Process-Oriented Writing Via
Computer-Mediated Peer-Reviewing: The Case Of English
Inner-Circle Learners Of Arabic As A Foreign
Language
Aliyu Abdullahi, Nurazan binti Mohamad Rouyan, Khalid Meraished R Almetairi, Isyaku Hassan
Abstract: Product-oriented writing negatively influences learners’ perceptions and attitudes towards Arabic as a foreign language writing. This study aims to discover the effect that a process-oriented instructional method via computer technologies had on students’ writing. The invasion in this case study over the course of an academic semester at the Islamic University of Madinah involved an important peer-reviewing component additionally to individual and collective teacher feedback. A corpus of learners’ preliminary writings and subsequent revisions and peer-reviews was investigated. It was discovered that the approach support students’ learning. Though there were flexible results in students’ capabilities to use this method for different writing contexts. The study contributes new visions into the lively relationship between making correct forms and observing errors in one’s peer’s writing with numerous pedagogical implications.
Index Terms: Computer-Mediated, English Inner-Circle, Foreign Language Acquisition, Islamic University of Madinah, Learners of Arabic, Peer-Reviewing, Process-Oriented Writing.
—————————— ——————————
1.
INTRODUCTION
According to Maybin (2007) a literacy experience is any occurrence in which a piece of writing is vital to the nature of the students’ collaborations and their explanatory process. While students produce their writings, they should be capable of being active contestants and group performers during writing time. By cohesive technology, teachers are generating more opportunities and strategies to rise their students’ capabilities to write complete and accurate essays (Galvan, & Galvan, 2017). There have been several studies that indicate students have an easier time communicating themselves when they are able to write their opinions and feelings on the computer (Sternglass, 2017). A process approach to the teaching of language writing has been supported in disparity with the outdated product-oriented technique of teaching writing and has been largely accepted and used by language teachers in their classroom (Nordin, 2017). Herppich et al. (2001) clearly state how different this process approach is from the traditional product-oriented approach. However the product approach emphases on writing tasks in which the student copies, duplicates and transforms teacher supplied models, the process approach focuses on the paces elaborate in producing a piece of work. Nonetheless, First language (L1) interference effects students’ written productions in AFL classrooms and it appears that these challenges might be able to be fixed through the implementation of peer review practices, besides teacher feedback especially by using web 4.0 technologies (Cho, & Schunn, 2007).
Weber (2018) indicated that diminutive process writing experience is provided in the Arabic classroom. This was also stated by Storch (2017) as a weakness of the writing approach utilised in Arabic as a Foreign Language institutes. The lack of valuable feedback also seems to be a major factor in learners’ poor grasp of Arabic language literacy. It appears that poor feedback endowment in most Arabic writing classes has produced confusion for students, leaving them unaware as to the aspects of their writing that need to be enhanced, and resulting in a misdirection of their struggles (Nan, & Mei, 2018; Raja, Qureshi, & Albesher, 2017; Nykiel-Herbert, 2010).
While a huge body of study has studied learners’ interlanguage, proposed taxonomies of errors made by AFL learners, and discovered their possible sources (for example intra-lingual and inter-lingual transfer, cross-linguistic interference and first language interference), but limited researches have concentrated on the improvement of written accuracy among English Inner-Circle Learners (EICL) of Arabic (Shehata, 2018). Therefore, this study used web 4.0 technologies to; discover the Most Common Grammatical Errors EICL make in AFL Writing; investigate the effect that a process-oriented instructional method had on English Inner Circle Learners’ writing in the AFL classroom; and to produce an applicable course of action that will simplify the integration of process-oriented writing and peer-reviewing in the AFL classroom.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Technology and Writing
In the current research, studies indicate that the application of integrating technology, such as the internet, improves students’ writing abilities (Li, & Chu, 2018). Regan et al. (2018) write about how technology improves reading and writing scores in the classroom. They indicated that “participants experienced the greatest improvements in the three following assistive technology applications: a) computer technology to support reading, b) technology to support student writing process in planning and idea generation, and c) general ————————————————
Aliyu Abdullah is currently a PhD Candidate in the Faculty of Languages and Communication, Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, Gong Badak Campus, 21300 Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia. Corresponding author: [email protected]
Nurazan binti Mohamad Rouyan is Currently a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Languages and Communication, Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, Gong Badak Campus, 21300 Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia. Khalid Meraished R Almetairi is currently pursuing masters degree
3044 accessibility options in Window and Mac” Bromely (2015);
Barton, (2017); Beers et al. (2018) stated that technology has influenced both what is written and how it is written, because technology has made it easier to combine and revise, learners are becoming good writers and readers. Kouakou, (2018) indicates that technology is significant to how learners think and act in the world and that knowledge is essential to education. By using diverse modalities to learn we are allowing our lecturers to provide learners with the chance to comprehend pedagogical approaches that better integrate new learning. Due to how fast technology is developed it is significant that expert developments are accessible to educate teachers so learners can continue to increase their inspiration and skills to use technology to enhance their writing.
