(LUẬN VĂN THẠC SĨ) The effectiveness of using peer correction on improving writing skills to students in intensive English classes at Hanoi Law University

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES POST-GRADUATE DEPARTMENT LÃ NGUYỄN BÌNH MINH THE EFFECTIVENESS OF USING PEER CORRECTION ON IMPROVING WRITING SKILLS TO STUDENTS IN INTENSIVE ENGLISH CLASSES AT HANOI LAW UNIVERSITY (NGHIÊN CỨU TÍNH HIỆU QUẢ CỦA VIỆC SỬ DỤNG PHƯƠNG PHÁP NGƯỜI HỌC CHỮA BÀI CHO NGƯỜI HỌC NHẰM NÂNG CAO KỸ NĂNG VIẾT TIẾNG ANH CHO SINH VIÊN CÁC LỚP TĂNG CƯỜNG TIẾNG ANH – ĐẠI HỌC LUẬT HÀ NỘI) M.A Minor Thesis Field: Methodology Code: 60 14 10 HANOI - 2009 TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES POST-GRADUATE DEPARTMENT LÃ NGUYỄN BÌNH MINH THE EFFECTIVENESS OF USING PEER CORRECTION ON IMPROVING WRITING SKILLS TO STUDENTS IN INTENSIVE ENGLISH CLASSES AT HANOI LAW UNIVERSITY (NGHIÊN CỨU TÍNH HIỆU QUẢ CỦA VIỆC SỬ DỤNG PHƯƠNG PHÁP NGƯỜI HỌC CHỮA BÀI CHO NGƯỜI HỌC NHẰM NÂNG CAO KỸ NĂNG VIẾT TIẾNG ANH CHO SINH VIÊN CÁC LỚP TĂNG CƯỜNG TIẾNG ANH – ĐẠI HỌC LUẬT HÀ NỘI) M.A Minor thesis Field : Methodology Code : 60 14 10 Supervisor: Lê Văn Canh, M.A HANOI - 2009 TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com iv TABLE OF CONTENT Declaration Acknowledgements Abstract List of Abbreviations Lists of figures, tables and graphs CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Identification of the problem 1.2 The Scope of the Study 1.3 The Purpose of the Study 1.4 The Significance of the Study 1.5 The Organization of the Study CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Approaches to Teaching Writing: Product vs Process Approach 2.1.1 The product approach 2.1.2 The process approach 2.3 Peer correction 2.3.1 Definition: What is peer correction? 2.3.2 Why peer correction? 2.3.3 How to incorporate peer correction into the writing lesson? Error! Bookmark not defined 2.4 Previous study on peer correction Error! Bookmark not defined 2.5 Summary of the chapter Error! Bookmark not defined CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY Error! Bookmark not defined TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com v 3.1 Research Questions Error! Bookmark not defined 3.2 Research Design Error! Bookmark not defined 3.3 Subjects Error! Bookmark not defined 3.4 Procedures Error! Bookmark not defined 3.4.1 Data collection instrument Error! Bookmark not defined 3.4.2 Procedure Error! Bookmark not defined CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Error! Bookmark not defined 4.1 Analysis of Students’ general information Error! Bookmark not defined 4.2 Students’ attitudes towards peer correction method .26 4.2.1 Students’ views on the effectiveness of peer correction 26 4.2.2 Students’ feelings towards the constraints of peer correction 35 4.2.3 Students’ preference for peer correction 38 4.3 Discussion 40 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 42 5.1 Pedagogical Implications 42 5.2 Limitations and Recommendations for further study 43 5.2.1 Limitations 43 5.2.2 Recommendations for further studies 44 Bibliography Appendices TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com vi List of Abbreviations EFL English as a Foreign Language HLU Hanoi Law University L1 First Language L2 Second Language M Mean N Number p Probability SD Standard Deviation SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com vii List of tables Page Table 1: Steps of the Writing Process 7-8 Table 2: Product vs Process Approach Table 3: Codes for peer correction 19 Table 4: Distribution of summed scores students’ attitudes in pre- and post- 27 questionnaire Table 5: Students’ responses to Statements to 12 Table 6: Means and Standard Deviations of pre- and post-questionnaire (Item 28-29 33 – 12) Table 7: Comparison of students’ attitudes towards peer correction between 34 pre- and post-questionnaire (Item – 12) Table 8: Distribution of summed scores of the items 13-17 in the 35 questionnaires Table 9: Mean scores of students’ feelings towards peer correction 36 constraints (Items 13 – 17) Table 10: Comparison of students’ attitudes towards some constraints of peer 37-38 correction in the pre- and post-questionnaire (Items 13-17) TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com viii List of figures and graphs Page Figure 1: Students’ experience in studying English 23 Figure 2: Students’ self evaluation of their English standard 24 Figure 3: Students’ perceptions of the difficulty of EFL writing 24 Figure 4: Students’ interest in EFL writing 25 Figure 5: Students’ opinions about error correction 25 Figure 6: Students’ perceptions of peer correction before the experiment 26 Figure 7: Students’ preference for peer correction 39 Figure 8: Students’ opinions on whether they use peer correction in the future 39 Figure 9: Reasons for using peer correction in future 40 Graph 1: Sampling distribution of sample mean differences (Items – 12) 35 Graph 2: Sampling distribution of sample mean differences (Items 13 – 17) 38 List of Appendices Appendix 1: Pre-treatment Questionnaire Appendix 2: Post-treatment Questionnaire TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Identification of the problem Of the four language skills, writing