Iranian EFL Learners’ Reactions to Different Feedbacks in Writing Classrooms: Teacher Written Comments (TWC) vs. Peer Written Comments (PWC)

Rabiee, Mitra

|
|
|
How to cite
RIS EndNote BibTeX APA MLA Harvard Vancouver
|
Share

	Iranian EFL Learners’ Reactions to Different Feedbacks in Writing Classrooms: Teacher Written Comments (TWC) vs. Peer Written Comments (PWC)
Article 9, Volume 3, Issue 7, Summer and Autumn 2010, Page 182-204 PDF (580.62 K)
Document Type: Research Paper
Author
Mitra Rabiee^*
Shahreza Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahreza, Iran
Abstract
The teaching of writing has recently begun to move away from a concentration on the written product to an emphasis on the process of writing. Feedback is a fundamental element of the process approach to writing. It can be defined as input from a reader to a writer with the effect of providing information to the writer for a revision. This study reports on the effectiveness of two types of feedback provided by two different sources– the teacher and the peers– on students’ overall writing quality in an EFL context. To fulfill such an aim, a group of 60 Iranian Persian native speakers aged between 22 and 25 majoring in English Translation were chosen from among a greater population of 98. They were assigned to three homogeneous groups based on their scores on Oxford Placement Test (OPT) and a sample writing assignment on a given topic by emphasizing the expository genre through providing some reasons. They covered five topics before and after receiving feedback– ten written texts– in the span of a 15-week semester. Then, the papers were rated analytically. The findings revealed that feedback had a noticeable effect on the students’ draft editing, and of the two sources of feedback, the students benefited from teacher’s feedback more than their peers’ feedback. Other possible implications interpreted from this study supported the occurrence of a change in students’ roles in communicative foreign language learning settings and that, they could take the role of autonomous learners and turn into common respondents to other students’ writings and in this way their L2 knowledge construction and implementation increased
Keywords
Communicative Language Learning (CLL); paragraph; Peer Feedback; Teacher Feedback; Writing Instruction


References
Bartels, N. (2003). Written peer response in L2 writing. English Teaching Forum, 41(1), 34-36. 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. Connor, U. (1987).Research frontiers in writing analysis.TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 677-696. Farhady, H. (2006). Research methods in applied linguistics (8^thed.). Tehran: Payame Noor University Press. Ferris, D. R. (1995).Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms.TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33-53. Hyland, K. (1990). Providing productive feedback.Elt Journal, 44(4), 279-285. Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal, 44(4), 294-304. Liu, J., & Hansen, J. G. (2002).Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Mendonca, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 745-769. Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(2), 113-131. Ostrom, J., & Cook, W. (1993).Paragraph writing simplified. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers. Rabiee, M. (2006).Interactive feedback model: Modeling a collaborative learning approach inproviding feedback in writing classrooms. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Islamic azad University, Science and Research Campus, Tehran, Iran. Rabiee, M. (2008). Two collaborative feedback models in EFL writing instruction: Do they make a difference? The Journal of Applied Linguistics, Tabriz, IAU, 1(3), 134-163. Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roebuck, R. F. (2001). Teaching composition in the college level foreign language class: Insights and activities from sociocultural theory. Foreign Language Annals, 34(3), 206-215. Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class.ELT Journal, 59(1), 23-30. Shin, S. J. (2002).Ten techniques for successful writing tutorials.TESOL Journal, 11(1), 25-31. Villamil, O. S., &DeGuerrero, M. C. M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of second language writing, 5(1), 51-75. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Zhang, S. (1995).Re-examining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class.Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209-222. Zhu, W. (2001).Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups.Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 251-276
Statistics Article View: 1,210 PDF Download: 276