写作反馈对比分析：教师反馈和同伴反馈
Literature Review on Feedback in EFL Writing: Teacher Feedback and Peer Feedback摘要：写作是一种重要的语言技巧，相比较听力、口语和阅读，写作更能全面的展现学习者的语言精准水平。
所以我们需要对英语写作的教与学投入更多的精力。
然而我们当前的大学英语写作教学收效并非显著。
一方面，老师花费大量的精力和时间去阅读和修改学生的英语写作，但成效颇低；另一方面，学生只是表面肤浅的理解老师的建议及评语或者甚至直接忽视老师给予的纠错反馈。
在一定程度上来看，造成这种现象的原因可以追溯到结果教学法在英语写作教学中的广泛应用而带来的影响。
结果教学法把英语写作过程看成是一个线性的活动，在这一过程中没有课堂活动部分，没有互动。
而与之相对应的过程教学法把写作看成是一个复杂的、相互重叠的认知过程，在这个过程中有学生的积极参与。
反馈作为过程教学法的重要组成部分而引起广泛的关注，它包括：教师反馈、同伴反馈、自我反馈和计算机辅助反馈。
其中，教师反馈和同伴反馈是其主要的两大部分。
在二语学习环境下关于这两种反馈效果的研究很多，但研究结果有所不同，有的研究者认为教师反馈的效果更佳而有的研究更倾向于在写作中使用同伴反馈。
在以往的研究中，研究者们大多只侧重于其中一种反馈方式在大学英语写作教学中的应用，而将两者教学方法结合起来应用的研究不是很多。
因此，本研究尝试将两种反馈应用到大学英语写作教学中并期待通过实证研究能够在不久将来证实其可行性和效度。
关键字：反馈；教师反馈；同伴反馈；外语写作Abstract: As an important language skill, writing can comprehensively present the learners’language proficiency compared with other basic skills such as listening, speaking and reading. Therefore, much attention should be paid to the teaching and learning of English writing. However, at present time, our college English writing instruction seems unsatisfactory. On the one hand, teachers contribute a great deal of time and energy to reading and correcting student’s composition but with low efficiency; on the other hand, students spend less time superficially understanding teacher’s suggestions and comments or even directly neglect teacher’s error correction.To a certain extent, this current situation can be traced back to the prevailing traditional product-oriented approach which assumes writing as a liner process, in which there is no students’ interaction within writing activities. On the contrary, the process-oriented approach assumes writing as a cognitive process, with which students can actively participant in writing activities. Feedback, an indispensable part of process-oriented approach of writing, has attracted great attention, which mainly encompasses teacher feedback and peer feedback. In ESL context, many studies on the effects of two types of feedback has been done. Nevertheless, the results of them varied greatly in these studies. Some scholars reviewed that teacher feedback is more favorable in writing class while others prefer to use peer feedback. Up to now, most of the researchers just focus on either peer feedback or teacher feedback, and few researchers have combined the two kinds of feedback in the context of the EFL writing. Hence, the study attempts to apply peer feedback and teacher feedback into EFL writing through an empirical study and look forward to its feasibility and effectiveness will be approved in the near further study in writing pedagogy. Keywords: feedback; teacher feedback; peer feedback; EFL writing1.IntroductionFeedback plays a prominent role in improving student’s learning ability and strengthening his or her learning achievement in language pedagogy. In writing, feedback refers to “reader’s comprehensible input from author whose function is offering information to reader to modify composition” (Zhu, 2010). The efficiency of writing feedback will directly affect students’ writing level as well as reflecting the effectiveness of teacher’s writing strategies. Feedback in EFL writing mainly focus on: teacher feedback; peer feedback; self-feedback and computer-generated feedback. From which teacher feedback refers to the input provided by the teacher for the revision of students’ writings or assessment of learning performance (Keh, 1990) and peer feedback is defined as a system in which individuals evaluate counterparts’or peers’achievements of language learning including writing and reading (Topping, 1998). Teacher feedback plays a dominant role in L2 writing, while in recent yearsteacher feedback was given great attention through the popularity of process writing approach. Domestic and foreign scholars have already conducted a great deal of empirical research on teacher and peer feedback, but have not reached a consensus on the effectiveness and the ranges, methods and strategies of application. And many researches paid attention to the single study on different modes of feedback as well as focusing less on the comparative study of the efficiency, merits and demerits of integrating teacher feedback and peer feedback. Based on which this study will explore the effectiveness of combining teacher feedback and peer feedback and look forward to providing practically and significantly instructional feedback in EFL writing.2.Related Studies of Teacher Feedback and Peer Feedback at Home and AbroadThe study of writing feedback began in the 1950s. The scholars made a comparison between teacher’s error correction and peer’s error correction with the guidance of teachers, the results of which examined that the efficiency of the latter is better than the former one. In the following 60 years, domestic and international scholars made a detail study on the practical effectiveness of peer feedback (Keh, 1990; Ferris, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2006; Paulus, 1999; Tsui & Ng, 2000; Ming, 2005; Liu, 2002; Gong, 2007; Meng, 2009; Wang, 2010; Xu, 2010; Guo, 2011; Hu & Zhang, 2011). These researchers stated that singly using teacher feedback will not truly and efficiently improve students’writing ability. “Teachers often spend a great deal of time and energy in modifying composition and putting forward many comments and suggestions on writing, however, students always neglect teachers’correction comments as well as superficially understand the correction suggestions. This kind of single and passive feedback have no effect on stimulating student’s learning interests and enthusiasm”(Zhou, 2013: 121). On the contrary, peer feedback attracted more attention to scholars and teachers. They found that in the process of face-to-face communication, negotiation and discussion, peer feedback can mutually, actively and accurately state what students want to express. Meanwhile, student’s self-learningability and collaborative spirit could be exerted to the utmost as well as writing and thought ability being exerted to a higher extent.Some other studies investigated the essence of teachers’feedback behaviors (Connors & Lunsford 1993: 200-223; Ferris, 1997: 315-339; ); the effectiveness of feedback types (Ferris & Roberts, 2001: 161-184; Kepner, 1991: 305-313); students’perceptions of feedback (Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990: 155-177; Hedgocock & Left-kowtz, 1994: 141-165). Totally, students generally considered that peer feedback is much more effective than teacher feedback. In terms of teacher feedback, domestic researches focused more on the importance and values of student’s recognition process and its development (Zhang et al., 2000: 24-28; Xie, 2011: 50-51); and its efficiency in improving student’s attention and their ability (Li & Wu, 2005; Bei, 2009); and its influences on the accuracy, fluency and complexity of student’s writing (Wang & Liu, 2012: 49-53); or even the effectiveness of different types of teacher feedback and correction and teachers’and students’attitudes towards teacher feedback (Wang, 2006: 24-30; Zhang & Liu, 2010: 115-118). These studies just singly focused on different aspects of teacher feedback, there are less studies on the combination of peer feedback and teacher feedback and explanation of theirs reliability and efficiency in EFL writing.In recent writing instruction, peer feedback (Richards et al., 2005: 128) refers to “the activity in the process of composition modifying and in this activity where students read peers’ composition in groups and then make comments and suggestions on them”. International writing researches firmed the application of peer feedback in ESL writing (Hansen & Liu, 2005: 31-38; Jacobs et al., 1998: 301-317 ). Also many scholars conducted researches from the perspective of cognition, who put forward that peer feedback could cultivate student’s analytic ability and expand their thinking space (Paulus, 1999: 265-289). In addition, students could also communicate with peers and improve the ability of using target language in specific communicative contexts (Hansen, 2005: 31-38). However, the researchers pointed out that although peer feedback could make up drawbacks for teacher feedback, its accuracy, reliability and efficiency are being questioned and the practical operation is needed to beexplored further.From the above review, we can conclude that domestic and international scholars just singly conducted researches on either teacher feedback or peer feedback or made studies on the types, characteristics or strategies of feedback as well as a comparative study on peer feedback and teacher feedback. However, there are less researches on combing this two kinds of feedback from now on. Based on which, this study looks forward to making contribution to feedback in EFL writing by integrating peer feedback and teacher feedback.3. Definition of Terms3.1 Feedback TheoryFeedback is wisely seen in education as crucial for both encouraging and consolidating learning (Anderson, 1982; Vygotsky, 1978), and the importance has also been acknowledged in the field of English writing. In the traditional American dictionary (2006), feedback is defined as “transferring process and system input into a part of output”. In the process of writing, the effects of writing cannot be neglected. Keh (1990: 302) referred to feedback as an indispensable part in the process writing pedagogy.In language learning, feedback means evaluative remarks which are available to language learners concerning their language proficiency or linguistic performance (Larsen-Freeman, 2005). In the field of teaching and learning, feedback is defined as many terms, such as response, review, correction, evaluation or comment. No matter what the term is, it can be defined as “comments or information learners receive on the success of a learning task, either from the teacher or from other learners (Richards et al., 1998)”.A more detail description of feedback in terms of writing is that the feedback is “input from the reader to a writer with the effect of providing information to the writer for revision”(Keh, 1990). From the presentation of general grammatical explanation to the specific error correction is all the range of feedback. The purpose is to improve the writing ability of students by the description and correction of theerrors.The role of feedback is to make writers learn where he or she has misled or confused the reader by supplying insufficient information, illogical organization, lack of development of ideas, or something like inappropriate word-choice or tense (Keh, 1999).From the perspective of teachers, feedback can be seen as a form of evaluation, aiming at producing a supportive teaching environment and helping students finish assignments better with the aid of feedback from the previous ones. From the perspective of learners, feedback can be considered as a self-assessment, which enables learners to see in what area they need to improve and understand. And feedback can be classified as teacher feedback and peer feedback in terms of the source of feedback which writers receive.3.1.1Teacher FeedbackTeacher feedback refers to the input provided by the teacher for the revision of students’writings or assessment of learning performance (Keh, 1990). Students usually hole the view that teacher feedback is more believable for the reason that it is originated from the influence of the traditional product-oriented approach in writing. And many teachers feel that they have the duty to make substantial comments on students’compositions for the purpose of giving a response to students’efforts, offering assistance for the improvement of students’ writing performance and justify the grades they acquired (K, Hyland, 2003).Researchers considered teacher feedback from various aspects—examining the nature of teacher’s responding behaviors in order to find out the effectiveness of teacher feedback (Connors & Lunsford, 1993; Ferris, 1997; Sommers, 1982; Zamel, 1985); comparing students’ perceptions of teacher feedback with those peer feedback (Chaudron, 1984); and analyzing students’views on teacher’s feedback (Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990; Hedgcock & Leftkowtz, 1992). The main method of response to the writing is the handwritten commentary on students drafts and teacher feedback is most emphasized in students’expectation for revision. One of the major issues thathave been addressed is whether teachers’ written comments can help students enhance their writing ability without checking the texts appropriately (Brannon & Knoblauch, 1982; Straub, 1996, 1997).In fact, several early L1 studies that teacher feedback does not serve serve as a mean of effective communication between teacher and student (Brannon & Knoblauch, 1982; Faigley & Witte, 1981). However, the role of teacher feedback on students’ writing has transferred when it refers to second language learning. Although this mode may cause some wrong communication and misunderstanding between teacher and student, teacher feedback has the potential value for stimulating students to revise their drafts (Saito, 1994; Zhang, 1995) and to improve their writing (Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Ferris, 1995, 1997, 2006; Goldstein & Conrad, 1990). 3.1.2 Peer FeedbackDifferent from teacher feedback, peer feedback is defined as the use of learners as sources of information and interaction for each other in such a way that learners assume roles and responsibilities normally taken on by formally trained teacher, tutor or editor in commenting on and critiquing each others drafts in both written and spoken formats in the process of writing (Liu & Hansen, 2002). For many years, the unique benefits of language learners can offer to each other were ignored in writing classrooms, especially in ESL and EFL classrooms. The Process Writing Theory and The Collaborative Learning Theory have justified the use of peer feedback activities in the writing process. These theories have provided the evidence that peer feedback activities not only help L2 learners improve their writing ability but also their overall language abilities through the negotiation of meaning which typically take place during these activities.There are various forms in peer feedback, such as offering spoken suggestions and correcting errors in written form. The well-known mode of peer feedback of SL writing class is that students who work in pairs in small groups read peer’s compositions carefully, pointing out problems and doubts, and offer suggestions and comments (Richards et al., 