MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY
or
NGUYEN THI GIA ĐỊNH
INVESTIGATING THE IMPACT OF PEER FEEDB ACK ON FRESHMEN’S WRITING LEARNING IN THE DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL TRAINING
PROGRAM AT HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY
Major: TEACHING ENGLISH TO SPEAKERS OF OTHER LANGUAGES Major code: 60140111
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC MƠ TP.HCM
THƯ VIỆN
MASTER OF ARTS IN TESOL
Supervisor: Assoc Prof Dr NGUYEN THANH TUNG
Trang 2ABSTRACT
This study aimed at investigating the impact of peer feedback on freshmen’s writing ability in the Department of Special Training Program at Ho Chi Minh City Open University and their perceptions towards peer feedback in learning writing
To achieve these purposes, relevant literature on peer feedback was reviewed in the
theory chapter in order to shape the theoretical framework of the study
Based on this conceptual framework, the research was carried out at Ho Chi Minh
City Open University from November 4", 2013 to January 6", 2014 with 50
participants Data’ were collected in forms of ‘the ‘students’ scores and their
perceptions towards peer feedback in learning writing After collected, the data were
analyzed and interpreted
The findings of the study indicated that the writing ability of the students in the experimental group considerably outweighed that of the students in the control group although at the outset there was a resemblance Attitudinally, they showed their positive perceptions towards peer feedback in learning writing
Based on the results of the study, some recommendations were offered to teachers of English in order to support them in successfully carrying out peer feedback in teaching writing to help students become good readers and evaluators as well as reduce their difficulties in doing it
Trang 3TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Statement of authorship ¬——— 1 Retention and use of the thesis .' .cc ii Acknowledgemenfs ca iti
Abstract TH eeeee wv
Table of contents 2.00.0 cece cence cence nee ence ene ee n nh nh nghe V
List 0f tabÌes Q0 0Q Q2 SH TH H na Hang XỈV
List of charts, đgure, and đỉagram c se xu List of abbreviafÏ0nS uc QQQQ QQQnnQ nnn nn HH nh nh nh nà kế cư HH XVII
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION al 1.1 The rationale of the study cece cece cece ence eee e een eects ee enae nance 1 1.2 Purpose of the study "—— e deeb beeen een e stat tes 4 1.3 Research Questions cc cece ence cece een e teen ee nee e ee een eee eee ene e eet en aes 4 1.4 Significance of the study 0 cc cece eee cette nee neta ee ene ence en en eneaee ease 4 1.5 Organization of the study 0c ceece ccc ce en cee eee e ee cece neonate ene e ee ea eneees 5 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 6
2.1 mtroduction . -‹cc: ¬— bẻ 6
Trang 42.2.2 Peer feedback and the theory of collaborative learning and collaborative
>2 ớiớÁ 8
2.2.2.1 Collaborative learning tren th he 8
2.2.2.2 Collaborative writing ¬ nee ee nee 9 2.2.3 Peer feedback and the process-oriented approach 10
2.2.3.1 An overview of the process-oriented approach 1.10 2.2.3.1.1 The writing process eccucuececeteveustecseecessevtttepesteesenss 10
Trang 52.3.2.2 Using checklisfs - cành vn khe 19 2.3.2.3 Wriften commenfs cà 19 2.3.3 Types of peer feedback cv nà ve eeeeeees 19
2.3.3.1 Positive versus negative feedback " 20 2.3.3.2 Direct versus indirect feedback 21 2.3.3.3 Text-specific versus general feedback " " 22 2.3.4 Advantages and drawbacks of peer feedbac k in writing đu kh kh so 22
2.3.4.1 Advantages of veer feedback ¬— ees eee ee beatae caked babe een tenes 22
2.3.4.1.1 Improvement of writing abiÌify 23 2.3.4.1.2 Increase of learning motivation 23 2.3.4.2 Drawbacks of peer feedback c cà 24 2.3.5 Students’ responses towards peer feedback 25 2.4.6 Guiding principles for effective peer feedback 26
2.3.6.1 Pre-peer feedback ceva cevacvatcetvstvssevseesevssscuseseeeuecseens „27 2.3.6.2 While-peer feedback con hs se 29 2.3.6.3 Post-peer feedback TH nh nh nà nh kh nhờ 30 2.3.7 Cultural issues in peer feedback - cà cẰ cà 31
P ©wWÄï?uJ va nh ae mH aaẢẦ 31
2.3.7.2 Power diSfAnC€ QQQ Qnnn HH» kh nh 31 2.3.7.3 The concept Of “ÍaC€”” ch Hy nh nh rà 32 2.4 Empirical research 20 cece cece eee e ee cree tence eee ne eee enee ene tseennereeees 33
Trang 6CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 37
3.1 Introduction 2.0.0 «d1 ằ—= 37
KÝ TH xa 37
3.3 PartICIDATfS_ co " 37
3.4 Methodology QC HH HH nnn HH ng TH KT nh nh nen hy se 38
3.4.1 Overall approach - - co c n eee e eee cent eaten cent enna coe 39 3.4.2 Materlals Tàn hen 4I 3.4.2.1 Lesson plan for the experimental BTOUD .c ẰŸ 4I 3.4.2.2 Lesson plan for the control group HH th thà 44
E6 Nugâaoiiluhoẳaặä 45
3.4.3.1 Tests oo cce cece eect ee cree teen Ko mm km nh vn ng 45 3.4.3.1.1 PT€-f€SẨ HH nh nh nhu TH tt 47
SA n “4 en een ee es 47
3.4.3.2 Questionnaire "¬ỪC TH rreeei 47
Trang 73.5.2 QUESTIONNAITE 1.0 occ e cee eee e eee eee eee teen ates teats nae eee erste nes 53
oS] 0 06 000-1 ccttddddáaảẢ 53
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 54
4.1 ¡oi 0n (.(( eaeenenee teases 54
4.2 Data analysis and interpretation of tests’ scores ¬— e beeen eaete eee eeeeneet ae enes 54 4.2.1 Distribution of ørades .c.cĂ cà ¬ 34 4.2.2 Compar1son of mean scores ¬— p eee e eee dee nenen enna eeene ens 56
4.2.2.1 Independent samples t-test on the pre-test of the control group and experimental group
4.2.2.2 Independent samples t-test on the post-test of the control group and experimental group
4.2.3 Checking assumption about normal distribution of the tests’ scores
4.2.3.1 Checking assumption about normal distribution of the pre-test’s scores of the control group and experimental group
4.2.3.2 Checking assumption about normal distribution on the post-test’s scores of the control proup and experimental group 59 4.3 Data analysis and interpretation of quesfionnalre_ 60 4.3.1 Students’ opinions towards learning writing with peer feedback 61 4.3.1.1 Students” evaluaflon sen nh khe 61 4.3.1.2 Students’ feeling co Hs ng nh ha 62 4.3.1.3 Students” other OpInIOnS ‹ c cà 63 _ 4.3.2 Students? opinions towards peer feedback in learning writing 64
Trang 84.3.2.1 Students’ opinions towards the impact of peer feedback on writing
FY cre 64
4.3.2.1.1 Paragraph organization TH HH Hee 64 4.3.2.1.2 Grammar ¬ eee eee ates 66 4.3.2.1.3 Vocabulary c ng nh khu nêu 67 4.3.2.1.4 MechanIcs cà Ă ¬ 68 4.3.2.2 Students’ opinions towards the impact of peer feedback on learning motfivation - nh ng "— —
4.3.2.2.1 Motivation In learning writIng 70 4.3.2.2.2 Motivation in reading to support learning writing 7]
4.3.2.2.3 Motivation in pair or group work to learn writing coesesese 72
43.23 Students’ other opinions towards peer feedback in learning
00 0 2 73
Lễ Si) =1 41 75
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION OE FINDINGS 76 Š.l IntroductiOn -.- HH vn Hà ni nh nà tk xa 76 5.2 Findings on students’ improvement of writing ability ¬ eee cence ena teat eene eens 76 5.3 Findings on students” percepflOns cv se 77
"¬_ ' .Ề 77
Trang 95.3.1.2 Towards peer feedback c nh se 78 5.3.1.2.1 Towards the impact of peer feedback on writing ability 78 5.3.1.2.2 Towards the impact of peer feedback on learning 74 6(0) 9 A¢-19 (0) | co Ăn se kv ¬ e eee ee ee nent neaes 79 l2) (ctadAdadadđẦaađAiiiiiẳẳaaẳaaaậ 79 5.3.2.1 Drawback relating to cultural 1ssues tk ky 80 5.3.2.2 Drawback relating to students’ lack of knowledge 81 5.3.2.3 Drawback relating to the problem of time-consuming ¬—— Leases 81 T SUmTAFV HH TS HH KH KH n kh kg 81 ẻ
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 82 6.] Introduction -.- ch kh kh nh ng 82 6.2 Main conclusions of the study .-. cc c2 cv nhe 83 6.3 Strengths and weaknesses in the metho dology of the study 83
6.3.1 Strengths ccc ec eee e eee ce een eee Cente cent nee eea eee ceeee tena eeneenaees 83 "0 ƯƯƠƯ ‹- ằẮ=Ắ5MA .aad 83 6.4 Recommendations for teachers of English 83 f 6.4.1 Pre-peer feedback cece cece nce e nee eee cence ne bbe snes tenes eaeneneee nes 84
F 6.4.2 While-peer feedback cn nnnn nn TH nn nh nh nh nhà §5_-
6.4.3 Post-peer feedback LH HH nh nh ky 85 bs Suggestions for further research Hs nh nh nh nho 86
2n 7 ằăằ ca 86
Trang 10APPENDICES QQQQQQQQQQ nnnnnn n HH nh nh nh kg kh kg 95 APPENDIX 1: A TYPICAL LESSON PLAN FOR THE CONTROL GROUP 95 APPENDIX 2: A TYPICAL LESSON PLAN FOR THE EXPERIMENTAL
APPENDIX 3: UNIT 7: WRITING — “DESCRIBING A VACATION”
SSTUDENT’S BOOK) cece cece eee ce ne rete teen e eee nh Tnhh kh kẽ «e107 APPENDIX 4: TRAINING STUDENTS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL GROUP AT
THE PRE-PEER FEEDBACK " ¬ 109
APPENDIX 5: STUDENT?S CHECKLIST 5.5 ST SE 5218212 se 112 APPENDIX 6: TEACHER°S CHECKLIST 22 2112 22 2xx 114 APPENDIX 7: TOPICS OF THREE WRITING ASSIGNMENTS 116 APPENDIX 8: TOPICS OF THE PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST 117
APPENDIX 9: SCORING RUBRIC FOR PARAGRAPH WRITING 118 APPENDIX 10: EVALUATION TABLE OF STUDENT’S PARAGRAPHS IN THEPRE-TEST OF THE CONTROL GROUP 122 APPENDIX 11: EVALUATION TABLE OF STUDENT’S PARAGRAPHS IN T[HEPRE-TEST OF THE EXPERIMENTAL GROUP 133 APPENDIX 12: EVALUATION TABLE OF STUDENT’S PARAGRAPHS IN THEPOST-TEST OF THE CONTROL GRODUP 144 APPENDIX 13: EVALUATION TABLE OF STUDENT’S PARAGRAPHS IN THEPOST-TEST OF THE EXPERIMENTAL GROUP 155 APPENDIX 14: SCORE TABLE OF TESTS IN THE CONTROL AND
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP - c con Sàn se 166 APPENDIX 15: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (ENGLISH VERSION) 168
Trang 11APPENDIX 16: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (VIETNAMESE VERSION) 172
APPENDIX 17: SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTED BY
QUESTIONNAIRES 0000 cece eee cece e nen eee rete bene eens nh tk net 177
Trang 12LIST OF TABLES
Page
F[able 2.1: A process model of writing Instruction ‹ 14
Fable 2.2: Correction symbols c.ccc TQ ng ng HH n ng nh hưu 28 [able 3.1: Description of participants” characfer!SfiCS 38 [able 3.2: Structure of experimental design "¬ 39 [able 3.3: Summary of three lesson plans for the experimental group 43 [able 3.4: Summary of three lesson plans for the control group _ 46 [able 4.1: Statistics on the pre-test of the control group and experimental
IOUP .LQQQQQQQn nn HH TH n TT nh nh TK ni TH nh Ki ki tk tà tà tà HH 56
[able 4.2: Independent samples t-test on the pre-test of the control group and
028100210240) 0T a.-c.ơươ.ừ.ớ.ớờớẳỪẰŸẰưđư Ữ7Ẫ7Ợ.—ỚỚẰ ẰŸỚA.ŨHdăộ 56 [able 4.3: Statistics on the post-test of the control group and experimental
OUP L.QQQQQQ Q HH HH HH nh KĐT ni BE KH ĐK kh ki 8t và 57 [able 4.4: Independent samples t-test on the post-test of the control group and ›XperimentaÌ grOup cm nh nh nh rệt 57 fable 4.5: Tests of normality in the pre-test’s scores of the control group and
pxperimental QrOUP nnnggạỢ—ạ„ạưự.MMỌNgwg 58 fable 4.6: Tests of normality in the post-test’s scores of the control group and
k
frerimental ĐTOUD con HH HH nàn KH kg HE kề kh nà tư nha 59 i ble 4.7: Students’ evaluation about learning writing with peer feedback 61
Trang 13
fable 4.10: Students’ opinions towards the impact of peer feedback on improving Xarapraph OTEAT1Z4E1OT HH HS HH HT nh kh nh K kh chư 65 [able 4.1 1: Students ` opinions to wards the impact of peer feedback on improving
[fable 4.13: Students’ opinions towards the impact of peer feedback on improving nechaniCs In WTIIDE co n HH HH nh nh km ke nhi, 68 Fable 4.14: Students’ opinions to wards the impact of peer feedback on motivation in
@8ThÌng WTiLÏDE on TT HH TH TH nh nh ke nh nh chư 70
Ệ
fable 4.15: Students’ opinions towards the impact of peer feedback on motivation in wading to Support learning WTiting ‹- cà nành nhe re 71 fable 4.16: Students’ opinions towards the impact of peer feedback on motivation in hair or gToup Work †o learn WTItITE ch kh kh 72 Table 4.17: Summary of students’ difficulties when doing peer feedback in learning
Trang 14LIST OF CHARTS, FIGURE AND DIAGRAM CHARTS
Chart 4.1: Distribution of pre-test scores in the control group and experimental
Chart 4.3: Normal distribution of the pre-test’s scores in the control group and
eXperimentaÌ øroup LH HH HH ng ni nh ki kế Le ceeee een 59
Chart 4.4: Normal distribution of the post-test’s scores in the control group and experimental group SES 60 FIGURE
Figure 2.1: The writinØ DFOC€SS HH TH nh nh như kn 10 DIAGRAM
Diagram 3.1: Design of experimental group and control group 40
Trang 15CLT DSTP EFL ESL GTM HOU PF PTs SLWAI SPSS ZPD LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS : Communicative Language Teaching
: Department of Special Training Program : English as a Foreign Language
: English as a Second Language : Grammar- Translation Method
: Ho Chi Minh City Open University : Peer feedback
: Prospective Teachers:
: Second Language Writing Anxiety Inventory : Statistical Package for the Social Sciences : Zone of Proximal Development
Trang 16[ CHAPTER 1 N f š È k : Tư INTRODUCTION 1 The rationale of the study
In recent years, with the increasing demand of learning and using English in many countries all over the world, improving the method of teaching English is an essential requirement to help language learners to study and work effectively (Huang, 2000) With the shift in methodology from traditional metho ds (e.g Grammar-Translation Method (GTM)) to modern ones (e.g Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)), teaching and learning English has been changed a lot (Reid, 2000) In the early methods of language teaching, especially GTM, the teacher”s role is considered to be “the sole source of knowledge” and it was only his/her prerogative to impart knowledge as well as correct students’ errors (ibid., p 165) However, in the recent approaches and methods, especially CLT, learners’ >ognition and autonomy have been emphasized a lot (Richards, 1990) With such a shift, all four skills of English, namely speaking, listening, reading, and writing, iave also been taught with new techniques, which are student-oriented
in the trend presented above, the teaching of English writing skill, one of the
mportant skills, has undergone considerable renovation, in which the switch from
Trang 17(ibid, p 26) It is also an essential factor in considerable renovation of teaching writing skill
Going with the presented tendency of the development of the methods in teaching writing skill, in Vietnam where English, a compulsory subject from a high school to a university, is commonly used in studying as well as in working, using peer feedback in teaching and learning writing skill is getting more and more attention from teachers and students as well Specifically, in some articles written by Vietnamese authors about teaching and learning writing skill, peer feedback activity has been mentioned and proposed as an activity to help learners improve their writing (Nguyen, 2008) Furthermore, peer feedback has been experimented on English-major students at some universities, such as Hanoi University of Industry At Ho Chi Minh City Open University (HOU), the pedagogical setting of the current study, peer feedback activity has also been applied in some English classes for English-major students Therefore, it is recognized that the method of teaching English writing skill in Vietnam has been integrating the method used in many countries all over the world and peer feedback is the solution of current interest in teaching writing skill
Although the values of peer feedback have been proved as presented above and the activity has been applied in some universities, in Vietnam where teacher-fronted
