Peer review: Perceptions of low proficiency secondary students in Hong Kong writing classroom
1.0 Area of Investigation
The title suggests that this study is a writing classroom-based investigation of low proficiency secondary students in CMI schools in Hong Kong. CMI stands for Chinese as the Medium of Instruction. My research primarily aims to incorporate peer reviews in this setting. For this research, peer review will be defined as the process of providing feedbacks and constructive criticisms on paper to improve language proficiency. Peer review is simply an evaluation process that involves the participation of students.
2.0 Background of the Study
Importantly, the Chinese had established traditional method of writing instruction. Writing is a part of the Chinese curriculum as Chinese believes that language is the most direct way for mankind to communicate information and exchange idea. Writing course is important and runs in the first two years of learning. The development of good writing habits is the main goal thus writing workloads are increased gradually. Writing quality of the students is generally poor because they lack certain abilities. These abilities include choosing appropriate words, organizing texts and perceiving and analyzing things.
Because teaching English writing in Chinese speaking areas is challenging, an action is to employ methods that are process-based as opposed to traditional, formal and structural methods of teaching writing. Another reason is that methods used should teach students to learn deeper independently. One of the popular methods used inside classrooms are peer reviews. Peer review refers to the process of subjecting your own work with the analysis of others – students in our case.
One of the benefits of peer review is the development of critical reading and analysis skills. Peer review also focuses on intended meaning through discussing alternative views and further develops ideas. It also complements teacher feedbacks. However, there is also a disadvantage and that is peer review is a very complex process which requires training and structure in order to be effective (Paulus, 1999).
In Hong Kong secondary classrooms, writing has an important role to play. Writing activities prepare students for the HKCEE or the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination which measures English language competency of student. Lee (2007), however, discovered that peer and self-evaluation are rarely used inside writing classrooms. This is because writing processes are very examination oriented. He asserted that learning through feedbacks should be formative. Feed backing should be treated as important and influential in the shaping the language learning characteristics of students.
3.0 Statement of the Problem
English teaching is recently regaining its popularity in China but this is not without difficulties. Although there are textbooks for writing to standardize the writing course, there are challenges experienced at classroom levels. Specific problems within classrooms are writing is perceived to be an assessment rather than a learning process and students hardly learn from composition lessons. Students are also not interested and have low motivation to learn writing. Further, students do not revise their work and heavily rely on teachers’ feedback. Writing as an evolving process is not taken seriously at least by the students. I should take note that writers have different composing practices and different needs than native English speakers.
3.1 Research Questions
The key questions that will be addressed in this study are: 1) To what extent do peer reviews affect the language proficiency of secondary writing students in Hong Kong? And 2) Does peer review improve the overall quality of the students’ work? In particular, other research questions that will be given answers to are:
1) Considering their levels of language proficiency, are secondary students able to perform peer reviews effectively?
2) What are the types of comments that student reviewers usually make during peer review? Which among grammatical accuracy, discourse level, impression marking and general comments is the most common?
3) Do students make use of their peer’s comments in the revision activities?
4) What are the perceptions of students toward peer review? Do they find it useful/beneficial?
3.2 Research Aims and Objectives
Further, the main aim of this study is to investigate how peer reviews, as a process, could lead to improvements in writing schools in Hong Kong. In connection, specific objectives are as follows:
- To analyze to what extent students are able to perform peer review
- To explore the perceptions of students about peer reviews
- To investigate the challenges and difficulties experienced by students in doing peer reviews
- To evaluate the role of peer comments in revision activities
4.0 Significance of the Study
By means of studying the importance of peer reviews in writing classrooms, this study would be able to encourage students to view writing as an evolving and mutual helping experience. I hope that students would learn the importance of peer collaboration and how it could likely to influence their language performance. As I already mentioned that student writers have totally different needs than native speakers, this research would be also significant in identifying and responding to those needs in a real life scenario.
I will be using a multi-draft strategy. It would be important to identify these needs at all stages of the writing process. The study would be also essential in determining the effectiveness of peer reviews in the revision process. In this way, improvements in writing could be measured. Changing negative attitudes toward peer review could be also addressed through this study especially in how students build a collaborative classroom environment.
I am expecting a role in the schools environment in the future. It is my role to contribute to literatures concerning teaching and learning processes. In addition, this study will be important for teachers and schools officials because it will increase their understanding of implementing peer reviews inside writing classrooms especially in schools where Chinese is the medium of instruction. For educational policy makers, whether it is important to regulate or to introduce local initiatives about region wide peer review implementation could be addressed through this study.
5.0 Theoretical Framework
There are two learning theories that support the aims of my study: constructivism and connectivism. Constructivism learning theory, according to Piaget (1967) is a psychological theory of knowledge wherein learners generate knowledge and meaning from their own experiences. The theory claims that the learner is a unique individual with own motivation for learning. The responsibility for learning tells that us learners look for meaning themselves or construct own understanding. One of the influences of learners is the cultural and social background of the learner. Constructivism theory emphasized that the learner is actively involved in the learning process. The nature of the learning process is active and a social process and there is a dynamic interaction between task, instructor and learner. There is also collaboration among learners.
