Effects of changing peers during collaborative writing on learners writing performance a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of master of arts in tesol

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY ∞0∞ NGUYEN AN KHUONG EFFECTS OF CHANGING PEERS DURING COLLABORATIVE WRITING ON LEARNERS’ WRITING PERFORMANCE MASTER THESIS MASTER OF ARTS IN TESOL HO CHI MINH CITY, 2021 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY ∞0∞ NGUYEN AN KHUONG EFFECTS OF CHANGING PEERS DURING COLLABORATIVE WRITING ON LEARNERS’ WRITING PERFORMANCE Major: Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages Major code: 14 01 11 MASTER THESIS MASTER OF ARTS IN TESOL Supervisor: VU HOA NGAN (Ph.D.) HO CHI MINH CITY, 2021 TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC MỞ CỘNG HÒA XÃ HỘI CHỦ NGHĨA VIỆT NAM THÀNH PHỐ HỒ CHÍ MINH KHOA ĐÀO TẠO SAU ĐẠI HỌC Độc lập – Tự – Hạnh phúc GIẤY XÁC NHẬN Tôi tên là: NGUYỄN AN KHƯƠNG Ngày sinh: 04/07/1992 Nơi sinh: TP Hồ Chí Minh Chuyên ngành: Lý luận phương pháp dạy học môn tiếng Anh Mã học viên: 1781401110009 Tôi đồng ý cung cấp tồn văn thơng tin luận án/ luận văn tốt nghiệp hợp lệ quyền cho Thư viện trường đại học Mở Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh Thư viện trường đại học Mở Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh kết nối tồn văn thơng tin luận án/ luận văn tốt nghiệp vào hệ thống thông tin khoa học Sở Khoa học Công nghệ Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh Ký tên (Ghi rõ họ tên) Nguyễn An Khương CỘNG HÒA XÃ HỘI CHỦ NGHĨA VIỆT NAM Độc lập – Tự – Hạnh phúc Ý KIẾN CHO PHÉP BẢO VỆ LUẬN VĂN THẠC SĨ CỦA GIẢNG VIÊN HƯỚNG DẪN Giảng viên hướng dẫn: Tiến sĩ Vũ Hoa Ngân Học viên thực hiện: Nguyễn An Khương Lớp: MTESOL017A Ngày sinh: 04/07/1992 Nơi sinh: TP.HCM Tên đề tài: Effects of changing peers during collaborative writing on learners’ writing performance Ý kiến giáo viên hướng dẫn việc cho phép học viên Nguyễn An Khương bảo vệ luận văn trước Hội đồng: Đồng ý học viên Nguyễn An Khương bảo vệ luận văn trước Hội đồng Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh, ngày 04 tháng 09 năm 2021 Người nhận xét TS Vũ Hoa Ngân STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I certify that this thesis entitled “Effects of changing peers during collaborative writing on learners’ writing performance” is my own work Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this thesis does not contain material published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part from a thesis by which I have qualified for or been awarded another degree or diploma No other person’s work has been used without acknowledgement in the main text of the thesis This thesis has not been submitted for any degree or diploma in any other tertiary institution Ho Chi Minh City, September 2021 NGUYEN AN KHUONG i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my special thanks to all the following people for helping me complete my thesis Firstly, I am deeply grateful to my thesis supervisor, Dr Vu Hoa Ngan, a Deputy Head of the Department of English at Ho Chi Minh City International University She spent much of her precious time giving me guidance, encouragement and comments for my deeper understanding of the problem I would like to acknowledge the staff and my former lecturers of English who work for and teach at the Foreign Language Faculty of Ho Chi Minh City Open University My gratitude is also conveyed to the manager, staff, and students at ALES English Language Center for their helpful support and contribution to my experiment My thanks are sent to my classmates of MA in TESOL017A at Ho Chi Minh City Open University They shared with me both joys and sorrows during a course and especially on the way to complete this thesis Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their offering me the most important support during my difficult task ii ABSTRACT Collaborative writing has been widely researched and applied in mainstream education and second language (L2) classes Although it seems to be recognized by many researchers as a more impressive method than individual writing, few studies have focused on how to optimize the effects of using collaborative writing under certain conditions The purpose of this study was to investigate the collaborative writing’s effectiveness performed