Luận văn thực tiễn Áp dụng hình thức phản hồi từ bạn học trong việc dạy kỹ năng viết cho sinh viên năm thứ 2 khoa sư phạm tiếng anh trường Đại học ngoại ngữ Đhqg hà nội

Student writing analysis Thirty papers already responded by students and the revised versions are thoroughly analyzed so as fo give the researcher an in-depth look at how peer feedback i

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIYERSITY, HANOIL UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDEES

FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES

ae

NGUYEN TIII TITU IIANG

THE APPLICATION OF PEER FEEDBACK IN WRITING TEACHING

LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION- UNIVERSITY OF

LANGUAGES AND LNTERNATIONAL STUDLES- VIET NAM

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

TIIVC TIEN AP DUNG ITNII TIC PLTAN LOI TU BAN LIOC

TRONG VIỆC DẠY KỸ NĂNG VIẾT CIIO SINH VIÊN NĂM THỨ 2—

DHQG HA NOI

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Language Teaching Methodology

Code: 601410

HANOI - 2010

‘VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES

NGUYEN THI THU HANG

THE APPLICATION OF PEER FEEDBACK IN WRITING TEACHING

TO THE 2"-YEAR STUDENTS AT THE FACULTY OF ENGLISH

LANGUAGE TEACIIER EDUCATION- UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES- VIET NAM

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, LIANOI

THUC TIEN AP DUNG HINH THUC PHAN HOT TU BAN HOC

TRONG VIỆC DẠY KỸ NĂNG VIẾT CHO SINH VIÊN NĂM THỨ 2—

KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIỆNG ANH TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ —

DHQG HÀ NỘI

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: Enplish Language Teaching Methodology

Code: 601410

Supervisor: Dinh Hai Yen, M.Ed

HANOI - 2010

1 Rafionale for the stuủy

2 Áims of the studiy

3 Research questioni

4 Scope of the study

5 Methods af the study

5.4 Survey questionnaire

5.2 Student writing analysis

6 Organization of the study

PART 2 DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVLEW

1.1 PROCESS APPROACII TO WRITING TEACHING

1.1.1 An overview of process approach c csseseniesianeeimmnanesenenvnnes 1.1.2, Stages in a writing process

1.2 PEER FEEDBACK IN WRITING TEACHING

1.2.1 Concept af peer feedback in wriling

1.2.2, The significance of peer feedback in process writing

1.2.3, Requircments for effective peer fecdback practice in writing teaching escent

1.2.4, Major issues of student feedback on fHeir peer°s wrifing -

1.24.1, Focus of peer written feedhack

2.1, RESEARCH APPROACH à.nieieriieiirrrirereoesroL8

2.1 ÄHPVEY nh weininieinensnenties arareeirrrrieseoesere.L8

3.1 FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS FROM STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE 16

3.LLL, General evaluation of peer writlen ƒeetibaek eo TỔ BLL2, Aspects 0ƒ peer wrifien fveHbAgE ào ceeceneerireeisirireeree T7

3.1.1.5 Supporl fram teaciiers ƒbr peer fbedbaclt prdfiCe cceeeeeereceeeeoece.2Ô

3.2 FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS FROM STUDENE WRITING ANAL YSIS

3.2.1, Features of peer written focdbadk ccscnetensesismsnnsissinstnnienststssesese

Types 0ƒ fiedback Hs80 scecceii Hee seeeeoou3Ö

PART II: COMCLUSION Sao 2ể

1 S§UMMARY OF THE§TUDV àìộ cà ceoeeeeoeo.35)

2.1 Mow is peer teedback given to the Ind- year students' writings at the FELTE,

2.2 How do the 2" year students react to their peers’ feedback on their writings? .36

2.3 Whal can be done to improve the effectiveness of peer feedback practice ai the

3.3.1.1 Raising students’ awareness of the importance of responsible feedhack 36

2.3.1.2 Pre-troining stidents [0 evdluate fienilYÌ DADETS Là ào cc«eeeHeeeeereeo V7

LIST OF FIGURES

Page Figure 1: Students’ general evaluation of peer written feedback 16

Eigure 3: Types of peer written feedbaek ca HieirierirrrrrreseoeserT8 Figure 4: Reasons why students đo not understand peer written feedback 20 Figure 5: Support from teachers for peer feedback practice 21 Figure 6: Whether or not students revise their writings after receiving peer feedbaok 22 Figure 7: Reasons why students do not revise their writings ˆ

Figure 9: What students do in case they do not understand peer written feedback

Figure 10: Whether or not peer feedback helps students improve their writing skills 25 Figure 14: The cfficicney of peer written fecdback

