下载文档原格式
二语写作中同伴反馈研究述评裘莹莹;马广惠【摘要】二语写作中的同伴反馈作为审查和修订阶段的中心内容之一,在二语写作中起着不可或缺的作用,受到研究者的重视.通过对同伴反馈研究的梳理分析发现,该领域主要从同伴反馈的类型、同伴反馈的效能、同伴反馈的接受度、同伴反馈的培训四方面进行研究;但是缺乏对本族语同伴反馈特征的研究和反馈文本的认知研究,同时,存在研究方法创新不足和理论研究框架不丰富的问题.未来的研究可以运用过程结果法、文本分析、访谈、问卷调查和统计分析等多种研究方法,综合心理学、社会学和认知语言学的理论知识,探究本族语同伴反馈的认知特征及其体现的哲学思想,对比本族语同伴反馈和二语同伴反馈的异同并究其根源,以便拓宽同伴反馈研究,丰富同伴反馈理论研究框架.【期刊名称】《西南交通大学学报（社会科学版）》【年(卷),期】2017(018)004【总页数】7页(P52-58)【关键词】同伴反馈;二语写作;反馈类型;反馈效能;反馈接受度;反馈培训【作者】裘莹莹;马广惠【作者单位】南京师范大学外国语学院,江苏南京 210097;淮阴工学院外国语学院,江苏淮安 223001;南京师范大学外国语学院,江苏南京 210097【正文语种】中文【中图分类】H315在过去的几十年中，写作教学已经从传统的、以教师为中心的产出方式转变为新型的、聚焦学生写作过程的范式〔1〕。
在写作过程中学习者在各种相互关联的产出和监管活动中(包括构思、起草、审查和修改)发现和修订自身的想法，试图最大化表达意思〔2〕。
二语写作教学引入过程写作法(process writing)后，反馈成为其重要组成部分。
从20世纪70年代起，国外学者开始关注同伴反馈在母语写作教学中的作用的研究〔3～4〕，并将其引入二语写作教学研究，认为它是“反馈者针对写作者的产出提供的信息，为写作者修改文章提供建议”〔5〕。
作为审查和修订阶段的中心内容之一的同伴反馈，引起了二语写作研究人员的兴趣。
同伴反馈和教师反馈在英语写作教学中的有效性对比研究作者：王玢诗来源：《文存阅刊》2018年第19期摘要：以学生为中心的课堂并不意味着教师主导、权威作用的消失。
反馈是二语写作教学必不可少的一环。
本文对比了同伴反馈和教师反馈两种反馈方式的效果。
通过实验可知同伴反馈对文章的思想性和结构调整有明显作用；但是，教师反馈对于学生提高语言质量有更明显的效果。
关键词：二语写作；同伴反馈；教师反馈近年来，随着教学改革的深化，发展出与传统的“与教师为中心”的教育观相对的“以学生为中心”的教育观。
写作教学的改革也体现出这一热点，其中之一就是在教学评价中越来越重视同伴反馈。
同伴反馈指让作为信息源的学习者开展互动，让他们同时成为教师、指导者和修改者，以书面或口头的形式在写作开展过程中对其他学习者的草稿进行评论。
有研究表明同伴反馈是有价值的，蔡基刚教授认为：同伴反馈在增强学生读者意识、提高学生积极性、文章质量、作文内容和语言质量等方面都十分有效。
很多的写作课教师也凭直觉感到同伴反馈的价值，借由着同伴反馈价值研究成果为借口，解脱自身在学生写作反馈过程中的责任，因而在教学评价中大量采用同伴反馈的形式。
笔者认为，以学生为中心的课堂并不意味着教师主导、权威作用的消失、放任学生自由学习，同伴反馈只能是教师协商式辅导的重要补充，不能完全替代教师反馈。
在写作教学中，既要开展同伴反馈，也要开展教师反馈，那么二者的关系是怎样的呢？在当前的英语写作教学中，二者应该谁主谁从呢？研究比较两种反馈的互动过程及反馈效果，本文试图跃出目前很多教学研究者和实践者仅关注某一种反馈方式的窠臼，也期望为英语写作教学提供实证依据。
1.实验设计1.1研究问题本文要研究的问题有二：教师在指导学生互改作文的课程设计中的作用；如何使同伴反馈最有效化。
具体来说，可分为可操作的三个问题：1）两种反馈在互动模式上有何异同？2）两种反馈在作文修改过程中的采纳率有何差异？3）两种反馈对作文质量的影响有何差异？1.2实验对象本次试验的对象是云南某高校英语专业二年级的30名学生。
二语/外语写作中的反馈研究述评作者：高筱花来源：《教育界·下旬》2016年第11期【摘要】對写作反馈的研究是近年来写作教学领域的研究热点之一。
按照反馈的来源，相关研究可大致分为教师反馈、同伴反馈、教师反馈与同伴反馈对比研究、计算机反馈四个方面。
文章分别从这四个方面描述了写作反馈的研究概况，在此基础上探讨了对二语/外语写作反馈的启示，并指出了未来研究方向。
【关键词】二语/外语写作教师反馈同伴反馈计算机反馈一、引言写作领域的反馈特指读者向作者提供修改习作的信息，以期作者更准确、清晰地表达观点。
显然，反馈在写作教学中发挥着重要的作用，反馈为学生提供写作修改意见，帮助其提高写作水平，为教师提供调整、改进写作教学的信息。
学界根据不同的标准，对反馈进行了分类，按照反馈的来源，写作反馈的形式主要包括教师反馈、同伴反馈和计算机反馈。
二、教师反馈关于教师反馈，国外研究者主要就教师反馈行为的本质、教师反馈的语言特征、对比研究教师反馈和同伴反馈、各种教师反馈类型的有效性、学习者对教师反馈的接受度等进行了研究。
研究认为详细明确的教师反馈能够促使学生对作文进行实质性的修改，但也有些研究却认为教师反馈意见不一致，无系统性，常常局限在表层修改层面，对学习者写作水平的提高没有多大的帮助。
国内教师反馈研究主要着重于反馈对教师与学生认知行为的影响，教师反馈引发的注意对学生写作修改的影响，对比各种教师反馈形式的有效性以及学生对教师反馈的态度等。
研究发现，教师在反馈中提出作文中好的观点及存在的问题，学生根据反馈信息修改作文，能够提高其写作能力。
但是，由于我国学校英语班级大，教师工作量大，教师反馈对提高学生写作能力的效果并不明显。
三、同伴反馈针对同伴反馈，国内外学者也进行了大量研究，主要围绕同伴反馈的类型、学生对同伴反馈的态度及利用率展开。
研究发现，同伴反馈有利于降低写作焦虑感，开拓思维空间，通过评阅其他同学的作文也有助于提高自身写作能力。
简述大学英语写作教学中的同伴反馈1.引言自20世纪70年代，以探索写作过程的过程写作教学法开始应用于二语写作教学中，并受到了广泛地关注和研究。
在保留教师反馈的基础上，过程写作法引入了同伴反馈（peer feedback），即在写作修改阶段，学生们相互交换阅读作文，并提出修改建议的写作教学活动（Mangelsdorf，1992）。
作为其关键环节之一，同伴反馈的积极效果在诸多的研究中得到了证实和推广，Graves认为同伴反馈是学生内化写作，掌握写作技能的重要途径，是对文章内容结构，语言形式的深层次思考。
在创造交互式的写作环境中形成完善的循环反馈机制，提高写作评改效果（戚炎，2004）。
2.理论基础合作学习理论鼓励小组内水平存在差异的成员通过沟通合作，分享资源，相互促进，在完成合作任务的同时，实现自我的提高。
（王坦，2002）在同伴反馈写作课堂上，学生们在各自的合作小组里相互交换阅读作文，展开讨论，指出写作中存在问题并提出修改建议，加强学生合作意识和自主性，降低写作焦虑，同时同伴的信息反馈也促进了对文稿内容结构等方面的修改，提高文本输出的质量。
Vygotsky提出的最近发展区（zone of proximal development）理论中强调了社会环境，同伴交互等因素对于学习者知识构建及内化的重要影响。
写作课堂上的同伴反馈创造了交互、协商的社会情境，通过小组内的阅读、评价、反馈等互动活动，学生们发现并解决写作中的问题，促进写作知识的构建和内化，从而实现其最近发展区的跨越。
本研究拟通过实证对比研究和问卷调查的方式，探讨如下三个问题：（1）同伴反馈能否有效提高学生的英语写作水平？（2）从英语写作的四个方面（篇章结构、主题内容、语言表达和语法拼写）来看，同伴反馈是否在每个方面都有效，或者在哪些方面效果更为显著？（3）学生对于同伴反馈活动的态度和看法如何？3.研究设计3.1 研究对象参加本研究的对象是海南医学院2012级针灸推拿、应用心理、预防和信息管理专业本科二年级两个自然班的学生，共85人，其中，针灸推拿和应用心理专业41人为控制班，预防和信息管理专业的44人为实验班。
写作反馈对比分析：教师反馈和同伴反馈Literature Review on Feedback in EFL Writing: Teacher Feedback and Peer Feedback摘要：写作是一种重要的语言技巧，相比较听力、口语和阅读，写作更能全面的展现学习者的语言精准水平。
所以我们需要对英语写作的教与学投入更多的精力。
然而我们当前的大学英语写作教学收效并非显著。
一方面，老师花费大量的精力和时间去阅读和修改学生的英语写作，但成效颇低；另一方面，学生只是表面肤浅的理解老师的建议及评语或者甚至直接忽视老师给予的纠错反馈。
在一定程度上来看，造成这种现象的原因可以追溯到结果教学法在英语写作教学中的广泛应用而带来的影响。
结果教学法把英语写作过程看成是一个线性的活动，在这一过程中没有课堂活动部分，没有互动。
而与之相对应的过程教学法把写作看成是一个复杂的、相互重叠的认知过程，在这个过程中有学生的积极参与。
反馈作为过程教学法的重要组成部分而引起广泛的关注，它包括：教师反馈、同伴反馈、自我反馈和计算机辅助反馈。
其中，教师反馈和同伴反馈是其主要的两大部分。
在二语学习环境下关于这两种反馈效果的研究很多，但研究结果有所不同，有的研究者认为教师反馈的效果更佳而有的研究更倾向于在写作中使用同伴反馈。
在以往的研究中，研究者们大多只侧重于其中一种反馈方式在大学英语写作教学中的应用，而将两者教学方法结合起来应用的研究不是很多。
因此，本研究尝试将两种反馈应用到大学英语写作教学中并期待通过实证研究能够在不久将来证实其可行性和效度。
关键字：反馈；教师反馈；同伴反馈；外语写作Abstract: As an important language skill, writing can comprehensively present the learners?language proficiency compared with other basic skills such as listening, speaking and reading. Therefore, much attention should be paid to the teaching andlearning of English writing. However, at present time, ourcollege English writing instruction seems unsatisfactory. On the one hand, teachers contribute a great deal of time and energy to reading and correcting student?s composition but with low efficiency; on the other hand, students spend less time superficially understanding teacher?s suggestions and comments or even directly neglect teacher?s error correction. To a certain extent, this current situation can be traced back to the prevailing traditional product-oriented approach which assumes writing as a liner process, in which there is no students? interaction within writing activities. On the contrary, the process-oriented approach assumes writing as a cognitive process, with which students can actively participant in writing activities. Feedback, an indispensable part of process-oriented approach of writing, has attracted great attention, which mainly encompasses teacher feedback and peer feedback. In ESL context, many studies on the effects of two types of feedback has been done. Nevertheless, the results of them varied greatly in these studies. Some scholars reviewed that teacher feedback is more favorable in writing class while others prefer to use peer feedback. Up to now, most of the researchers just focus on either peer feedback or teacher feedback, and few researchers have combined the two kinds of feedback in the context of the EFL writing. Hence, the study attempts to apply peer feedback and teacher feedback into EFL writing through an empirical study and look forward to its feasibility and effectiveness will be approved in the near further study in writing pedagogy. Keywords: feedback; teacher feedback; peer feedback; EFL writing1.IntroductionFeedback plays a prominent role in improving student?s learning ability and strengthening his or her learningachievement in language pedagogy. In writing, feedback refers to “reader?s comprehensible input from author whose function is of fering information to reader to modify composition” (Zhu, 2010). The efficiency of writing feedback will directly affect students? writing level as well as reflecting the effectiveness of teacher?s writing strategies. Feedback in EFL writing mainly focus on: teacher feedback; peer feedback; self-feedback and computer-generated feedback.From which teacher feedback refers to the input provided by the teacher for the revision of students? writings or assessment of learning performance (Keh, 1990) and peer feedback is defined as a system in which individuals evaluate counterparts?or peers?achievements of language learning including writing and reading (Topping, 1998). Teacher feedback plays a dominant role in L2 writing, while in recent years teacher feedback was given great attention through the popularity of process writing approach. Domestic and foreign scholars have already conducted a great deal of empirical research on teacher and peer feedback, but have not reached a consensus on the effectiveness and the ranges, methods and strategies of application. And many researches paid attention to the single study on different modes of feedback as well as focusing less on the comparative study of the efficiency, merits and demerits of integrating teacher feedback and peer feedback. Based on which this study will explore the effectiveness of combining teacher feedback and peer feedback and look forward to providing practically and significantly instructional feedback in EFL writing.2.Related Studies of Teacher Feedback and Peer Feedback at Home and AbroadThe study of writing feedback began in the 1950s. Thescholars made a comparison between teacher?s error correction and peer?s error correction with the guidance of teachers, the results of which examined that the efficiency of the latter is better than the former one. In the following 60 years, domestic and international scholars made a detail study on the practical effectiveness of peer feedback (Keh, 1990; Ferris, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2006; Paulus, 1999; Tsui & Ng, 2000; Ming, 2005; Liu, 2002; Gong, 2007; Meng, 2009; Wang, 2010; Xu, 2010; Guo, 2011; Hu & Zhang, 2011). These researchers stated that singly using teacher feedback will not truly and efficiently improve students?writing ability. “Teachers often spend a gre at deal of time and energy in modifying composition and putting forward many comments and suggestions on writing, however, students always neglect teachers?correction comments as well as superficially understand the correction suggestions. This kind ofsingle and passive feedback have no effect on stimulating student?s learning interests and enthusiasm”(Zhou, 2013: 121). On the contrary, peer feedback attracted more attention to scholars and teachers. They found that in the process of face-to-face communication, negotiation and discussion, peer feedback can mutually, actively and accurately state what students want to express. Meanwhile, student?s self-learning ability and collaborative spirit could be exerted to the utmost as well as writing and thought ability being exerted to a higher extent.Some other studies investigated the essence of teachers?feedback behaviors (Connors & Lunsford 1993: 200-223; Ferris, 1997: 315-339; ); the effectiveness of feedback types (Ferris & Roberts, 2001: 161-184; Kepner, 1991: 305-313); students?perceptions of feedback (Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990: 155-177; Hedgocock & Left-kowtz, 1994: 141-165). Totally,students generally considered that peer feedback is much more effective than teacher feedback. In terms of teacher feedback, domestic researches focused more on the importance and values of student?s recognition process and its development (Zhang et al., 2000: 24-28; Xie, 2011: 50-51); and its efficiency in improving student?s attention and their ability (Li & Wu, 2005; Bei, 2009); and its influences on the accuracy, fluency and complexity of student?s writing (Wang & Liu, 2012: 49-53); or even the effectiveness of different types of teacher feedback and correction and teachers?and students?attitudes towards teacher feedback (Wang, 2006: 24-30; Zhang & Liu, 2010: 115-118). These studies just singly focused on different aspects of teacher feedback, there are less studies on the combination of peer feedback and teacher feedback and explanation of theirs reliability and efficiency in EFL writing.In recent writing instruction, peer feedback (Richards et al., 2005: 128) refers to “the activity in the process of composition modifying and in this activity where students read peers? composition in groups and then make comments and suggest ions on them”. International writing researches firmed the application of peer feedback in ESL writing (Hansen & Liu, 2005: 31-38; Jacobs et al., 1998: 301-317 ). Also many scholars conducted researches from the perspective of cognition, who put forward that peer feedback could cultivate student?s analytic ability and expand their thinkingspace (Paulus, 1999: 265-289). In addition, students could also communicate with peers and improve the ability of using target language in specific communicative contexts (Hansen, 2005: 31-38). However, the researchers pointed out that although peer feedback could make up drawbacks for teacher feedback,its accuracy, reliability and efficiency are being questioned and the practical operation is needed to be explored further.From the above review, we can conclude that domestic and international scholars just singly conducted researches on either teacher feedback or peer feedback or made studies on the types, characteristics or strategies of feedback as well as a comparative study on peer feedback and teacher feedback. However, there are less researches on combing this two kinds of feedback from now on. Based on which, this study looks forward to making contribution to feedback in EFL writing by integrating peer feedback and teacher feedback.3. Definition of Terms3.1 Feedback TheoryFeedback is wisely seen in education as crucial for both encouraging and consolidating learning (Anderson, 1982; Vygotsky, 1978), and the importance has also been acknowledged in the field of English writing. In the traditional American dictionary (2006), feedback is defined as “transferring process and system input into a part of output”. In the process of writing, the effects of writing cannot be neglected. Keh (1990: 302) referred to feedback as an indispensable part in the process writing pedagogy.In language learning, feedback means evaluative remarks which are available to language learners concerning their language proficiency or linguistic performance (Larsen-Freeman, 2005). In the field of teaching and learning, feedback is defined as many terms, such as response, review, correction, evaluation or comment. No matter what the term is, it can be defined as “comments or information learners receive on the success of a learning task, either from the teacher or from other learners(Richards et al., 1998)”.A more detail description of feedback in terms of writing is that the feedback is “input from the reader to a writer with the effect of providing information to the writer for revision”(Keh, 1990). From the presentation of general grammatical explanation to the specific error correction is all the range of feedback. The purpose is to improve the writing ability of students by the description and correction of the errors.The role of feedback is to make writers learn where he or she has misled or confused the reader by supplying insufficient information, illogical organization, lack of development of ideas, or something like inappropriate word-choice or tense (Keh, 1999).From the perspective of teachers, feedback can be seen as a form of evaluation, aiming at producing a supportive teaching environment and helping students finish assignments better with the aid of feedback from the previous ones. From the perspective of learners, feedback can be considered as a self-assessment, which enables learners to see in what area they need to improve and understand. And feedback can be classified as teacher feedback and peer feedback in terms of the source of feedback which writers receive.3.1.1Teacher FeedbackTeacher feedback refers to the input provided by the teacher for the revision of students?writings or assessment of learning performance (Keh, 1990). Students usually hole the view that teacher feedback is more believable for the reason that it is originated from the influence of the traditional product-oriented approach in writing. And many teachers feel that they have the duty to make substantial comments on students?compositions for the purpose of giving a response to students?efforts, offeringassistance for the improvement of students? writing performance and justify the grades they acquired (K, Hyland, 2003).Researchers considered teacher feedback from various aspects—examining the nature of teacher?s responding behaviors in order to find out the effectiveness of teacher feedback (Connors & Lunsford, 1993; Ferris, 1997; Sommers, 1982; Zamel,1985); comparing students? perceptions of teacher feedback with those peer feedback (Chaudron, 1984); and analyzing students?views on teacher?s feedback (Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990; Hedgcock & Leftkowtz, 1992). The main method of response to the writing is the handwritten commentary on students drafts and teacher feedback is most emphasized in students?expectation for revision. One of the major issues that have been addressed is whether teachers? written comments can help students enhance their writing ability without checking the texts appropriately (Brannon & Knoblauch, 1982; Straub, 1996, 1997).In fact, several early L1 studies that teacher feedback does not serve serve as a mean of effective communication between teacher and student (Brannon & Knoblauch, 1982; Faigley & Witte, 1981). However, the role of teacher feedback on students? writing has transferred when it refers to second language learning. Although this mode may cause some wrong communication and misunderstanding between teacher and student, teacher feedback has the potential value for stimulating students to revise their drafts (Saito, 1994; Zhang, 1995) and to improve their writing (Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Ferris, 1995, 1997, 2006; Goldstein & Conrad, 1990). 3.1.2 Peer Feedback Different from teacher feedback, peer feedback is defined asthe use of learners as sources of information and interaction for each other in such a way that learners assume roles and responsibilities normally taken on by formally trained teacher, tutor or editor in commenting on and critiquing each others drafts in both written and spoken formats in the process of writing (Liu & Hansen, 2002). For many years, the unique benefits of language learners can offer to each other were ignored in writing classrooms, especially in ESL and EFL classrooms. The Process Writing Theory and The Collaborative Learning Theory have justified the use of peer feedback activities in the writing process. These theories have provided the evidence that peer feedback activities not only help L2 learners improve their writing ability but also their overall language abilities through the negotiation of meaning which typically take place during these activities.There are various forms in peer feedback, such as offering spoken suggestions and correcting errors in written form. The well-known mode of peer feedback of SL writing class is that students who work in pairs in small groups read peer?s compositions carefully, pointing out problems and doubts, and offer suggestions and comments (Richards et al., 2005). The essence of feedback is to hear multiple perspectives from a wide audience (Shepherd, 1992; Cho, Schunn, & Charney, 2006). This method, which is supported by the writing workshop pedagogy, and is widespread in the first language teaching.4. Theoretical Foundations of Feedback4.1 Collaborative LearningCollaborative learning, also called cooperative learning, is the second theoretical basis that back for the application of feedback in writing class (Hiltz, 1997). It is feasible that studentscommunicate actively with each other in the classroom.Collaborative learning emphasizes that both students and instructors participate and communicate actively (Hiltz, 1997). Collaborative learning is viewed from both behavioral and humanistic perspectives (Slavin, 1987). The behavioral perspective stresses that students are encouraged to study under a cooperative situation and rewarded in the form of group rather than individual ones. From the humanistic perspective, more understanding and better performance are gained from the interaction among peers. Hence, it is obvious that collaborative learning puts more attention to the influence of peers, which is different from the previous EFL writing theories (Johnson and Johnson, 1986).Collaborative learning makes it possible that students discuss and accomplish tasks that they can not do finish by themselves without higher motivation. Students acquire certain kinds of knowledge and benefit from each other in the way of spoken and written communication, which occurs in the atmosphere of collaborative learning.Researches in L1 writing has found that the writing is strengthened with the help of collaborative learning strategies (Bruffee, 1984). For example, students inwriting groups negotiate meaning as they revise the peers?writings; learning in writing teams is conducive to improving the students?writing proficiency (Gere, 1987).As to the impact of collaborative learning on L2 writing instruction, many benefits of applying collaborative learning strategies in the classroom has also