TH.Indonesia. Palembang - The writer was interested in conducting this research in accordance that the students were bored with the conventional method used by teacher in teaching and learning. Besides that, there were no good communication between teacher and students in English teaching learning.


This research was conducted in classroom action research to 32 students of the seventh grader of MTs. Aisyiyah Palembang in the academic year of 2017/2018. It was applied into three cycles. Each cycle consisted of four phases, they were: planning, acting, observing, and reflecting.

It was applied to find out 1) how can Peer Response improve the students’ writing ability of the first grade students of MTs. Aisyiyah Palembang? and 2) what are the students’ perceptions on the implementation of Peer Response to improve their writing ability?. There were some instruments to achieve the purpose of the research, namely: observation, questionnaire (yes-no questions) and writing test. 

Due the findings of research, it found that 1) on cycle 1, the results were not achieved satefactory, there were 9 students or 28.12% completed in the classical, the result of narrative story writing in cycle 1 showed with an average value 61.64; 2) in cycle 2, writing ability on narrative story achieved an average 67.03 or categoryzed enough. 

From the data, there were 22 students or 68% got good value or categoryzed enough. 10 students or 31% students got good value; 3) in cycle 3, the results achieved satisfactory, there were 26 students or 81.28%. In the classical learning to write narrative stories by using peer response model was said completed; and 4) from data questionnaire known that learning to write narrative stories using peer response model could improve students’ writing.
Keywords: Peer Response, Writing Ability

INTRODUCTION
Writing is an important English skill beside listening, speaking and reading. It is a means of communicating ideas and information. Writing can be used as a communication apparatus in written language. Through writing, human beings can convey a lot of messages.  

Furthermore, teaching writing is a process of giving skills to students how to communicate and express their thought, feelings, and opinions in a written language. Harmer (2007: 112) states that teaching writing is used as a practical tool to help students practice and work with language they have been studying. In teaching writing, students are taught to create grammatical written productions like sentences, paragraphs, essays or long texts in a coherent and cohesive construction. 

Those conditions are as challenge to a teacher. How to make students have a great motivation for writing? One of them is improving  and developing  the motivation of writing skills by using effective peer response model. Effective Peer Response Model offers a learning strategy to develop students’ writing ability. Torwong (2005:22-24) states that the advantages of the peer response technique includes : it allows students  to plays a more active role, it raises  students’ awareness when they write, it fosters  cooperative  learning, and  it enables  students  to  identify errors. In short, the peer response is an activity which allows students to learn from one another.  

Related to the preceding of description stated above, the researcher  interests in doing Classroom  Action Research (CAR) entitles ”Developing the  First Grade Students’ Writing Ability by Using Effective Peer Response  Model at MTs. Aisyiyah Palembang”.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Dealing with the limitation of the problems stated above, the problems of research are formulated in the following questions:
How can Peer Response improve the students’ writing ability of the first grade students of MTs. Aisyiyah Palembang?
What are the students’ perceptions on the implementation of Peer Response to improve their writing ability?

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS
The Concept  of Peer Response
The idea of students giving feedback to one another seems strange to a class the first time the idea is introduced “Isn’t that the teacher’s job?” they wonder.  

However, once the idea is explained to them and they see that the process of peer feedback can be fun as well as usefull; this becomes one of the ways many students can learn to improve their writing. Students should read and response to each other’s work. For it is important that they acquire the habit of judging a text in term of its meaning for them and of considering what the writer would need to do to make the text as comprehensible as possible for them as readers.

Writing Ability
The terms of writing have several meanings. Many experts have proposed the definition and explanation of writing. Widdowson (1978:62) states that writing is the act of making up correct sentences and transmitting them through the visual medium as mark on paper. Hornby (1974:996) states that writing is in the sense of the verb ‘ write’ write is to make letters or other symbols (egideographs) on a surface, especially  with a pen or a pencil on a paper. 

Troyka (1987:3-4) states that writing is a way of communicating a message. To a reader for a purpose, the purposes of writing are to express one-self, to provide information for one’s reader, to persuade one’s reader, and to create a literary work.

METHODOLOGY
This research was conducted  in classroom action research to 32 students of the seventh grader of MTs. Aisyiyah Palembang in the academic year of 2017/2018. It was applied into three cycles with four phases in each cycles, they were: planning, acting, observing, and reflecting. To comprehend steps should be taken in doing the research, the writer described it based on Sanjaya (2009:143).

RESULT  AND  DISCUSSION
Result of Cycle 1
On August 7th, 2017, as usual writer opened the lesson by saying “Assalamu’alaikum, students”? They responded enthusiastically by saying “Wa’alaikum salam, Mrs” to show that they were ready to have test 1. It was done to see students’ progress in ability by using peer response model after having treatments.

