Successfully reported this slideshow.

Peer Edition in EFL Writing

570 views

Published on

Published in: Education, News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Peer Edition in EFL Writing

  1. 1. GRAMMAR NEGOTIATION IN THE EDITING PROCESSES <br />DONE BY THE BEGINNING STUDENT WRITERS IN AN EFL CLASSROOM<br />SusiloMulawarman university, Samarinda<br />
  2. 2. Paradigm shift(Canagarajah, 2002)<br />
  3. 3. negotiating grammar<br />To describe the writer’s sensitivity to unique rhetorical intentions and purposes which would be something important to engage in creative writing activities.<br />Students should be trained to make grammatical choices based on many discursive concerns, i.e. their intentions, the contexts and the assumptions of readers and writers.<br />
  4. 4. “Negotiation” might occur in the interaction. <br />As it is in a real society, negotiation might be strongly influenced by the power and status of its members in EFL writing classroom “society”. <br />How the discussion of grammatical errors is running in the editing processes of the class is absolutely the description of how negotiation occurs among the members. <br />
  5. 5. What happens in the negotiation?<br />peer responses serving as positive feedback for the class <br />class’ selfhood construction happened as one of the influencing factors in the students’ creative writing process<br />
  6. 6. Selfhood in efl writing<br />‘Self’ means multiple identities, roles and subjectivities and voices constructed by the student writers in the classroom. <br />Identity refers to race, ethnicity, and nationality;<br />Rolemeans institutional position, such as student or teacher; <br />Subjectivityis the constitution of ourselves according to discourse such as “independent/dependent students, poor/competent students. <br />
  7. 7. Research questions<br />1) how do student writers make responses to their peers’ drafts of writing? <br />2) how do student writers negotiate their error corrections to their teacher’s and peers’ error responses? <br />3) how do the peer responses serve as positive feedback for the student writers’ final drafts? and <br />4) how do student writers shape the construct of their selfhood in EFL writing class? <br />
  8. 8. design<br />This is a classroom ethnographic case study. <br />It focuses on describing EFL classroom activities of EFL learners who were taking “Writing I” course. The focus was shared patterns of the ways students were correcting the writing drafts. <br />The subjects were the 1st semester students of the English Department, Teachers College, Mulawarman University, East Borneo, Indonesia. In the academic year 2019/2010, there were 39 students who were taking “writing I” course. <br />
  9. 9. Data collection<br />The data eliciting procedures used in this study was: 1) participant observation, 2) think aloud out protocols, 3) interview, and 4) assessment of the artifacts (i.e. the students’ writing drafts).<br />
  10. 10. Data analysis<br />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. <br />Analysis of Variant (ANOVA) was used to identify whether or not there is any significant differences among the drafts that the students have done during the whole process of ‘Writing I’ course. <br />
  11. 11. Results and discussion<br />
  12. 12. Patterns of responses<br />No comment, <br />Correction and suggestion, <br />Correction and reminder.<br />
  13. 13. No comment<br />The students did not give any correction when they were asked to correct their friends’ drafts. <br />These students seemed to be hesitant to make corrections because they know the writers, and they believe the writers are the ‘successful’ students in class.<br />
  14. 14. Data 1<br />Sayatidakberanimenyalahkankalimat-kalimatnyasih, habissayatahu yang nulisinisi AT (initial name). Jangan-jangansayakoreksijadisalahlagi. (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].<br />
  15. 15. Data 2<br />Sayabingungapa yang sayakoreksi. Sayakayaknyasihbener-benerajasemua. (I am confused what to write for the correction. It seems to me that all sentences are correct) [TOL_Pro_008]<br />
  16. 16. Correction and suggestion<br />Student correctors attempt to identify errors from the drafts they proofread. <br />Most of these student correctors gave alternatives when they identified the incorrect sentences.<br />
  17. 17. data Citation <br />Incorrect: Grandmother not forget to buy some medicine to her husband<br />Correct : Grandmother doesn`t forget to buy some medicine for her Husband<br />[draft 035]<br />
  18. 18. Data citation<br />Before being revised : …to till in the market…<br />After being revised : …to arrive in the market…<br /> [draft 012]<br />
  19. 19. Correction and reminder<br />In addition to giving the correct sentences, the student correctors also mention more explanations in the form of notes. <br />After they made corrections, they provide alternative sentences and then explain ‘how’ and ‘why’ in their notes. <br />
  20. 20. Data citation<br />
  21. 21. notes with this sentence after the corrections: <br />“kata ‘go’ seharusnya di tambahakhiranes/s karenadalamkalimat simple present tense khususuntuksubyek orang ketigatunggal verb yang mengikutinyaharus di tambahakhiranes/s” (in a simple present tense, we should add es/s after the word ‘go’ because the subject is the third person singular).<br />[cited from draft 009]. <br />
  22. 22. Negotiation<br />The tendency of the student writers was to defend their arguments when they were discussiingthe 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.<br />
  23. 23. Debated grammar use<br />Think about<br />Think of <br />
  24. 24. Data citation<br />
  25. 25. negotiation<br />“…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].<br />
  26. 26. coalition<br />The student writers need coalition with other friends for being confident in sharing their correction to other friends. <br />In this situation, student writers were seeking more friends who have shared corrections during the discussion<br />
  27. 27. Data citation<br />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].<br />
  28. 28. Data Citation<br />Kansayabelumyakin, apa yang sayakoreksiitubenar-benarkesalahan. Jangan-janganitusudahbenarmalahsaya yang salah. Karenaitusayaperlukonfirmasitemanpak.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].<br />
  29. 29. Quantitative analysis<br />
  30. 30. procedures<br />During the semester, students should finish four final drafts.<br />The drafts were assessed by two raters<br />The final scores for each draft were the average of the two raters’ scores. <br />The final scores were analyzed by using ANOVA <br />
  31. 31. Quantitatively, it was found that there is statistically significant difference among means of the scores in overall drafts (draft 1, 2, 3, and 4) made by the student writers in the whole semester. <br />(using ANOVA test)<br />
  32. 32. ANOVA<br />
  33. 33.
  34. 34. The result in the table indicates that the four final drafts done by the student writers were significantly different (F=48.006, p =0.000)<br />
  35. 35. It is found that there were increases in the mean scores which were observed from the 1st drafts to the 4th drafts <br />X1 = 66.7692<br />X 2= 68.7179<br />X 3= 72.1026<br />X 4= 80.2051<br />
  36. 36. Hypothesis <br />There is any significant different among three different drafts after being revised.<br />
  37. 37. Quantative conclusion<br />H1 is accepted means that we find a significant difference of the four drafts.<br />This means the revisions done by the students give effects on the qualities of the final drafts.<br />
  38. 38. Qualitative conclusion <br />These three constructs (identity, role and subjectivity), at the micro social level of everyday classroom interaction, might be imposed on the student writers. <br />
  39. 39. Thank you<br />

×