ACCEPTANCE
I hereby state that I: Bui Thi Kim Ngan, 051E10, being a candidate for the
degree of Bachelor of Arts (TEFL) accept the requirements of the College
relating to the retention and use of Bachelor’s Graduation Paper deposited
in the library.
In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in
the library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in
accordance with the normal conditions established by the librarian for the
care, loan or reproduction of the paper.
Signature
Bui Thi Kim Ngan
May 4th, 2009

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
On completing the graduation paper, I owe profound indebtedness to
so many people, without whose contribution and spiritual support I would
not have accomplished it.
First of all, I would love to express my deepest gratitude to my
supervisor, Ms. Pham Minh Tam, for her scholarly instruction, critical
comments, great encouragement and valuable materials, without which the
thesis would not have been completed.
I would like to send my heartfelt gratitude to the teachers at the
English Department, University of Languages and International Studies,
Vietnam National University, Hanoi who have supported me by giving
useful advice and providing me with their useful teaching materials. My
sincere thanks also go to the students in groups of 05E4, 05E10, 05E14 and
05E16 for their patience and willingness to do my survey questionnaires and
two students from 05E7 for their participation in the pilot stage.
Moreover, I would like to send my gratitude to my family, my
classmates and my friends for encouraging me and supporting me during the
time undertook my study. Without them, I would not have been able to
complete this thesis.

ABSTRACT
Since the process approach to writing was adopted in teaching writing
at the English Department, University of Languages and International
Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, peer written feedback – a
technique in which students comment on and offer suggestions for
improvement of their friends’ writings has been widely used and in the first-
year writing classes.
This study is conducted in an attempt to investigate the current
situation of peer written feedback in the first-year writing classes, students’
perceptions of their peers’ written feedback as well as the effectiveness of
peer feedback on students’ revision and writing ability. In order to achieve
the desired aims, the researcher has conducted a survey research using
survey questionnaire and an exploratory research in which student writing
analysis is utilized.
The findings from the questionnaire and student writing analysis
provide the researcher with a comprehensive understanding of the current
situation of peer written feedback at the ED. Generally, first-year students
have a rather positive attitude towards this activity and highly appreciate the
importance of peer feedback in improving their writing ability in general.
Generally, they also use various types and forms of feedback when giving
comments on writings. Moreover, students tend to give helpful comments
especially on grammar and mechanics to help their friends’ revision.
However, first-year students seem to give rather general feedback on their
friends’ writing and have many difficulties in making suggestions to
improve the content of their peers’ writings, which limits the effectiveness

of this technique in helping students revise their writings. Some implications
are then drawn up based on the findings for the betterment of the current
practice. With careful and detailed investigations, hopefully this study will
serve as a useful source of reference for teachers, students and those who
concern about this subject matter.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………i
Abstract…………………………………………………………………..ii
List of abbreviations……………………………………………………..ix
List of tables and figures…………………………………………………x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.................................................................XII
1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM AND RATIONALE FOR THE
STUDY ........................................................................................................xii
1.2 AIMS OF THE STUDY........................................................................xiv
1.3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY.......................................................................xv
1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY........................................................xv
1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY....................................................xvi
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................XVII
2.1 AN OVERVIEW OF WRITING TEACHING ....................................xvii
2.1.1 Conceptions of Writing...............................................................................................................xvii
2.1.2 Approaches to Teaching Writing................................................................................................xviii
2.1.2.1 Product Approach to Teaching Writing.............................................................................xviii
2.1.2.2 Process Approach to Teaching Writing...........................................................................xviii
2.1.3 Stages in a Writing Process...............................................................................................................xx
2.2 AN OVERVIEW OF PEER WRITTEN FEEDBACK ON WRITING
...................................................................................................................xxiii
2.2.1 Definitions of Peer Feedback.........................................................................................................xxiii
2.2.2 Peer Feedback in Process Writing..................................................................................................xxiv

2.2.3 Major Issues of Peer Written Feedback.........................................................................................xxiv
2.2.3.1 Types of Peer Written Feedback............................................................................................xxiv
2.2.3.1.1 Tone of Feedback..............................................................................................................xxv
2.2.3.1.2 Specificity of Feedback....................................................................................................xxvi
2.2.3.1.3 Position of Feedback......................................................................................................xxvii
2.2.3.2 Amount of Peer Written Feedback........................................................................................xxvii
2.2.3.3 Forms of Peer Written Feedback..........................................................................................xxviii
2.2.3.4 Aspects of Peer Written Feedback..........................................................................................xxix
2.2.4 Advantages of Using Peer Written Feedback on Writing..............................................................xxxi
2.2.5 Features of a Good Peer Written Feedback.................................................................................xxxiii
2.2.6 Effects of Peer Written Feedback on Students’ Writing Revision................................................xxxiv
2.3 CONCLUSIVE REMARKS..............................................................xxxvi
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY.......................................................XXXVIII
3.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS.............................................................xxxviii
3.2 RESEARCH APPROACH................................................................xxxix
3.3 PARTICIPANTS.....................................................................................xl
3.2.1 Population..........................................................................................................................................xl
3.2.2 Sampling Method...............................................................................................................................xl
3.2.3 Description of the participants.........................................................................................................xli
3.3 DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS.............................................xlii
3.3.1 Survey Questionnaire .......................................................................................................................xlii
3.3.1.1 Reasons for choosing survey questionnaire.............................................................................xlii
3.3.1.2 Instrumental Development.....................................................................................................xliii
3.3.1.2 The contents of the questionnaire ........................................................................................xliv
3.3.2 Student writing assignments..........................................................................................................xlvi
3.3.2.1 Reasons for choosing student writing assignments...............................................................xlvi
3.3.2.2 Selection of student writing assignments..............................................................................xlvi
3.3.2.3 Description of student writing assignments...........................................................................xlvii
3.4 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE...............................................xlvii
3.5 DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURE......................................................xlix
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION................................................LI

4.1 FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS FROM SURVEY
QUESTIONNAIRE........................................................................................li
4.1.1 Current situation of peer written feedback........................................................................................li
4.1.1.1Frequency of using different types of peer written feedback.....................................................li
4.1.1.1.1 Positive feedback versus negative feedback ......................................................................li
4.1.1.1.2 Text-specific feedback versus generic feedback ......................................................lii
4.1.1.1.3 Marginal feedback versus end feedback .................................................................liii
4.1.1.2 Amount of peer written feedback..............................................................................................lv
4.1.1.3 Forms of peer written feedback...............................................................................................lvii
4.1.1.4 Aspects of peer written feedback ..........................................................................................lviii
4.1.2 Students’ perception of peer written feedback................................................................................lx
4.2 FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS FROM STUDENT WRITING
ASSIGNMENTS..........................................................................................lxv
4.2.1 Between-draft changes made by students of different writing proficiency levels........................lxvi
4.2.2 Amount of peer written feedback regarding different aspects of writing......................................lxx
4.2.3 Students’ revision based on peer written feedback......................................................................lxxvi
CHAPTER 5: PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS...................................LXXIX
5.1 TEACHING IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHERS............................lxxix
5.1.1 Pre-training activity .......................................................................................................................lxxix
5.1.1.1 Pre-training students to evaluate a written work.................................................................lxxix
5.1.1.2 Pre-training students to give and utilize peer feedback effectively.......................................lxxx
5.1.1.2.1 Raising students’ awareness of peer editing...................................................................lxxx
5.1.1.2.2 Providing students with guidance on how to give and utilize peer feedback...............lxxxi
5.1.2 Intervention activity......................................................................................................................lxxxii
5.1.3 Communicative discussion after peer response activity............................................................lxxxii
5.1.4 Assessment of peer response process........................................................................................lxxxiii
5.2 IMPLICATIONS FOR STUDENTS................................................lxxxiii
5.2.1 Fairly specific peer feedback.......................................................................................................lxxxiii
5.2.2 Equal comments on different writing aspects............................................................................lxxxiv
5.2.5 Balanced use of marginal and end peer written feedback...........................................................lxxxv
5.2.6 Appropriate tone of peer written feedback..................................................................................lxxxv
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION...........................................................LXXXVII
6.1 SUMMARY ....................................................................................lxxxvii
6.1.1 Summary of the findings.............................................................................................................lxxxvii

6.1.1.2 What are these students’ perceptions of their peers’ written feedback?........................lxxxviii
6.1.1.3 To what extent does peer written feedback affect first-year students’ writing ability?...lxxxviii
6.1.2 Summary of the implications........................................................................................................lxxxix
6.1.2.1 Pedagogical Implications for teachers.................................................................................lxxxix
6.1.2.1 Pedagogical Implications for students......................................................................................xc
6.2 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY..........................................................xc
6.3 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES.......................................xci
REFERENCES.......................................................................................XCII

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ED: English Department
ULIS: University of Languages and International Studies
CLT: Communicative Language Teaching
ESL: English as a Second Language
EFL: English as a Foreign Language
VNU: Vietnam National University, Hanoi

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Diagram: Stages of writing process……………………………………11
Table 1: Background of the target population…………………………29
Figure 1: Factors to consider when writing……………………………18
Figure 2: Frequency of using positive and negative feedback…………40
Figure 3: Frequency of using text-specific and generic feedback……..41
Figure 4: Frequency of using marginal and end feedback……………….41
Figure 5: The amount of peer written feedback………………………….43
Figure 6: Forms of peer written feedback………………………………..44
Figure 7: Aspects of peer written feedback……………………………46
Figure 8: Students’ evaluation of peer written feedback………………47
Figure 9: Reason (s) why students think peer written feedback is
helpful…………………………………………………………………….48
Figure 10: Reason (s) why students think peer written feedback is
unhelpful……………………………………………………………….50
Figure 11: Between-draft mistakes made by students of low writing
proficiency………………………………………………………………52
Figure 12: Between-draft mistakes made by students of medium writing
proficiency………………………………………………………………53

Figure 13: Between-draft mistakes made by students of high writing
proficiency…………………………………………………………………54
Figure 14: Mistakes pointed out over mistakes made by students………55
Figure 15: Mistakes corrected/suggested over mistakes pointed out……57
Figure 16: Mistakes corrected/revised based on peer written feedback…60

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM AND RATIONALE FOR THE
STUDY
In the light of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), process
approach to teaching writing, in which peer feedback serves as a very
important part, can be regarded as one of the most significant applications.
Feedback plays a very crucial role in motivating further learning as it
informs learners about the degree of their learning or their needs for
improvement. Brown (1994) considers feedback as one of the keys to
successful learning and Gipps (1994) regards feedback as a critical feature of
teaching and learning process. Many researchers such as Chiu (2008), Zhang
(2008), Min (2006) or Paulus (1999) have proved that feedback which is
employed in both forms of verbal and written commentary constitutes an
important aspect of fostering the improvement of writing.
Apart from traditional feedback, known as teacher feedback on
students’ writing, peer feedback , especially peer written feedback – a
technique in which students comment on and offer suggestions for
improvement of their peer’s compositions, has been a widely used teaching
strategy in many writing classrooms including those at the English
Department, ULIS, VNU. Paulus (1999) has found that peer feedback (also
known as “peer review”, “peer response”, “peer revision”) helps students
discover whether they communicate their ideas successfully or not and
encourages them to revise and improve their texts they produce. Moreover,
peer feedback is also regarded as a powerful way in improving students’

critical thinking of writing and evaluation than the traditional teacher
responses (Berg, 1999, Hyland, 2003, Topping, 1998, cited in Chiu, 2008).
The process writing approach places revision which refers to changes
produced on a piece of writing (Wallace & Hayes, 1991) at the heart of
writing and the task of revising can be facilitated by giving students
opportunities to exchange papers with peers to receive and provide feedback.
However, despite the important role of peer written feedback especially its
great effect on students’ writing revision, the number of studies on peer
written feedback is still limited and outnumbered by studies on teacher
written feedback. Moreover, there have been few researches including those
in Vietnam in general and at the English Department (ED), University of
Languages and International Studies (ULIS), Vietnam National University,
Hanoi (VNU) in particular which lend insight into the impact of peer written
feedback on students’ revision. In fact, in spite of the fact that peer written
feedback has widely applied among 1st-year students at the ED, there have
been only some studies mentioning peer written feedback at the ED, ULIS
such as “ An investigation into the use of peer written feedback in the first-
year writing classes at the ED, CFL, VNU, Hanoi” (Tran, 2007) or “ Peer
written feedback in writing portfolios by third year students in the English
department, CFL, VNU” (Phan, 2007). These studies only present the
current situation of using peer written feedback, students’ attitudes, reactions
as well as their expectations of peer written feedback but include no
discussion about the way their writing has been affected by peer written
feedback and whether this kind of feedback improves students’ writing
revision as well as their writing skill or not.

