Feedbacks on Revision Effect of University Students' English Argumentative Essays

doi:10.13766/j.bhsk.1008-2204.2018.0162

Abstract

Abstract:

Based on feedback theories, the paper examines the effects of three types of feedback (machine feedback, peer review and teacher feedback) on the revision of university students' English argumentative essays. 127 students from a prestigious university in Beijing answered the questionnaires, 47 of whom were interviewed. The results showed that the three types of feedback had their own merits and drawbacks and differed from one another in such aspects as focus, levels of being specific and serious, speed and interaction, that they all could identify the strengths and weaknesses in writing and offered suggestions accordingly, and that teacher feedback was the most effective, followed by peer review and machine feedback.

Key words: English argumentative essay, feedback theory, machine feedback, peer review, teacher feedback

CLC Number:

H319

DU Ning, HE Fang, LU Wenrong. Feedbacks on Revision Effect of University Students' English Argumentative Essays[J]. JOURNAL OF BEIJING UNIVERSITY OF AERONAUTICS AND A, 2019, 32(4): 124-130.

References

[1] EGGEN P D,KAUCHAK D P. Educational psychology:windows on classrooms (4th ed.)[M]. Boston, MA:Pearson,1999:53.
[2] BITCHENER J,KNOCH U. The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback[J]. System, 2009(37):322-329.
[3] ASHWELL T. Patterns of Teacher Response to Student Writing in a Multiple-draft Composition Classroom:Is Content Feedback Followed by Form Feedback the Best Method?[J] Journal of Second Language Writing, 2000, 9(3):227-257.
[4] 孙燕青.第二语言学习中的反馈[J].心理科学进展,2005,13(2):156-161.
[5] ALLEN D,KATAYAMA A. Relative second language proficiency and the giving and receiving of written peer feedback[J]. System, 2016, 56(1):96-106.
[6] CARTE S,KUMAR V. "Ignoring me is part of learning":Supervisory feedback on doctoral writing[J]. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 2015:1-8.
[7] MACGREGOR G,SPIERS A,TAYLOR C. Exploratory evaluation of audio email technology in formative assessment feedback[J]. Research in Learning Technology, 2011, 19(1):39-59.
[8] STROBL C. Attitudes towards online feedback on writing:Why students mistrust the learning potential of models[J]. ReCALL, 2015(27):340-357.
[9] TRUSCOTT J. The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes[J]. Language Learning, 1996, 46(2):327-369.
[10] CAUKL N. Comparing teacher and student responses to written work[J]. TESOL Quarterly, 1994, 28(1):181-188.
[11] 吴炜.教师反馈焦点与反馈策略对英语写作修改效果的交互影响[J].解放军外国语学院学报, 2015, 38(2):85-89.
[12] VYGOSTKY L S. Mind in society:The development of higher psychological processes[M]. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,1978:86-90.
[13] LIU M,CHAI Y. Attitudes towards peer review and reaction to peer feedback in Chinese EFL writing classrooms[J]. TESL Reporter, 2009, 40(1):33-50.
[14] 许悦婷,刘骏.基于匿名书面反馈的二语写作反馈研究[J].外语教学理论与实践,2010(3):44-49.
[15] GASKELL D,COBB T. Can learners use concordance feedback for writing errors?[J] System, 2004(32):301-319.
[16] SHINTANI N. The effects of computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous direct corrective feedback on writing:a case study[J]. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 2015, 29(3):517-538.
[17] 王淑雯.如何利用Writing Roadmap 2.0进行在线英语写作反馈[J].现代教育技术,2011,21(3):77-82.
[18] WYRICK J. Steps to writing well[M]. Beijing:Peking University Press,2008:96.
[19] CHARMAZ K. Constructing grounded theory[M]. London:Sage,2006:32-38.
[20] COHEN J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.)[M]. New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,1988:87.
[21] EARLS T D. Something there is that doesn't love a dissertation, that wants it filed away[J]. The English Journal, 1987, 76(2):49-52.
[22] FERRIS D R. The influence of teacher commentary on student revision[J]. TESOL Quarterly, 1997, 31(2):315-339.
[23] 顾暄.浅析同伴反馈教育理论在高职英语教学中的应用[J].中国校外教育,2014(6):66+83.