Browsing by Subject "Peer feedback"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item The effects of peer feedback on second and foreign language writing development(2014-08) Ko, Hyuk; Pulido, Diana C.Process approaches to writing are widely used in various second language teaching contexts, and many teachers and researchers are trying to find more efficient and meaningful ways to help students to improve their writing skills. Especially in the revision process, students can get help from teacher feedback, so they can have more opportunities to improve their drafts. In a class of 30 students, however, it is very difficult for a teacher to provide timely feedback to all students. The quality and the amount of teacher feedback can fall off due to time constraints and the number of students' drafts. If it is used effectively, a great help to a teacher of a writing class, then is peer feedback. Peer feedback can provide such other benefits as a sense of audience and ownership, more meaningful collaborative learning, and student awareness of the strengths and weaknesses in their drafts. The following report discusses the nature of peer feedback in writing and illustrates the effects of such feedback on students' perspectives about the revision process. The report also traces impact of providing and receiving different types of feedback. It shows us the unique features of paper-and-pencil and computer-mediated peer feedback, and highlights the important points in linguistic and extra linguistic elements observed in peer feedback.Item "Irritating but helpful" : using a social media tool for peer and user writing feedback in a Spanish language course(2020-01-30) Parrish, Claire Meadows; Schallert, Diane L.Language students need formative feedback on written production during the drafting phase, before receiving summative feedback on the final written product. However, providing this type of feedback to students adds to instructors’ already busy workload. Peer feedback has been suggested as an alternative to instructor-provided feedback, but peers’ limited target language knowledge restricts the utility of this feedback. Native speakers may be more capable of identifying target language gaps than are nonnative speaking peers. Furthermore, Web 2.0 affords learners with tools to connect target language learners with native speakers of the target language. The goal of this study was to understand more about what occurs in the context of language learning via social networking websites. This exploratory case study examined feedback to written production received by 18 intermediate-level university Spanish language learners in an intact semester-long Spanish course using Lang-8, a website that supports language learning via social networking tools. The following four research questions were addressed: 1) Who responds to assigned student writings on Lang-8? 2) How much feedback do students receive? 3) What kinds of feedback do they get? 4) What is the students’ response to this feedback? The amount and types of feedback received from both peers and unknown website users were quantitatively analyzed, and these data were triangulated with student participants’ survey responses to four end-of-chapter and one end-of-semester surveys to reveal students’ reactions to receiving feedback on Lang-8. Findings indicated that participants received predominantly accurate feedback from both peer and user responder groups, and this feedback was generally perceived as useful by participants. Moreover, peers offered more global feedback related to content, whereas website users provided more local feedback related to form. Overall, participants’ reactions to receiving feedback was positive, but variation was observed in individual responses that was attributed to individual preferences related to response provider groups, feedback types, and language variations present when receiving feedback from multiple sources. Based on the affordances and limitations of using Lang-8 to receive feedback as revealed through this study, it seems that Lang-8 can afford instructors a way to outsource formative feedback for target language learners.Item Writing, peer feedback, and revision : a comparison of l1 and l2 college freshmen with longitudinal analyses(2012-08) Kim, Hoonmil 1971-; Blyth, Carl S. (Carl Stewart), 1958-; Charney, DavidaPeer feedback is one of the most popular and widely adopted methods used for writing instruction in both the L1 and L2 classrooms. Previous studies that examined peer feedback suggest different benefits and purposes for the method based on the writers’ language group. However, no study has systematically analyzed the peer feedback comments generated by L1 and L2 writers under comparable conditions. While many studies have reported the short-term benefits of peer feedback on writing, little is known in the field about the longitudinal effects of peer feedback on students’ writing ability. This study compares the peer feedback comments of L1 (n=34) and L2 (n=30) college freshman generated in three peer review sessions over a semester using an online peer feedback tool SWoRD. Feedback segments (n=4,227) were coded for sixteen feedback features reported to affect the helpfulness of feedback comments. Students’ peer feedback profiles were compared between the language groups as well as between the first, second, and third peer review sessions to investigate quantitative and qualitative differences between the language groups and across the feedback sessions. Cases of students who achieved increase in writing scores over the semester and students with no or negative increase in writing scores were explored in-depth on the feedback they generated, feedback they received, and the revisions they made in order to identify the areas in which they differed. The results show that contrary to common perceptions, L1 and L2 writers overall generated similar amount and types of feedback comments, with statistical difference found only in the percentage of criticism comments that explicitly stated problems. Students’ feedback comments did not change significantly, either in quantity or quality, over time. However, students reported that the feedback they received and provided became more accurate and more helpful over time. Students who achieved an increase in their writing scores behaved differently than those who experienced little or no change in their scores. The improve group made more Type 4 revisions, which is adding/deleting idea chunks, than the non-improve group; the non-improve group received more global criticism feedback than the improve group; little difference was found in the feedback the two groups generated.