Peer Edition in EFL Writing_Asia TEFL 2013


Published on

It is about the process of peer ediction in writing in EFL class of Indonesian context

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Peer Edition in EFL Writing_Asia TEFL 2013

  2. 2. VYGOTSKY‟ZPD  the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance with peer collaboration with more capable peers
  3. 3. SOCIA L INTER DEP ENDENCE THEORY  Social interdependence exists when the accomplishment of each individual‟s goals is affected by the actions of others (Deutsch, 1949, 1962; Johnson, 1970; D. W. Johnson & R.Johnson, 1989).
  4. 4. PA R A D I G M S H I F T (CANAGARAJAH, 2002) from to Linguistic homogeneity Linguistic heterogeneity correction negotiation
  5. 5. PEER EDITION AND FEEDBACK  Some studies address the results that both peer responses and feedback can be engineered in such away that makes them fitted for the expected circumstances. Thus they affected quality of the students‟ final texts (Berg, 1999; Min, 2006; Gielen,, 2010; Roberts & Ferris, 2001).
  6. 6. RESEARCH QUESTIONS  How do students make responses to their peers‟ drafts?  How do the peer responses serve as positive feedback for the students?  How do students interact each other to share error corrections?  How do students use their local cultural perspectives to construct class discourse during their interaction in peer edition?
  7. 7. DESIGN  This is a classroom ethnographic case study.  It focuses on describing EFL classroom activities of EFL learners who were taking “Writing ” courses. The focus was shared patterns of the ways students were correcting the writing drafts.  The subjects were the 1st and 2nd semester students of the English Department, Teachers College, Mulawarman University:  These students come from different local cultural backgrounds - to mention some: Kutainese, Makassarese, Buginese, Javanese, Dayaknese, Torajanese and Banjarese (i.e. those are some names of the local ethnics living in Kalimantan Timur, one of the Indonesian provinces, where this study was conducted).
  8. 8. DATA COLLECTION  The data eliciting procedures used in this study was: 1) participant observation, 2) think aloud out protocols, and 3) interview.
  9. 9. ETHNOGRAPHIC SNAPSHOT  attempt was made to generate participant insight into aspects of students‟ groups (Emic perspective)  data were collected through "participation in settings, observations, interviews, and think-out protocols  understanding the phenomenon "emerges" over the course of this data collection  moves from an item level of analysis to a search for identifiable patterns among these objects to the development of themes that show how these patterns are related to one another
  10. 10. DATA ANALYSIS  The data were then analyzed by using discourse-based construct which involved explicit interpretation of the meaning and function of human action and behavior occurring within the context and group setting.  Miles and Huberman‟s Interactive Analysis Procedures
  11. 11. R E S U LT S A N D D I S C U S S I O N
  12. 12. PATTERNS OF RESPONSES  response with no comment  response with correction, and  response with correction and reminder
  13. 13. RESPONSE WITH NO COMMENT  A pattern of response which were generated by the students who tend not to give any correction at all. This unwillingness to give proper corrections to peers‟ works is due to two factors, i.e. their social inferiority in the class and their own incompetence
  14. 14. DATA 1  Saya tidak berani menyalahkan kalimat-kalimatnya sih, habis saya tahu yang nulis ini si AT (initial name). Jangan-jangan saya koreksi jadi salah lagi. (I didn‟t dare to correct these sentences because I know that AT wrote them all. I wonder my corrections will not be real corrections.) [TOL_Pro_001].
  15. 15. DATA 2  Saya bingung apa yang saya koreksi. Saya kayaknya sih bener-bener aja semua. (I am confused what to write for the correction. It seems to me that all sentences are correct) [TOL_Pro_008]
  16. 16. RESPONSE WITH CORRECTION  responses which were produced by the upper competent students who have capacity to correct the drafts. In this pattern of response, the students attempt to identify errors from the drafts they proofread and at the same time they revised the errors by giving the correct ones. However, in this pattern of response, the students did not give any notes for clarification of the changes they made.
  17. 17. DATA CITATION  Incorrect: Grandmother not forget to buy some medicine to her husband  Correct : Grandmother doesn`t forget to buy some medicine for her Husband [draft 035]
  18. 18. DATA CITATION  Before being revised : …to till in the market…  After being revised : …to arrive in the market… [draft 012]
  19. 19. RESPONSE WITH CORRECTION AND REMINDER  a response pattern where in addition to giving the correct sentences student correctors put notes explaining the reasons why they revised certain words in the corrected drafts. Very often did they write the reason in their mother tongue.
  20. 20. DATA CITATION incorrect correct she is go to the restaurant she goes to the restaurant
