1 / 43

Emily Wiggins Fall 2005

The Effect of Peer and Teacher Feedback on Student Writing Terena M. Paulus (1999) Journal of Second Language Writing. Emily Wiggins Fall 2005. Prof. Nuria Sagarra SPAN 502. Introduction. Teaching writing as a process. Is a text ever really finished?.

drake-stokes
Download Presentation

Emily Wiggins Fall 2005

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Effect of Peer and Teacher Feedback on Student Writing Terena M. Paulus (1999) Journal of Second Language Writing Emily WigginsFall 2005 Prof. Nuria Sagarra SPAN 502

  2. Introduction • Teaching writing as a process. Is a text ever really finished? • How de we encourage writing as an evolving experience?. • The importance of teacher and peer collaboration.

  3. Introduction • Writing in the ESL classroom: ESL writers have different composing practices and different needs than those of native English-speaking writers.

  4. Introduction • Recent research has stressed the importance teaching students strategies for all stages of the writing process: • Multiple drafts • Generating ideas • Composition • Editing • Incorporating feedback • Revision on all levels

  5. Background The revision process: Teacher Feedback Peer Review Feedback

  6. Teacher Feedback The way that teachers structure writing in the classroom and the feedback that they give effects the way that their students… • Approach writing • View feedback • Revise writing (Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1996; Lockhardt & Ng, 1995; Mangelsdorf & Schlumberger, 1992.)

  7. Teacher Feedback • Should focus on form • and content. (Zamel, 1983; Cohen, 1987; Raimes, 1985 & 1987.)

  8. Teacher Feedback • Feedback that centers on specific meaning-based ideas in a multiple draft context promotes student revision in L1 and L2. (Hillocks, 1982; Ziv, 1984.)

  9. Teacher Feedback • Detailed cuestioning, not correction, can improve students’ ability to self-correct grammar errors. (Makino, 1993. )

  10. Teacher Feedback • Research is still needed to identify the most effective types of teacher feedback in the multiple draft process approach classroom. (Ferris, Pezone, Tade & Tinki, 1997; Reid, 1994)

  11. Peer Review Feedback Has many advantages in ESL writing instruction: • Develops critical reading and analysis skills. (Chaudron, 1984; Keh, 1990.)

  12. 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.)

  13. Peer Review Feedback Has many advantages in ESL writing instruction: • Can complement Teacher Feedback. (Caulk, 1994; Devenney, 1989.)

  14. 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.)

  15. Research Questions 1. How do peer and teacher feedback effect student revisions in a multiple draft, process-approach writing classroom?

  16. Research Questions 2. Does required revision through multiple drafts of an essay improve the overall quality of written work in a classroom setting?

  17. Participants 12 ESL students enrolled in a remedial writing course entitled “Fundamental Usage Skills.”

  18. 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.

  19. Participants • Research conducted by instructor.

  20. 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.

  21. Methods • Draft one: written and oral feedback from peers. • Students provided with Peer Review Form to guide revisions. • Focus on ideas and structure, not grammar.

  22. Methods • Draft two: written feedback from teacher. • Focus on content and form. • Number and type of comments tailored to needs of each student.

  23. Methods • Draft three: final copy.

  24. 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.

  25. Data Collection 2 • Faigley and Witte’s Taxonomy of Revisions (1981) was used to categorize changes:

  26. Data Collection 2 • Faigley and Witte’s Taxonomy of Revisions (1981) was used to categorize changes:

  27. 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.

  28. Results: Types of Revisions • 843 total revisions • 62.5% surface changes 21.9% Formal 40.6% Meaning-preserving

  29. Results: Types of Revisions • 843 total revisions • 37.5% meaning changes 21.7% Microstructure 15.8% Macrostructure

  30. Results: Sources of Revisions Surface Changes

  31. Results: Sources of Revisions Meaning Changes

  32. Results: Essay Scoring • Mean increase of .75 from first to third draft. • Significant.

  33. Results: Essay Scoring • Weak positive correlation (r=.3709) between amount of improvement and total number of revisions. • Not significant.

  34. Results: Essay Scoring • No significant correlation between amount of improvement and percentage of surface or meaning changes made.

  35. Conclusions • Results show that ESL students are able to revise on both surface and meaning levels.

  36. Conclusions • Majority of revisions came from self or outside sources. • However, peer and teacher feedback was clearly effective in the revision process.

  37. Conclusions • Teacher feedback influenced more changes and was prioritized over peer feedback.

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

  39. Conclusions • Required revision did significantly improve the essay scores.

  40. Implications • Teach writing as a process. • Multiple drafts. • Structured peer revision. • Teacher feedback that questions rather than corrects.

  41. Discussion 1. Do you think the order and type of teacher feedback given limits the generalizability of the results?

  42. 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?

  43. Discussion 3. How can we structure peer review sessions to make them most beneficial for our students?

More Related