INTRODUCTION
Rationale of the study
In today's society, learning a foreign language, particularly English, has become increasingly essential English is integral to various aspects of daily life, including academics and leisure activities like internet browsing and travel Acknowledging its significance, many learners are seeking effective strategies for mastering English Recent analyses of teaching methods aim to enhance English learning, with peer correction emerging as a valuable tool in classrooms Many English learners often feel uncomfortable when writing essays or paragraphs, a discomfort that may stem from teachers focusing on correcting every error This has led to a shift from teacher-centered to student-centered approaches in language education Providing feedback on students' writing is crucial in second language acquisition, and various methods exist, including teacher-student conferences, peer correction, self-correction, and teacher correction Research by Witbeck (1976) indicates that peer correction helps students identify and rectify their mistakes, ultimately leading to improved writing skills.
Mistakes are a natural part of communication, and teachers now serve as facilitators, monitors, and advisors in the learning process This shift in their role has led to increased tolerance for students' errors, fostering a more supportive educational environment.
The evolving role of teachers requires students to take greater responsibility for their learning, actively participating in the educational process By creating engaging activities that encourage collaboration in pairs and groups, teachers can foster a motivating environment This approach not only enhances student autonomy but also boosts motivation, leading to improved outcomes Consequently, the researcher investigates the impact of peer correction on students' writing skills and their attitudes towards this technique Implementing peer correction in the classroom promotes cooperation, involvement, and interaction among students, which can significantly enhance their writing abilities.
In Thanh Hoa province, high school students, particularly those in grade 11, often exhibit shyness and nervousness when seeking writing corrections from teachers, preferring instead to approach their classmates for help This observation leads to the conclusion that peer correction may be the most effective technique for these students While numerous studies have explored peer correction, there remains a lack of in-depth research focusing specifically on high school students Consequently, the researcher has chosen to undertake a thesis on the topic of peer correction among grade 11 students at a high school in Thanh Hoa province.
Aim and objectives of the study
The study focused on enhancing the writing skills of grade 11 students at a high school in Thanh Hoa province by implementing peer correction strategies in the classroom The primary objective was to improve student writing through collaborative feedback and support among peers.
1 To find out effectiveness of peer correction in helping students improve their writing skill
2 To examine the attitudes of the grade 11 students at a high school in Thanh Hoa province towards peer correction.
Research questions
In an attempt to achieve the aims and objectives stated above, the following research questions were addressed:
1 To what extent does peer correction enable students to enhance their writing skill?
2 What are the grade 11 students’ attitudes towards peer correction in writing lessons?
Scope of the study
The study limits itself to 30 grade 11 students at a high school in Thanh
In Hoa province, the focus of the study is limited to the peer correction method and students' attitudes towards it, excluding other correction techniques like teacher correction or self-correction While peer correction can be utilized across various English skills, this research specifically emphasizes its application in enhancing writing skills.
Method of the study
The study was conducted in the following steps:
Firstly, Pre-test was administered to test students’ ability to recognizing mistakes in a paragraph given by the teacher
Secondly, Portfolio was employed to recognize students’ progress in writing performance from the first paragraph till the last paragraph (the fifth one)
Next, Post-test was used to see whether there was a positive change in students’ ability to identify mistakes when reading a paragraph given by the teacher or not
Lastly, the survey questionnaire for students was employed at the end of the study to investigate the students’ attitudes towards peer correction.
Significance of the study
This study plays a crucial role in enhancing English teaching and learning in high schools It aims to contribute to the writing instruction process and facilitate the transition from a teacher-centered approach to a more student-centered learning environment.
English teachers can gain valuable insights into students' attitudes toward peer correction in writing lessons, which will help them decide whether to implement this approach in their teaching Additionally, this study serves as a reference for other researchers interested in exploring students' perspectives on peer correction.
Structural organization
The study consists of five chapters:
Chapter I, Introduction, presents the rationale, aim and objectives, research questions, scope, significance and design of the study
Chapter II, Literature Review, reviews theoretical issues related to error correction, types of error correction including teacher correction, self- correction and peer correction
Chapter III presents the methodology of the study, including the background information of the context where the study is conducted, the subject, the instruments used to collect data, and the procedures of data collection
Chapter IV, Findings and Discussion, provides a comprehensive analysis of the data, summarizing the key findings of the study while offering in-depth interpretations and explanations This chapter aims to present a thorough discussion of the results, highlighting their significance and implications.
Chapter V, the Conclusion, summarizes the key findings of the study and offers concluding remarks It also addresses the limitations encountered during the research and presents suggestions for future studies.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Teaching writing
Teaching writing is essential for developing students' ability to express their ideas through written text Educators should focus on guiding students in understanding the structure of various text types, including descriptive, narrative, procedure, and report formats, as outlined by Depdiknas (2006) However, Widiati (2003) noted that the current teaching methods may not align with students' diverse literacy levels, leading to challenges in brainstorming and organizing ideas into coherent paragraphs Alwasilah (2004) emphasized that writing is often perceived as the most challenging language skill for both students and teachers To improve writing skills, Harmer (2004) proposed a structured approach that includes planning, drafting, editing, and producing a final version This process encourages writers to brainstorm ideas, revise their drafts based on feedback, and ultimately create a polished piece of writing.
