Peer feedback perceptions and practice in efl tertiary writing classes a study at bac lieu university

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
-----------------------------

TRUONG THI NHU Y

PEER FEEDBACK PERCEPTIONS AND
PRACTICE IN EFL TERTIARY WRITING
CLASSES: A STUDY AT BAC LIEU
UNIVERSITY

Major: English Language
Course code: 60220201

HO CHI MINH CITY, October/ 2020


MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
-----------------------------

PEER FEEDBACK PERCEPTIONS AND
PRACTICE IN EFL TERTIARY WRITING
CLASSES: A STUDY AT BAC LIEU
UNIVERSITY
Submitted to the
Faculty of English Language
in partial fulfillment of the Master’s degree in English Language

Course code: 60220201
By

TRUONG THI NHU Y

Supervised by
LE VAN TUYEN, Ph.D.

HO CHI MINH CITY, October/ 2020


The thesis entitled Peer Feedback Perceptions and Practice in EFL Tertiary
Writing Classes: A Study at Bac Lieu University was successfully defended and
approved on November 5th, 2020 at Hochiminh City University of Technology
(HUTECH).

Academic supervisor: ………………………………………………………………
(full name, title, signature)

Examination Committee

1. Nguyen Thi Kieu Thu, Ph.D

Chair

2. Duong My Tham, Ph.D

Reader 1

3. Nguyen Dang Nguyen, Ph.D

Reader 2

4. Tran Quoc Thao, Ph.D

Member

5. Dinh Van Son, Ph.D

Secretary Member

On behalf of the Examination Committee
Chair

(full name, title, signature)


HCMC UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
POSTGRADUATE INSTITUTE
HCMC, October 8th, 2020

MASTER’S THESIS REPORT

Student name: Truong Thi Nhu Y

Sex: Female

Date of birth: 21/04/1991

Place of birth: Bac Lieu

Major: English Language

Student code: 1741900091

I- Thesis title:
Peer Feedback Perceptions and Practice in EFL Tertiary Writing Classes: A Study
at Bac Lieu University
II- Objectives and contents:
The current study aims at (1) discovering how peer feedback is used in the EFL
writing classes at Bac Lieu University (BLU) and (2) finding out the teachers’ and
students’ perceptions towards the advantages and disadvantages of peer feedback in
the EFL writing class at BLU. 97 English-majored students and 4 teachers were
involved in this study. Both quantitative and qualitative data were gathered from
questionnaires, interviews and classroom observations. The findings revealed that
peer feedback was employed in four writing classes and that it is beneficial for
students in terms of self-reflection promotion, confidence and motivation
development, writing competence improvement and improvement of skills in
providing feedback. Furthermore, peer feedback is considered to be time-consuming
and less reliable than those of teachers.
III- Starting date: 30/03/2020
IV- Completing date: 15/09/2020
V- Academic supervisor: Le Van Tuyen, Ph. D.
ACADEMIC SUPERVISOR
(full name, signature)

FACULTY DEAN
(full name, signature)


i

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

I certify my authorship of the Master’s Thesis submitted today entitled:
PEER FEEDBACK PERCETIONS AND PRACTICE IN EFL TERTIARY
WRITING CLASSES: A STUDY AT BAC LIEU UNIVERSITY

In terms of the statement of requirements for Theses in Master’s programs issued by
the Higher Degree Committee of Faculty of English Language, Ho Chi Minh City
University of Technology.

Ho Chi Minh City, October 2020

TRUONG THI NHU Y


ii

RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS
I hereby state that I, TRUONG THI NHU Y, being a candidate for the degree of
Master of Arts (English Language) accept the requirements of the University
relating to the retention and use of Master’s Theses deposited in the Library.
In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my Master’s Thesis
deposited in the Library should be accessible for purposes of study and research, in
accordance with the normal conditions established by the Librarian for the care,
loan, and reproduction for theses.

