淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-0807201009231200
中文論文名稱 非英語主修之大學生對同儕回饋之表現
英文論文名稱 EFL Non-English-Major College Students' Response to Peer Feedback Activity
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 英文學系碩士班
系所名稱(英) Department of English
學年度 98
學期 2
出版年 99
研究生中文姓名 張玉麟
研究生英文姓名 Yu-Lin Chang
學號 696110542
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
口試日期 2010-06-23
論文頁數 133頁
口試委員 指導教授-王藹玲
委員-蔡瑞敏
委員-柯宜中
中文關鍵字 同儕回饋  寫作 
英文關鍵字 Peer Feedback  English Writing  First Draft  Revision 
學科別分類 學科別人文學語言文學
中文摘要 這個研究的目的是要探討非英語系學生在英文寫作中會以什麼方式提供同儕回饋,還有會如何依照他們所得到的回饋改寫他們的作文,在此研究中一共有六十二位公共行政系大一的學生參噢,研究資料包括同儕回饋前之問券調查、開開性問題、學生們的初稿和修改後的文稿、匿名回饋和面對面的訪談內容。
藉由Ferris(1997)的分類法,在此研究中的學生們之回饋分成六種,在此六種回饋種類中,文法的回饋占了最大的部分,顯示出學生們對於文法的傾向,此外,這種文法傾向的情況也同樣在他們的修改文稿中發現,根據Faigley和Witte(1981)的分類法,此研究顯示雖然大部分學生還是以文法層面的修改居多,但也指出學生們接受接納同儕的回饋並做出修改。
此研究的發現可以做為學生對於寫作學習的傾向之參考,而寫作的老師也可藉由此研究之發現提供學生們所需的指導及建議。此外,學生們也可藉由同儕回饋的寫作方式了解其他同學的觀點和建立自我學習的能力。
英文摘要 The purpose of this study is to investigate in what ways non-English major college students actually provided feedback to their peers and how they would revise their writing according to the uninstructed feedback. Subjects in this semester-long study were 62 freshmen of Public Administration Department in TamKang University. The data sources adopted in this study contain a before-peer-feedback questionnaire survey, an open question survey, participants’ first and final revised drafts, their anonymous feedbacks and a face-to-face interview with the instructor. Qualitative approach was used to analyze and then categorize participants’ feedbacks and their revisions.
By analyzing the participants’ feedback with Ferris’s coding scheme (1997), the six categories of feedback provision was one by one manifested and explained. Among the six categories proposed by Ferris (1997), Grammar or Mechanics Comments (Avg. 45.1%) was the major type of feedback the participants chose to render while commenting their peers’ written works, indicating students’ preference to focus on grammar. In addition, this preference was also showed in participants’ revision of writing. The researcher in the study categorized the revisions made according to Faigley and Witte’s (1981) taxonomy of revisions. While the outcome revealed that participants made more Surface Changes (Avg. 64.5%) than Meaning Changes (35.5%), it was also encouraging evidence that students were willing to do changes when receiving comments from their peers.
This study made a conclusion that the types of feedback provided by the participants could be viewed as an indicator revealing students’ tendency toward learning writing, and writing instructors could take this information into consideration to provided need guidance to the students. In addition, students were given a chance to appreciate different perspectives and develop the idea of self-learning and subjectivity which was able to enhance their ability to reflect their own writing.
論文目次 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHINESE ABSTRACT………………………………………… i
ENGLISH ABSTRACT………………………………………… ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………. iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………….. v
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………viii
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………… ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION………………………………… 1
Background of the Study………………………… 1
Statement of the Problem………………………… 8
Purpose of the Study…………………………………... 11
The Research Question of the Study………………… 12
Significance of the Study……………………………… 13

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW.................... 14

Background………………………………………………… 14
Theoretical Framework of Peer Feedback…………… 16
Collaborative Learning………………………… 16
Empirical Studies on Collaborative Learning… 19
Conceptualization of Peer Feedback………………. 23
Definition of Peer Feedback……………………… 23
Benefits of Peer Feedback………………………… 27
Disadvantages of Peer Feedback……………… 31
Previous Empirical Studies of Peer Feedback……… 33
Review of Studies on Peer Feedback in ESL
Context.......................................34
Review of Studies on Peer Feedback in EFL
Context………………....................... 37
Review of Studies on Peer Feedback in Taiwan
Context..................................... 40
Brief Reflections on Literature Review…………… 44

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY…………………………….. 46

Participants of the Study……………………………… 46
Instruments………………………………………….. 48
Before-Peer-Feedback Questionnaire Survey… 49
Interview…………………………………………… 50
Open Question Survey………………………………. 51
Procedures of the Peer Feedback Activity………… 51
Training on Peer Feedback………………………. 53
Textbook Instruction……………………………… 54
First Draft…………………………………………… 54
Peer Feedback Activity………………………………55
Revision…………………………………………………56
Data Collection…………………………………………… 56
Questionnaire………………………………………… 57
Participants’ Written Assignments…………… 57
Participants’ Anonymous Feedback……………… 57
Interview……………………………………………… 58
Data Analysis…………………………………… 58
Qualitative Analysis…………………………………58
Quantitative Analysis……………………………… 60

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION………… 60

Types of Peer Feedback Provided in the Peer Feedback Activity………....................................62
Asking for information………………………………63
Making a Suggestion or Request……………………69
Giving Information………………………………… 73
Grammar/Mechanics Comments…………………………78
Positive Comments…………………………………… 81
No Comments…………………………………………… 85
Types of Revision Made in the Peer Feedback
Activity..........................................87
Surface Changes……………………………………… 87
Meaning Changes……………………………………… 91
Ways to Incorporate Feedback into Revised
Drafts....................................... 96
Participants’ Attitudes toward Peer Feedback
Activities....................................... 100
Participants’ Attitudes toward Peer Feedback before
the Peer Feedback Activity....................100
Participants’ Attitudes toward What to
Provide in Peer Feedback Activity............ 104
Participants’ Attitudes toward Peer Feedback
after the Peer Feedback Activity…………………108

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION........................................111
Conclusion of the Findings………………………………111
Limitations of the Study…………………………………114
Suggestions for Further Study………………………….115
Pedagogical Implications…………………………………117

REFERENCES……………………………………………………119
APPENDIXES........................................124
APPENDIX A: Before-Peer-Feedback Questionnaire……124
APPENDIX B: Transcription of the Interview…………129
APPENDIX C: Post-Course Questionnaire…………… 132

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Hansen and Liu’s Guiding Principles for Peer Feedback 26
Table 3-1: Instrument and Time of Implementation 48
Table 4-1: Participants’ Answer to the Third Section of the Questionnaire 101
Table 4-2: Participants’ Answer to the Fourth Section of the Questionnaire 102
Table 4-3: Participants’ Answer to the Fifth Section of the Questionnaire 102

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Participants’ English Scores on GSAT 47
Figure 2: Procedure of Peer Feedback Activity 53
參考文獻 References
Arikan, A. (2006). The Value of Reflection in Writing Courses in ELT Preservice Teacher Education Programs. Online Submission, Retrieved from ERIC database.
Atwell, N. (1987). In the Middle: Writing, Reading, and Learning with Adolescents.
Beach, R. (1989). Showing students how to assess: Demonstrating techniques for response in the writing conference. In C. M. Anson (Ed.), Writingand response: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 127–148). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Brown, J. D. 1998: New ways of classroom assessment. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Brown, J. D. & Hudson, Thom. (1998). The alternatives in language assessment. TESOL Quarterly 32: 653-75.
Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind.” College English, 46, 635-652.
Bruffee, K. (2008). What Being A Writing Peer Tutor Can Do for You? Writing Center Journal, 28(2), 5-10.
Bruner, J. (1966). Towards a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press.
Boe, B. (1994, January 1). A Democratic Assessment Strategy.
Boud, David (1999) “Peer learning assessment” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4); pg. 413
Cane, P. & Cane, E. (1990). Write for first certificate. London: Nelson Books.
Cardellini, L. (2008). The Views and Influence of Ernst Von Glasersfeld: An Introduction. Foundations of Chemistry, 10(2), 129-134.
Chen, B. L. (2004). A Comparative Study of Teacher Evaluation and Peer Evaluation on the English Writing of Senior High School Students. Master Thesis, distributed by National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Chen, M. C. (2005). A Study of Effects of Peer Review on Junior High School Students’ EFL Writing. Master Thesis, distributed by National Chung Cheng University.
Cheung, M. (1999). The Process of Innovation Adoption and Teacher Development. Education and Research in Education 13 (2), 55-75.
Damon, W. (1984). Peer education: The untapped potential. Journal of Applied Developmen- tal Psychology, 5, 331-343.
Dimitrios, T. (2002). The changing winds and shifting sands of the history of English Language Teaching. [Online Journal]. Retrieved from http://www.englishclub.com/tefl-articles/history-english-language-teaching.htm
Emig, J. (1971). The Composing Process of Twelfth Graders. Research Report No. 13. Urbana, ILL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1971.79.
Elbow, P. (1973). Writing Without Teachers. New York: Oxford University Press, 49-50.
Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication 32, 400-414.
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Freedman, S. (1992, February 1). Outside-In and Inside-Out: Peer Response Groups in Two Ninth-Grade Classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 26(1), 71-107.
Furneaux, C., Paran, A., & Fairfax, B. (2007). Teacher Stance as Reflected in Feedback on Student Writing: An Empirical Study of Secondary School Teachers in Five Countries. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 45(1), 69-94.
Gaskill, W. H. (1986). Revising in Spanish and English as a second language: a processoriented study of composition (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International 47( lo), 3747A.
Gieve, S. (1998). Comments on Dwight Atkinson’s ‘‘A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL.’’ TESOL Quarterly, 32, 123–129.
Guangwei, H. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 321-342. doi:10.1191/1362168805lr169oa.
Hall, C. (1990). Managing the complexity of revising across languages. TESOL Quarterly 24,43-60.
Hansen, J., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal: English Language Teachers Journal, 59(1), 31-38. doi:10.1093/elt/ccioo4.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1996, September 1). Some Input on Input: Two Analyses of Student Response to Expert Feedback in L2 Writing. Modern Language Journal, 80(3), 287-308.
Hu, G. (2005, January 1). Using Peer Review with Chinese ESL Student Writers. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 321-342.
Huang, S. (1995, October 19). EFL University Students' Perceptions of Their Performance in Peer Response Sessions.
Huang, S. (1995, November 17). The Efficacy of Using Writing Groups to Help Students Generate Ideas for Writing and Revising Drafts in an EFL University Writing Class.
Jenks, C. J. (2003). Process writing checklist. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 479 389)
Johnson, D., Foertsch, M., & North Central Regional Educational Lab., O. (2000, January 1). Critical Issue: Monitoring the School Literacy Program.
Jonassen, D. H., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7-26.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lan, W. (2009). Chinese Students' Perceptions of the Practice of Peer Review in an Integrated Class at the University Level. TESL Reporter, 42(2), 35-56.
Larochelle, M., & Bednarz, N. (1998). Constructivism and education: Beyond epistemological correctness. In M. Larochelle, N. Bednarz, & J. Garrison (Eds.), Constructivism and education I (pp. 3–20). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, T. S. (2001). A Case Study of Peer Review for University-level Undergraduate Writing Students in Taiwan. Thesis (M. A.) distributed by National Tsing Hua University.
Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: issues in written response. In Kroll, B., editor, Second language writing: research insights for the classroom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 57-68.
Leki, I. (May 1,1991). The Preferences of ESL Students for Error Correction in College-Level Writing Classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203-18.
Lindblom-Ylanne, S., & Pihlajamaki, H. (2003). Can a Collaborative Network Environment Enhance Essay-Writing Processes?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1), 17-30.
Linden-Martin, M. (March, 1997). Hesitancy working with a peer: Comparison of two studies, 1995 and 1996. Paper presented at TESOL Convention, Orlando, FL.
Long, S. (August 1,1992). Using the Process-Model for Writing: Options for Responding to Student Drafts.
Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To Give Is Better Than to Receive: The Benefits of Peer Review to the Reviewer's Own Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30-43.
MacGregor, J., Cooper, J., Smith, K., & Robinson, P. (2000, January 1). Strategies for Energizing Large Classes: From Small Groups to Learning Communities. The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. New Directions for Teaching and Learning.
Mahon, T. & Yau, R. (1992). Introducing a process approach in the teaching of writing in a lower primary classroom. ILEJ, 9: 23-29.
Matsuno, S. (2009). Self-, Peer-, and Teacher-Assessments in Japanese University EFL Writing Classrooms. Language Testing, 26(1), 75-100.
Mendonça, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 745-769.
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. In P. Cranton (Ed.) Transformative learning in action: Insights from practice (pp. 5-13). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miao, Y. & Badger, R. & Zhen, Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing 15: 179-200.
Nelson, G., & Carson, J. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 113-131.
Nelson, G. L. & Murphy, J. M. (1992). An L2 writing group: task and social dimensions. Journal of Second Language Writing 1: 171-93
Nelson, G. L. & Murphy, J. M. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly 27: 135-42
Paulus, T. (1999). The Effect of Peer and Teacher Feedback on Student Writing. JOURNAL OF SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING, 8(3), 265-289
Phillips, D. (1995). The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Many Faces of Constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5-12.
Ramines, A. (1983). Techniques in Teaching Writing: New York: Oxford University Press.
Reid, J. (1994). Responding to ESL students’ text: the myths of appropriation. TESOL Quarterly 28, 273-292.
Rollinson, P. (2005, January 1). Using Peer Feedback in the ESL Writing Class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23-30.
Saito, H., & Fujita, T. (2004). Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writing classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 31-54.
Sarah, S. (2010, January, 22). Painting and Writing – It’s all about the process. (Online, Journal). Retrieved from http://sarahsalway.blogspot.com/2010/01/painting-and-writing-its-all-about.html.
Soares, C. (2004, May 1). Peer Review Methods for ESL Writing Improvement. Online Submission,
Susser, B. (1994). Process approaches in ESL/EFL writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing 3, 31/47
Taipei Times. (Wednesday, Aug 22, 2007) Page 2
Tao, W.W. (2001). The Effectiveness of Peer Evaluation on EFL Writing. Thesis (M.A.) distributed by National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Thompson, C. (2002). Teaching critical thinking in EAP courses in Australia. TESOL Journal, 11, 15–20.
Topping, K. et al. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment &Evaluation in Higher Education, 25,2, 149-169.
Topping, K. J., & Ehly, S. W. (2001). Peer assisted learning: a framework for consultation. Journal of Education and Psychological Consultation, 12(2). 113-132.
Tsui, A.B.M. & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing 9: 147–70.
Villamil, O. S., & Gurrero, M. C. M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behaviors. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 51-75.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1996). Introduction: Aspects of constructivism. In C. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (pp.3-7). New York: Teachers College Press.
Voss, Ralph F, (1983). “Composition and the Empirical Imperative.” Journal of advanced Composition 4; 5-12.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, X. (2004). Can students learn how to do peer review? FLTA, 1, 54-56.
Wei, Z. (2001). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing. 10, 251-276.
White, R., & Arndt, V. (1991). Process Writing. London: Longman.
Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly,16, 195-209.
Zhang, S. (1995, January 1). Reexamining the Affective Advantage of Peer Feedback in the ESL Writing Class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209-22.
論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2015-07-08公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2015-07-08起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信