英语论文
原创论文
留学生作业
英语论文格式
免费论文
essay
英国硕士论文
英国毕业论文
英语论文
留学生论文
澳大利亚论文
新西兰论文
澳洲Report
澳洲留学生论文
美国留学论文
Dissertation
美国硕博论文
essay case
Eassy
Term paper
英语毕业论文
英文论文
课程作业
德语论文
德语专业论文
德语本科论文
德国留学论文
Assignment
日语论文
韩语论文
法语论文
俄语论文

同伴互评对高中生的影响研究

时间:2021-08-14 来源:未知 编辑:梦想论文 阅读:
1.0  Overview
 
It will give a brief review of peer review, including comparing teacher feedback and peer review and impact of peer review on students’ writing revision, and critical thinking, critical thinking and discussion and critical thinking and discussion included. At last, the author makes a summary of the whole review and finds out the limitations of it.
 
1.1 Peer review
 
Peer review is referred to with many different names, for example, peer response, peer editing, peer feedback, peer evaluation or peer revision. Each name contains the meaning of assessment, mainly according to where this kind of feedback is given, and the focus of the feedback (Muncie 2000: 52).
 
    The following researchers confirm that peer review has several advantages in whatever form. Villamil and De Guerrero (1998: 491-514) investigate the impact of peer revision on writers' final drafts and find that writers make many further and self revisions after the sessions on the basis of previous peer collaboration, suggesting a pattern of behavior conducive to self-regulation. They conclude that peer revision can contribute to writing development in many important ways: the experience of peer revision provides students with a good opportunity to discuss textual problems, develops self-regulatory behaviors, acquires a sense of audience, and in general becomes sensitive to the social dimension of writing. Huff and Kline (1987, cited in Hedgcock & Lefkowitz 1992: 87) advocate that peer collaboration contributes to a comfortable atmosphere in which writing is discussed. It increases writers' awareness of their audience and encourages them to shift from writer-based to reader-based prose. Peer response also decreases teachers' marking responsibilities while increasing opportunities for student writing. The entire process results in improvement in writing and students' ability to revise. Dheram Prema Kumari (1995: 165 cited in Yang 2008: 7) declares that building peer revision strategy into the instruction of writing may be useful for a number of reasons. His findings reveal that the participants consider peer feedback useful for both developing and evaluating content; peer feedback appears to reduce students' dependency on the teacher and to encourage them to accept someone other than the teacher as their reader, and to help them become aware of the need for producing reader-based compositions. Mittan (1989, cited in Mangelsdorf 1992: 275) writes that peer reviews achieve the following: provide students with an authentic audience; increase students' motivation for writing; enable students to receive different views on their writing; help students learn to read critically their own writing; and assist students in gaining confidence in their writing. He also points out that peer-review discussions allow students to use oral language skills.
 
  There are different findings about how and to what degree students adopt peer feedback as follows. Senputa (1998: 19) says that student writers take selective account of peer revisions when they revise, preferring to depend more on their own knowledge. Villiamil and De Guerrero's (1998: 491) study also reveals that 74 percent of revisions made in the peer revision sessions are incorporated. However, in a study of two peer response groups, Connor and Asenavage (1994: 254) put forward an opposite case. They investigate the impact of peer responses on subsequent revisions and compare the impact of peer responses to responses from the teacher and others. They find that only about 5% of the total revisions result from peer comments, 35% can be described as resulting from teacher comments and about 60% of the revisions occur as a result of self or others assessment.
 
From the above-mentioned, we can see that peer feedback can enhance students' sense of audience and make students produce reader-based compositions. However, there are some obvious disadvantages in peer review, especially among L2 students. First, students sometimes focus too heavily on `surface concerns' (Leki 1990: 9); they tend to neglect larger revising issues and provide vague and unhelpful comments. Second, students sometimes can be hostile, sarcastic, overly critical, or unkind in their criticisms of their classmates' writing. Interactions of the group are at times unpleasant, with students being overly critical of each other's writings (Nelson & Murphy 1992). Actually, the nature of responding to peers' drafts sometimes leads to a sense of uneasiness among the participants. Carson and Nelson (1996:1) observe that "the Chinese speakers were reluctant to initiate comments, and when they did, monitored themselves carefully so as not to precipitate conflict within the group". In doing peer feedback activities, some students may have difficulties deciding whether their classmates' comments are valid or not. These problems are more acute in L2 than in L1 writing, according to Nelson and Murphy (1993). Firstly, L2 students may not trust their peers' responses to their writing because they are not native speakers of English. Secondly, L2 students from cultures that see the teacher as the only source of authority may consider their peers not knowledgeable enough to make sensible comments and ultimately not incorporate the comments into their writing (Tsui & Ng 2000). Because of the lack of L2 formal schemata, some students may have improper expectations about the content and structure of their peers' drafts, resulting in counterproductive response that leads writers further away from the expectations of their instructors.
Therefore, there remains to be seen whether peer review can improve students’ revision in more empirical studies in Chinese EFL high school students.
 
1.1.1 Comparing teacher feedback and peer review
 
There are many studies conducted on the effectiveness of teacher and peer feedback in revision. For example, Fathman and Whalley (1990) point out that L2 students show improvement in the content of their revisions even in the absence of teacher feedback; those who are given teacher feedback make greater improvement. Ferris (1995) claims that as many as 93.5 percent of the 155 respondents indicate that teacher comments help them to improve their writing. In a subsequent study, Ferris (1997) examines 47 university ESL students' first drafts and revises drafts and finds that text-specific teacher comments in the form of marginal notes, teacher comments that request information and clarification, and teacher comments on grammar appear to induce the most substantive revision.
 
   The following comparative studies between teacher feedback and peer review in L2 writing show that more students are in favor of teacher comments. Connor and Asenavage (1994) trace the amount and types of revision made by eight L2 under-graduates on their drafts in response to peer and teacher comments, respectively, and find that the effect of peer comments is small. Overall compared with revisions are only 5 percent of the revisions resulted from peer comments as 35 percent resulting from teacher comments. Sixty percent of the motivated by sources other' than the teacher and peers, such as self-revision. In other words, students are more receptive to teacher than to peer comments although their revisions are largely self-motivated. Yang et al. (2006) also find that the value of teacher feedback but hold reservations about the value of peer feedback for the improvement of their final writing because they believe teacher feedback is more accurate, more to the point, and more trustworthy than peer feedback
 
  The following comparative studies between teacher feedback and peer review in L2 writing show that students do not trust the peer feedback. The researchers(Allaei & Connor 1990; George 1984; Mangelsdorf 1992; Nelson & Murphy 1993) claim that students may not feel their peers, who are also themselves still learning the language, are qualified to critique their work, and may distrust their recommendations. For this reason, students may prefer teacher feedback to peer feedback, which is not particularly surprising (Nelson & Carson 1998; Saito 1994; Zhang 1995).
 
However, the above-mentioned doesn’t mean that students find peer review a waste of time. For example, Stanley (1992) finds that when students are coached in effective peer response tactics, the number of revisions made increases. Nelson and Murphy (1993) point out that students do incorporate their peers' suggestions into subsequent, but the amount of incorporation depends greatly on a cooperative environment among group members. What is more, Mendonca and Johnson (1994) claim that 53% of revisions made in students' essays are a result of peer comments being incorporated into the essays. In examining the impact of peer feedback compared with teacher feedback, Chaudron (1984) finds that, while the scores on all the revised essays, which students write after receiving peer review feedback, are on average higher (though not significantly so), there is not a significant difference between the amount of improvement resulting from peer feedback and that resulting from teacher feedback.
 
 Hedgcock and Lefkowitz (1992) compare the effects of peer and teacher feedback on the quality of students' final drafts in an experimental study. The 30 French FL students are divided into two groups. The control group receives teacher written feedback after each draft, and the experimental group works in peer oral feedback groups, guided by a written protocol. An analytic scale is used to compare the final drafts between the two groups. Researchers conclude that those students who receive teacher feedback attend more to grammatical accuracy while those who are provided with peer feedback pay more attention to the content and organization of their essays. This conclusion needs to be interpreted with caution not only because of the confounding between feedback source and feedback mode, but also because of the unique manner in which the oral feedback is provided. In other words, it may have been more difficult for the listener to notice (and remember) all the grammatical errors he or she has heard than to provide a few comments on content and organization.
 
    All in all, by examining the literature of teacher feedback and peer review, we can see that there are compelling arguments for both teacher and peer feedback; the former is highly valued by students and may bring about more significant changes, in their drafts while the latter has been shown to increase students' awareness of audience, provide opportunities for interaction, increase students' involvement in an appreciation of the writing process. The conflicting findings show that the effectiveness of peer and teacher feedbacks in facilitating revision needs further exploration.
 
1.1.2 Impact of peer review on students’ writing revision
 
The following studies measure the outcome of peer review, namely, how much peer review is incorporated into students’ writing revision.
Mendonca & Johnson (1994) employed audiotape transcripts, analyze first and revised drafts and conducted post-interviews with six pairs of students----four peer dyads who share an academic field of study and two from different fields of study. The aim of it is to find out negotiation types and look into how the ways of negotiation have shaped the subsequent revision activities. According to the research, five negotiation types exist as students engage in the activities:
1. Question (request for explanation, comprehension check)
2. Explanation (unclear point, opinion, content)
3. Restatement
4. Suggestion
5. Grammar correction
 
   Among the above-mentioned types, request for explanation takes 15% in the total frequency of occurrence, while seeking explanation of opinion 22%, restatement 28% and suggestion 11%. Grammar correction is not practiced much, only 1% of all. Reviewers also generate all the negotiation types except the fifth one whereas writers initiate more explanations of content. The analysis of students’ revisions indicates that students revise their compositions to meet their own needs instead of using all the peers’ suggestions without selection. In conclusion, the study confirms that the pedagogical benefits of peer review in L2 writing as have been claimed by the above researchers.
  
Nelson & Murphy (1992) conduct a study on four students in a low-intermediate ESL writing class. They confirm that less proficient ESL students still have the ability to identify macro-level problems with organization, development, and topic sentences, but there is need to teach students social skills for effective collaboration when using writing groups at lower level classes. It reveals that students do not use their peers’ responses consistently in the whole process.
 
However, Connor & Asenavage (1994) cast doubts on applying peer feedback to writing groups based on the fact that few revisions students made in their essays came from peer group response directly.
   Therefore, more empirical studies on peer review will be needed.
 
1.2 Critical thinking
 
1.2.1 Critical thinking and discussion
 
Jennifer and Victoria (2005, cited in Bensley 2005) conduct a research at Monash University English Language Centre to discover how online discussions affect EAP (English for Academic Purpose) students’ critical thinking. Every week, students(10 female and 3 male English language students, aged 18--27) are required to discuss on line about a focus question based on Bloom’s complex domains of thinking; knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. After that, they will have to write a journal to reflect on the exercise and evaluate their own thinking. The quantitative data collected consist of the number of response posted by each student, the frequency of participation, the number of inter-message references and an assessment of the degree of critical thinking demonstrated in each response according to critical thinking rubric developed by Washington State University. The researchers reveal that students do not achieve high levels in critical thinking (mean=4.32 compared with 12—the highest score) and that learning how to use critical thinking takes time and is a gradual process. But then the discussions let the students have a better understanding of what critical thinking is and improve their English to some degree. The study points out that the learners’ familiarity with the question and experience is decisive factors for their participation in discussion. The study stresses the importance of the teacher’s role in facilitating the task.
 
1.2.2 Critical thinking and writing
Paul (1990) makes his definition of critical thinking in three dimensions.
?1? the perfections of thought
?2? the elements of thought
?3? the domains of thought
 
He divides critical thinking into weak sense critical thinking and strong sense critical thinking depending on whether thinking is disciplined to serve the interest of a particular individual or group or to take into account the interests of diverse persons or groups. When critical thinking is elaborated into writing, and develop the mind, both required the full involvement of critical and creative thought. He put forward some questions to help reader to approach persuasive writing critically. Hatcher?1995? stresses that writing is a self-correcting process much like critical thinking. Bensley (2005) points out that writing enhances critical thinking because it allows you to externalize and make visible the usually invisible process of thinking.
 
However, Langer and Applebee(1987, cited in Zhong 2002) find that students often had difficulty in persuasive and analytic writing—two kinds of writing that requite critical thinking, Therefore, many lf us needed to improve out ability to think critically and that this should be an important goal for teachers and students.
To discover what advantages process writing has on college students, Hatcher and his colleagues (1995) combined critical thinking and written composition in his two-semester freshmen sequence. They assess students’ writing ability and critical thinking using Standard Written English and the Ennis-weir Critical Thinking Essay Test both before and after the sequence and find that the integrated approach produces significantly better outcome.
 
1.3 Summary
 
From the above-mentioned, we can know that although the close relationship between critical thinking and writing has been confirmed and the effect of peer review on students’ critical thinking has been proved, almost all the studies and researches on peer review and critical thinking refer to college students who have been quite experienced in writing expository compositions and more mature in mind. There remains to be seen whether peer review, as an important component of process writing can improve students’ critical thinking in empirical studies, especially in the EFL context and when the participants are Chinese high school students, which are said to lack in enthusiasm in group-based activities like peer feedback, owing to their belief in teacher as an authority that won’t be challenged. This empirical study therefore is to investigate the effect of peer feedback on Chinese high school students’ critical thinking through writing and find out how this writing practice has shaped EFL learners’ thinking.
 
References:
[1] Allaei, S. K.,&Connor, U. M. Exploring the dynamics of cross-cultural collaboration in writing classrooms [J]. The Writing Instructor. 1990. 10, 19-28
[2] Bensley, D. A. Critical Thinking in Psychology: A Unified Skills Approach [M]. Brooks/ Cole Publishing Company. 2005
[3]Connor, U., & Asenavage, K. Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: how much impact on revision? [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing. 1994.  3:257-276
[4]Chaudron, C. The effects of feedback on students' composition revision [J]. RELC Journal. 1984. 15: 1-14
[5] Carson, J. & Nelson, G. Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction [J]. Journal of second language writing. 1996. 5(1): 1-19
[6]Fathman, A. & Whalley, E. Teacher response to student writing: focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1990
[7]Ferris, D. R. Students’ reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classroom [J].TESOL Quarterly. 1995. 29: 33-53
[8]Ferris, D. R. The influence of teacher commentary on student revision [J]. TESOL Quarterly. 1997.  31:315—333
[9] George, D. Writing with peer groups in composition[C]. College Composition Communication. 1984. 35: 320-336
[10]Leki,I. Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes [J]. CATESL Journal. 1990. 3: 5-19
[11] Mangelsdorf, K. Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal. 1992. 46(3):274-284
[12] Mendonca, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction [J]. TESOL Quarterly. 1994. 28:745–769
[13] Muncie, J. Using written teacher feedback in EFL composition classes [J]. ELT Journal. 2000. 54: 122-137
[14] Nelson, G. L, & Murphy, J. M. An L2 writing group: task and social dimensions [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing. 1992. 1(3):171-193
[15] Nelson, Cs L. & Murphy, J. M. Peer response groups: Do 12 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? [J]. TESOL Quarterly. 1993. 27(3): 135-141
[16] Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. ESL students' perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups[J]. Journal of Second Language Writing. 1998. 7(2), 113-131
[17] Paul, R. W. Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World [M]. Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique CA Sonoma State University. 1990
[18] Saito, H. Teachers' practices and students' preferences for feedback on second language writing: A case study of adult ESL learners [J]. TESL Canada Journal. 1994. 11: 46-70
分享到:
------分隔线----------------------------
发表评论
请自觉遵守互联网相关的政策法规,严禁发布色情、暴力、反动的言论。
最新评论
随机推荐essay