A study on the english majored sophomores’ responses to peer review technique and the difficulties in applying the activities in their writing 2 classes at faculty of foreign languages, ind

MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TRADE INDUSTRIAL UNIVERSITY OF HO CHI MINH CITY FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES ------ GRADUATION THESIS A STUDY ON THE ENGLISH-MAJORED SOPHOMORES’ RESPONSES

MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TRADE INDUSTRIAL UNIVERSITY OF HO CHI MINH CITY

FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

- -

GRADUATION THESIS

A STUDY ON THE ENGLISH-MAJORED

SOPHOMORES’ RESPONSES TO PEER REVIEW TECHNIQUE AND THE DIFFICULTIES IN

APPLYING THE ACTIVITIES IN THEIR WRITING 2 CLASSES AT FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES, INDUSTRIAL UNIVERSITY OF HO CHI MINH CITY

STUDENT NAME: NGUYEN THI NGOC QUYEN

MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TRADE INDUSTRIAL UNIVERSITY OF HO CHI MINH CITY

FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

- -

GRADUATION THESIS

A STUDY ON THE ENGLISH-MAJORED

SOPHOMORES’ RESPONSES TO PEER REVIEW TECHNIQUE AND THE DIFFICULTIES IN

APPLYING THE ACTIVITIES IN THEIR WRITING 2 CLASSES AT FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES, INDUSTRIAL UNIVERSITY OF HO CHI MINH CITY

STUDENT NAME: NGUYEN THI NGOC QUYEN

INDUSTRIAL UNIVERSITY OF HO CHI MINH CITY

FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

Supervisor Name : LE THI THUY, M.A

Student’s declaration: I declare that this graduation report is entirely my own work and does not involve in plagiarism or collusion It also has not been accepted as part of a submission to another purpose elsewhere I accept heavy penalty for any cheating or plagiarism

Date submitted: 09/12/2021

Word count : 8889 words

A STUDY ON THE ENGLISH-MAJORED SOPHOMORES’ RESPONSES TO PEER REVIEW TECHNIQUE AND THE DIFFICULTIES IN APPLYING THE ACTIVITIES IN THEIR WRITING 2 CLASSES AT FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES, INDUSTRIAL UNIVERSITY OF HO CHI MINH CITY.

Writing is an important skill for foreign language learners However, there are many learners who believe that writing is a tough skill to master and that they dislike it Peer evaluation is used in Writing 2 class at the Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City's Faculty of Foreign Languages to enhance the students’ writing ability

The researcher's goal in this study is to look into the English-majored sophomores’ responses

to peer review techniques and the difficulties in applying the activities in their Writing 2 classes

at FFL, IUH Quantitative data were obtained from 232 second-year English majors at the FFL, IUH In addition, with the permission of the teachers, the researcher decided to observe Writing

2 classes and collect student papers in order to get additional data for the research

According to the findings, the majority of participants recognize the benefits of peer review and wish to continue using it in the future However, students still have trouble applying peer review

to reviewers and reviewees in the classroom The major challenge reviewers face when participating in this activity is that they lack English competence, which makes them hesitant

to provide input on papers; on the other hand, reviewees complain about the responses they receive, which are often general and even misleading Finally, the researcher makes some suggestions for assisting students in overcoming obstacles while using peer review in the classroom

Keywords: paragraph writing, peer review, writing skills

I received a lot of aid and support while writing this thesis, which enabled me to overcome the challenges and stay motivated to finish the study

First of all, I would like to express my gratefulness to the School Board of Industrial University

of Ho Chi Minh City and the Faculty of Foreign Languages for constantly establishing excellent conditions for my support

Second, I would like to show my thankfulness to my supervisor, Ms Le Thi Thuy, for energetically guiding me and encouraging me and my team members up when we faced problems She has consistently and enthusiastically provided good advice and beneficial direction that has enabled me to complete my graduation thesis successfully Despite her hectic schedule, she took the time to proofread my drafts and provide helpful feedback This thesis would not have been feasible without her unwavering support and encouragement

Third, I have the honor of working alongside two of my team's talented members, Le Hoang Phuc and Bui Hoang Phuong Nhi They are really active and creative, and they are always encouraging me while I work on my graduation thesis

In addition, I'd like to thank the 232 students in Writing 2 classes who enthusiastically participated in the survey, allowing me to collect extremely reliable data

Last but not least, I am immensely grateful for my family's unconditional love As I work on

my graduation thesis, my parents continually encourage and support me, and it is because of them that I am more eager and motivated

MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TRADE

INDUSTRIAL UNIVERSITY OF HO CHI MINH CITY

ABSTRACT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES

ABBREVIATION

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Rationale 2

1.2 Research objectives 2

1.3 Research questions 3

1.3 Scope of the study 3

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW 4

2.1 An overview of peer review 5

2.1.1 The definition of peer review 5

2.1.2 The benefits of peer review 5

2.2 An overview of paragraph writing 6

2.2.1 Definition of writing 6

2.2.2 The process of writing 7

2.2.3 Definition of paragraph 7

2.3 Applying peer review activity in writing classes 8

2.3.1 Rubrics for evaluation 8

2.3.2 The responses of students to peer review activity 8

2.3.3 Students’ difficulties in applying peer review activity in applying peer evaluation 9 2.4 Previous studies 10

2.4.1 The Impact of Peer Feedback on Improving the Writing skills among Hebron University Students of Mohammed Farrah in 2012 10

2.4.2 An Investigation of the Effects of Peer Evaluation in Enhancing Algerian Students’ Writing Autonomy and Positive Affect of Samira Moussaoui in 2012 11

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH DESIGN 12

3.1 Research site 13

3.2 Participants 13

3.3 Research methodology and research methods 13

3.3.1 Research methodology 13

3.4 Procedures 15

3.5 Data analysis 15

CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 17

4.1 Findings 18

4.1.1 Students' writing and peer review ability 18

4.1.2 Students’ perceptions to peer review process 19

4.1.3 The difficulties of applying peer review activities in writing 2 class 24

4.2 Discussion 32

4.2.1 Students' writing and peer review ability 32

4.2.2 Students’ perceptions to peer review process 32

4.2.3 The difficulties of applying peer review activities in writing 2 class 32

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION 34

5.1 Conclusion 35

5.2 Recommendations for sophomores of FFL in IUH 35

5.3 Research limitations 36

5.4 Further research 36

REFERENCES 38

APPENDICES 40

QUESTIONNAIRE 41

SUPERVISOR’S EVALUATION FORM 50

EXAMINER’S EVALUATION FORM 52

PROGRESS FORM 41

Figure 4.1 Students’ writing ability

Figure 4.2 Students’ giving feedback ability

Figure 4.3 Statements about peer review

Figure 4.4 Teachers give instructions before applying peer review in writing class Figure 4.5 Level of understanding the teacher's instructions on peer review activity Figure 4.6 The way to apply peer review activity

Figure 4.7 Number of people in a group

Figure 4.8 Number of papers that students applied peer review activity

Figure 4.9 Number of comments that students got from their peers

Figure 4.10 Students’ perceptions about peer review activity

Figure 4.11 Amount of time to giving feedback to a writing

Figure 4.12 Some ways that students do when they check friend’s papers

Figure 4.13 Common errors that students often point out

Figure 4.14 Confidence level in giving feedback to peers' papers

Figure 4.15 The reasons that students not really confident in giving feedback

Figure 4.16 Common mistakes that peers point out in students’ writing

Figure 4.17 How helpful the feedback is

Figure 4.18 How often to receive unhelpful feedback

Figure 4.19 The reasons that comments are unhelpful

Figure 4.20 Rewrite the second draft based on peers' feedback

Figure 4.21 Students are polled to see if they want to continue using peer review activity

IUH: Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City

FFL: Faculty of Foreign Languages

ESL: English as a Second Language

L2: Second Language

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Rationale

Listening, speaking, reading, and writing are all essential skills for learning English or any other foreign language, especially English, which is the most widely spoken language on the world Writing is the most challenging skill for second and foreign language learners to master, and it plays a crucial part in students' development of the four essential language abilities stated above Besides, high writing ability allows language learners to share their information, ideas, sentiments, convictions, contentions, explanations, and other related information, ideas, sentiments, convictions, contentions, and explanations linked to the issue Furthermore, writing abilities enable students to speak with future generations or even past eras through their books, studies, or writings

Unfortunately, a large number of students majoring in English are not aware of the importance

of writing ability in their learning They often get low marks when doing the tests on writing skills and it has an effect on their learning result Others are having trouble evaluation the writing's errors Therefore, receiving feedback on your writings from others is critical It assists learners in identifying problems in their writing, as well as some recommended adjustments, so that they may rewrite the writing in the most effective Normally, teachers will be the ones to provide feedback and ideas on students' writing in some current classrooms, however, this still has some challenges English-majored sophomores at IUH stated that the current class size is quite large, with 45 students per class, making it impossible for the teacher to correct all of the students' writing errors Furthermore, students must wait a long time for a response from their teacher, because they teach many classes and it is difficult to give feedback to the students' writing immediately

To address the above problems, the author proposes the application of error correction activities

in writing 2 Besides the advantages that this method brings, there are still significant challenges

in putting it into practice Because of the above reasons, this study was carried out to find out the English-majored sophomores’ responses to peer review technique and the difficulties in applying the activities in their Writing 2 classes at FFL, IUH, so that timely suggestions

1.2 Research objectives

In this study, the researcher concentrates on applying peer review activities in writing classes

of English-majored sophomores at Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh city First of all, the researcher was interested in learning about students' perceptions of peer evaluation in Writing

