Issues of cultural appropriateness and pedagogical efficacy: exploring peer review in a second language writing class

This paper reports on a study designed to investigate (a) whether peer review is an effective pedagogical activity with adult Chinese students in the teaching of second language (L2) academic writing and (b) how factors such as perceptions of the influence of peer reviewers’ L2 proficiency, previous experience with peer review, feedback preferences, and culturally-based beliefs and practices relate to the effectiveness of the pedagogical activity. Participants were 20 English-as-an-L2 learners from China who were enrolled in an academic writing class for postgraduate students at a Singaporean university. Data included first drafts of an academic writing assignment, written peer comments, revised drafts of the assignment, responses to a questionnaire, and interviews. Quantitative analyses of the peer comments and revisions to the drafts show that significant improvement in the revised drafts was linked to peer feedback. Further statistical analyses indicate that the learner variables of interest did not affect the effectiveness of the peer review activity. In addition, qualitative analyses of the questionnaire data and the interviews reveal a general acceptance of peer review as a socioculturally appropriate pedagogical activity for Chinese students. The results of the study are interpreted with an understanding of its limitations, and directions for further research are also discussed.     

Peer reviewers learn from giving comments

Research on peer reviewing has revealed that comments received from peer reviewers are helpful when it comes to making revisions in an individual’s writing, but the role of providing comments to peer writers has been little explored despite the potential value of such research. In this study, we explored how student reviewers learn by reviewing peer drafts in the context of reciprocal peer reviewing. Undergraduate students in an introductory physics course participated in this study as part of their course activities. Participants wrote technical research drafts, reviewed three or four peer drafts, and revised their own drafts in the SWoRD system. A total of 3,889 comment segments were analyzed in two dimensions: (a) evaluation (strength vs. weakness) and (b) scope (surface, micro-meaning, and macro-meaning). We found that providing weakness comments for micro-meaning and strength comments for macro-meaning improved the reviewers’ writing qualities. In addition, reviewers’ initial writing skills and the quality of reviewed peer drafts influenced the types of comments given. The results are discussed, along with their implications for improved writing through reviewing.     

Understanding student engagement with peer feedback on master’s theses: a Macau study

While research on peer feedback in second language (L2) writing at university/college level has proliferated, scholars have conducted less research on peer feedback in L2 academic and scholarly writing. Drawing upon multiple sources of data including semi-structured interviews, stimulated recalls, online interviews via WeChat, first and revised drafts of master’s theses, peer written feedback, audio-recordings of oral peer feedback conferences and the finalised master’s theses, this case study examines how three master’s students affectively, behaviourally and cognitively engaged with peer feedback on drafts of their thesis in a Master of Education programme at a Macau university. The findings show that the relationship between sub-constructs within each dimension and the relationships between the three dimensions of student engagement were interconnected in a dynamic and complex way. While there were individual differences among the three students’ engagement, their affective engagement could promote or negatively influence their behavioural and cognitive engagement. This study builds our understanding of the multifaceted nature of master’s students’ engagement with peer feedback. It provides pedagogical implications about how peer feedback can enhance the quality of master’s students’ academic writing and sheds light on how to guide students to establish scholarly learning communities in higher education.     

Using peer feedback in a Master's programme: a multiple case study

This article draws on the findings of a longitudinal case study, which investigated the writing experiences of five students who spoke English as an additional language (EAL). The major interest was in examining what it was like to be an EAL writer and what changes occurred in EAL students' perceptions of academic writing and of themselves as academic writers during their one-year Taught Masters course at a major UK University. This article reflects on the perceptions of peer feedback held by research participants and their engagement with providing and receiving peer comments. Although peer feedback is often viewed as an attractive tool for supporting student writing, most participants did not fully capitalise on the benefits of these practices. Such factors as students' lack of prior peer feedback and their perceptions of peers' ability to provide valid feedback constituted potential barriers to the success of peer feedback. The article suggests that the use of well-structured collaborative activities and tutors' intervention are required for peer feedback to be effective.     

大学英语写作多级评改模式探析与思考

英语写作教学中传统单一的教师评改已不再符合教学模式多元化和评价多元化的教学改革要求,以合作学习理论和二语习得相关理论为基础,尝试性地提出"评改培训→同学自评→同学互评→心得交流→教师评改"多级评改五步法,旨在实现写作评改的科学性?发展性?实用性和公正性,在提高写作评改质量的同时,提高学生的英语写作水平。     

Peer feedback on college students’ writing: exploring the relation between students’ ability match,feedback quality and essay performance

There does not appear to be consensus on how to optimally match students during the peer feedback process: with same-ability peers (homogeneously) or different-ability peers (heterogeneously). In fact, there appears to be no empirical evidence that either homogeneous or heterogeneous student matching has any direct effect on writing performance. The current study addressed this issue in the context of an academic writing task. Adopting a quasi-experimental design, 94 undergraduate students were matched in 47 homogeneous or heterogeneous reciprocal dyads, and provided anonymous, formative peer feedback on each other’s draft essays. The relations between students’ individual ability or dyad composition, feedback quality and writing performance were investigated. Neither individual ability nor dyad composition directly related to writing performance. Also, feedback quality did not depend on students’ individual ability or dyad composition, although trends in the data suggest that high-ability reviewers provided more content-related feedback. Finally, peer feedback quality was not related to writing performance, and authors of varying ability levels benefited to a similar extent from peer feedback on different aspects of the text. The results are discussed in relation to their implications for the instructional design of academic writing assignments that incorporate peer feedback.     

同伴互评机制中学生书面反馈的语类结构分析

文章运用实证的方法对大学英语写作教学中同伴互评的书面反馈内容进行了为期十八周的实证研究。研究结果表明学生的书面反馈可以分为三步即:内容评价、文章修改意见、以及鼓励期望等内容。学生反馈中存在的问题主要表现在误评、漏评等方面。     

Peer feedback on academic writing: undergraduate students’ peer feedback role,peer feedback perceptions and essay performance

Within the higher education context, peer feedback is frequently applied as an instructional method. Research on the learning mechanisms involved in the peer feedback process has covered aspects of both providing and receiving feedback. However, a direct comparison of the impact that providing and receiving peer feedback has on students’ writing performance is still lacking. The current study compared the writing performance of undergraduate students (N = 83) who either provided or received anonymous written peer feedback in the context of an authentic academic writing task. In addition, we investigated whether students’ peer feedback perceptions were related to the nature of the peer feedback they received and to writing performance. Results showed that both providing and receiving feedback led to similar improvements of writing performance. The presence of explanatory comments positively related both to how adequate students perceived the peer feedback to be, as well as to students’ willingness to improve based upon it. However, no direct relation was found between these peer feedback perceptions and students’ writing performance increase.     

Dialogue within peer feedback processes: clarification and negotiation of meaning

Peer feedback carries a number of potential benefits to students, yet how they learn in the process remains under-researched. Building on ideas of feedback as dialogue, this study aims to unpack the respective perceptions of the provider and the receiver of peer feedback in relation to the benefits and challenges of dialogue about academic writing. Data were collected through classroom observations, interviews and journals at a university in southern China. Two key inter-related benefits emerge from the qualitative analysis of students’ perceptions of verbal interaction about written peer feedback. The provider of written comments obtains feedback on their feedback and the receiver has the opportunity to clarify or negotiate meaning with the feedback provider. Contextual challenges include students wanting more guidance about peer feedback and desiring more teacher input to the process. The study adds to the knowledge about the significance of peer dialogue in mutual clarification and negotiation between the provider and the recipient while emphasising ongoing teacher guidance in the process.     

