Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

The effects of peer-versus self-editing on learner autonomy in ESL writing

By Nuwar Mawlawi Diab

Abstract

This thesis reports on an action research study carried out with students attending an English medium university. The action research comprised three cycles, each presented here as a Study. Study One, which investigated the effects of peer-editing on students’ revised drafts as well as on new essays, revealed that the students did not benefit from peer feedback in improving their revised drafts. However, peer-editing helped them write new better quality essays. Results of Study One led to Study Two, which investigated the reasons for the students’ failure to benefit from their peers’ feedback in revising their essays. It showed that the students’ culture of learning played a major role in their giving and receiving of peer feedback. The insight gained from Study Two led me to modify my method of teaching peer-editing before embarking on Study Three, which investigated the same questions as Study One but with two new aspects: 1) Study Three employed an experimental group which engaged in peer-editing, and a comparison group which practiced self-editing, and compared the effects of peer-editing to that of self-editing on the students’ writing. 2) It also tested the students’ ability to correct specific types of language error. Compared to the comparison group, the experimental group significantly improved their writing in revised drafts as well as in new essays. Since both groups received teacher instruction, but only the experimental group had engaged in peer-editing, these results may be attributed to peer-editing. More specifically, the experimental group significantly reduced rule-based language errors in revised drafts but not in new essays. However, non rule-based errors were not significantly reduced either in revised drafts or in new essays. The thesis grounds the results of this action research study in a socio-cognitive theoretical framework of Second Language Acquisition. The study contributes to research by demonstrating the important role of both teacher intervention and peer interaction in developing the students’ writing skills in a way which may lead them to become autonomous writers. It also has important pedagogical implications for teachers as it reveals the benefit of correcting specific, rather than all, language errors in order to bring about some language development in their students’ linguistic knowledge

Publisher: University of Leicester
Year: 2009
OAI identifier: oai:lra.le.ac.uk:2381/7426

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender,
  2. (1989). A social-interactive model of writing.
  3. (1998). Action Research in Practice: Partnership for Social Justice in Education. Eds. Bill Atweh, Stephen Kemmis, and Patricia Weeks.
  4. (1999). Action Research.
  5. (2007). Action-based teaching, autonomy and identity,
  6. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills.
  7. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development,
  8. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: stances, functions, and content,
  9. (1995). Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse: Learnerlearner collaborative interaction in the zone of proximal development,
  10. (1994). Appropriate Methodology and Social Context. Cambridge:
  11. (1994). Apr.) Word processing without computer: Demystifying the revision process,
  12. (2001). Attention. In:
  13. (1986). Becoming Critical,
  14. (1996). Chinese students’ perception of ESL peer response group interaction,
  15. (2000). Classroom SLA research and second language teaching.
  16. (1986). Closing down the conversation: The end of the qualitative-quantitative debate among educational enquirers,
  17. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response.
  18. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer editors,
  19. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success,
  20. (1985). Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications,
  21. (1992). Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching. (Cambridge:
  22. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning.
  23. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research.
  24. (1989). Concrete human psychology,
  25. (2004). Constructivist Issues in Language Learning and Teaching,
  26. (1996). Cultures of learning: Language classrooms in China.
  27. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction.
  28. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge?
  29. (2004). Doing Quantitative Research
  30. (1987). Doing your research project: A guide for first-time researchers in education and social science,
  31. (1996). Educational Research and Teaching:Aresponse to David Heargreaves’ TTA lecture,
  32. (1979). Educational research: An introduction (3rd edition)
  33. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on students’ comments and interaction,
  34. (2007). Enhancing students’ engagement and motivation in writing: The case of primary students in Hong Kong,
  35. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How explicit does it need to be?
  36. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work,
  37. (1992). ESL student response stances in a peerreview task,
  38. (1999). ESL Student Revision After Teacher-Written Comments: Text, Contexts, and Individuals,
  39. (2002). Ethics of Research
  40. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler,
  41. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: The cognitive value of peer interaction. In
  42. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge:
  43. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing,
  44. (1988). Frequency of Formal Error in Current College Writing,
  45. (1976). From Communication to Curriculum. Harmmondsworth:
  46. (1998). From text revision to text improvement: A story of secondary school composition,
  47. (1970). Genetic Epistemology.
  48. (1996). Input Processing and Grammar Instruction: Theory and Practice.
  49. (1991). Inside the classroom: Learning processes and teaching procedures,
  50. (2001). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups.
  51. (2007). Language learner autonomy: Some fundamental considerations revisited,
  52. (1998). Language learning strategies and language proficiency: Investigating in Hong Kong, Asia Pacific
  53. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What every Teacher Should Know,
  54. (1996). Large- and Small- class cultures in Egyptian University classrooms: A cultural justification for curriculum change.
  55. (1996). Learner resistance to innovation in classroom methodology.
  56. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition, Cambridge:
  57. (1998). Management Theories for Educational Change.
  58. (1978). Mind in Society.
  59. (2008). Mistakes are a fact of life: A national comparative study,
  60. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverley Hills:
  61. (2002). Observation as a research tool.
  62. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research,
  63. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision?
  64. (1988). Peer response groups in the writing classroom: Theoretic foundations and new directions.
  65. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction,
  66. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: socialcognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior,
  67. (1984). Peer tutoring and the ‘conversation of mankind.”
  68. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research,
  69. (2002). Processing instruction, prior awareness and the nature of second language acquisition: A (partial) response to Batstone,
  70. (2003). Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL,
  71. (1983). Quantitative versus qualitative research: An attempt to clarify the issue,
  72. (2002). Questionnaires.
  73. (1983). Reformulating second-language compositions: A potential source of input for the learner. Retrieved, from the World Wide Web.
  74. (2005). Reformulation and the cognitive conflict it generates,
  75. (2003). Research insights on second language writing instruction. Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL),
  76. (1989). Research on language learning strategies: Methods, findings, and instructional issues,
  77. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
  78. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLS: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar.
  79. (2003). Reticence in class and on-live: Two ESL students’ experiences with communicative language teaching.
  80. (1980). Revision strategies of student writiers and experienced adult writers,
  81. (1987). Revision workshops: An alternative to peer-editing groups,
  82. (2001). Second Language Acquisition Processes in the Classroom: Learning Japanese.
  83. (2000). Second language acquisition theory and the truth(s) about relativity.
  84. (2006). Second language classroom reading: A social constructivist approach, The Reading Matrix,
  85. (1983). Second language learning: an information processing perspective,
  86. (1990). Self and Peer Evaluation of Writing
  87. (1998). SLA property: No trespassing!
  88. (1999). Small Cultures.
  89. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In
  90. (1994). Sociocultural perspective on language learning strategies: The role of mediation,
  91. (2000). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning.
  92. (2006). Sociocultural theory: A framework for understanding the social-cognitive dimensions of peer feedback.
  93. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis,
  94. (2002). Some principles and procedures in the conduct of action research.
  95. (2000). Spring) Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision,
  96. (1990). Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences,
  97. (1995). Studies in Second Language Acquisition. In
  98. (2002). Surveys and Sampling.
  99. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation,
  100. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In
  101. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime…?),
  102. (1992). The Action Research Planner (third edition).
  103. (1983). The Architecture of Cognition,
  104. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes,
  105. (1999). The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris,
  106. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott
  107. (1988). The Classroom and the Language Learner.
  108. (1996). The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach: A model for linguistically diverse classrooms,
  109. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing,
  110. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately,
  111. (2001). The effect of interactional classroom peer work on the treatment of mistakes in students’ academic essays,
  112. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing,
  113. (1984). The effects of feedback on students’ composition revisions.
  114. (1990). The effects of peer and self-feedback,
  115. (1999). The effects of peer response on essay drafts,
  116. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality,
  117. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality,
  118. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing,
  119. (1997). The influence of Teacher Commentary on Student Revision,
  120. (1986). The language of education.
  121. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue.
  122. (1989). The peer-review process: harnessing students’ communicative Power.
  123. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals,
  124. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action,
  125. (2004). The researcher/interviewer in intercultural context: a social Intruder.
  126. (2001). The role of learning strategies in second language acquisition,
  127. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving,
  128. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition,
  129. (1982). The winds of change: Thomas Khun and the revolution in the teaching of writing.
  130. (1996). Through language to learning: Preparing oversees students for study in Western universities.
  131. (1992). Toward a new contrastive rhetoric: Differences between Arabic and Japanese rhetorical instruction,
  132. (1999). Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional learning environment in the university,
  133. (1997). Triangulation in classroom research: A study of peer revision,
  134. (1998). Uses of History in present-day qualitative studies of schools: The case of the junior high school,
  135. (1990). Using performative assessment instruments with ESL student writers,
  136. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students,
  137. (1979). What is action research?
  138. (1992). What’s Wrong with Ethnography?
  139. (1994). Winter). Socio-Cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision.
  140. (1973). Writing without Teachers.

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.