In God we trust
"The role of peer tutoring on developing
the learners’ grammatical accuracy at intermediate level"
By: Saeedeh Mohammadi,
Thanks to dear prof:
Dr. Hassasskhah
Guilan University
January 2010
Table of contentAbstract…………………………………………………….…...3
A. Introduction…………………………………………….…… 4
B. Literature review……………………………………….…....5
C. Method……………………………………………………….8
C-1question and answer
C-2 design
C-3 participants
C-4 variables
C-5 procedure
C-6 data analysis…………………………………….....…...…9
D. Conclusion……………………………………………...…..11
E. References…………………………………………..….......12
Abstract
Peer tutoring, where students support each others' learning, is for many one of the most effective and natural forms of learning. According to Keith Topping and Shirley Hill, “peer tutoring can be defined as “people from similar social groupings who are not professional teachers, helping each other to learn and learning themselves by teaching”. Peer tutoring is a form of cooperative learning that enhances the value of student-student interaction and results in various advantageous learning outcomes. The present study takes the impacts of peers on each other's grammatical accuracy into consideration. In this paper, the objective of prime significance is to recognize whether there is a relationship between peer tutoring and improving the learners' accuracy. Methods for data collection reflected a qualitative approach and included examining the students' works including their compositions and grammar tests. A class of 24, in groups of three in high school students, concludes the subjects. In one of the experiments, at one session, the students are given a topic in order to write. Then the students assess their partners' writings and give some feedbacks regarding their grammatical errors and have a short discussion over the errors. At the next session, another topic is given and the same work is done. In the other experiment, in order to make sure of the results, in one session, the students are given a list of questions in the topic of passive and active verbs. In the next session, they are wanted to answer the same questions but this time after having a short tutoring period with their partners about the topic. The results are compared and it is expected that results would change showing that there is a relationship between peers feedback and their tutoring and the students' accuracy.
Key words: peer tutoring, feedback, accuracy
A. Introduction
Peer tutoring as defined in this study is a pair of students working together to address the largely metalinguistic feedback given by their instructor on their respective first drafts to make their second drafts a better piece of writing. According to Liu and Hansen (2002), effective peer response activities are problem solving tasks that are focused on improving the quality of a written draft. These tasks “provide learners with the opportunities necessary to test their knowledge, learn from their peers, and negotiate meaning, all of which have been shown to be important in the development of second language skills”. In this study, it was hoped that a combination of students monitoring their own grammatical weaknesses and collaborating with a peer in addressing errors would enable them to make gains in becoming more accurate writers. Overall, it is beneficial for students to practice peer feedback in college L2 writing class because there are more advantages than constraints if appropriated implemented. Of course, teachers should consider how to do it well by following certain proper procedures according to the contexts. Teachers should train and guide peer feedback at the early stage, monitor the activities and offer necessary help when doing it, and provide useful reflections at the end.
Several researchers have explored the impact of any peer tutoring, peer-assisted learning, peer monitoring, peer facilitation, or peer-mediated instruction, on the students' grammatical accuracy and improvement of the accuracy in form especially in the area of writing. An exploration of the role of grammatical feedback by peers on essay writing in the advanced English language learners' classroom has been done by Angela Birk (2007). Another similar study has been done on peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration by piageD Ware (2004). James Hall (2005) also has studied the answer to this question: Can feedback logs and peer feedback improve students' grammatical accuracy? Yanhong Zeng (2006) has explored the peer feedback in college second language writing classrooms. In all the studies done, the researchers aim at finding the possible role of help of peers in developing the accuracy of learners. The findings show that although there are some limitations to the use of peer tutoring in classrooms, yet it has a large influence on the students' development.
Several researchers have explored the impact of any peer tutoring, peer-assisted learning, peer monitoring, peer facilitation, or peer-mediated instruction, on the students' grammatical accuracy and improvement of the accuracy in form especially in the area of writing. An exploration of the role of grammatical feedback by peers on essay writing in the advanced English language learners' classroom has been done by Angela Birk (2007). Another similar study has been done on peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration by piageD Ware (2004). James Hall (2005) also has studied the answer to this question: Can feedback logs and peer feedback improve students' grammatical accuracy? Yanhong Zeng (2006) has explored the peer feedback in college second language writing classrooms. In all the studies done, the researchers aim at finding the possible role of help of peers in developing the accuracy of learners. The findings show that although there are some limitations to the use of peer tutoring in classrooms, yet it has a large influence on the students' development.
B. Literature review
Peer tutoring is part of a larger category of educational activities in which students work together in groups to promote student- centered learning. Three prominent educational theorists whose works are cited in support of such activities are Piaget (1959), Vygotsky (1962, 1978) and Dewey (1966).
