MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY
we
LY HO TH] DIEU HUYEN
PEER FEEDBACK IMPLEMENTATION AND THE EFFECTS OF TRAINED PEER FEEDBACK ON STUDENTS’ WRITING QUALITY AT
HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY
Major: TEACHING ENGLISH TO SPEAKERS OF OTHER LANGUAGES Major code: 60140111 TRUGNG DAI HOC MC TP.HCM THU VIEN MASTER OF ARTS IN TESOL
Supervisor: PHAM VU PHI HO, Ph.D
Trang 2ABSTRACT
Although, peer feedback has long been introduced to teaching L2 writing and shown to be beneficial in a large number of writing classes, it has not been thoroughly studied in English Academic Writing classes for English-majored Students at Ho Chi Minh City Open University (HCMC OU) The present study with the purpose of exploring the implementation of peer feedback in teaching writing and examining the effects of trained peer feedback on students’ writing quality was designed with a descriptive survey and a case study In relation to the descriptive survey, it aimed to explore (1) English writing instruction incorporating peer feedback activities and (2) the students’ attitudes that implementation With regard to the case study which sought to expand the survey findings on the effects of trained written peer feedback on students’ writing revisions, its purposes were to (3) examine the quality of trained written peer feedback and (4) the effects of trained peer feedback on students’ revisions
First, the results from the survey revealed that peer feedback was applied in teaching English Academic Writing in the Faculty of Foreign Languages at HCMC OU However, the implementation was not sufficient to ensure the effectiveness of written peer feedback The survey was conducted with the participation of 338 students from 4 Writing-1 classes, 3 Writing-2 classes, and 4 Writing-3 classes in the questionnaire survey and 3 teachers in the semi-structured interviews The students claimed that they were not trained on how to read and comment on their writing, and that their comments were not checked to help them generate effective
comments The teachers, on the other hand, argued that the students were not
qualified enough to deliver constructive comments Interestingly, although the teachers did not adequately apply written peer feedback, the students still expressed their positive attitudes towards its practice since they believed that written peer feedback was useful to their writing and helped improve their revisions
Trang 3Second, the findings from the case study showed that most of the students’ comments were revision-oriented and the ratios of qualified comments were remarkably higher than the miscorrection’s In addition, most of the revisions in the second drafts were triggered by peers and the students’ writing quality was significantly improved in both low levels and high levels
Trang 4TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP “ — i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT “ ¬ ii LIST OF FIGURES “ “ — ix LIST OE TABLLES - — .X ABBREVIA TIONS - — xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTTIỌN 2 5 << 5 ng 0000008300 1
1.1 Rationale of the SfUy 5G HH TH nh nh 1
IVZANV roi nuưa oi o 3
IEONNL.IoS ao con e Ố 7 1.4 Research qu€SfIOnS - - + SH HH HH ng 7
1.5 Significance ok 8
1.6 Assumptions OÊthe€ SfUY <5 ng § CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL CONCEPTS AND LITERATURE REVIEW 9
2.1 V.VI900 010 0v 77 9
2.1.1 Product writing apprOacCh - - - << s4 TH Hung ung 9
2.1.2 Process writing apprOaCH cv ng ng 10
2.2 _ Collaborative learning apprOach - - «5x xxx 91x kg ng, 13
PIN, ae 17
Trang 52.3.7 Implications for the present Study .ccccccsescecessscceressseecesssseeeseeeeenees 33
2.4 Summary of the chapter cố 33 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 3.1 Pedagogical context and partICIDATI{S - ĂĂ S9 ng ng re 35 ch oan na s 35 “cục 36 3.2 Design of the on 38 3.3 DYE ex0) | (102 5 (0) 0 ee 40 ER NGƠ ion on nh he a 40 SN hố 42 3.3.3 Student participatlon (raf[S - «Ăn ng nh n vưy 43 3.4 Procedure o6 2n cố ẻ 44 3.4.1 D€sCrIDEIV€ SUTVCY SG TH TH HH na 44 3.4.1.1 Questionnaire 44 E15 An 45 3.4.2 Á CaS€ SEUỎY Q QH H c g 46
3.4.2.1 The training prOC€SS OÝ SfUYY .- -Ă SH tre 46
3.4.2.2 The writing cycle of the fra1nITIE << S121 381111 xrrre 47
3.4.2.3 Pre-written peer feedback traInInE - - s <Ssnv xvn iyn 48
Trang 63.4.2.7.3 COOLS .cccccccccceceecceccccccssescceccccsssseccenccccsssccccccscseseccescececeserecscecevssees 55 3.4.2.7.4 Coding prOC€UTC Án ng 55 KG V8 v02 0 0n 56 3.4.2.8.1 Scoring CTIẨTI4 - <5 << TH ng ng 56 3.4.2.8.2 AT Q HHH H H T 57 3.4.2.8.3 Scoring DFOC€UT G5 HH ngư 57 SƯ À sen ốc ca 58
3.6 Validity and reliability of the questIOTTIA1T€ Ăn ng sư, 67
3.7 Validity of the traiming 68 3.8 _ Inter-rater reliabilify -.- Ăn HH HH ngơ 68
3.9 Summary of the Chap€T - Ga 70 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS — QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE ANALYSES 0G HH 1000860 88000185008808900027008800057087000503150080619589 58 4.1 The demographic data of the parfICIDATS - 5S Set 71 VY Nộ.( nhe 73 4.2.1 Research question 1 — the extent to which peer feedback was implemenIed - - 5-5 S0 HT ng ngư 73 4.2.2 Research question 2 — students’ attitudes towards the implementation 79 4.2.3, Research question 3 — the quality of trained peer feedback KH TH 1 9g tr t 83 4.2.4 Research question 4 — the effects of trained peer feedback on revisions
¬— (4 86
4.3 Summary of the chapter ccccccesccessecseeeceeseecseeeeeseeessseceseeeesssestaesesseeeses 91 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION - G09.”