Before doing test 1 to the seventh grade students of MTs. Aisyiyah Palembang the writer explained the students the procedure of peer response and then writer gave students oppertunity to ask if they have questions. In fact all of them had eanght the idea, after that writer prepared apicure of paper to the students and the students followed mentions. 

Next, the writer asked the students to exchange their work. Due to 16 pairs for 32 students it took 70 minutes for test 1 of students’ writing ability, it was found that the students’ writing ability narrative story to the first grade students MTs. Aisyiyah Palembang in the classical style to achieve an average 61.06 or category was enough. 

From the data there were 9 students or 28.12% got good value is enough. 12 students or 50% students got value enough. Value bad / less got seven 11 students or 21% with the lowest is 44. Still lack of students score in writing ability narrative story caused by the students had not mastered grammar, choice of words, and using spelling and punctuation. 

It meant that test results narrative story writing that had been made in cycle 1 got an average 61.06 or categorized enough. 

Average value was generated through the summation of the nine aspects of the existing assessment. Assessment of writing in the cycle was divided into 4 groups. They were (1) content of the presented (2) content of organization (3) grammar (4) choice of words, using spelling and punctuation. 

On the content of the idea presented divided into two aspects: imagination and written object. Aspects of the imagination on cycle 1 got average value 7.09 or categorized good. Aspect of the written object was 7.12 or categorized good. 

The content organization included three aspects namely: substability of the title and content , cohesion and coherence, and use of plot, on aspect sustability of the title  and content, average values was achieved by  students  7.25 or  categorized good.  Average value reached by students was 7.09 or categorized good on cohesi and coherence. 

Average values reached by students was 6.81 or category enough on use of plot. Aspect the lowest average value was 5.96 with bad category were sentence structure and logically.

The third group was grammar included two aspects, namely: sentence stucture 5.96 or categorized bad. Average for the choice of words was 6.15 or categorized enough. The last aspect was using spelling and punctuation. Average value achieved was 6.34 or categorized enough. 

Based on the above data, students’ writing ability need increased again. On cycle 1, the results achieved not satisfy, based on passing grade (KKM) is 85% number of students which must have  70. According to certainty. Students who complete in the classical 9 students or 28.12%. 

Therefore, should be cycle ll as improvement from the cycle 1. Actions will do on cycle ll as improvement from cycle 1.
Result of Cycle  2 Online August 21th 2017, as usual writer opened the lesson by saying Assalamu’alaikum, students”? They responded enthusiastially by saying “Wa’alaikum Salam, Mrs” to show that they were ready to have test 2. It was done to see students’ progress in ability by using peer response model after having treatments.

Before doing test 2 to the sevent grade students of MTs. Aisyiyah Palembang the writer explained the students the procedure of peer response and then writer gave students opportunity to ask if they have questions. In fact all of them had caught the idea, after that writer prepared a piece of paper to the students and the students followed mentions.

Next, the writer asked the students to exchange their work. Due to 16 pairs for 32 students it took 70 minutes for test 2 of students’ writing ability, it was found that the students’ writing ability narrative story to the first grade students MTs. Aisyiyah Palembang in the classical style to achieve an average 67.03 or categorized enough. 

From the data there were 22 students or 68.75 % got good value and categorized enough. 10 students or 31% students got value and categorized good. Still lack of students score in writing ability narrative story caused by the students had not mastered grammar, choice of words, and using spelling and punctuation. 

Test results narrative story writing that had been made in cycle 2 got an average 68.50 or categoryzed enough. Average value is generated through the summation of the nine aspects of the existing assessment. 

Assessment of writing in the cycle was divided into 4 groups. They were (1) content of the presented (2) content of organization (3) grammar (4) choice of words, using spelling and punctuation. 

On the content of the idea presented divided into two aspects: imagination and written object. Aspects of the imagination on cycle 2 got average value 63.54 or categoryzed enough. While, aspect of the written object was 63.15 or categoryzed enough. 

The content organization included three aspects namely: sustability of the title and content, cohesion and coherensi, and use of plot, on aspect sustability of the title and content, average values were achieved by students 85.00 or categoryzed very good. 

The highest average value was reached on cohesi and coherence. The lowest average value was 77.19 with enough categories is the the aspect of use of the plot.

The third group was grammar included two aspects, namely: sentence structure 74.69 or categoryzed good. Average for the choice of words was 51.04 or categoryzed bad.  The last aspect is using spelling  and  punctuation. Average value achieved was 60.00 or categoryzed bad.

