EEJ 2 (2) (2012) English Education Journal http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/eej THE USE OF PEER FEEDBACK STRATEGY TO MOTIVATE STUDENTS IN NARRATIVE TEXT WRITING Husni Mubaro  Prodi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Program Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia Abstrak Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk untuk (1) menemukan masalah siswa pada penulisan teks naratif (2)menggambarkan implementasi dari strategi pair feed back pada penulisan teks naratif (3) mengetahui apakah strategi peer feedback dapat memotivasi siswa untuk menulis teks naratif (4) mengetahui apakah meningkatkan teks naratif siswa. Subjek penelitian ini adalah siswa kelas XI IA2 SMA Futuhiyyah Demak. Penelitian ini merupakan kolaboratif action research. Instrumen penelitan ini adalah observasi, interview, kuisioner, dan tes tertulis. Penelitian ini terdiri dari 3 cycle dan setiap cycle dilaksanakan pada 4 pertemuan. Hasil menunjukan bahwa siswa memiliki motivasi yang rendah sebelum penelitian dilaksanakan. Setaelah diadakan penelitian, motivasi siswa meningkat, mereka dapat bekerja bersama dan berpartisipasi selama kelas. Beberapa siswa masih memiliki motivasi yang rendah dalam penentuan tujuan personal, learner-centered, kreatifitas, dan refleksi diri. Dari cycle yang kedua, implementasi dari strategi peer feedback dapat meningkatkan motivasi dalam cooperative learning. Abstract This study was aimed at (1) finding out the problems faced by students in narrative texts writing, (2) describing the implementation of peer feedback strategy in narrative texts writing, (3) knowing whether peer feedback strategy can motivate students to write narrative texts, (4) knowing whether peer feedback strategy can improve students’ narrative texts. The subject of this study was the eleventh grade students of XI IPA 2 of SMU Futuhiyyah Demak. The research design of this study was collaborative action research. The instruments of this study were observation, interview, questionnaire, and writing test. This study consisted of three cy- cles and each cycle consisted of three meetings. The findings showed that the students had low motivation before the actions were implemented. From the result of the first cycle, the students’ motivation increased. They could work in pair and participate during the writing class. Some students still had low motivation in the aspect of personal goal-setting, learner-centered, crea- tivity, and self-diagnosis. From the second cycle, the implementation of peer feedbacks strategy could generate students’ motivation in the aspect of cooperative learning and peer evaluation. The students were not confused with the activities in peer feedback strategy. They knew what they should do in peer feedback strategy. © 2012 Universitas Negeri Semarang Info Artikel Sejarah Artikel: Diterima Agustus 2012 Disetujui September 2012 Dipublikasikan November 2012 Keywords: Writing Narrative Text Peer Feedback Strategy Motivation  Alamat korespondensi: Kampus Unnes Bendan Ngisor, Semarang 50233 E-mail: jurnalpps@unnes.ac.id ISSN 2087-0108 163 Husni Mubarok / English Education Journal 2 (2) (2012) INTRODUCTION Writing is one of productive skills, besi- de speaking, which contains of symbols (ortho- graphic) and involves a complex process. It is a part of language skills which apart from other skills namely reading, listening, and speaking. Celce-Murcia and Olstain (2000:142) state that writing is the production of the written words that the result is a text but the text must be read and comprehended in order for communication take place. The major success of a writing teacher may stem from his or her ability to make and de- velop writing material, medium of learning, and appropriate strategy which suit with the students’ need and interest. Students in senior high school complained about the difficulty of writing. This was caused of two reasons; the characteristic of writing itself and the strategy which was used in teaching and learning process. For example, teacher did not give a feedback to the students’ writing therefo- re students did not know the mistakes they made in writing and how to edit it into good writing. Students were not given a sufficient opportunity to share their ideas, knowledge, and experiences with their friends in writing process. Students al- most never criticized and responded each other especially in their writing process, so they did not know the weaknesses and difficulties of others writing. It made them had less motivation in wri- ting. Motivation is some kind of internal dri- ve that pushes someone to do things in order to achieve something (Harmer, 2003:98). It is res- ponsible why people decide to do something, how long they are willing to sustain the activity, and how hard they are going to pursue it (Dor- nyei, 2001:8). One of the