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