Nghiên cứu tìm hiểu các hoạt động sau viết nhằm cải thiện kỹ năng viết của học sinh lớp 10 tại trường THPT Gia Bình 2, Bắc Nin

3






ABSTRACT

This study is conducted in an attempt to investigate the post- writing activities used in writing
lessons of grade 10 students at Gia Binh 2 High School, their frequency, their performances
and their advantages and disadvantages as perceived by teachers and students as well. From
those, the researcher wish to find out the most effective activity helping grade 10 learners
improve their writing ability. In order to achieve the aims of the study and obtain reliable
information for the study, interviews among teachers, survey questionnaire among students
and document analysis of the students’ writing papers are applied. The findings of the study
reveal that both teachers and students at GB2HS have a rather positive attitude towards post
writing activities and their importance in improving learners’ writing proficiency. Among all,
teacher’s feedback, group’s feedback and peer’s feedback are the activities used to revise 10
th

form students’ papers at GB2HS, in which teacher’s comment play the crucial role and mostly
applied. However, there are numerous problems preventing those activities from working
efficiently in the study context. Some implications are then drawn up based on the findings for
the betterment of the teaching and learning post writing stage at GB2HS. With careful and
detailed investigations, it is hoped that this study will be a useful source of reference for
teachers, students and those who concern about feedback activities in improving writing skill.

4
TABBLE OF CONTENT

PART A- INTRODUCTION 1
1. Rationale 1
2. Aims of the study 2
3. Scope of the study 2
4. Research questions 3
5. Methodology 3
6. Outline of the study 4
PART B- DEVELOPMENT 5
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 5
1.1. Theoretical background to English writing teaching 5
1.1.1. Overview of writing 5
1.1.2. Overview of writing teaching 6
1.1.2.1. Why do we teach writing? 6
1.1.2.2. Theoretical approaches to writing teaching 7
1.1.2.2.1. Controlled- composition approach 8
1.1.2.2.2. Current- traditional rhetoric approach 8
1.1.2.2.3. The process approach 9
1.1.2.2.4. The stages in the writing process 10
1.2. Overviews of Teachers and Peers’ Feedbacks in Teaching and Learning Writing12
1.2.1. What is feedback? 12
1.2.2. Teachers’ Giving Feedback in Teaching Writing 13
1.2.3. Peers’ Feedback/ Response in Learning Writing 15
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY 17
2.1. The context 17
2.2. The participants 17
2.2.1. The students 17
2.2.2. The teachers 18

2.3. The writing syllabus of grade 10 students 18
2.4. Description of data collection instruments 18
CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDING 20
3.1. Data analysis of teachers’ performances, attitudes and evaluations 20
3.1.1. Teacher participants’ demography information and teaching experience 20
3.1.2. Teachers’ perception of teaching English writing as a process 20
3.1.3. Teacher participants’ representation of stages in writing teaching 21


5
3.1.4. Teacher participants’ representations in Post writing stage 22
3.1.5. Teachers’ evaluation on the effectiveness of post writing activities 23
3.1.5.1. Frequency and procedure of using Post- writing activities 23
3.1.5.2. Teachers’ evaluation on the importance and effectiveness of Post writing
activities 24
3.1.5.3. Teachers’ evaluation on the students’ improvement 25
3.2. Data analysis of students’ performances, attitudes and evaluations 26
3.2.1. Student participants’ learning experience 26
3.2.2. Students’ perception of importance of Post- writing activities 27
3.2.3. Students’ evaluation on the effectiveness of post- writing activities used 28
3.2.4. Students’ evaluations on their improvement in writing skill 31
3.2.4.1. Students’ perception on factors that affect writing proficiency 31
3.2.4.2. Students’ self- assessment on their improvement in writing skill 32
3.2.5. Students’ presentation of errors in writing papers and their improvement in
writing skill 33
3.2.5.1. Teacher’s Giving Feedback 33
3.2.5.2. Pair correction 35
3.2.5.3. Group correction 36
PART C- CONCLUSION 39
1. Conclusions 39

2. Implications 40
3. Limitations of the study 41
4. Recommendations 42
5. Suggestions for further study 43
REFERENCES 44
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Writing Syllabus for Grade 10 Students I
Appendix B: Researcher’s Observations from Class Hours Attended III
Appendix C: Checklists and Error Codes XIV
Appendix D: Interview Questions and Survey Questionnaire XVI





6
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CLT Communicative Language Teaching
TESOL Teaching English to Speakers of Foreign Language
MOET Ministry of education and training
GB2HS Gia Binh 2 High School
Cont. Content
Org. Organization
P Paper
B Before
A After


7

LIST OF CHARTS AND TABLES

Chart 1: Teachers' frequency of using post writing activities
Chart 2: Students' experience of learning English
Chart 3: Student participants’ experience of learning English in process
Chart 4: Students’ frequency of participating in post writing activities
Chart 5: Students’ perception of the importance of Post writing activities
Chart 6: The post-writing activities used by respondents
Chart 7: Respondents’ evaluation on the most effective activities to students’ writing
Chart 8: Respondents’ evaluation on the effectiveness of post-writing activities
Chart 9: Students’ perception on the factors affecting writing proficiency
Chart 10: Respondents’ evaluation on their improvement in writing
Table 1: Student participants’ presentation of errors in writing before and after teachers’ giving
feedback
Table 2: Students’ writing error presentation of errors before and after peer correction
Table 3: Students’ writing error presentation of errors before and after group correction


8
PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
As the development of the world; English has, of course, become the official language of
human beings and learning English is compulsory in every corner of the earth. Learning this
language effectively means the learners are sufficiently proficient in all its sub- aspects namely
reading, speaking, listening and writing skills. Among these skills, teaching how to write
English well has been noticed as early as since English was taught. English language teaching
methods, in general, and English language writing skill methods, in particular, have changed
over time. It's considered the process-oriented pedagogy approach which has permeated the
English language teaching and English writing teaching as well over the past twenty years one
of the most effective.