Figure 12: Amount of peer feedback versus mistakes made

Figure 13: Mistakes pointed ont versus mistakes corrected —-

Figure 14: Number of mistakes made on i* versus 2°" draft of student wiitings 33

PART ï: INTRODUCTION

1 RATIONALE FOR THE S

LDY The teaching of English has undergone different waves of change throughout its history With regards to writing, teaching in particular, there exists a recent shift ftom the traditional focus om the product of writing to the process of writing (Hinkel, 2000) A writing, process then includes five stages, namely prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing The process approach

is said 10 empower ils studen(s, enabling them 1o make clearer decisions about the direction of their writing by means of “discussion, tasks, drafting, feedback and informed choices [thereby] encouraging students ta be responsible for making improvements themselves” (lordan, 1997, as cited in Clenton, 2006, p.2)

In the light of process approach, feedback plays an integral part of a student's writing Beside the traditional teacher feedback, peer response proves to be an effective type of feedback as it provides chances for student waiters lo waite for an immediate audience apart fom the leacher, familiarize themselves with actual readers who critically respond to their work, boost their confidence, and work collaboratively (Hairston & Keene, 2003)

Much as important peer feedback is, there have bean few studies comprehensively dealing with the issue Even with those that do, there is a lack of consensus over such matters as what peer feedback should focus on, how to enhance the effectiveness of peor feedback, etc The same siluation could be seen in the contest of teaching writing in Vietuam In reality, there are very few studies condneted on feedback in general and peer feedback in particular Fven at the

Faculty of English language ‘Veacher Kdueation (KELP), University of Foreign Langnages and

Intemational Studies, Vietnam National University Hanoi (ULIS,VNU), where peer feedback was applied relatively long ago, no investigation has been made into the current practice It is, therefore, an open question whether or not current peer fecdback is beneficial to students at the faculty

‘The aforementioned reason urges the author, a lecturer at English 2 Bivision- FEI-I'K, ULIS,

VNU, to carry ont the research entitled 7%e Application of Peer Meedhack in Writing Teaching

to the 2" year Students at the Faculty of English Language Teacher Education _ University

of Foreign Languages and International Studies — Vietnam National University, Hanoi This

study is an attempt to cxamine the real situation of peer fecdback application at the FELTE and

1o propose some znggestions for the betierment of the current practice The vielded resulls are hoped to serve as a usefill source of reference for thase wha concern abont the subject matter

2 AIMS OF THE STUDY

This study is cartied out with the aims to:

investigate the current practice of peer feedback on the 24 year students’

writings at the FELT1-ULIS-VNU

find ont the students’ reactions towards peer feedback and their suggestions for improving the situation

ropose sơme recomamnendalions fr the bellenneni of pecr [ecđback practiee aL the FELTE

How da the 2" year students react to their peers’ feedback on their writings?

What can be donc to improve the effectiveness of peer feedback practice at the facully?

LS METHODS OF T

“STUDY Quantitative approach is utilized in this smdy sa as ta achieve the desired aims In details, the following methods are employed:

5.1 Survey questionnaire

A survey questionnaire is done with 200 2" year students at the FELTE-ULIS-VNU The data

gained from the questionaire not only help deepen the uuderslanding of te currout situation of

peer feedback but also serve as the foundation for some pedagogical implications for the practice

of peer written feedback at the faculty

5.2 Student writing analysis

Thirty papers already responded by students and the revised versions are thoroughly analyzed

so as fo give the researcher an in-depth look at how peer feedback is given to the 2 -year stadeut writings al the FELTE and how students react lo their friends’ feedback

6 ORGANIZATION OF TELE STUDY

‘The research inchides three parts as follows: Part { provides a brief introduction to the iasue and

an overview of the paper Part II includes three chapters, namely Literature Review (Chapter 1), Research Methodology (Chapter 2) and Data Analysis and Discussion (Chapter 3) In greater details, Chapter 1 reviews the theorctical backgrounds to writing teaching in gcneral and peer feedback on writing in particular Chapter 2 describes the methods used to carry out the study Chapter 3 presents and analyzes the data collected from the questionnaires and from students”

writings Part I] summarizes the main issues so far touched upon in the research, some

suggestions for the betterment of peer feedback on students’ writings at the FELTE, ULIS,

‘VNU, the limitations of the research and some suggestions for fiuther studies Following the

chapters arc the references and appendices

PART ft: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1:

RATURE REVEEW

‘This chapter, which reviews the overall background concerning the study, will serve as the theorstical foundation on which the stady is based In this chapter, the researcher will review the Yeliets and studies on the issues most relevant to the study - process writing and poer feedback

in writing teaching

1.4, PROCESS APPROACH TO WRITING TEACHING

Together with the shift in linguistic theory and praetice, writing teaching has also undergone a aumber of changes, most outstanding of which was the shift of focus from the product ta the process approach (Joe, 2006) This section is aimed at presenting the nature of this new approach as well as the major stages of a waiting process:

1.1, An overview of process approach

The conventional leaching of writing may have largely been known (o ESL/EFL teachers and stndents as focusing, on sentence-level and correctness rather than communicative aspects of the writing piece itself ‘his approach has received a lot of criticism becanse it ignores the acinal processes used by students to produce a piece of writing Instead, it focuses on imitating and producing a perfect product, which, in tum, leads to the restriction of creativity (Clenton, 2006)

It was not until the 1970s and 1980s that process approach began to replace product approach Whiting is now viewed as a multistage process wilh intervention as needed, and is evaluated accarding to haw well it can fulfill the writer’s intentions (Reid, 1993) The purpose of writing,

as stated by Stewart (1988, a8 cited in Jae, 2006, p 48), is a written communication with the

writer himselfherself, with his/her fellow leamers, with hisher teacher and with his/her intended readers Therefore, it is not the form but the idea/the meaning that plays the determining role In process approach, the text-the final product is only “a sccondary, derivative concer, whose form is a fimction of its content and purpose” (Silva, 1990, p.16)

In process approach, writing is no longer considered to be a “linear and fragmented procedure”

(iairston, 1982, p 78) with the mere target at an error free product Rather, it is “a cyclical

process during which writers can move back and forth on a continnum, discovering, analyzing and synthesizing ideas” (Hughey, ef al., 1983 ay cited in Joo, 2006, p.48) The emphasis on a series of drafts on the samc topic proves helpful to students becausc thanks to writing and

revising the writing, students can gradually discover the way to express their ideas appropriately

1.1.2 Stages in a writing process

There are a number of ways to detine the stages in a writing process According to Tribble (1996), the process approach identities four stages in writing: (1) prewriting, (2) composing/drafling, (3) revising, aud (4) editing

(1) Prewriting: Prewriting includes anything done by the writer before he writes a draft: deciding a topic, brainstorming ideas, onflining, gathering information, etc

(2) Composing/drafting: In this stage, the writers do actual writing and refining of their sentences and paragraphs

(3) Revising: In this stage, the writers deal with the content of the writing, ic refining text organization, structure, idea connections or other addition and connection (4) Hdiững: In this stage, the writers work on the mechanics of writing such as spellings and punetnations

Whiting in the abovementioned viewpoint is a one-way process in which there is uo involvement

of a reader Reid (1993) offers a more thorough description of the writing process with four asic stages, that is, planning, drafting, revising, and editing, Besides, he adds three other stages extemally imposed on students by teacher, namely, responding evaluating, and post-writing

‘The four first stages that Reid (1993) mentions, in fact, have the same nature as those stated by

‘Tribble (1996), What makes Reid’s idea more adequate than the one offered by ‘Tribble (1996) is

‘the addition of three more stages into the writing process:

= Responding: Responding plays a central role in the successful implementation of

a writing process It is a kind of oral or written intervention by teachers or pects or other possible readers have finished drafting and are to revise his/her writing This stage is aimed at praviding smdents with urefil information to improve the content of

their writing

= Evaluating: In this stage, the writing teachers assign scores which may be analytical (based on spocifie aspects of waiting ability) or holistie (based on a global iulerpretation of the cflveliveness of that writing)

* Post writing: Post writing consists of any activities that the feacher and the

students can do with the finished products such as publishing, reading aloud and role-

playing,

Ina word, the stages of a writing process, according to Red (1993), consists of seven stages, namely Prewsiting, Composing/Drafting, Responding, Revising, Editing, Evaluating and Post- writing, As addressing responding and evaluating to be an integral part of a writing process, Reid (1993) has indirectly affinned the indispensable role of feedback in writing teaching and jearmng The way Reid (1993) defines stages in a writing pracess better reflects the process approach since according to him, writing is a multistage process in which the writer haz to

“move back and forth on a continuum, discovering, analyzing and revising the writing”

So far some fimdamental issues concerning writing teaching, including process approach to writing teaching and the stages of a writing process, have beon thoroughly discussed Also, the fundamental role of feedback in writing has been highlighted, which in tum serves as a firm ground for the research

