https://jurnal.unigal.ac.id/index.php/jall/index ISSN: 2598-8530 February 2019, Vol. 3 No. 1 English Education Program Faculty of Teacher Training and Education Galuh University 1 Received: Accepted: Published: December 2018 January 2019 February 2019 THE USE OF PEER REVIEWING IN OVERCOMING PHONOLOGICAL ERRORS IN ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION Ira Adinegara English Education Department of Galuh University Ciamis, West Java, Indonesia ira.adine@gmail.com A. M. Surachmat English Education Department of Galuh University Ciamis, West Java, Indonesia Didih Faridah English Education Department of Galuh University Ciamis, West Java, Indonesia ABSTRACT This study reports on the use of peer reviewing in overcoming phonological errors in English pronunciation conducted to the freshmen of English Education Program in Galuh University. Peer review is one of appropriate techniques to support students in learning speaking particularly English pronunciation. In this regard, the writers addressed some questions: 1) How does the lecturer use peer review technique in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation?, 2) What are the students‟ perceptions toward the use of peer review technique in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation?, and 3) What are the benefits of peer review technique in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation?. Related to the research questions, the writers adopted qualitative approach particularly a case study as the research design. The writers conducted classroom observation, interview to an English lecturer and six students and administered a questionnaire to the students as well. In this case, the respondents were selected purposively. The results showed that the use of peer review is useful to support and motivate the students to learn well. By using peer review, students can be active in their process learning and also they can improve their critical thinking in speaking particularly in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation. Keywords: peer review, pronunciation 2 INTRODUCTION As one of the basic skills of learning English, pronunciation plays an important role in English language teaching since most of country around the world has completely different pronunciation from English language including Indonesia. English pronunciation refers to ability to use the correct stress, linking and intonation of a word in a spoken English language (Burns & Claire, 2003, pp. 5-6). One of them is phonological speech errors created by EFL learners which have been an important source of evidence for the psychological reality of phonological features and segments. Frisch & Wright (2002, p. 140) state that in many speech errors, it appears that portions of the intended utterance are produced in an unintended order. Inability to utter the words correctly is a problem appears to the EFL learners. Students of different mother tongues have different pronunciation problems. Some students may be happy to spend some time on sound which are easy for them, but some students have pronunciation difficulties of language groups which have not been included elsewhere or the errors of individual students (Baker, 1982, p. 1). According Sachs & Parsell (2014, p. 22), peer review would be seen as a learning process in which both parties (reviewer and reviewed) must be jointly engaged in a search for truth which is only achievable when the communication between peers is open to challenge from either side, and not distorted by power relations which inhibit criticism. Besides, peer review acts as a filter for selection and a quality control mechanism (Wager, Godlee, & Jefferson, 2002, p. 3). Seeing those students difficulties in spoken and when their teacher corrects their pronunciation, they often just hear it away. By applying peer review technique, it will help students to know what the strengths are and weaknesses or what are missing from their pronunciation so they can revise and improve it. Dealing with the present study, it was supported by previous studies which conducted by Mendonca, C. O & Karen E. Johnson, K. E. (1994) entitled “Peer Review Negotiations: Revision Activities in ESL Writing Instruction”. The research described on negotiations that occur during ESL students' peer reviews and the ways these negotiations shape students' revision activities. This research did not describe the peer review technique in performing English pronunciation to overcome phonological errors problem, but it focused on ESL writing instruction. Unfortunately, in the other previous studies, the research about the use of peer review technique in English pronunciation is not examined. Therefore, the writer can only focus on the study that use peer review technique to overcome phonological errors in performing English pronunciation. Furthermore, there are 3 three research questions dealing with this study. They are: 1) How does the lecturer use peer review technique in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation?, 2) What are the students‟ perceptions toward the use of peer review technique in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation?, and 3) What are the benefits of peer review technique in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation?. The Nature of Peer Review Technique Peer review is where the students make suggestions for revision regarding the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to control the producers of the work (Mangelsdorf, 1992, p. 274). The students pinpointed content and organization as the main areas that peer reviews improved. In particular, they