2005). The essence of feedback is to hear multipleperspectives from a wide audience (Shepherd, 1992; Cho, Schunn, & Charney, 2006). This method, which is supported by the writing workshop pedagogy, and is widespread in the first language teaching.4. Theoretical Foundations of Feedback4.1 Collaborative LearningCollaborative learning, also called cooperative learning, is the second theoretical basis that back for the application of feedback in writing class (Hiltz, 1997). It is feasible that students communicate actively with each other in the classroom.Collaborative learning emphasizes that both students and instructors participate and communicate actively (Hiltz, 1997). Collaborative learning is viewed from both behavioral and humanistic perspectives (Slavin, 1987). The behavioral perspective stresses that students are encouraged to study under a cooperative situation and rewarded in the form of group rather than individual ones. From the humanistic perspective, more understanding and better performance are gained from the interaction among peers. Hence, it is obvious that collaborative learning puts more attention to the influence of peers, which is different from the previous EFL writing theories (Johnson and Johnson, 1986).Collaborative learning makes it possible that students discuss and accomplish tasks that they can not do finish by themselves without higher motivation. Students acquire certain kinds of knowledge and benefit from each other in the way of spoken and written communication, which occurs in the atmosphere of collaborative learning.Researches in L1 writing has found that the writing is strengthened with the help of collaborative learning strategies (Bruffee, 1984). For example, students in writing groups negotiate meaning as they revise the peers’writings; learning in writing teams is conducive to improving the students’writing proficiency (Gere, 1987).As to the impact of collaborative learning on L2 writing instruction, many benefits of applying collaborative learning strategies in the classroom has also beenstated in the study. In some researches it is mentioned that students can make decisions reasonably and effectively compare notes from the content and application through the group work. Collaborative learning also offers students raise opportunities review and use their growing knowledge of L2 writing through interaction with peers in writing groups (Hivela, 1999: 8). There are many opportunities for students to share and communicate ideas with each other.4.2 Process-Oriented ApproachCompared with the product-oriented approach, the process approach is an essential component of composition instruction and research. It is obvious that product-oriented approach attaches great importance to grammar, spelling, punctuation and vocabulary and so on. The process-oriented approach in EFL writing began to appear in the late of 1960s and early 1970s in L1 writing (Elbow, 1973; Emig, 1971). The process-oriented approach was introduced to L2 studies by Vivan Zamel (1976). She argues that advanced L2 writers who are similar to L1 writers would benefit from this approach (Matsuda, 2003). Although there are various process approaches in writing instruction, some noticeable features can be concluded. The features of process-oriented approach are as followed:1)Putting attention to the process of writing rather than the final product;2)Offering suggestions and help to compose student’s writing;3)Putting forward strategies of pre-writing, drafting and rewriting;4)Attaching great importance to the stage of revising;5)Assisting students find the correct content when they write the compositions;6)Emphasizing feedback no matter from teachers or peers;7)Encouraging to hold individual feedback meetings in the groups throughout theprocess of writing.A process-oriented approach, which lays the first theoretical foundation for feedback that attaches great importance to the cyclical phases of writing, for example, pre-write, draft, revision, and edit and final draft. At the beginning, many tasks including producing a topic through reading or listening or analyzing the structure thathas been carried out to the writing. Next, students from create the first drafts for further reading and revising by forming their ideas into a liner structure. Then, the second draft appears and the interactive activity among peers can be repeated after the second on the condition that there is enough for students to discuss their compositions. Finally, students accomplish the final draft based on the feedback from both peers and the teachers. Therefore, it is clear that process of writing is the center of process-oriented approach (Keh, 1990: 294). And the reader’s feedback exerted great influence on the multiple-draft process because it is the motivation for the writer get the final draft through the writing process.The importance of the revision process of writing has been strengthened (Leki, 1990) and how to revise the writing from the reader’s feedback has also become the focus of the process of writing (Zhang, 1995). Researches on the importance of revision are also emphasized that revision could help writer become mature and enrich their writing experience. Revision is seen as an essential procedure and a useful way of enhancing the quality of writing from the perspective of cognitive psychology (Fitzgerald, 1987). The strategies for planning and revising can be applied in classroom for students and multiple-drafts can offer more chances for students assess their writing critically (Becker, 2006).Reference:[1] Chaudron, C. The effects of feedback on students revisions [J]. RELC Journal, 1984, 15(2): 1-14.[2] Chaudron, C. Evaluating Writing: Effects of Feedback on Revision [J]. RELC Journal, 1984, 15(4): 1-14.[3] Cohen, A. and M. Cavalcanti. Feedback on Composition: Teacher and Student Verbal Reports[A]. B. Kroll. Learner Strategies in language Learning[C]. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1987, 57-69.[4] Connors, R., & Lunsford, A. (1993). Teachers’rhetorical comments on student papers. College Composition and Communication, 44, 515-524.[5] Faigley L & Witte, S. Analyzing revision [J]. College Composition and Communication, 1981, 32(4): 400-414.[6] Fathman K & Whalley E. Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content [A]. In Kroll B (ed.). Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990, 178-190.[7] Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33-53.[8] Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315-339.[9] Ferris, D. R. (1999). The Case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-10.[10] Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does Error Feedback Help Student Writers? New Evidence on the Short-and Long-term Effects of Written Error Correction.In Hyland, K, & Hyland, F. (Eds.), 81-104.[11] Ferris, D. R. and Roberts, B. (2001) Error Feedback in L2 Writing Classes: How explicit does it need to be ? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10: 161-184. [12] Goldstein, L,. & Conrad, S. (1990). Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 443-460.[13] Hedgcock, J. & N, Lefkowitz. Some Input: Two Analysis of Student Response to Expert Feedback in L2 Writing [J]. Modern Language Journal, 1996, (80): 287-308.[14] Hyland, F. 1998. “The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers”. Journal of Second Language Writing 7: 255-286.[15] Jacobs, G. M., A. Gurtis, G. Braine & S. Huang. Feedback on Student writing: Taking the middle path [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1998, 7(3): 307-317.[16] Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. EFL Journal, 44(4), 294-304.[17] Liu, J. & J. G., Hansen. Peer Response in Second Language Writing Classroom [M]. The University of Michigan Press, 2002.[18] Lin, N. F. & Careless, D. Peer Feedback: The learning element of peer assessment [J]. CATESOL Journal, 2001, (3): 5-17.[19] Min, H. T. 2005. “Training students to become successful peer reviewers”. System 33/2.[20] Paulus, T. The effect of peer and teacher feedback on students’writing [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1999, 8(3): 265-289.[21] Richards, C. J. and R. Schmidt. (eds.). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics[J]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research press, 2005.[22] Saito, H. 1994. “Teachers ‘practices and students’preferences for feedback on second language writing: A case study of adult ESL learners ”. TESL Canada Journal 11.[23] Sommers, N. Responding to Student Writing [J]. College Composition and Communication, 1982, (33): 148-156.[24] Topping, K. Peer feedback between students in colleges and universities [J]. Review of Educational Research, 1998, 68(3): 249-276.[25] Tsui, A. B. & Ng, M. Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? [J]. Journal of Second Language writing, 2000, 9(2): 147-170.[26] Vygotsky, L. S.Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological process [M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978.[27] Zamel, V. Writing: The process of discovering meaning [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 1982, 16: 195-209.[28] Zamel, V. Responding to student writing [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 1985 (1): 79-101.[29] Zhang, S. Q. Examining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1995, 4(3): 209-222.[30] Zhu, W. Effects of teaching for peer feedback on students’comments and interaction [J]. Written Communication, 1995, 12(4): 492-528.[31] 贝晓武. 写作任务的练习效应和教师反馈对不同外语水平学生写作质量和流利度的影响[J]. 现代外语, 2009(4): 389-398+437.[32] 郭晓英. 英语写作评价模式的多元化设计[J]. 北京邮电大学学报(社会科学版), 2011, (4): 105-113.[33] 龚晓斌. 英语写作教学: 优化的同伴反馈[J]. 国外外语教学, 2007, (3): 49-53.[34] 韩冰. 同伴互评在大学英语写作教学中的功效—基于写作流利性, 复杂性及准确性的实证研究[J]. 教育理论与实践, 2009(21): 40-42.[35] 胡茶娟, 张迎春. 大学英语写作教学中的同伴互评效果的比较研究—基于135名学生的分组对照试验[J]. 湖南农业大学学报, 2011, (3): 68-72.[36] 李红, 吴胜梅. 英语写作中教师反馈对学生注意影响的研究概况[J]. 重庆大学学报(社会科学版), 2005(2): 88-91.[37] 孟晓. 同伴反馈在英语写作教学中的应用研究[J]. 山东外语教学, 2009, (4): 61-64.[38] 王俊菊. 总体态度, 反馈类型和纠错种类—对大学英语教师书面反馈的探究[J]. 国外外语教学, 2006(3): 24-30.[39] 王颖, 刘振前. 教师反馈对英语写作准确性, 流利性, 复杂性和总体质量作用的研究[J]. 外语教学, 2012(6): 49-53.[40] 徐颖. 英语写作教学中的同伴反馈[J]. 四川教育学院学报, 2010, (10): 76-79.[41] 谢晓燕. 大学英语专业课堂教师反馈研究[J]. 解放军外国语学院学报, 2011(2): 50-55.[42] 杨苗. 中国英语写作课教师反馈和同伴反馈对比研究[J]. 现代外语, 2006, (3): 293-301.[43] 朱秋娟. 反馈机制与写作教学—国内外研究及对大学英语写作教学的启示[J]. 长春理工大学学报(社会科学版), 2010, (3): 160-162.[44] 张义君, 刘燕梅. 教师反馈类型对大学生英语写作的影响[J]. 首都经贸大学学报, 2010(1): 115-118.[45] 周一书. 论同伴反馈在大学英语写作课堂中的有效性[J]. 江苏教育学院学报, 2013, (2): 121-124.。
英语写作教学中教师反馈与同辈反馈研究述评
之间，也可以发生在学生与学生之间（ 张雪梅、戴 炜栋，２０ ） ０ １ 。发生在教师和学生之间的反馈称为 教师反馈，指教师为了提高、改进学习者的作文 水平 而返 回的信息 。这些 信息有 的是 针对学 习者
【 基金 项 目】 ０ ９年广西研究生科研创 新项 目，项 目编号 ：２ ０ １ ５ ３ ９４ ６ ２０ ０９０９０００７
师 的角色 ，以书面和 口头两种形式修改 同学作文。 同辈反馈 的常用 做法是学 生根据教师提 供 的反 馈 表就 同学作 文的 内容 、组 织结构 、语 法、词汇 和 技术细节进行修改 。 Ｊｃｂ 等对 ４ ａｏ ｓ ４名香 港大 学生 和 ７ 名 台湾大学 生 ７ 作 了 问卷调查 。调查结 果显示 ，９％ 的学生希 望 ３ 在修 改 自己的作文 时，能得到包 括 同辈反 馈在 内
作 文表层错 误的纠错性 反馈 ，有 的是面 向作 文语
研究推动了 Ｊ ｏｓ （９８ ａ ｂ 等 １９ ）进一步研究学生对 ｃ
篇层面如内容和组织结构的反馈 （ 郭翠红、秦晓 教 师反馈 和 同辈 反馈 的态 度。他们认 为 Ｚ ａｇ在 ｈｎ 晴， ０ ６。发生在学生和学生之间的反馈称为同 ２０ ） 研 究 中迫使学 生在 同辈反馈和教 师反馈 中做 出选 辈反馈。它特指在写作的过程中，由学生代替教 择是对学生 的误导，因而其研究结果存在争议。
同辈反馈 来修改 作文。 因此 ，他认 为教师 反馈 比
果。这些研究的结果不尽相同，两种反馈方式孰 好孰坏，结论不一。本文将介绍一些相关研究成 果 ，探 究 目前 的研 究状 况和 存在 的 问题 ，并指 出
对我 国英语写作教学 的启示 。
二 、反馈的定义
写作 教学 中的反馈 指的是 “ 读者 给作 者提供
教师反馈和同伴反馈在大学英语写作课运用中的实证研究
馈 方式的班级成 绩进行数 据分析 ， 最终得 出结论 ， 运用 同伴反馈 的班级 学生 的写作成 绩进步 显著 ， 而用传统评 改
模 式班级 的学生成绩 不及 实验 班进步显著。 关键词 ： 同伴 反馈 ； 师反馈 ； 教 数据 ； 对比分析 中图分 类号 ： ４ ３０ Ｇ ２ ．４
一
文献标识码 ： Ａ
Ｉ ｄ ｐ ｎ ｅ ｔＳ ｍｐ ｅ ｅ ｔ ｎ ｅ ｅ ｄ ｎ ａ ｌ ｓＴ ｓ
Ｅ ｅｔ §Ｔ ｓ
、
实 验 目的
在大学英语课堂 的写 作教学 中， 师反馈 和 同伴 反馈 教
一
直都受到研究人员和教师 的关注 ， 尤其是后者 ， 作为传统
咖
吕ｆ Ｅ ｕｌｙ０ 。 Ｉ０ ｑ ａ ｔ ｆＭ 哪 ｉ
教 师反 馈 和 同伴 反 馈 在 大 学英语写作课 运用中的实证 研究
王杨 琴 ， 梁 艳
（ 宁学 院 外 国语 学 院 ， 北 成 宁 ４７ ０ ） 成 湖 ３ ０５
摘
要： 作文的评 改模式是 大学英语 写作教 学 中非常重要 的一个环节 ， 文 旨在 通过 实证 对采用两种不 同评 改反 本
第 三周至 第 四周
实验班小组组 长将作文一稿 评改后反馈 给学生 ， 学生根 据评改情 况
修改作文一稿 形成最终修改稿 ， 即二稿后 上交给教 师 ； 控制 班学 生
将教师评改后五周 第六周 至九周
统教育模式 ， 即都学 习了 ６年或 以上 的英语 。两 个班 的学 生均在大一入校 开始就 接受 了来 自同一名 教师 （ 即笔者 ） 为时一个学期的读写课 程教学 ， 学生 所用 教材都 是外 研社
二 、 验 过 程 实
大一第 二个 学期 ， 正式 开始 了本次实 验 。随 机抽 取 口
高中英语写作中教师反馈与同伴反馈结合的研究
68Crazy English Teachers疯狂英语·教学版 2016年（7月号）摘 要：本文旨在研究高中英语写作教学中的教师、同伴反馈结合的效果以及学生对这一反馈形式的看法。
运用写作前后测试、问卷和访谈的数据收集方法，研究发现这一反馈形式与学生写作成绩的提高有密切关系，能够激发学生学习兴趣并提高教学效率。
关键词：教师反馈；同伴反馈；高中英语写作高中英语写作中教师反馈与同伴反馈结合的研究山东省济南市山东大学外国语学院 张 安1.研究背景反馈指的是针对学习者真实表现而后给予的评价与建议（Lewis 2007）。
随着高中英语新课标的实施，写作这类输出型语言技能受到更多关注，课堂加大了写作教学比重。
目前的写作教学方式以教师为学生提供指导建议的反馈为主，这种方式是增强学生学习能力、巩固学习效果的主要手段。
但教师反馈仅强调了教师的作用，以教师讲课、学生听课、记笔记为主，导致学生积极性下降、兴趣不足，成绩没有起色。
因此，发挥学生的积极性，倾听他们的建议，由同学给出反馈是有必要的。
然而，反馈本身权威性不强，把握整体的能力欠缺，必须依靠教师反馈的指导，所以，把教师与同伴反馈相结合的反馈形式，可以提高教师教学效率，增强学生学习兴趣，从而达到提升学习效果的目的。
2.文献综述Keh （1990）把反馈定义为由表达者向受众输入有效信息以修正其观点。
它涉及到课堂活动的主要参与者：教师与学生。
在教师反馈研究这一领域，国内外近五年关注较多，在核心外语类期刊上的文章研究主题大致分为以下四类：反馈、功能、影响、特征。
例如，昊炜（2015）研究了在英语写作修改过程中，教师反馈的焦点与反馈策略之间的交互影响，这种影响较显著；Hargreaves （2014）通过几个典型个案研究发现：教师反馈有助于促进学生独立学习能力的发展。
2011年，李竞通过案例研究分析了教师书面反馈，指出直接的校正反馈是其主要特征。
对于同伴反馈，国内研究热度不及国外，但按照研究热点均可分为以下两方面：反馈影响以及对其看法。
英语专业写作小组同伴反馈和教师反馈效果研究_刘永厚
赤峰学院学报英语专业写作小组同伴反馈和教师反馈效果研究*刘永厚提要：本实验研究以52名英语专业学生为对象，历时两个学期跟踪考察小组同伴反馈和教师反馈在英语写作教学中的效果。
研究结果表明，“小组同伴反馈+教师反馈”的模式比单一教师反馈模式的教学效果更好，它更加显著地提高了实验班学生的写作水平。
小组同伴反馈有助于在写作中赋予学习者多重角色，提高学习者写作动机，培养学习者写作自主性和班级认同感。
关键词：同伴反馈；教师反馈；写作小组；实践共同体Abstract：This experimental study，with52English majors as the subjects，investigates the effects of group peer feedback and teacher feedback in two-semester writing teaching．The results indicate that the combination of group peer feedback and teacher feedback is more effective than teacher feedback in improving the students'writing profi-ciency．Group peer feedback enables the students to play multiple roles in writing，strengthens their motivation，and enhances their writing autonomy and sense of class identity．Key words：peer feedback；teacher feedback；writing group；community of practice中图分类号：H319文献标识码：B文章编号：1004－5112（2015）01－0048－08一、引言修改是写作的必要环节之一，在二语写作中起着重要作用。
浅谈教师反馈和同伴反馈相结合的写作评价方式
种 单边 的教学活 动 ， 忽 视 了学 生 在教 学反 馈 环节 的主题 性 参 与。学 生们会认 为批改是 教师 的职 责 ， 不认 真写作 ， 草 草写 作
文来应付差事 ， 学 生 的 主 观 能 动 性 根 本 得 不 到 发 挥 。 教 师 根 据
过程 的重要 环节—— 反馈 ， 备 受研 究者们的观注 。笔者把 两者相 结合 的写作评 价方式应 用于英语 写作教 学 中， 旨在通过这 种写作 评价 方式能够激发学生写作兴趣 ， 提 高学生写作能 力。 关键词 ： 同伴反馈 ； 教 师反 馈 ； 英语 写作
一
、
当前高 中写作评价方 式存在 的主要问题
浅谈教 师 反馈和 同伴 反馈相 结合 的写作评价 方 式
王海霞
摘
王 济 卓
河北 ・ 唐山 ０ ６ ４ １ ０ ０ ）
（ 河北唐 山师 范学 院玉 田分校
要： 英语《 新课程 标准》 在写作评价 建议 中指 出“ 要 关注学生写作修 改作 文的态度 、 过程 、 内容 、 和方 法” 。 因此 ， 英语 写作教 学
作 文进行终 结性 评价反馈 ， 反 馈 回来 ， 学生们 只关 心 自己的分
数， 而无心再关注批改 。事 实证 明 ， 写 作 最 重 要 的 环 节 是 批 改
和反馈 。在 得到恰当 的反 馈 ， 反 复的修 改之后 ， 学 生写 作能 力
反馈信息不 准确 ， 很含糊 ， 学生 不能 准确地 理解 教师 给 出的反
馈 。有 的老师批改作 文很认 真负责 ， 但是几 十篇作文 的批改至
才会 提高。此外 ， 教师 只注 意批 改词 、 句等语 法错误 ， 忽视文 章
英语写作教学中教师反馈与同伴反馈的对比研究
