Peer correction in reducing errors in english composition by efl studens an action research study

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HANOI UNIVERSITY NGUYEN LE PHUONG PEER CORRECTION IN REDUCING ERRORS IN ENGLISH COMPOSITIONS BY EFL STUDENTS: AN ACTION RESEARCH STUDY SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ART IN TESOL SUPERVISOR: NGUYEN DUC HOAT, Ph.D Hanoi, November 2008 ACKNOWLEGEMENTS In the first place, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr Nguyen Duc Hoat, my supervisor for his patient guidance, encouragement and constructive supervision throughout my research Dr Nguyen Duc Hoat’s enlightening suggestions and comments have shaped this thesis to a larger extent Without his help this study would have been impossible Many thanks are also due to my teachers at Hanoi University, particularly to Mrs Nguyen Thai Ha, M.A, Deputy Head of the Department of Postgraduate Studies for her full support and recommendations on methodology for this thesis I take this opportunity to express my thankfulness to my first - year students from Thanh Do College of Technology for their wholehearted cooperation in completing the questionnaires, interviews and participating in writing tasks to form a significant part of this study I am indebted to all those who have kindly advised and helped me towards the completion of my study report Last but not least, my sincere thanks go to my family and my friends whose support has been of great significance to the success of my thesis i ABSTRACT This study attempts to investigate the effectiveness of peer correction in reducing errors in English compositions by first – year English major students in Thanh Do College of technology A class of first – year students (N=30; later N=29) took part in the study, in which they paired up themselves and checked their compositions Then teacher marked the compositions and did frequency count, comparing the total number of errors in the compositions before peer correction with the number of those that remained after peer correction Three sets of compositions were investigated T-test was employed three times to check whether peer correction led to a significant reduction in writing errors in the three sets of compositions respectively Our findings confirmed that peer correction led to fewer writing errors All the results of the three compositions were statistically significant Three pairs of subjects (high-high, high-low and low-low in term of English proficiency) were invited for deeper investigation of peer feedback with different competence levels Interviews with these three pairs of subjects and questionnaires to all participants were also conducted It was found that peer correction was effective in all types of pairings (high-high, low-low and high-low), with the strongest effect in the last type, and 97% of the subjects considered peer correction useful and claimed that they would apply it in the future The author has suggested some recommendations for teaching and learning writing skills, so that the teaching and learning writing at Thanh Do College of Technology can gain more effectiveness ii LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Tables: Table 2.1.1: Comparison between the product – based approach and the process – oriented approach Table 2.1.2: Steps of writing in the product – based approach Table 2.1.3: Steps of writing in the process – based approach Table 3.2.1: Action research cycle 30 Table 3.2.2: Marking codes 32 Table 3.2.3: Example of using marking codes 33 Table 4.1: Final term test results 42 Table 4.2: Number of students per error types in the final term test 42 Table 4.3: Data on types of errors corrected 44 Table 4.4: Students’ attitudes towards teacher feedback 44 Table 4.5: Students’ attitudes towards self – monitoring feedback 46 Table 4.6: Paired Samples Statistics 50 Table 4.7: Paired Samples Correlations 50 Table 4.8: Paired Samples Test 50 Table 4.9: Mean of success rate of three tasks 51 Table 4.10: Mean of errors of students of different standards in three writing tasks 52 Table4.11: The success rate of peer correction (unit: %) 52 Table 4.12: The Mean of success rate of peer correction in different pairings 52 Table 4.13: Difference of errors suggested by the students in three writing tasks 53 Table 4.14: Examples of some grammatical errors suggested by the students 54 Table 4.15: Peaks of effectiveness of peer correction 56 Table 4.16: Students opinions about peer feedback when they received feedback 60 Table 4.17 Students’ opinions about peer feedback when they gave feedback 62 iii Figures Figure 1: Feedback model 17 Figure 2: Differences of errors suggested by the students in the writing tasks 54 Figure 3: Time for peer correction 57 iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AR Action Research EFL English as a Foreign Language ESL English as a Second Language ELT English Language Teaching L1 The Mother Tongue Language L2 The Second / Target language SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science CTD Thanh Do College of Technology UG Universal Grammar v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEGEMENTS i ABSTRACT ii LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS v CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the study 1.2 Aims of the study 1.4 Significance of the study 1.5 Outline of the study CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Theoretical background to the teaching of writing 2.1.1 Definition of writing 2.1.2 Approaches to the teaching of writing 2.2 Theories on language learning and error treatment 2.2.1 Approaches’ views towards learners’ errors 10 2.2.2 Definition of errors 13 2.3 Ways to reduce writing errors and peer feedback 16 2.3.1 Definition of feedback 16 2.3.2 Feedback types 18 2.3.3 The role of feedback and peer feedback 23 Chapter III: METHODOLODY 28 3.1 Research questions 28 3.2 Research method 28 3.2.1 Action research (AR) 28 3.2.2 Action research procedures 30 3.3 Data collection instruments 35 3.3.1 Document analysis 35 3.3.2 Questionnaires 36 3.3.3 Interviews 38 3.3.4 Teaching log 39 3.4 The subjects of the study 40 vi CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 42 4.1 Initial data 42 4.1.1 Results from students’ final term test 42 4.1.2 Results from questionnaire 43 4.1.3 Summary of the findings from the initial data 48 4.2 Data collected from the action plan implementation 49 4.2.1 The effectiveness of peer feedback in reducing students’ writing errors collected from three writing task paper analysis 49 4.2.2 Types of errors suggested by students in the three writing tasks 53 4.2.3 The effectiveness of peer feedback on students’ attitudes collected from the teaching log 56 4.2.4 Summary of the data collected from the action plan implementation 59 4.3 Post data 60 4.3.1 Students’ positive attitudes towards peer feedback 60 4.4 Summary 64 CHAPTER V: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION 67 5.1 Recommendations 67 5.2 Limitations 69 5.4 Conclusion 69 REFERECES 71 APPENDIX 1: TEACHING LOG 75 APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE (ENGLISH VERSION) 76 APPENDIX 3: PHIẾU ĐIỀU TRA SỐ 78 APPENDIX 4: QUESTIONNAIRE (ENGLISH VERSION) 80 APPENDIX 5: PHIẾU ĐIỀU TRA SỐ 82 APPENDIX 6: INTERVIEW 84 APPENDIX 7: CRITERIA FOR WRITING ASSESSMENT 85 APPENDIX 8: WRITING TOPICS 86 APPENDIX 9: WRITING DRAFTS OF SIX STUDENTS 88 IN THREE CHOSEN PAIRS 88 APPENDIX 10: NUMBER OF ERRORS BEFORE AND AFTER PEER CORRECTION FROM THE THREE TASKS 106 vii viii CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION This chapter introduces the background to the study, states the aims, the scope of the study and presents the outline of the rest of the thesis 1.1 Background to the study Peer feedback is considered as a modern and effective way of giving feedback in writing along with a shift from the writing as a product to writing as a process in the pedagogy of ESL writing However, in spite of the fact that the use of peer feedback as a ESL writing classroom has been generally supported in the literature as a potentially valuable way of correcting errors (Celce, 2001), English teachers as well as students still bear a lot of doubts about its value, procedures to carry it out and time control etc And these may prevent them from using peer feedback in right conditions and highly profitable interaction on many counts There have been a number of studies done on the value of peer feedback and response of both students and teachers toward it over the last decade According to Lewis (2002: 21), there are many reasons for introducing peer feedback to writing classes as follow:  Proofreading other people’s work prepares you for proofreading your own  You have a greater variety of suggestions  Peer feedback is instant feedback  It is boring if all your feedback comes from the teacher every day They reported that peer feedback is effective and useful at various levels According to Rollinson (2005:25), Peer feedback, with its potentially high level of response and interaction between reader and writer, can encourage a collaborative dialogue in which two – way feedback is established, and meaning is negotiated between the two parties Moreover, some studies reveal that students feel relax and interested in discussing over their partner’s writing (Sun 2006) In a study carried out at Hanoi university of Mining 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 APPENDIX 10: NUMBER OF ERRORS BEFORE AND AFTER PEER CORRECTION FROM THE THREE TASKS Task 1: Description of places Student No No of errors before peer correction No of errors after peer correction Success rate of peer correction (%) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 13 40 17 10 13 10 11 10 9 13 14 10 10 16 10 11 13 15 12 11 12 10 6 3 10 5 4 7 62 75 76 40 50 54 50 40 55 63 20 44 25 67 54 71 70 50 22 38 50 55 25 20 69 53 75 17 64 42 106 Task 2: Writing a short narrative Student No No of errors before peer correction No of errors after peer correction Success rate of peer correction (%) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 10 19 12 12 15 13 8 17 13 10 10 16 21 10 12 15 10 5 6 2 12 9 2 50 63 75 58 67 44 60 54 56 71 75 63 67 75 29 33 31 80 40 40 75 57 22 25 50 50 87 50 60 107 : A letter of application Student No No of errors before peer correction No of errors after peer correction Success rate of peer correction (%) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 10 10 6 12 11 10 14 4 4 3 3 3 3 43 20 70 14 67 38 60 25 33 50 50 57 25 42 67 50 40 50 71 25 33 45 50 50 70 50 50 50 33 108 ... especially in CTD; investigate students’ reactions towards peer correction in writing and propose some recommendations and suggestions for using peer correction in reducing errors in composition by Vietnamese... application of peer feedback in writing in CTD in order to evaluate the effectiveness of peer feedback – whether it is a way reducing errors in English compositions, and to create a relaxing and enthusiastic... writing stages: Planning; drafting; reviewing and revising; and rewriting with six smaller steps in which steps five and six can be repeated many times as follows: Table 2.1.3: Steps of writing in