1

LAC HONG UNIVERSITY
FOREIGN LANGUAGES FACULTY

RESEARCH REPORT

TITLE:AN EXPLORATION ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
PEER-EDITING TECHNIQUE IN TEACHING
ESSAY WRITING AT FOREIGN LANGUAGES
FACULTY, LHU Le Thi Bich Vy & Ngo Thi Thu Ha

2

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
YZ
To each of these following people, we would like to express our deepest gratitude
for what they have done for the completion of our research.
First of all, we are deeply grateful to the Administration Board of the Foreign
Languages Faculty, especially to Associate Professor Tran Thi Hong- the Dean, for their
consistent support and encouragement as well as for their invaluable professional
consultancy, without all of which we would not be able to finish our study on time.

3.2.2.2. Questionnaires 15
3.2.2.3. Interviews 16
3.2.2.4. Classroom observation 16
3.3. Procedure 17
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 22-36
4.1. Peer-editing has a positive influence on students’ writing skill in terms of accuracy and fluency
22
4.2. Peer-editing enhances students’ participation in the study 31
4.3. The use of Peer-editing technique in the classroom creates a positive atmosphere, necessary for language
learners 33
4.4. Peer-editing technique is a welcoming tool to be employed in a writing classroom 35
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 37-39
LIMITATION OF THE STUDY 37
RECOMMENDATIONS 38
REFERENCES 40-42
4

APPENDICE 43-60 LIST OF TABLES
List Label Chapter Page
Table 3.1 The detailed information of the research
procedure
3 18-19
Table 4.1 Results of the pre-test & post-test of two
groups
4 22
Table 4.2 T-Test on the EG’s results of two tests 4 24
Table 4.3 T-test on the posttest results of two groups 4 24

Appendix 11 57
Table of Scores of Fluency Appendix 11 58
5

Table of Scores of Accuracy Appendix 11 58

6

LIST OF FIGURES
List Label Chapter Page
Figure 3.1 Chart of the Sampling Process 3 14-15
Figure 4.1 Change in the scores of CG 4 23
Figure 4.2 Change in the scores of EG 4 23
Figure 4.3 Report on the proportion of each error
type in students’ writings
4 27
Figure 4.4 Comparison of the number of errors
made by 2 groups in the pre. & posttest.
4 28
Figure 4.5 Standard deviation values of the
analyzed data.
4 35
7

ABSTRACT
YZ
Many studies were done on the use of peer-editing technique and all shared the
same conclusion that it is a useful teaching tool to be employed in EFL/ ESL classrooms.
In this study, peer-editing technique was tried in a 14-week experimental course in which
30 senior English majors of the Foreign Languages Faculty were designated to learn

Feedback is widely seen in education as crucial for both encouraging and
consolidating learning (Anderson, 1982; Brophy, 1981; Vygotsky, 1978) (as cited in
Hyland, K& Hyland, F(2005) and it is also regarded as a fundamental factor in the
writing context. Supporting this view, Williams (2003) states that written feedback is an
essential part of any language course that involves a writing element, and this has also
been recognized by those working in the field of second language writing. Virtually, for
a long time, product-approach has dominated writing pedagogy and teacher feedback is
used as the only way to respond to student writing. “Surveys of students’ references
indicate that ESL students greatly value teachers’ written feedback, and those coming
from cultures where teachers are highly directive generally welcome and expect teachers
to notice and comment on their errors and may feel resentful if their teachers do not do so
.“ (Hyland, K& Hyland, F, 2005: 4). While teacher feedback has been indicated to be
desirable for the development of student writing, there are still many debates on whether
it should be provided as it is often neglected and misunderstood by students. This is also
a great concern to teachers teaching writing including the researchers at Lac Hong
University (LHU).
1.1. Statement of the problem
9

It is true in nearly all the teaching and learning contexts of the Foreign Languages
Faculty (FLF) of LHU that teacher feedback is the dominant and the most preferable
mode. According to the results of the researchers’ survey on 120 English majors of batch
2007 conducted on May 15, 2010(see appendix 2), a majority of these English majors
prefer teacher’s feedback to their peers’. Up to 70.8% of the surveyed students just
trusted and appreciated teacher feedback. 65% of them said that they had used peers’
feedback, but they rarely did it. Thus, students tend to write only when they know that
their writings would be read and evaluated by their teachers, as the confession of 75.8%
of the respondents. Since students depend so much on the teachers, their practice
opportunity has been restricted. Concerning it, 60% of the students revealed in the
questionnaire that two is the average number of writings they usually produce for a

the results of both teaching and learning. Thus, being teachers of writing, we have been
strongly urged by the long-lasting wish to find out an effective way to help ourselves as
well as our colleagues positively modify our teaching contexts for the sake of students’
progress.

