A study on the contribution of peer feedback to the improvement of writing quality and the students` perception in SMU N 3 Yogyakarta.

(1)

ABSTRACT

Maria Dyah Lintang Primadiani. 2007. A Study on the Contribution to the Improvement of Writing Quality and the Students’ Perception in SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta . Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University

Revision plays an important role in process of writing. In order to have effective revision, students certainly need feedback from their readers. Exposing the students to be independent learners, which is in the line with the Curriculum at the School Level, teachers may utilize peer feedback at this point.

This study deals with the use of peer feedback in the writing class of the eleventh grade students of SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta. There are two problems formulated in this study. The first problem is to what extent peer feedback contributes to the students’ improvement in their writing quality and the second problem is what the students’ perception of the use of peer feedback in their writing class is. This research is a descriptive research because the writer describes the information about the current status of phenomena. In undertaking the research, the writer conducted a writing class and then utilized peer feedback in the class. Gathering the data, the writer used the students’ pre and post peer writing as well as a set of questionnaire.

Based on the data analysis, it was found that peer feedback improves the students’ writing quality in all of the aspects: content, organization, language use, vocabulary and mechanics. Revising their writing based on the feedback from peers, the students have successfully demonstrated better content, organization, language use, vocabulary and mechanics. The content is more knowledgeable and accurate, the organization is more coherent and unified, the language is more accurate, the vocabulary is more effective and the mechanics is more commanded.

Dealing with the second problem, the writer finds out that the students gain positive peer feedback on the use of peer feedback. This answer is proved by the fact that the value of the degree of agreement that most frequently occurred was “agree”. This answer is also sustained the finding of the first problem formulation that was the fact that the students revised their writing based on the feedback from their peers.

(2)

ABSTRAK

Maria Dyah Lintang Primadiani. 2007. A Study on the Contribution to the Improvement of Writing Quality and the Students’ Perception in SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta: Universitas Sanata Dharma

Revisi merupakan hal yang penting dalam proses menulis. Dalam merevisi tulisan secara efektif, siswa tentu saja membutuhkan umpan balik dari pembacanya. Mendorong siswa untuk menjadi siswa yang lebih mandiri, sesuai dengan Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP), guru dapat menggunakan proses saling memberi dan menerima umpan balik antar teman.

Penelitian ini melingkupi penggunaan umpan balik antar teman dalam kelas menulis siswa SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta kelas sebelas. Terdapat dua masalah yang dirumuskan dalam penelitian ini. Masalah yang pertama yaitu sampai seberapakah umpan balik antar teman berkontribusi dalam meningkatkan nilai kualitas tulisan para siswa, sedangkan masalah yang kedua yaitu persepsi seperti apa yang dimiliki para siswa terhadap penggunaan umpan balik antar teman dalam kelas menulis mereka. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian deskriptif karena di dalam penelitian ini penulis menjelaskan fenomena yang ada tentang penggunaan umpan balik di SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta, lebih spesifik tentang kontribusi and persepsi siswa. Dalam melaksanakan penelitian ini, si penulis mengajar dalam kelas menulis dan memanfaatkan penggunaan umpan balik antar teman kepada para siswa. Di dalam mendapatkan data untuk penelitian ini, si penulis menggunakan tulisan siswa sebelum dan sesudah pelaksanaan umpan balik antar teman dan juga mengunakan satu set kuesioner.

Berdasarkan analisis data, umpan balik antar teman ternyata terbukti ampuh untuk dapat meningkatkan kualitas nilai tulisan siswa. Setelah merevisi tulisan mereka berdasarkan umpan balik dari teman mereka, isi, organisasi, bahasa, perbendaharaan kata, dan mekanika penulisan para siswa meningkat. Isi tulisan mereka dinilai lebih detil dan berwawasan, organisasi tulisan mereka dinilai lebih berkembang secara logis and teratur, bahasa mereka lebih akurat dan tepat, perbendaharaan kata dalam tulisan mereka lebih efektif dan akurat, dan mekanika penulisan mereka lebih terkontrol dan terjaga.

Menjawab masalah kedua, penulis menemukan bahwa persepsi siswa terhadap umpan balik antar teman positif. Ini dibuktikan dengan nilai pendapat yang paling sering dipilih siswa dalam merespon pernyataan di kuesioner adalah “setuju”. Bahwa para siswa mempunyai persepsi positif juga dikuatkan dengan bukti nyata bahwa para siswa merevisi tulisan mereka berdasarkan umpan balik yang mereka dapat dari teman mereka.

(3)

A STUDY ON THE CONTRIBUTION OF PEER FEEDBACK TO

THE IMPROVEMENT OF WRITING QUALITY AND

THE STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION IN SMU N. 3 YOGYAKARTA

A THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

Name: Maria Dyah Lintang Primadiani Student Number: 031214027

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

2007

(4)

A Thesis on

A STUDY ON THE CONTRIBUTION OF PEER FEEDBACK TO

THE IMPROVEMENT OF WRITING QUALITY AND

THE STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION IN SMU N. 3 YOGYAKARTA

Name: Maria Dyah Lintang Primadiani Student Number: 031214027

Approved by

Major Sponsor,

Drs. Pius Nurwidasa Prihatin, M. Ed. 13 September 2007

(5)

A Thesis on

A STUDY ON THE CONTRIBUTION OF PEER FEEDBACK TO

THE IMPROVEMENT OF WRITING QUALITY AND

THE STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION IN SMU N. 3 YOGYAKARTA

Name: Maria Dyah Lintang Primadiani Student Number: 031214027 Defended before the Board of Examiners

on September 27, 2007 and Declared Acceptable

Board of Examiners

Chairperson : Ag. Hardi Prasetyo, S.Pd. __________________ Secretary : Drs. P. G. Purba, M.Pd. __________________ Member : Drs. Pius Nurwidasa Prihatin, M.Ed. __________________ Member : Drs. Concilianus Laos Mbato, M.A. __________________ Member : F. X. Ouda Teda Ena, S.Pd., M.Pd. __________________

Yogyakarta, 27 September 2007

Faculty of Teachers Training and Education Sanata Dharma University

Dean,

Drs. Tarsisius Sarkim, M.Ed.,Ph.

(6)

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY

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

Yogyakarta, 13 September 2007

The writer,

Maria Dyah Lintang Primadiani

(7)

“Our body is the garden…. our desire is the gardener”

(William Shakespeare)

“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven…. He hath made every thing beautiful in His time: also He hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.”

(Ecclesiastes 3: 1 & 11)

This thesis is dedicated to:

- Bapa, Putera dan Roh Kudus

- BundaMaria

- My beloved and Wonderful Parents

(8)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to express my greatest gratitude to God the Almighty and Mother Mary, the Holy Virgin, who have given Their blessings to me, so that this thesis could be finished.

For the initial faith he showed and for his continued beneficial feedback and encouragement, I acknowledge with gratitude my thesis advisor respectively, Drs. Pius Nurwidasa Prihatin, M.Ed., who was willing to spend his precious time for the sake of guiding me in writing this thesis. My gratitude also goes to all of my lectures in PBI who have guided and taught me well, especially to Drs. Petrus Garahim Purba, M.Pd., my academic advisor, Drs. Concilianus Laos Mbato, M.A. and Fransiscus Xaverius Ouda Teda Ena, S.Pd., M.Pd.

I am truly indebted to Drs. Bambang Supriyono, M.M., the principle of SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta, who had permitted me to undertake this research. My special thanks go to Dra. Arti Umiyati and Dra. Sri Indah Asmorowati, the English teachers, who had accepted me and treated me well. I also thank all of the students of XI IPA 2 of SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta for being my research participants. Bhakti Vidya Kshatriya Tama, Tan Lalana Labet Tunggal Bangsa, Jaya-jaya Padmanaba!

I am immeasurably grateful and thankful to my great and beloved parents,

Antonius Pri Oetomo Soetopo and Maria Gorretti Murwani, who have supported me through their companion and affection. I also thank my brother, Stephanus Bismo Dharupurnomo.

My gratitude goes to Robertus Bellarminus Drajat Jati Purnama, S.Sn., who has, as always, given me his continued support and affection during finishing this thesis.

