论文部分内容阅读
摘 要：The purpose of the research is to investigate the effect of peer feedback on EFL learners’ writing development. The findings of the study demonstrate the positive effect of the use of peer feedback in EFL writing class. An analysis of pre- and post-tests reveals that students from the experimental group made more progress than those from the control group. Students view peer feedback as useful and helpful to the improvement of their writing quality.
关键词：peer feedback;students’ attitudes toward peer feedback;EFL writing
中图分类号：G42 文献标识码：A 文章编号：1009-0118（2011）-12-0-02
1.Introduction
Peer feedback became a popular pedagogical technique in ESL writing instruction during the last twenty years. The use of peer feedback has changed the traditional teacher-dominated writing classroom into a workshop in which students engage in negotiation of meaning with peers. Indeed, peer feedback has deeply influenced the way in which writing is taught. It is assumed that it is worth investigating the effect of peer feedback on writing abilities in EFL college classroom.
2.Purpose of the study
2.1. Subjects
The subjects (N=80) are two intact classes, and the two intact classes are randomly assigned as the experimental group (EG) and the control group (CG). The instructional curriculum is identical for the two groups, which has only one period of writing class every two weeks, during which one unit has to be completed.
2.2 Instruments
2.2.1 Two Questionnaires
Two questionnaires were used in this research. Questionnaire I was administered both before and after the experiment in class to the two groups. The questionnaire contained 10 items, and the students were asked to give “yes” or “no” response to these questions.
At the end of the experiment, Questionnaire II was used to measure students’ attitudes toward peer feedback. This questionnaire was only conducted in the experimental group.
2.2.2 Two writing tests
All the subjects were divided into parallel classes according to their scores achieved in the National Matriculation English Test. In order to make sure the validity of the study, pre-tests were given to all the students to see if they were at the same level. Sixteen weeks later, at the end of the study another test were given to all the students to discover whether there was significant difference between the two groups.
3. Data Analysis
3.1 Questionnaire investigation
3.1.1 Questionnaire I
Questionnaire I was administered both before and after the experiment. All the students in the experimental group and control group were asked to finish it and all questionnaires were returned. The positive responses to the statement were calculated and the percentage to each statement was obtained. Through the data, we could see that before the experiment, most students (EG=84.6%,CG 80%) thought writing in English was difficult, and they did not like writing articles in English (EG=30%,CG=36%). Many students liked to work alone (EG=80%,CG=77.5%) and they did not often take the reader into account when writing (EG=37.5%,CG=39.4%). Interestingly, though half of the students would like their compositions to be read and revised by their classmates (EG= 55%,CG=57%), there were not many students (EG=33%,CG=26%) believe their classmates could revise their composition well.As for the students’ attitudes towards revision, about 30% students did revise their composition by themselves before handed it in to the teacher, but not many students (EG=20.7%, CG=17.5%) would revise it after they got it back from the teacher. That is to say, many students didn’t form the habit of revising the composition, they (EG=62%,CG=66.6%) preferred writing a new composition instead of revising the old one.
After the experiment, however, the experimental group’s attitude changed a lot. Many more students came to like writing articles in English (87.5%, more than twice the percentage of the pre-test). As regard the trust in their peers, more students would like to work with their classmates (80% vs. 28%) and believed that their classmates were able to revise their composition (78%), thus more students were willing to have their composition read and commented by their classmates (90.9%). The students’ attitudes towards revision changed too. A higher percentage of people would revise their draft before they handed in the final version (85%), 48.5% students would revise their composition after the teacher checked them. For item 10, 27% students would ask other students to read their articles and give feedback, and then revise it. Before the experiment, almost no students had done like this. In terms of a sense of audience, more students (91%) began to take the reader into consideration when writing. For control group, after one semester, students' attitudes also changed. Generally speaking, students in experimental group changed a higher percentage than that of control group except item 1 concerning the attitude toward writing articles in English. The percentage between experimental group and control group had not much difference (40% vs.47.5%).
3.1.2 Questionnaire II
Questionnaire II was administered only after the posttest. All the students in the experimental group were asked to finish it and all questionnaires were returned.