Can Assessment Mirror Instruction? A Look at Peer Response and Revision in a Large-Scale Writing Test

Both recent research and practitioners' classroom experience repeatedly affirm that the opportunity to obtain peer response and revise rough drafts helps writers to improve their texts. With the god of aligning assessment with exemplary instructional practices, writing on the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program tests is assessed through a multiday, process-oriented framework. Results of a study analyzing students' peer response feedback and subsequent revisions through comparison of rough and final draft stage writing at Grades 3, 5, and 8 suggest that within this testing context, students' peer response is unengaged, minimal, and formulaic; revisions are similarly sparse and superficial, with scores on final drafts remaining the same or decreasing with greater frequency than they increase. This investigation demonstrates that elements of classroom-based "writing process" instruction cannot simply be inserted into otherwise unchanged assessment formats. It suggests instead a number of principles to guide a more sophisticated reconceptualization of performance-based writing assessments, the kinds of instruction they support, and the interdisciplinary research methods that inquiry into their implementation demands,     

The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: a Meta-Analysis

Peer feedback is frequently implemented with academic writing tasks in higher education. However, a quantitative synthesis is still lacking for the impact that peer feedback has on students’ writing performance. The current study conveyed two types of observations. First, regarding the impact of peer feedback on writing performance, this study synthesized the results of 24 quantitative studies reporting on higher education students’ academic writing performance after peer feedback. Engagement in peer feedback resulted in larger writing improvements compared to (no-feedback) controls (g?=?0.91 [0.41, 1.42]) and compared to self-assessment (g?=?0.33 [0.01, 0.64]). Peer feedback and teacher feedback resulted in similar writing improvements (g?=?0.46 [-0.44, 1.36]). The nature of the peer feedback significantly moderated the impact that peer feedback had on students’ writing improvement, whereas only a theoretically plausible, though non-significant moderating pattern was found for the number of peers that students engaged with. Second, this study shows that the number of well-controlled studies into the effects of peer feedback on writing is still low, indicating the need for more quantitative, methodologically sound research in this field. Findings and implications are discussed both for higher education teaching practice and future research approaches and directions.     

Teacher, self and peer evaluation of lesson plans written by preservice teachers

The study investigated the effects of three types of evaluation on preservice teachers’ performance, knowledge and attitudes related to writing lesson plans that incorporate technology. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the three treatment conditions: teacher-evaluation, self-evaluation or peer-evaluation. All groups completed three class periods of instruction on writing lesson plans, then each subject submitted his/her draft lesson plan. The drafts were evaluated by assigned evaluators (teacher, self or peer), who provided scores and written feedback on a 15-item rubric. Students then revised their lesson plans into final form. All three treatment groups improved their lesson plans significantly from draft version to final version, with the teacher-evaluation group showing significantly greater improvement and writing significantly better final lesson plans than each of the other two groups. Teacher-evaluation and self-evaluation groups had significantly higher scores on a knowledge-based posttest than the peer-evaluation group. Several suggestions are discussed for making further improvements in the self-evaluation and peer-evaluation processes.     

The bilateral benefits of providing and receiving peer feedback in academic writing across varying L2 proficiency

Although the effectiveness of peer review has been examined, few have tested the joint benefits of providing and receiving feedback features and quality in L2 contexts. The present study investigated variation in key features and quality of feedback provided and received by high and low L2 proficiency students and its benefits on revision in the authentic setting of students experiencing both roles of providing and receiving peer feedback in English academic writing. Analyses on two drafts from 50 students, 1356 idea units of anonymous implementable peer feedback and back-evaluation ratings revealed that the combined effect of providing and receiving feedback on revision was prominent for all students. But the bilateral benefits of providing and receiving feedback features were more significant for high proficiency students, while providing feedback features and quality benefited low proficiency students more. The study implies that students need more bilateral training with both providing and receiving feedback.     

The development of student feedback literacy: the influences of teacher feedback on peer feedback

Abstract

Although the concept of student feedback literacy has drawn increasing attention in higher education, empirical research on this matter is still in its infancy. In the area of peer feedback, little research has investigated the role of teacher follow-up feedback on peer feedback in the development of student feedback literacy. To address the research gap, a multiple-case study of three Chinese master’s students enrolled in an academic writing course was conducted, drawing on the students’ drafts with peer feedback, teacher written feedback on that peer feedback, semi-structured interviews, retrospective verbal reports, observation field notes and class documents. Three students’ epistemological and practical knowledge about, attitudes towards, and self-efficacy beliefs in peer feedback were found to improve at different paces and to different degrees. However, considerable individual variations were observed with two high-achieving, highly motivated participants becoming more feedback-literate than their under-achieving, minimally motivated peer. Teacher feedback on peer feedback was found to have distinct impacts on individual students, depending on learner factors including language ability, beliefs and motivation. These findings suggest that teacher feedback on peer feedback, if consistently provided and compatible with learner factors, can scaffold both cognitive and social-affective aspects of student feedback literacy.     

