The effects of facebook based peer comments on non english major students writing quality at hcms university of science ma

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY- HO CHI MINH CITY
UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES
FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE

THE EFFECTS OF FACEBOOK-BASED PEER
COMMENTS ON NON-ENGLISH MAJOR
STUDENTS’ WRITING QUALITY AT HCMC
UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE

A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of English Linguistics & Literature
in partial fulfillment of the Master’s degree in TESOL

By
LƯƠNG THỊ KIM PHỤNG

Supervised by
Assoc. Prof. Dr. PHẠM VŨ PHI HỔ

HO CHI MINH CITY, DECEMBER 2018


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my supervisor Assoc. Prof. Dr. Pham Vu Phi Ho, Vice-President
of Van Hien University, who was always willing to spend his precious time answering
my questions and offering me valuable advice on my thesis. His passion and broad
knowledge about EFL research are a source of inspiration for me to accomplish my
thesis.
I am much obliged to Mr. Nguyen Dinh Huy, Vice Academic Advisor, for allowing me
to do experiment with the students at HCMC University of Science. Also, I would like
to express my sincere gratitude to all the students who participated in the present study;

without their effective participation, I could not have finished my thesis.
I am grateful to my friend Nguyen Thi Lien for proofreading my writing. My thesis
would not be as good without her help.
Last but not least, I am deeply indebted to my family for their support during the months
I worked on this thesis. I owe my deepest thanks to my father, who is always supporting
my studies and watching over me.

I


STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
I certify my authorship of the Master’s Thesis submitted today entitled

THE EFFECTS OF FACBOOK-BASED PEER COMMENTS ON NONENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS’ WRITING QUALITY AT HCMC
UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE

in terms of the statement of the requirements for the Theses in Master’s program
issued by the Higher Degree Committee. This thesis has not been submitted for the
award of any degree or diploma in any other institutions.

Ho Chi Minh City, February 2019.

LUONG THI KIM PHUNG

II


RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS
I hereby state that I, Luong Thi Kim Phung, being the candidate for the degree of
Master in TESOL, accept the requirements of the University relating to the retention

and use of Master’s theses deposited in the library.

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my thesis deposited in the
Library should be accessible for purposes of study and research, in accordance with
the normal conditions established by the Library for the care, loan, or reproduction of
the thesis.

Ho Chi Minh City, February 2019.

LUONG THI KIM PHUNG

III


TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... 5
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. 6
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. 7
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 8
1.1

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY ........................................................... 8

1.1.1

EFL non-English majors’ writing problems ......................................... 8

1.1.2

Writing teachers’ problems ................................................................. 10

1.1.3

Peer comments in L2 writing teaching ................................................ 11

1.2

AIMS OF THE STUDY ............................................................................ 14

1.3

RESEARCH QUESTIONS ....................................................................... 14

1.4

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY .......................................................... 14

1.5

SCOPE OF THE STUDY ......................................................................... 15

1.6

OUTLINE OF THE THESIS .................................................................... 15

1.7

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS ...................................................................... 16

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................. 18
2.1

APPROACHES TO TEACHING WRITING ........................................... 18

2.1.1

Product approach to writing ................................................................ 18

2.1.2

Process approach to writing ................................................................ 19

2.1.3

Genre- approach to writing ................................................................. 20

2.2 OTHER THEORIES UNDERPINNING PEER COMMENT
ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................................... 21
2.2.1

Collaborative learning theory .............................................................. 22

2.2.2

Vygotskian Zone of Proximal Development ....................................... 22

2.2.3

Interactionist theory of L2 acquisition ................................................ 23

2.3 PEDAGOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF PEER COMMENT
ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................................... 24
2.3.1

Traditional peer comment activities .................................................... 25

2.3.1.1 Benefits of traditional peer comment activities .................................. 25
2.3.1.2 Constraints of traditional peer comment activities.............................. 26
2.3.2

Computer-mediated peer comment activities ...................................... 27

1


2.3.2.1 Benefits of computer-mediated peer comment activities .................... 28
2.3.2.2 Constraints of computer-mediated peer comment activities ............... 29
2.3.2.3 Studies on computer-mediated peer comment activities (2003-2018) 30
2.4