emphasized that peer reviews lead them to consider differents ideas about their topics and helped them to develop and clarify these ideas. These comments suggest that peer review can make students more aware of the needs and expectations of their audience (Mangelsdorf, 1992, p. 278). The peer review is exact interpretation of whether feedback should be given, how errors should be selected remains open to lively academic debate (Jobbitt, 2015, p. 2). Each students have to review the others‟ work to find out some errors and also giving critiques and correction to giving comment for other group (Odom et al., 2009, p.110). In addition, students have to comment on their peers‟ mistakes and develop their suggestions (Todd & Hudson, 2007, p. 39). Besides, by using peer review, it helps students develop critical thinking skills needed to analyze and revise their works and also brings active learner participation and a genuine sense of audience in the classroom (Wu, 2006, p. 127). Peer review would be seen as a learning process in which both parties (reviewer and reviewed) must be jointly engaged in a search for truth which is only achievable when the communication between peers is open to challenge from either side, and not distorted by power relations which inhibit criticism (Sachs & Parsell, 2014, p. 22). Yang (2010, p. 1202) states that in peer review technique may also get new perspectives as students decide to accept or reject peers‟ revision. In addition, in peer review activities, all of the students have to correct and had to correct about the errors, they also had to find out the strengths and weaknesses of others‟ work (Yoshizawa, Terano, & Yoshikawa, 2010, p. 739). Sometimes, in peer review process, each group were given worksheet to be discussed with other peer‟s in their own group (Jahin, 2012, p. 68). 4 Then, the teacher gives the peer review form to the students to make sure that they write responsible for their respond and they worked earnestly to help each other (Frederick, Blake-Kline & Kristo, 1997 adopted by Chen & Lin, 2009, p. 344). In reviewing, the students have to write the result of interview in the form review (Chen & Lin, 2009, p. 344). Thus, peer review is one of the good techniques to involves students as the main part of teaching learning process. In addition, students have to be more creative, active, and more critical by giving a constructive feedback to other peers allow them to evaluate their context, spelling, and style. There are several benefits of peer review, namely peer review adds professionalism to the process of evaluating teaching and also reflection by both the faculty member being reviewed and the reviewer is a key benefit of peer review, teachers must step back, formulate and organize, and present what they value and do with students. Talking with others often helps teachers reflect on their pedagogy (Perlman & McCann, 1998, p. 2). In addition, students as participants are true peers. They start their peer review processes with a shared understanding and conceptualisation of learning and teaching in higher education and specifically within their university context. The defining criterion is being a peer, a critically reflective peer (Sachs & Parsell, 2014, p. 147). Therefore, peer review has the benefit of encouraging students to work collaboratively, something which, in a group, we went to foster. Collaborative peer review provides a framework which encourages critical reflection which supports individuals and groups to engage in inquiry into their teaching and its impact on student learning (Sachs & Parsell, 2014, p. 25). There are three aspect to include of peer review, namely evaluation, sumative peer review and formative peer review (Perlman & McCann, 1998, pp. 2-3). Besides, the classroom visitation process in peer review technique divided into three parts, there are pre-visitation conference, the class visitation, and post-class visitation meeting (Perlman & McCann, 1998, p. 4). In peer review technique, course materials may include but are not limited to documents such as course syllabi, course assignments, learning experiences such as tests, papers, projects, and presentations, besides exams and grading practices, also text and required/ suggested readings like WEB sites (Perlman & McCann, 1998, pp. 4-5). Based on the explanations aformentioned previously, understanding the course context and instructor‟s rationale is important to a fair and effective peer review of course materials. In peer review process, teaching portfolios are frequently used to stimulate reflections on teaching. Reflection frameworks often emphasize behaviours and 5 competencies. However, the environment, beliefs, professional identity and mission are also important subjects for reflection (Tigelaar, et al., 2006, p. 277). The teaching portfolio focuses it on delivery and learning. Teaching portfolios are the product of collaboration with colleagues, mentors, students and others as input from these sources helps clarify and refine personal statements and reflective descriptions. The process of creating teaching portfolio may prove to be more difficult than originally expected; therefore, constant and honest feedback will be key to producing a successful portfolio (Rodriguez-Farrar, 2006, p. 4). Based on explanations aformentioned previously, the writers concluded that portfolio should be set out clearly and concisely. The Nature of Phonological Error Phonology is essentially the description of the systems and patterns of speech sounds in a language (Yule, 2010, p. 42). According to Forel and Puskas (2005, p. 3), phonology is the study of