Thực tiễn áp dụng hình thức phản hồi từ bạn học trong việc dạy kỹ năng viết cho sinh viên năm thứ hai - Khoa Sư phạm tiếng Anh trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ - ĐHQG H

1 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES *** NGUYEN THI THU HANG THE APPLICATION OF PEER FEEDBACK IN WRITING TEACHING TO THE 2ND-YEAR STUDENTS AT THE FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION- UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES- VIET NAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI THỰC TIỄN ÁP DỤNG HÌNH THỨC PHẢN HỒI TỪ BẠN HỌC TRONG VIỆC DẠY KỸ NĂNG VIẾT CHO SINH VIÊN NĂM THỨ – KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ – ĐHQG HÀ NỘI M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS Field: English Language Teaching Methodology Code: 601410 HANOI - 2010 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES *** NGUYEN THI THU HANG THE APPLICATION OF PEER FEEDBACK IN WRITING TEACHING TO THE 2ND-YEAR STUDENTS AT THE FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION- UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES- VIET NAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI THỰC TIỄN ÁP DỤNG HÌNH THỨC PHẢN HỒI TỪ BẠN HỌC TRONG VIỆC DẠY KỸ NĂNG VIẾT CHO SINH VIÊN NĂM THỨ – KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ – ĐHQG HÀ NỘI M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS Field: English Language Teaching Methodology Code: 601410 Supervisor: Dinh Hai Yen, M.Ed HANOI - 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DECLARATION OF ORINALITY i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ABSTRACT .iii TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF FIGURES .vii PART I: INTRODUCTION 1 Rationale for the study Aims of the study Research questions Scope of the study Methods of the study 5.1 Survey questionnaire 5.2 Student writing analysis Organization of the study PART DEVELOPMENT .5 CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW .5 1.1 PROCESS APPROACH TO WRITING TEACHING 1.1.1 An overview of process approach 1.1.2 Stages in a writing process 1.2 PEER FEEDBACK IN WRITING TEACHING .6 1.2.1 Concept of peer feedback in writing 1.2.2 The significance of peer feedback in process writing 1.2.3 Requirements for effective peer feedback practice in writing teaching 1.2.4 Major issues of student feedback on their peer’s writing 1.2.4.1 Focus of peer written feedback 1.2.4.2 Types of peer written feedback 10 1.2.4.2.1 Positive feedback versus negative feedback 10 1.2.4.2.2 Direct versus indirect feedback 11 1.2.4.2.3 Text-specific feedback versus general feedback 12 CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY 13 2.1 RESEARCH APPROACH .13 2.2 METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION 13 2.2.1 Survey .13 2.2.1.1 Objectives 13 2.2.1.2 Selection of participants 13 2.2.1.3 The survey questionnaire .14 2.2.1.4 Implementation 14 2.2.2 Student writing analysis 14 2.2.2.1 Objectives 14 2.2.2.2 Selection of participants 15 2.2.2.3 Implementation 15 2.3 METHOD OF DATA ANALYSIS 15 CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 16 3.1 FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS FROM STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE 16 3.1.1 Current situation of peer written feedback 16 3.1.1.1 General evaluation of peer written feedback 16 3.1.1.2 Aspects of peer written feedback 17 3.1.1.3 Types of peer written feedback 18 3.1.1.4 Comprehensibility of peer written feedback 20 3.1.1.5 Support from teachers for peer feedback practice 20 3.1.2 Students’ reactions to peer written feedback 22 3.2 FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS FROM STUDENT WRITING ANALYSIS 26 3.2.1 Features of peer written feedback 26 3.2.1.1 Amount of feedback given in certain aspects 27 3.2.1.2 Types of feedback used 30 3.2.2 Students’ post-feedback revision 32 PART III: CONCLUSION 35 SUMMARY OF THE STUDY…………………………………………………………35 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 35 2.1 How is peer feedback given to the 2nd- year students' writings at the FELTE, ULIS, VNU? .35 2.2 How the 2nd- year students react to their peers’ feedback on their writings? 36 2.3 What can be done to improve the effectiveness of peer feedback practice at the faculty? 36 2.3.1 Pre-training activity 36 2.3.1.1 Raising students’ awareness of the importance of responsible feedback .36 2.3.1.2 Pre-training students to evaluate friends’ papers 37 2.3.2 Intervention activity 38 2.3.3 Post-feedback discussion with the whole group 38 2.3.4 Assessment of peer feedback 38 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY .39 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES .39 REFERENCES 40 APPENDICES I APPENDIX 1: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE I APPENDIX 2: GUIDELINES FOR PEER EDITING IV LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1: Students‟ general evaluation of peer written feedback .16 Figure 2: Aspects of peer written feedback 17 Figure 3: Types of peer written feedback 19 Figure 4: Reasons why students not understand peer written feedback 20 Figure 5: Support from teachers for peer feedback practice .21 Figure 6: Whether or not students revise their writings after receiving peer feedback 22 Figure 7: Reasons why students not revise their writings 22 Figure 8: What students to revise their writings 23 Figure 9: What students in case they not understand peer written feedback 24 Figure 10: Whether or not peer feedback helps students improve their writing skills .25 Figure 11: The efficiency of peer written feedback 25 Figure 12: Amount of peer feedback versus mistakes made 27 Figure 13: Mistakes pointed out versus mistakes corrected .32 Figure 14: Number of mistakes made on 1st versus 2nd draft of student writings .33 10 PART I: INTRODUCTION RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY The teaching of English has undergone different waves of change throughout its history With regards to writing teaching in particular, there exists a recent shift from the traditional focus on the product of writing to the process of writing (Hinkel, 2000) A writing process then includes five stages, namely prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing The process approach is said to empower its students, enabling them to make clearer decisions about the direction of their writing by means of “discussion, tasks, drafting, feedback and informed choices [thereby] encouraging students to be responsible for making improvements themselves” (Jordan, 1997, as cited in Clenton, 2006, p.2) In the light of process approach, feedback plays an integral part of a student‟s writing Beside the traditional teacher feedback, peer response proves to be an effective type of feedback as it provides chances for student writers to write for an immediate audience apart from the teacher, familiarize themselves with actual readers who critically respond to their work, boost their confidence, and work collaboratively (Hairston & Keene, 2003) Much as important peer feedback is, there have been few studies comprehensively dealing with the issue Even with those that do, there is a lack of consensus over such matters as what peer feedback should focus on, how to enhance the effectiveness of peer feedback, etc The same situation could be seen in the context of teaching writing in Vietnam In reality, there are very few studies conducted on feedback in general and peer feedback in particular Even at the Faculty of English Language Teacher Education (FELTE), University of Foreign Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University Hanoi (ULIS,VNU), where peer feedback was applied relatively long ago, no investigation has been made into the current practice It is, therefore, an open question whether or not current peer feedback is beneficial to students at the faculty The aforementioned reason urges the author, a lecturer at English Division- FELTE, ULIS, VNU, to carry out the research entitled The Application of Peer Feedback in Writing Teaching to the 2nd-year Students at the Faculty of English Language Teacher Education _ University of Foreign Languages and International Studies – Vietnam National University, Hanoi This study is an attempt to examine the real situation of peer feedback application at the FELTE and 11 to propose some suggestions for the betterment of the current practice The yielded results are hoped to serve as a useful source of reference for those who concern about the subject matter AIMS OF THE STUDY This study is carried out with the aims to:  investigate the current practice of peer feedback on the 2nd year students‟ writings at the FELTE-ULIS-VNU  find out the students‟ reactions towards peer feedback and their suggestions for improving the situation  propose some recommendations for the betterment of peer feedback practice at the FELTE RESEARCH QUESTIONS In order to achieve the abovementioned aims, the study will be conducted to answer three research questions:  How is peer feedback given to the 2nd- year students' writings at the FELTE, ULIS, VNU?  How the 2nd- year students react to their peers‟ feedback on their writings?  What can be done to improve the effectiveness of peer feedback practice at the faculty? SCOPE OF THE STUDY The research will deal with peer written feedback on the 2nd-year student writings at the FELTEULIS- VNU The subjects selected for this study are not general English learners but the ndyear English majored students at the faculty Moreover, the research examines only peers‟ written feedback but not other types of feedback such as student conference or oral comments, since written feedback is the dominating type of peer feedback at the FELTE I.5 METHODS OF THE STUDY Quantitative approach is utilized in this study so as to achieve the desired aims In details, the following methods are employed: 5.1 Survey questionnaire A survey questionnaire is done with 200 2nd-year students at the FELTE-ULIS-VNU The data gained from the questionnaire not only help deepen the understanding of the current situation of 12 peer feedback but also serve as the foundation for some pedagogical implications for the practice of peer written feedback at the faculty 5.2 Student writing analysis Thirty papers already responded by students and the revised versions are thoroughly analyzed so as to give the researcher an in-depth look at how peer feedback is given to the 2nd -year student writings at the FELTE and how students react to their friends‟ feedback ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY The research includes three parts as follows: Part I provides a brief introduction to the issue and an overview of the paper Part II includes three chapters, namely Literature Review (Chapter 