Peer response in the writing process tesol greece, 2013

David Bradshaw

TESOL Greece Annual Convention – 31st March, 2013

Writing as a process.

When do we assess?

And how?

Brainstorming

Organisation

First draft

Revision

Second / Final draft

“The use of learners as sources of information, and interactants for each other in such a way that learners assume roles and responsibilities normally taken on by a formally trained teacher, tutor or editor in commenting on and critiquing each others’ drafts in both written and oral formats in the process of writing.”

(Liu and Hansen, 2002:1)

Affective filter – correction in small groups / pairs before presenting work for final assessment.

Scaffolding from other members of the class.

Opportunity to read other interpretations of the task.

“becoming a critical reader of others’ writing may make students more critical readers and revisers of their own writing.”

(Rollinson, 2005:24)

Attitude very important – RESPECT!

Use pencil – suggestions

Don’t just correct errors – make it positive

Act as target reader

Take time to check generic structure

Error correction – general

Error correction – specific / limited

Revison of style / structure

Collaborative writing

Application of bands of achievement

Always ensure there are clear instructions to follow.

Use of rubrics.

FCE - Writing Paper, Part 2 An international publishing company intends to publish a

book called Influential People in the Twentieth Century. The book will include short articles about politicians, writers, sports personalities and other people who have been important in some way. You have been invited to write a short article for this book about a person who has had either a good or bad influence on your country.

Write your article.

BAND 5: The candidate’s writing fully achieves the desired effect on the target reader. All

content points required in the task are included and expanded appropriately.

Ideas are organised effectively, with the use of a variety of linking devices and a wide range of structure and vocabulary.

Language is well developed, and any errors that do occur are minimal and perhaps due to ambitious attempts at complex language.

Register and format are consistently appropriate to the purpose of the task and the audience.

BAND 3: The candidate’s writing on the whole achieves the desired effect on the target

reader.

All content points required in the task are included.

Ideas are organised adequately, with the use of simple linking devices and an adequate range of structure and vocabulary.

A number of errors may be present, but they do not impede communication.

A reasonable, if not always successful attempt is made at register and format which are appropriate to the purpose of the task and the audience.

BAND 1: The candidate’s writing has a very negative effect on the target reader.

There is notable omission of content points and / or considerable irrelevance, possibly due to misinterpretation of the task.

There is a lack of organisation or linking devices, and there is little evidence of language control.

The range of structure and vocabulary is narrow and frequent errors obscure communication.

There is little or no awareness of appropriate register and format.

CONTENT: Clear indication of the person and why important. (NB: Could be a relative as long as the importance to country is explained). Explanations of what kind of influence the person had.

RANGE: Language of description and explanation. Tenses should be appropriate i.e. according to whether the person is still alive or deceased.

ORGANISATION AND COHESION: Clear linking between the person and the influence, the description and the explanation.

APPROPRIACY / REGISTER / FORMAT: Article form – some paragraphing. Neutral / formal register.

TARGET READER: Would have a clear picture of the person chosen and their influence on the country.

15 Year 5 students in a bilingual school (10 years old)

Picture story genre (Flyers)

Supported by a reading exercise and speaking tasks

Checklist for peer response provided

(Gray, 2000)

1st Draft‘He dress up at half past eight at the

morning’

2nd Draft‘At half past eight he woke up so fast // that he didn’t have time to have breakfast’

Mr Roger and John.

One night a boy called John was studying history in his bedroom until half past ten. He was very tired.

 The next day it was a sunny day. He woke up at half past eight. John dressed up and left the house.

 At 8:45 John was in the bus until he got to school.

 When he got to school it was 9:00. The history exam had started. Mr Roger told him off, but he could do the history exam. The children had already started the exam.

 When they gave him the mark John was surprised because he got an A. His parents were very proud and congratulated him.

Round table editing

Editing teams - each with a specific role

Editing while writing

In groups of four, students look at a picture they are going to describe.

Student 1 dictates the first sentence of the description. All vote on the sentence. If accepted all write it down.

Student 2 dictates the second sentence. The process is repeated.

Opportunities to do these activities online Google Docs / Drive Wikis

Save classroom time

Easier to see who has corrected what Use of different colours for each editor

BLOOR, T. and BLOOR, M. (1995) The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach London, Edward Arnold.

GRAY, E. (2000) Skills Builder for Young Learners Flyers 1, Student’s Book Newbury, Express Publishing

HALLIDAY, M.A.K. and HASAN, R. (1976) Cohesion in English Harlow, Longman.

HANSEN, J.G. and LIU, J. (2005) ‘Guiding principles for effective peer response’ ELT Journal 59 (1) pp. 31 – 38. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

ROLLINSON, P. (2005) ‘Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class’ ELT Journal 59 (1) pp. 23 – 30. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

SHARPLES, M (1999) How we Write London, Routledge.

http://davidbradshawblog.wordpress.comhttps://sites/google.com/site/davidbradshawenglish/