VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY — HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE THE EFFECTS OF FACEBOOK-BASED PEER COMMENTS ON ENGLISH-MAJOR STUDENTS’ WRITING REVISIONS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES - VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY HCMC A thesis submitted to the Faculty of English Linguistics & Literature in partial fulfillment of the Master’s degree in TESOL By NGUYỄN THỊ HOÀI ANH Supervised by Assoc. PHẠM VŨ PHI HỔ HO CHI MINH CITY, JULY 2022 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First of all, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my supervisor, Assoc. Phạm Vũ Phi Hổ, for his kindness and dedication. There are no words that can fully show my appreciation for what he has done for me.
Without his guidance and encouragement, I would not have been able to overcome this challenge. My sincere thanks also go to my best friend, Tạ Lê Minh Phước, who created all the favourable conditions for me to collect data for this study. I am grateful and thankful for his valuable support. Also, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all the students who participated in the present study; without their effective participation, I could not have finished my thesis.
I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to my two classmates, Mr. Tạ Lê Minh Phước, Ms. Phạm Tố Quyên, and Mr. Tiêu Tiểu Long, for being by my side through ups and downs from the very beginning of the course.
Last but not least, I would like to express my deep sense of gratitude to my family for their unconditional love and support. I especially own my deepest thanks to my mother and my husband-to-be. Without their care and encouragement, I would have never had enough motivation to go to the end of this journey. i STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY I certify that this thesis entitled “THE EFFECTS OF FACEBOOK-BASED PEER COMMENTS ON ENGLISH-MAJOR STUDENTS’ WRITING REVISIONS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES - VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY HCMC” is my own work.
This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in any other institution. Ho Chi Minh City, July 5th, 2022 Nguyễn Thị Hoài Anh ii RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS I hereby state that I, NGUYEN THI HOAI ANH, being the candidate for the degree of Master of TESOL, accept the requirement of the University relating to the retention and use of Master’s Theses deposited in the Library. In terms of these conditions, I agree that the originality of my thesis deposited in the Library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the Library for the care, loan or reproduction of theses. Ho Chi Minh City, July 5th, 2022 Nguyễn Thị Hoài Anh iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.
i STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY. ii RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS.iii TABLE OF CONTENTS.iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.viii LIST OF TABLES. x LIST OF FIGURES. xii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.1 Background to the study.2 Aims of the study.3 Research questions and hypotheses.4 Significance of the study.5 Scope of the study.6 Definition of terms.7 Assumptions of the study.8 Organization of thesis chapters.
9 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.1 Theoretical issues on peer comment research.2 Review of existing peer comment research in writing.1 Traditional peer comments.1 Benefits of traditional peer comments.2 Drawbacks of traditional peer comments.3 Research on effectiveness of peer comments compared with teacher comments.4 Research on peer comment training.2 Computer-mediated peer comments.1 Benefits of computer-mediated peer comments.2 Drawbacks of computer-mediated peer comments.3 The effects of computer-mediated peer comments.3 Facebook-based peer comments.4 Conceptual framework of the present study.1 Context of the study.4 Procedure of the study.1 The teaching materials.1 The writing topics.2 Coding scheme for language functions.3 Coding scheme for textual revision.4 Grammatical error coding scheme.5 The compare function of WPS Word.2 The training processes.8 Data collection procedure.9 Data analysis method. 64 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.1 Statistical data analysis.2 Discussion of results.1 Statistical data analysis.2 Discussion of results.1 Statistical data analysis.2 Discussion of results.1 Statistical data analysis.2 Discussion of results. 84 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.3 Limitations of the study.4 Recommendations for future studies. 120 vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ACMC Asynchronous computer-mediated communication APF Asynchronous peer feedback CMC Computer-mediated communication CMPR Computer-mediated peer response EFL English as a Foreign Language ESL English as a Second Language FB Facebook L2 Second Language LAN Local-area network MOO Multi-user domain Object-oriented MSN Microsoft instant messaging SCF Synchronous corrective feedback SCMC Synchronous computer-mediated communication SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences SNS Social-networking site USSH University of Social Sciences and Humanities ZPD Proximal Development Zone D1 Dratf 1 D2 Draft 2 D1.1 Draft 1 in the first writing assignment viii D1.2 Draft 1 in the second writing assignment D1.3 Draft 1 in the third writing assignment D2.1 Draft 2 in the first writing assignment D2.2 Draft 2 in the second writing assignment D3.3 Draft 2 in the third writing assignment ix LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Coding scheme for language functions.2 Revision coding scheme.3 Grammatical error coding scheme.4 Types of comments in the first essay (Pilot test).1 Illustration of error coding scheme.2 Types of grammatical errors produced in D1.3 Comments addressed global and local areas.4 Summary of mean differences in the number of revision-oriented comments addressed to global and local areas.5 Analysis for evaluating the textual revisions.6 Revisions across different levels of linguistic units in D2.7 Revisions across different levels of linguistic units in D2.8 Revisions across different levels of linguistic units in D2.9 Ratios of levels of revision affected by peer comments.
81 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 The conceptual framework of the present study.1 Design of the research.2 The layout of the Compare function.3 Tentative course schedule.4 Sign up for a Facebook account.5 Create a Facebook group.6 The writing process .7 An example of giving peer feedback.8 Procedure of data collection. 62 xi ABSTRACT Computer-mediated peer comments or electronic peer comments (e-peer comments) have long been long been researched in the field of teaching writing English as a Foreign Language (EFL). However, the effects of e-peer comments on student writing are still questioned because of the inconsistency among the findings of studies in the field. The present quasi-experimental study (1) measure the number of type of grammatical errors that students frequently made, clarify (2) the types of comments (global and local areas) frequently produced by the students as well as (3) differences between global and local areas in terms of revision-oriented comments, and (4) examine the impacts of Facebook-based peer comments on students’ revisions.
A grammar class with 22 students was chosen randomly to be one experimental group. The students posted their writing and comments on a Facebook group, and received suggestions for revisions. Both quantitative and qualitative data were used to respond to the research questions. The results of the study revealed that ‘Nouns and articles’, ‘Present tenses’, and ‘Past tenses’ are the most frequent types of writing errors made by students.
Also, the results indicated that the number of the comments made was in correspondence with the number of the qualified comments (revision-oriented comments). Particularly, that the comments on local areas were greater than those on global areas resulted in the greater number of qualified comments (revision-oriented comments) on the local areas. As a result, it could be drawn from the study that students seemed to prefer comments on surface features to comments on meaning. Finally, the results revealed that student writers mostly revised their writing basing on peer comments with three most frequent revision levels were ‘sentence’, ‘grammar’, and ‘word’.
The findings indicated that students more likely relied on peer comments to revise their drafts at all levels, which highlighted the role of peer comments in revision process. Based on the findings, the study proposed several implications for integrating FB-based peer comments into teaching EFL writing to students. Key words: writing revision, Facebook-based peer comment, writing. xii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This chapter provides the introduction to the study.
It includes (1) background to the study, (2) aims of the study, (3) research questions, (4) significance of the study, (5) scope of the study, (6) definition of terms, (7) assumptions of the study, and (8) organization of thesis chapters.1 Background to the study In the field of teaching writing English as a Foreign Language (EFL), there is little doubt that the process-focused approach, which focuses on brainstorming, drafting, evaluating, and revising, develops student writers’ writing ability (Griffith, 2014; Nguyen & Filipi, 2018; Pham et al., 2020) and emphasizes students as an independent producer of text (Hyland, 2003). To help EFL students become independent writers, providing peer comments, also known as peer feedback, peer responses, peer review or peer editing, has been thought of as the important task at the revision stage of the process approach for student writers (Liu & Hansen, 2005). The definition of the term “peer comment” has been suggested by Hansen and Liu (2005) who saw it as the exchange of compositions among writers for written comments, oral comments, or a mix of oral and written comments. The subjects of peer comments which are used as written comments in this study can be in various areas such as local (grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics) and global (content, rhetoric, and organization) areas (Pham & Nguyen, 2021).
There is a large volume of published studies describing the helpfulness of peer comments integrated with academic writing courses (Nelson & Murphy, 1992; Min, 2005; Lee, 2015). Also, there are many theories supporting the use of peer comments in L2 writing instructions such as Collaborative learning theory (Bruffee, 1984), Sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978), Interactionist theory of L2 acquisition (Swain & Lapkin, 1998), and Process-oriented writing approach theory (Hayes & Flower, 1980) to improve students’ writing. Hence, it is safe to say that peer comments confirm their importance in the current context of 1 teaching EFL writing. In other words, with the aim of enhancing learners’ writing, there is a great demand for peer feedback activities on student writing.
Over the last two decades, a remarkable outcome of the increasing use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) in the digital era of Web 2.0 has been the integration of instructional technologies into writing practices in foreign language classrooms (Ciftci & Aslan, 2019). Several studies have reviewed that CMC is an important components in deepening student collaboration and increasing student participation in writing process (Beauvois, 1997; Wichadee, 2013; Zheng & Warschauer, 2017). More specially, many published studies on CMC offer that using online peer comments can lead to better writing products as well as peer comment quality (Hewett, 2000; Tuzi, 2004; Liang, 2010; Ho et al. In general, there is substantial evidence of the usefulness of CMC peer feedback in improving students’ writing development.
Although numerous researchers have subscribed to the belief that CMC offers significant affordances for facilitating online peer feedback (Liang, 2010; Pham et al., 2020), some scholars offer contradictory findings about (1) types of CMC peer comments, (2) the impacts of CMC peer comments on revisions, and (3) peer comment modes. Particularly, there are some debatable findings on the types and the number of responses generated by the CMC peer comments. Pham and Usaha (2016), Altstaedter (2018), and Pham (2021) show that trained students produced more comments focused on global aspects (organization and content) than local aspects (grammar, vocabulary, and punctuation), whereas Liu and Sadler (2003) and Pham and Nguyen (2014) prove that the number of comments based on local aspects produced by student writers outweighed the number of comments based on global aspects. In addition, the findings of studies in the impacts of CMC peer feedback on revisions are inconsistent.
While Liu and Sadler (2003) and Min (2006) show that electronic peer response had an important impact on revision, Roux-Rodriguez (2003) and Tuzi (2004) report that there were more revisions made by the student writers themselves than 2 suggestions given by their peers. Furthermore, in terms of e-peer comment modes, while Liang (2010) and Zheng et al.