Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3543407.3543429acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicmetConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

An Investigation into Peer Feedback in English Writing Assignment

Published: 20 July 2022 Publication History

Abstract

Peer feedback is regarded as an important instrument for strengthening the process of English writing instruction. According to some research, peer feedback is beneficial in writing classes due to the cognitive and social benefits of peer feedback. As critical as peer feedback is, there is a dearth of evidence on the effectiveness of existing feedback practices. This study was carried out to explore the state of providing peer feedback and students’ perceptions towards this activity in an intermediate English course in a public university. Data were collected through an online survey questionnaire with 180 students who have experiences with peer feedback in English writing. Apart from the positive results, some problems were seen in the current state of giving feedback among peers. The results of this study are valuable for the English department in the studied context and may be used as a reference for other schools which are implementing peer feedback in writing instruction.

References

[1]
Hinkel, E. (2000). The Goals and the Politics of L2 Writing Instruction. TESOL Matters, 10(2). Retrieved November 12, 2009, from http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/sec_document.asp
[2]
Clenton, J. (2006). Academic Writing: towards an integrated approach. Sussex Language Institute. Retrieved January 11, 2009 from http://www.sussex.ac.uk/languages/documents/academicwritingessay.pdf
[3]
Hairston, M. & Keene, M. (2003). Successful Writing. (5th ed.). New York: WW Norton & Co.
[4]
Reid, J.M. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents
[5]
Joe, L. (2006). A process approach to feedback in Writing. Retrieved February 11, 2009, from http://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/10/1000038.pdf
[6]
Silva, T. (1990). Second Language Composition Instruction: Development, issues, and Directions in ESL. Cambridge University Press: New York
[7]
Keh, C.L. (1990). Feedback in the Writing Process: A Model and Methods for Implementation. ELT Journal, 44 (4), 294-304
[8]
Hyland, F. & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the Pill: Praise and Criticism in Written Feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3)185-212
[9]
Jacobs, G. (1987). First experiences with peer feedback on compositions: Student and teacher reaction. Pergamon Journals Ltd., 15(3), 325-333.
[10]
Tsui, A. B. & Ng, M.(2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2) pp. 147-170
[11]
Wood, J. M. (2000). A marriage waiting to happen: Computers and process writing. Retrieved December 20, 2005, from http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40
[12]
Urzua, C. (1987) “You stopped too soon”: Second language children composing and revising, TESOL Quarterly, 21(2), 279-304
[13]
Naumoska, B. (2009) Using Writing in L2 Acquisition – Peer Review in the ESL Writing Class (Part 2). Retrieved December 1, 2009, from http://www.britishcouncil.org/serbia-elta-newsletter-2009-july-feature_articles-naumoska-2.doc
[14]
Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL student's revision types and writing quality. Journal of second language writing, 8(3), 215-241.
[15]
Nilson, L. (2003). Improving student peer feedback. College Teaching 51, 1: 34-38.
[16]
Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communication 33(2), 148-156
[17]
Fathman, AK. & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher Response to Student Writing: Focus on Form versus Content. In B. Kroll (ed.), Second Language Writing. Cambridge University Press.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
ICMET '22: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Modern Educational Technology
May 2022
154 pages
ISBN:9781450396790
DOI:10.1145/3543407
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 20 July 2022

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. English
  2. Peer feedback
  3. Writing

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Conference

ICMET 2022

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 40
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)10
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 19 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media