International Journal of Educational Science and Research (IJESR) ISSN 2249-6947 Vol. 2 Issue 3 Dec - 2012 45-52 © TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.,
EFFECT OF PEER CORRECTION ON STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE IN ORAL ENGLISH MBAH EVELYN. E & AYEGBA MONDAY Department of Linguistics, Igbo and other Nigerian Languages, University of Nigeria, Nsukka
ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to find out if peer correction has any effect on students’ performance in Oral English. Forty-nine (49) SS1 students of Government Secondary School, Ugwolawo, Kogi State, Nigeria were used for the study. Twenty-five (25) of them were male while twenty-four (24) were female. All the students attended Oral English classes at regular intervals. After the mid-term test, two different discussion classes on Oral English were organized for the students: a discussion class between the teacher and the students, and another discussion class for the students alone. The students were grouped into seven (7) with one group made up of seven (7) students. After the discussion class between the students and their teacher, a test was conducted. Another test was conducted after the discussion class organized for the students alone. Each of the two tests was divided into four (4) sections: English consonants, vowels, stress and intonation. The results of the tests show that students’ performance after the discussion class organized for them alone supersedes their performance after the discussion class which involved their teacher. This means that peer correction has a palpable effect on students’ performance in Oral English.
KEY WORDS: Peer Correction, Oral English, Organized, Ugwolawo, Kogi State, Nigeria INTRODUCTION Learning at all levels requires interactive efforts of the instructor and learners. It is a moment of exchange of ideas and/or opinions between the teacher and his/her students. Piaget (1970) says that social interaction promotes learning. In the words of Buckholdt and Wodarski (1978), students learn easily in interactive groups because peers can simply code one another’s language without stress. Peer feedback is very important in learning process because peer disagreement readily yield social and cognitive conflicts which make peers to become aware of views other than theirs. This allows them to reassess the validity of their own point of view, and learn to justify their own opinions and communicate them to others (DiPardo and Freedman, 1988). Piagetian and Vygotskian frameworks view learning from different but related angles. While Piaget (1970) asserts that although social interaction plays a great role in learning process, it is only but secondary to development; Vygotsky (1978) argues that social environment is central to learning process. In Piaget’s view, development leads learning but in Vygotsky’s, learning leads development through the mechanism of social interaction. Damon (1984) observes that Piagetian and Vygostkian approaches to peer instructional interaction might appear contradictory but they are actually mutually complementary to each other. In the same vein, formal instructional approach to teaching whereby a teacher does almost all the tasks and peer group approach that involves students’ interactive efforts are complementary to each other. In as much as teachers’ instructions in learning process cannot be ruled out, it is important to note that response group comprising peers, in the modern pedagogy, is veritable. A peer based interaction is, therefore, significant to pedagogical activities because students
46
Mbah Evelyn. E. & Ayegba Monday
feel freer to express themselves when they are with their peers alone than when their teacher is present (Buckholdt and Wodarski, 1978). Bruffee (1984) argues for the significance of peers’ working hand in hand to foster a peer-based learning that moves power away from the teacher and put it in the hands of students. Knowledge is not a-one-man property; it is for all: old or young, man or woman, teacher or student, rich or poor etc. When a community of intelligent students interacts, they shape, extend and reinforce ideas of one another (Kuhn, 1963; Rorty, 1979). The effects of peer in learning process have been studied by a number of researchers and/or scholars. Labov (1982), for instance, examined the significance of peer networks in restructuring the language and value systems of innercity adolescents. Cooper, Marquis and Ayers-Lopez (1982) have done a study on speech among kindergarten and secondgrade children and noted different degrees of efforts by peer learners. The role of peer friendship and its influence on learning has been studied by Dyson (1988). DiPardo and Freedman (1988) have studied peer response groups in writing classroom and examined the pedagogical literature on the response groups. Other researchers who adopted peer group model to teaching and learning are: (Bruner, 1978; Forman and Cazden, 1985; Elbow, 1973 & 1981; Genishi and DiPaolo, 1982; Healy, 1980; Johnson and Johnson, 1979; Barnes and Todd, 1977 & 1981; Beaven, 1977; Rekrut, 1994; Witbeck, 1976; Byrd, 1994; Kinsler, 1990; Topping, 1998 etc). The performance of students in Oral English has over the years been very poor, especially those who learn English as second language (L2). This could be attributed to (i) lack of adequate human resources in this field, (ii) inadequacy of experts in this field to deliver their responsibilities and, more importantly, (iii) lack of appropriate pedagogic methods to impacting the knowledge of Oral English into students. Speech is, no doubt, used more in every language than other forms such as writing. It is, therefore, necessary for learners of a language to familiarize themselves with the correct speech forms of such a language if effective communication must be sustained (Eyisi, 2004; Lodge, 2009). And that is why Ogunsanwo et al, (1993) say that it is important to give attention to speech behaviour in the teaching of English. Other scholars like: (Ladefoged, 1993; Jowitt and Nnamonu, 1988; Grenville, 2005; Gimson, 1981; Crystal, 1992 etc) have discussed Oral English in their studies. Suffice it to say that any possible model to the study of Oral English goes beyond the purpose of examination to its everyday practical need of effective communication. The study of Oral English demands continuous and intensive practices and/or exercises not within the classroom alone but also outside the classroom such as: at home, on play ground, at leisure, etc. Peer group correction which this study adopts as a model to effective teaching and learning of Oral English is a good framework in this respect since students are said to learn faster when they are in the mist of their peers alone than when their teacher is present (Buckholdt and Wodarski, 1978).
