively based on the feedback from their peers.
As Mcgroarty (1989) says in Kessler ( 1992:3), peer feedback in writing class can give opportunities to act as sources for each other, hence assuming a more active role in their learning. It is clearly seen that this statement clarifies that cooperative learning, indeed, gives opportunity for the learners to be more responsible for their own learning and the learning of others. In peer feedback, they search the knowledge from their peers as well as share their knowledge and experience about writing to their peers. For instance, making mistakes in the past is an experience. As a result, based on this experience students do not repeat the same mistakes in writing as what they did previously.
Lewis (2002) states that by doing peer feedback the students can have a greater variety of suggestions. In other words, learning in group by doing peer feedback tends to generate more ideas and exposes different point of view. The researcher concludes that it is very beneficial for the students since they can optimally improve and revise their writing.
B. Theoretical Framework
Writing does not merely focus on the product. It more focuses on the process. There are several stages the students engage in the process of writing.