Emily Wiggins Fall 2005 Prof. Nuria Sagarra SPAN 502 The Effect of Peer and Teacher Feedback on Student Writing Terena M. Paulus (1999) Journal of Second.
Post on 25-Dec-2015
223 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Emily WigginsFall 2005
Prof. Nuria Sagarra
SPAN 502
The Effect of Peer and Teacher Feedback on Student Writing
Terena M. Paulus (1999)
Journal of Second Language Writing
Introduction
Teaching writing as a process. Is a text ever really finished?
The importance of teacher and peer collaboration.
How de we encourage writing as an evolving experience?.
Writing in the ESL classroom:
ESL writers have different composing practices and different needs than those of native English-speaking writers.
Introduction
Recent research has stressed the importance teaching students strategies for
all stages of the writing process:
Generating ideas
Composition
Multiple drafts
Incorporating feedback
Editing
Revision on all levels
Introduction
Teacher Feedback
The way that teachers structure writing in the classroom and the feedback that they give effects
the way that their students…
View feedback
Approach writing
Revise writing
(Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1996; Lockhardt & Ng, 1995; Mangelsdorf & Schlumberger, 1992.)
Teacher Feedback
(Hillocks, 1982; Ziv, 1984.)
Feedback that centers on specific meaning-based ideas in a multiple draft context promotes
student revision in L1 and L2.
Teacher Feedback
(Makino, 1993. )
Detailed cuestioning, not correction, can improve students’
ability to self-correct grammar errors.
Teacher Feedback
(Ferris, Pezone, Tade & Tinki, 1997; Reid, 1994)
Research is still needed to identify the most effective types
of teacher feedback in the multiple draft process approach
classroom.
Peer Review Feedback
Has many advantages in ESL writing instruction:
Develops critical reading and analysis skills.
(Chaudron, 1984; Keh, 1990.)
Peer Review Feedback
Has many advantages in ESL writing instruction:
Encourages focus on intended meaning by discussing alternative views and further
developing ideas.
(DiPardo & Freedman, 1988. Mangelsdorf, 1992; Mendonca & Johnson, 1994.)
Peer Review Feedback
Has many advantages in ESL writing instruction:
Can complement Teacher Feedback.
(Caulk, 1994; Devenney, 1989.)
Peer Review Feedback
However…
It is a very complex process that requires training and structure in order to be effective,
both in L1 and L2 classrooms.
(McGroarty & Zhu, 1997; Stanley, 1992; Villamil &deGuerrero, 1996.)
Research Questions
1. How do peer and teacher feedback effect student revisions
in a multiple draft, process-approach writing classroom?
Research Questions
2. Does required revision through multiple drafts of an essay
improve the overall quality of written work in a classroom
setting?
Participants
12 ESL students enrolled in a remedial writing course entitled
“Fundamental Usage Skills.”
Participants
Male and female
Ages 19-28
Various lengths of residence in U.S.
Some had taken other classes in the Intensive English program; 3 tested in.
Methods
The revision process was studied using data collected from three drafts of a
persuasive essay written during weeks seven and eight of a ten week course.
Methods
Draft one: written and oral feedback from peers.
Focus on ideas and structure, not grammar.
Students provided with Peer Review Form to guide revisions.
Methods
Draft two: written feedback from teacher.
Focus on content and form.
Number and type of comments tailored to needs of each student.
Data Collection 1
Students recorded a think-aloud protocols (TAP’s) during each revision (peer and
teacher feedback).
Purpose to talk through ideas as they revised and identify the sources of and
reasons for revisions made.
Data Collection 2
Faigley and Witte’s Taxonomy of Revisions (1981) was used to categorize changes:
Surface Change
FormalMeaning-
preserving
Data Collection 2
Faigley and Witte’s Taxonomy of Revisions (1981) was used to categorize changes:
Meaning Change
Microstructure Macrostructure
Data Collection 3
Each draft of the essay was scored by two independent raters using a standard Essay Scoring Rubric from the Michigan English Language Assessment Battery (MELAB).
Scores were on a scale of 1-10 and were averaged for each draft in order to chart
improvement in writing.
Results: Types of Revisions
843 total revisions
62.5% surface changes
21.9% Formal 40.6% Meaning-preserving
Results: Types of Revisions
843 total revisions
37.5% meaning changes
21.7% Microstructure 15.8% Macrostructure
Results: Essay Scoring
Weak positive correlation (r=.3709) between amount of
improvement and total number of revisions.
Not significant.
Results: Essay Scoring
No significant correlation between amount of improvement
and percentage of surface or meaning changes made.
Conclusions
Majority of revisions came from self or outside sources.
However, peer and teacher feedback was clearly effective in
the revision process.
Conclusions
However, further research is needed to indicate which types of teacher feedback are most useful.
Implications
Teach writing as a process.
Multiple drafts.
Structured peer revision.
Teacher feedback that questions rather than corrects.
Discussion
1. Do you think the order and type of teacher feedback given limits
the generalizability of the results?
Discussion
2. What do you see as the role of peer review in the writing process?
Does this differ from your vision of the role of teacher feedback?
top related