been stated in the study. In some researches it is mentioned that students can make decisions reasonably and effectively compare notes from thecontent and application through the group work. Collaborative learning also offers students raise opportunities review and use their growing knowledge of L2 writing through interaction with peers in writing groups (Hivela, 1999: 8). There are many opportunities for students to share and communicate ideas with each other.4.2 Process-Oriented ApproachCompared with the product-oriented approach, the process approach is an essential component of composition instruction and research. It is obvious that product-oriented approach attaches great importance to grammar, spelling, punctuation and vocabulary and so on. The process-oriented approach in EFL writing began to appear in the late of 1960s and early 1970s in L1 writing (Elbow, 1973; Emig, 1971). The process-oriented approach was introduced to L2 studies by Vivan Zamel (1976). She argues that advanced L2 writers who are similar to L1 writers would benefit from this approach (Matsuda, 2003). Although there are various process approaches in writing instruction, some noticeable features can be concluded. The features of process-oriented approach are as followed:1)Putting attention to the process of writing rather than the final product;2)Offering suggestions and help to compose student?s writing;3)Putting forward strategies of pre-writing, drafting and rewriting;4)Attaching great importance to the stage of revising;5)Assisting students find the correct content when they write the compositions;6)Emphasizing feedback no matter from teachers or peers;7)Encouraging to hold individual feedback meetings in the groups throughout theprocess of writing.A process-oriented approach, which lays the first theoretical foundation for feedback that attaches great importance to the cyclical phases of writing, for example, pre-write, draft, revision, and edit and final draft. At the beginning, many tasks including producing a topic through reading or listening or analyzing the structure that has been carried out to the writing. Next, students from create the first drafts for further reading and revising by forming their ideas into a liner structure. Then, the second draft appears and the interactive activity among peers can be repeated after the second on the condition that there is enough for students to discuss their compositions. Finally, students accomplish the final draft based on the feedback from both peers and the teachers. Therefore, it is clear that process of writing is the center of process-oriented approach (Keh, 1990: 294). And the reader?s feedback exerted great influence on the multiple-draft process because it is the motivation for the writer get the final draft through the writing process.The importance of the revision process of writing has been strengthened (Leki, 1990) and how to revise the writing from the reader?s feedback has also become the focus of the process of writing (Zhang, 1995). Researches on the importance of revision are also emphasized that revision could help writer become mature and enrich their writing experience. Revision is seen as an essential procedure and a useful way of enhancing the quality of writing from the perspective of cognitive psychology (Fitzgerald, 1987). The strategies for planning and revising can be applied in classroom for students and multiple-drafts can offer morechances for students assess their writing critically (Becker, 2006).Reference:[1] Chaudron, C. The effects of feedback on students revisions [J]. RELC Journal, 1984, 15(2): 1-14.[2] Chaudron, C. Evaluating Writing: Effects of Feedback on Revision [J]. RELC Journal, 1984, 15(4): 1-14.[3] Cohen, A. and M. Cavalcanti. Feedback on Composition: Teacher and Student Verbal Reports[A]. B. Kroll. Learner Strategies in language Learning[C]. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1987, 57-69.[4] Connors, R., & Lunsford, A. (1993). Teachers?rhetorical comments on student papers. College Composition and Communication, 44, 515-524.[5] Faigley L & Witte, S. Analyzing revision [J]. College Composition and Communication, 1981, 32(4): 400-414.[6] Fathman K & Whalley E. Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content [A]. In Kroll B (ed.). Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990, 178-190.[7] Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33-53.[8] Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315-339.[9] Ferris, D. R. (1999). The Case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-10.[10] Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does Error Feedback Help Student Writers? New Evidence on the Short-and Long-term Effects of Written Error Correction.In Hyland, K, & Hyland, F. (Eds.), 81-104.[11] Ferris, D. R. and Roberts, B. (2001) Error Feedback in L2 Writing Classes: How explicit does it need to be ? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10: 161-184. [12] Goldstein, L,. & Conrad, S. (1990). Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 443-460.[13] Hedgcock, J. & N, Lefkowitz. Some Input: Two Analysis of Student Response to Expert Feedback in L2 Writing [J]. Modern Language Journal, 1996, (80): 287-308.[14] H yland, F. 1998. “The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers”. Journal of Second Language Writing 7: 255-286.[15] Jacobs, G. M., A. Gurtis, G. Braine & S. Huang. Feedback on Student writing: Taking the middle path [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1998, 7(3): 307-317.[16] Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods forimplementation. EFL Journal, 44(4), 294-304.[17] Liu, J. & J. G., Hansen. Peer Response in Second Language Writing Classroom [M]. The University of Michigan Press, 2002.[18] Lin, N. F. & Careless, D. Peer Feedback: The learning element of peer assessment [J]. CATESOL Journal, 2001, (3): 5-17.[19] Min, H. T. 2005. “Training students to become successful peer reviewers”. System 33/2.[20] Paulus, T. The effect of peer and teacher feedback on students?writing [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1999, 8(3): 265-289.[21] Richards, C. J. and R. Schmidt. (eds.). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics[J]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research press, 2005.[22] Saito, H. 1994. “Teachers …practices and students?preferences for feedback on second language writing:A case study of adult ESL learners ”. TESL Canada Journal 11.[23] Sommers, N. Responding to Student Writing [J]. College Composition and Communication, 1982, (33): 148-156.[24] Topping, K. Peer feedback between students in colleges and universities [J]. Review of Educational Research, 1998, 68(3): 249-276.[25] Tsui, A. B. & Ng, M. Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? [J]. Journal of Second Language writing, 2000, 9(2): 147-170.[26] Vygotsky, L. S.Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological process [M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978.[27] Zamel, V. Writing: The process of discovering meaning [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 1982, 16: 195-209.[28] Zamel, V. Responding to student writing [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 1985 (1): 79-101.[29] Zhang, S. Q. Examining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1995, 4(3): 209-222.[30] Zhu, W. Effects of teaching for peer feedback on students?comments and interaction [J]. Written Communication, 1995, 12(4): 492-528.[31] 贝晓武. 写作任务的练习效应和教师反馈对不同外语水平学生写作质量和流利度的影响[J]. 现代外语, 2009(4): 389-398+437.[32] 郭晓英. 英语写作评价模式的多元化设计[J]. 北京邮电大学学报(社会科学版), 2011, (4): 105-113.[33] 龚晓斌. 英语写作教学: 优化的同伴反馈[J]. 国外外语教学, 2007, (3): 49-53.[34] 韩冰. 同伴互评在大学英语写作教学中的功效—基于写作流利性, 复杂性及准确性的实证研究[J]. 教育理论与实践, 2009(21): 40-42.[35] 胡茶娟, 张迎春. 大学英语写作教学中的同伴互评效果的比较研究—基于135名学生的分组对照试验[J]. 湖南农业大学学报, 2011, (3): 68-72.[36] 李红, 吴胜梅. 英语写作中教师反馈对学生注意影响的研究概况[J]. 重庆大学学报(社会科学版), 2005(2): 88-91.[37] 孟晓. 同伴反馈在英语写作教学中的应用研究[J]. 山东外语教学, 2009, (4): 61-64.[38] 王俊菊. 总体态度, 反馈类型和纠错种类—对大学英语教师书面反馈的探究[J]. 国外外语教学, 2006(3): 24-30.[39] 王颖, 刘振前. 教师反馈对英语写作准确性, 流利性, 复杂性和总体质量作用的研究[J]. 外语教学, 2012(6): 49-53.[40] 徐颖. 英语写作教学中的同伴反馈[J]. 四川教育学院学报, 2010, (10): 76-79.[41] 谢晓燕. 大学英语专业课堂教师反馈研究[J]. 解放军外国语学院学报, 2011(2): 50-55.[42] 杨苗. 中国英语写作课教师反馈和同伴反馈对比研究[J]. 现代外语, 2006, (3): 293-301.[43] 朱秋娟. 反馈机制与写作教学—国内外研究及对大学英语写作教学的启示[J]. 长春理工大学学报(社会科学版), 2010, (3): 160-162.[44] 张义君, 刘燕梅. 教师反馈类型对大学生英语写作的影响[J]. 首都经贸大学学报, 2010(1): 115-118.[45] 周一书. 论同伴反馈在大学英语写作课堂中的有效性[J]. 江苏教育学院学报, 2013, (2): 121-124.。
二语写作反馈随着全球化的发展，学习和使用第二语言的需求越来越迫切。
而写作作为语言学习的重要组成部分，对于提高二语学习者的语言表达能力至关重要。
然而，二语写作常常面临各种挑战和困难，需要通过反馈机制来不断改进。
本文将探讨二语写作反馈的重要性以及有效的反馈策略，旨在帮助二语写作者提高写作水平。
二语写作反馈对于学习者的语言发展至关重要。
通过接受他人的反馈和指导，学习者能够更好地了解自己的写作问题并加以改进。
反馈不仅可以指出语法、拼写和标点错误，还可以帮助学习者提高词汇选择和句子结构。
例如，当学习者在写作中频繁使用同一个词汇时，反馈可以提醒他们多样化词汇的使用，以增强文章的表达力。
因此，二语写作反馈是学习者提高写作技能的重要途径。
有效的二语写作反馈需要符合一些原则。
首先，反馈应具体明确。
仅仅指出错误而不给出改进的建议对学习者来说是没有帮助的。
因此，反馈应该提供具体的例子和建议，以帮助学习者理解问题并找到解决方法。
针对不同的写作问题，可以采用不同的反馈策略。
对于语法错误，可以提供正确的语法形式并解释其使用规则。
对于词汇选择问题，可以提供同义词或近义词替换建议，并解释其语义差异。
对于句子结构问题，可以提供改写建议，以帮助学习者改进句子的结构和流畅度。
此外，可以引导学习者关注段落结构、逻辑关系和连贯性，以提高整体写作的组织和连贯性。
除了接受他人的反馈，学习者还可以通过自我反馈来提高写作水平。
自我反馈是指学习者自己对自己的写作进行评估和改进。
学习者可以通过重新阅读自己的作品，找出其中的问题并加以改进。
此外，学习者还可以参考优秀的范文，学习其中的语言表达和写作技巧。
通过自我反馈，学习者可以更好地理解自己的写作风格和问题，并逐步提高写作水平。
二语写作反馈对于学习者的语言发展至关重要。
通过接受他人的反馈和指导，学习者可以改进自己的写作技巧和表达能力。
有效的反馈应具体明确、鼓励肯定并及时给出。
此外，学习者还可以通过自我反馈来提高写作水平。
外语写作教学中同伴反馈法的理论基础探析摘要：同伴反馈是学生们相互交换阅读作文并提出修改建议的写作教学活动，在英语写作教学中应用广泛，具有良好的促学效果，比如增强读者意识，学习同伴写作的长处，培养反思能力，减轻写作焦虑等。
同伴反馈法以第二语言习得理论、社会建构主义理论、社会心理学理论等为基础，为同伴反馈的研究提供了理论依据，表明同伴反馈可以促进二语写作教学，也为学习者之间的合作和互动提供了机会。
本文通过梳理同伴反馈法的理论基础，以期促进外语教学工作者对同伴反馈法的理解及实际应用。
关键词：外语写作教学；同伴反馈；理论基础一、同伴反馈法介绍在外语写作教学中，修改是必要环节之一，在外语写作中起着重要作用。
作文修改的质量取决于作者的写作能力和读者反馈的有效性（Hedgcock & Lefkowitz，1992）。
外语写作课的反馈可主要采取教师反馈、同伴反馈、自查和软件反馈等四种形式。
在我国外语写作教学中，教师反馈一直占据主导地位，随着以学习者为中心、合作学习等教学理论的兴起，国内外写作教学研究者也在努力探索能够激发学生学习热情，促进学生主动学习、自主学习和有效学习的方法与手段，其中写作同伴反馈日益受到关注。
同伴反馈的产生有两个重要的背景。
首先，它是伴随由教师中心向学生中心教学理念转变的过程中产生的。
在传统的英语写作教学中，教师普遍采用以行为主义为基础的教学法。
这种教学法指导下的写作课堂，教师处于主导地位，注重机械的输入和输出，学生的交际能力得不到足够的训练。
其次，它是在学生中心理念的指导下，解决二语学习中大课堂教师无法关注到每个学生，以及教师批改负担过重的困境，弥补教师反馈的局限而产生和发展的。
在以教师为中心的传统课堂上，教师反馈在写作过程中占有绝对权威的地位，学生只能被动接受并按照教师的反馈对写作进行修改（Mendonca & Johnson，1994）。
正是在上述背景下，诸多学者从上个世纪80年代开始探究同伴反馈作为写作教学中的主要评价方式取代教师反馈的可能性，并取得了丰硕的研究成果。
外语写作中同伴反馈的原则与方法作者：才亚楠来源：《教书育人·高教论坛》2010年第11期20世纪70年代以来，随着心理语言学的产生和发展，二语(外语)写作教学中传统的结果教学法(product approach)逐渐被过程写作法(process writing)所取代，二语写作研究的重点已从评估学生成稿(the written product)转向探索学生写作过程(thewritingprocess)。
写前准备、写作和评改(反馈)三个环节并非是一次性完成的线性过程，而是相互交织、循环往复的过程。
评改已不再是写作教学中的最后步骤，作为提高作文质量和写作能力的一个有效环节，其作用得到了外语研究者的广泛认可。
外语写作研究领域中，反馈作为主要的研究课题之一。
近30年来备受关注。
其研究焦点主要集中在反馈的形式和种类，各种反馈的作用、学生对反馈的评判等方面。
本文着重探讨了同伴反馈在大学外语写作当中一些基本原则和操作方法。
对于同伴反馈的评价对于同伴反馈的作用，写作教学界至今仍存在较大的争论。
一些研究者在理论探索的基础上通过实证发现，同伴反馈有多方面的作用。
例如，它给学生提供了真实的读者，鼓励学生有目的地写作并增强他们对自己写作能力的信心；学生通过交流、沟通、协商逐步完成并优化了写作任务，充分发挥了学生在学习中的主体作用，真正实现了以学生为中心的自主和自助的交际法写作模式(Keh，1990：294-296；Ferris．1995：33；Tsui&Ng，2000：168；Mangelsdorf，1992：274；戚焱，2004：47；张英等，2000：24；蔡兰珍，2001：41；杨文滢、胡桂莲，2003：59)。
一些过程写作教学法的倡导者也认为同伴反馈既是教师反馈的有益补充，又能通过互动促进二语发展(Long&Porter，1985)。
但也有不少研究对同伴反馈中出现的问题表示担忧，这些问题包括学生在大多数情况下，只注意文章的形式，而不太关注内容和意义层面(教师反馈也存在这种倾向)；学生对同伴的反馈能力比较怀疑、缺乏信任等(cressweli，2000：236-237；Dheram，1995：161；Muncie，2000：50；Yagelski，1995：216；Stod-dard&Macarthur，1993：76)。
二语写作中的同伴反馈研究综述一、引言同伴反馈，也被称为同伴互评、同伴校正等，指的是学生相互阅读对方作文，并对作文进行提问、评论或提出建议的写作修改活动。
同伴反馈作为形式性评估，与教师反馈相互补充，同时是合作学习的形式之一。
受合作学习理论、过程教学法及理论的影响，自20世纪80年代末以来，二语写作中的同伴反馈受到了广泛关注。
本文拟从同伴反馈的有效性、学生对同伴反馈的接受程度、同伴反馈在二语课堂的具体实施等方面进行评述，以期对二语写作教学和反馈研究有所启示。
本文中的“二语写作”指作为非母语的写作，包括英语作为第二语言和外语的写作情况。
二、同伴反馈有效性的研究大量研究已经证实了同伴反馈的有效性，它在提高学生二语写作水平方面的作用不可忽视。
Nelson和Murphy（1993）研究了中等水平二语学习者能否有效地参与到同伴反馈活动中，能否从中受益。
受试是4名来自不同国家的ESL 大学生。
经过连续6周的观察，发现虽然受试人数较少，但是这些学生的确能够成功参与同伴反馈，而且这类同伴反馈活动有助于改进他们的修改策略。
Mendonca和Johnson（1994）研究了二语写作课上学生使用同伴反馈的情况，结果发现同伴互评为学生提供了充分表达自己想法，以及和同伴协商彼此观点的机会，能够增强学生的读者意识，促使学生在写作中扮演更积极的角色。
为了探究同伴反馈对二语写作的影响，Villamil和De Guerrero（1998）对14名ESL大学生进行了实证性研究，发现同伴反馈能够帮助中等水平的二语学习者认识到自己有能力修改同伴的作文，能够提高学生的学习自主性，对写作质量的提高有积极作用。
De Guerrero和Villamil（2000）研究了双人反馈小组中同伴反馈的作用，结果发现学生之间互相阅读和评阅对方的作文，通过对作文的反馈，同伴可以看到自己作文中语言及篇章中出现的问题，通过对比和学习别人的写作，个人可以看到自己对同伴作文修改中的参与及贡献，激发写作兴趣和信心，从而逐渐提高写作能力。
