The students’attitudes toward peer feedback on their writings case of 11 graders in bac kan gifted high school

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE STUDIES - - NGUYỄN THỊ VIỆT HÀ THE STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD PEER FEEDBACK ON THEIR WRITINGS: CASE OF 11 GRADERS IN BAC KAN GIFTED HIGH SCHOOL (THÁI ĐỘ CỦA HỌC SINH LỚP 11 TRƯỜNG THPT CHUYÊN BẮC KẠN VỀ Ý KIẾN PHẢN HỒI CỦA BẠN HỌC VỚI BÀI VIẾT TIẾNG ANH CỦA CÁC EM M.A MINOR THESIS MAJOR: ENGLISH TEACHING METHODOLOGY CODE: 601410 Hanoi-2012 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE STUDIES - - NGUYỄN THỊ VIỆT HÀ THE STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD PEER FEEDBACK ON THEIR WRITINGS: CASE OF 11 GRADERS IN BAC KAN GIFTED HIGH SCHOOL (THÁI ĐỘ CỦA HỌC SINH LỚP 11 TRƯỜNG THPT CHUYÊN BẮC KẠN VỀ Ý KIẾN PHẢN HỒI CỦA BẠN HỌC VỚI BÀI VIẾT TIẾNG ANH CỦA CÁC EM M.A MINOR THESIS MAJOR: ENGLISH TEACHING METHODOLOGY CODE: 601410 SUPERVISOR: Ms TRẦN HIỀN LAN Hanoi-2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Declaration……………………………………………………………… i Acknowledgements …………………….……………………………… ii Table of contents……………………………………………………… iii List of Tables and Figures ………… ………………………………… v Abstract ………………………………………………………………… vi INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale of the study …….………………………………………… 1.2 Aims of the study ……………………………………………… 1.3 Scope of the study……………………………………………… 1.4 Significance of the study……………………………………… 1.5 Methods of the study…………………………………………… 1.6 Design of the study………………………………………… CHAPTER ONE LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Teaching writing in EFL classroom ……………………………… 2.1.1 Why learn to write…………………………………………… 2.1.2 Writing in EFL classroom…………………………………… 2.2 Process writing approach………………………………………… 2.3 An overview of written peer feedback on writing………………… 3.1 Definition of peer feedback and formats of peer feedback…… 2.3.2 Advantages of peer feedback………………………………… 10 2.3.3 Disadvantages of peer feedback……………………………… 12 2.3.4 Student‟s attitude toward peer feedback……………………… 13 CHAPTER TWO METHODOLOGY 3.1 Context of the study…………………………………………… 17 3.1.1 The setting of the study…………………………………… 17 3.1.2 The writing program ………………………………………… 17 3.2 Research questions………………………………………… iv 18 3.3 Research design………………………………………………… 19 3.3.1 Peer feedback activity……………………………………… 19 3.2.2 Writing cycle……………………………………………… 20 3.3 Participants……………………………………………………… 21 3.4 Data collection instruments………………………………………… 22 3.5 Research procedure……………………………………………… 22 3.6 Data analysis…… ……………………………………………… 23 CHAPTER THREE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 25 4.1 Research question 1: What are the attitudes of 11 graders in Bac Kan gifted High school toward written peer feedback? 4.2 Research questions 2: 25 How much of the peer feedback was included in the students‟ second draft of their writings? 31 4.3 Research question 3: To what extent did peer feedback lead to improvement on the students‟ second draft of their writings? 34 CHAPTER FOUR PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS 38 CONCLUSION 6.1 Summary of major findings……………………………………… 41 6.2 Limitations of the study and suggestions for further study……… 42 6.3 Suggestions for further study…………………………………… 43 v LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES List of Tables Table 1: Number of mistakes recognized by peers on the first drafts and the number of suggestions incorporated into the next writing………………………………………… 33 Table 2: The students‟ writing performance between the first and the second drafts… 35 List of Figures Figure 1: The writing process ( Seow)……………………… Figure 2: The process wheel ( Harmer)………………………………………………… Figure 3: The design of peer feedback activity……………… 20 Figure 4: Student‟s writing performance between two drafts……………………………35 Figure 5: Mistakes corrected for improvement over mistakes pointed out………………36 vi INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale of the study Feedback is widely seen in education as crucial for both encouraging and consolidating learning (Anderson, 1982; Brophy, 1981; Vygotsky, 1978 cited in Ken Hyland and Fiona Hyland, 2006) Providing feedback to students has been recognized one of the most important tasks of writing teachers for feedback power in helping to create a supporting teaching environment, in developing the ways students talk about writing, in conveying and modelling ideas about good writing Yet, whether or not teachers‟ feedback is helpful to the students‟ writing skills is not conclusive In Hyland‟s study (1998, cited in Hyland, 2003), she found that students followed the teacher‟s feedback to revise without real understanding of why the text or the grammar was problematic Consequently, students just made a short-term improvement on their revised versions In other words, feedback