VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

PEER FEEDBACK IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF COHESION

IN ENGLISH ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING AMONG EFL
INTERMEDIATE LEARNERS IN VIETNAM

DO THI THU TRANG

Hanoi, 2023
 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

PEER FEEDBACK IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF COHESION

IN ENGLISH ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING AMONG EFL
INTERMEDIATE LEARNERS IN VIETNAM

Authors:
Do Thi Thu Trang
Nguyen Phuong Chi
Hoang Ngoc Mai
Nguyen Hai Binh
Nguyen Thi Tra My

Supervisor:
Tran Thi Lan Anh (Ph.D.)

Hanoi, 2023

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This study was conducted under the guidance of PhD. Tran Thi Lan Anh, lecturer at
the Faculty of English Language Teacher Education, University of Language and
International Studies, Hanoi National University. We express our sincere gratitude to
her for her dedicated support and invaluable advice, which greatly contributed to
improving the manuscript of this article.

We would like to extend our heartfelt thanks to all the participants of the program for
agreeing to participate in this research, providing authentic results, and offering
profound insights as learners, greatly assisting our research. We also wish to convey
our deep appreciation to our reviewers for sharing their experiences and providing
insightful feedback throughout the research process, enriching our perspectives.

Furthermore, as researchers, we want to express our sincere gratitude to our

classmates, families, and the University of Language and International Studies (ULIS)
and ULIS Innovation Center for providing us with the opportunity and necessary
support to conduct this research.

4
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................7
LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................... 8
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................ 9
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION..............................................................................10
1.1. Introduction.................................................................................................... 10
1.2. Literature review............................................................................................ 11
1.2.1. Peer feedback in terms of writing skills...................................................11
1.2.2. Challenges in peer feedback activity....................................................... 12
1.2.3. Cohesion.................................................................................................. 12
1.2.4. Cohesion analysis............................................................................................ 13
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY............................................................................ 15
2.1. Study design.................................................................................................... 15
2.2. Study site......................................................................................................... 15
2.3. Population and Sample................................................................................. 15
2.4. Data collection procedure.............................................................................. 16
2.4.1. Phase one................................................................................................. 16
2.4.2. Phase two................................................................................................. 18
2.5. Data analysis................................................................................................... 18
2.5.1. Text analysis............................................................................................ 18
2.5.2. Interview transcript analysis.................................................................... 20
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS AND FINDINGS............................................................. 22
3.1. Students’ performance on cohesion..............................................................22
3.1.1. Accuracy.................................................................................................. 22
3.1.2. Variety......................................................................................................23
3.2. Cohesion improvement in relation to peer feedback.................................. 24
3.3. Cohesion’s interaction with other aspects....................................................25
3.3.1. With style................................................................................................. 25
3.3.2. With ideas................................................................................................ 26
3.3.3. With structure.......................................................................................... 28
3.3.4. With more than one aspect.......................................................................29
3.3.5. Conclusion............................................................................................... 30
3.4. Students’ perception towards peer feedback...............................................31
3.4.1. Usefulness................................................................................................31
3.4.2. Acceptance...............................................................................................32
CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION............................................... 34
4.1. Discussion........................................................................................................34
4.2. Implications.....................................................................................................35

5
 4.3. Limitations and suggestions for future research......................................... 36
APPENDIX A. Checklist for cohesion...................................................................... 38
APPENDIX B. Feedback receiver retrospective interview prompts..................... 39
REFERENCE..............................................................................................................41

6
 ABSTRACT

Despite previous research examining the effectiveness of peer feedback in writing, the
impacts of peer feedback on the aspect of cohesion leave much to be desired. This
study employed a case study to explore the impacts of peer feedback on students'
writing in terms of cohesion and students' perceptions of these impacts. Six EFL
learners with intermediate proficiency in English were chosen to participate in the
study, in which four of each completed one argumentative writing assignment and the
two others were in charge of giving feedback. The first writing draft was then revised
by the authors and they proceeded to produce the second version. This paper collects
data via comparing students’ two drafts with special attention to the aspect of
cohesion, as well as follow-up semi-structured interviews with 4 student authors. The
findings suggest that the accuracy of using cohesion in their argumentative writing
improved quite significantly, especially in terms of accuracy - besides, feedback on
ideas served as the most effective in improving cohesion. Simultaneously, the results
of the interviews showed that the EFL learners’ expressed their willingness to accept
and incorporate feedback. The results of the study can serve a significant role in
providing insights for pedagogical practices, specifically in collaborative learning and
peer engagement.

Keywords: peer feedback, cohesion, argumentative writing, EFL learners

7
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Cohesion theory (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

Figure 2.1. Phase one of the data collection procedure

Figure 2.2. Phase two of data collection procedure

8
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1. The improvement mean score for accuracy

Table 3.2. The improvement mean score for variety

Table 3.3. Received peer feedback aspects

Table 3.4. Feedback’s impact on students’ writing

9
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Introduction

Writing plays a critical role in achieving academic excellence and future success,
emphasizing the necessity for educators to prioritize writing instruction in their
classrooms (Graham & Perin, 2007; Boyle, Ramsay & Struan, 2019). Notably,
proficient writing skills not only enable self-expression but also promote effective
communication and cultivate critical thinking abilities, as highlighted by Hyland
(2016).

One key genre of academic writing that intermediate learners need to master is
argumentative writing. Li & Shi (2018) explain that argumentative writing requires
learners to present their ideas in a clear and organized manner, with a focus on
developing a persuasive argument. Cohesion, as emphasized by Halliday and Hasan
(1976), is crucial in creating a persuasive argument. Cohesive devices like
conjunctions, pronouns, and lexical cohesion are essential for connecting ideas
coherently in argumentative writing.

However, many studies (Ho & Huynh, 2023; Al-Jarf, 2001; Ahmed, 2010) have
suggested that a significant number of students face difficulties in using cohesive
devices in their writing, which can adversely affect the coherence and overall
effectiveness of their written work. Ahmed (2010) identified the low English
proficiency of students as the primary cause of noncohesive writing. The study's
findings further revealed that poor linguistic competence, particularly in syntactic and
semantic awareness, and an inadequate or inaccurate understanding of cohesion rules
led to cohesion anomalies.

To address this challenge, peer feedback has been suggested as effective pedagogical
strategies for enhancing cohesion and other writing skills (Topping, 1998). Lin &
Liang (2018) highlight that students who received peer feedback demonstrated
noteworthy improvements in their writing quality, particularly in areas such as
coherence, cohesion, and argumentative structure.

Although previous studies have examined the effectiveness of peer feedback on

overall writing or many aspects of an essay, few looked into the impacts of peer
feedback on cohesion. Specifically, some research only revealed some common
patterns of peer feedback and their impacts on students’ writing skills (Gielen et al.,
2010; Kerman et al., 2022). Furthermore, it is not clear how students respond to peer
feedback on cohesion when it comes to argumentative essays. Thus, in this study, we
aim to explore the impacts of peer feedback on students' writing in terms of cohesion
and students' perceptions of these impacts. The following questions were formulated
to achieve the main goal of this empirical study:

10
 (1) To what extent does the cohesion of their argumentative essays change due to
their peer feedback?

(2) How do EFL students perceive the impacts of peer feedback on the cohesion of
argumentative essays?

1.2. Literature review

1.2.1. Peer feedback in terms of writing skills

Peer feedback, in the context of education, involves students giving feedback to one
another on their work to improve the quality of the work (Falchikov, 2013). A number
of studies have suggested that peer feedback is a highly effective pedagogical strategy
for enhancing writing skills.