(9)

I owe great debts to the following people who have helped me during my finishing this thesis: Antonius Eko Haryanto, Intan Sukma Varamashinta, S.E., Monika Dini Kurniasari, Sri Ratnasari Sindu Lestari, Amelia Murtyoastuti, S.Psi., Dewie Angan, S.Pd., Dyah Ayu Margareta P., Binawati Agustin D., S.Pd.,

Ansgaria Oscarita Febriani, Deonisia Tyas Yuniwati, Angel Berta Desi

Suryanti, S.T., Yosepha Henny, S.Farm., Priyatno Ardi, S.Pd., Yohana Ika

Harnita S. and AgathaNila Sukma.

Finally, I must express my appreciation to the staffs of PBI secretariat,

mbak Dani and mbak Tari, for their beneficial information during my study.

Matur nuwun awit sadaya pambiyantunipun. Mugi Gusti ingkang Maha

Welas tansah paring berkah lan paring piwales panjenengan sami.

Maria Dyah Lintang Primadiani

(10)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE PAGE ... i

PAGE OF APPROVAL ... ii

PAGE OF ACCEPTANCE ... iii

PAGE OF DEDICATION ... iv

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ... v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... vi

ABSTRACT ... xiv

ABSTRAK... xv

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... viii

LIST OF TABLES ... xi

LIST OF FIGURES ... xii

LIST OF APPENDICES ... xiii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ... 1

A. Background of the Study ... 1

B. Problem Formulation ... 5

C. Problem Limitation ... 5

D. Objectives of the Study ... 5

E. Benefits of the Study ……… ... 6 viii

(11)

F. Definition of the Terms ... 6

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE ... 8

A. Theoretical Description ... 8

1. Product-focused vs. Process Approach ... 8

a. Product-focused Approach ... 9

b. Process Approach ... 10

c. Writing as both a Process and Product ... 12

2. The Presence of Feedback in Writing ... 12

a. The Importance of Feedback in Writing ... 13

b. What is peer feedback? ... 14

c. The Benefits of Peer Feedback ... 15

d. Does peer feedback work? ... 15

e. Peer Feedback as the Implementation of Cooperative Learning .... 16

3. Teaching Writing for the Eleventh Grade Students of Senior High School ... 17

4. The Students’ Perception on the Use of Peer Feedback ... 18

B. Theoretical Framework ... 20

CHAPTER III: METODOLOGY ... 22

A. Research Method ... 22

B. Research Participants ... 22

C. Research Instruments ... 23

D. Data Gathering Technique ... 25 ix

(12)

E. Data Analysis Technique ... 27

F. Research Procedures ... 30

CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS ... 31

A. Data Presentation and Interpretation ... 31

1. The Improvement of the Students’ Writing Quality ... 31

2. The Students’ Responses to the Questionnaire ... 37

B. Discussion ... 43

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 46

A. Conclusions ... 46

B. Suggestions ... 47

BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 48

APPENDICES ... 50

(13)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Questionnaire Blue Print ... 25 Table 3.2 The Scoring System of the Students’ Writing ... 27 Table 4.1 The Comparison of the Writing Quality of the Students’

Pre-peer and Post-peer Writing ... 32 Table 4.2 The Student’s Achievement on Each Aspect of Writing Quality ... 33 Table 4.3 The Frequency and Percentage of the Students’ responses on Each

Statement on the Questionnaire ... 37

(14)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 The Perceptual Process ... 19

(15)

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Letters of Permission ... 51

Appendix 2. Students’ Pre-peer Writing ... 55

Appendix 3. Students’ Peer Feedback Checklist ... 63

Appendix 4. Students’ Post-peer Writing ... 71

Appendix 5. Questionnaire ... 79

(16)

ABSTRACT

Maria Dyah Lintang Primadiani. 2007. A Study on the Contribution to the Improvement of Writing Quality and the Students’ Perception in SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta . Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University

(17)

ABSTRAK

(18)

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter includes background of the study, problem formulation, problem limitation, objectives of the study, benefits of the study, and definition of terms that are going to be discussed as follows.

A. Background of the Study

It goes without saying that in English Language Learning, among four language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing), writing skill is considered the most difficult to master (Tiedt, 1989: 6). This idea is also supported by Sokolik (2003: 88). She argues that writing skill is considered the most difficult because it involves many human aspects, such as mental and physical activities. It is no wonder that many students do not like writing (Hughey, 1983). They are not well aware of the importance of writing skill. Most of them consider that writing is boring, difficult and must be avoided. When the writer was in her Senior High School, writing was considered as a deadly subject. Yet, writing skill is very crucial for students. Writing skill can be found and is needed in every field of study. Students dealing with ideas and content in any subject will use writing skill as a way of expressing their ideas and thoughts (Tiedt, 1989: 7). Expressing ideas through a good composition is essential for the success of the students’ study. Considering the importance of writing skill, the government and curriculum designer put this skill as one skill that must be learned by the students.

(19)

Both in Competencies-based Curriculum (KBK) and Curriculum at the School Level (KTSP), writing is considered as both a product as well as process. Based on the teaching learning presented in the syllabus development, the students who deal with writing are assigned to follow the stages of writing process (Model Pengembangan Silabus dan RPP SMA, 2006: 18-19). The whole stages of writing process include brainstorming, drafting, writing, feedback and revising. It is apparent, then, that the students must do some revision before coming to the final product. Accordingly, revision, in which ideas are emerged and clarified, has become the heart of writing process (Lehr as cited in Pujikurniawati, 2004: 7).

In order to have effective revision, students certainly need feedback from their audience. Many sources are available for the students to receive feedback for their writing. The students may gain feedback from their teachers or their peers. Usually, the students receive feedback from their teacher. Unfortunately, based on Lewis (2002: 18), teacher usually spends more time on giving feedback. The work of Cohen (1990: 71) cites that the teachers commonly give comments on grammar or mechanics rather than on content and organization. In fact, the students often expect their teacher to give comment more on their content and organization. At this point, teachers may utilize peer feedback. One of the advantages of peer feedback, proposed by Hyland (2003: 199), is that peer feedback could enhance active learner participation. Further, peer feedback is believed to create an authentic social context for interaction and learning (Mittan, 1989, as cited in Hyland, 2003: 198). It implies that the students could learn form each other and practice in how to get along with others. The use of peer feedback, then, could create student-centered learning

(20)

situation in which the students take part as independent learners. It is in line with the principle of Curriculum at the School Level. So, exposing the students to be independent learners in writing class, the teacher should employ peer feedback.

As the writer experienced when she was in the first semester of English Language Education Study Program, her lecturer always provided feedback on her writing. It helped a lot to improve her writing. In semester three, the lecturer tried to implement the use of peer feedback in the writer’s writing class. The writer did what the lecturer instructed. She gave feedback on her peer’s writing as well as revised her writing based on the feedback from her peer. The writer, then, found out that her post-peer writing’s quality was better than her pre-peer writing’s. She had obtained good perception toward the use of peer feedback in improving her writing. She perceived that peer feedback was a beneficial strategy to improve her writing.

A thesis entitled “Students’ Perception on Peer Feedback” and written by Rina (2007), a student of English Education Study Program reveals that on average the students of English Education Study Program obtained good perception toward peer feedback. The students believed that peer feedback were at advantages. The students of Senior High School may have different perception toward the use of peer feedback. The difference may be due to different expectation and needs as well as past experiences. Frequently, different needs, expectation and past experiences lead to different perception. This notion is presented by Bootzin et al (1983: 119) as quoted below:

Perception is also substantially influenced by our needs. When in a particular motivational state, we tend to notice stimuli that in the past have been associated with the satisfaction of that state… Our expectation, past experiences, and psychological states combine, setting us to perceive the world in certain ways.

(21)

Experiencing that the mastery of English skills was not necessary enough for the success of her study, the writer, when she was in the Senior High School, did not consider the four language skills so essential to master. Yet, when she studies at English Education Study Program, becoming a candidate of English teacher, the mastery of all language skills appears to be of the essence. It is not wondered that the use of peer feedback in writing, then, is perceived to be at advantages since writing skill is as essential as other language skills. Further, interviewing the English teachers of SMU N.3 Yogyakarta, the writer comes to a conclusion that peer feedback has not been implemented in the students’ writing activity yet. Teacher written feedback has become the most frequently used strategy of revisions. Even sometimes, the teachers do not provide any feedback for the students. Owing the fact that the students of SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta have different expectation and needs and that they have not been well-involved in the process of peer feedback before, they may perceive peer feedback differently from the way the students of English Education Study Program do.

