Introduction
Literature review
Methodology
Data collection
Coding, analyzing and interpretation
Findings and discussion
What are the patterns of ESL/EFL learners’ interactional feedback exchanges in peer review in writing as identified in previous studies from 1990 to 2016?
The language functions of interactional feedback exchanges in peer review
Source | Findings |
---|---|
Stanley (1992) | Advising, eliciting and questioning for evaluators while clarifying, responding to questions and expressing intended meaning for writers. |
Beason (1993) | Problem-detecting, advising, altering and describing with advice as the highest occurred type. |
Mendonca & Johnson, (1994) | Questions such as seeking explanation and comprehension check, explanation of unclear points, opinion and content, restatement, suggestion and grammar correction. |
Mendonca and Johnson (1994) | Seeking explanation & checking confirmation, explanation of unclear point, restatement, providing opinions, suggestions and correction. |
Zhu (1995) | Questioning, requesting clarifications, responding, providing information, eliciting feedback, identifying various problems and clarifying intended meaning. |
Lockhart and Ng (1995) | Summarizing essays, expressing intention, providing suggestions, evaluation, and providing information. |
Villamil and De Guerrero (1996) | Requesting advice, advising, responding to advice, eliciting, responding to eliciting, reacting, requesting clarifications, clarifying & restating. |
McGroarty and Zhu (1997) | Seeking clarifications-clarifying, providing information, seeking information & providing suggestions. |
De Guerrero and Villamil (2000) | Suggestions/advice, subtle hints, elicitations, providing alternatives, instructing or providing instruction in the form of a mini lesson, defining and using L1. |
Zhu (2001) | Advising, eliciting, questioning, elaborating, hedging, confirming & justifying. |
Min (2005) | Clarifications of intentions, problem-identification, explanation of the nature of the problem, and offering specific suggestions. |
Lina & Samuel (2013) | Correction of errors, providing restatement, using questions, suggestions, repeating, explanation, confirmation & identifying errors. |
Hanjani and Li (2014) | Scaffolding (e.g. instructing, advising) accepting advice, requesting advice, restating, assessing, question-response (e.g. seeking clarifications), confirming understanding, persisting, expressing certainty-uncertainty, expressing knowledge-lack of knowledge, expressing inability, expressing understanding, clarifying, justifying & responding to question. |
Source | Findings |
---|---|
Sullivan and Pratt (1996) | Turn taking: positive comment & suggestions for revision. |
Di Giovanni and Nagaswami (2001) | (1) Questioning: requesting such as checking comprehension, and requesting suggestions (5%), (2) explanation such as opinions, agreement and disagreement (7%), (3) restatement (21%) & (4) suggestion (24%). |
Liu and Sadler (2003) | Suggestion (19.3%), evaluation (25.79%), alteration (46.8%) and clarification (8.9%). |
Tuzi (2004) | Advising, questions (requests), statements, alternatives and criticism. |
Jones et al. (2006) | Initiating moves: offering, stating and questioning and responding moves: clarifying, confirming, accepting, rejecting, compliance and acknowledging moves. |
Hewett (2006) | Informing, directing attention, eliciting peers’ opinions and offering suggestions. |
Liou and Peng (2009) | Suggestion (25/21.6%), evaluation (33/28.4%) and clarification (4/3.4%). |
Ho and Usaha (2009) | Evaluation, clarification, alteration, suggestion/advice, explanation, confirmation and statement with clarification (29.5% + 27.36%) and suggestion/advice (29.02% + 26.42%) as the highest in both sessions. |
Song and Usaha(2009) | Question (18.0%), suggestion (15.4%), criticism (14.9%), and evaluation (13.5%) while the least are explanation (8.7%), clarification (6.2%) and restatement (4.5%). |
Cha and Park (2010) | Openings, closing, statements, questions including requests, responses, suggestions, opinions, correction & topic. The number of such categories varied from the lowest 52 to the highest 437. |
Ho (2010) | Suggestion/advice (10.3%), clarification (9.3%) confirmation (4.7%) and evaluation (4.3%), alteration, statement and explanation (4%, 3.3% and 2.9%, respectively). |