how speech sounds are used in English and other languages. Phonology has been defined as the study of sound systems, that is, the study of how speech sounds structure and function in languages (McMahon, 2002, p. 2). Thus, phonology is a branch of linguistics concerned with the systematic organization of speech sounds in languages. Phonology deals with two main things, phonemics, that is, the study of the distinctive sound units, and phonetics that mainly deals with speech sounds. As a consequence of all the difficulties provided by the English pronunciation, many English language learners as well as the Indonesian learners tend to generate errors in the articulation of the sounds (Tiono & Yostanto, 2008, p. 79-80). In the other the fact, the phenomenon called mother tongue is often found in foreign language teaching at the level of pronunciation (Luo, 2014, p. 1703). Thus, it can be the errors problem in performing English pronunciation. According to Goldrick (2016, p. 2), studies of errors in spontaneous speech, in experimental paradigms such as tongue twisters, and those produced by aphasic individuals reveal the influence of linguistic principles on the production of speech. In phonological speech errors (also called sub-lexical errors) have been an important source of evidence for the psychological reality of phonological features and segments (Frisch & Wright, 2002, p. 140). Regarding to the explanations above, the writers concluded that phonological errors reflect the structure of linguistic representations, they are sensitive to the productivity of phonological alternations and the distinction between phonological 6 structures that are possible vs. impossible within a language. Although the evidence is somewhat mixed, cross-linguistic and within-language well-formedness distinctions also appear to influence speech error distributions. The Nature of Pronunciation According to Baker (1982, p. 1), “pronunciation is the way in which a language is spoken”. Clear pronunciation is essential in spoken communication. For all these learners, being made aware of pronunciation issues will be of immense benefit not only to their own production but also to their own understanding of spoken English, such as intelligibility, comprehensibility, and interpretability (Burns & Claire, 2003, p. 5). According Burns & Claire (2003, p. 5), there are three importance of pronunciation in language learning. It is more important that speakers of English can achieve intelligibility, comprehensibility and interpretability. In addition, pronounciation have several features, namely segmental features and suprasegmental features (Burns & Claire, 2003, pp. 6-8). Moreover, to explain the features of English pronunciation, all of them are highlighted in the figure below. Figure 1: Features of English Pronunciation According to Gilakjani & Ahmadi (2011, pp. 75-79), the important factors that affect the learning of pronunciation are as follows accent, stress, intonation and rhythm, motivation and exposure, attitude, instruction, age, personality and mother tongue influence. These factors would enable the teachers to identify the difficulties in the pronunciation of the target language experienced by non-native speakers in order to help Features of English Pronunciation Segmental features Suprasegmental features Linking Intonation Stress Sentence stress Word stress Consonant sounds Vowel sounds Voiced Unvoiced Single Diphthongs Short Long Phonemes (Sound differences within a language) 7 them overcome their foreign accent and consequently improve their pronunciation. In addition, they would also enable teachers to provide efficient pronunciation instruction and design their teaching methodology according to students‟ needs. In looking at recommendations for teaching pronunciation, there are the communicative method of teaching English that is employed in most ESL classrooms such as curriculum design, focus on the supra-segmental, academic research and classroom experiments, improved training for teachers, provision of materials and courseware for teachers and learners, increased research on pronunciation teaching methodology, also methods and materials development (Gilakjani & Ahmadi, 2011, pp. 79-81). METHOD A qualitative approach especially case study was applied in this study. Qualitative research is best suited to address a research problem in which you do not know the variables and need to explore (Creswell, 2012, p. 16). Qualitative research means building the data analysis and tend to analyze and interpret of processes the data to know what their participants do in this study. According to Creswell (2012, p. 617), case study is an in- depth exploration of a bounded system such as activity, event, process, individual, social group based on extensive data collection. In this case, the writer focused on one single phenomenon that is peer review. The writer focused on describing the data collection from the instrument including observation, interview and questionnaire. Participants and Research Site The participants of the study were an English lecturer and 16 students of class 1 A or freshmen level at Galuh University. The writers selected 6 students as sample. These students consisted of 2 students with low achievement, 2 students with average achievement, and 2 students with high achievement. The participants were relevant with this study especially an English lecturer who knows about overcoming phonological errors made by the students of Galuh University in performing English pronunciation by using peer review technique. The writers conducted the study in English Education Program, Faculty of Teacher Training and Educational Sciences, Galuh University. It is located at 150 R.E. Martadinata St., Ciamis Regency, West Java, Indonesia. The writers chose the site because in English Education Program at Galuh University have many English lecturers who teach English speaking course that used peer review technique. Furthermore, the students have to learn English pronunciation on speaking class. 8 Data Collection The writers employed three instruments as the data collecting techniques as follows: observation (the writers acted as non-participant observer), interview (the writers used semi-structured interview to the lecturer and six students) and questionnaire (the writers administered close-ended questionnaire for sixteen students). The first instrument was classroom observation to answered research question number one, the classroom observation was conducted at the beginning of the study before conducting interview to the lecturer and six students. After that, the second instrument was interview, particularly semi-structured interview to the lecturer and six students to answered all research questions. The third instrument was questionnaire, the writers administered questionnaire to sixteen students of class 1-A to answered research question number two. Data Analysis All of the data were analyzed qualitatively. In analyzing the data of classroom observation, the writers analyzed by transcribing, describing, exploring and discuss the interpreting data with theories and the results of classroom observation from video which has written on observation sheet in every meeting. In addition, interview was organized after conducting observation in purpose to find the answers that could not be seen in observation. In analyzing the data of interview, the writers analyzed by transcribing, describing, interpreting and discussing the data related to the theories. Besides, the writers administered questionnaires, especially close-ended questionnaire to 16 students. Furthermore, in analyzed the questionnaire from the students, the writers put the results of questionnaires in calculated the percentage of each responses to each questionnaire using the percentage of computation, the writer also analyzed by interpreting, and categorizing the data. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION The writers analyzed all the activity of lecturer and students in teaching learning process during speaking classroom. The data from the first research question about how does the lecturer use peer review technique in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation?. The results of classroom observation could be seen in the following descriptions. Dealing with the results of observation, the writers found that the lecturer devided the students into small groups in the first meeting. Then, the lecturer gave instruction to the students to perform about the task in front of the class one by one for each group and listen 9 carefully that your friends‟ said in the conversation about her/ his performance especially in English Pronunciation. After all groups finished their work, the lecturer asked to each group to gave correction to the other group‟s work. This activity was appropriate with Odom et al., (2009, p.110) who said that in peer review each students had to review the others‟ work to find out some errors. Then, it had to be corrected. The students in group one gave the comment and correction to the work of group three. Then, group three gave respons. It can be seen on the dialogue as below. G1 : I think your performance is enough to interesting my attention. But in the other hand, you should correct your pronunciation about “company” and “today”. In the word “company”, you should be pronounce /'kʌmpənie/, not /kompəni/ and of the word “today”, you should be pronounce /tə'dei/, not /tudei/. That‟s all. Thank you. G3 : Thank you for group one. Maybe that‟s fault or our mother tongue. Based on the dialogue above, the writers concluded that group one gave correction about errors in the articulation of the sounds. It was related with Tiono & Yostanto (2008, p. 79-80) who argued that as a consequence of all the difficulties provided by the English pronunciation, many English language learners as well as the Indonesian learners tend to generate errors in the articulation of the sounds. In the second meeting, the lecturer explained the material and gave example to the students about it. Then, the lecturer gave the work to the student as individual work. In this activity, the lecturer asked the student to read the result of the work in front of the class individually. Then, each student had to review the result of the classmate‟ to give or gave some correction or suggestion. This is the result of the discussion from student one and student five. S1: Ass. I am “S1”. I would like to review about your performance. You say 5 in /fiv/, 15 /faivtin/, 50 /fifty/. Are you sure about that? S5: Yes! S1: Oh, I think it is wrong. You should pronounce five in /fʌɪv/, fifteen /ˈfɪftiːn/ and fifty /ˈfɪfti/. S5: Sorry! That was my fault in English pronunciation. Thank you for your comment and correction. 