Considering the idea above, the writer is determined to investigate what perception the eleventh grade students of SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta will be and to what extent peer feedback contributes to the students’ improvement in their writing quality. The eleventh grade students are chosen as population of interest due to the assumption that they have more English exposure, especially in writing, than the tenth grade students do. The twelfth grade students are not chosen for they are no longer involved in academic activity.

(22)

B. Problem Formulation

Considering the previous explanation, the problems will be formulated as follows:

1. To what extent does peer feedback contribute to the students’ improvement in their writing quality?

2. What is the students’ perception of the implementation of peer feedback in their writing activity?

C. Problem Limitation

The scope of this study is the use of peer feedback in the writing class of the eleventh grade students of SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta. As noticeably stated above, the focus of this study is to figure out to what extent peer feedback contributes to the students’ writing quality and investigate the students’ perception toward the use of peer feedback. The criteria of writing quality cover content, organization, language use, vocabulary, and mechanics. So, in this study, the writer is determined to see in what aspects peer feedback will give its contribution. The students’ perception is highly valued in this study, as the students’ perception will lead them to different behavioral attitude or response.

D. Objectives of the Study

Two objectives will be obtained in this study. They are sated as follows: 1. To describe the contribution of peer feedback in the students’ writing quality. 2. To examine the students’ perception of the use of peer feedback in their

(23)

E. Benefits of the Study

This study is expected to give contribution to: 1. The English teachers

The result of the study helps the English teachers of senior high school in general and the English teachers of SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta in particular to be accurately aware and realize that peer feedback improves the students’ writing quality. Having been accurately aware and realized this fact, the teachers are expected to utilize peer feedback as an appropriate strategy in providing a way for the students to gain feedback for their writing.

2. The eleventh grade students of senior high school

Knowing that peer feedback improves their writing, the students are expected to employ peer feedback in their writing independently. Next time, in their writing class, the students are expected to be no longer dependent on their teachers in receicing feedback. They could ask their peers to provide feedback for their writing.

F. Definition of Terms

For the sake of avoiding misunderstanding, the writer provides some definition of the terms used in this study. They are stated as follows.

1. Peer feedback

Kauchack, as cited in Berewot (2001: 7), defines feedback as any information concerning about the students’ current behavior used for improving the future performance of the students. Giving feedback means telling the students about the progress they are making for the sake of guiding them to areas

(24)

of improvement (Lewis, 2002: ii). According to Lewis, there are three kinds of feedback. They are teacher feedback, peer feedback and self-correction.

In this study, peer feedback in writing refers to any constructive comments/criticism from peers to peers for the sake of improving the writing. Implementing peer feedback, the students are to exchange their writing to their friends. After that, they should revise their writing based on the comments from their peers.

2. Writing Quality

Writing quality, in this study, is outlined as the evaluation score of the students’ writing judged in its own right against some criteria, which are content, organization, language use, vocabulary and mechanics. The quality of the students’ writing is measured by evaluating the students’ writings based on a weighted rubric taken form the scoring system of the students’ writing (see chapter III).

(25)

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

Chapter II is aimed at discussing the theories underlying this study. This chapter covers theoretical description and theoretical review. The theoretical description presents a detail discussion of four key concepts in this study. Since this study deals with the use of peer feedback in writing class of eleventh grade students of high school, the theories that will be presented cover the issue of product-focused vs. process approach in writing, the presence of feedback in writing, teaching writing for the second year students of senior high school in Indonesia and the students’ perception on the use peer feedback.

By discussing those concepts, the problem formulation will be theoretically answered through the discussion in theoretical description and afterwards the tentative answer of the problem formulation will be stated in the theoretical framework.

A. Theoretical Description

This section deals with product-focused vs. process approach, the presence of feedback in writing, teaching writing for the second year students of senior high school and the students’ perception on the use peer feedback.

1. Product-focused vs. Process Approach

The issue of product-focused and process approach in process of writing has remained controversial in teaching writing to second language learners (Brown,

(26)

2001: 334). These two approaches are related, as the process approach has emerged as the critic for the product-focused approach. The theory of these two approaches is present in this study since the theory is closely related to the use of peer feedback in writing activity. The brief discussion of product-focused and process approach is presented below.

a. Product-focused Approach

The theory of product-focused approach is considered traditional. For many years, the teaching writing in ESL/EFL classroom had been synonymous with the teaching of grammar or sentence structure (Richards, 1992: 106). In accordance with Nunan (1999: 272), the product-focused approach is regarded as the writing approach which puts emphasis on the final product that is coherent, free-error text. In line with this argument, Harmer, as cited in Pujikurniawati (2004: 11), states that this approach possesses an interest in the aim of a task and in the end of product. The similar statement is presented by Cohen (1990: 105), who states that the product-focused approach is mostly concerned with the final/finished product of the writing.

There are some requirements, given by Brown (2001: 335), underlying the expected final product of the writing product-focused approach. The first requirement is that the student’s writing should meet certain standard of prescribed English rhetorical style. Hence, the writing instructional program mostly puts emphasis on the patterns and forms of organization used in different kinds of written texts (Richards, 1992: 106). It assumes, then, that the objective of teaching writing based on the product-focused approach is to have the students master certain kinds of written texts they will have in educational, institutional, and/or personal contexts.

(27)

The second requirement is that the writing should present accurate grammar. The student, then, are not allowed to make any mistakes in their writing. The last requirement is that the student’s writing must be organized. These requirements bring a consequence for the teacher to evaluate the student’s writing based on the model given. The evaluation is based on a set of criteria including content, organization, diction, grammar, and mechanical considerations like spelling and punctuation (Brown, 2001: 335).

Apparently, the writing product-focused approach emphasizes on the quality of the final product without noticing the stages that the students have to reach the final writing product. As a result, the students are discouraged to take their writing assignment seriously as the focus of the writing product-focused approach is instant product and grade (Cohen, 1992: 105). Instead of noticing the process of taking the writing assignments, the students will just consider the grade that they will achieve.

b. Process Approach

Unlike the product-focused approach, the focus of the writing process in the process approach is on the steps included in drafting and redrafting a piece of writing (Nunan, 1999: 272). Similar to this, Cohen (1990: 105) states that writing refers to the process in which the final expected product comes after a series of time. Further, Cohen adds that the students’ awareness of writing process is highly valued and for this reason, the student’s writing has usually gone through several series of peer feedback and self-assessment before coming to teacher assessment. Another argument of this approach is coming from Sokolik (2003: 96), who considers writing as a process that is more than creating a final product. She argues that writing

(28)

process is a series of skills leading to that product. Based on the definitions above, the writing process approach can refer to the approach having the student reach the final product through a considerable period of time. In other words, this approach provides more opportunities for the students to sharpen their writing skill.

In accordance with Murray, as cited in Richards (1999: 108), there are three stages in writing, namely pre-writing, drafting, and revising. Re-writing involves finding, thinking, develop and organize a topic and ideas. Drafting includes getting the ideas onto paper in rough form. Revising involves evaluating what has been written. In this stage, the students may make changes as necessary. However, these steps should not be linear to follow. The process of writing is supposed to be recursive (Nunan, 1999: 273). In line with this argument, Flower and Hayes, as cited in Cohen (1990: 106), claims that writing is seen as one continuous process which is recursive in nature. It implies that the students can combine the stages instead of following them in strict sequence. Another opinion is given by Kroll as cited in Sokolik (2003: 96).

The “process approach” serves us today as an umbrella term for many types of writing process… What the term captures is the fact that student writers engage in their writing tasks through a cyclical approach rather than through a single-shot approach.

Following the steps in process writing, the students are believed to have several benefits of it. As Richards (1992: 110) points out, the students are given more opportunities to develop their writings into the meaningful ones. Similar to this, Brown (2001: 336) also points out that following the stages of process writing is beneficial for the students. He claims that this process has given the students more chance to think when they write. Further Brown (2001: 336) argues that giving more

(29)

chance for the students to write and revise their drafts is crucial, as the students might be anxious when they have no chance to have revision on their writing.

c. Writing as both a Process and Product

Instead of putting the writing process into certain notion that writing is a process or writing is a product, it is best to say that writing is both a process and a product. This idea is supported by Brown (2001: 337).