  21. 21. NOTES WITH THIS SENTENCE AFTER THE CORRECTIONS:  “kata ‘go’ seharusnya di tambah akhiran es/s karena dalam kalimat simple present tense khusus untuk subyek orang ketiga tunggal verb yang mengikutinya harus di tambah akhiran es/s” (in a simple present tense, we should add es/s after the word „go‟ because the subject is the third person singular). [cited from draft 009].
  22. 22. CULTURAL FACTOR  Students‟ cultural background seems also influencing in terms of what response patterns the students chose. The students with certain ethnic backgrounds, like Javanese, Kutainese or Banjarese, have to think thousand times to directly give corrections when they found errors in their peers‟ drafts, thus they tend to take response with no comment. Ethnographically, this happened because of the unique characteristics of those ethnics. Those ethnic tradition teach them not to directly say other people‟s mistakes. This teaching underly their behavior even in class interaction. Meanwhile, some other ethnics, such as Buginese (or Makassarese) and Bataknese, have much caurage to give straightforward correction to their peers‟ drafts.
  23. 23. DA TA C I TA T I O N  „kami orang makasar mengikuti tradisi kebiasaan kami, pak, bahwa segala sesuai harus dikatakan secara langsung. Jangan ada yang disimpan yang tidak dikatakan tetapi akan membuat kita panasaran dibelakang hari‟  The translation: our tradition teaches us that we have to be straightforward in every single thing. Do no ever hedge the things that we feel regret later.  (Intw_003).
  24. 24. DATA CITATION „kalau orang jawa lain pak, enggan rasanya saya memberikan saran langsung jika ada teman yang salah. Saya kawatir tersinggung‟  The translation: we are Javanese, we have tradition that it would not be good to give direct correction when our friends made mistakes. We worried we hurt him/her  (Intw_007)
  25. 25. NEGOTIATION  The tendency of the student writers was to defend their arguments when they were discussing the errors they made to the whole class members. Misunderstanding and misconception firstly often appeared in the discussion of their drafts before they finally concluded the right concepts and completely understood them.
  26. 26. DEBATED GRAMMAR USE  Think about  Think of
  27. 27. DATA CITATION incorrect correct she buying potatoes, bananas, toothpaste, and medician, because she think about she husband She is buying potatoes, bananas, toothpaste, and medicine, because she thinks about her husband She is buying potatoes, bananas, toothpaste, and medicine, because she thinks of her husband
  28. 28. N E G O T I AT I O N  “…Mu in fact did not know exactly the difference between „think about‟ and „think of ‟, therefore it triggered some other friends to make a debate on this slight difference. The debate was running for approximately 5 minutes before the teacher finally asked them to look at the dictionary. After consulting it to the dictionary, they completely knew the difference. However, this brought them into another debate, i.e. what appropriate contexts do these two words have to be placed? …. [field notes 002].
  29. 29. COALITION The student writers need coalition with other friends for being confident in sharing their correction to other friends. In this situation, student writers were seeking more friends who have shared corrections during the discussion
  30. 30. DATA CITATION  During the discussion, some student writers were whispering ‘secret’ messages to their neighboring friends. They did it many times to many different friends. In fact, these students wondered whether their correction was right or wrong so that they need more friends to agree on their identified errors [field notes 008].
  31. 31. DATA CITATION  Kan saya belum yakin, apa yang saya koreksi itu benar-benar kesalahan. Jangan-jangan itu sudah benar malah saya yang salah. Karena itu saya perlu konfirmasi teman pak. I am not sure whether what I thought errors were really errors. I wonder I am not a good corrector. That is why I need other friends to confirm. [TOL_Pro_011].
  32. 32. CONCLUSION It is obvious that different ethnics, institutional positions, and class discourses are things that, if we can totally accept them as a good fusion, would present a unique pedagogical context in EFL creative writing. Such kind of context is fashioned to prepare the class (i.e. all members of the class) for egalitarian social relation.
  33. 33. ETHNOGRAPHIC NOTES  This ethnographic conclusion seems to raise certain pedagogical issue. From the angle of the peer edition perspective, it is most likely that egalitarian social relationship should be strongly constructed. Class discourse operated when the peer edition is underway should be less threatening and less authoritarian, leading the students to work with one another in a friendlier and more supportive situation. Though completely putting apart inequalities from this „micro society‟ is impossible, then treating all members of class as equal and having the same right and opportunities to play roles should be present in everyone‟s mind. Here, the role of lecturer should be a facilitator instead of the source person.
  34. 34. THANK YOU