INTRODUCTION
Rationale for the study
The teaching of English has evolved significantly, particularly in writing instruction, which has shifted from a focus on the final product to the writing process (Hinkel, 2000) This process encompasses five key stages: prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing The process approach empowers students by promoting clearer decision-making in their writing through discussion, tasks, drafting, feedback, and informed choices, ultimately encouraging them to take responsibility for their own improvements (Jordan, 1997, as cited in Clenton, 2006, p.2).
Incorporating a process approach to writing emphasizes the crucial role of feedback in student development While traditional teacher feedback is valuable, peer response offers a unique advantage by allowing student writers to engage with an immediate audience beyond their instructors This interaction not only helps students connect with actual readers who provide critical insights but also enhances their confidence and fosters collaboration among peers (Hairston & Keene, 2003).
Despite the significance of peer feedback, comprehensive studies on the topic are scarce, leading to a lack of consensus on its focus and effectiveness This issue is particularly evident in the context of teaching writing in Vietnam, where research on feedback, especially peer feedback, remains limited At the Faculty of English Language Teacher Education (FELTE) at the University of Foreign Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University Hanoi (ULIS, VNU), peer feedback has been implemented for some time, yet there has been no investigation into its current practice Consequently, it remains unclear whether peer feedback is beneficial for students at the faculty.
The author, a lecturer at the English 2 Division of FELTE, ULIS, VNU, is motivated to conduct research on "The Application of Peer Feedback in Writing Teaching" for second-year students at the Faculty of English Language Teacher Education at the University of Foreign Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi This study aims to investigate the current implementation of peer feedback practices within the FELTE context.
For inquiries regarding the new thesis download, please contact skknchat@gmail.com We aim to offer valuable suggestions for improving current practices, with the expectation that the results will serve as a beneficial reference for individuals interested in this topic.
Aims of the study
This study is carried out with the aims to:
investigate the current practice of peer feedback on the 2 nd year students‟ writings at the FELTE-ULIS-VNU
find out the students‟ reactions towards peer feedback and their suggestions for improving the situation
propose some recommendations for the betterment of peer feedback practice at the FELTE.
Research questions
In order to achieve the abovementioned aims, the study will be conducted to answer three research questions:
How is peer feedback given to the 2 nd - year students' writings at the FELTE, ULIS, VNU?
How do the 2 nd - year students react to their peers‟ feedback on their writings?
What can be done to improve the effectiveness of peer feedback practice at the faculty?
Methods of the study
This study is carried out with the aims to:
investigate the current practice of peer feedback on the 2 nd year students‟ writings at the FELTE-ULIS-VNU
find out the students‟ reactions towards peer feedback and their suggestions for improving the situation
propose some recommendations for the betterment of peer feedback practice at the FELTE
In order to achieve the abovementioned aims, the study will be conducted to answer three research questions:
How is peer feedback given to the 2 nd - year students' writings at the FELTE, ULIS, VNU?
How do the 2 nd - year students react to their peers‟ feedback on their writings?
What can be done to improve the effectiveness of peer feedback practice at the faculty?
This study focuses on peer-written feedback provided to second-year English major students at the Faculty of English Language Teacher Education (FELTE) at ULIS-VNU It specifically investigates the nature and impact of written feedback, excluding other forms such as student conferences or oral comments, as written feedback is the predominant method utilized in this context.
Quantitative approach is utilized in this study so as to achieve the desired aims In details, the following methods are employed:
A survey was conducted with 200 second-year students at FELTE-ULIS-VNU to gather data that enhances the understanding of the current educational situation.
TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com peer feedback but also serve as the foundation for some pedagogical implications for the practice of peer written feedback at the faculty
Thirty student papers have been analyzed to provide the researcher with a comprehensive understanding of peer feedback on second-year student writing at FELTE, as well as insights into how students respond to their peers' critiques.
Organization of the study
This research is structured into three main parts: Part I introduces the issue and provides an overview of the paper Part II consists of three chapters: Chapter 1 reviews the theoretical foundations of writing instruction and the role of peer feedback, Chapter 2 outlines the research methodology employed, and Chapter 3 analyzes data collected from questionnaires and student writings Part III summarizes the key findings, offers suggestions for enhancing peer feedback on student writing at FELTE, ULIS, VNU, discusses the limitations of the study, and proposes directions for future research The paper concludes with references and appendices.
TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com
This chapter provides the theoretical foundation for the study by reviewing the relevant beliefs and research on process writing and peer feedback in writing instruction.
1.1 PROCESS APPROACH TO WRITING TEACHING
The evolution of linguistic theory has significantly transformed writing instruction, particularly through the transition from a product-oriented approach to a process-oriented one (Joe, 2006) This section will explore the characteristics of this innovative approach and outline the key stages involved in the writing process.
1.1.1 An overview of process approach
Traditional writing instruction for ESL/EFL teachers and students often emphasizes sentence-level correctness over the communicative aspects of writing This method has faced criticism for overlooking the genuine processes students engage in while creating written work By prioritizing imitation and the production of flawless pieces, this approach can stifle creativity and hinder authentic expression (Clenton, 2006).
In the 1970s and 1980s, the process approach began to supplant the product approach in writing, emphasizing writing as a multistage process that requires intervention when necessary According to Reid (1993), writing is evaluated based on its effectiveness in achieving the writer's intentions Stewart (1988, as cited in Joe, 2006, p 48) notes that the purpose of writing involves communication between the writer, peers, teachers, and intended readers, highlighting that the meaning of the content is more crucial than its form In this context, the final text is seen as a secondary concern, with its structure being a reflection of its content and purpose (Silva, 1990, p 16).
The process approach to writing redefines it as a cyclical and dynamic activity rather than a simple linear task focused solely on producing error-free text This perspective allows writers to engage in discovering, analyzing, and synthesizing ideas through multiple drafts on the same topic, ultimately benefiting students by enhancing their writing skills.
TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com revising the writing, students can gradually discover the way to express their ideas appropriately.
There are a number of ways to define the stages in a writing process According to Tribble
(1996), the process approach identifies four stages in writing: (1) prewriting, (2) composing/drafting, (3) revising, and (4) editing
(1) Prewriting: Prewriting includes anything done by the writer before he writes a draft: deciding a topic, brainstorming ideas, outlining, gathering information, etc
(2) Composing/drafting: In this stage, the writers do actual writing and refining of their sentences and paragraphs
(3) Revising: In this stage, the writers deal with the content of the writing; i.e refining text organization, structure, idea connections or other addition and connection
(4) Editing: In this stage, the writers work on the mechanics of writing such as spellings and punctuations
Writing from a one-way perspective lacks reader engagement, as noted by Reid (1993), who outlines a comprehensive writing process consisting of four key stages: planning, drafting, revising, and editing Additionally, Reid identifies three externally imposed stages—responding, evaluating, and post-writing—that teachers assign to students While Tribble (1996) also describes similar initial stages, Reid's framework is more robust due to the inclusion of these extra stages, enhancing the overall writing process.
Responding is a crucial aspect of the writing process, involving oral or written feedback from teachers, peers, or other readers after a draft is completed This stage focuses on offering students valuable insights to enhance the quality and content of their writing.
In the evaluating stage, writing teachers assign scores that can be either analytical, focusing on specific aspects of writing ability, or holistic, based on an overall assessment of the writing's effectiveness.
Post writing: Post writing consists of any activities that the teacher and the
TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com students can do with the finished products such as publishing, reading aloud and role- playing
According to Reid (1993), the writing process consists of seven essential stages: Prewriting, Composing/Drafting, Responding, Revising, Editing, Evaluating, and Post-writing He emphasizes the importance of feedback by highlighting the roles of responding and evaluating as integral components of writing instruction Reid's definition of the writing stages aligns with the process approach, illustrating that writing is a multifaceted journey requiring the writer to engage in various stages for effective communication.
“move back and forth on a continuum, discovering, analyzing and revising the writing”
The article explores key aspects of writing instruction, focusing on the process approach and its stages It emphasizes the critical importance of feedback in writing, establishing a strong foundation for further research in this area.