THE APPLICATION OF FACEBOOK IN EFL WRITING CLASS ...... 38

2.4.1 Pedagogical rationale for utilizing Facebook as a platform in an EFL
writing class ...................................................................................................... 38
2.4.2 Previous research about the application of Facebook as a platform for
peer comment activities in EFL writing classes ............................................... 39
2.5

RESEARCH GAPS ................................................................................... 44

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 46
3.1

RESEARCH DESIGN .............................................................................. 46

3.2

CONTEXT OF THE STUDY ................................................................... 48

3.3

PARTICIPANTS ....................................................................................... 50

3.4

PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY ............................................................ 53

3.4.1

Teaching materials .............................................................................. 53

3.4.2

Teaching method ................................................................................. 55

3.4.3

Training in peer commenting activities ............................................... 56

3.4.3.1 Assigning students to peer commenting groups .................................. 56
3.4.3.2 Designing “Guidelines for peer comments”........................................ 58
3.4.3.3 Training students to give peer comments based on “guidelines for peer
comments” ........................................................................................................ 60
3.4.3.4 The Writing Cycle of the Training ...................................................... 64
3.5

RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS ................................................................. 65

3.5.1

Tests..................................................................................................... 67

3.5.2

Scoring rubric ...................................................................................... 68

3.5.3

Inter-rating students’ writing ............................................................... 69

3.5.4

Revision analysis rubric ...................................................................... 71

3.5.5

Feature “Compare two versions of a document” of Microsoft Word . 72

3.5.6

Questionnaire for the experimental group ........................................... 73

3.5.7

Semi-structured interview ................................................................... 77

3.6

DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE ..................................................... 78

3.6.1

Administering pre-test ......................................................................... 78

3.6.2 Collecting students’ drafts and peer comments from three writing
assignments....................................................................................................... 79
2


3.6.3

Administering Post-test ....................................................................... 79

3.6.4

Administering online Questionnaire ................................................... 79

3.6.5

Conducting semi-structured-interview ................................................ 80

3.7

DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURE .......................................................... 81

3.7.1

Research question 1: ............................................................................ 81

3.7.2 Research question 2: To what extent do the students incorporate
Facebook-based peer comments into revision? ................................................ 82
3.7.3 Research question 3: What are students’ attitudes toward the use of
Facebook-based peer comment activities in studying writing? ....................... 83
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................... 84
4.1

RESEARCH QUESTION 1 ...................................................................... 84

4.1.1

Analysis of data ................................................................................... 84

4.1.2

Discussion of results ............................................................................ 88

4.2

RESEARCH QUESTION 2 ...................................................................... 90

4.2.1

Analysis of data ................................................................................... 90

4.2.2

Discussion of results ............................................................................ 92

4.3

RESEARCH QUESTION 3 ...................................................................... 94

4.3.1

Analysis of data ................................................................................... 94

4.3.2

Discussion of results.......................................................................... 104

4.4

SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS .................................................... 106

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION ............................................................................ 108
5.1.

CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 108

5.2. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR EFL WRITING
INSTRUCTION ................................................................................................. 109
5.3.

LIMITATION OF THE STUDY ............................................................ 111

5.4.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY .............................. 111

REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 113
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... 119
APPENDIX A: GUIDELINES FOR PEER COMMENTING ......................... 119
APPENDIX B: WRITING TASKS FOR PRACTICE ..................................... 120
APPENDIX C: WRITING TASKS FOR PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST ....... 123
APPENDIX D: SCORING RUBRIC ................................................................ 126
APPENDIX E.1: QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................... 128
APPENDIX E.2: BẢNG KHẢO SÁT .............................................................. 131
3


APPENDIX F: DATA CODING EXPLANATIONS AND EXAMPLES ....... 135
APPENDIX G.1: QUESTIONS OF THE SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS
........................................................................................................................... 136
APPENDIX G.2: CÂU HỎI PHỎNG VẤN SINH VIÊN ................................ 137
APPENDIX H.1: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT 1 ............................................ 139
APPENDIX H.2: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT 2 ............................................ 143
APPENDIX H.3: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT 3 ............................................ 146
APPENDIX H.4: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT 4 ............................................ 149
APPENDIX H.5: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT 5 ............................................ 152

APPENDIX H.6: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT 6 ............................................ 155
APPENDIX I: THE FACEBOOK GROUP INTERFACE ............................... 158

4


LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Demographical Information of Participants ........................................... 52
Table 3.2 New Cutting-Edge writing skills section Modules 9-15......................... 54
Table 3.3 The link between research questions, instruments, and data analysis
methods ................................................................................................................... 66
Table 3.4 Interraters’ Pearson Correlation coefficient............................................ 70
Table 3.5 Revision analysis rubric .......................................................................... 72
Table 3.6 Description of the questionnaire content ................................................ 74
Table 3.7 Reliability Statistics ................................................................................ 76
Table 4.1 Independent Samples t-test ..................................................................... 85
Table 4.2 Paired Samples t-test ............................................................................... 86
Table 4.3 Paired Samples t-test ............................................................................... 87
Table 4.4 Independent Samples t-test ..................................................................... 88
Table 4.5 Revisions from 1st versions to 2nd versions .......................................... 90
Table 4.6 Descriptive statistics - Students’ attitudes toward Facebook based peer
comment activities .................................................................................................. 95
Table 4.7 Descriptive statistics - Questionnaire for students’ attitudes toward
Facebook based peer comment activities ................................................................ 97

5


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 Research Design (Adapted from Creswell, 2009) ................................. 48
Figure 3.2 An example of how students were supposed to give comments on
Facebook ................................................................................................................. 61
Figure 3.3 Procedures of peer comment and teacher comment activities
(24/2/2017- 2/6/2017) ............................................................................................. 62
Figure 3.4 The writing cycle for each writing assignment of both groups ............. 65
Figure 3.5 The layout of the function “Compare two versions of a document” in
Microsoft Word ....................................................................................................... 73
Figure 3.6. An overview of the data collection procedure ...................................... 78

6


ABSTRACT
Electronic peer comments have long been applied by L2 writing teachers to
enhance students’ writing skills and researchers have investigated the effects of peer
comments via different modes. Still, few studies have been conducted to compare
the effectiveness of peer comments via the new medium, which is Facebook Group,
and paper-and-pen peer comments. The present quasi-experimental study examined
(1) the difference (if any) between the effects of Facebook-based peer comments
and paper-and-pen peer comments on students’ writing quality, (2) the extent to
which students incorporated Facebook-based peer comments into revisions, and (3)
students’ attitudes toward the use of Facebook-based peer comment activities in
studying writing. Seventy-two first year non-English majors taking a fifteen-week
general English course participated in the study. The participants in the experimental
group exchanged peer comments via a Facebook group whilst those in the control
group exchanged peer comments traditionally using paper and pens. Quantitative
data was collected from students’ pre-test and post-test scores, and the questionnaire.
Qualitative data was gathered from the students’ first and second drafts, peer
comments, and semi-structured interviews.

Three key findings were revealed from the study. First, although peer
comments via the two modes enhanced students’ writing quality, the effects of
Facebook-based peer comments on students’ writing quality surpassed those of
paper-and-pen peer comments on students’ writing quality. Second, intriguingly, the
total revisions made by the student writers themselves apparently outnumbered
those triggered by peer comments, 55.1% compared with 44.9%. Third, data
analysis from the questionnaire and the semi-structured interviews suggested that
students held highly favorable attitudes toward Facebook-based peer comment
activities. The study gives insights to writing instructors who contemplate applying
Facebook-based peer comments to their writing classes.
Keywords: Facebook-based peer comments, paper-and-pen peer comments,
revisions
7


CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
1.1.1 EFL non-English majors’ writing problems

Although effective writing skills are crucial for students both in their current
study and in their future career, EFL students, especially EFL non- English majors,
face a myriad of difficulties in improving their English writing skills. This could be
explained by the essence of writing skills, students’ low autonomy and high writing
apprehension.
First, writing skills are considered the most arduous skills for learners to
master (Yah Awang Nik et.al 2010 as cited in Majid, Stapa, & Keong, 2015;
Richards, 1990). According to Grabe & Kaplan (1996), writing is challenging
because the nature of the writing process is cynical and recursive. A majority of EFL

students find writing the most challenging among four language skills because of
the differences in the linguistic and rhetorical patterns between their first language
and English (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996). Richards (1990) attributes learners’ writing
difficulties to (1) the difference in the rules between written and spoken discourse,
and (2) the complicated process of transferring thoughts and ideas into written text.
Hyland (2003) posits that students need to acquire essential principles of English
writing in order to be able to compose a piece of effective writing. From Nguyen, T.
L., (2018)’s teaching experience, it is evident that students still desperately struggle
to write a very simple sentence in Vietnamese, let alone writing in English.
Second, students have low learning autonomy. For one thing, few EFL
learners feel the immediate need to learn English. Since English is a foreign
language in Vietnam, the majority of English learners have few basic requirements
to use English (Iwashita & Khoi, M. N., 2012). As a teacher of English at Ho Chi
Minh City University of Science (HCMC US), the author realizes non-English major
students often lack motivation to study English. Students’ motivation of English
depends on the majors they are studying at university. According to a survey
conducted by Lin and Warden (1998), students studying different majors maintained

