Why Peer Comments Fail
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2003-01-??
Authors
閔慧慈
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
國立台灣師範大學英語學系
Department of English, NTNU
Department of English, NTNU
Abstract
本研究旨在探討外語寫作者為何不納同儕意見。經由反覆不斷的比較六位外交系大二學生的初稿、同儕針對渠等初稿所給予的意見、六位學生依據同儕意見所修正的 再稿、及研究者與渠等訪談的結果發現，這六位學生未採納部分同儕意見的主要原因有二：一為作者對其文章具有主控權，即使遇到可行之建議，亦因作者主觀判定 影響，而未採納；二為耜分同儕意見太過含糊籠統，因此作者不知如何修改。據此研究者建議，同儕討論以三人小組形式進行較佳。若有兩位評論者同時對文章某部 分提出建議，作者應採納此建議並做適當修正，如此可避免作者只因一人意見就修改自己文章，而喪失對有章的主導權，或因自己主觀認定而認為個人意見不足可 取，以致忽略讀者的意見。最後研究者並提出四項步驟，協助教師指導同儕評論者如何提出具體可行之意見。評論者須先釐清作者原意，以免因誤解而提出不可行之 意見；再指出問題所在；並根據作者上下文意宗釋為何會有此問題產生；最後再根據此一問題，建議可行之修改方法並舉例說明。如此詮盡的同儕評論才較具有說服 力及參考價值，亦較能被作者採用。
This study examines reasons why EFL writers fail to incorporate peer comments into their subsequent revisions. Through comparing and contrasting six EFL students' first and second drafts and their peers' comments as well as interviewing the students' first and second drafts and their peer's comments as well as interviewing the students, the researcher identified two major reasons for students' failure to accept peer feedback: A strong sense of text ownership on the writers' part and vagueness of feedback on the reviewers' part. The researcher recommends using response groups to maintain a balance between writers' ownership of the test and sensitivity to audience needs, and suggests using a four-step (clarifying the writer's intention, identifying problems, explaining the nature of problems, and making suggestions) approach to coaching peer reviewers in generating more specific feedlback.
This study examines reasons why EFL writers fail to incorporate peer comments into their subsequent revisions. Through comparing and contrasting six EFL students' first and second drafts and their peers' comments as well as interviewing the students' first and second drafts and their peer's comments as well as interviewing the students, the researcher identified two major reasons for students' failure to accept peer feedback: A strong sense of text ownership on the writers' part and vagueness of feedback on the reviewers' part. The researcher recommends using response groups to maintain a balance between writers' ownership of the test and sensitivity to audience needs, and suggests using a four-step (clarifying the writer's intention, identifying problems, explaining the nature of problems, and making suggestions) approach to coaching peer reviewers in generating more specific feedlback.