The process of writing
The writing process involves four essential stages: planning, drafting, revising, and editing, as outlined by Richard and Renandya (2002: 303) Initially, students focus on brainstorming and organizing their ideas during the planning phase In the drafting stage, they prioritize writing fluency, temporarily setting aside concerns about grammar and coherence Following this, the revising stage allows students to refine their work based on feedback from teachers and peers Finally, in the editing stage, students make necessary corrections to prepare their final draft for submission.
Hyland (2004) emphasizes that understanding the writing process is essential for students to produce quality writing This process includes several key steps: first, teachers and students collaboratively select a topic Next, during the pre-writing phase, students engage in brainstorming, data collection, note-taking, and outlining The drafting stage follows, where students express their ideas in written form After drafting, students receive feedback through revisions from teachers or peers Subsequently, the evaluation phase involves teachers assessing students' work, often presented in class Finally, a follow-up task is conducted to highlight areas for improvement in students' writing.
Teachers play a crucial role in guiding students through the writing process, ensuring they understand the necessary steps to create clear and coherent essays By effectively instructing students on these writing processes, educators can significantly enhance the quality of their students' writing, leading to greater transparency in their content and improved overall writing skills.
Error correction
Writing is a crucial skill in learning English, as students must create paragraphs and essays However, they frequently encounter mistakes in their writing Understanding the common types of errors and their frequency is essential for providing timely instruction and support to improve students' writing abilities.
There are many studies conducted on error correction Darus and Ching
In 2009, a research study was conducted to analyze the prevalent errors made by 70 Chinese students in their essay writing The study involved collecting and examining 70 essays to identify these common mistakes.
A study identified 18 types of errors in student writing, highlighting that students often struggle with mechanics, tenses, subject-verb agreement, and prepositions It was found that the first language (L1) significantly impacts students' second language (L2) writing skills Supporting this, research by Watcharapunyawong and Usaha (2013) examined Thai students' writing mistakes, revealing similar trends influenced by the Thai language In their study, 40 second-year English majors produced 120 paragraphs across three writing styles: descriptive, narrative, and contrast/comparison The findings indicated frequent errors in word choice, tenses, structure, prepositions, and articles.
Teachers often believe that errors indicate a lack of language learning, but making mistakes is a natural part of acquiring a second language In fact, errors signify that students are actively engaging in the learning process To enhance language proficiency, it is essential to focus on effective error correction strategies that help students learn from their mistakes.
Teachers play a crucial role in helping students identify and avoid mistakes, traditionally acting as the primary source of knowledge However, it's important for educators to correct errors thoughtfully, as emotional responses can negatively impact sensitive students To foster a positive learning environment, teachers should be mindful of their correction methods.
The effectiveness of error correction in education has been a contentious topic among researchers, as highlighted by Semke (1984) Despite repeated corrections, students often continue to make the same mistakes, raising questions about the impact of traditional error correction methods.
Ferris (1999) suggested that error correction significantly impacts students' writing; however, Semke (1984) and Zamel (1985) reviewed earlier studies and found no evidence supporting this claim They highlighted practical challenges related to teachers' ability and willingness to provide error correction, as well as students' receptiveness to it, sparking international debate in academic literature Additionally, Krashen (1978) contended that error correction does not enhance students' writing performance.
Feedback refers to the responses or comments provided by teachers or peers regarding a student's completed tasks, playing a crucial role in the educational process, particularly in writing and speaking As noted by Lightbown and Spada (1999), feedback is instrumental in helping students identify and understand their mistakes in the target language.
The importance of feedback emerged alongside the rise of student-centered writing instruction in North American L1 composition classes during the 1970s, primarily focusing on supporting students in their writing development.
10 through a lot of drafts by giving feedback and suggesting revisions during the writing process rather than at the end of the process
Nakanishi (2007) investigated the impact of different types of feedback on essay revisions among 40 Japanese intermediate EFL students The participants, all female second-year music majors, were divided into four groups: self-feedback, peer feedback, teacher feedback, and a combination of peer and teacher feedback The findings revealed that the group receiving both peer and teacher feedback (Group D) achieved the highest scores, while the self-feedback group (Group A) obtained the lowest Notably, 90% of Group D students found the combined feedback beneficial, whereas only 25% of Group A students deemed self-feedback useful Additionally, Mendonca and Johnson (1994) explored peer review negotiations among ESL students, finding that over 50% incorporated peer feedback into their final drafts, while 37% revised their texts independently, highlighting the varying influences of feedback on revision practices.