8


different perspectives about English learning. It is observed by the author that
students

majoring

in

Information

Technology,

and

Electronics

and

Telecommunication at HCMC US are more interested in learning English than
students from other majors. The majority of the students want to completely focus
on the subjects that give them specialized knowledge in their majors rather than
investing time in learning English. As a result, according to Assoc. Prof Tran Anh
Tuan, they do not spend enough time learning English. For another, English is a
compulsory subject in universities in Vietnam, and students tend to learn English in
order to pass the exams rather than to communicate (Phuong, L., 2017; Luu, T. T.,
2011). Assoc. Prof Tran Anh Tuan comments that Vietnamese learners lack
motivation and are reluctant to interact in English (Phuong, L., 2017). Dang, T. T.
(2010), posits that Vietnamese students are generally described as passive in class
and accustomed to rote learning. Some students are too passive and shy to participate
in the lessons. They cannot teach themselves. Some students do not ask when they
have questions (Nguyen, T. L., 2018).
Third, non-English majors tend to be apprehensive about writing in English.
In a survey of 346 college-level English language learners in Taiwan who are nonEnglish majors, Lin and Warden (1998) found that most of these students
experienced either fear or unpleasant feelings about learning English. Moreover,
most students at HCMC US consider writing in English a daunting task. According
to a survey into English writing anxiety of students attending English-2 Course at
HCMC US conducted by the researcher, there was a moderate level of English
writing anxiety (Mean=3.08) among the students (Luong, T. K. P., 2017). In a
private email conversation between the researcher and a student at HCMC US in
this project, the student indicated: “Writing in English is always a nerve-racking

experience to me although English is my cup of tea. I can hardly brainstorm any
ideas for my assignment; therefore, I make an outline in Vietnamese before writing
in English” (personal communication, June 4, 2016). This can be explained by the
fact that the nature of writing assignments is discouraging itself. As stated by Hamp
and Heasley (2006, p.2) that “few people write spontaneously and feel comfortable

9


with a formal writing task intended for the eyes of someone else (as cited in Luu, T.
T., 2010, p. 81). He added that when the "someone else" is the teacher, whose eyes
may be critical, and who indeed may assign an individual assessment to the written
product, most people feel uncomfortable” (Hamp and Heasley 2006, p.2 as cited in
Luu, T. T., 2010, p. 81). Whereas writing skills are often considered the most
difficult skills for EFL students to master, non-English majors do not write very
often and they only write when they are required by their teachers of English.
According to Tran, T. L. (2001), a majority of Vietnamese students have a tendency
to be more interested in learning other skills such as speaking, reading and listening
than writing, and they regard learning writing as “a chore or burden”, since a home
writing assignment is always awaiting them after each writing lesson (as cited in
Tran, T. L., 2007, p. 153).
1.1.2 Writing teachers’ problems
Regarding teaching EFL non-English major students, writing teachers find
themselves confronted by a number of challenges. One of many challenges
confronted by writing teachers is heavy workload. As the teaching of writing skill
shifted from the product approach to the process approach, genre- approach, and
process-genre approach successively, writing teachers are required to facilitate
different stages of the writing process. More importantly, teachers are expected to
promptly offer formative feedback on students’ drafts, which is an exhausting and
time-consuming task. Ferris (2007) states that responding to student writing is

challenging and by far the most time-consuming task.
This situation is worsened by the large number of students in each writing
class. Writing teachers have to deal with large class size (Aduwa-Ogiegbaen &
Iyamu, 2006; Byun et al., 2010; Chen & Goh, 2011; Ming & Jaya, 2011 as cited in
Nguyen, T. H., Fehring, & Warren, 2015; Yusof, Manan, Alias, & Pandian, 2012).
According to Nguyen, T. H. et al. (2015) and Dang, T. T. (2010), English class size
in Vietnam in general is quite large. According to Prof. Nguyen Minh Thuyet, there
exists a wide gap between what the govenments and Vietnamese people want to do

