Enhancing Students’ Writing Skill Through the Use of Peer-Editing Technique (A Classroom Action Research to the 11 th Grade Students of Smk Negeri 1

This study aims to solve the problems found in students’ writing especially the errors in the use of authorial and secretarial aspects to the 11th grade students from OTKP major SMK Negeri 1 Teluk Keramat in the academic year 2021/2022. Using Classroom Action Research (CAR), this study tried to improve students’ writing skill of personal letter by the use of the peer -editing technique. The participants of this research were the 11th grade students of Otomatisasi dan Tata Kelola Perkantoran (OTKP) major. The data were collected through observation and documentation. The data were analyst using quantitative and thematic analysist technique. The results showed that the use of the peer-editing technique successfully improved students’ writings skill of personal letter. It was found through the process of using the peer-editing technique, students were likely to give various types of comments and suggestions in the text structure, grammar, vocabulary, punctuation, and spelling. The improvement of students’ writing results occurred in both authorial (text structure, grammar, vocabulary) and secretarial (punctuation, spelling) aspects. Therefore, this classroom action research was successful. Students’ writing skill was improved gradually by the use of the peer -editing technique.


INTRODUCTION
Writing takes an important role in the process of language learning. In the process of writing, there are several aspects that students should consider such as the way of using correct punctuation and spelling, the way of choosing the appropriate vocabulary, and the correct grammar. Those aspects of the writing activity help students a lot in the process of language acquisition. Mastering writing skill also helps students prepare themselves to enter the higher level of education where so many learning activities require the ability of writing. Knowing the importance of writing to language learners, the researcher was interested to know the condition of students' writing skill in SMK Negeri 1 Teluk Keramat especially students in 11th grade of OTKP (Otomatisasi dan Tata Kelola Perkantoran) major.
Based on the interview and observation conducted in June with the teacher and also the students, the researcher found that the activity of writing was taught as an integrated skill to the students of 11th grade OTKP major. The teaching strategy implemented by the teacher was by giving the students regular writing assignments like writing a simple paragraph about daily activity. It was helpful for students to develop their ideas and make them familiar with writing. However, problems in students writing were still found. The researcher offered another solution by implementing a peer-editing technique to improve students' writing skill. In the curriculum 2013 that is implemented by the school, the students are required to master writing skill with more specific purposes such as identifying the structure of the written text, writing invitation/formal/personal letter, writing procedure text, creating a factual report, writing exposition text and creating a biography of some famous. In this research, the focus was on improving students' writing skill to write personal letters as it is one of the materials required by the curriculum and the skill required by the major for students to be mastered. The improvement process that the researcher aimed to explore in this research was students' writing skill of personal letter, especially in the authorial and secretarial aspects (Daffern & Mackenzie, 2015, pp. 23-32) of personal letter.
In writing a personal letter, the problems like lack of ideas, less knowledge of vocabulary, and low awareness of the text structure and punctuation were found. Moreover, the problems like misuse of grammar were also found. According to the interview and observation conducted in June 2021 with the students and also the teacher, all of those problems happened to the students. The teacher said, in the grammatical structure, the students usually make mistakes in the use of present and past tense. In the text structure of personal letter, usually, the students did not pay attention to the generic structure of personal letter like the date, address, salutation, greetings, the body of the letter, complimentary close, and signature. Misuse of spelling and punctuation was usually found in students' writing. The punctuations like periods and commas were misplaced. Problems of authorial aspects (text structure, grammar, vocabulary) and secretarial aspects (punctuation, spelling) in students' writing of personal letters found in OTKP Major 11th grade SMK Negeri 1 Teluk Keramat were considered as an issue that has to be overcome.
This study is in line with the previous study conducted by some researchers. First is the study by (Sari & Wati, 2019, pp. 275-280). The study found that peer editing improved students' writing skill from cycle to cycle. The enhancement of this study was mostly on the language features and text structure of the text. According to a study by (Syakirman, 2016, pp. 59-63). It was found that the peer editing technique successfully improved students' writing. Another study by Rusmania (2012) found that peer-editing was successfully improving students' writing. It is also found that students felt interested, enthusiastic, and motivated in English writing class. Nevertheless, none of those studies try to improve student's skill in writing a personal letter to the students of OTKP (Otomatisasi dan Tata Kelola Perkantoran) major. OTKP (Otomatisasi dan Tata Kelola Perkantoran) is a major in SMK Negeri 1 Teluk Keramat where the students are required to master administration skill such as correspondence. In that major, the students are taught to be professional in writing various types of letters whether business or personal letter. That was the reason why the researcher chose these students as the participants in this research. Unlike in senior high school where the students are not taught specifically about correspondence, OTKP students were different. The learning activities in this major were mostly about letters.
By learning to write a personal letter, the students were encouraged to expand their ideas according to their prior experiences. While peer-editing would help them to explore more in expanding the content and the structure of their writing. Personal letter is one type of writing skill required by the curriculum for students in 11th grade to be mastered. Meanwhile, mastering personal letters is one of the required skill in Otomatisasi dan Tata Kelola Perkantoran (OTKP) major. Knowing that mastering personal letter is required not only by the curriculum but also by the major, made this research increasingly important to conduct. In this research, the researcher used peer editing technique to improve student's writing skill using Classroom Action Research (CAR) to the students of Otomatisasi dan Tata Kelola Perkantoran (OTKP) major, 11th-grade SMK Negeri 1 Teluk Keramat.

