000070078 "TEACHERS' AND STUDENTS' ATTITUDES TOWARDS TEACHER AND PEER FEEDBACK IN WRITING CLASSES" "THÁI ĐỘ CỦA GIÁO VIÊN VÀ HỌC SINH ĐỐI VỚI PHẢN HỒI CỦA GIÁO VIÊN VÀ BẠN BÈ TRONG CÁC LỚP HỌC VIẾT"
B ackg ro u n d to th e s t u d y
Practical considerations
Diem Dien High School, located in Thai Thuy District of Thai Binh Province, serves 1,352 students across grades 10–12 Grade 10 has 523 students, Grade 11 has 543, and Grade 12 has 700 All students are divided into four groups: A, B, C, and D English instruction varies by group: Groups A, B, and C have three English lessons per week, while Group D has four lessons to provide an extra class for higher-level English proficiency.
English is taught as a core subject within the national curriculum, with the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) prescribing the English textbooks English 10, 11, and 12 by Hoang Van Van et al (2006) Each textbook contains 16 units, and every unit is organized into five sections: Speaking, Listening, Reading, Writing, and Language Focus Students have a dedicated writing lesson every two weeks.
In English textbooks for grades 10, 11, and 12, the writing lessons aim to produce passages of about 120–150 words on a range of topics This thesis, however, focuses specifically on the writing lessons in the English 12 textbook and describes them in detail In these 12th‑grade activities, students keep practicing writing through a variety of tasks, including letters (recommendations, job applications, invitations, requests, gratitude, replies, satisfaction or dissatisfaction), biographies, reports, and descriptive pieces on topics such as family rules, a conical leaf hat, deserts, a book, a sporting event, an international organization, a future world, and the school education system These writing activities are designed not only to revise and broaden the unit topics but also to consolidate the vocabulary and grammar from each unit, with the primary aim of developing students’ writing ability.
At Diem Dien High School, a writing lesson begins with students reading a model text and analyzing its structures, with the aim of applying those structures in their own writing Because class time is limited, teachers usually assign home practice to continue developing these writing skills In the next lesson, students bring their drafts to class for feedback, reinforcing the connection between analysis, practice, and revision Appendix 4 contains the writing lesson plan that guides this process.
In a typical setup, the teacher collects randomly selected writings from 10 students and corrects them at home This means that every two weeks the ten students’ writings are corrected and marked, so over a 19-week term each student’s work is reviewed three to four times Sometimes teachers also organize peer feedback, asking students to work in pairs or small groups to critique and revise each other’s writing, which can lead to more frequent corrections and deeper learning.
Feedback from teachers or peers is essential for student revision; without it, students are unlikely to revisit and revise their papers (Chaudron, 1984) Likewise, without opportunities for redrafting and revision, students’ writing generally does not improve (Keh, 1990).
Feedback plays a crucial role in writing, but relying only on teacher feedback falls short in our school context; therefore, incorporating peer feedback is necessary to broaden input, foster collaborative learning, and improve revisions Peer feedback provides additional perspectives, increases student engagement, and helps learners develop critical evaluation skills alongside instructor guidance For peer feedback to be effective, it is important to understand and improve both teachers’ and students’ attitudes toward teacher feedback and peer feedback, since these attitudes shape how feedback is delivered, received, and implemented in writing tasks.
Theoretical considerations
Feedback is an essential component in writing (Keh, 1990) Brookhart (2008) states that:
Feedback is powerful when delivered well because formative feedback uses a double-barreled approach that targets both cognitive and motivational factors at once It provides students with clear information about where they are in their learning and what to do next, addressing the cognitive factor When students understand what to do and why, they gain a sense of control over their learning, which boosts their motivation.
Developing writing skills requires input from teachers or peers Boud (2000) argues that feedback is used to produce improved work, often by guiding students to revise and redo the same assignment (p 158) This feedback–revision loop helps learners enhance structure, clarity, and accuracy, turning critiques into concrete improvements and supporting ongoing writing development.
Teacher and peer feedback both play important roles in student learning, with extensive research—such as Albert & Greer (1991), Danielson (1996), and Gunning (1996)—emphasizing the impact of teacher feedback on learning outcomes Teacher feedback can enhance learning by reinforcing appropriate learner behaviors, informing students about their current status, and extending opportunities to learn In writing classes, written feedback from teachers can raise academic performance and guide students through revision, giving them chances to rewrite drafts In short, effective teacher feedback helps students understand why an answer is correct or incorrect, supports the development of strategies to improve performance, prevents recurring mistakes, and creates opportunities for deeper learning; when feedback is delivered carefully, students become more effective and efficient learners as they rewrite their writing after receiving guidance.
The use of peer feedback especially peer written feedback in writing classrooms has been generally supported in the literature as a potentially valuable aid for its
Peer feedback offers social, cognitive, affective, and methodological benefits that enhance the teaching and learning of writing (Mendonca and Johnson, 1994; Villamil and Jacobs, 1998; Brinton, 1983) These scholars argue that peer feedback is central to writing instruction because peer readers provide useful feedback that helps peer writers revise effectively based on peers’ comments (Keh, 1990) Additionally, when students become critical readers of others’ writings, they tend to become more critical readers and revisers of their own work (Rollinson, 2005) Overall, peer feedback gives learners opportunities to learn not only how to write but also how to evaluate and learn from others’ writings (Rollinson, 2005).
In peer feedback sessions, students do more than compose their own texts; they read the texts written by other students, adopt the roles of interested readers and constructive commentators, and work together to help one another develop higher-quality writing (Topping, 2005).
Peer feedback enhances writing skills by giving students opportunities to practice writing, communicate with peers, and revise more effectively It also provides teachers with a natural mechanism to reorganize pairs and to encourage stronger students to assist those who struggle, promoting a more inclusive classroom Furthermore, learners can step into teacher-like roles by having one student lead the feedback, share the correct answers with a group representative, or distribute tasks so that each pair member holds half the answers, which builds leadership and accountability in the learning process.
Feedback from teachers and peers raises student writers' awareness of writing errors—such as inappropriate word choice, illogical organization, and underdeveloped ideas—helping them recognize mistakes and learn how to rewrite Both teacher feedback and peer feedback are essential in writing courses because, without it, students may not notice their errors, lack motivation to revise, and, as a result, their writing may not improve By fostering a cycle of feedback and revision, educators can support continuous improvement in student writing.
A im s of the stu d y a n d research q u estio n s
This study investigates teachers’ and students’ attitudes toward teacher feedback and toward peer feedback at Diem Dien High School To achieve this aim, the study addresses the central research question concerning how these groups perceive and evaluate feedback from teachers and peers within the Diem Dien High School context.
What are teachers ’ and students ’ attitudes towards peer and teacher feedback in writing classes?
S cope of the st u d y
Feedback in writing is a broad domain that includes teacher feedback and peer feedback, yet this study narrows its scope to the attitudes of teachers and students toward both forms within the writing classes at Diem Dien High School, Thai Binh Province The research does not attempt to cover all aspects of the wider feedback landscape; instead, it examines how teachers and students perceive and engage with peer and teacher feedback in this specific educational setting.