10


and what we can do owning to our high expectation (Minh, G., 2018). He also posits
that, in an oversized class, teachers cannot change their teaching methods (Minh, G.,
2018). Large-class size coupled with the limited time allocated to each lesson acts a
a deterant to teachers applying supplemantary communicative activities to their
classes (Iwashita & Khoi, M. N., 2012). Large class size increases teachers’
workload. According to Yusof et al. (2012), the fact that writing teachers are
expected to provide comments to students’ drafts at every stage of their writing
process” (p. 16) coupled with large class size contributes to writing teachers’
overwhelming workload. Because of huge workload and time constraints, writing
teachers usually end up leaving students writing assignments either reviewed late or
not reviewed (Yusof et al., 2012).
1.1.3 Peer comments in L2 writing teaching
Peer comments can be a workable solution to the above-mentioned problems.
First, peer comment activities enable students to be more autonomous and less
apprehensive about writing. Mendoca and Johnson (1994) posit that peer comments
offer students more control over their writing process as they allow students to
directly participate in giving comments; as a result, they do not have to solely rely
on teacher comments to revise their drafts (as cited in Hyland F. & Hyland K.,

2006b). On giving comments to their peers, students realize that their peers also
encounter similar difficulties as they do, which helps reduce their writing
apprehension and increase their autonomy and self-confidence (Chaudron 1984;
Curtis 2001; Cotterall & Cohen 2003 as cited in Hyland F. & Hyland K., 2006b).
Second, peer comments can ease teachers’ workload. Employed as an instructional
strategy, peer comment activities help lighten writing teachers’ workload without
interfering in the students’ learning process (Yusof et al., 2012). Having students
read and comment on each other’s drafts means that their successive drafts have
fewer mistakes and are more understandable; consequently, their teachers have to
spend less time correcting their revised drafts.

11


However, traditional peer comments pose multiple problems that might
impair their effectiveness. Traditional peer comments provoke anxiety among peer
commenting groups (Kelsey & St.Amant, 2012). Moreover, traditional peer
comments such as face-to-face oral comments or paper-and-pen peer comments are
inconvenient because students need to meet their peers in person to exchange
comments. It takes a tremendous amount of time for a piece of writing to be read
and commented by all group members if peer comments are exchanged in large
groups. Also, traditional peer comments require the use of paper, which probably
leads to paperwork problems such as losing or forgeting paper (Palmquist, 1993;
Sullivan, Brown, & Nielson, 1998 as cited in Tuzi, 2004).
The digital age sees the transformation of peer comments into computermediated human comments. Various researchers claim that the use of Web 2.0 tools
can potentially foster collaboration and interaction among users (Wang & Vasquez,
2012 as cited in Yu, 2014), and promote language learners’ autonomy and language
skills (Lee, 2011; Lomicka & Lord, 2012; Mak & Coniam, 2008 as cited in Yu,
2014).
Created in 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg as a local social network for students at

Harvard University, Facebook (www.facebook.com) is currently the most popular
networking site in the world with 1.47 billion daily active users on average for June
2018 (Facebook, 2018). Vietnam ranked 7th in the list of ten leading countries based
on number of Facebook users as of April 2018 (in million). During the period, 59
million people in Vietnam use Facebook (Statista, 2018). Facebook is very popular
among young people. About 75 percent of Vietnamese Facebook users are from 18
to 34 years old. Each Vietnamese user spends about 2.5 hours on Facebook every
day, which is twice as much as the time for television (Thanh Nien News, 2015).
Facebook offers young people a friendly environment to create and share
ideas and information and therefore changes the way students communicate, interact
and learn. It is very likely nowadays that students spend more time online in an
informal learning environment where they interact with peers and receive feedback

