VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE THE EFFECTS OF PEER FEEDBACK ON DISCUSSION BOARDS
INTRODUCTION
Background to the study
1.1.1 The integration of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in English Language Teaching (ELT)
The integration of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in English Language Teaching (ELT) has transformed the approach to teaching writing skills Teachers now have various tools at their disposal to address students' writing errors in online assignments, including computer-mediated corrective software like Criterion and Grammarly, as well as features like Track Changes in Microsoft Word and PDF files Additionally, peer collaboration through platforms such as Google Docs and Wikis, along with blended learning methods, further enhances the writing correction process (Ur, 2012).
Blended learning combines traditional face-to-face instruction with virtual online classes to enhance learning both inside and outside the classroom A Learning Management System (LMS) plays a crucial role in this approach, offering teachers various tools like blogs, wikis, and discussion boards to support language learning Blogs serve for reflection, wikis enable collaborative activities, and discussion boards facilitate meaningful conversations, as highlighted in the research by Miyazoe & Anderson.
Blended learning offers a viable solution to challenges such as large class sizes, limited teaching time, and insufficient interaction among teachers and students, as well as among students themselves (Dewi, 2014) This approach allows for the extension of teaching and learning beyond the classroom, facilitating distance education opportunities (Nguyen, T C A., 2014).
While learning platforms offer valuable resources, they also have notable drawbacks The cost of computer-mediated corrective software, such as Grammarly and Criterion, can be prohibitive for teachers, especially for small student groups, as these tools require institutions to purchase premium accounts For instance, Grammarly's service was priced at $29.95 USD per month as of October 6th Additionally, wikis enable students to directly correct their own writing, while blogs are typically considered private to each student The Track Changes feature allows students to comment on peers' work, but it often results in minimal engagement, as they merely click to accept suggested edits.
In applications like computer-mediated corrective software, wikis, blogs, and track changes, students often lack opportunities to justify changes made to their drafts While track changes allows students to view their work privately, peer feedback on discussion boards enhances writing skills by enabling students to review and evaluate their peers' writings and articulate the reasons behind their revisions.
Previous research on blended learning has largely overlooked specific tools and focused mainly on traditional feedback methods While numerous online studies exist, few have explored the combination of peer feedback and discussion boards Additionally, many studies fail to require students to articulate the changes made in their revisions The effectiveness of discussion boards in writing instruction remains ambiguous, with unclear guidelines for their appropriate use and varying cultural perceptions among students These inconsistencies, along with limited research scope and duration, highlight the need for further investigation, creating a significant gap for this study.
1.1.2 The situation of students’ writing performance in this study context
In the Vietnamese EFL context, students face significant writing challenges due to late exposure to writing skills and an excessive focus on grammar throughout their education From 2006 to 2014, university entrance exams primarily featured 80 multiple-choice questions centered on grammar, reading, vocabulary, and pronunciation, neglecting listening, speaking, and writing Consequently, teachers prioritized the grammar-translation method to meet educational objectives.
Students often focus on "teaching to the test," primarily drilling English grammar to meet university entrance expectations This approach has led to poor writing performance, as traditional multiple-choice tests fail to accurately reflect their true language abilities (Nguyen, N A T., 2016) Despite studying English from grades six to twelve, students struggle to produce quality written texts due to an overemphasis on grammar, structural patterns, and error correction in conventional high school education (Dang, T V D., 2014; Hoang, Y P & Nguyen, T Q P., 2016).
Since the integration of paragraph writing into the English test for high school graduation and university entrance examinations in 2015 and 2016, students have primarily focused on grammar accuracy, often neglecting essential writing elements such as organization, coherence, cohesion, lexical resource, and grammatical range Additionally, many students face significant writing apprehension, which hinders their ability to produce effective written work These challenges—overlooking critical writing criteria and experiencing writing anxiety—are major barriers to improving the writing performance of Vietnamese EFL students To address these issues, it is crucial to explore effective solutions, with modern technology offering a promising avenue to enhance both teaching and learning of English writing skills.
1.1.3 The combination of peer feedback and discussion boards in teaching writing skills
After detecting students’ writing problems, another question posing for EFL researchers and educators is finding the effective online teaching practice in enhancing students’ writing performance
Discussion boards serve as popular online platforms for individuals to share their perspectives on various topics The practice of peer feedback involves providing constructive comments on a peer's work This study focuses on the integration of peer feedback within discussion boards to enhance writing skills, as these platforms create an ideal online environment for idea exchange Students can review their classmates' writing drafts and offer valuable insights, facilitating a collaborative learning experience.
This study focuses on utilizing discussion boards to encourage students to engage with their classmates' drafts, fostering an environment where they can offer suggestions and arguments for accepting or rejecting these ideas The researcher aims for students to self-correct their writing based on feedback received, rather than being directly corrected through methods like track changes or wikis.
6 researcher would like to increase the voice of “shy” students in the traditional classroom so that they can participate in doing peer feedback on discussion boards
Numerous studies have explored the integration of peer feedback and discussion boards in teaching writing skills, primarily through two common approaches One approach involves synchronous discussion boards, where teachers facilitate writing classes in multimedia or computer-equipped labs, allowing students to provide real-time feedback on their peers' writing in an online setting.
Asynchronous discussion boards require students to provide online comments on their peers' writings at their convenience, allowing for thoughtful feedback Unlike synchronous discussion boards, this format enables students to reflect on their classmates' work before offering quality peer reviews, enhancing the overall learning experience (Dewi).
The thesis investigates the advantages of asynchronous discussion boards over synchronous ones, particularly highlighting their time-saving benefits for students who may struggle to contribute when peers' writings are error-free.
The absence of face-to-face interaction makes genuine comments essential for meaningful peer feedback among students To alleviate writing apprehension related to mistakes, discussion boards offer a "safe" space for students to learn how to evaluate their peers (Song & Usaha, 2009) Additionally, traditional classroom time may be insufficient for writing activities, which require ongoing development and progress.
Aims of the study
This research aims to evaluate the effectiveness of peer feedback on discussion boards in enhancing Vietnamese EFL students' writing performance based on four IELTS criteria: task achievement, coherence and cohesion, lexical resource, and grammatical range and accuracy Additionally, it seeks to understand students' attitudes towards peer feedback in writing instruction, focusing on its advantages, limitations, and suggestions for improvement.
8 feedback on discussion boards as an effective teaching methodology to solve students’ writing problems.
Research questions
This research is carried out to answer these research questions:
1 To what extent does peer feedback on discussion boards improve EFL students’ writing performance?
2 What are students’ attitudes towards peer feedback on discussion boards?
Significance of the study
Discussion boards are primarily utilized to enhance speaking skills, allowing students to express their opinions on various topics However, there is a lack of research on their effectiveness in teaching writing skills, particularly in the Vietnamese EFL context This study aims to fill that gap by integrating asynchronous discussion boards with peer feedback in writing instruction It specifically examines the role of discussion boards, focusing on how students provide comments that not only suggest corrections but also include justifications for their choices in subsequent drafts Additionally, the study evaluates the impact of discussion boards on students' writing performance, highlighting cultural perspectives on this teaching method and its application in writing education.
Scope of the study
A study was conducted to explore the impact of peer feedback on discussion boards regarding students' writing performance, involving two English major classes from the Bachelor program at the University of Technology and Education.
Ho Chi Minh City (HCMUTE) during one semester (15 weeks)
The researcher selected the University of Technology and Education due to its use of Moodle LMS English major students were chosen for the study as they are actively developing their English writing skills within their training program In-service students were excluded from the selection process due to their limited availability.
9 the online assignment and they may not like to do the pair work or group work Therefore, students major in English may be a reasonable choice for this study
This study emphasizes the use of asynchronous discussion boards, allowing students the flexibility to read and provide thoughtful feedback at their convenience The format restricts interactions to text comments, enabling students to review writing drafts and respond in formal academic English This text-based approach aligns with the research's goal of evaluating the effectiveness of discussion boards in enhancing writing skills.
Outline of the thesis
This thesis consists of 5 chapters:
Chapter 1 provides an overview of the study with the background, the research purposes, the research questions, the significance and the scope
Chapter 2 analyzes the literature review related to the study including the definitions of terminologies and the review of previous studies conducted in foreign context and Vietnamese context
Chapter 3 presents the methodology of the study It covers the research design, the research site, the participants, the research instruments, the data collection and the data analysis procedure
Chapter 4 clarifies the results of the study by dealing with the data analysis, discussions of results, and findings
Chapter 5 summarizes the conclusion, some pedagogical implications, limitations of the study and proposes suggestions for future research relating to the use of technology in teaching English writing skills
LITERATURE REVIEW
Definitions of terms
2.1.1 Peer feedback and peer feedback on writing:
Peer feedback encompasses various terms such as peer review, peer response, peer critiquing, and peer editing, as noted by Charoensuk (2012) The terminology varies based on the context in which it is applied Specifically, peer feedback involves students providing comments on their classmates' writing, while peer response focuses on the content, and peer editing pertains to the correction of grammatical structures.
Nicol, Thomson & Breslin (2014) defined peer review as “a reciprocal process whereby students produce feedback reviews on the work of peers and receive feedback reviews from peers on their own work.”
Peer feedback is characterized as the collaborative support and negotiation among students, where they evaluate each other's written texts and exchange feedback (Dang, T D T., 2016; Hoang, Y P & Nguyen, T Q P., 2016) According to Wakabayashi (2013), feedback serves as the reader's input to the writer, offering essential information for revision.
In his 2017 paper, McCarthy distinguished between peer feedback and peer assessment, citing Topping (2000) to define peer feedback as "the process of students giving comments about their friends' papers," while peer assessment involves "evaluating and giving their friends a grade." Yu & Lee (2016) referenced Liu & Hansen (2002) to describe peer feedback as a collaborative process where learners take on roles typically held by trained educators, providing critiques on each other's drafts in both written and oral formats They emphasized that peer feedback encompasses both the product and the process of the entire activity.
Peer feedback plays a crucial role in enhancing students' awareness of grammatical errors, improving their writing focus, and facilitating their engagement with the correction process (Trinh, N T., 2014) Kumar & Stracke (2011) emphasize the significance of this collaborative approach in the learning environment.
& Lee, 2014), feedback support students in the realization of the gap between their current and design competence
In this study, "peer feedback on discussion boards" refers to the process of students providing comments on their classmates' essays through an online platform designed for collaborative learning The researcher specifically chose discussion boards to highlight the unique nature of this feedback method, distinguishing it from traditional face-to-face interactions and other online formats such as blogs, Facebook, or wikis This approach emphasizes the importance of peer communication in enhancing writing skills within a digital learning environment.
Peer feedback on discussion boards involves two key actions: students providing comments on their friends' essays and responding to those comments This two-way interaction allows reviewers and writers to engage in a dialogue about the essays, facilitating ongoing responses until the identified issues are resolved.
According to Li (2010), as cited in McCarthy (2017), students play dual roles in the assessment process, acting as both "assessors" who provide feedback and "assesses" who receive comments and make revisions to their writing.
The discussion board is categorized into two types: synchronous, which allows real-time interaction among students, and asynchronous, where students can engage at their own pace (Jose & Abidin, 2016) The researcher concentrated on the asynchronous format due to inadequate facilities for synchronous discussions and limited classroom time provided by the institution Additionally, students lacked sufficient time to write complete essays and participate in traditional face-to-face interactions.
Asynchronous discussion boards are favored over synchronous ones because they allow learners ample time to reflect and provide thoughtful peer feedback on their classmates' essays This format enhances the quality of interactions and supports deeper engagement in the learning process.
Chomsky (1965) defines performance as "the production of actual utterances," highlighting the active use of language In this context, writing performance refers to how students create genuine pieces of writing, demonstrating their application of the English language in their written work.