S ign ifican ce of th e s t u d y
Writing is a core skill that EFL students must develop, a point highlighted in the study’s background Accordingly, helping EFL learners improve their writing skills is a vital and advantageous focus for language education and student success.
This study at Diem Dien High School emphasizes the crucial role of both teacher feedback and peer feedback in the writing process, aiming to raise awareness among teachers and students about how feedback shapes learning outcomes In addition, the study’s recommendations are expected to enhance the effectiveness of peer feedback in writing classes, helping students and teachers maximize the benefits of collaborative editing and revision.
O rganizatio n of th e t h e s is
This thesis is divided into five chapters bellows:
Chapter 1, the Introduction, explains the rationale for conducting this study, defines its specific objectives and research questions, and sets the scope of the investigation It also articulates the study’s significance and provides an overview of how the work is organized, outlining the structure and contents of the remaining chapters.
Chapter 2, the Literature Review, surveys issues related to teaching writing and outlines the theoretical background of feedback, including teacher and peer feedback, to explain how feedback influences writing development It also reviews the broader literature on attitudes—both general and toward teacher and peer feedback—and analyzes how these dispositions affect receptivity to feedback, engagement in revision, and overall instructional effectiveness Together, these threads connect feedback theory with classroom practice, offering a synthesis of how writing instruction, feedback mechanisms, and learner attitudes shape writing outcomes.
Chapter 3 discusses the methodology for this study and the procedure for carrying out the research such as selections o f sample, instruments for data gathering, and methods and data analysis.
In chapter 4, the data which were collected, computed and analyzed, are presented.
Chapter 5 presents the implications derived from the study's findings, outlining how the results inform practice and theory It then discusses the study's limitations and offers recommendations for future research The chapter concludes with a synthesis of the overall study and its contributions The thesis also includes a bibliography listing all sources cited or quoted, and the final sections contain appendices with the student questionnaires and the teacher interview questions.
This chapter examines key issues in the teaching of writing and the role of feedback, with particular attention to teacher feedback and peer feedback It also surveys the literature on attitudes—both general attitudes toward feedback and attitudes toward teacher and peer feedback—to illuminate how these perceptions shape writing development and the effectiveness of feedback processes.
A n o verv iew of tea c h in g w r itin g
What is writing in learning English as a foreign language
Writing in learning English as a foreign language is classified into two kinds: writing to learn and learning to write
Writing-to-learn activities are short, informal writing tasks designed to help students think through key course concepts Typically taking less than five minutes in class or assigned as brief out-of-class work, these tasks promote rapid reflection and conceptual clarity Teachers use writing-to-learn prompts after class to build essential English skills, including grammar and vocabulary, while reinforcing understanding of course material This approach, associated with researchers such as Homstard & Thorson, highlights how quick, reflective writing can strengthen learning outcomes by linking writing practice with concept mastery.
English 12 textbook uses writing-to-learn activities in the Language Focus sections to reinforce grammar concepts For example, in Unit 2 students practice turning direct speech into reported speech to reinforce the rules of reported speech, and they also rewrite active sentences as passive voice to build mastery of passive constructions The overall aim of these exercises is to strengthen students’ English grammar knowledge, particularly in passive voice Moreover, Unit 5 includes exercises focused on conditional sentence grammar to help students remember and apply conditionals These targeted activities provide structured practice across key areas of English grammar, aligning with the textbook’s emphasis on writing-to-learn strategies.
All the above examples show that the aims of the writing - to - learn activities are to develop the students’ knowledge of grammar, vocabulary and structures.
This thesis centers on learning to write by exposing students to a range of writing activities—letters, biographies, reports, and descriptions—to build core writing skills For example, Unit 1 engages students in discussing family topics, listing their family rules, and using target verbs such as let, allow, be allowed to, have to, and permit to turn ideas into sentences about those rules, culminating in a letter to a pen pal In Unit 2, learners craft a roughly 150-word description of a conical leaf hat, guided by an outline that helps them identify the necessary structures before drafting In Unit 15, they describe a column chart showing average weekly hours of housework by gender and marital status in Fantasia, after analyzing the chart and answering guided questions to determine the format and content of a descriptive report Taken together, these activities illustrate how learning-to-write aims to develop students’ overall writing ability through structured practice and applied tasks.
Writing to learn involves teachers assigning students writing exercises to develop their grammar, sentence structure, and vocabulary Learning to write, on the other hand, uses a writing model that students read and analyze before practicing composing their own texts By combining guided model analysis with hands-on writing practice, learning to write aims to strengthen students’ overall writing skills.
The next section presents in more detail the different approaches to teaching these writing skills.
Approaches to teaching writing
O f many approaches to teaching, two appear to be commonly used in the classroom in Vietnam: the product and process approaches Each of these two is described below.
2.1.2.1 Product approach to teaching writing
During a writing product lesson, students first read exemplar texts to familiarize themselves with the topic and style They then analyze these models to understand the content, identify the organizational structure, and pinpoint the vocabulary needed for the writing topics Finally, they apply these structures and vocabulary to develop their own ideas and produce their own written work.
This product-oriented approach has attracted significant critique for neglecting the authentic writing processes students experience and for constraining creativity (Clenton, 2006) Pincas (1962) summarizes its shortcomings by arguing that learners cannot create in the target language—their language use becomes a matter of manipulating fixed patterns learned by imitation (p 185).
Under the product approach, the writing process is evaluated by its final outcome, with writing viewed as the sequential completion of discrete tasks (Reid, 1994, p 84) Sommers (1982) argues that writing is a composition of parts—words, sentences, and paragraphs—rather than a fully integrated discourse carrying meaning and ideas Therefore, this approach places language proficiency at the forefront, making it the primary determinant of how well someone can compose.
In a product-oriented writing approach, teachers and learners focus on the finished text, with feedback typically after a single draft and limited emphasis on multiple drafts, meaning the process tends to prioritize language accuracy—grammar, mistakes, and vocabulary—over the development of ideas Without feedback from teachers or peers, students are unlikely to revise or rewrite their papers, and without redrafting, their writing does not improve; therefore, feedback in the product approach is essential for encouraging revision and ultimately enhancing writing quality.
2.1.2.2 Process approach to teaching writing
Beginning in the mid-1970s, the process approach started to replace the product approach in writing education Under the process-oriented view, writing is regarded as a multi-stage process, and its effectiveness is measured by how well the text achieves the writer's intentions, according to Reid (1993, p.55).
Writing is both a product and a process, and success comes from managing the writing process as a cycle It begins with idea generation and organization, as the writer develops an initial draft and then revisits it for revision By repeatedly reading and refining drafts, the writing quality improves through cyclical revisions that sharpen clarity and coherence.
In the process approach, writing is a multi-stage process According to Tribble
(1996), the process approach includes four stages: (1) prewriting, (2) composing/drafting, (3) revising, (4) editing Prewriting includes anything done by the writer before he writes a draft: deciding a topic, brainstorming ideas, outlining, gathering information In the composing/drafting stage, the writers do actual writing In the Revising stage, the refining of their sentences and paragraphs writers deal with the content o f the writing; i.e refining text organization Editing includes idea connections or other addition and connection stage, the writers work on the mechanics o f writing such as spelling and punctuation.
Writing is no longer regarded as a “linear and fragmented procedure” (Hairston,
1982, p.78) with the ultimate aim which is an error free product It is, instead, “a cyclical process during which writers can move back and forth on a continuum, discovering, analyzing and synthesizing ideas” (Hughey, et al., 1983 as cited in Joe, 2006, p.48) The focus on a series of drafts on the same topic can contribute to helping students know the way to express their ideas in an appropriate way thanks to writing revision Furthermore, process approach enables students to make clearer decisions about the direction of their writing “by means of discussion, tasks, drafting, feedback and informed choices[thereby] encouraging students to be responsible for making improvements themselves” (Jordan, 1997, p 168).
Feedback from teachers or peers is a central element of writing classes, with peers serving as real, immediate audiences who help shape students' revision strategies In process-oriented learning, students and their peers act as writers, readers, and both givers and receivers of feedback, moving beyond surface-level grammar toward the negotiation and discovery of meaning Writing is viewed as a complex development task, and how a discourse is created is prioritized through this meaning-focused collaboration over simply producing error-free sentences Therefore, process-oriented feedback should address both meaning and form to support students’ ongoing writing development.
Peer and teacher feedback is a key part of the process approach to teaching writing During this stage, peers share opinions and experiences to provide information that helps students improve their own writing This feedback guides students in revising their drafts to enhance clarity, structure, and voice Without feedback, students miss opportunities to revise and develop their writing skills.
Theoretical background o f feedback
Definitions
Feedback in writing is defined differently by researchers, but Keh (1990) describes it as any input from a reader to a writer that provides information for revision, with readers offering comments, questions, and suggestions aimed at helping revise the text Chaudron (1988) views feedback as an inevitable part of classroom interaction and, from the teacher’s perspective, a major means to inform learners about the accuracy of their target-language production as well as their classroom behavior and knowledge Consequently, feedback serves as an effective bridge for communicating writing performance to students It helps learners recognize when their writing has misled readers due to insufficient information, illogical organization, underdeveloped ideas, or errors such as inappropriate word choice or tense (Keh, 1990) Raimes (1983) stresses that responding to students’ writing is a core part of teaching writing, underscoring that feedback is essential for the success of writing tasks.
Feedback is the response given to a learner after they complete a task, whether written or spoken, with the aim of developing their skills and abilities It is commonly described as constructive criticism, offering guidance that helps the learner understand what they did well and where they can improve to enhance their overall performance.
Askew et al (2000) cited in Thorsteinsen (2010) added that “feedback is a judgment about the performance of another” with the intentions to close a gap in knowledge and skills.
Teacher feedback comprises two components: content feedback and form feedback Content feedback comments on organization, ideas, and the level of detail, while form feedback addresses grammar and mechanics errors In the present study, teacher feedback is defined as any input provided by the teacher to students for revision, and this includes both content and form.
Student writers receive feedback from writing teachers in several forms This feedback can include holistic scores, corrections of surface-level errors, and commentary on the content, style, and organization of their writing, as well as other aspects of the piece.
Peer feedback, also known as peer response or peer review, is the process by which students exchange constructive criticism on their critical reading, writing, and speaking skills Bartels (2003) describes peer response as students reading each other’s papers and providing feedback to the writer, usually addressing teacher-provided questions In contrast, Liu and Hansen (2002) define peer response as using learners as information sources and interaction partners, with students taking on roles and responsibilities typically performed by formally trained teachers, tutors, or editors.
13 commenting on and critiquing each other’s drafts in both written and oral formats in the process in the process of writing” (p.75).
Peer assessment is an arrangement in which learners evaluate the level, quality, value, or effectiveness of each other’s learning products, typically among peers of similar status This approach is commonly used in writing courses, where students comment on and critique their classmates’ writings, providing feedback that can improve performance (Topping et al., 2000; Herrington and Gadman, 1991; Witbeck, 1976).
Peer feedback in writing involves sharing one’s work with a small group of peers who provide constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement Because it has a strong impact on students’ revision processes and their overall writing skills, teachers increasingly require students to take responsibility not only for their own writing but also for their peers’ work.
Peer feedback is a vital part of the writing process, as student writers receive responses from their classmates who act as audiences and evaluators of draft work In this collaborative exchange, peers help by identifying errors, offering constructive commentary, and suggesting improvements that guide writers toward clearer arguments, stronger evidence, and better organization Through this process of error correction and targeted suggestions, students sharpen their writing skills, learn to evaluate others’ work, and build a collaborative classroom environment that supports ongoing writing development.
Feedback and students' writing
In this section, some studies on the effects of teacher feedback will be reviewed, which is followed by a review o f studies on the effects of peer feedback.
Hyland's 1998 case study examined the effects of teacher written feedback on the revision process and writing outcomes of ESL university writers in an academic context The study involved two instructors and six students, analyzing six student drafts and their revised versions after feedback, with cross-referencing of the student texts and teacher responses to trace how feedback triggered revision The results show that feedback helped students revise all drafts, enabling them to rewrite their writing The data suggested three ways revisions related to feedback: first, revisions often closely followed the corrections or suggestions provided; second, feedback acted as an initial stimulus that could trigger additional revisions beyond the issues addressed by the initial feedback; third, some revisions responded by removing the problematic feature without substituting anything else Although some revisions appeared not to be related to the feedback at all, teacher feedback nonetheless exerted an important influence on student revision.
Another research study on the effects of teacher feedback was by Thorsteinsen
A 2010 qualitative study explored how English teachers use feedback on written work and how both teachers and students experience this feedback in relation to students’ development in English The method involved four teachers and four students who participated in semi-structured interviews, audio-recorded and transcribed, with key passages quoted The findings showed that written feedback is tailored to individuals and typically provided after assignments are completed, while more feedback is given to students who are motivated to learn English Feedback was combined with oral comments to ensure understanding, and the study suggests teachers should consider how feedback is used and actively help students rewrite their assignments by providing targeted feedback.
Peer feedback can both sharpen writers' drafts and strengthen readers' understanding of what constitutes good writing (Hyland, 2003, p 108) Building on this perspective, prior studies have explored how peer review influences students’ writing, examining its impact on both the quality of student work and learners’ grasp of writing conventions.
Peer feedback in LI settings and in ESL/EFL writing classrooms is recognized as a valuable instrument because it supports social interaction, cognitive development, affective engagement, and methodological improvement (Mendonca and Johnson, 1994; Villamil and de Guerrero, 1996) It also empowers learners by increasing their control over the revision process, allowing them to actively decide whether to adopt peers’ comments rather than passively depending on teacher feedback (Mendonca and Johnson, 1994; Mittan, 1989).