Piaget maintained that interaction can be a source of cognitive conflict which can lead leaders to re-examine and adjust the frameworks through which they view the world. Vygotsky emphasized the central role of social interaction in learning. Another key Vygotskian concept is the zone of proximal development, i.e., the area between what one can do on one's own and what one can do with help of others. Dewey was a strong believer in making students, rather than the teachers; the hub of classroom activities. Peer feedback involves the procedure of training students, their giving feedback to and receiving feedback from one another during the process of negotiating ideas, revising drafts, and evaluating their own feedback while teacher takes the role as a trainer, monitor, helper and evaluator. Although peer feedback “is supported by several theoretical frameworks, including process writing, collaborative learning theory, Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development, and interaction and second language acquisition (SLA)” (Hansen & Liu, 2004: 31), many teachers still have doubts on it.
In the traditional class review session, the students ask questions and the instructor answers them. Students spend their time copying down answers rather than thinking about the material. In an active review session the instructor poses questions and the students work on them in groups. Then students are asked to show their solutions to the whole group and discuss any differences among solutions-proposed. (Hassasskhah, 2005: 198-199)
Grouping students in pairs allows many of the advantages of group work. Students have the opportunity to state their own views, to hear from others, to hone their argumentative skills, and so forth, without the administrative ''costs'' of group work ( time spent assigning people to groups, class time used just for ''getting in groups'', and so on). Further, pairs make it virtually impossible for students to avoid participating thus making each person accountable.( Hassasskhah: 195)
According to Andrea H.Penaflorida (1998), peer response shows that readership does not belong exclusively to the teacher, since in this type of response, students are enjoined to share their writings with each other. Students may not like this at the beginning, but with the teacher's encouragement, they will gradually get used to the idea of communicating their ideas to each other. Elbow (1992) believes that when students write only for their teacher(which usually means for a grade), they often fall treating writing as an empty school exercise and attempting simply to just "get it right" or "giving teachers what they want." When students write for their peers, they become very concerned about what they say and how they say it. Students may not be as skilled as their teachers at responding to each other's work, but they are excellent in providing the one thing that writers need most- an audience. (Richards and Renandya, 2002: 351)
According to Andrea H.Penaflorida (1998), peer response shows that readership does not belong exclusively to the teacher, since in this type of response, students are enjoined to share their writings with each other. Students may not like this at the beginning, but with the teacher's encouragement, they will gradually get used to the idea of communicating their ideas to each other. Elbow (1992) believes that when students write only for their teacher(which usually means for a grade), they often fall treating writing as an empty school exercise and attempting simply to just "get it right" or "giving teachers what they want." When students write for their peers, they become very concerned about what they say and how they say it. Students may not be as skilled as their teachers at responding to each other's work, but they are excellent in providing the one thing that writers need most- an audience. (Richards and Renandya, 2002: 351)
Generally speaking, peer feedback can provide useful feedback. Both Rollinson (1998) and Caulk (1994) found from their experiences that their students considered over 80% percents of the peer comments were valid and useful and peer writers can and do revise effectively on the basis of comments from peer readers. Chaulk (1994) also pointed out that teacher feedback was rather general, whereas student responses were more specific.
Cognitively speaking, peer response activities in teaching L2 writing can force L2 students to exercise their thinking as opposed to passively receive information from the teacher (Mittan, 1989). In peer response, students can engage in unrehearsed, low-risk, exploratory talk that is less feasible in whole-class and teacher-student interactions (Feris & Hedgcock, 1998) and take an active role in their learning, thus to “reconceptualize their ideas in light of their peers’ reactions” (Mendonca and Johnson, 1994: 746), while responding to peers’ writing can build the critical skills needed to analyze and revise one’s own writing (Leki, 1990).
From an educational reform perspective, perhaps the most compelling reason for peer programs can be based on the hundreds of evaluations of cooperative learning programs as well as on the peer tutoring and cross-age peer tutoring approaches that have found both positive academic and social development gains in youth (Johnson and Johnson, 1983; Johnson, et al., 1981; Glasser, 1986; Slavin, 1986; Graves, 1990; Fantuzzo, et al., 1989; Greenwood, et al., 1989). Furthermore, according to a Stanford University study, peer tutoring is consistently more cost-effective than computer-assisted instruction, reduction of class size, or increased instructional time for raising both reading and mathematics achievement of both tutors and tutees (Levin, 1984).
The focus of the feedback may be the content of the writing, stylistic elements, grammar, or a combination of any or all of the above. Content feedback focuses on ideas presented in the writing and the organization of those ideas. Feedback on stylistic elements includes providing suggestions for a more appropriate word or phrase, even though no grammatical error has been made. Grammar feedback is feedback given on grammatical aspects of writing. Feedback on grammar is often given on L2 errors or mistakes. Ferris and Hedgcock (2005) define errors as “morphological, syntactic, and lexical deviations from the grammatical rules of a language.
F. Method
C-1 question and answer
Whether students' grammatical accuracy develops after having a peer feedback period or not, is the question which has been raised. The tentative answer to this kind of question is that since most of the students prefer to have their peers' revision, the time devoted in class to the tutoring period will lead to development grammatical accuracy of the learners.
C-2 design
Students read and respond to drafts of written assignments. Students then have the opportunity to make revisions prior to submitting the assignment to instructor. When an assignment is complete, students exchange drafts for review and comment. Once the students get feedback, they are allowed ample time to make corrections, additions, and deletions prior to the time the assignment is turned into the instructor for a final grade. In this method, the instructor receives all of the papers for final grading, thus not necessarily reducing a grading load, however, due to the improved quality of the papers due to critical feedback, the time spent grading should be reduced. Students should be given some guidelines to know what he/she is looking for such as; spelling and grammatical errors, format, incomplete ideas, sentence clarity, citations and overall quality of the writing.
C-3 participants
A class of 24, in groups of three in high school students, concludes the subjects.
C-4 variables
Independent variable: peer tutoring, feedback and revision
Dependant variable: grammatical accuracy of the learners
C-5 procedure
At one session, the students are given a topic in order to write. Then the students assess their partners' writings and give some feedbacks regarding their grammatical errors and have a short discussion over the errors. At the next session, another topic is given but this time no time is given to peer feedback period. In another experiment, in order to make sure of the results, in one session, the students are given a list of questions in the topic of passive and active verbs. In the next session, they are wanted to answer the same questions but this time after having a short tutoring period with their partners about the topic. Then the results are compared.
The suggestions were to be of two types. First, if an item was believed to be wrong, the readers were to draw a line through it and write what they thought was the correct form above it. Henceforth, these will be called corrections. Second, if readers thought something might be incorrect but were not sure, then the item in question was only circled, with no correction made. So, these will be called markings. After the students in each pair had spent ten minutes reading and improving each other's draft, they were given minutes to discuss the suggestions.
C-6 data analysis
C-6 data analysis
As table 1 illustrates, after the students receive their peer's feedback, the number of ungrammatical sentences decreases and the number of grammatical sentences increases.
Chart 1 indicates that after peer tutoring period, the number of wrong answers is reduced and the number of correct answers on the other hand is increased.
Chart 2 gives a clear illustration of the impact of peer tutoring on the students' performance. Accordingly, data analysis shows that after the students receive their peers’ feedback, they improve in their grammatical accuracy. As the figures show, the period devoted to peer tutoring results in increasing the grades of the learners.
Conclusion
Research indicates that peer learning activities typically result in: (a) team-building spirit and more supportive relationships; (b) greater psychological well-being, social competence, communication skills and self-esteem; and (c) higher achievement and greater productivity in terms of enhanced learning outcomes. Although peer-learning strategies are valuable tools for educators to utilize, it is obvious that simply placing students in groups and telling them to ‘work together’ is not going to automatically yield results. The teacher must consciously orchestrate the learning exercise and choose the appropriate vehicle for it. Only then will students in fact engage in peer learning and reap the benefits discussed above.
It is beneficial for students to practice peer feedback in L2 writing class because there are more advantages than constraints if appropriated implemented. Of course, teachers should consider how to do it well by following certain proper procedures according to the contexts. Teachers should train and guide peer feedback at the early stage, monitor the activities and offer necessary help when doing it, and provide useful reflections at the end. Above all, teacher’s goal of writing class, and thus of the peer feedback activities within the class, is to make writers autonomous and improve their writing ability.
Although in comparison to teacher feedback, peer feedback does not affect the rhetorical or informational aspects of L2 writing to any significant degree, it does improve the grammatical accuracy in a no less efficient fashion than teacher feedback. However, it is important that L2 learners be made aware of the potential of peer feedback. Otherwise, peer feedback procedures may run into strong resistance, especially if peer feedback is adopted as the predominant procedure. Peer feedback and teacher feedback can complement each other but studies show that peer feedback is superior to teacher feedback and thus should replace traditional teacher feedback.
1. Williams, Marion and Burden, Robert L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers, Cambridge university press, pp.21-24 & 40.
2. Hassasskhah, Jaleh. (2005).Cooperative Learning, Guilan university press; pp.195 & 198-199)
3. Richards, Jack C and Renandya, Willy A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching, Cambridge university press, pg. 351.
4. Sharan, Sholmo and Shachar, Hang. (1988). language and learning in the cooperative classroom, New York, pp.12-14
5. Benard.(1990).peer tutoring,from.http://www.ncrel.org/info
6. Jacobs, George & Zhang,shuqiang (1989), Peer feedback in second language writing instruction: boon or bane, San Francisco.
7. Miller, Melissa A.(2005). Using Peer Tutoring in the Classroom: Applications for Students With Emotional/Behavioral Disorders, America: University of Florida
8. Zeng, Yanhong, (2006).Peer Feedback in College SLW Classroom. USA
9. Hall, J. (2005). Can feedback logs and peer feedback improve students’ grammatical accuracy?. Tokyo: JALT
10. Birk, Angela.(2007). An exploration of the role of grammatical feedback by peers on essay writing in the advanced English language learners' classroom. Hamline University
No comments:
Post a Comment