| Peer Feedback in English as Second Language Writing | | | | student-reader will support the student-writer to make |
| Zainurrahman (Indonesia University of Education) | | | | meaningful development due to their narrative writing |
| 2010 | | | | readability. |
| This research was originally aimed to investigate the | | | | Peer feedback in narrative writing does not only |
| impact of peer feedback toward the students' | | | | promise the development of writing based on |
| narrative writing and the students' responses toward | | | | feedbacks given, but it also promises the development |
| peer feedback occurred in the L2 writing classroom. | | | | of reading ability, to stimulate self-awareness on |
| Although many researchers have noted that peer | | | | mistakes and weaknesses in their own narrative |
| feedback had positive impact on students' language | | | | writing (Kurt and Atay, 2007; Rollinson, 1995). When a |
| skills especially writing, but peer feedback was originally | | | | student finds that his or her peer's narrative writing |
| used to develop students' writing in L1 during 1970s | | | | contains unreasonable complication or resolution, it |
| (Hyland and Hyland, 2006:1). In 2000s, researchers like | | | | might remind the student to reflect his or her own |
| Zeng (2006), Kamimura (2006), Jiao (2007), and Hirose | | | | narrative; the student must be "embittered" of what |
| (2009) investigated the impact of peer feedback in L2 | | | | feedback given for his or her complication or resolution. |
| writing classroom and they noted that peer feedback | | | | Therefore, process oriented approach, where peer |
| offers many ways to improve students' writing. | | | | feedback activity takes place repeatedly and |
| However, until this time, peer feedback effectiveness | | | | recursively is better for the students in writing narrative |
| is still debated. Hong (2006), for example, found that | | | | than writing narrative as an instant product. The more |
| students' had very negative response toward peer | | | | peer feedback in the narrative writing process, the |
| feedback activity in L2 and EFL writing classroom. This | | | | more narrative writing development the student can |
| phenomenon raises an attempt to reinvestigate peer | | | | achieve. |
| feedback in L2 writing classroom, especially in an | | | | Conclusion |
| Indonesian context. This research revealed that peer | | | | It is found that peer feedback improves students' |
| feedback is a useful way can be used to improve | | | | narrative writing. Generally, students' narrative writing |
| students' writing, although the improvement is superficial | | | | develops in terms of grammaticality and mechanics. |
| in some extents. | | | | These developments are classified into general |
| This research focuses on students' writing | | | | development. General development is the development |
| development and their responses toward peer | | | | which occurs across genre such as grammar and |
| feedback. The basic assumption underpinning this | | | | mechanics. |
| research is that writing is communication or a social | | | | Students' grammatical development can be directly |
| process (Hyland (2005:198). Since writing is a social | | | | indentified thorough the revisions made by the students |
| process, then in writing process the writer should be | | | | from draft to draft. Mostly, grammatical development |
| placed as a member of communicator, member of | | | | achieved by the students is in terms of the appropriate |
| classroom society. Placing the writer in this situation | | | | use of past tense, sentence pattern, and concord. |
| gives the writer opportunities to have meaningful inputs | | | | Feedbacks from the responders given to the students |
| from others. In this regard, the students are the writers | | | | encourage them to revise their draft to be better in |
| and narrowing the social dimension in their L2 writing | | | | grammar. Revisions made by the students in this |
| classroom emerges opportunities to negotiate their | | | | regard are based on the feedbacks given or based on |
| strength to improve other and their weakness to be | | | | their self-awareness when they read their peer's |
| strengthened. | | | | drafts. The students' are aware that they may make |
| Considering the assumption suggested by Hyland | | | | similar mistakes as their peers make. This |
| above, since peer feedback allows students to | | | | self-awareness is an evidence that peer feedback |
| negotiate their ideas, commenting and correcting | | | | also provides chance to make reflection through |
| mistakes in their peer's drafts, offering suggestions for | | | | reading peer's drafts. It means that peer feedback |
| their peer's draft further development (Spear, 1988; | | | | does not merely give chance to comment or correct |
| Williams, 1957), then peer feedback can be applied | | | | peer's drafts, but it also provides possibility that peer's |
| confidently in L2 writing classroom. In the case of | | | | drafts can reflect each student's own draft. The |
| students' attitude toward peer feedback, as hesitated | | | | students are supported by their role as "mistakes |
| by Hong (2006) that the students' have very negative | | | | searcher" and this role makes the students more |
| impact toward peer feedback, here Jacobs et al | | | | critical on their own writing. This proves what Rollinson |
| (1998) mentioned that they believe that students usually | | | | (2005) stated that peer feedback also trains students |
| welcome peer feedback as one type of feedback in | | | | to be critical reader on their own writing. |
| writing. This research also revealed that the students' | | | | The mechanical development achieved by the |
| have positive response toward peer feedback; the | | | | students is in terms of the appropriate use of |
| students did not devalue peer feedback activities in L2 | | | | punctuation and diction, including word spelling. Students' |
| writing classroom. | | | | drafts develop mechanically since they are given |
| Related Theories | | | | feedbacks from their responders to correct |
| Peer Feedback | | | | punctuation misuses and to correct misspelled words. |
| Peer feedback is defined by Yang (in Zeng, 2006) as | | | | Mostly, the punctuation misuse found and commented |
| feedback that is given by peer. In writing activity, peer | | | | by the responders are about the use of comma and |
| feedback means having other writer to read and to | | | | quotation. As well as in grammatical development, the |
| give feedback on what other writer has written | | | | students are also made aware of their own |
| (Hyland, 2005). In this research, since the writers are | | | | mechanical mistakes when they read their peer's |
| the students, peer feedback is understood as having | | | | drafts. However, the revisions made in this regard is |
| other students to read and to give comments, | | | | superficial and this proves what Clark (2003) |
| corrections, criticisms, and suggestions on what other | | | | mentioned that revision made by the students in peer |
| students have written. | | | | feedback processes is superficial. |
| Providing meaningful feedback, spoken or written, is | | | | However, students' grammar and mechanics |
| one of the most important tasks for English writing | | | | knowledge are the most important thing must be |
| teachers (Hyland and Hyland, 2006). While teacher | | | | considered by the researcher. Students in this |
| feedback has been indicated to be desirable for the | | | | research are lack grammar and mechanics |
| students' writing development, debates continues over | | | | knowledge. This is identified through the unobserved |
| whether teacher written feedback should be provided | | | | mistakes found in the students' drafts. Those mistakes |
| as it is often neglected and misunderstood by students | | | | are unobserved both by the student-writer and the |
| (Williams, 1975). Teacher feedback has been criticized | | | | student-reader or responder. The students' knowledge |
| for being product oriented because it occurs most | | | | concerning grammar and mechanics has influential |
| frequently at the end point due to time and class size | | | | impact on their ability to identify grammatical and |
| constrains (Lee, 2009). Whereas, writing as a process | | | | mechanical mistakes in their peer's drafts. The |
| should be paid attention to make the students aware | | | | unobserved mistakes, grammatical and mechanical |
| and understand that writing is not an instant product | | | | mistakes, show that students' ability to identify |
| (Harmer, 2007). Hyland (2005) illustrates the process of | | | | mistakes in their peer's drafts need to be improved for |
| writing that gives feedback and revision more attention. | | | | the peer feedback is done successfully in the future. |
| Feedback and revision stages are the recursive | | | | The next development achieved by the students is |
| processes that take times to produce a good piece of | | | | organizational development which is classified into |
| writing, when the class size is needed to be | | | | substantial development. Organizational development |
| considered, here peer feedback should be considered | | | | covers the revisions made by the students in terms of |
| to be applied in writing classroom. | | | | the clarity of idea, the completeness of the narrative |
| Peer feedback activities tend to generate more | | | | elements, and the schematic structure of the students' |
| comments on the content, organization, and vocabulary | | | | narrative writing. It is called substantial development |
| (Lee, 2009:130). This means that peer feedback is not | | | | because it shows how the students' narrative as |
| only about how a student makes corrections on his or | | | | specified genre in this research develops through peer |
| her friend's writing, but it is also about how a student's | | | | feedback. |
| criticism, suggestion, and point of view generate | | | | The development of idea and its clarity can be |
| meaningful improve toward other student's writing. | | | | identified through the revisions made by the students |
| However, peer feedback also has certain drawbacks | | | | which are based on the feedback given by the |
| those are discussed later on. | | | | responder. The students' ideas in their 1st drafts are |
| Feedback given by peer can be spoken or written | | | | unclear. The lack of idea clarity is triggered by |
| feedback. This research focuses on the written | | | | title-content disconnection. Feedbacks given in this |
| feedback given by peer to improve their writing, | | | | aspect focus on how to make title and content of the |
| especially narrative writing. Written peer feedback is | | | | writing match, and the students found that the |
| given in form of marks, written comments, written | | | | feedbacks given have improved their ideas and this |
| correction, and there is form provided for students to | | | | can be seen from the title revisions made by the |
| give more suggestions. | | | | students. |
| Peer Feedback and Social Constructionists' View of | | | | The development of the elements and schematic |
| Learning | | | | structure is also found in the students' drafts. Mostly, |
| Social Constructionists believe that knowledge is | | | | the students wrote their orientation verbosely. Through |
| negotiated and best acquired through interaction (Kurt | | | | the feedbacks and the revisions, it is found that |
| and Atay, 2007). One of the theories supporting this | | | | students' narrative orientations have developed more |
| statement is Vygotsky's theory Zone of Proximal | | | | focus and clearer. It is also found that students' |
| Development (ZPD). Vygotsky (in Mooney, 2000:83) | | | | orientation and complication in their 1st draft do not |
| defines ZPD as the distance between the most | | | | match or lack of description. In their later drafts, by |
| difficult task someone can do alone and the most | | | | considering feedbacks given by the responder, |
| difficult task someone can do with help. Furthermore, | | | | students then add descriptions to make their orientation |
| Mooney states that Vygotsky believes that a learner | | | | and complication match. Students' narrative writing also |
| in the edge of learning needs an interaction and can | | | | developed in terms of the connection of complication |
| benefit from the interaction to enhance his or her | | | | and resolution. In the students' drafts it is found that |
| learning achievement. | | | | they do not put reasons of how or why the resolution |
| Morris (2008) mentions that ZPD explains the | | | | comes and in the later drafts they put descriptions to |
| development from an actual level to a potential level. | | | | make their resolution explainable. The development of |
| Peer feedback, since it allows students to make | | | | the element and the structure show that peer |
| negotiation of their strength and weakness (Williams, | | | | feedback helps students to write their narrative in |
| 1957; Spear, 1988; Hyland, 2005) where the students | | | | better way. Since the students are allowed to |
| can make negotiation of ideas, comments, corrections, | | | | negotiate their points of view, the students can benefit |
| and suggestions (Zeng, 2006; Kamimura, 2006; Jiao, | | | | the negotiated view to create or to revise their |
| 2007), provides opportunities for the students to be | | | | narrative to be better. |
| better in writing, and also reading. | | | | From the description above, it is concluded that peer |
| ZPD is one of the theories that support peer feedback | | | | feedback has an influential impact on the students' |
| (Ferris and Hedgcock, 2005:225). This theory explains | | | | narrative writing. The development achieved by the |
| why and how the students' writing skill can be | | | | students through peer feedback can be classified into |
| developed through peer feedback. Although it is noted | | | | three developments they are grammatical |