Ho Chi Minh City, October 2020
Signature

TRUONG THI NHU Y

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Mr. Le Van Tuyen,
Ph. D. for his invaluable support, useful guidance and accurate comments. I am
truly grateful to his advice as well as suggestions right from the beginning when this
study was only in its formative phase. Without his help, thus thesis paper could
hardly been finished.
I would also like to send my gratefulness to lecturers of HUTECH teaching staff
and Post-graduate Institute for their tirelessly devoting lessons and supports to
enrich my knowledge over the past two years.
I would also express my gratitude to teachers of English division at Bac Lieu
University for their constructive and insights responses and continuous support as
well as great assistance for this paper.
Especially, I am grateful to the students in four classes for their actively and
enthusiastically taking part in completing writing tasks and answering the survey
questionnaire and interview.
Lastly, my special thanks go to my friends and my family who have been by my
side and encouraged me a lot so that I could complete my study.


iv

ABSTRACT
English is now an international language that is used worldwide for numerous
purposes. To be proficient at English language, a person needs to master English
language skills. Among the four English skills, for ages, writing has been
considered the most challenging for not only natives but also for non-native English
students. Vietnamese students are of no exception. At Bac Lieu University (BLU),
more specifically, many teaching strategies have been applied to help students

overcome obstacles in the process of learning to write English. Among these, peer
feedback appears to be one of the methods which always attract teachers’ attention.
This study, therefore, aims at exploring whether peer feedback is employed and find
out teachers’ and students’ perceptions towards the use of peer feedback in writing
lessons. 97 English-majored students and 4 teachers were involved in this study.
Both quantitative and qualitative data were gathered from questionnaires, interviews
and classroom observations. The findings revealed that peer feedback was
employed in four writing classes and that it is perceived to be beneficial for students
in terms of self-reflection promotion, confidence and motivation development,
writing competence improvement and improvement of skills in providing feedback.
At the meantime, peer feedback is thought to be time-consuming and less qualifying
than those of teachers. Based on the findings, suggestions for further related
research are included as well. It is expected that this study will shed light in
researching on related field of study at BLU.
Keywords: EFL, writing skills, peer feedback, perceptions, English-majored
students, tertiary level


v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY .......................................................................... I
RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS.............................................................. II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................III
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................. IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... V
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................... IX

LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................... X
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS .................................................... XI
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................1
1.1

Background to the study ................................................................................1

1.2

Statement of the problem ...............................................................................3

1.3

Aims and objectives of the study...................................................................5

1.4

Research questions ........................................................................................6

1.5

Scope of the study..........................................................................................6

1.6

Significance of the study ...............................................................................6

1.7

Definitions of key terms ................................................................................7

1.8

The organization of the thesis. .......................................................................8

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ...............................................................10
2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................10
2.2 Teaching and Learning English Writing Skills ...............................................10
2.2.1 Teaching English Writing Skills ...............................................................10
2.2.2 Learning English Writing Skills ................................................................11
2.3 Errors in writing ...............................................................................................11
2.3.1 Definitions of errors in writing ..................................................................11
2.3.2 Types of written errors ..............................................................................12
2.4 Corrective Feedback in Writing.......................................................................13
2.4.1 Methods of Giving Written Corrective Feedback in Writing ...................13


vi

2.4.1.1 Explicit / Direct Corrective Feedback ................................................13
2.4.1.2 Implicit / Indirect Corrective Feedback ..............................................15
2.4.2 Teacher Corrective Feedback ....................................................................16
2.4.3 Peer Feedback ............................................................................................18
2.4.4 Practice of peer feedback ..........................................................................19
2.4.5 Self correction ...........................................................................................21
2.5. Advantages and Disadvantages of Peer Corrective Feedback........................22
2.5.1 Advantages of peer corrective feedback ...................................................22
2.5.1.1 Students’ self-reflection promotion ....................................................23
2.5.1.2 Students’ confidence and motivation development ............................24
2.5.1.3 Students’ writing competence improvement ......................................25