METHODOLOGY The SS1 students of Government Secondary School, Ugwolawo, Kogi state, Nigeria were used as our subjects, and form the population of the study. SS1 B in particular which consists of 49 students was focused on. And the choice of this class was as a result of the fact that the number of male students in this class almost equaled the number of female students: 25 male students and 24 female students. This is to give equal opportunities to both genders. All of them did attend Oral English class at regular intervals. At that end of the term, a discussion class between teacher and the students who were grouped into 7 was organized after which a test was conducted.
Effect of Peer Correction on Students’ Performance in Oral English
47
Three days interval, another discussion class which comprised students alone was organized also in 7 groups and a test was conducted afterward. The two tests conducted were divided into four (4) sections: section (a) English consonants, section (b) English vowels, section (c) English stress, and section (d) English intonation. The tests were conducted to ascertain the differences between the performances of students in Oral English after the two discussion classes (i.e. the one which the teacher was involved in and the one which was made up of students alone).
DATA PRESENTATION The components of Oral English: consonants, vowels, stress and intonation are presented in this section. Consonants of English Consonants are speech sounds produced with obstruction to the airstreams coming out from the lungs at some point through the vocal tract (Ladefoged, 1993; Mbah and Mbah, 2010). In other to talk about consonants “conveniently” and “economically”, they are classified into the place of articulation and the manner of articulation (Abercrombie, 1967). The place of articulation is classified into: bilabial, alveolar, velar, postalveolar, labiodental, dental, glottal, palatal and labial-velar. The manner of articulation is classified into: plosive, nasal, affricate, fricative, lateral, trill and approximant. Also important in the description of consonants is the state of the glottis i.e. whether a consonant is voiced or voiceless. The English consonants are, therefore, simultaneously described showing the state of the glottis, the place of articulation and the manner of articulation thus: [p]; voiceless bilabial plosive
as in peak
[b]; voiced
as in beak
bilabial plosive
[t]; voiceless alveolar plosive
as in trill
[d]; voiced
as in drill
alveolar plosive
[k]; voicelessvelar
plosive
as in coat
[g]; voiced
plosive
as in goat
velar
[m]; voiced bilabial nasal
as in meat
[n]; voiced
as in neat
alveolar nasal
[ ]; voiced velar
nasal
as in tongue
[ ]; voiceless postaveolar
affricate as in chin
[ ]; voiced postalveolar
affricate as in gin
[f]; voiceless labiodental
fricative as in fine
[v]; voiced
fricative as in vine
labiodental
[ ]; voiceless dental
fricative as in thing
[ ]; voiced
fricative as in the
dental
[ ]; voiceless alveolar
fricative as in sip
[ ]; voiced alveolar
fricative as in zip
48
Mbah Evelyn. E. & Ayegba Monday
[ ]; voiceless postalveolar
fricative as in pleasure
[ ]; voiced postalveolar
fricative as in measure
[h]; voiceless glottal
fricative as in hen
[l]; voiced
as in late
alveolar lateral
[ ]; voiced alveolar trill [j]; voiced
as in rate
palatal approximant as in yet
[w]; voiced labial velar approximant as in wet Vowels of English Vowels are speech sounds produced without any form of obstruction to the airstreams from the lungs through the vocal tract (Ladefoged, 1993; Davenport and Hannahs, 2005; Omachonu, 2000; Agbedo, 2000; Lodge, 2009; Mbah and Mbah, 2010). English vowels can be divided mainly into monophthongs and diphthongs. Monophthongs are vowels which do not undergo any form of change in quality in a single syllable during their production. While diphthongs are vowels produced with a gradual movement of one vowel to another vowel. English diphthongs are further classified into closing and centering diphthongs. Closing diphthongs are produced with gliding from a more open position to a more close position. Centering diphthongs, on the other hand, are produced based on the direction from a non-centering position to a central position. The English monophthongs are described below based on a three-label description: [ ]; closed,
front,
unrounded
as in feet
[ ]; closed,
front,
unrounded
as in fit
[ ]; closed,
back,
rounded as in pool
[ ]; closed,
back,
rounded as in pull
[Îľ]; close-mid,
front,
unrounded
as in bed
[∈]; close-mid,
central,
unrounded
as in bird
[↔]; close-mid,
central,
unrounded
as in above
[ ]; open,
back,
rounded as in court
[ ]; open,
back,
rounded as in cot
[Îą]; open,
back,
unrounded
as in bark
[Θ]; open,
front,
unrounded
as in back
[℘]; open,
central,
unrounded
as in love
The English closing diphthongs are presented below: [Îľ ]; as in make, fake, cake
49
Effect of Peer Correction on Students’ Performance in Oral English
[↔ ]; as in boat, goat, no [Îą ]; as in light, fight, night [Îą ]; as in now, cow, foul [ ]; as in foil, toy, joy The English centering diphthongs are: [ ↔]; as in deer, here, beer [ξ↔]; as in dare, hair, bare [ ↔]; as in poor, tour, lure English Stress Stress is the degree of breath force or energy with which the syllables of an utterance are produced. In speech, some syllables are produced with greater amount of breath force than others, such syllables are said to be stressed (Gimson, 1981; Mbah and Mbah, 2010; Crystal, 1992; Quirk and Greenbaum, 1993; Ogunsanwo et al., 1993). In English, there are varying degrees of stress. They are: primary stress (e.g. examination / Îł.ÎśÎ˜.¾Κ. ≅νξΙ.Σν/), secondary stress (e.g. examination / Îł.â€šÎśÎ˜.¾Κ. νξΙ.Σν/, tertiary stress and weak stress (which are usually unmarked). The two diacritics/ /≅ and /‚/ indicate primary and secondary stress respectively. Grammatical words that are monosyllabic are usually unstressed in English (Ogunsanwo et al., 1993). Such grammatical words include: a, an, the, this, you, your, some, my, we, them, etc.The linguistic functions of English stress according to Crystal (1992) are: (a) it distinguishes word class [e.g. ≅export (noun), ex ≅port (verb)], (b) shows levels of emphasis on particular segments of a word or an utterance, (c)distinguishes between pairs of words and (d) serves as a boundary signal. English Intonation Intonation simply means the rising and falling of the pitch of the voice in an utterance. In speech, the pitch of a speaker’s voice goes up and down denoting variations in his/her utterance. The pitch variation in a speaker’s voice is, therefore, referred to as intonation (Gimson, 1981; Crystal, 1992; Ladefoged, 2006).The two basic features of English intonation in the words of Ogunsanwo et al., (1993) are: rising intonation and falling intonation. Rising intonation is used in: polar questions (yes or no questions), statements which carry additional meanings, requests, the first of alternate questions and personal reactions of interest. Falling intonation, on the other hand, is used in: statements, questions introduced with interrogative words, orders or commands, interjections or exclamations, the last alternate in alternate questions (see Ladefoged, 2006; Quirk and Greenbaum, 1993; Ogunsanwo et al., 1993).The English intonation, therefore, signals grammatical structures (it serves as punctuations); denotes sentences, clauses or phrases; establishes contrasts between grammatical structures such as questions and statements (Crystal, 1992). Table 1: Scores of Students on the Discussion between them and their Teacher S/N Segment/N 1 Section(a):Consonants 2 Section(b):Vowels 3 Section(c):Stress 4 Section(d):Intonation (GR: means Group)
GR1 32 34 28 35
GR2 36 32 36 36
GR3 44 38 32 34
GR4 41 38 31 28
GR5 28 36 33 38
GR6 33 34 28 40
GR7 36 40 30 34
50
Mbah Evelyn. E. & Ayegba Monday
Table 2: Scores of Students on the Discussion with in themselves Alone S/N 1 2 3 4
Segment/N Section(a):Consonants Section(b):Vowels Section(c):Stress Section(d):Intonation
GR1 45 52 38 48
GR2 50 48 52 52
GR3 58 51 50 46
GR4 60 57 51 44
GR5 55 44 46 55
GR6 54 48 40 46
GR7 62 56 43 55
RESULTS Table 3: Percentage of Scores of Students on the Discussion between them and their Teacher S/N Segment/N 1 Section(a):Consonants 2 Section(b):Vowels 3 Section(c):Stress 4 Section(d):Intonation (Scores are calculated by 70%)
GR1 45.71 48.57 40 50
GR2 51.43 45.71 51.43 51.43
GR3 62.86 54.29 45.71 48.57
GR4 58.57 54.29 44.29 40
GR5 40 51.43 47.14 54.29
GR6 47.14 48.57 40 57.14
GR7 51.43 57.14 42.86 48.57
Total % 357.14 360 311.43 350
Table 4: Percentage of Scores of Students on the Discussion within themselves Alone S/N Segment/N GR1 1 Section(a):Consonants 64.29 2 Section(b):Vowels 74.29 3 Section(c):Stress 54.29 4 Section(d):Intonation 68.57 (Scores are also calculated by 70%).
GR2 71.43 68.57 74.29 74.29
GR3 82.86 72.86 71.43 65.71
GR4 85.71 81.43 71.86 62.86
GR5 78.57 62.86 65.71 78.57
GR6 77.14 68.57 57.14 65.71
GR7 88.57 80 61.43 78.57
Total % 548.57 508.58 457.15 494.28
Interpretation of Result Simple percentage was used to calculate the result of scores of students. Students’ scores were marked by 70% both for the discussion between them and their teacher, and the discussion within students alone (Tables: 3 & 4). The two tables i.e. 3 &4 show that there are differences between the performances of students on English consonants, vowels, stress and intonation. The difference(s) will be clear if the percentage of scores of students on each segment in 3 is subtracted from their scores on the similar segment in table 4.
The differences between the scores of students in these two tables,
therefore, determine whether students’ performances after the two discussion classes (i.e. the one between them and their teacher, and the on e within themselves alone) are equal or not.
Given that our simple percentage analysis reveals
performances of students after the discussion within themselves alone outweigh their performances after the discussion between them and their teacher as we can see in tables 3 & 4 above.
DISCUSSIONS The result of the performances of students in Oral English shows that their abilities in learning the four segments of Oral English: consonants, vowels, stress and intonation differ. Consonants are easier for them to learn than vowels, and they learn intonation faster than stress. It is also worthy of note that students learn the English segmental phonemes (i.e. consonantal and vocalic phonemes) faster than the English suprasegmental features (stress and intonation). Furthermore, our result shows that students learn easily when they are with their peers than when their superior (teacher) is present. (Buckholdt and Wodarski, 1978) have a similar claim. The difference between students’ performances on the discussion between them and their teacher, the discussion among themselves on English consonants is 191.43%. On vowels, the difference is about 145.58%. Their performances after the discussion within themselves, and those after the discussion
51
Effect of Peer Correction on Students’ Performance in Oral English
between them and their teacher on English stress differ by 145.72%. Also significant is the difference between their performances on English intonation in is about 144.28%. The differences between students’ performances after the two discussion classes as noted above are based on the total percentage of the scores of students in all the groups in each segment. To determine the differences between the performances of each group, the total figure of the difference between their performances in each segment is divided by seven (7) because there are 7 groups all together. If 191.43% (i.e. the total difference between the scores of students on English consonants after the two discussion classes), for instance, is divided by 7, the result will be 27.35%. This means that students’ performances after the discussion among themselves alone supersede their performances after the discussion between them and their teacher on English consonants by 27.35% based on individual groups.
CONCLUSIONS In this work, we have studied the effect of peer correction on students’ performance in Oral English. The SS1 students of Government Secondary School, Ugwolawo, Kogi State, Nigeria were used as our subjects. And there were 49 students in this particular class who formed the population of the study. The students were grouped into seven with each group comprising seven students. Two different discussion classes were organized for the students at the end of the midterm test: a discussion class between the teacher and the students, on the one hand, and a discussion class for the students alone, on the other hand. This study reveals that students’ performances in Oral English after the discussion class comprising students alone were more encouraging than their performances after the discussion class which their teacher was involved. On the whole, peer correction has a significant effect on students’ performance in Oral English.
REFERENCES 1.
Abercrombie, D. (1967). Elements of general phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
2.
Barnes, D. & Todd, F. (1977). Communication and learning in small groups. London & Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
3.
Barnes, D. & Todd, F. (1981). Talk in small learning groups: Analysis of strategies. In C. Adelman (Ed.). Uttering, Muttering: Collecting, Using and Reporting Talk for Social and Educational Research, 69-77. London: Grant McIntyre.
4.
Beaven, M. (1977). Individualized goal setting, self-evaluation, and peer evaluation. In C. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.). Evaluating Writing: Describing, Measuring,
Judging, 135-156. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers
of English. 5.
Bruffee, K.(1984). Peer tutoring and the “convention of mankind”. College English,
46,635-652.
6.
Bruner, J. (1978). The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In A. Sinclair (Ed.). The Child’s Conception of Language, 241-256. New York: Springer-Verlag.
7.
Buckholdt, D. & Wodarski, J. (1978). The effects of different reinforcement systems on cooperative behaviours exhibited by children in classroom context. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12, 50-68.
8.
Byrd, D.R. (1994). Peer editing: Common concerns and applications in the foreign language classroom. DieUnterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, Vol. 27 (1), 119-123.
9.
Cooper, C.R., Marquis, A. & Ayers.Lopez, S. (1982). Peer learning in the classroom: Tracing developmental patterns and consequences of children’s
spontaneous interactions. In L.C Willinson (Ed.). Communicating in
the Classroom, 69-89. New York: Academic Press. 10. Crystal, D. (1992). A Dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (3rd ed.). Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers.
52
Mbah Evelyn. E. & Ayegba Monday
11. Damon, W. (1984). Peer education: The untapped potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 331-343. 12. DiPardo, A. & Freedman, S.W. (1988). Peer response groups in the writing classroom: Theoretic foundation and new directions. In Review of Educational Research, Vol. 58, (2), pp. 119-149. 13. Dyson, A. (1988). Drawing, talking, and writing: Rethinking writing development (Occasional Paper No.3). Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Writing. 14. Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. London: Oxford University Press. 15. Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power. London: Oxford University Press. 16. Eyisi, J. (2004). Common errors in the use of English. Onitsha: Africana Publishers. 17. Forman, E. & Cazden, C. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: The cognitive value of peer interection. In J. Wertsch (Ed.). Culture, Cambridge:
Communication, and Cognition: Vygotskian Perspectives, 323-347.
Cambridge University Press.
18. Genishi, C. & DiPaolo, M. (1982). Learning through argument in a preschool. In L. C. Wilkinson (Ed.). Communication in the Classroom, 49-68. New York: Academic Press. 19. Grenville, K. (2005). Common errors in English. India: APH Publishing Corporation. 20. Gimson, A.C. (1981). An introduction to the pronunciation of English. London: Edward Arnold. 21. Healy, M.K. (1980). Using students writing response groups in the classroom. Berkely, CA: Bay Area Writing Project. 22. Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1979). Conflict in the classroom: Controversy and
learning. Review of Educational
Research, 49, 51-70. 23. Jowitt, D. & Nnamonu, S. (1988). Common errors in English. London: Longman. 24. Kinsler, K. (1990). Structured peer collaboration: Teaching essay revision to college remediation”. Cognition and Instruction, Vol. 7 (4), 303-
students needing writing
321.
25. Kuhn, T. (1963). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 26. Labov, W. (1982). Competing value systems in inner-city schools. In P. Gilmore & Children in and out of School, 148-171. Washington, DC:
A.A. Glatthom (Eds.).
Center for Applied Linguistics.
rd
27. Ladefoged, P. (1993). A course in phonetics (3 ed.). Malden: Harcourt Brace
Publishers.
th
28. Ladefoged, P. (2006). A course in phonetics (5 ed.). Boston: Thomson Wadsworth. 29. Lodge, K. (2009). A critical introduction to phonetics. New York: Continuum
International Publishing Group.
30. Ogunsanwo, O., Duruanku, A.B.C., Ezechukwu, J. & Nwachukwu, U.I. (1993). Countdown nd
English language (2 ed.). Ibadan: Evans Brothers
to
SSCE/JME
Limited.
31. Piajet, J. (1970). Piajet’s theory. In P.H Mussen (Ed.). Carmichael’s Mannual of Children Psychology (3r ed.), Vol. 1, 703-732. New York. Wiley. 32. Quirk, R. & Greenbaum, S. (1993). A university grammar of English. Delhi: Pearson Education Limited. 33. Rekrut, M.D. (1994). Teaching to learn: Strategy utilization through peer tutoring. In The High School Journal, Vol.77 (4), 304-314. 34. Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton University Press. 35. Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, Vol.68 (3), 249-276. 36. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 37. Witbeck, M.C. (1976). Peer correction procedures for intermediate and advanced ESL composition lessons. TESOL Quarterly, Vol.10 (3), 321-326.