چکیده:
The teaching of writing has recently begun to move away from a concentration on the written product to an emphasis on the process of writing. Feedback is a fundamental element of the process approach to writing. It can be defined as input from a reader to a writer with the effect of providing information to the writer for a revision. This study reports on the effectiveness of two types of feedback provided by two different sources– the teacher and the peers– on students’ overall writing quality in an EFL context. To fulfill such an aim, a group of 60 Iranian Persian native speakers aged between 22 and 25 majoring in English Translation were chosen from among a greater population of 98. They were assigned to three homogeneous groups based on their scores on Oxford Placement Test (OPT) and a sample writing assignment on a given topic by emphasizing the expository genre through providing some reasons. They covered five topics before and after receiving feedback– ten written texts– in the span of a 15-week semester. Then, the papers were rated analytically. The findings revealed that feedback had a noticeable effect on the students’ draft editing, and of the two sources of feedback, the students benefited from teacher’s feedback more than their peers’ feedback. Other possible implications interpreted from this study supported the occurrence of a change in students’ roles in communicative foreign language learning settings and that, they could take the role of autonomous learners and turn intocommon respondents to other students’ writings and in this way their L2 knowledge construction and implementation increased.
خلاصه ماشینی:
"Appendix C1: The Two Analytic Scoring Rubric SamplesRoebuck’s (2001) Analytic Scoring Rubric Paper addresses the major areas of the task1 2 3 4 Answers questions proposed in assignment Includes all necessary information Participates in planning activities and peer reviews Completes components on time Vocabulary Comments for improvement: 1 2 3 4 Accurate and appropriate, minor errors Usually accurate, occasional inaccuracies Not extensive enough, frequent inaccuracies, may use English Inadequate for the task, inaccurate Grammar Comments for improvement: 1 2 3 4 May contain some minor errors that do not interfere with comprehensibility Some minor errors that may interfere with comprehensibility, some control of major patterns Many errors that interfere with comprehensibility, little control of major patterns Almost all grammatical patterns incorrect Message/Content Comments for improvement: 1 2 3 4 Relevant, informative; adequate level of creativity and detail; well-organized, well written, logical Generally informative, may lack some creativity and detail Incomplete; lacks important information and creativity; poorly developed, lacks coherence Not informative; provides little or no information, lacking key components, organized incoherently Drafts and outline1 2 3 4 Completes drafts/outlines and makes appropriate revisions Overall Assessment1 2 3 4 Comments: Appendix C2: Analytic Scoring Rubric Modified by Rabiee (2006) I."