2.5.1.4 Students’ improvement of skills in providing feedback .....................26
2.5.2 Disadvantages of Peer Corrective Feedback .............................................27
2.5.2.1 Low reliability of feedback .................................................................27
2.5.2.2 Being harmful for friendship ..............................................................28
2.5.2.3 Being time-consuming ........................................................................29
2.6 Error Correction Codes ....................................................................................29
2.7 Previous studies ...............................................................................................30
2.8 Conceptual Framework ....................................................................................35
2.9 Summary ..........................................................................................................37
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................38
3.1 Research design ...............................................................................................38
3.2 Research site ....................................................................................................38
3.3 Sample and sampling procedures ....................................................................40
3.4 Instruments.......................................................................................................42
3.4.1 Classroom observations .............................................................................43
3.4.2 Questionnaire .............................................................................................43
3.4.3 Interviews ..................................................................................................45
3.5. Data collection procedures. ............................................................................46
3.6. Data analysis procedures. ...............................................................................48


vii

3.7. Reliability and validity. ..................................................................................50
3.8 Description of writing course ..........................................................................52
3.8.1 Writing 4: Interactions 2- Writing (Sliver edition) ................................52
3.8.2 Writing 6: Mosaic 1-Writing (Silver edition) ........................................52
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS....................................................54
4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................54
4.2 Results of the study ..........................................................................................54

4.2.1 Practice of peer feedback in English writing classes ................................54
4.2.2 Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of peer feedback in tertiary English
writing classes ....................................................................................................65
4.2.2.1 Students’ perceptions towards practice of peer feedback ...................66
4.2.2.2 Students’ perceptions towards the advantages of peer feedback ........68
4.2.2.3 Students’ perceptions towards the disadvantages of peer feedback ...81
4.3 Discussions ......................................................................................................85
4.3.1 Practice of peer feedback ..........................................................................85
4.3.2. Students’ perceptions of practice of peer feedback ..................................87
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION ................................................................................92
5.1 Summary of the main findings of the thesis. ...................................................92
5.2 Pedagogical implications .................................................................................93
5.2.1 For EFL teachers .......................................................................................93
5.2.2 For EFL students .......................................................................................94
5.3. Limitations ......................................................................................................94
5.4 Recommendations for further research. ...........................................................95
REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................97
APPENDICES.........................................................................................................109
APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDENTS (ENGLISH VERSION) ..109
APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDENTS (VIETNAMESE VERSION)
.................................................................................................................................113
APPENDIX C STUDENT INTERVIEW QUESTIONS (ENGLISH VERSION) 117


viii

APPENDIX D STUDENT INTERVIEW QUESTIONS (VIETNAMESE
VERSION) ..............................................................................................................118
APPENDIX E TEACHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS (ENGLISH VERSION) 119
APPENDIX F TEACHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS(VIETNAMESE

VERSION) ..............................................................................................................120
APPENDIX G EXCERPTS OF STUDENT INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
(ENGLISH VERSION) ...........................................................................................121
APPENDIX H EXCERPTS OF TEACHER INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
(ENGLISH VERSION) ...........................................................................................125
APPENDIX I CLASSROOM OBSERVATION CHECKLIST .............................128
APPENDIX J WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK CHECKLIST ................134
APPENDIX K PLAGIARISM CHECKING REPORT..........................................136


ix

LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 3.1: Demographic information of the student respondents .............................40
Table 3.2: Demographic information of the teacher respondents .............................41
Table 3.3: Frequency of classroom observations ......................................................47
Table 3.4: Cronbach’s alpha indexes of the questionnaire items for rq2 and in total
...................................................................................................................................51
Table 3.5: Cronbach’s alpha indexes of the questionnaire items about advantages
and disadvantages in total .........................................................................................51
Table 3.6: Cronbach’s alpha indexes of the questionnaire items in 4 categories about
advantages .................................................................................................................52
Table 4.1: Descriptive statistics of mistake correction .............................................59
Table 4.2: Descriptive statistics of methods of correction ........................................59
Table 4.3: Descriptive statistics of frequency of mistake correction ........................61
Table 4.4: Descriptive statistics of the time for correction ......................................62
Table 4.5: Descriptive statistics of teacher’s correction instruction .........................63
Table 4.6: Descriptive statistics of students’ perceptions towards giving and
receiving feedback ....................................................................................................66