1), Research Methodology (Chapter 2) and Data Analysis and Discussion (Chapter 3) In greater details, Chapter reviews the theoretical backgrounds to writing teaching in general and peer feedback on writing in particular Chapter describes the methods used to carry out the study Chapter presents and analyzes the data collected from the questionnaires and from students‟ writings Part III summarizes the main issues so far touched upon in the research, some suggestions for the betterment of peer feedback on students‟ writings at the FELTE, ULIS, VNU, the limitations of the research and some suggestions for further studies Following the chapters are the references and appendices 13 PART II: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter, which reviews the overall background concerning the study, will serve as the theoretical foundation on which the study is based In this chapter, the researcher will review the beliefs and studies on the issues most relevant to the study - process writing and peer feedback in writing teaching 1.1 PROCESS APPROACH TO WRITING TEACHING Together with the shift in linguistic theory and practice, writing teaching has also undergone a number of changes, most outstanding of which was the shift of focus from the product to the process approach (Joe, 2006) This section is aimed at presenting the nature of this new approach as well as the major stages of a writing process 1.1.1 An overview of process approach The conventional teaching of writing may have largely been known to ESL/EFL teachers and students as focusing on sentence-level and correctness rather than communicative aspects of the writing piece itself This approach has received a lot of criticism because it ignores the actual processes used by students to produce a piece of writing Instead, it focuses on imitating and producing a perfect product, which, in turn, leads to the restriction of creativity (Clenton, 2006) It was not until the 1970s and 1980s that process approach began to replace product approach Writing is now viewed as a multistage process with intervention as needed, and is evaluated according to how well it can fulfill the writer‟s intentions (Reid, 1993) The purpose of writing, as stated by Stewart (1988, as cited in Joe, 2006, p 48), is a written communication with the writer himself/herself, with his/her fellow learners, with his/her teacher and with his/her intended readers Therefore, it is not the form but the idea/the meaning that plays the determining role In process approach, the text-the final product is only “a secondary, derivative concern, whose form is a function of its content and purpose” (Silva, 1990, p.16) In process approach, writing is no longer considered to be a “linear and fragmented procedure” (Hairston, 1982, p 78) with the mere target at an error free product Rather, it is “a cyclical process during which writers can move back and forth on a continuum, discovering, analyzing and synthesizing ideas” (Hughey, et al., 1983 as cited in Joe, 2006, p.48) The emphasis on a series of drafts on the same topic proves helpful to students because thanks to writing and 43 feedback However, the number of mistakes corrected in accordance with peers‟ comments varied from one aspect to another The two aspects that saw the most agreement between commentators and student writers were grammar and mechanics (spelling and punctuation), with 81% grammatical mistakes (65 over 80) and 62% mechanical mistakes (55 over 95) being corrected under peers‟ suggestions This is understandable because with clear distinction between right and wrong, commentators could hardly make inaccurate comments on these two aspects Therefore, students could easily realize the problems and follow the advice given by peers In contrast, ideas and expressions seemed to be the aspect that contained the most contradiction between writers and feedback givers since there was no clear-cut boundary between accuracy and inaccuracy It explained why the number of mistakes revised by writers only accounted for 36% of the number of mistakes pointed out on ideas (8 over 22 mistakes) and 52% of mistakes pointed out on expressions (35 over 67) As was stated earlier, ideas created the most controversy in writing because there was no fixed answer and one topic could be discussed in a wide variety of ways That was why in some of the students‟ writings, writers even included such sentences as “Why not?” or “I disagree with this.” next to their peers‟ comments Evidently, students had taken their peers‟ comments into consideration though the levels of appreciation for peer feedback may vary from one aspect to another In the second part, the researcher made a statistics on the number of mistakes made on two 44 versions of student writings to see how much progress students made thanks to peer feedback The information was described in Figure 14 Obviously, there was a decrease in the number of mistakes made in the 2nd drafts compared with that in the 1st ones However, significant changes could only be seen in grammar, vocabulary and mechanics aspects The biggest decrease was in grammar, with 100 mistakes in the st drafts and only 35 mistakes in the 2nd ones Next coming were vocabulary, from 125 to 45 mistakes, and mechanics, from 70 to 24 Meanwhile, organization of ideas and ideas saw very few changes For organization of ideas, there were 10 mistakes in 1st drafts and in the latter ones Similarly, the number of mistakes in vocabulary declined from 80 in the first drafts to still 69 in the second ones This difference could be explained by the fact that when peers pointed out fewer mistakes in content than in form, it was very likely that students would make fewer changes to the former Another possibility was that it was harder for students to make changes to global issues (content) than local ones (form) This is also where students had gone wrong because revising the early drafts of writings was more likely to be about revising the content, not the form of the writings When adding the number of mistakes pointed out by peers and that made in second drafts, the researcher found a surprising result that the sums were even smaller than the number of mistakes made in the first drafts in organization of ideas and mechanics aspects It indicated a fact that students also self-revised some locations even without peers‟ comments This was a positive result showing students‟ good attitudes towards learning in the faculty In conclusion, the data collected from student writings gave the researcher a deeper understanding about the amount of peer feedback and the extent to which peer feedback had influenced student writing quality through the changes they made The unity of the two sources of information, the questionnaire and student writing analysis, has once again affirmed the reliability of the data The findings and interpretations in this chapter would be a fundamental source for the researcher to draw up some implications presented in the following chapter 45 PART III: CONCLUSION This chapter covers a brief summary of the study, some recommendations for improving the practice of giving peer feedback at the faculty and some limitations of the study Also, some suggestions for further studies on related field are presented SUMMARY OF THE STUDY In the previous parts, the researcher has covered all aspects that the study is concerned The introduction reviewed the historical context which acted as the foundation for the study to be conducted Also, the three research questions were raised, which were (1) How is peer written feedback given to the 2nd-year students‟ writings at the FELTE, ULIS, VNU? (2) How students react to their peers‟ feedback on their writings and (3) What can be done to improve the current situation of peer feedback at the faculty? In the Literature Review chapter, the researcher discussed the theoretical issues most relevant to the matter investigated; that was, process approach to writing teaching and peer feedback in writing Two major devices, the survey questionnaires and students writing analysis, were utilized and they involved over 200 nd-year students and their 60 writing papers in the process The data received were then synthesized, analyzed, compared and discussed in the Data Analysis and Discussion chapter In the following part, the researcher will conclude the study by reviewing its remarkable findings and proposing some recommendations for the betterment of the practice CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The study is an attempt to investigate the current situation of peer written feedback on the writings by the 2nd-year students at the FELTE, ULIS, VNU Thanks to thorough investigation and appropriate research devices, the study has successfully addressed the three research questions raised Their findings could be summarized as follows 2.1 How is peer feedback given to the 2nd- year students' writings at the FELTE, ULIS, VNU? The majority of respondents got fairly detailed feedback from their peers, which can be considered as a positive sign, though still 25% only received very general comments Concerning the aspects of peer feedback, one problem was that though students were aware of both form and content of the writings, they were still inclined towards surface mistakes such as grammatical or mechanical ones A wide variety of feedback types have been utilized, despite the fact that students preferred using positive and direct comments Relating to feedback 46 comprehensibility, only a minority of students did not understand peers‟ comments, which was mainly because the feedback was too general or too unclear Perhaps, the deviation existing in student feedback practice was partly because students still receive very little support from their teachers on how to the job effectively 2.2 How the 2nd- year students react to their peers’ feedback on their writings? The majority of students revised their writings after receiving peer feedback The rest, however, did nothing, mainly because the feedback was not helpful, the comments contradicted their ideas or the feedback was over-positive When having problems with processing the feedback, most students resorted to various sources, such as friends or reference books However, very few students turned to their teacher for assistance, which indicated a fact that teachers had not been able to make use of their potentials in helping students in the activity Regarding the last issue about effectiveness of peer feedback, most students acknowledged the helpfulness of the practice; though the benefits hardly went beyond the “concrete” ones such as the ability to correct the pointed mistakes or to avoid them in the future A deeper look at student writings also revealed a fact that