bai sua cua co fiona

7/29/2019 Bai Sua Cua Co Fiona

1/23

Faculty of Arts, Education & Human Development

ASSIGNMENT COVERSHEET

Family Name

inhFirst Name:

Th Thu Tho

Student ID Number: 3915955

Unit Code:AED5008 Unit Title: EVALUATION

Assignment Title:

The Evaluation of Using the Self and Peer Correction and Teacher feedback in improving students

English Writing Skill

Tutorial Group (Day & Time):

From May 21st to May 31st

Date Submitted:

November 23rd, 2012

Student Contact Telephone No./Student Email Address:

0949 434313 [email protected]

PLAGIARISM AND COLLUSION

Plagiarismis a practice that involves the using of

another persons intellectual output andpresenting it as ones own. This includes thepresentation of work that has been copied, in whole orpart, from other sources (including other studentswork, published books or periodicals, or unpublishedworks or unauthorized collaboration with other

persons), without due acknowledgement.

CONSEQUENCES OF PLAGIARISM AND COLLUSION

A student found guilty of plagiarism will be subject to

some or all of the following:Referral to Course Coordinator for: counseling;submission of further work; use of the services of

Student Learning Unit; the placing of a record of thealleged infringement on the students file.Referral of the matter to the Head of School

for: issuing of written warning; re-submission of workfor assessment or the undertaking of another form ofassessment such as an oral or unseen examination;allocation of a fail grade to part or all of theassessment; allocation a fail grade to the subject.Referral of the matter to the Dean for: suspension

from the course; official disciplinary action by the

University Disciplinary Committ

STUDENT DECLARATION

I DECLARE THAT THIS ASSIGNMENT IS ORIGINAL AND HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED FOR ASSESSMENT ELSEWHERE.

I DECLARE THAT THIS ASSIGNMENT IS MY OWN WORK AND DOES NOT INVOLVE PLAGIARISM OR COLLUSION.

I GIVE MY CONSENT FOR THE ELECTRONIC VERSION TO BE EXAMINED BY RELEVANT PLAGIARISM SOFTWARE PROGRAMS.

I HAVE MADE A PHOTOCOPY OR ELECTRONIC COPY OF MY ASSIGNMENT, WHICH I CAN PRODUCE IF THE ORIGINAL IS LOST FOR ANY

REASON.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/23

THE EVALUATION OF USING THE SELF AND PEER CORRECTION AND TEACHER

FEEDBACK IN IMPROVING STUDENTS ENGLISH WRITING SKILL

Writing is a skill area which is difficult for teachers to teach and hard for student writers to learn

(Feng, 2002). The evaluation of writing in the English as the second language classroom has

traditionally been the teachers prerogative such it has remained outside the interactive model of

student learning (Rothschild and Klingenberg, 1990). Furthermore, it is an exhausting, time

consuming, and most of all, unrewarding task for teachers to correct students compositions. It is

unrewarding that the result does not quite justify the patient effort and the immense amount of

time spentding on marking and correcting the errors made by students. There are few students

who pay real attention to the corrected errors as evidenced by the similar errors that recur in the

subsequent compositions. (Huang, 2010).

At the secondary?? school where I teach, the context is the same as it was mentioned above.

tTeachers frequently spend nights after nights correcting and marking students writing.

However, students writing scores have not been improved at the end of the course. In my

research what I want to do is to make a change inin The research question is how can teachers

improve the process of teaching and learningEnglish writing. I want to explore the effects of

using the self and peer correction and teacher feedback in improving students English writing

skill.

One of the issues in L2 writing research Richards (2002) mentioned was that the lack of ?? use of

peer feedback. And Aas Storch (2005) points out, there are very few studies that compared

compositions produced collaboratively with compositions produced individually (p.155).

Perpignan (2003) draws the disconcerting conclusion that teachers error feedback serves no

useful purpose in the students improvement because of the lack of understanding between

teachers and students. All of these studies show self and peer correction is a beneficial learning

process, but there is little research about how well students can correct their language errors

cooperatively. My innovation study aims at finding to what extent students can correct their

Comment [FH1]: What does this mea

Comment [FH2]: Do not put a full stothe reference details. They have to be IN

sentence.


3/23

language errors in athrough collaborative team work, and what is theteachers role is in the error

correction.

Running a class without evaluation its effective is bad management practice. (Reay-Dickins &

Germaine 1992: 14-15). In this report, I am going to seeevaluate whethera programme has met

its targets (Murphy, D. F. (2000). In other words, I am going to assess the impact of the

innovative approach on students writing as well as on teachers. Teachers capability to assess

the effectiveness of students writing, their pedagogy and knowledge of social functions of

language will be taken into consideration. Last but not least, the most beneficial elements of the

innovation have been identified so that the next version will be better. amendment will be done

later.

LITERATURE REVIEW

THEORY GUIDING MY INNOVATION

Shi-hsien (2011) in his article Exploring the Effectiveness of Using Peer Evaluation and

Teacher Feedback in College Students Writing noted some ideas of peer evaluation and teacher

feedback. According to Chaffee, McMahon, and Stout (2005), there are six basic elements in the

writing process: (1) generating ideas; (2) defining a focus; (3) organizing ideas into various

thinking patterns; (4) drafting; (5) revising, editing, and proofreading; and (6) collaborating.

They point out that people often discover new perspectives when others review drafts of our

writing (p.19). Beach (1989) emphasizes that peer response has a stimulating and inspiring

influence on writing. Many studies supported the idea thats ofpeer review can be extremely

effectively (Bruffee, 1978; Lockhart & Ng, 1995; Paulus, 1999). A rResearch was carried out to

see whether the peer evaluation and teacher feedback was an effective approach or not in

teaching English writing. There was one aninternet platform for 50 third-year students and

teachers in the Department of Applied Foreign Languages at one University of Taiwan to post

their comments on. Thanks to the technology development, students did not have any pressure of

time or space when correcting their peers drafts.The results proved that although students were

not confident of their English proficiency and doubted about their peers ability, they hadpositive comments on peer evaluation. Nevertheless, they still depended more on their teachers

Comment [FH3]: Dont forget to remfull stops wherever you have incorrectly

Comment [FH4]: This quote and idealinking sentence from the idea of the pre

paragraph.

Comment [FH5]: Why have you sudd

included not required information???

Comment [FH6]: Which were?


4/23

feedback. Thanks to the technology development, students did not have any pressure of time or

space when correcting their peers drafts.

At the college where I am currently teaching, peer and teachers correction has been

recommended and generally approved by the majority of teachers but just a few apply this

approach in daily teaching. It is said to be faster to mark students writing directly. It will take

much more time to read students comments and then give them correction and teachers do not

have enough time to do this.

In A Comparative Study of Three Revision Methods in EFL Writing,(Napaporn,(2011) from

Bangkok University, Thailand. The research came up with three different revision phases: self-

revision, peer revision and teacher revision. It The studyaimed at exploring how these three

methods work on students writing ability. It also tried to study learners revision behavior as

well as their perceptions of revision. A writing task, a peer response sheet and a semi-structured

interview were used to collect the data and then the data was analyzed to find out the number of

errors and the types of errors often made by students. Based on the statistics, the author could see

the differences among the three methods. The findings showed that teacher revision was the most

important and indispensable (Napaporn, 2011:409) part in learners writing acquisition. This is

because teachers comments help students find out errors that were difficult to recognize.

Moreover, students thought that teacher comments were more effective than peer ones. However,

students also assumed that peer revision is something that cannot be replaced by teacher

comments.

The data collected in the research is precise and informative. This helps teachers realize how

many errors and what types of error often made by students. Then in their teaching teachers can

choose appropriate approaches of writing teaching. Teachers will use peer revision to give

students opportunities to know new ideas and to motivate them to improve their writings.

Teacher revision is used for making grammatical and textual appropriate sentences. However,

there is a limitation as the writer stated in the article. The number of the subjects is small, only

10 students. It may not tell the current trend in writing teaching.

Students Reflection on Online Self-correction and Peer Review to Improve Writing (Yu-Fen,

2010). According to Yu-Feng (2010), Reflection is considered as a mental process of an

Comment [FH7]: You called it a scho

Comment [FH8]: Your approach of su

an article in each paragraph is a very un

graduate way of presenting the literatu

post grad student you should be looking

themes and issues and presenting parag

these, bringing together several papers.


5/23

individuals internal problem-solving activity and rarely observed in face-face instruction. As a

consequence, students have few opportunities to observe and learn from each other (1202). The

study indicated that through the activities such as self correction and peer review, students

reflection was aroused and this helped improve their writing skill. 95 students were chosen to

write a reflective journal, which was then analyzed to compare their reflection on self correction

with peer review in writing. The findings showed that reflecting on the processes of self

correction and peer revision could help improve students text revision and improvement. In their

reflective journals, students said that thanks to the self-correction, they could discover their

grammatical errors and peer revision allowed them to view their own text from others

viewpoint. Based on others perspectives, they could make further revisions on text

development, organization, or style (Yu-Feng, 2010, have quote, need page number).

Self and Peer Evaluation of Writing in the Interactive ESL Classroom: an Exploratory Study

(Rothschild and Klingenberg (, 1990).These two authors defined evaluation as both

identification of strengths and weaknesses, as well as the actual assignment of grades based on a

set of explicit criteria (1990). There were two parts in the investigation. In part one, students

were given an appropriate evaluation scale and then they were instructed how to use it and were

asked to use the scale throughout the time they evaluate their own and peers writing. In part

two, the authors investigated the possible effects that the use of the scale had on students. Then

they made a comparison of the judgment made by the two groups, the experimental group and

one of the judges. The findings showed that the set of criteria in judging compositions used by

the experimental group was different from it was by the control group. It was also seen that the

experimental groups responses were more positive to ten statements on a writing attitude

survey.

All of these four articles have one thing in common that is they emphasize the efficiency of self

and peer correction approach in teaching and learning writing. Besides the leading role of the

teacher, students themselves and their classmates are always important factors that help motivate

the learning process. This is one thing which is often ignored by teachers in class. In the

Vietnamese teaching context, the situation is the same. Teachers because of some pressures such

as time and heavy work load prefer to use the product approach which makes them feel sure

about the results. Self correction and peer collaboration is really a topic that teachers should

Comment [FH9]: Good!


6/23

conduct more research on. It can be one interesting teaching way that teachers can make use in

order to improve their teaching.

The first and the second articlesmention the use of internet in assisting writing teaching and

learning process. The online learning environment is really helpful to teachers and students. It

provides teachers and students opportunities to learn from each other. In Vietnam, when this was

first used, it was not much accepted by teachers and students. Teachers are not familiar with this,

so they tend to use the traditional way-marking and grading on paper. It takes time for them to

become accustomed to it. Then they find many interesting things in using it. At first, students

were not pleased when their writings were shown to the class by teachers. They said that they did

not want other students in class to know their weakness and their writing is somewhat a privacy

that can only be shared by them and teachers. They only felt satisfied when they were explained

that they would have chance to learn from their friends and teachers a lot. By this way, students

are able to examine their weakness and learn new ideas and ways of using the language from

their friends.

THEORY GUIDING MY EVALUATION

Nunan, D. and Lamb, C., 1996, The Self-directed Teacher, Chp. 8: Monitoring and Evaluation,

CUP

Nunan and Lamb (1996) emphasize the importance of monitoring and evaluation in classroom

context without which we cannot do our everyday tasks efficiently and effectively. They then

cite Reay-Dickins and Germaines comment saying that although evaluation contributes to good

management of teaching, it must be well managed. In this chapter they write about the two main

methods of evaluation: formal and informal. According to Nunan and Lamb, formal evaluation is

the one which is initiated by outside parties and it is aimed beyond individual classrooms and the

purposes are to demonstrate the effectiveness of a curricular innovation such as a new teaching

method or way of grouping learners, to provide evidence to funding authorities that their money

has been well spent, to determine whether additional resources (or fewer resources) are needed in

a particular school district or to act as basis for the reorganization of an institution or educational

organization. They then give an example of a formal method, the COLT (Communicative

Orientation of Language Teaching) scheme in which a questionnaire is used for monitoring,

Comment [FH10]: Good!