Again all the positive responses to the students were worked out by percentage. The results showed that most students enjoyed the peer discussion (82.4%) and had an active discussion during peer feedback activity in writing class (73.3%). As for reading the peers’ composition, 81.8% students found reading their classmates' compositions useful and 76% students believed reading their classmates' compositions gave them more ideas; but a low percentage students thought reading their classmates’ compositions helped them to improve the organization of their compositions (36.3%) and to improve the language (including grammar and vocabulary) of their compositions (48.4%). In terms of the usefulness of peers’ comments given in peer feedback session, 77.6% students thought that they benefited someway from their classmates’ comments; the most beneficial part was the language of their compositions (86.6%). Similarly, a very high percentage of students (93.3%) believed that the language part of their compositions was improved after their own revision, which was required to do based on the feedback obtained from the peer feedback session. 66% students often took into consideration their classmates’ comments when they revised their compositions. 69.7% students thought that revisions helped improve their compositions, but the percentage regarding the improvement of composition content (54.5%) and organization (60.6%) were not very high. Almost all students had positive attitudes toward peer feedback activity in writing class, a vast majority of students wanted their teachers to use peer feedback approach to teaching writing next year (96%).
3.2 Statistical analysis of writing test scores
In the pre-test, the mean score for the experimental group is 6.68, and the mean score of the control group is 6.75. It means that the two groups were equivalent before they participated in this study.
Table 3.1 Descriptive Statistics on Scores of Students’ Pre-test Writing Assignment
After the experiment, students’ achievements in the post-test writing assignment were compared so as to define the effect of the operation of the new peer feedback method. The results of post-test writing scores of the two groups are shown in table 3.2
Table 3.2 Descriptive Statistics on Scores of Students’ Post-test Writing Assignment
The mean score for the experimental group is 8.88. The mean score of the control group is 7.60. The means makes it clear that experimental group has a higher post-test score and mean gain. Therefore, there is significant difference between the writing quality of the control group and experimental group after the experiment.
Hence, the significant difference between the control group and experimental group was identified. However, when looking at the mean scores of the two groups, we found both groups made some progress in writing ability. In the control group, the change may be caused by the increased amount of writing practice, the instruction on some writing strategy from the textbook and the accumulated knowledge about English after a semester’s English course. But the relatively much higher mean score of the experimental group explains the effectiveness of the peer feedback method tested in this study.
参考文献：
[1]Badger,R.&White,G.A process genre approach to teaching writing.ELT Journal,2000,54(2),153-160.
[2]Berg,E.C.The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality.Journal of Second Language Writing,1999,8(3):215-241.
[3]Ellis,R.The Study of Second Language Acquisition.New York: Oxford University.1994.
[4]陈兵.Peer Evaluation与中国英文写作教学[J].安徽教育学院学报,2001,(4).
[5]戚焱.反馈在英语教学中的作用一英语专业议论文写作研究[J].国外外语教学,2004,(1).
关键词：peer feedback;students’ attitudes toward peer feedback;EFL writing
中图分类号：G42 文献标识码：A 文章编号：1009-0118（2011）-12-0-02
1.Introduction
Peer feedback became a popular pedagogical technique in ESL writing instruction during the last twenty years. The use of peer feedback has changed the traditional teacher-dominated writing classroom into a workshop in which students engage in negotiation of meaning with peers. Indeed, peer feedback has deeply influenced the way in which writing is taught. It is assumed that it is worth investigating the effect of peer feedback on writing abilities in EFL college classroom.
2.Purpose of the study
2.1. Subjects
The subjects (N=80) are two intact classes, and the two intact classes are randomly assigned as the experimental group (EG) and the control group (CG). The instructional curriculum is identical for the two groups, which has only one period of writing class every two weeks, during which one unit has to be completed.
2.2 Instruments
2.2.1 Two Questionnaires
Two questionnaires were used in this research. Questionnaire I was administered both before and after the experiment in class to the two groups. The questionnaire contained 10 items, and the students were asked to give “yes” or “no” response to these questions.
At the end of the experiment, Questionnaire II was used to measure students’ attitudes toward peer feedback. This questionnaire was only conducted in the experimental group.
2.2.2 Two writing tests
All the subjects were divided into parallel classes according to their scores achieved in the National Matriculation English Test. In order to make sure the validity of the study, pre-tests were given to all the students to see if they were at the same level. Sixteen weeks later, at the end of the study another test were given to all the students to discover whether there was significant difference between the two groups.
3. Data Analysis
3.1 Questionnaire investigation
3.1.1 Questionnaire I
Questionnaire I was administered both before and after the experiment. All the students in the experimental group and control group were asked to finish it and all questionnaires were returned. The positive responses to the statement were calculated and the percentage to each statement was obtained. Through the data, we could see that before the experiment, most students (EG=84.6%,CG 80%) thought writing in English was difficult, and they did not like writing articles in English (EG=30%,CG=36%). Many students liked to work alone (EG=80%,CG=77.5%) and they did not often take the reader into account when writing (EG=37.5%,CG=39.4%). Interestingly, though half of the students would like their compositions to be read and revised by their classmates (EG= 55%,CG=57%), there were not many students (EG=33%,CG=26%) believe their classmates could revise their composition well.As for the students’ attitudes towards revision, about 30% students did revise their composition by themselves before handed it in to the teacher, but not many students (EG=20.7%, CG=17.5%) would revise it after they got it back from the teacher. That is to say, many students didn’t form the habit of revising the composition, they (EG=62%,CG=66.6%) preferred writing a new composition instead of revising the old one.
After the experiment, however, the experimental group’s attitude changed a lot. Many more students came to like writing articles in English (87.5%, more than twice the percentage of the pre-test). As regard the trust in their peers, more students would like to work with their classmates (80% vs. 28%) and believed that their classmates were able to revise their composition (78%), thus more students were willing to have their composition read and commented by their classmates (90.9%). The students’ attitudes towards revision changed too. A higher percentage of people would revise their draft before they handed in the final version (85%), 48.5% students would revise their composition after the teacher checked them. For item 10, 27% students would ask other students to read their articles and give feedback, and then revise it. Before the experiment, almost no students had done like this. In terms of a sense of audience, more students (91%) began to take the reader into consideration when writing. For control group, after one semester, students' attitudes also changed. Generally speaking, students in experimental group changed a higher percentage than that of control group except item 1 concerning the attitude toward writing articles in English. The percentage between experimental group and control group had not much difference (40% vs.47.5%).
3.1.2 Questionnaire II
Questionnaire II was administered only after the posttest. All the students in the experimental group were asked to finish it and all questionnaires were returned.
Again all the positive responses to the students were worked out by percentage. The results showed that most students enjoyed the peer discussion (82.4%) and had an active discussion during peer feedback activity in writing class (73.3%). As for reading the peers’ composition, 81.8% students found reading their classmates' compositions useful and 76% students believed reading their classmates' compositions gave them more ideas; but a low percentage students thought reading their classmates’ compositions helped them to improve the organization of their compositions (36.3%) and to improve the language (including grammar and vocabulary) of their compositions (48.4%). In terms of the usefulness of peers’ comments given in peer feedback session, 77.6% students thought that they benefited someway from their classmates’ comments; the most beneficial part was the language of their compositions (86.6%). Similarly, a very high percentage of students (93.3%) believed that the language part of their compositions was improved after their own revision, which was required to do based on the feedback obtained from the peer feedback session. 66% students often took into consideration their classmates’ comments when they revised their compositions. 69.7% students thought that revisions helped improve their compositions, but the percentage regarding the improvement of composition content (54.5%) and organization (60.6%) were not very high. Almost all students had positive attitudes toward peer feedback activity in writing class, a vast majority of students wanted their teachers to use peer feedback approach to teaching writing next year (96%).
3.2 Statistical analysis of writing test scores
In the pre-test, the mean score for the experimental group is 6.68, and the mean score of the control group is 6.75. It means that the two groups were equivalent before they participated in this study.
Table 3.1 Descriptive Statistics on Scores of Students’ Pre-test Writing Assignment
After the experiment, students’ achievements in the post-test writing assignment were compared so as to define the effect of the operation of the new peer feedback method. The results of post-test writing scores of the two groups are shown in table 3.2
Table 3.2 Descriptive Statistics on Scores of Students’ Post-test Writing Assignment
The mean score for the experimental group is 8.88. The mean score of the control group is 7.60. The means makes it clear that experimental group has a higher post-test score and mean gain. Therefore, there is significant difference between the writing quality of the control group and experimental group after the experiment.
Hence, the significant difference between the control group and experimental group was identified. However, when looking at the mean scores of the two groups, we found both groups made some progress in writing ability. In the control group, the change may be caused by the increased amount of writing practice, the instruction on some writing strategy from the textbook and the accumulated knowledge about English after a semester’s English course. But the relatively much higher mean score of the experimental group explains the effectiveness of the peer feedback method tested in this study.
参考文献：
[1]Badger,R.&White,G.A process genre approach to teaching writing.ELT Journal,2000,54(2),153-160.
[2]Berg,E.C.The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality.Journal of Second Language Writing,1999,8(3):215-241.
[3]Ellis,R.The Study of Second Language Acquisition.New York: Oxford University.1994.
[4]陈兵.Peer Evaluation与中国英文写作教学[J].安徽教育学院学报,2001,(4).
[5]戚焱.反馈在英语教学中的作用一英语专业议论文写作研究[J].国外外语教学,2004,(1).