Comparison of the Effects of Peer- versus Self-editing on Linguistic Accuracy of Iranian EFL Students

Abadikhah, Shirin; Yasami, Fariba

doi:10.17576/3l-2014-2003-09

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As Bitchner and Ferris (2012) have stated, "peer review activities can be used to help students apply and practice specific self-editing strategies they have been taught" and can "build student confidence in self-editing skills" (p.155). The learning benefits of peer feedback is mutual since not only the student writers but also the student reviewers or editors can improve their writing skills by means of observing their classmates' approaches to writing, and internalizing writing criteria and standards (Abadikhah & Yasami, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

EFL Students’ Perceptions of Teacher Feedback and Intra-Feedback in Writing Essays

Kazemi

Abadikhah

Dehqan

2018

KJHSS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines EFL students’ perceptions of teacher feedback and intra-feedback in writing essays in an EFL university context. Traditionally, teachers who were considered more knowledgeable provided feedback to students' writing. Recently, peer feedback is considered as an alternative form of feedback, which involves a dynamic process of reviewing and discussing one another’s text in a writing class. Intra-feedback, another form of peer feedback, is a reviewer-oriented practice in which two reviewers discuss their comments provided individually on the composition of another student. This paper investigates 21 EFL students’ perceptions of teacher feedback and peer feedback using intra-feedback technique. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected using a questionnaire and follow-up semi-structured interviews. The results of the questionnaire indicated that students perceived teacher feedback to be most useful in improving the content, organization and language of their essays. From the interviews with the students, their preferences toward feedback provider, feedback focus, feedback provision and intrafeedback inclusion were elicited. Some pedagogical implications for the EFL writing instruction can be made including creation of opportunities for students to become aware of effective reviewing techniques, improvement of peer feedback quality and increasing students’ confidence and critical thinking.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

EFL Students’ Perceptions of Teacher Feedback and Intra-Feedback in Writing Essays

Kazemi

Abadikhah

Dehqan

2018

KJHSS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In other words, this subtle difference of success can partly be attuned to the amount of attention. However, some studies (Abadikhah & Yasami, 2014;Winarto, 2018) concluded that both peer-review and self-edit strategies equally improved students' writing and did not mention any superiority between two EC strategies. Different from studies tested merely the linguistic effect of these tech-niques, Warsono (2017), together with approving the efficiency of self-editing, underlined the importance of motivation level during EC course, and concluded that student in PRG succeeded better when they had high motivation, which shows that student readiness and willingness should not be overlooked while creating a PRG (as this study sought consent and willingness from students to make peer-review).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determining Efficient Post-writing Activity for Error Correction: Self-editing, Peer review, or Teacher Feedback?

Demir

2021

PortaLin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Writing in English has always been a formidable obstacle for learners; accordingly, many studies aimed to find not band-aid but complete solutions for learners to improve their writing proficiency. One of these solutions, largely thought to reduce language errors, is error correction. However, instructors seem to be alternating between different corrective feedbacks with the purpose of determining the most efficient one for their students. Previous research largely compared peer feedback and teacher correction and ignored self-editing. In this sense, this study investigated three error correction methods, namely self-editing, peer review, and teacher corrections. To achieve this, three student groups were created and each group, composed of 10 students, was tested with one method. Wilcoxon, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney U tests were employed for analyses and the results yielded significant differences in terms of all methods concerning comparisons of pre- and post-tests. On the other hand, the test to determine inter-group differences found significant results for the method of teacher correction. Furthermore, the most frequent linguistic errors in students’ writing were revealed. This research contributes to teaching pedagogy by comforting instructors regarding the efficiency of teacher correction and suggests instructors focus on particularly spelling, punctuation, and article to prompt writing development.

show abstract

“…Despite receiving insufficient support from faculty teachers, students drew on many resources and strategies or alternative feedback techniques (e.g., Abadikhah & Yasami, 2014;Ferris, 2006;Mawlawi Diab, 2016) to deal with linguistic errors in their writing. Motivated mainly through personal goals, career plans, and constant and unlimited access to a vast repertoire of online learning resources, many students took the initiative to proofread or edit their written work to better prepare for exams or impress their teachers for better marks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even when time is in short supply or administrative duties deprive them of this opportunity, faculty may seek out ways to familiarise students with alternative feedback strategies and resources to make better compromises between knowledge of the language and disciplinary knowledge whenever and wherever necessary (Hyland, 2013a;Wingate & Tribble, 2012). To raise students' awareness of such strategies, teachers can, for example, encourage them to visit writing centres, learning clubs and labs and engage in formative assessment techniques such as self-and peer-editing activities (Abadikhah & Yasami, 2014;Mawlawi Diab, 2016;Naghdipour, 2021). Providing whole-class feedback on the most common errors through designing short mini-lessons of 15 to 20 minutes (Mansourizadeh & Abdullah, 2014;Nusrat et al, 2019) after each major student submission could be another initiative to help students minimise language-related errors in their writing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To diversify written corrective feedback practices and supplement teacher response with more social and student-centred feedback activities, alternative strategies such as peercorrection and self-correction have been introduced in different learning contexts (e.g., Abadikhah & Yasami, 2014;Ferris, 2006;Mawlawi Diab, 2016;Shen et al, 2020). Teachers usually train students to help them better identify and correct errors in their own or peers' work to enhance the effectiveness of such alternative practices.…”

Section: Accuracy Development In L2 Writing Classesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exploring Omani EFL Students’ Written Linguistic Accuracy Development in Disciplinary Contexts

Naghdipour

Kadhim

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is generally assumed that undergraduate students' L2 written linguistic accuracy develops naturally in academic contexts as they engage in disciplinary content. To provide evidence of linguistic accuracy development in EFL writing, this study examines university students' ability to identify and correct linguistic errors (spelling, grammar and punctuation) in their writing and the mediational means or resources they consult to deal with such errors in disciplinary contexts. A mixed-method approach was employed to collect quantitative and qualitative data from undergraduate students (N = 60) who took a first-year essay writing course at a major university in Oman. In addition, Fourth-year, third-year, and second-year students majoring in social sciences proofread their essays written for the course final exam in the first semester of their studies. All participants were also interviewed to obtain insights into the likely resources and strategies they used to improve the linguistic accuracy of their writing. The results revealed that the length of the study was not a key factor affecting students' written linguistic accuracy development, as fourth-year students significantly outperformed their counterparts only in identifying and fixing the surface-level spelling and punctuation errors. Furthermore, the students' use of learning strategies and resources varied depending on individual factors such as future academic goals and career prospects. The paper concludes with a discussion of pedagogical implications and future research directions in EFL contexts.

show abstract

Comparison of the Effects of Peer- versus Self-editing on Linguistic Accuracy of Iranian EFL Students

Abstract: The present study aims at investigating the relative effects of peer versus self-editing on EFL students '

Cited by 6 publications

References 51 publications

EFL Students’ Perceptions of Teacher Feedback and Intra-Feedback in Writing Essays

EFL Students’ Perceptions of Teacher Feedback and Intra-Feedback in Writing Essays

Determining Efficient Post-writing Activity for Error Correction: Self-editing, Peer review, or Teacher Feedback?

Exploring Omani EFL Students’ Written Linguistic Accuracy Development in Disciplinary Contexts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About