The Effectiveness of Direct Peer Feedback to Increase Students ’ Writing Performance Sujito ( Corresponding

This study intended to investigate if there was any significant difference between students’ writing performance who were treated using direct peer feedback and students writing performance who were treated using conventional method. The samples were X TKJ1 and X TKJ2 at SMK Mahardika Karangploso in the 2015/2016 academic year. In this study, the researcher used quasi-experimental research design to gain the data. The researcher implemented direct peer feedback in experimental group and conventional method in control group. Writing test as an instrument was used to collect the data. The research was conducted by the researcher for six meetings. Independent sample t-test was used to examine the data, the result showed that the mean score of experimental group was bigger than control group (82.17 > 71.38). Moreover, the sig.2-tailed value was less than 0.05 (0.000 < 0.05). It meant that there was significant differences between students’ writing performance who were treated using direct peer feedback and students’ writing performance who were treated using conventional method. Keyword: performance, peer feedback,


Introduction
Writing is an important skill and a valuable part of any language course, especially in English language.It helps the learners to acquire English language because the activity stimulates thinking and facilitates them to develop some language skills simultaneously.According to Bello (1997), writing as a productive language skill, plays an essential role in promoting language acquisition as learners experiment with words, sentences, and large chunks of writing to communicate their ideas effectively and to reinforce the grammar and vocabulary they learn in class.However, the teaching of writing in our educational setting is slightly neglected for many years, since teaching speaking methods more communicative rather than writing.
Nowadays, the demand for writing in academic areas is increasing because the impact of globalization.EFL students become more motivated to be able to write well in order to continue their education, participate in the academic world, and apply job.Based on facts, Indonesian's writing teachers are motivated to increase their students' writing ability.
Besides, writing is very complicated skill to learn.It involves a complex cognitive activity in which the writer should be able to organize some specialized skills at the same time, such as content, format, sentence structure, vocabulary, punctuation, spelling, and letter formation.Those are the challenge for teachers to get the success of increasing the students' writing ability.Getting success in teaching writing, writing teachers hold the principle of writing, as Qomariyah (2010) explains.First, focusing on accuracy must be primary concern because students tend to have problems of accuracy when they practice the writing.It usually happens because their writing product relate to their mother tongue.Second, focusing on fluency; the approach encourages students to write as much as possible and as quickly as possible without worrying about making mistakes.Third, focusing on text; it mainly concerns to lead the student about how to construct and organize paragraph.Fourth, focusing on purpose, Carrol (2005:46) argues that writing's purpose is real for the reader.
Process of teaching writing consists of four basic stages, they are planning, drafting, revising, and editing.Planning or pre-writing is an activity of writing in order to stimulate the students to write.Since its function is to stimulate students to write, the writing activities must be prepared to provide them learning experiences of writing, such as brain storming, clustering and etc. Drafting, at this stage, the students will focus on the fluency of writing and write without having much attention to the accuracy of their works.During the process of writing, the students must also focus on the content and the meaning of the writing.Then, the students revise their writing to see how effectively they have communicated their ideas to reader.Revising is not a simply activity of checking language errors but it is done to improve global content and organization of the ideas so the writer's intention is clearer for the reader.The last, students are focused on tidying up their works as they prepare the final draft to be evaluated by the teacher or their peer.The main activity done by the students at this stage is editing their mistakes on grammar, spelling, punctuation, sentences, diction and etc.
Not everyone can be an excellent writer, even in their own native language.Regarding teaching writing in EFL setting, there are many differences between the first language writing and the target language writing, such as differences in using appropriate grammatical and rhetorical conventions and lexical variety.With so many issues around, the learning writing in English can be an intimidating task for students.Consequently, writing instruction in the classroom should provide students with a series of planned learning experiences to help them understand the nature of writing process.Some difficulties also faced by the students.They get difficulties in organizing the paragraph, sentence structure, grammatical, capitalization and punctuation.Those problems show that students need a treatment before submit the writing assignment.
As mentioned before that revision is not a simply activity of checking language errors, it can be assumed that at revision stage has a big effect for appearing the better writing product.In revision process, there is feedback that leads students to revise their writing product.Feedback is necessary because it can inform the students of their weaknesses and tell the teachers about the effectiveness of their teaching.Feedback is defined information on performance which affects subsequent performance by influencing students' attention to particular matters so that those matters undergo a change in the subsequent performance, (Haoucha, 2012).It can be concluded that feedback brings in some kinds of "input" or "information" from a reader to a writer on the basis of which some kind of "change" or "revision" will take place.Generally, three types of feedback can be categorized.They are: 1) Self-monitored feedback, 2) Student-student feedback, 3) Teacher-student feedback.Traditionally, teachers are the only one who provides feedback to students' writing.Then, peer feedback was introduced as a new strategy to developed students' writing performance and it became an important role in writing classroom.For the peer response to be successful teachers need to train the students in peer response technique.The students need to trust each other for the peer response to be productive and sometimes cultural differences can be an obstacle.