Simonsmeier, Peiffer, and Flaig (2020) reported that peer feedback not only enhances
students' ability to assess their own work but also improves their self-esteem and
motivation. Furthermore, Noroozi and Hatami (2018) and Tian and Li (2018) have
highlighted the potential benefits of peer feedback, which include enhancing writing
capabilities, promoting critical thinking, facilitating knowledge building, and
accelerating deeper learning. In the context of argumentative essay writing, Kerman,
Noroozi, Banihashem, Karami & Biemans (2022) indicate that feedback that includes
descriptive information (cognitive feedback) and suggestions for further
improvements (constructive feedback) is more effective in improving student’s writing
skills.

In Vietnam, a growing body of research has explored the effectiveness of peer

feedback in improving English writing skills among English-learning students. For
example, a study by Pham and Nguyen (2014) found that peer feedback was
particularly effective in improving grammar accuracy, vocabulary use, and
grammatical structures. Another study by Vo and Nguyen (2023) demonstrated that
peer feedback helped students learn from their peers' errors, expand their vocabulary,
and discover new ways of phrasing and organizing ideas. In addition, as noted by this
research, peer assessment is viewed as an effective solution to make the class more
interesting and reduce the monotony of online writing lessons.

Some research suggests that peer feedback has a positive impact on students’
perception towards writing. For instance, Gielen et al. (2010) demonstrated that the
inclusion of explanations in peer feedback, known as "justifications," can increase
their motivation to improve subsequent performance in assessments in secondary
education. Similarly, Tsui and Ng's (2000) study highlighted the importance of
providing detailed and specific revision suggestions in peer feedback, which can
enhance students' perception of the feedback and improve their writing performance.

11
Additionally, extensive research supports formative feedback as a highly effective
learning activity that significantly boosts students' motivation to engage in online
learning (Liu & Carless, 2006; Xie, 2013).

1.2.2. Challenges in peer feedback activity

Although the aforementioned research showed that peer feedback positively affects
one’s writing, some challenges of adopting peer feedback activities are found. A study
conducted by Yu, S., and I. Lee. (2016) found that in ESL classes, students’ limited
proficiency of English may deter them from giving high-quality feedback. This
finding aligns with previous research by Panadero (2016) and Zhu & Carless (2018),
indicating that students’ lack of knowledge in specific fields are not always linked to
effective writing feedback. There is a consensus that mixed levels of English
proficiency in class not only influences the quality of given feedback but also the
levels of contribution to using peer feedback (Allen & Mills, 2016; Wu, 2019).
Besides, trust issues are identified as one of the challenges that hampers students’
perception of peer feedback towards writing. As noted in the research conducted by
Pham, Lin, Trinh & Bui (2020), peer comments merely highlight surface problems
(e.g., idea development, essay structure) rather than yielding marked learning
improvements (e.g., vocabulary richness, grammar accuracy). The study indicates that
students, concerning the notions of “given” and “received” in peer feedback, are
doubtful about their counterparts as they do not devote serious attention and sustained
efforts to build content-oriented responses.

1.2.3. Cohesion

Cohesion, which involves the use of linguistic devices such as conjunctions,

transitional words, and pronouns, is essential for creating unity and connectedness
between sentences and paragraphs in written or spoken texts (Halliday & Hasan,
1976).

Cohesion plays a crucial role in developing English argumentative skills. A growing

body of literature has investigated the relationship between cohesion and the quality of
argumentation in English writing. For instance, Alarcon and Morales (2011)
investigated the role of grammatical cohesion in academic writing and found that it
positively influenced the quality of argumentation in student essays.

Similarly, Yang and Sun (2012) investigated the use of cohesion in argumentative
essays written by Chinese college students and found that the use of cohesive devices
such as reference, conjunction, and repetition was positively correlated with the
overall quality of the argument. They argued that the effective use of cohesive devices
helped to establish cohesion and create a logical flow of ideas in the argumentative
essay. Similarly, the current study aims to examine the impact of cohesion on the
12
development of English argumentative writing skills among students, recognizing the
importance of cohesion in this area.

1.2.4. Cohesion analysis

There have been a variety of methods and tools proposed by many researchers for
cohesion analysis (Nunan, 1993; Coskun, 2005; Crossley, Kyle & McNamara, 2016),
and in this study, we focused specifically on the use of connectives, a language feature
related to cohesion. This was selected because previous research proved that cohesive
devices are effective predictors of EFL writing proficiency (Liu & Braine, 2005;
Crossley & McNamara, 2010; and Alarcon & Morales, 2011; Yang & Sun, 2012). For
example, according to Crossley and MacNamara (2010), the number of cohesive
devices used in the writing was a good predictor of text organization and overall essay
quality as judged by the writing experts, which stressed our need to discover not only
well-developed but also a suitable analytical framework to examine the use of those
devices in EFL argumentative writings.

Although other researchers have identified several models to categorize those

cohesion connectives in written text (Witte & Faigley, 1981; Thornbury, 2005), this
study adopted the cohesion framework suggested by Halliday and Hasan (1976), given
its comprehensiveness and influential position among other discourse theories. In the
book "Cohesion in English" (1976), Halliday and Hasan identified five main types of
cohesive connections in English, which are reference, substitution, ellipsis,
conjunction, and lexical cohesion. Each of these classes includes several subtypes and
further subdivisions (See Figure 1.1). Of those five cohesive devices, this research
focused on reference, conjunction, and lexical cohesion in terms of their quantity and
quality, on the ground that those aforementioned are more common in writings, while
substitution and ellipsis appear more frequently in spoken language (Carter &
McCarthy, 2006; Yang and Sun, 2012).

13
 Figure 1.1 Cohesion theory (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

The unit of analysis is also a major concern regarding the analysis of cohesion.
Halliday and Hasan (1976) identified cohesive devices between sentences, which is
not applicable, given the focus of this study is EFL argumentative essays (normally up
to 300 words in length). T-unit, which is an independent clause and all subordinate
elements attached to it (Hunt, 1965), was chosen as the unit of analysis in this study.
The rationale for this decision was that it is the grammatically shortest part of writing
to carry complete and independent meaning, as well as a global measure of linguistic
development. T-unit analysis has been successfully utilized by Larsen-Freeman and
Strom (1977) to evaluate the quality of EFL student writing. Generally, T-units can be
considered as a complete sentence, however, one sentence can have one or more
T-units, depending on the number of independent clauses, which consist of subjects
and finite verbs (Bardovi-Harlig, 1992). Dependent clauses embedded in an
independent clause are considered as a single T-unit.

1. There is a girl next door, and she is a singer.

2. There is a girl next door, who is a singer.

The first example has two T-units as two independent clauses are conjoined by a
cohesive device, namely additive conjunction (and). However, there is only one T-unit
in the second example, on the ground that the relative clause “who is a singer” is a
dependent clause.

Moreover, the argumentative writing assignments in this research deployed the format
of task 2 in the IELTS writing test. We adopted the taxonomy developed by Halliday
and Hasan (1976) to build our cohesion analysis based on two main criteria: accuracy
and variety.

14
 CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY

2.1. Study design

To investigate the effectiveness of different types of peer feedback in argumentative

writing skills, this study employed case study design in particular. Robert K. Yin
(2014) defined case study as "an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary
phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between
phenomenon and context are not clearly evident". The rationale of this design is based
on the possibility of multiple cases helping to strengthen the results by replicating
the patterns and thereby increasing the robustness of the findings (Yin, 1994).
Therefore, a case study design was used with a view to ensuring a complete
description of the situation in the educational context when collecting the data.

2.2. Study site

The study was conducted at one English Centre in Ha Noi, The Catalyst for English,
which was commonly known as TCE. We purposely chose this site thanks to its
accessibility because two researchers were currently working as English teachers in
this center, thereby facilitating the data collection and observation process over an
extended period of time. Additionally, The Catalyst for English specifically catered to
students with intermediate proficiency, which was the target population for the study.
This not only simplified the recruitment process but also ensured that the research
findings were tailored to the specific needs and challenges faced by intermediate-level
learners. Furthermore, the study site's focus on English language writing, specifically
the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) Writing program, made it
an ideal setting to explore how learners develop cohesion in argumentative writing.
This specific focus allowed for a more targeted investigation into the challenges and
strategies involved in developing cohesive written arguments, as well as how feedback
processes can facilitate this development.

2.3. Population and Sample

This research specifically targeted the population of EFL learners. The participation of
this case study was a class which had six EFL learners in total with intermediate
proficiency in English. Participants in this study were students who enrolled in The
Catalyst for English's IELTS Writing program, having completed at least one writing
assignment and demonstrated a foundational grasp of argumentative writing. To
ensure the study's focus is precise, we limited our participant pool to students enrolled
in the Advanced courses, which provide an intermediate level of English language
proficiency. This course aims to develop students’ writing skills and help them
achieve a score of 7.0 or higher on the IELTS Writing exam. With class sizes ranging
from 5 to 7 students, the program prioritizes personalized attention and instructional

15
quality. Throughout the course, students focused on several key areas, including
developing effective arguments, using appropriate vocabulary and grammar,
organizing ideas and information in a logical manner, and utilising different writing
techniques to create a more engaging and persuasive piece. Therefore, with the
majority of their studying devoted to lexical and grammatical resources, the students
were believed to acquire a good command of those aspects, leaving cohesive aspects
open for our research.

The participants were diverse in terms of age and gender to ensure that the study
findings are representative of the broader population of intermediate-level English
language learners at TCE.

The participants were divided into two different groups: Group A and Group B. Group
A, which consisted of four students who showed willingness, was responsible for
writing an argumentative essay under a selected theme. In contrast, Group B,
including two students, undertook the responsibility of providing feedback on
cohesion to Group A. Group A included Thao, a 16-year-old student, Hoa, a
19-year-old student, Huong, a 20-year-old student, and Tien, also the same age as
Hương (all pseudonyms). Meanwhile, the feedback providers in Group B included
Minh and Bach, both of them sophomores in the university.

2.4. Data collection procedure

In the current study, the process of data collection would last for three consecutive
weeks and was divided into two phases. Our reason behind our decision arises from
the focus on manageability, which facilitates the processes of collecting, analyzing,
and interpreting data.

2.4.1. Phase one

16
Figure 2.1 Phase one of the data collection procedure

The current study designed and employed a module about cohesion and checklist
criteria for essay analysis, based on the theoretical framework of Halliday and Hasan
(1976) provided in their book “Cohesion in English". This criteria was used in a class
at the TCE center with students of intermediate level as a part of their peer feedback
process and it was also used by the researchers to analyse two drafts of argumentative
essays.

The feedback process among students was performed during 2 consecutive weeks. In
the first week, students of group B attended a comprehensive lesson on the concept of
cohesion in argumentative essay writing, conducted by their head instructor at The
Catalyst for English. Along with that, they were also provided with detailed
instructional materials designed by the researchers to ensure a comprehensive
understanding of cohesion among them. Group B were also instructed on how to give
feedback to their peers. This instructional lesson was carefully observed by one of the
researchers, who then compiled detailed observational notes for subsequent analysis.

Concurrently, students of group A were required to write an argumentative essay on

the topic derived from the IELTS test: “Although more and more people read the news
on the Internet, newspapers will remain the most important source of news for the
majority of people. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?” This topic was
their weekly homework following three weeks of lesson on argumentative writing at
the center.

After the first versions were collected, students of group A would receive peer
feedback from their counterparts in group B during the following week. Group A
students then revised their essays based on the received feedback and submitted the
second version within the same week.

17
2.4.2. Phase two

Figure 2.2. Phase two of data collection procedure

After analyzing data from the focus groups’ argumentative essays, we proceeded to
conduct in-depth interviews with four students in Group A (see Appendix B for the
interview guide). By focusing on this group, we aimed to ascertain the direct impacts
of peer feedback on students’ argumentative writing skills in terms of cohesion, as
well as to gain a deeper understanding of their subjective perceptions of these impacts.
The interview lasted approximately 30 minutes each, allowing for comprehensive
exploration of the students’ perspectives.

During these interviews, participants were asked to elaborate on their experience when
writing argumentative essays and receiving feedback from their peers. For instance,
they were asked to explain in detail and clearly how they felt about the quality of peer
feedback they received - whether they found it useful, whether they accepted it and
thus how it influenced their approach to improving second drafts of their essays.

2.5. Data analysis

2.5.1. Text analysis

As mentioned in the literature review, we employed an adapted coding scheme from

the framework of Halliday and Hasan (1976) to analyze cohesion in EFL
argumentative writing. This coding scheme encompassed three cohesive devices:
reference, conjunction, and lexical cohesion. The deductive approach was applied,
using the aforementioned cohesive subtypes and their subdivisions, or in other words
indicators, as codes to analyze the data. The choice of approach was made due to the
fact that it entailed utilizing pre-existing theories and frameworks to identify codes
and themes (Braun & Clarke, 2012).

18
Along with the coding scheme, the cohesion checklist we developed also focused on
these three cohesive subtypes and their divisions, assessing them based on two main
criteria: accuracy and variety. Specifically, the two criteria were rated on a three-level
scale (See Appendix A). It is also worth noting that the focus of analysis was the
cohesion between T-units only, meaning cohesion between clauses and words was not
considered within the scope of this research.

The content analysis of text data went as follows:

1. Collected texts were assigned to two researchers in our group to start the coding
process. The two assigned coders were the ones in charge of formulating the coding
scheme and cohesion checklist. Also, both researchers independently coded the same
draft initially to make a mutual agreement on the approach to data analysis. The first
coded text was used as a coding sample to ensure uniformity throughout the analysis
process.

2. The quality of participants’ cohesion in argumentative writing was evaluated using

the coding scheme adopted from Halliday and Hasan’s framework (1976). The scheme
included three cohesive devices as three categories: reference, conjunction, lexical
cohesion, which were divided into nine components as follows: (1) Personal pronoun,
(2) Demonstrative reference, (3) Comparative reference, (4) Additive conjunction, (5)
Adversative conjunction, (6) Causative conjunction, (7) Temporal conjunction, (8)
Reiteration, (9) Collocation. Scores (from 0 to 3) would be given after assessing the
component, based on two criteria: accuracy and variety.

For accuracy assessment, the scores were as follows:

● 1 score - The use of the component was not clear or was inaccurate.
● 2 score - The use of the component was appropriate, albeit with some mistakes.
● 3 score - The use of the component was skillful, attracting no attention.

For variety assessment, the scores were as follows:

● 1 score - Used a limited range of the component

● 2 score - Used a basic range of the component (with some over-or-under use).
● 3 score - Used a wide range of the component.

Participants would be given 0 score if there were no application of the component in

their drafts.

Subsequently, we subtracted the score of draft 1 from that of draft 2 to see the
improvement score in each cohesive subdivision. We then calculated the mean of the

19
improvement scores and gained final results for the overall improvement of cohesion
(See Appendix A).

3. For further understanding, we also investigated the amount of peer feedback given
specifically on different aspects and whether participants made changes to the second
draft based on the peer feedback or not. For the peer feedback itself, the total number
of peer comments as well as comments on each aspect were determined. Data was
then converted into percentages (See Table 3 in Chapter 3, Section 3.2). Similarly,
for participants’ acceptance of peer feedback, we counted the total number of
corrections or changes made in draft 2, the number of such made based on peer
feedback and without peer feedback. Data for all three categories were then converted
into a percentage table (See Table 4 in Chapter 3, Section 3.2).

4. After the coding process, there was an examination of the coded texts, where two
researchers cross-checked their peer's coded data. For further information, no
emerging themes were seen during the coding process.

5. The analysis ended with reporting the collected results, answering the research
question about the impact of peer feedback on the improvement of EFL argumentative
writing skills.

