Thursday, December 13, 2012

The Effect of Peer and Teacher Feedback on Student Writing


STUDY TO MAKE SUMMARY
FROM
The Effect of Peer and Teacher Feedback on Student Writing
TRENA M. PAULUS
Indiana University
Members of group: Ariani Dewi Wulandari, Yani Ratnawati, Bunyani and Novita Kartika
 


A.      INTRODUCTION
Teaching writing in English as a second language ( ESL )  as a process of discovery aims to raise student awareness of the recursive nature of the composing process while allowing teacher and peer collaboration and intervention during the process as the negotiate meaning ( Susser, 1994;
Reid ; 1994 )Brainstorming, journal writing, multiple drafting, feedback practices, revision, and final editing are all steps in this process with teacher and student can read and respond to the
writing as it develops into the final product. In this way the research is need
that specifically examines the impact of the multiple drafting, revision, and the
role of teacher and peer review feedback on both ESL student revisions and the
overall quality of their writing. In this year researchers have stressed the need for ESL writing instruction to move
to a process approach that would teach students not only how to edit but also
to develop strategies to generate ideas, compose multiple drafts, deal with feedback,
and revise their written work on all levels. (Chenowith, 1987; Raimes 1985,
1987). While student can be forced to revise their work, revision in itself
does not necessarily improve the quality of the writing. Faigley and Witte
(1981) asserted that it is only when a revision in some way improves the text’s
quality can be considered successful.
Research in this area is limited and inconclusive, however, because other studies such as Belcher (1989 ) have found ESL writers revising on both the meaning and surface levels (Lam; 1991 )
In teaching feedback, the writing classroom and the type of feedback of the
teachers will no doubt determine how their students approach the writing
process, view feedback, and make revision to their writing. The lack of ESL
student’s writing and revision strategies, attributing the problem in part to
writing instruction who focused on primarily the form of the writing without
addressing the actual ideas and meaning conveyed by the text. The shift to a
focus on the writing process has not eliminated the difficulties of providing
effective feedback.
Peer review feedback is now common place as one part of the feedback and revision
process of ESL writing instruction. The peer review process is extremely
complex, requiring careful training and structuring in order for it to be successful
in both the L1 (McGroarty & Zhu,1997) and  L2 contexts  ( Stanley, 1992;
Villamil & deGuerrero,1996). However, Mangelsdorf & Schlumber (1992)
found that most students adopted a “prescriptive” rather than “collaborative”
stance as they responded to their peers, reinforcing the necessity for teachers
to train students in successful peer review techniques and also to construct opportunities
to effective peer interactions.
As with teacher feedback, it is difficult but essential to find effective way to incorporate peer review into the classroom in order for it to be successful.
In examining the impact of peer feedback compared to teacher feedback, Chaudron
(1984) found that, while the scores on all the revised essays, which students
wrote after receiving peer review feedback, were on average higher (though not
significantly so), there was not a significant difference between the amount of
improvement resulting from peer feedback and that resulting from teacher
feedback.

B.   DISCUSSION
B.1  Research questions
Two specific research questions are addressed in this study :
1.      How do peer and teacher feedback affect student revisions in a multiple draft, process- approach writing classroom?
2.      Does required revision through multiple drafts of an essay improve the overall quality of written work in a classroom situation?


B.2 Objective of the Study
To investigate whether actual classroom practices with feedback and revision are effective. Thus, feedback was given, drafts were written, and the data were collected in order of the usual classroom situation.
B.3 Participants and Method
The study was conducted with 11 undergraduate international students enrolled in a pre-freshman composition writing course entitled “ Fundamental Usage Skill “at a public university. This course is designed for those students who need further development of their academic writing skills before enrolling in the freshman composition course required for graduation from university.
The review session are the students received written and oral feedback from their classmates on the first drafts of the essays, after which they revised and wrote a second draft. They then received written teacher feedback on this second draft. Finally, they Revised again and wrote the third draft.
B.4  Significance of the study
Teachers continue to wonder to what degree the process of writing, provision of feedback, and revision are actually helping students as they become independent writers, and seek empirical evidence that their own feedback or peer review feedback can contribute positively process. Further studies are needed in the ESL academic writing context to explore this interaction among teacher response, peer response, and its impact on writing improvement.
B.5 Theories of previous findings
Hall (1990 ) categorized 51% of his second language writers’ revisions as equivalent to these meaning-preserving changes. Surface level changes, including both formal and meaning-preserving changes, accounted for 63% of the revisions made in the present study.
While the current study did not find students made more meaning than surface changes, as Belcher (1989 ) found with her Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Spanish ESL writers.
Connor and Asenavage ( 1994 ) were discouraged to find that the revisions made as a result of the peer and teacher feedback were more often meaning level revisions than those made as a result of the outside source.
The results of this study should reassure those who were discouraged by Nelson and Carson’s
 ( 1998 ) claims that students do not find their classmates’ advice particularly useful.
B.6    Findings
Students vary quite significantly in their use of the feedback. While both teacher and peer feedback was used, teacher feedback was clearly prioritized more.
Obviously students need to develop individualized strategies for incorporating feedback in an effective and positive way before their writing will improve.
In answering the research questions, then, it can be stated that :
1.      Both peer and teacher feedback contributed to the revision process, with teacher feedback influencing more changes and being prioritized more by students
2.      Required revision did significantly improve the essay scores of the class 
B.       CONCLUSION
The results of  this study should reassure writing instructors that their written feedback can be used by students to make meaning level revisions to their work.  In addition, writing instructors’ can integrate peer feedback into the writing classroom with confidence that this feedback can be effective and be used by many students in their revisions.
The fact that the multiple draft process did result in better essays should encourage teachers to make revision and re – writing, combined with meaningful peer and teacher feedback, an integral part of the writing classroom. These results also show the importance of analyzing not only what kinds of changes students are making their work but what effect these changes might have on the overall improvement of their essays
C.      SUGGESTION     
This theory can be implemented to the other level of students who may concern in writing improvement. It will be better if the method and strategies in review session could be conducted in many excited-variations.  While, Research Objectives in this research will be appealing not only improving the essay score but also the exploring of excited writing in Affective aspect so writing classroom will be enjoyable for the learners.

No comments:

Post a Comment