Using 'Checklists' to Train Students in Peer Revision in the EFL Writing Classroom
Doris de Almeida Soares, Brazil
Doris de Almeida Soares is a teacher/trainer at a language school in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. She is also a tutor in an online English course for the military in the Brazilian Navy. She holds an MA in Applied Linguistics and a Cambridge RSA COTE. E-mail: dorissoares@letras.ufrj.br
Menu
Abstract
Introduction
Why involve learners in collaborative revision?
Peer feedback and the importance of training
The use of checklists to train students
How to introduce the use of checklists
Final comments
References
This article introduces the idea of training students to reflect upon their own writing in order to provide feedback on their partners` texts using checklists. The first section of this article explains the theoretical foundation which justifies the use of peer revision in the writing class. The second and third sections bring forth specific issues concerning the implementation of peer feedback in the writing class and the necessity of training students to revise. The fourth section discussed the use of checklists as a means to help students conduct feedback sessions. This text concludes by saying that peer feedback in English writing classes enhances learners` understanding of the importance of revision in the writing process and that checklists help learners become more autonomous writers in the target language.
The vast majority of language teachers experience the feeling that the amount of time and effort spent correcting students` compositions rarely pays. In general, learners, upon receiving their compositions checked, tend to focus on the grade awarded to the text and put it away, paying little attention to the meticulous comments / corrections provided by the teacher. Consequently, this attitude towards feedback raises questions as regards what we can do in order to help students take advantage of their own attempts at writing meaningful texts in the target language.
Bearing this in mind, the aim of this article is to present one of the key aspects concerning the use of peer feedback in the writing class, that is, the importance of training students to work collaboratively in order to revise their texts. To discuss this issue, firstly, a brief overview of the theoretical framework which supports the use of social-interaction in the writing class is presented. Next, the importance of training students to provide feedback is discussed. Finally, the use of checklists in order to help students focus their attention while commenting on each other's papers is described.
Revision activities in which students are required to read each others` composition drafts and reflect upon linguistic and / or discursive features in views to help their partners improve their texts are common-place in many L2 classrooms which adopt a view of writing as process (PAULUS, 1999, p. 267; MENDONÇA & JOHNSON, 1994, p. 745; ZHU, 2001, p.252). This practice, known as peer response, peer workshopping, peer editing, peer review, peer critique, and peer revision, has its theoretical bases on the social-interactionist belief that
[L]earning awakens a variety of internal development processes that operate only when the child is interacting with people in his/her environment and in cooperation with peers (VYGOTSKY, 1978, p.90).
Therefore, applying this assumption to formal education, language students, similarly to children, seem to profit more from tasks which stimulate them to work collaboratively with other members of their learning community.
In practical terms, this interaction can take place in the writing class during different stages of text production. Students can interact, for example, while gathering ideas for their compositions and planning how to organize them. Besides, they can compose their text in pairs or groups. Moreover, during revision, which is a crucial though often neglected stage of the writing process, students can be encouraged to work collaboratively and devote more time and attention to reading and checking their work thoroughly.
About this stage Paulus (1999) and White and Arndt (1991), among others, say that successful revision depends on the writer's ability to read a text as communication, to compare his or her intentions and goals for the writing with the actual text produced, and finally to reconcile these two facets of writing by making all of the necessary adjustments. However, as Woods (2002, p.188) points out, students tend to view their first draft as a finished product and have difficulty in seeing revision as anything that goes beyond the editing for surface errors like spelling, grammar and mechanics. Therefore, to help learners overcome their difficulties, teachers can provide some training on how to revise collaboratively before asking students to engage in peer feedback sessions.
Despite the benefits of social interaction to the learning process, simply asking students to work in pairs exchanging ideas about their papers is no guarantee that the activity will achieve its goals in helping learners to revise. For peer feedback to play its proper role in the writing instruction, according to Jacobs et al (1998, p.314), a well-planned implementation process is needed. Along this line of thought some authors like Berg (1999) Zhu (2001) Rollinson (2005) suggest that pre-training is essential to teach students how to conduct a successful peer feedback session. This assertion is based on the fact that, as Bruffee (1999/2002:75) points out, when asked to comment on their partners` writings, a great deal of students feel uncomfortable because they may lack the confidence to express their thoughts concerning the content and organization of the text being analyzed vis-à-vis its communicative purpose and genre. Consequently, their feedback seems to consist of praises like "your text is good" or "I liked it" followed by the correction of linguistic errors.
Moreover, Ferris (2002, p.103) states that some students may not welcome their partners' feedback because they do not believe that someone who is also in the process of learning the target language is capable of making worthwhile comments. Therefore, as Rollinson (2005:26) points out
many students may need a significant amount of initial persuasion of the value of peer feedback, since they may not accept the idea that the peers are qualified to take on the role of teachers and critique their writing.
Therefore, according to Rollinson (2005, p. 27) the objectives of training students to approach collaborative revision activities concern three areas: a) awareness-raising (the principles and objectives of peer response); b) productive group interaction (collaboration, supportiveness, tact, etiquette) and c) productive response and revision (basic procedures, effective commenting, reader-writer dialogue, effective revision).
To ensure that students understand the importance of peer feedback at the revision stage, teachers should explain to students the rationale behind this pedagogical practice. Besides, the benefits which will come along this practice should be discussed and an atmosphere of mutual trust among learners should be established. Above all, students must know that the use of peer feedback does not mean that teacher feedback is being substituted. On the contrary, the aim here is to provide learner with other people's views on their texts and the opportunity to revise based on the feedback they receive. Eventually, there will be a moment in the writing process when the teacher will comment on the revised versions of the texts.
In addition, it is also highly recommended to present students with the language they need to express / respond to criticism in a tactful and respectful manner. This should be done in order to prevent students from making comments which may sound harsh or impolite, thus affecting negatively the social aspect of the interaction.
Nevertheless, before asking students to swap papers and start commenting on each other's texts, the teacher should provide the learners with some guidance as regards what to observe in the partner's text.
One way to help students approach the feedback task is to provide them with a set of yes / no questions to be answered while they read and analyze each others` papers. This document, or checklist, according to Raimes (1983, p. 147) is a very useful tool as a starting point for training as it directs the students' attention to the elements which should be focused on during peer feedback sessions. In general, checklists can be found in writing books or in writing websites. The sample below comes from , an English for Academic Purposes site, and focus mainly on discourse
Check list 1 - Here are some useful questions to ask yourself about your essay:
- Does the essay deal with the topic that was set?
- Does the essay answer the question that was set?
- Does it cover all the main aspects and in sufficient depth?
- Is the content accurate and relevant?
- Is everything in the essay relevant to the question?
- Is the material logically arranged?
- Is each main point well supported by examples and argument?
- Is there a clear distinction between your ideas and those of other authors?
- Have you acknowledged all the sources you have used?
- Is the length of the essay right for its purpose?
- Is it written plainly and simply, without clumsy or obscure phrasing?
- Is the grammar, punctuation and spelling acceptable?
- Is it neat and legibly written?
Nevertheless, according to Raimes (1983, p.147) teachers can devise their own checklists to cater for their groups` specific needs or to fit each writing assignment, focusing attention on the critical features of one particular task. For example, if the task is a narrative in the past, the checklist may contain questions regarding the description of the setting and characters, as illustrated below:
Check list 2 - Questions about the description of setting and characters in the narrative:
- Can you identify where and when the story takes place?
- Does this description help build up the atmosphere of the story?
- Is there a physical description of the characters?
- Does the text say anything about the characters` personality?
- Do the elements identified in questions 3-4 help make the characters look "alive and real"?
Besides, the teacher may also wish to focus on the use of language by providing questions about the effect of the use of narrative tenses to set the context, to indicate sequences of events, to mention events that happened earlier in the story, or the use of time expression to help the reader follow the story.
Therefore, the aims of the writing task and its genre as well as the aims of the feedback session are key elements which should be taken into account when devising a checklist to be used by the students.
After students understand what peer feedback is all about, a model checklist can be introduced to offer the support they need as regards what to comment on. This can be done by distributing a copy of the material to students and going through each item on the list, discussing its content to ensure that everybody understands what each of the questions aims at. Next, students can receive a sample text to be analysed individually. This text should be authentic, that is, written by a real student at the same level of proficiency as the target group. However, it is advisable to choose a text written by a student belonging to another group in order to avoid embarrassing the writer since, in the beginning, students may need some time to see peer feedback as a non-threatening situation. As the learners go through the checklist, they should write down their answers to each question, identifying in the text the elements which support their opinion. After this stage, students can form small groups and then discuss their answers. As a round-up, the teacher can elect a spokesperson from each group to report their views on a given item and invite the other groups to compare their feedback. During this activity, the teacher can take the opportunity to revise any relevant issues concerning the discursive nature of the genre analysed, according to the task.
After the students have understood how to work with the checklist, the teacher can ask them to work in pairs commenting on each other's text. First, the teacher should remind the group that the aim of the activity is not to find flaws in the use of language but to react to the partner`s text as an interested reader. The students swap compositions and read them silently, taking notes based on the checklist. Then, the reader can begin the interaction by discussing with the writer his/her answers to the questions on the list. At this point, it is important to notice that there should be negotiation between the reader and the writer as they exchange opinions on the text and that they are free to agree or disagree with what is said. As the teacher monitors the activity, he/she may decide to intervene in order to help learners understand each others' divergent points of view. Finally, the students are given the opportunity to make changes or to rewrite their texts before handing it in to the teacher.
Later on, when the students are familiar with the type of issues which should be focused on while commenting a partner's paper, the teacher can ask them to work in small groups in order to prepare their own checklists for a give assignment. In doing so, the students, based on their knowledge of the world and on their experiences as readers, are invited to consider beforehand the aspects of the text which need to be developed in order to achieve its communicative purpose according to the intended audience. With practice, learners become more prepared to better assess the quality of their texts, which helps them to develop as writers.
The use of peer feedback aims at helping learners become more critical of their own texts. As they listen to their peers` views on what they have written and have the opportunity to reshape their writing, they are exercising the ability to detach themselves from their texts and read it with the target reader's eyes. Besides, under the initial guidance of the checklists, they become familiar with the aspects of discourse which are central to the communicative power of their texts and little by little gain more confidence in order to become more autonomous revisers of their own texts. Therefore, peer feedback is surely a tool which should be part of any English writing classroom which is based on the principle of cooperative learning.
Berg, E. C. (1999). The effect of trained peer response on ESL students' revision types and writing quality. Journal of second language writing, v. 8, n.3, p.215-241.
Bruffee, K. (2002). Collaboration, conversation and reacculturation. In: DELUCA, G; FOX, L.;
Johnson, M.; Kogen, M. Dialogues on writing: rethinking ESL basic writing and first year composition. .Mahwash, NJ: Elbaum, p.63-81. [This article was originally printed in Collaborative learning: higher education, interdependence and the authority of knowledge. The John Hopkins University Press, 2nd ed.1999]
Ferris, D. R (2002). Treatment of error in second language writing. USA: The University of Michigan Press, 2002.
Jacobs, G. M.(1998). et al. Feedback on student writing: taking the middle path. Journal of second language writing, v.7, n.3, p. 307-317.
Mendoca, C. O; Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quartely, v.28, p.745-769.
Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. Oxford: OUP.
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, v. 59, n.1, p.23-30.
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of second language writing, v.8, n 3, p. 265-289.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wei Zhu. (2001). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups Journal of Second Language Writing .v.10, n. 4, p. 251-276.
White, R.; Arndt, V. (1991). Process writing.UK: Longman.
Woods, P.M. (2002). Moving beyond "this is good" in peer response. In: Moore, C.; O'Neill, P.(eds) Practice in context: situating the work of writing teachers. Urbana: Illinois, NCTE, 2002, cap 20, p.187-195.
Please check the What’s New in Language Teaching course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Creative Methodology for the Classroom course at Pilgrims website.
|