The current emphasis on process writing must of course be seen in the perspective of a balance between process and product. As in most language teaching approaches, it is quite possible for you to go to an extreme in emphasizing process to the extent that the final product diminishes in importance… This product is, after all, the ultimate goal; it is the reason that we go through the process of pre-writing, drafting, revising and editing… Process is not the end; it is the means to the end. Furthermore, Sokolik (2003: 88) proposes the same argument saying that writing is defined as both a process and product. She puts emphasis on the idea that the process of writing is often cyclical and sometimes disorderly and what the readers see is a product.

This idea implies that the process and the product of writing must be equally valued. In other words, the process of writing is as important as the product of writing. The students must experience the process of writing (pre-writing, drafting and revising) as well as do their best to gain the best quality of the final writing product.

2. The Presence of Feedback in Writing

Supporting that writing is both a process and product, Shih, as cited in Brown (2001: 335) proposes several activities that the teacher in writing class should do.

(30)

They are focusing on the process of writing that leads to the final product, providing enough time for the students to write and rewrite, providing central importance on the process, and encouraging feedback from both the instructors and peers.

a. The Importance of Feedback in Writing

The presence of feedback is essential to learning to write in foreign language (Hyland, 2003: 207). It is due to the fact that in order to have effective revision, the students certainly need feedback form their audience. Feedback tells the students information concerning their current behavior for the sake of improvement (Kauchack, as cited in Berewot, 2001: 7). So, feedback is a useful means for the students to improve their writing and, at last, sharpen their writing ability. It could be concluded that the presence of feedback in writing is considered crucial, as feedback provide the writers with a sense of readers and lead them to the awareness of the needs of the readers (Hyland, 2003: 207).

Many sources are available for the students to receive feedback for their writing. The students may receive feedback from their teachers or friends. The feedback that the students receive mainly comes from their teacher. However, following Lewis’s argument, teacher usually spends more time on giving feedback (2002: 18). Further, Cohen (1990: 71), states that the teachers commonly give comments on grammar or mechanics rather than on content and organization. In fact, the students often expect their teacher to give comment more on their content and organization. This argument is presented by Cohen (1990: 71) as quoted below:

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 concerns, spelling, and punctuation).

(31)

b. What is peer feedback?

It appears that another theory supporting this study is the theory of peer feedback. The work of Richards (1999: 113) points out that in the process of peer feedback, the students cooperatively work in groups, read, criticize, and then proofread their own writing. From the definition above, it can be concluded that peer feedback in writing class refers to the process where the students exchange constructive criticism to their peers in order to improve their writing.

Basically, the students may tend to feel more comfortable in having the feedback provided by their teacher rather than their peers. Despite it, implementing peer feedback is not considered less valuable (Chaudron as cited in Cohen, 1990 pg. 112). Even, researchers have suggested teachers to make use of peer feedback more (Cohen, 1990: 112).

In order to make peer feedback effective for the students, the teacher should follow certain guidelines. According to Sokolik (2003: 98), the teacher should provide some kind of structured feedback framework. It is due to avoiding the students’ being confused on what to give comments. Moreover, the teacher should expose the students to give comments more on the ideas or organizations than on the grammar or mechanics, as the students often make mistakes the idea of giving feedback or revision with correcting grammar or sentence structure (Sommers cited in Sokolik, 2003 pg. 98). For that reason, it is best for the teacher to spend more time in explaining about the process of pre-writing, drafting and revising separated from editing for grammar or spelling (Sokolik, 2002: 98). It, however, does not imply that the students are not allowed to exchange positive criticism to their peers on their sentence structure.

(32)

c. The Benefits of Peer Feedback

Peer feedback is believed to provide several advantages. The work of Hyland (2003: 199) claims that peer feedback enables the students to develop their critical reading skills. Not only developing the students’ critical reading skill, peer feedback also gains the students’ skill necessary to critically revise their own writing (Zhang, 1995, as cited in Hyland 2003: 198). Peer feedback, then, can enhance active learner participation (Hyland, 2003: 199). According to Lewis (2002: 18), the students can save their time in revising their writing based on the feedback from their peers, as teacher usually spends more time in giving feed back. Further, peer feedback creates an authentic social context for interaction and learning (Mittan, 1989, as cited in Hyland, 2003: 198). It implies that the students could learn form each other and practice in how to get along with others. Cooperating together in giving feedback also results in the students’ esteem. Working together, the students are supposed to feel responsible for participating, therefore, in this activity, leadership is distributed (Larsen-Freeman, 2000: 168). As a result, the students are more confident.

d. Does peer feedback work?

It is comprehensible that writers need to write for audience (read: readers). By utilizing peer feedback, the students are given an opportunity to gain feedback from authentic readers, which are their peers, as well as to understand the readers’ needs. The presence of authentic readers is considered important in learning to write as basically writing is social interaction between writers and readers. So, when the students write for no purpose or for no reader, the communication does not take place. The work of Hyland (2002: 35) states that writing is not an act of an isolated

(33)

individual, but a joint endeavor between writers and readers. Writing, then, is fundamentally dialogic. Writing, then, is a conversation between writers and readers in an ongoing activity.

Sokolik (2003: 93) suggests that feedback should be helpful and meaningful to be effective to create successful language use. Therefore, peer feedback should be helpful and meaningful to build successful language use. Despite many cons toward the implementation of peer feedback in writing class, according to Rollinson (2005), peer readers can provide useful feedback in writing classroom. This notion is verified by the research conducted by Rollinson in 1998 that revealed that 80% of feedback/comments from peers were considered valid. In addition, it was found that only 7% of the comments were considered damaging. Further, the work of Mendonca and Johnson (1994), as cited in Hyland, states that writers make use of peer feedback in their revisions despite their second language proficiency, group dynamics and prior knowledge. It entails the fact that the students can revise their writing effectively on the basis of feedback form their peer readers.

e. Peer Feedback as the Implementation of Cooperative Learning

In accordance with Cohen (1990: 112), the teacher can make use of cooperative learning in revision step as a special means of getting feedback. He proposed his idea as quoted below:

Another way to ensure ample feedback is to elicit the support of non-native peers in the classroom, usually within a structured framework. For example, learners may be requested to form working groups and to take turns reading each others’ papers… Sometimes learners pass their papers around so that each participant reads all other papers; sometimes one learner reads his or her paper aloud to the rest of the group while they follow along using photocopies (Cohen, 1990: 112)

(34)

This idea implies that peer feedback could be considered as the implementation of cooperative learning. The emphasis of the using of peer feedback is that it assigns the students to cooperate with their peers in revising their writing. The steps in conducting the peer feedback would be grouping several students in the same group and then having them read their peers’ writing and give constructive criticism. Having finished giving feedback, all of them discuss together about feedback/comment they have given. Apparently, the successful implementation of peer feedback is determined by the successful cooperation among the group members.

3. Teaching Writing for the Eleventh Grade Students of Senior High School

According to Curriculum at the School Level or KTSP, the basic competence in writing skill for the eleventh grade students of senior high school requires the students to express meanings and rhetoric development in essays by making use of written language fluently and accurately on the context of daily life in form of report, narration, and analytical exposition (mengungkapkan makna dan langkah retorika dalam essei dengan menggunakan ragam bahasa tulis secara akurat, lancar, dan

berterima dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari dalam teks berbentuk: laporan,

narasi dan eksposisi analitis) (Model Pengembangan Silabus dan RPP SMA, 2006: 18-19). In line with the syllabus development, in this study, the writer assigned the students to write essays in form of analytical exposition. The writer assigned the students to write argumentative writing. In writing analytical exposition or argumentative writing, the students are to state their thesis statement and then their supportive arguments. At last, they are supposed to restate their basic idea.

(35)

Both in Competencies-based Curriculum (KBK) and Curriculum at the School Level (KTSP), writing is considered as both a product and process. Based on the teaching learning presented in the syllabus development, the students are to do some revision before coming to the final product. It means that the students are assigned to follow the stages of writing process. Following the stages of writing process, the students are supposed to produce good writing. It implies that the students must also notice the quality of their writing.

4. The Students’ Perception on the Use of Peer Feeback

Before theoretically discussing the students’ perception on the use of peer feedback, the definition of perception should be presented first. Perception is defined as a process of organizing the information that an individual gains from his environment to make it logical and sensible (Gibson, 1997: 97). Supporting this definition, Robbins defines perception as one’s process to organize and interpret impressions from environment to make them meaningful for the environment (Robbins, 1997: 39). Another definition is presented by Altman and Hodgetts (1985: 85), who define perception as an individual’s view of reality. Further, they state that the process of perception makes people possible to understand the environment where they live. Based on the definitions above, it can be concluded that perception involves organizing and interpreting information coming from the environment so that the information can be meaningfully interpreted.

