Background to the study
Writing is often regarded as one of the most difficult skills to acquire when learning a language Nunan (2001) suggests that producing a coherent and fluent extended piece of writing poses significant challenges, even for native speakers This difficulty is amplified for university students who are learning English as a foreign or second language, making the writing process particularly laborious for them.
Students often encounter errors in their writing, which is a common challenge in their academic performance According to Davies and Pearse (2002), these mistakes are an essential aspect of the learning journey Furthermore, errors provide insight into students' goals, the difficulties they face, and the areas they need to concentrate on for improvement (Lavery).
2001) Since errors were considered a vital and ordinary process of language learning, students’ errors and feedback to errors began to attract many language teachers and researchers’ attentions (Diab, 2005, Wang, 2010)
Providing feedback on student writing is crucial for improving language skills, as highlighted by Seow (2002), who emphasizes its importance in the writing process However, Ferris (2003) points out that this feedback can be one of the most time-consuming and burdensome responsibilities for teachers Moreover, the reliance on teacher feedback may hinder students' proactive engagement with their revisions, as they often focus more on the final results than on the learning process itself (Gonca & Eksi).
Peer feedback is an effective technique that offers students additional perspectives to consider while revising their compositions (Gonca & Eksi, 2012).
Peer feedback, also referred to as peer correction, has garnered attention from numerous researchers (George, 1984; Jacobs, 1987; Atlee, 2005) This process involves students providing constructive criticism and suggestions on their classmates' work, encouraging them to revise and enhance their writing based on the insights received from their peers.
Peer feedback plays a crucial role in the writing process, offering significant benefits for learners by enhancing their writing skills (Hyland & Hyland, 2006a; Lloyd, 2006) According to Atlee (2005), revising drafts with feedback is an effective tool for writers, which also alleviates teachers' workloads (Nguyen Ho Hoang Thuy, 2009) In Vietnam, numerous studies have highlighted the effectiveness of peer feedback in improving writing skills, fostering critical thinking, and promoting student autonomy (Pham Vu Phi Ho & Nguyen Thi Thuy Duong, 2014; Nguyen Thi Ha, 2016; Le Thi Thuan & Truong Vien, 2018) However, limitations such as students' English proficiency, cooperation, teacher guidance, motivation, and time constraints have been identified (Le Thi Thuan Vien & Truong Vien, 2018) Additionally, the impact of students' attitudes towards this technique has been overlooked, despite its significant role in language development (Gardner, 1980; Fakeye, 2010; Reid, 2003; Visser, 2008) Understanding learners' attitudes is essential for effectively implementing peer feedback strategies to enhance writing skills This highlights the need for action research to address gaps in previous studies by focusing on the application of peer feedback and exploring students' attitudes towards it.
Statement of the problem
Since the benefits of peer feedback technique in improving students’ writing ability are proven in many different studies (George, 1984; Jacobs, 1987; Atlee,
Peer feedback has been integrated into writing curricula in various educational institutions worldwide, including Vietnam However, Dong Nai University (DNTU) has yet to recognize its significance for English-majored students, as most instructors continue to rely on traditional methods where teacher feedback dominates This approach proves to be time-consuming and often fails to address all aspects of students' writing, resulting in passivity and disinterest among learners For instance, in the Writing 1 class, reliance on teacher feedback led to low average scores of 4.5 out of 10, with recurring issues in content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics This highlights a pressing need to explore the effectiveness of peer feedback as a new teaching technique to enhance writing skills, particularly at DNTU, where similar research has not been conducted.
Objectives of the study
1 To examine whether peer feedback techniques in the teaching and learning process helps improve DNTU students' weaknesses of writing skills in their English narrative paragraphs
2 To evaluate students' attitudes towards peer feedback technique in enhancing their writing ability.
Research questions
This study aims to address the following research questions:
1 Does the use of peer feedback technique help improve DNTU students’ weaknesses of writing skills in their English narrative paragraphs?
2 What are DNTU students’ attitudes towards peer feedback technique in their English writing process?
Ho1: There is no significant difference in the mean gain scores (μ) of the writing performance before and after the incorporation of peer feedback
H1: There is a significant difference in the mean gain scores (μ) of the writing performance before and after the incorporation of peer feedback
Significance level is set at α=0.05
Scope of the study
The study conducted at Dong Nai Technology University (DNTU) in Bien Hoa, Dong Nai Province, aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of peer feedback on improving first-year English majors' writing skills in narrative paragraphs, as well as their attitudes towards this technique Utilizing a classroom action research design over six weeks and two cycles, the study involved 30 students from the Writing 2 course The research employed three main instruments—students’ writing tests, classroom observation checklists, and reflections—providing both quantitative and qualitative data that support the reliability and validity of the findings.