2.2 Process-oriented Writing
Many studies examined the benefits of process-oriented writing in second language classrooms. Bennui (2016) used the process-oriented approach with his Thai students of ESL. Bennui discovered more negative transfer than positive in the learners’ written. He similarly found that literal translation of Thai words into English mostly epitomised features of L1 lexical interference in the learners’ composition. Additional error range was the structural deriving from students’ L1 such as word order, subject-verb agreement, and noun determiners labelled L1 syntactic interference. Another research conducted by Yang (2018) examined the use of error correction in a process-oriented writing classroom for Southeast Asian ESL students. The method involved the learners in a problem-based solving approach to correct their mistakes, he found that students advance more control over their writing using the code corrections over the process-oriented writing approach. Another study conducted by Alnufaie and Grenfell (2013) discovered the writing strategies of second-year undergraduate Saudi EFL students. Both writing strategies (process-oriented writing strategies and product-oriented writing strategies) were examined via a questionnaire. The findings of the study indicated that nearly all of the students mixed writing strategies, but generally used the process-oriented writing approach. They concluded that writing mainly is based on the learners’ interactions with the text, which does not permit any possibility for it to be secluded as either process or product activity.
.
2.3 Written Corrective Feedback (WCF)
Several studies have revealed that feedback can support students to improve text content and form (Davies, & Lepschy, 2016; Ellis 2009; Van den Bergh, Ros & Beijaard, 2013; Alvarez, Espasa & Guasch 2012; Jigang 2011; Hyland 2003). In respects to surface-level feedback, and more precisely written corrective feedback WCF, researchers have debated the significance of error corrections (Bacha, 2017; Van Beuningen, De Jong & Kuiken 2012; Bitchener & Knoch 2009, 2010; Sheen, Wright, & Moldawa 2009; Ellis, Sheen, Murakami & Takashima, 2008). Certainly, Truscott (1996) claims that grammar corrective feedback in L2 writing and recognising errors should be abandoned because of its ineffectiveness and detriment, stating that learners will not use the same language constructions in future writing. Likewise, Semke (1984) declares that WCF has unproductive significances in L2 writing in the long term. But not all researchers approve, and there is a substantial body of thought in favour of written corrective feedback, which is
debated, contributes not only to the improvement of the text being reviewed, but also to the achievement of L2 structures and the longer term enhancement of language accurateness (Ferris 2016; Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Ferris 2011; Evans, Hartshorn & Strong-Krause, 2011; Russell and Spada 2006). Research conducted by Storch (2017) indicated that language learners who use the feedback they have received on early drafts display enhanced grammatical correctness and development in lexical complexity.
3 METHODOLOGY
In order to select the most suitable methods for the study, mixed methods studies and action research studies are compared. The mixed methods approach is used for action research as well as mixed methods studies because they both have the same aims of providing complementarity of data and triangulation (Flick, 2018). By using web 4.0 technologies (Quizcreator Platform, Sanako Lab, and Tense Buster) the data for this study was collected through an opportunistic selection of a group of 12 English-native students enrolled in the Institute of Teaching Arabic Language to Non-Arab Speakers (MA’AHAD) course at the Islamic University of Madinah, in the academic year 2017/2018. A number of writing compositions were comprised as a new formative assessment component in the re-designed ma’ahad course curriculum. Arabic assessments for learning tasks were merged over the period of one academic semester. The diverse kinds of data in this study are briefly drawn as follow.