1.2 PEER FEEDBACK IN WRITING TEACIIING

1.2.1 Concept of peer feedback in writing

Concerning the matter of peer feedback or peer evaluation, peer critiquing, pet editing, peer response (Kch, 1990}, there cxist a vast number of definitions given by researchers Despite the differences in the ways they are expressed, these definitions still bear some similarities in terms

of nature and function of feedback

Keh (1990) considers feedback as “any inpnt ftom a reader to a writer with the effect of providing information to the writer for revision” (p 294) In other words, if is the comments, questions, and suggestions a reader gives a writer with the view to enhancing his/her writing In this sense, peer feedback denotes any input provided by a student to his/her pcer for revision A problem with the concept made by Keh is that it only focuses on the means and purposes of feedback

Hyland and [Hyland (2001) define peer feedback as “a formative developmental process that gives writers the opportunities to discuss their texts and discover others’ interpretations of them (p 6)” Unlike the former definition, this onc emphasizes the interaction between peer students The concep! of peer feedback given by Liu and Hansen (2002) iv considered the most

comprehensive ane According fo them, peer feedback is

“the use of learners as sources of information and interactions for each other in such a way that learners assume roles and responsibilities normally taken on by formally tained teacher, tutor or editor in commenting on and critiquing each other's drafts in both written and oral formats in the process of writing” (p.75)

In the light of process writing, this concept is considered die xaost thorough one [hai provides yeaders with the natnre of peer feedback to student writings Tt has covered almost aspects of feedback, namely, the positions of peer feedback in writing instruction and writing process, the forms of feedback, and the role of feedback in a writing, process Its thought will, theretore, be used thorough this study

1.2.2 The significance of peer feedback in process writing

Peer feedback on early drafts of student writings is deemed important and its effectiveness is

weil documented in ESI writing research (Mangelsdorf & Schlumberger, 1992; Wond, 2000;

Jacobs, 1987; ‘Tsui and Ng’s, 2000) ‘The following part will summarize some roles that peer

feedback takes in L2 writing classes

Peer feedback is often recognized as providing students with an opportunity to “read and constructively criticize cach other's writing.” Jacobs, 1987, p.325) Via the comments, studcats can identify their own strong and weak points, which, in the case of the later, will make sindents realize how to go about improving themselves ‘Tsui and Ng’s (2000) aleo conctuded in their stndy that through peer comments studenis gain a gennine sense of audience, a sense of ownership of the text, and awareness of the weaknesses of their own writing Most importantly, joining peer comment sessions help students to learn fiom others’ both mistakes and well- written picces of writing, thus becoming more cffective writers, Therefore, feedback is considered, first of all, a pedagogical tool that helps enhance students’ writing competence

In asserting the rale of peer comments in process writing, Wood (2000) stated that it war an

advantage that students “participated in anthors' circles where they could float their ideas like trial balloons before their peers and receive feedback” (p 2) In process writing, students do not work lone or keep their ideas to themselves Instead, they are engaged in the process of respouse, assessment, evaluation, amd revision The fact (hat sludents take control of their writing and editing process substantially makes them reflective writers

of peer feedback exerts on its receivers vary from student to sindent

1.2.3 Requirements for effective peer feedback practice in writing teaching

Since the shiit of focus fiom product of writing to process of writing, peer feedback has been recognized as au important part of a writing procedure beside the conventional toacher feodbaek However, in many cases the practice may not bring about good effects for various reasons such

as sindents do not take the practice seriously, or they try to avoid hurting each other's feeling by giving completely positive feedback In the following part, the researcher will briefly summarize some conditions for the effectiveness of the practice

According t Urzua (1987), it is erucial to train leamers to cope with the task of giving fecdback Since students may not be able to ask constructive questions for rediafting, thoy must

‘be trained or guided to perform the task - for example, to be critical of the development: of ideas

emphasizes the need to make the activity guided so that studenis will know what they should focus on when giving feedback In her study, Newnoska lists some guidelines/ checklists of certain types of writings that could be used by students when giving feedback to fiends, Berg (1999) also asserts that training, appears to bencfit both the writer and the scader in peer dyads, with smdents who receive training to give peer feedback also making higher quality revisions to

aheir own writing

Apart from equipping students with the skills of giving feedback, preparing sindent spirits also plays an important role in the success of peer feedback process Naumoska (2009) states that students should take the activity seriously and be ready to give critical, roliable comments instead of merely posilive ones for feur of hurting their Giends’ feclings According (o Nilson

(2003), for the activity to be beneficial fo students, it is required that they need fo avaid the

l§

following situations

= being uncritical in general

= being superficial and unengaged in general

= being focused on a students likes and dislikes of the work rather than its quality

= being focused on trivial problems and errors (e.g., spelling)

= being focused on content alone, missing organization, structure, slyle, and so forth

+ being focused on their agreement or disagreement with the argument made rather than the logic of and evidence for the argument

= being umecessarily harsh, even mean-spirited, unconstructive in its criticisms

= — being inconsistent, internally contradictory

= being inaccurate

= being unrelated to the requirements of the assignment

= being not referenced to the specifics of the work

In shout, for peer feedback practice to bring about good results, commitments of both teacher and students ate needed

1.2.4, Major issues of student feedback on lheir peer’s writing

How to make fill use of peer feedback has always heen a matter of concern among writing teachers Conceming the issue, a great number of questions have been asked: “I'o which extent should feedback be?”, “Which types of comment are most effective?” and so on {lawever, it is the fact that researchers have not reached a consensus over the answers to such questions The following part is an overview of the literature of the abovementioned issues

12.4.1, Focus of peer written feedback

Since the shift af facus from prodnct to pracess approach, the question of whether feedhack should focus on form or content of writing has been a matter of much conflict (Fathman and

Whalley, 1990) Content, in their apinion, refers to comments on organization, ideas and amount

of detail, while form mvolves comments on grammar and mechanical errors

Gonerally, stadents are inclined to identifying and comecting all the surface-tevel errors, i.o.„ carors on form, This is perhaps because errors on form ure easier to recognize and coneel However, the mere focns on form correction would have detrimental impact on student writing

That students receive a corrected draft from a friend with comections all over the page would only add to their anxiety when dealing with another writing task Moreover, a large amount of

error correction may draw the students’ attention to form only but not to the important matter of

developing the content (Sommiers, 1982) This is because when feedback focuses on form (grammar, spelling, etc.), many students will rewrite by correcting the surface mistakes and will quake few or no other chaages The result is hal the students’ rewriting becomes grammar exercises rather than challenges to clarify meaning

Advocates of process writing are, on the other hand, in favor of feedback on the content of writing Coffin et al (2003, p.105) claims “Feedback seems fo be, and in deed to a ceitain extent

is, about the content of writing” That is why Stanley (1993, p.1) recommends that feedback concentrate on “what the students say” rathor than “grammatical accuracy” or “writing fluency”

In some other research, there seems an agreement that attention must paid to both content and

form Raimes (1992) states that hath content and form errors should be noticed becanse

“grammahcal inaccuracies can have negative effect on the averall qnality of the student writing” (p 308) This viewpoint is, in general, most widely accepted In order for students to he able to give adequate feedback, it is necessary that “the students have clear instructions as to what they are supposed to do, and sct guidelines as to how they should go about doing that (Naumoska,

2009, p 2)

1.24.2, Types af peer written feedhack

‘This part will present some major types of feedback: positive feedhack & negative feedback, direct feedback & indirect feedback, text-specitic feedback & general feedback These types off

feedback are discussed and compared in pair in a way that the differences between them, ie., the

advantages and disadvantages of one type over the other, are highlighted

1.2.4.2.1 Positive feedback versus negative feedback

Many studies have been carried ont on the effects of positive and negative feedback an students’ revision In their studies, Hedgecock && Lefkowitz (1994) find ont that students remember and appreciate encouraging remarks, In the same line, Fathman & Whalley (1990) suggests that even positive comments help students improve their writings This outcome normally derives from students’ motivation which is, according to Ellis (1994), clusdly linked with language acquisition When students are told they are doing right, they feel motivated ta write more and to

write better

However, only positive comment is not sufficient enough to motivate students to improve their

writing (Cardelle & Corno, 1981, as cited in Keh, 2004) as “too much praise may confuse, mislead or de-motivate students” Hyland and Hyland (2001) fiuther suggest that positive comments should be used with care, “rather than just to make critical comments more palatable” (p.202) According to them, it would be a better strategy to be quile blunt about serious allegation instead of trying to protect a student's feeling Moreover, it is indicated that negative comments are mare useful for many students who want their problems to be highlighted (Hyland and Hyland, 2001)

Too much negative feedback, however, may adversely affect students’ writing As they re-read the writing with corroctioa all over the page, students may fecl discouraged and stop tying to comect the mistakes All things considered, it is better to have a balance between praise and criticism, since the combination of hoth kinds will bring about “the hest effects” (Ferris &

Hedgcock, 1998, n 128)

13.422 Direct versus indirect feedback

Direct feedback is explicit correction in response to errors Indirect feedback may take various forms, such as crossing out an unnecessary word or phrase; inserting a missing word; or writing the correct word or form near the erroneous one With direct feedback, sttdents are expected amerely ta transcribe their peers” suggested corrections into their texts Indirect: feedback, on the other hand, is general comments that give students the opportunity to fix errors themselves (Forms, 2002) Indirect feedback may be done by means of an underline, circle, code or other amarks

Inhis study, Ferris (2602) shows that indirect fecdback is more helpful to student writers in most cases because it leads to greater cognitive engagement, reflection, and gnided leaming and problem-solving, Since readers only point ont the mistakes, students have to figure out the way

to correct the mistakes on their own ‘This, in the long run, helps promote students’ thinking as well as the ability to self-edit their own writings Moreover, when having to comect the mistakes

by themselves, students normally remember the mistakes better, therefore, they are more likely

to be able to avoid them in the Mature

Opposed to the term ‘indirect feedback’ is ‘direct feedback’ in which commentatore correct the

mistakes right away for students, Direct feedback is criticized by Bartram and Walton (1991) as

“students” discouraged creativity and independence” (p 26) since sindents do not have to do anything about their mistakes Instead, they just transcribe peers’ corrections into their text There is some justification in this criticism However, a more thorough look at the issue will reveal some benefits of direct feedback, For students of geneially lower level of language proficiency, itis suggested Guat their peers should use direct feedback for complicated mistakes This is becanse if they do not suggest ways to correct the mistake, weak students may nat be

able to revize it themselves

1.24.2,3 Text-specific feedback versus general feedback

According to Faris & Hedgccock (1998), text-specific focdback refers to the feedback “that is directly related to the text at hand” while general feedback “can be attached to any paper” (p

133)

Over the matter of text-specific feedhack or general feedback, there seems to be a consensus hat

‡ext-speoitie feedback is of greater benefit to students than the general ene According to Seow (2002), it is “text-specific response, rather than rubber-stamped comments that will help students rediscover meanings and facilitato the revision of initial drafts” (p, 317) As toxt-specific comments state exactly the types of mistakes students make, the reasons why they make such mistakes and provide some suggestions for improvement, it is more likely that the misiaker be properly addressed It is, therefore, advisable thaf feedback be “detailed enough to allow students to act, to commit to change their writings” (Reid, 1993, p 218) However, general comments about the overall perfozmance of smdents are also needed so that students can have a general view of their wziting, All things considered, a combination of toxt-specific and general feedback, would yield better results in students” writings

In summary, this chapter, which deals with the literature review of the stndy, has reviewed and disouseed theories related ta three issues: writing teaching, peer feedback and major issues of peer feedback on student writings The following chapter will display the study’s methodology and findings under the light of the abovemeutioned theories

CHAPT This chapter, which introduces the methodology of the study, covers the research approach, the

1983, p 537) This method was chosen for this sady for the following reasons Firstly, it helped

“seek facts or causes of social phenomena without regard to the subjective states of the individuals” (Nunan, 1989, p.4) In this study, quantilative method, realized by means of a questionnaire and student writing analysis, was adequate to find ‘objective’ answers to such questions as “How is feedback given to the 2"*-year student writings?”, “How do the stadents react ta their peer written feedback?” and “What can be done to improve the effectiveness of peer fecdback practice at the faculty?”, Morcover, thanks to the large number of participants in the study, thal is, 200 2"lyear studenls, the information acquired is believed be relatively

“xeliable and generalisable” (Nunan, 1989, p.4)

2.2 METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION

‘Yo obtain adequate data for the study, two main methods were nsed and desoribed as follows: 2.2.1, Survey

The first method aims at collecting statistical data to answers two rescarch questions:

(1) How is peer writlen feedback given to 2"* year studenl writings al the FELTE - ULIS -

VNU?

(2) How do the 2" year students reac! to their peer feedback on their writings?

Also based on the information abont the real situation of peer feedback practice at the faculty,

the answer to the 3'° research question, which is “What can be done to improve the effectiveness

2 Selection of participants

participants participate in answering the questionnaires, the more reliable and generalisable the information is likely to be Therefore, a large nunder of students, that is, 200 over 400 students

at the FELTE, were involved in the study

All the sespondents were chosen via “cluster random sampling” (Frankel and Wallen, 1996) rather then “individual random sampling” reasoning thal the former proved more advantageous

‘than the latter Firstly, it was convenient and time-saving to observe the respondents to finish the questionnaire in elass Moreover, it promised to cover various kinds of students since these classes consisted of a relatively eqnal mumber of stndents of good, average and poor linglish proficiency level

After 220 questionnaires were collected from 9 groups, a round muniber of 200 were chosen for

‘the sake of convenient data analysis

2.2.1.3, The survey questionnaire

The survey questionnaire included four main parts, namely, general information about the participants, the cuent situation of peer written feedback, student’s reactions to peer feedback amd their expectations of peer written feedback ‘The questionnaire was composed of a mix of questions including gap-filling questions, yos/no questions, multiple-choice questions, ranked questions and open-ended questions The questionnaires were not distibuted lo respondeuls to complete on their own but with the researcher’s presence so that clarification and disambiguation could be made Gncly In that way, some serious limitations of questionnaires us cited in Dornyei (2003) could be tackled, which were “the simplicity and superficiality of answers | respondent literacy problems” (p.10) (For the sample questionnaire, see Appendix

Đ

3.2.1.4 Implementation

The sleps of conducting und distributing questionnaire can be đescribed as fllows

> Studying available documents and choosing, the most appropriate data,

» Designing quostiomaize

> Piloting questionnaires

> Revising questionnaires in terms of language as well as instructions so as to make it clear and reader-fiendly

> Distributing questionnaires to students

> Gathering findings from respondents, analyzing and inlexpreling the data

2.2.2 Student writing analysis

2.2.2.1 Objectives

By analyzing students’ writings with their peer feedback and their revised versions, the researcher could obtain the most reliable information about the reality of peer feedback giving

practice and students” improvement after processing their peers’ comments at the English

Division II, FELTE

Two groups of students at the FELTE were randomly selected From the two groups, 30 pieces

of writing with their revised versions were borrowed from the teachers in charge Since the resvarch was uied al finding oul the eurent situation of peer wrillen feedback af the FELTE, borrowing the writing papers from teachers when they are marking them withont noticing stndents when they respond to their fiiends’ writings would ensure the reliability of the data

3 fmplementation

The stops of analyzing students’ writings can be illustrated as follows:

2.2

> Borrowing the writing papers

> Reading students’ writing papers and highhghting the peer written feedback

> Analyzing the studonts’ comments in teums of feedback content, amount, forms and types By this way, distinctive features of feedback could be discovered

> Looking through the revised versions of the papers, paying attention to changes and corrections

> Comparing the two versions to sec students’ improvements

DATA ANALYSIS

Being collected in quantitative method with the utilization of two different instruments in this research, the data, therefore, was processed in different ways so us to yield the most accurate results

As for the survey questionnaire, the analysis approach provided by McDonough and McDonough (1997) was applied, in which the researcher followed the statistical procedure from coding questionnaire data to summarizing and reporting date in a roađor-fiiendly way

As for the data collected via observation, the researcher will compare and conlzast various versions of student writings based on the munber of mistakes they make to see their improvements aller receiving peer feedback

“The researcher will also compare the data achieved ftom both sources, survey questionnaire and stndent writing analysis, to verify the unity of the information

3.1.1 Current situation of peer written feedback

3.1.1.1 General evaluation of peer written feedback

The first question was to find out students’ general assessment of their peers’ written feedback

As could be seen fiom Figure 1, 60% of the respondents got fairly detailed feedback, say, comments and corrections to some major mistakes from their peers This way of giving feedback

students are aware of one

quality of good feedback and

that they take feedback as a

serious practice

Figure 1: students’ general evaluation of pear written fesdback

It was sad, however, that the number of students getting very general feedback (feedback with only some words like “excellent”, “good” or “bad”) or no comments was still high, that is, 51 students (26%) for the former and 4 students (2%) for the latter These numbers showed that some students were still irresponsible feedback givers, which indicated the need for a change in

the current feedback practice

Opposed to the term very general feedback is very detailed feedback, which means comments

and corrections to all mistakes The number of students selecting this option was 23, accounting for 12% of all respondents This way of responding was good to the extent that it helped students

be aware of the mistakes they make However, it may result in students’ discouragement and anxiety when they deal with another writing task (Sommer, 1982; Bartram and Walton, 1991),

26

especially when they received their writings back with corrections covered all over the page Neither does this way of responding ensure improvement in students’ writing performance (Fathman & Whalley, 1990) since students need not think about the mistakes themselves

While the previous part helps build up an overall picture of peer written feedback, the following part will deal with specific issues of peer written feedback, that is, content of peer written feedback and types of peer written feedback

3.1.1.2 Aspects of peer written feedback

In the following part, the researcher will discuss the fiequency of certain aspects that peer feedback covered Strikingly, OFTEN was the option that students chose the most in almost aspects presented, namely, ideas, expressions, grammar, vocabulary and mechanics The highest number of students selecting OFTEN was in grammar, with 96 over 200 students (48%) and the lowest was in organization of ideas (45 over 200 students) On the contrary, there were very few

Figure 2: aspects of peer writen feedback

students who NEVER received peer written feedback on these aspects, These figures indicate that students at the faculty paid attention to both form and content, though the levels of attention

aay vary from one student to another

As for the level ALWAYS, it war noticeable that the highest mmber of students chose grammar, that is, 82 over 200 students (41%) and next-coming were mechanics (47/200 students ~24%), expressions (45/200 students =23%) and vocabulary (40/200 students =20%) That the highest numbers of students always received feedback on foun of the writings

(grammar, mechanics, expressions and vocabulary) was presumably because il was easier to identify and correct such mistakes than those on content Meanwhile, problems with ideas and

organization of ideas received lese attention from students as only 10 over 200 students (5%)

always gave feedback on organization of ideas and 23 over 200 students (11.5%) always responded to their fiends” idea problems

Similarly, the percentage of students who RARELY recived fecdback on idcas and onganization of ideas was higher than that on grammar, vocabulary and mechanics, that is, 24%

(48 over 200 students) and 13% (26 over 200) for organization of ideas and ideas respectively, 3% (6 aver 200), 5.5% (11 aver 200) and 7% (14 over 200) for grammar, vocabulary and

anechanics respectively This is predictable sinco mistakes of surface level (grammar, vocabulary and mechanics) are more identifiable than those of organization and ideas (Ur, 1996, Fathunan & Whalley, 1990) However, that peors rarcly gave feodback on content may, in the Jong ran, have negative impacts on the students because writing is, as indicated in the final analysis, about

communicating and presenting thoughis (Tribble, 1996)

In summary, tvo major features af peer written feedback interpreted from this bar chart are: (1) students were aware of mistakes on both form and the content of peers’ writings and (2) they were inclined towards identifying surfiee-level mistakes

3.1.1.3 Tepes of peer written feedback

Concerning types of peer written feedback (Figure 3) the respondents were asked to identify the frequency of two pairs of feedback, that is, (1) positive versns negative feedback and (2)

direct versus indirect feedback.

28

GNever oRarely

‘Sometimes B0fien Always

negative one (.e criticism) when responđing to peers” writings However, there were still 24%

(48 aver 200 shudents) claiming that their peere NEVHI crificized their wriingg and 30% (60

over 200 students) stating their peer RARELY criticized them By contrast, the number of students OFTEN and ALWAYS using negative feedback was much less (14% and 3.5% respectively) This shows that students have the tendency to avoid giving negative feedback to their friends, which is considered inappropriate since feedback receivers may not know where

‘they have gone wrong to improve themselves According to Cardelle & Camo (1981, as cited in Ken, 2004), the lack of negative feedback may confuse, mislead or even de-motivate them

From the cheat, it was also clear that the overall number of students who ALWAYS, OFTEN or SOMETIMES received peer’s positive feedback far outnumbered that of negative one, that is, 96% to 61%, This reality indicated that peers at the FELTE proferred giving fecdback in an encouraging tone to negative one This was perhaps because positive feedback is more welcome

‘than negative one

As can be seen from Figure 3, both direct and indirect feedback was utilized though the former tends fo be preferable among students than the latter The number of students SOMETIMES, OFTEN or ALWAYS using direct feedback was 173 over 200 (86.5%) while that for indizeet fecdback is just 124 over 200 (62%) This was pehaps because direct feedback (showing, mistakes and corrections explicitly) seemed to help avoid misnnderstandings better than indirect one (showing mistakes by implicit way) However, overusing direct feedback may threaien to reduce the efficiency of feedback since students need nat think abaut the mistakes but transcribe

the corrections into their text right away

3.1.1.4 Comprehensibility of peer written feedback

On being asked whether or not they understand peer waition feedback, the majority of

respondents, 89.5%,

16

FIGURE 4: REASONS WHY STUDENTS DO NOT TNDERSTAND THEIR

PEER WRITTEN FEEDBACK

30

feedback This group was then required to answer a fiurther question asking them about the

reasons why they did not understand their peers” feedback, The explanations are illustrated in

Figure 4

Two major problems that make it impossible for 21 students to understand peer feedback were

too general and unclear feedback (15/21 and 13/21 students respectively), Inaccurate language

(eg wrong grammar or expressions) also confused eight students Next-coming were

unreasonable comments, eg the comments contradict themselves, (6 students),

incomprehensible correction codes (5 students) and the use of new words and structures in

feedback (4 students)

3.1.1.5 Support from teachers for peer feedback practice

For peer feedback to bring about desirable effects, it is vital that teachers assist their students

during the process of giving feedback Without teacher guidance, the practice would be a real

challenge for students (both feedback givers and receivers) since they do not know where to start

and how to go It was surprising, however, that more than half of the respondents (118 over 200

students) said that they got no support fiom teachers before, during and after giving feedback to

their friends A follow-up question was given to those who receive some kinds of assistance

Acexplanations ofthe ways to give feedback [_ Lý

B: guideline questions! checklist to follow

: discussions when problems arise

D: comments on students’ feedback 4

0

FIGURE 5: SUPPORT FROM TEACHERS FOR PEER FEEDBACK PRACTICE