English writing skills have emerged as an indispensable EFL course of higher education curricula in Vietnam. A variety of existing literature proves using peer review checklists as an effective tool to develop students‟ writing skills. However, it falls short such a tool to help nonEnglish major students to foster their writing skills in Vietnamese higher education. Therefore, this study aims to dig out a measure to improve students‟ informal email writing skills by means of using peer review checklists. The study was conducted with the participation of fifty eight nonEnglish major students in a university in the Mekong Delta. To gain the study „aim, the tools of pretest, posttest, questionnaire and semistructured interviews were employed to collect data, which were then quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed. The findings revealed that students utilizing peer review checklists performed better in terms of fulfilling writing task, organizing writing compositions and using specific vocabulary. The results also indicated that students were highly active, interested, and motivated in learning English writing by using peer review checklists. On the basis of the findings, the use of peer review checklists in writing class was recommended for nonEnglish major students.
INTRODUCTION
Rationale
In Vietnam, English proficiency has become a mandatory requirement for university students, with obtaining an English certificate seen as essential for post-graduation language skills Students must take various proficiency tests, including the Vietnamese Standardized Test of English Proficiency (VSTEP), to meet the language competence needs set by their institutions However, non-English major students face significant challenges in learning English, primarily due to their focus on specialized subjects and extracurricular commitments, which limits their time for dedicated English study Additionally, there is a notable gap between the English skills acquired in high school and the proficiency expected at the university level.
The challenges faced by non-English major students in the Mekong Delta are particularly pronounced, as many come from rural backgrounds where English is not prioritized in education Research by Chokwe (2013) indicates that under-resourced high schools and disadvantaged family situations adversely impact the writing abilities of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students In practical experience, it has been observed that some high school students in this region have not had opportunities to write even a single paragraph throughout their three years of English education, yet they are expected to compose essays and letters at the university level Consequently, addressing the writing skills of these students is a critical focus of this study.
English tests are designed to enhance students' proficiency and equip them with essential language skills During exam preparation, students engage in learning and mastering various skills to achieve their target scores, with test results serving as feedback on the effectiveness of their education (Bachman & Palmer, 1996) However, many students develop a negative perception of testing, prioritizing test success over genuine learning The ultimate aim of education is to enable students to use English effectively in the future (Jenkins, 2016) Learning English is a lengthy process that demands significant effort and the application of diverse methods to develop the four core skills: receptive and productive Among these, writing is often regarded as the most challenging skill for learners, as it necessitates cognitive analysis and linguistic synthesis (Grami, 2012; Lamia).
Revising writing requires significant time and effort, not only in grammar and syntax but also in organizing ideas (Weigle, 2011) Writers expend considerable cognitive energy managing various aspects of their texts, which can lead to challenges in teaching and learning writing skills Teachers often face difficulties in providing feedback on numerous compositions weekly (Huynh, 2011), while students may feel demotivated if they do not receive constructive feedback on their work Therefore, it is crucial to implement strategies that motivate students to enhance their English writing skills, ensuring their compositions are thoroughly revised This approach can lead to more effective learning outcomes for non-English major students.
At Dong Thap University, non-English major students are required to pass an English examination based on the Vietnamese Standardized Test of English Proficiency (VSTEP) to graduate, which includes listening, reading, writing, and speaking tests, with a target level of 3 (equivalent to B1) for Bachelor of Arts students However, many students face significant challenges in the writing test due to a lack of motivation and inadequate English knowledge from their high school education Observations reveal that students often find writing to be the most difficult skill, leading to anxiety and a tendency to neglect preparation for this test The writing test requires students to compose a short essay of at least 150 words for Task 2 and a letter or email of up to 120 words for Task 1, highlighting a stark contrast between their existing knowledge and the required standards To address these issues, it is essential for both teachers and students to focus on the key components of the target language.
Peer review has emerged as an effective teaching strategy in English writing classes, fostering a student-centered environment where learners can critically assess their own work (Min, 2006; Bell, 1991; Braine, 2003) It not only enhances writing skills but also provides meaningful opportunities for practicing listening and speaking (Krashen, 1982; Lockhart & Ng, 1995) Research indicates that peer review activities equip students with essential writing skills, such as engaging with a real audience and collaborative discussion (Mangelsdorf, 1992; Paulus, 1999; Lee, 1997) Furthermore, students appreciate the mutual respect fostered through peer review, which contributes to their overall improvement in writing (Harutyunyan & Poveda, 2011) However, weaker students may struggle with the review process due to uncertainty in providing suggestions and a lack of confidence (Nelson, Range, & Ross, 2012) To support these learners, implementing checklists can help organize assessments and highlight key writing requirements, making peer review more accessible and effective for students with limited backgrounds and motivation (Ferretti, 2013).
To address the challenges faced by non-English major students due to inadequate English background knowledge, it is essential to implement effective methods that not only enhance their writing skills but also motivate them to learn English beyond mere test preparation This study proposes the use of peer review checklists as a strategy to assist these students in improving their writing abilities and fostering a more positive attitude towards learning English.
Objectives of the study
This study aims to (1) gauge the impacts of applying Peer review checklist in writing classes, and (2) find out students‟ perceptions of such a method.