class remains dominant, peer feedback has been seen as a “waste of time” and the
application of peer feedback in writing class seems uncommon (Phan, 2011) Therefore, “despite the important role of peer feedback, the number of studies on peer feedback is still limited and outnumbered by studies on teacher feedback” (Bui,
2009, p 2) Besides, in Vietnam, there have been few studies on the application of
Trang 18themselves do not believe their peers’ comments Currently, a traditional method,
like GTM, is still commonly used to teach English writing to non-English majors
Because of the common use of a traditional method, like GTM, in teaching English,
until now both teachers and students have faced a lot of problems in teaching and learning English writing skill Firstly, in the writing instruction of university non- English majors, especially freshmen, giving feedback on errors in students’ compositions is really a heavy burden for teachers A large population of students and a variety of errors or mistakes in students’ compositions are the reasons why teachers feel troublesome (Bui, 2009) Recently, at HOU, particularly in the Department of Special Training Program (DSTP), each teacher of English has to
teach three to five classes in which each class contains about 25 to 30 students Thus,
each week, one teacher has to correct and mark about 100 writings with different lengths A large number of papers and a variety of mistakes and errors in each paper, more or less, influence the quality of correction and evaluation from the teacher
Because of the great burden, the teacher of writing cannot correct all students’
mistakes in their writing, and even cannot give them more topics for writing or writing exercises to practice This leads to the demand to find a good way to help
him/her be able to avoid the above-mentioned trouble
Another problem in teaching and learning writing skill comes from students Most non-English major students are not really interested in learning writing (Bui, 2009) Particularly, the researcher of this study, also a teacher of English at DSTP, after two years teaching there, recognizes that students, especially freshmen, are not good at writing although they have learned English for about 7 years at a high school This is the main reason why they do not like to learn this skill In a writing class, students only write as required by their teacher, and then get feedback from his/her only They depend much on him/her Except good ones, most students “just look at the marks teachers give and ignore the error corrections at all” (Phan, 2011, p 25) Therefore, they often make the same mistakes or errors in their next writing They are really passive in their own learning Hence, the requirement in this situation is to explore effective ways to facilitate students’ learning One of the effective ways is
Trang 19the application of peer feedback which is considered as a solution to help to reduce teachers’ burden and enhance students’ learning in a writing class
The problem and requirement stated above are the rationale for conducting the current study
1.2 Purpose of the study
The current study is thus carried out in order to achieve a twofold purpose: to investigate the impact of peer feedback on freshmen’s writing ability in the DSTP at HOU and their perceptions to wards it in learning writing
1.3 Research questions
In order to achieve the purpose above, the study attempts to address the following two research questions:
1 How does peer feedback improve students’ writing ability? 2 What are their perceptions towards it in learning writing? 1.4 Significance of the study
Recently, in Vietnam, peer feedback has not uncommonly been applied in English writing classes and there are a few research studies on peer feedback in writing teaching and learning If it is successfully conducted and expectedly shows a real impact of peer feedback on students’ writing, hopefully this study can be an important contribution to both theoretical and practical aspects
Trang 20Practically, the study provides teachers good information on using peer feedback to teach writing This activity hopefully helps them release pressure to give feedback and correct a lot of papers with various types of errors Concurrently, they can create a learning environment focusing on learners and encouraging their autonomy in learning Furthermore, the study helps students acknowledge the value of peer feedback in their learning From that, they can be more confident in giving comments and receive feedback from their peers in order to help each other to learn 1.5 Organi zation of the study
The thesis consists of six chapters Chapter | provides an introduction to the study by stating its rationale, purpose, research questions, significance, and organization Chapter 2 reviews relevant theories of peer feedback which can be served as the background for the whole research Chapter 3 describes methodology of the study which comprises the research site, participants, methodology of data collection and analytical framework Chapter 4 presents the analysis and interpretation of the collected data from the students’ tests and questionnaires Chapter 5 discusses the findings based on the data analyzed in Chapter 4 Chapter 6 gives main conclusions of the study, evaluates the strengths and weaknesses in the adopted methodology, and gives recommendations for teachers of English and suggestions for further
Trang 21CHAP TER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction
This chapter mainly focuses on the discussion of peer feedback in writing teaching and learning In order to shape the theoretical framework related to peer feedback, it is organized in three main sections: theoretical stances of peer feedback, peer feedback in writing teaching and learning, and empirical research The first section discusses some theoretical issues of social constructionist’s views of learning, the theory of collaborative learning and collaborative writing, and the process-oriented approach These theories support and highlight the values of peer feedback in teaching and learning writing skill The second section presents useful information containing concepts and issues about peer feedback in writing teaching and learning The third section includes some previous research studies with critical discussions about peer feedback in English writing classrooms
2.2 Theoretical stances of peer feedback
2.2.1 Peer feedback and social constructionist’s views of] earning
In social constructionist’s views of learning, it is believed that “knowledge is negotiated and best acquired through interaction in a social context through relationships” (Kurt & Atay, 2007, p 15) Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is one of theories supporting this statement (as cited in
Zainurrahman, 2010, p 42) It can be defined as “the distance between what a child
can do independently and what he/she is capable of doing with targeted assistance (scaffolding)” (ibid., p 42) Vygotsky believes that “what a child is able to do in collaboration today, he will be able to do independently tomorrow” (ibid., p 43)
Clearly, with ZPD, he asserts that a learner needs an interaction to learn and can
benefit from the interaction to enhance his/her learning achievement (ibid., p 44) Hogan and Tudge (1999), in their research about the implications of Vygotsky’s theory for peer learning, show the relation between ZPD and peer learning and the
Trang 22support of the theory for peer feedback According to these authors, ZPD explains the development from an actual level to a potential level of a learner through peer working with others (p 56) A peer feedback activity, in which students are allowed to make negotiation of their strengths and weaknesses, ideas, comments, corrections, and suggestions, provides them with opportunities to develop their ability in writing (ibid., p 57) It is obvious that there is a close connection between ZPD and peer
feedback
As Ferris and Hedgecock (1998) affirm, ZPD is one of the theories that support peer feedback This theory helps to prove that students’ writing skill can be improved through it In particular, after working with peers to receive comments, they can gradually recognize their own mistakes and be better in their own way of writing These authors also assert that although ZPD theory pays attention to the interaction between the higher and lower level of the interlocutors, it does not mean that a peer feedback activity where students might be at the same level can discourage their writing development (p 198) In reality, in peer working, when mistakes are corrected, students’ writing can be developed When they work with their peers to
correct their writing, “unclearness is clarified, ineffectiveness is criticized, and
suggestion is applied in their writing” (ibid., p 199) This helps to improve their writing little by little Clearly, higher-lower level interaction is not necessary the case to offer betterment in learning as students in a similar level can help each other to develop writing In a peer feedback activity, students at same level can remind each other of the mistakes made by their friends Peer feedback can help to stimulate
students’ awareness of their writing mistakes (Zainurrahman, 2010) This shows that
“the development of writing in peer feedback activity (a process) is not always determined by higher-lower interaction, but the interaction of students in a similar level can generate the development of writing as well” (ibid., p 13)
Trang 23besides helping them improve their writing, peer feedback trains them to be a critical reader More importantly, when they critically and carefully read their friend’s writing, they probably find mistakes that are similar to what they made on their own writing (ibid., p 21) In this case, their friend’s writing becomes “mirror” that reflects their own writing This encourages the students as the readers to make
revision based on their self-awareness and their friend’s writing Therefore, through
the interaction and the negotiation in peer feedback, they can get benefits to develop their writing via their roles as both the writer and the reader
Briefly, there is a close relationship between peer feedback : and social constructionist’s views of learning in which ZPD is a very important theory that supports peer feedback
2.2.2 Peer feedback and the theory of collaborative learning and collaborative writing
This part has been included in this chapter because many researchers and experts in the field of writing teaching considered peer feedback as a collaborative activity in which collaborative learning and collaborative writing are mentioned Therefore it is essential to understand the theoretical framework of collaborative learning and collaborative writing to understand pedagogical value of peer feedback better
2.2.2.1 Collaborative learning
Collaborative learning is seen as the theoretical stance that enhances the use of peer feedback According to Bruffee (1984), it is defined as a type of learning that takes place through interaction with peers where certain skills are required This author also states that “a group of peers brings the students to the task even though they may not be equipped with all the resources and skills needed to accomplish the task” (p 644) In other words, as two or more learners work together on a task, their interaction with one another creates an environment to learn and finish the task
Trang 24Another notion supporting collaborative learning through peer learning is from Nunan’s (1992) point of view As this author affirms, when learners are collaboratively involved in group work with their peers, they will get the advantages of collaborative learning The first advantage is that collaborative learning in working with peers encourages them to increase their awareness about language and language learning Also, it helps them to develop communicative skill in spoken
form and written form as well Furthermore, it enhances students’ confrontation of
the conflict between individual needs and group needs in social terms as well as linguistic and content terms Finally, it helps them recognize the decision making tasks by themselves as a true communicative activity “In a wider context and in more practical terms, collaborative learning entails students working together to achieve learning from the given task and from peers as well” (ibid., p 734)
2.2.2.2 Collaborative writing
Collaborative writing is an increasingly widespread activity in writing classes of English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) where two or more writers work together to produce or discuss a shared piece of
writing (Ede & Lunsford, 1990) Obviously, collaborative writing emphasizes peer
learning in which sharing ideas with peers is considered very important to complete a writing task Grami (2010) states that collaborative and cooperative learning has increasingly become a crucial part in most curricula at all levels of education So, teachers routinely train students to work together in small group tasks that involve giving and taking feedback to accomplish a common purpose
With regard to collaborative writing’s advantages, in their research studies, Hansen and Liu (2005) and Storch (2005) specify that collaborative writing is a way to cultivate reflective thinking, especially when students are engaged in explaining and defending their ideas to their peers These authors also confirm that, in the process of collaborative writing, students work with not only grammatical accuracy but also discourse They can also boost their skills of decision making as they review their peers’ papers Moreover, the flow of knowledge about language may be encouraged by the process of collaborative writing (Storch, 2005)
Trang 25In short, as Murray (1992) mentions, in the relation between collaborative writing and peer feedback activity, “collaborative writing was essentially a social process through which writers looked for areas of sharing understanding” (p 103)
2.2.3 Peer feedback and the process-oriented approach 2.2.3.1 An overview of the process-oriented approach
The process-oriented approach or process-based approach emphasizes student writers as the independent producers of texts (Truong, 2011) Grami (2010) asserts that “this approach sees writing primarily as the exercise of linguistic skills and writing development as an unconscious process that occurs when teachers facilitate the exercise of writing skills” (p 24) Reid (1995) also highly appreciates this approach as it encourages students to explore their internal creativity, individuality and fluency during a process of composing a text Undoubtedly, this approach focuses on their learning and interest In order to get an overview of this approach in teaching writing, it is very essential to make an enquiry into the writing process in it, and its advantages and disadvantages
2.2.3.1.1 The writing process
In the process-oriented approach, according to Richards and Renandya (2002), the writing process is considered as a private activity that may be broadly seen as comprising four main stages: planning, drafting, revising and editing These stages are illustrated in Figure 2.1 below
Process activated Process terminated
Figure 2.1: The writing process (Richards & Renandya, 2002, p 315)
Trang 26In a writing classroom, the four basic stages are externally imposed with three other
stages, namely responding (sharing), evaluating and post-writing All these stages
