INTRODUCTION
Background of the study
Learning a second language is a gradual journey where making mistakes is a natural part of the process Both instructors and students must recognize that errors play a crucial role in language acquisition, as highlighted by Davies and Pearse.
Errors serve as valuable indicators of learners' comprehension challenges and misunderstandings, highlighting areas that need more focus According to Lavery (2001), these mistakes reflect the progress in language acquisition, demonstrating where additional effort is required for improvement.
In second language acquisition, error correction has garnered significant attention from researchers, highlighting its importance in the learning process Educators are anticipated to possess a deep understanding of the target language and maintain a strict zero-tolerance approach towards errors However, this aspect of teaching is often viewed as one of the most challenging and time-intensive responsibilities for instructors (Ferris, 2002).
As a consequence, language teachers and researchers have taken a keen interest in learners' errors and feedback on those errors (Diab, 2005; Wang, 2010; Katayama, 2007)
Numerous studies emphasize the critical role of feedback in enhancing students' writing skills (Lee, 2005; Noora, 2006), yet they often neglect the attitudes of both learners and teachers towards error correction (Katayama, 2007) Research on language attitudes underscores their importance in the learning process, affecting language retention and loss Gardner (1985) found that positive language attitudes significantly reduce the likelihood of language loss, suggesting that learners with favorable views towards a second language are more likely to maintain their proficiency.
Providing written feedback is essential for students learning a second language, yet challenges remain in identifying the most effective methods to enhance writing skills tailored to individual learner needs Various feedback techniques are employed in language instruction, such as instructor corrections with comments, error identification, commentary, teacher-student conferences, peer correction, and self-correction.
Peer feedback has been a topic of discussion in first-language education, highlighting its significance in enhancing writing skills (George, 1984; Jacobs, 1987; McKendy, 1990; Herrington and Cadman, 1991) Witbeck (1976) identified key benefits of peer feedback, outlining four effective correction techniques He concluded that such feedback fosters a heightened awareness of accuracy in students' written expression and creates a more supportive classroom atmosphere for teaching composition corrections.
This study, titled "Exploring English-Major Students' Perspectives on the Advantages of Peer Feedback in Writing 3 Module: A Case Study of the Banking Academy of Vietnam," is motivated by various compelling arguments.
Objective of the study
This study aims to explore how students at the Banking Academy's Faculty of Foreign Languages perceive the advantages of peer feedback in academic writing classes It will provide suggestions to improve the effectiveness of peer feedback To achieve this, current ATC students from various years will assess the value of different aspects of peer feedback activities Additionally, the study seeks to assist teachers and students in determining whether peer feedback can enhance the quality of teaching and learning experiences.
Research questions
This study aims to investigate the perspectives of students on the advantages of
3 peer feedback in academic writing The research question is, “To what extent do students perceive the benefits of peer feedback activities in academic English writing?”
Significance of this study
This study is highly relevant to English writing instruction at the Banking Academy of Vietnam, as it aims to enhance teachers' understanding of students' attitudes towards peer feedback It is expected to support the development of peer feedback-based teaching and learning activities, guiding educators in deciding whether to incorporate these techniques into their writing instruction Additionally, this research will serve as a valuable resource for other researchers interested in exploring the positive perceptions of learners regarding peer feedback.
Scope and Limitations of the study
The study aimed to explore the perceptions of English-major students at the Banking Academy's Faculty of Foreign Languages regarding the advantages of peer feedback in academic writing courses To achieve this, a survey was administered to collect data on students' views about peer feedback activities.
The study acknowledges several limitations, including a limited participant pool of 141 students from the Banking Academy of Vietnam, which may restrict the generalizability of its findings to other contexts Additionally, the research focuses exclusively on the positive attitudes of English language learners towards peer feedback due to time constraints Despite these limitations, the findings aim to provide insights into the current state of academic writing skills and support key stakeholders in enhancing teaching and learning practices.
Structure of the study
The paper is separated into the five sections listed below:
Chapter 1: Introduction This chapter discusses the background information for the study, including the rationale for choosing the topic, the study's goals, significance,
Chapter 2: Literature Review This chapter describes the theories that are compatible with academic writing, peer feedback, the benefits for students when giving and receiving peer feedback in an English writing class, and previous studies
Chapter 3: Research Methodology This chapter provides information about the research context, participants, and primary data collection method
Chapter 4: Results and Discussion This chapter includes descriptive data as well as a detailed discussion of the results
Chapter 5: Summary and Recommendation This chapter provides a summary of the study’s results and some recommendations for enhancing the quality of peer feedback in writing It also points out limitations and prospects for the future
Chapter 1 of the study emphasizes the critical role of errors and feedback in language learning, especially in writing skills It explores the attitudes of both learners and teachers towards error correction, while highlighting the advantages of peer feedback in academic writing classes The study aims to investigate students' perspectives on the benefits of peer feedback and offers suggestions to enhance its effectiveness Additionally, the chapter underscores the importance of the study for English writing instruction, acknowledges its limitations, and outlines the overall structure of the research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Academic writing
Writing is a crucial skill for language proficiency, especially in non-English-speaking countries where it is increasingly important in educational and professional contexts It serves as a tool for self-reflection, education, persuasion, and entertainment, facilitating the exchange of personal meanings Effective writing relies on four key pillars: language, substance, reader engagement, and purpose However, mastering this complex psychological skill requires careful thought, concentration, and focus Ultimately, writing has the potential to convey deeper truths that resonate with readers, emphasizing the importance of genuine acceptance of the written word.
Academic writing is a formal style of communication essential for success in English-medium higher education, characterized by its Latin roots (Gillett, 2011) Key features include fact-based arguments, precise word choice, logical organization, and an impersonal tone (Valdes, 2019) This type of writing maintains coherence by ensuring that each section contributes to the central argument without digressing or repeating points Additionally, it encompasses any formal written work produced within an academic context (Cream & Lea, 2003; Borg, 2008).
Students have endeavored to maintain clarity in their writing by using simple and direct language, ensuring that only essential information is included to support the main content.
2.1.2 Importance of academic writing skills for English-major students
Mastering academic writing in English is crucial for English majors, as it significantly impacts their academic and professional achievements In our increasingly globalized society, English serves as the predominant language in both academia and business, highlighting the importance of robust English writing skills for students to communicate their ideas effectively.
Academic writing in English is essential for academic success and is a prerequisite for foreign language certificate examinations that lead to college and university degrees (Nguyen, 2015) Unlike journalistic or creative writing, it demands a specific tone, technique, and style, which helps students develop critical thinking and articulate complex ideas clearly and concisely (Altiwal, 2012) By enhancing their academic writing skills, students gain confidence in expressing their thoughts, opening doors to future professional opportunities and active community engagement (Mohamed, 2014) Ultimately, strong academic writing fosters personal and professional growth, enabling individuals to thrive in their careers and lives after graduation (Leibowitz, 2000) Therefore, the significance of academic writing in English should not be underestimated.
2.1.3 Challenges faced by English-major students in academic writing
According to Cam (2017), various emotional, linguistic, and cognitive factors may impact students' writing skills
In terms of affective factors, students frequently struggle with elevated levels of anxiety, attitude, motivation, and self-efficacy when it comes to the emotive components
Language learning can present significant challenges, leading students to feel inadequate in their ability to master the target language, particularly when faced with English writing assignments (Ariyanti, 2016) Many students, especially in Vietnam, find writing to be a daunting and unfulfilling task, often lacking enthusiasm and interest (Tran, 2007) Furthermore, students tasked with written assignments frequently experience feelings of apprehension, confusion, and being overwhelmed (Boonyarattanasoontorn, 2017).
Second-language writers often face linguistic challenges, including grammar mistakes and limited vocabulary (Cam, 2017) The complexity of grammar rules can hinder their writing competence (Mutimani, 2016) Suwagard's (2014) research identified various grammatical errors in student writing, such as subject-verb agreement issues, orthographic mistakes, imprecise word choices, incorrect verb tenses, and problems with sentence structure These errors represent common pitfalls in writing Additionally, vocabulary selection poses a significant obstacle to writing proficiency, as students may have access to a rich lexicon in their native language but often rely on a limited vocabulary in their second language (Alfaki, 2015; Alfaqiri, 2018).
Students often struggle with generating ideas and translating language during writing tasks, primarily due to inadequate cognitive skills in reading and interpreting texts, as noted by Mutimani (2016) and supported by Lea (1994, 1998) and Gambell (1987) This cognitive deficit leads to written work that lacks innovative concepts and well-reasoned arguments Additionally, language transfer plays a crucial role in writing errors, as highlighted by Johanne (2002) Alfaqiri (2018) emphasizes that students frequently attempt to translate their thoughts directly from their native language to English, which can hinder their writing quality due to linguistic differences.
8 linguistic and cultural backgrounds, these direct translations could contain grammatical errors and convey the incorrect meaning in a foreign language
EFL students in higher education face significant challenges in academic writing, primarily stemming from affective factors like high anxiety and low motivation in language learning Additionally, issues related to linguistic competence, including grammar and vocabulary, further complicate their writing Cognitive factors, such as the ability to develop ideas and the process of language transfer, also contribute to these difficulties.
Peer feedback in English writing
Peer feedback, as defined by the Swedish National Agency for Education (2021), involves students interacting to offer and receive constructive comments, suggestions, and corrections regarding each other's performance This process typically occurs in pairs or small groups and can be delivered either verbally or in writing (Liu & Hansen, 2002) The primary aim of peer feedback is to encourage students to engage in meaningful criticism to enhance their own performance Additionally, peer review is often used interchangeably with peer feedback (Berggren).
2015), and ‘peer assessment’ (Birjandi & Tamjid, 2012; Black & Wiliam, 2009; Mok, 2011; Panadero & Brown, 2017; Zhao, 2018)
Peer feedback is a versatile process where learners engage with one another in pairs or groups, providing and receiving comments and recommendations This feedback can be delivered anonymously, whether individually or collectively, with minimal to no involvement from the teacher during these exercises (Philp, Adams & Iwashita, 2014).
Birjandi & Tamjid (2012); Black & Wiliam (2009); Mok (2011); Panadero & Brown (2017); Zhao (2018) refer peer feedback as peer assessement beacause it is frequently associated with grades Meanwhile, peer evaluation does not always involve
9 grades Peer evaluation is a continuous process that requires students to acquire details about a peer's work in order to provide more feedback on what might be improved (Hirsh,
In order to effectively evaluate a piece of work, it is crucial to collect relevant information, making the assessment process vital for delivering constructive feedback Although assessment plays a key role in providing this feedback, it is often independent of grading.
2.2.2 Peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing courses
The student's writing process, which was divided into six distinct stages and formed by Flower and Hayes (1981), White and Arndt (1991), and Kim (2005)'s framework, includes giving and receiving peer feedback
Figure 2.1 Writing process when applying peer feedback activities 1.Brainstorming
Students are instructed to generate ideas, and create an outline
Students write the first draft of the writing
Students participate in a peer activity in which they use rubrics or checklists to evaluate the work of their peers
If students disagree with the responses of their classmates, they can immediately request clarification of the errors
Students self-evaluate their performance to monitor their own progress
Students are instructed to rewrite another draft, considering the peer feedback given
Students may return to earlier stages after the revision stage in order to revise, uncover more detailed information, and finish their assignments perfectly before submission
Research indicates that structured peer feedback writing activities utilize various tools to enhance student feedback Notable studies by Berggren (2015), Birjandi & Tamjid (2012), and Wang (2013) demonstrate the effectiveness of assessment tools like checklists, evaluation schemes, and instructional rubrics These resources guide students in providing constructive feedback on their peers' writing, focusing on key aspects such as organization, topic development, vocabulary usage, grammar, and mechanics.
2.2.3 The benefits of peer feedback activities in English writing
Liu and Hansen (2002) assert that engaging in peer feedback activities significantly enhances second language (L2) learners' development across various domains, including cognitive, emotional, sociocultural, and linguistic skills This section reviews and examines research focused on writing in English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL).
Cognitive and meta-cognitive domains
According to Topping (2009), peer assessment offers cognitive and metacognitive benefits, supported by various research studies Engaging in peer feedback activities enhances writing skills, cognitive abilities, self-directed writing, and audience awareness Empirical evidence consistently shows that peer review positively impacts students' writing proficiency For example, Diab (2011) compared the writing skills of two groups in an English writing course at a Lebanese university—one receiving peer feedback and the other self-feedback The findings revealed that the peer feedback group significantly outperformed the self-feedback group in writing proficiency.
Peer review significantly enhances writing quality among students, as evidenced by Kamimura's (2006) study on Japanese university students, which found benefits for both high- and low-proficiency English learners Similarly, Ge (2011) demonstrated that Chinese adult e-learners achieved satisfactory writing outcomes through online peer review, regardless of their skill levels Engaging in peer feedback exercises fosters higher-order cognitive skills, such as critical thinking and problem-solving, as students analyze gaps, clarify purposes, and address differing viewpoints (Vygotsky, 1986; Demiraslan Çevik, 2015) This process encourages active and reflective participation, leading to the development of these essential skills Sirikarn (2019b) noted that students participating in peer evaluations improved their critical thinking abilities through interactive feedback Additionally, peer review promotes writer autonomy, as writers critically assess reviewer suggestions, enhancing their understanding of writing goals and the selection of relevant evidence (Biggs & Tang).
2007) For instance, Yang et al (2006) found that peer feedback groups had a significant tendency towards learner autonomy, which is consistent with Mendonca and Johnson
In their studies, Villamil and De Guerrero (1996) and Berg (1999) highlight the importance of critical evaluation in peer review processes Rather than simply accepting feedback, students actively assessed and incorporated valuable suggestions into their revisions This approach not only improves the quality of their work but also enhances their cognitive skills, showcasing the benefits of engaging in peer review tasks.
Research indicates that fostering students' meta-cognitive competence can significantly enhance their writing skills by increasing their awareness of the intended audience (Zhao, 2014) By assessing peer papers, students can identify both strengths and weaknesses in their colleagues' work, which helps them better understand the criteria for quality writing in their field (Hounsell et al., 2008) Consequently, this practice encourages students to critically evaluate their own writing, consider the reader's perspective, and minimize informational gaps or inaccuracies in their future work.
Numerous studies in ESL/EFL writing instruction highlight the positive impact of peer feedback on student confidence, comfort, and motivation in writing Research by Tang and Tithecott (1999) involving 12 ESL students revealed that participants, regardless of their proficiency level, experienced increased confidence and benefits from peer review sessions Additionally, findings from Ge (2011) and Tsui & Ng (2000) further support the notion that peer review sessions play a crucial role in fostering students' writing confidence.