METHOD
This study implemented Classroom Action Research (CAR). Classroom Action Research (CAR) was used to find and develop a certain instructional strategy to solve identified problems in the classroom. It was conducted in two cycles. The cycles were planning, implementing, observing, and reflecting (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1992). The figure of the cycle could be seen as follow: Planning was the first phase where the research developed a plan to solve the identified problems in the classroom Arifuddin (2016). In this phase, the researcher and the teacher prepared what was needed to conduct Peer-editing activities in the classroom such as lesson plans, peer editing checklist, field notes, checklist table for scoring, and lesson plan.
Acting was the second phase where the researcher implemented the peer-editing activity in the classroom Syakirman (2016). In cycle I, the role of the researcher here was as the observer. Meanwhile, the teaching processes were done by the teacher. Firstly, the teacher gave prior knowledge to the students about how they would do the process of peer edit using the peer-editing checklist. Secondly, the teacher asked students to do a writing activity based on the lesson plan that was provided. Then, the teacher implemented a peerediting technique. After the students were done with their work, the teacher instructed the students to exchange their writing with a peer, then the process of peer-editing was begun. All students played a role as the ones who received and gave comments. They commented on peers' writing while their writings were also commented on by others. The process of peer-editing was done individually by the students in this cycle I. The researcher made one pee-editing checklist for one reviewer. The next would be the process of revision. The teacher asked the students to revise their work based on the comment they got from peers to produce better writing results after the process of peer edit. In cycle II, it was the phase where the researcher and the teacher implemented the revised plan. First of all, the teacher brainstormed with the students about the previous materials that had been taught. After that, the class was divided into six groups of which one group consisted of three students. The teacher gave instructions to the students to write a personal letter. The students were asked to write personal letters about popular places in their hometown to their pen pals outside Kalimantan individually. There were six themes provided and each group was given one theme. The students picked the theme randomly on a piece of paper that had been prepared by the researcher. Then, they started to write their letter based on the theme they got. Each student wrote one personal letter. After they finished their writing, the students submitted the letter. Then, the teacher switched the letter with another group. For example, group one gave comments on the result of group two's writing. It was the time for peer editing activity. The researcher gave the editing checklist to the students. The researcher differentiated the comments from reviewer 1, reviewer 2, and reviewer 3 in the checklist of cycle II. It was done to make the students receive more various feedback rather than in cycle I. The next was the process of revision. The teacher asked the students to revise their work based on the comment they got from peers.
Observation was the third phase done by the researcher. The researcher observed the students to know students' behavior in the classroom and how they absorbed the materials. The researcher used field notes as the tools for data collection. The process of observations was conducted while the process of learning and teaching in the classroom. In cycle I, the results of observation were used for reflection of the implementation of the peer-editing technique in the classroom. In cycle II, the aspects such as the use of the peerediting technique and students' behavior were still observed.
Reflecting was the fourth phase done by the researcher and the teacher. In the process of reflection, the data were analyzed (Khasinah, 2013, pp. 107-114). In this stage, the data were used quantitative and thematic analysis. Quantitative analysis was used to analyze the checklist table of scoring, the researcher used percentages in determining the number of students' errors in their writing with the following pattern: After counting the percentage of students' errors, the researcher explained in the form of descriptive to retell what the data was about. There were two aspects that the researcher analyzed: authorial and secretarial aspects (Daffern & Mackenzie, 2015, pp. 23-32). Authorial aspects included the text structure, sentence, and grammatical structures, vocabulary, and word choices. The secretarial aspects included spelling and punctuation. The purpose of scoring was to see the improvement of students in each cycle. While the thematic analysis was the analysis method of qualitative data that was done by reading through the whole data set and then identifying the patterns across the data (Braun & Clarke, 2004, pp. 77-101). Through thematic analysis, the researcher constructed subject matters to reframe, reinterpret, and/or connect aspects of the records (Kiger & Varpio, 2020, pp. 1-9). The process of analyzing started with the researcher directly reading the transcript. Next, the researcher drew initial codes that represent the meaning of the data. And then, the researcher read the data again to find any unique excerpts and applied the appropriate codes to them. Next, determine the theme of the codes that had been made. After having an initial set of themes, the researcher reviewed and revised the themes to make sure that each theme had enough supported data and it was distinct from the other. Similar themes merged and themes that did not have enough data were removed. Finally, the researcher wrote the story to tell what the data is about. From the process of analysis, the researcher and the teacher concluded enhancement in the next cycle.
The subjects for this research were vocational school students and the teacher. The researcher chose the participants from one of the vocational schools in Sambas which were the students of SMK Negeri 1 Teluk Keramat. The participants of this study were the students of Otomatisasi dan Tata Kelola Perkantoran (OTKP) major, grade 11 th SMK Negeri 1 Teluk Keramat, and the teacher of 11 thgrade OTKP major. They were 18 students in total.