受教 师反馈 ， 测量和对 比两个班的教学效果。研究发现 ： （ １ ） 实验班 学生后测 综合成绩 显著 高于其前测水 平 ， 同伴反 馈提 高了学生写作能力 ； （ ２ ） 实验班 学生后测综合成绩显著 高于控制班后测成绩 ， 同伴反馈 的效果优 于教师反馈 ； （ ３ ） 实验班在 写作 准确性和词法 多样性上 的表现 有显著提 升且 大于控制班 的提升程度 ， 表 明同伴反馈 在提 高学 生词 ； ｒ － 和
、
研 究设 计
１ ． 研 究 问题 。
本研 究试 图 回答 以下 具体 问题 ： 第一， 教 师反 馈 和 同伴反 馈 两种模 式 分别 在 多 大程 度上 提 高 了学 生 的写作 水平 ？ 第 二 ， 学 生 对 两 种 反 馈 模 式 分 别 持 什 么样 的态度 ？ 第 三 ， 什 么 造 成 了教 师 反 馈 和 同伴 反 馈 的效果 差 异？如 何 提高 学 生英 语 写 作教 学 中反馈
一
学生的整体语言能力也得到了提高。但关于同伴反
馈 的有 效 性 ， 学 术 界 尚存 在 较 大 争 议 。Ｍａ ｎ ｇ ｅ ｌ ｓ ｄ ｏ ｆ
等对同伴反馈 的有 效性 持肯定态 度 ， 认为 同伴互评 能促 使学 生 在 写作 中扮 演 更 加 积 极 的 角 色 ， … 增 强
学生修 改 的动力 ， 还 能 给学 生 创 造很 多 交互 、 协 商 和
的有效性 ？ ２ ． 研究样 本 。
合作 的机 会 ， “ 提 高学 生 的 自主 性 和 积 极性 ， 为 大 多 数学 生所认 可 和喜 欢 ” ＿ ２ ｊ 。而 Ｎ ｅ ｌ ｓ ｏ ｎ等 否 认 同伴 反 馈 的效果 ， 认为 Ｅ Ｓ Ｌ学生将 教 师权 威化 ， 对 同伴 的英 语写 作水 平持 怀疑 态度 ； ＿ ３ 周 雪 也指 出 ， 由于 学生 采
大学英语写作中教师反馈与同级反馈的对比分析
关键词 ：教 师反 馈 ；同级反馈 ；写作教学 中图分 类号：Ｈ３ １ ９ 文献标识码 ：Ａ
文章编一 号：１ ６ ７ １ — ５ ８ ６ １ （ ２ ０ １ ５ ） ０ １ ０ ． ０ ０ ７ ５ ． Ｏ １
议论文的写作为主，所 以教师针对议论文设计 了下列 问题供 学生参考：
２ ． ２ 同级反馈 （ ｐ ｅ ｅ ｒ ｆ ｅ ｅ ｄ ｂ ａ ｃ ｋ ） 学生每完成一篇文章，教师专 门抽一节课 （ ４ ５ 分钟 ）的 时间，要求学生相 互交换文 章，按照表 １ 所列 的反馈标准进 行评 价，允许 学生在文 章中注 明修改意见，书面反馈完毕之 后 ，学生拿 回 自己的文章，并就反馈意见进行 自由讨论。 ２ ． ３同级反馈后任务 （ ａ ｆ ｔ ｅ ｒ — ｐ ｅ ｅ ｒ ｆ ｅ ｅ ｄ ｂ ａ ｃ ｋ ） 同级反馈 结束之后，教 师收上全部文 章，记录学生 同级 反馈 的结 果，并且再从教师 的角度做 出批改式反馈 ，并在课 堂上集体讲评 那些普遍 存在 的问题，然后通过 问卷调查和随 机访谈 的方 式，了解并记录学生对 同级反馈 的评价 ，以及 同 级反馈与教师反馈对他 们写作 能力的影 响。
从反馈主体 的角度 ，写作教学 中的反馈可 以分为教师反 馈和 同级反馈两 大类 。教师反馈主要通过批改式和面谈式两 种形式进行 ，但是 由于教 师时间有 限，学生 数量 众多，面谈 式主要是通过在 课堂 上面向全体学生总结概括性地反馈 ，单 独面谈 式反馈非常有 限 。同级反馈 是指 由学生 之间的互评 ， 有助于增强 学生 的读 者意识，通过 与其他 同学相 互交流，降 低写作焦虑 ，提高写作 的质量 ，是一种建立在建构主义理论 和外语 习得理论基础上 的学习活动 。 从反馈主体 的综合 能力来 看，教师 的语言水平及知识储 备远远 高于 学生 ，因此 ，教师反馈和 同级反馈在写作教学 中 对写作者 的影响必然是有差异 的。 ２实践案例 基于上述理论 ，我们设计 了一个英语写作项 目，教学对 象是我远 ２ ０ １ ４ 级机械工程系 的本科学生 ， 项 目持续两个月 ， 学生共完成十篇议论文 的写作 。实施 该项 目的 目的是对 比教 师反馈 和 同级反馈 在英 语写作 中的对写作 者 的影响 以及如 何更好地提高写作者 的写作能力 。 ２ ． １ 同级反馈前任务 （ ｐ ｒ ｅ － ｐ ｅ ｅ ｒ ｆ ｅ ｅ ｄ ｂ ａ ｃ ｋ ｔ ａ ｓ ｋ ） 根据 Ｒ ｏ ｌ １ ｉ ｎ ｓ ｏ ｎ的观 点，在实施 同级反馈之前 ，需要注 意三个 方面 的准 备工作 ；（ １ ）ａ ｗ ａ ｒ ｅ ｎ ｅ ｓ ｓ — ｒ ａ ｉ ｓ ｉ ｎ ｇ（ 培养 同 级 反馈 的意识 ）（ ２ ）ｐ ｒ ｏ ｄ ｕ ｃ ｔ ｉ ｖ ｅ ｇ ｒ ｏ ｕ ｐ ｉ ｎ ｔ ｅ ｒ ａ ｃ ｔ ｉ ｏ ｎ ｌ ： 同级 反 馈 中的相互交流 及合作 ）（ ３ ）ｐ ｒ ｏ ｄ ｕ ｃ ｔ ｉ ｖ ｅ ｒ ｅ ｓ ｐ ｏ ｎ ｓ ｅ ａ ｎ ｄ ｒ ｅ ｖ ｉ ｓ ｉ ｏ ｎ（ 做 出有效的反馈和修 改 ） 。因此 ，在 每一次 实施 同级反 馈之前，教师 向学生说明同级反馈的作用和意义 ，使 学 生有一个 正确 的认识和端 正的态度 ，从读者 的角 度出发 ， 阅读他 同学的文章时 ，既要有 欣赏的眼光，也要 有批 判的眼 光 ，针对发 现的问题 ，做 出客观而 公正 的反 馈，对文 章的闪 光 点给 予积 极正面的反馈 。 由于学生的语言水平有限 ，在对其他 同学的文 章进行 反 馈 时 ，容 易陷入 片面 ， 比如 只关注拼 写错 误或者语法错 误 ， 针对这个 问题 ，教师在进行 同级反馈之 前，提前设计一系 列
教师反馈和同伴反馈应用于大学英语写作教学之对比研究
２４反 （ｅａ） 指 制 统 结 信 输 出 ， 专 学 而 ，者 为 必 审 和 教 反 和 伴 ０ ） 馈 ｆ ｂｋ 控 系 把 果 息 送 去 业 生 言笔 认 有 要 视 对比 师 馈 同 ０ ｅ ｃ是 ｄ 然 把 作 的 果 回 ， 对 息 输 发 影 ， 反 的 理 和 效 。 后 其 用 结 返 来并 信 再 出 生 响起 馈 合 性 有 性 到 作用 通 馈， 不断 正偏向 误， １ 研究设计 控制 。 过反 可以 地矫 和失 逐步 １ 达 预 的目 。 教 境中 反馈 到 期 的 在 学环 ， 通常指 改进、 １ 研 题 为了 提 ． 究问 高 学生的学习 而对某一学习任务完成情况发回 的信息。 １ 对 师 馈 同 反 的 度 何？ ） 学生 教 反 和 伴 馈 态 如 （ｒ９ ） 馈是 语写 学的 个重 节， 学生 Ｕ，９ 反 英 作教 一 要环 它对 １８ ２教 反 和 伴 馈 侧 点 别 什 ） 师 馈 同 反 的 重 分 是 么？ 明 自 习 的 缺 、现 在 问 以 高 作 力 白 己 作 优 点发 存 的 题 提 写 能 有 ３不 水 的学 对教 馈 伴 是如 采纳 ） 同 平 生 师反 和同 反馈 何 ？ 着 可 不 低估的 。 作用 首先， 它为作者 修改提 动力和 的 供了 指 导； 它 化了 观 的 其次，强 “ 众” 概念， 助 完成 为自 １ 研 对象 帮 作者 从“ 己 ． 究 ２ 而 ”ｗｔ．ｓ ） “ 读 而写 （＆ｒａｄ的 写 （ｒｒａｄ￣ 为 者 ”ｒｄ－ｓ ） 蜕变， ｉ ｂｅ ｌ ｅ ｅｅｂｅ 笔 选取 东 ２ ９ 化 化工 者 陇 学院 ０ 级 学 学院Ａ ３名 ０ 班的 ０ 学 从 达 文 意 的 （ 苗，０） 而 到以 达 的目 。 杨 ２ ６ ０ 生， 过 程开 学生递 通 课 始时 交的课 堂作文 绩把学生 成 分为 Ｔ ｉ ｇ２ Ｏ发 中 生 为 师 馈比 伴反 更 好、 、 三 次， 个层 ０ １ １属于高 ｓ＆ （ ｏ） 现 学 认 教 反 同 馈 中 差 个层 每 次１人。 —０ ｕＮ ０ 水平学
写作反馈对比分析：教师反馈和同伴反馈
写作反馈对比分析：教师反馈和同伴反馈Literature Review on Feedback in EFL Writing: Teacher Feedback and Peer Feedback摘要：写作是一种重要的语言技巧，相比较听力、口语和阅读，写作更能全面的展现学习者的语言精准水平。
所以我们需要对英语写作的教与学投入更多的精力。
然而我们当前的大学英语写作教学收效并非显著。
一方面，老师花费大量的精力和时间去阅读和修改学生的英语写作，但成效颇低；另一方面，学生只是表面肤浅的理解老师的建议及评语或者甚至直接忽视老师给予的纠错反馈。
在一定程度上来看，造成这种现象的原因可以追溯到结果教学法在英语写作教学中的广泛应用而带来的影响。
结果教学法把英语写作过程看成是一个线性的活动，在这一过程中没有课堂活动部分，没有互动。
而与之相对应的过程教学法把写作看成是一个复杂的、相互重叠的认知过程，在这个过程中有学生的积极参与。
反馈作为过程教学法的重要组成部分而引起广泛的关注，它包括：教师反馈、同伴反馈、自我反馈和计算机辅助反馈。
其中，教师反馈和同伴反馈是其主要的两大部分。
在二语学习环境下关于这两种反馈效果的研究很多，但研究结果有所不同，有的研究者认为教师反馈的效果更佳而有的研究更倾向于在写作中使用同伴反馈。
在以往的研究中，研究者们大多只侧重于其中一种反馈方式在大学英语写作教学中的应用，而将两者教学方法结合起来应用的研究不是很多。
因此，本研究尝试将两种反馈应用到大学英语写作教学中并期待通过实证研究能够在不久将来证实其可行性和效度。
关键字：反馈；教师反馈；同伴反馈；外语写作Abstract: As an important language skill, writing can comprehensively present the learners?language proficiency compared with other basic skills such as listening, speaking and reading. Therefore, much attention should be paid to the teaching andlearning of English writing. However, at present time, ourcollege English writing instruction seems unsatisfactory. On the one hand, teachers contribute a great deal of time and energy to reading and correcting student?s composition but with low efficiency; on the other hand, students spend less time superficially understanding teacher?s suggestions and comments or even directly neglect teacher?s error correction. To a certain extent, this current situation can be traced back to the prevailing traditional product-oriented approach which assumes writing as a liner process, in which there is no students? interaction within writing activities. On the contrary, the process-oriented approach assumes writing as a cognitive process, with which students can actively participant in writing activities. Feedback, an indispensable part of process-oriented approach of writing, has attracted great attention, which mainly encompasses teacher feedback and peer feedback. In ESL context, many studies on the effects of two types of feedback has been done. Nevertheless, the results of them varied greatly in these studies. Some scholars reviewed that teacher feedback is more favorable in writing class while others prefer to use peer feedback. Up to now, most of the researchers just focus on either peer feedback or teacher feedback, and few researchers have combined the two kinds of feedback in the context of the EFL writing. Hence, the study attempts to apply peer feedback and teacher feedback into EFL writing through an empirical study and look forward to its feasibility and effectiveness will be approved in the near further study in writing pedagogy. Keywords: feedback; teacher feedback; peer feedback; EFL writing1.IntroductionFeedback plays a prominent role in improving student?s learning ability and strengthening his or her learningachievement in language pedagogy. In writing, feedback refers to “reader?s comprehensible input from author whose function is of fering information to reader to modify composition” (Zhu, 2010). The efficiency of writing feedback will directly affect students? writing level as well as reflecting the effectiveness of teacher?s writing strategies. Feedback in EFL writing mainly focus on: teacher feedback; peer feedback; self-feedback and computer-generated feedback.From which teacher feedback refers to the input provided by the teacher for the revision of students? writings or assessment of learning performance (Keh, 1990) and peer feedback is defined as a system in which individuals evaluate counterparts?or peers?achievements of language learning including writing and reading (Topping, 1998). Teacher feedback plays a dominant role in L2 writing, while in recent years teacher feedback was given great attention through the popularity of process writing approach. Domestic and foreign scholars have already conducted a great deal of empirical research on teacher and peer feedback, but have not reached a consensus on the effectiveness and the ranges, methods and strategies of application. And many researches paid attention