peer edition in efl writing
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
SU S I LOM U L AWA R M A N U N I V E R S I T Y, S A M A R I N D A
GRAMMAR NEGOTIATION IN THE EDITING PROCESSES
DONE BY THE BEGINNING STUDENT WRITERS IN AN EFL CLASSROOM
PARADIGM SHIFT( C A N A G A R A J A H , 2 0 0 2 )
from to
Linguistic homogeneity Linguistic heterogeneity
correction negotiation
NEGOTIATING GRAMMAR
To describe the writer’s sensitivity to unique
rhetorical intentions and purposes which would be
something important to engage in creative writing
activities.
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.
“Negotiation” might occur in the interaction.
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”.
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.
WHAT HAPPENS IN THE NEGOTIATION?
peer responses serving as positive feedback for the
class
class’ selfhood construction happened as one of the
influencing factors in the students’ creative writing
process
SELFHOOD IN EFL WRITING
‘Self’ means multiple identities, roles and subjectivities and
voices constructed by the student writers in the classroom.
Identity refers to race, ethnicity, and nationality;
Role means institutional position, such as student or teacher;
Subjectivity is the constitution of ourselves according to
discourse such as “independent/dependent students,
poor/competent students.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1) how do student writers make responses to their
peers’ drafts of writing?
2) how do student writers negotiate their error
corrections to their teacher’s and peers’ error
responses?
3) how do the peer responses serve as positive
feedback for the student writers’ final drafts? and
4) how do student writers shape the construct of
their selfhood in EFL writing class?
DESIGNThis is a classroom ethnographic case study.
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.
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.
DATA COLLECTION
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).
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.
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.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
PATTERNS OF RESPONSES
No comment,
Correction and suggestion,
Correction and reminder.
NO COMMENT
The students did not give any correction when they
were asked to correct their friends’ drafts.
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.
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].
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]
CORRECTION AND SUGGESTION
Student correctors attempt to identify errors from
the drafts they proofread.
Most of these student correctors gave alternatives
when they identified the incorrect sentences.
D A T A C I T A T I O N
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]
DATA CITATION
Before being revised : …to till in the market…
After being revised : …to arrive in the market…
[draft 012]
CORRECTION AND REMINDER
In addition to giving the correct sentences, the
student correctors also mention more explanations
in the form of notes.
After they made corrections, they provide
alternative sentences and then explain ‘how’ and
‘why’ in their notes.
DATA CITATION
incorrect correct
she is go to the restaurant
she goes to the restaurant
N O T E S W I T H T H I S S E N T E N C E A F T E R T H E C O R R E C T I O N S :
“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].
NEGOTIATION
The tendency of the student writers was to defend
their arguments when they were discussiing 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.
DEBATED GRAMMAR USE
Think about
Think of
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
NEGOT IAT ION
“…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].
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
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].
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].
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
PROCEDURES
During the semester, students should finish four
final drafts.
The drafts were assessed by two raters
The final scores for each draft were the average of
the two raters’ scores.
The final scores were analyzed by using ANOVA
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.
(using ANOVA test)
ANOVA
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 4112.821 3 1370.940 48.006 .000 Within Groups 4340.769 152 28.558 Total 8453.590 155
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Minimum MaximumLower Bound Upper Bound1.00
39 66.7692 3.03021 .48522 65.7869 67.7515 60.00 77.00
2.0039 68.7179 7.87049 1.26029 66.1666 71.2693 60.00 85.00
3.0039 72.1026 5.36458 .85902 70.3636 73.8416 65.00 80.00
4.0039 80.2051 3.78487 .60606 78.9782 81.4320 66.00 87.00
Total156 71.9487 7.38507 .59128 70.7807 73.1167 60.00 87.00
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)
It is found that there were increases in the mean
scores which were observed from the 1st drafts to the
4th drafts
X1 = 66.7692
X 2= 68.7179
X 3= 72.1026
X 4= 80.2051
HYPOTHESIS
There is any significant
different among three
different drafts after being
revised.
QUANTATIVE CONCLUSION
H1 is accepted means that we find a
significant difference of the four drafts.
This means the revisions done by the
students give effects on the qualities of
the final drafts.
QUALITATIVE CONCLUSION
These three constructs (identity, role
and subjectivity), at the micro social
level of everyday classroom interaction,
might be imposed on the student
writers.
THANK YOU