首页> 外文期刊>Computer assisted language learning >EFL writing revision with blind expert and peer review using a CMC open forum
【24h】

EFL writing revision with blind expert and peer review using a CMC open forum

机译:使用CMC开放式论坛进行EFL写作修订,盲人专家和同行评审

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

This exploratory computer assisted-language learning (CALL) study used a computer-mediated communication (CMC) interface to allow English as a foreign language (EFL) writing students in classes at two universities to give each other anonymous peer feedback about essay-writing assignments reacting to selected news stories. Experts also provided feedback review. Follow-up questions were facilitated by the interface. The students felt that they benefitted from the instructional design, but found that the peer review focused most on things like grammar whereas the experts focused on organization and structure, making the expert feedback more valuable. Researchers found that more complex issues discussed in the source news articles resulted in lower outcome scores, based on a rubric, than did source material simpler issues. The study also compared performance of students with higher and lower ability and evaluated the quality of the review comments. Conclusions and recommendations for practice are provided. This study is significant because it used CALL/CMC technology to provide online interactivity between students and reviewers in an open forum that allowed students to seek follow-up clarification to the comments of reviewers. The review process, therefore, was not a one-way anonymous communication from reviewer to student but rather allowed interactive discussion of the points and suggestions made by the reviewers.
机译:这项探索性计算机辅助语言学习(CALL)研究使用计算机介导的交流(CMC)界面,允许英语作为外语(EFL)在两所大学的班级里写学生,以互相匿名地就论文写作作业提供反馈对选定的新闻报道做出反应。专家还提供了反馈审查。该界面简化了后续问题。学生们觉得他们从教学设计中受益匪浅,但发现同行评议最侧重于语法之类的东西,而专家则侧重于组织和结构,从而使专家的反馈更有价值。研究人员发现,根据新闻标题,源新闻文章中讨论的更复杂的问题所导致的结果得分要比原始材料更简单的问题要低。该研究还比较了能力较高和较低的学生的表现,并评估了评论的质量。提供了实践结论和建议。这项研究意义重大,因为它使用CALL / CMC技术在一个开放的论坛中提供学生和审阅者之间的在线互动,该论坛允许学生寻求对审阅者评论的后续澄清。因此,审阅过程不是审阅者与学生之间的单向匿名交流,而是允许对审阅者的观点和建议进行交互式讨论。

著录项

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