Probing into the Patterns of Pair Interaction in EFL Learners’ Peer Feedback Dynamics: Written Discourse in Focus

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 PhD Candidate in TEFL, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran

2 Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran

Abstract

The present study attempted to explore the patterns of pair interaction in peer feedback dynamics to facilitate the quality of peer feedback and the quality of English writing among EFL learners while communicating ideas through written discourse. This qualitative case study was conducted with 12 (six pairs) EFL learners. To this aim, 12 out of 18 EFL learners from a writing course over 16 weeks, a session per week, during the first semester of 2019-2020 at Poldokhtar University were selected. The revised Bloom’s taxonomy model was transferred to the learners in the workshop. Three kinds of data, including semi-structured interview transcripts, 12 writing assignments, and artifacts of peer feedback dynamics, were analyzed by the QSR NVivo 8 software. The findings revealed that the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy Model is more acceptable for peer feedback dynamics using patterns of pair interaction which provides a six-step model of critical thinking. The process of peer feedback dynamics was summarized as three steps: intake, critical thinking, and output. Each of the three steps had several mental processes in peer feedback dynamics. Accordingly, the amount of learners’ awareness resulted in their critical thinking. The more the learners were cognizant of their pair interaction and the feedback they received, the more they could criticize the tasks and class activities. Furthermore, the results showed that the pair interaction led to more motivation, cooperation, and confidence. When the learners were confident, they felt comfortable. In conclusion, during peer feedback dynamics, there was a cyclic relationship among the affective variables, including the learners’ awareness, critical thinking, motivation, cooperation, and confidence. 

Keywords


Article Title [فارسی]

بررسی الگوهای تعاملی دونفره در پویایی بازخوردهای همکلاسی فراگیران زبان انگلیسی: با تاکید و تمرکز بر بحث نوشتاری

Authors [فارسی]

  • حمید رضا خلجی 2
  • فرامرز عزیزملایری 2
2 گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه آزاد ملایر، ملایر، ایران
Abstract [فارسی]

تحقیق حاضر تلاشی در جهت بررسی الگوهای تعاملی دونفره در پویایی بازخوردهای همکلاسی بمنظور تسهیل کیفیت بازخوردهای همکلاسی و کیفیت نوشتار انگلیسی میان فراگیران ایرانی زبان انگلیسی بعنوان زبان خارجی حین ایده های ارتباطی از طریق بحث نوشتاری بود . یک مطالعه موردی کیفی روی 12 نفر (6 جفت) از فراگیران زبان انگلیسی اجرا شد. جهت تحقق این امر، 12 نفر از 18 زبان آموز از یک دوره نگارش پیشرفته طی یک دوره 16 جلسه ای، در هر هفته یک جلسه، در طول ترم اول سال تحصیلی 1399-1398 در مرکز آموزش عالی پلدختر انتخاب شدند. مدل طبقه بندی اصلاح شده بلوم به فراگیران در آموزشگاه منتقل شد. سه نوع داده ازجمله رونوشت مصاحبه های نیمه ساختار یافته، دوازده تکلیف نوشتاری، و ابزارهای بازخوردهای پویای همکلاسی از طریق نرم افزار QSR NVivo8 تجزیه و تحلیل شدند. یافته ها نشان دادند که مدل طبقه بندی  اصلاح شده بلوم برای بازخوردهای پویای همکلاسی با استفاده از الگوهای تعاملی دونفره که یک مدل شش مرحله ای تفکر انتقادی را ایجاد می کند بیشتر قابل قبول است. فرایند بازخوردهای پویای همکلاسی بعنوان سه مرحله دریافت، تفکر انتقادی، و خروجی خلاصه شد. هرکدام از سه مرحله چندین فرایند ذهنی در بازخوردهای پویایی همکلاسی داشتند. بنابراین میزان آگاهی فراگیران به تفکر انتقادی آنها منجر شد. فراگیران هرچقدر بیشتر از تعامل دونفره و بازخوردهای دریافتی آگاه می شدند، بیشترقادر به نقد از تکالیف و فعالیت های کلاسی می شدند. علاوه براین، نتایج حاکی از این بود که تعامل دونفره منجر به انگیزش، مشارکت و اعتماد به نفس بیشتر شد و در نتیجه زبان آموزان احساس آرامش بیشتری داشتند. در پایان، در طول این فرایند یک رابطه چرخه ای میان متغیرهای موثر ازجمله آگاهی فراگیران ، تفکر انتقادی ، انگیزه و مشارکت و همچنین اعنماد به نفس ایجاد شد. دلالت های آموزشی این یافته ها بحث شده است.

Keywords [فارسی]

  • زبان آموزان ایرانی
  • الگوهای تعاملی دونفره
  • بازخورد همکلاسی
  • مهارت نوشتاری
Allharbi, M.A. (2019). Patterns of EFL learners’ and instructor’s interactions in asynchronous group discussion on free writing. Arab Society of English Language Studies. https://doi.org/10 .28945/4143.
Asikainen, H., Virtanen, V., Postareff, L., & Heino, P. (2014). The validity and students’ experiences of peer assessment in a large introductory class of gene technology. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 43, 197-205.
Bassham, G. (2009). Critical thinking: A student’s introduction (4th edition). McGraw- Hill.
Bazeley (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K., (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (4th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education Group.
Brusa, M & Harutyunyan, L. (2019). Peer review: A tool to enhance the quality of academic written productions. English Language Teaching, 12(5). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n5p30
Chang, Y. H. (2016). Two decades of research in L2 peer review. Journal of Writing Research, 8(1), 81-117. https://doi.org /10.17239/jowr-2016.08.01.03.
Cohen. (2007). Research methods in education (7th ed.). London: Routledge.
Cresswell, J. W. (2007) Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Ellis, R. (2003). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Farrah, M. (2012). The impact of peer feedback on improving the writing skills among Hebron University students. An-Najah University Journal for Research, 26(1), 179-210
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to Student Writing. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81-104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hall, J.K. & Walsh, M. (2002). Teacher-student interaction and language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 186-203.
Hirose, K. (2008). Cooperative learning in English writing instruction through peer feedback. Retrieved from: jasce.jp/conf05/hirosepaper.doc.
Hu, G. & S. T. E. Lam. (2010). Issues of cultural appropriateness and pedagogical efficacy: Exploring peer review in a second language writing class. Instructional Science, 38, 371-394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9086-1
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing: Contexts and Issues. New York: Cambridge University Press. https:// doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524742.
Javadi-Safa, A. (2018). A brief overview of key issues in second language writing teaching and research. International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies, 6(2), 15-25. https://doi.Org /10.7575/aiac.ijels. v.6n.2p.15.
Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal, 44(4), 294-304.https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/4 4.4.294
Khalil, E. (2018). The efficacy of peer feedback in Turkish EFL students’ writing performance: Journal of Literature and Art Studies, 8(6), 920-931. https :// doi .org/10.17265/2159-5836/2018.06.011
Kunwongse, S. (2013). Peer Feedback, Benefits and Drawbacks. Thammasat Review, Special Issue, 2013.
Lai, C. (2016). Training nursing students’ communication skills with online video peer assessment. Computer & Education, 97, 21-30.
Lee, Man-Kit. (2015). Peer feedback in second language writing: Investigating junior secondary students’ perspective on inter-feedback and intra-feedback. System, 55, 1-10.
Lei, Z. (2017). Salience of student written feedback by peer-revision in EFL writing class. English Language Teaching, 10(12), 151-157. https: //doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n12p151
Liu, N. & Carless, D. (2006). “Peer feedback. The learning element of peer assessment”. Teaching in Higher Education. 11(3). 279-290.
Lu, J., & Law, N. (2012). Online Peer Assessment: Effects of Cognitive and Affective Feedback. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 40(2), 257-275.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9 177-2
Luk, J., & Lin, A. (2007). Classroom Interactions as Cross-cultural Encounters: Native Speakers in EFL Lessons. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classrooms: What do the students think? ELT Journal, 46(3), 274-284. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt /46.3.274
Melmann, P. (2015). Linguistic data types and the interface between language documentation.