to the single study on different modes of feedback as well as focusing less on the comparative study of the efficiency, merits and demerits of integrating teacher feedback and peer feedback. Based on which this study will explore the effectiveness of combining teacher feedback and peer feedback and look forward to providing practically and significantly instructional feedback in EFL writing.2.Related Studies of Teacher Feedback and Peer Feedback at Home and AbroadThe study of writing feedback began in the 1950s. Thescholars made a comparison between teacher?s error correction and peer?s error correction with the guidance of teachers, the results of which examined that the efficiency of the latter is better than the former one. In the following 60 years, domestic and international scholars made a detail study on the practical effectiveness of peer feedback (Keh, 1990; Ferris, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2006; Paulus, 1999; Tsui & Ng, 2000; Ming, 2005; Liu, 2002; Gong, 2007; Meng, 2009; Wang, 2010; Xu, 2010; Guo, 2011; Hu & Zhang, 2011). These researchers stated that singly using teacher feedback will not truly and efficiently improve students?writing ability. “Teachers often spend a gre at deal of time and energy in modifying composition and putting forward many comments and suggestions on writing, however, students always neglect teachers?correction comments as well as superficially understand the correction suggestions. This kind ofsingle and passive feedback have no effect on stimulating student?s learning interests and enthusiasm”(Zhou, 2013: 121). On the contrary, peer feedback attracted more attention to scholars and teachers. They found that in the process of face-to-face communication, negotiation and discussion, peer feedback can mutually, actively and accurately state what students want to express. Meanwhile, student?s self-learning ability and collaborative spirit could be exerted to the utmost as well as writing and thought ability being exerted to a higher extent.Some other studies investigated the essence of teachers?feedback behaviors (Connors & Lunsford 1993: 200-223; Ferris, 1997: 315-339; ); the effectiveness of feedback types (Ferris & Roberts, 2001: 161-184; Kepner, 1991: 305-313); students?perceptions of feedback (Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990: 155-177; Hedgocock & Left-kowtz, 1994: 141-165). Totally,students generally considered that peer feedback is much more effective than teacher feedback. In terms of teacher feedback, domestic researches focused more on the importance and values of student?s recognition process and its development (Zhang et al., 2000: 24-28; Xie, 2011: 50-51); and its efficiency in improving student?s attention and their ability (Li & Wu, 2005; Bei, 2009); and its influences on the accuracy, fluency and complexity of student?s writing (Wang & Liu, 2012: 49-53); or even the effectiveness of different types of teacher feedback and correction and teachers?and students?attitudes towards teacher feedback (Wang, 2006: 24-30; Zhang & Liu, 2010: 115-118). These studies just singly focused on different aspects of teacher feedback, there are less studies on the combination of peer feedback and teacher feedback and explanation of theirs reliability and efficiency in EFL writing.In recent writing instruction, peer feedback (Richards et al., 2005: 128) refers to “the activity in the process of composition modifying and in this activity where students read peers? composition in groups and then make comments and suggest ions on them”. International writing researches firmed the application of peer feedback in ESL writing (Hansen & Liu, 2005: 31-38; Jacobs et al., 1998: 301-317 ). Also many scholars conducted researches from the perspective of cognition, who put forward that peer feedback could cultivate student?s analytic ability and expand their thinkingspace (Paulus, 1999: 265-289). In addition, students could also communicate with peers and improve the ability of using target language in specific communicative contexts (Hansen, 2005: 31-38). However, the researchers pointed out that although peer feedback could make up drawbacks for teacher feedback,its accuracy, reliability and efficiency are being questioned and the practical operation is needed to be explored further.From the above review, we can conclude that domestic and international scholars just singly conducted researches on either teacher feedback or peer feedback or made studies on the types, characteristics or strategies of feedback as well as a comparative study on peer feedback and teacher feedback. However, there are less researches on combing this two kinds of feedback from now on. Based on which, this study looks forward to making contribution to feedback in EFL writing by integrating peer feedback and teacher feedback.3. Definition of Terms3.1 Feedback TheoryFeedback is wisely seen in education as crucial for both encouraging and consolidating learning (Anderson, 1982; Vygotsky, 1978), and the importance has also been acknowledged in the field of English writing. In the traditional American dictionary (2006), feedback is defined as “transferring process and system input into a part of output”. In the process of writing, the effects of writing cannot be neglected. Keh (1990: 302) referred to feedback as an indispensable part in the process writing pedagogy.In language learning, feedback means evaluative remarks which are available to language learners concerning their language proficiency or linguistic performance (Larsen-Freeman, 2005). In the field of teaching and learning, feedback is defined as many terms, such as response, review, correction, evaluation or comment. No matter what the term is, it can be defined as “comments or information learners receive on the success of a learning task, either from the teacher or from other learners(Richards et al., 1998)”.A more detail description of feedback in terms of writing is that the feedback is “input from the reader to a writer with the effect of providing information to the writer for revision”(Keh, 1990). From the presentation of general grammatical explanation to the specific error correction is all the range of feedback. The purpose is to improve the writing ability of students by the description and correction of the errors.The role of feedback is to make writers learn where he or she has misled or confused the reader by supplying insufficient information, illogical organization, lack of development of ideas, or something like inappropriate word-choice or tense (Keh, 1999).From the perspective of teachers, feedback can be seen as a form of evaluation, aiming at producing a supportive teaching environment and helping students finish assignments better with the aid of feedback from the previous ones. From the perspective of learners, feedback can be considered as a self-assessment, which enables learners to see in what area they need to improve and understand. And feedback can be classified as teacher feedback and peer feedback in terms of the source of feedback which writers receive.3.1.1Teacher FeedbackTeacher feedback refers to the input provided by the teacher for the revision of students?writings or assessment of learning performance (Keh, 1990). Students usually hole the view that teacher feedback is more believable for the reason that it is originated from the influence of the traditional product-oriented approach in writing. And many teachers feel that they have the duty to make substantial comments on students?compositions for the purpose of giving a response to students?efforts, offeringassistance for the improvement of students? writing performance and justify the grades they acquired (K, Hyland, 2003).Researchers considered teacher feedback from various aspects—examining the nature of teacher?s responding behaviors in order to find out the effectiveness of teacher feedback (Connors & Lunsford, 1993; Ferris, 1997; Sommers, 1982; Zamel,1985); comparing students? perceptions of teacher feedback with those peer feedback (Chaudron, 1984); and analyzing students?views on teacher?s feedback (Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990; Hedgcock & Leftkowtz, 1992). The main method of response to the writing is the handwritten commentary on students drafts and teacher feedback is most emphasized in students?expectation for revision. One of the major issues that have been addressed is whether teachers? written comments can help students enhance their writing ability without checking the texts appropriately (Brannon & Knoblauch, 1982; Straub, 1996, 1997).In fact, several early L1 studies that teacher feedback does not serve serve as a mean of effective communication between teacher and student (Brannon & Knoblauch, 1982; Faigley & Witte, 1981). However, the role of teacher feedback on students? writing has transferred when it refers to second language learning. Although this mode may cause some wrong communication and misunderstanding between teacher and student, teacher feedback has the potential value for stimulating students to revise their drafts (Saito, 1994; Zhang, 1995) and to improve their writing (Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Ferris, 1995, 1997, 2006; Goldstein & Conrad, 1990). 3.1.2 Peer Feedback Different from teacher feedback, peer feedback is defined asthe use of learners as sources of information and interaction for each other in such a way that learners assume roles and responsibilities normally taken on by formally trained teacher, tutor or editor in commenting on and critiquing each others drafts in both written and spoken formats in the process of writing (Liu & Hansen, 2002). For many years, the unique benefits of language learners can offer to each other were ignored in writing classrooms, especially in ESL and EFL classrooms. The Process Writing Theory and The Collaborative Learning Theory have justified the use of peer feedback activities in the writing process. These theories have provided the evidence that peer feedback activities not only help L2 learners improve their writing ability but also their overall language abilities through the negotiation of meaning which typically take place during these activities.There are various forms in peer feedback, such as offering spoken suggestions and correcting errors in written form. The well-known mode of peer feedback of SL writing class is that students who work in pairs in small groups read peer?s compositions carefully, pointing out problems and doubts, and offer suggestions and comments (Richards et al., 2005). The essence of feedback is to hear multiple perspectives from a wide audience (Shepherd, 1992; Cho, Schunn, & Charney, 2006). This method, which is supported by the writing workshop pedagogy, and is widespread in the first language teaching.4. Theoretical Foundations of Feedback4.1 Collaborative LearningCollaborative learning, also called cooperative learning, is the second theoretical basis that back for the application of feedback in writing class (Hiltz, 1997). It is feasible that studentscommunicate actively with each other in the classroom.Collaborative learning emphasizes that both students and instructors participate and communicate actively (Hiltz, 1997). Collaborative learning is viewed from both behavioral and humanistic perspectives (Slavin, 1987). The behavioral perspective stresses that students are encouraged to study under a cooperative situation and rewarded in the form of group rather than individual ones. From the humanistic perspective, more understanding and better performance are gained from the interaction among peers. Hence, it is obvious that collaborative learning puts more attention to the influence of peers, which is different from the previous EFL writing theories (Johnson and Johnson, 1986).Collaborative learning makes it possible that students discuss and accomplish tasks that they can not do finish by themselves without higher motivation. Students acquire certain kinds of knowledge and benefit from each other in the way of spoken and written communication, which occurs in the atmosphere of collaborative learning.Researches in L1 writing has found that the writing is strengthened with the help of collaborative learning strategies (Bruffee, 1984). For example, students inwriting groups negotiate meaning as they revise the peers?writings; learning in writing teams is conducive to improving the students?writing proficiency (Gere, 1987).As to the impact of collaborative learning on L2 writing instruction, many benefits of applying collaborative learning strategies in the classroom has also been stated in the study. In some researches it is mentioned that students can make decisions reasonably and effectively compare notes from thecontent and application through the group work. Collaborative learning also offers students raise opportunities review and use their growing knowledge of L2 writing through interaction with peers in writing groups (Hivela, 1999: 8). There are many opportunities for students to share and communicate ideas with each other.4.2 Process-Oriented ApproachCompared with the product-oriented approach, the process approach is an essential component of composition instruction and research. It is obvious that product-oriented approach attaches great importance to grammar, spelling, punctuation and vocabulary and so on. The process-oriented approach in EFL writing began to appear in the late of 1960s and early 1970s in L1 writing (Elbow, 1973; Emig, 1971). The process-oriented approach was introduced to L2 studies by Vivan Zamel (1976). She argues that advanced L2 writers who are similar to L1 writers would benefit from this approach (Matsuda, 2003). Although there are various process approaches in writing instruction, some noticeable features can be concluded. The features of process-oriented approach are as followed:1)Putting attention to the process of writing rather than the final product;2)Offering suggestions and help to compose student?s writing;3)Putting forward strategies of pre-writing, drafting and rewriting;4)Attaching great importance to the stage of revising;5)Assisting students find the correct content when they write the compositions;6)Emphasizing feedback no matter from teachers or peers;7)Encouraging to hold individual feedback meetings in the groups throughout theprocess of writing.A process-oriented approach, which lays the first theoretical foundation for feedback that attaches great importance to the cyclical phases of writing, for example, pre-write, draft, revision, and edit and final draft. At the beginning, many tasks including producing a topic through reading or listening or analyzing the structure that has been carried out to the writing. Next, students from create the first drafts for further reading and revising by forming their ideas into a liner structure. Then, the second draft appears and the interactive activity among peers can be repeated after the second on the condition that there is enough for students to discuss their compositions. Finally, students accomplish the final draft based on the feedback from both peers and the teachers. Therefore, it is clear that process of writing is the center of process-oriented approach (Keh, 1990: 294). And the reader?s feedback exerted great influence on the multiple-draft process because it is the motivation for the writer get the final draft through the writing process.The importance of the revision process of writing has been strengthened (Leki, 1990) and how to revise the writing from the reader?s feedback has also become the focus of the process of writing (Zhang, 1995). Researches on the importance of revision are also emphasized that revision could help writer become mature and enrich their writing experience. Revision is seen as an essential procedure and a useful way of enhancing the quality of writing from the perspective of cognitive psychology (Fitzgerald, 1987). The strategies for planning and revising can be applied in classroom for students and multiple-drafts can offer morechances for students assess their writing critically (Becker, 2006).Reference:[1] Chaudron, C. The effects of feedback on students revisions [J]. RELC Journal, 1984, 15(2): 1-14.[2] Chaudron, C. Evaluating Writing: Effects of Feedback on Revision [J]. RELC Journal, 1984, 15(4): 1-14.[3] Cohen, A. and M. Cavalcanti. Feedback on Composition: Teacher and Student Verbal Reports[A]. B. Kroll. Learner Strategies in language Learning[C]. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1987, 57-69.[4] Connors, R., & Lunsford, A. (1993). Teachers?rhetorical comments on student papers. College Composition and Communication, 44, 515-524.[5] Faigley L & Witte, S. Analyzing revision [J]. College Composition and Communication, 1981, 32(4): 400-414.[6] Fathman K & Whalley E. Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content [A]. In Kroll B (ed.). Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990, 178-190.[7] Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33-53.[8] Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315-339.[9] Ferris, D. R. (1999). The Case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-10.[10] Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does Error Feedback Help Student Writers? New Evidence on the Short-and Long-term Effects of Written Error Correction.In Hyland, K, & Hyland, F. (Eds.), 81-104.[11] Ferris, D. R. and Roberts, B. (2001) Error Feedback in L2 Writing Classes: How explicit does it need to be ? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10: 161-184. [12] Goldstein, L,. & Conrad, S. (1990). Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 443-460.[13] Hedgcock, J. & N, Lefkowitz. Some Input: Two Analysis of Student Response to Expert Feedback in L2 Writing [J]. Modern Language Journal, 1996, (80): 287-308.[14] H yland, F. 1998. “The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers”. Journal of Second Language Writing 7: 255-286.[15] Jacobs, G. M., A. Gurtis, G. Braine & S. Huang. Feedback on Student writing: Taking the middle path [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1998, 7(3): 307-317.[16] Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods forimplementation. EFL Journal, 44(4), 294-304.[17] Liu, J. & J. G., Hansen. Peer Response in Second Language Writing Classroom [M]. The University of Michigan Press, 2002.[18] Lin, N. F. & Careless, D. Peer Feedback: The learning element of peer assessment [J]. CATESOL Journal, 2001, (3): 5-17.[19] Min, H. T. 2005. “Training students to become successful peer reviewers”. System 33/2.[20] Paulus, T. The effect of peer and teacher feedback on students?writing [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1999, 8(3): 265-289.[21] Richards, C. J. and R. Schmidt. (eds.). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics[J]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research press, 2005.[22] Saito, H. 1994. “Teachers …practices and students?preferences for feedback on second language writing:A case study of adult ESL learners ”. TESL Canada Journal 11.[23] Sommers, N. Responding to Student Writing [J]. College Composition and Communication, 1982, (33): 148-156.[24] Topping, K. Peer feedback between students in colleges and universities [J]. Review of Educational Research, 1998, 68(3): 249-276.[25] Tsui, A. B. & Ng, M. Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? [J]. Journal of Second Language writing, 2000, 9(2): 147-170.[26] Vygotsky, L. S.Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological process [M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978.[27] Zamel, V. Writing: The process of discovering meaning [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 1982, 16: 195-209.[28] Zamel, V. Responding to student writing [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 1985 (1): 79-101.[29] Zhang, S. Q. Examining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1995, 4(3): 209-222.[30] Zhu, W. Effects of teaching for peer feedback on students?comments and interaction [J]. Written Communication, 1995, 12(4): 492-528.[31] 贝晓武. 写作任务的练习效应和教师反馈对不同外语水平学生写作质量和流利度的影响[J]. 现代外语, 2009(4): 389-398+437.[32] 郭晓英. 英语写作评价模式的多元化设计[J]. 北京邮电大学学报(社会科学版), 2011, (4): 105-113.[33] 龚晓斌. 英语写作教学: 优化的同伴反馈[J]. 国外外语教学, 2007, (3): 49-53.[34] 韩冰. 同伴互评在大学英语写作教学中的功效—基于写作流利性, 复杂性及准确性的实证研究[J]. 教育理论与实践, 2009(21): 40-42.[35] 胡茶娟, 张迎春. 大学英语写作教学中的同伴互评效果的比较研究—基于135名学生的分组对照试验[J]. 湖南农业大学学报, 2011, (3): 68-72.[36] 李红, 吴胜梅. 英语写作中教师反馈对学生注意影响的研究概况[J]. 重庆大学学报(社会科学版), 2005(2): 88-91.[37] 孟晓. 同伴反馈在英语写作教学中的应用研究[J]. 山东外语教学, 2009, (4): 61-64.[38] 王俊菊. 总体态度, 反馈类型和纠错种类—对大学英语教师书面反馈的探究[J]. 国外外语教学, 2006(3): 24-30.[39] 王颖, 刘振前. 教师反馈对英语写作准确性, 流利性, 复杂性和总体质量作用的研究[J]. 外语教学, 2012(6): 49-53.[40] 徐颖. 英语写作教学中的同伴反馈[J]. 四川教育学院学报, 2010, (10): 76-79.[41] 谢晓燕. 大学英语专业课堂教师反馈研究[J]. 解放军外国语学院学报, 2011(2): 50-55.[42] 杨苗. 中国英语写作课教师反馈和同伴反馈对比研究[J]. 现代外语, 2006, (3): 293-301.[43] 朱秋娟. 反馈机制与写作教学—国内外研究及对大学英语写作教学的启示[J]. 长春理工大学学报(社会科学版), 2010, (3): 160-162.[44] 张义君, 刘燕梅. 教师反馈类型对大学生英语写作的影响[J]. 首都经贸大学学报, 2010(1): 115-118.[45] 周一书. 论同伴反馈在大学英语写作课堂中的有效性[J]. 江苏教育学院学报, 2013, (2): 121-124.。
反馈方式对大学生英语写作效果的影响探究--教师反馈与同伴反馈的
该实验始于 ２ ０ １ ３年 ９月 ， 持续 ２个学期 ， 直到 ９ ０位受试者
参加 ２ ０ １ ４年 ６月全国大学英语 四级考试结束 ， 旨在 回答 以下三
个 问题 ：
（ １ ） 三组学生在分别 接受为期 两学期 的教师反馈 、同伴反馈
作水 平 ， 其提高 的程度达 到统计上 的显著 意义 。同时 ， 教师反 馈与 同伴反馈 结合组 的前后测 写作成绩 提高最 多 ， 达到 １ ８ ． ７ ７ 分， 教师反馈 组次之 ， 提高幅 度为 ｌ １ ． ９ ２分 ， 同伴反馈 组提 高最
少， 其幅度为 ７ ． ４ ６分 。在前后测标准 差方面 ， 三组都有不 同程
及“ 教师 ＋同伴” 反馈后 ， 其英语写作 的改善程度如何 ？ （ ２ ） 三种反馈方式对其最终 的大学英语 四级考试写作成绩 的
影响程度有无 差异 ？
度 的降低 ， 其中， 教师反 馈与 同伴 反馈结合 组 的标 准差降低 幅
论探讨及实践研究 ，给我 国非英语专业 大学生 的英语写作教学 实践提供一定 的指导和帮助 。
３ ８ ９ — ３ ９ ８ ＋ ４ ３ ７ ） ， 但将 这两种反馈方式结 合起来的行动研究 目前
陕 西 教 育 （ 高 教 ）ｌ
研 究 设 计 与 实 施
１ ． 研 究 问题
我 们 对 组 受 试 者 前 后 测 整 体 写 作 成 绩 采 用 配 对 样 本 检
上， 同伴 反馈组较 其他两组要低 。这一结果在 我们实验过程 中 也 有显示 ， 在 同伴 批 改的作 文 中 ， 我们 发现 ， 有 的正确 语言 现 象 被同伴改错 ，造 成这一结 果的原 因可能是 由于学 生写作 水
该研究对象是来 自中国西北地区一 所大学的英语 四级考前