首页> 外文学位 >The efficacy of peer review in a university-level ESL writing class.
【24h】

The efficacy of peer review in a university-level ESL writing class.

机译:在大学水平的ESL写作课堂中,同行评审的功效。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Currently, there is a great debate concerning whether peer review is an effective activity in the university-level English-as-a-Second-Language writing classroom. Peer review offers the unique opportunity for second-language writers to share their writing, evaluate others' work, and discuss their observations and opinions about writing in an authentic environment. Despite these theoretical advantages, some studies indicate that peer review is not very effective in the ESL classroom because students doubt the accuracy and validity their peer's comments. Cross-cultural and cross-linguistic issues can further complicate the activity. Indeed, peer review in an ESL classroom can be pedagogically tricky.;This study investigated the interactional dynamics of peer review sessions in university-level ESL writing classrooms. Participants were recorded during one peer review session; after the session, they had the chance to make changes to their drafts. Participants turned in both rough and final drafts of their papers, and also offered feedback regarding how helpful and effective they found peer review to be. The spoken data were evaluated to determine the types of interactions that occurred and their functions. The written data were evaluated to determine the quantity and quality of the changes that the participants made. The two data sets were then compared to determine whether (and to what extent) the peer review interactions led to improvements on the drafts.;The data indicated that suggestions made during peer review correlated to positive changes if the participants negotiated the suggestion, and if the suggestion pertained to global-level issues in the paper. While the data showed that participants preferred to make changes unilaterally, it also indicated that peer-reviewed suggestions correlated with a higher percentage of positive changes than writer-initiated suggestions. Further, the data indicated that peer review was particularly favored by those participants who had no previous experience with this activity. These results indicated that peer review is an effective activity, especially for students who are new to it. It is best framed as supplementary to the student's existing writing process. Future research should focus on triangulating the data with post-activity student interviews, in order to corroborate the results.
机译:当前,关于同级复习是否在大学英语作为第二语言的写作课堂中是一项有效的活动,存在着激烈的辩论。同行评议为第二语言作者提供了独特的机会,可以分享他们的作品,评估他人的作品,并讨论他们在真实环境中对写作的看法和观点。尽管有这些理论上的优势,但一些研究表明,同行评议在ESL课堂上不是很有效,因为学生们怀疑同行评议的准确性和有效性。跨文化和跨语言问题会使活动进一步复杂化。的确,在ESL课堂上进行同行评审可能是教学上的棘手。;本研究调查了大学级ESL写作教室中的同行评审会议的互动动态。在一次同行评审会议中记录了参与者。会议结束后,他们有机会对草案进行了更改。参与者上交了论文的草稿和最终稿,还提供了有关他们认为同行评审有多有用和有效的反馈。对语音数据进行评估,以确定发生的互动类型及其功能。对书面数据进行评估,以确定参与者所做更改的数量和质量。然后将这两个数据集进行比较,以确定同行评议的互动是否(以及在多大程度上)导致了草案的改进。;数据表明,如果参与者协商了建议,以及如果参与者进行了协商,则同行评议期间提出的建议与积极的变化相关该建议与本文中的全球性问题有关。尽管数据显示参与者更愿意单方面进行更改,但它也表明,与同行评审相比,与作者发起的建议相比,积极改变的比例更高。此外,数据表明,同行评审特别受那些以前没有从事这项活动的参与者的青睐。这些结果表明,同行评审是一项有效的活动,特别是对于刚接触它的学生而言。最好将其设计为学生现有写作过程的补充。未来的研究应着重于通过活动后学生访谈对数据进行三角剖分,以证实结果。

著录项

  • 作者单位

    The University of Alabama.;

  • 授予单位 The University of Alabama.;
  • 学科 Education Language and Literature.;Language Linguistics.
  • 学位 M.A.
  • 年度 2009
  • 页码 184 p.
  • 总页数 184
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 语言学;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号