For all the above-mentioned reasons and be motivated by previous
studies, the researcher wishes to conduct a study entitled: “The Impact of
Peer Written Feedback on the First-year Students’ Writing Skill at
English Department, ULIS, VNU”. In conducting this study, the researcher
hopes to gain more insight into the current situation of using peer written
feedback in 1st-year writing classes at the ED, ULIS, VNU in general and its
impact on students’ writing skill in particular as well as proposing some
suggestions for the betterment of the current practice. This study with its
results is hoped to be served as an invaluable source of reference for those
who concern about this subject.
1.2 AIMS OF THE STUDY
First of all, the research paper is expected to find out the current
situation of using peer written feedback among first-year students at the ED,
ULIS, VNU; students’ perceptions of written feedback provided by their
peers on their writing assignments and investigate the impact of peer written
feedback on students’ writing revision. Based on the results of the study, the
researcher plans to propose some suggestions in the hope of enhancing the
effectiveness of peer written feedback in particular and the teaching of
writing at the ED in general.
In brief, the research paper seeks the answers to the following
research questions:
1. What is the current situation of using peer written feedback by the 1st-
year students at the ED, ULIS, VNU?
2. What are these students’ perceptions of their peers’ written feedback?

3. To what extent does peer written feedback affect the first-year
students’ writing ability?
1.3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
In practice, students can provide peer feedback in both oral and
written forms on their friends’ writing assignments. However, within the
framework of a graduation paper, the researcher has no ambition to cover all
aspects associated with the big area “peer feedback” but only focus on the
peer written feedback because this form of feedback seems to be more
popular in the real situation at the English Department and easier to be
examined in the scope of a graduation paper.
Moreover, with the limit of this paper, the subjects selected for this study
are not all first-year English students including both teacher trainees and
translator/interpreter trainees in the fast track and mainstream classes as well
as the ethnic groups who are being taught in ED, ULIS, VNU but only first-
year teacher trainees studying in mainstream classes whose participation
would be of great contribution to the accomplishment of the study.
1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
As mentioned above, there have been few researches regarding peer
written feedback on writing especially the impact of peer written feedback
on students writing revision at the Department. Therefore, the researcher
hopes that the thesis can serve as a report on the current practice of peer
written feedback by first-year students, their evaluation and reactions to their
peers’ written feedback as well as the effects of this kind of feedback on
their writing revision and writing skill. Moreover, the recommendations and
suggestions can partly contribute to enhancing the efficiency of using peer
written feedback in first-year writing classes.

1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
The paper consists of 6 chapters. Chapter 1 provides a brief
introduction to the subject and an overview of the paper. Chapter 2 reviews
relevant literature including an overview of writing teaching and an
overview of peer written feedback, which can serve as the background for
the whole research. Chapter 3 describes the methods utilized in this study.
Chapter 4 presents and analyzes the collected data from both questionnaires
and students’ writing analysis as well as the discussion based on the
findings. Chapter 5 offers some implications for better practice of peer
written feedback on students’ writing at the ED, ULIS, VNU. Lastly,
Chapter 6 summarizes some main issues mentioned in the research, offers
the limitations of the study and suggestions for further research. Following
the chapters are the references and appendices.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 AN OVERVIEW OF WRITING TEACHING
2.1.1 Conceptions of Writing
There have been numerous definitions of writing by many researchers.
According to Byrne (1988), writing is defined as “the act of forming graphic
symbols, which are arranged according to certain conventions to form words
and words have to be arranged to form sentences”(p.1).
From a different point of view, Lannon (1989) defines writing as “the
process of transforming the material discovered by research inspiration,
accident, trial and error, or whatever into a message with a definite meaning-
writing is a process of deliberate decision” (p.9). In other words, according
to Lannon (1989), writing is a process which conveys a meaningful message
and has a definite purpose, which makes this definition more adequate than
the one given by Byrne (1988) because Lannon asserts that writing is not a
simple act but a hard work of decision making.
In language teaching and learning, according to Tribble (1996), writing
is defined as a “language skill” that involves “not just a graphic
representation of speech, but the development and presentation of thoughts
in a structured way” (p.3). Tribble also states that writers not only need to
have ideas in their minds but also know how to put their ideas in a logical
and structured order. Among all definitions mentioned above, this definition
is considered the most thorough one because it nearly covers all aspects of
writing as a skill especially emphasizing the aims of writing as well as the
organization of writing. This is also the definition applied in this study by
the researcher.

2.1.2 Approaches to Teaching Writing
There have been many conflicting views of the best approach to
teaching writing in the classroom. However, the researcher would present
the nature of two most major approaches to teaching writing: product
approach and process approach.
2.1.2.1 Product Approach to Teaching Writing
In the light of product approach, the final outcome of a writing process is
emphasized. Writing is conceptualized as a sequential completion of
separate tasks (Reid, 1982, p.84). According to Sommers (1982), writing
focuses on a composition made up of a series of parts which are words,
sentences, paragraphs – but not the whole discourse with meanings and
ideas. In other words, in product approach, language proficiency becomes
the most important factor deciding the skill of composing.
This approach has received many criticisms because it neglects the
actual processes experienced by students when they produce a piece of
writing and then leads to the restriction of creativity (Clenton, 2006). Pincas
(1962) summarizes the shortcomings of the product approach: “the learner is
not allowed to ‘create’ in the target language at all; the use of language is the
manipulation of fixed patterns; these patterns are learned by imitation”
(p.185). However, it cannot be denied that this approach can help students
tend to see errors as something that they have a professional obligation to
correct and, where possible, eliminate (Tribble, 1996, p.37).
2.1.2.2 Process Approach to Teaching Writing
This section presents the nature of the most prevalent approach to
teaching writing in the light of CLT, process approach in which peer
reviewing, the focus of this research, is regarded as an important stage.

In the mid-1970s, process approach began to replace product approach
and many researchers have introduced different definitions of this approach
to teaching writing.
In process-oriented approach, writing is considered as a multi-stage
process and evaluated according to how well it can fulfill the writer’s
intentions (Reid, 1993, p.55). According to Stewart (1988, as cited in Joe,
2006), the purpose of writing 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, writing is not the form but the idea that
can be seen as the determining factor. 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 regarded as a “linear and
fragmented procedure” (Hairston, 1982, p.78) with the ultimate aim which is
an error free product. It is, in stead, “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 focus on a series of drafts on the same topic can contribute to
helping students know the way to express their ideas in an appropriate way
thanks to writing revision. Furthermore, process approach enables students
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, p.168).

In conclusion, considering both the strengths and weaknesses of
product and process approach, it is ideal if both of these approaches are
integrated to make up the most satisfactory means to teaching writing
2.1.3 Stages in a Writing Process
As mentioned above, in process approach, writing is a multi-stage
process and peer response is one of the most important stages so the
researcher would like to introduce only some ways to classify stages in a
writing process in the light of process approach. In reality, there are a great
number of ways to divide writing into stages. However, in this review, the
researcher mentions two ways of dividing a writing process in writing
teaching by Tribble and Reid.
According to Tribble (1996), the process approach includes four
stages in writing: (1) prewriting, (2) composing/drafting, (3) revising, (4)
editing.
 Prewriting: Prewriting includes anything done by the writer before he
writes a draft: deciding a topic, brainstorming ideas, outlining,
gathering information, etc.
 Composing/drafting: In this stage, the writers do actual writing and
refining of their sentences and paragraphs.
 Revising: In this stage, the writers deal with the content of the writing;
i.e. refining text organization, structure, idea connections or other
addition and connection.
 Editing: In this stage, the writers work on the mechanics of writing
such as spelling and punctuation.

It can be easily seen that in this viewpoint, the readers’ role is not
mentioned and paid attention to. Reid (1993) introduces a more detailed and
thorough description of the writing process with four basic stages: planning,
drafting, revising, and editing and three more other stages which are
responding, evaluating and post-writing. The four first stages introduced by
Reid (1993) are generally the same as those stated by Tribble(1996).
However, what makes Reid’s viewpoint more thorough than Tribble’s is the
addition of three more stages into the writing process:
 Responding: Responding plays a central role in the successful
implementation of a writing process. It is a kind of oral or written
intervention by teachers or peers or other possible readers. Peer
feedbacks are provided during this phase, in which peers share
opinions and experience. This stage is aimed at providing students
with useful information tom improve the content of their writing.
 Evaluating: In this stage, the writing teachers assign scores which
may be analytical ( based on specific aspects of writing ability) or
holistic (based on a global interpretation of the effectiveness of that
writing)
 Post-writing: Post writing consists of any activities, ideally free ones
that the teacher and the students can do to create an outcome such as
publishing, reading aloud and role-playing.
In short, Reid (1993) can be illustrated by this diagram:
Prewriting

Composing/Drafting
Responding
Revising
Editing
Evaluating
Post-writing
By mentioning the important role of responding and evaluating in
writing process, Reid (1993) has asserted the indispensible part of feedback
including peer feedback in writing teaching and learning.
So far, some fundamental issues such as the concept of writing, two
major approaches to writing teaching and stages in a writing process have
been discussed and the fundamental role of feedback has been mentioned,
which in turn serves as a supportive background for the research.

2.2 AN OVERVIEW OF PEER WRITTEN FEEDBACK ON
WRITING
Feedback itself is always viewed as an important part in writing
teaching and learning and in recent years, the use of peer written feedback in
ESL (English Second Language) classrooms has been generally supported
due to its social, cognitive, affective, and methodological benefits
(Rollinson, 2005). As being the main focus of this research, all aspects of
peer written feedback will be thoroughly discussed in this section.
2.2.1 Definitions of Peer Feedback
Peer feedback (also known as peer response or peer review) is known
as the process by which students exchange constructive criticism on their
critical reading, writing, and speaking skills. Bartels (2003) says : “ …peer
response, in which students read each other’s papers and provide feedback to
the writer, usually answering specific questions the teacher has
provided”(p.36).
However, the most comprehensive definition of peer feedback is Liu
and Hansen (2002)’s which considers peer response “the use of learners as
sources of information and interactants for each in such a way that learners
assume roles and responsibilities normally taken on by formally trained
teacher, tutor, or editor in commenting on and critiquing each other’s drafts
in both written and oral formats in the process in the process of writing”
(p.75). Simply stated, peer feedback in writing involves sharing one’s
writing with a group of peer readers who offer feedback and suggestions for
improvement. Due to the great effect of peer feedback on students’ revision
in particular and on students’ writing skill in general, teachers have

increasingly required their students’ responsibility for not only their own
writings but also for those of their peers.
2.2.2 Peer Feedback in Process Writing
Besides the teacher, peers become the indispensible respondents in a
process writing class. Peers who serve as real and immediate audience are
believed to be of help in establishing students’ revision strategies (Zamel,
1987). In other words, students and their peers play roles as writers and
readers as well as givers and receivers feedback. Instead of focusing on the
surface-level mechanics and grammatical correctness in product-oriented
approach, writing is viewed as “a complex development task” in the light of
process approach and according to Li (1999), how a discourse is created is
paid more attention through the negotiation and discovery of meaning than
to the production of free error sentences. Therefore, process – oriented
feedback should focus on both meaning and form.
2.2.3 Major Issues of Peer Written Feedback
2.2.3.1 Types of Peer Written Feedback
In fact, there are many ways to classify peer written feedback based
on different criteria. However, in this section, the researcher would like to
introduce some major and common types of peer written feedback: positive
feedback versus negative feedback, generic feedback versus text-specific
feedback and marginal feedback versus end feedback. These types of
feedback are discussed and compared in pairs so that their advantages and
shortcomings are clearly shown.

2.2.3.1.1 Tone of Feedback
Based on the tone of feedback, feedback can be classified into two
main types: positive feedback and negative feedback. According to Hyland
(1998), positive feedback refers to comments on only strong points and
praise on students’ writing while negative feedback refers to comments on
only weak points and even criticism. Many studies on the effects of positive
and negative feedback on students’ writing revision have been carried out.
Walk (1996) shows that positive comments in fact are beneficial to students
in their writing in most cases. He further states: “students need to know what
works in their writing if they are to repeat successful strategies and make
them a permanent part of their repertoire as writers…They are also more
likely to work hard to improve when given some positive feedback.”
Receiving good comments can also bring students more inspiration and
confidence which helps them write more and better afterwards. In general,
positive feedback often helps students not only understand their problems
with a specific text but also develops strategies and a critical approach used
in future writing situations. However, too much positive comment can make
students feel over-confident and stop revising their writings as they suppose
that their papers are good enough.
However, only positive comments are not sufficient enough to help
students improve their writings. According to Hyland (1998), “students may
distrust praise if it is not frequently given in their own culture (p.208).
Hyland and Hyland (2001) further suggest that peers should use positive
comments with care, “rather than just to make critical comments more
palatable” (p.202). Instead, negative comment guides the writer to correcting
something in their paper (Mosher, 1998). Moreover, it is indicated that

negative comments are more useful for many students who want their
problems to be highlighted (Hyland and Hyland, 2001). In this way, writers
can identify the weaknesses of their papers and work harder to make
improvement. However, too much negative feedback may adversely affect
students’ writing while making them feel discouraged and stop trying to
correct their mistakes and make changes.
All things considered, it is advisable that commentators including
peers should balance between positive and negative feedback to yield the
best results in students’ writing.
2.2.3.1.2 Specificity of Feedback
Feedback can be classified into two main types: generic feedback and
text - specific feedback on the basis of the specificity of feedback.
According to Ferris (1977), text-specific feedback is defined as comment
which is written on the particular paragraph or essay and can “only apply to
that writer’s text at that place within the text” (p133). In other words, this
type of feedback cannot be generalized to other writing assignments of tasks
(Leki, 1990). In contrast, generic feedback is a comment which can appear
on any student paper and can be completely generalized for later use to other
writing assignments or tasks. According to Seow (2002), “text-specific
response, rather than rubber-stamped comments that will help students
rediscover meanings and facilitate the revision of initial drafts” (p.317).
Therefore, feedback should be “detailed enough to allow students to act, to
commit to change their writings (Reid, 1993, p.218). Due to the great
benefits of specific comments, Fathman & Whalley (1990), Zamel (1985)
consider that generic feedback (also known as vague and general comments)
should be replaced with text-specific comments. However, a combination of

these two types of feedback should be encouraged because general
comments can help students have a general view of their writings.
2.2.3.1.3 Position of Feedback
Feedback can be classified into two main types: marginal and end
feedback based on the location of feedback. Marginal feedback refers to a
kind of feedback which is written in the margin or between sentence lines of
students’ papers while end feedback refers to the summary feedback at the
end of the paper. According to Ferris and Hedgecock (1998), there is no
evidence which shows that either marginal or end comments are preferable
or more beneficial. In fact, while marginal are more suitable for specific
sections of the text, end comments are more suitable for global concerns
affecting the whole composition.
2.2.3.2 Amount of Peer Written Feedback
According to Bartram and Walton (1991), like teacher written
feedback, the amount of peer feedback on students’ writing is worth
discussing. Students can overcorrect their friends’ writing by pointing out
and correct all errors appearing in their writings. Many researchers have
proved that this way of giving feedback on writing can distract students from
other important concerns in the process to improve their revision and lead
them to the surface-level mistakes which are easier to correct. As opposed to
“overcorrection” is non-correction which refers to pointing out and
correcting no mistakes, just giving general comments on their friends’
writing. It can be easily seen that this way of giving feedback can be of little
assistance to students in revising their writings. Moreover, this can result in
students’ underestimation of their peers’ responsibility and ability. In order
to get the best results, students should take the amount of feedback into great

consideration and decide that whether or not they should correct all
mistakes, correct some typical and serious mistakes or just give general
comments during the process of giving feedback (Ur, 1996)
2.2.3.3 Forms of Peer Written Feedback
According to Ferris (1997, 1998, 2002), certain comment forms can
lead to more effective revisions than the others. The three main forms of
feedback, i.e. questions (e.g. what do you mean?), statements (e.g. it is not
clear), and imperatives (e.g. give a specific example) present three main
functions of content feedback: (1) providing details to explain the problem
or solution, (2) describing why the problem is serious, and (3) adding new
ideas or more specific support.
According to Sommers (1982) and Zamel (1985), commentators are
encouraged to provide feedback in question form because it can stimulate
their friends’ thinking process and avoid appropriating students’ texts.
However, sometimes this form of feedback can create confuse when students
cannot understand what their peers are referring to. On the other hand,
according to Sugita (2006) “comments in the imperative form were more
influential on revisions than questions …and appeared to help students to
make substantial, effective revisions”(p.34). However, this form of feedback
can make students feel that they are impelled to do something by the
commentators.
In reality, statement proves much revision-oriented than question
because it clearly states what peers expect from their friends’ writings.
Moreover, statement seems to be more reader-friendly than imperative in
which it does not convey a sense of authority as imperative does.

2.2.3.4 Aspects of Peer Written Feedback
In fact, to create a good writing, the writers have to consider many
factors in the writing process. The factors to consider are also the aspects
which need to be addressed when evaluating a writing and give feedback on
it. According to Raimes (1983), when it comes to writing, writers have to
consider a wide range of language aspects not only to ensure accurate text
but also clear and fluent communication of ideas to readers. Raimes
mentions 9 aspects to consider, namely, syntax (sentence structure, etc);
content (ideas, clarity, logic, etc); grammar (rules for verbs, nouns,
sentences, etc);mechanics (handwriting, spelling, punctuation, etc);
organization (paragraphs, topic and supporting sentence, unity and cohesion,
etc), word choice (vocabulary, idiom, tone, etc); purpose (the reasons for
writing), audience (the readers) and the writer’s process (getting ideas,
getting started, writing drafts, revising).
Figure 1: Factors to consider when writing

CONTENT
GRAMMAR WORD CHOICE
ASPECTS OF
WRITING
MECHANICS ORGANIZATION

However, 5 aspects including grammar, mechanics, organization,
word choice and content which are illustrated in figure 1 are the most
common ones addressed by students, especially students s learning to write
who when giving feedback on their friends’ writing.
2.2.4 Advantages of Using Peer Written Feedback on Writing
Many researchers have reported a large number of benefits which peer
written feedback brings to students’ revision as well as their writing skill.
Among these researchers, Bartels (2003) is one of those who mentioned the
benefits of using peer written feedback in writing classrooms most
thoroughly. According to him, peer feedback can help create the feeling of
being an audience for both the writers and the peer readers. Unlike oral
feedback, peer feedback can bring students many chances for
“communicative writing”. In other words, by giving and receiving peer
written feedback, the reviewers can express their desire to provide useful
comments and the receivers can show their aspire to create better writing
versions next time.
Besides, Bartels (2003) further states that students can have many
opportunities for “instant feedback and negotiation of meaning”, thanks to
peer written feedback. They can request clarification, ask questions and even
argue about their peers’ comments which can lead to more language
learning.
In terms of response and revision, it has been shown that peer writers
can revise effectively on the basis of comments from peer readers
(Rollinson, 2005). Besides, becoming a critical reader of others’ writing may
make students more critical readers and revisers of their own writing
(Rollinson, 2005).

Moreover, Caulk (1994, as cited in Rollinson, 2005) also states that
peer feedback is of different kind from that of the teacher. He says that
teacher feedback is rather general whereas student responses are more
specific. In the same line, Rollinson (2005) lists out some advantages of peer
feedback over teacher feedback:
Peer response operates on a more informal level than teacher response. This
may encourage or motivate writers, or at least provide a change from (and a
complement to) the more one-way interaction between the teacher and the
student, where student may end up making revisions without necessarily
agreeing with or even understanding the teacher’s authoritative comments.
The writer receiving comments from peers retains the right to reject
comments, and is thus more able to maintain the possession of her own texts.
(p.25)
Rollinson (2005) also adds that peers can have much more time
providing feedback on their friends’ writing than their teachers. Also, in
large classes, teachers often do not have enough time to provide their
students with thorough comments on each paper while peer respondents can
provide their friends with thorough ones by reviewing writings in many
different aspects (Caulk, 1994, cited in Bartels, 2003). In addition, peer
audience tends to be more sympathetic than the more ‘distant and possibly
more judgmental” teacher audience.
In terms of students’ attitudes, students themselves find the peer
response experience ‘beneficial’ because they can avoid some certain
mistakes next time and learn many things based on the way their peers
correct their writings (Mendonca and Johnson, 1994, cited in Rollinson,
2005). Furthermore, they also realize that its social dimension can also
enhance the participants’ attitudes towards writing and their confidence in
writing as well. (Chaudron,1984, cited in Rollinson, 2005). Last but not

least, in comparison with peer oral feedback, it is easier to assess students’
writing with written feedback and it is also for teachers to see how well their
students were able to respond to and incorporate feedback and suggestions
from their peers, something that would not even be possible with oral
response (Bartels, 2003).
Despite many advantages, peer written feedback has its own
shortcomings because it is a very complex process that requires training and
structure in order to be effective, both in L1 and L2 classrooms (Villamil &
de Guerrero, 1996). Besides, it cannot be denied that peer review procedures
also take up much of the classroom time. Therefore, a combination of
various kinds of feedback is encouraged by many researchers to ensure the
best results.
2.2.5 Features of a Good Peer Written Feedback
What constitutes good peer written feedback is a complicated issue
and there is, in reality, little consensus among researchers over this matter.
In this section, the researcher would like to introduce some different sets of
criteria for the readers to have a general view on the whole matter.
According to Coffin et al. (2003, p.101), good feedback must have
three vital elements, namely, ‘positive comment’, ‘criticism’ and
‘suggestions for improvements’. While positive and negative comments can
help students know both of their strengths and weaknesses, a suggestion is
also regarded as a guideline for them to make a revision. This set of criteria
seems to be not enough while a good peer written feedback should contain a
large number of other criteria.

Hirsh (1977, p.161) states that effective feedback is non-judgmental
and provides students criteria by which to measure their skills, knowledge,
and attitudes and also provides the students with information to validate
their own feelings and impressions about how well or poorly they
performed.
Michaelsen and Schultheiss (1998) give a detailed list of seven criteria
for high-quality feedback. In their opinion, feedback should be (1)
descriptive, not evaluative and is “owned” by the sender, (2) specific, not
general, (3) honest and sincere, (4) expressed in terms relevant to the self –
perceived needs of the receiver, (5) timely and in context, (6) desired by the
receiver, not imposed on him or her, (70 usable, concerned with behavior
over which the receiver has control. Mosher (1998) adds that good feedback
should not contain complicated abbreviations and codes; contradictory
assessments or directions and too much or too little commentary.
2.2.6 Effects of Peer Written Feedback on Students’ Writing
Revision
Many researches have been carried out to find out whether peer
feedback has influence on students’ writing revision and there have also
been many different results. Each researcher has given their evidence to
support their arguments about this matter.
The literature suggests that the effects of peer comments on revision is
not a simple cause and effect matter, but rather a complex one, dependent
upon the interrelationship of multiple factors within the evolving social
environment. While some of the students appear to benefit from the
comments of their peers, some others in writing classrooms do not. In some

cases, some students are unable, unwilling, or even ill-advised to follow peer
reactions in revising what they have written. Besides, different types of
feedback can have various kinds of influence on writing and revision and the
success the students have in revising their work sometimes depends on their
ability to form effective collaborative relationships with their peers.
Tsui & Ng (2000) have found that too general and vague peer
feedback or feedback with too many correction codes or new words can lead
to little or no improvement in students’ revision when they cannot
understand what their peers imply and suggest through their feedback.
Moreover, Chiu (2008) also find that many students devaluate peer written
feedback on their writings because they think their friends are not competent
and professional enough to provide them with helpful comments. This way
of thinking also can lead to negative attitudes towards this type of feedback
on writing, which can result in little improvement in their revision later. Last
but not least, students who receive too negative comments or comments
which completely contradict their own ideas also find it hard to revise
effectively on the basis of peer written feedback. (Tang & Tithecott, 1999)
Ziv (1983) found that in the early semester, the writers did not always
revise accordingly to the reactions of their peers, and sometimes resented the
criticisms. However, later in the semester, advice from peers was more
likely to be heeded because rather than more general criticisms, the students
offered each other concrete suggestions for revision. According to Nelson
and Murphy (1993, cited in Paulus, 1999), many students incorporate peer
comments in their drafts and it is stated that peer comments facilitate 53% of
revisions in students’ essays, which is quite a convincing proof of the
effectiveness of peer comments. Paulus (1999) has also found that peer

response comments can lead to meaningful revisions, and that compared
with teacher feedback, revisions based on peer comments can be better in
vocabulary, organization and content. Following this line of argument,
Chaudron (1984) concludes that students’ scoring on the final draft after
receiving peer comments is relatively higher.
Chiu (2008) has carried out a study to investigate the effectiveness of
peer evaluation on EFL college students’ writing and his study indicates
some findings which clearly show the positive effects of peer feedback on
students’ revision in particular and on their writing skill in general.
(1) students improved significantly after peer evaluation comparing their
first and final versions of the first topic, (2) students also improved
significantly when they wrote another new topic; (3) students showed
satisfactory ability to evaluate their peers’ writing in the area of content,
organization, and mechanics, but they were less competent in the evaluation
of grammar and diction; (4) students generally showed positive attitudes
towards peer evaluation (Chiu, 2008, p.1)
Together with teacher written feedback on writing, students can
benefit from peer feedback because “both peer and teacher feedback
contributed to the revision process, with teacher feedback influencing more
changes and being prioritized by students” (Paulus, 1999). In conclusion,
based on the results of many researches, it can be seen that peer feedback
could be an alternative technique in writing classrooms to improve students’
revision as well as their writing performance.
2.3 CONCLUSIVE REMARKS
This chapter deals with the literature review of the study, which helps
the researcher a comprehensive understanding of some issues regarding the
focus of this study. The chapter has discussed about writing teaching, some

major issues of peer written feedback as well as the effects of peer written
feedback on students’ revision. Views and results of previous studies in this
chapter will serve as the basis for the researcher to carry out her research and
draw some implications to improve the overall situation of using peer
written feedback among first-year students at ED, ULIS, VNU. Moreover,
this chapter also presents the research context which helps the researcher
further understand the setting of the study. The following chapter will
display the study’s methodology and findings under the light of the above –
mentioned theories.

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
This chapter covers the research questions, research approach, the
participants of the research, the data collection instruments, the procedures
of data collection and analysis.
3.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The current study was set in the first-year writing classes in Division 1
at the ED, ULIS, VNU where writing - one of the four important English
skills is being taught in 3 periods per week. In the first semester, students are
taught how to write an informal and formal letter and how to write a
descriptive paragraph in the second semester. Also in these two semesters,
peer written feedback is introduced to first-year students and widely used
among all writing classes by teachers in Division 1. In the first week of
semester 1, students are presented the procedure in which their writings
would be commented and rewritten. They were also provided with a list of
correction symbols (as in the course book) and a checklist (at the end of each
unit in the course book) to reflect on their writing, and some other guidelines
from teachers.
The impetus for the current study arose from the importance of
writing skill in mastering English as well as the great role of peer checking
as an important stage in student writing process in first-year classes at the
ED, ULIS, VNU. Indeed, there are so few studies which focus on the effects
of peer written feedback on students’ revision as well as their writing skill.
Moreover, during informal discussions with some first-year students, the
researcher found out that many of them doubted the importance of peer
written feedback in helping them improve their writing drafts in particular

and writing skill in general. All things mentioned above urged the researcher
to carry out this study to further understand the current situation of using
peer written feedback among first-year students and more importantly, to
find out whether or not peer checking could affect students’ revision and
writing skill. The following research questions are addressed in the study.
1. What is the current situation of using peer written feedback by the
1st-year students at the ED, ULIS, VNU?
2. What are these students’ perceptions of their peers’ written
feedback?
3. To what extent does peer written feedback affect the first-year
students’ writing ability?
3.2 RESEARCH APPROACH
This research included two stages: a survey research and an
exploratory research. A survey research is popularly known as a research
approach involving the use of interviews or questionnaires which help gather
demographic and background information data about people and their
thoughts as well as their behavior. Due to its advantages, at the first stage,
the researcher conducted a survey questionnaire research to gather and
describe the current situation of using peer written feedback among the first-
year students in their writing classes and their perceptions of their peers’
written feedback. An exploratory research is a study which “in one way or
another examines correlations among variables (Brown, 2004). To obtain the
study objectives, at the second stage, the researcher conducted an
exploratory research to examine the correlation between peer written

feedback and students’ writing ability with the help of student writing
analysis.
3.3 PARTICIPANTS
3.2.1 Population
The study was conducted at the English Department, ULIS, VNU
where process approach was adopted to teach writing by all the writing
teachers. However, the target population of this study was first-year teacher
trainees only because ED provides courses for translator trainees and the
ethnic minority groups as well. With about 16 classes of 25 students on
average, which made out for about 400 students in total, the number of
students joining the survey was about 100 informants which come from 4
first-year classes. Because this was a small-scale study, this number of
subjects seemed to be reasonable and manageable.
All of them passed an entrance examination to University of
Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University in July,
2008 and now they are in the second semester of the academic year
2008/2009 at this college. Most of these informants’ level of English
proficiency is pre – intermediate though in reality, some students have a
lower or higher one. Moreover, the target population also belongs to two
genders and different levels of writing skill, which contributed to cover
various kinds of first- year students as informants.
3.2.2 Sampling Method
In order to guarantee the reliability as well as the validity of the
samples, this study chose cluster sampling – one of five sampling strategies
of probability – based sampling stated by Henry (1990). Cluster sampling is

widely used with naturally occurring groups of individuals based on a listing
of clusters. This approach was very useful when a full listing of individuals
in the population was not available but a listing of clusters was. In this study,
the researchers could easily obtain a list of all main stream classes in which
teacher trainee students studied. After that, the researcher selected a simple
random sample of classes by assigning a number to all 16 first-year classes
of teacher trainee students from 1 to 16, writing 16 numbers in 16 pieces of
paper, putting all the numbers in a box and pulling them out at random. As
clearly stated, only about 100 students were chosen to join this study so only
4 classes with a number assigned were randomly selected. Lastly, 4 pieces of
paper with 4 numbers: 4, 10, 14 and 16 were selected. In other words, 4
classes including 08E4, 08E10, 08E14 and 08E16 with about 25 students
each class were chosen as informants for the research.
3.2.3 Description of the participants
No of students Average years of Average mark
in two genders learning English in writing last
Group Group
semester
name size
Male Female 0-2 2-4 4-8 8-12 ≤6 =7 ≥8
08E4 27 2 25 2 4 13 8 11 9 7
08E10 28 3 25 0 14 13 1 12 14 2
08E14 24 0 24 1 2 15 6 6 13 5
08E16 26 1 25 3 7 13 3 7 14 5
Table 1: Background of the target population

In total, 105 students from all these 4 classes joined in this study and did the
survey questionnaire. Some information about the respondents including
their group name, group size, their gender, their years of learning English
and their average mark of writing skill got from the questionnaire and
directly from the respondents from 4 classes also made their great
contribution to the maximization of the diversity of the sampling population.
The wide diversity of the target population could be illustrated in this table
is described in details in Table 1 above.
As can be seen from the table, the questionnaire respondents were of
different writing proficiency level and had different periods of time learning
English. This enabled the researcher top generalize the results and the
interpretations to the other 1st-year students at the English Department.
3.3 DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS
To collect sufficient, reliable and valid data for the study, a
questionnaire on peer written feedback and student writing assignments were
fully employed.
3.3.1 Survey Questionnaire
3.3.1.1 Reasons for choosing survey questionnaire
Survey questionnaire was used in data collection of the study due to
its unprecedented efficiency in terms of (a) researcher time, (b) researcher
effort and (c) financial resources according to Jo and Steve (1997, cited in
Nunan, 1998). Thanks to a questionnaire, the researcher could collect a huge
amount of information in a short period of time and “if the questionnaire is
well – constructed, processing the data can also be fast and relatively
straightforward” (Gillham, 2000). Moreover, three types of data including

“behavioral”, “factual” and “attitudinal” which can be easily yielded through
using questionnaire can provide the researcher with the information to
answer the two first research questions about the current situation of using
peer written feedback among freshmen and their evaluation of this kind of
peer feedback. In brief, due to its great effectiveness, the researcher chose
survey questionnaire as an effective instrument of data collecting in this
study.
3.3.1.2 Instrumental Development
All the items of the survey questionnaire for students were constructed
and categorized from a careful review of related literature and the research
context in Division1, ED, ULIS, VNU. In the initial survey questionnaire, 12
items were written in English and in clear, simple and natural language with
definitions of important and uncommon terms to avoid ambiguity and
misunderstanding. However, with a desire to design a survey questionnaire
as an effective instrument of data collection, the researcher piloted the
questionnaire at various stages of its development on not only a number of
people who are similar to the target sample the instrument was designed for
but also some teachers of English at this college to have a thorough view and
make alterations and fine-tune the final version of the questionnaire.
Firstly, the researcher piloted the initial survey questionnaire with the
supervisor who suggested to omit 3 unnecessary items, edited the overall
format and organization of the survey questionnaire with 5 important
components including the title, instructions, questionnaire items, additional
information and final “thank you” (Dornyei, 2003).

Secondly, the survey questionnaire continued to be piloted with the
two first-year students from 08E7 who were in every way similar to the
target population volunteered to participate in the piloting stage. Thanks to
observing two students’ reactions when doing the first version of the survey
questionnaire and their answers and based on their direct suggestions for the
survey improvement, the researcher added the definitions as well as some
explanation besides some important or uncommon terms for the first-year
respondents to avoid misunderstanding. Moreover, the researcher also
piloted the survey questionnaire with a teacher in charge of teaching writing
in Division 1. This teacher who knew the target population very well helped
the researcher changed some words which were supposed to be ambiguous
and confusing to students and arrange the question items in a more reader-
friendly way for first – year students.
After piloting of the item pool, the researcher created the final version
of the survey questionnaire with 9 meaningful items for data collection (the
final version of survey questionnaire is included in Appendix). The result of
the pilot was an official set of questions which will be described in details in
the next part.
3.3.1.2 The contents of the questionnaire
The survey questionnaire was written in English and included 3 sections
• Section 1: Introduction
 The title and a general introduction on the research topic and
the researcher
 Some general instructions to promise the confidentiality and to
emphasize there are no right or wrong answers

 Saying “thank you”
• Section 2: Main content including peer written feedback and students’
perception of peer written feedback accompanied with specific
instructions put next to each item or item groups
 Current situation of peer written feedback on writing including
6 items written in multiple choice and rank order form seeking
information on different types of peer feedback, forms of peer
feedback, amount of peer feedback, aspects of peer feedback.
 Students’ perception of peer written feedback on writing
including 3 items written in multiple choice form seeking
information on the first-year students’ evaluation of their peers’
written feedback as well as their reasons for the
helpfulness/unhelpfulness of peer written feedback.
• Section 3: Some additional information
 The respondents’ background information including their years
of learning English and their average mark of writing in the last
semester
 The researcher’s contact information
 A promise to send the respondent a summary of the findings if
they are interested
 Final “thank-you”

3.3.2 Student writing assignments
3.3.2.1 Reasons for choosing student writing assignments
Student writing assignments were chosen and employed because it
could help the researcher get in-depth information to investigate the
effectiveness of peer written feedback on students’ writing ability based on
analyzing three versions of each assignment. The results, therefore, would be
of validity and reliability so that the recommendations would be built
suitably and firmly on the basis.
3.3.2.2 Selection of student writing assignments
To select student writing assignments for observation and analysis, the
research once again chose cluster sampling method in which, as stated
above, the entire population of interest was divided into groups, or clusters,
and a random sample of these clusters as selected. 36 papers (including 12
student writing assignments with three versions) were selected from 12
students from 4 classes responding to the survey questionnaire: 08E4,
08E10, 08E14, 08E16. With the help of four teachers of writing in these 4
groups, the researcher borrowed 12 writing assignments from their students
belonging to different levels of writing skill. In other words, three students
from each group were selected with the help of four teachers by randomly
choosing each student from three levels classified by their average mark in
writing in semester 1 (≤ 6, =7 and ≥ 8). In this way, the researcher could find
it easier to have a general overview and draw some conclusions based on
analyzing the writing versions by students of different writing proficiency.
Since in an exploratory research, the recommended sample size of
observations was about 30 (Mertens, 2005), 36 papers seemed to be a
reasonable number of samples in this study.

3.3.2.3 Description of student writing assignments
Each writing assignment included 3 versions and 2 peer feedbacks on
two first versions there was no peer written feedback on the third one but
teacher written feedback or marks on some papers. In total, the researcher
borrowed and analyzed 36 writing papers with 24 peer feedbacks. The topics
of paragraphs in student writing assignments collected for analysis were as
followed:
• Write a CV and a letter of application
• Write a letter of invitation to your birthday party
• Write a summary of an article
• Writing a letter to a friend
• Writing a letter of complaint
• Writing a letter about yourself to a penpal
3.4 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE
The study took place in week 9 of the second term of the 2008-2009
academic years and consisted 2 main phases as mentioned below.
Phase 1: Preparing for questionnaire administration and making contact
with teachers
After finishing developing the final version of the survey
questionnaire, the researcher prepared for the official questionnaire
administration session and made contact with teachers. According to
Dornyei (2003), a well – designed questionnaire and a well-prepared
administration situation in advance can help the researcher achieve good

results. To increase the presence and the willingness of all the subjects
chosen for the study, the researcher came to four groups: 08E4, 08E10,
08E14, 08E16 one week before the official day to deliver the survey
questionnaire to give advance notice about the purpose of the study and the
nature of the forthcoming questionnaire as well as the specific time of
delivering the survey, which contributed to creating a favorable climate for
the survey. This was supposed an effective method of generating a positive
climate for the administration and it also reduced the anxiety caused by the
unexpected and unknown (Dornyei, 2003). At the same time, the researcher
contacted four teachers of writing in these four classes beforehand through
telephone and emails to ask them to help borrowing student writing
assignments from their students belonging to different level of writing skill
and made an appointment to meet them at the teaching staff room.
Phase 2: Administering the questionnaire and borrowing student writing
assignments
The researcher had a direct interaction with the respondents and
delivered 104 survey questionnaires each class separately and respectively
by hand during break time in four days. Therefore, the chances for the
questionnaires to be returned were significantly better and more convenient
than administration by mail or one-to-one administration. Before asking the
students to do the survey questionnaire, the researcher briefly explained the
format, the length and told them that their questions would be thoroughly
answered to clarify any misunderstanding about the survey questions while
completing the items, emphasized confidentiality and most importantly
emphasized the significance of the results.