Peer feedback fosters a collaborative dialogue between reader and writer, establishing two-way feedback and negotiated meaning (Rollinson, 2005) In peer feedback sessions, students not only compose their own texts but also read their peers' work, assume the role of engaged readers and commentators, and help each other develop stronger texts This collaboration builds a range of social and communication skills, including giving and receiving criticism, justifying one's position, and assessing suggestions objectively (Topping, 2000).
Peer feedback has been shown to influence affective outcomes by increasing motivation through a sense of personal responsibility and by boosting self-confidence (Topping, 2000) As student reviewers realize that peer feedback reduces writer apprehension and stimulates their own writing, they observe similar problems and weaknesses in their own work, which contributes to writing improvement (Grabe and Kaplan, 1996).
Peer feedback rests on the socio-cognitive approach to learning, which Grabe and Kaplan (1996, p 380) describe as knowledge best acquired through negotiated interaction and cooperative learning Learners engage in transactions over their own texts and those of peers, negotiating real intentions with a genuine audience This process promotes deeper understanding, improves writing through collaborative meaning-making, and equips students to align their work with authentic communicative goals.
“Peer feedback was said to provide a mean of both improving writers’ drafts and developing readers’ understanding o f good writings.’’(Hyland, 2003).
Classroom teachers increasingly favor peer review because the sheer volume of student writing requires a collaborative approach in which both students and the teacher actively engage in feedback The reality is that a single teacher cannot process enough writing for students to improve, so limiting feedback to what one can correct creates a bottleneck—an undesirable constraint for any serious writing program (Moffett, 1968, p.81, cited in Zheng, 2007).
Previous research has examined the influence of peer revision on students’ edits Zheng (2007) aimed to determine how effectively students perform peer revision and what remains for teachers in error correction Employing a tentative experimental design, the study included a teacher and university students as participants The results showed that students could correct most errors through group activity, suggesting that peer error feedback can be a viable alternative to teacher feedback in EFL contexts with increasing teacher workloads, and can foster an engaging learning process where students learn with relative ease.
Research has shown that both teacher feedback and peer feedback are essential components of effective writing education for students in writing classes Consequently, prior studies have explored the effects of these feedback types on student writing within classroom settings, contributing to a clearer understanding of how feedback from teachers and peers shapes writing development.
Chaudron (1984) conducted an experimental study to determine whether ESL learners' improvement in revising their compositions differed when feedback came from teachers versus peers The improvement was assessed using the ESL Composition Profile (Jacobs et al., 1981) Fourteen students participated in the writing and revision tasks.
In an out-of-class writing study, the second and third essays were used as experimental trials in which half the class received peer evaluations to guide revision while the other half received teacher feedback The results showed that neither peer nor teacher feedback alone was superior in promoting improvement during revision The study's findings affirm that both teacher and peer feedback play important roles in improving students’ writing.
Paulus (1999) examined the impact of teacher feedback and peer feedback on 11 ESL students in an intensive English language course at a public university in the United States The study found that peer feedback accounted for 13.9% of all changes, while teacher feedback accounted for 34.3%, indicating a stronger influence from instructor comments Moreover, 87% of teacher feedback led to some change compared with 51% for peer feedback, highlighting the greater likelihood that teacher input prompts modification in ESL writing.
Atay (2007) conducted a quasi-experimental study that compared peer feedback and teacher feedback among two groups of university students to determine whether peer feedback yielded lower writing anxiety than teacher feedback by the end of the study The findings show that peer feedback significantly reduces writing anxiety and increases writer confidence During the writing process, participants received input from peers to elaborate on their ideas, and this collaborative feedback helped them view their essays from a different perspective The results indicate that peer feedback offers benefits for reducing writing anxiety and increasing writer confidence, making it central to the present research The study has important implications for teacher education programs: prospective teachers should receive both theoretical knowledge about peer feedback and opportunities to practice it, so they can realize its effects in establishing an authentic collaborative environment where students are encouraged to critique each other’s writing, every contributor’s input is valued, and self-confidence is built.
In sum, both teacher and peer feedback are beneficial in writing and they are very necessary for students to improve their writings.
A ttitu d es in lan gu age le a r n in g
Role of attitudes in language learning
Attitude is a set of beliefs developed over time within a given socio-cultural setting, and while it doesn’t rigidly determine behavior, it can influence it Evidence suggests that a positive attitude facilitates learning, whereas reluctance or the absence of a positive mindset can hinder results In language learning, attitude and motivation play a crucial role in shaping outcomes (Karahan, 2007).
Language learning is closely linked to learners' attitudes toward languages Starks and Paltridge (1996) argue that these attitudes influence how students approach language study Karahan (2007) notes that positive language attitudes foster a positive orientation toward learning English, suggesting that such attitudes can significantly affect learners’ success or failure in their studies Consequently, attitudes toward language can shape learning outcomes, impacting students’ overall success in language education.
Attitude is a person’s mental state of readiness—neutral yet organized by experience—that directs and shapes responses to the objects and situations it relates to It operates as a dynamic force influencing perception, evaluation, and behavior across diverse contexts, guiding how we think, feel, and act, as described by Allport.
1935 as cited in Starks & Paltridge, 1996), language attitude, on the other hand, covers all the values, beliefs and emotional aspects in relation to the target language (Denalosa, 1981).
Research shows that social-psychological factors, especially attitude and motivation, significantly influence success in second language learning Larsen-Freeman (1991) underscores the important role of these factors, and Solksy (1969) likewise contends that a learner’s attitude toward the language and its speakers is among the most important attitudinal factors in second language learning In examining the relationship between attitudes and English proficiency among Chinese students in the United States, Oiler, Hudson, and Liu (1997) demonstrate that positive attitudes toward the self and toward members of the native-language group correspond with higher English proficiency test scores Gardner and Lambert (1959) highlight that attitudes play a significant role in second language acquisition, a view echoed by Walqui (2000) who notes the impact of attitude on the learner, the peer group, and the school.
A positive attitude toward language, culture, and learning a foreign language significantly boosts success in language learning This mindset motivates learners to interact with native speakers, increasing the amount of authentic input they receive It also encourages the use of diverse learning strategies that facilitate skill development in listening, speaking, reading, and writing With greater overall effort, learners typically achieve higher global language proficiency and stronger competence in individual language skills Additionally, a positive attitude helps learners maintain their language abilities after classroom instruction ends (Gardner, 1985).
The next section focuses on the effects of teacher feedback and peer feedback.
Attitudes towards teacher feedback
Previous research on students’ views of feedback consistently shows that learners prize teacher feedback above all other forms, including audio feedback, peer evaluation, and self-evaluation This preference has been documented in multiple studies (Leki, 1991; Saito, 1994; Zhang, 1995; Yang, Badger, & Yu, 2006; Zacharias).
Zhang (1995) conducted a survey using a questionnaire to assess 81 students’ perceptions of three feedback types—self-directed, peer, and teacher feedback—after ensuring that participants had experience with and training in all three The findings revealed a clear preference order, with teacher feedback ranked highest, followed by peer feedback, and then self-directed feedback last Overall, the study indicates that students preferred teacher-provided feedback over peer input and both over self-directed feedback.
