Nghiên cứu phản hồi của bạn học thông qua Google Classroom trong giảng dạy môn Biên dịch tiếng Anh tại Khoa Ngoại ngữ Đại học Thái Nguyên (Luận văn thạc sĩ)

THAI NGUYEN UNIVERISITY
SCHOOL OF FOREIGN LAGUAGES

TO THI BICH THUY

A STUDY ON PEER RESPONSE VIA GOOGLE CLASSROOM
ON AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION COURSE AT SCHOOL OF
FOREIGN LANGUAGES – THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY
(Nghiên cứu phản hồi của bạn học thông qua Google Classroom
trong giảng dạy môn Biên dịch tiếng Anh tại
Khoa Ngoại ngữ - Đại học Thái Nguyên)

M.A THESIS

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 8220201

THAI NGUYEN – 2020


THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

TO THI BICH THUY

A STUDY ON PEER RESPONSE VIA GOOGLE CLASSROOM
ON AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION COURSE AT SCHOOL OF
FOREIGN LANGUAGES – THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY
(Nghiên cứu phản hồi của bạn học thông qua Google Classroom
trong giảng dạy môn Biên dịch tiếng Anh tại
Khoa Ngoại ngữ - Đại học Thái Nguyên)

M.A. THESIS
(APPLICATION ORIENTATION)

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 8220201
Approved by
Supervisor

Dr. Vu Kieu Hanh
THAI NGUYEN – 2020


DECLARATION

I hereby declare that no part of the enclosed Master Thesis has been copied
or reproduced by me from any other‟s work without acknowledgement and that the
thesis is originally written by me under strict guidance of my supervisor.

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Sincerest and profound gratitude and appreciation are extended to all the
persons who in their own special ways have made this dissertation a reality. The
author is most grateful to:
Dr. Vu Kieu Hanh, her adviser, for her dedication, enduring patience and
concern, guidance, sincere hopes and encouragement for the researcher to finish
the manuscript;

The Panel of Examiners, for their invaluable comments, suggestions and
recommendations to enhance the manuscript of this study;
To the Learning Resource Center of Thai Nguyen University, for the
valuable sources of books and references;
To the authors and researchers of books and unpublished graduate theses
that served as reliable source of data and information presented in the study;
Special thanks to:
Dr. Dang Thi Thanh Huong, the Vice Rector of School of Foreign
Languages – Thai Nguyen University, for her patience and support;
The respondents of the study, for their active involvement. Without their
cooperation the result of this thesis may not be possible;
Her loving classmates and colleagues, for endless support and friendship
which inspires the researcher to put in her best in finishing the study;
Her parents and sibling, for their encouragement, financial, moral and
spiritual supports and for continuously believing that she can finish the task to
the best of her abilities.

To Thi Bich Thuy

ii


ABSTRACT

In teaching English, beside the four skills (reading, writing, listening and
speaking), translating is often supposed to be one of the most necessary and
difficult skills, for both the lecturers and the students have to face great challenges.
Traditional translation classes are boring and stressful, so finding ways to create a
more dynamic, positive, and vibrant learning environment has always been one of
the goals of translation teachers. Based on previous studies that have shown

certain benefits of peer response in the EFL translation and writing class, as well
as the benefits of technology in teaching, this study is intended for finding out the
effects of applying Peer responses through Google Classroom in an English
Translation Course at School of Foreign Languages - Thai Nguyen University. 27
students of English Language Teaching undergraduate program participated in this
study. They were then given questionnaires to refine and provide information to
the writer, from which, combined with data from classroom observations and
assessment of student‟s translations drafts, the author obtained the results of the
study. The study shows that, thanks to the application of peer response via Google
Classroom, not only the student‟s motivation, engagement and interaction have
greatly increased, but also the student‟s translation skills have significantly
improved. This study is a valuable reference for researchers, teachers of translation
courses and others interested in the field.
Keywords: Peer response, Google Classroom, English Translation Course

iii


TABLE OF CONTENT

DECLARATION ............................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................. ii
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................... iii
ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................................... vi
LISTS OF TABLES ........................................................................................ vii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1
1.1. Rationale of the study ................................................................................. 1
1.2. Aims of the study........................................................................................ 5
1.3. Objectives of the study ............................................................................... 5
1.4. Research Questions .................................................................................... 5