strategies which could be used to improve students’ motivation in wri- ting narrative text was peer feedback strategy. Peer feedback is an approach where the social dimension is created in the writing clas- sroom, based on the assumption that writing is social process (Hyland, 2005:198). Peer feedback strategy allowed students to negotiate their ide- as, to comment and correct mistakes toward their peer’s draft, and to offer suggestion for their peer’s draft development. Therefore, peer feedback be- came an alternative strategy in writing teaching which was applicable to improve students’ wri- ting and build their motivation to write narrative text well. There are many researchers who have been interested in analyzing writing as a process appro- ach. Ho (2006) stated that a writing process gave positive result in students’ writing activity. In line with Ho, Lo and Hyland (2007) reported that the implementation of a new ESL writing program enhanced students’ motivation and engagement. Bitchener, Young, and Cameron (2005) found that corrective feedback gave a significant result on ESL students writing. Mumtaz (2007) elabo- rated that there were two types of feedback given to the respondents; feedback on content and feed- back on form. Al-Qurashi (2009) reported that most students had prositive attitudes toward both giving and receiving comments and advice from peer writers. Hong (2006) reported that peer res- ponse activity is essential English writing instruc- tion. This article focused on writing as a process- approach which contained of classroom activity and promotes the interaction between writer and reader such as the use of peer feedback strategy. This paper, therefore, was aimed at 1) fin- ding out the problems faced by students in narra- tive texts writing, 2) describing the implementa- tion of peer feedback strategy in narrative texts writing, 3) knowing whether peer feedback strate- gy can motivate students to write narrative texts, 4) knowing whether peer feedback strategy can improve students’ narrative texts. Writing is a personal act in which writers take ideas or prompt and transform them into self- initiated topics (O’Malley and Pierce, 1996:136). It means that, in writing activities, students are prosecuted to formulate goals and plans for crea- ting an organized structure and developing their ideas in their compositions. It means that disco- vering personal experiences, developing ideas, and reformulating knowledge in writing process should be done clearly and accurately. Hammer (2004:41-42) said that among the tasks which teachers have to perform before, during, and after student writing are like the fol- lowing: demonstrating, motivating, supporting, responding, and evaluating. Therefore, teacher has a number of crucial tasks that must be per- formed in order to help students to become good writers. Students often feel reluctance to write eit- her in their own language or in second language. So, teacher must stimulate students to write by performing his tasks in the classroom. The teach- er tasks are not only during the writing class, but also before and after writing class. Narrative is structured around the chro- nological development of event and is centered around a person or a hero. Consequently, a narra- tive is usually personalized or individualized and tells about the event related to the person or per- son involved (Murcia and Olstain, 2000:151). It means that a narrative text contains story by pre- Husni Mubarok / English Education Journal 2 (2) (2012) 164 senting the sequence of events and actors which are characterized as heroes or cowards. The ba- sic purpose of narrative is to entertain, gain, and hold a reader’s interest. Narrative is the most commonly written story types in the English program (Chistie and Derewianka, 2008:31). From the definition ela- borated above, it could be concluded that telling story is the main function of narrative text. Nar- rative text was chosen in this research because narrative is the most enduring text genre, especi- ally in English. Stories are taught from elementa- ry school until undergraduate study. Feedback is fundamental element of a pro- cess approach to writing (Keh, 1990:294). It can be defined as input from a reader to a writer with the effect of providing information to the writer for revision. In other word, it is the comments, questions, and suggestion, a reader gives to a writer to produce good writing. Writing can be a means of developing ideas, reformulating know- ledge and discovering personal experiences. ZPD is one of theories that supports peer feedback (Ferris and Hedgcock, 2005:225). This theory ex- plains why and how students’ writing skill can be developed through peer feedback. Feedback seems to be as central to the pro- cess of teaching and learning writing as revision to the process of writing (Dheram, 1995:160). It is therefore important to develop an awareness of the nature and function of feedback so that teach- ers and learners can perform their roles effectively in the writing classroom. There are three types of feedback which are introduced by Hyland (2005:178); teacher written feedback, teacher-students conferencing, and peer feedback. Teacher written response is a kind of feedback given by teacher. Teacher can also give feedback on students writing through face-to-face conferencing. Conferencing has important advantages as it can supplement the limitation of one-way written feedback with op- portunities for teacher and students to negotiate meaning of a text through dialogue. Peer feed- back is defined as feedback that is given by peer. In writing activity, peer feedback means having other writer to read and to give feedback on what other writer has written. Hyland and Hyland (2001:195) concep- tualize three broad types of feedback; praise, criticism, and suggestion. Praising encourages reoccurrence of appropriate language behaviors where the students are accredited for some cha- racteristics, attributes, or skills. Criticism is used by the responder in expressing their dissatisfac- tion with their peer writing. Criticism is needed to make the writer to become more energetic in developing their ideas and revising their mistake. Suggestion is related to criticism but has a positi- ve orientation. Productive suggestion is also kno- wn as constructive criticism which includes clear and achievable actions for writers. Aridah (2003:105) states that feedback can be categorized into positive and negative feedback. She mentioned that the type of feed- back is based on the types of errors and linguistic aspects that the students encountered, mainly in grammar and content. She concludes that the two types of feedback are error correction (gramma- ticality and mechanics) and comment of content (organization of idea and structure). Based on the theories above, it can be sum- marized that feedback can be divided into teacher written feedback, teacher-students conferencing, and peer feedback. It is not only synthesized that feedback is categorized in criticism, praising, and suggestion, but also indicated into positive and negative feedback. The type of feedback can be focused on organization, content, grammar, and mechanic. Motivation is some kind of internal dri- ve that pushes someone to do things in order to achieve something (Harmer, 2003:98). In other words, motivation can be defined as internal pro- cess that activates, guides, and maintains behavior over time. Motivation is the extent to which you make choices about goals to pursue and the effort you will devote to that pursuit (Brown, 2001:72). In discussing motivation, there are two types of motivation; intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is motivation which comes from inside. It refers to motivation that interna- lized, and is the drive to do things for their own sake or self-reward. Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, refers to the need to complete a task or perform an activity for the sake of a reward, privilege, or externally derive motivation. In this article, the writer did not take all intrinsic motivations as suggested by Brown (2001:79), but he takes six intrinsic motivations which become the indicator of this research. There are learner-centered, personal-goal setting, peer evaluation, self-diagnosis, cooperative lear- ning, and creativity aspect. Learner-centered here means that the teacher needs to engage learners with their own goal and a willingness to construct a new language. Learner-centered implies that the learner is actively engaged in the process of knowledge construction. Learner-centered focu- ses attention on what is the student learning, how the student is learning, and the condition under which the student is learning. 165 Husni Mubarok / English Education Journal 2 (2) (2012) METHODS There are 192 eleventh grade students which are divided into five classes. A sample is a representative group from population to serve as respondents. Based on the sampling, it was chosen the eleventh grade students of science program II (XI IPA II) which were consisted of 48 students; 11 male students and 37 female stu- dents. This research stated that there were four problems statements which underlined this rese- arch. To answer these four questions, the writer used classroom action research as the research design. Action research was considered as reflec- tive practice. Glanz (1998:29) states that reflective practice is a process by which educational leaders take the time to contemplate and assess the effi- ciency of programs, products, and personnel in order to make judgments about the appropriate- ness of effectiveness of these aspects so that imp- rovements or refinements might