Zacharias (2007) aimed to understand students’ attitudes toward teacher feedback from both student and teacher perspectives, employing a mixed-methods design that integrated quantitative questionnaires and qualitative interviews The study involved 100 students who completed questionnaires and 21 participants who were interviewed in a semi-structured format Results indicate a clear preference for teacher feedback among both students and teachers, with all interviewees agreeing that teacher feedback is very important for improving student writing.
A 2007 study presents several reasons participants favored teacher feedback: teachers are believed to have higher linguistic competence in English; teacher feedback is seen as providing security for less proficient students; and there is a cultural belief that teachers are the primary source of knowledge.
2 1 o f knowledge and teachers control grades However, in the large classes like my school, both teacher feedback and peer feedback are necessary in writing classes.
Surveys consistently show that students are strongly favorable toward feedback on language issues while also wanting teachers to comment on content and ideas in their writing (Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994; Leki, 1991; Oladejo, 1993; Saito, 1994) In Saito’s 1994 case study, the aim was to examine the fit between teachers’ feedback practices and student preferences, the strategies students use to handle feedback in their writing, and the impact of thinking prompts in ESL writing classes The study involved 39 students in ESL intensive programs and an ESL Engineering writing class who completed a questionnaire about feedback and thinking prompts, and it included observations of three classes to see how each teacher used feedback and thinking prompts when responding to student writing The results show that students preferred teacher feedback (such as teacher correction, corrected comments, error identification, commentary, and teacher–student conferencing) to non-teacher feedback (peer or self-correction), though three teachers frequently incorporated non-teacher feedback in their classes.
Teacher feedback guides students through revisions and encourages practice to improve their writing, because teachers are viewed as more linguistically competent in English However, in large classes this reliance on teacher feedback is limited: at my school a class typically has about 50 students, and with weekly writing tasks, feedback can realistically reach only around ten papers, leaving many students without direct comments As a result, the students whose work is corrected are more likely to rewrite and improve, while others do not receive timely guidance In such contexts, combining teacher feedback with peer feedback becomes essential, since peer feedback also offers meaningful benefits for developing writing skills.
Attitudes towards peer feedback
Numerous studies showed that peer review is effective in improving student writing (DiPardo & Freeman, 1988; Keh, 1990; Rothschild & Klingenberg, 1990; Mangelsdorf 1992; Nelson & Murphy, 1993; Byrd, 1994; Mendoca & Johnson, 1994; Zhang, 1995; Bean, 1996; Roskams, 1999; ; Tsui and Ng, 2000; Althause & Damal, 2001; Miao, Badger & Zhen, 2006; Liu and Chai, 2006)
According to Mendonca and Johnson (1994), most of the students expressed their satisfaction at peer feedbacks and considered this activity is helpful for their writing In Miao, Badger, and Zhen (2006), the authors found that 61% of their students in peer feedback class think the activity is useful Another interesting point is being pointed out in Zhang (1995) He found that students have positive attitudes toward peer feedback Nelson and Murphy (1993) also had similar results and indicated that the writer is willing to use peers’ feedback Some researchers, such as Keh (1990), Rothschild and Klingenberg (1990), Tsui and Ng (2000), reported that ESL students’ response was positive to the use o f peer feedback in their writing activities M angelsdorf (1992) explores the question from the respective of student writers whether peer review is helpful to their learning, with the result that it not only helps improve the “high order concern” (Keh, 1990), such as ideas, organization, content etc but also helps them to correct and reduce mistakes.
Yang, Badger, and Yu (2006) investigated teacher feedback versus peer feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class, aiming to determine whether peer feedback could serve as a viable resource for addressing this issue To this end, they compared two groups of university students who wrote essays on the same topic—one group receiving feedback from teachers and the other from peers—employing textual analysis and questionnaires to collect their data.
Data from 23 participants across two groups, along with video recordings and interviews of 12 individual students, show that both teacher and peer feedback aided writing improvement, with teacher feedback more likely to be adopted and producing greater writing enhancements Nevertheless, students recognize the value of peer feedback, which is linked to higher student autonomy and can serve as a useful complement to teacher feedback.
Roskams' 1999 study examined how students perceive peer feedback and peer assessment within an extended pair-work setting, analyzing how patterns and usefulness of peer interaction, feedback, and peer evaluation relate to the cultural values of Chinese learners The study involved 217 first-year undergraduates with Cantonese as their first language from all eleven classes of the Communication for Business course at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, with a mean age of 19 and a majority of female students A two-wave questionnaire survey was administered before and after the collaborative learning arrangement, with data collected in the third week of term as students selected partners for the term The initial survey comprised two sections: the first included seven cultural values statements to gauge potential correlations between cultural beliefs and enjoyment or learning in the pair-work setup, acknowledging that a single question cannot capture a cultural trait, while the second section asked about attitudes toward pair work The findings indicated that many students were pragmatic about the benefits of collaborating; the workload-sharing aspect gained increasing importance over the term, and over 80% of students felt that their partner’s comments were useful for improving performance on the assessed tasks, indicating that peer feedback functioned effectively as a learning mechanism.
Liu and Chai (2006) explored attitudes toward peer review and their correlations with writing performance among 84 advanced-level undergraduate EFL writing students They used survey questionnaires and semi-structured interviews to examine willingness to engage in peer review, attitudes toward peer review, and reactions to it The findings indicated that a majority of participants showed strong willingness to review each other’s English compositions and were highly positive about the value of peer review The researchers concluded that the questionnaires and semi-structured interviews were adequate and suitable for the study’s aims and adopted and adapted them as the main instruments to examine the teachers’ and students’ attitudes toward teacher feedback in writing classes.
Both teacher feedback and peer feedback contribute to improving students' writing In large classes like mine, incorporating both feedback types is practical because students can exchange feedback multiple times and rewrite before submitting to the teacher This iterative process helps reduce teachers' workloads while improving overall writing quality Consequently, I carried out a study titled “Teachers’ and Students’ Attitudes Toward Teacher Feedback and Peer Feedback in the Writing Class” to explore these dynamics.
Chapter X presents a thorough account of the study’s methodology, outlining the research questions, detailing the student participants who took part in the experiment, describing the data collection instruments, and laying out the procedures for data collection and the data analysis methods applied.
R esta tem en t of research q u est io n s
As presented in chapter I, this study aimed at answering the following research question:
What are teachers ' and students ' attitudes towards peer and teacher feedback in writing classes?
S u b je c t s
Students
Twelve twelfth-grade students were selected because, after two years of English instruction at this school, they were expected to be familiar with both peer and teacher feedback The following sections provide additional information about the population and the sampling method used to identify this sample.
Diem Dien High School has fourteen Grade 12 classes and about 700 students, aged sixteen to seventeen, with an English program that starts in Grade 6, meaning students have studied English for at least seven years.
6 years They now have a 45 - minute class hour per week for writing and another four 45 - minute class hours for speaking, listening, writing and language focus (see 1.1.1 for detailed information).
From each Grade 12 class, one student was selected from every four on the class list If any student was absent when the questionnaires were distributed, I invited three additional students from that class However, on the days I distributed the questionnaires, no students were absent As a result, the study's sample consisted of 210 students.
Teachers
Nine teachers teach at my school, but at the time of the study three were on birth leave, so six were interviewed All six hold university degrees in English or pedagogy Four have taught English at this school for 12 years, while the other two have five years of experience Most of them have experience teaching writing classes, and they are expected to have used various feedback practices.
D escriptio n of th e data collection in stru m en ts
In order to find the answers to the research question, questionnaires and structured interviews were employed in this study.
To explore perceptions of feedback in writing lessons, the study employed a questionnaire to measure students’ attitudes toward teacher feedback and peer feedback, and conducted structured interviews to capture teachers’ attitudes toward both feedback types The findings from the questionnaire and the structured interviews are presented in the following sections.
The questionnaire on students’ attitude toward teacher and peer feedback was adapted from Liu and Chai’s (2006).The questionnaire consists of three parts (See appendix 1 for the whole questionnaire)
Part 1 consists of three questions investigating the students’ previous experience with teacher and peer feedback.
Part 2, consisting of questions 1 through 19, was used to investigate students' attitudes toward peer feedback; items 1–14 assessed attitudes toward the usefulness of peer feedback, and items 15–19 examined students' reactions to peer feedback on their own writing.
Part 3 consists of questions 20–34 and examines students’ attitudes toward teacher feedback Questions 20–27 assess the perceived benefits of feedback, including how it clarifies expectations, supports improvement, boosts learning motivation, and enhances the quality of students’ writing, while questions 28–34 explore students’ reactions to feedback on their writings, covering their willingness to accept feedback, emotional responses, and subsequent revisions or changes to their work.
The questionnaires were completed by the student subjects.
Structured interviews were conducted to explore teachers' attitudes toward teacher and peer feedback in writing classes, with the interview questions listed in Appendix 2 To ensure participants could express their perceptions clearly, the interviews were conducted in Vietnamese, the interviewees' mother tongue Six teachers participated in the study.
Question 1 is to investigate the teachers’ thinking of the role of teacher and peer feedback in writing classes.
Question 2 is to find out the times that the teachers give students feedback a term.
Question 3 is to find out the frequency that the teachers organize peer feedback.
Question 4 is to investigate the problems that teachers meet in organizing peer feedback.
Question 5 investigates the features of writing—including grammar, spelling, punctuation, vocabulary choice, and the organization of the paper and the ideas expressed—and notes that students commonly focus their feedback on their peers’ writing By highlighting these aspects, the item shows how feedback practices target both technical accuracy and the clarity of ideas This framing underscores the connection between linguistic precision and effective idea presentation in peer-review conversations.
Question 6 is to find out the frequency that their students revise their writing after they get feedback from their teachers or from peers.
Question 7 is to find out whether peer feedback is a good way to complement teacher feedback or not and the reasons for this.
Question 8 is about whether the peer review activity facilitate their writing teaching and the reasons for this
Questions 1, 8 are ‘opinion’ question; the rest are factual questions
The researcher collected information from questionnaires first and then the interviews were implemented as follow.
Teachers across all classes instructed the selected students to go to the hall during the 30-minute long break to participate in the questionnaire The researcher distributed the questionnaires there and the students completed them in her presence so she could clarify any difficult questions Completed questionnaires were collected at the end of the break About four classes’ questionnaires were gathered at each session, enabling the researcher to collect all 210 responses three times—on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday—because this timetable best fit the study schedule.
A structured interview was implemented with all teachers to explore their thinking about teacher and peer feedback in the writing class Each interview lasted about 15 minutes and was conducted in Vietnamese, with the researcher recording all information The interviews were carried out over two days because teachers were available on Monday and Thursday After data collection, the interview notes were returned to the participants to verify the accuracy of the information Appendix 3 provides an interview note model with Teacher A.
For ethical reasons, the teachers were referred to as Teachers A-F.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
R e s u lt s f r o m q u e s t io n n a ir e
4.1.1 Students’ previous experience with teacher and peer feedback.
The findings show a mixed pattern of feedback during writing revisions Teacher feedback was consistently present for all students, occurring three to four times per term Peer feedback occurred more variably: 168 students (80%) reported receiving it five to six times per term, while 36 students (17.1%) reported only teacher feedback and no peer feedback.
4.1.2 Students' attitudes toward peer feedback
Information on students’ attitudes toward peer feedback is presented in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2.
Table 4.1 summarizes the participants’ responses to the usefulness of peer feedback.
After receiving peer feedback, students report that they read the comments on their compositions carefully and revise their English writing accordingly They also believe their classmates revise their English compositions carefully based on teacher feedback, with 67.6% selecting “Agree” and 32.4% selecting other responses.
“Strongly agree”) with Item 4 Moreover, 97.6% (58.6% “Agree” and 39%
‘Strongly agree”) students said that they really enjoyed peer response activities
31 because they gave them good opportunity to share their concerns with others (Item
5) As can be seen, all o f the participants found it useful to read and comment on their peer’s writings, which was indicated by their responses to Item 1 (with 70%
Results from items 6–8 show that peer review can enhance students' English writing across content, structure, word choice, sentence construction, and grammar Specifically, for statement 6, 77.6% agreed and 22.4% strongly agreed that peer review helps improve the structure of their English compositions Additionally, 100% agreed that their classmates could identify mistakes and errors in their English compositions, and 97.1% reported that peer review reduced grammatical mistakes.
Table results show that the majority of respondents believe peer review of English compositions is useful and enhances their own English writing More than 90% report improvements in content, structure, grammar, and vocabulary as a result of reviewing others’ work This finding is supported by responses to statements 10–12, with 96.6% of participants indicating they felt inspired by reviewing their classmates’ English compositions, 65.7% agreeing and 30.9% strongly agreeing.
“Agree” and 14.7% “Strongly agree”) believed that it helped structure their own English compositions (Item 11).
The findings reveal strongly positive attitudes toward reviewing peers’ English compositions, indicating that students at Diem Dien High School welcome peer feedback The data in the table show consistently favorable responses among Diem Dien High School students, who perceive peer review as helpful for improving English writing and for developing collaborative learning skills These results suggest that integrating peer feedback into English composition instruction at Diem Dien High School can enhance student engagement and writing performance.