are described in details in accordance with these authors’ opinions as follows 2.2.3.1.1.1 Planning (pre-writing)
Planning or pre-writing is any activity that encourages students to write and stimulates their thoughts for getting started in writing (Richards & Renandya, 2002, p 316) At this stage, there are some activities: group brainstorming, clustering, rapid free writing, and Wh-questions In group brainstorming, students work in groups and spontaneously spew out their ideas about a given topic without the fear of giving right or wrong answer (p 316) In clustering, students form words and ideas related to a given topic and put them into different groups In rapid free writing, individual students freely and quickly write down single words and phrases
about a topic within a limited time of 1 or 2 minutes (p 316) The time limit keeps
the writers’ minds thinking and ticking fast In Wh-questions, students generate what, who, why, where, when and how questions about a given topic (p 316) These questions provide them with more information about the topic
2.2.3.1.1.2 Drafting
After gathering sufficient ideas at the planning stage, students are encouraged to write at the first attempt— drafting At this stage, they focuse on the fluency of writing and are not much worried about grammatical accuracy or the neatness of the
draft (Richards & Renandya, 2002, p 317)
2.2.3.1.1.3 Responding
Responding to student writing has a central role to play in the writing process (Richards & Renandya, 2002) In it, students work together to respond to their peers’ writing or work with their teacher to receive his/her feedback Especially, at this stage, peer responding is really helpful because it encourages students in collaborative learning and provides them with chances to learn from the others (Lee,
2009)
Trang 27
#
P.2.3.1.1.4 Revising
en revising, the students review their writing paper based on the feedback given bir the responding stage Revising is not only checking for language errors, but also impro ving the content and the organization of ideas of a writing work (Richards &
kRenandya, 2002, p 317) |
\2.2.3.1.1.5 Editing
‘At this stage, students are encouraged to tidy up their writing They edit their own or ‘their peers’ writing for “grammar, spelling, punctuation, diction, sentence structure ‘and accuracy of supportive textual material such as quotations, examples and the like” (Richards & Renandya, 2002, p 318)
2.2.3.1.1 6 Evaluating
in evaluating students’ writing, the teacher assigns scores which may be analytical (i.e., based on specific aspects of writing ability) or holistic (i.e., based on a global interpretation of the effectiveness of that piece of writing) (Richards & Renandya,
2002, p 319) In order to be effective, the criteria for evaluation should include
“overall interpretation of the organization of ideas, format or layout, grammar and structure, spelling and punctuation, range and appropriateness of vocabulary, and clarity of communication” (p 319) Once students have known about the criteria
and have been taught how to evaluate a piece of writing based on these criteria, they
may be encouraged to evaluate their own and the others’ texts and to be more responsible for their own writing (p 319)
2.2.3.1.1.7 Post-writing
Post-writing consists of activities such as publishing, sharing, reading aloud, role- playing, or displaying texts on notice-boards This stage provides students the opportunity to show that they are writing for a very real purpose (Richards & Renandya, 2002, p 319)
Trang 282.2.3.1.2 Advantages and disadvantages
The approach is highly appreciated because of its advantages Firstly, it focuses on the composing process, which views writing as not only a product-oriented activity, but also an exploratory process whereby writers can discover and use knowledge in their own way (Grami, 2010) Secondly, it helps students practice various skills in learning writing via involving them in the stages mentioned above This makes them realize that writing process is a process of discovering new ideas and new language forms to express ideas (Truong, 2011) Here, a peer editing activity takes place as great support in enhancing their communication with others and share of ideas As Nunan (1999) asserts, “the collaborative group work between students is a way of enhancing motivation and developing positive attitudes towards writing” (p 272) Thirdly, because this approach focuses on the fluency of ideas expressed in students’ texts rather than the formal accuracy of grammar, it can lower their anxiety level in writing (Truong, 2011) They now may feel comfortable in expressing their individuality and sharing ideas Finally, it is very important to consider the role of teacher and students in this approach The teacher is not the authority in class but a supporter, an organizer, an observer and a consultant who assigns tasks, observes class and gives guidance when needed Students are active recipients during the writing process (ibid., p 18)
Besides the good points with the use of peer feedback activity, the process approach nas its own drawbacks This approach fails to provide students with sufficient input in the form of linguistic convention of academic texts (Badger & White, 2000) In order to write successfully, they need not only strategies of how to learn, but mowledge of vocabulary and grammar Hyland (2002) affirms that equipping novice writers with good strategies of composing texts alone is not enough to lead them to an improvement in extended writing skills Moreover, in the approach, students find it difficult to write creatively and independently because most of them are those who lack formal knowledge of grammar, vocabulary and text organization In fact, if they want to write creatively and express their “self”, in the first place,
Trang 29they have to master the linguistic conventions of a particular text in the forms of grammar, vocabulary and text organization very well (Nunan, 1999)
2.2.3.2 Position of peer feedback in the process-oriented approach
As presented in the previous part, the link between peer feedback and the process- oriented approach is evident (Grami, 2010) Peer response is believed to be an actual part of the process writing approach and many tasks involved in peer review sessions are actually applications of this approach Hyland (2005) also confirms that giving feedback on the multiple drafts is seen as an essential part of the writing instruction and an important aspect of fostering the improvement of ‘writing In considering the importance and the position of peer feedback in this approach, this author has also modeled the process of teaching writing as in Table 2.1
A process model of writing instruction
e Selection ofthe topic: by teacher and /or students
e Prewriting: brainstorming, collecting data, note taking, outlining, etc e Composing: getting ideas down in paper
'e Response to draft: teacher’s respond/ peers’ respond to ideas, organization, and style
e Revising: reorganizing, style, adjusting to readers, refining ideas e Response to revisions: teacher’s respond / peers’ respond to ideas,
organization, and style
e Proofreading and editing: checking and correcting form, layout, evidence,
etc
e Evaluation: teacher evaluates progress over the process
e Publishing: by class circulation or presentation, notice boards, website, etc
e Follow-up task: to address weaknesses
Table 2.1: A process model of writing instruction (Hyland, 2005)
In this table, peer feedback activity is positioned between composing, revising and editing A peer feedback activity plays an important role in enhancing ideas, organization and style “Double position’ of peer feedback in the model shows that
Trang 30it is an important point in the process-oriented approach Although the teacher may
use teacher feedback rather than peer feedback or vice versa, peer feedback is still a
key component in the process-oriented approach, in which students read their peers’ paper, give feedback to their peers, and give answers to specific questions provided - by the teacher (Zainurrahman, 2010)
A peer feedback activity in the process writing approach allows students as writers to revise grammatical and mechanical mistakes in their writing by enabling the reader to provide comments and correction for their writing (Zainurrahman, 2010)
Hence, the more the phase of peer feedback and correction can be repeated, the
better students can learn from this activity
A peer feedback activity can be organized at various stages of the writing process (Ferris & Hedgcock, 2005) There is no constrain influencing the flexible use of peer feedback in the process writing approach Nevertheless, in order to be used effectively, it should be positioned between composing and editing (Hyland, 2005) Based on the description above, peer feedback is seen as one of the important items in the writing process It has gradually become more important than writing notes in the page margin It has also become a crucial process among the phases of the process-oriented approach to writing (Hyland, 2005) Therefore, its importance should be acknowledged
2.2.3.3 Development in students’ revision through peer feedback in the process - oriented approach
Since peer feedback is placed in an important position in the process-oriented writing, students are likely getting more opportunities to revise their writing based on comments given by their peers rather than rewriting their draft without feedback from peers (Zainurrahman, 2010) Evidently, their writing can be developed thanks to their revision through peer feedback activity
In the process-oriented approach, students are given more chances to revise their writing after doing peer or teacher feedback activity until their writing is ‘ready to
Trang 31be published” (Hyland, 2005) Obviously, their writing, from the first draft to the later, will develop through the process of sharing and negotiating ideas, correcting mistakes, commenting expressions, and so on During the process, peer feedback activity is an essential step generating the development that might not occur in another writing approach (Lim, 2007) The development:.occurs because peer feedback and revision can be repeated as many times as needed where each student can get input from multiple audiences to complete their writing assignments
(Williams, 2005)
As Lim (2007) affirms, the development occurring in students’ writing is related to the impact of peer feedback and is sometimes influenced by the type of peer feedback that they receive Another point of view from Lee (2009) is that, regardless its types, a peer review session supports students in clarifying, generating, developing ideas, and improving the organization and style of their writing By looking at the development achieved by his students in reality, this author asserts that comments or suggestions from peers focus on some aspects such as grammaticality, mechanics, and organization of their writing This means that the development through peer feedback is generated as “grammatical development, mechanical development, and organizational de velopment in their writing” (p 162) To sum the whole section up, peer feedback is one of the key factors in the process- oriented approach In this approach, it is highly appreciated and the development of writing skill through this activity is also encouraged When applying it in a real teaching situation, teachers should consider the appropriate position of this activity inthe writing process in order to foster the development of students’ writing
2.3 Peer feedback in writing teaching and learning | 2.3.1 Concept of peer feedback
Peer feedback is simply the feedback that is given by peers; however, when it is considered as a process in writing teaching and learning, it can be defined as the activity in which students read, evaluate, and give comments to their peers’ writing (Yang, 2006) In a writing activity, it provides them the opportunity to learn from
Trang 32each other Specifically, in a writing class, after students finish their assignments, two or more students will work together to read their peers’ work and then give comments on their peers’ papers in spoken or written form (Yang, 2006) Similarly,
Bartels (2004) considers it as feedback from fellow students Besides, this author :
judges that if one student is working on the same assignment, as another student, it can mean exchanging drafts and comments on each other’s drafts He also states that nowadays the ways to conduct it have been changed by teachers For instance, students in a language class are trained to give useful and positive feedback, and they also have many chances to practice evaluating written work before giving feedback on their peers’ work Actually, trained students have an ability to focus not only on surface errors but also on organization or style (Stanley, 1992; Zhu, 1995),
Therefore, many teachers now tend to have students write feedback rather than to
give oral feedback to their peer writing in group setting With the use of peer written feedback, students who give feedback have time to read and check their peers’ writing; students who receive written feedback are also given time to read, ask questions and seek clarification from what their peers have written Thus, “peer feedback is a two-way process in which one cooperates with the other” (Lee, 2009, p 130)
Regarding peer feedback in writing teaching and learning, Lee (2009) states that “when oral peer response is possible, there are advantages to having students give written responses to their peers’ writing” (p 233) In writing classes, peer feedback can be applied with many formats, two of the most common ones being: (1) students work in groups of two, three or four and exchange their first drafts and give comments on each other’s drafts before making the final versions (Hyland, 2003); and (2) students read their own essays aloud while the other students listen and provide feedback, either written or oral, on the writing that they have just heard (Ferris, 2007) Hansen and Liu (2005) also affirm that peer feedback in a writing class tends to generate more comments on the content, organization, and vocabulary This means that it is not only about how students correct their peers’ writing, but
also about “how a student’s criticism, suggestions, and point of view generate
meaningful improvement towards other students’ writing” (p 32)
TRUONG DAI HOC MO THLHEM
THU VIEN
Trang 33
2.3.2 Different ways of peer feedback in writing
Writing is the process in which different ways of feedback such as talking about the paper, using checklists and written comments could be carried out (Keh, 1990, Mangeldorf, 1992) In order to help students improve the quality of their written work, it is very necessary to consider and apply these ways in certain teaching situations appropriately
2.3.2.1 Talking about the paper
“Talking about the paper” means students discuss their peers’ papers with each other to find out what the other is trying to say in his or her writing (Raimes, 1984) Mangelsdorf (1992) considers it as an activity in which students read their peers’ written papers and orally give comments or suggestions for revision The activity is conducted by students after writing their drafts They exchange their ideas on their peer’s writing about what they find interesting, what they want to know more and what they are confused about and so on This feedback may be used to revise their writing papers