be achieved. In conducting this study, the writer was helped by the two English teachers. Therefore, there was collaboration between the writer and the two English teachers as collaborators. To answer the four questions stated above, the writer used the instruments; observation, in- terview, questionnaires, and writing test. Obser- vation was used to get information or data about the situation in the teaching-learning process. Interview for students was used to explore stu- dents’ feeling about the teaching technique which was used by teacher and to identify the problems faced by students. Interview for the teacher was used to gain the information about the problems faced by students in the classroom based on teacher’s perspective. A questionnaire is a useful way of gathering information about affective di- mensions of teaching and learning like preferen- ce and motivation and enable the researcher to collect a large amount of information relatively quickly. In this research, the writer used writing test to know students’ achievement in narrative text writing. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION From the pre-observation, which was done in the preliminary research, was found that stu- dents in the eleventh grade students (XI IPA 2) had low motivation in writing narrative text. They were not given time to do peer check. They had little participation in writing class. Beside that, there was no group work in writing class. Therefore, they did not know their mistakes when they wrote a narrative text. They did not know where their mistakes were. It was in organizati- on, content, grammar, or mechanic. The teacher did not indicate students’ mistake in their wri- ting, so the students did not know their mistake and how to develop their writing. The students’ average score in pre-cycle was 60.2. Beside that, the teacher did not implement various strategies which could build students’ attention and foster students’ engagement or activity in writing class. Through interview which was done for students, it was found that 1) most of students liked writing a narrative text, 2) although most of them liked writing narrative text but not all students knew the purpose and generic structure of a narrative text, 3) teacher seldom used inter- esting strategy in writing class, 4) some of them checked their writing before it was submitted to the teacher and some of them did not check, 5) the teacher did not respond toward students’ wri- ting after it was submitted to her, 6) students were never given time to do peer check to find out their mistakes and weaknesses. The planning of each cycle consisted of explaining and revising the material of narrative text, writing a narrative text, doing peer feedback strategy, and revising students’ writing. Before the action was implemented, the writer prepared the activities that the students, the writer, and colla- borators should do in each cycle. The writer plan- ned three meetings and each meeting consisted of some activities. The writer also prepared peer feedback sheet, the instrument which was used for implementing peer feedback strategy, scoring rubric to assess students’ writing, and question- naires. After the research had been implemented in three cycles, the writer and the collaborators discussed the reflection of the research. Based on the result of observation, questionnaire, and stu- dents’ writing collected during the research, there was improvement of students’ motivation. There were changes of students’ behavior and partici- pation during teaching and learning process. It could be seen from the students’ attitudes and activities during the research. They paid more attention to the researcher’s explanation, wro- te narrative text individually, did peer feedback strategy enthusiastically, and participated in the class discussion actively. The students’ participa- tion during the research increased. The students were active in writing individually and doing peer feedback in pairs. The fear of making mistakes in writing reduced. Classroom situation was alive during the research happened. Husni Mubarok / English Education Journal 2 (2) (2012) 166 From the summary of the questionnaire from cycle to cycle above, it can be summarized that the students’ motivation in the aspect of personal goal-setting improved. The motivated students exhibit a desire and interest toward the material given. In this research, the material was a narrative text. Students’ motivation arises due to the need to attain the goal and objective. The goal, which the motivated students strive to achie- ve, becomes a stimulus for the students to write well. In this research, the students begin to obtain the objectives which they set for themselves. Table 1. Summary of Questionnaires Statement Cycle SA A D SD 1 1 20.8% 62.5% 16.7% - 2 39.6% 52.1% 8.3% - 3 54.2% 45.8% - - 2 1 