Download to read offline
Uploaded byHaidee Thomson
Exploring attitudes towards peer feedback in the writing classroom ライティングにおけるピア・フェードバックに関する学習者側の見解についての検討
The document explores student attitudes towards peer feedback in writing classrooms, highlighting the willingness of students to both give and receive feedback from classmates. Surveys conducted in writing classes revealed varying levels of interest and comfort regarding peer feedback activities, suggesting potential for increased engagement and reflection among writers. The findings also indicate a need for proper training and structured peer feedback processes to enhance the effectiveness of such initiatives.
More Related Content
Similar to Exploring attitudes towards peer feedback in the writing classroom ライティングにおけるピア・フェードバックに関する学習者側の見解についての検討
Exploring attitudes towards peer feedback in the writing classroom ライティングにおけるピア・フェードバックに関する学習者側の見解についての検討
- 1. Exploring attitudes towardspeer-feedback in the writing classroom ライティングにおけるピア・フェード バックに関する学習者側の見解につい ての検討 HAIDEE THOMSON (HAIDEE.THOMSON@GMAIL.COM) 21 SEP, JALT HOKKAIDO CONFERENCE
- 2. Writing class activities Model Plan Draft Teacher-check Revise and publish Problem? A lot of marking for the teacher Over-reliance on teacher Missed opportunity for writer reflection
- 3. Solution Plan Draft Self-check Peer-check Teacher-check Revise and publish
- 4. Is it gooduse of class-time? • Increases meta-cognitive awareness (Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009) • Raises audience awareness (Kobayashi, 1988) • Giver of feedback benefits more than receiver (Lundstrom & Baker, 2009) • Get more feedback
- 5. Are students willingto share? Research question 1: Are students willing to read and comment on the writing of others? Research question 2: Are students willing to let classmates read their writing and comment?
- 6. 2 surveys of5 writing classes BEFORE 9 questions N=73 AFTER 13 questions N=57 1st year 3rd year 22% 2nd 52% year 26% 1st year 51% 3rd year 23% 2nd year 26%
- 7. Have you evergiven suggestions to a classmate about how to improve their writing? ライティング力を向上させる方法を、クラスメート にアドバイスしたことがありますか。 Yes 14% No 86% BEFORE
- 8. 2. Have youever received suggestions from a classmate on how to improve your writing? ライティング力を向上させる方法を、クラスメートからアドバイスし てもらったことがありますか。 Yes 29% Can't remember 26% No 45% BEFORE
- 9. 3. Are youinterested in reading other classmates’ writing? 他のクラスメートのライティングを読んでみたいと思いますか。 Yes 78% Not sure 17% No 5% BEFORE Yes 75% Not sure 12% No 13% AFTER
- 10. 4. How doyou feel about other classmates reading your writing? 他のクラスメートに自分のライティングを読まれることについてどう 思いますか。 I like the idea 56% Don't like the idea 25% Not sure 19% BEFORE I like the idea 73% Not sure 7% Don't like the idea 20% AFTER
- 11. 5. How doyou feel about making suggestions for improving other students‘ writing? 他のクラスメートのライティング力を向上させるため に、あなた自身が他のクラスメートにアドバイスをすることについてどう思 いますか。 I love the idea 15% I like the idea 59% I don't know 15% I don't like the idea 10% I hate the idea 1% BEFORE I love the idea 27% I like the idea 45% I don't know 12% I don't like the idea 14% I hate the idea 2% AFTER
- 12. Do you wantto receive suggestions for improving your writing from: a classmate of your choice? ライティング力の向上について、以下のような人にアドバイスをしてもらい たいですか。自分で選んだクラスメート No 3% I'm not sure 19% Yes 78% BEFORE No 6% I'm not sure 27% Yes 67% AFTER
- 13. 7. Do youwant to receive suggestions for improving your writing from: a classmate chosen by the teacher? ライティング力の向上について、以下のような人にアドバイスをしてもらいたいです か。先生が選んだクラスメト BEFORE No 4% I'm not sure 22% Yes 74% BEFORE No 17% I'm not sure 28% Yes 55% AFTER
- 14. 7. Rate theoverall usefulness of self-check for you ライティングを自分で添削することは 役に立ちましたか。Not useful AFTER 2% Sometimes useful Useful 44% 54%
- 15. 2. Rate theoverall usefulness of peer feedback for you 同級生による添削は役に立 ちましたか。Not useful AFTER 12% Sometimes useful 43% Useful 45%
- 16. 3. Rate theoverall usefulness of teacher feedback for you 教師による添削は役に立ち ましたか。 AFTER Sometimes Useful 96% useful 4%
- 17. 7. Rate theoverall usefulness ライティングを 添削することは役に立ちましたか。 AFTER 44.6 42.9 1.8 12.5 0 3.7 53.6 44.6 96.3 SELF-CHECK PEER FEEDBACK TEACHER FEEDBACK Not useful Sometimes useful Useful
- 18. Implemented peer-feedback Formative:Help writers improve their writing (Peers comment, suggest but do not grade each others writing) Purpose: Efficient use of class resources & gaining reflective editing experience and skills
- 19. Original – surfaceerrors Peer feedback form Print this form and fill it in about your partner’s writing. The writer will submit it to the teacher with the draft and published writing. Name of reader: Name of writer: Date: Title: What words or phrases does the writer use that you would like to use? What details would you like the writer to add? Are there capitals at the beginning of sentences and for proper nouns? Does every sentence contain a noun and verb? Are there any sentences that could be joined together? Is the layout similar to the moodle example?
- 20. Developed into infogathering Error checking done in self-check Information gathering in peer-feedback Name of reader: Name of writer: Date: Title: Underline any sentences which are difficult to understand Mark any corrections on the essay/email Why are they applying? What program are they applying for? What do they want to know? When are they arriving for the homestay?
- 21. Self-check Self-check: checkfor surface level errors e.g. capitalization, spelling, verb agreement etc. Observed: reduction in surface errors, greater awareness
- 22. Peer-feed back Askedfor error identification & improvement suggestion Observed: mixed results, laziness, lack of confidence Asked for information identification (as suggested in Nilson, 2003) Observed: greater engagement with the writing (spent more time with it).
- 23. Conclusion Peer-check: Studentsare open to peer-feedback Students generally enjoy sharing Training is necessary Model of student writing that everyone reviews
- 24. Future classes Self-check Useful for reducing error Experiment with more identification tasks Avoid Yes/No questions to reduce laziness Peer-check Non-evaluative Information gathering Reaction to writing Experiment with mixing partners more
- 25. Thank you forlistening! Do you have any questions, comments or suggestions?
- 26. References Kobayashi, H.(1988). Views of “Audience” and the Teaching of English Writing. Studies in Linguistic Culture, 広島大学総合科学部, (14), p. 113–129. Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30–43. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002 Nilson, L. B. (2003). Improving Student Peer Feedback. College Teaching, 51(1), 34–38. doi:10.1080/87567550309596408 Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445–466. doi:http://dx.doi.org.helicon.vuw.ac.nz/10.1177/0265532209104670
- 27. Slides For acopy of slide hand-outs see website: www.haideethomson.com Or email me: haidee.thomson@gmail.com
Editor's Notes
- #3 How can we make the most of the limited resources in the writing classroom? How can we encourage learners to critically review their own work before handing it to the teacher for review?
- #5 W & S compared the writing of ESL individuals (mixed L1s) with those who produced writing in pairs and found increased accuracy and language related episodes leading to meta-cognitive awareness. Note this was shared writing as opposed to peer-check. Working together – social-cultural theories of cognitive development through interaction. Experience of team work is useful for future academic and work situations.
- #9 Show by year might be better than class, do 3rd years have more experience than 1st years?
- #10 Show by year might be better than class, do 3rd years have more experience than 1st years?
- #11 Show by year might be better than class, do 3rd years have more experience than 1st years?
- #13 Did ss prefer to choose their own partner after experiencing peer-check compared to their prior experience responses? (graph corrected to be only ‘before’ cases Sep 17 evening), need to do same for after, then use calculator to see if different – repeated measures? IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SELF-CHOSEN AND TEACHER-CHOSEN SIG? Do you want to receive suggestions for improving your writing:
- #14 Did ss prefer to choose their own partner after experiencing peer-check compared to their prior experience responses? (graph corrected to be only ‘before’ cases Sep 17 evening), need to do same for after, then use calculator to see if different – repeated measures? IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SELF-CHOSEN AND TEACHER-CHOSEN SIG? Do you want to receive suggestions for improving your writing:
- #18 Selfcheck M=2.5185, SD=.54047, N=54, Peer feedback M=2.3, SD=.67, N=54, Teacher feedback M=2.963, SD=.19063, N=54 A one-way repeated measured analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to evaluate the null hypothesis that there is no difference between ratings of the 3 types of check. The results indicated a significant difference in ratings, Wilks’ Lambda=.423, F(2, 52) = 35.49, p=.000, n2=?) (need to check how to report this and effect size) may have violated mauchly’s test of sphericity since it is significant.004
- #23 Avoid potentially awkward social situation of evaluating a peer’s writing, lack of confidence for error identification but anyone can look for info. If it is not there or confusing this will be obvious from the reader’s answer – which can prompt the writer to clarify that point
- #24 Writing can be a very isolated activity so introducing peer feedback or collaborative writing gives more opportunity for shared learning to occur