Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Journal

PATTERNS OF INTERACTION IN PEER FEEDBACK PROVISION TO THE STUDENTS’ EXPOSITORY WRITINGS

English Education Journal · Vol. 7 No. 1 (2017) · pp. 06–11

ISSN
2087-0108, 2502-4566
Published
2017-05-31
Publisher
Universitas Negeri Semarang
Language
eng

Abstract

This study investigated students’ nature in pair interaction due to its vital role in learning. Therefore this study was aimed to describe and to explain patterns of interaction in peer feedback, the aspects of writing the students were concerned within peer feedback, influences of pair interactions to the students’ writings, and the students’ perceptions and attitudes on peer feedback. This study mostly employed qualitative approach and a case study method. The result showed that five patterns emerged in pair interaction i.e. collaborative pairs, dominant/dominant pair, dominant/passive pairs, expert/novice pairs, and passive/passive pair. However, feedback provided by collaborative and expert learners contributed to the revision changes of their partner’s writings so that the development of writing aspects under these two patterns was better. Besides, other factors which contributed to the students’ writings were confounding variables such as student’s proficiency, writing capability, and teacher feedback. Thus these results endorsed the former studies e.g. Storch’s (2002b) study, Iris’ (2014) study, and Roberson’s (2014) study. Another result was that whole students had good perceptions and good attitudes on peer feedback provision. However, the bottom line of this study was that collaborative pairs and expert/novice pairs had better second writings.

Collaboration network of the authors

40 authors · 113 co-authorship links · showing the 40 most connected

Hover or tap a name to highlight its co-authors. Double-click to open the author's page.

  • Institut Agama Islam Negeri Kendari
  • Affiliation unknown
  • Different organisations
  • Same organisation
  • Affiliation unknown
  • Thicker line = more joint articles · bigger circle = more articles
Show as table
Co-authorOrganisationJoint articles
Januarius MujiyantoAffiliation unknown10
Djoko SutopoAffiliation unknown5
Dwi RukminiAffiliation unknown4
Rahayu Puji HaryantiAffiliation unknown4
Abdurrachman FaridiAffiliation unknown4
Widhiyanto WidhiyantoAffiliation unknown4
Hendi PratamaAffiliation unknown2
Zulfa SakhiyyaAffiliation unknown2
Issy YuliasriAffiliation unknown2
Mursid SalehAffiliation unknown2
Suwandi SuwandiAffiliation unknown2
SRI WAHYUNIAffiliation unknown2
Agung Ginanjar AnjaniputraAffiliation unknown1
Aprilian Ria AdistiAffiliation unknown1
Siti NurohmahAffiliation unknown1
Saeful BahriAffiliation unknown1
Dian Puspita AnggraeniAffiliation unknown1
Hanum BestariAffiliation unknown1
Katharina RustipaAffiliation unknown1
Anik HidayatiAffiliation unknown1
Wa Ode Zulhidjah AwalyahInstitut Agama Islam Negeri Kendari1
Rudi HartonoAffiliation unknown1
Indah NurhidayahAffiliation unknown1
Lilis SulistiantiAffiliation unknown1
Fahmi Arif SangajiAffiliation unknown1
Atika PurwaningtyasAffiliation unknown1
Mar’atul JannahAffiliation unknown1
Samsudin SamsudinAffiliation unknown1
M. Ubaidillah Karomi SafariAffiliation unknown1
I Made SuwartamaAffiliation unknown1
Tyas OktavianaAffiliation unknown1
Ummul IzzahAffiliation unknown1
Wanda GiovaniAffiliation unknown1
Inayatul MaulaAffiliation unknown1
yulia shinta kusumaningtyasAffiliation unknown1
Nurma AiniAffiliation unknown1
Rifqi Hazmi MamduhanAffiliation unknown1

Affiliations come from OpenAlex; journal OAI-PMH metadata carries none. Authors without an OpenAlex ID are matched by name, which can merge or split people.

Metadata source: OAI-PMH (metadata jurnal) https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/eej/oai, first harvested 5 Nov 2026, last seen 8 Nov 2026.
Original metadata (oai_dc)
<oai_dc:dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/  http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
	<dc:title xml:lang="en-US">PATTERNS OF INTERACTION IN PEER FEEDBACK PROVISION TO THE STUDENTS’ EXPOSITORY WRITINGS</dc:title>
	<dc:creator>Mufiz, Ali</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator>Fitriati, Sri Wuli</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator>Sukrisno, Alim</dc:creator>
	<dc:description xml:lang="en-US">This&amp;nbsp; study&amp;nbsp; investigated&amp;nbsp; students’&amp;nbsp; nature&amp;nbsp; in&amp;nbsp; pair&amp;nbsp; interaction&amp;nbsp; due&amp;nbsp; to&amp;nbsp; its&amp;nbsp; vital&amp;nbsp; role&amp;nbsp; in&amp;nbsp; learning. Therefore this study was aimed to describe and to explain patterns of interaction in peer feedback, the aspects of writing the students were concerned within peer feedback, influences of pair interactions to the students’ writings, and the students’ perceptions and attitudes on peer feedback. This study mostly employed qualitative approach and a case study method. The result showed that five patterns emerged in pair interaction i.e. collaborative pairs, dominant/dominant pair, dominant/passive&amp;nbsp; pairs,&amp;nbsp; expert/novice&amp;nbsp; pairs,&amp;nbsp; and&amp;nbsp; passive/passive&amp;nbsp; pair.&amp;nbsp; However,&amp;nbsp; feedback provided by collaborative and expert learners contributed to the revision changes of their partner’s writings so that the development of writing aspects under these two patterns was better. Besides, other&amp;nbsp; factors which&amp;nbsp; contributed to the&amp;nbsp; students’&amp;nbsp; writings&amp;nbsp; were&amp;nbsp; confounding&amp;nbsp; variables such as student’s proficiency, writing capability, and teacher feedback. Thus these results endorsed the former studies e.g. Storch’s (2002b) study, Iris’ (2014) study, and Roberson’s (2014) study. Another result&amp;nbsp; was&amp;nbsp; that&amp;nbsp; whole&amp;nbsp; students&amp;nbsp; had&amp;nbsp; good&amp;nbsp; perceptions&amp;nbsp; and&amp;nbsp; good&amp;nbsp; attitudes&amp;nbsp; on&amp;nbsp; peer&amp;nbsp; feedback provision. However, the bottom line of this study was that collaborative pairs and expert/novice pairs had better second writings.</dc:description>
	<dc:publisher xml:lang="en-US">Universitas Negeri Semarang</dc:publisher>
	<dc:date>2017-05-31</dc:date>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion</dc:type>
	<dc:type xml:lang="en-US">Peer-reviewed Article</dc:type>
	<dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
	<dc:identifier>https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/eej/article/view/14640</dc:identifier>
	<dc:source xml:lang="en-US">English Education Journal; Vol 7 No 1 (2017); 06-11</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2087-0108</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2502-4566</dc:source>
	<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
	<dc:relation>https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/eej/article/view/14640/7977</dc:relation>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en-US">Copyright (c) 2017 English Education Journal</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>