The process-oriented approach requires teaching writing regularly with numerous stages
namely Pre- Writing, Writing and Post- Writing; in addition, each stage can also contain
several sub- stages with different techniques to appropriate writing teaching and learning.
Among those stages, it is very clear that we can not control how and what exactly the learners
are writing since writing skill as known is a productive skill- each writer with his/ her own
imagination and knowledge can bear different products. With the role as an instructor, teachers
can only intervene in Pre- writing stage to provide the learners with available vocabulary or
suggested ideas and they will start writing more smoothly or in Post- writing stage to help
them edit and improve the writing.
Since process- oriented approach gained its popularity; each of English skills has been treated
the same or taught both separated and integrated with one another. Especially, thank to the
MOET’s policy of textbooks change at high schools in Vietnam in school year 2006- 2007,
English skills in general and writing skill in particular have been really taught in process with
Pre- writing, writing and Post- writing stages; of which the third one seems worth- asking.
What are really happening in this stage? Is it really helping learners acquire the skill?
To edit a language product, numerous ways have been introduced including peer reviews,
teacher-student conferences, and audio-taped commentary and so on. However, with written
ones in real situations of Vietnam, it seems that handwritten corrections with teachers or peers
are the most applicable. Gia Binh 2 High School in Bacninh is one like other high schools in
Vietnam applying teaching English writing skill in a process as follow the textbook “Tiếng
Anh 10, 11, 12” issued by the MOET since at first; therefore, teaching writing skill, in general,
and post writing stage, in particular tend to be worth researching.


9
Last but not least, research on teaching writing skill in general and dealing with students’
written pieces of work in particular in Vietnam has been so rare and books about these are also
quite limited. Being one of the teachers who are in charge of, the researcher feels really
concerned in investigating the effectiveness of the Post- writing activities applied in her
context, Gia Binh 2 high school in improving grade 10 students’ writing skill.

2. Aims of the study
This study is intended to measure the effectiveness of Post- writing activities in teaching
English language writing skill for the grade 10 students at Gia Binh 2 High School, Bacninh.
The study desires to obtain the main following aims:
(1) to investigate which Post- writing activities are being used in writing lessons of grade 10
students at Gia Binh 2 High School, Bacninh, their frequency and their relations
(2) to investigate the teachers and students’ performances in these activities, their attitudes
towards each activity and find out the advantages and disadvantages of each Post- writing
activity in writing lessons of grade 10 students at Gia Binh 2 High School, Bacninh
(3) to compare among these activities and evaluate the effectiveness of each and draw out
which one is the most beneficial
3. Scope of the study
This study is hoped to carry out within the following scopes:
(1) Being a productive skill and processed in stages; teaching writing is such a broad topic that
can not be wholly discussed within the framework of this paper. Only one specific and
commonly-practiced stage of teaching the skill will be central to the discussion: teaching
Post- writing stage
(2) Every EFL composition class needs feedback in order to revise their papers successfully.
However, the study’s context, Gia Binh 2 High School with more than 2000 is so large
area. Therefore, this study will deal with only 89 student participants among the starters-
two groups of grade 10 students in school. Together with these two groups are four
teacher participants who are in charge of teaching English for 10 graders in this school.
(3) Writing skill needs practicing frequently and, of course, will take much time. Nothing done
in process can get the result over night. Therefore, this research will be carried out nearly
during the academic year 2010- 2011 along with using the textbook “Tiếng Anh 10”. The
result hopes to come to an end in the last of the academic year to propose
recommendations to improve the next academic year’s teaching of writing.
These points are made clear to the participants in the process of conducting this study so that

10
the study can be more feasible and its results more applicable into the real classrooms. As a
result, the result of the study will be recommended to apply in teaching writing skill for the
grade 10 students at Gia Binh 2 High School, Bacninh and may be for the others, the grade 11
and 12 ones in this school.
4. Research questions
With the scopes and the detailed aims as above, this research will be wished to answer the
following questions:
(1) What are the post- writing activities often used in English writing lessons in grade 10 at
Gia Binh 2 High School?
(2) What are the 10th form teachers and learners’ attitudes to the post- writing activities
applied to teach writing skill at Gia Binh 2 High School?
(3) What are the advantages and disadvantages of the post- writing activities used in
teaching writing for grade 10 students at Gia Binh 2 High School?
(4) Which post- writing activity is the most effective? (as perceived by these teachers and
learners?)
5. Methodology
This study’s scopes, aims and hypotheses need to pick the combined approaches. The
following approaches will be used to conduct the research:
(1) An initial interview is done among the teacher participants to find out which Post- writing
activities are being used in writing lessons of grade 10 students at Gia Binh 2 High
School. The teachers’ attitudes and techniques in conducting post- writing activities are
also expected to be revealed through this interview. Then the follow-up interview is
carried out after writing lessons attended by the researcher to evaluate the strengths and
weaknesses of each post- writing activity in terms of teachers’ opinions.
(2) A survey questionnaire is piloted among grade 10 students at Gia Binh 2 High School to
discover their performance in the post- writing activities and their attitudes to these
activities. Questionnaire data collection and analysis is also hoped to reveal the learners’
own assessment of each activity.
(3) Students’ papers will be collected and analyzed to measure each post writing activity’ s

interventions on students’ writing and their improvement in the writing proficiency
(4) Researcher’s observation and assessment on the post writing activities are also an
important source to gain the aims of the study.


11
6. Outline of the study
This study consists of three parts: introduction, development and conclusion.
The introduction presents the background, aims, research questions, scopes as well as the
approaches and outline of the study.
The development comprises three chapters:
Chapter I reviews the literature on the writing teaching and handwritten corrections in teaching
and learning writing as well.
Chapter II describes the research methods used in the process of doing the thesis. It consists of
the justification of data collection instruments, the description of data collection instruments,
the procedure to collect data. The subject of the study is also mentioned in this chapter.
Chapter III presents the results and discussion on the data collected by means of survey
questionnaire among student respondents, interview responding among teacher participants
and student writing analysis. Researcher’s observations are also revealed here.
The conclusion offers some suggestions for further improvements in feedbacks on students
writing and provides future directions for further research which are not touched upon in the
limit of this thesis.



12
PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter reviews important issues in the theories of teaching writing in general and
conducting post- writing activities in particular. Two main features will be taken into

consideration, namely, theoretical background to the teaching writing and theoretical
background to feedback: teachers’ feedback and peers’ feedback. They are also the foundation
on which the questionnaires for the teachers and students are set up.
1.1. Theoretical background to English writing teaching
1.1.1. Overview of writing
Writing is one of the four skills taught when mastering any languages. In English language
teaching, writing skill is nominated a productive skill with numerous definitions surrounding
it. Basically, it is seen as an “act of forming graphic symbols” (Byrne, 1991, p. 1). It means
writing anything is really simple, we use letters or combinations of letters according to certain
conventions to form words, words are combined to make sentence, and then sentences are put
with each other to “produce a sequence of sentences arranged in a particular order and linked
together in certain ways”. In the other word, writing, in Byrne’s view, is reflected from the
lowest level- letters to the higher and higher levels of performance- words, sentences and
discourses and as strategies to obtain a final product or actions of “making marks on the flat
surface of some kinds”.
Other views consider it as a more complex process which are “profound, or funny, or
provocative, or highly persuasive” (Veit, Gould & Clifford, 2001) and involves a number of
separate sub- skills “from the basics of handwriting and spelling to the subtler nuances of tone
and organization.” as a social process, “Writing is therefore an engagement in a social
process, where the production of texts reflects methodologies, arguments and rhetorical
strategies constructed to engage colleagues and persuade them of the claims that are made.”
(Candlin and Hyland, 1999, p. 107)
Cognitive view sees writing as decision - making process (Flower & Hayes, 1981). When
writing something, whether an email message, a letter, or an essay, the writer is engaged in
making decisions one by one. He or she has to decide what to begin the text with, whether to
include or leave out an idea that comes to mind, whether to begin a new paragraph or continue
the same one, what information to place in the beginning of a sentence, and so on. Successful
writing is the result of making the right decisions most of the time during the act of composing
and revising. If writing is a mental activity of skillful decision-making, learning to write is
defined as “learning to make decisions appropriate for the situation (the purpose of the text,

the writer’s objective, the reader’s purpose in reading the text, the circumstances in which the
writing and reading take place) and learning to recognize where inappropriate decision have


13
been made, so that they can be put right before the text arrives at the reader’s desk”,
Renandya & Richard (2002, p.1).
Murray (1978, p. 29) and Perl (1979, p. 43) also raises their opinions of writing as “a creative
discovery procedure characterized by the dynamic interplay of content and language: the use
of language to explore beyond the known content.” As follow this view, language becomes the
great instrument to create and reflect the background knowledge or experience we have
already gained in the social life. In brief, all the views gradually considered writing more
complicated as an art that need creativity and effort.
Consequently, writing is not a simple one to master. Ur (1996) said “most people acquire the
spoken language (at least their own mother tongue) intuitively, whereas the written form is in
most cases deliberately taught and learned” (p.161). In addition, writing, from the language
teachers' view point, is also "a language skill which is difficult to acquire" (Tribble, 1996, p.3).
It is “a process that occurs over a period of time, particularly if we take into account the
sometimes extended period of thinking that precedes creating an initial draft” (Ferris, 1993, p.
10). Tribble also stresses that writing “normally requires some forms of instruction” and that
“it is not a skill that is readily picked up by exposure” (1996, p.11). Learners have to spend
time getting the sufficient proficiency of skill. Lannon JM (1989) shares some points about it,
he sees it “a process of transforming the material you discover by inspiration, research,
accident, trial and error, or whatever into a message with a define meaning. In short, writing
is a process of deliberate decision” (p. 9)
1.1.2. Overview of writing teaching
1.1.2.1. Why do we teach writing?
Byrne (1991, pp: 4-5) indicates the nature of writing, being a difficult skill in a language
acquisition, through three aspects of, namely, psychological, linguistic and cognitive. He sees
writing process as one which is different from speech making process. Writing must be carried

out in one’s own merely not basing on others’ responses or feedbacks with fixed linguistic
rules and writers’ awareness of structures used, text organization and the readership. Or as
insightfully claimed by Richards and Renandya (2002, p.303), “there is no doubt that writing
is the most difficult skill for L
2
learners to master. The difficulty lies not only in generating and
organizing ideas, but also in translating these into readable text”. However, writing is
essential to teach due to its dynamics. This is a skill that not only is tested in every
internationally valid language examination, but also a skill that learners should possess and
demonstrate in academic context. Writing includes numerous considerations and choices to be
made regarding “higher level skills”, such as content, structure and organization, and "lower
level skills", such as spelling, punctuation and choice of appropriate vocabulary items and
grammatical structures, Richards and Renandya (2002).


14
Ronald White (1981) also finds that writing is essential for its usages as a “high face value”
device. Mostly used to satisfy a psychological need, all people would like to write rather than
to talk to inform, especially the sensible matters. Or in educational aspect, a variety of
activities that interest to the lesson is often conducted by writing activities. Moreover, not only
in warming- up but writing is also a reliable test device reflecting students’ progress. Almost
of the tests are mainly carried out in writing papers.
Ur (1996) views writing’s importance “as a means”, “as an end” and “as both means and
end”. As a means, writing can reflect its role in engaging aspects of language for we often use
writing to take note new vocabulary, write down the answers for reading and listening tasks or
copy out grammar rules, etc. As an end, writing activities are often done variously at different
level and requires different performances; therefore, each level can be seen as a minor process
with its own specific aims. Finally, in some writing activities, a mixture of “purposeful and
original writing and learning or practice of some other skill or content” is often revealed, so
writing can be seen as both a means and an end.

