نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشگاه پیام نور تهران

2 دانشگاه شیراز

چکیده

پژوهش حاضر، به بررسی جوانب گوناگونِ بازخوردِ برخطِ ارائه‌شده توسط معلم و گروه همتایان می‌پردازد. تأثیر انواع بازخورد بر توانایی نگارش فراگیران، نوع بازخورد زبان آموزان و دقتِ بازخورد زبان‌آموزان مورد بررسی قرار گرفتند. دانشجویان سه کلاس که در رشته‌های زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی و آموزش زبان انگلیسی تحصیل می‌کردند، در این مطالعه شرکت نمودند. به فراگیران یکی از کلاس‌ها، بازخورد برخط توسط معلم داده شد. در دو کلاس دیگر بازخورد توسط گروه همتایان ارائه شد که در یک کلاس به صورت سنتی و در کلاس دیگر به صورت برخط بود. با بررسی اطلاعات گردآوری‌شده معلوم شد که زبان آموزانی که بازخورد برخط (همتایان و یا معلم) دریافت کردند، در امتحان پایانی عملکرد بهتری در نگارش نسبت به گروهی که بازخورد سنتی دریافت کردند، داشتند. یافته‌های پژوهش همچنین نشان دادند که فراگیرانی که در گروه بازخورد برخط همتایان بودند، در مقایسه با گروه بازخورد سنتی، شمار بیشتری بازخورد مرتبط با محتوا ارائه دادند. علاوه بر این، زبان‌آموزانی که در گروه بازخورد برخط بودند در ارائة بازخورد درست، موفق‌تر از گروه بازخورد سنتی بودند. در نهایت، فراگیران ضعیف‌تر در گروه‌های برخط بیش از دانشجویان گروه سنتی در نگارش پیشرفت داشتند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

A comparative study of the efficacy of teacher and peer online written corrective feedback on ِِِEFL learners' writing ability

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Hamed Hoomanfard 1
  • Mohammad Rahimi 2

1 Payame-Noor University, Tehran

2 Shiraz University

چکیده [English]

The present study compared online teacher and peer feedback with respect to feedback type and the effect they have on EFL learners’ writing ability. As regards the feedback type, the study explored the focus of teacher and peer feedback (content/ form), the accuracy of the comments they provided, as well as the patterns of incorporating comments by the students. The participants of the present study were 60 students participating in three intact classes, majoring in English language Literature and TEFL. The students in one of the groups received online teacher feedback, while the other groups received peer feedback; in one of the peer response classes, the feedback was exchanged through the conventional paper- and-pencil format, while in the other class, the students swapped comments through a website. The required data was collected through the students’ essays, written during an academic semester, and a semi-structured interview. In the present study, seven queries were raised and attempted to be answered. At first, the study checked the effect of different online and conventional feedback methods on the students’ writing ability in the short and long run. The results indicated that the students in the experimental groups outperformed those in the conventional peer feedback group in the long run (in immediate and delayed post-tests), while no difference was observed between the two groups on their immediate posttests (in the short run).
The findings of the study also indicated the superiority of the online courses in helping the students with lower levels of English proficiency to improve their writing ability. The results showed that the students in the online groups (both teacher and peer) used internet to increase their on-task interactions; they also took advantage of online resources, like dictionaries. The students in the online groups were found to use the resource texts found on the internet as models. They also reflected on their writings, and could check their progress more easily. They stated that they were less anxious while challenging the comments of their peer or the instructor.
   The third research question dealt with the type of feedback that students in online and conventional peer feedback groups provided. The results revealed that the online medium could affect the students’ patterns of giving feedback and directed the focus of the students from merely local aspects to global and suprasentential aspects. Although the students in both groups managed to give comments on both global and local aspects, the online group students gave significantly more global comments.
    The fourth research question tapped the accuracy of the students’ comments in the online and conventional groups. The findings showed that the online medium was successful in reducing the number of miscorrections. The students in the online peer feedback group gave significantly more sound comments, and significantly fewer inaccurate comments than their counterparts in the conventional group did.   
   The present study also investigated the effect of online feedback medium on the students’ pattern of incorporating the peer comments. Although at the beginning of the experiment, the students incorporated just around thirty percent of the comments, this level increased two times in the conventional group, and more than three times in the online peer feedback group at the end of the semester. The results also revealed that the online group students became more successful in distinguishing the corrections and miscorrections and deciding upon the incorporation of them in the second drafts.
   The sixth research question investigated the students’ attitudes toward and perceptions about peer feedback. The students in both online and conventional peer feedback groups were interviewed. The findings showed that the students in both groups had positive attitude towards and perceptions of peer feedback. The students in the online group had significantly more positive attitude towards and perceptions of peer feedback. The students also enumerated time-independency, place-independency, use of online resources, and negotiation over the comments as the major advantages of the online peer feedback. The only disadvantage of this type of feedback, stated by the students, was the internet disconnections. With regard to their preference, none of the students disliked online peer feedback; the preferences were of two types: the first group favored just the online medium, and the other group preferred a combination of online and face-to-face peer feedback.
   In sum, the results of the study revealed that the students in online teacher and peer feedback groups significantly improved more than those in the conventional peer feedback group. Other factors like the accuracy of the comments, the focus of the comments, and the revision patterns, also, indicated the superiority of the online feedback. The higher levels of students’ attitudes towards and perceptions of peer feedback of the students in the online group showed the superiority of online peer feedback.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Writing
  • second language
  • feedback
  • Accuracy
  • online learning

کیوان‌پناه، شوا و اسدالله شریفی (1390). «بررسی تاثیر بازخورد شفاهی بر مهارت نگارش زبان آموزان و نگرش زبان آموزان نسبت به آن». زبان‌پژوهی. دورة 3. شمارة 6. صص 111-133.

 

Abrami, P. C., Wade, C. A., Pillay, V., Aslan, O., Bures, E. M. & Bentley, C. (2008). Encouraging self-regulated learning through electronic portfolios. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 34(3), 93-117.

AbuSeileek, A., & Abualsha’r, A. (2014). Using peer computer-mediated corrective feedback to support EFL learners’ writing. Language Learning & Technology,18(1), 76-95.

Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Scanlon, D. (2002). Procedural facilitators and cognitive strategies: tool for unraveling the mysteries of comprehension and the writing process, and for providing meaningful access to the general curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17,65-77.

Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bruffee, K. (1984). Collaborative learning and the conversation of mankind. College English, 46(7), 635-652.

Burston, J. (2001). Computer-mediated feedback in composition correction. CALICO Journal,19(1), 37-50.

Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296.

Cheng, P. C. (2009). Integrating online peer reviews into a college writing class in Taiwan. (Ph.D. dissertation), Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana. 

Cooper, M. M., & Selfe, C. L. (1990). Computer conferences and learning: authority, resistance, and internally persuasive discourse. College English, 52, 847-869.

Ellis, M.J. (2011). Peer feedback on writing: is on-line actually better than on-paper? Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 5(1), 88-99.

Ellis, R. (2005). Planning in language testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 217-218). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32,335-349.

Englert, C. S., Manalo, M., & Zhao, Y. (2004). I can do it better on the computer: the effects of technology-enabled scaffolding on young writers’ composition. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(1), 1-15.

Englert, C. S., Wu, X., & Zhao, Y. (2005). Cognitive tools for writing: scaffolding the performance of students through technology. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20(3), 184-198.

Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 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, 161-184.

Ho, M. & Savignon, S. (2007). Face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review in EFL writing. CALICO, 24 (2), 269-290.

Hoomanfard, M. H. (2017). EFL learners' attitudes and perceptions of online and conventional peer written feedback: a tertiary level experience. Malaysian Journal of Languages and Linguistics, 6(1), 49-62.

Huisman, B., Saab, N., van Driel, J., & van den Broek, P. (2018). Peer feedback on academic writing: undergraduate students’ peer feedback role, peer feedback perceptions and essay performance. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(6), 955-968.

Huynh, M. H. (2008). The impact of online peer feedback on EFL learners’ motivation in writing and writing performance: a case study at Can Tho University.(Unpublished Master thesis) Can Tho University, Can Tho,Vietnam.

Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching Research, 4(1), 33-54.

Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. New York: Cambridge University.

Jacobs, G. M., & McCafferty, S. G. (2006). Connections between cooperative learning and second language teaching and learning. In S. G. McCafferty, G. M. Jacobs & A. C. Iddings (Eds.), Cooperative Learning and Second Language Teaching. (pp. 18-29). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Jacobs, H.L., Zinkgraf, S.A., Wormuth, D.R., Hartfiel, V.F., & Hughey, J.B. (1981). Testing ESL composition: a practical approach. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House Publishers.

Jafarigohar, M., Hoomanfard, M. H., & Jalilifar, A. (2018). A typology of supervisor written feedback on L2 students’ Theses/Dissertations. IJAL, 21(2), 43-87.

Jones, R. H., Garralda, A., Li, D., & Lock, G. (2006). Interactional dynamics in on-line and faceto- face peer-tutoring sessions for second language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(1), 1-23.

Kaivanpanah Maralani, S., Sharifi, A. (2012). An investigation of the effect of oral feedback on the writing skill of L2 learners and their views about it. Zabanpazhuhi, 3(6), 111-133. doi: 10.22051/jlr.2013.1034 [In Persian].

Keh, C. (1990). Feedback in the writing process. ELT Journal, 44(4), 294-304.

Krashen, S. (1984). Writing. research, theory and applications. New York: Prentice-Hall.

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). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Leslie, C. (2010). Technology in language learning: wikis and webquests. E-TEALS, 1, 52-64.

Lin, S. S. J., Liu, E. Z. F., & Yuan, S. M. (2001). Web-based peer assessment: attitude and achievement. Retrieved from <http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/es/May2001/05/Begin.htm>

Liu, J., & Sadler, R. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 193-227.

Mahmoudikia, M., Hoomanfard, M. H., & Izadpanah, M. A. (2014). Factors affecting ICT use in Iranian classes: a literature review. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 6(1), 203-214.

Majari, B. (2010). Feedback: all that effort, but what is the effect? teacher and peer feedback. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Lebanese American University, Beirut, Lebanon.

Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 113-132.

Novakovich, J. (2016). Fostering critical thinking and reflection through blog-mediated peer feedback. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(1), 16-30.

Ogata, H., Feng, C., Hada, Y., & Yano, Y. (2000). Online markup based language learning environment. Computers and Education: An International Journal, 34(1), 51-66.

Rahimi, M. (2013). Is training peer reviewers worth its while? The effect of training peer reviewers on the quality of their feedback and writing. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 67-89.

Rahimi, M. (2015). The Role of individual differences in L2 learners’ retention of written corrective feedback. Journal of Response to Writing, 1(1), 19-48.

Rodriguez, R. (2003). Computer-mediated peer response and its impact on revision in the college Spanish classroom: a case study. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation), University of SouthFlorida, Florida, USA.

Shang, H. F. (2007). An exploratory study of e-mail application on FL writing performance. Computer Assisted Language Learning,20(1), 79-96.

Song, W. & Usaha, S. (2009). How EFL university students use electronic peer response into revisions. Suranaree Journal of Science and Technology, 16(3), 263-275.

Spitzer, M. (1990). Local and global networking: implications for the future. In D. Holdstein & C. Selfe (Eds.), Computers and writing: theory, research, practice (pp. 186- 207). New York, NY: MLA.

Storch, N. (2018). Written corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: a research agenda. Language Teaching, 51(2), 262-277.

Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in college and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68,249-276.

Trapman, M., van Gelderen, A., van Schooten, E., & Hulstijn, J. (2017). Reading comprehension level and development in native and language minority adolescent low achievers: roles of linguistic and metacognitive knowledge and fluency. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 33(3), 239-257.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.

Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170.

Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21, 217-235.

Van Popta, E. V., Kral, M., Camp, G., Martens, R. L., & Simons, P. R. (2017). Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider. Educational Research Review, 20, 24-34.

Villamil, O., & de Guerrero, M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics,19(4), 491-514.

Villamil, O., & De Guerrero, M. (2006). Sociocultural theory: a framework for understanding the social-cognitive dimensions of peer feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: contexts and issues (pp. 23-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wang, J. H., Chen, S. Y., & Chan, T, W. (2016). An investigation of a joyful peer response system: high ability vs. low ability. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 6, 431-444.

Wang, S. (2009). Effects of electronic peer response in comparison with face-to-face peer response on Chinese EFL university students’ writing revision. (Unpublished Master thesis).Suranaree University of technology, Nakhon Ratchasima Province, Thailand.

Warschauer, M. (2005). Sociocultural perspectives on CALL. In J. Egbert and G. M. Petrie (Eds.) CALL Research Perspectives (pp. 41-51). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence.

White, C. (2003).  Language learning in distance education. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wu, W.  (2006). The effect of blog peer review and teacher feedback on the revisions of ESL writers.  Journal of Education and Foreign Languages and Literature,3, 125-139.

Xu, Q. & Yu, S. (2018). An action research on computer-mediated communication (CMC) peer feedback in EFL writing context. Asia-Pacific Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-018-0379-0.

Yang, M., R. Badger & Z. Yu (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179-200.

Yang, Y. F. (2010). Students’ reflection on online self-correction and peer review to improve writing. Computers & Education, 55. 1202-1210.

Yang, Y. F. (2016). Transforming and constructing academic knowledge through online peer feedback in summary writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29, 683-702.

Yeh, S. W., & Lo, J. J. (2009). Using online annotations to support error correction and corrective feedback. Computers & Education, 52(4), 882-892.

Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2016). Peer feedback in second language writing (2005-2014). Language teaching, 49(4), 461-493.

Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 209-222.