Two Collaborative Feedback Models in EFL Writing Instruction: Do They Make a Difference?

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Islamic Azad University-Shahreza Branch

Abstract

Research in L1 writing has found numerous benefits of employing collaborative learning in the classroom. The research findings on group work provide clear evidence that engaging learners in group activities increases opportunities for students to engage in the negotiation of meaning, which further leads to better acquisition. The present study, implementing two different collaborative feedback models, based on various sources and modes of feedback, examines the effect of each on the students’ writing quality. Sixty Iranian students, majoring in English Translation, were assigned into three homogeneous groups based on their obtained scores on Oxford Placement Test (OPT) and sample paragraph writing. They covered five topics in a sequence of ten written texts − before and after receiving feedback − over a 15-week semester. The results revealed that students incorporated both the teacher’s and peers’ oral/written comments in the process of draft editing, and that they benefited from the two collaborative feedback models almost equally. The interview results also confirmed co-operative learning as an effective teaching strategy that could be used to enhance achievement and socialization among students and to improve attitudes towards learning and working in groups, especially in EFL settings.
 
 

Keywords

References

Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-257.
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.
Boswood, T., & Dwyer, R. H. (1996). From marking to feedback: Audiotaped responses to student writing. TESOL Journal, 5(2), 20-23.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing,12,267-296.
 De Guerrero, M. C. M. & Villamil, O. S. (1994). Socio-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 484-496.
DiCamilla, F. J., & Anton, M. (1997). Repetition in the collaborative discourse of L2 learners: A Vygotskyan perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(4), 609-633.
Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986). Information gap tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 305-325.
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315-339.
Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184.
Gere, A. R. (1987). Writing groups: History, theory, and implications. Carbondale: Southern IllinoisUniversity Press.
Han, Z. (2002). Rethinking the role of corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. RELC Journal, 33(1), 1-25.
Hirvela, A. (1999). Collaborative writing instruction and communities of readers and writers. Foreign Language Annals, 8(2), 7-12.
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.
Kroll, B. (1991). Teaching writing in the ESL context. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 245-263). New York: Newbury House.
Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp.57-68). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Liu, J., & Hansen, J. G. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Long, M., & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 305-325.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1989). Parallels between speaking and writing in second language acquisition. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.),  Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp.134-145). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal, 46(3), 274-284.
Mangelsdorf, K., & Schlumberger, A. (1992). ESL student response stances in a peer-review task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 235-254.
Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: Harnessing students’ communicative power. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering Esl students (pp. 207-219). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Previdi, P. A. (1999). Interactive teacher training. English Teaching FORUM, 37(3), 32-33.
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.
Villamil, O. S., & De Guerrero, 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: HarvardUniversity Press.
Wauters, J. K. (1988). Non-confrontational critiquing pairs: An alternative to verbal peer response groups. The Writing Instructor, 7, 156-166.
Youngs, B. L., & Green, A. (2001). A successful peer writing assistant program. Foreign Language Annals, 34(6), 550-558.
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 77-101.
Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice
Volume 1, Issue 3
Summer and Autumn 2008
Pages 134-163

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics