Relationship between Student Self-monitoring, Type of Peer Feedback and EFL Writing Performance

Transcription

1 ISSN Theory and Pracice in Language Sudies, Vol. 2, No. 5, pp , May 2012 Manufacured in Finland. doi:10.404/pls Relaionship beween Suden Self-monioring, Type of Peer Feedback and EFL Wriing Performance Karim Sadeghi English Language and Lieraure Deparmen, Urmia Universiy, Urmia, Iran Mehri Daulai Baneh English Language Deparmen, Islamic Azad Universiy, Urmia Branch, Iran Absrac The presen sudy was conduced o invesigae he effec of self-monioring echnique and also he effec of self-monioring followed by pair and group peer feedback on Iranian EFL learners' wriing improvemen. I was hypohesized ha self-monioring raining and also self-monioring followed by pair and group peer feedback would no improve sudens' wriing. Four inac classes consising of 54 low proficien female learners sudying English for four years in one language insiue in Baneh, Iran, were assigned o hree experimenal and one conrol groups. All groups including conrol group were insruced process wriing. Afer ha experimenal group 1 (EG1) received raining on how o use self-monioring in wriing a composiion. Two oher experimenal groups (EG2 & EG), in addiion o receiving his reamen, were augh o use pair and group peer feedback respecively following self-monioring on heir composiions. A poses was adminisered o all groups a he end of he reamen period. They were required o wrie a composiion abou a pre-specified opic. Resuls of one way ANOVA and Paired Samples -es analyses sugges ha here were significan differences beween he prees and poses scores of he paricipans in all groups. However, he difference in poses resuls of he sudy groups was no saisically significan. Furher findings and implicaions are discussed in he paper. Index Terms process wriing, self-monioring, peer feedback I. INTRODUCTION Wriing has always been considered an imporan skill in he eaching and learning of English as a foreign language (Chasain, 19). A he presen ime, enough emphasis is pu on he pracice of wriing and how his can assis learners in making heir wriing beer by exploring he wriing process (Zamel, 192). Neverheless, sudens find composing in English difficul because he wriing process requires hem o apply many cogniive and linguisic sraegies of which hey are no sure (Rao, 2007). Language eachers, especially wriing eachers, are familiar wih he amoun of ime and aemp spen on correcing wriing, specifically grammaical and lexical errors. Ye many sudies on boh naive and second language wriers have demonsraed ha radiional error correcions have no or limied benefi (Sorch & Tapper, 1996). Besides, many sudens may see error correcion as he language eacher's unique responsibiliy because he eacher is ofen regarded as he "exper". Such an opinion may be difficul o change (ibid). Perhaps language eachers need o encourage sudens o develop correcive sraegies which would moivae more learner auonomy and conrol over he naure of he feedback (ibid). I is highly profiable for eachers o make sudens aware of wriing echniques hrough he use of direc insrucion. Mehods of direc insrucion ha may paricularly assis EFL learners can be hrough he use of self-monioring and cooperaion echniques (O'Malley & Chamo, 1990). Charles (1990), for he firs ime, proposed self-monioring as a wriing echnique. For her, his echnique moivaes sudens o be responsible for wha hey wrie, and for heir wriing skill improvemen. I encourages hem o hink criically and analyically abou heir wriing and enables he eacher and sudens o engage in a dialogue over he ex even in circumsances where individual face o face discussions are no possible. Piage (1950; cied in Jacobs, 199) and Vygosky (1962, 197; cied in Jacobs, 199) boh discuss he profi learners can obain hrough ineracion wih ohers. Piage showed ha peer ineracion can cause cogniive conflic which in urn can lead learners o review and modify he frameworks hrough which hey view he world (Jacobs, 199). In Vygosky's opinion, ineracion wih ohers faciliaes learning and developmen. Mendonca and Johnson (1994) also sae ha peer feedback increases sudens' communicaive power by moivaing sudens o convey and negoiae heir opinions. Group work undeniably moivaes he process of wriing, improves he final produc, helps develop he ideas and

2 910 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES builds he confidence. Working in pairs and groups can enhance sudens' sense of auonomy and responsibiliy in he learning process (Jacobs, 199). Using collaboraive echnique, sudens direcly will be engaged in he wriing process and hey may become more criical readers and wriers (ibid). According o Hansen and Liu (2005), successful peer feedback aciviies are no only a sage in he wriing process, bu also fundamenal componens of fosering language developmen in an L2 wriing class. While peer evaluaion in wriing has been exensively sudied, excep for few sudies, self-monioring in wriing has been almos negleced around he world. And in he Iranian EFL conex, boh issues have been negleced in wriing research. Ye in he curren climae of increasing recogniion of he value of learner auonomy, self-monioring as well as peer feedback deserves more aenion in he Iranian conex. This sudy was aimed a finding answers o he following quesions: 1. Is here a significan relaionship beween suden self-monioring and wriing improvemen? 2. Is here a significan relaionship beween peer feedback following self-monioring and wriing improvemen? 2a. Is here a significan relaionship beween pair peer feedback following self-monioring and wriing improvemen? 2b. Is here a significan relaionship beween group peer feedback following self-monioring and wriing improvemen? II. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE A. Self-monioring Self-monioring is he examining of one's correcness of oral or wrien producion (Benedei, 2005). Self-monioring in wriing is a key insrucional involvemen of a self-regulaory approach o wriing. Using self-monioring echnique, a wrier produces a personal feedback loop. While wriing down changes in specific aspecs of wriing, wriers are required o evaluae and reac o heir wriing a a meacogniive level (Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997). Charles (1990, p. 26) saes, "Using self-monioring sudens annoae heir drafs wih commens or queries on heir problem areas before handing heir exs in o he eacher." The eacher responds in wriing o hese noes, hus gives direc and appropriae feedback on he poins raised by he sudens (Charles, 1990) and eacher's appropriaing of sudens' composiion sharply is reduced (Xiang, 2004); as a resul, sudens have more conrol over he received feedback (Cheong, 1994). This echnique may also give assisance o he eacher o achieve heir goals of wriing which is o produce more proficien and auonomous language learners (Muncie, 2000). Furhermore, i makes he eacher sop being involved in exhausive heavy work in revision. Giving sudens feedback based on heir quesions is much easier for he eacher and more helpful o he suden's own condiion (Chen, 2009). B. Self-monioring and Peer Feedback Revision can begin more seriously when sudens go o heir eachers and each oher o receive feedback on he conen of heir composiion. Through his, unclear and insufficienly suppored ideas can be idenified, reconsidered and revised (McGarrel & Verbeem, 2007). Sudens' reviewing is aimed a developing he ex produced unil now from differen sources of feedback including self-monioring annoaions afer he compleion of he firs draf, peer revision before wriing he second draf, and wrien eacher feedback afer draf wo. These subcomponens are recursive and ineracive (Flower & Hayes, 191). Cooperaive peer reviewing permis sudens o ge differen evaluaions; furhermore, sudens as wriers self-evaluae heir own wriing. Self-evaluaion may assis wriers in developing more precise consciousness of heir wriing qualiy or difficulies based on he same dimensions used by heir reviewers (Cho & Cho, 2007). Hence, sudens are permied o compare heir self-evaluaion wih peer evaluaion on heir own wriing. The differences beween he wo evaluaions may encourage wriers o use heir peer's differen commens o make heir wriing beer (ibid). The mos significan advanages of self-monioring relaed o peer feedback are ha wriers can convey heir messages clearly and help consruc he possible collaboraive relaionship beween hem and heir readers (Charles, 1990; Cresswell, 2000). Peer can be an imporan source o develop correc self-monioring which is conducive o self-regulaion skills of wriing (Cho & Cho, 2007). III. MATERIAL AND METHODS The iniial sample consised of 54 guidance and high school sudens of ages 12-1, excep for hree of hem who were older. They had sudied English for four years in a language insiue in Baneh. All paricipans had Kurdish as heir firs language, and English was a foreign language for hem. Paricipans were assigned o four inac groups: hree experimenal groups and a conrol group. All of he paricipans were female wih an elemenary level of proficiency. In order o ensure ha he paricipans were from he same proficiency level, he Class Placemen Tes B consising of 60 muliple-choice iems was adminisered o measure heir proficiency level before saring he sudy. The index of reliabiliy of his es was 0.6, which was deemed saisfacory enough for our purposes. A prees and a poses consising of wriing a composiion abou a pre-specified opic were adminisered. During he

3 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 911 reamen, paricipans in each group were required o wrie wo composiions abou self-chosen opics using insruced echniques. Two checkliss from Brown (2001) and Rowlands (2007) for peer feedback and self-monioring were seleced by he researchers, and were adaped o sui paricipans' proficiency as much as possible. The invesigaion was made in 2011 and all he daa were colleced during a period of wo monhs and a half. A proficiency es and a subjecive wriing prees were given o sudens in all groups o assess heir proficiency level and heir wriing abiliy respecively a he beginning of he reamen. As he raing of he prees migh be raher subjecive, o ensure reliabiliy, he composiions were graded by wo raers based on Wriing Scoring Rubric adaped from Wang and Liao (200). An iner-raer reliabiliy analysis using Cohen's Kappa saisic was performed o deermine consisency among raers. The reliabiliy was found o be Kappa=0.6 meaning ha here was enough agreemen beween wo raers. Then, he researchers sared he research by eaching wriing based on he process-approach o wriing in four classes. I is worh menioning ha none of he paricipans had experienced wriing any composiions wih he aim of communicaion before. Teaching and pracicing he process wriing coninued for hree sessions in all groups. Afer ha, sudens in he conrol group were asked o wrie wo composiions, one each week, abou self-chosen opics and hand hem in o he eacher o offer commens on hem. Afer receiving eacher's commens hey were asked o wrie second drafs and submi hem o he eacher again o give her commens. In he nex wo sessions, he imporance of he self-monioring echnique, how o use i in wriing, and how o make annoaions were explained in Kurdish and someimes in English o hree experimenal groups separaely. In addiion, examples of ypical or percepive annoaions were also given o he sudens o assis hem in undersanding wha o do in making annoaions. Knowing ha checkliss are generally useful in developing meacogniive skills, he researchers seleced wo checkliss from Brown (2001) and Rowlands (2007), and adaped some of heir language srucures o sui paricipans' proficiency as much as possible and used hem as a self-monioring checklis. Disribuing i o he sudens, he researchers ranslaed i ino Kurdish orally in order o be undersood well. Then, in all experimenal groups, sudens were required o wrie abou a self-chosen composiion in he class, individually and annoae hem according o he checklis. Sudens in EG1 who were insruced abou process wriing and self-monioring echnique were asked o wrie wo composiions a home one per week. For each, hey were asked o wrie he firs draf wih heir annoaions and hand i in o he eacher o receive feedback on heir problems. Giving feedback eiher in he form of correcion or suggesion, he researchers reurned composiions o he sudens. Then afer revising and wriing he second draf, hey reurned hem o he eacher. For some of he composiions his sequence was repeaed unil he eacher was sure ha sudens' problems had almos been solved. Paricipans in EG2 who were also augh abou process wriing and self-monioring echnique were asked o wrie a composiion a home, make annoaions on i, and bring i o he class in he following week. A he beginning of he session, he researchers alked abou he imporance of peer feedback aciviy o improve heir wriing. Afer ha, hey organized he feedback eams in groups of wo members, and disribued he peer feedback checkliss made from self-monioring checklis o he groups o help sudens give feedback on heir peer's wriing and also inform hem which aspecs of wriing o give he prioriy while revising. Afer ha boh members in each group exchanged heir composiions. Each peer reader was asked o give commens on her peer wrier's composiion or underline he unclear ideas o discuss during or afer wriing her commens. Receiving peer's feedback on her annoaed or unannoaed problems, suden wriers rewroe heir composiions o produce a second draf. Ye, having unresolved problems, sudens could annoae heir second draf and along wih he firs draf, hand hem in o he eacher for final commens. During he las sage, wriers made revisions based on he eacher's feedback and wroe he final draf. For more pracice, sudens were asked o wrie anoher composiion a home, and he above menioned sequence was repeaed. Paricipans in EG were also augh abou process wriing and self-monioring echnique and were assigned o groups of hree members. Afer making annoaions on heir composiions a home, each member in he group made wo copies of hem and aached wo pieces of paper o disribue o he peers in her group in order o receive commens from hem on he separae shee. Afer revising heir composiions based on heir peers' commens, each wrier wroe he second draf and, along wih he firs draf, submied hem o he eacher for he final commens. A he end, each paricipan wroe he hird draf according o he eacher's commens. For more pracice, sudens were asked o wrie anoher composiion a home, and he above menioned sequence was repeaed in he class. A he end of he experimen, a poses was adminisered o all groups, in which sudens wroe abou a opic. The poses composiions were raed in he same way as prees composiions were. An iner-raer reliabiliy analysis was performed and Kappa was found o be 0.1, which shows an accepable level of agreemen beween wo raers. A he end of he poses, paricipans in EG1, EG2 and EG were asked o wrie heir opinions abou he effec of self-monioring followed by peer feedback on heir wriing improvemen, oo. IV. RESULTS All he daa from prees and poses scores of composiions were colleced in order o analyze hem quaniaively. One-way ANOVA was applied o invesigae he effecs of self-monioring and ype of peer feedback on experimenal

4 912 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES groups' wriing. In order o compare he mean scores of prees and poses of each group o know if here was a significan difference beween hem, paired samples -ess were used. The sudens' ideas wrien abou he effec of self-monioring echnique and also he effec of self-monioring followed by peer feedback on heir wriing were colleced and analyzed by he researchers. The findings of he quaniaive and qualiaive daa analysis are provided below. focus elaboraion organizaion convenion vocabulary poses oal scores TABLE 4.1. ONE-WAY ANOVAS FOR POST-TEST Sum of squares Mean square F As Table 4.1 indicaes, for all of he crieria agains which he wriings were scored, he p-values were more han This means ha here were no any significan differences among he groups in he poses scores. In order o provide answers o he research quesions posed above, he following complemenary analyses were also conduced. The resuls of he paired samples -ess in Table 4.2 show ha excep for 'focus', in all oher aspecs of wriing and overall wriing he p-value was less han 0.05 (.007). This means ha here were significan differences beween he prees and poses scores of he paricipans in experimenal group 1. Therefore, he null hypohesis of no significan relaionship beween self-monioring and wriing improvemen is rejeced. Bu resuls from one-way ANOVA show ha here was no significan difference beween conrol and experimenal group 1. Prees score for focus - poses score for focus Prees score for elaboraion - elaboraion TABLE 4.2. PAIRED SAMPLES T-TESTS FOR EG1 Mean Sd. Sd. Error Deviaion Sig Prees score for organizaion - organizaion Prees score for convenion - convenion Prees score for vocabulary - vocabulary Prees oal scores - poses oal scores In Table 4., he p-values for he paired samples -ess were all less han 0.05 which means ha he null hypohesis of no significan relaionship beween pair peer feedback following self-monioring and wriing improvemen is rejeced. Bu resuls from one-way ANOVA show ha here was no significan difference beween conrol and experimenal group 2.

5 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 91 Pair 6 Prees score for focus - focus Prees score for elaboraion - poses score for elaboraion Prees score for organizaion - poses score for organizaion Prees score for convenion - poses.score for convenion Prees score for vocabulary - poses score for vocabulary Prees oal scores - poses oal scores TABLE 4.. PAIRED SAMPLES T-TESTS FOR EG2 Mean Sd. Sd. Error Deviaion mean As can be seen in Table 4.4, he p-values for he Paired samples -ess for all five aspecs of wriing and oal scores were less han 0.05 which means ha he null hypohesis of no significan relaionship beween self-monioring followed by group peer feedback and wriing improvemen is rejeced. Bu resuls from one-way ANOVA show ha here was no significan difference beween conrol and experimenal group. Pair 6 Prees score for focus - focus Prees score for elaboraion - elaboraion Prees score for organizaion - organizaion Prees score for convenion - convenion Prees score for vocabulary - vocabulary Prees oal scores - poses oal scores TABLE 4.4. PAIRED SAMPLES T-TESTS FOR EG Mean Sd. Sd. Error Deviaion mean Table 4.5 shows ha in he conrol group, of five aspecs of wriing, only for elaboraion and vocabulary he p-values were less han 0.05, bu as he p-value for overall wriing score was less han 0.05, we can conclude ha in his group here is improvemen in wriing oo. Pu ogeher, i can be concluded ha since he kind of gain in wriing performance observed in experimenal groups was also observed in conrol group (where here was no self-monioring eiher alone or followed by peer feedback), he reamen was no effecive in he conex of his sudy. Accordingly, all he relevan null-hypoheses pu forh above can be suppored as far as his research is concerned. The fac ha sudens in conrol group (as well as in oher experimenal groups) experienced a differen form of wriing (i.e. process wriing) from wha hey were convenionally familiar wih does signify ha process wriing even if no followed by any ype of self-monioring or feedback can lead o significan improving by iself..

6 914 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES Pair 6 Prees score for focus - poses score for focus Prees score for elaboraion - elaboraion Prees score for organizaion - organizaion Prees score for convenion - convenion Prees score for vocabulary - vocabulary Prees oal scores - poses oal scores TABLE 4.5. PAIRED SAMPLES T-TESTS FOR CG Mean Sd. Sd. Error Deviaion mean In expressing heir ideas abou he effec of self-monioring on heir wriing improvemen, mos of he sudens in experimenal groups said ha before aending he class hey had fel anxious, bu afer receiving he reamen hey found he new way of wriing a very pleasan experience. In addiion, almos all of he sudens claimed ha heir weaknesses in grammar and vocabulary prevened hem from wriing wha hey waned o wrie successfully. All of he sudens said ha he ime devoed o eaching self-monioring was shor. They added ha unil ha ime hey had no been asked o wrie a composiion in his way, and heir weaknesses in using correc srucure hindered hem from wriing annoaions in English on heir wriing. Neverheless, hey agreed ha his echnique was wonderful, and ha i affeced heir wriing a lo. Furhermore, sudens in EG2 and EG were happy o work wih heir peers o find heir problems and solve hem before submiing heir composiions o he eacher. I needs o be menioned ha none of hem preferred pair feedback o group feedback or he oher way round. Qualiaive findings lend furher suppor o our quaniaive findings. Tha is, hese new mehods improved heir wriing. V. DISCUSSION The resuls of one-way ANOVA and Paired samples -es analyses show ha independenly, each reamen ype resuled in significan improvemen in experimenal groups. However, when reamen ypes are compared wih one anoher, here does no seem o be a difference beween heir effeciveness and ha compared o conrol group gains which were significan in elaboraion and vocabulary as well as in overall wriing. As such reamens do no seem o have worked a all as far as overall wriing qualiy is concerned. The following facors may have affeced he findings of his sudy: 1- To invesigae he effec of self-monioring on wriing improvemen, he researchers had o each process wriing, a prerequisie o each self-monioring, o all experimenal and conrol groups. This means ha he conrol group used he faciliy of self-monioring indirecly alhough hey were no explicily required o do so in heir wriing aciviies. 2- Because of heir weaknesses in finding heir misakes and in using correc grammar o express heir problems in heir annoaions, some of he paricipans in EGs did no annoae heir composiions and he sudens who made annoaions mosly expressed heir grammar difficulies ha he eacher could also find and correc or guide he sudens o correc like wha she could do on paricipans' wriing in CG. - Limied number of reamen sessions may be anoher reason why no significan difference was found among groups. Self-monioring echnique is new and i needs more ime o be augh and learned. Neverheless, as sudens had never experienced process wriing in he pas, hree sessions were devoed o eaching ha, and accordingly lack of he ime did no allow he researchers o devoe more han wo sessions o eaching self-monioring. 4- Being in he same level of proficiency, peer readers were no so helpful o heir peer wriers in his sudy. 5- Low number of paricipans in each group may have affeced he resuls, oo. Observing no significan differences among groups, i is concluded ha improvemen in paricipans' wriing in all groups is due o learning and implemening process wriing no oher reamen ypes. VI. CONCLUSIONS The goal of he presen sudy was o deermine he effec of self-monioring and also he effec of self-monioring followed by pair and group peer feedback on wriing improvemen. The findings of his research provide he insrucors wih opinions abou he useful wriing sraegies, and give hem an opporuniy o undersand and o assess heir own knowledge of wha o each and how o each wriing beer. Alhough he resul is consisen wih he findings ha self-monioring canno affec low proficien learners' wriing performance significanly, i is recommended ha EFL eachers, especially in Iran, change heir aiudes owards eaching English wriing. Tha is, o each self-monioring, firs, hey should ake ino consideraion boh process and produc approaches in heir insrucion and ha self-monioring should no be negleced for hree imporan reasons. Firs, self-monioring has been claimed o faciliae

7 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 915 wriing. Second, using his sraegy helps sudens be auonomous. Third, i increases eacher responsiveness o individual needs during he learning of wriing. Encouraging sudens o work wih each oher o solve heir problems also can help hem improve heir wriing. REFERENCES [1] Benedei, K. D. (2005). Suden monioring in he EFL wriing. Paper presened a XIX Foreign Language universiy Specialis Forum (FEULE), Colima, Mexico. [2] Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An ineracive approach o language pedagogy. (2nd Ed.). London: Longman. [] Charles, M. (1990). Responding o problems in wrien English using a suden self-monioring echnique. ELT Journal, 44 (4) [4] Chasain, K. (19). Developing second-language skills: Theory and pracice. San Diego: Harcour Brace Jovanovich. [5] Chen, X. (2009). "Self-monioring" feedback in English wriing eaching. Research in Theoreical Linguisics, (12), [6] Cheong, L. K. (1994). Using annoaion in a process-approach o wriing in a Hong Kong classroom. TESL Reporer, 27(2), 6-7. [7] Cho, K. & Cho, M. H. (2007). Self-monioring in learning o wrie. Workshop on Meacogniion and SRL. AIED, [] Cresswell, A. (2000). Self-monioring in suden wriing: Developing learner responsibiliy. ELT Journal, 54(), [9] Flower, L., & Hayes, J.R. (191). A cogniive process heory of wriing. College Composiion and Communicaion, 2(4), [10] Hansen, J. G. & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effecive peer response. ELT Journal, 59(1), 1-. [11] Jacobs, G. (199). Miscorrecion in peer feedback in wriing class. RELC Journal, 20(1), [12] McGarrel, H., & Verbeem, J. (2007). Moivaing revision of drafs hrough formaive feedback. ELT Journal, 61(), [1] Mendonca, C. O. & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negoiaion: Revision aciviies in ESL wriing insrucion. TESOL Quarerly, 2(4), [14] Muncie, J. (2000). Using wrien eacher feedback in EFL composiion classes. ELT Journal, 54(1), [15] Muncie, J. (2002). Process Wriing and Vocabulary Developmen: Comparing Lexical Frequency Profiles across Drafs. Sysem, 0(2), [16] O'Malley, J. M., & Chamo, A. U. (1990). Learning sraegies in second language. Cambridge: Cambridge Universiy Press. [17] Rao, Z. (2007). Training in brainsorming and developing wriing skills. ELT Journal, 61(2), [1] Rowlands, K. D. (2007). Check I Ou! Using checkliss o suppor suden learning. English Journal, 96(6), [19] Sorch, N., & Tapper, J. (1996). Paerns of NNS suden annoaions when idenifying areas of concern in heir wriing. Sysem, 24(), 2-6. [20] Xiang, W. (2004). Encouraging self-monioring in wriing by Chinese sudens. ELT Journal, 5(), [21] Zamel, V. (192). Wriing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarerly, 16(2), [22] Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulaed wrier: A social cogniive perspecive. Conemporary Educaional Psychology, 22, Karim Sadeghi is an assisan professor of TESOL a Urmia Universiy, Iran. His publicaions have appeared in Asian EFL Journal, The Asia Pacific Educaion Researcher, The Modern Language Journal, Canadian Journal of Linguisics and TESL Canada Journal among ohers. Mehri Daulai Baneh is an MA candidae in TEFL a Urmia Islamic Azad Universiy, Iran.