though student writings‟ quality increased in the later drafts, most of the progress was seen in the form of the writing, but not in the content 2.3 What can be done to improve the effectiveness of peer feedback practice at the faculty? A thorough investigation into the current practice of peer feedback at the FELTE, ULIS – VNU has brought a fact that teachers here played little role in supporting and encouraging students to be more effective commentators With the desire to make the activity more beneficial, the researcher has proposed some recommendations on how and what teachers can to promote the efficiency of the practice 2.3.1 Pre-training activity In order for students to give effective feedback, it is compulsory that teachers raise students‟ awareness of peer feedback– its role and its focus - right at the beginning of the course and also throughout the process of giving feedback 2.3.1.1 Raising students’ awareness of the importance of responsible feedback In order to become effective feedback givers, students must necessarily have proper attitudes towards the practice It is the role of teacher to make students realize the importance of peer feedback to their writings and give their friends comments with high sense of responsibility By repeating a fact that students at the same level could give helpful comments, teachers could reduce the threat that some students undervalue the role of peer response and give feedback only 47 to complete a task assigned by teachers Moreover, teachers could also utilize „bonus marks‟ to good critical commentators as a means to encourage students to become responsible feedback givers The most important point, however, is that teachers have to make sure that students are aware of the purpose of peer feedback and the role of peer responder as a critical reader rather than a mistake hunter 2.3.1.2 Pre-training students to evaluate friends’ papers Making students realize the importance of being responsible is just the first step towards training them to become effective feedback givers What is more important is teaching students how they could respond to their friends‟ writings Followings are what teachers could in supporting students to realize the way of giving feedback Guide students to focus on certain aspects of the writings: In greater details, students need to concentrate on the organization of ideas, not grammar or spelling mistakes, in friends‟ first drafts of the writings Meanwhile, in later drafts, they should pay more attention to grammar, structure and word choice Show students the usefulness of using various types of feedback, namely, positive and negative feedback, direct and indirect feedback and so on Tell students about the certain modes of feedback: when students should only point out the mistakes, when they should give suggestions or when they should explain why their friends have gone wrong Encourage students to use appropriate tones when giving feedback Familiarize students with correction codes right from the beginning of the course Provide students with clear guidelines/ a checklist for peer editing This is considered to be one of the most important activities in preparing students to become effective responders A copy of the guideline to give feedback on paragraph writing could be retrieved from Appendix Give students some small tasks to practice giving feedback Ask students to work individually, in pairs or groups to decide whether they are good paragraphs or not In this way, students not only know what they should focus when giving comments on others‟ writings but also know which aspects they should pay attention to when writing a paragraph 2.3.2 Intervention activity Supporting students‟ giving feedback is an on-going process that requires teachers to be always 48 ready to offer assistance This is because even though students can provide their friends helpful feedback, they still face many problems which need to be solved with the help of teachers As stated before, students may have a lot of difficulty dealing with certain problems of a writing piece; for instance, students realize what is going wrong but they not know the way to solve the problem, or they cannot express their thought properly This is where teachers should intervene and provide students with timely help so that they could get on the right track What is more, teachers should also give comments on the feedback students make so that they could better their comments in the next times In this way, both teachers and students can benefit from this on-going process because students can have a chance to ask the teachers to resolve some uncertainties about responses as well as revisions and teachers can have an overall picture of the activity 2.3.3 Post-feedback discussion with the whole group This is an extremely helpful activity thanks to which teachers and the whole class could sit together and discuss the problems of the students‟ writing When doing this, teachers could pick out some typical writing mistakes and give students chances to give comments and make corrections or suggestions Teachers also give the writers time to raise questions about their uncertainties about peer feedback and the reviewers chance to give explanations for any unclear comments What is more, students could together discuss the ways to improve their writing papers 2.3.4 Assessment of peer feedback Teachers can require students to submit all of their drafts with peer feedback on them By this way, teachers can review all the comments to investigate how students evaluate their friends‟ writings This in turn could encourage students to give critical and constructive feedback In a word, peer written feedback is a complicated issue that needs great attention from teachers In order to make feedback beneficial to students, teachers need to take a wide variety of matters into consideration The abovementioned strategies are hoped to be of help to those who are making endeavors to better peer feedback practice at the FELTE IN CONCLUSION, this study could be viewed as a successful attempt to discover the real situation of peer feedback practice at the English II Division, FELTE, ULIS, VNU Thorough investigation has found out that the current practice proved to be a fairly beneficial activity, though problems still persist Most outstanding are the unbalanced focus on form/content of 49 the writings, the overuse of a certain forms of feedback and the lack of teacher support in feedback giving To solve the problems, the researcher has proposed a number of recommendations for the improvements of the current practice They are: (1) Pre-training students to realize the importance of responsible feedback (2) Guiding students to give appropriate feedback (3) Providing students with timely help throughout the feedback giving process (4) Organizing post-feedback discussion and (5) Assessing students‟ feedback to enhance its quality Though not yet taken into experiment, the recommendations are believed to be effective methods to enhance the quality of peer feedback because they are withdrawn based on the reality of the current practice Hopefully, this study is a reliable and useful source of reference for teachers, students and those who are concerned about the subject matter LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY Though the best efforts have been made, there still persist some limitations in this study which could not be overcome due to time limitation First is the small scale of student writing analysis with the involvement of 30 writing pieces already responded by peers However, since various methods which address the same issue were adopted and the findings from the methods well supplemented each other, it is believed that this small scale does not seriously affect the reliability of the study Secondly, all the recommendations were based on the questionnaire and student writing analysis but not the actual experiments on their effectiveness This may, more or less, influence the validity of the recommendations proposed SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES In order to overcome the limitations mentioned above, it is suggested that future studies on the same issue will be conducted with broader target population with the addition of another supplemental method – trial method The present research only looks at peer commentary, not all sources of input for student revision Further studies should deal with peer-feedback as a means to help students improve their writings or investigate other types of peer feedback that have not been covered in this study such as peer oral feedback or peer conferencing Comparative and contrastive analysis of teacher feedback and peer feedback would also be another prospective direction for further studies on the given issue 50 REFERENCES Babbie, E (1983) The practice of social research (3rd ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Bartram, M & Walton, R (1991, reprinted 1994) Correction Mistakes Management: A positive Approach for Language Teacher London: Language Teaching Publications Berg, E C (1999) The effects of trained peer response on ESL student‟s revision types and writing quality Journal of second language writing, 8(3), 215-241 Byrne, D (1988) Teaching writing skills Longman Handbooks for Language Teachers Longman: London Clenton, J (2006) Academic Writing: towards an integrated approach Sussex Language Institute Retrieved January 11, 2009 from http://www.sussex.ac.uk/languages/documents/academicwritingessay.pdf Coffin, C., Curry, M., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lillis, T., and Swann J (2003) Teaching Academic Writing: A Toolkit for Higher Education London and New York: Routledge Dornyei, Z (2003) Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction, Administration, and Processing Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ellis, R 1994 The study of second language acquisition New York: Oxford University Press Fathman, AK & Whalley, E (1990) Teacher Response to Student Writing: Focus on Form versus Content In B Kroll (ed.), Second Language Writing Cambridge University Press Ferris, D.R (2002) Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing Michigan: The University of Michigan Press Frankel, J.R., & Wallen, N.E (1996) How to design and evaluate research in education (3rd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill Hairston, M & Keene, M (2003) Successful Writing (5th ed.) New York: WW Norton & Co Hairston, M (1982) The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the Revolution in the teaching of writing College Composition and Communication, 33, 76-88 Hedgcock , J & Lefkowitz, N (1994) Feedback on Feedback Journal of Second Language 51 Writing, 3, 141-163 Hinkel, E (2000) The Goals and the Politics of L2 Writing Instruction TESOL Matters, 10(2) Retrieved November 12, 2009, from http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/sec_document.asp Hyland, F & Hyland, K (2001) Sugaring the Pill: Praise and Criticism in Written Feedback Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3)185-212 Hyland, F (1998) The impact of Teacher Written Feedback on Individual Writers Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3) 255-286 Jacobs, G (1987) First experiences with peer feedback on compositions: Student and teacher reaction Pergamon Journals Ltd., 15(3), 325-333 Joe, L (2006) A process approach to feedback in Writing Retrieved February 11, 2009, from http://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/10/1000038.pdf Keh, C.L (1990) Feedback in the Writing Process: A Model and Methods for Implementation ELT Journal, 44 (4), 294-304 Ken, C (2004) An investigation into Students' Preferences for and Responses to Teacher Feedback and Its Implications for Writing Teachers Hong Kong Teachers' Centre Journal Liu, J & Hansen, J.(2002) Peer Response in Second Language Writing Classroom Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press Mangelsdorf, K & Schlumberger, A (1992) ESL student response stances in a peer-review task Journal of second language writing, 1(3), 235-254 McDonough, J & McDonough, S (1997) Research Methods for English Language Teachers Great Britain: Arnold Naumoska, B (2009) Using Writing in L2 Acquisition – Peer Review in the ESL Writing Class (Part 2) Retrieved December 1, 2009, from http://www.britishcouncil.org/serbia-elta-newsletter2009-july-feature_articles-naumoska-2.doc Nilson, L (2003) Improving student peer feedback College Teaching 51, 1: 34-38 Nunan, D (1989) Research Methods in Language Learning Cambridge University Press 52 Raimes, A (1983) Techniques in Teaching Writing New York: Oxford University Press Raimes, A (1992) Anguish as a Second Language? Remedies for Composition Teachers In A Freedman, I Pringle, and J Yalden (Eds.), Learning to Writing: First Language & Second Language (258-272) London: Longman Reid, J.M (1993) Teaching ESL writing Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents Seow, A (2002) The Writing Process and Process Writing In Richards, J C., & Silva, T (1990) Second Language Composition Instruction: Development, issues, and Directions in ESL Cambridge University Press: New York Sommers, N (1982) Responding to student writing College Composition and Communication 33(2), 148-156 Stanley, J (1992) Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 217-233 Tribble, C 1996 Writing Oxford: Oxford University Press Tsui, A B & Ng, M.(2000) Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2) pp 147-170 TzuMin, H (2005) Training students to become successful peer reviewers Science Direct, 33(2), 293-308 Ur, P (1996, 10th printing 2003) Unit five: Giving Feedback on Writing A course in Language Teaching - Practice and Theory Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Urzua, C (1987) “You stopped too soon”: Second language children composing and revising, TESOL Quarterly, 21(2), 279-304 Wood, J M (2000) A marriage waiting to happen: Computers and process writing Retrieved December 20, 2005, from http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40 53 APPENDICES APPENDIX SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE My name is Nguyen Thi Thu Hang, a lecturer at English II Division, ULIS – VNU I am conducting a study entitled The application of peer feedback in writing teaching to the 2nd-year students at the faculty of English Language Teacher Education- University of Languages and International Studies- Viet Nam National University, Hanoi, which aims at investigating the real situation of peer feedback application at the Faculty of English Language Teacher Education and proposing recommendations for the betterment of the current practice This questionnaire will be used for the purposes of data analysis Should you take part in this study, your confidentiality is assured in any circumstances If you have further queries or issues to discuss please contact me on 0985803636 Year: K… Gender:  Male  Female PART A: CURRENT SITUATION OF PEER WRITTEN FEEDBACK How you feel about your peers’ written feedback on your writing? (Tick the correct answer) A Very detailed (comments and corrections to all mistakes) B Fairly detailed (e.g comments and corrections to some major mistakes, suggestions, etc) C Very general (such as “Excellent”, “Good” or “Bad”) D No comment How often your peers comment on…? (Tick the right box) Never a Organization of ideas b Content (ideas & expressions) c Grammar d Vocabulary e Mechanics (i.e punctuations, spellings) Rarely Sometimes Often Always                          54 How often your peers use the following kinds of feedback? (Tick the right box) Never a Negative feedback (i.e criticism) b Positive feedback (i.e praise) c Direct feedback d Indirect feedback Rarely Sometimes Often Always                     Generally, you understand your peers’ feedback on your writings?  NO (Please go to question 5)  YES (Please go to question 6) What may be the reason(s) why you not understand your peer’s comment? (You can tick MORE THAN ONE answer)  The comments are too general to understand  The comments are unreasonable (e.g contradict themselves)  The language used is inaccurate  The correction codes are hard to understand  The peer’s handwriting is so untidy that it is impossible to read  The peer uses new words and structures in feedback  The peer’s feedback is unclear  Others: (Please specify): ………………………………………………… Does your teacher provide you with any kinds of support in giving peer feedback?  YES (Please go to question 7)  NO (Please go to question 8) What kinds of support does your teacher provide you in giving peer feedback? (You can tick MORE THAN ONE answer)  explanations of the ways to give peer written feedback  guideline questions or checklists to follow when giving feedback  discussions when problems arise  comments on the feedback students give  others: (Please specify): …………………………………………………… PART 2: STUDENT’S REACTION TO PEER FEEDBACK Do you anything to revise your writing after reading your peer’s feedback?  NO (Go to question 9)  YES (Go to question 10) What may be the reason(s) why you NOTHING to revise your writing? (You can tick MORE THAN ONE answer)  I cannot revise my writing because the peer’s feedback is NOT helpful 55  I see no point in revising my writings because all the comments are good  I not agree with my peer’s feedback  I don’t revise my writings because there is NO comment at all  I not like to revise my writings because there are so many mistakes  Other: (Please specify) …………………………………………………………… 10 What you often to revise your writing after reading peer feedback? (You can tick MORE THAN ONE answer)  Ask teacher for help  Think about the mistakes  Ask commentators for help  Make correction myself  Check a reference book (dictionary, grammar book, etc)  Others: (Please specify): …………………………… 11 If you not understand your peer’s feedback, what you to solve the problem? (You can tick MORE THAN ONE answer)  Ignore the feedback  Ask my peer to explain them  Ask teachers for help  Check a reference book (grammar book or dictionary)  Correct the mistakes according to the peer’s feedback whether I understand it or not  Delete the sentences/phrases that contain the mistakes  Others: (Please specify): ……………………………………………………… 12 Does your peer’s written feedback help improve your writing skills?  No (Go to question 13)  Yes (Go to question 14) 13 If No, what may be the reason(s)? (You can tick MORE THAN ONE answer)  My peers’ feedback is very general  My peers’ feedback always contradicts my ideas  My peers’ feedback is inaccurate  My peers’ feedback is very negative  My peers’ feedback is too positive  Others: (Please specify): ………………………………………………………… 14 If Yes, in what way does your peer’s feedback help improve your writing skills? (You can tick MORE THAN ONE answer)  I can correct all the spelling, grammatical and structural mistakes that the peer points out  I can revise the organization and content of my writing based on the peer’s feedback 56  I can avoid all the corrected mistakes the next time I write  I can enhance my confidence thanks to the peer’s encouraging feedback  I can think more clearly thanks to the peer’s feedback  I know how to self-revise my writing in general  Others: (Please specify): ………………………………………………………… Thank you very much for your cooperation! 57 APPENDIX GUIDELINES FOR PEER EDITING Peer editing, which means showing your work to another student, is a very useful way to improve your writing Here are some guidelines to keep in mind while you give peer feedback: - Read your partner‟s paper several times The first time, just read from the beginning through to the end Ask your self, „What is this about? What is the writer‟s purpose?‟ - Don‟t look for grammar or spelling mistakes Pay attention just to the content and organization of the paper - On your second reading, go more slowly and look at specific parts of the writing and make notes:  Look for topic sentences and concluding sentences, identify the purpose of the writing (The main idea is )  Note places where you have trouble understanding something by circling or underlining words/phrases  Ask questions directed to the writer (What you mean here about ?)  Offer suggestions to the writer (Perhaps you should , it would be better if )  Let the writer know which parts of the paper are especially strong and interesting (What I liked best was ) In short: - With the 1st draft: ONLY concentrate on the organization of ideas, not grammar or spelling mistakes, in your friends‟ writing - With later drafts: Pay more attention to grammar, structure and word choice - Try to ask questions in a friendly manner instead of giving commands about what you consider inappropriate (Adapted from College Writing, Macmillan Publishers, 2003) ... H? ??C TRONG VIỆC DẠY KỸ NĂNG VIẾT CHO SINH VIÊN NĂM THỨ – KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH TRƯỜNG ĐẠI H? ??C NGOẠI NGỮ – ĐHQG H? ? NỘI M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS Field: English Language Teaching Methodology Code:... AT THE FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION- UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES- VIET NAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI THỰC TIỄN ÁP DỤNG H? ?NH THỨC PHẢN H? ??I TỪ BẠN H? ??C TRONG. .. communication with the writer himself/herself, with his/her fellow learners, with his/her teacher and with his/her intended readers Therefore, it is not the form but the idea/the meaning that plays the determining