Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This study explored the value of peer response groups with second language students learning writing. It was conducted in a small university college with 12 international students from Asia, most of whom were in Canada to improve their English in order to enroll in university and college programs. The study specifically investigated a) the perceptions of students with regard to peer response b) whether those perceptions changed over the length of the study c) what students actually did during the response sessions and finally d) how they changed their essays as a result of participating in the sessions. Students were asked to submit three journal entries during the course of the semester describing their views of the peer response sessions. During one peer response session the groups were audiotaped and those tapes were transcribed. Draft essays and final copies were also collected. Throughout the course of the semester I kept a journal of my observations and thoughts. Journal entries, and transcripts were analyzed and discussed. Drafts of essays and final copies were compared to ascertain what changes had been made by the writers. Finally, the changes were analyzed to determine if they were the result of comments made by peers during the sessions. An analysis of the data revealed that the students, although Asian and from cultures where classes are traditionally teacher-centered tended to be positive about peer response and became somewhat more positive as the semester progressed. They appreciated the benefits of peer response but did have some concerns, mainly centered around peer feedback. During the sessions students engaged in a variety of social, cognitive and linguistic activities as they worked to accomplish the assigned task. Students did revise their essays using peer comments although not as much as I had hoped. Comments by some of the students indicated they reserved the right to decide whether to follow the advice given by their classmates or not. Results suggest that it is important for teachers to continue to use peer response sessions even with students from cultures where teacher-centered classes are the norm since benefits seem to outweigh disadvantages.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».