论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】Feedback to students’ writing has always been a subject of research in second language writing. A review of the related literature shows that some researchers highlight the disadvantages or constraints of using peer feedback with L2 students， while others advocate implementing peer feedback in L2 classes. The study in this thesis focuses on the current situation of second language writing in China， hoping to offer some implications for the writing instruction. 40 non-English major freshmen were required to produce revised drafts in a former writing task based on peer and teacher comments made on their initial drafts. Besides， follow-up interviews were undertaken to gain insights into the students’ responses to peer and teacher feedback. It is found that Chinese non-English majors are capable of providing valid feedback for their peers’ writing， and they do use peer feedback to facilitate revisions in their writing. Furthermore， it is revealed that peer feedback plays a complementary role to teacher feedback， and a great majority of the students have positive perceptions of peer feedback and agree to have peer feedback as a point of their EFL writing instruction. Therefore， peer feedback should be incorporated into writing instruction.
【Key words】peer feedback； non-English majors； writing instruction
【作者簡介】Tang Min， Hohhot Vocational College，Inner Mongolia.
Among the many controversies in second language writing instruction is the issue of whether or not to employ peer feedback. Researchers hold totally different opinions. Some of them insist that peer feedback has beneficial effects on improving L2 students’ writing competence.
The subjects participating in this study were 40 English majors from one class in Inner Mongolia University of Technology， and they had received training in EFL writing for 3 to 6 years in middle school. The subjects were required to produce two drafts of a composition， dealing with the topic “Living in big cities has more advantages than living in small towns or the countryside. Do you agree or disagree with this statement？ Give specific reasons to support your answer.” The initial drafts were written in the classroom， followed by peer reviewing and teacher reviewing. In response to the comments from both teacher and peers， the students produced their revised drafts. After the examination of the comments and revisions made to the initial drafts， interviews were conducted with the subjects to gain insights into their responses to peer and teacher feedback. The results show that the students did use peer feedback to influence their revisions. Nearly 40% of total revisions were influenced by peer feedback. Most of the students incorporated more teacher comments than peer comments， showing the students’ preference for teacher feedback over peer feedback. But none of the students rejected feedback from their peers in revision.
30% of the students even incorporated more than 60% of the peer comments they received.
The reason they gave was that they found peer feedback useful in their revision when peers were able to provide concrete suggestions， especially those different from the teacher’s. For example：
In the first draft， the student wrote：
…Second， the life in small towns is more comfortable than in big cities. The people in big cities are busy working everyday. You would tell me that people in small towns are also busy working， but the biggest difference between them is the people in towns can decide when they start to work and when they go back home by themselves….
Peer comments made on the italicized part were recorded as follows： “The repeated ‘are busy working’ makes the sentence too ordinary. Besides， ‘you would tell me’ sounds a little strange， it is more like an oral expression.” In the revised draft， the student wrote：
…Second， the life in small towns is more comfortable than in big cities. The people in big cities are busy working everyday and seldom have leisure time. But the place of life in small towns is generally much slower， so the pressure is not as high as in big cities. …
When asked to explain these revisions， the student said， “After thinking over these comments， I did realize the potential problems that I haven’t noticed in writing， and I discussed them with my peer reviewers in the oral negotiation session. So we found out a more effective way as in the second draft.”
Another student， when recalling the peer reviewing activities he had participated， remarked that， “I really enjoyed reading my classmates’ essays. Some of them do write with excellent skills such as wide range of vocabulary， idiomatic wording…I think I learned from the reviewing， at least some sentence patterns used by others and how to make strong conclusions.” Even for the writings from peers who were less proficient in English， he expressed a positive attitude， “It is also valuable experience…I could learn from others’ mistakes and helping them think out ways of improvement reinforced my own knowledge.” Another female student further pointed out that they benefited from peer reviewing not only because they could learn from others’ strengths but also because it raised their awareness of the weaknesses in their own writing. “For instance”， she said， “when I detected an error in peer writing， I would wonder whether I had made similar mistakes in my own writing and I would remind myself to avoid such mistakes in the future. Or when I commented on certain points and suggested the writer to reorganize the sentence or make some clarification， I would think about where I should pay attention to in my own writing.”
Despite a great deal of merits in peer feedback activities， all the students of this group agreed that teacher feedback could not be substituted by peer feedback. They argued that peer comments were more concerned with localized content， language or mechanics of writing （such as grammar， spelling， punctuation etc.） while teacher comments were more concerned with global organization， development of ideas or style. The girl observed， “Most of the peer comments I received focused on error correction， especially errors in grammar and spelling…Teacher comments helped me to better my organization of the text and that’s more helpful to me.” One of the boys commented： “Sometimes peer comments told me that certain sentence or paragraph should be reorganized， but they didn’t tell me how to and I didn’t know either…Teacher comments suggested specific and detailed patterns， so I followed these comments easily in my revision.”
