TEACHER AND GUIDED MULTIPLE PEER REVIEWERS IN ENHANCING EFL STUDENTS’ WRITING: A PROPOSED STRATEGY
PDF

Keywords

teacher feedback
multiple peer feedback
criterion-based feedback
reader-based feedback
students’ writing performance

How to Cite

Donasari, R. (2016). TEACHER AND GUIDED MULTIPLE PEER REVIEWERS IN ENHANCING EFL STUDENTS’ WRITING: A PROPOSED STRATEGY. Jurnal Bahasa Lingua Scientia, 8(2), 273-288. https://doi.org/10.21274/ls.v8i2.412

Abstract

Feedback is needed in writing since feedback informs learners about their actual state of learning performance through offering guidance on the knowledge that they seize (Narciss, 2008 and Bijami et.al, 2013). Traditionally, feedback performs the role of teacher to help students improving their writing. Since, it takes time and class size constraint into consideration and alters the writing approach from product into process; peer feedback takes an essential part in writing. This study proposes ‘Teacher and Guided Multiple Peer Reviewers in Enhancing EFL Students’ Writing as there were some researches complaining that peer review may fail to identify some of the mistakes. Therefore, I propose multiple peer reviewers that will work in each stage. The frst stage (1st reviewer) will deal with unifed, well-developed, and coherent paragraph. Next, the second stage (2nd reviewer) will deal with sentences problem and pictures use and the third stage (3rd reviewer) will concern on the pattern of paragraph. The students will obtain teacher feedback after they have seen three peer reviewers. The feedback given focus on two sides; criterion-based and reader-based feedbacks to reduce students’ anxiety since both of criteria support each other. The feedbacks clarify how well students’ work meets the criteria on scoring rubric while they also will get a sense of how well their writing achieves the intended communicative purpose to the reader.
https://doi.org/10.21274/ls.v8i2.412
PDF

References

Berg, E.C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 215-241.

Bijami, Maryam, et.al. 2013. Peer Feedback in Learning English Writing: Advantages and Disadvantages. Journal of Studies in Education (3)4, 91-97.

Chong, K. (2010). Investigating the perception of student teachers in Hong Kong. English Language Teaching, 3 (1): 53-59.

Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Strategic uses of peer learning in children’s education. In Ladd, G.W., & Berndt T. J. (Eds.), Peer relationship in child development (pp. 135-156). USA: John Wiley & Sons. Demirel, Elif and Husnu Enginarlar. 2016. Effects of Combined PeerTeacher Feedback on Second Language Writing Development. HU. Journal of Education 31(4): 657-675 doi: 10.16986/HUJE.2016015701.

Elbow, Peter. 1981. Writing with Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press Print.

Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-10.

Ganji, Mansoor. 2009. Teacher-correction, Peer-correction and Selfcorrection: Their Impacts on Iranian Students’ IELTS Essay Writing Performance. THE JOURNAL OF ASIA TEFL Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 117-139, Spring 2009

Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40–53.

Hamed, J.J. (2012). The effect of peer reviewing on writing apprehension and essay writing ability of perspective EFL teachers. The Australian Journal of teacher education, 37(11),60-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2012v37n11.3

Hinkel, E. (2004) Teaching Academic ESL Writing: Practical Techniques in Vocabulary and Grammar, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9, 321-342.

Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255–286.

Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185–212.

Hyland, K. and Hyland, F. (2006). “Feedback on second language students’ writing”, in Language Teaching, 39, 2: 83-101.

Jalalifarahani, Maryam and Hamid Azizi. 2012. The Effcacy of Peer vs. Teacher Response in Enhancing Grammatical Accuracy & General Writing Quality of Advanced vs. Elementary profciency EFL Learners. International Conference on Language, Medias and Culture IPEDR vol.33, 88-92.

Kirszner, Laurie G., and Stephen R. Mandell. 2009. Writing First with Reading Practice in Context. New York: Bedford/ St. Martin’s.

Kurt, G., & Atay, D. (2007). The effects of peer feedback on the writing anxiety of prospective Turkish teachers of EFL. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 3(1), 12-23.

Lam, Ricky. 2010. A Peer Review Training Workshop:Coaching Students to Give and Evaluate Peer Feedback TESL CANADA JOURNAL/REVUE TESL DU CANADA 115 VOL. 27, NO 2, SPRING 2010, 114-127.

Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: issues in written response. In Kroll, B. (Ed.), Second Language Writing. Research Insights for the Classroom (57-68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Liu, J., & Hansen, J.G. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Lundstorm, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The Benefts of Peer Review to the Reviewer’s Own Writing. Journal

Before going to review process, all manuscripts will be checked that they are free from plagiarism practice using "Turnitin" software. If there is an indication of plagiarism, the manuscript will instantly be rejected.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.