Formatted: Highlight


7/23

evaluation and professional development in ones own situation. Nunan and Lamb also then state

that informal evaluation is usually initiated by teachers themselves for the more effective

management of their own classroom. They then quote Reay-Dickins and Germaines idea of

evaluation and the management of learning Running a class without evaluation its effec tiveness

is bad management practice (Reay-Dickins & Germaine 1992: 14-15). They then conclude that

informal evaluation is integral to the individual teacher as self-directed professional. Nunan

and Lamb (1996) also mention self-evaluation and self-observation the value of which is made

clear in a letter from a teacher trainer in Brazil. In the letter, the writer says that through class

observation, teachers can make their own teaching better and students become more aware of

their learning process. Questionnaires and checklists are used to externalize the teaching

process and to provide data on the teaching and learning process. Nunan and Lamb do not

forget to mention the evaluation by others such as peer observation including pre-observation

discussion, observation, post-lesson discussion and follow up and student evaluation which also

has advantages and disadvantages. Apart from the problem, this evaluation still shows its

usefulness.

This chapterNunan and Lambs helps me have an overview of my teaching career. I can see all

kinds of evaluation in my teaching life such as formal evaluation conducted by the Dean of the

English department, or informal evaluation done by myself and my colleagues. I often receive

my students feedback which encourages me a lot but sometimes let me down because of the

inappropriate language of some students. Checklists and questionnaires in this chapter which

cover many aspects of the teaching and learning process are very useful for my every day

evaluation. Each of the evaluation has its own advantages and disadvantages. This helps me

make use of the strong points and avoid the weak points.

Nunan, D. (1994). Research Methods in Language Learning. Chap. 9. Program Evaluation.

CUP.

I need a link to Nunan and Lambs work. Nunan (1994) firstly cites the definition of evaluation

made by Grolund (1981) which is a systematic process of determining the extent to which

instructional objectives are achieved by pupils. Then he notes the distinction between assessment

and evaluation. Assessment refers to the process and procedures whereby we determine what




8/23

learners are able to do in the target language. Evaluation, on the hand, refers to a wider range of

processes which may or may not include assessment data. Nunan (1994: 185). He also discusses

the two important characteristics of evaluation which are collecting, interpreting and valuing

the information so that future decision or action will be made. Nunan also emphasizes the

importance of validity and reliability when collecting data for evaluation purposes. In order to

make value judgments, the evaluator needs access to information about what went on inside the

classroom themselves (Nunan 1994: 189). He then describes process data, how it is obtained

through systematic observation and its value in program evaluation and concludes we need

qualitative data based on classroom observation if we are to interpret, for the evaluative purposes

of making decisions about program alternatives... He discusses in details the Stufflebeam

(1971) CIPP (Context, Input, Process, Product) model of program evaluation. Context

evaluation is designed to improve a program by evaluating and critiquing its strengths and

weaknesses. Input evaluation identifies the resources appropriate for achieving program goals.

With process evaluation, the focus is on the evaluator providing ongoing feedback during and at

the conclusion of a programproduct evaluation measures the attainments of the

programs.Nunan then mentions the elements in the design of a possible evaluation study:

purpose, audience, principles of procedure (or ethical considerations), tools, techniques and

instruments for data collection, data analysis, time frame and budget and reporting. At last, he

gives a case study of a program evaluation to illustrate the process outlined on his chapter.

As Nunan states in the conclusion of this chapter it reviews recent writing on evaluation in

language education. Thanks to this reading I am able to figure out what I have to do to evaluate

my innovation. I can predict some practical problems when dealing with the collection and

analysis of evaluation data. I am shown how the elements of the curriculum may be evaluated.

Moreover, I now know how to prepare an evaluation brief for a curriculum innovation.