T a b le 4 1 Students ' attitudes to the usefulness ofpeer feedback (N = 2 1 0 )
1 I find it useful to read and comment on my peer’s writing
2 I find peer feedback useful for my revision of my writing in English
3 It’s a waste of time to review my classmates’ English compositions
4 I believe my classmates carefully revise their English compositions based on teacher feedback.
5 I really enjoy peer response activities because they give me good opportunity to share my concerns with others.
6 Peer review helps improve the structure of my English compositions
7 Peer review helps reduce grammatical mistakes in my
8 My classmates are able to identify the mistakes and errors in my
9 Peer review does not help to improve my ability in English writing.
10 Reviewing my classmates’ English compositions helps inspire me to write in English.
11 Reviewing my classmates’ English compositions helps structure my own compositions.
12 Reviewing my classmates’ English compositions helps reduce grammatical mistakes in my own compositions.
13 Reviewing my classmates’ English compositions helps improve the use of words and sentence structures in my own compositions
14 Peer’ support and encouragement enhance my own compositions.
Table 4.2 shows that a majority of students read peer feedback on their English compositions carefully (41.9% Agree, 56.2% Strongly Agree) and all students revised their work according to peer feedback (63.3% Agree, 36.7% Strongly Agree) After receiving peer comments, most students reported increased motivation to write (89% Agree, 9.1% Strongly Agree) Item 19 indicates a preference for teacher feedback over peer feedback, with 14.7% Strongly Disagree and 78.6% Disagree, suggesting that while students highly value peer feedback, they still prefer teacher feedback overall.
Table 4.2 Students ’ reaction to peer feedback on their writings (N = 210)
15 I carefully read peer feedback of my English compositions
16 I carefully revise my English compositions according to peer feedback
17 I feel more motivated to write after my peers comment
18 When I revise my compositions, I take my classmates’ comments into consideration.
19 I prefer peer feedback to teacher feedback
Information on students’ attitudes toward peer feedback is presented in Table 4.3 and Table 4.4.
4.1.2 Students’ attitudes toward teacher feedback
Table 4.3 Students'attitudes toward the benefits o f teacher feedback (N = 210)
I find teacher feedback useful for my revision o f my writing in English
Teacher feedback helps improve my ability in
Teacher feedback helps improve the structure o f my writing
My teacher can evaluate my
Teacher feedback helps reduce grammatical mistakes in my English compositions.
Teacher feedback helps to enrich the contents o f my compositions.
Teacher feedback helps improve the language
Teacher feedback helps benefit my own compositions.
Table 4.3 examines students' attitudes toward the benefits of teacher feedback, showing that nearly all participants strongly agreed with Item 20: "I find teacher feedback useful for my revision of my writing in English," which highlights a positive perception of feedback as a valuable tool for improving English writing revision.
Thirty-five students reported that receiving teacher feedback was effective, agreeing that it helped them improve their writing by enhancing the structure and language, including grammar and vocabulary, in their writings (Items 20–27).
Findings show that most participants held a positive attitude toward teacher feedback on their English compositions, as reflected in responses to items 21–27 Specifically, the majority believed that teacher feedback could enhance their writing in English across content, structure, word use and sentence construction, and grammar For example, 100% agreed with statements 21, 24, 26 and 27, including “Teacher feedback helps improve my ability in English writing,” “Teacher feedback helps reduce grammatical mistakes in my English compositions,” “Teacher feedback helps improve the language (including grammar and vocabulary),” and “Teacher feedback helps benefit my own compositions.” Furthermore, 99% agreed that teacher feedback helped improve the structure of their writing, and 98.1% expressed that feedback enriched the contents of their compositions.
Table 4.4 presents students' reactions to teacher feedback on their compositions (Items 28–34) The findings indicate a universally positive impact of feedback on writing: all students said that reviewing their compositions after receiving feedback inspired them to write in English, with 82.9% agreeing and 17.1% strongly agreeing.
As Table 4.4 shows, nearly all participants strongly agreed or agreed that reviewing their compositions after teacher feedback helps reduce grammatical errors in their own work Responses to Item 34 indicate that the majority of students prefer teacher feedback to peer feedback, with 81% agreeing and 17.1% strongly agreeing Taken together, these findings reveal that students hold positive attitudes toward teacher feedback and favor it over peer feedback.
T a b le A A.Students ’reaction to teacher feedback on their compositions (N = 2 1 0 )
28 Reviewing my compositions after teacher feedback inspires me to write in
29 Reviewing my compositions after teacher feedback helps me to structure my own compositions.
30 Reviewing my compositions after teacher feedback helps me to reduce grammatical mistakes in my own compositions.
31 Reviewing my compositions after teacher feedback helps me to improve the use of words and sentence structures in my own compositions
32 Teachers’ support and encouragement enhance my own compositions.
33 I carefully read teacher feedback o f my English compositions
34 I prefer teacher feedback to peer feedback
At Diem Dien High School, students show positive attitudes toward both teacher and peer feedback, and this feedback prompts them to revise and rewrite their writing Without feedback, students are unlikely to revise their assignments, and their writing would not improve Nevertheless, students prefer teacher feedback to peer feedback, a preference shaped by the Vietnamese school context where teacher authority and traditional assessment practices influence how feedback is received and acted upon.
In some Asian countries, teaching and learning practices appear less communicative, with learners preferring teacher feedback over peer feedback to share ideas This pattern aligns with findings from Yang, Richard, and Ju (2006), which show that teacher feedback remains the dominant choice even when learners hold a strongly positive attitude toward peer feedback The results suggest cultural or instructional factors reinforce reliance on teachers as the primary source of feedback, signaling a potential shift toward more peer feedback and greater learner autonomy in these educational contexts.
R e s u lt s f r o m in t e r v ie w s
As stated in Chapter 3, the interviews were conducted in Vietnamese, the interviewee’s mother tongue, for the ease of expression of perceptions.
Responses to the first interview question showed that all teachers view providing feedback on students’ writing as important and necessary They argued that without feedback, students would not rewrite or revise their work, and as a result, their writing would not improve These responses reflect a consensus on the vital role of feedback in developing students’ writing.
Feedback from both teachers and peers is vital in writing classes, but students tend to prefer teacher feedback because they believe teachers possess greater English linguistic competence They view teacher feedback as a security measure for underperforming students and see teachers as the primary source of knowledge who also hold the power to assign grades.
“Feedback (either teacher or peer) plays very important part in helping students to better their writings’’ ’ (Teacher C ’s answer, the researcher’s translation)
All interviewed teachers agree that feedback from both teachers and peers is crucial for students in writing classes They argue that teacher feedback alone is not sufficient, since it typically involves only one or two corrections per student per term; when peer feedback is organized, students can review each other's work many times, enabling more revisions and continuous improvement The two typical responses to the second question illustrate this view.
“7 only correct each student’s writing once a term ” (Teacher E ’s answer, the researcher’s translation).
“7 correct each student’s writing once or twice a term ” (Teacher F ’s answer, the researcher’s translation).
Responses to the third interview question indicated that all teachers understood the effects of peer feedback and did not find it difficult to organize, yet about half of them sometimes incorporated peer feedback in their writing classes, citing the English level of the students in the Group A classes as a factor in their approach.
B or C they were teaching is not good to understand their peers’ writings In the classes Group D, teachers used peer feedback more often and they said their students focused on their peers’ grammar, spelling, form and contents
Two responses to the third question are presented as follow:
“I find it difficult to organize the peer feedback in classes o f my students whose English is at a moderate level The weakness o f students ’ language skills and their laziness are two major causes o f the limitation o f taking part in peer feedback So that I rarely organize peer feedback in these classes'’’’ (Teacher B’s answer, the researcher’s translation).