Table 4.7: Descriptive statistics of students’ perceptions towards students’ selfreflection promotion ..................................................................................................68
Table 4.8: Descriptive statistics of students’ perceptions towards students’
confidence and motivation development ..................................................................71
Table 4.9: Descriptive statistics of students’ perceptions towards students’ writing
competence improvement .........................................................................................74
Table 4.10: Descriptive statistics of students’ perceptions towards students’
improvement of skills in providing feedback ...........................................................79
Table 4.11: Descriptive statistics of students’ perceptions towards the disadvantages
of peer feedback ........................................................................................................81


x

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1. Conceptual framework of the study........................................................36
Figure 4.1. Teacher’s correction of mistakes in writing lessons. ..............................59
Figure 4.2. Frequency of methods of correction .......................................................60
Figure 4.3. Frequency of mistake correction ............................................................61
Figure 4.4. The time for correction ...........................................................................62
Figure 4.5. Teacher’s correction instruction .............................................................63


xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
BLU: Bac Lieu University
CF: Corrective feedback
EFL: English as a Foreign Language
ESL: English as a Second Language

L2: Second Language
PCF: Peer corrective feedback
TESOL: Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages
WCF: Written corrective feedback


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the study
With the increasing use of English these days, language skills play important
roles in language learning process. Among four main language skills, namely
listening, speaking, reading and writing, writing has its own value and significance
for those who want to master the language. Altstaedter (2016) indicated that
writing, typically considered as one of the four skills that students need to master
when learning a foreign language, has partly been included in the curricula in
foreign language teaching and learning traditionally. Additionally, Hui and Lin
(2009) stated that, at the beginning of second millennium, free writing is one of the
primary methods that human beings not only use to convey their thoughts but also
communicate with one another.
Over the past few decades, second language acquisition researchers have had
various views on the role and treatment of errors. Some strongly believe that errors
prevent students from second language development and should be definitely ruled
out. Others think that errors are beneficial because they play an important role in the
target language development. In order to have a clear understanding of this issue,
different viewpoints will be reported below.
In an influential review article, Truscott (1996) claimed that corrective
feedback (CF) is of no effectiveness and should be completely eliminated due to its
problems of insincere learning, learnability and harmful side-effects. In order to
support or object to Truscott’s (1996) viewpoint, various empirical studies have
been done to investigate the effectiveness of CF on language learning. Some studies

(Kepner, 1991; Polio, Fleck, & Leder, 1998), at early stage, failed to prove that CF
could assist students to foster their writing accuracy. In fact, as Truscott (1996)
confirmed, a real control group which did not receive any CF is necessary when
investigating the effects of feedback. Because the control group in these studies did
1


not receive non-CF treatments, so the findings of these studies cannot be referred to
answer the question about the effectiveness. Other studies (Ashwell, 2000; Ferris &
Roberts, 2001) also probed into CF but only regarding positive effects of CF.
However, these studies were troubled because of the mistake in the design for
testing texts revisions and old pieces of writing. Truscott (2007) emphasized that
accuracy improvement in revision may be unreal learning and, thus, sheds no light
on the linguistic form acquisition in the long run. As a result, the findings of these
studies can only be adapted to investigate the effects of CF on revision instead of
learning.
Twenty years ago, Nelson (1998) suggested that the person most commonly
correcting students’ composition in writing classes was the teacher. It is reported
that traditional teacher comments on students’ writings caused meaningless and
unproductive outcomes (Kim & Kim, 2005). During the last decade, nevertheless, a
dramatic shift has occurred. A common respondent to students’ writing, particularly
in the first drafts, are other students who are considered peers. When working in
pairs or groups, by this way, students read and respond to their peer’s drafts. This
increases in the use of peer response derived from numerous sources. In the field of
TESOL, it is likely that the writing as process approach has been the most vital
source. It is characterized by prewriting tasks, multiple drafts, and peer feedback on
drafts. Within process-oriented classroom context, peer response is identified as a
pedagogical activity in which student writers help each other discover what they
want to express (Zamel, 1982). Moreover, Rollinson (2004) indicated that being
traditionally accustomed to receiving instruction in details from teachers forces the