Significance of the study
The researcher aims to enhance writing teaching and learning activities in Vietnam by exploring the effectiveness of peer feedback techniques This study seeks to provide valuable insights into how peer feedback can improve writing skills, with the expectation that positive findings will contribute significantly to educational practices in the Vietnamese context.
5 will be of great benefit to the following:
Lecturers and instructors have the option to implement peer feedback techniques in English writing instruction Additionally, English teachers should gain a deeper understanding of their students' perspectives on peer correction.
In EFL classrooms, the peer feedback technique aims to enhance learners' writing skills, particularly in structuring paragraphs with effective topic sentences and supporting details This approach not only fosters critical thinking but also promotes autonomous learning among students.
- For the English Department of DNTU, it can be used as a reference for action research particularly in improving students' writing skills
- The findings of this research will be a useful reference for other researchers to carry out a deeper study into the fields of teaching and learning English.
Definitions of the key terms
Peer feedback is a process in which students work with each other, give useful comments, and critique each other's writing to have better versions of writing and improve writing skills
Narrative writing can be a real or imaginary story, event, or personal report which is narrated by a writer
Students' improvement of writing skills is students' change for better in writing ability after taking treatment in the learning process
Attitudes are an expression of feelings that can be a reflection of learners' difficulty or simplicity in learning.
Organization of the thesis
This study is structured into five chapters The first chapter introduces the application of peer feedback as an innovative method for enhancing writing skills, along with the rationale behind the research The second chapter provides a literature review that centers on the role of peer feedback in the teaching and learning of writing skills Chapter 3 outlines the research methodology, detailing the research design, sample selection, research site, instruments used, and the procedures for data collection and analysis Chapter 4 presents the results of the study.
6 data analysis of 2 cycles with the discussions to point out the findings and differences from previous studies In chapter 5, the main findings are summarized
The implications and suggestions for further studies are also pointed out
Introduction
This chapter focuses on the role of peer feedback in enhancing writing skills, covering ten key sections: an overview of narrative text, evaluation criteria for paragraph writing, the concept and theoretical perspectives of peer feedback, the writing process model, techniques for implementing peer feedback in teaching, language attitudes, relevant local studies, and a conceptual framework.
An overview of narrative text
A narrative text is a story crafted from real experiences or imagined events for an audience (Ricoeur, 1981; Bruner, 1999) According to Baldick (2008), narrative involves the act of recounting true or fictional events in a specific sequence by a narrator This implies that narrative writing can encompass a story, a report of events, or personal experiences, integrating both real and fictional elements Grasping this definition aids learners in constructing coherent paragraphs with appropriate content and relevant ideas.
Effective organization is crucial in crafting a narrative paragraph, as highlighted by Savage and Shafiei (2007) A well-structured narrative includes a clear topic sentence that outlines the main events, locations, and time frame of the story Supporting sentences should provide detailed descriptions, including a sequence of events and sensory or emotional elements that enrich the narrative Conclusively, the paragraph should reflect on the significance of the events or the writer's feelings about the story Additionally, it is important to maintain correct usage of the simple past tense throughout the narrative Ultimately, a strong narrative paragraph is characterized by its coherent structure and accurate grammatical choices.
To craft an effective narrative paragraph, it is essential to utilize the past tense while ensuring that the topic sentence is complete Supporting sentences should provide detailed information that enriches the story, leading to a strong concluding sentence This structure enhances the overall quality and coherence of the narrative.
Criteria for evaluating paragraph writing
To effectively evaluate students' writing, particularly in narrative paragraphs, both analytic and holistic scoring rubrics are commonly utilized, with analytic rubrics showing greater potential for enhancing writing skills (Alderson, Clapman & Wall, 1995) Analytic rubrics, as highlighted by Weigle (2002), assess multiple writing criteria rather than providing a single score, allowing for a more detailed evaluation Jacob et al (1981) proposed a rubric that rates writing based on five key aspects: content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics To achieve high scores, students must ensure their content is relevant and well-supported, ideas are clearly organized, vocabulary is used effectively, and grammar mistakes are minimized Additionally, avoiding errors in spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and paragraphing is crucial for producing quality compositions Bacha (2001) notes that this scoring rubric is widely used for assessing ESL students' writing and is deemed effective compared to other methods Consequently, the analytic scoring rubric by Jacob et al (1981) is employed in this study to evaluate students' narrative paragraphs, focusing on the five aspects to measure improvements in writing skills.