Hirose (2008) found that incorporating weekly peer feedback into a writing course significantly enhanced students' confidence in their written English, with many reporting improved skills over three months Sirikarn (2019b) noted that students felt less stressed about writing and enjoyed peer interactions during feedback activities Additionally, Khalil (2018) revealed that over half of the students felt peer feedback facilitated their studying and made them more comfortable sharing their ideas, with 58.33% stating that peer feedback motivated them to write more.
Peer feedback in the social-cultural domain significantly enhances the learning environment for writing Research by Zhao (2014) highlights that teacher-supported peer review in EFL writing classes provides essential social support Peers often share similar educational backgrounds and life experiences, which helps bridge knowledge gaps and fosters better understanding of social issues Additionally, the comparable social statuses of peers create a relaxed atmosphere during discussions, encouraging more interactive and in-depth exchanges This process is marked by a sympathetic perspective and a friendly tone, promoting greater interaction and engagement among students in their writing endeavors (Min, 2008; Jacobs et al., 1998; Villamil).
Peer feedback enhances the learning environment by fostering a sense of community and encouraging diverse perspectives This practice not only improves individual learning experiences but also contributes positively to societal development by broadening the perception of audiences.
In classrooms with a higher student-to-instructor ratio, learners benefit from diverse feedback provided by peers from various cultural backgrounds This feedback is typically more immediate, tailored, and conducive to engaging discussions.
2005) than feedback provided by teachers, thereby affording students a broader spectrum of viewpoints regarding the subject matter A discussion like this enables students to
Considering the audience and adopting the reviewer's perspective are crucial in writing (Vorobel & Kim, 2014, p 716) Peer feedback enhances various social and communication skills, such as negotiation, diplomacy, verbal communication, and the ability to give and receive criticism while objectively assessing suggestions (Topping et al., 2000, p 151) A study by Mendonça and Johnson (1994) examined the peer review process among 12 ESL students in a writing course, focusing on how these students negotiated the feedback they received from their peers.
Previous research
Kristian (2022) conducted a qualitative study to explore master's students' views on peer feedback in academic writing within English education Utilizing a mixed-method approach, the research aimed to provide clearer insights based on the participants' feedback and explanations.
In a study involving 14 Master's students in English Education at Sanata Dharma University in 2019, participants completed a questionnaire featuring 10 Likert-scale items and five open-ended narrative inquiries The results indicated that most students viewed frequent peer feedback as a highly effective strategy for enhancing their academic writing skills, fostering their development as proficient writers and critical thinkers Eleven respondents noted significant improvements in their ability to provide constructive feedback on their peers' work, attributed to consistent instructor guidance Additionally, six participants emphasized the importance of reliable and accurate peer feedback, which significantly boosted their motivation for academic learning.
A study by Uymaz (2019) investigated the effects of peer feedback on EFL students' essay writing performance at a Turkish state university Over an eight-week course, eight students received peer feedback on four essay assignments, which included multiple drafts Utilizing Conrad and Goldstein's (1999) taxonomy, the study analyzed the revisions made in the second drafts and compared pre- and post-test scores using a paired samples t-test in SPSS Results indicated that students effectively addressed 69% of peer feedback points, with post-test scores showing significant improvement over pre-test scores These findings highlight the potential of peer feedback to enhance revision skills and overall writing performance in EFL learners.
Khalil (2018) investigated the impact of peer feedback on the writing performance of Turkish pre-intermediate EFL students in an engineering credit course The study involved twelve native Turkish speakers, including three females and nine males, who attended a weekly three-hour Basic English class Writing assessments, including pre- and post-tests, were conducted to measure improvements following peer feedback activities The research also utilized questionnaires and semi-structured interviews to gather insights into participants' views on peer feedback Results indicated a significant enhancement in students' writing proficiency, leading to a positive attitude towards peer feedback in EFL settings Approximately 58% of students found peer review highly beneficial, while 33% were hesitant Notably, around 50% to 58% of participants felt they gained the most from both giving and receiving feedback, and over half reported that peer feedback created a supportive environment conducive to idea exchange and social interaction in learning.
A study by Minh (2016) at the University of Science Ho Chi Minh City investigated pre-intermediate learners' attitudes towards peer correction in English writing, involving 40 sophomores from the Faculty of Information Technology over a twelve-week semester Utilizing a quasi-experimental method and an adapted questionnaire from Burnett and Cavaye (1980), the results indicated that most learners held positive views on peer correction The participants expressed contentment and relaxation during peer correction activities, with over half advocating for its increased use in writing sessions, demonstrating enthusiasm for reading and editing tasks.
A study by Al-Jamal (2009) investigated the impact of peer evaluation on writing proficiency and attitudes towards writing among 55 ninth-grade students in Jordan Divided into two groups, the students engaged in six weeks of training where they wrote various types of essays and practiced peer feedback The research utilized multiple data collection methods, including writing tests, peer response sheets, questionnaires, and teacher observations Results indicated that both groups experienced improvements in writing skills and developed more positive perspectives towards writing due to the peer feedback training.
This article examines the impact of peer feedback on English writing and explores students' perceptions of peer feedback activities Researchers employed a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods, including pre- and post-tests, questionnaires, and semi-structured interviews, with participants ranging from middle school to master's degree students However, limitations include small sample sizes (under 100), a predominance of non-English majors, and a lack of studies focusing on English-major undergraduates in Vietnam This study aims to address these gaps and offers pedagogical recommendations for instructors in the BA Faculty of Foreign Languages, focusing on the perceptions of English-major students regarding peer feedback in an English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) academic writing course.
Conceptual Framework
Figure 2.2 Benefits of Peer Feedback (adapted from the study of Liu and Hansen ( 2002) )
Benefits of peer feedback activities in English writing
- improve high-order cognitive abilities
- increase a sense of wider audience
- increase social and communication skills
- Content: ideas, cohesion, cohesive devices
- Grammar: structures, verb tenses, verb forms
- Vocabulary: word choice, word form, spelling
Chapter 2 reviews the research issue surrounding peer feedback (PF) in English writing, highlighting its significance for English-major students in academic and professional settings It identifies the challenges students face in academic writing, including affective factors like anxiety and motivation, linguistic issues such as grammar and vocabulary, and cognitive hurdles like idea generation and language transfer The chapter defines peer feedback, emphasizing its role in providing constructive criticism and fostering improvement It discusses the cognitive and metacognitive benefits of peer feedback activities, which enhance critical thinking, promote writer autonomy, and increase audience awareness Additionally, it addresses the affective advantages, including boosted confidence, reduced stress, and heightened motivation, along with the socio-cultural benefits that create a supportive learning environment and encourage peer social support.
METHODOLOGY
Research design
In the second semester of the 2022-2023 academic year, a quantitative study was conducted at the Banking Academy's Faculty of Foreign Languages, targeting students who completed Writing 3 The study aimed to explore students' perceptions of the benefits of peer feedback in academic English writing.
Participants
This study focuses on students who completed Writing 3 at the Banking Academy's Faculty of Foreign Languages by the end of the second semester of the 2022-2023 academic year, representing the target population for this research.
