Enhancing the effectiveness of peer written feedback in writing among the first year students at the ed hulis 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale of the study The past few years has witnessed dramatic changes in methods of teaching and learning English, and teaching and learning writing, among other three skills has undergone considerable renovation The switch from “product oriented approach” to “process writing approach” is one of the most striking features in teaching writing The “process writing” approach with its emphasis on learners’ achievement through multi processes of writing has been highly appreciated by both teachers and students applying it Peer feedback, also known as peer-checking or peer-editing in which students play the role as editors to read and comment on their friends’ writing either in oral or written form or in both forms so that their peers can improve their drafts before handing the final ones to the teachers is one important aspect of this approach Due to widely supported evidences of benefits that peer feedback activity can bring about to teaching and learning writing such as raising writers’ sense of audience, creating a cooperative learning environment, increasing text-ownership and improving students’ writing skills, peer written feedback has been exploited by many teachers and learners in all over the world, among whom teachers and students of the ED-HULIS are no exceptions Since peer written feedback activity was implemented in the EDHULIS, a few studies have been carried out to investigate students’ competence in doing peer written feedback and some suggestions were also put forward so that students could make the most of this activity However, those studies did not seem to give a thorough description of the situation because they tended to focus on only the act of giving without paying enough attention to the act of receiving peer written feedback whereas doing peer feedback refers to the mutual reaction of two sides, the feedback-giver and the feedback-receiver In addition, some important aspects concerning the implementation of peer written feedback were not acknowledged by previous researchers Therefore, the results obtained could not thoroughly reflect the situation, and as a result the proposed suggestions could not help solve the problems effectively Realizing those shortcomings, the researcher of this thesis has a strong desire to take into consideration some aspects of peer written feedback that were not paid due attention to in those previous studies so that this research can yield objective findings about the situation of using peer feedback in the first year writing classrooms On the basis of these findings, hopefully, feasible recommendations will be made in order to help the first year students at the ED-HULIS make the most of this activity, which is the ultimate purpose of this study- “Enhancing the effectiveness of peer-written feedback in writing among the first year students at the ED-HULIS” 1.2 Aims of the study This study is carried out with the aims to:  investigate the current practice of peer written feedback in writing classes among the first year students at the ED-HULIS  find out difficulties that the students often encounter when doing this activity  propose some recommendations in terms of procedures as well as useful feedback models to enhance the effectiveness of peer written feedback at the ED-HULIS 1.3 Research questions In order to fulfill the abovementioned aims, the study is conducted to answer the following research questions:  What are the strategies that the 1st year students at the ED apply to give peer written feedback?  How the first year students assess the practice of peer written feedback?  What problems students encounter when giving peer written feedback?  What problems students encounter when interpreting peer written feedback? 1.4 Scope of the study The study will work on the current situation of peer written feedback among the 1st year students at the ED-HULIS who are most likely to encounter difficulties when doing this activity since their experience with peer written feedback is not as much as that of their seniors In addition, the sooner the 1st year students are supported with useful techniques in carrying out this activity, the greater they are benefited from it Moreover, the research will focus on peer written feedback that is most utilized by the st year students at the ED-HULIS rather than the other type of peer-feedback known as peer oral feedback 1.5 Methodology of the study With a view to guaranteeing the reliability of the data, three methods of collecting information, namely, survey questionnaire, students’ writing analysis and student interviews are exploited It is believed that the combination of quantitative data obtained from survey questionnaires and qualitative data obtained from students’ writing analysis and student interviews can bring about in-depth information and first-hand experience of the target issue 1.6 Significance of the study Hopefully, the study will provide any interested reader with a better understanding of the current situation of doing peer written feedback activity among the 1st year students at the ED-HULIS More specifically, the efficiency of giving peer written feedback, the difficulties that students often have when giving or receiving their peers’ feedback will be acknowledged in this study In addition, as inherited and developed from the previous studies on the same topic, this can be seen as a means to assess the extent to which students are benefited from this activity after many years of implementation and also from a number of improvements made by teachers at the ED-HULIS Substantially, this study will suggest useful strategies for teachers and students to exploit peer written feedback effectively in writing classes It is expected that feedback