Research questions
The study seeks the answers for the following questions
1 Do peer-review checklists help students to enhance their writing skills? If yes, to what extent?
2 What are students’ perceptions of using Peer review checklists in writing class?
Significance of the study
The current study reinforces the significance of peer review and writing checklists in enhancing writing skills, offering valuable insights that contribute to the existing theories on these topics for future research.
This study explores the effects of peer review checklists on enhancing English writing skills, contributing to innovative approaches in teaching and learning the English language.
Scope of the study
The study focuses on utilizing peer review checklists as an instrument to help non-English major students in a university in the Mekong Delta to improve their writing skills.
Organization of the thesis
The thesis is organized into five chapters described as follows
Chapter One provides the rationale of the study at the beginning Then, the objectives and the research questions are presented before describing the scope of the study
Chapter Two presents a comprehensive literature review that outlines the framework for the current study It clarifies key terms and definitions relevant to the research, ensuring a clear understanding of essential concepts The chapter concludes by illustrating the relationships among these key terms, highlighting the gaps that this study aims to address.
The research methodology and the description of participants and research tools are seen in Chapter Three
Chapter Four reports the results through analyzing data collected The results were then discussed and compared with those presented in the prior studies
Chapter Five summarizes the key findings and draws the conclusion of the study The last section of this chapter indicates the pedagogical implications, limitations and recommendations for further research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Peer review
Peer assessment is a vital component of the learning experience, enabling students to give constructive feedback on each other's work This process fosters essential lifelong skills in evaluation and feedback, while also enhancing students' abilities in self-assessment and personal improvement.
2004) Therefore, peer review is one of the gold standards of science and academic world
Peer review is a structured process that enables students to evaluate each other's work, aiming to enhance their learning experiences and outcomes (Chittum & Bryant, 2014) This collaborative instructional activity allows students to engage in professional practices, mirroring the expectations they will face as professionals and graduate students According to Chang (2009), peer review fosters a supportive environment where students can provide constructive feedback on each other's writing, which is particularly beneficial for the process writing approach This method encourages students to develop multiple drafts, diminishing the reliance on teacher feedback as the sole source of evaluation for their writing performance.
According to Erkan and Bengü (2019), the term “peer review” can be seen as
Peer editing, also known as peer response, is a widely recognized method aimed at enhancing students' writing skills in language learning Liu and Hansen (2003) describe peer review as a broader term encompassing both peer response and peer feedback (cited in Chang, 2009) According to Soares (2017), peer feedback serves as a crucial instrument in English writing classrooms, grounded in the principles of cooperative learning.
Peer review, or evaluation, involves learners actively participating in assessing their classmates' work, which requires a clear understanding of the evaluation criteria According to McCarthy (2017), peer review is a collaborative process where students engage in mutual appreciation during learning activities This allows students to observe each other's learning processes, providing them with more detailed insights than what a teacher might gather Unlike traditional end-of-term assessments, peer assessment is designed to support students throughout their learning journey (Boud).
Peer evaluations involve students assessing one another using established criteria, which can be set by teachers or collaboratively created with students These criteria should be articulated clearly and aligned with the cognitive abilities of the students According to Mangelsdorf (1992), this approach enhances the effectiveness of peer reviews.
Empowering students to take charge of their own learning fosters a sense of responsibility and ownership By teaching them to evaluate and provide constructive feedback to their peers, we help develop essential lifelong assessment skills Additionally, enhancing student learning through the sharing of knowledge and ideas encourages collaboration and deeper understanding Ultimately, creating motivation enables students to engage in lessons with improved preparation and enthusiasm.
In this study, peer review was applied in smaller context of English language writing classroom Also, the term “peer review” is not only used interchangeably with
“peer editing” and “peer response” the same as Erkan and Bengü (2019) but also as
“peer feedback” (Liu & Hansen, 2003) and “peer assessment” by students
Peer review is the process where individuals evaluate each other's written compositions after the drafting stage This concept aligns with the ideas presented by Chittum and Bryant (2014), yet it varies in its application depending on the teaching context and the participants involved.
2.1.2 Peer review in English language teaching
Priestley et al (2012) highlight that peer assessment of teaching and curriculum remains underutilized in universities, despite its potential to enhance educators' practices through constructive feedback This collaborative approach allows teachers to reflect on their classroom strategies and learn from one another, akin to peer review methods employed in English language teaching among students Additionally, Kohut, Burnap, and Yon (2007) emphasize that engaging in peer-to-peer evaluation extends beyond merely observing others' teaching, suggesting a broader scope for participation in the assessment process.
In a collaborative classroom environment, peer assessment allows students to evaluate each other's work, fostering interaction and collaboration (Breuch, 2005) This technique serves as a valuable learning tool, providing feedback that enhances students' understanding and offers strategies for improvement (McCarthy, 2017) Additionally, assessing peers can boost the self-study and confidence of the evaluator, personalizing the learning experience and motivating ongoing engagement Boud and Falchikov (1989) noted that peer evaluations can yield critical insights into student performance when used in grading To ensure effective and reliable feedback, students must receive clear instructions on assessment criteria and scoring rules, along with practice examples Prior to providing feedback, students' ratings should be aligned with established categorizations to maintain quality (Chandler, 2003).