2 classes at IUH In other words, the researcher focuses on finding out what learners think about applying peer evaluation in their Writing class Secondly, the researcher wants to study the obstacles faced by English-majored sophomores when using peer review activities in writing

classes Finally, the author aims to figure out what are the main causes of the difficulties that learners are facing, so that they may better comprehend and take timely suggestions

1.3 Research questions

1 What is the English-majored sophomores’ perceptions of peer review in Writing 2 classes at IUH?

2 What are the difficulties in applying peer review in Writing classes at IUH?

1.3 Scope of the study

Because of the researcher's time constraints, circumstances, and abilities, the study has several shortcomings First of all, due to the emergence of the Covid pandemic, all courses have been forced to move to online learning, which has made it difficult to observe, conduct survey, and collect data Therefore, through an online survey, the study team was only able to survey 232 English-majoring sophomores To get further data for the study article, the researchers enlisted the aid of some of the instructors who teach the Writing 2 class by asking permission to observe classes during the weeks of peer review activity; and collecting students' writings Moreover, since these evaluation activities must be completed online, there are not many references to this study, compared to traditional peer review in the offline classroom Although there were still some difficulties, the researcher attempted to conduct the study as efficiently as possible The author also believes that via these peer review activities, English-majoring sophomores at IUH will be able to improve their writing and peer assessment abilities

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 An overview of peer review

2.1.1 The definition of peer review

Peer evaluation (also known as peer feedback or peer review) is a set of "integrated activities"

in which students work together to reply to each other's writing (Donna, 1989) Students act as evaluators, using various types of evaluation checklists established by instructors and providing feedback on their classmates' writings based on predetermined criteria This peer evaluation procedure necessitates a variety of interaction abilities, including "reading, writing, speaking, listening, and thinking" (p 208), in which students are placed in a real-life communicative situation to practice the language

Peer review is defined by Liu and Hansen (2002) as the use of learners as sources of information and interactants for one another in the writing process, in which learners take on roles and responsibilities normally assigned to a formally trained teacher, tutor, or editor in commenting

on and critiquing one another's drafts in both written and oral formats Peer feedback, in other words, refers to involving students in the process of sharing their thoughts and receiving as well

as giving constructive feedback and suggestions for improving a piece of work As we move away from teacher-centered to learner-centered approaches to teaching and learning, learners

in this model of learning take on a lot of responsibility for their own learning Peer feedback, according to Flower (2004), refers to the recommendations, comments, questions, or inquiries that learners offer each other after reading any piece of writing with the goal of producing 'reader centered prose.'

2.1.2 The benefits of peer review

Peer feedback or peer review is a typical feature of cooperative learning which assists language learners critical thinking abilities as well as their writing abilities Students are not only expected to be receptive to peers’ comments and evaluation of their written work but also to be able to evaluate and write feedback for their peers, too (Atif, 2021) Also, peer feedback can be

a good way to assist writing teachers who are already overloaded with a lot of responsibilities inside and outside the classroom For example, the expanding number of students in many classrooms, especially in developing countries in which the number of students exceeds 40 in one classroom, makes it hard for writing teachers to give feedback for every student on every writing task

Another advantage of peer is to develope self-confidence and the ability to negotiate meaning and establish consensus with peers in a non-threatening setting, so enhancing the likelihood of active involvement and optimizing engagement among students (Johns, 1997) In this sense,

Silva and Moreira (2003) go even farther, claiming that peer feedback can be more efficient than comments provided by a busy teacher Students receive more feedback on their work than they would have gotten from a teacher Furthermore, they present a variety of viewpoints in their writing because they receive input from a larger audience Peer feedback, in addition to its social benefits, allows pupils to develop higher-order thinking skills This is because offering feedback necessitates students analyzing, criticizing, and evaluating the written work of their classmates Finally, peer review activities foster a sense of community in the classroom As a result, giving and getting feedback from peers allows students to improve their writing by allowing them to share ideas and provide critical critique This technique has the ability to boost motivation, confidence, and critical thinking

To sum up, peer evaluation in the writing classroom has proven to be one of the most effective approaches for fostering student writers' autonomy and developing critical thinking skills, according to teaching experiences and research (Thomas, Martin, & Pleasants, 2011) Students will learn to think, write, provide feedback to one another, and revise and edit their own writing

as a result of their training and practice

2.2 An overview of paragraph writing

2.2.1 Definition of writing

Writing is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as "producing something in written form by making coherent words on paper and composing the text so that people can read, perform or use it” According to Flower & Hayes (1981), writing is a complex activity that needs a wide range of cognitive and metacognitive abilities, including brainstorming, planning, outlining, organizing, writing, and editing

Another definition is that writing is a fundamental means of communication that plays an important role in the building of knowledge, the support of cognition, and the formation of meaning It encourages people to think about new information and integrate it with what they already know (Jabali, 2018; Su Ping, Verezub, Adi Badiozaman, & Chen, 2019)