“Talking about the paper” is the way to give peer oral feedback and it can be time- consuming (Raimes, 1984) During the discussion using it, therefore, students can take notes of what the others say and keep the note-taking for further rewriting activities Mangelsdorf (1992) also states his view about getting collaboration through this technique Students can have “more exact and better comments because they can discuss ideas with each other”, and collaboration can help them to be more confident about the feedback they are giving (p 127)
2.3.2.2 Using checklists
In order to help students approach a feedback task, using checklists should be taken into consideration A checklist is a document providing students with a set of questions to be answered while reading and analyzing each other’s papers (Nguyen, 2008) This document is “a very useful tool as a starting point for training as it
Trang 34directs the students’ attention to the elements which should be focused on during peer feedback session” (Raimes, 1984, p 147)
A checklist is designed to identify problems of a writing and to give the writer ideas ‘about what should be improved It can “contain questions about manuscript form, instructions about grammar, and tasks to analyze the content and organization” (ibid, p 148) In each writing assignment, it can be devised to be suitable to the features of one particular writing task For example, if students’ assignment is to write a paragraph, it can focus their attention on the organization of a paragraph like the topic sentence, supporting ideas, and the concluding sentence Another important point when designing a checktist is that it should be short and should be used first by the students and then by a teacher to evaluate it (p 148)
2.3.2.3 Written comments
Feedback may not always be sufficient and effective if they are too short and uninformed (Shrum & Glisan, 2000) Specific points are still be preferred rather than general comments at the end like “good” and “need more work’ A written comment is considered as a useful tool in giving peer feedback, especially peer written feedback, because it requires students to specifically write down their notes and ideas on their peers’ writing It means that written comments take the form of a paraphrase of the ideas, questions, or suggestions about a writing task rather than general comments (Nguyen, 2008, p 13)
Raimes (1984) suggests some ideas for giving effective written comments The first one is to read the paper, then note what has been done well in it before writing something on it The author argues that students should receive the praise of strengths first, and after that they need to know what should be improved in their own writing
2.3.3 Types of peer feedback
The following part will deal with some major types of peer feedback: positive and negative, direct and indirect, and text-specific and general These types will be
Trang 35presented in pair in order to have an overview of their both advantages and disadvantages
2.3.3.1 Positive versus negative feedback
The contribution of positive and negative feedback to students’ progress in revision has long been proved by many researchers (Nguyen, 2008) Positive feedback takes the form of praise and encouragement while negative feedback involves the tone of criticism (Nguyen, 2008)
Concerning the effect of these types on students’ writing, Ratmes (1984) emphasizes that both of them have a crucial influence on their writing This author states that “the most important aspect while giving feedback is adopting a positive attitude to students’ writing” (p 124) Obviously, it is very necessary to give positive comments to them to recognize what has been done well in addition to what should be improved (p 125) Positive comments, in Mittan’s (1989) point of view, can help to “build confidence in students and create good feelings for the next writing class” (p 104) Stanley (1992) also expresses the effectiveness of positive feedback by saying that “noticing and praising whatever a student does well improve writing more than any kind or amount of correction of what he does badly”
(p 143)
However, it is not sufficient to motivate students to rewrite better revision if they receive too much or only positive feedback (Nguyen, 2008) Negative feedback with the function to show them what should be improved in their writing may help them get effective revision (Mosher, 1998) Hyland (2002) also confirms that, in some vases, “negative feedback can do well as it helps to highlight the problems for further changes” (p 107) Nevertheless, over-negative feedback may “undermine students’ confidence as writers” (p 108) They may be discouraged in trying to rewrite their paper if they receive too much or only negative feedback
From these points of view, it is vital that both positive and negative feedback are so important Yet, too much positive feedback or too much negative feedback may lead
to bad influence on writers As Cardelle and Corno (1981, as cited in Keh, 1990)
Trang 36affirm, “too much praise may confuse, mislead or demotivate students while too many criticisms would discourage the writers’ effort to revise the writings” (p 295)
Hence, a balance between praise and criticism should be considered in order to
encourage students’ quality of writing (Keh, 1990)
2.3.3.2 Direct versus indirect feedback
Direct feedback means the explicit correction of errors found out by feedback givers, and it consists of writing the correct letter(s), words, phrases or construction directly on students’ writing (Ferris, 2002, p 203) Unlike direct one, indirect feedback refers to ‘identifying without correcting the errors” (p 203)
Stannard (2008) in his study points out that direct feedback may have an immediate advantage that helps students directly recognize their mistakes In this form of
feedback, all the mistakes are pointed out and corrected; however, “it stands high
chance that students still make the same mistakes in their future paper” and does not help to improve their accuracy in a different paper (p 208) Furthermore, direct feedback fails to promote autonomous learning because when receiving direct error correction, students only do copy the correction in the new draft and they do not need to do more than that This problem may cause them to lose the control over their work (p 209)
On the contrary, indirect feedback is considered to be better than the direct one in motivating and enhancing students’ self-editing ability When feedback givers only point out the mistakes by underlying or coding and do not give any correction, writers have to explore the problems as well as the way to correct the mistakes (Frodesen, 2001) Students, hence, get better language acquisition from indirect
feedback
From the views presented above, it is very important to reasonably apply direct and indirect feedback in the writing process in order to benefit writers as much as possible
Trang 372.3.3.3 Text-specific versus general feedback
Text-specific feedback means the feedback that is “directly related to the text at hand” and “only applied to that writers’ text at that place within the text’ (Ferris & Hedgecock, 1998, p 133) Using text-specific feedback, the feedback giver points out where and why mistakes are made, and then asks for specific information or gives clear and concrete suggestions (p 134) Thus, students or writers may produce more effective revisions from this type of feedback Reid (1993) concludes that this type of feedback is really “detailed enough to allow students to act, to commit to change their writing” (p 128) However, it focuses too much on surface features and itis so text-specific that ‘the writers canfiot use it on subsequent writing” (Searle &
Dillon, 1980, as cited in Leki, 1990, p 160)