seems to contribute little to the long-term development of students‟ writing Worst of all, if a student‟s composition is full of errors marked in red, he may be frustrated and his interest and confidence in leaning may be reduced Thus, it is necessary for teachers to explore effective ways to facilitate students‟ learning from teachers‟ feedback, and meanwhile help them be able to avoid the above-mentioned troubles In addition, in the writing instruction of EFL classes, feedback on students‟ composition is always something teachers feel troublesome It is a heavy workload due to the large number of the students each teacher has to be in charge of In Viet Nam, the number of students in each class is often about thirty to forty In other words, the large class size causes little possibility for a teacher to respond to students‟ multiple drafts of their writing To deal with the problem of large classes, peer feedback is recommended as a solution Peer feedback is a useful alternative way to reduce teacher‟s time on giving feedback, to provide students different source of reader response (Berg, 1999; Caulk,1994; Min 2006) and to cultivate independent critical readers and writers, to enhance confidence, creativity of students, to improve students‟ writing skills ( Ting & Qian, 2010; Mohammed Farrah, 2012) According to the result of Zheng‟s study (2007), students can correct most of the errors quite well Although a variety of beneficial effects of peer feedback on L2 writings have been proved, there are some criticisms of peer feedback used in L2 and FL Fei Hong (2006) finds that response of the students is not at a level sufficient to improve the quality of writing Students incorporate much higher percentage of teacher feed back than peer feedback because they have more confidence in the teacher (Tsui and Ng‟, 2000) The earlier studies show conflicting findings The results of studies depend partly on students‟ attitude toward peer feedback, which is a crucial factor affecting the effectiveness of peer feedback Although many studies on peer feedback have been conducted in the world, „what our students think of it‟ remains a common concern For all the above mentioned reasons, I, in this study, wish to investigate the attitude of 11 graders in Bac Kan gifted high school toward peer feedback 1.2 Aims of the study This research is conducted to investigate students‟ attitudes toward the written peer feedback; the rate of students incorporating peer feedback into their revisions and improvement of their writings resulting from peer feedback 1.3 Scope of the study The study is limited to the investigation of the attitude of a small group of 11-grade students at Bac Kan gifted high school towards peer feedback in writing as well as the extent to which peer feedback helps the students to improve their writing It is, thus, just a small-scale survey and no generalization of the findings is intended 1.4 Significance of the study The research is carried out with the hope that the results of the study will provide significant insights into written peer feedback and how the students react to these responses In addition, with the findings in the study, I hope to answer to the question whether or not peer feedback is a useful alternative way to reduce teacher‟s burden of correcting students‟ writings This may lead to suggestions for improving quality of peer feedback and helping the writing teacher implement peer feedback practice more successfully 1.5 Methods of the study Case study was implemented to research Moreover, to realize the aims, the following methods for data collection were employed in the study + Observation in class setting Data is recorded by note taking + Interviews with a list of specific and open ended questions between the students and me + Collecting existing information which are students‟ written drafts with peer feedback and drafts with revision 1.6 Design of the study This study has three main parts: introduction, development and conclusion The first part briefly states the introduction to the subject and an overview of the paper including the rationale of the study, the aims, research questions, scope, methods, the significance and the design of the study The part development are divided into four chapters Chapter provides a review of relevant literature including an overview of writing teaching, of process writing approach, of written peer feedback on the writing which can serve as the background for the whole research Chapter contains the methodology of the study including participants, research procedures of data collection and data analysis Chapter presents and analyzes the collected data from observations, interviews and the students‟ written drafts as well as the discussion based on the findings Chapter offers some implications for better practice of peer written feedback