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.

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

Background

The revision process:

TeacherFeedback

Peer ReviewFeedback

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

(Zamel, 1983; Cohen, 1987; Raimes, 1985 & 1987.)

Should focus on form

and content.

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.

Participants

Research conducted by instructor.

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.

Methods

Draft three: final copy.

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: Sources of Revisions

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Peer Teacher Self/Other

Surface Changes

Results: Sources of Revisions

020406080

100120140160180200

Peer Teacher Self/Other

Meaning Changes

Results: Essay Scoring

Mean increase of .75 from first to third draft.

Significant.

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

Results show that ESL students are able to revise on both surface

and meaning levels.

Conclusions

Majority of revisions came from self or outside sources.

However, peer and teacher feedback was clearly effective in

the revision process.

Conclusions

Teacher feedback influenced more changes and was prioritized

over peer feedback.

Conclusions

However, further research is needed to indicate which types of teacher feedback are most useful.

Conclusions

Required revision did significantly improve the essay scores.

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?

Discussion

3. How can we structure peer review sessions to make them

most beneficial for our students?