10 Based on the review aforementioned, it was clear that the student had critical thinking in giving correction and suggestion, comment for peer‟s speaking especially in overcoming phonological errors in English pronunciation. In the third meeting, the lecturer asked to the students to join in their group. The lecturer gave explanation about the material and gave some examples about it from the video. Then, the lecturer started to give the peer review form to each group to gives comments in the form in which it is done to discuss worksheet that has been filled out by the students. It was appropriate with Frederick, Blake-Kline and Kristo (1997) adopted by Chen & Lin (2009, p. 344) who argued that give the peer review form to the students can make sure that they were responsible for their respond and they worked earnestly to help each other. The lecturer gave peer review form was the corrections of the groups‟ work and each group had to give comment for other group‟s work about the content especially in English pronunciation. After the groups have finished of the peer review form, the lecturer asked to each group to presented their result in front of the class. Besides, the lecturer chosed in each group at randomly to presented their result about peer review form of their work. This is the result of the discussion from student two and student one. S2 : Well, Ass. I‟m from Group 2, I would like to present about the result in peer review form of English for Shopping who performed by Group 1. For the question number one, in my opinion it is not interesting because they speak too fast and a weak voice, so we can‟t hear clearly what they said. For question number two, we answered that they perform clearly but when they were speaking, it was too fast, so we don‟t know what they are talking about. For question number three, it is 65% can catch my attention until the end. Next, the question number four, yes I find some of them, these are flour and modal. And the last, I suggest you to correct your English pronunciation about “flour” and “modal”. In the word “flour”, you pronounce /flowr/ so the meaning of that word is lantai but you means is “flour” „tepung‟. So, you should be pronounce “flour” is /'flaʊə(r)/. Besides, when you pronounce the word “modal”, you should pronounce /'moʊdəl/, not /'modəl/. I think enough. Thanks. L : So, group 1, what do you think about that review? S1 : It makes the motivation for us to be better in the future. Thanks. 11 Based on the dialogue above, the writer infers that the lecturer asked the students in each group to giving comment, correction and suggestion to the others‟ work. Then, the students present of their result to giving correction or review to the other‟s work and find out some errors in English pronunciation. The writers concluded that group two gave correction about articulation in English pronunciation. This fact was contributed to the difficulties in learning English. It was appropriate with Tiono & Yostanto (2008, p. 79-80) who explained that as a consequence of all the difficulties provided by the English pronunciation, many English language learners as well as the Indonesian learners tend to generate errors in the articulation of the sounds. Dealing with the results of interview from six students and questionnaire from 16 students, most of the students answered that peer review technique was effective and appropriate technique that can improve their speaking skill particularly in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation. Besides, the writers also found that the students shared their opinions with other peers in the classroom. they felt enjoy and satisfied when their lecturer applied peer review technique in learning speaking particularly in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation. Moreover, to explain the students‟ responses toward peer review technique, all of them are highlighted in the figure below. Figure 2: Students’ Responses toward Peer Review Technique Based on the figure above, related to the use of peer reviewing in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation, the statements numbers 1 and 2 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 SA A N DA SDA 12 about their difficulties in learning speaking particularly English pronunciation most of the students were answers 21.87% in “Strongly Agree”, 50% in“Agree”, 25% in “Neutral”, 3.12% in “Disagree”, and 0% in “Strongly Disagree” through the use of peer review technique in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation. In the other hand, refer to the statements numbers 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 about students‟ attitudes in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation, most of the students were answers 13.75% in “Strongly Agree”, 25% in “Agree”, 48.75% in “Neutral”, 8.75% in “Disagree”, and 3.75% in “Strongly Disagree”. In addition, refer to the statements numbers 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 about students‟ perceptions in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation, most of the students were answers 12.5% in “Strongly Agree”, 42.5% in “Agree”, 41.25% in “Neutral”, 3.75% in “Disagree”, and 0% in “Strongly Disagree”. These data reveal that for most students and lecturer in this tudy, peer reviews were perceived as a beneficial technique that helped the students to overcome phonological errors in performing English pronunciation. In addition, the students improved their speaking particularly English pronunciation better. Besides, the students were to able their ctitical thinking towards their own speaking and also became carefully in speaking especially English pronunciation. In addition, through peer-review technique, the students got positive input from the other peers that can improve their skill in speaking especially English pronunciation. Thus, they also can become critical when they speak and when they gave correction for the other works‟. By using peer-review technique, the students can learn to give and receive suggestions from each other peers, and also improve their English pronunciation after exchanging