Abstract

This study aimed to find out the students’ perception as the spoken feedback receiver towards the implementation of peer feedback in Debate subject. The data collection was conducted from June to August 2016. The data was collected from 15 students of English Education Department year 2013 from 6 classes of Debate Subject. This study used qualitative research design in collecting data. The instrument which was used to collect the data was questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed to 15 students of English Education Department from year 2013. The items of the questionnaire were open ended questions as qualitative questionnaire. Based on the findings, it finds that students gave the positive perception towards the implementation of peer feedback in Debate subject class either as spoken feedback receiver. Moreover, the students claimed that they have got many advantages during the implementation of peer feedback. This study also found out that this strategy was needed to be improved by the lecturers in terms of giving instruction, observing the class and evaluating the feedback from the students. 

DOWNLOAD ABSTRACT

There is no Figure or data content available for this article

References

• Anderson, T. (2010). The Effects of Tiered Corrective Feedback on Second Language academic writing.The University of British Columbia.
• Curriculum Corporation, Assesment for Learning Education Service of Australia Retrieved on February,29th,2016, from : http://www.assessmentforlearning.edu.au/profesional_learning/peer_feedback/peer_reflection_evaluation.html.
• Duncan, N. (2007). Feed-forward‟: improving students‟ use of tutor comments, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. Vol.32. wlv.ac.uk.
• Eu, S. L. (2013). A Qualitative Study of Second Language Writers' Response to and Use of Teacher and Peer Feedback - a proposal.
• Falchikov, N. (2005). Improving Assessment Through Student Involvement: Practical Solutions for Aiding Learning in Higher and Further Education. Routhledge, New York. Cornell University: Center for Teaching Excellence
• Finkel, V. (2010). Mad Training Handbook .The Monash University of Australia.
• Gay, L. R. 2006. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications. New Jersey: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
• Grove, B. a. (2003). Research Design and Methodology. University of Johannesburg
• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research.
• Hyland, F. (2000). ESL Writers and Feedback: Giving More Autonomy to Students. Language Teaching Research.
• Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on Second Language Students' Writing .Open University of Hong Kong: Language Teaching Research
• Lahey, B. B. (2009). Psychology: An Introduction. McGRAW-HILL.
• Marzano, (2012) Designing Effective Projects: Teacher and Peer Feedback. Intel@Teach program
• Mc leod, saul. (2007). Simply Psychology. Retrieved on March, 1st,2016. From :http://www.simplypsychology.org/perception-theories.html
• Miao, Badger, & Zhen, (2006). A Comparative Study of Peer and Teacher Written Feedback in A Chinese EFL Writing Class. Science Direct.
• Morgan, D. L. Focus Groups the Qualitative Research. Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications, 1988.
• Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The Nature of Feedback: How Different Types of Peer Feedback Affect Writing Performance. Pittsburgh: Learning Research and Development Center.
• Ren, H., & Hu, G. (2012). Peer Review and Chinese EFL/ESL Student Writers.
• Rollinson, P. (2005). Using Peer Feedback in the ESL Writing Class. ELT Oxford Journals.
• Ross, J. F. (1995). Human, Psychology of Adjustment and Human Relationship. New York : Random House
• Santrock, J. W. (2005). Psychology Essentials 2. McGRAW-HILL.
• Spiller,D. (2012). Assessment: Feedback to Promote Student Learning. The University of Waikato.
• Sultana, A. (2009). Peer Correction in ESL Classroom. BRAC University Journal, VI.
• Sudjana. (1996). Metoda Statistika. Bandung: Penerbit Tarsito
• The International Debate Education Association (IDEA), International Debate Education Association. Retrieved on February, 30th, 2016. From :http://idebate.org/about/debate/formats

How to Cite This

Article Metrics

Download Statistics

Other Statistics

Copyright and Permissions

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

LEKSIKA is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Data Availability