The Role of Peer Feedback and its Impact upon Improvements in Student Writing

1. The Role of Peer Feedback and its Impact upon Improvements in Student Writing Presenter: LuizaZeqiri June, 2011

2. Overview

3. Theoretical and Practical Importance of the Present Study • To make peer feedback less confusing and less complex • To make teachers and students more aware about the writing process • To stress the importance of multiple drafts • To emphasize the process approach to writing • To raise the awareness of the value of giving peer feedback

4. Introduction • In writing activity, peer feedback means other writer to read and to give feedback on what other writer has written (Hyland, 2005). • Storch (2004) claims that the use of peer feedback application in class is still restricted • Linda B. Nilson argues that peer feedback has questionable validity, reliability, accuracy • Instructors consider much of it too uncritical, superficial, vague, content-focused • Thus, the present study focused on written peer feedback and both spoken & written teacher feedback. • Written feedback was given in the form of comments, suggestions, underlining of mistakes

5. Previous Studies Related to Types of Feedback Ferris, (2003); Headgcock & Lefkowitz, (1996); Kroll, (2001) Ferris & Hedgcock (1998) • On early drafts when students generate, focus and organize their ideas the teacher response should focus on feedback that will lead them to develop their ideas, completely and successfully. • On later drafts, writers must be motivated to proofread, edit and correct their papers. John Truscott (1996) • Grammar correction not only is ineffective but it is even harmful. • Grammar correction has no place in writing classes and should be abandoned.

6. Previous Studies Regarding Students’ Attitudes Toward Feedback to Writing Hartney (2007) • SS with high self esteem value all feedback, positive or negative • SS with low self esteem interpret even positive feedback negatively Leki (1990) • SS ignore teacher’s feedback • Difficulties understanding • Feel aggression towards teachers attempt to correct their writing Hong (2006) states that SS: • Don't appreciate peer feedback and they dislike it • Feel underestimated when given negative peer feedback • When receiving comments and negative feedback this is a sign that their papers are read Mendonca & Johnson, (1994); Saito & Fujita, (2004) in a number of studies involving both ESL and EFL students revealed that the majority had favorable attitudes toward peer feedback Mangelsdorf (1992) states that SS find PF as very helpful for improving the content and organization.

7. Previous Studies Regarding Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Peer Feedback Hyland (2000) states that PF: • encourages more student participation in the classroom, • gives them more control and makes them less passively teacher-dependant. Lee, (2009:130) claims that Peer feedback: • may not be beneficial if SS’ knowledge, experience and language skills are insufficient Lundstorm and Baker (2009): • PF can be as beneficial to SS who provide it as to those who receive it Spear, (1988); Hyland, (2005) discuss that: • it is important to distribute devices in the form of checklists or rubrics to be used in peer feedback Williams, (2005) Peer feedback • has positive influence if students know how to give feedback, meaning that they are previously trained by the teacher

8. A list of peer feedback advantages by Williams (2005) • It provides writers with an authentic audience. SS understand what works in their writing and what doesn’t. • Peers may focus on issues that the teacher has not noticed or prefers not to address • It provides feedback in a collaborative, low -risk environment • Learners take on a more active role in writing process, rather than waiting passively for T guidance • The interaction involved in peer response can push the development of all L2 skills • Peer response can give the T an opportunity to work with individual SS while their classmates read and respond to one another’s work • It helps learners get to know one another better

9. A List of Peer Feedback Drawbacks by Williams (2005) • SS may not have the skills and experience to offer advice which is what their peers need • Their suggestions may be vague or unhelpful • They may not believe they have anything valuable to contribute • They may be unaccustomed to this kind of learning activity • They may not believe their peers can offer any valuable advice, and therefore they ignore their suggestions • They may hesitate to offer any negative responses • They may view it as a waste of time or a chance to chat • The T may not have adequately prepared SS for the activity

10. Previous Studies Questioning the Effectiveness of Peer Feedback Ferris and Min (2008), Hedgcock (2005), Rollinson (2005), Hinkel (2004), Saito and Fujita (2004), and Hyland (2002) believe that: • EFL SS will always question the purposes and advantages of this technique which is true with SS who are accustomed to teacher-fronted classroom. • SS feel that a better writer such as their T is the one who is qualified to provide them with useful comments, which can act as a barrier to the success of peer sessions. • Some SS might view receiving comments from colleagues whose English is at the same or even at a lower level than theirs as not being a validalternative for the ‘real deal’ and hence they might resist peer review activities.

11. #3 RESEARCH QUESTION What is the impact of peer feedback on EFL learners’ writing performance? How do teachers perceive peer feedback and what are teachers’ attitudes toward peer feedback? Research Questions #1 RESEARCH QUESTION What are advanced and intermediate students’ attitudes toward peer feedback? #2 RESEARCH QUESTION

12. Procedure

13. Instruments/Data collection

14. Participants

15. Results & Discussion Regarding the 1st Research Question

16. Descriptive Writing Rubric - Content

17. Descriptive Writing Rubric - Mechanics

23. Results & Discussions Regarding the #3rd Research Question Advanced Students’ Comments

24. Results & Discussions Regarding the #3rd Research Question

25. Results & Discussions Regarding the #3rd Research Question Advanced Students’ Comments

26. Results & Discussions Regarding the #3rd Research Question Advanced Students’ Comments

27. Conclusions • The results showed that SS wrote more improved papers after implementing the peer feedback • Based on the research findings it was concluded that peer feedback was mainly about the content and organisation • Peer feedback proved more beneficial for the advanced group of SS • Teachers should emphasize peer feedback to writing and apply it more frequently • SS should be taught how to use PF (give feedback and apply it)

28. Conclusions 6. Teachers think that PF not only helps in improving writing skills but it: (Ferris and Hedgcock (2005), Saito and Fujita (2004) Storch (2004) and Ferris (2003)) • facilitates the development of analytical and critical reading and writing skills • enhances self-expression • fosters criticalthinking • Critical thinking is, as Halpern (2003) defines, the ―cognitive skills and strategies that increase the likelihood of a desired outcome, thinking that is purposeful, reasoned, and goal-directed—the kind of thinking involved in solving, problems, formulating inferences, calculating likelihoods, and make decisions • PF helps learners become more self-aware • promotes a sense of co-ownership • encourages students to contribute to decision making 

29. Limitations and Recommendations Limitations: • Not a longitudinal study • Small scale of participants • inclusion of a larger number of teacher and SS participants • Only two writing genres Recommendations: • Whether checklists/rubrics/forms should be used • More elaborate comparison between the effectiveness of teacher and peer feedback

30. “There is no great writing, only great rewriting.”  Justice Brandeis

31. THANK YOU!