3.1 Baseline Oral Survey
This was conducted in the initial introductory sessions of the semester so as to pursue data from the students about their perceptions of writing in Arabic and problems they have been facing learning Arabic in general and writing in Arabic in particular.
3.2 Pre-questionnaire
After the oral survey, the participants of this study filled in a pre-questionnaire seeking to expose their perceptions of the importance of Arabic writing, their learning responsibilities and their anticipations from the teacher in an Arabic language class.
3.3 Diagnostic Test
The reason of the diagnostic test was to discover the type and frequency of the writing and grammatical issues students had at the commencement of the programme. The pre-test writing task topic correlated to the topic of the first unit in the curriculum and allowed the students to write freely.
3.4 Students’ drafts
3.5 Researcher Reflective journal
At the completion of the programme, students were requested to complete a post-questionnaire targeted at getting their opinion about the effectiveness of giving and receiving peer feedback as a means of developing their Arabic writing skills.
4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This study examined the enhancement of written accuracy with a specific focus on L1 interference errors made by Native English learners of Arabic in their foundation year at the tertiary level. The aim was to discover the impact of a process-oriented approach to the teaching of writing Arabic, which comprised peer-reviewing as well as individual and collective teacher feedback, the study examined a collection of students’ writings and revisions, and peer-reviews, targeting to identify the most common interference errors in students’ writings and to assess the efficiency of a process-oriented approach and peer-reviewing in solving L1 interference errors. The three specific research objectives will be addressed below.
4.1 The Most Common Grammatical Errors EICL Make in AFL Writing
Many studies have discovered how EICLs’ L1 negatively interferes in AFL writing (Bacha, 2017; Davies, & Lepschy, 2016; Khuwaileh, & Shoumali, 2000). The different forms between Arabic and English have been revealed as possible contributors to making incorrect forms in L2 writing (Bataineh & Bataineh, 2009; Al-Yaari, Al Hammadi & Alyami, 2013; Heydari & Bagheri, 2012; Abdulkareem 2013; Grami 2012). The findings of this study revealed that the most common grammatical errors committed by EICL of AFL involve prepositions, articles, punctuation, and verb tenses and forms, which are very similar errors shown in the literature yet more worsened due to the structure of the Arabic language. The different systems in the structures of Arabic and English have been discovered as possible contributors to producing incorrect forms by EICL of Arabic in their writing. The findings in this study clarified that the participants mostly produced more correct forms than errors by the end of the programme though variations were observed and no linear progression was discovered at any level. The most important finding was that participants improved differently at their own rate, pace and approach.
4.2 The Effect That a Process-Oriented Instructional Method Had on EICLs’ Writing in the AFL Classroom First Language interference in second language writing is a socio-cultural challenge affecting English-native students’ written productions (Alhosani, 2008). Learners’ multiple written drafts and questionnaire responses in this study showed that learners recognised their poor written skills as well as their insufficient knowledge in Arabic grammar. The process-oriented writing approach and more specifically the peer reviewing process hypothetically develop language improvement (Bennui, 2016)). Students in this study were exposed to a different language learning materials supporting the peer reviewing process. They were also exposed to their peers’ written drafts from which they could reproduce on their work, they acquire how to use new grammar forms or not to make incorrect forms. With the increase in correct forms produced by the participants, it is discovered that students’ writing skills were enhanced and they had the capability to accurately make more accurate grammatical forms at the end
of the study with the capability to correct their own errors. The process of peer-reviewing can be understood to have improved students’ learning in this study, consequently, by the end of the study most students were capable to detect their writing errors relatively correctly.
4.3 An Applicable Course of Action Simplifies the Integration of Process-Oriented Writing and Peer-Reviewing In the AFL Classroom.
The results of this study might have several insinuations for teaching writing to English-native students of Arabic. AFL teachers need to know their students’ written abilities and levels before the course so that appropriate training and scaffolding is organised to address their weaknesses. AFL curricula in the EICL’s world should consider the tasks associated with the skill of writing. A move from the product-oriented writing approach to an extra focused process-product-oriented writing approach in second language is important. In an effort to develop the tools used in the execution of peer reviewing process in class, the researcher embedded a new tool to enhance students’ written accuracy. This was done through a
website that he created via
https://alnursamawe.wixsite.com/website
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This study explored the efficiency of using a student-centred process-oriented writing approach through the peer reviewing process in an oral-based teacher-centred situation using web 4.0 technologies in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The findings of the study show the potential that the research methods applied on the sample might have in the L2 writing classrooms in Saudi. The problems facing EICL of Arabic in their writing skills, specifically L1 interference errors, might be solved via the process-oriented approach by using web 4.0 technologies with more student-centeredness, autonomy, critical thinking and problem-solving skills injected into AFL writing classrooms over a longer duration. Additional research is needed to discovery a more effective and appropriate model for process-oriented writing that can benefit AFL students improve their writing skills. Likewise, more research is required to develop an applicable course of action that will simplify the integration of process-oriented writing and peer-reviewing in AFL classrooms.REFERENCES
[1] Abdulkareem, M., (2013). An investigation study of academic writing problems faced by Arab speaking postgraduate students at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation): UTM, Malaysia.
[2] Alhosani, N. M. (2008). Utilizing the writing process approach with English as a second language writers: A case study of five fifth grade ESL Arab students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation): Kansas State University, USA.
[3] Alnufaie, M. & Grenfell, M., (2013). EFL writing apprehension: The macro or the micro. Journal of Arts and Humanities, 2(3), 79-91.
[4] Alvarez, I., Espasa, A. & Guasch, T., (2012). The value of feedback in improving collaborative writing assignments in an online learning environment. Studies in Higher Education, 37(4), 387-400.
3046 Language Education, 1(2), 143-166.
[6] Bacha, N. N. (2017). L1 Use in L2 Academic Essays: A Study of L1 Arabic Writers’ Views. International Journal of English Linguistics, 8(2), 15-24.
[7] Barton, D. (2017). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language. John Wiley & Sons.
[8] Bataineh, B. & Bataineh, E., 2009, July. An efficient recursive transition network parser for Arabic language. In Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering. Vol. 2, pp. 1-3.
[9] Beers, S. F., Berninger, V., Mickail, T., & Abbott, R. (2018). Online Writing Processes in Translating Cognition into Language and Transcribing Written Language by Stylus and Keyboard in Upper Elementary and Middle School Students with Persisting Dysgraphia or Dyslexia. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(2), 70-86.
[10]Bennui, P., (2016). A study of L1 intereference in the writing of Thai EFL students. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 4(1), 31-42.
[11]Bitchener, J. & Ferris, D.R., (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. UK. Routledge. [12]Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U., (2009). The contribution of written
corrective feedback to language development: A ten month
investigation. Retrieved from
https://academic.oup.com/applij/article- abstract/31/2/193/177926/The-Contribution-of-Written-Corrective-Feedback-to.
[13]Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U., (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207-217.
[14]Bromley, R. (2015). Giving memory a future: women, writing, revolution. Journal for Cultural Research, 19(2), 221-232. [15]Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and
rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education, 48(3), 409-426.
[16]Davies, A. M., & Lepschy, G. C. (2016). History of linguistics, Volume IV: Nineteenth-century linguistics. Routledge.
[17]Ellis, R., (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT journal, 63(2),97-107.
[18]Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M. & Takashima, H., (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3),.353-371.
[19]Evans, N., Hartshorn, K. & Strong-Krause, D., (2011). The efficacy of dynamic written corrective feedback for university-matriculated ESL learners. System, 39(2), 229-239.
[20]Ferris, D., (2016). Promoting Grammar and Language Development in the Writing Class. Speakers of other Languages, 6(3),12-22.
[21]Ferris, D., (2011).Treatment of error in second language student writing. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
[22]Flick, U. (2018). Doing triangulation and mixed methods (Vol. 8). Sage.
[23]Galvan, J. L., & Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences. Routledge.
[24]Grami, G., (2012). Online collaborative writing for ESL learners using blogs and feedback checklists. English Language Teaching, 5(10), 43-52.
[25]Heydari, P. & Bagheri, M., (2012). Error analysis: Sources of L2 learners' errors. Theory and practice in language studies, 2(8),1583-1594.
[26]Herppich, S., Praetorius, A. K., Förster, N., Glogger-Frey, I., Karst, K., Leutner, D., & Hetmanek, A. (2018). Teachers'
assessment competence: Integrating knowledge-, process-, and product-oriented approaches into a competence-oriented conceptual model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 76, 181-193.
[27]Khuwaileh, A. A., & Shoumali, A. A. (2000). Writing errors: A study of the writing ability of Arab learners of academic English and Arabic at university. Language Culture and Curriculum, 13(2), 174-183.
[28]Kouakou, E. A. (2018). Comment Bubbles, Color Coding, and Track Changes: Exploring Computer-mediated Feedback on English Learners' Writing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Northcentral University. San Diego, California.
[29]Hyland, F., (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31(2), 217-230.
[30]
[31]Jigang, C., (2011). A contrastive study of online peer feedback and online teacher feedback on Chinese college students' English writing. Foreign Language World, 2, (6) 2-11.
[32]
[33]Li, X., & Chu, S. K. (2018). Using design-based research methodology to develop a pedagogy for teaching and learning of Chinese writing with wiki among Chinese upper primary school students. Computers & Education.
[34]Maybin, J. (2007). Literacy under and over the desk: Oppositions and heterogeneity. Language and Education, 21(6), 515-530.
[35]Nan, M. R., & Mei, S. Y. (2018). Learning Arabic writing skill at Ningxia University China: Analysis study. European Journal of Social Science Education and Research, 5(1), 177-183. [36]Nordin, S. M. (2017). The best of two approaches:
Process/genre-based approach to teaching writing. The English Teacher, 11(4) 46-59
[37]Nykiel-Herbert, B. (2010). Iraqi Refugee Students: From a Collection of Aliens to a Community of Learners--The Role of Cultural Factors in the Acquisition of Literacy by Iraqi Refugee Students with Interrupted Formal Education. Multicultural Education, 17(3), 2-14.
[38]Raja, M. S. H., Qureshi, A. S. A. R., & Albesher, K. B. (2017). Application of Cooperative Learning Strategies (CLS) for Students’ Focused Teaching (SFT) in EFL Class: An Experimental Study in the Summer Remedial Course for Adult Learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(2), 237-252.
[39]Regan, K., Evmenova, A. S., Good, K., Legget, A., Ahn, S. Y., Gafurov, B., & Mastropieri, M. (2018). Persuasive Writing With Mobile-Based Graphic Organizers in Inclusive Classrooms Across the Curriculum. Journal of Special Education Technology, 33(1), 3-14.
[40]Russell, J. & Spada, N., (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching, 7(2)133-164. [41]Semke, H., (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign language
annals, 17(3), 195-202.
[42]Sheen, Y., Wright, D. & Moldawa, A., (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556-569.
[43]Shehata, A. (2018). Native English speakers’ perception and production of Arabic consonants. In Routledge Handbook of Arabic Second Language Acquisition (pp. 66-79). Routledge. [44]Sternglass, M. S. (2017). Time to know them: A longitudinal
computer-mediated collaborative writing. In Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 82-95). Routledge.
[46]Truscott, J., (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language learning, 46(2), 327-369.
[47]Van Beuningen, C., De Jong, N. & Kuiken, F., (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 19-41. [48]Van den Bergh, L., Ros, A. & Beijaard, D., (2013). Teacher
feedback during active learning: Current practices in primary schools. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2),341-362.
[49]Weber, A. S. (2018). English Writing Assessment and the Arabic Speaker: A Qualitative Longitudinal Retrospective on Arabic-Speaking Medical Students in Qatar. In Assessing EFL Writing in the 21st Century Arab World (pp. 137-162). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