is considered a complex skill that most learners find difficult to study well That is because in language teaching, it is a productive and taught skill As Penny Ur (1996:11) puts it “it is a skill that is readily picked up by exposure” and that “requires some forms of instructions” Having taught EFL writing for some years, I realize that students face quite a few problems in learning writing Worst of all, many learners make mistakes and errors when they write in the target language, regardless of how competent they are at grammar Students rarely proofread their writings before handing in to teacher as she notices quite a few careless mistakes in grammar as well as spelling which can be avoided if students revise their work It is, therefore, essential for teachers to find out effective methods to overcome this problem In many countries, particularly in Vietnam, teaching EFL writing is included in the curricular and the teaching of writing is just to pass exams The traditional method employed to teach writing is product-oriented approach As far as this approach is concerned, teachers focus on what a final piece of writing will be like and the normal procedure is to assign a piece of writing, collect it, then return it for further revision with their errors either corrected or marked for the students to the correction (Raimes 1983) In recent years, EFL writing teachers have borrowed techniques from first language acquisition pedagogy, in particular the process approach to composition, which has been around since the early 1970s The process approach identifies four stages in writing: prewriting, composing/ drafting, revising and editing (Tribble) These stages are recursive, or nonlinear and they can interact with each other throughout the writing process This approach emphasizes revision, also feedback from others, so students may produce many drafts with much crossing out of sentences and moving around of paragraphs TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com Peer correction is a strategy which has been strongly advised with the process approach to teaching writing and is a promising teaching tool to overcome the above mentioned problem However, its effectiveness has not been sufficiently researched within my teaching context This gives the rational for the present study 1.2 The Scope of the Study This study limits itself to the examination of the effectiveness of peer correction on students’ writing in the context of the English language program of a university The effectiveness was measured by means of a student questionnaire rather than with a pre-test and post-test instrument In other words, the study did not aim to find out the casual relationship between peer correction as an independent variable and student writing proficiency as a dependent variable Rather, the focus of the study was just on the students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of peer correction on their writing 1.3 The Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is of two - fold First, this study aims at investigating students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of peer-correction used as an instructional strategy to improve the quality of learners’ English writings Second, the writer of this thesis would like to suggest some pedagogical implications for teachers in implementing this method teaching EFL writing and suggestions for further research 1.4 The Significance of the Study As stated in the previous part, the purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of peer correction on improving learners’ writing skills in the writer’s teaching context Therefore, the results of this study will contribute a new implication to teaching EFL writing, particularly, to the area of error treatment If peer correction is found to be effective, it will provide teachers at HLU an alternative method to treat errors in students’ compositions at small scale, and thus to improve learners’ writing proficiency The study will also provide a TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com great opportunity for language teachers to review and to reconsider effective ways of responses to various writings, and so pave the way for a better teaching of writing at different scales More importantly, as being an alternative method, it may require revision of the currently used materials/ textbooks in order to incorporate peer correction in the writing lesson 1.5 The Organization of the Study This minor thesis consists of five chapters In this chapter, the challenge as well as approaches to EFL writing is briefly discussed; scope and rational of the study stated The purpose and organization of the study are also mentioned Chapter two is the review of literature which attempts to put the study in a proper context Chapter three describes method and procedure Chapter four reports and analyzes quantitative and qualitative findings The last chapter presents the pedagogical implications of the study and points out its limitations and suggestions for further research TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com 37 attitudes towards the constraints of peer correction between the pre- and post-questionnaire The means of pre-questionnaire range from 3.08 to 4.23, while the means of postquestionnaire fall between 1.77 and 3.23 Item 13 is concerned with students’ views towards the process of peer correction It is interesting to find out that even though there are changes in participants’ responses to this statement in the pre- and post-questionnaire, many students still reported that this technique was time-consuming with the mean scores of pre- and post-questionnaire of 4.23 and 3.23 respectively (Means > Median = 3) Items 14, 15, 16 are to investigate if students suffer from tension when doing peer correction The findings for these items in the pre-questionnaire show that students did suffer from tension with the mean scores of 3.50, 3.12 and 3.81 respectively However, after participating in peer correction, this pressure reduced much with the mean scores for these items of 1.77, 1.81 and 1.81 respectively Item 17 is to investigate if students are doubtful about their peers’ correction The mean score for this item in the pre-questionnaire shows that students seemed uncertain about this because M = 3.08 is a little bit higher than the median In contrast, the respondents were optimistic about their peers’ correction (M = 1.88) after doing it several times All in all, after the treatment period, students felt less tense when doing peer correction The implication is that the learners have more positive attitudes towards peer correction * Comparison of students’ attitudes towards some constraints of peer correction before and after the experiment (Item 13 – 17) Questionnaire Mean Variance SD Pre-questionnaire 3.55 0.23 0.48 Post-questionnaire 2.1 0.40 0.63 1.45 0.17 0.40 Pre-Post questionnaire TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com 38 t-value Df 7.94 p One – tailed Two – tailed 0.0007 0.001 Table 10: Comparison of students’ attitudes towards some constraints of peer correction in the pre- and post-questionnaire (Items 13-17) Results in Table show that the difference in students’ attitudes towards some constraints of peer correction between the pre- and post-questionnaire is significant (M = 1.45, SD = 0.40, t-value = 7.94 > +2 and p = 0.0017 < 0.05) These values indicate that students’ attitudes are more positive when taking part in peer correction Graph 2: Sampling distribution of sample mean differences (Items 13 – 17) Meanpre-questionnaire – Meanpost-questionnaire Standard Deviation of Source Population = ± 0.40 Sample Sizes : npre-questionnaire = ; npost-questionnaire = Standard Error of Sample Mean Differences = ± 0.25 4.2.3 Students’ preference for peer correction Statement 1: I like/ dislike/ feel indifferent about peer correction TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com 39 Students’ responses to the first statement show that most of them like peer correction (88%) Only one respondent (4%) dislikes peer correction and students (8%) show neutral attitude towards this new technique Students' preference for peer correction 4% 8% like dislike feel indifferent about 88% Figure 7: Students’ preference for peer correction The reason why students either don’t like peer correction or feel indifferent about this new technique can be drawn out from the findings of the post-treatment questionnaire Statement 2: I will/ will not use peer correction in the future because………… When being asked whether students will use peer correction or not, interestingly 96% of respondents said they would use peer correction in the future Only one student (4%) said she would not apply it because of the only reason: it is too time-consuming The finding is illustrated in figure below Students' attitudes towards peer correction Students' opinions on whether they use peer correction in future 4% will will not 96% Figure 8: Students’ opinions on whether they use peer correction in the future TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com 40 Those who support this technique give various reasons for it All the reasons are summarized in the chart below: Students' attitudes towards peer correction I will try peer correction in future because Peer correction helps students find out and correct their errors 100 Peer correction helps students avoid the same types of mistakes in their subsequent writings Peer correction helps students make clear and be aware of grammar rules 80 Peer correction helps students learn some grammar rules Peer correction helps better students’ expressions and organization 60 Peer correction helps students produce various ideas Peer correction helps students improve the content of students' compositions Peer correction is fun and motivating 40 Peer correction creates collaborative learning environment Students can help and get help from each other 20 Students are more confident in writing Students will be more careful when writing in English in the future Figure 9: Reasons for using peer correction in future Respondents also pointed out some other reasons why they would apply peer correction in the future For example, peer correction will reduce teacher’s work load, students’ will get immediate feedback on their writing from their peers instead of waiting for teacher’s feedback for a long time 4.3 Discussion The present study attempted to