Effects of Combined Peer-Teacher Feedback on Second Language Writing Development

Bu çalışma öğrencilerin ve öğretmenlerin dönüt verme sorumluluğunu sistemli olarak paylaştıkları bir akran ve öğretmen dayanışmalı dönüt modeli geliştirerek bu modelin etkinliğini süreç yaklaşımı izlenen ve çok sayıda taslak yazımına dayalı bir yazma dersi kapsamında değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. 15 haftalık bir yarıyılı kapsayan çalışmaya 57 Türk İngilizce yabancı dil öğrencisi katılmıştır. Deney ve kontrol gruplarına farklı dönüt uygulamaları sağlanmış ve gruplar makale taslaklarında yaptıkları düzeltmeler ve yazma gelişimleri açılarından istatistiksel olarak karşılaştırılmışlardır. Toplamda 1197 makale taslağı içerik, düzenleme ve yapı olmak üzere üç farklı düzeltme türü için kodlanmış ve karşılaştırılmıştır. Öğrencilerin yazmaya ve dönüte karşı tutumları hakkında veri toplamak için öğrencilere bir anket uygulanmış ve yazma süreçleri hakkında düşüncelerini yazmaları istenmiştir. Çalışmanın sonuçları göstermiştir ki, geleneksel öğretmen dönütü modeli daha fazla düzeltme yapılmasını sağlarken, iki farklı dönüt uygulaması düzeltme sayısı ve yazma becerisi gelişmesinde istatistiksel açıdan anlamlı farklar ortaya çıkarmamıştır. Bununla birlikte, akran ve öğrenci dayanışmalı dönüt modeli, öğrencilerde akran dönütü ve kendini düzeltme konularında olumlu tutumlar oluşturması açısından daha başarılı bulunmuştur. Diğer taraftan yazma becerisinin zorluğuna karşı olan tutumlarda önemli farklar tespit edilmemiştir. Bu sonuçlara dayanarak, yazı becerisi derslerinde dönüt uygulamalarının tasarlanması ve uygulanması için önerilerde bulunulmuştur

Birleştirilmiş Akran-Öğretmen Dönütünün İkinci Dilde Yazma Gelişimine Etkisi

This study attempts to test the effectiveness of a feedback model which combines teacher and peer feedback systematically on improving students' writing ability in the context of a multiple draft writing course. 57 Turkish EFL students participated in the study which lasted for a 15-week semester. The experimental and control groups were provided different feedback treatments and then statistically compared in terms of the revisions they made in their essay drafts and their writing improvement. A total of 1197 essay drafts, were coded and compared for three types of revisions: content, organization and form. In order to collect data on students' attitudes towards writing and feedback, students were given a questionnaire and asked to write reflections about their writing process. Çalışmanın sonuçları göstermiştir ki, geleneksel öğretmen dönütü modeli genel anlamda daha fazla düzeltme yapılmasını sağlarken, iki farklı dönüt uygulaması düzeltme kalitesi ve yazma becerisi gelişmesinde istatistiksel açıdan farklı sonuçlar ortaya çıkarmamıştır. The results of the study revealed that while the traditional teacher feedback model created more revisions, the two different feedback models did not create statistically meaningful differences in terms of number of revisions and writing quality. However, the combined peer-teacher feedback model was found to be more successful in creating more positive attitudes towards peer feedback and self-revision. In terms of attitudes towards the difficulty of writing activity, on the other hand, important differences were not detected. Based on these results, suggestions have been made about the design and application of feedback activities in the writing class

