Emily Wiggins Fall 2005 Prof. Nuria Sagarra SPAN 502 The Effect of Peer and Teacher Feedback on Student Writing Terena M. Paulus (1999) Journal of Second Language Writing

Introduction Teaching writing as a process. Is a text ever really finished? The importance of teacher and peer collaboration. How de we encourage writing as an evolving experience?.

Writing in the ESL classroom: ESL writers have different composing practices and different needs than those of native English-speaking writers. Introduction

Recent research has stressed the importance teaching students strategies for all stages of the writing process: Generating ideas Composition Multiple drafts Incorporating feedback Editing Revision on all levels Introduction

Background The revision process: Teacher Feedback Peer Review Feedback

Teacher Feedback The way that teachers structure writing in the classroom and the feedback that they give effects the way that their students… View feedback Approach writing Revise writing (Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1996; Lockhardt & Ng, 1995; Mangelsdorf & Schlumberger, 1992.)

Teacher Feedback (Zamel, 1983; Cohen, 1987; Raimes, 1985 & 1987.) Should focus on form and content.

Teacher Feedback (Hillocks, 1982; Ziv, 1984.) Feedback that centers on specific meaning-based ideas in a multiple draft context promotes student revision in L1 and L2.

Teacher Feedback (Makino, ) Detailed cuestioning, not correction, can improve students’ ability to self-correct grammar errors.

Teacher Feedback (Ferris, Pezone, Tade & Tinki, 1997; Reid, 1994) Research is still needed to identify the most effective types of teacher feedback in the multiple draft process approach classroom.

Peer Review Feedback Has many advantages in ESL writing instruction: Develops critical reading and analysis skills. (Chaudron, 1984; Keh, 1990.)

Peer Review Feedback Has many advantages in ESL writing instruction: Encourages focus on intended meaning by discussing alternative views and further developing ideas. (DiPardo & Freedman, Mangelsdorf, 1992; Mendonca & Johnson, 1994.)

Peer Review Feedback Has many advantages in ESL writing instruction: Can complement Teacher Feedback. (Caulk, 1994; Devenney, 1989.)

Peer Review Feedback However… It is a very complex process that requires training and structure in order to be effective, both in L1 and L2 classrooms. (McGroarty & Zhu, 1997; Stanley, 1992; Villamil &deGuerrero, 1996.)

Research Questions 1. How do peer and teacher feedback effect student revisions in a multiple draft, process- approach writing classroom?

Research Questions 2. Does required revision through multiple drafts of an essay improve the overall quality of written work in a classroom setting?

Participants 12 ESL students enrolled in a remedial writing course entitled “Fundamental Usage Skills.”

Participants Male and female Ages Various lengths of residence in U.S. Some had taken other classes in the Intensive English program; 3 tested in.

Participants Research conducted by instructor.

Methods The revision process was studied using data collected from three drafts of a persuasive essay written during weeks seven and eight of a ten week course.

Methods Draft one: written and oral feedback from peers. Focus on ideas and structure, not grammar. Students provided with Peer Review Form to guide revisions.

Methods Draft two: written feedback from teacher. Focus on content and form. Number and type of comments tailored to needs of each student.

Methods Draft three: final copy.

Data Collection 1 Students recorded a think-aloud protocols (TAP’s) during each revision (peer and teacher feedback). Purpose to talk through ideas as they revised and identify the sources of and reasons for revisions made.

Data Collection 2 Faigley and Witte’s Taxonomy of Revisions (1981) was used to categorize changes: Surface Change Formal Meaning- preserving

Data Collection 2 Faigley and Witte’s Taxonomy of Revisions (1981) was used to categorize changes: Meaning Change MicrostructureMacrostructure

Data Collection 3 Each draft of the essay was scored by two independent raters using a standard Essay Scoring Rubric from the Michigan English Language Assessment Battery (MELAB). Scores were on a scale of 1-10 and were averaged for each draft in order to chart improvement in writing.

Results: Types of Revisions 843 total revisions 62.5% surface changes 21.9% Formal 40.6% Meaning-preserving

Results: Types of Revisions 843 total revisions 37.5% meaning changes 21.7% Microstructure 15.8% Macrostructure

Results: Sources of Revisions Surface Changes

Results: Sources of Revisions Meaning Changes

Results: Essay Scoring Mean increase of.75 from first to third draft. Significant.

Results: Essay Scoring Weak positive correlation (r=.3709) between amount of improvement and total number of revisions. Not significant.

Results: Essay Scoring No significant correlation between amount of improvement and percentage of surface or meaning changes made.

Conclusions Results show that ESL students are able to revise on both surface and meaning levels.

Conclusions Majority of revisions came from self or outside sources. However, peer and teacher feedback was clearly effective in the revision process.

Conclusions Teacher feedback influenced more changes and was prioritized over peer feedback.

Conclusions However, further research is needed to indicate which types of teacher feedback are most useful.

Conclusions Required revision did significantly improve the essay scores.

Implications Teach writing as a process. Multiple drafts. Structured peer revision. Teacher feedback that questions rather than corrects.

Discussion 1. Do you think the order and type of teacher feedback given limits the generalizability of the results?

Discussion 2. What do you see as the role of peer review in the writing process? Does this differ from your vision of the role of teacher feedback?

Discussion 3. How can we structure peer review sessions to make them most beneficial for our students?