As Ellis (2008) mentions there are six strategies for providing feedback on writing performance, they are: direct feedback, indirect feedback, metalinguistic feedback, focus and unfocused feedback, electronic feedback, and reformulation feedback.The reader provides the correct form as a feedback to the writer product.It is called as direct feedback.While, indirect feedback is reader involves indicating that the writer product has made an error without actually correcting it.Metalinguistic feedback is reader provides some kinds of metalinguistic clues as to the nature of the error.It is given in two ways, first by using error code and second by giving explanation of the error.Focus of the feedback concerns whether the reader attempts to correct all (or most) of the writer' errors or selects one or two specific types of errors to correct.Then, reader indicates an error and provides a hyperlink to a concordance file that provides examples of correct usage.It is known as electronic feedback.The last is reformulation feedback.This consists of a native speaker's reworking of the writer' entire text to make the language seem as native-like as possible while keeping the content of the original intact There are three previous studies that use peer feedback as a strategy in their writing classroom and they show the significant effects of writing performance.The first was conducted by Birk (2007).He investigated "Exploration of The Role of Grammatical Feedback by Peers on Essay Writing".The result showed that the students began to recognize problems in their peers' writing and began to recognize the same problems in their own writing.As students worked in peer groups on writing, they could more easily identify problems with organization and clarity in their peers' writing.The second was conducted by Zaman (2012).He investigated "Feedback in EFL Writing at Tertiary Level: Teachers' and Learners' Perceptions".The result showed that peer feedback helped to create a supportive teaching environment and provided one form of 'socio academic interaction'.It provided learners the guidance and assurance that they were on the right track and offered indications of which track to get on if they were not.The third, "EFL Teachers' Beliefs and Practices regarding Peer Feedback in L2 Writing Classrooms" was investigated by Shulin (2013).She found that peer feedback was helpful for their students to be aware of the common errors in their writing, learnt from their peer's writing, raised the audience's awareness, enhanced their own writing quality, stirred self-reflections, and promoted interest and motivation in L2 writing.
After having a close reading, it forced the present study to conduct the same research using peer feedback as a background to increase students' writing performance.Then, the present study will focus on Direct as a type of feedback that will used when providing feedback.All in all, the present study still has the research question, it is: 1. Is there any significant difference of students' writing performance who are treated using direct peer feedback and students' writing performance who are treated using conventional method?In order to answer the gap, the present study will conduct the research, and hopefully the present study can refill the construct of the study.The objective of the present study is to identify there is any significant difference of students' writing performance who are treated using direct peer feedback and students' writing performance who are treated using conventional method.

Method
In this study, the researcher conducted quasi experimental research design because the researcher tried to find out the effectiveness of direct peer feedback on students' writing performance.

Participants
The sample of this study was the tenth grade students of SMK Mahardika Karangploso which consisted of two classes.They were X TKJ1 and X TKJ2.The sample consisted of 48 students.X TKJ1 consisted of 24 students, and X TJKJ2 also consisted of 24 students.One of the classes was the experimental group while the other was the control group.It depended on the random process' result by using lottery.The experimental group got direct peer feedback while control group got conventional method.In this study the researcher conducted writing test as instrument.Writing test devided into two, they were pre-test and post-test.Pre-test is a test that is given before the samples get the treatment.It is necessary to make sure that the samples were homogeneous in term of their writing performance and also as a base to measure their improvement during the treatment.In pre-test of this research, the researcher asked the samples to write a descriptive paragraph.The researcher asked X TKJ1 and X TKJ2 to write a descriptive paragraph (around 45 minutes.The researcher could continue the research if the result of pre-test was homogeneous.After that, the researcher determined the samples into two groups using lottery.They were experimental group and control group.The processes of determined sample were: 1.The researcher prepared two papers and wrote "experimental group" on one of the paper and other was written "control group".Then, the researcher rolled the paper.2. The researcher asked the captain of X TKJ1 and X TKJ2 to take one paper.3. Captain of the class who took paper written experimental group belong to experimental group, whether captain of the class who took paper written control group belong to control group in this research.

