同伴反馈在大学英语写作教学中的应用
协 作学 习理论强调 以小组 为单位进行 合作共 同完成 任 务。Ｓａ ｉ认 为在合作学 习环境下 ， 同能力 、 ｌｖｎ 不 经验 、 性别的 学 习者 可被 分 配在 一 个小 组 中共 同学 习 ， 互相 帮助 ， 相依 赖 。 互
这 不 仅 能 提 高 学 生 个 人 的 学 习 效 果 ， 能 促 进 达 成 小 组 的学 还 习 目标 和任 务 。换 句 话 说 ， 生 不 仅 要 对 自己 的学 习负 责 ， 学 还 要 对 小 组 内 的其 他 组 员 负 责 ； 集体 的成 功依 赖 于 每个 成 员
（ ） 作 学 习理 论 一 协
教学过程 中了解 、 发现并合理地构建学生的“ 最近发展 区” 并 ， 通过教师和同伴适 宜的互 动和帮助跨过该 区域 ， 从而达到促 进个 人学 习发 展的 目的。在 写作教学 中，同伴反馈可以使学
生之 间能 互 相 交 流 合 作 ， 现 、 出 、 决 问题 ， 而 掌 握并 运 发 指 解 从 用知 识 ， 展 学 生 的写 作 能 力 。 发
和其优缺点后 ， 一步探 讨 了在 实际写作教 学中该模 式的应用 ， 进 并指 出了实施 中应该注意的相关 问题 。 ［ 关键 词］ 二语写作 ； 过程教 学法； 同伴反馈 ； 师反馈 教
［ 图 分 类 号 ］ Ｈ １ 中 ３５ ［ 文献 标 识 码 ］ Ａ ［ 者 简 介 ］ 张 苏 （ ９ ２ ， ， 士 ， 教 ， 究方 向为 英 语 语 言 教 学 与二 语 习得 。 作 １８ 一）女 硕 助 研
（ ） 近 发 展 区（ ｎ ｆ ｒ ｘｍａ ｖｌｐ ｎ ） 三 最 Ｚｏ ｅ ｏ ｉ ｌ ｅｏ ｍｅｔ ｏＰ Ｄｅ 最 近 发 展 区 （ Ｐ 的 概念 是 由前 苏 联 心 理 学 家维 果 茨 基 Ｚ Ｄ） 提 出的， 它也 是 社 会 文 化 理 论 的核 心 。 近 发 展 是 “ 童 的 最 儿
实际发展水平与潜在发展水平之间的差距 。实际发展水平是
由儿 童 独 立 解 决 问 题 的 能 力 所 决 定 的 ， 而潜 在 的发 展 水 平 则
是指在成人指导下或是和更有能力 的同伴合作时表现出来 的
解 决 问 题 的 能 力”６ 由此 可见 ， 童 的 发 展 不 是 孤 立 的 、 ＿。 ］ 儿 自我
向的 、 缺乏师生交流互动的评价。限于时间 、 精力等因素 ， 教 师一般不会再次批阅学生的修 改稿 。近年来 ， 作为教师反馈 的补充 ， 同伴反馈 （ ｅｒ ｅｄ ａｋ ｐ ｅ ｒｖｅ ｐ ｅ ｖ ｌａ ｐ ｅ ｅ ｂｃ ， ｅｒ ｅｉｗ，ｅｒｅａ — ｆ ｕ
ｔ ｎ ， 称 同伴 互 评 、 生 互 评 ， 西 方 国家 得 到 了普 遍 认 同 ｉ ）亦 ｏ 学 在
过渡。过程教学法不再注重写作 的结果 ， 而是认为写作是一 个不断修改 、 不断提高的过程。教师 在这个过 程中指导 和帮 助学生把握好写作的各个环节 ， 而促进他们 写作 能力 的提 从 高和发展 。过程教学法的关键 环节 之一就是 反馈 。 在教学实践 中， 写作教师给 出反馈一直被认为是天经地
第２ 卷 第 ９ ４ 期 ２ １ 年９ ０ １ 月
长 春 理 工 大 学学 报 （ 会 科 学 版 ） 社
Ｊ ｕｎ ｌ ｆ ｈ ｎ ｃ ｕ ｎｖ ｒｉ ｆ ｃｅ ｃ ｎ ｅ ｈ ｏｏ ｙ Ｓ ｃ￣ Ｓ ｉ ｃｓＥ ｉｏ ｏ ｒ ａ ｏ ａ ｇ ｈ ｎＵ ｉｅｓ ｙｏ ｉｎ ｅａ ｄＴ ｃ ｎ ｌｇ （ ｏ ｉ ｃ ｎ ｅ ｄｔ ｎ） Ｃ ｔ Ｓ ｅ ｉ
教 师 为 中心 的教 学模 式 过 渡 到 以学 生 为 主体 、 师 为 引导 的 教 模 式 ， 师 生 之 间单 一 的交 流 向生 生 交 流 、 生 互 动发 展 ， 从 师 从 而 增 强 学 生 自主 学 习 的 能 力 。 研 究 表 明 ， 在小 组 协 作 写 作 和 评改过程 巾， 生能够彼此互相帮助 ， 积极提供建议 ， 得 学 并 使
并应用 于母 语写作教学 中。同时 ， 它也逐渐受到 国内外二语 研究者 和教学人员 的广泛关注 。
一
发展 的过程 ， 而是 一个 与社会环境（ 成人和同伴 ） 的交互 、 合作
的过程。 为 此 ， 师 应该 注 重 教 学 内容 和 教学 活 动 的设 计 ， 该 在 教 应
、
同伴 反馈 的理 论依 据
二、 同伴 反馈 的优 越性 及存 在 的 问题
结合 中外 写作教学 中同伴反馈 的相关研究及实践 ， 同伴 反馈 在写作教学 中所表现 出的优越性 主要体现在以下几点。
一
的贡献 。此外 ， 协作学习还强调领域 々家应参 与到小组 的学 习活动 中来并提供一定的帮助 。
协作学习的这种 以小组为单位的形 式 ， 渐使传统 的以 逐
ＶＯ ．４ Ｎｏ ９ １ ２ ．
Ｓｅ ｐ．２０１ １
同伴反馈在大 学英语写作教学 中的应用
张 苏
（ 阴 师 范 学 院 外 同语 学 院 ，江 苏 淮 安 ，２ ３ ０ 淮 ２ ３ ０）
［ 摘
要 ］ 反馈是过程教 学法 中的关键环节之一 。文章主要论述 了同伴反馈这 一模 式。在分析 同伴反馈 的理论依据
义 的 。 然 而 ， 师 反 馈 却倾 向 于 笼 统 化 、 括 化 ； 师 更 注 重 教 概 教 语 法 方 面 的 修 改 而非 文章 的结 构 、 容 …。 种 反 馈 是 一 种 单 内 这
文章 ， 提高文本输出的质量。同时 ， 受学生注意的反馈 信息也
能被学生 内化为 自己的知识 。因此 ， 反馈不仅能提高学生 的 英语写作水平 ， 在一定 程度 上还我国大学英语 写作 教学从 占主导地位 的结果教
学 法 （ ｒｄ ｃ ａｐｏ ｃ ） 渐 向 过 程 教 学 法（ ｒｃｓ ａｐｏｃ ） ｐｏ ｕｔｐ ｒａｈ 逐 ｐｏｅｓｐ ｒａｈ
馈所提供 的评价信息是一种有意识 的反馈 ， 能够引起学生对 文章语法 、 词汇 、 内容 、 结构等各个层面的注意 ， 从而使学生认 识到 自己的不足之处 ， 并做出相应 的修 改来 不断完善 自己的
同伴互评在商务英语写作中的应用
同伴互评在商务英语写作中的应用一、同伴互评方法及其理论基础在写作教学中，同伴互评(peerfeedback)(也称同伴反馈)指将学习者作为一种信息来源，由学习者扮演教师的角色，并承担教师的责任，以小组的形式相互阅读同班同学的作文，对学生的作文做出修改并提出建议的过程。
同伴互评的理论基础是过程教学法以及社会建构主义的合作学习理论。
英语过程法中的写作是一个螺旋上升的循环式心理认知与思维创造交互过程，在同伴讨论和反馈等交际中进行有目的的讨论和反馈，从而改善自我局限、外界交流和输出综合能力。
社会建构主义的合作学习理论认为学习者需要在一定社会群体中学习并内化知识，同伴互评使学生置于班级集体中，通过与同伴讨论，以互动、协商和合作的方式反馈，实现取长补短，学会通过协商与讨论共同构建对知识的理解，强调写作者的主体意识和创作意识。
所以在商务英语写作教学过程中，同伴互评模式有利于学生注重学习过程，注意平时知识的积累，改变以往重成绩结果、轻学习过程的问题，在形成性过程中培养学生的学习主体意识。
二、同伴互评在商务英语写作中的具体应用步骤1．打基础阶段开展同伴互评写作教学首先必须要为学生们打下坚实的商务英语词汇和语句基础，注重学生商务语言知识方面的积累，要想达到较好的商务语言输出效果，首先需要大量有关商务交流、商务谈判等方面听力和阅读等语言输入活动，平时让学生对较好的商务写作词汇、写作语句有洞察感与敏锐感，重视点滴积累。
2．组织分组考虑到学生的英语水平参差不齐，教师在进行分组之前，首先要根据商务英语课上表现、四六级水平等因素把学生分为3个层次:较好层次、中等层次和尚需提高层次;然后从3个层次中各抽取1名学生组成1组，依次完成小组分配工作。
如此确保每1组成员搭配均衡，能够在小组讨论中实现互帮互助的目的。
3．确定互评标准标准的制定在同伴互评的过程中占有重要位置。