1.2. Justification of the study
With the development of writing pedagogy, in addition to teacher feedback, new
feedback modes are burgeoning and varied feedback techniques are explored. Among the
feedback techniques have been studied, peer-editing proves to be advantageous to some
extent. Particularly, in our research we decided upon it for some primary reasons, which
have been carefully considered in relation to the specific context of FLF. First, peer-
editing is an interactive technique for stimulating students to actively work with their
peers through the exchange of their first drafts of the text. Second, it helps students
realize the changes they need (e.g. for better organization, paragraph divisions, sentence
variety, and vocabulary choice). Third, it is suitable for big classes with multi-levels like
those at LHU, where teachers have big difficulties maintaining their role as the primary
communicator with the students via one-on- one interaction. This creates ground for the
11

hope that the workload teachers usually take individually would be shared, saving them
more time to develop their own teaching instead of spending most of the time editing
students ‘writing, and that students would get used to sources of feedback other than
teachers’, so they would be motivated to write more outside the classroom. Moreover,
with group work in the classroom, teachers could avoid the” homework syndrome” that
usually results in the situation in which writing lessons are quiet [thus de-motivated] so
that the teacher can easily maintain the classroom control (Hadfield and Hadfield, 1990).
Last but not least, peer-editing, according to Johnson, J.H.(1983), can promote students’
confidence which is vital to language learning. In brief, the technique of peer-editing was
chosen to discuss in this paper because of its potential advantages and its suitability to the
specific features of the learning and teaching conditions at LHU.

writing and thus teaching writing will be more appealing to teachers of languages than is
it now.
1.6. Definition of the key terms
• Feedback: information given in response to a product, a person's performance of a
task, etc., used as a basis for improvement (Oxford English Dictionary, 2004)
• “Peer” is someone equal to the learner such as his/ her classmate or fellow student
(Oxford English Dictionary, 2004).
• “Peer editing (or peer reviewing)” is an instructional strategy in which a student
evaluates another student’s work and provides feedback. This is a standard
strategy used in writing courses across the curriculum.(Achieved from
en.wikitionary.org)
• “Peer responses” refer to student’ s comments and correction on his/ her peer’s
writing in terms of organization, tone, flow, grammar, punctuation, and even
content.( Achieved from en.wikitionary.org)
• “Editing” is the process of preparing a written material for publication by
correcting, condensing, or modifying it. ( Achieved from en.wikitionary.org)
13

• Writing process is seen as consisting of 5 stages: prewriting, drafting, editing,
revising and publishing. ( Achieved from en.wikitionary.org)

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. The rationales for using peer-feedback in ESL (English as a Second Language)

Peer feedback, with its potentially high level of response and interaction between reader
and writer can encourage a collaborative dialogue in which two-way feedback is
established and meaning is negotiated between the two parties. It also fosters highly
complex socio- cognitive interactions involving arguing, explaining, clarifying and
justifying.
(2005: 25)
2.2. Review of the prior studies on the use of peer-editing technique
The widely- adopted technique of peer- response in language 1(L1), language
2(L2) and foreign language (Fl) classes has enriched the teaching of writing in many
ways. A great number of earlier studies carried out by L1 and L2 researchers have dealt
with the implementation of peer- editing and its ability to improve students ‘drafts. In L1
studies, Nystrand and Brabdt(1989) and Gere and Stevens (1995) found the oral
discussion in peer response to be very beneficial to young and adult learners. L2 studies
looked into the social interaction of peers in term of types of students’ talk(Lockhart &
Ng, 1995; Mendonca & Johnson, 1994; Nelson & Murphy, 1992; Villamil & De
15