Based on the above data students’ writing ability already enough. On cycle 2 the results achieved not satefactory, based on passing grade (KKM) is 85% number of students which must have  70. According to certainty. Students who complete in the classical 22 students or 68.50%.  

If  compared with the results of cycle 1 of increased 100%. Therefore, should be cycle 3 as improvement from the cycle 2. Actions will do on cycle 3 as improvement from cycle 2. Action in cycle 3 be expected can increased score and change students behavior towards positif for learning process writing narrative story.

Result of Cycle 3 On August 4th 2017, as usual writer opened the lesson by saying “Assalamu’alaikum, students”? They responded enthusiastically by saying “Wa’alaikum Salam, Mrs” to show that they were ready to have test 3. It was done to see students’ progress in ability by using peer response model after having treatments.

Before doing test 3 to the sevent grade students of Mts Aisyiyah Palembang the writer explained the students the procedure of peer response and then writer gave students opportunity to ask if they have questions. In fact all of them had enough the idea, after that writer prepared a piece of paper to the students and the students followed mentions.

Next, the writer asked the students to exchange their work. Due to 16 pairs for 32 students it took 70 minutes for test 3 of students’ writing ability, it was found that the students’ writing ability narrative story to the first grade students MTs. Aisyiyah Palembang in the classical style to achieve an average 61.06 or categoryzed enough. 

From the data, there were 9 students or 28.12% got good value or categoryzed enough. 12 students or 50% students got enough value. 11 students got less / bad value or 21% and the lowest value was 44. Still lack of students score in writing ability narrative story caused by the students had not mastered grammar, choice of words, and using spelling and punctuation. 

Test results narrative story writing that have been made in cycle 3 got an average 73.12 or category is good. Average value is generated through the summation of the nine aspects of the existing assessment.  Assessment of writing in the cycle was divided into 5 groups. They were (1) content of the presented (2) content of organization (3) grammar (4) choice of words, and (5) using spelling and punctuation. 

On the content of the idea presented divided into two aspects: imagination and written object. Aspect of the imagination on cycle 3 got average value 8.09 or categoryzed good. Aspect of the written object was 8.28 or categoryzed good. 

The content organization included three aspects namely: sustability of the title and content, cohesion and coherency, and use of plot, on aspect sustability of the title and content, average values that was achieved by students was 8.59 or categoryzed very good.

Average value was reached by students 8.28 or categoryzed good on cohesi and coherence. Average value was reached by students 7.87 or categoryzed good on use of plot. Average value was 7.25 with good categories was sentence structure and locicalism reached by the students 7.28 or category was good.

The third group was grammar included two aspects, namely: sentence structure 7.25 or categoryzed good. Average of the choice of words was 7.15 or categoryzed bad. The last aspect was using spelling and punctuation. Average value achieved by students was 7.28 or categoryzed good.

Based on above the data, it could be concluded that in cycle 3. Narrative writing results were good.  From these data, it could be concluded that the ability of writing a narrative story was increase in cycle 3. 

The results achieved were satisfactory, accordance with the standards minimum passing grade of 85%. Number of students had to achieve a score of 70, grade students who fullfil the criteria set there were 26 students or 81.28%. In the classical learning to write narrative stories by using peer response model was said completed.

CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of data analysis stated in the previous chapter, the researcher could be concluded that using effective peer response model could improve the students’ writing at MTs. Asiyiyah Palembang. The complete conclusion were presented below.

In cycle 1, learning activities writing narrative stories using peer response model through the stages: planning, action, observation and reflection. On cycle 1 the results were not achieved satefactory, based on passing grade (KKM) (85% number of students which must have  70). 

According to certainty, there were 9 students or 28.12% completed in the classical. Therefore, there should be cycle ll as improvement from the cycle 1. The actions would do on cycle ll as improvement from cycle 1. 

Moreover, the result of narrative story writing in cycle 1 showed with an average value 61.64. This problem was caused students lack an understanding narrative story writing skills included content of the ideas presented, content organization, grammar, style: choice of words, structure and vocabulary and spelling and punctuation. Another aspect of that was less satisfactory were choice of words, using spelling and punctuation.

In cycle 2, writing ability on narrative story to the first grade students of MTs. Aisyiyah Palembang in the classical style to achieve an average 67.03 or categoryzed enough. From the data, there were 22 students or 68% got good value or categoryzed enough. 

10 students or 31% students got good value. Still lack of students’ scores in writing ability narrative story caused by the students had not mastered grammar, choice of words, and using spelling and punctuation. Learning steps were maintained at cycle 2.