12


than they do with teachers in a traditional classroom. This social network culture
makes Facebook an ideal virtual platform for language learning. According to Do,
Q. H. (2014), nowadays there are a lot of learning management systems which are
ideal for distance learning and distance group working. However, despite qualified
support for distance learning and collaboration, these learning management systems
are extremely expensive for Vietnamese students, whereas, free learning
management systems offer boring user interface and are complicated and difficult
to use (Do, Q. H., 2014). In contrast, Facebook is supposed to minimize the
probability of technical difficulties because it is popular among students and its
features are user-friendly. Being free of charge and familiar to students with many
other conveniences, Facebook can serve well as a learning platform.
Facebook, which is considered the most popular platform for online social
networking among university students, offers learners an opportunity to interact
with friends in class, exchange comments on each other’s writing synchronously

and asynchronously (Majid et al., 2015). Hence, intergrating Facebook into writing
class, particularly using Facebook as a platform for students to exchange comments
on each other’s writing can potentially enhance the effectiveness of peer comment
activities in a writing class.
The above-mentioned issues about the problems faced by EFL non-English
majors and writing teachers and the promising effectiveness of Facebook-based peer
comments inspired the research to conduct a study examining the effectiveness of
Facebook-based peer comments on students’ writing quality.
As for research on electronic peer comments, in addition to examining the
effectiveness of peer comments on a certain platform on students’ writing quality,
researchers have been investigating (1) how peer comments affect writing quality
by studying their impact on revisions and (2) students’ preferences for different peer
comment platforms. Regarding the former, the literature has showed controversy
about the impact of peer comments on revisions. Some studies suggest that peer
comments have a significant effect on revisions such as those conducted by Liu and

13


Sadler (2003), and Ho (2015). In contrast, Rodriguez (2003), Tuzi (2004), Yusof et
al. (2012), and Pham, V. P. H. (2014) found that electronic peer comments did not
directly affect revisions. Concerning the latter, Pham, V. P. H (2015) postulates that
investigating learners’ attitudes is indispensable for applying any new teaching
method since understanding learners’ attitudes toward a teaching method helps
educators seek learners’ cooperation and figure out the limitations of their teaching
methods so that they can improve it. These arguments motivate the author to explore
the impact of Facebook-based peer comments on revisions and students’ attitudes
toward Facebook-based peer comment activities.
1.2

AIMS OF THE STUDY
This study aimed to (1) investigate whether Facebook-based peer comments

help improve students’ writing quality, (2) examine the effects of Facebook-based
peer comments on students’ revised drafts, and (3) explore students’ attitudes toward
the use of Facebook as a platform for exchanging peer comments.
1.3

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The three aforementioned aims led the researcher to generate the following

research questions in order to accomplish the earlier stated aims:
(1) Is there any significant difference between the effects of Facebook-based
peer comment activities and paper-and-pen peer comment activities on
students’ writing quality?
(2) To what extent do the students incorporate Facebook-based peer comments
into their revisions?
(3) What are students’ attitudes toward the use of Facebook-based peer comment
activities in studying writing?
1.4

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
Accomplishing the above-mentioned aims, the study acquires significance in

two aspects. First, the study has practical values. The study makes a contribution to
14


the teaching of English writing at HCMC US. It provides EFL writing teachers and
researchers with empirical data on the effects of Facebook-based peer comments on

writing quality of non-English major students at HCMC US. The study draws
teachers’ attention to the need to integrate Facebook into their writing classes at
HCMC US and provides them with effective instructional strategies. Second, the
study contributes to the literature on computer-mediated peer comments using
Facebook as a platform. Teachers can learn from the model of integrating Facebook
into teaching English writing to non-English major students in this study and might
make appropriate changes to this model in order to create new models that suit their
teaching contexts.
1.5

SCOPE OF THE STUDY
There are three constraints in this study. First, the sample is chosen from the

population on a convenient basis; therefore, the generalizability is limited. Second,
this study just focuses on the use of Facebook Group to create a virtual platform for
peer comments in teaching writing, so just the properties of Facebook Group as
opposed to all features of Facebook are taken into consideration in this study. Third,
although Facebook offers synchronous chat function which enables users to instant
message, the current study only investigates the practice of giving peer comments
via Facebook asynchronously.
1.6

OUTLINE OF THE THESIS
This thesis comprises five separate chapters. The Introduction chapter

provides the background information to the study, the aims together with the scope
of the study. The Literature Review chapter presents a review of related literature
underpinning peer comments and key findings from previous studies on computermediated peer comments in general and Facebook-based peer comments in
particular. Also, gaps in the literature are pinpointed in this chapter. The third
chapter, Methodology chapter, describes methodology implemented in the study.