Trang 7CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 106 6.1 COncÏusion . G1 Họ ng ng 106 0 N90: 000i ii 1n 109 6.3 Limitations of the hố 109 6.4 _ Recommendations for further researcH - «xxx ss.sssessseseresvre 110 REEERENGCCES 5 G5 sọ TH HH HT 0 000 0 01 045084 111 APPENDIC ES - 5 << << HH HH TH HH T000 008 4 g6 126 335009090 126
Questionnaire for Descriptive Survey (Vietnamese Version) ««+ <- 126 Questionnaire for Descriptive Survey (English Version) . «<< s<<-sxxsss+ 130 j5 09090 1110157 134
Questions of the Semi-Structured Interviews (Vietnamese Version) 134
Trang 8LIST OF FIGURES
Trang 9LIST OF TABLES
Table 3 | Coding scheme for nature of COmim€fIfS . - 55525553 ++£+sss++se+sss 53
Table 3 2 Coding scheme for marking category of students’ comments 54
Table 3 3 Coding scheme for impacts of peer feedback on revisions .0+ 55 Table 3 4 Summary of research instrument .:eeeeeeeseceesteceeeeeesceeseeessnseenseees 58 Table 3 5 An illustration of coding scheme for nature of peer’s comments 60
Table 3 6 An illustration of coding scheme for marking category of students’ v99119/19)1-ã1015 62
Table 3 7 An illustration of coding scheme for the levels of revisions 64
Table 3 8 An illustration of coding scheme for the sources of revisions 64
I0 6 voi li 67
Table 3 10 The reliability of queSfIOTTIAIF€ SG 1s + ng ve 68 Table 3 11 Inter-rater reliability — 69
Table 3 12 A framework of data analyS1S HH ng ng 79 Table 4 1 The extent to which WPF was applied - - ccccc sssesrseerseres 75 Table 4 2 Students’ attitudes towards the Implementation of WPE - 81
IEU SE SEN Tồác vo 7 84
Trang 10ABBREVIATIONS EFL: English as a Foreign Language
ESL: English as a Second Language
Trang 11CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Rationale of the study
It is undeniable that writing plays an important role in teaching and learning a language ‘The pen is mightier than the sword’ is a famous quote that could perfectly capture the power of writing ‘It is one of humankind’s most powerful tools’ (Macarthur, Graham, & Fitzgerald, 2006, p 1) It is an important means of self-expression It helps us communicate with others, allowing us to maintain personal link with family, friends, colleagues who are removed by distance or time In addition, writing helps convey knowledge and ideas via facilitating the work of gathering, preserving and transmitting information with great detail and accuracy (Macarthur, Graham, & Fitzgerald, 2006) In “Theory and Practice of Writing’, Grabe and Kaplan (1996) state that a true representation of the correct forms of language is the written language which should be value and practiced However, the acquisition of academic writing is a long-term matter, which requires teachers search for proper methods to support to students in developing their writing competence
In teaching writing process, giving responses — feedback on students’ writing pieces has an important consequence for students as well as teachers, which can greatly influence students’ attitudes towards writing and their motivation for future learning Students can be positively motivated to explore many areas of knowledge and personal creativity through the constructive and supportive responses to their writing (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996) Their impact on students is apparent to any person involved in academic teaching and learning context
Trang 12the 1980s, as a result of many studies conducted to find effective responses to complement and support teacher ones, peer feedback has appeared Its purpose is to generate and receive different points of view and thus raise learners’ awareness on composing process Besides providing learners with more options to consider in revising their writing papers, it helps them be more specific and helpful in their responses to a peer’s essay if they receive adequate training, guidance, and practice (Gonca, 2012) It is a powerful tool for ESL/ EFL learners to improve their writing (Min, 2006)
Undoubtedly, writing is considered one of the most difficult areas for teachers and learners Writing is a difficult skill for language learners to master for writers have to brain storm ideas, organize them, and think of the use of words and grammatical structures Richards and Renandya (2002) state that writing is demanding not only in requiring learners to generate and organize ideas, but also translate ideas into a readable text Learners are supposed to pay attention to both low level skills - mechanics and word choice, and high level skills — the content and organization of the text It is, in fact, a complex and demanding process requiring the contribution of many components, which should receive more attention in order to equip learners with communicative skill to meet demands of real life situation (Ismail, 2011)
Trang 13students’ perceptions of ESL writing, Ismail (2009) reveals that students expressed negative feelings about writing and many of them struggled to carry out the writing assignments in class to meet minimum requirement of the course
Generally, EFL teaching in Vietnam has traditionally focused on form and been considered a difficult skill to handle English writing, in particular, has been quite product-oriented First, based on the language knowledge in accordance with a set of conventions derived from a sample or model of a certain writing genre, the written product is evaluated (Pham, 2010; Ly, 2007) Second, most of EFL teachers in Vietnam hold the belief that writing is a complicated skill to teach, which, more or less affects students’ learning outcomes (Nguyen, 2009) Learners, in turn, often feel anxious and unconfident when dealing with it (Le, 2008)
In sum, it is clear that teaching and learning writing are important and demanding which require teachers and learners great effort To help learners and teachers in this process, peer feedback is proposed The use of student peer feedback dispels the traditional notion that feedback is solely the teacher’s role and responsibility (Fallows & Chandramohan, 2001) It allows learners to negotiate the meaning and comment on their peers’ work, its implementation can create and facilitate communication in classroom society The practice of which gives learner a role of a communicator — a member of class society, which encourages them to be active in managing their own learning and gives them opportunities to have meaningful inputs from others (Pearce, Mulder, & Biak, 2009) In this cooperative learning environment, the roles of learners are shifted from passive receivers of information into active participants (McGourty, Mominick, & Reilly, 1998)
1.2 Statement of research problem
With changes in writing pedagogy from product-oriented approach to process-oriented approach, summative feedback, focusing on writing as a product, has been supplemented or replaced by formative feedback, pointing forward to the students’ future writing and the development of their writing process To efficiently
Trang 14perform the process writing, teacher written comments are usually combined with peer feedback The use of peer feedback is highly valued by many researchers
When becoming a critical reader of other’s writing, learners can be a critical readers
and reviser for their own writing (Rollinson, 2005) In addition, Caulk (1994) finds that teacher’s feedback was rather general, whereas students’ responses are more specific It, in sum, gives more control and autonomy to students for it involves students actively in the feedback process instead of passive reliance on teacher’ feedback to adjust their writing
Nevertheless, peer feedback was originally employed to develop L1 learners’
writing skill in the 1970s (Hyland & Hyland, 2006), its effectiveness is still a
controversial issue, especially in EFL academic context In Japan, for example, although group work is employed in teaching oral classes, teachers have not pay enough attention to peer feedback activities (Hirose, 2007) Examining the use of peer feedback, researcher finds some main arguments about (1) students’ attitudes towards it, (2) quality of peers’ comments, and (3) the impacts of peer feedback on revisions and writing performance
The first debate about the application of peer feedback relates to students’ perceptions and attitudes Mangelsdorf (1992) Burg, Admiraal, and Pilot (2003), Hirose (2007), and Wakabayashi (2008) find that students have positive perceptions of and pay good attention on peer reviewing They spend a large amount of time reading and making comments On the contrary, Leki (1990), Zhang (1995), and Biggs and Tang (2007) report that some students resent having to review and comment on other students’ work They hold the belief that it is their teacher’s responsibility Also, Cheng & Warren (1997) adds that they feel doubtful about the competence of their peers’ comments They believe the feedback they receive is invalid, thus they refuse to take negative feedback (Topping, 1998)
Second, quality of comments in applying peer feedback is still questionable Participating in reviewing peers’ writing and receiving feedback from a number of
Trang 15peers, students have chances to expose to greater diversity of perspectives than just those of their teacher They could receive in-depth and detailed feedback (Pearce,
Mulder, & Baik, 2009) On the other hand, reviewers in peer feedback are usually
unprepared for such a challenging task They lack of confidence in their own ability to evaluate their peers’ work Thus, they may provide vague or unhelpful feedback (Cheng & Warren, 1997; Min, 2008)
The third argument goes to the impacts of feedback on revisions and writing performance Nelson and Murphy (1993), Burg, Admiraal, and Pilot (2003), and Min (2006), state that students incorporate a considerably number of peers’ comments into revisions, and their writing quality is notably enhanced Furthermore, Widiati (2002) finds that peers’ comments have helped students enrich the content, improve the organization, and improve the language of their writing However, some students do not perceive their peer feedback as relevant to the process of their writing learning for a course They seem to assume that only teacher’s feedback is taken into account (Brindley & Scoffield’s, 1998; Fallows &
Chandramohan, 2001; Biggs & Tang, 2007) Even, in an attempt to implement peer
Trang 16in improving their writing Nguyen (2012), in her case study at Ho Chi Minh City University of Education, points out that her students took positive attitudes to peer
feedback, made constructive comments on their peers’ drafts, and used their peers’
comments to revise their own writing On the contrary, Nguyen (2008) argues that students faced a lot of difficulties in generating feedback on their peers’ writing Moreover, when giving feedback, they paid very little attention to the organization of their peers’ writing pieces Bui (2000) adds that students frequently gave general comments on their peers’ drafts and found difficult to make suggestions to improve the content of their peers’ writing
Trang 17examine whether it is feasible and beneficial to apply written peer feedback and if it has effects on their English writing quality
1.3 Purpose of the study
This research focuses on the contribution of peer feedback to the acquisition of writing skill, and it is to work out how written peer feedback is applied in writing classes of major English students at Ho Chi Minh City Open University (HCMC OU), whereby a number of applications from the research findings are suggested for pedagogy and research purposes The main purposes of this research are to find out:
(1) to what extent written peer feedback is applied in English academic writing
classes at HCMC OU,
(2) learners’ attitudes towards written peer feedback which has been currently employed,
(3) the quality of trained written peer feedback, and
(4) the effects of trained written peer feedback on writing revisions 1.4 Research questions
In order to fulfill the purpose of the study, the survey was seeking to answer the following research questions:
1 To what extent is written peer feedback applied in English Academic Writing classes in the Faculty of Foreign Languages at HCMC OU?
2 What are English-majored students’ attitudes towards written peer feedback applied in Academic Writing classes?
3 To what extend do trained-written-feedback students provide qualified comments on their peer’s writing papers in Academic Writing classes?
4 To what extent does trained-written-peer feedback impact on students’ writing revisions in English Academic Writing classes?
