The effect of trained peer corrective feedback on efl tertiary students writing performance and attitudes

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY ∞0∞ HO THI KIM OANH THE EFFECTS OF TRAINED PEER CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON EFL TERTIARY STUDENTS’ WRITING PERFORMANCE AND ATTITUDES: A STUDY AT NGUYEN TAT THANH UNIVERSITY Major: Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages Tai Lieu Chat Luong Major code: 14 01 11 MASTER OF ARTS IN TESOL Supervisor: Dr LE THI THUY NHUNG HO CHI MINH CITY, 2021 TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC MỞ CỘNG HÒA XÃ HỘI CHỦ NGHĨA VIỆT NAM THÀNH PHỐ HỒ CHÍ MINH Độc lập – Tự – Hạnh phúc KHOA ĐÀO TẠO SAU ĐẠI HỌC GIẤY XÁC NHẬN Tôi tên là: HỒ THỊ KIM OANH Ngày sinh: 24/12/1990 Nơi sinh: Gia Lai Chuyên ngành: Lý luận Phương pháp giảng dạy môn Tiếng Anh Mã học viên: 1781401110026 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 Cơng nghệ Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh Ký tên (Ghi rõ họ tên) 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: TS Lê Thị Thùy Nhung Học viên thực hiện: Hồ Thị Kim Oanh Lớp: MTESOL017A Ngày sinh: 24/12/1990 Nơi sinh: Gia Lai Tên đề tài: The Effects of Trained Peer Corrective Feedback on EFL Tertiary Students’ Writing Performance and Attitudes: A Study at Nguyen Tat Thanh University Ý kiến giáo viên hướng dẫn việc cho phép học viên Hồ Thị Kim Oanh bảo vệ luận văn trước Hội đồng: -Tôi đồng ý để học viên Hồ Thị Kim Oanh bảo vệ đề tài trước Hội đồng đánh giá Luận văn Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh, ngày 10 tháng năm 2021 GV hướng dẫn Lê Thị Thùy Nhung STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I certify that this thesis entitled “The Effects of Trained Peer Corrective Feedback on EFL Tertiary Students’ Writing Performance and Attitudes: A Study at Nguyen Tat Thanh University” 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 the 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 due acknowledgement in the main text of the thesis This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in any other tertiary institution Ho Chi Minh City, 2021 Ho Thi Kim Oanh i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to express my gratefulness and deep thank to all who have supported me in writing up my dissertation Firstly, I would like to send my big thank to my supervisor, Dr Le Thi Thuy Nhung, for her valuable guidance, advice and suggestions I really appreciated her kindness, patient guidance when I was stuck in finding solutions for my thesis Undoubtedly, without her support, this thesis is far from being completed Therefore, I need to emphasize that words fail me in expressing my indebtedness to her Next, I would like to express my appreciation to Faculty of Foreign Languages of Nguyen Tat Thanh University and the students taking part in the research Thus, I wish to say thanks my foreign colleagues who read my words and gave me good comments on my writing styles and word choice Their cooperation, assistance and contributions have been vital for my thesis Furthermore, I am greatly indebted all lecturers who provided background knowledge at the Master program in Ho Chi Minh Open University (Vietnam) The precious background guided me to the scientific arena as well as improve my personal skills to conduct research papers Last but not least, my words of appreciation are sent to my family members for their sacrifice and their endless love It is worth naming the kindness of my beloved husband in giving me big encouragement, patience and support ii ABSTRACT In the arena of foreign language pedagogy, the development of writing performance embedded with peer feedback activities has been paid more attention by many educators and theorists over last decades This study aimed to discover the effects of trained peer feedback on university students’ English writing performance A one-group pretest-posttest design was employed The participants including 42 second-year students majoring in English at Nguyen Tat Thanh University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, took part in the experimental group which were provided with trained peer feedback for nine weeks Research instruments include a pre-test, a post-test, and three questionnaires administered among the participants twice