Raimes (1983) states that the students can acquire the language better due to writing for the
three reasons as follow. First, writing helps enhancing their grammar, vocabulary and idioms.
Language learners can have their own ways to memorize the vocabulary but all must capture
any words or phrases once or more times by writing. Second, writing gives them a chance to
try the language learnt. With writing, learners can reflect the language proficiency and also
their background knowledge they have in their own as quoted from Murray (1978, p. 29) and
Perl (1979, p. 43) above. Last, writing can help motivating learners to learn new language.
Every language is complicated with numerous features and when writing, all learners tend to
express themselves, so by finding appropriate vocabulary items and structures to write they
can discover new language items to learn.
Curry, M.J. & Hewings, A. et al (2003) also share the above points of view. That we teach
writing for it is “as assessment; as an aid to critical thinking, understanding and memory; to
extend students’ learning beyond lectures and other formal meeting; to improve students’
communication skills; and to train students as future professionals in particular disciplines”
In short, writing is worth teaching and learning carefully since none of us is sure about the
future whether we do not need to write anything. If it is not immediately profitable at present,
it will have value in itself as part of the long-term education process and "teach skills that help
learners improve the language proficiency to the point where they are cognizant of what is
expected of them as writers" (Williams, 2003, p.1)
1.1.2.2. Theoretical approaches to writing teaching
With the importance of teaching writing, in the 20th century, human beings witnessed
numerous approaches such as Audio- lingualism, Suggestopedia and Silent Way in the first


15
half (Richards & Renandya, 2002) and in the second half as Communicative Approaches.
Language towards the end of the 1960s was no longer seen solely in terms of structures, but as
something more complex including a number of notions and functions that have to be
acquired. Hymes, (1968, p.278) first introduces the notion of communicative competence,
“there are rules of use without which the rules of grammar would be useless”. He means that

language study should move away from strict grammatical and syntactic structures, as
“competence for use is part of the same developmental matrix as competence for grammar”
(1968, p. 279).
Approaches were raised, achieved the dominance and then faded but they never disappear.
Raimes (1983, pp: 6-11) indicates: “There is no one way to teach writing, but many ways” and
she presents the six most typical, namely, (i) The Controlled-to-Free Approach which mainly
emphasizes accuracy of grammar, syntax and mechanics, (ii) The Free-Writing Approach
which puts the focus on fluency, ideas and audience, (iii) The Paragraph-Pattern Approach
which deals with text organization and the language’s culture of organizing texts, (iv) The
Grammar-Syntax-Organization Approach which combines the need to organize well and using
right grammar and syntax, (v) The Communicative Approach which concentrates on the
purpose and the audience of the writing (who and why?), (vi) The Process Approach which
stresses more on the written product through steps with multiple- drafts
Nunan (1991) also discusses the two typical writing teaching approaches are product- oriented
and process- oriented. The product- oriented stresses on the end work which is desired to be
similar to a sample, whereas the process approach emphasizes thinking and writing procedure
at discourse-level with various steps and multiple drafts. (pp. 86-87).
Up to now, despite being named differently, the approaches developed and more or less
influential to the writing teaching.
1.1.2.2.1. Controlled- composition approach
This approach regards language as speech and learning as habit formation. It means that
writing is seen as a secondary/supporting concern or reinforcement for oral habits only.
Writing is considered: “the handmaid of the other skills, …, which must not take precedence as
a major skill to be developed,” Rivers (1968, p. 241) or “as a service activity rather than as an
end in itself,” Rivers (1968, p. 258). Writing, then is imitating or manipulating of the learnt
structures in speech. It does not care for the quality of ideas or expressions but formal
linguistic accuracy, so this approach lacks audience and purpose. In this approach, teachers
tend to focus on form and role as editors or proofreaders.
1.1.2.2.2. Current- traditional rhetoric approach
This approach then appears with the increasing awareness of the students’ needs in producing

extended written discourse. Controlled composition is not enough but writing needs more than


16
making correct grammatical sentences. The approach is the combination of the basic principles
of Young’s current- traditional paradigm (1978) with Kaplan’s theory of contrastive rhetoric
(1967). Young emphasizes on the form of the composed product while Kaplan defines rhetoric
as “the method of organizing syntactic units into larger patterns” (p. 15) and he finds it
necessary to “provide the students with a form within which he may operate” (p. 20). In the
other word, writing should have logical construction and arrangement of discourse forms, in
which paragraphs have to consist of topic, supporting and concluding sentences linked by
transitions and larger essays must be developed with introduction, body and conclusion.
Seemingly, this approach is still to focus on form. The approach, as a result, still lacks of
audience and purpose. It just encourages students to “see form as a mold into which content is
somehow poured” White (1990, p.6), and results in “mindless copies of a particular
organizational plan or style” and “stultifying and inhibiting writers rather than empowering
them or liberating them”. Escholz (1980, p.24)
1.1.2.2.3. The process approach
Richard (1985) sees communicative language teaching (CLT) that emerged in the 1970s as a
major breakthrough in language teaching and marks the moving away from the traditional
notion of methods to integrating the notion of communicative competence. “CLT was an
attempt to operationalize the concept of communicative competence and to apply it across all
levels of language program design, from theory, to syllabus design, to teaching techniques”,
Richards (2002, p. 22). Teaching writing in process is mainly focus-on-forms and includes a
lot of different stages. The content, the ideas, and the needs to communicate would determine
the form. Raimes (1992) states that “composing means expressing ideas, conveying meaning.
Composing means thinking” (p. 261); in addition, Zamel (1983) expresses writing as a
“complex, recursive, and creative process whereby the writers discover and reformulate their
ideas as they attempt to approximate meaning” (p. 165). The process emphasizes on the
content or meaning first or what message the writing conveys. Learners need to pay more

attention to what to convey through the writing work. Final products are just “secondary,
derivative concern, whose form is a function of its content and purpose” (Silva, 1988, p. 16).
In addition, Cohen, (2001) interprets Hymes’ model of communicative competence as a model
consisting of four different components, grammatical, discourse, sociolinguistic and strategic
competence. Grammatical competence refers to the choice of lexis and grammatical and
syntactic patterns, whereas discourse competence refers to the ability to sequence stretches of
written discourse in such a way that the text is cohesive and coherent. Sociolinguistic
competence is concerned with the knowledge of sociolinguistic norms of a language, so that a
text is culturally appropriate. Strategic competence is the ability to employ strategies in order


