Scaffolding during Peer Response Sessions

Lin, Sandra Sim Phek; Samuel, Moses

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.147

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Patterns of feedback that are exploratory functioned as advising, eliciting and questioning as well as responses to questions and clarifications of information and intended meaning (Stanley, 1992). Other functions are seeking-providing explanations of particular aspects of written texts (Mendonca & Johnson, 1994;Mendonca & Johnson, 1994;Min, 2005;Lin & Samuel, 2013), requesting-providing clarifications (Zhu, 1995;Villamil & De Guerrero, 1996;McGroarty & Zhu, 1997;Min, 2005;Hanjani & Li, 2014), comprehension-check and response (Mendonca & Johnson, 1994;Hanjani & Li, 2014) and seeking confirmation and confirming understanding (Mendonca & Johnson, 1994;Lin & Samuel, 2013;Hanjani & Li, 2014).…”

Section: The Language Functions Of Interactional Feedback Exchanges Imentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They also exchanged restatement, grammar corrections (Mendonca & Johnson, 1994;Mendonca & Johnson, 1994), identfied problems in their texts (Beason, 1993;Zhu, 1995;Min, 2005;Lin & Samuel, 2013), summarized points, expressed intentions (Lockhart & Ng, 1995) and decribed various aspects of texts (Beason, 1993) and restating or repeating (Lin & Samuel, 2013;Hanjani & Li, 2014). …”

Section: The Language Functions Of Interactional Feedback Exchanges Imentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A review of previous studies on ESL/EFL learners’ interactional feedback exchanges in face-to-face and computer-assisted peer review of writing

Saeed

Ghazali

Aljaberi

2018

Int J Educ Technol High Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is a review of previous studies on learners' interactional feedback exchanges in face-to-face peer review (FFPR) and computer-assisted peer review (CAPR) of English as Second/Foreign Language (ESL/EFL) writing. The review attempted to (1) identify the patterns of interactional feedback, (2) search an empirical evidence of learners' incorporation of peer interactional feedback in their text revisions and (3) identify the factors affecting learners' interactional feedback as reported in these previous studies. To achieve this, a search of previous studies on peer review in writing from 1990 to 2016 was conducted. However, only 37 out of 58 peer reviewed studies were extensively reviewed and systematically analyzed by two independent coders. The findings showed that in terms of the language functions, learners' interactional feedback exchanges are categorized as (1) exploratory (showing learners' reflection and interpretation of the task), (2) procedural (showing how learners handle the task of revising their texts) and (3) social (showing how learners maintain good relationships). In relation to the nature and focus areas, learners' interactional feedback exchanges are revision-oriented (targeting problems or errors in written texts) and non-revision-oriented (do not target any problems). Results of some previous reviewed studies also provided evidence of learners' integration of peer feedback into their text revisions. However, peer interactional feedback is affected by several factors: training learners on feedback, mode of peer review, type of written tasks, learners' roles in peer review activties, learners' proficiency in English and other factors, including learners' gender differences and configuration of peer review dyads as well as context of peer review. Synthesizing the findings of the reviewed studies, we proposed a dual space-interactional feedback model that comprises the learning space and the social space of interactional feedback in peer review. Several pedagogical, research and technological implications were also drawn from the major findings. Future researchers should pay attention to both spaces of interactional feedback and identify further factors affecting interactional feedback in peer review.

show abstract

Section: The Language Functions Of Interactional Feedback Exchanges Imentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Language Functions Of Interactional Feedback Exchanges Imentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of previous studies on ESL/EFL learners’ interactional feedback exchanges in face-to-face and computer-assisted peer review of writing

Saeed

Ghazali

Aljaberi

2018

Int J Educ Technol High Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The nature and types of scaffolding in students' interactions in collaborative learning have been investigated by various studies. Findings of the studies show that collaboration among students in the learning process helps students to develop their learning skills/output (Lin & Samuel, 2013). They in their study revealed that students, who received the scaffold in solving illstructured problems during an online discussion, produced better quality argumentation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In a related study, Shehadeh (2011) found the content, organization, and vocabulary of students' L2 writing significantly improved after undergoing collaborative writing. In a later study, Lin and Samuel (2013) observed that students scaffold one another in writing compositions by providing correction of errors, in grammar, spelling followed by using questions, repeating words or phrases or suggestions, providing an explanation, providing confirmation and identifying errors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Exploring the Nature of Undergraduatesâ€™ Peer Collaboration in a PBL Writing Process

Aliyu

2020

ijole

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the importance of writing skills to academic success, many undergraduates face a lot of challenges with writing in English. Studies have shown that engaging and supporting students in a writing process help to improve the students’ writing performance. Therefore, this study used a Problem-based learning approach (PBL) in order to give students opportunities to be engaged and support one another in a writing process through face-to-face interactions. The paper specifically reports what the students do to support their peer in the PBL writing process. An intact class of 18 second-year students in an English Composition course in Nigeria was selected to participate in the study. Data were obtained through audio- and video-recording of the students’ face-to-face interactions. The findings showed that the participants supported theirs peer through various ways in the PBL process such as modelling their facilitators, sharing tasks and responsibilities, clarifying instructions and unclear terms, using dictionary, suggesting other sources to get more information, checking for consensus, creating humour, encouraging others to participate and raise their voices while speaking, restating time given to a session and giving overview of a previous session. The support provided by the peers helped the students to improve their writing. The study has some implications for writing teachers.

show abstract

“…Previous research has demonstrated that this reciprocal scaffolding strategy is a helpful, supportive, guiding, and engaging technique that teachers may utilize and select while teaching English, particularly when teaching writing skills (Ahangari et al, 2014;Lin & Samuel, 2013;Majid et al, 2015;Rachael, 2013;Yasinta, 2014). They report that the scaffolding technique improves students writing skills.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effectiveness of reciprocal scaffolding technique on students’ writing skill

Zuhra

Muslem

Daud

2022

EEJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objectives of this research were to investigate the effectiveness of using the reciprocal scaffolding technique on students’ writing skills and the students’ responses toward the implementation of the technique in the teaching and learning process at the second-year student of State Junior High School 1 Kutamakmur, North Aceh. The samples for this study were drawn in two customized groups using a random sampling approach with class VIII/b as the experimental group and class VIII/d as the control group forming a total of 52 students. The data for this study were gathered using a test and a questionnaire. The data were analyzed to determine the difference in the t-test scores between the two groups. The statistical results showed that the control group’s mean pre-test score was 50.15, which was lower than the experimental group’s 51.69. Meanwhile, the mean score of the experimental group in the post-test was 70.88, which was higher than the control group’s 58.34. The significant value for both groups in the post-test was 0.00, which is less than 0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis was accepted. It indicates that teaching writing while employing reciprocal scaffolding more effectively improves the students’ writing than teaching without it. In addition, the questionnaire that was presented to the experimental group revealed that the students gave positive responses toward the use of reciprocal scaffolding techniques in teaching writing.

show abstract

Scaffolding during Peer Response Sessions

Cited by 7 publications

References 19 publications

A review of previous studies on ESL/EFL learners’ interactional feedback exchanges in face-to-face and computer-assisted peer review of writing

A review of previous studies on ESL/EFL learners’ interactional feedback exchanges in face-to-face and computer-assisted peer review of writing

Exploring the Nature of Undergraduatesâ€™ Peer Collaboration in a PBL Writing Process

The effectiveness of reciprocal scaffolding technique on students’ writing skill

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About