A CASE STUDY: THE USE OF HIGHER PROFICIENCY PEER FEEDBACK TO

IMPROVE THE WRITING PERFORMANCE OF LOWER PROFICIENCY

LEARNERS

TIOW SING PEI

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

PSZ 19:16 (PIND. 1/97)

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

BORANG PENGESAHAN STATUS TESIS♦

JUDUL: A CASE STUDY: THE USE OF HIGHER PROFICIENCY PEER FEEDBACK TO IMPROVE THE WRITING PERFORMANCE OF LOWER PROFICIENCY LEARNERS

SESI PENGAJIAN: 2005 / 2006

Saya TIOW SING PEI (831224-01-5744)_________

(HURUF BESAR)

mengaku membenarkan tesis (PSM/Sarjana/Doktor Falsafah)* ini disimpan di Perpustakaan Universiti Teknologi Malaysia dengan syarat-syarat kegunaan seperti berikut: 1. Tesis adalah hakmilik Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. 2. Perpustakaan Universiti Teknologi Malaysia dibenarkan membuat salinan untuk tujuan

pengajian sahaja. 3. Perpustakaan dibenarkan membuat salinan tesis ini sebagai bahan pertukaran antara institusi

pengajian tinggi. 4. ** Sila tandakan (√ ).

SULIT (Mengandungi maklumat yang berdarjah keselamatan atau kepentingan Malaysia seperti yang termaktub di dalam AKTA RAHSIA RASMI 1972)

TERHAD (Mengandungi maklumat TERHAD yang telah ditentukan oleh organisasi/badan di mana penyelidikan dijalankan)

TIDAK TERHAD

__________________________________ (TANDATANGAN PENULIS)

Alamat Tetap: 114, LORONG ARA (1), TAMAN BAKARIAH, 84000 MUAR, JOHOR.

Tarikh: ___________________________

Disahkan oleh

________________________________ (TANDATANGAN PENYELIA)

DR. MASPUTERIAH HAMZAH Nama Penyelia

Tarikh: ___________________________

CATATAN: * Potong yang tidak berkenaan. ** Jika Kertas Projek ini SULIT atau TERHAD, sila lampirkan surat daripada pihak

berkuasa/organisasi berkenaan dengan menyatakan sekali sebab dan tempoh kertas projek ini perlu dikelaskan sebagai SULIT dan TERHAD.

♦ Tesis dimaksudkan sebagai tesis bagi Ijazah Doktor Falsafah dan Sarjana secara penyelidikan atau disertai bagi pengajian secara kerja kursus dan penyelidikan atau Laporan Projek Sarjana Muda (PSM).

√

17 APRIL 200617 APRIL 2006

“I hereby declare that I have read this thesis and in my opinion this thesis is

sufficient in terms of scope and quality for the award of the degree of Bachelor of

Science and Education (TESL)”

Signature : .......................................................

Supervisor : ................................................................................

Date : .......................................................

DR. MASPUTERIAH HAMZAH

A CASE STUDY: THE USE OF HIGHER PROFICIENCY PEER FEEDBACK TO

IMPROVE THE WRITING PERFORMANCE OF LOWER PROFICIENCY

LEARNERS

TIOW SING PEI

A report submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the award of the degree of

Bachelor of Science and Education (TESL)

Faculty of Education

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

APRIL, 2006

ii

I declare that this thesis entitled “A Case Study: The Use of Higher Proficiency Peer

Feedback to Improve the Writing Performance of Lower Proficiency Learners”

is the result of my own research except as cited in the references. The thesis has not

been accepted for any degree and is not concurrently submitted in candidature of any

other degree.

Signature : ....................................................

Name : ....................................................

Date : ....................................................

TIOW SING PEI

iii

To my beloved dad, mum and family.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to extend my most heartfelt gratitude upon the completion of this

project to the following individuals.

First and foremost, my deepest appreciation goes to my supervisor, Dr

Masputeriah Hamzah for her invaluable guidance, advice and patience in seeing me

through this piece of work. Thank you so much.

My most sincere thanks go to my lecturers and the PSM coordinator. Thank

you for your advice and the concern you’ve shown in making sure I make it through.

My gratitude goes to my family, housemates, friends and coursemates who

have helped me in one way or another in my studies and this project in particular

especially Jim, Yee, Kai and Rac.

Last but not least, I am grateful for the mercy and grace of God Almighty

without which I could never have made it this far.

v

ABSTRAK

Penggunaan teknik maklumbalas dari rakan sekumpulan semasa pengajaran

penulisan dalam Bahasa Inggeris merupakan satu persoalan yang masih lagi

dibincangkan. Meskipun penggunaan teknik maklumbalas merupakan suatu teknik yang

sering digunakan dalam kelas penulisan bahasa kedua, namun pengaruh maklumbalas

dari rakan yang mempunyai penguasaan bahasa yang lebih mantap ke atas hasil

penulisan pelajar masih belum dikenalpasti. Dengan itu, kajian ini bertujuan untuk

mengenalpasti pengunaan maklumbalas dari rakan yang mempunyai penguasaan bahasa

yang lebih mantap untuk memperbaiki hasil penulisan pelajar yang lebih lemah dan ini

dilakukan melalui dua pendekatan iaitu (1) maklumbalas berpanduan dan (2)

maklumbalas tanpa panduan. Sampel kajian terdiri daripada 4 orang pelajar tahun akhir

yang lemah dalam Bahasa Inggeris serta 2 orang pelajar tahun akhir yang mempunyai

penguasaan bahasa yang mantap.Pemarkahan untuk setiap draf penulisan ditentukan

oleh penyelidik serta seorang penilai kedua. Hasil analisa menunjukkan bahawa

maklumbalas dari rakan sebaya menghasilkan kemajuan secara keseluruhan pada

penulisan pelajar yang lemah. Kebanyakan pembetulan yang dibuat semasa penggunaan

pendekatan maklumbalas tanpa panduan merupakan pembetulan yang berkaitan dengan

masalah tatabahasa manakala pembetulan yang dilakukan apabila menggunakan

pendekatan maklumbalas berpanduan bukan sahaja terhad kepada perubahan tatabahasa

dan struktur ayat tetapi turut merangkumi perubahan pada tahap erti ayat, isi kandungan

serta organisasi penulisan. Implikasi positif mengenai penggunaan teknik maklumbalas

ini dalam pengajaran penulisan kemudiannya dibincangkan dan potensi untuk

penyelidikan lanjut turut disertakan.

vi

ABSTRACT

The question of whether or not to employ peer feedback in second language

writing instruction is one of the common issues being debated. Although the use of peer

feedback is common in the process-approach in English as Second Language (ESL)

writing classroom, the effect that higher proficiency peer feedback has on the

performance of students’ writing is yet to be determined. It is thus the aim of this study

to investigate the use of higher proficiency peer feedback to improve the writing

performance of lower proficiency learners through two different approaches namely

guided peer feedback and non-guided peer feedback. The participants were four final

year lower proficiency students and two final year higher proficiency learners. Scores

for each written draft were given by the researcher and a second rater. It was found that

the use of higher proficiency peer feedback resulted in overall improvement in the

writing performance of the lower proficiency learners. Both guided peer feedback

treatment and non-guided peer feedback treatment were discussed based on samples of

the participants’ written task, recordings during discussion and also the interview

responses. While the majority of revisions that subjects made during the non-guided peer

feedback were surface-level revisions with regard to grammar and vocabulary, the

changes they made after receiving guided peer feedback were not only related to

grammar and structure but also meaning-level changes including the content and

organization of the writing. The interview responses also showed that the participants

favoured the use of guided peer feedback. The positive implications of how higher

proficiency peer feedback could be effectively incorporated into the second language

writing instruction were then discussed with potential for future research included.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENT

CHAPTER CONTENT PAGE

TITLE PAGE i

DECLARATION PAGE ii

DEDICATION iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv

ABSTRAK v

ABSTRACT vi

TABLE OF CONTENT vii

LIST OF TABLES xiii

LIST OF APPENDICES xiv

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1

1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 Background of Study 1

1.2 Problem Statement 4

1.3 Purpose of Research 6

1.4 Objectives 7

viii

1.5 Research Questions 7

1.6 Significance of Study 7

1.7 Scope of Study 9

1.8 Definition of Terms 10

1.8.1 Collaborative Learning 10

1.8.2 Peer 11

1.8.3 Higher Proficiency Peers 12

1.8.4 Lower Proficiency Peers 12

1.8.5 Peer Feedback 13

1.8.6 Guided Peer Feedback 13

1.8.7 Non-guided Peer Feedback 14

1.8.8 Effect 14

1.9 Summary 15

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 16

2.0 Introduction 16

2.1 Collaborative Learning 17

2.1.1 Advantages of Collaborative

Learning

18

2.1.2 Characteristics of

Collaborative Classroom

20

2.1.2.1 Shared Knowledge and

Shared Authority

2.1.2.2 Classroom Control

2.1.2.3 Heterogeneous

Grouping of Students

21

22

23

2.1.3 Peer Learning 24

2.2 Grouping of Students 26

2.2.1 Using Pair Work in the Study 27

2.3 Peer Feedback 29

ix

2.3.1 Advantages of Using Peer

Feedback

30

2.3.2 Drawbacks of Using Peer

Feedback

31

2.3.3 The Use of Peer Feedback in

Language Writing Classes

33

2.4 Types of Writing 34

2.5 Comparison and Contrast Essay 34

2.6 The Process Approach in Writing 35

2.6.1 The Use of Process Approach

in Writing Classes

37

2.7 Summary 38

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY 39

3.0 Introduction 39

3.1 Research Design 39

3.1.1 Case Study Research Design 40

3.1.2 Research Methodologies 40

3.1.2.1 Qualitative Approach

3.1.2.2 Quantitative Approach

41

41

3.1.3 Data Collection Instruments 42

3.1.3.1 Rating Scale

3.1.3.2 Observation

3.1.3.3 Interviews

3.1.3.4 Audio Tape Recording

42

43

44

44

3.2 Participants 45

3.2.1 Participants of the Study 45

3.2.2 Higher Proficiency Learners

and Lower Proficiency

45

x

Learners

3.2.3 Subjects Categorization in

Research Treatments

46

3.2.3.1 Control Group

3.2.3.2 Experimental Group

47

47

3.3 Setting 48

3.4 Research Procedures 49

3.4.1 Procedures for Control Group

3.4.2 Experimental Group

(Treatment 1: Non-guided Peer

Feedback)

3.4.3 Experimental Group

(Treatment 2: Guided Peer

Feedback)

49

50

51

3.5 Analysis Procedures

3.5.1 Analysis Procedures for

Research Question 1

3.5.2 Analysis Procedures for

Research Question 2

52

53

55

3.6 Pilot Study Results 56

3.6.1 Non-guided Peer Feedback

3.6.2 Guided Peer Feedback

3.6.3 Limitations

57

58

59

3.7 Summary 60

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 61

4.0 Introduction 61

4.1 Background of Subjects 62

4.2 Findings and Discussion 64

xi

4.2.1 Effects of higher proficiency

Peer Feedback in the writing

Scores of the lower

Proficiency Learners

4.2.2 Perceptions of the Subjects on

the Use of higher Proficiency

Peer Feedback

4.2.3 Differences in Writing

Performance in Guided and

Non-guided Peer Feedback

64

68

72

4.2.3.1.Choice of Language

During Discussion

4.2.3.2.Elements of Writing

4.2.3.3.Peer Feedback Given

and the Effects on the

Elements of Writing

4.2.3.4. Duration of time Used

to Finish the Writing

Draft and length of

Writing Drafts

Produced

4.2.3.5. Confidence Level

4.2.3.6. Differences on the two

types of treatments

based on Interview

Responses

4.3 Summary of Findings

4.4 Summary

73

79

83

95

102

105

110

112

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS 113

xii

5.0 Summary of Study 113

5.1 Pedagogical Implications 116

5.2 Limitations of Study and

Recommendations for Future

Research

118

5.3 Concluding Remarks 121

REFERENCE 122

APPENDICES A-G 131

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE

2.0 Types Of Writing 34

4.0 Language Background and Proficiency Level

of LEP Subjects

63

4.1 Total Scores Obtained By Subjects in Control

Group and Experimental Group

65

4.2 Choice of Language During Discussion 74

4.3 Elements of Writing 79

4.4 Duration of time Used to Comment on Each

Draft

84

4.5 Types of Feedback Used During Treatments 87

4.6 Scores of Each Element of Writing 89

4.7 Mean Scores of Each Element of Writing

Using Different Treatments

90

4.8 Duration of time Used to finish Each Writing

Draft

96

4.9 Length of Writing Drafts Produced 97

xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX TITLE PAGE

A Checklist for Peer Feedback 132

B Essay Marking Scheme 137

C Observation Checklist 141

D Interview Questions For Subjects of Study 143

E Written Drafts By Subjects of Study 146

F Interview Responses 166

G Table of Scores 173

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Introduction

The use of collaborative learning in the classroom has always been regarded as

idealistic for teachers in schools. Many teachers are still having doubts as to the

effectiveness of collaborative learning in the classroom especially in language writing

classrooms. This study aims to investigate the use of higher proficiency peer feedback

to improve the writing performance of lower proficiency learners. Both guided and non-

guided peer feedback were used in this study to find out the differences in the writing

performance of lower proficiency learners.

1.1. Background of Study

2

With the advent of collaborative learning approach as well as peer learning

approach, the role that students play in language learning becomes more significant.

The collaborative learning perspective views language learning as a process that

concerns both the learning and social aspects. This learning instruction also opposes the

instructional models that view teachers as the only source of knowledge and skill

(Kutnick and Rogers, 1994:51).

This idea can be further extended and utilized when it comes to language writing

classes. Instead of depending fully on the teachers for feedback, students can also seek

help from other students who are more proficient in the language. Such activities in

language learning will allow for interaction and thus encourage collaborative learning

where students learn not only from the teachers but also from each other.

Some language theorists view that a language classroom should be interactive

where interaction is placed at the heart of communicative teaching methods. Such

interactive learning would definitely include the elements of student-centred learning via

group and pair work which opens a channel for authentic and meaningful

communication.

However, theories will just remain as theories if they are not put into practice.

We can actually see that language classrooms in schools nowadays rarely utilize the

collaborative or interactive learning approach. One explanation to this occurrence could

be because teachers are too busy catching up with the syllabus to prepare students for the

examination ahead. Teachers can hardly find time to allow students to take charge of

their learning by organising them in pairs or groups to interact with one another for

meaningful learning. One good example of this can be seen in language writing classes

where teachers will hardly allow students to correct their peers’ writings using the

process approach.

3

After conducting an interview with some school teachers, it was found that most

teachers were also afraid to make use of peer learning in the classroom because they

viewed themselves losing the authority in the teaching and learning process. They also

have the mindset that the students might provide the wrong information to their peers,

thus affecting the learning process in the classroom. Therefore, some teachers try to

avoid the use of peer learning in their classrooms as more work are required for the

teachers to monitor the groups and make sure that the knowledge imparted is accurate.

Despite some of these problems related to language learning, collaborative

learning or peer learning has slowly shown its importance. Apart from the advantages of

peer learning, there are also some other reasons related to classroom management that

support peer learning. In Malaysia, it is a normal occurrence to have 30 to 40 students in

one class depending on the size of the school. In such a large classroom, teachers find it

difficult to control and monitor every student in the class. In writing classes especially,

teachers find correcting students’ writing a tedious process.

As feedback can stimulate students’ awareness of their writing (Myles, in Kuldip

Kaur, 2004:254) and also make students more aware of their mistakes, teachers are

expected to give feedback to students in each of their writing task. In order to guide the

students in the writing process, teachers spend a great deal of time commenting on and

responding to their work. This process can be frustrating when teachers are tied down

with a handful of other work. Due to these reasons, some teachers start to reduce writing

homework to lessen their burden. However, this will not help to improve the students’

writing performance, but only contribute to the limitation of language use.

Sometimes, the good intention of teachers might not be appreciated too. Myles

(in Kuldin Kaur, 2004:255) illustrates that in a L2 context, students may not understand

the various comments and suggestions by teachers especially if remarks are generously

4

long winded. In addition to that, Zhang (1995:210) argues that teacher-controlled

feedback is inherently lacking in affective appeal to students when compared with peer

feedback. Students prefer to receive feedback from their peers as it is more at the

learners’ level of development or interest. Thus it is perceived as more informative than

the superior teacher’s feedback.

Various language theorists have also advocated the advantages of using peer

feedback in language writing classes (Clifford, 1981; Pierson, 1967 in Zhang, 1995:210;

Elbow, 1973). In their studies, peers are seen to put more priority to give social support

to the students than the teachers. Peer responses are also more favoured by the students

if compared to teacher feedback. A more detailed illustration on the advantages of peer

learning was discussed in the literature review.

From some of these viewpoints, we can actually see the increasing importance of

using peer learning and peer feedback especially in a language writing class. Thus, it is

hoped that this study can offer insights to teachers who want to utilize peer feedback in

language writing classrooms. The differences on the nature of how feedback is given by

peers during non-guided peer learning and guided peer learning; which in this case is the

writing of comparison-contrast essays were identified through this study. For this

purpose, more proficient learners were grouped together with less proficient learners in

order to investigate the effects of peer feedback in improving the writing performance of

weaker students.

1.2 Problem Statement

5

ESL teachers in Malaysia often face difficulties in giving feedback and

responding to every student for writing tasks as most classes in Malaysian schools

consist of at least 30-40 students per class. However, writing feedback is viewed as an

important tool to increase the students’ awareness of the mistakes they make in writing.

Therefore, the necessity and relevance of using peer feedback in the classroom become

more apparent when teachers could not cope with their work.

In UTM, students are required to follow two compulsory English proficiency

courses and one elective course. Students are asked to write essays in these courses and

comparison-contrast essay is one of the essay types that they are asked to write. Some

lecturers reflected that they are too busy with their work, therefore writing feedback on

the composition is not usually given to the students. Therefore, students face problems

in identifying the weaknesses in their writing.

As a result, some lecturers have tried using the collaborative learning approach in

these classes where peers help each other in their writing. Several studies have also

pointed out that a more proficient peer might be useful in helping a weaker peer in

editing and providing feedback to their writing (Clifford, 1981:50; Pierson, 1967in

Zhang, 1995:210; Elbow, 1973).

However, there often exists the question as to what actually happens during a

peer group conference. In other words, it concerns the nature of how feedback is given

by the higher proficiency peers (HEP) to the lower proficiency learners (LEP) in a non-

guided peer learning situation as well as a guided peer learning context. If the

guidelines to evaluate students’ writing are not given by the teacher, what will the peers

actually look at when they are responding to a piece of writing by their peers? Will they

actually look at the grammatical aspects as in sentence structures and tenses or will they

look more on the content as in the ideas and organization of the essay? What will be the

6

effects in giving peer feedback when peers are not guided as to the kind of feedback

needed? How will it be when they are given proper guidance?

Another problem arises when there are some doubts that the advantages of peer

feedback in L2 writing are actually “assumed advantages” without “formal support”

(Zhang, 1995:211). Teachers are sometimes uncertain that peer feedback can actually

help to improve students’ writing performance. They are also worried that the use of

peer feedback might bring negative effects when students provide wrong or misleading

information to their peers. Thus, without clearing their doubts on the advantages of peer

feedback in L2 writing, teachers might hesitate in considering the use of peer feedback

in their classes.

A brief interview conducted with some lecturers in the education faculty also

revealed similar problems faced by them. Therefore, this study was conducted to find

out the differences in guided peer feedback and non-guided peer feedback; and at the

same time investigate the effects of higher proficiency peer feedback in facilitating the

writing performance of lower proficiency learners.

1.3 Purpose of Research

The aim of this study is to investigate the use of higher proficiency peer feedback

to improve the writing performance of lower proficiency learners through two different

approaches namely guided peer feedback and non-guided peer feedback.

7

1.4 Objectives

The research seeks to:

1. Investigate the effects of higher proficiency peer feedback in the writing

performance of lower proficiency learners.

2. Find out the differences in the writing performance of lower proficiency

learners in guided peer feedback and non-guided peer feedback.

1.5. Research Questions

This study will seek answers to the following research questions:

1. What are the effects of higher proficiency peer feedback in the writing

performance of lower proficiency learners?

2. What are the differences in the writing performance of lower proficiency learners

in guided peer feedback and non-guided peer feedback?

1.6. Significance of Study

This study addresses the common problems faced by most ESL teachers in a

language writing classroom. Based on brief interviews with some school teachers, most

teachers felt that it is a burden to respond or give feedback to every piece of writing

produced by students. In addition, due to the uncertainty of the effects of peer feedback,