This document summarizes an ethnographic study on peer editing in an EFL writing class in Indonesia. It found that students approached peer editing differently based on their cultural backgrounds and confidence levels. Some students provided no feedback due to feeling socially inferior or unqualified. Others corrected errors but gave no explanation. The most thorough students both corrected errors and provided notes in their native languages to explain corrections. Cultural traditions also influenced responses, with some ethnic groups more direct in feedback than others. Discussion of errors involved negotiation as misunderstandings emerged and were resolved. Students also sought agreement from peers before finalizing corrections due to lack of confidence. The conclusion discussed how embracing various ethnic and social perspectives could create an egalitarian environment for peer editing.

1. PEER EDITION IN EFL WRITING CLASS OF INDONESIAN CONTEXT:
AN ETHNOGRAPHIC SNAPSHOT
SUSILO
MULAWARMAN UNIVERSITY
SAMARINDA INDONESIA
Email: olisusunmul@yahoo.Com

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. 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. PA R A D I G M S H I F T
(CANAGARAJAH, 2002)
from
to
Linguistic homogeneity
Linguistic heterogeneity
correction
negotiation

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, et.al, 2010;
Roberts & Ferris, 2001).

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. 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. DATA COLLECTION
 The data eliciting procedures used in this study was: 1) participant
observation, 2) think aloud out protocols, and 3) interview.

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. 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. R E S U LT S A N D D I S C U S S I O N

12. PATTERNS OF RESPONSES
 response with no comment
 response with correction, and
 response with correction and
reminder

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. DATA CITATION
 Before being revised
: …to till in the market…
 After being revised
: …to arrive in the market…
[draft 012]

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. DATA CITATION
incorrect
correct
she is go to the restaurant
she goes to the restaurant

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. DEBATED GRAMMAR USE
 Think about
 Think of

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. THANK YOU