2.5.2. Interview transcript analysis

The thematic analysis was employed in this research to analyze qualitative data.
Vaismoradi, Turunen, and Bondas (2013) argued that thematic analysis is a flexible
and effective method for analyzing interview data, as it allows researchers to identify
relevant patterns and themes and provides a deep and contextualized understanding of
the participants' experiences and perspectives. Both deductive and inductive
approaches were adopted for the coding scheme. We identified codes based on the
Feedback Perception Questionnaire by Strijbos et al (2010) while also allowing other
codes and themes to surface during the data analysis. Instead of using 4 main themes
like in the framework, the researchers only used 3 main themes as two groups did not
have any connection beforehand, which helped to minimize the risk of being biased
and unfair.

The data analysis procedure started with the transcription of the interviews. We read
through the transcripts of answers from all interviewees in order to prepare the dataset
for analysis. The students' perception towards peer feedback activity would focus on
three factors that are usefulness (US), acceptance (AC) and willingness to improve
(WI). First, meaningful data relating to perceptions of students towards peer feedback,
especially those about cohesion, were extracted and coded. Codes were applied to
both direct quotes from participants and the author's interpretation. Second, similar
codes were grouped together and put into three main expected themes. Third, these
20
independent themes would be reviewed independently by three authors for
consistency in interpretation, and any differences would be discussed and resolved.
After analyzing the transcriptions of the interviews, the researchers decided to include
the result of the theme “Willingness to improve" into the theme “Acceptance" as the
results of these two themes were quite relevant and overlapping.

21
 CHAPTER 3: RESULTS AND FINDINGS

3.1. Students’ performance on cohesion

To test the improvement of students between their first and second writing
performance after receiving peer feedback, both drafts from four students were
analyzed, using the coding scheme and the cohesion checklist developed by the
researchers, with major focus on the criteria of accuracy and variety.

3.1.1. Accuracy

As mentioned in Section 5, Chapter 3, scores from 0-3 were given to each cohesive
device and the mean score for each participant was generated. After the analysis
process, the mean improvement score for all four EFL students showed that the
accuracy of using cohesion in their argumentative writing improved quite significantly
from the first drafts to the second ones (M = 0.31, SD = 0.38). This result confirmed
our expectations that the quality of cohesion improved to a certain degree after the
revision process, based on peer feedback.

There was also an overall positive trend regarding all cohesive devices, namely
reference, conjunction, and lexical cohesion (See Table 3.1). Reference (M = 0.21, SD
= 0.63) and conjunction (M = 0.23, SD = 0.21) showed quite similar mean
improvement scores, while there was a significant difference between the mean
improvement score for those aforementioned cohesive devices and lexical cohesion
(M = 0.5, SD = 0.41), indicating that all four students improved more on the accuracy
of this cohesive device.

Table 3.1. The improvement mean score for accuracy

Looking at each student’s improvement in cohesion, the results were rather surprising.
The quality of all three aspects of cohesion was reported to increase for most of the
cases, which results in their overall improvement in cohesion. Hoa and Tien’s
improvement in the cohesive aspect stayed positive among all three devices, with M =
0.36 and M = 0.83 respectively. Thao showed a significant decrease in their accuracy

22
of using references, however, an increase in both the accuracy of conjunction and
lexical cohesion made their total mean score 0.06. There was a remarkable difference
considering the case of Huong, as their mean improvement scores indicated no
improvement in their accuracy of cohesion between the first and second drafts,
considering the fact that they scored mostly level three for all cohesive devices.

3.1.2. Variety

Similarly, the mean scores for variety were produced, using the same analysis method
as those for accuracy. In terms of variety in cohesion use, the overall writing
performance of four participants showed a slight improvement (M = 0.2, SD = 0.46;
see Table 3.2) after receiving peer feedback.

Table 3.2. The improvement mean score for variety

Out of the three aspects used to assess the overall cohesion, only lexical cohesion of
the second draft was more diverse compared to that of the first draft (M = 0.75, SD =
0.5). As shown in the table, three participants namely Thao, Huong, Tien had their use
of lexical cohesion upgraded by one level (out of three levels used to assess cohesion
in this research), while only Hoa’s performance remained unchanged.

Meanwhile, a decrease in the variety was seen in the use of reference (M = -0.04, SD
= 0.28) and conjunction (M = -0.06, SD = 0.31). Hoa and Huong’s performance levels
reduced by 0.33 and 0.17 out of three assessment levels of reference use. As for
conjunction, only Thao saw a modest improvement regarding varied cohesive
subdivisions while Tien’s reduced by 0.5 and the other two saw no changes.

In summary, while the overall cohesion regarding variety in EFL argumentative

writing of students marginally increased after receiving peer feedback, the positive
changes were only present in lexical cohesion; the other two aspects namely reference
and conjunction saw a decrease in range used.

Taken together, both accuracy and variety of cohesion on EFL students improved to
quite a similar extent, which answers our second research question. In particular,

23
lexical cohesion witnessed the most significant improvement, in terms of both
quantity and quality after the peer feedback session, while there was only an increase
in the accuracy of the other two cohesive devices. Our four cases also saw an overall
improvement in both criteria, with only an exception of Huong’s significant reduction
in the use of cohesive devices.

3.2. Cohesion improvement in relation to peer feedback

To answer the question of whether their overall improvement in cohesion was due to
the application of peer feedback, we took a close look at the distribution of feedback
aspects in each case (See Table 3.3).

Feedback on cohesion was not frequently provided compared to the other aspects. The
highest percentage of comments on cohesion was 20% as seen in D’s essay, while the
lowest belonged to A’s draft with only 12%.

Table 3.3. Received peer feedback aspects

The majority of changes made to the second draft of participants were based on the
received feedback, ranging from 86% to 97% (See table 3.4). Only incomparable
percentages of self-correction were seen in the second draft, as low as 2% and highest
as 14%. These results indicate that the improvement of cohesion in participants’ EFL
argumentative writing was largely attributed to peer feedback, whether directly related
to cohesion or not.

24
 Table 3.4. Feedback’s impact on students’ writing

3.3. Cohesion’s interaction with other aspects

Overall, most of the feedback was a pair of comments and recommendations, in which
the feedback giver not only identified the problem with each aspect but also offered
suggestions for further changes.

All the aspects under study, namely ideas, style and structure, interacted with
cohesion, to some extent. The level of interaction between each aspect also varied.
However, one shared feature is that feedback on all aspects affects cohesion indirectly,
which means that the feedback points’ original purpose may not necessarily be to
enhance cohesion in participants’ writing. However, after the process of reviewing the
two drafts, there is a change in cohesion presented in the second draft.

Below is a detailed analysis of how cohesion interacts with each aspect. It is also
worth noting that this research focuses on cohesion between T-units and all the
examples listed were extracted from participants’ first and second drafts, with the
English version of feedback translated by our team.

3.3.1. With style

Feedback on style was reported as the most dominant out of the four in total.
Evidently, the interaction between style and cohesion was also the most dynamic,
since compared to others, feedback on style showed the highest frequency to
simultaneously address the aspect of cohesion. However, it is worth noting that the
interaction may simply lead to a change in the used indicators of one cohesive
subtype, not necessarily a decrease or increase in the degree of overall cohesion. In
fact, improvement in cohesion was the least common case shown in this study.

In the majority of cases, the accepted feedback did not change the degree of cohesion
in author students’ essays. This is because feedback givers mostly suggested an
interchangeable expression, replacing one indicator of cohesion with another of the
same accuracy level, mostly conjunctions (example 1 and 2) and lexical cohesion

25
(example 3 and 4). Therefore, cohesion was addressed but no change in its degree was
seen.

(1) Moreover → Additionally

(2) What is more → Furthermore/In addition to its convenience

(3) newspaper → traditional newspaper (Add “traditional”)

(4) …over conventional internet options to read the news -> …compared to online
news

In some cases, the accepted feedback on style led to a decrease in the overall degree of
cohesion. This happened when feedback givers suggested a more succinct expression,
thus removing words or phrases. These removed parts, however, were counted as
lexical cohesion, specifically as collocation. Therefore, an improvement in style led to
a decrease in cohesion overall.