models proposed in this study will favorably supplement the first year writing syllabus, and more effective application of peer written feedback will soon take shape in the following year 1.7 Organization of the paper The first chapter of this study has already presented an overview of the paper Chapter II reviews relevant literature on the process approach to teaching writing, process approach to feedback in writing and a number of important aspects in useful written feedback Methodology used in this research is introduced more thoroughly in chapter III Chapter IV presents and discusses findings obtained from three instruments utilized in the study: survey questionnaires, students’ writing analysis and student interviews In chapter V, some implications and suggestions for better practice of peer written feedback among the st year students are offered Finally, Chapter VI concludes the thesis by pointing out limitations of the research and suggestions for further study References and appendices are enclosed at the end of the paper CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Major approaches to teaching writing 2.1.1 Product approach to teaching writing During the 1950s, under the impact of behavioral learning theories and the audio-lingual teaching methodology, teaching writing was inclined to focus mainly on form and writing itself was recognized as a “linear” process which can be determined by the writer before starting to write (Hairston, 1982) Since then this method of teaching writing was widely adopted and known as product approach, the focus of which is a composition made up of a series of parts- words, sentences, paragraphs but not the whole discourse with meaning and ideas (Sommers, 1982) Therefore, it can be seen that it is the language proficiency that determines the skill of composing while little attention is paid to ideas and meaning According to Raimes (1983), the normal procedure of this writing approach is to assign a piece of writing, collect it, and then return it for further revision with the errors either corrected or marked so that students can the corrections The product approach has come under great criticism due to its ignorance of the actual processes used by students to produce a piece of writing Rather, it strongly emphasizes on imitating and producing a perfect product As a consequence, the creative ability of students, the very important element that needs developing, is restricted (Clenton, 2006) Another criticism is that this approach asks for constant error correction; therefore, it is said to affect students’ motivation and self-esteem Pincas (1962, p.185) summarizes the backwards of the product approach as “the learner is not allowed to create in the target language at all; the use of language is the manipulation of fixed patterns; these patterns are learned by imitation” Despite all those above mentioned shortcomings, it is undeniable that product approach has its strong points in that a final draft free error of grammar, spelling and punctuation will be necessary at some point 2.1.2 Process approach to teaching writing In the mid 1970s, process approach, comprising of the five steps prewriting, drafting, revising, editing and publishing proved to receive great recognition among pedagogues and students all over the world Writing is now viewed as a multistage process with teacher intervention as needed, and is evaluated according to how well it can fulfill the writer’s intentions (Reid, 1993) While product approach strongly emphasizes on form, process approach considers ideas to be the determining role In process approach, the text or the final product is only “a secondary, derivative concern, whose form is a function of its concern and purpose” (Silva, 1990, p.16) If writing in product approach is deemed to be a “linear and fragmented procedure” (Hairston, 1982, p.78) with the mere target at an error free final product, it is “a cyclical process during which writers can move back and forth on a continuum, discovering, analyzing and synthesizing ideas” (Hughey, et al., 1983 as cited by Joe, 1999, p.48) By writing a series of drafts before coming to a satisfactory final product as a result of a process of writing, revising and editing, students can step by step discover the way to express their ideas successfully In addition, students gain great autonomy “by means of discussion, tasks, drafting, feedback and informed choices [thereby] encouraging students to be responsible for making improvements themselves” (Jordan, 1997, cited in Clenton, 2009, p 2) To summarize the superiority of process approach to teaching writing, Jarvis cited Heald-Taylor‘s concise remark that In Process Writing the communication of the message is paramount and therefore the developing, but inaccurate, attempts at handwriting, spelling, and grammar are accepted, know that within the process of regular writing opportunities students will gian control of these sub-skills These skills are further developed in individual and small group conference interviews (Heald-Taylor, 1986, cited in Jarvis, 2002) However, process approach to writing has not always enjoyed such kind of approval Some of the academic community who advocate that “student writing must falls within the range of acceptable writing behaviors dictated by the academic community” (Silva, 1990, p.17) criticize this approach due to its main focus on content with the exclusion of focus on form In conclusion, considering both the strengths and weaknesses of product and process writing approach, it is realized that the two approaches are not necessary to be incompatible On the contrary, it would yield good result if process approach and product approach are integrated harmoniously In other words, a reasonable combination of focus on form and content would enable learners to achieve communicative texts that are creative, persuasive in meaning and precise in form 2.2 Stages in a writing process While almost teachers share the same view on the essence of process approach to writing as mentioned in the previous part, dividing and naming the stages in a writing process seems to be the source of much difference Hedge (1990) suggests seven stages as follow:  being motivated to write  getting ideas together  planning and outlining  making notes  making a first draft  revising, re-planning, redrafting,  editing and getting ready for publication Adapted from Hedge (1990) Slightly different from Hedge, by grouping the first four stages in Hedge’s division as prewriting, Brown (1994) divides writing process into stages, namely:  Prewriting: In this stage, students are supposed to some activities such as brainstorming, listing, outlining, free writing, gathering information, outlining, etc that help them to generate as many useful ideas relating to the topic as possible Besides, the genre, audience and format are also taken into consideration in this stage  Drafting: After doing some activities in the prewriting stage, students write an initial draft by putting their ideas into sentences and paragraphs  Revising: Once students have finished their first drafts, they now pay attention to the ideas, the organization, the structures, the expressions of ideas and make necessary adjustments  Editing: After revising their writings in terms of content, students now check for grammar, mechanics and spelling errors Describing the stages of writing in those ways certainly does not mean that students have to follow the above stages in a precise linear process On the contrary, the writing process is recursive, a “cyclical process during which writers move back and forth on a continuum, discovering, analyzing and synthesizing ideas” (Hughley et all, 1983, cited in Joe, 1999) In other words, students may involve in any previous stages while they write For instance, in the drafting stage, a student may come back to the prewriting stage to reconsider the audience or format of the writing if he or she feels that it is necessary Besides, time allotment for stages of writing also differs depending on “students’ level of familiarity with the genre, topic, audience, and format as well as students’ general fluency in writing” (Schumm,2006, p 383) Another striking feature of writing process is the different roles and responsibilities that it assigns for teachers and students If the students are the “authors” of their own products, the teachers are “mentors” who play an important role in encouraging and supporting the “authors” through different stages of writing In addition, the importance of peer and teacher feedback is strongly emphasized not only in revising stages but if possible during all stages of the writing process Especially, teachers are “responsible for developing a community of authors” in which “students learn how to support each other while writing” (Schumm, p.383) In the next part of the literature review, aspects concerning peer written feedback, the focus of this study are discussed 2.3 The application of peer written feedback in writing classes 2.3.1 A process approach to feedback in writing Giving feedback can be said to be an indispensable part in process writing The traditional feedback originating form product approach characterized by a concentration on the surface-level mechanic mistakes is no longer satisfactory in the new orientation of process approach It is the prevalance of process-oriented approach that requires a completely different feedback system, the focus of which is on how to give “readerbased” feedback (Elbow, 1981) and accuracy on forms “is postponed to the final stage” (Joe, 1999, p.48) Not only does the manner of giving feedback change in process approach, but the roles of teachers and students also become different in comparison to that of product approach Feedback system of process approach now requires the teacher to play “two roles” as suggested by Joe (1999, p.49) Teachers may first, on one hand, act as helpful facilitators giving students’ support and guidance and, on the other hand, act as authorities whose critical judgment on their writing products is important as well Students, in turn, need to discuss, to expand their ideas in response to their teachers and their peers’ feedback so that they can have better products Joe (1999, p.53) before presenting a thorough concept of feedback in process writing, summarizes the four basic assumptions about giving feedback as follow: a FEEDBACK IS RECURRENT Feedback and response must be incorporated within the writing process as recursive and cycling events b FEEDBACK IS INPUT FOR REVISION Feedback and responses shall always be given as a kind of input for further revision and redrafting c FEEDBACK IS NOT GRADING Feedback and response to a writer’s efforts should not be postponed until the last stage of the writing process Providing feedback must be distinguished from grading or making d FEEDBACK IS GIVEN AS APPROPRIATE Different kinds of feedback and responses (e.g content-focused and formfocused) must be given to the writers at different points in the writing process as appropriate Talking about the concept of feedback in process writing, it can be said that the definition suggested by Joe (1999) is one of the most thorough one: “Feedback is an indispensable and recursive component of both the teacher’s instruction and the writing process It represents a sense of audience and purpose in forming the on-going writing process, while establishing a concept of collaborative reader-editor relationship between teacher and student The feedback from the reader-editor appears as input for further reexamination and revision of the prior written work by providing optimum opportunities to develop and refine ideas, and may take various forms such as conference and interview.” (p.53) 10