Procedure
Next meeting, the researcher would conduct the treatment toward experimental and control group.The experimental group got direct peer feedback while control group got conventional method.First, the researcher explained about the descriptive text.Second, the researcher asked experimental and control group to write a descriptive paragraph.The students finished their assignment about 45 minutes.Third, the students in the experimental group got direct peer feedback on their writing product.Every student got peer's editing worksheet to guide them evaluate their peer's writing product, it finished in 20 minutes.Then, the researcher gave 15 minutes for the students to discuss with their peer related the feedback that was given in order to avoid misunderstanding.After that, the students rewrote their writing product and submitted it in the next 10 minutes.
On the other hand, the control group got conventional method by the researcher.Conventional method meant the researcher taught the control group as their English teacher taught them, such as answering the questions in LKS or answering questions given by the teacher.The researcher gave the treatment for four meetings to experimental and control group.After that, the researcher gave the post-test to the experimental and control group in order to know the progress of students' writing performance.The student wrote a descriptive paragraph in 45 minutes.

Data Analysis
The researcher used scoring rubric to evaluate students' writing performance.
It was required for each possible score point as stated in table 2.3.1 It was adapted from Brown cited in Alawi (2012:39) which addressed different aspects of the writing such as vocabulary, grammar, mechanics, content, and organization.Then, the researcher compared the mean score of pre-test and post-test to investigate whether the students' writing performance increased or not.After that, the researcher answered the research question regarding the two method (peer feedback and conventional) which one of the two method would outperformed.Therefore, the researcher used Independent T-test on SPPSS 22 version to examine it.

Result
The result of this study was taken from test.The tests included pre-test and post-test for experimental and control group.

The Result of Pre-Test
The pre-test results of two classes were used to measure the homogeneity of the sample and as a base to measure the ability of students' writing performance before getting the treatment.Figure 3.1.1showed the pre-test score of X TKJ1 and XTKJ2.
Figure 3.1.1showed that X TKJ1 was indicated with blue color while X TKJ2 was indicated with red color.In X TKJ1 there were 14 students getting fair qualification on students' writing product, and there were 10 students getting good qualification on students' writing product.On the other hand, in X TKJ2 there were 15 students getting fair qualification on students' writing product.Then, there were 9 students getting good qualification on students' writing product.Then, the researcher examined the pre-test score of two classes in order to know the mean score.The result was presented on table 3.1.1.X TKJ1 was indicated with number 1 and X TKJ2 was indicated with number 2. The means score of X TKJ1 was 69.13 and that of X TKJ2 was 69.17.The standard deviation of X TKJ1 was 4.749 while that of X TKJ2 was 4.440.Table 3.1.2showed how the data was analyzed and interpreted into test of normality.In Kolmogorov-Smirnov showed that sig.value of the pretest of X TKJ1 was .062and the sig.value of X TKJ2 was .148.Meanwhile, minimum alpha (a) value was 0.05 for each sig.value of pre-tests.Therefore, sig.value of X TKJ1 was bigger than a ɑ (0.062 > 0.05) and sig.value of X TKJ2 was also bigger than ɑ (0.148 > 0.05).It meant that the two classes were normally distributed population.Shapiro Wilk test also showed that sig.> ɑ.X TKJ1 was 0.065 > 0.05 and X TKJ2 was 0.080 > 0.05.Therefore, the data of two classes were normal.

Hypothesis Test
Regarding the research question on chapter 1, the researcher would answer the research question and prove the hypothesis.The rule of testing hypothesis in independent sample t-test said the data was significant if the value obtained Sig.(2-tailed) less than 0.05.While, the data was not significant if the value obtained Sig.(2-tailed) more than 0.05.It meant there was not significant difference between control group and experimental group.The researcher used.Independent sample T-test to examine it, and the result was presented on table 3.3.1 (2-tailed) score was less than 0.05 (0.000 < 0.05).It meant that Ho was rejected and H1 was accepted.It could be concluded that there was significant difference between students who were treated using direct peer feedback and students who were treated using conventional method.

Discussions
The students in experimental group were not only as writers but also as providers feedback through their peer's writing product.In order to keep the students (as providers feedback) on track when giving feedback, the researcher gave the students peer editing worksheet.It was also suggested by Gebhard (1996) that teachers should provide students guidelines or a short list of questions for giving feedback.Peer editing worksheet would lead them to evaluate the peer's writing product.Moreover, before implementing direct peer feedback to the students in experimental group, the researcher gave training to them.This activity should be done by the researcher in order to make sure that the students had capability to provide a feedback.Giving training meant that the researcher as a teacher explained first about the common case happened during the feedback activity.It was such as paragraph form, punctuation, capitalization, spelling, organization paragraph, and corrective grammar.The researcher forced the students to understand well about those terms by always training them every meeting.That activity was relevant with the theory suggested by Liu and Hansen (2005: 22) who wrote in their book "Peer Response in Second Language Writing Classrooms".They point out that "students who have been trained in peer response are quite capable of making useful suggestions about their peers' drafts".
Meanwhile, the students in control group got conventional method.Rasana (2004) said that teaching learning process will succeed if the teacher can transfer all the theories to the students based on the curriculum.It meant that the teacher is the subject in teaching learning process while students are the object.Moreover, the activity focused on book theory and students must be able to remember all the theories.Then, to measure the students' understanding through the theory, the students should answer all the questions relating to the theory.The English teacher of tenth grade in SMK Mahardika was one of the teacher who used this method in teaching and learning process.Considering to the research question, the researcher would investigate the effectiveness of both methods (direct peer feedback and conventional) through students' writing performance.After that, the researcher conducted a post-test in the last meeting.
The result showed that the mean score of experimental group was higher than control group.Moreover, the researcher compared the students' mean score from pre and post test between experimental group and control group.The result showed that the mean score of students in experimental group was bigger than the mean score of students in control group.
The description above showed that the improvement gained by the students in experimental group was quite significant.Then, it was also supported with the result of hypothesis test.Hypothesis test showed that H1 was accepted and Ho was rejected.Therefore, direct peer feedback that was implemented in experimental group was effective than conventional method that was implemented in control group.
The finding of this study was relevant with the finding found by Hashemnezhad (2012).He examined "A Case for Direct and Indirect Feedback: The Other Side of Coin".The result of his research revealed that error feedback in the form of direct feedback was more beneficial than indirect feedback especially for proficient learners.It could be concluded that direct peer feedback was the effective method in teaching writing.Moreover, the researcher also found four advantages during implemented direct peer feedback as a method in teaching and learning writing.First, after the students got direct feedback by their peers, the researcher gave 15 minutes to discuss with their peers related to the feedback that was given.They were free to agree or disagree with the feedback given.This part was the part that made the students active in the classroom.As Hairston (1999) said that peer feedback can build a leaning community in the classroom.When the students exchanged and shared their ideas with their peers by negotiating about the feedback that was given, the students could learn from each other and they could build a higher level of accountability to submit a well-written product to the teacher.Additionally, Spear (1988) finds that while interaction helps students to share ideas, communicate meaningfully, and obtain different perspectives on their writing, there are a number of factors that are potential inhibitors of successful peer discussion.