1.2 PEER FEEDBACK IN WRITING TEACHING
1.2.1 Concept of peer feedback in writing
Peer feedback, also known as peer evaluation, critiquing, editing, or response, has been defined in various ways by researchers (Keh, 1990) While these definitions may differ in expression, they share commonalities regarding the nature and function of feedback.
Keh (1990) defines feedback as any input from a reader to a writer that aids in revision, encompassing comments, questions, and suggestions aimed at improving the writer's work This concept extends to peer feedback, which involves students providing input to their peers for enhancement However, Keh's definition primarily emphasizes the methods and objectives of feedback, potentially overlooking other important aspects.
Peer feedback is a formative developmental process that allows writers to engage in discussions about their texts and explore different interpretations from their peers (Hyland & Hyland, 2001) This definition highlights the importance of interaction among students Liu and Hansen (2002) provide a more comprehensive understanding of peer feedback, emphasizing its role in the learning process.
TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com
Learners can effectively serve as valuable sources of information and interaction, taking on roles typically held by trained educators By engaging in peer review and critique of each other’s written and oral drafts, students foster a collaborative learning environment that enhances their writing skills and promotes mutual responsibility in the learning process.
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter provides the theoretical foundation for the study by reviewing the background related to process writing and peer feedback in writing instruction The researcher will examine relevant beliefs and existing studies that inform these key issues, establishing a comprehensive understanding of their significance in the context of writing education.
1.1 PROCESS APPROACH TO WRITING TEACHING
The evolution of linguistic theory and practice has significantly influenced writing instruction, notably marked by a transition from a product-oriented to a process-oriented approach (Joe, 2006) This section will explore the characteristics of this innovative approach and outline the key stages involved in the writing process.
1.1.1 An overview of process approach
Traditional writing instruction for ESL/EFL learners often emphasizes sentence-level accuracy and correctness, neglecting the communicative elements of writing This method has faced criticism for overlooking the genuine processes students engage in while creating written work By prioritizing the imitation of a flawless final product, this approach stifles creativity and limits students' ability to express themselves effectively (Clenton, 2006).
In the 1970s and 1980s, the process approach to writing emerged, shifting focus from the product to the multistage nature of writing, which is assessed based on its ability to meet the writer's intentions (Reid, 1993) According to Stewart (1988, as cited in Joe, 2006), the essence of writing lies in effective communication among the writer, peers, teachers, and intended readers, emphasizing that meaning takes precedence over form In this approach, the final text is considered a secondary concern, with its structure being a reflection of its content and purpose (Silva, 1990).
The process approach to writing shifts the perspective from viewing it as a "linear and fragmented procedure" focused solely on producing an error-free product to understanding it as "a cyclical process" that allows writers to explore, analyze, and synthesize ideas This method emphasizes the importance of multiple drafts on the same topic, which benefits students by enhancing their writing skills and fostering deeper engagement with their ideas.
TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com revising the writing, students can gradually discover the way to express their ideas appropriately.
There are a number of ways to define the stages in a writing process According to Tribble
(1996), the process approach identifies four stages in writing: (1) prewriting, (2) composing/drafting, (3) revising, and (4) editing
(1) Prewriting: Prewriting includes anything done by the writer before he writes a draft: deciding a topic, brainstorming ideas, outlining, gathering information, etc
(2) Composing/drafting: In this stage, the writers do actual writing and refining of their sentences and paragraphs
(3) Revising: In this stage, the writers deal with the content of the writing; i.e refining text organization, structure, idea connections or other addition and connection
(4) Editing: In this stage, the writers work on the mechanics of writing such as spellings and punctuations
Writing is typically a one-way process that lacks reader engagement Reid (1993) elaborates on this process, identifying four essential stages: planning, drafting, revising, and editing Additionally, he introduces three externally imposed stages—responding, evaluating, and post-writing—that teachers assign to students While Tribble (1996) outlines similar stages, Reid's framework is more comprehensive due to the inclusion of these additional stages, enhancing the overall writing process.
Responding is a crucial component of the writing process, involving oral or written feedback from teachers, peers, or other readers after a draft is completed This stage focuses on offering students valuable insights that can enhance the quality and content of their writing.
In the evaluating stage, writing teachers assess student work by assigning scores that can be either analytical, focusing on specific writing skills, or holistic, providing a comprehensive evaluation of the overall effectiveness of the writing.
Post writing: Post writing consists of any activities that the teacher and the
TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com students can do with the finished products such as publishing, reading aloud and role- playing
According to Reid (1993), the writing process consists of seven essential stages: Prewriting, Composing/Drafting, Responding, Revising, Editing, Evaluating, and Post-writing He emphasizes the significance of responding and evaluating as critical components of this process, highlighting the vital role of feedback in writing education Reid's definition aligns with the process approach, illustrating that writing is a multistage endeavor that requires active engagement from the writer.
“move back and forth on a continuum, discovering, analyzing and revising the writing”
This article explores key aspects of writing instruction, focusing on the process approach and the various stages involved in writing Additionally, it emphasizes the critical importance of feedback in the writing process, establishing a solid foundation for further research in this area.
1.2 PEER FEEDBACK IN WRITING TEACHING
1.2.1 Concept of peer feedback in writing
Peer feedback, also known as peer evaluation, critiquing, editing, or response (Keh, 1990), encompasses various definitions provided by researchers While these definitions may differ in wording, they share commonalities regarding the nature and function of feedback.
According to Keh (1990), feedback is defined as any input from a reader to a writer that provides information for revision, encompassing comments, questions, and suggestions aimed at enhancing writing quality In the context of peer feedback, this input is provided by a student to their peer for the purpose of revision However, Keh's concept has been criticized for its narrow focus on the means and purposes of feedback, highlighting the need for a more comprehensive understanding of this concept.
Peer feedback is defined by Hyland and Hyland (2001) as a formative developmental process that allows writers to engage in discussions about their texts and explore different interpretations from their peers This definition highlights the importance of interaction among students Liu and Hansen (2002) provide a more comprehensive understanding of peer feedback, emphasizing its role in enhancing the writing process through collaborative critique and support.
TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com
Learners can effectively serve as valuable sources of information and interaction by taking on roles typically held by trained educators, such as teachers or tutors This collaborative approach allows students to comment on and critique each other's drafts, both in written and oral formats, fostering a deeper understanding of the writing process and enhancing their skills.
Process writing emphasizes the significance of peer feedback in enhancing student writing This comprehensive approach addresses various aspects, including the role of peer feedback in writing instruction, the different forms it can take, and its impact on the writing process Consequently, these insights will be integral to this study.
1.2.2 The significance of peer feedback in process writing
METHODOLOGY
This chapter, which introduces the methodology of the study, covers the research approach, the subjects, the methods of data collection, and the methods of data analysis
This study employs a quantitative method to fulfill its objectives, which is characterized by the numerical representation and manipulation of observations to describe and explain the phenomena reflected by those observations (Babbie).
1983, p 537) This method was chosen for this study for the following reasons Firstly, it helped
This study employs a quantitative method, utilizing a questionnaire and analysis of student writings to seek objective answers to key questions regarding feedback processes for second-year students Specifically, it investigates how feedback is provided on their writings, students' reactions to peer feedback, and potential improvements for enhancing the effectiveness of peer feedback practices within the faculty With a substantial sample size of 200 second-year students, the findings are expected to yield reliable insights into these social phenomena.
To obtain adequate data for the study, two main methods were used and described as follows:
The first method aims at collecting statistical data to answers two research questions:
(1) How is peer written feedback given to 2 nd - year student writings at the FELTE - ULIS - VNU?
(2) How do the 2 nd -year students react to their peer feedback on their writings?
To enhance the effectiveness of peer feedback practices at the faculty, it is essential to analyze the current situation and identify specific areas for improvement.
The study involved 200 second-year students from the first semester of the 2009-2010 academic year at FELTE-ULIS-VNU The participant count is crucial for ensuring the reliability of the collected data; a higher number of respondents enhances the validity and generalizability of the findings With 200 students participating out of a total of 400, the study's results are expected to be more robust and representative.
TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com at the FELTE, were involved in the study
The respondents were selected using cluster random sampling, as it offered more advantages than individual random sampling This method allowed for convenient and time-efficient observation of students completing the questionnaire in class Additionally, it ensured a diverse representation of students, encompassing varying levels of English proficiency, including good, average, and poor performers.
After 220 questionnaires were collected from 9 groups, a round number of 200 were chosen for the sake of convenient data analysis
The survey questionnaire comprised four key sections: general participant information, the current state of peer written feedback, students' reactions to this feedback, and their expectations regarding it It featured a variety of question types, including gap-filling, yes/no, multiple-choice, ranked, and open-ended questions To ensure clarity and address any confusion, the questionnaires were administered with the researcher's assistance rather than being self-completed by respondents This approach helped mitigate common limitations associated with questionnaires, such as simplistic answers and potential literacy issues, as noted by Dornyei (2003) For a sample of the questionnaire, please refer to the appendix.
The steps of conducting and distributing questionnaire can be described as follows:
Studying available documents and choosing the most appropriate data
Revising questionnaires in terms of language as well as instructions so as to make it clear and reader-friendly
Gathering findings from respondents, analyzing and interpreting the data
By analyzing students‟ writings with their peer feedback and their revised versions, the researcher could obtain the most reliable information about the reality of peer feedback giving
TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com practice and students‟ improvement after processing their peers‟ comments at the English Division II, FELTE
A total of 30 writing samples were collected from students in the second division of FELTE at ULIS, VNU The selection of this number was deemed appropriate, considering the extensive time required for thorough analysis of the students' work.
At the FELTE, two student groups were randomly selected, and 30 writing samples along with their revised versions were obtained from the respective teachers This research aimed to assess the current state of peer written feedback at the institution By collecting the writing papers during the teachers' marking process, without the students' awareness, the study ensured the reliability of the data regarding their responses to peer writings.
The steps of analyzing students‟ writings can be illustrated as follows:
Reading students‟ writing papers and highlighting the peer written feedback
Analyzing the students‟ comments in terms of feedback content, amount, forms and types By this way, distinctive features of feedback could be discovered
Looking through the revised versions of the papers, paying attention to changes and corrections
Comparing the two versions to see students‟ improvements
This research employed a quantitative method using two distinct instruments to collect data, which was subsequently processed in various ways to ensure the most accurate results.
The analysis of the survey questionnaire utilized the methodology outlined by McDonough and McDonough (1997), where the researcher implemented a systematic statistical procedure to code the questionnaire data, ultimately summarizing and presenting the findings in a clear and accessible manner for readers.
The researcher will analyze observed data by comparing different versions of student writings, focusing on the frequency of errors, to evaluate improvements following peer feedback.
The researcher will also compare the data achieved from both sources, survey questionnaire and student writing analysis, to verify the unity of the information
TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com
DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
This section will explore the findings from the questionnaire, focusing on two key areas: the current state of peer written feedback and students' responses to it.
3.1.1 Current situation of peer written feedback
3.1.1.1 General evaluation of peer written feedback
The first question was to find out students‟ general assessment of their peers‟ written feedback
According to Figure 1, 60% of respondents received detailed feedback, including comments and corrections on significant errors from their peers This approach to feedback is endorsed by numerous researchers, who argue that peers should concentrate on addressing specific common issues at a time (Ur).
1996; Sommer, 1982) It signaled that the majority of students are aware of one quality of good feedback and that they take feedback as a serious practice
A significant number of students received minimal feedback, with 26% (51 students) receiving vague comments like "excellent," "good," or "bad," and 2% (4 students) receiving no feedback at all This highlights a concerning trend of irresponsibility among some feedback providers, emphasizing the urgent need to improve current feedback practices.
Detailed feedback, as opposed to general feedback, involves comprehensive comments and corrections on all mistakes made by students In a recent survey, 23 students, or 12% of respondents, preferred this approach, which effectively raised awareness of their errors However, it can also lead to discouragement and anxiety in students when faced with new writing tasks (Sommer, 1982; Bartram and Walton, 1991).
Download TIEU LUAN MOI at skknchat@gmail.com Receiving corrected writings can be overwhelming for students, as it often does not lead to improved writing performance (Fathman & Whalley, 1990) since they may not engage with their mistakes While the previous section provided an overview of peer written feedback, the next section will focus on specific aspects, including the content and types of peer written feedback.
