a comparative study of peer and teacher feedback i

AcomparativestudyofpeerandteacherfeedbackinaChineseEFLwritingclassYangMiaoa,1,RichardBadgerb,*,YuZhenc,2aShantouUniversityMedicalCollege,ZhongpingStreet8/2-301,Shantou,Guangdong,ChinabSchoolofEducation,UniversityofLeeds,LeedsLS29JT,UnitedKingdomcEnglishLanguageCenter,ShantouUniversity,Guangdong,ChinaAbstractFeedbackplaysacentralroleinwritingdevelopment.ThisisparticularlysointertiaryeducationinChinabecauseofboththeattitudesoftutorsandstaffandalsothemovetowardsamoreprocessorientationtoteachingwriting.However,constraintsresultingfromexamination-focusedprogrammesandthenumberofstudentsineachclassmeanthattheprovisionoffeedbackislimited.ThisstudyexamineswhetherpeerfeedbackmayprovidearesourceforaddressingthisissuebyexaminingtwogroupsofstudentsataChineseUniversitywritingessaysonthesametopic,onereceivingfeedbackfromtheteacherandonefromtheirpeers.Textualandquestionnairedatafrombothgroupsandvideorecordingsandinterviewsfrom12individualstudentsrevealedthatstudentsusedteacherandpeerfeedbacktoimprovetheirwritingbutthatteacherfeedbackwasmorelikelytobeadoptedandledtogreaterimprovementsinthewriting.However,peerfeedbackwasassociatedwithagreaterdegreeofstudentautonomy,andsoeveninculturesthataresaidtogivegreatauthoritytotheteacher,thereisaroleforpeerfeedback.#2006ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.Keywords:Teachingwriting;Teacherfeedback;Peerfeedback;ChinaContextofstudyDespitetheimportanceattachedtowriting,teachingwritingisoftenathanklessjob.EnglishteachersinChina‘‘suffer’’fromthe‘‘tediousandunrewardingchore’’ofcorrectingstudents’essays(Hyland,1990).EventhoughfeedbackisvaluedveryhighlybystudentsandteachersJournalofSecondLanguageWriting15(2006)179–200*Correspondingauthor.Tel.:[phone](O)/[phone];fax:[phone].E-mailaddresses:[e-mail](M.Yang),[e-mail](R.Badger),[e-mail](Z.Yu).1Tel.:[phone]Tel.:[phone].1060-3743/$–seefrontmatter#2006ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004(Brick,2004;Hu,2002),themistakesintheseessayskeeponrepeatingthemselves.Thisispartiallytodowiththenumberofstudentsineachclass.Intheuniversitywheretwooftheresearchersteach,asinmuchofhighereducationinChina,classsizesarerising.Fortyiscommoninthisuniversity,butweknowofclassesofover100students.Italsoareflectionofthewaysinwhichwritingistaught.Thereisconsiderablevariationinthis,butclassesareoftenfocusedonexampracticeand,eveninnon-examclasses,studentsproduceonlyonedraftandreceivefeedbackonthis.Toillustratethispoint,wewilldescribewhathappensintheresearchuniversity,whichweconsidertobetypicalofChineseuniversities.StudentsreceiveonehourofinstructioninwritinginEnglishperweekduringa16-weekwritingcourse.Followingafacultydecisionaboutthewaywritingistaught,theteacherresearcher’sclassesusetheprocessorientedwritingactivitybookoftheNorthStarseries(Solorzano,2003).Unfortunately,administrativeconstraints,thelocalcultureofeducation(e.g.Hu,2002;Scollon,1999),andclasssizemeansthat,inpractice,thefocusofthewritingclassisonstudentproducts.Blocksoflessonsbasedonthisbookgenerallyconsistofthreestages:theteacherpresentssentence(e.g.theuseofthepastperfect),paragraph(e.g.theuseoftopicsentences),ortextlevelknowledge(e.g.comparison/contrastessays)byacombinationofexamplesentences,paragraphs,ortextsandadiscussion,largelyinEnglish.Thestudentsthenusethisknowledgetowritetexts,orparagraphs,normallyoutofclass.Finally,theteacherevaluatesthestudentwriting.Thereissomevariationinthekindoffeedbackprovidedbuttheteacherresearcher,whowasnotinthisrespectparticularlyunusual,lookedatorganization,thedevelopmentofideas,grammar,andvocabulary.(ThepeerfeedbacksheetinAppendixAisbasedonthisteacher’sfeedbackprocedures.)TherehasbeenmuchdiscussionwithintheEnglishdepartmentabouthowtomanagetheprovisionoffeedbackinawaymoreconsistentwithprocessapproaches,sothatstudentsreceivefeedbackondraftsbeforesubmittingfinalproducts(e.g.Tribble,1996;White&Arndt,1991)inwaysthatareconsistentwiththetimeavailabletostaffandtheclasssize.Thisstudyinvestigateswhetherpeerfeedbackmightbeausefulresourcetoaddressthisissue.Beforewecouldimplementtheuseofpeerfeedback,therewasanethicalconcernthatneededtobeaddressedbyexaminingtheliterature.Thisrelatedtotheimpactofpeerfeedbackonwritingdevelopmentandtherelatedissueofstudentattitudestopeerfeedback.SaitoandFujita(2004)commentthatthereisapersistentbeliefamongteachersthatstudentsareincapableofratingpeersbecauseoftheirlackoflanguageability,skillandexperience(p.48).SimilarviewsarereportedinRollinson(2005,p.23).OnecommentatorpointsoutthatChineseeducationplacesagreatemphasisonmaintainingahierarchicalbutharmoniousrelationbetweenteacherandstudent.Studentsareexpectedtorespectandnottochallengetheirteachers.(Hu,2002,p.98)SuchrelationsmaymakepeerfeedbackparticularlyproblematicinChina.Weneededtobesurethatourinvestigationwasnotdamagingthewritingdevelopmentofourstudents.AsZhang(1995)putsitweneededtobesurethattheanticipatedbenefitsareadequatetocompensatefortheattendingaffectivedisadvantage(p.219).M.Yangetal./JournalofSecondLanguageWriting15(2006)179–2