The students’ perception will lead them to different behavioral attitude or response. Accordingly, when the students perceive peer feedback positively, they will consider that peer feedback is a beneficial source to revise their writing and be

(36)

likely to revise their writing based on the peer feedback. On the other hand, when they perceive peer feedback negatively, they will not consider peer feedback is beneficial for the improvement of their writing and therefore they will not revise their writing based on the peer feedback. This notion is supported by this following figure.

Figure 2.1. The perceptual process (Source: Gibson, 1997: 61)

In spite of the fact that people see the same thing, they may perceive them in different ways. In other words, the way people see things depends on how the available information is processed (Altman and Hodgetts, 1985: 85). There are several factors that can influence an individual’s perception. According to Robbins (1997: 39), perception is commonly influenced by the perceiver and the characteristics of the target being observed.

Basically, when an individual tries to interpret his environment, the interpretation is influenced by personal characteristics of the individual perceiver (Robbins, 1997: 39). These characteristics involve attitude, interest, expectation, past experience and needs as well as emotion (Robbins, 1997: 40).

The characteristics of target being observed can also influence interpretation, as the relationship between the target and its background heavily influences the forming of perception. For example, the students who utilize the use of peer feedback

Stimuli

Observation of the stimuli

The evaluation and interpreting of

reality

A response behavior

(37)

in revising their writing are well aware that the objective of peer feedback is to improve their writing and to practice cooperating with others. The students, then, build a positive perception toward the use of peer feedback. In contrast, when the students do not know that peer feedback is beneficial for them, they will automatically build negative perception.

As additional information, an individual’s motivation is highly determined by his perception. This statement is supported by Herbert as quoted below:

Motivation is also strongly affected by perception, as we noted in examining expectancy theory. The force of motivation is directly related to the perceived probability that effort and success are related, as well as the linkage between success and rewards (Herbert, 1976: 262)

When the students perceive peer feedback negatively, they will not be motivated to use peer feedback to revise their writing. On the opposite, when they perceive peer feedback positively, they will be motivated to revise their writing based on the feedback from their peers.

B. Theoretical Framework

Enhancing students to improve their writing ability does not simply have a free-error final product as the major concern. It is best to consider the process that the students go through in achieving the final product. The whole stages of writing involve pre-writing, drafting, and revising. Apparently, revising has been considered the core of the writing process. Providing meaningful and beneficial feedback is crucial to support the success of revision step. Exposing the students to cooperative learning, the teacher may utilize peer feedback as a special means of getting feedback.

(38)

Considering the ideas above, the writer is interested in finding out whether the feedback from peers makes significant difference of the students’ writing quality and also the students’ perceptions toward the implementation of peer feedback. The expectation is that the students have a positive perception toward the implementation of peer feedback so that they revise their writing based on the feedback for their peers.

From the brief discussion in the theoretical description above, it can be tentatively concluded that peer feedback improves the students’ writing. Evidently, the students revise their writing based on the feedback from their peers. Hence, it is tentatively concluded that the students hold positive perception toward the implementation of peer feedback in their writing class.

(39)

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter deals with the methodology the writer used in this study. Thus, this chapter presents the method, research participants, setting, research instrument, data gathering technique, and data analysis as well as research procedure.

A. Research Method

In this study, the writer employed descriptive research. The work of Ary et al (1990: 381) reveals that this sort of research is designed to obtain information about the current status of phenomena. It means that descriptive research is designed to describe a certain phenomenon. On the face of it, in analyzing the data the writer experienced the use qualitative research method. The work of Ary et al (2002: 22) points out that qualitative research method deals with understanding social phenomena from the perspective of the human participants in the study. One major characteristic of this research method is the use of narrative description and interpretation. This characteristic differentiates this research method from the quantitative one in terms of data analysis (Ary et al, 2002: 23).

B. Research Participants

The population of interest was the eleventh grade students of SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta from academic year 2006/2007. The number of the students was 169. Due to the limitation of time as well as to school policy, the writer employed cluster

(40)

sampling in this study. Cluster sampling, in accordance with Cohen, Marion and Morrison (2000: 100), involves randomly selecting the samples from a list of population. Further, the work of Ary, Jacobs and Razavieh (2002: 168) states that cluster sampling is the probability sampling in which the unit chosen is not an individual but a group of individual that are naturally together. The probability sampling itself provides a nonzero chance for the entire population to be selected as the samples.

Employing the cluster sampling method, the writer randomly selected the cluster or the class of the students and the choice went to the students of IPA 2 class. There were 35 students of IPA 2 class. However, since three students were absent in the peer feedback session and one student did not submit his revision; the number of the samples became 31.

Having decided the samples, the writer then started to collect the data. The research was conducted at the end of the even semester of academic year 2006/2007 in SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta on May 18, 2007 until June 5, 2007.

C. Research Instruments

To collect the data, there were two research instruments assigned in this study. They were a set questionnaires and students’ writing.

2. Students’ writing

To answering the first problem formulation, the writer also made use of the respondents’ writing. Pre–peer first writing and post–peer second writing were examined. Each student’s first and second draft were placed side by side and then

(41)

graded based on a weighted rubric. Then, the writer searched for the improvement on each aspect of the writing quality. The student’s post–peer second writing were considered to show improvement when the score of the student’s post–peer second writing was better than the pre–peer first draft. Searching for the students’ improvement on each aspect, the writer investigated to what extent peer feedback contributed to the students’ improvement in their writing quality.

3. Questionnaire

The data used to answer the second problem formulation was recorded using this instrument as well. Ary et al (1990: 421) define a questionnaire as an instrument to gather information by having the respondents respond to a list of questions. They then propose the advantage of using questionnaire. They claim that the data gained from the questionnaires is believed to be more truthful and reliable rather than the data gained from personal interview, as there is possibility for the respondents to avoid telling the right information to the interviewer.

The items of the questionnaire are made up of selected-response items. The type of the questionnaire used in this study referred to as a likert scale. The consideration why the writer applied this type is because this type generally works for getting at respondents’ views, judgments, or opinions (Brown and Rodgers, 2002: 120). In other words, this type of questionnaire is appropriate to investigate the respondents’ perceptions.

There were fifteen statements in the questionnaire and there were four columns for each of the statement. The value of each column was from one up to four, concerning the degree of agreement of: 4 for “totally agree”; 3 for “agree”; 2

(42)

for “disagree”; and 1 for “totally disagree”. The students were to value each statement to the degree of agreement of their own.

Integrated in the 15 statements, the three elements concerning the components of the students’ perception on the use of peer feedback covered up the perception on the characteristics of peer feedback, on the benefits of peer feedback and on the responses to peer feedback. Statement number 1, 6, 7, and 8 were to find out the students’ point of view of the peer feedback’s characteristics. The students’ agreement on the benefits of peer feedback was investigated through the statements number 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Statement number 2, 3, 4, 5, and 15 were dealing with the students’ responses to peer feedback. To make it understandable, questionnaire blue print is provided below.

Table 3.1 Questionnaire Blue Print

Features Item Number

The characteristics of peer feedback 1, 6, 7, 8 The benefits of peer feedback 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 The response to peer feedback 2, 3, 4, 5, 15

D. Data Gathering Technique

Collecting the data for this study, the writer conducted a writing class on the 19th, the 26th of May, 2007, and the 2nd of June, 2007. In the first meeting, which was on the 19th of May, 2007, the writer had the students read and revise their writing that had been made at home before. The students were given a list of questions to guide them in revising their writing and then they worked on their writing with the reflective questions. This self correction was for exposing the students to peer feedback practice as well as developing their critical reading skill. This practice was

(43)

done due to the fact that the English teachers of SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta had not implemented the use of peer feedback before.

The second meeting, which was on the 26th of May, 2007, was spent to expose the students to argumentative writing. The writer facilitated the students in writing argumentative writings. At first, the writer opened the meeting by having the students give their arguments on a certain topic and involved in a discussion related to the topic. Then, the writer carefully explained the generic structure of an argumentative writing. Having done some exercises, the students chose one controversial statement among three and develop their arguments at home. The three statements provided were “The members of House of Representatives deserve the supply of laptops”, “Abortion should be legalized”, and “Students must not wear uniform at school”. The students were to bring their argumentative writing in the following meeting for the sake of the implementation of peer feedback.