Ho and Usaha (2011) | Suggestion/advice (27.5%), clarification (23.6%) confirmation (12.8%) and evaluation (12.3%), alteration, statement and explanation (9%, 8.6% and 6.2%, respectively). |
Chang (2012) | Suggestion, evaluation, alteration and clarification with different percentages (64% & 23%), (5% & 1%), (19% & 5%) and (13% & 70) for evaluation, clarification, suggestion and alteration in both synchronous and asynchronous CAPR. |
Bradley (2014) | Suggestion (120) followed by evaluation (114), alteration (48) and clarification (32). |
Razak and Saeed (2014) | Seeking clarifications & confirmation check), justifying and scaffolding: definitions and using L1. |
Ho (2015) | In both review sessions, suggestion (71/37% & 90/48%), evaluation (54/28% & 37/20%), clarification (24/12% & 12/6%), alteration (14/7% & 17/9%) and other (5/4% & 17/9%) while the least frequently posted commenting type was response (3/2% & 13/7%). |
Saeed and Ghazali (2016) | Identifying problems, evaluating, agreements and disagreements,clarifications, suggestions, seeking for clarifications, justifications, confirming and lack of understanding. |
The focus areas of interactional feedback exchanges in peer review
Source | Findings |
---|---|
Beason (1993) | Micro- (focus, organization and development of ideas and macro-(focus, organization and development of ideas across multiple paragraphs) more than surface features (mechanics & grammar). |
Lockhart and Ng (1995) | Focus: Process, ideas, audience and purpose. |
Min (2005) | EFL learners generated a higher number of comments on the global features of texts (53% & 57%) than those comments focusing on local features (47% & 43%). |
Vorobel and Kim (2014) | Global aspects of their texts such as organization of ideas, consistency of ideas and clarity of ideas and local aspects of texts including form-based issues as vocabulary, using information from L1 sources in L2 writing, and mechanics such as punctuation and formatting. |
Sullivan and Pratt (1996) | More comments on the task of criticizing the writing. |
Di Giovanni and Nagaswami (2001) | Global aspects of texts such as ideas and organization of ideas more than FFPR interactions. |
Liu and Sadler (2003) | More global comments on idea development, organization, audience and purpose, than local comments on wording, grammar and punctuations. |
Jones et al. (2006) | More comments on content, organization, topic and thesis of writing. |
Hewett (2006) | Most comments on writing processes, thesis statements, ideas and organization, whereas least on formal aspects of their texts such as grammar, mechanics and others |
Guardado and Shi (2007) | More comments on thesis statement, topic sentences, unity, content and coherence. |
Liou and Peng (2009) | More revision oriented comments than non-revision-oriented comments after training. |
Ho and Usaha (2009) | Most revision-related comments on content, followed by organization, grammar and vocabulary, while the least attention was paid to mechanics. |
Anderson et al. (2010) | Of Chalmers students’ (77) revision-oriented comments in asynchronous peer review, more focused on content (47) than language (30) while of Miami students’ (74) revision-oriented comments, more focused on language (42) than content (32). |
Cha and Park (2010) | In each pair, almost 50% of their interaction focused on their essays. |
Ho (2010) | More global-oriented feedback than local ones. |
In (2008), meaning negotiation, error correction, task management, and technical action were used less than other patterns among the six small groups. In 2010, social talk, task management, and content discussion outnumbered interactions on meaning negotiation and error correction. | |
Ho and Usaha (2011) | 1060 (58.43%) global comment and 754 (41.56%) local comments. |
Chang (2012) | In the asynchronous CAPR, more local comments in both tasks, while in the synchronous CAPR, the global and local comments were balanced. |
Bradley (2014) | More global revision-oriented comments (250/80%) than local revision-oriented comments (64/20%). |
Ho (2015) | More global comments than local comments. |
Pham and Usaha (2015) | After training, a higher number of global revision-oriented comments (552/60.2%) than local revision-oriented comments (365/39.8%). |
Saeed and Ghazali (2016) | More comments on content and meaning. |