3.1.1.2 Aspects of peer written feedback
The research reveals that students frequently received peer feedback across various aspects, with "OFTEN" being the most selected option for ideas, expressions, grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics Notably, 48% of students reported receiving frequent feedback on grammar, while only 22.5% indicated the same for the organization of ideas Conversely, very few students claimed they "NEVER" received feedback on these elements These findings suggest that students at the faculty are attentive to both the form and content of their work, albeit with varying levels of focus.
TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com may vary from one student to another
In a study of student feedback, it was found that 41% of students focused on grammar, with 82 out of 200 consistently addressing this area Mechanics followed with 24%, as 47 students provided feedback, while expressions and vocabulary were noted by 23% and 20% of students, respectively The higher attention to grammar and mechanics likely stems from the ease of identifying and correcting these errors compared to content-related issues Conversely, only 5% of students (10 out of 200) regularly offered feedback on the organization of ideas, and just 11.5% (23 students) addressed problems related to their peers' ideas.
Similarly, the percentage of students who RARELY received feedback on ideas and organization of ideas was higher than that on grammar, vocabulary and mechanics, that is, 24%
In a study involving 200 students, 48% received feedback on organization, while only 13% received input on their ideas Additionally, 3%, 5.5%, and 7% of students were critiqued on grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics, respectively These findings align with previous research indicating that surface-level errors are more easily identified than issues related to organization and content The lack of peer feedback on content could have detrimental effects on students, as effective writing is fundamentally about communicating and presenting thoughts clearly.
In summary, the bar chart reveals two key aspects of peer written feedback: first, students demonstrated an awareness of errors in both the form and content of their peers' writings; second, there was a tendency among students to focus primarily on surface-level mistakes.
3.1.1.3 Types of peer written feedback
The study examined the types of peer-written feedback by asking respondents to indicate the frequency of two feedback pairs: positive versus negative feedback and direct versus indirect feedback.
TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com
Overall, the majority of students at the FELTE used both positive feedback (i.e., praise) and
TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com
Figure 4: Reasons why students do not understand their peer written feedback
To o g en era l f ee db ack
Un rea so na ble co mm en ts
Ina cc ura te lan gu ag e
Inc om pre he ns ibl e c orr ec tio n c od es
Ill eg ibl e h an dw riti ng s
Ne w wo rd s/ str uc tur es
Un cle ar fee db ac k negative one (i.e., criticism) when responding to peers‟ writings However, there were still 24%
A study revealed that 48% of students reported that their peers never criticized their writing, while 30% indicated that criticism was rare In contrast, only 14% of students received negative feedback often, and a mere 3.5% reported always receiving it This trend suggests that students tend to shy away from providing negative feedback to their friends, which can be detrimental as it prevents recipients from identifying areas for improvement According to Cardelle & Corno (1981, as cited in Ken, 2004), the absence of constructive criticism can lead to confusion, misdirection, and even decreased motivation among students.
The data reveals that a significant majority of students, 96%, frequently received positive feedback from their peers, compared to only 61% who received negative feedback This trend suggests that students at FELTE favor providing encouragement over criticism, likely because positive feedback is generally more accepted and appreciated.
The data indicates a clear preference for direct feedback among students, with 86.5% (173 out of 200) using it frequently, compared to only 62% (124 out of 200) for indirect feedback This preference may stem from the clarity of direct feedback, which explicitly highlights mistakes and corrections, thereby minimizing misunderstandings However, an overreliance on direct feedback could diminish its effectiveness, as students might focus more on transcribing corrections rather than engaging critically with their errors.
3.1.1.4 Comprehensibility of peer written feedback
A significant 89.5% of respondents reported that they generally understand peer-written feedback, while 10.5% of students, totaling 21 individuals, indicated that they struggle to comprehend it.
The group was tasked with addressing a follow-up question regarding their lack of understanding of peer feedback Their responses highlighted various reasons for this confusion For further inquiries or to download the latest thesis, please contact skknchat@gmail.com.