In the last meeting, which was on the 2nd of June 2007, the students were to give feedback to each other’s argumentative writing. Prior to that, the writer explained the procedure of the peer feedback session so carefully that the students did not get confused. They were also given a peer feedback sheet to guide them in the peer feedback session. In this meeting, the writer also distributed the questionnaire. The students were to revise their pre-peer first writing at home and bring their post-peer second writing along with the peer feedback sheet and the questionnaire on the 5th of June, 2007 through their English teacher. So, the writer was in touch with the teacher to get the data.

To determine the quality of the first and second writing, each student’s first and second writing were placed side by side and then graded based on a weighted

(44)

rubric. The student’s writing were considered to show improvement when the score of the student’s post–peer second writing was better than the pre–peer first writing. Having completed the steps in gathering the data, the writer started to analyze the data.

E. Data Analysis Technique

The writer used two stages of analyzing the data. First of all, the writer examined and scored the students’ pre–peer first writing as well as their post–peer second writing based on a certain scoring system. The scoring system of the students’ writing is presented below:

Table 3.2 The scoring system of the students’ writing

AREA LEVEL CRITERIA

CONTENT 30-27

26-22

21-14 13-8

7-1

Excellent to Very Good:

knowledgeable; relevant to assigned topic; accurate detail; thoroughly developed ideas

Good to Average: some knowledge of the subject; most content relevant to the topic; reasonably accurate detail; could be more fully developed

Fair to Poor: limited knowledge of subject; little varieties of ideas; some irrelevant content lacking details

Very Poor: does not show knowledge of subject; irrelevant or very restricted content

Inadequate: fails to address the task with any effectiveness

ORGANIZATION 20-18

17-14

13-10

Excellent to Very Good: appropriate title; ideas clearly stated and supported, well-organized paragraph/sections; logical sequencing; connectives appropriately used; complete and logical conclusion

Good to Average: adequate title, introduction and conclusion; loosely organized but ideas stand out; limited support; logical but incomplete sequencing; some connectives used

Fair to Poor: scant introduction and/or conclusion; ideas confused or disconnected; logical sequence difficult to follow; connectives largely absent

(45)

9-5 4-1

Very Poor: ideas very difficult to follow; no sense of logical sequence; no use of connectives

Inadequate: fails to address the task with any effectiveness VOCABULARY 20-18 17-14 13-10 9-5 4-1

Excellent to Very Good: wide range; effective word/idiom, choice and usage; appropriate register

Good to Average: adequate range; occasional errors of word/idiom, form, choice, usage; meaning not obscured

Fair to Poor: limited range; a noticeable number of errors in word/idiom, choice, usage; meaning a bit obscured

Very Poor: no range of vocabulary; frequent errors in word/idiom, choice, usage; inappropriate use of vocabulary, meaning obscured or confused

Inadequate: fails to address the task with any effectiveness LANGUAGE USE 25-22 21-17 16-12 11-6 5-1

Excellent to Very Good: effective complex

instruction; hardly any errors of agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions; meaning never obscured

Good to Average: few problems in more complex instruction; several errors in agreement, tense, number, word order/ function, articles, pronouns, prepositions; meaning seldom obscured

Fair to Poor: problems in simple construction; frequent errors in agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions, negation, deletions; meaning sometimes obscured

Very Poor: major problems in simple and complex structure; dominated by errors

Inadequate: fails to address the task with any effectiveness MECHANICS 5 4 3 2 1

Excellent to Very Good: demonstrate full command of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing

Good to Average: occasional errors in spelling punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing; meaning not obscured

Fair to Poor: frequent errors in spelling,

punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing; meaning a bit confused

Very Poor: dominated by errors in spelling,

punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing, meaning confused

Inadequate: fails to address the task with any effectiveness

(46)

The scoring system above is adapted from three rubrics developed and created by Hyland (2002), Hughey (1983) and Brown and Bailey (1984, as cited in Brown, 2001). Constructing the rubric, the writer developed it by considering charily those three rubrics. Yet, the writer also put her own judgment to the criteria of the assessment on each aspect.

Having scored the students’ pre–peer first writing and post–peer second writing, the writer started to analyze them. The writer was to investigate to what extent peer feedback contributes to the students’ improvement in their writing quality. The writer investigated and presented an explanation of the students’ improvement on each aspect of the students’ writing quality.

The next stage of the data analysis dealt with analyzing the questionnaires. The writer analyzed the students’ responses to each statement in the questionnaire and searched for the frequency. By figuring out the frequency, the students’ tendency in perceiving peer feedback could be characterized. In other words, the frequency of the students’ responses on each statement in the questionnaire identified their degree of the perception.

As stated above, there were fifteen statements and the value of each statement was from one up to four, concerning the degree of agreement. Four points would be for those who chose “totally agree”; three points would be for those who chose “agree”; two points would be for those who chose “disagree”; and one point would be for those who chose “totally disagree”. This notion is supported by the work of Best (1970: 175) as stated below.

The Likert scaling technique assigns a scale value to each of the five responses. Thus, the instrument yields a total score for each respondent and a discussion of each individual item, while possible, is not

(47)

necessary. Starting with a particular point of view, all statements favoring this position would be scored:

a. strongly agree 5 b. agree 4 c. undecided 3 d. disagree 2 e. strongly disagree 1

F. Research Procedure

Conducting this study, the writer followed some steps that are presented below:

1. Identifying problem

2. Identifying research participants 3. Preparing research instruments

4. Asking permission to conduct the study

5. Employing peer feedback in the students’ writing class 6. Distributing the questionnaire

7. Analyzing data 8. Drawing conclusion

(48)

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS RESULTS

Having been theoretically presented and discussed in Chapter II, the tentative answer of the problem formulation is empirically presented and discussed in Chapter IV. In other words, Chapter IV is specifically intended to discuss the findings and the data analysis resulted from the research. This chapter is divided into two parts, namely Data Presentation and Interpretation and Discussion.

A. Data Presentation and Interpretation

The data were gathered from the students’ pre-peer first writing and post-peer second writing as well as the questionnaires which were distributed to the eleventh grade students of SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta. There were 31 samples for this study. The analysis on the improvement of the students’ writing quality and the students’ responses on each statement is presented in the following.

1. The Improvement of the Students’ Writing Quality

This part deals with the result of the analysis of the students’ writing quality as well as their area of improvement. The data of the students’ improvement were taken from the students’ first and second writing. Confirming that the students’ improvement was based on peer feedback, the writer consulted the peer feedback checklist. Having collected the data, the writer started to analyze, score the students’

(49)

first as well as the second writing and then observed their improvement on every aspect of the writing based on the scoring system. The comparison of the quality of the students’ first and second writing could be seen as follows.

Table. 4.1 The Comparison of the Writing Quality of the Students’ Pre-peer and Post-peer Writing St. Pre-Peer Writing Quality Post-Peer Writing Quality St. Pre-Peer Writing Quality Post-Peer Writing Qulaity

1 75 80 17 82 85

2 73 79 18 75 79

3 73 79 19 69 73

4 69 74 20 65 68

5 64 68 21 73 75

6 75 77 22 75 76

7 70 75 23 70 72

8 78 80 24 74 80

9 72 77 25 70 75

10 72 74 26 73 75

11 77 80 27 76 77

12 72 76 28 75 76

13 77 79 29 75 78

14 75 75 30 68 70

15 66 69 31 73 77

16 70 74

From table 4.1, it was found that there was only one student who did not revise his writing. It means almost all of the samples did the revision. Analyzing the students’ writing qualities, the writer used a weighted rubric (see Chapter III). There were five aspects to consider, namely content, organization, language use, vocabulary and mechanics. The summary of the students’ achievement on each aspect before and after the revision is presented below.

(50)

Table 4.2 The Student’s Achievement on Each Aspect of Writing Quality

Content Org. Lang. Use Vocab. Mech.

