Teaching Writing through Peer Feedback
Category: Classroom Management
This part contains the conclusions and suggestions of the research. The discussions in this part are leaded by the research questions. This part, according to Emilia (2008:225), contains reviews on literatures articulated with the research question and mainly to restate the findings of the research. This part also discusses the strength and weaknesses of this research; due to the weaknesses, this part also contains the suggestions (for further research) to anticipate the weaknesses. Emilia (2008:226) mentions that the elements of the conclusion cover the aims restatement, summary of findings, contribution from the previous related researches, the weaknesses (and the strength), and the recommendations for the next research in similar field and topic.
5.1.Research questions restatement
As mentioned many times in previous chapters, this research aims to investigate the students' narrative writing development that is set in the first research question stated "To what extent does the students' narrative writing develop through peer feedback?", and then to investigate students' responses toward peer feedback activities in the L2 writing classroom that is set in the second research questions stated "What are the students' responses toward peer feedback activities in (L2writing classroom?" Therefore, to conclude this research, as mentioned above, the discussions are leaded by these two questions.
5.2.Summary of findings
This subsection discusses the findings, which are summarized, as the conclusion of the research.
5.2.1. Students' narrative writing development
This research finds that through peer feedback students' writing skill develops and this can be directly "observed" through the changes occur in their narrative drafts. The developments of the students' narrative drafts are extensive. This entails that there are several developments occur in the students' narrative drafts promoted by peer feedback. The developments achieved by the students are termed into three types: grammatical development, mechanical development, and organizational development.
Students' writing grammaticality, as general development, is going better from draft to draft. As elaborated comprehensively in the previous chapter, the students make three drafts (1st, 2nd, and 3rd draft). 2nd and 3rd drafts are revised drafts. Looking at their 2nd and 3rd drafts, the students make many significant revisions and the revisions they make are promoted by peer feedback. Students' grammatical development covers the betterment in using correct tense and concord. As shown in the previous chapter, three students (selected drafts) show that their drafts are grammatically developed through the feedbacks, comments, corrections, and suggestions from their peers. As well as grammatical development, students also achieve development in term of writing mechanics that covers punctuation and diction. These developments or in Clark's (2003) term "revision" are realized as superficial. Students make superficial changes to develop their drafts. However, although those are superficial revisions, but the revisions are significant since the revisions make their drafts become better and better; therefore, those revisions are called superficial but significant.
Grammatical development and mechanical development are general developments achieved by the students. Those are general, means that the developments do not show the substance of the narrative because grammaticality and mechanics are general rules that is not delimited by genres. The last development achieved by the students is organizational development that substantially shows the students' narrative writing development through peer feedback. This kind of development covers the clarity of idea and the effective schematic structure. From the drafts analyzed in the fourth chapter, the students' revisions show that the feedbacks, comments, corrections, and suggestions from peers are useful to develop their idea in more effective and clear structure. Students also complete their elements of their narrative drafts by utilizing their peers' feedbacks. These show that "peer feedback is effective" is not only bird news.
Theorists or writers and researchers in writing field, who more agree that writing is process than product, such as Williams (1957), Hyland (2005), Spear (1988), Zeng (2006), and Kamimura (2006), agree that peer feedback (some of them use the term ‘peer response') is more effective to be used in the writing classroom than using other traditional model. Jacobs (2009), by referring to the Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development, believes that peer feedback provides more channels for the students to develop and to support each other than traditional models that according to Hyland (2005) as "ignoring" students as part of society. Their belief above has been proven by this research through analysis on the students' narrative drafts that develop from draft to draft.
5.2.2. Students' responses toward peer feedback
Less research is performed to investigate students' responses toward peer feedback, at least at the current time. Mostly, the researchers investigate the effectiveness of peer feedback to improve students' skills. Meanwhile, research to investigate students' response or perception toward peer feedback is still scarce. However, it has been noted that some "old" researchers have paid attention to this topic. Mittan (1989) notes that students feel confidence on their writing abilities after being involved into peer feedback activities; Rollinson (1995) mentions that his respondents realize that peer feedback is beneficial for them; Hong (2006) in very contrast way states that the students do not value peer feedback as helpful way to improve their writing abilities. This research, then, intends to raise the students' responses toward peer feedback in more detail way.
This research considers response toward peer feedback should be detailed into variables, as elaborated in the previous chapter. The students cannot be asked "what do you think about peer feedback?" this question will not cover the substance of peer feedback itself. Students may answer "I don't like it!" because they look peer feedback from one side only. Therefore, the previous researchers should break peer feedback down into variables as done in this research. The variables are: involvement, commenting, dealing with comments from peers, effectiveness, and difficulties. Each variable generates different question as can be looked in appendix.
