Longitudinal study of a procedure for training low-proficiency english language students

Nouf Jazaa Aljohani1
1Department of Language and Translation, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Tóm tắt

In this research study, unlike previous studies that have examined the advantages of peer review for low proficiency students, uses a longitudinal action mixed methods design is used to explore the impact of peer review on the academic writing of students with low English proficiency. The format was a longitudinal action study, which analyzed the written peer review feedback, essays, and reflections of 40 learners. Results showed that at the beginning of the study, the students experienced challenges in identifying problems with rhetorical content of their peers and by the end of 11 weeks, they were able to provide succinct peer feedback that included examples and explanations of classmates’ grammatical and rhetorical errors. Results also showed improvement in their own writing skills. Implications for implementing peer review in foriegn language writing contexts are discussed.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Al-Khairy, A. (2013). Saudi English-major undergraduates’ academic writing problems: A Taif University perspective. English Language Teaching, 6(6), 1–12. Al-Seghayer, S. (2014). The actuality, inefficiency, and needs of EFL teacher-preparation programs in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3(1), 143–151. Alshakhi, A. (2019). Revisiting the writing assessment process at a Saudi English language institute: Problems and solutions. English Language Teaching, 12(1), 176–185. Andrade, H. L., Du, Y., & Wang, X. (2008). Putting rubrics to the test: The effect of a model, criteria generation, and rubric-referenced self-assessment on elementary school students’ writing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(2), 3–13. Becerra-Alonso, D., Lopez-Cobo, I., Gómez-Rey, P., Fernández-Navarro, F., & Barbera, E. (2020). EduZinc: A tool for the creation and assessment of student learning activities in complex open, online, and flexible learning environments. Distance Education, 41(1), 86–105. Bostock, S. (2000). Student peer assessment. Learning Technology, 5(1), 245–249. Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399–413. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Brookhart, M., & McMillan, H. (Eds.). (2019). Classroom assessment and educational measurement. Routledge. Cahyono, Y., & Rosyida, A. (2016). Peer feedback, self-correction, and writing proficiency of Indonesian EFL students. Arab World English Journal, 7(1), 178–193. Chang, H., & Windeatt, S. (2016). Developing collaborative learning practices in an online language course. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(8), 1271–1286. Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2010). Doing action research in your own organization. Sage. Covert, H. (2014). Stories of personal agency: Undergraduate students’ perceptions of developing intercultural competence during a semester abroad in Chile. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18(2), 162–179. Faridah, D., Thoyyibah, L., & Kurnia, A. D. (2020). Promoting students’ critical thinking through peer feedback in oral communication classroom. Academic Journal Perspective: Education, Language, and Literature, 8(1), 50–59. Graesser, C., McNamara, D., & VanLehn, K. (2005). Scaffolding deep comprehension strategies through AutoTutor and iSTART. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 225–234. Hartman, H. (2002). Scaffolding and cooperative learning. Human learning and instruction. City College of City University of New York. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. Hey-Cunningham, J., Ward, H., & Miller, J. (2021). Making the most of feedback for academic writing development in postgraduate research: Pilot of a combined programme for students and supervisors. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 58(2), 182–194. Hu, G., & Lam, E. (2010). Issues of cultural appropriateness and pedagogical efficacy: Exploring peer review in a second language writing class. Instructional Science, 38(4), 371–394. Johnson, L., Penny, J., Gordon, B., Shumate, R., & Fisher, P. (2005). Resolving score differences in the rating of writing samples: Does discussion improve the accuracy of scores? Language Assessment Quarterly: An International Journal, 2(2), 117–146. Kamhi-Stein, L. (2000). Looking to the future of TESOL teacher education: Web-based bulletin board discussions in a methods course. Tesol Quarterly, 34(3), 423–455. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Deakin University Press. Leeser, J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–81. Lu, R., & Bol, L. (2007). A comparison of anonymous versus identifiable e-peer review on college student writing performance and the extent of critical feedback. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(2), 100–115. Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32(1), 99–113. Narciss, S., Proske, A., & Körndle, H. (2007). Promoting Self-regulated learning in Web-based Learning Environments. Computers and Human Behavior, 23(3), 1126–1144. Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2000). The use of student derived marking criteria in peer and self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(1), 23–38. Panadero, E., & Alqassab, M. (2019). An empirical review of anonymity effects in peer assessment, PR, peer review, peer evaluation and peer grading. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(8), 1253–1278. Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129–144. Park, Y. (2011). A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational applications of mobile technologies into four types. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), 78–102. Reddy, M., & Andrade, H. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), 435–448. Reinholz, D. (2016). The assessment cycle: A model for learning through peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(2), 301–315. Shepard, A., Penuel, R., & Davidson, L. (2017). Design principles for new systems of assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 98(6), 47–52. Shin, Y., Kim, D., & Song, D. (2020). Types and timing of scaffolding to promote meaningful peer interaction and increase learning performance in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(3), 640–661. Shute, J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. Simpson, T., Holden, K., Merrick, D., Dawson, S., & Bedford, L. (2019). Does video feedback & peer observation offer a valid method of reinforcing oral presentation training for undergraduate biochemists? Higher Education Pedagogies, 4(1), 262–283. Storch, N. (2019). Negotiating feedback: Interpersonal and interactional. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 143–162). Cambridge University Press. Stringer, T. (2014). Action research (4th ed.). Sage publications. Taras, M. (2006). Do unto others or not: Equity in feedback for undergraduates. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 365–377. Thomas, R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246. Wylie, C., & Lyon, J. (2019). The role of technology-enhanced self- and peer-assessment in formative assessment. In S. Brookhart & J. McMillan (Eds.), Classroom assessment and educational measurement (pp. 170–189). Cambridge University Press. Xiao, Y., & Yang, M. (2019). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: How formative assessment supports students’ self-regulation in English language learning. System, 81, 39–49. Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2016). Understanding the role of learners with low English language proficiency in peer feedback of second language writing. TESOL Quarterly, 50(2), 483–494. Bransford, D., Brown, L., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (rev. ed.). National Academics Press. Jeddah University. (2014). Web Services and E-learning Center. Retrieved https://we.uj.edu.sa/Pages-we-about.aspx. Lv, X., Ren, W., & Xie, Y. (2021). The effects of online feedback on ESL/EFL writing: A meta-analysis. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 1–11. MacIntyre, P. (2012). Great essay 4: Great writing. Cengage Learning. Marzano, J., Pickering, D., & Pollock, E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Strijbos, W. (2016). Scaffolding self-regulated learning through self-assessment and peer assessment: Guidelines for classroom implementation. Assessment for learning: Meeting the challenge of implementation (pp. 311–326). New York: Springer. Smith, D. (2017). Collaborative Peer Feedback. [Paper presentation]. International Association for Development of the Information Society (IADIS) 5th International Conference on Educational Technologies, Sydney, Australia, 11–13 December.