只有制定出统一合理的标准，学生才有可能在互评过程中相对公正、客观、准确的做出评改，且通过观摩不同水平的商务英语作文，由学生独立思考、小组讨论、自行设定互评标准，这个过程也是促进学生对于从哪些标准判断高水平商务写作、何种商务论文属于较好作品方面的思考过程。
同伴反馈培训在大学英语写作教学中的应用研究
- 31 -校园英语 / 高等教育研究同伴反馈培训在大学英语写作教学中的应用研究上海电机学院/李争【摘要】本研究采用质性个案研究方法，尝试将同伴反馈培训应用于大学英语写作教学，并调查其对学生英语写作水平、英语写作学习态度以及合作学习意识的影响。
经过一个学期的训练，学生不仅在写作质量上有所提高，而且增强了合作学习意识，提高了学习自主性。
【关键词】同伴反馈培训 大学英语写作教学 写作能力一、引言近年来，“过程写作教学法”不断替代传统的“成果写作教学法”得到广大写作教师认可，许多教师不断在课堂尝试。
过程写作教学的重点放在写作过程而非结果，注重培养学生写作技巧与学习策略。
而同伴反馈作为写作过程中的重要环节，日益受到重视，成为了外语教育领域的重要研究课题。
众多二语写作研究者认为在英语写作教学中实施同伴反馈符合学生语言能力的发展水平，同伴反馈能切实地培养学生写作时的读者意识，能让作者以自我为中心来审视自己的习作，鼓励学生在自己的写作中更加有责任感。
同伴反馈通过批判性阅读别人的草稿，能训练学习者的批判性思维能力。
随着同伴支持性的帮助，学生的写作焦虑会降低并能促进学习者之间的合作学习、社会交互能力和自主学习能力的提升，有助于学生在写作过程中的意义协商和多样化写作策略和技能的培养等。
随着同伴反馈在二语写作中的引入与深入，教师、学习者发现同伴反馈在课堂教学中存在种种问题，学生由于受语言水平限制往往只能在单词拼写、简单语法的浅层次问题上作出反馈评价，而且他们也很难判断同伴的评价是否正确妥当。
其次，由于同伴反馈需要学生更为主动的合作学习，部分学生的学习理念尚未更新会影响到其他学生的学习效率，导致收效甚微。
鉴于此，对学生进行同伴反馈培训，提高学生评价质量，转变学生学习风格显得非常必要。
本研究采用质性个案研究方法，尝试回答以下核心研究问题：同伴反馈培训在非英语专业学生大学英语写作能力发展中能发挥怎样的作用？学生对同伴反馈培训持何种态度？二、研究方法与实施过程本研究采用质性个案研究方法，研究对象为笔者所教授的非英语专业大学二年级学生，两个班级均为35人。
同伴反馈在大学英语写作教学中的应用
592020年39期总第531期ENGLISH ON CAMPUS同伴反馈在大学英语写作教学中的应用文/王瑞丽小组总体成绩为评价和奖励依据。
过程写作理论自20世纪70年代开始兴起，学者们开始反思传统的写作方法，接纳了社会语言学，认知心理学以及应用语言学等理论，在写作过程中注重信息的交流，以互动促进学生思考而达到学习目的。
同伴反馈的形式可以有多种形式，如书面评价、口头评价、在线评价等。
同伴反馈可以在作文的修改阶段，从结构布局、内容、词汇、语法、逻辑关系、语言连贯性等方面，学生交互讨论作文，提出意见和修改建议，提高作文质量，提升写作能力。
学生在发现同伴作文中出现的问题时，也会进行反思和自我改进，改善学习策略，共同学习，共同进步。
在英语写作教学中，同伴反馈具体指学生以两人或者两人以上成立小组的形式相互阅读对方的文章，评价文章的优点和缺点，给出修订改进的意见，以促进写作文本质量提升的过程。
在同伴反馈教学中，要以学生为主体，多从学生自身考量，多鼓励学生主动参与到教学学习过程中，加强学生积极思考的能力。
值得注意的是，同伴反馈教学模式实施的具体效果受到多种因素的影响，如同伴评价标准是否科学，评价小组的构成是否合理，是否有写作教师的有效指导等。
因此，同伴反馈在教学过程中的实施需要有效的教学组织策略作为前提。
三、同伴反馈在大学英语写作教学的应用策略1.设计科学的评价标准。
在英语写作教学中，开展同伴反馈前，需要制订科学的，清晰的评分量表。
杜刚跃和孙瑞娟在《试论同伴互评在大学英语写作教学中的有效运用》一文中提到，大学英语写作评价量表主要有两种：一种是整体性，一种是分项性。
整体性评分量表是给同伴的文本质量一个整体评价或得分，分项表是依照多个评分指标评定分值，来计算总分。
该文章作者认为分项性量表因为对各项知识和技能进行了分项描述，更方便学生进行互评，给出反馈。
确保评审的公正公平性。
笔者在实一、引言在掌握英语的听、说、读、写四项基本技能的过程中，写作能力不仅可以全面体现学生对应英语的全面掌握，同时书面表达也是反映学生英语水平的一个重要指标。
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.。
英语写作中的同伴评价刍议
优点: 3， 使学生成为 批判性读者， 从而对自 己的作文更考究;同时也培养了 学
俊华2005;蒋宇红2005)也开始对此进行科学的实 证性研究。
大量的实践已证明有效的同伴评价不仅是过程写作中的一个
重要环节， 而且是促进学生语言技能发展的一个有效途径。 虽
2。 同伴评价的优势和劣势
(3)教师以 学生作文的 某一段为例作评价示范。 教学生怎
样使用编辑、 修改符号;怎样就文章的内容、 结构， 语法、 词汇 多方面考虑修改意见。 同时引导学生正确得体地表达思想， 写
出简洁、 中肯的评语。来自大量实验(Chaudr n 1984,Zamel 1985,Caulk 1994,Rollinson o 1998等)表明同 伴评价对提高学生语言能力与交际能力， 加快 二语习得进程大有裨益。但是在写作教学实践中，由于受时 间、 环境、 文化等多方面的影响， 同伴评价方法并未得到普遍 采用， 不少教师和学生对同伴评价还持一定的怀疑态度。 现结
一个决定性因素。近年来，随着国内外英语教学法的不断完 善，同伴评价在英语写作中的作用越来越受到研究者的广泛 关注。 Liu和Hasen(2002)将同伴评价具体定义为:在过程写作 中， 学习者作为信息资源、 相互交互， 扮演导师和编辑的角色， 对同伴的写作予以评价。同伴评价强调学习者之间的协商与
(1) 让学生对同伴评价的目 的和益处展开讨论以提高学生 的注意意识(noticingawareness) ， 创造出 相互信任的 和谐环境。 (2)教师把拟定好的评阅标准细则表发给学生并对其进行 细致解释， 使学生对评判标准有清楚的认识， 做出的评价也更
然在实践中同伴评价的实施还充满较多的复杂性和不可控因
同伴互评法在英语写作教学中的作用及其影响因素_谢小红
一、前言
中国大班上课的方式使批改作文成为教师沉 重的工作负担, 而且不管如何细心批改, 相同的错 误周而复始地 出现 [ 1 ] 。同伴互评 是过程写 作法 中最典型也是最重要的一个步骤, 在写作的修改 阶段, 同学们相互获取反馈信息。同伴互评作文 首先被应用于母语的写作课堂, 20世纪 70 年代 和 80年代早期进行了大量的有关同伴互评作文 策略在一语写作课堂中的功效的实证研究, 从 20 世纪 90年代起, 同伴互评作 文在 ESL 写 作教学 的应用逐渐增多; 最近几年, 我国大学英语写作教 学也逐步引入 同伴互 评的做法 [ 2] 。但是对 于同 伴互评法在英语写作教学中的作用的研究结果不 尽相同。V illam il 和 G uerrero[ 3] 认 为同伴互 评能
group人数平均分平均分的平均数控制班309395162800501实验班3092l07154800277p005第二稿提高由同伴互评法产生groupn人数的平均数的提高的平均数控制班3016o9实验班301512学生对同伴互评法的作用的看法veryabitgroupn人数helpfulhelplesshelpfulhelpful控制班3088l31实验班302082o影响同伴互评的效果的因素影响因文化背情感时间小组成员的素名称景因素因素因素搭配因素实验班30人64317二结果与讨论可以看出对比控制班和实验班学生一稿和二稿的平均分我们发现
第 25卷 第 8期 2009年 8月
贵州教育学院学报 ( 社会科学 ) Journa l o f G uizhou Education Institute ( So cial Science)
V o .l 25. N o. 8 Aug. 2009
*
同伴互评法在英语写作教学中的作用及其影响因素
同伴互评模式在大学英语写作教学中的应用研究
员 具体教学方案步骤实施
作为过程教学法的一种写作评价方式袁在我国的大学英语写作教 学中袁同伴互评模式还处在探索阶段袁其普及率并不是很高遥 为了对这 种学生参与评价的英语写作教学方式作进一步调查研究袁 根据 Williams.J.理论中二语写作的交际性与循环性原则[5],笔者设计了一系 列的教学方案袁 具体实施步骤如下院
2 问卷调查和访谈结果分析
为了解学生对同伴互评模式教学的接受情况及效果袁笔者进行了 一次问卷调查和访谈遥 问卷采用 Likert 五等级记分制,调查对象为随 机抽取的非英语专业的大二本科学生遥 参加问卷调查的共有 200 人袁 问卷回收率为 100%,有效率达 100%遥 问卷调查和访谈的程度袁 在分析问卷调查结果后袁得出以下结论院
揖Key words铱Peer review; English writing; Process approach
0 引言
.
20 世纪 60 年代以来袁 大学英语写作教学出现了多种教学模式袁 如以教师为中心的结果教学法(product approach)尧以合作学习为基础 的过程教学法(process approach)等遥 目前在我国的大学英语写作教学 中应用最为广泛的是结果教学法袁也就是由教师布置写作任务袁学生 完成作文袁再交给教师评阅和讲解的方式遥 这种教学方式的优点在于 学生的词汇和语法错误可以得到及时修正袁 但是也存在一定的弊端袁 对于大多数大学英语教师来说袁评阅非英语专业学生的作文是一项费 时费力的工作袁虽然教师的评语能在很大程度上帮助学生提高自己的 语言水平袁但教师一人评阅的方式往往造成教师和学生之间的交流和
首先袁学生对同伴互评模式教学的总体认可度较高遥 在参与问 卷调查的 200 名学生中有 124 人(62%)表示喜欢参与同伴评价模式曰 126 人渊63%冤认为这种教学模式对提高写作水平有一定帮助曰114 人 渊57%冤喜欢阅读其他同学的作文曰148 人渊74%冤喜欢和小组成员讨论 其他同学的作文遥 这说明学生对同伴互评模式教学的总体认可度较 高袁学生通过这种方式参与到教学活动中来袁其身份由原先的被评价 者转变为被评价者与评价者的结合袁其学习方式由原来的被动学习转 变为主动的学习袁这对于培养学生自主学习的能力也有很大帮助遥 其 次袁同伴互评模式教学也促进了学生之间的交流合作能力袁同时增强 了学生的自查能力和自信心遥 问卷调查显示有 110 人渊55%冤愿意让其 他同学阅读和讨论自己的作文袁 162 人渊81%冤认为同伴评价可以帮助 学生提高对写作的积极性遥 从这些可以看出大多数学生能够接受同伴 互评模式教学袁在后来的访谈中学生也表示袁在小组讨论过程中,他们 的心态一直是自信尧放松的,而且通过互相讨论之后能了解身边同学 对于同一作文题目的不同理解袁也有助于开拓自己的渊下转第 35 页冤
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.。
外语写作教学中同伴反馈法的理论基础探析
外语写作教学中同伴反馈法的理论基础探析摘要：同伴反馈是学生们相互交换阅读作文并提出修改建议的写作教学活动，在英语写作教学中应用广泛，具有良好的促学效果，比如增强读者意识，学习同伴写作的长处，培养反思能力，减轻写作焦虑等。
同伴反馈法以第二语言习得理论、社会建构主义理论、社会心理学理论等为基础，为同伴反馈的研究提供了理论依据，表明同伴反馈可以促进二语写作教学，也为学习者之间的合作和互动提供了机会。
本文通过梳理同伴反馈法的理论基础，以期促进外语教学工作者对同伴反馈法的理解及实际应用。
关键词：外语写作教学；同伴反馈；理论基础一、同伴反馈法介绍在外语写作教学中，修改是必要环节之一，在外语写作中起着重要作用。
作文修改的质量取决于作者的写作能力和读者反馈的有效性（Hedgcock & Lefkowitz，1992）。
外语写作课的反馈可主要采取教师反馈、同伴反馈、自查和软件反馈等四种形式。
在我国外语写作教学中，教师反馈一直占据主导地位，随着以学习者为中心、合作学习等教学理论的兴起，国内外写作教学研究者也在努力探索能够激发学生学习热情，促进学生主动学习、自主学习和有效学习的方法与手段，其中写作同伴反馈日益受到关注。
同伴反馈的产生有两个重要的背景。
首先，它是伴随由教师中心向学生中心教学理念转变的过程中产生的。
在传统的英语写作教学中，教师普遍采用以行为主义为基础的教学法。
这种教学法指导下的写作课堂，教师处于主导地位，注重机械的输入和输出，学生的交际能力得不到足够的训练。
其次，它是在学生中心理念的指导下，解决二语学习中大课堂教师无法关注到每个学生，以及教师批改负担过重的困境，弥补教师反馈的局限而产生和发展的。
在以教师为中心的传统课堂上，教师反馈在写作过程中占有绝对权威的地位，学生只能被动接受并按照教师的反馈对写作进行修改（Mendonca & Johnson，1994）。
正是在上述背景下，诸多学者从上个世纪80年代开始探究同伴反馈作为写作教学中的主要评价方式取代教师反馈的可能性，并取得了丰硕的研究成果。
关于同伴反馈在英语写作教学中应用的文献综述
紧嚣丁前沿瑾论透析传播实践O N G N A N C H U A N B O实务探索——教育传播关于同伴反馈在英语写作教学中应用的文献综述倪丽冰(厦门市松柏中学福建厦门361012)擒要：适合学生的教学方法，会给教师的教学和学生的学习带来很大的帮助。
专家和学者的同伴反馈教学经验，真正在英语写作教学中起到了有效的作用。
同伴反馈的教学模式，是教师教学方式和学生学习方式的一种转变，是提高教师专业素质、培养学生英语写作能力的一个有效方法，对学生以后学科的能力发展有很大的促进作用。
关键词：同伴反馈写作教学法实施英语写作教学是英语教学中的一个薄弱环节，一直受到教学时间和成本的限制，内化不到位。
如何提高学生的英语写作水平也始终是困扰广大师生的一个难题。
为此国内外的教研人员潜心研究，为提高学生的写作水平费了不少心血，做出了很多有益的尝试。
他们逐渐认识到传统的结果教学法的不足之处，开始寻求新的写作教学方法——过程法《Pr o—ce s s A ppr oa ch)，过程教学法的关键环节之一就是同伴反馈(Bar r el s，2003：34)。
过程法于20世纪70年代末进入二语写作教学领域，它的日益兴起让同伴反馈f Pee r Feedback)弓J起了国内外研究者和教学者的广泛关注。
一、同伴反馈的概念同伴反馈法在国外很流行，国内的相关研究及其在英语写作教学中的应用还十分有限。
多年来，在我国占主导地位的是注重范文模仿和背诵的结果教学法(吴锦、张在新，2000o在这一忽视写作过程的方法中，学生通常只写一稿，教师是学生作文惟一的评阅者(莫俊华，2007o但大班上课的方式使批改作文成为教师沉重的工作负担，同伴反馈在这个层面上恰恰可以解决这个困扰我国英语教师的难题。
因此许多教师学者投入大量的时间和精力实践探索同伴反馈的效果，从不同的角度论述同伴反馈的概念。
同伴反馈是学生们相互交换阅读作文并提出修改建议的写作教学活动(M angel s dorf&S chl um ber ger，1992o研究表明，同伴反馈能增强学生在写作过程中的读者意识，提高学生的写作水平(K eh，1990)，能够促使学生在写作中扮演更加积极的角色(M endonca&J ohns on，1994)，能够给学生创造很多交流、协商、合作等机会(Zhu，1995o 同伴反馈是指学生们在写作过程中为了得到写作指导和反馈而交换阅读写作草稿的一项写作修改阶段的活动(Leki，1990o同伴反馈的核心思想是学生们对彼此写作的前几稿进行反馈，以帮助写作者获得更广泛的读者意识，并努力完善写作的最终稿。