Publication: Review Strategies in a First-Year University Undergraduate Thai EFL Writing Context
Submitted Date
Received Date
Accepted Date
Issued Date
2020
Copyright Date
Announcement No.
Application No.
Patent No.
Valid Date
Resource Type
Edition
Resource Version
Language
en
File Type
No. of Pages/File Size
ISBN
ISSN
2287-0024
eISSN
DOI
Scopus ID
WOS ID
Pubmed ID
arXiv ID
item.page.harrt.identifier.callno
Other identifier(s)
Journal Title
PASAA Journal
Volume
60
Issue
Edition
Start Page
237
End Page
274
Access Rights
Access Status
Rights
Rights Holder(s)
Physical Location
Bibliographic Citation
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Title
Review Strategies in a First-Year University Undergraduate Thai EFL Writing Context
Alternative Title(s)
Author(s)
Author’s Affiliation
Author's E-mail
Editor(s)
Editor’s Affiliation
Corresponding person(s)
Creator(s)
Compiler
Advisor(s)
Illustrator(s)
Applicant(s)
Inventor(s)
Issuer
Assignee
Other Contributor(s)
Series
Has Part
Abstract
In response to educational issues at levels from national, institutional, to pedagogical concerns, this study aims to examine the influence and the effectiveness of the review strategies on the writing performance of first-year Thai undergraduates as well as how the perceived strategies are in the students’ views. In the mixed-method study, the data were collected from 20 Science and 26 Education students who were enrolled in the 2013 academic year. The main findings are: The statistically significant effect of the review strategies were on the students’ writing performance; t(45) = 17.06; p = .000 at the .05 level. The analyses of the students’ writing-task score development from 184 selfrevised and peer-revised draft scripts showed that they effectively responded to the self-review strategy better than they did to the peer-review strategy; t(45) = 3.08; p = .004 at the .05 level. In the multi-dimensional comparisons of writing-score development, both self-review and peer-review strategies can be applied to all three proficiency groups of the Science and Education students. From the scripts of the students’ responses to the questionnaires and a semistructured interview, the findings revealed some insights into aspects of students’ affective-cognitive-social-contextual factors. Implications and recommendations for future studies are also considered.