ror.org/02mqrrm75
Résumés
Résumé
La présente étude vise à comparer la nature et l’efficacité de la rétroaction par les pairs au moyen d’un blogue auprès de 35 étudiants universitaires de FLS. Ces derniers étaient divisés en trois groupes : un groupe contrôle faisant l’autocorrection, deux groupes expérimentaux, dont un ayant une rétroaction par les pairs sans entraînement et un autre ayant reçu un entraînement. Les résultats collectés dans les productions écrites montrent une meilleure performance dans les groupes expérimentaux concernant l’exactitude de l’utilisation des accords grammaticaux. Les entretiens révèlent des avantages concernant l’emploi du blogue et mettent en lumière les préoccupations des étudiants concernant la rétroaction par les pairs.
Mots-clés :
- Rétroaction médiée par le blogue,
- rétroaction par les pairs,
- rétroaction par les pairs entraînés,
- écriture langue seconde
Abstract
This study compares the provision and efficacy of students’ peer feedback on blogs with and without previous feedback training. 35 students registered in a FSL university program in Costa Rica divided in three groups (untrained, trained and control) participated in this study. Data were obtained through students’ written productions in blogs and interviews. Results revealed that both peer feedback groups (untrained and trained) performed better than the control in the use of the target structure. The results of the interviews revealed advantages for blog mediated feedback as well as students’ concerns regarding peer feedback.
Keywords:
- Blog mediated feedback,
- peer feedback,
- peer feedback training,
- second language writing
Parties annexes
Bibliographie
- Armand, F. (2006). Capacités métalinguistiques d’élèves immigrants nouvellement arrivés en situation de grand retard scolaire. Médiation entre recherche et pratique en éducation, 31(2), 441-469 https://doi.org/10.7202/012764ar
- Berg, B. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and written quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 215–241.
- Brown, D.H. (2014). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language Teaching. 6th edition. New York: Longman/Pearson Education.
- Chang, C. (2016). Two decades of research in L2 peer review. Journal of Writing Research, 8(1), 81–117. doi: 10.17239 /jowr-2016.08.01.03
- Chang, C. (2015). Teacher modeling on EFL reviewers’ audience-aware feedback and affectivity in L2 peer review. Assessing Writing, 25, 2–21.
- Chen, S., Nassaji, H. et Liu, Q. EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback: a case study of university students from Mainland China. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. 1, 5 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-016-0010-y
- De Guerrero, M. C. M. et Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual Scaffolding in L2 Peer Revision. The Modern language journal, 84(1), 51-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00052
- Diab, N. M. (2010). Effects of peer-versus self-editing on students’ revision of language errors in revised drafts. System, 38(1), 85–95.
- Ducate, L. et Lomicka, L. (2005). Exploring the blogosphere: Use of web logs in the
- Foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 38(3), 410–421.
- Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the shortand long-term effects of written error correction. Dans K. Hyland et F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing : Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge University Press.
- Frear, D. et Chiu, Y. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.06.006
- Jong- Breure, C. (2015). Les erreurs de genre dans l’accord adjectival des apprenants néerlandophones du français (Mémoire de maîtrise, Université de Leiden, La Hollande). Récupéré de : https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/35017/Memoire%20s081459.pdf?sequence=1
- Gómez Delgado, O. M. et McDougald, J. S. (2013). Developing writing through blogs and peer feedback. Ikala, revista de lenguaje y cultura, 18(3), 45–61.
- Goldstein, L. (2001). For Kyla: what does research say about responding to ESL writers. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 73–90). Mahwha: Erlbaum.
- Guénette, D. (2009). The cyberscript project : A mixed-method study of preservice ESL teachers’ corrective feedback beliefs and practices McGill University.
- Hansen, J. G. et Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59(1), 31–38.
- Hattie, J. A. (2009). Visible learning a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.
- Kangni, W. (2015, octobre). Problems and Tactics in Peer Feedback in EFL Writing
- Teaching. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Education, Management, and Information Technology (ICEMIT). Jinan, Chine.
- Lantolf, J. P. et Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press.
- Lee, I. (2005). Error correction in the L2 classroom: What do students think? TESL Canada Journal, 22, 1–16.
- Lira-Gonzales, M.L. et Nassaji, H., (2019). The provision and efficacy of peer feedback in blogs versus paper-based writing. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170(2), 228–250.
- Lira-Gonzales, M.-L., & Nassaji, H. (2020). The Amount and Usefulness of Written Corrective Feedback Across Different Educational Contexts and Levels. TESL Canada Journal, 37(2), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v37i2.1333
- Mawlawi Diab, N. (2010). Effects of peer- versus self-editing on students’ revision of language errors in revised drafts. System (Linköping), 38(1), 85-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.12.008
- Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 298–308.
- Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second LanguageWriting, 15, 118–141.
- Nassaji, H. (2016) Anniversary article interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 535–562. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816644940
- Nassaji, H. et Kartchava, E. (2017). The role of corrective feedback: theoretical andpedagogical perspectives. Dans H. Nassaji et E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning: Research, Theory, Applications, Implications ix—xv. Routledge.
- Noytim, U. (2010). Weblogs enhancing EFL students’ English language learning. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 1127–1132
- Novakovich, J. (2016). Fostering critical thinking and reflection through blog-mediated peer feedback: Fostering critical thinking and reflection. Journal of computer assisted learning, 32(1), 16-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12114
- Richardson, W. (2010). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms. Corwin press.
- Riegel, M., Pellat, J. C. et Rioul, R. (2008). Grammaire méthodique du français (3e édition). Presses Universitaires de France.
- Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17(3), 195–202.
- Suzuki, W., Nassaji, H. et Sato, K. (2019). The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System, 81, 135–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.017
- Tsui, A. B. M. et Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00022-9