Connectivism learning theory, on the other hand, is primarily applied on online learning but there are insights that are meaningful for this study. The principles of connectivism applicable are learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions, learning is a process of connection, capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known, nurturing and maintaining connections facilitate continual learning and decision-making is itself a learning process (Siemens, 2005).
Further, there are learning domains which to be considered to understand deeper the learning process that is taking place. Accretion is the first domain. Learning in this domain is continual and an embedded process. Transmission is the second and learning happens through courses. Learning is receiving content and exploring new ideas is the trait of this domain also. The third domain is acquisition. It maintains that learning is self-selected. Traits of acquisition domain include learning is learner-motivated and collaborative. Group, collaborative and needs-based learning happens in this domain. Emergence is the fourth domain which claims that learning as cognition and reflection. The traits of this domain are learning is learner constructed, personal and subjective (Wilson, 2003).
6.0 Literature Review
Teaching peer reviews
Stanley (1992) claims that students must be taught on how to be specific when responding and how to comment on what needs to be improved. Mangelsdorf (1992) also suggested techniques in effective peer review. Students need to practice through reading a couple of drafts in class. Teachers are also required to point out the strengths and weaknesses of a composition where reviews should be based. The class should also review a draft together so that all involved will know what to do exactly.
Effectiveness of peer review
Chiang (2008) noted that various studies are highlighting the benefits of peer review to writing students. This is the main reason why more and more teachers are choosing to implement peer review in their writing classes. However, even teachers are finding difficulties in the implementation like students are reluctant to give comments to their classmates while others believe that they are basically incompetent in doing reviews. In making peer reviews to be effective, establishing a supportive community is important. Teachers could create a collaborative learning environment so that students will free in commenting on other’s work. Teachers, further, should also explain and make students realize the purpose and value of peer reviews. Teachers must point out to the students that revision and editing are important steps in the writing process. An effective review could be also determined by means of effectiveness of modeling technique used by the teacher. Practicing will be also a significant process.
Benefits of peer review
Students will be given the opportunity to develop own and other’s English proficiency because peer reviews could provide them the chance to develop criteria for evaluation. This is significant for students to learn deeper, become more aware and become more critical with their writing abilities (Silva, 1990). Savignon (1991) assert that through peer review, the writing-learning will be more process- and student-centered. Unlike in traditional classroom setting, writing is like spoon-feeding where teachers are the primary actors when it should be the student writers. Teachers are also motivated to produce results than the process of producing such. Tsui and Ng (2000) offer the same view when they mention that peer review focuses more on the development of the writers as learners. This is perceived to be more informative than teacher’s feedback.
Urzua (1987) states that peer review is also an opportunity for students to interact by means of talking to one another, negotiating meanings and generating ideas together. Students are able to acquire an in-depth knowledge on the text type and structure of writing aside from enhancing attitude toward writing. This is because the attitude of the learner in general is improved in the process of peer review especially that they are working in a supportive environment (Tsui and Ng, 2000).
Positive students’ perception at university level
Saito (1994) investigated the level of acceptance of peer review among university students and found out that 80% indicated that peer review is indeed useful. Gao (2007) also noted that peer review is effective in revisioning which is a positive reaction towards peer review. For English majors in a Chinese university, peer review has advantages that outweigh the disadvantages. Students think that they are writing for a purpose and an audience that will inspect their compositions.
Limitations of implementing peer review
Nelson and Murphy (1993) discovered that secondary students do not trust their peers’ comments that is why they choose to revise their works based on their rather than depend on the comments. While they believe that peer review is useful to students, students also believe that teachers are the only authorized figure in the English language classroom. Nelson and Carson (1998) also discovered that when asked about their preference, teachers’ comments are still the preferred choice rather than peer comments. Based on the interview of four secondary university students, teachers’ comments are only integrated in revisioning.
7.0 Research Design and Methodology
7.1 Research Design
My study will be an action research; it is writing classroom-based as mentioned already. Action research focuses on community of practice for the purpose of improving ways of addressing issues and solving problems. Action research also aims at improving strategies, practices and knowledge of the environment where practice is taking place. In here, I as the researcher am already a part of the environment as I will enter a teaching practicum next year. I will collaborate with local school officials to conduct my research with CMI schools.
7.1 Subject
I am planning to have my teaching practicum in a school that uses Chinese language as a medium of instruction (CMI) in Hong Kong. Most probably I will be teaching F1 or F2 students (junior form). Their English level proficiency is generally low. Students are expected to be all native Chinese language speakers. I also expect that these students have basic English proficiency therefore they are capable of composing both narrative and descriptive compositions.
7.2 Instrumentation
There are at least four instruments that the study will utilize such as peers’ comment worksheet, written data from the first and second draft, questionnaire and interview schedule. Peer comment worksheet will be given to students and will serve as the evaluation worksheet. Peer comment worksheet will be used to answer the second research question. There will be three categories to be evaluated: form, content and general comments. Form is grammar and structure while content is the ideas. First draft will be evaluated and the second will be the evaluated draft. The second draft is the product of revision activities. Changes made in the second draft in accordance with the comments will be noted and tallied afterwards. First and second draft will be compared and the number of changes will be analyzed to answer the third question. There will be two sets of questionnaires: first for the reviewers and second for the student writers. Questionnaires will be designed for the purpose of answering the first and the fourth research questions. An interview schedule will be prepared and will be asked during focus group interview. Depending on the number of the students, three focus group interviews will be done. Interviews will be also done after the review and after writing the second draft. Focus group interviews involving students will answer the fourth question as well.
7.3 Procedures
The first part is modeling the technique where input to students in two lessons will be accomplished by the teacher. The teacher will also show the students how to review drafts during lessons including the procedures of peer review and the techniques on giving feedbacks. It will be also the teacher’s task to highlight the main points. Suggested improvements will be collected through class discussions. A pilot feedbacking will be done where the teacher will distribute a sample text and the class will discuss the topic. Sample feedbacks will be collected. The students will also complete an evaluation sheet as guided by the teacher. The class will practice revising based on the evaluations of language and content. This is the process of peer review that students should be engaged in making the two drafts.
In writing the first draft, the students will be given a topic to work on. Since this is the first draft, the topic will be carefully chosen and which students have significant level of interest. The first drat will be written in the first lesson of 100-150 words. The first topic will be general because exact level of proficiency of students is still not yet known.
Peer review session will be the next step. This work will be done in ½ lessons wherein students will read other’s work, evaluate the work and then complete a peer review form. Teacher will only collect the compositions and distribute it to students to make the necessary reviews with the peer comment worksheet. The names will not be included in the composition; papers will be kept anonymous. It would be better to use coding system for this that only the teacher will know. To ensure that papers will not be given to the owners, an imaginary division will be used whereby the class will be divided into two. Papers of the two groups after putting codes will be exchanged. The name of the reviewer will be put in the paper they are going to review.
After the review has taken place, the teacher will collect the papers and the peer comment worksheet and will be given to the owners. Returning drafts to corresponding students for revision before handing in will take ½ lessons also. Questionnaires will be then distributed afterwards. Student will be given 10 minutes to complete the questionnaire. Second drafts will be then produced based on the comments by the students on the worksheet.
After finishing and collecting the second draft, the second set of questionnaires for the student writers will be distributed. It will also take 10 minutes to answer the questionnaire. Questionnaire will involve questions on usefulness of peer comments in editing their compositions.
Focus group interviews will be conducted after this and will be recorded. Interviews would be important to be aware of the insights of students as both writers and reviewers. The focus of the interview is sense-making of the whole process.
7.4 Suggested Time Frame
The cycle will be repeated for three times. All of which will not involve teacher intervention. Teachers will only act as facilitators. All works will be also done in lessons. There are four lessons per cycle for three cycles therefore there will be a total of 12 lessons.
7.5 Data Analysis and Presentation
Peer comment worksheet will be evaluated through tallying method. The categories or themes that occur most frequent will be tallied. Categories will be broadly defined as discourse including content, development, clarity and organization; sentence including structure, connectives and grammatical accuracy and word including choice of words.
Analysis of the drafts will be on the number of revisions made by the writer as detailed in the comment worksheet. The teacher will label it as R for Revised and NR for Not Revised. In cases, that students made necessary changes that are not included in the worksheet, the label will be ROW for Revised at Own Will.
The questionnaires will be analyzed using weighted mean and percentage. Themes that arise from the focus group interviews will be analyzed using discourse analysis.
References
Chiang, K. (2008). Factors that Matter to Effective Peer Review. Language Support Division.
Gao, J. (2007). Teaching Writing in Chinese Universities: Finding an Eclectic Approach. Professional Teaching Articles, 20(2).
Lee, I. (2007). Feedback in Hong Kong secondary writing classrooms: Assessments for learning or assessment of learning. Assessing Writing, 12(3): 180-198.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: what do the students think? ELT Journal, 46, 274-284.
Nelson, G. L. & Carson, J. G. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness of peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, II3-I3I.
Nelson, G. L. & Murphy, J. M. (1993). Peer response groups: do L2 writers use peer comments in writing their drafts? TESOL Quarterly 27, 135-142.
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The Effect of Peer and Teacher Feedback on Student Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing.
Piaget, J. (1967). Logique et Connaissance scientifique. Encyclopédie de la Pléiade.
Savignon, S. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of art. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 261-277.
Saito, H. (1994). Teacher’s ‘practices and students’ preferences for feedback on second language writing: A case study of adult ESL learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11(2): 46-70.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1).
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Development issues and direction. In B. Knoll (Ed.) Second language writing (pp 11-23) New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 217-233.
Tsui, A. B. M. & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefits from peer comments? Journal of second language writing, 9 (2): 147-170.
Wilson, L. (2003). Different types of learning – transmission, acquisition, accretion and emergence.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment