USING PEER-RESPONSES AND TEACHER’S WRITTEN FEEDBACK TECHNIQUE THROUGH BLOG IN WRITING II CLASS OF ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

Annisa Astrid*  -  Universitas Islam Negeri Raden Fatah, Indonesia

(*) Corresponding Author
DOI: 10.21580/vjv4i11631
This article discusses the result of the research undertaken at PBI UIN Raden Fatah Palembang. The sample of the research was 60 students in Writing II Classes. This study included a guided writing instruction and a questionnaire survey.There were two groups of students involved in this study; control and experimental group. Students in the control group were taught using Peer Response Technique, and the experimental one by using Teacher’s written feedback technique. Both groups employed online Blog writing as the means to share feedback. After the treatment done, the students were required to fi ll the questionnaire items in order to assess their attitude toward the use of Blog in their writing class. The results of the research showed that; (1) there was not a signifi cant difference between students writing achievement before being taught with Teacher’s Written Feedback Technique and after being taught with that technique (2) there was a signifi cant difference between students’ writing achievement before being taught by using Peer Response Technique and after being taught by using that technique (3) there was signifi cant difference between students’ writing achievement who were taught by using Peer Response Technique than those who were taught by using Teachers’ Written Feedback and (4) there was positive attitude toward the process of teaching and learning Writing by Using Blog Writing.

Keywords: Peer Response, Teacher’s Written Feedback, Blog

  1. Allaei, S. and Connor, U. (1990). Exploring the dynamics of cross-
  2. cultural collaboration in writing classrooms. The Writing in-
  3. struction. 10(1): 19-28
  4. Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing
  5. in a multipledraft composition classroom: Is content feed-
  6. back followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of
  7. Second Language Writing. 9(3): 227-257.
  8. Beason, L. (1993). Feedback and revision in writing across the cur-
  9. riculum classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(4), 395-
  11. Dixon, N. 2005. Why put writing last? - Integrating the Productive Skills in
  12. General English Classes. Paper presented in LIA International
  13. Conference 2005, Jakarta, March 22-24.
  14. Forman, E.A. and Cazden, C.B. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian per-
  15. spective in education. In J. V. Wertsch (ed.). The cognitive
  16. value of peer interactions. (pp. 332-347).
  17. Furnborough, C., & Truman, M. (2009). Adult beginner distance
  18. language learner perceptions and use of assignment feedback,
  19. Distance Education, 30, 399-418.
  20. Gebhard, R. (1980). Teamwork and feedback broadening the base
  21. of collaborative Writing. College Coposition and Communi-
  22. cation. 42: 69-74.
  23. Grabe, W. and Kaplan, R.B. (1996). Theory & Practice of Writing.
  24. London: Pearson Education.
  25. Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching (3rd ed.). Es-
  26. sex: Longman.
  27. Hatch, E & Hossein Farhady. (1982). Research Design and Statitistics
  28. for Applied Linguistics. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House
  29. Publishers.
  30. Holec, H. 1981. Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Per-
  31. gamon.
  32. Keh, C.L. (1996). Feedback in the writing process. In T. Hedge and
  33. W. Norman (eds.). Power, pedagogy and practice (pp. 294-306).
  34. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  35. Kurniali, Sartika. 2008. Tip-Trik Pilihan Blogger. Jakarta. PT Elex Me-
  36. dia Computindo.
  37. Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: harnessing students’
  38. communicative power. In D.M. Johnson and D.H. Roen (eds.),
  39. Richness in writing (pp. 207-219). New York: Longman.
  40. Moore, H. (1996). Telling what is real: Competing views in assess-
  41. ing English as a second language development. Linguistics and
  42. Education. 8: 189-228.
  43. Nelson, G. and Murphy, J. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2
  44. writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? TESOL
  45. Quarterly. 27: 135-142.
  46. Wallen, N.E. (1991). Educational Research: A Guide to the Process.USA:
  47. McGraw Hill Inc.
  48. Wang, Y. 2004. English magazines = motivation + Improved EFL
  49. writing skill. English Teaching Forum, 43(3): 18-22

Open Access Copyright (c) 2015 Vision: Journal for Language and Foreign Language Learning
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Vision: Journal of Language and Foreign Language Learning is indexed by

    

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

View My Stats

Publisher
English Education Department,
Faculty of Education and Teacher Training,
Universitas Islam Negeri Walisongo Semarang
Jl. Prof Hamka Ngaliyan Semarang, Jawa Tengah, Indonesia

apps