Besides the written instructions on the handout, oral Vietnamese
instructions and explanations were presented to help respondents avoid any
misunderstanding and ambiguity. With the researcher at present when
respondents giving answers, the number of handout returned could be
guaranteed and any questions related to how to do the survey were properly
answered. After about 20 minutes, the respondents finished completing all
questionnaires. The questionnaire return rate was 105 papers, which means
that all students from 4 classes participated in the survey questionnaire.
Finally, the researcher thanked the respondents for their help and promised
to send them the study results through their emails or addresses included in
the survey.
After that, the researcher also had a face-to-face interaction as with
four teachers of writing in these four classes at the teaching staff room and
borrowed four writing assignments from each teacher as well as thanked
them for their help and support.
3.5 DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
Initially, the collected data were examined and classified so as to find
out the appropriate answers and classified according to three research
questions. That is, all of the data gathered from the survey questionnaire was
to answer the first and second research questions whereas data got from the
student writing assignments would reply to the third research question.
Descriptive statistics method was used to process the data got from
the survey questionnaire. Students’ choice for each letter (A, B, etc) was
mechanically counted and calculated percentage. After that, all the data were
presented in bar charts and pie charts for better illustration and explanations

in a reader – friendly way to easily compare different variables in the same
category.
Qualitative method was used to process the data gathered from student
writing analysis. Firstly, the researcher gave codes to the first set of field
notes drawn from observation, and then personal reflections and comments
were put in the margin. After that, the researcher sorted and sifted through
the materials to find out the relationship between the number of mistakes
treated by peers and the ones revised by writers. Three writing versions of
each assignment were analyzed to see the differences by counting the
mistakes made, mistakes pointed out and mistakes corrected in terms of five
main aspects including grammar, content, organization, mechanics. After
that, all the findings were presented in tables and also in graphs and charts to
easily comparing between each aspect as well as student’s ways to revise
their writing based on those peer written feedback.

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Chapter 4 plays a very important part in the study. It serves two
functions (1) giving a presentation on the data collected by means of survey
questionnaire and student writing analysis and (2) making and interpretation
based on the data. The researcher reports the findings from the survey
questionnaire before presenting the findings from student writing analysis.
4.1 FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS FROM SURVEY
QUESTIONNAIRE
As mentioned above, the questionnaire aims to answer two first
research questions. Hence, based on the research questions, the findings are
also divided into two main parts including the current situation of peer
written feedback and students’ evaluation of peer written feedback.
4.1.1 Current situation of peer written feedback
4.1.1.1Frequency of using different types of peer written feedback
4.1.1.1.1 Positive feedback versus negative feedback
As can be seen from Figure 2, among 105 first – year students
participating in the survey questionnaire, 49% stated that their peers used
more negative feedback to comment on their writing assignments while the
number of students supposed that their friends tended to use positive
comments more frequently. It can be drawn from the survey questionnaire
that although first-year students preferred giving feedback in an encouraging
tone to negative one, there were no significant differences in the frequency
of using these two peer written feedback on writing assignments. This
finding indicates that many students highly and equally evaluated the
importance of giving feedback on writing in both positive and negative tone.

Figure 2: Frequency of using positive and
negative feedback
49%
Positive Feedback
Negative Feedback
53%
This seems to be an appropriate way of giving feedback because too
much criticism without any praise may offend other students and too much
praise without mentioning the weaknesses may make other students feel
over confident and find it more difficult to revise their writing versions.
4.1.1.1.2 Text-specific feedback versus generic feedback
Regarding the specificity of peer written feedback, as can be seen
from Figure 3, 66% of students received more generic feedback on their
writing assignments while about 34% of them got more text-specific ones
from their peers. It can be inferred that a wide number of first-year students
chose to give generic comments which could only be applied to one writing
task. In many cases, this might be a right choice which could help their
friends generalize the comments for later use to other writing tasks.

Figure 3: Frequency of using text-specific and
generic feedback
34%
66%
Text - specific feedback
Generic Feedback
Though the percentage of using generic feedback was not much
higher than that of using text-specific feedback, it can be inferred that
students tended to help their friends have a general overview of their writing
more than spending a great amount of time giving a long and detailed
comment on writings.
4.1.1.1.3 Marginal feedback versus end feedback
In terms of the position of peer written feedback, there is not much
difference between the frequencies of using two types of feedback among
first-year students.

Figure 4: Frequency of using marginal and end
feedback
41%
Marginal Feedback
59% End Feedback

According to Figure 4, 59% of the respondents stated that they
received more end feedback than marginal ones. It can be inferred from the
chart that many students only wanted to fill their comments in the blank
available in each writing assignment rather than leaving comments in the
margin or between the lines for their friends to see their problems more
clearly. However, 41% of students indicated that their peers used marginal
comments more frequently. In general, although both of these types of
feedback were utilized by students, end feedback seemed to be always a
more frequent and preferable choice of all the commentators when giving
comments.
In conclusion, in reality, although all types of feedback were used by
first – year students, some types including positive feedback, generic
feedback as well as end feedback were used more frequently than other
types of feedback among first- year students at the English Department,
ULIS, VNU.
4.1.1.2 Amount of peer written feedback
The amount of peer written feedback was one point that the researcher
paid attention to. Answering the forth question in the survey questionnaire,
the respondents gave their different ideas on the amount of their friends’
peer written feedback as can be clearly presented in Figure 5.
According to Figure 5, 47% - nearly a half of the respondents stated
that their friends often pointed out all mistakes in their writings and
corrected some serious ones. It can be predicted that a large number of
students were aware of the importance of the appropriate amount of
correction when giving comments on their friends’ writing assignments.

Figure 5: The amount of peer written feedback
47%
50%
40%
28%
30%
17%
20%
8%
10%
0%
A B C D
A: Point out and correct all mistakes
B: Point out all mistakes and correct some serious ones
C: Point out some and correct some serious mistakes
D: Point out and correct no mistakes, just give general comments
They helped point out all the mistakes their friends had made, let them
self-correct the majority of mistakes and made suggestions for only some
serious or typical ones. However, more than one – forth (28%) of the
respondents supposed that their peers often helped them point out all the
mistakes they had made and corrected all of them. As a fact, this way of
giving feedback on writing can distract students from other important
concerns in the process to improve their revision and lead them to the
surface-level mistakes which are easier to correct. Besides, only 17% of the
students stated that their peers only pointed and corrected some serious ones.
In reality, to some students who were good at writing, this way of giving
feedback seemed to be a good one because it could not only help them self
revise their writings based on their friends’ correction but also let them do
self-correction with some surface-level mistakes. Lastly, only 8% of students

supposed that their friends often corrected no mistakes and just gave them
general comments on their writing assignments. Obviously, this did not
seem to be a good way of giving feedback because in most cases, it could be
of little assistance to students in revising their writings. Moreover, this could
result in students’ underestimation of their peers’ responsibility and ability
to correct their writings.
4.1.1.3 Forms of peer written feedback
Figure 6: Forms of peer written feedback
60% 52% 51%
50% 45%
40% 27%
29%
28%
30%
26%
20% 22%
most frequently used
20%
second frequently used
10% least frequently used
0%
As can be seen from Figure 6, 52% of the respondents stated that statement
was the form of feedback their peers used most frequently while the rest of
them supposed that their peers used statement less than question and
imperative. In contrast, only 26% of the students affirmed that question was
the form of feedback which seemed to be used most frequently while nearly
a half of them considered that question was the second frequently-used form

of feedback. The rest of the respondents recommended that question was not
used as commonly as statement and imperative.
Regarding using imperative as a form of peer written feedback, only
22% stated that their peers often used imperative as a form of peer feedback
most frequently and 27% of respondents considered that imperative was
used second frequently by their peer commentators. Most significantly, more
than a half of the respondents stated that their peers used imperative less
commonly than the other two forms of feedback. In conclusion, based on the
rankings of all the respondents, statement seemed to be the most frequent
and favorable form of feedback used by first-year students. It can be inferred
that statement is more direct and revision-oriented, thereby helping avoid
misunderstanding. The second common form of peer feedback was question.
This form of feedback, to some extent, was very effective in stimulating
students’ thinking process and this might be the reason why many students
chose it as their second favorite form of feedback, just after statement, while
giving comments on other students’ writings. Based on the results,
imperative seemed to be used least frequently by first-year students. This
can be explained because imperative seemed to be more severe and
authoritative than statement and question.
4.1.1.4 Aspects of peer written feedback
The aspects addressed by the commentators while giving feedback on
their friends’ writing assignments was also a point worth in-depth finding
and discussion.

Figure 7: Aspects of peer written feedback
88%
90%
80%
70%
55%
48% 43%
60%
50%
40% 17%
30%
20%
10%
0%
As can be seen from Figure 7, both global matters, i.e. content and
organization, and local matters, i.e grammar and mechanics were addressed
by the commentators as perceived by the respondents. Among all aspects,
grammar was most focused when students gave feedback on their friends’
writing assignments because a large number of the respondents (88%) stated
that grammar was a very popular item in peer feedback they received. This
was easily understood because mistakes related to this issue seemed to be
easy to be recognized and corrected. More than a half of the survey
participants considered that word choice was also an aspect which was
usually addressed by their peers.
The content and mechanics were also regarded as common aspects
mentioned in peer feedback they received from their friends by 48% and
43% of the respondents respectively. Organization, on the other hand,
seemed to be of less concern than other aspects while giving feedback, as
stated by only 17% of the respondents. This figure indicates that students
were not aware of the importance of the organization to the quality of

writing or this aspect was more difficult for them to comment on. Moreover,
as stated in the research context, first – year students were encouraged to
practice forming and organizing ideas rather than the format or organization
so the low percentage of students who mentioned the organization as a
common aspect addressed by peers was understandable. However, this is
also a shortcoming of current peer written feedback since organization can
be seen as one of the most essential aspects that feedback should focus on
(Fulwiler, 1986)
4.1.2 Students’ perception of peer written feedback
Concerning students’ evaluation of peer written feedback, the
researcher concentrated on the investigation into their opinions about the
helpfulness of peer written response.
Figure 8: Students' evaluation of peer written feedback
11%
Helpful
Unhelpful
89%
Students’ answers were quite positive with 89% of the respondents
stating that written feedback given by their peers was helpful to their
writing. However, there were still 11% stating that peer response was not of
great assistance in their writing revision. These two groups of respondents
were then required to answer a further question to clarify the reasons why

they found that peer written feedback was helpful or unhelpful to them.
Their explanations are illustrated in Figure 9 and 10.
Figure 9: Reason(s) why students think peer written
feedback is helpful
64%
70% 57% 54%
60% 48%
50%
40%
30%
20% 5%
10%
0%
A B C D E
A: I can revise my writings effectively based on my friends’ correction
and suggestion
B: I can avoid all the corrected mistakes next time
C: I can enhance my confidence in writing thanks to my friends’
encouraging feedback
D: I can learn how to comment from the way my friends correct my
writing
E: I can improve my writing skill in general thanks to my friends’ peer
feedback

According to Figure 9, the students who said that peer written
feedback was helpful were also asked to clarify their answers. Of the 105
students, 61 students (57%) claimed that thanks to their friends’ correction
and suggestion, they could revise their writings more easily. Meanwhile,
about 54% of the respondents stated that they could benefit from peer
written feedback by avoiding all the corrected mistakes next time. This
means that peer written feedback could be generalized for later use to other
writing assignments.
Besides, only 5% considered that peer feedback could help them feel
more confident in their writing skill. It can be implied that although positive
feedback was still utilized besides negative one, encouraging comments and
even praise were not enough to develop students’ confidence in their writing
ability. In addition, nearly a half of the respondents claimed that thanks to
observing the peer written feedback they received from their friends, they
could learn the way to give comments more effectively. Most significantly,
64% - the highest percentage of students considered that peer written
feedback, in general, improved their writing skill. It can be inferred that in
first-year students’ opinion, peer written feedback played a very important
role in helping them improve their writing ability.
In contrast, there were only 12 students responding to the last question
in the survey questionnaire to clarify why they thought that peer written
feedback was unhelpful. This small number of students proved that the
majority of the survey respondents agreed that peer written feedback was
really effective. Their explanations for their choice are presented in Figure
10.

As can be seen from this figure, a high percentage of 12 respondents
(83%) stated that peer written feedback was unhelpful because it was too
general. In this case, too general comments could lead to lack of
understanding or even misunderstanding between the commentators and the
comment receivers. Within the researcher’ prediction, this finding showed
that general feedback seemed to be much easier and more convenient to
compose than a detailed one.