by the same and different peers on collaborative and individual writing performance Sixty-four students at a foreign language center in Vietnam participated in the study in which 32 were in the control group and 32 were in the experimental group The training activities of the two groups were similar, in which the product-process approach was used to teach International English Language Testing System (IELTS) writing The key difference was that the control group remained the same peers while the experimental group conducted the same process with different peers in every new lesson Essays of the two groups were collected after every lesson to compare the collaborative writing skills In the end, a post-test was conducted individually to investigate if there was any difference in individual writing skills between the two groups The attitudes of participants toward changing peers were also examined through the semi-structured interview in the final phase Based on the research outcomes, some implications were offered for the teaching of writing iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the study 1.2 Statement of the problems 1.3 Purpose of the study 1.4 Significance of the study 1.5 Definition of key terms 1.6 Structure of the thesis CHAPTER LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Collaborative writing 2.1.1 Research conceptualization 2.1.1.1 Pairwork and groupwork 2.1.1.2 Collaborative writing 2.1.2 Collaborative writing as product-process approach 10 2.1.3 Theories underpinning collaborative writing 13 2.1.3.1 Sociocultural theory 14 2.1.3.2 Sociocognitive conflict theory 14 2.1.3.3 Interaction hypothesis 15 2.1.4 Benefits of collaborative writing 15 2.1.5 Previous studies about collaborative writing 17 2.1.5.1 Effects of changing peers on students’ interaction and writing process 17 2.1.5.2 Effects of proficiency level on students’ writing performance 20 2.1.5.3 Effects of pair or group formation on students’ writing performance 22 2.1.5.4 Effects of computer-mediated collaborative writing on students’ writing performance 26 2.2 Attitudes 31 iv 2.2.1 Definition of attitudes 32 2.2.2 Tripartite model of attitudes 32 2.2.3 Previous studies about attitudes toward collaborative writing 34 2.3 Research gaps 35 2.4 Research questions 37 2.5 Conceptual framework 39 2.6 Chapter summary 40 CHAPTER METHODOLOGY 43 3.1 Research design 43 3.2 Research site 46 3.3 Participants 47 3.4 Research instruments and materials 50 3.4.1 Pre-test and post-test 50 3.4.2 Teaching materials 52 3.4.3 Writing assignments 53 3.4.4 Scoring rubrics 53 3.4.5 Semi-structured interview questions 55 3.5 Data collection procedure 56 3.5.1 Collecting quantitative data for Research Questions and 57 3.5.1.1 Administering a pre-test and a post-test 58 3.5.1.2 Introducing the course 59 3.5.1.3 Assigning peers in control group and experimental group 60 3.5.1.4 Teaching new writing units 62 3.5.2 Collecting qualitative data for Research Question 64 3.6 Data sources 66 3.6.1 Quantitative data for Research Questions and 67 3.6.2 Qualitative data for Research Question 70 v 3.7 Data analysis procedure 70 3.7.1 Analyzing quantitative data for Research Questions and 70 3.7.2 Analyzing qualitative data for Research Question 72 3.7.2.1 Coding of semi-structured interviews 74 3.7.2.2 Qualitative data reliability 76 3.8 Chapter summary 76 CHAPTER RESULTS 79 4.1 Students’ writing proficiency level before the experiment 79 4.2 Effects of changing peers and keeping similar peers on collaborative writing performance (Research Question 1) 82 4.3 Effects of changing peers and keeping similar peers on individual writing performance (Research Question 2) 86 4.4 Students’ attitudes toward changing peers in collaborative writing (Research Question 3) 90 4.4.1 Affective attitudes 92 4.4.2 Cognitive attitudes 94 4.4.3 Behavioral attitudes 97 4.5 Chapter summary 100 CHAPTER DISCUSSION 102 5.1 Effects of changing peers and keeping similar peers on collaborative writing performance (Research Question 1) 102 5.2 Effects of changing peers and keeping similar peers on individual writing performance (Research Question 2) 103 5.3 Students’ attitudes toward changing peers in collaborative writing (Research Question 3) 104 5.4 Chapter summary 109 CHAPTER CONCLUSION 111 vi Ministry of Education and Training Ho Chi