17
to make up for any communication breakdowns. In relation to teaching writing, so that writing
acts as communicative role, form is not of great importance as content, meaning and intention.
However, the focus on content with exclusion of form has also faced disagreement by the
academic community. For example, Silva (1990) argued “student writing must falls within the
range of acceptable writing behaviors dictated by the academic community” (p.17). Yet, the
approach still seems to be the most preferable. As developed through time, the approach is to
include both form and content- focused features with the stress mainly on meaning. This
approach enables
“learners to write their way into more precise, interpretive texts, while at the same time fostering
greater attention to forms of the writing, to reflection on what is involved in the creation of a text
and to adapting writing style to the audience and context of writing” Reid (1993, p. 30)
In this approach, “teachers are encouraged not to impose their views, give models, or suggest
response to topics beforehand” (Candlin & Hall, 2002, p. 23). Learners are enhanced to
brainstorm and outline their overflow of first thinking. Then, “the idea behind it is not really to
dissociate writing entirely from the written product and to merely load students through the
various stages of the writing process” (Seow, 2002: 315 - 316). Therefore, process means
through various stages.
1.1.2.2.4. The stages in the writing process

Since development of this approach, there have been many views on the number of stages in
writing. Hedge (1990) describes it including “being motivated to write → getting ideas
together → planning and outlining →making notes → making a first draft → revising,
replanning, redrafting → editing and getting ready for publication”. Or Oshima and Hogue
(1991) draw out a process with three stages: pre- writing, planning (outlining) and writing and
revising drafts. Ron White and Valerie Arndt (1990) divide the writing process into:





And another one, Reid (1993) raises the process comprising five main stages: prewriting,
planning, drafting, revising and editing in addition to three others initiated by the teachers:
responding, evaluating and post- writing. Or Gardner and Johnson (1997) describe the stages
of the writing process consist of eight steps namely: “Prewriting→Rough Draft → Reread →
Share with a Peer Revisor → Revise → Editing → Final Draft → Publishing”. These steps are
collaborative and continual.
Different linguists give different views, yet the process always cover numerous stages. Of the
mentioned above, this study will pick one by Oshima and Hogue (1991) in detailed analysis.
Drafting
Structuring
Re-viewing
Focusing
Generating
ideas
Evaluating


18
Pre- writing

Pre- writing is not only seen as an initiating stage of the process, but it is also clearly a crucial
part of the writing process. Learners can be either guided or unguided. This means they can use
questions or brainstorm to start. Questions which are often composed in advance by the
instructors can also be used as a means to prompt ideas. Penaflorida (2002) suggests that
teachers should be careful when assigning a writing task. They should neither encourage their
learners to solely imitate model compositions thus this impede their imagination, nor ask them
to write a task without any preparatory exercises. Pre- writing exercises are very essential to
remain the process.
Planning/ Outlining
Conveying a message through writing is essentially a matter of selecting information- both
factual and linguistic- and arranging, or more precisely, planning to structure it. This entails
various organizational processes of grouping ideas together and deciding upon how to
sequence them into paragraph(s).
Writing
In this stage, writers make the transition from the writer-based writing of the earlier idea-
generating and theme-identifying phases to the reader-based writing which constitutes the final
product which is aimed at the audience and the purpose. Fundamental to the approach to
writing which are presented here are the processes of revision and rewriting what have been
prepared in Pre- writing.
Revising drafts
Revising is very time-consuming. This stage is described as changing particular words in a
sentence or scanning a text for misspelled words or grammatical errors and significantly
altering a piece of writing, content and organization- an idea needs to be developed more
thoroughly, another omitted. Or, rearranging paragraphs will provide clarity and support for
the argument, strengthening the paper as a whole. In the other words, revising means paying
attention to the purpose, the audience, the form, the grouping of ideas, the coherence and
cohesion of the writing on the basis of the response given by the teacher and their peers. At
this stage, it is believed that the teachers and students should jointly work on the criteria by
which writing is to be judged as students have a right to know, and the teachers have an
obligation to tell them, what the criteria are by which their work is being evaluated. In writing,

it is suggested drafts not draft, it means writers should advocate running through the ‘draft-
revise-rewrite’ circle at least one, twice through the circle is recommended, or more if needed
until both teacher and students have a product that is as good as they can.
All the interventions after the first draft can be called post- writing activities that aim to cure
and improve the writing. Intervention may consist of assessing students’ draft which can be


19
done either by peers or /and teacher, and responding to the text as a reader rather than simply
as a marker. There are three kinds of responding. The first is a personal and individual
response by the teacher to the student writer; the second is a public respond by the teacher to
the work of one student as a whole class activity and the third involves students responding to
each other’s work/ peer review.
In summary, the overview of teaching writing with the emphasis on the process approach and
the detailed descriptions of stages constituting the process, it is implicated that post- writing
stage including teachers and peers’ responding to the students’ writing is an integral part of the
teaching and learning process.
1.2. Overviews of Teachers and Peers’ Feedbacks in Teaching and Learning Writing
From the above theories, we all see that learning a language skill as writing is always
complicated. It needs much time and effort because writings always contain errors. Hubbard
(1989, p.144) said that “the pupil does not learn by making mistakes but by having correct
responses properly reinforced”. Students’ errors are seen as a sign of failure but also a sign of
progress, so they should be treated as soon as they appear. Process-oriented approach in
teaching writing requires students to write as many drafts as needed and also frequently revise
to correct and improve their writing. Among all, teachers and peers’ written feedbacks are the
most popular and applicable ones in Vietnamese high schools.
1.2.1. What is feedback?
Chaudron, (1988, p.133) defines “feedback as contrasted with the narrower notion of
“correction”, is therefore an evitable constituent of classroom interaction…, the provision of
feedback is a major means by which to inform learners of their accuracy of both their formal