FINDING AND DISCUSSION
Based on the data analysis, improvements occurred in both authorial and secretarial aspects. The students made errors in cycle I and gradually showed improvement in cycle II indicated by the reduction of errors found. The results from data analysis found the errors that occurred in students' writing could be seen as follow: Percentage of students' error (%) The total of students' error in each component a. Authorial Aspects 1) Text structure The text structure consists of address, date, salutation, greetings, complimentary close, and signature. The error found in the text structure of students' writing result in cycle I was found as follows: Table 1

_ Errors in Grammar Cycle I
The address was not written completely. Some students only wrote the name of the city and some letters were found with no address. On the date, the errors were mostly about the use of ordinal numbers. Even some students did not mention the date in their letters. Next is the salutation. As much as 27.8% of the students did not write the salutation. The rest of the students wrote it correctly. The same problems also happened in complimentary close and signature. Mostly the students did not write complimentary close and signatures in their letters.
In cycle II, the error found in the text structure of students' writing results was found as follows: Based on table 2, errors in text structure were no longer found. The students wrote the address complete and correct. The date is already written in the ordinal number. All of the students wrote salutation, greeting, complimentary close, and signature correctly.

2) Grammar
After analyzing students' writing results, errors in students' grammar were found as follows: Based on table 3, it could be seen that errors found in grammar were still high in cycle I. As much as 16.7% made an error in the use of the preposition 'in'. The students were not able to differentiate between the use of the preposition 'in' and 'on' when writing their letters. The date was supposed to be written in the ordinal number, but the students wrote it in the cardinal number. Even some letters were not having a date. In the use of simple present, past, and future tense, mostly the errors occurred in the use of the verb. For example, it was found in one of the letters written: 'Last year, I visit….' That is supposed to be in the past tense. Errors were also found in the use of singular and plural nouns. Some students were still not aware of it when writing the letter. For example, some students write in the complimentary close: 'Your friends...' That was supposed to be in the singular form. The errors found in the use of the pronoun. Miss use of the pronoun 'you', 'we', and 'it' were found in students' writing.
In cycle II, the errors of grammar found in students' writing were as follows: Based on table 9, it could be seen that the students no longer made errors in the use of the preposition 'in' and 'at'. In the use of simple past tense, simple future tense, pronoun, and singular/plural noun, there were also no errors found. However, in the use of simple present tense, it was found that the students used 'is' without a subject.

