SỰ hỗ TRỢ của GIÁO VIÊN đối với HOẠT ĐỘNG NHẬN xét CHO bạn học TRONG môn nói của SINH VIÊN năm 2 KHOA SPTA ĐHNN

Peer feedback activity has been appreciated by many researchers for its various advantages towards students’ learning and development of soft skills. However, this activity is not always successfully conducted in students’ English speaking classes, due to the feedback’s limitations and students’ difficulties as feedback givers and receivers. This study, therefore, looked into the ways teachers facilitated that activity and the effects of such facilitation, specifically in the scope of FELTE sophomores’ speaking classes. Participants of the study were 3 speaking teachers of FELTE sophomores and their 79 students. The researcher employed three data collection methods, which were questionnaire, teacher and student interview, and observation. The results indicated many techniques that teachers employed to facilitate peer feedback activity, together with the facilitation’s positive effects on the students – as feedback givers and receivers – and on the quality and quantity of feedback. The findings suggest the application of certain facilitation techniques, as well as adjustments in the use of some others to enhance their efficiency, thus better promote peer feedback activity in speaking class.

Peer feedback activity has been appreciated by many researchers for itsvarious advantages towards students’ learning and development of soft skills.However, this activity is not always successfully conducted in students’ Englishspeaking classes, due to the feedback’s limitations and students’ difficulties asfeedback givers and receivers This study, therefore, looked into the ways teachersfacilitated that activity and the effects of such facilitation, specifically in the scope

of FELTE sophomores’ speaking classes Participants of the study were 3 speakingteachers of FELTE sophomores and their 79 students The researcher employedthree data collection methods, which were questionnaire, teacher and studentinterview, and observation The results indicated many techniques that teachersemployed to facilitate peer feedback activity, together with the facilitation’spositive effects on the students – as feedback givers and receivers – and on thequality and quantity of feedback The findings suggest the application of certainfacilitation techniques, as well as adjustments in the use of some others to enhancetheir efficiency, thus better promote peer feedback activity in speaking class

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACCEPTANCE PAGE ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i

ABSTRACT ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS viii

PART I: INTRODUCTION 2

1 Statement of research problem and rationale 2

2 Aims of the study and research questions 2

3 Significance of the research 3

4 Structure of the study 3

PART II: DEVELOPMENT 5

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 5

1.1 Key concepts 5

1.1.1 Facilitation 5

1.1.2 Feedback 5

1.1.3 Peer feedback 6

1.1.4 Speaking 7

1.2 An overview of peer feedback 8

1.2.1 The roles of students’ peer feedback 8

 The role of students’ peer feedback in students’ learning 8

 The role of student peer feedback in students’ development of soft skills9  The role of students’ peer feedback in the learning environment 9

1.2.2 Limitations of student peer feedback 10

 Bias 10

 Superficiality 11

 Inaccuracy 11

 Vagueness 11

1.2.3 Students’ difficulties when conducting peer feedback activity 11

1.2.3.1 Difficulties from students’ attitudes 11

1.2.3.2 Difficulties from students’ ability 12

1.3 Teachers’ facilitation for peer feedback 13

1.3.1 Building feedback partnership among students 13

1.3.2 Providing training on giving and receiving peer feedback 13

1.3.3 Providing encouraging feedback forms 14

1.3.4 Other strategies 15

1.4 Conclusion 16

Chapter summary: 16

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY 17

2.1 Scope of the study 17

2.2 Participants 17

2.2.1 Teachers 17

2.2.2 Students 18

2.3 Data collection instruments 19

2.3.1 Questionnaire 19

2.3.2 Interview 20

 Interview for teachers 20

 Interview for students 21

2.3.3 Observation 22

2.4 Data collection procedure 23

2.5 Data analysis method and procedure 25

2.5.1 Data analysis method 25

2.5.2 Data analysis procedure 25

Chapter summary 26

CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS, DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS 27

3.1 An overview of peer feedback in FELTE sophomores’ speaking class 27

3.1.1 Peer feedback occurrence 27

3.1.2 Limitations of student peer feedback 27

3.1.3 Students’ difficulties when conducting peer feedback activity 28

3.2 Major findings, discussion and implications 30

3.2.1 Major findings 30

3.2.1.1 Research question 1 30

3.2.1.2 Research question 2 39

3.2.2 Discussion and implications 43

Chapter summary 46

PART III: CONCLUSION 47

1 Summary of the findings 47

2 Conclusion of the research 48

3 Limitations of the study and suggestion for further research 48

LIST OF REFERENCES 49

APPENDICES 54

APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDENTS 54APPENDIX 2: STANDARDIZED OPEN-ENDED INTERVIEW FORTEACHER PARTICIPANTS (translated) 57APPENDIX 3: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR STUDENT PARTICIPANTS (translated) 59APPENDIX 4: CLASS OBSERVATION SCHEME 60APPENDIX 5: MARKING RUBRICS FOR GROUP PRESENTATIONS(CLASS B) 61APPENDIX 6: SAMPLE TEACHER INTERVIEW EXTRACT 62APPENDIX 7: SAMPLE CLASS OBSERVATION TRANSCRIPTION EXTRACT 64

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Feedback types by Warner (2010, p.1) 6

Table 2: Groups of speaking teachers of FELTE sophomores 18

Table 3: Descriptions of student participants 18

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Feedback-focused observation tally scheme (Mackey & Gass, 2005, p.199) 23

Figure 1: Peer feedback occurrences noted in class A, B and C 27

Figure 3 Students' opinion about limitations of student peer feedback 28

Figure 4 Students reported difficulties when conducting PF activity 29

Figure 5: Techniques employed by teachers to facilitate peer feedback, as perceived by students 31

Figure 7: Teachers' ways to give immediate encouragement for student peer feedback 36

