Home Articles List Article Information
Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice
Journal Archive
Volume Volume 11 (2018)
Volume Volume 10 (2017)
Volume Volume 9 (2016)
Volume Volume 8 (2015)
Volume Volume 7 (2014)
Volume Volume 6 (2013)
Volume Volume 5 (2012)
Volume Volume 4 (2011)
Volume Volume 3 (2010)
Volume Volume 2 (2009)
Volume Volume 1 (2008)
Heidari, F. (2010). The Effect of Multi-step Oral-revision Processes on Iranian EFL Learners’ Argumentative Writing Achievement. Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 4(8), 78-98.
Farrokhlagha Heidari. "The Effect of Multi-step Oral-revision Processes on Iranian EFL Learners’ Argumentative Writing Achievement". Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 4, 8, 2010, 78-98.
Heidari, F. (2010). 'The Effect of Multi-step Oral-revision Processes on Iranian EFL Learners’ Argumentative Writing Achievement', Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 4(8), pp. 78-98.
Heidari, F. The Effect of Multi-step Oral-revision Processes on Iranian EFL Learners’ Argumentative Writing Achievement. Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 2010; 4(8): 78-98.

The Effect of Multi-step Oral-revision Processes on Iranian EFL Learners’ Argumentative Writing Achievement

Article 4, Volume 4, Issue 8, Winter and Spring 2010, Page 78-98  XML PDF (463.23 K)
Document Type: Research Paper
Author
Farrokhlagha Heidari*
University of Sistan and Baluchestan
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the role of two multi-step oral-revision processes as feedback providing tools on Iranian EFL learners’ argumentative writing achievement. The participants taking part in this study were 45 Iranian EFL students who were randomly assigned into three groups. The participants of the groups were given three argumentative writing assignments, each assignment demanding three separate drafts. In the control group, the participants revised their essays in response to teacher's written feedback, while the participants of the two experimental groups experienced oral-revision talks with their teacher or a peer. Two sets of quantitative and qualitative data were collected: Argumentative essays written at the beginning and the end of the semester and interviews. The results of the quantitative aspect of the study revealed the significant outperformance of the two experimental groups. Moreover, the data provided through interviews revealed some differences in terms of the effectiveness of feedback between the two experimental groups. The participants of the peer-led group reported more awareness of the rhetorical structures and an ability to revise surface errors. While, the teacher-led group reported more global writing concerns like content, organization of ideas,   and discourse. The obtained results point out that the mutual co-construction of participation roles and certain combinations of negotiation and scaffolding let the teacher provide a supportive conversational environment and assistance in accordance with the proficiency of learners of the teacher-led group to promote greater learner participation.
Keywords
Multi-step Oral Revision; Negotiation; scaffolding; Argumentative Writing
References
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal,78.4, 465-483.

Bruffee, K. (1984). Peer tutoring and the conversation of mankind. In G. Olsen (Ed.), Writing Centers: Theory and Administration (pp. 3-14).Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Camp, R. (1993). The place of portfolios in our changing views of writing assessment. In R.E. Bennett & W.C. Ward (Eds.), Construction versus choice in cognitive measurement: Issues in constructed response, performance testing, and portfolio assessment (pp. 183-212). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Goldgberg, G.L., Rosewell, B.S., & Michaels, H. (1995). Can assessment mirror instruction? A look at peer response and revision in a large-scale writing test. Educational assessment, 3, 287-314.

Goldstein, L., & Conrad, S. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher written comments: Texts, contexts and individuals. Journal of Second Language Learning, 8, 147-180.

Hamp-Lyons, L. (1991). Scoring procedures for ESL contexts. In L. Hamp-Lyons (ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 241–276). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hamp-Lyons, L. (1992). Holistic Writing Assessment for LEP Students. Proceeding of the Second National Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Issues: Focus on Evaluation and Measurement. OBEMLA. Available at: http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/symposia/vol 2/ holistic-ref.htm.holistic-ref.htm.

Hanks, W.F. (1991). Foreword by William F. Hanks. In J. Lave & E. Wenger (eds.), Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (p. 13-24). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Harris, J. (1986). Assessing outcomes in higher education. In C. Adelman (Ed.), Assessment in American Higher Education (pp. 19-34). Washington, D.C: GPO.

Hedgcock, J., & Leftkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3),  255-276.

Husle-Killacky, D., Orr, J.J., & Paradise, L.V. (2006). The corrective feedback instrument-revised. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 31(3), 263-281.

Jones, R.H., Garrulda, A., Li, D.C.S., & Lock, G. (2006). Interactional dynamics in on-line and face-to-face peer-tutoring sessions for second language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 1-23.

Keh, C.L. (1990). A design for process-approach writing course. English Teaching

Forum, 28(1), 10-12.

Kroll, B. (1990). Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in peer response groups: Stances, functions and content. Language Learning,45(4), 605-625.

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In R. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Edward Arnold

McBurney, D.H. (2001). Research Methods. Belmont: Wadsworth Thomas Learning Incorporation.

Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34-51.

Nemeth, N., & Kormos, J. (2001). Pragmatic aspects of task-performance: the case of argumentation. Language Teaching Research, 5, 213-240.

Ohta, A. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pajares, F., & Valiantle, G. (2006). Self-efficacy beliefs and motivation in writing. In C.A. Macarther, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 158-170). New York: Guilford Press.

Patthey-Chavez, G., & Ferris, D. (1997). Writing conferences and the waving of multi-voiced texts in college composition. Research in the Teaching of English,31(1), 51-90.

Powers, J. (1993). Rethinking writing center conferencing strategies for ESL writer. Writing Center Journal, 13, 39-47.

Seow, A. (2002). The writing process and process writing. In J.C. Richards & W.A. Renyanda (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: an anthology of current practice (pp. 315-320). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Tusi, AB.M. (1996). Learning how to teach ESL writing. In D. Freeman & J.C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 97-119). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Van Lier, L. (1996). Interactions in the curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. London: Addison Wesley Longman.

Varghese, S.A., & Abraham, S.A. (1998). Undergraduates arguing a case. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 287-306.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and Language. (A. Kozulin, Trans.) Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. (Original work published in 1934).

Weigle, S., & Nelson, G. (2004). Novice tutors and their ESL tutees: Three case studies of tutor roles and perceptions of tutorial success. Journal of Second Language Writing,13(3), 203-225.

Weissberg, R. (2006). Conversations about writing: Building oral scaffolds with advanced L2 writers. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 246-264). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wiggins, G. (1994). The constant danger of sacrificing validity to reliability: Making writing assessment serve writers. Assessing Writing, 1, 129-139.

Williams, J. (2002). Undergraduate second language writers in the writing center. Journal of Basic Writing, 21(2), 73-91.

Williams, J. (2004). Tutoring and revision: Second language writers in the writing center. Journal of Second Language Writing,13(3), 173-201.

Young, R.F., & Miller, E.R. (2004). Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL writing. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 519-536.

Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 165-187.

Zhao, H. (2010). Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: A comparative study in a Chinese English Writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 15(1), 3-17.

Statistics
Article View: 899
PDF Download: 165