students to write for their teacher only, actually not for themselves. In that context,
the teacher was the only audience responding to their writing products. Teachers
also became overwhelmed by the task of giving feedback and correcting the
students' writing.
Nowadays, English is considered as one of crucial factors that help our
country make faster development of industrialization and modernization. Therefore,

2


the demand for being proficient at using English is becoming vital among students
throughout the whole country. In recent decades, thus, learning and teaching
English attract much attention from not only researchers but also administrators in
Vietnam where English is taught as a foreign language. Universities in Vietnam
have been making great efforts to facilitate students to reach that goal. A great deal
of teaching methods have been employed to develop students’ competence of
writing as much as possible. In the constant search for methods to fasten and
enhance the learning process, many learning strategies had been conducted. The
main aim is to address effective teaching tools and to apply them in classes in order
to ease and benefit language learning. One of the most common tools employed in
EFL writing classes these days is peer feedback. Students’ writings are read and
corrected by their peers when they make mistakes while producing output in the
target language, not their teachers any longer. As we know, peer feedback is a
familiar topic which attracted the attention of not only researchers but also teachers.
Ellis (2009) suggested that peer feedback relates a response to mistakes produced
by students. Moreover, it has been widely considered as the way of involving
students in process of sharing ideas, providing and receiving constructive comments
to improve their writing work (Farrah, 2012). Bitchener (2005), Sheen (2006) and
Bitchener and Knoch (2008) believed that peer feedback is an effective tool in
language learning because it helps develop students’ roles in in-class activities.

Bitchener (2008) also claimed that the effect of receiving feedback is a significant
part of the acquisition process; thus, the discovery of which type of feedback works
better as a learning tool should be noticed in EFL teaching.
1.2 Statement of the problem
English writing skill is considered as the most difficult for Asian students;
and Vietnamese students are of no exception in this case, including students at Bac
Lieu University. Nunan (2001) stated that, “In terms of skills, producing a coherent,
fluent, extended piece of writing is probably the most difficult thing there is to do in
language. It is something most native speakers never master” (p.158). Indeed, it is

3


always believed that the ability to master writing is the chief goal of the majority of
students. In fact, successful language acquisition through writing requires resistant
practice. Writing is considered the most challenging because of its characteristics
and teaching methods. Therefore, EFL teachers need to consider teaching to write
as a skill by taking into consideration the features and methodology that help
students learn to write academically. For students, achieving to be proficient in
writing skills is a long run process and challenging. Problems commonly observed
are related to individual awareness and attitudes to learn to write in particular. In
high school curriculum, students could only focus on grammar competence by
having learned the rules of grammatical structures and did related exercise that
came later. Differently, in the environment of university academy, apart from
grammar, they are required to deal with writing. Writing simple sentences and
paragraphs are for first year students. For those who are in second and third year,
mastering specific types of essay are required instead. This is likely to be a very
new language skill, so it is difficult for them to be good at. Thus, they lack language
competence to produce high quality writing performance. As a result, they normally
produced poor writing work in English.

