PEER FEEDBACK: VIETNAMESE EFL UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS IN TWO DIFFERENT FEEDBACK CONDITIONS BY TRẦN TRUNG NGUYÊN BACHELOR OF ARTS IN ENGLISH LINGUISTICS AND LITERATURE, UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES, HCMC A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN LINGUISTICS (TESOL) DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGES AND LITERATURE COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS BENEDICTINE UNIVERSITY LISLE, ILLINOIS, USA MAY, 2020 ii ABSTRACT Peer feedback is a learning activity in which learners are involved in assessing their peers’ performance. It can be qualitative or quantitative or both. The incorporation of peer feedback into classrooms is thought to help teachers lighten the burden of grading and giving feedback on students’ papers, which can be tiring and time-consuming. Also, students can learn from each other, and they can receive feedback from multiple sources, which helps avoid the possibility of teacher bias.
Regardless of the considerable number of studies available, few have discussed relevant issues about anonymous and non-anonymous feedback conditions. Also, while several studies about students’ perceptions involved Asian participants or took place in an Asian country, very little has been known about Vietnamese students’ perceptions of peer feedback in the roles of reviewers and writers. The present study, as a result, aimed at addressing issues concerning how Vietnamese students perceive peer feedback when they are either writers or reviewers in anonymous and non-anonymous feedback conditions. The present study was conducted with sixteen English-major freshmen in a Reading – Writing course.
The data was collected from the pre-questionnaire, two post-questionnaires, the student-reviewers’ comments, the student-writers’ revisions, and the individual interviews with three volunteers. Major findings of the study include the students’ positive attitudes towards peer feedback at the early stage of the study regardless of having prior experience with it. Moreover, in the anonymous condition, both the reviewers and writers felt comfortable although certain doubt about peer feedback was found among the writers. The reviewers acknowledged the benefits of reading their peers’ drafts while the writers found it useful to read their peers’ feedback.
In the iii non-anonymous condition, both the student-reviewers and student-writers expressed mixed feelings with pressure from the difference in language proficiency levels and their social relationships. They also felt the beneficial effects of reading their peers’ drafts or peers’ feedback. The paired-samples t-tests only found one statistical difference, which was related to how the student-reviewers perceived the comfort when giving feedback in the two conditions. The participants preferred a mixed condition with both anonymous and non-anonymous peer feedback, and teachers’ feedback was also needed in addition to peer feedback.
The major implications of the study involve the implementation of adequate training prior to the feedback cycles, the incorporation of mixed feedback condition, the combination of teacher and peer feedback, and feedback generated by multiple peers on one single draft. Key words: peer feedback - students’ perceptions – anonymity iv DEDICATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First of all, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to my supervisors from Benedictine University, Dr. Olga Demin Lambert, and Dr. Sandra Gollin-Kies, who have wholeheartedly encouraged, supported and instructed me throughout the whole course of the study with detailed comments and constructive advice.
I would also like to express my special thanks to Dr. Le Hoang Dung, Dean of Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature, USSH, and my co-supervisor, for his dedication to my study, and especially his encouragement to me throughout the program. Moreover, I would like to show my great appreciation to my colleague, who helped me with the data analysis. Additionally, I warmly thank the generous participants, the instructor-in-charge, the faculty and administration at my research site for enthusiastically supporting me in my study.
I also need to mention other instructors in all the courses – Dr. Nguyen Dang Nguyen, Dr. Pho Phuong Dung, and Dr. Nguyen Thi Hong Tham for their great devotion to their courses, thanks to which I could become an academic individual.
Finally, my deep appreciation is for my parents, who have never stopped trusting me, and supporting me in all the ways possible from the beginning. v DECLARATION I – TRẦN TRUNG NGUYÊN - hereby declare that this thesis entitled “PEER FEEDBACK: VIETNAMESE EFL UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS IN TWO DIFFERENT FEEDBACK CONDITIONS” submitted to Benedictine University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Linguistics (TESOL Concentration) is entirely my own work. It has not been previously published, as a whole or in part, or submitted to any other institution for any other degree, diploma, or professional qualification. Research for this work was approved by the Benedictine University Institutional Review Board.
IRB Approval Number: #20191101B I have read and understood Benedictine University’s Academic Honesty Policy: https://www.edu/degree-programs/academic-honesty-policy.cfmI which states: “Actions such as cheating, plagiarism, collusion, fabrication, forgery, falsification, destruction, multiple submission, solicitation, and misrepresentation are violations of these expectations and constitute unacceptable behavior in the University community.” I fully understand that using the ideas and wordings of others without full and accurate citation constitutes plagiarism, and that if plagiarism or any other from of academic dishonesty is discovered, academic sanctions outlined in Benedictine University’s Academic Honesty Policy, including rejection of the thesis, will be invoked. Candidate signature: Date: May 21st, 2020 Student number: B2506542 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii DEDICATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv DECLARATION v TABLE OF CONTENTS vi LIST OF TABLES xi LIST OF FIGURES xii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 5 2.1 The effects of prior training 5 2.2 Various feedback sources 10 2.3 Various feedback conditions 11 2.1 Peer-only ratings versus peer ratings with peer qualitative feedback 11 2. Oral feedback versus written feedback 11 2.3 Anonymous and non-anonymous peer feedback 12 2.4 Students’ feedback-based revisions 13 vii 2.5 Students’ writing quality improvement 14 2.6 Students’ attitude towards peer feedback 15 2.7 Statement of problems 21 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS 23 3.1 Task 1: Anonymous feedback condition 28 3.2 Task 2: Non-anonymous feedback condition 28 3.4 Peer feedback form 29 3.5 Reviewers’ qualitative comments and writers’ revisions 30 3.1 Reviewers’ qualitative comments 30 3.5 Ethics concerns about human subjects 36 3.1 Measures against external factors 36 3.2 Measures against internal factors 37 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 39 4.1 Students’ initial perceptions 39 4.1 Students with prior experience 39 4.2 Students without prior experience 42 4.3 Students’ predictions of their perceptions 44 4.2 Students’ perceptions after the feedback cycles 46 4.1 Students’ attitudes towards peer feedback 50 4.2 Students in the role of reviewers 54 4.1 Students’ perceptions of benefits of reading peers’ drafts 54 4.3 Students in the role of writers 58 4.1 Students’ perceptions of benefits of reading peers’ feedback 58 4.2 Writers’ revisions 61 ix 4.4 Comparison of students perceptions 62 4.1 Students’ attitudes towards peer feedback 62 4.2 Students’ perceptions of benefits of reading peers’ drafts 64 4.3 Students’ perceptions of benefits of reading peers’ feedback 65 4.4 Other related perceptions 66 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 72 5.1 Participants’ initial perceptions 72 5.2 Research question 1: Vietnamese students’ perceptions in the anonymous feedback condition 75 5.1 Vietnamese students in the role of reviewers 75 5.2 Vietnamese students in the role of writers 77 5.3 Other related perceptions 82 5.3 Research question 2: Vietnamese students’ perceptions in the non-anonymous feedback condition 83 5.1 Vietnamese students in the role of reviewers 83 5.2 Vietnamese students in the role of writers 86 5.3 Other related perceptions 89 x 5.4 Research question 3: Differences between students’ perceptions in the two conditions 90 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 95 6.1 Brief summary of the study 95 6.1 Students’ initial perceptions 95 6.2 Students’ perceptions in the anonymous condition 95 6.3 Students’ perceptions in the non-anonymous condition 97 6.4 The anonymous condition versus the non-anonymous condition 98 6.5 Recommendations for future research 106 REFERENCES 107 APPENDICES 109 xi LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1 Students’ initial perceptions with prior experience 41 Table 4.2 Students’ general perceptions without prior experience 43 Table 4.3 Students’ prediction of their perceptions 45 Table 4.4 Students’ perceptions of peer feedback in the anonymous condition 50 Table 4.5 Participants’ perceptions of peer feedback in the non-anonymous condition 52 Table 4.6 Reviewers and the benefits of reading peers’ drafts in the anonymous condition 54 Table 4.7 Reviewers and the benefits of reading peers’ drafts in the non-anonymous condition 55 Table 4.8 Writers and the benefits of peer feedback in the anonymous condition 58 Table 4.9 Writers and the benefits of peer feedback in the non-anonymous condition 60 Table 4.10 Question 1: Cronbach’s alphas 62 Table 4.11 Question 1: Paired-samples t-tests 63 Table 4.12 Question 2: Cronbach’s alphas 64 Table 4.13 Question 2: Paired-samples t-test 65 Table 4.14 Question 3: Cronbach’s alphas 65 Table 4.15 Question 3: Paired-samples t-test 66 xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1 Categories of reviewers’ qualitative comments 56 Figure 4.2 Writers’ acceptance of qualitative comments 61 Figure 4.3 Participants’ choice of incorporation of peer feedback 67 Figure 4.4 Participants’ preferred frequency 67 Figure 4.5 Participants’ choice of more comfortable conditions 68 Figure 4.6 Participants’ confidence 69 Figure 4.7 Participants’ preferred feedback conditions 70 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Were feedback to be excluded from the teaching and learning process, what would happen to learners? Would they feel less pressured from being criticized, or would they be able to improve themselves without any comments given from others? These questions may suggest an area that needs to be explored. However, feedback, for such a long time, has played a significant role in teaching and learning.
Feedback has been expected to help learners reflect upon their own issues and may suggest solutions that lead to improvements. But for feedback, learners, even the excellent individuals, may hardly find ways to better themselves. Conventionally, teachers are the trusted feedback providers in EFL/ ESL because of profound knowledge, skills and authority. However, regardless of how feedback is given, in the written form or the spoken forms, to each single student or to the class as a whole, it is described as a time-consuming and labour-intensive task for teachers, especially in writing courses with a great number of papers to be considered.
Another issue may be related to the possibility of teacher bias. Although teachers are believed to be qualified to undertake the task, the heavy dependence on one single source of comments may not guarantee that all the learners are given adequate comments. Teachers may time after time find themselves struggling to give feedback equally to all the students. They may have a tendency to devote more attention and detailed feedback to several papers that come first, and less constructive feedback may be detected in the remainder.
Moreover, favoritism is an issue that should be addressed. Although teachers are supposed to remain impartial, it is hard to deny that teachers cannot entirely eliminate such bias when giving comments, which may turn out to exert an undesirable, or even deleterious, effect upon learners if teachers are the sole feedback givers. 2 The above-mentioned issues may explain the introduction of peer feedback, or some other related terms like peer assessment, peer review, peer-editing, peer revision, and peer rating. Although these expressions may distinguish themselves in terms of qualitative or quantitative aspects, they are all known to refer to the learning activities in which learners are engaged in evaluating their peers’ products.
The ways students are involved are varying. They may be asked to give just the qualitative comments, or just the numerical scores, or both. Choosing responses in a peer feedback form is also an alternative. Peer feedback is useful because it may lift a burden from teachers’ shoulders, especially when it becomes impossible to give adequate comments to all the papers, and it also helps avoid the dependence on one single feedback source.
Learning from each other is also ideal to create a supportive and collaborative learning atmosphere among learners. However, drawbacks do exist. First of all, learners are thought not to be competent enough to give feedback. Also, the potential social tension should not be neglected.