Você está na página 1de 23

Faculty of Arts, Education & Human Development ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET

Family Name inh Unit Code: AED5008 Assignment Title:

First Name: Th Thu Tho Unit Title: EVALUATION

Student ID Number: 3915955

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 thaoeng70@yahoo.com

PLAGIARISM AND COLLUSION Plagiarismis a practice that involves the using of another persons intellectual output and presenting it as ones own. This includes the presentation of work that has been copied, in whole or part, from other sources (including other students work, published books or periodicals, or unpublished works or unauthorized collaboration with other persons), without due acknowledgement.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 the alleged infringement on the students file. Referral of the matter to the Head of School for: issuing of written warning; re-submission of work for assessment or the undertaking of another form of assessment such as an oral or unseen examination; allocation of a fail grade to part or all of the assessment; 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.

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 [FH2]: Do not put a full stop before the reference details. They have to be INSIDE the sentence. Comment [FH1]: What does this mean?

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 whether a 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 of peer 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 had positive comments on peer evaluation. Nevertheless, they still depended more on their teachers
Comment [FH6]: Which were? Comment [FH3]: Dont forget to remove these full stops wherever you have incorrectly put them. Comment [FH4]: This quote and idea needs a linking sentence from the idea of the previous paragraph. Comment [FH5]: Why have you suddenly included not required information???

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: selfrevision, 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 [FH8]: Your approach of summarizing an article in each paragraph is a very under graduate way of presenting the literature. As a post grad student you should be looking at the themes and issues and presenting paragraphs on these, bringing together several papers. Comment [FH7]: You called it a school before!

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!

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,
Formatted: Highlight Comment [FH10]: Good!

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 effectiveness 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
Formatted: Highlight Formatted: Highlight

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
Formatted: Highlight Formatted: Highlight

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

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: preinitiation 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, they provide 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:

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 class would 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)

Grading

Final draft

Teacher feedback (direct and indirect)

Third draft

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 would be 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
(9-10)

Good
(7-8)

Average
(5-6)

Weak
(0-4)

Pre

10%

25%

30%

35%

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

Correction types students could make

percentage

Symbol Word Phrase Sentence Paragraph

21.33 % 54.33 % 14.33 % % %

Correction types teachers help to correct

percentage

Symbol Word Phrase Sentence Paragraph

% % % % %

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

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 surf in the internet to pace the social information or contact with relatives. So sorry, these wireless is lag so 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

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 the other one week before the end of the course. 2. Two focused interviews with teachers 3. 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.

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 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Assign the second writing topic and repeat the writing cycle Assign the third writing topic Assign the fourth writing topic 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

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 openended. 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 can make. 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 a writing class. What types of errors should teachers interfere? What kind of error should teacher let students help each other to find out?

The evaluator came to the conclusions: 1. The innovation had a positive effect on the participating teachers who gave good response to the new writing approach. 2. The innovation also had a strong impact on the students writing. They felt more eager to learn and their writing skill was improved. 3. Teaching and learning environment in classes changed because of the involvement in the innovation. 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 grammatical rules 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 better my 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: 0 pt

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

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 Questions: 1. What are the difficulties when you apply the new teaching approach in your writing class? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________ 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 marking method 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 and teacher feedback? ________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ 6. Do you have any suggestions for the future writing classes? Female

________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ 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 disagree 1. 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

Você também pode gostar