The influence of the application of paperrater on the second year students use of conhesive devices in an english class at university of science, vietnma national university ho chi m

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY- HOCHIMINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE THE INFLUENCE OF THE APPLICATION OF PAPERRATER ON THE SECOND-YEAR STUDENTS' USE OF COHESIVE DEVICES IN AN ENGLISH CLASS AT UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE, VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HO CHI MINH CITY Submitted to the Faculty of English Linguistics & Literature in partial fulfillment of the Master’s degree in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages By HỒNG KIM MAI KHƠI Supervised by NGUYỄN QUANG TIẾN, Ph.D Ho Chi Minh City, August, 2017 APPROVAL SHEET This is to certify that this thesis entitled THE INFLUENCE OF THE APPLICATION OF PAPERRATER ON THE SECOND-YEAR STUDENTS' USE OF COHESIVE DEVICES IN AN ENGLISH CLASS AT UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE, VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HO CHI MINH CITY has been approved by the supervisor or further approval by the Board of Examiners Ho Chi Minh City, August, 2017 Approved Acknowledged by the Supervisor by the Dean of the Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature Nguyễn Quang Tiến, Ph.D Lê Hoàng Dũng, Ph.D ACKNOWLEDGEMENT First and foremost, I owe my deep and sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Nguyễn Quang Tiến, Ph.D., who kindly accepted me as his mentee and helped me in many ways to fulfil this thesis I am immersed in gratefulness for his advice and helpful discussions, which provided me with a lot of insights into my writing I am most grateful to his encouragement and support Without them, I could have never finished this research My sincere thanks go to the teachers and staff at the English Centre at University of Science, Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh city, for providing me with favourite conditions to conduct my thesis at this site I also would like to show my gratitude to my colleagues at the centre for their continuous encouragement and assistance during the process of conducting this thesis I also would like to express my gratitude to the teachers and staff at Faculty of International Languages and Cultures, University of Economics and Finance, and Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature of University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh city, who gave opinions in informal discussions and provided me with useful guidelines and information I am indebted to my parents, who always encourage and believe in me My special thanks to my brother, who helped me to assemble work of references and supported me at every stage of this thesis I also want to say thanks to my best friends for their valuable advice and continuous support i STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE INFLUENCE OF THE APPLICATION OF PAPERRATER ON THE SECOND-YEAR STUDENTS' USE OF COHESIVE DEVICES IN AN ENGLISH CLASS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE, VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HO CHI MINH CITY is the product of my own work The thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degrees or diplomas in any other institutions The thesis’s content, except where clearly acknowledged within the text, has not been published by other authors I hereby state that I approve the requirements of the University for the retention and use of my thesis and that it is accessible for the purposes of study and research Ho Chi Minh City, August, 2017 Hoàng Kim Mai Khôi ii ABSTRACT Corrective feedback is one of the hallmarks that can help boost students’ performance in writing Yet, it is time-consuming and sometimes imposes negative effects on both teachers and students Recently, it is said that the introduction of Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE), along with its application, has yielded significant results on learners’ language acquisition, and its application helps teachers reduce the workload and assists students to improve their performance in writing However, it is still unclear to what extent the application of such programmes could facilitate learners in a specific aspect of writing in Vietnamese context This study is aimed at investigating the impacts of PaperRater, an AWE programme, on Vietnamese students’ learning of writing skills In this study, the subject were 58 second-year students from University of Science, Ho Chi Minh city, Vietnam National University To discover the overall effects of using AWE on the improvement of students’ writing in terms of the proper use of cohesive devices and their attitudes, both quantitative and qualitative methods were applied The data used for this study were collected through sets of a pre-test and a post-test together with a student questionnaire and interviews with six participants After the treatment, the findings of the study revealed a significant difference between the experimental and control groups in terms of their writing improvement Furthermore, the study also received some positive feedback from the participants Although the students pointed out some unsatisfactory features, they still agreed that this teaching method could be used effectively to direct feedback instruction Based on this, the pedagogical implications for applying this method in writing process to enhance learners’ performance arise In short, the study concludes that the application of PaperRater imposes positive effects on students’ use of cohesive devices, students’ attitudes toward this corrective feedback techniques and learner autonomy and that its limitation could be overcome by the use of an eclectic approach to teaching and learning English academic writing Key words: AWE, cohesive devices, corrective feedback, teaching writing iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AWE Automated Writing Evaluation CF Corrective Feedback CALL Computer-Assisted in Language Learning CGF Computer-Generated Feedback ELT English Language Teaching and Learning ICT Information and Communication Technology HCMUS, VNU University of Science, Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh city SLA Second Language Acquisition WCF Written Corrective Feedback ZPD Zone of Proximal Development iv TABLE OF CONTENT APPROVAL SHEET i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY ii ABSTRACT iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS iv TABLE OF CONTENT v LIST OF TABLES x LIST OF FIGURES xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Educational Issue 1.2 Rationale for the Study 1.3 Statement of Purpose 1.4 Research Questions 1.5 Research Hypotheses 1.6 Significance of the Study 1.6.1 Writing Teachers 1.6.2 Students 1.7 Scope of the Study 1.8 Organisation of the Study Summary of Chapter CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 10 2.1 Approaches to teaching writing 10 2.1.1 Product-oriented approach 10 2.1.2 Process-oriented approach 11 2.2 Cohesive devices 13 2.2.1 Cohesion in text 13 2.2.2 Categories of cohesive devices 14 2.2.2.1 Reference 15 v 2.2.2.2 Conjunctions 17 2.3 Errors Theory 18 2.3.1 Definition of Errors 18 2.3.2 Classification of Errors 19 2.3.3 Cohesive Errors 20 2.4 Corrective Feedback Theory 21 2.4.1 Definition of Corrective Feedback 21 2.4.2 Classification of Written Corrective Feedback 22 2.4.2.1 Focused Direct Written Corrective Feedback 23 2.4.2.1.1 Focused Written Corrective Feedback 23 2.4.2.1.2 Direct Written Corrective Feedback 24 2.4.2.2 Electronic Corrective Feedback and Automated Writing Evaluation 25 2.4.2.3 Writing Conferences 26 2.5 Theoretical Framework 27 2.5.1 Noticing Hypothesis and Corrective Feedback 27 2.5.2 Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development, Scaffolding and Corrective Feedback 29 2.5.3 Objection Against the Application of CF 30 2.6 Synthesis of Empirical Work on AWE 31 2.6.1 Previous Studies on the Effects of Automated Writing Evaluation on Students’ Writing Performance 31 2.6.2 Studies on Student Attitudes towards AWE in Writing 33 2.6.3 Discussion of Gaps on Previous Studies 34 2.7 Conceptual Framework 35 Summary of Chapter 37 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS 38 3.1 Research methodology 38 3.1.1 Research Design 38 3.1.2 Data Collection and Analysis 39 vi 3.2 Research site 40 3.3 Participants 41 3.4 Research instruments 43 3.4.1 Writing tests 43 3.4.1.1 Test design 44 3.4.1.2 Test administration and scoring 44 3.4.2 The student questionnaires 45 3.4.2.1 Design and construct 45 3.4.2.2 Piloting and reliability 47 3.4.3 The student interviews 48 3.4.4 The Automated Writing Evaluation Website PaperRater 51 3.4.4.1 Introduction to the Automated Writing Evaluation Website PaperRater 51 3.4.4.2 The Instructions on How to Use Automated Writing Evaluation PaperRater Website 52 3.5 Data Collection Procedure 53 3.5.1 Pre-treatment Phase 53 3.5.2 During-treatment Phase 54 3.5.2.1 The Pilot and Experimental Groups 55 3.5.2.2 The Control Group 55 3.5.3 Post-experiment Phase 56 3.7 Data Analysis Procedure 57 Summary of Chapter 59 CHAPTER FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 60 4.1 Findings 60 4.1.1 Preconditions for the Independent Samples and Paired Sample T-tests 60 4.1.2 Results of the Writing Tests 61 4.1.2.1 Statistical Analysis of the Pre-test Results 61 4.1.2.2 Statistical Analysis of the Post-test Results 62 vii 4.1.2.3 Within-group Comparison 62 4.1.2.3.1 The Control Group 64 4.1.2.3.1 The Experimental Group 65 4.1.2.4 Between-group Comparison 66 4.1.3 Findings of the Questionnaire and Student Interviews 68 4.1.3.1 Questionnaire Results 68 4.1.3.1.1 General Opinions about the Application of PaperRater 68 4.1.3.1.2 Students’ Attitude towards CF on Cohesive Devices from PaperRater 71 4.1.3.1.3 Suggestions for Further Improvement when Applying PaperRater74 4.1.4 Interview Findings 74 4.1.4.1 Students’ Attitude towards PaperRater 74 4.1.4.1.1 Students’ Attitude on the Strong Points of PaperRater 74 4.1.4.1.2 Students’ Attitude on the Weak Points of PaperRater 75 4.1.4.2 Students’ Attitude towards CF on Cohesive Devices 77 Summary of main findings 78 4.2 Discussion 78 4.2.1 The Proper use of Cohesive Devices 79 4.2.1.1 Within-group Comparison 79 4.2.1.2 Between-group Comparison 81 4.2.2 Attitudes towards PaperRater 83 4.2.2.1 Attitudes towards PaperRater in general 83 4.2.2.1.1 In Comparison with Previous Studies 83 4.2.2.1.1 In Relation to SLA Theories 85 4.2.2.2 Attitudes towards CF on Cohesive Devices from PaperRater 87 Summary of the Discussion 88 Summary of Chapter 89 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION, IMPLICATATION, LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 90 viii APPENDIX 8B COURSE SYLLABUS – ENGLISH (VIETNAMESE VERSION) Đại học Quốc gia thành phố Hồ Chí Minh ĐẠI HỌC KHOA HỌC TỰ NHIÊN ĐỀ CƯƠNG CHI TIẾT MƠN HỌC Tên mơn học: Anh Văn Giáo viên: Hồng Kim Mai Khơi email: maikhoi.hoangkim@gmail.com Số tín chỉ: (60 tiết) Điều kiện tiên quyết: + Sinh viên có điểm thi kiểm tra tiếng Anh văn 2>= điểm Mục tiêu học phần: hệ thống hóa kiến thức, giúp sinh viên làm quen với format đề thi VNU (đọc nghe) Mô tả vắn tắt mục tiêu môn học: Kết thúc học phần: o Sinh viên sử dụng kiến thức học để cải thiện kỹ Nghe, Nói, Đọc, Viết để đạt trình độ A3 o Sinh viên nâng cao khả viết phân đoạn, tập trung vào thể loại nguyên nhân-kết Nhiệm vụ sinh viên: o Làm tập nhà đầy đủ, đọc trước đến lớp o Tích cực tham gia đóng góp hoạt động lớp o Tham gia 80% buổi lên lớp Tiêu chuẩn đánh giá sinh viên: No Tiêu chí Điểm tối đa % Bài tập nhà / 100 10% Kiểm tra kỳ /100 10% Kiểm tra cuối kỳ /100 80% Tham gia phát biểu Điểm thưởng Tổng 100% Giáo trình: Giáo trình bắt buộc: Cunningham, S., Moor, P., Eales, F., & Cunningham, S (2005) New cutting edge, Intermediate Harlow: Pearson Longman 120 No Giáo trình bổ sung: - Savage, A., & Shafiei, M (2012) Effective academic writing 1: the paragraph New York: Oxford University Press - Folse, K S., Muchmore-Vokoun, A., & Solomon, E V (2010) Great paragraphs Boston, MA: Heinle, Cengage Learning Nội dung chi tiết môn học Nội dung học tập Giới thiệu môn học Module 1: All about you Module 1: All about you (Continue) Writing: Introduction to cause-effect paragraph Module 2: Memory Module 2: Memory (Continue) Module 3: Around the world Module 3: Around the world (continue) Module 4: Life stories Module 4: Life stories (continue) Mid-term test 10 11 Module 5: Success Module 5: Success (continue) 12 13 14 15 16 Module 6: In the media Module 6: In the media (continue) Consolidation Speaking Test Speaking Test 121 APPENDIX APPENDIX 9A QUESTIONNAIRE (ENGLISH VERSION) QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE APPLICATION OF PAPERRATER This questionnaire was designed for a study entitled “The influence of the application of PaperRater on the second-year students' use of cohesive devices in an English class at the University of Science, Vietnam National University – Ho Chi Minh City” This is not a test, so there are no right or wrong answers We are interested in your personal opinions Please give your answers sincerely as only this will guarantee the success of the study The results of this questionnaire will be used only for research purpose and your confidential information will be protected Please provide the following information by ticking the appropriate box or writing your responses in the space provided Thank you so much for your help A Personal Information Name: Gender: Male  Female  Age: …………………… years old B General overview of the application of PaperRater Please provide the following information by ticking in the box After using PaperRater, what is your general attitude towards its feedback? Like very much  Dislike  Like  Dislike very much  Neither like nor dislike  122 I was satisfied with the amount of feedback that I receive from PaperRater The feedback returned with my work was fair and balanced The feedback from PaperRater gave me enough information on where I went wrong The feedback from PaperRater identified the aspects where I work well 10 From the feedback, I appreciate what I could to improve my writing Strongly agree The written feedback from PaperRater was clear and easy to read Agree Neutral Questions Strongly disagree No Disagree Please read the following statement carefully and tick in the box that best describes your level of agreement to the statement Others (please specify): C Attitude towards corrective feedback on cohesive devices generated by PaperRater Please read the following statement carefully and tick in the box that best describes your level of agreement to the statement 123 I not know how to revise my writing accurately due to the unclear feedback on cohesive devices from PaperRater 13 I think the feedback on cohesive devices from PaperRater is not useful because it is too simple for me 14 With the support from PaperRater, I try to use different cohesive devices to improve my writing skills 15 My writing cannot be enhanced because the feedback on cohesive devices from PaperRater is vague 16 My use of cohesive devices becomes more appropriate after receiving feedback from PaperRater 17 PaperRater provides inaccurate feedback on cohesive devices, which makes me get lower grades Strongly agree 12 Agree PaperRater helps me figure out errors in the use of cohesive devices which I have not noticed before Neutral 11 Disagree Questions Strongly disagree No Others (please specify): 124 D Others 18 What are your suggestions (if any) to improve the implementation of PaperRater in teaching writing? Thank you so much for your time, patience and cooperation 125 APPENDIX 9B QUESTIONNAIRE (VIETNAMESE VERSION) BẢNG KHẢO SÁT VỀ VIỆC SỬ DỤNG PAPPERRATER Bảng khảo sát thiết kế cho nghiên cứu " Ảnh hưởng việc ứng dụng phần mềm Paperrater lên việc sử dụng phương tiện liên kết văn lớp học Tiêng Anh Trường Đại Học Khoa Học Tự Nhiên, Đại Học Quốc Gia thành phố Hồ Chí Minh.” Đây khơng phải kiểm tra, nên khơng có câu trả lời hay sai Vui lòng trả lời cách chân thật, làm đảm bảo thành công nghiên cứu Mọi ý kiến đóng góp bạn phục vụ cho mục đích nghiên cứu bảo mật tuyệt đối Cảm ơn hợp tác bạn A Thơng tin cá nhân Tên: ………………………………………………… Giới tính: Nam  Nữ  Tuổi: …………………… B Đánh giá tổng quan việc sử dụng phần mềm PaperRater Vui lịng đánh dấu tương ứng với câu trả lời bạn Cảm nhận chung bạn việc sử dụng phần mềm Paperrater để học kỹ viết nào?  Rất thích  Ghét  Thích  Rất ghét  Khơng thích khơng ghét Vui lòng đọc kỹ nhận định sau đánh dấu vào ô tương ứng với ý kiến bạn 126 Hồn khơng thiên vị Những góp ý sửa lỗi từ PaperRater cung cấp đầy đủ thông tin lỗi tơi Những góp ý sửa lỗi từ PaperRater khía cạnh tơi làm tốt 10 Từ góp ý sửa lỗi, tơi đánh giá cao tơi làm để cải thiện kỹ viết Ý kiến khác (vui lòng trình bày cụ thể): C Ý kiến bạn việc sử dụng Paperrater để sửa lỗi phương tiện liên kết viết Vui lòng đọc kỹ nhận định sau đánh dấu vào ô tương ứng với ý kiến bạn 127 đồng ý Những phần góp ý sửa lỗi cho tơi cơng tồn Hồn Tơi hài lịng với lượng góp ý sửa đổi từ PaperRater Đồng ý Khơng Những góp ý sửa lỗi từ PaperRater rõ ràng dễ đọc Đồng ý không đồng ý Câu hỏi tồn Stt 12 Tơi khơng biết cách sửa lại PaperRater lỗi sai phương tiện liên kết không rõ ràng 13 Tôi nghĩ lỗi sai phương tiện liên kết mà PaperRater đơng giản 14 Với trợ giúp PaperRater, dùng nhiều phương tiện liên kết khác để cải thiện kỹ viết 15 Bài viết tơi khơng cải thiện góp ý sửa lỗi phương tiện liên kết từ PaperRater mơ hồ 16 Tôi sử dụng phương tiện liên kết phù hợp sau nhận dẫn từ Paperrater 17 Paperrater khơng xác lỗi sai phương tiện liên kết, khiến điểm số thấp Ý kiến khác (vui lịng trình bày cụ thể): 128 đồng ý toàn kết mà trước tơi chưa để ý tới Hồn Đồng ý Hồn Khơng PaperRater lỗi sai phương tiện liên Đồng ý 11 không đồng ý Câu hỏi toàn Stt D Khác 18 Đề xuất bạn (nếu có) để cải thiện việc áp dụng phần mềm Paperrater vào việc dạy viết? Cảm ơn bạn 129 APPENDIX 10 APPENDIX 10A QUESTIONS USED IN THE INTERVIEW (ENGLISH VERSION) A Questions about general overview of the application of PaperRater In your opinion, what are the positive points of the feedback PaperRater provided to your writing? In your opinion, what are the negative points of the feedback PaperRater provided to your writing? B Questions about Attitude towards corrective feedback on cohesive devices generated by PaperRater In your opinion, what are the positive points of the feedback on cohesive devices PaperRater provided to your writing? In your opinion, what are the negative points of the feedback on cohesive devices PaperRater provided to your writing? 130 APPENDIX 10B QUESTIONS USED IN THE INTERVIEW (VIETNAMESE VERSION) A Câu hỏi vấn đánh giá tổng quan việc sử dụng phần mềm PaperRater Theo bạn, điểm tích cực góp ý sửa lỗi PaperRater gì? Theo bạn, điểm tiêu cực góp ý sửa lỗi PaperRater gì? B Câu hỏi vấn việc sử dụng Paperrater để sửa lỗi phương tiện liên kết viết Theo bạn, điểm tích cực góp ý sửa lỗi phương tiện liên kết PaperRater gì? Theo bạn, điểm tiêu cực góp ý sửa lỗi phương tiện liên kết PaperRater gì? 131 APPENDIX 11 USER INTERFACE OF PAPERRATER 132 APPENDIX 12 A ILLUSTRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF STUDENT’S WRITING Step 1: A sample analysis of a learner’s writing Step 2: A sample of asynchronous conferencing with the students 133 Step 3: A sample of a student’s final work 134