determine if students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of using peer correction changed after the treatment period In order to find out the answer, we addressed a research question which was clearly stated in Chapter The comparison of TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com 41 students’ responses to the pre- and post-questionnaire yielded statistically significant difference Regarding the first question that the research question attempts to uncover, the results show that students showed positive attitudes towards peer correction after the treatment period In other words, they did consider peer correction helpful After the experiment period, they also felt less tense when taking part in this activity Regarding the second question that the research question attempts to uncover, the findings clearly indicate that students highly appreciate the value of giving and receiving peer feedback, with the vast majority of students reported that peer correction helped them find out and correct their mistakes and that they could help and get help from one another Other benefits were also presented in Figure 9, which shows reasons why students would peer correction in the future TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com 42 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION Dealing with errors in EFL writing seems to be problematic and requires a lot of effort of both teachers and students on a whole Therefore, scientific research has taken much space in this area in order to find out the effective methods to tackle this problem In light of theoretical viewpoint of peer correction method in its L1 and L2 context, an experiment on peer correction has been carried out to investigate learners’ attitudes towards this new classroom technique The results presented in Chapter prove that learners perceived peer correction as being “helpful” in improving their writing skill They also showed a more positive attitude toward some constraints of peer correction which may impose on students when they participate in this activity Basing on the findings in the previous chapter, in this chapter, the writer of this thesis introduces some pedagogical implications and limitations of the study Suggestions for further research are also presented 5.1 Pedagogical Implications Peer correction which involves students in an active search for errors/ mistakes seems to work in the writer’s teaching context characterized by large teacher-student ratio, little contact time and notorious for its examination-oriented nature Moreover, English, as the medium, can be used for a genuine communication while discussing the errors It can, therefore, be a new channel of learning for the students (Norrish 1983) Peer correction creates conditions conducive to writing Many students agreed that peer correction created a collaborative learning environment in which students could help and get help from one another They also reported that peer correction activity is fun and motivating The evidence of the findings in Chapter shows that collaboration among students on sorting out mistakes can foster a positive writing attitude and help them make clear and beware of grammar rules More importantly, peer correction can enhance students’ confidence TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com 43 and carefulness when writing in English and also pave the way for self-correction (Kolomiyets 1996) Peer correction which involves students in the process of proofreading each other’s composition, making correction, negotiating with student writers and revising their drafts can help increase the quality of students’ writing in terms of organization and content in general and expressions and ideas in particular Although this finding is not supported by so many students, it can lead to a new method of feedback to foster learners’ writing quality In general, it cannot be denied that peer support among students themselves is powerful and invaluable It has pedagogical implication for classroom practice That is, teachers should not solely focus on endless marking job, but also seek ways to stretch and develop students' skills to assist one another Teachers should not be the sole evaluator of students’ writing but the mediator to facilitate the students’ collaborative learning sessions 5.2 Limitations and Recommendations for further study 5.2.1 Limitations Despite positive findings, certain limitations are to mention here The first limitation is concerned with the participants of the study The number of students in intensive English class at HLU is small (N=26), and they have quite a few things in common, such as their ages, years of studying English, English standard and writing preference Therefore, it could not be representative enough to make generalization about the effects of peer correction when it is applied to larger, inhomogeneous population Another limitation involved the duration of the study (10 weeks), which may not be long enough for us to see thoroughly the effects of peer correction and assess the effectiveness of peer correction in the long-term Thus, a longitudinal study is needed to assess the issue fairly Finally, this study focuses only