ABSTRACT
Peer feedback activity has been appreciated by many researchers for its
various advantages towards students’ learning and development of soft skills.
However, this activity is not always successfully conducted in students’ English
speaking classes, due to the feedback’s limitations and students’ difficulties as
feedback givers and receivers. This study, therefore, looked into the ways teachers
facilitated that activity and the effects of such facilitation, specifically in the scope
of FELTE sophomores’ speaking classes. Participants of the study were 3 speaking
teachers of FELTE sophomores and their 79 students. The researcher employed
three data collection methods, which were questionnaire, teacher and student
interview, and observation. The results indicated many techniques that teachers
employed to facilitate peer feedback activity, together with the facilitation’s
positive effects on the students – as feedback givers and receivers – and on the
quality and quantity of feedback. The findings suggest the application of certain
facilitation techniques, as well as adjustments in the use of some others to enhance
their efficiency, thus better promote peer feedback activity in speaking class.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vii
PART I: INTRODUCTION viii
1. Statement of research problem and rationale viii
2. Aims of the study and research questions viii
3. Significance of the research ix
4. Structure of the study ix
PART II: DEVELOPMENT xi
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW xi
1.1. Key concepts xi
1.1.1. Facilitation xi

2.3.3. Observation xxviii
2.4. Data collection procedure xxix
2.5. Data analysis method and procedure xxxi
2.5.1. Data analysis method xxxi
2.5.2. Data analysis procedure xxxi
iii
CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS, DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS xxxiii
3.1. An overview of peer feedback in FELTE sophomores’ speaking class xxxiii
3.1.1. Peer feedback occurrence xxxiii
3.1.2. Limitations of student peer feedback xxxiii
3.1.3. Students’ difficulties when conducting peer feedback activity xxxiv
3.2. Major findings, discussion and implications xxxvi
3.2.1. Major findings xxxvi
3.2.1.1.Research question 1 xxxvi
3.2.1.2.Research question 2 xlv
3.2.2. Discussion and implications xlix
PART III: CONCLUSION liii
1. Summary of the findings liii
2. Conclusion of the research liv
3. Limitations of the study and suggestion for further research liv
LIST OF REFERENCES lv
APPENDICES lx
APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDENTS lx
APPENDIX 2: STANDARDIZED OPEN-ENDED INTERVIEW FOR
TEACHER PARTICIPANTS (translated by the researcher) lxiii
lxiv
1. APPENDIX 3: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR STUDENT PARTICIPANTS
(translated by the researcher) lxv
APPENDIX 4: CLASS OBSERVATION SCHEME lxvi
APPENDIX 5: MARKING RUBRICS FOR GROUP PRESENTATIONS

PART I: INTRODUCTION
1. Statement of research problem and rationale
The competitive labor market in Vietnam has been requiring undergraduates
to develop not only their knowledge and and soft skills, but also foreign languages,
among which is English. However, after four years studying English in university,
a lot of graduates are still described as being unable to use this language in real-life
contexts (Doan, 2008). Especially for the speaking skill, many graduates are
incapable of participating in discussions using English, being hesitate to speaking
English and afraid of others’ knowing their low proficiency (Le, 2011). This fact
raises considerations regarding English teaching and learning at university,
specifically about helping students overcome the hesitation to raise their voice so
that they can be more confident when using English in real-life situations.
A solution for this situation could be promoting student peer feedback (PF)
in speaking class, which is highly appreciated for helping learners familiarize
themselves with the real working world (Reynolds, 2009). In addition, peer
feedback activity can also help to enhance students’ critical thinking (Lam, 2010)
and collaborative skill (Nilson, 2003), which are among the essential soft skills.
However, due to the students’ personality, their level of English and level of critical
thinking, peer feedback might not successfully take place in an English class.
Teachers as facilitators, thus, have an important role in promoting peer feedback
among students. Nevertheless, this role of teachers in English speaking classes has
not received adequate attention from researchers.
These reasons urge the researcher to conduct a study on teachers’ techniques
for facilitating peer feedback and their effects on students’ peer feedback activity.
The study is entitled:
“TEACHERS’ FACILITATION FOR STUDENT PEER FEEDBACK IN
SPEAKING CLASS OF THE SOPHOMORES IN FELTE, ULIS”
2. Aims of the study and research questions
viii
The research was carried out to investigate the techniques used by the

