دانشگاه الزهرا

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات25
تعداد شماره‌ها967
تعداد مقالات8,010
تعداد مشاهده مقاله13,573,704
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله9,616,349
Bahadoranfard, Saeid, Jafarigohar, Manoochehr, Soleimani, Hassan. (1403). TEFL Master’s Degree Students’ Incorporation of Peer Feedback in Academic Texts. جلوه هنر, 8(1), 139-163. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2023.41413.1751
Saeid Bahadoranfard; Manoochehr Jafarigohar; Hassan Soleimani. "TEFL Master’s Degree Students’ Incorporation of Peer Feedback in Academic Texts". جلوه هنر, 8, 1, 1403, 139-163. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2023.41413.1751
Bahadoranfard, Saeid, Jafarigohar, Manoochehr, Soleimani, Hassan. (1403). 'TEFL Master’s Degree Students’ Incorporation of Peer Feedback in Academic Texts', جلوه هنر, 8(1), pp. 139-163. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2023.41413.1751
Bahadoranfard, Saeid, Jafarigohar, Manoochehr, Soleimani, Hassan. TEFL Master’s Degree Students’ Incorporation of Peer Feedback in Academic Texts. جلوه هنر, 1403; 8(1): 139-163. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2023.41413.1751

TEFL Master’s Degree Students’ Incorporation of Peer Feedback in Academic Texts

Journal of Language Horizons
مقاله 6، دوره 8، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 19، شهریور 2024، صفحه 139-163    اصل مقاله (555.97 K)
نوع مقاله: Research article
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/lghor.2023.41413.1751
نویسندگان
Saeid Bahadoranfard1؛ Manoochehr Jafarigohar* 2؛ Hassan Soleimani3
1Department of TEFL and English Literature, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran.
2Department of TEFL and English Literature, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran,
3Department of TEFL and English Literature, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده
The examination of the literature reveals that scant attention has been paid to L2 graduate students’ engagement with feedback on their academic texts. To fill this gap in the literature, the current study investigated the engagement of 53 TEFL master’s degree students with peer comments using a host of data collection and analysis tools, including eye-tracking, stimulated recall interviews, and content analysis. The participants exchanged computer-mediated comments on an academic writing task (i.e., thesis proposal) and were asked to revise their texts based on these comments while their eye movements were being captured using an eye-tracking application. Then, the eye-tracking videos were employed as stimuli to extract the participants’ reasons for not applying the comments. In addition, the participants’ first and revised texts underwent content analysis, and their feedback incorporation strategies were identified. The findings of this study indicated that the participants applied more than two-thirds of the comments; however, justified elaborated feedback was adopted more than elaborated and concise general feedback. The participants also applied justified elaborated feedback more accurately than the other feedback types. Finally, the results showed that four main feedback qualities (being too general, incomprehensible, inapplicable, and faulty) adversely affected L2 MA students’ feedback incorporation. 
کلیدواژه‌ها
academic writing؛ engagement؛ feedback incorporation؛ peer feedback؛ second language writing
عنوان مقاله [English]
به کارگیری بازخورد همتایان در متون دانشگاهی بوسیله دانشجویان کارشناسی ارشد آموزش زبان انگلیسی
نویسندگان [English]
سعید بهادران فرد1؛ منوچهر جعفری گهر2؛ حسن سلیمانی3
1گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی و ادبیات انگلیسی، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران.
2گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی و ادبیات انگلیسی، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران,
3گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی و ادبیات انگلیسی، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران
چکیده [English]
بررسی پیشینه پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که مشارکت دانشجویان تحصیلات تکمیلی که به زبان دوم می‌نویسند در فعالیت‌های بازخورد بر متون دانشگاهی به‌طور جدی نادیده گرفته شده‌است. به‌منظور پُرکردن بخشی از این خلأ پژوهشی، مطالعه حاضر مشارکت 53 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد که متون دانشگاهی خود را به زبان دوم می‌نویسند را در فعالیت بازخورد همتایان مورد بررسی قرار داد. در این پژوهش از فناوری ردیابی چشم، مصاحبه‌های یادآوری برانگیخته و تحلیل محتوا استفاده شد تا به پرسش‌های پژوهش پاسخ داده شود. در پژوهش حاضر، شرکت‌کنندگان بر متون پیشنهادة پایان‌نامة همکلاسی‌های خود بازخورد با واسطة رایانه ارائه کردند و اعمال بازخوردها را در حالی که حرکات چشم‌ آن‌ها با یک نرم‌افزار غیرمداخله‌گر ردیابی می‌شد انجام دادند. سپس از ویدئوهای ردیابی چشم به‌عنوان محرک برای استخراج دلایل عدمِ استفاده از بازخورد شرکت‌کنندگان در مصاحبة یادآوری برانگیخته استفاده شد. افزون بر این، محتوای متون اول و بازبینی‌شده شرکت‌کنندگان مورد تحلیل قرار گرفت و راهبردهای اعمال بازخورد آن‌ها شناسایی شد. یافته‌های این پژوهش نشان داد که شرکت‌کنندگان بیش از دوسوم نظرات را اعمال کردند؛ با این وجود، بازخورد مفصل توجیه‌شده بیش از بازخورد مفصل و بازخورد کلی اعمال شدند. شرکت‌کنندگان همچنین بازخورد توجیه‌شده را با دقت بیشتری نسبت به دیگر انواع بازخوردها اعمال کردند. در نهایت، یافته‌ها نشان داد که چهار مشخصة بازخورد (بیش از اندازة کلی، نامفهوم، غیرقابل اجرا و معیوب) بر اعمال بازخورد دانشجویان کارشناسی ارشد زبان انگلیسی تأثیر منفی گذاشتند.
کلیدواژه‌ها: بازخورد همتایان، مشارکت، اعمال بازخورد، نگارش دانشگاهی، نگارش به زبان انگلیسی
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
بازخورد همتایان, مشارکت, اعمال بازخورد, نگارش دانشگاهی, نگارش به زبان انگلیسی
مراجع
  1. Amiryousefi, M. (2019). The incorporation of flipped learning into conventional classes to enhance EFL learners’ L2 speaking, L2 listening, and engagement. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 13(2), 147-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2017.1394307
  2. Aubrey, S., King, J., & Almukhaild, H. (2020). Language learner engagement during speaking tasks: A longitudinal study. RELC Journal, 53(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220945418
  3. Bahari, A., & Gholami, L. (2022). Challenges and affordances of reading and writing development in technology-assisted language learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(1), 35-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2065308
  4. Bai, L., & Hu, G. (2016). In the face of fallible AWE feedback: How do students respond? Educational Psychology, 37(1), 67-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2016.1223275
  5. Berndt, M., Strijbos, J. W., & Fischer, F. (2018). Effects of written peer-feedback content and sender’s competence on perceptions, performance, and mindful cognitive processing. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33(1), 31-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-017-0343-z
  6. Bolzer, M., Strijbos, J. W., & Fischer, F. (2015). Inferring mindful cognitive processing of peer-feedback via eye-tracking: Role of feedback characteristics, fixation durations and transitions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(5), 422-434. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12091
  7. Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219-233. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572132
  8. Cutumisu, M., Turgeon, K. L., Saiyera, T., Chuong, S., González Esparza, L. M., MacDonald, R., & Kokhan, V. (2019). Eye tracking the feedback assigned to undergraduate students in a digital assessment game. Frontiers in psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01931
  9. Davin, K. J. (2013). Integration of dynamic assessment and instructional conversations to promote development and improve assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 303-322. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813482934
  10. Donia, M. B., Mach, M., O’Neill, T. A., & Brutus, S. (2022). Student satisfaction with use of an online peer feedback system. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(2), 269-283. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1912286
  11. Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 335-349. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44488131
  12. Fan, Y., & Xu, J. (2020). Exploring student engagement with peer feedback on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 50(3), 65-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100775
  13. Fernández-Michels, P., & Fornons, L. C. (2021). Learner Engagement with Corrective Feedback Using Think-Aloud Protocols. JALT CALL Journal, 17(3), 203-232. https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v17n3.461
  14. Fernando, W. (2020). Moodle quizzes and their usability for formative assessment of academic writing. Assessing Writing, 46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100485
  15. Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 304-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007
  16. Godfroid, A., & Hui, B. (2020). Five common pitfalls in eye-tracking research. Second Language Research, 36(3), 277-305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658320921218
  17. Gu´enette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct?: Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.01.001
  18. Han, Y. (2017). Mediating and being mediated: Learner beliefs and learner engagement with written corrective feedback. System, 69, 133-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.07.003
  19. Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2019). Academic emotions in written corrective feedback situations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.12.003
  20. Herazo, J. D., Davin, K. J., & Sagre, A. (2019). L2 dynamic assessment: An activity theory perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 103(2), 443-458. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12559
  21. Hoomanfard, M. H., & Rahimi, M. (2020). A comparative study of the efficacy of teacher and peer online written corrective feedback on EFL learners' writing ability. Journal of Language Research, 11(33), 327-352. https://doi.org/10.22051/jlr.2018.19992.1536
  22. Kaufman, J. H., & Schunn, C. D. (2011). Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: Their origin and impact on revision work. Instructional Science, 39(3), 387-406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9133-6
  23. Lachner, A., & Neuburg, C. (2019). Learning by writing explanations: Computer-based feedback about the explanatory cohesion enhances students’ transfer. Instructional Science, 47(1), 19-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9470-4
  24. Mohammed, M. A. S., & AL-Jaberi, M. A. (2021). Google docs or Microsoft word? Master's students' engagement with instructor written feedback on academic writing in a cross-cultural setting. Computers and Composition, 62.          https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2021.102672
  25. Mulliner, E., & Tucker, M. (2017). Feedback on feedback practice: perceptions of students and academics. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(2), 266-288. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1103365
  26. Patchan, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2015). Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: How students respond to peers’ texts of varying quality. Instructional Science, 43(5), 591-614. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43575308
  27. Poehner, M. E., & Wang, Z. (2021). Dynamic assessment and second language development. Language Teaching, 54(4), 472-490. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000555
  28. Ranalli, J. (2021). L2 student engagement with automated feedback on writing: Potential for learning and issues of trust. Journal of Second Language Writing, 52 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100816
  29. Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45(2), 283-331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00441.x
  30. Rosa, E. M., & Leow, R. P. (2004). Computerized task-based exposure, explicitness, type of feedback, and Spanish L2 development. The Modern Language Journal, 88(2), 192-216. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3588751
  31. Ryan, T., & Henderson, M. (2018). Feeling feedback: Students’ emotional responses to educator feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(6), 880-892. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1416456
  32. Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners' uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(1), 67-100.   https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263107070039
  33. Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535-550. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903541015
  34. Sedikides, C., Luke, M. A., & Hepper, E. G. (2016). Enhancing feedback and improving feedback: Subjective perceptions, psychological consequences, behavioral outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46(12), 687-700. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12407
  35. Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011
  36. Sinclair, H. K., & Cleland, J. A. (2007). Undergraduate medical students: Who seeks formative feedback? Medical education, 41(6), 580-582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02768.x
  37. Stevenson, M. & Phakiti, A. (2019). Automated feedback and second language writing. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 125-142). Cambridge University Press.
  38. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
  39. Van der Kleij, F. M., & Lipnevich, A. A. (2021). Student perceptions of assessment feedback: A critical scoping review and call for research. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 33(2), 345-373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-020-09331-x
  40. Walker, M. (2015). The quality of written peer feedback on undergraduates’ draft answers to an assignment, and the use made of the feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(2), 232-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.898737
  41. Yu, S., Zhang, Y., Yao, Z., Yuan, K., & Zhang, L. (2019). Understanding student engagement with peer feedback on master’s theses: A Macau study. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 50-65.          http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1467879
  42. Yuan, J., & Kim, C. (2018). The effects of autonomy support on student engagement in peer assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(1), 25-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9538-x
  43. Zhai, N., & Ma, X. (2022). Automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback: A systematic investigation of college students’ acceptance. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(9), 2817-2842. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1897019
  44. Zhan, Y., Wan, Z. H., & Sun, D. (2022). Online formative peer feedback in Chinese contexts at the tertiary Level: A critical review on its design, impacts and influencing factors. Computers & Education, 176.           https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104341
  45. Zhang, Z. V., & Hyland, K. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 90-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.004
  46. Zhu, Q., & Carless, D. (2018). Dialogue within peer feedback processes: Clarification and negotiation of meaning. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(4), 883-897. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1446417
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 235
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 410


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. طراحی و پیاده سازی از سیناوب