Trang 181.5 Significance of the study
Although the problem studied is not new to many researchers, the difference lies in the reality of teaching The study is expected to present a real situation in which peer feedback is applied in English academic writing classes in the Faculty of Foreign Languages at HCMC OU, and to explore students’ attitudes towards it; also, to examine the quality of trained written peer feedback as well as its impacts of on students’ revision This research is conducted in a hope that the implementation of peer feedback in teaching English academic writing in tertiary level, especially in the context of the Foreign Language Faculty of HCMC OU, would be encouraged if its positive impacts on students’ revisions are proved and confirmed
1.6 Assumptions of the study
Trang 19CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL CONCEPTS AND LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter presents three theories of language teaching and learning which serve as the foundation of the present research The first theory is product-writing approach, followed by process-writing approach, and collaborative learning approach Also, a review of related literature, namely (1) benefits and drawbacks of peer feedback, and (2) effects of trained peer feedback, is displayed
2.1 Approaches to teaching writing
There have been many approaches implemented in teaching and learning ESL/ EFL writing but the two most famous approaches are product-oriented approach and process-oriented approach Nunan (1999) states that generally teachers started with the product approach and are shifting to the use of the latter
2.1.1 Product writing approach
Following theories of Behaviorism, teaching writing according to this approach is the establishment of habit formation and imitation Nunan (1999) points out that this approach has great concern for the structure of language It focuses on writing tasks and steps in constructing a piece of writing One of the most well- defined descriptions of this approach is offered by Pincas (1982) She states that product approach writing is mainly about linguistic knowledge, in which great attention is paid on the appropriate use of vocabulary, syntax, and cohesive devices Steele (2004) adds that it is a traditional approach in which students expected to follow a model text presented and analyzed at an early stage
Trang 20with increasing freedom Free writing is the end result of learning process They are allowed to choose from a choice of comparable writing tasks, and apply what they have learned to produce a writing product
Besides gaining some favor, this approach also encounters criticism from practitioners It is appreciated for it enhances student’s writing proficiency thanks to providing learners with models, they have chance to expose to native-like written texts (Myles, 2002) And, imitation is also a way in which people learn (Badger & White, 2000) On the contrary, this approach is criticized for the basic of feedback Stanley (1992) claims that feedback is more useful between drafts than at the end of the task after composition is submitted and marked In most of the cases of this approach, feedback seems to take place after the final writing product is handed,
which is difficult to ensure its effectiveness
In sum, the focus of product approach is on the written product rather than on the process of which learners create their writing It considers writing as knowledge about the structure of language, and writing development as the result of imitation of input provided by teachers It is favorable for improving writing quality, but
attacked on the effectiveness of feedback 2.1.2 Process writing approach
Process writing, writing process, or writing-as-a-process theory is a road map through it learners’ thoughts and actions monitored and directed from the beginning to the end, having a decent piece of writing (Tompkins, 2004) This approach is
learner-centered, which takes the writer, instead of the text, as the point of
departure It allows for the fact that there is no perfect text; however, by producing, reflecting on, discussing and reworking successive drafts of a text, learners are able to reach the perfection (Sun & Feng, 2009) In the classroom, its objective is to help the learner develop practical strategies for their writing performance concerning
getting started, drafting, revising, and editing (Silva & Matsuda, cited in Khabiri &
Rouhani-Tonekaboni, 2009)
Trang 21From the cognitive stage of writing process, research on writing process has led to the view that writing is a recursive, explanatory, and generative process Janet Emig (1971, 1983) with a case study research points out that writing is recursive rather than linear and calls attention to the importance of pre-planning and editing as ongoing activities and to the importance of writer’s errors as a source of data
Tompkins (2004) asserts that this approach concern is to make students aware of their task in different stages of writing For Pre-writing stage, planning is an important step in writing process It allows learners to reflect on a chosen topic, finding purpose and target audiences, selecting appropriate form for composition, and organizing the text The second one is drafting In this stage learners compose or translate their thoughts into sentences or paragraphs on paper or computer Learners put effort in creating content of the text but not spelling rules and
mechanics In revising session, learners review their texts, and share them to their
writing group that is formed earlier in the classroom Substantive changes to their products are made after sufficient consideration for comments given by their teacher and group-mates are taken into account Editing is the final stage of the process To this stage mechanical aspect and content of the text are checked Learners proofread their own and their group-mates’ writing, continue to clarify the content, and correct mechanics errors Evaluation checklist should be provided for learners Different evaluation materials are necessary to be used in teaching in the third and the forth stages of process writing
Along with this approach, a number of concepts have emerged: teacher as facilitator, multiple drafts, revisions, and peer feedback, etc (Lounis, 2010) Since, writing is learnt, not taught, teacher becomes the facilitator who provides input and stimulus Instead of handing in final product, learners are asked to compose multiple drafts of a work After receiving feedback from readers, learners are encouraged to revise their drafts Sources of feedback could be peer-feedback,
feedback from conference, and teacher feedback (Nordin & Mohammad, n.d.)
Trang 22Feedback is provided to support learners’ writing development and nurture their
confidence as a writer Because of time limitation, ongoing teacher feedback is in a
form of differentiated instruction, which is not just for individual learners but for
small groups and class as a whole In such situation, peer feedback, indeed, makes
helpful contribution to learners’ writing development (Peterson, 2010)
It is undeniable that this approach is learner-centered Teacher plays a role as a facilitator Graves (1983), Calkins (1994), and Tangpermpoon (2008) have proposed some of directions for instruction to promote the teaching of the writing process, that students should spend time planning, pre-writing, and rehearsal activities to improve their writing, and teachers should develop learners’ sense of audiences by asking them to give comments on their classmates’ writing White and Arndt (1991) have developed a model of process writing approach (Figure 2.1) Generating ideas a Focusing | Reviewing Evaluating Structuring +— _> Drafting
Figure 2 1 White and Arndt’s model of process writing (1991)
Trang 23In sum, writing process is an essential tool used to enable learners to acquire competence in expressing their feeling, thoughts, and knowledge The importance of process for product should be realized by teachers in order to help learners fully improve their writing ability In the learning process, students are supposed to expose to different stages, and teacher facilitates the exercise of writing skill, helps students develop critical thinking and learn not to depend only on teacher’s