1.5. Scope and limitation ................................................................................... 5
1.6. Significance of the study ............................................................................ 6
1.7. Design of the study ..................................................................................... 6
1.8. Definition of terms ..................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................... 8
2.1. Review of literature .................................................................................... 8
2.1.1. Collaborative learning ............................................................................. 8
2.1.2.Peer response ............................................................................................ 9
2.1.3. Peer response in translation training ..................................................... 13
2.1.4. Peer response on translation courses via Google Classroom ................ 16
2.2. Related studies .......................................................................................... 17
2.3.Present status of learning and teaching Translation in School of Foreign
Languages – Thai Nguyen University ............................................................ 19
2.3.1. Courses .................................................................................................. 19
2.3.2. Teachers/Tutors ..................................................................................... 20
2.3.3. Students ................................................................................................. 21
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ....................................... 24
3.1. Research Questions .................................................................................. 24
3.2. Research population and sample .............................................................. 24
iv


3.3. Research Context and Settings ................................................................. 24
3.4. Data Collection Instruments..................................................................... 26
3.4.1. Primary Data ......................................................................................... 26
3.4.2. Secondary data.................................................................................... 28
3.5. Data Analysis ........................................................................................... 28
3.6. Summary .................................................................................................. 29
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ......................................... 30
4.1. Analysis and Findings .............................................................................. 30

4.1.1. Profile of the respondents...................................................................... 30
4.1.2. Students‟ perceptions toward peer response and Google Classroom ... 32
4.1.3. Students‟ perceptions toward peer response via Google Classroom in 33
Translation Courses ......................................................................................... 33
4.1.4. The students learning outcomes ............................................................ 44
4.1.5. Class Observation.................................................................................. 45
4.2. Discussion ................................................................................................ 48
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ..................................................................... 51
5.1. Summary of the research .......................................................................... 51
5.2. Implications and Recommendations ........................................................ 53
REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 55

v


ABBREVIATIONS

EFL

: English as a foreign language

ESL

: English as a second language

ICT

: Information and Communications Technology

L1

: First language

L2

: Second language

LMS

: Learning Management System

SFL-TNU : School of Foreign Languages – Thai Nguyen University
SL

: Source language

ST

: Source text

TEFL

: Teaching English as a Foreign Language

TESL

: Teaching English as the Second Language

TL

: Target language

WTO

: World Trade Organization

vi


LISTS OF TABLES

Table 1: Participant by age ................................................................................................ 31
Table 2: The students' experience of learning English ..................................................... 31
Table 3: Data of the effectiveness of Peer Response and Google Classroom .................. 34
Table 4: Data of the factors affecting students‟ response to peer‟s works ....................... 36
Table 5: Data of the impact of peers‟ comments on students‟ correction of errors .......... 38
Table 6: Data of respondent‟s rating of the convenience of Google Classroom in giving
peer response ..................................................................................................................... 39
Table 7: Data of respondent‟s rating of the impact of commenting others‟ works on their
self-revision ....................................................................................................................... 40
Table 8: Data of respondent‟s rating of the peer response‟s effect on students‟ next
translation .......................................................................................................................... 41

vii


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Participants by gender ............................................................................... 30
Figure 2: Students' perceptions toward Google Classroom ...................................... 33

Figure 3: The Students‟ perceptions toward the effectiveness of Peer Response and
Google Classroom ..................................................................................................... 35
Figure 4: The factors influencing students‟ response to peer‟s works ...................... 37
Figure 5: The impact of peers‟ comments on students‟ correction of different errors ........ 39
Figure 6: Students‟ evaluation of the convenience of the Google Classroom in
making comments on peers‟ work ............................................................................ 40
Figure 7: Students‟ assessment of the impact of commenting others‟ works on their
self-revision ............................................................................................................... 41
Figure 8: Students‟ assessment of Peer Response‟s Effect on Students‟ next Translation42
Figure 9: Change in Student‟s Outcomes ................................................................. 45

viii


CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale of the study
In the context of globalization, the role of translation to foster international
integration has been extraordinarily enhanced. According to Nguyen, Thi Nhu Ngoc
et al (2016), since Vietnam officially became a member of the World Trade
Organization (WTO), translation has been now considered as an in-demand job in
the labor market. Also in this context, translators have been playing an important
role in transferring important information from diplomatic, economic and political
documents from a source language (SL) to a certain target language (TG), directly
affecting the exchange and cooperation process among countries throughout the
world. Additionally, the WTO official membership of Vietnam requires translators
to equip themselves with more professional skills and knowledge, including
language skills as well as socio-economic, socio-political, and cultural knowledge.
Realizing the importance of translators in both the dynamic domestic and
foreign labor markets, most universities with foreign languages studies in Vietnam
have developed translation one of the major degree programs, or to the least extent

