CAUSE AND EFFECT OUTLINE

Topic : The Impacts of Emotions in Learning English as Second Language

Introduction:
- Preview of the essay (describe in brief about cause and effect of emotions in
learning English as second language)
Cause : emotions
Effect : learning improvement or learning failure
- Thesis statement: this digest wants to inform based on the researches doing by
scientist about the effects of good feelings and bad feelings in learning
English as a second language.
Body :
 1st cause : good (positive) emotions (feelings)
a. Happiness
b. Joy
c. Gratitude
 1st effect : learning improvement
a. Learning easier
b. Learning faster
 2 cause
nd
: bad (negative) emotions (feelings)
a. Anxiety
b. Angry
c. Stress
 2nd effect : learning failure
a. Learning barriers
b. Learning stagnation
Conclusion:
Review:
1. Good emotions support the process of language learning
2. Bad emotions feelings hamper the process of language learning
References:
1. http://www.rennet.com/english/new_york/teachers.julia.htm
2. http://www.squidoo.com/top4health/lean_english_easier
3. http://openurl.ingenta.com/content?genre=article&155n:0969-
6474_volume:5&issue:2&5pages:99&epage:103
Article Review
FOSTERING LEARNER AUTONOMY THROUGH PEER CORRECTION
IN WRITING AS A PROCESS

Outline :
I. INTRODUCTION

- Thesis statement: this paper accordingly discusses a way of fostering this

autonomy through writing, during which process the students are given
opportunities to provide feedback for their peer’s writing composition. In so
doing the students can monitor their own development, and hence enhance
their autonomy.
- Sharing of some problems faced by PBI learners in PBI staff meeting
- Background of learning autonomy from some learning methodologies

II. BODY:

1. Writing as a process
2. A need to reconsider traditional feedback provision
3. Peers’ correction in writing as a process
4. Checklist to help the implementation of peer response
a. Peer responding checklist for a paragraph
 b. Peer responding checklist for a composition

III. CONCLUSION

A very brief summary of the discussion and a memorable concluding

remark of the benefit of peer correction for the aim of learning autonomy.

FOSTERING LEARNER AUTONOMY THROUGH

PEER CORRECTION
IN WRITING AS A PROCESS
Paulus Kuswandono. Yogyakarta: LLT Journal, Vol. 8 No.1-February 2005. P. 15-26
Reviewed by Stevanus Widuri
English Language Education Study Program
Sanata Dharma University

After reading Paulus Kuswandono’s paper Fostering Learner Autonomy

through Peer Correction in Writing as a Process, the reviewer sees that this paper is a
brief entity for gaining a learner autonomy in language learning especially through
peer correction in writing course. In brief, the writer, who also the writer of
Implementational Procedure of Constructivism in Language Teaching, has good
example of strength by providing his paper with some ideas from some researchers
and his own observations but of course this paper also has some limitations to make
balance the references provided.
It is better to have some glance of the contents of Kuswandono’s paper. In
abstract, the writer, who is now the vice-rector III of Sanata Dharma University,
describes clearly about the background of his paper and state the main project as well.
The writer restates the sharing from some English Language Education Study
Program lecturers concerning the students’ learning problems. The problems come
from at least three causes, student’s lack of exposure, students’ low comprehension
and students’ low learning autonomy at most. Then the writer also lists some learning
methodologies to support the writer opinions in the discussion.
 The body consists of four main ideas. After telling some reasons why the
writer chooses writing as the main project not other skills like reading, listening or
speaking, the writer continues with the paper discussions. First discussion is about
writing that the writer views as a process. The writer restates some researchers view
like Peregoy and Boyle about some stages of writing process such as prewriting,
drafting, revising, editing and finally editing. The writer agrees of those stages
although he also accepts other views. The writer believes that his paper actually starts
from the third and fourth stages of the writing process. As the readers, we hope a
further explanation. However, the writer does not give a longer explanation about
them.
The second discussion tells us about the traditional feedback provision that we
need to reconsider. In this part, the writer shares his experience when he became a
writing course lecturer. The writer tells that there are only few of students reflecting
and paying attention to the lecturers’ feedback. It is really a big irony from the
lecturer effort and substantial time to correct and give beneficial feedback to the
learners. The reviewer sees that this way will raise the lack of reliability especially of
the intra-rater reliability because there will be so much burden from the lecturer to
correct and provide beneficial feedback for each learner. Furthermore, it will be
unfair for the students for some subjective evaluations. Meanwhile, the reviewer as a
student also sees that the feedback from lecturer will become much more important
considerations than that from peers.
The third discussion pays more attention in peers’ correction in writing
process. The writer proposes one strategy for learners to gain their learning autonomy
to at least, reject Benson’s idea that learning autonomy cannot be taught and learned.
The writer sees that peer correction is the way to develop learners’ autonomy. The
writer supports his paper by citing some researches done by Spear and Muncie that
shows a data from 29 students from a Japanese University. Although it strengthens
the paper but it is also the main weakness. We cannot generalize all of peer correction
with only very few observations. There are still many problem can rise due to the
difference of culture, knowledge and goals. This paper will be more interesting and
better if the writer provides a research from our real condition.
The third discussion is also the main body of this paper. The writer seems to
get little confusion when he provides a large entity of the benefits of peer correction
but he also cites the weakness of peer correction. However, it does not raise
ambiguity about the writer’s position. The writer just wants to keep showing a fact to
be reconsidered by the readers. The writer still believes that peer correction still has
more benefits than its weaknesses.
The last discussion only tells us about the checklists to help the
implementation of peer correction. The writer divides the checklists into two big
ideas. First, the writer writes a guideline from Berg for peer responding checklist to
focus only in a paragraph. This is a good checklist for those who in the first very
stage of writing but it will be useless for those in the higher level. The second
checklists are taken from Seow (2002: 318) about the peer response checklist for a
composition. These checklists will be useful for those who stay in the intermediate or
advanced stages to respond their friends’ writing. The writer hopes that the checklists
provided can be direct references for peer correction. The writer emphasizes that
writing is a process, so it needs more time for the organization and finally the writer
objects the traditional view that writing is a product.
In the conclusion, the writer states a very brief summary of the discussion and
a memorable concluding remark of the benefit of peer correction for the aim of
learning autonomy. This conclusion offers the readers more options of the peer
correction in a larger scope of education. It seems an open-ended statement again for
us to accept or reject the writer opinion. Need peer correction or not? Choose it by
yourself.

ARTICLE REVIEW
ACADEMIC ESSAY FINAL PROJECT
 Submitted to Ms. Yuseva Iswandari, S.Pd., M. Ed.

BY:

STEVANUS WIDURI NURSUSANTO

06 1214 149

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

FACULTY OF TEACHERS’ TRAINING AND EDUCATION
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
DECEMBER 2008