Significance of the sfUdỈy - - Ă S111 HH TH nh nếp 3 1.4 Aims of the study
This study contributes to the existing literature on peer assessment and its impact on English major students’ oral performance If the findings support the hypothesis that students benefit from the peer assessment process and hold positive attitudes toward it, the results would provide further evidence to encourage the use of peer assessment in English major programs Additionally, identifying the difficulties of conducting peer assessment and insights gathered from students’ perspectives can inform teachers and suggest directions for future research with similar interests.
Benefits of PA have been explored across diverse educational contexts, and the realities of oral presentation teaching and learning at Dong Thap University helped establish the rationale for this study Consequently, the study aims to examine not only the effects of PA on participants’ performance in oral presentation learning but also their attitudes toward adopting this method.
This study investigates the extent to which peer assessment—encompassing the scoring of peer presentations and the giving and receiving of peer feedback—benefits English major seniors at Dong Thap University, while also exploring their attitudes toward peer assessment It further examines the issues related to implementing peer assessment in the oral presentation course from students’ perspectives Accordingly, the research questions focus on the effectiveness of peer assessment for improving presentation skills, the acceptability and attitudes of English major seniors toward peer assessment, and the practical challenges of integrating peer scoring and feedback into the curriculum at Dong Thap University.
1 What are the effects of peer assessment to EFL students in the context of oral presentation learning?
2 What are students’ attitudes towards the use of peer assessment in the context of oral presentation learning?
Organization of the SfUỦyy - - ng TH nh nh nh 4
This thesis consists of five chapters:
Chapter 1 gives introduction, rationale for and significance of the current study The research questions as well as organization of the thesis can also be found on this chapter
Chapter 2 summarizes related literature on oral presentation and peer assessment Analysis of some previous studies is also presented as the final part of this chapter
Chapter 3 restates the research question and outlines the instruments used, the step-by-step research procedures, and the data collection process It also describes the research site and participants and clearly presents the data analysis approach used to interpret the collected data.
Chapter 4 systematically reports in details the results for the research questions Discussions for remarkable results are also located as the second part of this chapter
Finally chapter 5 gives a summary of the results and discusses on them
Additionally, limitations of the current study are admitted and ‘suggestions for future research on the field are made.
LITERATURE REVIEW cccceccssccssseeeececeeeeseneeneceeeeseeeeteaeeneeneeenees 6
Peer ASSCSSMEME 0.0 ố
To assess voice control, the evaluator observes how the presenter modulates pitch, speaking rate, and volume White (2009) also regards pronunciation as a component of voice control.
2.1.3.2.4 Assessing oral presentation in terms of language use
Across the literature on public-speaking assessment, grammar and vocabulary are consistently identified as two key language-use dimensions, though descriptions of these components vary and depend largely on the presenter’s language competence For building peer-assessment criteria, descriptors should be simple and easy to monitor since students are not accomplished evaluators Assessing oral presentations in terms of response to questions treats the Q&A as a crucial part of performance, with many teachers considering it nearly half of the overall evaluation because it is straightforward to judge whether the presenter’s answers are satisfactory Jamison (2010) characterizes a successful presenter in handling questions as someone who seems well prepared, handles questions with ease, offers more information than was originally covered, and demonstrates creative, spontaneous problem-solving in response to questions.
2.2.1.1 The Zone of Proximal Development and Scaffolding
Vygotsky’s concept of zone of proximal development and the notion of scaffolding learning was identified by Topping (1998) as one of the theoretical foundations of
PA though it is actually difficult to determine an overarching theory behind PA as
PA encompasses multiple forms of guided learning, with the zone of proximal development (ZPD) at its core Vygotsky (1978) defined ZPD as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (p.86) This developmental potential, fostered through interaction with adults or more capable peers, was first explored in first-language (L1) contexts, and the concept has since been discussed and applied to second-language acquisition (L2) learning.
Scaffolding refers to the supports that experts (teachers or more capable peers) provide to learners during problem solving—such as hints, reminders, or encouragement—to help them reach higher levels of understanding (Wood et al., 1976) Although scaffolding is often framed in expert–novice terms, research in peer assessment shows that equal collaboration among non-expert peers can yield similar scaffolding effects; Donato (1994) found that three French students co-constructing their second-language learning were able to provide mutual scaffolding, and that helping peers also boosted their own linguistic competence Anton (1999) further showed that learner-centered discourse in the L2 classroom created more opportunities for negotiation over form, meaning, content, and classroom rules, and that this negotiation was beneficial for L2 development compared with teacher-centered discourse.
Formative assessment acts as scaffolding in the L2 classroom by using evidence of a learner’s current understanding to redirect instruction and foster greater language competence (Shepard, 2005) In this framework, Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) paired with scaffolding provides a solid theoretical basis for designing adaptive, feedback-driven instruction that guides learners from where they are to where they can reach next.
Within the study's theoretical framework, expert scaffolding by teachers guided students throughout the peer assessment process, including training, demonstrations of how to perform peer evaluation, and active monitoring of peer feedback (Peng, 2010) From a peer-scaffolding perspective, the peer feedback and scores for oral presentations served as valuable forms of scaffolding, as students engaged with them for self-learning and self-reflection.
2.2.1.2 The social and cognitive theoretical perspective
In the current study, a social cognitive theoretical perspective towards self-regulated learning was also adopted as a theoretical basis for oral presentation instruction
(Grez et al, 2012) It is obvious that throughout observational learning, students can compare their own performance and others with the standards of a good oral presentation As a result, by achieving a better match between these standards and the current performance level, students’ oral presentation skills are evolved (Sadler,
Internal and external sources of feedback both support the match process leading to higher performance; Winne (2004) emphasizes that engaging with feedback from these sources fosters ongoing improvement, and within the external-feedback domain, Topping (1998) concludes that peer assessment (PA) can play a comparable role to other feedback approaches.
2.2.2.1 Summative assessment and formative assessment
Formative and summative assessment were introduced in 1967 by Michael Scriven to explain two distinct roles of evaluation in curriculum design; since then, these concepts have become foundational for understanding assessment in education.
Differing from assessments designed primarily for accountability, ranking, or certifying competence, assessment for learning (AfL) places learning at the center of evaluation Its first priority in design and practice is to support ongoing learning by providing timely feedback, clarifying goals, and guiding instructional decisions Rather than gatekeeping grades, AfL emphasizes students' current progress, helps them identify gaps, articulate what they know, and plan next steps By focusing on formative feedback and student involvement, teachers tailor instruction, adjust pacing, and foster self-regulated learning, while students become active participants in their own development.
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌU MỦ TP.HCM
Formative assessment is a central approach to promoting students’ learning (Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & Wiliam, 2003) It occurs during the teaching and learning process rather than after it, and its primary focus is the ongoing improvement of learning for all students.
Crooks (2001) emphasizes that teachers who implement assessment for learning rely on everyday classroom assessment activities to involve students directly and deeply in their own learning, boosting confidence and motivation by focusing on progress and achievement rather than failure, a view echoed by Stiggins (2007) These formative assessment practices provide feedback that teachers and students can use to assess themselves or each other and to adjust the teaching and learning activities in which they are engaged, thereby supporting more effective learning outcomes.
Formative assessment is classroom assessment that actively involves students and aims to boost their performance rather than merely measuring their ability at a single point in learning Its effectiveness rests on connecting the assessment to engaging learning tasks and delivering it in ways that motivate students to improve their classroom practice (Phil et al, 2004) In language learning contexts, peer assessment is recognized as a key form of formative assessment.
Peer assessment has emerged as an alternative to traditional assessment methods, offering a more collaborative, student-centered approach In this process, class members grade their peers according to criteria agreed upon by both teachers and students, with occasional teacher oversight to ensure fairness As described by Falchikov, this method relies on transparent criteria and constructive feedback to engage learners, develop critical thinking, and promote accountability in the learning process.
1995) In other words, students engage in reflective criticism of the work or performance of other students using previously identified criteria and supply feedback to them
Davies (2006) broadened the definition of peer assessment to show that the process involves more than students grading and providing feedback on peers’ work; it also requires assessing the quality of those evaluations In other words, effective peer assessment hinges on both the evaluative act and the reliability and usefulness of the evaluations themselves.
METHODOLOGY
Research InstrumenfS ¿+ se 2< sex _ ơ 39 1 Oral presentation f€SfS sec seeevereeke T211 xe 39 1.1 PT€-E€SẨ - Q Q HH HH ng 40
To address the research questions, two data-collection instruments were employed Two oral performance tests were administered at the beginning and end of the course to gather data for the first research question, while data for the second research question were collected through an open-ended questionnaire administered throughout the course.
Two oral presentation assessments—the pre-test at the outset and the post-test after implementing peer assessment—were used to address the first research question By comparing pre-test and post-test scores, the study examined whether peer assessment produced greater improvements in students’ oral presentation skills and whether such improvements differed significantly between the control and experimental groups.
After completing oral presentation training and two weeks of practice, a pre-test was conducted Students delivered an eight-minute oral presentation on two practiced topics and were subsequently questioned by examiners The exercise was designed to verify that the two groups had similar levels of oral presentation ability, and the results were used for subsequent analysis.
To assess students’ public-speaking performance, a five-criteria rubric was employed, focusing on voice control, body language, content, language use, and response to questions; these criteria were drawn from the key elements of public speaking proposed by Yamashiro and Johnson (1997) and the idea of Jaminson.
(2010) And a three point Likert scale with “l-poor”, “2- average”, “3 — good” was included in designing assessment form The rubric form was presented in detail in Appendix |
Students drew a topic and had a few minutes to prepare before delivering an eight-minute oral presentation; after presenting, examiners asked at least three questions on the topic just mentioned While one student was taking the test, another continued to choose their topic and prepare To promote fairness and objectivity in scoring, the assessment was conducted by two teachers who had carefully reviewed the evaluation criteria and the oral-testing method; these teachers were responsible for neither the control nor the experimental group and were unaware of the participants’ identities or group assignments.
Before implementing peer assessment in class, students’ oral presentations in two groups were recorded and scored Based on these pre-test scores, the homogeneity of the two groups was determined, and consequently, an independent t-test was conducted immediately after the pre-test to compare their performance.
After the experimental program concluded, both the control and experimental groups took the final examination, designated as the post-test for the study To ensure the post-test was reliable and meaningful after peer assessment, testing was conducted randomly in separate classrooms for each group The post-test followed the same procedures as the pre-test, using the same assessment rubric The same pair of teachers who administered the pre-test also served as examiners for the post-test, and they were not informed which students belonged to the experimental or control group.
Student presentations were recorded and scored for each criterion as well as a total score A paired-sample t-test was used to determine whether there were significant differences between the test results of the two groups, and the scores for each assessment criterion were also compared.
An oral presentation test served as the primary research instrument to examine the impact of peer assessment on the development of students’ oral presentation skills To address the second research question about students’ attitudes toward using peer assessment in their public speaking class, an open-ended questionnaire was designed The instruments were adapted from Patterson (2014) and White (2009) studies, and a five-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” was employed.
The questionnaire consisted of three sections including: (1) thirteen items to investigate participants’ attitudes towards the benefits of peer assessment, (2) fifteen
41 items to investigate participants’ attitudes towards the use of peer assessment and
(3) and an open-ended question to collect students’ thinking towards the use of peer assessment and recommendation for future implementation The questionnaire was summarized in the Table 3.1
The final part consisted of an open-ended question designed to capture students' views on using PA in their speaking course, focusing on its benefits, the weaknesses or difficulties experienced during the PA process, and their recommendations for future implementation To express their thoughts fully, participants were allowed to respond in English or Vietnamese The findings highlight perceived benefits of PA for speaking development, the specific challenges encountered during PA, and practical recommendations for more effective integration of PA in future courses.
The questionnaire was designed in English and then translated into Vietnamese to avoid participants’ misunderstanding The students were delivered only the
A Vietnamese-language questionnaire was developed to reduce confusion and save students’ time by ensuring an exact and concise translation To guarantee this, back-translation was conducted The Vietnamese questionnaire was distributed to students at the end of the course, after they had completed their final presentation All versions of the questionnaire are provided in Appendices 2A and 2B.
This study involved 44 English-major seniors at Dong Thap University in the second semester of the 2013 academic year The data collection procedure consisted of eight main steps: preparation; oral presentation training; oral presentation practice with the teacher’s assessment; pre-test; peer assessment training; oral presentation practice with peer assessment; post-test; and a survey The description and duration of each step are provided to explain how the program integrated teacher and peer assessments to evaluate oral presentation performance.
8 Š N the number of items to assess oO Ệ E nN prefer oral feedbacks to written feedbacks ® ° = a Đ :
4a me a find difficult to write feedbacks tơ đ :
Q 3 a peers not use criteria to evaluate presentations
Ge g ° 3 < aq assess presentation basing on feeling œ - A
5 3 = q can not follow peers’ presentation
3 š 2 nN be affected by relationship g Ss 1s © woe ề 2a R nq peers not understand clearly criteria
6 = = eers do not work seriously as evaluators
3 | 3 oo es é “ — peers not eligible enough to do assessment ® ~ see
%\ im feel bored when joining in PA § ob DO + 5 `© Š 2s 3 & |= feel not comfortable evaluating my peers o Tu A ư) :
“ myo g — | feel not comfortable being assessed by peers
2 z ~ like PA in oral presentation course
7 on 8° Đ =F 6 œ promote student-student interaction a, = o _ - ta © —
4 Confidence |= | be more confidence t — a 2 2 = motivate to prepare presentation carefully Đ A
Se) Fes š Ẻ t5 œ _ | study criteria carefully ề 6 | Participatlon | wn focus more on other presentations
8 = ư recognize weaknesses (as an assessor)
8 5 5 + helped in preparing next presentations q2 —
5 4 2 œ | do not repeat mistakes wu 2 n 8
= œ Improve weaknesses © ta recognize weaknesses (as an assesse)
To ensure PA could be applied naturally, the teacher meticulously designed the course syllabus and lesson plans while the researcher prepared materials to support the training process conducted during the first two weeks The curriculum emphasized making oral presentations, with attention to content and organization, the presenter’s manners, and the overall effectiveness of the presentation The researcher also copied and prepared the peer rating sheets All preparation was completed before the course began.
Before delivering short oral presentations, students received instruction on how to present clearly and concisely The essential aspects of a strong oral presentation were explained and elaborated, with the five criteria for assessment thoroughly outlined to establish the evaluation standards used by the teacher and peers in the experimental group In addition, guidance on designing and using visual aids—especially PowerPoint—was provided to help students enhance their presentations This training module took place in the first week for all students.
3.3.3 Step 3: Oral presentation practice with teacher’s assessment
Students took turns delivering eight-minute presentations, and after each talk the teacher assessed the presentation based on predefined criteria, awarded scores, and explained the feedback She highlighted the major themes of each presentation and reminded students to follow the guidelines for a good presentation The rest of the class served as the audience, able to raise questions after each performance and required to listen to the teacher’s feedback At the end of class, participants were assigned a new topic to prepare for the following week’s presentation Over two weeks, students in both the control and experimental groups completed two oral presentation practice sessions with teacher assessment.
Summary ấu 6c
Building on the introduction, literature review, and methodology presented in earlier chapters, this chapter interprets the collected data to answer the research questions It analyzes two primary data sources—the pre-test and post-test scores and the questionnaire responses—and presents their results in turn to highlight learning gains, shifts in outcomes, and participants’ perspectives The pre-test and post-test results quantify changes in performance, while the questionnaire results provide insights into experiences and attitudes, together offering a comprehensive interpretation of the data and addressing the research questions.
Data will be analyzed through the identification of emerging themes, and when similar themes emerge, they will be consolidated for investigation to deliver a concise, focused analysis.
4.1.1 Results from oral presentation tests
To assess baseline homogeneity between the two groups, an independent samples t-test was conducted on students’ pre-test scores at the outset of the course The analysis showed no significant difference between the control and experimental groups (t = 0.09, p > 05) Details of the pre-test analysis are presented in the following table.
Table 4.1: Pre-test analysis result t-test for Equality of Means
Sig Mean Std Error t df (2-tailed) Difference Difference