Richards, J. C., 2001, Curriculum Development in Language Teaching, Chp. 9: Approaches to

Evaluation, CUP

Richards (2001) introduces a variety of purposes for program evaluation from Sanders (1992)

and Weir and Roberts (1994). According to these three writers evaluation may focus on aspects

of a language program such as curriculum design, the syllabus and program content, classroom




9/23

processes, materials of instruction, the teachers, the students, monitoring of pupil progress,

learner motivation, the institution, learning environment, staff development, decision making. He

discusses formative evaluation, illuminative evaluation and summative evaluation, using relevant

and interesting examples to make his points. Formative evaluation is a type of evaluation which

is done during the process of program development to discover what is working well and what is

not, what problems need to be addressed. Illuminative evaluation is the one that seeks to find out

how different aspects of the program work or are being implemented. It seeks to provide a

deeper understanding of the processes of teaching and learning that occur in the program,

without necessarily seeking to change the course in any way as result. Summative evaluation is

concerned with determining the effectiveness of a program, its efficiency, and to some extent

with its acceptability. What makes Richards different is that he then discusses what he sees as

issues in evaluation. Such issues are who would be the audience for an evaluation involving

the development of a new textbook series. This is very appropriate in the Vietnamese context as

this has been happening in the secondary English language program and at some universities.

Who is the major stakeholder in such a process: the MOET, sections within the MOET, the

school principals, the university deans, the teachers, the parents, the students, the language

teaching profession in general, or the sponsors of the text? Like Nunan (1994), Richards is

worried about the transparency and openness of any evaluation process. He is justly concerned

about the ethics, and consequences of evaluations. He discusses the advantages and

disadvantages of the methods of evaluation such as test results, interviews, questionnaires,

teachers written evaluations, diaries and journals, teachers records and lesson plans, students

logs, student evaluation, audio and video recordings, case studies, and observation (by peers,

outside experts, or managers). Also like Nunan (1994), Richards concludes his article with

examples of program evaluations.

Tribble, C. (2001). Designing Evaluation into Educational Change Processes. ELT Journal.

Vol.54.No. 4. October. Pp. 319-327.

Unlike Nunan (1994) and Richards (2001), Tribble (2001) firstly discusses the integration of

insider-managed baseline evaluation into project and program design in educational change

processes.He emphasizes the use of insiders in evaluation processes introducing a still-

neglected aspect of evaluation: the baseline study. According to Tribble, a baseline survey is a


10/23

snapshot of the context in which an educational change process is going to take place . Tribble

then notes the areas a baseline survey might cover: statistical information, national experience,

international experience, appraisal of key institutions, interviews with key stakeholders, surveys

of parents, surveys of students, surveys of employers, assessment of funding available. Like the

evaluation Richards (2001) mentioned, baseline research also has three different forms: pre-

initiation baseline studies, post-initiation baseline studies and milestone baseline studies. Tribble

also states that each type of baseline study has its own value and each can play an important part

in project design and implementation. Then he gives an example of post-initiation baseline

research which runs in the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania between 1993 and

1997-8 to illustrate the value of baseline evaluation and the ways in which insiders can and

should be involved in its design. At the end of the study, Tribble concludes that although the

Baltics baseline studies are not perfect, theyprovide a number of significant benefits which are

described in his article. Then he gives another example of managing a project without using

adequate baseline data in China. In the project, the director and the implementation team

discovers that there are problems. However, they are not able to recognize what the problems are

because of the lack of baseline data. Finally he states Weir (1995) ideas supporting the idea of

using insiders in evaluation since it offers reasons related to: outsider objectivity versus insider

understanding, resources, sample size, monitoring implementation and sustainability. This helps

the project team to plan safer, more contextually-appropriate project as a result of pre-initiation

baseline research, to test and refine existing project plan to ensure a fit between a proposed

project and its environment, and to ensure the existence of an adequate basis for future

evaluation. Thanks to the Tribbles article, I have a chance to discover the advantages of the

insider involvement in the whole process of evaluation so that I can use it in my teaching context

and as Tribble says baseline evaluation has the potential of making sure that educational change

processes are appropriate to the context in which they are to be carried out

INNOVATION IMPLEMENTED

This research was a single case study and it aimed to explore the effectiveness of using self and

peer correction and teacher feedback in a writing class to find out the most common grammatical

errors students made and the corrections students made for one another on the drafts. Three

questions were going to be discussed:


11/23

What types of error correction could students make?

What were the mistakes that students did not recognize in their peers writing?

What was the role of teacher in self and peer correction process?

Participants

Participants were 40 teenage students of two evening classes in a language center who were

taking three classes per week. Each class lasted one and half an hour and the course was about

two months long. The students level was intermediate. There were also two teachers who teach

these two classes, one used the direct marking method and the other applied the new teaching

approach-self and peer correction.

First of all, I would ask the manager of the center for his permission to do the research. Then, I

would ask two of my colleagues for the agreement to teach the chosen classes. I sent the

informed consent forms to students parents asking their agreement to use their childs

information in the study and telling them that all of the information is anonymous.

Procedure

At the beginning, the teacher gave students a topic to write. 20 students in the experimental classwould be divided into ten pairs. The teacher asked students to do their writing during the first

class and gave it to their partner. Students corrected their friends writings indirectly at home. In

the second class, students received their writings from their partners and they themselves

corrected their errors directly and handed their writing to the teacher who gave them feedback

directly and indirectly. During the third class, students worked on their own writing again and

discussed with either their peers or the teacher. The writing cycle was illustrated below

Assigning topic First draft Peer correction

(indirectly)

Second

draft

Self correction

(directly)

Third draftTeacher feedback

(direct and indirect)

Final draftGrading


12/23

The writing cycle

Instrument

Data for this study consists of a pre-test and post-test, writing drafts, a questionnaire and two

interviews. In this study, as it was mentioned above a questionnaire was used to collect students

comments and ideas about peer evaluation. Questionnaires were distributed one week before the

end of the course. Two interviews with teachers were done twice during the course. One was at

the beginning of the course, and the other was at the end of the course. Interviews focused on

teachers opinions about the new teaching method.

Data collection and analysis

This study explored the students correction types in their writing performance as well as the

effectiveness of peer correction. In the pre-test and post-test scores were categorized into four

levels-excellent, good, average and weak and the researcher counted the percentage of each

level. Then the results of these two tests were going to be compared. Finally, conclusion was

made. Thanks to the questionnaires, students comments wouldbe interpreted. The questionnaire

was designed to understand students ideas about the new method. Writing drafts were read

carefully so that error correction could be found, categorized and interpreted. The interviews

were designed to know teachers perception of giving feedback in a writing class. Each interview

was recorded and later transcribed.

Pre- and post-test result were compared

Test Excellent Good Average Weak

(9-10) (7-8) (5-6) (0-4)

Pre 10% 25% 30% 35%


13/23

Writing drafts: group the error correction types and group them in a table

Symbol 21.33 %

Word 54.33 %

Phrase 14.33 %

Sentence %

Paragraph %

Symbol %

Word %

Phrase %

Sentence %

Paragraph %

Correction types students could make percentage

Correction types teachers help to correct percentage


14/23

Students comments: group the ideas and interpret and come to the conclusion

Most students thought that their peers helped them find out grammatical errors which they had

not noticed before.

Some concluded that peers helped them reorganize their text so that readers can understand their

writing easily.

The majority of students were grateful for peers assistance in improving their text although they

were not experts in writing.

Few students thought that with peers encouragement and assistance, they could do better to

improve their writing.

Unit 5: to landlord.

217/72B Quang Trung Street,

Tan chanh Hiep Ward, 12th District,

Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnames.

217/72B Quang Trung Street,

Tan Chanh Hiep Ward, 12th

District,

Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnamese.

30th

May, 2012


15/23

Dear Mr. Bui,

Thank for your caring about my situation in pension. In there, I have something so good,

however a little problem does not stable. Specifically, there is a problem bother me. I want to

talk about network internet here. It often is either disconnected wireless or notaccess. Internet is

a medium for my studying and entertainment after school. Sometime, I do homework and check

mail in my class. Every day, I have to preview my lesson in my class. If not having the internet, I

am not studied any more. I have often surfin the internet to pace the social information or

contact with relatives. So sorry, these wireless is lagso I cant go on. May you help me prepare

it? I hope that is not difficult. In my opinion, you should speed up internet by assembling some

the source of wireless. They should be share for other room here, about two rooms per one

source. That is all what I want to share with you.

Hoping after reading the letter, you have measure to solve my problem. Thank for your reading.

Cordially,

Tran My Trang

One example of peer correction

EVALUATION OF MY INNOVATION

TITLE

An evaluation of Using the Self and Peer Correction and Teacher Feedback to Improve Students

English Writing Skill.

OBJECTIVES OF THE INNOVATION

The objectives of the innovative approach were as follows:

That students illustrate improvements in their ability to recognize the errors they make in their

writing. Especially, they will be able to write more effectively, pay more attention to their


16/23

writing, develop their autonomous learning ability. They can learn how to work in groups and

how to comment on their peers writing.

That teachers will recognize their students writing ability and then they can find ways to adjust

their teaching approach.

That this new approach can help teachers share the heavy load of correcting too many writings in

a short time.

PURPOSES OF EVALUATION

There were three main purposes of the evaluation relating to the impact of the innovation on both

teachers and learners. The purposes were summarized as follows:

1. To assess the impact of the new writing approach on students writing ability.2. To evaluate the impact of the approach on teachers

a.Capability to assess the effectiveness of students writing

b. Pedagogy

c. Knowledge of the language used to appraise students writing.

3. To find out what of the approach is beneficial and what needs improving.

DATA COLLECTION METHOD

Four main data collection methods were used in the evaluation. They were

1. The pre-test and post-test scores were done, one at the beginning of the course and theother one week before the end of the course.

2. Two focused interviews with teachers3. Questionnaires for students one week before the end of the course.4. Analysis of students writing drafts from class participating in the innovation and also

from class not involved in the innovation.

TIME LINE

Week 1 Design pre-test and distribute to the two classes, one taking part in the innovation

and the other not involved in the innovation.


17/23

Prepare questions and interview teachers participating in the study

Week 2 Assign the first writing topic for students to write and collect the first draft

Collect the second, third and final draft

Week 3 Assign the second writing topic and repeat the writing cycle

Week 4 Assign the third writing topic

Week 5 Assign the fourth writing topic

Week 6 Design post-test and distribute to the classes

Interview teachers

Distribute questionnaire to students

Week 7 Complete interview

Recordings of writing samples

Begin data analysis and evaluation of students writing

Week 8 Complete data analysis and evaluation of students writing

Submit draft

Revise report

Submit final draft

TYPE OF DATA AND ANALYSIS

The evaluation consists of four kinds of data: the pre-test and post-test scores, the interviews,

questionnaires and students writing drafts.

ANALYSING PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST SCORES


18/23

The scores will be categorized into four levels-excellent, good, average, and weak and the

researcher will count the percentage of each level. Then the results of these two tests will be

compared at the end of the course.

ANALYSING QUESTIONAIRE DATA

The questionnaire contained eleven sentences ten of which are closed and the last one is open-

ended. Thanks to the questionnaires, students comments would be interpreted. The sentences

would be designed to understand students ideas about the new teaching and learning approach

ANALYSING WRITING DRAFTS

Writing drafts will be read carefully so that error correction can be found, categorized and

interpreted.

ANALYSING INTERVIEW

The questions in the interview are designed to know teachers perception of giving feedback in

a writing class. Each interview would be recorded and latter transcribed.

RESULTS

For the first draft of the peer correction, students will be asked to correct their peers writing

indirectly. From this draft it will be found out that what kind of error correction students canmake. It is supposed that corrections on word choices and ungrammatical sentences such as

redundant words, misuse of punctuations or subject-verb agreement. Therefore, peer evaluation

is considered a grammatical proofreading method for most students. In the second draft, it helps

to explore the effectiveness of the peer evaluation. In the third draft, it will show the leading role

of the teachers in correcting students writing. What errors teachers should correct directly and

what errors teacher should do indirectly. The result of the questionnaire will show how students

react the new teaching and learning method. It will help to answer the questions How do they

think of their peers correction?, How much do they trust their peer correction and their

teachers correction? Then teachers will know how to adjust themselves when teaching awriting class. What types of errors should teachers interfere? What kind of error should

teacher let students help each other to find out?


19/23

The evaluator came to the conclusions:

1. The innovation had a positive effect on the participating teachers who gave goodresponse to the new writing approach.

2. The innovation also had a strong impact on the students writing. They felt more eager tolearn and their writing skill was improved.

3. Teaching and learning environment in classes changed because of the involvement in theinnovation.

4. The objectives of the innovation were achieved largely.Based on the results of the study, many teaching methods can be adjusted and improved.

Teachers collect all common errors of students and make a list of them. Then when instructing a

writing class they emphasize those errors deeply. From the study, it can be seen that many

students vocabulary is not well equipped and they still find it difficult to deal with grammaticalrules and structures of essays. As a result of this, an appropriate program should be given to

students.

CONCLUSION

What I have done above is the whole process of collecting and interpreting information for

decision-making purposes Nunan and Lamb (1996). Being a teacher, I realize that this process

is done every day. Like Nunan and Lamb (1996) conclude that the evaluation whether it is

formal or informal, obligatory or voluntary, it can have the participation of a number of people

working in the educational mechanism. When I have classes, I observe my students reaction

checking if they are interested or not so I am evaluating. Evaluation becomes a part of my

teaching life without which I cannot make progress. The more I practice evaluating, the bettermy teaching is. I hope that after this evaluation I can do a lot more other ones. My skills in

conducting evaluation have been improved day after day which will help me so much in my

teaching career.

REFERENCES

A.Chaedar, A. (2009). Empowering College Student Writers through Collaboration. Universitas

Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung.

Formatted: Centered, Space Before


20/23

Dennie, R. and Felicia, K. (1990). Self and Peer Evaluation of Writing in the Interactive ESL

Classroom: An Exploratory Study, TESL CANADA JOURNAL/REVUE DU CANADA, Vol.8,

No. 1, November 1990.

Feng, Y. M. (2002). Communicative purposes: The essence of advanced English writing

instruction.Journal of University of International Relations, 2, 34-39.

Jing-biao, H. (2010). Error Correction Strategies in Students Written Work. US-China Foreign

Language, ISSN 1539-8080, USA,Volume 8, No.4 (Serial No. 79).

Napaporn, S. (2011). A Comparative Study of Three Revision Methods in EFL Writing, The

2011 Barcelona European Academic Conference.

Perpignan, H.. 2003. Exploring the Written Feedback Dialogue: A Research, Learning and

Teaching Practice[J]. Language Teaching Reasearch, 7 (2):259-78.

Richards, J. (2002). Thirty Years of TEFL/TESL: A Personal Reflection.RELC Journal. Vol.33.

No.2. Pp. 1-35.

Shih-hsien, Y. (2011). Exploring the Effectiveness of Using Peer Evaluation and Teacher

Feedback in College Students Writing, The Asia- Pacific Education Researcher: 20:1:

De La Salle University, Philippines.

Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative Writing: product, process, and students reflections.Journal of

Second Language Writing, 14, 153-173.

Yu-Fen, Y. (2010). Students Reflection on Online Self-Correction and Peer Review to

Improve Writing, Computer & Education: 55 (2010) 1202-1210.

Zheng, C. (2007). A Study of Peer Feedback, US-China Foreign Language: ISSN1539- 8080,

USA, Volume 5, No.4 (Serial No.43).

Appendix


21/23

INTERVIEW

SELF AND PEER CORRECTION AND TEACHER FEEDBACK TO IMPROVE STUDENTS

ENGLISH WRITING SKILL

Researchers name: Dinh Thi Thu Thao

Class:../ Teachers name:

Gender: Male Female

Questions:

1. What are the difficulties when you apply the new teaching approach in your writingclass?

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________

2. What are the benefits of the new approach?________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

3. What is the difference between the role of teacher in a class using the direct markingmethod and the one applying the new approach?________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________

4. Are there any differences in the class atmosphere between these two classes?________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

5. How do you feel when you instruct a writing class using the self and peer correction andteacher feedback?

________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

6. Do you have any suggestions for the future writing classes?


22/23

________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

QUESTIONNAIRE

SELF AND PEER CORRECTION AND TEACHER FEEDBACK TO IMPROVE STUDENTS

ENGLISH WRITING SKILL

Researchers name: Dinh Thi Thu Thao

Your class:

Gender: Male Female

Agree disagree1. My writing is better.2. I have more ideas for writing now.3. M writing is easier for me.4. My writing is better organized.5. I feel more comfortable about writing now.6. My writing has more details now.7. I understand the kinds of mistakes I make now.8. My grammar has improved.9. I have more vocabulary now.10. I enjoy writing now.11. More ideas


23/23

bai sua cua co fiona

Documents