Second, direct peer feedback helped the students become more critical in analyzing and evaluating their peer's writing product.It was similar to the previous study conducted by Lenggogeni (2011) and Amaliah (2012).They used this method (direct peer feedback) in teaching writing narrative text.The result showed that there was improvement on students' writing skill in Cimahi and Cirebon and the students became more critics in thinking and giving support for their partner in writing.The researcher agreed to that statement because the researcher also found the fact when conducting the research.It showed from the students' writing first draft that full of feedback from their peers.That statement also found by Topping (2007), Williams (2005), and Zeqiri (2011) who investigated "The Effect of Peer and Teacher Feedback on Student Writing".They found that peer feedback not only helped students to improve their writing skills, but it also enhanced their critical thinking and reading and at the same time motivated them to write.Additionally, Carnell (2000) said that students showed that they like to receive feedback from their peers.They indicated that it was easier to talk with friends than teacher; with friends they could say whatever they wanted.Moreover, if they were not close friends in the classroom, they could build friend relationship by using direct peer feedback activity.That description showed that direct peer feedback had a positive effect in social aspect.
Third, when the students evaluated their peer's writing product, they automatically read all the paragraphs.By reading their peer's writing product, they got new knowledge to improve their writing product such as different writing style, points of views, vocabulary, etc.The improvement was clearly showed in every assignment.The first assignment (pre-test) until the last assignment (post-test) showed that the students writing style increased.They used variants vocabulary to describe the topic well, and the grammatical error was reduced.It was confirmed by Calkins (1986), White & Arndt (1991), Rollinson (2005), Wichadee (2010) that by reading the writing task of their classmate, it can stimulate students to put more effort to write and it encourages them to write more and learn to improve their stories.Fourth, direct peer feedback reduced the teacher's workload in providing feedback.It meant that the teacher could avoid time consuming due to the students provided feedback on what their peers writing product.As Alwasilah and Alwasilah (2005:44) stated in their book that teacher who taught with big number of students experienced difficulties in giving feedback because they had no enough time to correct and discuss each of students' writing.Considering that statement, the tenth grade of SMK Mahardika Karangploso (X TKJ1 and X TKJ2) was class that had big number of students.The students in each class consisted of 24 students, so the total was 48 students.Therefore, it could be an obstacle for a teacher in giving equal feedback for all their students.Another consideration, it would take time and energy more.However, by using direct peer feedback as a method in teaching writing, it helped the researcher as a teacher to correct all the students' writing product quickly without spending more time and energy.Therefore, direct peer feedback was not only effective but also efficient as a method in teaching writing.
In this study, the major providers feedback were the students, and the researcher as a teacher still had a big role in teaching learning process.Considering teacher's workload reduced, the teacher has enough time to evaluate the students' writing product and take the conclusion of students' mistakes.Then, the researcher discussed with the students in the next meeting about their mistakes in order to avoid the mistakes happened again.As William cited by Nuraeni (2013) mentioned that feedback without explanation or discussion from or between teacher and students would not bring significant positive effect toward students' writing.In this study, it was proven that the students did not repeat the same mistakes.It could be seen of their post-test score which increased.In this study the researcher as a teacher not only explained about descriptive text but also became a facilitator.Being facilitator meant the researcher gave motivation to the students to be good writers, reminded them to avoid the same mistake, and gave appreciation when they could improve their writing performance.Even though, it was a simple activity but it could influence their motivation to be a good writer.It was also suggested by Barkaoui (2007).He mentions that teachers need to: a) motivate students, b) model effective revision strategies, c) raise students' awareness about the importance of (re)seeing their texts from the reader's perspective, d) encourage students to reflect on and selfassess their own writing, and e) use appropriate writing tasks and activities for teaching and assessment.
In summary, direct peer feedback was the effective method used in teaching and learning writing.This method not only increased the students' writing score but also gave some advantages for the students themselves in learning writing and also the teacher in teaching writing.

Conclusions and Implications of the Study
From the pedagogical point of view , these findings are good news for the students and teachers.By providing direct peer feedback as a method in teaching and learning writing, the students' writing score who are treat using direct peer feedback more better than students' writing score who are tread using conventional method.Additionally, direct peer feedback also bring the advantages for the students and the teacher.They are: first, using direct peer feedback made students active in the classroom.Second, it helped the students become more critical in analyzing and evaluating their peer's writing product.Third, the students got new knowledge to improve their writing quality product.Fourth, Direct peer feedback reduced teacher's workload in providing feedback.
Figure 3.1.1Pre-test Score of Experimental and Control Group

Figure
Figure 3.2.1 showed 13 students in experimental group getting good qualification on students writing product while there were 11 students getting very good qualification on students writing product.In contrast, there were 14 students in control group getting fair qualification Figure 3.2.1 Post-test Score of Experimental and Control Group