Compared with text-specific one, general feedback “seems not to be helpful since it only provides some general comments on students’ papers” (Nguyen, 2008, p 24) Fathman and Whalley (1990) give an example about it That is instead of adding an “§” to the end of every third person singular verb in the present tense, a general >omment may, be written as follows: ‘there are several verbs that are missing an “_s” it the end (as cited in Nunan, 2003, p 162) This is a good way to guide students to hink, find out and correct their mistakes by themselves Accordingly, they are much notivated in their own learning
30th text-specific and general feedback have two sides of the matter, the combination of them should be considered in giving feedback on students’ issignments in order to encourage them to learn writing
1.3.4 Advantages and drawbacks of peer feedback in writing 1.3.4.1 Advantages of peer feedback
[he benefits of peer feedback in writing learning have been advocated by many esearchers in their studies Ferris (1995) has summarized some of the advantages rom peer feedback in improving students’ writing ability and increasing their earning motivation
Trang 38
4.1.1 Improvement of wrifing ability
' is (1995) affirms that once students have good knowledge of English and they ; well-trained with peer feedback, this activity supports them a lot in improving bir writing ability When doing it, they usually read, share their opinions and get
Họ of improvement about the organization, grammar, vocabulary and mechanics in
biting When discussing organization, they have chances to share ideas about
biting the introduction of an essay, the topic sentence of a paragraph, the bpportive ideas, and the conclusion While exchanging ideas, they can receive
: eresting suggestions from their friends to write on their own Coricerning the
poprovement in grammar, vocabulary, 4nd mechanics, this author also considers
hat students may not correct all their friends’ mistakes exactly; however, they can kmind their friends of some minor mistakes or errors and simple structures in , iting Obviously, the importance of peer feedback in helping students improve heir writing ability cannot be denied
b 3.4.1.2 Increase of learning motivation
h addition to helping students improve their writing ability, peer feedback helps to increase their learning motivation
Firstly, motivation in learning writing is encouraged via peer feedback According to Ferris (1995), students’ confidence and critical thinking increase as a result of reading a text written by peers on similar tasks Peer feedback can help to stimulate them in putting more effort to write since their writing will be read by their classmates, not only by their teacher Hence, they are encouraged to write and learn more in order to improve their o wn writing
Secondly, thanks to peer feedback, students have more motivation in reading to support learning writing In doing it, they are motivated to read their peers’ writing carefully in order to give useful comments When they try to read, find out their
peers’ mistakes and discuss to help each other, they are also aware of the mistakes
they made in their own writing This helps them to be more critical in reading to give comments to others and get more knowledge for their own as well (William,
Trang 392005) Ferris (2003) also considers that peer feedback helps to develop student role as the mistake searcher, and this role encourages students to be critical readers and critical thinkers at once in reading to support learning writing
Thirdly, students’ motivation in pair or group work is encouraged through peer feedback in learning writing Peer feedback is believed to be a good way to encourage their participation in pair work or group work in classroom, give them more control and make them less passively teacher-dependant (Hyland, 2000, as sited in Grami, 2010, p 54) In it, they have opportunities to learn to communicate sffectively and “accept different perspectives while listening carefully, thinking critically, and participating constructively” (White & Caminero, 1995, p 61)
in short, students can get benefits from peer feedback in improving their writing ibility and increasing their leaning motivation
1.3.4.2 Drawbacks of peer feedback
Although it has its own perceived benefits, peer feedback still leaves some jrawbacks (William, 2005) Its value is skeptical to many English teachers because hey are not sure whether the quality of feedback that students give to their peers is ‘eliable or not The students in Hong’s (2006) research also devalue peer feedback tivity and even they do not like it.at all They may think that their peers have the same or a lower level of English proficiency than they do; therefore, they question if heir peers’ feedback is really correct Thus, they do not take their peer feedback seriously or even ignore it Moreover, some students do not feel comfortable to >xchange their paper with their peers They may not want their classmates to see heir writing because they do not have confidence in their own writing proficiency ® 48) Furthermore, after reading their peers’ paper, they may feel reluctant to give feedback, especially a negative one, to them They may not be confident in their ywn abilities In some cases, if they have to read a paper from a classmate who they mow has higher English proficiency than they do, they are reluctant to give any 1egative feedback Instead, they may only give short and general feedback such as ‘good” or “very interesting story.” Their peers will not be able to learn anything
Trang 40fe such simple feedback As a consequence, peer feedback may be only a time- K ting activity that makes students feel uncomfortable (p 49)
(One more thing to be taken into account when carrying out peer feedback is the consumption of time It should be considerable According to William (2005), students can only get benefits from peer feedback, especially in the written form, when they are taught basic procedures as well as other skills such as reading a draft (probably more than one), making notes, questioning, asserting, evaluating the logic and coherence of ideas, and expressing criticism and suggestions in a clear and comprehensible way This means that “peer feedback generates positive impact if the students are ready and well-trained and prepared by the teacher” (William, 2005, p 171) In other words, in order to effectively conduct peer feedback, teachers should spend time training students and preparing them these skills Thus, the matter of time should be carefully taken into consideration when applying peer feedback during class time
In short, peer feedback has its own advantages and drawbacks as well Therefore,
teachers and students should consider these advantages and drawbacks in order to carry out peer feedback activity in class effectively
2.3.5 Students’ responses towards peer feedback
Concerning their responses towards peer feedback, some researchers reveal students’ positive attitudes towards it; however, some show that they do not highly value it although they recognize its importance in a writing class
Regarding students’ positive responses towards peer feedback, Mittan (1989) notices that they are more confident in their writing when doing it Moreover, based on this researcher’s survey, most of the students feel that they are not isolated when learning writing with it “because they are placed in a social situation in the slassroom where they can share problems and solutions” (p 128) He also 2mphasizes that the sharing activity is realized by students as “having potential senefit to develop their writing as process and product rather than without feedback from peers” (p 128) In Rollinson’s (2005) research, students consider that peer