It is summarized that the students positively confess that being involved into peer feedback activities is interesting and beneficial, because it gives them opportunity to help their peers and mainly to themselves. At the first time, they quite doubtful to the peer feedback effectiveness, but finally they confess that doing peer feedback is something they enjoy. The most meaningful feeling appears to the participants is caused by the chance to see their weaknesses and the strength in their drafts. This is in contrast with Hong's (2006) belief that the students do not enjoy peer feedback.
Commenting on peer drafts has certain attention given by the students. Williams (1957) reminds that students are not always good in doing that, and therefore they sometimes resist doing that. It is found that most of students feel unconfident to comment their peer's drafts because of their self-confidence on their own ability and knowledge (mostly about grammar and punctuation). The students realize that not all the mistakes, at least they doubtful that is mistake or not, that can be corrected by them. Considering this, pre-peer feedback activity becomes vital; brainstorming and students classification are important. However, the most important here is that the students confess that their peer's drafts often reflect their own mistakes, becomes a mirror for self-reflection.
In finding marks and comments given by their peer, the students at the first time feel sad. They, in fact, realize that there are weaknesses here and there in their drafts. However, this "sadness" becomes motivation to do more, to do better. They are not sad because of the marks or comments given by their peer, but because of their weaknesses, their own mistakes. They do not consider marks and comments as underestimating them; even they know that their peer actually read their drafts carefully.
In terms of the peer feedback effectiveness, it cannot be avoided that peer feedback offers more way to develop students' writing skill. The students confess that peer feedback allows them to see their weaknesses, gives them to help each other, and offers channel to share their point of views to improve their writing. More interesting, the students realize that peer feedback is not only "spectacles" to see what is correct and what is incorrect. Peer feedback also makes sense that what is believed as correct by the writer may not be believed in the same way by the reader; here, according to the students, "comparing beliefs" about (in)correctness is the core of peer feedback. Based on the confession, the researcher would like to conclude that peer feedback is not only correction; it is not only about development, but also about the synchronization of social beliefs in what is written about.
In terms of the difficulties in peer feedback activities, doubtfulness is the keyword. The students are often doubtful when they are reading their peer's drafts. They think that they are still lack of grammar knowledge; they won't to do misgiving to their peers. Based on the responses, it is concluded that the lack of basic knowledge is the main reason why the students sometimes hesitate to do peer feedback, although finally, in fact, they do it. The next is that because in this research the students' drafts are handwritings, then, they students sometimes cannot distinguish comma and period. The next research may be interested to use computer for students, but keep in mind that computer can helps students to correct their mistakes.
5.3.Contributions from previous related researches
Zeng's (2006) research contributes a lot for this research, mainly in terms of the stages of peer feedback. Without Zeng's contribution, this research might not have any idea to plan peer feedback well. Kamimura (2006), Wichadee (2003), and Hammond (2001) also contribute in terms of theories and their supporting conclusions that motivate the researcher and give more ideas to conduct this research. Their research forms have been a reflection and therefore this research is stated as partial replication of their researches. Rollinson's (1995) and Hong's (2006) have given a wide sight toward students' responses; their conclusions are not in a line at all. If Rollinson mentions that students value peer feedback as beneficial, then Hong mentions that peer feedback is devalued by the students. This contradiction, especially Hong's challenge, motivates the researcher to dig more about students' responses toward peer feedback. The idea to break peer feedback down into variables is actually, and implicitly, derived from their researches.
5.4.The Weaknesses of the research
This research has a sort of limitation. Firstly, this research only uses two data collection techniques, documentation and interview. The researcher should use observation to look deeper on the classroom process, however, it returns to the aim of the research. Secondly, this research needs a lot of time to do analysis of students' drafts. The students do not make short narrative so that too many items must be analyzed. Thirdly, the students involved into this research are novices and they lack of basic knowledge, therefore, the revisions they make are superficial revisions. Even, the lack of basic knowledge can raise incorrect feedback.
5.5.Recommendation
There are some recommendations must be offered in this chance for the next research in this topic. Firstly, the students or participants involved in the research must be taught how to do peer feedback correctly. Secondly, the students must be taught the material they will be learning through peer feedback. Thirdly, the students should be asked to read their peer's draft carefully before giving comments on it. Fourthly, the researcher should use appropriate devices to support the collecting data process. The researcher should consider individual difference and cultural issue that influence their way to feedback their peer or to respond their peer's feedback. Fifthly, the researcher should become the monitor and helper when the students need opinions and inputs that they cannot find elsewhere. And the last one is that the students should be allowed to discuss in groups in order to give them chance to discuss the material and get oral feedback beside written feedback.
5.1.Research questions restatement
As mentioned many times in previous chapters, this research aims to investigate the students' narrative writing development that is set in the first research question stated "To what extent does the students' narrative writing develop through peer feedback?", and then to investigate students' responses toward peer feedback activities in the L2 writing classroom that is set in the second research questions stated "What are the students' responses toward peer feedback activities in (L2writing classroom?" Therefore, to conclude this research, as mentioned above, the discussions are leaded by these two questions.
5.2.Summary of findings
This subsection discusses the findings, which are summarized, as the conclusion of the research.
5.2.1. Students' narrative writing development
This research finds that through peer feedback students' writing skill develops and this can be directly "observed" through the changes occur in their narrative drafts. The developments of the students' narrative drafts are extensive. This entails that there are several developments occur in the students' narrative drafts promoted by peer feedback. The developments achieved by the students are termed into three types: grammatical development, mechanical development, and organizational development.
Students' writing grammaticality, as general development, is going better from draft to draft. As elaborated comprehensively in the previous chapter, the students make three drafts (1st, 2nd, and 3rd draft). 2nd and 3rd drafts are revised drafts. Looking at their 2nd and 3rd drafts, the students make many significant revisions and the revisions they make are promoted by peer feedback. Students' grammatical development covers the betterment in using correct tense and concord. As shown in the previous chapter, three students (selected drafts) show that their drafts are grammatically developed through the feedbacks, comments, corrections, and suggestions from their peers. As well as grammatical development, students also achieve development in term of writing mechanics that covers punctuation and diction. These developments or in Clark's (2003) term "revision" are realized as superficial. Students make superficial changes to develop their drafts. However, although those are superficial revisions, but the revisions are significant since the revisions make their drafts become better and better; therefore, those revisions are called superficial but significant.
Grammatical development and mechanical development are general developments achieved by the students. Those are general, means that the developments do not show the substance of the narrative because grammaticality and mechanics are general rules that is not delimited by genres. The last development achieved by the students is organizational development that substantially shows the students' narrative writing development through peer feedback. This kind of development covers the clarity of idea and the effective schematic structure. From the drafts analyzed in the fourth chapter, the students' revisions show that the feedbacks, comments, corrections, and suggestions from peers are useful to develop their idea in more effective and clear structure. Students also complete their elements of their narrative drafts by utilizing their peers' feedbacks. These show that "peer feedback is effective" is not only bird news.
Theorists or writers and researchers in writing field, who more agree that writing is process than product, such as Williams (1957), Hyland (2005), Spear (1988), Zeng (2006), and Kamimura (2006), agree that peer feedback (some of them use the term ‘peer response') is more effective to be used in the writing classroom than using other traditional model. Jacobs (2009), by referring to the Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development, believes that peer feedback provides more channels for the students to develop and to support each other than traditional models that according to Hyland (2005) as "ignoring" students as part of society. Their belief above has been proven by this research through analysis on the students' narrative drafts that develop from draft to draft.
5.2.2. Students' responses toward peer feedback
Less research is performed to investigate students' responses toward peer feedback, at least at the current time. Mostly, the researchers investigate the effectiveness of peer feedback to improve students' skills. Meanwhile, research to investigate students' response or perception toward peer feedback is still scarce. However, it has been noted that some "old" researchers have paid attention to this topic. Mittan (1989) notes that students feel confidence on their writing abilities after being involved into peer feedback activities; Rollinson (1995) mentions that his respondents realize that peer feedback is beneficial for them; Hong (2006) in very contrast way states that the students do not value peer feedback as helpful way to improve their writing abilities. This research, then, intends to raise the students' responses toward peer feedback in more detail way.
This research considers response toward peer feedback should be detailed into variables, as elaborated in the previous chapter. The students cannot be asked "what do you think about peer feedback?" this question will not cover the substance of peer feedback itself. Students may answer "I don't like it!" because they look peer feedback from one side only. Therefore, the previous researchers should break peer feedback down into variables as done in this research. The variables are: involvement, commenting, dealing with comments from peers, effectiveness, and difficulties. Each variable generates different question as can be looked in appendix.
It is summarized that the students positively confess that being involved into peer feedback activities is interesting and beneficial, because it gives them opportunity to help their peers and mainly to themselves. At the first time, they quite doubtful to the peer feedback effectiveness, but finally they confess that doing peer feedback is something they enjoy. The most meaningful feeling appears to the participants is caused by the chance to see their weaknesses and the strength in their drafts. This is in contrast with Hong's (2006) belief that the students do not enjoy peer feedback.
Commenting on peer drafts has certain attention given by the students. Williams (1957) reminds that students are not always good in doing that, and therefore they sometimes resist doing that. It is found that most of students feel unconfident to comment their peer's drafts because of their self-confidence on their own ability and knowledge (mostly about grammar and punctuation). The students realize that not all the mistakes, at least they doubtful that is mistake or not, that can be corrected by them. Considering this, pre-peer feedback activity becomes vital; brainstorming and students classification are important. However, the most important here is that the students confess that their peer's drafts often reflect their own mistakes, becomes a mirror for self-reflection.
In finding marks and comments given by their peer, the students at the first time feel sad. They, in fact, realize that there are weaknesses here and there in their drafts. However, this "sadness" becomes motivation to do more, to do better. They are not sad because of the marks or comments given by their peer, but because of their weaknesses, their own mistakes. They do not consider marks and comments as underestimating them; even they know that their peer actually read their drafts carefully.
In terms of the peer feedback effectiveness, it cannot be avoided that peer feedback offers more way to develop students' writing skill. The students confess that peer feedback allows them to see their weaknesses, gives them to help each other, and offers channel to share their point of views to improve their writing. More interesting, the students realize that peer feedback is not only "spectacles" to see what is correct and what is incorrect. Peer feedback also makes sense that what is believed as correct by the writer may not be believed in the same way by the reader; here, according to the students, "comparing beliefs" about (in)correctness is the core of peer feedback. Based on the confession, the researcher would like to conclude that peer feedback is not only correction; it is not only about development, but also about the synchronization of social beliefs in what is written about.
In terms of the difficulties in peer feedback activities, doubtfulness is the keyword. The students are often doubtful when they are reading their peer's drafts. They think that they are still lack of grammar knowledge; they won't to do misgiving to their peers. Based on the responses, it is concluded that the lack of basic knowledge is the main reason why the students sometimes hesitate to do peer feedback, although finally, in fact, they do it. The next is that because in this research the students' drafts are handwritings, then, they students sometimes cannot distinguish comma and period. The next research may be interested to use computer for students, but keep in mind that computer can helps students to correct their mistakes.
5.3.Contributions from previous related researches
Zeng's (2006) research contributes a lot for this research, mainly in terms of the stages of peer feedback. Without Zeng's contribution, this research might not have any idea to plan peer feedback well. Kamimura (2006), Wichadee (2003), and Hammond (2001) also contribute in terms of theories and their supporting conclusions that motivate the researcher and give more ideas to conduct this research. Their research forms have been a reflection and therefore this research is stated as partial replication of their researches. Rollinson's (1995) and Hong's (2006) have given a wide sight toward students' responses; their conclusions are not in a line at all. If Rollinson mentions that students value peer feedback as beneficial, then Hong mentions that peer feedback is devalued by the students. This contradiction, especially Hong's challenge, motivates the researcher to dig more about students' responses toward peer feedback. The idea to break peer feedback down into variables is actually, and implicitly, derived from their researches.
5.4.The Weaknesses of the research
This research has a sort of limitation. Firstly, this research only uses two data collection techniques, documentation and interview. The researcher should use observation to look deeper on the classroom process, however, it returns to the aim of the research. Secondly, this research needs a lot of time to do analysis of students' drafts. The students do not make short narrative so that too many items must be analyzed. Thirdly, the students involved into this research are novices and they lack of basic knowledge, therefore, the revisions they make are superficial revisions. Even, the lack of basic knowledge can raise incorrect feedback.
5.5.Recommendation
There are some recommendations must be offered in this chance for the next research in this topic. Firstly, the students or participants involved in the research must be taught how to do peer feedback correctly. Secondly, the students must be taught the material they will be learning through peer feedback. Thirdly, the students should be asked to read their peer's draft carefully before giving comments on it. Fourthly, the researcher should use appropriate devices to support the collecting data process. The researcher should consider individual difference and cultural issue that influence their way to feedback their peer or to respond their peer's feedback. Fifthly, the researcher should become the monitor and helper when the students need opinions and inputs that they cannot find elsewhere. And the last one is that the students should be allowed to discuss in groups in order to give them chance to discuss the material and get oral feedback beside written feedback.