英语写作教学中同伴作文修改效果的实证研究

通过对48 名大学生英语写作中同伴作文修改的实证研究, 评价同伴作文修改对作文定稿的影响。具体研究大学生对同伴作文修改形式的认可情况(以更为熟悉的教师修改情况为参照) 以及在同伴作文修改过程中, 学生是如何针对作文内容、组织、词语、语法、以及技术失误等方面进行修改的。实证证明, 同伴作文修改是英语作文教学的一种有效方式。     

Demystifying the publication process – a structured writing program to facilitate dissemination of teaching and learning scholarship

This paper reports on a writing program to support academic staff to publish in peer-refereed journals. Nine participants completed a 12-week program, which involved regular meetings, set writing tasks, and peer feedback on drafts. A pre- and post-survey and follow-up interviews were used to gather feedback. Participants especially valued the discipline of weekly sessions and peer feedback. They reported increased skills and confidence in their writing, greater knowledge of the publication process, and intention to continue writing. Although five papers were published, a 12-month follow-up revealed that original writing intentions were not sustained. Thus, while a structured writing program can be effective, the pressures academic staff experience trying to meet conflicting requirements of teaching, administration, and research, must also be addressed.     

Grade one peer and teacher feedback on student writing

This article examines a grade one teacher's support for her students’ writing development through formal peer and teacher feedback. The teacher modelled and provided examples of effective feedback and good writing in whole-class and small-group lessons and in her own one-on-one verbal feedback on student writing. She allocated time for the students to participate in formal peer-feedback sessions, in turn giving feedback to the students on the suggestions to one another during these sessions. Students gave more content-oriented than conventions-oriented feedback to each other. They revised the content and writing conventions of their writing in response to 90% of the feedback they received from their peers and teacher.     

Can higher-proficiency L2 learners benefit from working with lower-proficiency partners in peer feedback?

Informed by Vygotsky’s conceptualization of the Zone of Proximal Development, this case study investigated the benefits of peer feedback on second language (L2) writing for students with high L2 proficiency and the factors that may influence their learning in peer feedback in the Chinese English-as-a-foreign-language context. Specifically, the study examined whether, what, and how higher-proficiency (HP) English learners can learn when they collaborate with their lower-proficiency counterparts. Analyses of multiple sources of data – video-recordings of peer feedback sessions, interviews, stimulated recalls, and drafts of student texts – revealed that while group peer feedback in the writing classroom can provide learning opportunities for HP students, their learning can be influenced by several factors, including their beliefs about peer feedback, motives and goals for peer feedback, and medium of group discussion. Implications are drawn from these findings for peer feedback practice and research in L2 writing.     

When peers agree,do students listen? The central role of feedback quality and feedback frequency in determining uptake of feedback

Prior research on the complex process of revision based upon peer feedback has focused on characteristics of each piece of feedback in isolation. Multipeer feedback allows for feedback to be repeated (or not), which could be a signal of feedback quality or be especially persuasive to peers. Separately, little research has examined how well peers select more impactful and accurate peer feedback in their revisions, whether repeated or not. We analyzed almost 2,000 peer comments received by 107 students in a secondary writing course in the US to determine whether feedback quality and feedback frequency predicted feedback implementation. Controlling for other feedback features and context factors, students were much more likely to implement feedback as both feedback quality and feedback frequency increased, surprisingly with no interaction (i.e., even low-quality comments were more likely to be implemented when repeated). However, low-quality comments often partially overlapped with high-quality comments, providing a potential explanation for the lack of an interaction. Finally, consideration of feedback frequency and feedback quality provides new insights into which feedback features are actually related to implementation. The results generally allay concerns about the blind-leading-the-blind in peer feedback as well as pushing for peer feedback arrangements that produce more overlapping comments.