| that ZPD pays attention to the interaction between the | | | | development, mechanical development, and |
| higher and lower level of interlocutor, it does not mean | | | | organizational development. |
| that peer feedback (where the students might be in | | | | The students commented that peer feedback is |
| the same level) discourage the students' writing | | | | effective for some reasons. Firstly, it enables the |
| development. The students' writing development can | | | | students to know mistakes and weaknesses. |
| be occurred when mistakes are corrected, | | | | Secondly, it allows students to consider peer's or |
| unclearness is clarified, ineffectiveness is criticized, and | | | | responder's views. Thirdly, it provides chances to know |
| suggestion is applied in their writing. In offering | | | | the reader's perception on the students' drafts. |
| betterment as mentioned, higher-lower level interaction | | | | Fourthly, it gives more opportunities to the teachers or |
| is not necessarily the case. Students in similar level can | | | | lecturers to do other works during peer feedback |
| do it, although some observed mistakes must be left | | | | processes. Peer feedback, since it provides links or |
| ignored. Pei (2006:3; as well as Hirose, 2009) mentions | | | | channels for students (as writer and reader) to |
| that students, sometimes, are not aware that they | | | | negotiate knowledge and strength, enables students to |
| make mistakes (because they do not know, or they | | | | be good writers and to be critical readers. Peer |
| forget it) and peer feedback can stimulate their | | | | feedback also make the students learn that what one |
| awareness of their writing mistakes. Students in similar | | | | believes as true or correct is not always true or |
| level can remind each other about the mistakes their | | | | correct for other. |
| friend made. This shows that development of writing | | | | As already mentioned, students' ability to identify |
| (as product) in the peer feedback activities (as | | | | mistakes in their peers' drafts is challenged and this |
| process) is not always determined by higher-lower | | | | invites difficulties in peer feedback activities. Twelve |
| interactant. Interaction of students in similar level can | | | | students commented that they were unconfident of |
| generate development of writing. | | | | their ability to identify, to mark their peers' mistakes; |
| Furthermore, peer feedback generates development | | | | mostly in grammar. |
| of both the student as the writer and the students as | | | | Students' language proficiency and ability to identify |
| the reader. Kurt and Atay (2007) explain that in peer | | | | mistakes are the most influential aspect during peer |
| feedback students do not only compose their writing | | | | feedback processes. Lack of grammar knowledge |
| but also read their friend writing. In reading their friend | | | | made students have difficulty in figuring out what is |
| writing, they are aware that their role is "error | | | | correct and what is incorrect is and this was realized |
| searcher" and this awareness makes them to | | | | as one of the peer feedback drawbacks. |
| carefully read their friend's writing. This is in line with | | | | Another difficulty in peer feedback activity covered |
| Rollinson (2005) who mentions that peer feedback | | | | through interview is the product or the draft itself. The |
| also trains students to be critical reader. However, the | | | | students sometimes complained that they could not |
| importance pointed out here is that, when the student | | | | identify certain punctuation because it was written by |
| critically and carefully read their friend's writing, it is | | | | hand and not by computer. For example two students |
| possible that they find mistakes that similarly they | | | | commented that they sometimes could not distinguish |
| made on their own writing. This emerges the student | | | | comma and period, colon and semicolon because the |
| (as the reader) to make revision based on their | | | | drafts were handwritten. |
| self-awareness, where the friend's writing becomes | | | | |
| "mirror" that reflects their own writing. Therefore, the | | | | References |
| interaction and the negotiation in the peer feedback | | | | |
| activity, as believed by Social Constructionist, generate | | | | Anderson, Mark and Anderson, Kathy. 1997. Text |
| benefit in two sides: writing and reading. | | | | Types in English 2. MacMillan Education Australia PTY |
| Peer Feedback: Advantages and Drawbacks | | | | LTD. |
| Peer feedback is still hotly debated. Literatures and | | | | Britton, Bruce. K and Pellegrini, A. D. 1990. Canonicality |
| researches lifted the impacts of peer feedback in | | | | and Consciousness in Child Narrative. Narrative |
| writing instruction, especially L2 writing. Various | | | | Thought and Narrative Language, pp. 131-133 |
| conclusions have been declared, that is, peer feedback | | | | Caudery, Tim. 1995. What the "Process Approach" |
| is advantageous in one side and disadvantageous in | | | | Means to Practicing Teachers of Second Language |
| the other side. The criticism toward peer feedback | | | | Writing Skills. TESL-EJ. Volume 1. No.4 |
| offered by Hong (2006) that the students devalue | | | | Christie, F. and Derewinka, B. 2008. School Discourse. |
| peer feedback activity, even, they do not like peer | | | | New York: Continuum. |
| feedback at all. The students, according to Hong, | | | | Clark, Irene. L. 2003. Concepts in Composition: Theory |
| commented that they felt being underestimated by | | | | and Practice in the Teaching of Writing. Lawrence |
| negative feedback given by their peer. But this | | | | Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. |
| research revealed that the students have seen peer | | | | Creswell, John. W. 1997. Qualitative Inquiry and |
| feedback as an interesting way of learning to write. | | | | Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. |
| They also said that comment and negative feedback | | | | Sage Publications. International Educational and |
| is the evidence that their writing is really read by their | | | | Professional Publisher. Thousand Oaks London New |
| peer. Peer feedback generates positive impact if the | | | | Delhi. |
| students are ready and well-trained and prepared by | | | | Evans, Virginia. 2000. Successful Writing Proficiency. |
| the teacher (Williams, 1957). It can be assumed that | | | | Express Publishing. |
| peer feedback failure is caused by ignoring this aspect, | | | | Feez, Susan and Joyce, Helen. 2000. Writing Skills: |
| preparation. | | | | Narrative and Non-Fiction Text Types. Phoenix |
| It has been already mentioned that peer feedback | | | | Education. |
| plays important role in writing process. Since narrative | | | | Ferris, Dana. R and Hedgcock, John. S. 2005. Teaching |
| is defined as the choice of a specific linguistic | | | | ESL Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice. |
| technique to report or to tell past events, stories, | | | | Second Edition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates |
| experiences (Labov, 1997), then writing a narrative | | | | Publisher. |
| should be considered as process oriented writing | | | | Greenbaum, Sidney and Nelson, Gerald. 2002. An |
| activity. Narrative functions to entertain, to inform, to | | | | Introduction to English Grammar: Second Edition. |
| display sequential events, and those are closely related | | | | Longman. |
| to the readers' satisfaction. Therefore, considering | | | | Harmer, Jeremy. 2007. How to Teach Writing. |
| feedbacks from the reader must be very important to | | | | Longman |
| guarantee the readability of the narrative itself. | | | | Hirose, Keiko. 2009. Cooperative Learning in English |
| A narrative, as well as other text types, should be | | | | Writing Instruction through Peer Feedback. Aichi |
| written in a process oriented scheme where peer | | | | Prefectural University |
| feedback activities can take place. Generally, peer | | | | Hong, Fei. 2006. Students Perception of Peer |
| feedback might be useful to enhance students' | | | | Response Activity in English Writing Instruction. CELEA |
| awareness on the grammatical mistakes and | | | | (Bimonthly) Aug. 2006. Vol. 29 No. 4 |
| mechanical mistakes. For the example, narrative tells | | | | Hyland, K., and Hyland F. 2006. Feedback in Second |
| story in the past that means the tenses used mostly | | | | Language Writing: Context and Issues. Cambridge |
| past tense (Feez and Joyce, 2000). Students those | | | | University Press. |
| are not aware this aspect might use inappropriate | | | | Hyland, Ken. 2005. Second Language Writing. |
| tenses in their narrative and peer feedback can | | | | Cambridge University Press. |
| stimulate their awareness on this kind of mistake. | | | | Jacobs, G. M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S. Y. |
| Mechanically, the correct use of punctuation in the | | | | 1998. Feedback on Students Writing: Taking the middle |
| (narrative) writing is also important to shape the | | | | Path. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 307-317. |
| meaning; here peer feedback may generate correction | | | | Jiao, Luo Yu. 2007. Application of Cooperative Learning |
| when the mistakes are observed by the students. | | | | in Teaching College English Writing. US-China Foreign |
| Specifically, peer feedback is useful to develop the | | | | Language. ISSN 1539-8080, USA. May 2007, Volume 5, |
| idea, content, clarity, mechanics, and the organization of | | | | No.5 (Serial No.44). |
| the students' narrative writing (Clark, 2003:119). | | | | Kamimura, Taeko. 2006. Effects of Peer Feedback on |
| When the students are asked to write with sense "to | | | | EFL Student Writers at Different Levels of English |
| be read" by authentic audience (peers), their writing is | | | | Proficiency: A Japanese Context. TESL Canada |
| better than when they are asked to write to be read | | | | Journal. Vol. 23, no. 2, Spring 2006 |
| by teacher (Clark, 2003:120). As well as writing | | | | Kurt and Atay, 2007.The Effects of Peer Feedback |
| narrative, the students must be aware that their effort | | | | on the Writing Anxiety of Prospective Turkish |
| is to tell story, to make the reader entertained, and | | | | Teachers of EFL. Journal of Theory and Practice in |
| they should hope the reader's satisfaction. If the | | | | Education |
| narrative is written as an instant product, without | | | | Labov, William. 1997. Some Further Steps in Narrative |
| recursive processes (composing-peer | | | | Analysis. The Journal of Narrative and Life History. |
| feedback-revising), the narrative must be "not ready" | | | | Lee, Nancy Shzh chen. 2009. Written Peer Feedback |
| to publish. | | | | by EFL Students: Praise, Criticism, and Suggestion. |
| I am personally confident that the students as readers | | | | Komaba Journal of English Education. |
| are experienced in reading narrative. Since short | | | | Lim, Jeong Wan. 2007. Responding to Students' |
| stories and novels are more favorable by | | | | Writing: Peer and Teacher Feedback. Modern English |
| undergraduate students than textbooks, the students | | | | Education, 8 (2), 59-74. |
| will relatively easy to identify unclear parts in their | | | | Montague, Nicole. 1995. The Process Oriented |
| peer's narrative writing, especially in terms of the | | | | Approach to Teaching Writing to Second Language |
| elements and the clarity of the ideas. However, I am | | | | Learners. New York State Association for Bilingual |
| personally doubtful if the students are experienced | | | | Education Journal. Vol. X. p13-24. |
| enough to offer meaningful and significant feedbacks | | | | Mooney, Carol Garhart. 2000. Theories of Childhood: |
| in terms of grammaticality and mechanics. It is | | | | An Introduction to Dewey, Montessori, Erikson, Piaget, |
| assumed that feedbacks and revisions made by the | | | | and Vygotsky. Redleaf Press. |
| students in writing their narrative could be superficial, | | | | Morris, Clifford. 2009. Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky's |
| because one of the difficulties in peer feedback | | | | Zone of Proximal Development. Available at: |
| revealed by the researchers is caused of the lack | | | | Pei, Tiow Sing . 2006. (Thesis) A Case Study: The Use |
| grammar and mechanics knowledge (Clark, 2003). | | | | of Higher Proficiency Peer Feedback to Improve the |
| Peer feedback in process oriented narrative writing | | | | Writing Performance Of Lower Proficiency Learners. |
| can be successfully done if the teacher provides | | | | Universiti Teknologi Malaysia |
| guidance. Most students, especially younger and less | | | | Rollinson, Paul. 2005. Using Peer Feedback in the ESL |
| able writers, need direct instruction in evaluating writing | | | | Writing Class. ELT Journal: Jan 2005; 59, 1; ProQuest |
| and guidance in responding to the writing of peers | | | | Education Journals pg. 23 |
| (Clark, 2003:122). Therefore, the teacher needs to | | | | Spear, Karen. I. 1988. Sharing Writing: Peer Response |
| prepare feedback form or narrative rubric to help | | | | Groups in English Classes. Boynton/Cook Publisher. |
| students doing peer feedback. The feedback form | | | | Traci. 1999. Ten Narrative Writing Prompts Available at: |
| can be in form of leading questions in regarding the | | | | |
| clarity of idea, the completeness of the elements, and | | | | Williams, Jessica. 1957. Teaching Writing in Second and |
| the schematic structures of the writing. Peer feedback | | | | Foreign Language Classroom. McGraw Hill. |
| activity that is recursively done in the process of | | | | Zeng, Yanhong. 2006. Peer Feedback in College SLW |
| narrative writing will develop the students' narrative | | | | Classroom. Sino-US English Teaching, ISSN 1539-8072, |
| writing mostly organizationally. Feedbacks given by the | | | | USA. Mar. 2006, Volume 3, No.3 (Serial No. |