Minh City Open University REVIEWER’S COMMENTS ON MASTER THESIS Major: TESOL Student’s name: Nguyen An Khuong Thesis title: EFFECTS OF CHANGING PEERS DURING COLLABORATIVE WRITING ON LEARNERS’ WRITING PERFORMANCE M.A Candidate’s supervisor: Vu Hoa Ngan, PhD Thesis paper’s reviewer: Duong My Tham, PhD I GENERAL COMMENTS In general, this thesis with the structure of six chapters conforms the requirements for an M.A thesis This study is so impressive in terms of language use and quantity of contents (i.e., there are almost 200 pages for the whole thesis) This M.A thesis may bring some theoretical and practical contributions towards the literature about collaborative learning and EFL writing teaching and learning However, some aspects relating to research methodology are not apparently presented, and there exist a few grammatical and spelling mistakes throughout the study Hence, the thesis needs further revising and proofreading II DETAILS Abstract • The abstract puts a lot more emphasis on the discussion of methodological issues than presentation of the key findings It is recommended that the candidate should shorten the methodology-related content and add information about the findings Chapter Overall, Chapter is far shorter than the other chapters (e.g., literature review, methodology, & results) Therefore, the candidate needs to provide more essential information on what you are going to write about, why it matters, and how you approach it as follows • The candidate needs to add necessary sections such as ‘Background to the study’, ‘Scope of the study’, and ‘Definition of key terms’ in Chapter For example, the introductory part should be discussed in the section ‘Background to the study’ • S1.1 – Statement of the problem: The last problem involving learner autonomy seems to be irrelevant to the study The statement “Therefore, this study attempted to address the problems relating to collaborative writing’s peers and low autonomy of learners …” (p 3) is confusing as learner autonomy is not one of the focuses of this study • S1.3 – Significance of the study: Theoretical contributions of the study should be provided alongside the practical contributions presented Chapter Chapter containing quite indispensable theoretical foundation for this thesis is well-written However, there is room for improvement in this study In terms of the organization, the candidate needs to restructure this chapter, e.g., ‘Previous studies’ should be a separate section, or S2.3 – Research questions should be moved to Chapter and remove relevant information Concerning the content, there are some concerns to consider as follows • This chapter probably puts an emphasis on collaborative writing while other essential contents such as writing performance or types/modes of peer learning (e.g., peer interaction, peer feedback, peer collaboration, etc.) also need discussing • It was stated that Figure 2.2 – Theoretical framework relating to collaborative writing “illustrates the theoretical framework of this study” (p 11) It is more likely to be a teaching procedure than a conceptual framework which encompasses integral concepts presented in this chapter such as collaborative writing, attitudes, and writing performance It is noteworthy that the candidate needs to indicate the theoretical background that the conceptual framework relies on • The candidate should revise S2.1.5 – Previous studies about collaborative learning In particular, prior studies concerning attitudes towards collaborative writing are vitally provided Furthermore, the candidate needs to consider the inclusion of S2.1.5.2 – Effects of proficiency level on students’ writing performance (pp 17-19) & S2.1.5.4 – Effects of computer-mediated collaborative writing on students’ writing performance (pp 23-28) as these sections are not closely related to the focus of the study Chapter This chapter generally presents the methodological issues in a proper manner, but the candidate should take the following points into account • S3.3 – Participants: The candidate needs to explicitly state the sampling method for the 2nd phase • S3.4 – Research instruments: Teaching materials, writing assignments, and scoring rubrics are not research instruments used to collect the data Therefore, the candidate should remove those kinds of things from this section and relocate them to another section relating to the experimental teaching More importantly, the validity of the interview questions is not ensured In particular, almost all the questions not mention ‘changing peers’ though it is the core of the study, e.g., What benefits/difficulties did you have when you brainstormed ideas with your peers? I doubt that the interviewees’ responses may not address the rd research question properly • S3.4.1 – Pre-test and post-test: The candidate wrote, “The post-test, which was also the final test of the course, was intentionally designed by the researcher with conditions all similar to the pre-test in terms of topic, format, types of questions.” (p 51) What you mean by “similar in terms of topic”? However, the topics of the two tests are not identical, e.g., “In the pre-test, Task One required students to describe the line graph about number of people using different types of transportation… In the posttest, Task One required students to describe the line graph about old people population.” (p 51) • S3.5 – Data collection procedure: The candidate should focus heavily on how the data were collected and relocate irrelevant information to the so-called section ‘The experimental teaching’ For example, the sections 2-16 in Table 3.3 regarding introducing the course, demonstrating how to pair the students, etc (p 57) should not be presented in the data collection procedure In addition, the contents involving reliability and validity should be put in a separate section More information on how to ensure the validity of the instruments should be provided together with the elaborate presentation on how to increase the reliability Chapter The data were analyzed and interpreted reasonably according to the research questions Nonetheless, the candidate needs to add the values of Skewness and Kurtosis in Table 4.5 Chapter • The candidate needs to consider including the discussion on benefits of using computermediated tools in teaching writing Although Google Docs was used as a teaching tool in this study, no results found are associated with this point How is this point associated with the 1st RQ? • The explanation for the results of the 2nd research question needs references Otherwise, it is the candidate’s speculation per se • Concerning the discussion on behavioral component/dimension, the candidate needs to compare/contrast the findings with those reported in the previous studies and/or theories reviewed in Chapter (pp 106-107) Others • The chapter summary should be shortened • Adjust references and in-text citations according to APA style • Attach the lesson plans of the two groups in Appendices III THESIS REVIEWER’S QUESTIONS Why did you choose three students with the highest band score and three students with the lowest band score for the 2nd phase? What about those with the middle band score? Why was the random sampling method used for the 2nd phase? What is the difference between the questions regarding cognitive dimension and those referring to behavioral dimension? HCMC, September 27, 2021 Examiner’s signature Duong My Tham, PhD Ho Chi Minh City Open University School of Graduate Studies Socialist Republic of Vietnam Independence - Freedom - Happiness REVIEWER’S COMMENTS ON MASTER THESIS Major: TESOL M.A Candidate: Nguyễn An Khương Class: MTESOL017A Thesis Topic: Effects of changing peers during collaborative writing on learners' writing performance M.A Candidate’s supervisor: Dr Vũ Hoa Ngân Thesis paper’s reviewer: Dr Đặng Tấn Tín DETAILS I THESIS REVIEWER’S COMMENTS: In terms of the urgency, scientific and practical contributions of the thesis The research investigates an important issue in English language teaching and learning This focus is not new but worth being examined from different perspectives The contribution of the study is not significant but useful for further research In terms of validity, reliability and feasibility of the thesis The main concept employed in the study is collaborative learning, but the study is actually designed to investigate peer learning Justifications on the distinction between these two concepts are not specified The review of the literature does not distinguish this difference either Therefore, the validity of the study is questionable The reliability of the research is addressed but not properly reported The inter-rater correlation coefficient for the tests is not high Strengths and limitations of thesis regarding content, organization and format 3.1 Strengths The study is designed and conducted with adequate attention paid to the context, procedure, and instrument The presentation of the report is clear and meets the requirement of a conventional thesis Necessary chapters and appendices are included The reference list is properly prepared 3.2 Limitations The research questions are presented twice in the literature review chapter, generating redundancies for the report The most important part of the literature review includes a list of the research summaries only There is a lack of critical analyses and syntheses normally required in a literature review The report on the mismatched ratings between the coders for the qualitative data is not properly presented The learning improvement of the participants in both groups during the treatment is not reported The selection of the sample for the interview is not justified in relation to the research objective and methodology of the study The score awarded to each member of the pair work assignments is not justified In a pair work activity, the final product of the pair tends to reflect the ability of the better member It is hard to convince that both members equally contribute to the quality of the writing assignment The qualitative instrument used to understand the attitudes of the participants needs more comprehensive justifications as the quantitative instrument for this concept is quite wellestablished II THESIS REVIEWER’S QUESTIONS (optional) ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… III CONCLUSION (Please briefly state the completion degree of requirements of a M.A thesis, and confirm whether the thesis should be presented or not) Pass with minor revision Ho Chi Minh City, 27 September 2021 THESIS REVIEWER (Signature and Full name) Dr Đặng Tấn Tín Ho Chi Minh City Open University School of Graduate Studies Socialist Republic of Vietnam Independence - Freedom - Happiness REVIEWER’S COMMENTS ON MASTER THESIS Major: TESOL M.A Candidate: Nguyễn An Khương Class: MTESOL017A Thesis Topic: Effects of changing peers during collaborative writing on learners' writing performance M.A Candidate’s supervisor: Dr Vũ Hoa Ngân Thesis paper’s reviewer: Dr Phạm Nguyễn Huy Hoàng DETAILS I THESIS REVIEWER’S COMMENTS: In terms of the urgency, scientific and practical contributions of the thesis The thesis has an interesting topic, and the candidate has reported some valuable findings to the teaching and learning of writing, especially as a cooperative activity In terms of validity, reliability and feasibility of the thesis The tools are well-described and well-justified The findings have practical potential to be incorporated in the teaching and learning of writing Strengths and limitations of thesis regarding content, organization and format 3.1 Strengths The research design is good The literature review is quite extensive The writing quality of the thesis is quite good 3.2 Limitations The literature review could be better with a synthesis of the patterns among previous studies, rather than simple summaries of them It is better to use the term “pairwork” rather than “collaborative writing.” II THESIS REVIEWER’S QUESTIONS (optional) ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… III CONCLUSION (Please briefly state the completion degree of requirements of a M.A thesis, and confirm whether the thesis should be presented or not) This thesis is accepted with minor revisions Ho Chi Minh City, 27/09/2021 THESIS REVIEWER Dr Phạm Nguyễn Huy Hoàng Ho Chi Minh City Open University School of Graduate Studies Socialist Republic of Vietnam Independence - Freedom - Happiness REVIEWER’S COMMENTS ON MASTER THESIS Major: TESOL M.A Candidate: Nguyễn An Khương Class: MTESOL017A Thesis Topic: Effects of changing peers during collaborative writing on learners' writing performance M.A Candidate’s supervisor: Dr Vũ Hoa Ngân Thesis paper’s reviewer: Nguyễn Vũ Phương, PhD DETAILS I THESIS REVIEWER’S COMMENTS: In terms of the urgency, scientific and practical contributions of the thesis The topic on “Effects of changing peers during collaborative writing on learners' writing performance” is an interesting one that needs to be investigated Findings for such reseach can shed lights on teachers’ practices for collaborative writing for enhancing student learning ………………………………………………………………………………………………… In terms of validity, reliability and feasibility of the thesis The thesis shows validity and reliability of data collection instruments, the research design is appropriate for the purposes of the study ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… Strengths and limitations of thesis regarding content, organization and format 3.1 Strengths The thesis is apppriately structured with relavant information regarding content, organization and format ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3.2 Limitations The aim of the study needs modifying: Learner autonomy is not the focus of the study, so remove it from the aims Some sections of the thesis should be restructured for conherence The literature review should be modified and added with review for attitudes The review includes lists of summaries of previous studies, it should be synthesised It is necessary to revise the conceptual framework because it does not includes necessary constructs for the study There should be discussion on writing performance It is important to justify the sampling method for the second phase of data collection procedure The instruments needs further descriptions Provide the analysis of the pretest and post-test results Some recommendations are not based on the findings II THESIS REVIEWER’S QUESTIONS (optional) What were actually your data collection instruments? Did you know why the control group did not make more improvement as did the experimental group? Was it the group dynamics or the changing of peers that contributed to the improvement? III CONCLUSION (Please briefly state the completion degree of requirements of a M.A thesis, and confirm whether the thesis should be presented or not) ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………… Ho Chi Minh City, (date).27 (month) 09 (year) 2021 THESIS REVIEWER (Signature and Full name) Nguyễn Vũ Phương TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC MỞ THÀNH PHỐ HỒ CHÍ MINH KHOA ĐÀO TẠO SAU ĐẠI HỌC CỘNG HOÀ XÃ HỘI CHỦ NGHĨA VIỆT NAM Độc lập – Tựdo – Hạnh phúc BIÊN BẢN ĐIỀU CHỈNH THEO Ý KIẾN GÓP Ý CỦA HỘI ĐỒNG (Bảo vệ ngày 27/09/2021) Tên Học viên: NGUYỄN AN KHƯƠNG Tên Đề Tài: Effects of changing peers during collaborative writing on learners’ writing performance Những điều cần chỉnh sửa theo góp ý Hội Đồng STT Nội dung Trang, mục Những điều chỉnh sửa Nội dung chỉnh sửa The introduction needs revising: - Section 1.1/ page - Add ‘background of the study’ - The background and significance of the - Section 1.3/ page heading to the beginning of Trang, mục - Section 1.1/ page Chapter study needs to be - Add the theoretical - Section 1.4/ page significance to ‘Significance of the study’ section - The aim of the study needs modifying: - Section 1.1/ page - Remove learner autonomy Learner autonomy is not the focus of the from ‘Statement of the study, so remove it from the aims problems’ - Section 1.2/ page - Organisation of the thesis needs - Chapter - Add ‘Background of the study’ - Section 1.1/ page modifying: Some sections of the thesis - Section 2.1.3/ page 11 and ‘Definition of key terms’ to - Section 1.5/ page should be restructured for conherence - Section 2.2.2/ page 35 Chapter - Section 2.5/ page 39 - Move ‘Conceptual framework’ Những điều cần chỉnh sửa theo góp ý Hội Đồng STT Nội dung Trang, mục Những điều chỉnh sửa Nội dung chỉnh sửa Trang, mục from section 2.1.3 to 2.5 - Delete subheadings of section The literature review need to be revised: Section 2.1/ page ‘Tripartite model of attitudes’ - Section 2.2.2/ page 32 - Add ‘Research - Section 2.1.1/ page conceptualization’ to 2.1.1 to - Conceptualisation: it is necessary to distinguish the concepts of reconsider the concept of for collaborative ‘pairwork/groupwork’ and learning for “group-work” or “pair-work” It ‘collaborative writing’ is also necessary to define “changing peers” - Add definition of ‘changing as peer rotation, for example - Section 1.5/ page peers’ to section 1.5 - The literature review should be modified Section 2.2/ page 34 - Add review of previous studies and added with review for attitudes The Section 2.1.5/ page 14 about attitudes to collaborative review includes lists of summaries of writing to section 2.2.3 previous studies, it should be synthesised - Synthesize the previous studies into themes, report the new - Section 2.2.3/ page 34 - Section 2.1.5/ page 17 findings, and describe the flaws in each study that may affect the results - Conceptual framework: It is necessary to Section 2.1.3/ page 11 - Revise the conceptual revise the conceptual framework because it framework by eliminating the does not includes necessary constructs for procedure of process and Section 2.5/ page 39 Những điều cần chỉnh sửa theo góp ý Hội Đồng STT Nội dung Trang, mục the study Những điều chỉnh sửa Nội dung chỉnh sửa Trang, mục product approach+ combining the features of all the theories to the new framework - Theories on writing performance should be Chapter - Add the definition of ‘writing discussed performance’ to section 1.5 Methodology and methods need to be Section 3.3/ page 47 revised: - Delete the word ‘random - Section 1.5/ page - Section 3.3/ page 49 sampling’ in second phase of the research - It is important to justify the sampling method for the second phase of data collection procedure - The instruments needs further descriptions Section 3.4.5/ page 55 - Justify why semi-structured Scoring rubrics and teaching materials are interview is a more suitable tool not data collection instruments and needs than questionnaire in this study revising - Change the heading ‘Research instruments’ to ‘Research - Section 3.4.5/ page 55 - Section 3.4/ page 50 instruments and materials’ according to supervisor’s comments - Provide the analysis of the pre-test and Section 3.7.1/ page 70 - Add the quantitative analysis post-test results Section 4.3/ page 86 and its result of the pre-test and post-test to answer Research - Section 3.7.1/ page 72 - Section 4.3/ page 88 + 89 Những điều cần chỉnh sửa theo góp ý Hội Đồng STT Nội dung Những điều chỉnh sửa Nội dung chỉnh sửa Trang, mục Trang, mục Question (Table 4.6 + 4.7) - The interrater correlation is low, which Section 3.6.1/ page 69 needs to be addressed - Adjust ‘high’ to ‘low’ and Section 3.6.1/ page 69 explain that this result is still acceptable in normal classroom tests - The learning progress of the groups was Section 3.4.1/ page 66 - Add the description how to not checked, which needs to be addressed ensure equal participation from In addition, the scores of the pairs need to the each member in pairs be justified - Add the explanation to section 3.6.1 “it was hypothesized that - Section 3.5.1.4/ page 64 - Section 3.6.1/ page 67 whether the students changed peers or not, they attempted to perform at their best.” to address the learning progress of the groups - Add the hypothesis about t-test of the pairs to justify the scores of the pairs - The interview questions did not focus on Appendix E1/ page 132 - Add the ‘changing peers’ Appendix E1/ page 133 “changing peers”, so the data interpretation Appendix E2/ page 134 phrase to the interview questions Appendix E2/ page 135 may be biased Appendix L1/ page 170 Những điều cần chỉnh sửa theo góp ý Hội Đồng STT Nội dung Trang, mục Những điều chỉnh sửa Nội dung chỉnh sửa Trang, mục Appendix L2/ page 173 - The instrument to collect data on attitudes Section 3.4.5/ page 55 - Justify why semi-structured - Section 3.4.5/ page 54 interview is a more suitable tool than questionnaire in this study Recommendations need to be revised: Some Section 6.2/ page 111 - Delete irrelevant implication recommendations are not based on the (the last paragraph) and add the findings (e.g., use of computer-mediated new one - Section 6.2/ page 113 tools…), so revise them Nhận xét Hội đồng TS Nguyễn Thị Thanh Hà Nhận xét GVHD TS Vũ Hoa Ngân Tên học viên Nguyễn An Khương ... way, the researcher aimed at exploring the effects of changing peers on collaborative and individual performance and the attitudes of students toward changing peers in IELTS Academic Writing classes... Purpose of the study This study aimed to investigate the effects of changing peers on collaborative and individual writing performance compared with same peers during the collaborative writing process... language and linguistic interaction is also a collaborative activity In Long (1981) interaction hypothesis, interaction is considered as the means of making L2 input more understandable and therefore