PDF

___

Arndt, V.(1993). Response to writing: using feedback to inform the writing process. In: M.N. Brock and L Walters,
(Eds.). Teaching Composition Around the Pacific Rim: Politics and Pedagogy. UK: Multilingual Matters. Berg, E.C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students' revision types and writing quality.Journal of Second Language Writing ,8(3), 215-241.
Berg, I., Admiral, W., & Pilot, A. (2006). Designing student peer assessment in higher education: Analysis of written and oral feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(2), 135-147.
Butcher, K. F. (2006). The efficacy of peer review in improving E.S.L. students' online writing. Doctoral
Dissertation, University of New Orleans, May 2006.
Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student responses to written work. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 181
Chaudron, C. (1984). The effects of feedback on students' composition revisions. RELC J., 15(2), http://www.rel.sagepub.com/content/15/2/1.abstract 31(2), 315-339.
Enginarlar, H. (1993). Student response to teacher feedback in EFL writing. System, 21(2), 193-204.
Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks, Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287-322.
Fazio, L. L. (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority- and majority-language students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(2001), 235-249.
Ferris, D., Pezone, S., Tade, C. R., & Tinti, S. (1997). Teacher commentary on student writing: descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 155-182.
Goldstein, L. M. (2004). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision:
Teacher and students working together. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13 (2004), 63-80.
Goring-Kepner, C. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second language writing skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 305-313.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Some input on input: Two analyses of student response to expert feedback in L2 writing. The Modern Language Journal, 80(3), 287-308.
Holt, M. (1992). The value of written peer criticism. College Composition and Communication, 43(3), 384
Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching Research, 4(1), 33-54.
Kepner, C.G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second language writing skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305-315.
Kleinfeld, E. (2006). Dissonance and excess: Four students' experiences of revision in a composition classroom. Doctoral Dissertation, Illinois State University
Kurt, G.,& Atay, D. (2007). The effects of peer feedback on the writing anxiety of Prospective Turkish teachers of EFL. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 3(1), 12-23.
Lee, N.S.C. (2009). Written peer feedback by EFLstudents: Praise, criticism and suggestion. KomabaJournal of
English Education. Retreived online at: http://www. park.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/eigo/KJEE /129-139.pdf [10 January 2010].
Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In: B. Kroll, (Ed.), Language
Writing: Research Insights for the classroom, pp: 57-68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maarof, N., Yamat, H., & Li, L. K. (2011). Role of teacher, peer and peer-teacher feedback in enhancing
ESL students' writing. World Applied Sciences Journal, 15, 29-35. Mendonca, C., & Johnson, K.E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (4), 745-769.
Miao, Y., Badger, R.,& Zhenc, Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedbackin a Chinese
EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing , 15, 179-200. Min, H. (2006) The effects of trained peer review on EFL students' revision types and writing quality,
Journal of Second Language Writing, (Article in Press) Ming, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293-308.
Montgomery, J. L., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Students perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 82-99.
Nelson, G., & Murphy, J.M. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27, 135-141.
Ravichandran, V. (2002). Responding to student writing: motivate not criticize. GEMA Online J. Language Studies, 2(3), 1-9.
Nicola, D., Thomson, A., & Breslina, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102-122.
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing classroom. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23-30
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Steinbach, R. (1984). Teachability of reflective processes in written composition. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8(2), 173-190.
Semke, H. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195-202.
Şengün, D. (2002). The impact of training on peer feedback in process approach implemented EFL writing classes: A case study. Masters Thesis. Middle East Technical University.
Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types. Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103-110
Silver, R., Lee, S. (2007). What does it take to make a change? Teacher feedback and student revisions.
English teaching: Practice and Critique, 6(1), 25-49. Storch, N.,& Tapper, J. (2000). The focus of teacher and student concerns in discipline-specific writing by university students. Higher Education Research and Development, 19(3), 337-355.
Wang, W. (2014). Students' perceptions of rubric-referenced peer feedback on EFL writing: A longitudinal inquiry. Assessing Writing, 19, 80-96.
White, R., & Arndt, V. (1991). Process writing. London: Longman.
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advances ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, (2), 165-187.
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79-101.
Zacharias, N. T. (2007). Teacher and student attitudes toward teacher feedback. RELC, 38(1), 38-52.
Zhao, H. (2014). Investigating teacher-supported peer assessment for EFL writing. ELT Journal, 68(2),155- Uzun Özet