Academic year The number of students
Table 3.1 Number of students by academic year
Research instrument
According to Nunan (1992), a questionnaire is a data collection tool that consists of open and closed questions requiring responses from subjects Richards et al (1994) emphasized that questionnaires effectively gather information on the affective dimensions of teaching and learning, including beliefs, attitudes, motivation, and preferences, enabling teachers to collect substantial data efficiently Given their effectiveness, adaptability, and ease of use, the author has selected questionnaires as the primary research method.
Following the development of the survey questionnaire, the author will distribute it to participants online This method is highly efficient for researchers, as it allows for the easy dissemination of the questionnaire to a large audience, facilitated by advancements in technology and social media Consequently, researchers can collect a greater volume of survey data more rapidly and cost-effectively compared to traditional methods.
This study utilized an online survey created with Google Forms, which was shared via Facebook Messenger with students who completed Writing 3 Participants took approximately 3 to 5 minutes to complete the survey, and data was collected from volunteers within a week All responses were kept confidential and used solely for research purposes.
Recent research has adapted the questionnaires from previous studies by Sirikarn (2019), Khalid (2018), Harutyunyan & Poveda (2018), and Hirose (2008) to better fit the context of the Banking Academy The revised questionnaire is structured into five key sections.
The initial part of the survey consists of two demographic questions regarding the student's gender and school year This is followed by three additional questions that inquire whether the student completed Writing 3, utilized peer feedback activities in that course, and the frequency with which they engaged in peer feedback activities.
The article's second section evaluates students' perceptions of the benefits of PF for their linguistic abilities in academic English writing through nine statements Section three explores the emotional benefits of PF in academic English writing, featuring three questions The fourth section assesses critical thinking skills with five questions about PF's advantages in academic writing Lastly, the fifth section includes six questions focusing on PF's impact on social interaction skills in academic English writing All items across these sections were rated on a scale from 1 to 5, ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.
Data collection procedure
Before distributing the questionnaire to all English major students who completed Writing 3, a pilot test was conducted to identify potential issues or concerns that could arise among survey respondents.
In the pilot phase, ten final-year English-major students participated in a questionnaire regarding peer feedback activities in Writing 3 They were instructed to provide thorough and accurate responses to ensure objective feedback The researcher received various comments, including suggestions to abbreviate lengthy questions and remove those deemed irrelevant to the research problem Consequently, adjustments were made by shortening the lengthy items, eliminating irrelevant questions, and incorporating more relevant ones.
Following the completion of the pilot phase, the survey was distributed to the target participants The online questionnaire, created using Google Forms, was specifically sent to English major students who had successfully finished Writing 3.
After one week, a total of 152 responses were collected, with 11 responses excluded due to students not having completed Writing 3 or participated in feedback activities This left 141 valid responses for further analysis The refined data was then evaluated for reliability and descriptive statistics using SPSS version 25.
Data processing method
SPSS ( Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) was used to enter and thoroughly analyze the quantitative data from the survey Two main steps make up the data analysis process
Researchers developed a 23-item questionnaire to explore students' views on the benefits of peer feedback activities in Writing 3 The survey focuses on students' perceptions of how peer feedback enhances their linguistic abilities, emotional well-being, cognitive skills, and social interaction in academic English writing.
Figure 2: Benefits of Peer Feedback
Benefits of peer feedback activities in English writing
- improve high-order cognitive abilities
- increase a sense of wider audience
- increase social and communication skills
- Content: ideas, cohesion, cohesive devices
- Grammar: structures, verb tenses, verb forms
- Vocabulary: word choice, word form, spelling
1 Convert the data into a spreadsheet in Excel
2 Delivery of the data in an Excel sheet
A Cronbach's alpha is calculated to measure internal consistency and the reliability coefficient
B To evaluate items, the mean and standard deviation were calculated for each item under evaluation
Chapter 3 of the research paper outlines the quantitative methodology employed to explore students' perceptions of peer feedback benefits in academic English writing The study targets 141 participants, including second-year, third-year, and final-year students who have completed Writing 3 An online questionnaire, adapted from prior research, served as the primary data collection tool, encompassing various facets of student perceptions Following a pilot phase, the questionnaire was distributed via Google Forms, yielding 141 valid responses Data analysis was conducted using SPSS, focusing on reliability measures and descriptive statistics.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Results
4.1.1 Background information on the participants
Table 4.1 reveals a significant gender disparity among participants, with males representing only 16.31% and females comprising 83.69% Additionally, the distribution of students across academic years shows that 2.12% are in their second year, 34.04% are in their third year, and a substantial 63.84% are in their final year.
Reliability is essential for ensuring that research results are consistent and trustworthy, with Cronbach's Alpha being a commonly used measure in academic publications Scholars emphasize the importance of consistent data when using evaluation instruments, indicating that valid measurement outputs allow for adequate judgment of study results According to Trizano Hermosillo and Alvarado (2016), Cronbach's Alpha is the most widely utilized technique for assessing reliability in applied research This coefficient ranges from 0 to 1, where values above 0.6 signify an adequate instrument and those above 0.8 indicate an outstanding one, while coefficients below 0.6 are generally regarded as unreliable The reliability diminishes as the coefficient approaches zero, as illustrated in Table 4.2 of the investigation, which presents the Cronbach's Alpha calculations for 23 items.
No of section Conbrach’s Alpha Number of Items
Table 4.2 Cronbach's Alpha computed summary statistics
The analysis in Table 4.2 indicates that the Cronbach's alpha for the 23 questionnaire items is 0.728, which falls within the recommended range of 0.65 to 0.80 for acceptable reliability (Goforth, 2015) According to Ursachi, Horodnic, and Zait (2015), an alpha coefficient between 0.6 and 0.7 is considered adequate, while coefficients of 0.8 or higher are deemed superior Therefore, the elements of the questionnaire demonstrate internal consistency.
The corrected item-total correlation illustrates the relationship between a specific variable and all other variables on the same scale A higher coefficient indicates stronger adjusted item-total correlations within a test, highlighting the importance of this metric in assessing test reliability.
According to Cristobal, Flavián, and Guinaldu (2007), the corrected item-total correlation values should exceed 0.30 In this study, the 23 question items exhibited corrected item-total correlations ranging from 0.302 to 0.490 (see Appendix 2).
To ensure a systematic and scientific evaluation of data, information gathered from research surveys will be standardized using a 5-point Likert scale, where responses range from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) The calculated value range for this scale is determined by the formula (max-min) / 5, resulting in a value of 0.8, derived from (5-1) / 5.
Table 4.3 The applied scale of measurement
Figure 4.3 demonstrates how to interpret the levels of agreements among surveyed respondents
4.1.3 Frequencies of PF activities in Writing 3
Frequencies of PF activities in Writing 3 % Count
Table 4.4: Frequencies of PF activities in Writing 3
According to the data presented in Table 4.4, a mere 7.80% of participants indicated that peer feedback activities are rarely utilized, while 43.26% noted they are sometimes implemented, and another 43.26% reported frequent usage Notably, only 5.68% of respondents stated that these activities are always employed.
Most participants indicated that peer feedback activities are a common practice in Writing 3, occurring either sometimes or often However, 7.80% of participants noted that these activities rarely take place, suggesting variability in their implementation across different classrooms or instructors.