Research materials and instruments as well as research procedures are presented

15


with justifications. Also included in this chapter is the methods of data analysis. The
Results and Discussion chapter presents the description and statistical significance
of the findings from quantitative data drawn from tests and questionnaires and
qualitative data from content analysis of students’ drafts and peer comments and
from theme analysis of the semi-structured interviews. In addition, the interpretation
of the results is presented in reference to previous studies on computer-mediated
peer comments. The final chapter, Conclusion chapter discusses pedagogical
implications, limitations of the study, and recommendations for future researchers.
1.7

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
Peer comments can also be referred to as peer response, peer evaluation, peer

review, peer feedback or peer editing. Liu and Hansen (2002) defined peer
comments as
The use of learners as sources of information and interactants for each other
in such a way that learners assume roles and responsibilities normally taken on by a
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.1)
Simply put, peer comments involve learners giving comments on their peers’
writing and receiving comments on their own writing from their peers.
There are many modes of giving peer comments such as spoken peer
comments, written peer comments and both. As technology develops, spoken
comments are transformed into synchronous computer-mediated peer comments and
written comments are transformed into asynchronous computer-mediated peer

comments.
Computer-mediated peer comments
Computer-mediated peer comments refers to the means by which human peer
comments are delivered synchronously and asynchronously, provided by electronic
devices and the Internet. (Liu & Hansen, 2002)
16


Facebook Group
“A Facebook group is a page created for an organization or business to
promote activities. Users can join the group and post their thoughts on a wall and
interact through discussion threads” (Rouse, 2016). Students can interact with each
other in a Facebook group even when they are not Facebook friends. When a group
member posts something on the wall of the Facebook group, a Facebook notice will
be sent to all other members of the group. Group members can view, like, and
comment on the posts. Additionally, the Facebook group can be set on “closed” or
“open” status. When a Facebook group is set on a “closed” status, the content of the
group is only available to members of the groups.
Facebook-based peer comments
Facebook-based peer comments are a form of computer-mediated peer
comments in which peer comments are delivered via Facebook. In this study,
Facebook-based peer comments refer to activities in which peers give and receive
comments via a Facebook group.

17


CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
The first and second parts of this chapter present the theoretical background
that underpins the current study including approaches to teaching writing and the

roles of peer comment activities in each approach, and other theories that support
peer comment activities. The third part discusses some pedagogical considerations
of computer-mediated peer comment activities including their benefits and
constraints. The aspects of Facebook enabling it a potential platform for peer
comments are discussed in the fourth part. More importantly, previous studies on
the application of Facebook as a platform for peer comments are reviewed. Based
on the existing body of the literature on Facebook-based peer comments in teaching
and learning writing, the researcher identifies some research gaps which the current
study attempts to fill.
2.1

APPROACHES TO TEACHING WRITING
The history of teaching writing theories reflects successive approaches to

teaching writing. Each period saw the emergence of an approach or orientation that
gained dominance over other approaches. The three approaches that are often
discussed are product, process, and genre. In this part, these approaches to teaching
writing, and the role of comments in each approach will be discussed.
2.1.1 Product approach to writing
The years 1960s saw the development of product writing in which writing is
seen as a product constructed from the writer’s command of grammar and
vocabulary, and writing development is considered to be the results of imitating and
manipulating models provided by the teachers (Hyland, 2003). According Pincas
(1982b), in the product approach to writing, learning to write includes four stages:
familiarization, controlled writing, guided writing, and free writing (as cited in
Badger & White, 2000). In the product approach to writing, teachers play a role as
providers of model language and the error correctors when students’ final drafts are
created. This approach supports structural linguistics theory and behaviorist learning
18

theory. The upsides of this approach to teaching writing are that it acknowledges
learners’ needs to be provided with linguistics knowledge about texts, and it
highlights the role of imitation in language learning (Badger & White, 2000).
However, the severe criticism against the product approach to writing is that it only
focuses on accuracy and control of language while writing skills are nearly ignored.
2.1.2 Process approach to writing
Instead of paying attention to the complete texts, the process approach to
writing, which emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s, focuses on the processes
that the learners go through when composing texts. This approach to writing does
not expect writers to produce final texts at the first time they compose texts, but they
come up with the final texts after writing several successive drafts (Nunan, 1991).
This approach considers writing as a cognitive process. The four typical stages in
the process approach to writing are prewriting, drafting, revising, and editing
(Tribble, 1996 as cited in Badger & White, 2000). Since the focus of the process
approach to writing is on the process of writing and rewriting (Hyland, K. & Hyland,
F., 2006b), the role of teachers and peers in giving comments in the revising and
editing stages is a key element to help students improve the quality of their writing.
In this approach to teaching writing, teachers play a role as facilitators of learning
while the students have greater freedom performing the writing tasks (Badger &
White, 2000).
The upsides of this approach are that it appreciates the significance of the
skills involved in writing and discerns that what learners bring to the writing class
makes a contribution to the development of their writing ability (Badger & White,
2000). Still, this approach to writing is critisized for ignoring “the context in which
writing happens” (Badger & White, 2000, p.196). In the process approach, writing
is considered “simply a cognitive process that is highly private or individualistic”
while writing “has been increasingly recognized as a socially and culturally situated
activity” (Zen, 2005, p. 195).

19


2.1.3 Genre- approach to writing
Genre approach to writing puts an emphasis on the social context in which
writing is produced. Genre approach to writing is slightly similar to product
approach to writing in that both approaches emphasize the role of linguistics
knowledge to writing. But unlike the product approach to writing, genre approach
pays attention to the purpose of writing, which means different kinds of genres are
used to serve different purposes (Badger & White, 2000). In this approach to writing,
students learn to write through a series of scaffolding developmental steps in which
teachers and peers play an important role (Thaine, 2010). This approach to writing
provides teachers with an opportunity to design their course based on the texts that
students will have to write in their target contexts (Hyland, 2007). The advantages
of this approach are that it recognizes that “writing takes place in a social situation,
and it is a reflection of a particular purpose” (Badger & White, 2000, p. 159). The
disadvantage of genre approach to writing is that it underestimates the skills need to
create a piece of writing and considers learners passive (Badger & White, 2000).
Summary the roles of comments in these approaches
Comments play a central role in teaching and learning L2 writing. In product
approach to L2 writing, comments to students’ writing are summative comments
that evaluate students’ writing as a product. Still, comments used in the product
approach to teaching writing are mainly teachers’ comments.
Changes in writing pedagogy and research have converted the way
comments are given to students (Hyland, K. & Hyland, F., 2006a) from teachers’
comments to teachers’ comments supplemented with peers’ comments, selfcomments, writing workshops, and computer-mediated comments. Among these
forms of comments, peer comments play a substantial role in the process approach
to writing. In this approach to writing, comments help students reflect on, make
changes and revise their own written texts through multiple drafts in order to
improve their future writing. In this approach peer comments are considered an

20


essential component of L2 writing instruction (Kroll 1991; Leki 1990; Mangelsdorf
1989; Mangelsdorf and Schlumberger 1992; Mittan 1989; Zamel 1985 as cited in
Liu & Hansen, 2002) since peer comments are the main focus in the drafting and
revising stages. Peer comments help foster learner autonomy in the process approach
to writing (Ekşi, 2012; Yang, Badger, & Yu, 2006) and enhance writing skills
through writing a series of drafts (Diab, 2010; Lundstrom & Baker, 2009 as cited in
Nguyen T. H, 2016). Liu and Hansen (2002) also posit that peer comment activities
make students aware of the audience of their writing, help them “make readingwriting connections, and build content, linguistic, and rhetorical schemata through
multiples exposures to a text” (Liu & Hansen, 2002, p.3).
Peer comments also play a key role in the genre approach to teaching writing
since it facilitates writing through mutual scaffolding. In this approach, teaching is
“always a series of scaffolded developmental step s in which teachers and peers play
a major role” (Hyland, 2007, p.153). It is the idea of scaffolding that highlights the
role of peer interaction in taking learners from the current level of performance to
the level of potential performance (Hyland, 2007). Peer comments forms a key
element of the students’ growing control over writing skills (Hyland, K. & Hyland,
F., 2006a). Hence, comments to students’ writing not only gives final assessment of
the students’ work, but also help and teach.
2.2

OTHER THEORIES UNDERPINNING PEER COMMENT
ACTIVITIES
In addition to the process approach and the genre approach to teaching

writing that support peer comment activities, other theories underpinning the use of
peer comment activities in teaching writing are collaborative learning theory,

Vygotskian zone of proximal development, and interactionist theory of L2
acquisition. In fact these theories overlap and supplement each other. In this part,
these three theories will be briefly reviewed.

21