the core courses in their curriculum. However, translation is considered as a
challenging subject not only for students but also for teachers because it requires a
wide range of specialized knowledge, vocabulary, grammar structure, and deep
understanding of culture, context, and good knowledge of the mother tongue (Pham
Vu Phi Ho, 2015). Translation requires a lot of practice and expertise in both the SL
and the TG. According to Searls-Ridge (2000), good translation skills are not an
innate talent but an industrious practice. For instructors, Razmjou (2004) asserted
that even though instructors have a good amount of knowledge about translation
theories as well as good translation practice skills, it is not certain that they will help
students gain good translation skills. Only meticulous and systematic teaching
methods can do this. The more difficult problem for teachers is that when
commenting on the student‟s translation, teachers not only have to point out the
correct translation, but also help the students create a good alternative; if the
translation is qualified, it should be made to become better. Besides, in terms of
translation as an art (Zaixi, 1997), surely translation cannot be a single answer
because there are so many different expressions of language in the process of

1


translation, not always the only way (Pham Vu Phi Ho, 2016). As Pym (2003)
explained, translation is a problem-solving process, and translators must be able to
decide which option is more suitable for different translation purposes. Therefore,
teachers need to create a conducive learning environment, not only for students to
learn how to solve problems, but also to be exposed to other solutions of problems.
Despite the importance and popularity of translation programs, teaching
translation in many universities is still challenging in terms of pedagogy, teaching
instruments or teachers‟ capacity. According to Tran, Thi Thu Trang (2019),
currently, course books and related materials are not adequately available. Some of
the course books available are not suitable for Vietnamese context. Teachers then

have to design teaching materials based on their own experiences. Therefore, each
university has its own teaching model and internal circulation materials. There is no
perfect material that suits every situation is any classroom or that suits all students‟
needs of learning styles and strategies. In this respect, teachers may use
supplementary relevant materials, substitute or even omit trivial or irrelevant
elements where the need arises either to comply with student needs in order to
compensate for any weak or unsatisfactory points in the textbooks or to meet
specific needs in certain teaching situations. In terms of training programs and
teachers, Nguyen, Thi Nhu Ngoc et al (2016) concluded that the majority of
teachers had not yet received intensive training in translation. Many teachers
favored theoretical training and offered few practical activities close to translation
services in society. Training content often revolved around familiar issues, and did
not correspond with market‟s demand. With regards to using translation strategies
in the translation process, Huynh, Van Tai (2016) pointed out some limitations of
students as follows: Firstly, students often performed their translation work
subjectively, ignoring the analysis of the source text (ST). Second, students did not
understand the rules of language in each type of ST. Third, they lack the coherence
and cohesion in the translated text, and the social knowledge. Pham Vu Phi Ho &
Phu Thi Kieu Bui (2013) also found that the majority of students felt they were
limited in language and lacked effective strategies in the translation process.
Nguyen, Thi Nhu Ngoc et al (2016) conducted a survey interview with 28 lecturers
(teachers) in 10 universities across the country and found that most lecturers

2


provided texts and asked students to analyze the structure, vocabulary and then
translated them. In a different way, they asked students to analyze the translation of
some phrases or sentences, and then came up with the new translations. Moreover,
the majority of teachers provided students with the final translation as an answer for