To summarize， the students in this group valued highly both teacher and peer comments. They valued peer comments that gave concrete suggestions for improvement and utilized these comments in their revision. They found peer feedback activities beneficial in that they had learned from reading their peers’ writings and it also raised their awareness of the weaknesses in their own writing.
Conclusions
All of the students incorporated in their revision some of the peer comments， which they felt concrete and helpful to improve their writing. In addition， part of the revisions were attributed exclusively to peer feedback， which the students can provide useful feedback different from teachers’ and such feedback is valued by their peers， as confirmed by the students in the interview.
Firstly， it encourages collaborative learning. In peer review sessions， students had the opportunity to clarify their intended meanings to the reader and to negotiate a way to convey the intended meaning more effectively. In the collaborative setting， students could learn from each other and gain mutual support. Secondly， it raises the students’ awareness through reading peers’ writings. Some students felt unable to spot weaknesses in their own writings and peer comments helped them notice the problems. Besides， awareness raising was achieved not only through getting feedback but also by giving feedback to peers as well.
Thirdly， it enhances a sense of audience. Students perceived the teacher and peers differently as readers. They expected the teacher to be fully able to understand their compositions while considered that their peers， as language learner themselves， might have difficulty in interpreting ambiguous points. Only when peers became one of the readers， did they tend to write more carefully.
Today， the Chinese EFL instruction is still in a teacher-centered mode. Over years students just sit and listen for most of the time while the teacher talks and explains everything， which reduces the students from creative thinkers. Most of them see knowledge as something to be transmitted by the teacher rather than discovered by the learners， thus lacking motivation in learning. Obviously， the teacher-centered mode has hampered Chinese students’ improvement of English. In view of such situation， implementing peer feedback in Chinese EFL instruction seems not only beneficial but also necessary.
References：
[1]Ferris D.R.（2003）.Research on Peer Response.In Response to Student Writing，Mahwah，NJ.
[2]George M.Jacobs.（1998）.Feedback on Student Writing：Taking the Middle Path.Journal of Second Language Writing，7（3），307-317.
[3]Shuqiang Zhang.（1995）.Reexamining the Affective Advantage of Peer Feedback in the ESL Writing Class.Journal of Second Language Writing，4（3），209-222.
[4]Shuqiang Zhang.（1999）.Thoughts on some recent evidence concerning the affective advantage of peer feedback.Journal of Second Language Writing，8（3），321-326.
[5]Zou Yu.（2006）.Peer Feedback in College English Writing Course.Journal of Anhui University of Technology（Social Sciences），Vol.23，No.6.
【Key words】peer feedback； non-English majors； writing instruction
【作者簡介】Tang Min， Hohhot Vocational College，Inner Mongolia.
Among the many controversies in second language writing instruction is the issue of whether or not to employ peer feedback. Researchers hold totally different opinions. Some of them insist that peer feedback has beneficial effects on improving L2 students’ writing competence.
The subjects participating in this study were 40 English majors from one class in Inner Mongolia University of Technology， and they had received training in EFL writing for 3 to 6 years in middle school. The subjects were required to produce two drafts of a composition， dealing with the topic “Living in big cities has more advantages than living in small towns or the countryside. Do you agree or disagree with this statement？ Give specific reasons to support your answer.” The initial drafts were written in the classroom， followed by peer reviewing and teacher reviewing. In response to the comments from both teacher and peers， the students produced their revised drafts. After the examination of the comments and revisions made to the initial drafts， interviews were conducted with the subjects to gain insights into their responses to peer and teacher feedback. The results show that the students did use peer feedback to influence their revisions. Nearly 40% of total revisions were influenced by peer feedback. Most of the students incorporated more teacher comments than peer comments， showing the students’ preference for teacher feedback over peer feedback. But none of the students rejected feedback from their peers in revision.
30% of the students even incorporated more than 60% of the peer comments they received.
The reason they gave was that they found peer feedback useful in their revision when peers were able to provide concrete suggestions， especially those different from the teacher’s. For example：
In the first draft， the student wrote：
…Second， the life in small towns is more comfortable than in big cities. The people in big cities are busy working everyday. You would tell me that people in small towns are also busy working， but the biggest difference between them is the people in towns can decide when they start to work and when they go back home by themselves….
Peer comments made on the italicized part were recorded as follows： “The repeated ‘are busy working’ makes the sentence too ordinary. Besides， ‘you would tell me’ sounds a little strange， it is more like an oral expression.” In the revised draft， the student wrote：
…Second， the life in small towns is more comfortable than in big cities. The people in big cities are busy working everyday and seldom have leisure time. But the place of life in small towns is generally much slower， so the pressure is not as high as in big cities. …
When asked to explain these revisions， the student said， “After thinking over these comments， I did realize the potential problems that I haven’t noticed in writing， and I discussed them with my peer reviewers in the oral negotiation session. So we found out a more effective way as in the second draft.”
Another student， when recalling the peer reviewing activities he had participated， remarked that， “I really enjoyed reading my classmates’ essays. Some of them do write with excellent skills such as wide range of vocabulary， idiomatic wording…I think I learned from the reviewing， at least some sentence patterns used by others and how to make strong conclusions.” Even for the writings from peers who were less proficient in English， he expressed a positive attitude， “It is also valuable experience…I could learn from others’ mistakes and helping them think out ways of improvement reinforced my own knowledge.” Another female student further pointed out that they benefited from peer reviewing not only because they could learn from others’ strengths but also because it raised their awareness of the weaknesses in their own writing. “For instance”， she said， “when I detected an error in peer writing， I would wonder whether I had made similar mistakes in my own writing and I would remind myself to avoid such mistakes in the future. Or when I commented on certain points and suggested the writer to reorganize the sentence or make some clarification， I would think about where I should pay attention to in my own writing.”
Despite a great deal of merits in peer feedback activities， all the students of this group agreed that teacher feedback could not be substituted by peer feedback. They argued that peer comments were more concerned with localized content， language or mechanics of writing （such as grammar， spelling， punctuation etc.） while teacher comments were more concerned with global organization， development of ideas or style. The girl observed， “Most of the peer comments I received focused on error correction， especially errors in grammar and spelling…Teacher comments helped me to better my organization of the text and that’s more helpful to me.” One of the boys commented： “Sometimes peer comments told me that certain sentence or paragraph should be reorganized， but they didn’t tell me how to and I didn’t know either…Teacher comments suggested specific and detailed patterns， so I followed these comments easily in my revision.”
To summarize， the students in this group valued highly both teacher and peer comments. They valued peer comments that gave concrete suggestions for improvement and utilized these comments in their revision. They found peer feedback activities beneficial in that they had learned from reading their peers’ writings and it also raised their awareness of the weaknesses in their own writing.
Conclusions
All of the students incorporated in their revision some of the peer comments， which they felt concrete and helpful to improve their writing. In addition， part of the revisions were attributed exclusively to peer feedback， which the students can provide useful feedback different from teachers’ and such feedback is valued by their peers， as confirmed by the students in the interview.
Firstly， it encourages collaborative learning. In peer review sessions， students had the opportunity to clarify their intended meanings to the reader and to negotiate a way to convey the intended meaning more effectively. In the collaborative setting， students could learn from each other and gain mutual support. Secondly， it raises the students’ awareness through reading peers’ writings. Some students felt unable to spot weaknesses in their own writings and peer comments helped them notice the problems. Besides， awareness raising was achieved not only through getting feedback but also by giving feedback to peers as well.
Thirdly， it enhances a sense of audience. Students perceived the teacher and peers differently as readers. They expected the teacher to be fully able to understand their compositions while considered that their peers， as language learner themselves， might have difficulty in interpreting ambiguous points. Only when peers became one of the readers， did they tend to write more carefully.
Today， the Chinese EFL instruction is still in a teacher-centered mode. Over years students just sit and listen for most of the time while the teacher talks and explains everything， which reduces the students from creative thinkers. Most of them see knowledge as something to be transmitted by the teacher rather than discovered by the learners， thus lacking motivation in learning. Obviously， the teacher-centered mode has hampered Chinese students’ improvement of English. In view of such situation， implementing peer feedback in Chinese EFL instruction seems not only beneficial but also necessary.
References：
[1]Ferris D.R.（2003）.Research on Peer Response.In Response to Student Writing，Mahwah，NJ.
[2]George M.Jacobs.（1998）.Feedback on Student Writing：Taking the Middle Path.Journal of Second Language Writing，7（3），307-317.
[3]Shuqiang Zhang.（1995）.Reexamining the Affective Advantage of Peer Feedback in the ESL Writing Class.Journal of Second Language Writing，4（3），209-222.
[4]Shuqiang Zhang.（1999）.Thoughts on some recent evidence concerning the affective advantage of peer feedback.Journal of Second Language Writing，8（3），321-326.
[5]Zou Yu.（2006）.Peer Feedback in College English Writing Course.Journal of Anhui University of Technology（Social Sciences），Vol.23，No.6.