Successes were achieved in cycle 3. The results achieved satisfactory, accordance with the standards minimum passing grade of 85%. Number of students had to achieve a score of 70, grade students who fulfill the criteria set there were 26 students or 81.28%. In the classical learning to write narrative stories by using peer response model was said completed. 

Increase students’ ability in writing narrative stories could be seen from the results of the final test every cycle as presented in Table 10 stated before.

Part from the percentage of mastery learning, this research was also supported by data questionnaire. From data questionnaire known that learning to write narrative stories using peer response model could improve students’ writing.

REFERENCES
Abdullah, Slamet. 2005. Developing the Studend’s Writing Ability by Using Self Editing Strategy in the Tertiary Level. Palembang: Unpublished thesis. Sriwijaya University.   

Akhmadi Ali, Ida Safrida. 2007. Smart Steps. The Smartest Way to Learn English An English Textbook for Junior High School. Bandung: Ganexa Exact.

Asrori. 2008. Penelitian Tindakan Kelas. Bandung: CV  Wacana Prima.
Brown, Douglas,H. 2000. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. America: Prentice – Hall, inc,. Engliwood Gliffs, New Jersey 07632.

Brian Tomlinson. 2002. Materials Development in Language Teaching, Cambridge: University Press.
Bacha, Nahla Nola, 2002. Testing Writing in the EFL Classroom: Student Expectation English Teaching Forum. London: 40(2): 14-16.

Endah Rosdiana Apriani. 2010. Developing the Tenth Grade Students Writing Ability Through Peer Comment in the Face Book. Palembang: Unpublised Graduate Thesis Graduate School PGRI University.

Fatimahzzahroh, 2008, Students Opinions Toward the Application of Peer Response Methods. Malang: Thesis, English Department, Faculty of Letters, State University of Malang.

Hujkin,D.1993. A teacher’s Guide to Class Room Researching. New York: Corwin Press, INC.

Hacth Evelyn and Farhady Hossein. 1981. Research Design and  Statistics For Applied  Linguistics.  Los Angeles: University of California Los Angeles.

Hatch Evelyn. 1992. Discourse and Language Education. New York:  Sydney. Cambridge. University Press NewYork.
Indrawati. 2009. Developing the Students Writing Ability by Using Effective Reer Response Model. Palembang: Unpublished Graduate Thesis, Graduate School Sriwijaya University.

Koshy Vaisa. 2005. Action Research for  Improving Practice A Practical Guide. London: Paul Chapman Publishing, A Sage  Publishing Company, I Orkiver’s yard, 55 city road. ECIY I.SP. Lewis, M. 2006. Giving Feedback Classes. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center.

MC. Carthy  Michael. 1991. Discourse Analysis  for  Language Teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan David. 1992. Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan David. 1991. Language Teaching Methodology. New York: A Textbook for Teachers. Prentice Hall Inc. 

Oxford  L Rebecca. 1990. Language Learning  Strategies .Boston: Heince and Heince Publishers. A. Division of Wodsworth. Inc. Massachussetts. 02116.

Raka Johan,dkk.1998. Penelitian Tindakan Kelas.Yogyakarta: Pustaka Book Publisher.
Rasyid, Harun Rasyid and Mansur. 2008. Penilaian Hasil Belajar. Bandung: CV wacana prima. 

Rusyan, A. Tabrani Rjusyani and M. Sutisna WD. 2008. Kesejahteraan dan Motivasi dalam Meningkatkan Efektivitas Kinerja Guru. Bandung: PT Intimedia Cipta Nusantara.

Richards. C. Jack. 1990. The Language Teaching Matrix.New York: Cambridge University Press NewYork. Port Chester Melbourne Sydney.

Richards. C. Jack. 1996. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. NewYork: Cambridge Rodgers S. Theodore.
Tessema, K, A. 2005. Stimulating Writing Throught Project-Based Tasks. London: English Teaching Forum, 43(4): 22-27.
Torwong, P. 2005. Peer Response: Making It Work in EFL. Classroom. Jakarta:  Paper presented in LIA International Conference 2005, March 22 – 24.

Teo, A. K. 2006. Using Peer Assisted Writing Activity to Promote ESL/EFL Students’s Narrative Writing Skill. TESL. Journal, Vol.Xii, No. 8, August 2006. Yan, G. 2005. A Process Genre Model for Teaching Writing, English Teaching Forum, 43(3): 18-24.

  • Yulius  Tiranda,  2010.  The Influence of Star Diagram Technique and students Attitude Towerd the Eighth Grade Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text at SMP Negeri 45 Palembang. Palembang: Unpublised Graduate Thesis Graduate School PGRI University. (RED)

Developing The First Grade Students Writing Ability By Using Effective Peer Response Model At Mts Aisyiyah Palembang By USTUTHIROH SY ABSTRACT

TH.Indonesia. Palembang - The writer was interested in conducting this research in accordance that the students were bored with the conventional method used by teacher in teaching and learning. Besides that, there were no good communication between teacher and students in English teaching learning.


This research was conducted in classroom action research to 32 students of the seventh grader of MTs. Aisyiyah Palembang in the academic year of 2017/2018. It was applied into three cycles. Each cycle consisted of four phases, they were: planning, acting, observing, and reflecting.

It was applied to find out 1) how can Peer Response improve the students’ writing ability of the first grade students of MTs. Aisyiyah Palembang? and 2) what are the students’ perceptions on the implementation of Peer Response to improve their writing ability?. There were some instruments to achieve the purpose of the research, namely: observation, questionnaire (yes-no questions) and writing test. 

Due the findings of research, it found that 1) on cycle 1, the results were not achieved satefactory, there were 9 students or 28.12% completed in the classical, the result of narrative story writing in cycle 1 showed with an average value 61.64; 2) in cycle 2, writing ability on narrative story achieved an average 67.03 or categoryzed enough. 

From the data, there were 22 students or 68% got good value or categoryzed enough. 10 students or 31% students got good value; 3) in cycle 3, the results achieved satisfactory, there were 26 students or 81.28%. In the classical learning to write narrative stories by using peer response model was said completed; and 4) from data questionnaire known that learning to write narrative stories using peer response model could improve students’ writing.
Keywords: Peer Response, Writing Ability

INTRODUCTION
Writing is an important English skill beside listening, speaking and reading. It is a means of communicating ideas and information. Writing can be used as a communication apparatus in written language. Through writing, human beings can convey a lot of messages.  

Furthermore, teaching writing is a process of giving skills to students how to communicate and express their thought, feelings, and opinions in a written language. Harmer (2007: 112) states that teaching writing is used as a practical tool to help students practice and work with language they have been studying. In teaching writing, students are taught to create grammatical written productions like sentences, paragraphs, essays or long texts in a coherent and cohesive construction. 

Those conditions are as challenge to a teacher. How to make students have a great motivation for writing? One of them is improving  and developing  the motivation of writing skills by using effective peer response model. Effective Peer Response Model offers a learning strategy to develop students’ writing ability. Torwong (2005:22-24) states that the advantages of the peer response technique includes : it allows students  to plays a more active role, it raises  students’ awareness when they write, it fosters  cooperative  learning, and  it enables  students  to  identify errors. In short, the peer response is an activity which allows students to learn from one another.  

Related to the preceding of description stated above, the researcher  interests in doing Classroom  Action Research (CAR) entitles ”Developing the  First Grade Students’ Writing Ability by Using Effective Peer Response  Model at MTs. Aisyiyah Palembang”.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Dealing with the limitation of the problems stated above, the problems of research are formulated in the following questions:
How can Peer Response improve the students’ writing ability of the first grade students of MTs. Aisyiyah Palembang?
What are the students’ perceptions on the implementation of Peer Response to improve their writing ability?

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS
The Concept  of Peer Response
The idea of students giving feedback to one another seems strange to a class the first time the idea is introduced “Isn’t that the teacher’s job?” they wonder.  

However, once the idea is explained to them and they see that the process of peer feedback can be fun as well as usefull; this becomes one of the ways many students can learn to improve their writing. Students should read and response to each other’s work. For it is important that they acquire the habit of judging a text in term of its meaning for them and of considering what the writer would need to do to make the text as comprehensible as possible for them as readers.

Writing Ability
The terms of writing have several meanings. Many experts have proposed the definition and explanation of writing. Widdowson (1978:62) states that writing is the act of making up correct sentences and transmitting them through the visual medium as mark on paper. Hornby (1974:996) states that writing is in the sense of the verb ‘ write’ write is to make letters or other symbols (egideographs) on a surface, especially  with a pen or a pencil on a paper. 

Troyka (1987:3-4) states that writing is a way of communicating a message. To a reader for a purpose, the purposes of writing are to express one-self, to provide information for one’s reader, to persuade one’s reader, and to create a literary work.

METHODOLOGY
This research was conducted  in classroom action research to 32 students of the seventh grader of MTs. Aisyiyah Palembang in the academic year of 2017/2018. It was applied into three cycles with four phases in each cycles, they were: planning, acting, observing, and reflecting. To comprehend steps should be taken in doing the research, the writer described it based on Sanjaya (2009:143).

