Abstract
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allaei, S. K., & Connor, U. M. (1990). Exploring the dynamics of cross-cultural collaboration in writing classrooms. The Writing Instructor, 10, 19–28.
Amores, M. (1997). A new perspective on peer editing. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 513–523.
Arndt, V. (1993). Response to writing: Using feedback to inform the writing process. In M. N. Brock & L. Walters (Eds.), Teaching composition around the Pacific Rim: Politics and pedagogy (pp. 90–116). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 215–241. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80115-5.
Campbell, C. (1998). Teaching second-language writing: Interacting with text. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1994). Writing groups: Cross-cultural issues. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 17–30. doi:10.1016/1060-3743(94)90003-5.
Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 1–19. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(96)90012-0.
Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student responses to written work. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 181–188. doi:10.2307/3587209.
Chaudron, C. (1984). The effects of feedback on students’ composition revisions. RELC Journal, I5(2), 1–14. doi:10.1177/003368828401500201.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman.
Connor, U., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 257–276. doi:10.1016/1060-3743(94)90019-1.
Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. X. (1996). Cultures of learning: Language classrooms in China. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom (pp. 169–206). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cotterall, S., & Cohen, R. (2003). Scaffolding for second language writers: Producing an academic essay. ELT Journal, 57, 158–166. doi:10.1093/elt/57.2.158.
Curtis, A. (2001). Hong Kong student teachers’ responses to peer group process writing. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 11, 129–143.
de Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (1994). Social-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. Modern Language Journal, 78, 484–496. doi:10.2307/328586.
de Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. Modern Language Journal, 84, 51–68. doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00052.
DiPardo, A., & Freedman, S. W. (1988). Peer response groups in the writing classroom: Theoretic foundations and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 58, 119–149.
Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Flower, L. (1994). The construction of negotiated meaning: A social cognitive theory of writing. Carbondale, IL: University of Southern Illinois Press.
Flowerdew, L. (1998). A cultural perspective on group work. ELT Journal, 52, 323–329. doi:10.1093/elt/52.4.323.
Gere, A. R. (1987). Writing groups: History, theory, and implications. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59, 31–38. doi:10.1093/elt/cci004.
Harmer, J. (2004). How to teach writing. Essex, England: Pearson Education.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 255–276. doi:10.1016/1060-3743(92)90006-B.
Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hu, G. W. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative language teaching in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15, 93–105.
Hu, G. W. (2005a). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9, 321–342. doi:10.1191/1362168805lr169oa.
Hu, G. W. (2005b). Professional development of secondary EFL teachers: Lessons from China. Teachers College Record, 107, 654–705.
Hu, G. W. (2005c). Contextual influences on instructional practices: A Chinese case for an ecological approach to ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 635–660.
Hu, G. W. (2006). Training Chinese ESL students for effective peer review. Asian Englishes, 8(2), 64–77.
Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching Research, 4, 33–54.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006a). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83–101. doi:10.1017/S0261444806003399.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (Eds.). (2006b). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jacobs, G. M. (1987). First experiences with peer feedback on compositions: Student and teacher reactions. System, 15, 325–333. doi:10.1016/0346-251X(87)90006-6.
Jacobs, G. M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S. (1998). Feedback on student writing: Taking the middle path. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 307–317. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90019-4.
Krapels, A. R. (1990). An overview of second language writing process research. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 37–57). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (Eds.). (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Leki, I. (1990a). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 57–68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Leki, I. (1990b). Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes. CATESOL Journal, 3, 5–19.
Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203–218.
Liu, J., & Hansen, J. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Liu, J., & Sadler, R. W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 193–227. doi:10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00025-0.
Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1993). How useful is peer response? Perspectives, 5(1), 17–29.
Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances, functions, and content. Language Learning, 45, 605–655. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00456.x.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal, 46, 274–284. doi:10.1093/elt/46.3.274.
Mangelsdorf, K., & Schlumberger, A. (1992). ESL student response stances in a peer-review task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 235–254. doi:10.1016/1060-3743(92)90005-A.
McGroarty, M. E., & Zhu, W. (1997). Triangulation in classroom research: A study of peer revision. Language Learning, 47, 1–43. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.11997001.
Mendonça, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745–769. doi:10.2307/3587558.
Min, H.-T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293–308. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003.
Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: Harnessing students’ communicative power. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 207–219). New York: Longman.
Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. (1995). Social dimensions of second-language writing instruction: Peer response groups as cultural context. In D. L. Rubin (Ed.), Composing social identity in written language (pp. 89–109). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 113–131. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90010-8.
Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. (2006). Cultural issues in peer response: Revisiting ‘culture’. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 42–59). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1992a). An L2 writing group: Task and social dimensions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 171–193. doi:10.1016/1060-3743(92)90002-7.
Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1992b). Writing groups and the less proficient ESL student. TESOL Journal, 2(2), 23–26.
Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27, 135–141. doi:10.2307/3586965.
O’Brien, T. (2004). Writing in a foreign language: Teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 37, 1–28. doi:10.1017/S0261444804002113.
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265–289. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80117-9.
Porto, M. (2001). Cooperative writing response groups and self-evaluation. ELT Journal, 55, 38–46. doi:10.1093/elt/55.1.38.
Pratt, E. (1999). A qualitative study of peer and teacher response in an ESL writing classroom in Puerto Rico. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 45–75. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80112-X.
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59, 23–30. doi:10.1093/elt/cci003.
Sengupta, S. (1998). Peer evaluation: ‘I am not the teacher’. ELT Journal, 52, 19–28. doi:10.1093/elt/52.1.19.
Sengupta, S. (2000). An investigation into the effects of revision strategy instruction on L2 secondary school learners. System, 28, 97–113. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00063-9.
Shen, F. (1989). The classroom and the wider culture: Identity as a key to learning English composition. College Composition and Communication, 40, 459–466. doi:10.2307/358245.
Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 217–233. doi:10.1016/1060-3743(92)90004-9.
Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). Peer-peer dialogue as a means of second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171–185. doi:10.1017/S0267190502000090.
Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 147–170. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00022-9.
Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21, 217–235. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2004.02.003.
Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 51–57. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(96)90015-6.
Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19, 491–514. doi:10.1093/applin/19.4.491.
Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (2006). Sociocultural theory: A framework for understanding socio-cognitive dimensions of peer feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 23–41). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179–200. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004.
Zhang, S. Q. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 209–222. doi:10.1016/1060-3743(95)90010-1.
Zhang, S. Q. (1999). Thoughts on some recent evidence concerning the affective advantage of peer feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 321–326. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80119-2.
Zhu, W. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on students’ comments and interaction. Written Communication, 12, 492–528. doi:10.1177/0741088395012004004.
Zhu, W. (2001). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 251–276. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00043-1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hu, G., Lam, S.T.E. Issues of cultural appropriateness and pedagogical efficacy: exploring peer review in a second language writing class. Instr Sci 38, 371–394 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9086-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9086-1