1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd

1 21 24 14 15 21 21 14 15 5 5

2 20 23 15 16 19 21 15 15 4 4

3 20 23 15 16 17 19 15 15 4 4

4 21 22 14 15 16 19 13 13 5 5

5 19 21 13 16 15 15 13 13 4 4

6 22 23 14 15 20 20 15 15 4 4

7 21 22 15 15 17 19 13 15 4 4

8 20 22 16 16 22 22 15 15 5 5

9 21 22 13 16 20 20 14 15 4 4

10 20 20 15 15 18 20 14 14 4 4

11 21 22 15 17 21 21 15 15 5 5

12 20 21 12 14 21 22 15 15 4 4

13 23 24 14 15 21 21 15 15 4 4

14 21 21 15 15 19 19 15 15 5 5

15 21 22 13 15 14 14 14 14 4 4

16 20 20 14 14 17 21 15 15 4 4

17 21 23 15 17 22 22 17 17 5 5

18 22 22 15 16 16 20 16 17 4 4

19 21 22 15 16 16 18 14 14 5 5

20 19 21 14 15 15 15 13 13 4 4

21 20 21 15 16 20 20 14 15 4 4

22 22 22 14 15 19 19 16 16 4 4

23 21 22 16 16 16 17 13 13 4 4

24 23 24 16 17 16 18 14 16 4 4

25 19 22 14 16 20 21 14 14 4 4

26 20 21 15 16 20 20 15 15 4 4

27 22 22 15 15 19 20 15 15 4 4

28 22 23 17 17 16 17 16 16 4 4

29 21 22 14 16 20 20 15 15 5 5

30 21 21 15 15 16 16 14 14 2 4

31 22 22 12 15 19 20 16 16 4 4

The following would fatherly discuss to what extent peer feedback improved the students’ writing in each aspect.

a. Students’ Improvement on Content

Despite the fact that on average the students were able to provide knowledgeable content and develop their content so that the content were assigned to

(51)

the topic, the students still revised their content based on the feedback from peers. Apparently, the content of the students’ writing improved more than other aspects. It is proved by the fact that there were 23 out of 31 students (see table 4.2) who did the revision on the content and that this area improved.

There were three approaches how the students dealt with in revising their content. The first one was adding or supporting their arguments with logical facts, the second one was by providing deeper explanation on each argument and the last one was providing additional factual information to support their ideas or arguments. Clearly, among those three approaches, the students dealt with providing additional information to support their ideas more often. Yet, they also added clearer logical facts in supporting their arguments as well as providing deeper explanation on each argument.

The verity that they revised and improved their content was probably due to the writer’s guidance to have them pay attention on content and organization rather that correcting others’ grammatical mistakes.

b. Students’ Improvement on Organization

On the average, the students successfully developed their writing. Most of them had revealed their success in developing well-organized writing with appropriate title and logical conclusion. However, the students did not neglect their opportunity to give feedback and revise as well as improve their organization. Like the students’ improvement on content, the students’ improvement on organization showed meaningful ones. It is implicitly stated in the table 4.2 that there were 23 out

(52)

of 31 students (74.2%) who did the improvement on the organization and that this area improved.

There were four strategies that the students employed in giving feedback and revising their organization. They are providing logical conclusion, stating their reasons on each argument more clearly, connecting their reasons and their arguments in more reasonable ways and providing clearer ideas of their arguments. Mostly, the students improved their organization by connecting their reasons and their arguments in more reasonable ways or in other words they had their writing more coherent. Peer feedback then has helped them in developing better organized writing.

c. Students’ Improvement on Language Use

It must be admitted that the students still had the difficulties in creating English sentences that were grammatically correct. It led to the students’ improvement on language use. Yet, there were only 15 students (48.5%) that revised their writing on the language use. The fact that the number of the students revising their language was not as high as those revising their content and organization was perhaps due to the fact that they felt they did not have that capability in giving feedback and correcting others’ grammar and that the writer asked them to pay more attention on content and organization. However, it did not imply that the writer forbade them to give feedback on grammar.

Before revision, there were 43 cases of errors on agreement (concord), 15 errors on tenses, and 26 errors on the forms of verb and be. Revising their language use, the students improved their errors on agreement, tenses and forms of verb and be. Mostly, they revised their errors on agreement. Since the students revised their writing, the number of the cases that the students committed errors went into decline.

(53)

After revision, there were 17 cases of errors on agreement, 9 cases of errors on tenses, and 17 errors on the forms of verb and be. The fact that the students commonly made errors in agreement is probably because there is no rule of agreement (concord) in the students’ native language, bahasa Indonesia.

d. Students’ Improvement on Vocabulary

Some students appeared to reveal occasional errors of word, choice and usage. Dealing with it, seven students (22.6%) did the revision on this aspect (table 4.2). It is obvious that the number of the students revising their language use was higher that that of the students revising their vocabulary. Before revision, there were 10 cases of errors on diction, however, after the revision, the cases of making errors went into decline that there were only 2 cases.

The errors of their vocabulary commonly dealt with diction (choice of words). Some of them failed to demonstrate appropriate choice of words as well as the usage, for example the choice of “governor” instead of “government”, the choice of “guitless” instead of “innocent”, the choice of “dark relationship” instead of “sexual affair”. The students’ strategy to revise their vocabulary was, then, by changing the words that were ineffective into the effective ones.

e. Students’ Improvement on Mechanics

Among five aspects in the scoring system, the improvement on mechanics was not as much as that on other aspects. Based on table 4.2, there was only one student (3.2%) who revised his mechanics. The revision covered the revision on capitalization. One student wrote every single word his writing in capital letters, but later he revised his writing and had the correct capitalization of his words.

(54)

It was apparent that the students rarely gave comments on mechanics. It was perhaps due to the fact that they did not possess sufficient knowledge on good mechanics in writing. It was considered less important as the main focus of writing is not the mechanics. Yet, it would be better for the students to be exposed to have better knowledge on mechanics.

2. Students’ Responses to the Questionnaire

This part deals with the students’ responses on each statement of the questionnaire. The data presentation is presented as follows.

Table 4.3 The Frequency and Percentage of the Students’ Responses on Each Statement on the Questionnaire

Degree of Agreement No Statement

4 3 2 1

1 Koreksi dibutuhkan dalam membuat suatu tulisan. 15

48.4% 14 45.2%

2 6.4% - 2 Anda menyukai tugas memberi koreksi pada tulisan teman anda. 1

3.2% 24

77.4% 6 19.4% - 3 Anda senang ketika teman anda memberi koreksi untuk tulisan

anda.

2 6.4%

61.3% 9 29% 1 3.2%

4 Anda percaya diri ketika teman anda membaca tulisan anda. - 12

38.7% 19 61.3% -

5 Anda percaya pada koreksi yang diberikan teman anda. 4

12.9% 21 67.7% 5 16.2% 1 3.2% 6 Koreksi yang diberikan teman anda dapat membantu anda

dalam memperbaiki tulisan anda.

6 19.4%

21 67.7%

4 12.9% - 7 Koreksi yang diberikan teman anda jelas dan mudah

dimengerti. -

19 61.3% 11 35.5% 1 3.2% 8

Koreksi yang diberikan teman anda lebih menghemat waktu dalam memperbaiki tulisan anda daripada koreksi yang diberikan oleh guru.

4 12.9%

19 61.3%

8 25.8% -

9 Dengan saling memberi koreksi, anda menjadi lebih kritis

dalam menganalisa karangan anda sendiri.

8 25.8% 18 58.1% 4 12.9% 1 3.2% 10 Dengan saling memberi koreksi, anda menjadi lebih kritis

dalam membaca karangan orang lain.

9 29%

16 51.6%

6 19.4% - 11 Dengan saling memberi koreksi, anda menjadi lebih percaya

diri pada kemampuan anda.

5 16.2% 14 45.2% 10 32.3% 2 6.4% 12 Dengan saling memberi koreksi, anda dapat belajar dari teman

anda. 4 12.9% 20 64.5% 7 22.6% - 13 Dengan saling memberi koreksi, anda menjadi lebih akrab

dengan teman anda. -

7 22.6% 12 38.7% 12 38.7% 14

Dengan saling memberi koreksi, anda melatih kemampuan

membaca anda dalam bahasa Inggris menjadi lebih baik. 9

29%

19 61.3%

3 9.7% -

15 Anda memperbaiki tulisan anda berdasarkan koreksi yang

diberikan oleh teman anda.

7 22.6%

23 72.2%

1 3.2% -

(55)

Responding to the first statement, “Correction is crucially needed in producing a piece of writing (translation: koreksi dibutuhkan dalam membuat suatu tulisan)”, 15 students (48.4%) stated that they totally agreed, other 14 students (45.2%) stated that they agreed and the rest two students (6.4%) stated that they disagreed. It shows that almost all of the students recognize the importance of feedback or correction in composing a good writing, while the other two students who disagreed with the idea might not be aware of the importance of feedback in writing. In other words, they might only put emphasis on the quality of final writing without noticing the stages to reach the final writing.

There are 24 students (77.4%) who selected “agree”, one student (3.2%) who selected “totally agree” and 6 students (19.4%) who selected “disagree” in responding to the second statement, “You enjoy the task of giving feedback/correction on your peer’s writing (translation: anda menyukai tugas memberi koreksi pada tulisan teman anda)”. Obviously, most of the students (20 students) enjoyed the task of giving feedback to their peers. They might think that they would be exposed to be independent learners by giving feedback to each other. Unfortunately, there are 11 students who admitted that they did not like the task. It was possibly due to their preference on teacher’s feedback. The feedback from the teacher was probably considered more reliable and valid.

The third statement, “You are excited when your peer gave feedback/correction on your writing (translation: anda senang ketika teman anda memberi koreksi untuk tulisan anda)”, was responded well. Twenty one students (two students totally agreed and 19 students agreed) proved to be excited when they were given feedback from their peers and eleven students (10 students disagreed and

(56)

one student totally disagreed) proved that they were unexcited when they were given the peer feedback. Obviously, most of the students were excited with their friends’ giving them feedback.

From the students’ responses on the fourth statement, “You are confident when your peer read your writing (translation: anda percaya diri ketika teman anda membaca tulisan anda)”, it is known that more than half of the samples possessed low confidence in their own writing. 19 students (61.3%) stated that they disagreed with the fourth statement. There are 12 students (38.7%) who stated that they agreed. The students’ being unconfident might have been the result of their doubt when they dealt with English grammar. They considered that they did not compose their writing in good structure. The assumption that they did not deal with English grammar very well is also proved by the fact that the number of the students doing revision on language use was more that those doing revision on content and organization (see page 36).

Responding to the fifth statement, “The feedback from your peer is well-trusted (translation: anda percaya pada koreksi yang diberikan teman anda)”, four students (12.9%) stated that they totally agreed, 21 students (67.7%) stated that they agreed, five students (12.2%) stated that they disagreed and two students (6.4%) stated that they totally disagreed. It is obvious that most of the students (25 students) considered peer feedback to be reliable and valid. Meanwhile, there are only six students who were doubtful about the use of peer feedback. It is believed that due to the fact they considered peer feedback reliable and valid; they must revise their writing based on the feedback from their peers.

(57)

There are six students (19.4%) who totally agreed, 21 students (67.7%) who agreed and four students (12.9%) who disagreed with the statement number six, “The feedback from your peer is helpful in improving your writing (translation: koreksi yang diberikan teman anda dapat membantu anda dalam memperbaiki tulisan

anda)”. Clearly, almost all of the samples (27 students) admitted that peer feedback could improve their writing. Compared to the students’ responses on the fifth statement in which seven students were said to be doubtful about the use of peer feedback, the students who considered peer feedback unreliable and invalid were only five of them. It implies that there is one student who was doubtful about peer feedback.

From the students’ responses on the seventh statement, “The feedback from your peer is clear as well as understandable (translation: koreksi yang diberikan teman anda jelas dan mudah dimengerti)”, it is found that 19 students (61.3%) stated they agreed, eleven students (35.5%) stated they disagreed and one student (3.2%) stated that he/she totally disagreed with the statement. It means that there are 19 students who considered their peers’ feedback was clear and understandable, while there are 12 students who considered the opposite. Those 12 students considered the opposite probably due to their felling doubt with their peers’ competence. Besides, their peers’ unclear handwriting might also influence their opinion.

Statement number eight, “The feedback from your peer helps you to save time in revising your writing compared to that given by your teacher (translation:

koreksi yang diberikan teman anda lebih menghemat waktu dalam memperbaiki

tulisan anda daripada koreksi yang diberikan oleh guru)”, was responded well. 12.9% of the total samples (four students) selected “totally agree”, 61.3% (19

(1)

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

(2)

(3)

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

(4)

(5)

Appendix 5. Questionnaire

Nama : Kls./No.:

Lingkarilah angka yang menurut Anda paling sesuai dengan pendapat Anda! ☺

No Pendapat Sangat

Setuju Setuju

Tidak Setuju

Sangat Tidak Setuju 1 Koreksi dibutuhkan dalam

membuat suatu tulisan. 4 3 2 1

2 Anda menyukai tugas memberi koreksi pada tulisan teman anda.

4 3 2 1

3 Anda senang ketika teman anda memberi koreksi untuk tulisan anda.

4 3 2 1

4 Anda percaya diri ketika teman anda membaca tulisan anda.

4 3 2 1

5 Anda percaya pada koreksi

yang diberikan teman anda. 4 3 2 1 6 Koreksi yang diberikan

teman anda dapat membantu anda dalam memperbaiki tulisan anda.

4 3 2 1

7 Koreksi yang diberikan teman anda jelas dan mudah dimengerti.

4 3 2 1

8 Koreksi yang diberikan teman anda lebih

menghemat waktu dalam memperbaiki tulisan anda daripada koreksi yang

4 3 2 1

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

(6)

diberikan oleh guru. 9 Dengan saling memberi

koreksi, anda menjadi lebih kritis dalam menganalisa karangan anda sendiri.

4 3 2 1

Dengan saling memberi koreksi, anda menjadi lebih kritis dalam membaca karangan orang lain.

4 3 2 1

11 Dengan saling memberi koreksi, anda menjadi lebih percaya diri pada

kemampuan anda.

4 3 2 1

12 Dengan saling memberi koreksi, anda dapat belajar dari teman anda.

4 3 2 1

13 Dengan saling memberi koreksi, anda menjadi lebih akrab dengan teman anda.

4 3 2 1

14 Dengan saling memberi koreksi, anda melatih kemampuan membaca anda dalam bahasa Inggris menjadi lebih baik.

4 3 2 1

15 Anda memperbaiki tulisan anda berdasarkan koreksi yang diberikan oleh teman anda.

A study on the contribution of peer feedback to the improvement of writing quality and the students` perception in SMU N 3 Yogyakarta.

ABSTRACT

ABSTRAK

A STUDY ON THE CONTRIBUTION OF PEER FEEDBACK TO

THE IMPROVEMENT OF WRITING QUALITY AND

THE STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION IN SMU N. 3 YOGYAKARTA

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

2007

A STUDY ON THE CONTRIBUTION OF PEER FEEDBACK TO

THE IMPROVEMENT OF WRITING QUALITY AND

THE STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION IN SMU N. 3 YOGYAKARTA

A STUDY ON THE CONTRIBUTION OF PEER FEEDBACK TO

THE IMPROVEMENT OF WRITING QUALITY AND

THE STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION IN SMU N. 3 YOGYAKARTA

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF APPENDICES

ABSTRACT

ABSTRAK

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS RESULTS

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Parts

Dokumen yang terkait

THE EFFECT OF PEER FEEDBACK ON STUDENTS ACHIEVEMENT IN WRITING NARRATIVE TEXT.

THE EFFECT OF PEER FEEDBACK TECHNIQUE ON STUDENTS ACHIEVEMENT IN WRITING RECOUNT.

THESIS WRITING SUPERVISION: A CONTRIBUTION OF FEEDBACK TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF STUDENTS’ THESIS WRITING.

Thesis Writing Supervision: A contribution of feedback to the development of students’ thesis writing.

Students' perception on the implementation of peer feedback in writing report texts.

Students' perception on the implementation of teacher written feedback in critical reading and writing 1 class.

A study on the effect of peer-feedback on the grammatical awareness of the PBI students in writing class.

Students' perception on the implementation of peer feedback in writing report texts

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION OF PEER FEEDBACK ACTIVITY IN THE WRITING CLASS (A Survey Study on the Second Semester Students of English Education Department in Universitas Muhammadiyah Purwokerto in Academic Year 2016-2017) - repository perpustakaan

A STUDY ON THE CONTRIBUTION OF PEER FEEDBACK TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF WRITING QUALITY AND THE STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION IN SMU N. 3 YOGYAKARTA

Dokumen yang Anda mencari sudah siap untuk unduhkan