feedback
Mentioned previously, product approach is criticized for the useless feedback which occurs after the submission of final draft Compensating this drawback, process approach allows feedback between drafts to make positive contribution to students’ learning writing development However, to make best use of peer feedback, product approach should also be taken into account Kim & Kim (2005), and Akhand & Hasan (2010) find that the combination of product and process helps learner develop their skills in using language and result in outperformance Thus, in order to have good practice of peer feedback, accompany with inputs that are provided by group-mates and teachers; some sample texts are provided as references (White & Badger, 2000) With the learner-center approach, peers’ feedback seems to be preferred to the teacher’s Importantly, in order to make best use of peer feedback, collaborative learning environment which enables learners to increase their language learning capacity and exposure to target language is a must
2.2 Collaborative learning approach
The concept of ‘collaborative learning’ has been researched and discussed by many teaching experts And the broadest definition of ‘collaborative learning’ is that collaborative learning happens when two or more people learn or attempt to learn something together (Dillenbourg, 1999) In other words, learners are responsible for their own and others’ learning outcome They help each other in learning Well-structured collaborative learning environment helps students maximize their performance in terms of academic achievement and social skills by
Trang 24creating effective context for understanding, in which teacher plays a role as a facilitator
In the ‘collaborative learning and teaching’ book, David Nunan (1992) has helped EFL and ESL teachers have remarkable insights to the mechanism of collaborative — cooperative — classroom In that learning setting, learners are motivated to cooperate with each other in order to maximize their own and their group-mates’ learning for mutual benefits They perceive the importance of each member’s performance to reach the set goals, which creates positive interdependence among group members Whereby, learner growth in terms of academic achievement, and social skills — how to get along with peers in group work, is fostered Besides increasing interest among the participants, the active exchange of ideas within small groups promotes critical thinking It is proved that learners from collaborative groups attain higher levels of thought and sustain it longer than learners who work quietly as individuals David (1993) asserts that students can achieve good learning results when they are actively involved in the process Regardless of the subject matter, students working in small groups tend to learn more of what is taught and it could be more easily stored in long-term memory than the same content is presented in other instructional formats In addition, students who work in collaborative groups also seem to show more satisfactory to
their classes
Trang 25Johnson, 1987) And, teacher, in this setting, is more considered as a consultant than
an expert
In the collaborative learning environment, teacher plays a role as a source for ideas and solutions The teacher monitors the group learning process, teaches collaborative working skills, and provides assistance when it is necessary (Johnson & Johnson, 1987) Thus, in this setting, appropriate use of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic instruction is an essential skill for all effective teachers since the most important interaction in instructional situations that influences learners’ performance is student — student one The way teacher structures and implements independence among students largely determines the cognitive and affective outcome of instruction Learners should be taught to work collaboratively with others, compete for enjoyment, and work on their own They are assigned to small groups and instructed to learn assigned topics and material Individual accountability is checked randomly with a careful criteria-referenced evaluation system (Johnson & Johnson, 1999)
Nunan (1992) asserts the importance of structured team work Positive peer relationship, academic achievement, and social support are promoted by team working environment in which learners extol their peers’ success and provide assistance when needed It is vital that collaborative group should be well structured to encourage learners work to their full capacity and have a sense of responsibility where they get committed to each other’s success, having a feeling of “sinking and swimming together” He also suggests five factors to ensure the success of collaborative learning:
° positive independence, a sense of working together for common goal and caring each other’s learning,
Trang 26° abundant verbal, face — to — face interaction to explain, argue, elaborate, and link the materials with their knowledge,
° sufficient social skills, appropriate leadership, communication, trust, and conflict resolution skills, which can help team work go smoothly, and
e team reflection, periodically assessing what they have learned, how well they have worked together, and what should be done to perform better as a learning team (Nunan, 1992)
Collaborative learning environment provides learners with effective context for understandings In small groups, learners could feel free in expressing ideas Each of group includes two to four members, who are chosen by teacher after careful consideration There are fast and slow learners mixed in each group Fast learners can consolidate their own understanding when explaining the issues to slower learners, enhancing their own learning Similarly, the latter will benefit from peer tutoring by their team who are dealing with the same problems Sometimes learners can translate teachers’ explanation into ‘kid language’ which can facilitate their teammates learning This happens thanks to the sharing knowledge and experience in learning that they have just passed the stage of understanding themselves Collaborative learning also moves learners toward independent learners to a large extent, helping their peers Thus valuable time of teachers could be spent consulting whole group, and observing what learners are performing, which can serve as basic information for further instructions It is essential to use permanent groups, lasting for an academic year and even longer, to promote long-term caring and commitment in the class Group members are advised to see each other regular intervals to discuss, plan, and review the learning Nunan (1992)
In sum, this research on the implementation of peer feedback in teaching writing is triggered by the theories of teaching writing and collaborative learning approach First, writing process lends a great validation to and fully advocates the
Trang 271981, Tompkins, 2004) Process writing, in fact, offers learners an active, motivating and collaborative learning atmosphere in learning to write An effective means of process — oriented approach to carry out its ultimate goals is feedback Peer feedback fits well with the prewriting, multiple drafts, and revision It enables learners to get multiple feedbacks from their peer in editing stages It is, indeed, a prominent feature of writing process approach Second, peer feedback finds support with collaborative learning theory, which asserts that learning process is socially constructed through the structured and long-term communication among peers (Bruffee, 1984) In other words, it is a learner-centered approach that relies on collaboration as an effective learning tool It promotes interactions between learners —readers and writers, and increases writers’ sense of audience (Harris, 1992)
2.3 Peer feedback
Peer feedback, also referred to in the literature as formative peer assessment,
peer review, peer response, peer evaluation or peer editing is an activity in which students receive comments on their pieces of writing from their peers (Hirose, 2007; Lundstrom and Baker, 2009) Liu and Hansen (2002) offer a clearer definition of peer feedback In practice of peer feedback, learners are used as sources of information, and ‘interactants’ for each other They take control of roles and responsibilities regularly taken on by officially trained teachers, tutors, or editors in commenting on or critiquing their peers’ drafts in the writing process Therefore, it is considered one of the social interaction methods
Trang 28role of an expert (Wells, 2000, Tudge, 1990) Rollinson (1998) has found high levels of valid feedback among his college-level students with 80% of comments considered valid Caulk’s study in 1994 reveals another impressive result: 89% of his intermediate and advanced level foreign language students made useful comments on their peer’s product The students participated in Burg, Admiraal, and Pilot’s study (2003) also show their confidence in their ability to comment on their peers’ work
The peer-review process involves collaborative learning in which students assess Others’ work, usually based on explicit criteria set by teacher, and provide their peers with feedback Through peer feedback, students can obtain effective comments from a collaborative learning-process and incorporate them into their subsequent drafts By providing insightful comments on teammates’ product, peer feedback can influence the revisions others’ product It, simultaneously, is advantageous for them to reflect on their own drafts and examine those drafts in- depth (Fujieda, 2007) Learners are not, sometimes, aware of their writing mistakes because of their carelessness or knowledge gap When learners read their peers’ writing, playing a role of ‘error searcher’, they attempt to be critical readers (Zainurrahman, 2010) They can raise their awareness of their writing mistakes This helps them make revision based on their self-awareness and become aware of the importance of revision in the writing process It is valuable as important and accessible task in writing classes
Feedback given by peer can be in spoken or written form This research focuses on the written feedback given by peers to improve the authors’ writing for the sake of convenience First, by providing written peer feedback, learners can receive their peers’ comments on their product even thought they missed class,
which is not available in oral response; and, second, students have time to read and
seek clarification of their peer comments (Bartels, 2003) Third, written peer feedback allows reviewers more time to form clear comments in English as well as gives writers chances to reconsider their peers’ comments as many times as they
Trang 29“want when revising their drafts (Min, 2008) Therefore, it is beneficial not only for the development of writing learning process but also for the language learning process as a whole for examining peer writers’ strengths and weaknesses helps learners gain confidence and reduce anxiety It is one of methods of social interaction, which creates an opportunity for communicative writing (Mittan, 1989)
Also, written peer feedback is believed to provide immediate feedback and negotiation of meaning, a vital element of language learning Providing material for reviewing is another cogent reason for applying written peer feedback With oral
feedback, just some students listen and make few notes on what being said, which make them not beneficial of their peers’ feedback Written feedback, on the other
hand, provides them reference materials on their writing In addition, it is a good practice for teacher-in-training It gives future-teacher students practice in writing useful comments on students’ paper That helps them avoid using confusing,
contradictory, or even useless comments on their future students’ written assignments (Bartels, 2003)
Finally, written peer feedback facilitates teachers in terms of time-saving and assessing Many teachers find that they do not have enough time for oral response during class because of time limitation for each class period Also, they do not have time to comments on each student’ product In addition, it is designed to facilitate teacher to assess students’ writing When assessing learners’ final product in accompanied by the previous drafts and the peers’ comments, teacher is easier to ‘find out which ideas originated with the student author and those arose from their peers’ comments, and how well students incorporated their peers’ comments into revisions Whereby, teacher can evaluate how well students make progress and participate in class (Bartels, 2003)
Trang 30a greater diversity of perspective than just those of their tutor or lecturer As a result, they can gain more effective comments into the subsequent drafts Especially, both teacher and learners enjoy enormous benefits of written peer feedback practice with regard to learners’ writing development
2.3.1 Benefits of peer feedback in L2 writing
Peer feedback is favorably applied in L2 writing teaching for its enormous advantages First, it makes an important change in learners’ role in the class It enhances learners’ involvement by giving them the roles of readers and advisors in stead of passively producing a piece of writing which will be evaluated solely by the teacher (Jacobs, 1989) Second, it helps learner become autonomous by conducing their learning behaviors to the development of self-regulation (Davies & Omberg, cited in Jacobs, 1989; Hyland, 2000) Third, through creating a fruitful environment for learners to negotiate meaning, it helps improve their writing skill and a wide range of target language skills as well (Hu, 2005) Fourth, it helps learners develop audience awareness, moving from writer-based to reader-based (Zhu, 2001) It provides them opportunities to discover mismatches between intended and understood meaning (Tsui and Ng, 2000) Fifth, learners are more
critical for they carefully consider their peer suggestions as well as defend, explain, and clarify their points of view (Mittan, 1989; Tsui & Ng, 2000; Hu, 2005) Sixth, it
is beneficial to both givers and receivers for when learning to review others’ writing, givers are able to look at their own papers and assess what need improving and revising This makes them better self-reviewers (Baker &Lundstrom, 2008)
And finally, it is, indeed, advantageous to teachers It can see seen as
complementary to teacher feedback It helps reduce teacher’s workload of assessing
and evaluating (Mittan, 1989; Berg, 1999; Ting & Qian, 2010)
Trang 31benefits, there are some problems associated with the use of peer feedback that instructor should acknowledge in order to prevent them
2.3.2 Drawbacks of L2 peer feedback
The first problem goes to learners’ limited of knowledge They tend to doubt the value of peer feedback They lack of trust on the competence of other student
reviewers They think that their classmates have the same, or lower, English
proficiency and they are all still in the process of learning English They, themselves, even feel unqualified and unsure to respond to their peers’ work Instead of considering their peers’ feedback, they favorably look upon their
teacher’s response (Widiati, 2002; Lee, 2009) Trained peer feedback has proved its
effects on enhancing the quality of students’ comments Widiati (2002) and Min (2006) reveal that with adequate training on peer feedback, students find it helpful to incorporate peers’ feedback for their writing performance improvement
Second, emotional component of peer review should be taken into account Learners may experience anxieties when being asked to give critical feedback to peers (Barnes, Marcangelo, & Cartney, 2011) The task of pronouncing a judgment on their peers’ writing may make them uncomfortable, which may be caused by their maturity level or culture They manage not to hurt others’ feelings Therefore, a vaguely positive response helps them to avoid a socially uncomfortable situation (Nilson, 2003) To address the issue, teacher should help students understand that the purpose of peer feedback is to assist their peers express their intended ideas in a clear and comprehensive way (Min, 2008)
Finally, student perceptions and attitudes about peer review process are considered an important obstacle in implementing students’ peer feedback They may dislike evaluating other group members’ work because they believe that assessment is the tutor or teacher’s responsibility Many of them do not perceive their peer feedback as relevant to the process of their writing learning for a course They seem to assume that only teacher’s feedback is taken into account (Brindley &
Trang 32Learners’ discomfort with the idea of peer review is also because of the matter of time They perceive that undertaking peer review of two or three members in their group is time consuming They may think that they spend more efforts than the learning benefits they receive To solve the problem, Berg (1999) suggested that a careful explanation of the role of peer feedback and its benefits in the learning writing process so that students can improve their awareness of peer feedback
In short, although feedback is said to be advantageous, it still has its own drawbacks, which belong to learners’ limited knowledge, emotion, perception and
attitudes In order to apply peer feedback effectively, instructors need to be aware of and overcome those main drawbacks and maximize its benefits by carefully designed peer feedback training (Hu, 2005)
2.3.3 Trained peer feedback
Trang 33how students perceived peer response before the training, and it also fails to identify the sources of revision (peer — versus self-feedback)
In another action research conducted by Widiati (2002), twenty EFL university students experienced trained peer response which was designed to help develop their positive attitudes towards peer response Surveys using questionnaires and interviews were carried out during week 1 and week 15 of the 16-week semester to measure the attitudes of the students toward peer response before and after the study Comparisons between the survey administered at the beginning of the semester, before the strategy training for peer response, and the one conducted
near the end of the semester, then, were drawn to find out whether there are some
changes in the students’ attitudes The training had the following main goals: to persuade the students that peer response was a useful activity, to help them pay attention to particular aspects of writing discussions, to suggest appropriate language for peers in responses, and to help writers react constructively to a response from their peer to their own writing After the training, significant changes were obtained in all questionnaire items Students gained more positive attitudes towards feedback, from fair (means of the questionnaire items ranging from 2.05 to 2.45) to good (means of the responses ranging from 2.90 to 3.65) They found that their classmates’ comments helped them enrich the content of their writing, improve the organization of their writing, and improve the language of their writing in terms of grammar and vocabulary The findings suggest that training in the use of strategies for effective peer response has led to positive changes in students’ reactions towards peer response It is considered a worthwhile activity Still, this study has not analyzed the texts composed by students during the training
In an attempt to find out the exact relationship between trained peer response and revision types and writing quality, Min (2006) identifies the source of revision in students’ essays and examines the ratio of revision quality in her research Participants were eighteen EFL sophomores The research was conducted in 18
Trang 34weeks semester The training occurred during the second and the third drafts and including two phases: in-class modeling and one-on-one conference after class The first drafts, peer feedback, and revisions were compared with those produced before the training to locate comments that students incorporated into their revisions and to find out the types, levels and functions of revisions Results show that students incorporated a considerably high number of reviewers’ comments into revisions, accounting for 77%, and the quality of their work was significantly enhanced after they received the training This amount was much higher than that before the peer response training (39%) The researcher concludes that after the training students finds peer-feedback helpful and they are willing to integrate it into their revisions, and that trained peer feedback positively impacts EFL students’ revisions and writing quality This research still leaves a room for studies on the change of peer reviewers’ stance before and after the training
To further his previous study, Min (2008) conducts another study to work out how peer review training changes reviewers’/ readers’ stances in their commentary and to report writers’ perceptions and attitudes towards the changes Participants were eighteen EFL writing students who were coached for two months The first
drafts, peer feedback, and revisions were collected for analysis and then a 20 — 30
Trang 35In conclusion, with adequate training and guidance, the implementation of peer feedback would be fruitful practice which brings both learners and teachers enormous benefits First, it helps enhancing writing quality significantly Second, its powerful impacts on revisions are also apparent And finally, it develops not only writers but also reviewers’ positive perceptions and attitudes toward peer response In a research on the practice of peer feedback at Nong Lam University, Pham- Ho (2010) points out that after receiving the training on peer response and participating in peer reviewing process, students’ writing quality was improved significantly in terms of the mean score and the length of the essays This leads to the belief that trained peer response is beneficial and should be practiced in English writing classes However, there should be more considerations into the setting of the writing environment for different contexts may yield different results (Braine, cited in
Pham-Ho, 2010), especially the context in Vietnamese classrooms where peer
feedback rarely occurs in the writing classroom 2.3.4 Quality of peers’ comments
Although it is claimed that peer feedback is the case of a blind leading a blind and that peer feedback quality is doubtful due to students’ limited knowledge and competence in generating comments, a number of studies have struggled to find evidence that peer comments are to some extent reliable and beneficial in EFL teaching and learning contexts For example, Jacobs (1989) conducts a study on the quality of peers’ comments with eighteen students in a University in Thailand Students were asked to write paragraph sentence outline to be handed before the day class met Teacher checked the outlines The next class teachers returned the outlines and students expanded them into paragraphs to be submitted The teacher made two photocopies of each draft The following class, in pairs, students received a photocopy of their peer’s draft to make suggestions in terms of grammar only The suggestions were in two types: corrections and indications of uncertainty Thirty minutes were given to students to discuss the suggestions they had made Students used their peer’s second draft to revise suggestions Finally, they rewrote their
Trang 36drafts in light of their peer’s comments For each type of suggestion, a comparison was made between the original and revised drafts and their peer’s comments on the first drafts The results of the study show that 76 % of changes students made led their writing to improvements 58 % of peer’s comments were wrong in the original but corrections were right The relatively small amount of mis-correction found in the study proved that peer feedback played an important role in developing students’ writing ability and eased the concern that peer feedback was the case of the blind leading the blind Yet, this research examines only the mechanical aspect of writing — grammar and involves a small number of students
In line of research on the quality of peers’ comments, Jacobs, at el (1998) further previous study on the feasibility in applying peer feedback It was conducted with the participation of 44 students in a University in Hong Kong and 77 students in a University in Thailand During the semester, participants wrote multiple drafts and they practiced giving and receiving peer feedback in prewriting, and revising sessions Questionnaire on students’ preference of types of feedback was delivered near the end of the semester The chi-square test was applied to analyze questionnaire responses Results point out that 93 % of participants preferred to have peer feedback One of the two reasons why students put high evaluation on peer feedback was that peers provided more ideas and were able to recognize the problems they had missed They also argued that their peers were understanding and encouraged them in feedback They believed that peers should make the same errors in writing; therefore, peer could give valuable suggestions based on_ their experience There should be one room in this research to examine the nature of the students’ feedback
Trang 37feedback and students’ writing performance On the whole, it was found that the most successful practice of peer feedback was when the researcher combined trained peer revisions and teacher follow-up The results show that quality of feedback was positive Students actively participated in response sessions and provided constructive yet critical comments Most of their suggestions were directly at the problematic areas and valid for they called for considerably better revisions Furthermore, the comments were to both rhetorical issues and language use, which constituted a valuable source to supplement teacher’s ones Yet, the research has not studied the levels of revisions made thanks to peer feedback
In line of research on the quality of peers’ comments, above mentioned research has showed its positive results of peer feedback quality However, in the research onto writing activities employed by the teachers of English writing classes at Ho Chi Minh City Open University, Pham (2013) concludes that the teachers did not sufficiently apply peer feedback in teaching writing to English majored students since they believed that students were not able to generate effective comments By analyzing comments generated by students, the present study will examine,
therefore, whether peer feedback is the case of a blind leading a blind in this
pedagogical setting or students are capable of giving constructive comments’ on their peers’ drafts as long as peer feedback is carefully designed and training on how to give comments is applied
2.3.5 Impacts of peer feedback on revisions
Trang 38was conducted in the fall quarter of 1982 with 14 participants The first half of the class received peer feedback as basic source their drafts’ revisions, and the other half had got their teacher’s feedback Learners’ improvement in essay revision between two groups was compared To evaluate the effects of teacher’s and peers’ feedback, photocopies of first drafts and the revisions from both groups — the
advanced and the high intermediate — were made, combined, and shuffled They all
were read and scored independently by two raters according to the 100 — point ESL Composition Profile T-test comparisons for samples were applied to determine whether there was significant change in scores from the drafts to revisions in two cases No significant differences appeared which suggested that learners in fact fail to improve in their revisions However, the results are limited because judgment was made basing on a small group of students and was carried out in a Native English Speaking setting
Answering the call of Chaudron for a research in EFL context, Pham & Usaha (2009) conduct a case study on blog-based peer response for EFL writing in Vietnamese context with the participation of twelve English-majored students They were trained 6 step-procedure of writing cycle and required to practice peer comments and compose four drafts However, only the drafts 1-3 were counted for data analysis Based on both quantitative and qualitative methods, the study found that (1) peer feedback did positively affect the students’ writing performance, compared the means of pretest and posttest, and was statistical significant (P < 0.01) by the Paired T-test; (2) when working in groups, student enthusiastically helped each other improve their writing revisions by providing effective comments; and (3) students believed that their writing quality was improved in terms of content, organization and grammar/ structure This research should leave a room for the discussion of the revisions triggered-by-peers ratios
Trang 39Chinese EFL writing classroom The research was conducted in the third semester of a 3-semester course 32 students were randomly divided into 9 groups After the first draft, students were required to read and give comments on their peers’ product
that were, later, used for revisions After the first revisions made, teacher read and
gave additional comments Finally, the third drafts were written based on the comments The researcher then chose three groups — 11 students, as participants The teacher encouraged students to do peer review for each other; however, no formal out-of-class training for peer review was provided The first drafts accompanied with their peer comments and the second revised drafts were collected for data analysis All the revisions made in the second drafts were clarified Textual analysis of the first and second drafts was carried out to measure the indices of accuracy, fluency, grammatical complexity, and the vocabulary complexity The results show that students incorporated a large number of comments into revisions 84.7 % of total revisions were resulted from peer feedback and 92.4 % of revisions were successful The revised drafts were slightly improved concerning fluency but significantly improved regarding accuracy This research, however, is a small-scale study and peer feedback has not been officially trained
Trang 40In sum, studies on the impact of peer feedback on revisions and writing performance have yielded both positive and negative results due to different context and way on which peer feedback is carried out If students are well-instructed in the peer feedback process, they would indeed help their peers in revision session as well as enhance their writing performance The present study is initiated by the positive findings from previous research about the levels of revisions made thanks to peer feedback The study is conducted in an attempt to further those studies by working out the ratios and the levels of revisions triggered by peers to examine the effects of peer feedback on revisions in Vietnamese learning context
2.3.6 Students’ attitudes towards the practice of peer feedback
Despite the general consensus that students prefer teachers’ feedback to peer feedback, several studies have sought to examine students’ attitudes towards peer feedback and found that most students hold favorable attitudes to the implementation of peer feedback Al-Hazmi and Schofield (2007) tests the implementation of peer feedback in an action research in university in Saudi Arabia, where teaching method has been mostly product-oriented 51 students who were intermediate level of proficiency participated in the study Pre-test, post-test and interviews were carried out as research instrument In the pre-test students were asked to write an essay at home Following the pre-test, there was a training session on peer feedback, and students were paired In the peer revision groups, students commented on their peer’s drafts The post-test was applied to test the effects of peer feedback Interviews were conducted to gain more insight into subjects’
attitudes Interviews of each student took from 5 to 10 minutes, 5Istudents were
interviewed Results indicate that most of the students expressed their positive attitudes and preference for collaborative revising (70%) for it helped them detect their mistakes