20.8% 62.5% 16.7% - 2 6.3% 50% 39.6% 4.1% 3 31.3% 62.5% 6.2% - 3 1 4.2% 58.3% 29.2% 83% 2 25% 58.3% 16.7% - 3 62.5% 375% - - 4 1 - 22.9% 68.8% 8.3% 2 27.1% 58.3% 14.6% - 3 29.2% 70.8% - - 5 1 22.9% 66.7% 10.4% - 2 27.1% 62.5% 10.4% - 3 54.2% 37.5% 8.3% - 6 1 4.2% 39.5% 31.3% 25% 2 20.8% 47.9% 31.3% - 3 20.8% 52% 6.2% - 7 1 14.6% 43.7% 37.5% 4.2% 2 27.1% 52.1% 20.8% - 3 29.1% 68.8% 2.1% - 8 1 31.3% 60.4% 6.2% 2.1% 2 58.3% 41.2% - - 3 77.1% 22.9% - - 9 1 29.1% 52.1% 16.7% 2.1% 2 43.8% 52.1% 4.1% - 3 52.1% 41.6% 6.3% - 10 1 18.75% 62.5% 16.7% 2.1% 2 16.7% 70.8% 12.5% - 3 39.6% 56.6% 4.2% - 11 1 12.5% 64.6% 20.8% 2.1% 2 50% 37.5% 8.4% 4.1% 3 43.7% 54.2% 2.1% - 12 1 4.2% 64.6% 27% 4.2% 2 22.9% 75% 2.1% - 3 39.6% 60.4% - - 167 Husni Mubarok / English Education Journal 2 (2) (2012) The finding above also indicated that the students’ motivation in the aspect of learner- centered improved. The students were engaged with their own goal and willingness to construct new knowledge. They were participated during the writing class happened, either in explanation, writing, revising, or discussion phase. The stu- dents’ creativity also improved. The students did not only write a narrative text, but also expressed their thought, feeling, and emotion. The students’ motivation improved in the aspect of peer-evaluation. Peer evaluation helps the students to develop students’ writer sense of audience. Peer evaluation in writing class reflects the reader’s experience of the writing. It also describes how the writing makes the reader feels and summarizes what the writer says to the rea- der. Because writing is a form of communication, the student writers benefit from student readers feedback. The feedback can be in the form of comment, criticism, suggestion, or appraisal. The students’ motivation improved in the aspect of cooperative learning. Cooperative lear- ning creates a situation in which the only way group members can attain their own personal go- als if the group is successful. It means that the group members should help their groupmates to achieve the goal. The students should work in pairs or group, they share their idea, and they sta- te their experiences. In cooperative learning, the- re is social dimension between students; either as the writer or the editor. Peer feedback strategy could also impro- ved students’ self-diagnosis. Students’ self-diag- nosis is raised up when they find feedback from their peer that identifies or reminds the writer on the mistakes they made in their writing. Becau- se of students’ self-diagnosis raised, the students also aware the mistakes in their own draft. This is the reason why peer feedback strategy contri- butes the students become critical readers. In peer feedbacks strategy, the students become more ac- tive in the classroom, because the read, comment, suggest, and discuss. After the research had been implemented in the three cycles, the researcher and the colla- borators discussed the final reflection of the rese- arch. Based on the result of observation, question- naire, and students’ writing collected during the research, there was an improvement of students’ motivation. There were changes of students’ be- havior and participation during teaching and lear- ning process. It could be seen from the students’ attitudes and activities during the research. They paid more attention to the researcher’s explana- tion, wrote narrative text individually, did peer feedback strategy enthusiastically, and participa- ted in the class discussion actively. The students’ participation during the research increased. The students were active in writing individually and doing peer feedback in pairs. The fear of making mistakes in writing reduced. Classroom situation was alive during the research happened. The other indicator which showed stu- dents’ improvement was students’ writing score increased from cycle to cycle. The students could make improvement in the aspect of organizati- on, content, grammar, and mechanic. The imp- rovement of students’ writing achievement after implementing peer feedback strategy can be iden- tified from the students’ writing score from cycle to cycle. The improvement of students writing is described like the following: Table 2. Summary of Students’ Writing Achieve- ment Students’ Achievement Before Cycle Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 60.2 69 77.3 79.4 From the table above, it showed that stu- dents’ writing achievement increased significantly in the aspect of organization, content, grammar, and mechanics from cycle to cycle. The table abo- ve showed that the writing achievement increased significantly from cycle to cycle. The average sco- re in the cycle 1 is 69, the average score in the cycle 2 is 77.3, and the average score in the cycle 3 is 79.4. The ability to construct a good narrative writing was indicated by some indicators. First- ly, the students could generate and organize their sentences in a logical order and into legible text. The title had been stated well. The students could develop the orientation which could engage the reader and create interest. It contained of detail background information in the orientation like the actor, the place, and the time. The students could also elaborate the complication and resolu- tion paragraph clearly to support the orientation paragraph. The re-orientation effectively summa- rizes the topic sentence. Secondly, the content aspect of students’ writing contained of well-organized idea. The idea was concrete and could be more fully deve- loped, although some extraneous material was present. The idea was supported by supporting sentences. Thirdly, the students could write in correct grammatical sentences. They could arran- ge the words into understandable and acceptable pattern of sentence and select the word which Husni Mubarok / English Education Journal 2 (2) (2012) 168 would be used to convey meaning. In the other word, the students could improve their ability in writing, especially in the grammar aspect of wri- ting. Next, the students’ ability in the aspect of mechanics was improved significantly. This abili- ty could be described that the students were able to write a narrative text which was well-punctu- ated, well-spell, and well-capitalized when the researcher asked them to construct paragraph in the teaching and learning process. It could bee seen from the students’ achievement in the table. CONCLUSION The implementation of peer feedback stra- tegy could improve students’ motivation in the aspect of personal goal-setting, learner-centered, creativity, peer-evaluation, self-diagnosis, and cooperative learning. Peer feedback strategy hel- ped the students to identify which mistakes they made and in which part of their writing should be improved. Beside that, peer feedback strategy provided feedback in a collaborative not only the author which gets the benefit but also the editor. Peer feedback strategy could improve the students’ narrative text writing either in the as- pect of organization, content, grammar, and mechanics from draft to draft and from cycle to cycle. Then students’ writing achievement also improved from pre-cycle (before action) to the last cycle (cycle three). REFERENCES Al-Qurashi, Fahad Muhammed. 2009. Saudi Students’ Reactions to Peer Response Groups in EFL Composi- tion Classroom. Journal of King Saudi Univer- sity. 21: 57-67. Aridah. 2003. The Role of Feedback in the Teaching and Learning of Writing. CELT. 3. (2): 105-114. Bitchener, John, Stuart Young, and Denise Cameron. 2005. The Effect of Different Types of Correc- tive Feedback on ESL Student Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing. 14: 191-205. Brown, H. Douglas. 2001. Teaching by Principles; An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York: Longman. Celce, M. - Murcia and Elite Olstain. 2000. Discourse and Context in Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cristie, F. and Derewianka. 2008. School Discourse. New York: Continuum. Dheram, P.K. 1995. Feedback as a Two Bullock Cart: A Case Study of Teaching Writing. ELT Jour- nal. 49: 160-168. Dornyei, Z. 2001. Teaching and Researching Motivation. London: Harlow Person Educational. Ferris, D.R., and Hedgcock, S. 2005. Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice. USA: Lawrence Elbaum Associates Publisher. Glanz, Jeffrey. 1998. Action Research: An Educational Leader’s Guide to School Improvement. Norwood: Christopher-Gordon Publisher Inc. Harmer, J. 2003. The Practice of English Language Teach- ing. Edinburg: Longman. Harmer, J. 2004. How to Teach Writing. Edinburg: Long- man. Ho, Belinda. 2006. Effectiveness of Using the Process Approach to Teach Writing in Six Hong Kong Primary Classroom. Working Paper in English and Communication. 17. (1): 1-52. Hong, Fei. 2006. Students Perceptions of Peer Re- sponse Activity in English Writing Instruction. CELEA Journal. 29. (4): 48-52. Hyland, K. 2005. Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hyland, F. and Hyland, K. 2001. Praise and Criticism in Written Feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing. 10 (2001): 185-212. Keh, C. 1990. Feedback in the Writing Process: a Mod- el and Methods for Implementation. ELT Jour- nal. 44. (4): 294-304. Lo, Julia and Hyland, Fiona. 2007. Enhancing Stu- dents’ Engagement and Motivation in Writing: The Case of Primary Students in Hongkong. Journal of Second Language Writing. 16: 219-237. Mumtaz. 2007. The Use of Written Feedback and Confer- encing in Improving Students’ Writing. Johor: Uni- versiti Teknologi Malaysia. O’ Malley, J. M. and L. V. Pierce. 1996. Authentic As- sessment for English Language Learners. Practical Approaches for Teachers. Virginia: Addison-Wes- ley Publishing Company.