Furthermore, it is probably because they lack motivation and enthusiasm in
their language learning. A typical feature observed is that they hesitated to give
teachers their writing products and spent a great deal of time finishing writing tasks.
It is also seen that they feel scared of being criticized or given comments by their
teachers. This negative attitude disrupts not only instructional plan but also makes it
hard for teachers to facilitate active learning among students (Soo, 2013). As a
result, it prevents students from progress, and of course learning outcomes might
not be achieved. Building students’ attitudes is an important part of teacher’s focus
of duty. Teachers should learn from both theories and practical experience on how
to build positive students’ awareness. To deal with it, teachers have to struggle in
discovering ways to break the uncomfortable feeling in writing in order that they
can minimize the behavior of reluctance and passiveness.

4


Many studies have been conducted in order to investigate the impact of
feedback depending on whether it comes from the teacher or from a peer student
among college students (Braine, 2003; Yang, 2006; Ganji, 2009). Research about
the value of feedback has indicated that it is effective and that its effects are still
maintained over time. Various educational researchers have explored the cognitive
benefits of using feedback as a part of learning and found that effective feedback
enhances both the giver’s and the receiver’s learning and development (Chandler,
2003; Bitchener & Ferris, 2012). However, fewer have focused on teachers and
students’ attitudes towards the advantages and disadvantages of peer feedback in an
EFL writing classes. Particularly in Bac Lieu university context, the possibility of
using peer feedback in writing classes has still not been explored by EFL teachers.
It is completely a new tool in EFL writing classes to assess students’ writing.
Teachers get used to directly and traditionally giving comments on their students’
writing. Therefore, they put no faith in effectiveness of peer feedback in their

teaching.
Taking everything into consideration, this study makes an effort to fill the
gap in research by investigating how peer feedback is employed by EFL teachers
within Bac Lieu University context as well as addressing teachers’ and students’
attitudes towards the advantages and disadvantages of the use of peer feedback in
writing classes.
1.3 Aims and objectives of the study
This study aims at exploring how peer feedback is used and investigating
teachers’ and students’ perceptions towards advantages and disadvantages of the
use of peer feedback in the EFL writing class. To put it specifically, this study is an
attempt to:


discover how peer feedback is used in the EFL writing class at BLU.



find out the teachers’ and students’ perceptions towards peer feedback in
the EFL writing class at BLU.

5


1.4 Research questions
Based on the above objectives, the current study attempted to answer the following
research questions:
1. How is peer feedback currently used by teachers and students in EFL
tertiary writing classes at Bac Lieu University?
2. How is peer feedback perceived by teachers and students in EFL tertiary
writing classes at Bac Lieu University?

1.5 Scope of the study
In terms of peer feedback, a great deal of dimensions can be investigated
including effectiveness of peer feedback in teaching grammar and writing,
perceptions of students, teaching techniques and so on. The current study, however,
focused on investigating teachers’ and students’ perceptions towards the advantages
as well as the disadvantages of peer feedback in teaching and learning writing
instead of researching its effect.
As for research site, the current study was conducted at Foreign Language
Division of Education Faculty at Bac Lieu University. The population of the study
included around 100 participants from both the second year and the third year
English majored students who have quite enough overall knowledge and writing
skills and 4 EFL teachers who are currently teaching writing classes.
1.6 Significance of the study
The aim of this study is to investigate the use of peer feedback in EFL
writing classes. It is expected to be theoretically and practically significant.
At a theoretically level, the current study examines the employment of peer
feedback in EFL writing classes and highlighting the perceptions of not only
teachers but also students towards its application. It may contribute to the existence

6


knowledge of peer feedback and enrich the literature of the field of foreign language
teaching and writing. It can help
At a practically level, the current study will hopefully be a reference for
writing teachers who would like to conduct peer feedback as a tool to enhance
students’ writing skills. The findings of the study are expected to be a useful source
of reference for the teachers to apply peer feedback in the English writing classes at
Bac Lieu University. Since then, the use of peer feedback among students may
somehow be suggested to be conducted in a larger scope in the future in Bac Lieu