A similar concept comes from a group of authors including Johnstone, Ashbaugh, & Warfield

in 2002, they proposed that writing is generally considered as one of the most difficult than other skills for foreign language students Even native speakers feel difficulty in showing a

good command of writing

2.2.2 The process of writing

Process writing in the classroom, according to Cambridge University Press, process writing comprises the four core writing phases – planning, drafting, revising, and editing – as well as three imposed stages placed on students by the teacher, namely responding, evaluating, and post-writing

Planning, also known as ‘pre-writing’, is the initial stage Any activity in the classroom that encourages learners to write is referred to as pre-writing In reality, it encourages learners to generate tentative ideas and gather information for writing

The second stage is drafting In this stage, the writers are more concerned with the fluidity of their writing during the drafting stage than with grammatical precision or the neatness of the draft Peer responding can be accomplished effectively at this stage by having students answer

to each other's readings in small groups or pairs, using the teacher's checklist

The next stage is to revise the writing papers Students update their texts based on the criticism they received during the responding step They go over what they've written again to see how well they've expressed their meanings to the reader

Editing is an important next step At this point, students proofread their own or others' writing for grammar, spelling, punctuation, diction, sentence structure, and the accuracy of supporting textual material such quotations and examples

Evaluating is a crucial part of completing the writing paper The evaluation criteria should be communicated to students ahead of time in order to be effective They should include the task's overall interpretation, audience perception, relevancy, growth and organization of ideas, format

or layout, syntax and structure, spelling and punctuation, etc

The final phase is post-writing, which serves as a forum for recognizing and applauding students' efforts It can be used to encourage pupils to write as well as to prevent them from

making excuses not to write

sentence of a paragraph is usually indented (moved in) a few spaces, but in a fully blocked style

of writing, the new line is not indented From the definitions above it is clear that a paragraph

is a piece of writing consisting of several sentences which discuss one main subject The sentences are closely related like a family in which the members are related; each member has different role or function

2.3 Applying peer review activity in writing classes

2.3.1 Rubrics for evaluation

A rubric, often known as a score guide, is a list of criteria that teachers use to evaluate their students' work "Rubrics are descriptive scoring schemes that are developed by teachers or other evaluators to guide the analysis of the products or process of students' efforts," writes Moskal (2000, p 22)

A rubric for written work consists mostly of a list of specific qualities of writing performance, which are frequently separated into key areas such as content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics Rubrics are significant in peer evaluation because they help assessors grasp the main criteria for evaluating their peers The teacher will present rubrics to students to grade them, as well as guide and answer students' questions on rubrics in class The students will next read and remark on their friend's work using the rubric's criteria

Students should be taught how to use self-assessment tools via rubrics, according to Andrade and Du (2007) They discovered that when students got experience with self-assessment, their views toward it improved If teachers provided clear articulation of assessment standards and rubrics, students' experiences were more positive, resulting in higher grades, better academic work, increased motivation, mindfulness, learning, and lower anxiety

2.3.2 The responses of students to peer review activity

According to Hudelson (1988), if students know that their writing will be evaluated by the teacher, the content of their writing will be written solely to impress that teacher If students are writing for a different audience, such as their classmates or others, their content and writing style will vary to fit their needs This indicates that when students apply peer review activities, their thinking will alter, and they will have more ideas to share Working cooperatively is particularly important in ESL writing because students need to discuss the topic of their writing before they start writing and after they complete (Elbosh, 2021) Students also require audiences

to listen to and evaluate their written work who are in the same age and share the same similar interests Furthermore, many ESL students struggle to discover the right vocabulary they

require to express their ideas and construct meaningful sentences As a result, working with peers allows pupils to seek assistance from one another, which improves their writing skills Ferris (1995) finds out that reading text written by peers on similar problems increases pupils' confidence and critical thinking skills Students also receive more feedback on their work than they would have gotten from a teacher Furthermore, they present a variety of viewpoints because they receive input from a larger audience Finally, peer review activities foster a sense

of community in the classroom As a result, giving and getting feedback from peers allows students to improve their writing by allowing them to share ideas and provide a critical critique Tsui and Ng (2000) looked at the impact of instructor and peer review on secondary L2 students

in Hong Kong They discovered that peer review increase a sense of audience, increase learners' knowledge of their own strengths and flaws, stimulate collaborative learning, and develop text ownership Learners were able to build a sense of autonomy over their own compositions, according to them, and the writing classroom is no longer one in which the teacher has complete control

