Peer Written Corrective Feedback on E-Mails: A Comparison of Static, Dynamic, and Integrated Partnership

Niloofar Seyed Golshan; Vahid Hedayati

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijll.20150305.12

| Peer-Reviewed

Peer Written Corrective Feedback on E-Mails: A Comparison of Static, Dynamic, and Integrated Partnership

Niloofar Seyed Golshan, Vahid Hedayati

Published in International Journal of Language and Linguistics (Volume 3, Issue 5)

Received: 20 July 2015 Accepted: 25 July 2015 Published: 6 August 2015

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

That learners could gain benefit from written corrective feedback provided by their peers has already been established by a large bulk of empirical research and rational argumentation. However, to what extent peer feedback is effective, and what type of peer feedback provision could best cast positive results on the writing proficiency of L2 learners is still a heat topic of debate and controversy. This study, however, looks at the quality of the peer feedback provision from a whole novel angle, and that is drawing a comparison between the peer written corrective feedback which is always provided by a fixed partner, by a varying randomly assigned partner, or by a hybrid of both fixed and random partners for the first and the second half of the treatment period. To investigate this empirically, three 35-member groups of intermediate learners were assigned to the three modes of feedback provision, and received a treatment of 22 sessions. The Analysis of the Variance on the post-test results depicted the existence of a statistically significant difference between the progress rates of L2 writing progress in the learners of the three groups. The Post-Hoc Scheffe Test determined that the significant difference was between the fixed partner and random partner groups, and also between the fixed partner and the integrated partner group. Overall, the learners who received written corrective feedback from various partners in the whole treatment period staged the most successful performance in the post-test.

Published in	International Journal of Language and Linguistics (Volume 3, Issue 5)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijll.20150305.12
Page(s)	285-291
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2015. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Fixed Partner, Integrated Partner, Peer Feedback, Random Partner, Written Corrective Feedback

References

[1]	Allaei, S., & Connor, U. (1990). Exploring the dynamics of cross cultural collaboration. The writing instructor, 10, 19-28.
[2]	Amores, M. J. (1997). A new perspective on peer-editing. Foreign Language Annals, 30(4), 513-522.
[3]	Barns, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. London: Penguin Books.
[4]	Berg, E. C. (1999). The effect of trained peer response on ESL students' revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 215-241.
[5]	Carson, J. G. & Nelson, G. L. (1994). Writing groups: cross cultural issues. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 17-30.
[6]	Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student responses to written work. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 7-181.
[7]	Chaudron, C. (1984). The effects of feedback on students' composition revision. RELC Journal, 15(2), 1-15.
[8]	Conrad, S., & Goldstein, L. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher written comments: Texts, contexts, and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 147-177.
[9]	Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., McCollum, R. M., & Wolfersberger, M. (2010). Contextualizing corrective feedback in L2 writing pedagogy. Language Teaching Research ,14, 445–463.
[10]	Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315-339.
[11]	Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of Error in Second Language Writing Classes. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
[12]	Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[13]	Ferris, D. R. (2003). Responding to writing. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 119-140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[14]	Fotos, S., & Browne, C. (2004). New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[15]	Goldstein, L. M. (2005). Teacher Written Commentary in Second Language Writing Classrooms. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
[16]	Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and Practice of Writing. The USA: Longman.
[17]	Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476.
[18]	Hanson-Smith, E. (2001). Computer-assisted language learning. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 107–113). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[19]	Hendrickson, J. M. (1980). The treatment of error in written work. Modern Language Journal, 64, 216-221.
[20]	Hubbard, P. (2004). Learner training for effective use of CALL. In S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 45–68). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[21]	Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching research, 4, 33-54.
[22]	Hyland, K. (1990). Providing productive feedback. ELT Journal, 44, 279-285.
[23]	Hyland, K. and Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: contexts and issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[24]	Keh (1990) claims that peer responses address surface issues rather than problems of meaning.
[25]	Keh, C. 1990. Feedback in the writing process: a model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal, 44, 94-304.
[26]	Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationships of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modem Language Journal, 75, 303-313.
[27]	Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: research insights for the classroom (pp. 57-68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[28]	Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). A Synthesis of Research on Second Language Writing. London: Routledge.
[29]	Lockhardt, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: stances, functions, and content. Language Learning, 45, 605-655.
[30]	Makino, T. (1993). Learner self-correction in ESL written composition. ELT Journal, 47(4), 337-41.
[31]	Mendonça, C., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (4), 745- 69.
[32]	Meskill, C., & Ranglova, K. (2000). Sociocollaborative language learning in Bulgaria. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 20–40). New York: Cambridge University Press.
[33]	Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: harnessing students' communicative power. In D. M. Johnson and D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing empowering: empowering ESL students (pp. 207-219). New York: Longman.
[34]	Nelson, G. and Murphy, J. (1992). An L2 writing group: task and social dimensions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 171-193.
[35]	Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer and R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59–86). New York: Cambridge University Press.
[36]	Rollinson, P. (1998). Peer response and revision in an ESL writing group: a case study. Unpublished PhD thesis. Universidad Autonoma de Madrid.
[37]	Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59 (1), 23-30.
[38]	Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. Norris (Ed.), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching (pp.133–163). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
[39]	Smith, W. F. (1989). Modem technology in foreign language education: Applications and projects. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co.
[40]	Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
[41]	Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1996). Peer revisions in the L2 classroom: Social cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5 (1), 51- 75.
[42]	Witbeck, M. C. (1976). Peer correction procedures for intermediate and advanced ESL composition lessons. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 321-326.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Niloofar Seyed Golshan, Vahid Hedayati. (2015). Peer Written Corrective Feedback on E-Mails: A Comparison of Static, Dynamic, and Integrated Partnership. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(5), 285-291. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20150305.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Niloofar Seyed Golshan; Vahid Hedayati. Peer Written Corrective Feedback on E-Mails: A Comparison of Static, Dynamic, and Integrated Partnership. Int. J. Lang. Linguist. 2015, 3(5), 285-291. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20150305.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Niloofar Seyed Golshan, Vahid Hedayati. Peer Written Corrective Feedback on E-Mails: A Comparison of Static, Dynamic, and Integrated Partnership. Int J Lang Linguist. 2015;3(5):285-291. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20150305.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijll.20150305.12,
  author = {Niloofar Seyed Golshan and Vahid Hedayati},
  title = {Peer Written Corrective Feedback on E-Mails: A Comparison of Static, Dynamic, and Integrated Partnership},
  journal = {International Journal of Language and Linguistics},
  volume = {3},
  number = {5},
  pages = {285-291},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijll.20150305.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20150305.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijll.20150305.12},
  abstract = {That learners could gain benefit from written corrective feedback provided by their peers has already been established by a large bulk of empirical research and rational argumentation. However, to what extent peer feedback is effective, and what type of peer feedback provision could best cast positive results on the writing proficiency of L2 learners is still a heat topic of debate and controversy. This study, however, looks at the quality of the peer feedback provision from a whole novel angle, and that is drawing a comparison between the peer written corrective feedback which is always provided by a fixed partner, by a varying randomly assigned partner, or by a hybrid of both fixed and random partners for the first and the second half of the treatment period. To investigate this empirically, three 35-member groups of intermediate learners were assigned to the three modes of feedback provision, and received a treatment of 22 sessions. The Analysis of the Variance on the post-test results depicted the existence of a statistically significant difference between the progress rates of L2 writing progress in the learners of the three groups. The Post-Hoc Scheffe Test determined that the significant difference was between the fixed partner and random partner groups, and also between the fixed partner and the integrated partner group. Overall, the learners who received written corrective feedback from various partners in the whole treatment period staged the most successful performance in the post-test.},
 year = {2015}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Peer Written Corrective Feedback on E-Mails: A Comparison of Static, Dynamic, and Integrated Partnership
AU  - Niloofar Seyed Golshan
AU  - Vahid Hedayati
Y1  - 2015/08/06
PY  - 2015
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20150305.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijll.20150305.12
T2  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JF  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JO  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
SP  - 285
EP  - 291
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-0221
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20150305.12
AB  - That learners could gain benefit from written corrective feedback provided by their peers has already been established by a large bulk of empirical research and rational argumentation. However, to what extent peer feedback is effective, and what type of peer feedback provision could best cast positive results on the writing proficiency of L2 learners is still a heat topic of debate and controversy. This study, however, looks at the quality of the peer feedback provision from a whole novel angle, and that is drawing a comparison between the peer written corrective feedback which is always provided by a fixed partner, by a varying randomly assigned partner, or by a hybrid of both fixed and random partners for the first and the second half of the treatment period. To investigate this empirically, three 35-member groups of intermediate learners were assigned to the three modes of feedback provision, and received a treatment of 22 sessions. The Analysis of the Variance on the post-test results depicted the existence of a statistically significant difference between the progress rates of L2 writing progress in the learners of the three groups. The Post-Hoc Scheffe Test determined that the significant difference was between the fixed partner and random partner groups, and also between the fixed partner and the integrated partner group. Overall, the learners who received written corrective feedback from various partners in the whole treatment period staged the most successful performance in the post-test.
VL  - 3
IS  - 5
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Niloofar Seyed Golshan

Young Researchers & Elite Club, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Language Department, Damavand, Iran
Vahid Hedayati

Shahid Beheshti University, Faculty of Language and Social Studies, Tehran, Iran

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Niloofar Seyed Golshan, Vahid Hedayati. (2015). Peer Written Corrective Feedback on E-Mails: A Comparison of Static, Dynamic, and Integrated Partnership. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(5), 285-291. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20150305.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Niloofar Seyed Golshan; Vahid Hedayati. Peer Written Corrective Feedback on E-Mails: A Comparison of Static, Dynamic, and Integrated Partnership. Int. J. Lang. Linguist. 2015, 3(5), 285-291. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20150305.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Niloofar Seyed Golshan, Vahid Hedayati. Peer Written Corrective Feedback on E-Mails: A Comparison of Static, Dynamic, and Integrated Partnership. Int J Lang Linguist. 2015;3(5):285-291. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20150305.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijll.20150305.12,
  author = {Niloofar Seyed Golshan and Vahid Hedayati},
  title = {Peer Written Corrective Feedback on E-Mails: A Comparison of Static, Dynamic, and Integrated Partnership},
  journal = {International Journal of Language and Linguistics},
  volume = {3},
  number = {5},
  pages = {285-291},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijll.20150305.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20150305.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijll.20150305.12},
  abstract = {That learners could gain benefit from written corrective feedback provided by their peers has already been established by a large bulk of empirical research and rational argumentation. However, to what extent peer feedback is effective, and what type of peer feedback provision could best cast positive results on the writing proficiency of L2 learners is still a heat topic of debate and controversy. This study, however, looks at the quality of the peer feedback provision from a whole novel angle, and that is drawing a comparison between the peer written corrective feedback which is always provided by a fixed partner, by a varying randomly assigned partner, or by a hybrid of both fixed and random partners for the first and the second half of the treatment period. To investigate this empirically, three 35-member groups of intermediate learners were assigned to the three modes of feedback provision, and received a treatment of 22 sessions. The Analysis of the Variance on the post-test results depicted the existence of a statistically significant difference between the progress rates of L2 writing progress in the learners of the three groups. The Post-Hoc Scheffe Test determined that the significant difference was between the fixed partner and random partner groups, and also between the fixed partner and the integrated partner group. Overall, the learners who received written corrective feedback from various partners in the whole treatment period staged the most successful performance in the post-test.},
 year = {2015}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Peer Written Corrective Feedback on E-Mails: A Comparison of Static, Dynamic, and Integrated Partnership
AU  - Niloofar Seyed Golshan
AU  - Vahid Hedayati
Y1  - 2015/08/06
PY  - 2015
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20150305.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijll.20150305.12
T2  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JF  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JO  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
SP  - 285
EP  - 291
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-0221
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20150305.12
AB  - That learners could gain benefit from written corrective feedback provided by their peers has already been established by a large bulk of empirical research and rational argumentation. However, to what extent peer feedback is effective, and what type of peer feedback provision could best cast positive results on the writing proficiency of L2 learners is still a heat topic of debate and controversy. This study, however, looks at the quality of the peer feedback provision from a whole novel angle, and that is drawing a comparison between the peer written corrective feedback which is always provided by a fixed partner, by a varying randomly assigned partner, or by a hybrid of both fixed and random partners for the first and the second half of the treatment period. To investigate this empirically, three 35-member groups of intermediate learners were assigned to the three modes of feedback provision, and received a treatment of 22 sessions. The Analysis of the Variance on the post-test results depicted the existence of a statistically significant difference between the progress rates of L2 writing progress in the learners of the three groups. The Post-Hoc Scheffe Test determined that the significant difference was between the fixed partner and random partner groups, and also between the fixed partner and the integrated partner group. Overall, the learners who received written corrective feedback from various partners in the whole treatment period staged the most successful performance in the post-test.
VL  - 3
IS  - 5
ER  -

Copy | Download