before and after the treatment Data obtained from the tests and the questionnaires were quantitatively analyzed using SPSS software The results indicated that trained peer feedback considerably improved the students’ writing performance in terms of organization and grammar, while students’ writing performance on content and vocabulary was enhanced slightly after the treatment The results from questionnaire showed that the students’ behavior and attitudes toward peer feedback were positive Besides, the students’ selfefficacy level of writing ideation, writing conventions, and writing selfregulation was considerably enhanced thanks to the utilization of trained peer feedback iii TÓM TẮT Trong lĩnh vực giảng dạy ngoại ngữ, việc phát triển khả viết có gắn với hoạt động phản hồi bạn bè nhiều nhà giáo dục nhà lý luận quan tâm thập kỷ qua Nghiên cứu nhằm khai thác tác động phản hồi từ bạn bè đào tạo lực viết tiếng Anh sinh viên đại học Thiết kế trước-sau-thử nghiệm dành cho nhóm sử dụng Đối tượng tham gia bao gồm 42 sinh viên năm thứ hai chuyên ngành tiếng Anh Đại học Nguyễn Tất Thành, Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh, Việt Nam, tham gia vào nhóm thực nghiệm cung cấp phản hồi từ sinh viên đào tạo chín tuần liên tiếp Các cơng cụ nghiên cứu bao gồm kiểm tra trước thực nghiệm, kiểm tra sau thực nghiệm, ba bảng câu hỏi phát cho người tham gia hai lần trước sau thực nghiệm Dữ liệu thu từ kiểm tra bảng câu hỏi phân tích định lượng phần mềm SPSS Kết phản hồi từ sinh viên khác đào tạo cải thiện đáng kể lực viết sinh viên mặt kết cấu ngữ pháp, lực viết sinh viên nội dung từ vựng cải thiện chút sau thực nghiệm Kết từ bảng câu hỏi cho thấy hành vi thái độ sinh viên phản hồi bạn bè tích cực Bên cạnh đó, mức độ hiệu học sinh việc viết ý tưởng, ngôn từ tự điều chỉnh viết nâng cao đáng kể nhờ vào việc sử dụng phản hồi bạn bè đào tạo iv TABLE OF CONTENT Page STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ii ABSTRACT iii TÓM TẮT iv TABLE OF CONTENT v LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF CHARTS ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study 1.2 Rationale of the Study 1.3 Research Aims 1.5 Research Questions 1.6 Significance of the Study 1.7 Organization of the Thesis CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Peer Feedback 2.1.1 Feedback 2.1.2 Difference between Teacher Feedback and Peer Feedback 2.1.3 Aspects of Peer Feedback 2.1.4 Significance of Peer Feedback in Writing 2.1.5 Principles of Applying Peer Feedback in Writing Class 2.1.6 Problems of Peer Feedback 11 2.2 Writing Performance 11 2.2.1 Writing Nature 11 2.2.2 Writing Approaches 12 2.2.3 Writing Performance: Definition, Criteria 14 2.3 Writing Self-Efficacy 15 2.3.1 Definition of Writing Self-Efficacy 15 v 2.3.2 Dimensions of Writing Self-Efficacy 16 2.4 Previous Studies 17 2.5 Research Gaps and Hypotheses 19 2.6 Chapter Summary 21 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 22 3.1 Research Site and Participants 22 3.1.1 Research Site 22 3.1.2 Research Participants: No Control Group 23 3.2 Research Design 24 3.3 Research Procedures 25 3.3.1 Research Material 25 3.3.2 Research Duration 25 3.3.3 Arrangement of Pairs 27 3.3.4 Training of Peer Feedback Exchange 27 3.3.5 Use of Scoring Rubric for Writing Inter-Rating 30 3.4 Research Instruments 30 3.4.1 Writing Tests 31 3.4.2 Questionnaires 32 3.5 Data Analysis 33 3.5.1 Research Question 33 3.5.2 Research Question 34 3.5.3 Research Question 34 3.6 Reliability and Validity 34 3.6.1 Reliability of Writing Tests and Questionnaires 34 3.6.2 Validity of Writing Tests and Questionnaires 36 3.7 Chapter Summary 37 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 38 4.1 Research Question 38 4.1.1 Data Analysis of Writing Tests 38 4.1.2 Discussion of Research Question 44 4.2 Research Question 47 4.1.1 Data Analysis of Questionnaire 47 vi 4.1.2 Discussion of Research Question 53 4.3 Research Question 57 4.3.1 Data Analysis of Questionnaire 57 4.3.2 Discussion of Research Question 61 4.4 Chapter Summary 64 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 65 5.1 Conclusions 65 5.2 Implications 67 5.3 Limitations 69 5.4 Suggestions 69 5.5 Chapter Summary 70 REFERENCES 71 APPENDIX A: PEER FEEDBACK CHECKLIST 76 APPENDIX B: SCORING RUBRICS 77 APPENDIX C: WRITING PRE-TEST SAMPLE 79 APPENDIX D: WRITING POST-TEST SAMPLE 80 APPENDIX E-1: PRE-QUESTIONNAIRE (ENGLISH VERSION) 81 APPENDIX E-2: PRE-QUESTIONNAIRE (VIETNAMESE VERSION) 82 APPENDIX F-1: POST-QUESTIONNAIRE A (ENGLISH VERSION) 83 APPENDIX F-2: POST-QUESTIONNAIRE A (VIETNAMESE VERSION) 84 APPENDIX G-1: POST-QUESTIONNAIRE B (ENGLISH VERSION) 86 APPENDIX G-2: POST-QUESTIONNAIRE B (VIETNAMESE VERSION) 87 APPENDIX H: THE WRITING TEST RESULTS 88 vii Sawangsamutchai, Y & Rattanavich, S (2016) A comparison of seventh grade Thai students’ reading comprehension and motivation to read English through applied instruction based on the genre-based approach and the teacher’s manual English Language Teaching, 9(4), 54-63 Schleppegrell, M J (2004) The Language of Schooling: A Functional Linguistics Perspective Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers Schraw, G (2006) Knowledge: Structures and processes In P A Alexander & P H Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp 245-264) San Diego, CA: Academic Press Schunk, H D (2003) Self-Efficacy for Reading and Writing: Influence of Modeling, Goal Setting, and Self-Evaluation Reading &Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 159-172 Simonsmeier, B A., Peifer, H., Flaig, M., & Schneider, M (2020) Peer Feedback Improves Students’ Academic Self-Concept in Higher Education Research in Higher Education, 61(6), 706-724 Templin, S A, Shiroku, M., & Taira, K (1999) Self-efficacy syllabus Retrieved from http://www.jalt- 190 publications.org/tlt/articles/1999/04/Templin Thyer, B (2002) Evaluation of social work practice in the new millennium: Myths and realities In D T L Shek, M C Lam, C F Au, & J J Lee (Eds.), Entering a new millennium: Advances in social welfare service and research (pp 3-18) Hong Kong: New Asia College and the Chinese University Press Topping, K J (1998) Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276 Topping, K J (2005) Trends in peer learning Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631-645 Topping, K J., & Fisher, A M (2003) Computerized formative assessment of reading comprehension: field trials in the UK Journal of Research in Reading, 26(3), 267-279 Tribble, C (1996) Writing Oxford: Oxford University Press Truong, M H (2016) Teachers’ beliefs and reported classroom practices in EFL writing instruction at the selected high schools in Ho Chi Minh City (Unpublished master’s thesis) Vietnam: Ho Chi Minh City Open University Tseng, S.-C., & Tsai, C.-C (2007) On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school computer course Computers & Education, 49, 1161-1174 Ur, P (1996) A course in language teaching practice and theory Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Weigle, S C (2002) Assessing writing Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Yang, K H., & Wu, Y H (2013) Effects of Feedback Types on the Student’s Self-Efficacy International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 3(3), 202-205 Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z (2006) A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in Chinese EFL writing class Journal of Second Language Learning, 15(3), 179-200 76 Yarrow, F & Topping K J (2001) Collaborative learning: The effects of metacognitive prompting and structured peer interaction British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 261-282 Yu, S., & Lee, I (2016) Exploring Chinese students’ strategy use in a cooperative peer feedback writing group System, 58, 1-11 Zamel (1983) The composing process of advanced ESL students: Six case studies TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 165-87 https://takeielts.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/ielts_task_2_writing_band_descriptors.pdf Zhao, H (2018) New insights into the process of peer review for EFL writing: A processoriented socio-cultural perspective Language and Instruction, 58, 263-273 77 APPENDIX A: PEER FEEDBACK CHECKLIST Use the following questions as a guide to comment on your classmate’s essay No Questions Coherence and Cohesion: Organization Are there fully four paragraphs in the essay? Does the essay consist of the introductory paragraph? Does the introductory paragraph present the clear thesis statement? Does the essay add two body paragraphs? Does the first body paragraph present the clear topic sentence? Does the first body paragraph contain the supporting sentences? Are these supporting ideas linked by cohesive devices? Does the second body paragraph present the clear topic sentence? Does the second body paragraph contain the supporting sentences? Are these supporting ideas linked by cohesive devices? Does the essay contain the concluding paragraph? 10 Does the concluding paragraph restate the thesis statement? Does the concluding paragraph contain an extensive part such as 11 warning, suggestion, etc.? Task achievement: Content Does the whole essay have enough ideas to respond to the writing 12 task to full? Does the first body paragraph include both main ideas and 13 supporting ideas? 14 Are its main ideas clear and ambiguous? 15 Are its supporting ideas convincing or/ and interesting? Does the second body paragraph include both main ideas and 16 supporting ideas? 17 Are its main ideas clear and ambiguous? 18 Are its supporting ideas convincing or/ and interesting? Lexical Resource: Vocabulary 19 In the introductory paragraph, are there many known words? 20 In the introductory paragraph, are there many unknown words? Is the introductory paragraph free of spelling mistakes? If no, how 21 many mistakes? 22 In the first body paragraph, are there many known words? 23 In the first body paragraph, are there many unknown words? Is the first body paragraph free of spelling mistakes? If no, how 24 many mistakes? 25 In the second body paragraph, are there many known words? 26 In the second body paragraph, are there many unknown words? Is the second body paragraph free of spelling mistakes? If no, how 27 many mistakes? 28 In the concluding paragraph, are there many known words? 29 In the concluding paragraph, are there many unknown words? Is the concluding paragraph free of spelling mistakes? If no, how 30 many mistakes? Grammatical Range and Accuracy 31 Does the essay contain different grammatical items? If yes, name Does the essay contain fully three sentence patterns: simple, 32 complex, and compound? 33 Is the introductory paragraph free of grammatical mistakes? 34 Is the first body paragraph free of grammatical mistakes? 35 Is the second body paragraph free of grammatical mistakes? 36 Is the concluding paragraph free of grammatical mistakes? 78 Answer Explanation (If possible) APPENDIX B: SCORING RUBRICS (Source: IELTS TASK Writing band descriptors – Public version) Band Grammatical range and accuracy uses a wide range of structures with full flexibility and accuracy; rare minor errors occur only as ‘slips’ Task achievement Coherence & cohesion Lexical resource fully addresses all parts of the task presents a fully developed position in answer to the question with relevant, fully extended and well supported ideas sufficiently addresses all parts of the task presents a well-developed response to the question with relevant, extended and supported ideas uses cohesion in such a way that it attracts no attention skillfully manages paragraphing uses a wide range of vocabulary with very natural and sophisticated control of lexical features; rare minor errors occur only as ‘slips’ sequences information and ideas logically manages all aspects of cohesion well uses paragraphing sufficiently and appropriately uses a wide range of structures the majority of sentences are error-free makes only very occasional errors or inappropriacies addresses all parts of the task presents a clear position throughout the response presents, extends and supports main ideas, but there may be a tendency to overgeneralize and/or supporting ideas may lack focus addresses all parts of the task although some parts may be more fully covered than others presents a relevant position although the conclusions may become unclear or repetitive presents relevant main ideas but some may be inadequately developed/unclear logically organizes information and ideas; there is clear progression throughout uses a range of cohesive devices appropriately although there may be some under-/over-use presents a clear central topic with each paragraph arranges information and ideas coherently and there is a clear overall progression uses cohesive devices effectively, but cohesion within and/or between sentences may be faulty or mechanical may not always use referencing clearly or appropriately uses paragraphing, but not always logically presents information with