********************************************************************= ***********

********************************************= ***********************************

Name: Heat= her Maclean

Email: = heather.= maclean@canyons.edu

Phone: 5934<= /o:p>

Department: ESL

Class: Full-Time<= o:p>

Title: Effects of e-peer review on ESL student writing

Students: = 80

B1: Submit

ResearchQuestion:

Originally, I wanted to discover how ESL students would respon= d to anonymous electronic peer feedback. However, this changed over the course of the project to:<= /span>

How do ESL students respond to oral electronic peer feedback? =

Also:

How do students respond to electronic oral peer feedback? (are changes to essays made? Are comments well taken? A= re comments ignored?)

Is oral peer feedback valuable to ESL students?

Summary:

The study included the following participants:

Group A English 101 students (revie= wers) (22)

Group B ESL 100 students (writers) (20)

Group C ESL 100 students (reviewers) (15)

Group D ESL 080 students (writers) (15)

Group E ESL 100 non-writers/reviewers (12)

Group F ESL 080 non-writers/reviewers (14)

Process

The students were introduced to the project in different ways.

English 101 Reviewers were self-selectors and had the extrinsic motivation of extra credit. They were introduced to the project by Professor Brezina and were simply instructed as to what to do in a one-hour workshop. <= /span>

The ESL 100 writers were self-selectors. Their motivation was a better grade.

These students were using yackpack for other purposes and so w= ere familiar with the system. They had also gone through peer feedback workshop= s in class and had experienced my own oral feedback through yackpack. Thus, they were well prepared for = the reviews.

The 080 writers were self-selectors but some had to be cut bec= ause there weren’t enough reviewers and I chose the ones to not get feedba= ck (I eliminated the top writers). These writers, as noted, were in a late start class, but were quickly introduced to the concept of peer feedback and the same categories as used = by the reviewers. Their inductio= n into yackpack was efficiently done (as I had done it three times before this!) <= o:p>

What they did

The writers in Group B wrote 1250-, 1500-, and 1750-word essay= s.

The writers in Group D wrote 300-350 word paragraphs.

The reviewers were asked to submit three “yacks” f= or each piece of writing:

Yack One – Structure and Unity<= /span>

Yack Two – Coherence and Content

Yack Three – Grammar and Language

Reviewers were provided with examples of comments to make with= in each of these areas. Professor Brezina’s students had been doing a lot of peer review covering simil= ar areas and my own students are graded on these areas for their written work,= so the terms were not unfamiliar to them.

Group A English 101 students (revie= wers)

Group B ESL 100 students (writers)

Group C ESL 100 students (reviewers)<= /span>

Group D ESL 080 students (writers)

Group A reviewed Group B

Group C reviewed Group D

Group E no review (ESL 100)

Group F no review (ESL 080)

Groups were deliberately set up so that the reviewers were considered a higher level than the writers. This was important for both the reviewers and the writers.

Collection Procedure

This was the arduous part for the analysis came in the listeni= ng. Also, much of it came toward the end of the semester. To preserve the yacks, I used soft= ware to pull them off the site and store them.&= nbsp; I then began logging number of comments in the following categories.=

For Structure, Unity, Coherence, Content, Grammar & Langua= ge, time spent was noted, and the number of positive comments and the number of negative comments were tallied.

Grades were then listed systematically for each student. For Group B and Group D, the origi= nal grade and the post-review grade were noted. For Group E and Group F, the original grade and the no-review rewrite grade were noted.

Grades are currently being analyzed to determine any patterns = or relationships between feedback and improvement in grade. (Sorry, this is ta= king a long time, but I am new to statistical analyses and am getting help from friends; it’s time-consuming).

Early Results and Observations=

While the statistical analysis is still underway, there are ea= rly observations to be made.

Providing feedback requires practice and skill.

Providing feedback increases student confidence.

Revising work based on oral feedback takes time. A small numbe= r of students went for the “fast fix” of correcting grammar when oth= er areas were the real problem. =

Students were concerned that the feedback provided might be “wrong.” The 080 students were especially wary of this and need= ed a safety net of assurance that their reviewers were capable. This is where using higher levels = to review lower levels was effective.

I will submit specific tables etc. when I am done. =

Modifications:

The timelines set up in the proposal did not work, for the ESL= 080 class was a late-start class. Also the sheer amount of labor that was to go into the original idea of setting = up a website for all these students to access documents and to monitor proved to= be overwhelming. Thus, the original plan changed to using oral feedback through essentially, a voice-messaging website, Yackpack. This, of course, changed the natur= e of the research question as noted above.

Unequal numbers of students submitting work for feedback and number of reviewers. For the English 101 students, there was extra credit so to be fair and enable them = to earn what was offered, I had to submit 080 paragraphs to one group of Engli= sh 101 reviewers. The categories= were the same; the length that they had to review was markedly shorter, so each reviewer was given two paragraphs. <= /span>

Learn:

Although this began as a traditional investigation into feedba= ck on writing, it became a modern project using technologies of Web 2.0 and so-called social networking websites. That made the traditional interesting and for many students more relevant. <= /span>

As an instructor, I learned many things from this research including:

ESL students respond well to oral feedback - the voice personalizes the comments.

ESL students respect the level system and tend to trust feedba= ck from a higher level.

ESL students respect native-speakers as reviewers.<= /span>

In giving feedback, students need training, direction, and practice.

In responding to feedback, students need training, direction, = and practice. <= /span>

Oral feedback pushes ESL students to hone listening skills.

Future students will benefit greatly from this research as I intend to continue the investigation of oral feedback especially for ESL students. In extending the investigation, I would consider using native-speakers as the reviewers for = all levels leading to more collaboration between English and ESL. I have never had great success wit= h peer feedback within the ESL classroom - students were consistently reticent abo= ut giving and taking others' comments. This research changed the whole dynamic of feedback within my classr= oom and has provided me with a vision for a collaborative, modern, and effective means of making feedback on wriitng assignments available and valuable to my students.