1
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES
***

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

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

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Language Teaching Methodology
Code: 601410


KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ –
ĐHQG HÀ NỘI M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

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

HANOI - 2010
6 TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

2.2.2.3. Implementation 15
2.3. METHOD OF DATA ANALYSIS 15
CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 16
3.1. FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS FROM STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE 16
3.1.1. Current situation of peer written feedback 16
3.1.1.1. General evaluation of peer written feedback 16
3.1.1.2. Aspects of peer written feedback 17
3.1.1.3. Types of peer written feedback 18
3.1.1.4. Comprehensibility of peer written feedback 20
3.1.1.5. Support from teachers for peer feedback practice 20
3.1.2. Students’ reactions to peer written feedback 22
3.2. FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS FROM STUDENT WRITING ANALYSIS 26
3.2.1. Features of peer written feedback 26
3.2.1.1. Amount of feedback given in certain aspects 27
3.2.1.2. Types of feedback used 30
8 3.2.2. Students’ post-feedback revision 32
PART III: CONCLUSION 35
1. SUMMARY OF THE STUDY…………………………………………………………35
2. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 35
2.1. How is peer feedback given to the 2nd- year students' writings at the FELTE,
ULIS, VNU? 35
2.2. How do the 2
nd
- year students react to their peers’ feedback on their writings? 36
2.3 What can be done to improve the effectiveness of peer feedback practice at the
faculty? 36
2.3.1. Pre-training activity 36

Figure 13: Mistakes pointed out versus mistakes corrected 32
Figure 14: Number of mistakes made on 1
st
versus 2
nd
draft of student writings 33 10 PART I: INTRODUCTION
1. RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY
The teaching of English has undergone different waves of change throughout its history. With
regards to writing teaching in particular, there exists a recent shift from the traditional focus on
the product of writing to the process of writing (Hinkel, 2000). A writing process then includes
five stages, namely prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing. The process approach
is said to empower its students, enabling them to make clearer decisions about the direction of
their writing by means of “discussion, tasks, drafting, feedback and informed choices [thereby]
encouraging students to be responsible for making improvements themselves” (Jordan, 1997, as
cited in Clenton, 2006, p.2).
In the light of process approach, feedback plays an integral part of a student‟s writing. Beside
the traditional teacher feedback, peer response proves to be an effective type of feedback as it
provides chances for student writers to write for an immediate audience apart from the teacher,

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

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

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

written pieces of writing, thus becoming more effective writers. Therefore, feedback is
considered, first of all, a pedagogical tool that helps enhance students‟ writing competence.
In asserting the role of peer comments in process writing, Wood (2000) stated that it was an
advantage that students “participated in authors' circles where they could float their ideas like
trial balloons before their peers and receive feedback” (p. 2). In process writing, students do not
work alone or keep their ideas to themselves. Instead, they are engaged in the process of
response, assessment, evaluation, and revision. The fact that students take control of their
writing and editing process substantially makes them reflective writers.
17 In some other studies, researchers even emphasize the advantages of peer response over the
traditional teacher feedback. According to Naumoska, peer feedback is acknowledged as
“friendlier, more supportive, less threatening and less stressful; therefore removing the cause of
anxiety the students experience upon handing in writing to be checked” (2009, p.2). Since
students do not see their peers as authoritarian figures, they could enjoy the feeling of support
and the freedom from stress. Feedback, in this sense, adopts another function; that is, stimulating
and motivating student to write. However, according to Bartram and Walton (1991), the effects
of peer feedback exerts on its receivers vary from student to student.
1.2.3. Requirements for effective peer feedback practice in writing teaching
Since the shift of focus from product of writing to process of writing, peer feedback has been
recognized as an important part of a writing procedure beside the conventional teacher feedback.
However, in many cases the practice may not bring about good effects for various reasons such
as students do not take the practice seriously, or they try to avoid hurting each other‟s feeling by
giving completely positive feedback. In the following part, the researcher will briefly summarize
some conditions for the effectiveness of the practice.
According to Urzua (1987), it is crucial to train learners to cope with the task of giving
feedback. Since students may not be able to ask constructive questions for redrafting, they must
be trained or guided to perform the task - for example, to be critical of the development of ideas
and organization in written discourse. In the same line with Urzua, Naumoska (2009)

1.2.4. Major issues of student feedback on their peer’s writing
How to make full use of peer feedback has always been a matter of concern among writing
teachers. Concerning the issue, a great number of questions have been asked: “To which extent
should feedback be?”, “Which types of comment are most effective?” and so on. However, it is
the fact that researchers have not reached a consensus over the answers to such questions. The
following part is an overview of the literature of the abovementioned issues.
1.2.4.1. Focus of peer written feedback
Since the shift of focus from product to process approach, the question of whether feedback
should focus on form or content of writing has been a matter of much conflict (Fathman and
Whalley, 1990). Content, in their opinion, refers to comments on organization, ideas and amount
of detail, while form involves comments on grammar and mechanical errors.
Generally, students are inclined to identifying and correcting all the surface-level errors; i.e.,
errors on form. This is perhaps because errors on form are easier to recognize and correct.
However, the mere focus on form correction would have detrimental impact on student writing.
19 That students receive a corrected draft from a friend with corrections all over the page would
only add to their anxiety when dealing with another writing task. Moreover, a large amount of
error correction may draw the students‟ attention to form only but not to the important matter of
developing the content (Sommers, 1982). This is because when feedback focuses on form
(grammar, spelling, etc.), many students will rewrite by correcting the surface mistakes and will
make few or no other changes. The result is that the students' rewriting becomes grammar
exercises rather than challenges to clarify meaning.
Advocates of process writing are, on the other hand, in favor of feedback on the content of
writing. Coffin et al. (2003, p.105) claims “Feedback seems to be, and in deed to a certain extent
is, about the content of writing”. That is why Stanley (1992, p.1) recommends that feedback
concentrate on “what the students say” rather than “grammatical accuracy” or “writing fluency”.
In some other research, there seems an agreement that attention must paid to both content and
form. Raimes (1992) states that both content and form errors should be noticed because

the writing with correction all over the page, students may feel discouraged and stop trying to
correct the mistakes. All things considered, it is better to have a balance between praise and
criticism, since the combination of both kinds will bring about “the best effects” (Ferris &
Hedgcock, 1998, p. 128).
1.2.4.2.2. Direct versus indirect feedback
Direct feedback is explicit correction in response to errors. Indirect feedback may take various
forms, such as crossing out an unnecessary word or phrase; inserting a missing word; or writing
the correct word or form near the erroneous one. With direct feedback, students are expected
merely to transcribe their peers‟ suggested corrections into their texts. Indirect feedback, on the
other hand, is general comments that give students the opportunity to fix errors themselves
(Ferris, 2002). Indirect feedback may be done by means of an underline, circle, code or other
marks.
In his study, Ferris (2002) shows that indirect feedback is more helpful to student writers in most
cases because it leads to greater cognitive engagement, reflection, and guided learning and
problem-solving. Since readers only point out the mistakes, students have to figure out the way
to correct the mistakes on their own. This, in the long run, helps promote students‟ thinking as
well as the ability to self-edit their own writings. Moreover, when having to correct the mistakes
by themselves, students normally remember the mistakes better; therefore, they are more likely
to be able to avoid them in the future.
Opposed to the term „indirect feedback‟ is „direct feedback‟ in which commentators correct the
21 mistakes right away for students. Direct feedback is criticized by Bartram and Walton (1991) as
“students‟ discouraged creativity and independence” (p. 26) since students do not have to do
anything about their mistakes. Instead, they just transcribe peers‟ corrections into their text.
There is some justification in this criticism. However, a more thorough look at the issue will
reveal some benefits of direct feedback. For students of generally lower level of language
proficiency, it is suggested that their peers should use direct feedback for complicated mistakes.
This is because if they do not suggest ways to correct the mistake, weak students may not be

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

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

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

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

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


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