some organization but there may be a lack of overall progression makes inadequate, inaccurate or over use of cohesive devices may be repetitive because of lack of referencing and substitution may not write in paragraphs, or paragraphing may be inadequate presents information and ideas but these are not arranged coherently and there is no clear progression in the response uses a wide range of vocabulary fluently and flexibly to convey precise meanings skillfully uses uncommon lexical items but there may be occasional inaccuracies in word choice, collocation produces rare errors in spelling and word formation uses a sufficient range of vocabulary to allow some flexibility and precision uses less common lexical items with some awareness of style and collocation may produce occasional errors in word choice, spelling and/or word formation uses an adequate range of vocabulary for the task attempts to use less common vocabulary but with some inaccuracy makes some errors in spelling and/or word formation, but they not impede communication uses a limited range of vocabulary, but this is minimally adequate for the task may make noticeable errors in spelling and/or word formation that may cause some difficulty for the reader uses only a limited range of structures attempts complex sentences but these tend to be less accurate than simple sentences may make frequent grammatical errors and punctuation may be faulty; errors can cause some difficulty for the reader uses only basic vocabulary which may be used repetitively or which may be inappropriate for the task uses only a very limited range of structures with only rare use of subordinate clauses addresses the task only partially; the format may be inappropriate in places expresses a position but the development is not always clear and there may be no conclusions drawn presents some main ideas but these are limited and not sufficiently developed; there may be irrelevant detail responds to the task only in a minimal way or the answer is tangential; the format may be inappropriate 79 uses a variety of complex structures produces frequent error-free sentences has good control of grammar and punctuation but may make a few errors uses a mix of simple and complex sentence forms makes some errors in grammar and punctuation but they rarely reduce communication presents a position but this uses some basic cohesive is unclear devices but these may be presents some main ideas inaccurate or repetitive but these are difficult to may not write in identify and may be paragraphs or their use repetitive, irrelevant or not may be confusing well supported does not adequately does not organize ideas address any part of the task logically does not express a clear may use a very limited position range of cohesive devices, presents few ideas, which and those used may not are largely undeveloped or indicate a logical irrelevant relationship between ideas barely responds to the task has very little control of does not express a position organizational features may attempt to present one or two ideas but there is no development answer is completely fails to communicate any unrelated to the task message does not attend does not attempt the task in any way writes a totally memorized response 80 has limited control of word formation and/or spelling; errors may cause strain for the reader some structures are accurate but errors predominate, and punctuation is often faulty uses only a very limited range of words and expressions with very limited control of word formation and/or spelling errors may severely distort the message uses an extremely limited range of vocabulary; essentially no control of word formation and/or spelling can only use a few isolated words attempts sentence forms but errors in grammar and punctuation predominate and distort the meaning cannot use sentence forms except in memorized phrases cannot use sentence forms at all APPENDIX C: WRITING PRE-TEST SAMPLE Name: Student number: Class: Date: Test periods: 40 minutes Topic: Some people say that the best way to improve public health is by increasing the number of sports facilities Others, however, say that this would have little effect on public health and that other measures are required Discuss both these views and give your own opinion in a 250-word essay Answer: ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… -THE END RATINGS Task achievement Coherence and cohesion Lexical resource Grammatical range and accuracy - - - - Total - Signature: Date: - 81 APPENDIX D: WRITING POST-TEST SAMPLE Name: Student number: Class: Date: Test periods: 40 minutes Topic: In many countries, children are becoming overweight and unhealthy Some people think that the government should have the responsibility To what extent you agree or disagree? Write a 250-word essay to present your view Answer: ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… -THE END RATINGS Task achievement Coherence and cohesion Lexical resource Grammatical range and accuracy - - - - Total - Signature: Date: - 82 APPENDIX E-1: PRE-QUESTIONNAIRE (ENGLISH VERSION) Dear student, This questionnaire is designed to investigate your perceptions and evaluations about your own ability to complete a writing task There are no right or wrong answers, so please feel free to give your true answer to each item The information will be kept in secret and your responses will not affect your score Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey I appreciate your time and effort Most gratefully, Ho Thi Kim Oanh PART 1: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE Gender:  Male  Female Age:  19 years old  20 years old  Above 20 years old English language proficiency level:  Elementary  Intermediate Experience of English learning:  Pre-Intermediate  Upper-Intermediate  1-5 years  6-10 years  Above 10 years  Uncertain  Not at all Preference of English writing learning:  Much  Little Revisited experience of peer feedback in writing learning:  Yes (Much)  Yes (Little)  No Preliminary thought of peer feedback in writing learning: Importance:  Yes (Much)  Yes (Little)  Uncertain  No Usefulness:  Yes (Much)  Yes (Little)  Uncertain  No PART 2: WRITING SELF-EFFICACY BEFORE THE TREATMENT Please circle the most appropriate number, in which Scale: 1= strongly disagree; 2= disagree; 3= uncertain; 4= agree; 5= strongly agree No Statement A Self-Efficacy of Writing Ideation I can think of many ideas for my writing I can identify main ideas and supporting ideas for my writing I can organize my ideas coherently for my writing B Self-Efficacy of Writing Conventions I can think of many words to complete my writing I can spell my words correctly I can produce grammatical error-free writing I can compose my writing with a range of sentence structures C Self-Efficacy of Writing Self-Regulations I can perform many writing tasks effectively I can control my frustration to keep writing even when it is difficult 10 I can be aware of my strengths and weaknesses in writing 83 Scale 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 APPENDIX E-2: PRE-QUESTIONNAIRE (VIETNAMESE VERSION) Chào sinh viên, Bảng câu hỏi thiết kế để điều tra nhận thức đánh giá bạn khả hoàn thành viết bạn Khơng có câu trả lời hay sai, xin vui lịng đưa câu trả lời thực bạn cho mục Thơng tin giữ bí mật câu trả lời bạn không ảnh hưởng đến kết học tập bạn Cảm ơn bạn dành thời gian để hồn thành khảo sát Cơ đánh giá cao thời gian nỗ lực bạn Xin chân thành cảm ơn, Hồ Thị Kim Oanh Phần 1: Thơng tin cá nhân Giới tính: Nam Nữ 20 tuổi Trên 20 tuổi Trình độ tiếng Anh: Sơ cấp Kinh nghiệm học tiếng Anh: Tiền trung cấp 1-5 năm Trung cấp 6-10 năm Sở thích học viết tiếng Anh: Nhiều Tuổi: 19 tuổi Kinh nghiệm việc nhận xét cho việc học viết: Cao trung cấp Trên 10 năm Khơng chắn Ít Khơng Có (Nhiều) Có (Ít) Không Suy nghĩ chung việc nhận xét với bạn bè q trình học viết: Tầm quan trọng: Có (Nhiều) Có (Ít) Khơng chắn Khơng Tính hữu ích: Khơng Có (Nhiều) Có (Ít) Khơng chắn Phần 2: Mức độ tự tin vào lực viết thân (Trước thực nghiệm) Vui lịng khoanh trịn số thích hợp nhất, đó: Mức độ: 1= Hồn tồn khơng đồng ý; 2= Không đồng ý; 3= Không chắc; 4= Đồng ý; 5= Hoàn toàn đồng ý STT A Câu phát biểu Tự tin vào ý tưởng viết thân Tơi nghĩ nhiều ý tưởng cho viết Tơi xác định ý tưởng ý tưởng hỗ trợ cho viết Tơi xếp ý tưởng cách mạch lạc cho viết B Tự tin vào ngơn ngữ viết thân Tơi nghĩ nhiều từ để hoàn thành viết Tơi viết từ vựng cách xác Tơi tạo văn khơng có lỗi ngữ pháp Tơi soạn viết với loạt cấu trúc câu Tơi tạo viết với đa dạng cấu trúc câu C Tự tin vào khả tự điều chỉnh viết thân Tơi thực nhiều nhiệm vụ viết cách hiệu Tơi kiểm sốt thiếu tự tin, mệt mỏi để tiếp tục viết