The term “writing performance” was assessed by many writing criteria:
According to the old way of assessing writing skills, the Faculty of Foreign Languages, University of Technology and Education used a set of criteria, namely:
(1) An introduction paragraph with a hook, a background, and a thesis statement (1.5 marks)
(2) Three body paragraphs with a topic sentence, specific supporting sentences, and a concluding sentence for each (3 marks)
(3) A conclusion with a summary of the main points, a prediction, or a recommendation (1 mark)
(4) Unity and coherence in each paragraph and within the whole essay (2 marks)
(5) Correct use of grammar and vocabulary (2.5 marks)
In the 2016-2017 semester, the Faculty implemented the four criteria of IELTS, focusing on analytic scoring rather than the previous holistic approach This transition represents a significant milestone in aligning academic English writing skills with the actual IELTS test.
The IELTS task 2 Writing band descriptions:
According to the IELTS task 2 Writing band descriptions, British Council divided the writing assessment into 4 criteria, namely:
Criterion 4: Grammatical range and accuracy
Criterion 1, task achievement, assesses how well students meet the requirements of the task, ensuring their essays remain on topic This standard evaluates whether students include all essential components, such as the introduction, body, and conclusion Additionally, it focuses on the development of ideas within the essays, determining if those ideas are fully elaborated.
Criterion 2, which focuses on coherence and cohesion, evaluates how well ideas are connected in students' essays It is essential for sentences to flow smoothly from one to the next To enhance coherence, students can utilize pronoun references and sentence connectors; however, overusing these elements or relying too little on transitions may not be well-received by IELTS examiners.
Criterion 3, which assesses lexical resource, evaluates the richness of students' vocabulary Essays that incorporate less common and academic terminology, used correctly and appropriately, are likely to receive higher scores compared to those that rely solely on common words.
Criterion 4 evaluates students' grammatical range and accuracy by examining their use of various sentence types, including simple, compound, complex, and compound-complex sentences Higher scores are awarded for more accurate and complex sentence structures In addition to these four basic types, students can enhance their essays by incorporating diverse grammatical structures, which helps to alleviate monotony Accuracy in grammar and precise language use are crucial, as they directly influence the scores students receive For further details on assessment criteria and band score requirements, please refer to the appendix.
Review of previous studies
Numerous international studies have explored blended learning broadly, often overlooking specific aspects such as peer feedback on discussion boards Experimental research has produced mixed findings regarding the impact of peer feedback on enhancing students' writing skills.
Mahmoud (2012) explored the use of strategy-based peer assistance in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing as an alternative to conventional peer correction However, the study did not provide sufficient qualitative and quantitative data to validate its findings, resembling more of a bibliographical review of existing literature rather than original research.
Charoensuk (2012) explored the connection between English writing classrooms and Asian cultural issues regarding peer feedback, highlighting its significance through cultural integration The study distinguished peer feedback from related concepts such as peer editing and peer response It revealed that Asian students often struggle with peer feedback due to cultural factors, including a lack of confidence in their peers' abilities and a strong belief in the superiority of teachers' feedback.
Mustafa (2012) investigated students' perceptions of writing feedback, focusing on two aspects: the feedback itself and the feedback on that feedback The findings revealed that students believed feedback did not significantly influence their learning, highlighting a desire for more effective feedback mechanisms.
19 learning writing skills in that feedback should be given to them in time, in detailed, and in comprehensible manner
A survey by Srichanyachon (2012) revealed that students exhibited neutral attitudes towards both teacher and peer feedback While some respondents expressed approval for teacher feedback, they acknowledged that peer feedback also played a supportive role in enhancing their writing progress.
Moradi (2012) investigated the impact of online peer feedback on the academic writing skills of Iranian students The results indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in writing performance between the group that received online peer feedback and the group that engaged in offline peer feedback.
Miyazoe & Anderson (2012) found that in an EFL blended course focused on writing skills, students preferred wikis over blogs and forums Similarly, Ciftcy & Kocoglu (2012) examined the impact of e-peer feedback on Turkish EFL students' writing performance, comparing a control group receiving face-to-face feedback with an experimental group using online feedback Both groups showed improvement in their writing skills, but the experimental group outperformed the control group.
Zheng (2012) examined the role of teachers in the peer feedback process, while Zhu (2012) focused on student participation in peer response activities The research revealed that students possess varying motivations for engaging in this learning process, which in turn influences their attitudes and beliefs.
In foreign context, many researchers have made a lot of attempts to investigate the use of discussion boards in teaching writing such as Ghahari and Ameri-Gokstan
In recent studies, researchers have explored the effectiveness of peer-computer mediated corrective feedback in enhancing the writing skills of EFL learners (AbuSeileek & Abualsha’r, 2014) They have also compared the impacts of face-to-face and computer-mediated peer reviews on the comments and revisions made by EFL writers, as noted by Ho (2015) However, these studies primarily relied on indirect methods, such as comparing drafts, comments, and revisions, along with conducting interviews or teacher-student conferences to gauge students' preferences.
Shaarawy and Lotfy (2013) implemented asynchronous blended learning to enhance writing skills While the control group initially demonstrated superior writing proficiency in the pre-test, both groups showed improvement in the post-test Notably, the experimental group outperformed the control group in writing ability during the post-test.
Yoke et al (2013) examined the effectiveness of online corrective feedback in Academic Writing among Malaysian students Their findings revealed that while both the experimental group, which received online peer feedback, and the control group, which utilized traditional corrective feedback, showed improvements in writing scores, the experimental group demonstrated a significantly higher level of enhancement Additionally, most participants expressed a preference for online feedback methods.
Wakabayashi (2013) examined how peer feedback influences the writing skills of reviewers The majority of participants found peer feedback to be beneficial for improving their own writing, while a small minority considered it to be of limited usefulness.
Salih (2013) explored the patterns and expectations surrounding peer responses to students' L2 writing Contrary to the researcher's initial expectations regarding grammatical correction, the findings revealed that peer responses primarily focused on providing clarification in feedback.
Celik (2013) explored the unspoken social dynamics within an online discussion board group, revealing that while these dynamics were evident in the discussions, students did not necessarily endorse them.
In a study by Shulin (2013), the emphasis was placed on teachers' beliefs and practices regarding peer feedback in writing classrooms The results indicated that teachers held varying beliefs and employed different approaches to this teaching method, reflecting their individual philosophies in writing instruction.
METHODOLOGY
Research questions
This study aims to answer these research questions:
1 To what extent does peer feedback on discussion boards improve EFL students’ writing performance?
2 What are students’ attitudes towards peer feedback on discussion boards?
Research design
By nature, this current study had both qualitative and quantitative characteristics
The study employed a mixed-methods approach, utilizing quantitative data from questionnaires and students' writing test scores, alongside qualitative data gathered from interviews with each student and their contributions on discussion boards.
This study was a case study focused on a small group of students over a limited timeframe of 15 weeks at the University of Technology and Education, involving six discussion boards (Crestwell, 2014, quoted in Challob, 2016) It is categorized as a descriptive, intrinsic, and educational case study aimed at understanding the specific case and providing narrative accounts (Cohen et al.).
This study utilized a quasi-experimental design featuring a pre-test, treatment, and post-test, involving one experimental group and one control group, which served as a non-equivalent group The experimental group comprised students who received the treatment, while the control group consisted of students who did not receive any treatment.
This current research was designed as follows All the students of a Writing 3 class were conveniently chosen as the experimental group and were taught by the
In a study involving 36 researchers, two writing classes were established, with one serving as the experimental group and the other as the control group At the course's outset, both groups completed a writing pre-test to assess their initial writing abilities The experimental group received training on conducting peer feedback through discussion boards, facilitated by the researcher, to enhance their understanding and application of this writing technique Students were granted access to the Moodle Learning Management System by the Academic Affairs Office, and the discussion boards were utilized as a treatment over a 15-week period Throughout this time, the researcher conducted interviews with each student to gather more in-depth insights.
In the final session, students participated in a questionnaire designed to assess their attitudes toward peer feedback on discussion boards This research aims to determine the effectiveness and usefulness of peer feedback practices for the students.
At the end of the course, students were required to sit in a final test, which played the role as the delayed post-test
The research design was summarized by figure 4 – the research design
Control group: Treatment: Traditional face-to-face peer feedback
Treatment: Traditional face-to-face peer feedback Experimental group:
Research site
The research site for this study is the University of Technology and Education, situated in Thu Duc District, Ho Chi Minh City This university was selected due to its implementation of the Moodle Learning Management System, which serves as the technical foundation for the research.
Participants
This study involved 18 sophomore students from a Writing 3 class, aged between 19 and 21, with an expected intermediate level of English proficiency The researcher selected English majors as participants due to their positive attitudes towards learning English and their anticipated willingness to engage in online assignments.
The researcher taught two types of students: English majors and in-serviced students Unlike English majors, in-serviced students often lack high motivation to learn English This group is divided into two categories: the first consists of students from other universities pursuing a second bachelor's degree in English to complement their primary field of study These students struggle to balance their studies across two universities and part-time jobs, often prioritizing their main major over English The second group includes working professionals who study English to obtain a degree that enhances their job applications Both groups share a common challenge of insufficient time dedicated to learning English and completing online assignments.
The research utilized convenience sampling, a prevalent form of non-probability sampling, as defined by Weathington, Cunningham, and Pittenger (2010), where the study focuses on easily accessible members of the population The researcher selected the class she was assigned to teach for this study.
Faculty of Foreign Languages The selection of participants was based on three criteria:
(1) Students who were currently taking the Writing 3 class taught by the researcher
(2) Students who participated regularly in the discussion boards
(3) Students who had taken the Writing pre-test, post-test, answered the questionnaire and the interview.
Research instruments
The study employed four main research tools: writing tests (Pre-test and Post-test), a questionnaire, interviews, and posts and comments on discussion boards The researcher selected multiple tools to conduct an empirical study on the treatment's effect, using writing tests to collect quantitative data through students' writing scores To measure students' attitudes towards the treatment, a questionnaire was utilized to assess their level of agreement Given the small class size of 18 students, interviews were added to gather more in-depth information that the tests and questionnaire could not provide Additionally, posts and comments on discussion boards served as reference material for analyzing students' online assignment submissions.
The Writing tests, consisting of a Pre-test and a Post-test, were designed to evaluate students' writing performance before and after the treatment The Pre-test, modeled after the final test from the previous semester, required students to select one of three topics to write a short essay However, there was a discrepancy in content and criteria between the two semesters In the previous semester, students focused on Cause-Effect, Problem-Solution, and Comparison-Contrast essays, while the current semester emphasized Cause-Effect, Narrative, and Comparison-Contrast essays Consequently, the researcher retained two topics from the previous semester—Cause-Effect and Comparison-Contrast—and incorporated one topic from the Narrative genre for the current study.
The new Pre-test for the 39 students' course book incorporates updated writing assessment criteria Last semester's rubric emphasized the need for an introduction, 2-3 body paragraphs, a conclusion, unity, coherence, and correct grammar and vocabulary usage This semester, the writing rubric aligns with IELTS standards, focusing on task achievement, coherence and cohesion, lexical resource, and grammatical range and accuracy.
At the end of the semester, three lecturers from writing classes submitted their suggested topics, from which the best three were selected for the official final test This final test served as the Post-test, administered by the Faculty of Foreign Languages to evaluate students' writing performance following the treatment The Post-test mirrored the Pre-test in format, focusing on the same writing genres—Cause-Effect, Narrative, and Comparison-Contrast—though the content differed from that of the Pre-test.
The Pre-test and Post-test results will be evaluated based on the four IELTS criteria of analytic scoring: task achievement, coherence and cohesion, lexical resource, and grammatical range and accuracy.
The analysis of data collected from these two tests will be further explained in the section of data analysis procedure
The second research tool utilized in this study is a questionnaire, structured into three distinct parts reflecting different dimensions of attitudes The first section comprises 10 items focused on behavioral attitudes towards peer feedback on discussion boards The second section includes another 10 items that assess cognitive attitudes in the same context Finally, the last section consists of 6 items dedicated to evaluating emotional attitudes The research items were adapted from the questionnaires developed by Al-Hassan & Shukri (2017), Eshghinejad (2016), Huang (2016), Ja’ashan (2015), and Alharbi.
(2015), Alfahadi, Alsalhi & Alshammari (2015), Cao (2014), Abbas (2014), Ilin (2013),
Al Zumor, Al Refaai, Eddin & Al-Rahman (2013), Salih (2013), Al-Shaer (2013), Shawish & Shaath (2012), Aljumah (2012), Adas & Shmais (2011), Garcia (2009), Choi
The researcher concentrated on three key questions to gather students' perspectives regarding the benefits of peer feedback on discussion boards, the challenges associated with this feedback, and recommendations for its enhancement These interview questions were adapted from the work of Al Zumor et al (2013).
3.5.4 The posts and comments on discussion boards
The analysis of posts and comments on discussion boards served three main purposes: to explore students' online behaviors in providing peer feedback, to identify the criteria they prioritize when commenting, and to understand their reasons for accepting or rejecting peer suggestions in revised essays Additionally, these interactions revealed the sequence of post submissions and highlighted which students participated, enabling the researcher to detect potential plagiarism in subsequent posts.
Data collection procedure
In the initial session, the researcher distributed test papers to the Experimental group and sought permission via email from the lecturer of the Control group to administer the Pre-test The Control group lecturer consented and assisted in delivering the Pre-test, subsequently returning the students' writing papers to the researcher By the end of the first week, the researcher had gathered writing papers from both groups Although these papers represented qualitative data, they were evaluated using the four IELTS criteria, with the resulting scores providing quantitative data.
After receiving training and access to the Moodle Learning Management System, students officially engage in the treatment process This involves providing comments and responses to essays posted on discussion board threads The primary goal of this treatment is to enhance students' writing skills and facilitate peer assessment based on the four IELTS criteria: task achievement, coherence and cohesion, lexical resource, and grammatical range.
41 accuracy.” These writing criteria belong to the analytic scoring, not the holistic scoring (Brown, 2004)
During the treatment process, students submitted drafts on the discussion board in weeks 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, and 14, covering various writing types: Paragraph, Essay, Narrative, Cause-Effect, Compare-Contrast, and Review Each student also provided two peer comments on their classmates' drafts, utilizing a checklist based on the IELTS Writing Task 2 guidelines to ensure constructive feedback Students had the flexibility to select any two drafts from their peers for commenting, with the condition that they could not comment on a draft that had already received feedback.
To ensure a balanced distribution of peer comments, the researcher instructed students to select an additional friend for feedback This approach aimed to prevent repetitive comments and to avoid scenarios where one student received more than three peer evaluations while others received none.
Each student was required to write two responsive comments addressing peer feedback and post their revised essays in the discussion boards They needed to articulate their reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with their friends' suggestions This approach allowed students to either incorporate or dismiss peer comments, providing a rationale for their decisions, which distinguishes this study from previous ones.
Writing, commenting, revising, and defending revision choices are essential practices for honing the skill of crafting short essays Students are required to employ formal language in all writing drafts and discussion board comments, as this aligns with the standards of academic writing.
By creating 4 steps in the treatment, the researcher purposefully wanted students to understand that writing is process, not a product (Hogue et Oshima, 2012)
The treatment duration lasted 15 weeks, which meant that students would have
This article discusses six drafts representing various writing genres, including Narrative, Cause-Effect, and Compare-Contrast, developed throughout the course It highlights the use of writing drafts, peer comments, responsive comments, and revised drafts as valuable references for qualitative data Additionally, the researcher conducted interviews with students to gather further qualitative insights, enriching the overall findings of the study.
The researcher implemented both formative and summative assessments during the treatment Formative assessment involved awarding points to students for completing steps on discussion boards, while summative assessment compared students' final test performance to their initial test results Additionally, teacher feedback was combined with peer feedback to help students enhance their learning The researcher maintained flexibility in instruction throughout the treatment, and students were motivated to complete online assignments by the incentive of earning points.
T H N ’s opinion that “formative assessment shouldn’t be graded”, the researcher stated that it should be graded because the points are the motivator (motivation factor) for students to do the writing tasks Teacher should give reference points for students to let them aware of the areas that they need to improve
In the final session of the course, students will complete a questionnaire assessing the effectiveness of peer feedback on discussion boards This survey aims to gauge students' attitudes towards the peer feedback process, providing valuable insights into its usefulness.
At the conclusion of the course, students completed a post-test administered by the Faculty of Foreign Languages, which mirrored the format and time constraints of the pre-test, differing only in topic Prior to the post-test, the researcher sought permission from the Dean of the Faculty of Foreign Languages via email to copy students' writings for research purposes.
Figure 5: Steps of data collection procedure:
EG: 15-week- treatment and interview
The researcher collected the Pre-test of the Experimental group and the Control group
Students submitted the draft paragraph, 2 peer comments, 2 responsive comments and the revised paragraph
The researcher gave teacher feedback to students
Students submitted the drafts of DB2
Students posted 2 peer comments and 2 responsive comments Week 4
NARRATIVE ESSAYS Treatment and Interview
Students submitted the revised drafts
Students submitted the drafts of DB3
Students submitted the revised drafts
Students submitted the drafts of DB4
Students submitted the revised drafts
COMPARISON- CONTRAST ESSAYS Treatment and Interview
Students submitted the drafts of DB5
Students submitted the revised drafts
Students submitted the drafts of DB6
The researcher delivered and collected the questionnaire
Students submitted the revised drafts
Review weeks Students self-study and access the online discussion boards to review for the Final test
Post-test The researcher collected the Final writing papers of students as the Post-test
Data analysis procedure
The data analysis procedure will be organized into four distinct parts, corresponding to the four research tools utilized by the researcher, detailing each step from initiation to completion.
At the start of the course, the researcher collected Pre-test essays from both the Experimental and Control groups, evaluating each essay based on the IELTS writing criteria: task achievement, coherence-cohesion, lexical resource, and grammatical range and accuracy Scores were assigned according to the IELTS writing rubric Subsequently, the quantitative data from both groups were analyzed using SPSS software, where a Normal distribution test was conducted to determine the parametric or non-parametric nature of the data.
At the conclusion of the course, the researcher evaluated the IELTS writing criteria for both the Experimental and Control groups in their Post-test To determine any differences in Post-test scores between the two groups, she employed the Independent Sample t-test using SPSS software.
After the instruction from two lecturers, students in both groups showed an increase in post-test scores The researcher determined that the data followed a non-parametric distribution and employed non-parametric tests, specifically the Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon tests, to analyze the results The Mann-Whitney test was utilized to compare the pre-test scores of the experimental and control groups across five writing criteria: task achievement, coherence and cohesion, lexical resource, structural variety, and grammatical accuracy Additionally, the same test was applied to assess the differences in post-test scores between the two groups To evaluate the level of score improvement, the Wilcoxon test was used to compare pre-test and post-test scores within both the experimental and control groups.
3.7.2 Data analysis for the questionnaires
In the final week of the course, the researcher gathered the questionnaires and input the data into SPSS software Descriptive statistics were employed to calculate the percentage and frequency of student responses for each research item The analysis aimed to assess students' attitudes regarding the effectiveness of peer feedback on discussion boards.
3.7.3 Data analysis for the interview questions
The researcher invited students to participate in interviews aimed at exploring their attitudes towards peer feedback on discussion boards Due to background noise at the university, the conversations could not be recorded, prompting the researcher to type the students' responses directly into a Microsoft Word file This qualitative data was essential for gaining deeper insights, especially since the limited number of participants had restricted the information obtained from tests and questionnaires Additionally, the interviews shed light on the evolution of students' attitudes throughout the treatment process.
3.7.4 Data analysis for the discussion boards
The researcher analyzed students' first drafts, comments, and revised drafts from six discussion boards by copying them into Word files This analysis aimed to identify the most common criteria for peer comments, patterns in peer feedback, and the strengths and weaknesses in students' writing Additionally, the submission timing of the discussion boards helped detect instances of plagiarism The researcher summarized the findings in a table format and integrated qualitative data from the discussion boards with observations of students' online activity and behavior on Moodle, using the discussion boards as a key reference for the study.
Figure 6 The steps of data analysis procedure
Pre-test of EG &CG
Transcribe, analyze the interview ’s results
SPSS: analyze the questionnaires’ results
Pre-test & Post-test of EG, Pre-test & Post-test of CG