their work by one to each other with their classmates and gets feedbacks. Regarding the findings, it reveals that the use of peer review technique was helpful in teaching learning process in speaking. Through peer review technique the students can improve their skill in speaking, especially in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation, and also developed their critical thinking. In spite of Wu (2006, p. 127) indicated that by using peer review, it helps students develop critical thinking skills needed to analyze and revise their works and also brings active learner participation and a genuine sense of audience in the classroom. After discussing the findings, this study continues to answer the research questions addresed in the preceding point. The first, second and last research questions are as follow: 13 Research question 1: How does the lecturer use peer review technique in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation? Based on the findings, it reveals that the lecturer who was observed using peer review technique in speaking class particularly in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation consisted of several steps. Firstly, the lecturer classified the students into several groups before applying the peer review technique. Each group consisted of two until three students. Secondly, the lecturer gave explanation about the materials. Thirdly, the lecturer involved the students in individual. Fourthly, the lecturer asked the students into small group again and each group consisted two until three students for discuss the worksheet and perform it in front of the class. Fifthly, the lecturer gave peer review form to each group as well. Then, the students have to give comment and corrections for the other‟s work in the form and they also develop their suggestions to the other‟s work in front of the class. The last, the lecturer also gave suggestions to the students. Through peer review technique the students can improve their skill in speaking and also developed their critical thinking especially in English pronunciation. Research question 2: What are the students’ perceptions toward the use of peer review technique in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation? Regarding the findings, it infers that most of the students felt enjoy and satisfied in learning speaking especially in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation through peer review technique. Through peer review process, the students pinpointed content and organization as the main areas that peer reviews improved. In particular, they emphasized that peer reviews lead them to consider differents ideas about their topics and helped them to develop and clarify these ideas. These comments suggest that peer review can make students more aware of the needs and expectations of their audience (Mangelsdorf, 1992, p. 278). They assumed that peer review is one of effective technique to improve their speaking especially in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation. It shown by the statements in questionnaire of numbers 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 about students‟ perceptions in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation, most of the students were answers 12,5% in “Strongly Agree”, 42,5% in “Agree”, 41,25% in “Neutral”, 3,75% in “Disagree” and 0% in “Strongly Disagree”. They solved their problem by sharing with the other and they revised their speaking especially in overcoming phonological errors in performing English 14 pronunciation to be better based on their peer‟s correction. In addition, peer review technique increased their motivation and confidence to improve their own speaking particularly English pronunciation to be better. Research question 3: What are the benefits of peer review technique in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation? Regarding the findings, it infers that the lecturer and students alike benefit from the peer review technique. It can support the teaching learning process in teaching speaking, particularly in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation. The students learn to be critical in correcting the peer‟s work and also made the students to improve their critical thinking in their own speaking or others‟ speaking from the results of peers‟ correction which they emphasized that peer reviews lad them to consider differents ideas about their topics and helped them to develop and clarify the ideas (Mangelsdorf, 1992, p. 278). Therefore, through peer review technique students can improve their speaking especially in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation and students became active in learning process. CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings, the finding of first research question can be generally concluded that the lecturer used peer review technique consisting of several steps, they are the lecturer used peer review technique to the students individually and small groups and discuss the worksheet to perform it in front of the class. After that, the lecturer gave peer review form to each group as well and the students gave comment, corrections and suggestions to the other‟s work in front of the class. Besides, the lecturer also gave suggestions to the students. Meanwhile, the finding of second research question can be concluded that most of the students agree that peer review is an effective technique to improve their speaking particularly in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation. It is shown by the students‟ responses of questionnaire numbers 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 about students‟ perceptions in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation, the students were answers 12.5% in “Strongly Agree”, 42.5% in “Agree”, 41.25% in “Neutral”, 3.75% in “Disagree” and 0% in “Strongly Disagree”. Through peer review technique, the students could revise their speaking particularly English pronunciation based on their peers correction and suggestions. 15 In addition, the finding of the last research question can be concluded that the benefits of using peer review technique, the lecturer agreed that peer review technique activate the students when they were learning speaking particularly English pronunciation. In addition, the students were able to share their opinions and ideas with other peers particularly in overcoming phonological errors in performing English pronunciation. This study suggests to the next researchers who are concerned with such a kind of study, the writers are recommend that hopefully in the future, other researchers are more experts in generalizing and updating this study. Furthermore, this study is also hoped to give advantages for English teaching and learning process. REFERENCES Baker, A. (1982). Introducing English pronunciation: A teacher’s guide to tree or three? and shep or sheep?. New York: Cambridge University Press. Burns, A., & Claire, S. (2003). Clearly speaking: Pronunciation in action for teachers. Sydney: NCELTR Macquarie University. Chen, Pi-Ching & Lin, Yi-Li. (2009). The Effect of Peer-Review and Teacher-Review in Young NNS Learners‟ Guided Writing Instruction. 屏東教育大學學報-教育類 第 三十二期, 3, 333－358. Creswell, J. (2012). Education research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research 4 th Ed. US: Person Education, Inc. Forel, A. C., & Puskas, G. (2005). Phonetics and phonology: Reader for first year English linguistics. Retrieved from https://www.uni oldenburg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/anglistik/personen/cornelia.hamann/Phonology. pdf Frisch, S. A., & Wright, R. (2002). The phonetics of phonological speech errors: An acoustic analysis of slips of the tongue. Journal of Phonetics, 30, 139–162. doi:10.1006/jpho.2002.0176 Gilakjani, A. P., & Ahmadi, M. R. (2011). Why is pronunciation so difficult to learn?. English Language Teaching, 4 (3). doi:10.5539/elt.v4n3p74 Goldrick, M. (2016). Running head: Speech errors and phonological theory. Department of Linguistics: Northwestern University. Jahin, J. H. (2012). The effect of peer reviewing on writing apprehension and essay writing ability of prospective efl teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37 (11). 16 Jobbit, T. (2015). Secret paper: A practical peer review technique. International Journal of Teaching, Education and Language Learning, 2 (4), 1-11. Luo, J. (2014). A study of mother tongue interference in pronunciation of college English learning in China. Theory and Practice in Language Studie, 4 (8), 1702-1706. doi:10.4304/tpls.4.8.1702-1706 Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think. ELT Journal, 46 (3), 274-284. McMahon, A. (2002). An introduction to English phonology. Edinburg: University Press. Mendonca, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (4), 745-769. Odom, S., Glenn, B., Sanner, S., and Cannella, K. A. S. (2009). Group Peer Review as an Active Learning Strategy in a Research Course. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21 (1), 108-117. Perlman, B., & McCann, L. I. (1998). Peer review of teaching: An overview. OTRP Instructional Research Award. Retrieved from http://teachpsych.org/resources/Documents/otrp/resources/perlman98.pdf Rodriguez-Farrar, H. B. (2006). The teaching portfolio: A handbook for faculty teaching assistants and teaching fellow 3 rd Ed. The Harriet W. Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning: Brown University. Sachs, J. & Parsell, M. (2013). Peer review of learning and teaching in higher education. Netherlands: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-7639-5 Tigelaar, D. E. H., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., De Grave, W. S., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2006). Portfolio as a tool to stimulate teachers‟ reflections. Medical Teacher, 28 (3), 277–282. Tiono, N. I., & Yostanto, A. M. (2008). A study of english phonological errors produced by english department students. English Department, Faculty of Letters, Petra Christian University, 10 (1), 79-112. Todd, V., & Hudson, J. C. (2007). Using graded peer evaluation to improve students‟ writing skills, critical thinking ability, and comprehension of material in a principles of public relations course. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 4 (10). Wager, E., Godlee, F., & Jefferson, T. (2002). How to survive peer review. London: BMJ Books. Wu, Wen-Shuenn. (2006). The effect of blog peer review and teacher feedback on the revisions of EFL writers. Journal of Education and Foreign Languages and Literature, 3, 125-139. http://teachpsych.org/resources/Documents/otrp/resources/perlman98.pdf 17 Yang, Yu-Fen. (2010). Students' reflection on online self-correction and peer review to improve writing. Journal Computers & Education, 55 (3), 1202-1210. Yule, G. (2010). The study of language 4 th Ed. New York: Cambridge University Press. Yoshizawa, S., Terano, T., & Yoshikawa, A. (2010). Analyzing the effects of peer review activities in the EFL writings. S. L. Wong et al. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 18 th International Conference on Computers in Education. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Asia- Pacific Society for Computers in Education.