Peer evaluation empowers students to assess their classmates' work based on established criteria, fostering active participation in the feedback process (Vickerman, 2009; Spiller, 2012) This approach not only enhances their understanding of evaluation standards but also shifts some responsibility for assessment to the students, potentially boosting their motivation and engagement (McCarthy, 2017) Consequently, students are encouraged to delve deeper into their studies, improving their grasp of concepts and refining their evaluative skills As a result, peer assessment emerges as a vital element of learning outcomes, contributing to the development of critical thinking, judgment, and self-awareness among students (Klenowski, 1995; Hanrahan & Isaacs, 2001).
A study by Fidalgo-Blanco et al (2015) highlighted the effectiveness of peer assessment in enabling teachers to evaluate individual contributions and teamwork in various activities Teachers can implement either open or anonymous peer evaluations based on the task and context, fostering comparison and discussion among students Crucially, it is important for both students and teachers to grasp the purpose of peer assessment and their expected roles Proper preparation and clearly defined evaluation criteria are vital for facilitating successful peer assessments.
2.1.3 Peer review in English writing
In terms of teaching English writing, peer review has been applied by many researchers and proved to be fruitful for students in learning English writing skills
Peer review is a collaborative process where students read and provide feedback on each other's writing drafts, ultimately aimed at enhancing their writing skills (Lee, 1997) This technique not only fosters revision but also benefits both the readers and writers involved Tsui and Ng (2000) highlight that peer review serves as an extension of self-feedback, as multiple participants can identify errors more effectively than an individual However, the effectiveness of peer assessment can be influenced by students' confidence levels, making it challenging to gather input from shy students who may feel overlooked (Yastıbaş, 2015) These insights align with the writing process theories proposed by Seow (2002) and Sirikarn.
Peer review or peer response plays a crucial role in enhancing writing success, as highlighted in Seow (2002) and Sirikarn (2019) This process is particularly effective during the response and evaluation stages, immediately following the completion of first drafts Through peer interaction, writers can identify mistakes and learn from their peers, leading to valuable insights Furthermore, this collaborative feedback allows writers the opportunity to revise their compositions, ultimately improving the quality of their final writing products.
Writing checklist
Researchers have explored the concept of checklists in the context of teaching and learning English Erickson (2011) described a checklist as a straightforward list of assessment criteria or components essential for evaluating a student's work, allowing for a check-off to confirm completion and quality Similarly, Sue (2008) defined a checklist as an organized list of behaviors categorized to assess whether a child demonstrates the specified skills or behaviors.
In the Classroom assessment document, Brookhart (2013) highlights that checklists often provide a format for learners that may not align with specific performance standards, serving as a means to record comments for individuals, groups, or classes Similarly, Little et al (2010) describe checklists as tools for assessing the presence or absence of knowledge, skills, or behaviors They are utilized to verify whether critical tasks in procedures, processes, or activities have been completed, often involving a sequence of steps or items for confirmation Checklists can also be assigned to students to guide them through completing a procedure, typically featuring a list of tasks in one column with space in an adjacent column for marking task completion.
Checklists are essential tools in modern English language teaching, particularly in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) activities (Bhatti, Shamsudin & Said, 2018) They serve as effective instruments for assessing both the learning process and competency development in education In English language teaching, checklists function as specialized learning cards For optimal use, it is crucial for both teachers and students to grasp the theoretical foundations and practical applications of checklists (Tomlinson).
Checklists are essential tools not only for travelers and surgeons but also for managing projects that involve a series of tasks As highlighted by Atul Gawande (2010), checklists simplify complex activities, promoting consistency and efficiency among team members Given their success in various high-stakes fields like aviation, construction, and medicine, English language learners can also benefit from using checklists to enhance their learning process.
1 For young students, the checklist consists of simple tasks that can help them familiarize themselves with the process, organize learning and provide a route to complete complex tasks Older students can also do all of the above Checklist also serves as a supporting memory when you encounter unfamiliar or complex tasks
2 Checklist helps students feel proactive and responsible by removing obstacles on the path to achieve a goal
3 Checklist motivates students to complete tasks Instead of distracting and forgetting about where to start or giving up a task altogether, they always (should) know where they are on a task
4 Checklist helps communicate the details or goals of the assignment or project to teachers, parents or other relevant community members
Therefore, in this study, checklists were used as a tool to facilitate the peer review process by students, which was in accordance with the theory by Erickson
In 2011, a checklist was developed to enhance students' writing performance by aligning with established writing assessment criteria, as supported by Gawande's theory (2010) Additionally, elements of an informal letter were incorporated, following Sam's guidelines (2018), to ensure that all writing requirements were met effectively.
A checklist is a straightforward tool that consists of two main columns: one for listing criteria and characteristics, and another for marking pass or fail, or complete or incomplete status Checklists can be created manually or digitally, with various online resources available, such as checklist.com and educationworld.com According to guidelines from the Florida Center for Instructional Technology and Instructional Job Aid, the checklist design process begins by identifying key tasks and standards Next, a table is formatted to include identifiers, followed by writing clear assessment instructions for users Criteria for evaluation are then compiled and grouped appropriately A checklist frame is created with at least two columns, where the first column records the criteria and the second column allows for check marks to indicate completion status Finally, the checklist is reviewed for clarity, and feedback from fellow educators is recommended before implementation with students.
In certain EFL activities, teachers can create a comprehensive checklist aligned with specific teaching objectives, which they then explain to students for effective use For instance, Garafalo (2013) and Lam (2010) developed their checklists focusing on common essay errors, facilitating a peer editing process that progresses from simpler to more complex issues This structured approach fosters greater student engagement in peer editing, making it accessible even for weaker students who can easily grasp the initial tasks.
When creating a checklist for evaluation, teachers should ensure that it aligns with assessment results and standards The format should be simple and familiar to students, promoting easy understanding and effective communication about their learning with parents Additionally, the checklist should include space for notes or comments, with clearly defined features and descriptions to minimize misunderstandings Clear and detailed wording is essential to enhance clarity (Alberta, 2008; Instructional Job Aid, 2010).
This study developed checklists in a simple format inspired by Garafalo (2013) and writing assessment theories from Seow (2002), Romeo (2008), and Schulz (2009) for use in writing classrooms Unlike the checklist from The Florida Center for Instructional Technology (2012), which focuses on checklist design, this study aimed to enhance students' English writing skills, emphasizing their improvement as the primary objective.
A checklist serves as an invaluable resource for teachers in lesson preparation and monitoring student learning By incorporating checklists into lesson plans, particularly in writing classes, educators can effectively track skill development and processes, especially during the formative early years of instruction (Erickson).
In 2011, a checklist emerged as a valuable tool for teachers, enabling them to outline tasks and set achievable goals within the teaching process This tool facilitates ongoing evaluation, allowing educators to assess their progress against established teaching criteria and content Additionally, checklists serve to guide students in their learning, detailing essential criteria for various activities such as reading comprehension, essay writing, play creation, and evaluating collaborative attitudes during group work.
Checklists are valuable tools for student self-assessment and peer review, as teachers can provide predefined criteria to guide evaluations By effectively utilizing checklists, educators can observe students' behaviors, attitudes, and skills during classroom activities (Alberta, 2008) Additionally, checklists facilitate straightforward assessments in writing learning, allowing for evaluation without the need for in-depth analysis of work quality (Rowlands, 2007; Karges & Bone, 2000) Furthermore, teachers can leverage checklists to communicate and demonstrate students' writing progress to parents and educational administrators.
Checklists serve as an effective informal writing assessment tool, enabling both teachers and students to evaluate writing progress across various dimensions According to Romeo (2010), these checklists can be tailored using the six trait assessment model by Spandel and Culham (1993), which encompasses sentence fluency, ideas and content, voice, word choice, organization, and conventions Each aspect plays a crucial role; for instance, ideas convey the author’s message, organization ensures a coherent structure, and voice captures the reader's engagement Additionally, word choice enhances clarity and imagery, while conventions address grammar and formatting (Spandel, 2005) Educators should align checklist creation with district curriculum standards and can incorporate self-regulation and goal-setting elements For instance, during the editing phase, students can use checkboxes to confirm draft completion and spelling checks, concluding with a personal goal and actionable steps As highlighted by Graham & Harris (2005), goal setting is essential in the assessment process, and checklists can facilitate discussions, track progress, engage parents, and contribute to student portfolios.
The writing process is a comprehensive journey from initial ideas to the final draft, as highlighted by White & Arndt (1991) For writing instructors, understanding this process is crucial to enhancing students' problem-solving skills at each stage Seow (2002) identified key stages in the writing process: Planning, Drafting, Responding, Revising, Editing, Evaluation, and Post-Writing, with a particular focus on Responding, Revising, and Editing for this study Planning, or pre-writing, is essential for gathering ideas and information, while drafting allows writers to focus on fluency rather than accuracy The Responding stage is critical for success, as feedback from teachers or peers can significantly influence the writing Students then revise their work based on this feedback to improve communication effectiveness Editing follows, where students refine their texts, often using checklists to identify common errors Although not all errors need correcting, students aim to edit to the best of their ability before the final evaluation and post-writing phase.
Studies relating to peer review and writing checklists
Numerous researchers globally are exploring the impact of peer review and writing checklists on English language teaching and learning This article highlights several relevant studies that contribute to understanding these effects.
In a study by Min (2006), the effects of trained responders' feedback on EFL college students' revisions were examined, focusing on both the types and quality of revisions Following a four-hour in-class demonstration and individual teacher conferences, the researcher analyzed students' first drafts, revisions, and reviewers' feedback, comparing them to pre-training outputs The findings indicated that post-peer review training, students incorporated significantly more reviewers' comments, with peer-triggered revisions constituting 90% of total revisions Additionally, the quality of revisions improved markedly compared to pre-training levels Min concluded that thorough training in peer review feedback can effectively enhance the revision types and overall quality of EFL students' texts.
Demirel and Enginarlar (2007) highlighted the significance of peer feedback in writing, noting that it helps students develop a sense of audience, which in turn encourages more authentic writing They employed checklists as tools for peer activities, specifically comparing two groups of students using checklist A and checklist B The findings indicated that checklist B, revised by Figley and Witte (1981), resulted in students providing more detailed peer feedback than the initial checklist Additionally, Soares (2007) recommended training students to reflect on their writing clearly before engaging in peer reviews, utilizing checklists to aid this training process These checklists included a series of Yes/No questions to guide students in analyzing their peers' compositions effectively.
A study by Al-Hazmi and Scholfield (2007) focused on enhancing the English writing skills of Saudi university students learning as EFL students The research implemented a peer review system using checklists in groups of two to three students for various writing assignments Qualitative interviews with 20 students revealed significant improvements in the quality of drafts, particularly in mechanics, despite the number of changes or mistakes noted during peer reviews However, the final drafts showed only minimal improvement compared to the initial drafts.
Deni and Zainal (2009) conducted a study on advanced university writing students, implementing peer-editing checklists to enhance their writing skills The findings, derived from observations, ranking surveys, and short-answer questionnaires, indicate that these checklists positively impact students in affective, communicative, and linguistic aspects, particularly benefiting the editors more than the writers The researchers emphasize the significance of using checklists in the peer-editing process.
“maximizing the number of areas in which a student editor can be productive” and in
“minimizing the confusion that can arise in the peer-editing process” (p.155)
In a study conducted by Garofalo (2013) at a university, fifty advanced-level EFL students utilized peer editing checklists to enhance their writing skills The checklists guided students in reviewing each other's essays by highlighting focus areas and offering constructive feedback To assess the effectiveness of this method, researchers employed a short answer questionnaire and a ranking survey The findings indicated that peer editing checklists significantly benefited students in three key areas: affectivity, communicative purposes, and linguistic development Additionally, the study concluded that both writers and editors gained advantages from the peer editing process.
A study by Tai, Lin, and Yang (2015) examined the effects of peer review and teachers' corrective feedback on EFL students' online writing performance in a Taiwanese university Involving 107 nursing undergraduates, the research found that a combination of teacher and peer feedback led to greater improvements in English writing skills compared to teacher feedback alone The study also highlighted students' perceptions of peer review, noting that while they valued the quality of peer responses, they found teachers' feedback to be more impactful Additionally, although students initially lacked confidence, they gained valuable experience through the peer review process.
Yosepha and Supardi (2015) conducted a study to evaluate the effectiveness of a peer checklist in teaching letter writing to 34 eleventh-grade students through a pre-experimental research design The findings revealed that the peer checklist significantly enhances students' skills in writing application letters, particularly by increasing their self-awareness of writing criteria.
In a study by Joh (2021) involving twenty Korean university students, the conditions for successful peer assessment were explored through pre- and post-surveys and interviews The findings indicated that students excelled in collaborative group work and favored face-to-face feedback over online interactions Additionally, peer assessment was shown to enhance students' assessment skills and foster trust among peers Importantly, the study highlighted the crucial role of teacher intervention in facilitating effective peer assessment.
Recent studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of using checklists in the peer review process to enhance students' writing skills However, it is important to note that none of these studies involved participants who were non-English major university students.
In a study conducted by Ho (2009), the use of blog platforms was explored among second-year English major students in a 15-week academic writing course at a university in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam The participants utilized blogs to post their essays and received training in peer response procedures, allowing them to exchange comments on their first and second drafts Data was gathered from three drafts, peer comments, semi-structured interviews, and learning journals The quantitative analysis revealed that the predominant type of feedback generated through the blog-based peer response was "clarification."
The study reveals that blog-based peer response significantly enhances the writing quality of EFL students, as evidenced by both qualitative and quantitative analyses Students expressed positive attitudes toward this innovative technology, which serves as an effective tool for providing suggestions, explanations, and alterations in their writing process.
A study by Nguyen (2016) explored the role of peer feedback in enhancing EFL students' writing skills in tertiary education in Vietnam, emphasizing the concept of metacognition Utilizing semi-structured interviews with sixteen English majors and classroom observations, the research found that peer feedback was applied informally in English classes This highlighted the potential for metacognitive development in EFL writing contexts The study also implemented a yes/no checklist for peer feedback to ensure focused and balanced responses on key writing criteria Additionally, it proposed the use of group feedback and Jigsaw peer feedback methods to diversify the feedback process and enrich students' learning experiences.
Do (2020) investigated the effects of scaffolded peer review training on the quality of texts written by French as a foreign language students at a Vietnamese university The study involved an experimental class of twenty freshmen receiving peer review training and a control class of twenty freshmen writing texts individually The peer-assisted class underwent a structured training program that included teacher modeling, tailored peer review checklists, guidance on giving and receiving feedback, and group correction sessions Analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data revealed that the peer-assisted class significantly outperformed the individual writing class in total gain scores, task completion, idea development, coherence, and grammar.
In Vietnam, the use of peer review and peer feedback has gained popularity, mirroring global trends Checklists are recognized as valuable tools that assist students in concentrating on the review process However, the design of these checklists has not been sufficiently highlighted, which limits their effectiveness in enhancing peer review in writing classes.
METHODOLOGY
Overall Research Design
This study utilized a mixed-methods approach to leverage the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative research while minimizing their limitations (Creswell, 2018) It closely adhered to a mixed methods experimental design, collecting qualitative data through students' compositions, questionnaires, and interviews post-experiment to assess participants' experiences with the intervention (Creswell, 2018, p 271) A quasi-experimental research design focusing on a pre-test-post-test framework was primarily employed to evaluate changes in students' written production following the experimental manipulation, thereby assessing the method's effectiveness in the experimental group Subsequently, the compositions were analyzed to enhance insights from the pre- and post-test scores, while questionnaires and semi-structured interviews were conducted to gather participants' perceptions, aiming to provide a detailed and comprehensive understanding of the research.
(pre-test and post-test)
(Secondary source of data) (questionnaire, interviews)
The correlations and contrast of results from all the research instruments contributed to drawing meaning for the current study.
Context
This study focuses on a Foreign Languages and Informatics Centre at a university in the Mekong Delta region of southern Vietnam, which offers training across various fields of majors.
The center offers intensive English courses aimed at helping students achieve their English language proficiency requirements, as detailed on their website (https://nnth.dthu.edu.vn) In the 2015-2016 academic year, the center updated its syllabus and curriculum to align with the Vietnamese Standardized Test of English Proficiency Classes are held in the evenings from 6 PM to 8:15 PM and during the daytime on weekends.
The teachers at the centre possess Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in language teaching, ensuring a high standard of education To enhance teaching effectiveness, the centre regularly updates its methods and organizes meetings for the exchange of teaching practices In collaboration with the university's Foreign Languages Faculty, the centre has developed three sequential courses: General English 1, General English 2, and the English Proficiency Outcome course, with the first two courses managed by the faculty and the final course administered by the Foreign Languages and Informatics Centre.
The current textbooks for General English 1 and 2 are the Speak Out Student's Book Additionally, the English Proficiency Outcome course utilizes an internally developed book, crafted by experienced university lecturers and aligned with the VSTEP framework.
University students generally exhibit low levels of English proficiency, with only 10% of pre-test takers achieving level 3 in 2020, while 50% scored at level 1, reflecting their modest university entrance scores This highlights the urgent need to enhance English teaching and learning to equip students with the necessary skills for graduation Based on three years of research and observation, many students lack confidence in their English abilities, often feeling discouraged and hesitant to participate in English activities However, they show high motivation when teachers foster an open and dynamic learning environment.
Participants
Fifty-eight non-English major students from two classes at a university in the Mekong Delta participated in this study All participants were enrolled in English courses offered by the Foreign Languages and Informatics Centre after completing general English classes one and two Hailing from rural areas in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam, these students have never lived or studied abroad, particularly in English-speaking countries, and included both male and female participants.
The study involved participants from two classes taught by the same writing instructor, ensuring that both groups followed a synchronized syllabus and timeline This approach aimed to minimize external factors that could affect the study's outcomes.
The study involved two groups: a control group that did not participate in writing activities with peer review checklists and an experimental group that did Both groups were selected based on their equivalent English proficiency to minimize external factors influencing the research outcomes In the control group, 27.59% of participants were male (8 out of 29), while females comprised 72.1% In contrast, the experimental group had a more balanced gender ratio, with 48.3% males (14 out of 29) and 51.7% females The demographic information provided outlines the total number of participants in this research.
Table 3.1 Description of total participants in the current study
Gender Male Female Non-indicated
The illustration above represents the total number of students involved in this study, specifically during the pre-testing and post-testing phases Notably, only participants from the experimental group took part in the survey questionnaire and interviews The table below provides a detailed breakdown of the participants in the experimental group.
Table 3.2 Description of participants responding in the survey questionnaire
Gender Male Female Non-indicated
In this study, participants were organized into two groups for data analysis, with 29 students in the control group labeled SC1 to SC29 and 29 students in the experimental group labeled SE1 to SE29 Notably, one student in the experimental group did not complete the pre-test and was therefore excluded from the analysis.
Research tools
3.4.1 Pre-test and Post-test
Nunan (1992) distinguishes between different experimental designs in research: Pre-experiments lack a control group despite having pre-tests and post-tests, while Quasi-experiments include both pre-tests and post-tests along with experimental and control groups, but without random subject assignment In contrast, True-experiments incorporate all these elements along with random assignment This study employs a Quasi-experimental design, following three key stages as outlined by Marsden & Torgerson (2012): first, participants were selected; second, they completed a pre-test; and third, they underwent an educational intervention before taking the post-test The observed improvements in outcomes can be attributed to this intervention, establishing a causal relationship The accompanying figure illustrates the research stages.
Figure 3.2 The stages of conducting the research
The tests were adapted from Preliminary English Test (Cambridge, 2003) and in accordance with VSTEP marking scale in Decision No 730/ QĐ-BGDĐT in 2015
Pretest: an information email about Travelling
Teaching and learning writing skills with peer review checklist
Posttest: an information letter about Health
The article discusses the introduction of an exam format designed to evaluate English proficiency levels 3-5, aligned with Vietnam's six-level foreign language competence framework for adults, as detailed in Appendix 1.
The pre-test of this study focuses on composing an email aligned with VSTEP writing task 1, aiming to evaluate participants' email writing skills effectively.
The test, adapted from the Preliminary English Test (PET) 3 book (Cambridge, 2003), focuses on the theme of travel Participants are tasked with composing a 100-word email in response to an inquiry from an Australian friend planning to visit the writer's country for a month In their response, writers are expected to address two specific questions posed by their friend The accompanying visual provides additional details about the pre-test setup.
In the second week of the study, all participants completed a pre-test based on the English syllabus from the Foreign Languages and Informatics Centre Each group worked on the same topic for 20 minutes under teacher supervision The writing products were evaluated according to specific criteria, including Organization, Task Fulfillment, Grammar, and Vocabulary, as outlined in chapter 2.
Prior to administering the pre-test, it was reviewed by three lecturers who taught the same group of students, resulting in valuable feedback They identified an inconsistency in the use of "email" and "letter" within the test, as well as an error involving apostrophes, which was promptly corrected The lecturers agreed that the pre-test was clear and appropriate for the intended students Additionally, the test was presented to three students from the same curriculum to assess their comprehension of the material The students translated the test orally into Vietnamese, demonstrating their clear understanding of the instructions, as they accurately conveyed the test content in their native language.
The post-test of this study focuses on evaluating participants' email writing skills in alignment with VSTEP writing task 1 The primary objective is to assess their proficiency in writing emails after three months of dedicated study.
The test, adapted from the Preliminary English Test 2 book (Cambridge, 2003), focuses on the topic of Health Participants were tasked with writing a 120-word letter offering advice to a pen friend Specifically, they needed to address three key aspects of maintaining a healthy lifestyle: eating habits, exercise, and daily activity The accompanying visual illustrates the post-test results.
In the post-testing phase, participants from the control group were integrated into the experimental group's schedule The assessment occurred in the eleventh week of the course, with participants dedicating 20 minutes to complete the task under teacher supervision, mirroring the pre-test conditions The writing outputs of the participants were evaluated based on specific criteria.
Task Fulfillment, Organization, Grammar, and Vocabulary the same as those at pre- test stage
The validation process for the post-test mirrored that of the pre-test, leading to significant changes after feedback from lecturers Although the test was adapted from PET 2 (Cambridge, 2003), two out of three lecturers suggested incorporating specific questions to enhance clarity and relevance for students In response to this feedback, the post-test was revised to include three targeted questions about maintaining a healthy lifestyle: (1) how do you eat and drink? (2) how do you engage in physical exercise? and (3) what good habits do you practice daily?
The questionnaire is a widely utilized tool for data collection, particularly in this study, where it gathered participants' perceptions of using peer review checklists This method enables objective grading and analysis of data (Oxford, 1990) and facilitates the collection of substantial information in a short period (Dürnyei, 2003) The questionnaire was crafted in alignment with the research objectives and informed by relevant theories on informal writing assessment (Seow, 2002) and effective writing assessment and instruction (Schulz, 2009).
The study's questionnaire, detailed in Appendix 3, is structured into two sections: the first gathers personal information such as age, gender, and majors, while the second features 16 closed-response items Participants were instructed to select their answers by ticking the provided choices These items focus on three primary areas: (1) students' perceptions of the impact of peer review checklists on essential writing criteria, and (2) students' views on how these checklists influence their writing performance.
A study explored students' perceptions of using a peer review checklist in writing classrooms, utilizing a questionnaire rated on a five-point Likert scale (1- strongly disagree to 5- strongly agree) Participants were instructed to circle their opinions on the provided scale, and the questionnaire was presented in Vietnamese to facilitate understanding.
Table 3.3 The three main clusters of the questionnaire
Students’ perceptions of the effects of peer review checklists on key criteria of writing
Students’ perceptions of the effects of peer review checklist on writing performance
Students’ perceptions of the use of peer review checklist in writing classroom
The validation process of the questionnaire involved several key stages: initially, it was reviewed by three lecturers familiar with the teaching context for clarity and validity After incorporating their feedback, the researcher sought additional revisions from a PhD expert in Taiwan before consulting the supervisor Following the supervisor's input, the questionnaire was refined further It was then translated into Vietnamese and reviewed by two lecturers for accuracy before being piloted with thirty students from the same program to ensure compatibility Ultimately, the finalized questionnaire was administered to participants immediately after they completed the post-test.
The validating stage serves three key purposes: first, it ensures that the language used is familiar to the participants; second, it assesses the clarity of the items; and third, it aims to eliminate any vague or difficult items.
Designing peer review checklists
The checklist designed for this study was primarily influenced by Garafalo's (2013) format and Sam's (2018) theory on informal letter writing It encompasses four key components: (1) Salutation, which includes the recipient's title followed by a comma; (2) Introduction, consisting of a response to the previous letter and the purpose of the correspondence; (3) Body, which addresses the specific questions posed in the topic letter; and (4) Closing, where the writer concludes with warm phrases, such as an invitation or meaningful statement, followed by a closing salutation like "love" or "best wishes." For further details, refer to Appendix 5, which presents the peer review checklist for writing an informal letter.
The validation process of the checklist in this study involved several key stages Initially, the researcher designed the checklist based on relevant theories Subsequently, it was reviewed by two lecturers, who provided valuable feedback, including the suggestion to incorporate all scoring criteria and to rephrase certain items for clarity The researcher then piloted the checklist with eight students from the same curriculum, which led to the addition of a Word Count item and the recommendation to flexibly adapt task questions based on the given topic Finally, the checklist was submitted to the supervisor for further revision prior to its application with students.
In this study, checklists were tailored to meet the specific requirements of tasks during the experimental weeks, based on a validated framework A sample checklist from week 3, focusing on the topic of Family, is provided in Appendix 5b.
Piloting
A pilot study is essential for evaluating the feasibility and effectiveness of data collection methods, as highlighted by Mackey and Grass (2005) It allows researchers to refine their research tools prior to full implementation, ensuring more reliable outcomes.
Therefore, before the research tools and the checklist were used in this study, they were piloted to check its feasibility for the study
Following the validation of the questionnaire, a pilot study was conducted with 30 participants during the third week of learning The feedback received from these students led to modifications aimed at enhancing clarity for the official study Their responses were instrumental in assessing the questionnaire's reliability After removing four questions, the SPSS reliability scale reached 0.811, indicating strong reliability for the study Additionally, the reliability scale for the data collection questionnaire was also above 0.7, with a value of α = 0.793.
The interview questions, crafted in both Vietnamese and English, underwent a review by experienced lecturers for constructive feedback To ensure clarity and effectiveness, three participants participated in a pilot session, responding to the questions individually Following the interview, they provided insights into the familiarity and challenges they faced with the questions Additionally, the researcher observed the participants' responses to identify and address any ambiguities in the questions.
Feedback from students indicated that the term "peer review checklists" was challenging to understand, with many finding it strange They agreed that "checklist" should remain untranslated in Vietnamese, as they were familiar with the method Following consultations with three lecturers, it was decided to keep "peer review checklists" in English, providing a full oral explanation and a note in Vietnamese for clarity This approach was effective since the respondents were part of the experimental group that utilized the checklists.
Data Collection Procedures
The data of the study was collected in different stages through four instruments during the spring semester of the academic year 2020-2021
In a study involving two classes, participants were divided into a control group and an experimental group, each following a ten-week syllabus The experimental group utilized a peer review checklist, which they were trained to use in week 2 and applied during weeks 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 Both groups completed a pre-test in week 2 and a post-test in week 9, with their compositions evaluated by two experienced lecturers who held master's degrees from Australia and had undergone training in VSTEP assessment and test design Notably, the lecturers were unaware of which group the compositions belonged to when grading them.
Secondly, a questionnaire was employed to examine experimental group‟s perceptions of the effects of peer review checklists in the process of learning writing skills
A semi-structured interview was conducted to gain deeper insights into participants' perspectives on the use of peer review checklists in writing classes The interviews were conducted in Vietnamese, and the main ideas were summarized and presented in English for this study.
Before participating in the experimental group, all students received training on how to effectively use peer review checklists This training was conducted during writing classes and followed specific steps to ensure comprehension and application of the checklist.
Step 1: Students were paired and exchanged their compositions to each other
Step 2: Teacher expressed the purposes of using checklists before delivering checklists to students At this stage, the teacher also explained openly each item on the checklist to make sure that students understood Questions were all addressed at this stage
Step 3: Students worked as editors They had to go through each item on the checklist and commented if needed
Step 4: Two students compared their checklists in each item If there were disagreement, teacher decided on the correctness as a mediator
Step 5: After checking through the checklist, students as writers set about revision
Step 6: Writers submitted their revised draft to the teacher in the following section
Initially, students were restricted from choosing their partners to prevent them from only selecting close friends According to Yosepha and Supardi (2015), allowing students to select their partners freely enhances comfort and effectiveness in collaboration However, since participants came from various majors, they were already in class with some friends If given the freedom to choose partners, they might miss the opportunity to learn from peers outside their immediate social circles Additionally, the peer review checklist process in class adhered to these guidelines, but step 2 was skipped to save time.
Data Analysis
The study employed a mixed-methods approach, utilizing both qualitative and quantitative data for analysis Data collection involved three phases, supported by SPSS 20.0 Initially, pre-test and post-test data were gathered, followed by quantitative data from questionnaires Finally, qualitative insights from interviews were used to triangulate the questionnaire data, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the research findings.
The study analyzed pre-test and post-test data using two methods: a Paired Sample T-Test in SPSS 20.0 to compare scores assessed by two experienced lecturers, and a detailed analysis of participants' writing products based on four specific criteria The findings from these approaches were correlated and integrated to provide a comprehensive explanation of the research questions.
The analysis of quantitative data from the questionnaire involved calculating mean scores and frequencies, while qualitative data from interviews were categorized based on participants' responses to each question This organization of answers by question facilitated the identification of consistencies and differences among participants (Taylor – Powell & Renner, 2003).
Ethical considerations
All participants in this study are volunteers who have been thoroughly informed about the research's objectives and procedures Their involvement in the peer review checklist activity and evaluation is designed to ensure no physical or psychological harm Importantly, any identifying information is strictly confidential and only accessible to the research coordinators The questionnaire responses are solely collected for the purpose of this study.
Summary
This chapter outlines the methodology of the current study, beginning with an overview of the research design It details the study's context and participants, followed by an explanation of the research instruments used, including pre-test-post-test assessments, questionnaires, and interviews The chapter also covers the piloting process and the development of checklists Additionally, it explains the data collection and analysis procedures, concluding with a description of the training conducted using peer review checklists The results of the study will be summarized in the subsequent chapter.