Asia, Tang and Tithecott (1999) investigated the value of peer feedback groups in English as a second language writing classrooms They wanted to look into students' perspectives and see if those perceptions altered over time The findings demonstrated that students expressed good

feelings about peer comments

2.3.3 Students’ difficulties in applying peer review activity in applying peer evaluation

2.3.3.1 From the reviewees

First of all, nearly 94 percent of the participants preferred teacher input over peer evaluation, according to Zhang (1995) Besides, Ching (1991) questioned whether students are capable of providing high-quality feedback similar to that provided by their teachers, and he suggested that unless we provide our students with proper feedback training, they will continue to focus

on syntactic errors and ignore semantic or textual errors that concern the development of ideas

and the content itself

The next problem is that not all feedback is equally useful Brindley and Scoffield (1998) report that some undergraduate students expressed concerns about the objectivity of peer assessment due to the possibility of personal bias when comments are given by peers, and some students considered assessment to be the sole responsibility of teachers

In addition, a few students were just interested in complimenting their friend's essay Duijnhouwer, 2010 argued that positive feedback is typically regarded as motivating by

students; but some research suggests that praise is unhelpful for giving feedback in peers' writing (Crooks 1988)

Finally, students' apprehension about submitting their work online is another roadblock to online peer evaluation According to research, some students are irritated by receiving feedback

on their written work, especially when it is done in front of others "Uncomfortable dynamics among peers can make young authors vulnerable to teasing and conflict," Hall (2014) writes (p 28) Moreover, in a study by Silva and Moreira (2003), another group of participants felt unpleasant and uncomfortable because their papers were reviewed online and publicly

condemned

2.3.2.2 From the reviewers

Tsai (2009) argued that reviewers may have the insufficient prior domain knowledge to judge the work of peers or an inability to provide neutral comments, therefore they may have difficulties applying peer activities in class Assessors, for example, may lack adequate prior subject knowledge to rate peers' work or the competence to provide appropriate feedback, causing assessees to have difficulty accepting and adapting to peer input

On the other hand, individual contributions to a group project might be difficult to measure for the assessor, who is often not present when the work is being produced and must rely on peer-assessment to discern individual efforts

Another constraint is students’ illiteracy of the rules and basis on which they evaluate, criticize, and write feedback for a written work Brindley and Scoffield (1998) The main cause of this issue is that teachers did not offer assessment sheets to students before permitting them to participate in this activity Alternatively, students may not pay attention to the instructor's explanation, resulting in a lack of knowledge of the article's rating criteria

the positive effects of the use of peer feedback in writing classes to enhance students’ motivation and improve their writing skills Moreover, the study indicated that female students favored peer feedback in writing classes more than male students There were no statistically significant differences in students’ performance in the post-writing exams due to gender Nevertheless, readers can see that using peer feedback in the writing classroom is beneficial to students as demonstrated by the results of this study Additionally, the students improved their writing, developed their ideas, became more motivated to write, and had a much better perception To sum up, peer feedback could help in improving students’ writing skills as evidenced by the statistically significant differences among the participants in the experimental group and the control group Moreover, peer feedback in English writing classes has the added advantages of increasing motivation and improving writing skills Nonetheless, as evidenced

by the findings of this study, employing peer evaluation in the writing classroom is advantageous to students Additionally, the students' writing improved, their thoughts

developed, they got more motivated to write, and their perception improved significantly 2.4.2 An Investigation of the Effects of Peer Evaluation in Enhancing Algerian

Students’ Writing Autonomy and Positive Affect of Samira Moussaoui in 2012

The results of a study on the benefits of peer review on improving EFL students' writing autonomy and good effect are presented in this paper The participants in this study were chosen

at random from the English Department at Sétif University in Algeria The emphasis was on second-year undergraduate students who were required to take a two-year writing course on paragraph and essay writing as part of their curriculum Out of the total number of second-year students, the study sample consisted of two groups (a control and a study group) of thirt y students each (approximately 300 students) Pre- and post-training surveys, class observations, and peer evaluation rubrics were all used by the researcher Participants in the study had positive opinions toward offering and receiving peer feedback, according to the findings Furthermore, their participation in social interaction as authors and readers during the evaluation process reduced their writing apprehension and raised their writing self-efficacy Furthermore, the participants were able to tackle new writing tasks on their own and enhance their writing autonomy as a result of the reading, rethinking, and revising process In summary, peer evaluation can be a useful revision strategy for students who want to improve their writing and critical thinking skills, as well as build their writing autonomy

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH DESIGN

The author carried out the survey with students of DHAV16 The author collected 232 datasheets from the questionnaires and 100 pieces of writing for analyzing

To sum up, although the amount of data was not like what the author expected, it is enough for her to analyze and withdraw the important information that is extremely helpful for her research

3.3 Research methodology and research methods

3.3.1 Research methodology

In this research, the author applied mixed methods to collect data, including qualitative (class observation & analysis of students’ writing) and quantitative (questionnaire) research The researcher believes that using mixed methods can help to investigate research on multiple levels, gaining different views and a comprehensive look at the subject because both methods are very important and crucial in the data collection process Moreover, the researcher can compare data from qualitative and quantitative data sources using these methodologies The two types of data can validate each other and give a solid foundation for generating appropriate conclusions