target language production and their classroom behavior and knowledge”. Another, Keh
(1990, p. 294) shares that feedback is “input from a reader to a writer with the effect of
providing information for revision". Readers here can include all teachers and friends or
anyone who proof- read one’s writing. These readers’ contributions are to help edit and revise
pieces of writing. In fact, feedback is regarded as an effective way to reflect on students’
writing. The reflection should be preliminary and intermediate as Seow (2002) claims,
“feedback is regarded teacher’s quick initial reaction to the students’ drafts”. Adding to this
point of view, Renandya and Richards (2003) state that: “for students who write only one draft,
which is then graded by the teacher, feedback on what is wrong in the composition comes too
late". In the other word, feedback should be provided in the “process of writing” rather than in
the “single act of producing a text”. Obviously, cooperation between teachers and students is
very much necessary for the successful implementation of feedback for giving feedback is a
quite effort and time- consuming process.


20
Lewis (2002) insightfully claims that giving feedback is aimed at the five purposes of as
follows: (i) Feedback provides information for teachers and students about students’ language
proficiency and progress and teachers’ teaching as well. (ii) Feedback, as a pedagogical tool,
provides students with advice about learning. (iii) Feedback supplies students with meaningful
and individual language input. (iv) Feedback is a form of motivation that enables learners to
evaluate their progress, understand their level of competence, and maintain their effort in
striving to reach realistic goals (Riviere, 2000). (v) Feedback can lead students towards
autonomy, by which they can find their own mistakes as in many cases.
Penaflorida (2002, p.346) stresses the importance of feedback as “an integral feature of
student writing, in as much as it enables students to identify their own strengths and
weaknesses", which, in the case of the later, will make students know how to go about
improving themselves and becoming more effective writers”, unlike marks or grades, which
tend to compare one student with another. The comments can also give direct information
about language, by stating a rule or by giving example.

1.2.2. Teachers’ Giving Feedback in Teaching Writing
Giving feedback is very important in teaching, as the provision of feedback proceeds from the
demands and expectations of teaching and learning process. Penaflorida (2002) highlights that
there is a close connection between teaching and providing feedback; thus teachers’ giving
feedback is something needs doing in teaching writing. According to Raimes (1983),
responding to students’ writing is an excessive part in teaching writing procedure and teachers’
responding is to help the students knowing what to do next with their writing products.
Teachers can provide students with more than simple descriptions of their language use.
Comments can also be made on the students’ learning processes. Also, feedback as an ongoing
form of assessment gives teachers information about individual and collective class progress
and, indirectly, is a form of evaluation on their own teaching.
Giving feedback can be single-draft approached. It means the teacher sets a topic and students
are asked to write. The teacher then returns the compositions with a grade and errors marked in
red. And then the students quickly switch to a new type of composition lesson and repeat this
process. Sommers (1982) sees this process of response as too general, incentive, confusing,
arbitrary, and idiosyncratic. It only cracks the surface of the student’s writing, but does not
“directly address the writers' main problems, which are more related to the way in which they
accomplish a given writing task"(Chenoweth, 1987, p.25). Sharing the points, Keth (1989)
criticizes that one - shot commentary provides little information for the students to improve
their papers in terms of coherence or content, either in the short or long term. Therefore, this
approach proves to be ineffective to the student revision.


21
As a result, the multiple draft approach is essential. In “process writing" classes, students may
write several drafts using the feedback offered by teachers or peers. In fact, the process
approach to teaching writing not only leads students to write multiple drafts, but also
encourages teacher to respond to student writing as a process. This process enables students to
practice through several revision cycles and gives them more chances to develop and present
their ideas, to improve both the form and content of their compositions effectively.

In addition, “The major question confronting any theory of responding to student writing is
where we should focus our attention”: grammatical errors or content, Griffin (1982, p. 299).
Danna Ferris and John Hedgcock (1998) and Ann Fathman and Elizabeth Whalley (1996)
concludes that feedback needs to focus more on content than on form. Nevertheless, the
authors add response on content in this stage is not the one that student writers expect from
their teachers but the teacher’s comments on forms. For that reason, they conclude the
comments should be both on content and grammar but with the focus on the former. This point
of view is shared by Fathman and Whalley (1996) that “Student can improve their writing in
situation where content and form feedback are given simultaneously”, and "grammar and
content feedback can be improve at the same time without over-bundling the students”. So as
teacher’s feedback can allow the student to revise and be capable of transferring the change to
other pieces of writing, Reid’s (1993).
Lillis, T.M. & Swann, J. (2003) confirms that giving feedback on students’ writing is a
“central pedagogic practice in higher education” and it should follow QAA (the Quality
Assurance Agency)- academic standards and the quality of teaching and learning in higher
education so that the feedback does not look like an evaluation sheet. As a result, to get
students reinforced to learn and get improvement, we must notice:
 the timeliness of feedback
 specifying the nature and extent of feedback that students can expect in relation to particular types and
units of assessment, and whether this is to be accompanied by the return of assessed work
 the effective use of comments on returned work, including relating feedback to assessment criteria, in order
to help students identify areas for improvement as well as commending them for evident achievement
 the role of oral feedback, either on a group or individual basis as a means of supplementing written
feedback
 when feedback may not be appropriate
(pp. 102- 103)
Teachers’ feedback can be formative or summative or both as well. Formative feedback is a
kind written in the margin or between sentence lines of the student’s paper to refer to the
teacher’s immediate correction/intervention in discrete parts of the student’s draft. By contrast,
summative feedback at the end of the paper is normally an overview of more consideration in

an essay (Reid, 1993). In addition, giving feedback must also be several of forms: question,


22
statement, imperative, and exclamation and include both negative and positive comments from
teachers as “students have better attitudes towards writing if they receive positive feedback”
(Kroll, 1990, p.62). Yet, Ferris (1997) reveals that “few of the positive comments led to any
changes in the revision, nor were they apparently intended to”. She finds that critical
comments are worth giving for it is of great help in improving the learners’ writing. Another
well supported is Joy M. Reid (1993) and M. Smith (1991), they claim that “As they write,
receive response and revise, students should be able to feel good about what they have done
well and realize that they can improve on what they have not done effectively”.
1.2.3. Peers’ Feedback/ Response in Learning Writing
Hansen and Liu (2005) states that “Peer response can be defined as the use of learners as
sources of information, and interacts for each other in such a way that learners assume roles
and responsibilities normally taken on by teachers in commenting and critiquing each other’s
performances in both written and oral formats” (p.1). Learners are not able to aware of all
their own errors in writings; but with the help from teachers and peers, this can be done more
effectively. Peer means “a person who is the same age or who has the same social status as
you” (Oxford Advanced learner’s Dictionary), so peers here aim at the classmates or the
partner sitting next to a student in class. As a result, peer responses mean pair- working or
group working as in Brown (1974, p.73) “a generic term covering multiplicity of techniques in
which two or more students are assigned a task that involves collaboration and self- initiated
language”
In fact, all learners have errors in their learning process. Errors are failure but dealing with the
errors shows progress. Ferris (2003, p.127) states that “evidence that learners do take seriously
and thus utilize it in order to enhance their writing ability”. Finding and correcting those errors
are very important but teachers only sometimes are not enough. As a result, peers become the
alternative source. For some extent, we all can see the good points of peer working:
-When two students work together on correcting each other’s work, the discussion helps each other to

learn from his or her own errors. Two heads are better than one.
-We all have difficulty in seeing our own mistakes, even if a teacher has given us a signal as to what sort
of a mistake it is. Cooperation helps develop an ability to see out own mistakes
Edge (1989, p. 53)
In writing skill, peer working help students “exchange information in an open- ended, real life
context to fulfill personal goals”- Savova and Donato (1991)
Another, Chaudron (1984, pp. 2-3) states:
-Teacher’s time may be saved by eliminating certain editing tasks, thus freeing them for more helpful
instruction and guidance;
-Peers’ feedback is more at the learner’s level of development or interest, thus perceives as more
informative than the superior or older teacher’s feedback, despite the assumption that the teacher “know
more”;


23
-Since multiple peers may be used, learners gain a sense of a wider audience than simply the one
teacher;
-Learners’ attitudes toward writing can be enhanced by the more socially supportive peers;
-Learners also learn more about writing and revision by having to read each other’s drafts critically.
From the above, we can see that students should have more opportunities to work together and
learn from each other; even it can help to create authentic audience or readership. Emma
Pathare in her article “Encourage peer response” claimed that “Likes, dislikes, opinions,
dream, goals, creative thoughts… all these can be expressed in writing tasks, and through
reading each other’s work, students can build stronger relationship”. However, some students
may sometimes feel confused that they begin to make unnecessary corrections and comments;
or some other can doubt about the quality and accuracy of corrections and comments. Thus,
teachers must help student become questioning readers themselves, “because, ultimately, we
believe that becoming such a reader will help them to evaluate what they have written and
develop control over their writing” (Sommers, 1982, p. 148)
Ideas raised by Pathara (2005) that teachers should notice when arranging peer working since

the learners are not all at a high proficiency enough to comment on others’ work smoothly.
Also, he adds some criteria as follow:
-Clear and achievable task
-Non-competitive and non- threatening
-Positive and constructive feedback
-Fun and motivation
This guidance should be paid some attention by writing teachers before having learners do any
peer working including composition peer checking.



24
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the research methods used in the process of doing the thesis. It consists
of the justification and description of data collection instruments, and the procedure to collect
data. The subject of the study is also mentioned in this chapter.
2.1. The context
Gia Binh 2 High School founded in 1996 and located in Gia Binh Town of Gia Binh district,
Bacninh province is a very spacious and well- constructed with classrooms, laboratories, a
library, a multi-purpose gym and playgrounds in an area of more than one hectare. The 42
standard classrooms are very well- equipped with three sets of laptops, projectors and screens
removable. Like other high schools in Vietnam, Gia Binh 2 High School includes students of
three grades 10, 11 and 12 and study 12 subjects as follow the Schedules and Syllabus enacted
by the MOET of Vietnam. English is one of those subjects. Teaching English has been
changed a lot in Gia Binh 2 in recent years together with the adaptation of new textbooks in
school year 2006- 2007.
2.2. The participants
The participants of this study include four teachers being in charge of teaching English in 12
classes of 10
th

graders and 89 students chosen by “cluster random sampling” (Fraenkei and
Wallen, 1996) in classes 10A and 10A7 at Gia Binh 2 High School. Selecting 2 classes: 10A
and 10A7 instead of randomly selecting individuals from 12 different classes will really help
to observe the participants’ performances and piloting the questionnaires. These classes have
been assigned with a relatively equal proportion of good, average, and poor English
proficiency students
2.2.1. The students
The 89 participant students, including 25 male and 67 female aged 14 to 16, all started learning
English at lower- secondary school. Now, they are 10
th
graders and follow the Syllabus and
textbooks promulgated by MOET of Vietnam. It means that they are having three forty-five-
minute periods or class hours of English study a week; and following the textbook “Tiếng Anh
10” with a writing lesson per five class hours.
Despite having learnt English for at least four years, they are still revealing as beginners in
English language and English writing as well. There are discrepancies between their language
proficiency, which will some what, affect their writing ability. Two- thirds of them have
performed at low proficiency in entrance exam. All the 89 students will take part in class
contacts observed by the researcher and in answering the survey questionnaire; however, about
7 to 10 voluntary students’ writing papers will be collected for regular corrections in each post
writing feedback conducted by teachers or peers.