My students are highly engaged in peer editing, eagerly reviewing and correcting each other’s writings I regularly organize structured peer feedback sessions in the class to enhance their writing abilities and help them develop stronger editing habits.
In the forth interview question, four of the teachers said they didn’t meet any difficulties in organizing peer feedback Two responses are followed:
Teacher B reports that there are no problems organizing peer feedback and that she consistently has students work in pairs for peer feedback across all her writing classes She enjoys coordinating this activity with mixed-ability groups, because the stronger students can help their peers who are less proficient, turning peer review into a collaborative learning experience.
I have no difficulty organizing peer feedback in my writing classes, so I often have students work in pairs or small groups I deliberately group learners by the same proficiency level when they review each other’s writing, because students at the same level tend to understand their peers’ mistakes and provide more constructive, targeted feedback that leads to clearer revisions.
In addressing the next interview question, teachers noted that students focus on key writing features—grammar, spelling, and vocabulary—by thoroughly reading their peers’ work to spot every error, and the discussion points to two typical responses arising from this peer‑review approach.
In Teacher E's view, students tend to focus their feedback on grammar, spelling, and the paper's organization, and sometimes on how ideas are expressed, because they believe their own writing improves when they read their peers’ writings.
“My students pay attention to grammar, spelling and all the features that they can correct because they read their p e e r ’s writing carefully” (Teacher B’s answer, the researcher’s translation)
In response to interview question six, four teachers said they didn’t routinely check students’ rewrites after teacher feedback because it was time-consuming, but they all believed that organizing peer feedback in class—whether in pairs or small groups—could help manage the class and give students time to help each other identify mistakes They observed that peer feedback has an immediate impact on students’ writing, prompting more careful rewriting as students revise multiple times with peer correction Overall, the teachers agreed that peer feedback complements teacher feedback by increasing revision opportunities and promoting improvements in students’ writing ability.
There are two different answers of the sixth question:
Teacher C notes that students sometimes fixate on their marks and neglect the rewrites, and she does not check the students’ rewrites because writing class time is very limited However, organizing peer feedback proves highly effective, as students review each other’s mistakes and immediately revise their writings before handing them in to the teacher.
Although my students often focus on their marks after I provide feedback, I’ve found that peer feedback tends to have a stronger impact on their writing With peer review, students revise their drafts multiple times before handing them to the teacher, resulting in more substantial improvements than when they rely solely on teacher feedback.
All teachers agreed that peer feedback is a vital component of writing classes, complementing teacher feedback by giving students more opportunities to rewrite or revise their work before submission The more often students rewrite their writings, the stronger their pieces become, and their writing skills improve day by day.
S u m m a r y o f fin d in g s a n d d is c u s s io n
Questionnaire results indicate that feedback from both teachers and peers plays a significant role in writing classes; students highly value both teacher and peer feedback, but show a preference for teacher feedback, and this pattern aligns with earlier studies by Keh (1990), Rothschild and Klingenberg (1990), and Mangelsdorf.
(1992), Tsui and Ng (2000), Nelson and Murphy (1993), Saito (1994), Zhang
(1995), In these studies, teachers and students have a marked preference for teacher feedback and in some studies students had positive attitude toward peer feedback There are some examples as follows.
Saito (1994) found that students preferred teacher feedback—including teacher correction, teacher correction with comments, error identification, commentary, and teacher–student conferencing—over non-teacher feedback such as peer correction and self-correction, although three teachers in the study frequently used non-teacher feedback in their classes.
Zhang's 1995 study found that students ranked teacher feedback first, peer feedback second, and self-directed feedback last, indicating a clear preference for teacher feedback over peer feedback However, the study also revealed that students held positive attitudes toward peer feedback, recognizing its value even though it was not their top choice.
Questionnaire results indicate that, although students preferred teacher feedback to peer feedback, they still highly valued peer feedback, a finding supported by prior studies such as Mendoca and Johnson (1994), Roskams (1999), Miao, Badger, and Zhen (2006), Liu and Chai (2007), and Zacharias (2007).
Research on peer feedback in writing shows generally positive student responses Mendonca and Johnson (1994) found that most students express satisfaction with peer feedback and regard it as helpful for their writing Nelson and Murphy (1993) reported similar results and noted that writers are willing to use peers’ feedback Additional studies by Keh (1990), Rothschild and Klingenberg (1990), and Tsui and Ng (2000) documented positive reactions among ESL students to incorporating peer feedback into writing activities Mangelsdorf (1992) examined the issue from student writers’ perspectives and found that peer review not only enhances high-order concerns such as ideas, organization, and content, but also helps students identify and correct mistakes, supporting overall learning.
Roskams (1999) studied students' attitudes toward peer feedback and peer assessment within an extended pair-work setting, and the results showed that more than 80% of students felt their partner’s comments were useful for improving their work on assessed tasks, indicating that peer feedback serves as a valuable learning mechanism.
Miao, Badger, Zhen (2006) study revealed that feedback plays very important role in Chinese EFL students’ revision o f writing, the students value teacher feedback
43 more highly than peer feedback but recognize the importance o f peer feedback because 61% of their students in peer feedback class think the activity is useful.
Liu and Chai (2006) examined students’ attitudes toward peer review and its correlations with writing performance The study found that the majority of participants expressed a strong willingness to review each other’s English compositions, and respondents were highly positive about the value of peer review for improving writing quality.
This study shows that students have positive attitudes toward peer feedback, suggesting that compulsory peer feedback in writing classes can improve students' writing skills When peer feedback is implemented in writing lessons, teachers should be trained to guide students on how to provide constructive feedback and to integrate peer feedback with teacher feedback School leaders should require teachers to use peer feedback in every writing lesson to complement teacher feedback, and peer feedback should be used as frequently as possible.
Interviews show teachers value both teacher and peer feedback in writing classes While teacher feedback remains important, its limited frequency in many contexts means it cannot be the sole source of improvement Therefore peer feedback serves as a strong complement, offering students more opportunities to revise and rewrite their writing As students engage in more revisions, their writing skills improve Consequently, peer feedback should be a compulsory activity in every writing lesson, and training students to provide effective peer feedback is essential for teachers to support students' writing development.
Findings from questionnaires and interviews show that both teachers and students valued feedback in writing classes, with teacher and peer feedback playing important roles Although students tended to prefer teacher feedback, they held a highly positive attitude toward peer feedback, believing it helps reduce grammatical mistakes, enhances vocabulary use, and enriches ideas This preference may relate to the students’ English proficiency and the need for training in peer review Still, they recognized clear benefits of peer feedback and believed they could assess each other’s writing fairly, making peer feedback valuable for both the reviewer and the reviewed.
Peer feedback complements teacher feedback by providing additional revision opportunities that teacher feedback alone cannot offer Students who rewrite their writings after input from peers and teachers tend to improve their writing skills, demonstrating that progress is limited without feedback from either teachers or peers Training students to conduct effective peer feedback helps them understand what feedback means in practice, as Wang (2004) suggested This preparation can increase students’ willingness to participate in peer review and raise the quality of the feedback, underscoring the idea that good writing is well-revised writing.