A summary of the findings, conclusion of the research, its limitation and suggestion
for further study are found in this part.
A List of references and Appendices are also included.
x
PART II: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Key concepts
1.1.1. Facilitation
Facilitation as the noun coming from the verb “facilitate” is the action of
making a process “possible or easier”, as stated in the Cambridge Dictionaries
Online. A facilitator is supposed to manage “the group process in order to help
groups achieve identified goals or purposes”, according to Thomas (2010, p.239).
As a person who facilitates, claims Schwarz (2005) cited in Thomas (2010), he or
she is to help enhance the effectiveness of the group. Facilitating is one of the
teachers’ roles and is considered to be very significant by Tylee (1999).
1.1.2. Feedback
Feedback, as educationally defined, is the information or comments that are
given after students perform a task, with an aim to improve their later performance
when conducting that same activity or a related one (Ende, 1983). Ende (1983) also
adds that it would be a mistake should “feedback” and “evaluation” be used
interchangeably since the former is formative while the latter is summative. In
contrast, Irons (2008) considers feedback as any piece of information based on
comments that could facilitate students’ learning; no matter the comments relate to
summative or formative assessment. Hattie & Timperley (2007), however, propose
a boarder concept, according to which feedback can sometimes be corrective,
clarifying or encouraging, depending on the agents that provide feedback. The most
well-known definition of feedback, however, is from Keh (1990):
[feedback] can be defined as input from a reader […] providing information to the
writer for revision […] comments, questions, and suggestions a reader gives a
writer to produce “reader-based prose” [ ] Through feedback, the writer learns

written assignment tasks
• Exam grades or marks
• The grades or marks received for oral
assignment tasks
• Grades or marks given for assessed
group work tasks.
In this paper, the researcher follows Warner (2010)’s way of labeling
feedback for its clarity in comparison with other grouping methods. During a
speaking class of the sophomores in FELTE, ULIS, formative feedback could be
seen during their in-class practice and summative feedback often occurs after their
presentations.
1.1.3. Peer feedback
Literally, peer is defined as “a person who is the same age or has the same
social position or the same abilities as other people in a group” (Cambridge
Dictionaries Online). Therefore, in the context of a classroom, peer is understood as
the students themselves, among their classmates.
The term peer feedback has been used interchangeably with “peer review”,
“peer correction” and “peer critique” in many research papers. According to Lam
(2010), peer feedback as defined in pedagogy “assumes that students play the role
of the trained peer reviewers whose task is to give commentary on their partners’
initial drafts in either written or spoken mode” (p.114). In other words, peer review
or peer feedback takes place when there is an opinion from a student and the
xii
teacher will “ask a class Do you think that’s right?" or tell them to add a written
comment”, explains Harmer (2007) in Sultana (2009, p.12).
In the light of these definitions, the term “peer feedback” used in this
research is understood as the comments, opinions, contributions, corrections or
reviews that a sophomore in FELTE, ULIS can receive from their classmates, either
during or after their performance in speaking class.
1.1.4. Speaking

From what has been discussed about “speaking”, the researcher would like
to note that peer feedback, as an activity in speaking class, can also serve to
develop students’ English speaking. In the particular case of FELTE sophomores,
as peer feedback is often required to be expressed in English, it can help students
enhance their fluency through expressing and discussing the comments, as well as
accuracy through recognizing others’ mistakes relating to various aspects of
speaking. By letting students conduct PF activity, teachers are following the
aforementioned principles of teaching language speaking skill, namely principle
(2), (3) and (4).
1.2. An overview of peer feedback
1.2.1. The roles of students’ peer feedback
• The role of students’ peer feedback in students’ learning
PF helps raise students’ awareness of their performance (or products). Lam
(2010), while particularly discussing peer feedback in writing class, insists on its
positive influence on improving the quality of students’ revision work. Explaining
for this, Reynolds (2009) argues that some students can actually ignore their
teachers’ remark but will pay attention to the problem once it is also noticed by a
peer. This is because PF has “greater volume, frequency and immediacy” compared
with teachers’ feedback, according to Topping (1998) cited in Nilson (2003, p.35).
Maarof, Yamat & Li Li (2011) also stress the awareness that PF raises in the
receivers by making them see “egocentrism” (p.30) in their own work. In addition,
through giving comments on others’ work, students will understand qualities of a
good work better, thus can complete their own work (Maarof et al., 2011).
xiv
Generally speaking, students will gradually be more in charge of their own
studying thanks to peer feedback (Sultana, 2009). PF as a teamwork activity can
“enhance students’ sense of autonomy and responsibility in the learning process”
agrees Jacobs (1989, as cited in Sadeghi & Baneh, 2012, p.910). With the support
from their friends, emphasizes Maarof et al. (2011), the activity also improves
students’ attitude towards the subject they are learning. In a writing class, for

Rollinson (2005) in Sultana (2009), since comments and correction are no longer
given only by the teacher, the class are less teacher-dominated. When correction is
given by the teacher, Rollinson (2005, as cited in Sultana, 2009) goes on
explaining, it strengthens the teacher’s authority because he or she acts as the only
source for knowledge in traditional classrooms. Therefore, once the right for giving
feedback is distributed, it will indeed reduce the teacher’s dominance and enhance the
autonomy of students in the lesson.
1.2.2. Limitations of student peer feedback
Feedback from students is often questioned about its reliability. Novice as
they are, students might not able to help their friends with the revision work
(Maarof et al., 2011). Some researches mentioned in Lam (2010) reveal that
students’ feedback can be “neither reliable nor professional enough to use” (p.114).
Following are justifications for such unreliability:
• Bias: As cited in Nilson (2003), some researchers insist that assessment from
peers can be unfair, depending on race and friendship. Another factor contributing
to the bias in students’ peer feedback, adds Nilson (2003), is that when commenting
on others’ arguments, they often “focused on their agreement or disagreement”
(p.35), not on the arguments’ logic and evidence. Similarly, they are affected by
their “likes or dislikes of the work rather than its quality” (Nilson, 2003, p.35). The
bias does not necessarily come from students only, Nilson (2003) explains, since
they are simply answering questions on the feedback forms developed by their
teachers and many of those forms “indeed likely to evoke emotions in students” (p.35).
xvi
• Superficiality: The second problem in the quality of feedback is that
students have the tendency to focus on “surface errors instead of semantics or
textual one” as argued by Maarof et al. (2011, p.31). Nilson (2003) also affirms that
some students are “uncritical in general” (p.35). On the contrary, they are rather
shallow and tend to pay much attention on trivial problems like spelling.
• Inaccuracy: Compared to teachers, students as reviewers obviously
promise less accuracy. Whereas teacher feedback is regarded as a source of

Apparently, it is not at all easy to receive and accept criticism, especially
from “peers”. Sultana (2009) further demonstrates this idea by telling the feeling of
embarrassment in the receivers. The problem becomes serious as such criticism
occurs right where and when the whole class can witness, leaving the receivers feel
offended. Even when they are not offered feedback so publicly, students might be
very reluctant to give the peer their work for correction, simply not to let their
classmates know their mistakes (Sultana, 2009, p.13).
1.2.3.2. Difficulties from students’ ability
Another problem is believed to be the students’ inability to give effective
peer feedback. This may result from students’ low English level, which prevents
them from expressing their ideas using this language. Lam (2010, p.116) describes
a case of six students “whose English proficiency ranged from slightly above
average to slightly below average” claiming giving specific feedback was difficult
although they had already received training. Nilson (2003) also adds that sometimes
the problems come from students’ unawareness of the products’ standards.
From the discussion of students’ peer feedback’s limitations and their
difficulties, Nilson (2003) then comes to a straightforward conclusion:
[…] the problems with student peer feedback seem to boil down to three: the
intrusion of students’ emotions into the evaluative process, their ignorance of
professional expectations and standards for various types of work, and their
laziness in studying the work and/or writing up the feedback. (p.35)
Either from students’ attitude or ability, those problems in student PF
activity require teachers and researchers to come up with solutions.
1.3. Teachers’ facilitation for peer feedback
xviii
Many strategies to enhance the effectiveness of peer feedback activity have
been applied by teachers. Following is the discussion of such strategies and their
effects on students’ PF activity:
1.3.1. Building feedback partnership among students
As a means to eliminate awkwardness, “an environment of trust and caring”

was also conducted in ULIS, VNU by Luu (2011) regarding peer feedback training
in writing class. Luu (2011) reports that the training brought about an increase in
both the quantity and quality of students’ peer comments. In addition, most
feedback givers showed their optimistic reaction to the development of skill as well
as the acquisition of knowledge and language.
Reynolds (2009) also suggests certain strategies for enhancing peer
feedback, emphasizing training students to take the leading role in the feedback
session. The teachers, in this case should only act as a discussion member, leaving the
monitoring work for the feedback receiver. At the beginning, Reynolds (2009) reports:
[…] students try to address their comments to me and look at me for confirmation.
But when the shift [of ownership] finally occurs, and the presenter smiles, ignores
my raised hand, and calls first on a peer. (p.57).
1.3.3. Providing encouraging feedback forms
Instead of using feedback forms that “evoke emotions in students”, Nilson
(2003, p.35) proposes a new feedback list, in which questions are worded in a
neutral way: This question list does not “ask for a judgment or opinion and so
evokes no emotion” (p.36). These questions are designed as students, familiar or
not with feedback rules, are still able to answer, and require students’ serious
attention to the work. Some sample questions are: “Outline this
paper/speech/project on the back of this sheet” or “Underline all the logical
transitions you come across in the paper” (for written products); “What do you
think is the weakest evidence for the writer’s/speaker’s position? Why?” or “List
the types of supporting evidence and/or experiences given in the paper/speech?”
(for oral presentations) (Nilson, 2003, p.36). This new feedback form, according to
Nilson (2003), serves as a direct answer for the previously mentioned problems with
students’ feedback because of its three advantages:
(1) The neutrality of “identification and personal reactions” (p.36)
xx
(2) Students’ capability of answering once they have read or listened to the work
(3) Students’ inability to ignore the work asked by the questions (i.e. “the keen

in previous papers are either too general (applicable for all feedback sessions) or
only on English writing skill. In addition, as concluded by the researcher with her
limited access to previous literature, it is extremely difficult to find research
spotting on teachers’ facilitation for peer feedback in speaking class in the context
of Vietnam, not to mention at ULIS, VNU. The researcher thus decided that
teacher’s ways of facilitating peer feedback in speaking class, as well as the
facilitation’s effects should be the gap to study.
Chapter summary:
In this chapter, some key concepts are elaborated, together with an
overview of student PF that covers its roles, limitations and a list of students’
difficulties when conducting it. Significantly, the researcher has provided a review
of earlier research that discusses teachers’ facilitation techniques for student PF,
and the effects of those strategies. Besides, she has also indicated the gap to be
covered in this paper.
xxii
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, the researcher would provide justification for the study’s
scope, participants, data collection instruments and data analysis procedure.
2.1. Scope of the study
In this study, the researcher will only investigate into teachers’ facilitation
for students’ peer feedback in the context of English speaking classes for second
year students in FELTE, ULIS. The reasons to focus on only speaking classes (not
other English language skills) lied in the gap indicated in the literature review. As
for the choice for sophomores (not the freshmen, junior or senior students) the
explanation first could be found in their learning programs. Temporarily, the
freshmen in FELTE were using the new course outline, in which there were no
specific “speaking classes”. The FELTE junior and senior students, despite using
the familiar course outline including “speaking classes”, were not chosen either.
This was because they were assumed to be more capable of giving PF than the
sophomores (thanks to longer time studying English and critical thinking skill).

A had more than 5-year formal experience in teaching university students 4
B had 3 to 5 year formal experience in teaching university students 7
C had less than 3 year formal experience in teaching university students 5
The researcher then randomly selected a teacher from each of these groups,
making a total of three teachers (A, B and C) participating in the study. Besides
enhancing the diversity and representativeness of the samples, the choice could also
answer whether years of experience affected the teachers’ success in facilitating
peer feedback in a speaking class.
2.2.2. Students
The research also involved participation from students, since it was the
students themselves who experienced teachers’ facilitation. There were 79 second
year students studying in three speaking classes in FELTE, ULIS, each of which
was taught by one of the three aforementioned teachers. In other words, these
participants were simply students of the studied speaking teachers. This selection
was also purposive sampling because from the targeted population, the students
were chosen for having a certain criterion (Dornyei, 2003), which was being
students of participating teachers. In addition, although these students are in the
same faculty, they came from different majors, specifically:
Table 3: Descriptions of student participants
xxiv
Group
name
Description
Number of
students
Class A Majoring in English Teacher Education 25
Class B Fast-track class, majoring in Translation and Interpretation 29
Class C Majoring in English for Economics 25
2.3. Data collection instruments
This paper is a mixed-method study, being both quantitative and qualitative.