gặp viết khó Tơi nhận thức điểm mạnh điểm yếu việc 10 viết tiếng Anh 84 Mức độ 5 5 5 5 5 APPENDIX F-1: POST-QUESTIONNAIRE A (ENGLISH VERSION) Dear student, This questionnaire is designed to investigate your preferences about peer feedback activities after the training course There are no right or wrong answers, so please feel free to give your true answer to each item The information will be kept in secret and your responses will not affect your score Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey I appreciate your time and effort Most gratefully, Ho Thi Kim Oanh BEHAVIORAL PREFERENCES Please circle the most appropriate number, in which Scale: 1= strongly disagree; 2= disagree; 3= uncertain; 4= agree; 5= strongly agree No Statement During peer feedback-driven writing classes, … A Feedback Modes A1 I preferred my peer to indicate the location of errors, give me correction A2 I preferred to indicate the location of errors and give correction to my peer A3 I preferred my peer to use error codes to indicate the errors of my writing A4 I preferred to use error codes to indicate the errors to my peer A5 I preferred my peer to circle the errors of my writing A6 I preferred to circle the errors of my peer’s writing A7 I preferred my peer to underline the errors of my writing A8 I preferred to underline the errors of my peer’s writing A9 I preferred my peer to record the number of errors per line of my writing A10 I preferred to record the number of errors per line of my peer’s writing B Feedback Amount B1 I preferred my peer to address only a few errors of my writing B2 I preferred to address only a few errors of my peer’ writing B3 I preferred my peer to address all errors of my writing B4 I preferred to address all errors of my peer’ writing C Feedback Focus C1 I preferred my peer to comment the idea quality of my writing C2 I preferred to comment about the idea quality of my peer’ writing C3 I preferred my peer to comment about the organization of my writing C4 I preferred to comment about the organization of my peer’ writing C5 I preferred my peer to comment about the vocabulary of my writing C6 I preferred to comment the about the vocabulary of my peer’ writing C7 I preferred my peer to comment about the grammar of my writing C8 I preferred to comment about the grammar of my peer’ writing D Feedback Placing D1 I preferred my peer to put feedback near the errors of my writing D2 I preferred to put feedback near the errors of my peer’s writing D3 I preferred my peer to put feedback at the end of my writing D4 I preferred to put feedback at the end of my peer’s writing E Feedback Time E1 I preferred my peer to give feedback in the revision stage (to first draft) E2 I preferred to give feedback to my peer in the revision stage (to first draft) E3 I preferred my peer to give feedback in the editing stage (to final draft) E4 I preferred to give feedback to my peer in the editing stage (to final draft) 85 Scale 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 APPENDIX F-2: POST-QUESTIONNAIRE A (VIETNAMESE VERSION) Chào sinh viên, Bảng câu hỏi thiết kế để điều tra nhận thức đánh giá bạn khả hồn thành viết bạn Khơng có câu trả lời hay sai, xin vui lịng đưa câu trả lời thực bạn cho mục Thơng tin giữ bí mật câu trả lời bạn không ảnh hưởng đến kết học tập bạn Cảm ơn bạn dành thời gian để hoàn thành khảo sát Cô đánh giá cao thời gian nỗ lực bạn Xin chân thành cảm ơn, Hồ Thị Kim Oanh Sở thích hành vi Vui lịng khoanh trịn số thích hợp nhất, đó: Mức độ: 1= Hồn tồn khơng đồng ý; 2= Không đồng ý; 3= Không chắc; 4= Đồng ý; 5= Hoàn toàn đồng ý STT Câu phát biểu Trải qua hoạt động nhận xét lỗi (đã hướng dẫn) tiết học viết, A Hình thức nhận xét A1 Em thích bạn em vị trí lỗi, sửa chữa cho em A2 Em thích vị trí lỗi sửa chữa cho bạn em A3 Em thích bạn em sử dụng kí hiệu lỗi để lỗi viết em A4 Em thích sử dụng kí hiệu lỗi để lỗi cho bạn em A5 Em thích bạn em khoanh trịn lỗi viết em A6 Em thích khoanh trịn lỗi viết bạn em A7 Em thích bạn em gạch chân lỗi viết em A8 Em thích gạch chân lỗi viết bạn em A9 Em thích bạn em ghi lại số lỗi dòng viết em A10 Em thích ghi lại số lỗi dịng viết bạn em B Số lượng nhận xét B1 Em thích bạn em tập trung số lỗi viết em B2 Em thích tập trung số lỗi viết bạn em B3 Em thích bạn em tập trung tất lỗi viết em B4 Em thích tập trung tất lỗi viết bạn em C Nội dung nhận xét C1 Em thích bạn em nhận xét chất lượng nội dung viết em C2 Em thích nhận xét chất lượng nội dung viết bạn em C3 Em thích bạn em nhận xét cấu trúc viết em C4 Em thích nhận xét cấu trúc viết bạn em C5 Em thích bạn em nhận xét từ vựng viết em C6 Em thích nhận xét từ vựng viết bạn em C7 Em thích bạn em nhận xét ngữ pháp viết em C8 Em thích nhận xét ngữ pháp viết bạn em D Vị trí đặt nhận xét D1 Em thích bạn em đưa nhận xét gần lỗi viết em D2 Em thích để nhận xét gần lỗi viết bạn em D3 Em thích bạn em để nhận xét vào cuối viết em D4 Em thích để nhận xét vào cuối viết bạn em E Thời điểm nhận xét E1 Em thích bạn em đưa nhận xét giai đoạn sửa đổi (bản đầu tiên) E2 Em thích đưa nhận xét cho bạn em giai đoạn sửa đổi (bản đầu tiên) 86 Mức độ 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 E3 E4 Em thích bạn em đưa nhận xét giai đoạn chỉnh sửa (bản cuối cùng) Em thích đưa nhận xét cho bạn em giai đoạn chỉnh sửa (bản cuối cùng) 87 5 APPENDIX G-1: POST-QUESTIONNAIRE B (ENGLISH VERSION) Dear student, This questionnaire is designed to investigate your self-evaluation about your own ability to complete a writing task after the training course There are no right or wrong answers, so please feel free to give your true answer to each item The information will be kept in secret and your responses will not affect your score Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey I appreciate your time and effort Most gratefully, Ho Thi Kim Oanh SELF-EFFICACY Please circle the most appropriate number, in which Scale: 1= strongly disagree; 2= disagree; 3= uncertain; 4= agree; 5= strongly agree No Statement After the treatment of peer feedback, … A Self-Efficacy of Writing Ideation I can think of many ideas for my writing I can identify main ideas and supporting ideas for my writing I can organize my ideas coherently for my writing B Self-Efficacy of Writing Conventions I can think of many words to complete my writing I can spell my words correctly I can produce grammatical error-free writing I can compose my writing with a range of sentence structures C Self-Efficacy of Writing Self-Regulation I am confident that I can perform many writing tasks effectively I can control my frustration to keep writing when it is difficult 10 I can be aware of my strengths and weaknesses in writing 88 Scale 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 APPENDIX G-1: POST-QUESTIONNAIRE B (VIETNAMESE VERSION) Chào sinh viên, Bảng câu hỏi thiết kế để điều tra nhận thức đánh giá bạn khả hoàn thành viết bạn Khơng có câu trả lời hay sai, xin vui lịng đưa câu trả lời thực bạn cho mục Thông tin giữ bí mật câu trả lời bạn không ảnh hưởng đến kết học tập bạn Cảm ơn bạn dành thời gian để hồn thành khảo sát Cơ đánh giá cao thời gian nỗ lực bạn Xin chân thành cảm ơn, Hồ Thị Kim Oanh Mức độ tự tin vào lực viết thân (Sau thực nghiệm) Vui lịng khoanh trịn số thích hợp nhất, đó: Mức độ: 1= Hồn tồn khơng đồng ý; 2= Không đồng ý; 3= Không chắc; 4= Đồng ý; 5= Hoàn toàn đồng ý STT A Câu phát biểu Tự tin vào ý tưởng viết thân Tơi nghĩ nhiều ý tưởng cho viết Tơi xác định ý tưởng ý tưởng hỗ trợ cho viết Tơi xếp ý tưởng cách mạch lạc cho viết B Tự tin vào ngơn ngữ viết thân Tơi nghĩ nhiều từ để hồn thành viết Tơi viết từ vựng cách xác Tơi tạo văn khơng có lỗi ngữ pháp Tơi soạn viết với loạt cấu trúc câu Tơi tạo viết với đa dạng cấu trúc câu C Tự tin vào khả tự điều chỉnh viết thân Tơi thực nhiều nhiệm vụ viết cách hiệu Tôi kiểm sốt thiếu tự tin, mệt mỏi để tiếp tục viết gặp viết khó Tơi nhận thức điểm mạnh điểm yếu việc 10 viết tiếng Anh 89 Mức độ 5 5 5 5 5 APPENDIX H: THE WRITING TEST RESULTS Cont Org Voc Gram Total Coded Cont Org Voc Gram Total 5 5.5 5.5 3 3.0 2 4 3.0 3 3.5 4.0 3 2.5 4 3.5 4 3.5 5 4.0 6.0 6 6.0 3.5 3.5 5 6 4 4.0 5.0 7.0 8 7.5 7 6 6.5 10 7.0 2 2.5 11 4 3.0 6.0 12 7.0 4 4.0 13 5 4.0 5.5 14 5.0 5.0 15 5.5 5 5 5.0 16 5 5 5.0 7 7.0 17 8 7.5 5 5.5 18 6.0 6.0 19 6 6.0 4.0 20 4.5 6 5.5 21 6.0 3.0 22 3.5 5.0 23 6 5.5 5 4 3.0 24 3 3.5 5.5 25 6.0 5.0 26 6 5.5 5 4.5 27 5 5.0 5.5 28 5 6.0 4 6 3 5 5 6 6 4 4 4 4 6 3 6.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.5 5.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 5 5 5 7 7 7 6 6 3 4 6 4 6.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 6.0 3.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.5 4.5 90 Post-test Pre-test