on student‟s writings at Bac Kan gifted high school Lastly, conclusion summarizes some main issues mentioned in the research, offers the limitation of the study and suggestions for further research Following the chapters are the references and appendices CHAPTER ONE LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Teaching writing in EFL classroom 2.1.1 Why learn to write Literacy, which refers to ability to read and write, is a desirable skill for whole population In industrialized societies, education as well as literacy gives literate people a huge advantage over illiterate ones Although when growing up, all human beings learn to speak first and writing later Writing is an integral skill and need to be taught That is because “spoken language can be acquired naturally as a result of being exposed to it, whereas the ability to write has to be consciously learned” (Jeremy Harmer p3) In context of education particularly in the examinations, candidates‟ knowledge is measured through their writing proficiency Therefore, those with a good writing ability will have more advantages When learning a foreign language, people learn to communicate with others Yet face to face interaction in which communicators can listen to talks, look at facial expression and gestures does not always convey all what the communicators mean Even in some cases when face to face communication takes place, communicators can not understand each other because of bad pronunciation or strange accents, writing is an effective means of communication That is another reason why people have to write Moreover, in EFL classes, writing helps students learn reinforce grammatical structures, vocabulary, idioms which have been taught by their teacher; express ideas in newly taught language logically and acceptably in written English discourse; force the brain to work Being able to write is difficult not only for foreign learners but for native speakers as well because writing has been described as a complicated cognitive task It is more than a direct production of what the brain knows, it demands careful thought, discipline and concentration Training students to write is a challenging task and demands the care and attention of language teachers because teacher feedback is regarded more valuable and reliable than peer feedback from students‟ views The findings revealed that grammar and form such as spelling mistakes were recognized and suggested by peer feedback effectively So, peer feedback should be introduced to decrease the teacher‟s time and energy of error correction Moreover, It also helped students raise their awareness of surface level mistakes when reading their peers‟ drafts and revising their own writings This supported Tuscott‟s (1996) opinion that the teacher should abandon explicit error correction of form to focus on productive aspects of writings Peer feedback and teacher feedback should be combined to reduce teacher‟s burden in error correction and increase students writing‟s accuracy In addition, to incorporate more feedback into versions, process writing approach had to adapt into writing class The quality of writings would get improved through multiple versions Through peer feedback, teacher feedback and series of visions, student writers would be not only the good writers but also the critical readers Above all, before peer feedback activity can be implemented, students must be oriented to accept this new role in which they are not only the receivers but also the active participants Only when the participants have belief and are aware of importance of what they would send and receive from the activity, can the activity operate effectively Once students are ready to be empowered, they must be trained to yield valid and reliable feedback First, students should be trained how to evaluate a written work Teacher can introduce basic criteria to evaluate a piece of writing The specific and clear instructions must be demonstrated with examples so that students know what to do, what aspects they should focus on such as grammar, organization, vocabulary Then the teacher should familiarize students with error correction code system and make them understand well the meaning of codes to avoid misunderstanding which cause 39 writers embarrassed Class discussion in which participants play as a collaborator rather than a commentator should be encouraged to negotiate ideas 40 CONCLUSION Summary of major findings The study is aimed to find out the students‟ attitudes towards peer feedback as well as the impact of peer feedback on students‟ writings Below is a summary of the major findings with reference to the research questions Regarding students‟ attitudes, the interview data showed that students had mixed attitudes to this activity Some were negative, others positive This is understandable because not all students