4.1.4 Students' perceptions regarding PF's benefits for their linguistic abilities in Academic English writing
LD1 Peer feedback activities helped me reduce spelling and punctuation mistakes 3.79 0.764
LD2 Peer feedback activities helped me reduce grammar and structure mistakes 4.02 0.898
Peer feedback activities helped me use vocabulary more appropriately for the topic of my writing
LD4 Peer feedback activities helped me learn more new words 3.65 0.979 Agree
LD5 Peer feedback activities helped me learn more new structures 3.67 0.960 Agree
PF activities helped me improve my writing content to be more relevant to the topic
PF activities helped me improve the organization of my paper to meet the requirements of academic writing
LD8 Peer feedback activities helped me improve the cohesion of my writing 3.65 0.838 Agree
LD9 Peer feedback activities helped me revise ideas that could be more interesting 3.87 0.901
Table 4.5 Students' perceptions regarding PF's benefits for their linguistic abilities in academic English writing
According to the data presented in Table 4.5, students expressed a positive belief that participation in peer feedback (PF) activities enhances their language skills, with an overall mean score of 3.77 Notably, the item regarding peer feedback's effectiveness in reducing grammar and structure mistakes received the highest rating, achieving a mean score of 4.01 (SD = 0.898) Conversely, the items related to learning new vocabulary and improving writing cohesion received the lowest mean scores of 3.65 (SD = 0.979).
The study indicates that respondents perceive peer feedback (PF) activities as highly effective in enhancing their writing skills, with a mean score of 3.87 (SD = 0.901) reflecting their ability to revise ideas for greater interest Additionally, participants noted that PF activities significantly improved the relevance of their writing content (M = 3.85, SD = 0.894) and helped reduce spelling and punctuation errors (M = 3.79, SD = 0.764) Furthermore, students agreed that these activities allowed them to use vocabulary more appropriately (M = 3.74, SD = 0.859) and improve the overall organization of their papers to meet academic standards (M = 3.69, SD = 0.764).
= 0.911) and learn more new structures (M = 3.67, SD = 0.960)
4.1.5 Students' perceptions regarding PF's benefits for their emotions in academic English writing
Peer feedback activities helped me feel much more comfortable in writing class
AD2 Peer feedback activities helped me feel more motivated to write 3.39 0.898 Neutral
AD3 Peer feedback activities helped me feel more confident about writing 3.46 0.859 Agree
Table 4.6 Students' perceptions regarding PF's benefits for their emotions in academic English writing
The results indicated that participants had a favorable view of the effectiveness of peer feedback (PF) activities in improving their emotional experience during writing, with an average score of 3.50 for all items in the affective domain The highest-rated item, AD1, scored 3.65, suggesting that PF activities significantly increased students' comfort levels in writing class Additionally, students expressed that regular peer feedback practice boosted their writing confidence, reflected in a score of 3.46 However, they remained neutral regarding the impact of PF activities on their motivation to write, with a score of 3.39.
4.1.6 Students' perceptions regarding PF's benefits for their critical thinking skills in Academic English writing
PF activities helped me assess the strengths and weaknesses of my partner’s writing
PF activities helped me assess my strengths and weaknesses in my own writing
CD3 PF activities helped me give and receive constructive feedback 3.95 0.768 Agree
PF activities helped me identify the purpose and the audience that the task required 3.60 0.828
CD5 PF activities helped me approach the topic from different perspectives 4.04 0.918 Agree
Table 4.7 Students' perception regarding PF's benefits for their critical thinking skills in Academic English writing
Table 4.7 reveals that Section 3 achieved an average score of 3.96 in critical thinking development, indicating that students felt participation in PF activities enhanced their critical thinking skills Notably, item CD2, which stated that PF activities aided students in assessing their strengths and weaknesses in writing, received the highest score of 4.23 (SD = 0.873) Conversely, item CD4, which focused on helping students identify the purpose and audience required for tasks, garnered the lowest mean score.
The survey results indicate a strong consensus among respondents regarding the benefits of peer feedback (PF) activities in reevaluating their own work, with a mean score of 3.60 (SD = 0.828) Participants showed agreement on the role of PF activities in clarifying task goals and audience, although to a lesser extent Furthermore, a significant majority reported that engaging in feedback exchanges allowed them to view topics from diverse perspectives, reflected in a score of 4.04 (SD = 0.918) Additionally, most participants felt confident in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of their peers' writing, achieving a mean of 4.0 (SD = 1.031) Lastly, respondents acknowledged that PF activities facilitated the exchange of constructive feedback, with a mean score of 3.95 (SD = 0.768).
4.1.7 Students' perceptions regarding PF's benefits for their social interaction skills in academic English writing
SD1 Peer feedback activities helped me enhance my social interaction skills 4.14 1.033 Agree
Peer feedback activities helped me enhance my collaborative learning skills
Table 4.8 Students' perceptions regarding PF's benefits for their social interaction skills in academic English writing
Peer feedback helped me learn how to reasonably negotiate and compromise through voice and language in communication to maintain harmony in group work
Peer feedback activities helped me control my emotions well to run group work smoothly when there was an argument during interaction
Peer feedback activities helped me recognize the responsibility of my roles as both a feedback giver and a feedback receiver
Peer feedback activities helped me realize that accepting the differences in individuals’ English writing abilities was important in maintaining the group's work
Students expressed positive views on peer feedback for improving social skills, with an average score of 4.05 The highest-rated item, SD4 (M = 4.24), highlighted the role of peer feedback in managing emotions during group discussions Conversely, item SD5 received the lowest score (M = 3.77), indicating students' recognition of their responsibilities as feedback providers and receivers Most respondents agreed that peer feedback activities (SD6, M = 4.21) helped them appreciate the diversity in writing abilities Additionally, items SD1 and SD3 revealed that discussions through peer feedback enhanced social interaction skills (M = 4.14) and effective communication (M = 4.1) Finally, item SD2 showed that students believed peer feedback could improve their collaborative learning skills (M = 3.87).
In conclusion, students ranked the benefits of PF activities in enhancing social interaction skills as the highest, followed by critical thinking skills, linguistic abilities, and emotions.
Discussion
Data analysis revealed that students exhibited positive attitudes towards both giving and receiving peer feedback, as evidenced by their high ratings across four key domains: linguistic abilities, emotions, critical thinking skills, and social interaction skills.
According to the results, the majority of ATC participants at BAV agreed that they could enhance their language skills through participation in PF activities After the
In a PF session, students learn to identify and correct their errors, significantly reducing mistakes in spelling, punctuation, grammar, and structure Participants reported improvements in vocabulary choice, content relevance, cohesion, and overall organization of their writing These results align with the findings of Harutyunyan & Poveda (2018), which highlighted enhancements in writing mechanics and organization, as well as increased relevance of content to the assigned topics Students expressed that their ideas became more engaging and authentic through peer feedback activities, which also helped improve the coherence of their writing Additionally, ATC students at BAV expanded their vocabulary and learned new structures through these activities, corroborating Minh's (2016) research that indicated a substantial percentage of students at the University of Science Ho Chi Minh City gained new vocabulary and structures by reviewing peers' work.
A recent survey indicated that English-major students at the Banking Academy hold positive views on peer feedback (PF) activities for emotional improvement These activities notably enhanced students' confidence in their Writing 3 class, aligning with findings from Tang and Tithecott (1999) and Ge (2011), which highlighted the self-confidence gained through peer feedback Additionally, the results supported Tsui and Ngo's (2000) research, which emphasized that peer feedback not only encouraged student engagement but also fostered confidence and promoted autonomy in learning.