Figure 8: Teacher facilitation's effects on the feedback givers 39

Figure 9: Teacher facilitation's effects on the feedback receivers 40

PART I: INTRODUCTION

1 Statement of research problem and rationale

The competitive labor market in Vietnam has been requiring undergraduates

to develop not only their knowledge and and soft skills, but also foreign languages,among which is English However, after four years studying English in university,

a lot of graduates are still described as being unable to use this language in real-lifecontexts (Doan, 2008) Especially for the speaking skill, many graduates areincapable of participating in discussions using English, being hesitate to speakingEnglish and afraid of others’ knowing their low proficiency (Le, 2011) This factraises considerations regarding English teaching and learning at university,specifically about helping students overcome the hesitation to raise their voice sothat they can be more confident when using English in real-life situations

A solution for this situation could be promoting student peer feedback (PF)

in speaking class, which is highly appreciated for helping learners familiarizethemselves with the real working world (Reynolds, 2009) In addition, peerfeedback activity can also help to enhance students’ critical thinking (Lam, 2010)and collaborative skill (Nilson, 2003), which are among the essential soft skills.However, due to the students’ personality, their level of English and level of criticalthinking, peer feedback might not successfully take place in an English class.Teachers as facilitators, thus, have an important role in promoting peer feedbackamong students Nevertheless, this role of teachers in English speaking classes hasnot received adequate attention from researchers

These reasons urge the researcher to conduct a study on teachers’ techniquesfor facilitating peer feedback and their effects on students’ peer feedback activity.The study is entitled:

“TEACHERS’ FACILITATION FOR STUDENT PEER FEEDBACK IN SPEAKING CLASS OF THE SOPHOMORES IN FELTE, ULIS”

2 Aims of the study and research questions

The research was carried out to investigate the techniques used by thespeaking teachers to facilitate PF in a speaking class, as well as the effects of thosefacilitation methods on the peer feedback activity Thus, the study would answerthese two research questions (RQs):

RQ1: How do the teachers facilitate peer feedback in speaking class for second year students in FELTE, ULIS?

RQ2: What are the effects of the teachers’ facilitation techniques on students’ peer feedback activity?

3 Significance of the research

Once successfully conducted, the research could benefit both teachers andsecond year students in FELTE, ULIS: As for the teachers, better understanding ofthe issue will help them organize peer feedback more effectively in a speakingclass They, consequently, will find it easier to conduct speaking lessons wherestudents receive more useful and more frequent feedback on their performances.Thanks for that, the students will also benefit The research findings can also be agood reference for speaking teachers of other organizations, as well as teachers ofother subjects involving PF

4 Structure of the study

There are three parts in this research:

Part I: Introduction

In this part, the rationale, aim of the study and the RQs are stated

Part II: Development

Chapter 1 – Literature review – includes definitions of the key terms, an overview

of peer feedback activity and the teachers’ facilitation techniques for peer feedback

Chapter 2 – Methodology – provides explanations for the study’s scope,

participants, data collection instruments and data analysis procedure

Chapter 3 – Results, discussion and implications – is where data are analyzed to

answer the two RQs Following the analysis are the discussions, includingimplication and recommendation from the data

Part III: Conclusion

A summary of the findings, conclusion of the research, its limitation and suggestionfor further study are found in this part

A List of references and Appendices are also included.

PART II: DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1 Key concepts

1.1.1 Facilitation

Facilitation as the noun coming from the verb “facilitate” is the action ofmaking a process “possible or easier”, as stated in the Cambridge DictionariesOnline A facilitator is supposed to manage “the group process in order to helpgroups achieve identified goals or purposes”, according to Thomas (2010, p.239)

As a person who facilitates, claims Schwarz (2005) cited in Thomas (2010), he orshe is to help enhance the effectiveness of the group Facilitating is one of theteachers’ roles and is considered to be very significant by Tylee (1999)

1.1.2 Feedback

Feedback, as educationally defined, is the information or comments that aregiven after students perform a task, with an aim to improve their later performancewhen conducting that same activity or a related one (Ende, 1983) Ende (1983) alsoadds that it would be a mistake should “feedback” and “evaluation” be usedinterchangeably since the former is formative while the latter is summative Incontrast, Irons (2008) considers feedback as any piece of information based oncomments that could facilitate students’ learning; no matter the comments relate tosummative or formative assessment Hattie & Timperley (2007), however, propose

a boarder concept, according to which feedback can sometimes be corrective,clarifying or encouraging, depending on the agents that provide feedback The mostwell-known definition of feedback, however, is from Keh (1990):

[feedback] can be defined as input from a reader […] providing information to thewriter for revision […] comments, questions, and suggestions a reader gives awriter to produce “reader-based prose” [ ] Through feedback, the writer learnswhere he or she has misled or confused the reader by not supplying enoughinformation, illogical organization, lack of development of ideas, or something likeinappropriate word-choice or tense (pp 294-295)

Feedback has been classified differently by many scholars Brookhart (1998)

as cited in Le (2010) labels four types of feedback: effective, descriptive, evaluative

and motivational Le (2010) also proposes another classification from Crane(2006), by which there are five feedback types: confirmative, corrective,explanatory, diagnostic and elaborative Warner (2010), however, mentions onlytwo most familiar feedback types: formative and summative.

Table 1 : Feedback types by Warner (2010, p.1)

Formative Feedback

This is feedback given during the

development of your work You can use

formative feedback to improve the quality

of your work prior to final drafts or end of

course exams

It includes:

 Comments on assignment drafts

 Discussions with lecturers and tutors

 Other communications from your

lecturers/tutors concerning your work

 Comments from others, including peers

and ALL staff

Summative Feedback

This is feedback given after you havefinished and submitted your work andcannot make any changes to it

It includes:

 The grades or marks received forwritten assignment tasks

 Exam grades or marks

 The grades or marks received for oralassignment tasks

 Grades or marks given for assessedgroup work tasks

In this paper, the researcher follows Warner (2010)’s way of labelingfeedback for its clarity in comparison with other grouping methods During aspeaking class of the sophomores in FELTE, ULIS, formative feedback could beseen during their in-class practice and summative feedback often occurs after theirpresentations

1.1.3 Peer feedback

Literally, peer is defined as “a person who is the same age or has the samesocial position or the same abilities as other people in a group” (CambridgeDictionaries Online) Therefore, in the context of a classroom, peer is understood asthe students themselves, among their classmates

The term peer feedback has been used interchangeably with “peer review”,

“peer correction” and “peer critique” in many research papers According to Lam(2010), peer feedback as defined in pedagogy “assumes that students play the role

of the trained peer reviewers whose task is to give commentary on their partners’initial drafts in either written or spoken mode” (p.114) In other words, peer review

or peer feedback takes place when there is an opinion from a student and the

teacher will “ask a class Do you think that’s right?" or tell them to add a written

comment”, explains Harmer (2007) in Sultana (2009, p.12)

In the light of these definitions, the term “peer feedback” used in thisresearch is understood as the comments, opinions, contributions, corrections orreviews that a sophomore in FELTE, ULIS can receive from their classmates, eitherduring or after their performance in speaking class

1.1.4 Speaking

“Speaking is the productive aural/oral skill It consists of producing systematicverbal utterances to convey meaning” as defined by Bailey & Nunan (2004, p.48).The aspects that underline one’s speaking ability, as stated by To, Nguyen, Nguyen,Nguyen & Luong (2012) consist of “lexis and grammar”, “connected speech”,

“expressive devices”, “compensating language”, “language processing” and

“sociolinguistics knowledge” (pp.40-41)

Regarding the teaching of speaking, Bailey & Nunan (2004) discussaudiolingual and communicative language teaching (CLT) method: While theformer is mostly based on behaviorism, stressing developing students’ good habits

by “a great deal of repetition” (p.49), the latter (which is recently more popular)emphasizes “how students communicate when they speak the target language”(p.50) The CLT lesson, therefore, offers many opportunities for the students topractice the language they are learning

Concerning the objectives of speaking practice activities, To et al (2012)pointed out precision (or accuracy) and automatization (or fluency) Accuracyduring one’s speaking, according to To et al (2012), means that he or she “speak[s]English without or with few errors in grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation.”(p.42) On the other hand, fluency during one’s speech, meaning their ability tocommunicate without too many pauses for thinking, is also crucial

Taking principles of teaching speaking into consideration, Bailey & Nunan(2004, pp.54-56) insist that teachers should:

(1) “Be aware of the differences between second language and foreign languagelearning contexts.”

(2) “Give students practice with both fluency and accuracy.”

(3) “Provide opportunities for students to talk by using group work or pair work,and limiting teacher talk.”

(4) “Plan speaking tasks that involve negotiation of meaning.”

(5) “Designing [design] classroom activities that involve guidance and practice inboth transactional and interactional speaking.”

From what has been discussed about “speaking”, the researcher would like

to note that peer feedback, as an activity in speaking class, can also serve todevelop students’ English speaking In the particular case of FELTE sophomores,

as peer feedback is often required to be expressed in English, it can help studentsenhance their fluency through expressing and discussing the comments, as well asaccuracy through recognizing others’ mistakes relating to various aspects ofspeaking By letting students conduct PF activity, teachers are following theaforementioned principles of teaching language speaking skill, namely principle(2), (3) and (4)

1.2 An overview of peer feedback

1.2.1 The roles of students’ peer feedback

 The role of students’ peer feedback in students’ learning

PF helps raise students’ awareness of their performance (or products) Lam(2010), while particularly discussing peer feedback in writing class, insists on itspositive influence on improving the quality of students’ revision work Explainingfor this, Reynolds (2009) argues that some students can actually ignore theirteachers’ remark but will pay attention to the problem once it is also noticed by apeer This is because PF has “greater volume, frequency and immediacy” comparedwith teachers’ feedback, according to Topping (1998) cited in Nilson (2003, p.35).Maarof, Yamat & Li Li (2011) also stress the awareness that PF raises in thereceivers by making them see “egocentrism” (p.30) in their own work In addition,

through giving comments on others’ work, students will understand qualities of agood work better, thus can complete their own work (Maarof et al., 2011)

Generally speaking, students will gradually be more in charge of their ownstudying thanks to peer feedback (Sultana, 2009) PF as a teamwork activity can

“enhance students’ sense of autonomy and responsibility in the learning process”agrees Jacobs (1989, as cited in Sadeghi & Baneh, 2012, p.910) With the supportfrom their friends, emphasizes Maarof et al (2011), the activity also improvesstudents’ attitude towards the subject they are learning In a writing class, forexample, students through giving-receiving peer feedback will be directly involved

in the process of writing and “become more critical readers and writers” (Sadeghi

& Baneh, 2012, p.910) In speaking class, using PF form during students’presentation prevents inactive listening from the audience (Nilson, 2003)

 The role of student peer feedback in students’ development of soft skills

This advantage is noted by Reynolds (2009), emphasizing the authenticity ofpeer feedback activity She compares the experience of asking for and receivingpeer comments to the real situation when ones “need to consult with colleagues andsupervisors to get an honest evaluation of their efforts” (p.54) Carrying out thisactivity, says Reynolds, students are preparing “one another for life” (p.54) Inagreement with her, Nilson (2003) when referring to many other studies states thatpeer learning can help boosting communication and collaborative skills, which areamong essential life skills Mendonca & Johnson (1994) in (Sadeghi & Baneh,2012) share this idea, saying PF can develop students’ communication ability byencouraging them to “convey and negotiate their opinions” (p.909)

 The role of students’ peer feedback in the learning environment

Requiring students’ more attentive and proactive participation, PF helpspromote an engaged class where not only do the listeners have to “attend” but alsohave to “offer concrete suggestions” (Reynolds, 2009, p.55) for their friends’presentations Gower, Phillips & Walters (1995) cited in Sultana (2009) also share

that “involvement indeed increases” (p.12) as students give PF to their peers ontheir performance.

Moreover, feedback offered by students among themselves is consideredless threatening than that from teachers, says Rollinson (2005, as cited in Sultana,2009) Students are supposed to be more relaxed with their classmates, thus lessanxious when getting correction from them The participation of peers in this casemakes the class “more supportive and friendlier” (Rollinson, 2005 as cited in Sultana,

2009, p.12)

Explaining for a more leaner-autonomous leaning environment, saysRollinson (2005) in Sultana (2009), since comments and correction are no longergiven only by the teacher, the class are less teacher-dominated When correction isgiven by the teacher, Rollinson (2005, as cited in Sultana, 2009) goes onexplaining, it strengthens the teacher’s authority because he or she acts as the onlysource for knowledge in traditional classrooms Therefore, once the right for givingfeedback is distributed, it will indeed reduce the teacher’s dominance and enhance theautonomy of students in the lesson

1.2.2 Limitations of student peer feedback

Feedback from students is often questioned about its reliability Novice asthey are, students might not able to help their friends with the revision work(Maarof et al., 2011) Some researches mentioned in Lam (2010) reveal thatstudents’ feedback can be “neither reliable nor professional enough to use” (p.114).Following are justifications for such unreliability:

 Bias: As cited in Nilson (2003), some researchers insist that assessment from

peers can be unfair, depending on race and friendship Another factor contributing

to the bias in students’ peer feedback, adds Nilson (2003), is that when commenting

on others’ arguments, they often “focused on their agreement or disagreement”(p.35), not on the arguments’ logic and evidence Similarly, they are affected bytheir “likes or dislikes of the work rather than its quality” (Nilson, 2003, p.35) Thebias does not necessarily come from students only, Nilson (2003) explains, since

they are simply answering questions on the feedback forms developed by theirteachers and many of those forms “indeed likely to evoke emotions in students” (p.35).

 Superficiality: The second problem in the quality of feedback is that

students have the tendency to focus on “surface errors instead of semantics ortextual one” as argued by Maarof et al (2011, p.31) Nilson (2003) also affirms thatsome students are “uncritical in general” (p.35) On the contrary, they are rathershallow and tend to pay much attention on trivial problems like spelling

 Inaccuracy: Compared to teachers, students as reviewers obviously

promise less accuracy Whereas teacher feedback is regarded as a source of

“correctness, accuracy or appropriateness” (Maarof et al., 2011, p.30), studentcomments receive doubts on their accuracy Nilson (2003) has the same remark thatpeer feedback can be neither accurate nor consistent

 Vagueness: Being unengaged, lazy or simply unable to express their

ideas, some students provide rather vague comments which refer to almost no exactpoint of the peer’s work (Nilson, 2003) The reason for this, claims Nilson (2003),

is that many students are not aware of the standards of a good work

1.2.3 Students’ difficulties when conducting peer feedback activity

1.2.3.1 Difficulties from students’ attitudes

 Feedback givers’ attitudes

When giving peer feedback, even if it is invited, some students “feel veryawkward” (Withers, 2009, p.79) Since the student and his or her peer are in thesame position, becoming feedback giver and receiver can make them “fallautomatically into hierarchical roles”, says Withers (2009, p.79) This consequentlycreates, continues Withers (2009), “discomfort or resentment” (p.79): The giver inthis case might be afraid to be dictatorial to his friend, thus finds it difficult toprovide him or her with comments Similarly, Nilson (2003) also shares thatobviously most students “loath to find fault with one another products” (p.35) andSultana (2009) again states that perhaps students feel hesitant to correct theirfriends for fear that it hurts the friendship Carlson & Nelson (1996, as cited in

Sultana, 2009) even describe a case of Chinese students who had to repress theircritical feedback to preserve “group harmony” (p.13).

Hesitation also happens when students believe if they prove their ability toidentify mistakes, they would have “no excuse for their handing their own workwith weaknesses” (Nilson, 2003, p.35) In other words, students while giving peerfeedback might be very hesitant to express their critical minds, worrying that their

“insightful critiques may raise the instructor’s grading standard”, explains Nilson(2003, p.35)

 Feedback receivers’ attitudes

Apparently, it is not at all easy to receive and accept criticism, especiallyfrom “peers” Sultana (2009) further demonstrates this idea by telling the feeling ofembarrassment in the receivers The problem becomes serious as such criticismoccurs right where and when the whole class can witness, leaving the receivers feeloffended Even when they are not offered feedback so publicly, students might bevery reluctant to give the peer their work for correction, simply not to let theirclassmates know their mistakes (Sultana, 2009, p.13)

1.2.3.2 Difficulties from students’ ability

Another problem is believed to be the students’ inability to give effectivepeer feedback This may result from students’ low English level, which preventsthem from expressing their ideas using this language Lam (2010, p.116) describes

a case of six students “whose English proficiency ranged from slightly aboveaverage to slightly below average” claiming giving specific feedback was difficultalthough they had already received training Nilson (2003) also adds that sometimesthe problems come from students’ unawareness of the products’ standards

From the discussion of students’ peer feedback’s limitations and theirdifficulties, Nilson (2003) then comes to a straightforward conclusion:

[…] the problems with student peer feedback seem to boil down to three: theintrusion of students’ emotions into the evaluative process, their ignorance ofprofessional expectations and standards for various types of work, and theirlaziness in studying the work and/or writing up the feedback (p.35)

Either from students’ attitude or ability, those problems in student PFactivity require teachers and researchers to come up with solutions

1.3 Teachers’ facilitation for peer feedback

Many strategies to enhance the effectiveness of peer feedback activity havebeen applied by teachers Following is the discussion of such strategies and theireffects on students’ PF activity:

1.3.1 Building feedback partnership among students

As a means to eliminate awkwardness, “an environment of trust and caring”needs to be built to encourage students, says Noddings (2009) cited in Reynolds(2009, p.57) Also according to Reynolds (2009), teachers need to make all students

“feel like valued members of the learning community in large and small ways”(p.57) through teachers’ informal conversations with students (e.g about theirhairstyle or the coming tests) Another way to create a caring atmosphere can be theteachers’ noting students’ birthdays, or students’ questions that they were unable toanswer In such ways, claims Reynolds (2009), a trusting community is built,helping students “go from fear to eagerness” (p.57)

Withers (2009) specifically stresses the importance of creating a strongfeedback partnership as to gradually eliminate awkwardness The point is, arguesWithers (2009), “rather than ambushing someone immediately after some event”(p.79), a contract needs to be created in advance The PF givers should be informedabout the comments in need while the receivers should also be prepared for taking

feedback, instead of coming “out of the blue with ‘So, how did I do?’” (Withers,

2009, p.79) The feedback session, continues Withers (2009), should be planned bythe givers and receivers’ asking themselves set of questions, such as “How will Iprepare myself to listen well and to not react defensively?” (p.79) Serious preparationfor PF session eventually will enforce the feedback giving-receiving partnership

1.3.2 Providing training on giving and receiving peer feedback

An exemplar for this technique is the experiment conducted in Hong KongUniversity, reports Lam (2010) Lam implanted a workshop which provided

training on effective giving and responding to peer feedback in the writing skill.The 2-week training covered three stages: Modeling, exploring and consciousness-raising The result was optimistic: students reported that they were positive “notonly about how to give effective peer feedback to their partners, but also how toevaluate how successfully peer feedback was incorporated into their ownsubsequent revisions” (Lam, 2010, p.120) Some students were then reported to beaware of PF’s importance and critical on their friends’ products, thus to “becomeeven more critical of their own writing” (Lam, 2010, p.120) A similar experimentwas also conducted in ULIS, VNU by Luu (2011) regarding peer feedback training

in writing class Luu (2011) reports that the training brought about an increase inboth the quantity and quality of students’ peer comments In addition, mostfeedback givers showed their optimistic reaction to the development of skill as well

as the acquisition of knowledge and language

Reynolds (2009) also suggests certain strategies for enhancing peerfeedback, emphasizing training students to take the leading role in the feedbacksession The teachers, in this case should only act as a discussion member, leaving themonitoring work for the feedback receiver At the beginning, Reynolds (2009) reports:

[…] students try to address their comments to me and look at me for confirmation.But when the shift [of ownership] finally occurs, and the presenter smiles, ignores

my raised hand, and calls first on a peer (p.57)

1.3.3 Providing encouraging feedback forms

Instead of using feedback forms that “evoke emotions in students”, Nilson(2003, p.35) proposes a new feedback list, in which questions are worded in aneutral way: This question list does not “ask for a judgment or opinion and soevokes no emotion” (p.36) These questions are designed as students, familiar ornot with feedback rules, are still able to answer, and require students’ serious

attention to the work Some sample questions are: “Outline this paper/speech/project on the back of this sheet” or “Underline all the logical transitions you come across in the paper” (for written products); “What do you think is the weakest evidence for the writer’s/speaker’s position? Why?” or “List the types of supporting evidence and/or experiences given in the paper/speech?”

(for oral presentations) (Nilson, 2003, p.36) This new feedback form, according toNilson (2003), serves as a direct answer for the previously mentioned problems withstudents’ feedback because of its three advantages:

(1) The neutrality of “identification and personal reactions” (p.36)

(2) Students’ capability of answering once they have read or listened to the work(3) Students’ inability to ignore the work asked by the questions (i.e “the keenfocus and attention to detail that these items require prevent once-overskimming or lazy listening” (p.36))

From the researcher’s viewpoint, this way of wording feedback items cansolve most of the limitations and difficulties resulting from the students’ attitude.Additionally, while training students and building students’ partnership require along-term plan from the teachers, Nilson’s solution can obviously bring about amore immediate effect on students’ feedback

1.3.4 Other strategies

Teachers’ grading the feedback can be an extrinsic motivation for the

students to give more responsible comments Nevertheless, this would mean a

“formidable” task for the teachers, especially for large class size (Nilson, 2003, p.37)

Giving immediate encouragement for peer feedback, although not explicitly

discussed, is mentioned in many examples A conversation cited in Sultana (2009)

as an example of in-class peer correction shows that the teacher, rather briefly, says

“Good” or “Thank you” as an encouragement for the feedback givers

At this point, the researcher wants to highlight that many of theaforementioned strategies are also proposed by Do (2009) It is noteworthy thatbesides studying a much related topic with this research’s, Do (2009) also takessecond year students in FELTE as her subjects The results of her research onceagain suggest “teacher’s involvement” during students’ feedback session in thefollowing ways:

(1) Clearly assigning students specific aspects to comment on

(2) Setting up the feedback criteria with students’ opinions

(3) Marking students’ participation during the feedback session

(4) Providing an instructing course on giving and receiving peer feedback

1.4 Conclusion

Although peer feedback is said to be beneficial for teaching and learning,there remains many disadvantages of this activity, as well as various difficultieswhen conducting it However, most measures to facilitate peer feedback discussed

in previous papers are either too general (applicable for all feedback sessions) oronly on English writing skill In addition, as concluded by the researcher with herlimited access to previous literature, it is extremely difficult to find researchspotting on teachers’ facilitation for peer feedback in speaking class in the context

of Vietnam, not to mention at ULIS, VNU The researcher thus decided thatteacher’s ways of facilitating peer feedback in speaking class, as well as thefacilitation’s effects should be the gap to study

Chapter summary:

In this chapter, some key concepts are elaborated, together with an overview of student PF that covers its roles, limitations and a list of students’ difficulties when conducting it Significantly, the researcher has provided a review

of earlier research that discusses teachers’ facilitation techniques for student PF, and the effects of those strategies Besides, she has also indicated the gap to be covered in this paper.

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, the researcher would provide justification for the study’sscope, participants, data collection instruments and data analysis procedure

2.1 Scope of the study

In this study, the researcher will only investigate into teachers’ facilitation for students’ peer feedback in the context of English speaking classes for second year students in FELTE, ULIS The reasons to focus on only speaking classes (not

other English language skills) lied in the gap indicated in the literature review Asfor the choice for sophomores (not the freshmen, junior or senior students) theexplanation first could be found in their learning programs Temporarily, thefreshmen in FELTE were using the new course outline, in which there were nospecific “speaking classes” The FELTE junior and senior students, despite usingthe familiar course outline including “speaking classes”, were not chosen either.This was because they were assumed to be more capable of giving PF than thesophomores (thanks to longer time studying English and critical thinking skill).Teacher facilitation for PF, in such case, might not be as critically needed as it wasfor the sophomores Finally, the researcher only investigated into FELTE, ULIScontext simply due to her familiarity with the context and convenience whileconducting the research

The researcher decided to use the “maximum variation sampling” method

-a type of purposive s-ampling - while choosing te-achers -as p-articip-ants of the study.Since the number of cases that the researcher could follow was limited due to the

time constraint, a sampling method offering a modest but diverse sample wasneeded By this sampling method, even if the researcher did not randomly choose

an adequate number of cases to come to a generalization, it was still made certainthat variation is represented in the study (Patton, 1990) Elder (2009) also statesthat “Instead of seeking representativeness through randomness, including a widerange of extremes would guarantee to a large extent representativeness” (p.7) The

16 teachers who were currently teaching speaking skill for FELTE sophomoreswere then classified into three groups (according to the researcher’s observation):

Table 2 : Groups of speaking teachers of FELTE sophomores

Group

Number of teachers

A had more than 5-year formal experience in teaching university students 4

B had 3 to 5 year formal experience in teaching university students 7

C had less than 3 year formal experience in teaching university students 5The researcher then randomly selected a teacher from each of these groups,making a total of three teachers (A, B and C) participating in the study Besidesenhancing the diversity and representativeness of the samples, the choice could alsoanswer whether years of experience affected the teachers’ success in facilitatingpeer feedback in a speaking class

2.2.2 Students

The research also involved participation from students, since it was the

students themselves who experienced teachers’ facilitation There were 79 second year students studying in three speaking classes in FELTE, ULIS, each of which was taught by one of the three aforementioned teachers In other words, these

participants were simply students of the studied speaking teachers This selection

was also purposive sampling because from the targeted population, the students

were chosen for having a certain criterion (Dornyei, 2003), which was beingstudents of participating teachers In addition, although these students are in thesame faculty, they came from different majors, specifically:

Table 3 : Descriptions of student participants

Class A Majoring in English Teacher Education 25

Class B Fast-track class, majoring in Translation and Interpretation 29

Class C Majoring in English for Economics 25

2.3 Data collection instruments

This paper is a mixed-method study, being both quantitative and qualitative.

It is quantitative for involving different cases to represent the interested populationand randomly picked participants Furthermore, it employed structured techniqueslike questionnaire to collect statistical data The research, at the same time, wasqualitative for using instruments like in-depth interview to collect subjective anddetailed opinions from certain participants

2.3.1 Questionnaire

The questionnaire (see Appendix 1) was conducted to the participating

students since in this research, using questionnaires for all the student participantswould indeed be “more economical and practical than individual interviews”(Mackey & Gass, 2005, p.94) Data collected from the questionnaires, according toMackey & Gass (2005), could provide “longitudinal” and “comparable”information from the studied students (p.94) For the researcher’s convenience,questionnaires could be delivered in many ways within a short time (Mackey &Gass, 2005) According to Adams & Cox (2008) “once the questionnaire has beencreated, it can be delivered to a large number of participants with little effort”.(p.17)

The questionnaire is both closed and open ended: Closed-items offer “agreater uniformity of measurement” as well as “answers that can be easilyquantified and analyzed” (Mackey & Gass, 2005, p.93) Open-ended questions, atthe same time, provide the students with chances to explain their opinion in theirown words, bringing more insightful details (Mackey & Gass, 2005) with

“participants’ full concentration” (Adams & Cox, 2008, p.20) Generally speaking,the questionnaire was written in English On the front page presented a brief

introduction of the research, together with a short explanation of the key terms,including examples to guarantee participants’ understanding of the questions.Following the introduction are these 8 questions:

Question 1, 3 and 6 are dichotomous Question 1 (Q1) asks if the surveyedstudent had conducted peer feedback in his or her speaking class Q3 inquires if thestudent had encountered difficulties when conducting peer feedback activity in theirspeaking class Item 6 questions if, from the student’ observation, facilitation fromhis or her speaking teacher has any effects on PF activity

Question 2, 4, 5, and 7 are checklist items Specifically, Q2 includesfeedback limitations, the options of which were reviewed by Maarof et al (2011),Lam (2010) and Nilson (2003) Similarly for Q4, a list of difficulties for studentswhen conducting PF is presented, whose sub-items were listed by Withers (2009),Nilson (2003), Sultana (2009), Carlson & Nelson (1996, as cited in Sultana, 2009),and Lam (2010) Q5 and 7 go into teacher’s strategies and their effects that thestudent could recognize The lists of strategies and effects include ones that werementioned by Nilson (2003), Do (2009), Reynolds (2009), Sultana (2009), Withers(2009) and Lam (2010) Lastly, Q8 is open-ended, telling the student to write downtheir suggestions of teacher facilitation techniques

The use of questionnaires in this research was to answer both RQs As for

RQ1, the data from item 5 provided information about various facilitation techniques from teachers, as noticed by the students To answer question 2, the

information from item 7 revealed influence of teachers’ facilitation from thestudents’ viewpoints

2.3.2 Interview

This instrument was applied for both teacher and student participants withstandardized open-ended interview format for teacher interview and generalinterview guide approach for student interview

 Interview for teachers

Since interview, according to Mackey & Gass (2005), is favored for its ability

to investigate “self-reported” issues (p.173), this instrument was chosen to elicitteachers’ self-reflection on the peer feedback facilitation techniques they had used, aswell as their subjective opinions about that facilitation’s effects on student peerfeedback activity

The teacher interviews were conducted in the standardized open-ended

format (see Appendix 2), which means interview questions had “carefully and fully

wording” (Patton, 2002, p.344) before the interviews actually took place Thereason for this partly came from the assumption that teacher participants wouldnormally have limited time for the interview Standardized open-ended format,therefore, was recommended for offering “highly focused questions” in a “short,fixed time” (Patton, 2002, p.346) Moreover, this format guaranteed that the samequestion set was given to each interviewee, “thus increasing comparability ofresponses; data are complete for each person on the topics addressed” (Patton,

2002, p.349) Finally, this format simplified the analysis phase for the researchercould easily detect the informants’ answers to the concerned matters and classifysimilar questions and answers (Patton, 2002)

Teacher interview provided the researcher with answers to both RQs, sincethe interviewees were asked about both the peer feedback facilitation techniquesthey used (RQ1) and their opinions on its influence (RQ2)

 Interview for students

Due to the time constraint, only 2 students from each class (making a total of

6 students) were randomly selected for the interviews Those interviews were in the

interview guide approach (see Appendix 3), with which the researcher used a list of

questions as the spine to freely “explore, probe, and ask question” (Patton, 2002, p 343)

Interview was chosen first of all because this instrument has been widelyused for allowing the researcher “to investigate phenomena that are not directlyobservable, such as learners’ self-reported perceptions or attitudes” (Mackey &Gass, 2005, p.173) To be precise, the researcher alone might not be able to observe

students’ various attitudes towards teacher PF facilitation At the same time, somereactions and attitudes from students might not be visible enough to be observed;interview thus would be helpful Furthermore, the researcher could “obtain moredetailed and thorough information […] than might be gleaned from aquestionnaire” (Adams & Cox, 2008, p.21) with student participants Anotherbenefit stated in Mackey & Gass (2005) is that interview is useful to acquire datafrom informants who do not feel comfortable with other instruments (e.g.participants have problems expressing their ideas when answering open-endeditems in the questionnaire).

The selected format is guide approach, since the researcher could “wordquestions spontaneously” (Patton, 2002, p.343) depending on individualinterviewee and situation She thus could flexibly change the direction of theinterviews should the students want to refer to other related topics, or want moreclarifications and examples for better understanding Data collected through thisinstrument significantly shed light to RQ2 about the facilitation’s effects

2.3.3 Observation

Every participating class was observed twice, making a total of 6observations 2 times observing a class would bring various data due to differentactivities taking place on the two occasions Additionally, the class was audiotaped,not videotaped to avoid hesitation and distraction from the participants Theresearcher employed this instrument for “immersing in a [the] research setting, andsystematically observing dimensions of that settings, interactions, relationships,actions, events and so on within it” (Mackey & Gass, 2005, p.175) to get plentifuldata about participants’ behaviors The researcher would use this instrument formethodological triangulation, so as to reduce possible bias from the researcher assole observer or interviewer, thus to increase the “validity and reliability of theinformation”, according to Johnson (1992) cited in Mackey & Gass (2005, p.181)

The observation checklist (see Appendix 4) was adapted from a model by Mackey &

Gass (2005, p.199):

Figure 1: Feedback-focused observation tally scheme (Mackey & Gass, 2005, p.199)

Since this scheme was used to observe a feedback-focused session (notteacher facilitation for PF-focused ones), the researcher omitted the instructor’sfeedback and added instructor’s facilitation items as well as facilitation effectitems Item “Types of feedback” was simplified into two options: summative andformative Item “Target of feedback” was modified according to the peer markingrubrics or assessment form that was provided by the teacher participants to their

students (see Appendix 5) Moreover, the researcher would note down every

peer-feedback occurrence, not “instances per ten-minute intervals” (Mackey & Gass,

2005, p.199) Lastly, since many of the facilitation’s effects mentioned in theliterature review were not observable (e.g students’ critical attitude towards theirown products), there was no checklist for the facilitation’s effects Instead, theresearcher left item “Facilitation’s effects” open for written notes

Data collected from the observations would mostly be used to answer RQ1

2.4 Data collection procedure

The data collection procedure consisted of four phases:

(1) Preparation: In this step, the researcher designed and validated the

questionnaire, interview questions, and class observation checklist At the sametime, invitations for teacher interviews and class observation requests were sent.Once the researcher had got the participants’ acceptance, appointments for teacherinterview and class observation were made

(2) Class Observation and teacher interviews: Class observations and teacher

interviews were carried out simultaneously:

 Teacher interviews: As the researcher had managed to arrange interviews with

the teachers, the interviews were conducted The three teachers were interviewedindividually in empty meeting rooms on 14th and 15th of March, 2013 Theinterview procedure strictly followed Kvale (1996):

The context is introduced with a briefing in which the interviewer defines the

situation for the subjects; briefly tells about the purpose of the interview, the use of

a tape recorder, and so on; and asks if the subject has any questions before startingthe interview (pp.127-128)

 Class observation: Once permission for class observation had been granted, the

researcher started this phase Observations of class A were on March 5th and 15th,2013; observations of class B were on 5th and 12th March, 2013; and observations ofclass C were on March 14th and 28th, 2013 Besides using the aforementionedobservation schemes, the researcher also audiotaped the parts of the lessons inwhich teachers’ facilitation was detected This was to precisely note down wordsand phrases delivered by the participants

(3) Questionnaire administration: Questionnaires were administered to the

students after the observation phase An introduction about the research was givenbefore the researcher distributed the questionnaires Students’ questions about theresearch and the questionnaires were encouraged The researcher also stressed that

“any data will be anonymised” (Adams & Cox, 2008, p.26) for ethical issue

(4) Student interview: 6 abovementioned students were sent interview invitations

right after the observation phase Once they accept to be interviewed, appointmentswere made The procedure was also done in accordance with what was suggested

by Kvale (1996) as in the teacher interviews

2.5 Data analysis method and procedure

2.5.1 Data analysis method

The researcher processed the data following content analysis method, which

according to Hsieh & Shannon (2005, cited in Zhang & Wildemuth, 2009),involves “the subjective interpretation of the content of text data through thesystematic classification process of coding and identifying themes of patterns”(p.308) This method “goes beyond merely counting words or extracting objectivecontent”, letting the researcher understand the phenomenon “in a subjective butscientific manner”, say Zhang & Wildemuth (2009, p.308) In this particular study,content analysis method allowed the researcher to subjectively process the raw data(e.g to consider certain phrases from the teachers as “encouraging”) but in asystematical way with the coding schemes Besides, the method was chosen since itinvolved the selection of specific texts that could answer the RQs It also “producesdescriptions of typologies, along with expressions from subjects” (Berg, 2001, ascited in Zhang & Wildemuth, 2009, p.309) so that the texts’ producers could beunderstood more clearly by the researcher, as well as the research’s readers

Specifically, the data was analyzed in a combination of quantitative andqualitative content analysis as suggested Smith (1975) and Weber (1990, cited in Zhang

& Wildemuth 2009, p.309) The approach was directed content analysis where “initialcoding starts with a theory of relevant research findings” (Zhang & Wildemuth, 2009,p.309) The researcher, while processing data, allowed new categories to emerge

2.5.2 Data analysis procedure

Although there have been various content analysis processes suggested,namely Elo & Kyngas (2008) and Mayring (2000), the researcher chose to followthe 8-step-procedure by Zhang & Wildemuth (2009) This is because other modelsfocused on purely inductive or deductive approach, not the directed approach as theresearcher wished to follow The procedure was as follows:

(1) Prepare the data: The researcher transferred all data to written form by transcribing

related parts of the recording

(2) Define the unit of data analysis: the unit for analyzing was not physical

linguistic unit, but expressions of a complete thought, for example: a commentfrom students or an encouragement from teachers

(3) Develop categories and coding scheme: the researcher built the coding categories

according to the conceptual framework Emerging categories were also added

(4) Test the coding scheme on a sample of text: text transcribed from five

minutes of a peer feedback session was taken as a sample to validate the codingscheme Since there was no inter-coder available, the researcher coded the sample

on three separated occasions to maximize the possible consistency

(5) Code all the text: The entire coding process was then started The researcher, as

suggested Zhang & Wildemuth (2009), tried to “check the coding repeatedly” (p.312)

(6) Assess the coding consistency: Since the researcher’s understanding of the

coding categories could have varied from time to time, the coding products werechecked to ensure consistency

(7) Draw conclusions from the coded data: According to Bradley (1993) cited in

Zhang & Wildemuth (2009), in this step the researcher was “exploring theproperties and dimensions of categories, identifying relationships betweencategories, uncovering patterns, and testing categories against the full range ofdata” (p.312)

(8) Report the methods and findings: The employed methods and findings were

reported Presentation of the findings involved quotations, charts and graphs

The students were coded under the format Type of participants.Class name.Interview order (e.g S.B.1 would refer to the first interviewed student in class B) The observations were coded under the format Class name.Observation number; for example lesson C.1 referred to the first observed lesson in class C

Chapter summary: In this chapter, justification of the study's scope and

participants, namely teachers and students, has been provided The chapter also elaborates on instruments for data collection process, which are questionnaires, interviews and observations The method and procedure of data analysis have also

so been clarified.

CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS, DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

In this chapter, information gathered from the questionnaires, observationsand interviews would be analyzed to answer the two RQs Following the analysisare the discussion of major findings, implications and recommendations

3.1 An overview of peer feedback in FELTE sophomores’ speaking class

3.1.1 Peer feedback occurrence

All the participating teachers stated that they let their students carry on peerfeedback activity every speaking lesson Likewise, the vast majority of surveyedstudents (61/62) agreed that they had conducted peer feedback activity in theirspeaking class However, although all the teachers let the students do this activity,the number of peer feedback occurrences noted in each class was strikingly different:

Figure 2: Peer feedback occurrences noted in class A, B and C

Whereas the number of peer comments recorded in class B and class C wasquite similar, there was hardly any feedback recognized in class A All the lessons

in class A and class B, as well as lesson C1 were presentation-focused, and peerfeedback sessions were all carried out after students’ performances, which meansall of the feedback were summative Therefore, the researcher witnessed nochances for feedback incorporation

3.1.2 Limitations of student peer feedback

When asked about student peer feedback’s shortcomings, 29% of thestudents (18 over 62 students) reported that in their opinion, there were nolimitations The remaining 71% of the students, however, demonstrated a rathercritical viewpoint:

Figure 3 Students' opinion about limitations of student peer feedback

The vagueness of the comments was noticed by 18 students (nearly a third

of them) Explaining for this, S.A.2 said: “I can see that my classmates only givegeneral comments, or [I can say] the comments are not focused because they didnot pay attention” This particular idea was also expressed by S.C.1 Additionally,

the inaccuracy of student peer feedback was pointed out by 14 over 62 students

(21%) Elaborating on this remark, S.B.2 recalled: “Some of the classmates gavecomments on the part that I was absolutely sure I was right!” More significantly,

32.3% of the students detected superficiality in student peer feedback “It [the

feedback] is superficial”, explained S.C.2, “since they [the feedback givers] don’tclearly understand about the matters they talk about.” Lastly, 14 out of 62 students

agreed that there was bias in student peer feedback S.B.2 when interviewed

indicated that assumptions of the feedback givers accounted for this

At first I was shy in public speaking but after a while when I got more familiarwith the class, I was sure my speaking style became different already But most ofthem still gave comments like ‘shy’ and ‘fearful’ That was their prejudice! (S.B.2)From the teachers’ perspectives, feedback givers were sometimes neitherattentive enough to know what to remark on nor well aware enough of thestandards to realize the presenters’ problems From students’ attitude, passivenesswas another factor that brought about feedback’s limitation

3.1.3 Students’ difficulties when conducting peer feedback activity

The surveyed students also reflected on their difficulties while conductingpeer feedback activity:

as PF givers

Feel unseasy with criticism as PF receivers

Unsure of the feedback quality

Figure 4 Students reported difficulties when conducting PF activity

The majority of 62 surveyed students (40 out of 62) stated that as feedback

givers, they were unable to give specific comments on their friends’ performance.

Explaining for this in the interview, S.C.1 said “It is really difficult to express what

I want to say I don’t know how to convey my message, which means I can’tprecisely give comments.” Teacher A (T.A) when asked about students’ difficultiesalso agreed that as PF givers, students might not “really understand or recognize thepoints to give comments on.’

16 out of 62 (25%) asked students, reported that they felt awkward (for being bossy, for harming the relationship, etc.) as PF givers S.A.1 in the interview

described a situation of her several classmates, who “were very enthusiastic whencommenting and pointed out many mistakes Their comments were actually verycorrect but then they might feel awkward and did not want to continue [tocomment]” because of the receivers’ attitude, who were scared that they would losemarks because of those comments S.B.1 also emphasized that very often, thegivers dared not to be frank, worrying that the receivers would be displeased S.B.2added more, saying he would be more “gentle” when giving comments on his closefriends, unlike what he would do (pointing out the real weaknesses) for not-so-