3) Vocabulary
It was the analysis of vocabulary used by the students in their letters. The results of errors found were as follow: Based on table 5, the redundant and unsuitable vocabulary used were found. Examples found in students' writing such as in the phrase 'in a very long period of time' supposed to be 'in a long time'. The phrase 'we do not meet' was written twice in a sentence. It was also found that the student used the word 'went' three times in one sentence. Unsuitable vocabulary used was also found. The word 'waterfall' should be 'water'. The word 'hope' was also found to the unsuitable vocabulary used in the context. The word 'home' was supposed to be 'house'. In cycle II, the errors of grammar found in students' writing were as follows: Based on table 10, it could be seen that there was no longer unsuitable vocabulary found in students' writing. However, redundant vocabulary was still found.

b. Secretarial Aspects 1) Punctuation
Here was the analysis of punctuation errors in students' writing: Based on table 7, it could be seen that the punctuation errors were still high. As much as 55.6% of students made errors in capitalization and period. Mostly the students did not put a period at the end of the sentence. The first letter of the sentence and some general terms like the name of the city were not written in capital. Students were usually misused between comma and period (55.6%). For example, 'pontianak' that supposed to be 'Pontianak'. The misused question mark was also found (5.5%). There was an interrogative sentence that has no question mark at the end of the sentence.
In cycle II, the errors found in punctuation were as follows:

5.6%
Average 5.5% Based on table 11, it could be seen that there was no error found in the use of the comma. However, the errors were still found in the use of capitalization and period. The first letter of a sentence was found not in the capital. And the same case still found the use of period where the student did not put a period at the end of the sentence.

2) Spelling
Here was the analysis of punctuation errors in students' writing:

66.7%
Based on table 9, errors in spelling were still high. For example, the student wrote 'grauation' instead of 'graduation'. The word 'gratful' should be 'grateful'. The word 'foom' should be 'from'. The word 'gradute' supposed to be 'graduate'. The word 'cacation' that supposed to be 'vacation'. The word 'toghether' should be 'together'. The word 'forme' supposed to be 'for me'. The student wrote 'yo' that supposed to be 'you', 'corious' supposed to be 'curious', 'yes' supposed to be 'ya'. The word 'cha llenging' should be written 'challenging'.
In cycle II, the errors found in spelling were as follows:

5.6%
Based on the findings above, it could be concluded that the improvements occurred in both authorial and secretarial aspects. The students made errors in cycle I and those gradually decreased in cycle II. The results from data analysis found the errors occurred in students' writing that could be seen in the following chart:

Figure 2_ Errors found in cycle I and cycle II
The chart above shows the improvement from cycle I into cycle II by the reduction of errors found. In cycle I, it could be seen that the students' problems were mostly in spelling as much as 66.1 %. The text structure was 40.7% and punctuation was 40%. The second errors were in grammar as much as 34.6% and there were also errors found in the use of vocabulary as much as 16.7%. Whereas in cycle II, there were no errors found in the text structure. Grammar errors decreased became 1.5 %. Errors in vocabulary decreased became 2.8%. Punctuation errors decreased became 5.5%. Errors in spelling decreased became 5.6%.
The chart above shows the improvement from cycle I to cycle II by the reduction of errors found. In cycle I, it could be seen that the students' problems were mostly in spelling as much as 66.1 %. Next was the text structure as much as 40.7% and punctuation as much as 40%. The second errors were in grammar as much as 34.6% and there were also errors found in the use of vocabulary as much as 16.7%. Whereas in cycle II, there were no errors found in the text structure. Grammar errors decreased became 1.5 %. Errors in vocabulary decreased became 2.8%. Punctuation errors decreased became 5.5%. Errors in spelling decreased became 5.6%. Based on the peer-editing checklist, it was found that the students provided a variety of comments and also providing suggestions for their friends' writing. Students started to suggest the grammar, text structure, capitalization, punctuation, and vocabulary used in their peers' writing. They were commenting on the errors of spelling that occurred in their peer's writings. They were able to identify the redundant sentences and comment on the text structure of the letter. students provided lots of suggestions and comments in the column prepared in the peer-editing checklist. Field notes were taken by the researcher during the teaching and learning process in cycle I. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis. The field notes were taken from each meeting as four meetings in cycle one and three meetings in cycle two. The first meeting was on 23 rd January 2022 until the seventh meeting on 16 th March 2022. In implementing the thematic analysis for the field notes, the researcher read the transcript of the field notes. Second, the researcher drew initial codes from field notes 1 as follows: noisy; enthusiast; curious; listen carefully; serious; joking; not paying attention; disturbed by noisy sound; talking with a seatmate; cooperative; unable to answer the question; confused to answer. The researcher drew initial codes from field notes 2 as follows: confused with the instruction; followed instruction; cooperative with the teacher; active; listen carefully; interact positively. The researcher drew initial codes from field notes 3 as follows: pay full attention; serious in reviewing; quiet; share opinion respectfully; cooperative well; active; interact positively; on time; asking the question. The researcher drew initial codes from field notes 4 as follows: asking the question; interacting positively; being active; respecting; following the teacher's instruction; managing time effectively. The researcher drew initial codes from field notes 5 as follows: listen carefully; could answer questions; ask the question; more careful with the structures of the personal letter; quiet; serious; on time; cooperative; active; follow direction. The researcher drew initial codes from field notes 6 as follows: cooperative; interact positively; students asking the question; actively giving comments; more responsive; enthusiast. The researcher drew initial codes from field notes 7 as follows: asking the question; actively participating. After the process of drawing initial codes, the researcher found the unique experts from the codes as follows: noisy; enthusiastic; serious; cooperative; confused. Then the researcher applied the same meaning to the same codes as follows: Based on thematic analysis from the observation using field notes, five major themes were found. Students were found likely to make noisy and confused in the classroom at the first meeting, but they started to show enthusiasm, seriousness, and cooperation at the second and last meetings. They interacted positively with their peers during the process of writing. All of the students followed the instructions given by the teacher. They shared opinions respectfully. They showed active behavior in the classroom. They were asking and answering questions. They also submitted the task on time. All of the students were serious when doing the task. They listened to the teacher carefully and paid full attention to the teacher. They were quiet when reviewing their peer's work. In the process of the peer-editing activity, the students showed respect for their friends' comments. In the second cycle where the researcher and teacher changed the plan, the students became increasingly active and responsive since they got lots of comments rather than in the first cycle. However, at the beginning of the meeting, some students still made jokes and talked with friends when the teacher explained the material. They were also confused with the instruction and some of the teacher's questions could not be answered. Besides, it was also found based on the observation that the students' already known the social function of personal letter for interpersonal communication indicated by they could answer the teacher's questions correctly when they were asked about the social function of personal letter.
Firstly, the students showed gradual improvement in the authorial aspects of personal letter. Before the implementation of the peer-editing technique in cycle I, students used to ignore the text structures when writing a personal letter. They used to write the date, not in the ordinal number. The address was used to write in incomplete form and many of the students ignored to write the greeting, complimentary close, and signature in their letter. Grammar mistakes were also found such as in the use of pronouns, prepositions, simple tenses, ordinal numbers, and the use of singular/plural nouns. Students were confused Some students used unsuitable vocabulary. They have difficulties in choosing the vocabulary that is suited to the context of the text. They used some words over and over again. After the implementation of the peer-editing technique in cycle II, there was a gradual improvement in the text structure. All of the students wrote the structure of the personal letter completely. The date was written in ordinal number. The address was written completely and all of the students wrote greeting, complimentary close, and add signatures in their letters. The reduction of grammar errors is only found in the use of pronouns and simple present tense. Students also chose suitable and varied vocabulary in writing the letter. These findings were in line with a study by Sari and Wati (2019) that found the use of peer-editing techniques improved students' writing on text structure. It was also in line with a study by Nugroho (2020) that found the use of peerediting techniques could improve students writing skill in writing a text with correct grammar and varied vocabulary.
Secondly, the students showed gradual improvement in the secretarial aspects of writing a personal letter. Before the implementation of the peer-editing checklist in cycle I, students did not pay attention to the use of punctuation. Miss place of periods and commas were found in students' writing. Students did not put the period at the end of the sentence. The comma was put at the end of the sentence. Capitalization was miss used by the students. The first letter of the name of certain places was not written capital. The beginning of the sentence was not written in capital. Some students made mistakes in writing the spelling of some words. After the implementation of the peer-editing checklist in cycle II, students started to use periods and commas correctly. They put the period at the end of the sentence. They started to use capitalization correctly. The beginning of sentences was written in capital. The first letter of the name of the general term like places and town were written in capital. There were no longers errors found in the spelling. The result was in line with a study by Nahdi (2011) that found through the use of peer-editing technique, students put the punctuation in the correct place. Nugroho (2020) also found that the use of peerediting techniques could improve the students' writing skills in writing a text with correct spelling and punctuation.
Thirdly, the results of the field notes in the first cycle. the students were cooperative well. They seemed enthusiastic and showed active behavior in the classroom. All of the students listened to the teacher carefully. They also interacted positively with their peers during the process of writing. All of the students followed the instructions given by the teacher. Mostly, they can manage their time effectively. In the process of the peerediting activity, the students showed respect for their friends' comments. In the second cycle where the researcher and teacher changed the plan, the students became increasingly active and responsive since they got lots of comments rather than in the first cycle. The results support (Aulita & Theresia, 2018) theory that stated their interaction in the editing and revising process made them skillful to make the product better.
This study fits the theory of Falchikov (2001.). It revealed that through the use of the peer editing technique, students can interact with peers to develop writing skill as they can discuss the aspects like the body of their writing, grammatical structure, and applicable vocabulary. Through the two cycles conducted in this study, students' ability in writing the personal letter was gradually improved in the authorial and secretarial aspects of the personal letter including the body, grammatical structure, vocabulary, spelling, and vocabulary from cycle I to cycle II. The limitation of this study was the reviewer provides fewer comments on their friends' writing. Mostly, the students only filled the checklist mark in the peer-editing checklist without leaving comments. Only a few students filled the comments with their own words. It is in line with a study from Deni and Zainal (2011) that found the students gave unhelpful comments. Future research should find a way to make the students provide more helpful comments. Preparing a peer-editing checklist that provides more detail about the aspects that are going to review might help.

CONCLUSSION
Based on the research question and findings, two main points can be explained. First is the process of peer-editing technique improves students' writing skill and the second is the improvement occurred in students writing after the implementation of the peerediting technique.
Firstly, it could be concluded that through the use of the peer-editing technique, the students showed gradual improvement during the process of the cycles. It was indicated in cycle I where students still made so many errors in authorial and secretarial aspects. Then, the use of the peer-editing technique in teaching writing was able to make the students provide various types of comments and suggestions toward peers' writing results such as the text structure, grammar, vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation. Finally, in the process of revision, the students were able to develop ideas and awareness about the authorial and secretarial aspects. Then, in cycle II fewer errors were found in students' writing. It meant that the process of using the peer-editing technique gradually improved students' writing.
Secondly, from the findings and discussion in the previous chapter, the improvements occurred in the authorial aspects: text structure, grammar, and vocabulary. Other improvements also occurred in secretarial aspects: punctuation and spelling. The problems found in the field were errors in authorial aspects (text structure, grammar, vocabulary) and secretarial aspects (punctuation and spelling) in students' writing of personal letters successfully solved through the process in cycle I into cycle II. Therefore, this classroom action research was successful.