38 students feel more comfortable in the Writing 3 class This result was in line with Khalid
In a study conducted in 2018, over half of the students reported that peer feedback facilitated a more relaxed learning environment and encouraged the exchange of ideas This finding aligns with Sirikarn's 2019 research, which indicated that regular peer feedback activities reduced students' stress, anxiety, and embarrassment during their studies However, opinions were mixed regarding the motivational impact of peer feedback on writing, with some students expressing uncertainty This contrasts with Khalil's 2018 study, where more than half of the participants stated that receiving feedback from peers significantly motivated them to write.
Most ATC students expressed confidence in their critical thinking skills, believing they could effectively evaluate their peers' work and offer constructive feedback They also felt capable of reassessing their own papers after engaging in the feedback process.
Participating in peer feedback (PF) activities significantly enhances students' ability to identify task objectives and target audiences while examining topics from multiple perspectives Research by Harutyunyan & Poveda (2018) supports these findings, indicating that students engage in cognitively demanding tasks that deepen their subject knowledge through the evaluation of peers' work While students may initially struggle with recognizing their partners' writing challenges, they excel in providing and receiving constructive feedback Notably, one of the most positive outcomes is students' ability to identify their own mistakes after analyzing a peer's work Additionally, PF activities enable students to understand the audience and objectives of their tasks better, and collaborative discussions foster diverse approaches to writing, ultimately benefiting their language learning experience.
Every outcome of the researcher’s question items on social interaction abilities was supported by the study of Sirikarn ( 2019) Collaborative learning that involves peer
Peer interaction is essential for developing social skills and enhancing collaborative learning According to Sirikarn (2019), group work and feedback foster awareness of diverse writing proficiencies, promoting group cohesion Effective communication, including voice and language use, creates a relaxed atmosphere, while learning to negotiate and compromise helps manage emotions Responses from ATC students reveal that peer feedback enhances social interaction abilities and encourages responsibility in giving and receiving constructive feedback, highlighting the importance of active participation in the learning process.
Chapter 4 presents the results and discussion of a study utilizing SPSS for statistical analyses, beginning with an overview of participant demographics, including gender and year of study The reliability of the research constructs is confirmed with a Cronbach's Alpha coefficient of 0.728, indicating internal consistency of the questionnaire items The analysis reveals that most participants engage in peer feedback (PF) activities in academic English writing, perceiving these activities as beneficial for their linguistic abilities, emotional well-being, critical thinking, and social interaction skills The discussion delves into the implications of these findings, underscoring the significance and effectiveness of PF activities in enhancing students' writing experiences within an academic setting.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary of the results
This study aims to explore students' perceptions of the benefits of peer feedback activities in academic writing classes, focusing on four key areas: linguistics, emotions, critical thinking skills, and social interaction skills An online questionnaire was utilized to gather responses, providing insights into the research question The findings reveal significant advantages of peer feedback in enhancing students' writing abilities and fostering collaborative learning environments.
Participating in PF activities significantly improved students' writing skills, enhancing their mechanics, grammar, structure, content organization, formatting, cohesion, creativity, and overall language use.
Peer feedback activities significantly diminished negative emotions and bolstered students' confidence in their academic English writing skills Nevertheless, many students remain doubtful about the effectiveness of these activities in motivating them to write.
Participating in peer feedback (PF) activities enabled students to assess their partner's writing effectively, enhance their skills in giving and receiving constructive criticism, recognize the target audience for their tasks, and approach problems from various perspectives Students consistently reported that these PF activities played a crucial role in helping them re-evaluate their own work.
Peer feedback activities significantly enhanced students' social interaction skills by fostering effective communication and emotional management during group work These activities enabled students to compromise and negotiate effectively, particularly when conflicts arose, promoting harmony within the group Furthermore, peer feedback encouraged students to appreciate individual differences, leading to a more collaborative and understanding environment.
The differences in English writing abilities significantly contributed to the group's success Additionally, participation in PF activities heightened individuals' awareness of their responsibilities as both feedback recipients and providers Furthermore, these activities enhanced students' comprehension of collaborative learning.
In conclusion, students viewed peer feedback activities positively in the Writing
3 class Students evaluated the benefits of PF activities in enhancing social interaction skills as the highest, followed by critical thinking skills, linguistic ability, and emotions.
Pedagogical implications
Some suggestions are offered based on research findings to increase the effectiveness of peer feedback activities in educational settings.
To enhance students' linguistic abilities, teachers should implement clear objectives for peer feedback activities, focusing on specific areas like spelling, punctuation, organization, structure, content, ideas, and vocabulary choice Research indicates that students at BAV found peer feedback less effective for learning new vocabulary and improving writing cohesion Consequently, it's essential for teachers to follow up with activities that reinforce these skills, such as assigning writing tasks that incorporate the new vocabulary and cohesion learned during feedback sessions This approach not only helps students apply their knowledge but also deepens their understanding of vocabulary and writing cohesion.
To enhance the emotional domain in the classroom, teachers should foster a positive and supportive environment that encourages students to comfortably exchange feedback with their peers This can be accomplished by establishing clear behavioral expectations and promoting collaboration and active participation Additionally, following peer feedback activities, it is essential to reflect on the experiences to reinforce learning and emotional growth.
Teachers should create more opportunities for students to revise their work based on feedback, as this fosters confidence in their writing and showcases their growth The findings indicate that ATC students at BA have a neutral perspective on whether peer feedback activities motivate their writing Therefore, it is essential for teachers to promote both positive feedback and constructive criticism, as positive reinforcement can encourage students to persist in writing in English.
To enhance critical thinking in students, teachers should implement peer feedback rubrics that are clear and focused on specific improvement areas, enabling constructive and targeted feedback Modeling effective feedback during class discussions on student writing helps illustrate what constructive criticism entails Encouraging students to explore multiple viewpoints and facilitating discussions on diverse perspectives enriches their analytical skills Additionally, providing a variety of resources, such as articles and videos, showcases different angles on topics, further supporting critical analysis Students value peer feedback for recognizing their writing strengths and weaknesses, so teachers should create more opportunities for self-reflection on their writing and the feedback received from peers.
To enhance social interaction skills, teachers should implement activities that facilitate communication among students prior to peer feedback sessions Utilizing icebreakers and team-building exercises can foster a sense of familiarity and comfort, encouraging students to share their ideas and opinions more openly This approach not only promotes positive social interactions but also creates a supportive classroom environment.
To enhance collaborative learning, teachers should demonstrate effective communication and collaboration skills while offering students ample opportunities to practice these skills in class This approach fosters positive peer interactions, effective negotiation, and emotional management during group activities Research indicates that students often undervalue the importance of peer evaluation in recognizing their responsibilities as both feedback givers and receivers Therefore, it's essential for teachers to establish clear expectations and guidelines for peer feedback activities, emphasizing respectful and constructive feedback This clarity helps students comprehend their roles and responsibilities within the feedback process.