perceived classroom activities in the same way Peer feedback, like other instructional activities, may be valued by the students who can find its benefits while other students who are not familiar with it a likely to have a negative attitude to it For those who did not see any value of peer feedback, it was because they had been dependent on the teacher and felt that teachers‟ feedback was more reliable They did not trust their friends Also, it should be noted that the students‟ feedback on their peers‟ writing focused soly on grammatical, lexical or spelling errors Few students provided feedback on the content and the organization of the written work For the second research questions, it was indicated that although not all students liked peer feedback, they did use peer feedback to improve their writing It seemed that there was a gap between these students‟ attitudes and their practices This also implies that peer feedback is, to some extent, helpful to the students It also saves teachers‟ time correcting linguistic errors in the students‟ writings Also, peer feedback helps to improve students‟ writings This is supported by their higher scores in the second draft of their writings However, this result should be taken with care Both the first and the second drafts were assessed by 41 myself, the teacher and the researcher as well There can be some biases and also there may be problems in the rubrics for assessing the students‟ writings Honestly, when marking the students‟ writing, I, habitually emphasized more on formal linguistic errors From the above findings, the following conclusions can be arrived at: It is possible to use peer feedback in the high school classrooms Even when the students not like this activity, they obviously benefited peer feedback one way or another Their negative attitude may be due to their learning habit, which is teacher-dependent Once the students are familiar with peer feedback , their attitudes may be changed Although peer feedback is helpful to the students in correcting linguistic errors more than the comprehensive improvement of students‟ writings, it saves teacher‟s time and labour correcting students‟ errors Also, peer feedback can help to enhance student cooperation once they have been familiar with this technique Peer feedback cannot replace teacher feedback As it is indicated in the findings that students focused only on formal linguistic errors, teachers need to provide their own feedback on other aspects of the students‟ writings Or, students need to be trained more carefully in how to provide feedback on their peers‟ writings However, this is challenging when the students‟ proficiency level is not high enough Limitations of the study The study used self-observation and interviews as well as students‟ writing as sources of data This raises the question of validity or researcher biases Particularly, the researcher herself was the person who marked the students‟ writings 42 Despite these limitations, the study provides some useful information about peer feedback to myself as a classroom teacher and to other teachers as well Other teachers might use the findings of this study as a reference if they would like to use peer feedback in correcting students‟ writings They can learn not only the merits but also the limitations of this study before deciding to use peer feedback Suggestions for further study A future research work, the researcher should use other methods of study, especially longitudinal studies to measure the impact of peer feedback Before the study is started, it is critical that teachers make sure their students have been well trained in this technique 43 REFERENCES Asifa Sultana (2009) Peer correction in ESL classroom, BRAC University Journal, Vol.1, no 1, 2009, pp 11-19 Badger, R and White, G (2000) „A process genre approach to teaching writing‟, In ELT Journal,Vol 54 No 2, pp 153 – 160 Berg, E.C (1999) Preparing ESL students for peer response, TESOL Journal, 8, 20-25 Calkins, L M (1986) The Art of Teaching Writing Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Caulk,N (1994) Comparing teacher and student responses to written work, TESOL Quarterly, 28,1, 181-187 Cohen, A D & (1990) Writing as process and product In A.D Cohen (Ed) Language learning: Insights for learners, teachers and researchers (pp 103-131) Heinle & Heinle Press Chuang, H.C (2005) Taiwanese students‟ perception on peer review activity Unpublished Master‟s thesis Ming Chuan University Faigley, L., & Witte, S (1981) Analyzing revision College Composition and Communication, 32, 401-414 Fei Hong (2006) Student‟s perceptions of peer response activity in English writing instruction, CELEA Journal（Bim onthly), Aug．2006 Vol．29 No． Ferris, D (2002) Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing, The Hinkel, E (2004) Teaching Academic ESL Writing: Practical Techniques in Vocabulary and Grammar, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates http.//www.ucm.es/BUCM/revistas/fll/11330392/articulos EIUC0404110079A Hyland, F (1998) „The Impact of Teacher Written Feedback on Individual Writers‟, In Journal of Second Language Writing, Vol No 3, pp 255 – 286 Hyland, F (2000) Teacher management of writing workshops: two case studies Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(2) Hyland, K (2003) Second Language Writing USA: Cambridge University Press Hyland, K and Hyland, F (2001) Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback, Journal of second language writing, 10, 185-212 44 Hyland, K and Hyland, F (2006) Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and issues New York: Cambridge University Jeremy Harmer: How to Teach English London: Longman (2004) Lee, I (1997) „ESL Learners‟ Performance in Error Correction in Writing‟, In System, Vol 25 No 4, pp 465 – 477 Linda B Nilson Improving student peer feedback, College teaching.Vol 51/No Liu, J and Hansen, J (2002) Peer response in second language writing classrooms, The University of Michigan Press: Michigan http://web.edu.hku.hk/staff/dcarless/Liu&Carless2006.pdf Liu,N & Carless,D (2006) Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment, Teaching in Higher Education 13 Routledge Vol 11, No 3, July 2006, pp 279290 Maarof,N et al (2011) Role of Teacher, Peer and Teacher-Peer Feedback in Enhancing ESL Students‟ Writing, World Applied Sciences Journal 15 (Innovation and Pedagogy for Lifelong Learning): 29-35, 2011 Min, H T (2005) Training students to become successful peer reviewers System, 33(2), 293–308 Min, H.( 2006) The effects of trained peer review on EFL students‟ revision types and writing quality, Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118–141 Minh Hien(2007) The impact of online peer feedback on EFL learners‟ motivation in writing and writing performance: A case study at Can Tho University Unpublished Master thesis Can Tho University (unpublished) Mohammed Farrah, (2012),The Impact of Peer Feedback on Improving the Writing skills among Hebron University Students, An - Najah Univ J Res (Humanities) Vol 26(1), 2012 Paulus, T M 1999 The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 265-289 Ren, H Peer review and Chinese EFL/ESL student writers, English Australia Journal Vol 27 No , 2012, pp 3-16 Rollinson, P (2004) “Experiences and perceptions in an ESL academic writing peer response group” Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 2004 vol 12 79-108 (Retrieved June 19th 2011) 45 Rollinson, P 2005 Using Peer Feedback in the ESL Writing Class[J] ELT Journal, 59 (1): 23-30 Seow, A (2003) The writing process and process writing In J.C Richards & W A Renandya Methodology in Language teaching- An Anthology of current Practice UK: Cambridge University Press Ting & Qian, 2010 A Case Study of Peer Feedback in a Chinese EFL Writing Classroom, Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics (Bimonthly) Vol 33 No Aug, 2010; Topping, K (1998) Peer-assessment between students in colleges and universities Review of Educational Research, 68, 249-276 Tsui,A & Ng‟,M(2000) Do secondary L2 writers benefits from peer comments?, Journal of second language writing, 9, 147-170 Truscott, John “The Case against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes.” Language Learning 46 (1996): 327-369 University of Michigan Press Zhang,S (1995) Reexamining the effective advantage of peer feedback in ESL writing class, Journal of second language writing, 4, 209 -222 Keh, C (1990) „Feedback in the Writing Process: a Model and Methods for Implementation‟, In ELT Journal, Vol 44 No 4, pp 294 – 304 Zheng, C A Study of Peer Error Feedback, Apr 2007, Volume 5, No.4 (Serial No.43) http://www.medsci.cn/webeditor/ /20090323093402844 46 APPENDIX Questions in the interview Do you think peer feedback activity is an effective one? Why or why not Do you understand the peer feedback correction or suggestion ? Why How much of the peer feedback you incorporate into your nd draft? You select or incorporate all the peer feedback ?Why? What kind of mistakes you want your friends correct in your writing? How you feel when your friends found out so many mistakes in your writing? (embarrassed, ashamed, thankful or other?) What can you learn from reading your friend‟s writing? Whom you want to be corrected by? Your friends or your teacher? Why? What can you learn from reading the writing and giving feedback to your friend? Can you recognize all the mistakes in your friends‟ writings? How you show the mistakes to your friends? Are you afraid of making your friends angry when you finding too many mistakes in their writings? Why? I APPENDIX TEST on Writing Time allotted: 30 minutes Student’s name:……………………………………… Class:………………………………………………… Date:…………………… Marks :………………………………………………………………………………… Suppose Vietnam is going to host the coming Asian Games Write a paragraph of 120 words to describe the preparations for the games II APPENDIX MARKING SCALE FOR PARAGRAPH EVALUATION (The scale consists of components with levels for each) Components Level Criteria Knowledgeable; very clear topic sentence with controlling ideas; strong main points with thorough development of topic; relevant and substantive supporting details and/or examples 1.5 ideas; quite strong main points but limited development of topic; C mostly relevant to topic but some gaps or redundant information O N Some knowledge of subject; clear topic sentence with controlling Some knowledge of subject; topic sentence with unclear controlling ideas; limited T development of topic; main points relevant to topic but E uninteresting details and/or N examples T 0.5 Does not show knowledge of subject; no or irrelevant topic sentence; totally inadequate answer; no relation to the task set/digression; very weak main points; no or unrelated supporting details O Clear and correct paragraph format (good title, topic sentence, R body, concluding sentence); fluent expression; well-organized; G ideas clearly stated/supported A 1.5 sentence); somewhat choppy; occasionally loosely organized but N main ideas stand out; limited support I Z Some errors of paragraph format (irrelevant title, not good concluding sentence); inconsistent organization; ideas confused, A T Not very good paragraph format (uninteresting title, concluding non-fluent 0.5 Incorrect paragraph format (no title and no concluding I paragraph); no apparent organization of content; does not O communicate; not enough to evaluate N Use of vocabulary and idiom consistently appropriate; almost no III V inadequacies in vocabulary for the task; effective word choice and O usage; correct word form C 1.5 some inadequacies in vocabulary for the task; occasional errors of A word choice, form, usage but meaning not obscured B U 1.0 Frequent use of wrong or inappropriate words; several errors of word choice, form, usage; meaning sometimes confused or L A Occasional use of inappropriate terms or some circumlocutions; obscured 0.5 Vocabulary limitations so extreme as to make comprehension R virtually impossible; essentially translation; little knowledge of Y English vocabulary, idiom, word form Effective complex constructions; few errors of agreement, tense, number, word order, articles, pronouns, prepositions G 1.5 tense, number, word order, articles, pronouns, prepositions but R meaning seldom obscured A M 1.0 Minor problems in complex constructions; several errors of agreement, tense, number, word order, articles, pronouns, M A Effective but simple constructions; some errors of agreement, prepositions; meaning sometimes obscured 0.5 R Virtually no mastery of sentence construction rules; dominated by errors; does not communicate; not enough to evaluate Mastery of conventions; few errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, indentation, paragraphing 1.5 Occasional errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, indentation, paragraphing but meaning not obscured F 1.0 indentation, paragraphing meaning sometimes confused or O R M Frequent errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, obscured 0.5 No mastery of conventions; dominated by errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, indentation, paragraphing; handwriting illegible, not enough to evaluate (adapted from Jacobs et al.‟s (1981) cited in The impact of online peer feedback on EFL learner‟s motivation in writing and written performance by Minh Hien IV APPENDIX TOPICS FOR WRITING (based on book map English 11) Unit 9: The post office Write a formal letter to express satisfaction or dissatisfaction Unit 10: Nature in danger Describe a location Unit 11: Sources of energy Describe information from a chart Unit 12: The Asian Games Describe the preparations for the coming Asian Games Unit 13: Hobbies Write about collection Unit 15: Space conquest Write a biography Unit 16: The wonders of the world Write a report on a man made place V APPENDIX EXAMPLES OF STUDENTS‟ WRITINGS DRAFTS 1( WITH PEER FEEDBACK) VI APPENDIX EXAMPLES OF STUDENTS‟ WRITINGS - DRAFTS VII ... improvement of their writings resulting from peer feedback 1.3 Scope of the study The study is limited to the investigation of the attitude of a small group of 11- grade students at Bac Kan gifted high school. .. to find out the answers for the following questions 1/What are the attitudes of 11 graders in Bac Kan gifted High school toward written peer feedback? 18 2/ How much of the peer feedback was included... brief training of peer feedback in the beginning, the students implemented peer feedback activity after receiving their peers‟ writings from the teacher During the first fifteen minutes of this