9 a basic foundation for evaluating students' enhancements after incorporating with peer feedback technique which is analyzed and demonstrated in the next parts.
Concept of peer feedback in writing
Peer feedback in literature writing, often referred to as peer review or peer evaluation, involves students assessing each other's work as part of collaborative learning activities (Fischer & Kollar, 2010) This process allows learners to evaluate the quality and value of their peers' performance (Topping, 2010) According to Yang, Richard, and Yu (2006), peer feedback entails collaboration among students who read and critique each other's work through both written and spoken comments, fostering a supportive learning environment.
Peer response involves students acting as sources of information and interacting with one another, taking on roles akin to those of a formally trained teacher or editor They provide written and oral feedback on each other's drafts, enhancing their own writing skills in the process This collaborative interaction allows students to serve as audiences for their peers, thereby fostering a supportive environment for constructive critique As noted by Lee (2009), peer feedback is fundamentally a cooperative process where students work together to improve their writing.
According to Bartels (2004), teachers employ various methods for facilitating peer feedback in writing education Students are trained to provide constructive and positive feedback, allowing them to practice evaluating written work before assessing their peers' submissions This training equips students to comment on not just surface-level errors like spelling and grammar, but also on aspects such as organization, content, and style (Stanley, 1992) Consequently, peer feedback enables students to not only correct their classmates' writing but also to offer valuable criticism, suggestions, and perspectives for meaningful improvement.
Peer feedback involves students providing and receiving constructive comments on each other's work, behavior, or performance This process is guided by established evaluation criteria that assess various aspects of the text, including content, organization, language, and formatting Such feedback serves as a valuable tool for helping students enhance their writing skills.
Theoretical viewpoints of peer feedback
2.5.1 Peer feedback in Social-Constructivism
Peer feedback is crucial in Social-Constructivism theory, as supported by numerous studies According to Kurt and Atay (2007), knowledge is best acquired through interactive learning within a social context Vygotsky (1978), a key figure in social constructivism, emphasizes that learning is a cognitive process that occurs interactively rather than in isolation His concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) defines the gap between what a child can achieve independently and what they can accomplish with assistance Vygotsky describes functions within the ZPD as developmental "buds" or "flowers," highlighting that these abilities mature through interaction with more skilled individuals before transitioning to independent work He asserts that skills learned collaboratively today will enable a child to perform independently in the future Thus, interactive learning is essential for learners to enhance their knowledge and skills effectively.
Peer feedback is crucial in the Social-Constructivism theory, as numerous studies have shown According to Kurt and Atay (2007), knowledge is most effectively gained through interactive learning within a social context Vygotsky (1978), a key figure in social constructivism, emphasizes that learning is a cognitive activity that occurs through social interaction.
Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) emphasizes the importance of interactive learning, highlighting the gap between a child's independent capabilities and what they can achieve with assistance He describes functions within this zone as “buds” or “flowers,” indicating that they are in the process of maturation rather than fully developed By collaborating with more skilled individuals, children can enhance their abilities, leading to greater independence in the future Therefore, interactive learning is essential for learners to maximize their potential and improve their achievements.
Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) primarily focuses on children's learning, which presents limitations in higher education Research by Wells (1999) reveals three key findings: first, learning is a lifelong cognitive process that occurs at any age, not just during childhood Second, individuals can receive external support not only from more qualified individuals but also from peers, who serve as valuable sources of assistance Collaborative group work enhances problem-solving, as learners support one another in ways that solitary efforts cannot achieve Lastly, Wells introduces the concept of dynamic ZPD, suggesting that the interaction among students during collaborative activities significantly enhances their learning experience, fostering improvement through peer support.
Hogan and Tudge (1999) build on Wells (1999) by demonstrating the connection between peer learning and Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), highlighting how this theory underpins the effectiveness of peer feedback Their research shows that ZPD explains the progression of a learner from their current level of proficiency to a higher potential level.
Peer feedback activities enable students to collaborate and engage with one another, allowing them to identify and discuss each other's strengths and weaknesses Through this exchange of comments, suggestions, and ideas, learners can enhance their writing skills effectively.
It once again confirms the close relationship between peer feedback and ZPD
The peer feedback technique, rooted in social constructivism, provides students with valuable opportunities to enhance their knowledge and skills within each other's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) This method fosters interactive collaboration, allowing learners to explore each other's potential while becoming more critical, increasing their linguistic awareness, and improving their writing abilities.
2.5.2 Peer feedback and Collaborative learning
The theory of collaborative learning greatly enhances the use of peer feedback in educational settings Gerlach (1994) defines collaborative learning as a social interaction where learners engage in discussions, facilitating the learning process This educational approach emphasizes that teaching and learning occur through student interactions in groups, aimed at solving problems, completing tasks, or creating products.
In 1984, it was noted that a group of peers can guide students in completing a task, even if they lack certain resources and skills (p.644) Collaborative efforts among learners foster interaction that cultivates a supportive learning environment, ultimately aiding in the successful completion of the task.
Nunan (1992) highlights the advantages of peer-learning within collaborative learning environments, identifying four key benefits for learners Firstly, this approach enhances learners' perception of language acquisition Secondly, it improves their communication skills in both written and oral formats Additionally, learners gain confidence when navigating discussions that involve social, linguistic, and content-related arguments among group members Finally, they develop the ability to make informed decisions regarding tasks that align with communicative activities.
13 all of the benefits above, collaborative learning is applied widely in both ESL and EFL writing classrooms
Collaborative learning in writing classes involves two or more writers working together to enhance their writing through discussion and cooperation (Ede & Lunsford, 1990) This highlights the crucial role peers play as both readers and advisors in the writing process As collaborative learning gains popularity in educational programs, it becomes increasingly important for teachers to facilitate group work, allowing students to practice giving and receiving feedback effectively (Grami, 2010).
Peer feedback plays a crucial role in collaborative writing, facilitating interaction and communication among learners This process highlights the importance of social engagement, as writers gain valuable insights and improve their work through the exchange of feedback and shared understanding.
2.5.4 Peer feedback and writing process approach
The Process Approach to writing is a recursive method that focuses on constructing meaning and refining ideas (Zamel, 1982) According to Tompskins (2004), this approach serves as a roadmap for learners to navigate their thoughts from inception to completion, resulting in a polished piece of writing Writing is viewed as an "internalized social talk made public and social again" (Bruffee, 1984), highlighting its interactive nature Farris (1987) supports this by noting that it fosters collaborative learning, where peers act as audiences or advisors, enhancing the interaction between writers, readers, texts, contexts, and language Ultimately, employing the Writing Process approach significantly boosts students' collaborative learning, with peer feedback playing a crucial role in enriching their interactions.
Hyland and Hyland (2006) also assert that students need to write more drafts in the Writing Process Then, they can be given feedback for each of their drafts
Feedback from teachers and peers during various stages of the writing process—such as brainstorming, planning, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing—plays a crucial role in enhancing students' writing skills According to Nation (2009), consistent practice is essential for improvement; therefore, students should take advantage of the opportunity to revise their work based on received feedback before final submission This iterative process allows learners to refine their writing and achieve better outcomes.
Peer feedback plays a crucial role in the Writing Process Approach, enabling students to gain valuable insights and experience from their peers By engaging in feedback exchanges, learners can enhance their writing skills and practice rewriting with the support of others, ultimately leading to improved compositions.
Writing Process Model
There are different models of process writing found by many researchers such
Seow (2002), Williams (2003), and Harmer (2004) present various models of the writing process, each with distinct procedures but sharing key stages: planning, drafting, revising, and editing Teachers can enhance these stages by incorporating supportive activities, as highlighted by Nelson and Murphy (1992), who note that focusing on audience, feedback, and revision has led to the increased use of writing groups in L2 classrooms This collaborative approach allows students to utilize peer feedback effectively while revising their texts Seow's (2002) model is particularly beneficial as it includes developmental stages that enhance learners' skills and follows a recursive, non-linear process, enabling multiple iterations of planning and revising drafts (Krashen, 1984) The model consists of four main stages—planning, drafting, revising, and editing—along with additional stages of sharing, evaluating, and post-writing Seow (2002) characterizes the writing process as a progression from Process Activated to Process Terminated.
Figure 2.1 Model of writing process (Anthony Seow in Richard & Renandya,
2002) According to Seow (2002), teachers can add suitable activities to each stage to assist the learning process Each stage of process writing is specifically
At this stage, students are encouraged to generate their own ideas and purposes in writing through various pre-writing activities, including reading, discussions, debates, list-making, and brainstorming (Raimes, 1983) They rapidly produce words, phrases, or ideas without worrying about accuracy or order, either individually or in groups Students decide on the writing's aim, language, text type, and information organization Teachers play a supportive role, helping students generate ideas through specific tasks Seow (2002) suggests activities such as "group brainstorming," "clustering," "rapid free writing," and "WH- questions" to facilitate this creative process (p.316).
The initial version of writing, known as drafting, serves as a rough exploratory stage where students transform pre-writing ideas into a coherent draft It is essential for students to organize their thoughts logically and develop the topic with sufficient detail During this phase, emphasis should be placed on providing support rather than grading, as noted by Seow (2002), who highlights that while grammatical errors and neatness may be overlooked, the focus should be on fluency in writing.
At this stage, learners should collaborate with peers or teachers to receive feedback on their writing, which can be delivered orally or in written form after their initial draft and prior to revision According to Seow (2002), effective feedback should be text-specific, offering detailed suggestions and questions rather than brief comments.
Peer feedback is crucial in the writing process, as it fosters collaboration among students According to Lee (2009), this stage benefits significantly from peer input, helping to clarify vague ideas and enhance overall writing quality.
The rewriting process enhances the strength and value of a paper by addressing major errors, reorganizing ideas, and improving coherence and consistency According to Seow (2002), this stage goes beyond correcting language mistakes; it also focuses on enhancing content and organization Students utilize feedback from teachers and peers during the responding stage to evaluate these critical aspects of their writing.
To ensure that students genuinely rewrite rather than simply recopy their drafts, it is recommended that teachers collect and retain the original drafts (Beck, 1986) By implementing this approach, teachers can encourage students to independently revise their work based on their understanding of the provided feedback.
Students can enhance their revision process by working in pairs and reading each other's drafts aloud (Seow, 2002) This collaborative approach encourages them to rethink and reconsider their work as they listen to it being read by peers or recorded tapes, making the revision experience more engaging and motivating.
At this stage, writers refine their work by correcting errors in grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, vocabulary, and spelling to prepare for the final draft (Seow, 2002) This process ensures that students polish their writing, making it ready for submission.
Students' writing scores will be assessed either analytically, focusing on specific writing aspects, or holistically (Seow, 2002) Seow emphasizes the importance of training students to evaluate their peers' writing using defined criteria, including organization, content, format, layout, spelling, mechanics, vocabulary, and clarity of communication This process encourages learners to become more critical in assessing others' work and fosters a sense of responsibility for their own writing.
Post-writing is the last stage of the writing process in which learners have
18 chances to express that their writing is done for the real purpose (Richard & Renandya, 2002) This stage includes some activities such as reading aloud, publishing, role-playing, or sharing
In conclusion, writing is a multifaceted process that involves several interconnected stages, rather than merely putting words on paper By adhering to established writing models, students can engage in meaningful discussions, collaborate, enhance their critical thinking, and refine their writing abilities Additionally, educators can leverage these models to design effective lesson plans and assess their teaching methods at each stage of the writing process.
Peer Feedback Technique in writing process
Two pairs of different types of feedback are presented in this part They are demonstrated in pairs to make an overview, the benefits, and drawbacks of each type
Corrective feedback is essential in language learning, as it involves identifying and addressing errors in students' work (Jin & Lim, 2019) This feedback can come from peers or teachers and aims to restructure language forms or provide suggestions for improvement (Ellis, 2006; Li, 2014) Peers play a critical role in this process by reviewing each other's writing and highlighting mistakes According to Tseng & Tsai (2007), effectively pointing out errors can significantly reduce them in tasks Corrective feedback can be delivered in both direct and indirect forms, enhancing the learning experience.
Direct feedback is an effective method for helping student writers correct their mistakes by providing the correct linguistic forms (Ferris, 2006) This feedback can be delivered in various ways, including striking out incorrect words, adding missing words, or making adjustments in the margins By addressing their errors, students gain a clearer understanding of how to improve their writing and reduce confusion According to Ellis (2009), direct feedback is particularly beneficial for low-level students.
Direct feedback is often viewed as an inefficient method for student learning, as it leaves 19 students unable to self-correct their mistakes While it has its advantages, this approach can hinder critical thinking, as students who rely on corrections from others miss the opportunity to engage with their errors Consequently, direct feedback is seen as a passive learning strategy that fails to equip students with the skills needed to identify and rectify their own mistakes.
Indirect feedback is often regarded as a more effective method for addressing errors, as it highlights the presence of mistakes without providing direct corrections (Ferris & Robert, 2011) This approach encourages student-writers to engage in critical thinking to identify and rectify their errors through coding or underlining By fostering exploration in error correction, writers enhance their learning experience (Frodessen, 2001) Additionally, research by Makino (1993) suggests that offering detailed cues to indicate mistakes, rather than outright corrections, can significantly aid learners in self-correcting grammatical errors, leading to improved academic performance.
Suggestive feedback, as defined by Jin & Lim (2019), involves proposing solutions or alternative perspectives rather than merely correcting errors McMillan (2013) notes that peers often provide indirect advice on incomplete drafts, signaling issues without explicitly identifying them This feedback may manifest as hints, pauses, or changes in intonation to guide the writer's thought process Reed & Burton (1985) highlight that students favor suggestive feedback because it inspires ideas they might not generate independently However, Kim (2011) warns that irrelevant suggestions may arise if a peer lacks a clear understanding of the task at hand.
Corrective feedback, particularly of the indirect type, is valued for its effectiveness in enhancing students' self-correction skills Additionally, suggestive feedback provides students with fresh ideas and insights that they may not have considered on their own Consequently, incorporating both indirect corrective feedback and suggestive feedback into the peer review process can significantly aid learners in improving their revision capabilities.
Positive and negative feedback are essential forms of peer feedback that significantly influence students' writing improvement Raimes (1984) emphasizes the importance of adopting a positive attitude when providing feedback, as positive comments help students recognize their strengths alongside areas for improvement The benefits of positive feedback include boosting students' confidence, fostering a positive classroom atmosphere (Mittan, 1989), and enhancing their writing more effectively than mere correction of errors (Stanley, 1992) However, an excess of praise or solely positive feedback may lead to diminished motivation for students to make better revisions.
Negative feedback is crucial for student improvement, as it highlights areas needing enhancement in their work According to Mosher (1998), students benefit from effective revisions when they receive constructive criticism on their shortcomings Hyland (2003) supports this notion, asserting that negative feedback can be beneficial by drawing attention to issues that require attention for future revisions However, excessive use of negative feedback may undermine students' confidence and diminish their motivation to improve their writing skills.
In conclusion, the effectiveness of feedback types significantly impacts students' writing improvement, necessitating a balanced approach between praise and criticism This research emphasizes the integration of indirect corrective feedback, suggestive feedback, and both positive and negative feedback to empower writers in self-correction through peer suggestions and corrective symbols Striking a balance between positive and negative feedback is essential for enhancing writing skills while maintaining student motivation Furthermore, the methods of delivering feedback are crucial and should be thoughtfully considered to maximize their benefits.
2.7.2 Techniques of giving peer feedback in writing
To enhance students' writing skills effectively, it is crucial to choose appropriate methods for providing peer feedback in writing instruction Keh (1990) and Mangeldorf (1992) identify three effective approaches for peer feedback: discussing the paper, utilizing checklists, and offering written comments.
According to Raimes (1984), "talking about the paper" involves students engaging in discussions about each other's writing to better understand their peers' expressions Additionally, Mangeldorf (1992) emphasizes that this practice allows students to provide valuable suggestions for revisions, enhancing the overall writing process.
After students finalize their drafts, they can exchange papers with peers to read or listen to each other's work This process allows them to provide feedback on aspects they find interesting, areas of confusion, and topics they wish to explore further The student writer can then use this valuable feedback to enhance their writing.
Discussing a paper can be a lengthy process, yet it can also be efficient if conducted briefly According to Raimes (1984), students can benefit from noting their peers' feedback during these discussions, using these insights as a basis for future revisions.
Collaborative feedback among students enhances the quality of comments on each other's papers, as they can engage in discussions and share ideas (Mangeldorf, 1992) This teamwork not only leads to more precise feedback but also boosts learners' confidence in providing constructive criticism to their peers.
To enhance the effectiveness of peer feedback tasks, a checklist of yes/no questions is provided for students to utilize while reading and analyzing their peers' writing According to Raimes (1983), this checklist serves as a valuable tool for training, guiding students' focus to essential elements of the writing process.
Language attitudes
Attitudes are psychological evaluations that categorize feelings as good or bad, harmful or harmless, and pleasant or unpleasant (Ajzen, 2001) According to Richards, Platt, and Platt (1992), these attitudes are expressed by speakers towards their own languages or those of others Positive or negative feelings about a language often reflect the perceived difficulty or simplicity of learning it, as well as its significance Thus, attitudes serve as indicators of learners' experiences and challenges in language acquisition.
Learners' mastery of a language is influenced not only by their mental competence and language skills but also by their attitudes towards the target language (Gardner & Lambert, 1972) Positive attitudes can enhance the language learning process, shape learners' beliefs and behaviors towards the culture and community of the language, and foster their motivation to achieve proficiency Nunan and Lamb (1996) emphasize that these attitudes play a crucial role in the learning journey Therefore, it is essential for teachers to acknowledge and respect learners' attitudes to facilitate their language acquisition effectively.
In conclusion, language attitudes can be known as the learners’ attitudes which can be negative or positive feelings about the language learning process The
30 significance of determining learners’ language attitudes cannot be ignored because it affects learners’ language competence and the success of language teaching and learning process
Language attitude encompasses three key components: behavioral, cognitive, and affective (Abidin, Pour-Mohammadi & Alzwari, 2012) These components are rooted in three theoretical frameworks: behaviorism, cognitivism, and humanism (Malekmahmudi et al., 2018).
The behavioral aspect of attitude significantly influences language learning, as noted by Garret et al (2003), who emphasize its connection to individual behaviors and reactions in specific situations Effective language learning enables students to assess their proficiency and adopt the behaviors of native speakers within the target language community According to Kara (2009), students with positive attitudes towards language courses are more likely to engage eagerly in their learning Thus, it is evident that the behavioral dimension of attitude plays a crucial role in shaping students' behaviors and overall success in language acquisition.
The cognitive component of language learning is shaped by the deliberative efforts of individuals and groups, influenced by their preconceptions about language and its speakers (Garret et al., 2003) This highlights the importance of language learners' beliefs regarding their comprehension and the knowledge they acquire throughout the language learning process.
The affective component of language learning encompasses an individual's emotions towards the language, as highlighted by Garret et al (2003) Feng and Chen (2009) emphasize that learning is fundamentally an emotional experience shaped by various emotional influences Additionally, attitudes play a crucial role in enabling learners to convey their positive or negative feelings about specific situations Choy and Troudi (2006) further note that learners' internal emotions significantly impact their perceptions and attitudes toward the target language.
Attitudes towards language encompass three key dimensions: behavioral, cognitive, and affective The behavioral aspect reflects how students interact with and respond to the language, while the cognitive aspect pertains to their beliefs and knowledge about the target language.
31 affective component indicates students’ feelings and emotions to the language learning In order to measure students’ attitudes, it is useful to follow these three components of attitudes.
Previous studies
The peer feedback technique has garnered significant interest from researchers globally, including in Vietnam, as they explore its effectiveness in enhancing writing skills and shaping learners' attitudes towards the approach This article reviews several key studies that highlight these findings.
In their 2010 study, Ting and Qian explored the use of peer review in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing classrooms in China The results indicated that while peer review did not significantly enhance all aspects of writing, it primarily led to improvements in surface-level issues such as grammar, spelling, and punctuation However, the practice of providing feedback allowed students to develop critical reading skills, ultimately helping them to revise their own writing more effectively by analyzing their peers' work.
In contrast to the findings of Ting & Qian (2010), Noor (2016) demonstrated through his action research that peer feedback significantly improved the writing skills of his 8th grade students, especially in the narrative genre Following the second cycle of the study, a questionnaire was administered to gauge students' opinions and feelings about peer feedback, revealing a positive attitude towards this technique and an enhancement in their critical thinking abilities.
A study by Mittan (1989) revealed that students exhibited positive attitudes towards peer feedback, viewing it as a means to enhance their confidence in writing The findings from his questionnaire indicated that students felt connected in writing classes, benefiting from collaborative opportunities to share challenges and offer suggestions to one another.
In addition, students in his study consider writing as a process instead of a product
A study by Cheng and Warren (1995) examined the impact of peer feedback on students' writing quality and attitudes by using pre- and post-questionnaires The findings revealed that participating in peer feedback significantly boosted students' confidence and fostered a more positive attitude towards writing.
A study by Tsui & Ng (2000) revealed that peer revision helps students identify their strengths and weaknesses through observing their peers' mistakes, fostering collaborative learning and ownership of writing, while also developing critical reading skills Rollinson (2005) found that students value peer feedback as a means to enhance both personal and social skills Lei (2017) further confirmed that students trust the quality of feedback from their peers, noting that it creates a more relaxed learning atmosphere compared to teacher feedback, which reduces stress and boosts motivation in writing Additionally, students acknowledged that they often fail to recognize their own mistakes until they review their peers' work.
Despite generally positive attitudes towards peer feedback, research by Cheng and Warren (1995) reveals that learners often harbor negative perceptions, questioning the accuracy of their peers' evaluations Students express concerns over insufficient training in providing peer feedback, leading to unreliable assessments of classmates' writing Lim's (2007) findings indicate that students believe their peers possess similar levels of writing proficiency, resulting in skepticism regarding the validity of peer comments and suggestions Additionally, Williams (2005) highlights that students frequently lack confidence in their feedback abilities, attributing this uncertainty to their limited knowledge.
In a 2014 study by Pham Vu Phi Ho and Nguyen Thi Thuy Duong, the effectiveness of peer feedback as an instructional activity in teaching academic writing was examined in the Vietnamese context The findings indicated that peer feedback serves as an efficient tool for helping learners improve and correct their drafts.
33 students give more feedback on local areas than global ones
Also, Le My Hanh (2014) experimented at The Experimental High School in
Ho Chi Minh City is set to evaluate the impact of corrective teacher and peer feedback on students' attitudes towards learning English writing The findings indicate that such feedback significantly enhances students' engagement in writing Additionally, the integration of both teacher and peer feedback is deemed beneficial, as students express a desire for more constructive input not only from teachers but also from their peers, which helps them learn from others' mistakes and improve their writing skills.
Nguyen Thi Ha (2016) explored peer feedback practices in EFL writing classes at a Vietnamese university, revealing that students preferred peer feedback over teacher comments and believed it enhanced their language skills However, the study highlighted limitations, such as the informal implementation of peer feedback and students' concerns about their metacognitive development, indicating a desire for improvements in peer feedback practices within their writing courses.
Le Thi Thuan and Truong Vien (2018) conducted a mixed-method study to explore students' perceptions of peer feedback in English writing classes and to identify ways to enhance writing skills The results revealed that students generally held positive attitudes towards peer feedback; however, challenges such as varying levels of English competence, cooperation among peers, the need for teacher guidance, motivation issues, and time constraints were identified as limitations in effectively implementing this technique.
The peer feedback technique remains a compelling topic, showing mixed results regarding its effectiveness and students' attitudes To validate its efficiency, further empirical studies are necessary This research aims to fill the existing gap by investigating whether peer feedback truly enhances students' writing skills.
This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of peer feedback in enhancing students' writing skills in English narrative paragraphs, while also exploring learners' attitudes towards this technique To achieve these objectives, peer feedback is implemented as the primary method for teaching English narrative writing to students.
This research adopts Liu and Hansen's (2002) definition of peer feedback, emphasizing students' roles in providing written and oral critiques of each other's compositions The study utilizes two peer feedback techniques: checklists and discussions, which enhance learners' writing skills through mutual feedback Guided by Hansen and Liu's (2005) framework, the focus is on efficient training in peer feedback methods Students' progress in English narrative writing is evaluated using five criteria—content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics—based on Jacob et al.'s (1981) analytic writing scoring rubrics, ensuring a comprehensive assessment of essential writing skills.
This study explores learners' attitudes towards peer feedback techniques by examining cognitive, behavioral, and affective aspects Previous research has identified a range of attitudes, both positive and negative, regarding these techniques Specifically, this investigation focuses on students' perceptions of their improvement in five key writing areas: content, organization of ideas, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics, as well as their overall feelings towards the peer feedback process.
35 capture a clear picture of their attitudes
The conceptual framework of this study is presented in Figure 2.2 below
Figure 2.2 The conceptual framework of this study