translation exercises; only a few let students give their own answers and discuss
together.
In a study on the status of teaching and learning Translation at Schoolof
Foreign Languages – Thai Nguyen University, where translation is obligatory for all
students majoring in English Language, Le, Vu Quynh Nga et al (2016) found that
teachers used the traditional “read and translate” method in a long time. The most
obvious consequence was that many students made poor translation; some even did
not dare to translate. Therefore, they would depend entirely on the translation
machines if they were forced to produce a translation. Students also lacked a lot of
important qualities in translation such as a linguistic and cultural background in
both target and source languages as well as an in-depth understanding of translation
techniques and strategies. In addition, teachers did not reveal professional
certification and skills; they also did not receive further training in the field.
However, the authors also found that the majority of students were able to be
collaborative learners rather than competitive ones. They enjoyed working in groups
and discussing together because they had the opportunity to exchange ideas for
better works.
Previous research has confirmed the positive effects of peer response or peer
feedback in student learning. However, despite the overwhelming amount of
research pointing to the benefits of the practice of peer response in language
education, there has been very little research done on adopting peer response in
tertiary level interpreting and translation training.
A few studies have unveiled the success of peer response-not only in a
traditional classroom, but also in an online learning classroom-to improve students‟
translation skills. In a non-online learning environment, the results of a study
conducted by Flanagan and Heine (2015) revealed that the students were
empowered and have gained more from the task. In today‟s era, in which
technology is often used and integrated to classroom, teachers can utilize

3

Information and Communications Technology (ICT) to their teaching and learning
process. Here, peer response can be conducted outside classroom through the use of
online platforms, such as Google Classroom, Edmodo, Google Docs, Facebook,
Whats App, Wikipedia, and so on to make it timesaving instead of time-consuming.
In an online learning environment, the findings of a study conducted by Wang and
Han (2013) demonstrated that most of the participants realized that this strategy is
valuable and beneficial to increase their translation skills. However, learners‟
attributes, especially engagement in online peer response environment has not yet
received enough attention.
The literature on collaborative translation, especially collaborative projectbased learning, shows its effectiveness to empower the students to meet their
potential challenges, create meaningful learning experiences, and enhance their
translation competence (Galán-Mañas, 2011; Kiraly, 2000, 2012; MitchellSchuitevoerder, 2011). With the success of the collaborative project-based learning
approach, it is interesting to explore how students collaborate with each other in the
process of peer feedback, and also how peer response contributes to the
development of their translation abilities.
Against the aforementioned background, this study aims to fill in the gap of a
lack of study in peer response in translation training. The problem which this study
aimed at addressing was the lack of collaborative approaches in teaching and
learning translation in tertiary level in the Vietnamese context. Various studies have
dealt with collaborative teaching approaches through the use of online learning
platforms; nevertheless, to the best of the researcher‟s knowledge, the use of Google
Classroom in the teaching and learning of translation at the university level in
Vietnam has not received much popularity. As such, this paper studies the
application of peer response activities in a bilingual English-Vietnamese translation
course via the comment function of Google Classroom in School of Foreign
Languages – Thai Nguyen University, to explore the effects of peer response on the
teachers’ teaching and the learners’ learning outcomes as well as the impact it have
on the students’ abilities to deal with translation tasks.

4


1.2.

Aims of the study
The current study aimed to examine the students‟ perceptions ofpeer

response activities via the comment function of Google Classroom and their
engagement in these activities in order to achieve highest effectiveness in learning
translation. The other focus was to examine the effects of peer response activities
via the comment function of Google Classroom in a bilingual English-Vietnamese
translation course in School of Foreign Languages – Thai Nguyen University.
1.3.

Objectives of the study
1. To determine the students‟ perceptions of peer response activities via

Google Classroom in a bilingual English-Vietnamese translation course in
SFL-TNU.
2. To examine the effectiveness of the application of peer response via
Google Classroom in a bilingual English-Vietnamese translation courses in SFLTNU through student‟s learning outcomes.
1.4. Research Questions
The research was conducted to answer the following questions:
1. What are the effects of peer response activities via the comment
function of Google Classroom in a bilingual English-Vietnamese translation
course in SFL-TNU?
2. What are the student‟s perceptions of peer response activities via Google
Classroom?

1.5. Scope and limitation
The study was conducted in School of Foreign Languages – Thai Nguyen
University where approximately 1600 students are studying the English language in
seven degree programs. Upon graduation, the students are expected to achieve level
5 on 6 based on Six-level Vietnam‟s Framework of Reference for Languages in
order to be eligible to work in cross-cultural organizations, multinational
corporations (MNCs), as professional translators or interpreters or tourist guides...
Translation courses belong to the basic knowledge section that students have
to finish in the third year or the fourth year of the curriculum. Due to the limitation
of time, resources as well as some other conditions, this study surveyed only 27
third–year undergraduate students enrolled in Translation Module 1 course in

5


School of Foreign Languages – Thai Nguyen University during the second semester
of the academic year 2019-2020. As such, the primary data collected derive from
the group of above-mentioned respondents.
1.6. Significance of the study
This study provides an overview of the theoretical frameworks and practices
on peer response via Google Classroom in teaching and learning translation with a
case study in SFL-TNU.
For the researcher, this study helps the researcher determine the effectiveness
of using peer response via the comment function of Google Classroom in teaching
and learning translation in general and in SFL-TNU in particular.
For teachers, this study may help arise some practical ideas for change in
teaching methods using collaborative learning environment in addition to the
traditional face-to-face classrooms.
For students, this study provide them with relatively clear understanding of
the advantages of peer response via Google Classroom, so they can be willing to

actively engage themselves in learning activities utilized with the above-mentioned
collaborative digital platform in order to improve their translation skills as well as
improve the effectiveness of their study.
For further research, this study can be used as a reference for future research
related to the investigated topic.
1.7. Design of the study
This study includes five following chapters:
Chapter 1: Introduction
This chapter introduces the rationale, aims, objectives, research questions,
the significance, the scope and limitation, the design of the study and the definition
of key terms.
Chapter 2: Literature review
This chapter conceptualizes the framework of the study through the
discussion of issues and ideas on theories of teaching translation and the
implementation of peer response activities via Google Classroom Learning
Management System (LMS). A brief review of related studies is included to provide
insights into the research topic.

6


Chapter 3: Research Methodology
The chapter presents the context, the methodology used in this study
including the context, the subject, the data collection instruments, and data
collection procedure.
Chapter 4: Findings and Discussion
The chapter covers an analysis of survey results and discussion on the data
collected from the students‟ translation drafts, class observation as well as findings
of the study.
Chapter 5: Conclusion

This part is a summary of the findings, gained research experience,
recommendations, limitations and suggestions for further study.
1.8. Definition of terms
To understand the study better, the following terms were defined
operationally and conceptually:
Collaborative learning refers is an educational approach to teaching and
learning that involves groups of learners working together to solve a problem or
complete a task.
Collaborative Translation is a translation carried out by a group of students
who work together via an online platform.
Google Classroom is a collaboration tool developed by Google Inc. for
teachers and students. Teachers can create an online classroom, invite students to
the class then create and distribute assignments. Within the Google Classroom
students and teachers can have conversations about the assignments and teachers
can track the student's progress.
Peer feedback refers to comments, assessments and suggestions that learners
receive from their classmates.
Peer response involves students working together and interacting with one
another on a specific task.
Virtual classroom refers to an online learning environment that allows
teachers and students to communicate, interact, collaborate, explain ideas.

7


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter covers the theories for the study. There are five main features
which will be presented: collaborative learning and teaching, peer responses, peer
responses in Translation Courses, peer responses in Translation Courses via Google
Classroom, and the teaching and learning translation at School of Foreign

Languages - Thai Nguyen University.
2.1. Review of literature
2.1.1. Collaborative learning
Collaborative learning has been described as “an approach to teaching that
makes maximum use of collaborative activities involving pairs and small group of
learners in the classroom” (Richard and Rodgers 2001, p. 192). It is also described
as “group learning activity organized so that learning is dependent on the socially
structured exchange of information between learners in groups and in which each
learner is held accountable for his or her own learning and is motivated to increase
the learning of others.” (Olsen and Kagan in Richard and Rodgers, 2001, p. 192).
In other words, collaborative learning is a learning strategy where learners work in
groups to achieve a certain learning goal, and in which each member of the group is
not only responsible for his/her own learning, but also for the learning of other
members in the group.
Collaborative learning covers a broad territory of approaches with wide
variability in the amount of in-class or out-of-class time built around group work.
Collaborative activities can range from classroom discussions interspersed with
short lectures, through entire class periods, to study on research teams that last a
whole term or year. The goals and processes of collaborative activities also vary
widely. Some faculty members design small group work around specific sequential
steps, or tightly structured tasks. Others prefer a more spontaneous agenda
developing out of student interests or questions. In some collaborative learning
settings, the students‟ task is to create a clearly delineated product; in others, the
task is not to produce a product, but rather to participate in a process, an exercise of
responding to each other‟s work or engaging in analysis and meaning-making.

8


Cooperative learning, normally referred to as on form of collaborative

learning, represents the most carefully structured end of the collaborative learning
continuum. Defined as “the instructional use of small groups so that students work
together to maximize their own and each other‟s learning” (Johnson et al. 1990),
cooperative learning is based on the social interdependence theories of Kurt Lewin
and Morton Deutsch (Deutsch, 1949; Lewin, 1935). These theories and associated
research explore the influence of the structure of social interdependence on
individual interaction within a given situation which, in turn, affects the outcomes
of that interaction (Johnsonand Johnson, 1989). Pioneers in cooperative learning,
David and Roger Johnson at the University of Minnesota, Robert Slavin at Johns
Hopkins University, and Elizabeth Cohen at Stanford, have devoted years of
detailed research and analysis to clarify the conditions under which cooperative,
competitive, or individualized goal structures affect or increase student
achievement, psychological adjustment, self-esteem, and social skills.
In collaborative learning, the development of interpersonal skills is as
important as the learning itself. The development of social skills in group worklearning to cooperate – is key to high quality group work. Many cooperative
learning tasks are put to students with both academic objectives and social skills
objectives. Many of the strategies involve assigning roles within each small group
(such as recorder, participation encourager, summarizer) to ensure the positive
interdependence of group participants and to enable students to practice different
teamwork skills. Built into cooperative learning work is regular “group processing,”
a “debriefing” time where students reflect on how they are doing in order to learn
how to become more effective in group learning settings (Johnson,Johnson and
Holubec, 1990).
2.1.2. Peer response
Being defined 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” (Liu & Hansen, 2002, p.1), peer response, also referred to as
peer review, peer feedback or peer editing, is a learning activity that aims to foster

9


collaboration among students, and at the same time enhances students‟ learning in
the writing and translation classrooms. In the peer response activity, students work
in pairs, groups or classes, review and evaluate other‟s work, make comments and
suggestions for a better work.
Previous research has confirmed the positive effects of using peer responses
to the development of foreign language learning as well as language education. For
example, the studies of Lee (1997), Mendonca & Johnson (1994), Min (2005),
Rollinson (2005), Wakabashi (2013) found that classmates can provide many useful
feedbacks to students in ESL writing classes. Although peer response is less likely
to be adopted by learners than teacher response, learners do welcome peer response,
and evidence suggest that peer response leads to improvements in learners‟ writing
(Miao, Badger, & Zhen, 2006). Mei & Yuan (2010) found that response receivers
do value and incorporate peer response and corrections into their subsequent
revisions. Furthermore, in a study to explore the effectiveness of peer‟s corrections,
Wong, Kingshan, and Ronica (1999) confirmed that the corrections of peers
produced fewer errors of writing. In Hyland‟s (2000) study, the students commented
that the feedback of peers on grammar improves their learning. Making comments
and revising others‟ writing improves students‟ evaluation and helps them become
critical readers. It improves their ability to assess their own work and become more
qualitative revisers of their own writing and errors (Rollinson, 2005). In Tsui &
Ng‟s (2000) study, a student also showed that he recognized his own mistakes by
reading their peers‟ work. One large scale study also found a strong correlation
between assessment marks given by peers and marks given by experts (Tseng &
Tsai, 2007). From a learner-centred perspective, the practice of peer response
empowers the students who provide the response (Coit, 2004), reduces learner
anxiety and increases learner confidence (Lin & Chien, 2009; Mei & Yuan, 2010).

Furthermore, while much attention is given to the reception of response, a recent
study found that learners derive more benefits from providing response on others‟
work than from receiving response from others, i.e. there is more in giving than
receiving (Lundstrom & Baker, 2009). Berg (1999) found that those trained in
commenting on other people‟s writing produced more meaningful changes.

10


With the utilization of new ICTs, the benefits of peer response via online
language learning platforms have also been proven. As pointed by Kibler (2005), in
traditional, teacher-fronted EFL classrooms, it was unlikely that teachers would
have enough time to attend to students‟ needs and to support students to fully
engage in the learning process; however, with computer and online peer feedback
activities, teachers could maximize the amount of time for the students to engage in
the learning process.
Peer response can enhance students‟ confidence and make them more
independent and positive. As explained by Xing (2014), the students will feel
relaxed and it will give them more “confidence and inspiration to speak out freely”
(p. 375). In addition, their works will be given feedback first before being
submitted, so they still have time to revise them first before giving it to the teachers.
Tsui & Ng (2000) mentioned that peer feedback increases students‟ sense of
ownership of text because peers‟ comments are often not considered as authoritative
ones (compared to teacher‟s feedback). Students can decide whether they should
accept peers‟ comments or not. Thus, students are less dependent on their teachers
and more confident in themselves.
Additionally, peer response via online platforms can also improve students‟
critical thinking. By making a critical response to the writing of their peers, they
carry out the critical thinking which they must use to their work (Mittan, 1989 as
cited in Mendoca and Johnson, 1994). Besides, students must make a great effort

and reflection to apply the knowledge they have learned to give critical and
beneficial comments. Therefore, their metacognitive consciousness was stimulated
(Wong and Storey, 2006 as cited in Chen & Lin, 2008).
Moreover, online peer response helps establish collaborative and cooperative
learning. Wakabayashi (2013) stated that by joining peer response activity, students
involved in critical review of others‟ texts with the aim of exchanging help for
modification. In addition, Hyland (2000) pointed out one of the useful strategies for
creating mechanisms to support classmates was allowing and inspiring students to
interact with their peers.
Despite all the aforementioned benefits, some drawbacks of peer response
have been outlined in previous studies. Firstly, such activity takes a lot of time and

11


effort of learners, especially when learners are not familiar with the process.
According to Rollinson (2005), peer editing was a time-consuming process. It
includes many stages such as reading drafts, taking notes, discussing with other
readers to have agreement, then writing comments or comments directly with the
writer, which will need learners to spend a sizable amount of time. Secondly,
between teachers and classmates, students prefer teachers to comment on their work
for various reasons, such as lack of belief in peers‟ evaluation, awareness of their
limitations of linguistics (Ferris, 2002; Hyland & Hyland, 2006).Students are
familiar with and believe that teachers are the only audience with more experience
and able to give more valuable comments (Chen & Lin, 2008). Some students felt
that they were not knowledgeable about how to counsel appropriately so they were
not confident to give comments to peers‟ works. This issue may be even more
evident when a low-achieving student is asked to work with a high achiever. Lastly,
cultural factors also influence the quality of peer response activity. Topping (2009)
mentioned that the benefits of peer response could be invalidated due to the forces

of social interaction such as: friendship bonds, enmity, and conformity, among
others. For example, Asian students, who are known to be collectivists, tend not to
give comments openly to their peers because they are afraid that it might make their
peers lose face, resulting in damaging good relationships or conflicts with others.
However, Gielen and De Wever (2015) acknowledged the fact that students need to
develop skills in order to perform their peer response role appropriately. They
concluded in their study that a practical instructional intervention on the feedback
process increases the potential impact of peer response and boosts students‟ learning
in higher education. Moreover, explicit instruction for students on the benefits of
peer response will positively impact their motivation and level of responsibility, as
well as engagement in the task (Topping, 2009).
Regardless its limitations, peer response cannot be denied having various
benefits to the improvement of students‟ skills. If the students are trained to make
effective comments, the teacher understands the characteristics of the students and
creates a suitable learning environment for students to feel comfortable making
comments on their peer‟ work, the disadvantages of peer response can be limited, as
well as the efficiency of this activity will be increased.

12


How to implement peer response
When peer response is first introduced to the classroom, students may not be
comfortable critiquing each other‟s product and may be reluctant to judge others, so
to promote substantive and constructive feedback, the teacher has to make sure the
students clearly understand the purposes and the process of peer response. The lists
of responsibilities as the authors and the editors should be elaborated and
discussed in class. After peer response, it is also a good idea to have the students
reflect on the process in order to consider how well they worked together and
what actions they will take in the next peer-response situation (Barkley, Cross, &

Major, 2005; Byrd, 2003).
In translation classrooms, Mossop (2007) suggests that the degree of revision
can vary, depending on types of texts and particular working contexts, such as how
the text is going to be used, who is going to be the readers, and the factor of time
limitation. He also proposes practical parameters to be used in peer response, such
as accuracy, completeness, facts, smoothness, tailoring, sublanguage, mechanics,
layout, etc.
2.1.3. Peer response in translation training
Many researchers have severely criticized the traditional translation classroom
because of its rigidity, backwardness, being teacher-centered and lacking creativity
(Kiraly, 1995, 2000; Colina, 2003; Stewart, 2008). One of the characteristics of a
traditional translation class is transmission of knowledge. Instead of actively
participating in the class, the learners acquire knowledge passively. If the students
make a mistake in their translations, equivalent translations and strategies will be
provided immediately by the teacher, which leads to the feeling that the answer of
the teacher is the only correct one (Colina, 2003, p.52). The translation product is
paid more attention on than the translation process, therefore, the learner‟s
independence and confidence are eliminated. Actually, a traditional translation
classroom focuses too much on the precision of translation products. Zhong (2002)
emphasized that this has the deep implications for translation training. However,
teachers also need to pay attention to its downside as it easily makes the translation
class become a teacher‟s dominant discourse. Because of those drawbacks of
traditional classrooms, many teachers are trying to build modern translation classes

13


where students are the center and they are provided chances to increase students‟
creativity and imagination.
Zhong (2002) emphasized that “we as educators must not dis-empower

[students] by depriving them of their subjectivities and their right to think
independently” (p.579). In order to achieve this, both teachers and students need to
reorient their teaching and learning, avoiding the translator as only a tool in
communication. Modern translation classes not only focus on learners but also
empower learners as it enhances learners‟ autonomy with long-term learning skills.
The modern translation class develops the self-thinking skills, team collaboration
and responsible thinking so that they can self-assess the strengths and weaknesses
of their activities. With skills created and higher-order thinking activated, translators
develop lifelong learning skills to help them continue to progress and learn even
after graduation.
In addition, to be able to be a skilled translator, one needs to master other
skills as well, such as “language acquisition, text competence, research competence,
cultural competence, transfer competence and abilities such as decision-making,
creativity, to give quick responses” (Coban, 2015, p. 708). These kinds of skills are
not easy to be mastered without any regular practice. In translation class, teachers
need to not only make students practice translating regularly, but also provide
opportunities to give feedback, whether it is from them or the students themselves.
Feedback is essential to improve students‟ translation skills since it can make them
learn from their mistakes and guide them to the right track. In addition, it can also
help them to develop their professional skills (Flanagan & Heine, 2015) and make
them self-regulated learners (Nicol and Dick, 2005). Mucha (as cited in Pietrzak,
2014) also states that proofreading is an essential sub-competence for translators. In
fact, there are various kinds of feedback viewed from the ones providing it, namely
self, peer, and teacher feedback. Nonetheless, regarding self-feedback, some people
argue that it is difficult to be unbiased and to notice their own mistakes. In addition,
they sometimes find teacher feedback can make them down and lost their
motivation and confidence to translate. Hence, peer response is chosen as a strategy
to help the students to enhance their translation skills. Hyland (2003) states that peer
response usually comprise “assigning students to groups of two, three, or four who

14


exchange completed first drafts and give comments on each other‟s work before
they revise them” (p. 200). In this case, they need to share their works with each
other, find the errors, and provide constructive response to improve the quality of
their groupmates‟ translation.
To achieve the goals of the modern translation classroom, researchers and
teachers have now adopted a variety of learning activities and models, one of which
is peer response which can improve their editing skill, one of the key skills students
need to master in building professional translation skills. A peer editing study in a
Thai student translation project has shown that in spite of their different translation
capability and language proficiency, students can get profit from cooperation with
others, in terms of improving their correcting abilities and engaging to learn from
each other in translation process (Sakolkarn & Tongtip, 2017). The students in the
study of Chong (2013) also appreciated feedback from their peers as it helps them
to solve language problems in their drafts of translations, but they are not willing to
spend time on giving responses to their peers.
Innovations in online peer response have started to change the peer feedback
task. The introduction of online LMSs or online learning platforms into the modern
classroom has required investigation and research into how technology has affected
and effected the experience of peer response. Xing (2014) argued that online peer
response can be considered as a kind of collaborative and cooperative learning. It is
because when providing feedback to each other, it opens chances for them to
collaborate and cooperate with each other. The findings of a study conducted by
Demirbilek (2015) showed that social media as a peer feedback tool increase critical
thinking skills. Here, the students need to think critically to give feedback and to
decide whether they want to revise their translation based on their groupmates‟
feedback or not. Ching and Hsu (2013) also argued that the students are intended to
get maximum freedom to control their learning pace and make up their tasks. They

also can decide whether they want to revise their translation based on their
groupmates‟ feedback or not.
Consequently, the present research has incorporated the peer response in
online learning platforms to create a learning environment that can facilitate
students‟ collaboration and also engage them throughout the process.

15