3.3.2 Research methods

To gather data for this study, the author used two main research methods: class observation, analysis of students' writing after using peer review activities and the questionnaires from participants

3.3.2.1 Observation and analysis of students' writing

First of all, the researcher and her team planned to observe the Writing 2 classes that apply peer review activities in their classrooms After making contact and obtaining permission from the teachers, each member of the group takes turn to observe two classes The main goal of this observation is to see how students react when they use peer review activities in the classroom,

how teachers and students conduct activities, and the difficulties they face when doing these activities Through the process of observing the classes, the researcher has found that the common points in all classes are the steps taken when applying peer review to the class of Writing 2 Before class begins, the teacher asks the students to write a written piece on a specific topic After that, teachers and students apply peer review activities To begin, the teacher introduces and explains the rubrics/checklists, which students will use to assess their classmates' writing The teacher will next break the class into small groups, or pairs, and have students read and correct their classmates' writing using the criteria presented Finally, the teacher instructs students to analyze and modify their work after receiving criticism from others

This was followed by questions about the teacher's guidance before students started using the peer review activity and their understanding of these explanations Then there were questions regarding how they got involved in the activity, how many people they worked with to read and give feedback on their friends' writings, and how many writings they've used this activity on,

as well as how many feedback they've received from their peers In the section's final question, students are asked to rate how active they are in reviewing their peers on a scale of not very helpful to extremely helpful

The third part consists of a series of questions about the difficulties that students have encountered when applying peer review activities The questions are divided into two subjects, one is for the person giving the feedback (reviewer), and the other is for the person receiving the feedback (reviewee) Questions for people giving feedback include how long it takes them

to write a response to their friend, what kind of feedback they write, common mistakes in

friends' writing, and difficulties they face when giving that feedback The majority of the questions for those receiving feedback were about the type of feedback their peers provided, how helpful the feedback was, and why they found the feedback helpful or unhelpful, as well

as how often they will rewrite their papaers after receiving the feedback In the last question, the researchers wanted to know if they would like to use peer assessment in the future after completing Writing 2 class These questions are posed so that each student can share their own specific and candid responses on the challenges of using peer review activities to improve their writing

3.4 Procedures

The first step is to select a study topic The researcher identifies challenges faced by majoring sophomores at IUH, particularly in writing They're having trouble utilizing peer review activities in Writing 2 classes, in particular To address the aforementioned issues, the topic "A study of the difficulties and causes of using peer assessment activities in Writing 2 classes for English-majoring sophomores at IUH" was chosen

English-The second process is to prepare data collection tools: Students are required to study online on this semester because of Covid-19 pandemic, so this study will not be conducted at FFL, IUH

By participating in online writing classes 2 and observing in order to investigate students' attitudes through how they participate in peer review in class, collect students' writing, and the last tool is an online survey form to get detailed students' responses, the research team has applied two qualitative and quantitative methods to gather information

The questionnaire was prepared very carefully based on the research questions to find out english-majored sophomores’ responses to peer review technique and the difficulties in applying the activities in their writing 2 classes at FFL, IUH

The final step is to analyze the data After collecting all of the students' responses, the researchers will divide them into two groups The researchers mostly utilize types of charts to display the findings of questionnaire surveys (quantitative) After that, the researchers will utilize short phrases or sentences to summarize the outcomes in the paragraph and observation (qualitative)

3.5 Data analysis

First of all, analyze data from the questionnaire With number data, the author will display the results using tables, charts, and figures after coding the data Inadition, in the form of particular replies, Researchers will arrange them together by category in the form of specific responses for ease of comparison and analysis Researchers will be able to better understand the thoughts

of people who took part in the survey with the help of these responses, which will enable them

in determining each individual's viewpoints

The next data from observation and students’ feedbacks analysis The researcher will analyze what they take note of while observing students apply peer review and the results in their writing Although this is challenging, the researcher will obtain correct results for the problem

he is researching

CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Findings

4.1.1 Students' writing and peer review ability

The given bar chart illustrates the students’ writing ability As can be seen from the chart, 57.3 percent of students self-assessed their writing ability at average level, followed by 32.3 percent

of week level, and just 19 out of 232 students confident in their good writing ability These figures show that most of the sophomores at the FFL have an average capacity to write

The ability to give feedback on other friends' papers plays an important role in applying peer review activities in classes Therefore, the author would like to see an overview of each student's

ability to evaluate papers We can easily see that more than half of the students self-assessed their peer evaluation ability as good Following that, there are 33.6% of students identify level

2 (weak) for this skill, while only 10.8 percent chose level 4 (very good) with confidence

4.1.2 Students’ perceptions to peer review process

Specifically, over 70% of students have a correct understanding of what peer review is Besides, approximately 41% of students stated that peer review feedback should be specific and clear and that it should be based on rubrics In contrast, there are still students who don't comprehend peer review and choose incorrect statements It is also more difficult to carry out subsequent operations as a result of this issue

Base on the data collected from the survey, more than 95 percent of students believe their teachers offer them instructions before they use peer review activities to evaluate their peers' paper Moreover, through classroom observations, the author also agrees with this result, all teachers provide very detailed instructions before applying peer review in the classroom Giving students such instructions will assist them in determining their direction, what to do for this task, and how to accomplish it in order to achieve positive outcomes

When asked about students' understanding of the teacher's instructions on concepts as well as how to apply peer review activities in the writing class, the pie chart clearly shows that 53% of students understood most of the ideas instructed by teachers; followed by 16,4% students who understood the instructions clearly, 75 to 100 percent However, more than 27% of students out

threshold The remaining 3% of students are having difficulty following the teacher's instructions on how to apply for peer review in the classroom, indicating that they selected a level of understanding between 0 and 25% This problem is also caused by many reasons, including both objective and subjective factors

With peer review, students can give feedback for their peers' papers in a variety of methods, including in pairs and in groups Since each teacher uses peer review in his or her own style in his or her classroom, the author wanted to know what form students in other classrooms used

by asking, "How do you do peer review?" The results demonstrate a modest difference between these two ways, with 46.6 percent of students doing this activity in pairs and 53.4 percent giving comments in groups This demonstrates that some teachers allow students to give feedback in pairs, while others allow students to remark on their friends' papers through group discussion, allowing students to make the most beneficial responses to their friend's writings

When teachers allow students to participate in peer review act ivities in groups in some classrooms, the author wants to know how many individuals are in each group so that the amount of feedback each student can receive from their peers can be estimated The statistics show that the majority of them are in groups of four, accounting for 44.4 percent of the total Furthermore, the proportion of people in a group of three or five is the same, at 25% and 23.7%, respectively Furthermore, 16 students indicate that their group consists of more than

5 people

The pie chart above depicts the number of papers on which students used peer review activities As can be observed from the graph, in the Writing class, the majority of students applied peer review to 1-2 and 3-4 papers, accounting for 44.4 percent and 44 percent, respectively Besides, 11.6 percent of students used peer review to analyze five or more than five of their peers' papers

Through the process of applying peer review in the classroom, up to 64.2% of students said that they received 1 to 5 responses for each of their writings while the number of recipients from 6

to 10 responded recovery accounted for nearly 32% of the total And only about 9 friends out

of 232 survey respondents received more than 10 comments on each of their posts

When asked by the author about peer review activities in writing, as can be seen from the bar chart above, up to 95 students out of the total (equivalent to 40.9%) think this activity is valuable

by choosing level 4, and about 23 percent of students choose 'very useful' level Furthermore, 32% of students selected the average level of usefulness for this activity

As a result, the majority of students in the class write 2 of the IUH Faculty of Foreign Languages are interested in this peer review activity This is especially true in the classroom The researcher discovered that many students in the class were engaged in this activity during the observation sessions Students asked a series of questions after the teacher delivered instructions on how to use peer review activities and criteria for evaluation their friends' papers Besides, students are quite excited to receive a lot of feedback on their work from peers Since most students work in groups in class, and each student is required to provide at least five responses to their peers Therefore, each paper receives a significant amount of feedback from others The author believes that this is the main reason why students find this activity useful

4.1.3 The difficulties of applying peer review activities in writing 2 class

4.1.3.1 Results of reviewers

Figure 4.11 depicts the amount of time it took each student to respond to a friend's writing The amount of time students spends offering feedback on a paper varies from student to student in general According to statistics, roughly 27 percent of students take 15 to 20 minutes to give comments on a paper, while nearly 25 percent of students give feedback on writing, which takes approximately 10-15 minutes Out of the total number of students surveyed by the author, nearly 17% claimed that commenting on a paper takes them only 5 to 10 minutes Through statistics from the questionnaire, it can be seen that the time each student gives feedback to a paper is quite diverse Therefore, the author compares notes from the observation procedure to get to a conclusion on this subject As a result, the majority of you are capable of writing at an average

or better level, with each paper requiring roughly 10-15 minutes to complete So, teachers frequently spent 10-15 minutes for students to give feedback to their peers

When asked what students usually do when checking their friend's writings, the author gives a few suggested answers When they used peer review activities, up to 57.8% of students chose the option that they supplied explicit and unambiguous comments about their friends' mistakes Furthermore, up to 46% of students indicated they recognized errors in their buddy's writing and then devised methods to assist their friend in correcting those errors However, roughly 34% of the students overall frequently supplied compliments as well as general remarks on the entire paper

To get more information on this issue, the author also analyzes the students' writings after applying peer review activity The result is that the information provided by the participants in the questionnaire is pretty compatible with the results received

When it comes to typical errors that students have pointed out in their peers' writing, the majority of students, according to the results of the survey, talk about spelling issues Moreover, according to past studies, this is the most prevalent writing error, as well as the easiest to notice and correct To gain a better understanding of the issue, the author recruited the support of teachers by receiving students' essays (along with feedback from others) for additional analysis As a result, misspellings remained the most common error among students who provided feedback on their classmates' writing.

Moreover, errors in utilizing incorrect tenses and verbs are fairly widespread, accounting for more than 58 percent of the total, as the author determined while observing classes applying peer review activities in class Many students continue to use it incorrectly, and they are often perplexed when deciding which tense to use in their writing

Another common writing error is the choice of the incorrect word, which indicates that students do not know which words to use to adequately convey their ideas or use the incorrect word for the context This makes evaluating the article difficult for readers, particularly peer Furthermore, according to the figures from the survey, misusing words has an impact on coherence, which is the fourth most prevalent error Misuses of terms and coherence faults were noticed in the class, but only students with strong writing skills and above dared to address these errors, because they are generally rather complicated

However, when the researcher observed Writing 2 classes using peer evaluation activities in class and viewed the students' writings, the results were not the same as what the students had stated in the questionnaire The majority of reviewers concentrate on spelling faults because

they are basic and easy to identify; they rarely provide feedback on errors such as word choice

or coherence

Confidence is a crucial factor to consider while delivering comments to a buddy The author also mentions this in question 14 of the questionnaire However, up to 70% of students claimed they felt unsure of themselves while offering feedback on their work The author additionally asked question 15 to gather more information in order to better understand why they are not truly sure As a result, up to 61.6 percent of students believe they are insufficient

to provide criticism on a friend's article This is the main cause for their unconfident about the errors they discover; they are unsure of what they are doing

The second reason reviewers are hesitant to provide feedback is that they lack the necessary

vocabulary to properly comprehend the meanings provided by the author in the paper, making

it difficult for them to understand it, so reviewers are afraid to give comments The next reason

is that up to 83 students out of the total number of students polled believe they are unable to interpret their feedback in an English way that the author can comprehend, and that they can only provide comments in Vietnamese This leads to the second reason: 34% of students are concerned that the author will misinterpret their comments

In addition, there are still a few reasons why students are hesitant to give their opinions, such

as a lack of understanding of the teacher's instructions, specifically the assessment criteria This reason has an impact on their confidence while providing feedback on their peers' papers Furthermore, because peer review is publicly available, it means that reviewers will know who wrote this paper, and the author will know who reviewed his or her manuscript after receiving feedback This is also one of the reasons why reviewers are hesitant to offer constructive criticism on the writing of authors who are better writers than they are Some students believe there is insufficient time for this exercise, while others believe that because the author is their best friend, giving too candid critique will affect their friendship

4.1.3.2 Results of reviewees

The author also asked the reviewees about the errors that the reviewers reacted to in their article to confirm the typical flaws in the paper once again Figure 4.16 shows that spelling problems continue to be the most common in most of the writing that students receive from reviewers Many papers still have errors such as using the wrong word, verb, or tense, which are similar to the reviewers' responses However, there is one difference: reviewees identify coherent errors that reviewers have responded to in their articles, second only to misspelling

The author of the essay then makes the mistake of employing improper language, complex words, and compound sentences, which is reflected in the comments they get

The author also contrasted the findings of class observations and articles obtained from classrooms to explain the discrepancy The reason for this discrepancy is that it relies on the character of each writing and each person For example, reviewees may make spelling mistake

in one paper; however, they make word choice errors in the next writing

The author used a scale of 1 to 5 to determine how useful the comments were, with 1 indicating unhelpful and 5 indicating very helpful According to the data in figure 4.17, roughly 41% of students chose level 4 for the usefulness of the feedback they receive Furthermore, 86 students chose the average level, and 38 students out of the total number of students who took part in the survey thought these activities were very useful

Figure 4.18 depicts the frequency with which students receive unhelpful feedback According

to statistics, 59.5 percent of students frequently receive unhelpful comments from their peers, while the rest reply "no" since they do not receive useless input frequently The author asked question 19 in the questionnaire to collect more information to better understand why reviewees believe they received inappropriate input when applying peer review activities

There are a variety of reasons why reviewees believe the input they get is ineffective First, half

of students believe that peer correction comments are too generic, implying that despite the criticism, the reviewees still don't know how to appropriately rectify the error Following that, roughly 38 percent of all students agreed that reviewers sometimes give inappropriate comments to papers Following that, 35.8% of students said they received too many duplicate comments from their peers The author also compares the findings of observing classes in this regard; the reason for the overlapping responses is because the teacher asks students to offer roughly 4-5 comments in each paper Overlapping comments are unavoidable when giving feedback for a paper, especially for pieces of a reasonable quality To address this issue, the teacher in some classrooms has instructed students not to rewrite the flaws that other reviewers have already pointed out