Thực tiễn áp dụng hình thức phản hồi từ bạn học trong việc dạy kỹ năng viết cho sinh viên năm thứ hai - Khoa Sư phạm tiếng Anh trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ - ĐHQG H

1



VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES
***

NGUYEN THI THU HANG



THE APPLICATION OF PEER FEEDBACK IN WRITING TEACHING
TO THE 2
ND
-YEAR STUDENTS AT THE FACULTY OF ENGLISH
LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION- UNIVERSITY OF
LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES- VIET NAM
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

THỰC TIỄN ÁP DỤNG HÌNH THỨC PHẢN HỒI TỪ BẠN HỌC
TRONG VIỆC DẠY KỸ NĂNG VIẾT CHO SINH VIÊN NĂM THỨ 2 –
KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ –
ĐHQG HÀ NỘI

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Language Teaching Methodology
Code: 601410

HANOI - 2010
2




VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES
***

NGUYEN THI THU HANG



THE APPLICATION OF PEER FEEDBACK IN WRITING TEACHING
TO THE 2
ND
-YEAR STUDENTS AT THE FACULTY OF ENGLISH
LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION- UNIVERSITY OF
LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES- VIET NAM
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

THỰC TIỄN ÁP DỤNG HÌNH THỨC PHẢN HỒI TỪ BẠN HỌC
TRONG VIỆC DẠY KỸ NĂNG VIẾT CHO SINH VIÊN NĂM THỨ 2 –

KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ –
ĐHQG HÀ NỘI


M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Language Teaching Methodology
Code: 601410
Supervisor: Dinh Hai Yen, M.Ed

HANOI - 2010
6


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
DECLARATION OF ORINALITY i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
ABSTRACT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF FIGURES vii
PART I: INTRODUCTION 1
1. Rationale for the study 1
2. Aims of the study 2
3. Research questions 2
4. Scope of the study 2
5. Methods of the study 2
5.1. Survey questionnaire 2
5.2. Student writing analysis 3

6. Organization of the study 3
PART 2. DEVELOPMENT 5
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 5
1.1. PROCESS APPROACH TO WRITING TEACHING 4
1.1.1. An overview of process approach 4
1.1.2. Stages in a writing process 5
1.2. PEER FEEDBACK IN WRITING TEACHING 6
1.2.1. Concept of peer feedback in writing 6
1.2.2. The significance of peer feedback in process writing 7
1.2.3. Requirements for effective peer feedback practice in writing teaching 8
1.2.4. Major issues of student feedback on their peer’s writing 9
1.2.4.1. Focus of peer written feedback 9
1.2.4.2. Types of peer written feedback 10
7


1.2.4.2.1. Positive feedback versus negative feedback 10
1.2.4.2.2. Direct versus indirect feedback 11
1.2.4.2.3. Text-specific feedback versus general feedback 12
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY 13
2.1. RESEARCH APPROACH 13
2.2. METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION 13
2.2.1. Survey 13
2.2.1.1. Objectives 13
2.2.1.2. Selection of participants 13
2.2.1.3. The survey questionnaire 14
2.2.1.4. Implementation 14
2.2.2. Student writing analysis 14
2.2.2.1. Objectives 14
2.2.2.2. Selection of participants 15

2.2.2.3. Implementation 15
2.3. METHOD OF DATA ANALYSIS 15
CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 16
3.1. FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS FROM STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE 16
3.1.1. Current situation of peer written feedback 16
3.1.1.1. General evaluation of peer written feedback 16
3.1.1.2. Aspects of peer written feedback 17
3.1.1.3. Types of peer written feedback 18
3.1.1.4. Comprehensibility of peer written feedback 20
3.1.1.5. Support from teachers for peer feedback practice 20
3.1.2. Students’ reactions to peer written feedback 22
3.2. FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS FROM STUDENT WRITING ANALYSIS 26
3.2.1. Features of peer written feedback 26
3.2.1.1. Amount of feedback given in certain aspects 27
3.2.1.2. Types of feedback used 30
8


3.2.2. Students’ post-feedback revision 32
PART III: CONCLUSION 35
1. SUMMARY OF THE STUDY…………………………………………………………35
2. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 35
2.1. How is peer feedback given to the 2nd- year students' writings at the FELTE,
ULIS, VNU? 35
2.2. How do the 2
nd
- year students react to their peers’ feedback on their writings? 36
2.3 What can be done to improve the effectiveness of peer feedback practice at the
faculty? 36
2.3.1. Pre-training activity 36

2.3.1.1. Raising students’ awareness of the importance of responsible feedback 36
2.3.1.2. Pre-training students to evaluate friends’ papers 37
2.3.2. Intervention activity 38
2.3.3. Post-feedback discussion with the whole group 38
2.3.4. Assessment of peer feedback 38
3. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 39
4. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES 39
REFERENCES 40
APPENDICES I
APPENDIX 1: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE I
APPENDIX 2: GUIDELINES FOR PEER EDITING IV
9


LIST OF FIGURES


Page
Figure 1: Students‟ general evaluation of peer written feedback 16
Figure 2: Aspects of peer written feedback 17
Figure 3: Types of peer written feedback 19
Figure 4: Reasons why students do not understand peer written feedback 20
Figure 5: Support from teachers for peer feedback practice 21
Figure 6: Whether or not students revise their writings after receiving peer feedback 22
Figure 7: Reasons why students do not revise their writings 22
Figure 8: What students do to revise their writings 23
Figure 9: What students do in case they do not understand peer written feedback 24
Figure 10: Whether or not peer feedback helps students improve their writing skills 25
Figure 11: The efficiency of peer written feedback 25
Figure 12: Amount of peer feedback versus mistakes made 27

Figure 13: Mistakes pointed out versus mistakes corrected 32
Figure 14: Number of mistakes made on 1
st
versus 2
nd
draft of student writings 33








10


PART I: INTRODUCTION
1. RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY
The teaching of English has undergone different waves of change throughout its history. With
regards to writing teaching in particular, there exists a recent shift from the traditional focus on
the product of writing to the process of writing (Hinkel, 2000). A writing process then includes
five stages, namely prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing. The process approach
is said to empower its students, enabling them to make clearer decisions about the direction of
their writing by means of “discussion, tasks, drafting, feedback and informed choices [thereby]
encouraging students to be responsible for making improvements themselves” (Jordan, 1997, as
cited in Clenton, 2006, p.2).
In the light of process approach, feedback plays an integral part of a student‟s writing. Beside
the traditional teacher feedback, peer response proves to be an effective type of feedback as it
provides chances for student writers to write for an immediate audience apart from the teacher,

familiarize themselves with actual readers who critically respond to their work, boost their
confidence, and work collaboratively (Hairston & Keene, 2003).
Much as important peer feedback is, there have been few studies comprehensively dealing with
the issue. Even with those that do, there is a lack of consensus over such matters as what peer
feedback should focus on, how to enhance the effectiveness of peer feedback, etc. The same
situation could be seen in the context of teaching writing in Vietnam. In reality, there are very
few studies conducted on feedback in general and peer feedback in particular. Even at the
Faculty of English Language Teacher Education (FELTE), University of Foreign Languages and
International Studies, Vietnam National University Hanoi (ULIS,VNU), where peer feedback
was applied relatively long ago, no investigation has been made into the current practice. It is,
therefore, an open question whether or not current peer feedback is beneficial to students at the
faculty.
The aforementioned reason urges the author, a lecturer at English 2 Division- FELTE, ULIS,
VNU, to carry out the research entitled The Application of Peer Feedback in Writing Teaching
to the 2
nd
-year Students at the Faculty of English Language Teacher Education _ University
of Foreign Languages and International Studies – Vietnam National University, Hanoi. This
study is an attempt to examine the real situation of peer feedback application at the FELTE and
11


to propose some suggestions for the betterment of the current practice. The yielded results are
hoped to serve as a useful source of reference for those who concern about the subject matter.
2. AIMS OF THE STUDY
This study is carried out with the aims to:
 investigate the current practice of peer feedback on the 2
nd
year students‟
writings at the FELTE-ULIS-VNU

 find out the students‟ reactions towards peer feedback and their suggestions for
improving the situation
 propose some recommendations for the betterment of peer feedback practice at
the FELTE.
3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In order to achieve the abovementioned aims, the study will be conducted to answer three
research questions:
 How is peer feedback given to the 2
nd
- year students' writings at the FELTE,
ULIS, VNU?
 How do the 2
nd
- year students react to their peers‟ feedback on their writings?
 What can be done to improve the effectiveness of peer feedback practice at the
faculty?
4. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The research will deal with peer written feedback on the 2
nd
-year student writings at the FELTE-
ULIS- VNU. The subjects selected for this study are not general English learners but the 2
nd
-
year English majored students at the faculty. Moreover, the research examines only peers‟
written feedback but not other types of feedback such as student conference or oral comments,
since written feedback is the dominating type of peer feedback at the FELTE.
I.5. METHODS OF THE STUDY
Quantitative approach is utilized in this study so as to achieve the desired aims. In details, the
following methods are employed:
5.1. Survey questionnaire

A survey questionnaire is done with 200 2
nd
-year students at the FELTE-ULIS-VNU. The data
gained from the questionnaire not only help deepen the understanding of the current situation of
12


peer feedback but also serve as the foundation for some pedagogical implications for the practice
of peer written feedback at the faculty.
5.2. Student writing analysis
Thirty papers already responded by students and the revised versions are thoroughly analyzed
so as to give the researcher an in-depth look at how peer feedback is given to the 2
nd
-year
student writings at the FELTE and how students react to their friends‟ feedback.
6. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
The research includes three parts as follows: Part I provides a brief introduction to the issue and
an overview of the paper. Part II includes three chapters, namely Literature Review (Chapter 1),
Research Methodology (Chapter 2) and Data Analysis and Discussion (Chapter 3). In greater
details, Chapter 1 reviews the theoretical backgrounds to writing teaching in general and peer
feedback on writing in particular. Chapter 2 describes the methods used to carry out the study.
Chapter 3 presents and analyzes the data collected from the questionnaires and from students‟
writings. Part III summarizes the main issues so far touched upon in the research, some
suggestions for the betterment of peer feedback on students‟ writings at the FELTE, ULIS,
VNU, the limitations of the research and some suggestions for further studies. Following the
chapters are the references and appendices.
13


PART II: DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter, which reviews the overall background concerning the study, will serve as the
theoretical foundation on which the study is based. In this chapter, the researcher will review the
beliefs and studies on the issues most relevant to the study - process writing and peer feedback
in writing teaching.
1.1. PROCESS APPROACH TO WRITING TEACHING
Together with the shift in linguistic theory and practice, writing teaching has also undergone a
number of changes, most outstanding of which was the shift of focus from the product to the
process approach (Joe, 2006). This section is aimed at presenting the nature of this new
approach as well as the major stages of a writing process.
1.1.1. An overview of process approach
The conventional teaching of writing may have largely been known to ESL/EFL teachers and
students as focusing on sentence-level and correctness rather than communicative aspects of the
writing piece itself. This approach has received a lot of criticism because it ignores the actual
processes used by students to produce a piece of writing. Instead, it focuses on imitating and
producing a perfect product, which, in turn, leads to the restriction of creativity (Clenton, 2006).
It was not until the 1970s and 1980s that process approach began to replace product approach.
Writing is now viewed as a multistage process with intervention as needed, and is evaluated
according to how well it can fulfill the writer‟s intentions (Reid, 1993). The purpose of writing,
as stated by Stewart (1988, as cited in Joe, 2006, p. 48), is a written communication with the
writer himself/herself, with his/her fellow learners, with his/her teacher and with his/her
intended readers. Therefore, it is not the form but the idea/the meaning that plays the
determining role. In process approach, the text-the final product is only “a secondary, derivative
concern, whose form is a function of its content and purpose” (Silva, 1990, p.16).
In process approach, writing is no longer considered to be a “linear and fragmented procedure”
(Hairston, 1982, p. 78) with the mere target at an error free product. Rather, it is “a cyclical
process during which writers can move back and forth on a continuum, discovering, analyzing
and synthesizing ideas” (Hughey, et al., 1983 as cited in Joe, 2006, p.48). The emphasis on a
series of drafts on the same topic proves helpful to students because thanks to writing and
14

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

1.1.2. Stages in a writing process
There are a number of ways to define the stages in a writing process. According to Tribble
(1996), the process approach identifies four stages in writing: (1) prewriting, (2)
composing/drafting, (3) revising, and (4) editing.
(1) Prewriting: Prewriting includes anything done by the writer before he writes a
draft: deciding a topic, brainstorming ideas, outlining, gathering information, etc.
(2) Composing/drafting: In this stage, the writers do actual writing and refining of
their sentences and paragraphs.
(3) Revising: In this stage, the writers deal with the content of the writing; i.e.
refining text organization, structure, idea connections or other addition and connection.
(4) Editing: In this stage, the writers work on the mechanics of writing such as
spellings and punctuations.
Writing in the abovementioned viewpoint is a one-way process in which there is no involvement
of a reader. Reid (1993) offers a more thorough description of the writing process with four
basic stages, that is, planning, drafting, revising, and editing. Besides, he adds three other stages
externally imposed on students by teacher; namely, responding, evaluating, and post-writing.
The four first stages that Reid (1993) mentions, in fact, have the same nature as those stated by
Tribble (1996). What makes Reid‟s idea more adequate than the one offered by Tribble (1996) is
the addition of three more stages into the writing process:
 Responding: Responding plays a central role in the successful implementation of
a writing process. It is a kind of oral or written intervention by teachers or peers or
other possible readers have finished drafting and are to revise his/her writing. This
stage is aimed at providing students with useful information to improve the content of
their writing.
 Evaluating: In this stage, the writing teachers assign scores which may be
analytical (based on specific aspects of writing ability) or holistic (based on a global

interpretation of the effectiveness of that writing).
 Post writing: Post writing consists of any activities that the teacher and the
15


students can do with the finished products such as publishing, reading aloud and role-
playing.
In a word, the stages of a writing process, according to Reid (1993), consists of seven stages,
namely Prewriting, Composing/Drafting, Responding, Revising, Editing, Evaluating and Post-
writing. As addressing responding and evaluating to be an integral part of a writing process,
Reid (1993) has indirectly affirmed the indispensable role of feedback in writing teaching and
learning. The way Reid (1993) defines stages in a writing process better reflects the process
approach since according to him, writing is a multistage process in which the writer has to
“move back and forth on a continuum, discovering, analyzing and revising the writing”.
So far some fundamental issues concerning writing teaching, including process approach to
writing teaching and the stages of a writing process, have been thoroughly discussed. Also, the
fundamental role of feedback in writing has been highlighted, which in turn serves as a firm
ground for the research.
1.2. PEER FEEDBACK IN WRITING TEACHING
1.2.1. Concept of peer feedback in writing
Concerning the matter of peer feedback or peer evaluation, peer critiquing, peer editing, peer
response (Keh, 1990), there exist a vast number of definitions given by researchers. Despite the
differences in the ways they are expressed, these definitions still bear some similarities in terms
of nature and function of feedback.
Keh (1990) considers feedback as “any input from a reader to a writer with the effect of
providing information to the writer for revision” (p. 294). In other words, it is the comments,
questions, and suggestions a reader gives a writer with the view to enhancing his/her writing. In
this sense, peer feedback denotes any input provided by a student to his/her peer for revision. A
problem with the concept made by Keh is that it only focuses on the means and purposes of
feedback.

Hyland and Hyland (2001) define peer feedback as “a formative developmental process that
gives writers the opportunities to discuss their texts and discover others‟ interpretations of them
(p. 6)”. Unlike the former definition, this one emphasizes the interaction between peer students.
The concept of peer feedback given by Liu and Hansen (2002) is considered the most
comprehensive one. According to them, peer feedback is
16


“the use of learners as sources of information and interactions for each
other in such a way that learners assume roles and responsibilities
normally taken on by formally trained teacher, tutor or editor in
commenting on and critiquing each other‟s drafts in both written and oral
formats in the process of writing” (p.75).
In the light of process writing, this concept is considered the most thorough one that provides
readers with the nature of peer feedback to student writings. It has covered almost aspects of
feedback, namely, the positions of peer feedback in writing instruction and writing process, the
forms of feedback, and the role of feedback in a writing process. Its thought will, therefore, be
used thorough this study.
1.2.2. The significance of peer feedback in process writing
Peer feedback on early drafts of student writings is deemed important and its effectiveness is
well documented in ESL writing research (Mangelsdorf & Schlumberger, 1992; Wood, 2000;
Jacobs, 1987; Tsui and Ng‟s, 2000). The following part will summarize some roles that peer
feedback takes in L2 writing classes.
Peer feedback is often recognized as providing students with an opportunity to “read and
constructively criticize each other‟s writing.” (Jacobs, 1987, p.325) Via the comments, students
can identify their own strong and weak points, which, in the case of the later, will make students
realize how to go about improving themselves. Tsui and Ng‟s (2000) also concluded in their
study that through peer comments students gain a genuine sense of audience, a sense of
ownership of the text, and awareness of the weaknesses of their own writing. Most importantly,
joining peer comment sessions help students to learn from others‟ both mistakes and well-

written pieces of writing, thus becoming more effective writers. Therefore, feedback is
considered, first of all, a pedagogical tool that helps enhance students‟ writing competence.
In asserting the role of peer comments in process writing, Wood (2000) stated that it was an
advantage that students “participated in authors' circles where they could float their ideas like
trial balloons before their peers and receive feedback” (p. 2). In process writing, students do not
work alone or keep their ideas to themselves. Instead, they are engaged in the process of
response, assessment, evaluation, and revision. The fact that students take control of their
writing and editing process substantially makes them reflective writers.
17