Figure 10: Reason (s) why students think peer written
feedback is unhelpful
100% 83%
80%
66%
60%
40% 58% 12%
51%
42%
20% 8%
0%
A B C D E F G
A: My friends’ feedback is too general
B: My friends’ feedback is too vague and difficult to understand
C: My friends’ feedback contradicts my ideas
D: My friends’ feedback is not reliable
E: My friends’ feedback is too negative, so discourages me.
F: My friends’ feedback includes too many new words and structures
G: My friends’ feedback includes too many correction codes which
are hard to understand
Too negative feedback was the second most common reason for
students’ undervaluing peer written feedback (7 out of 12 respondents
(58%)). As mentioned in the previous part, too negative comments or even
criticism may discourage the writers and make them think that those are not
helpful comments which ensure the best results. Vague feedback was also
mentioned by 58% of 12 respondents as a cause of students’ devaluating
peer written feedback. This was easily understood because vague feedback

could lead to misunderstanding and hence could not help the writers find it
easy to revise their writings. In addition, feedback which contradicted the
writers’ ideas and unreliable comments were also mentioned by 42% and
51% respectively as two causes of students’ underestimation of peer written
feedback. To some feedback contradicting the writers’ ideas, there should be
a face-to-face interaction between the writers and the commentators to solve
this problem. The fact that some students did not rely on their friends’ peer
comments can be explained by the different levels of writing proficiency in
each class. In other words, in fact some students were better at writing than
others and they did not highly appreciate peer comments from those friends.
Lastly, feedback including many new words and structures as well as
correction codes was also regarded as a cause of students’ negative attitude
towards peer written feedback. However, not many students (only 2 and 1
respectively out of 12 students) chose these reasons for their explanation
although it could not be denied that new words and structures as well as
correction codes were still a hindrance for first-year students.
4.2 FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS FROM STUDENT
WRITING ASSIGNMENTS
In order to answer the third research questions by assessing the
effectiveness of peer written feedback on students’ revision, sample analysis
was employed to see the changes between three writing versions. Analyzing
peer feedbacks is a time-consuming task; therefore only 36 papers (including
12 writing assignments with 3 versions on each) were borrowed, observed
and analyzed.

4.2.1 Between-draft changes made by students of different writing
proficiency levels
Three versions written by students belonging to different degrees of
writing proficiency were analyzed to see the changes after students received
peer written feedback. The number of mistakes regarding 5 main aspects of
writing in each version were counted and categorized according to different
levels of writing ability including low, medium and high proficiency.
Figure 11: Between-draft mistakes made by students
of low writing proficiency
100
81
80
58
60
41
40
20
0
Version 1 Version 2 Version 3
Mistakes made by students
As can be seen from Figure 11, the number of mistakes regarding 5
main aspects in 4 assignments written by low-proficient students decreased
from 81 mistakes in version 1 to 58 mistakes in version 2 and 41 mistakes in
version 3 – which counted for about 50% of the number of errors in the first
version. It can be easily seen that peer written feedback could significantly
contribute to make good between-draft changes. Moreover, it cannot be
denied that the drafts produced by the low-proficient students had more

room for improvement than those by their high-proficient counterparts.
Hence, many students found it easier to identify mistakes especially some
surface-level ones such as spelling or grammatical mistakes commonly
made by low-proficient students. In brief, there was a great change between
three versions after low-proficient students received their peers’ comments.

Figure 12: Between-draft mistakes made by students
of medium writing proficiency
60 55
50
40
40
28
30
20
10
0
Version 1 Version 2 Version 3
Mistakes made by students
Figure 12 illustrates the number of mistakes made students of
medium writing ability through their revisions. 55 was the number of
mistakes made by students in the first version and this number decreased by
12% after these students got feedback from their peers. The number of
mistakes was only 28 – which counted for about 70% of the number of
errors made by students in the second version. It can be drawn from the line
chart that peer feedback was also effective in helping students revise their
writings although the changes among three versions were not as significant
as those among writing drafts made by students of lower writing proficiency.

Figure 13 shows Between-draft made through by high-proficient
Figure 13: the changes mistakes made the
students of high writing proficiency
students’ revisions. It can be easily seen from that chart that there was not a
38
40
substantial change between three versions based on the number of mistakes
27
30
made by students especially between version 2 and version 3 after students
22
20
received two peer written feedbacks on their writings. This could be
10
explained by higher writing ability of these students. These students with
0
their great writing proficiency made fewer mistakes especially mistakes
Version 1 Version 2 Version 3
which were easy to identify and correct so their peers found it more difficult
Mistakes made by students
to correct and suggest for improvement.
To conclude, with the impact of peer written feedback, students of
different levels of writing proficiency made different changes in their
writing versions. It can be concluded that students with lower writing ability
benefited more from peer feedback than those with higher one. Within the
researcher’s prediction, low-proficient students made more mistakes which
were easy to point out and rectify or make suggestions for revision. In brief,
although peer feedback was not the only factor causing the between-draft
changes made by students, it could not be denied that it was one of the most
important and effective components which helped students find it easier to
revise their writings and feel more confident to submit their papers to the
teachers.
4.2.2 Amount of peer written feedback regarding different aspects of
writing
To have a deeper understanding of the effects of peer feedback on
students’ revision, as mentioned in the previous part, only two first versions
were commented by peers so the researcher observed only 24 papers in total

more closely to have a deeper understanding of the amount of peer written
feedback in different aspects of writing. The number of mistakes made by
students, the number of mistakes pointed out and the number of mistakes
corrected or suggested for improvement by their commentators in version 1
and 2 are illustrated in Figure 14 and Figure 15 to help the researcher make
a comparison between different aspects more easily and clearly.
Figure 14: Mistakes pointed out over mistakes made
by students
100
81 79
80 65 69 67
60 48
39
40 23 23
20 14
0
Grammar Content Organization Mechanics Word choice
Mistakes made by writers Mistakes pointed out by peers

Figure 14 shows the ratios of mistakes pointed out by commentators
over mistakes made by students in two first versions. As can be seen from
the chart, first-year students made more grammatical and mechanical
mistakes than other kinds of writing mistakes.
These two aspects of writing were also two areas which students
found it easier to recognize and point out in their friends’ writings. In terms
of grammar and mechanics, students could point out more than 80% of the
overall mistakes regarding these two areas made by writers. This was a high
percentage which showed that grammar and mechanics seemed to be paid
more attention by the commentators than other aspects in peer written
correction. In addition, organization was an aspect which was also of high
level of attention because the number of mistakes pointed out by peers
counted for 61% of the overall mistakes regarding the organization. In
contrast, the number of mistakes pointed out by peers in terms of word
choice and content counted for only 47% and 57% respectively of the
number of mistakes made. It can be explained that mistakes regarding the
meaning and the ways of expression seemed to be more difficult to
recognize than surface-level ones.
Moreover, the same level of writing ability of both writers and
commentators could lead to students’ difficulty in pointing out their friends’
writing problems regarding content and word choice. In brief, first-year
students paid great attention to different aspects while commenting on their
friends’ writing papers although their ability to recognize various kinds of
mistakes varied.

Figure 15 shows the ratio of mistakes corrected or suggested for
improvement over mistakes pointed out by peers on students’ writing
assignments. Grammatical mistakes were not only the ones which students
pointed out most frequently but also the ones which the largest number of
students helped the writers correct.
Figure 15: Mistakes corrected/suggested for
improvement over mistakes pointed out
80 67
65
60
41 39
40 31
23
20 14 14 8 12
0
Grammar Content Organization Mechanics Word choice
Mistakes pointed out Mistakes corrected/suggested for improvement
The number of corrected grammatical mistakes counted for 63% of
the overall mistakes pointed out by peers. The reason for this result could lie
in the fact that grammar errors could generally be corrected quickly and
easily. These examples given below illustrate the way students corrected
their friends’ grammatical mistakes.
Original text: It makes animals becomes rare.
 Peer correction: It makes animals become rare.

Original text: I am writing to complain about some problems I
have found last week.
 Peer correction: I am writing to complain about some problems I
found last week
Surprisingly, word choice which was less pointed out than other
aspects of writing was second commonly corrected or suggested for later
revision by many commentators. This finding seemed to be similar to the
result drawn from the survey questionnaire as perceived by the survey
respondents who stated that word choice was one of two aspects mostly
addressed by their peers. This example illustrates peer correction of word
choice mistakes.
Original sentence: My party is going to be given at 8 p.m on
Saturday.
 Peer correction: My party is going to be held at 8 p.m on Saturday.
In addition, the number of mechanical mistakes and problems
regarding the organization which were corrected or suggested for
improvement counted for only 46% and 42% respectively of the number of
mistakes pointed out. The percentage of corrected mistakes of these two
aspects seemed to be lower than those regarding word choice and grammar.
This can be predicted that students had little hesitation in writing a long
comment to suggest for improvement of the organization and mechanical
mistakes were too easy to be corrected so there was no need to help their
friends make corrections. These examples below serve as illustrations of
peer correction and suggestion for problems regarding the organization and
mechanics. The commentator wrote: “You should divide your letter into two

separate parts: the first part is about the things you have been doing and the
second part is about how your friend is and what she is doing now” when
giving comments on the writer’s way of organizing a letter to a friend. Other
commentators corrected the writers’ mechanical mistakes by rewriting the
right words next to the errors, for example “dormitory” for “domitory” or
“properly” for “propperly”.
Obviously, the number of corrected mistakes regarding the content
counted for only 36% of the mistakes pointed out. As a matter of fact,
students usually found it hard to help their friends improve the content of
their writings although they realized that their friends’ writings still needed
improvement. This is an example of suggestion for improving the content of
writing: “You should add the disadvantages of the changes in American
families because everything has its two sides”.
In brief, students paid attention to nearly all aspects of writing while
commenting on their friends’ writings although the degree of attention
varied among different aspects. While grammatical mistakes was both
pointed out and corrected by the largest number of commentators, word
choice was the aspect which was pointed out the least and the content was
the aspect which students found it harder to correct and suggest for revision
compared with all other areas. As can be drawn from the findings, the
number of mistakes corrected or suggested for improvement did not account
for a large percentage of the overall number of mistakes pointed out. This
can be predicted that the commentators could not recommend a way of
correcting or improving the quality of their friends’ writings or they wanted
to give the writers the chances to revise their writings themselves.

4.2.3 Students’ revision based on peer written feedback
Figure 16: Mistakes corrected/revised based on peer
written feedback
80
67
70 65
60
50 42
41 39
40 33 31
30 23
20 14 14 12
8
10 5 4 5
0
Grammar Content Organization Mechanics Word choice
Mistakes pointed out by peers
Mistakes corrected/suggested for improvement by peers
Mistakes corrected/revised by writers based on peer feedback
After receiving peer written feedback, many students revised their
writings by incorporating their peers’ corrections and suggestions into their
later versions while others ignored and made no changes or revised their
writings in their own ways. The researcher analyzed the copies of the second
and the third versions more closely to see whether students created their
second and third drafts based on peer written feedback provided in the first
and second ones. Figure 16 above shows the number of mistakes which
were corrected or revised based on peer feedback by the writers over the
mistakes the commentators pointed out or even corrected and suggested for
improvement.

As can be seen from Figure 16, students mostly corrected their
mechanical mistakes based on peer feedback. The number of mechanical
mistakes corrected by the writers was even higher than the number of
mistakes corrected by peers. This could be easily understood because
mechanical mistakes especially spelling ones were once pointed out; the
writers found it easy to admit their mistakes and had no difficulty in
correcting themselves. Moreover, students second mostly corrected their
grammatical mistakes based on peer feedback. The number of mistakes
revised by the writer accounted for about 80% the ones corrected by their
peers. This could be easily explained by fixed grammar rules in English so
students found it easier to follow their friend’s advice and decided to
incorporate peer feedback in their later revisions. In contrast, the content
seemed to be the aspect which the writers found it hardest to incorporate
their friends’ suggestions into their second and third drafts. The number of
mistakes corrected/revised by writers only accounted for 12% of the number
of pointed out mistakes and 35% of the number of mistakes corrected by
peers. As mentioned above, the content is always one of the most
controversial issues in writing because there is no fixed answer and one
topic can be addressed and discussed in different ways. Some students stated
their own opinion or just some words like “Why not?”, “I don’t think so” or
“I think they are acceptable” next to their peers’ comments on the content to
express their disagreement.
In conclusion, while the findings the survey questionnaire showed the
current situation of using peer written feedback and students’ positive
attitudes towards using this method in their writing classes, the results from
student writing analysis helped the researcher have a deeper understanding

about the amount of peer feedback and to what extent peer feedback affected
students’ writing ability through the changes they made through three
versions. It can be concluded that peer written feedback affected students’
writing ability through changes of different levels in their writing drafts. The
findings and interpretations in this chapter would be a fundamental source
for the researcher to draw up some implications which will be presented in
the following chapter.

CHAPTER 5: PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
As clearly stated at the beginning of the study, one of the main
objectives of this research is to give the recommendations on how to
improve the current situation of using peer written feedback among first-
year students at the ED, ULIS, VNU. The findings of the research show that
peer written feedback plays a very important role in helping first-year
students revise more effectively and improve their writing ability in general.
Hence, basing on the theoretical and practical practice, the researcher would
like to give some implications for using peer written feedback more
effectively. Making peer response activities more efficient requires not only
students’ efforts but also the involvement of teachers in helping students
utilize peer written feedback on writing. This chapter is divided into two
main parts including some teaching implications for teachers and some
suggestions for students in their process of practicing peer written feedback.
5.1 TEACHING IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHERS
5.1.1 Pre-training activity
One of the most important preparations for students’ use of peer
written feedback is pre-training them how to evaluate a written work and
how to give and utilize peer written feedback effectively at the beginning of
the semester and also in the students’ process of practicing peer feedback
during the semester.
5.1.1.1 Pre-training students to evaluate a written work
First and foremost, teachers should train their students to the way to
evaluate a written work. Teachers can introduce some basic criteria to
evaluate a piece of writing. An example of a paragraph checklist is included

in Appendix 3. Thanks to this set of criteria of a good writing, students can
decide whether a writing assignment is effective or not. While introducing
those criteria, teachers should explain each criterion specifically and clearly
to avoid misunderstanding and ambiguity. For example, teachers can
provide students with some examples or some small tasks and then ask them
to work individually, in pairs or groups to decide whether they are good
paragraphs or not. In this way, students not only know what they should
focus when giving comments on others’ writings but also know which
aspects they should pay attention to when creating a paragraph.
5.1.1.2 Pre-training students to give and utilize peer feedback
effectively
After training students what to focus on when checking their own
writings and their peers’ work, teachers should provide them with initial
guidance of efficient peer response.
5.1.1.2.1 Raising students’ awareness of peer editing
Teachers should raise students’ awareness of the importance of peer
written feedback to their writing and ask them not only to revise their own
work but also give their friends comments with greater responsibility.
Firstly, teachers should show that they themselves highly appreciate the
work of giving peer feedback and revision by promising to give critical
responders some bonus marks apart from praise. Secondly, teachers should
also emphasize that students at the same level can give helpful comments on
their peers’ writings. This emphasis is very important because the finding
from the study shows that many students devaluate peer written feedback
because they think this type of feedback is not as reliable and helpful as
teacher comments. Besides, teachers also had better create some class

discussion of the purpose of peer response, the role of peer responder as a
collaborator rather than a corrector.
5.1.1.2.2 Providing students with guidance on how to give and utilize
peer feedback
 Teachers can guide students to focus on some important
aspects, namely the content, the organization or grammar which
should be equally addressed in peer feedback and various types
or forms of feedback which can be effectively utilized in giving
comments.
 Teachers should give clear instructions and familiarize students
with the error correction code system from the start. If possible,
teachers can check students’ ability to use some gap-filling
exercises with symbol and the meaning of symbols.
 Teachers also model the peer response process by giving some
illustrative paragraphs, identifying writing mistakes or
problems, discussing possible improvements as well as how
these suggestions might be expressed clearly and supportively
together with students.
 Together with modeling ways of pointing out some writing
problems, teachers should also model some ways of revision
based on peer feedback.

5.1.2 Intervention activity
Pre-training activities at the beginning of the semester play a very
important part in guiding students to use peer written feedback. However,
this should be an on-going process which means teachers have a great
responsibility for maintaining a close contact with students and intervene in
their process of practicing peer feedback in time because although students
can provide their friends helpful feedback, they still face many problems
which need to be solved with the help of teachers. As stated in the previous
chapter, students have many difficulties in giving comments and suggestions
or self-revising the content of writing, so teachers should. In other words, the
teacher is in a position to suggest measures for improving the readers’
commenting and the writer’s revisions. They can move around or sit beside
students to provide support and sometimes can express their own opinion of
students’ work or students’ ways of commenting. In this way, both teachers
and students can benefit from this on-going process because students can
have a chance to ask the teachers to resolve some uncertainties about
responses as well as revisions and teachers can have an overall picture of the
activities of each peer response group.
5.1.3 Communicative discussion after peer response activity
Organizing a discussion after peer response activity might be very
valuable to further demonstrate the process of revising more effectively. In
this way, teachers can pick out some typical writing mistakes and problems
and give students chances to give comments and make correction or
suggestions on such mistakes. Teachers also give the writers time to raise
questions about their uncertainties about peer feedback and the reviewers
chance to give full explanation for their comments because the study

findings also indicate that many students think their friends’ feedback is too
vague or difficult to understand or contradicts their own ideas. Thanks to a
communicative and open discussion, teachers can give students a good
chance to learn and understand more about each other.
5.1.4 Assessment of peer response process
Teachers can require their students to submit all of their drafts with
peer feedback apart from the final version. In this way, teachers can review
all the comments to investigate how students read and evaluate their friends’
writings in order to encourage the ones who give critical and constructive
feedback. Moreover, teachers can grade students’ writings by assessing their
effort and improvement through versions during the whole writing process
rather than evaluating the quality of the final one alone.
5.2 IMPLICATIONS FOR STUDENTS
Basing on some findings from the study findings, the researcher also
would like to provide some suggestions for students to enhance the
effectiveness of peer written feedback on writing.
5.2.1 Fairly specific peer feedback
Basing on the overall judgment of a high percentage of first-year
students participating in the survey and the observation of peer feedback in
student writing assignments, peer feedback provided by students seems to be
not specific enough, which makes students find it hard to revise their
writings. Hence, within the researcher’s opinion, peer feedback should be
specific enough to help students realize what difficulties they are having
with the text and which way they can improve their writings. This does not
mean that peer feedback should be too detailed because some generic

comments which help students have general view of their papers should be
incorporated with a fairly specific one.
5.2.2 Equal comments on different writing aspects
The study finding reveals that when giving comments on other
friends’ writings, students tend to focus on grammar and mechanics rather
than other important writing aspects. However, idea organization and the
content of writing are also two in-depth aspects which should be paid great
attention right after the writers create the first version and grammar,
mechanics or word choice can be addressed after students’ ideas have been
solidified. Hence, in general, students should try their best to be a critical
reader and reviewer to address almost aspects when giving comments to help
the writers make substantial changes based on their feedback.
5.2.3 Moderate amount of peer written feedback
As can be drawn from the findings, students tend to be moderate in
the amount of feedback given to their friends. However, regarding the
content of writing, they seem to hesitate to make some suggestions for the
writers’ later revision. In this way, in order to give friends the most moderate
amount of feedback, students should ask the teachers and other students for
help when they want to point out some writing problems and making some
suggestions especially the ones regarding the content of writing. In this way,
students can provide an appropriate amount of peer feedback regarding
different writing aspects.
5.2.4 Appropriate forms of peer feedback
The findings from the survey questionnaire prove that statement
seems to be the most favorite form of feedback used by first-year students.

This is understandable due to the clearness and usefulness of this form in
helping students clarify their comments. However, using only one feedback
form can cause boredom to the readers so it is recommended that students
should use various feedback forms, i.e. question or imperative as well
because different forms can convey different kinds of messages and yield
different effects on students.
5.2.5 Balanced use of marginal and end peer written feedback
As perceived by students participating in the survey, end feedback
tends to be favored by most of the peer commentators. In the researcher’s
opinion, a balance should be maintained between the use of both marginal
and end feedback because feedback put in the margin and between the lines
can be effectively used to directly point out different types of mistakes and
feedback put at the end of the paper can be efficiently used to give general
comments.
5.2.6 Appropriate tone of peer written feedback
As drawn from the survey questionnaire, although first-year students
tend to balance the use of positive and negative feedback when giving
comments, they also state that receiving too negative comments seems to be
a big reason for their devaluation of the helpfulness of peer feedback. Hence,
it is recommended that students should try to utilize more positive feedback
apart from negative one by balancing the amount of the strengths and
weaknesses mentioned in peer feedback since the combination of both praise
and criticism will bring about “the best results” (Ferris & Hedgcock, 1998,
p.128)

To conclude, peer written feedback has proved itself to have a positive
impact on students’ revision in particular and their writing ability in general.
In order to enhance the betterment of peer feedback, both teachers and
students should take those recommendations and suggestions into
consideration and put them into practice.

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION
With a view to concluding the thesis, this chapter includes a brief
summary and some limitations of the study as well as some suggestions for
further studies on related fields.
6.1 SUMMARY
6.1.1 Summary of the findings
Supported by the data collected from a combination of the two data
collection instruments including survey questionnaire and student writing
assignments, the study has thoroughly answered three research questions.
6.1.1.1 What is the current situation of using peer written feedback by
1st-year students at the ED, ULIS, VNU?
In general, the current situation of using peer written feedback among
first-year students at the ED, ULIS, VNU has been quite positive. Regarding
types of peer feedback, students seem to balance all kinds in giving
comments on their friends’ writings although as perceived by these students,
positive feedback as well as generic feedback and end feedback tend to be
used more frequently among them. In terms of the amount of feedback, a
medium percentage of students seem to know how to give effective feedback
by pointing out and correcting a fair number of writing mistakes and
problems in their peers’ assignments. Regarding forms of feedback,
statement seems to be favored by students than question and imperative as a
feedback form due to the clearness and usefulness of this form in helping
students clarify their comments. Moreover, the students tend to take all
writing aspects into consideration when addressing other friends’ writing
although the levels of attention vary across different items. Based on the

findings from both the survey questionnaire and student writing
assignments, grammar always seems to be the aspect which costs much
concern by first-year students while the content or organization tends to get
less attention of even be ignored.
6.1.1.2 What are these students’ perceptions of their peers’ written
feedback?
Concerning students’ perceptions of their peers’ written feedback, the
findings reveal their positive attitudes and high evaluation of peer feedback
they have received from their friends. A high percentage of students state
that they can generally improve their writing ability thanks to peer feedback
on writing. Moreover, most of them also assume that peer feedback can help
them revise more effectively and avoid mistakes next time they create a
piece of writing. However, there still exist some students who devaluate the
importance of peer feedback since most of them suppose that their peer’s
feedback seems to be too general, too negative or too vague.
6.1.1.3 To what extent does peer written feedback affect first-year
students’ writing ability?
The findings show that peer feedback can have a good impact on
students’ writing ability, which can be revealed by their improvement
through three versions. Although peer feedback is not the only factor
affecting students’ changes in writing versions, it cannot be denied that
nearly all students belonging to different levels of proficiency tend to benefit
from peer feedback although levels of effectiveness varies.
The results also indicate that peer reviewers can make good
suggestions for grammar and mechanics while they have many difficulties in
helping their friends improve the content of writing. This can be explained

by the fact that the content is always one of the most controversial issues in
writing as there is no fixed answer and one topic can be addressed and
discussed in different ways.
6.1.2 Summary of the implications
6.1.2.1 Pedagogical Implications for teachers
To help students utilize peer written feedback more effectively,
teachers should carry out some activities including pre-training activity,
intervention activity and create some communicative discussion after peer
written feedback. Regarding per-training activity, teachers should pre-train
their students to evaluate a written work as well as how to give and utilize
peer feedback on writing effectively. To achieve these objectives, teachers
had better raise students’ awareness of peer editing before providing them
with some advice on using peer written feedback efficiently.
Moreover, regarding intervention activity, teachers can support
students during writing periods or break-time by helping them find the
solution to some problems they cope with while practicing peer feedback. In
addition, organizing some communicative discussions after peer response
activity is also a necessity to give students chances to share their experiences
and understand more about each other.
Last but not least, teachers should choose an effective method of
assessment during peer response process. Through this type of feedback,
they can evaluate both the writers through their improvement revealed in the
between-draft changes and the reviewers through their critical comments on
writing.

6.1.2.1 Pedagogical Implications for students
In addition to some teaching implications for teachers, the researcher
provides students some advice on giving more effective peer written
feedback. Students should address different aspects when giving comments
on writing. Moreover, they had better give feedback with a fair specificity, a
moderate amount and more appropriate forms. In addition, they should also
balance the use of different types of peer feedback such as marginal versus
end feedback and positive versus negative comments to enhance the
effectiveness of peer written feedback.
6.2 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
Although the research questions were addressed and the study
objectives were achieved, in this study there still exist some unavoidable
limitations.
Firstly, this study is relatively small scale one with the involvement of
105 questionnaire respondents and only 36 writing papers. This may be a
hindrance which prevents the researcher from getting more precious findings
related to peer feedback.
Secondly, this study only covers peer written feedback instead of oral
feedback. Although peer written feedback seems appropriate and more
common in the research context, group discussion in which peers exchange
their ideas and share experience by speaking out their comments is quite
useful in cooperative writing.
Thirdly, this research only focuses on the first-year students’
perceptions of the current situation of using peer written feedback and their

evaluation of this type of feedback but it provides no discussion on the
teachers’ perception and attitudes towards this technique.
Last but not least, limitation lies in the investigation of the changes
between different writing versions made by students. Although many
students make changes in their next version based on peer feedback, some
other students revise their writings themselves with the help from teachers,
friends or other reference sources. In this way, the decrease in the number of
between-draft mistakes can be caused by many relevant factors. In this way,
this limitation, to some extent, affect the validity of the study.
6.3 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES
It is highly recommended that future studies will be conducted with a
broader target population and the addition of another supplemental method.
Furthermore, other researchers who are interested in peer feedback can
broaden the scale of the study to cover another kind of feedback, that is, peer
oral feedback. In addition, a thorough investigation into peer written
feedback would make a good study so other researchers can carry out studies
to explore the impact of different types of feedback or forms of feedback on
students’ revision as well. Last but not least, further studies can focus on the
teachers’ perception of peer written feedback on their students’ writing and
their support activities to enhance the current situation.

REFERENCES
Bartels, N. (2003). Written peer response in L2 writing. English
Teaching Forum,41(1), pp.34-37
Bartram, M. & Walton, R. (1991). Correction, Mistakes Management: A
transitive Approach for Language Teacher. London: Language
Teaching Publications
Brown, J.D. (1994). Research methods for Applied Linguistics: Scope,
characteristics, and standards. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The
handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 476-500). Oxford: Blackwell.
Byrne, D. (1988). Teaching writing skills. Longman Handbooks for
Language Teachers. Longman: London
Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student responses to written
work. TESOL Quarterly 28, pp.1-8
Chaudron, C. (1984). The effects of feedback on students’ composition
revisions. RELC Journal.15, pp.1-14.
Chiu, C-Y. (2008). An Investigation of Peer Evaluation in EFL College
Writing. 25th International Conference of English Teaching
Retrieved April 1st, 2009 from
http://www.ccu.edu.tw/fllcccu/2008EIA/English/CO9.pdf
Clenton, J. (2006). Academic Writing: towards an integrated approach.
Sussex Language Institute. Retrieved February 27th, 2009 from

http:www.sussex.ac.uk/languages/documents/academicwritingessa
y.pdf
Coffin, C., Curry, M., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lillis, T., and Swann,
J. (2003). Teaching Academic Writing: A Toolkit for Higher
Education. London and New York: Routledge
Dean, T. (n.d). Responding to student. University of Connecticut.
Retrieved February 24th, 2009 from
http://www.writingcenter.uconnn.edu/facultyseries.htm
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction,
administration, and processing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fathman, AK. & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher Response to Student
Writing: Focus on Form versus Content. In B. Kroll (ed.), Second
Language Writing. Cambridge University Press
Ferris, D.R (2002). Treatment of Error in Second Language Student
Writing. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press
Ferris, D.R & Hedgecock J.S. (1998). Teaching ESL Composition:
Purpose, Process and Practice. Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Ferris, D.R, Pezone, S., Tade, C.R., & Tini, S. (1997). Teacher
commentary on student writing: Descriptions and Implications.
Journal of Second Language Writing. 6(2), pp.135-182

Fulwiler, T.(1986). “The Argument for Writing across the Curriculum”.
Writing across the Disciplines. Young & Fulwiler (EDs).
Dartmouth, NH: Boyton/Cook.(pp.21-32)
Gillham, B. (2000). Developing a questionnaire. London: Continuum.
Gipps, C (1994). Beyond Testing: Towards a Theory of Educational
Assessment. London. The Falmer Press.
Hairston, M. (1982). The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the
Revolution in the teaching of writing. College Composition and
Communication, 33, pp.76-88
Harmer, J. (2004). How to teach writing. London: Longman
Hirsh, E.D. (1977). The philosophy of composition. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Hyland, F. & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and Criticism
in Written Feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3),
pp.185-212
Hyland, F. (1998). The Impact of Teacher Written Feedback on Individual
Writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), pp.255-286
Jacobs, G.M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S-Y. (1998). Feedback
on student writing: taking the middle path. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 7(3), pp.307-317.

Joe, L. (2006). A process approach to feedback in writing. Retrieved
February 25th, 2009 from http:// www. sunzil.lib.hk/hkjo/view/
10/1000038.pdf
Jordan, R.R. (1997). What’s in a name? English for Specific Purposes,
16, (1).
Lannon, J.M. (1989). The Writing Process. A concise rhetoric.
Southeastern Massachusetts University
Leki, I. (1990). “Coaching from the margins: issues in written response”
in B.Kroll (Ed.). Second Language Writing: Research Insights
from the Classroom.
Li, J. (1999). A Process Approach to Feedback in Writing. Retrieved
March, 23rd, 2009 from
http://www.sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/10/1000038.pdf
Liu, J. and J. Hansen (2002). Peer response in second language writing
classrooms. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press
Mc Murrey, D.A. (2000). Power Tools for Technical Communication.
New York: Heinle Publishers
Mertens, D.M. (2005). Research and Evaluation in Education and
Psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed
methods (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage
Michaelsen and Schultheiss, E. (1988). Making Feedback Helpful.
Organizational Behavior Teaching, 13(1), pp.109-113

Min, H.T. (2006). The Effects of Trained Peer Review on EFL Students’
Revision and Writing Quality. Journal of Second Language
Writing.7(2), p.113-131
Nunan, D. (1998). Research Methods in Language Learning.
Cambridge: Cambrigde University Press
Mosher, J. (1998). Word Works: Responding to student papers. BSU
Writing Center.
Paulus, T.M (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student
writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 8/3, pp.265-289
Phan, T.K.C (2007). Peer written feedback in writing portfolios by third
year students in the English department, CFL, VNU. Unpublished
Graduation Thesis, University of Languages and International
Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi.
Pincas, A. (1962). Structural linguistics and systematic composition
teaching to students of English as a foreign language. Language
Learning 12 (3), pp.185-184
Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in Teaching Writing. New York: Oxford
University Press
Reid, J.M. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents
Reid, J.M. (1982). The process of Composition. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice Hall

Rollinson, P (2005). Using peer written feedback in the ESL writing
class. ELT Journal, 59(1), pp.23-29.
Seow, A. (2002). The Writing Process and Process Writing. In Richards,
J.C., & Rennandya, W. A (eds.), Methodology in Language Teaching –
An Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge University Press
Silva, T. (1990). Second Language Composition Instruction:
Development, Issues, and Directions in ESL. Cambridge University
Press: New York
Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to student writing. College
Composition and Communication 33(2), pp.148-156
Sugita, Y. (2006). The impact of teachers’ comment types on Students’
revision. ELT Journal Volume 60/1. Oxford University Press
Tang, G.M & Tithecott, J. (1990). “Peer response in ESL writing” en
TESL Canada Journal, No.692), pp.20-38
Tran, T.Q.T (2007). An investigation into the use of peer written
feedback in the first-year writing classes at the ED, CFL, VNU,
Hanoi. Unpublished Graduation Thesis, University of Languages
and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi.
Tribble, C. (1996). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Tsui, A.B.M. & Ng, M. (2000). “ Do secondary L2 writers benefit from
peer comments?” en Journal of Second Language Writing, No.9
(2), pp.147-170

Ur, P. (1996). Unit Five: Giving Feedback Correction on Writing: A
course in Language Teaching – Practice and Theory. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Villamil, O.S and de Guerrero. M.C.M (1998). Assessing the impact of
peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics 19/4, pp.491-514
Walk, K. (1996). Responding to Student Writing. Princeton University.
Retrieved April 3rd, 2009 from http: //www.
web.princeton.edu/sites/writing/Writing_Disciplines/pdfs/Respondi
ng.pdf.
Wallace, D.L. & Hayes.J.R. (1991). Redefining Revision for Freshmen.
Research in the Teaching of English 25, pp.54-66
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly
19(1), pp. 79-101
Zamel, V. (1987). Writing: the process of discovering meaning. New
York: Newbury House Publishers.
Zhang, S. (2008). Assessing the Impact of Peer Revision on English
Writing of Tertiary EFL Learners. CELEA Journal . Retrieved
March 15th, 2009 from
http://www.celea.org.cn/teic/78/08070221.pdf
Ziv, Nina D. (1983). Peer Groups in the Composition Classroom: A case
study. Paper presented at the 34th Annual meeting of the Conference on
College Composition and Communication

APPENDIX A
SURVEY QUESTIONAIRE ON
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PEER WRITTEN FEEDBACK ON
FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS’ WRITING SKILL
My name is Bui Thi Kim Ngan from class K39E10. I am currently taking
the degree of Bachelor of Arts offered by the English Department, University of
Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi. My
graduation paper is titled ““The Effectiveness of Peer Written Feedback on
First- year Students’ Writing Skill at the English Department, ULIS, VNU”.
I am conducting this study in order to develop further understanding about
the current situation of using peer written feedback in first-year writing classes
and its effectiveness on students’ writing revision. This is not a test so there are no
“right” or “wrong” answers and you do not have to write your name on it. We
are interested in your personal opinion. When you take part in this study, your
confidentiality is assured in any circumstances. Please give your answers
sincerely as only this will guarantee the success of the investigation. Thank you
very much for your help.
PART I: PEER WRITTEN FEEDBACK ON WRITING
In completing questions 1-4, please choose the answer by circling the letters next
to your choice. Please circle ONE letter in front of each statement. Thanks.
1. In terms of the tone, my friends tend to use…………….more
frequently.
A. Positive feedback (comments on strong points and praise)
B. Negative feedback (comments on weak points and even
criticism)

2. In these two types of feedback classified based on the specificity, my
friends tend to use…………….more frequently.
A. Text- specific feedback (detailed comments which can only be
applied to one writing task)
B. Generic feedback (comments which can be generalized for later
use to other writing tasks)
3. In these two types of feedback classified based on the position, my
friends tend to use…………….more frequently.
A. Marginal feedback (feedback put in the margin or between
the lines)
B. End feedback (feedback put at the end of the paper)
4. In terms of the amount of feedback, my friends often
……………………..when giving written feedback on my writing
assignments.
A. Point out and correct all mistakes
B. Point out all mistakes and correct some serious ones
C. Point out some and correct some serious mistakes
D. Point out and correct no mistakes, just give general comments
For question 5, please rank the following from 1 to 3 in order of frequency by
writing the numbers in front of each choice. Please write ONLY ONE number and
don’t leave out any of them. Thanks.
5. Myfriends tend to give written feedback in the form of
………………… on my writing assignments.
…..Statement (Eg: I do not understand this)
…..Question (Eg: What do you mean?)
…..Imperative (Eg: Make this clearer!)
For question 6, you can choose more than one answer by circling ONE (or MORE
THAN ONE) letter(s) next to each choice. Thanks.
6. My friends often address these/this aspect(s) when giving feedback on
my writing assignments.
A. Content (ideas, logic, clarity, etc)

B. Organization (topic and supporting sentences, unity, cohesion,
etc)
C. Grammar (rules for verbs, nouns, sentence, etc)
D. Word choice (vocabulary, tone, idiom)
E. Mechanics (Punctuation, spelling, capitalization, handwriting,
etc)
PART II: MY PERCEPTION OF PEER WRITTEN FEEDBACK
In completing question 1, please choose the answer by circling ONE letter next to
your choice. Thanks
1. I think my friends’ written feedback is …………………………………
A. Helpful (please go to question 2) B. Unhelpful (please go to
question 3)
For question 2 & 3, you can choose MORE THAN ONE answer by circling one
(or more than one) letter(s) next to each choice or you can express your own ideas
in the blanks. Thanks.
2. I think my friends’ written feedback is helpful
because……………...................
A. I can revise my writings effectively based on my friends’
correction and suggestion
B. I can avoid all the corrected mistakes next time
C. I can enhance my confidence in writing thanks to my friends’
encouraging feedback
D. I can learn how to comment from the way my friends correct my
writing
E. I can improve my writing skill in general thanks to my friends’
peer feedback
F. Others (please specify)…………………………..
3. I think my friends’ written feedback is unhelpful because
…………………….
A. My friends’ feedback is too general
B. My friends’ feedback is too vague and difficult to understand

C. My friends’ feedback contradicts my ideas
D. My friends’ feedback is not reliable
E. My friends’ feedback is too negative, so discourages me.
F. My friends’ feedback includes too many new words and
structures
G. My friends’ feedback includes too many correction codes
which are hard to understand.
H. Others (please specify)………………………..

Please fill in the information and tick where appropriate:
My gender is: Male Female
My years of learning English are: 0-2 years 4-8 years
2-4 years 8-12 years
My average mark in writing last semester: ≤6 =7 ≥
8
If you are interested in the report of this research, and would like to receive it,
would you please leave me your address so I can contact you later:
Your name
Your address:
Your email:
And if you have any questions, you are welcome. Please do not hesitate to contact
me on 0975311579 or through my email address: kimngan87@gmail.com.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION!