peer-editing

Despite consensus in focus on form (FOF) instruction over the facilitative role of noticing, controversy has not quelled over ways of directing EFL learners’ attention towards formal features via implicit techniques like input-enhancement or explicit metacognitive feedback and interactive peer-editing on the output they produce. This quasi-experimental study investigated the impact of input enhancement (IE), metalinguistic feedback (MF), and peer-editing (PE), on 73 intermediate female Iranian EFL learners’ recognition of relative clauses (RCs). The participants, in three intact classes ranged in age between 18 and 30, were randomly assigned as IE (N=23), MF (N=29), and PE (N=21) groups. The 18-session treatment in all groups was based on identical teaching materials and methodology following a reading to writing orientation focused on RCs. The only difference was related to the focus on form that was through enhanced reading texts in the IE group, metalinguistic feedback on discussion of content in the MF group, and peer-editing in pair-discussion of the content in the PE group. Two parallel sets of 40-item multiple choice researcher-made validated tests focused on RCs were employed to measure the participants’ recognition of RCs at the onset and the end of the study. The one-way between-groups analysis of covariance demonstrated significantly higher gains in the MF and PE groups compared to the IE group; the MF achieved higher levels of mastery. The findings highlight the effectiveness of MF and offer implications for more effective teaching of RCs to Iranian EFL learners.

This study set out to investigate the effect of peer- editing as a metacognitive strategy on the development of writing. It was hypothesized that peer-editing could be used to raise grammatical and compositional awareness of the learners. Forty pre-intermediate sophomores at Islamic Azad University-Tabriz Branch participated in the study, taking the course Writing I. To warrant the initial homogeneity of the groups, a nonequivalent pretest –posttest design was selected and the groups were randomly determined as the control and the experimental groups, each with twenty subjects. The treatment following the pretest involved a three-phase planning procedure including: consciousness awareness via error recognition activities, error categorizing activities, and self/peer editing. Statistical analysis of the post-test composition did not reveal any significant difference between the two groups. It seems that peer-editing entails a firm grammatical foundation which needs to be formed early in the process of language learning. The results underscore the need to reorient the method of teaching grammar at university level in a way to accommodate a task-based approach to cognitive and metacognitive strategies-based training.