25
2.2.2. The teachers
The four teachers taking part in the study are in charge of teaching English in grade 10 classes
in Gia Binh 2 High School. All of them are tenured and hold a B.A. in English; among them,
one holds an M.A. in TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Foreign Language) and
another is doing a master in TESOL. One aged 33 has taught English for over 10 years while
the 3 others aged 28 to 30 have five- year experience. All of the four are familiar with teaching

writing lessons in process and aware of the essentiality post- writing activities bring in. They
are all willing to conduct the writing lessons in process and be observed by the researcher to
investigate the learners’ improvement and attitudes
2.3. The writing syllabus of grade 10 students
Covered within sixteen skill- specified units, writing syllabus for 10
th
graders is designed as
theme- based. Sixteen units of the textbook get students to write in sixteen different topics
aiming at developing learners’ writing skills of authentic writing documents such as various
types of letters: invitation, complaint, confirmation, acceptance or refusal, or instructions,
narratives, profiles, form filling, chart and table descriptions and so on. These topics engage
learners in such authentic contexts which they feel necessary some time in life. Further
descriptions of the topics and their specific aims are presented at Appendix A.
2.4. Description of data collection instruments
This study uses three main instruments together with the researcher’s own observation to
obtain adequate data for the study. The instruments include document analysis, questionnaire
and interviews. Data gathered is both qualitative and quantitative.
First, an interview (Interview 1) including six questions is carried out among the teacher
participants to get their personal information: age, sex, job status, teaching experience and their
opinions in teaching English writing as a process (Questions 1, 2, 3). Their methods and
techniques of teaching writing and post writing activities they used as well are also revealed
through this interview (Questions 4, 5, 6).
Then, the researcher takes part in teacher participants’ writing lessons to observe and describe
what they do in post- writing stage. This helps investigating what the teachers have actually
done in post- writing stage. Students’ performance and their attitudes towards these activities
are also captured and reflected on the result analysis of the study.
After each lesson participated, about 7- 10 writing papers are collected and analyzed.
Comments on the students’ first and second drafts are interpreted. What students show in two
first drafts are synthesized quantitatively in numbers of errors and then compared to each other
to measure the progress of students.

26
A follow-up interview with another six open- ended questions (Interview 2) is conducted
among teachers after the writing lessons are observed and students’ writings are collected and
analyzed after each technique used (Question 1). This interview aims at getting teachers’ own
evaluations, the first views (Question 2) and the later ones (Question 6) on the techniques used
in post- writing stage. The focus of the evaluation is mainly fallen on the technique’s
performance, advantages and disadvantages (Questions 3, 4). In addition, teachers’ view on
students’ interests are also discussed (Question 5). Consequently, recommendations are raised
based on the effectiveness of each. Also, it might reveal some other issues that the research has
not touched upon.
Finally, a questionnaire is designed to survey 89 students in two classes to confirm what they
did in post- writing stage. In addition, what they think of those post- writing activities and their
own assessments on these activities are also questioned to find out the most effective activity
of commenting on students’ writing. In addition, their expectations from teachers and peers’
feedback in writing are desired to reveal as well to get further information for the study. There
are 10 items both close and open- ended in this questionnaire. In detailed, Questions 1 and 2
are to get students’ personal information and their learning experience of English language and
English writing skill. Question 3 examines how often the post-writing activities occur in
writing lessons. The three next questions (4, 5 and 6) search out the post- writing activities the
students receive, their attitudes towards them and their most preferred activity. Follow- up
question is both close and open- ended to get the students’ own evaluations of each activity
they experience and their progress in the skill. Then, Question 8 gives the students a chance to
self- evaluate their improvement thanks to post- writing activities. Finally, Question 9 and 10
are designed to get students’ expectations and recommendations in teaching and learning
writing skill.
The purpose of Questionnaire is to investigate what they really think of their doings in writing
lessons, what their preferred activities are, and what problems they are having. On this basis,
the researcher will propose some relevant suggestions to improve the currently used methods

for the students’ benefit.



27
CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDING
Chapter 4 plays a very important part in the study. It serves two functions: giving a
presentation on the data collected by means of survey questionnaire among student
respondents, interview responding among teacher participants, researcher’s observations and
student writing analysis; making interpretation based on the data.
3.1. Data analysis of teachers’ performances, attitudes and evaluations
3.1.1. Teacher participants’ demography information and teaching experience
Among the four teachers participating in the present study, there is only one male teacher aged
33 and, granted, the most experienced in teaching English. He first spent 6 years teaching
English for upper- secondary students in Dien Bien and then has been teaching English at Gia
Binh 2 High School for 4 years. The other three are female, one is 30 years old and two left are
28; all these three female teachers have been teaching English at Gia Binh 2 for 5 years. These
four teachers are tenured at Gia Binh 2 High School and all graduated from College of Foreign
Languages, Vietnam National University and holding a B.A in English. Now, one female aged
28 holds an M.A. in TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Foreign Language) and the
other female aged 28 is doing a master in TESOL.
These four teachers are in charge of teaching English for 10
th
graders at Gia Binh 2 high school
and all of them have taught 10
th
form since they started; this means their experience in
teaching for 10
th
form students varied from 5 to 10 years. At Gia Binh 2, there are 12 classes of

10
th
grade, so each teacher is responsible for 3 classes. Each of class has from 42 to 49 students
with three class hours of English per week. That means each teacher has about 1.5 class hours
of writing teaching each week and deals with about 63- 70 students’ papers per week. This
amount of work is quite overloaded, even time and energy consuming as well.
3.1.2. Teachers’ perception of teaching English writing as a process
When being asked what they think of teaching English writing skill in general and teaching
English writing skill as a process in particular, all the teacher participants share the same point
that writing is not an easy language skill to teach and learn. In addition, the students do not pay
much concern to this skill and their proficiency in writing is low. Therefore, writing lessons
are always boring and unexpected.
Teaching writing skill in process requires teachers and learners to cooperate in numerous
stages with large numbers of drafts. This process takes much time, energy and participants’
effort. At Gia Binh 2 High School, according to researcher’s observation from 10
th
grade
teachers’ performances in class and analyzing their lesson plans, this process is conducted
insufficiently. Students’ drafts are often collected to edit once only. Even many students lack
of teachers’ supports to self- edit their products at home as they do not pay attention or do not
understand teachers’ editing guidance due to their low proficiency or big classes.