Peer editing as a way of developing ELT students’ writing skills: An action research

Öz

Inspired from problematic nature of writing, this study adopted an action research through peer editing as a way of developing writing skills of students at an ELT department. This study was designed through the specific stages of an action research which are planning, action, observation and reflection. In planning and action stages, the researchers designed general and specific criteria to follow during the cycles, and they applied these criteria accordingly. In observation stage, the peer editing processes in specific cycles were observed. The researchers used cycles at this stage. These cycles were application processes which were followed step by step during peer editing. In reflection stage, reflections of the participants on peer editing in writing classes were gathered through a form. Qualitative data collected from participants were analyzed and reported descriptively at the end. The reflections were categorized as before and after writing classes, advantages and disadvantages of peer editing. In conclusion, peer editing in writing classes affects foreign language learners positively, and peer editing can be used in writing classes as an alternative way of developing ELT students’ writing skills.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• peer editing; action research; writing skill; ELT

Kaynakça

1. Al-Nafiseh, K. I. (2013). Collaborative writing and peer-editing in EFL writing classes. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies (JETERAPS), 4(2), 236-245.
2. Amores, M. J. (1997). A new perspective on peer-editing. Foreign Language Annals, 30(4), 513-522.
3. Bailey, K. M. (2001). Action research, teacher research, and classroom research in language teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia (Eds). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp.489- 498). London: Thomson Learning.
4. Behjat, F., & Yamini, M. ( 2012). Self- vs. peer-editing: one step forward from assessment to building EFL students’ writing skill. Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English, 1(1), 65-85.
5. Burns, A. (2005). Action research. In E. Hinkel (Eds). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 241-256). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6. Burns, A. (2009). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for practitioners. NY: Routledge.
7. Byrd, D. R. (2003). Practical tips for implementing peer editing tasks in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 36(3), 435-441.
8. Diab, N. M. (2010). Effects of peer- versus self-editing on students’ revision of language errors in revised drafts. System 38, 85–95.

9. Ekmekci, E. (2017). The flipped writing classroom in Turkish EFL context: A comparative study on a new model. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, 18(2), 151-167.
10. Finch, A. (2014). Participant perceptions of peer editing in an EFL freshman English program. Studies in British and American Language and Literature, 113(6), 299-326.
11. Garofalo, R. (2013). How the implementation of peer-editing checklists impacts the peer revision process in EFL writing classes. RitsIILCS, 24 (2), 143-159.
12. Göy, N. (2017). An action research on the development of self-regulated writing strategies of Turkish EFL students. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 191–204.
13. Harutyunyan, L., & Poveda, M. F. (2018). Students’ perception of peer review in an EFL classroom. English Language Teaching, 11(4), 138-151.
14. Hemati, M. (2012). The effect of teacher, peer, and self-editing on improving grammatical accuracy in EFL learners’ writing. Diversité et Identité Culturelle en Europe, Retrieved June 20, 2019 from http://www.diacronia.ro/ro/indexing/details/A4026/pdf
15. Hengwichitkul, L. (2006). An analysis of errors in English abstracts translated by Thai university graduate students. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok, Thailand.
16. Kroll, B. (2001). Considerations for teaching an ESL/EFL writing course. In M. Celce-Murcia (Eds). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp.219-232).London: Thomson Learning.
17. Koboyashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (2008). Task response and text constrcution across L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17 (1), 7-29.
18. Kubota, R. (1998). An investigation of L1–L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university students: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 69-100.
19. Min, G., & Xuemei, S. (2016). Study on training strategies for effective peer review. Cross-Cultural Communication, 12(12), 40-44.
20. Neff, P. E. (2006). Peer review in ESL/EFL writing courses: A look at five studies. Doshisha Studies in Language and Culture, 9(2), 345 – 371.
21. Olshtain, E. (2001). Functional tasks for mastering the mechanics of writing and going just beyond. In M. Celce-Murcia (Eds). Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (3rd ed.)(pp.207-217).UK:Heinle&Heinle.
22. Polio, C., & Williams, J. (2009). Teaching and testing writing. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds).The handbook of language teaching (486-517).UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
23. Rattanadilok Na Phuket, P., & Othman, N. B. (2015). Understanding EFL students’ errors in writing. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(32), 99-106.
24. Reid, J. (2002). Writing. In Ronald Carter and David Nunan (eds). The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 28-33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Ruegg, R. (2015). The relative effects of peer and teacher feedback on improvement in EFL students’ writing ability. Linguistics and Education 29, 73–82.
26. Sadeghi, K., & Baneh, M. D. (2012). Relationship between student self-monitoring, type of peer feedback and EFL writing performance. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(5), 909-915.
27. Sagor, R. (2005). The action research guidebook: A four-step process for educators and school teams. CA: Corwin Press.
28. Sermsook, K., Liamnimitr, J., & Pochakorn, R. (2017). An analysis of errors in written English sentences: A case study of Thai EFL students. English Language Teaching, 10(3), 101-110.
29. Strijbos, J. W., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback content and sender’s competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and Instruction 20, 291-303.
30. Watcharapunyawong, S., & Usaha, S. (2013). Thai EFL students’ writing errors in different text types: The interference of the first language. English Language Teaching, 6(1), 67-78.
31. Zafar, A. (2016). Error analysis: a tool to improve English skills of undergraduate students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217, 697 – 705.