Proposals for the future research
While this study provides valuable insights, it has notable limitations Firstly, it lacked research tools such as interviews or mini-tests, suggesting that future research should incorporate writing assessments to evaluate students' progress before and after peer feedback treatment, followed by comprehensive interviews Secondly, the sample was limited to students from the Banking Academy's Faculty of Foreign Languages, which restricts the generalizability of the findings; thus, subsequent studies should involve a larger sample size to enhance reliability Thirdly, this research focused solely on students' perceptions of peer feedback benefits in academic writing, indicating a need for further investigation into the perspectives of both students and teachers regarding the advantages and challenges of peer feedback Such studies will deepen the understanding of peer feedback, ultimately improving English teaching and learning at the Banking Academy.
A recent study at the Banking Academy explored students' perceptions of peer feedback activities in academic English writing, revealing that such activities significantly enhance writing skills, reduce negative emotions, and boost confidence Additionally, students reported improvements in critical thinking and social interaction skills To maximize the effectiveness of peer feedback, the study recommends establishing clear objectives, fostering a positive classroom environment, utilizing rubrics, demonstrating effective feedback techniques, and encouraging communication and collaboration among students The research also suggests future studies to address existing limitations and deepen the understanding of peer feedback's impact, ultimately underscoring its beneficial role in English teaching and learning at the Banking Academy.
Alfaki, I M (2015) University Students’ English Writing Problems: Diagnosis And
Remedy International Journal of English Language Teaching, 3(3), 40-52
Retrieved from https://www.eajournals.org/
Alfaqiri, M (2018) English Second Language Writing Difficulties and Challenges
Among Saudi Arabian Language Learners Journal for the Study of English
Al-Jamal, D (2009) The Impact of Peer Response in Enhancing Ninth Grader'sWriting
Skill Journal of Educational & Psychological Sciences, 1(1), 13-40 Retrieved from https://s.net.vn/cN4w
Altiwal, A (2012) The importance of academic writing skills Retrieved from http://alialtiwal.blogspot.com/
Ariyanti, A (2016) The Teaching of EFL Writing in Indonesia Dinamika Ilmu, 16(2),
Berg, E (1999) The effects of trained peer response on ESL students' revision types and writing quality Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215-241 doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80115-5
Berggren, J (2015) Learning from giving feedback: A study of secondary-level students
ELT Journal, 69(1), 58-70 doi:10.1093/elt/ccu036
Birjandi, P., & Tamjid, N H (2012) The role of peer and teacher assessment in promoting Iranian EFL learners’ writing performance Assessment & Evaluation in
Black, P., & Wiliam, D (2009) Developing the theory of formative assessment
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5-31
Boonyarattanasoontorn, P (2017) An investigation of Thai students’ English language writing difficulties and their use of writing strategies Journal of Advanced
Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, 2(2), 111-118 doi:10.26500/JARSSH-02-2017-0205
Borg, E (2008) Understanding the nature, possibilities, and challenges of academic writing London: Staff and Educational Development Association
Cam, L T., & Yen, P H (2017) A Phenomenological study of challenges encountered by mountainous high school students in Vietnam Can Tho University Journal of
Science, 6, 1-8 doi:10.22144/ctu.jen.2017.020 Çevik, Y D (2015) Assessor or assessee? Investigating the differential effects of online peer assessment roles in the development of students’ problem-solving skills
Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 250-258 doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.056
Conrad, S M., & Goldstein, L M (1999) ESL student revision after teacher-written comments: Text, contexts, and individuals Journal of Second Language Writing,
Creme, P., & Lea, M (2003) Writing at University: A Guide for Students Buckingham:
Davies, P., & Pearse, D (2002) Success in English teaching Shanghai: Shanghai
Diab, N M (2011) Assessing the relationship between different types of student feedback and the quality of revised writing Assessing Writing, 16(4) doi:10.1016/j.asw.2011.08.001
Diab, R (2005) EFL university students' preferences for error correction and teacher feedback on writing TESL Reporter, 38, 27-51 Retrieved from https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/TESL/article/viewFile/3809/3555
Edwards, J G., & Liu, J (2002) Peer Response in Second Language Writing
Classrooms Ann Arbor:: University of Michigan Press
Ferris, D R (2003) Response To Student Writing: Implications for Second Language
Students New York: Routledge doi:10.4324/9781410607201
Flower, L., & Hayes, J R (1981) A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing College
Gardner, R C., & Lambert, W E (1972) Attitudes and motivation in second language learning Rowley, Mass: Newburry House
Ge, Z (2011) Exploring e-learners’ perceptions of net-based peer-reviewed English writing International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 75-91 doi:10.1007/s11412-010-9103-7
Gillett, A (2011) What is EAP? Retrieved from http://www.uefap.com
Graham, S (2012) Changing How Writing Is Taught Review of Research in Education,
Grami, M A (2010) The effects of integrating peer feedback into university-level ESL writing curriculum :a comparative study in a Saudi context Newcastle University doi:http://hdl.handle.net/10443/933
Harutyunyan, L., & Poveda, M F (2018) Students’ Perception of Peer Review in an
EFL Classroom English Language Teaching, 11(4), 138-151 doi:10.5539/elt.v11n4p138
Hirose, K (2008) Cooperative Learning in English Writing Instruction through Peer
Feedback Retrieved from https://studylib.net/doc/7703923/cooperative-learning- in-english-writing-instruction-throu%E2%80%A6
Hirsh, Å (2017) Bedửmning i skolan – vad och varfửr? Stockholm: Skolverket
Hounsell, D., McCune, V., Hounsell, J., & Litjens, J (2008) The quality of guidance and feedback to students Higher Education Research & Development, 27(1), 55-67 doi:10.1080/07294360701658765
Huy, N T (2015) Problems affecting learning writing skill of grade 11 at Thong Linh high school Asian Journal of Education Research, 3(2), 53-69
Hyland, K (2003) Second Language Writing New York: Cambridge University Press
Jacobs, G M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S.-Y (1998) Feedback on student writing: Taking the middle path Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 307-
Kamimura, T (2006) Effects of Peer Feedback on EFL Student Writers at Different
Levels of English Proficiency: A Japanese Context TESL Canada Journal, 23(2),
Katayama, A (2007) Japanese EFL Students' Preferences toward Correction of
Classroom Oral Errors Retrieved from https://www.asian-efl-journal.com/main- editions-new/japanese-efl-students-preferences-toward-correction-of-classroom- oral-errors/index.htm
Khalil, E (2018) The Efficacy of Peer Feedback in Turkish EFL Students’ Writing
Performance Journal of Literature and Art Studies, 8(6), 920-931 doi:10.17265/2159-5836/2018.06.011
Kim, M (2005) Effects of the Assessor and Assessee's Roles on Preservice Teachers'
Metacognitive Awareness, Performance, and Attitude in a Technology-Related Design Task Retrieved from http://purl.flvc.org/fsu/fd/FSU_migr_etd-3051
Kristian, F W (2022) English Education Master Students' Perceptions on Peer Feedback in Academic Writing Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 117-137 doi:10.18196/ftl.v7i1.12751
Lavery, C (2001) Language assistant British Council ELT Retrieved from British
Council ELT: http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/
Lee, I (2005) Error correction in the L2 writing classroom: what do students think?
TESL Canada Journal, 22(2), 1-16 doi:10.18806/tesl.v22i2.84
Leibowitz, B (2000) The importance of writing and teaching writing in the academy
Leki, I (2001) Material, Educational, And Ideological Challenges Of Teaching Efl
Writing At The Turn Of The Century International Journal of English Studies,
1(2), 197–209 Retrieved from https://revistas.um.es/ijes/article/view/48301
Liu, J., & Hansen, J E (2002) Peer Response in Second Language Writing Classrooms
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press
Liu, J., & Sadler, R W (2003) University of Michigan Press Journal of English for
Mendonỗa, C O., & Johnson, K E (1994) Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 745-769 doi:10.2307/3587558
Min, H.-T (2008) Reviewer stances and writer perceptions in EFL peer review training
English for Specific Purposes, 27(3), 285-305 doi:10.1016/j.esp.2008.02.002
Minh, P P (2016) An Investigation Into Pre-Intermediate Learners’ Attitudes Towards
Peer Correction In English Writing At University Of Science Ho Chi Minh City Retrieved from https://s.net.vn/2Qax
Mohamed, Y (2014) Routes to Writing in Southern Africa Cape Town, South Africa:
Mok, J (2011) A case study of students’ perceptions of peer assessment in Hong Kong
ELT Journal , 65(3), 230-239 doi:10.1093/elt/ccq062
Mutimani, M M (2016) Academic writing in English: Challenges experienced by
Bachelor of Education primary level students at the University of Namibia,
Katima Mulilo campus Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11070/1666
Nguyen, H (2015) Problems affecting learning writing skill of grade 11 at Thong Linh high school Asian Journal of Education Research, 53-69
Noora, A (2006) Iranian Non-English Majors' Language Learning Preferences: The
Role Of Language Institutes GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies
Retrieved from http://journalarticle.ukm.my/2271/1/page1_21.pdf
Panadero, E., & Brown, G T (2017) Teachers’ reasons for using peer assessment: positive experience predicts use European Journal of Psychology of Education,
Paulus, T M (1999) The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265-289 doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80117-9
Philp, J (2014) Peer interaction and second language learning (S Ballinger, & M
Sato, Eds.) New York: Routledge
Pineteh, E A (2014) The Academic Writing Challenges of Undergraduate Students: A
South African Case Study International Journal of Higher Education, 3(1), 12-
Rollinson, P (2005) Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class ELT Journal, 59(1),
Sirikarn, K (2019) Promoting Peer Feedback in Developing Students’ English Writing
Ability in L2 Writing Class International Education Studies, 12(9), 76-90 doi:10.5539/ies.v12n9p76
Sirikarn, K (2019) Students’ attitudes toward peer feedback: Paving a way for students’
English writing English Language Teaching, 12(7), 107-119 doi:10.5539/elt.v12n7p107
Tang, G M., & Tithecott, J (1999) Peer Response in ESL Writing TESL Canada
Topping, K J (2009) Peer Assessment Theory into Practice, 48(1), 20-27 doi:10.1080/00405840802577569
Tran, L T (2007) Learners’ motivation and identity in the Vietnamese EFL writing classroom English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 6(1), 151-163 Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ832183
Tsui, A B., & Ng, M (2000) Do Secondary L2 Writers Benefit from Peer Comments?
Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170 doi:10.1016/S1060-
Uymaz, E (2019) The effects of peer feedback on the essay writing performances of
EFL students International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 11(2), 20-37 Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1232777.pdf
Valdes, O (2019) An Introduction to Academic Writing Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-academic-writing-1689052
Villamil, O S., & Guerrero, M C (1996) Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social- cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 51-75 doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(96)90015-6
Vorobel, O., & Kim, D (2014) Focusing on Content: Discourse in L2 Peer Review
Groups TESOL Journal, 5(4), 698-720 doi:10.1002/tesj.126
Vygotskiĭ, L S., & Kozulin, A (1986) Thought and language MIT Press, Cambridge,
Wang, P (2010) Dealing with English majors’ written errors in Chinese universities
Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1, 194-205 doi:10.4304/JLTR.1.3.194-205
Wang, W (2013) Students’ perceptions of rubric-referenced peer feedback on EFL writing: A longitudinal inquiry Assessing Writing, 19, 80-96 doi:10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.008
White, R., & Arndt, V (1991) Process writing London: Longman
Wijaya, K F (2022) English Education Master Students' Perceptions on Peer Feedback in Academic Writing Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 117-137 doi:10.18196/ftl.v7i1.12751
Witbeck, M C (1976) Peer Correction Procedures for Intermediate and Advanced ESL
Composition Lessons TESOL Quarterly, 10(3), 321-326 doi:10.2307/3585709
Yang, M., Badger, R., & Zhen, Y (2006) A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class Journal of Second Language Writing,
Zhang, S (1995) Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL
Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209-222 doi:10.1016/1060-
Zhao, H (2014) Investigating teacher-supported peer assessment for EFL writing ELT
Zhao, H (2018) Exploring tertiary English as a Foreign Language writing tutors’ perceptions of the appropriateness of peer assessment for writing Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 43, 1133-1145 doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1434610
Zhu, W., & Mitchell, D A (2012) Participation in Peer Response as Activity: An
Examination of Peer Response Stances From an Activity Theory Perspective
APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 Quesionnaire about students’ perception of peer feedback’s benefits in Writing 3
1.1 What year of study are you in?
1.3 Have you studied Writing 3 yet?
1.4 Did you use peer feedback in Writing 3?
1.5 How often are feedback activities organized in Writing 3?
From Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree, all of the items from Sections 2 to 5 were rated:
1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree Section 2: Students' perceptions regarding PF's benefits for their linguistic ability in academic English writing
2.1 Peer feedback activities helped me reduce spelling and punctuation mistakes
2.2 Peer feedback activities helped me reduce grammar and structure mistakes
2.3 Peer feedback activities helped me use vocabulary more appropriately for the topic of my writing
2.4 Peer feedback activities helped me learn more new words
2.5 Peer feedback activities helped me learn more new structures
2.6 Peer feedback activities helped me improve my writing content to be more relevant to the topic
2.7 Peer feedback activities helped me improve the organization of my paper to meet the requirements of academic writing
2.8 Peer feedback activities helped me improve the cohesion of my writing
2.9 Peer feedback activities helped me revise ideas that could be more interesting
Section 3: Students' perceptions regarding PF's benefits for their emotions in academic
3.1 Peer feedback activities helped me feel much more comfortable in writing class
3.2 Peer feedback activities helped me feel more motivated to write
3.3 Peer feedback activities helped me feel more confident about writing
Section 4: Students' perceptions regarding PF's benefits for their critical thinking skills in academic English writing
Peer feedback activities helped me assess the strengths and weaknesses of my partner’s writing
Peer feedback activities helped me assess my strengths and weaknesses in my own writing
Peer feedback activities helped me give and receive constructive feedback
Peer feedback activities helped me identify the purpose and the audience that the task required
Peer feedback activities helped me approach the topic from different perspectives
Section 5: Students' perceptions regarding PF's benefits for their social interaction skills in academic English writing
Peer feedback activities helped me enhance my social interaction skills
Peer feedback activities helped me enhance my collaborative learning skills
Peer feedback helped me learn how to reasonably negotiate and compromise through voice and language in communication to maintain harmony in group work
Peer feedback activities helped me control my emotions well to run group work smoothly when there was an argument during interaction
Peer feedback activities helped me recognize the responsibility of my roles as both a feedback giver and a feedback receiver
Peer feedback activities helped me realize that accepting the differences in individuals’ English writing abilities was important in maintaining the group's work
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted