emily wiggins fall 2005
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Emily Wiggins Fall 2005

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 43

Emily Wiggins Fall 2005 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 93 Views
  • Uploaded on

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?.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Emily Wiggins Fall 2005' - atalanta-vasiliou


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
emily wiggins fall 2005
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

slide2
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.
slide3
Introduction
  • Writing in the ESL classroom:

ESL writers have different composing practices and different needs than those of native English-speaking writers.

slide4
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
slide5
Background

The revision process:

Teacher

Feedback

Peer Review

Feedback

slide6
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.)

slide7
Teacher Feedback
  • Should focus on form
  • and content.

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

slide8
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.)

slide9
Teacher Feedback
  • Detailed cuestioning, not correction, can improve students’ ability to self-correct grammar errors.

(Makino, 1993. )

slide10
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)

slide11
Peer Review Feedback

Has many advantages in ESL writing instruction:

  • Develops critical reading and analysis skills.

(Chaudron, 1984; Keh, 1990.)

slide12
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.)

slide13
Peer Review Feedback

Has many advantages in ESL writing instruction:

  • Can complement Teacher Feedback.

(Caulk, 1994; Devenney, 1989.)

slide14
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.)

slide15
Research Questions

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

slide16
Research Questions

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

slide17
Participants

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

slide18
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.
slide19
Participants
  • Research conducted by instructor.
slide20
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.
slide21
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.
slide22
Methods
  • Draft two: written feedback from teacher.
  • Focus on content and form.
  • Number and type of comments tailored to needs of each student.
slide23
Methods
  • Draft three: final copy.
slide24
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.
slide25
Data Collection 2
  • Faigley and Witte’s Taxonomy of Revisions (1981) was used to categorize changes:
slide26
Data Collection 2
  • Faigley and Witte’s Taxonomy of Revisions (1981) was used to categorize changes:
slide27
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.
slide28
Results: Types of Revisions
  • 843 total revisions
  • 62.5% surface changes

21.9% Formal

40.6% Meaning-preserving

slide29
Results: Types of Revisions
  • 843 total revisions
  • 37.5% meaning changes

21.7% Microstructure

15.8% Macrostructure

slide32
Results: Essay Scoring
  • Mean increase of .75 from first to third draft.
  • Significant.
slide33
Results: Essay Scoring
  • Weak positive correlation (r=.3709) between amount of improvement and total number of revisions.
  • Not significant.
slide34
Results: Essay Scoring
  • No significant correlation between amount of improvement and percentage of surface or meaning changes made.
slide35
Conclusions
  • Results show that ESL students are able to revise on both surface and meaning levels.
slide36
Conclusions
  • Majority of revisions came from self or outside sources.
  • However, peer and teacher feedback was clearly effective in the revision process.
slide37
Conclusions
  • Teacher feedback influenced more changes and was prioritized over peer feedback.
slide38
Conclusions
  • However, further research is needed to indicate which types of teacher feedback are most useful.
slide39
Conclusions
  • Required revision did significantly improve the essay scores.
slide40
Implications
  • Teach writing as a process.
  • Multiple drafts.
  • Structured peer revision.
  • Teacher feedback that questions rather than corrects.
slide41
Discussion

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

slide42
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?

slide43
Discussion

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

ad