INTEGRATING PEER – TEACHER CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN WRITING INSTRUCTION IN A PRIVATE TEACHERS COLLEGE IN NAGEKEO – EAST NUSA TENGGARA

This article aims at describing the process of applying the model of integrating peer-teacher corrective feedback in order to improve writing instruction in one of private teachers colleges in Nagekeo – East Nusa Tenggara. The research was designed by employing a Classroom Action Research (CAR) which was conducted within two cycles. The process of the research embraced a preliminary reflection, planning, actions, observations, and reflections. The research was conducted in one of the private teachers college in Nagekeo – East Nusa Tenggara and the participants of the study were the second semester students of English Study Program. They consisted of six students. The data were collected through a preliminary observation, interviews, writing tests, and field notes. The research was guided by several prominent studies under the issues of corrective feedback. Based on the data obtained, this study has identified that the implementation of peer – teacher corrective feedback improved the writing instruction in one of the private teachers college in Nagekeo – East Nusa Tenggara.


INTRODUCTION
There have many studies been conducted in the area of corrective feedback in teaching writing. Peers' corrective feedback and teacher's corrective feedback are also two interesting parts of the study. Previous studies conducted by Gielen at al (2010), Jalalifarahani and Azizi (2012), and Tai at al (2015) paid more attention to one wayfeedback: feedback from teachers or from peers which emphasize on the comparison to investigate whose corrections would be more positive or significant. Therefore, the implementation of corrective feedback is merely viewed as tools to measure the students' chievement. Lack of attention is given to the whole process of corrective feedback. This might influence educators or teachers to understand and apply the appropriate feedback in teaching and learning process.
A study conducted by Peterson and Portier (2012) shows that peer and teacher feedback provides encouraging evidence to support students' revisions of their writing development. The study has given sufficient consideration to the linguistic aspects, the classroom atmosphere, the classroom management, and the way how to give corrections to the students' errors. On the other side of the coin, the study remains narrow in focus on the whole process of implementing the peer and teacher feedback.
The present study attempts to accommodate both peer and teacher corrective feedback simultaneously in teaching writing in which the teacher assists and guides the students when the students provide feedback to their friends' writingas it is suggested by Tucker and Mulliner (2015). Interactions and dialogues between the teacher and each of the students are imperatively needed in the current study. In the study conducted by Tucker and Mulliner (2015), the teacher plays her role as facilitator who assists the students to perform feedback. Meanwhile, in the current study the teacher does not only facilitate the students to do correction, but the teacher also provides an ongoing feedback simultaneously. Interaction and dialogue appear during the ongoing feedback between the teacher and the student. The study does not only focus on the linguistics aspects of writing, but also the materials used, the classroom atmosphere, the classroom management, and the way how to provide feedback both from peers and teacher.
Then, the present study formulates the model of corrective feedback as an integrating peerteacher corrective feedback.
The implementation of peerteacher corrective feedback in the current study was suported by the use of appropriate authentic materials. Therefore, authentic materials is important to be highlighted. Berardo (2006) and Kilickaya (2004) defined authentic materials as materials found in daily life that are not designed to fulfill an educational goal. In brief, a text is usually regarded as authentic if it is not written for teaching purposes but for a real-life communicative purpose. It could be understood that authentic materials are the materials originally used in real life context, and they are not the product of artificial or imaginary. To make it complete, Kilickaya (2004) adds that the authentic materials are the materials that the students have been familiar in everyday life. The use of authentic materials properly facilitated students to learn a certain topic in language teaching easily (Chavez,1988). This is because the object that is taken s authentic material has been familiar to the students. In terms of teaching and learning writing, especially descriptive text, the object that is taken from environment facilitates the students to learn writing easily.
In the practice of writing a descriptive text, as practices of other subjects, second language learners often performed errors. Error is perceived as gaps in inter-language system which appears when students communicate differently from native language norms (Beuningen, 2010;Lewis, 2002;&Pawlak, 2014). Added to this, Lewis (2002) contends that there are several types of errors, namely: errors of omission, errors of over use, errors of form, and errors of clarity. Another study differentiates errors form mistakes in which mistakes arise due to performance failures such as memory limitation (Beuningen,2010). So it is useful to correct learner's errors, but not their mistakes.
In classroom activities, giving correction to students' errors is known as corrective feedback. In relation to this, feedback is defined as an essential strategy to inform the students in a warm situation about their performance and lead the students to achieve an improvement (Kaur,2005;Lewis, 2002;&Supriatna, 2015). Implementing corrective feedback is important because of several valuable paints. Study conducted by Lewis (2002) and Rowe (2011) found that providing corrective feedback to the students errors because feedback is seen as a learning tool, and a means of communication and participation in learning process, an expression of caring. Fedback could be given by the students or peers and the teacher.
The concept of peer feedback is known as peer review (EKŞİ, 2012) or peer response (Gielen at al, 2010) refers to the learners' feedback in a form of comments, suggestion or even questions to their peers after reading their writing. Peer feedback is defined as a model which is simply putting students together in groups and then having each student read and react to the strengths and weaknesses of each other's papers (EKŞİ, 2012). The purpose of peer review is to generate and receive different points of view and thus raise awareness of rhetorical modes and the composing process. Gielen at al, (2010) in his study found that peer corrections incite the students' motivation, raises their awareness about self-problems through reading peer's writing. It can also lead to self-corrections. It also delivers the students from depending too much on their teachers.
Feedback is also provided by theacher which is known as teacher feedback. Teacher feedback is the conventional and it is known as commonlyused regarding to response to students' writing (Kahyalar& Yilmaz,2016). Teacher gives feedback to their students on a wide Acitya: Journal of Teaching & Education Vol. 2 No. 1 2020 range of issues such as the content of the text, the organization of the ideas, and the appropriateness of the vocabulary used. Providing focus and clear feedback, teachers are actually facilitating students to notice the weaknesses in their students' writing. The weak students, in particular, need teacher's feedback in both draws attention to errors that occur in their writing and provide explanation or correction (Rajagopal, 2015).
The present study accommodates both peer and teacher correction in a process of writing activities. The study is not conducted to compare whose corrections is more significant, but it accommodates both peer and teacher correction as an integrated strategy to improve writing instructions. This makes the present study different from those of previous researches. The present study comes with the idea that the implementation of peer-teacher corrective feedback contribute to improve writing instruction when teacher/lecturer be aware of how to use materials to teach writing, involve the students into teaching and learning process, enrich the students' knowledge with sufficient inputs, and provoke the students to participate in giving corrections or comments appropriately. The concept of the integrating peer teacher corrective feedback in the present study is displayed in the figure below. The Figure 1 informs that the study begins with a preliminary writing. The activity involving the this stage is excavating the students' background knowledge. The next stage is writing. Students write a certain topic in a piece of paragraph. After writing a piece of paragraph, the students are given chance to provide feedback to their peers. The teacher/lecturer gives corrections after the students. In the integrating process, the teacher/lecturer approaches each of the students and asks the students for their clarification. It appears in a dialogic form between the lecturer and the student (Tucker &Mulliner, 2015).
In order to bridge the students to be able to take part actively in the process of implementation of peer-teacher corrective feedback through which aims at improving writing instructions, it is important to involve a good classroom management and classroom atmosphere.
Managing a meaningful classroom interaction enables students to possess ample opportunities to develop meaning-making and knowledge constructions (Kumpulainen& Wray, 2002 Unsuprisingly that students also need a positive classroom atmosphere. Creating the positive classroom atmosphere provokes the students' interest and motivation in the classroom process (Smith&Laslett, 2002).Added to this, Weber in (Smith&Laslett, 2002) proposed two relevant concepts of encouragement and momentum. Encouragement relates to teachers' belief. There is a belief that the student has potential and ability to do better. Meanwhile, momentum is perceived as intrinsic phenomena which keep students moving forward although they encounter any problems.
The study was conducted in a private Teachers College in Nagekeo -East Nusa Tenggara. Based on the preliminary study, there were several crucial problems related to the writing instructions in the college. The issues appeared in several areas, namely: the way lecturer apply corrections to the students' writing which influence most of the students depended too much on their lecturer, the inappropriateness of using authentic materials to teach descriptive text, the classroom atmosphere which seemed to be boring and monotonous. Most of students also felt inferiority because of unfair attention given by the lecturer. These factors hindered achieving a good writing instruction.
Responding to the issues above, this study was worth to be conducted. It is because of several important considerations, namely the process engaged the students in the whole process of the implementation of integrating peer-teacher corrective feedback to activate their cognitive working (Peterson& Portier, 2012 andTai at al, 2015), the present study employed authentic materials to increase the students' motivation in learning writing and facilitate the students to comprehend descriptive text easily (Chavez, 1988 andSanderson, 1999), created classroom atmosphere and managed the class activities which enabled the students to feel accepted and raised the students' selfesteems (Demirdag,2015).In line with those considerations, the study appears to provide ample valuable information both for teachers and students which is configured in a form of question, "how was the integrating peerteacher corrective feedback conducted to improve writing instruction in one of the private teachers college in Nagekeo-East Nusa Tenggara?"

METHOD
The study was a qualitative research which using a Classroom Action Research (CAR).
The interview guideline was adapted from the study conducted by Agusta (2015) and Alkhatib (2015). The test sheet adapted from Mubarak (2013). Meanwhile the test was described by using a scoring rubric adapted from Fajriyani (2011). The field note was adapted from Alkhatib (2015).The classroom action research in this study was adapted from Madyah (2011). The research conducted in two cycles. Each cycle consisted of three meetings. Each cycle consisted of planning, action and observation, and reflection. Preliminary reflection was conducted at the beginning of the study before the preliminary observation, the preliminary interviews and the writing test I. Writing test II and III were administered at the end of cycle I and cycle II. The following steps were discussions and conclusion.

Preliminary Reflections
The preliminary study confirmed that the students were not familiar to the object used by the lecturerto teach descriptive text, some students also possessed lack of vocabularies, other students encountered problems in the accuracy of using appropriate grammar and simple present tense. In addition, the students did not bring with their dictionary. Generally, the lecturer gave correction directly in front of the class wich lead the students to depend too much on the lecturer.Another problem was that the lecturer was rarely to share fair attention to all the students so some of them felt inferiority,.

1) Preliminary Planning
In this step, I would set certain plans in accordance with the data obtained from the preliminary reflection. I would use an object that the student have been familiar with in the teaching of descriptive text. The Kelimutu lake text was adapted from internet. The students have been familiar to the Kelimutu Lake. Students would identify difficult words, simple present tense, and practiced to write good sentences. I would also assign the students to seat in groups. The students who have more ability in English would be in one group with those who possessed less ability. I would approach and give any help for all the students. Then, the students would write a paragraph. They would exchange their works with others and give comment or correction. The students would submit their works, and then I give any comments on their writing. I would give corrections after the students. In the integrating process, I approached each of the students and asked the Acitya: Journal of Teaching & Education Vol. 2 No. 1 2020 students for their clarification. At the end, they revise their works. I would interview the student, the lecturer and would also administer writing test 2 at the end of the cycle.

2) Cycle I
Taking with the preliminary planning, the present study appears to conduct several intended activities in cycle I to cope with the problems obtained in the preliminary reflection. The activities from meeting I, II, and III of the first cycle are summarized and presented as below.

a. Meeting I
I activateded the students' background knowledge, presented the model text to the students, asked students to read the text carefully, identified difficult words and found the meaning using a dictionary. I also explained the generic structures of descriptive text in general. After that, the students discussed and identified the generic structures stated in the model text.

b. Meeting II
The students identified and discussed simple present tense. The students re -described the text using their own words after discussing. Then, they exchanged their works and they did peers correction. After doing peer correction, the students submitted their works. The errors were listed together and explained to the class.

c. Meeting III
The students focussedon writing about any tourism objects they knew best. Provided several related English vocabularies to provoke them to do the task easily. After they wrote, they exchanged their tasks with their peers. They checked their peers' writing and gave any comments or corrections. After that, the students submitted their works. I re-checked the students' works and giving corrections. Then, I distributed the students' work. I approached the students and asked for clarifications. So, dialogue and interactions happend.At the end, I explained the errors to the class as a whole. The writing test II was administered at the next day.

d. Reflections
The students began to feel motivated and get interested in the use of authentic material.
They began to possess sufficient vocabulary and they were able to identify the simple present tense. They started to write in a context, but some of them still felt difficult in organizing idea and using appropriate grammar. They found that they were accepted and they enjoyed the class. The implementation of the model of corrective feedback enabled the students to learn about how to give correction to others, raise their curiosity, enrich the students' confident, and lead the students to get a double input both from peers and the lecturer.
Recommendations: the students needed to practices to use the vocabularies and tenses they identified. The students also need more practice and examples of how to give correction.

3) Cycle II a. Planning
A text of Bena Village would be adopted from internet to teach descriptive text. In the first cycle, the students only identified difficult words and found the meanings in the dictionary. But, in this cycle, the student would be facilitated to use those words in simple sentences. So, they could not only know the words and those meanings, but they could also understand and experience how to use the words in appropriate context. Another thing that seemed to be included in the second cycle that may not be covered in the first cycle was about praising and using humor. Giving more examples on how to provide feedback and practicing peer corrections would also be taken into consideration.

b. Activities
Deriving from the data obtained from the reflections at the end of the first cycle and the planning designed in the beginning of the second cycle, the present study implemented several important activities. The activities from meeting I, II, and III of the second cycle are summarized and presented as below.

Meeting I
The class was focussed on sharpening the students' background knowledge about the object used in the model text. The students used picture to write a descriptive text. The students identified difficult words in the model text, then, they wrote sentences by using those words and in group. One of the students from each group wrote the sentences on whiteboard and other students gave any comment or correction. I gave more explanations about the errors found to the students. I included praing and used humor the students after they performed in order to motivate and keep the positive classroom atmosphere.

Meeting II
The students identified and discussed about simple present tense. They wrote other sentences in group using simple present tense. After that one from each group wrote the sentences on the whiteboard and other students gave any comment or correction.
After that the students re-described the model text by using their own words. The students exchanged their works randomly and gave correction. After that, errors were listed together and were explained them to all the students. They revised their writing.

Meeting III
The main activity of that day was writing a descriptive text and practicing the peerteacher corrective feedback. The students learned how to organized idea and use appropriate grammar. The students practiced to give corrections, then, they submitted their works. I re-checked the students' works and giving corrections. Then, I distributed the students' work. I approached the students and asked for clarifications.
So, dialogue and interactions happend.At the end, I explained the errors to the class as a whole. The writing test III was administered at the next day.

c. Reflections
The students got more motivated and interested in the use of authentic material. The students got their academic experienced since they learned how to use vocabulary and tense in context, they practiced how to provide correction, they looked more confident, they became aware that environment could be their learning resources, they felt accepted so they could interact with friends without any felt of inferiority, they possessed sense of caring and community responsibility.

1) The Use of Authentic Materilas for Teaching Descriptive text
The use of appropriate materials enables students to really learn the topics of teaching and learning. The current study used the authentic materials to develop the students' writing ability. In the preliminary observation and interview with the English lecturer in a private teachers college in Nagekeo -NTT, I found that the lecturer implemented the authentic materials. The lecturer adapted from the internet or even from various books. In the light of Richard's opinion(2001), the English lecturer should have adapted the materials or text that the students are familiar with. In line with this, Berardo (2006) and Kilickaya (2004) explained that the authentic materials are the materials that the students are familiar in everyday life and are not intended to be created for educational purposes.
The present study was designed to employ authentic materials to teach writing. In relation to that, the collaborator and I decided to take and selected the materials that the students have been familiar with. Returning to Chavez (1988) and Sanderson (1999), the use of authentic materials in the present study facilitates the students to learn a certain topic in language teaching easily. It also enhances the students' motivation since they have already visited or used in their daily life. Beside that in writing practice, the use of authentic materials provokes the students to be more ready to learn the materials because they learn from the object that they have really experienced. The use of authentic materials students lead the students to possess academic experience because they practice to use vocabulary and tense in appropriate context. Those are perceived as a basic knowledge which enables the students to involve in the process of implementing the model of integrating peer teacher corrective feedback. The use of authentic materials also benefits at provoking the students' understanding and awareness corresponding to environmental sense (Supriatna, 2015).
Raising the students' awareness is perceived as a strategy to get the students motivated in the classroom participation.

2) Managing Classroom activities and Creating Classroom atmosphere
Returning to Demirdag (2015) that teachers who accommodate the students' need and respect all students could increase their students' motivation and self-esteem. In relation to that, approaching the students, praising, and giving fair attention to all students were important strategies to create positive classroom atmosphere. Those forms of activities are known as encouragement and momentum as they are proposed by Weber in Smith and Laslett (2002). An effort of setting a good classroom management in the current study appeared in a meaningful classroom interaction which enables students to possess ample opportunities to develop meaning-making and knowledge constructions (Kumpulainen& Wray, 2002). There were enough spaces for students to interact with others in classroom activities such as having discussions and giving corrections to others' works.

3) Implementing the integration of peer-teacher corrective feedback
One of interesting finding was that the implementation of the model of integrating -peerteacher corrective feedback increased students' social awareness. This is congruent with [4] that through giving chance for students to give correction to each other, teacher is actually performing as a socializer. By performing as socializer means that the teacher molds the classroom as a locus for students to have a good social interaction. It enhances the students to possess social awareness and direct them to be responsible with others. Added to this, the current study informs that the implementation of integrating -peer-teacher corrective feedback raises the students' sense of caring and community responsibility.
Returning to Peterson and Portier (2012) and Tai at al (2015), the present study also found that the implementation of integrating -peer-teacher corrective feedback provoked the students' cognitive activities. The implementation of the model of corrective feedback in the present study provided the students with sufficient knowledge since they got input both from their peers and their teacher. The model of peer-teacher corrective feedback facilitated the students to activate their memories such as chose appropriate vocabularies, practiced to write within the given context, and considered the appropriate grammar. The study is also in line with Peterson and Portier (2012) that the combination of peer and teacher corrective feedback benefits of encouraging evidence of the potential of peer and teacher feedback to support students' revisions of their writing and their writing development.
This may not lead us to reflect only on the result of the test, but also on the process of writing as a whole. Reflecting to the study conducted by Gielen at al (2010), Lewis (2002) and Rowe (2011), the present study found that the implementation of the integrating peer-teacher corrective feedback enhanced the students' motivation, raised their awareness about selfproblems through reading peer's writing, and provoked the students' sense of curiosity.
Imparting students' curiosity is viewed as an important effort in teaching and learning process. In this context, curiosity is viewed as an intrinsic phenomenon to develop the students' motivation to take part in teaching and learning process

CONCLUSIONS
Returning to the question posed at the beginning of this study, it is now possible to conclude that the implementation of integrating peer-teacher corrective feedback improved the writing instructions in one of the private teachers college in Nagekeo -East Nusa Tenggara. The study has shown that the model of corrective feedback accommodated both lecturer and students' corrective feedback and raised the lecturers' awareness about the important of giving feedback with appropriate model. The research has also shown that integrating peer-teacher corrective feedback enhanced the students' cognitive process in writing and raised their social awareness. This study also provides valuable information to lecturers about the process of applying the model of corrective feedback in teaching writing.
Furthermore, the study has found that generally the implementation of integrating peerteacher corrective feedback should be supported by the appropriateness of the materials used, the classroom management, and the classroom atmosphere. These findings contribute in several ways to our understanding of the implementation of integrating peer-teacher corrective feedback and a basis for further research. Despite these promising results, the present study remains many unanswered question about how to involve the students with different characteristics in the implementation of integrating peer-teacher corrective feedback.
Another question is about the amount of the participant involves in the current topic. Further studies on the current topic are therefore recommended.