Providing feedback to students is a crucial responsibility for teachers, as highlighted by Hyland (2006) Effective feedback can take various forms, including written comments, error corrections, one-on-one conferencing between teachers and students, or discussions among peers.
Types of error correction
Teacher correction, as defined by Irons (2008), encompasses various processes and activities aimed at enhancing student learning through feedback and comments related to specific tasks or assessments.
Teacher feedback is essential for assessing students' writing improvement, as defined by Mottet (2008) as information from a source to a recipient regarding the accuracy of their performance Students generally prefer teacher corrections, viewing them as precise and trustworthy due to teachers' expertise However, research indicates that ESL writing teachers often provide similar types of feedback, primarily focusing on specific language errors Silva & Brice (2004) noted that the effectiveness of teacher correction can vary, sometimes aiding, hindering, or having no impact on student learning Additionally, teacher correction may lead to confusion among students (Sommers, 1982), and Leki (1990) found no evidence that well-written comments significantly improve subsequent writing.
Teacher correction is the most commonly used method for improving students' writing, playing a crucial role in second language writing classes (Hyland & Hyland, 2002) There are two main types of teacher correction: direct and indirect Direct correction involves providing detailed feedback on specific errors, while indirect correction simply indicates that errors exist without specifying them Ferris (2007) identified three strategies for teachers to highlight mistakes: coded correction, which utilizes abbreviations or symbols; uncoded correction, which marks errors with underlines or circles; and a third method that remains unspecified.
12 made) and marginal error feedback (use margin to point out the quantity of mistakes in each line)
Teachers invest significant time in marking students' writing, yet many doubt the effectiveness of their corrections in improving student writing skills (Lee, 2005) Over-correction can demotivate students, highlighting the need for teacher feedback to focus primarily on lesson content Additionally, when students fail to revise their drafts, it may stem from teachers' ineffective responses to their writing Those who prioritize grammatical and lexical accuracy often overlook other important writing aspects, limiting the scope of their corrections.
Subjective assessment in language evaluation can lead to imbalanced grading, particularly when teachers focus primarily on grammar For example, a teacher may assign a low score to a writing piece due to grammatical errors, overlooking important aspects like cohesion, coherence, vocabulary, and the overall ideas presented This approach is unfair to students, as they are in the process of learning a second language, and mistakes are a natural part of that journey.
Teacher correction involves providing feedback through symbols, marks, or comments related to specific language errors made by students While many students appreciate receiving corrections, the effectiveness of this technique in enhancing their writing skills remains a debated topic.
Traditionally, teachers have been the primary source of feedback on student mistakes; however, modern teaching methods now emphasize various forms of correction and feedback Bitchener, Young, and Cameron (2005) highlighted the value of self-correction, where teachers provide options that empower students to identify and correct their own errors This approach not only enhances students' awareness of their frequent mistakes but also helps them recognize knowledge gaps that need addressing Buchanan (2004) noted that self-correction fosters greater student engagement in their learning processes Additionally, Shunk (2000) suggested that when students practice self-correction, they gain control over their learning, allowing them to focus on areas of personal interest Ultimately, as Cobb (1994) pointed out, the effectiveness of the teaching and learning process increases when students are actively involved in all educational activities.
Engaging students in self-correction allows them to evaluate their own performances, boosting their confidence and enhancing their learning experience This active participation in the correction process leads to long-lasting memory retention Research by Krashen and Pan (1975) indicates that advanced language learners can correct up to ninety-five percent of their mistakes, while Kavaliauskiene (2003) emphasizes the importance of allowing students to revise their writing independently However, teachers should first review students' work to identify errors, as noted by Wood (2004), who found that students appreciate this guidance.
14 revising their writing and then make a comparison between the first composition with the second one
Self-correction positively impacts students by helping them remember their mistakes and avoid repeating them, fostering greater confidence and independence It also serves as a valuable tool for teachers to assess students' understanding However, self-correction has drawbacks, such as students struggling to identify their errors, which can lead to feelings of demotivation and pressure As a solution, peer correction is suggested as an alternative correction technique.
Correction in writing as a process
In the context of English as a Foreign Language (EFL), Zohrabi and Rezaie (2012) noted that written text evaluation primarily focused on correcting linguistic errors, such as grammar and spelling, which often overlooked critical elements of the writing process Cassany (2000) emphasized that effective writing encompasses not only grammar, spelling, and layout but also vocabulary, cohesion, and structure By integrating these essential components into their writing, learners can better align with their teachers' expectations.
Traditional teaching methods restrict students' engagement in evaluating their own writing, leaving them unaware of their weaknesses They often submit their work for grading without receiving constructive feedback or suggestions for improvement As a result, students may not understand their mistakes or the reasons behind them, which can lead to discouragement and negatively impact their motivation to write.
While teachers should not entirely abandon conventional correction methods, it is essential to recognize that learners, particularly those at the basic or elementary levels of a second language, still desire and expect feedback on their linguistic errors Therefore, feedback should be balanced, focusing on various aspects of writing and aligning with different stages of the writing process.
Teaching writing as a process is essential; otherwise, students may only produce work to fulfill teacher requirements, resulting in a one-time effort without valuable feedback for improvement By embracing writing as a process, learners can view it as a chance to express their ideas and engage in drafting, correcting, and editing This approach not only enhances their writing skills but also fosters satisfaction, motivation, and pride in their work.
Error code and error logs
Error codes and logs play a crucial role in the revision stage for students, providing essential feedback on their writing These correction codes help learners identify mistakes related to lexical and grammatical elements, such as form and function As Byrne (1988) notes, correction codes involve underlining errors and using symbols to direct students' attention to specific mistakes This technique encompasses various language aspects, including verb tense, word order, and spelling Both teachers and learners benefit significantly from error codes, as they facilitate a practical approach to revising writing as a problem-solving task Additionally, error codes offer students clear guidelines for revision and a standardized set of symbols to enhance their writing skills.
16 reviews Students can take advantage of error codes as they give them information on the mistakes they make According to Bright and McGregor
In 1970, it was suggested that implementing a system of signals, such as error codes, can assist learners in identifying their writing errors before they develop advanced proofreading skills This approach not only makes corrections more organized and less intimidating than traditional red ink but also requires that error codes be clear and well-explained to students By utilizing error codes, educators can provide concise feedback, allowing more time for thorough writing corrections Furthermore, this technique fosters greater autonomy in students' writing processes.
Utilizing error logs can significantly enhance students' writing accuracy by allowing them to monitor mistakes related to verb tense, word choice, punctuation, capitalization, and subject-verb agreement These logs enable learners to track the types and frequency of their errors, helping them identify and avoid recurring linguistic mistakes in their texts.
Previous studies
Peer correction, often referred to as 'peer review', 'peer response', or 'peer feedback', gained popularity in the 1980s despite being suggested earlier According to Flower (1979), peer feedback involves learners providing suggestions, comments, and inquiries to one another after reading a piece of writing, aiming to enhance the quality of reader-based prose Liu and Hansen (2002) define peer correction as utilizing learners as sources of information and interaction to improve writing skills.
Peer correction is a collaborative learning technique where students take on roles typically held by trained educators, providing constructive feedback on each other's drafts through written and oral critiques This process not only fosters a supportive environment for sharing ideas but also allows learners to reflect on and learn from their mistakes, enhancing their writing skills According to Brown (1997:7), this approach encourages active participation and responsibility among learners in the writing process.
Students must develop a fresh perspective on their work to grasp the rationale behind assessment decisions and identify areas for improvement This approach fosters a sense of responsibility for their own learning, reflecting the shift from teacher-centered to learner-centered educational methods.
Peer correction has proven effective in both first and second language learning, actively engaging students in the educational process This technique allows students to identify and learn from their peers' mistakes, ultimately enhancing their writing skills According to Witbeck (1976), peer correction encourages students to explore various errors, leading to improved writing outcomes Additionally, it empowers students to assess their own learning, fostering a sense of control over their educational journey As Rief (1990) noted, peer correction promotes student responsibility and active participation in evaluating each other's work, moving away from a reliance on teacher feedback.
(1985) and Mittan (1989) assumed that teacher feedback cannot be as authentic and honest as peer review Peer review enables students to engage in the lesson
18 and thus, creates and boost the atmosphere of cooperation in class Below is an illustration of peer correction in the language classroom:
Monica: Trains are safer planes
Teacher: Safer planes? (with surprised questioning intonation)
Monica: Oh… Trains are safer than planes
Teacher: Good, Monica Now, ‘comfortable’ … Simon?
Simon: Trains are more comfortable Planes are
Teacher: Hmm Can you help Simon, Bruno?
Bruno: Er… Trains are more comfortable than planes
Simon: Trains are more comfortable than planes
In the classroom, the teacher employs peer correction by calling on Bruno to assist Simon, fostering collaboration and support among students This approach not only maximizes opportunities for language practice but also encourages student involvement in discussions, rather than allowing the teacher to monopolize the questioning process Ultimately, this method ensures that each student has the chance to grasp the language concepts being taught.
The practice of having students review each other's writing has become increasingly popular in composition classrooms due to its positive effects on writing skills Research by Hasson (2014) highlights that peer correction is tailored to students' levels and offers more insights compared to teacher feedback Additionally, peer review can foster a more positive attitude towards writing, serving as a motivating factor for students to enhance their skills.
Engaging in the writing process allows students to learn from their peers by sharing and reading each other’s work, fostering a sense of responsibility for their writing According to Zariski (1996), peer correction equips students with essential lifelong evaluation skills However, the effectiveness of peer correction in enhancing students' writing skills remains a debated topic that requires further exploration (Paulus, 1999).
Brammer and Rees (2007) highlighted that effective peer feedback requires essential skills like time management, social interaction, and constructive criticism, which can pose challenges for both teachers and students Additionally, Paulus (1999) noted that students might hesitate to accept feedback from peers who are also in the process of learning the language, leading to a lack of trust in their critiques.
Research on the impact of peer correction on students' writing achievement has yielded mixed results While some studies suggest that peer correction is ineffective, Brammer & Rees (2007) found that among 328 first-year students in a writing course, teachers viewed peer correction as beneficial for writing development Despite this, many students reported that peer correction was not helpful, with one-third considering it only occasionally useful for revising their work Additionally, Paulus (1999) noted that although revision improved students' writing scores, they favored teacher feedback over peer feedback.
A study by Azamoosh (2013) revealed that a significant majority of students, 52.9%, expressed positive attitudes towards peer correction, as indicated by the results of a post-questionnaire on peer evaluation.
A study by Kaufman and Shunn (2010) indicated that students had a negative perception of peer correction in both pre and post surveys, with 20% and 44.4% expressing dissatisfaction, respectively Brammer and Rees (2007) suggested that this negative sentiment may stem from students' lack of confidence in assessing their peers' work and their belief that they are not sufficiently qualified to provide constructive feedback.
Peer correction in classrooms fosters cooperation, collaboration, and communication among students, while also enhancing their autonomy and engagement in classroom activities.
Cooperative or collaborative learning occurs when students engage in group learning, emphasizing the importance of communication and collaboration between teachers and students rather than just group structure Research by Yurick et al (2006) through three experimental studies demonstrated that peer correction significantly enhances students' pronunciation and fluency, leading to notable improvements in their language skills.
Peer correction varies in its nature and impact due to several factors In speaking lessons, students often feel embarrassed when corrected by classmates, leading to discomfort as they fear being compared to their peers and losing face in front of the class, which can foster feelings of inferiority Similarly, in writing, research by Sima Sengupta (1998) indicates that students experience embarrassment when their work is critiqued by peers Additionally, a lack of trust in peer feedback can result in students choosing not to revise their work, further diminishing the effectiveness of this correction method.
Peer correction can falter when students believe their classmates lack the expertise to identify mistakes effectively This perception undermines the value of peer feedback, leading to unsuccessful correction efforts.
METHODOLOGY
Restatement of research questions
The study aimed at improving the grade 11 students’ writing skills at a high school in Thanh Hoa province Specifically, the researcher attempted to find the answers for the following questions:
1 To what extent does peer correction enable students to enhance their writing skill?
2 What are the attitudes of the grade 11 students at a high school in Thanh Hoa province towards peer correction in writing lessons?
Context of the study
3.2.1 The setting of the study
The research was conducted at a public high school in Thanh Hoa province The school was established in 1977 Currently, it has 25 classes with
58 teachers of various subjects and more than 850 students from 8 villages nearby The curriculum of the school is divided into three streams: natural sciences, social sciences and basic
There are 9 English teachers at the school, and all of them have at least
With two years of teaching experience, the educators graduated from various universities in Vietnam, including Vinh University and the University of Languages and International Studies, where two of them earned their Master's degrees Additionally, the researcher is currently employed part-time as an English teacher at a high school while pursuing further studies.
The MA course at the University of Languages and International Studies was conducted with the principal's permission and support from fellow English teachers, facilitating the research process.
At this high school, English is a mandatory subject, and the administration is dedicated to fostering a positive learning environment for students To enhance their English skills, the school organizes a weekend English club that provides additional opportunities for practice and engagement.
Students have 25 opportunities to communicate and interact in English, fostering a comfortable environment where they can speak freely with peers and friends This positive change has enhanced the overall quality of the school, creating a more pleasant, comfortable, and cheerful atmosphere for teaching and learning English.
The study involved 30 randomly selected grade 11 students, comprising 15 boys and 15 girls, from a high school in Thanh Hoa province, where approximately 250 students are enrolled Most participants, aged 17, came from rural backgrounds and had been studying English for six years However, their focus in school was primarily on memorizing vocabulary and grammar rules, leading to inadequate skills in constructing full sentences Consequently, many students exhibited low English writing proficiency Additionally, they expressed reluctance to have their work reviewed by teachers, fearing that their mistakes would label them as poor students.
The researcher opted not to include grade 10 students in the study due to not being assigned to teach them, which would complicate the research process Consequently, this decision was made to ensure a more effective and manageable study environment.
12 students since they were busy preparing for the university entrance exam.
Research approach
The research was carried out as a classroom action research There are different ways in which action research is defined Brown (2002) defined that
Action research is a vital investigative method for teachers aimed at resolving classroom issues and enhancing professional practices It involves systematic observations and data collection, allowing educators to reflect on their findings and make informed decisions to develop more effective teaching strategies According to Emily Calhoun (1994), this process entails studying school dynamics to implement improvements Christine Miller (2007) emphasizes that action research is essential in education, as it enables teachers to observe students, gather data, and modify practices to foster a better learning environment Ultimately, action research equips teachers with the insights needed to understand and support their students effectively.
Action research model is a method to facilitate change by helping involve the client system in a diagnostic, active-learning, problem-finding and problem-solving process
The most common action research model used is the 7-step Warner Burke action research model which is illustrated below:
Action research, despite varying definitions, is primarily focused on finding solutions to real problems in educational settings and enhancing instructional methods to boost student achievement This aligns perfectly with the aim of this study, which investigates the positive effects of peer correction on students' writing performance, thereby justifying the choice of action research as the methodological approach.
Data collection instruments
This research utilized a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods for data collection and analysis Data was gathered using three instruments: a questionnaire, pre-test and post-test assessments, and a portfolio.
3.4.1 Pre-test and Post-test
Tests serve as a vital tool for evaluating research, as noted by Seliger & Shohamy (1989: 176), who emphasize their role in collecting data on participants' proficiency in various aspects of a second language, including lexical resources and grammar In this study involving 30 students in an experimental condition, an essay was administered twice to assess their abilities before and after the treatment, functioning as both a pre-test and post-test.
A study was conducted to evaluate the impact of peer correction on students' ability to identify mistakes, a crucial aspect of self-development Participants were given an essay to read and were tasked with recognizing errors The essay was presented to the students on two separate occasions to assess their improvement in mistake recognition.
Tests offer several advantages, such as objectively measuring students' language proficiency and providing reliable results However, they also have drawbacks, as students may experience anxiety that affects their performance, leading to an inaccurate reflection of their true abilities To address this issue, portfolios have been introduced as an alternative assessment tool.
A portfolio is a curated collection of evidence showcasing an individual's abilities throughout their learning journey, encompassing various forms such as writing samples, teacher and peer evaluations, and research projects Those who compile portfolios are actively engaged in their learning process (Wade, Abrami, & Sclater, 2005) As noted by Barrett (2000) and Challis (2005), two key characteristics of portfolios are that they facilitate the measurement of learning and development over time.
This study utilized a portfolio from week 1 to week 5 of the second semester, comprising five paragraphs aimed at assessing the enhancement of students' writing skills from the initial paragraph to the final one.
Questionnaire was used as a source to gather data in the study There were several advantages to using questionnaire First, questionnaire enables the
Utilizing a questionnaire allows researchers to gather data from a diverse population while providing both qualitative and quantitative insights A well-organized questionnaire with a large number of respondents enhances data credibility Additionally, this method is cost-effective and easy to implement Despite the time-consuming nature of constructing a questionnaire, its benefits make it a preferred choice for researchers.
This study investigated high school students' attitudes towards peer correction through a questionnaire featuring six items Students responded using a four-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree, and were also provided a section to share additional thoughts and opinions.
Oral instructions and explanations in Vietnamese were provided by the researcher in order to avoid any misunderstanding.
Data collection procedure
At the start of the study, participants completed a pre-test before receiving detailed instructions on how to provide constructive feedback on their peers' errors Conducted over four months in the second semester, the study required students to write five paragraphs on textbook topics, following a structured process to enhance their learning experience.
Firstly, after students got the topics and brainstormed them, they started to write their paragraphs
Secondly, when they accomplished their first draft, the paragraphs would be mingled in order that students could read their peers’ paragraphs
Next, each pair would meet to have a discussion about the mistakes in the paragraphs At this step, the researcher sometimes interfered the discussion when there was any disagreement
Finally, after recognizing and correcting all the mistakes pointed out by the classmate, each student would reproduce his/her paragraph
Participants were also required to respond to seven items in the questionnaire which was used to investigate students’ attitudes towards the technique of peer correction during the semester
A post-test was administered to participants to assess the change in the number of mistakes identified by students, comparing results to the pre-test The post-test was designed to be more challenging than the pre-test, with both assessments sourced from the school's question bank Students were required to read the material thoroughly and carefully in order to identify as many mistakes as possible.
Analysis of data
Data was gathered using various instruments, including a questionnaire, pre-test, post-test, and portfolio The researcher employed Microsoft Excel for quantitative analysis of the collected data The questionnaire results were analyzed using descriptive statistics, focusing on figures and percentages.
Summary
This chapter outlines the research methodology, reiterating the research questions and introducing the study's setting, which focuses on the teaching and learning conditions at the chosen high school It details the participants involved in the study and describes the data collection instruments used, including pre-tests, post-tests, questionnaires, and portfolios Additionally, the chapter explains the data collection procedures and the subsequent analysis of the gathered data.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Data analysis
4.1.1 The results of pre-test and post-test
To assess changes in students' ability to identify mistakes in a paragraph, a pre-test and post-test were conducted using questions from the school's question bank All thirty students participated, with the pre-test administered in week 1 and the post-test in week 5 of the second semester Each test contained a paragraph with 25 mistakes, and students were tasked with identifying as many errors as possible The results of both tests for the group are illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Results of the pre-test and post-test
The graph illustrates the data about the changes in the number of mistakes identified by students in an essay
In general, as can be seen from the chart, students showed great progress in their ability to identify the mistakes in a written essay before and after using peer correction
Specifically, in the pre-test, the maximum number of mistakes pointed out was 18 (72%) However, in the post-test, that number increased by 5
Th e numb er of mist ake s indi ca ted by students
In the analysis of mistakes, a total of 33 errors were initially identified, leading to a reduction to 23 mistakes, which accounted for 92% of the total The minimum number of mistakes observed followed a similar pattern, with the post-test revealing a minimum of 9 mistakes (36%), a significant increase from the pre-test, where only 3 mistakes (12%) were recorded.
It can be noticed that there were 19 (76%) students identifying over 15 mistakes Besides, 10 students found 20 mistakes or more out of 20 There was only one student who found less than 10 mistakes
In conclusion, the improved performance of students utilizing peer correction techniques suggests that this method positively influences their ability to identify and recognize errors in writing Consequently, this practice may assist students in avoiding similar mistakes when crafting their own paragraphs.
The portfolio was administered to see if peer correction enables students to reduce mistakes when they produced paragraphs from the first one to the last one
The assessment of student paragraphs was based on five key criteria: word order, concord, incorrect word usage, article usage, and tense The researcher conducted a comparison between the first and last paragraphs written by each student, revealing significant insights into their writing progress.
Figure 2: The number of word order mistakes committed
Figure 3: The number of concord mistakes committed
T h e n u m b er o f m is tak es co m m itted
T h e n u m b er o f m is tak es co m m itted
Figure 4: The number of wrong word mistakes committed
Figure 5: The number of article mistakes committed
T h e n u m b er o f m is tak es co m m itted
T h e n u m b er o f m is tak es co m m itted
Figure 6: The number of tense mistakes committed
The graphs illustrate the data about the 5 kinds of mistakes committed by students in paragraph 1 and paragraph 5
Overall, what stands out from the graphs is that the number of mistakes in students’ last paragraph decreased dramatically compared to that in students’ first paragraph
In analyzing word order mistakes, paragraph 1 exhibited the highest frequency with 10 errors, significantly surpassing paragraph 5, which had only 1 mistake Notably, students 2, 14, 18, 25, and 30 accounted for a total of 8 errors in the first paragraph However, their performance improved markedly in the last paragraph, with mistakes decreasing to 2, 2, 2, 3, and 1, respectively This indicates a clear reduction in errors among these students as they progressed through the paragraphs.
1 was approximately four times as many as that in paragraph 5
In paragraph 1, students made a total of 9 mistakes, which significantly decreased to just 2 in subsequent assessments Notably, despite the high error rates, students 1 and 12 were among those who struggled the most in this section.
T h e n u m b er o f m is tak es co m m itted
37 which was 6 and 8 respectively, they did not commit this kind of mistake any longer in paragraph 5 This means they had great improvement in the writing performance
As for wrong word mistakes, the trend was similar to that of concord
In paragraph 1, the highest number of wrong word mistakes reached 8, attributed to students 7, 14, and 24 However, this figure significantly decreased in paragraph 5, with mistakes dropping to 3, 3, and 4 for the same students, reflecting a reduction of nearly half.
In the analysis of article mistakes, two students, identified as students 14 and 28, made the highest number of errors in paragraph 1, totaling nine mistakes However, the occurrence of these mistakes significantly decreased in subsequent paragraphs, dropping to just two errors.
The graph clearly illustrates that students initially struggled with article usage, as evidenced by numerous mistakes in the first paragraph However, by the final paragraph, they demonstrated significant improvement, nearly eliminating these errors.
The graph indicates that many students made mistakes related to tenses, likely due to the complexity of this grammatical aspect in learning English However, there was a significant reduction in tense-related errors by paragraph 5, suggesting that students gained a better understanding of tense usage and structures through peer-checking and teacher guidance.
In short, the figures for the 5 kinds of mistakes decreased dramatically in paragraph 5 compared to those in paragraph 1 This means that students showed great improvement in their writing performances
4.1.3 The results of questionnaire for students
4.1.3.1 Students’ attitudes towards peer correction
Students exhibited varying attitudes toward peer correction, which were classified into four categories based on a Likert scale: strongly agree, agree, strongly disagree, and disagree Additionally, a column was included to capture further insights.
‘other ideas’ to collect students’ opinions in the questionnaire
Figure 7: Students’ attitudes towards peer correction
The chart illustrates the data about the students’ points of view on peer response
The chart clearly indicates that the majority of students favor the peer correction technique, while a significantly smaller number express strong disagreement with it.
The analysis revealed that 90% of students enjoyed correcting their friends' mistakes, while only 10% disagreed This strong preference may stem from students' curiosity and their desire to identify as many errors as possible in their peers' work.
A significant 86.6% of students expressed a preference for being corrected by their peers, indicating a strong trust in their classmates' abilities, especially when guided by a teacher In contrast, only 13.3% of students disagreed with this sentiment This trust in peer feedback suggests that students value collaborative learning environments.
A recent study found that 90% of students preferred peer correction over teacher correction, with only 10% favoring teacher feedback; notably, 3.3% strongly disagreed with teacher correction This preference may stem from students feeling less stressed and more confident when receiving feedback from friends rather than teachers Additionally, 83.3% of students believed they benefited from peer correction, compared to just 16.7% who disagreed.
Findings and discussion
The aim of this section was to summarize and discuss the findings from the pre-test and post-test, portfolio and the questionnaire to answer the research questions
4.2.1 To what extent does peer correction enable students to enhance their writing skill?
The application of the peer correction technique led to significant improvements in students' writing skills, as evidenced by the positive outcomes observed in both the pre-test and post-test results, along with the portfolio assessments.
The analysis of pre-test and post-test results, along with portfolio evaluations, indicates significant improvements in students' writing performance Initially, during the pre-test, students struggled to identify errors in the provided paragraph, with the highest number of mistakes recognized being 18, while the lowest was just 3.
Initially, students struggled with mistakes in their writing, prompting the researcher to implement a peer correction process This approach enabled students to identify numerous errors in their classmates' work, with only a few requiring additional guidance Through collaborative discussions, students learned to recognize and correct these mistakes As they applied this peer correction method to subsequent paragraphs, a significant reduction in errors was observed in their portfolios Ultimately, students demonstrated notable progress, making fewer mistakes as they advanced through their writing assignments.
The study revealed that students actively filled their knowledge gaps and demonstrated a willingness to learn from and assist their peers, fostering a collaborative learning environment Additionally, students exhibited increased autonomy in their writing, leading to more frequent and precise writing practices Notably, the findings indicated significant improvements in writing quality, as peer correction contributed to a marked reduction in paragraph errors.
After the peer correction process, students demonstrated a heightened ability to identify mistakes in their paragraphs during the post-test This improvement suggests that their skills in recognizing errors significantly enhanced, ultimately aiding them in producing grammatically accurate and well-worded paragraphs.
The findings of the data analysis highlight the shift from teacher-centered to learner-centered approaches in education, emphasizing the need for effective teaching strategies The study revealed that peer correction has gained popularity among students and positively impacts their writing skills This technique not only enhances writing abilities but also promotes student autonomy, aligning well with learner-centered methodologies Consequently, teachers can implement peer correction to support students in improving their writing skills.
4.2.2 What are the grade 11 students’ attitudes towards peer correction in writing lessons?
The findings from the questionnaire indicated that a majority of students held positive attitudes towards peer correction, demonstrating a strong interest in this correction technique.
Peer correction provided students with valuable opportunities to engage and share knowledge with their classmates Many students enjoyed identifying and assisting in correcting their peers' mistakes, while also being open to receiving constructive feedback on their own work This collaborative and interactive atmosphere fostered a strong desire to learn from one another, enhancing their overall learning experience.
Students preferred their peers to correct their mistakes instead of teachers, feeling more at ease and confident working alongside classmates of the same age They expressed that teacher corrections induced stress and anxiety, as they associated these corrections with potential impacts on their writing grades Consequently, the fear of receiving negative feedback from teachers over numerous mistakes heightened their concerns about their academic performance.
Students benefit significantly from learning about their peers' mistakes in writing, as different individuals tend to make various errors When they engage in peer correction, they encounter a range of writing mistakes, which helps them identify and understand these errors This process not only enhances their awareness but also enables them to avoid similar mistakes in their own writing, ultimately improving their skills.
Peer correction can significantly enhance student motivation in learning When students perceive that their opinions are valued by both teachers and peers, it fosters a sense of responsibility for their contributions This dynamic encourages learners to take ownership of their education, leading them to actively seek out and identify mistakes in their peers' work, ultimately promoting collaborative learning and personal growth.
It seems that this study advocates conclusions of Sato (2013) and Tulung
A study from 2008 indicates that students feel comfortable during peer correction interactions, which alleviates their fear of making mistakes Additionally, it supports the findings of Yu and Lee (2014), suggesting that peer correction enhances student motivation and increases their awareness of mistakes, especially when they know their paragraphs will be reviewed by classmates.
In brief, students have positive attitudes towards peer correction because of its beneficial effects on them.
Summary
This chapter meticulously analyzed data gathered from three instruments: tests, portfolios, and questionnaires, providing substantial findings to address the research questions The results indicate that students appreciated peer correction, which has proven to be an effective technique for enhancing their writing skills.