University where opportunities to use English outside the classroom are limited and
peer feedback in English writing class have not been commonly employed. It is
likely to encourage both teachers and students to raise awareness of the significance
of the role of peers and the value of peer feedback to students’ changes in their
performance in production of foreign language learning, especially English writing.
1.7 Definitions of key terms
EFL Writing class
It is a foreign language class in which students deal with writing skills. The main
activities of students in this class is that they take part in writing tasks such as
writing sentences, paragraphs, essays, articles, etc.
Peer
Peer is considered a person who is the same age or who has the same social status as
you do. In this study, peers are those who are the second year and third year
students majored in English in EFL classes.
Peer feedback
Evaluation or assessment from peers, not form teachers. In this study, peer feedback
are comments or corrections among students.

7


Perception
The way a person notices or think of something, especially with the
senses. Perception refers to the way sensory information is organized, interpreted,
and consciously experienced. In this study’s context, perception is what teachers
and students perceived towards the use of peer feedback applied in an EFL writing
class.
Practice
A way of doing something that is organized. In this context, practice is the way
teachers organize peer correction activities in writing classes.

Use of peer feedback
It is the application of techniques of peer feedback used among students to access
their peers’ drafts or composition. It also refers to the strategies teachers apply to
train students the way to give and receive feedback.
1.8 The organization of the thesis.
The current thesis includes 5 chapters as follows:
Chapter 1. Introduction
This chapter presents an initial overview of the thesis defining the general context
for the study. The content in this chapter is well and clearly developed in terms of
background to the study, statement of the problem, aims and objectives of the study,
research questions, scope of the study, significance of the study, definitions of key
terms and organization of the thesis.
Chapter 2. Literature Review
This chapter intentionally presents theoretical background which is considered
literature foundation for the researcher to refer and reasonably follow the track of
researching. Aspects related to teaching and learning writing, previous studies

8


researching the advantages and disadvantages of peer corrective feedback are
included in order to support the field being researched in this thesis.
Chapter 3. Methodology
This chapter presents the research methods employed in this study. More
specifically, this chapter informatively provides the site where this study was
conducted, the population of the study, and stages of data collection of the study.
Three main instruments in this study including questionnaire, interview and
classroom observation are clearly identified as well.
Chapter 4. Results and Discussions
This chapter is a presentation of data collected from the questionnaire, interview

and classroom observation, and discussions based on the findings of the study. The
findings are displayed to answers to the two research questions in order. Following
up the findings is discussions which scientifically analyze the results of the study.
Chapter 5. Conclusion
This last chapter is a summary concluding the main findings of the study. Then,
implications, limitations and recommendations for further research are also
provided.

9


CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter reviews the relevant literature to the topic of the current study to
provide the strong foundation and principles for solving the problems of teaching
and learning English writing. In this section, aspects related to teaching and learning
English writing, errors in writing, types of writing correction and previous studies
on advantages and disadvantages of peer corrective feedback are included. The
chapter ends with the summary of what have been presented.
2.2 Teaching and Learning English Writing Skills
2.2.1. Teaching English Writing Skills
Teaching English writing skills is a large field in the universe of English
teaching that draws much attention of English teachers. Grabe and Kaplan (1996)
suggested that writing is a sort of technology, a set of skills which are required to be
practiced and make progress with appropriate teaching methods of teachers. Pearsall
and Cunningham (1988) stated that the teaching of writing is a challenge work
which needs multiple efforts from language teachers to facilitate students
effectively. Commonly, teaching writing is acknowledged as a process that
comprises a change in the teachers’ approach and practices (Murray, 2003).

Teaching writing needs a great deal of investments from the side of teachers.
Teaching students to write means teaching them to master flow of sentence
structures, way to express ideas and how to avoid errors in their writing paper.
Therefore, teacher should be able to use appropriate teaching techniques and
practices so that students make progress. According to Raimes (1991), the success
the teaching of writing lays on the form, content, writer and reader during the
practices in the classrooms. Teachers play important role in organizing and
facilitating students throughout the writing practice sessions.
10