Merkel, W. (2018). Role reversals: A case study of dialogic interactions and feedback on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 39,16-28.
Min, H.-T. (2016). Effect of teacher modeling and feedback on EFL students’ peer review skills in peer review training. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 43-57. https://doi.Org/10.1016 /j.jslw.2016.01.004
Morris, J. (2001). Peer assessment: a missing link between teaching and learning? A review of the literature. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 13(1), 41-49.
Muller, A., & Gregoric, C. (2017). The impact of explicit instruction and corrective feedback on ESL postgraduate students’ grammar in academic writing. Journal of academic language and learning, 11(1), A125-A144.
Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. Van Merrie¨nboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 125-143), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nazari, A., & Warty, T. (2018). Academic subject areas and English language learning strategies: Any relationships? Journal of Language and Education, 4(3), 58-68.  doi: 10.17323/2411-7390-2018-4-3-58-68
Olsen, R., & Kagan, S. (1992). About cooperative learning. In C. Kessler (Ed.), Cooperative Language Learning: A teacher’s Resource Book (pp. 1-30). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Orsmond, P., Maw, S. J., Park. R. J., Gomez, S., & Crook, C. A. (2013). Moving feedback forward: Theory to practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(2), 240-252. https: //doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.625472
Oxford, R. L. (1997). Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction: Three communicative strands in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 443-456. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781 .1997.tb05510.x
Pawlak, M. (2011). Second language learning and teaching. Springer.
Pol, J., Berg, B.A.M., Admiraal, W. F, & Simons, P. R. J (2008). The nature, reception, and use of online peer feedback in higher education. Computer & Education, 51, 8104- 1817.
Poulos, A., & Mahony, M. J. (2008). Effectiveness of feedback: The students’ perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, 143-154.
Rast, R. (2008). Foreign language input: initial processing. United Kingdom: Cromwell press Limited. Retrieved from http://books.Google.Com.Pk /books.
Reynolds, A. (2009). Why Every Student Needs Critical Friends. Educational Leadership, 67(3), 54-57.
Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Tutor learning: The role of explaining and responding to questions. Instructional Science, 36, 321- 350.
Rubiyah, S. et al.(2018). IMPLEMENTING CONCEPT MAPPING TECHNIQUE TO IMPROVE STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTIVE WRITING ABILITY. Language and Language Teaching Journal http://e-journal.usd.ac.Id /index.php/LLT Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia -ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 21, No. 1, April 2018.
Sadiku, L. M. (2015). The importance of four skilled reading, speaking, writing listening in a lesson hour. European Journal of Language and Literature Studies, 1(1), 29-31.
Schraw, G., & Robinson, D. (2012). Assessment of higher order thinking skills. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.
Steffensen, S.V., Fowler, C., & Trousdale, G. (2017). Language sciences: Half a century on the linguistic frontiers. Language Sciences, 59, A1-A4. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2016.11.003.
Steinlen, A. K.(2018). The development of German English writing skills in a bilingual primary school in Germany. Journal of Second Language Writing, 39, 42-52.
Storch & Aldosari, (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research 17(1) 31–48.
Vanden Berg, I., Admiraal, W., & Pilot, A. (2006). Designing student peer assessment in higher education: Analysis of written and oral peer feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 1(2), 135-147. doi:10.1080/13562510500527685.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yu, S., Lee, I., & Mak, P. (2016). Revisiting Chinese cultural Issues in peer feedback in EFL writing: Insights from a multiple case study. Asia-Pacific Education Research, 25(2), 295-304.
Zhang, X. & Ardasheva, Y. (2019). Sources of college EFL learners’ self-efficacy in the English public speaking domain. English for Specific Purposes, 53, 47-59. doi: 10.1016/j.e.2018.09.004.
Zhang, S. (2009). The role of input, interaction and output in the development of oral