RESULT  AND  DISCUSSION
Result of Cycle 1
On August 7th, 2017, as usual writer opened the lesson by saying “Assalamu’alaikum, students”? They responded enthusiastically by saying “Wa’alaikum salam, Mrs” to show that they were ready to have test 1. It was done to see students’ progress in ability by using peer response model after having treatments.

Before doing test 1 to the seventh grade students of MTs. Aisyiyah Palembang the writer explained the students the procedure of peer response and then writer gave students oppertunity to ask if they have questions. In fact all of them had eanght the idea, after that writer prepared apicure of paper to the students and the students followed mentions. 

Next, the writer asked the students to exchange their work. Due to 16 pairs for 32 students it took 70 minutes for test 1 of students’ writing ability, it was found that the students’ writing ability narrative story to the first grade students MTs. Aisyiyah Palembang in the classical style to achieve an average 61.06 or category was enough. 

From the data there were 9 students or 28.12% got good value is enough. 12 students or 50% students got value enough. Value bad / less got seven 11 students or 21% with the lowest is 44. Still lack of students score in writing ability narrative story caused by the students had not mastered grammar, choice of words, and using spelling and punctuation. 

It meant that test results narrative story writing that had been made in cycle 1 got an average 61.06 or categorized enough. 

Average value was generated through the summation of the nine aspects of the existing assessment. Assessment of writing in the cycle was divided into 4 groups. They were (1) content of the presented (2) content of organization (3) grammar (4) choice of words, using spelling and punctuation. 

On the content of the idea presented divided into two aspects: imagination and written object. Aspects of the imagination on cycle 1 got average value 7.09 or categorized good. Aspect of the written object was 7.12 or categorized good. 

The content organization included three aspects namely: substability of the title and content , cohesion and coherence, and use of plot, on aspect sustability of the title  and content, average values was achieved by  students  7.25 or  categorized good.  Average value reached by students was 7.09 or categorized good on cohesi and coherence. 

Average values reached by students was 6.81 or category enough on use of plot. Aspect the lowest average value was 5.96 with bad category were sentence structure and logically.

The third group was grammar included two aspects, namely: sentence stucture 5.96 or categorized bad. Average for the choice of words was 6.15 or categorized enough. The last aspect was using spelling and punctuation. Average value achieved was 6.34 or categorized enough. 

Based on the above data, students’ writing ability need increased again. On cycle 1, the results achieved not satisfy, based on passing grade (KKM) is 85% number of students which must have  70. According to certainty. Students who complete in the classical 9 students or 28.12%. 

Therefore, should be cycle ll as improvement from the cycle 1. Actions will do on cycle ll as improvement from cycle 1.
Result of Cycle  2 Online August 21th 2017, as usual writer opened the lesson by saying Assalamu’alaikum, students”? They responded enthusiastially by saying “Wa’alaikum Salam, Mrs” to show that they were ready to have test 2. It was done to see students’ progress in ability by using peer response model after having treatments.

Before doing test 2 to the sevent grade students of MTs. Aisyiyah Palembang the writer explained the students the procedure of peer response and then writer gave students opportunity to ask if they have questions. In fact all of them had caught the idea, after that writer prepared a piece of paper to the students and the students followed mentions.

Next, the writer asked the students to exchange their work. Due to 16 pairs for 32 students it took 70 minutes for test 2 of students’ writing ability, it was found that the students’ writing ability narrative story to the first grade students MTs. Aisyiyah Palembang in the classical style to achieve an average 67.03 or categorized enough. 

From the data there were 22 students or 68.75 % got good value and categorized enough. 10 students or 31% students got value and categorized good. Still lack of students score in writing ability narrative story caused by the students had not mastered grammar, choice of words, and using spelling and punctuation. 

Test results narrative story writing that had been made in cycle 2 got an average 68.50 or categoryzed enough. Average value is generated through the summation of the nine aspects of the existing assessment. 

Assessment of writing in the cycle was divided into 4 groups. They were (1) content of the presented (2) content of organization (3) grammar (4) choice of words, using spelling and punctuation. 

On the content of the idea presented divided into two aspects: imagination and written object. Aspects of the imagination on cycle 2 got average value 63.54 or categoryzed enough. While, aspect of the written object was 63.15 or categoryzed enough. 

The content organization included three aspects namely: sustability of the title and content, cohesion and coherensi, and use of plot, on aspect sustability of the title and content, average values were achieved by students 85.00 or categoryzed very good. 

The highest average value was reached on cohesi and coherence. The lowest average value was 77.19 with enough categories is the the aspect of use of the plot.

The third group was grammar included two aspects, namely: sentence structure 74.69 or categoryzed good. Average for the choice of words was 51.04 or categoryzed bad.  The last aspect is using spelling  and  punctuation. Average value achieved was 60.00 or categoryzed bad.

Based on the above data students’ writing ability already enough. On cycle 2 the results achieved not satefactory, based on passing grade (KKM) is 85% number of students which must have  70. According to certainty. Students who complete in the classical 22 students or 68.50%.  

If  compared with the results of cycle 1 of increased 100%. Therefore, should be cycle 3 as improvement from the cycle 2. Actions will do on cycle 3 as improvement from cycle 2. Action in cycle 3 be expected can increased score and change students behavior towards positif for learning process writing narrative story.

Result of Cycle 3 On August 4th 2017, as usual writer opened the lesson by saying “Assalamu’alaikum, students”? They responded enthusiastically by saying “Wa’alaikum Salam, Mrs” to show that they were ready to have test 3. It was done to see students’ progress in ability by using peer response model after having treatments.

Before doing test 3 to the sevent grade students of Mts Aisyiyah Palembang the writer explained the students the procedure of peer response and then writer gave students opportunity to ask if they have questions. In fact all of them had enough the idea, after that writer prepared a piece of paper to the students and the students followed mentions.

Next, the writer asked the students to exchange their work. Due to 16 pairs for 32 students it took 70 minutes for test 3 of students’ writing ability, it was found that the students’ writing ability narrative story to the first grade students MTs. Aisyiyah Palembang in the classical style to achieve an average 61.06 or categoryzed enough. 

From the data, there were 9 students or 28.12% got good value or categoryzed enough. 12 students or 50% students got enough value. 11 students got less / bad value or 21% and the lowest value was 44. Still lack of students score in writing ability narrative story caused by the students had not mastered grammar, choice of words, and using spelling and punctuation. 

Test results narrative story writing that have been made in cycle 3 got an average 73.12 or category is good. Average value is generated through the summation of the nine aspects of the existing assessment.  Assessment of writing in the cycle was divided into 5 groups. They were (1) content of the presented (2) content of organization (3) grammar (4) choice of words, and (5) using spelling and punctuation. 

On the content of the idea presented divided into two aspects: imagination and written object. Aspect of the imagination on cycle 3 got average value 8.09 or categoryzed good. Aspect of the written object was 8.28 or categoryzed good. 

The content organization included three aspects namely: sustability of the title and content, cohesion and coherency, and use of plot, on aspect sustability of the title and content, average values that was achieved by students was 8.59 or categoryzed very good.

Average value was reached by students 8.28 or categoryzed good on cohesi and coherence. Average value was reached by students 7.87 or categoryzed good on use of plot. Average value was 7.25 with good categories was sentence structure and locicalism reached by the students 7.28 or category was good.

The third group was grammar included two aspects, namely: sentence structure 7.25 or categoryzed good. Average of the choice of words was 7.15 or categoryzed bad. The last aspect was using spelling and punctuation. Average value achieved by students was 7.28 or categoryzed good.

Based on above the data, it could be concluded that in cycle 3. Narrative writing results were good.  From these data, it could be concluded that the ability of writing a narrative story was increase in cycle 3. 

The results achieved were satisfactory, accordance with the standards minimum passing grade of 85%. Number of students had to achieve a score of 70, grade students who fullfil the criteria set there were 26 students or 81.28%. In the classical learning to write narrative stories by using peer response model was said completed.

CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of data analysis stated in the previous chapter, the researcher could be concluded that using effective peer response model could improve the students’ writing at MTs. Asiyiyah Palembang. The complete conclusion were presented below.

In cycle 1, learning activities writing narrative stories using peer response model through the stages: planning, action, observation and reflection. On cycle 1 the results were not achieved satefactory, based on passing grade (KKM) (85% number of students which must have  70). 

According to certainty, there were 9 students or 28.12% completed in the classical. Therefore, there should be cycle ll as improvement from the cycle 1. The actions would do on cycle ll as improvement from cycle 1. 

Moreover, the result of narrative story writing in cycle 1 showed with an average value 61.64. This problem was caused students lack an understanding narrative story writing skills included content of the ideas presented, content organization, grammar, style: choice of words, structure and vocabulary and spelling and punctuation. Another aspect of that was less satisfactory were choice of words, using spelling and punctuation.

In cycle 2, writing ability on narrative story to the first grade students of MTs. Aisyiyah Palembang in the classical style to achieve an average 67.03 or categoryzed enough. From the data, there were 22 students or 68% got good value or categoryzed enough. 

10 students or 31% students got good value. Still lack of students’ scores in writing ability narrative story caused by the students had not mastered grammar, choice of words, and using spelling and punctuation. Learning steps were maintained at cycle 2.

Successes were achieved in cycle 3. The results achieved satisfactory, accordance with the standards minimum passing grade of 85%. Number of students had to achieve a score of 70, grade students who fulfill the criteria set there were 26 students or 81.28%. In the classical learning to write narrative stories by using peer response model was said completed. 

Increase students’ ability in writing narrative stories could be seen from the results of the final test every cycle as presented in Table 10 stated before.

Part from the percentage of mastery learning, this research was also supported by data questionnaire. From data questionnaire known that learning to write narrative stories using peer response model could improve students’ writing.

REFERENCES
Abdullah, Slamet. 2005. Developing the Studend’s Writing Ability by Using Self Editing Strategy in the Tertiary Level. Palembang: Unpublished thesis. Sriwijaya University.   

Akhmadi Ali, Ida Safrida. 2007. Smart Steps. The Smartest Way to Learn English An English Textbook for Junior High School. Bandung: Ganexa Exact.

Asrori. 2008. Penelitian Tindakan Kelas. Bandung: CV  Wacana Prima.
Brown, Douglas,H. 2000. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. America: Prentice – Hall, inc,. Engliwood Gliffs, New Jersey 07632.

Brian Tomlinson. 2002. Materials Development in Language Teaching, Cambridge: University Press.
Bacha, Nahla Nola, 2002. Testing Writing in the EFL Classroom: Student Expectation English Teaching Forum. London: 40(2): 14-16.

Endah Rosdiana Apriani. 2010. Developing the Tenth Grade Students Writing Ability Through Peer Comment in the Face Book. Palembang: Unpublised Graduate Thesis Graduate School PGRI University.

Fatimahzzahroh, 2008, Students Opinions Toward the Application of Peer Response Methods. Malang: Thesis, English Department, Faculty of Letters, State University of Malang.

Hujkin,D.1993. A teacher’s Guide to Class Room Researching. New York: Corwin Press, INC.

Hacth Evelyn and Farhady Hossein. 1981. Research Design and  Statistics For Applied  Linguistics.  Los Angeles: University of California Los Angeles.

Hatch Evelyn. 1992. Discourse and Language Education. New York:  Sydney. Cambridge. University Press NewYork.
Indrawati. 2009. Developing the Students Writing Ability by Using Effective Reer Response Model. Palembang: Unpublished Graduate Thesis, Graduate School Sriwijaya University.

Koshy Vaisa. 2005. Action Research for  Improving Practice A Practical Guide. London: Paul Chapman Publishing, A Sage  Publishing Company, I Orkiver’s yard, 55 city road. ECIY I.SP. Lewis, M. 2006. Giving Feedback Classes. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center.

MC. Carthy  Michael. 1991. Discourse Analysis  for  Language Teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan David. 1992. Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan David. 1991. Language Teaching Methodology. New York: A Textbook for Teachers. Prentice Hall Inc. 

Oxford  L Rebecca. 1990. Language Learning  Strategies .Boston: Heince and Heince Publishers. A. Division of Wodsworth. Inc. Massachussetts. 02116.

Raka Johan,dkk.1998. Penelitian Tindakan Kelas.Yogyakarta: Pustaka Book Publisher.
Rasyid, Harun Rasyid and Mansur. 2008. Penilaian Hasil Belajar. Bandung: CV wacana prima. 

Rusyan, A. Tabrani Rjusyani and M. Sutisna WD. 2008. Kesejahteraan dan Motivasi dalam Meningkatkan Efektivitas Kinerja Guru. Bandung: PT Intimedia Cipta Nusantara.

Richards. C. Jack. 1990. The Language Teaching Matrix.New York: Cambridge University Press NewYork. Port Chester Melbourne Sydney.

Richards. C. Jack. 1996. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. NewYork: Cambridge Rodgers S. Theodore.
Tessema, K, A. 2005. Stimulating Writing Throught Project-Based Tasks. London: English Teaching Forum, 43(4): 22-27.
Torwong, P. 2005. Peer Response: Making It Work in EFL. Classroom. Jakarta:  Paper presented in LIA International Conference 2005, March 22 – 24.

Teo, A. K. 2006. Using Peer Assisted Writing Activity to Promote ESL/EFL Students’s Narrative Writing Skill. TESL. Journal, Vol.Xii, No. 8, August 2006. Yan, G. 2005. A Process Genre Model for Teaching Writing, English Teaching Forum, 43(3): 18-24.

  • Yulius  Tiranda,  2010.  The Influence of Star Diagram Technique and students Attitude Towerd the Eighth Grade Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text at SMP Negeri 45 Palembang. Palembang: Unpublised Graduate Thesis Graduate School PGRI University. (RED)

Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar