Contents
Chapter I INTRODUCTION (1)
1.1 Background of the Study (1)
1.2 Aims and Significance of the Study (2)
1.3 Organization of the Thesis (2)
Chapter II LITERATURE REVIEW (4)
2.1 Studies on ESL (EFL) writing (4)
2.1.1 Process Writing Theory (4)
2.1.2 Scaffolding Theory (5)
2.2 Studies of Feedback (7)
2.2.1 Definition (7)
2.2.2 Classification (8)
2.2.3 Scoring Methods (9)
2.2.4 Empirical Studies of Feedback (10)
2.3 Summary (21)
Chapter III METHODOLOGY (23)
3.1 Research Questions (23)
3.2 Participants (23)
3.3 Raters and Rating rubric (24)
3.4 Research Procedure (25)
3.4.1 Training of Student Raters in the Peer Feedback Class（PFC） (26)
3.4.2 Pretest and Posttest (27)
3.4.3 Teaching Experiment (28)
3.5 Scoring of Compositions (29)
3.6 Questionnaire (30)
3.7 Interview (31)
3.8 Data Analysis (32)
Chapter IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (33)
4.1 Differences in the Total Scores in Posttest between PFC and TFC (33)
V
4.2 Differences in Content, Grammar and Mechanics between PFC and TFC (33)
4.2.1 Differences in Content between PFC and TFC (33)
4.2.2 Differences in Grammar between PFC and TFC (34)
4.2.3 Differences in Mechanics between PFC and TFC (34)
4.2.4 Discussion (35)
4.3 Students’Attitude about Tea cher Feedback and Peer Feedback (35)
4.3.1 Results of Questionnaire (35)
4.3.2 Results of Interview (40)
4.3.3 Discussion (41)
Chapter V CONCLUSION (43)
5.1 Major findings (43)
5.2 Implications (44)
5.3 Limitations and suggestions for further study (46)
REFERENCES (47)
Appendix A (54)
Appendix B (59)
Appendix C (60)
Appendix D (61)
Appendix E (62)
VI
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Scoring items by Brown and Barley in 1984 (adapted) (10)
Table 2 Participants in teacher feedback class and peer feedback class (23)
Table 3 Scoring items in this study (24)
Table 4 Results of Independent Samples t-test for the Pretest of TFC and PFC (25)
Table 5 Group Divisions in PFC and Feedback Activities (29)
Table 6 Results of Independent Samples t-test for the Posttest of TFC and PFC at P<0.05 (33)
Table 7 Independent Samples t-test in C ontent for the Posttest of TFC and PFC at P<0.05 (34)
Table 8 Independent samples t-test in Grammar for the Posttest of TFC and PFC at P<0.05 (34)
Table 9 Independent Samples t-test in Mechanics for the Posttest of TFC and PFC at P<0.05 (34)
Table 10 Opinions about EFL Writing (36)
Table 11 Opinions on the content of their peers’written feedback (36)
Table 12 Opinions on the direct or indirect way of peer written feedback (36)
Table 13 Opinions on oral feedback (37)
Table 14 Opinions on peer feedback (37)
Table 15 F actors influencing feedback (38)
Table 16 Opinions about EFL writing (38)
Table 17 Opinions on the content of teacher’s written feedback (39)
Table 18 Opinions on the direct or indirect way of teach er’s written feedback (39)
Table 19 Opinions on teacher oral feedback (39)
Table 20 Factors influencing feedback (40)
VII
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 ZPD (Lev Vygotsky，1978) (6)
Figure 2 A process diagram of this research (26)
VIII
Chapter I INTRODUCTION
Chapter I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
In the traditional writing instruction, product approach is a significant one, which simply produces the teacher’s limited advice and comments. Although feedback is cherished by teachers and students, few students would like to make revisions, let alone to discuss the revisions with their peer classmates (Hu, 2002). As a result, the students will make mistakes similarly and make low progress later. With the introduction of process writing teaching to second language writing in the 1980s, feedback has become an important part in English writing. In process writing, writing teaching includes the whole process of writing —creation, drafting, feedback and revision —rather than the mere product (Sokolik, 2003：89). In writing teaching, feedback is defined as the input from the reader to the writer, whose function is to offer information of revision to the writer (Zhu Qiujuan，2010). Feedback includes teacher feedback, peer feedback and computer feedback. At present, teacher feedback plays a predominant role in non-English majors’writing instruction, while peer feedback and computer feedback are adopted less frequently. Teacher feedback is an objective and precise way to revise the compositions of students and to offer comprehensive and pertinent feedback suggestions, but the one-way communication method is not really effective in improving the writing competency of the students. Teachers commit much time and energy to writing the feedback, but quite a few students tend to follow the teacher’s feedback mechanically or, even ignore it while modifying their compositions. Therefore, some researches point out that teacher feedback imposes little effect on the improvement of students’ writing in one-draft practice (Hillocks, 1986), but it imposes significant effects on the improvement of their writing competency in multi-draft practice (Fathman & Whalley, 1990).
Peer feedback refers to the revising information provided by student readers to their classmates after reading their drafts (Mangelsdorf, 1992). Kroll (2001:228) defined peer feedback as the students’in different groups reading one an other’s composition s and then offering feedback to each other with regard to the advantages and disadvantages of their individual compositions. Based on the premise of training, guidance and practice, students can learn from the given compositions of their peers and offer concrete and useful feedback.
1