In some other studies, researchers even emphasize the advantages of peer response over the
traditional teacher feedback. According to Naumoska, peer feedback is acknowledged as
“friendlier, more supportive, less threatening and less stressful; therefore removing the cause of
anxiety the students experience upon handing in writing to be checked” (2009, p.2). Since
students do not see their peers as authoritarian figures, they could enjoy the feeling of support
and the freedom from stress. Feedback, in this sense, adopts another function; that is, stimulating
and motivating student to write. However, according to Bartram and Walton (1991), the effects
of peer feedback exerts on its receivers vary from student to student.
1.2.3. Requirements for effective peer feedback practice in writing teaching
Since the shift of focus from product of writing to process of writing, peer feedback has been
recognized as an important part of a writing procedure beside the conventional teacher feedback.
However, in many cases the practice may not bring about good effects for various reasons such
as students do not take the practice seriously, or they try to avoid hurting each other‟s feeling by
giving completely positive feedback. In the following part, the researcher will briefly summarize
some conditions for the effectiveness of the practice.
According to Urzua (1987), it is crucial to train learners to cope with the task of giving
feedback. Since students may not be able to ask constructive questions for redrafting, they must
be trained or guided to perform the task - for example, to be critical of the development of ideas
and organization in written discourse. In the same line with Urzua, Naumoska (2009)

emphasizes the need to make the activity guided so that students will know what they should
focus on when giving feedback. In her study, Naumoska lists some guidelines/ checklists of
certain types of writings that could be used by students when giving feedback to friends. Berg
(1999) also asserts that training appears to benefit both the writer and the reader in peer dyads,
with students who receive training to give peer feedback also making higher quality revisions to
their own writing.
Apart from equipping students with the skills of giving feedback, preparing student spirits also
plays an important role in the success of peer feedback process. Naumoska (2009) states that
students should take the activity seriously and be ready to give critical, reliable comments
instead of merely positive ones for fear of hurting their friends‟ feelings. According to Nilson
(2003), for the activity to be beneficial to students, it is required that they need to avoid the
18


following situations:
 being uncritical in general
 being superficial and unengaged in general
 being focused on a student's likes and dislikes of the work rather than its quality
 being focused on trivial problems and errors (e.g., spelling)
 being focused on content alone, missing organization, structure, style, and so
forth
 being focused on their agreement or disagreement with the argument made rather
than the logic of and evidence for the argument
 being unnecessarily harsh, even mean-spirited; unconstructive in its criticisms
 being inconsistent, internally contradictory
 being inaccurate
 being unrelated to the requirements of the assignment
 being not referenced to the specifics of the work
In short, for peer feedback practice to bring about good results, commitments of both teacher
and students are needed.

1.2.4. Major issues of student feedback on their peer’s writing
How to make full use of peer feedback has always been a matter of concern among writing
teachers. Concerning the issue, a great number of questions have been asked: “To which extent
should feedback be?”, “Which types of comment are most effective?” and so on. However, it is
the fact that researchers have not reached a consensus over the answers to such questions. The
following part is an overview of the literature of the abovementioned issues.
1.2.4.1. Focus of peer written feedback
Since the shift of focus from product to process approach, the question of whether feedback
should focus on form or content of writing has been a matter of much conflict (Fathman and
Whalley, 1990). Content, in their opinion, refers to comments on organization, ideas and amount
of detail, while form involves comments on grammar and mechanical errors.
Generally, students are inclined to identifying and correcting all the surface-level errors; i.e.,
errors on form. This is perhaps because errors on form are easier to recognize and correct.
However, the mere focus on form correction would have detrimental impact on student writing.
19


That students receive a corrected draft from a friend with corrections all over the page would
only add to their anxiety when dealing with another writing task. Moreover, a large amount of
error correction may draw the students‟ attention to form only but not to the important matter of
developing the content (Sommers, 1982). This is because when feedback focuses on form
(grammar, spelling, etc.), many students will rewrite by correcting the surface mistakes and will
make few or no other changes. The result is that the students' rewriting becomes grammar
exercises rather than challenges to clarify meaning.
Advocates of process writing are, on the other hand, in favor of feedback on the content of
writing. Coffin et al. (2003, p.105) claims “Feedback seems to be, and in deed to a certain extent
is, about the content of writing”. That is why Stanley (1992, p.1) recommends that feedback
concentrate on “what the students say” rather than “grammatical accuracy” or “writing fluency”.
In some other research, there seems an agreement that attention must paid to both content and
form. Raimes (1992) states that both content and form errors should be noticed because

“grammatical inaccuracies can have negative effect on the overall quality of the student writing”
(p. 308). This viewpoint is, in general, most widely accepted. In order for students to be able to
give adequate feedback, it is necessary that “the students have clear instructions as to what they
are supposed to do, and set guidelines as to how they should go about doing that (Naumoska,
2009, p. 2).
1.2.4.2. Types of peer written feedback
This part will present some major types of feedback: positive feedback & negative feedback,
direct feedback & indirect feedback, text-specific feedback & general feedback. These types of
feedback are discussed and compared in pair in a way that the differences between them, i.e., the
advantages and disadvantages of one type over the other, are highlighted.
1.2.4.2.1. Positive feedback versus negative feedback
Many studies have been carried out on the effects of positive and negative feedback on students‟
revision. In their studies, Hedgecock & Lefkowitz (1994) find out that students remember and
appreciate encouraging remarks. In the same line, Fathman & Whalley (1990) suggests that even
positive comments help students improve their writings. This outcome normally derives from
students‟ motivation which is, according to Ellis (1994), closely linked with language
acquisition. When students are told they are doing right, they feel motivated to write more and to
20