Guerrero, 1996) together with the attitudes of students to peer feedback in terms of their
perceptions of its effectiveness (Mangelsdorf, 1992). Researchers of L2 writing have
marked a variety of behaviors, interaction styles, and reactions among peer group
members during peer response sessions. Mendonca and Johnson (1994) realized that
students use different functions during negotiations: asking questions, offering
explanations, making suggestions, restating what their peers have written, and correcting
grammar mistakes. And as Guerrero and Villamil (1996) reported, in peer groups,
activities consisted of reading, assessing, dealing with trouble sources, and discussing
task procedures. In a writing classroom, during a cooperative learning process, students
review and comment on each other’s writing as peers who collaborate in order to give
insight and knowledge to each other, thus, peer- reviewing can be seen as powerful
learning tool incorporating reading and writing practice and such a view summarizing the
contemporary social constructivist theory of learning (Gousseva, 1998). Moreover,

students’ language proficiency. Adding to this point, LI Mi-mi (2009:2) clarified “peer-
response cannot achieve fruitful results because students are not knowledgeable enough
to detect and correct errors or students tend to withhold critical comments so as to
maintain group harmony”. And once students cannot review their peers’ writings
appropriately, they are likely not to trust their peers reviews (Nelson & Carson, 1998). In
short, those studies pointed out that there were differences between L1 and L2 and
claimed that a lack of language proficiency in L2 affects peer-review. Gere and Stevens
(1985) looked at a fifth-grade writing class to determine if the oral responses provided by
groups to individual writers shaped the subsequent revisions in what they were writing.
The study found both positive and negative results. Student writers were challenged by
their peers "to clarify, to provide more detail" (p. 95) as the peer reacters asked questions
when they were confused, and suggested ways to improve the writing. Some student
writers integrated their peers' suggestions into subsequent revisions. Yet there were
incidents of unproductive, even hostile, verbal exchange, and in some groups students
hurried through the group work in a "robotlike monotone." A case study of four children
17

with low, average, and high abilities in writing (Russell, 1985) examined the relationship
between peer conferencing and revision. The results indicated that in revising, poor
writers were dependent on the questions of other students, whereas average and good
writers tended to become their own audience and revise on their own. Another case study
conducted with freshmen (Berkenkotter, 1983) sought to find out how students interact in
their writing groups and whether writers improve their texts as a result of the interactions.
The research revealed that the students' attitudes toward assistance from their peers varied
considerably, as did the writers' approaches toward revision. One student, Stan, was too
immature to heed his audience. Because of her sensitivity to audience, another student,
Joann, became vulnerable to unwarranted criticism. Although a third student, Pat, felt
responsible to his audience, he felt a greater obligation to his emerging text and revised
independently of peer suggestions. The study concluded that students writing for an
audience of peers as well as their teacher do not necessarily benefit from their

the novel method.
3.2. Methodology
Considering the aims and objectives of the study, a combination of qualitative and
quantitative approaches was used to carry out the research.
3.2.1. Population and sampling
The population of this study is defined as all the junior English majors of LHU.
They have been learning writing in 6 successive terms (2 for sentence, 2 for paragraph
and 2 for essay writing). In this study, the researchers chose on students of batch 2007,
who have just finished the third year, instead of those of batch 2008, who start the third
year, for 3 main reasons. First, the target of the study is to find out if peer-editing
technique can help students be more independent in their practice chance. In order to do
it, students need to write a lot and to do much editing, all of which requires students
19

certain knowledge of essay writing; thus, the choice on batch 2007 of which students
have just finished two courses of essay-writing enabled the researchers more time to
focus on their experiment. In addition, these students have learnt essay writing and also
they are in third year of school, so they know more clearly than anyone else how difficult
and important this subject is; thus, reliable data would be ensured.
The participants were chosen and used as follow: All of 120 English majors from
4 classes of batch 2007 were to respond to a questionnaire which was administered at the
beginning of the study to help the researchers look further into the problem that English
majors cannot learn essay-writing effectively and that they are not actively engaged in
their learning. Out of these 120 students, 110 students of three day-time classes (07av111,
112 and 113) were focused to select the subjects for the experiment. Students of evening
class- 07AV101 were excluded from the experiment due to the reason of convenience. In
particular, from those 110 students, 60 were chosen by systematic random sampling. The
sampling was proceeded in three phase as described in fig. 3.1.
8
8
Randomly chosen:
6 from each 8
24
Class
07av111:
34
students
8
8
9
9
Randomly chosen:
6from each 8 and 9
24
Layer 1:72 samples
Grouped
Into 4

Grouped
Into 4
11
20

Randomly chosen:
10 from each 12
Layer 2: 60 samples
12
12
12
60
10
10
10
Grouped
into 6
Randomly chosen
Layer 3: 2 groups o
f
30
10
10
10
30
30
21

In order to collect data, tests, questionnaires, interviews and classroom observation
were employed as the main instruments.
3.2.2.1. Tests
“Tests may be used to access achievement, mastery, to diagnose weaknesses and so
on” (Kemmis & Taggart, 1992: 105), so pretest and posttest were employed in this study.
The tests took the form of two writing assignments. Students were particularly asked to
compose a 5-paragraph argumentative essay within 90 minutes. To reduce their

questionnaire. Specifically, to check if the other teachers share the same ideas on the
observed problems in the context of teaching essay-writing, the researchers conducted an
interview with 4 teachers who are now teaching at FLF of LHU. Also, to acquire a deeper
understanding and stronger confirmation of what the researchers found from the
experiment, interviews were done with some special individuals of the EG, at the same
time with the post-questionnaire. 15 students were interviewed. They included 7 with
remarkable progress in the post-test and 4 showing no change or even backwardness in
the post-test. The two interviews were semi-structured, according to which during the
process of interviewing, some would be added to the scheduled questions when there was
a need for clarification of the opinion. In fact, for the pre-interview, each teacher was
asked 7 questions, but during the interview 3 more questions were added when the
researchers would like to get clearer view from their opinions, so 10 in all were asked
(see appendix 5). For the post-interview to students, the total number of questions to be
asked is 7 including 5 scheduled ones and 2 added ones (see appendix 7). All the
interviewing questions are open-ended and in Vietnamese for the comfort of both the
interviewers and interviewees.
3.2.2.4 Classroom observation
In the study, observation is employed to help the researchers have a clear view of
how students worked with the introduced technique and it takes the form: participant as
observer. In detail, one of two researchers took the role of the teacher in the experimental
class and also during the class she did the observation. All that were worth considering
23

for the findings such as the way students worked with the new technique, how they
behaved when taking the peer-editing activities, or what they remarked on the editing
activities would be taken into account for later discussion and those pieces of information
were recorded in the form of teaching diary (see appendix 14) that the researcher wrote
after every class meeting. At the end of the course, information from the diary was
synthesized and analyzed to support other findings, which were found out from tests,
questionnaires and interviews for final conclusions to be described in the report.

in using group work in writing classes, was to teach CG. Second, the detailed schedule
for the teaching and the data-collecting was set up, about which more specific
information can be seen in table 3.1
Table 3.1: The detailed information of the research procedure
Duration What to be done What for Who to do Whom to
contact
19/08 to 25/08/10 - Meeting the
research subjects
- Preparing
students for
course
- Ms. Vy &
Ms.Ha
- Students of
EG&CG
23/08 to 28/08/10 - Supervising the
pre-test
- Getting data - Ms.Ha-
CG
Ms.Vy-
EG
- Students of
EG&CG
30/08 to 19/11/10
(time for the course)
- Conducting the
teaching
- Getting data
-teachers - Students of
EG &CG
- Participant
teachers

- The
25

observing notes

questions
- Getting ideas
for the
questionnaire
and interview - Ms. Vy &
Ms.Ha
researchers
themselves
29/11 to 03/12 - Building the post-
questionnaire and
composing the

questionnaire
- Conducting the
interview
- Collecting
data
- Ms. Vy - Ms.Vy
&Ms.Ha
- Students of
EG
12/12/10 to 08/02/11 Stop for final examination & Tet holiday

10/02 to 14/03
- Analyzing the
collected data
- Discussing on the
analysis of the
data
- Getting the
findings
- Ms. Vy - Ms. Vy &
Ms. Ha
- The
researchers
themselves