(1) First draft: The idea of reading news on the internet is reasonable as online
news is more convenient in various ways…
Second draft: The idea of reading news on the internet is reasonable due to its
convenience…

(2) First draft: For instance, the elderly, especially in rural areas, may not have the
ability to get online and (X) connect to the Internet…
Second draft: For instance, the elderly, especially in rural areas, may not have
the ability to connect to the Internet…

Interestingly, increase in cohesion was the least common case after feedback on style
was accepted. Particularly, only one out of 14 times cohesion and style interacted was
reported to increase cohesion. This happened when the feedback givers suggested a
more formal expression to the original draft, which indirectly improved lexical
cohesion, specifically in collocation.

(1) First draft: Online newspapers allow us to access the latest news faster in real
time…
Second draft: Online newspapers allow people to access the latest news faster
in real time… (collocation)

3.3.2. With ideas

Feedback on ideas has overall the second highest interaction among all four aspects,
evidently, the interaction between cohesion and idea aspects could be considered quite
significant. It is also worth noting that the interaction between feedback on cohesion
and ideas all result in positive change in cohesion, mostly lexical cohesion.
26
In most cases, feedback on ideas was a pair of comments and suggestions. The
suggestions given both served their purpose of clarifying and strengthening the
reasoning and in the process solidified the cohesion between arguments and provided
more vocabulary related to the topic. That partly explains why all the feedback
received on ideas could improve the lexical cohesion aspect, which is reflected in the
most significant improvement in both accuracy and variety.

(1) Revisit what? You need to be more specific here (Suggestion: “revisit
articles”)

(2) Why do the readers have to be concerned while consuming information from
online news? More clarity is needed (Suggestion: You can use this reason “This
is because the misinformation and fake news continue to spread through
various online platforms”

These comments addressed quite the same problem with clarity of arguments, with
which the recommendations were completely accepted by the students. Consequently,
the information added provided more language under the topic and hence improved
both the quantity and quality of lexical cohesion in the second writing.

There were two exceptions where author students did not entirely rely on the
suggestions but made their own self-correction or adjustments to the suggestion. In
both cases, an improvement in cohesion was still present.

In one case, one feedback was given on ideas that had only comments, but this case
was not different from the ones with both comments and recommendations. However,
the feedback below contained only comments, with no suggestions for improvement.

(3) This idea seems illogical, if you claim that the Internet is a good source of
information, you need to explain why traditional newspapers fail to be a good
source.

In Thao’s second draft, she independently corrected the draft by providing a reason to
further explain her statement. The self-correction resulted in an extension in the usage
of collocation, which falls under the umbrella of lexical cohesion.

In another case, while accepting the suggestion, the author participant also made their
own adjustments. Compared to the research of Guardado, M., & Shi, L. (2007) where
students made macro-level revisions by rewriting and rearranging blocks of text, this
participant also made minor changes in the recommendations from the feedback
givers. One of which resulted in an unexpected improvement in conjunction.

27
 (4) Suggestion: You can phrase it like this “By reducing the need for paper
production and distribution, online news helps to conserve natural resources
and mitigate the negative impact of human activities on the environment.”

Second draft: “As a result, by reducing the need for paper production and
distribution, online news helps to conserve natural resources and mitigate the
negative impact of human activities on the environment.”

3.3.3. With structure

Generally, feedback on structure was the least significant in terms of quantity in the
essays. The interaction between structure and cohesion was minimal, since the
purpose of addressing structural problems was mainly for the improvement of
grammar or colloquial accuracy. However, despite minimal interaction, the majority
of such feedback in the end helped improve cohesion, mostly lexical ones.

The feedback giver just provided another suggestion and did not explain detailedly
why feedback receiver should change the sentence, yet this feedback is believed to
give a different structure for the purpose of better lexical use. In the end, the accepted
phrase was counted as lexical cohesion, specifically collocation.

(1) First draft: “While there are certainly valid arguments”

Second draft: “Although some people may argue against this”

Or other cases for this can be seen in:

(2) First draft:“it is easier to”

Second draft: “online news outlets provide people with the ability to”
(3) First draft:“By contrast, information is followed by some editorial changes and
after all the final approvals, it is then printed as newspapers and shared with
the public, making more time to deliver news to readers.”
Second draft: “By contrast, traditional newspapers involve several stages of
editorial changes before being printed and shared with the public, which can
result in a delay in delivering news to readers.”

In the second and third examples, the feedback provider said that instead of using
passive voice with reporting verbs, the writer should use active voice to emphasize on
subjects. When accepting this feedback, the participant can improve the lexical
cohesion.

Another feedback was given to help improve the accuracy of structure by providing
another revised sentence with some changes and adding collocation. Yet, the provided
revised sentence is believed to decrease the variety of cohesion in conjunction.

28
 (4) First draft:“For example, the Guardian, which is the English news sources, has
many topics/themes, and each of which has several related articles.”
Second draft: “The prime example is the Guardian, an English news source
that has many topics/themes, each of which has several related articles.”

3.3.4. With more than one aspect

There were feedback points that tackled not only one aspect of the students’ essays,
some of which had a positive impact on the improvement of cohesion to some extent.

Most of the aforementioned feedback raised the problem with the aspects of ideas and
structure, usually aimed to clarify or rearrange an idea. All of which were completely
accepted with no further modifications.

(1) I will rearrange your set of sentences to make this text the most coherent.
(followed by a suggestion)

(2) From what you are writing, I get that you like online news due to the diversity
of information it can offer readers. If that is the case, you ought to make your
reasoning clearer and more justifiable. (followed by a suggestion)

The rewriting contributed considerably to the language feature in participants’

writings, because of which lexical cohesion received significant development.
Reference also showed signs of improvement, particularly in demonstrative and
comparative reference.

(3) First draft: “One rational explanation is that large amount of data can be
stored in each electronic newspaper so that people can have access to a greater
variety of news depending on their interests at the click. Compared to physical
newspapers, readers couldn't refer to multiple sources due to the limitation of
writing space.”
Second draft: “Readers can access news content from different parts of the
world, in real-time, with just a click of a button. This allows for more
comprehensive and in-depth coverage of news events, as well as exposure to
various perspectives and viewpoints.” (demonstrative reference)

(4) First draft: “I believe that digital news is eco-friendly and provides readers
with diverse information”
Second draft: “I believe that digital news is more environmentally friendly and
provides readers with a wider variety of diverse information.” (comparative
reference)

Some feedback tackled both the aspects of style and structure; however, the
improvement in cohesion was minor since the modification focused on the use of

29
language. The difference between the first and second drafts was thus insignificant
and contributed little to cohesion under study.

(5) First draft: “The next point is that online newspapers are environmentally
friendly.”
Second draft: “Another significant advantage of online news is its
environmental sustainability.”

In this example, the difference in the form of words prior to and after the feedback
process had no impact on the improvement of cohesion.

There was only one feedback point that covered all four aspects, the purpose of which
was to criticize the lack of clarity in the conclusion of one essay and provide a
suggestion to make a good summary. As a result, the student had to rewrite the whole
concluding paragraph according to feedback. With an expansion in both reasoning,
vocabulary, and structures, there was an improvement in lexical cohesion and also the
accuracy of conjunction used.

(6) First draft: “To sum up, I partly agree with the statement because I believe that
the Internet newspapers will soon be equally vital as the traditional press.”
Second draft: “In conclusion, while I agree that online newspapers are
becoming increasingly important in our digital world, I also believe that
traditional press will continue to be a vital source of information for many
individuals, especially those who are not comfortable using electronic devices
or who value the reliability of traditional media.”

3.3.5. Conclusion

Upon analyzing the data about the interaction between cohesion and the other three
aspects, one main observation emerged that the interaction between style and cohesion
was the most frequently seen, followed by idea and lastly structure. Specifically,
lexical cohesion as a cohesion subtype was the most impacted when feedback on other
aspects indirectly addressed cohesion.

However, in terms of cohesion improvement, feedback on style was actually the least
likely to improve the cohesion of author students’ writing. In fact, feedback on ideas
made the greatest contributions to cohesion improvement. This is because feedback on
ideas tended to help clarify and strengthen the reasoning, which entailed fostering the
connection between arguments. These attempts eventually improved cohesion
between sentences.

30
3.4. Students’ perception towards peer feedback

To answer the second research question, the research team gathered data from
interviews with four students. The data was divided into two broad themes that show
students' perception towards the impacts of peer feedback on cohesion. These themes
each included several sub-themes.

3.4.1. Usefulness

Overall. The perceived usefulness of the feedback was uniformly reported by all the
students, who found it to be highly comprehensive and detailed, with a particular
focus on cohesion aspects. The feedback provided specific examples that not only
highlighted the strengths of their writing but also pinpointed areas that necessitated
improvement. It is interesting to note that the feedback’s impact extended beyond its
immediate value, as it effectively enriched the students’ linguistic resources by
introducing more advanced and formal vocabulary, thereby fostering the expansion of
their lexical resource.

Cohesion. Information related to the usefulness of peer feedback on the development

of cohesion was quite generic. The interviewees reported that they were aware of
some changes in the cohesion of their writing between two drafts despite the fact that
some of them may not focus too much on this aspect when writing draft 1.
Particularly, only two of the interviewees actively commented on the peer feedback
related to cohesion they received while the other two participants did not give any
specific compliments or complaints towards this aspect. Hoa was satisfied with, and
valued the amount of detailed feedback provided by their peers as this helped her to
produce more concise sentences, more succinct expressions and varied linking words.
However, Huong reported that:

“Although the overall peer feedback was very useful and detailed, the cohesion of my
second draft was not different from the first one. This is because normally I don't
struggle with this aspect". (Huong, follow-up interview)

This suggests that whether peer feedback on cohesion is useful or not may depend on
the writing skill level of a student.

The interview results also indicated that students might perceive peer feedback on
cohesion as insignificant, yet they still could acknowledge the improvement of
cohesion in their writing. This was because two interviewees (Thao and Tien) did not
actively refer much to, or comment about cohesive parts in their writing essays unless
they were asked by the researchers. However, with the analysis of their essay, peer
feedback and interview transcript, this tendency may result from the fact that their
peer feedback on ideas, structure, and style contributed to the development of their

31
cohesion. Therefore, not only specific peer feedback on cohesion but feedback related
to other aspects can help to refine the overall cohesion.

3.4.2. Acceptance

When examining the acceptance of feedback, we conducted a meticulous analysis that

involved categorizing it into two distinct themes: “according to feedback” and “based
on feedback".

According to peer feedback. It became evident that all students not only embraced the
feedback they received but also fully acknowledged the suggestions provided to
enhance the cohesion of their essays. This acceptance was clearly evident in their
approach, as they willingly incorporated the exact suggestions presented during the
feedback process. This was further exemplified by Huong and Hoa during the
interview phase, where they expressed their proactive response to the feedback:

“I made some changes to the structures based on peer feedback” (Huong & Hoa,
follow-up interview)

This can be attributed to the fact that some students reported that the feedback
effectively pinpointed the weaknesses within their work, while simultaneously
providing concrete suggestions accompanied by illustrative samples. As a result, they
were inclined to emulate the provided sample, recognising its potential to serve as a
guiding framework for improving the cohesion of their writing.

Based on peer feedback. In addition to the feedback that included the detailed
samples, it is worth noting there was also feedback that solely highlighted the
weaknesses presented in the essays. Consequently, the students were faced with the
task of solving these identified issues based on the feedback provided. They opted to
employ a combination of strategies to improve the logical flow of their essays. Among
these strategies, some students made effective use of synonyms, carefully selecting
alternative words and phrases to address the critical comments they received. By
skilfully integrating these synonyms, they aimed to refine their writing and address the
feedback constructively. Hoa exemplified this approach:

"I was suggested to use 'presently,' but I transformed it into 'at the present time.'"
(Hoa, follow-up interview)

Furthermore, a small number of students showcased an advanced level of initiative by

introducing their own additional ideas. By doing so, they sought to improve the
overall cohesion of their written work, exceeding the expectations set by the feedback
they received. This was evidenced by Tien during the interview:

32
“I added the sentence myself because the feedback said that my structure was not
thorough enough.” (Tien, follow-up interview)

Overall, these findings highlight the EFL learners’ willingness to accept and
incorporate feedback, but also emphasize the importance of providing comprehensive
explanations and guidance to enhance their understanding of the underlying principle.

33
 CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

4.1. Discussion

The overall aim of this study is to discover the impacts of peer feedback on
student’s writing in terms of cohesion and students’ perceptions of these impacts.
In our study, it’s important to note that we considered all aspects of cohesion,
including reference, conjunction and lexical cohesion. It is also worth noting that the
focus of this analysis was the cohesion between T-units only, meaning cohesion
between clauses or words was not considered within the scope of this research.

The results of the first research question revealed the extent to which EFL students
improved the cohesion of their argumentative essays due to their peer feedback. Our
findings reveal a significant improvement in the accuracy of cohesion use from the
first drafts to the revised versions of the essays. These findings are consistent with and
supported by previous research indicating that the cohesion aspects of the writing
essays can greatly increase thanks to the peer feedback (see Lin & Liang 2018,
Topping 1998). For example, in their study, Lin and Liang (2018) investigated the
effects of peer feedback on improving cohesion in student writing. They found that
students who received peer feedback showed a significant increase in the accuracy of
cohesion usage in their essays. This aligns with the results of our study, which also
found improvements in the quality of cohesion due to peer feedback.

Regarding our second research question, we discovered that all students recognized
the usefulness of feedback in helping them identify areas for improvement in their
writing. They also acknowledged that feedback could be beneficial for making their
future essays better. While students didn't specifically mention how feedback directly
improves cohesion, they did grasp the broader idea that feedback focusing on
vocabulary, grammar, and structure can indirectly contribute to better cohesion. This
connection makes sense because improving these fundamental elements can lead to
better overall cohesion in essays. Cohesion, as described by Halliday and Hasan in
1976, involves how words and sentences are structured to make a text flow smoothly
and coherently.

This finding contrasts with some previous research that suggested students may find
the feedback process challenging and not always perceive received feedback as
helpful (Carless, 2006; Holmes & Papageorgiou, 2009). This is because our group of
researchers had carried out an orientation day in which we provided comprehensive
instructions and guidelines on how feedback givers can effectively deliver feedback
on the essays of the author students. This strategic orientation day aimed to enhance
the quality of feedback, ensuring that participants in Group B could navigate the
process without feeling disoriented. Besides, all participants in Group A (feedback

34
receivers) all came from an Advanced level background. This demographic
characteristic made it less challenging for us to instruct them the way to write essays
and, correspondingly, alleviated the burden for Group B when providing feedback.
Moreover, it deviates from studies indicating that feedback can elicit a variety of
emotions among students, ranging from highly negative to extremely positive (Rowe,
Fitness, & Wood, 2013). This is because our above approach potentially reduced the
emotional variability typically associated with feedback processes, offering a more
positive and beneficial experience for the participants involved.

Another thing the group of researchers also discovered is that the feedback for ideas
can lead to the greatest improvement in cohesion among all of the feedback. This is
understandable because the feedback providers in this research highlighted areas
where ideas are unclear or poorly expressed, identified gaps or inconsistencies in
reasoning and offered suggestions to enhance comprehension. This focus on clarity
enhances the overall cohesion of the writing by ensuring that ideas are conveyed
effectively to the reader. This aligns with the studies by Ferris and Hedgcock (2004)
on the effectiveness of feedback in second language writing emphasizing the
importance of clarity and precision in written communication. Their research suggests
that feedback that addresses issues of clarity and expression can significantly improve
the coherence and readability of written texts.

4.2. Implications

This research can play an important role in assisting other stakeholders in the
education field. In terms of educators, the study’s findings offer significant insights for
their pedagogical practices. By understanding the substantial improvements in
cohesion resulting from peer feedback, educators can tailor their instructional
strategies to emphasize collaborative learning and peer engagement. Moreover, the
study’s result of the direct relationship between strategic orientation sessions and
enhanced feedback quality can underscore the importance of educator-led guidance in
facilitating effective feedback processes. Regarding the students, they emerge as the
primary beneficiaries of peer feedback practices because they can enhance their
writing skills and deepen their understanding of cohesion in written essays. Students'
recognition of the indirect contributions of feedback to cohesion reflects their growing
metacognitive awareness and analytical skills. With this insight, students can get
involved in the feedback process in the role of both feedback givers and receivers,
spotting areas where they can improve and honing their writing skills with clarity and
purpose. By seeing peer feedback as a way to reflect on their own work and improve,
students develop resilience, confidence, and a sense of control over their writing
journey. This sets the stage for continued learning and achievement throughout their
academic and professional lives.

35
4.3. Limitations and suggestions for future research

The choice of a limited sample size represents a significant constraint in this study, as
it consisted of only six participants distributed into two distinct groups. The rationale
behind opting for a small sample size is closely tied to the qualitative nature of this
research. Qualitative studies prioritize depth over breadth, aiming to delve deeply into
specific phenomena within a constrained context (Dawadi, Shrestha, & Giri, 2021).
The qualitative orientation of our study underscores our aim for deeper insights into
the experiences, perceptions, and behaviors of the participants, which allowed for a
comprehensive exploration of the intricacies of peer feedback and how it impacted
cohesion.

Although the modest sample size suited our qualitative case study approach and
provided valuable insights, future research should consider assessing the effectiveness
of peer feedback on argumentative writing skills among a wider range of EFL
learners, potentially involving larger sample sizes and different research methods. The
integration of quantitative research methods or mixed-methods designs would
accommodate more extensive samples and enable statistical analyses to establish
generalizability. (Kaplan, Chambers, & Glasgow, 2014). By this way, researchers may
draw stronger conclusions about the relationship between peer feedback and cohesion
improvement. In addition, with a larger sample size, researchers can capture a broader
range of experiences and variations among EFL learners, providing a more
comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness of peer feedback on argumentative
writing skills.

Another significant limitation relates to the relatively short period during which we
collected data, which lasted for only three consecutive weeks. Our rationale for this
choice stems from considerations of manageability, which simplifies the processes of
collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data. However, this short timeframe presents
several weaknesses. Specifically, Group B, the feedback providers, had only one week
to familiarize themselves with cohesion concepts and peer feedback techniques
provided by researchers. However, cohesion comprehension typically requires an
extended period of study and practice to fully grasp given its complexity. Therefore,
future research should extend operational timelines to yield more comprehensive and
insightful results.

Additionally, students have only one week to receive essays with peer feedback and
revise them for resubmission. This constrained period and a single time rewriting may
not capture the long-term effects of peer feedback on argumentative writing skills, as
writing development is a complex and multifaceted process that unfolds over an
extended period. (Graham & Perin, 2007). Therefore, future researchers should
consider conducting studies with longer durations, incorporating multiple rounds of

36
essay writing and feedback processes to more comprehensively evaluate the enduring
impact of peer feedback on cohesion.

Furthermore, our research only conducts an one-to-one interview with feedback

receivers to assess their perceptions of the impacts of peer feedback on cohesion and
the improvement of argumentative writing skills. Relying solely on one interview may
not provide a holistic approach to understanding thoroughly the effects of feedback on
cohesion. Therefore, future research should consider conducting additional
methodologies including group interviews, conferencing, or questionnaires, as well as
extending to collect data from both the teacher in charge of orientation and feedback
receivers in different phases of the study to gain more insights for cross-validation.
Additionally, it is also suggested for future research to include interviews with
feedback providers, as it enables researchers to delve into the rationale behind the
feedback they provide, their perceptions of its effectiveness, and the strategies
employed to offer constructive criticism. This deeper understanding is essential for
comprehending the dynamics of the feedback process and its impact on the
perceptions and responses of receivers.

37
APPENDIX A. Checklist for cohesion

38
 APPENDIX B. Feedback receiver retrospective interview prompts

Background information

General information

1. What is your current English level?

2. How long have you been studying EFL argumentative writing?

3. What experience do you have with feedback and feedforward in argumentative

writing?

4. What are your expectations when participating in this study?

Writing process

5. What writing procedure did you follow to write an argumentative writing?...

6. What difficulties did you have with the cohesion aspect while writing an
argumentative essay?

7. During your 2nd draft writing process what did you use as an assisting tool
during the activity? (Dictionary, cohesion checklist,...)

Perception

Usefulness

1. How is the cohesion of your second essay compared with the first version?

2. How does peer feedback influence the cohesion in your second argumentative
essay?

3. In terms of usefulness, how do you feel about the quality of the peer feedback
you receive? (Follow-up: Why did you feel so?)

Willingness to improve

4. How much time do you spend writing a second draft based on the peer
feedback and feedforward?

5. How much effort do you put into writing a second draft based on peer feedback
and feedforward?

Acceptance

(Applied to all three cohesive devices)

39
6. What cohesive mistakes did you correct in the second draft based on peer
feedback and feedforward ?

7. What cohesive mistakes did you not correct in the second draft based on peer
feedback and feedforward?

8. What cohesive devices did you add to your second draft based on peer
feedback and feedforward ?

9. What cohesive devices did you not add to your second draft based on peer
feedback and feedforward?

40
 REFERENCE

Ahmed, A. H. (2010). Students’ problems with cohesion and coherence in EFL essay
writing in Egypt: Different perspectives. Literacy Information and
Computer Education Journal, 1, 211-221.

Alarcon, J. B., & Morales, K. N. S. (2011). Grammatical cohesion in students’

argumentative essay. Journal of English and Literature, 2(5), 114-127.

Al-Jarf, R. S. (2001). Processing of cohesive ties by EFL Arab college students.

Foreign Language Annals, 34, 141-151.

Allen, D., & Mills, A. (2016). The impact of second language proficiency in dyadic
peer feedback. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 498–513.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). A Second Look at T-Unit Analysis: Reconsidering the

Sentence. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 390–395.

Boyle, J., Ramsay, S., & Struan, A. (2019). The Academic Writing Skills Programme:
A model for technology-enhanced, blended delivery of an academic
writing programme. Journal of University Teaching & Learning
Practice, 16(4).
https://doi.org/10.53761/1.16.4.4

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L.

Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of
research methods in psychology, vol. 2: Research designs: Quantitative,
qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57–71). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.

Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.

Carless D., (2006). “Differing perceptions in the feedback process”. Studies in Higher
Education, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 219-233.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572132

Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge:

CUP.

41
Cho, K., C. D. Schunn, and R. W. Wilson. 2006. “Validity and Reliability of
Scaffolded Peer Assessment of Writing from Instructor and Student
Perspectives.” Journal of Educational Psychology 98 (4): 891–901.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.891.

Connor, U. (1984). A study of cohesion and coherence in English as a second

language students’ writing. Paper in Linguistics, 17(3), 301–316.

Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Coskun, E. (2005). Cohesion, coherence and text elements in narrative texts of

primary school students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gazi
University, Ankara

Crossley, S.A., Kyle, K. & McNamara, D.S. (2016). The tool for the automatic
analysis of text cohesion (TAACO): Automatic assessment of local,
global, and text cohesion. Behav Res 48, 1227–1237.
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0651-7

Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). Cohesion, coherence and expert

evaluation of writing proficiency. Conference proceedings at the 32nd
annual conference of Cognitive Science Society.

Dawadi, S., Shrestha, S., & Giri, R. A. (2021). Mixed-Methods Research: A

Discussion on its Types, Challenges, and Criticisms. Journal of Practical
Studies in Education, 2(2), 25-36. doi:
https://doi.org/10.46809/jpse.v2i2.20

Falchikov, N. (2013). Improving assessment through student involvement: Practical

solutions for aiding learning in higher and further education. Routledge.

Ferris, D. R. (1994). Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at

different levels of L2 proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 414-420.

Ferris, D.R., Ferris, D.R., Hedgcock, J.S., & Hedgcock, J.S. (2004). Teaching ESL
Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice (2nd ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410611505

Frase, L., Faletti, J., Ginther, A. & Grant, L. (1997). Computer analysis of the TOEFL
test of written English (TOEFL research rep. no. 64). Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service.

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing
of adolescents in middle and high schools. Alliance for Excellent
Education.

42
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent
students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445

Grant, L. & Ginther, A. (2000). Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe

L2 writing differences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9,
123–145.

Gielen, S., E. Peeters, F. Dochy, P. Onghena, and K. Struyven. (2010). “Improving the
Effectiveness of Peer Feedback for Learning.” Learning and Instruction
20 (4): 304–315. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English (Vol. 4). Longman
London.

Ho, O., & Huynh, T. (2023). COHESION ERRORS IN ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAYS

COMMITTED BY THIRD-YEAR ENGLISH-MAJORED STUDENTS
AT THU DAU MOT UNIVERSITY, VIETNAM. International Journal
Of Education And Pedagogy, 5(1), 74-86.

Holmes K., & Papageorgiou G., (2009). “Good, bad and insufficient: Students'
expectations, perceptions and uses of feedback”. Journal of Hospitality,
Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 85-96.
http://doi.org/10.3794/johlste.81.183

Huisman, B., N. Saab, J. van Driel, and P. van den Broek. 2017. “Peer
Feedback on College Students’ Writing: Exploring the Relation
between Students’ Ability Match, Feedback Quality and Essay
Performance.” Higher Education Research & Development 36 (7):
1433–1447.

Hunt, K. W. (1965). A Synopsis of Clause-to-Sentence Length Factors. The English

Journal, 54(4), 300–309. https://doi.org/10.2307/811114

Hyland, K. (2016). Teaching and researching writing. Routledge.

Kaplan, R.M., Chambers, D.A. and Glasgow, R.E. (2014), Big Data and Large Sample
Size: A Cautionary Note on the Potential for Bias. Clinical And
Translational Science, 7: 342-346. https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12178

Kerman, N. T., Noroozi, O., Banihashem, S. K., Karami, M., & Biemans, H. J. A.
(2022). Online peer feedback patterns of success and failure in
argumentative essay writing. Interactive Learning Environments.

43
 Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2093914

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Strom, V. (1977). THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND

LANGUAGE ACQUISITION INDEX OF DEVELOPMENT1. Language
Learning, 27(1), 123–134.

Lin, C.-H., & Liang, J.-C. (2018). Peer feedback or peer feedforward? Enhancing
students' argumentative peer learning processes and outcomes. Journal
of Educational Research and Practice, 8(3), 132-149.

Liu, M. & Briane, G. (2005). Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by

Chinese undergraduate. System, 33 (4), 623-636.

Liu, N., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer-feedback: The learning element of peer
assessment. Teaching

Li, X., & Shi, L. (2018). Improving EFL Learners' Critical Thinking Skills in
Argumentative Writing. English Language Teaching, 11(7), 122-132.
Higher Education, 11, 279–290.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680582

McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Nguyen, T. M., & Dat, B. (2020). Exploring Teachers’ and Students’ Perceptions of
and Attitudes Towards the Use of Blogs for English Writing Skills at a
Vietnamese University. VNU Journal Of Science: Education Research,
36(4). doi:10.25073/2588-1159/vnuer.4402

Noroozi, O., & Hatami, J. (2018). The effects of online peer feedback and epistemic
beliefs on students’ argumentation-based learning. Innovations in
Education and Teaching International.

Nunan, D. (1993). Introducing Discourse Analysis. London: Penguin English.

Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Strijbos, J. W. (2016). Scaffolding self-regulated learning
through self-assessment and peer assessment: Guidelines for classroom
implementation. In D. Laveault & L. Allal (Eds.), Assessment for
learning: meeting the challenge of implementation. Springer, In press.
Pham, T. N., Lin, M., Trinh, V. Q., & Bui, L. T. P. (2020). Electronic peer feedback,
EFL academic writing and reflective thinking: Evidence from a
Confucian context. Sage Open, 10(1), 2158244020914554.

44
Pham, P. H. & Nguyen, T. D. (2014). The Effectiveness of peer feedback on graduate
academic writing at Ho Chi Minh City Open University. Ho Chi Minh
City Open University Journal of Science. No. 4(1).

Qiyun Zhu & David Carless (2018) Dialogue within peer feedback processes:
clarification and negotiation of meaning, Higher Education Research &
Development, 37:4, 883-897, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2018.1446417

Robert K. Yin. (2014). Case Study Research Design and Methods (5th ed.)
Rowe A.D., Fitness J., & Wood L.N., (2013). “The role and functionality of emotions
in feedback at university: A qualitative study”. Australian Association
for Research in Education. http://10.1007/s13384-013-0135-7

Simonsmeier, B. A., Peiffer, H., Flaig, M., & Schneider, M. (2020). Peer feedback
improves students’ academic self-concept in higher education. Research
in Higher Education, 61, 706-724.

Strijbos, J. W., Pat-El, R. J., & Narciss, S. (2010, May). Validation of a (peer)
feedback perceptions questionnaire. In Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference on Networked Learning, Aalborg University,
Aalborg (pp. 378-86).

Thornbury, S. (2005). Beyond the Sentence: Introducing Discourse Analysis. Oxford:

Macmillan Publisher Limited.

Tian, L., & Li, L. (2018). Chinese EFL learners’ perception of peer oral and written
feedback as providers, receivers and observers. Language Awareness,
27(4), 312-330.

Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities.

Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276.

Tsui, A. B. M., and M. Ng. 2000. “Do Secondary L2 Writers Benefit from Peer
Comments?” Journal of Second Language Writing 9 (2): 147–170.
doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00022-9.

Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013, March 11). Content analysis and
thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive
study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 398-405.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048

Vo, T., & Nguyen, N. (2023). Students’ perceptions towards the application of peer
assessment in a virtual English writing class. Journal of University
Teaching & Learning Practice, 20(2).

45
 https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.02.05

Witte, Stephen P., and Lester Faigley. (1981). Coherence, cohesion and writing quality.
College Composition and Communication. 22:189-204

Wu, Z. (2019). Lower English proficiency means poorer feedback performance? A

mixed-methods study. Assessing Writing, 41, 14–24.

Xie, K. (2013). What do the numbers say? The influence of motivation and peer
feedback on
students’ behavior in online discussions. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 44(2), 288–301.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01291.

Yang, W., & Sun, Y. (2012). The use of cohesive devices in argumentative writing by
Chinese EFL learners at different proficiency levels. Linguistics and
Education, 23(1), 31–48. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2011.09.004

Yang, W., & Sun, Y. (2012). The use of cohesive devices in argumentative writing by
Chinese EFL learners at different proficiency levels. Linguistics and
Education,23,31-48.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Discovering the Future of the Case Study. Method in Evaluation
Research. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 283-290.
https://doi.org/10.1177/109821409401500309

Yu, S., & I. Lee. 2016. “Peer Feedback in Second Language Writing (2005–2014).”
Language Teaching 49 (4): 461–493.

46