write better.
However, only positive comment is not sufficient enough to motivate students to improve their
writing (Cardelle & Corno, 1981, as cited in Keh, 2004) as “too much praise may confuse,
mislead or de-motivate students”. Hyland and Hyland (2001) further suggest that positive
comments should be used with care, “rather than just to make critical comments more palatable”
(p.202). According to them, it would be a better strategy to be quite blunt about serious
allegation instead of trying to protect a student‟s feeling. Moreover, it is indicated that negative
comments are more useful for many students who want their problems to be highlighted (Hyland
and Hyland, 2001).
Too much negative feedback, however, may adversely affect students‟ writing. As they re-read

the writing with correction all over the page, students may feel discouraged and stop trying to
correct the mistakes. All things considered, it is better to have a balance between praise and
criticism, since the combination of both kinds will bring about “the best effects” (Ferris &
Hedgcock, 1998, p. 128).
1.2.4.2.2. Direct versus indirect feedback
Direct feedback is explicit correction in response to errors. Indirect feedback may take various
forms, such as crossing out an unnecessary word or phrase; inserting a missing word; or writing
the correct word or form near the erroneous one. With direct feedback, students are expected
merely to transcribe their peers‟ suggested corrections into their texts. Indirect feedback, on the
other hand, is general comments that give students the opportunity to fix errors themselves
(Ferris, 2002). Indirect feedback may be done by means of an underline, circle, code or other
marks.
In his study, Ferris (2002) shows that indirect feedback is more helpful to student writers in most
cases because it leads to greater cognitive engagement, reflection, and guided learning and
problem-solving. Since readers only point out the mistakes, students have to figure out the way
to correct the mistakes on their own. This, in the long run, helps promote students‟ thinking as
well as the ability to self-edit their own writings. Moreover, when having to correct the mistakes
by themselves, students normally remember the mistakes better; therefore, they are more likely
to be able to avoid them in the future.
Opposed to the term „indirect feedback‟ is „direct feedback‟ in which commentators correct the
21


mistakes right away for students. Direct feedback is criticized by Bartram and Walton (1991) as
“students‟ discouraged creativity and independence” (p. 26) since students do not have to do
anything about their mistakes. Instead, they just transcribe peers‟ corrections into their text.
There is some justification in this criticism. However, a more thorough look at the issue will
reveal some benefits of direct feedback. For students of generally lower level of language
proficiency, it is suggested that their peers should use direct feedback for complicated mistakes.
This is because if they do not suggest ways to correct the mistake, weak students may not be

able to revise it themselves.

1.2.4.2.3. Text-specific feedback versus general feedback
According to Ferris & Hedgecock (1998), text-specific feedback refers to the feedback “that is
directly related to the text at hand” while general feedback “can be attached to any paper” (p.
133).
Over the matter of text-specific feedback or general feedback, there seems to be a consensus that
text-specific feedback is of greater benefit to students than the general one. According to Seow
(2002), it is “text-specific response, rather than rubber-stamped comments that will help students
rediscover meanings and facilitate the revision of initial drafts” (p. 317). As text-specific
comments state exactly the types of mistakes students make, the reasons why they make such
mistakes and provide some suggestions for improvement, it is more likely that the mistakes be
properly addressed. It is, therefore, advisable that feedback be “detailed enough to allow
students to act, to commit to change their writings” (Reid, 1993, p. 218). However, general
comments about the overall performance of students are also needed so that students can have a
general view of their writing. All things considered, a combination of text-specific and general
feedback, would yield better results in students‟ writings.
In summary, this chapter, which deals with the literature review of the study, has reviewed and
discussed theories related to three issues: writing teaching, peer feedback and major issues of
peer feedback on student writings. The following chapter will display the study‟s methodology
and findings under the light of the abovementioned theories.
22


CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
This chapter, which introduces the methodology of the study, covers the research approach, the
subjects, the methods of data collection, and the methods of data analysis.
2.1. RESEARCH APPROACH
In this study, QUANTITATIVE method is utilized to achieve the desired aims. Quantitative
method can be defined as “the numerical representation and manipulation of observation for the

purpose of describing and explaining the phenomena that those observations reflect” (Babbie,
1983, p. 537). This method was chosen for this study for the following reasons. Firstly, it helped
“seek facts or causes of social phenomena without regard to the subjective states of the
individuals” (Nunan, 1989, p.4). In this study, quantitative method, realized by means of a
questionnaire and student writing analysis, was adequate to find „objective‟ answers to such
questions as “How is feedback given to the 2
nd
-year student writings?”, “How do the students
react to their peer written feedback?” and “What can be done to improve the effectiveness of
peer feedback practice at the faculty?”. Moreover, thanks to the large number of participants in
the study, that is, 200 2
nd
-year students, the information acquired is believed to be relatively
“reliable and generalisable” (Nunan, 1989, p.4).
2.2. METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION
To obtain adequate data for the study, two main methods were used and described as follows:
2.2.1. Survey
2.2.1.1. Objectives
The first method aims at collecting statistical data to answers two research questions:
(1) How is peer written feedback given to 2
nd
- year student writings at the FELTE - ULIS -
VNU?
(2) How do the 2
nd
-year students react to their peer feedback on their writings?
Also based on the information about the real situation of peer feedback practice at the faculty,
the answer to the 3
rd
research question, which is “What can be done to improve the effectiveness

of peer feedback practice at the faculty?”, will be withdrawn.
2.2.1.2. Selection of participants
The subjects selected for the study include 200 2
nd
-year students who are in the 1
st
semester of
the academic year 2009-2010 at the FELTE-ULIS-VNU. As stated above, the number of
participants is an important factor affecting the reliability of the data collected. The more
participants participate in answering the questionnaires, the more reliable and generalisable the
information is likely to be. Therefore, a large number of students, that is, 200 over 400 students
23


at the FELTE, were involved in the study.
All the respondents were chosen via “cluster random sampling” (Frankel and Wallen, 1996)
rather than “individual random sampling” reasoning that the former proved more advantageous
than the latter. Firstly, it was convenient and time-saving to observe the respondents to finish the
questionnaire in class. Moreover, it promised to cover various kinds of students since these
classes consisted of a relatively equal number of students of good, average and poor English
proficiency level.
After 220 questionnaires were collected from 9 groups, a round number of 200 were chosen for
the sake of convenient data analysis.
2.2.1.3. The survey questionnaire
The survey questionnaire included four main parts, namely, general information about the
participants, the current situation of peer written feedback, student‟s reactions to peer feedback
and their expectations of peer written feedback. The questionnaire was composed of a mix of
questions including gap-filling questions, yes/no questions, multiple-choice questions, ranked
questions and open-ended questions. The questionnaires were not distributed to respondents to
complete on their own but with the researcher‟s presence so that clarification and

disambiguation could be made timely. In that way, some serious limitations of questionnaires as
cited in Dornyei (2003) could be tackled, which were “the simplicity and superficiality of
answers […] respondent literacy problems” (p.10). (For the sample questionnaire, see Appendix
1).
2.2.1.4. Implementation
The steps of conducting and distributing questionnaire can be described as follows:
 Studying available documents and choosing the most appropriate data.
 Designing questionnaire
 Piloting questionnaires.
 Revising questionnaires in terms of language as well as instructions so as to
make it clear and reader-friendly.
 Distributing questionnaires to students.
 Gathering findings from respondents, analyzing and interpreting the data.
2.2.2. Student writing analysis
2.2.2.1. Objectives
By analyzing students‟ writings with their peer feedback and their revised versions, the
researcher could obtain the most reliable information about the reality of peer feedback giving
24


practice and students‟ improvement after processing their peers‟ comments at the English
Division II, FELTE.

2.2.2.2. Selection of participants
30 pieces of writing with their revised versions were borrowed from 30 students at the 2
nd

division, FELTE, ULIS, VNU. Since it took a great deal of time to analyze student writings, the
number was believed to be reasonable.
Two groups of students at the FELTE were randomly selected. From the two groups, 30 pieces

of writing with their revised versions were borrowed from the teachers in charge. Since the
research was aimed at finding out the current situation of peer written feedback at the FELTE,
borrowing the writing papers from teachers when they are marking them without noticing
students when they respond to their friends‟ writings would ensure the reliability of the data.
2.2.2.3. Implementation
The steps of analyzing students‟ writings can be illustrated as follows:
 Borrowing the writing papers.
 Reading students‟ writing papers and highlighting the peer written feedback.
 Analyzing the students‟ comments in terms of feedback content, amount, forms
and types. By this way, distinctive features of feedback could be discovered.
 Looking through the revised versions of the papers, paying attention to changes
and corrections.
 Comparing the two versions to see students‟ improvements.
2.3. METHOD OF DATA ANALYSIS
Being collected in quantitative method with the utilization of two different instruments in this
research, the data, therefore, was processed in different ways so as to yield the most accurate
results.
As for the survey questionnaire, the analysis approach provided by McDonough and
McDonough (1997) was applied, in which the researcher followed the statistical procedure from
coding questionnaire data to summarizing and reporting data in a reader-friendly way.
As for the data collected via observation, the researcher will compare and contrast various
versions of student writings based on the number of mistakes they make to see their
improvements after receiving peer feedback.
The researcher will also compare the data achieved from both sources, survey questionnaire and
student writing analysis, to verify the unity of the information.
25


CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS FROM STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE

This section, which presents and discusses information from the questionnaire, will be divided
into two major parts, that is, current situation of peer written feedback and students‟ reactions to
peer written feedback.
3.1.1. Current situation of peer written feedback
3.1.1.1. General evaluation of peer written feedback
The first question was to find out students‟ general assessment of their peers‟ written feedback.
As could be seen from Figure 1, 60% of the respondents got fairly detailed feedback, say,
comments and corrections to some major mistakes from their peers. This way of giving feedback
is supported by many
researchers who claim that
peers should focus on some
typical problems at a time (Ur,
1996; Sommer, 1982). It
signaled that the majority of
students are aware of one
quality of good feedback and
that they take feedback as a
serious practice.
It was sad, however, that the number of students getting very general feedback (feedback with
only some words like “excellent”, “good” or “bad”) or no comments was still high, that is, 51
students (26%) for the former and 4 students (2%) for the latter. These numbers showed that
some students were still irresponsible feedback givers, which indicated the need for a change in
the current feedback practice.
Opposed to the term very general feedback is very detailed feedback, which means comments
and corrections to all mistakes. The number of students selecting this option was 23, accounting
for 12% of all respondents. This way of responding was good to the extent that it helped students
be aware of the mistakes they make. However, it may result in students‟ discouragement and
anxiety when they deal with another writing task (Sommer, 1982; Bartram and Walton, 1991),
26

especially when they received their writings back with corrections covered all over the page.
Neither does this way of responding ensure improvement in students‟ writing performance
(Fathman & Whalley, 1990) since students need not think about the mistakes themselves.
While the previous part helps build up an overall picture of peer written feedback, the following
part will deal with specific issues of peer written feedback, that is, content of peer written
feedback and types of peer written feedback.
3.1.1.2. Aspects of peer written feedback
In the following part, the researcher will discuss the frequency of certain aspects that peer
feedback covered. Strikingly, OFTEN was the option that students chose the most in almost
aspects presented, namely, ideas, expressions, grammar, vocabulary and mechanics. The highest
number of students selecting OFTEN was in grammar, with 96 over 200 students (48%) and the
lowest was in organization of ideas (45 over 200 students). On the contrary, there were very few
students who NEVER received peer written feedback on these aspects. These figures indicate
that students at the faculty paid attention to both form and content, though the levels of attention
27


may vary from one student to another.
As for the level ALWAYS, it was noticeable that the highest number of students chose
grammar, that is, 82 over 200 students (≈41%) and next-coming were mechanics (47/200
students ≈24%), expressions (45/200 students ≈23%) and vocabulary (40/200 students ≈20%).
That the highest numbers of students always received feedback on form of the writings
(grammar, mechanics, expressions and vocabulary) was presumably because it was easier to
identify and correct such mistakes than those on content. Meanwhile, problems with ideas and
organization of ideas received less attention from students as only 10 over 200 students (5%)
always gave feedback on organization of ideas and 23 over 200 students (11.5%) always
responded to their friends‟ idea problems.
Similarly, the percentage of students who RARELY received feedback on ideas and
organization of ideas was higher than that on grammar, vocabulary and mechanics, that is, 24%

(48 over 200 students) and 13% (26 over 200) for organization of ideas and ideas respectively,
3% (6 over 200), 5.5% (11 over 200) and 7% (14 over 200) for grammar, vocabulary and
mechanics respectively. This is predictable since mistakes of surface level (grammar, vocabulary
and mechanics) are more identifiable than those of organization and ideas (Ur, 1996; Fathman &
Whalley, 1990). However, that peers rarely gave feedback on content may, in the long run, have
negative impacts on the students because writing is, as indicated in the final analysis, about
communicating and presenting thoughts (Tribble, 1996).
In summary, two major features of peer written feedback interpreted from this bar chart are: (1)
students were aware of mistakes on both form and the content of peers‟ writings and (2) they
were inclined towards identifying surface-level mistakes.
3.1.1.3. Types of peer written feedback
Concerning types of peer written feedback (Figure 3), the respondents were asked to identify
the frequency of two pairs of feedback, that is, (1) positive versus negative feedback and (2)
direct versus indirect feedback.
28

O
O
Overall, the majority of students at the FELTE used both positive feedback (i.e., praise) and