on peer correction using correction codes, which means more attention was paid to accuracy or correctness of students’ compositions Other methods of correction were not researched TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com 44 5.2.2 Recommendations for further studies The following suggestions should be taken into consideration for further research: (1) The present research only investigates the effects of peer correction using correction codes Other types of feedback would be worth considering (2) Teachers’ opinion towards peer correction, which was not researched in this study, is another direction for future studies (3) “Could peer correction pave the way for self-correction?” is also a gap to fill in methodological research (4) A comparison of the effects different methods of correction on students’ writing errors should be another consideration in further research Future research on these areas would be worthwhile TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com 45 BIBLIOGRAPHY Biggs, J.B & Moore, PJ (1993), The Process of Learning, Prentice Hall Brown, H.D., (1994), “Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, pp 320 Caulk, N (1994), “Comparing teacher and student responses to written work”, TESOL Quarterly 28 Haines, S (1995), “For and Against Pair Work”, Modern English Teacher, No.1 pp.55-58 Hedge, T (1990), Writing Resource books for teachers, Hong Kong: OUP Hendrickson, J M (1978), “Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice”, Modern Language Journal, 62(3), pp.387-398 Houpt, Sheri “Inspiring Creative Writing through Conversation.” Foreign Language Annals 17.3 (1984): pp.185-189 Hyland, K (1990), “Providing Productive Feedback”, ELT Journal, 49 (2) Gillham, B (2000), Developing a Questionnaire, New York: Continuum 10 Johnson, D., Johnson, R & Holubec, E (1994), Cooperative Learning in the Classroom, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development 11 Jacobs, G.M (1989), “Miscorrection in Peer Feedback in Writing Class”, RELC Journal 20, pp.68-76 12 Jacobs, G.M., Curtis, A & Braine, G (1996), “Feedback on Student Writing: Taking the Middle Path”, Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, pp.307-317 13 Jacobs, G.M & Ratmanida (1996), “The Appropriacy of Group Activities: View from some Southeast Asian second language educators”, RELC Journal 27, No 1, pp.103120 14 Karegianes, M L, Pascarella, E T & Pascarella, E T (1973), “The Effects of Peer Editing on the Writing Proficiency of Low-Achieving Tenth Grade Students”, The Journal of Educational Research 203-207 TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com 46 15 Keh, C (1990), “Feedback in the writing process: a model and methods for implementation”, ELT Journal Volume 44/4, OUP 16 Kolomiyets, V (1996), Correcting Written Work: A way to develop self-control, Modern English Teacher, No 3, pp 51-52 17 Larsen-Freeman, D (2000) Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching 2nd ed., Oxford University Press 18 Leki, I (1990), “Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response” In Kroll, Barbara (Ed.) Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom New York: Cambridge University Press, pp 57-68 19 Liu, J & Hansen, (2005), “Guiding principles for effective peer response”, ELT Journal, 29, pp 31-38 20 Lyster, Roy & Ranta, Leila (1997), “Corrective feedback and learner uptake”, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, vol 19, pp 37-66 21 Mendonca, C.O & Johnson, K.E.(1994), “Peer Review Negotiations: Revision Activities in ESL Writing Instruction” TESOL Quarterly 28, pp.745-767 22 Mangelsdorf, K., (1992), “Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What students think?”, ELT Journal Volume 46/3, OUP 23 Norrish, J (1993), Language Learners and Their Errors, Macmillan Press Lodon 24 Nunan, D (1991), Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers, Prentice Hall 25 Nunan, D (1992), Research Methods in Language Teaching, Cambridge, CUP 26 Nunan, D (1999), Language Teaching Methodology, Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall 27 Oshima, A & Houge (1991), Writing Academic English, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company 28 Raimes, A (1983), Techniques in teaching writing, New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press 29 Rollinson, P (1998), “Peer response and revision in ESL writing group: A case study” Published PhD Dissertation, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com 47 30 Rollinson, P (2005), “Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class”, ELT Journal Volume 59/1, OUP 31 Tribble, C (1996), Writing, OUP 32 Ur, P (1996), A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory, Cambridge: CUP 33 Villamil, O.S & De Guerrero, M.C.M (1996), “Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Socialcognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior”, Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1) 34 Vygotsky, L (1978) Mind in Society - the Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Harvard University Press: Cambridge 35 Witbeck, M.C (1976), “Peer Correction Procedures for Intermediate and Advanced ESL Composition Lessons”, TESOL Quarterly, 10, 321-326 TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com I Appendix 1: PRE-TREATMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (For students before the experiment) This questionnaire is designed to provide information for my research on the effectiveness of peer correction on improving students’ writing skill Its purpose is to find out students’ attitudes towards peer correction To gather information about this technique, it would be helpful if you would respond to the following questions Please feel free to write down as all details will be strictly confidential Thank you I General information Your gender: Your age: 18 – 20 Male Female 21 – 23 24 – 26 >26 I have been studying English for…… a < years b – years c – 10 years d > 10 years I think my English standard is……………… a very good b good c average d poor c a little d not at all c not so difficult d easy c useless d unimportant I like EFL writing……… a very much b more than a little I find writing in English…………… a very difficult b difficult I think error correction is………… a necessary b helpful I………… had my friends proofread my compositions before my teacher asked us to peer correction a always b sometimes c seldom d never II Attitudes towards peer correction Please put a cross (x) under the number that best describes the level of your agreement (5 = Completely agree; = Agree; = Not sure; = Disagree; = Completely disagree) TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com II Statements Peer correction helps students find out and correct their errors Peer correction helps students avoid the same types of mistakes in their subsequent writings Peer correction helps students make clear and be aware of grammar rules Peer correction helps students learn some grammar rules Peer correction helps better their expressions and organization Peer correction helps students produce various ideas Peer correction helps students improve the content of students’ compositions Peer correction is fun and motivating Peer correction creates collaborative learning environment 10 Students can help and get help from each other 11 Students are more confident in writing 12 Students will be more careful when writing in English in the future 13 Peer correction is too time – consuming 14 Students don’t feel confident enough to check their friends’ compositions 15 Students don’t like others to read and comment on their writings 16 Students feel sad and embarrassed when their friends point out mistakes in their compositions 17 Students don’t feel confident in their peers’ correction TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com III Appendix 2: POST-TREATMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (For students after the experiment) During this course, you’ve done some writings which were then corrected by your peers/ friends To gather information about this technique, it would be helpful if you would respond to the following questions Please answer both part I and II Thank you Part I: Please put a cross (x) under the number that best describes the level of your agreement on these statements (5 = Completely agree; = Agree; = Not sure; = Disagree; = Completely disagree) Statements Peer correction helps students find out and correct their errors Peer correction helps students avoid the same types of mistakes in their subsequent writings Peer correction helps students make clear and be aware of grammar rules Peer correction helps students learn some grammar rules Peer correction helps better their expressions and organization Peer correction helps students produce various ideas Peer correction helps students improve the content of students’ compositions Peer correction is fun and motivating Peer correction creates collaborative learning environment 10 Students can help and get help from each other 11 Students are more confident in writing 12 Students will be more careful when writing in English in the future TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com IV 13 Peer correction is too time – consuming 14 Students don’t feel confident enough to check their friends’ compositions 15 Students don’t like others to read and comment on their writings 16 Students feel sad and embarrassed when their friends point out mistakes in their compositions 17 Students don’t feel confident in their peers’ correction Part II: Circle the underlined word(s) that best describe(s) your opinions In general, I like/ dislike/ feel indifferent about using peer correction I will/ will not apply peer correction in the future because…………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com ... the rational for the present study 1.2 The Scope of the Study This study limits itself to the examination of the effectiveness of peer correction on students? ?? writing in the context of the English. .. 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION In order to find out students? ?? perceptions of the effects of using peer correction on improving their writing skills, in this section, the writer will analyze the data... revision of the currently used materials/ textbooks in order to incorporate peer correction in the writing lesson 1.5 The Organization of the Study This minor thesis consists of five chapters In